Friday, April 19, 2013

NASA's Cold Fusion Folly

I am sad - horrified really - to learn that some NASA scientists have caught cold fusion madness. As is so often the case with companies and research groups that get involved in this fruitless enterprise, they tend to make their case by first pointing out how nice it would be to have a clean, cheap, safe, effectively limitless source of power. Who could say no to that?

NASA Langley scientists are hoping to build spacecraft powered with cold fusion. Image courtesy of NASA.
Here's a word of caution: anytime anyone, especially a scientist, starts by telling you about glorious, nigh-unbelievable futuristic applications of their idea, be very, very skeptical.

NASA, for example, is promoting a cold fusion scheme that they say will power your house and car, and even a space plane that is apparently under development, despite the fact that  cold fusion power supplies don't exist yet and almost certainly never will. And if that's not enough, NASA's brand of cold fusion can solve our climate change problems by converting carbon directly into nitrogen.

The one hitch in the plan, unfortunately, is that they're going to have to violate some very well established physics to make it happen. To say the least, I wouldn't count on it.

To be clear, cold fusion does indeed work - provided you use a heavier cousin of the electron, known as a muon, to make it happen. There is no question that muon-catalyzed fusion is a perfectly sound, well-understood process that would be an abundant source of energy, if only we could find or create a cheap source of muons. Unfortunately, it takes way more energy to create the muons that go into muon-catalyzed fusion than comes out of the reaction.

Cold fusion that doesn't involve muons, on the other hand, doesn't work. In fact, the very same physics principles that make muon-catalyzed fusion possible are the ones that guarantee that the muon-less version isn't possible.

To get around the problem presented by nature and her physical laws, NASA's scientists have joined other cold fusion advocates in rebranding their work under the deceptively scientific moniker LENR (Low Energy Nuclear Reactions), and backing it up with various sketchy theories.

The main theory currently in fashion among cold fusion people is the Widom-Larsen LENR theory, which claims that neutrons can result from interactions with "heavy electrons" and protons in a lump of material in a cold fusion experiment. These neutrons, so the argument goes, can then be absorbed in a material (copper is a popular choice) which becomes unstable and decays to form a lighter material (nickel, assuming you start with copper), giving off energy in the process.

At least one paper argues that Widom and Larsen made some serious errors in their calculations that thoroughly undermine their theory. But even if you assume the Widom-Larsen paper is correct, then there should be detectable neutrons produced in cold fusion experiments. (Coincidentally, it's primarily because no neutrons were detected in the original cold fusion experiments of Pons and Fleischmann that physicists were first clued into the fact no fusion was happening at all.)

Some proponents claim that the neutrons produced in the Widom-Larsen theory are trapped in the sample material and rapidly absorbed by atoms. But because the neutrons are formed at room temperature, they should have energies typical of thermal neutrons, which move on average at about 2000 meters a second. That means that a large fraction of them should escape the sample, and be easily detectable. Those that don't escape, but instead are absorbed by atoms would also lead to detectable radiation as the neutron-activated portions of the material decays. Either way, it would be pretty dangerous to be near an experiment like that, if it worked.  The fact that cold fusion researchers are alive is fairly good evidence that their experiments aren't doing what they think they're doing.

But if you're willing to believe Widom-Larsen, and you suspend your disbelief long enough to accept that the neutrons exclusively stay in the sample for some reason, and that the energy released as a result dosn't include any radiation, it should still be pretty easy to determine if the experiments work. All you'd have to do is look for nickel in a sample that initially consisted of pure copper. If published proof exists, I haven't found it yet (please send links to peer-reviewed publications, if you've seen something).

Instead, people like NASA's Dennis Bushnell are happy with decidedly unscientific evidence for cold fusion. Among other things, Bushnell notes that " . . . several labs have blown up studying LENR and windows have melted, indicating when the conditions are "right" prodigious amounts of energy can be produced and released."

Of course, chemical reactions can blow things up and melt glass too. There's no reason to conclude nuclear reactions were responsible. And it certainly isn't publishable proof of cold fusion. Considering that most of these experiments involve hydrogen gas and electricity, it's not at all surprising that labs go up in flames on occasion.

On a related note, a recent article in Forbes magazine reported that Lewis Larsen, of the above-mentioned Widom-Larsen theory, claims that measurements of the isotopes of mercury in compact fluorescent bulbs indicate that LENR reactions are taking place in light fixtures everywhere. If only it were true, it would offer serious support for the Widom-Larsen theory.

It's too bad the paper Larsen cites says nothing of the sort. According to an article in Chemical and Engineering News, the scientists who performed the study of gas in fluorescent bulbs were motivated by the knowledge that some mercury isotopes are absorbed in the glass of the bulbs more readily than others. The isotope ratio inside isn't changing because of nuclear reactions, but instead by soaking into the glass at different rates. Sorry Lewis Larsen, nice try.

Added note: I want to thank Steven Corneliussen of Physics Today for his timely summary of  the recent cold fusion coverage in Forbes. I am even more grateful to Jeff McMahon of Forbes for his shockingly credulous reporting of the NASA Langley cold fusion program - it would have been nice if he'd interviewed someone with conventional views of physics, but at least he got the word out.



243 comments:

  1. Hi James,

    Wow, that's a pretty emotional blog post. You're pretty riled up. You're pretty mistaken too. I can't begin to address the things that you are missing and misunderstanding in this venue, but I can and would be pleased to spend time with you directly and help you learn if you are sincerely interested - and if you are willing to not be right.

    "A scientist must be willing to not be right -- as soon as you have a position, you need to defend it and that reduces the possibility for the mystery -- or the discovery. - GK

    Note that I quoted you several years ago:

    http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2010/35/SR35918contempt.shtml

    Steven B. Krivit
    Publisher and Senior Editor, New Energy Times
    Editor-in-Chief, 2011 Wiley Nuclear Energy Encyclopedia

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No one is less willing to not be right than true believers on their belief in cold fusion (or LENR). And you Steven, are true believer in chief.

      Delete
  2. The "how nice it would be" comment sounds more like a newsmagazine journalist writing about an alleged breakthrough, as opposed to a scientist claiming it. It not only reminds me of the Beach Boys song "Wouldn't it be nice?" but also of this essay by Susan Blackmore on quitting her career-long search for various phenomena:
    http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/Chapters/Kurtz.htm

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for the Blackmore link! Great stuff!

      Delete
  3. The burden, Steven, is on the people who hope to up-end physics, not me or anyone else who accepts established science. I wouldn't spend time pondering theories that claim Einstein is wrong unless there were experimental evidence that something is wrong.

    At this point, electroweak physics is so well understood that the burden of proof is on the LENR experimentalists who think they've found a flaw. That's why I ask people to send me links to peer-reviewed publications that show evidence of thermal neutrons, neutron-activated radiation, or transmuted atoms in LENR (i.e. cold fusion) experiments. I will happily look at those.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dr. Iwamura actually reported on Mitsubishi's success in transmuting six (6) elememts (Na to Al, Ca to Ti, Sr to Mo, Cs to Pr, Ba to Sm and W to Os or Pt.) He also commented that heat was generated,-- but did not elaborate on that aspect of the research.

      In all cases the transmutations of elements to other elements with higher atomic numbers were achieved at room temperature and one atmosphere of pressure by means of deuterium diffusion through a multilayer thin film sandwich of palladium (Pd) and Calcium Oxide (CaO).............
      http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2968176/posts
      AND re: this:
      "Of course, chemical reactions can blow things up and melt glass too."
      What chemical process did this? THAT should be easy, shouldn't it..

      Delete
    2. Yes, Iwamura reported it at the American Nuclear Society LENR meeting. Hmmm, doesn't sound peer reviewed to me.

      Yep chemical reactions can melt glass. That's how people have been melting glass since glass was discovered. It's called fire, a well known exothermic chemical process. We don't need nuclear reactions to make or melt glass.

      Delete
    3. I was asking you for a specific cause in the specific reactions.. Not a global generalization..
      As to "peer reviewed" me thinks you have a bit too much weight on such things.. as a general example how many "peer reviewed" papers have been eventually proven to be in error??? As a guess I'd say many...What is the point of solely relying on peer reviewed?? I see it as a weakness not a strength of science..
      Myth number 1: Scientists have always used peer review
      Myth number 2: peer review is reliable
      Myth (3?): Peer review is the way we determine what’s right and wrong in science.
      http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/three-myths-about-scientific-peer-review/

      Delete
    4. Peer review isn't perfect, and often isn't even good. But at least it's something. If you can't clear that bar, then you're really in bad shape.

      Yes, I wish there were something better than peer review. In the same way that I wish there was something more effective for preventing the flu than the flu vaccine, but I'm still going to get the shot because it's the best we've got (and it's not too bad).

      Delete
    5. Interesting take on "peer review" and why I hold little respect for it:
      Re: Mr. Guglinski:
      Dr. Wladimir Guglinski
      IFET- Instituto Federal de Eduação e Tecnologia
      R santo antonio, 637 / 306
      juiz de fora MG 36015-001
      BRAZIL

      Manuscript number: 1237385

      Dear Dr. Guglinski:

      Thank you for submitting your manuscript “On the Stability, Magnetic Moments, Nuclear Spins, and Electric Quadrupole Moments of Light Nuclei with Z < 9 – Part One" to Science. Because your manuscript was not given a high priority rating during the initial screening process, we will not be able to send it out for in-depth review. Although your analysis is interesting, we feel that the scope and focus of your paper make it more appropriate for a more specialized journal. We are therefore notifying you so that you can seek publication elsewhere.

      We now receive many more interesting papers than we can publish. We therefore send for in-depth review only those papers most likely to be ultimately published in Science. Papers are selected on the basis of discipline, novelty, and general significance, in addition to the usual criteria for publication in specialized journals.

      Therefore, our decision is not necessarily a reflection of the quality of your research but rather of our stringent space limitations.

      Sincerely,
      Jake S. Yeston, Ph.D.
      Senior Editor

      Delete
    6. It seems like every paper submitted to a peer reviewed journal is rejected because there are no peer reviewed papers that have been published.

      Science should be about long and exhausting efforts if making finely tuned and precise measurements. It should not be about prejudice and preconceptions. Let the measurements speak for themselves. That is why I like the evidence presented in the 38th through 41st minute of this video:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VymhJCcNBBc

      You should be skeptical of your own skepticism.

      Delete
    7. Anonymous wrote: "Dr. Iwamura actually reported on Mitsubishi's success in transmuting six (6) elememts (Na to Al, Ca to Ti, Sr to Mo, Cs to Pr, Ba to Sm and W to Os or Pt.) He also commented that heat was generated,-- but did not elaborate on that aspect of the research."

      Iwamura's results are far from conclusive, with effects of contamination not properly excluded. His only refereed papers on it are from more than a decade ago, and there are no replications in refereed literature. Kidwell at NRL was unable to reproduce, and gave quite an effective rebuttal of the claims. The only claimed replication by Toyota, if you actually read the report, claims only one transmutation and the rate is one to two orders of magnitude lower than claimed by Iwamura, whose results were already in the noise. Instead of bolstering the claim, it makes it even less likely to be true.

      Morevoever, the scientists themselves have scarcely followed up on these revolutionary results with simple checks in more than a decade. Some of the claims have such obvious checks, that failure to perform them saps any benefit of the doubt one might be otherwise inclined to give them. For example, they claim they are producing high energy alphas for some of the reactions, but that should be trivial to detect. Rutherford could have done it for them a century ago, but they don't even try. Or they could take the same layered sample and bombard it with alphas of a wide range of energies and see if it produces what they claim to observe.

      In addition, the particular claimed transmutations are implausible in the extreme. The notion that Cs can capture 4 deuterons or 2 alphas (or Ba can capture 6 deuterons or 3 alphas) is whacky, given the energy needed for that. Such reactions don't even happen in exploding supernovas. The idea that dineutrons can be formed and remain stable enough to be captured is similarly whacky. The notion that the various captures happen simultaneously so that intermediate (radioactive) isotopes are completely absent is whacky squared. The notion that they could happen without any detection of the energetic deuterons or alphas or betas (in the case of dineutron capture) is whacky cubed. The notion that Iwamura's transmutations always start on stable isotopes and finish on stable isotopes, so he doesn't have to explain the absence of *easily measured* changes in radiation is whacky to the 4rth power.

      As unlikely as LENR may be, Iwamura's transmutations are orders of magnitude less likely.

      Iwamura claims as a potential application of his transmutations the conversion of dangerous nuclear waste to stable isotopes. So, then why doesn't he try his technique with some radioactive isotopes? It would be the easiest and most unambiguous sort of measurement to show a decrease in activity caused by deuterium permeation. Even better, find a stable isotope that transmutes to a radioactive isotope. This would be unmistakeable evidence, and a dead easy measurement. No need for high res mass spec or XPS or anything else. If he claimed such results, *then* peer review and replication would win acceptance from the mainstream. I'm not holding my breath.

      It's like so many of the cold fusion claims. It's not that an explanation for the observations is necessarily obvious. It's that if the claims were true, they could be demonstrated in less ambiguous, nay completely unequivocal ways.

      But they never are.

      Delete
    8. Anonymous wrote: "Interesting take on "peer review" and why I hold little respect for it:
      Re: Mr. Guglinski:"

      The rejection of anything by Guglinski should increase your respect for peer review.

      Delete
    9. Anonymous wrote: "It seems like every paper submitted to a peer reviewed journal is rejected because there are no peer reviewed papers that have been published."

      What makes it seem that way? The absence of papers? That is also consistent with crappy work.

      Anyway, there are peer-reviewed papers on cold fusion. They're just negative or bad, and most are in second-rate journals and most are old. 

      Anonymous: "That is why I like the evidence presented in the 38th through 41st minute of this video:"

      The SPAWAR results have been challenged in refereed literature by Kowalski, and in a detailed, albeit self-published, analysis at earth tech.org. Also Krivit, ran a kind of round-robin CR-39 project, which came up empty, although he tried to put a brave face on it.

      Delete
  4. This is kind of old news.
    http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/149090-nasas-cold-fusion-tech-could-put-a-nuclear-reactor-in-every-home-car-and-plane

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hi James,

    I've been involved in controversial science for a decade now. Every time I've been in contact with someone who reacts with drama and hostility, invariably their professed sincerity of learning facts that appear to contradict their knowledge of the universe are not sincere.

    What happens is that I direct them to a peer-reviewed paper, but that doesn't satisfy them. They ask for something else. I show them something else. And that doesn't satisfy them, they ask for more. If I keep going along with it, eventually I end up showing them an extraordinary amount of extraordinary science. But their resistance is so strong that they are not, in fact, looking for facts to support the claim, but looking for real or imagined flaws to discredit the claim. I, and other people, call this behavior "moving the goalposts." Eventually, their demands extend to the absurd. I'm not going to play this game with you.

