Merged Cold Fusion Claims

[Aepervius]

I do have a Ph.D. in physics. (Nuclear and particle experiment. There's no such thing as a "Ph.D. in quantum physics").

Actually the PhD is in physic, but I never say so : since my specialisation and disertation was QM, I consider it a PhD in QM, because there are many part of physic where I would be dumbfounded, like fluid dynamic, or even material physic.

 

[Yevgen Barsukov]

It looks like they recognized the need to
The statement:
"As Professor Sven Kullander and Associate Professor Hanno Essén noted
previously, the energy released is greater than can be generated by a chemical
reaction in the reactor, which has an estimated volume of 50 cubic centimeters."
...would be correct for 50 cubic centimeters. But that would not
take into account the volume and weight taken by the so called "lead shielding".
Their analysis is based on the "naked" device they could see, but not on the
actual "wrapped and shielded" device that was used in the test.

Correct analysis should include the entire black box volume and mass,
where the black-box is the actual device under test.

To eliminate this issue, Essen/Kullander should require to
provide their own lead shielding (if it is indeed required in
absence of any radiation ever detected) and their own insulation,
which they should be allowed to apply themselves, starting
with completely naked device.
Only under such condition the 50cc^2 can be considered as experimentally
confirmed constrain.

Regards,
Yevgen

 

[Crawdaddy]

Ben M

I have read it, and I've commented on it on this forum. SPAWAR's CR-39 reports are characterized by a complete ignorance of (a) neutron backgrounds in general, (b) backgrounds in CR-39 specifically, and (c) any sort of cross-calibration whatsoever.

CR-39 is, in fact, such an error-prone technology that I wouldn't trust half of my nuclear-experimentalist colleagues to be able to get a reliable result out of it. It's manifestly the wrong tool for *this* job ...

I failed to find your old post on the subject but I dispute your arguments

a-b) The control experiments were carried out at the same time as the deuterium loaded experiments negating any background effects. Experiments carried out under exactly the same conditions, side by side, where the only difference between them is the isotopic composition of the water used are controlled for background radiation.

c) The experimenters collaborated with other research groups to develop a calibration technique for CR-39. They reliably quantified the energies of known nuclear reaction products using this analysis technique. The most recent SPAWAR results include a D-T fusion neutron source calibration. The subsequent analysis of the neutron energies based on the characteristic 3-alpha particle tracks, that result from the interaction of a carbon nucleus with a high energy neutron, were quantified and agreed with the expected neutron energy. Subsequent experiments with deuterated water showed the characteristic tracks and when quantified gave neutron energies characteristic of D-T fusion. The experiments with regular water never showed any triple tracks.

Your previous post may have answered this question (I can't find the post) but I have yet to find an explanation for the observation of characteristic high energy neutron tracks that agree quantitatively with a D-T neutron calibration experiment. Especially when these tracks have never been observed in a control experiment and that 3-alpha tracks only occur at high neutron energies.

 

[Dancing David]

Ben M



I failed to find your old post on the subject but I dispute your arguments

a-b) The control experiments were carried out at the same time as the deuterium loaded experiments negating any background effects. Experiments carried out under exactly the same conditions, side by side, where the only difference between them is the isotopic composition of the water used are controlled for background radiation.

c) The experimenters collaborated with other research groups to develop a calibration technique for CR-39. They reliably quantified the energies of known nuclear reaction products using this analysis technique. The most recent SPAWAR results include a D-T fusion neutron source calibration. The subsequent analysis of the neutron energies based on the characteristic 3-alpha particle tracks, that result from the interaction of a carbon nucleus with a high energy neutron, were quantified and agreed with the expected neutron energy. Subsequent experiments with deuterated water showed the characteristic tracks and when quantified gave neutron energies characteristic of D-T fusion. The experiments with regular water never showed any triple tracks.

Your previous post may have answered this question (I can't find the post) but I have yet to find an explanation for the observation of characteristic high energy neutron tracks that agree quantitatively with a D-T neutron calibration experiment. Especially when these tracks have never been observed in a control experiment and that 3-alpha tracks only occur at high neutron energies.

Hi, it helps if you use Google and it is CR-39, then I just back tracked, I knew Pedrone had started about that time as well.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7039501&postcount=271

For the love of all heck.

What, exactly, do neutrons have to do with cold fusion? I detect neutrons all the time; they're an ubiquitous component of natural background radiation. Most of the time I wish I could get rid of them.

And I don't think there's a cold-fusion device following me around the lab.

