Posts by JedRothwell

    For those who can read

    Thanks for locating this. I have difficulty finding text with this message system.

    Mary Yugo can read, but she will not read. There are none so blind as those who will not see.

    She wrote "predictable." Yes, it is predictable that she would ask for information that was already presented, that she did not read the first time, did not know about, and will not read this time either.

    Mizuno told me about some other possible problems with the I.H. replication. In my experience, a replication of something like this will fail the first time, the second time, and for several months. That is normal. It is no reason to give up. If I.H. had not been in a battle with Rossi with hundreds of millions of dollars at stake, I suppose they would have kept their research going. They might have had it working by now.

    But my take is that Jed's responding to straw men. The critiques did not have to do with the specific parameters and measurements he cites.

    Which critiques are you talking about? Who wrote them, and where were they published? There are no published technical critiques, unless you count the crackpot nonsense from Shanahan and Morrison. I am talking about the "critiques" (if you want to call them that) made by MIT plasma fusion scientists and by Robert Park in the mass media. They accused cold fusion researchers of being frauds, lunatics and criminals. I don't mean they insinuated that. I mean those are the words they used.

    As for China Lake and Los Alamos and ORNL, etc., it seems they were not impressed with the results. If they had been, they would have pursued them.

    When Miles published his results, the management at China Lake locked him out of the lab, took away his telephone, and assigned him to a menial job as a stock room clerk. Miles was a "Distinguished Fellow" of China Lake, meaning a professor who was allowed to do any research he liked. It is like having tenure at a university. He had national and international awards from many leading institutions. So they did not fire him outright. Instead, they made it impossible for him to do any more research. He soon quit.

    If he had not been a Distinguished Fellow and one of the world's top electrochemists, they would have fired him that afternoon.

    And it's not "opposition" so much as lack of interest.

    I would call what they did to Miles and the others "opposition." You, of course, have read nothing and you know nothing, so you have no idea what they did to these people, even though it is well documented at and in Beaudette's book. As I said, you just make shit up.

    I don't recall anyone opposing IH's efforts apart from Rossi's obvious con.

    As anyone can see, I was talking about research in national laboratories and universities. Obviously, influential people such as Robert Park or the editors of Nature have no way to oppose research at I.H., and no interest in doing so.

    I.H. did not have one-hundredth of the instruments and expertise available to researchers in the 1990s at places like China Lake or Los Alamos. They would have purchase a $1 billion worth of instruments and hire dozens of top experts to achieve that. No institution now researching cold fusion has even one-hundredth of what is needed.

    As an aside: In Palo Alto in 1977, there were rumors of the "smartest person we ever met", in retrospect it may have been Jobs himself.

    Probably not Jobs. He had no technical or programming skills. Wozniak did the early engineering at Apple. Jobs was good at knowing what the customers wanted. At times he sensed that technology could be pushed farther than it had been, although he often misjudged that and tried to go too far. He was brilliant at marketing. But he did not invent anything in the technical sense.

    He made vital contributions but they were not of a technical nature.

    Is it only an impression, but it seems current techniques in recent experiments are far less reliable and precise that the one in the 89-90s?

    When I want convincing solid experiments, I always get back to older one (F&P, Lonchampt, Miles, McKubre, Bockris, BARC, Storms, )

    Yes, I think that is the case. The reasons seem clear to me. People such as F&P, Miles and the others you listed worked in the world's best laboratories, equipped with the latest, best, most expensive equipment. They were assisted by the best experts in the world. Some examples:

    Miles sent his flasks to be analyzed for helium in blind tests to three laboratories in the U.S. that specialize in helium detection. These are arguably the best laboratories on earth for that particular job, and he did not just ask one of them; he asked all three. Their instruments measured 0.1 ppb.

    As I mentioned here recently, Bockris searched for "the top expert in calorimetry in the State of Texas" to review his work. The guy visited, looked at the equipment and data. He laughed and said, "anyone can measure that much heat." Bockris said that gave him confidence he was doing it right.

    Tritium is another good example. BARC is India's largest power reactor, as well as it premier nuclear research lab. Tritium from cold fusion experiments there was measured by the Reactor Safety group. As they said: "if we make a mistake measuring tritium, we die." They know what they are doing.

