In 1983, a claim was made that ulcers were caused by bacterial infection. This paper is from 1997, analyzing the rejection and then growing acceptance of the theory: http://cogsci.uwaterloo.ca/Articles/Pages/Ulcers.one.html If interested enough, the second part is available by replacing "one," above, with "two."
It may be of interest, I don't know. I have no reason to believe nuclear physicists are fundamentally different than medical doctors and biologists.
We see here and again so many smooth talkers who bring back their pseudo science without having tested anything in their life.
I can say that maintaining SS304 beyond 700° and even 1000°, it pisses hydrogen through the walls and the steel disintegrates into black dust...
Probably no meaning. You might get chemical state changes in that layer based on reactor gas contents - so if those change there could at some point be a small chemical heat increase or loss.
Curbina - it is true - if you think the only point in dialog is to persuade people of LENR right or wrong - then I am an unsatisfactory interlocutor, not easily swayed.
I don't think that, I have researched a lot of so called "free energy" as a personal interest, with a considerable time commitment, since 2004, and I have learnt much in the way. But I have learnt as much from the technical, scientific and engineering point of view as from the psychological and sociological perspectives. It is this later aspect tha one that keeps on giving, never ceasing to suprise. You not being easily swayed is perhaps not correct. You simply won't be swayed. Fine for me.
You not being easily swayed is perhaps not correct. You simply won't be swayed. Fine for me.
Case in point where I was swayed (perhaps, although not easily swayed, your view of me is not immutable).
Initially, I thought the electron screening stuff posted here (7 years ago??) could not be real. But it fascinated me.
I researched the literature starting with czerski.
In the end - I decided I could not be sure, and stayed very interested in it.
So of course the recent google interest and things like
https://www1.grc.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/Electron-Screened-and-Enhanced-Nuclear-Reactions.pdf
are the type of LENR that I am quite enthusiastic about. Although low here is not thermal energy at 100C low.
We see here and again so many smooth talkers who bring back their pseudo science without having tested anything in their life.
I can say that maintaining SS304 beyond 700° and even 1000°, it pisses hydrogen through the walls and the steel disintegrates into black dust...
I believe you. I think. Though that was a bit unquantitative. I have no idea what SS does with hydrogen at high temps, just a general idea that hydrogen will diffuse through most things. But I don't understand the connection with what I posted?
In 1983, a claim was made that ulcers were caused by bacterial infection. This paper is from 1997, analyzing the rejection and then growing acceptance of the theory: http://cogsci.uwaterloo.ca/Articles/Pages/Ulcers.one.html If interested enough, the second part is available by replacing "one," above, with "two."
It may be of interest, I don't know. I have no reason to believe nuclear physicists are fundamentally different than medical doctors and biologists.
Not sure about the people, but the subjects are very different. Our resident biology expert here does not like it, but...
Medicine is not a science. Even with molecular biology and exact pathways for every chemical reaction that underlies a disease - almost impossible at the moment to do - disease progression depends on the exact genetic and epigenetic makeup of the diseased person as well as (if pathogen or cancer) the exact genetic makeup of the pathogen.
Maybe one day we will get to that - it is starting - but 99.9% now still medicine is a set of approximations based on experience with no underlying ability to calculate what is going on. There have been recent great advances in predicting protein folding but that from example-based AI not some precisely calculable theory. the precise theory is too complex to calculate.
That is still very useful, but quite different from what we would call science where there are underlying laws that we can actually use to work out what happens.
There are things, material science, where what happens is again so complex that we have a whole set of approximations that do not always work. So it is a bit towards the "not science" side of the spectrum, but nowhere near as far as medicine.
There are things, material science, where what happens is again so complex that we have a whole set of approximations that do not always work. So it is a bit towards the "not science" side of the spectrum, but no where near as far as medicine.
There I agree with you. I spent a lot of time working in that field, everything from polymers and adhesive formulations to combustion technology to metallurgy. I think of it as cookery, even the beat recipes are not always a guarantee of success. And that is of course, what LENR is, a particular branch of materials science.
