Vanilla 1.1.9 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
Isn't it an amazing coincidence that of all the possible products of nuclear reactions, the only one they claim to observe commensurate with the heat is the only one that is present in the background at about the right level?
All the more plausible products that can be detected easily at levels orders of magnitude lower, are found, surprise, surprise, at orders of magnitude below the expected level. Nature is toying with them.
The transmutation situation is similar: all the precursors and products are stable, when of course, only a tiny fraction of radionuclides are stable.)There is a great experimental mystery here. Basically, the chemists discovered cold fusion, and the physicsts are sitting around waiting for *chemists* to explain it. Storms is giving that task a shot, but my opinion is he should stick to chemistry. He doesn't have the training to handle the mechanism, which has puzzled many highly knowledgeable physicists.
Posted By: AbdCude is an expert on "cold fusion pseudoskepticism."
Posted By: alsetalokinCude comes across as far more believable than Abd, based on what's been written here. Of course without fact-checking myself, I could be watching two people making up stuff or spinning selective tales. I recall an old professor of mine who simply made up references during class lectures. I notice that Abd chooses not to try to refute actually any of Cude's real points, but rather would resort to repeating the same old assertions louder and more slowly, along with other weaseling and wriggling about. This seems to go in Cude's favor, since he's citing specific numbers, dates and facts. I score this round for Cude.
Posted By: Abdfolks here are already complaining about the length
Posted By: Abdand *so am I*
Posted By: AbdIf someone wants long and non-specific response to a point, ask on newVortex or write newvortex-owner at yahoogroups.com.
Posted By: joshua cudeCude makes very general statements about an entire body of research, but I will acknowledge here that I may have inaccurately stated the matter of "153 experiments." That was from an analysis of the Britz database, and may have included a few NiH results, early ones. If so, my comment was misleading. I will research this, reviewing the original report on the Britz database (I didn't make this up), and cover this on newVortex.Posted by Abd:Those 153 reports include NiH experiments and several different kinds of experiment, including gas-loading, so it's not a simple count of replications. And results can be far above the noise, but still within the magnitude of typical artifacts in calorimetry. As Rothwell says, "calorimetric errors and artifacts are more common that researchers realize".
Anomalous heat from palladium deuteride has been massively confirmed, and at levels far above noise.
...
153 reports existed at last analysis, a couple of years ago, reporting anomalous heat in PdD.
If there's 153 reports, there should be at least one good one, right? But there isn't. They're all bad. And the better they are, the lower the claim -- just like pathological science everywhere.
P&F claimed a COP of 4 with tens of watts in the early 90s, but the calorimetry was challenged in the literature by Morrison. They spent a lot of time vigorously defending their results, but when Toyota gave them 50 million dollars, they could never do as well again, and Toyota shut them down.
Piantelli claimed tens of watts from NiH, but CERN showed they could get the same temperature increase, and could explain it without nuclear reactions; Piantell's calorimetry was flawed. To this day, Piantelli's still making claims, and still using the same flawed calorimetry.
Supposedly, the best calorimetry was McKubre's, which is why his 1994 data still holds pride of place on Rothwell's home page. But that was a pathetic fraction of a watt, and about 10% of the input. This is actually *inconsistent* with P&F's claims of COP=4, even if the 10% were right. But McKubre's heat disappeared when the current was turned off, *much* faster then one would expect the helium to diffuse out of the Pd, and again in contradiction to the many claims of heat after death.
McKubre claimed to find the (4?) criteria, which if present produced CF every time. And yet, after that, the Toyota lab in Japan reported 27 cells with no heat in any of them. Were they too incompetent to meet McKubre's criteria?
The fact that McKubre's '94 results are still trotted out is a clear indication the field is making no progress, and that it is pathological.
Did McKubre follow up and improve this landmark experiment? Not that we know about. EPRI pretty much cut him off, and now he goes around trying to replicate people far less learned than he, like Dardik or Godes or Papp. It's kind of sad, really.
All the excitement about cold fusion now comes from experiments with lame calorimetry, including Celani, Piantelli, Miley, Godes, and so on. The latest NRL results that Rothwell called irrefutable showed heat equivalent to a drop of gasoline, and they claimed 5% reproducibility. It seems in pathological circles, the deluded cheer when progress is negative.
Posted By: AbdAlsetalokin's account of what just happens does not match my memory of what I just did, I did answer nearly every point.
Posted By: AbdMeanwhile, it's been noted that newVortex is a "small, insular community." Well, not exactly. It *is* small, but it cannot be judged by the posts alone.
