Jed reports that LENR has been verified by a U.S. Government Lab. WOW!

    Quote from penswrite

    There has been much discussion, within the community of LENR "enthusiasts"--who have long been convinced of a "Fleischmann-Pons Effect"-- of whether this reaction/these reactions can scale-up.


    They have been scaled up more than most people realize. See:


    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RouletteTresultsofi.pdf


    The temperatures and power density demonstrated in these tests would suffice for nearly all practical applications. If the reaction can be controlled and this performance created at will, cold fusion will swiftly replace most other sources of energy. Even the need for palladium would not prevent this.

    Quote from kirkshanahan

    penswrite wrote:


    Why? There's nothing really new in the report. They are claiming a replication true, but that was expected. What they don't do is seriously address any criticisms of their work. That actually argues the other direction...


    I think there is something new, but that's not really important here. The WOW! is probably a bit of an overstatement, because, indeed, most of this work has been public for a long time.


    However, as to criticisms, I am aware of two, in print in mainstream journals where it really matters. Kowalski and a certain Kirk Shanahan. They responded to both. Shanahan defines it as "not seriously," probably, but ... that is his own idiosyncratic view.


    (Kowalski responded to a SPAWAR paper in the journal of publication. Shanahan responded to a general review of the field by Krivit and Marwan, and was answered in a paper signed by ten researchers. The journal denied him a continued response, apparently considering enough, enough. We do not know if Shanahan has attempted response directly to SPAWAR papers, such as the Naturwissenschaften neutron report. If so, the journal editors declined to print it. Kirk, have you tried?)

    Quote from penswrite

    There has been much discussion, within the community of LENR "enthusiasts"--who have long been convinced of a "Fleischmann-Pons Effect"-- of how this reaction/these reactions might scale-up.


    Scale-up is not the problem. To scale up, expand reaction conditions (more cathode surface or the like). The problem is reliability. The known effect is chaotic, difficult to predict and control. There are research avenues open that might lead to control, such as the dual laser stimulation work of Dennis Letts. Unconfirmed. The maintained Heat after Death recent result of Ed Storms, from maintaining reaction temperature (but not electrolyis). Unconfirmed.

    Mary,


    Please don't take offense. With respect, you might be a closet "enthusiast," who simply needs a bit more coaxing to come out.


    I am with you: We share an interest, and join to discuss this topic, because we are curious to witness an exploration of Jed's "if."


    We probably also all share a common desire to witness a definitive when.


    --Penswrite

    Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax,


    As in much else in engineering, the devil is clearly in the details; clearly, also, we would all like to see a convincing explication of LENR physics.


    Can engineering outrun physics to yield market products? It has already been 27 years, and counting, since Pons and Fleischman, and it doesn't seem like engineering is doing so well in the absence of an understanding of the physics of LENR.


    WOW is relative and subjective. IF seems proven. When/what holds my interest.


    --Penswrite

    Quote

    I'd say, that because Yugo denies any interest in studying the relevant published papers*, his opinions are invalid.


    I'd say convincing me is hardly the most pressing issue in LENR publishing. And while you're at it, how about somebody publish (prominently in an LENR related journal and conference) how easily and thoroughly Defkalion and Rossi fooled much of the LENR community for three and almost six years respectively,.

    Quote from Mary Yugo

    And while you're at it, how about somebody publish (prominently in an LENR related journal and conference) how easily and thoroughly Defkalion and Rossi fooled much of the LENR community for three and almost six years respectively,.


    Here you go. I published this at LENR-CANR.org:


    http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?p=1565


    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GamberaleLfinaltechn.pdf


    What more do you want?


    I haven't published anything about the Rossi lawsuit because no one has written about it yet. Because it isn't over, I suppose.

    ICCF is coming up. It would be refreshing to see a paper presented that would basically say something like "we got thoroughly fooled by Defkalion but they turned out to be liars and it is looking like Rossi has also been deceiving everyone". And here is how -- description of Rossi lies, contradictions and the absolutely ABSURD claims for his RIDICULOUS "QuarkX" (even the name is preposterous).


