Replication of LENR experiments

  • So how do we establish that LENR has been replicated? We are surrounded by hyperskeptics, whom I have no real interest in appeasing because their standard, if it were applied to any other branch of science, would send us back to some kind of stone age.

    I recommend you ignore the hyperskeptics. I engage with them here only to keep in practices, as an exercise in rhetorical target practice.


    I recommend you concentrate instead on trying to persuade open minded people who are sincerely interested in the subject. There are apparently a large number of such people. Although the numbers seem to be dropping off. See:


    http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?page_id=1213

    Aiming for an ordinary skeptic, it seems reasonable to me to accept the first hundred or so replications by the "who's who of electrochemistry" as accepted, those >150 peer reviewd replications collected by Britz, > 180 labs, and the 14,700 replication

    People do not like to be told they have to read many papers to evaluate cold fusion. So I usually suggest they read McKubre, starting with his review, then one of his publications:


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


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


    These are well-written, and they are understandable. They are easier to understand than, say, Fleischmann. Fleischmann presents stronger evidence of more dramatic effects at higher power, but his methods are harder to understand.


    As I often say, McKubre presents the best evidence. If this does not convince you, the other papers probably will not convince you either, so you might as well drop the subject. I am not hiding any better evidence. I am not holding back more convincing papers.


    This is ordinary scientific research, published in peer-reviewed mainstream journals. If it were any subject other than cold fusion, no scientist on earth would question the validity of it. In my opinion, all opposition to cold fusion is either political or emotional. There are no legitimate scientific grounds to doubt it. (I dismiss Shanahan as a crackpot for reasons I need not reiterate, except that for some reason he wants me to mention him every time I make this assertion, so I do this here as a courtesy.)


    Since there is no rational, scientific reason to reject cold fusion, we cannot hope that an appeal to rationality, science, evidence, replications, thermodynamics, or any other conventional evidence will convince the opposition. With regard to this subject, they are not playing by the rules, although they may when it comes to other subjects. So, I suggest we ignore them. Concentrate on convincing people who do play by the rules, and who do understand science. Based on the number and variety of readers at LENR-CANR.org, I believe there is "goodwill, and latent support" for the field, as I describe here, on pages 5 - 7:


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


    There is another good reason to start off by recommending the McKubre review, as I do on the front page at LENR-CANR and in the blurb for my video. It separates the sheep from the goats. It takes no great effort to read this paper. Anyone with a scientific education can understand it. You may not agree with it, but it is easy to understand. When you suggest this, a person who is sincerely interested will say "thanks" and read the paper. Whereas the hyperskeptics and trolls will not read it. The Real Roger Barker will dismiss it. Mary Yugo will kvetch and moan that it is too ha-a-a-a-ard so it must be wrong. These people are either uninterested or incapable of understanding cold fusion, so you need not waste time on them. When they ask the same stupid questions again and again, and they keep demanding you "give them proof," feel free to say, "read McKubre" and leave it at that. (In other words, blow them off by saying Read The F**** Manual.)

  • I agree all is not clear, especially if you ignore the sources i use, despite I have cited them often (so often I don't cite them since nobody cares).


    Beside the mass of replication which should talk on itself, especially if you make a non scientific "call by expertise" (eg Bockris, Fleischmann, vs Lewis,Hansen,Morrison) I refer to the Beaudette report about the 4 critical papers, proposing an alternative explanation.

    Lewis and Hansen are proven wrong and Wilson pretended critical report bash (politely) those incompetent experimenters yet propose dubious and anyway insufficient correction .

    Morrison is presented as "not even bad", a kind of work that cannot even be criticized, nor understood if you are competent.


    Then Kirk Shanahan came, who is not covered by Beaudette.

    Jed reports the key points to relativise his critics, another story.


    If people cannot read the papers that Jed have cited since decades, there is no point in argumenting. I'm tired, and all my contribution to the debate is telling that talking to wall is not productive. If people cannot understand that refuted papers are not arguments against a hundreds of others... what can you do.


    This way to refuse to considers others arguments is very common in "the age of stupid." (a concept raised about many other scientific debates today).

    LENR denial in a way is a strangeness, maybe an pioneer, as it is not started by NGO or politicians (hum, was it ? ref to Seaborg), but by academic (and budget guys).

