Merged Cold Fusion Claims

[ben m]

If you were writing a sci-fi movie, and there was a scene where Aaron Eckhart has to explain DNA to a skeptical Army general, you'd give him slides with more science content than these.

 

[catsmate]

I just came across this and am just posting it for your interest. I have not yet read it in any kind of depth, but it looks like it may be an alternate explanation of the Rossi effect that gets around the cold fusion fiasco.

What "Rossi effect"? The desire to separate the gullible from their money?

If you were writing a sci-fi movie, and there was a scene where Aaron Eckhart has to explain DNA to a skeptical Army general, you'd give him slides with more science content than these.

 

[Farsight]

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

You said Does anyone else find that statement amusing? And then you said Wouldn't that apply to psychic power, elves and unicorns as well? So please, spare me the "peurile bunch of insults" jibe.

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.

That's Catch-22 logic. Cold-fusion generally doesn't appear in "properly peer reviewed publications" because of the stigma attached to it. You might just as well dismiss a heretic because you can't find his work in a Catholic treatise.

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

The rest of your post said Don't know much about Andrew Mulenberg, but I couldn't find any actual published papers by him other than arXiv. Are there any? There's no argument whatsoever. The answer is yes, as you can see from the comments section of each arXiv paper.

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.

No, yours do. And I suggest you look up CERN and LENR in order to appreciate that your orthodoxy is out of date. Energy is a subject of vital importance to us all, do not belittle those who attempt to investigate the possibilities.

 

[Farsight]

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.

Agreed. No problem with benchtop fusion. Check out LNER and CR39. This article is worth a read too. Krivit takes pains to distinguish LENR from cold fusion, but if you can combine electrons and protons without using a tokamak or similar, you fused 'em. And the neutrons are cold. He's talking about Widom-Larsen theory. All interesting stuff.

 

[RobDegraves]

You said Does anyone else find that statement amusing? And then you said Wouldn't that apply to psychic power, elves and unicorns as well? So please, spare me the "peurile bunch of insults" jibe.

It was not a jibe.


The fact is that your statement would in fact apply to psychic power, elves and unicorns. In fact, that statement often is used to justify belief in psychic powers.

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".

If somebody announces they've proven psychic powers and the process can be replicated in other labs, there will be an almighty scrabble from people who will suddenly be saying "HOLY CRAP, IT'S ACTUALLY REAL!"

See?

That's Catch-22 logic. Cold-fusion generally doesn't appear in "properly peer reviewed publications" because of the stigma attached to it.

Or... maybe it doesn't appear in properly peer reviewed publications because it doesn't ever pass the peer review.

If you could actually prove LENR in a properly conducted experiment, you really don't think that someone reputable would peer review it?

If you don't, you really don't know how that system works.

Originally Posted by RobDegraves
The rest of my post does make an argument that I note you haven't dealt with either.
The rest of your post said Don't know much about Andrew Mulenberg, but I couldn't find any actual published papers by him other than arXiv. Are there any? There's no argument whatsoever. The answer is yes, as you can see from the comments section of each arXiv paper.

I was referring to the arguments now discussed in this post.



So... I looked over some of the videos for the conference you mention ...

http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1433865

Again, I'm not a physicist, so I can't comment on the specific science, but some of the comments along the way were relatively enlightening.

Yogendra Srivastava mentions 4 things that would be needed as evidence of cold fusion...

1. EM radiation in the 100 kev-mev range.
2. Neutrons must be observed.
3. Observation of materials not initially present.
4. More output energy than the input energy.


Can you point to any such actual evidence?

 

[marplots]

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;
...

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.)
...

Where do you get a remote controlled priest? I want one.

 

[BenBurch]

Where do you get a remote controlled priest? I want one.

I got mine at American Science and Surplus, but they seem to be out of stock just now.

They DO still have Nunzilla ; http://www.sciplus.com/singleItem.cfm/terms/1184

 

[Craig B]

Where do you get a remote controlled priest? I want one.

In Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirk_Gently's_Holistic_Detective_Agency Douglas Adams introduces us to an Electric Monk who has been manufactured to perform the task of believing religious doctrines on behalf of owners unable to do so. According to Wiki

This particular monk had accidentally been connected to a video recorder and, in attempting to believe everything on the TV, had malfunctioned and begun to believe "all kinds of things, more or less at random", including things like tables being hermaphrodites and God wanting a lot of money sent to a certain address. Since it was cheaper to replace the Monk than to repair it, the Monk was cast out in the wilderness to believe whatever it liked.

The last sentence quite accurately describes the present situation of Cold Fusion believers.

 

[catsmate]

That's Catch-22 logic. Cold-fusion generally doesn't appear in "properly peer reviewed publications" because of the stigma attached to it. You might just as well dismiss a heretic because you can't find his work in a Catholic treatise.

Rubbish. You seem to have no idea how peer review works or what it's for. Plenty of new, radical, material is published; all the developers of a cold fusion device have to do is actually show it works or that their theory is validated by evidence.

 

[Acleron]

Rubbish. You seem to have no idea how peer review works or what it's for. Plenty of new, radical, material is published; all the developers of a cold fusion device have to do is actually show it works or that their theory is validated by evidence.

So true.

But it is much easier to not accumulate the evidence and cry 'Conspiracy!'.

