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

    •  
      CommentAuthormaryyugo
    • CommentTimeFeb 1st 2013 edited
     
    Posted By: AbdWell, I recently suffered a rather striking loss of hearing. I no longer can hear my children's mice squeaking. Are there mice squeaking here?
    You may want to check on a couple of causes of sudden hearing loss. One is impacted cerumen--ear wax. The other is more important -- an acoustic neuroma, which is a treatable benign tumor of the ear which if neglected, can cause permanent hearing loss. Those are usually unilateral however. So you could see an ENT physician. Or a homeopath.
    •  
      CommentAuthormaryyugo
    • CommentTimeFeb 1st 2013 edited
     
    I notice you wrote at length about the word salad (it was word salad to anyone not intimately familiar with very advanced modern particle physics). And you neglected my simple, practical question:

    Posted By: maryyugoIf what you say is true, it is incomprehensible that copious private, if not government funding can not be found to do whatever experiments are needed in cold fusion. I am sure, if it were credible and properly demonstrated, that you could get one of the usual suspects formerly with eBay, PayPal, Google, Microsoft, Oracle, or similar or something like the Howard Hughes Institute or any number of university physics departments and graduate students to do experiments. And to do them properly. There is no shortage of billionaires and venture capital firms to invest in promising new ventures and they generally don't care what the academic or government establishment thinks and says.
    •  
      CommentAuthorE-Man
    • CommentTimeFeb 1st 2013 edited
     
    Posted By: AbdWell, I recently suffered a rather striking loss of hearing. I no longer can hear my children's mice squeaking. Are there mice squeaking here?

    The need to annotate something as small, often connotes the recognition that it is not.
    • CommentAuthorAbd
    • CommentTimeFeb 1st 2013 edited
     
    These discussions will be long and meaningless for those who have no interest in the subject. I highly recommend to those in that position that they ignore them. The sky will not fall.Tl;dr comments add nothing except expanding the number of posts. I assume that there are more readers here. But, hey, if people want to snap and snark, it's not my forum. I was invited to come here and have engaged for a time, that's all. It's been useful for me, as well as irritating in certain ways.

    Posted By: maryyugo
    Posted By: Abdhe does think that there are NiH results, and thought that Rossi had managed to enhance those results.
    If Storms thinks anything about Rossi is credible, then he is more woowoo than I thought. As far as Piantelli is concerned, I browsed some of his reports and found them to be unconvincing.
    Storms considers multple independent reports to establish a presumption that there is something there. His citations establish that. "Unconvinced"? Fine. So was I. However, with multiple independent reports, I would certainly not say, "impossible."

    What I wrote about Rossi in early 2011 was that he was claiming something that wasn't, from prior research, surprising, except for the *levels*, which were far and away above those reported before. Someone who started with Rossi and looked back would think, "Gee, that's not impressive."

    Look, most in the field remained skeptical of the nickel results.

    However, Storms had his own ideas. I warned him about appearing to endorse Rossi, but his position was somewhat like Jed's. He had private information, for starters. And he also wrote me that some aspects of Rossi's claims rang true to him. But he knows the demonstrations were *stupid*, and he has actually written that Rossi has faked at least one demonstration. So the ready jumping to conclusions about Storms, repeated by Mary, are just one more stone on the pseudoskeptical pile. Anyone who has an opinion different from the PS, is under the influence of "woo." No, Storms is actually a hard-headed skeptic, he's very difficult to convince of *anything*. I've been around and around with him on certain topics, in private and semi-public.
    Someone pointed out elsewhere that Rainey nickel has been around for decades and has been exposed to hydrogen and no nuclear reaction has ever been found. At the same time, some vigorous chemical reactions exist with these materials.
    So, conclusion?

    Yes, the conditions of cold fusion *must* be unusual. However, if you have a highly reactive substance, and it's being used where that reactivity is normal, and would be so for Rainey nickel, a low-level reaction might easily escape notice, unless one is looking carefully for it. This definitely happened with PdD reactions. PdD had been routinely made, with electrolysis of heavy water, for use as a bombardment target. Mizuno was a physicist who had done that many times. One day, he had shut an experiment down and noticed that the heavy water electrolyte kept disappearing even though the power was off. He added more heavy water, and ultimately quite a bit was evaporated, over days, showing a very substantial energy release. It was a mystery, and he shrugged it off. It's likely that this experience happened to others as well, perhaps at lower levels. Highly loaded PdD is *not* a "natural material.* It does not exist in nature. In nature, pure deuterium oxide doesn't exist except below 0.1%.
    I wonder if Storms still thinks Rossi might have something.

