Jump to content

Low Energy Nuclear Reactions / Cold Fusion (thread split)


barfbag
 Share

Recommended Posts

The edit function vanished on my previous post, but here is some LENR out of Russia,

 

http://coldfusionnow.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Tsyganov-Dubna-Talk.pdf

 

 

Basically, in the presentation, he points out the empirically incontrovertible evidence for D-D “cold” fusion seen in accelerator experiments and the reason for it. As he states:

“Target deuterium atoms implanted into metals are no longer in (the) s-state. The free electron cloud in a metal causes the electron of an implanted atom to occupy the excited p-state. The magnitude of the screening potential of 300 eV and above in experiments on DD-fusion accelerators indicates that the incident deuterium atoms in the conductor crystal are also moving in (a) p-state. These processes allow the two deuterium nuclei to get close without the Coulomb repulsion in the potential niche of the crystal cell at a very close distance.”

 

Edited by barfbag
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

Cold Fusion / AKA.. (L)ow (E)nergy (N)uclear ®reactions

Maybe our cars will be running on Nickel Powder in a few years.

 

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2014/10/prweb12239416.htm

 

(Above link shows new successful verification by respected scientific teams and Universities, with comments from NASA (who also fund LENR research))

 

William Zebuhr, Chairman of the New Energy Foundation, states, “This report demands worldwide attention, so that our current understanding of nuclear science can be expanded. It is a challenge to science that these results so far have no convincing theoretical explanation, but the experimental results cannot be dismissed or ignored just because of lack of theoretical understanding.”

 

 

A Third Party Verification of the Andrea Rossi Cold Fusion Device (Ecat) last year had some ridiculous arguments against it including hidden power sources such as lazer beams, grounding shelving and more delivering extra power to the devices, and that led them to revise the report and meet the objections.

 

It was a sound and fair assessmetn of the ecat devices.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913

 

This held the weight of many reputations, and proof was demonstrated.

 

HOWEVER. Since then...

 

As first link goes to an article about where LENR is now with another Third party verification using highly respected scientists

 

Mainstream Science is being forced to bite the bullet, and even though I do not expect this to be pulled out of pseudoscience, I do hope a few of the "educated" here will alter their stances. Pons and Fleischmann were heroes who deserve accolades, and yet Fleischmann went to his grave ridiculed by mainstream science simply because he announced an experiment that was only successful one out of every 1000 tries and nobody could replicate it. Well it turns out they were right all along.

 

They were ostracized from the scientific community in America and Fleischmann went and joined Toyota in Japan. All for announcing one of the greatest scientific discoveries of our time.

 

I suppose all real science is pseudoscience first.

Edited by barfbag
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose all real science is pseudoscience first.

 

Not really. But quite a lot of pseudoscience remains pseudoscience

 

The problem with the one new publication - the Press Release of which you link to - is that it is the same scientists, the same baggage, and the same errors as the previous paper (which you give an arxiv link to).

 

Quite aside from the correctness; this approach will further convince those who were already convinced and leave completely unconvinced those who were skeptical the first time around.

 

There still remain two avenues of progress which it is astonishing (*) have not been taken

  1. Package up a half dozen of these devices and send them to MIT, Oxford a/o Cambridge, Tokyo etc
  2. Convert the excess power to electricity and use the excess power

ie Either go down the scientific/academic route OR the business/investment route OR both - but the present silliness reflects badly on all the concerned proponents.

 

* The only reasons I have seen for these routes not being taken are spurious and insulting, or accusatory and libelous - depending on which side one reads.

 

 

“Alas, to wear the mantle of Galileo it is not enough that you be persecuted by an unkind establishment, you must also be right.” — Robert L. Park

Link to comment
Share on other sites

* The only reasons I have seen for these routes not being taken are spurious and insulting, or accusatory and libelous - depending on which side one reads.

 

It is my understanding that the devices are..

 

  1. Package up a half dozen of these devices and send them to MIT, Oxford a/o Cambridge, Tokyo etc
  2. Convert the excess power to electricity and use the excess power

 

 

 

being sold and used.

 

Creating electricity is not yet possible because of the low steam output. Various steam engines have been looked at, but none seem to fit the bill atm.

 

 

Hanno Essén, born September 27, 1948, is an associate professor of theoretical physics and a lecturer at the Swedish Royal Institute of Technology and former chairman of the Swedish Skeptics Society.[1]

 

This one fellow was (according to his wikipedia page) "CHAIRMAN OF THE SWEDISH SKEPTICS SOCIETY". I think that should weigh in aside from his astounding credentials.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanno_Ess%C3%A9n

 

I realize this is just one instance of LENR verification, but there are well over 20 well known companies (including NASA, TOYOTA, MITSUBISHI, HONDA, MIT, etc..) that claim to have working LENR.

 

LENR is beyond the point it should be accepted to those in the know, and there are literally thousands of papers about cold fusion/LENR and many say it is real.