    At Los Alamos, tritium from Storms' experiment was confirmed by Jalbert. Judging by his CV I suppose he is one of the world's top experts. See the NSF conference proceedings, p. 13-3:

    Roland A. Jalbert

    *25 years working with tritium and tritium detection
    *involved in the development, design, and implementation of tritium instrumentation for 15 years
    *for 12 years he has had prime responsibility for the design, implementation, and maintenance of all tritium instrumentation at a major fusion technology development facility (Tritium Systems Test Assembly ).
    *Consultant on tritium instrumentation to other fusion energy facilities for 10 years (Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor at Princeton )

    People like this and equipment like this have not been available for cold fusion research for 20 years. If anyone today were to suggest that the instruments and experts at places like Los Alamos or China Lake should be used in a cold fusion experiment, that person would be fired in a week, and would never be allowed to work in academic science again. It would be instant career suicide. The opposition to cold fusion is a strong today as it was a week after the announcement, when the plasma fusion researchers at MIT, journal editors and scientists elsewhere began flooding the mass media with accusations that cold fusion researchers were lunatics, criminals and frauds. That is exactly what they would do today if anyone suggested an experiment. That's what they tell me they would do.

    You can put as many temperature sensors as you like in an isoperibolic calorimeter.

    Yes. And the people who make calorimeters know that. Most of the calorimeters used in cold fusion studies were made by experts who did not make the kinds of mistakes Mary Yugo imagines they might have. Plus, as I said, they calibrated, so if there were problems, they would show up.

    There are some published cold fusion studies with bad calorimetry. I am not saying they are all first-class. But the major studies were. The researchers consulted with experts. Bockris, for example, brought in the best expert in calorimetry he could find in Texas. The fellow looked at the instruments and the data, laughed, and said, "anyone can measure that much heat."

    Took a while to set it up, but when properly calibrated it could detect the heat from a fart in the next building.

    J. P. Joule would have approved. Legend has it that he measured the heat from a waterfall on his honeymoon. *

    Along similar lines, Bockris once told me about the methods used decades ago to detect impurities in electrolysis cells, even before modern mass spec instruments were developed. He said: "In those days, people still smoked in laboratories. Someone would blow smoke at one end of the lab and a minute later it would show up in our instruments at the other end." He didn't mention farting.

    * Okay not a legend, but it didn't work. See:…200912/physicshistory.cfm

    "Isoperibolic" calorimetry is point temperature measurement, often at a single point, and rarely more than three and extremely error prone.

    Where did you get this information? I suggest you examine the schematics of actual calorimeters. You will see, for example, the Fleischmann used an array of temperature sensors and Miles used sensors attached to a copper jacket, which is the opposite of a single point.

    If these methods are "extremely error prone" why don't the errors show up during calibration? Perhaps you mean invisible, undetectable errors. The calorimeter works perfectly until someone uses highly loaded Pd and heavy water, instead of Pd+H or Pt+D. Then the errors magically appear, even though there is no mechanism by which the choice of cathode and electrolyte could affect the calorimetry. This is the Shanahan hypothesis.

    Oh, I am sorry: I shouldn't have asked "where did you get this information?" As you have told us many times, you never read the papers. You are not interested in them. You just make this shit up.

    But it's not just for me but for most of the scientists who bother to examine it.

    Which scientists? Where have they published? What were their claims? What errors did they discover? Name three of them other than Shanahan and Morrison.

    Oh, I am sorry, you just made up these imaginary scientists too. You have a vivid imagination!

    Which is EXACTLY why I find it not worthwhile to consider milliwatts or larger power for comparatively short times, all in hard to measure environments.

    But you also ignore 100 W produced continually for months, and 5 W produced continually for weeks. So you are just making excuses here. You ignore all cold fusion results, large or small, milliwatts or watts. You have a different set of excuses for each result.

    Let me translate Yugo-speak into English. "Comparatively short times" are thousands of times longer than any chemical effect could produce. A factor of 1,800 is "comparatively small" because it isn't actually compared to anything, such as a person jumping 2,700 meters into the air, or an airplane flying from New York to Tokyo in 28 seconds.

    By the way, there are not many cold fusion claims for milliwatts. Most of them are about a hundred times larger. But, again, 2 or 3 orders of magnitude mean nothing to Yugo because she is innumerate.

    assets? Gates was young and possibly a dedicated hobbyist surely with access to commercial and/or homebrew 8-bit based machines, along with many other other hobbyists at the time (say 1976)--

    He had access to timeshare IBM mainframes. So did I, at the same time. (He & I are the same age.) There were no homebrew or minicomputers. Both of us spent many hours programming, but even by the standards of a 1960s computer geek, he was extraordinary. He spent thousands of hours programming. He would go to computer centers in the dead of night to get time. Before he turned 18 he had more experience, skill and actual time running programs than most adult computer programmers in their 30s had back then.

