Scientific Conduct, MFMP, and LENR (Thomas Clarke)

The following article was submitted by Thomas Clarke

I came across an educational web site from Berkeley that provides an interesting mainstream science perspective on the original F & P Cold Fusion experiments.

http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/cold_fusion_01

You can see, from this account of events, how important openness patience before publication is in the scientific process. If there had been some real anomalous effect F&P, through their own behaviour, would have made finding this more difficult. You can read the link above, whatever your views on the reality of LENR, and see how F&P could have behaved differently with more positive results.

Where this is relevant to the world today is that thus far MFMP is showing a very different pattern, that should be a model for anyone else wanting to collect evidence for an LENR hypothesis. Of course MFMP is not unique – but they have popularised techniques:

  • Openness
  • Care and multiple checks before announcing positive results
  • Balanced consideration of positive and null hypotheses

As an example look at their investigation of Celani wires, and how they discovered the importance of ambient temperature control:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TDkw1K4l5kT1nAwZElAqQafM7TqjEnUJ8SyrHJSwFkk/pub

This shows how openness and willingness to consider and test alternate hypotheses (in this case from Rick Cantwell) can help differentiate between false positive results and real positive results.

This attitude towards experimental results allows science to progress. It should be celebrated as an indication that it is possible to do LENR research in a way compatible with mainstream science.

Although thus far MFMP have no significant positive replicable results, they are in the best possible position to validate any of the Rossi/Parkhomov LENR+ effects that many here feel are now likely to exist. Or, if in fact these effects do not exist, to demonstrate the negative. Unlike F&P, open science has the ability to accept critical scrutiny and test it, thus making experimental results stronger. With such a protocol in place a positive result that survived repeated scrutiny would be strong enough to withstand the rigor of mainstream publication, as well as easy to replicate.

LENR+ today has the same glitter of commercial pressures that led F&P astray. If LENR+ exists, it is of extraordinary commercial value.

History shows that the commercial pressure holds dangers in terms of lack of scientific rigour. MFMP should be celebrated for standing up for greater rigor, and higher standards, in spite of any temptations.

My own views on the likelihood of LENR as a hypothesis would not be of interest to readers here. However I’m hoping that the views expressed here on the importance of scientific rigor and openness will be more palatable. Parkhomov, unlike Rossi, should be commended on having enough openness to allow his results to be replicated.

More importantly, the MFMP guys should be supported with patience and the understanding that though getting scientifically rigorous results takes a long time, and is not as much fun as announcing strongly anomalous results before they have been carefully checked and scrutinised, it is the only way to cut through the Gordian knot of LENR claims and counter-claims.

  • Gerrit

    a few months ago I made screen copies of these Berkeley pages.

    My fear is that a lot of the deniers online content will silently disappear in the next few years.

    As a service for future generations, I call upon all e-catworld readers to collect, by screen copy, all the “cold fusion is crackpot” online content.

    • Thomas Clarke

      I read these pages but they don’t say cold fusion is crackpot. They show why the scientific community found F&P’s evidence unconvincing, and how a lack of openness made investigation more difficult.

      Nothing in that to prevent somone else from having evidence now more convincing, or for such evidence to explain some real but not obviously apparent anomaly that F&P did see all those years ago.

      It is true that what happened with F&P probably means no-one now is likely to shortcut normal standards of proof and publish strong claims early just because the claimed results are so important if true.

      I know of no scientists who would be unhappy if LENR proved to be real. It would be great fun. The Standard Model is currently being tested by the LHC and has been very boring. It is validated with nothing new. What the LHC experimenters – and the theoreticians – would really like is some new unexpected results that mean they have to think up some theory not currently known. In fact physics is pretty desperate for that. But so far all the apparent anomalies have been false trails. Anyway with the LHC running at higher power soon we can always hope for new stuff…

      • William D. Fleming

        Will the theoreticians still be desperate when thousands of Ecats are being installed all over the world?

      • Gerrit

        Thomas, you are totally bullshitting here. It is clear that mainstream science stopped taking cold fusion seriously after a mere month.

        It is pathetic to put the blame at Fleischmann and Pons and present all naysayers as the true scientists.

        If there is one thing unscientific about this whole story, it is the way the science community handled this story.

      • Josh G

        What you’re basically saying is that mainstream science won’t take LENR seriously because of the way hypotheses are formulated and the way research is conducted. But the problem is that you are equating the Rossi tests with research on LENR more broadly. That is either ignorant, tendentious or both. Yes, we agree that the test of Rossi’s device is inconclusive. But in a year’s time it won’t matter. Rossi is not LENR and LENR is not Rossi. Can we move on please?

        Mainstream science (and you) won’t even look at the research that has been done on LENR. When on occasion scientists actually do examine the evidence (with an open mind), they find it compelling. Robert Duncan is one example but not the only one.

        At this point I feel like I am talking to a wall, so I am not going to write more to you on this subject and will let you have the last word. The evidence is there to examine, if you are willing to do so.

        I will say one more thing with regard to your claim that LENR is not a ‘real’ hypothesis: LENR is not a hypothesis at all! That would be like saying superconductivity or quantum mechanics is a ‘hypothesis.’ LENR is a body of research and theories aimed at investigating and explaining a new phenomenon that was discovered experimentally. Hypotheses guide LENR researchers in individual studies. Do you think that F&P just decided one day to stick some palladium in a salt bath, flip a switch and see what happens just for fun? It wasn’t even something they discovered ‘accidentally’ in the course of other research (something that happens all the time in science.) Their work and the work of other LENR research is obviously guided by hypotheses. They might be wrong. They might stumble as they find their way. Or they might find something, as did F&P, even though the theory guiding their hypothesis was wrong.

        Think about Godes’s work at Brillouin. The design and testing of that device is clearly guided by his CECR hypothesis, which is informed by theory. Has the theory been proven? No. Is there a clear and widely accepted theory that explains LENR and guides all research in the field? No, not yet. There are many theories. And sometimes the hypotheses are clearly guided by theory and sometimes they are more like hunches and intuitions.

        I don’t know your qualifications or your backgrounds, but I find it unlikely that you are more qualified than Hagelstein, McKubre, Miles, Miley, Kim, Fleischmann, Preparata, Violante, Srinivasan, Li, Arata, Mizuno, Storms, Bockris, Ikegami, Schwinger and others to assess whether hypotheses in the field of LENR/CMNS count as good science.

        • Thomas Clarke

          Josh,

          I’ve obviously annoyed you, for which I am sorry. It was not my intention in this thread to go into matters that I expect would never be agreed between us, and know would take a very long detailed examination before any one of the issues could be considered enough to see where we have different assumptions or judgements.

          That is not the purpose of this thread.

  • Gerrit

    a few months ago I made screen copies of these Berkeley pages.

    My fear is that a lot of the deniers’ online content will silently disappear in the next few years.

    As a service for future generations, I call upon all e-catworld readers to collect, by screen copy, all the “cold fusion is crackpot” online content.

    • EmTee

      Good idea! Fortunately Wikipedia has a history funktion.

    • Thomas Clarke

      I read these pages but they don’t say cold fusion is crackpot. They show why the scientific community found F&P’s evidence unconvincing, and how a lack of openness made investigation more difficult.

      Nothing in that to prevent somone else from having evidence now more convincing, or for such evidence to explain some real but not obviously apparent anomaly that F&P did see all those years ago.

      It is true that what happened with F&P probably means no-one now is likely to shortcut normal standards of proof and publish strong claims early just because the claimed results are so important if true.

      I know of no scientists who would be unhappy if LENR proved to be real. It would be great fun. The Standard Model is currently being tested by the LHC and has been very boring. It is validated with nothing new. What the LHC experimenters – and the theoreticians – would really like is some new unexpected results that mean they have to think up some theory not currently known. In fact physics is pretty desperate for that. But so far all the apparent anomalies have been false trails. Anyway with the LHC running at higher power soon we can always hope for new stuff…

      • William D. Fleming

        Will the theoreticians still be desperate when thousands of Ecats are being installed all over the world?

      • Gerrit

        Thomas, you are totally bullshitting here. It is clear that mainstream science stopped taking cold fusion seriously after a mere month.

        It is pathetic to put the blame at Fleischmann and Pons and present all naysayers as the true scientists.

        If there is one thing unscientific about this whole story, it is the way the science community handled it.

  • parallelB

    TC writes. “My own views on the likelihood of LENR as a hypothesis would not be of interest to readers here.”
    I think it more than coincidence that ee-tom has the same name. ee-tom is famous for his First Law. “Any evidence of anomalous heat is proof of measurement error.”
    Adrian Ashfield

    • Axil Axil

      These scientists will get the message when the funding stops on thier fusion and fission projects. They will get the message when they are standing in the unemployment line. They will ask themselves, “how did this happen?”. Then they might be motivated to look into the cause of their distress, maybe not…it’s up to them. The world will move on without them as an irrelevancy.

    • Obvious

      I posit the wye only for the dummy.
      The power controller is only capable of 80 A.

  • AdrianAshfield

    TC writes. “My own views on the likelihood of LENR as a hypothesis would not be of interest to readers here.”
    I think it more than coincidence that ee-tom has the same name. ee-tom is famous for his First Law. “Any evidence of anomalous heat is proof of measurement error.”
    Adrian Ashfield

  • Omega Z

    Clarke, You appear to put the onus on P&F when it really falls to the Establishment. Actually orchestrated by maybe a dozen people to protect their Hot Fusion funding. Others just fell into line either because they didn’t know better or were afraid to to buck the hierarchy. Thus you end with a so called consensus.

    Real Science should be open to all possibilities no matter how improbable.
    As to Parkhomov, He is replicating Rossi’s work. He can be open about his results.

    As to Rossi, Had he been open & Mainstream University Science proved it’s worth, they would have been filing patents every step of the way. Imagine Rossi having to pay to use his own Intellectual Property. This could all have been avoided had they just approved his IP Patent.

    So tell me Clarke, What is wrong with this picture. What is right about Mainstream Science trying to steal & lay claim to others Intellectual endeavors.

  • Omega Z

    Clarke, You appear to put the onus on P&F when it really falls to the Establishment. Actually orchestrated by maybe a dozen people to protect their Hot Fusion funding. Others just fell into line either because they didn’t know better or were afraid to to buck the hierarchy. Thus you end with a so called consensus.

    Real Science should be open to all possibilities no matter how improbable.
    As to Parkhomov, He is replicating Rossi’s work. He can be open about his results.

    As to Rossi, Had he been open & Mainstream University Science proved it’s worth, they would have been filing patents every step of the way. Imagine Rossi having to pay to use his own Intellectual Property. This could all have been avoided had they just approved his IP Patent.

    So tell me Clarke, What is wrong with this picture. What is right about Mainstream Science trying to steal & lay claim to others Intellectual endeavors.

  • Billy Jackson

    Everyone has their own Bias. the fact that we are here regularly on e-catworld speaks of ours. The general readership here tends to be self-educated, forward looking, future oriented, open minded to new ideas, and supportive of the technological advancements to LENR. Yet we come with our own set of bias that we are just as prone to succumb to, as those who oppose the findings and information that has been provided so far.

    Each of us has a tendency to look to the possibilities that the future of the e-cat potentially provides. We see the positive results and dismiss the negative in an effort to fit the outcome we seek into the hopeful wishes of that future reality. As such i have noticed we will accept without much proof, tentative reports or rumors that support those visions. We have through our own passionate support, at times let our emotions sway our judgement of the facts.

    The above is true for the skeptical also when looked at in reverse. They doubt the veracity of the reports based on their own education, general knowledge and supporting theories that support their points of view (Bias). they will dismiss far flung unproven ideas as fanciful dreaming that requires proof before they will even acknowledge its possibility.

    This is not a bad thing. honest skepticism is healthy to any on going debate as it provides us with the harsh criticism that must be answered at some point if we are going to present our evidence as concrete truths.

    Finally we come to F&P and the past. Enough details and stories have been told about oppression, rushed announcements and out right lies depending on the articles you read and which bias you lean toward. The truth is we live in an imperfect world that is ruled by the emotions of the people living on it.

    Weight matters, in the story of F&P the reputation and story of 2 unknowns came into conflict with the towering educational monolith that was MIT, right or wrong, for good or bad F&P drove head first into a sphere of influence weighted by reputation they were unprepared to tackle.

    We need to learn from the past, honor those who paved the way before us, yet not be beholden to our own anger and misguided energies for what was done. If we continue to live in the past then we will bring that angst with us to the future tainting our outlook and insights.

    My energies from this point forward will be focused on the continued development of LENR and the incremental progress being made. I am letting go of the past yet learning from it. As stated in the article above. Patience, Understanding, and i will add time will provide all the evidence we need to conquer any opposition and skepticism that stands in our way.

  • Billy Jackson

    Everyone has their own Bias. the fact that we are here regularly on e-catworld speaks of ours. The general readership here tends to be self-educated, forward looking, future oriented, open minded to new ideas, and supportive of the technological advancements to LENR. Yet we come with our own set of bias that we are just as prone to succumb to, as those who oppose the findings and information that has been provided so far.

    Each of us has a tendency to look to the possibilities that the future of the e-cat potentially provides. We see the positive results and dismiss the negative in an effort to fit the outcome we seek into the hopeful wishes of that future reality. As such i have noticed we will accept without much proof, tentative reports or rumors that support those visions. We have through our own passionate support, at times let our emotions sway our judgement of the facts.

    The above is true for the skeptical also when looked at in reverse. They doubt the veracity of the reports based on their own education, general knowledge and supporting theories that support their points of view (Bias). they will dismiss far flung unproven ideas as fanciful dreaming that requires proof before they will even acknowledge its possibility.

    This is not a bad thing. honest skepticism is healthy to any on going debate as it provides us with the harsh criticism that must be answered at some point if we are going to present our evidence as concrete truths.

    Finally we come to F&P and the past. Enough details and stories have been told about oppression, rushed announcements and out right lies depending on the articles you read and which bias you lean toward. The truth is we live in an imperfect world that is ruled by the emotions of the people living on it.

    Weight matters, in the story of F&P the reputation and story of 2 unknowns came into conflict with the towering educational monolith that was MIT, right or wrong, for good or bad F&P drove head first into a sphere of influence weighted by reputation they were unprepared to tackle.

    For the past few years we can now see the weight shifting to the e-cats favor, while it has not tipped into the mainstream yet. Rossi himself has persevered against entrenched dogma despite character assassination attempts, out right mistruths, and the mountain of misinformation from a tainted past

    We need to learn from the past, honor those who paved the way before us, yet not be beholden to our own anger and misguided energies for what was done. If we continue to live in the past then we will bring that angst with us to the future tainting our outlook and insights.

    My energies from this point forward will be focused on the continued development of LENR and the incremental progress being made. I am letting go of the past yet learning from it. As stated in the article above. Patience, Understanding, and i will add time will provide all the evidence we need to conquer any opposition and skepticism that stands in our way.

  • Warthog

    I’m sorry, but this is simply horse manure. Yes, Pons and Fleischmann held a press conference (due to pressure from the University). They had wanted to wait for more data.

    But the people at fault here were NOT Pons and Fleischmann, but those over-eager physicists who refused to wait until the issuance of their formal scientific paper, but leaped into their labs with NO understanding of either electrochemistry (fiendishly difficult in and of itself) or the true conditions needed to “get it to work”. There are tales of people holding up rulers to a TV screen to try to duplicate their cell size. With so little information, their likelihood of success was nil. But because their institutions were “prestigious” (MIT, Cal Tech, and I forget the name of the British lab), and their heavy hands on the controls of science publishing, their view carried the day……at first.

    But, P & F’s work WAS REPLICATED contemporaneously…..by a world-class electrochemist (John O’Mara Bockris at Texas A & M). He succeeded because he GOT ON THE PHONE and asked Fleischmann for the details. There is no indication whatsoever that Fleischmann and/or Pons would not have shared that same information with any other researcher who asked.

    So, why didn’t those over-eager physicists use that highly complex instrument, the telephone, and do the same thing??? Answer…..sheer hubris……””I” am a mighty physicist. I don’t need to ask a mere electrochemist for details”.

    • Thomas Clarke

      I have not researched the contemporaneous accounts, so I cannot tell. The evidence you give here however does not, without more context – settle the matter.

      The problem as I understand was a press conference before publication and before results were clear – this led to rushed publication.

      Bockris was not involved before the Press conference and also was a friend of Fleishmann. So openness towards his requests after the Press conference does not imply openness when it would have most helped.

      http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/taubesfabrication/Krivit-Winocur-TritiumDiscovered.shtml

      • Warthog

        Then I suggest you study the contemporaneous accounts. Indeed, you could go further and learn about the deliberate science FRAUD practiced by “someone” in the MIT physics department who changed the data in the publication of their (supposedly) failed attempt at replicating Pons and Fleischmann but which ACTUALLY SHOWED EXCESS HEAT. Thoroughly documented to Eugene Mallove.

        The results P & F had were definitive as regards the calorimetry, but erroneous regarding detection of neutrons. But the FAILURE of the process was the physicists and some few chemist allies who didn’t wait for the detailed publication.

        And yes, Bockris was a friend of Fleischmann. So what?? I once had occasion to communicate with Peter Hagelstein (whom I had never met…pure cold call), and he was quite willing to listen to what I had to say. Which is the way REAL scientists are supposed to be. Your assumption that Fleischmann would have reacted differently to someone other than Bockris is pure suspicion on your part, with NO evidence of any sort to back it up.

        Finally, Steve Krivit is NOT a reliable source.

      • Warthog

        Read George Beaudette’s book “Excess Heat, Why Cold Fusion Research Prevailed”. He covers that period quite well, and he is a far better source than Steve Krivit.

    • Alan DeAngelis

      Yes, let us praise the Physicists.
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7sF4JzjwTg

    • bachcole

      Those scientists trying to duplicate F & P did NOT want it to work.

  • Thomas Clarke

    Many of the comments here are addressing whether or not F&P observed a real effect, or whether or not LENR now is a physical phenomena which mainstream science is wrong not to accept.

    I want to leave that and make a different point.

    The discussion here is about how best to investigate a hypothesis and is a separate issue from what hypothesis is correct.

    There can, as far as I can see, be good agreement is on what is the best way to prove a hypothesis correct. I think the page I linked shows clearly how mainstream science (should) work and how LENR advocates could best go with the flow so to speak while keeping their other views. Whether it is historically accurate in terms of F&P’s motivation etc I don’t know and this is not relevant to the point I’m making.

    I raised this because it is more or less exactly what MFMP try to do and I read here some impatience with their approach when it is IMHO the only approach that could lead to results trusted by mainstream science. Not that they are the only people with such an approach who have worked on LENR – but they are certainly the highest profile such.

    One other feature of this link. It points out that when a startling new hypothesis is made the proper attitude is one of openness and checking of evidence for and against. Researchers should be looking to confirm and deny the hypothesis with equal weight. I think that gets lost sometimes in the internet discussion. Perhaps understandably. But it would be best if it is not lost by the people actually doing the experiments. That is because it is the “against” checking of an anomalous result that turns a positive observation into strong evidence that will make most scientists sit up. So this type of checking – which MFMP have a track record of doing – is exactly what is needed to make LENR (if there is a real effect) into something more widely studied.

    That is fair.

    • Gerrit

      The way not to investigate a new phenomena is to ridicule and outcast it for 25 years !

    • Axil Axil

      These scientists will get the message when their funding stops on their fusion and fission projects. They will get the message when they are standing in the unemployment line. They will ask themselves, “how did this happen?”. Then they might be motivated to look into the cause of their distress, maybe not…it’s up to them. The world will move on without them as an irrelevancy.

    • Axil Axil

      The E Cat is a system comprised of many mechanisms that come from many fields of science and engineering. You cannot prove a system. Science stripes down a thing to be studied to the bare minimum to isolate one parameter. That isolation is how science succeeds. A system secedes by covering every contingency so that the system functions well and meets a specification. LENR is not science, it is engineering and Tom Clarke does not understand this, and therefore his opinion is meaningless.

  • pelgrim108

    Live Open Science is great, but Semi-live Open Sience-guided Tinkering is great also. They profit from each other and the world profits from all of them.
    ( I wish I could write like Billy Jackson)

    • Thomas Clarke

      sure – openness is the crucial component since then no-one has to spend much time chasing after shadows.

  • Paul

    If a single competent group fails to replicate an experiment it does not demostrate that the effect does not exist. Perhaps we have not learnt anything from F&P story… If a single detail is ignored by a competent group an experiment can fail. I have assumed that the group is competent and this could open a discussion… because who says that a group is competent and independent? Only because it shares on the web many info and thoughts? The demostration of the reality of such phenomena does not depend from a single MFMP but, at least, from 10 or more MFMP-like groups with an experience in the field…

  • Paul

    If a single competent group fails to replicate an experiment it does not demostrate that the effect does not exist. Perhaps we have not learnt anything from F&P story… If a single detail is ignored by a competent group an experiment can fail. I have assumed that the group is competent and this could open a discussion… because who says that a group is competent and independent? Only because it shares on the web many info and thoughts? The demostration of the reality of such phenomena does not depend from a single MFMP but, at least, from 10 or more MFMP-like groups with an experience in the field…

  • Mark

    If the mainstream scientific community labeled something as false that turned out to be true, then there is something wrong with the system that the mainstream scientists used to decide whether or not the thing that they labeled as false is true. F&Ps behavior does not change the fact that the mainstream scientific community got things wrong.

  • Freethinker

    🙂

    You have always been slick, Thomas Clarke. You express yourself very well, but the message behind your well dressed words is nothing but the same as from the most boxed in pathological skeptics out there.

    Let us leave your “own views on the likelihood of LENR as a hypothesis” elsewhere as it is not “interest to readers here”. That much is correct.

    It is easy for you to say what P&F should and should not have done 26 years ago with perfect vision of hindsight. Yet you utterly fail to recognize the wrong doings by those who took part in erroneously debunking their findings. You side with them. And yet you write your prose here, as if it would sway anybody here. Why do you even bother? Not your explanation to as to why, but the real root cause.

    What is the drive? I mean, what does it matter to you what negatives MFMP finds in their open tests? You cannot prove the negative anyway. Could it be related to the fact that you think LENR has the same relevance as UFO and yeti sightings?

    I think most people here see through your little text, as you have shown your true face before.

    I agree with Warthog, this is pure horse manure.

  • Freethinker

    🙂

    You have always been slick, Thomas Clarke. You express yourself very well, but the message behind your well dressed words is nothing but the same as from the most boxed in pathological skeptics out there.

    Let us leave your “own views on the likelihood of LENR as a hypothesis” elsewhere as it is not “interest to readers here”. That much is correct.

    It is easy for you to say what P&F should and should not have done 26 years ago with perfect vision of hindsight. Yet you utterly fail to recognize the wrong doings by those who took part in erroneously debunking their findings. You side with them. And yet you write your prose here, as if it would sway anybody here. Why do you even bother? Not your explanation to as to why, but the real root cause.

    What is the drive? I mean, what does it matter to you what negatives MFMP finds in their open tests? You cannot prove the negative anyway. Could it be related to the fact that you think LENR has the same relevance as UFO and yeti sightings?

    I think most people here see through your little text, as you have shown your true face before.

    I agree with Warthog, this is pure horse manure.

    • Well said. I posted something earlier today in this thread but I take it Frank thought it a little too “flamey” and it didn’t make it through. I have a personal history with TC. He’s a long term Rossi defamer. He’s polite about it but mark my words he’s here to spread FUD.

  • Gerrit

    The way not to investigate a new phenomena is to ridicule and outcast it for 25 years !

  • Thomas Clarke

    It is quite unnecessary, in science, to personalise issues, nor to see different judgements about likelihood as a war with sides.

    My post here is not about sides, nor about whether F&P had a real effect or not. It is about how you go about getting a possible real effect accepted by the scientific community.

    My own motivation is that I like puzzles – which some of the LENR data is. The Lugano results for example remain for me very anomalous, and I do not have a good way to fit them all together. But that is a different topic.

    Maybe this site is only interested in people of a like mind taking to each other – but I hope and suspect not.

