And chemical bonding .
L-F Poll: Best LENR science news of 2018
-
-
I suspect this will be the start of an annual tradition.
Some things we can improve on, and after the dust settles, we can all talk about it.
Yes, we'll coordinate better in the future.
-
I guess the use of "belief" and "disbelief" is a semantic issue. In religion, anyway, "belief" implies on faith. That means good evidence is not required. It's a bit confusing to use the same wording in science.
It's good for proponents of theories to have faith (belief) but it proves nothing. I would have said something like "members who are convinced by evidence that LENR is real."
-
Belief implies many things, including those things held to be true without evidence. However, there are other definitions of belief, including Merriam-Webster's. So yes, semantics is key as always, it just depends on how much you understand its subtleties.
Belief : conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence, i.e. belief in the validity of scientific statements.
-
.
Geeze. I just looked at this poll result again from the end of 2018 and it seems like so little progress on so many fronts. Atom Ecology? GEC? IH? BLP? The Japanese stuff? Have any of these had any new announced accomplishments? Now if Rossi were on the list, we could talk. He is 20 years ahead you know and he has had 2 new iterations of his magnificence already this year. 🤣
-
you are right right about Rossi, however don't you think that other teams you quote made also some empty buzz ? Kw reachable, tunable are not here yet ?
Geeze. I just looked at this poll result again from the end of 2018 and it seems like so little progress on so many fronts. Atom Ecology? GEC? IH? BLP? The Japanese stuff? Have any of these had any new announced accomplishments? Now if Rossi were on the list, we could talk. He is 20 years ahead you know and he has had 2 new iterations of his magnificence already this year. 🤣
-
Atom Ecology continues to work on the science, but not reporting anything due to attacks and also requests from backers to stop reporting due to well-founded concerns about patent trolls, trolls in general, and the theft of IP. Reporting results unfortunately is a very sensitive area. As for scaling up, we are doing that as much as current resources allow, but scaling up 'big time' requires serious money and a bigger team. We have lab results probably as good as those any other lab issued recently (but not even an anecdotal 3kW!) but while people are running around with knives we tend to stay home.
-
I differentiated between big teams and little ones. With more money you should argue more results .. write patents don't want to say a lot of XH behind, either.
Atom Ecology continues to work on the science, but not reporting anything due to attacks and also requests from backers to stop reporting due to well-founded concerns about patent trolls, trolls in general, and the theft of IP. Reporting results unfortunately is a very sensitive area. As for scaling up, we are doing that as much as current resources allow, but scaling up 'big time' requires serious money and a bigger team. We have lab results probably as good as those any other lab issued recently (but not even an anecdotal 3kW!) but while people are running around with knives we tend to stay home.
-
Atom Ecology continues to work on the science, but not reporting anything due to attacks and also requests from backers to stop reporting due to well-founded concerns about patent trolls, trolls in general, and the theft of IP. Reporting results unfortunately is a very sensitive area. As for scaling up, we are doing that as much as current resources allow, but scaling up 'big time' requires serious money and a bigger team. We have lab results probably as good as those any other lab issued recently (but not even an anecdotal 3kW!) but while people are running around with knives we tend to stay home.
That is all understandable.
However, it leaves you open to being a sub-BLP. That is, you have a set of ambiguous results which convince you, but nobody else, and have no scientific credibility (like BLP), without the chutzpah to claim to the world that you have discovered something new.
- In the case that you have a replicable anomalous effect that is a shame: science would be interested and the enormous attention that any such results command would speed up understanding.
- In the case that you don't have a replicable anomalous effect no knives are needed - you are being quite honest and it is very proper for anyone to examine non-replicable anomalous effects (NRAEs) and try to find out what artifacts (likely) or new physics (unlikley) is causing them. In this case the lack of openness will make your task longer and harder, but perhaps preserve funding.
THH
-
I think secrecy is more responsible for lack of news than lack of success. Anyone who is having good results and is able to keep going ahead by sufficient funding will keep at it quietly. Specially if there is commercial interest. Some only have been publishing for generating a scientific background to their IP, as in the case of Cardone et al.
-
you have a set of ambiguous results which convince you, but nobody else, and have no scientific credibility (like BLP), without the chutzpah to claim to the world that you have discovered something new.
