cam Member
  • Member since Jul 2nd 2016
  • Last Activity:

Posts by cam

  • Jed Rothwell on an Unpublished E-Cat Test Report that “Looks Like it Worked”

    @Eric Walker

    Quote

    Are you succeeding? Are your assertions here and there advancing your purpose? Are you influencing anyone?


    I fear that nobody in Italy reads this forum. I was successful in the Alberto Carpinteri affair, as I first discovered it.
    It is possible that some in this forum did not know the international nuclear databases, so I hope that somebody has appreciated their extent and completeness.
    I hope that from now on people here prefer to consult the IAEA or BNL nuclear data base than lenr-canr.org ;) .

  • Jed Rothwell on an Unpublished E-Cat Test Report that “Looks Like it Worked”

    @oystla

    Quote

    Another really stupid comment. So scientific papers on dark energy and dark matter is garbage? Or do you find nuclear reactions related to dark matter in your precious databases?


    As a chemist who opposes cold fusion I am only interested in nuclear reactions.The title reads: IAEA Nuclear Data Services. Maybe somebody can offer you information about databases on dark matter. I know nothing about that item, so please don't ask me, ask rather physicists.

  • Jed Rothwell on an Unpublished E-Cat Test Report that “Looks Like it Worked”

    @Ascoli65

    Quote

    LENR belongs to the set of socio-psychological myths which sustain the economy of our present world.


    First of all we need a formal scientific recognition of the acronym LENR which only exists in the cf world described by Jed Rothwell. Have you ever found that acronym elsewhere?
    I see that we are interested in different aspects of the many-sided world of cold fusion. I only care the scientific side; you prefer to care the socio-psychological side. Being a chemist I am in no way interested in your socio-psychological considerations, sorry.

  • Jed Rothwell on an Unpublished E-Cat Test Report that “Looks Like it Worked”

    @Jed Rothwell

    Quote

    As I said, experiments are the only standard of truth in science, not the the presence or absence of information in a library.


    Library? They are nuclear databases.
    Do you know the difference between a database and a library? lenr-can.org is a library,
    http://www-nds.indcentre.org.in/exfor/exfor.htm
    http://www-nds.indcentre.org.in/
    are databases, where all nuclear experiments are collected.
    You can rely on nuclear experiments only if they are reported in Exfor (Experimental Nuclear Reaction Data), managed by IAEA and BNL. No articles in your collection are reported there. Unfortunately voodoo science, not only nuclear, is present everywhere in web. One must be very careful and selective.
    I regret, but as no articles in your collection are reported in acknowledged database, your collection should be considered scientific garbage.

  • Jed Rothwell on an Unpublished E-Cat Test Report that “Looks Like it Worked”

    @Longview

    Quote

    And if so, then why cannot a modest number of reduced Cs or Sr atoms on migration into the surface of solid electrode be similarly protected... for example, by a noble metal such as palladium?


    The interface is solution of Cs+ and Sr++/palladium. Cs+ and Sr++ can't be reduced on palladium from an aqueous solution. From other solutions things may be different. For example I have been able to reduce Pu ions solved in DMSO. Chemistry must be left to chemists.
    Don't worry, Y. Iwamura papers are not present even in Japanese nuclear database. Spend some time looking for his papers there. Everybody would be grateful if you find at least one paper. Of course I can't exclude that possibility. I don't know all nuclear papers by Iwamura.

  • Jed Rothwell on an Unpublished E-Cat Test Report that “Looks Like it Worked”

    @Jed Rothwell

    Quote


    You would replace this with the judgement of a librarian.
    ...
    It has always been real, and it will remain real long after the IAEA and BNL have turned to dust and are forgotten. It will remain true after our species goes extinct.


    As you like it. I acknowledge that you consider a library the most important nuclear database in the world. I can help you. Query the site and you'll see that it doesn't look like a village library.
    https://www-nds.iaea.org/

  • Jed Rothwell on an Unpublished E-Cat Test Report that “Looks Like it Worked”

    @Ascoli65

    Quote

    As I told you many times, it's impossible to judge the CF affair on the basis of the usual scientific criteria.


    I fully disagree. Usual scientific criteria are the sole background for any scientific progress. Who is interested in nuclear reactions must begin with the ten or twenty papers dealing with one specific reaction; only after an accurate bibliographic research the researcher can offer his contribution, if he can. If you look at the bibliographies of papers on cold fusion you will be appalled: you can't find any paper taken from the Generally Accepted Nuclear Science. Poor bibliography, poor content.

  • Jed Rothwell on an Unpublished E-Cat Test Report that “Looks Like it Worked”

    @Ascoli65

    Quote

    This is valid for the real science, but not for the popular science, which very often coincides with wishful science.


    Jed Rothwell cares of popular science, IAEA an BNL don't. In the end popular science will disappear, even if it seems to be conditioning strategic political choices.
    Don't forget that the acronym LENR is unknown in the Generally Agreed Nuclear Science; it has been invented by some cold fusionist (who? who knows).


    As you know, I am only interested in Italian side of cold fusion. If Movimento 5* wins next elections we must worry. It's a pity that in Italy politics interferes with the scientific dynamics, which could be heavily conditioned by mere political choices.

  • Jed Rothwell on an Unpublished E-Cat Test Report that “Looks Like it Worked”

    @Ascoli65

    Quote

    This is valid for the real science, but not for the popular science, which very often coincides with wishful science.


    Jed Rothwell cares of popular science, IAEA an BNL don't. In the end popular science will disappear, even if it seems to be conditioning strategic political choices.
    Don't forget that the acronym LENR is unknown in the Generally Agreed Nuclear Science; it has been invented by some cold fusionist (who? who knows).
    As you know, I am only interested in Italian side of cold fusion. If Movimento 5* wins next elections we must worry. It's a pity that in Italy politics interferes with the scientific dynamics, which could be heavily conditioned by mere political choices.

  • Jed Rothwell on an Unpublished E-Cat Test Report that “Looks Like it Worked”

    @Ascoli65


    Quote

    It would be wrong only if you can cite the name of a forum which presently is more important than this on the LENR subject.


    If so, you are saying that less than a hundred people in the world are interested in cold fusion. Among them very few physicists and chemists. DoD or whichever should ask DoE or BNL, which is the acknowledged US archive of nuclear science. Science is not a matter of democracy or public mood. Cold fusion must only be settled among scientists as any other scientific question. Putting it in the parliamentary "question time" is preposterous and largely ridiculous: I am referring to Italy as you know. We should fight together against this Italian trend towards blending science and politics. Science is able to choose its targets without any external help or lobbying, isn't it.
    Jed Rothwell is asking for more support to cold fusion; I would respectfully say, let the scientists as a whole decide where to put time and public money.