Posts by lenrisnotreal

    Most working scientists have no knowledge of cold fusion, so their views don't count. Many younger ones have never heard of it.


    Counting those who have knowledge of it, meaning scientist who have read papers, I think most have a positive view. I base that on the audience at LENR-CANR.org. What do you base your statements on? Have you taken a public opinion poll? How many scientists have you heard from, and how much do they know about cold fusion?

    Here is a blurb from Wiki concerning how scientists feel about CF/LENR

    "

    Many scientists tried to replicate the experiment with the few details available. Hopes faded due to the large number of negative replications, the withdrawal of many reported positive replications, the discovery of flaws and sources of experimental error in the original experiment, and finally the discovery that Fleischmann and Pons had not actually detected nuclear reaction byproducts.[5] By late 1989, most scientists considered cold fusion claims dead,[6][7] and cold fusion subsequently gained a reputation as pathological science.[8][9] In 1989 the United States Department of Energy (DOE) concluded that the reported results of excess heat did not present convincing evidence of a useful source of energy and decided against allocating funding specifically for cold fusion. A second DOE review in 2004, which looked at new research, reached similar conclusions and did not result in DOE funding of cold fusion.[10]


    "

    You might want to say that most scientists who attended lenr-canf have a positive view of LENR NOT most scientists in general necessarily. Your statement would be similar to surveying participants at a meeting of the ~1 to 2% of scientists who do not believe in global warming about their views on climate change. Until the LENR researchers can produce an experiment where the quantity and type of reaction byproducts match what is expected for the quantity of excess heat claimed, I'm afraid I won't believe any of those claims. The experiment also has to be replicated by a team of individuals completely independent of the original claimants. This is to break the cycle of CF/LENR experiments only working when the original claimant runs them, usually.

    The LENR debate will go round and round endlessly. One side will say all failed tests were perhaps due to errors in the replication attempts. The other side will say all positive test results were due to measurement errors, artifacts, misinterpretations, etc... An individual needs to have a scientifically provable criteria to decide whether these results are real or not. My criteria is that the mass of the produced transmuted material, the quantity of produced neutrons, and, in certain chain reaction cases, the number of photons generated, all match what is expected for the amount of claimed excess energy produced.

    The counter to this will be that there could be some unknown fantasy process which has gone undetected for all these years. This process generates excess heat without any byproducts and only needs low input power.

    "I fully believe real fusion will beat so-called cold fusion to have a working plant"


    Have you seen any timeline for Wendelstein7X reaching "working plant" status??


    https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060034711

    bocjin - W7x is still an experiment where they are performing step by step science to determine the parameters necessary for a future plant. It will be many years before it results in a plant in the normal case. What I'm counting on is that once W7x verifies their version of real fusion to exacting, rigorous, standards, a smart tech savvy billionaire will jump in and take over. If the "SpaceX" scenario (where technology languished unchanged for decades until the private sector billionaires took over and we now have cheap reusable rockets almost overnight) happens with W7x, I see a working plant within 10 years.

    The real thing was published by Fleischmann, Bockris, McKubre, Miles and many others. I am sure your tests for BS will find nothing in these papers. I am not aware of any papers that found experimental errors in any of this work. I know of only two published author who tried to find errors, Morrison and Shanahan. They failed. In other words, "the real thing" has stood the test of time.

    Please don't ignore the multiple failed attempts to replicate any of this, which continue even today. See IH, and Coolescense. There hasn't been a single LENR/CF experiment I know of where both the mass of transmuted material and the quantity of created photons matched what was expected above background for the claimed amount of excess energy.

    As I've stated before, I fully believe real fusion will beat so-called cold fusion to have a working plant. The next real fusion reactor up at the moment is Wendelstein. It successfully completed it's initial 10 week re-start phase and is now going for performance. They apparently are running plasmas at 40 MillionC. I'll have to recheck but I think the goal for this one is about 80 to 90 Million C so they are still working towards that.



    https://translate.google.com/t…e20111394.html&edit-text=

    I see another Ecat demo is planned. If the demo is not run independently by a reputable party that is 100% free of anyone with prior ties to LENR/CF, then the results, to me and in my opinion only, are instantly to be dismissed and ignored.

    Bill Gates was definitely a key visionary during the 80's and 90's. I have the upmost respect for his abilities since he was the top technical leader as I grew up. However, his company Microsoft includes many decision makers not named Bill Gates. The following two links shows what has happened to the desktop PC market over the years:


    https://www.theinquirer.net/in…nd-windows-10-is-to-blame


    http://www.bbc.com/news/business-23251285


    The people who anticipated that consumers would want smaller, mobile devices with less than the top computing power to do calls, internet, and social media rather than bulky desktops with super processing power seemed to have guessed correctly.

    The problem I have with this analysis is that ITER is an experiment designed by physicists and not a power plant as it doesn't produce electricity. It is clearly designed to have extra measurement, calibration, monitoring, and safety equipment. This extra gear uses power. The data collected from ITER, good and bad, will be used to refine the next designs on the way to making a power plant. The criticism from the CF/LENR community of ITER is expected. Once fusion is proven to work in a controlled manner by physicists, what little longshot, 1 in 100+ chance, funding for CF/LENR that remains will disappear.