  • In my opinion, all opposition to cold fusion is either political or emotional. There are no legitimate scientific grounds to doubt it. (I dismiss Shanahan as a crackpot for reasons I need not reiterate, except that for some reason he wants me to mention him every time I make this assertion, so I do this here as a courtesy.)


    ROFL! Good try Jed, but you blew it again. First, I do not want you *just* to mention my name. I want you to be ethical and honest and mention that there is a non-nuclear explanation out there that has not been addressed, so you fail on that one. Secondly, the 'opposition' I put up is technical, not emotional or political, so you fail again.


    Yes Jed, there are legitimate scientific grounds to doubt the existence of LENRs.


    But you are showing some progress, you did actually mention my name at least...keep at it, some day you may succeed.

  • I refer to the Beaudette report about the 4 critical papers

    Ah, OK. I communicated with Beaudette while he was proofreading the second edition of his book. He referred me to a couple of papers. Neither supported his claim upon examination. One was just some Italian guys who turned on their instruments and saw a baseline shift (which they said was excess heat). They then proceeded to change several parameters, but the baseline never changed. That is the opposite of demonstrating control!


    Let's be clear. Baseline shifts *alone* prove noting because they can come from multiple causes. If one can identify the LENR cause, vary it, and get a proportionate response in the LENR signal, you have demonstrated something.


    Beaudette never considers CCS/ATER, all his references precede my first paper, so he and his books are also LTA with regards to addressing the CCS/ATER issue.


    If people cannot read the papers that Jed have cited since decades, there is no point in argumenting. I'm tired, and all my contribution to the debate is telling that talking to wall is not productive. If people cannot understand that refuted papers are not arguments against a hundreds of others... what can you do.


    This applies in spades to you personally Alain. Have you read and understood even my 1st paper? There's no evidence you have...

  • ROFL! Good try Jed, but you blew it again. First, I do not want you *just* to mention my name. I want you to be ethical and honest and mention that there is a non-nuclear explanation out there that has not been addressed, so you fail on that one.

    You have a perverse notion of "ethics." Would you demand I mention the Flat Earth Society every time I claim the world is round? Just because you have a crackpot theory, I am under no obligation to believe it, promote it, or mention it.


    I am being honest when I say I think you are a crackpot, and I think Marwan et al. blew you out of the water. You disagree of course, but you have no business accusing me of dishonesty. I do not secretly agree with you. I see no reason why I should promote crackpot theories. I wouldn't want people to take you seriously. There are dozens of crackpot theories in cold fusion. I do not promote any of them.


    I do feel an obligation to upload any paper that you or any other professional scientist writes about cold fusion. The fact that I disagree with a paper makes no difference. I feel strongly that the readers at LENR-CANR.org deserve the opportunity to read all points of view, to reach their own conclusions. You, on the other hand, seem to want to keep them from reading your work. You have not given me copies despite repeated requests. If anyone is violating academic standards and acting unethical here, it is you, not me.

  • You have a perverse notion of "ethics." Would you demand I mention the Flat Earth Society every time I claim the world is round? Just because you have a crackpot theory, I am under no obligation to believe it, promote it, or mention it.


    I have never looked into the Flat Earth Society. I expect it has an ulterior motive beyond promoting the idea of a flat earth. Of course there are religions that talk(ed) about the world being flat, but the reference usually refers to the Middle Ages and such. Of course, that wasn't really a widely held belief for several reasons. Christopher Columbus for example though he could reach China more quickly by sailing west because he mistakenly thought the diameter of the Earth was about 1/3rd what it really is. And even that belief wasn't well accepted. None of that is relevant to our discussion because all such notions have been adequately discussed, and rejected. The *systematic* problem I brought up hasn't of course. So what is perverse is your continuing refusal to admit that.


    You also are correct that there is no authority who will force you to be honest. So you can continue to live in your fantasy land.


    I am being honest when I say I think you are a crackpot, and I think Marwan et al. blew you out of the water. You disagree of course, but you have no business accusing me of dishonesty. I do not secretly agree with you. I see no reason why I should promote crackpot theories. I wouldn't want people to take you seriously. There are dozens of crackpot theories in cold fusion. I do not promote any of them.


