Posts by AlainCo

Good news they addressed the question of skeptics.
The DC will be tested.
Like previously they will be free to use their instruments, check all...

No doubt it won't be enough, as nothing can.
In French we have a wikipedia page on "Hypercritical methodology"
(google translated)
there is no English equivalent, and this should be corrected

Quote

The hypercritical method is a method of argument, consisting of systematic and excessive criticism the smallest details of a statement or its opposing sources. It differs from the critical thinking that it is contrary to the judicious use of reason .

This method usually returns to a suspicious charge analysis and insignificant details or related to a subject, to disqualify block a thesis in the sifting, or suffer this fate by his sources , in order to repel an opposing theory, even though the evidence brought by it are they not negligible.

The hypercritical method is difficult to counteract, to the extent that it is launching a large number of peremptory assertions and sometimes quick to make, which require work to be checked. The vanity of these refutations was raised about the approach denier who makes extensive use and, more generally, in history by Henri Irenee Marrou , who sees a "obstinacy in unbelief "and which joined Raymond Aron in the conclusion that "we touch the bottom: the historical truth is only for those who want the truth . "

Michel Wieviorka finally emphasizes the role of contemporary media and their expectation of expertise in a number of successful hypercritical humanities and social sciences, it promotes the dramatic and provocative .

The hypercritical is particularly used in various forms of denial that take, for example, the denaturant, Jean Norton Cru and Witnesses as a model . Indeed, it allows with the consensus of historians, in particular, the validity of the testimony, offering the syllogism following :

• Such details are unclear or contradictory;
• so any explanation is false;
• therefore the explanation advanced for this evidence is actually rebuttals .

Display More

The key of hypercritical method is an asymmetry, that is not different from "extraordinary claims requires extraordinary claims" which could be translated, as the "null hypothesis" : "consensual claims need no evidence".

It is not far from "confirmation bias" and from the resistance to paradigm change that Thomas Kuhn describe. He explain well that "normal science" refuse anomalous facts, without a theory, until there is a theory that not only explains the anomaly, but also ALL of the known facts that current paradigm explain.

In fact like Jed Rothwell I support the neutral position : "extraordinary claims require normal evidence, as consensual claims require ordinary evidence". At worst we should admit "we don't know". The key of current science tragedy is "ego"/"hubris", denial of the famous "uncertainty monster"; tell that to the physicist on cold fusion, and to other consensual science who abuse of null hypothesis to sell theory without/despite evidences.

It seems MOF are nanometric variants of the micrometric foam that Defkalions talk about for their technology.
They say that they used ceramic compounds (ZrO...) to make that foam more resilient to temperature...

maybe those MOF can produce directly the expected NAE...
maybe we should ask to scientists, but as an engineer, without more competence I would say : to be tested... at worst it works.

Wikipravda talk of a Ni or Cu MOF, where the skeleton is organic and the active site Ni or Cu
http://dx.doi.org/10.1039%2FB718443C
that sentence " While the nickel-based compounds are marginally porous, on account of tiny channel dimensions, the copper versions are clearly porous."
give me hope, because "marginally porous" maybe be just what is needed for NAE.

They don't talk of more classic Nickel based skeleton, but it seems logical to find some Ni skeleton MOF.

maybe even we can produce a framework with so many NAE that it is producing too much heat, and maybe we can throttle the reaction by controlling fuel density...

to be tested, sure.

Jed Rothwell a small contest by SciAm.
He wrote a little essay on Cold Fusion, history, challenges and future...
http://fqxi.org/data/essay-con…ll_FQXI_submission_es.pdf

Quote from "Jed Rothwell"

"How Should Humanity Steer the Future?

"http://fqxi.org/community/essay

Unfortunately, the contest judges are the editors of the Scientific American. I decided I might as well let them know we are still here, so I submitted an essay pointing out their ignorance. Here it is:

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2000

Display More

short synthesis, with some bitter critics of common errors agains LENR.

