Display MoreYou keep using that terrible analogy but the conclusion is correct -- the success rate doesn't matter. The success itself DOES. A few working transistors allowed testing which proved the concept. A single cloned sheep could be carefully studied to prove she was really a clone. A single long duration, controlled flight by the Wrights proved "man" could fly.
If the success rate doesn't matter then why was it brought up as if it nullifies the replications of the Pons Fleischmann Anomalous Heat Event?
So if you could get high power, high signal to noise, and long duration just once in a thousand experiments, you would get respect.
The effect was replicated at >180 labs, published >150 times in the peer reviewed literature by the top electrochemists of their day. You're just moving the goal posts in a Humpty Dumpty attempt to alter the parameters that they SHOULD have addressed because it would have made you feel better.
As long as the result is aas clear as a transistor, a sheep, or a heavier-than-air flight. The problem is not that LENR doesn't meet stringent criteria like those OFTEN.
What you just said here is a direct contradiction to what you said earlier that the success rate doesn't matter.
It's that it doesn't meet them at all in an OCCASIONALLY replicable manner.
It does not matter how OCCASIONALLY it has been replicated, it has been replicated. And just like Jed points out, in the early days of transistors there were similar failure rates. YOur position here makes no sense.
I know you disagree but that is how I see it and much more important, it is how most scientists who considered it see it.
Most ELECTROCHEMISTS who put together their own cells and generated data published their findings in peer reviewed reports and there was more than 150 of those. Most "scientists" that you're citing would include the vast majority of people who have no experience or expertise in the field of electrochemistry.
The experiments you have cited as evidence do not, IMHO, rise anywhere near the level of a flying airplane, a sheep or a transistor. THAT'S the problem.
No, the problem was that these findings fell directly into the back yard of hot fusion scientists who aggressively moved to protect their meal ticket. Why do you cite your IMHO humble opinion in direct contrast to the top hundred electrochemists of their day? YOu are not one of them. You have some familiarity with calorimetry but you are nowhere near the top hundred of electrochemistry.
Rossi vs. Darden aftermath discussions
-
-
Do I trust your views on these papers? No on general principles, I would not trust even an expert who had outlying views from consensus
You are confused. The consensus of experts is that cold fusion is real. I do not know any leading electrochemist who disagrees, and I know lots of leading electcrochemists. Perhaps you have in mind the consensus of plasma physicists or nuclear physicists. They know nothing about cold fusion so their views do not count, any more than the views of biologists, bankers or country music fans do.
When you look for a scientific consensus, you must be sure that it includes only experts in the subject who are well versed in the literature. You cannot include scientists who have not read the literature. If you cite their views, you have made a fallacious appeal to authority (false authority) logical fallacy. As you see from the 2004 DoE panel, many of panel members read nothing and knew nothing. Their "objections" were based on theory or pop science platitudes. Essentially they were saying what Huizenga said: "my theory says this can't happen, so it can't happen." That violates the scientific method.
-
Huizenga said: "my theory says this can't happen, so it can't happen."said: "my theory says this can't happen, so it can't happen."
Huizenga is correct, fusion cannot happen as explained by current cold fusion theories, especially the fusion that is purportedly occurring in pure protium (aka Ni/H fusion).
-
Huizenga said: "my theory says this can't happen, so it can't happen."said: "my theory says this can't happen, so it can't happen."
Huizenga is correct, fusion cannot happen as explained by current cold fusion theories, especially the fusion that is purportedly occurring in pure protium (aka Ni/H fusion).
Huizenga was correct about the theory, but incorrect when he concluded that it cannot happen, or that it did not happen. The experiments show that it did happen, so his theories are overruled. That's the scientific method. When theory and replicated experiments conflict, theory always loses, experiments always win. No exceptions granted.
Huizenga's exact words were:
"Furthermore, if the claimed excess heat exceeds that possible by other conventional processes (chemical, mechanical, etc.), one must conclude that an error has been made in measuring the excess heat."
