f after years of performing hundreds of tests on LENR reactors, it would only be logical to assume that the reactors used in the year long test produced *some* level of excess heat from nuclear processes . . .
Rossi is not logical. As Abd points out, he may not even be sane.
There may be a logical explanation. As I have pointed out, other researchers forgot how to make the cold fusion effect work. In some cases they ran out of active material and discovered they could not make more.
Jed thinks without any doubt that the test of the one megawatt plant was a total hoax and scam. This conclusion and his strong feelings rules out any desire for fairness or politeness: his personal judgement on this issue has already been made and concluded without doubt. Now he is trying to push his conclusion on this forum with posts that like the above and others that I could dig up and cite. I don't have a problem with him sharing his opinions, but I'd suggest he:
#1 Write a bit more carefully.
#2 Nuance his primary statements instead of adding hedges later.
#3 Try not to participate in the derailment of threads like this one.
I've been communicating with Jed since I first came into the cold fusion arena, back in 2009, and I have read some of his prior commentary. He is opinionated and tends to be a bit melodramatic. I've pointed this out many times to him. He is, however, his own person and I do not expect him to be my slave. Indeed, I prefer to serve him where I can. He has supported this field with his wealth and his labor for many years.
What happened here is that a "reasonable conclusion" was made from what he wrote and extrapolated to the entire corpus of Rossi's work. That is a common error. A reasonable conclusion from what I write is not what I write, and losing this distinction can cause conflict. Yes, you could ask Jed to be more careful. But this is not a formal context. People should not be nailed to even their explicit statements here, much less inferences from them.
QuoteAnyway, this is my last post on this topic. Feel free to comment if you want, or not. Block me if you want, or not. I've tried to do as you requested. If it is not good enough, I'm satisfied with my effort, and I'm not going to disobey the moderator any longer.
MrSelfSustain, you responded well. You actually looked, as I suggested, and made the matter far more clear. Your requests of Jed are reasonable, even though a bit silly in some ways, given the routine derailment of threads here. Ah, what does this have to do with Me356's secret? That is part of Alan's point, but the terms of use suggest that off-topic posts might be move to their own threads. It does not suggest that they might be deleted. But ... that's work, and the moderators here are not paid. So we all may need to tolerate each other and moderation-as-it-is. I do not see any need to block you at this point. And, remember, even if I did, this would not be some ultimate judgment of you. It is purely a personal decision. Most of those I have blocked I consider pure or almost-pure trolls. Some are blocked for other reasons, the ultimate standard is my assessment of whether or not it is worth my time to read the posts regularly.
QuoteIf you do block me, Abd, thanks again for your extensive work in trying to make sense of the legal documents. That has been a MAJOR contribution to this form.
Thanks. With this, you make yourself clearly stand out from the trolls. Trolls do not do that. Instead they complain about "paid FUD" and "walls of text."
MrSelfSustain, you responded well. You actually looked, as I suggested, and made the matter far more clear.
I guess, the reason that prevents Me355 for sharing his knowledge, are people commenting like this .. commenting "of topic comments" of others ...
Who likes the facts, doesn't like piles of filibuster, but may be we all finally have to use the last resort and switch to the blocking game.
Thus, for forum correctness, I would like to urge Me355, to at least place a comment like "uurps", to show that he is still alive...
MrSS.,
There is still a valid argument for Rossi, but IMO it does not lie anymore with his tech having these fantastic COPs he claims, nor the reliability. But simply that he has seen what others in LENR have seen; low COPs, poor reliability, and lower power output...perhaps on a bigger scale, but exciting nonetheless. Couple that with his history of exaggerating, eccentricity, paranoia, and it all kind of fits together quite nicely..
Hard also, unless you have a very simple mind like MY, to dismiss entirely his earlier, anecdotal, successes, that even Jed, and Abd have readily admitted to.
So there is still hope.
Hard also, unless you have a very simple mind like MY, to dismiss entirely his earlier, anecdotal, successes, that even Jed, and Abd have readily admitted to.
I have not "admitted to" Rossi's "earlier successes." My position has been since 2011 that it is impossible to tell and my general conclusion was then, and remained, that this is how he wanted it to be. Jed may have stated that some of the earlier tests looked good. that is not actually an admission of earlier success, only of appearance.
We can say with reasonable confidence that the Doral plant was not generating a megawatt That does not rule out the possibility of some lower power output. And ... we can't tell. Rossi made sure that the test would be inconclusive, by how he manipulated it, calling everything into question.
As to MY, Mary is a dedicated debunker and pseudoskeptic. That "simplifies" Mary's mind. That could be the appeal of pseudoskepticism, it is similar to the appeal of "belief." They are similar phenomena.