    As for peer review:

    Kate Marvel – very funny – points out how annoying it is.

    http://marvelclimate.blogspot.co.uk/2015/02/reviews-and-regrets.html

    • Josh G

      Tom, I for one appreciated the link that you sent. It’s always good to be reminded that there are always two sides to a story. There was some background information here about events at the time that I was not aware of, so thank you for sharing. I don’t think the account gives a balanced view, but it sheds a different light on events that is worthwhile reading. One of the things that I realized reading that was that failed replications (that were not done correctly — but then how could they be if F and P were unwilling to informally share the details with most people) was not the only reason people dismissed the results. The lack of neutrons was a major factor. I think F and P did not agree with the scientific consensus against them because they were certain that their calorimetry readings were correct. In fact most of the researchers who continued working on cold fusion were the ones who had early success replicating the anomalous heat, and so it didn’t matter that there weren’t any neutrons. They knew there was something going on and could ‘see it with their own eyes’ as it were.

      I think that the increasing move to commercialize science and the expansion of public-private partnerships between universities and corporations have produced many, many similar examples of the dilemma between secrecy and transparency, and F&P are not the only ones who were caught on the horns of such a dilemma. I agree that the MFMP model represents pretty much the polar opposite of what occured with F & P, although I don’t necessarily agree that their way of doing things represents the ‘correct’ way of doing science, although I have enormous admiration for what they’re doing and trying to do.

      My major problem with the narrative you linked to is the conclusion that: “It’s important to note that even with such unscientific behavior, the process of science still worked.” I think that conclusion is really deeply mistaken. As nobel laureate Julian Schwinger stated, “the circumstance of cold fusion are not those of hot fusion.” So people thought that there should be neutrons, but there aren’t. But there is a nuclear process taking place. We just don’t fully understand it.

      Thank you for sharing. I know you have often been an outspoken critic of CF and especially Rossi. Though my sense is that you have moved from the ‘this is ridiculous’ camp to the ‘there might be something to this even though there probably isn’t’ camp.’ I hope that’s correct. Cheers.

      • Thomas Clarke

        Thanks for a considered reply.

        I think the “process working” is maybe different from “the results are correct”. You can imagine a situation where somone advocates a correct hypothesis (for which there is no evidence) and eventually they are found right, due to new evidence. Should it have been accepted originally? I’d say no. So would Bayes – or E. T. Jaynes.

        As for my criticism: I would like LENR to be real. My judgement is (if I’m allowed to say that here) that this is unlikely. My severe criticism is for public demonstrations etc presented as good evidence which are in fact not that, and for authors of published material who do not engage with criticism to argue their case further, or make corrections. There may be commercial reasons why this is not done, but I still strongly dislike it.

        I have not much changed my views – the thing that would do that would be a positive MFMP replication or Hagelstein working out a convincing solution to the reaction product energy splitting problem. Still, I’m somone who can think things highly unlikely without dismissing them as impossible. Perhaps the difference from others is that I don’t forget the evidence that leads to the “highly unlikely” and weight it together with new evidence.

        • Mark

          “I would like LENR to be real. My judgement is (if I’m allowed to say that here) that this is unlikely.”

          Well, you probably should NOT be allowed to say it here, but Frank will probably let it slide. However, it does say, in the commenting rules section:

          “E-Cat World is a site that takes LENR seriously, and accepts it as a valid field of research, and a potentially useful energy source. , this site is not a venue where LENR/cold fusion skeptics are given free rein, or a place to debate whether LENR/cold fusion is real. Here we assume here that LENR/cold fusion is a valid scientific phenomeon, an important topic, and one worthy of mature discussion.”

          • Thomas Clarke

            That is why I was cautious. This site does not (strictly) allow discussion of the basic tenets of LENR real/not real or Rossi has it / does not have it.

            In any case there would be no point arguing those things here – people have made their own judgement as you say.

            OTOH – It would be dishonest for me to represent myself as somone whose judgement on these matters coincided with that of others here when the matter is raised (as it was above).

            Tom

        • Roland

          You are free to conclude, based on your ‘judgement’, that all the supporting evidence for LENR is incorrect, as are all the poor deluded researchers producing positive results, and we are free to conclude, having pondered the growing list of successful experiments, that your ‘judgement’ is, at best, defective and can be safely ignored.

        • Axil Axil

          “Hagelstein working out a convincing solution to the reaction product energy splitting problem.”

          It called Quantum energy teleportation. It has been experimentally verified and It is even explained on the internet. You won’t need to get out those 40 year old dusty quantum books to do research.

          Quantum energy teleportation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_energy_teleportation

          see also
          http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/370/1972/3620

          • Thomas Clarke

            Axil,

            The problem I have with your many discourses on physics is that you are never quantitative.

            It’s like you say: “S/C/KNO3 – the formula is known. Its been proven to provide enormous thrust (ref fireworks). Launching to orbit is therefore easy.”

            After all, conventional physics says that LENR exist – just at a very very low level, and generating typical nuclear products. Conventional physics also says there are many different mechanisms that can affect this very low reaction rate and boost it, but not anything like enough to make viable fusion.

            Quantum teleportation is not at issue here – the question is how that could provide reliable energy splitting of the type needed. It is a quantitative issue to do with probabilities of given interations – just as the fact that LENR do not also occur is also a quantitative issue – in principle of course they do.

            Hagelstein has been trying to find such a mechanism for a long time, and a detailed look at his recent work might shed light on the matter.

          • Axil Axil

            What nano-technology does is multiply a solitary low probability event untold trillions of times. When we multiply a low probability event by trillions upon trillions upon trillion of times, it become a certain macro-scale event. Do you understand the concept of exponential growth?

        • Josh G

          I think that your original argument — that we need MFMP’s live open science model to prove LENR — is already a sign that the scientific process is broken in the case of LENR/cold fusion. Why? Because there is no other field of scientific inquiry where MFMP’s openness is necessary for proving its existence. And in fact you might be correct that it is needed in the case of LENR. But the main reason for that is that the cold fusion research has been labeled a “pseudo science” or “pathological science.” It’s not just that F&P’s initial hypothesis was tentatively rejected awaiting further evidence. The entire enterprise of research into cold fusion doesn’t even have the status of science. It’s like studying ESP or crop circles. That’s why editors in mainstream journals have decided not to publish cold fusion results even if they pass peer review and also why the MIT administration rejected grant money (!) that was given to support Hagelstein’s research.

          One problem with the one-sided narrative that you linked to is that it paints F&P as the bad actors and other scientists as well-intentioned truth seekers. While this latter point was true in some cases, in other (very influential) cases, it was and is not. Other people in this thread have commented to that effect.

          The conclusion of piece you linked to is a good example of the one-sidedness of the narrative: “Despite all this, some scientists continue to investigate the possibility of cold fusion. Science doesn’t give up on ideas that have merit, even if they experience setbacks. All scientific knowledge is, after all, tentative. So though there is every reason to think that what Pons and Fleischmann observed was not cold fusion, some scientists (though a small minority of the physics community) continue to investigate whether or not cold fusion is possible. But to convince the rest of the physics community, they’ll need to find many lines of solid evidence to support their views.”

          The picture that comes away from this is that the skepticism towards cold fusion is the same as normal scientific skepticism towards other unproven areas of research. It doesn’t give any indication of the ridicule and disrepute attached to cold fusion research, nor the extent to which it has been treated as a pseudo-science since 1989. There is an plethora of solid evidence for anomolous heat produced through some nuclear process, but it is simply discounted or ignored.

          You know that when CBS was putting together their 2009 piece of cold fusion, they had trouble finding reputable physicists who were actually willing to take the time to assess the evidence for cold fusion. They found plenty who were willing to denounce it as nonsense based what they already “knew,” but couldn’t find anybody willing to actually look at the evidence. They eventually found Robert Duncan, a very well-respected physicist and expert in (among other things) calorimetry. When he actually examined the “solid lines of evidence” that have accumulated, as well as went to look at the ongoing cold fusion experiments at energetics, he was convinced that the anomolous heat was real. He put his considerable reputation on the line by coming out publicly on CBS and saying that he believed the evidence of anomolous heat. He has since done cold fusion research a great service by establishing a research center at U of Missouri and now at Texas Tech. In what other scientific field does a scientist put their reputation on the line by agreeing with the overwhelming evidence in favor of something? I’ll tell you which ones: none of them. Only by coming out in favor of evidence of something that has been defined as a pseudoscience will you risk your reputation.

          So, no, I don’t have a problem with the initial conclusions that the cold fusion hypothesis was wrong. But the process went off the rails, and it was not due any malfeasance on the part of F&P but points to problems with the scientific process. MFMP would otherwise not be necessary for proving cold fusion.

          • interesting reframing of the debate.

            Indeed, MFMP approach is uncommon in accepted science.

            It was needed for HTSC (levitation was used as way to convince, while instruments were clear since long), for Wright planes (open science was not enough, needed commercial sales).

            as I said Open science when just trying to understand/replicate is best way to discourage the crowd. Open science should start when things are quite established to fight denial of evidence, as for HTSC or Wright planes, not as a development process.

            a variant of open science, could be open collaboration, and this is in a way what MFMP, AGP, jack Cole, are doing.
            the idea is not to be open to public, but to share the failures and the problems with peers, like in a big open lab, so that a common experience can be established.

            one of the few real cause of F&P tragedy is that many scientists did not collaborate with F&P, but tried to replicate (as usual) by interpreting available public data with enough understanding.
            Jed Rothwell explained how pathetic were the first replications of Wrights brothers… With open science this process of improvement is faster.

        • Josh G

          “As for my criticism: I would like LENR to be real. My judgement is (if I’m allowed to say that here) that this is unlikely. My severe criticism is for public demonstrations etc presented as good evidence which are in fact not that, and for authors of published material who do not engage with criticism to argue their case further, or make corrections. There may be commercial reasons why this is not done, but I still strongly dislike it.”

          I’m sorry but this statement really just speaks to your lack of knowledge (dare I say ignorance) about LENR research and researchers. It appears that you equate LENR with Rossi and the F&P debacle. Which LENR researchers are you referring to who do not engage with criticism or correct mistakes? F&P responded and engaged. Are you talking about the Lugano testers? How do you know they haven’t engaged with criticism and are working on either an improved report or more conclusive experiment? Because they didn’t respond to your blog posts? But is that it for you? Rossi, F&P and the Lugano/E-cat testers?

          From the perspective of people like us who have taken the time to assess LENR evidence, your “judgement” is uninformed. Just as cold fusion enthusiasts may be too quick to accept flimsy evidence for cold fusion, you seem to selectively take the worst evidence for cold fusion and treat it as if it were the best. I mean, seriously, how could you watch the presentation below from the Navy SPAWAR lab’s presentation at ICCF-18 and still feel that LENR is “unlikely”? These people have got everything everyone has been asking for: Independent replications? Check. Peer review? Check. Repeatable experiments? Check. Tritium production? Check. Neutron production? Check. Gamma radiation? Check. Excess heat? Check. And here they are openly sharing 20 years of research at a scientific conference in a taped presentation that was uploaded to youtube. They don’t seem to be hiding much of anything. Do they really need to be as open as MFMP for you to accept their results?

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

          • “I’m sorry but this statement really just speaks to your lack of
            knowledge (dare I say ignorance) about LENR research and researchers.”

            Trust me, he’s informed but as usual he is being “willfully ignorant.” Don’t waste your breathe. He’s already been made aware of everything you could show him about LENR. Don’t expect him to ever give any ground. He’s not here to be persuaded by evidence. He’s here to spread FUD.

  • parallelB

    The undated article written by Candace Gilet. aka “Understanding Science Team,” linked by Tom Clarke. failed miserably to include the later evidence of why replication failed. It is now known that the Palladium needs to be loaded to ~90% and none of the original attempts got close to that.(ref McKubre http://www.currentscience.ac.in/Volumes/108/04/0495.pdf ) It is now possible to do this quite quickly by co deposition and get fairly repeatable results.

    Just who would you choose to do peer review of one of Rossi’s experiments? Certainly not a hot fusion physicist who believes in TC’s First Law. It seems likely that something is happening that is outside known nuclear physics as there seems to be little or no gamma radiation from the reaction, so there are no “peers”. It could be related to Lithium as a salt of this (I understand) was also used used as the electrolyte in Fleischmann and Pons reactor, as well as impurities in that particular sample of Palladium.

    I am increasingly depressed by what I read of the value of peer review. The retired editor of BMJ wrote that 70%(?) of the papers published were wrong. When there is so much money potentially at stake, as there is with LENR, if is difficult to know who to trust. Certainly the US Patent Office has done a great disservice to the field by refusing to patent cold fusion – as pseudo science. With better patent law Rossi might have felt able to disclose more of what he is doing.

    There is also a big difference of spending your own money on research, as Rossi has done until recently, compared to government grants. I have considerable sympathy for Rossi and am really tired of the ad hominem attacks on him by people like ee-tom. Considering the number of LENR replications that already been make and not believed by the general science community, i suspect Rossi’s forecast that only sale of commercial units would convince the pathological skeptics is correct.
    Adrian Ashfield

    • Omega Z

      “is difficult to know who to trust”
      Exactly, I find myself questioning things even when they favor my position.
      What is more bothering is when people create an algorithm to write a report & it gets excepted. Or that they admit that there are to few peer reviewers & papers get published without any peer review but from the person who is supposed to distribute it to the reviewers.

      It’s time to rethink the process.

      • Thomas Clarke

        People are human, and humans have flaws. There is (as you’d want) a free market in journals and they vary enormously in quality. Also, even the best can get things wrong.

        Now, I’m all for a better system than peer review, but I don’t know one.

        • Omega Z

          I’m not sure how to fix the system, But I could recommend a good starting point. They can Work on their integrity. There are far to many that seem not to have that. Especially in the hierarchy. I don’t know. Can one be political And have integrity.

        • Axil Axil

          The system is called capitalism. If a system run on 80 times less power than another, the conclusions are easy to make. They teach this kind of stuff in forth grade.

      • Freethinker

        Science as we know it, and have known it, must be reformed. It has lost its way, and is dangerously close to becoming it’s own antithesis.

  • AdrianAshfield

    The undated article written by Candace Gilet. aka “Understanding Science Team,” linked by Tom Clarke. failed miserably to include the later evidence of why replication failed. It is now known that the Palladium needs to be loaded to ~90% and none of the original attempts got close to that.(ref McKubre http://www.currentscience.ac.in/Volumes/108/04/0495.pdf ) It is now possible to do this quite quickly by co deposition and get fairly repeatable results.

    Just who would you choose to do peer review of one of Rossi’s experiments? Certainly not a hot fusion physicist who believes in TC’s First Law. It seems likely that something is happening that is outside known nuclear physics as there seems to be little or no gamma radiation from the reaction, so there are no “peers”. It could be related to Lithium as a salt of this (I understand) was also used used as the electrolyte in Fleischmann and Pons reactor, as well as impurities in that particular sample of Palladium.

    I am increasingly depressed by what I read of the value of peer review. The retired editor of BMJ wrote that 70%(?) of the papers published were wrong. When there is so much money potentially at stake, as there is with LENR, if is difficult to know who to trust. Certainly the US Patent Office has done a great disservice to the field by refusing to patent cold fusion – as pseudo science. With better patent law Rossi might have felt able to disclose more of what he is doing.

    There is also a big difference of spending your own money on research, as Rossi has done until recently, compared to government grants. I have considerable sympathy for Rossi and am really tired of the ad hominem attacks on him by people like ee-tom. Considering the number of LENR replications that already been make and not believed by the general science community, i suspect Rossi’s forecast that only sale of commercial units would convince the pathological skeptics is correct.
    Adrian Ashfield

    • Omega Z

      “is difficult to know who to trust”
      Exactly, I find myself questioning things even when they favor my position.
      What is more bothering is when people create an algorithm to write a report & it gets excepted. Or that they admit that there are to few peer reviewers & papers get published without any peer review but from the person who is supposed to distribute it to the reviewers.

      It’s time to rethink the process.

      • Thomas Clarke

        People are human, and humans have flaws. There is (as you’d want) a free market in journals and they vary enormously in quality. Also, even the best can get things wrong.

        Now, I’m all for a better system than peer review, but I don’t know one.

        • Omega Z

          I’m not sure how to fix the system, But I could recommend a good starting point. They can Work on their integrity. There are far to many that seem not to have that. Especially in the hierarchy. I don’t know. Can one be political And have integrity.

        • Axil Axil

          The system is called capitalism. If a system runs on 80 times less power than another, the conclusions are easy to make. They teach this kind of stuff in forth grade.

      • Freethinker

        Science as we know it, and have known it, must be reformed. It has lost its way, and is dangerously close to becoming it’s own antithesis.

  • I don’t see that MFMP is classical approach in science.
    classical approache is work quietly during few years until you have something that work, detail the protocol, and publish.
    then discuss with interested peers who try to replicate quietly, and publish their sucess and their problems.

    Open science can be very wrongly interpreted and demand what most human don’t have. telerance and patience.
    it also demand what most people, especially scientits lack, some logic in not inverting the rules of logic.

    a failure in proving an anomaly, thus a confirmation of the normality, proves nothing.
    only evidence of anomalies, positive results, are interesting.

    only when the anomaly have a theory, can the theory, not the anomaly, be refuted.

    the only way to refute an anomaly is to find an artifact and replicate it.

    This article is not even wrong as it seems to hide the real debate on what is real science, by implicitly stating that negative results have key importance (they have to guide positive replications, not as evidence. failure of MIT and Caltech only supported McKubre observation of loading importance, and team competence importance) .
    It also push the very fashion concept that working quietly is not good.
    By putting too much the emphasis on failure, it can trigger lazy reaction of despair.
    Scientist have to be patient, and when watching open science, you have to be patient.

    If you watch openscience with the mood of a real scientist, critic and patient, it will educate you in the painful slowness (and cost) of real lab science.

    If you are not of that wood, you will be caught by cycle of enthusiasm and depression, until you abandon the affair

    this is what happened to enthusiast supporters like Morrison who turned conspiracy theorist because he could not support anymore to change his mood.

    • Omega Z

      Excellent post AlainCo

    • Josh G

      Here is a link to Beaudette’s much more thorough recounting of the F-P controversy. He does not hold them blameless for their actions at the time. But he provides a more balanced account.
      http://iccf9.global.tsinghua.edu.cn/lenr%20home%20page/acrobat/BeaudetteCexcessheat.pdf

      • Warthog

        Thanks for providing the link to Beaudette’s publication. But I doubt whether the “skeptics” will bother to read it.

        • Josh G

          Unlikely, but you never know. Anyway it’s a good resource for anyone wanting to get up to speed on the early years of cold fusion research and what happened to F&P.

          • parallelB

            Tom Clarke, you would do well to read the few pages of a book by Charles G. Beaudette linked here
            http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BeaudetteCexcessheat.pdf

            Not only does it explain why skeptics like you dismiss new discoveries, but it also give some concrete examples that PROVE LENR exists.

            Adrian Ashfield

      • Dr. Mike

        Josh,
        This looks like it will be an interesting read, although there’s been a lot more results on the F-P experiments since its 2002 copyright date.
        Dr. Mike

        • Josh G

          True, but I don’t think there have been new revelations about the events surrounding the F&P cold fusion announcement/denouncement fiasco. In which case, what is written about that still applies.

      • Carl Wilson

        It seems to me that this is the kind of post we will see more of as the Scientific Establishment seeks to discredit the people and methods leading to the emergence of LENR as our dominant energy source. Should there not be an admission of a massive failure on the part of the Establishment?

    • Warthog

      So tell me how you do a lab experiment that proves continental drift, and allows the sort of “scrutiny” you appear to want.

      Certainly, all the individual geology research that eventually proved CD was correct was subject to such scrutiny in geology journals, but CD itself is proven only by “examining a phenomenon from different perspectives”.

      LENR has lacked “scrutiny” not because the researchers didn’t WANT scrutiny, but because “some” science journals have simply refused to allow LENR researchers to publish. Not because of any lacking on the part of the LENR researchers or the quality of their research, but because of dirty science politics and gamesmanship (and don’t tell me such doesn’t go on….I’ve seen too much of it, and not just in the field of LENR).

      That embargo by “some” science journals is precisely the reason that the ICCF conferences were started. Or perhaps you think that conferences don’t provide “scrutiny”. Wrong. Conference critiques provide some of the most stringent “scrutiny” that exists….because those participating are the real experts in a topic. I should also point out that the LENR scientists have NOT excluded their critics from the ICCF. On the contrary, they have specifically invited them.

      And there are other publications, including peer reviewed ones, that HAVE published LENR papers. Naturwissenschaften is one that HAS published LENR papers. There are others.

      The fact that you claim “details are lacking” is simply either ignorance of the literature or bad faith (i.e. pathological skepticism) on your part. Read the ICCF conference proceedings, or some of the (many) other DETAILED science papers at LENR-CANR.org.

  • I don’t see that MFMP is classical approach in science.
    classical approache is work quietly during few years until you have something that work, detail the protocol, and publish.
    then discuss with interested peers who try to replicate quietly, and publish their sucess and their problems.

    Open science can be very wrongly interpreted and demand what most human don’t have. telerance and patience.
    it also demand what most people, especially scientits lack, some logic in not inverting the rules of logic.

    a failure in proving an anomaly, thus a confirmation of the normality, proves nothing.
    only evidence of anomalies, positive results, are interesting.

    only when the anomaly have a theory, can the theory, not the anomaly, be refuted.

    the only way to refute an anomaly is to find an artifact and replicate it.

    This article is not even wrong as it seems to hide the real debate on what is real science, by implicitly stating that negative results have key importance (they have to guide positive replications, not as evidence. failure of MIT and Caltech only supported McKubre observation of loading importance, and team competence importance) .
    It also push the very fashion concept that working quietly is not good.
    By putting too much the emphasis on failure, it can trigger lazy reaction of despair.
    Scientist have to be patient, and when watching open science, you have to be patient.

    If you watch openscience with the mood of a real scientist, critic and patient, it will educate you in the painful slowness (and cost) of real lab science.

    If you are not of that wood, you will be caught by cycle of enthusiasm and depression, until you abandon the affair

    this is what happened to enthusiast supporters like Morrison who turned conspiracy theorist because he could not support anymore to change his mood.

    • Omega Z

      Excellent post AlainCo

    • Thomas Clarke

      Alain,

      You may think I’m splitting hairs. But it is a real point.

      Every anomaly has a theory.

      Why? Because you only know that it is an anomaly because it seems to contradict known theory.

      Then you can analyse the known theory to see whether you are applying it correctly, whether there is some not considered factor, etc, that explains the anomaly at which point, if you find that, it is no longer an anomaly.

      That is what science does and 99% of the time the anomalies go away. It gets interesting when they do not.

      • I disagree.
        By definition an anomaly have no theory. it is an observation.

        What requires a theory is an artifact claim.

        an anomaly is “I cannot explain that”

        but I agree that current science have problem with anomalies, as Thomas Kuhn describe very well.
        Airbus Group chief scientists , explained that problem with an historical perspective.

        from about 1900 to 1925 science was fed by shocking experiments which led to new theories, replacing/extending old theories.
        But since the new theories, QM and GR, have been so efficient not only to explain but also to predict, that people have forgotten what is science without a theory.

        It seems as difficult for most scientist today to imagine an experiment without even a proposed theory, as it is hard to imagine for some people to have people not believing in a superior force.

        It is as difficult for me to understand how intelligent people cannot understand both possibilities, as I’m an engineer, but working in Finance “industry” I know that rationality is a local theory.

        radium produced heat, pechblende was darkening films, light speed was measured constant, X-rays were observed, and it was accepted by some people before any accepted theory could explain it.

        • Josh G

          Interesting point.
          Edit: Though I think what Tom meant by ‘every anomaly’ has a theory is simply that an anomaly is only considered as such when it flies in the face of accepted theory. In which case, the ‘theory’ of the anomaly is not what explains the anomaly (which you rightly pointed out doesn’t exist) but rather the theory that the anomaly contradicts.