 

Anyways. I won't argue. One day the literature will catch up. I was only posting a report that had been waited for by some.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

http://www.univrmagazine.it/sito/vedi_articolo.php?id=2806

 

Bill Gates is looking to invest 1 Billion Dollars into Low Energy Nuclear Reactions.

 

Maybe he read my email to the Gates Foundation last year. lol (I did send one).

 

The University of Verona has confirmed Bill Gates went there to examine LENR first Hand.

 

MEANWHILE BACK AT SCIENCE FORUMS LENR is only worthy of THE TRASH CAN. LMFAO.

 

Translates roughly as:

Gates, accompanied by Head and scientists of the center, wanted to find out the research activities of the institute in the field of low energy nuclear reaction, LENR, better known as "cold fusion, cold fusion". The center ENEA Frascati is, in fact, considered to excellence in the world in this area. Thanks also to the presence of scientists among the most qualified in the field of cold fusion which Vittorio Violante. This is why the United States has involved Enea, the only non-US agency, a research program of great scientific importance in the field of Lern.

 

 

Wow. Research programs exist. Most qualified in this field. These sound like terms coming from real scientists who actually consider this topic science.

 

I expect you lot to all Chastize Bill Gates now for his belief in "JUNK SCIENCE".

 

Start........ NOW!!!

Edited by barfbag
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. This discussion is not in the "trash can".

 

2. The only person to describe cold fusion as "junk science" is you in some of your emotional rants.

 

3. Has anyone said there is no research? No.

 

4. Has anyone said there should be no research? No.

 

In fact, quite the reverse; people have asked for evidence which we will only get from high quality scientific research. But it seems that you are still unable to have a calm, rational discussion about the subject.


5. "Bill Gates is looking to invest 1 Billion Dollars into Low Energy Nuclear Reactions."

 

The article you link to doesn't say that. I found another article that suggested he might be thinking about it, but when I found the original Italian article (from a relatively unknown local news website) it appears to be a mistranslation.

http://www.larena.it/stories/Economia/947605_gates_finanza_lenea_vicini_ad_unintesa

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that the reaction of barfflag is emotional, but I also know the cause which is a clear cognitive pathology, a groupthink , that is visible even in your wise answer.

 

It is a good thing that this thread is not dumped as it is frequent. It is marginalized however.

 

Where I could get emotional, is when I hear "we need good evidence".

It seems this position is purely based on ignoring the mass of evidence available. This capacity to ignore facts, using source innuendo, recursive reasoning (any who support a positive position is assumed part of a conspiracy or delusion), blind inverted popper arguments (prove first, after we bring proofs), is well described in skeptic literature, in epistemology reference book (Kuhn, Feyerabend), in psychiatry and social dynamic litterature (Roland Beanbou on Groupthink).

 

My only advice is that anyone who did not read

"Excess Heat" by Charles Beaudette

and

"The science of LENR" by Edmund storms,

and can bring a critical paper proving experimental artifact that is not refuted

 

do stop saying

1- that there is no evidence of cold fusion

2- that cold fusion claims where debunked

 

which are both false if you document yourself. (start there for PR papers http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJtallyofcol.pdf#page=6and read beaudette to understant that the only 4 written critical attack are debunked)

 

 

What is happening today is simply the underground breaking of the Berlin wall. There is more industrial moves underground, and i participate to some of them modestly.

 

From the literature on science groupthink, as experience with germs theory, superconduction, quasicristals, planes, I expect that academic circles will surrender to reality only a few years after sales.

 

About Bill gates, it is fascinating to see people claim that it was on hot fusion as it is a public fact that Violante is a long time LENR supporter, the coordinator of ENEA LENR research, and that he organized conferences on that subject.

This is a great warning about caution we should have with media.

 

Note that beside that Steven Chu (ext secreatary of energy) have been proudly visiting Statoil with Brillouin Corp boss :

http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/11/11/godes-of-brillouin-with-former-us-energy-secretary-chu/

after Brillouin boss visited the ex Finish green minister

http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/11/04/robert-godes-of-brillouin-energy-visits-finnish-government-officials-and-statoil-in-norway/

after Elforsk boss supported E-cat test in a press release, and an interview

http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/691-CEO-Elforsk-Magnus-Olofsson

 

I urge you also to follow LENR-Cities which have more to show that what you can see today

http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/news/index.php/News/19-LENR-Cities-Report-about-the-Kick-off-meeting-in-Neuchatel/

 

the good news is that it seems the businessmen have understood that academic circles and media cannot be convinced and start to ignore them.

 

This is among the dozen of epistemology fiasco of the 20th century. The post-mortem analysis will be fruitful for epistemology and media/information theory, I hope. Thanks to internet to enforce the "ex-ante free speech" that Roland Benabou demand in his Groupthink papers.