    People I know who worked with him say he was and remains an extraordinarily gifted programmer. That's not something you can fake. If you lack that ability, all the financial acumen and family wealth in the world will not make up for it. People with financial acumen and venture capital wealth wrote hundreds of failed commercial programs during that era. Today, there are somewhat fewer failing applications programs because programming has become easier, more of a science and less of an art. Today, the most advanced programs in things like AI at Google require far greater resources, knowledge and professional skill than any program did in 1975. The entire operating system for a minicomputer was small compared to something like Google's translation program. I used to know every function call in the minicomputer I worked with. There was a list of about a hundred of them. Things like "dispatch new job" (start a process; "create event" in Microsoft-speak), "convert date to Julian format." A function call is known as an "API" in Windows. There must be hundreds of them. I have no idea how many. Some have many parameters. Here is a list for Window 8:…op/dn933214(v=vs.85).aspx

    In many other ways modern software is far more complex.

    E=mc2 after all. And c is a rather large number.

    Big, big. Quoting my book:

    Deuterium fusion yields 3.45 × 1014 joules per kilogram (345 million megajoules). Gasoline
    has 45 megajoules per kilogram (or 132 megajoules per gallon), so a kilogram of deuterium gas
    has roughly as much energy as 7.6 million kilograms of gasoline (2.6 million gallons).

    If something is hotter than it's environment, it's easy enough to extract and convert that energy into whatever form you please.

    Most of the energy from a Tokamak is the form of neutron radiation. Various schemes have been proposed to convert this radiation into heat, which can then be used to produce steam to generate electricity. I think most of these methods call for a blanket of material of some sort that absorbs neutrons. That is challenging and inefficient, as you might imagine. The blanket becomes highly radioactive in a short time.

    Proposals exhibited to Congress to use a Tokamak as a power source used to include schematics with a large, imaginary blank space between the block symbol for the reactor and the steam turbines. I guess that indicated "somehow we get from A to B . . ."

    I think if I have a minor objection to ITER in the context of LENR, it is something along these lines:

    I don't get the sense that dropping a series of hohlraums into an intense laser field . . .

    That is inertial confinement fusion (laser fusion). Not ITER. ITER is magnetic confinement, a.k.a. Tokamak.

    I have heard that inertial confinement is conducted mainly as a way to develop nuclear weapons. It is no longer considered a likely source of energy, given the difficulties it has encountered. It is a way of doing physical tests without setting off bombs, which would violate the 1996 Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. A DoE weapons guy once told Gene Mallove that the inertial confinement program is "a pimple on the ass of production." ("Production" is DoE and DoD jargon meaning the production of nuclear weapons.)

    More it is that hot fusion, though difficult and unclear in terms of final outcome, has clear science backing it with scientific results continuing to emerge.

    No one I know objects to the clear scientific backing. That makes no sense. By that standard, cold fusion researchers would object to natural gas turbines, wind turbines, coal, uranium fission, and every other existing energy source, since they all have clear science backing them (not to mention actual technology). The problems are:

    1. There is no likely engineering path to electric power generation. Nothing has been seriously explored as far as I know.

    2. The extreme radioactivity destroys the device too quickly to make it cost effective.

    3. The device apparently only works on such a large scale it would not be suitable for many applications.

    4. Conventional sources such as PV are likely to be much cheaper and safer.

    5. The budget allocated is disproportional to the likely technology. This much money allocated to wind or PV power would likely produce a much larger ROI.

    6. Conventional nuclear power such as advanced fission are safer and more cost effective. See Krakowski et. al:

    I will replicate this device next. The majority of it is off the shelf components.

    Wow. I would appreciate a replication, but I don't think it is worth doing. There are too many unknowns such as what was in the powder.

    If you do this, you need to consult with the authors of the paper.

    The next two tests after this were disasters, so I no longer believe these results are credible. I am judging by the people, not by the technical merit of the paper. In other words, I am doing the same thing Mary Yugo does in this instance. The difference is, I know I am doing this, and I say I am, whereas she does not understand the difference between a technical reason to doubt a paper versus an evaluation of the author's credibility.

    Shane, I must congratulate you on the openness of your mind and I mean that sincerely, not sarcastically. But really? Don't you realize it? There is nothing to replicate. There never was.

