Is there evidence for LENR power generation of 100W for days without input power?

  • I dislike the dialog being put into characterizations of belief. But this aspect of not accepting perfectly good scientific data until it is commercialized is another threshold to consider about skeptopaths

    [email protected]

    Have you ever done a doctoral Literature Survey? Or supervised others doing this? I have done both.

    It is a weird process but valuable in one very important way. It teaches you how to critically appraise other people's work where there is no consensus, and can be none because individual contributions are unique and in some cases have not been followed up by anyone else.

    Every (well - almost every) doctoral student starts off reading papers and, as you, accepting perfectly good scientific data. Only after they have read around the subject, done some of their own work (whether experimental or analytic) can they come back to the original stuff and have a mature judgement of what the original papers really mean. That will in nearly all cases be much less significant than it seemed when first read.

    So your unconditional acceptance of certain data, together with the lack of detailed analysis in your appraisal of the work you accept, leads me to think that you are at this first starting-out doctoral student stage in your understanding of this subject. The fact that you seem unaware of the subtlety in interpreting scientific research, and the way that individual work will always seem more convincing than it really is until you have a rounded view of the field, makes me think you are not qualified to judge those you call skeptopaths whether your judgement is right or wrong.


  • THHuxleynew

    You seem perfectly happy to accept Kirk's theories of how the anomalous heat effect in Pd/D can be explained by something other than LENR, despite the fact that AFAIK he has never performed any experiments to test his hypothesis directly, but reluctant to accept the truth of Jed's often cited 'hundreds of experiments' that demonstrate LENR.

    Some inconsistency there, shirley?

  • I was objecting to the word "belief" because of how scientism is becoming its own belief system, a religion if you will.

    You have an interesting perspective, that anyone without a PhD is unqualified to assess 150 replications by the top electrochemists of their day. Perhaps you should submit this as a proposal to the moderators here on this panel so you can whittle down discussion among PhDs or PhD candidates. I know Ed Storms wanted something like that with Vortex and quit vortex when they didn't bend to his will, choosing to spend his time discussing his theories with other PhD dudes.

    In the absence of your submitted proposal, I highly doubt you ever will submit such a proposal and that your elitist approach to the data is pure, unadulterated bovine excrement. Perhaps your Piled Higher and Deeper background eminently qualifies you to identify your own backyard pile of excrement, but I doubt that as well.

    And as long as you're berating those who are unqualified to assess the data, you should look through what Interested Observer has to say and how well he represents that skeptopath tradition.

    While you are at it, perhaps you know of some PhD who started reading all those 153 peer reviewed replications by the top electochemists of their day? And perhaps there is just even ONE peer reviewed paper that dismantles the replications, similar to what happened with Polywater? And also, perhaps you could take a look at that Arata experiment that I posted upthread, and show where the peer reviewed replication of that experiment was unworthy of the result, that I should not have gotten paid for it passing peer review. And when you're done with all that (which we all know you won't do) then you can cast your glance at how you forwarded scientism as a religion, complete with its high priests who have PhDs and look down their noses at people without them.

  • It teaches you how to critically appraise other people's work where there is no consensus, and can be none because individual contributions are unique and in some cases have not been followed up by anyone else.

    As I mentioned elsewhere, there is a consensus among people who have performed the experiments and people who have read the literature. The majority of the ones who have published papers or talked to me believe that cold fusion is real. All of the papers reviewing the experimental evidence are positive, except Morrison and Shanahan, AFAIK.

    There is another consensus among physicists and especially plasma physicists that the effect is not real. However, if you discuss this with them, or read what they wrote in books or the 2004 DoE review, you will see that they have not read the literature, and they have not given any technical reasons why the experiments are wrong. So they are not experts. Their views have no scientific grounds. So you should ignore them. Asking them would be like asking electrochemists how to built a Tokomak.

    Regarding this statement: "individual contributions are unique and in some cases have not been followed up by anyone else." You should have said:

    SOME individual contributions are SOMEWHAT unique, and some have not been followed up by anyone else, but most are similar to the original claims of F&P and confirm those claims. That is what the authors say.

    That puts it in a different light.