  • Warthog

    Then I suggest you study the contemporaneous accounts. Indeed, you could go further and learn about the deliberate science FRAUD practiced by “someone” in the MIT physics department who changed the data in the publication of their (supposedly) failed attempt at replicating Pons and Fleischmann but which ACTUALLY SHOWED EXCESS HEAT. Thoroughly documented to Eugene Mallove.

    The results P & F had were definitive as regards the calorimetry, but erroneous regarding detection of neutrons. But the FAILURE of the process was the physicists and some few chemist allies who didn’t wait for the detailed publication.

    And yes, Bockris was a friend of Fleischmann. So what?? I once had occasion to communicate with Peter Hagelstein (whom I had never met…pure cold call), and he was quite willing to listen to what I had to say. Which is the way REAL scientists are supposed to be. Your assumption that Fleischmann would have reacted differently to someone other than Bockris is pure suspicion on your part, with NO evidence of any sort to back it up.

    Finally, Steve Krivit is NOT a reliable source.

  • Warthog

    Read George Beaudette’s book “Excess Heat, Why Cold Fusion Research Prevailed”. He covers that period quite well, and he is a far better source than Steve Krivit.

  • Thomas Clarke

    To reiterate: the point of the linked web pages, as I understand it, is as an example of how science can work things out, and what gets in the way of this.

    It does not matter for this purpose whether it is fictitious or real.

    I agree MFMP is not the classical approach to science. However, it shares with that approach certain important qualities:

    (1) Be open
    (2) Accept criticism, engage with it, try your best to keep an open mind
    (3) Check and cross-check hypitheses

    • Axil Axil

      Can a nuclear reaction be caused by something other than a neutron? If the answer is yes, then you have an open mind. If not then you are a nuclear scientist or engineer.

      • Axil Axil

        IH allowed a demo of the Hot cat at Lagono from which has resulted in a successful replication and many other attempts. The Hot cat is Rossi’s most advanced technology, From these tests be they failed or successful, we learn much.

      • I disagree.
        By definition an anomaly have no theory. it is an observation.

        What requires a theory is an artifact claim.

        an anomaly is “I cannot explain that”

        but I agree that current science have problem with anomalies, as Thomas Kuhn describe very well.
        Airbus Group chief scientists , explained that problem with an historical perspective.

        from about 1900 to 1925 science was fed by shocking experiments which led to new theories, replacing/extending old theories.
        But since the new theories, QM and GR, have been so efficient not only to explain but also to predict, that people have forgotten what is science without a theory.

        It seems as difficult for most scientist today to imagine an experiment without even a proposed theory, as it is hard to imagine for some people to have people not believing in a superior force.

        It is as difficult for me to understand how intelligent people cannot understand both possibilities, as I’m an engineer, but working in Finance “industry” I know that rationality is a local theory.

        radium produced heat, pechblende was darkening films, light speed was measured constant, X-rays were observed, and it was accepted by some people before any accepted theory could explain it.

        • Josh G

          Interesting point.
          Edit: Though I think what Tom meant by ‘every anomaly’ has a theory is simply that an anomaly is only considered as such when it flies in the face of accepted theory. In which case, the ‘theory’ of the anomaly is not what explains the anomaly (which you rightly pointed out doesn’t exist) but rather the theory that the anomaly contradicts.

        • Warthog

          One word……Skype. With today’s communication tools, one can run a team from anywhere, including the deeps of jungle or desert (or inside a shipping container).

      • Axil Axil

        What nano-technology does is multiply a solitary low probability event untold trillions of times. When we multiply a low probability event by trillions upon trillions upon trillion of times, it become a certain macro-scale event.

  • Thomas Clarke

    To reiterate: the point of the linked web pages, as I understand it, is as an example of how science can work things out, and what gets in the way of this.

    It does not matter for this purpose whether it is fictitious or real.

    I agree MFMP is not the classical approach to science. However, it shares with that approach certain important qualities:

    (1) Be open
    (2) Accept criticism, engage with it, try your best to keep an open mind
    (3) Check and cross-check hypitheses

    • Axil Axil

      Can a nuclear reaction be caused by something other than a neutron? If the answer is yes, then you have an open mind. If not then you are a nuclear scientist or engineer.

      • bachcole

        Cute.

      • Ivy Matt

        Nuclear scientists and engineers don’t believe in nuclear fusion?

  • Josh G

    Tom, I for one appreciated the link that you sent. It’s always good to be reminded that there are always two sides to a story. There was some background information here about events at the time that I was not aware of, so thank you for sharing. I don’t think the account gives a balanced view, but it sheds a different light on events that is worthwhile reading. One of the things that I realized reading that was that failed replications (that were not done correctly — but then how could they be if F and P were unwilling to informally share the details with most people) was not the only reason people dismissed the results. The lack of neutrons was a major factor. I think F and P did not agree with the scientific consensus against them because they were certain that their calorimetry readings were correct. In fact most of the researchers who continued working on cold fusion were the ones who had early success replicating the anomalous heat, and so it didn’t matter that there weren’t any neutrons. They knew there was something going on and could ‘see it with their own eyes’ as it were.

    I think that the increasing move to commercialize science and the expansion of public-private partnerships between universities and corporations have produced many, many similar examples of the dilemma between secrecy and transparency, and F&P are not the only ones who were caught on the horns of such a dilemma. I agree that the MFMP model represents pretty much the polar opposite of what occured with F & P, although I don’t necessarily agree that their way of doing things represents the ‘correct’ way of doing science, although I have enormous admiration for what they’re doing and trying to do.

    My major problem with the narrative you linked to is the conclusion that: “It’s important to note that even with such unscientific behavior, the process of science still worked.” I think that conclusion is really deeply mistaken. As nobel laureate Julian Schwinger stated, “the circumstance of cold fusion are not those of hot fusion.” So people thought that there should be neutrons, but there aren’t. But there is a nuclear process taking place. We just don’t fully understand it.

    Thank you for sharing. I know you have often been an outspoken critic of CF and especially Rossi. Though my sense is that you have moved from the ‘this is ridiculous’ camp to the ‘there might be something to this even though there probably isn’t’ camp.’ I hope that’s correct. Cheers.

    • Thomas Clarke

      Thanks for a considered reply.

      I think the “process working” is maybe different from “the results are correct”. You can imagine a situation where somone advocates a correct hypothesis (for which there is no evidence) and eventually they are found right, due to new evidence. Should it have been accepted originally? I’d say no. So would Bayes – or E. T. Jaynes.

      As for my criticism: I would like LENR to be real. My judgement is (if I’m allowed to say that here) that this is unlikely. My severe criticism is for public demonstrations etc presented as good evidence which are in fact not that, and for authors of published material who do not engage with criticism to argue their case further, or make corrections. There may be commercial reasons why this is not done, but I still strongly dislike it.

      I have not much changed my views – the thing that would do that would be a positive MFMP replication or Hagelstein working out a convincing solution to the reaction product energy splitting problem. Still, I’m somone who can think things highly unlikely without dismissing them as impossible. Perhaps the difference from others is that I don’t forget the evidence that leads to the “highly unlikely” and weight it together with new evidence.

      • Axil Axil

        “Hagelstein working out a convincing solution to the reaction product energy splitting problem.”

        It called Quantum energy teleportation. It is even explained on the internet

        Quantum energy teleportation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_energy_teleportation

      • Josh G

        I think that your original argument — that we need MFMP’s live open science model to prove LENR — is already a sign that the scientific process is broken in the case of LENR/cold fusion. Why? Because there is no other field of scientific inquiry where MFMP’s openness is necessary for proving its existence. And in fact you might be correct that it is needed in the case of LENR. But the main reason for that is that the cold fusion research has been labeled a “pseudo science” or “pathological science.” It’s not just that F&P’s initial hypothesis was tentatively rejected awaiting further evidence. The entire enterprise of research into cold fusion doesn’t even have the status of science. It’s like studying ESP or crop circles. That’s why editors in mainstream journals have decided not to publish cold fusion results even if they pass peer review and also why the MIT administration rejected grant money (!) that was given to support Hagelstein’s research.

        One problem with the one-sided narrative that you linked to is that it paints F&P as the bad actors and other scientists as well-intentioned truth seekers. While this latter point was true in some cases, in other (very influential) cases, it was and is not. Other people in this thread have commented to that effect.

        The conclusion of piece you linked to is a good example of the one-sidedness of the narrative: “Despite all this, some scientists continue to investigate the possibility of cold fusion. Science doesn’t give up on ideas that have merit, even if they experience setbacks. All scientific knowledge is, after all, tentative. So though there is every reason to think that what Pons and Fleischmann observed was not cold fusion, some scientists (though a small minority of the physics community) continue to investigate whether or not cold fusion is possible. But to convince the rest of the physics community, they’ll need to find many lines of solid evidence to support their views.”

        The picture that comes away from this is that the skepticism towards cold fusion is the same as normal scientific skepticism towards other unproven areas of research. It doesn’t give any indication of the ridicule and disrepute attached to cold fusion research, nor the extent to which it has been treated as a pseudo-science since 1989. There is an plethora of solid evidence for anomolous heat produced through some nuclear process, but it is simply discounted or ignored.

        You know that when CBS was putting together their 2009 piece of cold fusion, they had trouble finding reputable physicists who were actually willing to take the time to assess the evidence for cold fusion. They found plenty who were willing to denounce it as nonsense based what they already “knew,” but couldn’t find anybody willing to actually look at the evidence. They eventually found Robert Duncan, a very well-respected physicist and expert in (among other things) calorimetry. When he actually examined the “solid lines of evidence” that have accumulated, as well as went to look at the ongoing cold fusion experiments at energetics, he was convinced that the anomolous heat was real. He put his considerable reputation on the line by coming out publicly on CBS and saying that he believed the evidence of anomolous heat. He has since done cold fusion research a great service by establishing a research center at U of Missouri and now at Texas Tech. In what other scientific field does a scientist put their reputation on the line by agreeing with the overwhelming evidence in favor of something? I’ll tell you which ones: none of them. Only by coming out in favor of evidence of something that has been defined as a pseudoscience will you risk your reputation.

        So, no, I don’t have a problem with the initial conclusions that the cold fusion hypothesis was wrong. But the process went off the rails, and it was not due any malfeasance on the part of F&P but points to problems with the scientific process. MFMP would otherwise not be necessary for proving cold fusion.

        • interesting reframing of the debate.

          Indeed, MFMP approach is uncommon in accepted science.

          It was needed for HTSC (levitation was used as way to convince, while instruments were clear since long), for Wright planes (open science was not enough, needed commercial sales).

          as I said Open science when just trying to understand/replicate is best way to discourage the crowd. Open science should start when things are quite established to fight denial of evidence, as for HTSC or Wright planes, not as a development process.

          a variant of open science, could be open collaboration, and this is in a way what MFMP, AGP, jack Cole, are doing.
          the idea is not to be open to public, but to share the failures and the problems with peers, like in a big open lab, so that a common experience can be established.

          one of the few real cause of F&P tragedy is that many scientists did not collaborate with F&P, but tried to replicate (as usual) by interpreting available public data with enough understanding.
          Jed Rothwell explained how pathetic were the first replications of Wrights brothers… With open science this process of improvement is faster.

      • Josh G

        “As for my criticism: I would like LENR to be real. My judgement is (if I’m allowed to say that here) that this is unlikely. My severe criticism is for public demonstrations etc presented as good evidence which are in fact not that, and for authors of published material who do not engage with criticism to argue their case further, or make corrections. There may be commercial reasons why this is not done, but I still strongly dislike it.”

        I’m sorry but this statement really just speaks to your lack of knowledge (dare I say ignorance) about LENR research and researchers. It appears that you equate LENR with Rossi and the F&P debacle. Which LENR researchers are you referring to who do not engage with criticism or correct mistakes? F&P responded and engaged. Are you talking about the Lugano testers? How do you know they haven’t engaged with criticism and are working on either an improved report or more conclusive experiment? Because they didn’t respond to your blog posts? But is that it for you? Rossi, F&P and the Lugano/E-cat testers?

        From the perspective of people like us who have taken the time to assess LENR evidence, your “judgement” is uninformed. Just as cold fusion enthusiasts may be too quick to accept flimsy evidence for cold fusion, you seem to selectively take the worst evidence for cold fusion and treat it as if it were the best. I mean, seriously, how could you watch the presentation below from the Navy SPAWAR lab’s presentation at ICCF-18 and still feel that LENR is “unlikely”? These people have got everything everyone has been asking for: Independent replications? Check. Peer review? Check. Repeatable experiments? Check. Tritium production? Check. Neutron production? Check. Gamma radiation? Check. Excess heat? Check. And here they are openly sharing 20 years of research at a scientific conference in a taped presentation that was uploaded to youtube. They don’t seem to be hiding much of anything. Do they really need to be as open as MFMP for you to accept their results?

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

  • AdrianAshfield

    TC: “To reiterate: the point of the linked web pages, as I understand it, is
    as an example of how science can work things out, and what gets in the
    way of this.”

    To me it is a classic example of ignoring new facts in order to support the old consensus. They failed to mention why the early replications failed. Got it wrong about F & P being secretive. More likely it was the arrogant hot fusion scientists who thought they knew it all and didn’t ask for help.

    No wonder main stream scientists don’t accept LENR: they won’t even look. I know this is the case at DOE as a friend who works there told me.

    Adrian Ashfield

  • Axil Axil

    LENR is a quantum mechanical process. QM results are difficult if not impossible to prove experimentally because QM based on probability. Sometimes things happen and sometimes they don’t. Nothing In QM is certain. Any QM experiment can be ignored as invalid by any know nothing that does not understand the ins and outs of QM as understood by the experimenters. There is no common ground for communication of obscure ideas and conclusions.

    Rossi understands this. He has decided to bring the demonstration of LENR into the world of illusion that we all live in. When the power meter at the factory that measurs input power reads 100 Kilowatts, and the power produced on his LENR plant reads 800 Kilowatts then the conclusion and the experiment is open and shut. Maybe even Tome Clarke might understaand this simple relationship.

    Tom Clarke will say, “how did Rossi do this?” If he really wants to know and remove himself from the world of ignorance that he lives in, he will open up his QM book and begin his studies. If he does not want to know how Rossi has done this thing, he will remain in a wallow of uninformed ignorance and let the new world of LENR pass him by..

  • Axil Axil

    LENR is a quantum mechanical process. QM results are difficult if not impossible to prove experimentally because QM is based on probability. Sometimes things happen and sometimes they don’t. Nothing In QM is certain. Any QM experiment can be ignored as invalid by any know nothing that does not understand the ins and outs of QM as understood by the experimenters. There is no common ground for communication of obscure ideas and conclusions.

    Rossi understands this. He has decided to bring the demonstration of LENR into the world of illusion that we all live in. When the power meter at the factory that measurs input power reads 100 Kilowatts, and the power produced on his LENR plant reads 800 Kilowatts then the conclusion and the experiment is open and shut. Maybe even Tome Clarke might understaand this simple relationship.

    Tom Clarke will say, “how did Rossi do this?” If he really wants to know and remove himself from the world of ignorance that he lives in, he will open up his QM book and begin his studies. If he does not want to know how Rossi has done this thing, he will remain in a wallow of uninformed ignorance and let the new world of LENR pass him by..

    • Thomas Clarke

      Axil –

      QED is the best proven, most accurate, theory around. The fact that QM is probabilistic in no way prevents it from making predictions which are precisely observed.

      I put my QM book down many years ago, but I guess I could pick it up again if needed.

      Re Rossi and power meters being open and shut. I’m not going to comment except to say that the world is not always as simple as we’d like it to be.

      • Axil Axil

        What has the pope of science, Dr. Michio Kaku to say about reproducibleity of cold fusion.

        Jeremy Rys If Cold Fusion turned out to be real, do you think the modern scientific establishment would embrace it? …or just continue to ridicule it, like so many other new ideas in science have been ridiculed because they challenged established dogma?

        37 · April 7, 2014 at 5:28pm

        View previous replies

        Dr. Michio Kaku Science is based on testable, reproducible, and falsifiable results, no matter how revolutionary they may be. So IF cold fusion were shown to satisfy these criteria, then scientists would have to accept it. However, even its promoters admit that results in one lab are not necessarily duplicatable in another lab. Hence, the verdict on cold fusion is still out. Cold fusion has to work EVERY time, not just sometime. Until this criterion can be met, there will always be skeptics.

        31 · April 7, 2014 at 6:23pm

        Gora Gorovich Dear Dr. Michio Kaku. you have stated “Cold fusion has to work EVERY time,” does it mean that this is an universal for all cases or it is just applied exclusively for cold fusion. If it is a general requirement then I guess Nobel Prize for discovery of CP violation was a mistake. It is rather a rhetorical statement apparently low probability outcomes should be a great interest for science. Clearly, for practical applications the high probability of replication is essential though… Pls elaborate you inside on your assertion above. I have had a great respect for your contribution to popularize science…. Thank you…

        when the pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when,

        in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all science,
        in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
        he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole of science,

        In his desire to genuflect before the throne of the Pope’s authority, he makes it his business to come before us to propagate this infallible doctrinaire to which he has devoted his life.

        • Mark

          I believe that Dr. Kaku once said that he has examined the claims of ALL alternative energy proponents (ALL 500 bazillion of them – in depth) and has come to the conclusion that they are ALL frauds. I wish I had a link…maybe someone else knows what I’m talking about. Anyway, if my memory is right, and Dr. Kaku really did say that, then I think that that tells you about all that you need to know about Dr. Kaku’s honesty, or lack thereof.

          • Obvious

            Science of time travel, of ET civilizations, interstellar travel, physics of the impossible…but no science of new energy sources….. He’s running out of topics so maybe he’ll come on board yet.

      • Axil Axil

        You require that the world be simplistic and totally predictable.

      • Josh G

        Tom, think about high energy particle collision experiments. They typically run collisions hundreds of thousands of times. The Wikipedia entry on ALICE at the large hadron collider says “The results were based on the analysis of a sample of 300,000 proton–proton collisions…” The Large Hadron Collider produces over 25 petabytes of data every year and by 2012 “data from over 6 quadrillion LHC proton-proton collisions had been analyzed.”

        Think about that, in less than 5 years they smashed protons together 6 *QUADRILLION* times. That’s phenomenal. And one of the reasons that they need to analyze so many samples to draw conclusions is the probabalistic nature of quantum mechanics.

        Now imagine somebody told the scientists at CERN that they would have to stop their research after a few dozen collisions because “the results aren’t repeatable.” It wouldn’t make any sense! And it doesn’t make any sense in the case of cold fusion. Why would you expect that from a quantum mechanical system? As you say, the world is not always as simple as we’d like it to be.

        Scientists can make reliable predictions about the likelihood of events happening over many, many of these collision experiments, but they cannot make a reliable prediction about what will happen in any given one, nor can they repeat the same results from one collision to the next. Yet they have no problem imposing a much higher bar on cold fusion experiments. Doesn’t that seem a bit off to you? Imagine how much more we would understand about cold fusion if we had conducted 6 quadrillion experiments collecting 25 petabytes of data every year…

  • Axil Axil

    What has the pope of science, Dr. Michio Kaku to say about reproducibleity of cold fusion.

    Jeremy Rys If Cold Fusion turned out to be real, do you think the modern scientific establishment would embrace it? …or just continue to ridicule it, like so many other new ideas in science have been ridiculed because they challenged established dogma?

    37 · April 7, 2014 at 5:28pm

    View previous replies

    Dr. Michio Kaku Science is based on testable, reproducible, and falsifiable results, no matter how revolutionary they may be. So IF cold fusion were shown to satisfy these criteria, then scientists would have to accept it. However, even its promoters admit that results in one lab are not necessarily duplicatable in another lab. Hence, the verdict on cold fusion is still out. Cold fusion has to work EVERY time, not just sometime. Until this criterion can be met, there will always be skeptics.

    31 · April 7, 2014 at 6:23pm

    Gora Gorovich Dear Dr. Michio Kaku. you have stated “Cold fusion has to work EVERY time,” does it mean that this is an universal for all cases or it is just applied exclusively for cold fusion. If it is a general requirement then I guess Nobel Prize for discovery of CP violation was a mistake. It is rather a rhetorical statement apparently low probability outcomes should be a great interest for science. Clearly, for practical applications the high probability of replication is essential though… Pls elaborate you inside on your assertion above. I have had a great respect for your contribution to popularize science…. Thank you…

    • Mark

      I believe that Dr. Kaku once said that he has examined the claims of ALL alternative energy proponents (ALL 500 bazillion of them – in depth) and has come to the conclusion that they are ALL frauds. I wish I had a link…maybe someone else knows what I’m talking about. Anyway, if my memory is right, and Dr. Kaku really did say that, then I think that that tells you about all that you need to know about Dr. Kaku’s honesty, or lack thereof.

      • Obvious

        Science of time travel, of ET civilizations, interstellar travel, physics of the impossible…but no science of new energy sources….. He’s running out of topics so maybe he’ll come on board yet.

  • AdrianAshfield

    Axil
    As posted else where on this site.
    “I know first hand from very reliable sources that themselves have
    visited the Rossi/Industrial Heat E-Cat customer that the plant works
    very well. This has been verified both by measurements made by the
    customer and by significantly reduced electricity bills. The plant seems
    to be able to produce heat from electricity with a COP in the range of
    20-80 depending on the level of self-sustain-mode applied. I guess that
    is what Rossi is working on right now.” http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/?p=626

    So it looks like we have another 8 or 9 months to go listening to the skeptics.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Please see the first comment here. http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/03/04/rossi-on-cold-fusion-criticism-victimism-is-syndrome-of-impotence/#comment-1277932385
    and keep that in mind while watching this video. In spite ofthe corny intro, it is a good video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htgV7fNO-2k

  • Uncle Bob

    Regarding the ‘openness’ referred to in lead article above;
    It seems very strange that Rossi has on a number of occasions said his main aim is to develop his invention for the betterment of society and the planet, and particularly mentioning the assistance of sick children. It was also stated that he chose IH as a partner because they had the same ideals in that their main aim is to help restore the planet, rather than make billions from a purely commercial enterprise. Tom Darden has recently endorsed this aim of IH in his talk at the ICCF19.
    And yet, now we have the inventor of this technology, the chief scientist of the organisation, hidden away in a sea container for twelve months reading computer screens.
    It is hard to see how this is the best allocation of resources given that he has often mentioned the magnificent team and other resources he has at his disposal. Chief scientists employ an engineer to supervise the running of the device and the chief scientist oversees the operation and analyses the results.
    If the betterment of the planet is the primary goal, to achieve this in the shortest possible time, surely it would be far better to be more open about what is happening and how it works, in a similar way to numerous other medical research projects are run.
    I agree by making it more open he might only make billions instead of trillions, and If making trillions is the main goal then that’s fine, but it is inconsistent with all previous statements of intent.
    To be consistent with previous statement of helping the planet, both IH who now own the technology, and Rossi, who discovered it, should make as much of it available for general research as possible.
    So far that is definitely not happening.

    • Mark

      No! His statements are just as consistent as yours. It’s just that you want others to have the tech for free, without putting in any work or making any sacrifices in developing it, so they can both make money off it and assist the needy. Rossi just wants to be first and good for him!

      Of course you could say the same for medicines. Pharma should just not patent anything and give it out for free. We’ll see how many new therapies get innovated that way … not.

    • Axil Axil

      IH allowed a demo of the Hot cat at Lagono from which has produced a successful replication and many other attempts. The Hot cat is Rossi’s most advanced technology, From these tests be they failed or successful, we learn much.

    • Omega Z

      Perhaps you should have spent 30 to 40K hours of your life & spent every dime you had plus sold your business partnerships & home to create such a technology while being continuously slandered. Then YOU could give it away for FREE.

      Then should some university researchers pick up on it, you can be sure they will copyright & patent every little detail. Then you can pay them for all your hard work to boot if you should want to use it.

      Trillion$. Man are you ever going to be disappointed should you create something of this nature. Rossi will obtain a very small fraction of the out the door factory price of each reactor. A reactor that would be just a small component of a whole Power generating plant.

      From the finished products that these devices will be installed in, Rossi’s take would be like 2 cents from every spark plug sold in a $30K car. You should note that If Rossi’s patent is issued, it will only be good for about 12 years at best as it begins at the original filing date. He would be lucky to see a few billion$ & at his age, not a given. There are others who have made much more for creating much less.