Mirriam-WebsterInsular: characteristic of an isolated people; especially : being, having, or reflecting a narrow provincial viewpoint
Some random douche on newvortexI am collaborating closely with Woodrow C. Monte, whose breakthrough methanol-formaldehyde paradigm expands the game from aspartame to all methanol sources and dozens of major diseases, from Alzheimer's to autism
The list is being watched, and posts there are googleable, and have already been picked up and echoed elsewhere.
Posted By: AbdThey are not exact replications of the work of Pons and Fleischmann. Rather, rearchers often created highly loaded palladium deuteride with their own techniques.
Posted by Abd:
There are various interpretations of what constitutes a "mainstream journal," and one could go around and around this forever. I used the Britz database because he's widely respected,
Counting papers proves nothing except that interest in a field has continued.
When someone like Mary Yugo or Joshua Cude claims that the field is "dead," which they have claimed and do claim, then numbers of papers become a fact of interest. And then, if you mention this, they bring in the Loch Ness monster, etc. If there were two dozen papers in a year on the Loch Ness monster, in mainstream publications, that would indeed mean something about interest in the field.
Posted by Abd:
Posted by Cude:
If there were a single credible experiment in cold fusion, that gave a predictable result (even on a statistical basis), there would be no need to repeatedly point to the thousand journal papers.
[…] There is such an experiment, and it's been described here. It's the heat/helium correlation.
But heat/helium is not merely statistically reliable, it is *quantitatively reliable.* It's been confirmed by a dozen research groups, independently.
But as McKubre himself said in 2008, there is no quantitative reproducibility in the field, and there is no inter-lab reproducibility without exchange of personnel. Most scientists would say that means there is no reproducibility in the field.
That's taken out of context, another trick of pseudoskeptics. McKubre was not talking about correlation,
[….] He was talking about the raw heat experiments. It's a *very difficult* experiment, and there are many, many ways to fail.
When you have a real phenomenon, understood or not, like high temperature superconductivity, people don't list the number of papers to support it; they cite a single seminal paper that describes how to get the phenomenon.
If that is known. There was no such "seminal paper," for historical reasons. However, people *did* reproduce the effect, and that's what really matters.
Posted By: Abd
Your right to score as you choose. Your right to ignore Cude's misrepresentation of evidence. He's counting on you not actually reading the papers.
Last word.
Posted By: adminrootPosted 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.
Posted by Abd:
Posted by Cude:
(And by the way, this phenomenon, even though it is less revolutionary than cold fusion would be, has seen more than a hundred thousand papers in the same 20 year period, and in the very best journals, like Science and Nature.
And those "very best journals" -- we gave links here -- explicitly announced that they would no longer report on cold fusion, recommended "vituperation" as appropriate, and then stuck to their position, even though that position was formed in 1990, years before the crucial evidence, demanded then (including by them), became available.
Posted by Abd:
Cold fusion *did* die, for the "mainstream," now defined not as those informed on a science, but on those who pay no attention to it, in 1990.
Posted by Abd:
There was no controlled demonstration of the "artifact" or set of artifacts behind cold fusion.
That was never shown, and, *especially* heat/helium, which should be fairly simple to falsify, was never tested and found to fail.
Instead, a dozen research groups confirmed it,
and instead of disappearing with increased accuracy, the correlatioin strengthened and moved more closely to the theoretical fusion figure of 23.8 MeV.
Posted by Abd:
Really, get this: a definitive judgment was issued and cold fusion was declared dead, before the actual cause of the FP Heat Effect was known.
The *mechanism* is still unknown. But the effect is real, and the cause is the conversion of deuterium to helium, and *there is no contrary evidence and no contrary review in mainstream journals.
Posted by Abd:
McKubre is a "loser researcher?"
He's a professional, has been employed by SRI since well before 1989, and his reports carry weight.
Joshua Cude is? A graduate student (failed?) with too much time on his hands? What?
Posted by Abd:So, as well, Storms is a "loser researcher"?
He has a home lab to die for, …
Cude is invited to explore any real issues on newVortex, where he won't be banned, unlike Vortex.
Posted by Abd:
I believe I stated, in one of the posts here, that the rate quadrupled from the nadir rate, which was six papers per year. While we could quibble about this or that detail,
there is no doubt at all but that interest has increased since 2004-2205.
Instead of looking at actual publication rates, overall, Cude, as is typical, just makes his drive-by claim.
No problem with people being skeptical, it's understandable. But don't depend on what Cude claims. He lies, or is grossly misleading.
The "conference proceedings" book he mentions is not a set of conference proceedings.