    I do not think the insights offered by the Widom-Larsen theory contradict your knowledge of the universe, but you appear to be so repulsed and offended that you have not, as shown by your comments, bothered to scratch the surface yet of this research or this theory.

    I have no burden to prove anything to you. I did not contact you and ask you to look at the research or read my or other people's news stories about NASA's involvement. That was your choice. I am here to help, if you want it. If you don't, that's fine. I'm also here to help your readers.

    We have a lot of information on the New Energy Times Web site about the Widom-Larsen theory and also about LENR transmutations. I invite anyone who wishes to learn more to come visit.

    I welcome questions (by e-mail) from readers who perform reasonable due diligence; spend time reading the eight Widom-Larsen theory papers, read the articles I've written for lay audiences, and read my peer-reviewed Elsevier and Wiley encyclopedia articles.

    Thank you

    Steven B. Krivit
    Publisher and Senior Editor, New Energy Times
    Editor-in-Chief, 2011 Wiley Nuclear Energy Encyclopedia

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Krivit wrote: "I've been involved in controversial science for a decade now. Every time I've been in contact with someone who reacts with drama and hostility, invariably their professed sincerity of learning facts that appear to contradict their knowledge of the universe are not sincere."

      That's because the controversial science you've been involved in is cold fusion. Educated physicists know enough about it to know that if the claims had merit, they would not be so equivocal. Science really does *celebrate* facts that contradict theories, which is why in 2011, the nobel prizes for both chemistry and physics were for phenomena or observations contrary to accepted theories: quasicrystals and dark energy.

      Krivit: "What happens is that I direct them to a peer-reviewed paper, but that doesn't satisfy them."

      Right, because there aren't any peer-reviewed papers that show unequivocal results. They're all in 2nd rate journals, and they report sloppy work with marginal results.

      They're so bad that none of the claims survive peer review in main-stream *nuclear* physics journals -- the most relevant field. (If a single result had any credibility, you couldn't keep it out of Phys Rev or PRL or Science or Nature.)

      So bad that even a strong CF advocate (Nagel) complains about low quality in his report on ICCF2009, and takes to lecturing the incompetent researchers on the basics they should have learned as undergraduates.

      So bad that an expert panel hired by the DOE in 2004 concluded (for a second time) that CF is a bust after reviewing the best of the results.

      And instead of reporting ever more progress, the papers report the size of the effect (which bears no systematic relation to the amount of the "fuel") becomes ever smaller. At least two analyses of the publication pattern have pointed to the similarities between the CF pattern and other pathological sciences.


      Krivit: "They ask for something else. I show them something else. And that doesn't satisfy them, they ask for more."

      Same reason.

      Krivit: "If I keep going along with it, eventually I end up showing them an extraordinary amount of extraordinary science."

      There is no extraordinary science in cold fusion. It's all low quality. See above.

      Krivit: "But their resistance is so strong that they are not, in fact, looking for facts to support the claim, but looking for real or imagined flaws to discredit the claim."

      1989 proved how wrong that is. The world briefly went nuts for cold fusion. The ACS meeting was like a science woodstock. Pons got a standing ovation from thousands of scientists. Everyone suspended disbelief, thinking two distinguished academics could not have got it that wrong. Everyone wanted it to be true. Then the lame evidence became public, and the whole thing came crashing down.

      In any case, looking for flaws to discredit an extraordinary claim is a time-honored exercise in science. A good scientist looks for flaws in his own work. As Feynman said: "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool."

      Delete
    2. Krivit: "I, and other people, call this behavior "moving the goalposts." "

      That's because you don't understand the metaphor. More papers with the same marginal results does not represent better evidence. The evidence you present never satisfies the skeptics criteria, so there is no need to move goal posts. In fact, the evidence has only gotten weaker over the years. There are thousands of blurry photos of bigfoot, and hundreds of thousands of claimed sightings of alien visitations. More of these marginal claims makes them less credible, not more, because just by chance, you would expect a photo to be clear. Of course, Mitch Hedberg thinks the bigfoot itself is blurry.

      On the other hand, the true believers move the goal posts ever closer as the evidence gets weaker.

      Krivit: "Eventually, their demands extend to the absurd."

      Nonsense. One of cold fusion's prolific advocate and supporter has lamented the failure of the results to stand out. He's written an essay on it, and has pined for a simple demo where an isolated device actually remained warmer than its surroundings for an indefinite period. Never happens.

      
Krivit: "I do not think the insights offered by the Widom-Larsen theory contradict your knowledge of the universe,"

      But they do. From the need for 780 keV (relativistic) electrons to produce neutrons (without observable x-rays), to the absence of commensurate neutrons or gammas associated with neutron capture and beta decay, to the preposterous 4He + n -> 5He which requires close to an MeV as well, but if the neutron is cold, requires a 9 MeV alpha to conserve energy and momentum, the WLT is far less plausible than ordinary D-D fusion based on known physics. You should read E Tennfors, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 128 (2013) 1.

      
Krivit: "I have no burden to prove anything to you."


      Of course you don't. You're just a journalist, or actually a propagandist. But if people want mainstream science to accept cold fusion (or LENR), then the burden of proof *does* fall to those making the claims.

      Really, Steven, if there was anything to it, it would not need you (or any of the physicist wannabes in the comments) to defend it.

      Delete
  6. Thanks, Tim, I hadn't seen that. I don't spend much time tracking cold fusion, and if Steven Corneliussen hadn't written about it in Physics Today I wouldn't have noticed it this time. I don't really care what people do in their own labs. If they want to study LENR/cold fusion, that's fine by me. When they talk NASA into wasting time and money on it, or when they try to get unsuspecting members of the public to invest in it, I feel like I have to do something.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Hi Timothy,

    I'm biased of course, I think our article on the NASA story is better...

    NASA’s LENR Article “Nuclear Reactor in Your Basement”

    ReplyDelete
  8. Steven, as I said, I'm happy to look at peer-reviewed experimental research. Just post the links and I'll check them out. That's why I read the paper on compact fluorescent bulbs that Larsen either misunderstands or is misrepresenting as LENR evidence, when it's nothing of the kind.

    ReplyDelete
  9. " they're going to have to violate some very well established physics to make it happen"
    This phrase, and variations of it, can be demonstrated to be false simply by plotting changes against against time. That's the nature of physics: not immutable laws but ever changing perceptions.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I never said physics is immutable. But extraordinary claims (i.e. things that fly in the face of well-established science) require extraordinary evidence. Even ordinary evidence is lacking when it comes to cold fusion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The earth revolving around the sun sun was once a "extraordinary claim".. you actually think we have advanced.. funny...
      "We" don't even understand lightning..yet you ass-u-me much about physics here..
      "Duke's Cummer added that nobody knows why some thunderstorms produce gamma rays while most do not.

      "We really don't understand a lot of the details about how lighting works," he said. But discovering the creation of positrons "gives us a very, very important clue as to what's happening."

      A paper about the discovery of antimatter in thunderstorms has been accepted for publication in the journal Geophysical Research Letters."

      Some think that gamma ray lightning bursts, cavitation and LENR have some of the same roots.. I wouldn't discourage them ie. NASA or others.. "wasting time and money" is sometimes quite productive.. ;)

      FLYING in the face of "established" science is part and parcel of advancement..

      Delete
    2. I have no position on lightning research. The GRL paper sounds interesting though. I wonder if it will mention LENR, hmmmmm.

      There's a difference between spending money on speculative science like optical cloaking and plasma fusion, as opposed to wasting it on perpetual motion machines and cold fusion.

      Again, spend all the time and money you want doing cold fusion research on your own. Ask the public and government agencies to foot the bill and I'm going to object.

      Delete
    3. Hmmm. so you are the judge?? Personally since optical cloaking is a war machine priority.. I see no "humanitarian" reason not to drop all funding.. ;) What Nobel Peace Prize comes out of hiding things..???
      a long time ago I talked w/ a grad student who was getting paid good money to collect dragon flys for the Air Force..Talk about wasted money..in MY judgement. Wonder how that dragon fly plane is coming along.. And how much of "my" money was wasted..
      BTW: that was around 1976.. I hope you understand my point..

      Delete
    4. Nope, physics is the judge. I'm just one diligent foot soldier.

      I don't know of any physics that dragon flies (or the planes they might inspire) violate. Basic research may or may not pay off, and is worth the investment in my view. Unless, of course, it relies on fundamentally wrong physics, like cold fusion/LENR.

      Delete
    5. You might enjoy this (bit O/T):
      http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/files/Stability%20of%20light%20nuclei.pdf
      "5- Conclusions
      If the principles of the Standard Nuclear Physics are correct then of course it is possible
      to find a theory capable to describe with perfect accuracy the nuclear properties of the light nuclei. However it’s hard to believe that along 80 years of attempt the theorists
      did not succeed to discover a satisfactory theory, in spite of the principles are correct.
      On another hand, if some principles are incorrect, obviously the theorists will never
      succeed in their enterprise, no matter how many years or centuries they will try it.
      The experiments published in 2009 and 2012 are suggesting that some light isotopes do
      not follow some principles adopted in the standard theory. And so the theorists have to
      ponder with gravity about the matter, and decide if they either have to continue their
      attempt by keeping the principles or to change the method of investigation, and be
      receptive to new ideas."

      Delete
    6. My point was even if it doesn't "violate" a law of physics .. it can still be a waste of money to some.. ;)
      There is no practical difference, in a sense..and "wasting money" regardless of scientific "acceptance" is subjective.
      IF I had a vote NASA LENR funding would get a yea.. Dragon wing fighter or spacecraft nay.. Wasting money is non-discriminatory.....

      Delete
    7. Spending 1/1000 of the amount on LENR research as compared to the "practical yet decades out of reach but apparently scientifically sound (did they yet get a economically positive return on energy after countless billions?)" would prove it once and for all.. and end pointless speculation based on "common knowledge and supposition". The "anomalous behavior" in some of these experiments is NOT in question anymore (or at least proven without a doubt AFAIKT) .. Only the cause..Doesn't that in itself seem "money worthy"??? Or do you just write it off as "unexplained but not WORTH pursuing".. Seems "un-scientific" to me..

      Delete
    8. LENr does not violate the law of physics.
      It respect mass/energy conservation, entropy irreversibility, heisenberg uncertainty, general relativity, quantum number conservation.

      what it violate is the usual way that we compute QM...

      you can see how real physicis behave facing this kind of problem, by the story of Sternnglass X-ray tube filled with H2 :
      http://www.lenr-forum.com/showthread.php?673-Sternglass-X-ray-tube-LENR-experiments-(1951-)&highlight=sternglass

      Sternglass found out some neutron produced when accelerated hit hydrogen. What seemed to be an inverse beta decay happened, yet the energy was unsufficient in theory.
      Einsteain worked a little on that subject and foundout (like preparata later) that those reaction shoul be caused by some quantum coherence effect.

      there is not yet any good theory of LENR, and widom-larsen is not validated, and at least there are some key point missing.

      however when facing fact, if replicated (even if some experiments fails, like plane can crash, or cooking fail - LENr is replicated, just not well mastered in labs), the real (the unrealistic) scientist should admit :
      - that the theory is wrong
      - that he did not find the good "story" that the theory allows (I feel that it is the case for LENR)

      if it is theoretically impossible, then being honest you should change the theory to match the fact. But I feel that it is not yet needed.

      basically in LENR there are two QM compatible ideas that could help :
      - electrostatic screening
      - coherence


      that you don't understand why a plan fly, that some plane crash, that you cannot build a plane that fly, does not make plane impossible.

      by the way the story of plan is really looking like LENR.
      http://www.lenr-forum.com/showthread.php?1379-Invention-of-plane-showing-the-need-of-a-new-NACA-is-it-LENR-cities&highlight=naca

      It was claimed as theoretically impossible, there was theorem for that, it was crashing when big science tried to engineer it, and few garage inventor make it work...

      as usual says Nassim Nicholas Taleb.
      as usual says Thomas Kuhn.

      Delete
    9. Anonymous wrote: "The earth revolving around the sun sun was once a "extraordinary claim".. "

      Right, and the evidence for the Copernicus model was extraordinary.


      Anonymous: "Some think that gamma ray lightning bursts, cavitation and LENR have some of the same roots.."

      We know high electric fields can produce nuclear effects, and they are present in lightning. That says nothing about nuclear reactions in metal hydrides. Some think Uri Geller can bend spoons with his mind. It's better not to pay attention to those.

      anonymous: "FLYING in the face of "established" science is part and parcel of advancement.. "

      Very true, but only with good evidence. Cold fusion doesn't have it.


      Delete
    10. Alain Coetmeur wrote: "LENr does not violate the law of physics."

      It is contrary to the predictions of accepted nuclear and condensed matter theory. Hagelstein said it himself.

      Delete
  11. The scientists in this video have been awarded United States Patent 8419919 for the reproducible System and method for generating particles for low energy reactions:

    http://youtu.be/VymhJCcNBBc

    Twenty-Year History of Lattice-Enabled Nuclear Reactions (LENR) - Hiding in Plain Sight

    Mr. Krivit is biased and well suited to marketing theories rather than reporting them. He fails to mention this patent, which is the most important milestone for both confirming and protecting this emerging technology.

    ReplyDelete
  12. James,

    I'll give you one link, then you're on your own.

    Selected LENR Papers

    Steven

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Steven Krivit wrote: "I'll give you one link, then you're on your own."

      As usual, true believers try to avoid naming individual papers, for fear they will be read, revealing how bad they are. Instead, they like to give long lists including conference proceedings and obscure journals, which they hope will be too daunting for anyone to actually read, and will be convincing by its sheer length.

      But the list, if actually examined shows the complete absence of progress in the field.

      The list contains several hundred entries, but there are only 10 refereed papers reporting new experimental results (that excludes reviews and theory papers) in the last decade. And of those 10, 6 are dubious CR-39 papers from SPAWAR, which have had little or no replication by other groups, and have been questioned by some, including by Krivit's own Galileo project. And even if the results were valid, they fall orders of magnitude short of verifying the central claim in cold fusion: excess heat due to nuclear reactions. SPAWAR itself has shut that research down.

      Of the remaining 4 papers, only 2 claim excess heat, and those were in 2003 and 2004, and claim in one case 2 mW excess power, and in the other 300 mW. This is the best Krivit can dig up in the last decade. Pathetic, considering in 1993, P&F claimed 160 W output with 40 W input. It seems the field is moving backward.

      Delete
  13. I've been there before, Steven. I'll check it out again. If it changes my mind this time, I'll let you know.

    -James

    ReplyDelete
  14. What about this guy?: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=JAsRFVbcyUY

    ReplyDelete
  15. Hey Buzz,

    When independently reviewed papers come out in the next couple of months about LENR being everything Steve has been saying I expect and apology.

