NASA partners with Global Energy Corporation to develop 10kW Hybrid Reactor Generator

  • Jed,


    “Clear cut results” seems rather subjective.


    Results that are replicable by multiple trusted sources using the same BOM, build instructions, testing protocols/procedures and getting the same results will always attract money.

    Attacks will certainly come, but will wither and die if he results are replicable.

  • Attacks will certainly come, but will wither and die if he results are replicable.


    The negative reaction against CF in 1989 had two main reasons.


    1) The going public by PF was against law, if they would have been physicists... National security tried to tease down the whole field before it could emerge.

    2) CERN, ITER with 10'000+ physicists already had to fight against Mills theory. CF was a new threat to their funny live-style. Thus the establishment had to react.


    Now about 30 years later and spoiled tens of billions and ten thousand of nonsense papers, the standard nuclear and particle physics has entered the end of live phase. If they are awake, then they can already smell the perfume of the new reality, that will erase their past.

  • By the way, the F&P cells were replicated ?

    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJtallyofcol.pdf#page=6

    problem was not that it was not replicated, it is that any replication was denied.


    we cannot give lessons here about refusing to accept reality.:cursing:

    Reality is painful.||

  • Wyttenbach


    Quote

    If you can't accept that LENR is real, you should think about quitting the forum...


    What makes you think I can't accept that LENR, or just about anything, is real? All it takes to get my acceptance is really strong evidence. The obvious problem with LENR is that it is unlikely to be real, based on known science. Using nickel and hydrogen to make LENR is even less likely than other proposed systems because so much is known about those elements from battery technology. The evidence, therefore, has to be compelling. You (and Jed Rothwell for sure) may think it's compelling but most people don't. Similarly, Jed and many others thought Rossi's claims were compelling and many still think it. Most people and most scientists either don't care or don't believe it because the evidence is not strong. Your opinion may differ but don't exclude me from the discussion because my opinion is different from yours. Not unless you want to make it a religion.



    You and Adrien seem to like straw men. Sure, if the evidence is there and replicable, the attacks will die. Problem is, it isn't.


    Nobody is fighting Mill's theories, most people don't know and don't care. Mills has yet to accomplish anything other than meaningless shows of bright lights and he has been trying to prove himself for going on 30 years with the theory.

    CF is no threat to anyone except occasionally investors like Tom Darden, Neil Woodford and Dewey Weaver. A new reality? ROTFWL. Like the old lady used to say in the Wendy's add: "Show me the beef!"

  • What makes you think I can't accept that LENR, or just about anything, is real? All it takes to get my acceptance is really strong evidence. The obvious problem with LENR is that it is unlikely to be real, based on known science. Using nickel and hydrogen to make LENR is even less likely than other proposed systems because so much is known about those elements from battery technology. The evidence, therefore, has to be compelling. You (and Jed Rothwell for sure) may think it's compelling but most people don't. Similarly, Jed and many others thought Rossi's claims were compelling and many still think it.


    seven_of_twenty : Three years ago I had the same position concerning Ni-H LENR.


    But since two years I work on LENR theory = new physics. It's a shame how easy it is to show that the standard model has a severe loop-hole. Anything you believe that is known about LENR, based on current physics, is just awfully wrong.


    But I understand that for non physicists it is clear that it doesn't work...

  • “Clear cut results” seems rather subjective.

    The definition of "clear cut" in this case is defined exactly, in the peer-reviewed papers. See, for example, Will's discussion of the tritium signal to noise ratios, the number of deliberate blank runs and failed runs, and the methods used to confirm the tritium. Or the discussion of these subjects at BARC and LANL. These are technical evaluations with clearly defined standards and criteria. Not subjective at all. Those people know a great deal about tritium. As they say, if they did not know a great deal about it, they would be dead, since BARC is India's largest power reactor as well as its premier nuclear research and bomb-making laboratory.


    Results that are replicable by multiple trusted sources using the same BOM, build instructions, testing protocols/procedures and getting the same results will always attract money.

    You do not know much about the history of science or commerce. See, for example, the difficulties financing the Transcontinental Railroad, which was arguably the most profitable venture in history; or the difficulties inventing the laser or the MRI.