On vortex there are currently discussion about the number of replication.
an interesting paper is given, from Ed Storms and T Grimshaw
http://fusiontorch.com/uploads…schmannPonsEffect2009.pdf

It list the number of replication, the technology of calorimetry used, and others effect.
It also discussus about the pseudo-science criteria often wrongly applied to cold fusion.an article to read.

here is the preface and ToC of Ed Storms book
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEthescience.pdf

Ed Storms announce also his next book, and talks of skeptopath

Quote

Thanks Kevin. My next book will be more interesting than usual because it evaluates theory. More than a few cages will be rattled.

As for the skeptopaths, they are not worth the time. These people are clearly not rational. Some human minds are not designed to accept reality most of us enjoy. These people have their own reality that will not change regardless of the evidence. Their attitude toward cold fusion is only an example. I suspect you will find the rest of their reality to be equally distorted.

Ed Storms

The team of LENR-Cities, after the recent interview where they announced their vision and some announces for may, is restructuring their website :

http://lenr-cities.com/

I underlined what make me react, what is important, or surprising from my point of View.

The site is still small, clearer than before, with a general warning that smell like spring break season announce:

Hope they can deliver, but we should expect delay like on any real project.

They present a short vision, toward their three target stakeholder... See below.

I'm not sure to understand well the project but I remind of an expression :
"Mutual Assured Development"
The idea is that with good market and partnership rules, your interest is not only to cooperate with companies in the ecosystem, but also to support them, and even ask them to innovate and develop faster, because it is your own interest.

I imagine they have designed effective playground-rules for IP-sharing, collaboration, respect of each work and assets....

The notion of "catalyst", that small group of scientists, investor and industrialist, remind me the network effect (fax effect, some would say the Facebook effect today) where the value of participating to an ecosystem is linked to the members present.Economist says, that it creates a "positive externalities".

They also warn old-style innovators, that the game is more risky than before because it is disruptive innovation. That not only you have to prepare to change the world, but be ready that it change without you being ready.

I will have many question to ask, to check if my understanding is correct...As some have already asked to better understand what is that ecosystem model, we should make role-play, explaining how various actors will be welcomed and will work inside the ecosystem...
To be continued...

Here are their vision as expressed:

Quote

• Investor
  
  • The challenge : Disruptive innovation is not anymore a possibility but a certainty. The nature of risk is changing. Risk is now deeply linked to market transition and to disruptive systemic effects on market. That means funding of innovation is becoming deeply linked to capabilities to capture change and not only to make change that is to say managing market risks. LENR is a perfect "Market case". We are working on new approach of funding innovation deeply linked to market.
  • Building... We are now building the core of the Ecosystem with a small group of key scientists, investors and industrialists, individuals and public or private organizations. More in May...
• Enterprise
  
  • The Challenge: Develop with us the new LENR industry and its integration in your own industry ...
  • Building... We are now building the core of the Ecosystem with a small group of key scientists, investors and industrialists, individuals and public or private organizations. More in May...
• Scientists
  
  • The Challenge: Challenge is to develop the field of engineering of matter (Green and abundant energy, superconductivity, transmutation and hydrogen production) to address world challenges in Energy and Water and consequently contribute to Sustainability.
  • Building... We are now building the core of the Ecosystem with a small group of key scientists, investors and industrialists, individuals and public or private organizations. More in May...

The main page gives a more general description:

Quote

• The Challenge : Low Energy Nuclear Reactions research will become a new field of engineering capable to address world challenges regarding Energy with a global impact. It is therefore clear that any LENR projects intersects with multiple interests and issues which create the conditions for their failure. To address this main issue, it is required to enabling industries and actors to concurrently integrate their industry into LENR industry that is to say to define open capabilities to securely enable any player to come into the game.
• Strategy: Step by step, our project is to reach that objective in a well defined approach. To succeed, LENR requires being innovative as regards the path to develop and industrialize LENR with innovative ways about getting funding, using IP, enabling industry development up to opening market and talking with customers. We are designing and building this innovative market organization and strategy working with innovators in fields of science, finance and industry. We are getting teams joining an –Ecosystem – of projects.
• Solution: LENR-Cities, a Swiss organization, is leading the Ecosystem. Each project is run independently, with its own objectives, but contributes to the achievement of the overall project which itself is reinforcing everyone's capabilities and interest to support the overall project. We are now building the core of the Ecosystem with a small group of key scientists, investors and industrialists, individuals and public or private organizations. Objective of this group is to be the catalyst of the whole project.
  

