How does that help? An impersonator could just as easily call himself "The Real Roger Barker" as anything else.
I suppose the only way to avoid impersonation is to establish an unquestionable identity in the real world that anyone can confirm. For example, you can create a web and put your name, address and telephone number at the bottom of each page, like this:
Various high tech proposals for establishing a fool-proof online identity have been proposed, based on trapdoor mathematical functions, but I do not think they have been widely implemented.
OMG, you mean YOU are the REAL Jed Rothwell? Do people sign up on the internet to impersonate you? I suppose that would make you a double celebrity...
... aha, You seem to know, what I refer to ? That says enough about You, dude.
You write something with a reference and then you criticize the person for "seeming to know" your reference? Did you write it or not? If you were trying to be oblique, what does that say about You, dude?
Moreover, what is requiring time in this case is not Science, but it is technology,
Good point, as is so often put into the phrase "I'll believe it when...." ... when they see flying cars, when they see a cup of coffee (already done) .... when they see $10/month energy bills, etc. It is all a form of argument that they won't believe it until they see it in production just like when the Wright brothers were flying around Huffman Prarie but no one believed them... But they refuse to look at the evidence of >150 replications in peer reviewed literature at more than 180 labs and in more than 14,000 instances.
The difference between scientific fact (Wright brothers flight 2003) and production (Wright brothers demo to US Army 2008) is a whole lotta bullshit and pain.
This is just classical 101 Phsics. In case of particles you better use the relativistic formulation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…E2%80%93momentum_relation
You think a Palladium or Nickel lattice will impart enough vibrational kinetic energy to generate relatavistic speeds? I highly doubt the speeds of D or H atoms adsorbed into the lattice approach 86% of the speed of light.
Just because they're particles doesn't mean they approach relativistic speeds. They start out at extremely small speeds, almost zero.
The Wendelstein hot fusion device is scheduled to start running in early September.
Between Iter, this thing, and many other designs, hot fusion is entering a very active phase. Either hot fusion or CF/LENR (if it works as people continue to claim) will be the tech for the first working fusion power plant. My money, if there were bets, is of course on hot fusion. One of the limiting factors for hot fusion was computing power. Since you can now buy computing devices that can process over 100 terabits of data per second for $500 dollars or less, this is no longer an obstacle.
The link to the SRI paper someone asked about is
How has hot fusion been held back by computing power?
My bet is that the hot-fusion boys will continue to defraud the public for the 1000X more money they piss away on something that will always be 50 years from now. If those frauds had been honest about cold fusion we would have cold fusion cars by now.
Kev Energy and Momentum are two different things both conserved. Please do not confuse them !
Kinetic Energy is 0.5mv^2 and momentum is mv. That ball stacking display showed how 800% more KE was harnessed from essentially a linear system in contrast to a gaseous system. On an atomic level I would expect 4 orders of magnitude difference.
@LINR: This is the result of century long misconception of experiments. In CMS LENR there is almost no collision momentum other than in all classical experiments, where there is always collision momentum.
Takahashi used the classical code to simulate the momentum free (symmetric) collision of DD and at the end there is a long lasting oscillation! No emission of particles...
There are other issues, that could be discussed in a technical thread...
Harnessing that collision momentum might actually mean this is a superchemical event rather than Nuclear.
Basically there is no evidence that the branching ratios are the same between gaseous collisions and collisions taking place within condensed matter, and there is evidence piling up that the results are completely different. Do you have that Takahashi paper? It sounds a lot like my V1DLLBEC theory.
Kirk's rationale was (I believe) that without this detailed analysis systematic error is possible, and therefore aggregating likely results unsafe.
Kirk is widely dismissed in the academic community as a crackpot. You just give him credence because he agrees with you on some point.
I'll add to that. In the case of LENR where the specific anomalies found are not quantitatively predicted (with Abd's He Lubbock experiments as only counter-example I know of), we expect both experiment-level selection and result-selection mechanisms to apply for positive results, thus amplifying the incidence of undetected systematic and one-off errors.
That might happen if it gets replicated only 3 or 4 times, something like Polywater. But when the top hundred electrochemists of the day replicate the event >150 times in peer reviewed literature, your position becomes simply wishful thinking.
Normally science protects against this through having controlled replicable experiments: that removes one-off error, and systematic errors can be investigated and made increasing unlikely through replication with different instrumentation etc as naturally happens.
And science DID protect against this by having the effect replicated more than 150 times in peer reviewed literature.
In the case of LENR experiments this is not true, which is why much more caution is appropriate than might at first sight seem reasonable.
