Vanilla 1.1.9 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeJan 31st 2013
     
    O shit! It's spreading - Al's got it too!
  1.  
    Posted By: AngusO shit! It's spreading - Al's got it too!

    We can't all be Mister Eds. Fight fire with fire!
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeJan 31st 2013 edited
     
    Posted By: AbdThen they are ripping you off.



    Oh! Hello again.

    I thought you had left.

    You miss the point. My hard earned subscriber dollars are to pay a gatekeeper. I intend him to keep nonsense out until there is no longer any doubt it has graduated to sense, at which point he will let me know. Nature has a very good track record on this, despite your disdain. It is lamentably expensive, but worth it in my view.
    • CommentAuthorAbd
    • CommentTimeFeb 1st 2013 edited
     
    Posted By: Angus
    Posted By: AbdThen they are ripping you off.

    Oh! Hello again.

    I thought you had left.
    Sorry to disappoint you. But you won't see much from me, anyway.
    You miss the point. My hard earned subscriber dollars are to pay a gatekeeper.
    No, I thoroughly understood your point. I'm saying that your gatekeeper made his mind up twenty years ago, that cold fusion papers would be rejected without wasting any more time on this "nonsense."

    If you are paying him to keep new results out of your view, he's doing just that, and it's what he said he'd do. But if you are paying him to review the new work, he's asleep on the job. Nevertheless, if you were paying attention, he told you he was going to ignore this stuff. So it's really up to you.
    I intend him to keep nonsense out until there is no longer any doubt it has graduated to sense, at which point he will let me know. Nature has a very good track record on this, despite your disdain. It is lamentably expensive, but worth it in my view.

    No disdain. That's projected. They are serving their audience, telling the audience what it wants to hear, and not telling it what it does not want to hear. Nothing unusual about that.

    Naturwissenschaften,started in 1913, is not quite as old as Nature, started in 1869. It has an impact factor comparable to Scientific American. However, to me, it was a big deal to be credited in Naturwissenschaften's pages, after being out of the sciences for almost fifty years, given that Einstein published in Naturwissenschaften.

    You mentioned McKubre's attitude about Nature. McKubre knows this history. Someone who does not know it would, I assume, be *shocked* at what actually happened. It didn't just happen at Nature, it happened at a number of major journals. Papers on cold fusion were rejected without review, and the journals that established that policy have continued it to this day. While some papers were doubtlessly of low quality, others were not.

    Papers giving the results of *chemistry experiments* were rejected for lack of a theoretical basis, i.e., a mechanism, when no theory existed. And if *chemists* speculated as to the physics involved, of course, their speculations were not up to snuff.

    I don't know if you are willing to read anything outside of the pages of Nature. But along the way, today, I picked up some links.

    http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ShamooAEeditorial.pdf
    Dr. Shamoo, a physicist, writes about the communications breakdown over cold fusion.

    http://newenergytimes.com/v2/inthenews/1990/Nature-Farewell.jpg
    Maddox, the editor of Nature, in March, 1990, bid a "farewell (not fond) to cold fusion." This was long before the specific nuclear evidence had been confirmed. Helium *had* been found, but the result was considered implausible (see Lindley's commentary below).

    http://newenergytimes.com/v2/inthenews/1990/Nature-Embarassment.shtml Lindley from that same issue of Nature.

    In the 1990 Lindley commentary (this is really an editorial), he mentions helium. At that point, it was believed by Pons and Fleischmann that the reaction was in the bulk, and thus helium would be produced in the bulk.

    Helium is insoluble in palladium and moves with only with difficulty in the metal, and therefore would be expected to remain there. So he faults the finding of helium in the gases coming off of the cell. Searches in the bulk came up empty, because they cleaned the surface away, removing enough material to ensure that atmospheric helium did not contaminate the palladium. What came to be known later was that about half the helium comes off readily in the gases, and about half is retained in the top 25 microns of the surface, and can only be removed by special techniques. That's because cold fusion is *not* a bulk effect. The FP Heat Effect only is found on the surface of highly loaded palladium deuteride. Lindley's objection was cogent from what was thought at the time, but is no longer sensible.

