Fake&Succeed strategy in R&D. What about CF?

  • Fake&Succeed strategy in R&D. What about CF?


    In another thread, JedRothwell posted a very interesting comment:

    From Brillouin Energy Corporation (BEC) updates.


    seven_of_twenty wrote:

    My point was that Rossi's "work" screams premeditation. Premeditators can not believe their own claims.


    Of course they can! Edison and Steve Jobs were famous for putting on premeditated fake demonstrations. They exaggerated to the point of deceiving people about their inventions. They claimed they had things working long before they actually did. But they also actually did develop working products. They were fakers at times and real inventors at other times.



    In his post, JR describes an approach to R&D, which could be followed by scientists, researchers, inventors, entrepreneurs, etc. convinced of the reality and feasibility of their invention and which consists of three main steps:


    1 – "putting on premeditated fake demonstrations", "exaggerate[ing the results] to the point of deceiving people about their inventions" and "claim[ing] they had things working long before they actually did";

    2 – receiving funds and credits to develop their inventions on the basis of the above claims;

    3 – eventually succeeding, thanks to these funds and credits, in " actually develop[ing] working products".


    This approach to R&D, which can be called "Fake and Succeed" (or FaS) strategy, is a sort of scientific implementation of the Machiavellian motto "the ends justify the means", where the achievment of the third step justifies the subterfuges adopted in the previous ones.


    JR mentioned two very famous "fakers at times and real inventors at other times", who applied successfully the FaS strategy reaching the third step, by eventually realizing working products which we use every day. Probably many other important R&D initiatives have adopted this strategy, including the ITER project (1), which is still at the second step.


    I think that there are many important implications in the cited JR's post, which deserve to be discussed more deeply in a separate and specific thread. It would be interesting, for example, to know to what extent the FaS strategy was used in past and present R&D initiatives in various scientific fields, or if it is legitimate to adopt such a strategy for convincing the public about the opportunity of pursuing researches hypothetically capable of providing enormous benefits to the humankind.


    Obviously, it's logical to ask ourselves whether the same FaS strategy was applied in CF too, also because it would provide an easy and suitable explanation to many controversial episodes, while preserving the substantial good faith of most protagonists.


    (1) http://news.newenergytimes.net…1/12/the-selling-of-iter/

  • I've already asked JR about the possibility that the strategy he described in his previous comment could be followed by the CF researchers and in particular by F&P. Here are his answers:

    From Brillouin Energy Corporation (BEC) updates.


    Ascoli65 wrote:

    And the CF researchers?

    Leaving aside the lack of any functioning products, can F&P be compared to Edison or Steve Jobs?


    The CF researchers, including F&P, were government employees. They would be fired for doing fake demonstrations. Some of them were fired for doing actual demonstrations. There would be no benefit for them in any case, and no point to it. To my knowledge, none of has done anything like that. None have been accused of doing this, except by Robert Park and various journalists who knew nothing about the research.


    From Brillouin Energy Corporation (BEC) updates.


    Perhaps you are asking whether F&P made contributions to industry. The answer is yes, both of them did. Fleischmann and Bockris made tremendous contributions to industry. If they had not been government employees, they would have earned millions of dollars. Because they worked for the UK and the state of Texas, they got no more money than the U.S. Federal employees who developed the internet.


    Fleischmann's contributions to science are summarized in 19 chapters in this book:


    https://www.amazon.com/Develop…mann-ebook/dp/B00KS49ESW/


    His contributions were wide ranging. He was elected FRS before cold fusion. Generally speaking, people who are elected Fellows of the Royal Society have made important contributions. People elected chemistry department chairman (Pons) are also good at what they do.


  • You are persistent. May I remind you that this forum is dedicated to furthering the science of LENR, and that we have been more than fair in allowing you to have your say. We have many skeptics here other than yourself, yet they generally limit their opinion on a post by post basis, and do not create threads dedicated to trashing LENR, as this one appears to be about.


    I will see where this goes for a while, but if it even hints at bogging down like your last one, with no chance of resolution, it will be closed. No saving you from kevmo either. I won't let him name call, or get too offensive, but other than that, you have to put up with him.


    Have fun while it lasts.

  • You are persistent. May I remind you that this forum is dedicated to furthering the science of LENR, and that we have been more than fair in allowing you to have your say. We have many skeptics here other than yourself, yet they generally limit their opinion on a post by post basis, and do not create threads dedicated to trashing LENR, as this one appears to be about.


    Actually this thread is aimed at understanding the possible R&D strategies which could be, or have been, adopted to furthering the LENR activity.


    I created a new thread, because I thought that the JedRothwell post was really enlightening on this subject and I wished to answer his kind answers to my first reply and allow others L-F members to join our debate.