    Its obvious that you have not been paying attention to what is going on in physics let alone "Cold Fusion".

    ReplyDelete
  16. Benjamin, although magnetically confined plasma fusion is difficult, it's at least consistent with physical laws. I'm not sure they'll ever solve the engineering difficulties, but I'd bet on the difficult (plasma fusion) over the impossible (cold fusion) any day.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Education never stops:

    http://novam-research.com/resources/ECAT.pdf

    http://news.newenergytimes.net/2012/12/06/mitsubishi-reports-toyota-replication/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. liberty news post wrote: "Education never stops:

http://novam-research.com/resources/ECAT.pdf

http://news.newenergytimes.net/2012/12/06/mitsubishi-reports-toyota-replication/"

      Your standards for evidence are pretty low. You should be suspicious when car companies claim revolutionary new physics. In any case, the toyota results are not peer-reviewed, and they do not replicate the mitsi results by any ordinary definition of "replicate". They claim only one transmutation and at a rate one to two orders of magnitude lower than claimed by mitsi. That suggests that 90 - 99 % of Mitsi's results are artifact, which means they all could be, and almost certainly are.

      Delete
  18. Inertial Electrostatic Confinement Fusion is also consistent with physical laws, and generates neutrons. Patent 8419919 generates neutrons and is reproducible. It requires no new physics, and is as viable a source for neutrons as inertial electrostatic confinement fusors. The references for this patent are now accepted by the USPTO, and require no new explanations for generating particles and anomalous heat.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Electrostatic confinement? If you mean the Farnsworth-Hirsch fusor, then, yes it works. They make nice neutron sources, but nobody has managed to get them to produce net energy. I'm not sure why, but I know of no physics-based objections.

      Delete
  19. If your really want to disprove this type of work go visit the folks at Defkalion and show them how their technology does not work.

    http://defkalion-energy.com/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I will believe people like Defkalion when they start selling electricity instead of soliciting funding from investors who don't know anything about physics.

      Delete
    2. How do you know that Defkalion investors know nothing about physics?

      Its less important to believe, and more important to prove your attacks with scientific proofs.

      I will believe... imperious words of authority masking uncertainty.

      Delete
    3. Because they're investing in Defkalion.

      Delete
    4. anonymous wrote: "Its less important to believe, and more important to prove your attacks with scientific proofs."

      You have it back to front. Until Defkalion prove their claims, there's nothing to disprove.


      Delete
  20. Give Peter Hagelstein at MIT a call:

    http://www.std.com/~mica/jettechnology.htm

    ReplyDelete
  21. You obviously are unaware of the work done by Prof. Hagelstein and Swartz at MIT. Swartz has demonstrated a device which gives off excess. He had it running for months on end for all to see.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am familiar with Hagelstein's work.

      Delete
    2. Sooo.. What is their "scam"??

      Delete
    3. Send me the link to the peer reviewed publication documenting their achievement and I'll tell you.

      Delete
    4. I was asking for your opinion of their error... I assume you have one.
      BTW: I find this funny for a number of reasons..
      http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/02/swartz-and-hagelstein-respond-to-steven-b-krivits-reporting-of-jet-energy-cold-fusion/

      Delete
    5. I remember hearing something about this. I don't know much about it really. I thought is was just a feud inside the cold fusion community

      Delete
    6. about the peer reviewd papers on LENR there are many, despite the clear official and unprofessional opposition.
      jed rothwell make a tally on that:
      http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJtallyofcol.pdf
      but you may better ask to Edmung stoprms the cold fusion editor at natirwissenschaften, and start by if review published in 2010.

      if you don't trust peer review, you may ask to serious organisation ile italian ENEA who is working to find the key factor of LENR, and found that surprisingly impurities and cristalography is more important than metrology, and that he4 production is correlated to heat production,n which is trange if it is artifact...
      ask also to the team who measured Tritium, some measured Neutrons (note that they are anti correlated with He4 and heat).
      see also papers of CEA (grenoble) who replicated F&P in 97 and more.

      now to see how exceptional it is to be published, see the story of Oriani
      http://www.lenr-forum.com/showthread.php?374-Nature-policy-on-CF-critic-Oriani-s-paper-dumped-despite-positive-Peer-review&highlight=oriani
      His paper was accepted by peer-review and rejected afterward because in most journal LENR is blacklisted whateever good is the paper.

      This happens to a key paper of ENEA, report 41 "deninno", which proved that He4 production and Heat production were correlated.
      http://www.lenr-forum.com/showthread.php?404-Report-41-DeNinno-by-ENEA-and-rejection
      It was rejected by Nature, for "no room". when you see papers that are just lose advocacy on some hot subject accepted by nature, you see that it is not rational.
      and more than 40 other journal refused for many stupid reasons (like high temperure is impossible in water)

      you can also see at ICCF17 the paper by Miles who explain how loose were the calorimetry of caltech and MIT in 89, compared to F&P or CEA Grenoble.

      you can see also how MIT paper was tweaked, and how Nature refised to reexamine those old experiments.

      The vision of Thomas Kuhn and Roland Benabou really match what is happening.

      by the way, being unaware of peer-reviewed papers is a very common syndrome... I

      the next answer will be that it is not published in Nature, and since nature refuse officially like many great journal , to publish on LENR, the look is looped...

      I cannot challenge looped reasoning.
      Thomas Kuhn explain how "uncomparable" are "old-paradig" and "new-paradigm", because the fact used to check are not the same, and old-school refuse to accept fact that are challenging.

      by the way did you see that NASA GRC remind that they have measured anomalous heat in 89, replicated 2008... maybe is it why they are so dynamic (even if it is only fea pleple)...

      did you know tha ex-skeptic Robert Duncan, after trying to debunk LENR for CNBC, now host ICCF18 at Uni Missouri this summer...
      same for dawn dominguez of NRL.
      Do you know the work of Spawar ? Mitsubishi, Toyota, BARC, ?

      time to update data. start from 89, because after that it seems that some data are missing. Anyway it is the average level of information I face. people stopped updating data in 89.

      Delete
    7. anonymous wrote: "You obviously are unaware of the work done by Prof. Hagelstein and Swartz at MIT. Swartz has demonstrated a device which gives off excess. He had it running for months on end for all to see."

      Not published. And not for all to see. He keeps the tupperware lid on, so it proves nothing. Plus it's a fraction of a watt. In the 90s they were claiming more than 100W. Shrinking claims are a sure sign of pathological science.

      Delete
  22. Liberty Newspost, I freely admit that I'm not up to speed on the latest in lots of fringe sciences, including cold fusion. But I read peer-reviewed physics journals, and will gladly look at anything on cold fusion that appears in one.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Good job, Buzz Skyline. I was worried I was the only voice of sanity on this topic. I'm glad you put this out.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Thanks, Ethan. Nice blog, btw (http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/)!

    ReplyDelete
  25. There are probably thousands, perhaps millions of ways that something might not work. There's usually only a few or sometimes only one way in which it will.

    If those who are in the trenches making the effort listened to the "we'll never make it" crowd nothing will ever get done.

    Some anomalous behavior is obviously present with LENR. And NASA's investigation of LENR is important research. Man committed himself to go to the moon before he knew how to get there. Clearly LENR is going to step on some oil industry toes, its got to be done however.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As I mention in my post, there is a way to make cold fusion work - replace electrons with muons. All you really need to do is make cheap muons and you're done.

      Delete
    2. Thank you for your reply.

      If there were a practical way to create Muons and overcome the coulomb force it would be already be being done and Muon-catalyzed fusion would be a reality.

      I believe you are sidestepping the issue to excuse an unfortunately biased article. Something is happening with LENR which appears separate from fusion, the strong nuclear reaction or the creation of Muons.

      Once more, its better to investigate a phenomenon and fail and learn something in the process then to never have looked into it at all.

      Delete
  26. That's the same conspiracy theory claim cold fusion advocates have been making since Pons and Fleischmann.

    Physicists have no problem with new energy sources. We developed fission reactors, we're working on plasma and inertial confinement fusion, we developed and are improving solar cells.

    But when people promote things like antigravity machines, telekinesis, perpetual motion machines, or cold fusion, I feel obligated to speak up and urge the government and innocent citizens not to waste their money.

    ReplyDelete
  27. "Here's a word of caution: anytime anyone, especially a scientist, starts by telling you about glorious, nigh-unbelievable futuristic applications of their idea, be very, very skeptical."

    Well, a few things come to mind ... like the steam engine, airplane, trains, cars, radio, and television. These all started out as obscure activities by a small number of inventors or scientists.If Buzz Skyline heard of the Wright brother's undertaking before their first flight, would he have warned people to very, very skeptical?

    And let's say there are 100 scientists in the field that are convinced LENR is taking place and excess heat is generated. Thus these are not the claims of one crank somewhere. So I don't think the "word of caution" fits the circumstances at hand.

    ReplyDelete
  28. "cold fusion power supplies don't exist yet and almost certainly never will"

    This is a rather extraordinary claim considering there are over 1000 peer reviewed papers in the LENR field. See library here: http://lenr-canr.org/

    Given all of the experiments that have been done by now that seem to show excess heat not explainable by chemical reactions, I just don't see how Buzz Skyline can declare LENR devices "almost certainly never will" generate power. Please explain Buzz!

    ReplyDelete
  29. If flight required the violation of Einstein's relativity, or Newton's gravity, I would certainly have objected at the time. Steam engines were built not in spite of newly developed theories of thermodynamics, but because of it. Radio and television didn't require the violation of electricity and magnetism, the inventors instead relied on it.

    You're confusing good science and engineering (like aeronautical engineering) with pseudoscience (like antigravity machines). They both do the same thing, but physics tells us one is utter nonsense.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Listen (link below) to scientist Edmund Storms tell of the problems of getting LENR research to be seen as respectable science. It seems to me that Buzz Skyline is piling on in this blog post in saying he is “horrified” that NASA might do LENR research. In the comments he equates LENR devices to perpetual motion machines.

    I think the reality is that most scientists today are uninformed about the great deal of research that has gone on in the LENR field. If Buzz Skyline has reviewed all of the literature and experiments, then I would be more interested in his comments.

    Really, I have been looking for criticisms that can explain the excess heat experiments. I think evidence to date points to us being on the verge of a LENR revolution. But the research is hidden because most scientists are uninformed and have a knee-jerk rejection of LENR ideas. And too, the mainstream press has not reported on LENR research much because they are told it’s not a respectable field.

    I hope that Buzz Skyline will read up on the state of LENR research and will one day write a more open minded post about the possibility that LENR might be real. He could title it: “Not Horrified After All”.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=QE1W8NcYsSE

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "I think evidence to date points to us being on the verge of a LENR revolution."

      I followed the furor over the Pons-Fleischmann results when they were first reported. At the time, proponents of cold fusion were claiming the same thing. They were saying that there would be cold fusion water heaters within two or three years. Didn't happen, did it? The same sorts of arguments were made back then that you're making now. One, that we're on the verge of a cold fusion revolution. Two, that mainstream scientists were the problem because they refused to accept the cold fusion results when the real problem was bad, of just plain crank, science. Three, that there was some sort of conspiracy by oil companies, the government, or the Illuminati that was standing in the way of developing cold fusion. Four, there always seemed to be some sort of device or experimental setup, the details of which the cold fusion proponent wouldn't share. The latest example of this is the Italian Rossi and his supposed cold fusion device. The fact is that the results of cold fusion experiments aren't reported in the mainstream, peer-reviewed physics journals because no one has reported positive results that can be replicated by others.

      Delete
  31. I will read (and have read) EVERYTHING about LENR that appears in the Physical Review, Science or Nature. When, and if, something more appears, that will be the state of the art. Plowing through hundreds of sketchy proceedings and obscure journals is not an effective way to judge any field, much less one like LENR.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. good choice, since they have an official internal policy to reject any paper on LENR whatever good it is.

      see the story on Oriani that I cite, the story of Report 41 DeNinno by ENEA.
      however about bad science they refuse to correct bad reasoning

      http://www.lenr-forum.com/showthread.php?799-How-Nature-refused-to-re-examine-the-1989-CalTech-experiment

      same for the probable misconduct that eugene mallove found out as being the editor of the tweaked paper.
      http://www.lenr-forum.com/showthread.php?14-History-of-MIT-F-amp-P-non-replication-fraud-denouncby-E-Mallove&highlight=mallove

      people have to know how this journal is behaving...
      some like preparata called it the pravda, and today experience shows that big and small journals have similar impact in fact...

      Delete
    2. The leading journals are highly motivated to publish scientific breakthroughs. If anything, they err in favor of things like cold fusion, until it is clear they are wrong.

      Delete
    3. Plow through United States Patent 8419919. It has references and a reproducible method for generating neutrons. If you think this patent is a fraud, then take the time to disprove it.

      The USPTO has a policy of never awarding patents that have no basis in science, nor do they award patents that have not basis in reality.

      Generating neutrons is a real proof of low energy nuclear reactions.

      Refusing to read this patent with objectivity is merely lazy commentary.

      Delete
  32. This article cite the article of NASA as if it was the only thing happening today.

    today there is a huge group of event, of data, that show LENR is real and becoming industrial.

    I've summarized some of the recent data early 2013
    http://www.lenrnews.eu/lenr-summary-for-policy-makers/

    About Widom-Larsen, unlike Zawodny and Krivit, I'm now quite agnostic...
    IT IS NOT IMPORTANT TO HAVE A THEORY TO ACCEPT FACTS.

    All that denial is classic if you follow :

    - The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by thomas Kuhn... on lenr-forum I've shown how that work is explaining why LENR does not convince. First there is no theory (none is validated:WL,kim-zubarev, BEC,Brillouin,Takahashi TSC). He also explain how violent is the opposition of "old-school" against the paradigm change, and how NO EVIDENCE can convince, because the old-school choose what are the evidence that count.

    Note also that his work explain that nothing can be accepted, until the new-school have a global coherent theory that cover all. so no evidence can convince if there is no full theory. This is opposite to the scientific mythology. It explains why people like Zawodny make so much effort to claim they they have THE THEORY. His work also explain well that the new-school cannot win until it give the members a great advantage on the old-school. you cannot convince people of LENR with useless anomalous heat like it happens in Palladium, without doubt, but without usability. This is why we can expect LENR to convince with reactors like the one of Defkalion,rossi,Brillouin...

