Mizuno : Publication of kW/COP2 excess heat results

  • Alan, I think the fear is to be associated with CLAIMS for cold fusion without properly vetted, multiple and highly persuasive evidence that it's real. That would be a realistic fear. People get tired of investigating and spending time on claims like those of Rossi, Defkalion, Steorn, Miley and BLP. They got tired of trying to properly replicate F&P. It's the reason courts rely on precedents and appeals are difficult. You can't keep retrying the same cases over and over again.

  • The fear amongst 'mainstream' academics of being in any way connected with cold fusion is very real. I can vouch for that.

    Yes, indeed. I pointed to the anger expressed by the leading opponents, in the mass media and the DoE. However, many others are motivated by fear. This is important. I should be more forgiving of them.


    This goes back to the beginning of the field. John Bockris and others told me about scientists approaching them in 1989 and 1990 and saying, "don't tell anyone, and please don't use my name, but I saw positive results like yours. [tritium and heat]." Mallove described this in his book, in an incident in 1990:


    . . . [F]unding began to dry up [because of attacks by Nature], and it became necessary all too often to discuss scientific work behind closed doors. John Bockris recounts one such episode: "A Ph.D. from a national lab, asked [me] to step into a conference room at a meeting. After shutting the door, he pulled graphs and results from his briefcase and said, 'Don't tell anyone about this. My boss would kill me if he knew I was telling you. I have positive results, you see.' "


    I cannot estimate how often that happened, but I know of three specific examples from prominent laboratories (including that incident). I expect there were others. I also know of many positive results that were rejected by journals and never published in proceedings, or anywhere else. The authors may not have been afraid, but they were discouraged and they eventually gave up.


    No doubt there are unpublished negative results as well. But the early experiments failed for reasons we now understand, so these are not very significant.

  • Alan, I think the fear is to be associated with CLAIMS for cold fusion without properly vetted, multiple and highly persuasive evidence that it's real.


    No Mary. The fear that I am talking about is that expressed privately to me by some very eminent scientists who confess that they know LENR is real. Nothing to do with claims, or money, just the certain knowledge that if they speak up their careers are suddenly very uncertain.

  • Alan, I think the fear is to be associated with CLAIMS for cold fusion without properly vetted, multiple and highly persuasive evidence that it's real.

    There are hundreds of mainstream peer-reviewed journal papers from places like BARC and China Lake. That's properly vetted from multiple sources. You refuse to look at this literature, but that doesn't make it go away. (See: "object permanence.")

    That would be a realistic fear.

    No, it is made up by you. It is imaginary.

    People get tired of investigating and spending time on claims like those of Rossi, Defkalion, Steorn, Miley and BLP.

    Anyone who "gets tired" of this could instead read the actual cold fusion literature. Just a thought.

  • Quote

    No Mary. The fear that I am talking about is that expressed privately to me by some very eminent scientists who confess that they know LENR is real. Nothing to do with claims, or money, just the certain knowledge that if they speak up their careers are suddenly very uncertain.


    So nobody has the guts to risk proving the most important power source ever found? You really expect people to believe this?

  • So nobody has the guts to risk proving the most important power source ever found? You really expect people to believe this?


    I hope you are not calling me a liar Mary. I am not talking hearsay, but reporting facts at first hand, I don't expect you to believe anything that doesn't suit you, but I do expect people in general to do so.

  • Yes, indeed. I pointed to the anger expressed by the leading opponents, in the mass media and the DoE. However, many others are motivated by fear. This is important. I should be more forgiving of them.


    This goes back to the beginning of the field. John Bockris and others told me about scientists approaching them in 1989 and 1990 and saying, "don't tell anyone, and please don't use my name, but I saw positive results like yours


    I agree with you 100% Jed. It is all there for the reading on your site, and on the net. Amazing to me how NASA slipped through the cracks though, and quietly pursued CF from the beginning, while somehow avoiding the backlash from the mainstream others experienced?


    3 months after FPs, Fralick (NASA) and team replicated them. NASA went on to replicate Mills early light water cells, and Patterson, then later re-replicated Fralick's 1989 results. They were, and still are all over LENR to this day. Yet their reputation remains intact.


