Which ICCF24 presentation is most likely to sway a skeptic?

I believe that even your own dog musn't be happy to see you, so sad your life is, even if you give him double shot of kibbles.

Quote from THHuxleynew

I agree - the people who believe it was a NASA conspiracy will continue to do so.

However - trips to the moon? Artemis I launches on Saturday

Top quark experiment? Produced by Tevatron at 7pB^-1

Since LHC has been online we have much more detailed results (20 fB^-1)

When things have been done once, they tend to get easier the 2nd time. Moon landings were delayed because the effort in the 1970s was political - and politics changed. It has however got a lot easier to do it since then.

Display More

Quote from Cydonia

I believe that even your own dog must make your mouth, so sad your life is

If you are not excited by Artemis you have no fire in your soul, doggie or not!

Quote from Ascoli65

What I understand is that, for the proponents of the HIVER project, the listed issues must be resolved (in a transparent way) for LENR to be accepted as a research area, otherwise no one group will succeed.

The first issue on their list is about thermal (heat) results, and the McKubre paper, shown on the right side of the slide, is mostly dedicated at F&P and asks at the end of the summary: "In the light of 25 years further study of the palladium–deuterium system, what is the state of proof of Fleischmann and Pons’ claims?"

So, it seems to me that, contrary to what you said, the NAVSEA-DARPA slide means that without having first solved the F&P issues, the field will not succeed, that is, it will remain hanging back.

Am I wrong? Do you have another interpretation?

So this is a valid point from Ascoli. At least it is arguable.

Quote from Curbina

You are ignoring many Nickel Hydrogen positive results that are based on the F&P original idea, and published through the years in Fusion Technology by many and il Nuovo Cimento by Piantelli and Focardi. You just have “F&P tunnel vision”.

Well, Ascoli was saying that the HIVER guy thought the validity of F&P excess heat remained important. So the question for you is that if this is true - why did he not then answer his own question referencing those H-Ni experiments (which from my POV have never looked as convincing - and anyway are testing a very different system with no a priori expectation they would find the same results - I do not know such results that continue when competently replicated).

Quote from Alan Smith

Drowning men clutch at straws. But never mind the sea here isn't deep.

And that is rhetoric, not a logical reply to a logical point.

As a skeptic, I care about the logic of these arguments more than about which side is right. Often we never know which side is right until more evidence comes in. Still, we can look as clearly and logically as we can at the evidence to discover, when there are differences, where they come from.

The skeptic POV is that FPHE has plausible non-nuclear explanations (plural - not always the same one).

for LENR advocated here, there are two answers:

(1) F&P does not matter - maybe it was not nuclear, but luckily we now have completely different systems which are nuclear (e.g. H + Ni)

(2) F&P was real, and those results remain the most convincing evidence

I think most here are arguing (1). Ascoli is pointing out that the HIVER guy made it sound more like (2). And I have to say the vehemence with which people here demand FPHE muts be real makes me think that they sort-of believe (2) as well.

And this point is not just a debating point. Is the most promising way to find LENR, now, Pd-D or Ni-H? That is a real and important question and your view (1) or (2) affects which side of it you go for.

THHuxleynew My mention of 'clutching at straws' is entirely logical and valid, since Ascoli is doing precisely that, forensically examining documents for a casual phrase that promotes his 'straw man' obsession. My mention that 'the sea is not deep' was a reference to the fact that we tolerate him very well.

I can tell you for sure having spent many hours in his company that McKubre has no doubt that F&P's work was sound, and that he successfully replicated and extended it himself. To suggest anything else is nonsense.

Since you have now ignored an invitation from me to come see and test a working LENR system twice, I am of the opinion that you are afraid you might be forced to change your mind, which is always painful. Never mind, the invite still stands.

Quote from Curbina

You are ignoring many Nickel Hydrogen positive results that are based on the F&P original idea, and published through the years in Fusion Technology by many and il Nuovo Cimento by Piantelli and Focardi. You just have “F&P tunnel vision”.

I don't understand your remark. Why should I talk about Ni-H or Focardi? This is a thread dedicated to choosing one of the ICCF24 presentations.

I've made my pick, choosing the same Barham's presentation chosen by Shane, and explained my reasons (1). After that, Shane replied to me introducing the argument of "reputation trap" (2), Alan Smith did the same (3), and when JR reminded us that this argument was the subject of another ICCF24 presentation (4), I felt I could express my more complete opinion on this argument without departing from the topic of this thread (5).