      The best way to spread this technology & make it cheaply is by mass production in modern production plants. That requires huge up front investments that need to be recovered. Without IP protection, you’ll find few if any willing to put up the kind of investments needed to make this happen.

      I find many people who think others should just give them something for free or owes it to them to be the worst of the greedy. People should appreciate his hard work & sacrifices. Someone with his abilities could easily work for some corporation & easily command a $150K plus a year without all this grief of give me, give me, give me…

      • builditnow

        Omega Z: Agreed, consider that if Rossi had given his concepts away, he would never have been able to make a deal with Darden and get all the finance he (IH) now has to do all the development that is going on. He would also not have his previous investors. This finance for IH, and before IH, is making it practically certain that LENR will make it to the public “as a much more finished product”.

        Where would we be if Rossi had given his early ideas away and then failed to raise any further finance? Probably about where most of the experimenters that don’t raise funds are right now. Battling to show a results in a science experiment, years away from a useable product. Having their good science summarily rejected by the (non)science community.

    • Warthog

      One word……Skype. With today’s communication tools, one can run a team from anywhere, including the deeps of jungle or desert (or inside a shipping container).

    • builditnow

      Uncle Bob: Tell me, if you were Darden, an you wanted to be “very very certain” that you are
      going to be selling and installing LENR devices later this year or next year, what would your
      strategy be?

      Given all the rejection and resistance to working E-Cats and the rejection of the Lugano report (and a good 1000 other quality scientific reports, see lenr.org), view IH, Darden & Rossi as taking the time to “make certain” that they will “sell” their LENR / Cold Fusion devices, this time, “for sure”.

      The focus is now on selling and installing. Even the storied Mike McKubre at SRI International has moved to “selling and installing” rather than generating yet more science experiments to be summarily rejected by (non)science community.

      It’s is therefore imperative that the 1mW unit works perfectly to bring in future sales. Better station your very best on site.

      • “Given all the rejection and resistance to working E-Cats and the rejection of the Lugano report (and a good 1000 other quality scientific reports, see lenr.org), view IH, Darden & Rossi as taking the time to “make certain” that they will “sell” their LENR / Cold Fusion devices, this time, “for sure”. ”

        this paragraph makes me think about how unlikely it is that TD would step out at iccf19 to give a speech claiming “we’ve reached a tipping point”, if he wasn’t absolutely sure the ecat technology was economically viable.

  • Axil Axil

    The E Cat is a system comprised of many mechanisms that come from many fields of science and engineering. You cannot prove a system. Science stripes down a thing to be studied to the bare minimum to isolate one parameter. That isolation is how science succeeds. A system secedes by covering every contingency so that the system functions well and meats a specification. LENR is not science, it is engineering and Tom Clarke does not understand this, and therefore his opinion is meaningless.

  • Dr. Mike

    Thomas,
    The Berkeley article certainly points out what Pons and Fleischmann did incorrectly. Do you have any idea how old this article is? The most recent cited article is 1993. If this article is fairly recent, I believe that it should have cited more recent publications that have vindicated the P-F results (but not their methodologies). I agree with the thesis of your post and your kind comments toward the MFMP guys- I’m sure they appreciate your support.
    I also agree with most of the replies that you have made in the comments below and can’t really see why some of those making negative comments aren’t getting your main points- the need for openness, double check results, and listen to criticism.
    I am looking forward to MFMP coming up with a procedure for a reproducible process for demonstrating LENR as this will be a key part of the path in developing a theory for LENR. It should be noted Parkhomov also has a chance to provide that “reproducible process”, if he can carefully document his process and results. What everyone needs to realize it that it may take some time and many experiments to determine what parameters are critical in achieving positive results consistently.
    Dr. Mike

    • Axil Axil

      From its very beginning, MFMP has been founded on the best principles of proper scientific conduct. MFMP has always been open to the highest possible degree, this organization has constantly and repeatedly checked results, and has listened and in fact encouraged criticism and even more importantly has responded gladfully and with good humor to that feedback.

      Tom Clarke’s admonition that MFMP must do these things implies that MFMP is not a proper scientific actor. MFMP must conform to his ideal standards as if MFMP has not already reached the peak of scientific behavior. This post is a backhanded insult to MFMP and their unblemished conduct and beyond that, an insult to the whole open source LENR community. In this insult, lies the reason for the negative reaction. In his attitude, Tom Clarke is like a pedophile hypocritical priest telling his innocent, pure, and celibate congregation to be chase.

      Your encouragement of this insult implies that you agree that MFMP and we all here are not living up to the highest standards of scientific conduct. In this attitude, you are totally wrong.

      • MontagueWithnail

        The post is not a backhanded insult to MFMP, it is highly supportive of their approach.

        • Axil Axil

          “I also agree with most of the replies that you have made in the comments below and can’t really see why some of those making negative comments aren’t getting your main points- the need for openness, double check results, and listen to criticism.”

          What does this say…

          We get the point from the very beginning of MFMP. Who is Tom Clarke to say that we have not gotten his point? The post that I reject is the one that implies that the open source community is not already complaint with the best standards of scientific conduct, the original one from Tom Clarke that Dr. Mile supports and all Clarks subsequent disparaging criticisms.

          • what annoy me is not the support to MFMP it is two points.

            one is the implicit critics that LENR scientists are not critic on their respective work… they are, and it is sometime very harsh, I see it. I’m very sensible on implicit statement, beside the main subject of an article, as I know that it is where the manipulation of the masses is the most easy.

            The second is that openscience should be preferred to what I call quiet and classic science. Open science demand that spectators behave like serious scientist, with years of patience. This is not realistic.
            In a way the tragedy of 1989 is such openscience…40days of panic, public critics heard by incompetent audience.

            What I like with MPMP is open collaboration, open review. I would prefer it would stay between experimenters. Open collaboration is what I see in a lesser way between NRL,ENEA,SRI, or inside a general scientific community in good health.
            MFMP working with AGP, advised by Biberian, Storms and MKubre, reviewed by many others, giving ideas to Jack Cole, is great. that is science , modern science.

  • Dr. Mike

    Thomas,
    The Berkeley article certainly points out what Pons and Fleischmann did incorrectly. Do you have any idea how old this article is? The most recent cited article is 1993. If this article is fairly recent, I believe that it should have cited more recent publications that have vindicated the P-F results (but not their methodologies). I agree with the thesis of your post and your kind comments toward the MFMP guys- I’m sure they appreciate your support.
    I also agree with most of the replies that you have made in the comments below and can’t really see why some of those making negative comments aren’t getting your main points- the need for openness, double check results, and listen to criticism.
    I am looking forward to MFMP coming up with a procedure for a reproducible process for demonstrating LENR as this will be a key part of the path in developing a theory for LENR. It should be noted Parkhomov also has a chance to provide that “reproducible process”, if he can carefully document his process and results. What everyone needs to realize it that it may take some time and many experiments to determine what parameters are critical in achieving positive results consistently.
    Dr. Mike

  • Alan DeAngelis

    The similarities to cold fusion and the irreproducibility of the early transistors have been discussed

    ad nauseam here. http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/03/04/rossi-on-cold-fusion-criticism-victimism-is-syndrome-of-impotence/#comment-1270800693

  • Alan DeAngelis

    The similarities to cold fusion and the irreproducibility of the early transistors have been discussed

    ad nauseam here. http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/03/04/rossi-on-cold-fusion-criticism-victimism-is-syndrome-of-impotence/#comment-1270800693

    • Thomas Clarke

      The relevance to this topic is about whether at that time transistors were considered scientifically impossible – or just implausible because never observed.

      Most of the long technological battle to make transistors work well was after the basic physical theory was understood: minority carrier injection etc.

      There is a difference between:

      “it could work this way but we cannot get power gain”

      and

      “it could work this way, but we have crunched the numbers and it looks completely impossible to get power gain”

      Both statements can be wrong (and of course both are wrong in this case). But the second statement represents a much stronger scientific understanding of the process, together with a quantitative analysis of why it does not work. It is a stronger negative statement than the first which is based on empirical experience with no other justification.

      I’m not saying that such scientific understanding is always correct – obviously not – but it illustrates a flaw in the analogy.

      • Alan DeAngelis

        The source of palladium vs. the source of silicon.

        It’s the perfect analogy.
        It’s the essence of material science.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Yes, let us praise the Physicists.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7sF4JzjwTg

  • Josh G

    Here is a link to Beaudette’s much more thorough recounting of the F-P controversy. He does not hold them blameless for their actions at the time. But he provides a more balanced account.
    http://iccf9.global.tsinghua.edu.cn/lenr%20home%20page/acrobat/BeaudetteCexcessheat.pdf

    • Warthog

      Thanks for providing the link to Beaudette’s publication. But I doubt whether the “skeptics” will bother to read it.

      • Josh G

        Unlikely, but you never know. Anyway it’s a good resource for anyone wanting to get up to speed on the early years of cold fusion research and what happened to F&P.

    • Dr. Mike

      Josh,
      This looks like it will be an interesting read, although there’s been a lot more results on the F-P experiments since its 2002 copyright date.
      Dr. Mike

      • Josh G

        True, but I don’t think there have been new revelations about the events surrounding the F&P cold fusion announcement/denouncement fiasco. In which case, what is written about that still applies.

  • AdrianAshfield

    Tom Clarke, you would do well to read the few pages of a book by Charles G. Beaudette linked here
    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BeaudetteCexcessheat.pdf

    Not only does it explain why skeptics like you dismiss new discoveries, but it also give some concrete examples that PROVE anomalous heat from LENR exists.

    Adrian Ashfield

  • Marj

    This is NOT directed at Thomas Clarke but at people that organize themselves around the label of “sceptic.” Typically they are aligned with groups like formerly called CSICOP, Sceptical Inquirer, Shermer’s mag, secular humanist groups organised by people like Paul Kurtz(sp?). George Hansen wrote this article about them years ago and they basically use the same tactics over and over again.

    “CSICOP and the Skeptics: An Overview”

    http://www.tricksterbook.com/ArticlesOnline/CSICOPoverview.htm

    • Mark

      Thank you, Marj, for pointing out that these pseudoskeptics are not, many times, simply individuals who have a different opinion, but an organized movement of people who are trying to harm anyone who thinks that there is even a significant chance that the pseudoskeptic paradigm might be wrong. It is really disturbing that more people who work in alternative fields, and who are, therefore, targets of the pseudoskeptic movement, do not even realize that this is an organized movement, and do not realize what they’re truly up against.

      • Mark

        Np, should have been Mark not Marj. Typo

  • Carl Wilson

    It seems to me that this is the kind of post we will see more of as the Scientific Establishment seeks to discredit the people and methods leading to the emergence of LENR as our dominant energy source. Should there not be an admission of a massive failure on the part of the Establishment?

  • builditnow

    Uncle Bob: Tell me, if you were Darden, an you wanted to be “very very certain” that you are
    going to be selling and installing LENR devices later this year or next year, what would your
    strategy be?

    Given all the rejection and resistance to working E-Cats and the rejection of the Lugano report (and a good 1000 other quality scientific reports, see lenr.org), view IH, Darden & Rossi as taking the time to “make certain” that they will “sell” their LENR / Cold Fusion devices, this time, “for sure”.

    The focus is now on selling and installing. Even the storied Mike McKubre at SRI International has moved to “selling and installing” rather than generating yet more science experiments to be summarily rejected by (non)science community.

    It’s is therefore imperative that the 1mW unit works perfectly to bring in future sales. Better station your very best on site.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    The source of palladium vs. the source of silicon.

    It’s the perfect analogy.
    It’s the essence of material science.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Perhaps I’m drifting off topic but the famous Michelson-Morley experiment of 1887 was pretty shabby compared with the meticulous experiments that Dayton Miller conducted in the 1920s yet it’s widely cited for its claimed “null” or “negative” results. http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm
    Michelson-Morley were treated civilly when they announced their against the paradigm discovery yet F&P were immediately dismissed as “incompetent boobs” when they presented theirs. It seem like the physics
    community has a double standard for anyone who’s not in their small circle of friends.

    • bachcole

      And big money just makes it worse.

    • the period is not the same.
      In 1900-1925 there was a huge list of accepted anomalies, that fueled new theory, in a big move…

      since 1925 theory was so efficient not only in explaining, but in predicting,, that today people cannot imagine that an experiment disagree with theory and don’t have even a new theory.
      This is what Jf Geneste explained at LENRG conference in Milan (April 10th).

      • Alan DeAngelis

        “…the 1919 eclipse observations were flimsy, indeed, and were in no sense a validation of General Relativity. But from that point on, it was impossible to stop the Einstein juggernaut, even in the face of alternative theories to relativity and experimental observations which contradicted it.” http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue38/einstein.html

  • Thomas Clarke

    So I’d like to address the different historical perspectives of the OP link and the “Excess Heat” book.

    I have read only part of the book – but I’ve skimmed all of it. So if I’m misrepresenting its content others will correct me.

    The first thing to say applies to both the OP link and “excess heat”. They are historical accounts, and it is easy for different historians to look at the same events and come to different conclusions, as here. With history a deep reading of the evidence can sometimes resolve the difference – with one right and another wrong. But often not, and arguments about this are common.

    The “excess heat” sociological and historical claims are interwoven with a scientific judgement of whether a reasonable scientist would view the evidence in the 10 years after F&P as supporting F&P’s original claims. I think it is fair to say that if it does, the sociological comment is (more or less) justified, if it does not, the sociological comment is (more or less) not justified.

    Obviously this thread (and this site, given the moderation rules) is not the place for a discussion of the science here. One side of the argument would be of no interest and against those rules.

    However it is proper for me to make a comment about the “scientific” evidence in the “Excess Heat” book. My point is that, as you would expect from a non-technical historical document, there is just not enough detailed science there to reach a scientific conclusion. The same applies to the OP link.

    In order for me to justify this I must address the arguments in the Excess Heat book which relate to science, and claim to be scientific proof. Please note that I’m not addressing the wider question of does LENR exist. (You need Josh G’s link below more complete than ParallelB’s link I think).

    On page 8 there is a partial description of the original F&P evidence. This notes that temperature increase over time with constant power is not possible without an additional source of heat. While this is narrowly true, you would need much more detailed quantitative scrutiny to work out whether that additional heat was from a mundane source (increased recombination, or increased energy input from surroundings that warm up, to name two obvious one, perhaps there are others) or whether having ruled out all such a new energy source is needed.

    Without answering this question (impossible without much more data) I’d like to point out that such details would be the arguments on both sides of a scientific debate – and that the complexity of the experiment, with various uncontrolled parameters, quite likely would make it futile because there are too many unknowns. You would get a definite answer by doing what MFMP do – releasing results, collecting criticism, adding instrumentation to address the criticism.

    There is a scientific argument in the final chapters of the “Excess Heat” book (Validation). I agree 100% with the conclusion there that there is no substitute for the detailed scientific scrutiny of claims for excess heat. Indeed that process is what I am championing in the OP.

    My problem is with the additional arguments that the quantity of positive results using heterodox calorimetry etc make some nuclear source for those positive results highly likely without such detailed scrutiny.

    Let us unpick this. “We have 1000 experiments using different protocols which show positive results. We are not certain in any individual case that those positives lie beyond experimental error – mainly because we have limited information from single runs or single groups. However the quantity of positives makes the total evidence more convincing than any individual one would be on its own”.

    You may disagree with the premises here – and reckon that one single result is convincing. I’m not arguing about that. I’m addressing the “more is better” argument.

    Suppose we have an LENR resercher looking for evidence of this phenomena which is thought to be dependent on exact conditions, electrode surface, etc. They will try different setups, different calorimetry, different conditions. Some will give excess heat, some not. The ones that give excess heat will be selected as worth further effort, and so on.

    In this case there is a selection of positive results when the precise reason for the positive is not fully understood. It could be LENR. It could be one of the many possible but not easily detected experimental errors. (For examples of possible “complex” errors consider Mizuno flow calorimetry – error from pump power – Celani wires – error from change in bulb vapour concentrations or change in ambient temperature – Lugano IR thermometry tests – error from difference between band emissivity and total emissivity of Al2O3 ).

    The fact that “complex” errors exist does not mean LENR does not exist, I agree. So I’m not putting forward the existence of the above very subtle errors as proving LENR false. In fact it is impossible to proce LENR false – science must always remain open to new ideas and the “LENR” hypothesis is as yet too vague to make definite predictions that could be disproved so disproving the hypothesis.

    But it does mean that you cannot simply view total quantity of positive experiments (without careful scientific scrutiny) as adding to the credibility of any one such experiment. The same process that maximises LENR effect positives will also maximise complex error positives and since at the time of the experiment neither the complex errors, not the LENR mechanism, are clearly understood they cannot be separated.

    The “Excess Heat” book makes this argument for multiple heterogeneous experiments adding credibility somewhere (I now can’t find the page reference) and my view is that this specific argument is false.

    The OP link also does not provide any scientific argument, so as historical documents, for me, the two different accounts are neither compelling.

    • Josh G

      “You would get a definite answer by doing what MFMP do – releasing results, collecting criticism, adding instrumentation to address the criticism.”

      Thomas, the point you are trying to get across is largely unobjectionable. More openness in science is always desirable. Scientists have to address criticism in future research. Who would disagree? In fact, the process you describe in the sentence I quoted is what happens in normal science (except it happens in journals and conferences and colloquia and lab rooms, not on facebook). It could have happened in the case of F&P if they had not been vilified and railroaded out of establishment science. And in fact it did happen, but only among the small group of scientists who risked their careers and reputations to keep this ‘pathological science’ alive. But to say that the degree of openness displayed by MFMP is necessary to prove LENR really imposes a severe double standard. Unless you think all science should be done this way. But then why pick on LENR research?

      • Thomas Clarke

        That is a good question – and I have a good answer.

        Most science advances via peer-reviewed publication of competing hypotheses, evidence for/against them, theoretical work expanding one or other, etc. This process is not always quick to resolve controversies, but it keeps them being examined with new evidence and ideas, and in the end the “better” hypothesis will win through weight of new evidence even if initially it was very unfashionable.

        The “LENR” hypothesis does not have the same dynamic and vital debate with “no LENR” hypothesis.

        This means that LENR reports don’t get the level of criticism from other (non-LENR) scientists that would be good for them. And LENR scientists (IMHO) do not do as good a job of critiquing LENR claims as they should. Just look at the relative paucity of citation chains debating specific contentious topics in the peer-reviewed LENR literature.

        One thing that would help here is an advance in LENR theory to the point where is was what Popper would consider a scientific theory – that is, it made new predictions that could be confirmed or denied. That is the acid test of good new theoretical breakthroughs. Without that we have “unknown complex LENR effect” vs “unknown complex experimental error” and it is pretty difficult to make progress since by definition both are complex and not fully understood. Occam’s razor then comes into play.

        So there is no double standard. LENR would be easier to prove if:

        (1) the LENR hypothesis made clear predictions that could be disproved
        or
        (2) there was an active chain of LENR vs no LENR hypothesis arguments around experiments had interesting results involving analysis and repeated new experiments with instrumentation that resolves the older issues. MFMP gives us this when they stick on one experiment and go on checking results, adding instrumentation.

        It is also true that any effect that is so badly understood it cannot reliably be replicated is difficult to prove experimentally without theoretical grounds. (probabilistic effects are Ok, but ones which just don’t exist when retested by independent testers are problematic). So if LENR became more understood and can be reliably replicated that would help. For example, normally anything that was reliable enough to lead to commercial applications for low cost energy production would be pretty easily replicated and proved in some form or other. It is not the case that poorly replicable effects are proven false – but it is the case that without more evidence of some kind it is rightly considered difficult to prove them real.

        • you are a good example of modern science as JF Geneste explained.
          You cannot think without a theory.

          LENR is not a theory, it is a group of anomalies, observed.
          What is refuted, is the hypothesis that LENR don’t exist.

          now, this phenomenon have no theory be we start to bound some of it’s characteristics.
          The most common version happen in transition metal hydride.
          for electrolysis loading avec to exceed some value, as current density. data are coherent with that.
          Some experiments show that crystallography have some impact…
          Some impurities seems bad, some good… D works with some, H with some other metal…
          Heat improve the reaction.
          Change of equilibrium often helps…
          He4 is produced with heat.
          Tritium sometime appears, and increases near 50% mix of D/H

          This is early science…

          With your logic the finding of excess heat produced by radium by Ms Curie would be rejected.

          The finding of fire too.

          anyway this kind of early science with theory that seems to oppose (in fact QM does not oppose LENR, it is just not mastered enough in lattice and surfaces), is quite uncommon today, because we have theory for all, or just complex systems based on basic science that seems respected.

          Sand is very hard to understand, but it does not seems to violate chemistry and mechanic.
          LENR seems to violate nuclear (2-body) physics and that is the problem.

          • Thomas Clarke

            Neither fire, nor excess heat in radium, are indistinguishable from subtle experimental errors. The evidence is direct and compelling, requires no interpretation.

          • for a competent chemist, the measurement done in many LENr experiment were clear.

            I agree that for incompetent people, LENr or radium prove nothing.
            most people cannot be convinced by mass calorimetry by Curie, if we say it is violating all rules of physics as we know it today.

            note that McKubre used recently mass calorimetry with liquid nitrogen…
            it seems nobody more was convinced.

            this is the heart of the problem.

            there is a myth that calorimetry is not convincing.
            it is not convincing for physicist, and similar non chemist.

          • Thomas Clarke

            alainco – I’m wondering what is this clear evidence? MFMP could replicate it and find out what is wrong with it?

            Like they are about to do with Parkhomov’s claims. The Lugano test did not find excess heat, so Parkhomov stands alone now.

        • friendlyprogrammer

          @ Thomas Clarke,

          It is nice that you commend MFMP for their openness, but their profit motivations (if any) come from crowdfunding and keeping their progress quiet would soon stop any donations flowing in. The other 25+ corporations who have successful LENR claims are not reliant upon donations and giving away their research might upset shareholders even if it might please you.

          Pons/Fleischmann did react quickly when they made their discoveries, but they could only replicate the experiment 1% of the time themselves in 1989, and any chemist trying to replicate their results quickly became discouraged.

          Toyota hired Fleischmann after he was tarred and feathered in the USA, and it is of no surprise that Toyota, Mitsubishi, and Honda are among some of the many companies claiming they can replicate LENR with ease. We know from the CERN conference that Toyota Labs verified Mitsubishi LENR using their own labs, equipment, and supplies.
          http://news.newenergytimes.net/2012/12/06/mitsubishi-reports-toyota-replication/

          Let’s look at the article you linked to for a some humour.

          “The scientific community is responsible for checking the work of
          community members.”

          Yes, but if they do not get positive replications with ease then they obviously just give up and condemn the idea for decades.

          “Through the scrutiny of this community, science corrects itself.”

          Scrutiny should come, but there is a difference between Scrutiny and Mockery.

          “Scientists actively seek evidence to test their ideas — even if the test is difficult. They strive to describe and perform the tests that would prove their ideas wrong and/or allow others to do so.

          This may be true inside various companies but should we expect every company to publish their expensive R&D as quickly as discoveries are made?

          “Scientists take into account all the available evidence when deciding whether to accept an idea or not — even if that means giving up a favorite hypothesis.”

          Bull. I definitely call “Bull” here. I challenge anyone to go to any science forum on the internet and try to find someone willing to even look at LENR evidence before writing it off as pathological science.

          “Science relies on a balance between skepticism and openness to new ideas.”

          No. Most scientists would fit into the 90% skeptic, 10% open categories. If you know the history of this subject then you would know less than 1% of serious scientists would even bother discussing LENR at the moment.

          “Scientists often verify surprising results by trying to replicate the test.”

          Or they just ignore the entire field until they can read about it in grade 11 textbooks.

          “In science, discoveries and ideas must be verified with multiple lines of evidence.”

          Yes. We have a lot of evidence

          Okay Thomas Clarke… Let’s examine existing evidence.

          From the standpoint of common sense or when considering future investing in science do I need to replicate the experiment myself? This would seem like your “scientific” stand point. Replicating the experiment myself would indeed convince me, but is it required?