    Just NASA's latest Arvix paper, and patent filing indicates they have no fear of the CF stigma at all, as they have not only enlisted these outside firms:


    http://www.oai.org/


    http://vantage-partners.net/


    http://www.jwk.com/site/


    but also "PineSci Consulting", for their participation in the research. Glen Carbon NASA has paid them all well for their contributions, and asking for more to keep it going. No push back either from the NASA bureaucracy for the funding...another sign NASA is not shy of CF/LENR.


    In addition, JWK is an interesting story in and of itself, as they have been heavily involved in LENR indirectly through:


    http://www.gec.solutions/


    DR. JAY W. KHIM being the CEO of both JWK and GEC.


    and LAWRENCE FORSLEY works for both also as a researcher.


    Here is a little more about all that from Ruby's website:


    https://coldfusionnow.org/mine…rporation-lenr-navy-guam/

  • THHuxley "But, I'm happy to take just one of these papers and go over it with a fine tooth comb to understand more.""

    Promises Promises..


    THHuxley"It is academic, because the IH replication failed. Still, I'd like to debug this. But not sure I have the motivation to spend long amts of time on it given the IH work.

    Both Jed and I have put the fleacomb through and..no fleas. The excess energy from the calorimetry tallies with Mizuno's calculations


    The Mizuno paper is waiting for your fine tooth comb debug.


    are you "happy to take just one" or "not sure I have the motivation". Make up your mind.Put some math to it.


    Is Mizuno lying about his calorimetry or not? Check out the raw spreadsheets on this thread. Calculate,


    Are you going to be like Shanahan who alleges ad nauseam but won't show his calculations.?


    Does the deuterium decrease over 30 days tally with the energy output.?page 26


    Evaluate on the evidence given.


    Of course its academic "Because the IH replication failed."


    You don't know how ridiculous that sounds... because otherwise you would have deleted it long ago.

  • Quote

    I hope you are not calling me a liar Mary. I am not talking hearsay, but reporting facts at first hand, I don't expect you to believe anything that doesn't suit you, but I do expect people in general to do so.

    Where am I calling you a liar? I have no doubt that you had those conversations. What I question is the implication. You misunderstood the reply. Maybe the scientists you talked to care more about saving their careers (as THEY perceive it) than saving the world. What I said was that if LENR really worked, there would be someone somewhere (probably plenty of them) with knowledge, money and ability who would have the guts to talk about it, risk their reputation if that is what it would do, and develop it.


    Quote

    Amazing to me how NASA slipped through the cracks though, and quietly pursued CF from the beginning, while somehow avoiding the backlash from the mainstream others experienced?


    For all the good it has done them thus far in terms of tangible achievements.


    @Shane

    The Guam story seems familiar -- four or five years ago, someone claimed they would have working LENR reactors supplying significant power to Guam by now. At the time I wondered why Guam. And of course nobody is doing that, are they?


    BTW, Shane, Ruby Carat is charming but extremely fanciful as per your link:


    Quote

    The problem is the Governor of Guam was impeached and the people of Guam would rather have a Rossi Hot Cat than a GeNie filled with fresh U238 from JWK.


    I bet they can a very nice Rossi Hot Cat from the stuff IH rejected and sent him packing with.


    Quote

    It is the opinion of Cold Fusion Now that GeNie LENR hybrid reactors should be deployed to spent fuel rod sites around the world. Thereby generating electricity at nuclear sites by transmuting nuclear waste.


    Seriously? REALLY? How does that work exactly? WTF are "Genie Hybrid reactors" and where does one get one?

  • Alan Smith wrote "The fear that I am talking about is that expressed privately to me by some very eminent scientists who confess that they know LENR is real"


    The recent paperstrongly supporting high rates of deuterium fusion in metal lattices when stimulated by a few eV electrically

    is done by three experienced experimental nuclear scientists who have freed themselves from the

    censure of the academic environment they have endured for decades.


    May fortune favour the brave.


