Public funding of investigations into LENR?

  • Sergio Orlandi (ITER project leader) opinions on "cold fusion", gse Magazine "Elementi" N. 37:


    E: Qual è la sua opinione sulla contestata fusione fredda?


    SO: Un approccio ridicolizzato fin dai tempi di Fleischmann

    e Pons. Il brevetto dell’E-Cat di Andrea Rossi, sta però

    modificando le cose. Personalmente tendo a dare fiducia a chi

    lavora e produce ricerca. A patto che si sia sempre trasparenti,

    nei risultati e nelle sperimentazioni. Forse in tale ambito,

    queste, non sono sempre state cristalline. Ma è una strada da

    tenere in grande considerazione.



    E: What is your opinion on controversial "cold fusion" ?


    SO: A ridiculized approach since the time of Fleischmann and Pons.

    However, Andrea Rossi's E-Cat patent is changing things.

    Personally I tend to trust who works and produces research.

    Provided that you are always transparent, in results and experiments.

    Perhaps in this context, these have not always been crystal clear.

    But it's an approach to keep in high regard.


    Elementi_37FF.pdf

  • This is funny. Quite a few "high ranking" or "esteemed" individuals have come out of the woodwork lately to say they might believe in the Ecat or LENR. I say put your money where your mouth is. Talk your government into investing $5-10 million in LENR in a pass/fail, up/down experiment with a set goal of say a COP of 1.5 in terms of electricity to heat energy. This test would have full public disclosure. There would not be any NDA's to hide the failure. Nor would they be allowed to go silent to cover up the loss of tax dollars. In order to ensure maximum success and cut off any possible excuses, the inventors would be required to make the device run in overunity mode with their own equipment. Then, the testing agency would connect their tools in parallel to make the same measurements.


    This would be a "no excuses" test. If the claimants fail to make the device run at the established COP per their measurements or the test agency fails to measure the agreed upon COP or any COP>1, the test will be deemed a complete failure with no caveats and reported as such.


    The above scenario is very unlikely to happen, of course. If a gov't today publicly invested millions in LENR and the effort failed it would be a disaster. Newenergytimes and every other skeptics blog would raise such a fuss and complain so much that I wouldn't be surprised if a gov't banned all work on LENR. Look at how gov't funded ITER responded to the criticism from Newenergytimes. Investors can throw away millions on LENR whenever they want. If a gov't wastes money to that extent on an unproven science without a theory, it can cause quite a stir.

  • a set goal of say a COP of 1.5


    I suggest the criterion should be somewhat higher than 1.5. That is so low that a heat pump out performs it (up to 3.4, if I recall correctly). Further 1.5 is about the variation seen in historical heats of enthalpy for many reactions. COP of 4 or 5 gets us beyond a reasonable doubt.


  • Many notable scientists have tried to get serious government funding for LENR projects. What on earth makes you think they have not? However, government science advisors in their infinite wisdom (some even have a relevant degree or two, but not all) have never been persuaded to fund anything that doesn't cost at least $10Bn since small projects don't provide sufficient rake-off opportunities for their political allies and donors.

  • Many notable scientists have tried to get serious government funding for LENR projects. What on earth makes you think they have not? However, government science advisors in their infinite wisdom (some even have a relevant degree or two, but not all) have never been persuaded to fund anything that doesn't cost at least $10Bn since small projects don't provide sufficient rake-off opportunities for their political allies and donors.

    This is circular reasoning to an extent. NASA was probably willing to invest a significant sum in the ECAT if it passed a simple up/down test performed by NASA experts using NASA measuring equipment. The test never happened.


    What I'm proposing is to skip the pass/fail test any gov't employee who wants to keep their job will require to be performed before investing a large sum in LENR. Have the pass/fail test after investing a significant sum of tax dollars into a claimed working LENR device. This way, when the failure is revealed due to full public disclosure, there will be such an uproar over wasted tax dollars that perhaps a law will be passed to restrict or ban research into LENR.