 

NB: some may say that this is not a discussion on psychiatry, sociology, epistemology, but clearly this is the core of the problem, and not seeing it is part of the pathology. Understanding innovative science without cognitive science is impossible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure that insulting your audience is a great way to convince people.

 

Better would be some peer reviewed science. While there are some positive results, there are as many, if not more negative results. And, of course, the results on both sides have been challenged. Until there is compelling evidence (and resulting industrial application) I will remain sceptical (and disappointed).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

!

Moderator Note

 

 

I agree that the reaction of barfflag is emotional, but I also know the cause which is a clear cognitive pathology, a groupthink , that is visible even in your wise answer.

 

You will stop making cod-psychological aspersions about the membership now. If you do not we will consider sanctions.

 

 

It is a good thing that this thread is not dumped as it is frequent. It is marginalized however.

 

Where I could get emotional, is when I hear "we need good evidence".

It seems this position is purely based on ignoring the mass of evidence available. This capacity to ignore facts, using source innuendo, recursive reasoning (any who support a positive position is assumed part of a conspiracy or delusion), blind inverted popper arguments (prove first, after we bring proofs), is well described in skeptic literature, in epistemology reference book (Kuhn, Feyerabend), in psychiatry and social dynamic litterature (Roland Beanbou on Groupthink).

 

"Marginalized" to the extent that it has been placed in one of the busiest fora. One which is dedicated to science that is still awaiting mainstream acceptance - which I am sure you would agree is the case in point for LENR.

 

There was also a mod note regarding the philosophy of science

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/83658-low-energy-nuclear-reactions-cold-fusion-thread-split/page-2#entry810462

If this side-topic is brought up again the post will be split off to the trash can.

 

Now if you would return to the science that would be great.

 

Do not respond to this moderation within the thread.

 


!

Moderator Note

 

AlainCo

 

Which bit of

"If this side-topic is brought up again the post will be split off to the trash can."

and

"Do not respond to this moderation within the thread."

were you unable to understand or did you believe did not apply to you?

 

Your almost immediate response to a moderation with a continuation of the side-topic was split off to the trash. This will continue to happen unless you return to the thread's topic. This thread is for the discussion of the science of LENR/Cold Fusion - anything else is off-topic.

 

DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS MODERATION WITHIN THE THREAD

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@imatfaal

Ok for less psychology, but I would simply ask that claims of frauds and bad peer review, as much as lack of evidence, be avoided as it is no less scientific.

 

As long as people will continue to ignore available evidence, to ignore peer reviewed literature with non rational argument, I will be forced to state it is not scientific.

 

there are evidence, scientific and business, we can discuss of it.

 

we can start with that old cold fusion review in Naturwissenschaften

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEstatusofcoa.pdf

 

I am also still waiting for reviewed critic of F&P and McKubre calorimetry, as much as Spawar CR39 results, iwamura/Takahasi transmutation experiments, Miles/Bush DeNinno He4/Heat correlations.

 

and if someone say it is not in Nature and Science, I will have to slip to epistemology argumentation. this is the key in that domain. Even if the phenomenon is hard to trigger, scientific evidence are simple; only problem is acceptance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Claims of lack of evidence can be countered by presenting evidence.

Alain Co has, seemingly, presented evidence via citations of numerous papers. I have seen no evidence that those doubting LENR have considered those papers. Certainly there have been no discussions, that I have seen, of the content of any referenced papers.

 

In such circumstances it is hardly surprising that Alain has felt it appropriate to introduce "philosophy of science" comments to his posts. As an associate member of the forum "team" via my designated Expert status I wish to distance myself from the moderation remarks that characterise Alain's observations as cod-psychology. The members have not done a bad job of discounting the presented evidence, they have done no job at all1. That disappoints me.

 

For the record, I remain highly skeptical of the reality of LENR, but that's because I bask in the warm (non-nuclear) glow, of not having looked at the evidence. It would be nice if those of you who have would now systematically refute the contents of one or more of Alain's referenced papers.

 

 

1. With the exception of Sensei.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alain Co has, seemingly, presented evidence via citations of numerous papers. I have seen no evidence that those doubting LENR have considered those papers. Certainly there have been no discussions, that I have seen, of the content of any referenced papers.

 

 

 

Too numerous. Not all are research papers (I don't particularly care that e.g. person X visited site Y; that's a weak version of appeal to authority), so one runs up against a limit of how much wading through the chaff one is willing to do.

 

If anyone wants to discuss a specific result, one needs to cite the paper and post relevant details here, as per the rules of the forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Too numerous.

I believe I have seen members, including mods, criticise posters for offering only a single paper in support of their position. It is disingenuous to claim a poster has offered too much evidence.

 

 

Not all are research papers

Excellent. Ignore those. (It means they are less numerous than you initially thought.)

 

so one runs up against a limit of how much wading through the chaff one is willing to do.