    Yes, I'd say.
    If he does, he hasn't been paying enough attention.
    No, he knows what has come down. He does not trust Rossi, at all. See, Mary, you make assumptions about what you do not know. If Rossi is a scammer, that does not mean that he has "nothing." It could mean that he has something and is exaggerating it. Perhaps greatly.
    I suspect that even Josephson is becoming skeptical of Rossi, especially since he made a direct email inquiry to Levi (about why he never repeated his no-phase change experiment) and received no reply at all.
    Josephson is also aware of the situation. Basically, Josephson tends to jump in when people make the "impossible" argument. He knows that cold fusion is not impossible. But he's also a scientist, and professionally, scientists trust reports until they are proven otherwise. (They do *not* necessarily trust *conclusions* made from those reports.) That habit by scientists, necessary in the sciences, can go awry when applied to a non-scientist claim.

    It was remarkable to see the James Randi "Sagan and cold fusion" not talk about anything really related to cold fusion, except a reaction to evasion by Pons and Fleischmann in an early press conference -- which isn't controversial, they *were* evasive, and for strong reasons -- that turned to be an mistake. In any case, the host referred to Rossi as a "physicist," which was preposterous. You know what Rossi was. Definitely not a physicist! But scientists, asked to look at something, unless trained in detecting fraud, can fall on their faces, if some level of fraud is going on. It's happened over and over, since the 19th century. What was really remarkable was that Essen was an official in the Swedish Skeptics Society. He really screwed up, then. And hasn't fixed it, by commenting on the errors -- or alleged errors; basically he's stonewalled on the issue.
    Posted By: AbdThe skeptical position retired about then, except for very few comments and papers. Positive papers on cold fusion had outnumbered negative ones, since about 1991, the Britz database shows that. Sure, confirmation bias. But ... what's the substance?


    If what you say is true, it is incomprehensible that copious private, if not government funding can not be found to do whatever experiments are needed in cold fusion.
    Lots of private funding was found. Fleischmann, however, estimated that it would take a Manhattan-scale project to commercialize cold fusion. This was *not* simple. (One of the errors in 1989 was that P&F allowed the impression to be created that this was a "simple desktop experiment.") Private funding was found and spent, even before heat/helium was known. The result of that work was a strong indication that this was not going to be quick and cheap. Toyota pulled out, and the Japanese government pulled out. Not because they found cold fusion was bogus, they didn't find that. But because they lost hope that it could be commercialized within what they could afford as to time and money.
    I am sure, if it were credible and properly demonstrated, that you could get one of the usual suspects formerly with eBay, PayPal, Google, Microsoft, Oracle, or similar or something like the Howard Hughes Institute or any number of university physics departments and graduate students to do experiments.
    I've been told, personally, by business interests, that money is available. And how to go about getting it. I'm not sure that this person realized the problems, though. He might easily have been thinking that $100 million would be a slam-dunk, with a payoff in a reasonable time. No. Not a slam-dunk. And if that funding shows up too quickly, it might be largely wasted. MITI, the Japanese project, wasted a *lot* of money pursuing dead ends that wider discussion would have revealed were dead ends. Complicated, all involved with how money and power are used in Japan.
    And to do them properly. There is no shortage of billionaires and venture capital firms to invest in promising new ventures and they generally don't care what the academic or government establishment thinks and says.
    No shortage? Not if they are told that they might put a few hundred million in and see nothing for ten years? And maybe the project would find that commercial application is impossible? It might, you know.

    No, what's needed is *exactly* what the DoE panels recommended. No major program. Modest funding under existing programs. The reviews were badly flawed, and that can be shown, but what they actually recommended was right on.

