Forbes: Is Cold Fusion Feasible or a Fraud? (Ethan Siegel)

Thanks to georgehants for posting a link to a new article on the Forbes website by Ethan Siegel titled: “Is Cold Fusion Feasible, Or is it a Fraud?” Link his here: http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/09/23/is-cold-fusion-feasible-or-is-it-a-fraud/#4979732f1903

This is another article from an established media entity on the subject of cold fusion lately, so for some reason there’s more attention being paid in the editorial rooms. Siegel focuses on the work of Andrea Rossi and the E-Cat and testing results that have been published. He uses the example of the Mechanical Turk to show that some things that seem real actually turn out to be frauds and fakes, and suggests cold fusion could be something similar. He suggests a creative use of power meters in tests could be used to give false readings.

His conclusion:

This doesn’t necessarily mean that they’re lying, that LENR is impossible or that there’s fraud going on. But it isn’t the job of science to prove that someone is fooling us; it’s the job of a good scientist to prove to the world that we aren’t fooling ourselves when we make an extraordinary claim. As soon as that bar is cleared — and that starts with the people working on this making an extraordinary effort to demonstrate that bar is cleared — we can promote LENR or cold fusion to the realm of real, robust and incredible science. But until that day, we should all remain skeptical. In the words of Richard Feynman:

The first principle is that you must not fool yourself. And you are the easiest person to fool.

  • Pekka Janhunen

    A fair conclusion. I like the word “we” in “when we make an extraordinary claim”. Almost like an implicit call for funding for CF scientific research.

    • Gerard McEk

      According Bob Greenyer that happens next week or the week after.

      • sam

        Bob Greenyer georgehants
        5 hours ago
        I will speak about it during ICCF20.

        It needs cooperation of a party and for their claims to be true. But it will be 100% conclusive that LENR is real if these pre-requisites are met.

      • artefact

        From Lenr-Forum:
        Mark Underwood wrote:
        “Melvin Miles. The ash is simple helium. I liked this experiment because
        it went back to basics. Even the now politically incorrect moniker ‘cold
        fusion’ got back the respect it deserved, but lost, decades ago. It was
        truly a Pons and Fleischmann memorial project.

  • Pekka Janhunen

    A fair conclusion. I like the word “we” in “when we make an extraordinary claim”. Almost like an implicit call for funding for CF scientific research.

    • Gerard McEk

      According Bob Greenyer that happens next week or the week after.

      • sam

        Bob Greenyer georgehants
        5 hours ago
        I will speak about it during ICCF20.

        It needs cooperation of a party and for their claims to be true. But it will be 100% conclusive that LENR is real if these pre-requisites are met.

      • artefact

        From Lenr-Forum:
        Mark Underwood wrote:
        “Melvin Miles. The ash is simple helium. I liked this experiment because
        it went back to basics. Even the now politically incorrect moniker ‘cold
        fusion’ got back the respect it deserved, but lost, decades ago. It was
        truly a Pons and Fleischmann memorial project.”
        But there is a smiley after the text…

  • Buck

    Compared to prior vitriolic pieces by Siegel arguing against the reality of LENR, this is a very real change. It is a movement towards acceptance, taken one small step at a time.

    Another small step in the right direction for Main Stream Media.

  • Ethan Siegal is a fraud himself he represents what is wrong with “science” any take on cutting edge science it’s mostly “Intellectual Rubbish” if it’s not backed up by experimentation and facts. It would be like seeing the Wright Brothers first Airplanes fly for a few minutes then saying “Well, we are only fooling ourselves if we think what we saw is real, it’s not real until we have 10 people with a fleet of airplanes flying all the time”, that type of circular logic is a fool’s journey. It’s simply not how scientific discovery and advancement works. Experimentation renders results, not “claims”. You can measure and test results, you can’t measure “claims”. Unless you measured and tested the result you cannot definitively say that the results are not real, you can only “claim” that they are not. You can claim anything, it’s easy to do.
    Also, by mostly focusing on Rossi he is giving an incomplete picture of the state of the science.

    • Michael W Wolf

      Yea, agree. Kaku said unless it is repeatable and can be sustained, it is not viable. I wrote back to him. Are you serious? If it happens once, it is a miracle. What do we need scientists for if the scientists wait for a commercial product, before they take it seriously? Kaku wants the laymen to do his job.

  • Buck

    Compared to prior vitriolic pieces by Siegel arguing against the reality of LENR, this is a very real change. It is a movement towards acceptance, taken one small step at a time.

    Another small step in the right direction for Main Stream Media.

    • Warthog

      I doubt that this reflects any change at all on his part, as his total meme is that cold fusion is just another fraud, and all attempts that claim success are fraudulent. I suspect that the language is couched in politer terms than he has used elsewhere, because this is Forbes, and not a blog forum

      • Buck

        I believe if you read in chronological order you will find that Siegel’s attitude and language have changed in the direction I’ve suggested. Just scanning the headlines will highlight the trend. Therefore, from his words I see a slow softening away from his original strident points of view. It should also be noted that RealClearScience is a Forbes online publication.

        Further, I have no doubt that the executives at Forbes are aware of Congress’ request for the DOD’s evaluation of LENR and they may be aware of DTRA’s recently released report. This might suggest that Forbes doesn’t want to be caught fully denying the LENR-powered hot potato.

        Link #1: http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2011/12/05/the-nuclear-physics-of-why-we/

        Link #2: http://www.realclearscience.com/2011/12/06/cold_fusion_scam_exposed_again_244371.html

        Link #3: http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2013/05/21/the-e-cat-is-back-and-people-are-still-falling-for-it/

        Link #4: http://www.realclearscience.com/2013/05/22/cold_fusion_is_back_and_it039s_still_bogus_253125.html

        Link #5: http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/09/23/is-cold-fusion-feasible-or-is-it-a-fraud/#126612941903

        • TVulgaris

          I agree, especially that editorial influence might be a major impetus to soften the tone- most of those executives have direct access to the information we get hints and trickles about years before the FOIA requests release the real troves of fact. As long as Rossi and a few others can keep the controversy going, it generates prurient interest while deflecting close examination of surrounding events. It sells VERY well to the public without the slightest possibility of the public catching on to what’s truly important, yet enables them to gradually shift public opinion in favor of having governmental regulatory “control” of this exciting new industry that strangely enough only a few major players from the tippy-top of the Fortune 500 can afford to dabble in (it’ll still be “10 or 12 years away”, so as to RTM when the tiny HF reactors become available, wonder of wonders, at an equivalent price point/MW…).

      • roseland67

        Wart,

        Lubos Motl is the guy that believes that
        Rossi is a fraud and should be in prison.
        Ethan Siegel has actually documented exactly what would he wants to see to show that LENR can actually work as indicated.
        Unfortunately, Rossi is probably not going to acquiesce

        • Warthog

          There is a huge gulf between “Rossi is a fraud” (possible) and “LENR is a fraud” (not possible). I long ago quit paying attention to exactly which skeptopath has exactly which slight variation of negativity.

  • Zephir

    Feasible is not opposite of fraud. For example the hot fusion is definitely not a fraud, because it also runs inside the Sun – but is it really feasible, economically the more? This is the question by now.

    • roseland67

      Well put

    • Bob Greenyer

      Well, the version which includes stellar levels of gravity is not the same as any hot fusion research I am aware of as in progress or planned on earth. The misconception that they are equivalent is prevalent but it is not true.

      Hot fusion compensates lack of stellar gravity with kinetics (temperature)

      LENR (that targeted to practical harnessing of mass/binding energy to other energy conversion) compensates lack of stellar gravity by some form of lattice / chemical based catalytic effect which may include some sort of heavy electron or equivalent combined with bringing the reactants into as close a proximity as possible in a non-equilibrium state.

      • INVENTOR INVENTED

        According to wikipedia- “In solid state physics, a particle’s effective mass (often denoted m*) is the mass that it seems to have when responding to forces, or the mass that it seems to have when en masse with other identical particles in a thermal distribution. One of the results from the band theory of solids is that the movement of particles in a periodic potential,
        over long distances larger than the lattice spacing, can be very
        different from their motion in a vacuum. The effective mass is a
        quantity that is used to simplify band structures by constructing an
        analogy to the behavior of a free particle with that mass.

        It says that the effective mas is a property seen at the scale of “long distances larger than the the lattice spacing.”
        The scale of nuclear interactions is much smaller than the lattice spacing. I think that there might still be a heavy electron effect at smaller scales mediated by the uncertainty principle.

        The main idea of alot of LENR theories is that heavy electrons will orbit closer to an atoms’s nucleus and screen the charge between it and another nucleus. The charge screening reduces the repulsion between nuclei that fuse or otherwise react, and release energy.

  • Frechette

    There must be a lot of fools all over the world because they observed unexplained excess heat in LENR experiments according to this scribbler.

  • Frechette

    There must be a lot of fools all over the world because they observed unexplained excess heat in LENR experiments according to this scribbler.

    • roseland67

      Frechette,

      With all of these “observations”, has anyone ever replicated any of these experiments?

      • Warthog

        Yes, repeatedly. How many replications are necessary?? Toyota replicated the Mitsubishi work on transmutation. That BY ITSELF should have been more than enough proof of the reality of the phenomenon.

      • Frechette

        @ roseland67

        Yes indeed the observations have been replicated.

        For instance, Michael McKubre of SRI replicated the original Pons and Fleischmann experiment and demonstrated that the degree of deuterium loading of the palladium electrode was crucial for observing the effect. Below a certain threshold no excess heat. Above this threshold heat. He did the experiment and demonstrated replication. He is not the only one.

        You might want to do some research before claiming no one has succeeded in replication.

  • Bob Matulis

    SSM black box with no power input would be nice. Until this is produced there is legitimate reason for skepticism.

    • Andrew

      Here I’ll fix that for you.

      Rigorous scientific testing, proof of isotopic shifts, conformation of excess heat or detection of any type of nuclear emission would be nice. Until this is produced there is a legitimate reason for skepticism.

