I doubt it. The people who did it spoke about it freely to me and others. It wasn't kept secret, as you might expect a military project would be. They said the management was freaked out because the heat was so extreme. The reactor was damaged. Management decided it was dangerous and should not be pursued, and that was that.
Yes- the 'freaked out management' confirms what my contact here told me last year.
I have commented on the Discussion on C&EN, on coldfusioncommunity.net. I found it of high interest who showed up there, and how the arguments went. It's a long study, took me more than a day.
There is also a post here that was cited by Ritter, the C&EN author, as well as his referring to lenr-forum.com as a place for general discussion of LENR.
I see that Mary Yugo kicked up some dust here, as "she" did on C&EN, and on the Financial Times article, where they actually seem to have shut down comments because of what Mary did there (and eventually deleted those comments). My analysis of the C&EN commentary is linked above, and Mary was very busy there protecting the world against stupidity. Someone there asked why we should trust Mary? Indeed. Why? The point is made that Rossi has lied, so cannot be trusted. Mary, here, still claims to be female, in the profile. Well? A fake identity with fake gender does not exactly inspire confidence. And, no, this is not outing Mary. Mary makes personal remarks about many, both participants here and public figures. Mary is, then, fair game for similar, where it is relevant.
How long ago was that improbable story, Abd? And why has it not been repeated? If I could do that, I would repeat it the next day and the one after that. Then, I'd invite Bill Gates' people to see it and I'd make billions. It is a hallmark of scams and deceptions, including honest self-deceptions, that the authors seem not to understand the extreme consequences (good in this case) of their claims. So basically, I don't believe a word of it. BTW, wouldn't the military love a small nuclear reaction which is controllable and yields lot of thermal energy. Wow. They'd salivate a chance to fund it. If it worked, provably, of course. If not for a bomb, how about for powering a huge laser? And that was 1993 and nothing since. Wow.
If that's your big breakthrough, Abd, fuggit about it.
No, I have stated what the breakthrough would be, it would be publication of results from the Texas Tech collaboration on heat/helium. Why would Mary assume it was the Thermacore attempt, where I know almost nothing and results are entirely speculative? Because this is what Mary does: assume whatever might irritate someone. That is called "trolling."
I did not assert the Thermacore story as fact. I asserted it as something reported by Brian Ahern, improbably or not. It was not repeated for reasons that have been explained. It is claimed that the specific results were only recently disclosed, as to public information. It's plausible, these kinds of things happened, we think. Mary could not have repeated this the next day, because the apparatus was destroyed, and management was, as reported, and undestandably, freaked out. Easily this might have killed someone. When Pons and Fleischmann experienced that original meltdown, they did not want it to be known what they were doing, because the university might have shut them down. Instead they scaled down for safety (and then later there were complaints that their results were not strong enough.)
When SRI had their explosion (of chemical origin), they were shut down for some time, until they were able to set up precautions to handle an incident like that. It's expensive, and Thermacore apparently decided against pursuing it, and it's that simple. This was not a developed product and the conditions had been inadequately explored. This was not the mature technology that was almost ready for development. It was an incident, an anecdote. Cold fusion in general has enormous commercial potential. This is discussed in my coverage of the C&EN discussion. Say it's a trillion dollar per year lost opportunity cost for delay. It might cost billions to develop the first commercial product, and there is a risk that such could fail. Game theory says, go ahead, but only if one can afford the loss, because there is a high risk. So who has billions to spare?
Not very many! In fact, some are investing in LENR, but much more cautiously, as I would recommend. They are spending exploration dollars, not commercialization dollars. Blue-sky, getting their feet wet. They expect to spend that money with no profit, as a dead loss (which, of course, will be fully tax-deductible, these are not stupid people.).
So someone might well fund Brian Ahern. I'd say it would be worth it. This should not be terribly expensive, but expect it to take time. If he can confirm that result, this will be the strongest confirmed NiH work so far. It will shift the field, in a good way. If he fails, this would not be surprising. Many efforts fail in this field, and when it seems easy, that is the mostly likely work to be artifact.
Please explain to me how something so simple to do and so hugely important and apparently known to quite a few people-- explain how that could go undeveloped and unrecognized by the mainstream from 1996 until now, 20 f'n years later? How is that possible?
The details were not so widely known, apparently. There may also have been other complications not so easily visible. Very simply, it's possible, and Mary asserts an impossibility argument because that is what Mary does. She is essentially claiming that others are lying, but she does it by questioning likelihood. Was there some chemical explosion there? Maybe. That's part of what Ahern will be examining, I assume. Ahern does not need Mary Yugo to point out the obvious possibilities, though Mary is not actually doing that, just making bad noises.
The mainstream never heard about this because it was not published, because no mainstream journal or magazine will report on cold fusion.
Jed, you really should stop saying that. Yes, there is a truth: publication became difficult, but mainstream journals have always published cold fusion research, just not certain prominent ones. When you say this, it creates an impression of a conspiracy theory, where it is improbable that a conspiracy would stop all publication, and, obviously, you know, it didn't. So you damage the reputation of cold fusion, in outrage at what did, in fact, happen (a level of suppression of publication in certain particularly influential journals).