    "Strong screening by lattice confinement and resultant fusion reaction

    rates in fcc metals

    F.M. Prados-Estévez ⇑, A.V. Subashiev, H.H. Nee

    Target Technology Company LLC, 564 Wald, Irvine, CA 92618, USA"

  • No Mary. The fear that I am talking about is that expressed privately to me by some very eminent scientists who confess that they know LENR is real. Nothing to do with claims, or money, just the certain knowledge that if they speak up their careers are suddenly very uncertain.


    My view would be that such certainty from them is part of a belief system which includes fear of persecution and the whole thing has little substance.


    But, as MY says, if they make such strong and certain claims based on uncertain evidence (as some have done in the past), it would not be great for their career so there is some logic in the fear.


    Scientists are expected to have humility when dealing with new things. It helps keep everyone sane.

  • So nobody has the guts to risk proving the most important power source ever found? You really expect people to believe this?

    Lots of people have had the guts to prove that cold fusion is real. That's why I have a library with thousands of papers. Unfortunately, other people do not believe the experimental results.


    I am not talking hearsay, but reporting facts at first hand, I don't expect you to believe anything that doesn't suit you, but I do expect people in general to do so.

    Yes. As I said, Bockris and others heard from the kinds of people you describe, including some who believe LENR is real but are afraid to talk about it, and some who actually replicated.


    I myself cannot identify such people often because they wouldn't tell me. People contact me and ask for things, such as a copy of a paper listed in the index but not on file. They do not say: "Oh by the way, I am a professional scientist but I am afraid to talk about cold fusion." Why would they? There must be such people based on what Bockris said and Alan Smith says. I can tell that many people interested in the research keep a low profile. I say that because people have visited LENR-CANR 4.5 million times, and as I showed in one of my papers, many of those visitors come from universities, corporations, investment banks, defense agencies and so on. There must be many people in those places quietly following developments in the field. They seldom say anything in public supporting it. Google Alerts does not often report news of endorsements from them. So I suppose they are keeping a low profile.

  • This goes back to the beginning of the field. John Bockris and others told me about scientists approaching them in 1989 and 1990 and saying, "don't tell anyone, and please don't use my name, but I saw positive results like yours. [tritium and heat]."


    That's probably because they were similarly mis-interpreting actual effects. E.g. Fleischmann-Pons excess heat == modeling error, commonly perpetuated throughout the field. Bockris transmutation with submerged carbon arcs == dust, as shown by the Bhabba replication where a dust cover cut yield by 50%, etc.


    Unpublished results are non-existent to the rest of the world. So-and-so may have told you (or Alan) 'I got it to work!' but that in itself is worthless. The results must either be turned into a working device which can be sold, or published as scientific results that can then be studied and hopefully replicated.

  • Both Jed and I have put the fleacomb through and..no fleas. The excess energy from the calorimetry tallies with Mizuno's calculations


    But did you listen to what I said about the work? No, as usual. I repeat, the data is flaky, it shows signs of serious problems. Yes, when you chunk the data through the calcs, you get what Mizuno did, but it's all GIGO.


    Are you going to be like Shanahan who alleges ad nauseam but won't show his calculations.?


    Care to explain that?

  • John Bockris and others told me about scientists approaching them in 1989 and 1990 and saying, "don't tell anyone, and please don't use my name, but I saw positive results like yours. [tritium and heat]."


    That's probably because they were similarly mis-interpreting actual effects. E.g. Fleischmann-Pons excess heat == modeling error,

    No, that is not the reason. These people did not say "don't tell anyone" because they thought they were misinterpreting actual effects. If they had thought that, they wouldn't have told Bockris anything. They asked him to keep the results secret because they were afraid of being attacked for reporting a positive results. For good reason; many people were attacked.

  • No, that is not the reason. These people did not say "don't tell anyone" because they thought they were misinterpreting actual effect. If they had thought that, they wouldn't have told Bockris anything. They asked him to keep the results secret because they were afraid of being attacked for reporting a positive results. For good reason; many people were attacked.


    What it really means is that they didn't believe their own results enough to publish them. In the early days (1989-1992) there were lots of publications of failures and successes. The problem always was they couldn't replicate the results later (replicate in the correct sense of reproducing essentially similar results at different times in different places by different researchers). But the bottom line is still 'secret' results don't count, it's nothing by mythology.