    Cold fusion supporters shot themselves in the foot by attacking the reviews, outraged by the errors. They were right about the errors, but way off on the politics. And *that* is why I'm finding traction with the researchers in the field. They are getting it, that a shift in behavior on the part of cold fusion supporters is needed. It took someone coming in from the outside to notice and point that out.
    Instead you have weirdo stuff like Ruby Carat quoted from Hagelstein which I cited above and strange (and to me meaningless) confusing web pages like the one from Swartz.
    I don't know that Ruby Carat wrote that. Maybe, but I don't think she wrote that, she'd do much better, I'd expect. Whoever wrote that was not a skillful reporter, at least for a general audience. Swartz knows that about himself, and supports my work. Look, what I write here is off-the-top-of-my-head banter, unless I research some narrow issue, in which case you'll see citations and links or the like. What I write as polemic, intended to convince, is *very* different. Here, I DGAF what you think. I'm just testing the water, exposing ideas, seeing how people react, like that. I write here and do *not* boil it down. It would take *way* too much time. Like two or three times as much time.
    • CommentAuthorenginerd
    • CommentTimeFeb 1st 2013
     
    "is that the effect is unreliable,"

    Now this seems very weird to me. How can you conclude that "the effect" is unreliable. Are you proposing that, like certain quantum effects, there is a kind of probability function associated with the effect, and that it doesn't cancel out in experiments with trillions of trillions of atomic reactions? Or, do you mean that the proper procedure for eliciting the effect is unknown, and that some experimenters stumble on it while others do not?

    The first case is beyond my knowledge and understanding, but I don't think quantum weirdness like that has ever manifested macroscopically as would be needed to show a net heat (or net anything).

    The second case implies that there is, in fact, no reason to believe that there is an effect. It could be any number of effects and is related to experimental set up.

    How can "the effect" be "unreliable".

    Actually, I have a process that allows me to predict the outcome of a dice throw, but the effect is unreliable.
    •  
      CommentAuthorDuracell
    • CommentTimeFeb 1st 2013
     
    •  
      CommentAuthorE-Man
    • CommentTimeFeb 1st 2013
     
    GAH! That things getting closer!
    • CommentAuthorAbd
    • CommentTimeFeb 1st 2013
     
    Posted By: enginerd"is that the effect is unreliable,"

    Now this seems very weird to me. How can you conclude that "the effect" is unreliable.

    Because, experimentally, it is. This is something that physicists are generally very uncomfortable with. They do fusion experiments in plasma, where what is seen is the averaging of a huge number of individual reactions. I should be clear what "unreliable" means here. It means that the FP Heat Effect is unreliable. You set up what appears to be identical conditions, you get different results. It's fairly well known why, but it's not an easy problem to solve.

    But heat/helium is reliable. I.e, set up the FP Heat Effect, for a series of cells, and measure heat and helium. They are correlated. There is no contrary evidence. The *heat varies* -- greatly -- but the ratio remains.
    Are you proposing that, like certain quantum effects, there is a kind of probability function associated with the effect, and that it doesn't cancel out in experiments with trillions of trillions of atomic reactions? Or, do you mean that the proper procedure for eliciting the effect is unknown, and that some experimenters stumble on it while others do not?

    I am not proposing a quantum effect. There are quantum effects involved, but they average out, as expected. The problem is more like the second thing you have said, but not quite that. The problem, with the FP approach in particular, and for simplicity I'll only write about that, is that the *material* condition necessary for the effect is not present in pure palladium with few defects. I'll assume that Storms' theory on the nuclear active environment is accurate. It might be. His theory is based on the experimental behavior. The reaction does not happen in the bulk, it only happens on the surface, and not just anywhere on the surface, but in cracks.

    Palladium out of the forge, so to speak, isn't cracked. Cracks develop from repeated loading and deloading. When PdD is loaded, it expands, and when it deloads, it contracts. This process, repeated, leads to cracking. Now, cracks can lead to palladium leaking out, so too much cracking lowers the loading, and loading of over 90% or so is necessary for the effect. So the cracks must be *just so*. Further, the reaction itself modifies the surface, areas apparently melt. In addition, electrolysis causes every available catiion to be concentrated on the surface. I've seen EDX analysis of cathode surfaces, they become *extremely complex*. Oxides also form. It's a total mess in there.

    If you want to see the FP Heat Effect, you can do it. It's reliable in that way. I was told I'd need to spend about $8,000 minimum. Most of that was for decent calorimetry. And that does not include labor cost and liberal doses of patience and willingness to ask a lot of questions and to consult when, say, your cathode ends up as a spongy mass. Or you don't see anything because you exposed your heavy water to air, and about 1% light hydrogen spoils the PdD effect. Heavy water is "hygroscopic," it's concentration will, exposed to normal humidity, move toward more and more light water content.
    The first case is beyond my knowledge and understanding, but I don't think quantum weirdness like that has ever manifested macroscopically as would be needed to show a net heat (or net anything).
    Hence I'm glad you asked. No, it is almost entirely a materials problem. And then, once the reaction is seen, it will often go away.