The case of LENR was simply that there was another group of scientists who didn't like the findings, risked losing their huge budgets, were better funded and knew how to be first class jerks.
Maybe if you stopped inventing reasons not to read the papers suggested in a response to your requests, people wouldn't feel like they have to spoonfeed you?
Requesting high level results together with good calibration and calorimetry, long duration, and high signal to noise ratio is being overly fussy.
***MaryYugo is imposing the standard skeptopathic insistence that the scientific results should meet his ex post facto standards.
You can trust me on this matter, mods internal dialogues on this topic are available to me. I know exactly what happened.
Why do you moderators conduct your dialogues internally? And why haven't you posted explicitly your approach towards folks who come onto this forum, i.e. some farm animals are more equal than others... ? A few things about that approach are kinda ugly.
Only accounting for 1 part in 200,000,000 of a"claimed" event in a published paper isn't normally allowed in real science and it shouldn't be allowed here.
The nuclear guys regularly spend their time on effects where you're talking about 10^-16 to 10^-20, so saying that something on the order of 10^-9 "shouldn't be allowed here" is pure skeptopathy.
Only accounting for 1 part in 200,000,000 of a"claimed" event in a published paper isn't normally allowed in real science and it shouldn't be allowed here.
Aren't you the one who accepted that this was "proof" of a nuclear event? Methinks you are backtracking your comment.
This theory that you and others might be advocating, that LENR/CF has a lower standard of proof than other fields of science is unacceptable.
I agree. Electochemists have the same standard of proof that any other science does, and to have >150 peer reviewed replications by the top hundred electrochemists of the day questioned by ex post facto amateur operatives is annoying. Thank you for your rational thoughts and agreement on this matter.
I would be pretty sure there is an accounted phenomenon present, some sort of anomaly.
By the very definition of anomaly, it cannot be an accounted phenomenon. The rest of your post is yet another justification for skeptopathy. Science is science, deal with it. The effect has been replicated >150 times in peer reviewed literature by the top hundred or so electrochemists of their day. You are not among them. Your ex post facto approach towards satisfying skeptopathy is more an exercise in diagnosing mental illness than physics.
Please do not come up with all the conspiracy stuff that has been and still is discussed all day long here in this forum....
Please do not come up with all that skeptopath stuff that we see all day long here on this forum. The Pons Fleischmann Anomalous Heat Effect has been replicated more than 150 times in peer reviewed experiments at more than 180 labs, more than 14,000 instances.
Jed, if all this work you are referring to is so easy replicable -
Jed has never said it's easy to replicate, he has said the exact opposite. It is quite difficult to replicate this effect.
I will never acknowledge the existence of LENR/CF unless there is an experiment that is repeatable 100% of the time
Moving the goalposts, just like MaryUgo and all the other skeptopaths. There is NO scientific development that is "repeatable 100% of the time", ever. It has never happened. It never will.
by reputable entities with 100% (and not just 1 part out of 200,000,000) of the energy clearly accounted for by quantities measured during the experiment.
By this time I'm starting to yawn, knowing how hard you are trying to backtrack at the same time as moving the goalposts.
Atom reactions at this level have by-products that are measurable.
That is SO true. And those by-products have been measured, the Pons-Fleischman Anomalous Heat Event has been replicated more than 150 times by ~180 labs, etc. What the hot-fusion boys neglected was that their precious gaseous branching ratios for fusion don't really exist in CondensedMatter, among other things.
Unlike a lot of people, I'm not giving the CF/LENR people a pass on having independent 3rd parties independently collect, measure, and analyze by-products from these experiments to verify them.
You're just one of those people who try to impose an expostfacto standard against all those 153 replications of the Pons-Fleischmann Anomalous Heat Effect. In other words, a skeptopath.
Heh. Let's not get into semantics here. I acknowledge their "claim" that it is nuclear to make another point.
You acknowledged that "1 part in 200,000,000 is proven to be nuclear". So for you to be clear, you need to back off from that claim and it would make sense for you to explain why you thought at one time it was "proven".
The competing process must also be nuclear. There is no chemical fuel, and no chemical changes are observed. They did not know what this other process could be, but later research indicated it is probably some form of D+D => helium-4.
You may not agree with the authors that this competing process must be nuclear, but I am 100% sure that is what the authors meant. I know this because I spent a lot of time with them and discussed this in detail.
I'm okay with letting those "competing processes" still be anomalous. Pons and Fleischmann blew it when they said it was nuclear. It triggered a major science political war between electrochemists and hot nuclear physicists. They should have just said it appears to be some kind of unidentified superchemical process unseen before, and we could use the help of our bretheren in the nukular world to rule out a thing or two.