And---CR-39 is the worst possible detector for a neutron experiment. It's an integrator. When you etch CR-39 you see all of the radiation that's ever hit it, between the day it was manufactured and the day you etched it. It doesn't tell you when the hits occurred. It doesn't particularly tell you what the hits were. It's useful for one and only one thing:

a) detecting large neutron/proton/etc. fluxes (i.e., large enough to overwhelm the inevitable background), when
b) there's a gamma-ray background so large that other detectors (borated scintillator, etc.) are saturated.

That's why they get used at accelerators, in ICF experiments, etc. It's the wrong thing to use for a low-background experiment of any sort. It's doubly the wrong thing to use for a pulsed low background experiment. For a low-background, pulsed neutron experiment, you want a blob of boron-loaded plastic scintillator and a photomultiplier tube.

 

[Crawdaddy]

And---CR-39 is the worst possible detector for a neutron experiment. It's an integrator. When you etch CR-39 you see all of the radiation that's ever hit it, between the day it was manufactured and the day you etched it. It doesn't tell you when the hits occurred. It doesn't particularly tell you what the hits were. It's useful for one and only one thing:

a) detecting large neutron/proton/etc. fluxes (i.e., large enough to overwhelm the inevitable background), when
b) there's a gamma-ray background so large that other detectors (borated scintillator, etc.) are saturated.

That's why they get used at accelerators, in ICF experiments, etc. It's the wrong thing to use for a low-background experiment of any sort. It's doubly the wrong thing to use for a pulsed low background experiment. For a low-background, pulsed neutron experiment, you want a blob of boron-loaded plastic scintillator and a photomultiplier tube.

The problems listed here are directly addressed in the SPAWAR papers. The background signal is eliminated using control experiments. Triple track alpha observations can only occur when neutrons have relatively high energy, which also controls for the background signal.

 

[TjW]

For them it was easy, because no one realized at the time how difficult it was to observe the P/F effect.

Yes, N-rays were notoriously difficult to observe, and look how important they turned out to be.

 

[Belz...]

Here is a link to master's thesis by a communications student outlining the events surrounding the initial announcement of cold fusion in 1989. It outlines how the conduct of many of the researchers involved violated the fundamental precepts of the practice of science through the lens of the philosophy of science. If you read it, you might understand why some people claim consipracy.

That doesn't really answer what I said, does it ?

 

[Jimmy42]

I don't understand the conspiracy claim, myself. Historically, scientists get all giddy when previously-held theories are completely blown out of the water by some awesome discovery.

Key word: Scientist

 

[Dancing David]

The problems listed here are directly addressed in the SPAWAR papers. The background signal is eliminated using control experiments. Triple track alpha observations can only occur when neutrons have relatively high energy, which also controls for the background signal.

How so, if you are detecting all tracks from any event involving the CR-39, what controls did they use, what levels of statitical significance? And I don't mean p significance, I mean did they had a way of measuring standard deviations and did the 'experimental value' rise above noise level.
Link to the specifics, my guess is that they are looking at noise. You say that they did, well how did they and what statitical methods did they use?

That is how to control for a backgorund signal in this case.

 

[attaboy]

If all this:






...isn't "conspiracy stuff", what would be?

Its amazing that you could come up with my comment being "conspiracy stuff".

Removed breach of Rule 12. Please review the Membership Agreement to which you agreed when you signed up here, and abide by it.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LashL

No, Rossi may not come across in October since projects like this have a way of getting delayed. But I read where he has already built 170 of the 300 units needed to start his new plant site. What I predict will happen is that when Rossi does prove E-Cat to the world, you skeptics will either quietly withdraw to some more comfortable thread, or despite huge evidence to the contrary will continue to attack the validity of the E-Cat.

 

[attaboy]

This is possibly true, I've known some idiots who've managed to fufill the doctoral requirements. It's also irrelevant.

It wasn't.

Based on what? His fake journal? His history of fraud? His refusal to allow examination of his magic energy machine?


More information please. Why was your work "discredited"?


They chose to go public with very dubious and unrepeated data. They made fools of themselves and their supporters.

The alleged discoveries of Pons and Fleischmann have never been repeated by any reputable experimenters. That's in spite of thousands of attempts.
Do you know what that means?

Denying physicists were furious. Not only could the P/F work undermine the principles of physics they held so dear, but they feared this could mean the end of billions of dollars of grant money going into hot fusion. /quote]
And now the conspiratorial ramblings begin.


Utter and total garbage. I was entering college (to study physics and chemistry) at the time and I remember the air of excitement about the announcements. People wanted to believe. I know of nine attempts to replicate the Pons and Fleischmann work in my university alone; by different faculties and departments, groups of postgrad and undergrad students. The passing around of copies of the P&F laboratory notes, some having undergone many generations of copying.
Guess what? It didn't work.