    I know that. The point is that your basis for making that decision is flawed. And no, once again, proving a "random CCSH" doesn't fit the data does NOT address a systematic CCS/ATER proposal, so no, Marwan did not 'blow me out of the water', and this is obvious to all but fanatical true believers. Your statement "I wouldn't want people to take you seriously." defines your reason for acting as you do. You fear admitting you've been wrong for decades. So do your heroes.


    I do feel an obligation to upload any paper that you or any other professional scientist writes about cold fusion. The fact that I disagree with a paper makes no difference. I feel strongly that the readers at LENR-CANR.org deserve the opportunity to read all points of view, to reach their own conclusions. You, on the other hand, seem to want to keep them from reading your work. You have not given me copies despite repeated requests. If anyone is violating academic standards and acting unethical here, it is you, not me.


    Blah, blah, blah. More dishonesty and therefore, unethical behavior.

  • Quote

    Jed wrote: His English has some linguistic interference from French.


    Respectfully (to Alain who seems like a nice guy) I disagree. I used to speak, read and write French completely fluently. My skills with it are rusty now but I still read it easily. And I guarantee you that there is more to this than "linguistic interference" (if I understand that term properly). Knowing French does not help me to understand what Alain is writing. And I have been reading Alain's prose for going on five years now. And I almost never understand it. Maybe if he wrote in French and we used Google translate, we could get it. But I am not so sure we would. For whatever reason.

  • Quote

    Conventional standards also dictate that all claims and arguments must be held to the same standards of rigor. This includes skeptical assertions that attempt to disprove cold fusion, which have been notably lacking in rigor.


    Laplace asserted that “The weight of evidence for an extraordinary claim must be proportioned to its strangeness.” “Weight of evidence” is a measure of how much evidence you have, not how extraordinary it is. There is more evidence for cold fusion than for previously disputed effects. (For example, although there were a few hundred papers published about polywater, most were speculative, and only two labs reported success. [Cite F. Franks])


    Perhaps we are splitting hairs (hares?) here. If I tell you the sky is clear outside, you know you can check it by simply looking outside and you don't need any more complex or better evidence. If I tell you that you are being showered with neutrinos, you may want to perform more elaborate routines to check it and you may want to be especially certain your experiments are valid and replicable. This is not only true for assertions which go against a body of conventional science but it also applies to areas where there is a lot of disagreement. For example, your overstated example about the discovery of H. pylori as a putative etiology for peptic ulcers and maybe even some gastric malignancies. Yes, it was controversial for a while and rightly so. And it took damn good data, in this case fulfillment of Koch's Postulates ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koch%27s_postulates ) and a bit too much time to make the case.


    As I have said to Jed and other people's chagrin, what LENR needs is stronger examples and more persuasive data. I vote for larger effects which are not subject to the sort of calibration variations exposed as potentially significant errors by Shanahan. It is frustrating that such clear cut examples of either high power outputs with tiny inputs or self-sustaining outputs with no electrical input, don't exist. Or that they are claimed to exist (as Jed told us) but have not been properly replicated EXACTLY as claimed. Or that when such definitive experiments have been said to have been performed, it was long ago and they have not been repeated and can not be done on demand. It's a pity, as the British are fond of saying.

  • Quote

    People do not like to be told they have to read many papers to evaluate cold fusion. So I usually suggest they read McKubre, starting with his review

    Uhhun. Do you also recommend that they listen to McKubre when evaluating Papp's or Rohner's claims?


    @Shanahan

    Pls say again why you did not give copies of your LENR-related works to Jed to upload? Or perhaps if copyrights prevent it, Jed could display a link to the source of the papers or your contact info for reprints if you have some.

    I think you said why before but I don't want to plow back through dozens of posts to find it. Thanks.

      • @Shanahan

        Pls say again why you did not give copies of your LENR-related works to Jed to upload? Or perhaps if copyrights prevent it, Jed could display a link to the source of the papers or your contact info for reprints if you have some.

        I think you said why before but I don't want to plow back through dozens of posts to find it. Thanks.



