How do you convince a skeptic?

  • It seems to me that the more pertinent question is not how to convince a skeptic that CF/LENR is real but rather persuading them why they should care. That is not a nonsensical concept.

    Indeed, that is not nonsensical. It is a valid question. I cannot speak for the skeptics, but what they say is: They do not believe the results are real, so they see no reason to care.


    Leading skeptics such as Robert Park have said repeatedly in the mass media that all cold fusion results are incompetence, fraud or lunacy. I suppose they believe that. They are sincere. If I thought all results were fraud and lunacy, I would have no interest in cold fusion.


    So, the first step is persuade them the results are real. I think most scientists who come to believe the results are real will start to care about the research. It is difficult to persuade them, because most of them will not read any papers or look at any results. Many of them claim there are no results and the effect was never replicated. Leading opponents at the DoE and Nature say that. I do not know how to persuade such people. Long ago, I decided to ignore them and concentrate on trying to reach people who are friendly to the field and interested in learning more about it. That is the audience at LENR-CANR.org.


    This state of affairs is widely attributed to suppression, career destruction of people pursuing the topic, lack of funds, dying researchers, and so on. Perhaps these explanations are entirely correct and comprehensive.

    These explanations boil down to academic politics. Things like this happen often in academic research. For example, during the "AI winter" of the 1990s, the academic establishment was dead set against research into neural networks. Computer neural networks were first developed in the 1950s and progress was made in the 1970, but they fell out of fashion. When I say "the establishment" opposed them, I mean that you could not publish a paper with the words "neural network" in it, and if you talked about them you would be denied tenure, or fired outright. Your reputation would be trashed and your career ended. See the book "Architects of Intelligence: The truth about AI from the people building it" for details.


    Since 2000 just about all of the progress in AI has come about thanks to neural networks. Google and others depend on it for things like Google translate. It is the hottest and best approach. Yet, for 20 years, research in this technique was not allowed.


    Academic politics tend to be vicious. The reaction to cold fusion is what you would expect. However, it has gone on longer in the face of much more positive evidence than most opposition does.


    So the question skeptics who have no axe to grind still have to ask is: what reason is there to expect that this situation will change? According to Jed and others, we have all the verification of the phenomenon that one could reasonably demand and yet the status of the field is largely unchanged.

    This situation has nothing to do with science, or logic. It is an emotional reaction. It is politics, which is behavior common to all primates. In other words, it is deep instinct, built into our very nature. It can be overcome. It has often has been overcome, as it was with neural networks. But you never can tell what it will take to overcome it. History is sometimes strange in that regard. Sometime what seems to be an inconsequential incident causes a large change in people's attitudes. Then again, sometimes this kind of opposition is gradually battered and broken down by experimental evidence. That is how science is supposed to work. But, given the situation with cold fusion, and the absolute refusal by people at the DoE or Nature to look at the data, I think that outcome is unlikely. If ever cold fusion is accepted, these people will be the last to come on board.


    As an example of how long their opposition is likely to last, the Scientific American had it in for the Wright brothers. Around 1906 it attacked them as frauds and fakers, and it later claimed they did not really contribute much to aviation. When was the last attack by Sci. Am. on their reputation? In 2003, the 100th anniversary of the first flight. As Talleyrand said of the Bourbon dynasty: "They have learned nothing and forgotten nothing." As long as Sci. Am. is published, they will denigrate the Wrights, and I am sure they will also denigrate Fleischmann, Pons and all other cold fusion researchers.


    So, how else can the opposition be overcome? I do not know -- nobody knows. It might be impossible. It seems likely to me we will all die and cold fusion will be forgotten. However, based on history I can suggest some ways that it might succeed --


    A commercially useful, high powered cell might be revealed, and replicated. Many of the experiments have been "high powered" by the standards of the laboratory. The power has been easy to measure with confidence. It could have been measured any time in the last 240 years, as I said. But it has been of no commercial or practical value at all. Also, it has been uncontrolled, so there is no way it could be made practical. Someone might solve that problem. It seem unlikely anyone will, since there is no funding.


