Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude and a repeated misrepresentation, patents, and a discussion of the chimera of cold fusion
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 3:25 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: In the years before August 8, 1908, the Wrights often flew before large crowds of people in Dayton, OH, including leading citizens who signed affidavits saying they had seen the flights. The longest flight was 24 miles in 39 minutes. Yet no one outside of Dayton believed a word of it. Not one newspaper or journal. Well, there must have been at least 2, because Science uses the plural in this report from 1904: The newspapers of December 18 contained the announcement that Wilbur Wright had flown a distance of 3 miles with an aeroplane propeled by a 16-horse power, four-cylinder, gasoline motor, the whole weighing more than 700 pounds…. It's not the 24 mile flight, which presumably came later. Science went on to praise this accomplishment without skepticism: But to the student of aeronautics, and particularly to those who had followed the careful scientific experiments with aeroplanes which were being made by Orville and Wilbur Wright, it meant an epoch in the progress of invention and achievement, perhaps as great as that when Stevenson first drove a locomotive along a railroad. They proceed to admit wide skepticism because of many failures, but then say (remember, in 1904): Mr. Wright's success in rising and landing safely with a motor-driven aeroplane is a crowning achievement showing the possibility of human flight. Anything like that ever appear in Science about cold fusion? The Scientific American attacked, ridiculed and belittled the Wrights, and continued to attack them at every opportunity, most recently in 2003. See: The Wrights avoided publicity and limited photography for fear of having their secrets stolen, until they had a firm offer of purchase. This resulted in skepticism about the Wright's claims, no doubt, but not about flying. There were certainly many skeptical scientists, most notably Lord Kelvin, but the general opinion of the scientific community was (and had been for some time) that heavier than air flight was inevitable. Two years before their infamous skeptical article, even Scientific American wrote of a much more modest demonstration of flight by the Wright brothers: This is a decided step in advance in aerial navigation with aeroplanes. So they were not rejecting the idea, but merely accusing the Wrights of exaggeration. And if you believe their spin, they had good reason. Even your sentence admits it was (erroneous) skepticism of the Wrights, but not of the science in general; in 2003, I don't think SciAm denied that flight is possible. People have not grown wiser since 1908. What is the lesson of 1908? That any conceivable phenomenon must be right if people are skeptical of it? The arguments used against the Wrights were almost word-for-word the same as the ones you trot out against the cold fusion today. It is only your fantasy that the situation surrounding the development of aviation is similar to that of cold fusion. Some criticism of the Wrights may have been similar to some criticism of cold fusion, but note the lack of a parallel there. The Wrights are one team, cold fusion is a field. Moreover, the criticism or skepticism of the Wrights lasted a few years. The Wrights you see made progress. When they finally showed the simple and obvious demo, a few years later, they were catapulted onto the world stage. To counter the skepticism, the Wrights did not present charts and graphs, or refer to 16-year old papers, they showed the world how far they could jump. And both Science and Nature have multiple articles on aviation dating back to well before 1900. For example, in 1895, Nature wrote of a recent conference: many of the problems of aeronautics and aviation are being treated scientifically. The 1896 issue contains letters from Langley and Bell about experiments in mechanical flight, with considerable optimism for the field. In 1902, Nature wrote in praise of Langley and his heavy machines that had arisen and descended in safety, and quoting him that the time is now very near when human beings will be transported at high velocities [in such machines], In 1908 they wrote: We had heard reports of the Wright Brothers' achievements in America in 1904 and 1905, but owing to the inventors' efforts to avoid publicity, the feat of Santos and Dumont on November 12, 1906 […] has been regarded by many people as the first … artificially propelled man-carrying machine…. So even if it took until 1908 to acknowledge the Wrights, they clearly accepted the possibility of flight before that. I quoted from Science above in one of many articles on the subject, none particularly dismissive of the field as it is of cold fusion. Even Scientific American, in October 1903, had two articles on aviation. So, the most prestigious journals of the time had, since before the Wrights, considered aviation as a credible area of investigation and seemed optimistic about its future. There is no
Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude and a repeated misrepresentation, patents, and a discussion of the chimera of cold fusion
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 4:03 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: Rothwell The data clearly shows that some cells produce heat after death, and other do not. What does not make sense here is your demand that all cells do this. Cude It's not a demand. It's an identification of an inconsistency. Lomax So? The implication is that consistency of results is a requirement for an effect to be considered real. That's not a scientific proposition. Consistency here is not the same as reproducibility. The theory that heat is produced by deuterium fusion is contradicted if there is no deuterium present. That's a blatant inconsistency. There are degrees. I was saying that the idea that the heat is produced by deuterium reactions in Pd appears inconsistent with the fact that the heat disappears so quickly. Perhaps not a direct contradiction, just something that appears inconsistent with the proposed theory. Discussion like this -- identification of inconsistencies -- is in fact an integral part of any scientific discourse, contrary to what you say. It was not the only thing my skepticism depends on. My central point, if you paid attention, is that there is no progress in the field and there is no obvious demo, when if the claims were real, it should be easy to set one up. You and Rothwell are using experimental results from the early 90s to argue for the reality of CF. What better illustration of the lack of progress than that? One problem I have with those results. When the current shuts off, the heat dies immediately. It seems implausible that the deuterium would diffuse out of the Pd that quickly. I would expect a more gradual decline. Especially with all the reports of heat after death. That points to artifact to me. heat after death occurs with some techniques. I do see, by the way, some HAD in that experiment. Just not a lot. Look at how the heat falls, it bounces. Bounces? Do you think the deuterium diffuses out and then back in? That looks *inconsistent* to me. But no matter. The bounce is entirely within the error bars for the control. The effect, first of all, is not much seen under equilibrium conditions. If deuterium in palladium produces an effect, then the deuterium has to get out of the Pd for the effect to stop, equilibrium or not. When the current is rapidly shut down, the deuterium will immediately begin to migrate out, Begin, yes. But the rate is limited by ordinary laws of diffusion. What you are doing is seeing a mystery, and concluding artifact. Sort of, yes. Mysteries, inconsistencies, inexplicables all make a theory harder to swallow. When the evidence is not obvious, as in flight, and theory makes a result implausible, then mysteries suggest artifacts. But what artifact? That's the question, isn't it? Right. But not a very interesting one, for those who feel the evidence is uncommonly weak for nuclear reactions. Finding artifacts is hard, and finding other people's artifacts is hard and boring, especially if no one believes the claims anyway. So, given that some cells show heat after death, meaning the deuterium does not diffuse out of the Pd right away, No, there is an assumption here. Suppose that the effect appears at, say, 90%, and that the SRI cells are *just above that, a smidgen. So you turn off the electrolytic pressure, and the effect immediately disappears, as the loading goes quickly below the required level. Suppose that in another experiment, the necessary loading is the same, but the cell reaches 92%. Turn off the juice, the loading starts to go down, but it takes time to pass the turn-off threshold. This idea of a steep threshold is not consistent (there it is again) with the way the heat ramps up as the current is increased. There are clearly intermediate levels of heat, resulting presumably from intermediate levels of loading. If the threshold were so steep, you might expect a step increase as the current is increased. That's not observed. how could it be that in this particularly good experiment, the deuterium could diffuse out seemingly in a matter of seconds. That chart has a scale of hours, the horizontal scaling is 24 hours per division. Seconds? Joshua made that up. Not made up; guessed wrong. The graph you linked to wasn't labelled. You have to go back to the original to get the scale; I thought the axis was labelled in minutes, and it's actually hours. That weakens the objection, but it doesn't remove it. The complete drop takes about an hour, but it's very steep in the middle, dropping by half the amount in about 12 minutes. That still seems like an unreasonable rate for diffusion, when you consider that a tiny foil in Dardik's experiment maintains its output heat for 4 days. We're told that a very special condition is required in Pd for CF, but now it turns out there are 2 very different special conditions required, one in which the deuterium doesn't diffuse below a critical level in 4 days,
Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude and a repeated misrepresentation, patents, and a discussion of the chimera of cold fusion
Joshua, based on our constructive discussions re testing the E-cat I have sent the sketch of a protiocol for this experiment to Vortex.but you have not noticed it and have not commented it any way- even not I ma not interested more Because I think such experiments are important- here it is again. THE PROTOCOL- please discuss! A. There will be performed at least 3 separate experiments, if possible quasi identical (*my idea based on the first principle of the Pilot Plant Engineer: 1 result = NO result, 1 measurement = NO measurement. 1 test = NO test)* * * * * *B. The preferred experiment is cooling water in, warm water out- simple elementary heat measurement. (a.k.a.* *calorimetry)* *If steam generation will be used then the enethalpy of the steam will be measured using the hyper-simple method described here: * http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2011/05/call-for-perfect-e-cat-experiment.html C. The minimum duration of an experiment will be 72 hours, or alternatively (to eliminate the supra-realist doubt the the generator itself is consumed e. g. by burning, 14 kWhs have to be generated for each Kg. of the cell. D. The hydrogen bottle should be disconnected from the E-cat after start-up and carried away. E- In case that it is not possible to work with the generator in the self sustaining mode- zero input for hours- due to control problems etc.- the input energy must be measured with the greatest care and precision (details?) Joshua, it is your turn! --- On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 5:08 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 3:25 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: In the years before August 8, 1908, the Wrights often flew before large crowds of people in Dayton, OH, including leading citizens who signed affidavits saying they had seen the flights. The longest flight was 24 miles in 39 minutes. Yet no one outside of Dayton believed a word of it. Not one newspaper or journal. Well, there must have been at least 2, because Science uses the plural in this report from 1904: The newspapers of December 18 contained the announcement that Wilbur Wright had flown a distance of 3 miles with an aeroplane propeled by a 16-horse power, four-cylinder, gasoline motor, the whole weighing more than 700 pounds…. It's not the 24 mile flight, which presumably came later. Science went on to praise this accomplishment without skepticism: But to the student of aeronautics, and particularly to those who had followed the careful scientific experiments with aeroplanes which were being made by Orville and Wilbur Wright, it meant an epoch in the progress of invention and achievement, perhaps as great as that when Stevenson first drove a locomotive along a railroad. They proceed to admit wide skepticism because of many failures, but then say (remember, in 1904): Mr. Wright's success in rising and landing safely with a motor-driven aeroplane is a crowning achievement showing the possibility of human flight. Anything like that ever appear in Science about cold fusion? The Scientific American attacked, ridiculed and belittled the Wrights, and continued to attack them at every opportunity, most recently in 2003. See: The Wrights avoided publicity and limited photography for fear of having their secrets stolen, until they had a firm offer of purchase. This resulted in skepticism about the Wright's claims, no doubt, but not about flying. There were certainly many skeptical scientists, most notably Lord Kelvin, but the general opinion of the scientific community was (and had been for some time) that heavier than air flight was inevitable. Two years before their infamous skeptical article, even Scientific American wrote of a much more modest demonstration of flight by the Wright brothers: This is a decided step in advance in aerial navigation with aeroplanes. So they were not rejecting the idea, but merely accusing the Wrights of exaggeration. And if you believe their spin, they had good reason. Even your sentence admits it was (erroneous) skepticism of the Wrights, but not of the science in general; in 2003, I don't think SciAm denied that flight is possible. People have not grown wiser since 1908. What is the lesson of 1908? That any conceivable phenomenon must be right if people are skeptical of it? The arguments used against the Wrights were almost word-for-word the same as the ones you trot out against the cold fusion today. It is only your fantasy that the situation surrounding the development of aviation is similar to that of cold fusion. Some criticism of the Wrights may have been similar to some criticism of cold fusion, but note the lack of a parallel there. The Wrights are one team, cold fusion is a field. Moreover, the criticism or skepticism of the Wrights lasted a few years. The Wrights you see made progress. When they finally showed the simple and obvious demo, a few years later, they
Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude and a repeated misrepresentation, patents, and a discussion of the chimera of cold fusion
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 9:33 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: Joshua, based on our constructive discussions re testing the E-cat I have sent the sketch of a protiocol for this experiment to Vortex.but you have not noticed it and have not commented it any way- even not I ma not interested more Because I think such experiments are important- here it is again. I gave a pretty detailed description of the sort of think I think would be persuasive -- equivalent to the Wright brothers' 1908 demonstration. The problems I have with your protocol have already been mentioned: 1 - it requires quantitative measurements of flow rate and temperature and therefore trust in whoever makes them. If that's to be the case, then some method of choosing the observers needs to be in the protocol. And that could be difficult for reasons Lomax gave: serious skeptics would be unwilling to waste time or risk disapproval in getting involved in something that may turn out to be an obvious scam. I think it's much better to heat a large container of water with no inlets or outlets; 1000L seems like a reasonable amount. Hot tubs can be purchased pretty cheaply. 2 - I think the impact would be far more dramatic without any input, regardless of how carefully it's measured. As I've said, this not only makes the effect more obvious, but in practice, a device that needs input is just a slightly improved heat pump. Not revolutionary at all.
Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude and a repeated misrepresentation, patents, and a discussion of the chimera of cold fusion
Dear Joshua, OK, I see our modes of thinking are not compatible. I cannot conceive such experiments without measurements, I think the large container is a bad idea and anti-technical, and I believe far analogies are not good in real problem solving. But otherwise I have to thank you for inspiring me-and I hope that we will have opportunities to discuss other Ni-H LENR experiments. Peter On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 5:48 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 9:33 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: Joshua, based on our constructive discussions re testing the E-cat I have sent the sketch of a protiocol for this experiment to Vortex.but you have not noticed it and have not commented it any way- even not I ma not interested more Because I think such experiments are important- here it is again. I gave a pretty detailed description of the sort of think I think would be persuasive -- equivalent to the Wright brothers' 1908 demonstration. The problems I have with your protocol have already been mentioned: 1 - it requires quantitative measurements of flow rate and temperature and therefore trust in whoever makes them. If that's to be the case, then some method of choosing the observers needs to be in the protocol. And that could be difficult for reasons Lomax gave: serious skeptics would be unwilling to waste time or risk disapproval in getting involved in something that may turn out to be an obvious scam. I think it's much better to heat a large container of water with no inlets or outlets; 1000L seems like a reasonable amount. Hot tubs can be purchased pretty cheaply. 2 - I think the impact would be far more dramatic without any input, regardless of how carefully it's measured. As I've said, this not only makes the effect more obvious, but in practice, a device that needs input is just a slightly improved heat pump. Not revolutionary at all. -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude and a repeated misrepresentation, patents, and a discussion of the chimera of cold fusion
Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: Maybe you weren't paying attention. Lomax referred to the Mckubre data in a particular pdf on your site, and I said in that data, which is held in such high regard, it doesn't make sense that the power drops so quickly when the current is shut off, particularly in light of heat after death claims. The data clearly shows that some cells produce heat after death, and other do not. What does not make sense here is your demand that all cells do this. Nature does work the way you demand it should. This is experimental science. You have to take the results as they are, and not dictate what they should be according to your theories. We were discussing a particular experiment in a particular report. Is there a graph in that report of that 1994 experiment that reports heat after death? No, because that experiment did not produce heat after death, as I noted previously. You need to stop demanding what is not there. You need to stop pointing to black birds as proof that red ones do not exist. One graph cannot show all aspects of cold fusion. The DOE panel would have heard about it, but they were not convinced. Some of panel members were convinced, and some are not. The ones who are not convinced made logical and factual errors similar to the ones you are making. Sixty minutes at least, considering they were pretty sympathetic, might have mentioned it. But on a show advocating CF, with consultants like McKubre and Dardik, there was not a word about heat after death or heat without input in gas loading. This is twice removed from being a scientific argument: 1. Mass media presentations are not admissible experimental evidence. This discussion is about science, not television production values. 2. This is your opinion of the production values at 60 Minutes. You opinion about what makes compelling television has absolutely no bearing on experiments. By the way, I disagree with your opinion -- but my opinion on this subject is equally irrelevant. In a demonstration to outsiders who can't even see what's connected, it's impossible to be sure what the measurements mean. That argument fails for two reasons: 1. It is not falsifiable. 2. It applies to nearly all other experiments, in all other fields. It is not possible for you to see what is connect to what inside of a Tokamak reactor, or in a robot explorer on Mars. It is not possible for you watch every procedure in a cloning experiment, or a medical study on cancer, or in a Top quark experiment. You can reject any finding in any field of science with the argument that the researchers may be lying or incompetent. It is true that a few researchers do lie, and some are incompetent, but in a group of professional researcher as large as the cold fusion cohort it is statistically impossible for them all to be incompetent. In point of fact, I can judge their competence, and so can Storms and the others who have reviewed the field. It is easy to show that most of them are competent, honest and sane. A few reviewers, such as you, Robert Park and Slakey, have concluded that all researchers are wrong or incompetent, but you are mistaken. Your arguments are irrational and factually wrong. Your judgement proves only that you, Park and Slakey are not fit to judge this subject. It is not possible that thousand of professional scientists, and a handful of people such as Park -- who brags he has not read a single paper -- is right. What you want would not work, for reasons beyond the scope of the discussion. Right. Because the fact that CF doesn't work is beyond the scope of this discussion. Cop out. I am not obligated to explain every single technical detail to you, or to anyone else. I have upload 1,200 papers on this subject, giving you every opportunity to learn this sort of thing for yourself. Cop out is a snappy come-back but you are incorrect. The reasons are beyond the scope of the discussion. You are demanding the impossible. If you do not understand why this is impossible, that is additional proof that you do not know what you are talking about, and you have not done your homework. But heat can be demonstrated simply and visually. . . It can, and it has been. See the boil off experiments. In this case you will not take yes for an answer. What you demand to see has been published, but you refuse to look, or to acknowledge it. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude and a repeated misrepresentation, patents, and a discussion of the chimera of cold fusion
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 9:24 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: The data clearly shows that some cells produce heat after death, and other do not. What does not make sense here is your demand that all cells do this. It's not a demand. It's an identification of an inconsistency. Lomax referred to a specific experiment, and even a specific slide from a presentation. This was held up as particularly good evidence for CF. I examined that slide and was puzzled by one aspect. Here's what I wrote: One problem I have with those results. When the current shuts off, the heat dies immediately. It seems implausible that the deuterium would diffuse out of the Pd that quickly. I would expect a more gradual decline. *Especially with all the reports of heat after death*. That points to artifact to me. So, given that some cells show heat after death, meaning the deuterium does not diffuse out of the Pd right away, how could it be that in this particularly good experiment, the deuterium could diffuse out seemingly in a matter of seconds. It suggests that the explanation being used to explain it is wrong. That there's an artifact. Nature does work the way you demand it should. This is experimental science. You have to take the results as they are, and not dictate what they should be according to your theories. Yes. Obviously. But one picks theories that are consistent with results and rejects those that aren't. We were discussing a particular experiment in a particular report. Is there a graph in that report of that 1994 experiment that reports heat after death? No, because that experiment did not produce heat after death, as I noted previously. You need to stop demanding what is not there. Not a demand. An observation. If deuterium in Pd produces heat, why does the heat vanish instantly when the current is shut off? In this experiment. You need to stop pointing to black birds as proof that red ones do not exist. That's not even close to what I said. I am not saying heat after death has not been observed because it was not observed in this experiment. I'm saying if heat after death occurs, and is attributed to the deuterium in the Pd, then it would seem implausible that the heat would vanish in seconds in another experiment. So, I'm questioning the attribution of the observation, not the observation itself. It's more like you pointing to flying red birds and claiming that it proves they are lighter than air, and me pointing out that I caught some black birds, and weighed them, and they are heavier than air, and they can fly too. The DOE panel would have heard about it, but they were not convinced. Some of panel members were convinced, and some are not. The ones who are not convinced made logical and factual errors similar to the ones you are making. Only one said the evidence for nuclear reactions was conclusive, but *some* not being convinced is all I need for my argument. You said: I do not think any scientist will dispute this. ...An object that remains palpably warmer than the surroundings is as convincing as anything can be… It was hypothetical, and written after the DOE panel, so you could not have said that if you thought such a demo had been available. You can squirm all you want. You effectively admitted that an isolated device palpably warmer than the surroundings would be a good demo, and that it has not yet been done. It is not possible for you to see what is connect to what inside of a Tokamak reactor, or in a robot explorer on Mars. Quite right. I said as much. Many experiments require indirect observations, and second hand observations, and in those cases, reproducibility, theoretical consistency and predictability, scientific unanimity or at least consensus all work together to build credibility. But some claims, if real, can be demonstrated in a simple and obvious way. CF and heavier than air flight are two examples. When such demonstrations should be possible but are absent, and there is no reproducibility, theoretical consistency, or scientific consensus, then it is reasonable to reject the claims until better evidence comes along. It is true that a few researchers do lie, and some are incompetent, but in a group of professional researcher as large as the cold fusion cohort it is statistically impossible for them all to be incompetent. It's only about twice the size of the polywater cohort, and probably smaller than the homeopathy cohort, and certainly smaller than the UFO cohort, so I'm not buying it. There are many examples of large groups of scientists being wrong. And to repeat, if CF is right, then a much larger group of scientists would have to be incompetent. What you want would not work, for reasons beyond the scope of the discussion. Right. Because the fact that CF doesn't work is beyond the scope of this discussion. Cop out. I am not obligated to explain every single technical detail to you, or to anyone else. Of
Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude and a repeated misrepresentation, patents, and a discussion of the chimera of cold fusion
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 10:27 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: I wrote: But some claims, if real, can be demonstrated in a simple and obvious way. CF and heavier than air flight are two examples. When such demonstrations should be possible but are absent, and there is no reproducibility, theoretical consistency, or scientific consensus, then it is reasonable to reject the claims until better evidence comes along. I should add that even if some people consider the results to be reproducible and theoretically consistent (which is certainly the case), the absence of a simple demonstration, when one is possible, would still be cause for skepticism. It would be as if the Wright brothers had gone to France and showed everyone charts and graphs and publications indicating measurements of altitude, and time aloft, and routes flown and so on. Even if they were right, people would be forgiven for being skeptical if they refused or were unable to *show* them. Koonin made the same point back in 1989, when he quoted Aesop's fable, The Leap at Rhodes: *A certain man who visited foreign lands could talk of little when he returned to his home except the wonderful adventures he had met with and the great deeds he had done abroad.* ** *One of the feats he told about was a leap he had made in a city Called Rhodes. That leap was so great, he said, that no other man could leap anywhere near the distance. A great many persons in Rhodes had seen him do it and would prove that what he told was true.* ** *No need of witnesses, said one of the hearers. Suppose this city is Rhodes. Now show us how far you can jump.*
RE: [Vo]:Joshua Cude and a repeated misrepresentation, patents, and a discussion of the chimera of cold fusion
From: Joshua Cude I should add that even if some people consider the results to be reproducible and theoretically consistent (which is certainly the case), the absence of a simple demonstration, when one is possible, would still be cause for skepticism. Finally at bit of insight emerges from Cude ! This should have been his one and only argument, all along. And this has been my point of (milder) skepticism for months - if COP of 6 is really there, and is reproducible (you can forget the part about theoretical consistent as no one cares) then the ONLY real option which can and WILL completely remove all possible doubt is to 'close the loop'. Go completely self-powered with the small unit by recycling the heat in situ - to provide the needed electrical current (several ways to do this) and do it in wheel-mounted device that can be rolled out into the parking lot, if necessary. Everyone on this forum, by now, should realize that nothing short of closing the loop will convince the majority of skeptics, and with COP in the range of 6, any grad student could pull that off at one tenth the cost of a megawatt plant. It is a no-brainer. The megawatt of heat will probably convince a few fence straddlers, but since it will be almost as easy to fake, then most skeptics will still be shaking their heads in October. For credibility, Rossi must CLOSE THE LOOP - anything less is a waste of time and resources. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude and a repeated misrepresentation, patents, and a discussion of the chimera of cold fusion
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 11:33 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Everyone on this forum, by now, should realize that nothing short of closing the loop will convince the majority of skeptics, and with COP in the range of 6, any grad student could pull that off at one tenth the cost of a megawatt plant. I agree, standalone is essential, as I've repeated many times. And Rossi's device produces heat, and uses heat as input, so problems of Carnot efficiency should not be present. But if Rossi claims he needs electrical input for safety reasons he can't divulge, then this COP of 6 is marginal at best. The COP of 30 claimed in January would be easy, but not 6. For an 80C temperature difference, the Carnot efficiency is only 21%, or about 1/5. With practical losses, it would not be possible to close the loop. Of course, it should not be difficult to design the ecat to operate at higher temperatures, to make it easier, but there may be excuses about that too. A suspicious observer might say Rossi reduced his promised COP to 6 from 30 to give him an excuse for requiring an input; for why he can't close the loop.
Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude and a repeated misrepresentation, patents, and a discussion of the chimera of cold fusion
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 11:33 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote A suspicious observer might say Rossi reduced his promised COP to 6 from 30 to give him an excuse for requiring an input; for why he can't close the loop. His problem isn't GETTING the COP -- it's CONTROLLING it. It has to be unconditionally stable -- and the original eCAT wasn't doing that. I'm pretty sure (without evidence, of course) that the 130kW brief power spike in February was unintended. Suppose that cascaded from one eCat to another -- a 1MW plant suddenly generating 5MW would tend to go 'boom'. On the closed loop ... I'm not sure what efficiencies are available at 2.5kW. I posted a link a couple of weeks back to a helical turbine that promised 80% efficiency at eCat temperatures (500) and pressures (50) -- but the smallest unit was 40kW.
Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude and a repeated misrepresentation, patents, and a discussion of the chimera of cold fusion
Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
The data clearly shows that some cells produce heat after death, and
other do not. What does not make sense here is your demand that all cells do
this.
It's not a demand. It's an identification of an inconsistency.
It is not inconsistent. You do not understand enough about the reaction to
understand why. And no, I will not teach you.
I am not saying heat after death has not been observed because it was not
observed in this experiment. I'm saying if heat after death occurs, and is
attributed to the deuterium in the Pd, then it would seem implausible that
the heat would vanish in seconds in another experiment.
No, that is not a bit implausible. This is like saying that because a racing
car can go 150 mph on a track, Jed's 1994 Geo Metro should be able to drive
at 150 mph on Peachtree Industrial Boulevard. There are many reasons why it
cannot, starting with the 40 HP engine.
So, I'm questioning the attribution of the observation, not the observation
itself.
You are questioning things you know nothing about. You are making absurd,
ignorant and unfounded assumptions, just as Robert Park and others have
done.
But some claims, if real, can be demonstrated in a simple and obvious way.
CF and heavier than air flight are two examples. When such demonstrations
should be possible but are absent . . .
Such demonstrations have been done many times. You can photos of them. You
deny they have been done, but your denial does not change facts.
Go ahead and repeat that a hundred times if you like, it will still be
untrue. As former Prime Minister and Rep. from Mars Ichiro Hatoyama famously
said one the 7:00 o'clock news the other day: That's a lie. Human beings
should not lie. ('Uso desu. Ningen wa uso wo tsuite wa naranai.')
It is true that a few researchers do lie, and some are incompetent, but
in a group of professional researcher as large as the cold fusion cohort it
is statistically impossible for them all to be incompetent.
It's only about twice the size of the polywater cohort . . .
That is incorrect. Only one group of researchers thought they had observed
polywater. Another reported they saw it but quickly retracted. About 150
groups investigated but found nothing.
I suggest you learn something about Polywater before pontificating about it.
Read the Franks book. You will see that a comparison to polywater shows that
cold fusion must be real.
Not as simply and visually as you have described and wished for. Not simply
and visually enough to persuade a panel of experts.
Every expert who has looked closely at cold fusion has been convinced it is
real. The DoE panel one-day extravaganza was not an investigation, it was a
parlor game. The panel members who were not persuaded did not do their
homework. The reasons they rejected the findings were absurd and mistaken,
although not as bad as your reasons. Those people were manifestly not
experts in cold fusion. At the end of that day, they still knew practically
nothing about the subject.
- Jed
Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude and a repeated misrepresentation, patents, and a discussion of the chimera of cold fusion
Alan Fletcher wrote: A suspicious observer might say Rossi reduced his promised COP to 6 from 30 to give him an excuse for requiring an input; for why he can't close the loop. His problem isn't GETTING the COP -- it's CONTROLLING it. It has to be unconditionally stable -- and the original eCAT wasn't doing that. That is correct. Levi says they saw the cell run for a while with zero input, and it seemed to be dangerously out of control. Rossi confirms that a closed loop cell or a cell powered by anything other than reliable mains electricity is not safe, and it will take some time to engineer a safe version. People who demand a closed-loop self sustaining demonstration are simply going to have to wait a while. That's all there is to it. I myself consider this demand absurd. If you do not trust power meters and flow calorimetry, or you do not understand them, you will not appreciate a closed-loop demonstration either. From 1904 to 1909, the Wright brothers used a large launching derrick to take off. They did that because there was not much wind in Dayton, OH, and what wind they had often shifted. Also because the Wrights launched from a wooden monorail which was a pain in the butt to lay down and move around, so they wanted to keep the launch track short, and take off in a short distance. (See photo here: http://www.thewrightbrothers.org/1904.html). Since the airplane did not take off on its own power during these years, technically, these were not flights as defined by aviation experts at the time. When Orville was preparing to fly in France, on August 8 1908, and the experts arrived early. Some saw the derrick and were outraged, saying this was a circus trick, not a real flight. Orville went on with his careful, methodical preparations, which took hours. The experts' outrage vanished that evening when Orville finally took to the air. They were awestruck. They realized that their objection to the derrick was mere quibbling. The derrick did not detract from the accomplishment at all. It was obvious that the airplane could take off on its own, with wheels instead of a monorails, and a sufficiently long runway. Some naysayers continued to quibble, especially French aviators who wanted to convince the world that they were the first to fly, and the Wrights had not actually flown at all -- technically, at least. Orville eventually got fed up with this nonsense. Toward the end of the year (or in early 1909 -- I don't recall the date) he equipped the airplane with wheels and took off without the derrick. He also flew for an hour continuously at a time when others could barely stagger off the ground in uncontrolled flights. People today who claim they will not believe cold fusion, and the Rossi device in particular, until it is shown in self-sustaining mode, are being ridiculous. They are as ridiculous as the French aviators who refused to give credit where it is due, even after Orville flew in front of huge crowds for an hour. Frankly, I suggest you stop this idiotic carping, and accept the fact that calorimetry works. Also, by the way, people who say that cold fusion is too hard or anyone should be able to do it should think hard about Orville on August 8, 1908. He spent all day preparing to make one short flight. Tightening wires, looking at the machine from all angles, running up the engine several times, waiting for the wind to be just right. It was as difficult as launching the SpaceShipOne X-prize winner is today. If Orville had made a serious mistake, he would have killed himself. (He did, in fact, make a mistake and he nearly did kill himself in that flight, but only he knew it.) I can look out my window to the airstrip here at PDK and see people casually walking out to the airstrip, getting into airplanes and taking off a few minutes later. You can do that with a mature technology, after others have done it millions of times. You cannot do it with a newly invented technology such as a cold fusion cell today. People who demand that this be made easy or available to anyone at this stage do not understand technology. They have no clue how difficult this is. Conversely, people who say that because it is difficult today, it will always be difficult, are equally misguided. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude and a repeated misrepresentation, patents, and a discussion of the chimera of cold fusion
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: No, that is not a bit implausible. This is like saying that because a racing car can go 150 mph on a track, Jed's 1994 Geo Metro should be able to drive at 150 mph on Peachtree Industrial Boulevard. No. It's like saying that because a racing car can go 150, a Geo Metro based on the same principle should be able to move. That electrode cooled down instantly. But some claims, if real, can be demonstrated in a simple and obvious way. CF and heavier than air flight are two examples. When such demonstrations should be possible but are absent . . . Such demonstrations have been done many times. And yet you said, I do not think any scientist will dispute this. using the future tense. That is incorrect. Only one group of researchers thought they had observed polywater. Another reported they saw it but quickly retracted. About 150 groups investigated but found nothing. 450 publications about finding nothing? I've already given quotes showing you are wrong. And anyway, in the view of most scientists, 1000 people have investigated CF and found nothing. Not as simply and visually as you have described and wished for. Not simply and visually enough to persuade a panel of experts. Every expert who has looked closely at cold fusion has been convinced it is real. The DoE panel one-day extravaganza was not an investigation, it was a parlor game. It wasn't a one-day extravaganza. Half the panel members were given 30 days to review material provided by the CF advocates. And presumably, they were all given some time after to write their reports. Anyway, it's the same parlor game played by every other branch of science. If the CF people can't compete, and explain their results, in the same way everyone else is expected to, it's their problem. It's not as if their results are more difficult to explain. Also, if such simple and obvious demonstrations have been done many times, as you claim above, why should it take more than a day to be convinced by them? If the claim is real, it should be easy to demonstrate. The panel members who were not persuaded did not do their homework. If homework is required, then it is not simple and obvious, and so again, you contradict yourself.
Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude and a repeated misrepresentation, patents, and a discussion of the chimera of cold fusion
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 12:31 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: His problem isn't GETTING the COP -- it's CONTROLLING it. It has to be unconditionally stable -- and the original eCAT wasn't doing that. It's very easy to produce stable electricity from extremely unstable sources. One way would be to use the output to heat a large reservoir, and run the power generator from the reservoir, through regulators and batteries. Wind and solar are irregular, but the power they supply is nicely stable.
Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude and a repeated misrepresentation, patents, and a discussion of the chimera of cold fusion
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 12:33 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: For credibility, Rossi must CLOSE THE LOOP – anything less is a waste of time and resources. Only if he is trying to prove a point. I don't think he is trying to prove a point. I think he wants to produce product. T
RE: [Vo]:Joshua Cude and a repeated misrepresentation, patents, and a discussion of the chimera of cold fusion
Joshua, and all others who are trying to get to the bottom of this - If there is one report that everyone interested in Rossi/E-Cat should read, it is the 1994 final Thermacore report to DARPA. Final Report, SBIR Phase I, Nascent Hydrogen: An Energy Source. Unfortunately it is not on the Web anymore, nor even on LENR/CANR, it seems - although we talked about in 2009 and it appeared that Jed Rothwell was going to put it up. He might do that now - since it is so close to the E-Cat that it is eerie. I have the doc as an 8+ MB scan, and will send it to anyone who is interested if Jed does not want it up on the site. This could be the most important paper in the history of Nickel-hydrogen, at least up to Rossi, if he has indeed pushed the technology over the top - and it presents a continuing mystery, especially in light of all of the hoopla over Rossi. The experiment was gas-phase, but was spawned by the electrolytic cell, which also gives lots of heat - and there is no radioactivity. The underlying patent is about to expire: Thermacore #5,273,635 December 28, 1993 - Inventors: Gernert; Nelson J. (Elizabethtown, PA); Shaubach; Robert M. (Litz, PA); Ernst; Donald M. (Leola, PA) Though the original patent was owned by Thermacore, not BLP, that company was bought up by Modine, and soon after all the inventors took early retirement. This exciting technology could have simply been lost in the transition, as a footnote in the history of Ni-H. Recently the company was sold off by Modine and is now back in operation, again as Thermacore. Consider this quote: The most outstanding example is a cell producing 41 watts of heat with only 5 watts of electrical input. The cell has operated continuously for over one year... OK, that is from 17 years ago, and it showed a COP of 8 for over one year. Note: this claim is coming from the highest of high-tech companies - a prime Pentagon contractor, and not some weird inventor who is honesty-challenged. (and possibly the luckiest man on earth) BTW, this is the company that invented the heat pipe. The claims should be completely credible. Jones attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude and a repeated misrepresentation, patents, and a discussion of the chimera of cold fusion
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 1:45 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I myself consider this demand absurd. [self-running] You would have to to continue believing in CF, considering in 22 years no one has been able to do it. The experts' outrage vanished that evening when Orville finally took to the air. They were awestruck. Because, once in the air, it no longer used the derrick. It was a matter of duration. Similarly, if Rossi's device can take to the air, and stay in the air for some duration without its derrick, the world will be similarly awestruck. Also, by the way, people who say that cold fusion is too hard or anyone should be able to do it should think hard about Orville on August 8, 1908. He spent all day preparing to make one short flight. Tightening wires, looking at the machine from all angles, running up the engine several times, waiting for the wind to be just right. It's easy to see why flying is difficult. It requires training, muscle memory, like playing a piano, and anticipating many variables. No one doubted it then or now. But running an ecat or an electrolysis experiment? There is no similar piano-playing type skill needed. The ecat especially, once the black box is there, is supposed to be ready for the market. It's supposed to be turnkey. So attaching a generator to it if the COP is high enough really should be child's play. Sometimes comparisons are apples and oranges. This is one of those. People who demand that this be made easy or available to anyone at this stage do not understand technology. But you said simple and obvious demonstrations have been done many times. They have no clue how difficult this is. Of course we do. We think it's probably impossible. You can't be more difficult than impossible.
Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude and a repeated misrepresentation, patents, and a discussion of the chimera of cold fusion
Jones Beene wrote:If there is one report that everyone interested in Rossi/E-Cat should read, it is the 1994 final Thermacore report to DARPA. Final Report, SBIR Phase I, Nascent Hydrogen: An Energy Source. Unfortunately it is not on the Web anymore, nor even on LENR/CANR, it seems - although we talked about in 2009 and it appeared that Jed Rothwell was going to put it up. I forgot all about it. I think I asked permission and never got a response. It is an unclassified government report. I guess I don't need permission. The document is in bad shape but I can run it through Pdf Converter and add an OCR layer. Might as well. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude and a repeated misrepresentation, patents, and a discussion of the chimera of cold fusion
The following was said: From Rothwell: I myself consider this demand absurd. [self-running] Joshua responded with: You would have to to continue believing in CF, considering in 22 years no one has been able to do it. Joshua, Setting the self-running debate and is it really Memorex aside for a moment... Mr. Lomax can correct me if I misinterpreted his speculations but I gather he suspects you might be a student - perhaps of physics, and possibly even a graduate student at that. I gather Lomax also suspects the name you use Joshua Cude is not your real name. As a matter of principal, hiding behind a pseudo name is not regarded in high esteem within this group list, particularly when the poster posts copious quantities of lengthy exposes that show a highly selective agenda: Yours being that all Cold Fusion claims turn out to be unfounded and/or bogus - apparently every single one of them. If you are a student (or perhaps someone who is doing the bidding of a superior) I would like to add the following personal commentary: I hope you have worked out an equitable arrangement with your principal professor (or superior) concerning these on-going critiques of Rossi's controversial claims. No matter what the outcome turns out to be, hopefully you'll achieve a passing grade - or perhaps a generous raise. I hate to see grad students, (or perhaps in this situation: slave labor) being taken advantage of by superiors who remain discreetly out of the lime light by letting the front man risk taking the fall. As Mongo, of Blazing Saddles fame, once said Mongo only pawn in game of life. Regardless of the fact that many in this group may not agree with your personal conclusions, your posts have nevertheless achieved a certain level of notoriety. Perhaps that may have been your agenda all along. In which case: Mission Accomplished. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude and a repeated misrepresentation, patents, and a discussion of the chimera of cold fusion
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 2:30 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote: As a matter of principal, hiding behind a pseudo name is not regarded in high esteem within this group list, particularly when the poster posts copious quantities of lengthy exposes that show a highly selective agenda: The agenda is not selected by me. With a regrettable exception or two (one in a rather orthogonal thread on perpendicular fields), I have only *responded* to threads with my name on them, in which my posts from elsewhere were brought here for dissection.
Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude and a repeated misrepresentation, patents, and a discussion of the chimera of cold fusion
This style of quotation is nonstandard and difficult to follow for large messages. Regular email clients handle the creation and display of nested quotations in an agreeable manner, which your formatting breaks. If you prefer to use a word processor for composition, please begin a reply, copy that to the word processor and add in-line comments normally, and then email that. Thanks! Sent from my iPhone. On Jun 2, 2011, at 14:06, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 10:19 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: CudeMaybe, but Rossi OK'd them. Lomax Yes, he did. However, the point was that this was not simply what Cude claimed, using his own designates. OK. I used the wrong word. I don't think my message is significantly weakened if I make the same claim using vetted observers or something like that.
Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude and a repeated misrepresentation, patents, and a discussion of the chimera of cold fusion
Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: The experts' outrage vanished that evening when Orville finally took to the air. They were awestruck. Because, once in the air, it no longer used the derrick. It was a matter of duration. Similarly, if Rossi's device can take to the air, and stay in the air for some duration without its derrick, the world will be similarly awestruck. In the years before August 8, 1908, the Wrights often flew before large crowds of people in Dayton, OH, including leading citizens who signed affidavits saying they had seen the flights. The longest flight was 24 miles in 39 minutes. Yet no one outside of Dayton believed a word of it. Not one newspaper or journal. The Scientific American attacked, ridiculed and belittled the Wrights, and continued to attack them at every opportunity, most recently in 2003. See: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJthewrightb.pdf Kelly, F. C., They Wouldn't Believe the Wrights had Flown -- A study in human incredulity, Harper’s Magazine 18 1 (Aug 1940): 286-300 People have not grown wiser since 1908. The arguments used against the Wrights were almost word-for-word the same as the ones you trot out against the cold fusion today. See the quotes from the Sci. Am. and The New York Globe, in my paper. As late as 1912, when aviators showed up in small American cities and towns to do demonstrations, crowds of people showed up to tar and feather them as scammers and frauds, and sheriffs ran them out of town, because everyone knew that people cannot fly. This history is well documented. It does not matter how much evidence is presented, or how convincing it is. People like those crowds back in 1912, and people like you, will not look. There are none so blind as those who will not see. But running an ecat or an electrolysis experiment? There is no similar piano-playing type skill needed. Again, you reveal that you have no idea what you are talking about. I have seen electrochemical experiments at Mizuno's lab which nearly killed some observers, even though Mizuno is one of the most skilled electrochemists in the world. See: http://lenr-canr.org/Experiments.htm#PhotosAccidents This is a lot like saying that if Orville Wright could fly in 1908, anyone could. Most of the first 100 people who took to the air after him were dead by 1912. Wilbur Wright was nearly killed in Washington, in September 1908, and his passenger Selfridge was killed. People who demand that this be made easy or available to anyone at this stage do not understand technology. But you said simple and obvious demonstrations have been done many times. I said obvious. It is not simple. It will become simple in the future, just as driving a car or operating a computer is now simple. The first computers I operated and programmed in the 1960s and 70s were far beyond the ability of ordinary people to operate. There was no doubt the computers worked, and I could make them do things even the manufacturer did not know they could do, but it was not simple. It sure as hell wasn't easy. If you think it was, you have never done anything difficult, or original, or at the cutting edge of technology or science. People who talk the way you do usually have not. You stand on the sidelines and boast that you know better than those of us who have, but you know nothing of what you speak. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude and a repeated misrepresentation, patents, and a discussion of the chimera of cold fusion
Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: retracted. About 150 groups investigated but found nothing. 450 publications about finding nothing? I've already given quotes showing you are wrong. I suggest you read the book by Felix Franks, Polywater, (MIT, 1981). I have read it; you have not. You do not know what you are talking about. And anyway, in the view of most scientists, 1000 people have investigated CF and found nothing. That's preposterous. See: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJtallyofcol.pdf Stop trying to teach grandma how to suck eggs. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude and a repeated misrepresentation, patents, and a discussion of the chimera of cold fusion
At 11:27 AM 6/3/2011, Joshua Cude wrote: On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 9:24 AM, Jed Rothwell mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.comjedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: The data clearly shows that some cells produce heat after death, and other do not. What does not make sense here is your demand that all cells do this. It's not a demand. It's an identification of an inconsistency. So? The implication is that consistency of results is a requirement for an effect to be considered real. That's not a scientific proposition. This can point us to the nature of the controversy here, it is about the difference between physics, which views itself as a hard science, and softer sciences, where absolute and accurate predictability are often lacking. Yet unpredictability can be found within physics as well; in particular, any chaotic phenomenon may be unpredictable. In this case, though, the unpredictability of cold fusion results, with FPHE-type experiments, is probably due to the extreme difficult of controlling all the exact conditions. SRI P13/P14 shows that there is a clearly distinguishable phenomenon, anomalous heat, standing well above the noise (about ten times the error bars, it's very clear), with unknown conditions causing it, since in the three runs, with all known specific conditions, except for specific history, being identical. (If this experiment was re-run, with the *same history*, would it show the same results? Probably not, because it would not, then, be *the same cathode.* The cathode is altered by the history, that's part of the problem.) Inconsistency of results is a known characteristic of the FPHE. So no single experiment establishes the conditions that set it up. You might, sometimes, get spectacular results, then you try what seems to be the same thing, and nothing unusual happens. *This condition is not contradictory to the reality of the effect, it merely shows lack of control of conditions, and the chemistry of the surface of a palladium cathode is more complex than I care to describe.* Physicists intensely dislike messy conditions, they design experiments to avoid them. But the FPHE, as initially known, arises in very messy conditions, simplifying the conditions did cause the effect to disappear. Later work found other conditions that also produce a heat effect with palladium deuteride, with, apparently, more reliable reproducibility. My own opinion is that these other conditions show the same phenomenon, but what's happened is that the experiment has been broken down, in effect, into a very large number of very tiny experiments run at the same time. Nanoparticle palladium can be thought of as one experiment per nanoparticle. So the overall experiment is averaging many, many individual runs. But I have not analyzed nanoparticle results, personally. I'm just pointing out what is a possibility. I'll note that nanoparticle, gas-loading, results have tended to be low, quantitatively, meaning to me that most of the individual experiments -- each nanoparticle -- is doing nothing. I.e., most experiments are failing. But, then, the overall experiment averages together all the results, showing, if there are consistent results, a significant effect that *sometimes* arises. And then the engineering effort attempts to find ways to enhance that effect, to make it more reliable, which will raise energy yield. Lomax referred to a specific experiment, and even a specific slide from a presentation. This was held up as particularly good evidence for CF. I examined that slide and was puzzled by one aspect. Here's what I wrote: It's held up as an example of what stands in the way of recognition. If you see that slide, what do you think? If you knew, seeing the slide, that the same current excursion took place three times, that the cathode was already, before any of these excursions, heavily loaded (about 90%), would this shift your understanding of what it means? One problem I have with those results. When the current shuts off, the heat dies immediately. It seems implausible that the deuterium would diffuse out of the Pd that quickly. I would expect a more gradual decline. Especially with all the reports of heat after death. That points to artifact to me. heat after death occurs with some techniques. I do see, by the way, some HAD in that experiment. Just not a lot. Look at how the heat falls, it bounces. The effect, first of all, is not much seen under equilibrium conditions. When you have high current, you have continual activity of deuterium at the surface, and it's a surface effect, apparently. What is going on inside the lattice, deeper, doesn't appear to matter, except that if there is low loading deeper in, the deuterium will rapidly migrate there. So to have very high loading at the surface -- 90% is very high, it used to be thought that 70% was the most you could get -- you have to have high loading
Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude and a repeated misrepresentation, patents, and a discussion of the chimera of cold fusion
Say, Abd, Jed, and Joshua, I'd like to offer a path beyond the lengthly 'Tis--Taint debate -- members of Vortex-L could plan and carry out a simple, repeatable, low-cost LENR demonstration, including standard kits (for which, except for deserving young students, could be priced at $ 1,000, since at least the designated main organizer (never me, possibly Abd) deserves reasonable income for pivotal service) -- replicating the water tree fractal filament corrosion of dense highly-cross-linked polyethylene, reported since 2005 to result in anomalous isotopic ratios, such as 6% shift for Zn: 1. based on ongoing research for decades about a pesky electrical engineering mystery. 2. low cost, safe 0.5 mm pieces of a highly pure solid firm -- what area and density, impurities, melting point? 3. touted as explainable via Widom-Larsen theory -- is NASA already on it? 4. unlike gas or liquid experiments, the solid state preserves its shape, so reaction sites can be examined in situ real-time, or the film sliced or processed to determine all elements, structures, and isotopes in 3D -- what are sizes and shapes of water trees? 5. thin films are easy to observe continuously from both sides. 6. the setup is slow to change. 7. the setup is cheap and small, easy to precisely replicate and run arrays of cells at once. 8. very little power input, as a 3 KV AC voltage across a dielectric film is run for days and weeks -- what leakage current power and dielectric heating levels? -- which can be precisely monitored continuously with high time resolution (Michael H. Barron, Santa Fe, has a voltage supply that goes up to 1,000 V with picoamp current accuracy). 9. voltage plates can be transparent very thin conducing films, allowing adjacent layers of detector film to record charged and neutral particle emissions, or camera imagery of THz to gamma EM radiation -- micro microphone arrays could locate phonon sources and spectra. 10. setup can be laid on top of a 16 Mpx CCD imaging chip for precise recording of events, and stacked multiple chips would allow real-time tracking of 3D trajectories of energetic emissions. 11. Jed could soon translate the Japanese reports. 12. the research could be completely transparent on-line at all phases, including archived comments from anyone, demonstrating a quantum mutation in the process of science -- possibly far cheaper, faster, more creative and efficient, more open to simultaneous multiple points of view, including skeptics. 13. the self-organizing network could set up public protocols re possible profitable products. 14. no hazards -- just how much mass of the anomalous isotopes are appearing at what time scale and power density? 15 easy to apply external electric, magnetic, and EM fields in any combination and geometry. 16. NMR can also noninvasively monitor time and space information about isotopic changes. 17. goal is not mysterious, fickle heat bursts, but precise study of replicable isotopes and emissions. 18. setup can reach nano level size. 19. elastic film could trap emerging gases, creating bubbles that can be studied and extracted. 20. low temperature regimes could be explored by using various liquids, including H and He. reactive gas micro and nano bubbles complicate Widom-Larsen theory re electrolytic cells -- metal isotope anomalies in 'water tree' corrosion of power cable polyethylene insulation, T Kumazawa et al 2005 -- 2008 Japan: Rich Murray 2011.06.02 http://rmforall.blogspot.com/2011_06_01_archive.htm Thursday, June 2, 2011 [at end of each long page, click on Older Posts] http://groups.yahoo.com/group/astrodeep/message/85 [you may have to Copy and Paste URLs into your browser] Last year I sent some long posts to Abd Lomax and Ed Storms about recent mainstream research on micro and nano bubbles in electrolytes, which are common on all size scales, and can be H2, O2, N2, Cl2... I, and Ludvik Kowalsky, also posted that in the SPAWAR DPd codeposition runs, when an external DC 6 KV electric field was across the 2 cm wide square by 8 cm high cell with thin clear plastic walls, ordinary electrostatics will cause the entire charge to be across the two thin walls, and zero within the electrolyte -- however microamps of leakage current through the walls will result in complex low voltage currents within the electrolyte, its components, and all surfaces. Extraordinary Error -- no electric field exists inside a conducting liquid in an insulated box with two external charged metal plates, re work by SPAWAR on cold fusion since 2002 -- also hot spots from H and O microbubbles: Rich Murray 2010.02.22 http://rmforall.blogspot.com/2010_02_01_archive.htm Monday, February 22, 2010 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/astrodeep/message/42 Widom and Larsen have cited deterioration of plastic insulation on underground power cables, fractal water trees, eventually shorting out the cable with conducting tree-like filaments, so it is reasonable to suspect similar processes in
RE: [Vo]:Joshua Cude and a repeated misrepresentation, patents, and a discussion of the chimera of cold fusion
From Joshua: From Steven V Johnson - OrionWorks As a matter of principal, hiding behind a pseudo name is not regarded in high esteem within this group list, particularly when the poster posts copious quantities of lengthy exposes that show a highly selective agenda: From Joshua: The agenda is not selected by me. With a regrettable exception or two (one in a rather orthogonal thread on perpendicular fields), I have only *responded* to threads with my name on them, in which my posts from elsewhere were brought here for dissection. Clear as mud. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude and a repeated misrepresentation, patents, and a discussion of the chimera of cold fusion
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 8:36 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote: The agenda is not selected by me. With a regrettable exception or two (one in a rather orthogonal thread on perpendicular fields), I have only *responded* to threads with my name on them, in which my posts from elsewhere were brought here for dissection. Clear as mud. He only responded to topics crossposted by Lomax except for the thread on perpendicular electric and magnetic fields. Personally, I think Lomax and Cude should take their romance off this list. I will speak to the list owner on this since Cude only came back because of a list violation on crossposting and they are cluttering the real topics for which the list is intended. Mud, yes. Wallowing, IMO. T
Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude and a repeated misrepresentation, patents, and a discussion of the chimera of cold fusion
At 11:33 PM 6/1/2011, Joshua Cude wrote: (a comment that is diagnostic as to his condition and extreme bias.) On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 12:04 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: Cude ... as long as Rossi uses his own designates to report measurements, he will not be taken seriously. As soon as it would be visual and obvious so anyone can see it, he would be rich and famous. Lomax Cude has repeated this meme, it should be answered. Rossi did not pick the Swedish scientists who observed, Mats Lewan did. Maybe, but Rossi OK'd them. Yes, he did. However, the point was that this was not simply what Cude claimed, using his own designates. It is accepting the designates of someone else. Sure, Rossi could possibly somehow figure out that these people would somehow be gullible. However, consider who they were. A physicist sitting on the Nobel committee. An official of the Swedish Skeptics Society. If Rossi were not confident of his demonstrations, do you think he'd approve those two? Indeed, almost certainly, he'd reject Essen, at least. What Cude is doing is demonstrating how, given a held belief, one can create endless suspicion and doubt, and there is no end to this. None, beyond massive fully independent confirmation, which isn't going to happen unless Rossi runs into trouble delivering. Which could happen regardless of reality/fraud, etc. Flipping to the opposite extreme, pure credulity, would be no better, by the way. And he seems to have accepted any reputable physicist willing to look at the work. So far, that would be 3. Out of a number he asked. Now, I've corresponded with scientists at Wikipedia who were actually skeptical but who did not want to be known as even thinking that cold fusion might be real, or as willing to look at evidence, they were afraid for their careers. A physicist who is asked might well think, What if this is a really sophisticated fraud, and I look at it and I can't see how it's done? I could look, later, like a complete fool. This is a no-win situation, no, I won't do it. I gain nothing here but trouble. It takes quite a bit of courage to do what Essen and Kullander did, just to be willing to look. Were they fooled? Maybe. Actually, reading Essen and Kullander, they are pretty careful. They've described appearance, and have not claimed reality. But, *still*, we have anonymous pseudoskeptics like Cude claiming gullibility and even possible collusion. There are two things to keep in mind about Cude. First of all, he's obviously certain about what is not possible, which is not a scientific position, it's a religious belief. Secondly, he is anonymous, and has no responsibility for what he says, no reputation to uphold or protect, nothing but an anonymous user name. Unlike Kullander and Cude and Lewan and Levi and, indeed, Rossi. His public demo was invitation only. He has never made a public invitation to anyone who wants to make direct measurements on the experiment. The kind that would be required to verify his claims. Because reported measurements to date (except maybe the secret ones) do not verify his claims. Well, let's put it this way: they were inadequate as proof. And from what I can tell, that's exactly what Rossi wants at this time. He wanted to make a demo, for reasons others have explored, but he didn't want to make it so bulletproof that everyone would fall down, and big money would start funding competition. He hit a compromise between his need for secrecy, for commercial reasons, and his desire to publicise, perhaps to please Focardi. Fraud? Maybe. It's looking really unlikely to me, but really unlikely is not impossible. What I know is that LENR is possible, that's not in question, and Cude could not get his protestations on this point published under peer review, anywhere. They are pure political polemic disguised as scientific skepticism. Given their reputations, if Rossi were inclined to reject anyone who would not be gullible, he'd not have allowed them to observe. In order to maintain the fraud hypothesis here, I'd have to assume that Rossi paid off Lewan and the other Swedes. No. He talked to them. He read their interviews, and what they wrote. He probably got the sense that they were prepared to believe that the output flow of mist and steam was pure vapour. He might have gotten a gentleman's agreement that they would accept the experimental setup as it was, and simply read the meters. Basically, Cude can speculate and speculate and create whatever story out of these speculations he wants. Here, at least, he's writing probably, though there is nothing behind that probable but Cude's conviction that this thing is impossible. If what is apparent is impossible, then the appearance *must* be wrong. And this logic can be used to reject *any* evidence that would counter the held belief. When I asked
Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude and a repeated misrepresentation, patents, and a discussion of the chimera of cold fusion
