This is pretty much how the denial of LENR works...
It helps the editors if you have a focused paper.
You don't say. How about speling mistakes?
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.
One of my PhD supervisors used to tell me that there are 2 sets of experiments carried out for every paper. First the experiments at the bench. Then the experiments trying to get the manuscript past the referees.
It's a big headache, but I know of no better system.
You don't say. How about speling mistakes?
"Focused" is a correct spelling.
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.
Alan, I cannot see what use my physical presence would be in testing said working system. But in any case you said it was an LEC? I am not skeptical about the results you are getting - I believe them - I merely don't jump to the interpretation of those results that you do.
Is there anything in this debate about interpretations (ans hence my mind) that my physical presence at some tests would advance?
I'd be happy to have private discussion of detailed data if you like, and would promise privacy - though I don't consider myself to be that well qualified to do that: I am a jack-of-all-trades, not an experimental physicist. It is why I like written up papers. Like Socrates, I can ask questions (perhaps not with quite his style though, alas, and this site is hardly a Socratic Discourse - nor given his life and death would I wish to extend this metaphor!).
THH
But in any case you said it was an LEC? I am not skeptical about the results you are getting - I believe them - I merely don't jump to the interpretation of those results that you do.
There is no need for privacy here, Frank Gordon has not objected to my work or commentary- just the opposite.
"Focused" is a correct spelling.
Bruce, it was a joke.
Then the experiments trying to get the manuscript past the referees.
It's a big headache, but I know of no better system.
Perhaps, but it is a recent innovation. When one of Einstein's papers was peer-reviewed he was miffed. I think it was in the 1940s, and he had never seen anything like that. I believe it did not become universally used until the 1970s. See:
I do not think scientific journals have improved greatly since the 1970s, so perhaps peer-review has not helped much. It is abused in many ways, so I think it needs to be reformed. It is too often used to suppress new ideas and unpopular ideas such as cold fusion. As Schwinger wrote:
"The pressure for conformity is enormous. I have experienced it in editors’ rejection of submitted papers, based on venomous criticism of anonymous referees. The replacement of impartial reviewing by censorship will be the death of science."
I still think Ascoli was being tricky, but he is welcome to explain here whether or not he was being sincere. To his credit, he did finish up by asking me if I had another interpretation of the one HIVER/NAVSEA slide with an unreadable small print image of the 2015 McKubre paper titled: "Cold fusion: comments on the state of scientific proof". And of course I do...
I don't know which trick you are talking about, and most importantly I don't understand why you are contesting my sincerity. Your sentences, my dear friend, sounds like those of the Holy Inquisition. 
In any case, in my first post on this thread (1) I specified the link to McKubre's paper (2). The title of this paper is clearly readable on the video of the presentation. I took a minute to find the pdf. Everyone could have read its contents.
QuoteIn his post, Ascoli cherry picks this one sentence at the beginning of the McK article: "In the light of 25 years further study of the palladium–deuterium system, what is the state of proof of Fleischmann and Pons’ claims?", which he uses to speculate that:
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.
In (1), I quoted the entire summary, not just a single sentence. I think McKubre is able to write a summary and condense the substance of his paper into it. And Barham is also able to read a paper, so he knew what McKubre's paper was about, and he decided to put it on the slide.
As for my quote above, I only referred to the final question, because I had already reported it integrally in my first post. Should I have repeated the entire summary again?
QuoteBut Ascoli neglected (which I have to assume was intentional since it undermines his "interpretation") to inform us what McK went on to say in the very next paragraph of his paper:
"Having studied this phenomenon almost full time for the past 25 years, I will state my preliminary conclusion up front and then proceed with a more nuanced discussion. Whatever it is and by whatever underlying mechanism it proceeds, the accumulated evidence strongly supports the conclusion that nuclear effects take place in condensed matter states by pathways, at rates and with products different from those of the simple, isolated, pairwise nuclear reactions that we are so familiar with in free space (i.e. two-body interactions)"
Hey, this is in the introduction! Should I have reported and commented the entire McKubre paper?
I know very well that McKubre is convinced that the FPHE does exist, but this is not the focus of his paper, nor of the HIVER initiative. The problem for them is to convince the large scientific community. Barham's slide is very clear on this point starting from the title, which mentions the issues of the LENR field. Which issues? Lack of acceptance, he wrote three times. The first time he was referring to thermal (heat) results.
QuoteSo, I am not sure why Barham had the slide up there, other than as a backdrop maybe. But it surely was not there for whatever nefarious reasons Ascoli thinks.
What nefarious reasons have I attributed to the presence of McKubre's paper on Barham's slide? I only wrote (1) "It confirms that F&P's claims are still at the center of the entire CF/LENR controversy: "what is the state of proof of Fleischmann and Pons’ claims?"
The paper wrote by McKubre in 2015 talks about the criticism of science on F&P's claims. Barham placed this paper on the slide where he listed the reasons for the "Lack of acceptance" of LENR. Look at the slide layout. It's quite full of written lines. Do you really think that it required a backdrop?
Or are you arguing that Barham put a random paper on his slide? It would have been quite bizarre. The same slide, was presented in October last year (3), including the first page of the same McKubre's paper, and you can easily read its text with Acrobat.
Therefore, I think it is undeniable that McKubre's paper was placed there on purpose.
