How do you convince a skeptic?

Quote from hunter

No problem, infact I wrote: "or a fusionist group at your choice"

Are capable cold fusionists all died or retaired?

Yes, that is what I said. You can look at the list of authors and confirm that. There are still a few at work, and a few new ones such as Beiting and Duncan.

Also, how would I choose a group? Where would the money and equipment come from? Are you going to provide a few million dollars?

Quote from hunter

No money... not exactly, for example when you want (I saw here by LF members) in few days thousands of US Dollars have been collected for repair the Mizuno's Lab.

$8,000. Unfortunately the damage to the SEM will cost $17,000 to repair. I do not know where or whether he can come up with $9,000 more.

His laboratory has at least $100,000 in other equipment, as you might estimate from the photo of me in it (https://www.gofundme.com/replace-mizuno039s-lab) The power supply on the bottom left alone cost $16,000. If you think anyone can do a cold fusion experiment for $8,000 starting from scratch -- even if they work for free -- you know nothing about experiments. If someone comes up with a fully equipped lab and a staff of 5 people being paid by someone else, then perhaps they can do a cold fusion experiment. But only if they happen to know a lot about electrochemistry. By "a lot" I mean, for example, they have to be able to understand this paper, which is over my head. Test yourself and see how well you understand it:

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

It is not quite relevant to cold fusion, but it is the level of electrochemical knowledge you must have. Evidently so, because all of the researchers I know who succeeded had this kind of knowledge. Mizuno, for example, worked in this lab as a post-doc.

@Kirk: no doubt, but that doesn’t work with Jed’s narrative. He wants us to believe that the only thing stopping cold fusion from taking over the world is the evil mainstream science community protecting its turf and its funding. It is truly a pity that not a single greedy entity in the world wants to make trillions of dollars by turning the enegy industry on its head. Well, maybe there are such entities but they are too scared of a bunch of plasma phsicists and the dreaded Robert Park to make it happen. So even though it is a proven thing, nobody will touch it.

Quote from kirkshanahan

This demonstrates your lack of scientific understanding. After all the posts about the evaporation rate equation, you write "in room temperature conditions". What was the bucket temperature, as reported by Mizuno? What was the room air temperature, as reported by Mizuno?

Make them any reasonable temperature you like, from 20 to 30 deg C. Mizuno, I, and many other worked there, year round. You can see from the photos that we were not sweating profusely or freezing, so obviously it was no different from any other laboratory in any university. You can see there are papers and equipment everywhere, so there was no fan blowing at 20 mph, as you previously asserted there might be.

You can easily test this. Go to a room at 20 to 30 deg C, put a bucket of water into it, and see what happens. Try it at different temperatures. You will not be able to set any temperature or humidity level that evaporates a bucket overnight.

One of the photos is on p. 30, here:

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

The cell was placed behind the blue equipment cabinet, which is behind Ms. Kawasaki. Between the cabinet and the wall, in a narrow space. There are no fans back there.

Quote from kirkshanahan

To summarize what I concluded and what you refuse to acknowledge, I said that a 'room temperature' bucket of water (i.e. 20-25C) or colder was unlikely to evaporate overnight unless a high airflow rate of dry air was passed over it.

Unlikely my ass. It is absolutely impossible! The airflow would have to so high the wind would knock you over. It would blow the papers, bottles and equipment in the room all over the place. But that is not what you "concluded." You "concluded" again and again and again that it did evaporate, and you also "concluded" that rats drank the water, as I just quoted you saying. I quote you, I point to your message, and you deny you said what you said. Who do you think you are kidding?

And if you now say you did not "conclude" that, you must admit the cell was hot and it evaporated the water, which means there had to have been anomalous heat, because it happened day after day. That, you can never admit, so you better go back to your magically evaporating room conditions and thirsty rats.

Quote from interested observer

Again:

What actually needs to be accomplished to move LENR from a internet cult topic to something of real impact?

