I found this rather thorough article on cold fusion (written from a strictly opposed viewpoint), and I can't figure out who this is written by or what this website is for. Could any of you help me figure out what I'm looking at here? And who the author might be? Thanks.
Indonesian rehash of wikipediatype info
patchy
..nothing newer than 2009?
except a few..
the latest
"In 2021, following Nature's 2019 publication of anomalous findings that might only be explained by some localized fusion,
scientists at the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Indian Head Division announced that they had assembled a group of scientists from the Navy, Army and National Institute of Standards and Technology to undertake a new, coordinated study.[12]
With few exceptions, researchers have had difficulty publishing in mainstream journals
Selamat pagi
I think that content has a lot to do with Abd Lomax.
I think the explanation for this article is that this profilpelajar.com site is simply an Indonesian bot supported website that takes articles from all over the world and publishes them without quoting the source. The format suggests this was a wiki article that has since been scrubbed or changed and therefore you found by mere chance. You must have gone pretty far down the Google pages to find this.
You must have gone pretty far down the Google pages to find this.
Ya, I might have just kept clicking deeper into the page results, or there was a specific term that brought it to the top page. I don't recall because it was a while ago. Thanks for parsing this for me.
nd I've interviewed Dr. Miles and Dr. McKubre, who have both been very helpful.
You might try Mike Staker at Loyola U who replicated the FP effect recently
He tends to get ignored by the google experts..
I've already made a lot of progress on this subject, but I keep finding more issues to track down.
If psychology is more up your street, might I also suggest you take a look at "critical windows" in the human ability to mentally model the world.
I find the thought of torturing kittens quite abhorrent - but there was a set of (in)famous experiments carried out many years ago that could shed some light on the human ability to accept (or even recognise) some concepts.
See: The surprising role of cats in the history of neuroscience.
Our minds are all damaged (or skewed) to a certain extent, in an infinite number of different ways, by everything we encounter whilst growing up.
Sadly, I suspect we are not really all that different to cats...
Display MoreIf psychology is more up your street, might I also suggest you take a look at "critical windows" in the human ability to mentally model the world.
I find the thought of torturing kittens quite abhorrent - but there was a set of (in)famous experiments carried out many years ago that could shed some light on the human ability to accept (or even recognise) some concepts.
See: The surprising role of cats in the history of neuroscience.
Our minds are all damaged (or skewed) to a certain extent, in an infinite number of different ways, by everything we encounter whilst growing up.
Sadly, I suspect we are not really all that different to cats...
I think the outlook is not nearly so grim. I think the concept of collective illusions is more appropriate for understanding cold fusion denialism.
I think the outlook is not nearly so grim.
And maybe the outlook is more grim than we are possibly capable of imagining...
And maybe the outlook is more grim than we are possibly capable of imagining...
My father is a veterinarian and I often heard him talking about this phenomena seen in animals, that there was a certain time past beyond which it was too late to learn certain behavior and the damage was permanent. He assumed for people had to be similar to a certain extent.
This is why the early infance is such a crucial stage of human development and why one has to be extra cautious with anything that is going on through those years.
I don't know at what age fresh imprints stop, Curbina - but I guess I got my pessimistic imprints long ago...
I have read the Lewis paper many times. I wish I could upload it. It is actually a good paper in many ways. I am not damning with faint praise here; I learned a lot from it. There is only one big mistake in it. But it is a doozy. As described by Miles and others, Lewis repeatedly recomputed the calibration constant so that it kept ruling out excess heat. As I wrote:
"[Lewis] thought the heating coefficient (the calibration constant) was changing as the experiment proceeded. He thought that at the beginning of the test, 1 watt of electrochemical power caused the temperature to rise 14.0°C, and later that same power caused the temperature to rise 15.9°C, 14% higher. While it is conceivable that happened, that would mean the instruments were malfunctioning or the cell was configured wrong, so the experiment should have been done over. It is more likely that the instruments were working correctly, and the higher temperature was caused by 14% anomalous excess heat added to the electrochemical power."
https://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJhownaturer.pdf
The people at the NHE made the same mistake. I described this in detail with footnotes on pages 32 - 36 in my review of F&P's calorimetry:
https://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJreviewofth.pdf
I also reiterated the discussion of Lewis.
I suppose it was a mistake. I doubt it was an excuse to dismiss the excess heat. If they were trying to make an excuse, this would be a weak one. Most people will see through it. It resembles Kreysa and Morrison, who confused power and energy. (https://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanreplytothe.pdf) Anyone with a junior high school level knowledge of physics will see they were wrong. Such a stupid mistake will not convince the reader that F&P were wrong. It will only convince the reader that Kreysa and Morrison are fools. Unless the reader is highly prejudiced against cold fusion and will instantly believe any nonsense dreamed up to "disprove" it. There are many people like that, such as the ones who control Wikipedia, and THHuxleynew.
I also discussed Morrison in my review.
"[Lewis] thought the heating coefficient (the calibration constant) was changing as the experiment proceeded. He thought that at the beginning of the test, 1 watt of electrochemical power caused the temperature to rise 14.0°C, and later that same power caused the temperature to rise 15.9°C, 14% higher. While it is conceivable that happened, that would mean the instruments were malfunctioning or the cell was configured wrong, so the experiment should have been done over. It is more likely that the instruments were working correctly, and the higher temperature was caused by 14% anomalous excess heat added to the electrochemical power."
Here is where he discusses that. It caught my attention while watching:
Hi JedRothwell, thanks for joining the thread and thanks for directing me to pages 32 - 36, I actually hadn't found this before and so I'm studying it now. As always, I greatly appreciate your help in analyzing these past works.
In his Baltimore lecture, at about 11:50 and again at 22:30, Lewis shows a table which resembles FP's table 2:
And he says, "here is the table, that is in the paper now published". Does he mean FP's paper? And where does that extra column come from? The one on the far right labeled "Voltage"?
I'll save my other questions for later, after I've done further reading.
