Posts by JedRothwell

    Calorimetry which depends on a single or very few point temperature measurements is inherently error prone, especially if the points are monitored by thermocouples or RTD's.

    So it is a good thing researchers have often used Seeback calorimeters with thousands of points measuring the temperature. Isn't it? Oh, of course, you wouldn't know that, would you?

    Also, it is a miracle that the calorimeters you claim do not work have been working so well since 1840, and the calibrations and blank runs always work. It is a fantastic coincidence. So is the tritium, I'm sure.

    The calorimetry in CF experiments is not bomb-proof. You think this, but it depends on assumptions about constancy of conditions between calibration and active which you point out have been known true for 100s of years. But they are not provably always true.

    Okay, so you are saying that no electrochemist can measure input power. Faraday couldn't do it, so his laws are wrong. Hundreds of world class electrochemists who replicated cold fusion could not measure input power or heat, so they were all wrong. Even when they measured 5, or 20 or 100 W, it was an instrument error caused by unnamed "inconsistancy of conditions." Heat just cannot be measured, and the textbooks are all wrong. Experimental science doesn't work. Calibrations don't work. Blanks with Pd-H or Pd-H mean nothing. Heat after death with no input means nothing. It does not matter how many times the experiments were replicated, what the s/n ratio was, or how many different calorimeter types were used; they all failed. They failed for reasons that you -- and you alone -- know, but will not deign to share with us.

    For that matter, gas loaded experiments that show heat mean nothing. The x-rays, tritium and helium are all mistakes or fantastic coincidences and they mean nothing.

    In short, you reject all of electrochemistry going back to Faraday, and all of calorimetry going back to Lavoisier. None of it works. Heat can never be measured, and cold fusion anomalous heat must be an "inconsistency" which happens to produce x-rays and tritium. Very inconsistent!

    O-o-o-o-kay. If that's what you want to believe, fine with me. Thanks for showing your true colors.

    Which one? Can you please cite just one example and provide the relative link to a paper that shows and demonstrates the so called "heat after death" phenomenon?

    I am sure you know which papers describe heat after death. You can use the indexing system or the Custom Google Search at the top of the screen to find them if you have forgotten the authors. Do not ask me to spoon-feed you information. I do enough work editing, organizing and indexing papers already. I will not take the time to give people like you information that I have already given you time after time.

    And do not claim that I am being a big meany-pie for not giving you information you can find as easily as I can.

    The fact that cold fusion continues when electrolysis is interrupted may not be in any paper, but anyone with experience doing cold fusion knows it. Electrolysis is interrupted often, for example once a day when an open cell water level is checked and replenished. The output does not fall to zero, as you can see in any graph. Obviously, the excess heat continues. Why would it stop? It is not a direct transformation of input power. Cold fusion is not an amplification effect in any sense. Obviously, electrolysis creates highly loaded palladium, and that material, in turn, sometimes generates excess anomalous heat. Sometimes it does not generate anomalous heat, so the electrolysis itself is not a direct cause.

    Anyone who supposes the effect stops the moment electrolysis is interrupted does not know the first thing about it. That's obviously wrong.

    I don't recall ever opining about F&P.

    Who are you trying to kid here? Is that supposed to be a joke, or are you "gaslighting" us? You reject all cold fusion claims. Every single one, from F&P to the present. Don't deny it. You make yourself look crazy, by first categorically rejecting claims, and then saying you did not reject them.

    Just as, conversely, on a less LENR-focussed site (e.g. I'd be close to the mainstream and most of the other views here would be represented but fringe.

    That makes the point about LENR research being a fringe activity?

    Surely, one definition of a fringe scientific activity would be experiments conducted by people who are not conventional scientists, or people not in major institutions, or researchers working in fields where they do not have a PhD or recognized expertise. For example, Linus Pauling claiming that vitamin C prevents colds might be considered a fringe claim.

    None of these attributes applies to cold fusion. All of the major researchers were the creme de la creme of electrochemistry. They were the world's top experts and authorities in their field -- the most establishment; the least fringe. No one was more qualified or better positioned. That's why they were able to replicate.

    A plasma fusion scientist trying to do electrochemistry will be hopelessly out of his depth, as demonstrated in many 1989 experiments, including ones where the researchers confused the anode and the cathode. That's about as "fringe" as you can get. Another attribute might be the claim is published in a journal which does not normally cover that field of research. Cold fusion is 99% about materials and electrochemistry, so experiments published in journals outside of these disciplines might be suspect. Indeed, the ones in high energy plasma journals were mistaken.