      • Mats002

        If you were right – which I am afraid you are not – LENR would be accepted by now. Me too was naive thinking that kind of evidence would be sufficient but hey – after 5+ years of following the LENR community, both pros and cons – what you suggest just isn’t so.

        • TVulgaris

          Some skeptics need no legitimate reason based on the evidence, they simply need the check in hand, or recognition is some places, or a serious departmental presence in fossil fuels or nuclear generation, or…and the list of reasons they will consider legitimate continues at some length.

        • Andrew

          Mats, I have been following the Rossi saga since before ecatworld and to this date I have not seen 1 independent replication with the exact same setup. I believe it is there and I believe it will happen. My problem isn’t with the data it’s with our current scientific dogma. There is absolutely NO REWARD structure set up for people that confirm others works. There is no Nobel prize for being the second to discover something. This is why we hear about all these “studies” being done. They call the studies and not facts because no peer review has been done. And why is that? Because scientific prestige ($$$ more pay)comes from publishing as many articles in the most prestigious journals as possible, not for fact checking the competition.

          • Warthog

            Andrew is not referring to Rossi, but the larger research “universe” of LENR. All criteria for genuine scientifically valid proof have long been satisfied, AND IGNORED.

            The anti-LENR position has nothing whatsoever to do with science….it is about protecting multi-million dollar budgets for physics research.

      • roseland67

        Andrew,

        Agreed,

        Rigorous testing & replication, of claimed successful experiments by multiple non affiliated sources showing excess heat and/or element transmutation.
        Then Ethen Siegel AND Lubos Motl will write positive articles about LENR,
        Until then? No chance, no way, no how.

  • Bob Matulis

    SSM black box with no power input would be nice. Until this is produced there is legitimate reason for skepticism.

    • Andrew

      Here I’ll fix that for you.

      Rigorous scientific testing, proof of isotopic shifts, conformation of excess heat or detection of any type of nuclear emission would be nice. Until this is produced there is a legitimate reason for skepticism.

      • Mats002

        If you were right – which I am afraid you are not – LENR would be accepted by now. Me too was naive thinking that kind of evidence would be sufficient but hey – after 5+ years of following the LENR community, both pros and cons – what you suggest just isn’t so.

        • TVulgaris

          Some skeptics need no legitimate reason based on the evidence, they simply need the check in hand, or recognition is some places, or a serious departmental presence in fossil fuels or nuclear generation, or…and the list of reasons they will consider legitimate continues at some length.

        • Andrew

          Mats, I have been following the Rossi saga since before ecatworld and to this date I have not seen 1 independent replication with the exact same setup. I believe it is there and I believe it will happen. My problem isn’t with the data it’s with our current scientific dogma. There is absolutely NO REWARD structure set up for people that confirm others works. There is no Nobel prize for being the second to discover something. This is why we hear about all these “studies” being done. They call the studies and not facts because no peer review has been done. And why is that? Because scientific prestige ($$$ more pay)comes from publishing as many articles in the most prestigious journals as possible, not for fact checking the competition.

          • Warthog

            Andrew it isn’t “all about Rossi” but the larger research “universe” of LENR. All criteria for genuine scientifically valid proof have long been satisfied, AND IGNORED.

            The anti-LENR position has nothing whatsoever to do with science….it is about protecting multi-million dollar budgets for physics research.

      • roseland67

        Andrew,

        Agreed,

        Rigorous testing & replication, of claimed successful experiments by multiple non affiliated sources showing excess heat and/or element transmutation.
        Then Ethen Siegel AND Lubos Motl will write positive articles about LENR,
        Until then? No chance, no way, no how.

  • invient

    I particularly like this Feynman quote, given that if the data shows LENR, then it doesnt matter what theorist say.

    “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.” -Richard Feynman

  • sam

    Comment from Lenr forum
    axil
    User Avatar
    Verified User
    27 minutes ago
    AlainCo wrote:
    We can thanks Rossi and Defkalion for their help to Ethan Seagle to push the idea that LENr is necessarily fraud.

    thanks.

    You can thank the enemies of Rossi and Defkalion within the LENR community who want to take their IP and start their own businesses using that IP as a springboard.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    The best evidence for the reality of LENR (which journalists choose to ignore) is the Mitsubishi transmutations. Pairs of deuterons are reacting with heavier elements and transmuting them. This leads me to believe that what was taking place in Pons and Fleischmann’s cell was a fusion-fission reaction that turned deuterium into helium without a 24 MeV gamma ray.

    2 D + Pd > Cd* > Pd + He 24 MeV (of kinetic energy. No gamma ray)

    http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-iNy47-PKxoQ/T2ziOYJ2RvI/AAAAAAAASLo/OcvAZx1OnVo/s1600/LENRJapantransmute.png

    • Mats002

      They might fake it you know – where you there at the time? No? How can you tell?

      And if you actually WHERE there, did your sences see everything as it really was? They might had a radioactive test sample laying around under the table which someone forgot about. No fraud, only coincidence not knowing.

      This kind of scrutiny is what the LENR experimenters are up against (really, I am dead serious).

      No other science field need to face this scrutiny. And we know why also.

      EMDrive (Shawyer) know what all this is about. To good to be true. Until the then…

      • Alan DeAngelis

        It’s not real unless Rachel Maddow says it is.

      • Ciaranjay

        Yes indeed. Freedom from the shackles for those able to think.
        And also true that young blood often allows a fresh point of view over what might have become rigid dogma.

    • Alan DeAngelis

      PS

      And there are pairs of electrons, ~ in the metal hydride bonds, D~M~D. Wouldn’t they reduced the Coulomb barrier? It’s not like the sun where the electrons are stripped away and brut force is required to sustain fusion. It’s more subtle than the hot fusion approach.

      http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/dragonsdogma/images/a/a9/Cyclops.png/revision/latest?cb=20131030165830

      • Ciaranjay

        Yes, if the effect is not real then this merry-go-round could go on indefinately. Just as there are those who view LENR as rubbish and will not entertain any debate about it, so there are others who are convinced that the dream is true and will always find a reason to believe. Most people are somewhere in the middle of course.
        If you want an example of an effect that is not real see Orbo where it is now clear it was a scam but some still believe (because it can never be proved 100% it was a scam, there is always some doubt possible).

        As you can see LENR is one of those areas that promises so much that it generates a lot of hope and emotion.

        I agree that the scientific process is the best approach but there have been published papers and they are just ignored.
        Look up the recent DTRA release from Dr Pamela Mosier-Boss.
        As I said above, the science community is prone to the same human flaws as the rest of us. If something is out of favour then walls can be built.
        Of course if LENR is real then science will have to get involved to provide a deeper explanation and theory.
        The good news is of course that, through human curiosity, the truth will be found. Its just that it might take longer than we wish.
        I will stick around for a while to see what happens.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    The best evidence for the reality of LENR (which journalists choose to ignore) is the Mitsubishi transmutations. Pairs of deuterons are reacting with heavier elements and transmuting them. This leads me to believe that what was taking place in Pons and Fleischmann’s cell was a fusion-fission reaction that turned deuterium into helium without a 24 MeV gamma ray.

    2 D + Pd > Cd* > Pd + He 24 MeV (of kinetic energy. No gamma ray)

    http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-iNy47-PKxoQ/T2ziOYJ2RvI/AAAAAAAASLo/OcvAZx1OnVo/s1600/LENRJapantransmute.png

    • Mats002

      They might fake it you know – where you there at the time? No? How can you tell?

      And if you actually WHERE there, did your sences see everything as it really was? They might had a radioactive test sample laying around under the table which someone forgot about. No fraud, only coincidence not knowing.

      This kind of scrutiny is what the LENR experimenters are up against (really, I am dead serious).

      No other science field need to face this scrutiny. And we know why also.

      EMDrive (Shawyer) know what all this is about. To good to be true. Until the then…

      • Bruce__H

        All scientific fields face this sort of scrutiny. This is why peer review takes place and why replication is needed before results are taken as definitely real.

        • Mats002

          No Bruce, peer review is normally a friendly action (albeight serious) from other scientists in the same field.

          A new discovery – as in a new field – don’t meet the co-understanding that established fields do in the peer review process.

          LENR is extra-ordinary and is treated that way.

          • Bruce__H

            How many papers have you had reviewed? I’ve had many reviewed, I’ve reviewed even more, and in the past I have served as an editor for a peer reviewed publication.

            Reviews can contain direct criticisms saying things like “how do you know that there wasn’t a radioactive sample lying about that someone forgot about?” or “this is just artefact”. Often one is reviewed by one’s professional enemies, not by one’s friends and editors try to ensure that the whole process doesn’t get too chummy. From time to time as an editor I have been warned by a reviewer that a paper under review contains possibly faked or plagiarized material … so people are on the watchout for that sort of thing and bring it up if they detect it.

            And the convention that we would like to see independent replication before widespread acceptance of an important finding is based on the idea that researchers can sometimes fool themselves or try and fool others. It is common knowledge that, for whatever reason, some published results cannot be replicated. Sometimes researchers even form groups in which they try and replicate prominent published findings just in case something has gone wrong.

            So stop feeling sorry for yourself. It is crackpots that object to tough scrutiny. For the rest of the scientific community it is just standard operating procedure.

          • bachcole

            Excellent reply, including the soft and non-harsh tone.

        • Zephir

          Also, the science has no tools how to enforce the scientists into replication (or just reviewing) of findings, which they don’t like, because they compete or threat their research in another areas. In this case the infallible process of scientific progress gets frozen. We have a tools for finding of truth, but we don’t use them.

      • Alan DeAngelis

        It’s not real unless Rachel Maddow says it is.

    • roseland67

      Alan,

      IF, Mitsubishi has in fact done as you indicated, has anyone replicated thier experiments, including their transmutations.

    • Alan DeAngelis

      PS

      And there are pairs of electrons, ~ in the metal hydride bonds, D~M~D. Wouldn’t they reduced the Coulomb barrier? It’s not like the sun where the electrons are stripped away and brut force is required to sustain fusion. It’s more subtle than the hot fusion approach.

      http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/dragonsdogma/images/a/a9/Cyclops.png/revision/latest?cb=20131030165830

  • Omega Z

    Mark Gibbs who used to be a contributor to Forbes (Technobabble stories) actuallly left the door open to the possibilty of LENR being real.

