Debate: Does LENR needs a good theory, or good lab-rat

A "lab rat" in this context is a simple experiment that is easy enough to carry out and replicate that skeptical scientists can try it out successfully in their own labs.

... "experimental LENR results that are not supported (even if not ruled specifically ruled out) by 'mainstream physics' have been of little use so far."

And will remain so - 'mainstream physics' is not a disposable toy.

The problem with a good theory here is that it would have to be very very good to compete with the vast amount of experimental validation of other theories. Not impossible, but a big ask.

There is not specific quantifiable experimental evidence of difference from existing theory to target in a new theory. The various experimental anomalies are variable and inconsistent. They work qualitatively, but not quantitatively. Existing theories are validated (and distinguished from each other) by exquisitely accurate quantitative predictions, so this is unhelpful.

Whereas - a lab rate experiment showing clear anomalous results would prove some extraordinary new effect beyond doubt because it could be repeated by different groups with different calorimetry/detectors/etc and every time (with perhaps some stochastic element of x% fail) would reliably generate the same anomaly.

The "lab rat" requirement is often the stumbling block for claims of new physics. I remember well the adventures of Room Temperature Superconductors, Inc., a company that made the rounds in the 90's claiming that they had developed a way to achieve the phenomenon described by their name. The problem was that it could only be observed using an extremely arcane method that bore no resemblance to the experimental methods routinely used to study superconductors. They sidestepped any questions about why conventional measurements did not work. They eventually faded into obscurity. The company was the brainchild of Mark Goldes, who went on to promote a serious of other bogus technologies including an engine running on hydrinos and nearly a dozen other free energy scams. As far as I know, he is still at it.

Quote from Ahlfors

'mainstream physics' is not a disposable toy.

.... It's more of a half-finished jigsaw

the cutting edge of science is often not mainstream ..its on the fringe or backwaters

Zeus46

... and so It follows that pieces A and B are totally equivalent.

... "possibly beginning with hiring some talent to redesign the websites ... ": on second thought a VERY good idea.

Ahlfors, your post makes absolutely no sense to me.

Open replication by multiple trusted sources

(academic, scientific, industrial, lab rats etc), using identical bill of materials, build instructions, testing procedures, measurement principles and protocols and getting the same results.

In "Roseland67 world" a theory is not needed to develop a product/process, the theory can come after.

IF/when, the Ecat meets those requirements

the world will change, until then,

"Rossi says", just doesn't cut it for me.

Quote from Eric Walker

A "lab rat" in this context is a simple experiment that is easy enough to carry out and replicate that skeptical scientists can try it out successfully in their own labs.

In this case the scientists are the rats, and they are trying to bell that cat. See:

http://mythfolklore.net/aesopica/milowinter/6.htm

Or, as Anna Russell put it, things would be so different, if they were not as they are.

Quote from maryyugo

[Goldes] has spent millions and millions of investor money and has made bizarre machines with zero real proof that these work.

Where did you hear that he has spent millions?

A little background info on Goldes:

https://physicsreviewboard.wor…audulent-aesop-institute/

Quote from maryyugo

He has (or along the way had) labs, equipment and technicians. It isn't his own money!

Unless they happen to be independently wealthy, legitimate scientists also never use their own money. Using other people's money does not prove you are legitimate, or that you are a fraud. It doesn't prove anything.

Quote from maryyugo

Plus he lives on phony loans, grants and other money obtained on false grounds.

Who has accused him of obtaining money on false grounds? There are no references in the "Physics Review Board" website. No press accounts or court cases are cited. It would not surprise me to learn that he has obtained money on false grounds, but no evidence for that is presented.

Quote from maryyugo

And he is ALWAYS begging for money.

That alone is not evidence for fraud. Many legitimate scientists are also ALWAYS begging for money. Many legitimate scientists work for years on research that never pans out. Cold fusion has never panned out in the commercial sense, but that is no reason to think it is fraudulent.

The fact that his claims apparently violate the second law of thermodynamics may indicate he is a fraud. Or they may indicate he is a crackpot like you or Shahanan. Your assertions violate many laws, common sense, logic, and fundamentals of the scientific method. However, you two have not collected any money as far as I know, so there are no grounds to suspect you of fraud. Obviously, anyone who claims that a bucket of water at room temperature magically evaporates overnight is a flaming crackpot, but that does not mean he is a fraud, or some sort of threat. He's just nuts.

Crackpots are usually harmless. In this case, assuming Goldes is deluded and not malicious, he would be harmless if he were not using up so much money. I have no idea whether he is malicious or not. There is no evidence at the "Physics Review Board." (That name is a little suspicious, like Rossi's blog "Journal of Nuclear Physics.")