  • The above scenario [a "no excuses" up/down test] is very unlikely to happen, of course. If a gov't today publicly invested millions in LENR and the effort failed it would be a disaster.


    Methinks:

    1. You would love to see the book closed on LENR once and for all. :)
    2. You have unrealistic expectations for what is needed to get a solid, reliable LENR experiment sorted out.
    3. You have unrealistic expectations for what would close the book on LENR once and for all.

    Experience teaches that a credible effort looking into LENR would require sustained if modest funding. The funding would be speculative, to be sure. And it would surely meet resistance from people such as yourself and Ethan Siegel. But it would have a considerable basis of prior experiment to draw upon for justification and would fit within the rounding error of the NIF or ITER budgets. Unfortunately, this, also, is unlikely to come about anytime soon. But we can at least make an attempt at accurately describing what is needed.


    (Just to clarify, none of the above pertains to the E-Cat, which I assume is nothing more than a joule heater.)


    ETA: I'll probably move this subthread into its own dedicated thread.

  • This is circular reasoning to an extent. NASA was probably willing to invest a significant sum in the ECAT if it passed a simple up/down test performed by NASA experts using NASA measuring equipment. The test never happened.


    What I'm proposing is to skip the pass/fail test any gov't employee who wants to keep their job will require to be performed before investing a large sum in LENR. Have the pass/fail test after investing a significant sum of tax dollars into a claimed working LENR device. This way, when the failure is revealed due to full public disclosure, there will be such an uproar over wasted tax dollars that perhaps a law will be passed to restrict or ban research into LENR.


    Gee LINR, if you have your way, NASA will have to drop their LENR research. And just when it is looks like they are finally on to something:


    https://patentscope.wipo.int/s…il.jsf?docId=WO2017155520


    PINESCI CONSULTING [US/US]; 596 Treeside Lane Avon Lake, OH 44012 (US).

    NASA GLENN RESEARCH CENTER [US/US]; 21000 Brookpark Road, M.S. 142-7 Cleveland, OH 44135 (US).

    PINES, Vladimir; (US).

    PINES, Marianna; (US).

    STEINETZ, Bruce; (US


    The invention relates to a nuclear fuel with a suitable source of fuel, a liquid fuel source, a solid fuel source, a source of plasma fuel, or any combination thereof. The fuel source may be deuterium, tritium, a combination thereof, or any fuel source capable of creating deeply screened and / or neutral nuclei when exposed to energetic electrons. Under proper conditions, at least some of the deeply screened and / or neutral nuclei fuse with other nuclei. Neutral versions of deuteron and / or triton nuclei may be created by introducing neutrons with certain energy levels (eg, around 3 MeV, but more or less than 3 MeV) in interaction with other neutrons, forming neutral versions of deuterons and / or newts. Such processes may be used for power generation


    According to the present invention, nuclear fusion processes with improved velocities can be achieved by providing energetic electrons in an environment containing a suitable fuel gas, a liquid fuel source, a solid fuel source, a plasma fuel source, or any combination of these. The fuel source may be deuterium, tritium or a combination thereof, or any fuel source capable of creating deeply screened and / or neutral nuclei when exposed to energetic electrons. Under appropriate conditions, at least some of the deeply screened and / or neutral nuclei fuse with other nuclei. Neutral versions of deuteron and / or triton nuclei can be created by bringing neutrons with certain energy levels (eg, about 3 MeV, but optionally less or much less than 3 MeV) into interaction with other neutrons, forming neutral versions of deuterons and / or newts. Such processes can be used for energy generation, heat generation, nuclear waste rehabilitation, material creation and / or the production of medical isotopes, for example

  • What I'm proposing is to skip the pass/fail test any gov't employee who wants to keep their job will require to be performed before investing a large sum in LENR. Have the pass/fail test after investing a significant sum of tax dollars into a claimed working LENR device. This way, when the failure is revealed due to full public disclosure, there will be such an uproar over wasted tax dollars that perhaps a law will be passed to restrict or ban research into LENR.