    Bad Boy- Gibbs
    EXIT Mark Gibbs to never neverland to never, ever do articles for Forbes ever again.

    ENTER: “Ethan Siegel”

    Who will “NEVER, EVER” write a positive article about Cold Fusion or LENR. At least not if he doesn’t want terminated from being a Forbes contributor..

    There are many regulars here at ECW that can confirm this.

    • Mats002

      But soon you might be terminated from NOT writing about it…

      Fear is a powerful thing.

      • TVulgaris

        No, established writing voices will virtually NEVER be fired for playing it extremely safe. They’ll be sidelined to the “Lost and strayed pets” desk equivalent, perhaps…

        • Mats002

          Same thing.

    • roseland67

      Z,

      I believe Ethan Siegel listed exactly what he wanted to see before he wrote a positive article on cold fusion.
      So, if true, as soon as his requirements are met and show Energy out > Energy in, then I would expect he would comply.

      • peter gluck

        Dear Friends,
        One my blog Ego Out I gave a rather detailed answer to Ethan’s paper:

        http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/09/sep-25-2016-dear-ethan-lenr-is.html

        If he will read it, for sure he will not like it

        No problem, I did not liked his paper eithr and not only for its content. He uses an arrogant and lazy physicost-supremacist approach.
        But his conclusions are correct- no conclusions at all.

        peter

  • Alan DeAngelis
  • Alan DeAngelis
  • invient

    Something happened to lenr-forum… its text is displaying chinese or something, translates to a bunch of “[university name] produces fake diplomas” posts.

    Anyone else seeing the same?

    • Ged

      That is weird. They were dealing with such spam a couple days ago, guess it is still going.

  • Alan DeAngelis
  • Alan DeAngelis
  • Alan DeAngelis
  • bachcole

    The more they resist the greater will be the backlash against them.

  • Zephir

    Also, the science has no tools how to enforce the scientists into replication (or just reviewing) of findings, which they don’t like, because they compete or threat their research in another areas. In this case the infallible process of scientific progress gets frozen. We have a tools for finding of truth, but we don’t use them.

  • greggoble

    Let’s look at the obvious… I’m really busy, 58 years old and pops is 81 years old. We’re building a two story house all by ourselves, just the two of us. I’m hoping Frank (or someone) will write an article that incorporates all of the following…

    The U.S. Secretary of Defense report to Congress has been delayed. The Forbes article hints at fraud and encourages skepticism. LENR researchers and followers seek credibility. E-Cat World, amongst others, heralds the 2016 DTRA (Defense Threat Reduction Agency) report, yay the U.S. government says cold fusion is real.

    Yet two of the authors of that report, Lawrence Forsley and Pamela Boss, are credited for the LENR patents (out of Naval research labs) which are now held by JWK and the Global Energy Corporation. Note that these patents used to be held by the Secretary of the U.S. Navy (around 2006/2007).

    By the way, the report makes no mention of the patents nor does it mention the Louis DeChiaro presentation.

    He joined the US Navy as a civilian Physicist in September, 2006 and since 2009 has been performing investigations in LENR physics and supporting the EMC efforts of Branch Q51 at the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Dahlgren, VA. During the period 2010-2012 DeChiaro was on special assignment at the Naval Research Labs, Washington, D.C. in their experimental LENR group.

    Nor does the 2016 DTRA report make any mention of the Global Energy Corporation developments. Note that GEC, whose chief scientist is Lawrence Forsley, says that they developed the (cold fusion/LENR) Small Modular Generator (SMG); which they didn’t, the U.S. government did. Incredibly GEC boasts that they “are currently negotiating several new SMG construction contracts ranging from 250 MWe to 5GWe (WOW) around the world.

    Also, there are a few who speculate that the latest U.S. warship, commanded by Captain Kirk, is powered by a cold fusion reactor and others who wonder if cold fusion is real. Of course it is… this technology would NOT be released for commercial development unless the DoD had conquered and deployed it… PERIOD. Obviously.

    Not too far…

    In the near distant future…

    The next generation in fact.

    Will look back on this generation…

    As the last of the fire burning era, and know that…

    The term ‘energy shortage’ was a term for un-enlightened minds.

    gbg-peace-love-and-granola

  • greggoble

    Let’s look at the obvious… I’m really busy, 58 years old and Pops is 81 years old. We’re building a two story house all by ourselves, just the two of us. I’m hoping Frank (or someone) will write an article that incorporates all of the following…

    The U.S. Secretary of Defense LENR report to Congress has been delayed. The Forbes article hints at fraud and encourages skepticism. LENR researchers and followers seek credibility. E-Cat World, amongst others, heralds the 2016 DTRA (Defense Threat Reduction Agency) LENR report, yea the U.S. government says cold fusion is real.

    Yet two of the authors of that report, Lawrence Forsley and Pamela Boss, are credited for the LENR patents (out of Naval research labs) which are now held by JWK and the Global Energy Corporation. Note that these patents used to be held by the Secretary of the U.S. Navy (around 2006/2007).

    By the way, the report makes no mention of the patents nor does it mention the Louis DeChiaro presentation.

    He “joined the US Navy as a civilian Physicist in September, 2006 and since 2009 has been performing investigations in LENR physics and supporting the EMC efforts of Branch Q51 at the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Dahlgren, VA. During the period 2010-2012 DeChiaro was on special assignment at the Naval Research Labs, Washington, D.C. in their experimental LENR group”.

    Nor does the 2016 DTRA report make any mention of the Global Energy Corporation developments. Note that GEC, whose chief scientist is Lawrence Forsley, says that they developed the (cold fusion/LENR) Small Modular Generator (SMG); which they didn’t, the U.S. government did. Incredibly GEC boasts that they “are currently negotiating several new SMG construction contracts ranging from 250 MWe to 5GWe (WOW) around the world”. (the WOW is not part of the quote but you could go ahead and use it anyways…) My skepticism makes me wonder what’s really going on here. Does anyone think that GEC is committing fraud, trying to scam their investors? I personally do not even consider this.

    Also, there are a few who speculate that the latest U.S. warship, commanded by Captain Kirk, is powered by a cold fusion reactor and there are many others who wonder if cold fusion is real. Of course it is… this technology would NOT be released for commercial development unless the DoD had conquered and deployed it… PERIOD. Obviously.

    Not too far…

    In the near distant future…

    The next generation in fact.

    Will look back on this generation…

    As the last of the carbon energy era, and know that…

    The term ‘energy shortage’ was a term for un-enlightened minds.

    gbg-peace-love-and-granola

  • Bob Greenyer

    This isn’t the experiment I have been referring to recently – but it is one we can do without asking anyone that, if successful, would help people overcome their barriers to accepting this field.

    https://www.facebook.com/MartinFleischmannMemorialProject/posts/1276032609094102:0

    • georgehants

      Bob, not being technically minded of details I do not read the MFMP Website, so please continue to update on ECW for the many like me that just need the important information you give us.
      Many thanks.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Hi George. This is only 1 of a number of proposals I have that after executed, if the original claims are true, will provide the kind of evidence Ethan seeks to clear his mental block.

        The one I would like to do that would be the most convincing would be dependent on cooperation of the originator.

    • Are you planning to run the 100% experiment live at ICCF-20?

      • Bob Greenyer

        I am not sure this is possible in the time frame. I think it is better that we work as a community to ensure the selection of live proposal experiments are as robust in their design and protocol as possible before they are conducted.

        • When will you know if you have the cooperation of the originator?

          Seems like he/she is on board in principle, otherwise you wouldn’t have broadcast your intentions, correct?

    • Ged

      Very interesting idea! Can have two setups, one in liquid N2 and the other at room temp. Could even do a third (or more, depending on steps) at a higher powered temperature to allow a graph curve of neutron rate vs temperature to be made. That temperature dependence relationship would be particularly potent at knocking socks off.

      If only one is possible, I vote room temp though since they report it is so much more potent, unless safety reasons.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Whatever, the experiment will have to run in a remotely operated location.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Cool – I’d head over to the main site to make suggestions – I think Bob Higgins may do this one – he already has his Neutron detector set up.

  • Warthog

    There is a huge gulf between “Rossi is a fraud” (possible) and “LENR is a fraud” (not possible). I long ago quit paying attention to exactly which skeptopath has exactly which slight variation of negativity.

  • Ged

    That is weird. They were dealing with such spam a couple days ago, guess it is still going.

    • Warthog

      Yes, repeatedly. How many replications are necessary?? Toyota replicated the Mitsubishi work on transmutation. That BY ITSELF should have been more than enough proof of the reality of the phenomenon.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    The E-Cat calls their bluff.

    With on CO2, there’s no carbon exchange.

    With no carbon exchange, there’s no party.

    http://images2.static-bluray.com/reviews/2347_2.jpg

    • Alan DeAngelis

      With no CO2…

  • cashmemorz
  • Job001

    What is good science? This occurs when we do the scientific method when we create statistically falsifiable hypothesis followed by using careful unbiased observations and then use agreed upon statistical tests in an attempt to discredit, refine or alter our hypothesis.
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

    Good skepticism occurs when we develop and test proposed and/or alternate falsifiable hypothesis and do the scientific method to deny or confirm reported claim. The new alternate claims may include alternate explanations such as fraud but must be backed up with statistically valid data and observations, otherwise these are just nonsense untested hypothesis.

    Note:In absolutely no way does claiming scam or fraud constitute science without unquestionable data and valid statistical correlation. Inevitably such claims are false and statistically invalid. An excellent explaination for claims of scam or fraud is the modern science of cognitive bias.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_bias

    Inevitably fear of losing jobs or income or favored science “models” of reality or science reputation are excellent bias models for explaining false pathoskeptic non-science claims.

    My current view is several varieties of LENR show total undeniable validity at the base level of demonstrated heat and ash. This level of observational science was suitable as a basis for the world altering Manhattan project. We now have a literature base of several thousand reports from hundreds of scientists, most highly esteemed. We now also have zero basis for the false claims of fraud or scam. This means LENR is real until statistically and scientifically proven otherwise; Let the engineering continue, full speed ahead!