One cannot conclude that unless one can point to the error. Waving your hands and saying "there must be an error somewhere" is not science. You don't get free pass for claiming there is an invisible error that someone is bound to find eventually.
-
When theory and replicated experiments conflict, theory always loses, experiments always win. No exceptions granted.
"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong." - Richard P. Feynman
-
You are confused. The consensus of experts is that cold fusion is real. I do not know any leading electrochemist who disagrees, and I know lots of leading electcrochemists. Perhaps you have in mind the consensus of plasma physicists or nuclear physicists. They know nothing about cold fusion so their views do not count, any more than the views of biologists, bankers or country music fans do.
When you look for a scientific consensus, you must be sure that it includes only experts in the subject who are well versed in the literature. You cannot include scientists who have not read the literature. If you cite their views, you have made a fallacious appeal to authority (false authority) logical fallacy. As you see from the 2004 DoE panel, many of panel members read nothing and knew nothing. Their "objections" were based on theory or pop science platitudes. Essentially they were saying what Huizenga said: "my theory says this can't happen, so it can't happen." That violates the scientific method.
Hey Jed. I don't know how old you are but I'm guessing you're older than me.
It is time for you to bring up a successor, a designated apprentice who will take your reins because eventually, you will not be able to keep doing what you're doing.
You need to train some fresh blood in this game and move him or her along in pushing the LENR story. Do you have a son? Is he interested in this stuff? It is time to consider that this effort may take more than one generation to fulfill its purpose.
Like you say, " The consensus of experts is that cold fusion is real. I do not know any leading electrochemist who disagrees," but the next generation is barely aware that the Pons Fleischmann Anomalous Heat Event has been replicated more than 150 times in peer reviewed studies, by more than 180 labs and more than 14,000 instances. You really need to consider bringing online a designated successor to your Alexandrian Library of LENR lest it get burned down by Caesar.
-
-
You're basically hiding behind "most scientists think..." You cite tht there were "political and social issues at the time that made hasty judgments possible" but don't develop that incredible line of bullshit, because the top hundred electochemists of their day (you're not one of them) replicated the pons-fleischmann anomalous heat effect and submitted it to peer review >150 times. That makes the replicated event NOT AN OUTLIER, but your own position is the scientific outlier. In fact, there isn't even ONE peer reviewed paper that shoots down those 153 replications, not one. You like to give credence to Shanahan, whose work MIGHT shoot down half a dozen if he bothered to put together an experiment to show it's worth pursuing, but you don't give credence to the top electrochemists of their day. That's kind of an amazing distinction.
I'm not hiding behind anything, and personalising the issue - attacking the character of opponents - does not advance your argument.
You have repeated the same mantra: the top hundred electochemists of their day replicated the pons-fleischmann anomalous heat effect and submitted it to peer review >150 times many many times. You have not addressed my argument, which is that determining whether what was repeated is in fact a nuclear anomaly, or something else, is at best not clear cut. At the time those 100s of electrochemists decided there was no nuclear anomaly worth pursuing - except for a few outliers. Or the world's electrochemistry journals would be still publishing LENR papers.
Nor have you engaged with the reasons why those many scientists might have felt the results they obtained were not clear proof of some Nobel Prize worthy new science - had they felt that they would without doubt have continued. Academic freedom was then and still is a reality, and when a whole field believes something is worth pursuing it gets pursued.
I wonder whether your intention in this dialog is to exchange facts and ideas?
-
Display More
You have not addressed my argument,
As far as I can tell, this is the first time you actually stated your argument on this particular thread. It's really quite difficult to address an unstated argument.
which is that determining whether what was repeated is in fact a nuclear anomaly, or something else, is at best not clear cut.
That is not the purpose of replication. You claim to be a PhD scientist and yet you don't seem to understand the purpose of simply replicating an experiment.