  • What it really means is that they didn't believe their own results enough to publish them.

    No, it does not really mean that. Not at all. It really means they were scared, for good reason. In two cases, they finally did publish their own results, years later.


    You should stop speculating about these people. You do not know them, or what they did. (Whereas I do, and Bockris did.) You have no idea what they thought. All you know is one sentence from Mallove's book. Based on that you wave your hands and declare they were wrong and they knew they were wrong. That makes no sense. A person who thinks he made a mistake would not tell Bockris or publish years later.


    I suggest you assume they meant what they said.

  • No, it does not really mean that. Not at all. It really means they were scared, for good reason. In two cases, they finally did publish their own results, years later.


    You should stop speculating about these people. You do not know them, or what they did. (Whereas I do, and Bockris did.) You have no idea what they thought. All you know is one sentence from Mallove's book. Based on that you wave your hands and declare they were wrong and they knew they were wrong. That makes no sense. A person who thinks he made a mistake would not tell Bockris or publish years later.


    I suggest you assume they meant what they said.


    And they still weren't conclusive, were they? There still is no funding available. There still are no indisputable publications. 28 years and zip is all you've got.


    I think I will assume just that...zip is what the field has produced. And that when there probably is a real, albeit non-nuclear, effect.

  • And they still weren't conclusive, were they?

    Yes, they were. You don't think so, but you are a crackpot who thinks a bucket of water will evaporate overnight at room temperature, so your views don't count. You have crackpot "theories" to explain away these studies, but no one believes you. Marwan et al. blew you out of the water, but you don't even realize that.

    There still is no funding available.

    That's because of politics.

    There still are no indisputable publications.

    There are hundreds. You don't think so but, as I said, that is because you are are a crackpot.

  • I think people who believed in Rossi and Defkalion claims are the crackpots rather than reasonable skeptics like Shanahan and some others.


    BTW, who is ready to make a deposit on their very own megawatt plant? To make electricity (ROTFWL)!


    1. Nadira September 16, 2017 at 3:14 PM
      If a company orders today a 1 MW plant to [from?] Leonardo Corporation to make electricity, by when can it expect the delivery?

      Thank you if you can answer,

      Nadira
    2. Andrea Rossi September 16, 2017 at 4:21 PM
      Between 6 months and 1 year, depending on the specific conditions.

      Warm Regards,

      A.R.


    "JONP"

  • I think people who believed in Rossi and Defkalion claims are the crackpots rather than reasonable skeptics like Shanahan and some others.

    People who still believe Rossi and Defkalion are indeed crackpots, but so are people who think that 10 L of water will evaporate overnight. So are people who have "theories" than conflict with conventional electrochemistry going back to Faraday. So are people like you, who make errors by a factor of 1,800, do not realize it, and will not admit it when others point this out. You dismiss this as "nitpicking" -- as if it were perfectly okay to claim that an airplane can fly from New York to Tokyo in 28 seconds, and no one should criticize you for an error on this scale.


    There are many different kinds of crackpots in the world.

  • People who still believe Rossi and Defkalion are indeed crackpots, but so are people who think that 10 L of water will evaporate overnight. So are people who have "theories" than conflict with conventional electrochemistry going back to Faraday. So are people like you, who make errors by a factor of 1,800, do not realize it, and will not admit it when others point this out. You dismiss this as "nitpicking" -- as if it were perfectly okay to claim that an airplane can fly from New York to Tokyo in 28 seconds, and no one should criticize you for an error on this scale.


    There are many different kinds of crackpots in the world.

    Jed,


    Don't necessarily think those people are crackpots, they're just delusional.

    They want to believe in something so bad

    that logic and reason have no affect on them.

  • @Jed: So are [crackpots like Rossi] people who have "theories" than conflict with conventional electrochemistry going back to Faraday.


    I'm sorry but this argument does not stand in context. You cannot properly argue that LENR (which goes against conventional nuclear physics) is somehow more plausible than some Shanahan-like hypothesis (which goes against conventional electrochemistry) just on that basis.


    You'd need a complex and probably subjective judgement about how much the new idea broke the old rules, and whether than was implausible because such breakage would already have been noticed, etc, etc.


