Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

Post Reply
User avatar
Suranis
Posts: 13513
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:04 am

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

Post by Suranis » Tue Jun 20, 2017 9:55 am

I think I'll chime in with a simple discussion of some things for a layman

The "Feichmann-Pons Effect" is that Palladium can spontaneously heat up under certain conditions, apparently at random.

The original Fleichmann Pons experiment was to saturate Some Palladium with Deuterium (which is an Isotope of Hydrogen,) and then pass an electric current though it to see if the Palladium atoms and electric current would bounce the Deuterium Atoms together, to form Helium and release massive amounts of energy. It would release it because it takes less energy to hold the helium atom together than it does to hold 2 Deuterium atoms together. Its how the sun creates it's energy.

When the Palladium spontaneously heated up during the experiment, Pons and Fleichmann thought "COLD FUSION!!!" and ran to the press, rather than repeat the experiment a few times. They did this because they were in an intense competition with another university that was also working on cold fusion. However, the thing became discredited when people started repeating the experiment and nothing happened. Also it was found that people had actually tried the Palladium saturation experiment before, with no results.

The reason people want cold Fusion is that to do it the way the Sun does needs huge amounts of heat, and energy put into it to make it work. Since we don't like our reactors melting into gas instantly, Cold Fusion is a Holy Grail of science. People are working on "Hot Fusion" as well, but cold fusion would be much easier to deal with.
"I think its pretty troubling when a backyard decoration comes out swinging harder against Nazis than the President of the United States." - Stephen Colbert

NMgirl
Posts: 1693
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2016 12:02 am

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

Post by NMgirl » Tue Jun 20, 2017 10:04 am

Suranis wrote:I think I'll chime in with a simple discussion of some things for a layman
:thumbs: :bighug:

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 40341
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Trump International - Malibu

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Tue Jun 20, 2017 10:34 am

Suranis wrote:I think I'll chime in with a simple discussion of some things for a layman

The "Feichmann-Pons Effect" is that Palladium can spontaneously heat up under certain conditions, apparently at random.

The original Fleichmann Pons experiment was to saturate Some Palladium with Deuterium (which is an Isotope of Hydrogen,) and then pass an electric current though it to see if the Palladium atoms and electric current would bounce the Deuterium Atoms together, to form Helium and release massive amounts of energy. It would release it because it takes less energy to hold the helium atom together than it does to hold 2 Deuterium atoms together. Its how the sun creates it's energy.

When the Palladium spontaneously heated up during the experiment, Pons and Fleichmann thought "COLD FUSION!!!" and ran to the press, rather than repeat the experiment a few times. They did this because they were in an intense competition with another university that was also working on cold fusion. However, the thing became discredited when people started repeating the experiment and nothing happened. Also it was found that people had actually tried the Palladium saturation experiment before, with no results.

The reason people want cold Fusion is that to do it the way the Sun does needs huge amounts of heat, and energy put into it to make it work. Since we don't like our reactors melting into gas instantly, Cold Fusion is a Holy Grail of science. People are working on "Hot Fusion" as well, but cold fusion would be much easier to deal with.
According to quantum theory, the "empty vacuum" is bubbling with enormous amounts of energy just waiting to be tapped. However, we do not live or act at the quantum level, but on a macro level where all that chaos, uncertainty and energy cannot ordinarily be reached.

So, is cold fusion or whatever you want to call it, possible? Maybe. (A good lawyer's answer as well as a physicist's answer.) Is the energy accessible and usable? Probably not.

User avatar
Suranis
Posts: 13513
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:04 am

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

Post by Suranis » Tue Jun 20, 2017 10:43 am

Well, even in a nuclear Fission reactor, all we can harvest is a by product of that energy - the heat. A Nuclear reactor is basically a giant steam engine, which uses the heat to generate steam and superheated water, that drives turbines, that generate electricity. It's pretty crude but its really all we can manage at the moment. All the radiation generated is energy too, but we can do jack shit with it.

I've the soul of a practical physisist. :)
"I think its pretty troubling when a backyard decoration comes out swinging harder against Nazis than the President of the United States." - Stephen Colbert

User avatar
rpenner
Posts: 1227
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2014 3:08 pm
Location: Silicon Valley, California
Contact:

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

Post by rpenner » Tue Jun 20, 2017 11:40 am

Due to the Pauli exclusion principle, it seems doubtful that any configuration of any type of atoms could lead to a configuration of electrons which lower the Coulomb barrier to hydrogen fusion below that available to hydrogen nuclei at the temperature of boiling water (about 6 orders of magnitude). So the cold fusion explanation for the "Fleichmann-Pons Effect" is an extraordinary claim.