Anyway, as far as Ni-H and Focardi are concerned, in the past years, I've talked extensively about them and other CF protagonists, such as Celani, Takahashi, and others (if you want I can remind you the main posts in which I have explained my opinion), but there is no doubt that F&P are the most representative protagonists in the field. Why do you want to exclude them from the CF debate?

My "F&P tunnel vision" is shared with many others here. Look at JR. I can show you a long list of his posts where he put F&P in the foreground, challenging interlocutors to find a single mistake in their works. Is he also affected by the "F&P tunnel vision" syndrome?

And could you tell me why he can freely state that a phantom close-up video from F&P is the "definitive proof of anomalous excess heat" (6), while when I ask to look closely at a really existing and available time-lapse videos of them I'm invited to look elsewhere or even ridiculed?

(1) RE: Which ICCF24 presentation is most likely to sway a skeptic?

(2) RE: Which ICCF24 presentation is most likely to sway a skeptic?

(3) RE: Which ICCF24 presentation is most likely to sway a skeptic?

(4) RE: Which ICCF24 presentation is most likely to sway a skeptic?

(5) RE: Which ICCF24 presentation is most likely to sway a skeptic?

(6) RE: MIZUNO REPLICATION AND MATERIALS ONLY

Shane D. I would not address this except for your threats to ban Ascoli.

Quote from Shane D.

Oliver Barham (US Navy Project Manager) DID NOT SAY "in light of 25 years further study...." as you imply. That was in the McKubre paper (in fine print where it is hard to read) on the right side of the slide you reference. That was an old article by McKubre and rightfully he pondered the question.

Ascoli did not imply what you say. You are wrong here. He said, clearly, that the quote came from the McKubre paper and he said that that paper was on the right side Barham slide. You are just repeating back to Ascoli exactly what he said.

And so on. Ascoli isn't going off the deep end here. It is all just the regular to and fro of discussion. It isn't tricks. I just don't understand where you see the harm.

Wyttenbach

Why didn't you present a talk on your gamma-spectrum work at the recent ICCF meeting? It could have been one of the videos we are talking about on this thread.

Quote from THHuxleynew

However - trips to the moon? Artemis I launches on Saturday

I said: "There were several trips to the moon. Another with 1960s technology would not prove anything." Another cold fusion experiment with 1989 technology would not prove anything. We need experiments with the best technology of 2022.

Quote from Bruce__H

I hope you two are not intending ResearchGate as the ultimate receptacle of this work. I wouldn't call a work appearing on ResearchGate a "paper". I would call that an unreviewed manuscript. Nor would I call it "published". I don't know what word should substituted for "publish" though. "Displayed"?

Science VS Publishing Corporations... Julian Schwinger and Cold Fusion

Anyways... Enough said about that.

On another note.

Bruce__H  THHuxleynew Considerable considerations.

The Rise of Peer Review: Melinda Baldwin on the History of Refereeing at Scientific Journals and Funding Bodies

By Robert Harrington, Sep 26, 2018

Quote

I was recently given the opportunity to read a fascinating paper by Melinda Baldwin, (Books Editor at Physics Today magazine, published by the American Institute of Physics), entitled “Scientific Autonomy, Public Accountability, and the Rise of “Peer Review” in the Cold War United States” (Isis, volume 109, number 3, September 2018). Melinda is an accomplished historian of science, with a special emphasis on the cultural and intellectual history of science and scientific communication. Not only is her writing infectiously entertaining, the story itself is new, or at least it is new to me. It turns out that peer reviewing in scientific journals is a relatively recent construct, first emerging in the nineteenth century and not seen as a central part of science until the late twentieth century. Peer review, much like shag carpet and bell-bottoms, is largely a product of the 1970s.

Melinda paints a picture of constant change in peer review, which perhaps provides a lesson for us all. Maybe this should be obvious, but there is no status quo in academic publishing, and while we may feel our moment is more important than those that have gone before, or those ahead of us, expectations and models are fluid, be you author, reviewer, publisher, institution, or funder.

In this interview I ask Melinda to talk about her article, and provide some more personal views on peer review topics of the moment.

Tell us a little about yourself…

I’m trained as a historian of science, but my full-time job is at Physics Today, the flagship magazine of the American Institute of Physics. I edit the book reviews, manage the feature articles, and write some pieces about the history of physics. I’m also the author of Making “Nature”: The History of a Scientific Journal, which (as you might guess from the title) is about the history and development of Nature.