I think it is pretty clear. One replicable experiment showing clear anomalies explainable only as nuclear activity, in a system in which there are no high energy inputs.

You might want to broaden it: if clear replicable anomalies are found at all it would be pretty exciting, but not necessarily LENR.

Quote from interested observer

He wants us to believe that the only thing stopping cold fusion from taking over the world is the evil mainstream science community protecting its turf and its funding.

I don't "want" you to do anything, but if you want to know what happened, I suggest you read what the mainstream scientists wrote. See for yourself. Read Beaudette's book, and Mallove. Read the Fleischmann - Miles letters. You apparently know nothing about this history, so I do not see why you are so sure this did not happen the way Beaudette and Mallove described it.

Here are mainstream scientists, in their own words:

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

http://pages.csam.montclair.ed…lski/cf/293wikipedia.html

http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?page_id=455

Judge for yourself how much they know, and how well they summarized the experiments here:

http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?p=294

Are you incapable of reading anything or doing any homework? You can't think for yourself? You make assertion after assertion contrary to the facts. Has it occurred to you to first learn what the facts are, and to read what these mainstream scientists themselves said and did? I get that you will not take my word for anything, but you won't even take the word of the mainstream scientists themselves for anything! Robert Park went around bragging about how he "rooted out and fired" cold fusion researchers. He did this in front of a cheering crowd of people at the APS. He wrote it in the Washington Post and elsewhere. You don't believe he said and did what he himself bragged about!

Quote from THHuxleynew

I think it is pretty clear. One replicable experiment showing clear anomalies explainable only as nuclear activity, in a system in which there are no high energy inputs.

Ah, but 14,000 replicable experiments in 180 labs don't count. Because . . . they just don't. Because you refuse to look at them, I suppose. Got it.

Quote from THHuxleynew

You might want to broaden it: if clear replicable anomalies are found at all it would be pretty exciting, but not necessarily LENR.

Ah yes. Just because it produces ~10,000 times more energy than any chemical reaction; no chemical changes; helium commensurate with fusion, and tritium, that does not mean it is LENR. It might be something else. Not nuclear. Sure. Because . . . ummm . . . Well, just because! It isn't as if you have a reason for this blather. It isn't as if you have ever found an error or anything. You are a "skeptic" meaning you can say anything that pops into your head, without a shred of evidence, and it is automatically true. You get a free pass.

Oh give us a break.

Quote from interested observer

@Kirk: no doubt, but that doesn’t work with Jed’s narrative. He wants us to believe that the only thing stopping cold fusion from taking over the world is the evil mainstream science community protecting its turf and its funding. It is truly a pity that not a single greedy entity in the world wants to make trillions of dollars by turning the enegy industry on its head. Well, maybe there are such entities but they are too scared of a bunch of plasma phsicists and the dreaded Robert Park to make it happen. So even though it is a proven thing, nobody will touch it.

It is well attested that both industry and the US armed forces are more easily seduced into supporting way out plans than academic funding committees. If the US military can fund experiments on staring at goats - and in 2014 a program to check precognition, LENR would be pretty tame.

Oh give us a break.

Jed - I think you are not reading my post carefully? What I say is pretty uncontentious.

Jed, I am not denying that mainstream scientists did and said the things you have noted. I am arguing that I find it hard to believe that there aren't people greedy enough and with sufficient resources to make something happen in spite of all of that. Are you really saying that people sniffing around a trillion-dollar score will just take their balls home and give up because a bunch of scientists told them so? Not a single one of them would pursue it just in case? Of course, some deep-pocketed entities have pursued it, such as Toyota. But apparently their results were not good enough to keep the effort going. Or I suppose you will say that is all politics too. Apparently, in your world view, large-scale greed has very little impact and small-potatoes turf battles trump everything. Maybe you are right, but boy does that not sound correct, even to an ignoramus who is incapable of reading anything.