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 10:19 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: CudeMaybe, but Rossi OK'd them. Lomax Yes, he did. However, the point was that this was not simply what Cude claimed, using his own designates. OK. I used the wrong word. I don't think my message is significantly weakened if I make the same claim using vetted observers or something like that. It is accepting the designates of someone else. Sure, Rossi could possibly somehow figure out that these people would somehow be gullible. However, consider who they were. A physicist sitting on the Nobel committee. An official of the Swedish Skeptics Society. If Rossi were not confident of his demonstrations, do you think he'd approve those two? Indeed, almost certainly, he'd reject Essen, at least. First, I'm not interested in second-guessing. I'm interested in evidence, and if it has to be second-hand, then it should come from someone who is clearly on record as a skeptic of CF. And preferably from several such people in contexts they control, without restriction on the measurements they make, short of opening the black box. In spite of Essen's associations, he had publicly expressed sympathy for Rossi. He was not skeptical. Secondly, this sort of argument might become relevant in future demonstrations (or with respect to Levi in the secret experiment), but it's not in the January or in the Swede demos, because even the evidence they reported does not support excess heat in my estimation. They arrived at different conclusions largely because they assumed the steam was dry. They however gave no evidence that it was, and in the Lewan and January experiments, the evidence strongly suggests it was very wet. What Cude is doing is demonstrating how, given a held belief, one can create endless suspicion and doubt, and there is no end to this. Not true. The demonstrations are simply very poorly done. Rossi appears to have discovered that when the water in a conduit reaches boiling, it starts spewing out as a mist, which people can be persuaded is dry steam, and voila, he gets a factor of 6. Then a few other discrepancies with flow rates and using thermal mass to underestimate power, and he can get an even bigger apparent gain. Most of these objections can be avoided. And I've described ways. The problem is that his later demos were no better than the January demo. None, beyond massive fully independent confirmation, Or, as I've argued, fully visible. Now, I've corresponded with scientists at Wikipedia who were actually skeptical but who did not want to be known as even thinking that cold fusion might be real, or as willing to look at evidence, they were afraid for their careers. I agree, this is a problem. Many would simply dismiss the idea and not want to waste their time. So yes, finding credible experts is a problem. Sending ecats out under NDAs would be easier, but also not likely to happen. That's why I'm fixated on a completely visual demonstration. Boiling 1000 L of water in the middle of an open field with nothing but an ecat would attract attention. The thing about this revolutionary claim is that a visual demonstration is possible. Why not give one. Were they fooled? Maybe. Actually, reading Essen and Kullander, they are pretty careful. They've described appearance, and have not claimed reality. But, *still*, we have anonymous pseudoskeptics like Cude claiming gullibility and even possible collusion. On the crucial question of dry steam, they claimed it was dry based on two visual inspections and measurements of relative humidity. That claim is not believable, and I don't care what that says about Essen and Kullander. The dry steam makes a 6-fold difference in energy; how can they be so sloppy about determining it? On the other hand, the temperature is not expected to change during that 6-fold increase in power, and yet they measure it every few seconds. That's just a bad experiment. There are two things to keep in mind about Cude. First of all, he's obviously certain about what is not possible, which is not a scientific position, it's a religious belief. Wrong. I have specified the experiment that would be convincing of excess heat. I don't think there is an experiment that would convince some CF advocates that they are wrong. Well, let's put it this way: they were inadequate as proof. Right, And from what I can tell, that's exactly what Rossi wants at this time. Fine. But I if even Rossi agrees that his demos don't give evidence of excess heat, why exactly should I think there is excess heat? Fraud? Maybe. It's looking really unlikely to me, but really unlikely is not impossible. What I know is that LENR is possible, that's not in question, Hmm. I thought you said belief like this is not a scientific position. It's religious. A little bit of the pot calling the kettle black. No. He talked to them. He read their interviews, and what they wrote. He probably got the sense
Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude and a repeated misrepresentation, patents, and a discussion of the chimera of cold fusion
Dear Joshua Please answer the message re our Protocol. Let's focus on future- we are not historians and cannot change the Past. Peter On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 9:06 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 10:19 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: CudeMaybe, but Rossi OK'd them. Lomax Yes, he did. However, the point was that this was not simply what Cude claimed, using his own designates. OK. I used the wrong word. I don't think my message is significantly weakened if I make the same claim using vetted observers or something like that. It is accepting the designates of someone else. Sure, Rossi could possibly somehow figure out that these people would somehow be gullible. However, consider who they were. A physicist sitting on the Nobel committee. An official of the Swedish Skeptics Society. If Rossi were not confident of his demonstrations, do you think he'd approve those two? Indeed, almost certainly, he'd reject Essen, at least. First, I'm not interested in second-guessing. I'm interested in evidence, and if it has to be second-hand, then it should come from someone who is clearly on record as a skeptic of CF. And preferably from several such people in contexts they control, without restriction on the measurements they make, short of opening the black box. In spite of Essen's associations, he had publicly expressed sympathy for Rossi. He was not skeptical. Secondly, this sort of argument might become relevant in future demonstrations (or with respect to Levi in the secret experiment), but it's not in the January or in the Swede demos, because even the evidence they reported does not support excess heat in my estimation. They arrived at different conclusions largely because they assumed the steam was dry. They however gave no evidence that it was, and in the Lewan and January experiments, the evidence strongly suggests it was very wet. What Cude is doing is demonstrating how, given a held belief, one can create endless suspicion and doubt, and there is no end to this. Not true. The demonstrations are simply very poorly done. Rossi appears to have discovered that when the water in a conduit reaches boiling, it starts spewing out as a mist, which people can be persuaded is dry steam, and voila, he gets a factor of 6. Then a few other discrepancies with flow rates and using thermal mass to underestimate power, and he can get an even bigger apparent gain. Most of these objections can be avoided. And I've described ways. The problem is that his later demos were no better than the January demo. None, beyond massive fully independent confirmation, Or, as I've argued, fully visible. Now, I've corresponded with scientists at Wikipedia who were actually skeptical but who did not want to be known as even thinking that cold fusion might be real, or as willing to look at evidence, they were afraid for their careers. I agree, this is a problem. Many would simply dismiss the idea and not want to waste their time. So yes, finding credible experts is a problem. Sending ecats out under NDAs would be easier, but also not likely to happen. That's why I'm fixated on a completely visual demonstration. Boiling 1000 L of water in the middle of an open field with nothing but an ecat would attract attention. The thing about this revolutionary claim is that a visual demonstration is possible. Why not give one. Were they fooled? Maybe. Actually, reading Essen and Kullander, they are pretty careful. They've described appearance, and have not claimed reality. But, *still*, we have anonymous pseudoskeptics like Cude claiming gullibility and even possible collusion. On the crucial question of dry steam, they claimed it was dry based on two visual inspections and measurements of relative humidity. That claim is not believable, and I don't care what that says about Essen and Kullander. The dry steam makes a 6-fold difference in energy; how can they be so sloppy about determining it? On the other hand, the temperature is not expected to change during that 6-fold increase in power, and yet they measure it every few seconds. That's just a bad experiment. There are two things to keep in mind about Cude. First of all, he's obviously certain about what is not possible, which is not a scientific position, it's a religious belief. Wrong. I have specified the experiment that would be convincing of excess heat. I don't think there is an experiment that would convince some CF advocates that they are wrong. Well, let's put it this way: they were inadequate as proof. Right, And from what I can tell, that's exactly what Rossi wants at this time. Fine. But I if even Rossi agrees that his demos don't give evidence of excess heat, why exactly should I think there is excess heat? Fraud? Maybe. It's looking really unlikely to me, but really unlikely is not impossible. What I know is
Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude and a repeated misrepresentation, patents, and a discussion of the chimera of cold fusion
At 02:06 PM 6/2/2011, Joshua Cude wrote: On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 10:19 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: CudeMaybe, but Rossi OK'd them. Lomax Yes, he did. However, the point was that this was not simply what Cude claimed, using his own designates. OK. I used the wrong word. I don't think my message is significantly weakened if I make the same claim using vetted observers or something like that. Polemically, and as far as probabilities of collusion or gullibility, it's very different, and that's why, I suggest, Joshua used the wording he did. He didn't use the wrong word, he used exactly the wording he wanted to present his point. Now, I've corresponded with scientists at Wikipedia who were actually skeptical but who did not want to be known as even thinking that cold fusion might be real, or as willing to look at evidence, they were afraid for their careers. I agree, this is a problem. Abd falls over, in a faint. Recovering, Many would simply dismiss the idea and not want to waste their time. So yes, finding credible experts is a problem. Sending ecats out under NDAs would be easier, but also not likely to happen. That's why you pay the experts, like Robert Duncan. There aren't many who will risk their professional future without being paid. (This isn't any slight against Duncan, in the least, rather it's kudos to Kullander and Essen. Unless, I suppose, Ny Teknik paid them as consultants -- which would be perfectly okay. I'll note that some major cold fusion researchers were exactly that, researchers who had no dog in the race except serving their clients. This would be Michael McKubre, as perhaps the foremost example, but we could also add Nate Hoffman, even if Jed Rothwell starts spitting a mixture of wet and dry steam. It was Hoffman's skeptical presentation that actually alerted me, the most, to the possibility that CF was real. Hoffman was a real skeptic. Sure, he may have made some mistakes. But everyone makes mistakes. Kullander and Essen and Lewan might have made some mistakes too. But their medal for bravery stands anyway. The courage to investigate includes and covers the possibility of making mistakes. Someone like Joshua Cude has nothing to lose, he can spout what turns out to be complete nonsense and, he imagines, he'll suffer no consequences. That's an illusion. He will have to live with what he's written and said for the rest of his life. He'll know. And, I wonder, what will he tell his children and grandchildren, if he has any? That's why I'm fixated on a completely visual demonstration. Boiling 1000 L of water in the middle of an open field with nothing but an ecat would attract attention. The thing about this revolutionary claim is that a visual demonstration is possible. Why not give one. We have explained why not many times, and that Joshua is fixated on something else doesn't mean anything. Rossi isn't in the least interested in pleasing Joshua. He doesn't even care about pleasing me, nor do I have any right at all to expect that he would. He did the work, his life and reputation and money are invested, he deserves his reward. Which, by the way, would include opprobrium and even possibly jail time if he is committing a fraud, even a pious one. (I.e, say he believes that this thing works, there is just this little kink, and to get over this hump, well ... suppose that Joshua is right about steam and mist, and Rossi knows it, but allows the deceptive appearance to be maintained. Suppose that the story of the heated factory for so long is a lie, but it won't matter once we have that Defkalion plant going. I know of only one possible fact that would lead to a possibility of criminal fraud, though there might be more: that would be whatever representations might have been made to Ampenergo, which has apparently actually made a payment. Defkalion, probably not, from what's been said. All the mouth flapping to the media means nothing. It's worth what was paid for it, in a sense. And, remember, if this is real, Rossi deserves fabulous wealth. Wrong. I have specified the experiment that would be convincing of excess heat. I don't think there is an experiment that would convince some CF advocates that they are wrong. Joshua's world view divides people up into two camps. The properly skeptical, which is the people of solid knowledge and understanding, i.e., him and people like him, and the gullible, who believe what they want to beleive and who cannot be moved. In reality, almost all people are in the second camp, especially including Joshua, at least with respect to some things. Scientists, real ones, are trained away from this, but the training is not perfect. The habit lingers, and it linger more with some than with others. I cannot speak for others, but am I a cold fusion advocate? Personally, I wonder what that would mean. I was a Wikipedia
Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude and a repeated misrepresentation, patents, and a discussion of the chimera of cold fusion
At 03:04 PM 6/2/2011, Peter Gluck wrote: Dear Joshua Please answer the message re our Protocol. Let's focus on future- we are not historians and cannot change the Past. If we were, perhaps we would change it cheerfully?
Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude and a repeated misrepresentation, patents, and a discussion of the chimera of cold fusion
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 4:48 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: Rossi isn't in the least interested in pleasing Joshua. True. But he's doing demos. And I'm free to explain why they don't convince me, and what would. Which, by the way, would include opprobrium and even possibly jail time if he is committing a fraud, even a pious one. (I.e, say he believes that this thing works, there is just this little kink, and to get over this hump, well ... Somehow, Mills has gone 20 years promising a new energy source, without a single commercial product, and without even being formally accused of fraud. Rossi may believe his ecat works, and Mills may believe in hydrinos, and they may never succeed in getting a commercial product to the open market. And they may both be innocent of fraud or both be guilty. Who knows. But failing to deliver does not guarantee jail time. Does this prove that cold fusion is real? No. However, several years of review of the evidence have convinced me that the evidence for *some kind of low energy nuclear reaction* is very strong, i.e, a million to one. I can quibble too, since you put LENR (a misnomer) in all lower case. Nuclear reactions occur at low energy, obviously. Fission, alpha decay etc all occur naturally at low temperature. Even fusion has a tiny probability. The claim is that the nuclear reactions in otherwise non-radioactive material can be induced using essentially chemical or electrical means at rates sufficiently high to produce heat at useful (or even measurable) levels. I've looked at most of the evidence usually cited to support this, and I'd give reciprocal odds: one in a million. (That's generous.) Reputable scientists won't even look at the evidence! Most looked a long time ago, and are satisfied that if the claims (as I put it above) were real, a convincing demo would be a piece of cake to design. That's the point. Twenty years later and 60 minutes uses Dardik's unbelievably opaque experiment and an expert's testimony after days of analysis to prove energy density a million times higher than gasoline. Why would anyone bother to look at such evidence, if not to enjoy the banter with believers? And then along comes Rossi, and all the advocates are saying *this* is what the field has been waiting for. *This* is finally the demo Rothwell and Mallove had been wishing for. And when you look at the demo, and see that it proves nothing at all, one is forced to conclude that the previous CF demos are even worse. So Huizenga knew it was important when Miles confirmed helium commensurate with heat. With no gamma rays. Does Huizenga believe in cold fusion now? No. Okay, the experiment that will pull the rug out from under my acceptance of cold fusion: [...] So, you want a demonstration that heat-helium are not correlated and that exposes the artifact that produces what people interpret as heat. The 2nd part of that was done for Focardi, and some people still kept believing, and now after Rossi, I think the doubters believe in Focardi again. So that's not enough. But OK, you've given an experiment that would cause you to doubt CF. It's highly unlikely to happen, because even the people who believe in CF don't seem to be doing quantitative heat-helium experiments. Skeptics would not waste their time until someone produces evidence that impresses them -- that at least passes peer review, but probably it would need to be more than that. And from what I can tell, that's exactly what Rossi wants at this time. Fine. But I if even Rossi agrees that his demos don't give evidence of excess heat, why exactly should I think there is excess heat? You shouldn't. Good. I don't. But neither should you think that there is no excess heat, unless you have, yourself, clear evidence that there is not. Everywhere? I should think there is excess heat in every possible experimental situation? I think it's reasonable to use previous knowledge to make reasonable predictions about certain configurations, and change them when evidence justifies it. Otherwise, progress would be impossible. I think you said this yourself. […] What I know is that LENR is possible, that's not in question, Hmm. I thought you said belief like this is not a scientific position. It's religious. […] Nope. I'm not attached to it. But you don't question it. To give an idea of what it took, take a look at page 7 of http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHcoldfusion.pdf, a graph of results from P13/P14. I must have seen that graph dozens of times before I realized what it implied. Does McKubre really explain it in this slide show? No. Nor have I seen him explain it in a way that will convey the point I'll be making. He knows the point, he'll recognize it immediately, I'm sure, but I don't think I've seen it explained by anyone anywhere, except for me, in a few discussions. [proof of CF because it is not reproducible] So, the best evidence you have
Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude and a repeated misrepresentation, patents, and a discussion of the chimera of cold fusion
Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: So, the best evidence you have for CF is from an experiment in 1994, in which the excess heat is a few per cent . . . A few percent of what? The error margin? Look at the bottom. One problem I have with those results. When the current shuts off, the heat dies immediately. That is incorrect, as are most of your other assertions. That is * particularly* incorrect. Some cells remain hot for hours or days. I have frequently asked for the Rothwell beaker. An obviously isolated device that remains warmer than its environment (or gets hotter) for a long enough period to obviously generate its own weight in chemical energy. That would be a gas loaded cell, or a cell in heat after death. There are dozens of examples of that in the literature, so you have been given what you want. Or perhaps you mean this in the literal sense that you want someone to hand over something like this to you, in person. I do not think it is likely anyone would do that. You could go to a lab and see something like that, as I have done. If Rossi is correct, you should be able to purchase a working reactor next year for 5000 euros. I am sure that nothing less than this will convince you. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude and a repeated misrepresentation, patents, and a discussion of the chimera of cold fusion
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 8:12 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Cude So, the best evidence you have for CF is from an experiment in 1994, in which the excess heat is a few per cent . . . Rothwell A few percent of what? The error margin? Look at the bottom. A few percent of the input (5 to 10), and total of about 1/2 watt. One problem I have with those results. When the current shuts off, the heat dies immediately. That is incorrect, as are most of your other assertions. That is particularly incorrect. Some cells remain hot for hours or days. In slide 7 of that pdf that Lomax pointed to, the current density is shut off at about 610 (units?) and the excess power immediately goes to zero. the red excess power data points overlap the green current density line as they both fall to zero. Am I reading that graph wrong? I have frequently asked for the Rothwell beaker. An obviously isolated device that remains warmer than its environment (or gets hotter) for a long enough period to obviously generate its own weight in chemical energy. That would be a gas loaded cell, or a cell in heat after death. There are dozens of examples of that in the literature, so you have been given what you want. No. I haven't. And you know it. I call it the Rothwell beaker because you yourself have suggested it as a convincing experiment: With a small (half liter) insulated cell, the surface area should be small enough that the heat from the outer wall will be palpable (that is, sensible). ... It is utterly impossible to fake palpable heat I do not think any scientist will dispute this. ...An object that remains palpably warmer than the surroundings is as convincing as anything can be... If that had been shown already, and given that scientists are in general not convinced of CF, you could not have made that statement. In the heat after death or gas-loading, the cells or chambers are still connected, and in most of those cases, it is impossible to be sure what the input is and what is being measured. Take Dardik's claim of heat after death. The foil is deep inside his apparatus, the electrodes are still connected, and probably the ultrasound is still singing. Who knows? What I want is, if Dardik's electrode is really generating a half a watt of power for days without input, take that electrode out, keep it inside the liquid if necessary, and put it in a separate beaker or clear thermos with 100 mL of water on a separate table far away from all those wires and tubes and meters and complications. So that all you have is one beaker and one electrode (maybe inside a little test tube). If Dardik claims that the Pd foil is producing 0.5 W without input for 4 days, as he does in experiment US3-5, in a couple of hours the temperature should climb about 10 degrees C. And if the thermos doesn't lose too much heat, it'll be boiling by next morning. This would be an excellent demonstration for the likes of 60 minutes. But instead they showed Duncan doing calculations in a notebook. And they didn't even mention heat after death. Same goes for the gas-loading experiments. In Arata's experiment the device stays at a constant temperature a degree or two above ambient, but ambient wasn't monitored, and the thing was still connected to pressure pumps etc. At the least, try wrapping some fiberglass insulation around the chamber, and see if the temperature climbs a little. But you really want to remove that Pd, isolate it obviously, under pressure, if necessary, and see if it can heat water far away from anything else.
Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude and a repeated misrepresentation, patents, and a discussion of the chimera of cold fusion
Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: Rothwell A few percent of what? The error margin? Look at the bottom. A few percent of the input (5 to 10), and total of about 1/2 watt. Well, I would not call 10% a few, but okay. McKubre observed 300% in other cases, which I would definitely not call a few. What is the percent when there is no input, in heat after death or gas loading? That is incorrect, as are most of your other assertions. That is particularly incorrect. Some cells remain hot for hours or days. In slide 7 of that pdf that Lomax pointed to, the current density is shut off at about 610 (units?) and the excess power immediately goes to zero. This cell is not in heat after death. Other cells have been. When I tell there are red birds, do not point to black ones and say that proves red ones do not exist. the red excess power data points overlap the green current density line as they both fall to zero. Am I reading that graph wrong? No, you are looking at the wrong graph. Look at one that shows heat after death. That would be a gas loaded cell, or a cell in heat after death. There are dozens of examples of that in the literature, so you have been given what you want. No. I haven't. And you know it. I call it the Rothwell beaker because you yourself have suggested it as a convincing experiment: With a small (half liter) insulated cell, the surface area should be small enough that the Yes, I suggested that, and as I just said, that describes a cell in heat after death, or a gas loaded cell. If that had been shown already, and given that scientists are in general not convinced of CF, you could not have made that statement. Most of the scientists I have encountered who are not convinced have never heard of heat after death. They have no knowledge of this field at all, because they have not read about it. Robert Park is a good example. Such people have no right to any opinion, positive or negative. Their opinions count for nothing, and must be ignored. In the heat after death or gas-loading, the cells or chambers are still connected, and in most of those cases, it is impossible to be sure what the input is and what is being measured. It is quite easy to be sure of this. In an electrochemical cell after boil-off, there is no connection between the anode and cathode, so it is physically impossible for current to flow. Also, all cells are equipped with sensitive, modern voltmeters and ammeters, which show with absolute certainty that there is no input power. Few phenomena in nature can be measured with as much precision or certainty as electricity, so it is strange that you claim it is impossible to be sure of electric power measurements. This is bit like saying that in clear weather it is impossible to know whether it is midday or midnight. Take Dardik's claim of heat after death. The foil is deep inside his apparatus, the electrodes are still connected, and probably the ultrasound is still singing. Who knows? I know, and Robert Duncan knows. When the power is off, the ultrasound cannot continue. It requires electric power. What I want is, if Dardik's electrode is really generating a half a watt of power for days without input, take that electrode out, keep it inside the liquid if necessary, and put it in a separate beaker or clear thermos with 100 mL of water on a separate table far away from all those wires and tubes and meters and complications. What you want would not work, for reasons beyond the scope of the discussion. But what makes you think that wires, tubes and meter are complications? This is rather like saying that the spark plugs and pistons in an automobile engine are frivolous add-ons we can easily dispense with. This would be an excellent demonstration for the likes of 60 minutes. But instead they showed Duncan doing calculations in a notebook. And they didn't even mention heat after death. What would make a good demonstration, and whether 60 Minutes mentioned something or not has no bearing on the discussion. Dardik published it. 60 Minutes is not a journal or conference proceedings. In a scientific discussion, what the mass media says, shows, or does is not admissible evidence. Same goes for the gas-loading experiments. In Arata's experiment the device stays at a constant temperature a degree or two above ambient, but ambient wasn't monitored . . . Yes, it was. It was not recorded by the computer in the first experiment, but it was monitored. In subsequent experiments and replications, it was monitored and recorded. , and the thing was still connected to pressure pumps etc. What bearing does that have on the calorimetry? - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude and a repeated misrepresentation, patents, and a discussion of the chimera of cold fusion
At 07:17 PM 6/2/2011, Joshua Cude wrote: Reputable scientists won't even look at the evidence! Most looked a long time ago, No. Most never actually looked at it, after enough evidence had accumulated to allow some kind of reasonable decision. That didn't happen until something like the mid 1990s. The rejection happened sooner, before there was adequate evidence, but it was not based on proof of absence, rather on absence of proof. A rejection based on absence of proof must never stand when proof appears; but that's what happens when people become so convinced that they won't look at new evidence -- or deeper analysis of old. and are satisfied that if the claims (as I put it above) were real, a convincing demo would be a piece of cake to design. Really? Below I show why that's very wrong. It's not the norm in physics, because physics, as a field, generally deals with highly simplified situations. It's more common in chemistry and even more common in biology. Complex systems can be difficult to set up in fixed, clearly established conditions. What P13/P14 below showed was an effect that was real, and which, in fact, is reproducible in that similar results are seen by anyone who runs enough cells, but which isn't specifically controllable in such a way as to make it a piece of cake. At least not then, and my understanding of the field, excepting now, Rossi, if Rossi has really done what he's claimed, is that this situation remains. I've described a reproducible cold fusion experiment that actually shows strong evidence that the reaction is not only real, it's fusion. It is not a piece of cake, it's *difficult.* But it's quite doable, and it's been done by about a dozen groups. I'm not fully satisfied with how much work has been done, I'd love to see more extensive study, but this is expensive work, and, since I see no particular commercial value coming from it in the near future, who is going to do it? As pure science, it is surely valuable, but thinking like Joshua's shut that down twenty years ago. We were talking about cold fusion in general, not Rossi. Rossi could indeed design a convincing demo, it would indeed be, relatively, a piece of cake. Which is why I'm noting that he has some strong reasons not to do such a demo, and why I'd think that Joshua is doing exactly what Rossi would want. It serves his purposes, commercially. Rossi is not operating for the advancement of science, he's operating for profit. Now, he might tell himself that, for the greater good, he has to do it this way, and I'm not about to debate that or blame him, I'm just pointing out the obvious: if there is a really convincing demo such that the media are all over him, his competition will gain massive funding, and rapidly, i.e. other researchers in a position to investigate NiH. Do you think the U.S. government would send Rossi a check if Rossi were to do a killer demo? And then along comes Rossi, and all the advocates are saying *this* is what the field has been waiting for. *This* is finally the demo Rothwell and Mallove had been wishing for. And when you look at the demo, and see that it proves nothing at all, one is forced to conclude that the previous CF demos are even worse. Which demo? When I saw the reports of the January demo, I wrote to CMNS researchers and practically begged them to not comment on it, because of the consequences if it turned out to be fraud or error. From the January demo, maybe error was still possible, but even then, I was warning about the possibility of fraud. The later reports shifted the situation. Error became quite unlikely and fraud seems unlikely too, for reasons I won't detail now, I've expressed them before. Hence I think Rossi is probably for real. Frankly, there are things about that which I don't like, but so what? The universe does not revolve around what I like and dislike. Fortunately, actually. It's better than what I'd prefer, that's my general position about myself. So Huizenga knew it was important when Miles confirmed helium commensurate with heat. With no gamma rays. Does Huizenga believe in cold fusion now? No. Uh, have you asked him such that you can confidently proclaim what he believes? I'm not going to repeat rumors I've heard. I was talking about 1993, almost twenty years ago, when Huizenga was very active still. Okay, the experiment that will pull the rug out from under my acceptance of cold fusion: [...] So, you want a demonstration that heat-helium are not correlated and that exposes the artifact that produces what people interpret as heat. That's right. A real scientist would simply say that the attempt would be made to confirm or reject the heat-helium correlation and to clarify issues around the various measurements. The 2nd part of that was done for Focardi, and some people still kept believing, and now after Rossi, I think the doubters
Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude and a repeated misrepresentation, patents, and a discussion of the chimera of cold fusion
- Original Message From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, June 2, 2011 11:05:32 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude and a repeated misrepresentation, patents, and a discussion of the chimera of cold fusion At 07:17 PM 6/2/2011, Joshua Cude wrote: Does Huizenga believe in cold fusion now? No. Uh, have you asked him such that you can confidently proclaim what he believes? I'm not going to repeat rumors I've heard. I was talking about 1993, almost twenty years ago, when Huizenga was very active still. According to this Huizenga is now 90. http://nuchem.chem.rochester.edu/huizenga85/index.html Harry
Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude and a repeated misrepresentation, patents, and a discussion of the chimera of cold fusion
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 9:59 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: CudeIn slide 7 of that pdf that Lomax pointed to, the current density is shut off at about 610 (units?) and the excess power immediately goes to zero. Rothwell This cell is not in heat after death. Other cells have been. That's what I said. I was commenting on the data Lomax referred to, and said the immediate drop in power seemed implausible if it was from D-Pd, especially because other experiments claim heat after death. When I tell there are red birds, do not point to black ones and say that proves red ones do not exist. Maybe you weren't paying attention. Lomax referred to the Mckubre data in a particular pdf on your site, and I said in that data, which is held in such high regard, it doesn't make sense that the power drops so quickly when the current is shut off, particularly in light of heat after death claims. I never denied heat after death. the red excess power data points overlap the green current density line as they both fall to zero. Am I reading that graph wrong? No, you are looking at the wrong graph. Look at one that shows heat after death. We were discussing a particular experiment in a particular report. Is there a graph in that report of that 1994 experiment that reports heat after death? If that had been shown already, and given that scientists are in general not convinced of CF, you could not have made that statement. Most of the scientists I have encountered who are not convinced have never heard of heat after death. Unequivocal revolutions have a way of getting around. If no scientist could possibly deny the results, then they would not keep mum about it. The DOE panel would have heard about it, but they were not convinced. So that contradicts your statement. Sixty minutes at least, considering they were pretty sympathetic, might have mentioned it. But on a show advocating CF, with consultants like McKubre and Dardik, there was not a word about heat after death or heat without input in gas loading. In the heat after death or gas-loading, the cells or chambers are still connected, and in most of those cases, it is impossible to be sure what the input is and what is being measured. It is quite easy to be sure of this. In an electrochemical cell after boil-off, there is no connection between the anode and cathode, so it is physically impossible for current to flow. Also, all cells are equipped with sensitive, modern voltmeters and ammeters, which show with absolute certainty that there is no input power. Few phenomena in nature can be measured with as much precision or certainty as electricity, so it is strange that you claim it is impossible to be sure of electric power measurements. In a demonstration to outsiders who can't even see what's connected, it's impossible to be sure what the measurements mean. And it would be so easy to demonstrate it conclusively. Take that electrode after the boil off and put it in an isolated thermos, and measure see how long it can keep it boiling or whatever. Take that thermos with nothing connected to it, and the water boiling madly, to the DOE, and see if they don't pay attention. What I want is, if Dardik's electrode is really generating a half a watt of power for days without input, take that electrode out, keep it inside the liquid if necessary, and put it in a separate beaker or clear thermos with 100 mL of water on a separate table far away from all those wires and tubes and meters and complications. What you want would not work, for reasons beyond the scope of the discussion. Right. Because the fact that CF doesn't work is beyond the scope of this discussion. Cop out. But what makes you think that wires, tubes and meter are complications? This is rather like saying that the spark plugs and pistons in an automobile engine are frivolous add-ons we can easily dispense with. Well if you claimed they weren't needed to move the car, then yes. I know that not all phenomena are simple to demonstrate in a visual way, and some measurements are indirect, and then we have to depend on reproducibility and so on. But heat can be demonstrated simply and visually, and when wild claims are made that could be but aren't demonstrated simply, then it looks suspicious. This would be an excellent demonstration for the likes of 60 minutes. But instead they showed Duncan doing calculations in a notebook. And they didn't even mention heat after death. What would make a good demonstration, and whether 60 Minutes mentioned something or not has no bearing on the discussion. Yes it does. 60 minutes looks for visual and dramatic things to entertain and interest their audience. You claimed they exist, but none were used. Dardik published it. In a conference proceeding, with very limited description of the experiment. For a revolutionary result, that doesn't wash. In a scientific discussion, what the mass media says, shows, or does
Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude and a repeated misrepresentation, patents, and a discussion of the chimera of cold fusion
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 10:05 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: Lomax Reputable scientists won't even look at the evidence! CudeMost looked a long time ago, LomaxNo. Most never actually looked at it, after enough evidence had accumulated to allow some kind of reasonable decision. That didn't happen until something like the mid 1990s. The rejection happened sooner, before there was adequate evidence, but it was not based on proof of absence, rather on absence of proof. The DOE looked again in 2004, and did not find conclusive evidence then either. and are satisfied that if the claims (as I put it above) were real, a convincing demo would be a piece of cake to design. Really? Below I show why that's very wrong. It's not the norm in physics, But this is a claim of heat. Most claims are not as simple as that. And then along comes Rossi, and all the advocates are saying *this* is what the field has been waiting for. *This* is finally the demo Rothwell and Mallove had been wishing for. Which demo? All of them, collectively, I suppose. When I saw the reports of the January demo, I wrote to CMNS researchers and practically begged them to not comment on it, because of the consequences if it turned out to be fraud or error. From the January demo, maybe error was still possible, but even then, I was warning about the possibility of fraud. The later reports shifted the situation. Error became quite unlikely and fraud seems unlikely too, I don't see how the later experiments, which had the same problems as the first made things any better, unless you're hanging your hat on the secret experiment. So Huizenga knew it was important when Miles confirmed helium commensurate with heat. With no gamma rays. Does Huizenga believe in cold fusion now? No. Uh, have you asked him such that you can confidently proclaim what he believes? I'm not going to repeat rumors I've heard. I was talking about 1993, almost twenty years ago, when Huizenga was very active still. He didn't believe it after Miles in 1993, so he did not consider it a confirmation. And if in the intervening period, he became convinced, I've not heard him say so. The 2nd part of that was done for Focardi, and some people still kept believing, and now after Rossi, I think the doubters believe in Focardi again. So that's not enough. No, there was a single experiment done that may be interpreted as being something like that, That was interpreted exactly like that by some... Rothwell also claimed Mckubre did an experiment like that. It's highly unlikely to happen, because even the people who believe in CF don't seem to be doing quantitative heat-helium experiments. Not any more. They did them in the 1990s. Look at how much research funding it gained them. They might try doing some replications of Miles (which you called crude) that pass peer review. Skeptics would not waste their time until someone produces evidence that impresses them -- that at least passes peer review, but probably it would need to be more than that. Chicken and egg, and this isn't science, it's politics. Not chicken and egg. There are plenty of CF papers published under peer review. Tell you what, Joshua, Hey, you've dropped the 3rd person. [stuff about CR-39] The results are not convincing and not replicated. I think it's reasonable to use previous knowledge to make reasonable predictions about certain configurations, and change them when evidence justifies it. Otherwise, progress would be impossible. I think you said this yourself. Yes. we use previous knowledge, quite precisely, to make reasonable predictions, but it is another step to believe in the predictions so strongly that we discard evidence without due caution, allowing for error in predictions. I agree. I'm discarding evidence because it stinks. And because evidence that smells like roses would be easy to produce if the effect were real. […]The evidence was garbled when described by the bureaucrat summarizing, and I tracked that down to a misunderstanding by the bureaucrat of one of the reviewers, who likewise clearly misread the report.[…] And Hagelstein used it in the 2004 report. It seems to me that it was not explained well, but I'm not sure why, or how that happened. I've heard researchers say various things about it, but, I could put it this way: they did not hire experts at communication. This really says it all. Scientists talking to scientists needing to hire experts at communication to convey the identification of heat a million times higher in density than chemical heat. It shows either complete incompetence at their trade, or more likely, the absence of an effect, or both.
Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude and a repeated misrepresentation, patents, and a discussion of the chimera of cold fusion
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 12:04 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: Cude ... as long as Rossi uses his own designates to report measurements, he will not be taken seriously. As soon as it would be visual and obvious so anyone can see it, he would be rich and famous. Lomax Cude has repeated this meme, it should be answered. Rossi did not pick the Swedish scientists who observed, Mats Lewan did. Maybe, but Rossi OK'd them. And he seems to have accepted any reputable physicist willing to look at the work. So far, that would be 3. His public demo was invitation only. He has never made a public invitation to anyone who wants to make direct measurements on the experiment. The kind that would be required to verify his claims. Because reported measurements to date (except maybe the secret ones) do not verify his claims. Given their reputations, if Rossi were inclined to reject anyone who would not be gullible, he'd not have allowed them to observe. In order to maintain the fraud hypothesis here, I'd have to assume that Rossi paid off Lewan and the other Swedes. No. He talked to them. He read their interviews, and what they wrote. He probably got the sense that they were prepared to believe that the output flow of mist and steam was pure vapour. He might have gotten a gentleman's agreement that they would accept the experimental setup as it was, and simply read the meters. When I asked Lewan in the comments on his blog why he hadn't made more penetrating investigations, this was his response: The reason for the set-up is of course partly limited by *what Rossi lets us prepare,* but it's also of practical reasons: I don't have the E-cat in my own laboratory and have no possibility to prepare a thorough set-up of my own wish. Furthermore there's a good reason not to change an existing set-up as this probably creates new situations that have to be dealt with in follow up tests. I actually only planned one test but postponed my return to Sweden to make a second as I had some things I wanted to check better, as the steam flow. If I had changed the set-up I probably would have had to do three or four tests to be satisfied (and to satisfy all readers...). *Try to imagine coming to a lab which is not yours*, only having a couple of hours to check a thing that most people don't believe in… Rossi is no doubt good at manipulating and reading people, and knowing who will be bold enough to insist on this measurement or that change. Those Swedes all seem pretty mild-mannered. Also note that an early plan to allow the Swedes to test the device in their own labs was scrapped until further notice. As to visual and obvious, no, it would not be as soon as. There is a mechanism of fame, and it takes time, sometimes. Media ignorance of the Rossi story is puzzling, but this happens. Consider the Wright brothers. Consider Pons Fleischman. It was overnight. The Wright Brothers were very secretive, avoiding the press and others, limiting the photographs, until they had an offer on the table. But after the first *obvious* public demonstrations in 1908, the Wright brothers catapulted to world fame overnight. The demonstration did not rely on experts' testimonies, or invitee's accounts. Anyone who wanted could witness it with their own eyes. If Rossi wants to be secretive, that's fine. But if he makes an obvious public demonstration where there is no input energy, and no doubt about energy densities higher than chemical, I expect overnight fame. Just like the Wright brothers. There isn't any doubt that this is highly newsworthy at this time, You mean you have no doubt. Obviously, if there were *no* doubt, it would in the news. It's not as if the major media don't have access to the internet. it's either the energy development of the century, or the most brazen fraud to hit with respect to energy production. This will be noticed by history regardless, this is not one of a long line of similar frauds. I don't see it that way at all. It's either true or false, yes. But there are many ways it can be false, and I wouldn't even rule out self-deception on Rossi's part. Why or how it's false doesn't matter. Without evidence, we have no reason to believe it's true. But if it is fraud, I don't see it as particularly different from previous frauds, particularly Mills (which might also be self-deception). Cude comments, generally, as if LENR itself is not believable. Yet, I noticed this from Wikipedia yesterday: Norman D. Cook (Oxford University, England), Computing Nuclear Properties in the fcc Model., Computers in Physics, Mar/Apr 1989, pages 73-77. […] on theoretical grounds alone, it would be quite premature to dismiss cold fusion as theoretically unlikely. In 2010, Cook revised his previous work on nuclear models: How about a recent textbook, Models of the Atomic Nucleus, by Norman D. Cook, Springer, 2010 (Second edition), which has a newly added chapter on LENR? […] glib
