The Burden of Proof.

    Quote from interested observer

    The inclusion of the words “I think” in your post earns a great deal more respect than your typical comment. Kudos.



    Quote from interested observer

    You have some serious anger issues. You should work on them in between epiphanies on the nature of the universe.

    Yes, I have anger against pseudo-skeptics who spend countless hours on forums about topics they don't even believe exist.


    However, please note, that I didn't say anything until you responded to me. I'd rather you never respond to any of my posts anymore. It is your right to do so, but I'd rather you not.

    Quote from LeBob

    Very professional... but i don't think all your comments are off the mark, in relation to maximizing reaction rate/output, Those of us that don't have labs can't be speaking in absolutes yet.. Appreciate your input though keep connecting dots. Peace.


    Who said I was ever trying to act professional? I don't have a company. I don't have my own technology. I have no interest in making money off LENR. So I can act however I want.


    I don't have a lab either. However, in the past, I spent weeks/months staying up all night and all day reviewing papers about Ken Shoulders, a long string of other inventors, the negative resistance regime, the nature of plasma balls, and connected a bunch of dots. Although I could be wrong because I'm not God, I'm certain that the way to maximize the reaction rate is as follows:


    1) Build a discharge tube of a high temperature material (quartz?) and put an electrode of a suitable material at both ends. It is idea if you could adjust the distance between the electrodes or change them out to use different shaped electrodes.


    2) Vacuum degas the tube if possible (this may not be required) and fill with a desired mixture of gases which should contain hydrogen. A basic fuel combination would be hydrogen or deuterium and various percentages of at least one noble gas. Other combinations could include -


    a) Hydrogen, noble gases, and lithium.

    b) Hydrogen, noble gases, and a source of carbon. (Methane?)

    c) Hydrogen, noble gases, and ionized mercury which is a pseudo-noble gas.


    3) Attach to a power supply and circuit that will allow the discharge to stay within the negative resistance regime without going into a true arc discharge. Also, you should be able to adjust it in real time to tune the discharge into resonance.


    4) Once you have created plasma ball, adjust all the parameters until you can make it detach from the electrode and float between the electrodes.


    If you can do the above, I'm very confident you can produce massive excess energy.

    Quote from Shane D.

    I take compliments however they come...even backhanded ones. :)


    Keep in mind we are all here to save the planet environment, with varying approaches to achieving that end. No reason knocking each other. I always appreciated IO's reminding us how fruitless this all is, and what fools we *probably* are, all the while hoping we are right (and him wrong). And also Directors sincere determination in applying all his serious smarts in piecing it all together.


    The process may be as ugly as making sausage (Impossible Meats now making plant based sausage BTW), but somehow, someway, this dysfunctional, and quarreling group will get to the finish line.


    I have zero patience for pseudo-skeptics anymore. I've observed them in many fields, and they only serve to get in the way of progress.


    Actually, I don't think all of this is fruitless. In my opinion, we've learned a TREMENDOUS AMOUNT since this forum opened. I firmly believe that right now if someone like Alan Smith were to receive a couple hundred thousand dollars to do NOTHING but LENR research for six months, we have the know how to build not only AMAZINGLY powerful powder based systems (which are by their nature tricky and take a lot more time to get working) and pure plasma systems using the negative resistance regime.


    I appreciate the comment, but I don't have serious smarts. I simply have had the time to read a ton of material, have conversations with many different individuals, and put together many data points. Most people could have not done what I did due to the fact they don't have the time. Five years ago I would not have believed what I know now.

    Few understand at first that the burden of proof as documentation can be derailed with fake news.

    A working model up and running is needed until its called a coincidence.

    more examples are needed that can be refuted even if most do not know what they are looking at with the restrictive narrative added to the videos you can still see the results of a formula- producing .

    the burden is the need to do it over and over again until they all get it.

    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.

    Quote from Shane D.

    I can think of no reason why anyone would resort to this practice of multiple Avatars (Sockpuppets), other than in an attempt to deceive. Especially so when that person is reporting on different replication attempts, and using a different Avatar for each! In a more formal academic setting, that would be a scandal.

    In a formal academic setting, people have to use their full names and affiliations, with the e-mail address and others contact information. No conference and no journal allows you to publish under a pseudonym.


    (There are a few exceptions in academia for things like political science. People who persecuted by governments are sometimes allowed to publish anonymously.)


    I often say the debate in cold fusion is conducted on one side by professors from recognized institutions who state their full names, and on the other side by anonymous trolls at Wikipedia who name themselves after comic-book characters. Which side do you think has more credibility?

    Quote from Director

    I have zero patience for pseudo-skeptics anymore.

    I have zero patience for people spouting pejorative labels about people.

    Quote from Director

    I firmly believe that right now if someone like Alan Smith were to receive a couple hundred thousand dollars to do NOTHING but LENR research for six months, we have the know how to build not only AMAZINGLY powerful powder based systems

    Have you checked with Alan about this belief? I know you have projected your strong beliefs about your pet "negative resistance regime" (annoying buzzwords) to all other lenr researchers along with the scammer Rossi, without their consent.