I for one can't see how the "Fleichmann-Pons Effect" is neutronless fission of 2H + 2H → 4He + γ because that reaction is not kinematically feasible for nuclei which are essentially free as this reaction energy scale and because gamma rays would not result in local heating.

The alternative is similar to gas-phase fusion where these two reactions occur with about 50% yield apiece:*
2H + 2H → 3He + 1n
2H + 2H → 3H + 1H

So there should be a lot of neutrons zipping (with about 2.5 MeV of kinetic energy) around, especially if any detected helium is of nuclear origin.
3H is radioactive, 1n is radioactive and induces radioactivity in surrounding material. It doesn't seem like a panacea.

The alternate LENR paradigm promoted by Widom and Larsens that the configuration of atoms in palladium just somehow shakes loose neutrons at thermal temperatures (again, off by orders of magnitude) and the heating is caused by resulting nearby reactions that still somehow don't result in increased radioactivity or detectable free neutrons seems like hooey.**

* Source: http://www-pub.iaea.org/books/IAEABooks ... on-Physics
** https://link.springer.com/article/10.11 ... 13-13015-3

User avatar
Slartibartfast
Posts: 6631
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:52 pm

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

Post by Slartibartfast » Tue Jun 20, 2017 11:49 am

Sterngard Friegen wrote:According to quantum theory, the "empty vacuum" is bubbling with enormous amounts of energy just waiting to be tapped. However, we do not live or act at the quantum level, but on a macro level where all that chaos, uncertainty and energy cannot ordinarily be reached.

Point of clarification: that would be "zero point energy". Nuclear energy comes from fusing or splitting atoms into configurations with slightly less mass (which is converted to energy) such as the two deuterium nuclei fusing into a helium nuclei that Suranis mentioned. "Cold fusion" is essentially refers to catalyzing this reaction rather than "forcing" it with intense heat and pressure (fusion) or bombarding unstable elements with radiation (fission).


So, is cold fusion or whatever you want to call it, possible? Maybe. (A good lawyer's answer as well as a physicist's answer.)

It's not a mathematician's answer, though.
:towel:

For the purposes of this discussion it seems reasonable to assume that the answer to this is yes as tjh introduced a paper which supports this conclusion and no evidence refuting it is currently extant in this thread (I wrote this before rpenner's post). I skimmed the paper and it seems reasonable although because it describes correlation rather than causation one must be careful of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.


Is the energy accessible and usable? Probably not.

As a semantic quibble, I would say that if heat is produced then that energy is "accessible", but the important question is whether or not it is usable in practice rather than just in theory. That isn't a scientific question, it's an engineering one. While I have strong and nuanced views about the commercialization of scientific innovation (which I will share as I have time and opportunity),
my quick guess is that it isn't possible with current technology and may never be a useful energy source.
"Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat."
---Sun Tzu (quoting Thomas Jefferson)
nam-myoho-renge-kyo---Thomas Jefferson (quoting Slartibartfast)

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 40341
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Trump International - Malibu

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Tue Jun 20, 2017 12:02 pm

Slarti - the energy at a quantum level is probably not accessible nor usable.

I'm glad the man who relieved my concerns about mini black holes, rpenner, has chimed in. I will defer to his brilliance.

That plus Occam's razor lead me to believe, as rpenner says, that "cold fusion"(or whatever) it is claimed to be is hooey.

User avatar
much ado
Posts: 895
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 12:56 am

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

Post by much ado » Tue Jun 20, 2017 12:04 pm

I've been aware of Rossi for a few years now, since he first made some claims (I forget what). But he seemed too much like a charlatan to be taken seriously.

Here's a fairly recent post in Scientific American that I found interesting. It gives some history and a brief discussion of the Widom-Larsen theory.

It's Not Cold Fusion... But It's Something

User avatar
rpenner
Posts: 1227
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2014 3:08 pm
Location: Silicon Valley, California
Contact:

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

Post by rpenner » Tue Jun 20, 2017 12:33 pm

Slartibartfast wrote:
Sterngard Friegen wrote: So, is cold fusion or whatever you want to call it, possible? Maybe. (A good lawyer's answer as well as a physicist's answer.)

