Posts by AlainCo

I understand what you say, but my phone is even worse than my laptop.
anyway I succeeded in making a real time video with youtube/hangouts/onair...
anyway maybe I should ask of one of the participant laptop just for the hangout, following the event on youtube, and relaying questions from the forum

Quote

Who you hoping to interview anyway??????

many gray hairs, some young startupper and few tight suit...
not yet a reactor,except maybe ... but not LENR...

sorry the interview can be positive or negative.

no, it is just very hard to accept scientifically, and it is only repeated a handful time... not a thousand time.

the odds are even on this technology... really both doubt and hope are rational on EmDrive...
on LENR only engineering question deserve doubt. phenomenon is proven.

5 years is standard for innovative lab result to reach the market...
Cold fusion coverage is beyond abnormality if you compare to fringe EmDrive, more shocking theorically, and much less reproduced...

I've discovered another of my netbook.... windows XP, so forget OBS.
However I've just found Google Hangouts "OnAir". Maybe it can do the job.

I will make test soon. any experience with that ?

one useful things maybe feedback, questions, from the net...

problem is my android is really weak... Galaxy Y...
no skype video either...

but as microphone it is an idea.

peoples from more than 10 different groups having read a paper, is no more a secret...
It is hard to keep a secret among a group, but among many unrelated groups is nearly impossible...

if the paper circulate in a university, it is a question of days before we find it on Wikileaks.

Who follow Wikileaks?

Hi all,

I need help from people experienced with video tools.

I am invited to an event in few weeks and I would like to propose interview. I have an obsolete netbook from 2009, no skype video, but a USB webcam ok to record fair interview with fair sound.

my naive plan is simply to report a MP4 as 720p and publish on youtube...
do you have a better idea ? some talk about twitch, youtube via some broadcast tools

I have installed Open Broadcaster Software https://obsproject.com/ but no idea if it can work.

I would like too to make subtitles once the interview is finished...

As people have probably noticed I'm a man of plain text...

Quote from gdaigle

More importantly... where will it appear? Nature? Elforsk? Arxiv.org?

great question.

my feeling is that it is impossible to publish in hig impact journal. they will do anything to delay and block the paper, using diversion tactics, impossible to fulfil exigences like having full access to the trade secrets, costly measurement, time constraints... and then will take years not to admit the facts.

I bet more on serious second tier journal like Naturwissenschaften, used with good review of experimental articles. or else some technical journal dedicated to chemistry or industry experiments.

If you see the tally of cold fusion papers by Jed Rothwell, and the recent article like Takahashi and Iwamura (in JJAP), you see Naturwissenschaften, Journal of electroanalytical chemistry, Thermochi. Acta, ... plus some fusion journal that today are closed or will never accept LENR.

maybe someone here know better the kind of journal that can both do a perfect review, and have the bollock to publish that bomb.

I called him, but probably he is too busy preparing his 2nd edition

http://www.lenr-forum.com/foru…ention-with-E-cat-report/

Mats Lewan just announced he prepare a second edition of his book on E-cat saga : "An Impossible Invention", including the soon to be published (according to him) long duration third party test of E-cat.

[news=10,meta][/news]

Answering to Cimpy on twitter, Mats Lewan, the Swedish journalist of NyTeknik who wrote the book on E-cat saga, simply state : "As you know the famous third party report is upcoming. Within a week or so, is my understanding. Prepare." [news=9,meta][/news]

There is not only Rossi.
And some may go public earlier.

99% of noise (adobe cold fusion, cat and catarina fan, rarely LENR for camera)

nearly no e-cat except people I know like e-cat world and fanclub.

a handful of nasty jokes on cold fusion by unaware people.

very few real innocents supporting old or very old articles (extremetech, nasa, mallove...)

yesterday there was some coincidence with few recent comments...
it seems just luck. today calm.

sometime I see that I go too far trying to relay (mass of) information...
then I see that it cannot be worse that current ignorance, and that most people are just uninformed and convinced without any desire to change... that seems to be the basic of some media manipulation... propagate lies endlessly, the first day, month or year and it will end in history books.

My guess is no, but your idea is possible.
maybe however a tiny fraction of D can activate some reaction...
50% D and H in Srinivasan experiments at BARC were producing the maximum tritium... even if the quantity was tiny compared to the expected heat, it may cause somethings.

Celani observed neutrons in NiD, like some with TiD... neutrons are not good, are probably not LENR (just hot fusion) but they maybe help the good reaction...

too many speculation, we need the report !

Yes is seems based on similar ideas.
Patterson cell patent was based on catalythic palladium ou nickel mesh, but with a glow discharge it seems ?
it was not just heat that activate the reaction...