    A personal who shall not be named already indicated his powder based systems that he made in coordination with Alan were at such a level. And, from what we've been told about their systems, there were still many fuel prep techniques and stimulation methods they had not utilized. The fact is that they have put more work into powder based reactors than almost anyone in the past several years except perhaps Parkhomov himself. I was actually being very conservative by saying with a couple hundred thousand dollars they could build amazingly powerful systems. I suspect that if Alan had the funding to pay two competent lab technicians for only six months to test various methods of fuel prep and stimulation, the results would be phenomenal. Of course what's also important is control of these systems. If your system is going to surge upwards in power and meltdown in several seconds or minutes, that's not going to be the best evidence that you are producing excess heat. You want to be able to achieve self sustain or massively high COP for several hours or days.


    I'm not putting the term negative resistance regime into people's mouths. Randell Mills has mentioned negative resistance in his patents and has talked about the phenomena in his videos. He specifies that during this period when the current/voltage relationship flip flops (he uses different words) the reaction rate goes up dramatically. Monty Childs has also specified his device can operate in a negative resistance regime. Also, we know that by definition in mainstream papers when a plasma discharge goes into the negative resistance regime it MUST produce a complex space charge configuration with double layers that sustains the discharge by converting heat energy to electrical energy. Next, Andrea Rossi has not used the term negative resistance but the oscilliations shown on his oscilloscope during the demonstration of the QX in Stockholm are the SIGNATURE of the negative resistance regime. When you are operating in the negative resistance regime, you will produce ion acoustic oscillations. Also, we know that Frank Acland saw a tiny plasma ball in a QX within Rossi's lab and that a larger plasma ball is produced in Rossi's SK. So here's a partial list of people who we KNOW utilized the negative resistance regime.


    1) Randell Mills in the Suncell

    2) The SAFIRE Project in their reactor.

    3) Andrea Rossi in the QX, SK, SKL

    4) Alexander Chernetsky with the Self Generating Discharge Tube (He spoke extensively about this.)

    5) Paulo Correa in the Pulsed Abnormal Glow Discharge Device (He also spoke extensively about the negative resistance regime.)


    Next I'll list some inventors who may or may not have spoken about the negative resistance regime, but were obviously utilizing it in their devices. It's important to note that like with Paulo Correa's Pulsed Abnormal Glow Discharge Device, you can utilize the negative resistance regime even if you only enter it periodically.


    6) Edwin V. Gray (He utilized spark discharges to produce excess energy which he collected with a grid to power electrical loads.)

    7) Thomas Henry Moray (He ignited plasma within discharge tubes containing a variety of elements including slightly radioactive elements to pre-ionize the environment and then tuned them into resonance to produce large amounts of output for little input.

    8) Multiple groups that have conditioned HHO electrolysis electrodes through either acid etching, sand blasting, or high current runs to have millions of micro-needles on the surface. They then place another tube's inner surface only a tiny distance away and pulse the system with DC to produce large volumes of anomalous gas far beyond Faraday's limit. In reality, they are likely not producing a huge amount of excess hydrogen but "electrically expanded water."

    9) Joseph Papp with his Noble Gas Engine that produced a plasma ball within a cylinder containing mixed noble gases, likely hydrogen, and a small amount of radioactive material to pre-ionize the gaseous environment.

    10) NIKOLA FREAKING TESLA - He optimized the spark gaps of his systems to break immediately and prevent a full arc discharge. He utilized many different methods to prevent a true arc discharge from forming including magnets, flows of air, spinning spark gaps, etc. In reality, he was launching EVO's across the gap.


    There are probably many more I can't remember at this moment.

    IMO if someone comes to this place claiming to have results, then they should report the results. Why make the claim if no report is intended?


    Repeated claims of results without showing results is at the very least annoying; and if done by the same person under serial avatars raises strong suspicions of trolling

    Quote
    In a formal academic setting, people have to use their full names and affiliations, with the e-mail address and others contact information. No conference and no journal allows you to publish under a pseudonym.

    But we just aren't in a formal academic setting here - so we should respect opinion of public not Academia here. Otherwise you can return to Academia and you can try to wait for thought-provoking discussions about cold fusion there..;-) In general the argumentation with mainstream science customs and traditions has no great meaning just in forum about cold fusion, where attitude of mainstream science failed fragrantly being hostile toward it.


    Quote

    by anonymous trolls at Wikipedia who name themselves after comic-book characters. Which side do you think has more credibility


    While I do realize, that switching identities at public forum could make following discussion more difficult, the full abstraction of post content from names of posters would eradicate meritocracy, which is detrimental for contemporary science.

    This is because in discussions about topics controversial for mainstream science one should expect, that every anonymous poster could bring more insights into process, than the Academia with all its established rules as a whole. For example during last five years no one of Academia bothered to replicate experiments of anonymous Me356 "troll". So what are you trying to argue with here? Who is greater ignorant here: Academicians or anonymous "Wikipedia trolls"?


