Clearance Items

Quote from Alan Smith

T here are many things that are stranger than fiction Maybe you should send out for some of them? Meanwhile I have a question for you. Do you think LENR is possible?

I don't know, but I am sure that more than 99% of scientific community consider LENR impossible, while more than 0.9% consider LENR "fringe" science. Consequently much less than 0.1% consider LENR a proven fact! You can prove this by yourself, just ask to some randomly chosen physicists from academic institutions, excluding the so-called "independent researchers"!

To explain LENR you must resolve the "three cold fusion miracles" problem.

"Tre miracoli in serie, come si può vedere, quindi particolarmente improbabili. Se ciò non bastasse, si può anche osservare che le teorie ad hoc non rappresentano un modo corretto di fare scienza"

https://www.cicap.org/n/articolo.php?id=273583

Quote from Curbina

So, you believe in scientific consensus,

At least, are you fully aware what does imply NOT believing in scientific consensus?

You are implicitly stating that tens (if not hundreds) of billions of both taxpayers and private dollars are being wasted in obsolete technologies and in experiments based on obsolete theories! This also implies that ALL mainstream (scientific and not) journals do not care a cent of a potential revolutionary technology that can easily solve the climate change problem and pollution !

Why the world-wide known little-girl Greta has not said a single word on LENR ?

Listen to the scientists

http://www.theguardian.com/env…berg-tells-congress-video

What's the difference between not believing in scientific consensus and believing in conspiracy theories?

Quote from Walter Pegeto

At least, are you fully aware what does imply NOT believing in scientific consensus?

You are implicitly stating that tens (if not hundreds) of billions of both taxpayers and private dollars are being wasted in obsolete technologies and in experiments based on obsolete theories!

The 'scientific consensus' is not a valid metric for evaluating whether a claim is true, or scientifically valid (but maybe not true after all). That's not how science works. Evaluation must be based on objective standards in comparison to known laws of physics, textbook knowledge and logic. The laws and textbooks might be wrong, or inaccurate, but they are the starting point. Whereas a "consensus" is merely a majority opinion.

Science is not a popularity contest. If one person finds an error, or does an experiment showing there is something new that cannot be explained, every other scientist on earth may disagree, but they are all wrong. One experiment overrules all theories, textbooks and opinions. Consensus means nothing in the face of replicated cold fusion experiments. All new discoveries start off with one scientist knowing the truth, and every other one being wrong.

Consensus is also a useless metric because unless you take a poll, you don't even know what the consensus is in many cases. Even if you find out, without detailed information on the poll respondents, you cannot reach a conclusion. For example, suppose your poll shows that that 80% of scientists think cold fusion does not exist, 19% don't know, and 1% think it is real. Suppose you examine the 99% who think it does not exist or don't know, and you find that none of those respondents has read the literature. Whereas the 1% who think it is real have read the literature. Only the 1% have any right to an opinion. You cannot make assertions about a scientific subject if you have not read the literature and you don't know anything about it.

That is not a hypothetical situation. I have read the critiques of the field in mainstream literature and in the mass media. Every negative report I know of was written by people who did not know what instruments are used, what results are obtained, or what conclusions have been reached. They resemble people in 1900 who said airplanes could not exist because we have no idea how to make anti-gravity machines. (Those people were not all fools; Edison was one of them.) That was true, but irrelevant.

Consensus is not a valid metric. It is a weak guide to guessing what is true. It works with well established areas of science such as evolution, but so do conventional methods of evaluation: looking at the facts and thinking for yourself. It should never be applied to a new claim, because scientists -- like everyone else -- tend to reject new ideas out of hand. That's probably instinctual. Here is a long list of quotes describing that reaction:

http://amasci.com/weird/skepquot.html

Some examples:

"If we watch ourselves honestly we shall often find that we have begun to argue against a new idea even before it has been completely stated." - Wilfred Trotter

"The human understanding, when any preposition has been once laid down... forces everything else to add fresh support and confirmation; and although more cogent and abundant instances may exist to the contrary, yet it either does not observe them or it despises them, or it gets rid of and rejects them by some distinction, with violent and injurious prejudice, rather than sacrifice the authority of its first conclusions." - Francis Bacon, Novum Organum

"Be not astonished at new ideas; for it is well known to you that a thing does not therefore cease to be true because it is not accepted by many." - Spinoza

Quote from Walter Pegeto

Is the distance between two points in this 4d space euclidean (d=sqrt(x2+y2+z2+w2)) ?