The same excuse peddled by other woosters, from homeopaths to psychics.

More conspiracies.......


No, there haven't.


Not true. McKubre never worked by any agency associated with the US Navy or any US Government agency (despite what some of his supporters say) but has attempted to extract funding from the US DoE. Despite 22 years of work, billions of yen and one death he still hasn't shown either that cold fusion works or any valid model why it should.


Again with the conspiracies.


Perhaps you should study his history? The fakery and fraud?


Again................

If it can be shown to actually work (and this hasn't happened so far) then actual scientists will study it and find out why. Firstly it needs to be shown to actually work.


Then why doesn't Rossi allow a proper examination? With suitable, independently verified, instruments?

Its hard for me to believe you're for real and poses the question of how much actual real world experience many of you people have.

 

[attaboy]

Here is the abstract from the Review by Dr. Storms titled "Status of cold fusion (2010)":

The phenomenon called cold fusion has been studied for the last 21 years since its discovery by Profs. Fleischmann and Pons in 1989. The discovery was met with considerable skepticism, but supporting evidence has accumulated, plausible theories have been suggested, and research is continuing in at least eight countries. This paper provides a brief overview of the major discoveries and some of the attempts at an explanation. The evidence supports the claim that a nuclear reaction between deuterons to produce helium can occur in special materials without application of high energy. This reaction is found to produce clean energy at potentially useful levels without the harmful byproducts normally associated with a nuclear process. Various requirements of a model are examined.

Then there's this reference I would urge you to read:
google - - > edmund-storms-on-the-rossi-device-there-will-be-a-stampede/. Sorry, I don't have enough posts in on this forum to give you an actual URL.

And please note the allusion to the possibility of big money taking over the Rossi discovery and withholding it from the public, which is in line with what I was saying in an earlier thread but was accused of being a "conspirator".

I WILL GO WITH WHAT DR. STORMS SAYS instead of believing the skeptics on this forum.

 

[Belz...]

Its amazing that you could come up with my comment being "conspiracy stuff".

Edited by LashL: 

Removed quote of moderated content.

Using post count as some sort of argument is not a good way to be taken seriously. How many posts per day do you think someone should make in order to still have a life ?

10 posts per day isn't excessive, and it'll get you 20,000 in less than six years.

 

[Belz...]

I WILL GO WITH WHAT DR. STORMS SAYS instead of believing the skeptics on this forum.

So all you have to do is find one doctor who agrees with you, and then you can ignore the rest of the world. Whew! That was close, wasn't it ?

 

[Aepervius]

Its amazing that you could come up with my comment being "conspiracy stuff".

Edited by LashL: 

Removed quote of moderated content.

No, Rossi may not come across in October since projects like this have a way of getting delayed. But I read where he has already built 170 of the 300 units needed to start his new plant site. What I predict will happen is that when Rossi does prove E-Cat to the world, you skeptics will either quietly withdraw to some more comfortable thread, or despite huge evidence to the contrary will continue to attack the validity of the E-Cat.

Edited by LashL: 

Removed response to moderated content.

I predict that after 1 year , 5 years or 20 years (like black lite power) when NOTHING happen, you will not come to this thread to admit you were wrong. Wanna bet ? I have seen that type of behavior time and time and time again. Somebody come and say "BLP has the deal" then after a while go off and never come again. Then it is Steorn. Then it is another Kelly or Water scam. Then it is Rossi. Yeah. Yawn.

 

[Horatius]

Its amazing that you could come up with my comment being "conspiracy stuff".

Yes, how silly of me to think that repeated assertions that "corporate blood suckers" worked behind the scenes to suppress cold fusion and/or steal" his device, could possibly be considered to suggest that there's a "conspiracy" at work.

Edited by LashL: 

Removed quote of moderated content.

No, Rossi may not come across in October since projects like this have a way of getting delayed. But I read where he has already built 170 of the 300 units needed to start his new plant site. What I predict will happen is that when Rossi does prove E-Cat to the world, you skeptics will either quietly withdraw to some more comfortable thread, or despite huge evidence to the contrary will continue to attack the validity of the E-Cat.

And as others have said, I predict that when Rossi fails to ever deliver on any of his promises, you will fail to admit that we were right, and will instead simply latch onto the next person who tells you want you wan to hear.

And please, note, unlike every "cold fusion" "LENR" "free energy" type proponent who has ever made the same prediction you just made, we here at JREF have so far been 100% correct in our predictions of how your types will react.

