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

    •  
      CommentAuthormaryyugo
    • CommentTimeFeb 2nd 2013 edited
     
    Posted By: AbdAfter then, negative papers entirely disappeared,
    One possible explanation of this apparent fact is that most or all competent investigators gave up on the phenomenon, leaving only those who measure poorly or self-deceive.

    Posted By: AbdInterest in cold fusion has not died.
    It largely has among main line scientific journals as well as most of the press. Goofy weirdoes like Joe Shea and Mats Lewan are still interested. But more reasonable reporters like Gibbs, who is very interested but finds that interest futile, are trying hard to find things to report... and not succeeding.
    • CommentAuthorAbd
    • CommentTimeFeb 2nd 2013 edited
     
    Posted By: hairykrishna
    Posted By: Abd
    No. What I said was that an excited state of He4 with 23.8MeV doesn't exist. This is ~10MeV greater than the binding energy of He.

    Yes. You said that. *I understood the claim.*
    However, what structure emits the gamma? You are ignoring this. There is fusion, and the fusion energy is mostly too large for the energy to be held by the resulting nucleus, and what usually happens is that it either never forms, or it breaks up,.

    However, rarely, He-4 is produced and stays together. Instead of breaking up, the He-4 nucleus emits a gamma, and stays together. The sequence must be: He-4 formation, excited state, emission of gamma. If the gamma were emitted before the He-4 nucleus were formed, there would be two gammas, not one, or the subnucleus emitting would be broken away (which doesn't happen). If the nucleus breaks up, no gamma.

    I don't know how much is known about the specific sequence. But the above analysis seems conclusive to me. If I'm wrong, and I'm *far* from expert, can you cite a source on the exact fusion process, so that I'm not stuck depending on the word of "Hairy" on moletrap, a private forum where there might easily be nobody capable of assessing this?

    I don't, by the way, *believe* that a 23.8 MeV He-4 state exists, beyond that transience. Rather, there are *physicists,* who *do* understand these issues, working on ideas about halo states in general, as possibly being involved in the basic puzzle of cold fusion, which as become , once the ash was identified, how the energy ends up *entirely* as heat, which requires one of several possibilities. Halo states allowing emission of energy as a burst or series of photons is one, and those halo states might not be of He-4, more likely Be-8, where a halo state makes more sense.

    Bottom line, and informed discussion of this must grasp the significance of the experimental result, that heium is being formed with no gammas and no neutrons and damned little tritium, at roughly 24 MeV/He-4. Otherwise the whole thing *looks* preposterous, for many reasons, what Huizenga called the "triple miracle."

    The miracle happens, I don't believe in miracles, and get over it. *How* does this happen? And, bottom line, we don't know enough to say how.
    • CommentAuthorAbd
    • CommentTimeFeb 2nd 2013
     
    Posted By: maryyugo
    Posted By: AbdAfter then, negative papers entirely disappeared,
    One possible explanation of this apparent fact is that most or all competent investigators gave up on the phenomenon, leaving only those who measure poorly or self-deceive.
    Sure. That explanation worked for two decades. It's dead, there has been entirely too much publication on the real cold fusion in mainstream journals, and I've cited sources here showing how skeptical physicists have moved their positions. It's not just Duncan, there is, for example, Shamoo. The claim of "poor measurement" and "self deception" is pure pseudoskepticism, unsupported by the experimental evidence. In normal science, if the heat measurements and helium measurements were artifact, this would have been shown *long ago*. It wasn't *ever* shown. No, something else happened with cold fusion and it's called a "cascade." The *belief* arose that cold fusion was bogus, and that belief was widely shared, with everything thinking that anyone who knows the evidence was of that persuasion. But, quite because of the cascade, this supposed "consensus" was no longer familiar with the evidence, but was assuming, collectively, that early characteristics and assumptions still held (whether or not they were *ever* true is debatable.)

    For example, it was true for part of 1989 that "nobody could replicate.* By next year, there were plenty of counterexamples, so a sure sign that a writer is accepting the cascaded "consensus" is that they repeat the trope. It is possible to quibble in a more sophisticated way about the "replications," but they don't do that. They are apparently entirely unaware of the replications, or dismiss them as "poor measurement," in spite of what is, in fact, on the face, *conclusive evidence.*

    Posted By: AbdInterest in cold fusion has not died.
    It largely has among main line scientific journals as well as most of the press.

    No. Just not so. Publication rates in mainstream journals have quadrupled since the nadir. That is not "largely dying." There are agencies and institutions which still accept the cascaded belief. We are watching the death of a skeptical position. It lives on *only* because of people like Mary Yugo. Real skeptics, many, still remain skeptical, but they have been saying for some time, "maybe there is something to this." The ones who, for whatever reason, actually look closer, become what pseudoskeptics then call "believers."