    • Mats002
    • greggoble

      Oil is the most traded commodity on planet Earth; surpassing housing, food and medical combined. Ethan Siegel seems to think scientists working on science that would disrupt that should defend themselves against his LENR ignorance by contacting him setting him straight. They actually have bigger fish to fry.

      As far as the scientific method goes… an open mind and experimentation serves science much better. I checked it out; Ethan hasn’t done any cold fusion/LENR experimentation and doesn’t seem to have much of a mind that could be open. He isn’t a leading scientific figure in any regard.

    • Ciaranjay

      Personally I agree with you, in my view LENR is a real thing and hopefully should be “proven” soon. Of course I could be wrong.

      Can I ask a question please (or several)?
      What the heck is a “pathoskeptic”?
      Is someone who does not believe in LENR a pathoskeptic?
      Is someone who does not believe in Rossi’s E-Cat a pathoskeptic?
      Is someone who not believe in UFO’s a pathoskeptic?

      Is it to do with ignoring a mountain of evidence?
      In which case is someone who denies global warming a pathoskeptic?

      Is it an actual real term with a definition or is it just an abusive label used to attack people who have a different opinion?

      I really would like to know.

      Thanks.

      • Job001

        “Pathoskeptic” is a fairly new term. It does not refer to a typical skeptic wherein typical skepticism is healthy but to skepticism taken too far into irrational denial of available facts. In general, someone who exhibits irrational pathosketicism often uses easy short cuts such as name calling rather than doing the hard work of healthy science. Unfortunately, people can be overly skeptical for a variety of biases including just plain lazy ignorance. Newcomers wishing for others to do their literature research that only they can do. Another common variety insists on irrational standards of “proof” such as “being able to purchase one” when scientific methods are required for research science.
        IMO, a “pathoskeptic” need not be associated with any particular knowledge field nor is it an abusive label but rather a label necessary to distinguish between healthy appropriate scientific skepticism and skepticism that has become excessive, extremist, irrational or pathological, or in general biased where a non-biased scientific outlook is apropos.

        • Ciaranjay

          Job001 thank you.
          As you say, there are different levels of proof and different levels of skepticism. I suppose somebody has to be last to realize there is a train coming down the track.
          Name calling is certainly unhelpful to a civilized and balanced discussion.

        • Great answer!

      • tlp

        Same questions for hydrinos and Randell Mills/BrLP SunCell.
        I quess many people in this forum believe in LENR but not hydrinos. Are those semi pathoskeptic?

        • Ciaranjay

          Well this is the problem with a term that may be subjective and perhaps open to interpretation as a term of abuse.

      • INVENTOR INVENTED

        Its a guy that was banned from an LENR chatroom. They couldnt stand his negative personality. Calls himslf pathosceptic.

  • Job001

    What is good science? This occurs when we do the scientific method when we create statistically falsifiable hypothesis followed by using careful unbiased observations and then use agreed upon statistical tests in an attempt to discredit, refine or alter our hypothesis.
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

    Good skepticism occurs when we develop and test proposed and/or alternate falsifiable hypothesis and do the scientific method to deny or confirm reported claim. The new alternate claims may include alternate explanations such as fraud but must be backed up with statistically valid data and observations, otherwise these are just nonsense untested hypothesis.

    Note:In absolutely no way does claiming scam or fraud constitute science without unquestionable data and valid statistical correlation. Inevitably such claims are false and statistically invalid. An excellent explaination for claims of scam or fraud is the modern science of cognitive bias.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_bias

    Inevitably fear of losing jobs or income or favored science “models” of reality or science reputation are excellent bias models for explaining false pathoskeptic non-science claims.

    My current view is several varieties of LENR show total undeniable validity (meaning parallel science proving alternate hypothesis is necessary) at the base level of demonstrated heat and ash. This level of observational science was suitable as a basis for the world altering Manhattan project. We now have a literature base of several thousand reports from hundreds of scientists, most highly esteemed. We now also have zero basis for the false claims of fraud or scam. This means LENR is real until statistically and scientifically proven otherwise; Let the engineering continue, full speed ahead!

    • bachcole

      However, something can still be true before it has been proven to be true scientifically, and it can be known with an absolute certainty to be true by any one individual and any number of individuals before it has been proven scientifically. Columbus had a theory. His theory was wrong. Most of his shipmates were too stupid to know what a theory was. When they all landed on an island in the West Indies, they were all absolutely, positively certain that they were in a new (to Europeans) land. And they were right, even though their new theory of where they were was wrong. Those men on the Nina, Pinta, and Santa Maria were closer to the truth than all of the people back in Europe, except perhaps a handful of archivists living in Scandinavia, whose mental model of the truth was somewhere between Columbus’ men and the rest of the Europeans.

    • Mats002
    • greggoble

      Oil is the most traded commodity on planet Earth; surpassing housing, food and medical combined. Ethan Siegel seems to think scientists working on cold fusion science, which would disrupt that, should defend themselves against his LENR ignorance by contacting him, setting him straight. They actually have bigger fish to fry, with perhaps a better way to fry them.

      As far as the scientific method goes… an open mind and experimentation serves science much better (experimentation is that which advances understanding and theory)

      I checked it out, Ethan hasn’t done any cold fusion/LENR experimentation and doesn’t seem to have much of an open mind. He isn’t a leading scientific figure in any regard. Nor is he an esteemed journalist. If he was he would travel the world (virtually) and do journalistic research and interviews, leading to a fully fleshed out article. His article is journalistic fraud, it isn’t replicable. Not worthy of our attention.

    • Ciaranjay

      I agree with you, in my view LENR is a real thing and hopefully should be “proven” soon. Of course I could be wrong.

      Can I ask a question please (or several)?
      What the heck is a “pathoskeptic”?

      Is someone who does not believe in LENR a pathoskeptic?
      Is someone who does not believe in Rossi’s E-Cat a pathoskeptic?
      Is someone who does not believe in UFO’s a pathoskeptic?

      Is it to do with ignoring a mountain of evidence?
      In which case is someone who denies global warming a pathoskeptic?

      Is it an actual real term with a definition, or is it just an abusive label used to attack people who have a different opinion?

      I really would like to know.

      Thanks.

      • Job001

        “Pathoskeptic” is a fairly new term. It does not refer to a typical skeptic wherein typical skepticism is healthy but to skepticism taken too far into irrational denial of available facts. In general, someone who exhibits irrational pathosketicism often uses easy short cuts such as name calling rather than doing the hard work of healthy science. Unfortunately, people can be overly skeptical for a variety of biases including just plain lazy ignorance. Newcomers wishing for others to do their literature research that only they can do. Another common variety insists on irrational standards of “proof” such as “being able to purchase one” when scientific methods are required for research science.
        IMO, a “pathoskeptic” need not be associated with any particular knowledge field nor is it an abusive label but rather a label necessary to distinguish between healthy appropriate scientific skepticism and skepticism that has become excessive, extremist, irrational or pathological, or in general biased where a non-biased scientific outlook is apropos.

        • Ciaranjay

          Job001 thank you.
          As you say, there are different levels of proof and different levels of skepticism. I suppose somebody has to be last to realize there is a train coming down the track.
          Name calling is certainly unhelpful to a civilized and balanced discussion.

        • Great answer!

      • tlp

        Same questions for hydrinos and Randell Mills/BrLP SunCell.
        I quess many people in this forum believe in LENR but not hydrinos. Are those semi pathoskeptic?

        • Ciaranjay

          Well this is the problem with a term that may be subjective and perhaps open to interpretation as a term of abuse.

      • bachcole

        A pathoskeptic or skeptopath (I believe that I invented that version) is someone who is neurotically motivated to defend the status quo with chronic and blind disbelief. So this would include the church elders who gave Galileo a hard time. They refused to look through his telescope using religion as an excuse. In our day, the skeptopath’s means of attack is believing in current science and using it as a club; in Galileo’s day it was religion. But the attitude is the same. A typical behavior of a skeptopath is to refuse to look at the evidence.

        I have disbelieved Mills for quite a while and refrained from looking too closely at his evidence, but only because he is mean-spirited and his demos have sucked. His demos have greatly improved, so I am much more willing to listen to him and his advocates. I am not a skeptopath; but I do not suffer mean-spirited people. I don’t mind fools so much since my dogs are consummate fools, but I still love them. (:->)

        • Ciaranjay

          Thanks bachcole.
          The problem is that as a label it can be subjectively applied.
          So someone might claim a person who denies global warming is a skeptopath.

          I do agree that there are those in the science community who through prejudice or arrogance will not change their minds till the last minute. I think the manner in which Pons and Fleischmann were ostracized was disgusting.

          But I think most scientists are just busy people who have to answer to whoever provides their grants. The more famous ones get many letters from cranks asking them to drop everything and look at their pet theory.

          It is a great pity that LENR has been pushed to the fringes, but LENR science will continue and the truth will be uncovered, it just takes longer.

          • bachcole

            My I suggest an alterations to your otherwise excellent comment?

            Someone famous said: “Science changes one funeral at a time.” I prefer “Science changes one retirement at a time” because often those who oppose change as employed scientists get much more adventurous in their thinking once they are freed from the shackles connecting their performance (and their writings) with their incomes.

          • Ciaranjay

            Yes indeed.
            Freedom from the shackles for those able to think but who feel unable to speak either because of peer pressures or funding pressures.
            And also true that young blood often allows a fresh point of view over what might have become rigid dogma.
            And yet, at its best, science is the best process we have for discovering the world. In 400 years we have gone from burning witches to antibiotics, and landing on the moon.

        • roseland67

          That’s what you called me about 5-6 years ago

      • INVENTOR INVENTED

        Its a guy that was banned from an LENR chatroom. They couldnt stand his negative personality. Calls himslf pathosceptic.

  • Bob Greenyer

    This is not the experiment I am otherwise talking about. This should help doubters

    https://www.facebook.com/MartinFleischmannMemorialProject/posts/1276484975715532

    • Bob, my guess is a Nanor/Schwartz deal.