 

[attaboy]

we here at JREF have so far been 100% correct in our predictions of how your types will react.

Now that was good for a real good laugh this morning. Are you sure its not 110% correct?

 

[Dancing David]

Here is the abstract from the Review by Dr. Storms titled "Status of cold fusion (2010)":

The phenomenon called cold fusion has been studied for the last 21 years since its discovery by Profs. Fleischmann and Pons in 1989. The discovery was met with considerable skepticism, but supporting evidence has accumulated, plausible theories have been suggested, and research is continuing in at least eight countries. This paper provides a brief overview of the major discoveries and some of the attempts at an explanation. The evidence supports the claim that a nuclear reaction between deuterons to produce helium can occur in special materials without application of high energy. This reaction is found to produce clean energy at potentially useful levels without the harmful byproducts normally associated with a nuclear process. Various requirements of a model are examined.

Then there's this reference I would urge you to read:
google - - > edmund-storms-on-the-rossi-device-there-will-be-a-stampede/. Sorry, I don't have enough posts in on this forum to give you an actual URL.

And please note the allusion to the possibility of big money taking over the Rossi discovery and withholding it from the public, which is in line with what I was saying in an earlier thread but was accused of being a "conspirator".

I WILL GO WITH WHAT DR. STORMS SAYS instead of believing the skeptics on this forum.

So not an actual research paper to read? Hmmm .... could your present something in the way of evidence?

BTW just post the UPL like the w w w .yoururl.dom and we will fix it

http://coldfusionnow.wordpress.com/...on-the-rossi-device-there-will-be-a-stampede/

I notice that is an interview not data.

 

[Horatius]

Now that was good for a real good laugh this morning. Are you sure its not 110% correct?

Pretty sure it's just 100%.

Of course, you're free to try to disprove that, by finding even one proponent of earlier such claims who has returned here to admit that they were wrong.


Heck, I'll even help you out a bit:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2744685#post2744685
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2780880#post2780880


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3325142#post3325142

 

[Crawdaddy]

Belz...

I don't understand the conspiracy claim, myself. Historically, scientists get all giddy when previously-held theories are completely blown out of the water by some awesome discovery.

This is what you wrote in your post. The master's thesis I linked to you will help you understand this claim. Though it is not true....

Dancing David

How so, if you are detecting all tracks from any event involving the CR-39, what controls did they use, what levels of statitical significance? And I don't mean p significance, I mean did they had a way of measuring standard deviations and did the 'experimental value' rise above noise level.
Link to the specifics, my guess is that they are looking at noise. You say that they did, well how did they and what statitical methods did they use?

I am not here to defend others research. Watch the hour long seminar presentation I highlighted in my previous post. Read the dozens of papers and conference proceedings authored by the SPAWAR group over the last 20 years. Then read the Storms review and look up the references. I was especially impressed by the transmutaion and coulomb repulsion shielding effect of metal lattice experiments. This will take months (as it has me). Then you can martial your complete picture of the phenomenon and present a reasoned argument to back up you skepticism.

You are not arguing with a crackpot wooster. I am a professional materials scientist, I get paid because of my excellent critical thinking skills. Saying something like, my guess is they are looking at noise, doesn't even rise to the level of argument put forth by creationists when they argue against evolution. I have no interest in discussing the issue with people that can take the time to post criticisms of an experimental observation based on blatant logical fallacies on a skeptic site!

Why do you bother to post on this thread? You obviously have no interest in actually learning anything about cold fusion. What pleasure do you get from making off the cuff remarks dripping with the same logical fallacies that you criticize woosters for? This thread consists of waiting for somebody to post something ridiculous like "it's a conspiracy theory!", then ridiculing that poster for a while before patting yourself on the back for you healthy skepticism. You are becoming that which you abhor. Many people here seem to be well trained scientists. Use your training and do a little reading if you want to contribute to a discussion. A rational, critical evaluation of the available facts. You can't evaluate an enormous body of literature based on things you heard in 1989, new scientist articles, and wikipedia. Saying things like (poetic licence) "A guy I knew tried to replicate the experiment and failed!" is absurd pseudoskeptic BS. You should all dogpile on that guy instead of focusing on people posting conspiracy crap.

Be like the swedish skeptic testing the rossi device and do something useful for the skeptical movement. It is freaking amazing to me that from one second to the next he could go from respected skeptic to crackpot outsider, just for reporting what he observed! One minute he was a competent champion of critical thinking and professor of physics the next he was a ignorant rube who you wouldn't trust to wash your car. It is a disgusting display by the skeptical community that I find extremely disturbing. It has definitely lowered my opinion of the movement of which I was previously a supporter.