Merged Cold Fusion Claims

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm somewhat sceptical of Rossi myself, but not about cold fusion. I know a bit of physics, and I've talked to a guy called Andrew Meulenberg who's done some work in the field, see arXiv. So I side with pteridine.

If somebody announces they've cracked it, and the process can be replicated in other labs, there will be an almighty scrabble from people who will suddenly be saying "Oh yes I always believed it was possible". And guys like ben will be right up there with them.
 
pteridine said:
Ok. How about this version?

Ben: "I've read a lot of cold-fusion papers and my scientific judgement of this dataset is that it does NOT show a power source, just experimental error."

Pteridine: “So you claim every observation was experimental error?”

Ben: "Errors by incompetents; all of it. “Twenty three years and I don’t see evidence of a real effect. If the effect was real it would have been published in Science or Phys Lett B."

Pteridine: “There wasn’t much in the way of funding to investigate it and the topic was verboten. By decree of a few, LENR was ‘bad science.’”

Ben: “I have the right to read the 25-year-collection of (real, published, non-secret) cold fusion papers, and apply scientific and/or critical thinking skills to it.”

Pteridine: “If the right to read isn’t specifically in the Bill of Rights, it should be.”

Ben: “But you're telling me not to---you're telling me that Rossi's take-my-word-for-it report should shut me down and put me in a "wait for evidence" holding pattern.”

Pteridine: “No, I am not telling you to do anything. I understand your position, Ben, and I assume that you understand mine. I cannot explain the actions of Rossi nor do I feel the need to speculate on details of his business of which I have no knowledge.
There is no need for consensus or conflict. I will continue to wait for experimental resolution as a neutral observer.”
Click to expand...
This is ridiculous, just present the evidence instead of posting these silly straw arguments.

Show the evidence Pteridine, do you have a problem with that?

You don't have any and resort to your strawman opera instead.
 
I'm somewhat sceptical of Rossi myself, but not about cold fusion. I know a bit of physics
Click to expand...

Does anyone else find that statement amusing?

If somebody announces they've cracked it, and the process can be replicated in other labs, there will be an almighty scrabble from people who will suddenly be saying "Oh yes I always believed it was possible". And guys like ben will be right up there with them.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't that apply to psychic power, elves and unicorns as well?

Don't know much about Andrew Mulenberg, but I couldn't find any actual published papers by him other than arXiv. Are there any?
 
Yes, go look at the comments section of the arXiv papers. Do your own research instead of being some scornmonger naysayer wiseguy who hasn't got the wit to type some guy's name into google. And when you do, try to spell it correctly.
 
Do your own research instead of being some scornmonger naysayer wiseguy who hasn't got the wit to type some guy's name into google. And when you do, try to spell it correctly.
Click to expand...

Do you think a puerile bunch of insults does anything except to reveal your inadequacies rather than mine?


I did look up the correct name, despite the typo in my last post. I'm not a physicist so I was inquiring as to whether or not he has papers on cold fusion, or related subjects, published in properly peer reviewed publications. Most of the ones I saw on the subject look to be published in India or Malaysia, so I can't really tell if they are worth anything or not.


The rest of my post does make an argument that I note you haven't dealt with either.


You claim to know a little physics but you seem to think that you can exercise an informed judgement on cold fusion, despite the contrary opinion of people who know a lot of physics. You claim Andrew Meulenberg as an authority but you get mad if someone questions his work. Your arguments sound a lot more like religion than physics.
 
Farsight said:
Yes, go look at the comments section of the arXiv papers. Do your own research instead of being some scornmonger naysayer wiseguy who hasn't got the wit to type some guy's name into google. And when you do, try to spell it correctly.
Click to expand...

Insults are sure sign that you know that you have lost the argument.
 
Farsight said:
Yes, go look at the comments section of the arXiv papers. Do your own research instead of being some scornmonger naysayer wiseguy who hasn't got the wit to type some guy's name into google. And when you do, try to spell it correctly.
Click to expand...
Great! "Scornmonger naysayer wiseguy"! Better than mere "pathosceptic".
 
Farsight said:
I'm somewhat sceptical of Rossi myself, but not about cold fusion. I know a bit of physics, and I've talked to a guy called Andrew Meulenberg who's done some work in the field, see arXiv. So I side with pteridine.

If somebody announces they've cracked it, and the process can be replicated in other labs, there will be an almighty scrabble from people who will suddenly be saying "Oh yes I always believed it was possible". And guys like ben will be right up there with them.
Click to expand...

The thing is, if there is a real fusion, it is not that difficult to see it. Look for example at pyroelectric fusion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyroelectric_fusion
It has been demonstrated only in 2005, and there has been absolute no controversy about it. Neutrons are generated in the right amounts, He is measured in expected quantities, everything is reproduceable and nobody is calling the scientist any names.
State of the art experiment and real effect - these are only tho things that are really needed.
 
