I think 100K for travel is cheap. Considering what planet you are on.
I thought this strange offer by Kevmo to do the job for $100,000 was a joke. It is not a joke, because he has a real GoFundMe Appeal. He actually would accept money. If this continues it will be a public relations disaster for cold fusion. I would consider it an out-and-out fraud. This must be stopped, immediately. As I said above, I think Alan Smith is in the best position to stop it, because it is his laboratory Kevmo proposes to visit. I strongly suggest Smith should contact GoFundMe and alert them to a fraud. Also, perhaps, append a message to the Appeal.
I assume you can warn the GFM people about this. I don't know much about that web site. I helped raise money for Mizuno through GFM, but other people made the arrangements and handled the communication with GFM. GFM got in touch with me asking me to ask Mizuno for some ID so they could tell he is a real person and a retired professor. I translated the message, explained it, and sent it on to him. That gave me the impression the GFM people take their responsibilities seriously and they try to prevent fraud.
Done initially as soon as I knew about it.
Support (GoFundMe) <[email protected]>
13 May at 20:49
Thank you for bringing this to our attention. Our Trust & Safety team will be investigating the page and taking appropriate action.
If you donated to this campaign or are the intended recipient of the money raised, please fill out the appropriate GoFundMe Guarantee claim form. If you know any donors or the intended recipient of this campaign, please ask that they also submit a claim or contact our team directly.
Claim forms for the GoFundMe Guarantee can be found here: www.gofundme.com/guarantee
Please note that:
1. We will be unable to disclose any details about our investigation.
2. Personal disputes will be ignored and should be settled outside of GoFundMe.
3. Your personal information will be kept confidential from the campaign organizer.
In addition to the report you have submitted to us, we encourage you to contact law enforcement officials in your area if you believe this user is committing fraud or breaking the law in any way.
Our team will reach out to you if we have any further questions.
If this is your campaign and you need assistance, please contact our support team here: www.gofundme.com/contact
It's the opening ask in negotiations, and notably the invitation to test is withdrawn. That says something. It also says something that no one who has a gamma spectrometer and the wherewithal is posting that they intend to test this device.
... it totally plays in the hands of the sceptics, because even if, since 30 years, 300 million dollars were spent on cold fusion, one can just deduct, that most of the money was on dinners, luxury flights and hotels. And no one knows, how much was left for the real topic... and that already made people sceptical, and 100K for kevmos trip over a weekend.... does simply strengthen the sceptical position.
Even if the rest of the money would be donated... what barely anyone in here really believes into...
Under health and safety rules, only competent persons should work in laboratories without total supervision. I think that says it all.
... it totally plays in the hands of the sceptics, because even if, since 30 years, 300 million dollars were spent on cold fusion
Where did you read it was $300 million? I doubt it was even $50 million.
Didn't kevmo summarize this some posts above ?Quote
The intention is real. 30 years from now after Cold Fusion has broken out and it's a $trillion business, $100k asking price for belling the cat is going to seem incredibly reasonable.
... sorry, misread this.
Claims to be a working permanent magnet (only) motor. Claims not to be a perpetual motion machine because "the magnets eventually wear out" and have to be recharged. They imply it runs on the energy "stored in the magnets" but magnets store very little energy, even massively powerful magnets. Anyway, why not use some of the electrical energy it "produces" to recharge the magnets, the it would be perpetual motion.
You just have to listen to the inventor Dennis Danzik to get the measure of it.
Is anyone here suggesting that there is any chance at all that this is legitimate?
No chance - its absolute crap wasting our time with perpetual motion denial. Whatever next - and the Qi stuff is a load of BS too.
Two tidally locked bodies don't produce tidal friction. That is why Charon is frozen solid. Charon also shows a heavily pitted surface laid down over billions of years. The theory that Pluto's ocean is insulated by a gas hydrate can't happen when that roiling ocean is heavily peppered by large impactors like Charon for billions of years. The only option that remains, Pluto must have an internal heat source. LENR
For Your tiny imagination this might seem true.
For me this sounds as if someone, who either has no clue of the topic he is talking about, but wants to explain something while soundind intelligent, OR just refuses to dig into a matter because it is too hard and therefore looks for some other explanations.
I think, You already know, what e-catworld wrote about 400 experiments where it was tried to replicate AT LEAST ONE TINY JIGGLE-WIGGLE effect which Pons and Fleischmann stated. AND NOT A SINGLE TINY JIGGLE WIGGLE sign, that their nonsense is even in the reachable distance of "possibly possble"... some of You guys must really have a strong belief ( in whatever )...
I think the term pathological skepticism is frequently misused in these parts to the extent that it has very little meaning. Most LENR believers (I don't like that term but I don't know of a good replacement) seem to think that anyone who is not convinced that LENR is a proven phenomenon is a pathological skeptic. I can't help but notice that quite a few of these people do not accept that anthropogenic climate change is real. By my standards, that position is far more akin to pathological skepticism than not being convinced about LENR.
