When is settled settled?

    Quote from RobertBryant

    Is Hagelstein's work fringe science or not fringe science?


    in #38 above I answer this very precisely.


    RB: my suggestion when you don't understand one of my posts is to indicate that and I will always clarify. However asking disingenuous "When did you stop beating your wife" questions is not actually helpful. Is it a rhetorical device, or does it indicate genuine confusion?


    Also, may I suggest that you do not, even as a rhetorical device, confuse casual readers as in #39. There you juxtapose two sentences quoted from me starting with "It" and contradicting each other.


    But, as I explained in #38 - and would be obvious to your audience if you had not omitted most of the post in your summary - the two "its" represent different areas in which Hagelstein has published.


    The one relevant here, where he has been working on LENR theory, and one where he is investigating in detail some interesting details about the ME.


    I am certainly grateful to you for reading what I write and allowing me to make corrections when (as I state above in #38) I mistake you here referencing Hagelstein's fascinating LENR theory work from his equally fascinating ME effect work. The two are very different. Perhaps you could be a little more patient with me, in order not to confuse your readers, and actually read my replies in full before commenting on them?

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    the two "its" represent different areas in which Hagelstein has published.


    The one relevant here, where he has been working on LENR theory, and one where he is investigating in detail some interesting details about the ME.


    THH's division of Hagelstein's work into

    a fringe-LENR part and a non-fringe ME

    is entirely rhetorical.


    It is all LENR. This is why his work is presented at LENR conferences

    External Content youtu.be
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

    From Siyuan Lu and Peter Hagelstein's 2018 Paper


    "

    Theory suggests that for phonon–nuclear coupling to be strong enough to show observable effects, the frequency of a vibrational mode ought to be as high as possible.

    However, suitable commercial sources for THz vibration excitation have not been available to us at the time of the reported experiments.

    Collimated X-ray emission in the Karabut experiment and in the Kornilova experiment suggest that observable effects may also occur at lower frequency

    vibrations. Cardone and coworkers have reported a variety of anomalies in experiments in which a steel bar is subject to vibrations at 20 kHz; including neutron emission [24–29] alpha emission [25,26,30–32], and elemental and isotopic

    anomalies [33–35] (see the reviews [36,37]).

    We interpret the observations of Cardone and coworkers as possibly resulting from up-conversion mechanisms at play. All of this suggested the possibility of observing effects from upconversion

    in experiments with vibrations well below the THz regime. Over recent years, we have been working toward experiments to experimentally investigate phonon–nuclear coupling

    and expected mechanisms and effects resulting from it.

    Quote from RobertBryant

    It is all LENR. This is why his work is presented at LENR conferences

    • Official Post

    Personally I think that calling Hagelstein’s work “fringe science” is quite offensive and gratuitously biased.


    It is science, you might not like it because it bruises sacrosanct ideas, but is science nevertheless as it follows the scientific method. I have been recently gathering and reading many of the papers and books of Cardone, because precisely he has been working in vibration/ cavitation anomalies. It’s observational and experimental data that consistently reports things that are unexpected but nevertheless are objectively measured.


    That is a pretty strong statement.


    Perhaps we could discuss in what ways the ME stuff is LENR?


    If you choose to define LENR as including all work on effects that change nuclear reaction rates (which you could) then I will be happy to agree there is a subset of LENR work definitely not fringe science. I'm not sure I would do that because it makes the "low energy" bit pretty meaningless. But if you instead talked about CMNS that would of course cover this stuff, although not all LENR work.

    Quote from Curbina

    Personally I think that calling Hagelstein’s work “fringe science” is quite offensive and gratuitously biased.


    It is science, you might not like it because it bruises sacrosanct ideas, but is science nevertheless as it follows the scientific method. I have been recently gathering and reading many of the papers and books of Cardone, because precisely he has been working in vibration/ cavitation anomalies. It’s observational and experimental data that consistently reports things that are unexpected but nevertheless are objectively measured.


    Curbina, I did not do that.


    I called some highly speculative work on LENR theory that Hagelstein has done fringe science.


    I don't see that "fringe science" is offensive here. It applies to speculative work that is far from mainstream and where the intent (in this case to find a way within standard physics to fraction nuclear level energy from a reaction into thousands of separate particles each carrying much ,lower energy) is motivated by an idea (in this case LENR) that is not mainstream accepted. Had he had more success it would be amazing and no longer fringe: I applaud it anyway, as I've said above.


    Experiments showing experimental anomalies are not per se fringe science - unless their merit depends on some fringe science hypotheses. Thus unusual heat excess is an anomaly to be understood, and stands independently of whether you think LENR is real. If experimental evidence is strong and unexpected it represents an interesting question for scientists to investigate without the baggage of any specific fringe theory.


    THH

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    I don't see that "fringe science" is offensive here


    I see it as offensive and many others here do


    The fact that THHnew attempts to divide Hagelstein's work into fringe science and nonfringe science

    when it is the same scientist with the same scientific training and employing the same rigor


    shows how specious and rhetorical his use of the term FRINGE science is.

    External Content www.youtube.com
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.


    On the other hand classifying THHnew as one of

    the anonymous fringe is justified.

    LOL. Well, I am not one to spend much time arguing words: but I will let everyone here see whether "fringe science" as defined by Wikipedia corresponds to Alan's description "badly conducted science" or mine "scientific theories not accepted by mainstream, which nevertheless might at some future time become so".


