3000th LENR-Forum Member!

  • LENR-Forum has reached the 3000th Member milestone! My, how we have grown. We have become the place to go to find the latest industry news, recaps, events, science, and gossip.


    Thanks go to all of you who have contributed to make this a great place for discussing new ideas. That includes our skeptics, who force us to look deep and hard at each topic.

  • And over 100,000 posts! with the rate increasing. :thumbup:


    Thanks to Rossi and the Ecat!


    Right now there are 3 threads which are going full steam ahead on these 2 topics, rehashing the same old arguments (the Doral test, the Prominent pump, … the mezzanine!) already debated in thousands of other posts over the last few years. All this interest happens on the eve of the celebrations of the 30° anniversary of the F&P press conference and the only thread dedicated at this historic milestone has been closed because "no longer of interest" (1). It's fun, isn't it?


    A further confirmation that Rossi and his Ecat embody the real spirit of the initiative launched 30 years ago by F&P.


    (1) FP's experiments discussion


  • We rehash Rossi because he is still an ongoing story. We don't need to rehash FP's, because that is settled science. If you want to take on another challenge for the upcoming 30th anniversary, you might try and help us convince IHFB, and Steppenwolf/JTomas that the mezzanine heat exchanger did not exist.

  • Ask the typical nuclear physicist about it. Or nuclear engineer


    Iwamura ? Srinivasan? Kasagi?


    or some of the ITER crowd?


    which ones are "dismally ignorant"?


    Yasuhiro Iwamura Nuclear Engineer

  • Ruby-Carat-Yasuhiro-Iwamura-Cold-Fusion-Now-021

  • Mahadeva Srinivasan Nuclear Physicist

  • Ruby-Carat-Mahadeva-Srinivasan-Cold-Fusion-Now-007


  • Jirohta Kasagi

  • It is? Ask the typical nuclear physicist about it. Or nuclear engineer.

    Oh, I forgot. Most scientists and engineers are either dismally ignorant or, shudder, skeptopaths.

    Not ignorant, shudder or skeptopaths, but just lazy. Because all physicists I know who made the effort to read the literature in the field believe that - at least - it is worth to pursue research in the field. The issue is that 99% of the physicists have not done their homework and only preconceived ideas remain. I was one of those and now regret my lack of open-mindedness when I rejected some CF results presented to me during my visit of the Bhabha Atomic Research Center in the middle of the 1990s.

  • The issue is that 99% of the physicists have not done their homework and only preconceived ideas remain.

    Yes. You can easily confirm this by asking them a few questions. Such as:


    1. What instruments are used? A: Calorimeters, mainly.

    2. What sort of nuclear evidence has been found? A: Tritium and helium.

    3. Why do researchers think this is a nuclear effect? A: Because there are no chemical changes, no chemical fuel, and the energy would far exceed the limits of chemistry if the whole cell was filled with fuel.


    Most skeptics I have encountered are unaware of these things, and much else. Or they read the wrong answers in Scientific American or Wikipedia.

  • if the evidence pointed to a likelihood of a new source of plentiful and cheap energy, entrepreneurs would be all over it like... well, you know.


    That would only be the case if the entrepreneurs read the literature and understood it. If they read the DoE or Scientific American version instead, they will not understand, and they will not be all over it. I have spoken with some of them, and that is the problem. (Some of them contact me when they do due diligence to learn something about the field, but not enough due diligence.)


    Similar situations have often arisen in history. In the 1850s, Theodore Judah could not get anyone in San Francisco to invest in a Transcontinental Railroad, even though it was the richest city in the world with many goldrush millionaires (people who would have hundreds of millions today). His plans were later implemented, and they resulted in the most profitable venture in history, albeit one underwritten by Uncle Sam. In the 1970s, many people set about developing microcomputer hardware and software, including me. Very few of us were able to attract interest from venture capitalists. They did not understand the technology, and they had no idea there would be a broad market for such things. Fortunately, it was cheap to develop products, so we did not need them. In the 1980s it became apparent that microcomputers (by then called "PCs") were the hottest thing in decades. Venture capitalists fell over themselves giving out money, but by that time we didn't need them. As Mark Twain said of bankers, they are happy to lend you money when you don't need it. The point is, they tend to be blind to opportunity in the early stages when capital is needed. They only throw money at ventures when everyone already knows the technology is promising, and when others have already invested. Or when everyone thinks the technology is promising, even though it isn't.


    That is why the recent $8 million investment by Mitsubishi in Clean Planet might shake loose other venture capital. I am uneasy about Clean Planet. I know little about them but based on what I know, I would hesitate to invest in them. I would have to learn a lot more. But some venture capitalists may see "Mitsubishi" and "$8 million" and jump to the conclusion this is a hot deal they better get into now, before it is too late. Some of them throw money at stupid ideas, such as Juicero and Theranos:


    https://www.theguardian.com/te…icon-valley-shutting-down


    https://www.amazon.com/dp/B078VW3VM7


    To summarize, if you look at venture capitalists to judge the viability of a technology, or the likelihood that it is real, in 1975 you would have concluded that microcomputers have no future, and in 2013 you would have concluded that Theranos was the next Apple Computer.

  • That would only be the case if the entrepreneurs read the literature and understood it. If they read the DoE or Scientific American version instead, they will not understand, and they will not be all over it. I have spoken with some of them, and that is the problem.


