How do you convince a skeptic?

  • Wyttenbach : if you are so offended by the term “believer”, you should give Alan a hard time for his version of giving me a hard time for daring to post here without “knowing” that LENR is real:


    “If somebody was truly agnostic about LENR they would not be posting here, would they? Except of course because they just like arguing about something they see no need to believe in”


    Like I told Jed, why don’t you save your outrage for people who actually argue that LENR doesn’t exist?

  • It's not clear at all from your post above that you were specifically talking about Rossi - so do you accept the other other replications above are genuine proof of Eout>Ein?

    To be more specific: I don’t deny there are replication of experiments that show transmutations or radiation (and cannot be chemical based only). But I have more than a hard time to accept there are replications of a reactor (aka device to generate more energy out than energy in). There is no such device and we all know that Rossi is promising heaven and earth and doesn’t have one, so nothing to copy (or replicate).

  • Jed, I am not creating anti-LENR propaganda and I am not “opposed to LENR”. That is utter bullshit.


    Well, if you are not creating this propaganda, then you are reposting it from someone else, who is creating it. Your statements such as "When a field makes no measurable and indisputable progress for 30 years . . ." are wrong. You have made dozens of similar statements. All of them wrong, ignorant, biased.


    So, either you yourself are biased, or you are copying assertions made by someone else who is biased, and you are too lazy or ignorant to compare this person's statements to the literature. Either way, you should stop doing this.

  • You can lead a horse to the haystack, but you won't find the needle for him. Ok Shane. How about if you explain what progress has been made in the LENR field over the years? In my experience, this is the only field of human endeavor where one cannot be told what progress has been made in some reasonably succinct way without having to study the entire literature. Sounds like a lame excuse to me.

  • A. Takahashi, Toyota/Nissa & 4 Universities (NEDO funded), and BEC for starters. Beiting replicated Arata, who replicated FP's. Staker replicated FP's, and had 2 run-aways. George's Atom Ecology is still showing gammas/XSH and he has official interest, and involvement. BLP is on track. Gates has funded Duncan at Texas Tech to the tune of $5-6 million. GEC/NASA working on an LENR/hybrid fission reactor.


    That is just a few gallons from the water well, now let's see if you will drink.

  • A list of people who replicated other people (particularly given the amorphous sense that “replicated” is used in these parts) and examples of who got money and who is working on it does not answer my question.


    F&P did their thing 30 years ago. A number of people got similar results presumably under similar circumstances. So 30 years later, is the phenomenon better understood? More reproducible? More controlled? Scaled up? Your list is more hay in the haystack. Explain to me in what sense there has been progress. Saying that lots of people have seen similar results and are busy studying it does not equate to progress. I brashly said there has not been any. Refute that statement. Bill Gates spending his money is progress on the funding front but doesn’t equate to scientific progress.


    Despite Jed’s accusations, I am not trying to spread anti-LENR propaganda. I am relating what I can glean from reading this site. Arguing over the validity of 30-year-old publications doesn’t make one think that 20-year-old papers, 10-year-old papers, or 2-year-old papers have advanced the state of the art. Saying there are 100 or 1000 or 10000 papers does not imply that the field is progressing. Obviously you are convinced that it is. So as a champion of LENR, take a shot at convincing me. I have the sense that I am more open-minded than most believers (sorry for using the term but I don’t know what else to call you.)

  • Great progress, but seems problem in application at real scale

    https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/1931227x


    More seriously, it is 2.5 decades the evidences are there, and ignored, thus funding decrease, so experiments are less and less decisive.

  • F&P did their thing 30 years ago. A number of people got similar results presumably under similar circumstances. So 30 years later, is the phenomenon better understood?

    Yes, it is far better understood. You would know that if you read the literature.

    More reproducible? More controlled?

    Far more reproducible. See my video or Fig. 3 here:


    https://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHcoldfusionb.pdf


    Control has not improved much.