    It shows the danger of rejecting an experimental result merely because it doesn't match theory.

    Nature closed its journal pages to the subject. They have published some news in the news journal, since then. It repeats what may have been true in 1989, in the first few months, but what was not true after then:

    http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070329/full/news070326-12.html

    Fleischmann and Pons were first hailed as heroes, but then no one could reproduce their results.
    It's just blatantly false. Anomalous heat from palladium deuteride has been massively confirmed, and at levels far above noise. The correlation with helium demonstrates that this is not merely some weird chemical energy storage effect, it's truly a nuclear phenomenon. "No one could reproduce their results" is something that no responsible news organization should say, it is blatantly false It's possible to say that people still debate the issue, though the majority opinion, when experts are consulted, turned massively toward confirmation of anomalous heat, with lots of disagreement over the origin of the heat. Nature has simply shown that the head-in-the-sand attitude from 1990 remains a part of their corporate culture.

    Lindley ended his editorial with this remarkable question:

    Would a measure of unrestrained mockery, even a little unqualified vituperation, have speeded cold fusion's demise?

    In fact, shortly after the announcement, at the famous Baltimore meeting of the American Physical Society, Pons and Fleischmann were mocked and derided, the Nature editorials mocked and derided them, Maddox famously wrote that "cold fusion is dead and will remain dead a long time," and ... cold fusion did not die. The calorimetry of Pons and Fleischmann was confirmed in reviews, the finding of anomalous heat in palladium deuteride was massively confirmed, the nuclear product was found and confirmed, and the whole incident was, as Huizenga called it in the title of his book, the scientific fiasco of the century. The cascade that Nature helped to cement in place is still affecting the opinion of many scientists.

    Angus, here, I don't read you as a scientist, though you have, I assume, a degree in physics. You don't write like a scientist in a field of their knowledge, you write like someone with strong opinions about scientific topics, depending on authority in general.

    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJhownaturer.pdf An interchange of mail between Noninsky and Lindley, Nature editor, in 1990 or 1991, where, it appears, the editor made ultimately scientific judgment in ways that we now know were total errors.. It appears that the sole issue was what Pons and Fleischmann had claimed. If there were errors in that -- as there were -- "cold fusion" belonged to them, and if they made mistakes, cold fusion was a mistake.

    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/NoninskiVCnotesontwo.pdf The Noninsky review, as published in Fusion technology, a journal which remained open to cold fusion research papers.

    (I don't expect this paper, which is highly technical, to be of high interest to someone who doesn't want to look at real scientific papers. These are very old arguments. Noninsky makes some sound points, but whether or not Lewis actually found excess heat but explained it away is far from clear. It's more likely, from what we now know, that he simply failed to replicate the conditions, and therefore we'd expect no heat.)

    It was not until 1993 that actual nuclear evidence was found. Before then, the only real discovery was of anomalous heat, and, while the chemists claimed that the energy was too high for chemistry, and that therefore the energy must be nuclear in origin, the physicists generally wrote that a nuclear origin was impossible, therefore the energy was chemistry or totally bogus.

    Enjoy Nature, Angus. I prefer Nature.
    • CommentAuthorAbd
    • CommentTimeFeb 1st 2013
     
    Posted By: adminroot
    Posted By: AbdThe post length limit is very roughly one screen (obviously, YMMV). Beyond that, one must break the post up into sections.
    Now increased, just for you.
    Thanks. Actually.

    I'd learned to work around it, but putting up two or three sections, where one could be used, makes, I assume, long posts *more* irritating, not less. You can scroll past a long single post quickly, just watching for the break.