    Readily available (from the list posted in answer to oldguy in the Rosssi vs. Darden thread, page 39 I believe:


    My 2002 publication's manuscript prior to reformatting for Thermochimica Acta http://sti.srs.gov/fulltext/ms2000788/ms2000788.html

    Note: Also found on lenr-canr.org


    My 2005 publication's manuscript http://sti.srs.gov/fulltext/ms2004528/ms2004528.pdf


    My 2006 publication's manuscript https://www.researchgate.net/p…7d5230136ca5b45000000.pdf

    Note: This doesn't seem to make sense but it did download my manuscript with a different cover page. It may not work when it posts. We'll just have to see...


    You can buy my 2010 article here:

    http://pubs.rsc.org/EN/content…/em/c001299h#!divAbstract


    Manuscript is apparently not available. I will look into that when I can. But really the one you want to read is the reply by Marwan, et al, which Jed has linked to several times. make sure you follow the use of the 'random' argument. Then recall all my papers refer to a systematic problem.

  • Here is the link to your very own thread on this forum. You have posted to the thread so it's not like you can pretend the thread doesn't exist. You really do go off into the weeds...


    Kirk Shanahan's critique of LENR experiments


    And in that thread are no references or discussions that prove any of my suppositions or propositions wrong, as I indicated.

  • I do feel an obligation to upload any paper that you or any other professional scientist writes about cold fusion. The fact that I disagree with a paper makes no difference. I feel strongly that the readers at LENR-CANR.org deserve the opportunity to read all points of view, to reach their own conclusions.


    Blah, blah, blah. More dishonesty and therefore, unethical behavior.

    Kirk, you are OUT OF LINE here. You are violating the rules. You should stop it. I am NOT -- repeat NOT -- being dishonest in that paragraph. The record is clear. I have uploaded your papers, and many others that I disagree with. You have no business claiming I am dishonest about this, or any of the other sentences in that message. CUT IT OUT.


    Of course you can say you disagree. You see that I disagree with you. Disagreeing is not being dishonest or unethical. No one accuses you of being unethical because you disagree with every electrochemist going back to Faraday. We think you are mistaken, that's all.


    My refusal to cite your work is not dishonest or unethical. I have every right to my opinion. I am under no obligation to acknowledge you or to consider you a legitimate scientist. I think you are a crackpot because you believe that the choice of Pd-D magically changes the calibration, and you think that moving the heat source affects the calorimeter, which the data clearly shows does not happen.

  • As I have said to Jed and other people's chagrin, what LENR needs is stronger examples and more persuasive data.

    Your comments reveal that you do not know what you are talking about. Why would I be chagrined about that?

    I vote for larger effects which are not subject to the sort of calibration variations exposed as potentially significant errors by Shanahan.

    The errors cited by Shanahan are imaginary. They are physically impossible, and the data clearly shows they do not happen. If your only criticism is that we should avoid impossible imaginary errors that the data proves never happen, then I would say you have no valid criticism at all. You have no case. We are home free.

  • ROFL! Good try Jed, but you blew it again. First, I do not want you *just* to mention my name. I want you to be ethical and honest and mention that there is a non-nuclear explanation out there that has not been addressed,

    I do not wish to beat a dead horse, but let me reiterate that it is not ethical or honest to cite a non-nuclear explanation that I believe is crackpot nonsense. It is not ethical to promote bad science. Doing that will confuse the readers, and waste their time. There are hundreds of bad papers at LENR-CANR.org. I am not going to recommend a paper that I think fails to meet academic standards, or one that I consider out-and-out crackpot garbage.


    I feel an ethical obligation to upload any paper no matter what I think of it. I also feel that as a librarian, I should not go around denigrating papers too much. I am not going to list papers I think are real stinkers. The readers can judge that for themselves. I don't want to influence readers much, or stand in the way of their evaluations. In many cases I am not qualified to judge, especially with theory papers.


    But, when a crackpot author such as Shanahan challenges me, and claims that I have an ethical obligation to take him seriously, or praise him and promote his nonsense, I will say unequivocally that his work is garbage. I will give my reasons, as I have done. If he doesn't like it, he can lump it.


    I think Shanahan is being disgraceful accusing me of "dishonesty" and being "unethical" for disagreeing with him, and for expressing my opinions. It would be one thing for him to say he should be allowed upload papers or express his opinions. Yes, I think the world does owe him that -- anyone should have that freedom. I am happy to grant it at LENR-CANR.org. But, Shanahan also seems to think we are morally obligated to believe whatever bullshit pops into his head! He is way out of line on that.