    If Seven_of_twenty has any doubt about that, and he is in contact with an entrepreneur, he can easily test my assertion. Just administer my three-question examination:


    1. What instruments are used?

    2. What sort of nuclear evidence has been found?

    3. Why do researchers think this is a nuclear effect?


    In a few minutes you will discover whether this person has any knowledge of cold fusion. In most cases, you will see they do not. Obviously, someone who does not know that cold fusion is studied with calorimeters is incapable of evaluating it. Imagine a typical entrepreneur in 1977. This person had never seen a microcomputer, never used a minicomputer, or even a Wang word processor. This person has never written a single line of code. He (and it was alway a guy) would be incapable of judging whether microcomputers had a future or whether this "Apple" computer in the news was anything other than a weird fad, like a pet rock. Without hands-on technical knowledge and experience, you cannot judge nascent technology. Once it takes off and starts selling like hotcakes, anyone can see it is promising.


    It wasn't the fault of the entrepreneurs in 1977 that they knew nothing about computers. Most entrepreneurs and most ordinary people in 1977 had never used a computer, because computers were rare, expensive and difficult to use. Bill Gates and I had spent hundreds of hours using them with ASR-33 terminals and paper tape. That's why we knew they were a hot item, and the wave of the future. We were lucky to know that. I am 100% sure that if cold fusion ever comes out of the cold, and overcomes academic politics, it too will be a hot item. I am confident that my skills at technical prognostication are no worse than they were in 1977, because this particular prognostic is about as difficult as hitting the ground after you jump off the Empire State Building. Unfortunately for me, there is no telling whether cold fusion will overcome, or when. I am cursed with the gift of Cassandra.


    When I encounter someone who fails my three question examination, I never get upset. Why should I? 99.9999% of people would fail it. I politely suggest he should see my video and read the McKubre paper. It only upsets me when people refuse to read anything, and they go on claiming that cold fusion is bogus. When technically accomplished people read the literature but insist it is wrong, I am bemused, not upset. They are nitwits. Certified A-1 idiots. There were many nitwits in 1977 who knew computers as well as I did, yet who thought microcomputers had no future. That is why DEC, Data General and the others went out of business. In 1977, DEC founder Ken Olsen supposedly said, "there is no reason for any individual to have a computer in his home." Some historians say this is a legend and he never said that. Legend or real, it hardly matters. I heard similar statements from many executives at other computer companies (where I worked, or did business with). Olsen must have thought that, because he rolled over and played dead instead of competing. He and the others stood by and did nothing while IBM and Compaq ate their lunch. I expect the fossil fuel and wind turbine companies will react the same way to cold fusion if it ever emerges. History shows that's human nature.

  • Let's take a case in point. Bill Gates has tons of money (a vast understatement) and is very interested in philanthropy. Improving the Third World requires energy and lots of it. He was given a presentation at ENEA several years ago. He supposedly funded Duncan's research. Why has he not done more? Spent more money? I doubt he has time to answer JedRothwell 's three golden questions but I bet he has or can hire plenty of qualified and competent people to read and understand and abstract stuff for him. Even if it does turn out Gates gave a few millions to Duncan et. al., is that all it makes sense for him to do if the promise of LENR is so vast? And so obvious to those who bother to read?

  • . Improving the Third World requires energy and lots of it


    Its a question of priorities

    Malaria is a historical (ask Alexander the Great) and ever present scourge.

    200 million new cases a year.

    People don't die for lack of LENR... they die through lack of medicine, and malaria prevention

    For Gates the fight against malaria is a No.1 priority - he spends $4 billion on it..

    For SOT the fight against LENR is No.1 priority - it spends ä little time on it.


    http://fortune.com/2018/04/18/bill-gates-foundation-malaria/

    http://www.alexanderstomb.com/main/tombstory/index.html

  • He [Gates] was given a presentation at ENEA several years ago. He supposedly funded Duncan's research. Why has he not done more? Spent more money?


    I have no idea. You would have to ask him. As I said, that is like asking why Ken Olsen did nothing to stop IBM and Comaq from putting DEC out of business. DEC was the second largest computer company in the world. Obviously Olsen was a gifted leader and a world-class expert in computers. Yet he did not respond until it was too late.


    People are inexplicable. Read history and you will see countless examples of behavior that seems self destructive or inexplicable, in which people were paralyzed and unable to do what the situation called for. When Gen. Grant took over the siege of Chattanooga, Rosecrans, the general he relieved, briefed him on the situation and gave him a list of actions that were needed. Grant wrote that these were good ideas and should be done. So he did them, promptly. He wondered why Rosecrans did not do them. People are sometimes paralyzed with indecision. Cold fusion is a great risk, after all. I am sure it is real, but I do not know how to make progress in it or which experiment to pursue. A person could easily lose millions backing the wrong experiment.


    Gates and the others at Microsoft made some terrible decisions in the past, handing over much of their business to Apple and later Google. He is not always rational. No one is. This is speculation, but I would not rule out the possibility that Gates is partly infected by the kind of irrational denial of reality that afflicts you and many others here, where you deny 18th and 19th century physics to justify your refusal to face facts. If cold fusion ever succeeds, people will look back at what you wrote, and what the Scientific American wrote, and they will wonder how anyone could be so deluded. Just as we look back at what the Scientific American wrote to deny that the Wright brothers flew.