    It's way too much work to boil down a long post, merely for a discussion. It would take me three times as long. If interested, read. If not, don't.
    • CommentAuthorloreman
    • CommentTimeFeb 1st 2013
     
    "Angus, here, I don't read you as a scientist, though you have, I assume, a degree in physics. You don't write like a scientist in a field of their knowledge, you write like someone with strong opinions about scientific topics, depending on authority in general."

    I await the Angussian response to this with interest. I expect the highest dudgeon. Although it may be just an attempt to flush out the pseudoAngus.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeFeb 1st 2013 edited
     
    Posted By: AbdAngus, here, I don't read you as a scientist, though you have, I assume, a degree in physics. You don't write like a scientist in a field of their knowledge, you write like someone with strong opinions about scientific topics, depending on authority in general.


    Whatever.

    I was. I don't like to go through this, but in the interests of honour - I paid my dues. Three degrees in the field, more papers than I want to remember (partly because I know [from experience] what a load of shit the publishing game is), and quite a few senior positions when the time came. A shitload of patents that belong to other people, (except the last few in my old age, that I can't quite figure out how to make money on.) Plus many years out of the publishing game making money for other people in the science game. (Well, hell, I can't complain about the blowback.)

    So... I write like me. I believe what I see, or what my paid minions see for me. You got a problem with that?
    •  
      CommentAuthorE-Man
    • CommentTimeFeb 1st 2013
     
    Posted By: Abdyou write like someone with strong opinions about scientific topics, depending on authority in general.

    Amazing how little self-awareness some have.
    • CommentAuthorAbd
    • CommentTimeFeb 1st 2013
     
    Posted By: AngusSo... I write like me. I believe what I see, or what my paid minions see for me. You got a problem with that?
    No. In fact, I'm grateful for it. Thanks.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeFeb 1st 2013
     
    Good. We appreciate a little gratefulness, I and my minions.

    Do let us know when LENR has passed the very high energy barrier we set. Until then, it's cocktail parties and marital intrigues for those young enough to care. Whoopee!
    •  
      CommentAuthorE-Man
    • CommentTimeFeb 1st 2013
     
    Angus, you've been hogging Abd all night. Is there any chance he can pseudo-intellectualize in *MY* field now?
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeFeb 1st 2013
     
    Posted By: E-ManAngus, you've been hogging Abd all night. Is there any chance he can pseudo-intellectualize in *MY* field now?


    Oh sorry. I'm actually compromised, my mind being full of ideas from Willy. Coriolanus was truly brilliant.

    But I've not been aware of my sin. WIll you graciously allow me a day to recollect the undoubtedly tightly argued points you have made so that I can reconcile them with my own prejudices and the idiocies that have been foisted here recently?
    •  
      CommentAuthorE-Man
    • CommentTimeFeb 1st 2013
     
    Posted By: AngusCoriolanus was truly brilliant.

    ...and you are *not* the last to see it either. I had not heard of this so I'm looking to find a copy this weekend.

    Posted By: AngusWIll you graciously allow me a day to recollect the undoubtedly tightly argued points you have made so that I can reconcile them with my own prejudices and the idiocies that have been foisted here recently?

    I am your humble servant.
    • CommentAuthorloreman
    • CommentTimeFeb 1st 2013
     
    Oh look, pseudohumility.
    • CommentAuthorAbd
    • CommentTimeFeb 1st 2013 edited
     
    Posted By: alsetalokinWell.... at least Abd is learning the ropes around here, focusing his polemics a bit more tightly.
    Too soon, old, to late, schmart.
    The situation with CF/LENR (or simply heat/helium data without overinterpretation) today is similar to that of parapsychology research back when this Horizon episode was made:
    I will watch that video, alsetalokin, you have gravitas sufficient for me to invest the time. I don't like watching videos, it takes way too long. But I make exceptions, on good recommendation.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McVY5ogi_q8

    Compare, contrast, discuss.
    Okay. I'll be back; however, it's offensive to compare, on the fact, psi with cold fusion. The evidence for psi that I have been aware of has always been on the edges of statistical significance, when there were not blinding errors. I have no problem with accepting that there are "unusual" abilities, but not such that violate basic principles of physics. Being able to "read minds," locally, or possibly in situations where a local model may be accurate enough to do it remotely, isn't actually surprising to me. Locally, I've seen it and have done it. There is nothing "supernatural" about it. It's simply communication on a level that is not normally concscious.
    It's a great hoot for me to see some of my old friends and non-friends in this episode. Perhaps the question should be not whether these phenomena (psi, cf) are real, but whether they are real _enough_. If one can make a good honest living at it, who really cares whether the tree being barked up is a real tree, or a plastic rhododendron? So to speak.
    That's fine for you, and is your choice. However, that has *nothing to do with the reality of the tree,* so to speak. A plastic rhododendron will provide no oxygen, a real tree will.

    One can make a "good honest living" at cold fusion research, I know two who have done it. The editor Pcarbonn, banned on Wikpedia for attempting to enforce policy on the cold fusion article -- and who did pretty well at it, actually -- got a job in the field. But if you are talking about "free energy" or some such nonsense. cold fusion isn't "free energy." And it's not practical yet, only Rossi has made specific claims that, if true, would be a sign of imminent practicality, and if you don't know what I think about Rossi, you haven't been paying attention.

    It may also be a good idea to have a large file drawer, in which to keep reports that don't rise to one's standard of publishability-- that is, those whose outcomes don't support your hypothesis but rather favor the null. The size of the file drawer problem isn't something that is often discussed wrt CF/LENR, but I believe it must be huge.
    There is a valid point here, that negative results may not be published. However, it's also been greatly exaggerated. *Lots* of negative results have been published. The trick in science is to examine the whole body of evidence, to find common explanations. When a real effect is finally understood, it is common that negative results can be explained. The early negative cold fusion results, and the bulk of negative results, in fact, can be explained by the material unreliability and the difficulty of attaining the necessary 90% loading. Before Pons and Fleischmann, that level of loading was considered impossible. Now, with special materials, some are hitting 2X and 3X loading. However, cold fusion is sufficiently reliable to get *statistical data* from experiments, that's how the loading requirement and many other characteristics of cold fusion have come to be known. Heat/helium completely cuts through this problem, because the *entire data set is useful.*

    I've been asked, sometimes, what would falsify my conclusion that cold fusion is real. It would be pretty simple: identify the artifact in the heat/helium correlations, measure it with increased accuracy, and show that it disappears, or has a prosaic explanation. If heat/helium goes away, there is still massive evidence for a heat anomaly, but only circumstantial evidence, or weak and rather mysterious direct evidence, for "nuclear."

    In the discussions here, I examined my claim of odds being a million to one against heat/helium being a coincidence. I revised that to a billion to one, and justified that here. There is nothing like that, to my knowledge, regarding psi.
    If it's hard to publish a CF/LENR paper that has positive results, how much harder is it to publish a bulletproof experiment with null results -- especially these days since "the extreme skeptical view disappeared from that literature, almost entirely, a decade ago. It's dead."
    Yes. Basically, this has been pointed out by sociologists of science, that the publication freeze badly damaged the whole process. But you can present negative results at cold fusion conferences, and the papers are published *within* the walled garden. I'm not ready to publish my negative neutron SPAWAR replication, because it's really unfinished and inconclusive for a number of reasons. But I've freely discussed it. Pam Mosier-Boss was apparently worried that I'd fail to set up the effect and would immediately crow about how they were mistaken. Maybe. She didn't actually write to me, she wrote to someone who passed it on to me. The mail contained quite valuable information, I'd been laboring under misimpressions as to how solid state nuclear track detectors work.

