I will repost it
Ban me
Please don't, Greg, you're being rude to Alan and the team.
The perpetual “is LENR even real” argument thread.
-
-
His position as a teacher in one of the world's top 6 universities is irrelevant.
He just teaches some minor issue: Circuit board design...
-
When a spectator from surrounding stands comes up to the field to disturb the game, what should the referee do ? Now If he wants to become a player, with balls in his own bag, why won't he confront others by displaying his science directly at conferences ?
I would like to see a McKubre reaction, for example, during the TTH speech.
-
When a spectator from surrounding stands comes up to the field to disturb the game, what should the referee do ? Now If he wants to become a player, with balls in his own bag, why won't he confront others by displaying his science directly at conferences ?
I would like to see a McKubre reaction, for example, during the TTH speech.
To follow your analogy, THH is not the guy that disturbs the game by entering the field, but the guy that doesn’t go to see the match because he thinks it is a silly game and stays home bitching about why anyone likes such a silly game. He also thinks that even if it’s a silly game he would play it better. This kind of guy is unpleasant, but his stance is rather self defeating.
People complaining about the guy bickering at home that the game and the players are silly, would be akin the players who fall to the ground after a push and act as if they broke their shin to see if the referee grants a penalty. -
Well, my definitive opinion is that we can no longer speak about deep technic here..with people who know what they're talking about .. since a while..so i leave you to your game and its players.
To follow your analogy, THH is not the guy that disturbs the game by entering the field, but the guy that doesn’t go to see the match because he thinks it is a silly game and stays home bitching about why anyone likes such a silly game. He also thinks that even if it’s a silly game he would play it better. This kind of guy is unpleasant, but his stance is rather self defeating.
People complaining about the guy bickering at home that the game and the players are silly, would be akin the players who fall to the ground after a push and act as if they broke their shin to see if the referee grants a penalty. -
I respect the privacy very much and apologize if misunderstood, My questions were for the the addressed to do with that what he/she wants. THH however seems only focused on teaching us how wrong it all is, and it is quite frankly demotivating to even go the forum now, because THH is pretty much all I see and on top of that I read lots of comments from THH that are simply infuriating. Several others have pointed some things out already and I have been mostly ignoring it, but that is becoming very difficult now. Ill call it the THH forum where CF/LENR/SSM/CMNS are simply a fringe impossibility and QM with the Copenhagen is true and on top of that the experimenters are stupid and never thought of contamination etc etc etc. It is insulting if one thinks about it...
So my question is in fact to THH, What is your interest in LENR and do you even consider this possible? If yes, then please be constructive in figuring out how and why this works instead of all the negativity and the arrogance to be quite frank.Well said. Hopefully this gives our resident skeptics a little more perspective so they can do their job without ruffling so many feathers. Always room for improvement on our part...and theirs.
It would be nice if they make a few adjustments to help turn the heat down a little, so we can get back to more serious stuff.
-
What is it that you do in daily life (work, research, study, business) to bring you here on this forum and react to pretty much every post anyone makes? Are we all this stupid in your eyes?
I think his claim is not that we are all stupid. He is saying that hundreds of the world's top electrochemists and experts in tritium and helium are stupid. Every one of them made elementary mistakes that THH instantly recognized even without reading their papers. He is saying, for example:
- Mel Miles forgot to take steps to ensure the helium is not from the atmosphere.
- Fleischmann and Pons cannot tell the difference between a waterline that falls 1 cm and 8 cm. It never occurred to them, their staff, or their visitors that when copious foam blocks their view, they cannot tell where the waterline is. A 5-year-old would not make this mistake, but they did.
- The scientist who designed the national tritium lab at Los Alamos and the tritium analysis equipment at the PPPL Tokamak is an incompetent who cannot even detect tritium at 10 times background or 100 times background.
- The Safety Division experts at BARC cannot detect tritium, even though their lives depend on detecting it.
- The Chairman of the Indian Atomic Energy Commission and the scientist who designed their atomic bombs do not understand nuclear physics. They were convinced the effect is real, and they published extensive papers describing their reasons, but THH dismisses them -- probably without even reading them -- because he knows more about nuclear physics than they do.
There are 4,863 papers on file at LENR-CANR.org. THH is absolutely certain that every single one of them has some elementary mistake that he can find instantly. Every one is wrong, and there is no reason to believe that cold fusion is real.
If someone says, "I think there is a mistake in a paper by So-and-so (obscure researcher who claims 2% excess heat) he may be right. There probably is a mistake. There are many poorly done studies in the cold fusion literature. But when someone who has not even bothered to read Miles -- or even my baby-food level explanation of Miles -- and yet he starts listing reasons why Miles is wrong, that is not a critique. It is trolling.