      I dreamed this up last night:

      A Nanor wire frozen in a big block of ice, both held in a big, open transparent box which is placed on a big scale and all put in a freezer room at -20C. Only a few seconds of input power used and measured to get the reaction going, electrical connections then removed.

      The big block of ice melts and water boils away. The weight of ice melted and water lost used to calculate energy produced.

      I’m assuming the big block of ice couldn’t be melted and water boiled away by any chemical reactions taking place in that thin nanor wire. I haven’t done any calculations. I leave that to the smarter people.

      Wire is analyzed isotopically before and after.

      Any chance this is a decent demo?

      • Bob Greenyer

        Sounds interesting, but that is not the demo – a little messy too.

        Keep thinking though!

  • greggoble

    This is a comment posted on the recent Forbes article. Let’s take a look see and find which page the DoD LENR 2017 funding request is on and what it’s all about…

    US DOD seems to think this (LENR) is real: see 2017 DOD funding request: https://www.congress.gov/114/crpt/hrpt537/CRPT-114hrpt537.pdf

    • NT

      Page 87 of the report is about LENR…

      • greggoble

        Thanks, I had only gotten to pg 50.

  • greggoble

    This is a comment posted on the recent Forbes article. Let’s take a look see and find which page the DoD LENR 2017 funding request is on and what it’s all about…

    US DOD seems to think this (LENR) is real: see 2017 DOD funding request: https://www.congress.gov/114/crpt/hrpt537/CRPT-114hrpt537.pdf

    • NT

      Page 87 of the report is about LENR…

      • greggoble

        Thanks, I had only gotten to pg 50.

  • georgehants

    Is MFMP the only truly independent, open-science organisation in the whole World working to bring Cold Fusion into the open for the good of all humanity, without excessive materialistic reward?
    Well I believe that the same society that will potentially gain from their work, could at least fund them to the extent of equipment, expenses and fair salaries.
    I don’t see people like Gates etc. rushing in with an unconditional donation to help them. (as far as I know)

    • Ciaranjay

      I am thankful there is at least one.

    • Bob Greenyer

      Gates has lobbied governments to make energy patent longer than 20 years – having invested in LENR it would seem (and other nuclear)

      • Eyedoc

        Gates….what a waste of potential good

      • INVENTOR INVENTED

        No way. Dont extend their patents.. Make the government pay for basic research on LENR.

      • Omega Z

        I’m 100% in favor of patents & copyrights.

        I’m also 100% behind keeping the patent protection limited to 20 years. The negatives of patents are far outweighed by the positives. And ultimately they expire. As to Copyrights which can extend to 100 years, they should be reduced to 20/25 years.

        • bachcole

          The prosperity and charity of a society can and does change. A la georgehants’ thinking, the time limit could vary according to the prosperity and charity of a society. If the prosperity and charity were very high (I guarantee that they do NOT vary together necessarily, but perhaps even inversely), then the time limit could be reduced to like 10 years or 5 years.

    • bachcole

      I so wish I could get some materialistic reward. I’m thinking that about $2 million worth of materialist reward would be most excellent. I’m not greedy. $2 million will do me just fine.

      Now, if someone could just go out there and work 14 hour days for year after year and earn that materialist reward and then give it to me freely, that would be most excellent and I would be most grateful.

      George, are you willing to put in the hard work to give me a materialist reward like say $2 million?

      • georgehants

        Roger, please try to understand my view, the point is a fair reward for those that do most for society, from society, with no financial or investment input beyond society democratically choosing the areas most needed and then desired.
        A fair return for all, from those unable to work being cared for, to the scientists etc that with their successful work give the most to society. (such as drugs, Cold Fusion etc.
        In Mr. Rossi’s case (if genuine) I have suggested in financial terms a reward of anything from 50 million to a billion and pro-rata rewards for all those that have contributed.
        Economics at base is nothing but the organisation of labour.
        Only those gifted or giving most to society need to be rewarded appropriately above the fair basic income given to all.
        A financial worker or manipulator is completely unnecessary, millions of wasted jobs, a road sweeper is important a billionaire has no importance of any kind to society, beyond being rewarded if he is gifted in organisation.
        Equality means every child starts from the same place, no advantage from inheritance etc. they truly live their own lives and are rewarded solely on their contribution to society.
        You suggest, who is more important in a free democracy a financial manipulator greedily working for vast riches for himself or a Cold Fusion discoverer that releases all information for the World to improve on and billions gain and is rewarded by society, with for example the billion, or more I suggest above.
        A long and complex subject, made difficult by the vast majority of people not realizing that only labour is important, money has no use beyond a simple credit system used for everyday bookkeeping of peoples credits.
        The present capitalist system is nothing but a completely inefficient unfair Dogma followed, just as the Dogma believed by the vast majority that Cold Fusion is impossible.
        Anything is impossible to a closed-mind.
        Think of how to get needed drugs, food etc. to every American child equally, without the lottery of who your parents etc are.
        Technologically the resources are there and the organisation for such a society in elementary.
        The argument that people would not work is a complete myth that avoids the inherent desire in most people to help and achieve.
        I apologize for the longest reply I have ever written and I have not even scratched the surface of the subject.
        It needs thousands of ideas etc, like those from people discussing the technicalities of Cold Fusion on these pages to start making a dent in improvement.
        I would appreciate avoiding the intellectual half-wits that try to make a comparison between the democratic improvements I am suggesting and the communist dictatorships of the former USSR, China, North Korea etc.

        • bachcole

          But the problem with any scheme that messes with the concept of private property is that once you start messing with it all hell breaks loose. Plus, who is to decide what is a fair reward and what is not.

          If you look upon life and society objectively, you are making perfect sense. But truth cannot be perceived only objectively. Each and every individual that you are passing over when you talking objectively is infinitely valuable subjectively speaking, and their concerns are also valid, like private property and earning as much as possible without government or society’s intervention. Until you balance the objective and the subjective in your philosophy, you and I will be going around and around like some kind of intellectual soap opera.

          • georgehants

            Roger, many thanks for reply, I think we have gone as far as we can on this Website.
            It is in no way philosophical but hard Facts, of if one is satisfied with a system that solely through monetary considerations allows Cold Fusion etc. to be hidden etc. for 30 years, with Rossi almost six years, while millions die and suffer, including American children etc. or if a better, fairer, more intelligent system can be used that would have seen Cold Fusion freely Researched in earnest Worldwide from the beginning and Rossi et al avoiding such common things as this crazy court case, with people who’s only interest is selfish riches for absolutely no input.
            Once discovered only the people who research, design and manufacture Cold Fusion devices are important, it is a self made market just as clean water and basic food, drugs etc. are self made demands, requiring only the number of people directly involved to be rewarded depending on their input. no profit necessary, every person in the World then shares the wealth of such items and Cold Fusion etc.
            With such a system it is irrelevant if the whole oil industry collapses overnight, nobody loses, the jobs are no longer necessary, people are still paid and the remaining work shared equally.
            I have to repeat, money, finance does not equal productivity or equality, only people working in democratically selected areas produces wealth for all, starting with water, food, health, education, equally for every child brought into this World.
            That is, I think, progress, not a probe to Mars etc. etc. until all such things are achieved.
            It is not philosophy, but a simple personal choice of one’s priorities.
            Best

          • bachcole

            When people use the phrase “hard Facts” to make a philosophical point, then I know that we are not talking the same language and I know that we will never agree.

          • georgehants

            Roger, do you not think that a little more was covered in our chat than can be dismissed with a reply such as yours.
            Does one have to agree on everything before a conversation can be worthwhile?
            It would help if you would be kind enough to put up the Evidence disputing my claimed hard Facts, that millions are dying and suffering Worldwide through lack of basic needs.

          • bachcole

            Your insistence upon “known facts” or “hard facts” as trumping a dispassionate examination of the philosophical point I made makes it impossible for me to reach you. Your philosophy will still trample on the individual while trying to take care of the group as a whole.

  • georgehants

    “We have to remember that what we observe is not nature herself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning.”
    – Werner Heisenberg

    • cashmemorz

      Or ” Knowing what question to ask is half of the road to getting the (right) answer”

    • INVENTOR INVENTED

      Profound.

      • greggoble

        Quote Pharis Williams

        Human nature is such that we do like a well broken in pair of shoes and that it’s difficult for the human mind to visualize something new.

        He than goes on to quote a fellow that came up to him after a presentation that he gave…

        There are three types of scientists:

        – Innovators (less than a 10th of 1% of all scientists)

        They can see (visualize) something that had never been seen before. They are usually young and new to the field of science.

        – Testers (about 5% of scientists)

        They are the ones that, once the innovator told them what was going on in their mind, can both see and devise a way to test the idea.

        – Keepers of the Flame (all the rest of scientists, around 95%)

        They can say (repeat) what they had heard before but they can’t see anything new, nor can they devise a way to test anything new.

        `- end quotes

        Creative thinking, thinking out of the box, and inventive thinking may be something that can be taught, or developed in a person, yet not everyone can pick it up as a skill. I believe that it does require a mind that is sort of built that way, similar to the few who can visualize things three dimensionally.

        From

        Pharis Williams on ‘Gravity Control & Clean Fusion’ (at the 18 min and 30 second mark) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IB2wIBhAoVs

        This bit is fun…

        From the Idea Champions, a company that teaches people to think creatively (innovate). Published on Jul 22, 2016…

        “The Heart of Innovation – It All Began with Balls” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qHpTDbD3a4

  • georgehants

    “We have to remember that what we observe is not nature herself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning.”
    – Werner Heisenberg

    • cashmemorz

      Or ” Knowing what question to ask is half of the road to getting the (right) answer”

    • INVENTOR INVENTED

      Profound.

      • greggoble

        Quote Pharis Williams

        Human nature is such that we do like a well broken in pair of shoes and that it’s difficult for the human mind to visualize something new.

        He than goes on to quote a fellow that came up to him after a presentation that he gave…

        There are three types of scientists:

        – Innovators (less than a 10th of 1% of all scientists)

        They can see (visualize) something that had never been seen before. They are usually young and new to the field of science.

