Clearance Items

  • It seems to me that you are the one interested in judging people.

    People are difficult...but I find it more difficult to judge avatars.. whether they be Italian or Russki


    "Ascoli65 said: January 13, 2017 at 7:27 pm

    @ Camillo, (Franchini)

    - (Use unnecessarily unpleasant expressions in a comment where you claim that humanity is in trouble from an energy point of view. )

    I apologize to you for the unpleasant harshness of some of my sentences,

    but I was forced to try to overcome an impasse that by now made our exchange of views similar to a dialogue between the deaf.

    However, this blog of yours is the only site left in Italy to deal with cold fusion.

    It is not a small thing, especially if the FF(COLD FUSION) is not taken in its own right,

    but it is considered for what it is,

    that is the most absurd and ridiculous attempt by man to deceive himself about his ability to procure the energy

    of which he needs to continue to benefit permanently from the comforts and luxuries deriving from the fortunate discovery of a treasure

    hidden for millions of years, but alas in the process of exhaustion.


  • Hi Ascoli65 ,


    You are constantly judging. Stop it and grow a pair. Else go to ECW. We don't want that kind of behaviour here.


    Cheers,


    JB

  • Forgive me, but I don't understand Ascoli's point. In the TG thread, he repeatedly suggested the boil off experiment and, over time, it became clear that he believed that if TG did this experiment, they would see F&P's mistake and understand that LENR wasn't real. Ascoli continually uses the assertion that F&P made errors as proof that LENR isn't real.


    But even if F&P were in error, that doesn't prove anything about LENR in 2019. There are a corpus of experiments and results, they are diverse, and they are convincing in of themselves.

  • Quote

    7/20 -- this photo post of the guy doing the raspberry is completely off topic and ruins your comments for the rest of us. Please don't inflame the other party like this

    You might want to address robert bryant about it. If he removes his senseless taunts, I will remove the image. Speaking of which, you just added another copy.

  • ... "LENR experiments to date are improving in term of reliability, but the amount and quality of the energy output (primarily heat) remains poor. Microscopic inspection of the surfaces of reactor components indicate that on a very local livel, the power density (quality of heat) is very high. The poor performance of the device is simply due to the very small fraction of the device that is LENR active - very small several orders of magnitude less than 1%. This is a direct result of these experiments all relying on random chance to create the proper environ" ...


    [Questionable statement from nine years ago NASA Widom-Larsen flavour application now abandoned - USPTO 61/317379 of 3-10-2010: "LENR experiments to date are improving in term of reliability..."]

  • Forgive me, but I don't understand Ascoli's point. In the TG thread, he repeatedly suggested the boil off experiment and, over time, it became clear that he believed that if TG did this experiment, they would see F&P's mistake and understand that LENR wasn't real. Ascoli continually uses the assertion that F&P made errors as proof that LENR isn't real.


    Not exactly, or at least not in this direct way. The fact that F&P were in error doesn't prove by itself that LENR is not real. It only proves that F&P could make mistakes. However, this also means nothing. Everyone can make mistakes. The big problem is that F&P didn't recognize and admit them. This behavior is contrary to scientific rules. But, once again, it doesn't disprove the phenomena claimed by F&P and their emulators. However it greatly reduces their scientific reliability. As a result, it raises by the same amount the level of proofs that should be provided to pretend that the scientific community gives some confidence to the reality of their experimental claims, which, moreover, are also in conflict with the accepted theory.


    In this situation, the wide repeatability of the claimed phenomena becomes a mandatory requirement for LENR to be considered real. But even LENR researchers are unable to replicate their best experiments on a regular basis and their success rate is indistinguishable from that caused by undetected artifacts. In conclusion, the combination of all these facts is such that there are not enough reasons to consider LENR as a real physical phenomenon.


    So said, the syllogism linking the F&P errors to the lack of LENR reality is not mine. It was stated by JedRothwell :

    From How many times has the Pons-Fleischmann Anomalous Heating Event been replicated in peer reviewed journals?


    Q: OK. How could LENR be disproved?

    That's obvious! You just show there is a mistake in an experiment, and out it goes. […]


    The same bald defy to the CF critics was repeated many other times (1).


    The last one was launched by JR just a few weeks ago (2): "No one has found any significant potential errors in any of the major experiments". This happened although "significant [real] errors" were found in the major experiment of CF founders, and described in this forum for about one year. So, it seems that LENR community is unable to fulfill one of the most basic rule in scientific research: to admit the past errors.


    This unscientific behavior provides an image of LENR community as a sort of clan which defends the claims of his past and present members regardless of the soundness of the criticisms raised about them. IMO, this refusal to admit even the most blatant errors has a strong negative impact on the scientific credibility of the field and discourages the mainstream scientists to take into consideration its most recent experiments and results.


    Quote

    But even if F&P were in error, that doesn't prove anything about LENR in 2019. There are a corpus of experiments and results, they are diverse, and they are convincing in of themselves.


    Well, let me say that your sentence contains an "if" that can and must be removed, one way or another. This is why I proposed TG to repeat the "1992 boil-off experiment".


    (1) How many times has the Pons-Fleischmann Anomalous Heating Event been replicated in peer reviewed journals?

    (2) Google (UBC/MIT/LBNL) post Nature updates.


  • Why don't you do it?


    The "1992 boil-off experiment" should be repeated by someone who has the full confidence of the CF/LENR community and the resources for setting-up a replica of the F&P open cell which is as close as possible to the original one. TG is the perfect candidate. I just took the occasion that was offered to the L-F members to make them a proposal.


    As an alternative, can , which is very skilled in the field, could perhaps set-up a similar experiment. Maybe, I will ask him.


    But only by you it seems. Somehow I don't think that counts as 'significant'.


    They are significant for me, of course. But also for Robert Horst (1) and for a few others L-F member who looked at the evidences.


    (1) FP's experiments discussion