The Burden of Proof.

    Thanks for your explanation. The one part i agree with from the previous comment that was elaborated further by yours is the seeking of expert opinion that they must pay attention to. If your research is in a field that combines aspects of others, is relatively new and fringe to the mainstream experts, their opinion of your paper will be heavily skewed against open-minded consideration of facts irregardless of apparent contradictions with their own professional cornerstones.

    Quote from Bruce__H

    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.


    Review by editors dates back centuries. I do not know when peer-review by people other than the editor began. Anonymous peer-review where the author does not know who wrote the comments began in the 1930s, according to an Einstein biography I read. He was nonplussed. He wrote to the editor, 'What is this? Who wrote all these remarks about my paper?'


    It might have been the mid-1920s. I don't recall. But anyway, it is a recent custom, more honored in the breach than the observance.

    Quote from Bruce__H

    How does the anonymity of a peer reviewer enforce conformity, enable plagiarism, etc.? You have lost me there.


    That's what several academic scientists told me, especially Peter Hagelstein. It should be clear how it enforces conformity. Plagiarism by senior scientists is widespread because they are often chosen as anonymous reviewers. They reject a paper, steal the idea, and later publish the results themselves, taking credit for them. Two scientists told me that happened to them when they were young nobodies. Here is a well known example of this in cold fusion. In 1989, many distinguished scientists published vicious attacks against F&P, sometimes calling for their arrest and imprisonment for fraud. At the same time, some of those scientists were quietly applying to EPRI for funding to do their own cold fusion experiments. In other words, they were hoping to sabotage F&P and others, and then grab credit for the research themselves. That's according to Tom Passell, who was the cold fusion project manager EPRI.


    Academic science is corrupt to the core. Academic science is ridden with lying, cheating, knife-in-the-back betrayal, politics, plagiarism and publishing fake data. I think the main reasons are:

    • No one checks the work. People assume it is right. Experiments are seldom replicated. Most academic research is put aside and forgotten, because most of it is inconsequential. So it is easy to cheat. Programmers and engineers are as likely to be jerks as scientists, but they cannot get away with making programs that do not work. The customers won't buy them. The marketplace enforces a level of honesty and forces them to work hard, whether it is their nature or not.
    • As Woodrow Wilson put it, academic politics are vicious because the stakes are so low. They have nothing better to do than argue about things like priority. (Wilson was the president of Princeton U. before becoming the U.S. president.)
    • It is all about ego, money and power. Nothing else counts. They don't have to worry about making a living, or satisfying customers, or shipping a product on time. As one scientist put it soon after F&P announced cold fusion: "Why would I bother to replicate that? It would just mean Fleischmann and Pons get a Nobel. There is nothing in it for me." The fact that it is scientifically important and it might prevent global warming and save millions of lives meant nothing to that professor. It means nothing to Robert Park and the other opponents. They couldn't care less about the truth, or progress, the scientific method, or the other things they pay lip service to. They care only about their own prestige, their own egos, and their funding. And their parking space outside the lab.

    It is no wonder people are suspicious of global warming climatologists. I am not suspicious of them. On the other hand, I know in great detail how the academic scientists opposed to cold fusion ran roughshod over the researchers, and betrayed every supposed principle of science, not to mention logic, decency and probably several laws.

    Quote

    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.


    Personally I consider Me356 / ECat-SK approach very viable, as it follows Lipinski protocol of Unified Gravity Ltd. The only reliable cold fusion which actually works and it's also reliably based on fusion - not some overunity/electron capture process. The Mizuno's palladium covered mesh protocold could also work, but it will be very sensitive to impurities inside reactor, which would work like catalytic poison. Despite Mizuno is serious researcher, all his reports of successful results have anecdotal character. He even didn't manage to take photo of his boiling bucket.


    Replication crisis is widespread across whole contemporary physics - not just cold fusion subject: the results are trivial there or unreproducible or their replication gets systematically ignored and avoided from non apparent reasons (the third group looks most interesting for me). We are in Mizuno thread, who published complete protocol - yet we still lack successful independent replication. Regarding the replication of hyperdimensional phenomena depending on rare combination of parameters you may want to visit my remarks here. The existing scientific methodology may be completely wrong for their replication. I'm pretty sure mainstream science already burrowed many important findings by dissolving them in statistics in this way. It just seems for me, we should change replication strategy here.

    Quote

    It should be clear how it enforces conformity. Plagiarism by senior scientists is widespread because they are often chosen as anonymous reviewers. They reject a paper, steal the idea, and later publish the results themselves, taking credit for them.


    This is dual argument because peer-review is not public and anonymity is declared for reviewers, not for researchers who submitted their work for peer-review. Anonymity connected with private process indeed cannot end well, but I and Bruce_H talked about anonymity of public process i.e. publishing. The public - still anonymous - peer review could work here as such a review would be in par with public yet anonymous publishing. But whole this discussion (initiated by banning of Me356 accounts) should be moved to some dedicated thread as it has nothing to do with Mizuno replication.


    One (Dr. Rothwell, Mr. Shane) just should realize, that ignorance of cold fusion is systemic for mainstream science and every attempt for following rules of scientific community on this very public forum would have detrimental effects to exchange information about actual results. I'm pretty sure Desirelless has something to tell us about replication of Mizuno experiment - and now he is banned from here with reference to "standard customs of science, which doesn't allow multiple aliases". Here we can see, how mainstream is actually incompatible with cold fusion research subject from its roots. Who could benefit from this?