It's not a mathematician's answer, though.
:towel:

For the purposes of this discussion it seems reasonable to assume that the answer to this is yes as tjh introduced a paper which supports this conclusion and no evidence refuting it is currently extant in this thread (I wrote this before rpenner's post). I skimmed the paper and it seems reasonable although because it describes correlation rather than causation one must be careful of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/CravensDtheenablin.pdf is not a scientific paper, it's an example of meandering rationalization that the baby is not ugly. Just look at the section on the Bayesian Network where they proved limiting one's inputs to cherry-picked sources results in confidence.

The four "criteria" are used to slice the dataset of 122 papers and call out the ones that tend to support the hypothesis that excess energy is being produced which commits the classic pseudo-scientific mistake (see the N-rays debacle) of trying to explain a phenomenon before knowing if it exists. If the Pons-Fleischmann effect is nothing more than a type of storage battery or fuel cell with bad measurement errors, its "excess heat" is not newsworthy.
What's been done to codify research to a reliable and streamlined demonstration of the effect in the last 10 years? Nothing?

Heavy water is expensive but less than $1000/liter. That's not the main factor preventing research.

User avatar
rpenner
Posts: 1227
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2014 3:08 pm
Location: Silicon Valley, California
Contact:

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

Post by rpenner » Tue Jun 20, 2017 12:36 pm

much ado wrote:I've been aware of Rossi for a few years now, since he first made some claims (I forget what). But he seemed too much like a charlatan to be taken seriously.

Here's a fairly recent post in Scientific American that I found interesting. It gives some history and a brief discussion of the Widom-Larsen theory.

It's Not Cold Fusion... But It's Something
It's a Guest Post by only-time-appearing authors Steven B. Krivit, Michael J. Ravnitzky on the Scientific American Blog.

http://news.newenergytimes.net/about-st ... rgy-times/
https://www.amazon.com/s?ie=UTF8&page=1 ... 0Ravnitzky

Perhaps they had books to sell.

User avatar
much ado
Posts: 895
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 12:56 am

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

Post by much ado » Tue Jun 20, 2017 1:03 pm

rpenner wrote:
much ado wrote:I've been aware of Rossi for a few years now, since he first made some claims (I forget what). But he seemed too much like a charlatan to be taken seriously.

Here's a fairly recent post in Scientific American that I found interesting. It gives some history and a brief discussion of the Widom-Larsen theory.

It's Not Cold Fusion... But It's Something
It's a Guest Post by only-time-appearing authors Steven B. Krivit, Michael J. Ravnitzky on the Scientific American Blog.

http://news.newenergytimes.net/about-st ... rgy-times/
https://www.amazon.com/s?ie=UTF8&page=1 ... 0Ravnitzky

Perhaps they had books to sell.
They definitely did.

User avatar
Slartibartfast
Posts: 6631
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:52 pm

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

Post by Slartibartfast » Tue Jun 20, 2017 6:35 pm

Sterngard Friegen wrote:Slarti - the energy at a quantum level is probably not accessible nor usable.

I agree with that, my point was that LENR is not about accessing energy at the quantum level, that's all.

I'm glad the man who relieved my concerns about mini black holes, rpenner, has chimed in. I will defer to his brilliance.

I agree with rpenner's points, I just didn't want to rewrite my comment as the point I was trying to make was about usability, not accessibility. I would also point out that

That plus Occam's razor lead me to believe, as rpenner says, that "cold fusion"(or whatever) it is claimed to be is hooey.

Let me be a semantic weenie for a second here. "Cold fusion" is a popular term that is kind of fuzzy, so if you are applying William's blade (see what I did there :towel: ) to the science you should probably frame it around "low energy nuclear reactions" (see below regarding applying it to the invention/technology/commercialization). Strictly speaking, I don't think that you can call that "hooey". There are two issues here, an experimental one and a theoretical one.

The first question is "Has the generation of excess heat been established?" OR doesn't apply here as we don't have competing hypotheses, but rather something that can only be confirmed or denied empirically. I'm willing to concede this point for the sake of argument (to get to the issues I find interesting), although I agree with rpenner about the dodgy statistics and find the rest of his argument persuasive as well.

The theoretical question is (assuming heat production), "Is this heat being produced by LENR?" Until or unless the first question is definitively answered in the positive, there is no need for anyone to come up with a hypothesis to explain the heat without LENR, so there's really no work for OR here, at least not yet. In this case I think that looking at things in the best possible light for LENR is useful for understanding the behavior of Abd, Rossi, and IH et al., even though I think that perspective is unlikely to be correct.
Sterngard Friegen wrote: "Funded to cover the trial" is suspicious to me.

Well, I certainly agree that the comment piqued my interest as well. Hopefully Abd will clarify what he meant.

