Team Google wants your opinion: "What is the highest priority experiment the LENR community wants to see conducted?"

  • Oh wait, that is what you guys do...

    ? Probably like asking a raging bull not to charge at every red cape it sees, but worth the try.

    KS does have a problem with consensus on his CCF theory.

    it was supposed to be applicable to all electrochemical experiments and physical chemistry where

    averages were taken



    . I think Krivit has the KS quote on that


    but unfortunately in the last two decades there have been zero citations for CCF except in LENR..

    perhaps KS knows some

  • Quote

    Mc Kubre said recently:


    “Our field is dying. Our average age increases nearly one year per year. I was 40 when we started in 1989 and near the peak of my career. Now I am 70 and retired. The problem is not just age and inactivity, it is unwillingness and inability to learn or change. We need fresh new ideas and perspe ctives and to incorporate technically modern concepts.

    The field wouldn't die if there were more claims like Mizuno's and they bore out. That is so obvious! It is not inability to learn etc. etc. It's inability to accept, as earth-shaking, data which are noisy and low level, Enthusiasts may disagree but indeed the field is dying and it's not because of malice. There is little reason for malice. LENR being valid is far more fun and interesting than it not.

  • Enthusiasts may disagree but indeed the field is dying and it's not because of malice.


    It was because of malice. Absent the coordinated effort by a cross section of the scientific community to squelch any significant funding of LENR, and to destroy the reputations of any scientist who dared make and pursue an experiment, we might have been where Mizuno is today at least 20 years sooner. You, no doubt, will continue to defend this atrocious behavior, but there will be others who will persistently remind the world what really happened.

  • And where is Mizuno today? Do we know exactly? Enthusiasts forget: it's not about those who are negative or skeptical. It's about those who give money, for whatever reason. And they have to be convinced. And enthusiasts have not been able to do. If Mizuno is appropriately and convincingly replicated, of course that will all change fast - even if the high level results are only present in a small portion of experiments. This is so obvious, if it weren't for folks like IH Fanboy, Sam12,etc. I would feel foolish saying it. IH Fanboy - as if IH's gross mishandling of the Rossi affair was a reason to be a fan!

  • Instead of suggesting what may be wrong about what people are reporting, perhaps more progress would result if people focused on what is right and correct. A great deal of very good work has been done that shows the existence of a new phenomenon of Nature. Rather than focus on this important discovery, people waste their time and skill trying to show why the work is wrong. The people doing this apparently believe the researcher or his colleagues can not identify the proposed error themselves. The skeptic appears to believe only he is able to see what is really happening, and how the researcher has missed an important error. Why does a person waste their time doing this? Is this a pathology? Meanwhile, the skeptic makes no contribution while demanding a response. Personally, I have stopped responding to such critiques because the response never satisfies the skeptic.

  • The field wouldn't die if there were more claims like Mizuno's and they bore out. That is so obvious!


    Yes, it is obvious. If you are hiding a claim like that, please reveal it. Otherwise you are telling us that if we just do the impossible, and bell the cat, all will be well. Do you not realize that we all know that? If we had claims like Mizuno's, we would reveal them.


    This resembles your call for us to attract millions of dollars of investment money. Do you have this money in hand? Do you know someone who does? Hand it over! If you know of some persuasive argument or some demonstration that will shake it loose, tell me what it is. Where have I failed? What more should I say or do? You seem be saying that an 11°C temperature difference with 250 W will instantly persuade some wealthy entrepreneur, whereas the 5°C temperature difference demonstrated a few weeks ago will not. Why not? Where is this entrepreneur who requires and extra 6°C to be convinced? Produce him, and perhaps Mizuno will put the mesh back in R20, rather than send it off for destructive analysis. If you cannot find someone who happens to have that exact tipping point, what are you talking about?


    You remind me of Abd who kept telling me the LENR-CANR.org website and my video is unpersuasive. It is all wrong. Amateur, undirected, bland, inconclusive. It needs to be rewritten. It needs to be a call to arms! I finally talked to him in person at a conference and said, "Look here: Write out your call to arms. Tell me what I should say. Rewrite the section on the video. Rewrite any section you like. BE SPECIFIC, and tell me what you think I should say." He said, okay, sure, I will. I never heard from him again. You are telling me we must have this or that demonstration, we must have 11°C -- 5°C will never do. Okay, who do you have in mind that will be persuaded? What mogul is ready to be convinced by 11°C? Produce him! Write a script. Tell us specifically what we should do. Or, if you cannot, stop pretending you know.