    Shanahan has been giving these arguments for why the specific circumstances of LENR electrolysis might never have been noticed in conventional electrochemistry, specifically:

    • D2O electrolysis
    • Nucear active environment
    • Anode and Cathode gasses allowed to mix in cell (something that for obvious reasons would not normally be done).


    I've no idea whether these are good reasons. But, you must balance them against a similar argument for why the weird things that allow LENR reactions have never been noticed by physicists in many relevant areas (astrophysics, nuclear physics sold-state theory, etc).


    Bottom line: I don't think this argument works without a lot of detailed additional support. In any case, I don't think theorists with unconventional hypotheses are anything like Rossi or Defkalion.

  • I'm sorry but this argument does not stand in context. You cannot properly argue that LENR (which goes against conventional nuclear physics) is somehow more plausible than some Shanahan-like hypothesis (which goes against conventional electrochemistry) just on that basis.

    Oh yes I can! Cold fusion is an apparent violation of nuclear physics. (Some experts disagree with that, but most say it is.) However, we know that cold fusion is real, because it has been widely replicated at high signal to noise ratios. Therefore, if it is actually a violation of nuclear theory, nuclear theory is wrong. When experiments conflict with theory -- any theory -- the experiments win; the theory loses.


    In Shanahan's case, there are no experiments backing up his theory. There is no evidence for it. What we have instead is evidence for excess heat, which he has twisted into a pretzel to fit it his crackpot theory. No one else agrees with his analysis. There are many experiments showing it is wrong.


    If Shanahan could point to real evidence for his theory, then he would actually overthrow Faraday's law.


    Any and all theories must give way to replicated experiments. That is the essence of the scientific method. Faraday's theories, nuclear theories, even Newton's laws . . . when experiments show they are wrong or incomplete or need adjustment, they must fall.


    Shanahan has been giving these arguments for why the specific circumstances of LENR electrolysis might never have been noticed in conventional electrochemistry, specifically:

    D2O electrolysis
    Nucear active environment
    Anode and Cathode gasses allowed to mix in cell (something that for obvious reasons would not normally be done).


    I've no idea whether these are good reasons.

    It is obvious he is wrong. These are not "good reasons;" they are nonsense. For example, a cursory examination of data from either cold fusion experiments or conventional electrochemisty show that moving the heat source within the cell does not measurably affect the calorimetry. You need only glance at the schematics of most calorimeters to see why this is the case. For example, with flow calorimetry, the inlet and outlet where heat is measured is anywhere from 1 cm to several centimeters away from the cell. How could a shift in the heat source affect that? Actual calibrations done by moving the heat source show no measurable change in the calibration constant.

  • Oh yes I can! Cold fusion is an apparent violation of nuclear physics. (Some experts disagree with that, but most say it is.) However, we know that cold fusion is real, because it has been widely replicated at high signal to noise ratios. Therefore, if it is actually a violation of nuclear theory, nuclear theory is wrong. When experiments conflict with theory -- any theory -- the experiments win; the theory loses.


    In Shanahan's case, there are no experiments backing up his theory. There is no evidence for it. What we have instead is evidence for excess heat, which he has twisted into a pretzel to fit it his crackpot theory. No one else agrees with his analysis. There are many experiments showing it is wrong.


    Since Shanahan's theory and LENR are both hypotheses that explain a number of LENR results, I don't see how you can separate them in this manner.


    The one distinction is that Shanahan (alone) advocates his theory, whereas there are quite a number of LENR advocates who advocate (different, for the most part) LENR theories.


    So I agree LENR wins by numbers. But then, the conventional "LENR is most likely not real" position wins even more by numbers, so I don't see this as a good argument.


    Not that I'd back any hypothesis advocated by a single person (or many people). it would need to be substantive and well-argued. Shahahan's idea meets those two tests.


    These tests do not determine whether it is correct, but screen out obvious no-starters. For example they would rule out from initial consideration Intelligent Design (not substantive) and "pink Unicorns probably inhabit my garden because I am certain that red squirrels inhabit it, but, like unicorns, have never seen them" (not well argued).