I think it's circumlocution for "being paid to testify" (as an expert). Or that he has a piece of the action; or both.

If either of those things are true then "funded to cover the trial" seems dodgy, but Abd has implied neither of these things are true and I'm not sure what he would get out of commenting here if they were true. The longer he sticks around, the less likely it seems.

My Occam's razor as to the invention itself is pretty simple (and spelled alternatively).

I spell it like the town in which he was allegedly born, a habit I picked up in a massive flame war with a 9/11 truther many years ago. I'm happy to accept either spelling.

If well funded industrialists in the field of power generation and storage are not chomping at the bit and getting in line to exploit the greatest invention in the history of the world, it's not.

I don't think this argument bears on the scientific questions discussed above. Well funded industrialists would only be chomping at the bit (or at least interested) if it were commercially viable, but LENR could be real and still nothing more than a scientific parlor trick and they wouldn't be sniffing around either.

Too, also, this assumes that industry is actively looking to implement scientific innovations. In my experience, while small innovations might be sought out and adopted, most companies and investors shy away from opportunities that utilize new and untested business plans. Any new and innovative technology essentially needs to prove itself at least potentially viable before people like Elon Musk will even let it in the room, let alone fund it. You sell businessmen business plans, not scientific innovations, no matter how cool they are.

That's one of the reasons I'm skeptical about IH et al. Not their integrity, but their competence. For things to have degenerated to where they are suggests very poor communication between the business types and the scientists (if communication were good it would have led to a contract that was sound both from a business sense and a scientific/technical sense, which clearly didn't happen). If you're going into the business of commercializing scientific innovation without any scientific innovation to start with then you better know how to communicate with the people who are capable of discovering scientific innovations, yes/no?

I'm interested in this lawsuit because I see it as learning another way not to commercialize scientific innovation. Just like Edison and his lightbulb, I only need one that works. There are a lot of good lessons in this case. Because of that, I'm more interested in what each of the parties believes regarding the science than the science itself. I think that, even had the "reactor" been able to satisfy the GPT that there would have still been virtually no chance for this project to succeed due to the lack of understanding between the parties. The communication of scientific and technical ideas across disciplines and to non-scientists is central to what I want to do and studying cautionary tales like this helps.

Anyway, I hope this sheds some light on why I am very interested in this case and what Abd (and others :sterngard: ) have to say about it, but not really interested in LENR at all. If I were a program officer I would consider a well thought out grant proposal, but if I were an investor I'd look for something with a much higher chance of success. And as an inventor I'd want investors that understood the technology they were going to develop and I wouldn't be trying to sell my invention until I'd developed a scientific proof-of-concept into a demonstration of business feasibility. But that's just me.
"Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat."
---Sun Tzu (quoting Thomas Jefferson)
nam-myoho-renge-kyo---Thomas Jefferson (quoting Slartibartfast)

Abd
Posts: 16
Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2017 6:37 am

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

Post by Abd » Tue Jun 20, 2017 6:37 pm

Not quite sure why I'm bothering to write this, so if you like it, let me know.

Suranis' post is a collection of ideas based on superficial understandings or memories. It is flat-out incorrect in many places. The Fogbow motto is "falsehoods unchallenged only fester and grow. Suranis, I am quite sure, means well and wrote what he thinks is true, but ... it isn't, it does not match what is in sources (such as Taubes' Bad Science or Huizenga's Cold Fusion: Scientific Fiasco of the Century. When I decided to look into cold fusion as a Wikipedia editor, in 2009, I bought all the major books, especially those written by skeptics. Taubes is an excellent source for the history, very detailed. Huizanga also tells much the same story, but is highly repetitive, repeating a fundamental (and obvious) error over and over: that if the FP Heat effect is nuclear in nature, it must be a known reaction, which would then behave in predictable ways. In fact, Pons and Fleischmann claimed, in their initial paper, an "unknown nuclear reaction," but it was almost always analyzed as if it must be "d-d fusion," a known reaction with known products -- not observed -- and conditions -- easily seen to be impossible at room temperature, at measurable rates -- unless there is some unknown and very unexpected mechanism.
Suranis wrote:I think I'll chime in with a simple discussion of some things for a layman
The "Feichmann-Pons Effect" is that Palladium can spontaneously heat up under certain conditions, apparently at random.[/quote]
Fleischmann. No. Not at random. It is correlated with conditions. Known conditions include loading ratio (D:Pd), current density (in electrolytic experiments), specific material used, purity of the heavy water (apparently 1% light hydrogen poisons the reaction) and the history of the material. It is a-difficult-to-set-up and control reaction that is reported, but it is not random. The experimental observation is "anomalous heat," that is, with no known specific explanation, and Anomalous Heat Effect is another name used, such as in "The Center to study Anomalous Heat Effects at Texas Tech. University." The original effect was found in palladium deuteride ("PdD") but there are less-confirmed claims of effects in nickel hydride (NiH). The whole Rossi fiasco would be an NiH approach, if it worked, and Rossi's work has historical roots with older work by Piantelli and others. Some claim that the effect can be observed with other related metals, but I consider all this unconfirmed. What is widely confirmed is PdD.

