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.
I'm glad you see nothing wrong with teaching. I did very little research, no time, but I wrote 4 books.
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.
The people I know who complained about the negative reaction were experienced academic scientists. People such as Martin Fleischmann, John Bockris, Miles, Srinivasan, and so on. Every single cold fusion scientist I know complained about it. That's hundreds of experienced people.
This was the subject of an ICCF24 presentation:
Risk and Reputation - Huw Price, PhD | Distinguished Professor Emeritus at the University of Bonn
This was another interesting presentation held at ICCF24.
The distinguished and prominent speaker explains when he became interested in the CF/LENR field: "Like many others, I'd followed these debates about cold fusion for a while after 1989. But it dropped off my radar. And then in 2011, just at the right moment to coincide with my new interest in risk, and the culture of science, it caught my attention again."
He didn't mention who he was who caught his attention again, but the large blue container on a later slide is an unmistakable signature of him.
Keeping the 1 MW Ecat image on the background, the speaker told the ICCF24 audience: "Back to Cold Fusion. I wrote my first public piece about it in 2015. By that point. as I said, I thought it was one of those low probability high impact cases where there might be a high cost to a false negative. […] That first piece from 2015 attracted some attention in the field and I got to know a few of you".
Well, in the same year, the big blue container also attracted huge amounts of money from many investors, who, a few years later, had the opportunity to experience what kind of high cost could come from a "low probability high impact" dream like that.
Further on, the speaker better explained his proposal: "… we should be engineering the incentive structure in the light of a rational assessment of the possible costs of false negatives."
I wonder if, in his rational assessment of existential risks, he also considered the certain huge costs of false hopes.
Display MoreThis was another interesting presentation held at ICCF24.
The distinguished and prominent speaker explains when he became interested in the CF/LENR field: "Like many others, I'd followed these debates about cold fusion for a while after 1989. But it dropped off my radar. And then in 2011, just at the right moment to coincide with my new interest in risk, and the culture of science, it caught my attention again."
He didn't mention who he was who caught his attention again, but the large blue container on a later slide is an unmistakable signature of him.
Keeping the 1 MW Ecat image on the background, the speaker told the ICCF24 audience: "Back to Cold Fusion. I wrote my first public piece about it in 2015. By that point. as I said, I thought it was one of those low probability high impact cases where there might be a high cost to a false negative. […] That first piece from 2015 attracted some attention in the field and I got to know a few of you".
Well, in the same year, the big blue container also attracted huge amounts of money from many investors, who, a few years later, had the opportunity to experience what kind of high cost could come from a "low probability high impact" dream like that.
Further on, the speaker better explained his proposal: "… we should be engineering the incentive structure in the light of a rational assessment of the possible costs of false negatives."
I wonder if, in his rational assessment of existential risks, he also considered the certain huge costs of false hopes.
He was not the only person who had a renewed interest in LENR due to Rossi. I have admitted that myself. Plenty of others have said the same without attributing it to Rossi's making a grand entrance onto the scene. So, is there something wrong with that, or are you just stirring up trouble?
When LENR is accepted as real, the historians will have to sort out exactly how much a role a conman played in jump-starting a science on life support. There is a certain irony to the whole thing. It should make for some good books at least, and will earn a special chapter in the annals of sciences weird stories.
Now time for you do something productive. Why don't you start looking at more of the videos and tell us which ones you see some promise in?
He was not the only person who had a renewed interest in LENR due to Rossi. I have admitted that myself. Plenty of others have said the same without attributing it to Rossi's making a grand interest onto the scene. So, is there something wrong with that, or are you just stirring up trouble?
When LENR is accepted as real, the historians will have to sort out exactly how much a role a conman played in jump-starting a science on life support. There is a certain irony to the whole thing. It should make for some good books at least, and will earn a special chapter in the annals of sciences weird stories.
Now time for you do something productive. Why don't you start looking at more of the videos and tell us which ones you see some promise in?
Yes, it is ironic.
I look at it like this. When you have a scientific hypothesis that has not yet proved itself whether it gets interest and funding is partly "fashion" and partly PR. It is cyclical - when ideas are tried and do not work out they tend to be abandoned for quite a while - justly or not.
So as the google people said now is a time to be looking again at CF - and maybe the hype over Rossi pushed things in that direction.
Just a warning: there are bits of current work that show results (though maybe will not solve future world energy problems). Don't expect interest to stay for ever in bits that do not progress. And be very cynical about all the "commercial" ventures. Commercial work normally comes after scientific proof of concept. I've not seen any (non-Rossi) proof of concept LENR reactors.
Research done by companies heavily invested in positive results (they must talk things up for their next funding round) tends not to be the most reliable.
THH
I've not seen any (non-Rossi) proof of concept LENR reactors
Brillouin Energy.
I've not seen any (non-Rossi) proof of concept LENR reactors.
You think Rossi had a proof of concept reactor but BEC and Clean Planet don't?
When you have a scientific hypothesis that has not yet proved itself
Clowns are clowns. May our clown talks of gravitation waves the fake news of the century...