    An experiment that is easy to replicate reliably might be revealed. This seems unlikely to happen, given the great difficulty of replicating, and the fact that experiments today must be done manually and they take months or years to do. But we cannot rule this out. If this happens, people might replicate out of curiosity, and word might get around. There is tremendous opposition to cold fusion. Talking about it will get you summarily fired in many labs. However, there are hundreds of thousands of labs in the world, and thousands of people read the papers at LENR-CANR.org. Out of all those labs, there may be 10 or 20 where people could replicate without losing their jobs. 10 or 20 might just start the ball rolling, and get others to replicate despite the opposition. Obviously, the DoE will only do it after thousands of others replicate, but we don't need them.


    Someone like Bill Gates or the people at Google might start funding the research at serious levels. As soon as mainstream scientists realize there is real funding, opposition will melt away overnight. They will all put in applications for research grants. As Stan Szpak said, scientists believe whatever you pay them to believe.


    In 1989, some of the most vociferous Big Name opponents of cold fusion were quietly applying to EPRI for grants to study it. I assume they wanted to cut off competition by preventing funding for younger researchers, clearing the field for themselves. This is how things are set up in the Hubble Telescope. Much of the organization is there to prevent discoveries, not to enable them. The idea is to keep young nobodies from encroaching on the Big Somebodys who run the project. See the book "Hubble Wars" for details. That's academic science for you! Corrupt to the core.


    With a lot of funding, I expect the technical problems could be overcome. It seems easier than, say, building a tokamak or curing cancer. But it is impossible to know for sure.

  • QED where it beats all others and is the most accurately validated physical theory:

    the most accurately validated physical theory:"??

    sounds like a propagandist generalisation to me

    QED is NOT accurately validated .. it is poorly validated at the nuclear level

    QED and its cousin QCD fail to find six figure precision at the nuclear level


    as verified by Stephen Durr's two figure precision in 2015 via supercomputer superflops.

    http://www.durr.itp.unibe.ch/


    LENR phenomena arise at the nuclear level and the accurate modelling of nuclear parameters

    is necessary for any valid physical theory to be useful in LENR research.


    QED may have 11 figure precision for the fine structure constant but it is useless for LENR if itvhas only 2 figure precision at the nuclear level.


    Maybe THHuxleynew can, by faith, visualise 11 or 6 figure precision in these 1999 QCD magnetic moments??

    neutron = -1.90 (versus -1.91304....) proton = = 2.85 (versus 2.79284....

  • Convince a few chairmen of physics or nuclear engineering departments in major universities and some principal scientists at prestigious major national labs that LENR is real and you will make progress. And I don't mean the "usual suspects." I also don't mean elderly statesmen or scientists past their prime who may have been at said prestigious institutions but are now retired or emeritus from them.


    If they are dead...do they count? I know some who meet your qualifications if so.

  • This up-to-date data gives a simple explanation for LENR in the Pd lattice: I don't understand why we can't use this type of new evidence to convince the sceptics - taken together with previous studies by NASA and SPAWAR on neutron emissions. This body of evidence seems yery solid compared to the original studies we are all arguing about in the last 30 yrs of experiments - its simple with high D loading of the Pd lattice there is an enormous increase in the D + D cross-section, explaining a rise in rate of fusion reactions. The oscillations indicate resonant positive feedback behavior suggesting chain reactions.

    Anomalous oscillatory features in neutron emission from D + D fusion in palladium at 100 keV implantation energy

    R. K. Choudhury, Ajay Kumar, R. G. Thomas, G. Mishra, A. Mitra, B. K. Nayak and A. Saxena

    Published 22 May 2019 • Copyright © EPLA, 2019

    EPL (Europhysics Letters), Volume 126, Number 1

    24 Total downloads


    Abstract

    Neutron yield in D + D fusion in a palladium foil, kept at about $-76\ ^{\circ}\text{C}$ temperature, has been measured as a function of the number of implanted $D^+$ ions at a bombarding energy of 100 keV. A considerably large oscillatory pattern was observed riding on a systematic increment for the emitted neutron yield as a function of the number of implanted $D^+$ ions. Such an oscillatory behaviour is in contrast with the expected neutron yield calculated using the bare D + D fusion cross-section. The present observation seems to indicate that the bare cross-section is significantly affected due to the lattice effects of the host metal at large $D/\mathrm{Pd}$ atomic ratios.

