inquiring minds want to know what the other roughly 8,000 members of the Electrochemistry Society have to say. Until there is a full accounting, it is totally inappropriate to have any opinion at all. It’s only fair.
This is how China works. A congress of 5000 making a roman empire judgment ... Please extend your logic to all papers in all journals and all claims and you will immediately recognize the nonsense you write...
I have no idea. But an interesting scenario seems to be unfolding, We have had little time to formulate a strategy of our own, but outside events are shaping one for us. Investors are not at this moment part of it, in fact we have turned down several offers of funding. But that might change as things progress.
Great to hear! Best regards.
inquiring minds want to know what the other roughly 8,000 members of the Electrochemistry Society have to say.
How many centuiries will it take the 8000 members of the ES to say.. something about. this December, 8 paper
""We have been studying anomalous heat effect (AHE) by the interaction of nano-composite CNZ (Cu1Ni7/zirconia) sample and H-gas at 200-300°C RC (reaction chamber) condition. In this paper, we report a large heat burst (ca. 130 W peak by oil-flow calorimetry) event by CNZ7 sample (ca. 1kg, Cu1Ni7/Zirconia) and H-gas interaction under elevated temperature. Specific energy of reaction seems very much larger than 6.5 eV/H-transferred. From the rise time data of RTD4, TC2 and Pr for the heat burst, we conclude that the main part of heat pulse occurred in ca.100s and real peak power was ca.3 kW. After the heat burst event, small (2-3 W) excess power level sustained for a day. Then we increased the H-gas pressure of SC (storage chamber) to ca. 1.0MPa to feed to RC with [120, 80] W heaters condition; we then started to observe rather slow H-absorption with significant endothermic condition. After saturation of H/Ni ratio, we increased RC temperature to have observed weeks-sustaining excess thermal power (ca. 12-14W in earlier weeks). Index Terms − Anomalous heat burst, Cu-Ni nanocomposite, H-gas, Sustainable excess heat, Elevated temperature I. INTRODUCTION The anomalous heat effect (AHE) by experiments of hydrogen-gas charged nickel-based nano-composite samples as Pd-Ni/zirconia (PNZ) and Cu-Ni/zirconia (CNZ) powder samples has been studied intensively [1, 2] under the NEDO-MHE project in 2015-2017 [3], for verifying the existence of the phenomenon and finding conditions of excess power generation in controllable way. As reviewed in ref. [4], the 8 year-long (2008-2015) series of study on anomalous heat effects by interaction of PNZ and CNZ metal nanoparticles and D(H)-gas, under the collaboration of Technova Inc. and Kobe University, has become the basis for the previous collaborative research of NEDO-MHE. The reports of results by the project were first published in Proceedings of ICCF20 Conference [5, 6]. Especially, sustainable excess thermal power generation by CNZ-type nano-composite metal powder under light hydrogen (H) gas charging is of great interest. CNZ-type does not contain expensive precious metal as Pd. H-gas is much cheaper than D-gas. If we will prove that sustainable generation of several kW thermal power is realistic by a small size device of CNZ + H-gas reaction system, it must be breakthrough toward industrialization of new distributed type energy devices operated with high energy density, high power density, radiation-free eco-friendly condition and very small amount of H-gas consumption. Based on the results of NEDO-MHE project, we expect to implement scale-up experiments by increasing amount of CNZ sample and improving fabrication process of nano-composite metal samples. Repeatability of anomalous heat effect (AHE) by the interaction of nano-composite CNZ (Cu1Ni7/zirconia) sample and H-gas at 200-300°C RC (reaction chamber) condition has been studied intensively in previous works [1-6]. In this paper, we report a large heat burst (ca. 130 W peak by oil-flow calorimetry) event by CNZ7 sample (ca. 1kg, Cu1Ni7/Zirconia) and H-gas interaction under elevated temperature. From the rise time data of excess thermal power burst and desorbed H-gas pressure spike for the heat burst event, we conclude that the main part of heat pulse occurred in ca.100s and real thermal power peak ca. 3 kW.
Perhaps I may be bold enough to form an opinion about it by reading the actual paper
and at a time way before half of the esteemed ES members are dead.
https://www.researchgate.net/p…on_and_AHE_by_PNZ6_Sample
This is how China works. A congress of 5000 making a roman empire judgment ... Please extend your logic to all papers in all journals and all claims and you will immediately recognize the nonsense you write...