    I've never seen it, up close. From many, many reports, though, when the effect shows up, it's unmistakeable. SRI P13/P14 must have had them sitting with their mouths open for a while. I've said that what happened there was that the Chimera of cold fusion sauntered into their lab and licked them in the face, then left. WTF was that??!!??

    Once the Chimera has licked you in the face, you no longer doubt its reality, but you still don't know what the thing is. It often occurred in cold fusion research that someone would see the effect, change some small variable that they thought would have no effect, the effect would disappear, and then they'd change it back and it would stay gone. Cold fusion almost literally drove people nuts. Maybe literally. People who had seen the chimera were constantly faced with claims that they were deluded, incompetent, and ignorant. Or frauds. Ipso facto.

    But heat/helium is reliable. You can predict one result from the other. The actual experimental ratio depends on experimental conditions, because helium tends to be half-trapped in the lattice, within 25 microns of the surface. (The other half escapes immediately into the cell atmosphere.)

    The second case implies that there is, in fact, no reason to believe that there is an effect. It could be any number of effects and is related to experimental set up.


    That's what a lot of people thought. However, Ramsey, the Nobelist who was co-chair of the 1989 DoE review, wrote that "even a single confirmed" incident of cold fusion would be revolutionary.

    I've often likened it to going fishing. You could have many people fishing in a lake and catching nothing ,and conclude there are no fish in the lake. Or that could just be an assumption (which was the case with cold fusion. Nobody had expected there to be fish in that lake, so *nobody had looked* -- or nobody had looked long enough and thoroughly enough.

    {In fact, Paneth thought he'd found helium in the 1920s, but it was later concluded it was leakage. Maybe. Maybe not. -- my guess is that it was leakage, though.)

    So someone comes along and reports that they caught a fish. A bunch of people go out and don't catch any fish. So they dismiss the report as a "fish story."

    Then someone else reports that they caught a fish. Okay, maybe it's an imitator.

    153 reports existed at last analysis, a couple of years ago, reporting anomalous heat in PdD. That substantially outnumbers the reports of "no fish." Sure, there may be a reporting bias, but that's limited. People who persisted with the work, found the effect. A number of the prominent early "negative replicatiors" gave up after a few weeks. Again, one of the errors of Pons and Fleischmann was not reporting necessary experimental details, such as how long they had continued electrolysis before they saw the effect. Months.

    Then comes the claim that the effect is close to noise, so again, this is confirmation bias, merely the normal variation in marginal experimental results. Nice idea, but radically at variance with the results. CF results are sometimes marginal, but are often very far above noise. Occasionally, the anomalous energy is greater than all the energy that was put into the apparatus.

    And then heat/helium completely iced that issue, for anyone still paying attention. It's not just any fish. It's a specific species of fish, confirmed in *blind testing.* A rare one, only known to live in lakes just like that one.

    There are two variables in the "fish story," there would be variation in how people fish and then variation in the fish population and behavior. Fish move around, and a good fishing spot on one day might not be good the next. But confirmed reports of fish demonstrates that there are fish in the lake, they are real. Reliably catching them is something quite different.
    •  
      CommentAuthormaryyugo
    • CommentTimeFeb 1st 2013 edited
     
    Look Abd, as usual you're all over the place and a lot of it is completely besides the point.

    Anyone who thinks Rossi has anything simply has not had enough experience with scams and frauds. Rossi has a very clear history of those. He's also an obvious, chronic liar who has shown a lot of stuff, not one tiny part of which is credible. That anyone would believe any part of his claim at this point borders on incredible. That Storms does is a strong statement about Storm's gullibility. And from an outsider's view, if he's gullible about that, he's probably gullible about a lot of other stuff he's been told by cold fusion researchers.

    The word salad I cited from Ruby Carat's web page did indeed appear there. I gave the link. Here it is again:

    http://coldfusionnow.org/2nd-week-summary-of-cold-fusion-101/

    The material is towards the end of the page and is attributed to "An attendee summary from Dr. Bob Visits MIT". This turns out to be Bob Rohner of Papp fame. Remember him?

    Finally, you talked all around why lack of attention to CF on the part of some government institutions and some scientific journals spoils the chances for CF researchers. It doesn't. There are still huge sources of possible funding if, as you say and I doubt, the existing work is sufficiently compelling.

