Merged Cold Fusion Claims

[Aepervius]

Sorry but I believe it is you who are wrong and incorrect. We should all know in October. BTW, what are your credentials?

PhD in Quantum Physic. Not really relevant because that give me as much creditential as you : none.

 

[Aepervius]

To be fair, what actually did them in is the fact that cold fusion doesn't work. They would easily have got away with going for the mass media approach if they'd actually had something that worked. It might have been frowned upon, but a bit of frowning isn't going to hold back one of the most important discoveries in human history. It's the fact that it simply didn't work that made them look like idiots for doing media announcements rather than letting other scientists check their results first.

Yep, Agreed. It was BOTH together which resulted in the situation. Had they waited , or had tehre been reproduction, it would have been turned otherwise.

 

[unclep2k]

I copied Jed rothwell's response on another blog. It gives a link to his library of research papers on cold fusion. Bob Wallace wrote:

"Now, when I use the term 'researchers' I mean individuals with advanced degrees in a relative field who are actively involved in research programs. Think Ph.D.s in university labs and employed by major corporations which fund significant research projects."

That's what I mean, too. I have 3,500 papers by roughly 2,000 authors, and every one of them is a PhD professional working at university or corporate laboratory, or a grad student. I do not add amateurs to the database.

1,400 of the papers were published in peer-reviewed journals, and copied from the libraries at Los Alamos and Georgia Tech. The others come from conference proceedings and official publications from Los Alamos, the U.S. Navy, the Italian Nat. Nuclear Laboratories, the Indian A.E.C., the NSF and so on.


"'Hundreds', that's a real big number. Were there hundreds of established researchers looking at this technology, seeing something real, and the scientific community not abuzz with discussion, well, something doesn't smell right."

Rather than depending on your sense of smell, I suggest you read some papers. It is not possible for you to judge scientific claims without reading them. You will find hundreds of papers here: LENR-CANR.org.


"And all the conspiracy stuff, that certainly raises flags."

What "conspiracy stuff"? You are the first to mention a conspiracy here.


"And as for the two Swedish scientists who couldn't find a trick, remember how it took several years before someone figured out how Uri Geller was 'bending spoons with his mind'."

Uri Geller was performing a trick with his hands -- literally sleight of hand. He fooled visual senses. Neither Geller nor anyone else can fool thermocouples or power meters. Furthermore we are not talking about one experiment and two professors. Unless you think hundreds of professional scientists are committing fraud, you can dismiss "fraud" from consideration.

 

[Crawdaddy]

Yep, Agreed. It was BOTH together which resulted in the situation. Had they waited , or had tehre been reproduction, it would have been turned otherwise.

If you have a PhD in quantum physics your training should give you the ability to easily convince yourself that there has been reproduction of the P&F result.

I suggest you start with the 2010 Storms review as a leading reference.

The notion that there has been no reproduction is false and making such a statement without reading the relevant journal publications is an attempt to make a straw man out of the rossi experiments.

Many of the posters here apparently think that this device was just created yesterday and refuse to consider it in the context of the vast body of research that has been generated about cold fusion. This is understandable if the person making the post is a layman, but for a trained scientist it is not acceptable.

There is a reason that Nobel laureates take an interest in cold fusion and not "water powered cars". The two are not equivalent in any way and stating that they are is a logical fallacy of the first order.

 

[ben m]

If you have a PhD in quantum physics your training should give you the ability to easily convince yourself that there has been reproduction of the P&F result.

I do have a Ph.D. in physics. (Nuclear and particle experiment. There's no such thing as a "Ph.D. in quantum physics"). Everything I have seen from the cold fusion field has convinced me that there has NOT been a reproduction of the P&F "result".

(Except in the sense of "We reproduced the P&F experiment and we figured out what led them to misinterpret their results as cold fusion." That, I've seen, and it was pretty easy to convince myself it was right.)

 

[Dancing David]

I copied Jed rothwell's response on another blog. It gives a link to his library of research papers on cold fusion. Bob Wallace wrote:

"Now, when I use the term 'researchers' I mean individuals with advanced degrees in a relative field who are actively involved in research programs. Think Ph.D.s in university labs and employed by major corporations which fund significant research projects."

That's what I mean, too. I have 3,500 papers by roughly 2,000 authors, and every one of them is a PhD professional working at university or corporate laboratory, or a grad student. I do not add amateurs to the database.

1,400 of the papers were published in peer-reviewed journals, and copied from the libraries at Los Alamos and Georgia Tech. The others come from conference proceedings and official publications from Los Alamos, the U.S. Navy, the Italian Nat. Nuclear Laboratories, the Indian A.E.C., the NSF and so on.


"'Hundreds', that's a real big number. Were there hundreds of established researchers looking at this technology, seeing something real, and the scientific community not abuzz with discussion, well, something doesn't smell right."

Rather than depending on your sense of smell, I suggest you read some papers. It is not possible for you to judge scientific claims without reading them. You will find hundreds of papers here: LENR-CANR.org.


"And all the conspiracy stuff, that certainly raises flags."

What "conspiracy stuff"? You are the first to mention a conspiracy here.


