Replication of LENR experiments

Quote from interested observer

But that still does not lend a lick of credence to your contention that cold fusion is more promising than plasma fusion. I don't know what basis you could possibly have for saying that

You do not know that because you have not read the literature, so you know nothing about cold fusion. If you had read it, along with some of the plasma fusion literature, the advantages would be obvious to you. For example, plasma fusion requires billions of dollars for a single machine (a very high cost per watt of capacity), and it produces a deadly flux of radioactivity that soon makes the equipment itself radioactive and brittle. Also, there is no practical way to convert plasma fusion energy into a useful source of energy such as electricity. Whereas cold fusion devices are already the cheapest source of energy ever discovered they produce no dangerous radiation, and it obvious how you would generate electricity or process heat from them.

The advantages of cold fusion are enumerated in my book, linked to above.

Here is a Los Alamos study looking at some of the problems with plasma fusion:

http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/KrakowskiRlessonslea.pdf

Quote from JedRothwell

I have answered that question maybe six times here already. Stop asking.

For that matter, you could read the literature and find out for yourself. Reading, thinking for yourself . . . what a novel approach!

No you have not answered anything. You point us towards some documentation but this is not proof of anything. I too can write up a bunch of stuff and make grandiose claims. The bottom line is there is no working reactor after 25 years of "successful" experiments. I need hard evidence. I am sure others demand the same thing as well. Until then it's just smoke and mirrors.

Quote from The Real Roger Barker

No you have not answered anything. You point us towards some documentation but this is not proof of anything.

How can I prove something that has not happened yet?

Quote from The Real Roger Barker

I too can write up a bunch of stuff and make grandiose claims.

I do not think the claims are grandiose, but if you do, I suggest you ignore them.

Let me remind you that you have no basis for that opinion. You have not read the literature and you know nothing about this subject. Your assertions about it are factually wrong. So obviously you are not willing to put any effort or thought into it. You are wasting your time, and my time as well.

Quote from The Real Roger Barker

The bottom line is there is no working reactor after 25 years of "successful" experiments. I need hard evidence. I am sure others demand the same thing as well.

There are hundreds of papers describing successful experiments. McKubre's are among the best, and the easiest to understand. If you are not convinced by them, there is nothing more I can show you that will convince you. So the discussion is at an end. Why do you keep demanding information when you are not satisfied with what was published in the peer-reviewed literature? Do you think I am hiding better papers?

You apparently think that Wikipedia is a better source of information than, say, the Jap. J. of Applied Physics. Okay, go with that. I cannot argue with people who read nothing, know nothing, and who make endless assertions based on empty ignorance.

"Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain." - Schiller

Quote from interested observer

Ok, got it. It takes years and huge amounts of money to even demonstrate that cold fusion works at any level, but it is the cheapest form of energy ever discovered.

There is no contradiction here. It takes years to make a reactor by hand. Reactors could be made in minutes with machinery. The materials and fuels make this source the cheapest by far. Thousands of times cheaper than any other. The fact that it costs a lot to make one now is irrelevant. It took a couple of years to make the first transistor. By the mid-1950s, transistors were mass produced, but a typical device cost $8 ~ $16 compared to a vacuum tube that cost $0.25. Still, the trend was clear from the start. Everyone knew that transistors were potentially cheaper, and they were getting cheaper, and vacuum tubes were not. Today a transistor is roughly 10E8 times cheaper than a vacuum tube.

Quote from interested observer

I ponder how much literature I would need to read before I would be muddy-headed enough for that to make any sense at all.

You could try reading the history of semiconductors -- as I said. Or railroads, telephones, steamships, automobiles or just about any other major technology. You would learn how manufactured products start out expensive and then decline in price. You would learn that the potential cost of a machine is no way reflected in the early prototypes. This is common knowledge to people in business, people who develop technology, and historians. You do not know it because you have not bothered to learn and you have no experience in business or R&D.

I, on the other hand, have known this all my life, because my grandfather and others I knew were inventors, scientists and businessmen. This is the sort of thing a person should learn in grade school. It is a shame you never studied history.

Quote from interested observer

Personally, I have 35 years experience in high-tech business and in R&D in large and small companies, academia, and government labs.