    By all accounts, Gates is a superb programmer. One example will do. He wrote the BASIC compiler for the MITS computer without having access to a MITS computer. He put it on paper tape. It executed correctly the first time.


    Gates' programs were conservative. They were often rehashes of decades-old technology, but at the time he wrote them that was a good strategy. I was writing similar programs, migrating mainframe and minicomputer applications PCs. There were big differences in the hardware so you had to be creative and you had to know a lot about computers to make a PC into something like an IBM mainframe. That is what the customers wanted. They also wanted personalized software that did things no mainframe could do, such as spreadsheets. Gates recognized this early on, and met that demand.


    Microsoft products are often criticized unfairly. In the early days they had to work on a wide range of different computers that were supposed to be compatible but were not. Later they had to be backward compatible, or the customers would go elsewhere. In the mid-1990s they had to work in a tremendous range of different markets, in different languages. I was very impressed when I saw the U.S. versions of Microsoft Word and other apps could work on a U.S. computerin Japanese. They worked as well as any software package designed in Japan exclusively for that market. That is an incredible accomplishment. I do not think the previous market leaders such as IBM could have pulled it off. Granted, it was easier with giant RAM and disk space, but it still called for a level of organization and coordination that few corporations could have achieved in the 1990s.

    Yes, Microsoft was a leader 20 years ago. The reason Microsoft fell behind and the reason so many other companies that were leaders in the 90's are no longer in business is that they didn't embrace new technology fast enough. The internet, smartphones, AI and social media are the techs that are in the drivers seat at the moment it seems. Apple recognized this 10 years ago and came out with the Iphone. Facebook, Google, and Amazon also jumped on the bandwagon fairly early, too. Using old tech is fine as long as there is no competition. New tech always beats old tech, but it's possible to catch up if one wants to. For example, I learned to program on a computer with 32k of 8 bit RAM and a clock speed of less than 1Mhz. I can now write apps and games for smartphones using the latest software and design principles. I can also design and train neural nets at a level about halfway between beginner and intermediate, although I'm fairly new to it. If people are starting to use tractors and cars, trying to make an argument for horses and mules is probably not best practice.

    The cathode was destructively tested and evidence for transmutations were found. With this cell design, it would not be possible to capture helium and other effluent gasses. If by "byproducts" you mean neutrons and other products of D+D plasma fusion, they are never found with cold fusion.

    The total amount of byproducts for the full experiment and the instantaneous rate of production of byproducts at any time during the experiment must match the claimed power level above the measurement error level. If not, the experiment is inconclusive at best. I have papers which explain this.

    300W D-D would produce a great deal of byproducts. Were these measured?

    On the contrary, MIT and Caltech got positive results, even though they were opposed to the research. There is nothing more convincing than a positive result from the people at MIT who were dead set against the claim, and who held a party celebrating the death of cold fusion before they got a positive result.


    But in any case, roughly 180 labs reported positive results. Why would you say these four outweigh those 180? What makes you think the I.H. has more credibility than Los Alamos or China Lake?

    A difference is that you continue to point to results from the 1990's, 2000's, and perhaps even 1989 as verifications. The results from IH and Coolescense(sp?) were within the last two years or so. The result from Hydrofusion's representative was within the last 6 years I believe. These latest experimenters have had time to review the past results and, using the latest equipment and techniques, come up with experiments to find the issues those in the past might have missed. Also, many of the papers from the past which claimed success, did not have significant followup to expand on the claims, which seems unusual.

    I consider all claims of positive LENR to be incorrect or inconclusive at best. This is because all these claims have failed at the highest level of scrutiny. MIT, Caltech, IH, Coolescense(sp?), and Hydrofusion's representative are just a few who have acknowledged their failure to replicate or verify many of these claims. Once a reputable organization, which has in the past failed 100% of the LENF/CF claims they have looked into, puts their name on the line to pass a result, it might be worth review.


    Entities which have consistently failed LENR are the only ones qualified to say it works. They don't have a positive bias which might make them look past the measurement errors, artifacts, shoddy record keeping, incorrect experiment setup, etc... which have caused false-positive results.


    Also, as I've mentioned earlier, there has not been one instance verified by a reputable source of LENR detected in nature. This violates the law of conservation of energy as the conditions for real fusion are millions of times more difficult than CF. Yet, simply looking into the sky shows billions of examples of hot fusion. I've found many papers refuting CF. There is no point posting them as people will simply say they don't believe it, as was the case when Coolescense(sp?) published their work refuting many CF claims.


    I expect some breakthroughs in hot fusion in the next few years which will make that a reality sooner than people think.

