David J. Nagel (Nucat) : Evidence of Operability and Utility from Low Energy Nuclear Reaction Experiments - Report

  • David J. Naget of Nucat Energy LLC wrote this report, as a synthesis of LENR state of the art.


    NUCAT Energy LLC Report.pdf



    This report was made to support the effort of a company in the domain, and maybe it may be useful to some other actor.


    If you use it, a great thanks sent to David Nagel will surely be appreciated;).

  • The quickest look shows a) no references to my work and b) references from 2016.


    What this means is that this document is another 'true believer' product. No consideration of extant non-nuclear alternatives.


    This implies to me it is just a rehash of what has already been discussed here and elsewhere. If someone reads it and thinks that my initial impression is wrong, please correct me.

  • Quote

    I notice the report also makes no mention of Mary's pink flying unicorn theory. How strange...

    Endless power from harnessing the flapping of invisible wings. Like the QuarkX, it has multiple output modes. Not only can you get electricity, light and sound but also flight. It has not caught on because of the difficulty of fitting harnesses to the invisible unicorns but I think some researchers are working on that.

  • Good summary. Not sure if this was intended to convince anyone of LENR, but if so, I doubt it will. Like Louis Reed often complains about; it is mostly "old stuff". Not that that makes it any less compelling, but even I would have to agree that more emphasis on recent times would be more motivating. Hopefully that omission is not due to a lack of anything worthy to report on?


    Joshua Cude was also very critical of LENR, but did have a lot of good things to say about the professionalism of the early LENR pioneer researchers covered in Nagel's report. These guys knew their calorimetry, and it is to their credit that the field has continued on, largely due the respect, and trust for the work they did some 20-30 years ago. Hopefully somewhere, someone has since built upon their results, and moved the field a little further? If so, it would be nice to have a report on them.

  • Really? Really??


    KS,


    I am just deferring to higher authorities when I say that. And there are few higher authorities on LENR's history, than super critic JC, yet even he tipped his hat to those early researchers. Unfortunately, as Jed keeps reminding us....most are dead, or living in the LENR Full Care Villa's. They laid the path for the next generations, however most that followed chose to go down a different path.

  • I think you meant "NO need". But of course, reviews should always present opposing views.

    Thanks for the correction.


    Yes, reviews should present opposing views, but not crackpot views that anyone can easily show are wrong. There are dozens of crackpot papers in cold fusion. That is characteristic of science in this stage of development, before a good theory emerges. I could write a 100-page review covering ideas, theories and idiotic experiments that only the authors themselves believe. I could do this better than any skeptic, because I actually know where the bodies are buried.


    I think that would be a bad idea. I think the purpose of a review is to present opposing views that have some degree of credibility, and some support from experts. It should be an attempt to make sense of the data. You want to tell the reader what you think is worth paying attention to. Or, alternatively, to tell the reader what a respected expert thinks, even if you happen to disagree. I think you do the reader a disservice when you promote crackpot nonsense such as Shanahan's, putting it on the same plane as real science. He already got more attention than he deserved. Marwan's smackdown should be the last word. Shanahan does not even deserve a footnote.


    Morrison was even more of a crackpot, but he deserves a footnote because his nonsense had a large impact. Large, and deleterious. As far as I know, Shahanhan's nonsense has caused no harm.


    Again, let me emphasize that while I would not include Shanahan in a review that I write, I most certainly would upload anything and everything he has to say. Marwan's smackdown only applies to a critique that I might write. I would never say that Shanahan should not be allowed to publish or upload as many responses in as much detail as he likes. If he were to write a whole book, I would be happy to upload it. There should never be a "last word." No censorship! I emphatically support his right to publish and be heard. In fact, I support it even more than he does, because he will not grant me permission to upload some of his work.

  • Yes, and Marwan et al. proved you are wrong in 2010. So there is no need to include your work in a review.

    I think you do the reader a disservice when you promote crackpot nonsense such as Shanahan's, putting it on the same plane as real science. He already got more attention than he deserved. Marwan's smackdown should be the last word. Shanahan does not even deserve a footnote.