    This post is incredibly dumb. In fact it is the dumbest thing I have read since the last dumb thing you wrote. You accuse me of circular reasoning while indulging in it yourself. And as you have already decided that the end result will be failure I am tempted to ask what would be the point of the exercise in the first place? However it is very creditable of you to want the taxpayers to provide lavish funding in order to save (presumably) money they are not spending anyway.


    As for the ECat, NASA aren't interested, perhaps because they have a LENR system of their own under development....oh noes! Taxpayer dollars are being wasted again.

  • Off the record, upcoming fireworks, live as usual:


    Jan. 7/8Falcon 9 • Zuma

    Launch window: 0100-0300 GMT on 8th (8:00-10:00 p.m. EST on 7th)
    Launch site:
    SLC-40, Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida

    A SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket will launch the Zuma payload. Northrop Grumman arranged to launch the Zuma payload with SpaceX on behalf of the U.S. government, but no other details about the mission have been disclosed. The Falcon 9 rocket’s first stage will return to landing at Landing Zone-1 at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station


  • LENR researchers have to think outside the box. Mind altering drugs are one way to do that. :) Hey, I am all for whatever it takes to save the planet.


    Seriously, so as not to impugn the integrity of the NASA team submitting the patent, FTR the employee caught with the drugs was unidentified. H-G and I just are having fun.

  • While there has been no official, separate and direct government funding for LENR research here in the US (2004 DOE panel voted against), there has nonetheless been quite a bit of US government research done on it. NASA has been at it since FPs. Storms and Claytor at Los Alamos, although I do not think their work was officially sanctioned by the facility, so much as tolerated, and barely at that.


    The most active government research from what I can read from LENR-CANR, has been the USNavy (go Navy!). Mainly at their China Lake, and SPAWAR research labs. Interesting too, as some of the same researchers from those facilities, along with JWK/GEC, have now joined forces with the NASA LENR researchers, and have a patent application in, along with a nice paper in Arxiv.


    I think there was direct funding from the Japanese govt in the early 1990's, but it was defunded after disappointing results. India's BARC opened up a separate research program in the 90's also. They had good results, but shut it down anyways.

  • I hope we can manage that... Why not making the silicon valley of LENR.

    ..;):saint:


    You need to have competence, instruments, the dynamism of desperate local authorities, .

    make it near where you live (maybe you will need to move a little)


    Not a surprise Texas TTU, or Thornton , was interested, but oil is not the only futureless energy today.

    Search where there is competence and some despair.

  • Not a surprise Texas TTU,


    Alain,


    Speaking of Duncan: he transferred from SKINR to Texas Tech 2 years ago to start his CEES (LENR research) there. Still not a word out of him! For reference David J Nagel in Infinite Energy : 20th International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science


    I think it time for Dr. Duncan to speak up. Please sir, say something! Even if it is to say he no longer is interested in LENR. Although I would doubt that, as he is still involved with the ICCF's, although more in an advisory role.


    Very frustrating field to stay the optimist, when the one main LENR spokesman (McKubre) retired, and the other (Dr. Nagel) is going on 80 years old. Of course, if there were some irrefutable results to be had, the field would not need a spokesperson at all.

  • If one reads the comments from LENR supporters across various threads, it becomes pretty difficult to understand what the status of the field is. Depending on what point people are trying to make, either it is a well-established phenomenon for which there is unassailable evidence, or it is in the wilderness crying out for some real research that hasn’t been done and can’t be done because of suppression, superannuation of researchers, or lack of funding, Without wading into that quagmire, what do people anticipate happening in the world of LENR, say, over the next year? Are things likely to be any different from the way they are today? Are they any different today than they were a year ago? 3 years ago? Ten years ago?