    Scaled up?

    It cannot be scaled up until it is controlled.


    Explain to me in what sense there has been progress. Saying that lots of people have seen similar results and are busy studying it does not equate to progress.

    Progress in the ordinary sense of the word. Read McKubre's paper and see for yourself. Many people did see similar results, but they are not busy because most of them are dead of old age. You are demanding that dead people go back to the labs and produce new results.

  • I have read McKubre's 10-year-old paper and I am not demanding anything of anyone. I am simply asking what progress there has been. If nothing valuable has happened in the past 10 years, then there answer is not much progress in recent years. There is no reason to be defensive about it. You are all about the science, right? So I am simply asking what has gone on with the science more recently. Yes, if I wanted to spend my days reading the extensive LENR literature, I would acquire a comprehensive knowledge of the state of the art. But why should I do that? You seem to be implying that there is nothing of real import to learn from the past 10 years of activity. So why should I care? You keep accusing me of being "anti-LENR". I am not. That would be stupid and pointless. I am actually "meh-LENR" and whenever I seek reasons to be more interested, I am rebuffed by people like you who seem to think you own the topic and don't want any strangers butting in on your domain. Fair enough. I can remain contentedly ignorant and nothing you have said leads me to believe that I am missing out on anything interesting. There are plenty of scientific topics out there that capture my interest and I don't have to argue with zealots to find out about them. That being said, I am keen to keep watching the Rossi Chronicles because they are a hoot.

  • I have read McKubre's 10-year-old paper and I am not demanding anything of anyone.

    Have you read it? Then why do you keep asking questions that he answered, about reproducibility and other issues?


    The trends he described have continued.


    I am simply asking what progress there has been.

    See the previous answer:


    Clearance Items


    If nothing valuable has happened in the past 10 years, then there answer is not much progress in recent years.

    Well, as I said, dead people do not do experiments. You can hardly blame them. Also, you should perhaps mention the fact that most researchers are dead when you discuss how much work is being done.


    More to the point, why are you banging this particular drum? Insofar as progress has been slow that is because most of the researchers are dead, and because there is no funding -- apart from Gates and few others. Surely you are aware of these facts. It seems to me you leave out this context to give readers the impression that there is little work being done for some other reason, such as people giving up. Or because, you say, many scientists have found errors in the work. Since you cannot name a single one of these scientists, or tell us what errors they found, or where they published, this is more of your biased, anti-cold fusion propaganda, on par with your empty assertions about the lack of progress.


    More to the point: Is there a statue of limitations in science? Are experiments invalid after 10 years? Why do you emphasize the pace of progress and the dates of publication rather than the content?

  • Like I said, Jed. Stop being defensive and stop blithering about anti-cold fusion propaganda. I wish the field great success and hope something comes of it. But that is not enough for you. You need me to say that LENR is proven science, making strides all the time, and is poised to take over the world. You don't even believe all of that. Depending on who you are yakking at, you either say there is great and continued progress or there is little because everybody is dead. So which is it? And I am not trying to make a point with anyone. Yes, I realize lots of people are working on it. Good for them. I hope they succeed. But that is not good enough for you. You demand that I say that they HAVE succeeded. But if I ask in what way they have succeeded, you blow a gasket.


    What you really want is for me never to post anything because I am not qualified to ask questions having not studied the LENR literature. I have seen what that gets. If someone actually reads a bunch of papers and doesn't accept what you claim for them, then they are a crackpot. I really wish there was someone knowledgable about this topic who wasn't a defensive zealot. It would be interesting to have an intelligent conversation rather than listening to rants about being "anti-LENR".


    I am not trying giving readers any impression whatsoever other than exposing them to the fact that nobody wants to answer simple factual questions about LENR like "what progress has been made in the field?" Such questions are immediately treated as confrontational and part of some sinister agenda. Simple answers that actually address the question would be a preferred response.


