Posts by Eric Walker

    Only one not fooled it seems was Brian Ahern.

    Perhaps more accurately: I gather that among LENR longtimers there were different levels of optimism, pessimism and skepticism. What optimism there was was due in part to the direct connection to Focardi and through him the indirect connection to Piantelli. There was a willingness among some to withhold judgment until adequate information was available to make an assessment, and, until then, scary tidbits that turned up here and there might be allowed as the result of possible quirks of character. The tests by Levi et al. provided additional grounds for optimism up until (but probably not including) the Lugano test, and after that, Parkhomov's and related reports.

    It was in this context that there were few who had openly expressed a clear judgment on the matter one way or another.

    I sort of got the idea that questioning the behavior of any member of this forum was a terminal sin...

    One certainly doesn't want to make a habit of it. And attempting to point out the (implied or claimed) hypocrisy/unfairness/bias of mods won't go far either. Making the discussion one about mods and moderation: bad. Turning the discussion back to one about the comments on Rossi's blog: good.

    I would appreciate a couple of examples what you considered were "boorish" enough to be banned. I find that hard to believe after the hundreds of posts by Mary Yugo.

    Sorry Adrian. I have few suggestions for you, and I'm not going to engage further in this discussion. There have been numerous occasions when clear explanations have been provided for why we find ourselves in this cycle, and yet we have still come to this point. There's not much I can do for you at this time except hope that you'll somehow mellow out and engage points of fact rather than spoiling for a fight and diverting the conversation to make it one about other forum members. It is incontrovertible that Mary's behavior is also boorish.

    You also accused me of getting facts wrong and I requested examples of those too, but you never replied.

    No. You merely misunderstood my suggestion. I suggested that you stick to matters of fact, i.e., rather than personalizing things with other forum members. You seem to have taken that to mean that I was suggesting that you had said things that were untrue (i.e., nonfactual). That was not the suggestion, although I did not have enough energy to clarify the point.

    I get that your views differ from mine, as they long have. It is a practical problem. When someone has no argument to make and only launches into people, calling them trolls and the like, the real discussion gets sidelined, and others with similar tendencies come out of the woodworks. (One wonders whether that is the very purpose of such behavior.) You may disagree, but your fortitude for that kind of thing is formidable. We hope to make this a place where quieter, shier people are also willing to contribute. They will keep quiet if this place is repeatedly allowed to devolve into a food fight.

    Well I have just been banned, for the third time, for an opinion or belief.

    No. You were (obviously) banned because your behavior was boorish. You have never been banned for your beliefs. Every time you have been given a timeout, it is because you were forever spoiling for a fight. And the next time your behavior is boorish, you will be permabanned. Sorry.

    Yeah Tony.

    This forum is focusing on the wrongdoings of Rossi! Please stick to this dictum.

    Over at ECW there is a space for you if you don't support this narrative.

    You are mischaracterizing things, as there are several Rossi supporters who do (mostly) stick to facts, who are not inclined to personalize things and who do not engage in gratuitous provocation, and for these reasons they have encountered no difficulties over a long period of time. But no matter. For the newbies I'll mention that how this place is moderated is not a promising direction to take the discussion.

    Putting the blame on someone else, and trashing them to put yourself and IH in a better light after making a terrible mess out of your sorry selves.

    As someone new and relatively unknown, sticking to the facts and avoiding gratuitous provocation will help you to establish your benign intentions and increase your chances of remaining here.

    I do not think the tests cost them much. Or anything? Maybe Rossi paid for them.

    The real cost to IH in allowing the 1 year test to proceed was that it weakened their position considerably when the lawsuit was initiated against them. With hindsight it seems the cost of that combination of curiosity and resignation was the risk of being liable for 89 million (x 3) or whatever came out of the resulting bankruptcy.

    I was only mildly surprised when Rossi filed the lawsuit. I rolled my eyes and thought that it was in character and that it made a lot of sense out of the strange tidbits of cryptic non-information being published on JONP over the preceding year.