There I agree with you. I spent a lot of time working in that field, everything from polymers and adhesive formulations to combustion technology to metallurgy. I think of it as cookery, even the beat recipes are not always a guarantee of success. And that is of course, what LENR is, a particular branch of materials science.
I agree with THH and Alan. A study of material behavior at the human level of observation is like a black art. Physics can be applied successfully only at the atomic level, with examples being the design of microprocessors and quantum computers. We are not yet at that level of understanding about cold fusion. Cold fusion needs to be studied like a chemical process, using intuition and logic, not QM and mathematical description. But getting physicists to agree has proven to be impossible. We are not at the level where "proof" is possible. We have to be guided by common sense and logical relationships. We also have to be willing to change our minds as new behaviors are observed. Unfortunately, this ability has been largely lost. I seldom see agreement about anything in this field. I see only fixed ideas based largely on ego. This is especially true at the leadership level. Increasingly, I suspect this discovery will have importance only to psychologists and to people who study how science has failed.
I heard that at next ICCF no more P&F type experiment will be presented.
Maybe one day chemistry will also resume its place, 10 exp-6 further from Lenr truth.
I agree with THH and Alan. A study of material behavior at the human level of observation is like a black art. Physics can be applied successfully only at the atomic level, with examples being the design of microprocessors and quantum computers. We are not yet at that level of understanding about cold fusion. Cold fusion needs to be studied like a chemical process, using intuition and logic, not QM and mathematical description. But getting physicists to agree has proven to be impossible. We are not at the level where "proof" is possible. We have to be guided by common sense and logical relationships. We also have to be willing to change our minds as new behaviors are observed. Unfortunately, this ability has been largely lost. I seldom see agreement about anything in this field. I see only fixed ideas based largely on ego. This is especially true at the leadership level. Increasingly, I suspect this discovery will have importance only to psychologists and to people who study how science has failed.
I heard that at next ICCF no more P&F type experiment will be presented.
Maybe one day chemistry will also resume its place, 10 exp-6 further from Lenr truth.
Was that the organizer's doing, or because no one submitted a P&F type presentation?
It would indeed. 10 researchers means a payroll of $2M a year, thats $6M over a 3 year program, $1M for equipment plus $1M/y for consumables, lab rental, coffee and pizza = $10M. There you go
Yes. I think the cost would be largely a matter of luck. THH asks for an easily replicable experiments. That is a worthy goal! If I won the lottery I would fund that. I said it might cost $10 or $20 million. He disagreed. You came up with this estimate. Let me explain how I came up with a similar estimate:
The potential low end cost would be close to zero. Suppose the LEC works as well as Gordon and Whitehouse think it does. It would be just what THH is looking for. Imagine 5 or 10 more groups replicate, word gets around, and in a few months, thousands of replications are done. That would solve our problem.
Okay, suppose the LEC does not work as well as we hope. Suppose there is nothing along the lines THH asks for. We have to develop it. That might be done with a small group in short time, so maybe it would cost less than $10 million. Then again it might take longer. Or the effort might fail. It might be a dead end. Since it has not been done, we don't know. We may need 4 or 5 groups independently looking for a solution. Even if we get lucky, and one of them develops the easily replicated experiment, I think it would end up costing $10 or $20 million. Even for that amount, there is no guarantee the goal will be achieved.
I understood it became less fashion because all the other ways are more investigated now..
Was that the organizer's doing, or because no one submitted a P&F type presentation?
The people who judged it, as you know, did not consider them clear.
No, the people who read about the experiments, and who are qualified to judge them, all said they were clear. Perhaps you refer to the 2004 DoE reviewers or some other judges who did not read about the experiments, who know nothing about them, and who never offered any technical reason to doubt them. They only gave Huizenga's answer: "my theory says this cannot happen, so it did not happen."
You cannot cite any judge who discussed the technical details and said they were not clear. You made that up.
I heard that at next ICCF no more P&F type experiment will be presented.
Maybe one day chemistry will also resume its place, 10 exp-6 further from Lenr truth.