    If you were a reasonable person, you could write a response that is shorter than your rants at me with a few examples of how the field has progressed. But, no. You have to attack the bogeyman who dares to not just accept your assertions without any content. For a guy who lectures people endlessly on how science works, you seem to be completely disinterested in scientific inquiry. All you care about is measuring the thickness of your library. Ok. It is really thick.

  • IO is indeed on beam. And then there is Kirk Shanahan who is required to know whether or not LENR really works because if it does, it threatens him and his staff (not to mention the surrounding community) with potential explosions involving highly radioactive and toxic materials. And he works and has worked with the components of thermonuclear weapons! When he says the case for LENR is not good, he gets misquoted and ridiculed. That also is not how science works.


    Quote

    Scaled up?

    It cannot be scaled up until it is controlled.

    Of course, if it is real and as claimed by enthusiasts, it can. But not in a lab. I have long thought that what LENR needs is a very substantial explosion with a yield of say, a ton or more of TNT, originating from a tiny package. Of course, this would be done in a safe place from a safe distance. The technology for measuring yield of explosions is well established. A whopping one from very little stuff would be quite convincing and the resulting reaction products should be illuminating to analyze, There is not one good reason for not attempting this except that proponents of LENR are pretty sure it can't work.


    Quote

    Well, as I said, dead people do not do experiments. You can hardly blame them. Also, you should perhaps mention the fact that most researchers are dead when you discuss how much work is being done

    So if I understand you, we should not have progress in radiology because Roentgen and the Curies are dead?


    Quote

    More to the point: Is there a statue of limitations in science? Are experiments invalid after 10 years? Why do you emphasize the pace of progress and the dates of publication rather than the content?

    Because lack of progress is a hallmark of bad or junk science. And lack of contemporary interest by the scientific community is not encouraging either. As the results of bad science are more and more closely examined, they get less and less impressive until people lose interest. That seems to be what has afflicted most of LENR with a few exceptions.

  • Like I said, Jed. Stop being defensive


    Stop posting ignorant, offensive nonsense and I will stop being defensive.



    I wish the field great success and hope something comes of it. B


    Don't kid yourself, and don't try to fool me. No one who attacks something the way you do is secretly in favor of it. This is concern trolling. If you "hoped" anything about it, you would learn a few things about it. You would stop asking the same stupid questions again and again. You would actually read the McKubre paper, and not just claim you did, and then you would know the answers to your questions. Those are not really questions. They are "gotchas." Provocations. You are hoping the readers here do not know that reproducibility is high, as shown in my video and in Fig. 3. You are hoping that I am too worn out to point this out to you for the umpteenth time, and you will get away with your distortions and nonsense.


    You are not fooling anyone, Mr. Friendly Sunshine Troll.


    . You need me to say that LENR is proven science, making strides all the time, and is poised to take over the world. You don't even believe all of that.


    Of course I don't believe that. I never said anything remotely like that. Stop putting words in my mouth.

  • I’ll make you a deal. I’ll stop putting words in your mouth when you stop making false accusations at me. I do not attack LENR. Despite your forbidding me to be so, I am agnostic about it. I only ask the same questions over and over again when they are ignored and twisted around by you. And I swear on a stack of LENR-CANR papers that I could not care less what other people think about cold fusion and have no interest whatsoever in persuading them about anything to do with it. Like you say, I don’t know enough about it. I can’t, however, help pointing out the self-evident fact that some of its most vocal proponents behave like irrational zealots, but that doesn’t prove anything about the science one way ot another. You are correct about one thing: I am not fooling anyone with the things I say, but that is because I am not trying to. But you are entitled to whatever delusions you care to harbor if that gives you comfort.

  • I’ll make you a deal. I’ll stop putting words in your mouth when you stop making false accusations at me. I do not attack LENR.