I don't know if it was well reproduced, it seems no.

cold fusion, e-cat and LENR... as words (not much hashtag)
not that it is very confidential, and from 3 to 7 (beside noise) is a boom

maybe placebo effect I concede

right, time to be more calm

is is a placebo effect, climate summit , but it seems there is more innocent voice about cold fusion since few hours on twitter...

On Scientific Amateur site, an article on ITER hot fusion mves to LENR
http://www.scientificamerican.…ch/?nocache=1#postcomment

funny
when will I be moderated ?

I keep my violent messages from the bin

Quote

It seems you did not search the evidences

In his (free) book Charles Beaudette makes a nice summaries of the absence of critic against the mass of evidence, from calorimetry...

get it on Uni Tsinghua site...

"Unfortunately, physicists did not generally claim expertise in calorimetry, the measurement of calories of heat energy. Nor did they countenance clever chemists declaring hypotheses about nuclear physics. Their outspoken commentary largely ignored the heat measurements along with the offer of an hypothesis about unknown nuclear processes. They did not acquaint themselves with the laboratory procedures that produced anomalous heat data. These attitudes held firm throughout the first decade, causing a sustained controversy.

The upshot of this conflict was that the scientific community failed to give anomalous heat the evaluation that was its due. Scientists of orthodox views, in the first six years of this episode, produced only four critical reviews of the two chemists’ calorimetry work. The first report came in 1989 (N. S. Lewis). It dismissed the Utah claim for anomalous power on grounds of faulty laboratory technique. A second review was produced in 1991 (W. N. Hansen) that strongly supported the claim. It was based on an independent analysis of cell data that was provided by the two chemists. An extensive review completed in 1992 (R. H. Wilson) was highly critical though not conclusive. But it did recognize the existence of anomalous power, which carried the implication that the Lewis dismissal was mistaken. A fourth review was produced in 1994 (D. R. O. Morrison) which was itself unsatisfactory. It was rebutted strongly to the point of dismissal and correctly in my view. No defense was offered against the rebuttal. During those first six years, the community of orthodox scientists produced no report of a flaw in the heat measurements that was subsequently sustained by other reports.

The community of scientists at large never saw or knew about this minimalist critique of the claim. It was buried in the avalanche of skepticism that issued forth in the first three months. This skepticism was buttressed by the failure of the two chemists’ nuclear measurements, the lack of a theoretical understanding of how their claim could work, a mistaken concern with the number of failed experiments, a wholly unrealistic expectation of the time and resource the evaluation would need, and the substantial ad hominem attacks on them. However, their original claim of measurement of the anomalous power remained unscathed during all of this furor. A decade later, it was not generally realized that this claim remained essentially unevaluated by the scientific community. Confusion necessarily arose when the skeptics refused without argument to recognize the heat measurement and its corresponding hypothesis of a nuclear source. As a consequence, the story of the excess heat phenomenon has never been told."

Fiasco of the century indeed. Like Wright brother plane fabled performance.

search Edmund Storms (Naturwissenschaften) for more resources.

Display More

Quote

If only it was the only initiative.

ENEA is doing basic science (boring), report for EU, conference in EU parliament.

NASA after basic research in nasa GRC, after SUGA report with Boeing, have a seedling project of LENR plane with Doug wells.

SRI works with Brilloui, who is funded by Sunrise Securities... slow and hard work, but as reality is.

E-cat seems the most ready, supported by Swedish EPRI/DoE : Elforsk, bought by Cherokee fund which have created a technology transfer structure in Tianjin.

In EU soon LENR-Cities, will launch it's ecosystem proposal with a nucleus of few scientists, corps, startup and investors. (I hope more news in November).

why you don't know it ?

simply ask Roubini when he had evidence of subprime crisis and when people considered him seriously?

read Roland Benabou Groupthink theory...

read Thomas Kuhn.

nothing new.

in strategic watch we call that weak signal... it is the weak signal of a M9 earthquake with that is ignored until the tsunami reach the house.

most weak signal or blackswan are simply grouthink, not hidden or unseen.

for the science best to read is the books of Edmund Storms (The science of LENR, the Explanation of LENR) and some of his free article and booklets like "a student guide to cold fusion", or "cold fusion an objective assesment" or naturwissenschaften published article "Status of Cold Fusion 2010"...

They cite many peer reviewed articles... yes there is, and many despite huge opposition.

searching more you can find the list of errors in MIT,Caltech, harwell key papers that were not published.

For history "Excess Heat" by Charles Beaudette is the most documented history book on LENR, with very good analysis of the epistemology fallacies around.

Fire from ice is strangely calm, but mostly descriptive of the first 2 month where all was decided and frozen.

You can then read all other books and find where are the fallacies and errors.

If you find evidence (read Beaudette to see what is an evidence) against my position, I'm waiting for any... I would not like to be wrong.

good reading.

groupthink is solved by information. get informed!

Display More