Uploaded Letters from Martin Fleischmann to Melvin Miles

    Quote from kirkshanahan

    The above quote deals exclusively with the situation while the cell was in its original location and the immediate move. I have already agreed it was likely hot, since they heated it there!

    It was still hot three days after they turned off the power. Are you seriously suggesting that can happen with a steel object of this size, with no source of heat inside? That would violate the laws of thermodynamics. Any person living in the last million years knows that a hot object of this size cools down to ambient temperature in less than three days.


    If you don't believe this object would remain hot for three days . . . Who are you trying to kid, anyway? What is the point of saying that? Are you trying to make yourself look crazy, asserting that an object can remain hot for three days? What the heck are you "agreeing with"? This is a straw-man assertion -- a completely bogus, irrelevant situation -- that you just substituted for the facts of the matter.


    Quote from kirkshanahan

    But I have not agreed the TC reading was correct. That seems to me to be a potential root cause of the apparently anomalous cell behavior.

    A malfunctioning TC cannot make a stone-cold object feel hot, and it cannot evaporate a bucket of water every night for several days. Furthermore, that TC worked before, during, and after the experiment. It still works.


    Quote from kirkshanahan

    Subsequent to moving it and reading the TC while in the other lab, the 'too hot to touch' comment is affected by their predispositions formed by reading the supposedly malfunctioning TC.

    It is not "supposedly malfunctioning." You are the only person who thinks it was, and you have no reason to think so. The notion that a person's sense of touch might be fooled by a "predisposition" has no basis in psychology or common sense. That never happens. You made that up, along with the notion that the thermocouple was malfunctioning.


    You make up one impossible thing after another, and the moment you make something up, you are convinced it must be true.

    Quote from kirkshanahan

    You're projecting again Jed...

    And you are trolling. I believe that is what it is called. When you say:


    "I have already agreed it was likely hot, since they heated it there!"


    I think you must be trying to fool the readers here.


    You have been told again, and again, and again that it was hot three after the power was turned off. You cannot be so stupid you don't realize it would cool down. So I suppose you are hoping that readers here will be fooled into thinking "ah, yes, it was hot because they heated it." That sounds plausible, until the reader is told this happened three days after the power was turned off.


    Either you are trying to fool the readers, or you actually believe than an object of this size will remain palpably hot for three days, in which case I suppose you must be stark staring crazy. You are also stark staring crazy if you think a malfunctioning thermocouple can delude the sense of touch in two people and cause several buckets of water to evaporate. That is mind-boggling, chaotic nonsense.


    As I said in my Introduction, I cannot tell whether you actually believe this nonsense, or whether you are putting me on. Either way, you do not make the opposition to cold fusion look good when you go around saying things like this. You are probably not fooling many readers.

    @Jed


    I'm not easily fooled, and I don't think Kirk is trying to fool me. Nor do I think you are.


    I don't find this argument very edifying.


    Kirk is guilty of overestimating any possible flexibility of position you and bocjin might have, or of flogging a dead horse (we all do it some times)


    You and bocjin are guilty of not understanding a rationally held but different view from yours.


    As a skeptical person I share Kirk's negative view of the Mizuno bucket anecdtote. I am similarly skeptical about all one-off extraaordinary events attested by human anecdotal recall.


    As Kirk says, and you have ignored, there are TWO DISTINCT problems with this observation considered as something on which one might place scientific weight:


    (1) It is one-off

    (2) it is anecdotal relying on human memory and informal notes, without careful instrumentation and control of conditions.


    The core of your disagreement with Kirk is (2). You feel that the statements made are enough, if true, to prove LENR or something equally anomalous. Kirk examines every possible way they could, with human frailty, be compatible with conventional physics. You mock him for this, or think he must have an agenda. Yet, as he points out, this is what any scientist would do. Then Kirk maintains reasoably that because of (1) this would not anyway have much weight with him, and you take that as evidence of bias. It is, logically, no such thing.


    Your argument about what Kirk said so long ago is despicable. It has no good place in this discourse. Kirk's sticking with you while you flog that dead horse is unwise, and sort of justifies your continuing this unfortunate debate, though I suspect it is entertaining for all parties or you would not continue doing it. I see you are trying to show he is intellectually dishonest: you can't, because he admits possible mistakes and follows rational argument. You don't like his overall skeptical stance. He does not like your overall assumptive stance.