    Three other authors -- who shall remain nameless -- have threatened to file lawsuits against me for criticizing their work. That is far worse! They shall remain nameless because I don't even want to give them the publicity of naming names here, since any PR seems to be good PR to these miscreants.

  • Quote

    My refusal to cite your work is not dishonest or unethical. I have every right to my opinion. I am under no obligation to acknowledge you or to consider you a legitimate scientist. I think you are a crackpot because you believe that the choice of Pd-D magically changes the calibration, and you think that moving the heat source affects the calorimeter, which the data clearly shows does not happen.


    Obviously you can conduct your site any way you like. But it makes no sense to exclude links to Shanahan's work because you think he is a crackpot. You can give the links and state your opinion. You can avoid threats of law suits by getting Shanahan's permission for his links to appear along with your critique.


    BTW, I am not sure the argument relies on moving the heat source but rather that the calibration constant changes when one switches from a control experiment to one with active elements. I am sure Kirk will set us straight on that once more (sorry, Kirk).


    Shifting heat sources can be recalibrated for, can it not? It may even be possible to correct for active vs inactive reactors ( I thought about adding Joule heat to an active reactor ) or it may be possible to calculate a high enough out/in ratio so that no longer matters compared to the claimed excess power.



    Quote

    maryyugo wrote: As I have said to Jed and other people's chagrin, what LENR needs is stronger examples and more persuasive data.

    Jed wrote: Your comments reveal that you do not know what you are talking about. Why would I be chagrined about that?

    Well, God knows LENR/cold fusion as a field needs SOMETHING. Because it is in ill repute with most of the scientific community who ignores it. And because, as you note, it is dying off, IH and goofy Darden and Woodford notwithstanding. So maybe higher output/input experiments less subject to error of any type, not just Shanahan's, self-sustaining long lasting experiments not subject to error at all, etc. -- SOMETHING is needed and insulting me and others for pointing that out won't help you out much.


    Contrary to what most believers think, most skeptics would be delighted to see good evidence for LENR. It would be vastly more interesting than all the equivocal things we are presented with now.

  • People who deny LENr existence like it is done on Wikipedia support the idea

    that some scientists are deluded, that some editor are not seriously working and are biased.


    I follow many other controversies, and i fully agree.

    questions is who is deluded, who is defrauding, who is biased, who is interested in what.


    My discovery is that bias and interest are normally on the popular side (notion depending on the community who decide), where there is real money (public or private)., but not always erroneously.


    On LENR in fact it is more simple, as the mass of experiments, pro and cons, once well interpreted neutrally according to correct epistemological rules (popper &al). 5/153 maybe be an interesting number to start with.

    You can even improve the signal by weighting results according to the competence of their respective author.


    The fact that consensus disagree is just another evidence that consensus have no value, for or against.

  • I do not wish to beat a dead horse, but let me reiterate that it is not ethical or honest to cite a non-nuclear explanation that I believe is crackpot nonsense. It is not ethical to promote bad science.


    You and Kirk have a disagreement over the science here. Saying it is not ethical for someone to hold a contrary view to yours (even if you are correct) is not good science. Science flourishes by having disparate views argued. Your view, and tha=t of Kirk, can properly be argued. Kirk has supported his views with various published papers and a more recent unpublished but available white paper. You have cited other published papers - but note that the latest paper you cite does not answer Kirk's most recent contribution, nor have you given it serious consideration.


    Accusing those with different views of being unethical is not warranted, unless there is clear evidence they are behaving badly (Rossi, or the Lugano authors).

  • Obviously you can conduct your site any way you like. But it makes no sense to exclude links to Shanahan's work because you think he is a crackpot.

    WHAT are you talking about?? I have never excluded any links at LENR-CANR for any paper. All of the links are generated automatically by a program, which uses an EndNote database.


    The only place I have not promoted Shahahan's work is here, and in other discussion groups. He is complaining because I do not respect his work here, in this web site, or at Vortex.


    Granted, I did not include his papers on the front page at LENR-CANR.org, but only a few authors are listed there. It is too crowded already.