    But that is unlikely to happen. It will be business as usual with very few if any critical notes to the meeting. Everything anyone says just gets accepted as genuine and true. The field will never get anywhere until it learns to be critical of itself.

    Quote from Mary Yugo

    ICCF is coming up. It would be refreshing to see a paper presented that would basically say something like "we got thoroughly fooled by Defkalion but they turned out to be liars and it is looking like Rossi has also been deceiving everyone".


    I have never heard of a paper like that at an academic physics conference. I do not know who would write it. As far as I know, none of the people involved with Defkalion, such as Gamberale, will attend.


    What you are describing would be a magazine article, not a paper presented at a physics conference.


    Quote from Mary Yugo

    But that is unlikely to happen.


    Very unlikely, since most of the people attending know nothing about these events, and do not care about them.


    If it seems surprising to you that most researchers know nothing about Rossi and don't care about him, bear in mind that you know nothing about their work, and you have no interest in it. They are in a different world.

    Quote

    Very unlikely, since most of the people attending know nothing about these events, and do not care about them.


    I must say you make my day when it comes to humor. So nobody working in LENR heard about Rossi and Defkalion when they claimed they made kilowatts of power reliably from an LENR reaction? When Lewan wrote a whole f'n book praising Rossi? When McKubre gave it favorable mention several times in his talks? When there were at least four large and well done web sites strictly for discussion of high power LENR? When Defkalion did an online live demonstration at an ICCF meeting? You are absolutely hilarious, Jed. So instead of being flummoxed and bamboozled, most LENR researchers simply don't have a clue what is being claimed in their field. Right. Shoore.


    Oh and of course, there is precedents for retracting claims and exposing crooks and fakes. For example, some time ago, Nature published a paper by Puthoff and Targ claiming that Uri Geller had passed rigorous tests for supernatural / paranormal feats. Like you, they had been taken in by a fake, in this instance a simple sleight of hand performer. When this error became clear, Nature retracted the paper and numerous letters in their publication discussed the issue. I am sure there are many other instances of bad research and scams being exposed in scientific papers, journals, published letters to editors of journals and the like.


    Here is a typical discussion of the issue:


    http://www.the-scientist.com/?…story-Of-Dubious-Science/


    Goodness, you seem to live in a protected little cocoon of illusion when it comes to scientists being bamboozled. It happens quite often. Rossi and Defkalion are just two recent, flagrant, and particularly egregious examples in that they managed to misroute millions of dollars and tons of attention and effort each.


    ETA: just TODAY in the news, the dean of a college was shot and seriously injured by a former student when the dean exposed that the student had faked some of his results... don't know if that will make a journal or not.


    http://www.the-scientist.com/?…nduct-Shoots-Former-Boss/


    Quote from Mary Yugo

    So nobody working in LENR heard about Rossi


    You seem to have difficulty with qualifiers. Let us go over this.


    I said "since most of the people attending" the ICCCF conference "know nothing about these events, and do not care about them."


    You said "nobody working in LENR . . ."


    1. The set of "most people" is not "everyone" (opposite of "nobody")
    2. People at an ICCF conference in Japan are a subset of people working in LENR, mainly from Asia.
    3. Most of those people do not speak English well and do not follow Rossi or the lawsuit. They have not read Lewan's book. They are busy.
    4. I doubt you will find any mention of Rossi in papers from Asia. You can look through issues of the JCMNS.


    Quote from Mary Yugo

    When Lewan wrote a whole f'n book praising Rossi?


    Most people in LENR have not read Lewan's book. Most of the ones I know dismissed Rossi long ago.


    Quote from Mary Yugo

    When McKubre gave it favorable mention several times in his talks?