Thank you so much,
-
Makes it hard to run these "best of" polls, when everyone has to go silent after making their exciting claims. It will be slim pickings for the best story of 2019 for sure. I have been keeping my eyes open, and the only big stories put in the public domain (reported on) are Safire, and Team Google. TG will now go silent until their next paper is published, and probably Safire will do the same once they get funding to pursue LENR effects. So both will be one year stories until such time in the future they are successful, or not. Frustrating, and something I have had to struggle with, but a necessary evil once funding/NDA's/patents come into play.
Maybe Holmlid, Norront, Mills, and the R20 replications will come through for us?
-
Makes it hard to run these "best of" polls, when everyone has to go silent after making their exciting claims. It will be slim pickings for the best story of 2019 for sure. I have been keeping my eyes open, and the only big stories put in the public domain (reported on) are Safire, and Team Google. TG will now go silent until their next paper is published, and probably Safire will do the same once they get funding to pursue LENR effects. So both will be one year stories until such time in the future they are successful, or not. Frustrating, and something I have had to struggle with, but a necessary evil once funding/NDA's/patents come into play.
Maybe Holmlid, Norront, Mills, and the R20 replications will come through for us?
FWIW, I think that Holmlid is also publishing more from an IP theoretical nesting perspective than for getting replications. When you apply for IP that has no theoretical accepted background building a base of papers in peer review helps a lot, is the same that Cardone et al have been doing.
-
Belief implies many things, including those things held to be true without evidence. However, there are other definitions of belief, including Merriam-Webster's. So yes, semantics is key as always, it just depends on how much you understand its subtleties.
Belief : conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence, i.e. belief in the validity of scientific statements.
The key (not often made) distinction is that in science belief in validity is inherently probabilistic. So any hypothesis has some probability of being true. And these probabilities change based on evidence.
I use belief happily for this inductive Bayesian style of probability - but I agree it is confusing. Also worth nothing that in practical cases (e.g. izuno) it is often difficult to work out a proper value to the probability because things like "how likely is Mizuno to make same major and systematic error in collecting this data" are difficult to quantify. In addition, contentious but very important, the prior probability of some LENR hypothesis, and its ability to match many results (not just the ones given) must be considered. Hypotheses like "LENR exists but we don't know how or when it will manifest" can match a lot of results and are not very predictive. They therefore are not much promoted (beyond prior probability) by experiments that match them if there are any other hypotheses that match those same results.
-
Makes it hard to run these "best of" polls, when everyone has to go silent after making their exciting claims. It will be slim pickings for the best story of 2019 for sure. I have been keeping my eyes open, and the only big stories put in the public domain (reported on) are Safire, and Team Google. TG will now go silent until their next paper is published, and probably Safire will do the same once they get funding to pursue LENR effects. So both will be one year stories until such time in the future they are successful, or not. Frustrating, and something I have had to struggle with, but a necessary evil once funding/NDA's/patents come into play.
Maybe Holmlid, Norront, Mills, and the R20 replications will come through for us?
Maybe I have my wires crossed, but I think we only learned that NASA had replicated the co-dep work earlier this year?
-
Alan Smith wrote:
QuoteWe have lab results probably as good as those any other lab issued recently
As good as Mizuno's lesser claim (50W in and 250W out, sustained)? That would be cool.
QuoteMaybe I have my wires crossed, but I think we only learned that NASA had replicated the co-dep work earlier this year?
News to me. But I don't follow that closely. Have a citation or link please? Thanks.
-
News to me. But I don't follow that closely. Have a citation or link please? Thanks.
QuoteThe NASA Glenn Research Center replicated the co-deposition protocol. The Naval Surface Warfare Center, Dahlgren Division with JWK under NCRADA and with NASA and other agency funding, replicated the protocol, analyzed materials, and observed magnetic field effects and thermal responses.
Note also: Forsley is now an experimental physicist at NASA, and GEC is working on a hybrid reactor with NASA.
I don't recall the above quote being in the earlier version of this document, though could be wrong.
-
Maybe I have my wires crossed, but I think we only learned that NASA had replicated the co-dep work earlier this year?
Ahlfors broke the GEC/NASA story in 2018 I believe. On the first page of this thread, it shows as one of the candidates for best science story. We put that list together in December 2018.This is ongoing though, with a little bled out here and there. Probably go on like this for a few years, so maybe we can keep recycling as a new story.
-
My top tip for 'best science story 2019' is Norront Fusion.