"And as for the two Swedish scientists who couldn't find a trick, remember how it took several years before someone figured out how Uri Geller was 'bending spoons with his mind'."

Uri Geller was performing a trick with his hands -- literally sleight of hand. He fooled visual senses. Neither Geller nor anyone else can fool thermocouples or power meters. Furthermore we are not talking about one experiment and two professors. Unless you think hundreds of professional scientists are committing fraud, you can dismiss "fraud" from consideration.

Haul one of those hundreds up and lets talk about it, that is rather a vague had wavy assertion you made, yes hudreds on people looked at it and hundreds of people found it is not LENR.

 

[nathan]

Haul one of those hundreds up and lets talk about it, that is rather a vague had wavy assertion you made, yes hudreds on people looked at it and hundreds of people found it is not LENR.

Don't randomly pick one -- pick the *best*. That way the 'oh, well that case failed, but *this* one is better' defense will be inapplicable.

 

[WhatRoughBeast]

Hello, Crawdaddy.

I'm glad to see I didn't drive you away forever. Please accept my apology for upsetting you too much. If you like, I'll be glad to give you my side of the story, if you like, but only if you're interested.

In your farewell message, you referred to my preconceptions about Rossi. I feel I need to set you straight. I have no preconceptions about Rossi's device. What I do have is a pair of hard-won principles. These are:

1) Per Sagan's Dictum, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

2) I have seen a lot of fakery, scams, wishful thinking and wilful credulity in my time, and I believe I can smell a con when I see one.

Applying these two principles, what Rossi says, and how he changes what he says, and what he doesn't say, and the questions he doesn't answer, all get my hackles up. Basically, he plays silly buggers with the facts. I'm morally certain he's a fraud, but I would love to be proven wrong.

Well, love is a little strong. Actually, I'd hate to be proven wrong, but it's happened before in my life and I expect I'd get over it. But the excitement of developing an energy source based on Rossi's work would more than compensate. By a very large margin.

I suggest you start with the 2010 Storms review as a leading reference.

Please provide a link. I promise I'll take a look. I may well come to a different conclusion than you have, but I will look.

Many of the posters here apparently think that this device was just created yesterday and refuse to consider it in the context of the vast body of research that has been generated about cold fusion.

In my case, I consider his device in the context of basic physics and internal consistency, and it comes up lacking.

And considering it within the context of cold fusion research only makes sense if it really is cold fusion.

There is a reason that Nobel laureates take an interest in cold fusion and not "water powered cars". The two are not equivalent in any way and stating that they are is a logical fallacy of the first order.

There is a way in which they can be consistent, and it is hard to believe that you are so adamant in not admitting the possiblity. Do you really not see the equivalence if Rossi is a fake?

 

[nathan]

Can anyone think of a case where someone played from the scammer's playbook yet did come up with a breakthrough?

(I mean *any* case, not just a cold fusion instance)

*crickets*

So no prior instances?

 

[Horatius]

"And all the conspiracy stuff, that certainly raises flags."

What "conspiracy stuff"? You are the first to mention a conspiracy here.

If all this:

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. In trying to repeat the P/F work their mood was not to affirm this work, but rather to discredit it. For them it was easy, because no one realized at the time how difficult it was to observe the P/F effect.


And the usual corporate blood suckers were certainly somewhere in the picture fueling the P/F discreditation.

...although this latter has been quiet of late probably traceable to the corporate blood suckers.

... I'm sure the blood suckers are watching carefully for a way to bring him down and/or steal his E-Cat.



Just the fact that the corporate controlled media is almost completely silent on this speaks volumes.

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

 

[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.

 

[Jimmy42]

Neither Geller nor anyone else can fool thermocouples or power meters.

One could argue that, the problem is usually fooling one's self. I.e. poor implementation, bad devices, outside specs and accuracy, measuring the wrong point or parameter, or just being dumb.

 

[BenBurch]

If anybody in all that research had ever seen something real, something over unity that could be replicated, we wouldn't be having this conversation now. We'd be powering the world with it already.

 

[WhatRoughBeast]

And let me add my voice to Aepervius'.

When the Pons and Fleischmann claims came out, I was working for a federal defense lab, and the response was electric. Anybody who could scrounge up some heavy water and some palladium or platinum wire (and there are more than you might think) was having a go at it. Listen up, all you who talk of "denying physicists" and "the scientific Establishment": EVERYBODY wants in on a Nobel prize. And that's regardless of scientific curiosity, which is almost as strong a motive.

And then the days and weeks passed with no consistent results. Oh, you'd hear a report of somebody getting something weird, but they'd try again and it wouldn't work. Slowly the experiments trailed off, and after a few months they were gone.

So, yeah, the consensus within the scientific community is that cold fusion doesn't work, but it's not due to preconception, and it's not due to the heavy hand of hidden interests and preserving the status quo.

 

[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.

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.

arg . actually I can't post links so just google: grant pownall master's thesis cold fusion and click on the pdf link.

Whatroughbeast

Please provide a link. I promise I'll take a look. I may well come to a different conclusion than you have, but I will look.