    When this paper was published, I think it was reasonable to conclude there might be something to the claims:

    I have repeatedly asked whether you found any technical errors in this paper. You keep saying you don't believe it because you don't trust the authors. That is a reasonable reason to reject the paper, but it is not a technical reason. I conclude you do not know of a technical reason. Neither do I. So, a person who does trust the authors (or did trust them when this was published) would have a legitimate reason to think there was something to replicate.

    They are smart enough to know they were hoodwinked, are embarrassed by the entire experience and want nothing more for the entire charade to go away.

    If they wish to make it go away, why don't they issue a statement disavowing the work? I do not see how saying nothing makes it go away.

    (I have no idea what they are thinking.)

    Musk, Bezos, Gates build their business around sometimes decades old proven tech. What makes you to believe they are going to invest into lenr?

    Give me at least one example of these guys inventing something.

    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.

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

    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.

    Or with Ni-H for that matter. As long as it's research and doesn't use up tax payer dollars because it's a very low probability activity, IMHO of course.

    Without tax dollars it will not happen. Nearly all fundamental research in modern science is done with tax dollars. By "fundamental research" I mean research that is not likely to lead to a marketable product in the near term, or esoteric research such as the robotic exploration of Mars.

    How do you feel about government support for tokamak plasma fusion? How about "clean coal"? To me they seem less likely to be of practical use than cold fusion.

    I read papers. And while F described various methods he typically used, that indicated entrained water would not, given his assumptions, be an issue, he did not show it was not an issue in the specific case of the results described because he assumes that his typical empirical findings.

    He designed the cell to prevent entrainment. He ran blanks that showed the expected amount energy per gram of evaporation. He measured the salts left in the cell, showing that none escaped entrained. (Entrained water would carry off the salts.) He published videos showing the boiling water does not reach the top of the cell.

    Those are specific steps he took in the results described.

    What more should he have done? What would you suggest? What would satisfy you, if this is not enough?

    All of this is described in Fleischmann's papers at

    [Me: Unless he does this, he will not convince people or make any money.]

    I wish that were the case! I wish that no one who made empty claims got a dime until they put up. But we've learned from different examples that where there are people with money, there are people with money who will give it away on the basis of empty claims.

    That's true! Rossi proved it in spades. I guess I should have said, "ideally, unless he does this . . ."

    Or: "ethically, by the rules of business investing, unless he does this . . ."

    me356 has demonstrated willingness to let 3'rd parties analyze his work.

    No, he is not willing to let third parties analyze his work. On the contrary, he refuses to do this. He could easily let people do this, right here, right now. All he has to do is publish his work. Publish the schematics of the calorimetry and the data showing excess heat. He could do this without revealing any intellectual property. He has not done it, as far as I know.

    He was unwilling to let the MFMP analyze his work in person when they visited. He said he was too busy that weekend, even though he knew they were coming. That was rude. It is suspicious. As I said at the time, if I knew someone was coming all the way from the Czech Republic to visit me, I would clear the schedule and be sure to see them, unless there was a dire emergency. As I recall he said he had a good reactor but he showed them a less-good one. It did not work.

    Not convincing because it takes place in a complex apparatus full of error prone areas and low level measurements. So not for "no reason."

    That is not even slightly true. There is nothing complex about a boil-off experiment. It is one of simplest, oldest and most reliable ways to measure enthalpy. Are you telling us that the heat of vaporization of water is not well established? Do you seriously doubt it is 2257 j/g? You have no idea how ridiculous that makes you look. Do you also dispute the force of gravity on earth? It is not 9.8 m/s2?

    There are no errors in this experiment. You have not found any, and neither did Morrison. Saying "there are error prone areas" means nothing, since you have not found any. You might as well claim there are invisible pink unicorns in your garden.

    Oh, and don't bother posting any bullshit about how entrained water left the cell unboiled. People who actually read the papers (unlike you) will know that Fleischmann showed that did not happen. He demonstrated it several ways. They will see you don't know that because you did not read the paper and you wouldn't understand it if you did. It is like your claim that boils down to saying we don't know the heat of vaporization. It makes you look silly.

    [Regarding your error by a factor of 1,800]

    Silly crap like the above doesn't earn you respect.

    YOU got the wrong answer by 4 orders of magnitude. I pointed it out, and you call that "silly crap"??? Are you kidding? Instead of admitting you are wrong, you blame me for pointing out the mistake? It is against the rules to point out a drastic mistake?