Maintaining an awareness of multiple possibilities is "confusing" to some.
This was said by Christos Stremmenos in an interview with Mats Lewan.
As I said at the start of this thread, vacuuming your nickel under heat is critical to achieving excess heat.
---
There’s a very important fact regarding [nickel] powder. The last student who got his degree with me, (incidentally, he was Greek), made a very interesting observation regarding nickel powder. Nickel powders alone do not absorb all that much hydrogen. If you put them there … in a cell, of course — we had a sophisticated calorimetry cell where we measured variations in temperature and in the quantity of heat produced in a very rigorous manner — we found that, at best, we could get one, two or three Watts, and so did Sergio Focardi. Focardi however — as a professor of Nuclear Physics — was also interested in studying nuclear parameters ... and structure modifications as well … in short, we were complementary to each other.
Anyhow, this is very important, because I observed it and then told Sergio. If we degassed (nickel powder, at this point) at an extremely low pressure, i.e.. 10-6, which is one-millionth of atmospheric pressure, for one week at a temperature of 500° [Celsius], so that all the oxides on the surface of the micro-particles of nickel were eliminated (this means all of the oxides that have formed, because we are surrounded by an oxygen atmosphere) ... well, upon charging it, it sucked up, how can I put it, an enormous quantity of hydrogen (I was using hydrogen). And the temperature, which had been 500°, began to rise considerably, and got higher and higher, over the 1000° mark. I got scared, and shut everything down [laughs], because, I said to myself, “This is going to blow up”!
The temperature went up very fast. Probably there was chemical reaction too ... specifically, hydrides were being formed, which are... I didn’t have the patience to wait until it reached a steady level, but the previous experiments which … as far as exothermic emission from nickel is concerned … this excess [of heat] went on even for six months, so it did … but it wasn’t absorbing all that much hydrogen ... so I understood that the trick was purifying the nickel as much as possible...
So, nickel powder. You spoke of degassing, taking the oxygen out...
Talking out all the gases it absorbs … plus the oxides formed on the surface of the nickel micro-particles.
And how do you do proceed to do this with nickel powder?
By heating it. Heating it up to around 500° and lowering the pressure — I was way ahead there — to 10-6 , which is to say one-millionth of an atmosphere. Anyhow, maybe even a little bit would have been enough, and of course you had to leave the specimen there for several days and then …
Quote from AbdAs to MY, Mary is a dedicated debunker and pseudoskeptic. That "simplifies" Mary's mind. That could be the appeal of pseudoskepticism, it is similar to the appeal of "belief." They are similar phenomena.
I agree that skepticism can be held with an emotional force that is identical to that of a believer, and when this happens the result is both bias and a tendency to simplify.
I'd only add that simple views are very often correct. Personally I like complexity - it is fun - but I cannot dismiss simplicity easily. Also it can be difficult to distinguish between somone biased as above, and someone judging simplicity preferable to complexity in absence of clear proof to contrary.
Regards, THH
Abd wrote:
I agree that skepticism can be held with an emotional force that is identical to that of a believer, and when this happens the result is both bias and a tendency to simplify.
I'd only add that simple views are very often correct. Personally I like complexity - it is fun - but I cannot dismiss simplicity easily. Also it can be difficult to distinguish between somone biased as above, and someone judging simplicity preferable to complexity in absence of clear proof to contrary.
I'm going to challenge this, but on a basis that you may not expect. All views are incomplete. However, I could claim that Reality is simple. And then there are simple ideas about reality, which attempt to express Reality in words or logical concepts. These idea may or may not be useful, but none of them are fully "correct." The reduction of language is tempting, because the language seems simpler.
Skepticism is necessary to science. Pseudoskepticism harms scientific inquiry, confuses it with irrelevancies. A preference for simplicity is not pseudoskeptical, as such, and, indeed, preference isn't the issue. It is fixed belief, that becomes like an obsession.
Can someone tell me why are the likes of Me356 and MFMP using a piecemeal approach to releasing information on LENR replication? What are they playing at? To do a Mary Yugo, just do a god damn proper demo!
Roger,
MFMP is not playing "peek a boo" like me356. They have been very forthright every step along the way. Almost too much so according to some...although I disagree with them. Nothing piecemeal about them.
Can someone tell me why are the likes of Me356 and MFMP using a piecemeal approach to releasing information on LENR replication? What are they playing at? To do a Mary Yugo, just do a god damn proper demo!