  • What makes you think I can't accept that LENR, or just about anything, is real? All it takes to get my acceptance is really strong evidence

    There is really strong evidence, from hundreds of labs. As I mentioned, there is irrefutable evidence for tritium from Will (NCFI), LANL, BARC and many others. If you do not think so, that is probably because you do not know much about tritium. I think you should realize that your knowledge is limited and it is unlikely you are right about this, and the technical staff at LANL and BARC are wrong. As they said at BARC, "if we were wrong about tritium, we would be dead."


    If you think you know much more about tritium than these people, and you think you can prove their papers are wrong, I suppose you are arrogant or you are suffering from the Dunning Kruger effect. I do not know your background. Perhaps you call tell us how you came to be an expert in tritium? Here, for comparison, is the CV of the guy who measured tritium at Los Alamos:


    Roland A. Jalbert


    *25 years working with tritium and tritium detection
    *involved in the development, design, and implementation of tritium instrumentation for 15 years
    *for 12 years he has had prime responsibility for the design, implementation, and maintenance of all tritium instrumentation at a major fusion technology development facility (Tritium Systems Test Assembly ).
    *Consultant on tritium instrumentation to other fusion energy facilities for 10 years (Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor at Princeton )


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


    This is from the 1989 National Science Foundation conference on cold fusion. The participants are listed and I see you are not among them. Why is that? Were you at Princeton or LANL?


    I do not recall seeing any papers published by you showing errors in the experiments. Where are they? Can you cite any other papers? Do you have any technical reasons, or are you just making assertions without evidence or justification? If that's what you are doing, it ain't science.

  • JedRothwell


    I don't recall claiming to know anything about tritium nor about errors in experiments. What I know is that most scientists have not been drawn to study LENR. Investors and entrepreneurs are not flocking to it. In my opinion, just opinion not based on my doing calculations or experiments, this is not because they hate LENR, are afraid of LENR, etc. etc. It's because attempts to get reliable and promising results from LENR seem to succeed only when done by people who "believe" in LENR. Mainline scientists have no luck with duplicating that work.


    It might not be worthwhile to rehash the arguments for and against LENR again here. I didn't mean to. I was only replying to the absurd claim that, faced with enough powerful evidence, skeptics, me included, mainline science included would refuse to believe the evidence. Fact is, if LENR were as obvious a promising source of energy as Jed claims, someone, somewhere would be providing much more generous funding for it. LENR has gotten somewhat adequate funding as recently as Darden's attempts. How's that going for him and his associates so far?


    Edited: Shanahan knows a great deal about tritium, apparently works with dangerous amounts of it, and he is not convinced by the evidence and states why. True, I know little or nothing about tritium but he certainly does.


    Cue argument that Shanahan is a loon and thinks mice make water disappear or whole buckets of water can evaporate overnight without a heat source. I've been reading a little of Jed's stuff.

  • Seven~


    If the reaction within lenr jeopardizes national security you absolutely would not find measuring devices built to test such a device nor would you see any active development anywhere in the world before a more terrifying device to keep nations at bay was available to keep the peace.

  • I don't recall claiming to know anything about tritium nor about errors in experiments.

    If you know nothing about the tritium cold fusion experiments, then you do not know anything about cold fusion, and you should refrain from holding any opinion or discussing it. You should not believe it, or disbelieve it.


    What I know is that most scientists have not been drawn to study LENR. Investors and entrepreneurs are not flocking to it.

    If you talk to scientists who oppose cold fusion, you will see that they are as ignorant of subject as you are. They have no rational reason not to "flock to it," any more than the investors in San Francisco had reasons to denigrate and ignore the prospectus for the Transcontinental Railroad. The reasons they give for rejecting cold fusion are absurd violations of elementary science, and idiotic mistakes. See, for example:


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


    There is not a single published paper with a valid reason to reject these claims. If you disagree, tell us the author and title of such a paper.


    In my opinion, just opinion not based on my doing calculations or experiments, this is not because they hate LENR, are afraid of LENR, etc. etc. It's because attempts to get reliable and promising results from LENR seem to succeed only when done by people who "believe" in LENR. Mainline scientists have no luck with duplicating that work.

    An opinion about a scientific claim that is not based on calculation and experiments has no merit. It has no meaning. Calculation and experiments are the only valid criteria anyone can use to evaluate science. Opinions, popularity, gut feelings and the like are irrelevant. These experiments are grounded in the laws of thermodynamics, and they use instruments and techniques dating back to the 1840s, so it is extremely unlikely they are wrong. If you cannot point to a scientific paper showing errors in these experiments, you have no reason to doubt them.