    Perhaps you do not see it as an attack, but I do. Because I know the facts about cold fusion; I have read the literature and the skeptical critiques, and I know -- for example -- mundane facts about it, such what Fig. 3 shows regarding reproducibility. Whereas you have read nothing (evidently) and you know nothing (obviously). All your major assertions are false. You give people the wrong impression about cold fusion. Perhaps you doing this on purpose, as a troll. Or, perhaps you are sincere, and you honestly think reproducibility is low. You honestly believe scads of professors have found problems, even though you do not happen to know the name of single one, and you cannot point to any publication. In that case you are not attacking. But you are woefully misinformed, willfully ignorant, and you are lecturing experts about a subject you know nothing about. A subject you refuse to learn anything about. That makes you look bad.



    And I swear on a stack of LENR-CANR papers that I could not care less what other people think about cold fusion and have no interest whatsoever in persuading them about anything to do with it. Like you say, I don’t know enough about it.


    You don't know enough?? You mean, you don't know anything, so you make up bullshit about reproducibility and you pretend there are professors who published critiques pointing out errors. You make up one thing after another, without a shred of evidence, and then when I point that out, you say, "but I don't know enough." In other words, no one should hold you responsible for posting nonsense because all of a sudden you are an innocent babe in the woods and you don't know WHERE those assertions came from. The ones you just wrote, I mean. It wasn't you who said what you just said.


    You could not care less what people think when they read the lies, bullshit and nonsense you yourself write. Because none of this matters to you. And because you are an innocent bystander who doesn't know enough about it. You are quoting your invisible imaginary expert scientists after all. The ones you cannot name. So this on them, not you.

  • Quote

    You honestly believe scads of professors have found problems

    Maybe someone does but I don't. It isn't about problems. It's not about negative publications. That's a strawman you like to bring around frequently. It's about not meeting criteria for a non-expert but scientifically trained person to be impressed. BTW, the criteria for major interest were met in spades at the time of the original announcement in 1989. But the interest of the scientific community has been waning ever since with occasional small perturbations of the waning curve like the one that you took part it when Rossi made his rather obviously doubtful claims in 2011-2013. That's not due to evil. It's due to unconvincing performance as seen by non-enthusiasts.


    Some who write here attribute the lack of interest to malice of some sort or competition of some sourt. But nobody has explained why there should be malice on the part of all scientists to the possibility of cheap energy. And mostly lack of concern about LENR among most entrepreneurs. And if claims made for LENR were true and it were developed, there would similarly be no possible competition.


    Contrary to what you claim, real and robust LENR would be far more interesting and lots more fun for most of the skeptics here than claims that don't impress. I don't see hatred for LENR. I see genuine skepticism.


    Forty-Two Hilarious. I laughed until I was horse.

  • You don't know enough?? You mean, you don't know anything, so you make up bullshit about reproducibility and you pretend there are professors who published critiques pointing out errors. You make up one thing after another, without a shred of evidence, and then when I point that out, you say, "but I don't know enough."


    You could not care less what people think when they read the lies, bullshit and nonsense you yourself write.

    Please provide some quotes from me that make up bullshit about reproducibility and say things about professors who published critiques point out errors. Go ahead and try. Show me some examples where I make up one thing after another, without a shred of evidence.


    The real bullshit around here is all the lies you spread about what other people supposedly said. If you ever were forced to argue with anybody from fact rather than personal attack and obsession with some random remark people might have made at some point, you would become silent.

  • Despite Jed’s accusations, I am not trying to spread anti-LENR propaganda. I am relating what I can glean from reading this site.


    I does not look like you are reading the papers we link on this site.


    May be you are reading to many troll comments because they fit your expectations better.


    IF you are really interested in the progress of a field, then you have to start to work in the field or if this is to much, get acquainted with some knowledgeable researchers.

  • “IF you are really interested in the progress of a field, then you have to start to work in the field or if this is to much, get acquainted with some knowledgeable researchers.”


    That is a false statement for pretty much any field I have encountered in my life. But perhaps it is the case for LENR for reasons that escape me.