    My publication data comes from a skeptic, Dieter Britz, an electrochemist who took it upon himself to maintain a database of cold fusion papers from mainstream publications. He's familiar with the research, so why is he still a skeptic? I've asked him. He has no answer, which is, in fact, a sign of being a skeptic. I think he wants an explanation. Which we all do. Except for pseudoskeptics, who don't need one other than "woo."

    Goofy weirdoes like Joe Shea and Mats Lewan are still interested. But more reasonable reporters like Gibbs, who is very interested but finds that interest futile, are trying hard to find things to report... and not succeeding.
    I don't know who Joe Shea is. Mats Lewan is simply a reporter, and reported what there was to report. He's got his own publication now, and appears to have not followed up. He was not really involved with cold fusion, unless you believe that Rossi has something to do with cold fusion. There is no evidence for that, but do you have any? Did Rossi claim that his results were due to cold fusion?

    Yeah, he wrote something about proton fusion with nickel to produce copper, quickly discredited, and this was just talk talk, no real experimental results, just a reported analysis that showed that the copper was very unlikely to come from transmutation.

    I've been writing about cold fusion, Mary loves to write about Rossi. And then tar everyone involved with cold fusion with the same brush.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeFeb 2nd 2013
     
    @Abd

    My post was a jolly, moletrappian response to MY's comment
    it still seems to sputter along when it feels like it? I know no other scientific discovery that has proceeded in that manner. Maybe I missed one.


    Lighten up.
    • CommentAuthorAbd
    • CommentTimeFeb 2nd 2013
     
    Posted By: spinner"One, with an input power of a milliwatt, resulted in 7 W of power for 600 seconds."

    I'd like to have one of these, please!?
    Thank you!


    How to get it is described in the literature. Since that was the best result of a series of experiments, you will likely have to run such a series yourself, not just one. Most results are likely to be lower than that. Watch out for nanoparticle metals, they are health hazards, and nanoparticle palladium is very, very expensive. Have fun.

    I was told that with the easier electrochemical approach, I'd need to spend about $8,000 just to see my first excess heat. $8,000 for what, if you are lucky, is a few watts. Depending on the calorimetric method, though, the calorimetry precision is much smaller than that, it's below the milliwatt range (Pons and Fleischmann, who were measuring excess power in the 500 milliwatt range), or as much as 50 milliwatts of noise with some simpler (and requiring less expertise) methods. I rather doubt you would do this just for personal curiosity, but maybe.

    If you actually wanted to do something useful, I have two alternatives: do a heat/helium study. That's going to be, however, much more trouble. A mass spectrometer that can resolve He-4 from D2 is about $10,000. You can't use just any mass spec, unless you are content with approximate results, like Miles was. Some people doing work in this area collect samples for blind analysis, which is a good way to do it. That's what Miles did.

    Or try replicate the SPAWAR neutron results, which can be done for about $100, my estimate. Nobody has replicated so far. It's not really important, but, hey, *interesting.* One would probably have to run the experiment a few times, checking out possible errors, and there are many ways to get this wrong. I arranged for one of these attempts, by a student, and the results were apparently negative, but with problems. Not conclusive at all. The SPAWAR neutron results are relatively 'convincing' but not conclusive, and, as mentioned, really have nothing to do with the main reaction, the neutron levels are vanishingly small, though significant.
    • CommentAuthorAbd
    • CommentTimeFeb 2nd 2013
     
    Posted By: Angus@Abd

    My post was a jolly, moletrappian response to MY's comment
    it still seems to sputter along when it feels like it? I know no other scientific discovery that has proceeded in that manner. Maybe I missed one.


    Lighten up.

    Okay. Fuck off, shake your Jolly mole. How's that for light?

    What you "lightly" suggested is a standard pseudoskeptical claim about cold fusion "N-rays and polywater." Maybe you didn't know that, and that you said such a thing is no proof of pseduoskepticism, but I answered it.