    If we could publish fully anonymously here, then everyone here would be forced to follow content of posts instead of names of posters and to refrain to commenting of posts instead of name calling, which is ideal of every Socratic discussion.


    Quote

    There are a few exceptions in academia for things like political science. People who persecuted by governments are sometimes allowed to publish anonymously


    But isn't it the case of cold fusion research too? Whole this subject is heavily politicized and persecuted due to immense money shifts following its potential progress.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    In a formal academic setting, people have to use their full names and affiliations, with the e-mail address and others contact information. No conference and no journal allows you to publish under a pseudonym.


    (There are a few exceptions in academia for things like political science. People who persecuted by governments are sometimes allowed to publish anonymously.)


    Well no. Not quite. Papers in mathematics can be anonymous. A famous example is "Nicolas Bourbaki" which was a publishing name for a shifting collective of anonymous French mathematicians working in the middle of the 20th century. This works for mathematics because in that discipline a proof is a proof. You don't need someone to personally stand behind their results to guarantee their accuracy and truthfulness as in the empirical sciences --- you just need to explain your proof.


    More generally, you are ignoring how the actual publication process in academia works -- by anonymous peer review. Many of the complaints I see on this site strike me as originating from people unused to the nature of the discourse between authors and anonymous reviewers in science. .

    • Official Post

    We do not routinely monitor the identities of posters, I'm pretty sure we have at least 2 more moderately active members with 2 screen names., it is of little consequence if they stick to forum guidelines, perhaps they like talking to themselves. But there is a problem with people claiming good experimental results, who based on their previous behaviour are - very probably- actively misleading other members as to their results and even about the level of experiments they are carrying out. Unaware members spending good money in the pursuit of realising someone else's fantasies is not something we wish to encourage. And it may be that there are ulterior motives behind some of this, in at least one relevant case there certainly was.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    Peer review is one thing, and publishing a paper as author is another. They are very different.

    Not sure what your point is here. Peer review part of the publishing process. It is the normal way things go in the academic world. What you are saying sounds to me like someone saying 'Knives are one thing and forks are another. They are very different'. I'd have to agree but I don't see the point of bringing it up.



    Quote from JedRothwell

    However, in my opinion, anonymous peer review is a bad idea. It should be abolished.


    The common justification for anonymous review is that it is more likely to include a frank assessment of a manuscript, unencumbered by worries that hard feelings might affect friendships and career. I'm unsure what experience you have of anonymous peer review in the world of professional science. Of the posts I see on this site, THHuxleynew's posts frequently read to me like typical reviewer's comments for a submitted manuscript.

    Quote from Bruce__H

    Not sure what your point is here. Peer review part of the publishing process. It is the normal way things go in the academic world.


    Peer-review is a normal part, but it should not be. It was invented in the 1930s. Einstein and others were surprised by it, and objected. Anyway, my point is that authoring a paper is one role, and reviewing it is another, very different role. For that matter, copy editing papers is yet another role. That's what I do for the JCMNS. Authors occasionally give me credit in acknowledgements, but I am not listed as a contributor. Nor should I be. Some people should be listed and named with affiliations, others should not be. For that matter, we don't list the person who type-sets the papers in LaTex (Jayantha Kumar).


    Quote from Bruce__H

    The common justification for anonymous review is that it is more likely to include a frank assessment of a manuscript, unencumbered by worries that hard feelings might affect friendships and career.


    Yup. That's what they say. I think more often it is used to enforce conformity, to keep young researchers from getting ahead, and to enable plagiarism by powerful, established, older scientists. These things are endemic in academic research. Especially in big ticket research. See the book "Hubble Wars" for details.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    Peer-review is a normal part, but it should not be. It was invented in the 1930s.


    Are you referring to peer review (of scientific papers) or particularly to anonymous peer review? Surely peer review itself was in place before the 1930's in the shape of journal editors. I think the editor-as-king system was more open to abuse than the modern system of having editors seek expert opinions on manuscripts which they must then pay attention to.


    Quote from JedRothwell

    Yup. That's what they say. I think more often it is used to enforce conformity, to keep young researchers from getting ahead, and to enable plagiarism by powerful, established, older scientists. These things are endemic in academic research. Especially in big ticket research. See the book "Hubble Wars" for details.


    How does the anonymity of a peer reviewer enforce conformity, enable plagiarism, etc.? You have lost me there. I agree that these are problems in science I just don't understand how they are produced by the anonymity of reviewers in the publishing process as you seem to be saying


    "Hubble Wars" is a wonderful book that I have on my shelves. I don't recall anything in it about the subjects you mention though. I do recall that secrecy and the desire of managers to avoid embarrassment caused lots of problems. Avoiding secrecy and promoting transparency and frankness is a reason for anonymous review.


    I think you are wrong in your views here and it seems to me that some of your mistaken views arise from unfamiliarity with the process. I know it from all sides (author, editor, reviewer) and so believe I have a more informed opinion. I would be interested, however, if you know of a more scholarly treatment of this whole question that would get us beyond mere competing personal views.


    P.S. I wonder if there is a more suitable thread for this conversation

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.