    But I'm quite sure that if I complete the work, properly, I could get it published. I have argued that *all cold fusion work* should be published, on-line if nowhere else. I'm aware of a lot of work that hasn't been published, what has been published is the tip of the iceberg. If a negative result is not published, others will later try the same thing, wasting time. Trying the same thing isn't bad, especially if you know prior results. But there are plenty of mistakes to make, and when people actually detail what they have done and are specific about what they say, the mistakes, if any, can be identified.
    I hope one of the lessons from the Adam Curtis docu that I linked earlier has penetrated: confidence in experimental results and conclusions drawn from them cannot come from the mere results, or the preponderance of them, alone. Not even replication in "independent" laboratories is enough. What is necessary to have confidence in data and conclusions is absolutely bulletproof experimental design and practice, including appropriate control experiments (and experimental controls, not always the same thing) and appropriate statistical analysis. One shouldn't just blindly apply simple correlations or t-tests when Bayesian analysis and/or signal detection theory might be more appropriate, for example. And it's really hard to do any kind of meaningful statistical analysis of single trials or anecdotal reports.
    That's correct. *However*, science often cannot wait for full studies. Nevertheless, heat/helium has been so adequately confirmed that if this were a heart medication, it would be a multibillion dollar business.... well, not yet. Basically, the effect is real, that's what the results show, and clearly. But this does not automatically lead to practical applications, and it's possible that it might *never* do so.
    Theoretical framework is also important, in order to avoid religious post-hockery and hand-waving like "aneutronic fusion" and claims that deuterons can fuse with only He and low-grade heat as detectable products.
    That's the *experimental result,* not a theory. Attempts to explain this are, then, ad hoc, largely, because we don't have anything better. But the Takahashi work starts with a specific physical configuration, applies standard quantum field theory, no hand-waving, and comes up with 100% fusion by tunneling within a femtosecond. That's to Be-8 which has a half-life under normal conditions of about a femtosecond, and it decays, this is known, to two hot alphas. No neutrons. The heat is not "low-grade," it's very high, per reaction. It's the number of reactions which are very small. It's heat/helium which is known, and lack of neutrons and gammas are also known facts.
    I'm no nuclear chemist but as far as I am aware there is no plausible theoretical framework (W-L notwithstanding) that explains how the mass deficit can be turned into molecular-scale vibrations (heat) without the mediation of some kind of high-energy particle or photon. I'm sure I will be corrected if I am wrong about this.
    Well, you are right and wrong. That is, there is no *complete* theoretical framework that explains this. There are pieces that *might*.

    I've mentioned Takahashi's work. It's incomplete at both ends, the only part that he has *actually accomplished* is showing that, in theory, fusion is possible under a certain narrow physical condition, one which might be intrinsically difficult to create, because it requires two opposing conditions. It requires two deuterium molecules at a close approach, i.e. the "tetrahedral symmetric" arrangement, and that requires confinement, and the entry into such a confinement requires energy, though that energy is probably available from the Boltzman distribution. It's not a lot, but without confinement, the deuterium molecules would simply dissociate. Takahashi does not calculate the incidence of the tetrahedral configuration, he *assumes* it. But that's about all he assumes, beyond standard quantum field theory, which then takes him to the point of Be-8. If it decays immediately, the problem is that the hot alphas are too hot. They would produce secondary effects that would be seen, that aren't.
    To go from the reliable detection of correlated heat and helium (if it is indeed reliable)
    The correlation is reliable. However the exact value is not. I forget the exact result from McKubre, but it was something like 25 +/- 1.5 MeV/He-4. Storms estimates from the full body of evidence, 25 +/- 5 MeV. The theoretical value for deuterium fusion is 23.8 MeV. Huizenga, in 2003, seeing much less precise results, was amazed. To get within an order of magnitude of the deuterium fusion value was considered remarkable, and to show that heat and helium were correlated was remarkable.
    to the conclusion of "therefore fusion", and at the same time saying that the non-detection of high-energy species in the reaction proves the fusion is "cold"....
    No, you added something that was not said. The correlation does not prove that the reaction is "cold." The experimental conditions, however, are cold. It remains possible that there is some hot process. "Therefore fusion" is a strong inference from the available fuel (deuterium), the observed ash (helium), and the heat/helium ratio. However, to reach that ratio requires that the measured energy not escape as penetrating radiation, or else the value would be less. There must be a "high-energy species,* though, my opinion, but not one with high kinetic energy, that would be very visible. The high-energy species Takahashi is looking at and studying would be a halo state of Be-8, a nuclear isomer. The other approach is a Mossbauer-effect-like sharing of the energy in a large structure. I consider that quite unlikely, but nothing can be ruled out completely until we have a winner that can actually predict results. Takahashi may manage this, he's studying the predicted emission spectrum from the excited Be-8 states. If those are confirmed, we'd know, then, that Be-8 is involved. We don't know that yet.
    and further, saying that the null results of experimental replication attempts also supports the heat/He correlation claims... buggers the scientific method and is religious magical thinking at its pseudoscientific worst.
    Aw, horseshit. The point was simply that the negative replications, the ones where helium was measured, were are of a data set that is consistent with the deuterium -> helium hypothesis. No heat, no helium. The *same cells*, differing only in the heat being produced, with no significant heat, consistently produced the same result, no significant helium.

