Off-topic posts moved from ICFC-22 threads

  • No Drgenek, this is not a private definition. This is how the effect is described by people who have actually studied the effect. This describes what is observed. In order to find the science, as you say, what is observed needs to be acknowledged. It does no good to simply imagine what is happening. The imagination is useful only when it is applied to what is known. Otherwise, you would be building on sand without any relationship to reality.


    You are doing a good job of an implied personal attack. I get that you have a large political following. I am not building on imagination but reproducible observations well out of the error range. The thing is, that results are more powerful in the long run than an exclusive opinion. Your theory is basic correct. I just disagree that that solid state is best approach and thus that the results are not reproducible is the gaseous state.

  • You are doing a good job of an implied personal attack. I get that you have a large political following. I am not building on imagination but reproducible observations well out of the error range. The thing is, that results are more powerful in the long run than an exclusive opinion. Your theory is basic correct. I just disagree that that solid state is best approach and thus that the results are not reproducible is the gaseous state.

    I mean no personal attack any more than you did by your comment. I'm simply pointing out that the characteristics of LENR are based on thousands of results. These results need to be acknowledged. If you are working in the gaseous state and detecting nuclear reactions, I suggest you either look for the source in the walls of the solid container or consider a different mechanism than that identified as LENR.

    • Restricting LENR to condensed matter or requiring neutron/ and or other high energy nuclear products is a private definition. I do not agree. It seems like protecting you interests over finding the science.
    • I'm surprised at you saying this to Ed Storms since the patent you have applied for relies heavily on neutron production.


    It relies on weak states that superposition over the hydrogen atom which create a way to transfer energy rather that particles to cause nuclear reactions. So my pending patent is not within Ed Storms definition because it doesn't create "conventional types of nuclear products." I guess that Ed Storms objects to IAM, immobilized anti-matter. There is plenty of nuclear reaction as shown by mass balance and stoichiometry but I can't account for an energy (that would have be 1/10 of the amount of the bomb that dropped on Hiroshima). I have shown some of that energy is preserved as a fuel which I call IAM. So, I have created a new mystery, hence more confusion.

  • Skeptics have not discovered any errors in any major cold fusion study.


    Not true! Sorry.


    LENR-Forum readers know, or can easily learn, that the "1992 boil-off experiment" - that is the F&P's major, best documented and most famous CF study - contains many huge errors, which completely invalidate their conclusions, as has been widely explained and documented, in recent months, in the following threads:


    - "FP's experiments discussion", starting from comment FP's experiments discussion


    - "F&P's experiments – 30 years after CF announcement", F&P's experiments – 30 years after CF announcement

  • Yesterday they told me they did talk to Storms, but they decided not to act on his advice, for the most part.


    They also confirmed my impression that in their Pd-D experiments, they probably did not achieve high enough loading to produce cold fusion, according to McKubre's graph. (https://www.lenr-canr.org/word…loads/McKubre-graph-1.jpg) In one case, they may have come close. However, as you see in the graph, at borderline loading ratios below 0.96 you may get heat or you may not. Bear in mind that various method of measuring loading will produce varying ratios.

    I'm glad the people you talked to have the same understanding as I have about my advice being followed. My advice is based on my interpretation of the reported behavior. This interpretation differs from that of certain influential people in the field. As is always the case, the path taken is based on which map a person thinks is the most accurate.


    My map is based on the following conclusion. The need to achieve a high D/Pd ratio is a diagnostic of a condition present in the material that must be present for LENR to occur. The high D/Pd ratio, itself, has no effect on the process. I propose a high D/Pd ratio can not be achieved unless a special condition is present in the material. This special condition also affects the amount of excess volume that forms when the material reacts with D, with the least production of excess volume allowing a greater D/Pd ratio and an increased production of LENR. This concept is important because it shifts the focus from what the experimenter is doing to what was done to the Pd before the experimenter started the loading process. In other words, the production of LENR requires Pd to have a particular characteristic that is revealed by its ability to achieve a high D/Pd ratio and a small production of excess volume.


    In contrast, the common belief is that the high D/Pd ratio, itself, creates the condition needed to cause LENR. These two different conclusions suggest different paths to follow to achieve success. Google is following the conventional path and Gates is following my path. The future will reveal which path was more correct.


  • This is fascinating, and it is good that there will be replication. However, these unexplained temperature anomalies speak to the possibility of artifacts on the calorimetry. They could, as is suggested here, be due to extraordinary and variable heat generation in the reactor. Or, they could be some other experimental artifact which also generates the steady-state response. For example, RTD heating either via conduction from something else hot, or via air not fully mixed, or some RTD electrical issue. The behaviour is not coherent with previous results, which means that cannot be discounted.


