Replication of LENR experiments

Quote from Shane D.

Jed,

Roger has been around a long time. I have never have known him to be serious. Never. He is mostly, well actually only, about irritating Mary (wig/HARD, etc,). His recent foray into the science of LENR with you, is just another of his sophomoric pranks. Trust me, it will not do your standing any good to engage him any further.

And to you Roger...when will you grow up?

Shane, I have always been serious about LENR. Yes, I troll @Mary Yugo, this is no secret. However the likes of Jed never frequented ECN so it was impossible to have a proper discussion with someone like him. ECN was full of people who loved patting themselves on the back, amongst other things.

On this forum I can ask the hard questions of JedRothwell . So far he has provided some interesting information which at face value looks good but when you do a deeper dive you find yet more questions.

Now Jed is claiming there was no working reactors because all the researchers died. Is McKubre dead? What were P&F doing during their multi-million dollar engagement with Toyota? Surely a time and money investment as great as that should have given us a working reactor by now.

BTW, there appear to be a number of people posting as Roger Barker hence why I'm the real Roger Barker.

Quote from interested observer

According to him, actually explaining anything or summarizing the content and significance of anything is "spoon feeding" and is repugnant to him.

With regard to this specific detail, what you describe is a very common attitude among a certain generation of computer people. I am not aware of another field where this attitude is as pronounced.

Getting back to the Celani paper, it looks to me that they are measuring heat out by calibrating two measured temperatures and reading those temps during the experimental runs. In other words, first they ran a series of measured power with inert gas, then ran the same experiments with gas that showed higher calibrated temps than previously measured. Am I correct in that?

Quote from The Real Roger Barker

Now Jed is claiming there was no working reactors because all the researchers died.

There are a few reactors, mainly at universities and the ENEA. You seem to define a "working reactor" as a power reactor or a commercial device. If that is what you mean, there are none, because the reaction cannot be controlled.

Quote from The Real Roger Barker

Is McKubre dead?

Retired.

Quote from The Real Roger Barker

What were P&F doing during their multi-million dollar engagement with Toyota?

As I said, read Roulette. It is in the index at LENR-CANR.org.

Quote from interested observer

perhaps you do want to ask the hard questions here, but I don't think you are going to get answers. As far as I can tell, nobody in the LENR community actually is willing to discuss and debate the technical aspects of the topic.

Oh come now. Just because you refuse to read anything, you claim there is nothing to read! Researchers have published hundreds of papers. I have made them available. Storms wrote two books. You can get them on Amazon. Despite all this, you have the chutzpah to claim that researchers have not answered your "hard questions"?

Your questions are not a bit hard, by the way. They range from elementary to idiotic. You will find the answers to the elementary ones in any introductory paper on cold fusion, including my papers. You will find the answers to the idiotic questions in grade-school science textbooks.

Quote from Eric Walker

With regard to this specific detail, what you describe is a very common attitude among a certain generation of computer people.

You're talking about my g-g-generation. People who cut their teeth on IBM 360 computers and minicomputers which had no manuals!

Link to "RTFM"

"Literally "Read The F**king Manual"; a term showing the frustration of being bothered with questions so trivial that the asker could have quickly figured out the answer on their own with minimal effort, usually by reading readily-available documents."

Yes! That is my attitude in particular because:

1. I wrote the manuals. (Really, I did.)

2. I uploaded 1,047 documents about cold fusion; listed 4,387 items in the index; and pointed to the documents I recommend on the front page. How could I make it any easier?!?

And yet these people still complain that I have not done enough! Give me a break.

A lot of it is just trolling. These people are not serious. They don't actually want to know anything. I mean, for example, The Real Roger Barker keeps asking and asking: "What were P&F doing during their multi-million dollar engagement with Toyota?" I keep telling him and telling him "read Roulette." The answer is right there. He can't be serious. He doesn't want to know, because if he did, he would shut up and read Roulette.