    - If you read "Antifragile" of nassim Nicholas taleb, you will see that innovation happens at the edge of the community, that innovators a garage inventors and not aparatchick, and that after victory they are ignored and history is rewritten... Not a surprise that strange industrialists like Rossi took the lead, and that a Greek economist from Vancouver follow the idea

    - you can understand how all the collective denial,that groupthink, can emerge from a group of rational and "initially right" people, with the work of Roland Benabou at princeton and his key article "Groupthink: collective denial in organizations and markets"... basically it explain how a mutual assured delusion is established where people refuse to see the facts because it will make them feel poorer/stupid/hopeless, and because knowing the facts cannot prevent them to escape anyway, because the other delusioned prevent any change. If you read the small pamplet of Roland Beanbou called "paterns of denial" you can get laughing about Enron, Challenger, and similar catastrophic collective delusion.

    with Thomas Kuhn, Nassim Nicholas taleb, Wright brothers story, and Roland Benabou work, all is clear, and all looks usual... (I've made some post on the forum about those stories. I won't flood you with links, google is your friend)..

    to any people who want to have a serious position on that subject I would advise to gather data. Much are on the forum, on lenr-canr managed by Jed Rothwell, in JCMNS managed by Biberian, on New energy Times managed by krivits, at ENEA.
    and It would be a crime to forget about the Cold Fusion Review by Edmund Storms published in Naturwissenschaften in 2010, that is a good beginning for a serious scientists to get informed... event If I feel that most old-school scientist will never catch the fact until it get industrial in 2 years.

    I don't hope many people to follow ly advice and independently get serious information on that subject... anyway my work is probably useless, since from data I have the business innovators, the old-industrialists start to discretely work on LENR project...

    My only success would be to prevent some honest educated people to look fool 2 years before the revolution get public.

    hope this help.

    --AlainCo
    the techwatcher of lenr-forum.com

    ReplyDelete
  33. Buzz Skyline, the one constant in LENR research is that excess heat is found in the experiments that cannot be explained by chemical reactions. If chemical reactions are not occurring, then something important may be going on. And explanations that invoke a process involving the nuclear forces seem within reason.

    Based on the ample evidence of excess heat in these experiments - why would you think it's not a valid use of federal research money to try to see if there is an energy source here to be harnessed?

    ReplyDelete
  34. They produce a small amount of heat that may or may not be in excess of the input power that comes during the "loading" phase, and they show no clear signs of fusion. The most likely answer is that it's chemical. That would mean they are developing really lousy chemical batteries, not cold fusion reactors.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Again which "chemical reaction"
      Are they not "well known"?
      Maybe we can advance "chemical reaction knowledge" w some "research"..
      "Most likely" and "may or may not" is not very "scientific" is it??
      I'm not trying to be hard on you but sit back and think about what you just said..;)
      Mitsu and Toyota "fusions" still come to mind and this:
      "SPAWAR team was one of them. Now, they say that they have succeeded in identifying traces of neutrons in their deuterium solution, which is one of the first reports on cold fusion to actually have chances of being confirmed by other sources as well."

      All the "fringe evidence" does add up to something worth spending money on.

      Delete
  35. These is new physics going on here. I put my reasearch into a book "Energy, Cold Fusion, and Antigravity". I have a peer reviewed paper coming out shortly also.

    The book is avaliable at Amazon.com

    Frank Znidarsic

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I look forward to the paper. Please post the link as soon as it's published.

      Delete
    2. I hope that was sincere.. but it sounds like you are getting defensive.. BTW: Do you really believe if it isn't published it doesn't exist?? Poor way to do science if you ask me..
      Reminds me of the persecution of Galileo.. just substitute "journal" for Bible.

      Delete
    3. It is sincere.

      If something hasn't been published, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It means there's no indication it is legitimate. In the case of cold fusion, things are even worse, it violates physical principles that are the basis of well-understood science.

      I'm not aware of any peer-review journals from Galileo's time. Also, his claims didn't violate physics, they violated catholic doctrine. The science community didn't refute his work, the church did.

      Delete
    4. That point is arguable , as you can see here.. it was not "just" the church..
      but it makes for a better story..
      "The only problem was, his proof was wrong. Other scientists who considered his argument concluded that it made no sense. Galileo’s explanation would have resulted in only one tide per day, but there were two tides per day, 12 hours apart. Galileo tried to dismiss this by attributing the second tide to other factors, such as the shape and depth of the sea, etc.

      He rejected the alternative explanation proposed by Kepler, that the moon caused the tides. Galileo also rejected Kepler’s evidence that the shape of planetary orbits was elliptical rather than circular, both of which were later proved to be correct.

      It is an example of Galileo's acerbic attitude that in his Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, Galileo makes this statement through the character Salviati, “Among all the famous men who have philosophized [about the tides], I wonder more at Kepler than any of the rest. Though he is a free and acute genius, he has lent his assent to the moon's dominance over the oceans and to other occult happenings and other such trifles.”

      It seems that even the greatest scientist can fall prey to dogmatic assertion at times. "..
      http://reasonableanswers.blogspot.com/2009/01/galileo-against-scientists-dispelling.html

      Delete
    5. this is what thomas kuhn explain well.
      During the battle between old-school and new-school, the few anecdotical point are abused by old-school to cancel all the good point of new-school.

      finally as thomas kuhn says, the new-school winns only when all its' theopry is encompassing all point, while the old-school can survive as long as just one anecdotical point is better facing evidence...

      LENR with todays evidence, with tritium tested in US and india, transmutation proved in japan , and accros the word, radiation proven in Spawar, but also in many other labs, with heat validated with many good or bad methods, replicated accros the word in serous labs like CEA Grenoble or with garage labs...
      LENR cannot be inexistent.

      The current mainstream theory (in fact not the QM, but current lazy way to apply QM, too simplistically) is not explaining the real world...

      however yes, LENR have no theory, and you cannot trigger acceptance of reality if you don't have a better theory that encompass all.
      It is stupid, it is unscientific, but it is standard.

      for galileo his theory was imperfect but was giving very interesting explanation for big problems in the mainstream theory...

      Delete
  36. To Anonymous who wrote: "I followed the furor over the Pons-Fleischmann results when they were first reported. At the time, proponents of cold fusion were claiming the same thing."

    Actually it is very different now. The controlled experiments showing excess heat have been going on for over 15 years now. There is no longer any question that this phenomenon is real. It's just a matter of explaining it with a theory and trying to build useful devices.

    I don't think there is a conspiracy of any kind to suppress LENR research or technology. It's just that the strong biases left over from the Pons-Fleischmann experience causes many who have not read up on the state of research to reject LENR ideas out of hand.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Read United States Patent 8419919 for the instructions on generating neutrons for your experiments. Watch Twenty-Year History of Lattice-Enabled Nuclear Reactions (LENR) - Hiding in Plain Sight: http://youtu.be/VymhJCcNBBc

    Now you are ready to refute these scientists and the patent they now hold for generating particles for low energy nuclear reactions. All you need is the expertise to replicate their materials and methodologies.

    These scientists hold this patent for over two decades of applied research, and this patent is more valid than the the speculation and theoretical dogma we call human folly.

    This patent is an instruction for making low energy nuclear reactions in a reproducible manner. Mr. Krivit and James ignore both this patent and video in order to highlight their bias and lack of knowledge in this area of nuclear particle generation.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Buzz writes: "They produce a small amount of heat that may or may not be in excess of the input power that comes during the "loading" phase, and they show no clear signs of fusion. The most likely answer is that it's chemical."

    I don't think that is right.

    Peter Hagelstein at MIT says they measure COP of over 10. This means over 10 time the energy input is being output.

    Here is the spec sheet for Andrea Rossi's Ecat which he claims is now entering production. It claims a COP of 6.

    http://ecat.com/ecat-products/ecat-1-mw/ecat-1mw-technical-data

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. United States Patent 8419919 generates neutrons. Neutrons are not a product of chemical reactions.

      Multiple nuclear products, including neutrons have been detected with the co-deposition process described in the above mentioned patent.

      This reaction has been reproducible since 1989, and this patent documents both peer reviewed research and the recipe for reproducing low energy nuclear reactions. http://bit.ly/rwH3hl

      Honest scientists would replicate these experiments and then submit their proofs. Cold fusion folly results when patents and research are ignored, and surmise replaces research, such as that described in the video: Twenty-Year History of Lattice-Enabled Nuclear Reactions (LENR) - Hiding in Plain Sight...

      These scientists have prototype reactors that remediate nuclear waste:
      http://www.globalenergycorporation.net/Tech.aspx

      GeNiE Reactor technology is based on 20 years of experimental research by Global Energy Corporation, JWK International, and SPAWAR Systems Center San Diego scientists and engineers. The results have been published in over 20 peer-reviewed technical journal articles. Our most recent publications document the ability to efficiently produce high-energy neutrons that are capable of fissioning uranium. We have answered the critical scientific questions:

      Our experiments are repeatable.
      Our experiments have been replicated by others.
      Our experiments provide direct evidence that nuclear reactions are involved including the production of high-energy neutrons. Although our experimental results are not predicted by current nuclear physics theories, the results are real.

      The GeNiE Reactor takes advantage of the efficiently produced high-energy neutrons in a proprietary hybrid fusion, fast-fission reactor design to produce power from un-enriched uranium. The GeNiE Reactor is not prone to melt down since it doesn't rely on a chain-reaction to produce high-energy neutrons. The GeNiE Reactor will extract more energy from the fuel than conventional nuclear Reactors. The GeNiE Reactor is lower cost since it doesn't required enriched uranium and it doesn't produce hazardous nuclear waste that is costly to handle. By fissioning existing hazardous waste, the GeNiE Reactor can generate power and mitigate existing hazardous waste at the same time. And by eliminating the need for enrichment, the GeNiE Reactor removes all requirements for uranium enrichment except for weapons production, thereby removing the uncertainty in the purpose of enrichment programs such as the current program in Iran.

      Global Energy Corporation and their collaborators are currently experimenting with small pilot GeNiE Reactors and are designing prototype GeNiE Reactors for commercial applications. While there are numerous products possible, GEC is currently focusing on the GeNiE Hybrid Fusion, Fast-Fission Reactor that will use either natural uranium or existing hazardous waste as fuel.


      Delete
    2. Please post links to the peer-reviewed publications you mention.

      Delete
    3. Excess heat is not a sign of nuclear reactions. It foesn't exclude them, but without indications of nuclear reactions, then it must be chemical
      .

      Delete
    4. Although it has sometimes been difficult to publish in a controversial field, by conducting careful experiments and reporting the results, Global Energy Corporation collaborators at the U.S. Navy SPAWAR Systems Center Pacific and its predecessors and JWK International have published 24 peer-reviewed papers in seven technical journals and two book chapters. Our publication record documents steady progress in conducting experiments to demonstrate ever-increasing evidence that nuclear reactions can be stimulated using low energies in an electrochemical cell. Our most recent paper uses CR-39 to record and compare the impacts of high-energy particles produced in our pilot GeNiE reactor with neutrons from a known D-T fusion source.

      http://www.globalenergycorporation.net/Publications.aspx

      Delete
    5. Nothing in Science, Nature or Physical Review? Come on, this is important stuff. You should publish it it the big journals.

      Delete
    6. United States Patent 8419919 is important 'stuff'. It is published, has references and is intellectual property that is more valuable than being published in the big journals.

      Read it and then refute it with science, not bigotry.

      Delete
    7. Patents are not science publications. Perpetual motion machines have been patented, but would be summarily rejected by any legitimate science journal.

      Delete
    8. P.A. Mosier-Boss, J.Y. Dea, L.P.G. Forsley, M.S. Morey, J.R. Tinsley, J.P. Hurley, and F.E. Gordon, "Comparison of Pd/D Co-Deposition and DT Neutron Generated Triple Tracks Observed in CR-39 Detectors," Eur. Phys. J. Appl. Phys. 51 (2010) 20901

      Abstract: Solid state nuclear track detectors (SSNTDs), such as CR-39, have been used to detect energetic charged particles and neutrons. Of the neutron and charged particle interactions that can occurin CR-39, the one that is the most easily identifiable is the carbon breakup reaction. The observation of a triple track, which appears as three alpha particle tracks breaking away from a center point, is diagnostic of the 12C(n,n') 3α carbon breakup reaction. Such triple tracks have been observed in CR-39 detectors that have been used in Pd/D co-deposition experiments. In this communication, triple tracks in CR-39 detector sobserved in Pd/D co-deposition experiments are compared with those generated upon exposure to a DT neutron source. It was found that both sets of tracks were indistinguishable. Both symmetric and asymmetric tracks were observed. Using linear energy transfer (LET) curves and track modeling, the energy of the neutron that created the triple track can be estimated.

      Acknowledgements: This work was funded by the SPAWAR Systems Center Pacific ILIR and S&T Initiatives Programs, the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA), and JWK Corporation. The authors would also like to thank Dr. G. Phillips, nuclear physicist, retired from the Naval Research Laboratory, US Navy, Radiation Effects Branch, and P. Carbonnelle from Université catholique de Louvain for valuable discussions in interpreting the optical data. It was G. Phillips who first pointed out the existence of triple tracks in our CR-39 photomicrographs. The authors acknowledge the contributions of Dr. S. Szpak, retired from SPAWAR Systems Center Pacific, who pioneered the Pd/D co-deposition process. This manuscript has been co-authored by National Security Technologies, LLC, under Contract No. DE-AC52-06NA25946 with the US Department of Energy. The United States Government retains and the publisher, by accepting the article for publication, acknowledges that the United States Government retains a non-exclusive, paid-up, irrevocable, worldwide license to publish or reproduce the published form of this manuscript, or allow others to do so, for United States Government purposes.

      Delete
  39. Why rely on triple tracks instead of neutron detectors? And now that they've found the triple tracks, why not confirm it with conventional neutron counters?

    ReplyDelete
  40. In this video, there are several proofs besides CR-39 detectors.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VymhJCcNBBc
    The Slides: http://bit.ly/rwH3hl

    Evidence of Heat Generation:

    Calorimetry of electrodes prepared using Pd/D co-deposition
    indicates that enthalpy production is higher than that obtained
    using massive electrodes

    IR imaging indicates that the heat source is the cathode and not
    joule heating. Heat generation is not continuous but occurs in
    discrete spots on the electrode.

    Evidence of the occurrence of mini-explosions

    Low Energy Radiation Emission:

    Cathodically polarized Pd/D system emits X-rays with a broad
    energy distribution (Bremsstrauhlung) with the occassional
    emergence of recognizable peaks (20 keV due to Pd K
    α
    and 8-12
    keV due to either Ni or Pt)

    Emission of radiation is sporadic and of limited duration

    Increase in radiation observed with the addition of Be
    2+ and thiourea, additives known to increase the rate and degree of
    deuterium uptake

    Tritium Production:

    The evidence of tritium production is based on the
    difference between the computed and observed
    concentration of tritium.

    Tritium generation is sporadic and burst-like.

    During bursts, the rate of tritium production ranged
    between 3000-7000 atoms sec
    -1
    .

