THH, will you please accept that LENR is a real phenomenon and move on? And Jed, will you stop beating the dead horse?
Ed Storms Pre-print on Cold Fusion, Materials and Gaps. Comments Please!
-
-
Do you think it possible that the NAE can exist without a metal crystalline matrix to create it?
I'd like Ed's answer to this as well - preferably without tactful reservations.
-
Display More
@THH. I asked Shanahan many times to agree an experimental protocol with me to prove or disprove his hypotheses. Never was forthcoming with one. So he's not IMHO credible, and just to put a cherry on top, he works in the nuclear power industry, so there's a certain 'conflict of interest'.
As for Ascoli's 'foamgate' even if he is correct, which I doubt because the evidence is based at least (or mostly) on his imaginative re-interpretations of low-definition video clips. And he has (I am told) a vested interest in hot fusion so there may also be a conflict of interest there.
You will I am sure agree that we gave both of these gentlemen pretty free rein here, though Ascoli did need reminding several times not to flood threads with his only topic.
I think including these two as credible critics is a bit like treating a well-known POTUS as an expert on elections.
(1) I don't agree about conflict of interest - in the sense that most hot fusion scientists would jump on cold fusion with great joy if they thought it had any traction.
(2) However, I do agree that anyone working in the LENR field has a strong likely bias - they have invested their life and (usually) career in a romantic and frustrating grand project. They are not likely to give up on this. The (real) isolation of LENR over the last 40 years makes this effect all the more powerful.
Luckily, you will be glad to know that I do not argue based on motivation. I think all scientists have prejudices, and all good scientists acknowledge this. It is the job of scientists to try to look at evidence and weigh it up independent of prejudices. Detailed analysis of experiments can do this - where you have a replicable experiment it is pretty easy - any arguments can be resolved by replicating with different instrumentation of methodology. That is they way science normally works and I do not see LENR as being different except that replication "to close loopholes" has been difficult.
-
I came to the LENR field from conventional material science. I had no idea if F-P were right or not. Most people working at LANL at the time had the same attitude. Nevertheless, we were willing to test their claim. Most tests failed but a few demonstrated that F-P had discovered a new phenomenon. At the time, we had no idea how or why it worked. But, it was real. This fact was ignored by the DoE and by professional skeptics. Now 34 years have passed. Hundreds of successful studies have been reported. The outlines of how the process works are becoming clear. Yet the professional skeptics keep up their rejection, using increasingly irrational arguments. We are now dealing with a pathology, not a science. This pathology has infected the scientific body like a virus for which we have no cure. Perhaps we need to isolate the infected and move on.
-
Skepticism is very valuable in small doses because it stops mistakes from being made. In large doses, it stops all progress. Initially, skepticism toward LENR was applied in large doses. This slowed progress. Now skepticism is a nuisance because it is being applied to the wrong issues. Now, the subject is overwhelmed with explanations having very little relationship to reality. These ideas require the attention of skeptics. Where are the skeptics when we need them? Why are explanations based on nonsense ignored?
-
THH, will you please accept that LENR is a real phenomenon and move on? And Jed, will you stop beating the dead horse?
I will; accept that FPHE (Fleischmann Pons Heat Effect) is a real phenomenon and move on. LENR puts cart before horse.
-
I came to the LENR field from conventional material science. I had no idea if F-P were right or not. Most people working at LANL at the time had the same attitude. Nevertheless, we were willing to test their claim. Most tests failed but a few demonstrated that F-P had discovered a new phenomenon. At the time, we had no idea how or why it worked. But, it was real. This fact was ignored by the DoE and by professional skeptics. Now 34 years have passed. Hundreds of successful studies have been reported. The outlines of how the process works are becoming clear. Yet the professional skeptics keep up their rejection, using increasingly irrational arguments. We are now dealing with a pathology, not a science. This pathology has infected the scientific body like a virus for which we have no cure. Perhaps we need to isolate the infected and move on.
Well, that may be. I am not familiar with professional skeptics. (A friend of mine from Uni was one - he was also a determined atheist and converted to be an equally determined evangelical Christian theist. That did not surprise me - he was always somone who needed belief. I think his Christianity was a good deal better for him than his atheism. Anyway, I have stayed the same and not held either view. That makes me, if anything a professional agnostic?
And - can we move on to the arguments rather than the discussion of personalities?
THH
-
OK, let's discuss the first step that is required to start the fusion process. I propose a chemical change must take place in the material. This change has to be consistent with all the rules that apply to chemical changes. The process does not anticipate that a nuclear process would follow.
The challenge is to identify where in the material this unique condition might form. The second challenge is to identify the unique structure that is present at this location in which a fusion reaction can occur. Because these two challenges are unique to my approach, we need to agree that these challenges are required. Most explanations totally ignore this requirement. So, are we in agreement so far? If not, why not?
-
OK, let's discuss the first step that is required to start the fusion process. I propose a chemical change must take place in the material. This change has to be consistent with all the rules that apply to chemical changes. The process does not anticipate that a nuclear process would follow.
The challenge is to identify where in the material this unique condition might form. The second challenge is to identify the unique structure that is present at this location in which a fusion reaction can occur. Because these two challenges are unique to my approach, we need to agree that these challenges are required. Most explanations totally ignore this requirement. So, are we in agreement so far? If not, why not?
A chemical change like the forming of metal hydride ions?
