As noticed by gerold.s
This e-cat world article
https://e-catworld.com/2019/10…producing-fusion-at-will/
cites this podcast interviewing Prof. Yet Ming Chiang of the MIT Department of Materials Science and Engineering about the work of the Google-sponsored research team.
As noticed by gerold.s
This e-cat world article
https://e-catworld.com/2019/10…producing-fusion-at-will/
cites this podcast interviewing Prof. Yet Ming Chiang of the MIT Department of Materials Science and Engineering about the work of the Google-sponsored research team.
"We've had almost no negative reaction".
Encouraging. Seems like the somewhat oblique way that they're approaching the area is doing wonders for the palatability of the program.
Seems like the somewhat oblique way that they're approaching the area is doing wonders for the palatability of the program.
The successful PR campaign was well planned, and not happenstance. Google wisely sought the advice of those with expertise in marketing beforehand. Good lesson IMO, for LENR to take notice of.
As noticed by gerold.s
This e-cat world article
https://e-catworld.com/2019/10…producing-fusion-at-will/
cites this podcast interviewing Prof. Yet Ming Chiang of the MIT Department of Materials Science and Engineering about the work of the Google-sponsored research team.
I'm confused why this is not making huge waves in here?
Isn't this fantastic?
I'm confused why this is not making huge waves in here?
Isn't this fantastic?
Probably because we already knew it and as good as it sounds it still being played out so cautiously that is still annoying.
Deeply annoying, and repeating many of the same old falsehoods.
"We've had almost no negative reaction".
Of course there was no negative reaction. They toed the line. They said just what the establishment demands they say:
Cold fusion does not exist. It has never been replicated. They found no evidence for it.
If they had said it has been widely replicated, or if they had reported they replicated it, Nature would never have published their paper; their funding would have been cut off; and if they did not have tenure they would soon be thrown out of the university.
Agreed, but I think TG should abandon the replication attempts of classical cold fusion experiments and do some useful work in support of Holmlid's or Mills' ultra dense hydrogen or hydrino theories. This is where real advances/progress can be made by replicating both laser triggering meson release and low voltage discharge expts - its all patented so other groups should now replicate their work and bring it into the accepted body of scientific work. 
Agreed, but I think TG should abandon the replication attempts of classical cold fusion experiments and do some useful work in support of Holmlid's or Mills' ultra dense hydrogen or hydrino theories.
As far as I can tell, they did not follow the directions for the classical cold fusion experiments. (I may be wrong, but that is my impression.) If you don't follow directions, nothing will work. It makes no difference what experiment you do.
QuoteTG should abandon the replication attempts of classical cold fusion experiments
They didn't actually replicated them and I guess, they did it intentionally. Classical cold fusion experiments did use bulky palladium and much higher/prolonged (weeks standing) saturation of hydrogen. My impression from Fleischmann&Pons experiments is, they soaked palladium with deuterium up to level, when its surface layers swelled which introduced mechanical stress of metal between surface and deeper layers. The resulting dislocations catalyzed cold fusion by mechanism, which was proposed by Ed Storms and me. The experience of ENEA lab with mechanical treatment of its palladium samples also speaks for this explanation.
Which means, the thin sputtered layers of palladium wouldn't work, because they're not able to evolve internal stress enough (the palladium on nickel may be an exception, because these two metals adhere each other strongly by forming intermetallic compound, the formation of which is capable to introduce internal stress of crystal lattice by itself (Patterson cells).). Replication is just a replication - you're not supposed to be creative during it. Stalin and Beria knew well, why they ordered their nuclear scientists to make exact replica of USA nuclear bomb first before further experimentation with its design. Unfortunately contemporary science lacks their charismatic management, which would convince physicists in doing research effectively today.
QuoteThey said just what the establishment demands they say:
WTF establishment is that? Maybe George Soros and the Illuminati?
WTF establishment is that? Maybe George Soros and the Illuminati?