    Results of External E/B Fields:

    Changes in morphology
    of the Pd deposit are
    observed that are suggestive of solidification of
    molten metal

    New elements are observed that are associated with
    these features


    ReplyDelete
  41. Videos are not peer reviewed. Scientific citations are all I'm going to look at. Send links to Science, Nature and Physical Review papers at your convenience.

    ReplyDelete
  42. You are not qualified to comment on something you have not read nor seen. This is bigotry, not science.

    Navy scientists are more qualified in this subject than you are and the patent does not involve perpetual motion, but a method for generating neutrons, not fantasies.

    It is your job to watch, learn, understand, and then refute both the patent and the many proofs provided both to peer reviewed journals and the Department of Defense. Links to Science, Nature and Physical Review will be provided when they deem to publish, not at any convenience.

    If you cannot read nor watch the proofs cited then you are not qualified to be horrified by the 24 peer reviewed papers cited by the authors of the patent.

    ReplyDelete
  43. I haven't read it because it hasn't appeared in the places where legitimate science appears: Science, Nature and Physical Review.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So you are correct, I am no more qualified to evaluate the state of cold fusion research than I am on the state of Yeti searches, UFO sightings, or perpetual motion machines, which also don't appear in Science, Nature or Physical Review

      Delete
    2. Read the reports, watch the University of Missouri video presentation by qualified SPAWAR scientists, and read the patent and references. Then you may be qualified to be horrified with your emotional, non-scientific commentary.

      Delete
  44. The Navy, SPAWAR, DIA and DOD conduct legitimate science. You are bigoted in your beliefs, and horrified in your emotional slant:

    DIA-08-0911-003
    13 November 2009
    Technology Forecast: Worldwide Research on Low-Energy Nuclear
    reactions
    Increasing and Gaining Acceptance

    Scientists worldwide have been quietly investigating low-energy nuclear reactions(LENR) for the past 20 years. Researchers in this controversial field are now claiming paradigm-shifting results, including generation of large amounts of excess heat, nuclear activity and transmutation of elements.

    Although no current theory exists to explain all the reported phenomena, some scientists now believe quantum-level nuclear reactions may be occurring. DIA assesses with high confidence that if LENR can produce nuclear-origin energy at room temperatures, this disruptive technology could revolutionize energy production and storage, since nuclear reactions release millions of times more energy per unit mass than do any known chemical fuel.''

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

    ReplyDelete
  45. Claims are fun. Publications in Science, Nature and the Physical Review actually make the case. Send them along, if you know of any.

    ReplyDelete
  46. You stipulate that the DOD, SPAWAR and DIA make fun claims. This is an emotional, not rational reply to not reading nor bothering to peer review these Navy scientists.

    Pinning your argument on three publications is a weak non-refutation of the claims made both in other peer reviewed publications and by government agencies.

    Base your refutation on why this patent and their proofs are fraudulent or wrong with scientific explanations.

    They took the time to publish. To refute them, you need to read and watch their tedious proofs.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The three publications I listed are where good physics goes. I'm not going to waste time chasing down every science claim anyone makes. That's what journals are for. Publish in one of those and you wont have to waste time trolling blogs like mine.

      Delete
    2. This is your cold fusion folly, reading only three physics journals. You are a bigoted American, chasing folly within your own narrow views. You have nothing more than the repetition of three American journals that you can read. You know little about SPAWAR's history and you are too prejudiced to bother learning anything outside of three journals. Japan is also a source of peer reviewed experiments but your American bias will never accept anything but three journals.

      Delete
    3. Nature is not an American journal.

      Delete
    4. Nature article on method for generating neutrons:

      http://blogs.nature.com/news/2009/03/cold_fusion_warmed_over.html

      "People have always asked 'Where's the neutrons?'" Mosier-Boss says. "If you have fusion going on, then you have to have neutrons. We now have evidence that there are neutrons present in these LENR reactions."

      They cited other evidence for nuclear reactions including X-rays, tritium (another form of hydrogen), and excess heat. Meanwhile, Mosier-Boss and colleagues are continuing to explore the phenomenon to get a better understanding of exactly how LENR works, which is key to being able to control it for practical purposes...

      http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-03/acs-fr031709.php

      Triple tracks in CR-39 as the result of Pd–D Co-deposition: evidence of energetic neutrons

      Pamela A. Mosier-Boss,
      Stanislaw Szpak,
      Frank E. Gordon,
      Lawrence P. G. Forsley

      Naturwissenschaften
      January 2009, Volume 96, Issue 1, pp 135-142

      http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00114-008-0449-x

      Delete
    5. The Nature article, which is a news story and not a peer reviewed research paper, concludes . . .

      "The general feeling from physicists, nicely outlined in New Scientist’s coverage, is that these researchers certainly appear to be seeing something odd involving atomic nuclei – but it doesn’t involve fusion."

      Yep, that's pretty much what I'm saying.

      Delete
    6. Yet the method generates neutrons and reproducible.

      Delete
  47. "I feel obligated to speak up and urge the government and innocent citizens not to waste their money".

    More than $100 billions have been invested during these last 60 years in the development of thermonuclear fusion and look where we are today... At the same time less than 0.1% of this has been invested in LENR and today several companies compete to have a product on the market in 2014. Thus where is the waste of money?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It may be tough, technologically speaking, but it doesn't violate accepted and established physics. They also publish in Science, Nature and the Physical Review routinely.

      Delete
    2. And it has the benefit of not being a source of energy, but pure research. It routinely fails to produce energy, but it gets published in three American journals, so it must be a worthy project, full of funding, public relations, accepted and established physics.

      Delete
  48. Researchers now consistently measure excess heat during experiments. The experiments are highly repeatable. For example, they know how to process Palladium now so that the active LENR sites (or whatever they are) are consistently seen. The heat is way in excess of what chemical reactions can explain. 11 companies, each with knowledgeable scientists, are steadily working to produce commercially viable LENR devices. Likely the first ones will appear this year.

    I don't know why there are not more papers on LENR published at Science, Nature and the Physical Review. Perhaps the papers are not submitted there, or perhaps there is bias against these papers. Someone surely knows which it is. Of course the people at the companies will not be submitting papers because they are competing.

    ReplyDelete
  49. "I am sad - horrified really - to learn that some NASA scientists have caught cold fusion madness."

    Unscientific ad hominem trolling, histrionic sadness and fake horror.

    "As is so often the case with companies and research groups that get involved in this fruitless enterprise, they tend to make their case by first pointing out how nice it would be to have a clean, cheap, safe, effectively limitless source of power. Who could say no to that?"

    This is a Straw Man argument with opinion in place of a fact. No company nor research group named, a bias describing 'fruitless enterprise', and a glittering generalization about how 'they' point out limitless power.

    I can say no to your commentary, because it is full of opinion and devoid of facts.

    Who, what, when, where, why and how you arrived at these opinions would be more explanatory than citing three physics journals that you claim to read.

    This entire article is a the product of a troll extolling physics, while lazily negating reasonable experiments and peer reviewed journals from foreign lands.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It absolutely is my opinion. I wouldn't try to publish anyone else's.

      Delete
  50. I wonder how many different people are using the name "Anonymous" in these comments. I hate it when people do that because you have no idea who is saying what. There might be one person or five different people.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As an anonymous myself I will tell there there is more than one..more like 4 to 7-9 (guessitmate)judging from the content and syntax. I didn't realize there was an "easy" way
      (use a name/blank URL) to create a name, and was a bit tired of "opening accounts" so to speak.. I have about 13 posts myself here... got a bit carried away.... ;)
      Personally, since I am a bit anti-authority, it doesn't bother me much since I care more for content..

      Delete
  51. Having viewed the video mentioned above about generating neutrons with co-deposition, the odds favor Patent 8419919 being a valid method for creating energetic particles, while the strange emotional nature of the article seems to paint NASA and anyone outside of three physics journals as being mad.

    The patent, the DIA report, the video and the twenty four cited articles have a burden of proof that Buzz cannot overcome, except with fallacious rejoinders and rhetorical dodges.

    The Navy scientists have made their evidence publicly available, and it is for scientists to either confirm or disprove these facts.

    Buzz will not be such a scientist, as he is not able to read beyond his grade level.

    ReplyDelete
  52. All the evidence you cite is on par with the sorts of things you will get from young earth advocates, yeti hunters, ufo researchers, and so on and so on. If you can't get one of the leading journals to publish your papers, then there's no way to tell your research from pseudoscience. I'm not going to do you research for you, but I'll read about it if you publish in Science, Nature or the Physical Review.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Except that these are well funded government scientists who now have prototype reactors, valid intellectual property and credibility.

      You have the credibility of a lazy reader and flamethrower.

      Delete
    2. just a by theway question, whom are you speaking of ?

      Is it Brillouin, Mileys, Hagelstein,
      Brillouin is validated by stanford research institute for a preliminary wet reactor of COP2... of course that huge "tea kettle" result is ignored.
      But Brillouin is private .
      Hagestein have been attacked by colleagues at MIT to prevent funding by private investors (like Defkalion was at it's inception, by greek physicists advisors)

      maybe you mean not only US government...
      Do you think that Defkalion is funded by Canada. they just claim of benefiting from tax exemption on research (similar to CIR in france).

      Do you think that Toyota and Mitsubishi are funded by japan ? Possible but improbable...

      Do you thing that some of the 21 chinese labs working on LENR (according to Biberian, after gathering papers for ICCF15+) are funded by chinese government... Quite possible, or just some "freedom to research" that would show how smart is Chinese government in managing growth (as in many domain)...

      The only public institution, beside old (and under siege) NASA, NRL, and SPAWAR, working hard on LENR is Italian advanced energy institute ENEA. Piantelli and Celani may work to make a new reactor, but they will do that with private startup (Nichenergy, Kresenn) not with government.


      Maybe something will happen in a place you don't imagine, in Europe continent... with some public support... This is the only new initiative I know about, and it is more a kind of technology/application incubator than a technology creator.

      the one of Spawar team spinoff (GEC) seems much hot air, or at least just expert gang.

      Miley have a chance on ARPA-E faststartup, but missed the crowdvoting.

      For now, I don't know any government funded research that produce a working reactor. I anticipate there will be none.


      It is not so different from what happens with plane. the effort of US government for plane was really obsolete and a big waste, compared to the simple and engineer way of wright brothers...


      note that in both case, science was late of 2 years, like the US gov or SciAm.

      if you have data that you can share, tell us (or at least tell me)

      AlainCo- the techwatcher of lenr-forum

      Delete
  53. It's strange how Buzz reinforces his critics by clearly stating that he trusts only three magazines, whereas his article contains references to others. In other words, Buzz is arguing against himself. And I suspect he may also be at least some of the Anonymous commenters.

    I think this entire page, including the article and all the comments except mine, is a test to see who can spot the paradox.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Those are three journals with with solid reputations. They are read by the physics community as a whole. If you want to reach a broad swath of physicists through a trusted medium, those are the ones you're going to have to publish in.

      No one outside of your tiny community is going to trust a journal or conference proceeding with LENR or "cold fusion" in the title because that implies that the publication is strongly biased.

      Would you have any confidence that scientists were reliable if their work appears in "Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Young Earth Research"?

      So, why not publish in Science, Nature or Physical Review from time to time?

      Delete
    2. Because, as I explained before
      1- IT IS FORBIDDEN. they have an official policy to refuse any paper on that subject. It is official, it is unscientific
      2- because they refuse to update false data, fraud evidence, bad reasoning in pas negative result showing they are more than biased
      3- before there have been 2 example. the paper of oriani was accepted by peer-review and rejected at the end. Then the report of ENEA was rejected upfront without any reading, nbecause "no room", which is a clear fake excuse for a paper simply showing that LENR is real. Many similarly stupid or incompetent rejection letter were obtaine from more than 40 other journals...

      so you ask somethink impossible...

      because LENR is assumed impossible.
      thus it is proved.
      good reasoning.

      the link to data are in my other post..

      Delete
    3. by the way, can you read Naturwissenschaften ?

      or is it bad because it accept paper about LENR ?

      read that database
      http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJtallyofcol.pdf

      you may have to update your blacklist of journal not to read...

      Delete
    4. Oh, now I see. It' a conspiracy. It all makes perfect sense.

      Delete
  54. Buzz, you seemed to have opened a can of new fire. Most of the posts are from hard core researchers with thousands of hours spent following and investigating the evidence. The story is a long one and quite fascinating. Conspiracy, no? I wonder though if nation states or corporate states whose very existence was threatened by low cost energy resources wouldn't spend a few dollars to tamp down a revolution. Some like the RNK are willing to starve a nation and threaten nuclear war. Some might even pay "scientists" to write derogatory blogs. The preponderance of the evidence would indicate it's worthy of more study, that's all.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. no conspiracy,
      just groupthink, herd effect, as described by Thomas Kuhn, Roland Benabou, Nassim nicholas taleb...

      good old flat earther.
      No hope either until it is industrial and 2 years pass.
      Next few years will be funny ;-)

      Delete
  55. We have wandered well away from the motivation of this post. If it had been about NASA spending money to build a Farnsworth-Hirsch fusor rocket, I would still point out the absurdity. Although Farnsworth-Hirsch fusors have been clearly demonstrated to produce neutrons through conventional fusion reactions, they would make lousy engines in their current form. Cold fusion has the same problems along with the unfortunate demand that something is wrong with proven physics.

    If you find the cold fusion research of the past 20 years compelling, go for it. But promising us a rocket, a solution to the atmospheric carbon load, and backing it up with a fairy tale about LENR in compact fluorescents makes it clear to me that someone is selling NASA and the general public a whole lot of snake oil.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The real funny thing is MOST (if I can be so bold to suppose from the "real world") of the general public would be on your side...The vocal side is, in general, populated by people actually working on it.. THAT is funny.. J.Q.P is not exactly embracing it.. as to investors gambling w/ their money.. THAT is nothing new. Few are promising anything actually. I suspect the number of "theoretically possible yet either impractical or found not to be possible number in the 10's of thousands and billions of dollars.. The amount of money NASA is probably spending is historically Minute. If I remember correctly from some 'study" it takes a population percent of 10% to push an idea into the mainstream consciousness of acceptance (right or wrong) and it is obvious that we are not near that point..
      People buying into it are few and most seem to have eyes wide open.
      If anything NASA is selling itself snake oil.. and odd position to be in.
      You pretend there is nothing there or a chemical reaction, yet in 20 years plus NO "scientific" explanation has been made of the anomalies... and the only classical defense is group delusion. I find it incredulous that the collection of people including SPARWAR, Mitsubishi, ECT.. can be all "deluded" since most were predisposed from the background to be negative to start.
      Science advances as waves on the beach, some surging forward, some back or slowly and apparently so does the "unexplained phenomena" surrounding LENR
      Historically interesting (and I do like the jab at the Nature editor):
      "Lewis scored what the British call an "own goal" without noticing it.
      Needless to say, his editor at Nature, Lindley, also failed to notice this.
      That is because Lindley is a certified nitwit, as he demonstrated in his
      letter I quoted in my paper, and in his tour de force here:

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

      Perhaps it is a waste of time to hash over these things, so many years
      after the fact. But it irks me that Lewis and others still claim his paper
      was the nail in the coffin! I heard this for the umpteenth time and thought
      "someone should upload a paper pointing out the problems with Lewis." No
      one did, so I uploaded the old paper by Noninski and then I wrote this one
      myself.