    It is *obvious* alsetalokin , that, by themselves, those negative replications don't show heat/helium, because the ratio would be 0/0, or indeterminate. In your indignation of my perceived indiscretion, you are missing the forest: there are twelve studies confirming heat/helium, and *no negative studies.* There is no plausible theory to explain those results except a nuclear reaction, with some kind of fusion being highly likely because of the heat/helium ratio. Sure, there is lots of science remaining to be done, and my efforts will be dedicated to encouraging funding for, among other things, a tighter measurement of heat/helium. It's long overdue.

    I've been encouraging a search for other "markers" of the reaction. Helium is a nuclear product, but are there other diagnostic markers? It would be extraordinarily valuable. Are there RF emissions? Are there acoustical phenomena? Light emissions? Low energy X-ray emissions? These things don't prove "nuclear" and an obsession with the search for "nuclear" evidence probably caused a lessened interest in other correlated effects. But there are anecdotal reports; SPAWAR saw certain high-frequency acoustical signals. Were those correlated with heat? We don't know. But they might be. If such markers can be found, it then allows more rapid assessment of the first-recognized effect, heat.
    •  
      CommentAuthorE-Man
    • CommentTimeFeb 1st 2013
     
    Posted By: AbdThere is no plausible theory to explain those results except a nuclear reaction, with some kind of fusion being highly likely because of the heat/helium ratio.

    Huh, in other words Abd seems to be confusing probability of all-causes with some subset. That's what I figured.

    No problem then Abd. No need to get back to me you are pretty much where I expected you to be.
    • CommentAuthorAbd
    • CommentTimeFeb 1st 2013 edited
     
    One more point.
    Posted By: alsetalokinas I am aware there is no plausible theoretical framework (W-L notwithstanding)
    To be brief, Widom-Larsen theory is a hoax. All it does is provide an excuse for people who believe that "fusion is impossible" to be able to back up and say, "Well, I was right. It's not fusion, but maybe it's *this.*"

    W-L theory starts with a highly unlikely reaction not observed, the spontaneous formation of neutrons from electrons and protons or deuterons. That requires the better part of a MeV, so he waves his magic wand and ... heavy electrons on the surface of metal hydrides. He's right that ultra-low momentum neutrons would have a high capture cross-section, but ... slow neutrons are quite promiscuous, there would be lots of reactions in the soup. Transmutation products are observed, to be sure, but the levels are extremely low. To get to helium, they posit a reaction with lithium, that is beta-decay popped up to Be-8 for the helium decay. And there is no lithium in gas-loading experiments (which also produce helium, the same as the electrolytic FP approach).