Nature magazine, Scientific American, the APS, the DoE, the New York Times, the plasma fusion lobby, and various other institutions that destroyed the reputations and careers of cold fusion researchers in the 1990s. As Robert Park and the people from the DoE put it, "we are going to root out and fire anyone who so much as talks about cold fusion." They did. They weren't kidding or exaggerating. They will do it again if they get half a chance.
If you do not know that, or you don't believe it, you are ignorant of history and extremely naive. That is how the world works. Anyone who challenges something like the multi-billion dollar plasma fusion budget will be eviscerated. They will accuse you of being "a fraud, a lunatic and criminal" as the Washington Post put it. What else do you think happens? Were you born yesterday?
Nature magazine, Scientific American, the APS, the DoE, the New York Times, the plasma fusion lobby, and various other institutions that destroyed the reputations and careers of cold fusion researchers in the 1990s. As Robert Park and the people from the DoE put it, "we are going to root out and fire anyone who so much as talks about cold fusion." They did. They weren't kidding or exaggerating. They will do it again if they get half a chance.
If you do not know that, or you don't believe it, you are ignorant of history and extremely naive. That is how the world works. Anyone who challenges something like the multi-billion dollar plasma fusion budget will be eviscerated. They will accuse you of being "a fraud, a lunatic and criminal" as the Washington Post put it. What else do you think happens? Were you born yesterday?
I think it's safe to say that the veil is thinning. Hopefully perception of any apparent power source expands, flows and grows as mental walls are dissolved.
QuoteI think it's safe to say that the veil is thinning.
This is not about mental walls but about financial interests. For example Ernest Monitz attacked cold fusion research at MIT and now he is director of hot fusion TriAlpha company. The fossil lobby weakened but cold fusion got new enemies emerged inbetween in form of nuclear, "renewables" and hot fusion lobby. As the result we are nearly as distant from cold fusion commercialization as we were before thirty years.
Nature magazine, Scientific American, the APS, the DoE, the New York Times, the plasma fusion lobby, and various other institutions that destroyed the reputations and careers of cold fusion researchers in the 1990s. As Robert Park and the people from the DoE put it, "we are going to root out and fire anyone who so much as talks about cold fusion." They did. They weren't kidding or exaggerating. They will do it again if they get half a chance.
If you do not know that, or you don't believe it, you are ignorant of history and extremely naive. That is how the world works. Anyone who challenges something like the multi-billion dollar plasma fusion budget will be eviscerated. They will accuse you of being "a fraud, a lunatic and criminal" as the Washington Post put it. What else do you think happens? Were you born yesterday?
Given the above, I find it hard to fault Google for being careful, and for more or less operating from within the mainstream scientific consensus. If they were to boldly make assertions, decry other parties, or state heterodox beliefs, they would not only get nowhere, they would also destroy their chance of getting anywhere. I don't think they want to assert anything that they can't prove with fresh experimental data.
They have carefully revealed their intent, and titrated their program into the scientific community. They have stated their aim of finding a reference experiment that can be the focus of a large, multi laboratory study. They have hinted at one of their primary goals being to open up funding for the field. They have published preliminary work including an open sourced calorimeter, a study of Pd loading, and what I understand (?) to be a promising, ongoing attempt to replicate Claytor. Trevithick attends ICCF and has given LF the chance to provide their input. Some hearts and minds at Nature seem to be shifting.
Sometimes the hands do one thing whilst the mouth says something different.
What some are reading as ignorance and incompetence, I read as a mixture of genuine reservation and, at times, careful, deliberate dissimulation.
The Google Team seems to have thoroughly internalised the fact that they must be absolutely unimpeachable.
Perhaps I'm naive, but that's how I read it.
This is not about mental walls but about financial interests. For example Ernest Monitz attacked cold fusion research at MIT and now he is director of hot fusion TriAlpha company. The fossil lobby weakened but cold fusion got new enemies emerged inbetween in form of nuclear, "renewables" and hot fusion lobby. As the result we are nearly as distant from cold fusion commercialization as we were before thirty years.
Any decision comes down to mental walls. Financial interest has many internal and external variables that influence investors. World views, open mindedness, accounting for the amount of risk aversion and affinity are forms of walls.