Google “sarcasm”. It might give you insight into the nonsense. Of course it is absurd to want to know the views of all electrochemists. Give me a break, you guys.
These are good examples of how vacuous Jed’s belligerent dismisal of anyone who doesn’t bend to his will is. Of course, his other go-to is appeal to authority. Appeal to authority must be comprehensive if it is to be used at all. Jed is fond of repeating ad nauseum how the 100 top electrochemists in the world embrace the gospel of LENR. Setting aside the question of who anoints the top-100 in electrochemistry (People Magazine?), inquiring minds want to know what the other roughly 8,000 members of the Electrochemistry Society have to say. Until there is a full accounting, it is totally inappropriate to have any opinion at all. It’s only fair.
It seems to me Jed is simply trying to establish rules of engagement, so you and he, or any believer/skep, can have a meaningful, disciplined debate. You misinterpret that as his bullying, and respond with these emotional outbursts. What he is doing makes perfect sense to me though.
We can either debate LENR via the science, or by opinion. Nothing wrong with either approach, but they do mot mix well. If debating the science, both sides need to have knowledge of, and understand the research. In other words...know what they are talking about, which you admittedly do not. If not debating the science, then the argument becomes opinion based, and that is where "appeal to authority" comes in.
You however, appear to be freely intermingling opinion with science, and vice versa.
Of course it is absurd to want to know the views of all electrochemists. Give me a break, you guys.
so which ones of these 8000 electrochemists would you esteem in regards to the Technova paper
1 or 2 or 10..
how large would your quorum be..
afaik NONE of them are qualified to form a valid opinion of it any better than I can do
Well, it is clear that my sarcastic allusion to 8,000 electrochemists was taken literally by people here and even after I explicitly said it was intended as sarcasm, it is still being taken seriously. (Face palm)
And Shane, I am not debating the science. Really. I promise. I am criticizing the use of fallacious or improper arguments to support it and I really don’t like being accused of saying all sorts of things and holding all sorts of opinions that I don’t and never have. There are a number of people here who bash LENR right and left and forcefully declare that it doesn’t exist and it doesn’t bother anyone. I do none of that but get endless grief for pointing out the problems with the way supporters argue their case.
Jed is a bully and a very unsuccessful one at that since he is shooting with blanks. But since he is on “the good side”, he is permitted behavior that has gotten other people banned here. Then again, this is a private playground and the owners can make whatever rules they want.
I am criticizing the use of fallacious or improper arguments to support it and I really don’t like being accused of saying all sorts of things and holding all sorts of opinions that I don’t and never have.
There has been so much said, I may have missed these fallacious arguments, and "accusations of all sorts of things, you have never said". Could you say what they are again?
I compare that experience with people here who tell everyone to read LENR papers and if they cannot identify errors or methodology problems then they should conclude that the results are valid
So LF is a kindof a kids playground where you can't read a scientific paper such as the Technova paper and make a valid judgement on it?
What kind of science background did you say you had again?
Is calorimetry too far out of your league?
RobertBryant: I made a general statement that technical papers are written by experts in a field for other experts in a field. They are generally not pedagogical tools for instructing lay persons on how to practice an art. Does that mean that no non-expert can glean anything from any technical paper? Of course not. My point is that in most cases a non-expert is a poor judge of the quality of a scientific publication. If you disagree, then suit yourself.
It seems to me Jed is simply trying to establish rules of engagement, so you and he, or any believer/skep, can have a meaningful, disciplined debate. You misinterpret that as his bullying, and respond with these emotional outbursts. What he is doing makes perfect sense to me though.
We can either debate LENR via the science, or by opinion. Nothing wrong with either approach, but they do mot mix well. If debating the science, both sides need to have knowledge of, and understand the research. In other words...know what they are talking about, which you admittedly do not. If not debating the science, then the argument becomes opinion based, and that is where "appeal to authority" comes in.
You however, appear to be freely intermingling opinion with science, and vice versa.
Shane,
Unfortunately, that is all it will be, a debate.
Jed and IO can sling @&$+^^ back and forth,
neither will move an inch, as they both believe what they choose to believe is true.
If/when LENR becomes a commercial reality proving Energy Out > Energy In, then we will know.