He is hoping to fool readers who have not followed the discussion. Anyone who has followed it, or has read Roulette, can see that he is a nitwit and a useless troll.

Quote from Eric Walker

I am not aware of another field where this attitude is as pronounced.

Oh come now. Most engineers and scientists are like this. As they say, ask the first time and anyone will be pleased to answer. There are no stupid questions. But when you ask the same question the second, third and fourth time, and it becomes clear you have not read the literature we steered you to, then we will blow you off with RTFM. I have been in charge of R&D, and I have fired people for doing that. You have no business doing science or technology with that attitude. You will cause an accident or put a bug in the program.

Customers do this all the time. In customer support you have to learn to live with it. They are paying you, so if they want to pay you to answer questions they could easily answer themselves, so be it. It's their money, and your job. Although nowadays software companies and phone companies make it hard to get tech support. Back in the day, we charged for tech support and made a profit, so we didn't mind spending hours helping people do things they could easily do for themselves.

Quote from interested observer

Please understand, Jed does not owe us anything. He is completely entitled to keep his profound understanding of all things LENR to himself.

Yes. Right. Sure. I have done nothing. Other than --

Uploading hundreds of papers. Recommending the best ones on the front page at LENR-CANR.org. Writing a book with an introduction to the subject. Writing introductions to McKubre and Miles. Editing and publishing four other books and several hundred papers.

You accuse me of keeping everything to myself, of all things. Me, of all people. This is like accusing the Rolling Stones of not performing enough. No one on earth has done more to bring information about cold fusion to your fingertips. I have organized it, indexed it, summarized it, featured it, translated it, and edited it. Yet still you have the chutzpah to accuse me of not telling you anything! If you were not so hilarious you would be outrageous.

Jed - does or did anyone (in your opinion) have a) any viable inkling of a theoretical basis for CF and/or b) any ideas about how to control it?

Quote from Nigel Appleton

Jed - does or did anyone (in your opinion) have a) any viable inkling of a theoretical basis for CF and/or b) any ideas about how to control it?

As indicated in Rossi's parent, LERN is controlled by using the KERR effect.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerr_effect

JedRothwell McKubre retired?! So someone on the cusp of solving all the world's energy problems decides to retire. Right.

interested observer I have always asked the hard questions. If I have a bit of fun on the way, even better. The facts remain, millions have been spent on CF research conducted by hundreds of scientists. This has gone on for 2 ¹/₂ decades and we still have nothing.

There is of course Rossi and his container full of spare parts. Like @maryyugo said he is a conman through and through. Just like Defkalion were.

Quote from The Real Roger Barker

interested observer I have always asked the hard questions. If I have a bit of fun on the way, even better. The facts remain, millions have been spent on CF research conducted by hundreds of scientists. This has gone on for 2 ¹/₂ decades and we still have nothing.

LENR is based on science that is revolutionary, decades ahead of its time. The appreciation of this new science implied in LENR will correct the many errors and fallacies currently plaguing science as it is practiced today. LENR has emerged sporadically for the last century and more, it's just a matter of time before its implications are finally recognized but that recognition will require a major redirection in the practice of science. One factor that can speed things along is the release of a LENR based produce that will force that redirection in the directions of science through the advancement of financial interests.

Quote from axil

LENR is based on science that is revolutionary, decades ahead of its time. The appreciation of this new science implied in LENR will correct the many errors and fallacies currently plaguing science as it is practiced today. LENR has emerged sporadically for the last century and more, it's just a matter of time before its implications are finally recognized but that recognition will require a major redirection in the practice of science. One factor that can speed things along is the release of a LENR based produce that will force that redirection in the directions of science through the advancement of financial interests.

LENR supporters have been saying that for a long time.

Quote from The Real Roger Barker

LENR supporters have been saying that for a long time.

They have been saying it because it is the truth.