    So, THHuxley has it backwards. The people who replicated cold fusion are the most establishment, least fringe-related. The people who failed to replicate, and the people attacking it are on the fringe. That's according to the normal definition of "establishment" and "fringe" that would be applied to any other scientific research. The definition of "fringe" in discussions of cold fusion by THHuxley and in the mass media is unique, the direct opposite of the normal definition, and it has been mindlessly and ignorantly applied to cold fusion only, and no other topic.

    You incorrectly - very obviously incorrectly - compare that to the validation made from CF experiments where:

    99% require power input (those you mention that do not require power input - please quote the papers and how to replicate

    So, you don't believe Faraday's laws? Because they require input power to measure.

    Any electrolysis cold fusion experiment will work without input power. Just turn off electrolysis for a while. The excess heat continues. Dramatic examples are called "heat after death" after an intense heat burst, but you can see the same thing during the test with low level heat. The reaction does not instantly stop when electrolysis is interrupted. It takes a while for the metal to de-load.

    Obviously, any gas loaded experiment works without input power. There are plenty of them in the literature.

    This was accepted (would be accepted now easily) because:

    Total energy >> chemical
    No power input

    Therefore the calorimetry can very easily be made bomb-proof.

    You seem to be missing the point. ALL cold fusion experiments produce total energy >> chemical. Sometimes 10,000 times more, sometimes 100,000 times more. If a cold fusion reaction were chemical, it would stop after a minute or less, but it always runs for days continuously, and sometimes for weeks.

    MANY cold fusion experiments have no power input. Others have input that can be measured with extremely high precision and confidence, and that can be subtracted. This was first done by Faraday.

    The calorimetry IS EASY and it IS BOMB-PROOF. It could have been done with confidence by any scientist in the last 240 years.

    I say based on pure fantasy.

    How do you know? Have you attended meetings with IH and Woodford? Have you met with the IH researchers, or attended the ICCF conferences where they presented? If you have not, then your opinion is pure fantasy.

    I do not know what the IH valuation is based on because I have not attended meetings and I don't know much about such things. It might be fantasy. I don't know, but unlike you, I don't pontificate or pretend to know.

    As for the second assertion, I never stated that everyone agrees with me.

    "Everyone can see" means everyone agrees.

    No one can see what you describe. It is a fantasy. It does not happen. On the contrary, anyone who boils water in a test tube will see that you are wrong. What you describe would apply to any test tube, and any method of boiling, not just boiling with cold fusion heat.

    It wouldn't be the first time. Some large, well funded programs were run by people who despised cold fusion, and who apparently did all they could to prevent the experiments from working. The NEDO program for example. It cost over $10 million. I don't recall how much. The researchers complained about it and tried to get out. After years of effort, some of the cells that Mel Miles were running began producing heat.

    Having said all that, let me acknowledge that many of the researchers in the NEDO program were good scientists, and sincere, and they wanted to succeed. They did a very good job in many experiments. Mel Miles had a high opinion of his co-workers there. I don't think they made much progress, but it is a tough business. I would never fault someone for failing to make progress in cold fusion.

    It is possible that some people in the Google project are opposed to cold fusion and want to kill it once and for all. I get a sense that might be the case based on the tone of the Nature paper. But I do not know that. Maybe that was just the Nature editors? I am sure that many of the people in the Google project are sincerely trying to make progress. I have met them. They are smart, capable, and they know much more than I do about every aspect of the science. I do not know what they did, and I am certainly not going to assume it was badly done. It might be excellent work. Maybe they are close to success. I hope so. If they publish some details, I might be able to judge.

    My opinion is only relevant to the few people over the years who asked me about LENR and also about a few other tech claims...

    Your opinion about LENR is about as relevant as my opinion of the New York Metropolitan Opera's performance of Le Nozze di Figaro. Since I am pretty much tone deaf, I probably could not tell the difference between that and Yankee Doodle Dandy. I gather it is in Italian, which I do not understand. If anyone asks your opinion, you should be honest with them. Tell them you have read nothing, you don't understand the first thing about the subject, you have no idea what "signal to noise" ratio means, or how calorimeters work, or why the laws of thermodynamics supposedly prove that cold fusion is real. Tell them you don't know what it means when a few grams of metal produce more heat than a gallon of gasoline. Tell them that, even if you do know what all that means. Because you have said here time after time that you don't know, and the technical issues don't matter, and your opinion is not based on them, and your opinion does not matter anyway. You use those reasons to bug out and refuse to answer any critiques of your claims about the experiments -- such as your claim that they have not been demonstrated credibly. You want to have it both ways. You make bold technical assertions, and then as soon as anyone asks for proof -- or evidence -- or even a hint! -- you shift gears and say, oh what I say doesn't count. Ignore little old me.