So, pick one paper, critique the major points in it. When the poster responds that is only one, then ask which paper, in their view, offers the best evidence and critique it. All I have seen is - exactly what Alain claims - an argument from the position that LENR is false, without meaningful dissection of the presented evidence.

 

 

If anyone wants to discuss a specific result, one needs to cite the paper and post relevant details here, as per the rules of the forum.

Oh, come on Swansont, you are better than that. I think we all know that almost no one actually reads the forum rules, except those with OCD. It has been open to everyone, at any point, to say to Alain -"OK, please pick a piece of evidence you find especially compelling, summarise it here and provide us with the link." That would have been helpful. It would have moved the discussion forward.

 

Instead we have the unseemly stream of evidence being offered by Alain and the counterarguments largely ignoring it. I worry about how that is viewed by the lurkers who are conflicted about science. I see one of the prime values of this forum lies in educating people about science and the scientific method. I think the responses in this thread to Alain's contributions present an ambiguous view, at best, of the impartiality of scientists. That is to be regretted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ strange,

 

1. This discussion is not in the "trash can".

 

 

To find this thread you must go to the bottom of the screen to a sub forum called "Speculations". That sub forum has another section called "TRASH CAN". There can be no confusion of this because it is spelled T-R-A-S-H C-A-N.

 

So what do you mean this entire LENR topic is not in the Trash Can when it most certainly is. It has been in the Trash Can area of Speculations since the Thread was originally split and I was falsely accused of Thread Hijack although that moderator reversed the hijack decision after some protest.

 

@ Ophiolite,

 

As an associate member of the forum "team" via my designated Expert status I wish to distance myself from the moderation remarks that characterise Alain's observations as cod-psychology. The members have not done a bad job of discounting the presented evidence, they have done no job at all1. That disappoints me.

 

 

Had I so poignantly insulted the moderation staff I'm sure I would have received yet another undeserved warning post.

 

There is plenty of disappointing behaviour here I agree.

 

@ Everyone,

 

So many times in this thread the terms, Appeal to authority arise....

 

Dennis Bushnell, Chief Research Scientist at NASA, Langley. - The current situation is that we now have over two decades of hundreds of experiments worldwide indicating heat and transmutations with minimal radiation and low energy input. By any rational measure, this evidence indicates something real is occurring. So, is LENR "Real?" Evidently, from the now long
standing and diverse experimental evidence. And, yes - with effects occurring from using diverse
materials, methods of energy addition etc. This is far from a "Narrow Band" set of physical phenomena.

 

 

yet we always have people like strange saying,

Until there is compelling evidence

 

 

 

So in one hand we have compelling evidence according to Dennis Bushnell, Chief research Scientist at NASA Langley, where he says,

two decades of hundreds of experiments worldwide
indicating heat and transmutations with minimal radiation and low energy input.

 

 

So who is right?

 

Maybe SwansonT,

Claims of lack of evidence can be countered by presenting evidence. Appeal to authority (Bill Gates is investing, so there must be something to this!) does not count.

 

 

Again I will look at the silly comment above arguing against a quote by The Chief Research Scientist at NASA Langley, and wonder why these guys are trolling the thread saying "No evidence, no evidence", when there apparently is hundreds of documented cases.

 

Maybe that quote will one day be, "It is now selling in every store, but that does not mean it is real". Appeal to authority is all that is left if you refuse to look at the vast experimental evidence that has been previously mentioned many times including the OP.

 

 

Papers, experiments, and authority arguments have all been given in this thread, and yet it remain in the TRASH CAN AREA OF SPECULATIONS.

 

The Above quote by Dennis Bushnell was given in the OPENING POST of this thread way back in JUNE and that was not even an opening post, it was a thread split from an ongoing topic in the news area. LENR should be in news area alot.

 

If you go back to the start of this thread I gave more facts and figures, but I did not even expect any comments this last time because this is in the TRASH CAN AREA OF SPECULATIONS IN SCIENCE FORUMS.

 

As time goes on and LENR becomes more widespread and accepted I think I should be allowed some "I told you so" type in your face laughter/emotional responses.

 

Let's put this thread in its proper perspective here. It was split from a thread called,

"Cold fusion 'demonstration': Definitely a hoax, or merely almost definitely a hoax?"

 

 

and when it is still considered by this Forum seemingly as a whole (aside from ophiolite who wished to distance himself from moderation comments here. - "I wish to distance myself from the moderation remarks") as Trash Science.

Edited by barfbag
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe I have seen members, including mods, criticise posters for offering only a single paper in support of their position. It is disingenuous to claim a poster has offered too much evidence.

 

The issue I specifically pointed out is that many of the links contained no evidence. They were distractions — I gave the example of the recent so-and-so talked to some-guy. Who cares?

 

Excellent. Ignore those. (It means they are less numerous than you initially thought.)

Why should I have to waste my time sorting through it all? It may not be the intent, but the effect is the same as in other discussions I've had where the goal is to bury the opposition with papers and links. It takes a lot longer to critique a paper than it does to provide a link.