  
  

Ready for may...

Too bad, Rossi is only proposing LENR enhanced gas turbine...

some remind that this is not the first time people think about of a nuclear plane

Je copie ce petit texte publié rapidement en réponse a un raccourcis historique. Toute correction est bienvenue...

L'histoire de la fusion froide est un peu plus complexe que la version officielle et je vous invite à lire "Excess Heat" de Charles Beaudette

http://iccf9.global.tsinghua.edu.cn/lenr home page/acrobat/BeaudetteCexcessheat.pdf

(ou le livre de Edmund Storms, éditeur pour Naturwissenschaften à ce sujet).

Tout a commencé par diverses anomalies observées depuis le débt du siècle et qui font le buzz sous le manteau chez les chimistes des hydrures... anomalies ignorées.

Un chimiste parmis les plus respecté, en fin de carrière étudie ces anomalies dans son garage pour pas mouiller son université. Il met plusieurs années à trouver un protocole assez fiable, basé sur une calorimétrie astucieuse (Que Longchampt (CEA96) reconnaitra comme très bien menée avec les moyens de l'époque, fruit de son expérience - Dewar avec fort vide et col étroit évitant les pertes et assurant des échanges radiatifs prédictibles, taille assurant un mélange, mesure de la recombinaison au remplissage).

L'université insiste pour médiatiser... ca part en délire médiatique. les physiciens tentent de répliquer ce phénomène nucléaire, qui est en fait une expérience de chimie. Pas d'internet, les info circulent mal, L'université insiste pour être cachotière pour des brevets... ca énerve. certains ne comprennent pas qu'il ignorent des détails...

Les physiciens s'attendent a voir ce qu'ils onnaissent, une fusion simple DD, avec T+n en majorité.

au bout de 4 semaines l'APS annonce que c'est du flan. 6 semaines Caltech, Harwell, MIT on foiré (enfin, certains comme caltech ont du recalibrer des anomalies inexpliquées - tien tien)...

Lewis du caltech annonce comme il a du mal a homogénéiser la température que F&P sont des clown et ont des problèmes d'homogénéité. Il est juste incompétente cat F&P montre qq jours plus tard comment la cellume mélange du colorant (il faudra 2 ans pour faire des mesures prouvant que même sur les parois la température est homogène à 0.01C).

Mais Lewis a fait une superbe conférence de presse ou il donne une explication fausse mais compréhensible, des blagues et insultes bien vicieuses... c'est fini coté média et revues.

Ca se complique encore quand les physiciens qui ont persisté foirent leurs expériences dans les mois qui suivent, ou font de groesses erreurs de calorimétrie.

En plus les chimistes comme F&P font de grosses erreurs de détections de particules (tien, la science ce serait un métier spécialisé?)...

Un panel du DoE avec des tenat des tokamak et des milliards associée, enterre l'affaire, en veillant bien a ne pas tenir compte de résultats récents ou en cours...

L'affaire est fini, les physicien ont dit que

1- la théorie a raison, donc toute mesure qui la contredit est erronée.

2- si ils ont raté vu qu'il sont supérieurs, c'est que ca n'existe pas...

3- pas assez de particule prévues , pas de chaleur. donc si chaleur, c'est une erreur. si erreur impossible, c'est une fraude (cf Huizenga).