 

[Farsight]

Rubbish. You seem to have no idea how peer review works or what it's for. Plenty of new, radical, material is published;

No it isn't. Get real, catsmate. Peer-review is abused to enforce orthodoxy. Go do the research.

all the developers of a cold fusion device have to do is actually show it works or that their theory is validated by evidence

That's what LENR is doing, but the guys working on it have to meet under the auspices of the American Chemical Society.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Back to the old 'Peer Review Conspiracy' I see.

 

[RobDegraves]

No it isn't. Get real, catsmate. Peer-review is abused to enforce orthodoxy. Go do the research.

It's sad when all you do is link a google search without providing any content. It's a ridiculous way to avoid making any specific point while alluding to the idea that by following all those links someone would come to the same conclusion. Let's take the first on your google search...

http://iai.asm.org/content/77/4/1273.full

Here is a quote...

Although each of these models has potential advantages, no model that is clearly superior to the current system has yet emerged. Returning to the questions of censorship, it is self-evident how foibles in peer review can create a major problem with scientific acceptance, for peer reviewers are the major gatekeepers for the printed word (17).

Proponents of human immunodeficiency virus denial or intelligent design like to compare scientific peer review to censorship (7, 11, 29). But the truth is that the scientific community has provided ample opportunity for these ideas to be publicly aired, arguably more than they deserve, and ultimately rejected. That is not censorship

Do you ever read the stuff you link to?


Like any system, there is occasional abuse. However, to claim that every single reputable paper abuses peer review in every instance where it comes to LENR is pure conspiracy fantasy.

 

[catsmate]

No it isn't. Get real, catsmate. Peer-review is abused to enforce orthodoxy. Go do the research.

Will you be providing actual evidence or are we expected to wade through your attempt ad Argument ad Googlem for you?
Unlike you I've actually had peer reviewed articles published, in three distinct disciplines and several journals, my SO has had literally dozens published; I know what I'm talking about, you do not.

Back to the old 'Peer Review Conspiracy' I see.

Indeed. Though it's worth 40 points for him..................

It's sad when all you do is link a google search without providing any content. It's a ridiculous way to avoid making any specific point while alluding to the idea that by following all those links someone would come to the same conclusion.

But it's the best he's got.

Do you ever read the stuff you link to?

Given his posts relating to General Relativity and his "Relativity+" I don't think so.

Like any system, there is occasional abuse. However, to claim that every single reputable paper abuses peer review in every instance where it comes to LENR is pure conspiracy fantasy.

More often the peer review process is abused to get dubious science into print, for example by the IDiots and Rogers' pro-shroud rubbish.

 

[Farsight]

...More often the peer review process is abused to get dubious science into print, for example by the IDiots and Rogers' pro-shroud rubbish.

Huh? We're talking about how to develop clean efficient energy, something of save-the-planet importance, and you bring up intelligent design and creationists? Let's see now, those are the guys who dismiss all the hard scientific evidence you put before them because they know that it's all a con, and that the evidence isn't really evidence, just trickery. Oooh hang on a minute, my irony meter has just kicked in:

 

[Andy_Ross]

WHy? So far claims of Cold Fusion rank alongside Creationism

 

[catsmate]

Huh? We're talking about how to develop clean efficient energy, something of save-the-planet importance, and you bring up intelligent design and creationists? Let's see now, those are the guys who dismiss all the hard scientific evidence you put before them because they know that it's all a con, and that the evidence isn't really evidence, just trickery. Oooh hang on a minute, my irony meter has just kicked in:

Gee I suppose expecting a reasonable answer was a little too much but this level of strawmanning is excessive. Even for you.
Actually we were talking about the peer review process, or rather your conspiratorial version of that process. Before you decided to go off on this tangent.

So where is this "hard scientific evidence"? All the cold fusion believers have is dubious and unrepeatable experimental results, ludicrous theories and a bunch of scam artists.
Now there are plenty of real scientists and engineers working on real energy sources, biofuels, fusion, thorium cycle fission et cetera, rather than nonsense like Rossi's magic water heater.

WHy? So far claims of Cold Fusion rank alongside Creationism

Exactly. And shroudies.

 

[Acleron]

...
Oooh hang on a minute, my irony meter has just kicked in:

I'd get that meter checked if I was you, it isn't supposed to register when you are causing the irony.

 

[Dancing David]

Huh? We're talking about how to develop clean efficient energy, something of save-the-planet importance, and you bring up intelligent design and creationists? Let's see now, those are the guys who dismiss all the hard scientific evidence you put before them because they know that it's all a con, and that the evidence isn't really evidence, just trickery. Oooh hang on a minute, my irony meter has just kicked in:

The idea of clean energy is great, but it is no way valid evidence of LENR or cold fusion.

Where is the evidence?

I haven't seen you present any hard scientific evidence yet.

"Michelson told me that she was doing background research on LENR"

which hard scientific evidence would you like to point to there, a hint or allegation, or is there something you would actually like to discuss?

It may be interesting but it is not evidence.

 

[Reality Check]

Back to the old 'Peer Review Conspiracy' I see.

It is even worse: Back to the old 'Peer Review Conspiracy' supported by a Google search do the research !

Also maybe back to the old 'Peer Review Ignorance'.
Peer review is meant to provide a basic hurdle for scientific publication - can you convince a couple of knowledgeable reviewers that you paper is not flawed?
Many journals even allow these knowledgeable reviewers to be suggested by the author(s).
It is imperfect. Some good papers may be rejected. Some bad papers may be published.
But to imply that every LENR paper is rejected because every peer reviewer is biased is conspiracy theory insanity.