Heat is not the only product of this unknown reaction. It also apparently generates helium, which has been measured carefully and found to be correlated with the anomalous heat, at a ratio consistent with that expected from deuterium fusion to helium, but the reaction is very likely not that, it merely starts with the same fuel and ends with the same ash, but without the gamma radiation that d-d fusion must generate if it makes helium. Possibilities can be imagined, but none have been tested adequately to create any preponderance of evidence for them. Work is under way, at Texas Tech and ENEA (Italy) to repeat the measurement of the heat/helium ratio with increased precision.
The original Fleichmann Pons experiment was to saturate Some Palladium with Deuterium (which is an Isotope of Hydrogen,) and then pass an electric current though it to see if the Palladium atoms and electric current would bounce the Deuterium Atoms together, to form Helium and release massive amounts of energy.
No. That's a simple idea with no basis in fact. Fleischmann wrote about what they were doing. The current is not to create fusion, it simply generates deuterium gas from the heavy water used as electrolyte. While the current does pass through the palladium cathode, the generation of deuterium at the surface when heavy water is split into deuterium and oxygen loads the cathode with deuterium. Palladium is "hungry" for deuterium and absorbs it to an amazing extent. So with electrolysis the cathode loads with deuterium. The currents involved are relatively low. This would have no effect on the energy of the deuterium atoms (in PdD, in the bulk, what is present is raw deuterons, the electrons are stripped and become "conduction band" electrons, spread through the metal. So there are these relatively bare nuclei moving around in the metal lattice, but they have nowhere near enough energy to fuse from collision, the electrolytic current would contribute very little to that. The correlation with current density is probably a reflection of anotehr condition considered necessary, a deuterium flux, the deuterium moving in and out of the lattice. In fact, there is recent work indicating that the electrolytic current can be turned off and the anomalous heat continues, even as loading declines as soon as you stop the current "pressure" loading the cathode. (That is credible but unverified.)

Pons and Fleischmann were not looking for energy generation, at all. They had an idea that the standard analysis used to predict fusion ratio, based on the Born-Oppenheimer approximation, might be inaccurate, so they decided to test it. They expected that they were likely to find nothing. The full story of their early experiments has, to my knowledge, never been told, but in 1984 they loaded a 1 cm cube of palladium to high loading, turned off the power, and left for the night. In the morning they found that the apparatus was destroyed, a hole had been burned through the top of the lab bench, and down some distance into the concrete lab floor.

At the time, it was widely thought that the highest loading attainable was 70%. Pons and Fleischmann were, arguable, among the world's foremost electrochemists. They almost certainly were going to 90% or higher. In some ways, this is like hydrogen as a metal (one way to think of PdD is as an alloy of palladium and deuterium). However, the separation of deuterium atoms in palladium is, at least normally, greater than in liquid deuterium. Pons and Fleischmann were looking for a minor shift in something, hoping that they might be able to measure it, and found something else, basically by looking where nobody had looked before.
It would release it because it takes less energy to hold the helium atom together than it does to hold 2 Deuterium atoms together. Its how the sun creates it's energy.
Not really. But, yes, fusion is the release of binding energy. The sun does not, however, use dense deuterium for fusion.
When the Palladium spontaneously heated up during the experiment, Pons and Fleichmann thought "COLD FUSION!!!" and ran to the press, rather than repeat the experiment a few times.
This is quite incorrect, the history is well-covered. The "first experiment" -- the meltdown -- was in 1984. They continued working on this, keeping it secret, until 1989. They scaled down, because if this really was fusion, the energy available might be enormous, and creating the reaction might not, with conditions shifted, do more than take out a lab bench, it might take out the entire building or more. Until the reaction was under good control, large scale was very dangerous. They then worked with the scaled down experiment. They never again saw that massive energy release, nor did they try. This is not the place to fully cover what they did, but the idea that they saw this amazing result and rushed to the press is blatantly false. They had repeated experiments many times, but ... in hindsight, they were incorrect about many things, and they made mistakes.
They did this because they were in an intense competition with another university that was also working on cold fusion.
Not with another university, as such. Steven Jones at the Brigham Young University was working on cold fusion, however, though he had seen nothing like what Pons and Fleischmann saw, and he was looking for neutrons, a signature of ordinary fusion. They had an agreement, but it broke down and, apparently moved by University legal, they gave their press conference. In fact, these reports were very, very different. Jones' work was at a very different level than the work of Pons and Fleischmann, and Jones' electrochemistry was apparently primitive -- at least that is what the electrochemists say. Jones was highly skeptical of the heat effect, since if "cold fusion" was happening, the neutron radiation would presumably have been fatal.