-
There are many poorly done studies in the cold fusion literature.
They can also be found in the literature of every branch of science.
We need to talk about fraud in scienceSoftware that uncovers suspicious papers will do little for a community that does not confront organized research fraud, says Jennifer Byrne.www.nature.com -
Well, my definitive opinion is that we can no longer speak about deep technic here..with people who know what they're talking about .. since a while..so i leave you to your game and its players.
You can talk about it freely. You may not like to hear the opinions of the peanut gallery, and because of that we also have a special section of the forum for a less cluttered discussion, and, to our amazement, is rarely used. You have access to it. Feel free to make it your permanent home if you want.
-
If however you think tritium 50X background necessarily implies fusion then you are misguided: there are possibilities (given background is so very low, and the mass ratio between tritium and hydrogen high) that could provide that. Not high likelihood possibilities - but ones that need investigating.
Okay, read the papers and see if these possibilities have been investigated. I suggest you look at Bockris, and Will, F. (Look for both under "All Authors" in the library index, because their graduate students were the First Author.) If you find these possibilities were investigated, and you cannot think of any other possible problems, then I suggest you report back and say: "I thought there might be a problem, but I see now there is not, so I am convinced the tritium results are real."
Ha, ha ha ha! I am joking. Of course you will not do that.
-
there are possibilities (given background is so very low, and the mass ratio between tritium and hydrogen high) that could provide that. Not high likelihood possibilities
Let me point out that tritium is radioactive. The half life is 12.3 years, which is high enough that a sample of tritium is easy to detect, albeit with liquid scintillation, not a Geiger counter. The decay rate is high enough that you can illuminate a glow in the dark, non-electric exit sign with a small amount of tritium. Hydrogen is not radioactive, so there is no chance anyone would confuse tritium with hydrogen, even though they are close in mass. See:
https://hps.org/documents/tritium_fact_sheet.pdf
In short, what THH wrote here is nonsense. Perhaps he did not know that tritium is radioactive, or that radioactive species are easy to detect and you do not need to compare masses to distinguish them from non-radioactive species. If he did know these things, I wonder why he wrote this. Was it trolling? An attempt to confuse the issues? If so, it is inept, because most readers here know that tritium is radioactive.
-
I hope the core purpose of this Forum will not get lost in the misguided desire to give a house skeptic free reign.
I get that THH is annoying. Just block him! Ignore him.
I'd like to see comments about the background and skill-sets of each researcher in that research team. Discussion about this science in front of us today. Relevant to a rather quickly changing field. Bringing the public up to date on this research.
Instead, this very very important thread is absolutely devoid of any of this.I think you exaggerate. I think there are many messages in this thread that bring the public up to date, etc.
Perhaps we are paying too much attention to THH, and responding too often. Perhaps I am guilty of that. "Don't feed a troll." As you say, it clutters the conversation.
-
feed a trol
A different menu
the Canadian"Decouple" is very relevant to #ICCF24 ...the climate vs nuclear angle
External Content youtu.beContent 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.I contacted another Robert about #ICCF24
saving the planet..
inter alia
Robert Parker (@NukeForClimate) / TwitterPassionate about stopping global warming and bringing back a price on carbon. Ex President of the Australian Nuclear Association, Master of Nuclear Science.twitter.com -
Avoid this public forum to escape the cluttered discussions aka THHUXLEYNEW.
The people behind the avatar THH just have one purpose. Dilute any information relevant to CF/LENR.
How loyal low grade teachers (e.g. A.Hill) of UK universities are, we know from the famous CoF-19/Ivermectin case from university of Liverpool. These folks are susceptible to black mail, desperately need the salary and the position due to family etc.. Most are members of the FM/R/F/B mafia what explains how marginal folks make a career far over their capabilities.
LENR Forum has become a waste of time due to to many low grade commenters.
Of course the owners hunt for clicks and thus like elsewhere any crap is welcome.
-
LENR Forum has become a waste of time
Twitter has a word limit....= less word salad..
.lets move with #ElonMusk?
Why is the #ICCF24 tag so anemic?
-
we also have a special section of the forum for a less cluttered discussion, and, to our amazement, is rarely used.
I suspect most people do what I tend to do - which is click on "Latest Posts" from the drop-down menu (at least on a PC. I have no idea what this forum looks like on a phone). That means I get presented with theads that are "hot" - and so it's natural to start reading (and commenting on) these first.
