The Art Of Creating Doubt About Science

    • Official Post
    Quote from Ascoli65

    My answer is still valid: Fake&Succeed strategy in R&D. What about CF?


    Moreover. As for the refusal to take in consideration "photographic evidence, scientific papers" this criticism apply to JedRothwell, not to me. His posts on this thread demonstrate how he is struggling to negate the evidence shown by the videos produced in 1992 by F&P, rising again and again the same tangential and not pertinent objections.


    I'm afraid your answer never was valid, because it was never an answer, just more of the same old nonsense. I don't think Jed is 'struggling' to negate anything beyond a desire to block your posts.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    There are several other objections to the foam hypothesis, but I will not repeat them, unless you care to address these and show problems with them. Ascoli will never address them and he has never shown any problem with anything that Fleischmann, Pons, or I said about this experiment.


    The problems are already shown by the F&P videos, which demonstrate that Fleischmann, Pons, and you have been wrong for 30+ years.


    Quote

    I discussed many aspects of the boil off phase here, and I included links to many papers by F&P:

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


    This is a very important and revealing paper, entirely devoted to illustrate the calorimetry of the fathers of cold fusion.


    It would have deserved more attention and a dedicated thread to discuss the content. Instead, you reported its release in a thread where discussion is not allowed: Media/News/Video Library-No discussions please


    Why don't you open a new thread dedicated to it, so that other people, including me, have the possibility to discuss its content and possibly point out the errors it contains?

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    We can forgive you as you are not a physicist. Your formula is for simple minds only.

    You mean the engineers who defined the term COP and who wrote that web page. Yes, they do have simple minds.


    Quote from Wyttenbach

    Energy has different forms. Heat is of no use as it cannot be transported over long distances and it always dissipates = It cannot be stored...

    It does not have to be transported for a generator. It is used right there. If a tokamak were used to generate electricity with steam turbines, the heat from the magnets would also heat the water, albeit at a low Carnot efficiency. Like the latter cycle in a combined cycle generator, or the large cylinder in a triple-expansion steam engine.


    Quote from Wyttenbach

    To produce real energy = energy you either can use or store you need a much larger COP than what you define as you define as COP. The best heat conversion engines today have 60% efficiency ! So you need at least a COP of 1.66 for a break even as e.g. ITER uses current as input not heat...

    That's a different issue. A COP of 1.66 means the minimum excess output from a tokamak would be 66% of input. The total COP would be 1.66, which would barely enough to sustain a generator. Of course in actual practice this would be useless. I suppose a practical device would produce excess power 5 or 10 times input power.


    As far as I know, there is no reason why a tokamak could not ultimately produce 10 or 100 times input power.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    It does not have to be transported for a generator. It is used right there. If a tokamak were used to generate electricity with steam turbines, the heat from the magnets would also heat the water, albeit at a low Carnot efficiency.


    99.9% of the energy goes into particles not into the heat of the plasma in the blanket the heat of these particles is diluted to a few degree C excess.


    Hot fusion is total nonsense invented by idiotic physicists with no clue of process management.


    Did you ever read a paper where these clowns explain how to extract what energy ?? The fusion will barely heat the plasma!

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    99.9% of the energy goes into particles not into the heat of the plasma in the blanket the heat of these particles is diluted to a few degree C excess.


    And then it all comes out again! Any energy that goes into a system has to come out again as heat, eventually. Unless it forms a new chemical or a new atomic nucleus, endothermically. That cannot happen with plasma.


    This is elementary thermodynamics. Apparently, you do not understand it. We can forgive you as you are not a physicist.

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    Did you ever read a paper where these clowns explain how to extract what energy ??


    That is a problem. It has been pointed out by many people in plasma physics. The output from a tokamak does not lend itself to generating electricity. They plan to used heat from the walls of reactor to make steam, which will be used in conventional turbines. The ITER site describes this:


    "The tokamak is an experimental machine designed to harness the energy of fusion. Inside a tokamak, the energy produced through the fusion of atoms is absorbed as heat in the walls of the vessel. Just like a conventional power plant, a fusion power plant will use this heat to produce steam and then electricity by way of turbines and generators."


    https://www.iter.org/mach/Toka…e%20about%20the%20tokamak.)