          If a single company endorsed LENR and claimed it was real then that would make LENR more suspicious.

          If two companies endorse LENR then that could simply be a few scientists on crack.

          If three companies claim LENR results then it adds to the statistical likelihood that perhaps someone is getting results.

          Now that we have DOZENS of companies claiming success with LENR the statistical likelyhood of them all being liars is almost non existent.

          I am unsure of your qualifications as a scientist, but let’s look at that.

          NASA (National Aeronautic and Space Administration) is an American company known to be on the cutting edge of research and space exploration. These guys have landed cars on Mars.

          Dr. Dennis Bushnell is the CHIEF RESEARCH SCIENTIST AT NASA LANGLEY, and he tells us quite clearly and emphatically that LENR is real.

          Here is him saying that,

          http://newenergytimes.com/v2/inthenews/2012/201205NASA-Dennis-Bushnell-Low-Energy-Nuclear-Reactions-the-Realism-and-the-Outlook.pdf

          We also know NASA is budgeting LENR research from the FOIA, and is actively exploring the ideas of using LENR in aircraft and space. The George Miley LENR (did I mention there were dozens) device is one such space energy alternative.

          https://ca.images.search.yahoo.com/images/view;_ylt=A2KLj.spLDlVdRQAa_ztFAx.;_ylu=X3oDMTIyY2VxbGE1BHNlYwNzcgRzbGsDaW1nBG9pZAM1MDcwZDFhN2E2YTBhNmNhMjExYjNhNGM4ZmU3YTJjOARncG9zAzkEaXQDYmluZw–?.origin=&back=https%3A%2F%2Fca.images.search.yahoo.com%2Fsearch%2Fimages%3Fp%3Dgeorge%2Bmiley%2Blenr%26fr%3Dsfp-yff26%26fr2%3Dpiv-web%26tab%3Dorganic%26ri%3D9&w=936&h=538&imgurl=on-the-rag.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F08%2Flenr-module.jpg&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fon-the-rag.com%2F2013%2F08%2F03%2Fgeorge-h-miley-university-of-illinois-prof-talks-lenr-power-distribution-costs%2F&size=100.4KB&name=Conceptual+module+design&p=george+miley+lenr&oid=5070d1a7a6a0a6ca211b3a4c8fe7a2c8&fr2=piv-web&fr=sfp-yff26&tt=Conceptual+module+design&b=0&ni=21&no=9&ts=&tab=organic&sigr=13g6n298q&sigb=13en44oco&sigi=11pugrjga&sigt=10ohps9sb&sign=10ohps9sb&.crumb=UR2SIaLxUfJ&fr=sfp-yff26&fr2=piv-web

          A single “appeal to authority” argument might not convince me on its own, but we are facing a lot more than just the ones from NASA.

          MFMP is trying to find the most replicable “proof of concept” experiment for “scientists” like yourself who need to see LENR before considering it within the realm of reality. I will admit I originally thought they were a fundraising fly by night scam, simply after donations, but I’m growing on them. I can be skeptical also.

          The book you perused is badly out of date. LENR breakthroughs seem mostly to follow the newer Rossi style Nickel reactors of which was popularized in 2011 after that book was written for the most part.

          I understand that you wish to represent the scientists who need to see it done before they can accept it, but many scientists are acting badly concerning this.

          Nobel laureate Brian Josephson has accused The Journal Nature of ignoring LENR, and claims “PIGS WILL FLY BEFORE NATURE PUBLISHES THE ECAT REPORT”. Quite a statement from a Physics Noble laureate.

          So is LENR getting a fair shake in the science community?

          I have been following this story for years. I am an Engineer so have a science background, and I must say that from a probability stand point I am convinced 100% LENR must be true. We have seen this replicated in High Schools (Leopoldo Pirelli High School) in Rome and Universities (See Peter hagelstein)

          Fringe Science and cutting edge research often provides science known only to those who have signed all the Nondisclosure agreements. Toyota likely does not share all of its LENR secrets with Mitsubishi and vice versa.

          One day we will ALL know for sure, but if (it will) LENR is proven then todays science community should be embarrassed beyond repair. They will need to add some rules concerning skepticisms, as a healthier attitude might have brought us LENR decades sooner.

          Unless you are privy to The Non Disclosure agreements and experiments conducted in private LENR labs then you are simply a fringe science observer like the rest of us. Common sense, appeals to authority arguments, and statistical probabilities are the ONLY ways to measure this fringe science atm. Expecting more is not entirely futile though, as one day you will be able to read about LENR in a grade 11 science text, but you may need to wait a decade.

          See you then.

          • great post, but he won’t bend

          • friendlyprogrammer

            Yeah. But even hardliners will switch eventually. Too bad it will only be a month prior to it appearing in the grade 11 textbooks.

            Not everyone was gifted with common sense or even reasonable intelligence. I believe LENR is believable based upon available evidence such as presented on lenrproof(dot)com (linked in my last comment).

            We must learn from the mistakes of others, life is too short to make them all yourself, although this seems like what mainstream science needs to accept LENR.

            I can understand some scientists refusing to look at the topic because of its history, but I cannot make any excuses for those who are looking at the current situation and denying it. Those are the true bad scientists in my opinion.

            I am not naming anyone here or directing these comments, except in general.

          • Warthog

            Good post, And I pretty much agree with all your points. Beaudette’s book “is” a bit out of date (which I pointed out when I recommended it). But it is still the best commentary on LENR for those starting out to examine the field for the first time.

            It is sufficiently well written so as to be understandable to an educated layman, as well as containing sufficient detail and references to be convincing to the non-skeptopath scientist. Also, it comments on the historical context and science sociology (more accurately pathology).

            I recommend that folks start with Beaudette, then Storm’s book to get up to close to current date, and the LENR-CANR bibliography and repository papers after that.

          • Thomas Clarke

            There is a lot in this post OT for this thread (and that I cannot comment on).

            Where I can comment, is Josephson’s comment about the Lugano report. Josephson shows a lack of judgement here in making a critical comment about something well outside his field which he has obviously not carefully studied himself. Why is he better than Nature reviewers would be?

            The Lugano (second) report has many things that would be criticised in a scientific write-up, and a number of errors. I think here we have more or less got to the bottom of its issues, but I’d be arrogant to be sure of that. What we know is that the thermography therein is contrary to accepted guidelines (check with a control at temperature) and contains a serious error that mostly, possibly completely, explains the anomalous COP results.

            The isotopic results remain – but proper analysis of these shows inconsistency with even the claimed COP, because the conversion would release much more energy than observed.

            You will get 1% of scientists supporting any zany theory you like, nearly all of which are wrong. That is good – a sign that science is diverse and speculation not restricted. Just occasionally the 1% proves correct. It means that you cannot take support from 1% of scientists as validation.

            Should this paper without serious rewriting be published in nature? No. In fact it should not be published anywhere else until the noted issues have been corrected. At that point, after correction, the given COP results do not support the title of the paper.

            BTW I don’t claim qualifications as a scientist though I’ve studied maths and theoretical physics at university graduate level, and have a keen amateur interest in many aspects of science, including parts of philosophy of science and epistemology.

            Those supporting LENR research should be particularly worried at some of the LENR+ hype that is not supported by good evidence but certainly high profile.

          • friendlyprogrammer

            Can you say the above with a straight face? I find it puzzling that non scientists such as yourself can contradict the Chief Research Scientist at NASA Langley amongst dozens of equally eminent minds.

            You say 1% of scientists would endorse anything, but they would not be claiming they have seen it work experimentally.

            We also have affirmations from The US Navy, US department of Defense, National instruments, European Directorate-General, as well as leading scientists and professors worldwide.

            If you seriously wish to deny LENR as a possibility then you are way on the wrong website because 99.99% of people here are not ignorant enough to doubt any longer.

            Feel free to guess at the mechanisms behind LENR, but denying it or even suggesting it might not be real is very silly and goes against common sense to a high degree.

            I apologize if it is just your lack of information on the topic, but you seem to be a bit behind in understanding atm.

            Your posts are reminiscent of 2011 when there was a lot of confusion, but nowadays I’d say most everyone here has accepted LENR as a reality. We have followed replication after replication from High School Classes to Universities to corporations.

            Roughly 1700 Peer reviewed papers and hundreds of replications since 1989, so take your picks. Dozens of books are also available on LENR.

            Brian Josephson is (was) a Physics professor by the way.. Best known for his pioneering work on superconductivity and quantum tunneling.

            QUANTUM TUNNELING IS A KEY PART OF UNDERSTANDING LENR.

            How is he better than Nature Reviewers? He won a Nobel Prize for his understanding of the atom and the quantum world. How many of Nature reviewers can make such a claim?

            That was when he was only 22 years old. He has since taught physics at a University level for the remainder of his life.

            You said, “Josephson shows a lack of judgement here in making a critical comment about something well outside his field which he has obviously not
            carefully studied himself. Why is he better than Nature reviewers would
            be?”

            “Well outside his field”?
            Here is his wikipedia link.
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Josephson

            Odd comment considering he has openly studied and endorsed Cold Fusion and has been criticized for it, despite the fact his track record has proven he is within his field of study.

            I don’t think you will find many here who will convert to doubting LENR. LENR is a given as far as I’m concerned.

          • bachcole

            Lately, when asking authority figures questions, I find myself saying, “Why have you come to believe this”. There are just too many authority figures who say things because it is the “common” knowledge, because it is in their interests, because some other authority figure said so, because it seems logical, etc. etc. etc.

            My questioning like this is an example of the coming epistemological revolution that I seek.

          • friendlyprogrammer

            Without there being any current accepted understanding of LENR then the only method to come to accept it would be viewing it. When one person had viewed it I was a skeptic, but with each claim of replication the doubt leaves more and more.

            Now with dozens of claimed replications from people who seem to be involved and responsible (NASA employees for example) doubt has gone from my mind.

            With R&D we normally are privvy to the tip of the iceberg in details so I’m wondering if the underground research is panning out while we bicker over Rossi.

            Part of me doubts that though because Rossi sort of aimed LENR towards the Nickel versions.

            I don’t know if Ive ever questioned anyone’s belief or how they reached it. The question I normally ask is if I agree with them.

          • bachcole

            This whole cold fusion trip has been a helpful and challenging course in practical epistemology, the wing of philosophy of how it is that we know things. Your coming to believe in cold fusion is pretty much the same as mine.

            Even Rossi needed Focardi to assure him that he wasn’t crazy.

        • bachcole

          “Most science advances via peer-reviewed publication of competing
          hypotheses, evidence for/against them, theoretical work expanding one or
          other, etc.”

          NOT if the proposed advancement is a paradigm shift, something too big of a jump that most scientists cannot get their minds around it. Like some meteorologist saying that the continents drifted, or two bicycle mechanics saying that they mastered heavier than air flight.

      • Warthog

        LOL….the “hot fusion” community have indulged in MANY breathless press releases and conferences over the years, most well before the peer-reviewed papers have appeared, announcing some minute improvement as a great breakthrough. Yet after fifty years and in excess of $100 Billion spent, no working power plant exists.

        It is NOT uncommon across ALL fields of science to address the press before peer-review. Nobody has ever “gotten in their face” for that behavior that I know of (other than P & F). Heck, that is the whole basis of “R&D” magazine…..reporting such “breaking science”.

        The thing that has happened in all such cases is that the science community WAITS for the peer-reviewed paper to issue, then experiments and judges accordingly. Quite frequently, colleagues eager to start experiments will ask for preprints, or even call the researcher on the phone to get more details.

        I note that the Berkeley “article” claims that P&F “refused to share” information, yet I know for an undeniable fact that they DID share information…Bockris’ case proves that (and disproves that portion of the Berkeley article).

        • Josh G

          That is a good point about premature press releases, etc. I can think of two off the top of my head from the last few years with the CERN group. One was the Neutrino measurements that were off due to some technical error and the other was some measurement cosmic radiation that turned out to be due to unmeasured dirt. Oops.

          While it may be true that F&P shared with Bockris, they may have been unwilling to share with others. But the article offers no indication of why. It also offers no citation to back the claim that they wouldn’t share. They clearly trusted Bockris. But maybe they had a good reason to keep it from others. Or maybe they were waiting for publication. Or maybe they were protecting IP, which they are not the first nor the last to do…

          • Warthog

            I suspect it is as simple as not wanting to work with folks who are actively vilifying you and your work. Rossi has a similar attitude, and not unreasonably.

          • It is what appear after readin Charles Beaudette”Excess Heat” and Eugene Mallove “Fire From Ice”, and some articles by jed.

            To get details on a colleague experiment, the minimum is to ask respectfully, especially if the author is medaled like Fleischmann and quite mature.

            Lack of respect for chemist, chemistry, calorimetry is the main problem of that tragedy.
            Still today there are people who cannot understand that calorimetry can be made reliable by competent scientists, as much as isotopic measurement and particle detection can be made reliable by competent experts.

    • Warthog

      Basically, your entire post simply displays your ignorance of the data. You “skimmed” the book, and then dismiss everything there. I am not impressed. Get back to me after you have actually read it, and checked out the relevant references (most can be found at LENR-CANR.org ).

      “Excess Heat” only covers to 2002….much of the best research was done after that date. But Beaudette’s book certainly provides more than sufficient coverage of REPLICATIONS to prove the case.

      And Beaudette certainly sufficiently documents the illicit science war on LENR that began only a few months after the P&F announcement and continues today. The behavior of the “hot physics” sorts and their allies has been atrocious, with accusations of deliberate fraud, and pretty much every form of vilification possible for one scientist to heap on another. INEXCUSABLE!!!!

      And examining a phenomenon from multiple different perspectives “is” a valid method of science proof. If one researcher detects tritium (multiple researchers have), another measures He4 (and multiple researchers have), yet a third measures transmutations (and multiple researchers have, including organizations like Mitsubishi and Toshiba), and many find excess heat. ALL of these, though different, point directly to an unknown nuclear phenomenon (which is what P&F called their discovery….NOT “cold fusion”).

      To that end, let’s examine the science of geology. No one doubts that geology is a science, yet no controlled experiments have ever been done to prove, for instance, “continental drift”. But enough data has been collected from “multiple heterogeneous experiments” that CD is now known to be true. The same is true for many other conclusions in geology.

      And even your “point” about the Lugano experiment is wrong…..the researchers analysis of the data was based on data immediately in hand. It is stated plainly that they had obtained a sample of the Al2O3 specifically to MEASURE THE EMISSIVITY.

      • Thomas Clarke

        Warthog,

        They did however not measure the alumina emissivty. The sample, tested for purity, does not much help because as all the books say, emissivity of alumina can vary considerably dependent on microcrystalline structure and surface condition. None of which is determined by chemical analysis of purity. In any case the issue about emissivity is just that they confused band emissivity with total emissivity, described elsewhere. They would not have made this mistake had they actually measured emissivity.

        • Warthog

          Again, your comments unmask your prejudices. The report says specifically that they obtained a sample of the tube in order to measure the emissivity at a later date.

          Neither you nor I know (and we will not know) whether or not they made said measurements until they publish a follow-up document. It is obvious to a NON-prejudiced observer that they knew that the numbers they had in hand in the interim report were an estimation….which is precisely why they took the sample.

          Which is why all the “modeling” done by you and Higgins and all the rest means precisely zero, and are simply a red herring to justify ignoring the test results.

          • Thomas Clarke

            Warthog. I think you don’t understand. I have no quarrel with the numbers (though they will be approximate). The problem is that they misused them. The correct textbook values for enissivity in the Optris passband are around 0.95, not 0.4 as they used. It is a big difference which explains the apparent excess heat, and the apparent much greater excess heat at 900C.

            Had they done a proper control they would have immediately realised they had made this mistake – one advantage of checking.

  • Thomas Clarke

    Note to moderators. Thanks for that!

  • Josh G

    “You would get a definite answer by doing what MFMP do – releasing results, collecting criticism, adding instrumentation to address the criticism.”

    Thomas, the point you are trying to get across is largely unobjectionable. More openness in science is always desirable. Scientists have to address criticism in future research. Who would disagree? In fact, the process you describe in the sentence I quoted is what happens in normal science (except it happens in journals and conferences and colloquia and lab rooms, not on facebook). It could have happened in the case of F&P if they had not been vilified and railroaded out of establishment science. And in fact it did happen, but only among the small group of scientists who risked their careers and reputations to keep this ‘pathological science’ alive. But to say that the degree of openness displayed by MFMP is necessary to prove LENR really imposes a severe double standard. Unless you think all science should be done this way. But then why pick on LENR research?

    • Warthog

      LOL….the “hot fusion” community have indulged in MANY breathless press releases and conferences over the years, most well before the peer-reviewed papers have appeared, announcing some minute improvement as a great breakthrough. Yet after fifty years and in excess of $100 Billion spent, no working power plant exists.

      It is NOT uncommon across ALL fields of science to address the press before peer-review. Nobody has ever “gotten in their face” for that behavior that I know of (other than P & F). Heck, that is the whole basis of “R&D” magazine…..reporting such “breaking science”.

      The thing that has happened in all such cases is that the science community WAITS for the peer-reviewed paper to issue, then experiments and judges accordingly. Quite frequently, colleagues eager to start experiments will ask for preprints, or even call the researcher on the phone to get more details.

      I note that the Berkeley “article” claims that P&F “refused to share” information, yet I know for an undeniable fact that they DID share information…Bockris’ case proves that (and disproves that portion of the Berkeley article).

      • Josh G

        That is a good point about premature press releases, etc. I can think of two off the top of my head from the last few years with the CERN group. One was the Neutrino measurements that were off due to some technical error and the other was some measurement cosmic radiation that turned out to be due to unmeasured dirt. Oops.

        While it may be true that F&P shared with Bockris, they may have been unwilling to share with others. But the article offers no indication of why. It also offers no citation to back the claim that they wouldn’t share. They clearly trusted Bockris. But maybe they had a good reason to keep it from others. Or maybe they were waiting for publication. Or maybe they were protecting IP, which they are not the first nor the last to do…

        • Warthog

          I suspect it is as simple as not wanting to work with folks who are actively vilifying you and your work. Rossi has a similar attitude, and not unreasonably.

          • It is what appear after readin Charles Beaudette”Excess Heat” and Eugene Mallove “Fire From Ice”, and some articles by jed.

            To get details on a colleague experiment, the minimum is to ask respectfully, especially if the author is medaled like Fleischmann and quite mature.

            Lack of respect for chemist, chemistry, calorimetry is the main problem of that tragedy.
            Still today there are people who cannot understand that calorimetry can be made reliable by competent scientists, as much as isotopic measurement and particle detection can be made reliable by competent experts.

  • Warthog

    Basically, your entire post simply displays your ignorance of the data. You “skimmed” the book. WOW, I am NOT impressed. Get back to me after you have actually read it, and checked out the relevant references (most can be found at LENR-CANR.org ).

    “Excess Heat” only covers to 2002….much of the best research was done after that date. But Beaudette’s book certainly provides more than sufficient coverage of REPLICATIONS to prove the case.

    And Beaudette certainly sufficiently documents the illicit science war on LENR that began only a few months after the P&F announcement and continues today.

    And examining a phenomenon from multiple different perspectives “is” a valid method of science proof. If one researcher detects tritium (multiple researchers have), another measures He4 (and multiple researchers have), yet a third measures transmutations (and multiple researchers have, including organizations like Mitsubishi and Toshiba). ALL of these, though different, point directly to an unknown nuclear phenomenon (which is what P&F called their discovery).

    To that end, let’s examine the science of geology. No one doubts that geology is a science, yet no controlled experiments have been done to prove, for instance “continental drift”. But enough data has been collected from “multiple heterogeneous experiments” that CD is now known to be true.

    And even your “point” about the Lugano experiment is wrong…..the researchers analysis of the data was based on data immediately in hand. It is stated plainly that they had obtained a sample of the Al2O3 specifically to MEASURE THE EMISSIVITY.

    • Thomas Clarke

      Warthog,

      They did however not measure the alumina emissivty. The sample, tested for purity, does not much help because as all the books say, emissivity of alumina can vary considerably dependent on microcrystalline structure and surface condition. None of which is determined by chemical analysis of purity. In any case the issue about emissivity is just that they confused band emissivity with total emissivity, described elsewhere. They would not have made this mistake had they actually measured emissivity.

      • Warthog

        Again, your comments unmask your prejudices. The report says specifically that they obtained a sample of the tube in order to measure the emissivity at a later date.

        Neither you nor I know (and we will not know) whether or not they made said measurements until they publish a follow-up document. It is obvious to a NON-prejudiced observer that they knew that the numbers they had in hand in the interim report were an estimation….which is precisely why they took the sample.

        Which is why all the “modeling” done by you and Higgins and all the rest mean precisely zero, and are simply a red herring to justify ignoring the test results.

  • Thomas Clarke

    Warthog:

    “And examining a phenomenon from multiple different perspectives “is” a valid method of science proof.”

    I disagree. Science proof requires details. Examining phenomena with careful scientific scrutiny from different perspectives (or even one perspective) may lead to scientific proof. Examination that skips that scrutiny cannot do so. It is just another example of the “more is better” argument.

    • Warthog

      So tell me how you do a lab experiment that proves continental drift, and allows the sort of “scrutiny” you appear to want.

      Certainly, all the individual geology research that eventually proved CD was correct was subject to such scrutiny in geology journals, but CD itself is proven only by “examining a phenomenon from different perspectives”.

      LENR has lacked “scrutiny” not because the researchers didn’t WANT scrutiny, but because “some” science journals have simply refused to allow LENR researchers to publish. Not because of any lacking on the part of the LENR researchers or the quality of their research, but because of dirty science politics and gamesmanship (and don’t tell me such doesn’t go on….I’ve seen too much of it, and not just in the field of LENR).

      That embargo by “some” science journals is precisely the reason that the ICCF conferences were started. Or perhaps you think that conferences don’t provide “scrutiny”. Wrong. Conference critiques provide some of the most stringent “scrutiny” that exists….because those participating are the real experts in a topic. I should also point out that the LENR scientists have NOT excluded their critics from the ICCF. On the contrary, they have specifically invited them.

      And there are other publications, including peer reviewed ones, that HAVE published LENR papers. Naturwissenschaften is one that HAS published LENR papers. There are others.

      The fact that you claim “details are lacking” is simply either ignorance of the literature or bad faith (i.e. pathological skepticism) on your part. Read the ICCF conference proceedings, or some of the (many) other DETAILED science papers at LENR-CANR.org.

      • Thomas Clarke

        In the case of CD the competing hypotheses and supporting evidences were hotly debated for many years as you know. The weight of evidence for CD increased, and also the theoretical and empirical issues got very well thrashed out.

        I agree that LENR lacks scrutiny due to unwillingness of journals to publish. However I note that many good LENR papers are published in good journals. (Have a look at Holmlid’s material as one example). The frustrating issue here is that the good papers stand as isolated work with very little linkage, which is my point.

        I’m less clear, when papers are not published, how often this is due to LENR bias. Many such unpublished papers are just not strong enough to publish. I believe, though I’m not sure, that strong experimental work could be published by writing up the anomaly (whatever it is) without speculating about LENR. That would be fine because LENR is not currently a predictive hypothesis is mentioning it would not add weight to any experimental work showing anomalous results.

        When I say details are lacking, that does not apply to all LENR papers, but does apply to many. I think though that I am interested in a whole load of details (for example different control runs needed to answer questions about potential calorimetry errors) that you would maybe not consider relevant.

        Conferences provide some scrutiny but proper analysis needs to be done off line and takes time. It also needs details to do, otherwise all you can do is point to gaps. The main purpose of conferences, as I’m sure you know, is to get people interested in the latest work, and to establish relationships between researchers. You don’t expect conference papers to be very well written, nor work to be fully described in a conference (there is just not time).

        • Warthog

          “The weight of evidence for CD increased, and also the theoretical and empirical issues got very well thrashed out.”

          Which is precisely the case for CF. The picture of scarcity of results you paint is simply false.

          ” I think though that I am interested in a whole load of details (for
          example different control runs needed to answer questions about
          potential calorimetry errors) that you would maybe not consider
          relevant.”

