How do you convince a skeptic?

  • What is causing the lack of recognition of evidence on LENR is much discussed.

    Evidence shows it is not a conspiracy of military guys, nuclear energy guys, oil guys, because they all were allowed, or just ignored, to publish papers, from Amoco,Shell, BARC, LANL to EDF, CEA.

    EDF was more tolerant than CEA probably because it is less academic, less Nobel expecting (fear of Nobel losses seems the greatest reason). DoD is funding LENR, and even cooperating with SRI, ENEA, japanese teams in industry... no conspiracy holds.


    The theory that it is because of hot fusion budget is very credible, but I have reason not to be sure.


    This recent article talk of the finally unimportant and real conspiracy by industrial on scientific questions...

    finally cultural and social points are the most important.


    Quote

    Was there ever really a “sugar conspiracy”?



    Our analysis illustrates how conspiratorial narratives in science can distort the past in the service of contemporary causes and obscure genuine uncertainty that surrounds aspects of research, impairing efforts to formulate good evidence-informed policies. In the absence of very strong evidence, there is a serious danger in interpreting the inevitable twists and turns of research and policy as the product of malevolent playbooks and historical derailments. Like scientists, historians must focus on the evidence and follow the data where they lead.

    Ego, big voice, hierarchy of sciences (physics above chemistry), lasiness to change theory, is what was the most evident cause for me when I started to be interested.

    The book of Charles Beaudette showed to me clearly that the nasty jokes of Lewis at Baltimore seems to be the key to that fiasco.


    If there was conspiracy, it may be the no more secret conspiracy of Seaborg, which was proud of it, so not conspiring , to build a Stalinian trial against cold fusion, the ERAB panel. Il looks more like Mao Cultural Revolution, where everybody follow the flow with enthusiasm first, then not to be exterminated like birds were.


    Intimations of Disaster: Glenn Seaborg, the Scientific Process, and the Origin of the “Cold Fusion War” - Eugene F. Mallove

  • A small library of a private is not same thing of large IAEA database (it’s absolutely incomparable), anyway If we are talking only of serious and high qualified Labs, about German nation can you show the official test Report of Max-Plank Institute?

    We are talking about papers copied from the libraries at Los Alamos, Aarhus University, Georgia Tech, and the ICCF proceedings. See:


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


    The only thing I know from the Max-Planck institute is here:


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

  • It means that neither after 1989 (and until now) the worldwide scientific community (including MP) never confirmed the F&P claim of CF.

    In experimental science "confirmation" means only one thing: replication at high signal to noise ratios. How many replications you need to confirm something may be a matter of opinion. Some people might say 5, others might hold out for 10 from quality laboratories. For you or anyone else to doubt a result that has been replicated in 180 laboratories is far beyond any rational scientific standard.


    There is no other way to confirm a claim. There is no other standard. It makes no difference what your "worldwide scientific community" thinks. Science is not a popularity contest, and not a matter of opinion. The only relevant criteria are instrument readings. The data in this graph overrules all opinions of every scientist on earth, and it overrules all theoretical objections:


    http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress…loads/McKubre-graph-2.jpg


    Replicated experiments are not the gold standard of truth. They are the only standard of truth. Your standard, the opinion of your imaginary worldwide scientific community, has no place in science. You might as well point to an Ouija Board, and insist it is the ultimate arbiter of truth. I say your community is "imaginary" because you have not taken a public opinion poll, so you have no idea what opinions are held. You do not know whether the people who hold positive or negative opinions have any knowledge of the subject. Most skeptics I have spoken with had no knowledge, so their opinion is worth nothing, any more than the opinion of a policeman or grocery clerk who knows nothing about science.

  • Just so no one misses it, one of Jeds references relates the story of a world class Electrochemist (Gerischer), who went from skeptic in 1989, to believer in 1991. Gerischer attributed his change of view to the improved calorimetry by those doing the research. It should be noted that today, 27 years later, that is still one the main criticisms from the mainstream: "well, they must have done something wrong". Here is Bockris's introduction:


    "The significance of this memorandum arises from Professor Gerischer's status. He is widely

    recognized to be the leading physical electrochemist in Europe and would vie for the title on a still

    wider basis. Apart from his long term involvement in electrochemistry he is well known as a

    physical chemist of the highest standing and was, until 1988, the Director of the Max Planck

    Institute for Physical Chemistry in Berlin.