  • My guess is that, absent a report from someone like Robert Duncan or a publication in a reputable journal outside of the LENR field, the situation will be similar at the end of this coming year to what it was last year, however one reads the current situation. There is always scope for surprises, and plenty of scope for certain entrepreneurs (cough ...) further tarnishing the field.

  • Without wading into that quagmire, what do people anticipate happening in the world of LENR, say, over the next year? Are things likely to be any different from the way they are today? Are they any different today than they were a year ago? 3 years ago? Ten years ago?


    LINR,


    I anticipate the status quo will prevail, as it has since PF's. That said, I expect we will still be here on LF, still having a good time of it next year waiting for that "inevitable" breakthrough. To be honest...if that breakthrough ever happened, I am not sure what I would do with my life, after having spent the last 7 years expecting it. Maybe I live for hope only, not results, so it would be a letdown? :)

  • This post is incredibly dumb. In fact it is the dumbest thing I have read since the last dumb thing you wrote. You accuse me of circular reasoning while indulging in it yourself. And as you have already decided that the end result will be failure I am tempted to ask what would be the point of the exercise in the first place? However it is very creditable of you to want the taxpayers to provide lavish funding in order to save (presumably) money they are not spending anyway.


    As for the ECat, NASA aren't interested, perhaps because they have a LENR system of their own under development....oh noes! Taxpayer dollars are being wasted again.

    My reasoning is completely logical. NASA was interested in the Ecat enough to develop a test plan for it. They also sent people to test it. Show me where NASA has invested a significant amount of money in LENR. I mean more than just to pay someone to write a study on it. As a gov't agency, their threshold for investing in science is higher than that for investors.


    I understand LENR proponents might be frustrated over the lack of progress in their field for 29 years. But, refrain from calling me names. Once LENR has been independently verified by credible researchers with access to the very latest equipment and an expensive, clean laboratory, I will admit I was wrong. I highly doubt that will happen, though.

  • I think you have only a flimsy idea of what the wotd 'logic' means'. As for 'calling you names' not at all. You are hopefully not dumb, but your ideas are.

    No offense taken. I understand the debate on topics like these can become heated at times. Given my degree and my current job, I have enough understanding of technical topics to analyze them.

  • LINR, your degree and job are irrelevant. As has been explained here many times, if you have not read hundreds of LENR papers or, better yet, performed LENR experiments yourself, then you are not entitled to express negative thoughts about the topic. If you HAVE read hundreds of papers and express negative thoughts, then you are a crackpot. On the other hand, there are no requirements for being positive about the topic, so consider doing that instead.

  • As has been explained here many times, if you have not read hundreds of LENR papers or, better yet, performed LENR experiments yourself, then you are not entitled to express negative thoughts about the topic.

    No one says that.


    You have to read a dozen papers, I think. Not hundreds. If you have not performed experiments at all, or you have no idea what LENR experiments are like, and what instruments are used, then you are not entitled to any opinion, positive or negative.

    If you HAVE read hundreds of papers and express negative thoughts, then you are a crackpot.

    I know only four people who read many papers yet who expressed negative opinions. No doubt there are others, but I only know four of them. Three are crackpots. Shanahan, for example, claims that a hot object is "not a heater" and a hand-held object that remains hot for a week is "not being heated." In other words, he does not believe in the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Huizenga was the fourth person. He was not a crackpot, but I do not think he understood the scientific method, as Beaudette pointed out, and I explained, as follows:



    The books by F. Close and J. Huizenga are mainly devoted to proving that cold fusion violates theory and is therefore impossible. Huizenga, who was the head of the DoE ERAB panel that dismissed cold fusion in 1989, concluded his book with a 6-point summation. Point number six states that we know a priori that all positive cold fusion excess heat results must be wrong:


    "Furthermore, if the claimed excess heat exceeds that possible by other conventional processes (chemical, mechanical, etc.), one must conclude that an error has been made in measuring the excess heat."