There is an underlying ethical and philosophical problem with open science. Don't mistake me for a keeper of secrets though, OS is something I am VERY much in favour of. But let us imagine that during the course of my work- all of which, good or bad is published by Lookingforheat.com as 'research notes', and I find out a way of triggering an LENR reaction so powerful that a few micrograms can explode with huge force. This reaction involves easy to get materials and the triggering mechanism is very simple. Eventually it could lead to a 1 kiloton bomb the size of a packet of cigarettes and costing little more.
Happily, I haven't discovered any such thing. But what should I do if I had or did? Tell everyone? Tell no-one? And what government or terror cell would not kill to find out my secret? Open science works very well until you use it to discover (by chance) the key to Pandora's box of misery.
I would welcome anybody's serious contribution to this topic.
@Alan Smith You raised the exact point of weakness of OS (Open Science). You put the finger where it hurts.
I think, OS is the best way to conduct science to discover what mother nature has not revealed. Especially when it comes to real new discoveries where all the titbits are not mastered yet. With OS gives opportunity to people to propose crazy ideas that might giant steps in the path of discovering mother nature.
Unfortunately for OS, if a dreadful weapon could be done from discoveries who will share it ? How to share it ?
When it is sunshine, OS might be marvellous. But when the storm comes, OS is not the answer anymore, even more it is the worse way to work.
I'm not only the kind of person who would open Pandora's Box. I'd photograph the contents, feed them into a computer, and send instructions on how everyone can print out their own versions.
MSS:
If we discuss a context defined by Alan (cheap and easy to get 1 kt bomb of cigarette box size), your decision would be irresponsible, as it would lead to many deaths of innocent people.
Then they would die.
I wouldn't like it at all, but risk and death have always been part of scientific advancement. We are rushing towards a point at which just about anything will be possible: cold fusion, extraction of zero point energy, manipulation of gravity, exotic propulsion, etc. There will be many technologies emerging that if used in appropriately could cause a great deal of harm. But I hope they emerge quickly. The truth is that if humanity cannot deal with this knowledge being plainly out in the open, then we don't deserve to continue existing. Humanity should die out and be replaced by another species.
Alan
This safety issue apparently came up in 1929 (Walter Hermann Nernst, 1929, Zeitschrift magazine, Germany) and again in 1973 .
See: http://www.veteranstoday.com/2…an-a-nuclear-reaction-be/
Extract: The problem with cold fusion is that all metals will absorb hydrogen, some much better than others. Uranium and other fissile materials will absorb it uncontrollably and at some point it will explode with a force greater than what a molecular explosive of the same mass will produce.
This is the problem with cold fusion; runaway explosive force that cannot be stopped. It is not a matter of if but when.
The link describes some old cold fusion experiments from 1920’s Germany and gives reasons why it was abandoned at that time.
Not at all sure of the validity of these claims, but if there is any truth in it and it does 'overlap' into current research of the type discussed in this forum, then I have no doubt our comments and claims are being closely monitored and perhaps frustrated.
Best regards
Frank
then I have no doubt our comments and claims are being closely monitored and perhaps frustrated
I agree, that is probably the case. But for those who might be doing the monitoring and frustrating, I propose that on balance, a development such as widely dispersed cold fusion is more beneficial to the advancement of the human race than it is detrimental. First, there is no evidence that a "cold fusion bomb" is even possible, except on Independence Day II. Second, there are hundreds of millions of children who go hungry every day, many of whom die of starvation. There are wars set in motion due to a perception of scarcity of resources. There are hundreds of millions of people oppressed by despotic regimes, doing the bidding of despotic leaders, who control their people largely by way of control of the means of production and prosperity.
For those who would suppress cold fusion, and raise the specter of danger in the mind of the public, I say this: you are impeding humanity's progress; you are placing your hand on the scale of justice and tilting it in favor of the powerful elite; and you are grinding the face of those who live in unbearable poverty and despair further into the dirt. Do not fool yourself that you are doing good in the world. Because you are not. You are pure evil.
/* there is no evidence that a "cold fusion bomb" is even possible */
I wouldn't be so sure about it 1, 2. Of course, the ignorance of cold fusion already did a huge damage, but the labeling opponents as a "pure evil" wouldn't help the discussion anyway.
Roger,
MFMP is not playing "peek a boo" like me356. They have been very forthright every step along the way. Almost too much so according to some...although I disagree with them. Nothing piecemeal about them.
Have you forgotten how MFMP were drip feeding us their "LENR recipe" a while back?
Have you forgotten how MFMP were drip feeding us their "LENR recipe" a while back?
Roger,
OK, in that one case they dribbled it over a few days. The boys got to have some fun!