Fleischmann later stated that it was a mistake to have mentioned fusion. At the time, they thought they had some neutron measurements, though at levels far below what would have been expected from d-d fusion causing the heat. In fact, those measurements were artifact, a danger or working outside one's own field without engaging experts. Nobody now reports major radiation from the FP Heat Effect. Whatever it is, it doesn't generate much radiation. There are some credible reports of neutrons at very low levels; this obviously has nothing to do with the main reaction, whatever it is.

There was a rush to judgment, set up by the U.S. Department of Energy, that was quite concerned about a possible threat to the billion dollar per year hot fusion program, so they wanted quick answers. The DoE put up a lot of money for replication attempts, and these attempts were almost entirely premature, inadequately informed. What was not published, yet, was that it took months for the experiments to reach a condition where the excess heat effect would show up. It was not published what loading ratio was necessary. Those early experiments stopped when they reached 70% which had been thought the maximum possible.

Mike McKubre was working at SRI International, studying, among other things palladium hydride and deuteride. He recognized the problem.

We don't understand what is happening in the FP Heat Effect. The preponderance of the evidence at this point is that deuterium is being converted to helium, pathway and mechanism unknown. Pons and Fleischmann thought that their eponymous effect was a bulk effect, but from where the helium is found, it is a surface effect. Which is actually quite good news, because then far less palladium would be needed for catalysis. (There is no good evidence that palladium actually participates in the reaction.) All other products than helium and heat are at much lower levels, the predominant one is tritium, which is still a million times less than the helium generated (and the tritium figure is quite controversial, but there are many, many independent reports of tritium, which is easy to measure at low levels.

Something is going on here that you don't understand, do you, Mr. Jones?

From the fact that there has been over 25 years of effort to control the reaction adequately to use it for practical power generation, without any clear success, it is quite possible that cold fusion will never be a practical power source. But, preponderance of the evidence (I am not prepared to call it "proof," though some do), the heat effect is real and it is nuclear in nature.

To understand it may take many years of research, and, to my mind, what is important is to establish the basic science, through all the normal techniques and methods of science, and including using the journal system.

Meanwhile, the mishegas that is widely repeated about cold fusion continues as if none of the positive developments ever happened, and stories that are blatantly false or highly misleading are routinely repeated. This was a classic information cascade, where what might have been reasonable at the time is repeated over and over and becomes accepted as fact. The alleged lack of experimental confirmation became false by 1990.

Times are changing. It has become more possible to publish cold fusion reports and reviews in mainstream journals, though, from years of habit, most publication continues with the specialist Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science. It is no longer such a drastic career-killer as it once was to become involved with LENR. For a few, it is an opportunity. We are close, I suspect, to having the killer experiment, scientifically, the improved heat/helium work, with higher precision than was available in the past. I have been told not to expect immediate results, but also that the work is proceeding well. My understanding is that they are not having difficulty creating the excess heat effect (which is not terribly surprising, with McKubre and Violante on board, both of whom have extensive experience with success at that). Correlated helium cuts through the noise of doubt about the origin of the heat. If they can create experiments with high heat, great, but that is not the norm. Still, it is standard in the best cold fusion work that in an extensive experimental series, a few experiments do create relatively high heat (a few watts! -- occasionally much more energy than was put in), and that should, if prior work is confirmed, show higher helium. It is extremely unlikely that a heat artifact and a helium artifact would track each other at the expected ratio!

They also know, now, how to release all the helium, instead of just measuring what is in the electrolytic outgas (which is what Miles did).

neeneko
Posts: 222
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2017 9:08 am

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

Post by neeneko » Tue Jun 20, 2017 6:51 pm

Suranis wrote:
The reason people want cold Fusion is that to do it the way the Sun does needs huge amounts of heat, and energy put into it to make it work. Since we don't like our reactors melting into gas instantly, Cold Fusion is a Holy Grail of science. People are working on "Hot Fusion" as well, but cold fusion would be much easier to deal with.
I think that might have been the initial reason, but at this point cold fusion has become more symbol than science. It often comes up in lists of 'if WE were in charge instead of these OTHER people, look what we would have' technologies.

