Max.... is this Russian... its not so verbose.... I think
No forum based on a fringe science would allow an Ascoli, so more proof LENR is real.
We are so confident, we allow ourselves to be tortured by talk, talk, and more talk about that damn foam.
That said, you are a formidable opponent, respected/sometimes feared, and also a long time member. Good to hear from you again.
Thank you, Shane, for your kindness, but my longtime membership in this forum is rather a proof of its fairness and openness.
As for foam, it is the main problem affecting the failed attempts to replicate the F&P claims, as demonstrated by the many times this word is mentioned in the "Infinite Energy" article announcing the end, in 1997, of the Japanese Cold Fusion program (1), the most serious, authoritative, and well funded attempt to demonstrate the reality of F&P energy claims.
Foam is not only the artifact which invalidate results of the "1992 boil-off experiment", the most famous and representative of the entire CF history, but, IMO, it is also a perfect metaphor for CF: the alleged excess heat, claimed by F&P and their epigones, behaves like the extra volume of an inflated liquid, which gradually disappears as the bubbles blow up, eventually reducing the foam volume to the liquid one, equivalent to the input energy.
(1) http://www.infinite-energy.com…/pdfs/JapaneseProgram.pdf
Science is based on falsification, not on censorship. But there is no serious falsification in cold fusion research. I'm aware that even cold fusionists itself only rarely are doing replications of former experiments - not to say about mainstream scientists, not to say in mainstream way: in peer-reviewed journals. For example, we still have no replication of one century old Wendt and Irion experiments with exploding wires, peer-reviewed replication the less. Under such a situation it's too easy to refrain to censorship and anecdotal misinterpretation of "anomalies". Under such a situation cold fusion research resembles dark matter of mainstream research: a sporadic field of individualist discoveries attracted to mainstream but kept away from it at safe distance.
Well there is interpretations that come out of simple fundamentally understood principles . The cold fusion/LENR community needs to coalesce around theory grounded in all past experimental data and the simplest scientific explanations possible. An extension of high energy chemistry and electromagnetism is possibly enough. Either way a lot in this topic is going to clear up.
In terms of free speech in scientific academia, I could say it's reached the point where it's comparable to overblown political correctness and dogmatic manmade doctrines. There is an accepted official script for interpretation of data and woe unto you if the results don't fit it being unexpected. If a theory is simpler, accurate, more intuitive and has clean numbers only ego could get in it's way. Academia is in a metamorphosis to open many things to consideration hopefully.
The cold fusion/LENR community needs to coalesce around theory grounded in all past experimental data and the simplest scientific explanations possible.
You are imposing a new rule on cold fusion that has never been imposed on any other discovery in the history of science or technology. There is never a need to explain a result. If we reject results because they cannot be explained progress in science will come to a halt.
No theory is needed. No explanation is needed. When Edison discovered radio waves (the Edison effect), Roentgen discovered x-rays and the Curies discovered radium, no one had any idea what caused these things, but no one denied they were real.
To prove that an experiment is right all you have to do is independently replicate it. There is no other standard. You just made up an arbitrary standard that would not work. A person might come up with a simple, elegant theory that explains a mistake, meaning it does not actually explain anything. Once an experiment is replicated some reasonable number of times, the effect is real by definition. There is no other definition. Perhaps it should be replicated 3 times, or 5 times -- that is a matter of opinion. Cold fusion has been replicated hundreds of times. Anyone who denies it is real is not doing science.
QuoteNo theory is needed. No explanation is needed. When Edison discovered radio waves (the Edison effect), Roentgen discovered x-rays and the Curies discovered radium, no one had any idea what caused these things, but no one denied they were real.
It's indeed true, but LeBob is right as well: the LENR community should focus on theory convergence for to explain "three miracles of cold fusion" in concise and convincing way. The LENR researchers are undoubtedly frontiers and scientific liberals, who aren't very cooperative in this matter for their own bad. And unwillingness to replication they have common with mainstream scientists - again for their own bad.
You are imposing a new rule on cold fusion that has never been imposed on any other discovery in the history of science or technology. There is never a need to explain a result. If we reject results because they cannot be explained progress in science will come to a halt.
No theory is needed. No explanation is needed. When Edison discovered radio waves (the Edison effect), Roentgen discovered x-rays and the Curies discovered radium, no one had any idea what caused these things, but no one denied they were real.
To prove that an experiment is right all you have to do is independently replicate it. There is no other standard. You just made up an arbitrary standard that would not work. A person might come up with a simple, elegant theory that explains a mistake, meaning it does not actually explain anything. Once an experiment is replicated some reasonable number of times, the effect is real by definition. There is no other definition. Perhaps it should be replicated 3 times, or 5 times -- that is a matter of opinion. Cold fusion has been replicated hundreds of times. Anyone who denies it is real is not doing science.
I understand this, but if there are still more than five quite different theories still competing in 5 years given the information we have... our motives should get a second look.
The LENR community should focus on theory convergence for to explain "three miracles of cold fusion" in concise and convincing way. The LENR researchers are undoubtedly frontiers and scientific liberals, who aren't very cooperative in this matter for their own bad. And unwillingness to replication they have common with mainstream scientists - again for their own bad.
So many theories is just wow lol. How many of them either ignore or needlessly change the entire consept of causality, thermodynamics and conservation of energy in order to explain just one of those three problems? Mostly exotic chemistry with some heavy particle catalysis seems quite possible, collective multi-particle energetic effects.
So many theories is just wow lol. How many of them either ignore or needlessly change the entire consept of causality, thermodynamics and conservation of energy in order to explain just one of those three problems? Mostly exotic chemistry with some heavy particle catalysis seems quite possible, collective multi-particle energetic effects.
It seems we have zeroed in on the cause of a general perception of war on free speech. In general depending on one's world view and how desperate one is for change, one uses what leverage one can to promote one's world view in hope of repressing non-sense (otherwise call other's worldviews).
Whether the worldview is extreme for this forum like Ascoli65 or a singularly focused alternative to LENR like LeBob's exotic chemistry, our forum has accepted their contributions. We don't have exclusive answers. I for one find that the forum continues to provide information that fits into larger puzzle which is my own worldview.
When I began posting to this forum, I was told by our distinguished member Storms that fusion cause by an arc in a fluid is not LENR because it does not involve a hydrogen absorbing metal catalysis. Until today I didn't think about explaining the three miracles of cold fusion from my worldview. Because until one of you makes your objections known, how am I to know what I need to explain? Thank-you one and all.
Let us hope the desperation passes without too great of loss of freedom.
When I began posting to this forum, I was told by our distinguished member Storms that fusion cause by an arc in a fluid is not LENR because it does not involve a hydrogen absorbing metal catalysis.
Old man try to to dominate like silver hair Gorillas. Its the optimal way to maintain position but a big hurdle for real progress. LENR are reactions that don't produce unstable isotopes and may run without any energy input. But some stimulation is allowed even with energies up to hot fusion density (Mills!) as long as the product is a stable nucleus and no kinetic intermediates (neutrons, tritons ) are generated...
Really? We have Q-factors of 10MeV and a full curtain of gammas in certain LENR cases with "no energy" input but heat at 380C.
Conclusion we still miss a definition for LENR...If there is one..