 

 

 

So, pick one paper, critique the major points in it. When the poster responds that is only one, then ask which paper, in their view, offers the best evidence and critique it. All I have seen is - exactly what Alain claims - an argument from the position that LENR is false, without meaningful dissection of the presented evidence.

 

That's a continuation of the strategy that others use — keep trotting out examples as each one is shot down. But the burden of proof goes the other way.

 

Oh, come on Swansont, you are better than that. I think we all know that almost no one actually reads the forum rules, except those with OCD. It has been open to everyone, at any point, to say to Alain -"OK, please pick a piece of evidence you find especially compelling, summarise it here and provide us with the link." That would have been helpful. It would have moved the discussion forward.

That's something that, as a moderator, I am painfully aware. I am getting carpal-tunnel syndrome from quoting the part of rule 7 that applies in these situations.

 

"Nobody reads the rules" is a pretty lame excuse for an excuse.

 

 

Instead we have the unseemly stream of evidence being offered by Alain and the counterarguments largely ignoring it. I worry about how that is viewed by the lurkers who are conflicted about science. I see one of the prime values of this forum lies in educating people about science and the scientific method. I think the responses in this thread to Alain's contributions present an ambiguous view, at best, of the impartiality of scientists. That is to be regretted.

And I'm saying that what needs to happen here is for Alain to actually present the best evidence, rather than a dozen links so that the rest of us can play "Where's Waldo". Or, more likely, pass on playing that game. Why should LENR be treated any differently than mainstream science discussions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ Swansont,

 

In THE OPENING POST of this thread (EVEN THOUGH IT WAS SPLIT OFF FROM A FRAUD THREAD) I gave a specific scientific paper.

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913

 

It was never discussed, refuted, or likely even looked at by you or other members here, although that paper has since been backed up by several other universities and a new team of experts.

 

so when you say,

Why should I have to waste my time sorting through it all?

 

 

That is not exactly the truth is it. You have ignored precise examples, so now you are getting a flood of them which all confirm LENR whether you choose to accept reality (it has nothing to do with belief) or not.

 

I actually do not have a problem with those like you who do not look at the evidence willingly unless they are trying to refute a topic of which they lack an elementary understanding of how the field is progressing.

 

That linked report was met with so much incredulity that another report was prepared by a second team of experts in the field.

 

http://www.elforsk.se/Global/Omv%C3%A4rld_system/filer/LuganoReportSubmit.pdf

 

Which has become known as "The Lugano Report".

 

These reports specifically target the Rossi ecat device, but we have also referenced dozens of companies that claim to produce LENR currently, and many papers surrounding those.

Edited by barfbag
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that maybe we should start to talk on individual paper and, yes, ignore those who says there is none.

 

Let us start by this paper by Iwamura 5Mitsubishi Heavy Industry)

http://jjap.jsap.jp/link?JJAP/41/4642/

replicated by Takahaski (Toyota/Technova)

http://jjap.jsap.jp/link?JJAP/52/107301/

 

those two works are serious, but focus on triggering transmutations.

many question arise. It is clearly not an artifact as the CaO vs MgO layer seems a key parameter.

 

One big surprise that have been well cauight by Edmund Storms in proposing his Hydroton theory is that the transmutation

- seems to match an even number of deuterons, 1/2 or 3 pairs. Very intriguing.

- taht it seems to avoid radioactive results.

 

If you gather evidences from the literature( see The science of LENR for a synthesis or this student guide) , there seem to be evidence of this phenomenon to avoid radioactive results, but not always. Some fusion-fission seems probable, beside fusion/absorption.

Beside what seems as anecdotal transmutation there is no doubt that (thus radioactive) tritium is produced in F&P style cells (Bockris, Srinivasan, LANL) at 10e-6 expected from hot fusion heat, as much as He4 (seemingly commensurate to heat, see Bush&Miles )...

 

the big question is what is happening. There is no doubt it is very different from hot fusion, that radioactive results and energetic rays are "avoided" when heat is produced, even if few "hot fusion" seems to happen at 10e-6/10e-12 rate, as the few but observed neutrons are example of.

 

Recently the Lugano test (See from Elforsk http://elforsk.se/LENR-Matrapport-publicerad/) raised an outlier result that is shocking even for old LENR researchers.

It seems massive (99%+) shift toward Ni62 happen in Ni powder, as some big shift toward Li6...

some question if it is transmutation or simply isotopic selection, the survivor syndrom (Ni62 could be the only non reactive).

Question is also whether this reaction is the main exothermal reaction, or as it seems an anecdotal reaction, or simply an enrichment artifact.

 

to answer those question, Edmund storms propose a mechanism, the Hydroton.