    It is not inability to learn etc. etc. It's inability to accept as earth-shaking data which are noisy and low level,


    Nonsense. McKubre's data is not noisy or low level. The data from many other experiments is not noisy or low level. It is all earth-shaking. It is every bit as earth-shaking and significant as Mizuno's 250 W reaction. You do not see it that way, because you do not understand scientific evidence. You do not realize that the 0.1 W reaction that the Curies measured was every bit as earth-shaking as the first atomic bomb test at Alamogordo. It was more earth-shaking in a way, because it opened the door to a whole new world that mankind never suspected was there. Whereas by 1945, most scientists knew that a chain-reaction fission explosion was possible.


    By 1991, cold fusion experiments proved beyond doubt that the reaction can be controlled in principle, and that it can produce all the energy mankind needs, for longer than the sun will shine. Mizuno's experiment does not prove that any more than the earlier experiments did. It is probably an important step toward actual practical devices. It is progress. But in terms of being earth-shaking, or persuasive, or scientifically significant, it is no better or worse than McKubre's experiments, or Storms'. It does not tell us anything we did not know already. If you believe it more readily, that is only because you do not understand concepts such as signal to noise ratios, or what it means when people in hundreds of different labs replicate an experiment. Your belief system is naive. It is simplistic. It is uniformed by history, or the scientific method.

  • Quote

    The people doing this apparently believe the researcher or his colleagues can not identify the proposed error themselves.

    I hope you are not saying that researchers and colleagues can always identify proposed errors. I have seen too many situations where real, not proposed, errors were not identified for years. And it was not by the experimenters that the errors were exposed. I suppose if you define colleagues broadly enough and skeptics narrowly enough then the idea works. But that makes it into a semantic issue. Quite often researchers and many people in their field are not aware of errors. They are too close to the work to see them. Often, people more distant but still in the field discover the errors but yes, sometimes, it's people completely working with other topics and other disciplines. Why not?


    I would also add that scientists in general are easily duped by con men and frauds. They do not expect dishonesty and they have not paid much attention to how well sleight of hand and other techniques used by magicians and cons can fool them. They are easy prey exactly like Darden and in my opion (though maybe to a lesser extent) McKubre were prey to Rossi along with dozens of others who should have known better.

  • Quote

    Do you not realize that we all know that? If we had claims like Mizuno's, we would reveal them.

    Misquoting and misunderstanding as usual. Apparently no, we don't all know that. People like IH Fanboy, Sam12 and Adrian (remember him?) don't understand. And many others. I didn't say "attract millions of dollars." I said your claims before Mizuno were not generally credible enough to convince people and you challenged that. My response was to focus on convincing entrepreneurs who are not bound by those paranoid problems you attribute to large companies and the government. After Mizuno, all you have to do is prove the claim but when I suggested a short cut or two, for example using heat meters to measure the high power device you said Mizuno was unable to measure, you argued with me about it. OK then, no rush.


    OK, so you don't think existing experiments other than Mizuno's claims are low level or irreproducible or noisy or not convincing for other reasons. Then tell me again why entrepreneurs won't invest (or maybe they do now but didn't for a long time). I guess they don't want to make billions more?


    Quote

    Mizuno's experiment does not prove that any more than the earlier experiments did.

    Possibly not to people in the field. I wouldn't know for sure. But if it's not better proof, it sure as hell is a better demo! If it works, of course, and the jury is still (way) out on that.

  • Quote

    So Rossi ate McKubre..?

    Rossi's lies seduced a lot of people for much too long. His flagrant fraud was glaringly obvious, in late 2011, even without considering his extensive criminal background and then still recent defrauding of DOD on thermoelectric converters. Even harder to believe, some folks still think he "has something." What? Condos. That's all. From his ill-begotten gains.

  • But if it's not better proof, it sure as hell is a better demo!

    A better demo than McKubre? No. No way. All you see in either case is a bunch of numbers on the screen. You have to understand calorimetry either way. McKubre's experiment was far more convincing, with a better s/n ratio.


    This one is better in the sense that it seems to be closer to a practical device. That's important, of course. But it is not better in the sense of being more persuasive. It is not better proof that the phenomenon is real. Not to anyone with a technical approach, and knowledge of calorimetry. People who lack those things could not make head or tail or either experiment.

  • After Mizuno, all you have to do is prove the claim but when I suggested a short cut or two, for example using heat meters to measure the high power device you said Mizuno was unable to measure, you argued with me about it.

    That would be far less convincing than calorimetry. That's what investors have told us. It isn't like we have no idea what these people are looking for.

  • A heat flux meter/heat meter is less convincing than calorimetry when you have a spectacular example of power and power ratio on which you say you are unable to perform calorimetry? Less convincing than a single photo of a fireplace? Well, OK if you say so.


    Just out of curiosity, what is not convincing about heat meters? They are as consistent and reliable as high quality thermocouples because that is what the sensor is fabricated from. They are as good as Seebeck calorimeters because walls of Seebeck calorimeters are actually heat meters, usually connected in series. And calibration with Joule heat is easy.


    What is not convincing about that? Did your prospective investors tell you?