Just go to scholar.google.com and search for: status of cold fusion 2010

You will need to be affiliated with an academic institution to read this however, because it requires a subscription. If you want to look at the primary literature you will at least have to visit a university library because all the references in this paper are also only available by subscription.

ben m

I do have a Ph.D. in physics. (Nuclear and particle experiment. There's no such thing as a "Ph.D. in quantum physics"). Everything I have seen from the cold fusion field has convinced me that there has NOT been a reproduction of the P&F "result".

I agree that there is no such thing as a PhD in quantum physics, I was simply highlighting the irregularity of Aepervius' previous comment without being overtly rude....

If you are not convinced you perhaps need to read more of the published literature

I suggest that you read the published works of SPAWAR research group. Their work, which has been replicated in other labs reproducibly produces tracks in CR-39 particle detectors characteristic of 13MeV neutrons (tri-alpha tracks from the dissociation of a carbon nucleus).

You can find references for this in the 2010 review mentioned above.

A short introduction to the research can be found on youtube by searching for: 2009 university of missouri lenr spawar

Another link for fun is to an Italian television segment on the e-cat device. just search youtube for: the magic of mr rossi

It has interviews with the swedish skeptic dude, as well as with the CEO of the company that is set to license the technology.

 

[catsmate]

Hi folks,
I'm new here and do have extensive scientific training. I have a BS in Chemical Engineering and a PhD in Chemistry.

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

I do feel that the P/F development was real

It wasn't.

and feel it is almost certain that the Rossi/E-Cat work will soon prove to be real.

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

Having had my own work discredited and having knowledge of others in similar situations, I realize how vicious the world of scientific discovery can be.

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

In the P/F case, the almost ruthless competition off times compels scientists to publish before they get scooped. And sometimes that means they are not as thorough of as they could or maybe should be. I believe this is what happened to P/F. A competitor was hot on their heels and they published without thoroughly having a feel for their discovery and its pitfalls.

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

For one, they didn't realize how difficult it was going to be to repeat their work.

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.

In trying to repeat the P/F work their mood was not to affirm this work, but rather to discredit it.

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.

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

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

The situation was far more complex than that, I'm sure. And the usual corporate blood suckers were certainly somewhere in the picture fueling the P/F discreditation.

More conspiracies.......

But since then there have been too many experiments that have proven P/F to be correct.

No, there haven't.

Just do a google centered
around names like McKubre and Case and you will see this for yourself. Then there is also the work reported from Naval Research affirming P/F,

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.

although this latter has been quiet of late probably traceable to the corporate blood suckers.

Again with the conspiracies.

........, its hardly surprising that Rossi has been elusive and secretive.

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

I'm sure the blood suckers are watching carefully for a way to bring him down and/or steal his E-Cat. Patents often don't mean much when you're up against rich corporations with teams of patent lawyers who can find ways to patent around you.

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

So many people object because we don't know why it works or the underlying theory behind it.

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.

There are just too many reasons to believe in the E-Cat. It has the reputable U. of Bologna backing with other top scientists involved there and continuing demonstrations, some by skeptics, keep proving the E-Cat to be all Rossi claims.

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

Just the fact that the corporate controlled media is almost completely silent on this speaks volumes.

 

[nathan]

And let me add my voice to Aepervius'.

When the Pons and Fleischmann claims came out, I was working for a federal defense lab, and the response was electric. Anybody who could scrounge up some heavy water and some palladium or platinum wire.

I was doing my PhD at that time, and the lab was buzzing when P&F came out. Vince, one of the particle physics professors* tried to replicate the experiment, and failed. Once someone commented that if P&F really had observed the reaction they claimed, they'd be dead from radiation poisoning, it pretty much died down.

* professor in the US sense, in UK terms he was a senior lecturer or reader, and hence formally a 'Dr'.

 

[ben m]

If you are not convinced you perhaps need to read more of the published literature

I suggest that you read the published works of SPAWAR research group. Their work, which has been replicated in other labs reproducibly produces tracks in CR-39 particle detectors characteristic of 13MeV neutrons (tri-alpha tracks from the dissociation of a carbon nucleus).

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 ...

... unless the job is "maximize the odds of fooling yourself into thinking you're making neutrons", in which case it's exactly the right tool for the job.

 

[Dancing David]

ben m



I agree that there is no such thing as a PhD in quantum physics, I was simply highlighting the irregularity of Aepervius' previous comment without being overtly rude....

If you are not convinced you perhaps need to read more of the published literature

I suggest that you read the published works of SPAWAR research group. Their work, which has been replicated in other labs reproducibly produces tracks in CR-39 particle detectors characteristic of 13MeV neutrons (tri-alpha tracks from the dissociation of a carbon nucleus).

Ben gave a good set of reasons why that is the least likely way to demonstrate that there is LERN, further upstream

 

[Skwinty]

If you are not convinced you perhaps need to read more of the published literature.

See this old thread about LENR/cold fusion/Widom-Larsen. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4670010&postcount=64

Even Lewis G Larsen made 2 posts in it.

Until ben m chased him away.