That may not be the reason at all (the above quotation was from Jed, I think.) There is no account of any attempt to publish this, rejected by a journal.
QuoteExplain to me why no mainstream journal would publish proof of a revolutionary new technology.
Is Mary really that naive? First of all, those whole argument was floating in non-existence. There was no journal rejection. Secondly, the incident if simply reported without an accompanying theory deemed plausible would, in fact, be likely to be rejected by many journals, and this has happened: experimental reports have been rejected because they were not accompanied by an explanatory theory considered adequate, and if "cold fusion" was mentioned, there were reviewers who would reject immediately with no further examination. A report of an event could certainly have been published, though, the question is where. It wasn't, it's that simple. And this proves almost nothing. The participants may have been under NDA, for starters. So they didn't have permission. But I'm assuming this possibility. I'd defer to actual interviews with the participants.
The point here, as with everywhere that Mary participates, is a knee-jerk pseudoskepticism, laced with contempt. I don't wonder that it upsets Jed. He has indeed seen his friends harmed.
QuoteMany journals would leap at the chance to be first. Many researchers would leap at a chance to replicate, just as dozens did when P&F made their claims in 1989. First they leaped and then they crashed because they could not replicate P&F despite your protestations to the contrary. Hell, P&F could not replicate P&F despite millions spent on that effort.
Bull pucky. A story that P&F, for a time, were unable to replicate, when they ran out of the original material, here becomes "unable to replicate," which might as well be a lie. Miles tells his story, and Yugo does not put it all together, only picking up pieces that fit his world-view.
QuotePeople like me? I am all for publication of cold fusion research whether positive or negative results, as long as it is well done, properly documented, and properly peer reviewed.
Mary claims this, but when it is done, Mary ignores it or attacks it.
QuotePublishing nonsense though, like the claim to powerful explosions from a nuclear source which were NEVER followed up by anybody? Even that I favor. People should have the opportunity to decide for themselves whether such obvious nonsense is real or not. I suppose, Jed, that you think Papp really made energy from noble gases and would now be famous and a zillionaire had it not been for Feynman? I can see why mainline scientists give such crappy thinking so little attention!
Nobody really involved thinks that way. This is all Yugo fantasy. Papp was insane, that's obvious. I have never seen Feynman blamed for Papp's situation by any LENR scientist, and mostly CMNS scientists ignore Papp and all that.
What Yugo wants to do, here, as he has done many times, is tar real scientists with the same brush used to tar Papp and others. It is very common among pseudoskeptics, there is an inverted pantheon of devils, like Papp, and if anyone dares to say anything that could be seen as positive about one of these devils, they are obviously evil or seriously deluded.
McKubre apparently witnessed a Papp engine demonstration, way back, but we all know about demonstrations, they can be impenetrable, even, can seem to be proving something, when they don't. They are not "independent," because they are controlled by the inventor. So if McKubre honestly reports what he saw, he could then be condemned. This is all backwards, not science at all, but social reactivity.
The raising of Papp here, totally irrelevant, was completely diagnostic of this phenomenon. It was trolling, because it accused Jed of a belief in what is commonly rejected.
While I did poopoo optimistic results claimed by Ahern and probably Mallove, where did I say anything about Lincoln Labs at MIT? I never heard of them before this.
Oh, I see. You have never heard of them before, and yet you felt free to describe their work as scams and deceptions, and you say you don't believe a word of it:
QuoteIt is a hallmark of scams and deceptions, including honest self-deceptions, that the authors seem not to understand the extreme consequences (good in this case) of their claims. So basically, I don't believe a word of it.
You did not even know who did the work, where or when it was done, yet you felt free to accuse them of criminal deception. That is the mentality that destroys academic freedom and suppressed cold fusion.
I don't think asking a scientific technology claimant to demonstrate robust and incontrovertible proof of a controversial theory is analogous to lynching Blacks and the KKK.
That is a strawman argument. No one is talking about asking for proof. I was talking about destroying scientists' reputations in the mass media, "rooting them out and firing them" for talking about cold fusion, and publishing lies in major newspapers and magazines to suppress academic freedom. I am talking about what Julian Schwinger described:
QuoteThe pressure for conformity is enormous. I have experienced it in editors’ rejection of submitted papers, based on venomous criticism of anonymous referees. The replacement of impartial reviewing by censorship will be the death of science.
The raising of Papp here, totally irrelevant, was completely diagnostic of this phenomenon. It was trolling, because it accused Jed of a belief in what is commonly rejected.
For the record I do not know what to make of Papp. I realize his claims seem impossible. Beyond that I know so little about Papp I cannot judge.
I know little about any anomalous energy claims other than cold fusion.
As Abd noted, most cold fusion researchers ignore Papp. They ignore other claims such as magnet motors. They tend to be "painfully conventional people" as Uncle Martin put it.