If I generated a LENR box like Rossi supposedly has, I would call it a superchemical process -- it's chemical when we put it together, it's chemical when we take it down and there's no expected nuclear activity, especially the dangerous kind. That way the NRC doesn't have authority over the box.
That's incorrect, Kev. We do not move everything. You in particular, but others as well, have been pretty uncivil. We've made requests several times for people to be more polite. The mods are having an ongoing conversation about what to do about this. We'll gradually figure something out.
I'm willing to edit where you mods determine the lines of civility have been crossed. Maybe if you mods had the conversation out in the open we could see where we're walking close to the line you want to draw.
Perhaps because Jed responded with content devoid of streams of personal insults. You should try that sometime.
Perhaps? You don't know your own motive? If my content contained streams of personal insults, the mods would move the posts to the Clearance Items thread. Challenging someone's logical fallacies is not engaging a personal insult. You should try avoiding logical fallacies sometime.
You have not addressed my argument,
As far as I can tell, this is the first time you actually stated your argument on this particular thread. It's really quite difficult to address an unstated argument.
which is that determining whether what was repeated is in fact a nuclear anomaly, or something else, is at best not clear cut.
That is not the purpose of replication. You claim to be a PhD scientist and yet you don't seem to understand the purpose of simply replicating an experiment.
At the time those 100s of electrochemists decided there was no nuclear anomaly worth pursuing - except for a few outliers.
No, they decided that their careers weren't worth the trouble of a bunch of asshole nuclear physicists going around ruining their reputations and working environment. Funding dried up, so they moved on.
Or the world's electrochemistry journals would be still publishing LENR papers.
For someone who claims to hold a PhD, you are decidedly clueless.
Nor have you engaged with the reasons why those many scientists might have felt the results they obtained were not clear proof of some Nobel Prize worthy new science - had they felt that they would without doubt have continued.
It was Nobel Prize worthy science. Alas, Fleischmann will never get the Nobel because it is only awarded to living persons. Your wording here is strange: Why scientists "might have felt"? And you are also arguing from silence -- "had they felt, they would have".... YOu don't know what other people felt, and putting the whole thing on feelings is stupid. It is obvious from the literature that the experiments would have continued if the funding continued.
Academic freedom was then and still is a reality, and when a whole field believes something is worth pursuing it gets pursued.
Except that there really is not much academic freedom, looking at how cold fusioneers have been treated. Up until now I didn't realize how clueluess you are about how this field has been mistreated. But that subject doesn't really belong on a Rossi-Darden aftermath thread.
I wonder whether your intention in this dialog is to exchange facts and ideas?
I wonder the same about you. But you've managed to add a level of hypocrisy by your very first sentence: "attacking the character of opponents - does not advance your argument."
You are confused. The consensus of experts is that cold fusion is real. I do not know any leading electrochemist who disagrees, and I know lots of leading electcrochemists. Perhaps you have in mind the consensus of plasma physicists or nuclear physicists. They know nothing about cold fusion so their views do not count, any more than the views of biologists, bankers or country music fans do.
When you look for a scientific consensus, you must be sure that it includes only experts in the subject who are well versed in the literature. You cannot include scientists who have not read the literature. If you cite their views, you have made a fallacious appeal to authority (false authority) logical fallacy. As you see from the 2004 DoE panel, many of panel members read nothing and knew nothing. Their "objections" were based on theory or pop science platitudes. Essentially they were saying what Huizenga said: "my theory says this can't happen, so it can't happen." That violates the scientific method.
Hey Jed. I don't know how old you are but I'm guessing you're older than me.
It is time for you to bring up a successor, a designated apprentice who will take your reins because eventually, you will not be able to keep doing what you're doing.
You need to train some fresh blood in this game and move him or her along in pushing the LENR story. Do you have a son? Is he interested in this stuff? It is time to consider that this effort may take more than one generation to fulfill its purpose.
Like you say, " The consensus of experts is that cold fusion is real. I do not know any leading electrochemist who disagrees," but the next generation is barely aware that the Pons Fleischmann Anomalous Heat Event has been replicated more than 150 times in peer reviewed studies, by more than 180 labs and more than 14,000 instances. You really need to consider bringing online a designated successor to your Alexandrian Library of LENR lest it get burned down by Caesar.
When theory and replicated experiments conflict, theory always loses, experiments always win. No exceptions granted.
"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong." - Richard P. Feynman