    I have my suspicions about tungsten fissioning and undergoing accelerated alpha decay under electric discharge, going back to the 1922 Wendt and Irion experiment where they exploded tungsten wires and reported seeing helium (a report they later retracted), and another related experiment that might have predated them. (Tungsten has an isotope that is an alpha emitter.)

    I freely admit to bias. It is important to recognize it up front. I do not think one can rid oneself of bias. One acknowledges it and then seeks to move beyond it if one can.

    As far as I know, most of the great scientists in history, even if many have been independent and sometimes maverick thinkers, were fully embedded in the mainstream scientific discussions going on, including Fleischmann and Pons, They were part of the larger scientific community.

    The point about flashiness of presentation is a good indirect detail to take note of. It tells the observer that what is being witnessed is not in the mold of and following the conventions of scientific presentations, which tend to be dry and targeted to a specialized audience. This presentation is to a general audience, perhaps to give a status report to laypeople on what they've done with the all of benefactors' money over the preceding few years. The question that comes up that one does not have enough information to answer is whether they would be able to give a convincing presentation with solid conclusions to be defended in the more specialized mode before a room of other scientists. Perhaps they could.

    Shane, your point is well taken. But let me pursue this a little further: there's a danger in implicitly drawing an equivalence between various outcast systems of thought and treating them all as equals. For example, we might observe that LENR was treated unfairly, and the electric universe stuff is frowned upon, so LENR and the electric universe stuff must somehow belong in the same category.

    A very different view is likely to be found among many LENR researchers: they believe that what they're doing is bona fide science. They identify as members of the scientific community, they like empiricism, they like the community and culture of scientists, and they stick with their interest in LENR despite, not because of, its rogue status. They would not want to be associated with obviously fringe topics, even if the topic of their own interest is somewhat fringe. It's a subtle but important point to be made. To observe that LENR research may have been treated unfairly is not a carte blanche to say to oneself that anything that scientists frown upon is probably being treated unfairly.

    In this case, we have a flashy presentation following a somewhat ambling and unusual script with few definite conclusions, and we have a large conference, and a number of people interested in a topic I've only vaguely registered in the past, and the researchers up on the stage appear to have come upon some benefactors who perhaps have given them plenty of funds and a charge to look into the empirical basis of electric universe theory. That's interesting information. It doesn't tell us a whole lot, but all of this provides useful context for getting a sense of how rigorous and independent they've been and what they're looking for. And it gives us a vague sense of whether their findings, whatever they are, are going to make an impact on the larger scientific scene: we can conclude that they probably will not.

    With that context established, one's attention is freed up to focus in on the specifics of their observations as they relate to LENR so that they can be considered on their merits.

    It's always good to get a read on the larger context of whatever one is watching or reading, as one more piece of information among many to be weighed, including, of course, the independent merits of the presentation.

    You are hypothetically controlling an alpha decay with a magnetic field. There will be no positive feedback unless the decay generates more magnetic field, and it will not do so without human help.

    You have made half of a point. Although later in the description I mentioned a control system that would adjust the magnetic field on the basis of the state of the system, it's also true that the magnetic field is not (in the hypothetical scenario) part of a natural feedback loop.

    But the point at issue is whether a system must be unstable and hard to control when there are fast, highly energetic reactions, in contrast to a system driven by a chemical process, in which the low-level reactions individually have much less energy. I don't think the existence or lack thereof of a natural feedback loop changes the conclusion I was trying to get to, which is that the former system doesn't necessarily have to be unstable and hard to control, although it might be in certain cases.

    Consider a hypothetical process that speeds up radioactive decay a little, e.g., alpha decay. For the sake of argument, suppose a strong magnetic field, not hooked up to a control system, could do this. Radioactive decay is a statistical phenomenon, and (in our hypothetical scenario) you've just turned the dial a little. I don't think this would result in the instabilities. That suggests to me that if the feedback loop is slow enough to respond (e.g., due to thermal inertia), there wouldn't necessarily be instability when the inducing process (a magnetic field in our case) is hooked up to a control system. In a short period of time after the field strength has been increased, the decay rate would go up a little, resulting in more decays per second, and more thermalized heat, and then the ensemble of atoms would re-establish equilibrium. The control system would see the new state of the world in the form of an increase in temperature within a period of time that is a function of the thermal inertia of the system, resulting in a dampened response.

