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.…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.