    Cold Fusion researchers feel that they subscribe to the traditional view, that experiments are the standard by which all claims must be judged. They believe this is fundamental to the scientific method. When a phenomenon has been replicated many times at a high signal to noise ratio, that proves it does exist, and if theory predicts it cannot exist, the theory must be wrong.

  • Jed, perhaps we are descending into a semantics argument. The notion of being "entitled" to an opinion is dubious at best. Perhaps what you are really discussing is the value of someone's opinion. In the epistemological morass we find ourselves in these days, everybody has an opinion (and generally a strong one) about nearly everything and in very few cases is that opinion based on sound evidence, careful research, or critical thinking. And we're not just talking about cold fusion. I will grant you that there is little value in an opinion about cold fusion if you don't know anything about it, but you are still entitled to have that opinion, worthless or not.

  • Talk your government into investing $5-10 million in LENR in a pass/fail, up/down experiment with a set goal of say a COP of 1.5 in terms of electricity to heat energy.

    There are two problems with this:


    1. The experimental literature on cold fusion is already convincing. Anyone who is not convinced by it will not be convinced by additional experiments.


    2. The so-called COP is is not a valid metric. It tells us nothing about the reaction. It can easily be adjusted, and it is often infinite.


    Lenrisnotreal is suggesting that this funding decision should be made by people who have no knowledge of the field or the literature, and who mistakenly believe that the COP is meaningful, or that it tells us something about the reaction or the prospects for making cold fusion into a practical source of energy. In other words, he is saying we should abandon conventional scientific standards and instead let ignorant, biased, unqualified people decide whether to fund this research or not. People like him. That has what has been done for 30 years. It has failed drastically. Millions of dollars have been wasted on cold fusion projects that had no chance of success, while valid programs were never funded.

  • These efforts have been shut down, last I heard.


    Eric,


    SPAWAR for sure. That was news 4 years ago when it stopped LENR research. I think China Lake was basically all Miles, and he retired years ago, so probably nothing there anymore. Miles was demoted to stock clerk for working on LENR, so I would think the message -LENR bad for career, is well known around there.


    Guess I should have said there used to be LENR research at the NRL's. Not anymore. Good thing NASA stuck with it.

  • Perhaps what you are really discussing is the value of someone's opinion. In the epistemological morass we find ourselves in these days, everybody has an opinion (and generally a strong one) about nearly everything and in very few cases is that opinion based on sound evidence, careful research, or critical thinking. And we're not just talking about cold fusion. I will grant you that there is little value in an opinion about cold fusion if you don't know anything about it, but you are still entitled to have that opinion, worthless or not.

    It is a conventional English idiom to say: "you have no right to an opinion on that." A variation of this idiom is "entitled." This means you have no basis for an opinion. You know nothing about it, so your opinion has no value. It does not mean you have no legal right or moral right.


    There are other instances in which this expression is used to mean a legal right to express an opinion, for example in a court room.


    A native speaker usually knows these two meanings, and can distinguish between them. I expect you are a native speaker of English, but perhaps you are unaware of the meaning. (If you were Japanese I would not be surprised at this confusion, and I would point you to the online eowp dictionary showing examples of the two meanings.)


    Since cold fusion is a technical subject, it is not a matter of opinion. There is not "little value" in an uniformed opinion. There is no value at all. It is as if someone commented on the latest security problem with Intel processors when that person knew nothing about computers or how hackers work and had no earthly idea what "prefetch instruction" or "array boundary check" means. (I know just enough to be astounded that anyone can hack a server by exploiting prefetch instructions. I never would have imagined that!)


    A person who would comment on the validity of cold fusion research without reading the papers is a complete dolt -- even if he happens to be an expert in some other area of science. The comments by people here who have not read the literature, and who imagine, for example, that the "COP" is somehow meaningful, reveal only that these people have nothing to contribute and they should either learn something or shut up and stop making fools of themselves.