Before even the mechanism he propose an approach which is not very popular among LENr researchers because it is heavily criticizing competing theories as not respecting "common laws" of physics (heisenberg/entropy, free neutrons thermalization, statistics,CoM) and chemistry (Gibbs energy), and some rule of thumbs (conservation of miracle).

He wrote a book on that, but most of his ideas are in that ICCF18 poster:

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEexplaining.pdf

 

I appreciate the conservative approach bounding what the good theory have to be and not to be, but the hydroton is clearly only a proposal.

the key of his idea is that because of some chemical/physical stress, crack apears in which metallic chain of atomic hydrogen gather, forming a quantum insulated object of big size, able like an atom to have many energy levels, and thus to concentrate and dissipate energy though excitation levels.

 

His key idea is expressed in this appendice

the key idea is that this big quantum object is able to slowly convert quantum of strong force potential energy into photons energy, by quantum in the keV, not MeV range.

 

Beside this proposed conversion mechanism, which remind me the way blackhole dissipate gravitational energy through gamma burst, In the book he give an interpretation of Iwamura results.

 

He propose that contaminating target elements get lost in the middle of an hydroton chain, and that this nucleus fuse with a few pairs of hydrogen. This prevent production of gamma as momentum is null, but this required huge intrication of hydrogens atoms as three-body and more reaction are practically impossible else.

 

the mystery that there is a preference for stable results may came from that quantum mechanisme that maybe does not allow radioactive results for question of symmetries or for excitation energy required... or because it can transmutate unstable elements very quickly.

 

Srinivasna in BARC have observed one strange phenomemnon, that tritium was not only clearly produced, but also consumed at some period...

Some reports proposed that LENR can transmute radioactive elements, and this led to some straneg patents, by MHI or Spawar. More question than answer.

 

This is much criticized by LENR scientists who prefers others direction, like BEC (Takahashi TSC, Hagelstein or Kim ). debate is hot.

 

Also Lugano test, launch more question than it answers.

 

 

 

First is question on Iwamura thin film transmutation in hydrogen permeation. It is replicated but the results seems very sensible to implementation details.

 

Second is about theories. Hydroton theory launch two question in general physics, far from the controversy.

 

Is there some know mechanism that allows relatively slow conversion of one nuclear potential energy to photons, or similar conversion violating the energy scale ? I took the non quantum example of gravitation to gamma conversion, but we are far from that here.

 

The second is about the way cracks can create a deep energy pit for molecules. Ed Storms theory is based on the idea that there are many free electrons abandoned by hydrogen in the hydride, which can cover the side of "cracks" and shield the proposed hydroton chain from chemistry context. Can it create quantum insulated objects, some kind of Schrodinger kittens ?

 

Is there known chemistry environments (graphene? zeolithes ? nanotubes ?... NB there is possible observation of LENR in all of those... to be confirmed) which can create insulated environment where Schrodinger kitten can play alone and show their quantum nature, like showing surprising energy levels.

Edited by AlainCo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ strange,

To find this thread you must go to the bottom of the screen to a sub forum called "Speculations". That sub forum has another section called "TRASH CAN". There can be no confusion of this because it is spelled T-R-A-S-H C-A-N.

So what do you mean this entire LENR topic is not in the Trash Can when it most certainly is. It has been in the Trash Can area of Speculations since the Thread was originally split and I was falsely accused of Thread Hijack although that moderator reversed the hijack decision after some protest.

1. I rarely look for threads in a specific sub-forum. Like many other members I look in the Recent Posts. Are you seriously telling me it is difficult to scroll to the bottom of a page.

2. The thread is not in the Trash Can. It is in speculations. That's S P E C U L A T I ON S.

3. You've been told to stop commenting on moderator decisions. I recommend you comply.

 

 

@ Ophiolite,

Had I so poignantly insulted the moderation staff I'm sure I would have received yet another undeserved warning post.

I did not insult the moderation staff. Pointing out, in an unemotional manner, that certain issues appear not to have been dealt with appropriately, is not insulting. If I wished to insult them I would use your angst ridden style.

 

 

 

If you go back to the start of this thread I gave more facts and figures, but I did not even expect any comments this last time because this is in the TRASH CAN AREA OF SPECULATIONS IN SCIENCE FORUMS.

Please stop with the broken record. Are you here to argue for giving more attention to LENR, or to complain about how you were moderated? Don't answer that, the answer is obvious.

 

@ Alain

I strongly urge you to limit the size of your posts. This is the pertinent part of your last post.

 

I agree that maybe we should start to talk on individual paper and, yes, ignore those who says there is none.

 

Let us start by this paper by Iwamura 5Mitsubishi Heavy Industry)

http://jjap.jsap.jp/link?JJAP/41/4642/

replicated by Takahaski (Toyota/Technova)

http://jjap.jsap.jp/...JJAP/52/107301/

 

those two works are serious, but focus on triggering transmutations.

many question arise. It is clearly not an artifact as the CaO vs MgO layer seems a key parameter.