The Widom-Larsen Ultra-Low-Momentum Neutron Catalyzed Theory of LENR is a theory that requires exceptional behavior on the part of the weak force. Normally, heavy electrons, that is, electrons that have a kinetic energy over the threshold that makes amalgamation of the electron and proton together to form a neutron in a beta decay requires the formation of a weak force mediation particle, the W or Z boson.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_carrier
W bosons, and Z bosons, excitations of the electroweak gauge fields are required to produce the Widom-Larsen effect.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W_and_Z_bosons
QuoteDisplay MoreWeak Force boson Mass
W: 80.385±0.015 GeV/c2
Z: 91.1876±0.0021 GeV/c2
the weak force bisons are very short-lived, with a half-life of about 3×10e−25 s.
That weak force mediation effect requires a huge amount of energy to be formed, close to a giga electron volts of the proton mass out of the vacuum.
IF the Widom-Larsen effect is occurring, it is because the is an exceptional condition in place where the weak force is greatly amplified. The Widom-Larsen effect can be considered a emergent weak force process that is being produced by a special environment in which the weak force is operating. To the best of my understanding, the description of the special environment that the weak force is operating under is not described by the WL effect. The WL effect is describing what may be happening by not why it is happening.
Quote‘It’s Not Cold Fusion, but It’s Something’
LOL, if they don't know, what the LENR is about, how they can be sure, it's not just the cold fusion? Because it was (wrongfully) discredited by mainstream physics twenty years before?
QuoteIt is good that Scientific American writes again about LENR. I hope they continue doing so and send some reporters in the field to talk with the real workers in the field like Rossi, Godes, McKubre, Miles and Schwartz, Storms, Greenyer, Holmlid etc. etc.
This is not in their interest, as they would be forced to admit, that the mainstream physics got it wrong. Instead of it, they want to pretend, that the real research of cold fusion starts just right now, in the circles of mainstream physics. For to have it so, the rebranding of existing research is necessary.
BTW Is it just me - or is the e-catworld.com out of order?
BE is so frustrating. They have been "right there" for 4 years now. Why have they not broken out yet? By appearances they look legit...both scientifically and as a business, having checked all the blocks like BLP.
Having SRI vet their product, and McKubre standing by them...even addressing some congressional staffers, and a congressman or two on Capital Hill, is about as good as it gets in LENR land. Throw in Carl Page as a member of their board, while writing articles praising LENR...well BE, when is it going to happen?
Plus there's clearly lots of money available if you have something that appears interesting. Look at IH..
Is there anything definite about their COP published? I've heard* 3-4 based on a comment on some conference poster, and 1.something when tested without the q-pulse. Maybe.
*hazy recollections at best
Throw in Carl Page as a member of their board, while writing articles praising LENR...well BE, when is it going to happen?
In their last publication they admitted having problems with the stability (declining COP) of the reaction. Usually it takes 20 years for a new technology to give birth of a new product live...
BRLP (Mills) with a self sustained high power heater (forget the PV!) is leading the gang by more than 5 years!
In their last publication they admitted having problems with the stability (declining COP) of the reaction. Usually it takes 20 years for a new technology to give birth of a new product live...
This is realist.
George Miley reported similar problem.
I'm not sure Brillouin is so much wealthy, they rather seems to look for investors.
Anyway their behavior and their reported results (Tanzella) are much more convincing than any other commercial claim.
I don't think 20 years will be needed, but 5 years from the day they have a good funding and an experienced nano-tech team is a minimum.
In fact I think that any LENR team, could make the breakthrough once they have a good budget and a varied mainstream team mixing metallurgy, nanotech, engineering, and ... no pet theory (yet).
In fact I think that any LENR team, could make the breakthrough once they have a good budget and a varied mainstream team mixing metallurgy, nanotech, engineering, and ... no pet theory (yet).
I think it interesting to consider such a team and how it might be grown to develop one important idea or discovery. I pretty much agree with your order, but to expand it a little I would say. Physicist, Chemist, Nano-Chemist, Engineer (mechanical). Engineer (software/sensors), 2nd Physicist, Theoretician, Mathematician, PR/Publicist/Fundraiser. And of course, the ubiquitous Technician (or two) to keep everything tidy and make the coffee. So that comes to 10/11 people, and possibly a salary/overheads bill of $1M+/year plus equipment costs, so it could easily reach $1.5m/year.
Assuming the team (and the cost of building prototypes and additional lab-space) grows even further over a 5 year development cycle you could easily be looking at $10M. Based on that projection, btw, Mills has been reasonably thrifty.
QuoteBE is so frustrating. They have been "right there" for 4 years now. Why have they not broken out yet? By appearances they look legit...both scientifically and as a business, having checked all the blocks like BLP. Having SRI vet their product, and McKubre standing by them...even addressing some congressional staffers, and a congressman or two on Capital Hill, is about as good as it gets in LENR land. Throw in Carl Page as a member of their board, while writing articles praising LENR...well BE, when is it going to happen?
I suspect "never" is a best answer. All they have are claims. No independent testing by anyone credible. That's always the key when there are grandiose claims. BLP is more complicated because they did a better job of muddying the waters with what *seem* to be acceptable tests... but when you examine the details, they are not. I predict "never" for them as well. Hey, be patient. Mills has only had thirty years to make his case to the scientific community.
