How do you convince a skeptic?

  • feeding a stabilize ignited fuel to an EVO magnetron should not be that hard to accomplish.

  • This is an interesting article I think in many levels.


    https://www.forbes.com/sites/s…se-of-cards/#142833637346


    Ethan Siegel is asking some interesting questions these days.


    This one and his earlier one about relic neutrinos.


    It’s hard to let go of preconceptions but this article is at least leading that way.


    I wonder if he will soon be ready to see more about LENR and the huge effort against all odds in the community in the pursuit of understanding it.


    I hope he does as although there are somethings I don’t agree with (which is normal I guess with these kinds of articles) but I like his writing style.

  • there are many excellent answers in this forum but this whole area of convincing skeptics is an interesting topic in and of itself. In my opinion not unlike that of the development of the first self powered aeroplane. There were literally 100s if not 1000s of attempts and the skeptics were saying heavier than air flight is impossible, (theorists should study this part!). I am a trained scientist, trained back in the days when we were taught that empirical evidence and data trumps theory (Richard Feynman) so anyone that cites theory against my empirical evidence, I just laugh at how the scientific education system has failed society. Finally a couple of bicycle mechanics got it worked out and I suspect LENR will probably go along the same type of story. Skeptics are great. As someone correctly mentioned real science not only welcomes but indeed thrives upon good solid skepticism. Only in pathological science and politics is there such a thing as consensus and believers and nonbelievers. The proper scientific response to skeptical claims is to design proper experiments to answer the questions the skeptics claim, not abandon the search! By that definition hot fusion has been going for 100 years and used billions upon billions of dollars and still no practical device! Why the double standards?

  • I also like to use the anti-LENR crowd's arguments and turn them around on themselves. I am one scientist that doesn't believe that the sun is a giant fusion furnace, a theory developed 50 years before the first nuclear fusion was used in practice. Sir Eddington's theories are just fanciful conjecture and scientists have repeatedly massaged their data to fit the model rather than consider other possibilities or alternative hypotheses. There is a massive body of evidence in support of the electrical sun hypothesis which is supported by IEEE and many well credentialed scientists. Why am I mentioning this? Because what I believe is that fusion does not happen in the core of the sun. It happens on the surface due to electrical current flow. The evidence is overwhelming. SO that means that hot fusion (HF) will never be practical. So getting back to my main point, when you get your assumptions wrong, everything that follows is wrong no matter how fancy your GIGO computer models look. If 30 years since its discovery and no practical device is the standard for anti-LENR skeptics, then how can I interpret 100 years since the discovery of nuclear fusion and billions upon billions spent and still no practical device? Its HF that is the major hoax in my opinion!

  • Quantum computers recently got 10 billion of European taxmoney for 10 years of research. This is really high risk money and If a skeptic

    says this well spent money I can't find it unreasonable to ask for the same spending for cold fusion. If they complain that theory predicts

    a positive result ask them to present the theory for the error bounds of the result of the quantum algorithm and what's needed to get the

    errors so low that the Quantum Computer is practical. There is actually theoretical work done to attack this problem, currently all results indicate

    that the difficulty increases exponentially with the size of the quantum computer for what I know. So EU is asking for the imposible. I would think

    that the impossible Cold Fusion is way more important for the humanity though.

  • Just for fun. a fake news report~


    At some point.. News of a cold fusion gamma radiation within vanadium 23 will not be announced.... Currently being tested and verified in labs throughout the world, ,MSM New or internet police will not tell you anything~ Built an used in a formula similar to thermite "A mix of Aluminum and mercury reaction feeding a pre mix 23/carbon/Obsidian amalgams to a volcanic reaction with a direct electrical discharge.


    The use of EVO rotation of ignited metals generating a microwave frequency to sustain the reaction are created with a magnetron configuration in a direct path with the focus point reaction capable of but not necessarily needing to reach gamma.

    Simple experiments such as mercury and Aluminum are on the net and can explain the extraordinary lengths of time that this mix of ingredients can run this reaction with small amounts of material.

    Simple Experiments like Obsidian Volcanic glass fragmented to hold High electrical charges are Not on the net in youtube videos, as they are removed as fast as they are made.

    Simple magnetron designs in use as a microwave oven are on line for reading and understanding there Operation.

    Understanding the use of gallium and sea water for hydrogen within this reaction are also not to be examined or explained on line through the internet police at this time.