    Do you have any idea what constitutes a science-based discussion? You make a gigantic error, and another, and another. You do not even understand what the heat of vaporization is. But when I point out these mistakes, you say that's "silly crap." That's remarkable chutzpah, but it ain't science.

    As I keep trying to convince Jed, "Size Matters!"

    No, that is not how science works. If that were true, the 1942 Chicago Pile-1 reactor would be inconsequential and only the 1945 atomic bomb test would matter. That makes no sense. Without the reactor there would have been no bomb.

    Size does not matter. Signal to noise ratios matter. A size that disproves a hypothesis by 4 orders of magnitude is just as convincing as one that disproves it by 6 or 8 orders. That is to say, heat beyond the limits of chemistry by a factor of 1,800 is just as significant as heat that exceeds those limits by 1.8 million or a billion. The additional zeros make no difference. They add nothing to confidence or significance. They are not "more convincing."

    This is a simple concept. It is fundamental to the scientific method. This is why the 1 W reaction in the Chicago Pile-1 was as convincing to the scientists as the 15 kiloton bomb explosion. As you see from this statement above, Yugo does not understand this concept because she is innumerate, she does not understand how numbers work or what "significance" means, and she does not understand the fundamentals of experimental science.

    Is there a (translated) written record of these to see?

    Nope. You'll have to take his word for it. I have a copy of the pen recorder trace which shows excess heat leading up to the event, but I do not have a copy of the log book.

    If you don't trust Mizuno's account, you should say so and drop the subject. He and the others who claim they have seen heat after death could be lying. If that's what you think, there is nothing more to be said.

    The reason it does not convince me is that IIRC, it was at a much lower level of energy. If that's wrong, let's see the data again.

    Yes, it was less energy, but it was 1,800 times more than the chemical energy in the cell could have produced, and 20,000 times more power, as shown in the paper. But of course you have not read the paper and you are innumerate so you will not understand that. Perhaps you will understand this comparison I gave before. This is as if you saw someone jump over the Empire State Building, and you said: "That's not convincing; let's see him jump over Mount Everest instead."

    Let me explain about numbers. If you say 1,800 is "not convincing" for no reason, with no scientific justification, you could -- and I am sure you would -- reject 1.8 million or 1.8 billion for no reason. No number will satisfy you, mainly because you cannot tell a big number from a small one, apparently.

    The refuge of the believer. I won't show you mine because you won't believe it anyway.

    I won't show you?!? What is that supposed to mean? What are you talking about? I have uploaded all of the papers, the introduction to the book, and the book itself in Amazon Kindle format. What more do you want me to do? How can I "show you" more?

    Oh, I forgot. You never look. You never read anything. In your world, it is my fault that you don't see something because you refuse to look. Got it!

    This should be so simple. It seems like a watershed experiment. A hallmark example of LENR. Someone, preferably with help from Mizuno, should simply do it again, with modern instrumentation and documentation

    As I have pointed out here many, many times, Fleischmann and Pons did this test hundreds of times, with the best instrumentation available. They documented it in a major, peer-reviewed journal. You do not believe them. You do not understand their experiment. So this does not convince you.

    No other replication would convince you, no matter how good it was, or how many times repeated.

    It doesn't help to suggest that P&F's claims to much smaller yields are somehow the same thing.

    Their "yield" (power) was bigger, not smaller. Energy was lower because the mass of palladium was smaller. Of course it is the same thing. It was the same materials under the same conditions.

    You think their yield was smaller because you are incapable of doing simple arithmetic. That is also why you can't tell the difference between 6 seconds and 3 hours. You do not realize it is the same effect because you do not understand the first thing about experimental science. I suggest you give up and stop trying to understand this field. It is over your head. Every assertion you make about it is wrong, misinformed or absurd.

    Even if you believe Mizuno's anecdote, it does not mean that anything remained hot for several days unless someone recorded temperatures of the water . . .

    During the event, Mizuno measured the temperature of the cell by two methods:

    1. Feeling it. It remained hot to the touch. This method is foolproof.

    2. Measuring the thermocouple voltage. The thermocouple was disconnected from the pen recorder, so there is no continuous record, but he measured it manually once or twice a day and wrote down the numbers.

    You do not need to record the temperature of the water, only the cell. The cell was immersed in the water, so the water had to be hot. However, it is obvious the water was warm because it all evaporated several times. That proof is as good as a record of the water temperature would be.