    All of the scientists who replicated cold fusion are "mainline" (mainstream) professionals. Not a single one of them believed it before he or she replicated. Most did not believe their own results until several others replicated. So, what you are saying is incorrect.

  • It's because attempts to get reliable and promising results from LENR seem to succeed only when done by people who "believe" in LENR. Mainline scientists have no luck with duplicating that work.


    SOT,


    I am sure Jed knows much more about this than me, but I have read many accounts from researchers who started out skeptical, or neutral, then after their eureka moment turned believer. Also, I do not see what difference ones belief system matters when first entering the lab to experiment? Does that affect the outcome in some way? Facts are facts, data is data, and a good scientist will take them as they are, and base their conclusion on what the numbers tell him, not what he wants them to.


    This applies to all of science BTW, not just LENR. Had the Wright brothers been skeptical of manned flight, that would not change the fact their airplane flew. Now, what ones prior belief (believer, neutral, or skeptic) is, may affect motivation to pursue an invention, or idea. Someone open to an idea, or believe something possible, will obviously be more motivated to stay with it longer, even after initial failure, than one closed to that idea. Exactly what has happened in LENR...the motivated tended to stick with it long enough to see a positive result (some still failed), while the less motivated skeptics went to the lab for a few days, or weeks, saw nothing and stayed the skeptic they were from the beginning.

  • and a good scientist will take them as they are, and base their conclusion on what the numbers tell him, not what he wants them to.


    Which is why you can know that the majority of the CF researchers are 'bad' scientists. I took their numbers, analyzed them differently, came to a different conclusion, and they choose to ignore or denigrate that, rather than doing what you suggest (which is to let the data tell the story, not what the researcher wants to see before entering the lab).

  • Which is why you can know that the majority of the CF researchers are 'bad' scientists. I took their numbers, analyzed them differently, came to a different conclusion, and they choose to ignore or denigrate that, rather than doing what you suggest (which is to let the data tell the story, not what the researcher wants to see before entering the lab).


    Kirk,


    I do respect you, but your stating "the majority of the CF researchers are bad scientists" is really uncalled for, nor true. Some obviously are bad, or weak scientists, which brings to mind that old saying: "half of Doctors/scientists/engineers/Nuclear Scientists/Pilots, graduated at the bottom 50% of their class". While LENR has had it's share of the bottom half, it has the upper half that has to be taken seriously.


    That is not to say us in the bottom half should be written off. As they say...even a blind squirrel finds the nut on occasion.

  • Well, as a comparatively but not totally "lay" individual, I read or view things about subatomic particles, watch a NOVA segment on the LHC or on the Hubble's findings, theories about volcanoes, even stuff about black holes and come away with a feeling of solidity. Sure, not complete confidence but it sort of makes sense. I never got that impression from LENR research. I know that won't please Jed who will say it's stupid. Maybe it is but LENR seems too full of disagreements, too lacking reasonable theories, too against established knowledge, and way too full of overoptimistic predictions.


    In additions to objections voiced here, I am also put off by a lack of followup and a vigorous calling out by the "community": about claims that are either frauds ornever come to fruition despite extensive hyping. Now, I am thinking, for example, where is Brillouin's fancy fluidized bed boiler? Where is Miley's space battery? Where is Mizumo's kilowatt machine? How about Ahern's promises? Where are Duncan's results for >$5M of Kimmel's foundation money? How about those sonofusion/bubble fusion guys that claimed the radiation exposure (forget their name)?, And of course there is Rossi who was believed for 7 years despite literally dozens of red flags and then it took huge volumes of depositions and evidence to bring him down and we are still arguing about him here, believe it or not! Those are other things that make me doubt that anything is there. To be credible, you have to be eager to disprove and root out the bad claims. Pro LENR people don't seem to be.

  • It is important not to judge the empirical evidence in a field such as LENR by irrational proponents who become attached to every implausible claim made by this or that entrepreneur. Familiarizing oneself with the literature will help to form an opinion about which voices are credible and which are merely credulous outliers in a small, self-selected group. The people and companies in the list you give are very different from one another; some are not credible, or even possibly predatory, while others have quite a bit of credibility. The temptation to lump everyone in the same category should be avoided.


    I look forward to what Robert Duncan has to publish, for example, and am hoping some kind of publication is in the works in connection with the Sidney Kimmel grant.