1-2 ans plus tard les chimiste qui comme a leur habitude ont ramé, vérifié, calibré, sélectionné les matériaux, compris qu'il fallait du temps (3 mois), un taux de charge D/Pd élevé et théoriquement impossible, publient leurs résultats.

Pas mal ont obtenu des tours de mains et des échantillons de Pd de papa Fleischmann... (Notamment plus tard Longchamp qui fera en 1996 une réplication exacte).

ils ont des résultats obtenus avec diverses méthodes calorimétriques, isopéribolique comme F&P, calorimétrie de flux en cellule fermée avec recombinaison comme McKubre, calorimétrie Seebeck avec séparation des gaz...

Certains de ces hérétiques comme Bockris ont des livres d'électrochimie a leur non, ou des labo...

C'est la période ou des electrochimistes sceptiques comme heinz gerischer sont convaincus qu'il y a un sujet...
Certains come Miles/Bush prouvent que de l'helium4 est produit en proportion de la chaleur.D'autres trouvent du tritium, des traces de neutron (pas assez), des transmutations...

Mais c'est fini, c'est interdit, ca ruine les carrières. Miles est viré.

En plus l'électrolyse ne permet pas une production de chaleurs importante ni utile (basse température).

vers 2005 il y a un réveil... qq réplications par Uni Tsinghua, ENEA, NASA GRC... Bof.

vers 2009 l'ENEA a bien identifié, avec SRI et NRL des conditions crystallographique qui étaien la cause des difficultés de réplications.

Vers 2011 Rossi fait le buzz avec le réveil de technologies ridiculisée par les scientifiques LENR, le nicel hydrogène (testé par Piantelli, Miley, Focardi, Celani...)... le processus est bien plus industrialisable car basé sur des poudres d'un métal peu couteux, de l'hydrohène normal, de hautes températures, haute pression, assurant un bon rendement thermodynamique... les résultats sont pas fantastiques, mais plus haut que les plus hautes électrolyses (qui atteignaient x1.5 mais guère plus).
Des démos tro bridées face a des sceptiques hystériques... mais ca avance et au final Elforsk, Cherokee... La compétition s'est développée (Brillouin, Defkalion, et d'autres moins avancés)

là c'est industriels et contrairement aux mythes, pétroliers (Shell, Statoil, Amoco) et industriels (Toyota, Mitsubishi, NI, STM), ont ou vont y travailler.

Et plus gros est en préparation.

La fusion chaude, ou par muon a une théorie mais ne marche pas pratiquement. c'est le contraire avec la fusion froide.

La position assez orthodoxe de Edmund Storms (qui s'oppose a pas mal d'autres) est que la fusion froide ne peut être qu'une réaction aneutronique, et sans gamma énergétique (<500keV)... car on n'en mesure qu'un million de fois moins qu'attendu, et aucun mécanisme ne peut être efficace à ce point pour filtrer gamm ou neutrons. Nécessairement il y a des phénomènes collectifs, des couplages avec le réseau cristallin (cf supraconduction, semi-conducteurs...), et cela se passe nécessairement dans des sites actifs très localisés, isolé de l'environnement chimique complexe, typiquement dans des défauts structurels... Il base ses idées sur l'observation des résultats et la physique classique (MQ). Pour le reste il n'avance rien sans données.

Widom-Larsen est populaire mais semble intenable. Kim-Zubarev, Tahahashi TSC/OSC apportent des idées, mais ne tiennent pas non plus en l'état. D'autres fument la moquette, mais c'est courant avec les physiciens théoriques.

Si on lit Thomas Kuhn, ou Nassim Nicholas Taleb, cette histoire est classique, la guerre entre la pratique, les anomalies, les observations, les praticiens et la théorie académique.

La fusion froide est un phénomène qui se passe dans un environnement chimique, produit des résultat calorimétrique que seuls les chimistes peuvent maîtriser au niveau requis... Les chimistes ont bien montré leu compétence en prouvant sans le moindre doute raisonnable la réalité des chaleurs produites, très au delà des possibilité connues de la chimie.

la partie nucléaire est effectivement peu observable (elle l'est, mais pas comme la théorie l'attend). C'est un échec des physiciens de trouver la théories. Ils l'on résolu en niant les faits qu'il ne comprenaient pas, des faits chimiques.
Shechtman, Semmelweis, Wegener, nier les faits quand la théorie manque c'est habituel.