    A still further significance may be attached to Professor Gerischer's memorandum because

    he has been, since March 1989, a dedicated opponent of cold fusion, taking the position (more

    pronounced, even, in Germany, France, and England, perhaps, than in the United States) that the

    work of Fleischmann and Pons and the announcement of March, 1989, was due to poor

    measurements.

    Indeed, I can witness the fact that until the Como Conference of July 1991, Professor

    Gerischer maintained a negative opinion of the field which he confided to me at the beginning of

    the Conference."

  • Quote

    We are talking about papers copied from the libraries at Los Alamos, Aarhus University, Georgia Tech, and the ICCF proceedings.


    Today... but yesterday you stated:

    "I have papers and reports from every nation in the world".

    My suspecttion that your words were a large exaggeration it was right.


    Quote

    The only thing I know from the Max-Planck institute is here:


    This stuff is not a MP scientific test Report. I hope that you know what is a test Report. Anyway this is the evidence that your assumption about "people in the world capable of replicating the experiment in 1989, and every one of them did replicate before the end of the year" it's the usual cold fusionists' propaganda.

  • Quote

    27 years later, that is still one the main criticisms from the mainstream: "well, they must have done something wrong"


    I see only a cold fusionist (Bockris) that says to have translated... that talks for him, nothing direct signed by Geischner's or from the MP Institute.

    If you can produce a direct original test document where Geischner made cold fusion tests obtaining positive results, we can consider it.

  • Gerischer attributed his change of view to the improved calorimetry by those doing the research. It should be noted that today, 27 years later, that is still one the main criticisms from the mainstream: "well, they must have done something wrong".


    Correction:


    It should be noted today, 27 years later, that it is still one of the main criticisms from the mainstream: "Well, they appear to be using the wrong underlying assumptions to their calorimetry, assumptions that lead to the production of an artificial excess heat signal."


    Quite a bit different from what Shane D. suggests. Just so no one misses it...


    P.S. It's 29 years later actually.

  • I see only a cold fusionist that said to have heard... that talk for him, nothing direct from his pen or Institute.

    If you can produce a direct original test document where Geischner made cold tests, we can consider it.


    hunter,


    I think you are splitting hairs. He was at one point director of the MPI Physical Chemistry Department. That is good enough for me to appeal to his authority. :)


    No hope changing your mind, as Gerischer did his. That is fine.

  • Quote

    I think you are splitting hairs. He was at one point director of the MPI Physical Chemistry Department. That is good enough for me to appeal to his authority


    Shane D, Science works based on verifiable evidences and scientific facts not based on "his authority" of 29 years ago.

    Directors can change facts no, Nowaday the directorof MPI Physical Chemistry Department is Joachim Maier, so what about "his authority"?

  • It is unfortunate that every discussion of the status of LENR immediately degenerates into conspiracy theories, calling people crackpots, and tales of woe.


    It would be interesting to hear a dispassionate assessment of just where things stand without the usual litany of stories of careers destroyed and tales of the limitless power of plasma physicists. The allusions to the history of the transistor are paticularly interesting considering that within 4 years of the generally-acknowledged “birthdate” of the transistor, multiple companies were demonstrating prototype devices for all the world to see.


    According to Jed, there have been literally thousands of replications of cold fusion at hundreds of laboratories. And yet, not a single one of these hundreds of laboratories has been able to assemble a reactor, gather an audience, and say “here is cold fusion in action.” Why not? Politics is simply a lame excuse. Someone among those hundreds of scientists is a person who doesn’t give a damn about politics.


    None of this says that LENR/CF doesn’t exist. What it does say to me is that its current status is far more tenuous than Jed says it is. No many how many papers have not been refuted, there is still the matter that nobody seems to be able to conjure up the phenomenon on demand. That certainly was not the situation with transistors by 1950, regardless of how many scientists were still skeptical.


    Based on Jed’s MO, his response here will be to attack me for being ignorant and egotistical. I guess that is far easier than giving a straight answer to a reasonable question: what is the actual current status of LENR? The kneejerk answer that all that is required is xx million dollars and it is a done deal is deflecting. What actually needs to be accomplished to move LENR from a internet cult topic to something of real impact?