    People like Warren Buffet, Larry Ellison, Sergey Brin, Sir Richard Branson, and Elon Musk are just salivating when they hear of promising new technologies to develop. If anyone contacted their teams with a credible proposal and some good evidence, one of them would jump at it. And after those people are dozens more.

    Rossi, Defkalion, Brillouin, Miley and Swartz, (and others) all claim robust energy production. It shouldn't take ten years MORE to prove it after the two decades already passed. Why would it if it's real and not a combination of fraud, wishful thinking and measurement errors?
    •  
      CommentAuthorE-Man
    • CommentTimeFeb 1st 2013 edited
     
    Posted By: AbdSo someone comes along and reports that they caught a fish. A bunch of people go out and don't catch any fish. So they dismiss the report as a "fish story."

    Then someone else reports that they caught a fish. Okay, maybe it's an imitator.

    Moron. Suppose now we change your conveniently worded story from "lake" to "closet", ceterus paribus.

    Even if you had a bunch of people reporting casting their fishing line into a closet and catching fish would you have equal confidence in the result? Please say yes. Then re-read the first word I wrote in this post.


    153 reports existed at last analysis, a couple of years ago, reporting anomalous heat in PdD. That substantially outnumbers the reports of "no fish."

    Well this actually is irrelevant if you are fishing in a closet isn't it?* The number of alleged replications (Before you engage your p-word stamping machine I'd like to say that replication means something different in statistics than it does in most peoples vocabulary. Multiple accounts of individual events are not necessarily replication).

    As I've been saying and you've been trying hard to be ignorant of. The probability of an hypothesis correctly explaining an event is tied to the prior. Which is why you can pretty much ignore the vast majority of homeopathy clinical trials, no matter how well they are blinded, how large their sample. This isn't your favorite word in action. It is fucking math you moron. No homeopathic trial has the same statistical power as a trial with a significantly more plausible mechanism. Now you can take the opinion that we should consider them equal but that isn't the opinion of people who actually know what they are talking about.

    So likewise the REASON you consider your interpretation of observation valid and the reason you are a moron for stamping people who don't believe your with your bigoted brush. Is that you consider the event *plausible* not only that but you seem to be working hard to find a plausible mechanism for your interpretation for your belief. However until such a thing exists the prior for your experiment is weak (from a statistical point of view). Which makes your interpretation weak. Not necessarily wrong but weak.

    This does however have the side effect of making your stream of criticism for people who differ with you wrong.

    Sure, there may be a reporting bias, but that's limited. People who persisted with the work, found the effect. A number of the prominent early "negative replicatiors" gave up after a few weeks. Again, one of the errors of Pons and Fleischmann was not reporting necessary experimental details, such as how long they had continued electrolysis before they saw the effect. Months.

    You probably don't realize that there is absolutely nothing significant stopping you - other than your prejudice - from interpreting that as evidence AGAINST CF.

    *You may attempt to dodge by saying that you would expect more "no fish" reports. However this is not necessarily the case. This would be only true if you knew all the variables involved.
    •  
      CommentAuthorDuracell
    • 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.
    adminroot, Cthulhu curse thy pox-riven parameters - you adjusted the limit in the wrong fucking direction!
    • CommentAuthorAbd
    • CommentTimeFeb 1st 2013 edited
     
    Posted By: maryyugoLook Abd, as usual you're all over the place and a lot of it is completely besides the point.
    Definitely, as to communicating with you, it's useless.
    Anyone who thinks Rossi has anything simply has not had enough experience with scams and frauds.
    Rossi's statements are unreliable, I'll agree completely with that. However, some scams and frauds have *something.* Further, very little can be concluded from unreliable statements. Both Jed Rothwell and Edmund Storms know that Rossi's statements are unreliable. Essentially, this has been a consistent issue. It's black and white thinking, Mary. No, there are *many* possibilities, unless you have inside information. Nothing you have ever said about Rossi has been obscure enough that I had to confirm it. It's all well-known. And Jed and Storms know these things. They conclude differently. You immediately assume that they are "gullible." But, Mary, *they don't believe Rossi*! They are not deriving their assessment from what Rossi says, at least not gullibly. Storms explicitly has stated that Rossi has faked at least one demonstration.