I would very much like to see further testing of your proposed approach with either the holes and cracks suggest or even inversely, nanostructured points and spires.
Can this be done using electrochemical processes or will vapor deposition be required to engine appropriate materials to test?
I remember someone at ICCF24 mentioning a semiconductor company capable of engineering such materials.Do you have more information on how we can test your two primary hypothesis further?
-
A chemical change like the forming of metal hydride ions?
I would very much like to see further testing of your proposed approach with either the holes and cracks suggest or even inversely, nanostructured points and spires.
Can this be done using electrochemical processes or will vapor deposition be required to engine appropriate materials to test?
I remember someone at ICCF24 mentioning a semiconductor company capable of engineering such materials.Do you have more information on how we can test your two primary hypothesis further?
The chemical change has to form a chemical structure that can reduce the ion separation enough to cause fusion. The nature of this structure will be discussed later
I would also like to see such testing.
I suggested at ICCF24 that the gaps could be made by nano machining. This requires money and access to the machines.
The idea of using embedded particles having a critical size can be tested. Again, this requires money and a will to follow my ideas.
After a path is identified, the next step becomes obvious. The problem is getting anyone to agree about the required path.
-
I think it’s interesting to note in our theory, we don’t dismiss any of the anomalous data. In fact we found a common thread through all the different types of LENR results. Some are much better than others.
I think Ed also has some important pieces of the puzzle as he says. It’s more than just a diplomatic answer. Each and every line of LENR research has its own nuggets of truth although many of them are misinterpreted because much of the standard model is wrong.
I would really like to know which specific papers people think are worthy of Nature publication but were refused. I think another issue is, at the risk of offending some peers, simply poor quality writing and lazy experimental design.
It will be very valuable to have competent scientists critique our work and even if it’s a JCMNS paper we should all strive to improve the quality of both our experiments and our writing. I hope that is received how it’s intended and in no way is meant to be personal or condescending. Just a general statement from my limited time in this field.
-
They aren't especially YOUR ideas because shared also by nkodama .
So as all US citizens you should be open minded so you already have read his papers, i'm sure..
However i didn't able to upload once again his files even under pdf extension.. because this F... website doesn't accept..So you should recover his papers here somewhere by asking the staff.
and a will to follow my ideas.
-
Ed one possible criticism of your paper is that it seems a bit too US centric. You mention ARPA-E’s $10m but the EU has also funded Clean HME, Clean Planet in Japan has a current market cap of over $1b. I’m not sure about BEC but I think a bit more of this type of information gives the whole paper a bit more gravity if you could include it.
I have jokingly created something called Daniel’s Law as a scientist entrepreneur I often observed that the realness of any given new technology is usually inversely correlated with the slickness of the messaging.
That’s half in jest but also half serious. Real LENR scientists need to get better at messaging and PR. The small tweaks I suggested above would go a long ways in creating better and broader appeal to this paper.
-
Clean Planet in Japan has a current market cap of over $1b.
I don't believe the information required to know this is public, though it strikes me as extremely unlikely. Could you please share your maths.
-
, Clean Planet in Japan has a current market cap of over $1b
Maybe somewhere a bit over ¥996.2M
But that could all change soon with a "heatburst" or two
https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/clean-planet
Optical Observation of Spontaneous Heat Burst Phenomena during Hydrogen Desorption from Nano-Sized Metal Composite | Published in Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear ScienceBy Takehiko Itoh, Yoshinobu Shibasaki & 4 more. Experimental Articlejcmns.scholasticahq.com -
Takehiko Itoh, Yoshinobu Shibasaki, Tomonori Takahashi, Mari Saito, Jirohta Kasagi, Yasuhiro Iwamura
I came to the LENR field from conventional material science.
The authors of Clean Energy' s latest work
Takehiko Itoh, Yoshinobu Shibasaki, Tomonori Takahashi, Mari Saito, Jirohta Kasagi, Yasuhiro Iwamura come from a variety of fields
but include two nuclear scientists..Iwamura and Kasagi
if you were to ask them if they were
"hot fusion" or "cold fusion " they would probably answer diplomatically..
" Quantum Heat Engineers" "
some Westerners polarise the issue a tad much...
Optical Observation of Spontaneous Heat Burst Phenomena during Hydrogen Desorption from Nano-Sized Metal Composite | Published in Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear ScienceBy Takehiko Itoh, Yoshinobu Shibasaki & 4 more. Experimental Articlejcmns.scholasticahq.com -
Now: Jed may mean by "valid error" - an error shown to be quite likely, or even one proved.
No, I meant an error not addressed in the paper, that the author did not think of and take steps to prevent. I also meant "possible error" or "plausible error."
As Ed Storms often points out, skeptics have often suggested that this or that error might have been made, but if you read the papers you see that no such error is possible because the author anticipated it and took steps to prevent it. Or the author did a statistical analysis and showed the error is extremely unlikely. The way Miles showed that the chance of a coincidence is 1 in 750,000.
That is what professional scientists do. That is what you expect.
All of the errors suggested by you and other skeptics are not only quite unlikely, and not proved, they are ruled out. If you were to read the literature you would know that.
-
I would like to ask posters to please keep on topic, we will start moving off topic posts to other threads.
-
I don't believe the information required to know this is public, though it strikes me as extremely unlikely. Could you please share your maths.
2022 they did a Series C with a market cap of 145.7b yen or just a tad over $1b. Source, my Japanese CFO who is also a VC.
