You're showing your age, and mentality.
Cholstc
Verified User
- Member since May 21st 2022
- Last Activity:
Posts by Cholstc
-
-
"Typical me-too garbage from a "kitchen woman" journal ... ????????????????
Is it so necessary to be sexist?
-
Multi-Layer Nuclear Thermionic Avalanche CellInnovators have developed the Multi-Layer Nuclear Thermionic Avalanche Cell (NTAC), a novel electrical generator, which transforms nuclear gamma-ray photon…www.techbriefs.com
-
I’m going to give this a shot. I’m trying to look at this as a journalist who spent more than 30 years in mainstream media. (Don't mind all the negative stuff at the beginning. I offer more afterwards.)
First why would mainstream media look at LENR, in spite of its stunning promise?
First, is it LENR or is it Cold Fusion, or one of the myriads of names referring to the LENR phenomenon and used apparently randomly by scientists/bloggers to refer to LENR. All those names create confusion. As I’ve mentioned once on this blog (and which was not supposed to get translated as “Poor thing, she was overworked in her old job”) most mainstream journalists nowadays are NOT scientifically trained, have a limited amount of time to focus on stories, limited amount of space per story, and usually can only cover basic ideas such as: “These people say it works – But those opponents say it’s voodoo science. There may be a product in some years." End of story.
So first, why refer to LENR as LANR, LEC, LANP, LCF, MHE, etc, etc… You want LENR to be taken seriously, settle on ONE name.
Also, is there a LENR theory a majority of researchers now agree on? If no, is that because scientists are nitpicking or are there valid objections to the theory(ies) advanced so far? Could they be reconciled for the sake of media coverage? Could the LENR community offer at least one fairly accepted theory of LENR to the mainstream press?
As one of my old editors used to tell me very bluntly: “Keep it simple, stupid.”
If and when you decide to use/refer only to LENR, remember it’s NOT fusion, so if you keep mentioning “LENR, formerly Cold Fusion,” your are creating con-fusion. (Especially with all the plasma fusion stuff being also mentioned in the media).
Even if you’ve got a scientifically trained journalist focused on LENR, what can you offer: that the phenomenon works and has been repeated? Fine. Do you have a product? Maybe? “Maybe” is NOT news. Rossi is credible to you, he’s not yet credible to mainstream media. Where is his product? Why does he need a million orders to maybe be produce a machine some day?
Does Brillouin have a product? Clean Planet will have a product in a few years? Let us know when their product goes on the market, editors will say.
Someone suggested getting a piece done on ICCF-24 and trying the New York Times. The time to get that done was before ICCF-24, so coverage would take place during the conference, not months later. By now, ICCF-24 is “old news.” It would have to be a magazine/feature piece and what would be the conclusion of that piece: that after some 33 years, LENR still does not have a theory on which there is a consensus (Widom-Larsen not being accepted everywhere, unless I’m wrong), and a product is still years away.
But if you’d still like trying the New York Times, I would also try National Public Radio (NPR) - very open-minded.
So, what might Carl Page do: What might work might be a presentation of LENR at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., with advertisements in the Washington Post/NYT explaining LENR shortly before. If LENR is going to be part of the MIT Energy Conference this coming April, that MIT event could serve as a "peg" for journalists to cover a LENR press conference at the NPC in Washington, D.C. That would be fresh news.
Don’t do a presentation at the NPC on a Friday, since large chunks of weekend papers are put together days ahead and your press conference might get buried in 3 paragraphs on page 6 of a Saturday/Sunday paper no one will read because it’s the weekend and the kids have a soccer game. By the time more space would free up for Monday stories, your press conference might be “old news”. Check when the Washington Post or New York Times put together their Science sections to bed. Then calculate the day your press conference might take place to give it a shot in those sections. Contact the editors of those sections, offer them something “special” if they agree to send someone, to help differentiate their stories from their rivals’ stories. Otherwise, they'll shrug and tell you they'll use the AP story (if the AP scientist goes). Maybe the lure can be a one-on-one interview after/before the press conference. I would not ignore C-SPAN (they need to fill hours of time, can provide long, awesome, detailed coverage), AFP, AP, Reuters, DW, FT, and the Japanese Press (because of Clean Planet).
The National Press Club is where pols/scientists such as Fauci, etc. still go when they desperately need to focus the press. They go to the press, so the press does not even have to go to them. The reason being that the NPC building still contains the offices of many media from all around the world. Those journalists only have to go upstairs, so if they’re pressed for time – well, it’s only upstairs. Easy does it.
It's also the place where journalists are used to going and the wiring is all set up for audio/TV.
Second, you would need some Big Guns to attend so the editors don’t say: “We don’t have time for voodoo science, there is Ukraine/Xi/an earthquake/inflation, etc.” Can Carl Page bring Al Gore or Greta Thunberg (for Europe) or Wang Wenbiao of Elion Resources Group in China, or Malala Yousafzai (for the Muslim world/women/Europe), etc.... You need to make this "attractive," meaning more than a bunch of aging, white-hair scientists. (For the record, I'm 66 & white hair).
Could you also have someone from NASA or ARPA or DOE, someone with a high enough rank so as to show that YES, the US government does believe in LENR which is NOT voodoo science. Because the second you mention "Cold Fusion," the minds of thousands of journalists will close, as they will only remember the negative from the Pons/Fleishmann debacle and unlike us, they have not spent the past 33 years following LENR.
