COLD Fusion -Real, but is it Ready?

  • Thanks for the link Alan. I thought it was a good paper for covering the Pd/D part.

    I have a slightly different view of the business model he gives at the end, but he's right in his analysis of why it is unlikely to get government funding - they want the basic problems to be solved at your expense first.


    Not unexpected that he didn't mention Rossi or BLPs' SunCell. It struck me that he appeared rather defeated about the future. But Rossi & BLP show there is a path forward even if it leaves academia in left field. If either system works there will then be tons of government grants.

  • Hagelstein said the barrier to LENR is not the science it's a sociological barrier


    On thevideo "MIT's Pathway to Fusion Energy (IAP 2017) "


    Even Hartwig who does not have to operate ' at MIT below the radar;like Hagelstein


    says"the problem is not the physics or the technology it's the perception that fusion is a joke


    timemark 1.11.15 ish.


    I was wondering what Hartwig might say about LENR.


  • During q&a 'Randell Mills visited my office few times.' Appearantly Peter was explaining to Mills that he was wrong.

    Peter seems to be a good scientist but how can you pitch your theory to somebody who gets solid experimental results why you are getting close to 0. That is of course assuming Mills convinced him that he had the results.

  • During q&a 'Randell Mills visited my office few times.' Appearantly Peter was explaining to Mills that he was wrong.

    Peter seems to be a good scientist but how can you pitch your theory to somebody who gets solid experimental results why you are getting close to 0. That is of course assuming Mills convinced him that he had the results.


    In response to that question from the audience about other theories, he called W/L the most successful theory out there. Even said others had come up to him to say W/L was onto something. Interesting. But then Hagelstein went on to plug his own theory.


    And yes, he politely slammed Mills theory.

  • I was wondering what Hartwig might say about LENR.

    Hartwig started by saying you got 10x to infinity more energy out than you put in. After 60 years of R & D the ITER now being built to run for ten minutes has a COP 1.6 (at best) and will cost $25 billion. Sounds a lousy deal to me.


    Then he said it produced no dangerous materials. It produces tritium and will have liters of the stuff on site. That is an essential ingredient for small & efficient nuclear weapons and one of the hardest to come by. So I stopped watching.

  • Adrian wrote: "So I stopped watching."

    I watched 5 minutes at the start and cut to the money question at the end.


    I guess scientists whether they be Hartwig, Hagelstein, Mills, .. Einstein are as biased as the rest us are..we are only human.


    Fora are great places to see these biases in the open

  • Hagelstein said the barrier to LENR is not the science it's a sociological barrier


    Dangerous memes


    LENR is a dangerous meme that is destructive to the existing sociological structure. In order for that sociological structure to continue to exist, society must destroy the LENR meme.

  • I should watch with details, and finding 2 hours quite in my life is not easy.

    Away i caught few moments and at then end during the Q&A there are key moments.


    Answering to someone asking why He4 was not more experiences (there are few other similar proposal), hagelstein answered that this was already done, that there was many experimental results replicated, and solid, but that it did not work.


    As some relate, and like i say, and like any says, the problems is not scientific but cognitive, psychological, sociological, i say psychiatric... The biggest epistemological fiasco of the century (which for me started in the 50s, with success of QM in industry with transistors, fission reactors and bombs)...

    I see few sources on the fiasco, which is not specific to LENR but covers most scientific memeplexes of today :

    • dominance of theory, model over facts, because of incredible success of QM/GR theory & math to solve practical problems in the 50-70s (transistor, nuke, GPS, IT, chemistry)
    • incredible dominance of state funding and control, because of growing cost of science because of bigscience, of past success of state science like Manhattan project, national labs irrigating private sector, Internet/NSF, great colliders, land and space observatories ..,
    • increasing demand of the NGO and politics to control science, based on the success of environmental regulation, and peace efforts against nuclear wars, during the 70s.
    • increasing subjectification of young scientists, because of state funding, massification of education, ageing of population, bigscience... today those who break the rules and don't risk starvation are old. those who starve ask for big science to feed them.