CF is proven since day one from countless labs. But after 2 boosters mental disorder may be an other cause.
Brillouin Energy.
My understanding is that they have a system that measures excess energy with a specific calorimetry setup where v large RFI everywhere makes assuring integrity challenging. That would not go any way towards helping with the UK energy crisis this winter? That is, the overall output is not much larger than the overall input - and since input is electricity and output heat you would need to do much better to beat an air source heat pump?
If they have progressed from this I'd welcome details. I know they wanted to do this...
Best wishes,
THH
He was not the only person who had a renewed interest in LENR due to Rossi. I have admitted that myself. Plenty of others have said the same without attributing it to Rossi's making a grand interest onto the scene. So, is there something wrong with that, or are you just stirring up trouble?
When LENR is accepted as real, the historians will have to sort out exactly how much a role a conman played in jump-starting a science on life support. There is a certain irony to the whole thing. It should make for some good books at least, and will earn a special chapter in the annals of sciences weird stories.
Now time for you do something productive. Why don't you start looking at more of the videos and tell us which ones you see some promise in?
I am well aware that many people had a renewed interest in LENR due to Rossi, or better to say, thanks to their confidence in the competence of the UniBo professors who supported his claims. This is understandable for laymen with little scientific knowledge. It's much less plausible for those who teaches at the university, because errors and inconsistencies in the Ecat tests were so evident since the first demonstration in Bologna, on January 14, 2011.
Ecat defects could have been easily and immediately detected also by the experts in the field, but the support of the LENR community for Rossi was almost unanimous and lasted many years, during which Ecat became synonymous with cold fusion. Even today, the most followed threads on L-F, apart from OT subjects such as Covid, are dedicated to Rossi.
The Rossi's saga is an evident example of a collective mirage, in which the opinion of an entire community of experts was influenced by their positive bias toward their field. It took several years to convince most of them that they were wrong about Rossi and to close the threads on this forum dedicated to him, but almost no one is now willing to admit that he was wrong on Rossi, including the prominent speaker of the presentation about "Risk and Reputation".
The same goes for F&P: they were wrong. Their 1992 videos, the only truly meaningful videos in CF, prove that they mistaken both the conclusions in their most important paper reporting their most important experiment. Historians will tell how many more years it will take for the LENR community to become aware of the F&P's mistakes, as they did with Rossi's.
The NAVSEA-DARPA initiative, exposed by Barham during his presentation at ICCF24, has the chance to shorten this conversion period, if the program described in slide 3 will be coherently implemented. This is why I agree with your pick on this presentation as the most likely to sway a skeptic, … in the right direction, I mean.
The presentation on "Risk and Reputation" is also very important because it analyzes the opportunity of pursuing the CF/LENR research in the context of the current epochal threats to human civilization and even to its existence.
The speaker approach is well summarized by his seafaring analogy, he said: "I pointed out that for hungry sailors missing a passing island could be just as deadly as hitting an iceberg". But this parallel assumes that sailors are unwilling to change the sailing direction and they firmly believe that sooner or later an island will appear on the horizon. Both of these assumptions are very bad choices for shrewd sailors. Instead, they should have considered in time the option of not straying too far from the coast in a direction where no one can assure they will find another suitable landing place. In such a scenario, the deadly choice is believing the siren suggestions that ensure the existence of flourishing islands ahead. Therefore, along with the risks of false positives and false negatives, the Bertrand Russel's successor should have taken into accounts, in his evaluation on the opportunity to pursuing such a "low probability high impact" research, the higher risk of spreading false hopes.
And this is exactly the current sad situation of humanity. We have been attracted by the sirens of limitless energy provided by nuclear fusion (I am referring mainly to the hot one) and they have diverted us offshore further and further, to a no island zone, from where it will be very painful for a minority of us to regain the safe shore of a sustainable balance between our consumptions and the resources of the Earth.
I think, that one of the main task of future historians will be to find and unmask these sirens. The big, older and hot one, as well as the small, younger and cold will be mentioned on the same pages of their books.
You think Rossi had a proof of concept reactor but BEC and Clean Planet don't?
Rossi had a claimed POC reactor (any number of them) all scams.
BEC and Clean Planet - I've only seen the SRI reports on Brillouin - and those do not show a system that would be commercially useful because overall energy out is not much larger than overall energy in. (Maybe not larger at all).
Perhaps I am outofdate?
THH
Therefore, along with the risks of false positives and false negatives, the Bertrand Russel's successor should have taken into accounts, in his evaluation on the opportunity to pursuing such a "low probability high impact" research, the higher risk of spreading false hopes.
Yes. Unfortunately people don't accept "this is worth pursuing, but has only 1% chance of being real". Which would be appropriate for many of these ideas. They like to convince themselves chances of success are much higher.
The Rossi's saga is an evident example of a collective mirage, in which the opinion of an entire community of experts was influenced by their positive bias toward their field. It took several years to convince most of them that they were wrong about Rossi and to close the threads on this forum dedicated to him, but almost no one is now willing to admit that he was wrong on Rossi
I don't think that is quite true, but I agree it shows an inherent porblem.