    I'm not saying your comment wasn't light. Definitely light-weight, in fact.
    •  
      CommentAuthorE-Man
    • CommentTimeFeb 2nd 2013 edited
     
    Posted By: Abdso that I'm not stuck depending on the word of "Hairy" on moletrap

    Because we're not often called upon to depend on the word of Abd of forum newvortex which seems to promote diet pepsi as the cause of the worlds ills. Oh wait...
    • CommentAuthorAbd
    • CommentTimeFeb 2nd 2013 edited
     
    Posted By: maryyugo
    Posted By: AbdSo, basically, you are libelling Storms with weak evidence. I've come to expect this from you.
    I won't go into the details because you would launch another diatribe, but what I said about Storms isn't libel (in the US anyway). Not even close.
    Mary confuses "libel," the word and its meaning, with libel as an actionable tort in the U.S., which is *complicated.* I made no claim that Mary was guilty of that tort, that it could be acted on, and that interpretation would be preposterous, but, consistently, Mary makes preposterous interpretations of what is said to her, in order to deny the obvious.
    Definition of LIBEL
    1
    a : a written statement in which a plaintiff in certain courts sets forth the cause of action or the relief sought
    b archaic : a handbill especially attacking or defaming someone
    2
    a : a written or oral defamatory statement or representation that conveys an unjustly unfavorable impression
    b (1) : a statement or representation published without just cause and tending to expose another to public contempt (2) : defamation of a person by written or representational means (3) : the publication of blasphemous, treasonable, seditious, or obscene writings or pictures (4) : the act, tort, or crime of publishing such a libel
    Look at definition 2a, particularly. Mary libelled Storms, this is written speech, published, though within a small circle. She can deny that up and down, but it won't change the fact. She was, in fact, expressing contempt. She also did this more publicly, as I recall, on newVortex.

    As to Dr. Bob not being Rohner, you may be right. I assumed Sterling would know something that simple but maybe he doesn't even know that! I shouldn't expect even something that easy from someone who believes Obama went to Mars and a 10,000 mph secret vacuum tube train makes regular runs for VIP's between the coasts.

    Thanks for acknowledging what should be, from what I linked, obvious. (And, yes, thanks. Not everyone would do that.)

    Hey, Sterling "believes" those things? My, my. My opinion of him just went up. You have to work *really* hard to believe things like that. Any evidence, Mary? Or are you just blowing smoke as usual?
    • CommentAuthorAbd
    • CommentTimeFeb 2nd 2013
     
    Posted By: maryyugo
    Posted By: spinnerI'd like to have one of these, please!?
    Thank you!


    Me too. The phenomenon is supposedly 20+ years old and $100 Million or more has been spent trying to make it work and it still seems to sputter along when it feels like it? I know no other scientific discovery that has proceeded in that manner. Maybe I missed one.
    My impression is that many discoveries languished for a very long time before any practical applications appeared. However, $100 million is, indeed, a lot of money, and one might think that should have produced more results than it did. However, that's *what happened.* The reality of cold fusion was *demonstrated* conclusively more than twenty years ago, and, as I wrote, confirmed widely over the next decade. The large sums of money were probably spent foolishly, trying to create a commercial level effect before the mechanism was understood. I know that those who were involved with MITI, the largest project, in Japan, have said that it was a disaster, with money being spent pursuing alleys that were known to be blind. It was, essentially, a boondoggle. I'm not aware of any significant results from MITI, but there might be some. The Toyota project in France did produce more evidence, but was cancelled when they realized that this was going nowhere as far as *commercial power production*, fast. It is quite possible that we won't know the mechanism for a long time. And until we know the mechanism, any efforts to make the effect reliable will likely be hit-or-miss. It's real. Muon-catalyzed fusion is real, but that doesn't make it practical, and there are reasons for thinking it will never be practical. Unless you can figure out a way to allow muons to catalyze more reactions than has yet been attained, something north of 100 per muon. Muons are too energy-costly to make, and, unfortunately, helium sucks them right up.
    •  
      CommentAuthorE-Man
    • CommentTimeFeb 2nd 2013 edited
     
    Posted By: AbdThe reality of cold fusion was *demonstrated* conclusively more than twenty years ago, and, as I wrote, confirmed widely over the next decade.

    Just for particularly weak values of "demonstrated", "conclusively" and "widely".

    Like I said, this is reminiscentlike reading theology about a decade old. Same kind of stale, meaningless argumentation. Perhaps this goes on in Islam today, it's a little reminiscent of what little I know of certain schools of Rabbinical thought. One Rabbi I knew used the term "Rabbi Stacking" e.g.

    Theology Student A:My position is agreed on by Yehuda Krinsky.
    Theology Student B:Ah but mine is supported by Wolpe and Saperstein
    ...and so on...
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeFeb 2nd 2013 edited
     
    It seems to take forever and a day to get my brilliant repartee through the moderation on NewVort. Not really worth the trouble. Kills the spontaneity.
    •  
      CommentAuthorE-Man
    • CommentTimeFeb 2nd 2013
     
    ....and if I may be so bold the tactic may not work. He has no single real stated thesis. So there's nothing to defeat. If you pick a thesis out of one of his posts. He simply switches to another or claims some kind of subtle interpretation. When you do exhaust these tactics (like in the cross-dressing thread) he just ignores it.

