“Nature’s Energy” — New Video Introducing Brillouin Energy

Quote from Paradigmnoia

Your link did not support your statement. In fact, I am fairly sure the science fair did not require university calibre research, or starting with the premise that something was fake or false.

"Volcanoes Are Fake Paper Mache, Vinegar and Baking Soda Scams" would be a great science fair exhibit, though.

Ok. I keep forgetting on sites like this with a positive bias I have to break things down. Here is a link to the definition of the scientific method from a physics dept:
http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node6.html

A few of the key points the physics dept. states are :
"The scientific method is the best way yet discovered for winnowing the truth from lies and delusion."

"The great advantage of the scientific method is that it is unprejudiced: one does not have to believe a given researcher, one can redo the experiment and determine whether his/her results are true or false"

"A theory is accepted not based on the prestige or convincing powers of the proponent, but on the results obtained through observations and/or experiments which anyone can reproduce: the results obtained using the scientific method are repeatable"

"Faith, defined as belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence, does not determine whether a scientific theory is adopted or discarded."

"There are many types of ``pseudo-scientific'' theories which wrap themselves in a mantle of apparent experimental evidence but that, when examined closely, are nothing but statements of faith"

You and others will continue to argue with me because you can't accept the reality that there are no experiments that a physics dept. can repeatably run to verify LENR and that there is no evidence in nature for the existence of LENR. Say my name.

And you continue to disprove your original point that I commented on.

I fully endorse the scientific method. But I do not restrict it to the universities, or a premise that something is fake. I do look for examples where something is false, but it not always a reliable or useful lever for obtaining the truth or pointing the way to new discoveries. Serendipity and synchronicity combined play at least as big a role in the progress of science as intentionally directed research.

Quote from Alan Smith

The first users of Lithium were AFAIK the japanese and the info flowed back to Italy via Bo Hoistadt. Jed probably can point you to the first Japanese work on this.

That is interesting informaton, because if true and lithium usage in lenr was public before piantelli filed his patent it give freedom to use lithium or atleast piantelli patent is not 100% covering. Court fight way ofcourse but intresting if it can drop piantelli (+rossi) patents defective by lithium part..

Is there some japanise patents for lithium usage. They typically patent everything and around..?

Quote from Paradigmnoia

And you continue to disprove your original point that I commented on.

I fully endorse the scientific method. But I do not restrict it to the universities, or a premise that something is fake. I do look for examples where something is false, but it not always a reliable or useful lever for obtaining the truth or pointing the way to new discoveries. Serendipity and synchronicity combined play at least as big a role in the progress of science as intentionally directed research.

I have proven every point I have stated and I won't attempt to guess why you say otherwise. I also disagree with your possible assertion that LENR science can advance without going through qualified authorities. According to the scientific method, every initial LENR experimental claim of success is a hypothesis. This hypothesis can never advance to be considered a theory much less a law of physics unless it passes multiple repeated experiments by several qualified scientific authorities. And these qualified authorities are reputable University physics depts. It's an undeniable fact that zero (0) LENR hypotheses of the 100's or 1000's since P&F have been verified by University physics depts.

Quote from lenrisnotreal

1) not one reputable University physics dept. has ever put their name on the line by supporting a claim of positive LENR results 2)

See:

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

In his first book, Storms lists 180 major laboratories that replicated cold fusion.

I suggest you learn something about this research before commenting on it.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

STDM:
I suggest you test the "proof" and statements. That is science.
Both Jack and I have tested various aspects of the stories, and have not been able to substantiate them.

Sometimes the negative propaganda is actually true.
I'm not saying that the…

But the problem is that you and Jack don't have any authority, which means you can say whatever you like and be totally wrong but it will have no consequences. So it's doesn't mean anything. If the Lugano testers made a fundamental basic error, it will haunt them for the rest of their careers. They have actually something to lose. It's like TC who wanted to get a comment from Levi about his paper and then got mad when someone posted his CV. He could have sended his paper to his colleagues at ICL to verify his findings but then he could embarrass himself and his reputation. That's why it matters.