  • But - on the other hand we have negative evidence published in Nature: although they at least acknowledge the existence of low energy nuclear reactions. Excess heat remains elusive as ever. (Maybe they should increase their Ni/Pd electrode sample/reactor mass allowing heavy electron clusters (EVO's) or fusion reaction products (n,p, T, He3 & possibly muons) to accumulate in the lattice which would then induce chain fusion reactions and thus generate excess heat. Critical mass effect - simple enough to test.)



    Perspective | Published: 27 May 2019

    Revisiting the cold case of cold fusion

    Nature (2019) | Download Citation


    Abstract

    The 1989 claim of ‘cold fusion’ was publicly heralded as the future of clean energy generation. However, subsequent failures to reproduce the effect heightened scepticism of this claim in the academic community, and effectively led to the disqualification of the subject from further study. Motivated by the possibility that such judgement might have been premature, we embarked on a multi-institution programme to re-evaluate cold fusion to a high standard of scientific rigour. Here we describe our efforts, which have yet to yield any evidence of such an effect. Nonetheless, a by-product of our investigations has been to provide new insights into highly hydrided metals and low-energy nuclear reactions, and we contend that there remains much interesting science to be done in this underexplored parameter space.

  • Or maybe Atom Ecology could send them a sample of their latest fusion reactor pellets (which produce a consistent 2.5 W/g excess heat) Kill two birds with one stone - publish positive results in Nature along with their recent gamma breakthrough and establish reality of CF.

  • [If they are dead...do they count? I know some who meet your qualifications if so.] Geez, I dunno. Who are you thinking of? Surely not Focardi or Kullander?


    Indeed, you dunno. How about:


    The Chairman of the Indian Atomic Energy Commission; the lead designer of the Indian atomic bomb project; the top reactor designer of the French Atomic Energy Commission; or the person who designed the National Tritium and the PPPL tritium laboratory. How about Director of the Max Planck Institute for Physical Chemistry in Berlin, who has a prize established in his memory? Or Japan's top expert in plasma fusion and high temperature physics, who had a prize and a national university building named after him when he was still alive (an unprecedented honor) plus two awards from two different Japanese Emperors. How about a dozen or so people designated Distinguished Professors and Fellows by universities and the U.S. Navy, who have been honored by the Electrochemical Society, NATO and other prestigious organizations. Is a Nobel laureate good enough for you? (No, of course not.) How about the guy they named the Center for Electrochemical Sciences at Case Western U for? How about the author of the most authoritative textbook on electrochemistry and 700 papers? Last but not least, how about a Fellow of the Royal Society who was president of the Electrochemical Society?


    Anyone familiar with the literature knows who I mean. You "dunno" because you have read nothing and you know nothing. You wouldn't know these people even if I did list the names, and you sure wouldn't know the substance of their claims. You would reject all of these people in any case, because by your definition, anyone who believes cold fusion is real is wrong and is a non-entity.

  • Indeed, you dunno. How about:


    The Chairman of the Indian Atomic Energy Commission; the lead designer of the Indian atomic bomb project;


    This is awkward. Was that supposed to be a list of dead people only? Some of those people are still alive . . . Although most have "joined the 'Faculty Meeting in the Sky'" as Fleischmann put it.


    Anyway, seven_of_twenty wouldn't know them if they were all alive and they bit him on the butt.