    Both Jed and Storms have asserted that they have private evidence. It's fairly well known that others knew about Rossi's work before he announced. Apparently there are investors -- or prospective investors -- who were shown private demonstrations, or possible were allowed to test the device themselves. For obvious reasons, not much is known about these, and they would almost certainly have been under NDA. Now, they could have been fraudulent demonstrations and those sources could have been idiots. But both Jed and Storms have chosen to trust *their* sources, and their own assessment of what is going on. I'm quite sure that both of them have better information than I. From the history, though, first of all, there is very likely something to NiH claims. It's plausible that Rossi found a way to enhance the effect. It's also possible that it was a full-on scam from the beginning ,that he decided to make an NiH claim because of the existing research on it. That possibility requires long-term planning. Maybe.

    More likely, he tried his hand at enhancement and found something. It wasn't reliable, but it was occasionally more robust. He decided it was time to announce. Maybe Focardi was insisting on it, Focardi has his own motives. So he did. Rossi puts on a show of confidence, it's his persona, and it was seen in all the prior, ah, "incidents." In fact, the reliability issue was never resolved, and he keeps running into it, so his "confident announcements" vanish.

    Remember, this is just a theory, a possibility. Not necessarily even likely. I only assert it to note that Jed and Storms, who *do* have private information, might have reason to think Rossi has something. The declaration of impossibility is based on circumstantial evidence, which is rarely conclusive. Rossi is *unethical*, very very likely. To be trusted? No.

    Remember, all this came up because I mentioned that Storms wants his theory to explain NiH as well as PdD, and you asked why anyone would need to explain NiH. I pointed out, and quoted, Storms on NiH from 2007, before Rossi hit the radar.

    Rossi has a very clear history of those. He's also an obvious, chronic liar who has shown a lot of stuff, not one tiny part of which is credible. That anyone would believe any part of his claim at this point borders on incredible. That Storms does is a strong statement about Storm's gullibility. And from an outsider's view, if he's gullible about that, he's probably gullible about a lot of other stuff he's been told by cold fusion researchers.

    Right. Linkage. Circumstantial evidence leads to conclusion A, which then links circumstantially to conclusion B, which then links circumstantially to conclusion C. However, Storms based his book, and his theories, on published research, not Rossi and his claims, which is not published research. I've never seen Storms write about what other researchers "told him." Maybe. Probably he has, somewhere. "Private communication" is sometimes cited as a source, with the name of the person who sent the message.

    So, basically, you are libelling Storms with weak evidence. I've come to expect this from you.


    The word salad I cited from Ruby Carat's web page did indeed appear there. I gave the link. Here it is again:

    http://coldfusionnow.org/2nd-week-summary-of-cold-fusion-101/
    That's the Cold Fusion Now web page, Ruby started it, I think, but it's a community. I'm actually a administrator there, but I've never done anything with that. And if you had actually read my response, instead of just diving into outrage, you'd have seen that I obviously followed your link, because I quoted something else from that page. Again, I've come to expect this kind of confusion from you. You do not read carefully, you are looking for material that will snag your outrage.


    The material is towards the end of the page and is attributed to "An attendee summary from Dr. Bob Visits MIT". This turns out to be Bob Rohner of Papp fame. Remember him?
    Way cool! So Bob Rohner attended the class? Why, then, it must all be the Pinnacle of Bogosity, since anything Bob Rohner would be interested in *must* be insane. However, do you have a source for Dr. Bob being Bob Rohner? I don't like to repeat things just because I read them on the internet, even from such a paragon of honesty as Mary Yugo.

    http://www.drboblog.com/who-is-bob/

    Looking around that blog, I dont want to say the I word, but it's very unlikely that Dr. Bog is Bob Rohner. If so, he's radically shifted his interests.

    Finally, you talked all around why lack of attention to CF on the part of some government institutions and some scientific journals spoils the chances for CF researchers. It doesn't. There are still huge sources of possible funding if, as you say and I doubt, the existing work is sufficiently compelling.

    There are sources of funding, and we are going after them. So, your point is?