    • If the temperature anomalies are much smaller than the steady-state response, this does not matter. The steady-state response can be replicated, and if it remains real LENR is proven, because this is a relatively large output for a long time.
    • The neutrons here are comparable to background hence no evidence for or against LENR (since LENR is not characterised by neutron emmission)
  • "Skeptics have not discovered any errors in any major cold fusion study."


    Not true! Sorry.


    LENR-Forum readers know, or can easily learn, that the "1992 boil-off experiment" - that is

    Surely you realize I disagree. I know that you think you discovered errors, just as Morrison, THH and others think they did, but I disagree. There is no need for you to reiterate your claims in detail as if we were unaware of them. You need only say, "I disagree."

  • JedRothwell

    Quote

    "Scientists" are as good at that as anyone else. Some of them are lot better, since they know the laws of physics. You cannot generalize about them. I have known a few scientists who were good amateur magicians, and more than a few who were good at poker -- which involves lying.

    When reviewing science, the average scientist is easy to fool, often even in their own field, if someone takes the deliberate steps to deceive them. They don't expect deception and almost always have no reason to expect it. Of course there are exceptions to the generalization and there are scientists good at detecting fraud and errors but you don't seem to like them very much. Scientists who have studied magic are much harder to fool. Those who particularly look for deception also. But they are rare.


    While Rossi may have been convincing the first few months he made claims for his original rusty junk, it rapidly became clear to anyone skeptical that he was a third rate con man who was practicing deception. Clear to anyone other than many principals in LENR, the ones I and others often refer to as "the usual suspects" after the famous line by the Humphrey Bogart character in the classic movie Casablanca. Rossi was only able to fool as many as he did and amass millions of unearned dollars because scientists who examined his work were desirous and gullible. Rossi's single solitary skill was in detecting gullible people and making sure that for the most part, they were the only ones working close to him. He was amazingly good at that!

  • JedRothwell

    When reviewing science, the average scientist is easy to fool, often even in their own field, if someone takes the deliberate steps to deceive them. They don't expect deception and almost always have no reason to expect it. Of course there are exceptions to the generalization and there are scientists good at detecting fraud and errors but you don't seem to like them very much. Scientists who have studied magic are much harder to fool. Those who particularly look for deception also. But they are rare.


    While Rossi may have been convincing the first few months he made claims for his original rusty junk, it rapidly became clear to anyone skeptical that he was a third rate con man who was practicing deception. Clear to anyone other than many principals in LENR, the ones I and others often refer to as "the usual suspects" after the famous line by the Humphrey Bogart character in the classic movie Casablanca. Rossi was only able to fool as many as he did and amass millions of unearned dollars because scientists who examined his work were desirous and gullible. Rossi's single solitary skill was in detecting gullible people and making sure that for the most part, they were the only ones working close to him. He was amazingly good at that!


    Let's discuss skepticism. You seem to have knowledge about the average scientist I do not have. I have worked with scientists for over 65 years without detecting the gullibility you seem to see. If find scientists to be even more skeptical than the average person because, as Jed noted, they know what is real and possible based on a greater scientific education than the average person.


    On the other hand, I find people who call themselves skeptics are prone to being ignorant about the subject they are criticizing. This characteristic was made even more obvious when LENR was evaluated by such people. I have no problem with applied skepticism, in fact I welcome it. Instead, I object to ignorance and the ego being the motivator. Skeptics reveal their real motivation when they insist only they can see the error and only they can suggest the solution. At the same time, any critical evaluation of their idea is met with arrogant dismal. Of course, not all people who apply skepticism behave this way. The problem seems to be characteristic of those people who take pride in being called a skeptic, as if this were a special calling only they have the skill to follow.


    As for Rossi, you keep ignoring a very important fact. Rossi did a bait and switch. The bait appeared to show excess energy. He later described a material and method that did not produce excess energy. Meanwhile, he attempted to scale up the first method and failed. He lied to cover the failure. You seem to be so traumatized by the lies, you are unable to see what was real. Of course, more evidence would be needed before a person should invest money in his claim. Unfortunately, the effort to replicate was applied to the wrong material using the wrong method. We still do not know for sure what material Rossi actually used to produce the claimed energy. As long as you and other people keep throwing the baby out with the bath water, we will never know.


    The skeptics that evaluated F-P took the same emotional approach. Because the effect did not emit neutrons, F-P must be lying or were deceived, especially after their mistake in interpreting the gamma spectrum. The skeptics could not see the part that was real. Now we know F-P were right and the skeptics were wrong. I wonder when the skeptics will admit to and suffer the shame they attempted to inflicted on F-P?

  • When reviewing science, the average scientist is easy to fool, often even in their own field, if someone takes the deliberate steps to deceive them.

    How do you know this? Have you read a study somewhere comparing the gullibility of scientists to bankers, real-estate agents, engineers, programmers, sanitation workers, restaurant managers and so on? It seems to me that people in all walks of life are scammed, in all kinds of ways. The business section of the newspapers are full of stories of people getting scammed in myriad ways. You might think that bankers and engineers are hard-headed, but bank scams are common, and engineering scandals (such as unsafe buildings) are common in Japan where standards are lax and enforcement often lacking.


