Rossi vs. Darden aftermath discussions

    Quote from [email protected]

    Then you acknowledge there is a nuclear effect.

    Heh. Let's not get into semantics here. I acknowledge their "claim" that it is nuclear to make another point. I will never acknowledge the existence of LENR/CF unless there is an experiment that is repeatable 100% of the time by reputable entities with 100% (and not just 1 part out of 200,000,000) of the energy clearly accounted for by quantities measured during the experiment. Atom reactions at this level have by-products that are measurable. Unlike a lot of people, I'm not giving the CF/LENR people a pass on having independent 3rd parties independently collect, measure, and analyze by-products from these experiments to verify them.

    Quote from lenrisnotreal

    Heh. Let's not get into semantics here. I acknowledge their "claim" that it is nuclear to make another point.

    You acknowledged that "1 part in 200,000,000 is proven to be nuclear". So for you to be clear, you need to back off from that claim and it would make sense for you to explain why you thought at one time it was "proven".

    Quote from lenrisnotreal

    I will never acknowledge the existence of LENR/CF unless there is an experiment that is repeatable 100% of the time by reputable entities with 100% (

    Then you will never accept cold fusion, and you should not believe in semiconductors or rockets. Rockets in particular often fail. No technology works 100% of the time.


    Nearly all of the researchers who replicated cold fusion were "reputable." Most of them were world-class experts with their own sources of funding, or Fellows of the institute. If they had not been, they would never have been allowed to do the experiment. They would have been fired, instead.

    Jed, if all this work you are referring to is so easy replicable - any idea why none of your reputable "world class experts" who obviously replicated cold fusion, ended up in Stockholm on stage for the Physcis Nobel price? It seems that the mainstream science did not take notice of any of them...all we know and see is that Rossi has poisened the entire field of LENR. I would love to see somebody with a clear replication of an experiment that produced excess heat - reliable and undeniable nuclear, so that common mainstream journals or news channels line up to be the first to publish the news of the century...would love to see this!


    Please do not come up with all the conspiracy stuff that has been and still is discussed all day long here in this forum....

    Quote from zorud

    Please do not come up with all the conspiracy stuff that has been and still is discussed all day long here in this forum....

    Please do not come up with all that skeptopath stuff that we see all day long here on this forum. The Pons Fleischmann Anomalous Heat Effect has been replicated more than 150 times in peer reviewed experiments at more than 180 labs, more than 14,000 instances.

    Quote

    I will never acknowledge the existence of LENR/CF unless there is an experiment that is repeatable 100% of the time by reputable entities with 100% (and not just 1 part out of 200,000,000) of the energy clearly accounted for by quantities measured during the experiment.


    I agree with the rest of your post but this doesn't make sense to me. If someone designs an experiment for which a clear cut positive result is defined, the probability of error in measurement is extremely low (including good calibration methods, best measurement methods and devices, reliable labs doing the measurement, accounting for or ruling out Shanahan's calibration constant drift, and so on)... if that can be accomplished even once out of many tries, I would be pretty sure there is an accounted phenomenon present, some sort of anomaly. If there is a low yield, I would certainly try to account for it, but it would not rule out concluding that *occasionally* known and unknown parameters of the experiment "lined up right" and something strange was indeed happening. Might even be LENR.


    LENR advocates think they have reached that criterion but I am not convinced I have seen it demonstrated. And I resent the defensiveness with which it is all discussed. Asking for easy to read graphs and papers is "spoonfeeding" and asking for high level level results in which error would be extremely unlikely is "shifting the goal posts." Requesting high level results together with good calibration and calorimetry, long duration, and high signal to noise ratio is being overly fussy. Then, it follows, according to believers, I/we wouldn't believe it anyway unless the device was for sale (ridiculous!) Those are the problems. Not reaching 100% consistent results. In my estimation.

    Quote from maryyugo

    I agree with the rest of your post but this doesn't make sense to me. If someone designs an experiment for which a clear cut positive result is defined, the probability of error in measurement is extremely low (including good calibration methods, best measurement methods and devices, reliable labs doing the measurement, accounting for or ruling out Shanahan's calibration constant drift, and so on)... if that can be accomplished even once out of many tries, I would be pretty sure there is an accounted phenomenon present, some sort of anomaly. If there is a low yield, I would certainly try to account for it, but it would not rule out concluding that *occasionally* known and unknown parameters of the experiment "lined up right" and something strange was indeed happening. Might even be LENR.


    LENR advocates think they have reached that criterion but I am not convinced I have seen it demonstrated. And I resent the defensiveness with which it is all discussed. Asking for easy to read graphs and papers is "spoonfeeding" and asking for high level level results in which error would be extremely unlikely is "shifting the goal posts." Requesting high level results together with good calibration and calorimetry, long duration, and high signal to noise ratio is being overly fussy. Then, it follows, according to believers, I/we wouldn't believe it anyway unless the device was for sale (ridiculous!) Those are the problems. Not reaching 100% consistent results. In my estimation.

    Well, you can't compromise on science. Given that calorimetry can have an error rate of 30% or more, most low level CF excess energy results should be considered inconclusive or failures unless backed up by other evidence. The excess energy from this experiment is equal to about 12 food calories or about 2 potato chips over a timespan of ~ 2 months, so this is certainly low level. And, since these are claimed atomic reactions, you also expect to see byproducts the same as other experiments. This theory that you and others might be advocating, that LENR/CF has a lower standard of proof than other fields of science is unacceptable. Only accounting for 1 part in 200,000,000 of a"claimed" event in a published paper isn't normally allowed in real science and it shouldn't be allowed here.

    Quote from maryyugo

    I would be pretty sure there is an accounted phenomenon present, some sort of anomaly.

    By the very definition of anomaly, it cannot be an accounted phenomenon. The rest of your post is yet another justification for skeptopathy. Science is science, deal with it. The effect has been replicated >150 times in peer reviewed literature by the top hundred or so electrochemists of their day. You are not among them. Your ex post facto approach towards satisfying skeptopathy is more an exercise in diagnosing mental illness than physics.

    Quote from lenrisnotreal

    This theory that you and others might be advocating, that LENR/CF has a lower standard of proof than other fields of science is unacceptable.

    I agree. Electochemists have the same standard of proof that any other science does, and to have >150 peer reviewed replications by the top hundred electrochemists of the day questioned by ex post facto amateur operatives is annoying. Thank you for your rational thoughts and agreement on this matter.

    Quote from lenrisnotreal

    Only accounting for 1 part in 200,000,000 of a"claimed" event in a published paper isn't normally allowed in real science and it shouldn't be allowed here.

    The nuclear guys regularly spend their time on effects where you're talking about 10^-16 to 10^-20, so saying that something on the order of 10^-9 "shouldn't be allowed here" is pure skeptopathy.

    Quote from Zeus46

    Maybe if you stopped inventing reasons not to read the papers suggested in a response to your requests, people wouldn't feel like they have to spoonfeed you?

    maryyugo wrote:

    Requesting high level results together with good calibration and calorimetry, long duration, and high signal to noise ratio is being overly fussy.

    ***MaryYugo is imposing the standard skeptopathic insistence that the scientific results should meet his ex post facto standards.

    Quote from [email protected]

    The nuclear guys regularly spend their time on effects where you're talking about 10^-16 to 10^-20, so saying that something on the order of 10^-9 "shouldn't be allowed here" is pure skeptopathy.

    We are talking about claims of excess heat here and not normal exploratory science. The hot fusion scientists are being honest about the fact that they haven't generated controlled excess heat except perhaps briefly in one NIF experiment. I respect that.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.