    The issues around "lack of attention" are documentable. That happened. Again, so? I described what happened, and what still affects funding. Many here have pointed out that cold fusion isn't practical yet, and I've agreed, and have stated that it may never be practice. That does limit funding possibilities, but they still exist. It's just what's so.
    Rossi, Defkalion, Brillouin, Miley and Swartz, (and others) all claim robust energy production.
    No. You need to read the reports more carefully. People have reported *peak energy* that is *relatively robust.* Brillouin has reported a COP Of 2.0, but that was *peak*. If confirmed, it's *significant,* but hardly *robust*. Same with Miley and Swartz, and it's important to look at what was actually published, not off-hand comments made somewhere.
    It shouldn't take ten years MORE to prove it after the two decades already passed.
    It's been proven. LENR is real, and that's the position reflected in the scientific journals over the last decade.
    Why would it if it's real and not a combination of fraud, wishful thinking and measurement errors?
    You have a lost performative. "Prove it" to *whom*? There are still people who doubt relativity. There are still people who doubt that there was a Moon landing. And there are still people who doubt that President Obama was born in the United States. So? This is a fresh cascade, and I've been watching another. Even after the reasonable basis for the cascade was utterly demolished, the beliefs persist, and segments of the scientific community continue to think that their personal position is a "scientific consensus" and anything else is wigged out pseudoscience. Cascades behave like that, it could take a long time.

    But there is no necessity to convince all those people. I have two target communities in mind. One is political, those responsible for funding basic research "under existing programs." The other is the physics community, and, there, it is only necessary to attract enough physicists that there is more work going into the development of theory. These may be young physicists, largely. The old guard, on both sides, is passing away.

    By the way, the mention of "fraud." There have been claims of fraud around cold fusion results, but none of the central work has been touched by such claims. That fraud is mentioned here could only be legitimated by Rossi. And Rossi has *zero* to do with the reality of cold fusion, at least so far.

    Taubes made a claim about fraud at U Texas. That was never confirmed, and it was about tritium results, he claimed spiking. We know now, from many reports -- hundreds of them -- that low levels of tritium are found in cold fusion experiments. However that could *all* be artifact and it would mean very little, since the main reaction clearly does not produce tritium, tritium is a million times down from helium, roughly (and neutrons a million times down from tritium, roughly).
    • CommentAuthorAbd
    • CommentTimeFeb 1st 2013
     
    Posted By: Duracell
    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.
    adminroot, Cthulhu curse thy pox-riven parameters - you adjusted the limit in the wrong fucking direction!


    My, PS's do get pissed when they don't get their way, don't they? Duracell, I won't be long here. Can't be.
    • CommentAuthorAbd
    • CommentTimeFeb 1st 2013 edited
     
    Posted By: AngusToday
    Posted By: Abd
    Posted By: maryyugo
    Because, at the moment, nobody in main line science believes them.

    That's not true. I've cited sources showing quite the opposite. They are ignored by ... dodo-head skeptics. Who mostly live *here* and in places like this.


    Two days ago
    Posted By: AngusWho was it here who ever said categorically that no fusion could ever occur in the kind of experiment Pons and Fleischman did?
    Posted By: AbdDid I say that someone here said it? I don't recall either (someone saying it or my saying someone had said it.)


    Discuss and reconcile in twenty-five words or less.

    Easy-peasy. No contradiction. Contradiction only appears under some interpretations. Discard those.
    •  
      CommentAuthormaryyugo
    • CommentTimeFeb 1st 2013 edited
     
    http://www.drboblog.com/who-is-bob/

    Looking around that blog, I dont want to say the I word, but it's very unlikely that Dr. Bog is Bob Rohner. If so, he's radically shifted his interests.


    @Abd:
    Day 1 with Dr Mitchell Schwartz' Cold Fusion 1.01 at MIT - Bob Rohner gives a lighthearted report. "We were learning how to read diagrams and graphs showing experimental data, and a lot of time was put into how the excess heat is measured beyond every doubt. ...Electric fields draw the Deuterons towards the Metal (Paladium). The Deuterons will either go into the Metal (Winning) or rise upward with the gas bubbles. (Fail)" (DrBobBlog; January 28, 2013)


    http://pesn.com/2013/01/31/9602272_LENR-to-Market_Weekly_January31/

    Posted By: AbdBoth Jed and Storms have asserted that they have private evidence.


    I don't know about Storms' evidence but I did hear about Jed's. He won't say who it's from but several people guessed it was Jim Dunn, formerly with NASA. If they're right, Dunn, when it comes to LENR, is a total duffus. He tried hard to get Dick Smith to invest in Defkalion. Fortunately, Smith asked independent experts who suggested that Smith demand independent proper tests from Defkalion to support their claims. Defkalion never agreed to doing those so Smith refused their request for a million dollar investment. All of that was a year ago.