Like Climate Science, Politics, Religion, etc, we can all cherry pick whatever data we want that supports the conclusion we were told to draw by whoever we support.
The only way this “debate” comes to an end is when it is proven to exist by multiple trusted sources.
Hopefully in my lifetime, but I wouldn’t bet the beach house on it.
I made a general statement that
in general your statements are general.. generally speaking..and if I answer you a specific question the answer is general.
Roseland is correct in assessing the pointlessness of my “debate” with Jed. His criterion being met would certainly vindicate Jed’s view that LENR is proven science. As for my view, if LENR becomes a commercial reality (or there is some other widely-accepted manifestation of the technology), that does not really address my current stance, whcih is simply that I don’t believe I have enough reason to make up my mind one way or another. Jed, of course, thinks I am lying about that and hence our peculiar interaction in which he continues to ascribe opinions to me that I don’t hold. Meanwhile, obviously, if Roseland’s conditions are met, then I could not possibly remain undecided any longer.
If these “multitudes” of experiments, all showing excess heat and/or elemental transmutation ALL showed the SAME results then the critique would be difficult,
Many of them show excess heat. Not in every test, but in hundreds of tests they do. Counting the tests that failed would be like counting rocket launches up until 1960 and concluding that rockets do not exist. (Because most of them failed, especially the U.S. Vanguard series.)
Elemental transmutation is very difficult to detect and has seldom been measured.
BUT,
as these experiments all show different results, even when running the same experiment, SOMETHING had to change in the experiment, do you agree?
The experiments show the same results, so I need not consider that hypothetical. It is a little unclear what range of results you might be imagining here. If some experiments were endothermic (swallowing up heat) perhaps you would have a point, but they are all either exothermic or the balance is zero. In nearly every case when the experiment produces no heat, the reasons it failed are well understood. The problems are readily apparent. That does not mean the problems can be fixed. It is like trying to repair a car. You can usually diagnose the problem but you may not have any means of fixing it.
Same Bill if Materials
Same build instructions
Same testing procedures/protocols
Same results
Then was any experiment actually successful?
They don't have things like Bill of Materials or build instructions in fundamental academic research. By the time they have those things, it isn't research; it is applied technology. However, there are detailed descriptions. If you follow them and if you are an expert, you will see excess heat. Whether it happens often or seldom is somewhat difficult to define. That depends on when you start counting. For example, Ed Storms started a series of tests with about 100 pieces of palladium. He tested them and eliminated all but 6 as I recall, in the initial testing phase. He then did cold fusion experiments with those six, and all of them worked. They worked repeatedly. (See: https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEhowtoprodu.pdf) So, is that a 6% success rate? Or 100%? I think the question is meaningless. Storms and all other researchers know what is needed and how to accomplish it, but they are not always able to accomplish it, just as the rocket scientists of 1959 could not always launch rockets successfully. They knew what they were doing, and they knew why the Vanguard rockets exploded.
By the way, you would know all of this if you read the McKubre paper, but of course you will not do that.
The only way this “debate” comes to an end is when it is proven to exist by multiple trusted sources.
Over 180 major laboratories have replicated cold fusion, and published their results in mainstream, peer-reviewed journals. Many of these replications are at very high signal to noise ratios. The people doing these experiments were the creme de la creme of 20th century electrochemistry. People such as Fleischmann, FRS, Bockris, who literally wrote the book on modern electrochemistry, Yeager the guy they named the chemistry building after. And Arata, the other guy with a building and international prize named after him; the Chairman of the Indian Atomic Energy Commission; a commissioner on the French Atomic Energy Commission; the Indian scientists who headed up their atomic bomb development program; and so on, and so forth. Hundreds of the best, most qualified, most famous people in the field replicated. If you don't believe them, and if you do not consider them trusted sources, there are absolutely no scientists anywhere on earth that you would trust. They don't come any more trustworthy than this.
The thing is, you don't know shit from shinola about cold fusion. You have no idea who replicated, or what they claimed, and you are just talking all out your head. Making stuff up. Claiming that people you have never heard of are not trusted.
If/when LENR becomes a commercial reality proving Energy Out > Energy In
All experiments prove that. If you don't think so, you know nothing about calorimetry or the laws of thermodynamics. Proving there is excess energy does not mean the effect can or will become a commercial reality. Plasma fusion tokamaks always produce more energy out than in, but they are not close to commercial reality, and I doubt they ever will be.
