When you people write of the 'pseudo skeptics' do you mean someone like Richard Fynman and the events of that November day in 1968 when he interfered in Joseph Papp's engine demonstration with the terrible results? That was a case of approaching science with 'eyes wide shut'. He was so convinced of the correctness of his paradigms that he could not conceive of the engine being possible and was willing to meddle in the demonstration. That is the most dangerous skeptic. Ignore them at your peril.

Updates on LENR all Around the World

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363256074_Updates_on_LENR_all_Around_the_World

• May 2022

• Project: Direct Conversion of LENR

Authors:

Jean-Paul Biberian

Christy L. Frazier

Francesco Celani

Dennis Cravens

• Craven Community College

Fabrice David

• Kepler Aerospace

George Egely

• Egely res.corp

Robert Godes

Frank Gordon

Harper Withehouse

Dennis Letts

• Industrial Heat LLC

Georges Miley

Erik Ziehm

Ben Peecher

David Nagel

Ashraf Imam

Irina Savvatimova et al

Alan Smith

Mitchell Swartz

Vladimir Visotskii

Alla Kornilova

John Wallace

Michel Wallace

Hang Zhang

Si Chen

Wu-Shou Zhang

• Institute of Chemistry, Chinese Academy of Sciences

American Nuclear Society September 2022

No cold feet: ARPA-E wants to explore low-energy nuclear reactions

www.ans.org

David Nagel and M. Ashraf Imam

LENR Energy and Spectroscopy Laboratory

George Washington University / United States

We have had the on-campus LENR Energy and Spectroscopy Laboratory since 2015. It is distinguished by having three types of electrochemical experiments and many kinds of spectroscopic diagnostics, with four current research programs.

So LF is not a good place for truly open-minded skeptics who are only strong in their lack of conviction?

Quote from THHuxleynew

So LF is not a good place for truly open-minded skeptics who are only strong in their lack of conviction?

No, LF loves skeptics who are truly open minded, but also strong in their lack of conviction. Makes it easier for us believers. Anyway, my post was about something else, and not a very good one at that. Now back to topic.

Quote from Shane D.

No, LF loves skeptics who are truly open minded,

LF (laugh forum) urgently needs more clowns that can three through the beer bubbles....

Quote from THHuxleynew

So LF is not a good place for truly open-minded skeptics who are only strong in their lack of conviction?

Someone who is determined never to change their mind is only here for the arguments. They are often interesting, but not always based on any more than uniformed guesswork.

Quote from GRMattson

When you people write of the 'pseudo skeptics' do you mean someone like Richard Fynman and the events of that November day in 1968 when he interfered in Joseph Papp's engine demonstration with the terrible results? That was a case of approaching science with 'eyes wide shut'. He was so convinced of the correctness of his paradigms that he could not conceive of the engine being possible and was willing to meddle in the demonstration. That is the most dangerous skeptic. Ignore them at your peril.

Here GRMattson makes a great point. What I call pseudo skepticism is the belief that the current paradigm is the definitive one and anything challenging it must be either an error, a mistake or a fraud. This is the central dogma, hence the level of proof to accept something that invalidates the defended paradigm becomes unreasonable, and outright aggressive, because it starts from the baseline assumption that things can’t be outside this paradigm.
So, when THHuxleynew looks for errors, he starts from the basic and unmovable assumption that the only possibility to explain the results that conflict with the paradigm he defends is that there is either an error, a mistake or a fraud, no other possibility can arise from his analysis. This can’t be considered open minded skepticism, under any circumstance.

Quote from Curbina

What I call pseudo skepticism is the belief that the current paradigm is the definitive one and anything challenging it must be either an error, a mistake or a fraud.

Yup. The purest, boldest example are the concluding remarks in Huizenga's book, points 5 and 6. Here are all 6:

1. The term ‘cold fusion’ as presently used encompasses a mélange of claims as discussed in previous sections of this chapter.

2. The more avid proponents of cold fusion continue to argue that the excess heat in many experiments is so large that the source of energy must be nuclear fusion or some other unknown nuclear reaction (sic).

3. A fraction of these proponents takes the more conventional point of view and admits that if the process is truly nuclear, there should be a commensurate

amount of nuclear ash.

4. The task for these advocates is clear cut: find the nuclear products.

5. If the reported intensity of nuclear products is orders of magnitude less than the claimed excess heat, then the excess heat is not due to a nuclear reaction

process.

6. Furthermore, if the claimed excess heat exceeds that possible by other conventional processes (chemical, mechanical, etc.), one must conclude that an

error has been made in measuring the excess heat.

Huizenga, John R., Cold Fusion: Scientific Fiasco of the Century, 2nd edition, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), p. 285.

You have to give credit to Huizenga for saying this without waffling. He does not mince words. THH says essentially the same thing, but never so clearly, and if you asked him if he agrees, I think he would deny it.