  • Science runs into LENR from time to time and the are amazed by it. The SAFIRE project is an example. The research team there after years of research finally came to the realization that LENR was affecting their experiment in a major way. They now realize that the hot fusion systems are crazy. LENR is the only way to go to produce hydrogen based nuclear reactions.

  • I do respect you, but your stating "the majority of the CF researchers are bad scientists" is really uncalled for, nor true.


    Shane,


    To date, not one CF scientist has seriously considered the ramifications of my 2002 Thermochimica Acta paper (which actually was available in late 2000 as per the date on the manuscript). By simple mathematics, I demonstrated an issue with a set of calorimetric data that allowed for a 'normal' physics/chemistry explanation of the apparent excess heat signals in that Fleischmann-Pons electrolysis experiment. That math and chemistry is applicable to all F&P-type experiments and the math is applicable to any calibrated method. At that time F&P-type cell experiments giving apparent excess heat were the primary block of data suggesting CF (see Ed Storms 2007 book). Thus my postulates affected all electrolysis-calorimetry results developed to that time, and since they have not been addressed that extends to today.


    The generic idea is that if there are two potential explanations for a set of observations, one can't claim one is correct and the other is not without investigating them. To date, no one has investigated the alternative I presented, yet I find suggestive evidence of it in every so-called 'replication' (to use JR's definition of the term). Instead we have the 2010 J. Environ. Monitoring paper JR always cites which uses a strawman representation of what I wrote, proves it wrong (correctly, as expected), and then claims to have proven my thesis wrong (incorrectly). Hagelstein quotes that paper in his 2015 MIT course intro when discussing the 'unfair' attitudes CF researchers will face, and then when asked a simple question about what I wrote, he has to defer his answer to the next day because he has to read my paper to get the answer. So he read it enough to extract the comments he wanted, but he clearly didn't understand the reasoning behind them.


    In 2017, we have Melvin Miles writing me that he's never even read my papers (yet he could sign off on how 'wrong' it was back in 2010 and 2004). And then we have the recently released Miles-Fleischmann communications that shows Fleischmann didn't even want to read my paper, let alone communicate with me on it, but he would denigrate my idea in print (in the 2004 publication with Szpak, Mosier-Boss, and Miles, and the version that Miles published in Infinite Energy in 2017, supposedly written by Fleischmann himself, (on what technical basis could he do that do you think?)).


    Also, we have the McKubre story, where I asked him twice for the 'transfer functions' he used to calibrate his M-series runs in his 1998 report. After he failed to provide them and I tried a 'Hail Mary' approach to see if anyone else knew them, rather than engaging me, he labelled me a 'grandstander' and broke off communications permanently.


    I may not have mentioned it previously, but I tried talking with Tom Claytor about his experiments, but he quit communication as soon as he figured out I was skeptical (a total of 4 emails exchanged as I recall).


    Also, as you know from reading my whitepaper, I tried to publish a comment on the Kitamura, et al., publication on Pd/ZrO2 studies and was rebuffed by the editor, but most importantly, Kitamura, et al., did officially respond to my paper in the review process, so they know the objections I have to their work (and subsequent Pd/ZrO2 work that doesn't address my raised issues), but they have never responded or changed anything they claim based on them.


    And finally, all indications I have say that the CF community talks with each other, and that they all know about me and my objections. However, I suspect they are like Miles and have never bothered to read what I wrote, instead depending on the opinion of the one guy who did (Ed Storms), possibly with input from the second reviewer of my first paper who only wrote a couple of paragraphs against my paper with no details, unlike Storms. (If you want to know what Storms wrote during the review period, his 2006 publication against my work was nothing but a publication of the private review process, as was my response to him). By the way, the fact that Ed referenced my original paper in his book, and claimed to have rebutted it fully, without mentioning I responded to his 'rebuttal' point-by-point in a paper published side-by-side with the paper he referenced clearly shows the extreme bias against critics that the CF community has.


    I doubt Robert Duncan has read my work either, since I am sure he at least would understand that if there is no real excess heat, there can be no real He-heat correlation as they construe it.


    Another example not involving me is the claim by Miley that he produced all kinds of transmutation products in his Paterson Power Cell-beads experiments. Scott Little showed a) that he could reproduce the results, and b) that almost all of the 'new' element signals fell under the noise level and that of those that didn't, the largest ones could be traced to contaminants. Miley never changed his story on that either, nor do I recall that he even responded to Little's results (but I may be mis-remembering there, please correct me if I'm wrong on that).