Sorry Jed, I don't think you are able to have a valid opinion on UFOs unless you have read every paper and book on the subject and cross checked every piece of evidence presented for UFOs.
That would not be necessary. If I were to review the top 20 papers recommended by people who think UFOs are real, and then the top 20 rebuttals, I could probably form an informed opinion on that subject. I know something about the relevant technology, such as aviation and radar. Along similar lines, a person who understands college-level physics and chemistry, who reads the top 20 papers on cold fusion, starting with the reviews by McKubre, Storms and Hagelstein, should be able to judge the validity of cold fusion. You don't have to read hundreds of papers. I feature the top papers by McKubre, Storms and Hagelstein at LENR-CANR.org and in my video. I make it easy for people to get a handle on the subject. I have often been accused of demanding that skeptics read hundreds of papers, but that is not a bit true.
(As it happens, I have not read anything about UFOs, so I have no opinion. I am aware that most experts doubt they exist. It does seem unlikely they exist, but "seems" is not a valid basis for a serious scientific analysis.)
These are good examples of how vacuous Jed’s belligerent dismisal of anyone who doesn’t bend to his will is. Of course, his other go-to is appeal to authority.
You are incorrect. This is not an appeal to authority. Two reasons:
1. You misunderstand the usual meaning of that term. An appeal to authority is only a logical fallacy when the authorities are not authoritative about the subject in question. See:
"Description: Using an alleged authority as evidence in your argument when the authority is not really an authority on the facts relevant to the argument. As the audience, allowing an irrelevant authority to add credibility to the claim being made."
https://www.logicallyfallaciou…Appeal-to-False-Authority
Citing Fleischmann, Bockris or Yeager in a discussion of electrochemistry is an appeal to an actual authority, which is logical and by itself constitutes strong evidence.
2. In some cases, the authority may be valid, but merely citing them is not convincing:
"Description: Insisting that a claim is true simply because a valid authority or expert on the issue said it was true, without any other supporting evidence offered."
https://www.logicallyfallaciou…es/21/Appeal-to-Authority
I have given you the supporting evidence. I have uploaded paper by Fleischmann, Bockris and the others, which proves they really did say what I ascribe to them. Furthermore, if you understand the science, and you read the papers, you can judge for yourself whether they were right or not.
Jed and IO can sling @&$+^^ back and forth,
neither will move an inch, as they both believe what they choose to believe is true.
If/when LENR becomes a commercial reality proving Energy Out > Energy In, then we will know.Like Climate Science, Politics, Religion, etc, we can all cherry pick whatever data we want that supports the conclusion we were told to draw by whoever we support.
The only way this “debate” comes to an end is when it is proven to exist by multiple trusted sources
Roseland,
I agree Jed will not make any headway with IO (mainly because he refuses to do his homework 
), but debating LENR...the science, can lead to more public awareness, resulting in more government involvement, and venture funding. It may even weaken the resistance from the mainstream science community, easing the stigma, which would make for a less hostile research environment. All of which will get us to the day of reckoning faster, then if no one argued it at all.
So looking at it that way...by passionately arguing for, or against LENR, you are doing your small part to save the planet.
Shane, out of curiosity, exactly what headway is Jed not making with me? The fact that I “haven’t done my homework” means that I am not qualified to argue whether LENR is real or not. I agree with that. So what is it that he is not succeeding to do? Convince me to do research on LENR? That’s true. He hasn’t convinced me. I am content to consider the subject to be an idle curiosity that might turn out to be something important some day or might not. And I am content to wait and see which it is.
So apparently, since I am not arguing against LENR (as well as not arguing for it), I am not doing my part for Mother Earth. Well, I have no guilt whatsoever regarding efforts to save the planet since I consider the things I am involved with on that front to be far more relevant (at least at this point if not forever) than LENR. For those who seem to think that LENR is mankind’s only solution, I just shake my head. I shake my head even more vigorously that many of the most ardent LENR advocates are also climate change deniers. What are those people even trying to save the planet from?
I have given you the supporting evidence. I have uploaded paper by Fleischmann, Bockris and the others, which proves they really did say what I ascribe to them. Furthermore, if you understand the science, and you read the papers, you can judge for yourself whether they were right or not.
The evidence is that F&P were wrong: FP's experiments discussion