          I’m an analytical chemist. Calorimetry and thermal methods are stock in trade in what we do. The people who are largely ignorant of calorimetry are physicists, as it is a tool not normally used in their work

          “Conferences provide some scrutiny but proper analysis needs to be done off line and takes time. It also needs details to do, otherwise all you
          can do is point to gaps.”

          Which is why all the conference proceedings are PUBLISHED! Much more detail is available in the printed proceedings than is given in the oral presentations. I’ve participated in a number of conferences (non LENR) where the proceedings were published as regular journal article full papers. .

          • Thomas Clarke

            Yes, some conferences have submissions up to near journal quality. Published conference papers can indeed be properly reviewed.

            Just one correction. I’m not compalining about scarcity of results. I’m complaining about scarcity of followup, one group analysing and commenting on results of another group, checking them, etc.

            Or, in theoretical field, proponents of theories noting which experimental results they are/are not compatible with, which other theories they are/are not compatible with. This sort of analysis helps sort out the wheat from the chaff. It is doemn in LENR field much less than I’d expect.

  • you are a good example of modern science as JF Geneste explained.
    You cannot think without a theory.

    LENR is not a theory, it is a group of anomalies, observed.
    What is refuted, is the hypothesis that LENR don’t exist.

    now, this phenomenon have no theory be we start to bound some of it’s characteristics.
    The most common version happen in transition metal hydride.
    for electrolysis loading avec to exceed some value, as current density. data are coherent with that.
    Some experiments show that crystallography have some impact…
    Some impurities seems bad, some good… D works with some, H with some other metal…
    Heat improve the reaction.
    Change of equilibrium often helps…
    He4 is produced with heat.
    Tritium sometime appears, and increases near 50% mix of D/H

    This is early science…

    With your logic the finding of excess heat produced by radium by Ms Curie would be rejected.

    The finding of fire too.

    anyway this kind of early science with theory that seems to oppose (in fact QM does not oppose LENR, it is just not mastered enough in lattice and surfaces), is quite uncommon today, because we have theory for all, or just complex systems based on basic science that seems respected.

    Sand is very hard to understand, but it does not seems to violate chemistry and mechanic.
    LENR seems to violate nuclear (2-body) physics and that is the problem.

    • Thomas Clarke

      Neither fire, nor excess heat in radium, are indistinguishable from subtle experimental errors. The evidence is direct and compelling, requires no interpretation.

      • for a competent chemist, the measurement done in many LENr experiment were clear.

        I agree that for incompetent people, LENr or radium prove nothing.
        most people cannot be convinced by mass calorimetry by Curie, if we say it is violating all rules of physics as we know it today.

        note that McKubre used recently mass calorimetry with liquid nitrogen…
        it seems nobody more was convinced.

        this is the heart of the problem.

        there is a myth that calorimetry is not convincing.
        it is not convincing for physicist, and similar non chemist.

  • friendlyprogrammer

    @ Thomas Clarke,

    It is nice that you commend MFMP for their openness, but their profit motivations (if any) come from crowdfunding and keeping their progress quiet would soon stop any donations flowing in. The other 25+ corporations who have successful LENR claims are not reliant upon donations and giving away their research might upset shareholders even if it might please you.

    Pons/Fleischmann did react quickly when they made their discoveries, but they could only replicate the experiment 1% of the time themselves in 1989, and any chemist trying to replicate their results quickly became discouraged.

    Toyota hired Fleischmann after he was tarred and feathered in the USA, and it is of no surprise that Toyota, Mitsubishi, and Honda are among some of the many companies claiming they can replicate LENR with ease. We know from the CERN conference that Toyota Labs verified Mitsubishi LENR using their own labs, equipment, and supplies.
    http://news.newenergytimes.net/2012/12/06/mitsubishi-reports-toyota-replication/

    Let’s look at the article you linked to for a some humour.

    “The scientific community is responsible for checking the work of
    community members.”

    Yes, but if they do not get positive replications with ease then they obviously just give up and condemn the idea for decades.

    “Through the scrutiny of this community, science corrects itself.”

    Scrutiny should come, but there is a difference between Scrutiny and Mockery.

    “Scientists actively seek evidence to test their ideas — even if the test is difficult. They strive to describe and perform the tests that would prove their ideas wrong and/or allow others to do so.

    This may be true inside various companies but should we expect every company to publish their expensive R&D as quickly as discoveries are made?

    “Scientists take into account all the available evidence when deciding whether to accept an idea or not — even if that means giving up a favorite hypothesis.”

    Bull. I definitely call “Bull” here. I challenge anyone to go to any science forum on the internet and try to find someone willing to even look at LENR evidence before writing it off as pathological science.

    “Science relies on a balance between skepticism and openness to new ideas.”

    No. Most scientists would fit into the 90% skeptic, 10% open categories. If you know the history of this subject then you would know less than 1% of serious scientists would even bother discussing LENR at the moment.

    “Scientists often verify surprising results by trying to replicate the test.”

    Or they just ignore the entire field until they can read about it in grade 11 textbooks.

    “In science, discoveries and ideas must be verified with multiple lines of evidence.”

    Yes. We have a lot of evidence

    Okay Thomas Clarke… Let’s examine existing evidence.

    From the standpoint of common sense or when considering future investing in science do I need to replicate the experiment myself? This would seem like your “scientific” stand point. Replicating the experiment myself would indeed convince me, but is it required?

    If a single company endorsed LENR and claimed it was real then that would make LENR more suspicious.

    If two companies endorse LENR then that could simply be a few scientists on crack.

    If three companies claim LENR results then it adds to the statistical likelihood that perhaps someone is getting results.

    Now that we have DOZENS of companies claiming success with LENR the statistical likelyhood of them all being liars is almost non existent.

    I am unsure of your qualifications as a scientist, but let’s look at that.

    NASA (National Aeronautic and Space Administration) is an American company known to be on the cutting edge of research and space exploration. These guys have landed cars on Mars.

    Dr. Dennis Bushnell is the CHIEF RESEARCH SCIENTIST AT NASA LANGLEY, and he tells us quite clearly and emphatically that LENR is real.

    Here is him saying that,

    http://newenergytimes.com/v2/inthenews/2012/201205NASA-Dennis-Bushnell-Low-Energy-Nuclear-Reactions-the-Realism-and-the-Outlook.pdf

    We also know NASA is budgeting LENR research from the FOIA, and is actively exploring the ideas of using LENR in aircraft and space. The George Miley LENR (did I mention there were dozens) device is one such space energy alternative.

    https://ca.images.search.yahoo.com/images/view;_ylt=A2KLj.spLDlVdRQAa_ztFAx.;_ylu=X3oDMTIyY2VxbGE1BHNlYwNzcgRzbGsDaW1nBG9pZAM1MDcwZDFhN2E2YTBhNmNhMjExYjNhNGM4ZmU3YTJjOARncG9zAzkEaXQDYmluZw–?.origin=&back=https%3A%2F%2Fca.images.search.yahoo.com%2Fsearch%2Fimages%3Fp%3Dgeorge%2Bmiley%2Blenr%26fr%3Dsfp-yff26%26fr2%3Dpiv-web%26tab%3Dorganic%26ri%3D9&w=936&h=538&imgurl=on-the-rag.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F08%2Flenr-module.jpg&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fon-the-rag.com%2F2013%2F08%2F03%2Fgeorge-h-miley-university-of-illinois-prof-talks-lenr-power-distribution-costs%2F&size=100.4KB&name=Conceptual+module+design&p=george+miley+lenr&oid=5070d1a7a6a0a6ca211b3a4c8fe7a2c8&fr2=piv-web&fr=sfp-yff26&tt=Conceptual+module+design&b=0&ni=21&no=9&ts=&tab=organic&sigr=13g6n298q&sigb=13en44oco&sigi=11pugrjga&sigt=10ohps9sb&sign=10ohps9sb&.crumb=UR2SIaLxUfJ&fr=sfp-yff26&fr2=piv-web

    A single “appeal to authority” argument might not convince me on its own, but we are facing a lot more than just the ones from NASA.

    MFMP is trying to find the most replicable “proof of concept” experiment for “scientists” like yourself who need to see LENR before considering it within the realm of reality. I will admit I originally thought they were a fundraising fly by night scam, simply after donations, but I’m growing on them. I can be skeptical also.

    The book you perused is badly out of date. LENR breakthroughs seem mostly to follow the newer Rossi style Nickel reactors of which was popularized in 2011 after that book was written for the most part.

    I understand that you wish to represent the scientists who need to see it done before they can accept it, but many scientists are acting badly concerning this.

    Nobel laureate Brian Josephson has accused The Journal Nature of ignoring LENR, and claims “PIGS WILL FLY BEFORE NATURE PUBLISHES THE ECAT REPORT”. Quite a statement from a Physics Noble laureate.

    So is LENR getting a fair shake in the science community?

    I have been following this story for years. I am an Engineer so have a science background, and I must say that from a probability stand point I am convinced 100% LENR must be true. We have seen this replicated in High Schools (Leopoldo Pirelli High School) in Rome and Universities (See Peter hagelstein)

    Fringe Science and cutting edge research often provides science known only to those who have signed all the Nondisclosure agreements. Toyota likely does not share all of its LENR secrets with Mitsubishi and vice versa.

    One day we will ALL know for sure, but if (it will) LENR is proven then todays science community should be embarrassed beyond repair. They will need to add some rules concerning skepticisms, as a healthier attitude might have brought us LENR decades sooner.

    • Warthog

      Good post, And I pretty much agree with all your points. Beaudette’s book “is” a bit out of date (which I pointed out when I recommended it). But it is still the best commentary on LENR for those starting out to examine the field for the first time.

      It is sufficiently well written so as to be understandable to an educated layman, as well as containing sufficient detail and references to be convincing to the non-skeptopath scientist. Also, it comments on the historical context and science sociology (more accurately pathology).

      I recommend that folks start with Beaudette, then Storm’s book to get up to close to current date, and the LENR-CANR bibliography and repository papers after that.

  • Mark

    “Here we assume here that LENR/cold fusion is a valid scientific phenomenon…”

    The quotation above is from the rules section, and it is painfully obvious that Thomas Clarke does not assume “that LENR/cold fusion is a valid scientific phenomenon.” He should be banned. If he doesn’t get banned, then I will refuse to continue to come to this website. I mean, not that anyone cares about whether or not I’m here, but I like to mouth off, sometimes, and that’s what I’m doing, now. Although, there does seem to be some other dude posting under the name Mark, as well, so you might still get his posts, even if I leave. Well, whatever. I hope that Frank will start to follow his own rules. If not, I’m out. I’m one of those few internet folks who actually does “foot vote,” instead of hanging around and whining. Perhaps it will be appropriate to post this link, as a possible final link that I will post on this website:

    http://lesswrong.com/lw/c1/wellkept_gardens_die_by_pacifism/

  • Mark

    “Here we assume here that LENR/cold fusion is a valid scientific phenomenon…”

    The quotation above is from the rules section, and it is painfully obvious that Thomas Clarke does not assume “that LENR/cold fusion is a valid scientific phenomenon.” He should be banned. If he doesn’t get banned, then I will refuse to continue to come to this website. I mean, not that anyone cares about whether or not I’m here, but I like to mouth off, sometimes, and that’s what I’m doing, now. Although, there does seem to be some other dude posting under the name Mark, as well, so you might still get his posts, even if I leave. Well, whatever. I hope that Frank will start to follow his own rules. If not, I’m out. I’m one of those few internet folks who actually does “foot vote,” instead of hanging around and whining. Perhaps it will be appropriate to post this link, as a possible final link that I will post on this website:

    http://lesswrong.com/lw/c1/wellkept_gardens_die_by_pacifism/

    • Mark

      Yes there is another Mark and that Mark does not mind hearing good criticisms and dissenting views, This place should not become the church of Ecat/Rossi nor a debunkers haven for trolls.

    • Thomas Clarke

      Mark. in this thread I’m not challenging whether LENR is a valid scientific phenomena. I’m arguing for how such a scientific phenomena should be investigated, and for the type of rigorous evidence that is liked by mainstream science.

      I’m saying that this evidence comes from challenge and cross-challenge, and that MFMP (or some similar model) is valuable because it provides this.

      One of the concerns of people here is that mainstream science does not take LENR seriously. If it did there would be more research, more understanding. Well, to achieve mainstream interest it is worth understanding what would convince most scientists and why.

      • Josh G

        What you’re basically saying is that mainstream science won’t take LENR seriously because of the way hypotheses are formulated and the way research is conducted. But the problem is that you are equating the Rossi tests with research on LENR more broadly. That is either ignorant, tendentious or both. Yes, we agree that the test of Rossi’s device is inconclusive. But in a year’s time it won’t matter. Rossi is not LENR and LENR is not Rossi. Can we move on please?

        Mainstream science (and you) won’t even look at the research that has been done on LENR. When on occasion scientists actually do examine the evidence (with an open mind), they find it compelling. Robert Duncan is one example but not the only one.

        At this point I feel like I am talking to a wall, so I am not going to write more to you on this subject and will let you have the last word. The evidence is there to examine, if you are willing to do so.

        I will say one more thing with regard to your claim that LENR is not a ‘real’ hypothesis: LENR is not a hypothesis at all! That would be like saying superconductivity or quantum mechanics is a ‘hypothesis.’ LENR is a body of research and theories aimed at investigating and explaining a new phenomenon that was discovered experimentally. Hypotheses guide LENR researchers in individual studies. Do you think that F&P just decided one day to stick some palladium in a salt bath, flip a switch and see what happens just for fun? It wasn’t even something they discovered ‘accidentally’ in the course of other research (something that happens all the time in science.) Their work and the work of other LENR research is obviously guided by hypotheses. They might be wrong. They might stumble as they find their way. Or they might find something, as did F&P, even though the theory guiding their hypothesis was wrong.

        Think about Godes’s work at Brillouin. The design and testing of that device is clearly guided by his CECR hypothesis, which is informed by theory. Has the theory been proven? No. Is there a clear and widely accepted theory that explains LENR and guides all research in the field? No, not yet. There are many theories. And sometimes the hypotheses are clearly guided by theory and sometimes they are more like hunches and intuitions.

        I don’t know your qualifications or your backgrounds, but I find it unlikely that you are more qualified than Hagelstein, McKubre, Miles, Miley, Kim, Fleischmann, Preparata, Violante, Srinivasan, Li, Arata, Mizuno, Storms, Bockris, Ikegami, Schwinger and others to assess whether hypotheses in the field of LENR/CMNS count as good science.

        • “At this point I feel like I am talking to a wall”

          yes, you’re getting it now.

        • Thomas Clarke

          Josh,

          I’ve obviously annoyed you, for which I am sorry. It was not my intention in this thread to go into matters that I expect would never be agreed between us, and know would take a very long detailed examination before any one of the issues could be considered enough to see where we have different assumptions or judgements.

          That is not the purpose of this thread.

  • bachcole

    “Most science advances via peer-reviewed publication of competing
    hypotheses, evidence for/against them, theoretical work expanding one or
    other, etc.”

    NOT if the proposed advancement is a paradigm shift, something too big of a jump that most scientists cannot get their minds around it. Like some meteorologist saying that the continents drifted, or two bicycle mechanics saying that they mastered heavier than air flight.

  • Dr. Mike

    Thomas,
    Thank you for your post and your many replies to the comments that everyone else have made. I would like to make a few comments on both your post and your replies and will try to put all my comments here rather than spread them through the other comments. First i would like to say I agree with you on a desire for openness and likewise commend the openness of Parkhomov and MFMP. However, I also can see Rossi’s need to protect his intellectual property, and understand why he is reluctant to release any information before that property in protected with patents. He deserves the rights to the work he has done over the past years.
    Someone below suggested that you read, rather than skim Beaudette’s “Excess Heat”. I would make the same recommendation (if you have the time). After reading “Excess Heat”, then re-reading the Berkeley article, I find that it is the Berkeley article that actually does a disservice to science in failing to point out that both of the proposed reasons for the F-P data to be incorrect (lack of stirring and gas recombination) were fully addressed by Pons and Fleischmann. If someone doesn’t like the calorimetry method they used, all they have to do is look at one of the many other papers that reported excess heat in Pd-D systems since each researcher used a different method of calorimetry. These results were in all peer reviewed papers where their calorimetry procedures were accepted by the reviewers. One other thing that should be noted in essentially all of the Pd_D experiments is that the calorimeters ran from 4-12 weeks in an equilibrium mode (no excess heat produced) before any excess heat was detected. This made for relatively simple detection of excess heat even if there might be a question of the absolute amount of excess heat. Excess heat is not due to subtle errors in measurements!
    You have brought up two interesting points- lack of a good theory and poor quality peer review. Why after 25+ years do we not have a good theory for LENR? I would put the blame squarely on the shoulders of the physicists that tried to kill “Cold Fusion” back in 1989. With funding at even 10% of what has been put into “Hot Fusion” over the last 25 years, I think LENR theory would be a fairly well established by now. My guess is that we won’t have a good theory until university funding increases dramatically. Also, any lack of quality peer review in the literature is the result of many top journals refusing to publish any articles on LENR. My belief is that the quality of peer review in journals now publishing LENR articles is at least adequate, but perhaps not quite to the standard that we provided here on this forum for the Lugano report. (I’m still waiting for a revised report that addresses the issues we raised.)
    Dr. Mike

    • Warthog

      Two recent postings by Jed Rothwell to the Vortex-L discussion list bear directly on P&F’s calorimitry (full paper from proceedings of ICCF3 (1992)):

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

      And an interesting accompanying video (time-lapsed view of electrolysis CF cells):

      https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6qvuFUMAp9HNzJUb2ZrODN0VDQ/view

      watch in real time as the cells boil themselves dry.

      • Dr. Mike

        Warthog,
        This paper demonstrates just how much effort would be required for a nuclear physicists to learn enough about calorimetry to make any scientific judgment on the validity of the calorimetry in a paper written by electrochemists. It’s too bad there wasn’t at least one notable nuclear physicist that made that effort back in 1989.
        Dr. Mike

        • Warthog

          Having read through this paper, do you detect any lack of “openness” or detail in this “conference proceeding”?

          And here is one key line from the conclusion:

          “We note that excess rate of energy production is about four times that of the enthalpy input even for this highly inefficient system; the specific excess rates are broadly speaking in line with those achieved in fast breeder reactors.”

  • Dr. Mike

    Thomas,
    Thank you for your post and your many replies to the comments that everyone else have made. I would like to make a few comments on both your post and your replies and will try to put all my comments here rather than spread them through the other comments. First i would like to say I agree with you on a desire for openness and likewise commend the openness of Parkhomov and MFMP. However, I also can see Rossi’s need to protect his intellectual property, and understand why he is reluctant to release any information before that property in protected with patents. He deserves the rights to the work he has done over the past years.
    Someone below suggested that you read, rather than skim Beaudette’s “Excess Heat”. I would make the same recommendation (if you have the time). After reading “Excess Heat”, then re-reading the Berkeley article, I find that it is the Berkeley article that actually does a disservice to science in failing to point out that both of the proposed reasons for the F-P data to be incorrect (lack of stirring and gas recombination) were fully addressed by Pons and Fleischmann. If someone doesn’t like the calorimetry method they used, all they have to do is look at one of the many other papers that reported excess heat in Pd-D systems since each researcher used a different method of calorimetry. These results were in all peer reviewed papers where their calorimetry procedures were accepted by the reviewers. One other thing that should be noted in essentially all of the Pd_D experiments is that the calorimeters ran from 4-12 weeks in an equilibrium mode (no excess heat produced) before any excess heat was detected. This made for relatively simple detection of excess heat even if there might be a question of the absolute amount of excess heat. Excess heat is not due to subtle errors in measurements!
    You have brought up two interesting points- lack of a good theory and poor quality peer review. Why after 25+ years do we not have a good theory for LENR? I would put the blame squarely on the shoulders of the physicists that tried to kill “Cold Fusion” back in 1989. With funding at even 10% of what has been put into “Hot Fusion” over the last 25 years, I think LENR theory would be a fairly well established by now. My guess is that we won’t have a good theory until university funding increases dramatically. Also, any lack of quality peer review in the literature is the result of many top journals refusing to publish any articles on LENR. My belief is that the quality of peer review in journals now publishing LENR articles is at least adequate, but perhaps not quite to the standard that we provided here on this forum for the Lugano report. (I’m still waiting for a revised report that addresses the issues we raised.)
    Dr. Mike

    • Thomas Clarke

      Thanks Mike. I won’t reply to your comments, I’m not able to do so since have not fully read the Extreme Heat book and also (more importantly from my point of view) have not checked in detail all the scientific issues around the F&P experiments and replications.

      Such a scientific check, while important, was not actually the topic of this thread as I expect you realise.

      Re the Lugano report. It bugs me. I’ve done some checking of the results based on the known thermography error – the use of alumina total emissivity instead of band emissivity. Bob Higgns noted this but then applied the wrong correction factor. GSVIT used the correct factor (I think) but their writeup is less clear than Bob’s. The whole check is rather involved and could not be done without some code – I’ve got about 100 lines of Python that do it. I am confident that my correction is sound, and this can be shown quite easily.

      The results look to explain some but not all of the report issues and the corrected values for COP match better than the original ones, but I’ll not say more till I’ve both checked it and written it up properly. I’ll release the writeup with the code so all of the calculations and assumptions can be checked.

      Best wishes, Tom

      • Dr. Mike

        Thomas,
        It would really be great if you could even make a stab at correcting the Lugano power out calculations based on using proper emissivity data.. I was thinking that the authors are afraid to make any corrections to the report because they don’t know what to do with their incorrectly measured temperatures. Unfortunately, I believe it would be impossible to retake any measurements unless Rossi provided another reactor, but it sure would be nice if they could use the existing data and correct their reported results. Of course it would also be nice if the Lugano authors can give a verifiable reason why their calculated joule heating results in the active runs were so high, either through additional data or perhaps characterizing the heater wire that they cut off the reactor at the end of the final active run.
        Hope you are able to find the time to look into scientific issues surrounding the F-P results and replications! Your comments would be very valuable.
        Dr. Mike

        • Thomas Clarke

          I’ve got code that computes the correct temperatures, and then the correct powers, for the two active runs. It uses some manually input points for the emissivity curve they used, for the real alumina spectral emissivity, for the bolometer band sensitivity (which is not uniform over 7-13um).

          Before I release it it needs enough prettifying so that all steps are clear and the code is well documented. That takes a long time.

          It just shows one should not trust intuition. I would not have thought using the wrong emissivity would have such a big error but it does because the exponent of T in the low frequency end of the BB spectrum is << 4, and therefore the T decrease needed to match emissivity has a total radiant power chnage larger than the band radiant power change (which equals the ratio of real band emissivity to input to Optris band emissivity – we know the latter because the testers took it from the total emissivity curve).

          Currently:
          1250C and 1400C runs have adjusted COP = 1.07 with < 1% difference between the two COP values.

          The calculated COP is highly sensitive to the exact 7u – 13u band emissivity of the alumina. I compute 0.88 – 0.9 (over the temp range) if you push it up by 0.05, as per MFMP measurements, you get COP = 1.01. Down by 0.05 COP goes up by 0.07. However the COP for the two runs (1250C and 1400C) still matches. There is no way to know how the real alumina measures.

          The key to the problem being tractable is that I'm taking the report figures for Prad, Pconv, Prods and adjusting each one to match the real temperature. If I can work out the conversion factor in each case this is possible, and doing it this way many approximations are tractable even though not all the real temps are known.

          I'm approximating convective loss as T^1.25. This is what the authors do and because this is near to T, an approximate value for temperature can be used without large errors (in any case convection is relatively small in active tests). I also make some approximations in the active runs, assuming that radiant heat is dominated by the reactor body whose higher temperature leads to much higher power out, etc. There are a whole load of such approximations, because I cannot do the adjustment calculations on every single separate different temp element, and I guess in theory I should estimate each one. I'm pretty sure the overall error from approximations is less than 5%, and less than the uncertainty from alumina emissivity values not being precisely known.

          The dummy run does not match with the active runs. It has COP = 0.77 or thereabouts. However the approximations used for this run are different than those used for the active runs. Also, I'm not happy about comparing the runs because of the unexplained Joule heating difference. I believe it is unlikely the heating wires are not Inconel or something similar.