    I quite enjoy it, which I guess shows that I like you suffer mild OCD in this area,

    One more thing.


    I look forward to new experiments that might (in the IMHO unlikely event LENR is real) lead to new replicable evidence. As, for example, Abd's He/heat correlation stuff, about which nothing has to my knowledge yet been published.


    If LENR credibility rests on historic experiments about which results (when reviewed) are seen as arguable then it is pseudo-science.


    Arguing those dusty deck (to use a CS analogy I'm sure many here will recognise) results, rather than newer work, as science, is a sign you are stuck. As historical, sociological, or even psychological studies, they may be fascinating. As science, profoundly unhelpful.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    I'm not easily fooled, and I don't think Kirk is trying to fool me. Nor do I think you are.

    Are you saying that you agree an object of this size will remain hot for three days after the power is turned off? If you do not agree, then what do you think Shanahan is trying to say? Please explain his remarks in a way that the rest of us can make sense of them.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    You and bocjin are guilty of not understanding a rationally held but different view from yours.

    What is rational about the assertion that an object this size will remain hot for 3 days with no power input, or that a bucket of water will evaporate overnight in normal room temperature conditions? Or that two people cannot tell whether an object is at room temperature or dangerously hot by sense of touch? Such assertions seem extremely irrational to me. If Kirk actually believes them, I doubt his sanity. I am not joking or exaggerating.


    Quote from THHuxleynew

    (1) It is one-off

    (2) it is anecdotal relying on human memory and informal notes, without careful instrumentation and control of conditions.

    Both statements are incorrect.


    This incident was not one-off. Fleischmann and Pons replicated heat after death hundreds of times, 16 cells at a time. See the paper and video I referenced before. Other have observed it. I just uploaded a paper by Mengoli describing a 3-day heat after death event. McKubre and others have also observed it.


    Mizuno was not relying on human memory. He has pen recording traces, published in his book, and lab log notes, which I saw. He has the bucket, the cell, the thermocouple, pen recorder and other equipment, which was tested extensively and used often after that. The event occurred in March 1991. An account of it was published by Nakano and Mizuno in the magazine Bungei Shunju in September 1991. That is not a technical journal, but it is Japan's most prestigious and widely read conservative magazine, somewhat similar to Time magazine or the Wall Street Journal.


    I spent several weeks in Mizuno's lab and Akimoto's underground lab. I saw and worked with this equipment and the particle detection equipment shown in the photo. I am quite familiar with this equipment because I wrote and translated dozens of pages about it, in English and in Japanese. I am quite sure the thermocouple and other key instruments are working well enough to distinguish between a stone-cold cell and one that is too hot to touch.


    I am also sure the Mizuno and Akimoto's sense of touch is reliable enough to make this distinction. I am serious. I do not think Shanahan is serious, and I cannot tell whether you are or not, but let me address this issue seriously. There are people who suffer from no sense of pain -- that is real disease. Such people will burn themselves without realizing it. That would produce the opposite result: the cell would be palpably hot but they would not know it. Anyway, Mizuno and Akimoto do not have that medical problem, and there is no similar medical problem in which people imagine the object they are holding with a potholder is hot, but it isn't. That never happens.


    Quote from THHuxleynew

    Your argument about what Kirk said so long ago is despicable. It has no good place in this discourse.

    What do you mean!?! He said it just now! Right here, right above. Not long ago.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    If LENR credibility rests on historic experiments about which results (when reviews) are seen as arguable then it is pseudo-science.

    Seen as arguable by who? By you? Which arguments?


    Do you think it is a valid argument to claim that a steel object of this size does not cool down in three days? Are you seriously claiming that is a valid argument? Do you also go along with Morrison's arguments, that were wrong by 3 orders of magnitude? Do you understand the difference between power and energy? Morrison did not, which is why his answer was wrong by a factor of 2,967. See my Introduction and Fleischmann's responses to Morrison, here:


    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanlettersfroa.pdf


    These experiments -- including heat after death events -- have been replicated in many labs, hundreds of times, and published in peer-reviewed journals. As far as I know, there are only two published arguments against them: Morrison's and Shanahan's. You can read Morrison in the link I just gave. Do you agree with Morrison, or with Fleischmann, or are you undecided?


    Shanahan's responses are right here in this forum. He says that a steel object will remain hot for three days; that people cannot feel whether an object is hot or cold, and he claims a bucket of water will evaporate overnight in normal room temperature conditions. Do you or do you not agree? Do you find these arguments credible? If you do not, then what other arguments are you talking about? I have not read any.