Voilà et c'est un question de qq trimestres ou années.. cherchez, et n'attendez pas que la presse vous aide, ni encore moins les revues. Souvenez vous des frères Wright.

Contrary to my initial understanding it seems Rossi talk of gas turbine based on Brayton Cycle or similar.

However it is the good moment to imagine what if you install that gas turbine, where compressed air is heated by LENr reactor, and injected in a turbine.... on an hybrid-electric aircraft.

EADS already works on prototypes :
http://www.aviationweek.com/Ar…10_14_2013_p55-624497.xml

http://www.aviationweek.com/Ar…10_14_2013_p55-624497.xml

or more ambitiously such an airliner:

where you can already imagine Rossi's Brayton turbine

Very interesting report. I noticed that fascinating quotes:

Quote

He mentioned talking to representative of Statoil, Norway’s giant oil company at ICCF, and Tom was surprised to hear that instead of having a negative take on LENR, his attitude was ‘this is great, we need this!’

It remind me something reported
Expect many >50bn$ sales companies to say : "we need this" (forget about conspiracy of suppression, except for academics).
Note his positions:

Quote

Tom mentioned that although he works in the wind industry he actually hopes that LENR will eventually eliminate the need for wind turbines.

Quote

Some of his concluding points were:

• It’s real
• Nuclear safety is not an issue
• The theory is still not understood, but commercial products will be available anyway
• The Chinese will use it first
• This technology will be of great benefit to the poorer people of the world

Huge, but not a surprise. Just plain evident!

even moderately inefficient static conversion of LENR will be a revolution...
question is the final price/W, not the efficiency.

On Linked in Low Energy Nuclear reaction group, Michel vanderberghe (LENR-Cities) and Nevalina on CobraF found a strange patent that seems LENR
Inventor: Anthony Zuppero, Thomas J. Dolan, William David Jansen, William J. Saas
Owner: Tionesta Applied Research Corporation

Quote

Energizing Energy Converters By Stimulating Three-Body Association Radiation Reactions
US 20140034116 A1

In some embodiments, energy is released by converting the bonding potential energy between two electropositive masses capable of forming a stable bond between them into the kinetic energy of an electron quasiparticle initially captured between them by the coulomb potential. The electron quasiparticles form transient bonds with delocalized ions and other reactants in or on a reaction particle where reaction rates and branches are controlled by the choice of electron quasiparticle effective mass. Methods and apparatus for stimulating and controlling such association reactions are shown and described. Thermionic and semiconductor methods and apparatus convert the electron quasiparticle energy directly into electricity. Other embodiments are disclosed.

The patent is not at all clear about LENR, and list many possible configuration of metal and isotopes including NiH...
What seems proposed is an LENR reaction with hydrogen isotope and metal, that finally can produce electricity through thermionic converter...
Help to understand the patent is welcome .

I don't know if the circumvolution in the patent are made to make the patent very generic, to hide LENR from USPTO censors, or because of crackpot theory...

it seems an evolutions (not much) from an application in 2001 https://www.google.com/patents/US20010018923 (by only Anthony Zuppero & Jawahar Gidwani)

The CEO of the company owning it, is a retired owner/president of CMS Management Solution, who worked for a SRI spinoff about 1986-1988. He seems a generic experienced CEO/Executive, with only distant relation to SRI befores F&P...
He explain his choice:

Quote

Came out of retirement to team with college fraternity brother, Anthony Zuppero, to develop products and a business around his patents.

Anthony Zuppero seems to be a nuclear physicist who worked on Nuclear thermal Rockets. He is controversial for some crazy looking proposal in that domain (using H bombs).