    The key thing about 'science' is that it is a group activity. There's an old adage that says you never have a discovery until someone else confirms it, and this is true (consider Rossi for example). So, 'good' scientists know this, and when criticized, they respond appropriately by either conducting more experiments to clairify the situation or by pointing out logical flaws in the criticisms (not inventing strawman versions of them to 'destroy'). 'Bad' scientists however do not do that. They use all the logical fallacies they can to denigrate their critics and then claim victory, which means they legitimize their failure to engage in the scientific process of criticism and subsequent refinement of the supporting data.


    So Shane, show me a CFer who demonstrates understanding of my points (or Little's) and has actually addressed the issues. That would be 'good' scientific practice. By definition, those who do the opposite are 'bad'. And it is never uncalled for to point out bad science.


    Kirk S.

  • Thx Kirk,


    I am familiar with your trials and tribulations with the CF community. Very frustrating for you obviously, as it appears to be for them. I try to stay out of discussion, or better said -cat fight, as the technical aspects are over my head.


    Only thing I took exception with is the term "bad scientist". Maybe from your perspective they are, because they mostly brush you off, but there is probably something that better describes their actions than that. So mine was not a rebuke, or warning, nor does it change my opinion...carry on.

  • as the technical aspects are over my head.


    No, they aren't. You understand y=mx+b is different from y=nx+c right (m!=n and b!=c)? Then the issue of the CCS isn't over your head. And I wasn't discussing technical aspects anyway, I was pointing out 'social problems' with the behavior of CF scientists.


    Only thing I took exception with is the term "bad scientist". Maybe from your perspective they are, because they mostly brush you off, but there is probably something that better describes their actions than that. So mine was not a rebuke, or warning, nor does it change my opinion...carry on.


    Well, first off, you left off the quote marks I used around 'bad' (and later 'good'), These are value-laden terms and are based on a somewhat arbitrary scale. The primary scale point though is the one that was expressed well by Feynman when he said "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool." Fooling yourself is avoided by 'scientific integrity', i.e., "It's a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty— a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you're doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid — not only what you think is right about it" which also means you should consider carefully criticisms, not get irritated at them and throw them in the trash. So, not considering criticisms = lack of honesty = fooling yourself = 'bad'. I documented several cases of that, and those that do that are 'bad' scientists on this scale. The other term is 'pathological', and the point is that 'bad' or 'pathological' science should not be treated seriously. That doesn't mean that making a mistake is 'bad'. What is 'bad' is not fessing up and holding to your position in the face of all contrary evidence. If you read Langmuir's description of pathological science, that is primarily what he is describing. Note that everyone is enamored of their ideas at the beginning, right or wrong. It is how they self-examine in the light of criticism that defines 'bad' and 'good' on this particular scale. Note further that this is only what we are talking about. No other aspect of these people is under discussion.


    I contend Shane, that what I presented in the prior post should change your mind. It seems to me you are doing exactly what I was trying to point out was 'bad' a la science. But you can do what you like, just as the CFers do. I have no authority over you.

  • Kirk,


    I mean't my opinion of you has not changed, as in I liked reading your spirited posts before, and still do now. As to your CCS/ATER concept, there are far more qualified people than myself to judge. I note though, that I have yet to see anyone here, or back on the old ECNs agree completely with it. Some like TC, or THH say some parts may have merit, but find other aspects could be wrong. Joshua/Popeye refused to endorse it also due it's complexity, Other than Jed, none of the other lab pros here like Alan, Russ, OG bother to give their opinion (which tells me something), so I choose to do the same and take a wait and see position.


    Although, while awaiting a clear winner in the slug-fest, I take comfort that CCS applies only to wet (Pd/D electrolysis) systems. The dry (Ni/H/D), and plasma based are not affected, and we are seeing some promising reports of transmutations. even some XH, from them. If that holds true, then that would weigh in favor of LENR being real, and if real, your CCS/ATER will, well...

  • To date, not one CF scientist has seriously considered the ramifications of my 2002 Thermochimica Acta paper (which actually was available in late 2000 as per the date on the manuscript).

    That is a little unfair. Storms wrote detailed responses. The others wrote a long paper responding to you. That is serious consideration. You disagree with them, but you should say "they got it wrong," not "they did not give it consideration at all."