    If you say these results are "arguable" I think it behooves you to tell us what arguments you mean, and who made them. Where are they published? There are, after all, "augments" made against just about every claim in science and technology. There are people who think the world is flat, or that vaccinations don't work. Many people who think they know something about physics claim that Einstein's special and general relativity is wrong. Millions of people think Darwin's theory of evolution is wrong. The assertions made by flat-earth believers are no crazier than Shanahan's assertion that an object remains hot for three days after you stop heating it. They are no more ignorant than the way Morrison and Kreysa confused power and energy.

    Quote from kirkshanahan

    See the comment I made about that before. Both assertions are incorrect.

    Yes, that is what you have said. But you also say that a steel cell that is heated will remain hot three days later, and you say that someone who picks up a hot object with a potholder cannot tell whether it is hot or stone cold. So, you have no credibility, and your arguments are nonsense. You demonstrated that here, today, for all readers to see. Your arguments against the Fleischmann and Pons boil off experiments are also nonsense.


    Your other augments were shown to be wrong by Marwan et al.:


    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MarwanJanewlookat.pdf


    You don't agree of course, but -- as I said! -- you are the kind of person who insists that a hot object will not cool in three days, so you have zero credibility and you know nothing about science. Either that, or you are trying to bamboozle the readers here.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    Jed: Seen as arguable by who? By you? Which arguments?


    2004 US DoE Review.

    I disagree. Most of the reviews did not address experimental findings, and those which did were mistaken. For example, they suggested the results might be due to chemical effects. As you see in the literature, this explain fails by factors ranging from 100 to 100,000. So it is even worse than Morrison's mistakes (4 orders of magnitude). See:


    http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?page_id=455


    It certainly did not address the heat after death findings. I am sure the negative authors never heard about that.


    There were 18 reviewers. 10 negative, 2 undecided, 6 positive. In my opinion, all of the negative reviews were based on theory, misunderstandings, or logical fallacies. I think they have no scientific merit. You can read them and decide for yourself:


    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/DOEusdepartme.pdf


    Melich and I made a list of the errors in the 10 negative reviews. They are as follows:

    1. Theoretical objections to experimentally proven facts are a violation of the scientific method
    2. A result need not be explained theoretically before it can be believed
    3. A reviewer’s inability to imagine or understand a result is not a valid reason to reject it
    4. Cold fusion is an experimental finding, so you cannot disprove it by showing errors in theories that attempt to explain it
    5. Undiscovered error hypothesis
    6. Chemical storage hypothesis
    7. Artifactual low-level heat hypothesis
    8. Recombination hypothesis
    9. The nuclear hypothesis best fits the facts
    10. Data from newly discovered phenomena often seems inconsistent
    11. Difficulty with experiments, irreproducibility and erratic performance are not grounds to disbelieve a result
    12. Researchers have made great efforts to find systematic errors and conventional explanations
    13. Underfunded research cannot be expected to produce elaborate and expensive results
    14. Skeptics have published few papers

    Those are invalid points raised by the negative reviewers. They did not make any valid points. Here are the errors above and reviewer they were associated with.


    Table 2. Summary of common errors made by review panel members

    Reviewer Number

    Charge 2

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    1

    N

    X








    X

    X

    X



    X

    2

    N

    X


    X






    X






    3

    U















    4

    Y




    X











    5

    N



    X



    X

    X

    X




    X

    X

    X

    6

    N

    X

    X

    X

    X

    X

    X

    X

    X


    X


    X

    X


    7

    N

    X





    X



    X




    X


    8

    Y















    9

    Y















    10

    Y


    X



    X

    X



    X






    11

    Y


    X







    X






    12

    N









    X

    X



    X


    13

    Y









    X

    X





    14

    N


    X




    X



    X






    15

    N

    X

    X

    X



    X





    X


    X


    16

    U

    X



    X

    X










    17

    N


    X




    X

    X





    X

    X


    18

    N

    X

    X

    X

    X


    X




    X

    X

    X

    X


    Let me reiterate that I am not saying there are no arguments against cold fusion. Of course there are! The 10 negative DoE 2004 panel are good examples. What I am saying is that there are no valid, scientifically meaningful arguments. Not in the published literature, or in DoE reviews, or on the Internet. Not as far as I know. Of course there may be some that I have not heard of.