    I agree with you 100 percent that input-plus-a-little-more "COP" plots are suspicious.

    I think the analysis of what a material heated by LENR would look like is understandable but overly focused on specific possibilities. Although individual nuclear events are violent in comparison to chemical reactions, this does not necessarily translate to the macroscopic picture, even in the form of reduced stability for the overall process. We see a different situation with radioactive decay: individual fission reactions are violent and unpredictable. By contrast, the temperature of a pellet of fission fuel in steady state does not change over short periods, and fission as a macroscopic process in conditions of steady state is consistent to the point of being boring.

    Can you achieve something similar with LENR, where the process is induced rather than naturally occurring? That amounts to asking what LENR is and how it can be induced. If the process of inducing it relies on a relatively stable macroscopic change in the environment that does something to incrementally increase the rate of an already occurring natural process such as radioactive decay, I do not see unstable excursions in the macroscopic system as a necessary consequence, just as moving two pellets of fission fuel closer together to increase their activity does not (in the normal case) result in unstable behavior.

    But note also that transients in temperature are sometimes reported in LENR writeups, so it's also something that appears to be in the realm of possibility at least.

    established science will continue to ignore them because it is within the noise range.

    Side note: an output of 160 percent of input (if true) would only be within the noise range if there was a large standard deviation in the figure of merit. (I haven't reviewed this report, so I do not know whether they're looking at power or energy; hopefully energy). If the observed standard deviation across trials was very small, 160 percent might be well above the noise floor, and the ball would be in our court to identify some kind of systematic error.

    H-G, my earlier statement referred to "fission," and your statement addressing my statement referred to "fusion." Also, in the Candu case, the fission fuel is contained in long metal tubes and is separated from the surrounding heavy water. And deuterium is not being impregnated into the fission fuel (e.g., by way of an electric current). We must compare apples to apples and not oranges to orangutans. :)

    Is an argument that points the reader to a directly relevant patent by an independent author reporting what looks like the same phenomenon a lame one? :)

    Most of the NiH experiments recently in the news have pursued leads from Parkhomov and related reports, ultimately going back to an approach reverse engineered from Lugano. Not sure if that's being done in this particular case. My own sense is that artifact was never ruled out in Parkhomov's case. It would be nice if people would take a close look at the work of Piantelli and other earlier researchers and attempt a replication of something they've done.

    I've always taken a mild interest in Brillouin's experimental findings, while not taking much interest in Godes's theoretical explorations. It is always good to assess the two on independent scales: do the experiments look good? And does the theory make sense? Ideally the experimentalists would not be detained too much in theory, but in the field of LENR, theory and experiment often come as a package deal, to the determent of the general perception of the credibility of the experimental findings, I would imagine. In that context it's often appropriate to ignore the theory mostly and just focus on the experiments.

    Thank you, Gregory.

    Confronted with a situation where some experiments in the field yield a fusion-like pattern of products (CF experiments) and others a fissionlike one (LENR experiments), one can reasonably wonder whether one is not observing two aspects of the same phenomenon

    My own reading of the LENR studies is that nothing produces unequivocal evidence of fusion, in contrast, say, to alpha decay. I do take interest in what empirical findings might be reported in this particular study relating to uranium.

    Miles then went to Japan and worked with the NHE. He used the same set-up as the Japanese, but saw excess heat. Yet, the NHE made a report saying he did not. Miles took issue with that, and it became political.

    More recently there was a similar disagreement on interpretation of data between Miles and Coolescence, if I understood the situation. I gather that in the most promising experiments the signal is strong enough not to be an occasion for such disagreements. Using standard calorimetric calculations, you have an unambiguous signal no matter which approach you choose, and then the argument becomes one of how to understand that signal.

    I suppose someone like Fleischmann would have the stature to argue that NHE were not using a standard approach. But that would depend critically on the details.

    (CCS/ATER would not enter into the point above, as it is a non-standard way of doing the calculations.)