What led to your writing this article about the history of peer review?

I think my peer review project started when I discovered something really unexpected about Nature: that it hadn’t employed systematic external refereeing until 1973! When I first learned that, I assumed Nature was unusual, but as it turned out, a lot of commercial journals did not consult referees about every paper they published until well into the 1970s and even the 1980s. That seemed especially true outside the US. I didn’t have the space to explore that issue fully in my book on Nature, but as I wrapped up that project I knew I wanted to write more about the history of peer review.

What are the key highlights of your study that you would like readers of The Scholarly Kitchen to carry with them? Are there any stories you would particularly like to highlight?

One major takeaway point that I think might surprise Scholarly Kitchen readers is that peer review is much, much younger than we usually assume. There’s this story about Henry Oldenburg, the first editor of the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, that claims he was the first person to consult external referees. Which would suggest that peer review has been part of scientific publishing ever since the first scientific journal.

But it turns out that’s not really true. The referee system as we know it today first started to take shape in the nineteenth century, and it developed very slowly and haphazardly from there. Refereeing was most common in Anglophone countries and among journals that were affiliated with learned societies like the Royal Society of London. Well into the twentieth century, commercial journals and journals outside the English-speaking world tended to rely on editorial judgment instead of referee opinions.

One of my very favorite anecdotes about the history of refereeing is the famous story of Einstein going through peer review at The Physical Review in 1936. He and his collaborator Nathan Rosen submitted a paper on gravitational waves that had some controversial conclusions, and the editor, John Tate, sent it out for an external opinion. Einstein was incredibly offended! He told Tate that he was withdrawing the paper because he had not authorized Tate to send it to anyone else before it was published.

If we think about Einstein’s past publishing experience, though, his shock makes sense. He was used to the German system in which editors like Max Planck evaluated and chose papers themselves. Also, Einstein’s previous submission to Physical Review had not been refereed — not every paper was sent out for referee opinions, only the ones that seemed controversial or possibly questionable. So the story really highlights the fact that peer review is not this unchanging part of science that everyone has agreed on since the seventeenth century.

- end quotes

Source

The Society for Scholarly Publishing is a professional society, founded in 1978, dedicated to promoting and advancing communication and networking among all sectors of the scholarly communications community.

Article link

The Rise of Peer Review: Melinda Baldwin on the History of Refereeing at Scientific Journals and Funding Bodies

In this interview Robert Harington ask Melinda to talk about her recent article in Isis, entitled Scientific Autonomy, Public Accountability, and the Rise of…

scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org

Your connection to this site is secure

Time to study up and learn... No?

I recommend reading the rest of the interview...

Quote from Bruce__H

Why didn't you present a talk on your gamma-spectrum work at the recent ICCF meeting?

Do you joke? ISCMNS suffers from the same church mentality like all other standard model groups. As they do not understand real physics they believe that our work is a danger for the old guards...

The aim of our work is to deliver a product not to entertain the others with chewing the gum. I already published everything you need to know about successful CF. We do nothing else than what has been said in the original patent and the Assisi poster.

"A studious skeptic suspends disbelief. A Skeptic does not." Gregory Byron Goble 02September2022

Quote from Bruce__H

OK.

I hope you two are not intending ResearchGate as the ultimate receptacle of this work. I wouldn't call a work appearing on ResearchGate a "paper". I would call that an unreviewed manuscript. Nor would I call it "published". I don't know what word should substituted for "publish" though. "Displayed"?

I completely disagree with your assessment of Researchgate. I think it is a great tool for preprint publication. That it is not being properly used or paid attention to seize its potential by a great part of the scientific community is not Researchgate’s fault. The comments section is a de facto space for open peer review, and the possibility of posting open questions are great tools for collective peer review. People simply doesn’t engage much in most cases, but I have taken part and follow many extraordinarily valuable discussions that are taking place at Researchgate about important scientific matters with deep implications.

Quote from Curbina

I completely disagree with your assessment of Researchgate. I think it is a great tool for preprint publication. That it is not being properly used or paid attention to seize its potential by a great part of the scientific community is not Researchgate’s fault. The comments section is a de facto space for open peer review, and the possibility of posting open questions are great tools for collective peer review. People simply doesn’t engage much in most cases, but I have taken part and follow many extraordinarily valuable discussions that are taking place at Researchgate about important scientific matters with deep implications.

Well no. You don't disagree with my assessment of ResearchGate. I also think it is a great tool for preprint publication. I agree with everything you say.