    You: Were it possible to demonstrate the claims credibly . . .

    Me: You have no basis for saying that.

    You: What I say is irrelevant!

    whatever, Jed. You miss the point completely.

    Oh, I get your point. Loud and clear. You have said time after time that if this were real, Gates and others would be throwing money at it. You miss two things:

    1. Gates is, in fact, throwing money at it. So is Google. It is conceivable that some of the Google team members have it in for cold fusion and want to squash it, but others I know for a fact want to succeed.

    2. Gates and other people put on their pants one leg at a time. They do not have super-powers. They cannot know things by ESP. When they read something in Nature or Scientific American, they are inclined to believe it. So am I. I accept most information from such sources. They are usually authoritative. Unfortunately, everything about cold fusion published in the mass media, and in Nature in particular, is an outrageous falsehood, as you see in the recent editorials. Nature is a credible source about most things, but not this. It is unfortunate.

    So, there is no way your average mogul with a zillion dollars is going to find out that cold fusion is real. He will consult with high muckety muck physicists who know nothing more about cold fusion than the cop on the corner or a hairdresser knows. Unfortunately, they think they know. So they give Mr. Mogul cock-and-bull misinformation. They are like you: they refuse to read anything or learn anything, and when you ask for proof they give you the same nonsense you spout about how society supposedly works and how science never makes mistakes. Nonsense which tells me you not only refuse to read anything about cold fusion, but you have not read the history of technology, science or business. Fortunately for Mr. Gates, his science adviser is Leonard Wood who knows a terrific amount about cold fusion. Gates has the facts. Other moguls I wouldn't know about.

    But the claims for cold fusion are that it can yield useful energy on cheap fuel and produces no radiation, Were it possible to demonstrate the claims credibly to reasonable well educated scientists and entrepreneurs, there would be no problem getting funding.

    It has been demonstrated credibly in hundreds of the world's best laboratories, at power levels that anyone could have measured in the last 240 years, at astronomically high signal to noise ratios. You deny this, because you have no idea what constitutes "credible" in a scientific experiment. If any other phenomenon had been demonstrated with this much credibility in only five major labs, every single scientist on earth would believe it. They don't believe it only because they refuse to look and they know nothing about the results. Look at any opposition mass media article on the subject and you will see they misrepresent every aspect of it. Their version of cold fusion is a fantasy. Heck, look at the Google Nature article. As a review of the subject, it was a travesty.

    What you say has no basis in science or rationality. You do not have a scrap of quantitative evidence. You are making claim after claim with no more support than someone who says vaccinations cause autism. You think that you can wave your hands and dismiss replicated scientific evidence from hundreds of the best instruments in the best laboratories. Just because you personally don't want to believe it, for some perverse reason. Dismissing scientific evidence without a reason is the extreme opposite of science. No pathological skeptic has ever given a valid reason to reject any major experiment. They have never published any reason in any paper. Morrison and Shanahan tried, and you can read their papers at You will see they don't have a leg to stand on. Neither do you. At least you don't try to pretend you have reasons -- you dismiss the science for no reason at all.

    Your opinion, based on absolutely NOTHING, without a single technical fact or argument to back it up, is not science. You look pretty foolish coming to a science discussion forum and making claims without a shred of evidence. You are dismissing the whole of chemistry and physics going back to 1800 or so. You are saying the laws of thermodynamics don't work, because you will have a hissy fit and you won't like if they do. In a sense, I welcome you, because you reveal how bankrupt pathological skeptics are.

    JedRothwell; REALLY!

    Google spent millions, and a group of researchers spent several years or their lives, as part of a conspiracy against LENR.

    It wouldn't be the first time. Some large, well funded programs were run by people who despised cold fusion, and who apparently did all they could to prevent the experiments from working. The NEDO program for example. It cost over $10 million. I don't recall how much. The researchers complained about it and tried to get out. After years of effort, some of the cells that Mel Miles were running began producing heat. One produced quite a lot. The project director refused to come down the hall to see it. They later published a exhaustive report that did not mention that experiment. Miles did not hear about the report. They didn't tell anyone outside of Japan. Someone sent me a copy. I translated it. Mel was pretty upset! Fleischmann thought it was a put up job from start to finish. He railed about it in letters to Mel. Look for "NEDO" here:

    I wouldn't know if it was intentional or not. It can be hard to tell the difference between stupid and malicious.