One of the other forums I follow has a lot of EMDrive chatter, and cold fusion is held up as the conspirator gold standard of things crushed by scientists for their own petty reasons but just look at these freedom fighters for rationality who will someday be vindicated!

Abd
Posts: 16
Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2017 6:37 am

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

Post by Abd » Tue Jun 20, 2017 8:01 pm

rpenner wrote:Due to the Pauli exclusion principle, it seems doubtful that any configuration of any type of atoms could lead to a configuration of electrons which lower the Coulomb barrier to hydrogen fusion below that available to hydrogen nuclei at the temperature of boiling water (about 6 orders of magnitude). So the cold fusion explanation for the "Fleichmann-Pons Effect" is an extraordinary claim.
We get way ahead. What is "cold fusion"? It is a popular name for the Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect, but it is not known what nuclear reaction, if any, is actually taking place. Ordinary d-d fusion, as you are imagining, rpenner, is indeed very unlikely. However, a Japanese physicist with extensive experience with hot fusion, Akito Takahashi, looked at a particular configuration of two deuterium molecules, in confinement, such that the nuclei form a tetrahedral arrangement. He found that if such a configuration arises, with very low relative momentum, it would collapse to a Bose Einstein Condensate, and then would fuse by tunneling within a femtosecond. That's a prediction based on, it is claimed, standard quantum electrodynamics. I am not qualified to assess that claim, but there another physicist, Yeong Kim, who is also looking at BECs in palladium.
I for one can't see how the "Fleichmann-Pons Effect" is neutronless fission of 2H + 2H → 4He + γ because that reaction is not kinematically feasible for nuclei which are essentially free as this reaction energy scale and because gamma rays would not result in local heating.
Yes, you noticed. You meant "fusion," not fission.

However, if the reaction is multibody (two D2 molecules), the immediate ash would be 8Be, which immediately fissions normally to two helium nuclei. Helium produced, lots of heat, no gammas. There is a problem, though. Peter Hagelstein published a paper a few years ago pointing out evidence showing that there are no significant charged particle products of the reaction above 20 KeV, because these would create effects that are not observed. A simple expectation from fusion to 8Be would be alpha particles (helium nuclei) at 24 MeV. While these would indeed transfer that energy to the apparatus as heat, almost entirely, this is now considered impossible because of the Hagelstein limit. Takahashi himself is working on possible nuclear halo states that could store the energy for a time and release it as a series of relatively low-energy photons, but nothing convincing has appeared, and testing Takahashi's theory could be very difficult. The lifetime of those BECs, if they form, would be extremely short. How would they be detected? More possible is if Takahashi can predict the low-energy gamma spectrum. So it's not impossible.

The Abd theory of cold fusion: Cold Fusion is a Mystery. It is an idea coming from an unexplained anomaly that is apparently converting deuterium to helium, mechanism unknown, but the laws of thermodynamics indicate that if deuterium is converted to helium, regardless of the reaction pathway, 23.8 MeV/4He will be released, which will end up as heat if there are no leakages (such as gamma radiation or neutrons or neutrinos carrying significant energy away.)
The alternative is similar to gas-phase fusion where these two reactions occur with about 50% yield apiece:*
2H + 2H → 3He + 1n
2H + 2H → 3H + 1H
Yes. That reaction predominates with d-d fusion. Now, often people say that "cold fusion" is impossible, because of the Coulomb barrier. There is a counterexample: Muon-catalyzed fusion. It takes place close to absolute zero. However, it has the same branching ratio as ordinary hot fusion, the reactions described above. So simply overcoming the coulomb barrier with some catalyst would not be enough. Something else must be happening.
So there should be a lot of neutrons zipping (with about 2.5 MeV of kinetic energy) around, especially if any detected helium is of nuclear origin.
3H is radioactive, 1n is radioactive and induces radioactivity in surrounding material. It doesn't seem like a panacea.
The FP Heat Effect does not produce any major neutron radiation. There are reports of very low levels of neutrons, and mostly I define this as "confusing," along with the miscellaneous transmutation reports. If fusion is happening, it may create some rare branches or secondary reactions. None of this is the main show. The big problem with cold fusion is controlling the reaction, and it is not known how to do that, to create reliable effects, and reliability is crucial for practical applications. The lack of reliability (in heat production) is also a problem afflicting all research. Sometimes the damn thing just doesn't work, when it seems to be the same as what worked previously. In fact, the material is changing, the FPHE is a surface effect, and electrolytic experiments generate extraordinarily messy surfaces. When you clean this up, the effect doesn't work. (The Japanese decided, in a major project, to use the purest palladium. It never worked. It is now known how to make material that improves reliability, but it is still not a slam-dunk.
The alternate LENR paradigm promoted by Widom and Larsen[s] that the configuration of atoms in palladium just somehow shakes loose neutrons at thermal temperatures (again, off by orders of magnitude) and the heating is caused by resulting nearby reactions that still somehow don't result in increased radioactivity or detectable free neutrons seems like hooey.**
W-L theory is a little more sophisticated than that, but it's still, in my opinion, cloud-cuckoo land, with no supporting experimental evidence, and what it would predict -- that is not seen -- is then explained away by a mass of ad hoc explanations (such as a super-efficient "gamma shield," to explain the lack of activation gammas), each one unexpected and unverified. W-L theory is liked by a few because it is allegedly a "not-fusion" theory, but I agree that this is no help. W-L theory does not explain the known phenomena.