      - Jed
      http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg77471.html
      http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJhownaturer.pdf
      As to CF's amuse yourself here.. ;)
      http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen/lattice-energy-llcare-lenrs-occurring-in-compact-fluorescent-lightsmarch-7-2013

      BTW: I'm not assuming you are wrong, just stating I think you are wrong..
      Science can never prove a negative, and the burden of proof is on the LENR people who, from my view, has done an exemplary job.. despite the environment.
      You seem to believe there is unexplained phenomena of some kind. My point is NEITHER side has explained it to the acceptance of the other. THAT is not proof of anything..
      You cannot disprove a theory (or facts) you can only prove by showing what actually caused it......without a "current theory" explanation of observations you have nothing..

      Delete
    2. "The gentleman doth protest too much, methinks?" Does LENR promise too much to deserve a through investigation? If we can spend tens of billions on now abandoned Tomak reactors with technology unlikely to ever see an industrial use, we can certainly let our NASA scientists pursue with others the anomalous heat and reaction proven to exist in LENR. Who knows, these studies may prove to reveal unknown areas worthy of future study. How can anyone say we're wasting money by talking and research when these studies may lead to something entirely unexpected, useful and world changing. You never can know what you'll find until you spend the time and effort to do the experimenting.

      Delete
  56. Dr. George Miley, professor emeritus of physics from the University of Illinois (his wiki page is below), has been doing LENR research for 20 years. He holds several LENR patents. He may soon get funded via an ARPA-E grant for his proposed 10kw LENR Thermal Electric Generator. But I doubt if his LENR research has been covered in the pages of Science, Nature or Physical Review. Is Buzz going to speak out against this misuse of government money?

    Buzz, and do you really think that to get government research money that people should first have to get published in Science, Nature or Physical Review? This should be the process to get government grant money?

    Oddly, there is a substantial yet seemingly hidden world of LENR research that gets little coverage in places like Science, Nature or Physical Review or in the mainstream lay press.

    But a great number of scientists have been measuring substantial amounts of excess heat, well beyond what chemical reactions can explain, for many years now. This is potentially very important. Buzz should investigate this closely, and then if he concludes something important may be going on, he should consider a follow up post saying that some federal funding is valid and that LENR research is more important than he realized. As a writer for the American Physical Society blog, I think you should re-consider closely what you have written.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_H._Miley

    ReplyDelete
  57. If your technology, be it anti-gravity, perpetual motion, or cold fusion, requires that accepted physics is violated in order for it to work, then yes, you need to offer very compelling evidence before you should get any money to work on it. Getting published in Science, Nature, or the Physical Review means you have convinced at least a few experts that your science has some merit.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I suppose using Science, Nature, or the Physical Review as a general filter might make sense as a rough guide for who gets US federal funds. But there has been a decade of compelling evidence of extraordinary excess heat measurements. While the results may not be published in Science, Nature, or the Physical Review, some very respectable scientists have done this work. And there has been a great deal of work done in this area with very controlled experiments. So your filter method just doesn't fit in this case.So that is why I think you should read the papers on excess heat for yourself and then make up your mind.

      Delete
  58. I followed the cold fusion Usenet group closely for a few years after the Pons-Fleishmann claims. What I learned there is that calorimetry is extremely difficult to get right. Hence, those who were experts in the field tended to ignore claims of excess heat and demanded to see neutrons as evidence that fusion was occurring. That seems to be an eminently sensible approach. After all, if fusion cannot take place without the production of neutrons, they are what one should be looking for.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Exactly, ChuckO. Thank you.

      -Buzz

      Delete
    2. Thanks for this spirited and straightforward debate.
      When the recent round of claims came out I was excited because they could so easily be validated using the methods you outlined. Instead we've been subjected to dubious claims over a very long period of time with experiments that could be royally messed up by simple "battery" like physical effects, known or otherwise. I can think of several. The fact that "loading" is needed for an extended period of time for minor energy outputs in excess of the possible energy input is a big red flag to me. No radiation and no transmutation = no nuclear demonstrated in my book. Electromagnetic radiation = possible nuclear. Certain particle emmissions = definite nuclear. Trasnmutation = definite nuclear.
      Unsubstantiated claims and requests for funding = watch out.
      It all reminds me of the perpetual motion machines that use permanent magnets that actually slowly get demagnetized by running the machine.

      Delete
  59. wow. Arguements.

    We ought to have a Fringe Fusion Forum.

    We can take everyone who has a new fusion idea and put them together to hash it out.

    - Fusors
    - Polywells
    - Cross Fire
    - LENR/Cold Fusion
    - Focus Fusion
    - MIX
    - Spheromak
    - Tokomaks
    - Tri Alpha Energy
    - Penning Traps
    - MARBLE
    - Pinches
    - ICF

    75 Amatuers have fused atoms with Fusors. Fusion is not impossible.


    The entrenched folks would never agree to this. Fusion is to limited, too Cut throat.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Look. Don't be a fool. The government and NASA has had cold fusion for years. They already have a working prototype. They wouldn't be announcing LENR if they didn't already have a working prototype. Give me a break!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Otherwise, how could they have gone to the moon? (Unless Capricorn 1 was a documentory.)

      Delete
  61. Your arguments are weak and show that you have not done even the most basic homework before being "horrified" and publishing your ignorance.

    Numerous researchers have reported anomolous heat and/or tranmutation when loading H2 or D2 into Ni or Pd. This includes Pons and Fleischmann but didn't start with them. Many of these researchers have wrongly declared that they know what is happening for example, cold fusion.

    I like Robert Duncan's position on what is going on. He is the APS expert who went to consult for the show 60 Minutes when they were doing a segment on cold fusion. He came in with the same sceptiscism (disbelief) that you have, but he took a look at what some cold fusion researchers were doing and he came away saying that they were doing good work and that he could find no obvious flaws in their methodology. He then looked deeper and became convinced that something is happening that he doesn't understand. He calls it the anomolous heat effect, because it is too much to possibly be chemical, but there is not enough evidence to explain the origin. He says that as a physicist this mystery fascinates him and it certianly warrents further research. The 60 minutes piece and many other talks by Robert Duncan can be found on youtube.

    Further, I would point you to NASA scientist Joe Zawodny's personal response to the the non technical video that NASA put out talking about his work. I find this quote important, "There has been a lot of work done in the past 20+ years. When considered in aggregate I believe excess power has been demonstrated. I did not say, reliable, useful, commercially viable, or controllable."

    But if you are going to start bashing his work, you might want to figure out what he has said about it, I mean it's called Google and if you type in his name it's the first thing that comes up.

    http://joe.zawodny.com/

    If you are concerned about the government pissing money away on bad science, cold fusion is the least of your problems.

    ReplyDelete
  62. 'Cause everything on the internet is true.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Dear Buzz Skyline

    My name is Dr Bob

    I travel around the world to attend the best parties while promoting green solutions and creative thinking

    The reason I do that is because I think that Information and Technology can solve all our problems.

    Thank you for your coverage on Cold Fusion!


    1: May I humbly ask you about your scientific background.
    (What have you studied and where?)

    2: Since you come across and express yourself as an authority I would like to ask you how long you have studied these low energetic nuclear reactions.

    I hope you can find the time,


    Best Regards


    Dr Bob
    www.drboblog.com

    ReplyDelete
  64. My earlier comment buried in the mess. Here it is in the main list:

    It seems like every paper submitted to a peer reviewed journal is rejected because there are no peer reviewed papers that have been published.

    Science should be about long and exhausting efforts if making finely tuned and precise measurements. It should not be about prejudice and preconceptions. Let the measurements speak for themselves. That is why I like the evidence presented in the 38th through 41st minute of this video:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VymhJCcNBBc

    You should be skeptical of your own skepticism.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The polymer etching technique for detecting neutrons may work. But why not use conventional neutron detectors that require less extrapolation and circumstantial interpretation?

      Delete
    2. When you know how to use a hammer, everything looks like a nail. I will not argue with you about which measurement technique is the best. In an ideal world, we should do good science with both methods!

      Delete
  65. I hope cold fusion succeeds, but if not, there is also the aneutronic fusion reactor that can be a promising option to power our future energy needs. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUrt186pWoA

    ReplyDelete
  66. Bold scientific leaders are the ones who have made interesting observations and are pushing forward to gain a greater understanding. And sometimes they have to do it while facing a mob of naysayers who mock and throw spitballs while sitting idle on the sidelines. Even more pathetic is when the critics obviously haven't done even the most basic research. The worst of these are those who go to cocktail parties and regurgitate what they've read in the lastest issue of Nature, Science, or Physical Review in hopes of impressing someone.
    Well, I'm not impressed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Even worse is people who don't understand basic physics, and instead latch on to crackpot ideas like cold fusion, polywater and homeopathy.

      Delete
    2. I think its unfair to call everyone a crackpot just because their ideas and results challenge established science.

      Let everyone pursue what ever area of science they want.
      Maybe not funded by tax money but our understanding constantly change and there is a lot we do not know. How can we learn about what we do not know if we do not study it.

      I think that if scientific data and experiments contradicts our prior understanding it makes perfect sense to further investigate these areas.

      When it comes to cold fusion, its not one person in a laboratory 24 years ago who made one claim. Its scientists that are world leading within their respective fields working for the benefit of humanity to find solutions to the energy problem... possible the biggest problem we face on this planet today.

      Delete
    3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathological_science
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crackpot_theory

      Delete
  67. I want to echo what others have said. I think your openly hostile skepticism is bordering on pathological. Science and Nature are two great publications but with editorial policies of not publishing anything related to cold fusion. There are no violations of physics in cold fusion by the way. Its just a misunderstanding as to how physics works in this case. Experiments by many very qualified scientists have see excess heat that simply cannot be explained by chemistry. How does that happen is still being looked at. That is what is called research. Something I wonder if you know anything about.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Now that's funny - advocates of the poster child of pathological science calling skeptics pathological. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathological_science

      Delete
  68. To call Cold Fusion (LENR) pathological science is incorrect unless you believe that scientist after scientist who is measuring excess heat is fooling themselves.

    You put electrical power in and then derive the total electrical energy input. Then you measure the total thermal energy output. At a concept level this is pretty straightforward. It is hard to imagine they are all measuring wrong and fooling themselves and each other.

    To get a sense of how strong the evidence is that excess heat is really being generated, watch Edmund Storms in the video below starting at time 12:20. The world simply doesn't realize that this excess heat phenomenon is pretty much a scientific fact now. It seems to me the only real grounds for debate is explaining what is going on and seeing if useful devices can be made.

    Also, if you listen to the first half of the video below you will see that they understand basically what is going on at a macro level as far as materials interacting. It’s explaining it all at the atomic level that needs deeper understanding.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oHXy1knGrM

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So our argument is with the Wikipedia community then, which calls cold fusion the iconic pathological science.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathological_science

      Delete
    2. "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." Mahatma Gandhi

      Cold fusion is like a 102 pound man defeating the heavily armed British empire.

      Delete
  69. Although this is not a peer reviewed publish theory, it may be an explanation for how nature is behaving with regards to LENR:
    http://www.brillouinenergy.com/docs.php?doc=energy_hypothesis

    Animation:
    http://www.brillouinenergy.com/?page=cecr_vid

    ReplyDelete
  70. "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." Mahatma Gandhi

    Cold fusion is like a 102 pound man defeating the heavily armed British empire.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Except, it's not.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Are you one of those people who think your opinions are facts, while other people's opinions are delusions?

      These are the 3 best links of information on LENR that I have found (in my humble opinion):

      http://www.brillouinenergy.com/docs.php?doc=energy_hypothesis
      http://www.brillouinenergy.com/?page=cecr_vid
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VymhJCcNBBc

      You should be skeptical of your own skepticism (in my humble opinion). It's easy to play defense. It takes courage and character to play offense!

      Delete
    2. One, two, three four, I declare a link war.
      The ultimate in peer review, for the win: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathological_science

      Delete
    3. As I said, it's easy to waive your hand and declare pathology. But I would prefer you take a few minutes, look at the 3 links, and then form an opinion. Maybe its bad science. Maybe it isn't. But you are declaring it bad science without even looking at it!

      Your prejudice is stunning.

      Delete
    4. I have looked at them, and have followed the field since the announcement by Pons and Fleischman in 1989. It's pathological nonsense.

      Delete
  72. Well we need someone / something doing it real soon.

    ReplyDelete
  73. You, sir, are acting like a bully and a jackass. "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds," in Emerson's words. The history of physics is littered with erstwhile dangerous ideas that didn't get published in your arbitrary though apparently sacred trinity of Nature, Science and the Physical Review.

    Three examples: Enrico Fermi's ultimately Nobel Prize-winning theory of weak-force interactions was deemed too controversial by the editors of Nature to be published in their pages and instead was relegated to an obscure Italian physics journal. Murray Gell Mann's ultimately Nobel Prize-winning work on quarks also suffered similar early hurdles to publication. Daniel Shechtman, with his ultimately Nobel Prize-winning work on quasicrystals, had to first endure years of derision and denial of funding and publications in top tier journals because quasicrystals were for much of his career considered simply "impossible." Until they weren't. And then Stockholm came calling.

    You are right, I think, to question the cold fusion theory. It is a nonstarter. It simply makes no physical sense. But there are literally dozens of experiments that -- theoretical explanation aside -- suggest a real physical process is going on, although its mechanism is only today beginning to be understood. Steven Krivit's links, above, to peer reviewed research is a good place to begin. The Widom-Larsen theory (published in the peer reviewed European Physical Journal C) also offers up a plausible model of these experiments that requires no new physics whatsoever. It is NOT cold fusion.

    There is a lot of noise in this field. And not nearly as much signal. If you already wear blinders, you're going to miss the story completely. For those who hold to a higher standard than Emerson's "foolish consistency," though, there's a revolution afoot. Not unlike the Shechtman-quasicrystal story, I suspect. Listen if you have ears to hear.

    http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/scienceshow/the-scientist-who-answered-his-critics---by-winning-a-nobel21/4607452

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wikipedia any one of those and you will see that none of them fit the profile of pathological science at any time. Even Schechtman didn't require the violation of bedrock physics, unlike cold fusion. Schechtman also published his work in Physical Review Letters. It is now one of the top ten most cited PRLs of all time: http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200301/prl-8.cfm

      There is a vast gulf between novel, revolutionary physics (electroweak theory, quarks, quasicrystals, etc.) and pathological science (cold fusion, polywater, n-rays, anti-gravity machines).

