Japanese NEDO funded experiment have convinced already, but this is not enough to get allowance to ruin other's careers. Facts are not enough, there is a societal problem. By the way the guys who are convinced have a plan to launche a social/epistemology efforts to understand the problem and get a way through the mesh.
My advice is to stop talking to physicist, and start talking to cognition experts.
The Japaneses NEDO project would qualify. It was a partnership between 3 universities, and 2 automotive research divisions. Brillouin is close, as SRI replicated them many times in their own lab.
Shane,
Did the 3 universities and 2 auto companies
Replicate, (get the same), results?
If they did, then yes, if they didn’t then no
Japanese NEDO funded experiment have convinced already, but this is not enough to get allowance to ruin other's careers. Facts are not enough, there is a societal problem. By the way the guys who are convinced have a plan to launche a social/epistemology efforts to understand the problem and get a way through the mesh.
My advice is to stop talking to physicist, and start talking to cognition experts.
Alainco,
Vehemently disagree.
“IF”, the test results run by 5 different groups, all showed Energy Out > Energy In
And all of the results were the same, then
Publish the experiment on the internet.
Once the entire world is replicating excess heat academia can no longer say it doesn’t work.
The Japaneses NEDO project would qualify. It was a partnership between 3 universities, and 2 automotive research divisions. Brillouin is close, as SRI replicated them many times in their own lab.
L. Larsen 2018
"NEDO R&D project produced enough excess heat to boil a cup of tea"
Xs heat at TR-4 level
Might take time to get to TR-6 level( technology demonstration)
https://www.researchgate.net/p…heat_to_boil_a_cup_of_tea
“IF”, the test results run by 5 different groups, all showed Energy Out > Energy In
And all of the results were the same, thenPublish the experiment on the internet.
Once the entire world is replicating excess heat academia can no longer say it doesn’t work.
In fact, there is no news. there is already thousands of experiments, hundreds of papers, dozens of respected labs or top recognized experimentals who did the job.
As you can see, there is no limit to denial.
A manager trying to develop LENR explained me his daughter studying in Californiad had most of her colleages believing in flat-earth... In france we are flatearther in some subjects, but not on astronomy...
Of course many people have been convinced since the 90s, and started to launch program to develop LENR research, Then they realised rationality is a rare resource in real world, and rationality have a short budget, and is not very influential in politics. Since you can no more work alone , especially for a nasty problem like LENR (complexity, material science, cross-domain, metallurgy, coherent QED, various nano-scale instruments, particle detections, heat measurement...), and best experimental results that could be done with a limited team have been done in the 90s, you need the groupthink to end.
No need to look at LENR, I can launch a flame war, here just reporting know facts (off-topic. to the moderators, I won't do it ! enough noise here). And a journalist can again be petitionned for resign for reporting such facts.
Groupthink is general, and it is better for a tycoon to fund hopeless investment that will be subsidised, than fund researshers that will find no help from fearful colleagues. You cannot make good science alone. I've understood that since few month, because things go too far, and I don't talk of LENR.
Few documents to understand why apparent stupidity and denial rules, in a community of (very) intelligent people.
https://www.yumpu.com/en/docum…nctional-stupidity-scaiem
https://scholar.princeton.edu/…vard_be_seminar_4_snd.pdf
I wish the best to experimeters, but my work is now on fighting denial of reality, out of LENR first.
Look, it's not rocket science. If LENR researchers could provide:
1) sufficient output power
2) sufficient power out/power in ratio
3) sufficient duration of run with tiny amount of fuel (it's nuclear, right?)
4) sufficient reproducibility
... and the experiment could be specific and repeated by a national lab like Sandia, then there would be no issue.
We can go round and round about what "sufficient" means. Clearly, what is available doesn't satisfy the criteria for most entrepreneurs and mainline scientists. The above parameters have a threshold somewhere for mainline science to come on board. That threshold has not been reached.
QuoteBrillouin is close, as SRI replicated them many times in their own lab.
Brillouin is close to what exactly? SRI replicated what exactly? I have read some of Godes's web pages and I have seen what he gave to Sterling Alan for PES (yes, it goes back that far). He and it were singularly non-impressive. What has Brillouin shown in public which is in any way impressive? Far as I know,Brillouin, like many others, is nothing so far but claims.
ETA: perhaps Shane D. meant this? http://brillouinenergy.com/wp-…/SRI_Technical_Report.pdf
"Clearly, what is available doesn't satisfy the criteria for most entrepreneurs and mainline scientists."
You must realize that all entrepreneurs consult with Robert Park before risking any money.
"Clearly, what is available doesn't satisfy the criteria for most entrepreneurs and mainline scientists."
You must realize that all entrepreneurs consult with Robert Park before risking any money.
Clearly,
Continued Replication of any individual experiment Getting the same results has not happened to the satisfaction of people wanting reliable excess heat.
Brillouin is close to what exactly? SRI replicated what exactly? I have read some of Godes's web pages and I have seen what he gave to Sterling Alan for PES (yes, it goes back that far). He and it were singularly non-impressive. What has Brillouin shown in public which is in any way impressive? Far as I know,Brillouin, like many others, is nothing so far but claims.
They claim they are close to commercialization. But, even after a few successful rounds of funding, some patent approvals, they are still asking for more money to finish the job. They are an enigma to me, as I would think getting the seal of approval from the likes of SRI, would open doors at all the major energy companies. Yet, they want to go it alone. Does not make sense to me.
@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.
OK, so I wasn't concerning myself with JR...