Anyway, those are just some thoughts. I shall now keep my peace.
-
https://www.issuewire.com/carb…rve-ball-1748515958379196
Carbon Dating, Cold Fusion and a Curve Ball
Minneapolis, Minnesota Nov 3, 2022 (Issuewire.com) - Linking Science with Bible in David Moon’s Carbon Dating, Cold Fusion, and a Curve Ball. David Moon’s Carbon Dating, Cold Fusion, and a Curve Ball explore the world of nuclear transmutation; cold fusion; its effect, and the implication of the alteration on the radioactive elements as to the reliability of its result.
-
From the Clean Planet website:
October 2022: "We have reorganized our team to strengthen the R&D structure, with the appointment of three new executive officers: Chief Science Officer, Chief Engineer Officer, and Chief Thermal Engineering Officer."
-
So I used one of those endless flights to start a list of the names used by various scientists/researchers to refer to the Low Energy Nuclear Reaction (formerly CF) phenomenon. Because, as a non-specialized journalist, I always thought a key problem for anyone trying to cover LENR/CF/Whatever you call it/ was the name of the phenomenon. I did appreciate the name had to change along with discoveries/trials & tribulations, but IMHO, it has created a fog for the "general media," especially when scientists in their papers use abbreviations.
I do look forward to the day when there will be unanimity on the name of the phenomenon. It sure would help coverage.
Just a thought.
Anomalous Heat Effect (AHE)
CLEAN HME
Condensed Matter Nuclear Physics
Condensed matter nuclear science
Hydrogen Metal Energy – HME
Lattice Assisted Nuclear Fusion
Lattice Assisted Nuclear Reactions - LANR
Lattice energy conversion
Lattice confinement fusion
Lattice enabled nuclear reactions
Lattice energy converter – LEC
Lattice energy conversion
Least Action Nuclear Process (LANP)
Least Action Nuclear Process
Low energy nuclear reactions
Low Energy Nuclear Fusion
LENR
LENR/AHE (anomalous heat effect MHE : Nano-metal hydrogen energy)
Nuclear transmutations
Anomalies in hydrogen loaded metals
Plasmoid fusion
Plasmon energy
Hydrogen plasmon
Quantum hydrogen energy
-
-
-
Hi everyone,
On behalf of the “press,” I would like to mention a few things. I worked as a Foreign Correspondent/journalist/broadcaster in various media from 1981 to 2015. I see the “press” rightfully criticized, but it seems to me that as soon as cable TV, then the Internet, expanded, the “press” was in many ways doomed.
When I started in journalism, I was given a week to put together a story, research it, proceed with interviews, discuss it with editors, get guidance, etc, etc. That was in addition to light editing duties. We all had specialties, meaning that if you were going to do science stories, you were expected to have degrees and experience in that field.
By the time I retired, I was expected (for the same salary) to put together several stories a day as a “specialist” on every possible topic under the sun – in addition to editing, voicing, TV, and two 25-minute weekly programs. If I was lucky, I would have time to “Google” information before interviews, avoiding making a fool of myself. It was not unheard of for me – for lack of time – to simply tell the person I was interviewing: “Look, I’m a generalist. I have no idea what this is about, so you guide me.” Then I had to use all of my brain matter and all the information I could quickly Google to figure out whether I was being misled or whether the other person made some sense and the information was worth using. Often, there was no time to contact anyone else for second opinions. One had to add a general caveat at the end.
Management did not care – it wanted content - and it was always made clear that once I was gone, I would most likely be replaced by a less expensive contractor. In the end, my weekly Science program was cancelled after I left. My initial replacement mused that he “didn’t know how she had done it.” I was happy for him it was cancelled. The job had become ridiculous. I was sitting down in front of my computer at 8 a.m. and worked non-stop, eating in front of the computer, running to the bathroom a couple time or the studios before it was time to go home, so wound-up I could no longer think.
Due to its ever growing size, the Internet needs to be fed. Which is why so many stories are simply rehash of other stories. Solid Science web sites do produce good science stories, but they get lost in the ocean of sites. How to choose, how to find, how to sift, what to believe, how many hours a day to allocate to finding “true, informative” stories?
The disappearance of print papers, especially local papers, has also been an utter disaster. They focused the public, just like the 7 p.m. news with Walter Cronkite used to do. Nowadays, people go on the web and just choose the news they want to hear. They have no idea whether what they read/hear is true or not, biased or not, well put together or not.
Another challenge nowadays it to present such complex issues as LENR in as simple a way as possible, so that your average reader can understand what is at stake. Readers’ attention span has diminished considerably. People used to get home and have a full evening to read the newspaper or watch a documentary on PBS. They now multi-task. Stories are shorter. Long ones win prizes, but are often ignored by readers.
Finally, the explosion of “Fusion” stories in the past six months is not helping LENR. Any journalist trying to do a story on LENR will have to differentiate it from “Fusion” since it’s not “Fusion,” cold or hot. An additional source of confusion for journalists, who may then turn to “easier” or “sexier” stories, more likely to garner “Likes” or “Read” and earn them praise – or simply help them keep their jobs as contractors. Because as contractors, they may have quotas to produce.
Give “the press” a break. Like everyone, it is struggling in a brave new “Internet” world. It may be guilty, but it has plenty of help from the public.