    You are making a generalization, probably with no data. It may be your impression that scientists are thus and such. It may be part of popular culture. I have a lot of experience dealing with scientists. Much of the popular culture ideas about them are wrong. Such as the idea that they are open to new ideas. Or they are apolitical, idealistic or objective. In my experience, academic scientists tend to be cutthroat political animals who will lie, steal ideas, cheat and back-stab as much as any group and more than, say, programmers or office workers. (Programmers and office workers are not inherently good, but they can seldom score an advantage with dirty politics.)

  • Storms

    Quote

    Let's discuss skepticism. You seem to have knowledge about the average scientist I do not have.


    I mean this with respect and admiration for your decades of excellent work. Unfortunately, your discussion of Rossi illustrates my point about accomplished, even renown scientists failing to discriminate between real science and complete bullpucky!


    I'm afraid that this is drifting off topic for this thread. I don't want add to existing clutter. I will be happy to take this discussion with you to the Rossi Blog thread or perhaps to the Playground thread if you'd like me to illustrate my take on early Rossihistory, and Rossifiction. I've not read enough to satisfy JedRothwell apparently, but I have followed Rossi for coming up on 9 years, in meticulous detail. This was in part because early on, I thought like you do about him. I was curious how he briefly fooled me and it was not difficult to find out.


    I did decrease my attention when he switched to the ridiculous hot cats with their faulty and unnecessary three phase input and obvious lack of forced cooling or proper calorimetry. Be that as it may, please indicate if you wish me to illustrate my issues with Rossi, early on, in fact from the very start, in the Rossi Blog thread. Otherwise, we can drop the old scoundrel and leave him to his current passions-- Florida condominium development and his ill-named (Journal of Nuclear Physics- really?) , entirely censored, pompous and asinine blog.


  • seven_of_twenty , I think in that statement you are being insulting to Mr. Storms, by mistaking his genuine scientific curiosity with gullibility and lack of capacity of distinguishing a potential con. The work of the Now resident in Florida Italian was, and still is, worthy of interest from the scientific point of view, as it was based in the previous published work of Piantelli and Focardi. I don't recommend anyone to invest in the e-cat but I sure think it is an interesting scientific subject and the attempts of replication of the basic effect with nickel powder by Parkhomov and the MFMP, even if did not confirm the Italian's estrambotic COP claims, indeed produced interesting anomalous results, enough to keep research on that line alive, which Parkhomov has, and was published and also presented at the ICCF22. You have to separate the scientific interest in a topic from taking that as a sign of support of the current activities of the person who originates the initial interest.

    I certainly Hope to see LENR helping humans to blossom, and I'm here to help it happen.

  • I recall that Theranos had Kissinger, Shultz and Mattis on their board. They had a who's who of prominent investors.


    It was the scientists who understood that it couldn't work and that Holmes was lying.


    Because they understood the science.

  • Quote

    It was the scientists who understood that it couldn't work and that Holmes was lying.

    Not really. Schultz's nephew, Tyler Schultz, blew the whistle on Theranos and accumulated, at substantial risk, the documentation that did in the company. At the time, he was a Junior undergraduate mechanical engineering student at Stanford- hardly a renown scientist. And his chosen field of interest had nothing to do with blood analysis instrumentation. Theranos was another classic example of how easy it is to fool scientists and investors with extravagant claims that somehow never get properly tested.


    Read this if you want to know more about Theranos: https://www.wsj.com/articles/t…and-his-family-1479335963 or look up the excellent documentary on ABC's Nightline or many other places.

    Also: https://abcnews.go.com/Busines…started/story?id=61030212


    Oh... and as per the article, to this day, Tyler is persona non grata at the senior Schultz's home and was not invited to Schultz's recent 95th. birthday party but Elizabeth Holmes was.


  • You are correct to note that at the time, Shultz's grandson was not a scientist.


    I mentioned scientists.


    Ergo, I was not talking about Shultz's grandson.


    I was mostly thinking of Professor Phyllis Gardner.


    See: https://www.mercurynews.com/20…is-star-in-theranos-saga/

  • orsova

    Back to the original issue. I did not claim that all scientists are gullible. So pointing to someone who helped defrock Theranos who is a scientist is irrelevant.


    In the example I cited, many scientists if not most doubted that Rossi's claim were correct, even in part. The problem was that with a little effort, Rossi was able to bamboozle dozens of LENR specialists and others such as the Swedish scientists who tested the hot cats with him. And yet, Rossi had virtually every classical hallmark of a high tech scam. Holmes was similarly able to convince dozens of people including scientists and investors who should have asked more questions and done more tests.