 

Stay focused on that until those papers have been sufficiently critiqued. Provide a summary of their findings. Do not deviate into other avenues and evidence at this point.

Edited by Ophiolite
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ Swansont,

 

In THE OPENING POST of this thread (EVEN THOUGH IT WAS SPLIT OFF FROM A FRAUD THREAD) I gave a specific scientific paper.

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913

 

It was never discussed, refuted, or likely even looked at by you or other members here, although that paper has since been backed up by several other universities and a new team of experts.

 

so when you say,

 

 

That is not exactly the truth is it. You have ignored precise examples, so now you are getting a flood of them which all confirm LENR whether you choose to accept reality (it has nothing to do with belief) or not.

 

I actually do not have a problem with those like you who do not look at the evidence willingly unless they are trying to refute a topic of which they lack an elementary understanding of how the field is progressing.

 

That linked report was met with so much incredulity that another report was prepared by a second team of experts in the field.

 

http://www.elforsk.se/Global/Omvärld_system/filer/LuganoReportSubmit.pdf

 

Which has become known as "The Lugano Report".

 

These reports specifically target the Rossi ecat device, but we have also referenced dozens of companies that claim to produce LENR currently, and many papers surrounding those.

Your post contained 13 links and an embedded video. The arxiv link was #6, and no details were given from it; just a link. A prime example of the scattershot strategy I was talking about: post many links and then complain when someone doesn't wade through them all.

 

Also, Ophiolite did not insult me. If you can't make that distinction, and/or consider your warnings undeserved, that points to a different problem.

 

In the trash can, posts are automatically locked. You can't reply to threads in the trash can, ergo this thread is not in the trash can.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ Swansont,

 

Yes there were 13 posts in my OP of this thread.

 

A child could easily differentiate between all the links in the Opening Posts because each one was labelled well. Go ahead. Ask a child to read the Opening Post and see if he/she is capable of knowing what the various links describe.

 

This Forum is not in the "Trash Can" as I had thought, so that is an approvement. It should be in the news section where it originated because Cold Fusion breakthroughs are EXTREMELY relevant to society, and could be much more important than most topics there.

One topic in news here recently was "Children exposed to religion have hard time differentiating reality from fiction. Wow! That must be a hard question to determine. Quiz: Child A, do you believe in god? Yes I do. FAIL.... Child B, do you believe in god? No I don't. PASS.

Anybody could have a fun with this interview model, but it is not news.

 

@ Swansont,

 

Ophiolite did not insult me. If you can't make that distinction, and/or consider your warnings undeserved, that points to a different problem.

 

 

Can you describe my various 5 warnings and what they were for? If not then how come you profess to be an expert?

 

If you do not find these insulting to your methods as you are the main person being discussed here, then that is your own comprehension issue. I am strong in English and am a published author. Some of my posts are longer than most because I write a lot.

Adding emphasis...

 

- we have the unseemly stream of evidence being offered by Alain and the counterarguments largely ignoring it. I worry about how that is viewed by the lurkers who are conflicted about science. I see one of the prime values of this forum lies in educating people about science and the scientific method. I think the responses in this thread to Alain's contributions present an ambiguous view, at best, of the impartiality of scientists. That is to be regretted.

 

 

@ swanson still,

 

it is disingenuous to claim a poster has offered too much evidence.

 

 

As an associate member of the forum "team" via my designated Expert status I wish to distance myself from the moderation remarks that characterise Alain's observations as cod-psychology. The members have not done a bad job of discounting the presented evidence, they have done no job at all1. That disappoints me.

 

 

 

How about this burn. You have not done a bad job of discounting presented evidence... YOU'VE DONE NO JOB AT ALL. That disappoints me also! lol

 

@ Swansont still,

 

Serious? You cannot see any insult in those? It is hardly veiled.

 

But don't worry. You have not done a bad job of discounting presented evidence... (cough)... (wait for it)... YOU'VE DONE NO JOB AT ALL.

 

However Ophiolite explains it was not an insult (it was) because he did not use an angst ridden style.

If I wished to insult them I would use your angst ridden style

 

.

Yes. I do have great style. ty.

 

@ Ophiolite,

 

As opposed to your much colder insulting styles, like....

It would be nice if those of you who have would now systematically refute the contents of one or more of Alain's referenced papers.

 

 

1. With the exception of Sensei.

 

 

Why with the exception of Sensei? Is that an angst ridden insult, or just a cold calculated one directed at Sensei?

 

Why is he excluded from the conversation at your Whim?

 

I present facts and evidence with all my claims, and always have. If others are too thick to be interested enough to read about the topics then they should also refrain from speaking about them.

 

You at least admit to not knowing this subject...

 

@ ophiolite,

you say

@ Alain

I strongly urge you to limit the size of your posts. This is the pertinent part of your last post.