    Obviously, they think you got it wrong. Let the reader decide. To facilitate that, I have uploaded all points of view (except for the white paper you refuse to give me permission to upload).

  • Maybe it is but LENR seems too full of disagreements, too lacking reasonable theories, too against established knowledge, and way too full of overoptimistic predictions.

    That is characteristic of nascent science, such as genetics just before DNA was discovered. It attracted many strange people and weird, complicated theories. As James Watson said, it was mostly baloney. See the quote from his book on the last page here:


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


    Biology then and cold fusion today attract eccentric people and unreasonable skeptics who refuse to read the literature.

  • I mean't my opinion of you has not changed, as in I liked reading your spirited posts before, and still do now. As to your CCS/ATER concept, there are far more qualified people than myself to judge.


    You continue to downrate yourself unduly. Perhaps this is because you want to maintain the illusion that there is some justifiable reason why my concerns about CF calorimetry haven't been addressed. But let me reiterate, you can handle it Shane. For ex., the CCS just states that y=mx+b is different from y=nx+c (m!=n and b!=c). That's just algebra and you can handle that. The next factoid you need is that in order to be able to calibrate a system, it must be stable. Why? Because if you calibrate at time t and get the y=mx+b equation (with m and b numerically defined now) and then the system changes at time t+ z (to y=nx+c), the prior equation is of no value. That is also trivially easy to understand. But it should be clear to you that when the 10 authors of the J. Env. Mon. paper tried to tack an 'H' to the CCS (claiming it was just a 'hypothesis') they were simply displaying their ignorance. The 'CCS' is just math.


    ATER on the other hand is chemistry. You may not be able to judge the veracity of ATER, but I also don't claim that ATER is the absolute truth either, I clearly state that it needs to be proven out. And I state a good way to do that is for the CFers to go back into their data and find the case that proves it wrong. But that will never occur if they remain self-convinced that the "random 'Shanahan' CCSH" is fallacious, and thus needs no further discussion. And you can follow that argument as well, without needing anything but a working brain.


    Why does the system change? That is the tricky part, but there must be a reason, at least if you believe in a universe ruled by 'laws'. For the F&P cells, I proposed ATER since it fit several other observations as well as giving a reason to believe the calibration had changed. That has always been the point-of-attack taken by my critics. But any chemist knows that proposed mechanisms are a dime-a-dozen, and are never taken seriously without a lot of study to back them up. But that also is unlikely to happen as long as the CFers deny it is relevant. Recognizing this also is not rocket science; you can handle that too. (I also suspect you can handle the algebra involved with explaining why ATER induces a CCS error too, but we'll skip that for now.)



    I note though, that I have yet to see anyone here, or back on the old ECNs agree completely with it. Some like TC, or THH say some parts may have merit, but find other aspects could be wrong.


    Never dealt with ECN, so no comment on that. I don't recall TC's stand off the top of my head. THH has correctly pointed out that there is an inherent maximum to the CCS/ATER effect that is dependent on the experimental setup (as I did too). That's why I said the CFers need to recheck their old data, and that's the case I am discussing that might point out that the CCS/ATER is inadequate. But no one has done that to date (18 years after the problem was brought up). If THH has any other objection, I am not aware of them. (Please restate them if so THH.)


    And pointing out the CCS/ATER problem does not mean it's the only one.


    Joshua/Popeye refused to endorse it also due it's complexity, Other than Jed, none of the other lab pros here like Alan, Russ, OG bother to give their opinion (which tells me something), so I choose to do the same and take a wait and see position.


    Don't recall what Joshua said, but if he said it was complex, he was referring only to the chemistry (assuming he was right in his comment), which of course is what makes it marginally interesting to chemists. Can't comment on why Alan, Russ, and OG don't say anything. Their choice as always. I've commented on JR extensively. He's a fanatic true believer. And unfortunately, you'll likely be waiting for another 18-20 years with no change in the situation, because the primaries refuse to consider the issues honestly, self-deluding themselves into believing their wishes are realities.


    Although, while awaiting a clear winner in the slug-fest, I take comfort that CCS applies only to wet (Pd/D electrolysis) systems.


    ATER applies only to electrolysis systems like the F&P cells. CCS can occur with any calibrated method if the steady state changes.


    The dry (Ni/H/D), and plasma based are not affected, and we are seeing some promising reports of transmutations. even some XH, from them. If that holds true, then that would weigh in favor of LENR being real, and if real, your CCS/ATER will, well...