  • UFOs are getting dangerous and there is concern that a hostile foreign power may have advanced technology.


    https://www.thedrive.com/the-w…dar-tech-key-in-detection


    Since the US Navy has upgraded their war fighting sensor technology including stealth penetrating radars and infrared sensors, the detection of UFOs has gotten to a crisis level. This period of increased UFO sighting frequency began with the so called Tic Tac incident on the west coast of America


    (see Wikipedia: USS Nimitz UFO incident - and the official report:


    https://media.lasvegasnow.com/…43046_42960218_ver1.0.pdf )


    Quote

    here are the 'Key Assessments'

    • The Anomalous Aerial Vehicle (AAV) was no known aircraft of air vehicle currently in the inventory of the United States or any foreign nation.
    • The AAV exhibited advanced low observable characteristics at multiple radar bands, rendering US radar-based engagement capabilities ineffective.
    • The AAV exhibited advanced aerodynamics performance with no visible control surfaces and no visible means to generate lift.
    • The AAV exhibited advanced propulsion capability by demonstrating the ability to remain stationary with little to no variation in altitude transitioning to horizontal and/or vertical velocities far greater than any known aerial vehicle with no little to no visible signature.
    • The AAV possibly demonstrated the ability to 'cloak' or become invisible to the human eye or human observation.
    • The AAV possibly demonstrated a highly advanced capability to operate undersea completely undetectable by our most advanced sensors.


    Now it's happening on the East Coast, the occurrence and subsequent reporting by US Navy pilots of UFOs has gotten to the point that possible collisions with these unidentified objects are becoming a serious safety issue for the fleet.


    Numerous gun site videos have been publicly released by the Navy that show these unidentified objects on the threat tracking screens of Navy aircraft.


    The New York Times writes:


    The pilots began noticing the objects after their 1980s-era radar was upgraded to a more advanced system. As one fighter jet after another got the new radar, pilots began picking up the objects, but ignoring what they thought were false radar tracks.


    “People have seen strange stuff in military aircraft for decades,” Lieutenant Graves said. “We’re doing this very complex mission, to go from 30,000 feet, diving down. It would be a pretty big deal to have something up there.”


    But he said the objects persisted, showing up at 30,000 feet, 20,000 feet, even sea level. They could accelerate, slow down and then hit hypersonic speeds.


    Lieutenant Accoin said he interacted twice with the objects. The first time, after picking up the object on his radar, he set his plane to merge with it, flying 1,000 feet below it. He said he should have been able to see it with his helmet camera, but could not, even though his radar told him it was there.


    A few days later, Lieutenant Accoin said a training missile on his jet locked on the object and his infrared camera picked it up as well. “I knew I had it, I knew it was not a false hit,” he said. But still, “I could not pick it up visually.”


    At this point the pilots said they speculated that the objects were part of some classified and extremely advanced drone program.


    But then pilots began seeing the objects. In late 2014, Lieutenant Graves said he was back at base in Virginia Beach when he encountered a squadron mate just back from a mission “with a look of shock on his face.”


    He said he was stunned to hear the pilot’s words. “I almost hit one of those things,” the pilot told Lieutenant Graves.


    The pilot and his wingman were flying in tandem about 100 feet apart over the Atlantic east of Virginia Beach when something flew between them, right past the cockpit. It looked to the pilot, Lieutenant Graves said, like a sphere encasing a cube."


    The question then that begs to be addressed: Do UFOs exist?


    This is a case where there is good observational evidence but no possible applicable science to explain multiple reliable observations. Let's roll in some physics. How does science handle this situation?


    I have my posit and its not extraterrestrials.

  • They who? What are you talking about?


    There have been a few reports of neutrons in cold fusion. Storms and others think they are the product of conventional fractofusion. Others have shown they are anti-correlated with excess heat, so perhaps they are some sort of precursor effect. In any case, they are rare, and I don't think you can draw conclusions from such sparse data. As I said above, many claims in this field, "range from maybe, to who knows, to whaaat?" I would put neutrons under "who knows."


    "Whaaat" would include biological transmutation, by the way. In my opinion.


    I was quoting #611 from Shane.


    Neutrons, or high energy products, are as you know a likely consequence of any mechanism that allows varies nuclear transformation. And varied nuclear transformation is what a large amount of LENR claims support.