At the time those 100s of electrochemists decided there was no nuclear anomaly worth pursuing - except for a few outliers.
No, they decided that their careers weren't worth the trouble of a bunch of asshole nuclear physicists going around ruining their reputations and working environment. Funding dried up, so they moved on.
Or the world's electrochemistry journals would be still publishing LENR papers.
For someone who claims to hold a PhD, you are decidedly clueless.
Nor have you engaged with the reasons why those many scientists might have felt the results they obtained were not clear proof of some Nobel Prize worthy new science - had they felt that they would without doubt have continued.
It was Nobel Prize worthy science. Alas, Fleischmann will never get the Nobel because it is only awarded to living persons. Your wording here is strange: Why scientists "might have felt"? And you are also arguing from silence -- "had they felt, they would have".... YOu don't know what other people felt, and putting the whole thing on feelings is stupid. It is obvious from the literature that the experiments would have continued if the funding continued.
Academic freedom was then and still is a reality, and when a whole field believes something is worth pursuing it gets pursued.
Except that there really is not much academic freedom, looking at how cold fusioneers have been treated. Up until now I didn't realize how clueluess you are about how this field has been mistreated. But that subject doesn't really belong on a Rossi-Darden aftermath thread.
I wonder whether your intention in this dialog is to exchange facts and ideas?
I wonder the same about you. But you've managed to add a level of hypocrisy by your very first sentence: "attacking the character of opponents - does not advance your argument."
-
I posted a significant argument: Rossi vs. Darden aftermath discussions and on other posts in this thread.
(last page of this thread). Perhaps you are not reading very clearly.
More seriously you are twisting what I say, perhaps because you have no answer to my comment. It would be easier to engage with you if you read the comments you so strongly object to more carefully.
I said: I'm not hiding behind anything, and personalising the issue - attacking the character of opponents - does not advance your argument.
I'm not talking about my argument, but your argument.
You comment on this: As far as I can tell, this is the first time you actually stated your argument on this particular thread. It's really quite difficult to address an unstated argument.
We could start addressing substantive issues if you refrained from this contentless rhetoric.
-
I posted a significant argument: Rossi vs. Darden aftermath discussions and on other posts in this thread.
Yes you posted some significant arguments but you did not post that particular argument. You can't fault someone for being silent about an argument you did not post.
-
Yes you posted some significant arguments but you did not post that particular argument. You can't fault someone for being silent about an argument you did not post.
I'm not doing that. Please read what I said above more carefully?
-
None of these authors knows anything about the experiments. None of them gives any technical reason to doubt the results.
-
I posted a significant argument: Rossi vs. Darden aftermath discussions and on other posts in this thread.
Perhaps I am missing something but I see only one argument: that Shanahan might be right. I agree with his critics. I think there is no experimental evidence he is right. If that is your only argument the debate begins and ends pretty quickly. You see something to it; Marwan et al. don't. If the reader wants to know more he or she should go read Shanahan and Marwan and judge the issue. I don't see much point to debating it here.
If you made other significant technical arguments, I missed them somehow. You made several arguments based on society and a supposed consensus. That doesn't count. Even if there is a consensus -- even if the day comes when every living scientist thinks cold fusion is bunk -- that will not count. The only thing that counts is an analysis of the experiments grounded in the known laws of physics; i.e., one that takes into account things like Faraday's law and thermodynamics.
-
You have not addressed my argument, which is that determining whether what was repeated is in fact a nuclear anomaly, or something else, is at best not clear cut. At the time those 100s of electrochemists decided there was no nuclear anomaly worth pursuing - except for a few outliers.
You are mistaken. Every one of them is sure it is a nuclear anomaly. I do not know any scientist who replicated cold fusion who has expressed any doubt that it is a nuclear effect. The reasons are:
There is no chemical fuel in the cell, and no chemical changes are detected, so it cannot be chemistry.