But ResearchGate is not a forum for peer-reviewed science because publication of the works does not require the the authors to make a case that expert reviewers find acceptable. It should not be the final stop for significant research. Authors who feel they have important results to share should have the guts to put them in front of competent specialists whose opinions are consequential. Everyone benefits.

Quote from Shane D.

While he has no doubt FP's were wrong, and wants the science to die, the field has little or no doubt about FP's, and has no intention of dying out anytime soon.

Yes, Ascoli wants the field to die. But I would never advocate tossing him out for that reason. That's harmless. Thousands of people want the field to die. I find it annoying when he pretends that others agree with him. In this case he quotes McKubre in a way that makes a reader think McKubre agrees. But I wouldn't toss him out for being annoying, or misrepresenting McKubre.

Along the same lines, THH misrepresents what I say. I say X and he claims I said the opposite. That is annoying, but I would never want to see him thrown out. For one thing, anyone can see he is misrepresenting me, just as anyone can see his technical arguments are nonsense. I encourage him to continue posting nonsense. Pointing out his mistakes is like shooting fish in a barrel. As Napoleon said, never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.

I wouldn't toss anyone out for anything less than harmful or illegal activity. I don't think anyone has done that. I guess it would be something like trying to drum up down payments for fake devices.

Gregory Byron Goble

Your material on outside peer review has intrinsic interest for me, but how do you think it is relevant?

On the one hand, I don't think that ResearchGate has editorial mechanisms that are anything like those Baldwin studies. On the other hand, whether outside review began 10 years ago or 500 years ago, how would that change any argument that has been made here?

Quote from Bruce__H

But ResearchGate is not a forum for peer-reviewed science because publication of the works does not require the the authors to make a case that expert reviewers find acceptable. It should not be the final stop for significant research. Authors who feel they have important results to share should have the guts to put them in front of competent specialists whose opinions are consequential. Everyone benefits.

For LENR peer-reviews what kind of unbiased specialists would you suggest?

Quote from Bruce__H

But ResearchGate is not a forum for peer-reviewed science because publication of the works does not require the the authors to make a case that expert reviewers find acceptable. It should not be the final stop for significant research. Authors who feel they have important results to share should have the guts to put them in front of competent specialists whose opinions are consequential. Everyone benefits.

All true, but unfortunately, apart from JCMNS not a single journal that will accept a positive cold fusion paper for peer review. Every one of them summarily rejects papers. They tell the authors papers will not be reviewed. That is what Mel Miles and others say. Naturally, if you write a negative paper, like the Google Nature paper, it sails through peer-review like shit through a goose. You can say any damn thing and the reviewers say: "Attaboy! Great work! Gotta be true." THH could say that light water and heavy water magically affect measurements taken outside the cell. Reviewers would never notice that is nonsense, any more than THH did. They would never admit it if a reviewer pointed it out, any more than THH will admit it now.

You can see the quality of anti-cold fusion arguments here, in a compendium by Melich and me, from the high and mighty DoE review panel:

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

The list on p. 43 is fairly complete. There are not many other arguments. Nothing new since 1989. People like the panel members never try to give technical reasons to reject cold fusion, because there are no valid technical reasons. The high and mighty people realize this. They would not propose anything as idiotic as Morrison's cigarette lighter -- confusing power and energy -- or THH's light-water heavy-water magic. They stick to violations of the scientific method. You would think anyone would spot these violations and call them out, but apparently not.

Quote from Bruce__H

Well no. You don't disagree with my assessment of ResearchGate. I also think it is a great tool for preprint publication. I agree with everything you say.

But ResearchGate is not a forum for peer-reviewed science because publication of the works does not require the the authors to make a case that expert reviewers find acceptable. It should not be the final stop for significant research. Authors who feel they have important results to share should have the guts to put them in front of competent specialists whose opinions are consequential. Everyone benefits.

In addition to external review, there is an internal review - author's edits of the text of the article. For example, I constantly return to works that have already been written (and even published). However, external review can be very useful to improve the form and sometimes the content of the article, but it should not be elevated to the absolute. The reviewer does not always manage to understand the author.

Quote from Alan Smith

For LENR peer-reviews what kind of unbiased specialists would you suggest?

For a manuscript that includes gamma spectra, maybe someone familiar with those techniques?

It's up to the editor. Submitting authors can often make suggestions to aid the assigning editors find someone suitable. But there is no guarantee the suggestions will be followed. It helps the editors if you have a focused paper.