    Not affected by ATER yes. But there is a 'zeroth order' principle in effect here. It is that when you are faced by an anomalous result, you should recheck your assumptions. The CFers assume temperature distribution in a cell makes no difference, but I beg to disagree. For dry systems, one needs to do the same thing. Case in point, the use of the Optris device to measure temperature, maybe another is the use of flowmeters incorrectly if I recall the discussions correctly, etc., etc. You can follow that too, you don't necessarily need to understand the details, you just need to see someone with an anomalous result rechecking their data and methods based on critical feedback. Seen much of that?


    And always remember, the acid test is replication, in detail, as described by IO and others. No replication, no discovery.


    *********


    Also note that JR is up to his old tricks. I mentioned in the last post that CFers hadn't given my proposal consideration. As JR points out, that is only partially true with Storms. He was forced to deal with it in detail during the peer review process on my 1st paper. Since I was commenting on his publication, he was asked directly to participate in the review process, and that is 100% normal. We went round-and-round on this, and the new editor of the journal went with the simple vote method. Storms had a 'nay', another reviewer had a 'nay', and the third has a 'yay'. So then I got it published in a different journal in 2002. Interestingly enough, Storms waited until 2006 to respond, even though my paper was published in 2002 (which he knew, I told him amongst all the emails he and I exchanged on this subject). But Storms' 2006 publication was nothing more than what he wrote during the peer review, as was my response to it (which he failed to acknowledge in his 2007 book, even though he referenced his paper). Why did he wait 4 years to publish what he wrote in 2002? I know why but I'm 'sworn to secrecy' and I will maintain that. I recommend you ask him to see if he will tell. So fast forward to 2010 and the JEM paper. Scuttlebutt at the time said that the various authors wrote parts and Marwan combined them, which is SOP, no problem there. But in 2017, Miles admitted he'd never read my papers. This means he signed off on trashing my ideas without any thought. Did the others as well? I'd guess yes, but that is just a guess. The 2015 Hagelstein recordings of his 'MIT course' support that. In any case, that's why I say no CFer has considered my views adequately. It would be nice to know for sure. I currently contend the others (as JR put it) did not read my CCS/ATER paper. They probably did read the submitted JEM manuscript, but concentrated only on their part. Guesses sure, but it fits the results. (The primary result being that a trivial change in calibration constants flatlined a 780mW excess heat signal.)

  • Kirk,


    I never said I did not understand your CCS concept (little fuzzy on the ATER)....just that I am not in a position to make a judgement. And even after your descriptive, and very well stated post, I still am not qualified. That takes someone who is a lab person; having worked with the graphs, constants, calculations, set-ups, etc. It is not just about understanding the concept, so much as having spent years in the lab (OJT) to qualify one for making a good counter argument. To be honest, that is why I think Joshua refused to commit to CCS/ATER....because he is not a lab person.


    I also missed that CCS applies to all systems, but after your explanation, it makes sense that it would (assuming CCS is a real, unaccounted for effect).

  • [It would be out of character for [Miles] to critique a paper he has not read.\


    Really. Apparently not.

    As I thought, this was a misunderstanding. I asked Miles about this. He wrote back: "I don't remember exactly what I said [to Shanahan], but I would never critique a paper without first reading it. I know I read some of his papers, but perhaps not all of them."

  • While a long-term settlement on Mars could be an exciting endeavor, sustaining life there will be difficult — and that’s putting it lightly, a cognitive scientist tells Inverse.


    A study published in the June edition of Futures reports that reproducing on the red planet could present numerous medical challenges. The team of researchers, based at the University of Information Technology and Management in Rzeszów, Poland, says the only way to successfully create a Mars settlement would be to genetically alter our bodies.


    Since Mars has an extremely thin atmosphere — about 100 times thinner than Earth’s — cosmic radiation is a much larger concern on the red planet than it is here. Earth’s magnetic field protects us from solar wind and high-energy space particles that could cause us harm. No such shield exists on Mars, which could cause issues in fetal development.


    “The biggest challenges for human reproductive biology are caused by [a] specific space environment including microgravity during the long journey to Mars, cosmic rays (the biggest during the journey but also high exposure to cosmic radiation just on Mars) and extremely high bone loss (caused mostly by microgravity),” the study’s lead author Konrad Szocik, a cognitive scientist, tells Inverse. “Radiation will be a big challenge for human reproduction, beginning from effective fertilization.”