Rossi vs. Darden aftermath discussions

Yes

Quote from [email protected]

So then, since the Pons-Fleischmann Anomalous Heat Effect has been replicated in 153 peer reviewed journals, across more than 180 labs and 14,700 instances, would you say that it is a well established scientific anomaly? Because there are people on this very forum who disagree with that.

I think it is established. The problem is that the levels and "COP" are not at levels that make it easy to produce at will and it is very far from being commercially viable. Sometimes I doubt that it will ever be at truly useful levels with cost effective materials.

Quote from [email protected]

I have my doubts about commercialization as well, but a few good gamma ray replications by MFMP could break open the investigation for the field.

not sure that replications by MFMP would be "worth much" for getting people back into the field. It will likely take a national lab .... or two.

Quote from [email protected]

So then, since the Pons-Fleischmann Anomalous Heat Effect has been replicated in 153 peer reviewed journals, across more than 180 labs and 14,700 instances, would you say that it is a well established scientific anomaly? Because there are people on this very forum who disagree with that.

Sometimes it's interesting how people pick and choose their facts. What about how companies spent over $100 million in 2017 dollars trying to replicate the P&F effect with a 100% failure rate. In some of these experiments you deem positive, there were dozens, if not hundreds of failures for every success. This means the success was likely noise or some other error. Also, how do you explain IH's not announcing any success so far? Also, no reputable University or national has ever officially given it's stamp of approval to any LENR or CF reslts although many have tried to prove it..

Quote from [email protected]

MFMP would create the buzz that piques the interest of that national lab or two. Right now they're not interested at all.

Well the big problem with LENR/CF is there is 100% buzz and 0% substance. If you had fewer individuals trying to appeal to investors and donors and more people trying to appeal to University physic's departments so they can correct the measurement errors in their tests, maybe this field would go somewhere.

Quote from lenrisnotreal

What about how companies spent over $100 million in 2017 dollars trying to replicate the P&F effect with a 100% failure rate.

What companies were these? I have never heard of any such thing. If it happened, I would probably hear about it eventually.

Quote from lenrisnotreal

In some of these experiments you deem positive, there were dozens, if not hundreds of failures for every success. This means the success was likely noise or some other error.

As I pointed out, in the 1950s, 80% to 90% of some transistor production batches failed. No one said transistors do not exist for that reason. The first attempts to clone sheep took thousands of attempts to achieve one success. No one said clones do not exist. The success rate of an experiment has no bearing on whether it works or not. That can only be judged by the signal to noise ratio. When cold fusion does work, or when transistors or clones work, the s/n ratio is high. The results are unmistakable.

Quote from lenrisnotreal

Also, how do you explain IH's not announcing any success so far?

They have not had any success so far.

Quote from lenrisnotreal

Also, no reputable University or national has ever officially given it's stamp of approval to any LENR or CF reslts although many have tried to prove it..

Universities never give a stamp of approval. Professors at universities publish papers. At LENR-CANR.org you will find many papers from many professors at many universities. The universities seldom get involved. I have worked with enough professors to see the wisdom of this.

On the other hand, U. Utah helped found the National Cold Fusion Research Institute (NCFI) for about $10 million as I recall. They produced fabulous results. Some of the best in the history of the field. If this were treated as normal science in a rational way, the NCFI results would instantly convince every scientist on earth that cold fusion is real. See, for example:

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/WillFGtritiumgen.pdf

BARC, Los Alamos, China Lake, the ENEA, and other national labs and the NSF often publish their own papers, which you might consider a stamp of approval. You will find collections of cold fusion papers from them at LENR-CANR.org. They are all positive.

Quote from [email protected]

I have money in my pocket by betting on Dr. Arata getting his LENR results published in peer reviewed journals

Arata is no longer active. He is in very poor health. But anyway, he has been famous since the 1940s with a long list of patents, awards from the previous and present Emperor, etc. As he says, "the Shinkansen trains would not run were it not for me." He can publish in any journal in Japan he wants, including the flagship Jap. J. Applied Physics. The leading journal relating to heat, heat engineering and so on published a whole issue devoted to his work, with papers by him and by others. The International Institute of Welding established a prize in his name:

http://www.iiwelding.org/Lists/PrizesAndAwards/AllItems.aspx

Osaka Nat. U. has a building named in his honor, with his lab and others in it. I have never heard of a Japanese national university naming a building after someone who is still alive, but they did, a long time ago. (Note that I attended a Japanese Nat. U., so I know what they are like. The food is awful.)

Cold fusion was mainly replicated by distinguished scientists such as Arata, Bockis, Oriani and Yeager because of academic politics. Less famous scientists would have gotten into huge trouble if they had tried to replicate. Especially if they succeeded. The famous ones had clout, independent funding, and they could do as they pleased. No one in the last 60 years ever told Arata or Bockris what to do. They would bite your head off! They both had fierce tempers.

Yeager was a nice fellow, I have heard. I never met him. Oriani was very nice.

And by fast forwarding to 2017 with $100M you're looking at companies that are trying to go into production, not replicating the effect.