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fringe_science


    The term "fringe science" denotes unorthodox scientific theories and models. Persons who create fringe science may have employed the scientific method in their work, but their results are not accepted by the mainstream scientific community. Fringe science may be advocated by a scientist who has some recognition within the larger scientific community, but this is not always the case. Usually the evidence provided by fringe science is accepted only by a minority and is rejected by most experts.[citation needed]

    The boundary between fringe science and pseudoscience is disputed. The connotation of "fringe science" is that the enterprise is rational but is unlikely to produce good results for a variety of reasons, including incomplete or contradictory evidence. Pseudoscience, however, is something that is not scientific but is incorrectly characterised as science.

    The term may be considered pejorative. For example, Lyell D. Henry Jr. wrote that, "fringe science [is] a term also suggesting kookiness." This characterization is perhaps inspired by the eccentric behavior of many researchers of the kind known colloquially (and with considerable historical precedent) as mad scientists.

    Although most fringe science is rejected, the scientific community has come to accept some portions of it. One example of such is plate tectonics, an idea which had its origin in the fringe science of continental drift and was rejected for decades.

    The confusion between science and pseudoscience, between honest scientific error and genuine scientific discovery, is not new, and it is a permanent feature of the scientific landscape .... Acceptance of new science can come slowly.


    Compare the wikipedia's definition with curbina's #45 statement about something he likes:


    It is science, you might not like it because it bruises sacrosanct ideas, but is science nevertheless as it follows the scientific method. I have been recently gathering and reading many of the papers and books of Cardone, because precisely he has been working in vibration/ cavitation anomalies. It’s observational and experimental data that consistently reports things that are unexpected but nevertheless are objectively measured.


    I'd just add that things that are unexpected are always interesting, but often have many interpretations. Seeing them as indicating new physics can indicate a lack of imagination. ;)

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    . Well, I am not one to spend much time arguing words

    That's a surprise to me.


    Quote from THHuxleynew

    The boundary between fringe science and pseudoscience


    In the end the term fringe science is a vague and imprecise term ,which is a characteristic

    of political and rhetorical debate rather than scientific discourse.


    So if THHnew wants to persist with the term fringe science he is being rhetorical rather than scientific.

    and this thread can be very prolonged... and may even involve unicornology


    What can be argued scientifically and quickly are erroneous statements such as this about fluid flow in pipes made by THHnew


    " Turbulent flow does not have a flat velocity flow across the middle 3/5"





    Consider this though: errors in statements made in some thread here can easily be corrected: and are by me in the relevant context. Whereas poor behavior seems to stick and be recycled forever!

    Randel Mills GUTCP takes another view on this. I find that work creative and thoughtful and might get to the finish line in the end.

    And this has not stopped our Wyttenbach from spinning it to the point that he at least calculates properties of the nucleus that is

    confirmed later from experiment. Of cause if you want to pass exams this is all heretic. But then again being here is a bit weird

    of us all, If you ask your typical professor. Anyway if Mizuno or Mills or X get to prove their stuff, the world will be all weird and

    then likely we need to rewrite the theory we learn. Maybe QM need to go, Maybe a classical view will work, you just need to be

    open minded in such an environment or you will loose $.

    Quote from Walter Pegeto

    The best explanation for the existence of spin seems to be that it is an intrinsic property of the Dirac equation."


    The Dirac equation can only be used to describe the kinetic aspects of mass. It obviously fails to describe dense mass. Otherwise teachers could show their students all the fantastic relations between proton radius/mass/moment and the migration of mass in fusion processes. By the way NPP2.0 can do this, Mills model cannot do it, but is still much simpler than the screwed up math behind the Dirac model.


    Thus we can firmly say: Teacher are cheating the students since 50 years by claiming they know a solution. They are liars if they are teaching the existence of a strong force as it has never been measured.

    Wyttenbach

    "Thus we can firmly say: Teacher are cheating the students since 50 years by claiming they know a solution. They are liars if they are teaching the existence of a strong force as it has never been measured."

    Translating

    Wyttenbach is right,

    Mills almost right

    99.99% of physicists (worldwide!) have been wrong for more than 50 years!

    Rossi ?


    At least you should admit that's an utterly hard to swallow scenario

    Yes it is indeed hard to swallow. But models are models and they can work in some part ans not in some other part. Typically QM is used for smashing particles and you have good matches. The problem

    is that it is a tuned model and predictions of new stuff is not exact. For example the prediction of the Higgs particles allowed quite a lot of leeway of where it is found. And then they tuned their model. It's

    more like we have a catalog of the particle physics than a good theory. Atom physics follows QM quite well for H but it unclear if it covers all atom physics because it is so hard to get exact results with QM. Also

    the world can be so mean that two models overlap sometimes and not sometimes. Anyway if we experimental results contradicts theory we must change the theory and refusing to do that means that

    you work in the black with trial and error and your company will be outrun by some that employs a theory to guide the research.

    Quote from Walter Pegeto

    At least you should admit that's an utterly hard to swallow scenario


    Yes! It is very hard for me to watch how much brain power is wasted with a wrong approach that is justified only by the herd running in the same direction.


    As long as a logic class and category theory are no longer part of a physicists education they will never understand why they are wrong.


    But for anybody with real physics background it is obvious that SM is almost a complete failure for describing dense mass and particle structure. I guess you miss some education or like some propaganda as you mention AR...

    Phillip Anderson (Nobel laureate physics!) opinion on Mills


    "That's why I'm so sure that it's a fraud."


    "Oh, and in case you were wondering whether he has a suppressed cure for cancer that was published in Nature, as well the suppressed Grand Unified Theory, you're in luck!"


    The RationalWiki page classifies Mills in these categories:


    Categories: Bronze-level articles, Pseudoscience, Living people, Pseudophysics, Alternative medicine, Conspiracy theories, Cancer woo. Quantum woo, Free energy

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.