    Obviously, some cold fusion papers are invalid. I have pointed out errors in them, including some that I wrote myself. Many have not been widely replicated, so we cannot judge whether they are real or not. I would say the Ni-H results remain in limbo for that reason. There is evidence for the claims, but they are nowhere near as solid as, say, the tritium evidence or the correlation of heat to helium.


    When I say there are no valid skeptic critiques, I mean that as far as I know, skeptics have not successfully challenged the mainstream reports by people such as Fleischmann, McKubre, Storms, Will and Miles. Actually, as far as I know, skeptics have not tried to challenge them, except by saying that these results violate theory. The only people who tried to show experimental errors in mainstream experiments were Morrison and Shanahan. Fleischmann and I covered them here:


    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanlettersfroa.pdf


    Perhaps THHuxley thinks Morrison and Shanahan are correct. I suppose that would mean he does not understand the difference between power and energy, and he thinks a hot object will not cool in three days. What else could it mean?


    If THHuxley know of any other technical, experimental science arguments (not theory) that call into question these mainstream reports, he should tell us what they are. Where are they published?


    The DoE reviewers were wrong for the reasons I described in the message above. And for other reasons I have not had a chance to publish.


    Most of the arguments outside of journal papers, such as those on the Internet or in Wikipedia, range from factually wrong to flat-out crazy, like the assertion that a 10 kg object will not cool in three days. In the factually wrong category, for example, people argue that Fleischmann and Pons boil-off cells might have lost unboiled water, so the heat balance is off. F&P addressed this and showed it is not the case, for a list of reasons that I repeated here and elsewhere. I do not know of any skeptic who challenged these reasons. Most of the other Internet arguments are logical fallacies, such as: "they are wrong" or "there are still doubts" or "someone may yet discover a mistake." Those are not falsifiable.

    JedRothwell


    You are repeating your arguments on these matters, which I understand.


    Others argue differently.


    Hence arguable


    Re THHuxley thinks Morrison and Shanahan are correct.


    The language is not adequate to the care with which rational views can be argued.

    Morrison (in the paper I've read, critiquing the "from simplicity to complication" F&P paper) raised questions about whether the content justified a conclusion of excess heat from nuclear reactions. He made a number of points, some of which remain (for me) without definitive answer. That is not viewing his arguments as correct or wrong. Such things are difficult to establish with any certainty. I have pointed out (and believe) that the strong conclusions F makes about large excess heat during boil-off of his open cells are unsafe, because he does not in that paper make good arguments bounding the amount of recondensed (and hence electrolyte-free) liquid phase D2O leaving the cells.


    Shanahan, here and elsewhere, has put forward a coherent and correct argument (CCS) that could apply to some number of CF experiments, particularly closed cell ones, but also open cell, noting that a change in overall calorimetric efficiency of active cells over control ones could account for the apparent excess heat. He has also put forward a coherent (not proven) argument that such calorimetric efficiency change could come from recombination at the electrode in some special surface environment (ATER).


    While, yes, CCS is logically (trivially) correct and therefore should be considered and not dismissed, it is not clear which if any experiments it applies to, and therefore how much it solves the mystery of the consistent excess heat observations that otherwise stay open as something not understood and potentially indicating new physical understanding to find.


    For example: Shanahan, I, and Marwan et al will agree that in a system with 100% calorimetric control efficiency (and therefore null calibration) CCS cannot give rise to anomalous excess heat. This can be quantified to see what change is needed in calorimetric efficiency to obtain given excess heat. Then, the details of the cell concerned can be examined to see whether that change could come from a change in heat distribution inside the cell.


    This process is interestesting. You have argued that it is not needed because it is known that ATER cannot occur, or because it is known that the calorimetric efficiency of given cells cannot signiifcantly change. I have not yet seen, from you, coherent general arguments that knock CCS/ATER on the head as a possible effect explaining some of the classic CF results. I'm quite certain that there are calorimeters in which its effect is bounded small (because they are high efficiency). However, I'm not certain which if any of the classic results remain safe. this is partly because we must be quantitative and careful about the magnitude of the effect and the magnitude of the apparent excess heat. Cell calibration can have surprising effects on these that make hand-waving intuition unsafe.