 

 

 

Why are you imposing your uneducated view (you claim "I bask in the warm (non-nuclear) glow, of not having looked at the evidence.") of what constitutes the relevant portions of Alains post.

 

The Pro LENR postings here are lengthy and informative throughout, but as you noted the LENR is speculative folk here

(The members have not done a bad job of discounting the presented evidence, they have done no job at all1)

Have not refuted evidence in any formal manner. They have done "NO JOB AT ALL" according to you.

 

If my writing seems full of "angst" it is due to the speculation viewpoint here doing "NO JOB AT ALL" of "DISCOUNTING THE PRESENTED EVIDENCE".

 

I'm more at a point where I find humor in the skepticism, much like the Wright brothers must have felt flying past those who said flight was impossible four years after they were flying.

Edited by barfbag
Link to comment
Share on other sites

!

Moderator Note

barfbag,

This thread isn't about you or why (for what seems like the millionth time) you can't follow the rules. Please stay focussed on the topic. Alain has made a good effort at directing positive discussion and you'd do well to follow his lead.

Finally, the insulting tone that you take here is not going to be tolerated. Drop it, now, or we will eventually get sick of telling you.

Do not respond to this modnote in-thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you do not find these insulting to your methods as you are the main person being discussed here, then that is your own comprehension issue. I am strong in English and am a published author. Some of my posts are longer than most because I write a lot.

1. Since I intended no insult and swansont took no insult then it seems the comprehension problem lies with you. It is possible for two individuals who respect each other to disagree on particulars and to do so without becoming life-long enemies. You might try it some time. (Hint: that was an insult.)

2. Your posts seem to be longer because you are unable to write concisely. I am not a published author, but my document on technical writing is the standard in a division of the company I work for.

 

@ Ophiolite,

 

As opposed to your much colder insulting styles, like....

 

 

Why with the exception of Sensei? Is that an angst ridden insult, or just a cold calculated one directed at Sensei?

Sensei introduced some specific, quantitative analysis of the topics under discussion, therefore he was not guilty of the approach I associated with swansont and others. I was approving of Sensei's contributions. You genuinely seem to have comprehension difficulties. (That is both an insult and clearly expressed suspicion.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ Swansont,

 

Yes there were 13 posts in my OP of this thread.

 

A child could easily differentiate between all the links in the Opening Posts because each one was labelled well. Go ahead. Ask a child to read the Opening Post and see if he/she is capable of knowing what the various links describe.

 

This Forum is not in the "Trash Can" as I had thought, so that is an approvement. It should be in the news section where it originated because Cold Fusion breakthroughs are EXTREMELY relevant to society, and could be much more important than most topics there.

One topic in news here recently was "Children exposed to religion have hard time differentiating reality from fiction. Wow! That must be a hard question to determine. Quiz: Child A, do you believe in god? Yes I do. FAIL.... Child B, do you believe in god? No I don't. PASS.

Anybody could have a fun with this interview model, but it is not news.

 

@ Swansont,

 

 

Can you describe my various 5 warnings and what they were for? If not then how come you profess to be an expert?

 

If you do not find these insulting to your methods as you are the main person being discussed here, then that is your own comprehension issue. I am strong in English and am a published author. Some of my posts are longer than most because I write a lot.

As a writer, and presumably not a child, can you tell me what an approvement is? (ephasis added in the quote)

 

No, I will not discuss what your warnings were for. This is not the place to do that.

 

I do not find professional (i.e. not of a personal nature) criticism insulting. Disagreement is part and parcel of doing and discussing science. My only interest in what others find insulting is when it causes them to overreact and break the rules of the forum, in threads where I am acting as a moderator.

 

As to your claim that your links were labeled well, I challenge that. You did not label any of them as not containing any scientific merit, and you posted no summary of the paper. (And why would you link to anything that had no bearing on the topic?) Your link to the arxiv paper was way down in the post. Frankly, by that time I had lost interest, since the earlier links were basically appeals to popularity and you had delved into a long-winded biography of Rossi. From the standpoint of being a writer, I would say you buried the lede.

I agree that maybe we should start to talk on individual paper and, yes, ignore those who says there is none.

 

Let us start by this paper by Iwamura 5Mitsubishi Heavy Industry)

http://jjap.jsap.jp/link?JJAP/41/4642/

replicated by Takahaski (Toyota/Technova)

http://jjap.jsap.jp/link?JJAP/52/107301/

 

 

Those links take me to the top level of the journal, featuring the current issue, and not to individual papers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sensei introduced some specific, quantitative analysis of the topics under discussion, therefore he was not guilty of the approach I associated with swansont and others. I was approving of Sensei's contributions.

Actually it's not me, but my applications that I wrote..

 

I am just entering data to applications showing fusion and decay energy calculations, and they're showing result for me (and copy'n'paste to posts)..

 

post-100882-0-04890800-1416451285.png

post-100882-0-04890800-1416451285_thumb.png

Edited by Sensei
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.