    I have no idea what happened in the Google research. Practically no experimental technical details have been published. Especially, nothing about the Pd-D work has been published, which is the part I know the most about, and which I might be able to judge. The work might be great, or it might be awful. I have no idea, and I am not going to try to guess. The only thing I can say is, this is not a very good experimental science paper. They should have said how many cathodes they tried . . . and much else. Maybe they will say this, in a follow-up paper.

    fringe science: scientific work not accepted as correct science by most scientists where the current publications are mostly outside mainstream journals

    That would be "science as a popularity contest" or "science replaced by academic politics and funding battles." Those are the reasons cold fusion has been relegated to outsider status. The reasons have nothing to do with the merits of the claims. Cold fusion was not attacked because it appears to violate some laws of physics. Many other claims do that, but they are not attacked. Claims such as multi-universe theory have no experimental support at all. They are purely imaginary. But no one attacks them, because they do not threaten big budget program funding.

    Cold fusion was attacked first, foremost, and to this day mainly by the plasma fusion people because they are getting billions of dollars in government money, and anyone can see it will be cut off if cold fusion succeeds. This is about money -- m-o-n-e-y. So, "fringe science" is science that lost the cut-throat competition in Congress for government largess.

    It also upset many high muckety-muck theorists who hate experiments that show they may be wrong.

    The mainstream journals are also all about money. They are in the business of fleecing university libraries out of large sums of money, selling them information that the taxpayers paid for. The universities are getting tired of it. It is a thoroughly corrupt business model. Take something which belongs to the public, get a copyright, and sell it a hugely inflated cost that is paid for by middle class tuition and student debt. Fortunately, free online scientific publications such as PLOS ONE are becoming the norm. Let us hope they put Nature and the others out of business soon.

    More generally I think the element of comment here which is essentially "the google guys did not try properly - did not take correct advice - were incompetent - were part of some conspiracy to suppress LENR"

    Is grossly unfair.

    . . . did not try properly. There is no way to judge from this paper. I can say they did not present their results properly, because -- like I said -- the paper tells us nothing.

    . . . did not take correct advice. They might have read this advice at, but they did not ask any of the experts that I know. I can't tell whether they followed the written advice, because the paper tells us nothing.

    . . . were part of a conspiracy to suppress LENR. Manifestly, they were part of a conspiracy! They published a biased paper in Nature. It was grossly distorted. They left out the most important aspects of cold fusion, implying that it has not been replicated when in fact it has been replicated thousands of times, and these replications are in mainstream, peer-reviewed journals. Furthermore, their article was accompanied by three other hatchet job attacks so blatant, so outrageous and factually wrong that no ordinary scientific journal would think of publishing them. If the authors of this paper objected to having their article accompanied by such outrageous attacks, I think they should have said something in the paper. Or they should have refused to publish in Nature. Nature is accusing these authors of doing fake, pathological, bad science. Can you imagine something like a medical research paper accompanied by three editorials accusing the authors of being frauds who deliberately kill patients for money?

    These three seem clearly true to me. I see nothing unfair about pointing them out. If this is not a conspiracy to make cold fusion look bad, what would be? How much more outrageous does it have be before we call it an attack?

    The authors may also have had some ordinary scientific curiosity and intentions. They offer some lukewarm support at the end of the paper, surrounded by a scaffolding of lies. They let academic politics run roughshod over their presentation. Perhaps they had no choice. Perhaps the editors at Nature said this is the only way they will allow publication. I would have said "no thank you."

    I have no way of knowing, but it would not surprise me to learn that one or more of the authors deliberately set this up to be a hatchet job, to kill off cold fusion once and for all. It looks that way. It might have that effect, whether they wanted to do that or not.

    Come on! You know that the most celebrated and best documented F&P experiment is the "1992 boil-off experiment" described in their ICCF3 paper (1). But, as already discussed in this forum (*), the conclusions of this paper are blatantly wrong, as everyone can see by analyzing the original lab videos (2,3).

    I know that is your opinion, but I do not know anyone who agrees with you. I certainly do not. I think you should refrain from saying "everyone can see" since no one else sees it. Perhaps you should say "anyone should be able to see."

    You are making two assertions here:

    1. F&P were wrong. That's plausible, at least.

    2. Everyone can see this, and everyone agrees with you. That is wrong, as a matter of fact. No one agrees with you.