    I follow both fusion( called hot fusion here) and these claims of CF/LENR which I find inconclusive at best. The next hot fusion reactor up is the Wendelstein 7 thing. This thing doesn't gain as much attention as ITER, EAST, NIF, etc because they are not trying to go for the homerun of overunity. Instead, they are apparently only trying to verify heating power, containment, and plasma generation. As these are the three most difficult items for hot fusion, this babystep approach makes sense.


    https://translate.google.com/t…870882&edit-text=&act=url

    Ahlfors,


    I read the Etiam reports LINR provided, and did not notice "another null result" from them? Their results looked good, and as you say they are capable people. They did just sell their European patent (USPTO pending) to the "highest bidder", after failing to attract enough investment to continue on as a going concern.

    It did not clearly say in the report if the results were replicated or not. Until those results were replicated or tested by someone else, I would put a "question mark" next to them them.

    Well, apparently, the MFMP has received pledges of over $1million if their latest international trip results in a successful test. I am not 100% certain about the details, but that is a fairly high sum from a community such as this. My prediction is that one of three things will happen: 1) the test won't happen. (See NASA and Ecat) 2) the test will happen but fail (see hydrofusion and Ecat) 3) this initial test will pass but later, stricter, more exact testing and replication attempts will find issues that were missed and nothing will come of it (see many examples). This is my opinion which I am entitled to. I have an extremely high threshold for believing something that violates the laws of physics and lacks a proven theory.


    Yes ShaneD, MY, Ahlfors, I'm putting together a collection of items to make my point. I haven't posted links yet because I want to do more than show items individually. I want to be able to post a conclusion from a body of work.

    Here is a brief summary of Etiam's history in 2016-2017 from the below link:


    http://www.etiam.fi/news/


    March 2016 : Etiam released an in house report claiming they had achieved CF/LENR in

    the range of a few dozen watts excess energy. It doesn't seem that there is

    a 3rd party independent verification of results although I might have missed
    seeing it.


    April 2016: Etiam announces a new share issue to fund their LENR work.


    July 2016: Etiam announces the new share issue failed


    August 2017: Etiam announces they have been terminated as a company

    Where on earth did you get that estimate of hundreds of millions of dollars?!?


    A great deal of progress has been made in cold fusion. The tritium results from the National Cold Fusion Institute alone (Will et al.) are worth all the money invested so far. In a sane world, they would have convinced all scientists that the effect is real, and it is nuclear.

    Did you even read the report from Coolescense(sp)? They had negative views of many CF/LENR claims including those of Miles. Not pointing specifically at any scientist but they do make errors from time to time. By adding up the total $ spent adjusted for inflation where I can find it and adding it up, I came up with at least $100million-$200million+ over the years. I believe IH alone claimed to have spent 10's of millions of dollars on this.

    The burden of proof is on you, ele. Please show a theory and replications of that theory by reputable, independent organizations to make your point. I also have papers I haven't posted links to yet which further prove my point.

    Heh. When I first saw this image, I thought it was a new LENR reactor.

    I understand your point. However, given that the hundreds of millions of dollars already invested in CF/LENR have turned up nothing that is marketable or perhaps even believable, what more do you want? This company used advanced equipment like mass spectrometers and came up empty. And, I think 1% is being generous. There have probably been hundreds or even thousands of claims in the past 28.5 years. So, it's more like 0.01% There is not even a viable theory for this that I can find. Asking people to invest in this without an established theory as a starting point is not proper.

    Here is a link to their analysis of another claim of CF where they attribute the excess heat claim to an incorrect calibration item.

    http://www.coolescence.com/201…of-mmiles-experiment.html


    I applaud them for the great work they did in revealing the truth about CF/LENR. Hopefully, individuals who were thinking about investing in CF/LENR will look at their work and IH's work and decide against it. This will save these investors millions of dollars that could be invested in real fusion. It will also save them from potential lawsuits.

    Here is the official statement from their website which I thought I would post before it is removed

    "

    Surface Science. Hydrogen Energy R&D.

    Coolescence LLC is a privately funded research company located in Boulder, Colorado. The company was originally formed to rigorously examine repeated experimental reports of so-called 'cold fusion' from a number of scientists around the world. Over the past 10 years the Coolescence team has replicated the most celebrated of these experiments, with no positive results that have not been attributable to measurement artifacts or chemical effects.


    "


    As always, when top scientists with advanced equipment test LENR/CF claims, they meet failure. The laws of physics are indeed hard to violate.

    What's the highest temperature for their calibration run vs the highest temperature for their claim of excess heat? If the highest temperature for their calibration run does not match the highest temperature for their claim of excess heat, I consider the result to be inconclusive at best.

    LINR,


    Did you notice that the lead author of that report on how to avoid calorimetry errors is Melvin Miles? He was one of the first to replicate FPs, and an LENR proponent to this day. So you cite an LENR calorimetry expert's paper, to make your point about the many ways to err in LENR experiments. Funny. Like McKubre said: We know what we are doing!


    KS is not going to like this BTW! MIles does not believe his CCS/ATER theory.

    Of course I'm aware of that. Not all experiments are done the same. This work seems to eliminate the results of many experiments. And, since it's from a respected LENR person, I feel it gives more weight to my argument: LENR researchers are acknowledging possible errors in the work of other LENR researchers.


    As I said, I have more papers which deal with errors that I'll post as I have a chance to look over them in detail.