One point though, if someone can reproduce and control the effect, they can bypass the scientific community by making and selling working devices (and more than 3 or 4, which would be bought by curiosity seekers or uniformed customers, we need a few thousand being sold to prove things via the 'inventor path').
Make them any reasonable temperature you like,
No, that's called 'dry-labbing' in school, and in a professional setting it's called 'falsification of data' and sometimes 'fraud'. That of course is my point in asking 'What was...', to point out that you falsify data to suit your needs and then pretend it is true and incontrovertible.
It is absolutely impossible!
Really? But then you say...
The airflow would have to [be] so high the wind would knock you over.
So it actually could happen then...
What I am pointing out here is your extremism. "It can't happen! But it can if... But that can't happen! But it can if...."
Make up your mind. Are you saying it can't happen, or that given what I pointed out about what the swimming pool equation says, that it might in certain circumstances (which you automatically fanatically turn around and say could never happen, even though I reported my own personal experience of just that happening!).
BTW, the '20' mph wind you mention (I said 17 based on calcs regarding a lab I worked in) will not 'knock you over', more extremism on your part. Further, that was at the face of the hood intake vents. Out in the room it would seem much less. My personal experience told me that the only place I actually felt the breeze was right at the hood face. Papers on benchtops did not blow away, etc., etc. What did happen was the room temp was difficult to control. It got cold in winter and hot in summer because the air flow rate made it hard for the HVAC to keep up.
You "concluded" again and again and again that it did evaporate
No, I 'concluded' that no conclusions could be drawn due to missing information which I stated multiple times since you and others never seemed to get it. You're the one who concludes LENR with no replicable experiments (fully replicable, not 'vaguely similar').
I also 'reported' my computational results obtained by systematically varying parameters, from which you cherry picked singular results which you misrepresent and denigrate as 'ridiculous' or 'crazy' or 'crackpot', instead of understanding what was going on in the entire study. All you do with that is prove your incompetence with scientific investigation.
Enough on this subject I think...
No, I 'concluded' that no conclusions could be drawn due to missing information
LOL. No conclusions can be drawn when you use monstrously excessive boundaries on normal, everyday input parameters.
... AKA The Shanahan Shuffle
cherry picked singular results
Nope, just typical rough ranges, that at least agreed with the first law of thermodynamics.
(ie. As opposed to yours).
So Zeus, I thought you wanted to be kept out of it? Oh well...guess not.
BTW, how do you know what an evaporation rate at X mph wind speed and Y % air humidity will be? Oh wait, ESP, that's right, you got it from Jed! Well, I didn't, so I have to use equations and actually calculate it...
BTW, how do you know what an evaporation rate at X mph wind speed and Y % air humidity will be? Oh wait, ESP, that's right, you got it from Jed!
No you wazzock, I got it from my spreadsheet linked to here:
You know, the one you took a dislike to, after I titled your column the 'Patho-Max' version of the calcs.
Talking of humidity, I recall you thinking a value of 10% was a reasonable "practical minimum".... Suggesting that Hokkaido had temporarily transformed into a desert. Classic.
Regardless of how you cut it, Mizuno's story is an anecdote. A strictly one of. A completely unproven story. You could just as well believe that Papp rode a noble gas engine-powered supersonic submarine from France to the US in the 1960's. I love arguments but discussions about what the reports from Mizuno of a cell in a bucket that stayed hot for a while mean are pretty useless. I am not accusing Mizuno or his team or Jed of prevarication or of anything, actually. I don't know what caused that anecdote. I do know it doesn't mean much for evaluating the promise of LENR.
No you wazzock, I got it from my spreadsheet linked to here:
The Playground
You know, the one you took a dislike to, after I titled your column the 'Patho-Max' version of the calcs.
Character assassination again. Let me remind you I have said repeatedly in this very thread [NASA partners with Global Energy Corporation to develop 10kW Hybrid Reactor Generator] that I completely agree with the equations ‘you’posted in ‘your’ spreadsheet. So, to get‘my’ sums, all ‘you’ have to do is plug ‘my’ values for the parameters in the equations into ‘your’ spreadsheet on ‘your’ computer, and out will pop ‘my’sums. I can’t believe you are this dumb,so I am forced to assume this misrepresentation of my writings is deliberate and ‘with malice aforethought’. Why?
[Spelling and spacings corrected.]
Getting back to the topic of the thread: reproducibility (which means control as shown by lots of people getting the same result with the same setup independently)
Yes, we used the same equations, but you used crazily high/low input values, that had no basis in reality, and contravened two laws of thermodynamics.
Regardless of how you cut it, Mizuno's story is an anecdote... ...Papp [yawn]... ...it doesn't mean much for evaluating the promise of LENR.
That's right Mary... I actually find it more useful for evaluating the lengths a 'skeptic' will go to, in order to dismiss things they don't like.
but you used crazily high/low input values,
So instead, I should be like you and pre-conclude what the answer is? No, that's that 'dry-labbing' I talked about. Unlike people who force a conclusion onto data, I examine the data and let it tell me the story. Of course in the Mizuno bucket case, there was no data, so I (and everyone else) was actually forced to 'make-up' what numbers were used. But again, I just went a little further than you for the purpose of seeing what I could see. Then I reported what I saw, and concluded one could not conclude if there was a 'mundane' explanation for the anomaly. You however, force-fit LENR.
As to how to convince a skeptic, I think pictures of electrode 'craters' are a good way to pique their interest.
Steam embrittlement, methane embrittlement, superabundant vacancies...