    However, this subject is much more general than the topic under discussion in the thread where it appeared and I didn't want to hijack it. Furthermore, it was asked not to talk about Rossi in that BEC thread (1) and the JR's post was clearly referring to the testing of his devices.


    Therefore, I had no choice but to follow the indication given to me in these circumstances (2).


    Quote

    I will see where this goes for a while, but if it even hints at bogging down like your last one, with no chance of resolution, it will be closed. No saving you from kevmo either. I won't let him name call, or get too offensive, but other than that, you have to put up with him.


    Have fun while it lasts.


    Well, my previous thread got bogged down not for my responsibility. I was invited to open it and I simply answered politely to comments from other L-F members. You can see that I stopped posting on 22 March (3), on the eve of the anniversary of CF announcement, and I started again to post three days later (4) just to answer a factual objection addressed to me by oystla .


    Anyway, thanks for letting me to discuss this delicate topic, at least for a while. I hope the L-F members will participate in a constructive way for pursuing the truth, whatever it is.


    (1) Brillouin Energy Corporation (BEC) updates.

    (2) Clearance Items

    (3) F&P's experiments – 30 years after CF announcement

    (4) F&P's experiments – 30 years after CF announcement

  • For those who see shades of grey (not necessarily 50) in most things, Ascolis's threads represent both an opportunity and a challenge.


    In this case I think the (annoyingly predictable) argument that this one might raise misses the key point.


    The distinction between a (genuine) LENR skeptical position, and a (genuine) LENR belief, looking at the corpus of evidence we have before us, comes the the balance of how aware are you of human imperfection, and how convinced are you of God's (well - the laws of Physics's - which for some people would be pretty much the same) perfection.


    If you reckon the laws of physics as now understood are pretty weak predictors - ripe for new discoveries that will change the behaviour of experimental systems you will see anomalies as more likely indicating new physics.


    If you reckon people (even very clever people - perhaps especially very clever people) are inclined to make wrong judgements based on human feelings, both conscious and unconscious, you will go for anomalies being errors in interpretation.


    Another distinguishing axis is the tension between the trust in coherent theories - supported by a wide variety of heterogeneous evidence - and trust in the accuracy of human experimenters - whether singly or as a group.


    LENR belief is characterised by a higher level of trust in the human experimenters interpreting the LENR evidence, and the idea that while individually they might be fallible as a group that cannot be true. But we can see from the previous argument over F&P that there is a good deal of individual trust in highly qualified individuals (e.g. Fleischmann) as well.


    There are all sorts of other shades here - many are motivated by trust or lack of trust in the scientific establishment. LENR, as a minority hypothesis ignored by the establishment, may attract those who are suspicious of mainstream views. Equally, a bias against LENR could come from those who see existing scientic processes as very good and therefore reckon the (sort of) rejection of LENR by mainstream science is likely correct.


    Finally those who seek a new solution to the world's problems, either because they are pessimistic and reckon only something new can save us from doom, or because they are optimistic and reckon human ingenuity is likely to get us out of any hole, can be inclined to favour LENR, with its promise of free energy.


    I'm one of the technophiliacs who'd like a new technical solution to the world's energy problems. I see the development of cost-effective fusion from one of the new fusion start-ups using developments in HTS technology or (less likely, but more fun) laser technology as fascinating and perhaps possible. I'd also be quite happy for major development of new fission reactors (e.g. Thorium) - but that seems politically difficult. What a shame. By the time we really know we need them we will not want to wait for the inevitably long development time.


    I also like mysteries. They bug me. I look at them - whether weird results from Holmlid, or Mills and Wyttenbach's claims of accurate calculation of gyromagnetic ratios - and try to find reasons.


    All of this variety of motives is proper and honest: which is why I am so solidly against the few here who leap to assuming dishonesty or bad intent, while in favour of those who propose possible error. Ascolfi neatly lies on the cusp between calling error and calling deliberate fraud. I find myself strongly disliking the fraud aspect of his arguments, while liking the error aspect.


    Likes and dislikes do not determine truth: and I'm well aware of that. We do however do a better job of finding truth if we can recognise our own likes and dislikes.


    THH

  • I have no problem with Acoli65's scepticism, the problem is that no matter what is done to cast doubt upon his ideas, including photographic evidence, scientific papers -some peer-reviewed ones too- because his problems with scientific logic he keeps putting forward the same objections. He also has a tendency to claim when presented with evidence that refutes his ideas, to state that this same evidence proves the presenter supports his beliefs - and then claims it shows that the objector has been ' totally converted'. He is the Theresa May of sceptical argument. It's his deal or his deal. There is no other way.