I am sure Huizenga believed this. He was a sincere person who spoke well, to the point, and without equivocation. I agree with Beaudette's response:

. . . Sentence 5 is ambiguous. “. . . the reported intensity of nuclear products . . .” refers to nuclear products as though they were evident, thus carefully

stepping over any reference to the products of unknown processes. Obviously, cold fusion scientists do not report that which is unknown to them. Huizenga

deftly steps over this logical element in his public arguments.

In sentence 5, he implicitly denies the possible existence of unknown processes by allowing it no place in the logic of his presentation. For those readers

who do not notice the missing element, his statements lead to a pervasive confusion about the field.

The final sentence 6 is coupled tightly to sentence 5. Five denies the availability of conventional fusion sources, and six denies the availability of

non-nuclear energy sources. Voilà, there is no such thing as anomalous power.

What sentences 5 and 6 assert is that nuclear measurements are science, and calorimetric measurements are not science. Throw away their measurements

and keep mine. I wonder if there can be found in science a more narrow, a more provincial view of one’s professional specialty than is held in these sentences.

Quote from Curbina

So, when THHuxleynew looks for errors, he starts from the basic and unmovable assumption that the only possibility to explain the results that conflict with the paradigm he defends is that there is either an error, a mistake or a fraud, no other possibility can arise from his analysis. This can’t be considered open minded skepticism, under any circumstance.

Yes. I would add that the errors he finds are always impossible, and if they were true, they would violate physics much more than cold fusion does. Such as his hypothesis that the difference between light water and heavy water can affect calorimetry outside the cell. That's magic, not science. His hypotheses are also innumerate and scientifically illiterate. He never does his homework or checks the numbers. For example, his hypothesis that recombination might explain the boil-off results is wrong by a factor of ~40. Every single one of his hypothesis fails drastically. He is not alone in that. That is also true of Morrison and Ascoli. Most other skeptics are wiser than them. They do not even try to find a technical error, or justify their claim that cold fusion is not real. They stick to Huizenga's claim that any experiment which appears to violate their theory must be wrong, and they do not have find the problem.

Transmutations are unequivocal evidence of nuclear reactions as reported by US Army, NASA, USN, Mizuno, etc etc

Is there any other known mechanism for transmutations? What we are learning is that nuclear reactions are a lot easier than assumed by the standard model. What is becoming more and more clear is that physics will be rewritten in the foreseeable future. There will always be stalwarts that cling to their theories and not the data and the true empiricists like Feynman was will properly rewrite the theory to fit the data not dismiss the data based on wrong theories. My personal opinion is that while there will always be pure frauds out there, most scientists are honest and we are slowly peeling back the veil on a new paradigm in physics.

This is perhaps off topic here where

Skeptics seem to direct the conversation.

Relevant to study of fusion...

Not CMNS energy tech Circa 2022

Not 'Cold Fusion' skepticism 1989

Unconventional approaches to fusion

Brunelli, B.; Leotta, G.G.1982

1982

Abstract

[en] This volume is dedicated to unconventional approaches to fusion those thermonuclear reactors that, in comparison with Tokamak and other main lines, have received little attention in the worldwide scientific community. Many of the approaches considered are still in the embryonic stages. The authors - An international group of active nuclear scientists and engineers- focus on the parameters achieved in the use of these reactors and on the meaning of the most recent physical studies and their implications for the future. They also compare these approaches with conventional ones, the Tokamak in particular, stressing the non-plasma-physics requirements of fusion reactors. Unconventional compact toroids, linear systems, and multipoles are considered, as are the ''almost conventional'' fusion machines: stellarators, mirrors, reversed-field pinches, and EBT.

Link

INIS Repository Search - Single Result

LENR FAQ for Studious Skeptics

LENR is real. People insisting it isn't real because of errors and fraudulent data in Pons and Fleischmann's experiments have no place here. To engage in arguments with them gives SKEPTICS undue weight and distracts from useful study of LENR FAQ Circa 2022

Nuclear reactions occur in condensed matter systems of LENR, in both the 'wet cell' experiments of 1989 and the contemporary 'dry cell' solid state systems found in the Google/DOE/LLNL patent, NASA LCF, the Fusion Diode... Etc.

Quote from Daniel_G

Transmutations are unequivocal evidence of nuclear reactions as reported by US Army, NASA, USN, Mizuno, etc etc

Students likely understand that the LENR Energy and Spectroscopy Lab at Washington University today or the CMNS research facilities at LLNL are well equipped modern laboratories. Yet the following article, while old, is a good introduction. Consider that in 2002 the Electrochemical Society became 'believers' and the American Physical Society recognizes and accepts contemporary CMNS research.

We have a wealth of great LENR FAQ for Students also a slew of crap from Skeptics.

A Look at Experiments

gbgoblenote Not Circa 2022

A Look at Experiments

Have you ever wondered what a physics laboratory looks like? They are seldom spacious or organized the way they are shown in movies.