    Now, Shanahan has given quantitative details here, and shown that they seem to apply to some of the relevant experiments. Unfortunately the data to make this certain is not public, and the analysis is complex, and no-one seems interested enough for the work to assemble this properly to be done and published. I feel that Marwan et al are incorrect in their dismissing the possibility of CCS.


    Shanahan has equally not investigated much which classic sequences of experiments CCS might apply to. Really, I'd expect the people feeling that those experiments make an important contribution to science to do this. It is not Shanahan's job. If CF research has moved on, and the evidence base for CF ideas no longer requires those classic experiments, then the matter is moot and whether they were accounted for by CCS or not is irrelevant to CF, though perhaps mildly interesting to calorimety. Not very interesting, because ATER is very specific, unproven, and itself unexpected science. There is AFAIK no-one doing experiments for which it might be relevant other than those in the CF community. Without ATER, CCS remains logically correct but not likely to apply - although Shanahan would correctly argue that some other mechanism that altered calorimetric efficiency would similarly cause CCS and therefore it is something calorimetrists must be continually on the guard about.


    The irony here is that F was a renowned calorimetrist, who would no doubt, if open to ideas that had the potential to invalidate, or partly invalidate, his life's work, be interested in CCS/ATER and the possibilities that new science at the electrode could result in anomalous excess heat readings. Those after F, doing similar work, could equally have this interest.


    So: CF advocates will say that CCS/ATER is so unlikely it does not merit more consideration than the cursory (and highly incomplete) examination by Marwan et al. Those who are not CF advocates can reasonably point out that although ATER is unexpected, and requires new effects in the electrode, CF is even more unexpected, and definitely requires new effects in the electrode. CF advocates could easily limit the scope of CCS/ATER by examining the CCS part and showing that for specific classic sequences of experiments, quantitatively, the excess heat results are beyond what might result from ATER. That has not to my knowledge been done.


    A shame, and until it is done no-one can know which results CCS/ATER explains.


    I am very disappointed that those interested in the historic CF excess heat experiments are not equally interested in exploring CCS/ATER further. Science comes from such explorations - not from dismissing ideas as obviously wrong. That is an argument equally for keeping CF open as a hypothesis, and keeping CCS/ATER open as a hypothesis.


    It has some relevance. When Abd's excess heat/He correlation experiments are published (if they ever are) I will look with interest at how the authors, as I expect they will, rule out CCS/ATER. It can be done when conducting experiments, and the results then will be stronger than any result for which CCS/ATER remains possible.


    Against this, I cannot understand why Shanahan, making a real if perhaps minor contribution to the debate on these CF experiments, one that will be helpful for future work, is treated in such a dismissive and shabby way.


    And, those who think that statement is correctly summarised by my thinking Shanahan is correct have not read this long post.

    Most of the arguments outside of journal papers, such as those on the Internet or in Wikipedia, range from factually wrong to flat-out crazy


    That is both true, inevitable, and irrelevant to the question of whether there are arguments on the internet or elsewhere that are not wrong/crazy. Making that point here is a rhetoric device with little merit since we all know that most of what you find on the internet is factually wrong and/or crazy.


    It only requires one argument to pan out and any specific experimental anomaly is explained. Maybe that argument is LENR. Or maybe it is something else.

    I have always understood the "rat" situation to be a case of reducto absurdum, and a joke.

    However, the amount of water a rat can drink in a day is limited -- but the amount of water that an animal can hold in its fur is a (monotonic) function of its body mass. A much smaller number of rats can remove the water in the same amount of time, and have more fun, by jumping and and out of the heated swimming pool.

    (I have the reference/calculation in a spreadsheet somewhere).

    This makes the "rat" argument MUCH more plausible. If someone wants to fund me I'll get a few lab rats and give you the actual liters/rat/day number for drinking, splashing and shaking.

    Edit : discussion, with the referenced paper (more complicated than I remembered), has been moved to the original "bucket list" topic.

    Mizuno : Publication of kW/COP2 excess heat results

    • Official Post

    I am up to page 202 now. At times it is hard to piece a story together because we are dealing with letters. But from what I gather, and thanks to Jed's editing, it eventually comes together...I think?


    Up until now, F complained constantly about the Japanese, as in the New Hydrogen Energy (NHE) group. They were unsuccessful replicating F, yet F kept pointing out to Miles and Jed (NHE were ignoring him...and the French), that they were messing up their calculations. That, in fact, when corrected (by F), they were actually seeing excess heat. Also, they (NHE) thought they were using the JM Type A Pd he sent them, but were probably using some material from SRI...yada, yada.