    Another possible source is Nelson, another duffus when it comes to properly testing LENR. He allowed Defkalion to walk all over him when they showed him their lab and conducted a grossly insufficient "demo" or "test".

    As long as Storms and Rothwell won't say who the sources are and what experiments they did (in detail), that they claim to have their own private information has zero value for anyone else. They might as well talk word salad.

    My pink invisible flying unicorns have been thoroughly tested by certificators and evaluators but their work is covered by an NDA (non-determinative assessment) so I can't say anything about it. But it's why I believe the unicorns are real. I am also working with two major universities and an elementary school science class (young kids are less biased) to get more tests. Those should be ready in February but I am not certain what year. I think the standard unicorns may be obsolete soon. I am working on extra hot solid state unicorns as we speak. Lavolale! Warm regards, M.Y.
    • CommentAuthorAbd
    • CommentTimeFeb 1st 2013
     
    Posted By: maryyugo
    http://www.drboblog.com/who-is-bob/
    Looking around that blog, I dont want to say the I word, but it's very unlikely that Dr. Bog is Bob Rohner. If so, he's radically shifted his interests.
    @Abd:
    http://pesn.com/2013/01/31/9602272_LENR-to-Market_Weekly_January31/

    Funniest thing I've seen today. You cite PESN for this identification? That paragon of journalistic excellence and accuracy? (PESN is great for fast rumor on "free energy" claims, but everything must be checked.)

    http://whois.domaintools.com/drbobblog.com
    The domain is owned by Robert Finnerty, who happens to be a Doctor.
    This isn't Bob Rohner. Geez, Mary, don't you check *anything*?
  1.  
    Waving Adieu, Adieu, Adieu

    That would be waving and that would be crying,
    Crying and shouting and meaning farewell,
    Farewell in the eyes and farewell at the centre,
    Just to stand still without moving a hand.

    In a world without heaven to follow, the stops
    Would be endings, more poignant than partings, profounder,
    And that would be saying farewell, repeating farewell,
    Just to be there and just to behold.

    To be one's singular self, to despise
    The being that yielded so little, acquired
    So little, too little to care, to turn
    to the ever-jubilant weather, to sip

    One's cup and never to say a word,
    Or to sleep or just to lie there still,
    Just to be there, just to be beheld,
    That would be bidding farewell, be bidding farewell.

    One likes to practice the thing. They practice,
    Enough, for heaven. Ever-jubilant,
    What is there here but weather, what spirit
    Have I except it comes from the sun?

    --Wallace Stevens
    • CommentAuthorAbd
    • CommentTimeFeb 2nd 2013
     
    Posted By: maryyugoAs long as Storms and Rothwell won't say who the sources are and what experiments they did (in detail), that they claim to have their own private information has zero value for anyone else. They might as well talk word salad.

    Well, not *exactly*. When I was told that, especially by Rothwell, it was in a public forum, and I wrote that this was almost totally useless information to the rest of us. Pretty much the same as you are saying.

    But if we assume they are telling the truth (and I've never caught either one of them in a lie), then it means that they are not necessarily crazy, i.e., gullibly depending on public information from a person known to be unreliable -- which they know. They could still be wrong.

    The value of the information they heard would be assessed, by them, according to their judgment of the source, whom, presumably, they could question. And then the value to us would be assessed by our level of trust in them as a source. I do trust both of them as a source for anything within their domain of expertise or personal knowledge. I do not trust either of them necessary, as judges of people, and I know of cases, for both of them, where I think their judgments were inaccurate. And, regardless, with the telephone game, information (and reliability) are lost.

    I know a scientist who witnessed a Papp engine running. It's useless information. It does mean to me that someone with their head screwed on relatively straight saw something of interest, but it means nothing more than that. A fraud can fool *anyone*. Magicians do it all the time. That's part of the value of magic, it teaches that.
    • CommentAuthorAbd
    • CommentTimeFeb 2nd 2013
     
    Posted By: alsetalokinWhat is there here but weather, what spirit
    Have I except it comes from the sun?

    --Wallace Stevens
    What is here but this, what is it
    Except it comes from the One?
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeFeb 2nd 2013
     
    Posted By: Abd
    Posted By: alsetalokinWhat is there here but weather, what spirit
    Have I except it comes from the sun?

    --Wallace Stevens
    What is here but this, what is it
    Except it comes from the One?


    Well, there's all that other stuff that comes from the Others.