Language is dynamic and the meanings of terms can change over time and not always for the better. The term pathological skepticism is aptly applied to Holocaust deniers, flat earthers, and moon landing deniers. Using it for not being convinced about LENR makes the term nearly meaningless. Of course, many of you will deny that vigorously and we can argue whether that in itself is pathological
Most LENR believers (I don't like that term but I don't know of a good replacement) seem to think that anyone who is not convinced that LENR is a proven phenomenon is a pathological skeptic.
Nope. I have not done an opinion poll, but I suppose that the vast majority of people not convinced that LENR is a proven phenomenon are that way because:
They know nothing about it and have no strong opinion. They read somewhere that the experiments were never replicated and they dismissed it from their minds.
That's not pathological. That's normal. Just about everything I "know" (or think I know) about science and technology is based on similar thin evidence. Or hearsay, really. I read in the Scientific American or the New York Times that some discovery has been made. Or that questions have been raised about a claim. I think, "huh, that's interesting." And I never think about it again. Anyone who looks up cold fusion in Nature or Wikipedia, or Sci. Am. or any other authoritative site will read:
It was never replicated.
It was a mistake.
The reasons it was a mistake were quickly discovered.
That's what those sites say. If I read that about cold fusion, without knowing any details and without reading original sources, I would assume that is correct. Most of the time what you read in Nature or the New York Times is correct. They are usually reliable sources of information.
There are a small number of pathological skeptics. They are people who have read the literature. Or at least, they have been told the literature exists, and invited to read it. This, they refuse to do. Or, they read it but they come up with an endless stream of preposterous reasons to ignore or dismiss the claims. Such as droplets being magically pushed up test tubes which would not actually explain anything. In effect, they claim that the laws of thermodynamics are wrong. These people are delusional. They are fanatics. They think they are the mainstream because they happen to stand with Nature and the DoE. They think the cold fusion researchers are fanatics, but they have it backwards. As Fleischmann said, we are painfully conventional people.
It happens that some of the people here who argue against cold fusion are pathological skeptics and fanatics. If they were not, they wouldn't argue against it. They would be convinced. A normal person does not go around saying (in effect) that calorimeters don't work, calibrations are meaningless, and the heat of vaporization of water has no meaning.
Some of these people have a strong inborn urge to conform. They believe what Nature and other authorities tell them to believe.
Finally, there are people at the DoE, or the APS who are not pathological skeptics, and not fanatics or conformists. They fall into a different category. They are ruthless political animals. They care only about power and money. They crush anyone who opposes them, or who threatens their funding. They will lie, cheat, and casually destroy careers and lives. Unfortunately, many large projects such as the Hubble Telescope are overrun by such people. The more money there is at stake, the more likely such people will be in charge. Cold fusion threatened the plasma fusion budget, so the first group of people who attacked it were the plasma fusion bigwigs. They did not come up with ridiculous fanatical non-science such as magical droplets. They don't do science at all. They called the Boston Globe within a few day of the announcement and told the reporters that Fleischmann and Pons were frauds and criminals and the claims were fake. That's what they say now, to any reporter who asks.
There is also a large group of scientists who believe whatever you pay them to believe, as Stan Szpak put it.
@Jed: "There are a small number of pathological skeptics. They are people who have read the literature. Or at least, they have been told the literature exists, and invited to read it. This, they refuse to do. Or, they read it but they come up with an endless stream of preposterous reasons to ignore or dismiss the claims."
In the Google thread (#156) you said that there were thousands of pathological skeptics with regard to cold fusion. That doesn't strike me a small number at all. But if your screening criterion is that if a person is told that the literature exists but hasn't read it, they are a pathological skeptic, then there are indeed oodles of them. As you say, most of us glean whatever it is we know and think we know about scientific topics from top-level media sources. There is little choice in the matter unless one has infinite amounts of time and infinite amounts of curiosity. Unfortunately, a substantial amount of what is written about every technical topic is at best not really correct and, quite often, dead wrong. Hard to know how to get out of that trap. Then again, the situation is not exactly limited to science these days.
This brings back the topic I raised in the Convince a Skeptic thread: why should a skeptic care? Given that the background signal about cold fusion is rather negative, why should a skeptic burrow deeply enough into the subject to possibly change his opinion? The fact that there exists a body of literature is not really a compelling argument. There exists a body of literature on practically any topic you can name and the uninformed skeptic is hardly in a position to judge the quality or validity of such literature. It's a problem alright. But while it is convenient to label anybody who rubs you the wrong way as a pathological skeptic, marginalizing people who don't have sympathetic views in this way does not change the landscape in any useful way.
In the Google thread (#156) you said that there were thousands of pathological skeptics with regard to cold fusion. That doesn't strike me a small number at all.
Worldwide, it is a trivial number.
But if your screening criterion is that if a person is told that the literature exists but hasn't read it, they are a pathological skeptic, then there are indeed oodles of them.