  • I take it that you are hoping by faking it to succeed in disproving the existence of LENR?


    Leaving aside your joke, there is no way to disprove the existence of LENR. The quantum mechanical tunnelling effect assures us that nuclear reactions could take place even at low temperature. The problem, as explained for instance at page 7 of the Focardi-Rossi paper (1), is that their probability is so low as to be impossible to detect.


    My goal is much less ambitious and refers to the claimed experimental evidences of large (or even barely detectable) thermal effect produced by such nuclear phenomenon. Going back to the CF origins, I'm mainly interested in clarifying the real causes of the alleged F&P effect, that is of an "enormous excess heat production", as defined in the Melich-Hansen paper presented at ICCF4 (2).


    (1) http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/FocardiSanewenergy.pdf

    (2) http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/HansenWNpddcalorim.pdf

  • All of this variety of motives is proper and honest: which is why I am so solidly against the few here who leap to assuming dishonesty or bad intent, while in favour of those who propose possible error. Ascolfi neatly lies on the cusp between calling error and calling deliberate fraud. I find myself strongly disliking the fraud aspect of his arguments, while liking the error aspect.


    As I recalled many times, I never used that F-noun, not even for the Ecat events, because I never wanted to cross the ridge between the scientific and the legal side of this debate. However, I have occasionally used the adjective "deliberate", coupled with the noun "misrepresentation", for those errors that I was unable to explain in any other way, based on the analysis of the available documentation.


    IMO, the FaS strategy provides a suitable framework for reconciling "deliberate misrepresentations" and "good intent", substantially preserving the honesty of everyone. That's the reason why I think that the JedRothwell comment, quoted in the opening post, is very important and reveals a possible attitude that could have affected some of the most controversial episodes in the CF history, such as those related to the Rossi's "work", which was explicitly mentioned in the seven_of_twenty comment that JR was answering to.


    As JR said of two giants of the scientific and technological progress, such as Edison and Steve Jobs, it could happen that someone, fully convinced of the reality of his ideas, needs to convince the others of the correctness of his claims and then decide to implement a FaS strategy. I don't know to which specific "premeditated fake demonstrations" JR was referring to, but I don't think anyone blames Edison or Jobs for having followed such a strategy.

  • I have no problem with Acoli65's scepticism, the problem is that no matter what is done to cast doubt upon his ideas, including photographic evidence, scientific papers -some peer-reviewed ones too- because his problems with scientific logic he keeps putting forward the same objections.


    Repeating the same arguments is common on both sides. Speaking of the F&P experiments in recent months, I have been forced to repeat the same arguments to answer the same objections.


    Quote

    He also has a tendency to claim when presented with evidence that refutes his ideas, to state that this same evidence proves the presenter supports his beliefs - and then claims it shows that the objector has been ' totally converted'.


    Actually, it happened several times, in recent months, that an argument presented to refute my remarks to the F&P results turned out to provide, IMO, a confirmation to my claims, as I've sustained, for example, in (1-2-3). However I don't remember having claimed to have "totally (or even partially) converted" any interlocutor, also because this is not my intent, beyond being a nasty and impolite way of doing. I just wanted to achieve a broad agreement on those limited specific facts for which there were enough documents to find a common interpretation.


    (1) F&P's experiments – 30 years after CF announcement

    (2) F&P's experiments – 30 years after CF announcement

    (3) F&P's experiments – 30 years after CF announcement

  • Ascoli,


    This is going nowhere, and accomplishing less. All word games. Unless someone objects, and provides a good reason to keep this going, you have 24 hours before it is closed. You are welcome to continue participating as the other skeps here do, but I would ask you to refrain from starting anymore threads.

  • This is going nowhere, and accomplishing less. All word games. Unless someone objects, and provides a good reason to keep this going, you have 24 hours before it is closed.


    OK, I understand. After all this site is dedicated to furthering the research on LENR and a prerequisites for doing so is to keep alive the faith in the reality of the results claimed by F&P and their emulators.


    This thread will be the fourth to be closed in less than 2 months due to my posts. The previous were:

    (1) - February 9 - FP's experiments discussion

    (2) - February 11 - How many times has the Pons-Fleischmann Anomalous Heating Event been replicated in peer reviewed journals?

    (3) – April 1 - F&P's experiments – 30 years after CF announcement


    I don't know how many people were following the first thread and the second one was closed after my first post, but the third thread reached almost 15,000 views in about one month, more than 500 per day in the last period, and yesterday, 6 days after its closure, it still emerged among the top 5 Hot Threads with around 100 views per day.


    The current thread has already been visited hundreds of times. So I wouldn't say that it "is going nowhere, and accomplishing less", I'd rather would think that, like the previous one, it is going in an undesired direction, while getting too much attention.