          Finally, I am assuming the alumina stays opaque which is clearly not true. The temperature adjustment is not affected by this but the power out could be affected. It is entirely unclear whether the adjustment for this, a larger error at higher temperatures, should be + or -. Ignoring it is the best thing to so, but with the realisation that this introduces a possible error.

          PS – Bob Higgins did the (large amount of) work finding spectral sensitivity and emissivity values, and pointed out the issue. GSVIT did something similar with less detail. My work is similar to Bob's except for the final step where I calculate adjusted temperatures from emissivity data – Bob makes an assumption here (that band radiance has the same T dependence as total radiance) which is wrong.

          • Obvious

            Ignoring the alumina transparency is a problem, since the metals transmit mostly at the shortest wavelengths, where the alumina is transparent. Therefore very large amounts of heat can be emitted in this range, possibly as much as the alumina itself in its peak emission spectral range, and maybe even more than the alumina due to the short wavelength in the metal range.

          • Thomas Clarke

            Yes, there are a number of problems. The alumina transparency problem is uncertain and could result in significant extra radiated heat, but not “very large amounts”. You can fairly say we cannot prove COP=1! But then with no measurement at all we also could not prove COP=1, it is a weak statement.

            It is not true that metals radiate a lot at short wavelengths – the Planck Law always dominates over changes in spectral emissivity, and that can never be higher than 1 so you cannot get more than a black body of that temperature. It is true most metals have higher emissivity at short wavelengths then long.

            You should note that if the heater is a metal then we have certain anomalous Joule heating current – either this is an error or the power measurement is an error or the dummy and active reactors are different. Take your pick.

            (1) the heater cannot be a much hotter than the alumina since the latter conducts well and the heater wire is wound near the edge (or, if not, the hotter radiant surface is smaller area and less effective for that reason.

            (2) Only the power in the BB spectrum at lower wavelengths is transmitted directly, this is not more than half looking at graphs.

            (3) The extra radiance could be zero, we have too many unknowns.

            The real problem is that this was meant to be a test showing excess heat. It could have been that (if there is > 1 COP) had it followed recommended practice calibrating the thermography. Because this was not done it means nothing. A real shame. But not surprising to those following the story of Rossi’s tests.

            On the subject of this thread – that is why peer review and scientific dialog is so important. It will detect gaps in tests and (normally) the testers can either correct them or retract. In this case, presumably due to the commercial aspects, there is no retraction and no correction which annoys me. The known errors in the analysis should really be admitted and corrected.

          • Obvious

            What I mean is that if the emissivity values for alumina is taken to calculate output, heat output may be calculated low, since the metals generally have an entirely different emissivity spectrum, outside that which the IR camera detects IR. Alumina and sapphire are actually used as IR selective bandpass filters for measurements of metals.
            The IR camera emissivity setting probably needs to set initially near ~.95 for heat measured, because it only sees at the main region of alumina emissivity. This value may need to be lowered due to the ridges (triangular profile fins), which cause multiple geometric reflections, decreasing apparent emissivity by increasing reflectivity to some degree. The difference between the temperature of the valleys and the ridges may also have some effect on the temperature image the camera sees.
            When calculating heat output, the emissivity value needs to be adjusted higher than the simple charted spectral values for alumina for output at various temperatures, again because heat is radiated at frequencies where alumina is transparent and therefore not accounted for in the alumina emissivity broadband spectra.

            As far as proper experimental controls, I agree entirely.

            The Lugano Joule heating can be explained by switching the wiring configuration of the dummy wired as a wye, to the active run in wired a delta configuration. This makes the both the Joule heat and the resistance makes sense. That is not to say that is the fact of the matter, or a is good idea to change protocol, but it does work out mathematically.

          • Thomas Clarke

            Obvious – thanks for a thoughtful reply raising many salient issues. I agree with a most of what you say but not quite all, and will comment at some length.

            OK – yes I agree (possibly) with 0.95 for band emissivity. My code looking at this used 0.89 computing weighted average from the graphs in Bob’s report (but some error here from manually entered points linearly interpolated) and showed COP=1.07. I’d get COP=0.97 or so with 0.95. I think my lower value comes from the higher frequency end of the bolometer response that has higher BB radiance and so counts more than you would think – here the alumina spectral emissivity starts to decrease. But I have not included another error, the fact that alumina spectral emissivity goes up slightly at higher temperatures so I’m comfortable with 0.95. Overall effect is COP maybe 10% lower than my estimates.

            I also agree that at higher frequencies the alumina is mostly transparent and the radiation will come more from some internal surface – presumably the heater wire. This will make tital radiant power estimate higher than my calculation. See below for comments.

            For ridges (COP higher) and wye/delta (COP n/a) see below for comment and estimate.

            The effect of ridges is I believe not as you say. There is a lot of work on radiation from non-flat (opaque – as is true for the temperature measurement though not for all radiant power calculation) surfaces. Ridges have the same effect as a rough surface, which is to increase emissivity by the view factor. For this surface (90 degree apex ridges) the view factor is 0.279 (1-sin(45)) and the emissivity change is then:
            0.4 -> 0.48
            0.9 -> 0.93
            and so on.

            So you get maybe a 20% uplift from higher emissivity and a 5% reduction from lower actual temperature, because the band emissivity is a little bit higher and the calculation is quite sensitive to this.

            I have not been including this because it seems one step of complexity too far but it must be considered as a known error – as far as I can see the uplift is clear. I’m less sure what is the effect over frequencies where the alumina is transparent and reflective but I have no information the analysis is different?

            Transparent alumina analysis
            If we suppose heater wire and surface alumina are nearly the same temperature reasonable given the geometry) we have a maximum increase from 0.55 (alumina) to 1 (wire) total emissivity. Looking at the BB spectrum at this temperature (765C) a lot of the power is at lower frequencies where the alumina is not transparent. We could estimate maybe 50% of power in the “transparent” window as a rough approximation to the real complex case, but it could be much less, or a little more.

            From which we get a maximum radiant power uplift of 0.77/0.55 = 40%. That is supposing the wire total emissivity is 1 (probably close to true) and that the wire is 100% of the visible surface area (false). I’d put the increment lower at 20% due to the fact that the wire does not cover all the reactor body visible area. There is then a reduction for caps (no wire but lower temperature) and convection. Maybe 15% uplift would be my best guess.

            There is a lot of hand-waving here which is why I prefer to note this issue as real rather than try to estimate it, but this shows that although it is a significant possible uplift in COP it does not outweigh experimental errors which due to the indirect nature of the calculations I’d put at 50%.

            Wye vs Delta connection.
            That is a very sensible speculation. I had not considered it as feasible but should have. If so it explains exactly (with 10% which can be resistor tolerance) the change in resistance. The dummy is described and analysed as being Wye, and I can’t see how the reactor could be rewired for Delta without changing the external wiring. Still I agree, it makes sense of everything and I’ll go with it. While it does not directly change power measurements I’d reserve judgement about some second order effect. The 3.3 change in current implies resistor imbalance which if the power is calculated from one phase assuming symmetry would be an issue leading to up to 20% error. Add this to the list of experiment known possible errors.

          • Obvious

            Looking back at the page for Bob Higgins paper, I see that I had found the ridges to increase emissivity. So I mixed that up somewhere, and agree with you here. Wide angle ridges and oblique view angles might cause a drop, but is probably not meriting too much consideration at present.
            0.89 emissivity for the camera is probably a reasonable value. I suggested 0.95 as starting point, which is much higher than used for Lugano.
            Why 0.7 worked for the camera calibration is an interesting problem.

          • Thomas Clarke

            The calibration calculated power was 10% too low, which is surprising because the correct calculated power comes in even lower than the report calcs. Still, at lower temp the difference between report and corrected is quite small. But I’m uncomfortable with even a 20% error – it will have a cause.

            One possibility is the asymmetry of the resistors, which we know exists because the delta and wye joule heating powers don’t exactly match X3. If power is extrapolated from single phase power X 3 that could make a significant difference between dummy and control. It would be bad practice of course, but can we rule that out given all the other examples of bad practice? Maybe I’ll do some work to see what R difference you need to get this 3.33 factor.

            Another possibility is the convection calculation. There are edges etc and maybe these mean convective losses are actually greater than expected – at low temperatures these dominate.

            A final possibility is that the reactors are similar but not identical between the two cases.

          • Obvious

            1.2323 /3 = 0.4141 ohms (Delta div/3) at 480.906 W within the delta
            Wye = 0.4074 ohms with 480.906 W in Wye.
            Best fit, with C1 losses subtracted, which total 5.094 W in each case.
            I subtracted the C1 losses in each case to examine the effects within each configuration separately, even though in the wye, the c1 cables are in series with the c2 cables, which are in series with the resistor.
            The difference I think is the phase current, rather than line current going through the delta C2, compared to wye C2 getting line current.

            The resistance still ends up ~10% lower in the active runs using my calculations, so a perfect match isn’t happening. I have a range of 0.35585 ohms in Run 1 to 0.36626 ohms in Run 16, delta configuration. Lots of decimal places retained since the equations are seemingly excessively sensitive to them, even if they are not actually significant figures properly. At least the resistance climbs slightly, instead of dropping over the Active Runs.

          • Obvious

            Run 1 seems to be a bit wonky in every analysis I did, BTW.

          • Obvious

            Dummy as a wye.

          • Thomas Clarke

            I’m not sure if this helps, but here is another error.

            The PCE-830 has 100A and 1000A clamps. You’d think that 100A would be enough this, and it is in Delta, but not in Wye config. Specifically, the peak current is (I estimate) at least 4X more than the RMS current due to the triac duty cycle which we can see from the displayed waveform is about 15%.

            for your 40A RMS line current the peak currents will be 160A or so. This is probably beyond the 100A clamp range (which will manage 100A with a smallish crest factor). That will lead possibly to saturation of the clamp and a lower than real power indication for the Wye setup.

            If they were using 1000A clamps the problem is then that on a 1000A range the current error is +/- 5A RMS. This corresponds to a +/- 20% power error.

            Unfortunately we just don’t know how they measured things, but with such high crest factor in the waveform it is very difficult to see how the 40A RMS current can be accurately measured by the PCE-830 on any range. Also, it is highly likely that any such errors will different, and larger, for the Wye config compared with the Delta config.

            That explains the slight mismatch in COP between dummy and active runs – though there are other possibles. It does not unfortunately explain the resistance mismatch since whatever current error exists will scale current and power the same. At least I think it will. So the ratio of powers should not be affected.

            The effect of Wye/Delta on the C1/C2 resistances and the wiring resistance (call it W) should ideally mean:

            Wye: Pjoule/Ptotal = (C1+2C2)/(C1+2C2+W)
            Delta: Pjoule/Ptotal =
            (sqrt(3)C1+2C2)/(sqrt(3)C1+2C2+W)
            350
            a ratio difference of 0.73C1/(C1+2C2)

            However this only comes into the figures through calculation and their calculation was C2 = 0.5*C1 which is wrong and chnages this quite a lot.

            Bottom line, I don’t know whether they took account of the different wiring in the two configurations – but if they did they presumably did so with this error. Too many variables now for me to proceed further.

          • Obvious

            I posit the wye only for the dummy.
            The power controller is only capable of 80 A.

          • Thomas Clarke

            Yes. But that is 80A RMS I guess, and higher peak (I do not have the spec so am not sure).

          • Obvious

            I have no idea how you get a factor of four for any of the currents. The basis of all the current calculations are RMS measurements or derivatives of RMS measurements. So peak currents in our models, wye or delta, have to respect the measurements or their derivatives based on those values. So peak currents should not exceed sqrt(2) times any current we use properly. This means that the RMS of phase modified waveforms will be less than the peak, and less than the RMS of full conduction by a factor related to the reduced conduction period, since the average values reported relates the RMS to a full wave value due to time averaging.

          • Thomas Clarke

            If you look at the current shown in the report waveform picture it is a typical scr switched waveform with a small duty cycle – which we also expect because we know the black box is an scr controller. From which I get my approx factor of 4. A sinusoid would give sqrt(2) peak/RMS – but this is far from a sinusoid. The peak is a lot higher than typical for a sinusoid – but how much higher is debatable. One thing i don’t understand is why the current waveform seems to have slow edges – you’d normally expect the triac switching to be fast. But maybe this is an artifact.

            For example, for a square wave duty cycle D we have RMS value sqrt(D) times peak value. the wave form here is a bit more complex but same idea.

          • Obvious

            The RMS of a Square wave is 1 times peak. A duty cycle of 50% is 0.5 times RMS. maybe with a super Guassian crest factor something extra might happen.

          • Thomas Clarke

            The waveforms they show look like half-sinusoid pulses – don’t ask me why.

            a duty cycle of 0.5 (0 for 50% of time, +1 or -1 for 50%) is sqrt(0.5) RMS. Maybe we were talking about different things?

            Tom

          • Dr. Mike

            Thomas,
            Thanks for the explanation of the work you are doing and the preliminary results. I believe that it is quite acceptable to present the final results for the COP as a probable range rather than a fixed calculated value.
            I am concerned with your COP calculation of 0.77 for the dummy run. Does this mean that the authors are under estimating heat losses from conduction and convection? How would this impact the COP calculations for the active runs? I believe that one important thing demonstrated in the Lugano work for all others working on LENR experiments is the requirement to run the “control” of the experiment close to the expected operating temperature of the active run.
            One other concern that I have is that of all the data in the Lugano report, the most important is the data showing all of the NI in the reactor (0.55gr) was converted to NI62. This result was established by two measurement techniques, both a surface analysis (ToF SIMS) and bulk analysis (ICP-MS). I haven’t attempted to do the calculation, but it seems that just this single nuclear mechanism of converting of all of the Ni to Ni62 should set a lower limit on the expected minimum active run COP.
            Dr. Mike

          • Thomas Clarke

            0.55g Ni58 will release 3e10J on capturing H, based on isotopic mass delta.
            That is 12kW for a month by my reckoning.
            Ni60 delivers half the energy, and is maybe 20% of Ni mass, so there is a 15% reduction.

    • Warthog

      Two recent postings by Jed Rothwell to the Vortex-L discussion list bear directly on P&F’s calorimitry (full paper from proceedings of ICCF3 (1992)):

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

      And an interesting accompanying video (time-lapsed view of electrolysis CF cells):

      https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6qvuFUMAp9HNzJUb2ZrODN0VDQ/view

      watch in real time as the cells boil themselves dry.

      • Dr. Mike

        Warthog,
        This paper demonstrates just how much effort would be required for a nuclear physicists to learn enough about calorimetry to make any scientific judgment on the validity of the calorimetry in a paper written by electrochemists. It’s too bad there wasn’t at least one notable nuclear physicist that made that effort back in 1989.
        Dr. Mike

        • Warthog

          Having read through this paper, do you detect any lack of “openness” or detail in this “conference proceeding”?

          And here is one key line from the conclusion:

          “We note that excess rate of energy production is about four times that of the enthalpy input even for this highly inefficient system; the specific excess rates are broadly speaking in line with those achieved in fast breeder reactors.”

  • friendlyprogrammer

    Yeah. But even hardliners will switch eventually. Too bad it will only be a month prior to it appearing in the grade 11 textbooks.

    Not everyone was gifted with common sense or even reasonable intelligence. I believe LENR is believable based upon available evidence such as presented on lenrproof(dot)com (linked in my last comment).

    We must learn from the mistakes of others, life is too short to make them all yourself, although this seems like what mainstream science needs to accept LENR.

    I can understand some scientists refusing to look at the topic because of its history, but I cannot make any excuses for those who are looking at the current situation and denying it. Those are the true bad scientists in my opinion.

    I am not naming anyone here or directing these comments, except in general.

  • Dr. Mike

    Thomas,
    It would really be great if you could even make a stab at correcting the Lugano power out calculations based on using proper emissivity data.. I was thinking that the authors are afraid to make any corrections to the report because they don’t know what to do with their incorrectly measured temperatures. Unfortunately, I believe it would be impossible to retake any measurements unless Rossi provided another reactor, but it sure would be nice if they could use the existing data and correct their reported results. Of course it would also be nice if the Lugano authors can give a verifiable reason why their calculated joule heating results in the active runs were so high, either through additional data or perhaps characterizing the heater wire that they cut off the reactor at the end of the final active run.
    Hope you are able to find the time to look into scientific issues surrounding the F-P results and replications! Your comments would be very valuable.
    Dr. Mike

    • Thomas Clarke

      I’ve got code that computes the correct temperatures, and then the correct powers, for the two active runs. It uses some manually input points for the emissivity curve they used, for the real alumina spectral emissivity, for the bolometer band sensitivity (which is not uniform over 7-13um).

      Before I release it it needs enough prettifying so that all steps are clear and the code is well documented. That takes a long time.

      Currently:
      1250C and 1400C runs have adjusted COP = 1.07 with < 1% difference between the two COP values.

      The COP is highly sensitive to the exact 7u – 13u band emissivity of the alumina. I compute 0.88 – 0.9 (over the temp range) if you push it up by 0.05, as per MFMP measurements, you get COP = 1.01. Down by 0.05 COP goes up by 0.07. However the COP for the two runs (1250C and 1400C) still matches.

      I'm approximating convective loss as T^1.25. This is what the authors do and because this is near to T, an approximate value for temperature can be used without large errors. I also make some approximations in the active runs, assuming that radiant heat is dominated by the reactor body, etc. There are a whole load of such approximations, because I cannot do the adjustment calculations on every single separate different temp element, and I guess in theory I should estimate each one. I'm pretty sure the overall error from approximations is less than 5%, and less than the uncertainty from alumina emissivity values not being precisely known.

      The dummy run does not match with the active runs. It has COP = 0.77 or thereabouts. However the approximations used for this run are different than those used for the active runs. Also, I'm not happy about comparing the runs because of the unexplained Joule heating difference. I believe it is unlikely the heating wires are not Inconel or something similar.

      Finally, I am assuming the alumina stays opaque which is clearly not true. The temperature adjustment is not affected by this but the power out could be affected. It is entirely unclear whether the adjustment for this, a larger error at higher temperatures, should be + or -. Ignoring it is the best thing to so, but with the realisation that this introduces a possible error.

      PS – Bob Higgins did the (large amount of) work finding spectral sensitivity and emissivity values, and pointed out the issue. GSVIT did something similar with less detail. My work is similar to Bob's except for the final step where I calculate adjusted temperatures from emissivity data – Bob makes an assumption here which is wrong.

      • Obvious

        Ignoring the alumina transparency is a problem, since the metals transmit mostly at the shortest wavelengths, where the alumina is transparent. Therefore very large amounts of heat can be emitted in this range, possibly as much as the alumina itself in its peak emission spectral range, and maybe even more than the alumina due to the short wavelength.

        • Thomas Clarke

          Yes, there are a number of problems. The alumina transparency problem is uncertain and could result in significant extra radiated heat, but not “very large amounts”. You can fairly say we cannot prove COP=1! But then with no measurement at all we also could not prove COP=1, it is a weak statement.

          It is not true that metals radiate a lot at short wavelengths – the Planck Law always dominates over changes in spectral emissivity, and that can never be higher than 1 so you cannot get more than a black body of that temperature. It is true most metals have higher emissivity at short wavelengths then long.

          You should note that if the heater is a metal then we have certain anomalous Joule heating current – either this is an error or the power measurement is an error or the dummy and active reactors are different. Take your pick.

          (1) the heater cannot be a much hotter than the alumina since the latter conducts well and the heater wire is wound near the edge (or, if not, the hotter radiant surface is smaller area and less effective for that reason.

          (2) Only the power in the BB spectrum at lower wavelengths is transmitted directly, this is not more than half looking at graphs.

          (3) The extra radiance could be zero, we have too many unknowns.

          The real problem is that this was meant to be a test showing excess heat. It could have been that (if there is > 1 COP) had it followed recommended practice calibrating the thermography. Because this was not done it means nothing. A real shame. But not surprising to those following the story of Rossi’s tests.

          On the subject of this thread – that is why peer review and scientific dialog is so important. It will detect gaps in tests and (normally) the testers can either correct them or retract. In this case, presumably due to the commercial aspects, there is no retraction and no correction which annoys me. The known errors in the analysis should really be admitted and corrected.

          • Obvious

            What I mean is that if the emissivity values for alumina is taken to calculate output, heat output may be calculated low, since the metals generally have an entirely different emissivity spectrum, outside that which the IR camera detects IR. Alumina and sapphire are actually used as an IR selective bandpass filters for measurements of metals.
            The IR probably camera emissivity setting needs to set initially near ~.95 for heat measured, because it only sees at the main region of alumina emissivity. This value may need to be lowered due to the ridges (triangular profile fins), which cause multiple geometric reflections, decreasing apparent emissivity by increasing reflectivity to some degree.
            When calculating heat output, the emissivity value needs to be adjusted higher than the simple charted spectral values for alumina for output at various temperatures, again because heat is radiated at frequencies where alumina is transparent and therefore not accounted for in the alumina emissivity broadband spectra.

          • Thomas Clarke

            Obvious – thanks for a thoughtful reply raising many salient issues. I agree with a most of what you say but not quite all, and will comment at some length.

            OK – yes I agree (possibly) with 0.95 for band emissivity. My code looking at this used 0.89 computing weighted average from the graphs in Bob’s report (but some error here from manually entered points linearly interpolated) and showed COP=1.07. I’d get COP=0.97 or so with 0.95. I think my lower value comes from the higher frequency end of the bolometer response that has higher BB radiance and so counts more than you would think – here the alumina spectral emissivity starts to decrease. But I have not included another error, the fact that alumina spectral emissivity goes up slightly at higher temperatures so I’m comfortable with 0.95. Overall effect is COP maybe 10% lower than my estimates.

            I also agree that at higher frequencies the alumina is mostly transparent and the radiation will come more from some internal surface – presumably the heater wire. This will make tital radiant power estimate higher than my calculation. See below for comments.

            For ridges (COP higher) and wye/delta (COP n/a) see below for comment and estimate.

            The effect of ridges is I believe not as you say. There is a lot of work on radiation from non-flat (opaque – as is true for the temperature measurement though not for all radiant power calculation) surfaces. Ridges have the same effect as a rough surface, which is to increase emissivity by the view factor. For this surface (90 degree apex ridges) the view factor is 0.279 (1-sin(45)) and the emissivity change is then:
            0.4 -> 0.48
            0.9 -> 0.93
            and so on.

            So you get maybe a 20% uplift from higher emissivity and a 5% reduction from lower actual temperature, because the band emissivity is a little bit higher and the calculation is quite sensitive to this.

            I have not been including this because it seems one step of complexity too far but it must be considered as a known error – as far as I can see the uplift is clear. I’m less sure what is the effect over frequencies where the alumina is transparent and reflective but I have no information the analysis is different?

            Transparent alumina analysis
            If we suppose heater wire and surface alumina are nearly the same temperature reasonable given the geometry) we have a maximum increase from 0.55 (alumina) to 1 (wire) total emissivity. Looking at the BB spectrum at this temperature (765C) a lot of the power is at lower frequencies where the alumina is not transparent. We could estimate maybe 50% of power in the “transparent” window as a rough approximation to the real complex case, but it could be much less, or a little more.

            From which we get a maximum radiant power uplift of 0.77/0.55 = 40%. That is supposing the wire total emissivity is 1 (probably close to true) and that the wire is 100% of the visible surface area (false). I’d put the increment lower at 20% due to the fact that the wire does not cover all the reactor body visible area. There is then a reduction for caps (no wire but lower temperature) and convection. Maybe 15% uplift would be my best guess.

            There is a lot of hand-waving here which is why I prefer to note this issue as real rather than try to estimate it, but this shows that although it is a significant possible uplift in COP it does not outweigh experimental errors which due to the indirect nature of the calculations I’d put at 50%.