Let me refine the definition. As I said above, suppose someone glances at Nature or Sci. Am. and reads that cold fusion does not exist. They don't think twice about it after that. That is not pathological. Even if someone tells them in passing "there are papers about this, you know" they might not bother to read them because they trust Nature and they are not particularly interested. They are not pathological because they don't argue.
However, suppose that person then goes to Wikipedia and continually erases any addition to the article claiming that cold fusion might exist. They erase lists of conferences. They delete Wikipedia articles about researchers who contributed to cold fusion. They write angry letters to the editors when any newspaper mentions cold fusion. Or they come here and post comment after comment. And the whole time, they refuse to read anything about the subject. That, I submit, is pathological. It is hard to know how many people there are like that, but there are enough to make it impossible to upload information about cold fusion to public web sites such as Wikipedia. We know those people are ignorant and they refuse to read any original source documents because what they say is nonsense.
There are also people who appear to be obsessed with the subject, and determined to prove some crackpot theory showing why it does not exist. They resemble people who are convinced they can disprove Einstein's theories, except the anti-cold fusion fanatics are determined to erase all science going back to J. P. Joule.
I read the recent U.S. Air Force UFO claims. I thought: "That sounds unlikely. I don't know much about avionics, but I'll bet that's an instrument error." That's as much thought as I gave to it. I am not interested, and I am not qualified to evaluate the data. I wouldn't be surprised if there is a lot more data about this somewhere, but I am not going to read it. I am not a pathological skeptic because I am also not going to argue about it, or to declare I am certain the claims are wrong. I am neutral, trending negative. I would never go to a discussion group web site about this and post messages against the claims.
There are people strongly opposed to cold fusion who make it impossible to fund an experiment or publish a paper. Such as the management at the DoE. I do not know whether they have read the literature. They never make technical claims. They simply say that cold fusion was never replicated. They do not argue. I don't know if they believe what they say, but I wouldn't call them "skeptics" or "pathological skeptics." Maybe they should be called "deniers."
There are people who read the papers but fail to understand them. They are not pathological. Just wrong. Some of them are professional scientists but they make elementary mistakes such as confusing power and energy. See p. 8 for example:
Your redefinition seems reasonable. I’m still not convinced that the people you discuss above should be branded as pathological skeptics, which in my thinking has a fairly specific meaning. But without a doubt the behavior you describe is quite pathological.
I've seen that Cold Fusion on Wikiversity was erased too.
NB: Current Science website is often hard to reach.
Thanks for LENR-CANR, the Library of Alexandria of the domain.
"Forbidden Nuclear Reactions" [eg impurity assisted nuclear second order processes] - https://arxiv.org/pdf/1902.04398.pdf
[with the aid of "Quantum Theory of Dissociative Chemisorption on Metal" - https://www.researchgate.net/p…ve_Chemisorption_on_Metal]
It is not clear whether they followed a known successful setup. Some experts say they advised Google but Google ignored them. Others seem to think Google may be close to success. There is not enough detail in the paper for me to judge.
If they did ignore the literature and experts, they screwed the pooch. I would suspect ill intention in that case, but Hanlon's law may apply: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."
For sure, none of the Google researchers followed the best known successful setup: the boil off experiment performed by F&P in April-May 1992 (1). Had they done so, they would surely have obtained the exact same behavior documented in the following video:
However, Google people knew that this experiment was the most reliable among those performed by the CF pioneers and that it was widely praised by the old guard and by all LENR supporters until recently. In fact, ref.12 in Nature paper cites the article published in 2009 by Krivit and Marwan, which presents the 1992 F&P experiment in this very positive way (2): "By 1993, Fleischmann and Pons had developed such control of their experiments, particularly the cathode material, that they had the confidence and ability to set up a row of four cells side by side and initiate anomalous-heat reactions on all four at will."
So, if Trevithick's intention is really to solve the mystery of cold fusion, all he has to do is asking Google to fund an adequate replica of this single crucial experiment. It's not at all difficult, nor too expensive. There is plenty of documentation on this experimental setup. They can replicate it very accurately. Replicators should just add a simple instrument to continuously monitor the cell weight in order to directly measure the electrolyte mass, so that they can derive the correct trend of the energy lost by evaporation along the whole experiment.
The running of the 1992 setup will certainly exhibit the same experimental behavior reported by F&P in their ICCF3 paper and documented in the various available versions of their lab video (3).
But when Google replicators will recalculate the heat balance based on the actual trend of the water mass inside the cell, they will not find any excess heat at all, contrary to what reported by F&P in their ICCF3 paper and subsequent documents. At that point they will realize the true reason of the "subsequent failures to reproduce the effect" mentioned in their Nature's paper and will understand why the FPHE is just a foamy illusion.
PS - If they start preparing the setup right now, they might be able to show the results at the next ICCF22 in Assisi.
My confidence level is 7 out of 10
that Rossi will be succesful.
It helps to keep it there knowing
people like Iggy Dairymple still believe in Rossi.
Good for You.
I remember some guys, who, just some years ago, started to be confident about our earth being flat.
I think, You and this community would do wise to get Yourself a private room...