Few days ago the question to the Italian governement is reported (translated by google).
The author is not a deputy according to fusionnefredda skeptical site, but it seems supported by M5S, the 5 start movement.

Quote

Question for written answer
By THE VALLEY, DE LORENZIS, Massimiliano BERNINI, LIUZZI, petraroli, and MANLIO DI STEFANO DE ROSE. -
TO The Minister of Education, University and Research. -

To know - given that: the field of LENR (Low Energy Nuclear Reactions, Low-energy nuclear reactions) is of great interest at the international level and scope of research in many laboratories around the world; Italy is, with Japan and the United States among the countries since the early nineties have explored this kind of study, through the competent national research institutions; different groups are now active in Italian universities, ENEA and INFN to contribute to theoretical and experimental investigation on the low-energy nuclear reactions; nuclear reactions at low energy phenomena are not widely known and not all of the parameters that can ensure the reproducibility have been identified to date and are well understood; numerous improvements have been made through scientific publications in recent years in research on LENR; some patents have already been granted; were announced devices for the production of energy from phenomena LENR ready for the market; once shown the existence of LENR would lead to a shocking redefinition of nuclear physics; Italy could play a key role, given its history in this field of research -: what are its guidelines on the activities of international research on LENR and therefore the interest shown by universities and business realities; if it considers it appropriate to take action to allocate adequate funding for the activities taking place at universities and public research institutions in the field of LENR Italian; whether it intends to promote new research in the field of LENR.

It seems to be the third similar question from 2010 (question 4-06580, translated).
and after the second one (question translated), Stefano Concezzi made a presentation in Italian Parliament (back from a similar presentation in Brussel)

on LENR & Cold Fusion News the article Is the Cold Fusion Revolution Here? is published:

Quote

There seems to be a lot happening in the world of cold fusion/low energy nuclear reaction (LENR) right now. So we can now rightly say that a cold fusion revolutioncould be beginning.

Some of the most important developments include:
...
[ Hagelstein/Swarts/IAP/NANOR, Mitsubishi Transmutation LENr patent, NASA LENR Plane by Doug Wells, UK Global Strategic Trends ]

interesting, and no need to call ne physics...
Existing physics is already complex, even the one of powders, sands, wet and dry.

On big error of many LENR supporters have been to call for news physics, and the error of most mainstream LENR deniers have been to imagine that existing physics was known enough to ruleout LENR phenomenons...

every month there is a funny phenomenon that is observed, like this one, like discovering that gold can be hydrophobic or hydrophilic, or that strange effect...
The whole is more complex than it's parts. Knowing the equation of physics does not make you understand the chaotic system... say that to the weather men.

krivit hate Rossi...

Jed It much more positive since that test.
A good technique to refuse to admit something is to as condition that cannot be fulfilled.
The tea kettle argument was used for long to refuse to admit the calorimetry.

Independent test without the tester, with free instruments, without problems of fluid, flow, was asked for long... now it is not enough...
Testing such a technology out of a secure building is not rational. for the rest what can be done if you can touche the reactor and change the cable, install instruments at will...

is it rational doubt...

I'm more concerned about stability and performances.
.

I have no specific data.
I just know Iwamura work hard on his ideas, and is willing to develop them.
Toyota and Takahashi is active too.
Mizuno helped some replications too (he is academic, Hokkaido University I think, at least he was).

his ideas of using transmutation, remind me the GeNiE reactor

proposed by Global Energy Corp.

I don't know how mature is their technology, and I imagine it is just based on their work at US Navy Spawar, but who knows...

About patent we should not be too enthusiastic because often patent are required more like papers, to fill a criteria... Anyway maybe is it applicable... Probably much more engineering is needed.

this articles :
How Academia and Publishing are Destroying Scientific Innovation: A Conversation with Sydney Brenner

featured by ECW is absolutely shocking, and sadly follow many other's scientists denunciations (as you can read inside).
ECW cite few good quotes, but there is much more:

Quote from &quot;Sydney Brenner&quot;

To have seen the development of a subject, which was looked upon with disdain by the establishment from the very start, actually become the basis of our whole approach to biology today. That is something that was worth living for.