        – Testers (about 5% of scientists)

        They are the ones that, once the innovator told them what was going on in their mind, can both see and devise a way to test the idea.

        – Keepers of the Flame (all the rest of scientists, around 95%)

        They can say (repeat) what they had heard before but they can’t see anything new, nor can they devise a way to test anything new.

        `- end quotes

        Creative thinking, thinking out of the box, and inventive thinking may be something that can be taught, or developed in a person, yet not everyone can pick it up as a skill. I believe that it does require a mind that is sort of built that way, similar to the few who can visualize things three dimensionally.

        From

        Pharis Williams on ‘Gravity Control & Clean Fusion’ (at the 18 min and 30 second mark) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IB2wIBhAoVs

        This bit is fun…

        From the Idea Champions, a company that teaches people to think creatively (innovate). Published on Jul 22, 2016…

        “The Heart of Innovation – It All Began with Balls” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qHpTDbD3a4

        • INVENTOR INVENTED

          I’m an innovator and its been an uphill battle to find scientists who will test my ideas. After years of looking I found a plasma physics lab that will test my LENR reactor design. We will have results in two years or less.

  • Of interest on LENR Forum: Alan Smith, after stating flatly that Penon is planning to appear before the court, had this to add:

    You’ll have to trust me on this one. I will make a further prediction which it actually guesswork in part. But I’m not telling you which part. It is about something that currently seems impossible – and it may well be – courts are a lottery at times. Rossi has changed Lawyers to a practice with experience in technical matters in order to present -when the opportunity arises – technical proof that the 1MW plant is real and it works. This proof will (I think) be in the form of one or more totally independent replications of the technology by serious entities.

    But we will have to wait and see what happens.

    https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/3811-Rossi-vs-IH-Update-Sep-9-20%E2%80%93-James-A-Bass-now-a-Third-Party-in-IH%E2%80%99s-Counter-Comp/?postID=37453#post37453

    • Ged

      Easily testable predictions at least–we just get to wait and see.

    • Obvious

      A replication (working or otherwise) will not prove anything about what happened at Doral.

  • Of interest on LENR Forum: Alan Smith, after stating flatly that Penon is planning to appear before the court, had this to add:

    You’ll have to trust me on this one. I will make a further prediction which it actually guesswork in part. But I’m not telling you which part. It is about something that currently seems impossible – and it may well be – courts are a lottery at times. Rossi has changed Lawyers to a practice with experience in technical matters in order to present -when the opportunity arises – technical proof that the 1MW plant is real and it works. This proof will (I think) be in the form of one or more totally independent replications of the technology by serious entities.

    But we will have to wait and see what happens.

    https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/3811-Rossi-vs-IH-Update-Sep-9-20%E2%80%93-James-A-Bass-now-a-Third-Party-in-IH%E2%80%99s-Counter-Comp/?postID=37453#post37453

    • Ged

      Easily testable predictions at least–we just get to wait and see. But no breath holding, unless training for diving records.

    • Obvious

      A replication (working or otherwise) will not prove anything about what happened at Doral.

  • sam

    This comment was on EgoOut blog.I wondered if anyone
    has an opinion on it.Thanks

    AnonymousSeptember 25, 2016 at 7:20 AM

    I will repeat a previous comment. Getting the waste heat out of the customer facility is as simple as opening the loading bay (and we know there are loading bays, as the E-Cat container had to be gotten INTO the building) door, and turning on a portable industrial-sized fan. What neither Rossi or the customer would have done was to install PERMANENT oversized heat removal elements. That Rossi knows this is shown by his use of a genset to provide the needed extra power to run one of the first 1MW tests.

    Reply

    • sam

      But the people from industrial heat would

      have seen an open bay door and a large fan.

      they would have noted that somewhere or take

      a picture.

      A delivery person or neighbouring business would

      have seen the fan or felt the heat.

      Amazing how people cover the test site story in

      every way but not asking was a fan at a loading dock.

      At least i have not heard of it.

      • Obvious

        I don’t disagree that the door (or doors) could have been open, but were they open all the time? The Plant almost never stopped, or so the story goes.

        • Ciaranjay

          This is a good point.
          At the end of the day experiment trumps theory, as long as the experimental results can be replicated.
          Experimenters do the experiments, engineers do the making and theorists do the explaining. Sometimes the theory comes first and the experimenter confirms or sometimes the experiment comes first.

          Basically there are two routes to LENR;
          The science route means having a replicable experiment or a good theory, you do not need both to start with. Sometimes a theoretical explanation can take many years. Unfortunately it is difficult to get mainstream scientists to take LENR seriously due to unfortunate history and peer pressure.
          Alternatively just build a working device and sell it, as Rossi plans to do.

    • Ged

      Honestly, I’m not sure what that comment is trying to say. But, the already present roof vent is the right size and shape to easily remove all 1 MW of heat via air cooled heat exchanger (like the size and shape we see positioned directly under said vent), so the loading doors could stay closed no problem.

    • roseland67

      Sam,

      It would be possible to calculate, IF,
      Rossi indicated how much of the 1MW
      Of heat went into the product and how much had to be disposed of via this “portable industrial fan”, you suggest.

      The energy balance is rather simple,
      Assuming that whatever air you discharged via the fan could be made up thru another entrance by “cooler” air.
      (Discharge on hot side of building make up on cool side of building helps).
      There is your dt,
      Cp of air at x temp/humidity etc
      Solve for mass flow would tell you how much air you need the fan to move.

      But Rossi has not given that info.

      • Stephen

        The following is quite a lot of speculation on my side but I wonder if some of it is relevant or makes sense?

        It wouldn’t be a very efficient device if it was running based on heat but also let the heat escape through the walls.

        imagine a kiln a water boiler or even your oven at home had no wall insulation. Its probably not recommended but as a lad I used to sit on the lids of my parents old Aga in the winter after long day collecting fire wood. I didn’t cook my back side doing it though. Fortunately ;).

        based on the recycled water temperature oI imagine a chemical bath of some kind or something maintained at a little above 60 degrees C

        Waste heat by it self would be inefficient and should be insulated with materials with as low R or U values as possible. What applies to the roof of the building if insulated also applies to the walls and roof if any of the device. I understand typical U values of insulated walls and ceilings are small fractions of a W/m2/K

        I suppose we know the Sq m of the surface of the device. If we assume it is 60 deC inside and 30 deg out side and a rather high value for the U value of 0.20 W/m2/K. It should be possible to estimate the amount t of heat that can leak throug the walls of the device. I suspect it is quite low it certainly would not cook any one. The additional thermal energy clearly goes else where not throughthe walls of the device.

        Waste heat would be in the form of final product temperatures or the temperatures of waste materials such as processed chemicals or some thing that could not be efficiently recovered also at 60 degrees. I imagine what energy did not get used for endothermic processes operating at about 60 degrees C or above would go into the final temperature of the product or waste materials before cooling.

        I suppose Those processed materials could ether be safe waste that can be dumped in drainage or more likely cooled from 60 degrees to ambient temperature before storing. I suppose this cooling would require a second heat exchanger to dump the heat that could not be usefully recovered Into an external water supply that was either drained or cooled outside the building from 60 degrees to to ambient before recirculating.

        Ideally though I suppose the waste heat would be used to heat the source materials for the product before use. To increase efficiency even further.

        I wonder if vapourisation of Methyl acetate, that vapourises at 56.9 deg C or some other similar acetate or formate. Could be important In the process. Perhaps in some kind of recycling process to convert it back to it to methanol and acetic acid with reactions with acids and basis such as Sodium hydroxide?

        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methyl_acetate

        https://cameochemicals.noaa.gov/chris/MTT.pdf

        i suppose the the latent heat of vapourisation of methyl acetate could be a significant factor in absorbing heat.

        i suppose the the acetic acid and methanol could be used chemically else where in the process

        There are many industrial uses for acetic acid for example perhaps the acetic acid was used to make palladium acetate for example from palladium sponge that could then be usedo make Paladium nano wires or other thin film structures.

        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palladium(II)_acetate

        I wonder if platinum acetate and nickel acetate can be processed in similar ways.

        of course the ideal efficient closed loop would be if the methanol was used towards the end of the process to regenerate themethyle acetate. And the energy was consumed in producing the product. But I’m not sure if there is a process for that step as well.

        I’m not sure what quantities of materials would be involved, if any waste materials are safe to vent or drain or if any of those processes are exothermicor endothermic. But I suppose the vaporization would atleast absorb some of the heat.

    • GiveADogABone
  • sam

    This comment was on EgoOut blog.I wondered if anyone
    has an opinion on it.Thanks

    AnonymousSeptember 25, 2016 at 7:20 AM

    I will repeat a previous comment. Getting the waste heat out of the customer facility is as simple as opening the loading bay (and we know there are loading bays, as the E-Cat container had to be gotten INTO the building) door, and turning on a portable industrial-sized fan. What neither Rossi or the customer would have done was to install PERMANENT oversized heat removal elements. That Rossi knows this is shown by his use of a genset to provide the needed extra power to run one of the first 1MW tests.

    Reply

    • sam

      But the people from industrial heat would

      have seen an open bay door and a large fan.

      they would have noted that somewhere or take

      a picture.

      A delivery person or neighbouring business would

      have seen the fan or felt the heat.

      Amazing how people cover the test site story in

      every way but not asking was a fan at a loading dock.

      At least i have not heard of it.

      • Obvious

        I don’t disagree that the door (or doors) could have been open, but were they open all the time? The Plant almost never stopped, or so the story goes.

    • Ged

      Honestly, I’m not sure what that comment is trying to say. But, the already present roof vent is the right size and shape to easily remove all 1 MW of heat via air cooled heat exchanger (like the size and shape we see positioned directly under said vent), so the loading doors could stay closed no problem.

    • roseland67

      Sam,

      It would be possible to calculate, IF,
      Rossi indicated how much of the 1MW
      Of heat went into the product and how much had to be disposed of via this “portable industrial fan”, you suggest.

      The energy balance is rather simple,
      Assuming that whatever air you discharged via the fan could be made up thru another entrance by “cooler” air.
      (Discharge on hot side of building make up on cool side of building helps).
      There is your dt,
      Cp of air at x temp/humidity etc
      Solve for mass flow would tell you how much air you need the fan to move.