    I see current problems as the culmination of the success of some strategies, which I estimate have taken all the low hanging fruits, and face problems they cannot solve now.

  • AlainCo

    • 'dominance of theory, model over facts, because of incredible success of QM/GR theory & math to solve practical problems in the 50-70s (transistor, nuke, GPS, IT, chemistry)'



    I 've seen some people disagree with that. Groups working in radar tech, satellites, nuclear did have to develop their own theories to explain what they observed.

    When they piled up nuclear material to achieve first fission en masse didn't look like a calculated experiment. Same goes for Russian h bomb test where they were allegedly order of magnitude off predicting power output so shock wave travelled the Earth three times.

    I agree when modern mainstream science is compared to a sect. They group around their believes and aggressively fight off any alternative views using anything else but scientific approach.

  • Maybe the incredible victory of theory to create modern technology is a 1950s cult.

    This is indeed the position of Nassim Nicholas Taleb in Antifragile.

    Quote


    Practitioners don’t write; they do. Birds fly and those who lecture them are the ones who write their story. So it is easy to see that history is truly written by losers with time on their hands and a protected academic position.



    http://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/Triana-fwd.pdf


    There seems to be opposing arguments, and Jed is a good attorney to oppose Attorney General Taleb.


    True, or not, this is what is believed today.

  • There has to be result oriented money distribution system. Close to what soviets had.

    Huge specialized r&d facilities pounding on a very specific task like creating new type of advanced weapon. There also was artificial competition created between them. Good example SU vs MiG jet design bureaus.

    No result, no money.

    The system was also feeding significant number of theorist do they can catch up. Schools were suffering a bit but looking at totally opposite situation is US maybe it was a good thing. Nobody should spend millions chasing gravitational waves and proving for yet another time that 'Einstein was right' without even remote goal of practical application.

    Now we have science which is more like high fashion industry with skinny models walking down the podium where the real closes are steadily moving to the plus size category. Good thing that high fashion industry exists without public funding.

    Most of the pains are in the actual r&d labs. Those people oftentimes lack academic credentials and time to go and confront theorists during conferences. if they did, the obstacles are in place to prevent them from that. Teams in NASA have to fudge their own theories to explain sudden acceleration of deep space probes, correction to GPS satellites offsets and finally emdrive.

    The answer from mainstream is typically R.Fyenman style: you are certainly wrong but I can't explain you why since it requires super smarts to understand which you obviously don't have

  • Quote

    Hagelstein said the barrier to LENR is not the science it's a sociological barrier

    This is nonsense if it even means something. The barrier to LENR is a lack of convincing performance. Enthusiasts convince themselves all the time but what they are looking at is not convincing to other people who examine it. And a lot of them just got tired of arguing with what amounted to religious belief.


    And there is no lack of rich people looking. Kimmel gave $5M++ and what spectacular results did it produce so far? Nothing. Supposedly, according to believers, Carl Page and Bill Gates and possibly other large concerns like Air Bus and Berkshire-Hathaway have provided funding. So where are those results?

  • This is nonsense if it even means something. The barrier to LENR is a lack of convincing performance. Enthusiasts convince themselves all the time but what they are looking at is not convincing to other people who examine it. And a lot of them just got tired of arguing with what amounted to religious belief.


    And there is no lack of rich people looking. Kimmel gave $5M++ and what spectacular results did it produce so far? Nothing. Supposedly, according to believers, Carl Page and Bill Gates and possibly other large concerns like Air Bus and Berkshire-Hathaway have provided funding. So where are those results?


    Certainly there is such a problem at MIT, and the academic institutions. In the Q&A, someone asked Hagelstein why he does not start an LENR research Center at MIT? He responded that he is absolutely sure that such a thing would not be well received at MIT. He seems to have settled on a truce with the other professors, and the administration there, that as long as he does not attract too much attention, minds his P's and Q's, they will leave him alone.

  • About technology and science, the biggest crime of academic, of government, of dictators, of cartels, is not to push stupid domain of research.