  • It would be interesting to hear a dispassionate assessment of just where things stand


    There have been hundreds of experiments run since 1989 purporting to demonstrate 'cold fusion' or 'LENR'. If one separates them into similar experiments types, such 'F&P-type' electrolysis, 'high temp Ni-H', 'spark gap', etc., one notes that there are many of these categories populated with just a few or even one experiment only. Those categories immediately fail to compel belief in LENR due to lack of replication. There is only one body of experiments that seems large enough to suggest the possibility of discussing replication, namely 'F&P-type electrolysis', but the results from this sub-group are not reproducible enough to claim any understanding of how to produce the effect at specified magnitudes reliably. There are commonalities however that suggest such a position might be obtainable, if the actual controlling factors could be identified. The lack of experimental control to date indicates that the extant proposed controlling factors (all related to fostering a particular 'nuclear' environment) are likely not correct. There is one detailed analysis of actual logged experimental data that suggests a particular explanation of a non-nuclear nature, but the primary researchers in the field reject this out-of-hand and do not incorporate the suggestions into their experimental protocols to see if the suggestions could be borne out. Recently, attention had focused on 'Ni-H' systems, but the primary proponent of this arena has been shown to be devoid of scientific rigor and thus offers no valid proof. Most of the rest of the field remains at the 'anecdote' level, with many type of anomalous results being reported but rarely reproduced even marginally.

  • [When Geddes was] instructed by Huxley to examine the radula of a whelk, he found that the mechanism was different from that described by his master.


    ...Other professors would deny what they see under the microscope.


    It seems that Huxley Reincarnate would refuse to even look into the microscope...


    military-horatio_nelson-military_historian-british_history-admiral_sir_hyde_parker_-historical_legend-jmcn209_low.jpg

  • This stuff is not a MP scientific test Report.

    I did not say it was. I said this is the only document I have from the Max-Planck institute.


    Anyway this is the evidence that your assumption about "people in the world capable of replicating the experiment in 1989, and every one of them did replicate before the end of the year" it's the usual cold fusionists' propaganda.

    This has nothing to do with my statement about 20 people. That statement is not propaganda; it is a matter of fact that only about 20 people replicated in 1989. According to the tally by Fritz Will, by September 1990 there were 92 replications. There were only about 20 in 1989 because:

    1. Only a few people knew how to do electrochemistry that well, mainly people who were close to Fleischmann and Pons, and got assistance from them. Later, the knowledge become more widespread.
    2. Only a few had fully equipped laboratories and the instruments they needed, such as the Seebeck calorimeter that Oriani happened to have.
    3. It takes months to set up a cold fusion experiment. Many people did not finish preparations until 1990.
  • Today... but yesterday you stated:

    "I have papers and reports from every nation in the world".

    My suspecttion that your words were a large exaggeration it was right.

    What you say makes no sense. The libraries at Los Alamos, Aarhus University, Georgia Tech, and the ICCF proceedings include papers from every nation in the world in which cold fusion has been done. Obviously, it has not been done in some third world countries. There are only a few reports from Mexico, for example. Papers from every lab in the world that did experiments and published them can probably be found in these three libraries.

  • Quote

    I said this is the only document I have from the Max-Planck institute.


    But is not what I asked based on whayt you stated: 20 people in the world capable of replicating the experiment in 1989.

    MP surely had the capability so I asked the Report but you have not.


    Quote

    That statement is not propaganda; it is a matter of fact that only about 20 people replicated in 1989


    If true, evidently the reason (of those high qualified Labs like MP didn't in 1989 and after) was that F&P work and results was not so convincing, not that few in the world were able to do.

  • According to Jed, there have been literally thousands of replications of cold fusion at hundreds of laboratories.

    Actually that is not according to me. That is according to some graduate student at the Institute of High Energy Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, who went through the literature and counted 14,720 positive experiments. It was published in Front. Phys. China (2007) 1: 96 102. I cannot vouch for the numbers. I sure as heck am not going to go through papers counting replications!


    And yet, not a single one of these hundreds of laboratories has been able to assemble a reactor, gather an audience, and say “here is cold fusion in action.” Why not?

    They did this at several major labs. You don't happen to know about it, but for some reason you assume you do know. You make up all kinds of assertions about cold fusion that are not in evidence. Here is a picture of a possibly recognizable person who has visited ENEA and probably saw cold fusion "in action" -- as you put it.




    (I wasn't there so I can't be sure, but why wouldn't they show him the experiments? The person leaning over is Lowell Wood.)


    Actually, seeing cold fusion in action is about as exciting as watching paint dry, as Ed Storms put it. Unless you understand calorimetry, you wouldn't know what you are seeing. If you cannot understand McKubre's paper, for example, you wouldn't understand what you see in the experiment either. It is just a bunch of numbers on instruments. Do you understand this paper? I am sure the people in the photo above do.


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