    Jed, you continue to prove you are a know-nothing. I doubt anyone on this forum would accept the use of strawman arguments, but your comment shows you took in the 10 author's strawman hook, line, and sinker.


    Summary: Marwan, et al - "random Shanahan CSSH" --- Shanahan (2002) "A Systematic Error in Mass Flow Calorimetry Demonstrated" - diametrically opposed concepts - proving the first wrong says nothing about the second.

  • Jed Rothwell wrote on 8/8/2017:


    “Again, let me emphasize that while I would not include Shanahan in a review that I write, I most certainly would upload anything and everything he has to say. Marwan's smackdown only applies to a critique that I might write. I would never say that Shanahan should not be allowed to publish or upload as many responses in as much detail as he likes. If he were to write a whole book, I would be happy to upload it. There should never be a "last word." No censorship! I emphatically support his right to publish and be heard. In fact, I support it even more than he does, because he will not grant me permission to upload some of his work.”


    Jed has also said many times he asked me for copies so he could upload them and seemed even eager to do so.


    So let’s check on that…


    On 8/4 /17 I posted links to some of my manuscripts that are freely available on the Web. Also recall I and others have posted a link to my whitepaper many times. One of the earlier ones was on June 16 (How many times has the Pons-Fleischmann Anomalous Heating Event been replicated in peer reviewed journals?) (Actually, Jed knew about this long ago, but it critiques the F&P calorimetric method and Jed likes to say no critique has ever called that into question.)


    So on 8/9/17, I checked LENR-CANR.ORG under my name and got this via cut-and-paste…

    (http://lenr-canr.org/index/Summary/Summary.php and use the search button, select my name from the list)

    -----------------begin--------------------

    DOWNLOAD

    2002

    Shanahan, K., A Possible Calorimetric Error in Heavy Water Electrolysis on Platinum. Thermochim. Acta, 2002. 387(2): p. 95-101.

    First Author

    Shanahan, K.

    All Authors

    Shanahan, K.

    Title

    A Possible Calorimetric Error in Heavy Water Electrolysis on Platinum

    Publisher

    Thermochim. Acta

    Date Uploaded

    2002-07-03

    Abstract

    Abstract A systematic error in mass flow calorimetry calibration procedures potentially capable of


    explaining most positive excess power measurements is described. Data recently interpreted as


    providing evidence of the Pons-Fleischmann effect with a platinum cathode are reinterpreted with the


    opposite conclusion. This indicates it is premature to conclude platinum displays a Pons and


    Fleischmann effect, and places the requirement to evaluate the erro-?s magnitude on all mass flow


    calorimetric experiments.

    Keywords

    error, heat critique

    DOWNLOAD

    2003

    Shanahan, K., A Critique of the Student's Guide To Cold Fusion. 2003, LENR-CANR.org.

    First Author

    Shanahan, K.

    All Authors

    Shanahan, K.

    Title

    A Critique of the Student's Guide To Cold Fusion

    Publisher

    LENR-CANR.org

    Date Uploaded

    2003-02-12

    Abstract

    Dr. Edmund Storms has just released a new paper on cold fusion (CF, aka LENR, or CANR) that contains


    a section (in Chapter 8) that purports to address the issues I raise with cold fusion calorimetry in


    my paper and spf comments. I would like to address those comments dealing with my "calibration


    constant shift" (CCS) proposal to illustrate why they are incorrect.

    Keywords

    Critique

    2005

    Shanahan, K., Comments on Thermal behavior of polarized Pd/D electrodes prepared by co-deposition. Thermochim. Acta, 2005. 428: p. 207.

    First Author

    Shanahan, K.

    All Authors

    Shanahan, K.

    Title

    Comments on Thermal behavior of polarized Pd/D electrodes prepared by co-deposition

    Publisher

    Thermochim. Acta

    Date Uploaded

    Abstract

    Keywords

    Calorimeter, method,

    2005

    Shanahan, K., Reply to 'Comment on papers by K. Shanahan that propose to explain anomalous heat generated by cold fusion,' E. Storms. Thermochim. Acta, 2005. 441: p. 210.