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathological_science

      Delete
    2. With a waive of you hand you dismiss it as junk science. The strength of your prejudice is stunning.

      It would take about an hour to review the links presented here by the LENR proponents. I would consider myself a proponent. Let he measurements dictate your opinion. BUT YOU WILL NOT EVEN LOOK AT THE DATA!

      Delete
    3. I'm also not going to look at the data from people who claim they have proof that the world is only 6000 years old either.

      http://meetings.aps.org/Meeting/APR13/Event/193875

      Is that prejudice? No. It would only be a waste of time.

      Delete
    4. LASER was judged breaking QM by niels bohr
      http://www.lenr-forum.com/showthread.php?1182
      "To illustrate that point, Mead told the story of how Charles Townes, the inventor of the laser and maser, took his ideas to the leading quantum-mechanics nabobs at the time, Neils Bohr and Werner Heisenberg.
      "They both laughed at him, and basically said, 'Sonny, you just don't seem to understand how quantum mechanics works'," Mead told his ISSCC audience. "Well, history has shown that it wasn't Charlie who didn't know how quantum mechanics works, it was the pontifical experts in the field who didn't know how it worked.""

      LENR is not so different, first it works
      (despite what uninformed people says here, it is peer-reviewed, many times/many way replicated, much better than most scientific results), but also it does not even break the knowledge of the time...
      it break the common "preconception", the "usual practice" the "simplifications", the common assumptions...

      at least, LENR does not require to break any of physics laws...
      Any physicist that claim it is impossible, is incompetent.
      notice how the condensed mater physicist stays out of that debate.
      anybody experienced with superconductors and semiconductors, keep his mouth closed in that debate.

      that some serious guys really claims
      - that it breaks thermodynamic laws
      - quantum physics
      is...
      sad...
      and expected by Thomas Kuhn theory.


      notice that despite the data I send, some people still claim that there is no peer-reviewed papers, ...
      and don't accept that main offical journal have explicit policy, and evident implemented policy, not to accept any paper about LENr, what ever it is...

      it is proven, public, . I gave reference to them, and some still assume the opposite...

      funny...

      funny.
      but sad.really sad.

      by theway, about APS, do you know about ANS:
      http://www.lenr-forum.com/showthread.php?618-LENR-at-American-Nuclear-Society

      Delete
    5. Read it and weep.

      Cold Fusion Incompatibilities with conventional fusion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion#Incompatibilities_with_conventional_fusion

      Delete
    6. "I'm also not going to look at the data from people who claim they have proof that the world is only 6000 years old either."

      But it is okay to listen to people who invent the concept of dark energy without any proof of its existence.

      For the record, an omnipotent God can create the Universe in any amount of time including 6000 years by definition. So what you are clinging to is pointless argument about who's "dogma" correct. You can't prove the laws of physics are universal and constant. Your articles of faith are no better than anyone else's.

      I will agree the Brillouin Energy stuff is a lot of conjecture that has yet to been independently proven. And they certainly have a interested in making money. But the SPAWAR cold fusion research stuff smells like good science to me.

      Again, if the focal point of your tunnel vision ever expands, here's the link to the SPAWAR research:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VymhJCcNBBc

      Delete
    7. " . . . an omnipotent God can create the Universe in any amount of time including 6000 years by definition."

      LOL!

      Now I see what I'm up against

      Delete
    8. An omnipotent god can also produce excess heat from fusion reactions that violate the physics of fusion reactions, so I guess cold fusion must work after all, Insha'Allah.

      Delete
    9. God is the force in the Universe that keeps our full understanding of nature just one step beyond our comprehension. God speaks to us through experimental error. Can God have a thought so complex that even she can't understand it? If she's omnipotent, of course she can!

      One could have the opinion that quantum entanglement, the Casimir effect, and dark energy are all evidence of the existence of God. More energy has gone into accelerating the expansion of the Universe that is currently observable many times over!

      However, religion has nothing to do with science. Good science is about precise and accurate measurement. Repeatability and independent confirmation are also important. Claiming people doing LENR research are not doing good science without even looking at the body of work is very prejudice.

      Delete
    10. OK, let's try this one . . .

      I'm also not going to look at the data from people who claim they have invented anti-gravity machines either.

      http://meetings.aps.org/Meeting/APR13/Event/193102

      Is that prejudice? No. It would only be a waste of time.

      Delete
  74. RE: "Now I see what I'm up against"

    Before you label me, please understand I am totally for good science. If the data does not support LENR then it is junk science. I will not argue with you on that point. But before you can claim it is junk science you first have to do the experiment correctly. You can't do reckless amateur science during replication and then claim that the whole field is junk science.

    RE: "Read it and weep. Cold Fusion Incompatibilities with conventional fusion"

    LENR is NOT hot fusion.

    1 NEUTRON ACCUMULATION AND BETA DECAY

    Quantum Fusion posits that the energy in these fusion reactions is not the result of proton-proton interactions involving Coulombic force vs. the strong nuclear force but rather neutron accumulation, an exothermic reaction that result in the production of unstable Hydrogen-4. The Hydrogen-4 then beta decays to Helium-4, also an exothermic reaction producing (17-20) MeV = (2.7-3.2) Pico-joules of energy.

    Hydrogen-4

    Hydrogen-4 contains one proton and three neutrons in its nucleus. It is a highly unstable isotope of hydrogen. It has been synthesised in the laboratory by bombarding tritium with fast-moving deuterium nuclei.[4] In this experiment, the tritium nucleus captured neutrons from the fast-moving deuterium nucleus. The

    presence of the hydrogen-4 was deduced by detecting the emitted protons. Its atomic mass is 4.02781 ± 0.00011.[5] It decays through neutron emission with a half-life of (1.39 ± 0.10) × 10−22 seconds.[6]

    Helium-4

    The most common isotope, 4He, is produced on Earth by alpha decay of heavier radioactive elements; the alpha particles that emerge are fully ionized 4He nuclei. 4He is an unusually stable nucleus because its nucleons are arranged into complete shells. It was also formed in enormous quantities during Big Bang nucleosynthesis.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Quantum Fusion posits that the energy in these fusion reactions is not the result of proton-proton interactions involving Coulombic force vs. the strong nuclear force but rather neutron accumulation, an exothermic reaction that result in the production of unstable Hydrogen-4."

      Neutron activation is well known and understood. As I recall, it was discovered in the thirties and has been used as a nuclear physics research tool and a way to produce isotopes for medical and other applications for nearly as long.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_activation

      If you're talking about using a source of neutrons to create unstable isotopes, then I have no objection. Unless, of course, you rely on Widom-Larsen theory to explain the production of said neutrons in cold fusion experiments . . .

      Delete
    2. The current body of work takes into account the criticisms of Widom-Larsen theory. Unfortunately, I cannot do the reading for you.

      My gut feeling is that the phenomena is most likely real and could be used in real engineer applications. But this is sort like proving the existence of extraterrestrials. Until you can buy a home water heating unit at the end-cap of Home Depot, nobody is going to believe it is real.

      Delete
  75. LENR does not require the breaking of any physics laws. Just like an apple falling off of a tree must follow the laws of gravity and relativity, so does the phenomena of LENR. Just like superconductivity or superfluids where very puzzling phenomena. The new cold fusion results are repeatable and are growing more and more robust. Some results have been published in main stream science journals and even have subgroups at some of the major conferences like APS. That is not at all representative of pathological science but demonstrates it's acceptance into the main stream in spite of what appears to be a miracle to the misinformed.

    Here is a nice definition of pathological skeptism. It's worth a read.

    http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/Pathological_skepticism

    Cheers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. One day I met a farmer.
      He show me all his cows, all colors, moving... he make them dance.

      Then I see an animal fly in the sky.

      he said me that it is impossible, that I might be wrong.
      First it is impossible for caws to fly.
      Then cows would inundate with bullshit when flying, and you will notice it with bullshit on the roofs.
      finally cows would eat so much to fly that they would need too much grass.

      I called 100 neighbors.

      among them 30 cate photo of something small in the sky.
      70 have seen nothing.
      I noticed that one (he was called MITt) erased his camera roll, but was caught by his mate Eugene M...

      Most of the neighbors being called stupid, of drinking and lying , stopped looking for flying animals.
      Local newspapers refused to publish photos of flying animals.

      some continue to hunt those animals... they use better and better camera, learnd where the animals where hiding, but it was always uncertain whether they woul find one of those strange animal somewhere...

      finally some restaurant owner found a cooking that was attracting thos animals and cook them with chips...
      another found another recipe and cook them in boiling oil...

      they publish no photo, and just says they will open a restaurant .... nobody believe them, yet they seems to be funded...

      oh... after 2 years of eating roasted animals, some scientits discover it is called "birds"...
      quite different from cows, but quite similar in "building plan".

      Delete
  76. Oh I just have to add one more jab. It was Science and Nature who published paper after paper on Polywater!

    ReplyDelete
  77. So getting cold fusion papers published there should be a piece of cake. Go for it!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. THERE ARE ALREADY.

      please read.

      don't discuss about why something, if that is not happening.
      LENr is published, replicated, many way.
      Artifact are corrected or rebutted.

      of course there is still doubtful results, still failures, but just just have not to count them.

      plane that crash are not an evidence of impossibility to fly.
      only if ALL plane crash, you can suspend your opinion, waiting for ONE plane to fly, seen by two people.

      Delete
  78. Intellectual Inertia is at work in things like Buzz Skyline’s commentaries. A lot of very intelligent people initially looked at the research and the apparent problems raised by the Cold Fusion claims, and, based on the best knowledge *OF THAT TIME*, came to what appeared then as a logical and correct perspective on the results. Replication issues reinforced that perception, and for most, other, more pressing issues then returned to their immediate attention, and with the cold fusion issue “put to rest” in their minds, there was no need to revisit any opposing claims, since the din of white noise of others who were making wild claims for CF and their various equivalents of perpetual motion… all of it violated the Laws of Thermodynamics.

    However – their deafness and blindness to the ongoing research also prevents them from seeing that knowledge in the COndensed Matter field, as well as electronics and material science, have now provided some truly credible explanations. Combined with an increasing flurry of irrefutable, peer-reviewed, replicable experiments – soon to be a blizzard – there is no doubt that there is a real effect at work. The proof that it does NOT violate the Laws of Thermodynamics is that it actually works. Our lack of understanding of the actual mechanism does in no way impede it’s existence and function. We still don’t completely understand gravity, but that doesn’t stop it from dropping us on our butts if we slip on the ice.

    I am truly grateful to all those who risked their careers and reputations because they trusted their guts that something extraordinary is happening in these various LENR/LENT experiments. I pray that Rossi, Defkalion and others who are making claims at the very far end of the bell curve are legitimate, because the damage they could do to the field if they turn out to be false is enormous, and our planet cannot afford to delay on this technology much longer.

    Long Live LENR!

    Dave Xanatos

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. david xanatos wrote: "Intellectual Inertia is at work in things like Buzz Skyline’s commentaries."

      No, 1989 proved that science is hungry for results like cold fusion. Pons was cheered by thousands, and scientists all over the world went to their labs for fear of being left behind in the revolution. There is some inertia in science, but it was no match for a couple of distinguished scientists making great and wonderful claims. But claims like that need evidence, and without it, honest skepticism took its rightful place.

      xanatos: "A lot of very intelligent people initially looked at the research and the apparent problems raised by the Cold Fusion claims, and, based on the best knowledge *OF THAT TIME*, came to what appeared then as a logical and correct perspective on the results."

      Right. So, inertia was not the problem. Just about all physicists became familiar enough with the claims of cold fusion and the basics of the experiment to know that if the claims had merit, it would not be difficult to design an experiment that would produce unequivocal results, even if only based on excess heat measurements. The energy density is a million times that of dynamite, and the conditions (temperature, pressure) are easily accessed. It would be difficult to hide.

      xanatos: "Replication issues reinforced that perception, and for most, other, more pressing issues then returned to their immediate attention, and with the cold fusion issue “put to rest” in their minds, there was no need to revisit any opposing claims, since the din of white noise of others who were making wild claims for CF and their various equivalents of perpetual motion… all of it violated the Laws of Thermodynamics."

      Cold fusion doesn't violate the laws of thermodynamics, but it is contrary to the predictions of theories that are based on a half century of copious, highly consistent, robust, and reproducible experimental results.

      Most scientists found no need to revisit claims of cold fusion until someone actually produced evidence that was better than what they had already seen.

      But no one ever did. As the experiments improved, the evidence got weaker.

      But some scientists did revisit the claims. Papers and grant proposals submitted for publication or funding went out to reviewers, and were mostly rejected. CERN tried to reproduce some Italian results, and debunked them instead. And then in 2004, and panel of experts were enlisted by the DOE to examine the best of the evidence as presented by the most prominent cold fusion advocates, and they came up with the *same* recommendations that the 1989 panel gave, which was again, as you said, a logical and correct perspective of the results.

      Delete
    2. xanatos: ":However – their deafness and blindness to the ongoing research also prevents them from seeing that knowledge in the COndensed Matter field, as well as electronics and material science, have now provided some truly credible explanations."

      No, they really haven't. None of the explanations are even remotely credible. That's why there's so many.

      The thing about theory is that it can be checked by other qualified theorists. And if a plausible theory for cold fusion or LENR were developed, it would be a revolutionary event with or without credible experimental results.

      The maser was predicted based on theory, and when von Neumann was skeptical, Townes convinced him over a beer with mathematics.

      Muon catalyzed fusion was predicted theoretically too, and then observed experimentally. Likewise Bose-Einstein condensates, and so on.

      Most of these theories were accepted without explicit evidence for the predicted phenomenon (although of course, they were based on a consistent body of related evidence).

      So, if any theory of cold fusion were plausible, one would expect that at least within the community of true believers, there would be consensus. But the very existence of so many other theories shows that there is not.

      Furthermore, if there were a plausible theory, outside theorists would be all over it, to make their little contribution, because there's nothing like a revolution in physics to get your name up in lights. It would be like Einstein's miracle papers in 1905.

      But all I hear are crickets. (Although there are two negative theory papers on the WLT in the last year.)

      Delete
    3. xanatos: "Combined with an increasing flurry of irrefutable, peer-reviewed, replicable experiments – soon to be a blizzard – there is no doubt that there is a real effect at work."

      Either you don't know what any of those words mean, or you haven't actually checked the cold fusion literature. The number of cold fusion papers in mainstream refereed journals started in the hundreds per year, and stayed above 50 per year through the 90s. It has dropped steadily, and in the last decade it has averaged only a few experimental papers per year.