    I agree with you that this evidence is fragmentary. Also that the evidence for anything other than D2 / Pd electrolysis enabled CF is fragmentary.


    But there are two mutually exclusive variants of CF:


    (1) purist LENR. only D2 / Pd electrolysis does it (high loading, etc). (Allow other metal electrodes that allow high D loading).

    (2) catholic LENR. a whole load of other systems Ni/H etc, also do it


    In line with the undisprovable nature of LENR claims there is a tendency (here - not by all of the LENR researchers) to see fragmentary badly supported evidence from diverse other systems as supporting the catholic position and hence the overall "LENR exists position".


    EDITED to add "only"


    (1) is from my POV considerably easier to believe than (2) because it is more specific and therefore some unusual mechanism that magically avoids all high energy products while still doing nuclear transformation more possible.

  • But there are two mutually exclusive variants of CF:


    (1) purist LENR. D2 / Pd electrolysis does it (high loading, etc).

    (2) catholic LENR. a whole load of other systems Ni/H etc, also do it


    Mutually exclusive would mean

    1, Pd only , not other metals

    2, not Pd . but other metals


    I don' think any LENR researcher holds to this 2019 mutually exclusive framework of THHuxley

    The evidence as far back as 1989 ... 3 decades ... suggests otherwise.


    Bernardini, M., et al. Anomalous Effects Induced by D2O Electrolysis of Titanium. in 8th International

    Conference on Cold Fusion. 2000. Lerici (La Spezia), Italy: Italian Physical Society, Bologna, Italy

  • Perspective | Published: 27 May 2019Revisiting the cold case of cold fusion


    Nature is the top of the science mafia journals. I can only recommend to ignore what nature writes about LENR. These guys didn't even mention Brouillon what completely disqualifies the authors.


    I think it is an ITER mafia paid paper, that repeats SM nonsense about fusion rates based on kinetic experiments.. - to explain LENR...



  • Sorry - you need to add "only" to (1).


    A hypothesis for some new effect is conditioned by its specificity which gives you a lot of into. In the case (1) this is limited to D, Pd (with an implied D+D -> He4 + e-m energy reaction).. In the case (2) this is much broader.

  • In the case (2) this is much broader.


    1) Only Pd

    2) Pd + others

    are not mutually exclusive... draw Venn Diagram...the intersection is Pd


    besides.. probably no current LENR researcher believes in 1)only Pd


    especially not

    Dr. Dimiter Alexandrov, Lakehead University,

    who is using gallium and indium among other metals

    his semiconductor research laboratory, performed successful replicable LENR (Low Energy Nuclear Reaction) experiments considering interactions of both deuterium and hydrogen gases with certain metals in a vacuum chamber. The products of these LENR experiments were helium (both stable isotopes He-3 and He-4) and heat. No radiation above the normal background was detected during the experiments. He also developed a theory explaining the observed experimental outcomes. Based on this early work he has prepared the following proposal to develop a LENR reactor which is being submitted for the next stage of his R&D.... See the link for more :-http://canadiancor.com/proposa…pment-of-an-lenr-reactor/

  • Meanwhile, the six Nature recent authors are tools of hot fusion conspiracists/conspirators, right? Or, like me, they read nothing and understand nothing, right? Meanwhile, I am sure this quote, "Motivated by the possibility that such judgement might have been premature, we embarked on a multi-institution programme to re-evaluate cold fusion to a high standard of scientific rigour. Here we describe our efforts, which have yet to yield any evidence of such an effect. " is to you ignorant nonsense. Or you have excuses.


    And this forum string attends to claims for space aliens. LOL.

  • Quote

    Dr. Dimiter Alexandrov, Lakehead University, who is using gallium and indium among other metals his semiconductor research laboratory, performed successful replicable LENR (Low Energy Nuclear Reaction) experiments ...

    Very interesting article. Should certainly be supported if it passes peer review.


  • I do not know of any emission measurements from Brillouin, only excess heat. They are trying to make a technology, and not so concerned about the science. They are doing trial-and-error proto-type engineering. Helium-4 is theorized by the CEC model.