    It's just too quiet

  • Quantum computers recently got 10 billion of European taxmoney for 10 years of research. This is really high risk money and If a skeptic

    says this well spent money I can't find it unreasonable to ask for the same spending for cold fusion.


    I (very) recently attended two extensive presentations covering the state of the art in quantum computer research. All admit that they are light years away of any useful computation. A quantum computer will certainly fail to run a classical "logic" program after a "few" steps.

    Currently the design targets are to replace the good old analog computing devices that still outpace quantum computers by dozens of magnitudes.


    Conclusion: Quantum computing is the same cheating terminology as ITER for hot fusion, which should be renamed in nuclear waste production. Quantum computing simply is approximative computing.


    If not the US military would finance one side of the story nobody would follow up.


    But as usual: Its cutting edge, thrilling experimental physics thanks to the physicists mafia that obviously has good connections to the (free masons) establishment.

  • Quote

    June 2018 report ~10 Watts excess power

    December 2018 report ~50 Watts excess power

    March 2019 report ~80 Watts excess power

    Excess power is meaningless unless you know what the output/input ratio is. And that is even before we get to replication/verification.

  • Excess power is meaningless unless you know what the output/input ratio is. And that is even before we get to replication/verification.


    That's I'm afraid to say, nonsense. Do you know what the initial power output of Fermi's 500 tons of graphite and uranium (The Chicago pile) was? Initially it was a half watt. Then after a while they cranked it up to 200 watts. The excess power only makes sense when you compare a test with a control. If you have to account for everything else, where do you stop? The PSU losses, the data-logging computers, the lights, the fans, the air-con, the grid losses, the car you drove to the lab in and what you ate for breakfast? Where do you stop?

  • The excess power only makes sense when you compare a test with a control. If you have to account for everything else, where do you stop? The PSU losses, the data-logging computers . . .


    Yes. The only reasonable metric is the signal to noise ratio. You have noise even when there is no input power. Input power is not necessarily a major source of noise. Electrolysis input is usually quiet and it can be measured with high precision, so it does not add much noise. Therefore, the input power level does not matter much from an experimental point of view. It would matter with technology.

  • Fermi's 500 tons of graphite and uranium

    U238 generates 0.1 W/tonne through natural decay according to


    http://www.world-nuclear.org/i…ium-how-does-it-work.aspx


    If there were 45 tonnes of U238 in the Chicago pile1


    This 'geothermal 'heat would amount to 4.5 watts..which is more than the calculated 0.5W early December output


    Maybe Enrico factored that into his xs heat calculation somewhere so he could celebrate with Chianti


    The less cautious 200W output 10 days later was much in excess of the geothermal heat.


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Pile-1

  • Yes. The only reasonable metric is the signal to noise ratio. You have noise even when there is no input power. Input power is not necessarily a major source of noise. Electrolysis input is usually quiet and it can be measured with high precision, so it does not add much noise. Therefore, the input power level does not matter much from an experimental point of view. It would matter with technology.


    While that is true, SOTs comment was not ridiculous.


    COP is relevant in LENR experiments where (as is often the case) there is fairly standard calorimetry, with errors not properly quantified but supposed no more than "typical 10% or so". In that case 100% excess looks interesting, whereas 10% excess looks much less interesting.


    Quantifying errors properly below 10% is difficult because the assumptions on which results rest (e.g. calibration or control runs are similar to real runs in all calorimetric variables) can be challenged. And, in addition, low powers present additional problems independent of COP close to 1.


    So while Jed is right, some setups make it quite difficult to determine what noise is.


    In this case the Q pulses add calorimetric complexity because you have to quantify:


    (1) EMC error change control vs real

    (2) Q pulse power estimation error control vs real

    (3) Control box efficiency change control vs real


    If "no Q pulse" output is considered control than (2) reduces to estimating Q pulses. (3) would not be necessary in a better experimental system where control box dissipation could be separated from output (though that might make for additional EMC problems).


    Given all this unquantified "noise" neither absolute power excess nor COP helps us alone.


    Change in power excess might represent progress but only if other parameters remain the same between these different reports.


    Robert: your headline summary - without the details - does not tell us much.


    The details from brillouin do not help much because they specify "peak" values in the table. But peak over what time period? if small this means very little. Also they don't specify under what assumptions this is made (e.g is control box dissipation included, if not how is it controlled).