My attempts to generate interest in these strange bodies was met with scorn, they were dismissed as culture artifacts. Now I notice they have become a new area of research interest. It only took 50 years.
Luckily, as we see from ICCF24, there has not been the same dearth of interest in LENR. What is needed for interest to turn into research is results that are coherent with eachother, characterisable, replicable, etc.
What is needed for interest to turn into research is results that are coherent with eachother, characterisable, replicable, etc.
I think the coherence and replicability of LENR research is at the same level or better than biological research.
I think the coherence and replicability of LENR research is at the same level or better than biological research.
Let us pause for a moment to reflect on how RUO polyclonal antibodies are manufactured, and the lot to lot variability this creates, even in this day and age.
I think the coherence and replicability of LENR research is at the same level or better than biological research.
Right - if you mean medical research, or psychiatry, psychology, sociology. All difficult.
However the molecular biology that is increasingly underlying medicine is definite and strongly predictive.
So things are looking up there.
LENR is not ATM actually helping anyone do anything (which medicine, when not a science, at least claims to do). So it needs credentials as science - better than the phenomenological bit medicine.
Finally - while it is true that reproducibility is poor in medicine as a proportion of total - for the reasons in that article - that still leaves maybe 30% of medical results which are fully replicable.
Were 30% of LENR results fully replicable the content of ICCF24 would have been very different.
THH
However the molecular biology that is increasingly underlying medicine is definite and strongly predictive.
And the billions that finance it.
I will rephrase my question. Since Russ George left, have you made new batches fuel that exhibit gamma radiation?
We switched to more reproducible surface layers. And yes we base our work on Russ' work and gammas are for 100% reproducible.
100% reproducible.
I doubt that so much.
A few years back I was invited to make a presentation at Cambridge University on the 'Reputation Trap' in LENR research.
This was the subject of an ICCF24 presentation:
Risk and Reputation - Huw Price, PhD | Distinguished Professor Emeritus at the University of Bonn
I doubt that so much.
You are an expert in doubts. This is a big help for humanity.
We understand new physics and how LENR works so nothing to doubt.
Everyone runs risks doing something new, and reputation damage is one of them.
The counterpoint is that the reward is an amazingly good reputation when one gets it right.
You are an expert in doubts. This is a big help for humanity.
We understand new physics and how LENR works so nothing to doubt.
Sigma 5
We switched to more reproducible surface layers. And yes we base our work on Russ' work and gammas are for 100% reproducible.
Thanks for the reply. However I still do not totally understanding your meaning. Are you saying that you are seeing gamma radiation from fuel you have made?
Are you saying that you are seeing gamma radiation from fuel you have made?
Yes: The spectrometer sees it...
... I consider it pretty much an established fact that LENR was relegated to pseudoscience status, and stigmatized since a few months after the FP's news conference. Once that was established, it became a mere afterthought that those following the science would have to pay a reputational price, and there should be no doubt they did!
I agree with all this. My original point was that mainstream research is broad and mainstream researchers are always picking away at the edges of science to try and discover new things. It is pretty typical that established scientists have a variety of projects on the go in their labs ... some of which are very much following up previous leads and so likely to be productive and so not too adventurous, and some of which are much more speculative and risky. So I think that the results coming out now would have come around anyway without all the gnashing of teeth and claims of victimization we have seen from the LENR community over the years.
I think the moral of the story from us believer's standpoint, is that mainstream has it's flaws, but overall they do much good. But, they screwed up when it comes to LENR.
I don't think that mainstream science screwed up here. How do you expect funding to work .... give public funds to projects that have been tried and appear to have failed? The most science-y part of science is to identify claims that while interesting, do not appear to have empirical support. But no one has a crystal ball. The call can be wrong. And that is not a screwup -- it is just science working. If there is something to the claim after all then someone will produce convincing data at some point.
Yes: The spectrometer sees it...
Right. I understand that you measure gamma radiation from fuel. And I understand that you use a spectrometer and so on. This was all in your ResearchGate manuscript. But all those claims were based measurements carried out on on fuel manufactured by Russ George. I am now asking specifically about the source of the fuel for your recent claims of gamma activity.
Are you using fuel that you prepared yourself?
I agree with all this. My original point was that mainstream research is broad and mainstream researchers are always picking away at the edges of science to try and discover new things. It is pretty typical that established scientists have a variety of projects on the go in their labs ... some of which are very much following up previous leads and so likely to be productive and so not too adventurous, and some of which are much more speculative and risky. So I think that the results coming out now would have come around anyway without all the gnashing of teeth and claims of victimization we have seen from the LENR community over the years.
I don't think that mainstream science screwed up here. How do you expect funding to work .... give public funds to projects that have been tried and appear to have failed? The most science-y part of science is to identify claims that while interesting, do not appear to have empirical support. But no one has a crystal ball. The call can be wrong. And that is not a screwup -- it is just science working. If there is something to the claim after all then someone will produce convincing data at some point.
Looking to the future, I believe that Team Google paved the way for new blood to enter the field with far less risk of the reputation trap their predecessors faced. And this ICCF, with its great results, ARPA-E announcement, possible X-Prize, has given the science even more cover to pursue LENR without being ridiculed by their peers for studying a pseudoscience. Things are looking up.
Still have some presentations left to show skeptics. There were certainly more than the 2 already posted here. Unfortunately I already posted my one, and only one allowed, or I would have given a list.
Risk and Reputation - Huw Price,
That was who invited me. We are friends.
I spent 10 years as a university lecturer, plus 3 years working in academic science (bio-research) so I do know a little about academic life, in the UK at least..
I was insufficiently clear, I think, when I said that people complaining about the negative reaction of mainstream science to cold fusion (as it was then) are people with little experience of academic science.
I don't just mean experience of life in an academic institution. By experience of academic science I mean the experience of working to address the concerns of expert peer reviewers reading grant proposals or manuscripts submitted for publication. That is at the core of things, as THH has recently pointed out.
Many of the sceptical posts that produced extremely adverse responses on this site just strike me as pretty ordinary scientific discourse of the sort one often gets from referees. Sometimes it is right on and sometimes not, but it is all science and that is the life one lives. You get used to it. When I see people complaining that they and their friends are being subjected to some sort extraordinary persecution I therefore suspect that they are just not in the life and so are not used to how things actually go.
I don't know what a lecturer post entails in Britain. Does it mean 10 years of writing grant proposals and publishing 2-3 peer reviewed papers per year?
I don't know what a lecturer post entails in Britain. Does it mean 10 years of writing grant proposals and publishing 2-3 peer reviewed papers per year?
No- I spent my time teaching students and seeking (and getting) donations from both government and industry. I had the mistaken view that I was paid to teach, and went above and beyond to do that.
No- I spent my time teaching students and seeking (and getting) donations from both government and industry. I had the mistaken view that I was paid to teach, and went above and beyond to do that.
I see nothing wrong with teaching. But there is thus a part of academic science -- enduring referee's direct criticisms and fighting for your work to be published -- that you have not had. That is what I meant. What you see as an extraordinary singling out of LENR for victimization I see as pretty normal scientific to-and-fro.