  • You and Kirk have a disagreement over the science here. Saying it is not ethical for someone to hold a contrary view to yours (even if you are correct) is not good science. Science flourishes by having disparate views argued. . . .


    Accusing those with different views of being unethical is not warranted,

    Yes. That's what I am trying to say. And that is what he accuses me. Plus, the way his message was laid out, he accused me of lying when I said I uploaded his papers. That's offensive! Anyone can see it is not true. His papers are right there in the index.

    You have cited other published papers - but note that the latest paper you cite does not answer Kirk's most recent contribution, nor have you given it serious consideration.

    How do you know I have not given it serious consideration? I have not discussed it here, but that does not mean I have not considered it. I am not obligated to discuss everything I consider, or to respond to every discussion.

  • Contrary to what most believers think, most skeptics would be delighted to see good evidence for LENR.

    Skeptics such as you are blind to good evidence. You look but do not see. You say you cannot understand McKubre's papers. Those papers are well written and relatively easy to understand. You claim you have some experience in calorimetry. If those papers described calorimetry in some other context, for some other application, you would have no difficulty understanding them.


    I believe you are telling the truth when you say you do not understand them, but this a mental block on your end. It is caused by your inability to admit you are wrong, and you have been wrong for many years.

  • Uhhun. Do you also recommend that they listen to McKubre when evaluating Papp's or Rohner's claims?

    I have never evaluated Papp's or Rohner's claims. I know nothing about them. So I cannot make any recommendations there. I suppose if someone asked me I would mention the McKubre video. The one posted here was short and he did not say much beyond what I said, which is that on the face of it, the claim is impossible. Do you disagree with that?


    Have you looked at the data McKubre referred to? I haven't, so I cannot say a thing about it.


    You seem allergic to remaining undecided. You seem anxious to judge things you have not studied, and to jump to a conclusion as soon as you can. Are you afraid of being wrong? Are you afraid of admitting you don't know, or of holding an opinion that the mainstream disagrees with or thinks is absurd?


    It never bothers me to say, "I don't know. I haven't looked. It seems unlikely but I can't be sure." If I never look at Papp I will never say I am sure his claims are true or false. Anyone can see they look false. Anyone can see they appear to violate fundamental laws of physics, but so did x-rays, lasers and cold fusion when they were first discovered. So that isn't 100% sure proof the claims are wrong. It is evidence against them, but maybe not definitive. Anyone can see the guy seemed crazy, but crazy people are sometimes right.


    If I were betting, I'd give very high odds the claims are wrong. But I don't know for sure, I probably never will know, and -- more to the point -- I couldn't care less that I don't know, or that you think I should know.

  • that I believe


    In science, 'belief' don't kount...just like spelling (most of the time...).


    When exploring a scientific issue, the etiquette is to at least mention any viable opposing views. Opposing views are never made nonviable by flawed logic. An author/speaker may not believe a particular point of view is correct or relevant, but until a defensible reason to reject it is produced, the etiquette is to at least mention it, so observers or newcomers to the debate can read and judge for themselves. Omission of viable alternatives in a method for suppression of said alternatives.

  • I think Shanahan is being disgraceful accusing me of "dishonesty" and being "unethical" for disagreeing with him, and for expressing my opinions.


    Of course and as usual, this is not what I am doing but Jed prefers to slant things in his favor with the use of strawmen arguments. What I am protesting is his hypocritical application of the very things I am asking for to anti-CF comments. As I have noted, if I were to say something blatantly wrong, Jed would be all over it in seconds. But when I point out that he fails (deliberately IMO) to acknowledge the 10 authors of the 2010 JEM article used faulty strawman logic to reject the CCS/ATER hypothesis, I am called 'crackpot'. It is impossible Jed is not aware of this at this point, and his deliberate misrepresentation of the situation would be unethical and dishonest for any self-respecting reporter/blogger/advocate/whatever.

  • Saying it is not ethical for someone to hold a contrary view to yours (even if you are correct) is not good science.


    I see you have fallen for the trap. As noted above, I do not say this. What I say is that Jed fully understands what he is doing, and chooses to take the fanatic's position and attempt to suppress an unpalatable alternative, while knowing that is not scientifically justified.