    So the argument can only be won if one defeats all statements and all interpretations. Which shouldn't be surprising because if he has a motive it's to promote the possibility of what he says. Not to demonstrate anything to a useful standard of evidence.

    However as Carl Sagan noted it's reasonable to wonder about the minds of such people.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeFeb 2nd 2013 edited
     
    I'm not intending to "win" anything, just to make my views known over that side. But as has been said, there may be no point anyway since (by volume, at least) he is approximately the only poster.

    I would disagree about "promote the possibility..." Most of us will at least entertain that. He is promoting the actual, genuine, definite conclusive _reality_ of what he says, or what he says somebody says.
    • CommentAuthorAbd
    • CommentTimeFeb 2nd 2013
     
    Posted By: AngusIt seems to take forever and a day to get my brilliant repartee through the moderation on NewVort. Not really worth the trouble. Kills the spontaneity.
    No, Angus, you are not on moderation, I took you off and notified you of that, as soon as you'd submitted a first post. I got an email from you from an address not the one you joined with. Could this be about that?
    • CommentAuthorkorkskrew
    • CommentTimeFeb 2nd 2013
     
    Posted By: pcstru
    Posted By: Abd
    Posted By: hairykrishna
    Posted By: Abd
    Posted By: hairykrishnaSimple conservation of momentum rules out d+d->4He.
    That's a naive expectation, but a very reasonable one.



    http://www.moletrap.co.uk/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=3402&page=12

    (^^ 1 day ago)


    Posted By: Abd
    Posted By: hairykrishnaSimple conservation of momentum rules out d+d->4He.
    That's a naive expectation, but a very reasonable one. Those who are working on d+d theories are physicists, generally. They know about conservation of momentum, and so do I. If you want a description of how they are attempting to deal with the problem, I could give that, and it would simply irritate more people, and for little benefit.


    (^^ 1 hour ago)

    And yet they are not the same post.
    OMG! I thought the forum software just forgot where I left off. I think this guy is really setting a new standard for jackass trollery. I think that surpasses the shit Gaby used to pull!

    I nominate Abd for permanent owner of FWOTW until such time as he shuts the hell up or we get someone else to pick on. It will make it much easier to skip his posts.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeFeb 2nd 2013
     
    Posted By: Abd
    Posted By: AngusIt seems to take forever and a day to get my brilliant repartee through the moderation on NewVort. Not really worth the trouble. Kills the spontaneity.
    No, Angus, you are not on moderation, I took you off and notified you of that, as soon as you'd submitted a first post. I got an email from you from an address not the one you joined with. Could this be about that?


    Possibly - I use several indiscriminately.
    I didn't see any notification about not being on moderation, but perhaps I missed it.
    •  
      CommentAuthormaryyugo
    • CommentTimeFeb 2nd 2013 edited
     
    Posted By: korkskrewI nominate Abd for permanent owner of FWOTW until such time as he shuts the hell up or we get someone else to pick on. It will make it much easier to skip his posts.
    Please be hospitable. It is not all that easy to find someone like Abd. He is willing to argue that dowsing rods and homeopathy have value. That's rare in uncensored fora. forumorums? foramina?
    •  
      CommentAuthorE-Man
    • CommentTimeFeb 2nd 2013
     
    Posted By: AngusI would disagree about "promote the possibility..." Most of us will at least entertain that. He is promoting the actual, genuine, definite conclusive _reality_ of what he says, or what he says somebody says.

    Fair enough, he does tend to vacilate between seemingly tentative statements and ridiculously strong ones but I suspect it's more a rhetorical device than actual indecision.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeFeb 2nd 2013
     
    He tells me via a private message - perhaps it will turn up on NewVort - that he sees moletrap as a "bar crowd". That's interesting. So do I. Maybe the White Hart, or Callaghan's Crosstime Saloon. That's why I hang around. But if you're looking for gravitas, maybe here is not the place.
  1.  
    Excuse me.... I have been working on my gravitas, and I have to tell you, it's a grave affliction. It's very difficult not to take oneself seriously.

    But that's the problem, isn't it? Sort of like a five-star Chinese take-out. One from Column One, three from Column Two, some dim sum and boiled rice.... it's all good stuff, but somehow doesn't leave you quite satisfied. Volume, but little substance. Broth, quite salty but with no meat. Tastes great, less filling. But in order to get to the delicious bits, you still have to eat the whole thing.