This all depends on what you do in the e.g. SO(4) space. We are interested in higher order rotations (3,4,5) that define the mass of particles. In rotation space time is angle, as the velocity is angle/s but this implies you have a common worldliness for coupled rotations, what usually is not the case. Thus the only thing we can say about time is its length = 2π or a multiple of it. This is no problem as we know that the speed of light is constant and EM flux always moves at speed of light. Thus the best we can give are ratios between frequencies on a common rotation surface.

Quote from Walter Pegeto

You are implicitly stating that tens (if not hundreds) of billions of both taxpayers and private dollars are being wasted in obsolete technologies and in experiments based on obsolete theories! This also implies that ALL mainstream (scientific and not) journals do not care a cent of a potential revolutionary technology that can easily solve the climate change problem and pollution !

ITER and most parts of CERN just deliver answers to questions of no value for our society. Bred & games prevent, may be, these physicists from developing even bigger nonsense...

Of course is the theory behind the above projects obsolete in a sense that it explains nothing about LENR or fusion in general. But the military is not interested in the internals of fusion or LENR it only likes the follow up big bang. For this the models are about adequate...

To make in more clear: ITER e.g. is 200% wasted taxpayers money (100% more needed for the cleanup after the first activation..)

Quote from JedRothwell

It should never be applied to a new claim, because scientists -- like everyone else -- tend to reject new ideas out of hand. That's probably instinctual.

It's called 'cognitive closure' in the psych literature.

Wiki Link

Edit: for some reason, the forum is not playing nice with the link when I paste it as plain text.

Wyttenbach - it seems it is out of your control, to give up on ranting, hating and throwing mud and insults on hot fusion, ITER, CERN and all employees there and in general on on everybody who still sees any value in SM ....I am convinced LENR will make its way into scientific community earlier or later, and we will see products some day. I do like your approach with your theory to try to answer so far unanswered questions or wrong answers, but as a few others here I would like you to argue and discuss your stuff in a common scientific manner and give up on your mud fight...you should really rethink your childish huffiness.

Quote from Curbina

Not believing in scientific consensus could have saved hundreds of lives back in the days of Semmelweis. And just like in Semmelweis’s case, the tragic effect of the delay in realizing how important was his work, is better explained by Hanlon’s Razor, and was not a conspiracy.

“Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity“.

Science is as plagued by stupidity as any other field of human endeavor. So no conspiracy involved here, just failure to accept or understand the importance of evidence that does not fit to the consensus. It has happened many times before in science.

Right, people are incredibly specialised in their professional understanding, even unnecessarily so. Decorated institutional scholars often don't see the interdisciplinary patterns or listen to observations produced by people underneath them on the socio-economic-academic hierarchy, people who might have a higher aptitude for the topic or a unique valid perspective.

Quote from orsova

It's called 'cognitive closure' in the psych literature.

Wiki Link

Edit: for some reason, the forum is not playing nice with the link when I paste it as plain text.

Ahh my, sometimes we have to use effort to let go of instinct in order to push out the product of curiosity. There should be understanding peers to help clean up and not fire you if things go a different way, supporting you to keep going.

Quote from zorud

Wyttenbach - it seems it is out of your control, to give up on ranting, hating and throwing mud and insults on hot fusion, ITER, CERN and all employees there and in general on on everybody who still sees any value in SM ....I am convinced LENR will make its way into scientific community earlier or later, and we will see products some day. I do like your approach with your theory to try to answer so far unanswered questions or wrong answers, but as a few others here I would like you to argue and discuss your stuff in a common scientific manner and give up on your mud fight...you should really rethink your childish huffiness.