    Anyway, as on previous occasions, although being sorry for the closure, I don't object and don't complain. I consider it as the best implicit confirmation I could ever get on the validity of my arguments. Four closed thread in a row will remain an unattainable record for any other critic hosted by this forum.


    Quote

    You are welcome to continue participating as the other skeps here do, but I would ask you to refrain from starting anymore threads.


    As I've already reminded, I was asked to open new threads so as not "hijack" others. Now I'm asked to refrain from starting one more. OK, no problem, the forum is yours and I adapt to your directions.


    Anyway, thanks for hosting me. LENR-Forum is really a privileged place to observe human nature and follow the world fate.


    (1) FP's experiments discussion

    (2) How many times has the Pons-Fleischmann Anomalous Heating Event been replicated in peer reviewed journals?

    (3) F&P's experiments – 30 years after CF announcement

  • Here is a 2010 (given so many better results from theory and accelerators are new it misses a lot) but good intro to QCD:


    You chose the wrong place to deal with the topic of the adequacy of the quantum approaches in nuclear physics.

    You have only a few hours to solve the issue. :)

    Anyway, thanks for your contribution to this thread.

  • Can you prove hat QM works at nuclear level? Can you calculate something with nuclear QM to at least 6 digits precision as we would need for an explanation?


    Why should I?


    I already proved that F&P were wrong about their conclusions contained in the 1992 paper, therefore any alternative nuclear theory based on their CF claims is a nonsense. Proposing a new model aimed at explaining the F&P effects is as absurd as building a skyscraper on quicksand. As in the past (1,2,3), I suggest you once again to remove any reference to F&P from your proposals for an alternative model.


    Have a good luck.


    (1) FP's experiments discussion

    (2) FP's experiments discussion

    (3) FP's experiments discussion

  • I already proved that F&P were wrong about their conclusions contained in the 1992 paper

    No you didn't . you never proved anything except foam and illusion

    You gave up at the end because you had nothing more to say.

    And you still have nothing to say except " I already proved"


    You never ever came up with the fictitious Term 5


    no algebra no equation.

    Ascoli65 recreating history... again.

    Malignant.

  • Anyway, as on previous occasions, although being sorry for the closure, I don't object and don't complain. I consider it as the best implicit confirmation I could ever get on the validity of my arguments. Four closed thread in a row will remain an unattainable record for any other critic hosted by this forum.


    Now you can be the hero who was persecuted by the high priests of LENR, for spreading the gospel of pseudoscience. If you would like to become a martyr instead, we can arrange to throw a lion in the ring with you? :)


    Everything I read here can be talked about in other threads. This one got off to a bad start by associating LENR with fraud misrepresentation, and is clearly going nowhere fast.

  • That #2 thread was opened by me 18 months ago and closed by Eric much longer than 2 months ago. It was closed due to skeptopath activity such as yours. But at least you're polite. The good reason to close down this thread is that it's about to turn impolite.


    What you are actually doing and saying is really quite impolite. But you know how to do it in a polite manner. You're trying to move the peer review goal posts for an established scientific fact. Some folks think that such an effort deserves ensuing scorn and name calling. Other folks think your polite manner should be met with politely asking you to stop.

  • Now you can be the hero who was persecuted by the high priests of LENR, for spreading the gospel of pseudoscience.


    No persecution, it has been a good opportunity for me. Thanks again. :)


    Quote

    Everything I read here can be talked about in other threads.


    It's a matter of opinion. I thought this topic deserved an its own thread and, in any case, it was an obligatory choice, as I've already explained (1).


    Quote

    This one got off to a bad start by associating LENR with fraud misrepresentation, and is clearly going nowhere fast.


    I had also explained what I mean by "misrepresentation" (2). It doesn't imply fraud and JedRothwell provided the remarkable examples of two important innovators who, in his judgment, faked their outcomes without being fraud.


    (1) Fake&Succeed strategy in R&D. What about CF?

    (2) FP's experiments discussion

  • That #2 thread was opened by me 18 months ago and closed by Eric much longer than 2 months ago.


    I didn't know it was already closed. In such a case, I caused its second closure (1).


    Quote

    What you are actually doing and saying is really quite impolite. But you know how to do it in a polite manner. You're trying to move the peer review goal posts for an established scientific fact. Some folks think that such an effort deserves ensuing scorn and name calling. Other folks think your polite manner should be met with politely asking you to stop.


    Everyone chooses his own style.


    Thank you for contributing to this thread.


    (1) How many times has the Pons-Fleischmann Anomalous Heating Event been replicated in peer reviewed journals?