Quote from THHuxleynew

Jed - I think you are not reading my post carefully? What I say is pretty uncontentious.

Let me explain.

What you describe has been done time after time, by experts, in replicated experiments. In some cases input is large compared to output, but in other cases it has been small, or in some cases there is no input power. More to the point, input is always electricity, usually quite stable, that can be measured with high precision. It is not "high energy input" unless that is how you label electrolysis. (Why would that be "high energy"? By what standard?)

So it is not noise and it cannot be used to call into question the output power. It does not degrade the measurement of output power. Claiming that it is "high" or that it should be "low" is unscientific. You have no technical reason for saying that. It is an arbitrary demand. I suppose you make it to give yourself an excuse to dismiss the results.

In response to that blather I say: oh give us a break. A high energy break.

Quote from hunter

Choose the best demo/device of AEH among the thousands of examples you have collected and you are sure that works.

I am not in a position to choose anything. I have no influence over the researchers. Most of them are dead, as I said, and it is very difficult to make dead people do things.

Bill Gates and others are supposedly funding research, albeit at the level of sparrow's tears as they say in Japanese. Talk to him about this. Or, if you have a million dollars burning a hole in your pocket, hand it over to me and we'll talk. If you don't have the money, you are telling me I should bell the cat. It is easy to propose impossible remedies.

Quote from hunter

Joint your strengths, equipments and economic resources you and the other cold fusionists already have and you will get all what you need.

Oh sure. That worked so well in the 1990s, when hundreds of replications were published. Those researchers got all they needed. Yeah. Like being reassigned as stock room clerks. You know so much about the history of cold fusion! I stand in awe. As in aw shucks.

Quote from JedRothwell

Let me explain.

What you describe has been done time after time, by experts, in replicated experiments. In some cases input is large compared to output, but in other cases it has been small, or in some cases there is no input power. More to the point, input is always electricity, usually quite stable, that can be measured with high precision. It is not "high energy input" unless that is how you label electrolysis. (Why would that be "high energy"? By what standard?)

So it is not noise and it cannot be used to call into question the output power. It does not degrade the measurement of output power. Claiming that it is "high" or that it should be "low" is unscientific. You have no technical reason for saying that. It is an arbitrary demand. I suppose you make it to give yourself an excuse to dismiss the results.

In response to that blather I say: oh give us a break. A high energy break.

Display More

I think you don't understand replicable.

A result that persists when done by anyone else, using different methodology. In fact a lab rat experiment, which many here will tell you does not exist. No "large" excess heat results currently satisfy this.

Also you misunderstand clear: the results must be clearly beyond errors. Calibrated calorimetry with low level results has problems here due to a lack of clarity over whether controls are identical to active cells. If not establishing calibration correctness requires assumptions.

Quote from hunter

Impossible? Nah.

Nowaday you have a very rich company from your side, a company called Industrial Heat with millions of dollars available to feed CF researches. Or it was only exaggeration of cold fusionists for propaganda?

They paid 11 M$ to a scammer for nothing, they are quite moneyed and can be your right partner. Talk you with them at next ICCF.

How much did IH pay for legal fees and propaganda services?

Quote from hunter

Nowaday you have a very rich company from your side, a company called Industrial Heat with millions of dollars available to feed CF researches.

Yes the owners of IH are rich. They spend money in the tiniest possible drops of 25k$ just to keep your mouth shut...

Basically they are buying naive/childish researchers to keep them off from doing "public" work.

Quote from Promethian

Hi, I'm talking with a friend who doesn't believe in LENR based on the fact that there must be gamma emissions from these reactions, and Rossi should be dead by now if his devices are unshielded.

Anyway, I want to find some papers that can convince a skeptic. Any papers from Mizuno are welcome too.

I just don't know what papers to organize and give to my friend for reading to convince him. Any advice appreciated.

Bulletproof replication by multiples trusted sources, including academia and preferably a national Lab, showing replication of

Energy Out > Energy In