Quote from Nigel Appleton

Jed - does or did anyone (in your opinion) have a) any viable inkling of a theoretical basis for CF and/or b) any ideas about how to control it?

I understand so little about theory that I cannot address that question.

McKubre has a predictive equation that seems to work. You can see how well it fits the data here; look for "predictive equation":

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

This is based on widely replicated observations such as the fact that the heat only appears above a certain loading ratio, heat promotes the effect, and so on. The equation is empirical. It resembles pre-modern techniques and rules of thumb in technology such as the stone masonry that allowed the construction of the Roman Colosseum, cathedrals and so on. Masons knew what kinds of rocks could support how much weight in various configurations. They recognized strong, stable rocks versus ones that would disintegrate. This is not merely an analogy; weak, cracked and disintegrated cathodes are a major problem in cold fusion. Cold fusion is 95% materials, in my view.

It is conceivable that cold fusion technology might be developed by empirical methods, but I expect it will require a more theory-based approach.

Any technology must include many empirical methods, methods based on experience, and art. The task at hand always exceeds the limits of science. Applied electrochemistry and catalysis are both known for including many techniques that work but no one knows why. That's what electrochemists tell me.

Quote from The Real Roger Barker

McKubre retired?! So someone on the cusp of solving all the world's energy problems decides to retire. Right.

Do you have access to the fountain of youth? The others did worse than retire. They had the temerity to die of old age.

Quote from The Real Roger Barker

This has gone on for 2 1/2 decades and we still have nothing.

We have quite a lot, but you do not know that because you refuse to look. I often say to people like you that if you had any inkling of how difficult this research is, and what has been accomplished, you would be astounded at the progress which has been made. Especially since the researchers worked on a shoestring against tremendous political opposition.

People like you do not seem to realize that just because you refuse to look at something, that does not make it disappear. Evidently you never learned object permanence, which most people master at 4 months.

Quote from axil

They have been saying it because it is the truth.

Just because you say it don't make it true.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - RationalWiki

Quote from JedRothwell

Do you have access to the fountain of youth? The others did worse than retire. They had the temerity to die of old age.

We have quite a lot, but you do not know that because you refuse to look. I often say to people like you that if you had any inkling of how difficult this research is, and what has been accomplished, you would be astounded at the progress which has been made. Especially since the researchers worked on a shoestring against tremendous political opposition.

People like you do not seem to realize that just because you refuse to look at something, that does not make it disappear. Evidently you never learned object permanence, which most people master at 4 months.

As I've said before, it looks good on paper, but paper is not where LENR happens.

Quote from The Real Roger Barker

As I've said before, it looks good on paper, but paper is not where LENR happens.

This sentence makes no sense. LENR happens in hydrides. The effect is measured with instruments. The instrument data is published in papers. That's the only place it can exist. Where else would you expect to find it? Perhaps you are again insisting that the effect can only be real if it happens in commercial reactors and other practical devices. A scientific claim has to be judged by the standards of science, not commercial technology. By your standards, Josephson junctions, quantum computers, HTSC power lines, plasma fusion and the top quark do not exist.

You apparently do not grasp the concept that before cold fusion can be made practical it must be fully controlled. Since you have not read the literature, you have no idea what control entails or what progress has been made in it.

Again let me suggest that instead of spouting off with one damned ignorant comment after another, you should first learn something about the subject. You make yourself look foolish. It is as if I were to invade a discussion group about football and start blabbing about field goals and first downs. Since I have only the haziest notion of what those things are, or what the rules of football are, and I have never actually watched a football game, my ignorance would soon be revealed. People would ask, "what are you doing here?!?"

Quote from The Real Roger Barker

Just because you say it don't make it true.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - RationalWiki

Extraordinary evidence is abundant. Multiple patents have been issued that explain how radioactive isotopes can be stabilized using LENR methods. There is also unimpeachable evidence of transmutation of elements and isotope change produced through the LENR reaction. The Naval research lab is one of the unimpeachable sources of this evidence.