    Many people say this would be problematic.


    At this stage in the research, they are still trying to generate a sustained fusion reaction. I think the plan is to figure out how to generate electricity from that later on.


    It would be a lot easier to generate electricity from cold fusion.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    i'd love to have a careful examination of each strand of the argument here because i found ascoli's argument quite convincing but under interrogation I'd want more connection between it and other evidence.


    For the 1992 boil-off experiment, which is the culmination of the F&P activity in the field they pioneered, there is all the evidence you want to prove that the two electrochemist were wrong. This evidence is shown directly in the videos and papers they produced. I've already pointed out them in the past. I could do it again if you have some residual doubts on them, but I'm not allowed to do it in this specific thread. Anyway, I recognize that this place is not appropriate for dealing with the detailed technical aspects of the F&P experiments.


    So if you are interested in these evidence and in getting more information you should open a new dedicated thread and pose your questions. Maybe you are still allowed to do it. Alternatively, you should wait until JedRothwell has the gut to open a specific thread on his recently issued "Review of the calorimetry of Fleischmann and Pons". Otherwise the mods should reopen a new (or old) thread on this topic, but probably they will not.


    What, instead, is really relevant for the topic dealt in this specific thread ("The Art Of Creating Doubt About Science") is that while it is blamed the spreading of doubts and the lack of transparency about solid scientific facts, it is also discouraged an open and free discussion aimed at resolving any doubt about the validity of the F&P claims.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    At this stage in the research, they are still trying to generate a sustained fusion reaction


    The ITER prophecies are based on simulations..


    here is the current view from the fusioneer world.. from Richard Hull


    "Models and test runs in the mathematical virtual world mean something only to those who create them.

    The real world does its thing without caring about models or virtual successful runs.

    Until something like the stellarator or ITER or a good cold fusion experiment creates over unity fusion energy,

    they are all on an equal footing in my world and that footing is failed, failed, and failed.

    That is why cold fusion is equal to a stellarator or ITER. None of them do fusion of any value beyond the next experiment or iteration after the current one like all that preceded, fails

    . They all rely on taking another stab at grabbing the brass ring, next time around. Fusion....

    The perfect carrot hung out in front of the donkey to keep him moving towards the impossible goal.

    Get something over unity running for 24 hours continuously for just 1 week without shut down

    and then we are off to the races with electrical power to the grid following within 80 years from that 1 week, 24-7 run.
    https://fusor.net/board/viewto…p=89034&hilit=iter#p89034

    Quote from JedRothwell

    Why not? What's stopping you? I don't know what you are talking about.


    Follow the links, please.


    Quote

    Anyway, I don't recall how to start a discussion, so ask a moderator to do it if you want one.


    I've implicitly already done it. Now, the mods know that you too agree to start a new thread on the F&P calorimetry. Let's see what they will decide.

    Just in case, your post announcing the releasing of the "Review of the calorimetry of Fleischmann and Pons" would be a good starting point: Media/News/Video Library-No discussions please

    Quote from Ascoli65

    Follow the links, please.


    Follow what? The links go in circles. I don't see what you are talking about.


    Quote from Ascoli65

    I've implicitly already done it. Now, the mods know that you too agree to start a new thread on the F&P calorimetry. Let's see what they will decide.

    Just in case, your post announcing the releasing of the "Review of the calorimetry of Fleischmann and Pons" would be a good starting point: Media/News/Video Library-No discussions please


    You are not supposed to add a message to the "No discussions please" thread! It says, "no discussions please."


    Just post whatever nonsense you want right here. You posted a bunch of other stuff already, including that weird comment about: "they assumed that all the residual content of the cells was liquid." In a cell with no liquid.


    Note that if you plan to repeat what you already said, I will ignore it.

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.