Which companies are trying to do into production with a scientifically definite replicable effect? IH is looking for such and has high hopes but no definites yet, so I wonder what you refer to? In the nature of these things (take superconductivity,as is popular here although not a great comparable) there is a lot of research work done before the commercial applications kick in.

When you say "some of these experiments were deemed positive" then that means the effect is real.

That is clearly not universally true. It would depend who did the deeming, and how strong was the evidence. In this case even many LENR people say the evidence from any one specific experiment is not convincing, so again you'd ned to post specifics for your assertion to be tested. it is not general knowledge.

There seems to be no other field in science where there is such reticence to accept peer reviewed factuality from top experts.

True, but there are pseudosciences where the same degree of caution exists. LENR, sociologically, is on the borderline between pseudoscience and science. The type of argument you advance here, general and dismissive of skeptics, is typical of pseudoscience. however there are real scientists generating results. Some of these write up the results in a way that is similar to pseudo-science, with inflated claims and a lack of checking. Others do good work, but not thus far, even after many years, with results that will convince skeptics who hope for LENR but follow rational methods in evaluating claims.

So, NO, it does not mean the success was likely noise or some other error.

We partly disagree. Partly, because low-level calorimetric issues - as Kirk notes, seem real and require an explanation. For me, some variant of Kirk's CCS/ATER seems most plausible for these specific results. Other results seem likley noise or error (and I can provide candidates for almost all of these), though that could change (U of Austin experiments ongoing).

That simply does not happen in science with the top electrochemists.

Everyone can make errors, which is why top experimentalists have methodology that guards against this. Such methodology, written up with experimental results, would represent something interesting. Unfortunately thus far the better the methodology and checking, the less clear-cut the results. McKubre is a good example here. Replicating high level results with very accurate calorimetry and careful practice, he got results that were much lower level.

Worth noting that where a top electrochemist has bet their career and reputation on a specific controversial hypothesis, they more likely not to present results with the required objectivity. Only human nature.

Kevmo apparently doesn't know that the sector has a very long way to go.

Quote from JedRothwell

What companies were these? I have never heard of any such thing. If it happened, I would probably hear about it eventually.

Not real-I am with Jed- where do you get that 100M figure? The largest expenditure I have seen is the F&P lab in France supported by Toyota /IMRA was only $40M. And they did get "replications of the effect" even to the level of boil offs lasting for days. It is just that did not seem to achieve commercial viability due to the difficulty of consistency of materials.

Quote from THHuxleynew

LENR, sociologically, is on the borderline between pseudoscience and science.

LENR is not one thing. It is not a unified effort with everyone in agreement. Some LENR research looks like pseudoscience to me. Other research looks like conventional science done by experts, well grounded in textbook science. I would put McKubre, Miles and Storms in the latter category. You cannot blame them for pseudoscience done by other people in other labs that he has no connection to.

In short, it makes no sense to say that "LENR is on the borderline . . ." You can only point to individual studies and put them on the borderline or far away from it. The same can be said for things like cancer treatments. Some are mainstream while others are extremely unconventional and not supported by ordinary medical science. The people doing the former have no connection to the latter, and they would resent it if you tarred them all with the same brush.

Quote from oldguy

Not real-I am with Jed- where do you get that 100M figure? The largest expenditure I have seen is the F&P lab in France supported by Toyota /IMRA was only $40M. And they did get "replications of the effect" even to the level of boil offs lasting for days. It is just that did not seem to achieve commercial viability due to the difficulty of consistency of materials.

http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/

from wikipedia:

In 1992, Pons and Fleischman resumed research with Toyota Motor Corporation's IMRA lab in France.^[54] Fleischmann left for England in 1995, and the contract with Pons was not renewed in 1998 after spending $40 million with no tangible results.^[56] The IMRA laboratory stopped cold fusion research in 1998 after spending £12 million.^[1] Pons has made no public declarations since, and only Fleischmann continued giving talks and publishing papers.^[56]

You can't pick and choose. A quick search will show there have been likely thousands of failed CF/LENR attempts. Also, a high percentage of the positive claims were retracted once experts used their advanced techniques to study the data.

Take these values and plug them into the inflation calc. Then add all the other millions spent by various groups during this time and you will get $100 million + in 2017 dollars.

Quote from lenrisnotreal

n 1992, Pons and Fleischman resumed research with Toyota Motor Corporation's IMRA lab in France.[54] Fleischmann left for England in 1995, and the contract with Pons was not renewed in 1998 after spending $40 million with no tangible results.

Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information. There were tangible results. See Roulette.

Quote from THHuxleynew

Unfortunately thus far the better the methodology and checking, the less clear-cut the results. McKubre is a good example here.

That is incorrect. McKubre achieved very clear-cut results, such as the ones shown in this graph:

http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress…loads/McKubre-graph-2.jpg

Quote from JedRothwell

That is incorrect. McKubre achieved very clear-cut results, such as the ones shown in this graph:

http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress…loads/McKubre-graph-2.jpg

The issue with these results cannot be seen from that graph - and you need the details.

The excess power was 5% of the input power, and (as shown) roughly proportional to input power. That makes artifacts possible, and arguing that none such could exist complex. Hence not clear cut.