At least make sure the mud fight is all in good intentions and a friendly workout! Don't you want all the sincer researchers to lose their biases Dr. Wyttenbach, not get turned off or lose their jobs!?

"Referred to Level 2 (LARS) by OIPE CSR >>> Referred for NASA Property Rights review by L&R LARS"

No NASA relationship - a pity: Boeing X37-B deserves muonic propulsion

Already seen, but without cosmic rays

I like where your mind is going! @Alfors A micro-fusion, or Andrea SKL powered hybrid jet would do wonders and be able to go almost anywhere. Reminds me of a concept Musk talked a lot about VTOL electric supersonic jets he called them. Imagine combining VTOL electric capability backed, at altitude, with a high density heat source. Lift off from a field or parking lot probably, no power density hangups, let her rip!

Quote from JedRothwell

The 'scientific consensus' is not a valid metric for evaluating whether a claim is true, or scientifically valid (but maybe not true after all). That's not how science works. Evaluation must be based on objective standards in comparison to known laws of physics, textbook knowledge and logic. The laws and textbooks might be wrong, or inaccurate, but they are the starting point. Whereas a "consensus" is merely a majority opinion.

Science is not a popularity contest. If one person finds an error, or does an experiment showing there is something new that cannot be explained, every other scientist on earth may disagree, but they are all wrong. One experiment overrules all theories, textbooks and opinions. Consensus means nothing in the face of replicated cold fusion experiments. All new discoveries start off with one scientist knowing the truth, and every other one being wrong.

I totally agree on this. The very low level of scientific consensus towards CF/LENR cannot be considered a sufficient reason to deny its reality.

However, a much simpler reason to deny the existence of CF/LENR is that all its major supporters and researchers state with absolute certainty that the two pioneers of the field were right in reporting the results of their experiments. This is demonstrably wrong. F&P made huge errors. Errors that no LENR believer is willing to admit. This is the real reason that has allowed a worldwide research on an impossible phenomena to last for 30 years.

An example of this fact is provided by one of the most renowned researcher in the field in a recent interview.

This is the transcription of his words at the beginning of the video:

He said that it he wouldn't have continued to work on CF if he found errors in the initial F&P experiments. Probably, this reason also applies to many others of the thousands CF researchers (Japanese, Americans, Russian, etc.) that he mentioned. But in reality, F&P were wrong. Therefore, the entire CF history is based on their errors, on their refusal to admit them and on the incapacity of the whole scientific community (both CF and mainstream) to detect this true errors and to correctly highlight them to the public.

Another muonic "engine" [sort of] not needing galactic juices for lift off from a field or parking lot

Some opinion is based on consensus

some not..

from Fusionfredda website,, now defunct?

viva la patria..

“So the basic problem - completely theoretical, I realize - of a transition to a sustainable society is to return to the per capita energy consumption levels at the beginning of the nineteenth century”

The obvious lack of seriousness of these initiatives, combined with the protectionist reaction of the environments in which they were carried out, inevitably caused my confidence to collapse in all the rest of the research conducted in those environments, including hot fusion. I am very sorry for those, and they will certainly be many, who apply you with competence and scruple, but unfortunately there is something wrong with the base. It is perceived that a large part of scientific-technological research has lost contact with external reality, namely with the material and temporal constraints of the planet. The institutes that lead it increasingly resemble factories of dreams hanging on colorful balloons or colorful balloons, to be passed off as public opinion.

All right, we all think, it's not complicated to understand. In practice we agree on everything except nuclear fission.
This difference is fundamental. Excluding nuclear power means excluding the only area from which a hypothetical technological miracle capable of sustaining our lifestyle for billions of people can come. It means becoming aware of the fact that there is no "7th cavalry" behind the hill and that we must equip ourselves to resist with what we have at home or at hand. The American electorate realized this and elected who promised to make them an island. The English, who have always been on an island, have preferred to focus on Anglo-Saxon solidarity, rather than on that of Europe, which has very little to share. We Italians also need to look around and start taking stock of the little we have under our feet and above our heads, before they even take that away from us. ..

et cetera et cetera...