      Take the last few years, for example, according to Britz's bibliography.

      2009 - 3 experimental papers, plus a number of reviews and papers in conference proceedings (Sourcebook).

      2010 - Zero experimental papers, but a number of conference proceedings (Sourcebook), and some theoretical speculations

      2011 - Zero experimental LENR results, but one book chapter testing CR-39 with neutron beams

      2012 - Two experimental LENR papers, one positive (CR-39), one negative, plus a CR-39 test paper, and 2 theory papers, one positive, one negative

      2013 - One experimental paper, which looks like a retrospective of the SPAWAR experiments, and one *anti* Widom Larsen theory paper.

      I don't know how an average of less than 2 papers per year can be regarded as a flurry, particularly when they are in sketchy journals. And I don't know how any of those papers, only one of which claims excess heat (with less than one watt excess power), could be regarded as irrefutable or replicable.

      In the tradition of all pathological sciences, the results get smaller and fewer as time passes and the experiments get better.


      xanatos: "Our lack of understanding of the actual mechanism does in no way impede it’s existence and function."

      No one claims that. Nobel prizes are given for discoveries of phenomena that can't be explained. But evidence is critical, and cold fusion doesn't have it.

      xanatos: "I am truly grateful to all those who risked their careers and reputations because they trusted their guts that something extraordinary is happening in these various LENR/LENT experiments."

      Except that the evidence that something extraordinary is happening is absent, or are you grateful to anyone who studies something contrary to the consensus, like all the perpetual motion scammers, e.g.?

      xanatos: "I pray that Rossi, Defkalion and others who are making claims at the very far end of the bell curve are legitimate, because the damage they could do to the field if they turn out to be false is enormous, and our planet cannot afford to delay on this technology much longer."

      Prayer's not gonna help. But on the bright side, they can't do any more damage to the field that 24 years of worsening evidence has already done. And anyone, if the effect were real, it would show up no matter what, and wouldn't need you to defend it in forums like this.

      xanatos: "Long Live LENR! "

      It seems the LENR delusion has already lived long, and there is no obvious end in sight. True believers can wallow in their persecution for years to come.


      Delete
  79. There certainly is doubt. Cold fusion remains the iconic example of pathological science, and none of the major journals will accept cold fusion papers. There may be no doubt in the pathological little cold fusion community. The general consensus it that it's nonsense and wishful thinking, at best.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If one read the data, which is incredibly rare, and don't reject the data just for reason that are equivalent to "they dont agree with me" (like asking for publishing in journal that refuse to accept paper that "agree with me", or rejecting journal that have published opinion that don't "agree with me"), then having doubt is not even rational.

      I mean you can doubt on sun raising tomorrow, or LENR non-existent, but you should not take it as a credible hypothesis and invest money, insurance or effort on that hypothesis. Being skeptical in that case is just accepting to read data that disagree with the rational opinion (that LENR is real and sun will raise tomorrow).

      Of course if you are ill-informed you can keep a moderate doubt, like what happened on 9/11 or if Apollo mission touched the moon.

      the reason for doubt as you say, is that there is a group of groupthink collectively delusional, powerful and respected people, that disagree with the evidences.
      As non-expert, and not aware of all the data, you prefer to trust those respected group than your own interpretation of the data.

      I can just say you that after reading :
      - roland beanbou Groupthink; collective delusion in organization and markets
      - Nassim nicholas Taleb : anti-fragine and others book
      - Thomas E Kuhn : structure of scientific revolutrion
      - Wade&Broad : Betrayers of the truth

      Then you stay prudent, and at least don't trust the mainstream opinion if data disagree...
      One error not to do is to get too deep in the data, and argue on theory... best way to think stupid.

      Simple analysis of critics against LENr are enough to say they are stupid, which is an evidence of nothing until you get the evidences. and we have them.

      more complete reasoning there:
      http://www.lenrnews.eu/evidences-that-lenr-is-real-beyond-any-reasonable-doubt/


      Delete
    2. Publish in a major, widely read and trusted journal, and most of the scientific community will see your data. There is not enough time in the world to watch every fringe science video or read every fringe journal to check every fringe science claim. That's. What. Journals. Are. For.

      Your demand that we investigate cold fusion implies that every scientist should investigate homeopathy, N-rays, polywater, water memory, perpetual motion, and and every other bit of pseudoscience gibberish coming down the pike. It's not possible and it's not going to happen.

      So publish - in a journal like Science, Nature, or the Physical Review - or just accept that you will remain among the people labeled as crackpots. At least you'll be able laugh in all our faces when you start selling electricity on the cold fusion grid.

      Delete
    3. Is Naturwissenschaften not big enough ?
      Or do you reject it as ... accepting LENR so not trustable?
      Or you only ask publication where it is impossible...

      moreover did you list the tally of PR papers I gave...

      did you read the story of ENEA report 41, of oriani ?
      What excuse do you give to such behaviors?

      Did you read the story of how nature refused to reconsider sone evidence after fraud and errors ?
      what excuse do you find in such misbehavior?



      Don't imagine that you are the first to have that disease.

      Like there are people who believe in homeopathy, are afraid of antennas, there are people that refuse to see the evidence.

      this is the theory of Benabou, and explain what Taleb and Kuhn observe.

      it would be funny if it was not sad.

      Delete
    4. rom the tally of jed:

      the PR journals who accepted LENr papers


      Adv. Hydrogen Energy
      Bull. Chem. Soc. Japan
      Bull. Inst. Chem. Res.,
      Kyoto Univ.
      Chin. J. At. Mol. Phys.
      Curr. Sci.
      Curr. Topics Electrochem.
      Electrochim. Acta
      Europhys. Lett.
      Fusion Eng. Des.
      Fusion Technol.
      Hyomen Gijutsu
      Hyomen Kagaku
      Indian J. Technol.
      Int. J. Appl. Electromagn.
      Mater.
      Int. J. Hydrogen Energy
      Int. J. Soc. Mat. Eng.
      Resources
      J. Chim. Phys.
      J. Electroanal. Chem.
      J. Eng. Env. Sci.
      J. Fusion Energy
      J. High Temp. Soc.
      J. Hydrogen Energy
      J. New Energy
      J. Phys. Chem.
      J. Phys. Chem. B
      J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys.
      Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. A
      Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. Part 2
      Kaku Yugo Kenkyu
      Kinki Daigaku
      Genshiryoku Kenkyusho
      Nenpo
      Koon Gakkaishi
      Naturwiss.
      Netsu Sokutei
      Nucl. Fusion Plasma Phys.
      Nuovo Cimento Soc. Ital.
      Fis. A
      Oyo Butsuri
      Petrotech. (Tokyo)
      Phys. Lett. A
      Poverkhnost
      Proc. Electrochem. Soc.
      Proc. Jpn. Acad., Ser. B
      Russ. J. Phys. Chem.
      Solid State Ionics
      Sov. Tech. Phys. Lett.
      Tech. Phys.
      Thermochim. Acta
      Trans. Fusion Technol.
      Xibei Shifan Daxue
      Xuebao, Ziran Kexueban
      Xibei Shifan Xuebao.
      Ziran Kexueban

      I agree that mostly modest journals, but that is not an evidece of weakness since all others refuse just because they have an offical of hidden policy to reject LENR, not even reading like Nature with ENEA, or like Nature wit Oriani, even AFTER positive PR.

      for me that F&P have been replicate at CEA grenoble, and that MIT and Caltech experiments get ridiculed for loose calorimetry, is enough to know where are the serious guys.
      ENEA is also a great name, like SRI, NASA, NRL, Spawar, ST Microelectronics, National instruments, Toyota, Mitsubishi, BARC, Amocco, CNAM for Shell...

      did you know that many labs found tritium production much above background without any credible explanation beside LENR.
      (bockris, will, storms, BARC, Amocco...)

      http://www.lenr-forum.com/showthread.php?937-JRothwell-LENR-is-a-proved-fact-since-1990-Doubt-is-irrational-or-ignorance

      anyway it did not allow them to publish in science or nature...

      can you explain why an artifact, follow cristalography
      http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ViolanteVevolutiona.pdf

      while it follow change in calorimetry...
      McKubre replicated F&P with isothermal calorimetry to ruleou som critics on isoperibolic calorimetry...

      http://www.lenr-forum.com/showthread.php?402-Experiments-McKubre-SRI-P13-P14&highlight=isothermal


      Delete
    5. The Physical Review A-X and PRL, along with Science and Nature, are the leading journals that physicists read. If you want to convince physicists then those are where you have to publish.

      Delete
    6. alain coetmeur wrote: "If one read the data, which is incredibly rare,"

      It is most rare among true believers arguing on internet forums.

      alain: "and don't reject the data just for reason that are equivalent to "they dont agree with me" "

      True believers accept it just for the reason that they really *really* want it to be true.

      alain: "then having doubt is not even rational."

      No. You're wrong. The DOE panel read the data in detail, and listened to the best the advocates had to offer, and they did doubt. 17 of 18 of the expert panel members said the evidence for nuclear reactions was not conclusive. Doubt! When the claim is that extraordinary, and the evidence is not conclusive, it's almost certainly wrong.

      alain: "I mean you can doubt on sun raising tomorrow, or LENR non-existent,"

      But in the first case, you have to reject extraordinarily robust and reproducible evidence, and in the second, you only have to doubt marginal and contradictory evidence that is all over the map.
      
Alain: "Of course if you are ill-informed you can keep a moderate doubt, like what happened on 9/11 or if Apollo mission touched the moon."

      The DOE panel was not ill-informed. And neither are expert reviewers when called upon to review papers or grants. Any educated physicist who was active in 1989 knows enough about cold fusion to know that an energy density a million times higher than dynamite would not remain so resistant to protracted experiment. It would be easy to prove conclusively, and so the absence of progress -- indeed the steady weakening of the evidence -- is enough to recognized cold fusion for what it is: pathological science.

      Delete
    7. alain coetmeur wrote: "the reason for doubt as you say, is that there is a group of groupthink collectively delusional, powerful and respected people, that disagree with the evidences."

      1989 proved that in the case of cold fusion, group think works in its favor. For most intelligent scientists, they resisted group-think and rejected cold fusion when the weakness of the evidence became obvious. The few that stuck with it were not so strong, and could not escape their own desire for cold fusion to be true.

      Mainstream science is an extremely diverse and diffuse entity that actually encourages and rewards innovation and novelty and disruptive ideas supported by good evidence. But the True Believers in cold fusion are fairly tightly knit group that discourages dissent, and embraces cold fusion's many inconsistencies. It's the reason so many cold fusion advocates (though not all) accepted such an obviously unlikely claim as Rossi's with almost no scrutiny, and from someone with a history of fraud instead of physics.
      
Alain: "As non-expert, and not aware of all the data, you prefer to trust those respected group than your own interpretation of the data."

      Like I said, unless the data improves from the early 90s, there is no reason to revisit the claims. But the evidence is worse, not better.

      But not everyone has the ability or the motivation to examine the evidence directly, and this includes policy makers. For them, the most likely approximation to the truth is the consensus of experts. And when Nobel laureates like Murray Gell-Mann (who called it baloney), Leon Ledermanm, Weinberg, Glashow, Seaborg, and also distinguished scientists like Close, Lewis, Koonin, Garwin, and Park, are all explicitly skeptical, that's a safe position to take.

      True believers, on the other hand, don't read the literature an make up their own mind. They simply accept a consensus too, but it's a consensus of believers. Not really an objective way to make a decision.

      Delete
    8. alain coetmeur wrote: "- Thomas E Kuhn : structure of scientific revolutrion"

      Whatever Kuhn (and those other authors) wrote about scientific revolutions, it was not that any idea, no matter how whacky, must be true if mainstream science is skeptical of it. That's what you seem to think.

      But not all whacky ideas are true. Sometimes whacky ideas are just whacky. N-rays, polywater, homeopathy, dowsing and telekinesis are examples. Cold fusion is almost certainly another one.

      Delete
    9. alain coetmeur wrote: "Is Naturwissenschaften not big enough ?"

      It's a respectable journal, with an impact factor of 2.3. It's not that all the journals that publish cold fusion are insignificant -- they're not. It's just that the effect, if real, would deserve so much more. If there were a compelling experiment, the reports would not languish with single-digit impact factors. A lot of pretty lame stuff survives peer review; if you submit something often enough, you'll luck out with lazy referees in a small time journal eventually.

      Even polywater -- a far less significant phenomenon (potentially) -- was published in Science and Nature and JACS, and it turned out to be completely bogus. That means that the evidence for it was much stronger than the evidence for cold fusion is currently.

      If there were an experiment in the field that anyone (qualified) could do with predictable results that gave unequivocal evidence for cold fusion, you could not keep it out of journals with impact factors north of 20 or 30.

      But which papers in NW are you referring to? It's published a review, some theory papers, and some papers on extremely low level neutron emission detected with CR-39 from SPAWAR. Reviews and theory papers do not represent original evidence. The SPAWAR results have been challenged in the refereed literature, and by very careful experiments by earthech.org, have not been replicated, and represent neutron fluxes many orders of magnitude too low to account for the claimed excess heat. Moreover, SPAWAR shut the research down, which is not really a very strong vote of confidence. I'm not aware of a paper in NW that claims excess heat.
      
alain: "moreover did you list the tally of PR papers I gave…"

      Even Rothwell's tally of cold fusion literature (based in part on Britz's bibliography), published on his site, makes cold fusion look pathological, in spite of his valiant attempt to put a positive spin on it. The graphs show that (at least by Britz's evaluation) the number of neutral or negative reports outnumber the positive reports until about 1993. Of course, it's not the score that matters, but the quality of the data, and if the quality of the positive reports had been high enough, they would have convinced the world, which was paying close attention at the time. But they didn't. Not a single claim of excess heat was published in Nature or Science. So it's not surprising that only True Believers kept doing experiments. And True Believers will find what they want to find; there are enough whacky religions around to prove that.

      In any case, that tally of 153 excess heat papers had a pretty low bar to bring that number up, by including papers with titles like: "Heating of deuterium implanted Al on electron bombardment and its possible relation to cold fusion experiments." That hardly sounds a replication, by any definition of the term.

      Moreover, only 9 papers in that list were published after 2000, and only one after 2003, and that one's in Japanese. Remember the DOE panel considered all the best evidence up to 2004, and were not convinced. So Rothwell's tally doesn't cut it.

      When you have a real phenomenon, whether it's understood or not, like high temperature superconductivity, people don't list the *number* of papers to support it; they cite a single seminal paper that describes how to get the phenomenon. (And by the way, this phenomenon, even though it is less revolutionary than cold fusion would be, has seen more than a hundred thousand papers in the same 20 year period, and in the very best journals, like Science and Nature.

      Delete