    There is a horrific rate problem (intermediates should be present in higher concentrations than the final product), but probably the worst thing is that neutron activation produces characteristic gammas that are not observed. To explain this lack, the same heavy electron patches that are supposed to allow neutron creation are theorized as forming a gamma absorption shield. They don't mention this in the papers, but that screen would have to be way powerful, and the heavy electron patches large, because otherwise gammas would get through, including those emitted down through the material. I.e., the patches would have to not only be more extensive over the surface than the neutron formation sites, but also both above and below them.

    There is zero experimental evidence for this gamma shield, even though they actually patented it. Krivit waves away the lack of experimental evidence, saying that it would require high-resolution gamma imaging to catch those patches, they are so fast, he points to the SPAWAR infrared sparkle imaging. He made that up. And if it can't be captured, how could it be a practical gamma shield?

    I've had some correspondence, if you want to call it that, with Larsen. He's vicious and contemptuous. Practically nobody in the field thinks W-L theory is worth even looking at, and they think Larsen is untrustorthy. The theory explains a miracle (cold fusion) by creating a few new ones (neutron formation, complex reaction sequences in the presence of a low-rate of agent formation, and a gamma shield). Neutron formation cannot be totally ruled out, as with practically any theoretical approach, until we actually know what is happening. And we don't.
  2.  
    Posted By: Abd
    Executive summary: The FP Heat Effect produces no neutrons. Not all fusion reactions produce neutrons. d+d -> He-4 does not, as the best-known example, it normally produces a gamma ray. 4D fusion, one possibility, would produce no gamma or neutrons, it would produce hot alphas, from the decay of Be-8. Theoretical work is under way to explain how Be-8 could survive as a halo state for long enough to radiate the bulk of the energy as non-penetrating radiation. Other approaches are still looking at forms of d+d. Difficult.

    Bottom line, cold fusion produces *only* helium and heat. No neutrons or gammas. I hope you are not upset by that!


    d+d->4He, your example, isn't actually possible. Nobody has demonstrated 4D fusion. It may well also be impossible - I haven't actually looked at it in any detail.

    If CF is real, why not build a big one? If someone could produce helium in convincing quantities then maybe people would take it all a bit more seriously. When the quantities involved are below what most people consider sensible detection limits they're not all that convincing.
    • CommentAuthorjoshs
    • CommentTimeFeb 1st 2013
     
    Posted By: enginerdThanks again Abd.

    So lets have a poll re the posters position on the notion of LENR. LENR for this poll being defined as significant, measureable, energy releasing nuclear reactions in media that is at a bulk temperature of 750C or less.

    Where do you fit on the scale (don't take the exact words too seriously, try to find a number (mixed fractions are fine) that sort of reflects your position. 1 to 10.

    1. I am convinced that LENR does occur and has been clearly demonstrated by published properly reviewed experiments.

    2. I strongly suspect that experiments are demonstrating LENR and am entirely convinced that something beyond normal chemical reaction is occurring in some of the published experiments.

    3. The preponderance of evidence leads me to believe that LENR occurs and has been measured.

    4. The ongoing LENR work is interesting and will probably reveal something very interesting.

    5. I have seen no evidence of anything especially interesting in LENR work.

    6. There is and has been lots of experimental work in LENR. That none of it has produced anything close to peer-reviewed, replicated, convincing data, leads me to believe that there is probably nothing there.

    7. The preponderance of evidence suggests that there is no such thing as LENR.

    8. Per my current understanding of the science and evidence I conclude that LENR is not possible.

    9. LENR, what a bunch of crap

    10. even more so
    Some ongoing "LENR" work is interesting and will hopefully reveal something interesting but it has low likelihood of being nuclear. It is more likely to be something else such as surface chemistry.

    I don't know if that puts me at 8 or between 4 and 5.
    •  
      CommentAuthorTrim
    • CommentTimeFeb 1st 2013
     
    If getting more helium involves building bigger more 'dangerous' cells then why not there are loads of cynics who would be happy to shake them up and say look no bang.