At the time, people like me (and a few of the LENR is real people) were negative about Rossi. To put it mildly. It is not nice to see an obvious charlatan take people in.
The Rossi debacle shows the dangers of not being properly skeptical, and that many here fall foul of that. I'd argue that it is a danger for LENR as a field. If everyone working in LENR had the same public caution that the google team showed then things they said would be taken much more seriously elsewhere - because they would be careful only to say things that can be fully substantiated to an outside community. That is the real "reputation trap". And it is self-made.
THH
You think Rossi had a proof of concept reactor but BEC and Clean Planet don't?
Just looked at Clean Energy website.
I can't see any proof of concept. nor even any proof of nuclear level excess heat.
Yes: The spectrometer sees it...
I'll try asking my question a different way in the hopes that you will see more clearly what I am asking ...
Do the gamma spectra you are currently investigating all come from fuel pellets originally prepared by Russ George?
Do the gamma spectra you are currently investigating all come from fuel pellets originally prepared by Russ George?
Why do you ask useless questions? We do science and prepare our own test samples.
Display MoreI am well aware that many people had a renewed interest in LENR due to Rossi, or better to say, thanks to their confidence in the competence of the UniBo professors who supported his claims. This is understandable for laymen with little scientific knowledge. It's much less plausible for those who teaches at the university, because errors and inconsistencies in the Ecat tests were so evident since the first demonstration in Bologna, on January 14, 2011.
Ecat defects could have been easily and immediately detected also by the experts in the field, but the support of the LENR community for Rossi was almost unanimous and lasted many years, during which Ecat became synonymous with cold fusion. Even today, the most followed threads on L-F, apart from OT subjects such as Covid, are dedicated to Rossi.
The Rossi's saga is an evident example of a collective mirage, in which the opinion of an entire community of experts was influenced by their positive bias toward their field. It took several years to convince most of them that they were wrong about Rossi and to close the threads on this forum dedicated to him, but almost no one is now willing to admit that he was wrong on Rossi, including the prominent speaker of the presentation about "Risk and Reputation".
The same goes for F&P: they were wrong. Their 1992 videos, the only truly meaningful videos in CF, prove that they mistaken both the conclusions in their most important paper reporting their most important experiment. Historians will tell how many more years it will take for the LENR community to become aware of the F&P's mistakes, as they did with Rossi's.
The NAVSEA-DARPA initiative, exposed by Barham during his presentation at ICCF24, has the chance to shorten this conversion period, if the program described in slide 3 will be coherently implemented. This is why I agree with your pick on this presentation as the most likely to sway a skeptic, … in the right direction, I mean.
The presentation on "Risk and Reputation" is also very important because it analyzes the opportunity of pursuing the CF/LENR research in the context of the current epochal threats to human civilization and even to its existence.
The speaker approach is well summarized by his seafaring analogy, he said: "I pointed out that for hungry sailors missing a passing island could be just as deadly as hitting an iceberg". But this parallel assumes that sailors are unwilling to change the sailing direction and they firmly believe that sooner or later an island will appear on the horizon. Both of these assumptions are very bad choices for shrewd sailors. Instead, they should have considered in time the option of not straying too far from the coast in a direction where no one can assure they will find another suitable landing place. In such a scenario, the deadly choice is believing the siren suggestions that ensure the existence of flourishing islands ahead. Therefore, along with the risks of false positives and false negatives, the Bertrand Russel's successor should have taken into accounts, in his evaluation on the opportunity to pursuing such a "low probability high impact" research, the higher risk of spreading false hopes.
And this is exactly the current sad situation of humanity. We have been attracted by the sirens of limitless energy provided by nuclear fusion (I am referring mainly to the hot one) and they have diverted us offshore further and further, to a no island zone, from where it will be very painful for a minority of us to regain the safe shore of a sustainable balance between our consumptions and the resources of the Earth.
I think, that one of the main task of future historians will be to find and unmask these sirens. The big, older and hot one, as well as the small, younger and cold will be mentioned on the same pages of their books.
I should have known you were just looking for another opportunity to smear the community. Mission accomplished, now no more of your poison on this thread.
Do the gamma spectra you are currently investigating all come from fuel pellets originally prepared by Russ George?
Bruce, the answer was quite clear to me early on. This fuel was not prepared by Russ. But I do have some more fuel which wss prepared by Russ and me.if it is important to you? Would you like me to post you some?
@THH.
If you are brave enough to get on the overground from Liverpool St to Gidea Park I can pick you up at the station and bring you to my lab, where you can play with a LEC**. I am quite sure your expertise will soon show it is a mirage.
October 15th onwards. My schedule is full till then.
This fuel was not prepared by Russ.
Thank you. Is this a supposition? I am unsure how knowledgeable you are about Wyttenbach's current work.
If Wyttenbach is currently seeing gamma radiation from fuel not prepared by Russ George (but prepared generally according to George's ideas) then this is a sort of replication of George's previous results isn't it? I would think that would be important.