Using the "latest posts" tab seems to mean that all threads are displayed in reverse chronological order of last "update" - regardless of which "topic/board" the thread actually sits in. To me, this seems to render the topic divisions slightly redundant. And it also means that "hot" threads start to wander away from the subject of the original title very quickly.
I guess that trying to achieve the ideal forum structure is always going to be problematic. Users are like cats, and are not really amenable to herding.
Curbina Is there a different "special section" that I'm unaware of?
-
-
Your typology is not shared by anyone and I never asked you to leave, I am trying to figure out what position you have in this huge topic and to see more constructive responses instead of what you do again, making drama, and insinuating the forum is like (gasp) the so called less free countries on earth, as if the west is free at the moment, give me a break. Saying it is a fan club if someone pushed back a little. So lets agree to stick to the topic.
You perhaps have paid attention to only part of the thread. I am a relatively undramatic person. However when accused by multiple people here (with no pushback from mods) of being a profit-motivated company with multiple employees all pretending to be me to create Russian disinformation I get annoyed.
Maybe the US would not understand it but sentiment against Putin for consistent and egregious breaking of any sort of rules-based order (the EU likes rules) is strong. You know, land grabs from neighbours, radioactive poisoning of enemies on foreign soil, that sort of thing.
"Pushing back" is not the same as wanting to stifle dissent.
I guess anyone in Russia now understands that - and I hope you do too. Fan clubs cannot tolerate portrayals of their object that they do not like - however well attested.
-
I think you have hit on the problem, Shane D. right there. Who feels that they can sit through hours and hours of video - especially videos of the dry "conference presentation" type? Yes I've sat through a few - but only ones that have been mentioned in this thread - because trying to watch too many videos like that in one go means I lose the will to live
Personally, I'm much happier studying something in written form than watching a presentation. I can go at my own pace, scan through to look for salient points relatively quickly, stop to look up stuff mid-way through, and re-read passages that don't gel on the frist pass. A video forces you to go at the pace of the presenter (although I sometimes increase playback speed, if the voice is clear enough) - which is not too bad as long as you know that the presentation time will be short. But I am certainly not going to sit looking at a "talking head" for an hour.Exactly - and more - written text is precise and can be precisely read. Videos (if not dry and boring) can be motivating and entertaining. If well presented they can make you believe what they say. Whereas carefully written text can be analysed and checked, references looked up and then (sometimes) references of references, etc, as is needed. It is both more efficient for the reader to skim, and more informative when reading in detail.
-
Let me point out that tritium is radioactive. The half life is 12.3 years, which is high enough that a sample of tritium is easy to detect, albeit with liquid scintillation, not a Geiger counter. The decay rate is high enough that you can illuminate a glow in the dark, non-electric exit sign with a small amount of tritium. Hydrogen is not radioactive, so there is no chance anyone would confuse tritium with hydrogen, even though they are close in mass. See:
https://hps.org/documents/tritium_fact_sheet.pdf
In short, what THH wrote here is nonsense.Jed, I will always respond when you misinterpret me, or simply take one possibility out of many (which could not happen) and then dismiss something.
I have never said that anyone would confuse a bottle of T2 with a bottle of H2.
The levels detected in all the non-retracted LENR experiments are very low, even though in some cases 10X the background. The single black swan "high" T result at 50,000 X background (ballpark, I do not remember exactly) is still a tiny amount of Tritium as a fraction of total H, although enough to have a very clear radioactive signature.
My point that you quote was the opposite of what you say. T & H are very different in mass, which means that physical methods of isotopic concentration are easier than for any other pair of isotopes. Since background T - at miniscule levels - is in all water not explicitly de-tritiated - the correct procedures can concentrate that T. I have not worked out how that would work - or not work - in an electrolytic cell - because there are a number of different effects that could lead to T concentration and I do not know. That is why I said low probability. We could - it would take a while - go through every possible such effect (assuming we were experts) or we could read carefully the old CF papers on tritium detection (you linked one) and use the arguments from those, applied to different situations, to determine what circumstances could lead to such unexpected concentration of T.
So - your misunderstandings here:
(1) I am not saying that T and H (as lab ingredients) are mistaken. Nor that 100% pure T could be easily mistaken - it would be highly radioactive.
(2) My point was that the nuclear mass ratio T/H = 3. Higher than any other isotopic nuclear mass ratio and making isotopic ratio change through physical means much easier than would normally be the case.
Finally, for that one set of very high retracted results with imputations here of some sort of impropriety that forced an improper retraction. I think you know they are so far from what anyone else have found that they are probably an error of some kind. Not - before you misunderstand me again - of the above kind.