      But Rossi has not given that info.

      • Stephen

        The following is quite a lot of speculation on my side but I wonder if some of it is relevant or makes sense?

        It wouldn’t be a very efficient device if it was running based on heat but also let the heat escape through the walls.

        imagine a kiln a water boiler or even your oven at home had no wall insulation. Its probably not recommended but as a lad I used to sit on the lids of my parents old Aga in the winter after long day collecting fire wood. I didn’t cook my back side doing it though. Fortunately ;).

        based on the recycled water temperature oI imagine a chemical bath of some kind or something maintained at a little above 60 degrees C

        Waste heat by it self would be inefficient and should be insulated with materials with as low R or U values as possible. What applies to the roof of the building if insulated also applies to the walls and roof if any of the device. I understand typical U values of insulated walls and ceilings are small fractions of a W/m2/K

        I suppose we know the Sq m of the surface of the device. If we assume it is 60 deC inside and 30 deg out side and a rather high value for the U value of 0.20 W/m2/K. It should be possible to estimate the amount t of heat that can leak throug the walls of the device. I suspect it is quite low it certainly would not cook any one. The additional thermal energy clearly goes else where not throughthe walls of the device.

        Waste heat would be in the form of final product temperatures or the temperatures of waste materials such as processed chemicals or some thing that could not be efficiently recovered also at 60 degrees. I imagine what energy did not get used for endothermic processes operating at about 60 degrees C or above would go into the final temperature of the product or waste materials before cooling.

        I suppose Those processed materials could ether be safe waste that can be dumped in drainage or more likely cooled from 60 degrees to ambient temperature before storing. I suppose this cooling would require a second heat exchanger to dump the heat that could not be usefully recovered Into an external water supply that was either drained or cooled outside the building from 60 degrees to to ambient before recirculating.

        Ideally though I suppose the waste heat would be used to heat the source materials for the product before use. To increase efficiency even further.

        I wonder if vapourisation of Methyl acetate, that vapourises at 56.9 deg C or some other similar acetate or formate. Could be important In the process. Perhaps in some kind of recycling process to convert it back to it to methanol and acetic acid with reactions with acids and basis such as Sodium hydroxide?

        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methyl_acetate

        https://cameochemicals.noaa.gov/chris/MTT.pdf

        i suppose the the latent heat of vapourisation of methyl acetate could be a significant factor in absorbing heat.

        i suppose the the acetic acid and methanol could be used chemically else where in the process

        There are many industrial uses for acetic acid for example perhaps the acetic acid was used to make palladium acetate for example from palladium sponge that could then be usedo make Paladium nano wires or other thin film structures.

        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palladium(II)_acetate

        I wonder if platinum acetate and nickel acetate can be processed in similar ways.

        of course the ideal efficient closed loop would be if the methanol was used towards the end of the process to regenerate themethyle acetate. And the energy was consumed in producing the product. But I’m not sure if there is a process for that step as well.

        I’m not sure what quantities of materials would be involved, if any waste materials are safe to vent or drain or if any of those processes are exothermicor endothermic. But I suppose the vaporization would atleast absorb some of the heat.

        • roseland67

          Stephen,

          All good points, all possible, but without Rossi giving you the data to Fill in your questions, we are left with more assumptions to fit arguments instead of complete equations.

    • GiveADogABone
  • INVENTOR INVENTED

    Low energy nuclear reactions are a proven scientific phenomenon. Billions and billions were spent on pure scientific research to study the Higgs boson and gravity waves. the DOE and NSF are spending almost nothing to research LENR. Much more funding should be spent to understand LENR whether or not it results in a practical energy source.

    • Eyedoc

      oh I’m sure they’re spending…….just not for public knowledge….big ‘dark’ budgets you know

      • INVENTOR INVENTED

        I know.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Sounds interesting, but that is not the demo – a little messy too.

    Keep thinking though!

  • Ciaranjay

    Thanks bachcole.
    The problem is that as a label it can be subjectively applied.
    So someone might claim a person who denies global warming is a skeptopath.

    I do agree that there are those in the science community who through prejudice or arrogance will not change their minds till the last minute.

    But I think most scientists are just busy people who have to answer to whoever provides their grants. The more famous ones get many letters from cranks asking them to drop everything and look at their pet theory.

    It is a great pity that LENR has been pushed to the fringes, but LENR science will continue and the truth will be uncovered, it just takes longer.

  • Freethinker

    In my own humble opinion, Ethan Siegel is himself a con-artist. The rhetoric he has used over the years on this subject is despicable, to say the least.

    • Gerrit

      “turk” was mentioned 13 times in an article on cold fusion. That’s Ethan Siegel quality science journalism

      • roseland67

        Good catch,
        He got his point across, but that was overkill

  • peter gluck

    Dear Friends,
    One my blog Ego Out I gave a rather detailed answer to Ethan’s paper:

    http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/09/sep-25-2016-dear-ethan-lenr-is.html

    If he will read it, for sure he will not like it

    No problem, I did not liked his paper eithr and not only for its content. He uses an arrogant and lazy physicost-supremacist approach.
    But his conclusions are correct- no conclusions at all.

    peter

  • georgehants

    Roger, please try to understand my view, the point is a fair reward for those that do most for society, from society, with no financial or investment input beyond society democratically choosing the areas most needed and then desired.
    A fair return for all, from those unable to work being cared for, to the scientists etc that with their successful work give the most to society. (such as drugs, Cold Fusion etc.
    In Mr. Rossi’s case (if genuine) I have suggested in financial terms a reward of anything from 50 million to a billion and pro-rata rewards for all those that have contributed.
    Economics at base is nothing but the organisation of labour.
    Only those giving most to society need to be rewarded appropriately above the fair basic income given to all.
    A financial worker or manipulator is completely unnecessary, millions of wasted jobs, a road sweeper is important a billionaire has no importance of any kind to society, beyond being rewarded if he is gifted in organisation.
    Equality means every child starts from the same place, no advantage from inheritance etc. they truly live their own lives and are rewarded solely on their contribution to society.
    You suggest, who is more important in a free democracy a financial manipulator greedily working for vast riches for himself or a Cold Fusion discoverer that releases all information for the World to improve on and billions gain and is rewarded by society, with for example the billion I suggest above.
    A long and complex subject, made difficult by the vast majority of people not realizing that only labour is important, money has no use beyond a simple credit system used for everyday bookkeeping of peoples credits.
    The present capitalist system is nothing but a Dogma followed just as the Dogma believed by the vast majority that Cold Fusion is impossible.
    Anything is impossible to a closed-mind.

  • georgehants

    Roger, many thanks for reply, I think we have gone as far as we can on this Website.
    It is in no way philosophical but hard Facts, of if one is satisfied with a system that solely through monetary considerations allows Cold Fusion etc. to be hidden etc. for 30 years, with Rossi almost six years, while millions die and suffer, including American children etc. or if a better, fairer, more intelligent system can be used that would have seen Cold Fusion freely Researched in earnest Worldwide from the beginning and Rossi et al avoiding such common things as this crazy court case, with people who’s only interest is selfish riches for absolutely no input.
    Once discovered only the people who research, design and manufacture Cold Fusion devices are important, it is a self made market just as clean water and basic food, drugs etc. are self made demands, requiring only the number of people involved to be rewarded, every person in the World then shares the wealth of such items and Cold Fusion etc.
    Best

    • bachcole

      When people use the phrase “hard Facts” to make a philosophical point, then I know that we are not talking the same language and I know that we will never agree.

      • georgehants

        Roger, do you not think that a little more was covered in our chat than can be dismissed with a reply such as yours.
        Does one have to agree on everything before a conversation can be worthwhile?
        It would help if you would be kind enough to put up the Evidence disputing my claimed hard Facts, that millions are dying and suffering Worldwide through lack of basic needs.

  • Gerrit

    According to Siegel, scientists must contact him personally and kindly request him to review their work. And that is how science is done in the eyes of Ethan Siegel:

    “If there were real, legitimate scientists who had evidence and
    repeatable research that met the criteria I have laid out for “this is
    how you do science,” they would have contacted me and offered to show me
    their research over the past five years. That is what scientists who
    have legitimate results do.”

    Ethan Siegel is apparently not capable of reading the peer reviewed literature published on the subject.

  • Gerrit

    According to Siegel, scientists must contact him personally and kindly request him to review their work. And that is how science is done in the eyes of Ethan Siegel:

    “If there were real, legitimate scientists who had evidence and
    repeatable research that met the criteria I have laid out for “this is
    how you do science,” they would have contacted me and offered to show me
    their research over the past five years. That is what scientists who
    have legitimate results do.”

    Ethan Siegel is apparently not capable of reading the peer reviewed literature published on the subject.

  • otto1923

    LENR people arent scientists theyre engineers of a sort and theyre concerned with producing a working machine, not explaining how it works.

    So critics shouldnt be expecting peer-reviewed academic papers, they should be expecting functioning machines. Airplanes were flying long before aeronautical engineering was conceived.

    But there IS at least 1 published academic paper out there in a peer-reviewed journal.
    Widom, Allan and Larsen, Lewis (March 9, 2006) “Ultra Low Momentum Neutron Catalyzed Nuclear Reactions on Metallic Hydride Surfaces,” European Physical Journal C – Particles and Fields

    • Ciaranjay

      This is a good point.
      At the end of the day experiment trumps theory, as long as the experimental results can be replicated.
      Experimenters do the experiments, engineers do the making and theorists do the explaining. Sometimes the theory comes first and the experimenter confirms or sometimes the experiment comes first.

      Basically there are two routes to LENR;
      The science route means having a replicable experiment or a good theory, you do not need both to start with. Sometimes a theoretical explanation can take many years. Unfortunately it is difficult to get mainstream scientists to take LENR seriously due to unfortunate history and peer pressure.
      Alternatively just build a working device and sell it, as Rossi plans to do.

      • roseland67

        Jay,

        Exactly, observations, experiences and experiments MUST trump theory.