This one give an explanation of the LENR Fiasco, by contrast

Quote from &quot;Sydney Brenner&quot;

I strongly believe that the only way to encourage innovation is to give it to the young. The young have a great advantage in that they are ignorant. Because I think ignorance in science is very important. If you’re like me and you know too much you can’t try new things. I always work in fields of which I’m totally ignorant.

This quote chosen by ECW is really resonating with LENR at F&P time:

Quote from &quot;Sydney Brenner&quot;

What people don’t realise is that at the beginning, it was just a handful of people who saw the light, if I can put it that way. So it was like belonging to an evangelical sect, because there were so few of us, and all the others sort of thought that there was something wrong with us.

They weren’t willing to believe. Of course they just said, well, what you’re trying to do is impossible.

As I say often this reactions is classic, jut worse today, as he denounce later.

The hard explanations continue, describing the Scientific system today:

Quote from &quot;Sydney Brenner&quot;

Today the Americans have developed a new culture in science based on the slavery of graduate students. Now graduate students of American institutions are afraid. He just performs. He’s got to perform. The post-doc is an indentured labourer. We now have labs that don’t work in the same way as the early labs where people were independent, where they could have their own ideas and could pursue them.

The most important thing today is for young people to take responsibility, to actually know how to formulate an idea and how to work on it. Not to buy into the so-called apprenticeship. I think you can only foster that by having sort of deviant studies. That is, you go on and do something really different. Then I think you will be able to foster it.

But today there is no way to do this without money. That’s the difficulty. In order to do science you have to have it supported. The supporters now, the bureaucrats of science, do not wish to take any risks. So in order to get it supported, they want to know from the start that it will work. This means you have to have preliminary information, which means that you are bound to follow the straight and narrow.

There’s no exploration any more except in a very few places.

Display More

The interviewer remind us that he is not the only scientist to critic current Science:

Quote from &quot;Elizabeth Dzeng&quot;

Our discussion made me think about what we consider markers of success today. It reminded me of a paragraph in Professor Brenner’s tribute to Professor Sanger in Science:

I found this particularly striking given that another recent Nobel prize winner, Peter Higgs, who identified the particle that bears his name, the Higgs boson, similarly remarked in an interview with the Guardian that,

It is alarming that so many Nobel Prize recipients have lamented that they would never have survived this current academic environment. What are the implications of this on the discovery of future scientific paradigm shifts and scientific inquiry in general? I asked Professor Brenner to elaborate.

Display More

Brenner answer clearly:

Quote from &quot;Sydney Brenner&quot;

He wouldn’t have survived. It is just the fact that he wouldn’t get a grant today because somebody on the committee would say, oh those were very interesting experiments, but they’ve never been repeated. And then someone else would say, yes and he did it a long time ago, what’s he done recently? And a third would say, to top it all, he published it all in an un-refereed journal.

So you know we now have these performance criteria, which I think are just ridiculous in many ways. But of course this money has to be apportioned, and our administrators love having numbers like impact factors or scores.

So clearly applying to Cold Fusion... except that it is replicated, published in peer-review journals, but nobody believe it is, so they will say the same bad excuse.

He continue with a harsh critics against peer-review that ECW emphasized too:

Quote from &quot;Sydney Brenner&quot;

And of course all the academics say we’ve got to have peer review. But I don’t believe in peer review because I think it’s very distorted and as I’ve said, it’s simply a regression to the mean.

I think peer review is hindering science. In fact, I think it has become a completely corrupt system. It’s corrupt in many ways, in that scientists and academics have handed over to the editors of these journals the ability to make judgment on science and scientists. There are universities in America, and I’ve heard from many committees, that we won’t consider people’s publications in low impact factor journals.