You are right. The sponsors of ICCF-25 are focused on a hot fusion process that can be made to occur in a material. This approach has several advantages; the nuclear products are well-known and the behavior can be explained by an acceptable model. Unfortunately, this process and explanation have no relationship to cold fusion. But this fact does not matter. The studies can now be accepted by science. The hot fusion program has wasted billions on a failed effort and now the mechanism will be used to avoid actually investigating the novel and potentially useful cold fusion mechanism. The justification is based on electron screening being an easily observed process when hot fusion occurs. They then pretend this screening effect has a relationship to cold fusion. So, once again the real mystery will be ignored.
No one wants to admit that the scientific establishment has made a serious mistake that could doom mankind.
Yes! No one wants to admit that, or even think that. It would be so distressing I suppose most scientists would block the idea from their minds. Psychologists have often described this. Freud himself described a horrifying example in himself. He misdiagnosed a patient, who then died of acute illness. He felt guilty. Sometime later, he forgot all about it. He erased it from his memory. He only recalled it by accident (looking through his notes . . . or something like that). This is called "repression."
Repression is the unconscious blocking of unpleasant emotions, impulses, memories, and thoughts from your conscious mind. First described by Sigmund Freud, the purpose of this defense mechanism is to try to minimize feelings of guilt and anxiety.
If you have the (achievable AFAIK) replicable decent experiment, it will convince me, and also many others.
Again, you say it should be replicable. It will not convince you otherwise. You would never demand a replicable experiment before you believe in rockets, Mars explorers, cloning, or any other scientific claim. An experiment might be extremely difficult to replicate. So difficult, it has only been done once, at one laboratory, such as the Top Quark experiment. You would never say "I don't believe that because it is nearly impossible to replicate." You only apply that standard to cold fusion, and you only do that as an excuse to dismiss the experiments.
Jed. I defer to you greater knowledge of most of the topics we discuss, but zero common sense. I have to keep fact checking you. Specifically, you cannot in an open electrolytic cell measure recombination be left-over electrolyte (Staker's case) because the amount of evaporation is an unknown.
Evaporation is always known, as I said. It has been known since 1801, and it is always measured during calibrations with resistance heating. You are describing an pretend situation that never happens and cannot happen.
s. And LENR papers which do not explicitly consider evaporation (where it could be relevant) or which dismiss the possibility of recombination will not convince anyone except LENR believers.
Fortunately, there are no such papers. You do not know of any, but you pretend they exist, as an excuse to ignore the facts. If you look at the calorimetry equations, you will see they include a term for evaporation. But, of course, you will not look.
THH, the cold fusion effect has been replicated many tmes. I have replicated it many times The other people who kept working in the field have replicated it. I can show anyone who is interested how to replicate the process. Of course, skill is required. The proper equipment is required. The willingness to follow instructions is required. Very few people have these characteristics. Also, the replication must be done by a well-known and respected organization and by well-known researchers. My success does not count.
As Jed points out, serious money is also required. Google, Gates, and NASA have made a serious effort. Only NASA has succeeded. They have described their efforts in print. This description has had no effect on any opinion, including yours. Their success has no effect because the results can not be published in an accepted journal.
So, rather than keep telling people what they ought to do, why not try to find out what has been done and the consequences? You may have the ability to find errors. I also have this ability because I have seen and studied the errors firsthand. Why not ask questions and learn what other people know before making suggestions?
THH, the cold fusion effect has been replicated many tmes. I have replicated it many times The other people who kept working in the field have replicated it. I can show anyone who is interested how to replicate the process. Of course, skill is required.
Yes. I should have said that.
I think what THH wants to see is an experiment that is easier to replicate. I think everyone in the field would love to see that. As I said, if I won the lottery I would fund a serious effort to find that. It is an important goal. But, THH should not reject the field just because there is no "easy experiment."
I think experiments are getting easier. I hope the LEC is as easy as it seems. As I recall, you, Ed, have said the LEC probably cannot be boosted into a practical source of energy. It will never produce more than milliwatts of electricity. Even if that is true, it is still a relatively easy experiment to replicate, and many people will find it convincing. I think the LEC may persuade the scientific community and attract funding, even if it cannot be made practical. So I would like to see more replications of it.