        However,

        The experiments must be replicated using the same Bill of Materials, the same build instructions, the same testing procedures, be accurately measured AND get the same results.

        I see no problem with what Ethan Siegel wrote, he clearly leaves the door open to the possibility of cold fusion,
        He just wants to see it done in the scientific method.

    • Bruce__H

      When you are working hard just to reproduce an effect that no one is sure really exists and has no empirical connection to underlying theory then you are not doing engineering, you are doing pure research.

      Critics should definitely be expecting peer-reviewed academic papers. All this talk about waiting for working machines is an unhealthy attitude that enables researchers who don’t have a handle on this thing to hide their lack of success. Fraud flowers in such an atmosphere.

      • Ciaranjay

        Well yes normally the critics want peer-reviewed papers.
        But because of negative peer pressure there is a major lack of researchers willing to do the research, and those that do have very limited resources and equipment.
        And because of negative peer pressure journals are reluctant to publish any papers.
        And the ones that do get published are widely ignored.

        Now it is too long to get into why there is negative peer pressure, there is plenty of blame to go around both sides.
        And it is unfortunate and I agree with you that fraud can flourish in such an atmosphere.
        But when the science process breaks down then some other means has to be found. As otto1923 says, the Wright brothers just built the darn thing, no more arguing.

        • Bruce__H

          ” the Wright brothers just built the darn thing, no more arguing.”

          Yes, but you are arguing in retrospect. The Wright brothers had, in retrospect, a real effect that they were working on. The problem arises when when researchers are working on something that turns out not to be true (which I think this is still in play for LENR). In that case the wait for a working commercial product will be forever. This is is why critics say prove it … and if you can’t prove it in the normal scientific way then we will assume it is not true.

          It is this attitude (i.e., prove it and if you can’t prove it we will assume it is not real) that you are seeing from the wider scientific community right now. It is a help, not a hindrance. It is just the normal way the game is played in all of science (certainly it is how the game goes in my own field of neuroscience). It is nothing special. But the whole LENR field is afflicted right now by a sort of self-pitying attitude in which its own inability to conjure a solid core of replicated studies is seen as due to the unreasonable demands of critics.

          I think that a very healthy attitude here is to be skeptical but interested and curious. If LENR is real then it will be possible to make a solid case in the normal scientific way.

          • Ciaranjay

            Hi Bruce.

            Arguing in retrospect is just providing an example that worked previously. Clearly the various parties believe they have a real effect. If someone produces a working LENR machine then that should be a
            clincher. Keep an eye on MFMP.

            Personally I am a big fan of the science process. But you should know the science community is not as simple as you are suggesting. There are clans in science, there is peer pressure, there is funding pressure. At worst there is bullying and the risk of being ostracized
            or having your reputation trashed.
            Look into the treatment of Ed Storms and Hagelstein. Some scientists do not want to debate and have open research, they want to shut down the research areas they don’t like. Asking nuclear physicists,
            who depend on massive funding for massive fusion projects for their opinion on LENR is a bit like asking a Vegan for their opinion on meat. Now I know that sounds like a slur and I am sure most nuclear physicists would openly accept LENR the moment they see good data.

            On the LENR side, yes there is a lot of anger and blame and the wagons have been drawn around.
            The whole Pons and Fleischmann debacle has poisoned the field so that some now label it “pathological science”.
            Conspiracy theories abound.
            The patent office wont accepting cold fusion patents, while at the same time, if it is real, it could be worth billions. So there is secrecy, there are accusations of fraud, there are court cases.
            The experiments are done with limited resources, giving rise to accusations of poor science.

            There is also failure. The ICCF has been meeting for 20 years, and have not yet produced anything convincing enough for the general scientific community to be impressed by.

            As I said previously it is too long to go into all the details of why we are where we are.
            The above is purely my opinion.
            Search Google for the Aeon essay from Huw Price.

            In conclusion after years of research we have nothing conclusive and yet many researchers are convinced there is something. Personally I think LENR is real, but there is no accepted theory and it seems difficult to master.

          • Bruce__H

            You have cited the Wright brothers as an example of letting the final product decide the issue. My problem with this is that you have retrospectively chosen a case where there was indeed a real effect. But what happens when researchers are after an effect that turns out not to be real? You have left out those cases. I argue that we need a procedure that allows us to begin to sort out real effects from imaginary ones. And, of course, that procedure is classic conjecture and refutation, which presupposes a skeptical attitude.

            It sounds to me as though your views and mine are actually pretty close. My main point here is that LENR supporters should be demanding the same standards (published and replicated peer-reviewed research) as in the rest of science.

            As to the present state of LENR. I am concerned that Rossi’s high-profile claims, should they collapse, could provoke another Pons and Fleischmann situation that would again discourage genuine research. If this happened then I would argue that it was the credulity, lack of standards, and impatience with open-minded skepticism displayed by the wider LENR audience that would be as much to blame as anything.

          • Ciaranjay

            Yes, if the effect is not real this merry-go-round could go on indefinitely.
            If you want an example of an effect that is not real see Orbo where it is now clear it was a scam but some still believe (because it can never be proved 100% it was a scam, doubt is always possible).

            As you can see LENR is one of those areas that promises so much that it generates a lot of hope and emotion.

            As far as Rossi is concerned I just don’t know.
            He has a lot of fans.
            You could make a list of pros to build a case he is genuine.
            You could build a list of cons to support he is a fraud.
            Too much noise and confusion and secrecy.
            You may have noticed that, as a result, what goes on here is more like Sherlock Holmes than Karl Popper.
            Yes if Rossi does go pop it will cause great damage to the already weak reputation of LENR.

            I agree that the scientific process is the best approach but there have been published papers and they are just ignored.
            Look up the recent DTRA release from Dr Pamela Mosier-Boss.
            As I said above, the science community is prone to the same human flaws as the rest of us. If something is out of favour then walls can be built.
            Of course if LENR is real then science will have to get involved to provide a deeper explanation and theory.
            The good news is that, through human curiosity, the truth will be found. Its just that it might take longer than we wish.
            I will stick around for a while to see what happens, it should be fun.

          • the question of a real effect is about “real”.
            They made plane fly and still sciAm was saying they were bunk.
            Only French Army and a naive audience in France make the evidence evident, and the “real” a “reality”.

            http://invention.psychology.msstate.edu/inventors/i/Wrights/library/WrightSiAm1.html

            I have nearly no doubt LENR is real and not E-cat 350day test, but see how those respective evidence supported claims are denied by both camps .

            follow the evidence, but what is an evidence ?

          • Ciaranjay

            Thanks AlainCo that was an interesting read.
            Actually, taking the article at face value, I sympathise with Scientific American.
            They state that the claims are “sensational”, as indeed they were.
            The allegation that the Wright brothers want to sell their invention to the French seems bizarre and hard to understand and so does not help to engender trust in the story.
            Scientific American then claim the Wright brothers will not provide “substantiation” but they say they would accept the evidence from a professional reporter, but somehow no reporter has had sight of the experiments (as far as they are aware).
            In fact at the end they have not used the word “bunk” but rather than dismissing the story outright they finish with “We certainly want more light on the subject” which seems reasonable if skeptical.

          • Bruce__H

            I agree. The skepticism of the Scientific American article is justified given the stage at which they were writing. To scorn them from a vantage point of 20/20 hindsight doesn’t tell us how to proceed today. And, after all, I expect that once the information was better the authors of the Scientific American article changed their minds.

            The problem in the LENR field is that the information isn’t getting notably better. It is just sort of bubbling along with scattered claims of success. I note that even if an effect is not real one would still expect to see the odd positive result just by chance.

          • hum,
            there was reporters, people ready to testify what they have seen, but as we see for LENR , the autorities like SciAm pretended they have nothing.

            they had, but they said they did not have, thus they could pretend to be rational in denying reality.

            Jed made an article on Wright brother
            http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJthewrightb.pdf

          • Bruce__H

            The Scientific American report ended up asking for more information. Seems rational to me.

            Thanks for the link to Jed;’s article. I haven’t finished it yet but so far it is quite interesting. I begin to see, however , that the general whining and self-pitying tone of the LENR community has been in place for a while. I love the MFMP precisely because they have mainly dropped this tone.

          • roseland67

            Alain,

            Similar to politics and religion, People tend to believe what they want to believe, some even believe what they are told to believe.

            When confronted with “evidence”,
            Contrary to their belief, most quote chapter rhyme and verse what they have been told to say in rebuttal without considering the “evidence”.

            Personally, I think the ability to admit that one has been “hoodwinked” and is wrong is the hardest to overcome.

    • Obvious

      Leonardo DaVinci built a wind tunnel, understanding that moving air or fluid against an object is equivalent to an object moving through stationary air or fluid, and he understood the Bernoulli principle. He also calculated that bird wings flapping create mostly thrust, not lift directly.
      He was much closer to inventing manned flight than most realize. He realized and calculated that humans could not power a flight machine designed after the flight of birds. The internal combustion engine and ultralight materials like aluminum had yet to exist in his time. These were his impediments to flight.

      Without a mostly aluminum engine, the Wright brothers never would achieved flight either.

  • Eyedoc

    oh I’m sure they’re spending…….just not for public knowledge….big ‘dark’ budgets you know

    • INVENTOR INVENTED

      I know.

  • hum,
    there was reporters, people ready to testify what they have seen, but as we see for LENR , the autorities like SciAm pretended they have nothing.

    they had, but they said they did not have, thus they could pretend to be rational in denying reality.

    Jed made an article on Wright brother
    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJthewrightb.pdf

    • Bruce__H

      The Scientific American report ended up asking for more information. Seems rational to me.

      Thanks for the link to Jed;’s article. I haven’t finished it yet but so far it is quite interesting. I begin to see, however , that the general whining and self-pitying tone of the LENR community has been in place for a while. I love the MFMP precisely because they have mainly dropped this tone.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    You have to admit that Siegel does have a gift for logic.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3jt5ibfRzw

  • Alan DeAngelis

    You have to admit that Siegel does have a gift for logic.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3jt5ibfRzw

  • roseland67

    That’s what you called me about 5-6 years ago

  • roseland67