Both Holmlid and Mills' recent work is fully documented as to procedure so could be easily replicated by some third party such as NASA or Team Google - regardless of all other LENR work. A positive confirmation of these experiments would be the most earth-shaking discovery of this century and for the first time give a purely rational explanation for all cold fusion experiments, and further, demonstrate the shortcomings of the Standard Model. But this is just my opinion.
Given the above, I find it hard to fault Google for being careful, and for more or less operating from within the mainstream scientific consensus.
They are not being careful. The assertions made in this interview, that cold fusion was never replicated and so on, are not careful. They are lies. If the people who said this believe that to be true, they have never read the literature, they know nothing about cold fusion, and there is no chance they will replicate it. If they have read the literature, they are lying through their teeth. I wouldn't call that "careful." Anyone can repeat a lie.
Since they referenced LENR-CANR.org in the Nature paper, I suppose they have read the literature, but I cannot tell from the paper or their comments.
I wouldn't call that a "scientific consensus" either, unless you think that Wikipedia has as much credibility as a mainstream, peer-reviewed scientific journal. That is what we are comparing. On one side there are hundreds of peer-reviewed papers signed by professional scientists showing that cold fusion is real. On the other side the only "evidence" that it is not real are articles in places like Wikipedia. These articles are full of absurd mistakes and lies, and they are written by anonymous trolls who name themselves after comic book characters.
Just because editors in Nature and Scientific American parrot the nonsense in Wikipedia, that does not make it true. The laws of thermodynamics still work, so cold fusion is still real.
Display MoreThey are not being careful. The assertions made in this interview, that cold fusion was never replicated and so on, are not careful. They are lies. If the people who said this believe that to be true, they have never read the literature, they know nothing about cold fusion, and there is no chance they will replicate it. If they have read the literature, they are lying through their teeth. I wouldn't call that "careful." Anyone can repeat a lie.
Since they referenced LENR-CANR.org in the Nature paper, I suppose they have read the literature, but I cannot tell from the paper or their comments.
I wouldn't call that a "scientific consensus" either, unless you think that Wikipedia has as much credibility as a mainstream, peer-reviewed scientific journal. That is what we are comparing. On one side there are hundreds of peer-reviewed papers signed by professional scientists showing that cold fusion is real. On the other side the only "evidence" that it is not real are articles in places like Wikipedia. These articles are full of absurd mistakes and lies, and they are written by anonymous trolls who name themselves after comic book characters.
Just because editors in Nature and Scientific American parrot the nonsense in Wikipedia, that does not make it true. The laws of thermodynamics still work, so cold fusion is still real.
The MRS Bulletin interview? I listened to the interview again and, assuming I didn't miss anything, nowhere in that interview does Yet-Ming Chiang say that LENR is not real. Nor does he say it was never replicated. The interviewer says, in the introduction, that it was not replicated, and that most people regard it as not real. I think it's unlikely that Yet-Ming Chiang had anything to do with that.
Yet-Ming Chiang does say '[...] a number of people have attempted to replicate that experiment [F&P] since, and to our knowledge, there is not an example where when all of the potential errors are accounted for, corrections are made, that there's a clear verification of an anomalous result.' This was said in the context of a discussion about the difficulties of bulk Pd/D calorimetry.
Perhaps it's six of one and half a dozen of the other, but I don't read that as a definitive statement that LENR was never replicated. He's speaking only about bulk Pd/D. And a lot hinges on the word 'clear'.
I meant the word 'careful' as in, careful about how they are perceived by the scientific world at large. Careful about not provoking the kind of response you detailed above. I meant the word only in that sense.
When I said "mainstream scientific consensus", I didn't mean to suggest there was anything particularly scientific about it. We are in agreement about the weight of evidence in favour of LENR, but whether we like it or not, the "consensus" is that LENR is not real, and that this work is not credible. The point I was trying to make is that Google appear to be approaching things very strategically, and to the extent that they are careful not to assert things that are at odds with this consensus without thorough work of their own behind those assertions, I think that's sensible.
