ICCF-22 (Sept. 8-13) News/reports/opinions

  • "This field lacks a clearly and fully specified written protocol to reproduce even semi-reliably any aspect of our claims for cold fusion or condensed matter nuclear effects of any sort."


    My hat is off to McKubre, for once. That is exactly what I and many skeptics have been claiming albeit less eloquently, for at least eight years now, since Rossi raised his ugly head in 2011.

    Whereas I completely disagree with McKubre. I think the protocols published by Storms and Cravens are complete, and they work. Storms himself said the paper is out of date. I take that to mean it wasn't the last word on the subject, but that does not mean it does not work. I said that to McKubre today. He said that no one has done the Storms protocol so we cannot say whether it works or not. I said if true, that is not Storms' fault, and furthermore Fleischmann said that is the protocol he follows -- meaning yes, someone has done it. McKubre and I disagree about this, and that's where we left it.


    "That is exactly what I and many skeptics have been claiming . . ." You have no basis for claiming that. McKubre thinks he does, and unlike you, he has read the literature, but in my opinion he is wrong. Since you know nothing and you refuse to read anything, you have no basis for your opinion. If you happen to be right is merely a lucky guess. Anyone who blindly predicts failure and mistakes will be common in research will be right most of the time. This is like predicting that 13 out 14 horses in a race will lose.

  • My hat is off to McKubre, for once. That is exactly what I and many skeptics have been claiming albeit less eloquently, for at least eight years now, since Rossi raised his ugly head in 2011.

    This has been a problem from the beginning. McKubre has said nothing new. Several people, myself included, published several methods known to improve success years ago. Since then, while understanding has improved, this knowledge has not been accepted and applied. Everyone who gets into the LENR field seems to have their own ideas about what is important. Furthermore, people want a recipe that can be used without having to think much about the process. Acquiring the required skill and knowledge seems to be too much trouble for many people.


    Once again, the skeptics are adding nothing new to the discussion. If you actually want to cause LENR, you need to identify the condition in which the nuclear process must occur. Unfortunately, you have several of choices of this condition and how it needs to be created. Your success will be determined by which procedure you choose and how successfully you apply the required treatment. In any case, achieving success would require skill and patience, two qualities in short supply. If you want success, ask the right questions and then actually apply the answers.

  • Maybe McKubre is a bit disillusioned because we failed to come up with a cut-and-dried experimental proposal for TG to proceed with - we made lots of suggestions for them to play with - but basically until we understand the underlying science endless experimentation has proven little advance in the last 30 years. All we know is we can show that it works (sometimes) we should by now know fully how it works, We all have our own pet theories. These need to be rigorously tested and narrowed down/disproven/eliminated to one remaining overall theory of LENR/cold fusion.

  • Maybe McKubre is a bit disillusioned because we failed to come up with a cut-and-dried experimental proposal for TG to proceed with - we made lots of suggestions for them to play with - but basically until we understand the underlying science endless experimentation has proven little advance in the last 30 years. All we know is we can show that it works (sometimes) we should by now know fully how it works, We all have our own pet theories. These need to be rigorously tested and narrowed down/disproven/eliminated to one remaining overall theory of LENR/cold fusion.

    I would like to suggest a different attitude toward theory than is normally expressed, especially in physics. The goal is not to prove or disprove a theory. This approach only applies to mathematical theories. In experimental science, a theory is used as a guide or map in order to help summarize what is known. It can be best viewed as an incomplete map a traveler might use to locate a better route to a goal. The map does not have to be perfect. It only needs to be good enough to help avoid the dead ends and false ideas. Gradually as a chosen path is taken, the intention is for the map on which the path is based to improve until it can lead to the goal every time. Unfortunately, we now have a collection of maps showing different locations for the rivers and mountains with the goal frequently placed in the wrong quadrant. As result, the travelers are moving in many directions over the landscape with very few going in the correct direction. Clearly, one particular map is better than all the others. Obviously, the people who use this map will reach the goal before the other explorers. Which map are you using? Which map do you think will allow the goal to be reached first? Your choice will determine your success.

  • Outstanding work Ruby! You did the work of a team today...all by yourself. Honestly, I do not know how you managed it all, but thank goodness you did. So nice to be able to sit back, and read your almost simultaneous recap of the days events. Dynamite stuff too.


    For the other LF members attending, we ask that you please do not hold back from reporting on your own personal observations, just because Ruby is doing such a great job of it. Important you get your thoughts out while still fresh in the memory. If too sensitive to post it yourself, pass it on to me, or any of the other staffers. We will take the information, sanitize it, and get the word out to others.

  • Nice analogy, but we needed to present TG with the true one and only 100% accurate satellite-verified road map to the final destination of fully understanding cold fusion before they will advance any further, having already invested $10 million in what turned out to be a negative result. They say they may take it further but who knows?

  • Nice analogy, but we needed to present TG with the true one and only 100% accurate satellite-verified road map to the final destination of fully understanding cold fusion before they will advance any further, having already invested $10 million in what turned out to be a negative result. They say they may take it further but who knows?

    In other words, you think Google wants a free ride with everyone doing the hard work while they wait for the secret to be revealed to them so they can apply the information to their advantage. I expect they will have a long wait. People who discover the secret would not be expected to tell Google. I expect Gates, as well as people in other countries, will not share what will be very valuable information. Even Rossi knew enough not to share what he actually did. Once shared, the value contained in the information would be lost to the original owner. Unless Google pays to have research done, they will know nothing of value. I do not expect Google to be the leader in this subject. They simply do not have an effective attitude. If they actually spent 10M$ trying to understand LENR, then most of this money was wasted because it was not applied in an effective way. But, as IH demonstrated, the person with the gold gets to lose the gold.

  • we needed to present TG with the true one and only 100% accurate satellite-verified road map to the final destination of fully understanding cold fusion before they will advance any further, having already invested $10 million in what turned out to be a negative result.


    While we did not achieve the objective Team Google wants your opinion: "What is the highest priority experiment the LENR community wants to see conducted?" there has already been some good come from trying. So it was very much worth the effort.

  • I think the problem is with Google not the LENR community. They never talked to me. None ever visited my lab. - and there are not that many working LENR labs around these days. They did not let the community know they were interested until after their failures. That is on them not us.

  • Quote

    Once again, the skeptics are adding nothing new to the discussion.

    Respectfully disagree. Skeptics potentially weed out scum like Rossi. If Tom Darden had enlisted skeptics to recommend ways to test Rossi's claims properly before he was given $11+ million, that money would most likely still be available for legitimate research like that performed by Drs. McKubre and Storms and others. Instead, it has gone to pay for a crook's condominium investments, as proven by property records.

  • FYI, Still no one from Google has contacted me or anyone I work with. All there seems to be are rumors on the web - no substantal physical effort to connect or communicate. They are not serious, just fishing. I would "host" one of their researchers on one of my back benches, help them set up an electrochemical system and step them through it. But I doubt it would ever happen since they are not really serious.


    Can anyone point to a single case where they tried to work with someone within the LENR "community" (i.e. someone with positive experimental results)? Perhaps they talked to Storms or McKubre, but evidently did not even act on their advice.