Now I mean, people are trying to do something, but I think it’s not publish or perish, it’s publish in the okay places [or perish]. And this has assembled a most ridiculous group of people. I wrote a column for many years in the nineties, in a journal called Current Biology. In one article, “Hard Cases”, I campaigned against this [culture] because I think it is not only bad, it’s corrupt. In other words it puts the judgment in the hands of people who really have no reason to exercise judgment at all.

This section of the interview resonate with Randy Shekman call to boycott high-impact journals
Nobel Winner Boycott Science Journals

Quote

Schekman said pressure to publish in "luxury" journals encouraged researchers to cut corners and pursue trendy fields of science instead of doing more important work. The problem was exacerbated, he said, by editors who were not active scientists but professionals who favoured studies that were likely to make a splash.

interesting business model... produce electricity and He3.

yes, energetic particles, and some rare transmutations probably, are probably not the same animal as the excess heat, the He4 production (in PdD)... those "hot fusion"ashes are much rarer, and not really useful.

Ed Have a good approach, to start from the observations, then try to classify them like a zoologist, find few key constraints, based on know physics and Occam razor, and don't go farther than that...

Comme vous l'auriez noté dans la section anglophone,
Jacques Dufour a fait publier un brevet pour Shell après ses travaux au CNAM (ceux qui n'ont jamais existé, pas marché, enfin pas assez, enfin y sentaient pas bon)

Old granted patent: LENR reactor by jacques Dufour (CNAM) for Shell

http://www.google.com/patents/EP1072041B1?cl=fr

le brevet a été déposé en France en 1998, publié en 2003...

J'ai retrouvé un viel article de 1993 dans l'express ou Dufour est cité. Au delà du cas Dufour, le texte est édifiant (NB: en 1993 j'ai commencé a m'y intéresser, et c'était déjà clair que le déni était infondé).

http://www.lexpress.fr/informa…nt-ca-chauffe_605304.html

Quote

Faute d'un appui de la science officielle. "Nous n'avons aucune expérience en cours sur le sujet", commente le porte-parole du CNRS. "Vous comprenez, explique Jean-Paul Babuel Peyrissac, du CEA, il faut prendre le maximum de précautions; on ne peut pas être la risée des scientifiques. Mais c'est vrai qu'il se passe là des phénomènes physiques encore incompréhensibles et qu'il faut y aller voir. Nous sommes en train de remonter une manip qui fonctionnera d'ici à un an." D'autres, dans le même organisme, n'ont pas attendu le feu vert de leur hiérarchie. Dans la plus grande clandestinité, ils s'affairent autour de leurs calorimètres et déposent discrètement des brevets. "C'est vrai, commentent en choeur Jean-Pierre Vigier et Jacques Dufour, l'attitude des grands organismes de recherche est incompréhensible. Pourquoi sont-ils si réticents alors que les manips ne sont pas très coûteuses?" Comme si la fusion froide sentait le roussi et qu'ils avaient peur d'y brûler les ailes de leur réputation. Un exemple: Jacques Dufour, financé entièrement par Shell, a cherché longtemps un laboratoire mieux équipé que le sien - situé à Grand-Couronne, près de Rouen - pour poursuivre ses expériences. Il a eu du mal à se faire accueillir. C'est en définitive le Pr Jacques Floss, directeur du laboratoire des sciences nucléaires du Conservatoire national des arts et métiers (Cnam), qui lui a ouvert ses portes. "Je suis à peine installé, commente-t-il, que déjà les chimistes, les thermiciens, les physiciens nucléaires du Cnam sont prêts à donner un coup de main. Critiques, intrigués, mais très ouverts."Après le 3 mai, qui osera dire qu'il ne se passe rien dans les bouteilles Thermos de Pons et Fleischmann? Qui pourra prétendre qu'il n'y a pas un mystère dans les calorimètres de Dufour ou dans ceux des Japonais? Qui refusera de relancer des expériences où se cache peut-être l'avenir énergétique de la planète?

La fin est tordante
Comme une blague de médecin légiste.