    Miles then went to Japan and worked with the NHE. He used the same set-up as the Japanese, but saw excess heat. Yet, the NHE made a report saying he did not. Miles took issue with that, and it became political. Then there are some intermediaries involved like this Kimmel, and I get lost after that. The Japanese finally responded to the whole messy affair, and claimed they they were right, and everyone else wrong. Hey...who ever said LENR was boring?


    Jed, I am probably totally wrong on my take from pages 174-202, with another 269 to go, and my timeline wrong, but like I said...this is from letters, so correct me where needed.


    Good read still.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    Others argue differently.


    Hence arguable

    Anything is "arguable." Thousands of people argue that special relativity is wrong, and millions think that evolution is wrong. However, both of these theories are correct, and the number of people who argue about it has no bearing on that. Cold fusion is real. It has been widely replicated at high signal to noise ratios using a wide variety of instruments. That makes it real. There is no other definition of "real" in experimental science. Any theory or hypothesis which claims that cold fusion is not real will be wrong. All of the ones I have seen are wrong. That includes all of the DoE 2004 review claims, everything that Morrison and Shanahan have claimed, and every doubt that you have raised, such as unboiled droplets leaving cells during boil-off events. F&P took more than enough steps to ensure that did not happen. It is irrational to keep insisting X or Y is possible when so many well-understood steps have been taken to ensure they are not possible.


    If you think any one of the negative 2004 DoE critics has a valid point, tell me the number and the claim and I will show that you are wrong. Storms, Melich and I went over that document with a fine-tooth comb.


    Quote from THHuxleynew

    The language is not adequate to the care with which rational views can be argued.

    Morrison (in the paper I've read, critiquing the "from simplicity to complication" F&P paper) raised questions about whether the content justified a conclusion of excess heat from nuclear reactions.

    I do not think so. See the debate between Morrison and Fleischmann. I do not know any experts in calorimetry, nuclear reactions or electrochemistry who agree with Morrison. None of his claims has any merit in my opinion. If you disagree, you are wrong. Wrong with 99.99% probability. It is very unlikely you will find a problem in experiments that have analyzed this carefully by this many experts, in peer-review and elsewhere.


    Quote from THHuxleynew

    I have not yet seen, from you, coherent general arguments that knock CCS/ATER on the head as a possible effect explaining some of the classic CF results.

    See Marwan et al. Contact them if you have any questions.

    Quote from Alan Fletcher

    A much smaller number of rats can remove the water in the same amount of time, and have more fun, by jumping and and out of the heated swimming pool.

    Rats avoid warm water. (Really.) This water was probably scalding, and it was in a bucket. Only a desperately thirsty rat would try to drink from it, and it would probably end up drowned in the bucket. I have seen drowned rats and mice in urban Atlanta gas station cleaning fluid buckets during droughts.


    I should add there is a large stream right next to the building. Large enough for dogs to swim in. So, there is abundant water. As long as the rats could get in and out of the building they would have all the water they want. The campus is one of the largest Nat. U. in Japan (3 sq. km - 740 acres). It has acres of fields, streams, trees and two experimental farms with barns and livestock next to the engineering department, right next to the underground laboratory entrance. (It is a great place to run.) If there are any rats, I expect they would stay in the barns and silos. They are hardly likely to come into the engineering department, and if they did, I am sure the facility managers and maintenance people would exterminate them. No one in his right mind lets rats run around laboratories with dangerous radioactive materials. There were locked doors, high voltage equipment and dangerous stuff everywhere. When they tore down the building, they found it was a de facto nuclear waste site. It took a ton a money to clean it up.

    Quote from Shane D.

    Miles then went to Japan and worked with the NHE. He used the same set-up as the Japanese, but saw excess heat. Yet, the NHE made a report saying he did not. Miles took issue with that, and it became political.


    More recently there was a similar disagreement on interpretation of data between Miles and Coolescence, if I understood the situation. I gather that in the most promising experiments the signal is strong enough not to be an occasion for such disagreements. Using standard calorimetric calculations, you have an unambiguous signal no matter which approach you choose, and then the argument becomes one of how to understand that signal.


    I suppose someone like Fleischmann would have the stature to argue that NHE were not using a standard approach. But that would depend critically on the details.


    (CCS/ATER would not enter into the point above, as it is a non-standard way of doing the calculations.)

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.