@lenrisnotreal,
You said:

Quote

You know, that scientific method which states that a phenomena is to be considered false or fake unless 1) verified by University physics department caliber research and 2) then peer reviewed independently by more University physics department caliber research.

The scientific method, as summarized in many places (except by you), does not assert this.

Quote

I have proven every point I have stated and I won't attempt to guess why you say otherwise.

You haven't proven anything of the sort. You advanced a hypothesis, then supported it with opinion, and then a bunch of quotes that did not address your point directly, but instead argue against them. None of your quotes or links support your assertion. Science does not belong to universities. It can be done by anyone. That is the true power of the scientific method. Any jerk on the Internet can do some science, following the Method, and crush a widely held hypothesis or even a Law, if the work is well done and repeatable by anyone that repeats the process. Universities might then jump in, to secure some funding and something exciting and new for students to test, if it looks like it is important enough for them. Much of science has nothing to do with showing that something is falsifiable (Popper etc.).

Quote from Mary Yugo

Far as I know, LENR has never been accepted as proven real, OFFICIALLY, by any MAJOR university department anywhere.

You do not know know far. You missed about 100, plus ~80 other non-university labs.

Quote from Mary Yugo

Yes, isolated professors, mostly of little renown and minor repute, or long past their prime, do allege they did definitive experiments. But these are their own.

This is how all experiments in all universities work. A professor and some grad students do an experiment and then publish it. With a good professor, this publication is usually under a grad student's name. For example:

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

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

The University itself never endorses or condemns the research. That would be a violation of academic standards.

Quote from Mary Yugo

Hmmm... let me know when you see something like this: phys.org/news/2015-08-caltech-…-fundamental-physics.html --except that the (unrefuted) headline reads "Caltech Announces Discovery Proving LENR" (or MIT, or UC, or SANDIA, or CERN, etc. etc. etc.)

Here:

http://www.nikkei.com/article/…52800Z10C16A8000000/?dg=1

This is an newspaper column about cold fusion research at Tohoku National University, published 3 days ago.

There were many similar news articles and press releases when cold fusion was conducted at U.S. universities. Also conferences, which were sponsored and announced by universities, such as:

http://iccf18.research.missouri.edu/

If that is not a university endorsement of the research, what would be?

Jed,

Do we now have to use the term AHE (Anomalous Heat Effects), or can we stick to LENR?

Or, revel in cold fusion.

Cheers,

Penswrite

Quote from penswrite

Do we now have to use the term AHE (Anomalous Heat Effects), or can we stick to LENR?

Or, revel in cold fusion.

Hey, it ain't up to me.

I have to deal with all these different terms for the same darn thing in both English and Japanese. "Condensed matter nuclear science" is unpronounceable in Japanese, and no one but the researchers has a clue what it means. Iwamura agrees with me about that!

(It is 凝縮系核反応, gyoushuku-kei kaku hannou. Quite a mouthful. "Cold fusion" was bad enough. 常温核融合 jyou-on kakuyuugou. "Kakuyuugou" is nuclear fusion, so the meaning is clear.)

People such as Mitchell Swartz keep coming up with their own private names for the phenomenon. LANR, I think he calls it. Don't ask me what it stands for.

I should note that the ISCMNS has made it into the on-line dictionary:

http://eowp.alc.co.jp/search?q…9%9A%9B%E5%AD%A6%E4%BC%9A

Quote from Mary Yugo

That is not major university endorsement that LENR results which are claimed are real. It is a discussion of a patent and research work. And it is not officially by the department.

That is true. It an article in the world's second largest financial newspaper, after the WSJ.

The university has also discussed these results in various press releases, and it is sponsoring an international conference on cold fusion in three weeks. But that doesn't count, does it? Of course not.

Quote from Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

it does not apply well to original research, only to explanations advanced for that.

It does not apply well to observations. They are sometimes instrument artifacts, but that is not the same thing as "falsified." An instrument artifact really did happen. The numbers are real, but they do not mean what you think they meant.