Most LENR researchers work at universities or home laboratories, with tight budgets in a crowded space. They keep old, broken equipment on shelves to scavenge parts for new experiments. In this section we present some photographs of equipment provided by researchers, and close up pictures of equipment.

The actual cells, cathodes and other equipment used in electrolysis experiments often have an ad-hoc, homemade appearance, because they are made by hand.

They have to be; they are unique, one-of-a kind prototypes. Nothing quite like them has ever been made before.

Quote from Gregory Byron Goble

Relevant to study of fusion...

Not CMNS energy tech Circa 2022

Not 'Cold Fusion' skepticism 1989

Unconventional approaches to fusion

Brunelli, B.; Leotta, G.G.1982

Here is a free Google Book link

Unconventional Approaches to Fusion

books.google.com

Read the book in it's entirety.

I have. At least read the introduction, the Contents lists, the Chapter introduction's, and Bibliography before commenting on this book.

Australia University Curriculum Synopsis

From as early as 1974 they were discussing unconventional approaches to fusion. Every two years these leading fusion scientists and their students got together with open minds in order to think about, and categorize, our understanding of fusion...

In their years of discourse low energy approaches to fusion was not unconsidered or ill-considered...

They compared the difficulties of fusion to the relative ease of understanding of fission, i.e. the defense and energy industry ease-of-use of fission energetics and the profitable capitalization of its utilization.

Of course they discussed hybrid fission and fusion concepts... Some of those predilections are found in the GEC/SPAWAR patent.

Quote from Alan Smith

Someone who is determined never to change their mind is only here for the arguments. They are often interesting, but not always based on any more than uniformed guesswork.

Surely though - engaging with the details in papers - and arguing about them - is the best way for a rational person to obtain evidence?

And just occasionally, as with the F&P boil-off phase estimate - carefully re-examination of evidence leads to definite conclusions.

I know you don't put me in the no-change-of-mind category since I've wavered (and still do) on quite a few issues. Like, could the "screening + coherent something" stuff work, and "is there a post-Hagelstein theory that would solve the fractionation problem". That one I've given up on at the moment for lack of new work but maybe I am missing it.

And re LEC I changed my mind pretty rapidly about "is it real" although I differ from many about whether it has much to do with LENR. Were I convinced of LENR I'd go for it because it is not understood, real, and might have some bearing on the whole coherent pseudo-particle effects in metals thing. Which makes it pretty interesting.

Quote from Gregory Byron Goble

Of course they discussed hybrid fission and fusion concepts... Some of those predilections are found in the GEC/SPAWAR patent.

predilection is an unfortunate word to use here.

LENR FAQ for Studious Skeptics

LENR is real. People insisting it isn't real because of errors in Pons and Fleischmann's experiments have no place here. To engage in arguments with them gives SKEPTICS undue weight and distracts from useful study of LENR FAQ Circa 2022

Nuclear reactions occur in condensed matter systems of LENR, in both the 'wet cell' experiments of 1989 and the contemporary 'dry cell' solid state systems found in the Google/DOE/LLNL patent, NASA LCF, the Fusion Diode... Etc.

Post from GBG with libellous content removed.

Hardly a statement that would be helpful in an FAQ for skeptics?

I also suggest you leave off fraudulent data. You need very strong reasons in science to allege fraud rather than mistake. You do F&P a great disservice in alleging fraud, and you bring emotion into the issue, which poisons objective appraisal. No-one else here has called F&P experiments fraudulent.

I have tagged your post for the mods as being potentially libellous.

Quote from Gregory Byron Goble

LENR is real.

"Fine - so which bits are clearly real?"

After all, some claims discussed here (Rossi) are very tarnished. Others (Mills) are regarded as dubious by many who support LENR. The transmutation evidence (as a whole) is particularly heterogeneous. It is unlikely all correct.

Since there are a wide variety of different proposed systems having some view as to "which is real" is needed:

For the experimenter (want to work on a system that works)

For the theoretician: what signals do we get from the experimental evidence to narrow down possible hypotheses?

Quote from THHuxleynew

"Fine - so which bits are clearly real?"

After all, some claims discussed here (Rossi) are very tarnished. Others (Mills) are regarded as dubious by many who support LENR. The transmutation evidence (as a whole) is particularly heterogeneous. It is unlikely all correct.

Since there are a wide variety of different proposed systems having some view as to "which is real" is needed:

For the experimenter (want to work on a system that works)

For the theoretician: what signals do we get from the experimental evidence to narrow down possible hypotheses?

Display More

THH, I happen to think the vast majority of LENR reactions are real and a few more dodgy ones in the mix which I think is well known now.

BLP, Brillouin, certainly Mizuno, Biberian, Celani, just randomly in my head I missed many others, all do show some common threads. That’s where we are focusing our theoretical inquiry. So many disparate labs are showing some similar things and I interpret this as the initial stages of peeling back the veil of “easy” nuclear reactions.

Any scientist worth their salt will see this.

Big things are coming.