    Quote from JedRothwell

    Review by editors dates back centuries. I do not know when peer-review by people other than the editor began. Anonymous peer-review where the author does not know who wrote the comments began in the 1930s, according to an Einstein biography I read. He was nonplussed. He wrote to the editor, 'What is this? Who wrote all these remarks about my paper?'


    It might have been the mid-1920s. I don't recall. But anyway, it is a recent custom, more honored in the breach than the observance.

    It is common nowadays for submitting authors to be asked to nominate reviewers. I cannot imagine a system more prone to induce "log-rolling" - a positive feedback system for work of dubious quality.

    Long ago, I had papers (fairly trivial, more like technical notes) independently reviewed by reviewers appointed by the journals to which the works were submitted. There were criticisms, mostly constructive, and the results were better publications. But then, my/our results were always replicable in other labs

    Quote from Nigel Appleton

    It is common nowadays for submitting authors to be asked to nominate reviewers. I cannot imagine a system more prone to induce "log-rolling" - a positive feedback system for work of dubious quality.

    Long ago, I had papers (fairly trivial, more like technical notes) independently reviewed by reviewers appointed by the journals to which the works were submitted.

    Okay, so the journal appoints the reviewers. Log rolling is eliminated. (Reduced anyway.) And the reviewers sign their names. They cannot reject the paper and then steal the idea and publish it as their own. You have a document showing they got the idea from the author.


    This has the advantages of both systems.

    Quote from Zephir_AWT

    Who could benefit from this?

    No one was benefitting from the supposed and sketchy replication ... words..and just words from a UFO.


    in contrast to other contributors

    Two have provided detailed info on this thread

    The potential was for negative publicity

    A repetition of the Brno episode...early intervention was warranted

    Na Zdravi me356.... or perhaps здоровых .. for those still speak Russian in Czechia?

    Photos and solid data are most welcome on this replication thread...


    Quote from Zephir_AWT

    Despite Mizuno is serious researcher, all his reports of successful results have anecdotal character.

    Zephir ... now there is a big generalisation

    The results.2017... they looked OK to me and to quite a few reviewers

    Not anecdotal at all... plenty of nonanecdotal data..

    https://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTpreprintob.pdf

    RobertBryant: Who else witnessed this installation? Mizuno says he even used it for heating of room during some period.
    It would be easy to invite few observers and to measure heat input and output (or at least surface temperature) of reactor

    Screenshot-2019-06-18-at-6.20.29-PM-400x194.png


    The same situation with proverbial Mizuno's bucket: a lotta numbers, but no witnesses or videos.
    I'm not implying anything, I'm just saying that Mizuno's greatest experimental successes are remarkably poorly documented.

    Quote from Alan Smith

    I would remind everybody to stick to the purpose of this thread and not to wonder/wander too far off topic. While many (but not all) of the points raised here are good ones,, they would be better put into the thread called 'The Burden of Proof'


    I would welcome all of the anonymous-review posts being moved to the Burden of Proof thread. I have been refraining from answering on that subject (even though, as usual, everyone else is wrong!) because I realize it is off topic here.

    Quote from Zephir_AWT

    RobertBryant: Who else witnessed this installation?

    The people at Hokkaido U. of Science are witnessing it right now, as shown in the photo here:


    https://hpeem1.jimdo.com/%E6%9…6%8F%E4%BA%8B%E6%A5%AD-1/


    Quote from Zephir_AWT

    The same situation with proverbial Mizuno's bucket: a lotta numbers, but no witnesses or videos.

    As described in the book, it was witnessed in the initial phases by Mizuno's colleague Akimoto. See:


    https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTnucleartra.pdf


    There were very few video cameras back then. We have the pen recording shown in the book.

    >>> "are witnessing it right now, as shown in the photo ..."


    Hokkai Electronics Co., Ltd.

    Hydrogen-nanoparticle-heat generator

    Hydrogen-heat conversion using metal fine particles as catalyst

    https://hpeem1.jimdo.com/%E9%9…B1%E4%BC%91%E9%A1%8C2018/


    [2018] / Snap6 is a promoting image


    I know this is off topic, does anyone know of some papers or reviews on the above?


    Per the subject. I don't see any advantage of censorship except to reduce the bad feelings so the information flow can continue.

    • Official Post

    By simply heating the chamber, the deuterium is converted to helium by the quantum nanosize effect, releasing heat (energy). The device on the left generates 200W of heat for a heating input of 100W.

    (Higher output devices are under development)

    Main uses

    ・ Housing heating

    ・ Business offices, work sites, greenhouses

    Power supply and warming

    ・ Local power generation in remote areas and remote islands

    ・ Large power generation as base load power supply

    ・ Other energy applications

    ③Output is more than twice the input



    We support Hydrogen Technology Application Development Co., Ltd., which was founded based on the results of research at Hokkaido University.


    There is no more efficient energy source than a fusion reactor, which uses the heat generated when deuterium is fused and converted to helium. A glass of seawater can produce the same energy as one barrel (about 160 liters) of oil. In addition, it is carbon dioxide free and does not emit uranium-derived radioactive materials. However, the reaction required ultra-high temperatures and high pressures, making practical use in this century difficult.


    Mizuno Hokkai.pdf

    • Official Post

    Alan Smith, is this the Hokkaido development based on Mizuno’s work prior to his R20 results, or is this based in their recent replication?

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.