    Here is what he said, which I would describe as mixed, and realistic:


    Quote

    Help presented itself to the CMNS community in a most unlikely manner in the person of Andrea Rossi. Not a recognized scientist, having not presented at or even attended any major meeting in the field, and having published nothing on the topic in a recognized Journal of any type Rossi created what might be called “The Rossi Effect”. Using combined showmanship and demonstrated operational scaleb Rossi brought to the attention of a new generation of innovators the possibility that “cold fusion” might not only be real (on which point the world was largely apathetic) but also practical. Rossi has inspired a significant number of experimenters to pursue the demonstration of heat on moderate scale (hundreds to thousands of Watts) with significant power and energy gain (2–10) at significantly elevated temperatures (up to and above 1200◦C). All of these systems employ Ni (usually in finely divided form, often claimed to be nano-metric), thus obviating the intrinsic issues of cost and scarcity associated with Pd. They also employ natural hydrogen (rather than deuterium) sourced in various forms often from the thermal decomposition of inorganic hydrides. The possibility exists that lithium also may be crucial. To this point the proof of performance remains “tantalizing” but it would be a mistake not to recognize the positive impetus and stimulus that “The Rossi Effect” has had on the CMNS community. Without Rossi (who was not even present) it is unlikely that ICCF19 would have been the largest cold fusion conference to date.


    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BiberianJPjcondensedr.pdf

    @Jed: McKubre said quite a bit more at different times and in different venues. If I run into it again, I will rub your nose in it for you.


    McKubre, in his claims that others have demonstrated significant power in the hundreds or thousands of watts, was wrong. What he should have said was that Rossi caused the appearance of UNVERIFIED and IMPROBABLE claims to plus whatever else it was he said.


    What he SHOULD have said was that Rossi for no comprehensible or reasonable cause, refuses again and again to do proper tests, to repeat tests, and to have them performed independently. He never seems to attend to appropriate and polite critiques of his methods. He has never performed a proper calibration nor allowed anyone else to and has no valid reason to refuse. Rossi's past history in science and technology is, at best, dismal, at worst crooked. His claims should be approached with the utmost of caution and there is a very large probability that they are not valid. There, I fixed it for him.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    If it seems surprising to you that most researchers know nothing about Rossi and don't care about him, bear in mind that you know nothing about their work, and you have no interest in it. They are in a different world.


    I do report on Rossi v. Darden on the CMNS list and there are complaints from those who think this completely irrelevant. Jed is right. World-wide, most cold fusion researchers know little about Rossi and don't care.


    Mary Yugo's world is not science, it is internet meshegas, has been for a long time.


    Mary has very little to say about real science, but sure knows what isn't! The ontology is primitive.


    I imagine this argument:


    Someone does a study of the effect of repeated words on human performance. The study is conducted by someone who doubts that words have any effect, in this case on athletic performance.


    So three pieces of paper are written out.


    Quote

    Today I will put in my best performance ever.

    and

    Quote

    Today I'll do okay.

    and

    Quote

    Today I'll suck.


    These are covered with duct tape so they cannot be seen, in order to create a double-blind test. The covered papers are given to volunteer athletes, they are asked to sleep with them under their pillow, carry them in their pocket, and then put them to their ears and listen to them before their test performance. The performances are assessed by some objective measure. The papers are then switched, and this continues through three trials or more.


    Do the words make any difference?


    Then, forever, whenever someone says that words can make a difference, Mary Yugo will trot out the study. "No they don't! This is totally imaginary, and anyone who says differently is a scammer, trying to sell you their 'self-improvement program.'"


    And maybe they are. But words can make a difference. As words, of course, which exist only in the mind. The symbols and sounds, without an interpretive mind, do practically nothing.


    You insult the fine upstanding nitwits everywhere.


    Curiosity aroused, wondering whatever happened to Thermonetics, which made calorimeters? They may have been history by 2010.


    from what I stumbled across, I now might have more history for Mary, publications (!), and last apparent occupation. Our friend is getting on, is probably 77 or so. I see that Alan doesn't want us to doxx people. Apparently it is okay to libel real people, but not imaginary ones. I'm not planning on revealing the real name here, not that it's a big secret, and Mary was being impersonated for a long time -- I pointed it out -- before anyone did anything about it.


    Rossi can create a host of sock puppets, who cares? I've only seen one here. And, of course, I didn't make this up, this has been mentioned many times.

    Jed:

    Quote

    Do as you please, nitwit.


    Oh, OK. I get it. You and your Vortex colleagues, plus Lewan, Essen, Levi and the Swedes missed the most obvious classical signs of energy generator fraud for five years involving two claimants and even now, nobody in the LENR "community" considers it an object lesson ... ... and I'm the nitwit. Makes sense!

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.