    Teaching, doing, make things advance, if not yourself, at least others. Moreover like Alan, people have multiple lifes today, and lab boys of 20th century are today's teachers, and vice-versa.


    The great crime is to forbid others, what the Ivy League did to Cold Fusion.

    Shell and Amoco did not prevent BARC, Toyota, or CEA to experiment LENR. they experimented, and even reported.

    Ivy League however insulted , harassed, all experimenters who reported LENR, they influenced editors and journalist to enforce a general policy of harassment, up to the point to influence US national labs so they marginalize their successful experimenters (Miles, Storms...), to push BARC to stop searching to save their international reputation, to convince CEA lab directors to forbid LENR research, even at home, so their chance to get a Nobel stay complete.


    The crime is not to say bad things, but to prevent good to be said.


    Today there is a great move to censorship in US, in Western zone, because some fakenews, using tactics I now know well, manipulated opinion in many countries, leading to comedies and tragedies of various kind.
    This is not the solution as it is only cleaning part of the fakenews and will be abused to protect the alternatefacts of google preferred kind, like Wikipedia Cold Fusion alternate reality is maintained stable following rules what our media leaders ask us to implement.


    We need bazaar, not cathedrale

    https://www.firstmonday.dk/ojs…p/fm/article/view/578/499

  • And there is no lack of rich people looking. Kimmel gave $5M++ and what spectacular results did it produce so far? Nothing. Supposedly, according to believers, Carl Page and Bill Gates and possibly other large concerns like Air Bus and Berkshire-Hathaway have provided funding. So where are those results?


    I see you have changed tack again Mary. a couple of weeks ago you were saying no rich people gave LENR any money. You also forget Toyota, Renault-Nissan and strangely enough Volvo and Daewoo who have all jumped on board with research at some level. As for their results, if they told you, they would have to kill you. The real explanation is 'Money money money' and potential commercial advantage. Not to mention fear of embarrassment.


    In the interest of more accurate reporting on funding btw, there is no 'possibly' about Airbus, they even publish LENR - based patents and held a LENR conference last year, As for Berkshire Hathaway, they do NOT invest in LENR, they invest in BLP. Which Randall Mills denies is related to LENR at all.


    My advice? Whine a little less, read a little more. Then you might be less of an obstacle to research.

  • Every meme has some truth in it and also some untruth. So in general, a meme is a mixture of propositions that are both truth and untruth. Taking this reality to heart is what an open mind is about. The willingness to extract the truth from any given meme is not generally found at this current time. Evaluating many memes for a correlation of commonality of truth is an intellectual skill that many do not have in this current age.


    For example, there are experimental observations that fusion is occurring in LENR. Nuclear physics completely reject fusion because ionizing radiation and neutron production is not seen in LENR based fusion. Recognizing that this is an issue in the acceptance of LENR, Hagelstein has spent decades unsuccessfully trying to explain how fusion can occur without ionizing radiation and neutron production. But he has not come up with how such a thing can happen.


    Nuclear physics should have accepted that transmutation was happening in LENR and looked more broadly for a cause outside of the standard ionizing radiation/neutron production meme. But nuclear scientists reject the entire LENR meme without accepting transmutation as a true experimental observation.


    In another example, the naysayers cannot accept LENR unless excess heat is generated in the LENR reaction even when transmutation is observed. The naysayers cannot extract any truth from the LENR meme because that meme does not completely meet their expectations about what LENR should be.


    Looking for truth is not an ability that most can perform since truth fails to meet the expectations of the observers that are looking for truth. This search for truth might need to wait for another open mind like Einstein reappears on the scene or for artificial intelligence to reach a higher level of development where human nature is not an issue.

  • Quote

    My advice? Whine a little less, read a little more. Then you might be less of an obstacle to research.

    Me, an "obstacle to research?" Whose research exactly? How? I am all FOR research --by reputable people, using reliable methods, of course.

  • How? I am all FOR research --by reputable people, using reliable methods, of course.


    The only problem with that story is that you don't believe that there are any in the whole of the LENR field. They are in your view all misguided, dishonest or incompetent. Apart from that you think it's great.