            Wye vs Delta connection.
            That is a very sensible speculation. I had not considered it as feasible but should have. If so it explains exactly (with 10% which can be resistor tolerance) the change in resistance. The dummy is described and analysed as being Wye, and I can’t see how the reactor could be rewired for Delta without changing the external wiring. Still I agree, it makes sense of everything and I’ll go with it. While it does not directly change power measurements I’d reserve judgement about some second order effect. The 3.3 change in current implies resistor imbalance which if the power is calculated from one phase assuming symmetry would be an issue leading to up to 20% error. Add this to the list of experiment known possible errors.

          • Obvious

            Looking back at the page for Bob Higgins paper, I see that I had found the ridges to increase Emissivity. So I mixed that up somewhere, and agree with you here. Wide angle ridges and oblique view angles might cause a drop, but is probably not meriting too much consideration at present.
            0.89 emissivity for the camera is probably a reasonable value. I suggested 0.95 as starting point, which is much higher than used for Lugano.
            Why 0.7 worked for the camera calibration is an interesting problem.

          • Warthog

            “I have an engineer’s understanding that things go wrong, and that any
            variable not tied down tends to bite you unexpectedly. And I’m aware of
            the care and precision with which scientific papers need to be written.”

            Then perhaps you should have given a bit more credence to Beaudette’s analysis, as he is also an engineer with excellent credentials in his field.

            “The more extraordinary and important the claim the more care is needed.”

            Standard skeptopath comment “…extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof….”. Sorry….no. REAL science has no such requirement.

            “The paper is badly written in one sense. It presents excess heat in
            these experiments as a known phenomena, without either referencing where
            this fact is established, or establishing it.”

            REALLY??? You have now read and understood in depth all the references in the paper???

            “This is an incidental criticism because when you read the paper it is
            clear that whether or not excess heat exists is not the question being
            answered here.

            Well, at long last you get something right. The point of the paper is to show the precision of the calorimetry..

      • Dr. Mike

        Thomas,
        Thanks for the explanation of the work you are doing and the preliminary results. I believe that it is quite acceptable to present the final results for the COP as a probable range rather than a fixed calculated value.
        I am concerned with your COP calculation of 0.77 for the dummy run. Does this mean that the authors are under estimating heat losses from conduction and convection? How would this impact the COP calculations for the active runs? I believe that one important thing demonstrated in the Lugano work for all others working on LENR experiments is the requirement to run the “control” of the experiment close to the expected operating temperature of the active run.
        One other concern that I have is that of all the data in the Lugano report, the most important is the data showing all of the NI in the reactor (0.55gr) was converted to NI62. This result was established by two measurement techniques, both a surface analysis (ToF SIMS) and bulk analysis (ICP-MS). I haven’t attempted to do the calculation, but it seems that just this single nuclear mechanism of converting of all of the Ni to Ni62 should set a lower limit on the expected minimum active run COP.
        Dr. Mike

        • Thomas Clarke

          0.55g Ni58 will release 3e10J on capturing H, based on isotopic mass delta.
          That is 12kW for a month by my reckoning.
          Ni60 delivers half the energy, and is maybe 20% of Ni mass, so there is a 15% reduction.

      • Warthog

        Enough. Not interested in hearing you repeat the same bogosity over and over and over. I will not respond further

        • EEStorFanFibb

          LOL good for you Warthog!

          tom your walls of text are as appreciated here as they were on theeestory.com. IOW, not very.

  • Warthog

    “The weight of evidence for CD increased, and also the theoretical and empirical issues got very well thrashed out.”

    Which is precisely the case for CF. The picture of scarcity of results you paint is simply false.

    ” I think though that I am interested in a whole load of details (for
    example different control runs needed to answer questions about
    potential calorimetry errors) that you would maybe not consider
    relevant.”

    I’m an analytical chemist. Calorimetry and thermal methods are stock in trade in what we do. The people who are largely ignorant of calorimetry are physicists, as it is a tool not normally used in their work

    “Conferences provide some scrutiny but proper analysis needs to be done off line and takes time. It also needs details to do, otherwise all you
    can do is point to gaps.”

    Which is why all the conference proceedings are PUBLISHED! Much more detail is available in the printed proceedings than is given in the oral presentations. I’ve participated in a number of conferences (non LENR) where the proceedings were published as regular journal article full papers. .

    • Thomas Clarke

      Yes, some conferences have submissions up to near journal quality. Published conference papers can indeed be properly reviewed.

      Just one correction. I’m not compalining about scarcity of results. I’m complaining about scarcity of followup, one group analysing and commenting on results of another group, checking them, etc.

      Or, in theoretical field, proponents of theories noting which experimental results they are/are not compatible with, which other theories they are/are not compatible with. This sort of analysis helps sort out the wheat from the chaff. It is doemn in LENR field much less than I’d expect.

  • Thomas Clarke

    Just a mostly but not all OT comment. Anyone interested in the (OT but difficult to move elsewhere) Lugano results discussed below should read Obvious’s comments below and mine. With Obvious’s excellent suggestion of Wye/Delta connection change we resolve the electrical anomaly in the results. We also have an indicator to a possible +/- 20% (estimated max) electrical error in input power that could be different between dummy and active tests. That is useful because it explains the difference between the two COP values. We now have a very complex but plausible analysis of the results using a real COP=1 throughout with all measurements within expected errors. Note that complex analysis is just life, whereas complex hypothesis would be discouraged by Occam’s razor. However as Obvious points out the possible errors are quite large, so this does not rule out COP significantly greater than 1. I’d put the limit at 1.5 maximum. That leads to a discussion of why the measured sample should 99% transmutation to 62Ni when at most 10% of the Ni could be converted to 62Ni – any larger conversion would release more energy than was observed at the maximum feasible COP of 1.5.

    My motivation is largely to explore and understand anomalies – so the fact that the Lugano results (otehr than the isotopic conversion) can be understood is a great satisfaction to me – even though it is perhaps a disappointment to those seeing this as strong evidence of LENR. LENR was advocated, with interesting anomalous results, for many years before Rossi – and perhaps this should be remembered.

    Also, and this is not OT for this thread which is about scientific scrutiny and the joining up of dots, we should note the isotopic shift results.

    Prima facie a shift from natural abundance to near complete conversion of Ni to 62Ni is a strong sign of a nuclear reaction, and one driven strongly to completion. Although there are mechanisms to separate isotopes they do not easily provide such precise separation in a single step.

    However, if such a shift has ocurred the total mass deficit (between 58Ni and 62Ni for say 60% of the fuel) gives a released energy which is >3X higher than that noted in the report and >10X higher than my maximum experimental error estimate.

    So any hypotheses resting on these results must explain partial or no Ni conversion with a “randomly selected” sample of ash showing 99% conversion.

    Most scientists are remarkably suspicious when anomalies pile up like this. Of course you can always elaborate theories, taking the sampled 99% conversion as sure evidence of nuclear activity and explaining around it. Or you can simply reject the result without replication.

    The sad fact is that anomalous results due to errors are quite common, and historically the right thing to do is to reject results that are anomalous and inconsistent as with this isotopic measurement.

    Most scientists do not like to personalise science – mistakes are always much more likely than deliberate falsification although very occasionally there are examples of the latter. They would take an inconsistency, as here, as indicating a result that is more likely error than something needing a very complex hypothesis to explain. That is an application of Occam’s razor (on the grounds that errors are common and difficult to uncover, so always a likely explanation of one-off results that do not otherwise make sense, even when they are not easy to see).

  • Thomas Clarke

    I note the posted F&P paper:

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

    I agree with Warthog that this paper has a lot of interesting detail, and looks very well written. I’d like to ask who (perhaps in the LENR community) has made a serious scientific critique of it? Given its iconic status I’d hope that has been done in which case rather than critiquing it myself – a big job with a lot of needed learning for me in the process – I can read other critiques, compare with arguments in paper , and start from a more informed position.

    A small challenge. If I (not very expert) can find valid serious lack of detail not considered in the paper, or valid serious issues with the paper, not discussed in literature by other LENR researchers, I’ll take that as evidence of lack of helpful criticism in this area, and an example of why MFMP is needed specially here.

    Perhaps such critiques – not lay person summaries but serious quantitative analyses of all the assumptions and their validity – could be posted below this comment?

    My initial reaction is simply that any result that requires so much analysis to determine its validity is unfortunate, because even very good criticism may miss subtle errors at some point in the analysis. Sometimes all we have is these very complex results, so I’m not knocking them, but they do need especial care and checking by multiple people.

    • Thomas Clarke

      I’ve actually looked at this paper a little and unless I’m missing something I have a real lack of detail to report.

      The paper concerns calorimetry of a system claimed to generate significant excess heat. The calorimetry is described in very great detail, with interesting analysis. I accepted this. However the overall conclusion (significant excess heat) comes from a comparison of heat input and heat output.

      The largest (by far) contribution to heat output comes from the enthalpy of vapourisation of D2O. Basically the cells get hot and boil dry quite quickly.

      If this contribution is wrong by decent factor the heat balance works without excess energy. Wet vapour is known to alter enthalpy by such a large factor.

      My problem is in evaluating this contribution. I could find no analysis of it, or explanation of how the evaporated vapour is known to be dry, etc. Maybe I’m missing this? In the absence of such analysis the vaporisation component of the energy could be wildly in error, and hence the overall result could be unsafe. It is surprising to me that so much care is attached to the component of the enthalpy which does not dominate, and less care to the component of the enthalpy that does dominate, where errors are much more significant.

      Apologies if I’m raising something naive already considered by others here.

      • Warthog

        So…you’ve looked at the paper “a little”. Perhaps you should do something like look at it “in detail”. You’ve barely had time to read it, much less digest it. And certainly not enough to to even glance at the references.

        Do you “really” believe that if the authors are correcting for such a minor variable as atmospheric pressure, that they would miss a major variable like particulate water escape?? Seriously???

        You exhibit the same rush to judgement that you displayed with Beaudette’s book…scan it quickly, find something you object to, and dismiss it all. That pattern of response is absolutely typical of the crowd of pathological skeptics, including your “search” for “critiques”, which basically amounts to “I want to find which track the skeptic response is on so I can climb on the train.”

        Bah…..a waste of time…..but so very typical of responses I have gotten from other “pseudoskeptics” in other fora.

        • Thomas Clarke

          Perhaps you, or somone else more familiar with this paper, could correct me in that case. You will see that I asked for this, and did not assume i was right.

          I think you misunderstand the way that understanding can be reached here. It is through question and answer. My question here is a simple one, and I am expecting that it will have an answer, but without a few hours reading the paper I cannot know. I was expecting there would be many here more familiar with this paper than me who would be able to answer this quickly.

          You also mistake criticism for dismissal. I am very happy for my “first impressions” to be corrected, and were this a more formal forum I would indeed check more carefully before publishing (in fact if i did not do this peer reviewers would no doubt point this out).

          You also mischaracterise my issue here. I found something that I wanted more information on, and I then could not find the extra information. My action in looking for this was rational because the vapor phase change enthalpy is the largest term in the energy budget so naturally I checked it first. It is unkind of you to be rude to people who are looking for answers and ask for help just because they are unable immediately, to find them

          As for whether my comment here is a waste of time. If you have already considered the matter I raise, then it would be. In that case you could do me and others new to this paper the favour of noting where in the paper the relevant work is located.

          • Warthog

            LOL. You dance nicely….all around the issues, addressing none. I’m glad you belatedly managed to realize that, in scientific papers, details are usually found in the footnotes/references.

            I’m no more familiar with this specific paper than you are. Since “I” haven’t had time to work through either the paper OR the references, I know you have not.

            And yet your only comments were to criticize, without taking the time to familiarize yourself. “Understanding” is to be gained from actually reading the paper itself, not from asking for “critiques” or “asking questions”.

            “I” consider it “unkind” for people to criticize work with which they haven’t bothered to familiarize themselves.

            I posted the link to this specific paper because 1) the paper directly involved P&F’s work, 2) it directly referred to calorimetry (which you have previously claimed expertise with), 3) because it was obviously a well-written paper, 4) it was a paper derived from an ICCF talk, and thus illustrative of the high quality of the published papers from those conferences, despite your disparagement of conference papers as a source of “good science”, and 5) because the link had just popped up on my radar screen, and I found the juxtaposition of this paper interesting in that it demolishes most of your “arguments” about conference papers being “poor quality science” and thus not worthy of being given credence.

          • Thomas Clarke

            I’ve no specific expertise with calorimetry. Just an amateur’s interest, and normal physics. I’ve followed matters enough to have some idea of what are the issues.

            I have an engineer’s understanding that things go wrong, and that any variable not tied down tends to bite you unexpectedly. And I’m aware of the care and precision with which scientific papers need to be written. The more extraordinary and important the claim the more care is needed.

            Mike here suggested I look at the F&P work, and I’d like to do so but really what I need is the specific paper with best evidence for excess heat.

            The point of this thread is not to disparage the quality of papers, it is to point out that without serious criticism no paper can be trusted. I find the lack of such criticism surprising. For example, this paper may or may not be a correct exposition of calorimetry (would take some time to determine, but I’ve no reason to think not). It is not a correct description of excess heat and should not be taken as that. The excess heat measurements are incidental to the main thrust of the paper and added almost as throw-away remarks – no doubt with the understanding that they are justified elsewhere.

            The paper is badly written in one sense. It presents excess heat in these experiments as a known phenomena, without either referencing where this fact is established, or establishing it.

            This is an incidental criticism because when you read the paper it is clear that whether or not excess heat exists is not the question being answered here. But I’d guess it might confuse a few people here. And precision about what is shown where is surely important when the matter being discussed is extraordinary and not well understood.

          • Warthog

            “I have an engineer’s understanding that things go wrong, and that any
            variable not tied down tends to bite you unexpectedly. “

            Then perhaps you should have given a bit more credence to Beaudette’s analyses, as he is also an engineer, and with excellent credentials in his field (and probably better than yours). But having “skimmed” his book you apparently managed not to skim the author’s bio.

            “The more extraordinary and important the claim the more care is needed.”

            Standard skeptopath comment “…extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof….”. Sorry….no. REAL science has no such requirement.

            “The paper is badly written in one sense. It presents excess heat in
            these experiments as a known phenomena, without either referencing where this fact is established, or establishing it.”

            REALLY??? You have now read and understood in depth all the references in the paper??? I haven’t. And it will be a while yet before I do.

            “This is an incidental criticism because when you read the paper it is
            clear that whether or not excess heat exists is not the question being
            answered here.

            Well, at long last you get something right. The point of the paper is to show the precision of the calorimetry. .

          • Thomas Clarke

            To answer:
            There is no statement in the paper of which reference established excess heat. In fact the references are given as background to calorimetry technique. So any claim in the paper for excess heat is not justified. And my statement is correct – it does not require that I read the references. Maybe there is some other paper which makes the claim and supports it, but if so we would not know this from the current paper.

            The paper, interestingly, does not show the precision of the calorimetry needed to establish excess heat. From the figures, the calorimetry it deal with is neither necessary nor sufficient to establish that, whereas the phase change calorimetry not discussed is both necessary and sufficient.

            So it seems completely irrelevant to an LENR conference – though some other paper by F&P might be relevant.

          • Warthog

            And why should there be. Scientists are expected to actually READ the paper AND the references, not be led around by the hand (or nose)..

            But you exhibit another characteristic of the pseudo-skeptic here….complete refusal to actually study the subject, other than when presented as a “critique” that fits your prejudices.

            You’re not worth the time wastage to continue with. Bye!

          • Thomas Clarke

            I have read many research papers. And written a few.

            No-one is meant to read the references unless they want to explore further. In this case the paper contains no comment on phase change results, nor directs the reader to a reference that would describe them properly. They are a throw-away add-on – which alone justifies the claim of excess heat.

            I was interested in seeing what evidence F&P provided, after Mike here and others said this was important. Which is why I read this paper. I’m still at a loss to find a paper from F&P with strong evidence for excess heat.

            I have before encountered the response, when I ask for strong evidence, that people will point me to several 1000 papers and say “it is in there”.

            For anyone seriously reading papers that is no good, it takes too long. So, I ask those who have read the papers which is one of the F&P papers that proves excess heat, so I can review it. If F continued experiments after the original announcement I’d expect that he published stronger evidence than the original rushed paper.

          • Warthog

            Enough. Not interested in hearing you repeat the same bogosity over and over and over. I will not respond further

          • LOL good for you Warthog!

            tom your walls of text are as appreciated here as they were on theeestory.com. IOW, not very.

      • Thomas Clarke

        I note that this paper includes 6 references to previous work (1-6). These say they relate to the approach to calorimetry and therefore may well show ways in which steam dryness can be assured in this experiment.

        It would take a while to read them all – no indication is given as to which if any does this.

        In any case there is no statement here that these results follow precisely the methodology of previous ones – which checks are done. There is a weak implication, but it is not enough. This paper focusses on the calorimetry itself, rather than the results.

        All of which means that this paper is not a definite write-up of extraordinary excess heat. Any such would be careful to check all issues explicitly and carefully especially because of the unusual nature of the results. Perhaps one of the earlier papers does show this reliably, but I’m only looking at what was posted on this thread as evidence (I don’t think it was written as this however).

        I should also point out that if these results use dry steam the heat excess here is LENR+ and suitable, as far as I can see, for commercial exploitation a long time ago. A reliable and replicable “LENR works” demonstrator could be based on this pretty easily with bomb-proof calorimetry. So I guess I’m confused.

  • Warthog

    So…you’ve looked at the paper “a little”. Perhaps you should do something like look at it “in detail”. You’ve barely had time to read it, much less digest it. And certainly not enough to to even glance at the references.

    Do you “really” believe that if the authors are correcting for such a minor variable as atmospheric pressure, that they would miss a major variable like particulate water escape?? Seriously???

    You exhibit the same rush to judgement that you displayed with Beaudette’s book…scan it quickly, find something you object to, and dismiss it all. That pattern of response is absolutely typical of the crowd of pathological skeptics, including your “search” for “critiques”, which basically amounts to “I want to find which track the skeptic response is on so I can climb on the train.”

    Bah…..a waste of time…..but so very typical of responses I have gotten from other “pseudoskeptics” in other fora.

  • friendlyprogrammer

    Can you say the above with a straight face? I find it puzzling that non scientists such as yourself can contradict the Chief Research Scientist at NASA Langley amongst dozens of equally eminent minds.

    You say 1% of scientists would endorse anything, but they would not be claiming they have seen it work experimentally.

    We also have affirmations from The US Navy, US department of Defense, National instruments, European Directorate-General, as well as leading scientists and professors worldwide.

    If you seriously wish to deny LENR as a possibility then you are way on the wrong website because 99.99% of people here are not ignorant enough to doubt any longer.

    Feel free to guess at the mechanisms behind LENR, but denying it or even suggesting it might not be real is very silly and goes against common sense to a high degree.

    I apologize if it is just your lack of information on the topic, but you seem to be a bit behind in understanding atm.

    Your posts are reminiscent of 2011 when there was a lot of confusion, but nowadays I’d say most everyone here has accepted LENR as a reality. We have followed replication after replication from High School Classes to Universities to corporations.

    Roughly 1700 Peer reviewed papers and hundreds of replications since 1989, so take your picks. Dozens of books are also available on LENR.

    Brian Josephson is (was) a Physics professor by the way.. Best known for his pioneering work on superconductivity and quantum tunneling.

    QUANTUM TUNNELING IS A KEY PART OF UNDERSTANDING LENR.

    How is he better than Nature Reviewers? He won a Nobel Prize for his understanding of the atom and the quantum world. How many of Nature reviewers can make such a claim?

    That was when he was only 22 years old. He has since taught physics at a University level for the remainder of his life.

    You said, “Josephson shows a lack of judgement here in making a critical comment about something well outside his field which he has obviously not
    carefully studied himself. Why is he better than Nature reviewers would
    be?”

    “Well outside his field”?
    Here is his wikipedia link.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Josephson

    Odd comment considering he has openly studied and endorsed Cold Fusion and has been criticized for it, despite the fact his track record has proven he is within his field of study.

    I don’t think you will find many here who will convert to doubting LENR. LENR is a given as far as I’m concerned.

    • bachcole

      Lately, when asking authority figures questions, I find myself saying, “Why have you come to believe this”. There are just too many authority figures who say things because it is the “common” knowledge, because it is in their interests, because some other authority figure said so, because it seems logical, etc. etc. etc.

      My questioning like this is an example of the coming epistemological revolution that I seek.

      • friendlyprogrammer

        Without there being any current accepted understanding of LENR then the only method to come to accept it would be viewing it. When one person had viewed it I was a skeptic, but with each claim of replication the doubt leaves more and more.

        Now with dozens of claimed replications from people who seem to be involved and responsible (NASA employees for example) doubt has gone from my mind.

        With R&D we normally are privvy to the tip of the iceberg in details so I’m wondering if the underground research is panning out while we bicker over Rossi.

        Part of me doubts that though because Rossi sort of aimed LENR towards the Nickel versions.

        I don’t know if Ive ever questioned anyone’s belief or how they reached it. The question I normally ask is if I agree with them.

        • bachcole

          This whole cold fusion trip has been a helpful and challenging course in practical epistemology, the wing of philosophy of how it is that we know things. Your coming to believe in cold fusion is pretty much the same as mine.

          Even Rossi needed Focardi to assure him that he wasn’t crazy.

  • Warthog

    And why should there be. Scientists are expected to actually READ the paper AND the references, not be led around by the hand (or nose)..

    But you exhibit another characteristic of the pseudo-skeptic here….complete refusal to actually study the subject, other than when presented as a “critique” that fits your prejudices.

    You’re not worth the time wastage to continue with. Bye!

  • Obvious

    I have no idea how you get a factor of four for any of the currents. The basis of all the current calculations are RMS measurements or derivatives of RMS measurements. So peak currents in our models, wye or delta, have to respect the measurements or their derivatives based on those values. So peak currents should not exceed sqrt(2) times any current we use properly. This means that phase modified waveforms will be less than the peak, and less than the RMS of full conduction by a factor related to the reduced conduction period, since the average relates the RMS to a full wave value due to time averaging.

    • Thomas Clarke

      If you look at the current shown in the report waveform picture it is a typical scr switched waveform with a small duty cycle – which we also expect because we know the black box is an scr controller. From which I get my approx factor of 4. A sinusoid would give sqrt(2) peak/RMS – but this is far from a sinusoid. The peak is a lot higher than typical for a sinusoid – but how much higher is debatable. One thing i don’t understand is why the current waveform seems to have slow edges – you’d normally expect the triac switching to be fast. But maybe this is an artifact.

      For example, for a square wave duty cycle D we have RMS value sqrt(D) times peak value. the wave form here is a bit more complex but same idea.

      • Obvious

        The RMS of a Square wave is 1 times peak. A duty cycle of 50% is 0.5 times RMS. maybe with a super Guassian crest factor something extra might happen.

        • Thomas Clarke

          The waveforms they show look like half-sinusoid pulses – don’t ask me why.

          a duty cycle of 0.5 (0 for 50% of time, +1 or -1 for 50%) is sqrt(0.5) RMS. Maybe we were talking about different things?

          Tom

  • James Andrew Rovnak

    Thomas just thought of another way to look at this from my point of view. I’ve mentioned in the past I have done many dynamic simulations of nuclear plants both for control studies & wide range transient analysis and served on post test data analysis teams. Because of time constraints, available computer computation power at that time & need for results quickly in my working career which ended 15 years ago we would set say the radiation heat transfer coefficient to fit design values at say full load ie if we knew heat Q was proportional to fourth power of temperature & use that model in transient analysis dynamic code for test predictions. My point is if you have slow ramp data of fueled & unfueled LENR element, Its the difference that allows one to estimate presence of nuclear power generating in process, MFMPs estimated COP in spread sheets etc. So when dynamic data is available & thermal difference spotted the presence is inherently obvious without any detailed radiation heat transfer calculations necessary to see the presence of a nuclear power generation process. We Simulated high temperature gas cooled reactors with this technique & they predicted dynamic response quite well over a wide range, say 10 to 100 percent load! So all one has to know is what steady state design was target. All the metal masses, vaporization/condensation processes involved in dynamics where handled the same way. Hope this makes sense to you, I am not very good at explaining, So when MFMP ran the last power vs TC of unfueled element & you visually compare it to fueled first test one can see the presence of nuclear source! Jim Hope I have shed some light.