I doubt that, since it apparently never occurred to you that the cost of a prototype machine has no bearing on the cost of a mass-produced one. If you knew anything about such subjects, why on earth would you be saying, "I ponder how much literature I would need to read before I would be muddy-headed enough for that to make any sense at all"? This is literally something people learn as children. Or at least, I did. It is as if you claim to be an expert in the Japanese language but you cannot read this: 一、二、三、四、五.

Have you read nothing about the history of semiconductors? Or automobiles, wristwatches . . . pencils even? Are you completely unaware of the fact that the cost of a manufactured good depends on the cost of materials and manufacturing equipment, and the original cost of inventing it and making prototypes by hand has no connection? Could I be the first person to inform you of this? If not, why did you say that? Are you trying to make yourself look ignorant?

If you actually have the experience you claim, I find your questions, comments and the abysmal depths of your ignorance to be mind boggling. You sound like the managers and Big Decision Makers I encountered at Data General and DEC back in the 1980s. In response to the IBM PC, they swiftly drove those companies off a cliff and into bankruptcy.

Anyway, I suggest you learn something about cold fusion before blathering about it. Avoid embarrassment! It is best to have at least some passing knowledge of a subject before posing as an expert in public. I'll leave it at that. Feel free to have the last word.

Quote from interested observer

What is relevant here is that you don't and nobody else has a clue what a reliable, controllable and practical cold fusion device might look like or how it would be built.

If you read the literature, you will see that is wrong. Fleischmann, Bockris, Arata and the others with lot of experience in industry made reasonable estimates and extrapolations based on similar technology such as catalysis and batteries. Naturally they might have been wrong, but they probably knew more about these things than you do. That's why they named an international industrial prize and a building at Osaka National U. after Arata.

JedRothwell

If P&F had so many successful replications then why were they not able to progress their work after having millions in funding from Toyota? $40 million says wiki ...

Moved a subthread on replication of LENR experiments out of the bargain bin.

Quote from The Real Roger Barker

If P&F had so many successful replications then why were they not able to progress their work after having millions in funding from Toyota? $40 million says wiki ...

I do know how much money it was, but in my opinion they made great progress. Read the paper by Roulette and judge for yourself. The project was terminated because of greed and stupidity, not because it failed technically.

Quote from JedRothwell

Given the power density and temperatures shown so far, there is enough palladium to produce most of the world's energy, but no one knows whether the reaction can be controlled enough to do this.

I posted some information on this in March 2017. Please see:

Palladium cold fusion as an energy source

Quote from JedRothwell

I do know how much money it was, but in my opinion they made great progress. Read the paper by Roulette and judge for yourself. The project was terminated because of greed and stupidity, not because it failed technically.

I am tired of reading papers. They just make claims without evidence. As I've said before anyone can make claims but where is the hard evidence? 25 years after P&F we still don't have a working reactor despite tens of millions having been spent on research.

Quote from The Real Roger Barker

I am tired of reading papers.

I doubt you have read any. You don't seem to know anything about the claims.

Quote from The Real Roger Barker

They just make claims without evidence.

Do you see all those numbers, graphs and tables in the papers? Those numbers came from instruments. That's called "evidence." Experimental evidence.

(No, of course you don't see that stuff, because you have not looked at the papers. My mistake.)

Quote from JedRothwell

I doubt you have read any. You don't seem to know anything about the claims.

Do you see all those numbers, graphs and tables in the papers? Those numbers came from instruments. That's called "evidence." Experimental evidence.

(No, of course you don't see that stuff, because you have not looked at the papers. My mistake.)

I resent this Jed Rothwell. I have read the papers and yes, on paper it looks conclusive, but as I've said many times before, where is the follow on work? Where are the working reactors? Where are the stable long term demonstrations? Even if I was to believe everything in the papers my questions still stand especially after P&F were given tens of millions of dollars to further their research and came up with NOTHING.

Quote from The Real Roger Barker

I have read the papers and yes, on paper it looks conclusive,

Where else would it look conclusive, except on paper? These are laboratory experiments. You can't expect conclusive evidence from the marketplace with such small devices.

Quote from The Real Roger Barker

but as I've said many times before, where is the follow on work?

As I have said many times before, dead people cannot do follow on work.

Quote from The Real Roger Barker

Where are the working reactors?

What on earth makes you think there could be working reactors? Have you or have you not read the literature? Anyone can see the effect cannot be controlled well enough to make working reactors.

Quote from The Real Roger Barker

especially after P&F were given tens of millions of dollars to further their research and came up with NOTHING.

Obviously you did not read Roulette.