TjW said:
This is obviously some new usage of the word neutral with which I was previously unfamiliar.
Click to expand...
I refer you to the "both sides" thread. It's a form of special pleading.

Farsight said:
I'm somewhat sceptical of Rossi myself, but not about cold fusion. I know a bit of physics, and I've talked to a guy called Andrew Meulenberg who's done some work in the field, see arXiv. So I side with pteridine.
Click to expand...
No. It is abundently clear from your various postings here, on other fora and from you book that you know damn all about real physics.

Farsight said:
If somebody announces they've cracked it, and the process can be replicated in other labs, there will be an almighty scrabble from people who will suddenly be saying "Oh yes I always believed it was possible". And guys like ben will be right up there with them.
Click to expand...
Yet this hasn't happened despite literally hundreds of attempts over decades. Perhaps because it deosn't work?

Farsight said:
Yes, go look at the comments section of the arXiv papers. Do your own research instead of being some scornmonger naysayer wiseguy who hasn't got the wit to type some guy's name into google. And when you do, try to spell it correctly.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Yevgen Barsukov said:
The thing is, if there is a real fusion, it is not that difficult to see it. Look for example at pyroelectric fusion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyroelectric_fusion
It has been demonstrated only in 2005, and there has been absolute no controversy about it. Neutrons are generated in the right amounts, He is measured in expected quantities, everything is reproduceable and nobody is calling the scientist any names.
State of the art experiment and real effect - these are only tho things that are really needed.
Click to expand...



Cool! They mention a use as "small sealed tube neutron generators, in the petroleum exploration industry", which means I might see this come across my desk some time.
 
ben m said:
Here's where I get that statement. Crudely paraphrased, this is what I heard:

me: "I've read a lot of cold-fusion papers and my scientific judgement of this dataset is that it does NOT show a power source, just experimental error."
Click to expand...

As they say, exceptions only support the rule. If I try to find one LENR paper
that appears to be done to high standards (and is btw published in actual
journal) it is this one:
Y. Iwamura, M. Sakano and T. Itoh, Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 41, 4642-4648 (2002)
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/IwamuraYelementalaa.pdf

They had adequate equipment, control runs with H2 instead of D2 that
does not show any effect, control runs with bulk Pd that does not show the effect, two alternative analysis methods (SIMS and XPS), isotopic analysis that shows anomalous isotopic distribution, two different metals that each show its own product.
With this kind of paper I can only say, if they are mistaken, it is not on a student level but a more complex mistake. Btw mistake they probably found eventually, because nobody heard about it since 2002. But at least this one was an example of a fair shot at the problem.

Regards,
Yevgen
 
Farsight said:
If somebody announces they've cracked it, and the process can be replicated in other labs, there will be an almighty scrabble from people who will suddenly be saying "Oh yes I always believed it was possible". And guys like ben will be right up there with them.
Click to expand...

No I won't. I'm right here, on record, in public, saying (a) there is no evidence 1987-2012 (b) I don't believe it's possible at all and (c) If post-2012 evidence proves me wrong, I will be thoroughly and unabashedly surprised. (And happy, because, y'know, global warming.)
 
Once again, if ANYBODY has a LENR heat-making machine, I will offer my professional services at no cost at all to test the machine and will publish the full methodology, results, and analysis in an open-source journal.

Terms are;

1. I will design and control the experiment.
2. I will not open the device, and will not allow anybody but myself to examine it, and I will allow no contact by the inventor at all with the device or the test gear once it is in my possession.
3. Reliable uninvolved witnesses will witness the test and attest to same. (I have an RC priest and a state senator I can ask to do this.)
4. Pass or fail, the device will be returned to the inventor FOB in the same condition it arrived in, unless it should damage itself under test.
 
Yevgen Barsukov said:
Y. Iwamura, M. Sakano and T. Itoh, Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 41, 4642-4648 (2002)
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/IwamuraYelementalaa.pdf

.....

Btw mistake they probably found eventually, because nobody heard about it since 2002. But at least this one was an example of a fair shot at the problem.
Click to expand...

Regarding the question "what happened next" I found that there are some investigations continuing in this direction, for example this is from 2004 with Ba: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/IwamuraYobservatiob.pdf
There is a CF society of japan and they have lively publications to the topic up to this day, focused around the topic. For example this one (2010) puts in question the isotopic distribution results:
Systematic Uncertainties of Isotopic Abundance Measured by TOF-SIMS
http://jcfrs.org/file/jcf11-proceedings.pdf

Regards,
Yevgen
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom