Posts by interested observer

    “Sounds like disambiguation to me. If a nuclear change happens only at high energy it isn't LENR, if it happens a low energy levels it is a Low Energy Nuclear Reaction - simple.”

    What becomes ambiguous are questions like , “is LENR real”, “has LENR been proven to exist”, “has it been replicated”, “what are the hallmarks of it”, and “how might it work”? Seems like there are a variety of answers that are appropriate.

    If the term refers to a bunch of disparate phenomena united only by the fact that they relate to nuclear phenomena at low energy, then all of these questions are meaningless in the aggregate and one should only ask questions about specific manifestations (e.g. the Fleischmann-Pons experiment).

    I’d like to emphasize that LENR is by default an umbrella acronym, and many phenomena fall into the category precisely because anything that mainstream proposes that can only happen at high energies when matter is affected below the atomic level (aka nuclear) and is observed at lower energy levels, is de facto a LENR.

    That seems like a quite astute observation and accounts for much of the ambiguity about the status of LENR in general.

    Alan, no gross generalization was intended. When I said “This strikes me as another case of members of the LENR community embracing a wide range of fringe science claims as being examples of LENR even when the claimants don’t make that association”, I did not mean to imply that most members of the community did this. I should have said “some members...”, which I assume you would agree with.

    The truth is that it is quite difficult to determine what views most members of the forum hold. We mostly hear from a relatively small number and their views may or may not be representative of the majority or even of a significant minority. In any case, I will be more careful in describing views held by others as being held only by some others in recognition of that fact.

    “You are taking liberties with what I said”

    And Shane, you are taking liberties with what I said. My whole point is that it is a leap to use Mills as an example in a discussion of the competence of LENR researchers. The leap is not whether Mills is a competent researcher. The leap is not whether LENR is real or whether hydrino theory is valid. The leap is that Mills is an LENR researcher. I don’t think he considers himself to be one, and only the LENR community calls him one for the reasons I stated. This has nothIng whatsoever to do with being open-minded or being skeptical. It is just a version of the old adage about giving a man a hammer and everything looks like a nail. Show potential new physics and it must be LENR.

    “Obviously you have little faith there is anyone competent in all of LENR. Even doing such a simple measurement as a water bath test is beyond their capability. Suit yourself, but I am of a different opinion, and believe the LENR field is full of capable researchers...Mills and team being a good example.”

    Mills is a good example of what? This strikes me as another case of members of the LENR community embracing a wide range of fringe science claims as being examples of LENR even when the claimants don’t make that association. Regardless of what may or may not be true about LENR, I strongly doubt that every proposed new energy source is based on it. Of course, you can take Director’s tact and declare that everything including LENR can be explained by his own pet scientific epiphany.

    After listening to the remaining Rossi acolytes, one has to wonder (with great trepidation) what other things these people believe and how they manage to go through life without sending all their money to Nigerian princes and telephone Windows Support scammers.

    Sam, considering the reaction you get here for posting Rossi’s inane prattling, why do you do it? Do you honestly think these things will make a positive impression on anyone with any sense? Do you think it enhances Rossi’s reputation? Your own? Or do you somehow get a thrill making people think you are foolish? Seriously - what is your motivation?

    I have a more sarcastic opinion born out by life's lessons. When someone preaches to me (happens often), that *WE* have to do something to save the planet, I always ask them "Agreed, so what are you doing?". For the most part, no one really is doing anything. All talk. no action: "do as I say, not as I do", Yes, they are adamant about caring, and demand wind/solar/carbon tax, or long as they do not have to do anything, or pay more for it. In reality, they demand YOU to do all that to STP, and leave them alone.

    One of the more funny answers I got was from my neighbor, a lawyer with 3 homes he travels between weekly, 4 cars (all gas guzzlers) for he and his wife. "Agreed, so what are you doing Hank"? His answer: "I have a friend that drives a Prius". :) Seriously, that is what he said, and with a straight face. Hypocrisy runs rampant among those who boisterously profess allegiance to the environment.

    All that is mostly true, but let’s give some credit to the ~2 million Americans with solar panels on their roofs and the hundreds of thousands driving electric cars. Being in both categories, I don’t consider myself to be doing nothing. And, for what it’s worth, I always explain that we are not trying to save the planet. The planet will be just fine if we screw things up. We just won’t be here to see the results.

    There are quite a lot of people, like all the power academics, who see a mix of renewables as necessary to try and make non-fossil grids sustainable with a relatively low storage cost.

    Example: solar tends to be high when wind is low and vice versa.

    Those people are the ones who actually inform policy.

    Well, in principle that may be true. But at the moment in the US, oil industry executives inform policy, at least at the federal level.

    A great episode of the West Wing way back when depicted a fierce squabble between wind advocates and solar advocates. People are inexorably tribal. Even people who claim to care deeply about “saving the planet” mostly care about saving it using their chosen solution. The nuke people say that wind and solar power are “useless”. And the LENR community seems to believe they have the only answer. And so it goes.

    “So the planet's long term energy options seemingly are out of candidates unless something such as as LENR is found to be usable. (Or battery storage is exponentially improved upon)”

    Battery storage certainly needs improvement in order to provide solar and wind power with the desired dispatchability to dominate the grid, but an exponential improvement? Hardly. It is getting closer all the time.