QuoteWhile 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.
Well, I'd just like to discuss seriously and correctly my remarks. I made no mystery that they include the fact that both conclusions of F&P's "simplicity paper" are wrong. But every time I try to explain why, I am asked to look elsewhere, at other authors, experiments or papers, or even worse. I don't think this is very scientific. I'd like science and scientific method to survive, also here on this forum.
(1) RE: Which ICCF24 presentation is most likely to sway a skeptic?
(2) http://ikkem.com/iccf23/speakervideo/1a-IN01-Mckubre.mp4
(3) https://arpa-e.energy.gov/site…1LENR_workshop_Barham.pdf
Well, I think is a good moment to state that the purpose of this thread is to discuss which of the ICCF 24th presentations is most likely to sway a skeptic. Our resident skeptics have merrily devoted to maintain their skeptic position about the whole LENR field and have discussed sparsely of the specific results presented. This has mostly derailed the thread which, admittedly with the help of the less skeptics and non skeptics, has devolved into an “us vs them” litany which is really unproductive, and therefore I ask everyone taking part in this thread, me included, to focus the discussion back into the ICCF 24th presentations.
I have to admit that I haven’t seen a single one of them entirely, but of what I have seen, the one of Guido Parchi was very interesting for me. I honestly fail to see how a water without detectable levels of tritium can magically become loaded with 45 Bq/L of tritium by contamination of the environment as THHuxleynew thinks.
Anyway, please let’s maintain the focus on the presentations and the data shared, and not in the 33 years old debate about the existence of CF or not.
I watched the DARPA presentation and I think is interesting, and definitely a confirmation of previous results that we all are very well aware of. I really don’t like CR-39 as a track recording material but they were careful enough to get a diversity of controls that makes these results strong. The excess energy is also interesting, as they claim consistent reproducibility. Overall a very good and up to date confirmation of earlier results and a very strong team.
I also watched the presentation of Parchi and their results about tritium are outstanding. This IMHO is hard to beat, I really hope they are open for working with replicators. Their thermal results are also indeed interesting even if only anecdotal due to the lack of control.
I also was delighted to see their theoretical approach, they go into the coherent domain territory, which IMHO is totally consistent wit the use of short pulses that would induce such coherent states. I happen to know they consider Preparata’s ideas much more seriously than they would openly admit, and they also consider that line of research of National Security importance.
I have yet to see many more presentations but the Parchi one so far has me really impressed.
gio06 , can you share the paper mentioned in the presentation? Or point us to the online abstract at least? I really have to congratulate your team for you outstanding work.
No, and I'm happy to do that if you give me links (I must have missed them before if you posted them).
I honestly fail to see how a water without detectable levels of tritium can magically become loaded with 45 Bq/L of tritium by contamination of the environment as THHuxleynew thinks.
Levels of up to 100 Bq/l have been detected in water sources
I am thinking that just possibly Pd could be contaminated by tritium from previous lab experiments
But I don't "think" this is likely. In fact, I explicitly said in my post I thought it was unlikely, which is why I am keen to see this effect fully characterised. That would provide much more info, either about some novel LENR effect, or about some novel false positive mechanism none of us can think of.
For LENR science - as opposed to LENR advocacy - the likelihood of some not understood error mechanism is not the point, whereas full characterisation and trying to make sense of this data is. Happily the same work that will guide others to understanding novel LENR will also show up errors if they exist, so there is no conflict.
I'd like to see more LENR science and less LENR advocacy.
THH
External Content www.youtube.comContent embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.
Orsova - forgive me but that is a youtube video - not a paper. if it accompanies a paper please could you link it? If not my experience is that youtube presentations do not contain the detail needed to evaluate results. If you think it does I will spend 20 min of my time wading through it but you will appreciate this is not something I do as a rule.
In normal conferences you attend presentations to see whether something seems interesting - if it is you look in detail at the relevant paper (often - if it is something new - a whole load of related papers too).
Thanks, THH
I am thinking that just possibly Pd could be contaminated by tritium from previous lab experiments
Please see the presentation, this phrase shows you don’t have any idea what you are talking about and it is sad to realize you haven’t even watched it.
Curbina : Why do you respond to our flat earthers??? THHuxleynew is a clown and obviously a bribed troll with no serious science background. He just posts what his buddies hand him over the table...
Please see the presentation, this phrase shows you don’t have any idea what you are talking about and it is sad to realize you haven’t even watched it.
Curbina - I'm happy to listen to reasons and will agree if I'm wrong. I have watched about 50% of the presentation - so I might have missed something. It is very difficult to prove a negative. That applies to possibility of artifacts just as much as it does to possibility of LENR.
You are missing my point. Why are you arguing about this? What is needed with these results is better characterisation so that some scientific meaning can be found from them.
It does not matter whether any amateur scientist thinks one thing or another. And in any case you seem to be objecting to my lack of certainty. Why? I have said i do not think it likley thes mechanisms apply - which is why I find these results interesting. Why get upset?
What is really sad is that we are posting youtube videos here without accompanying papers. Papers are quicker to find details in and more definite.
THH
Well THHuxleynew , you mention tritium coming off Pd when the cell is built with Ni wires. This means you pay very little attention to what you are watching.
You also imply that tritium is so often found in water that it could have entered the Nickel wires in the past and just decide to come out after a while.
