Clearance Items

  • If you allow people to set their own salaries, either overtly or through subterfuge, the result is quite predictable. Look at CEO "compensation" levels in the US for outrageous examples. Most American CEO's get the ridiculous pay regardless of the company's person and are even protected from firing for cause with the euphemistically named "golden parachutes."

  • But there is a grand total of zero progress that anyone can replicate.


    "NEDO funded work by technova was reproduced by another university…_and_Hydrogen_Isotope_Gas

    Technova have replicated Iwamura

    There is a line of replication from Fralick 89, Tsinghua/Inficon and Biberian around 2008, Nasa GRC 2008, reproduced by Fralick around 2012...

    Of course there is a tons of electrochemistry experiments, but with only an improvement in success rate, not total control.

    The problem is usability of the work replicated, I agree."

  • Apparently asking such questions is incendiary around here but I would be very interested to know just what is meant by a replication of an LENR experiment.

    I suggest you read the papers by McKubre, Storms and Hagelstein that I referred you to before, and also Hagelstein's ICCF3 report.

    I know that Jed will only have a hissy fit and not answer the question

    On the contrary, I answered the question before, and just now again. Not with specific information but by pointing you to documents that answer it in detail. You will have a hissy fit and accuse me of demanding you read hundreds of pages of documents that you cannot find. Let me forstall that by pointing out they are featured on the front page at, and they are 15, 30 and 52 pages long. Not hundreds of pages. So you could easily read them if you wanted to, but you don't want to, and you never will read them. Instead you will continue to demand this information while ignoring it when we give it to you.

  • Jed, I did not ask for any details of the replications of LENR nor a list of replications. I asked what is meant by “replication” in this context. That should not require reading any papers. i am just asking for a definition of the term. If defining your terms is considered “spoon feeding”, then the world needs more spoons.

  • noun
    noun: replication

    • the repetition of a scientific experiment or trial to obtain a consistent result.

    That sounds correct. Do the same experiment and get the same result.

    So that is what Director means when he seeks a replication of the QX? Given that virtually nothing is known about details of the QX and really almost nothing about results obtained from it, I would contend that replicating it is impossible, except perhaps by unlikely accident.

  • I asked what is meant by “replication” in this context.

    You asked, I answered. At your service!

    That should not require reading any papers.

    Oh, I think it does. You haven't read them, so you wouldn't know, would you?

    i am just asking for a definition of the term.

    Well, if you want a 2-minute answer, the definition is the same as it is in any experimental science. Researcher A does an experiment. Researcher B uses the same materials and instruments, and sees similar results. The examples in the McKubre paper that I used in my video are excellent illustrations. The same loading produces the same results. The same materials produce the same results. The energy produces the same level of helium production per joule, in many different experiments.

    The definition and the issues surrounding it become more complicated when you ask "how similar"? How similar is it when B does not measure all of the parameters used by A? A measures open circuit voltage but B does not. Or, A measures helium but B does not. It is similar -- but a little different -- when B uses a different type of instrument, such as a flow calorimeter instead of an isoperibolic calorimeter. That dissimilarity is either a good thing or a bad thing, depending on how you look at it. It is good in that it shows the effect is not an artifact of the isoperibolic calorimeter. But it is bad because it makes the replication somewhat less exact. In a narrow sense, it is a different experiment. Not quite an exact replication. Another example of that would be using palladium-boride instead of pure palladium. Pd-B often produces better results, but then again it isn't quite the same experiment.

    All of this is discussed in the literature in detail, as I said.

  • Thank you Jed. That is exactly the sort of answer I was seeking and it didn’t even require you to abandon your principles!

    It is exactly the same answer I gave you many times before, and I put in many of my papers, and I wrote in my my 6-minute video. So I have not abandoned any principles.

    That is the main theme of the video. The video cost me thousands of dollars and months of work. So I have put a lot of effort into answering your question. Which is why I get miffed when you ask the same question again, and again, and again, but you never bother to look at the video or any of the other places I answered you. Perhaps you can appreciate how annoying that is, rather than accusing me of having a hissy fit.

    The video introduction is here:

  • Alan Smith

    A lot of this, not all, is about language. You make the case that university administration salaries are a large-scale drain on research at universities in the UK and Italy. I don't see how this functions as anyone holding someone or something "hostage" but I think that your particular choice of words should not obscure the point you are making.

    I still disagree with you. Empire building, corporatization of university administration, and high salaries for the upper echelon of administrators are all real problems. It is just that they aren't the major factor in determining the quality or quantity of research at these institutions. Other, more important, factors are at play. Administrator's salaries and research-project funds in most Western countries come from different funding streams so decreasing money going to administrators does not increase the money funding scientists -- it might be a better deal for the public purse but it doesn't help the science.

    One often hears or reads outraged commentary about the number of administrators outweighing the number of research staff at universities. But the truth is that, given the way these things are measured, a 50/50 ratio is about right. This is because "administration" usually includes everything from janitors to technicians to secretarial staff to librarians to university presidents whereas "research staff" does not include graduate students and postdocs who do a huge amount of the actual research work.

    In my experience the primary factor controlling scientific productivity in universities is academics themselves when they decide who to hire into a department and when they sit on funding agency boards. Bad decisions in these roles, often resulting from nepotism, can quickly render a department unproductive. This has nothing to do with the number of overhead administrators or their salaries.

    For what it is worth, the UK has historically punched above its weight in research quality. It still does. The Nature Index…rate/All/global/All/score lists the UK as 4th worldwide for the number of quality papers published in 2018. Given that the UK is nowhere near 4th in population in the developed world, this is a solid result. Italy, with about the same population as the UK stands only 12th in the number of quality papers published. Why? As far as I can determine, Italian Universities have about the same 50/50 ratio of administrative to research staff as the UK (I would be grateful if someone can dig out more on this) so it isn't that. Instead, Italy has a more closed and incestuous structure for hiring and funding. Low-producing faculty members are brought along because they are clubbable and then get stuck in the system (for instance see

  • Actually, I don't know you at all except for your public persona on a forum and a small bit or two of personal history you posted. Knowing someone is, to me, much more than that.

    I did not mean that kind of "know you". What I meant was that we were both on ECN's, and the Defkalion forum. You know my style, demeanor, and I yours.