The heat is up to 100,000 times more than any equivalent mass of chemical fuel could produce.
The effect often produces tritium.
As far as anyone knows, the effect always produces helium, and x-rays.
These conclusions were succinctly expressed by the people at AMOCO:
"The calorimetry conclusively shows excess energy was produced within the electrolytic cell over
the period of the experiment. This amount, 50 kilojoules, is such that any chemical reaction
would have had to been in near molar amounts to have produced the energy. Chemical analysis
shows clearly that no such chemical reactions occurred. The tritium results show that some form
of nuclear reactions occurred during the experiment."http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Lautzenhiscoldfusion.pdf
You may not believe it is a nuclear effects, but you should not project your belief onto the researchers. I do not think you can find a single paper by anyone who replicated who claims it is not a nuclear effect.
Also, everyone I know who replicated thought it was worth pursuing. Many were not able to pursue it because they were told that if they did, they would be fired and/or deported and their reputations would be destroyed in the Washington Post, the New York Times, Sci. Am. and the rest of the mass media, by Robert Park and others. They would never again get a job in academic science. As Robert Park told a large crowd of cheering people at the APS, "we will root out and destroy anyone who supports cold fusion." This actually happened to many of researchers, so it was no idle threat. Academic politics are a dirty game.
-
An excerpt from the paper you posted
"
10^17 such reactions would have been required to produce 50 Κjoules of
energy. Our measurement of tritium shows an excess of 5 × 10^8 atoms. In other words, tritium production would only account for about 5 × 10^-9 of the observed excess energy. The main point of the tritium in this experiment is then that there are some nuclear processes involved. Some competing process must be highly favored."
They acknowledge that, per their own measurements, only one part in 200,000,000 of the energy is nuclear. The rest is from "some competing process". Since nothing seems to have become of this result, my opinion is that this "competing process" was most likely measurement error. If this is the best example there is for CF/LENR, where only 1 part in 200,000,000 is proven to be nuclear, while the rest is some unknown "competing process" with no followup publication as to what the "competing process" is, then say my name.
-
They acknowledge that, per their own measurements, only one part in 200,000,000 of the energy is nuclear. The rest is from "some competing process".
The competing process must also be nuclear. There is no chemical fuel, and no chemical changes are observed. They did not know what this other process could be, but later research indicated it is probably some form of D+D => helium-4.
You may not agree with the authors that this competing process must be nuclear, but I am 100% sure that is what the authors meant. I know this because I spent a lot of time with them and discussed this in detail.
-
The competing process must also be nuclear. There is no chemical fuel, and no chemical changes are observed. They did not know what this other process could be, but later research indicated it is probably some form of D+D => helium-4.
You may not agree with the authors that this competing process must be nuclear, but I am 100% sure that is what the authors meant. I know this because I spent a lot of time with them and discussed this in detail.
Did they design their experiment to control for and, possibly, measure any excess helium 4 production?
-
only 1 part in 200,000,000 is proven to be nuclear,
Then you acknowledge there is a nuclear effect.
-
The competing process must also be nuclear. There is no chemical fuel, and no chemical changes are observed. They did not know what this other process could be, but later research indicated it is probably some form of D+D => helium-4.
You may not agree with the authors that this competing process must be nuclear, but I am 100% sure that is what the authors meant. I know this because I spent a lot of time with them and discussed this in detail.
I'm okay with letting those "competing processes" still be anomalous. Pons and Fleischmann blew it when they said it was nuclear. It triggered a major science political war between electrochemists and hot nuclear physicists. They should have just said it appears to be some kind of unidentified superchemical process unseen before, and we could use the help of our bretheren in the nukular world to rule out a thing or two.
If I generated a LENR box like Rossi supposedly has, I would call it a superchemical process -- it's chemical when we put it together, it's chemical when we take it down and there's no expected nuclear activity, especially the dangerous kind. That way the NRC doesn't have authority over the box.