    ----------------End------------------------


    Gosh, only four listings and only two downloadable docs…one that I gave him, and a long comment lifted from sci.physics.fusion and then replied to within by Ed Storms. The title of the first manuscript is correct, but he uses that as the title of my 2002 TA paper, which is incorrect (part of the reformat that I did when my paper was rejected by FS&T). He gets the year on my 2006 reply to Storms wrong. He doesn’t reference my whitepaper either, even though that’s more formal than the spf posting. No reference to the 2010 JEM comment either. But he does reference the 2010 ‘Marwan, et al’ paper that he likes to cite which replied to my 2010 Comment, and the 2006 Comment by Storms, with the correct year this time.


    So, certainly not very eager to do what he says is he….I wonder why…

  • @Jed,


    I note here Shanahan giving you permission to publish all of his stuff.


    The Shanahan/Marwan list of papers is interesting, and should be archived. That means you should have Shanahan's white paper response to Marwan et al, and also any considered response from them to it.


    Since this details a possible source of non-nuclear anomaly that could underlie some of the LENR data it is surely of signiifcance - it does not matter how you personally judge which of the parties is correct. Shanahan's papers are better written than many in the field.


    Just my opinion - it is your site - you should do what you like.

  • Jed has also said many times he asked me for copies so he could upload them and seemed even eager to do so.


    So let’s check on that…


    On 8/4 /17 I posted links to some of my manuscripts that are freely available on the Web. Also recall I and others have posted a link to my whitepaper many times.

    Let me say this again, clearly. If you want me to upload papers, you have to e-mail me copies of those papers with a brief note saying something like "please upload this." I need proof that the author (or publisher) sent me the paper and granted permission. Otherwise I may get in trouble with authors or publishers. I have been doing this for a long time and I know that is how it must be done.


    You can always withdraw permission. I will remove the paper in few days if you do that.


    There are often different versions of a paper floating around on the Internet. I need the author to send me the specific version he approves. In the case of journal papers, this is often the so-called "manuscript" version, similar to the ones uploaded to arXiv. This is because of copyright laws.


    If you want me to add a title only to the database, without the paper, please provide all relevant fields for the EndNote record, which would probably be the following with optional fields in parenthesis:


    REPORT TYPE


    Author

    Year

    Title

    (Series editor)

    (Place published)

    Institution

    Publisher

    (Keywords)

    (Abstract)

    (URL)


    To summarize, papers and titles do not add themselves to LENR-CANR.org. You, the author, have to take an active role and start the process. I do not upload without permission, period.

  • @Jed,


    I note here Shanahan giving you permission to publish all of his stuff.

    Nope. That does not count. Permission has to be in an e-mail, not in a discussion group message. I need proof on my disk that I was given permission. A one-line message, "please upload this" is fine. With the paper attached to the message.


    This is because I have had problems with publishers from time to time. Not often, and not huge problems -- I always delete things as soon as they complain. But the last thing I need is angry publishers. Or someone at the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) asking: "who gave you permission upload our paper?!?" You do not rile the DIA! So, if someone complains, I need proof that the author or someone on their staff sent me the paper.


    This is also because A Certain Author who shall remain nameless often grants permission to upload papers in public discussion groups, but when I and others take him at his word, he then hits people with a nuisance lawsuit, or the threat of one. People have paid him off in the past. I assume it is a shakedown. I am sure Shanahan would never do anything like that, but still, he works at an institution and he has a boss who might want to know where I got a paper from a Federal Employee. Best to do things by the numbers.


    Let me add that I have often asked Shanahan for permission to upload more papers. Sometimes he explicitly denied permission. Sometimes he gave me inconclusive non-permission permission, "upload them if want to." Sometimes he gives permission in a discussion group as he has done here, but he never follows up with an e-mail, even though he knows that is what the publishers and institutions require, as I told him several times. So I suspect he does not actually want me to upload his papers. That is his prerogative, of course. But I suspect he wants you -- the reading public -- to think that I am censoring him. As he did here once again, he makes it look as if I am censoring him, to make me look bad, while in fact he is the one who is deliberately withholding permission.