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.…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.

    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.

    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?

    maryyugo wrote:

    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.

    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.

    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 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.