Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: > The cynic’s argument that is impactful in that the LENR reaction is weak, > transient, random, and intermittent. > That is impactful, but it is factually wrong on all counts:
In many experiments it has not been "weak" in the scientific sense of having a low s/n ratio. As McKubre says it is neither small nor fleeting. Yes, it is weak compared to the power of a Tokamak reactor, although it often produces a lot more energy. (The tokamak record is 6 MJ; the cold fusion record for Pd-D is around 150 MJ I think.) It is not transient. The effect typically lasts for hours or days. It is usually stable during this time. It is not a bit random. As I said, McKubre's Fig. 1 shows that it is completely predictable. If you can load the metal to 94% the effect always turns on. What is somewhat "random" is finding good metal in the first place. Unless you select metal which is engineered for this purpose, you have to go through and test hundreds of cathodes to find a few that will work. That's not "random" really. You can get metal engineered for this purpose from JM or the ENEA, as I said. It is not intermittent once high loading and the other control parameters are met. This may sound like I am making excuses, but consider these comparisons. Launching a telecom satellite is a risky business. The insurance rates are high, because rockets often blow up or go out of control. But once you get a satellite into a stable orbit, the behavior is extremely predictable. Once you get over the difficult launch phase, it is fully controlled and predictable. No one would call this "random." It is like germinating seeds. The overall success rate may be low, but once the process passes a certain point and rapid growth begins, success is assured. The winnowing out of sterile seeds can be compare to winnowing out of cathodes with cracks and other problems that are known to prevent loading, and thus prevent the cold fusion effect. We know why those cathodes will not work. We have to slog through and test them and identify them, but that not a "random" process. It is a lot of work, and a lot of expense, which is why people seldom do it. If you start with enough seeds, you can be sure that some will germinate. Start with enough cathodes and winnow them for enough years and you can be sure of getting a cold fusion reaction. > This ethereal nature of the LENR reaction makes it useless. > That is true! Also the fact that the reaction cannot be controlled easily. That is, turned on, modulated, and turned off with fine control. Maybe this is what Cude is saying. > No, he is saying the proof is statistical, the way it is for the Top Quark or the Higgs boson. Skeptics often make this claim. They are wrong. The LENR advocate must come up with a plan to make the LENR reaction > strong, permanent, consistent, and controllable: LENR+ > Step one: Get $100 million in funding . . . Step two, three and four are easy compared to that. Any research can suggest what to do. The trick would be to get several batches of $100 million, and give them to several groups. Some would go off the tracks the way the NHE project did, but others are likely to succeed. It is a risk. They might all fail. - Jed