Storms' theory is rooted in experiment so it's much better in that way, but he, as a chemist, then imagined a core mechanism that makes little sense to me -- and it is not much accepted in the field. My opinion is that before good theory is likely to arise, much more experimental data is needed.

Some good "lab rats" are needed, i.e., experimental protocols that will show the effect with, at least, statistical reliability. Searches are likely for low-energy photons, because more than one theory predicts them. The heat/helium ratio is quite diagnostic of the fuel/ash relationship, and measurement to increased precision can rule out some theories (besides nailing the "reality question," we can hope.)

(Widom-Larsen is a swiss army knife of post hoc predictions, you can set up a series of imagined reactions to create more or less whatever path you want -- just add neutrons! -- , and Larsen has proposed a series of reactions that produce helium with a ratio of roughly 30 MeV/4He, which is close enough to the present observations that it's still possible. (Widom-Larsen explanations typically neglect rate, which could be expected to be a severe problem with reaction sequences.... another reason why most in the field do not accept W-L theory, in spite of Steve Krivit assiduously flogging it.)

But I personally expect prior work to be confirmed that takes the ratio much closer to 23.8 MeV.

The great thing about trusting science is that I'll be very happy with better data, no matter what it shows.

User avatar
Slartibartfast
Posts: 6631
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:52 pm

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

Post by Slartibartfast » Tue Jun 20, 2017 8:51 pm

Mikedunford wrote: I don't - despite Slarti's attempt to make my head swell - consider myself to be one of the "real lawyers."

Sorry to embarrass you, but what you wrote essentially proves everything I said about you, so you kind of torpedoed your own modesty. In any case you once again demonstrated that you have some small understanding of what you are talking about.


I'm licensed, but I'm not a practitioner and have no immediate plans of becoming one. What I am is an early-career legal scholar

Even a baby legal scholar is still a legal scholar and I thought Abd needed to understand that. Thanks for showing him! :thumbs:

(who really should be working on a 20K-word dissertation instead of procrastinating here),

Right there with you. For me it's writing my father's eulogy and preparing a brief for a meeting next week.

with relevant degrees from a couple of places, a solid foundation in US law, and (hopefully) a better-than-the-average-lawyer understanding of global intellectual property law.

Do you have any idea how hot you look right now? :lovestruck:

I would suggest that if Rossi and HI et al. had a lawyer or two who understood global IP law when they were writing their deal they might not have needed to spend a combined $15 million on lawyers for a contract dispute.

Just sayin'.



I mention that background because one of the most valuable lessons I've learned in during my legal education - a lesson that Sterngard helped teach - is the importance of being aware of your own strengths and weaknesses.

One of the things I am most grateful to Stern for is having the respect to tell me things I didn't want to hear. Listening when someone tells us something we don't want to hear is something we all should be working on all of the time. Or listening when people tell us something we do want to hear. Accepting criticism or praise can be hard. Certainly we've all seen what happens when you lose your skepticism for what you want to be true and create irrefutable confirmation biases.

It's a lesson which, to be blunt, I think you might need to work on a bit.

That's good advice for all of us.
And I assume that's a reference to just page 177, not to the first 41 pages of Marbury v. Madison?
"Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat."
---Sun Tzu (quoting Thomas Jefferson)
nam-myoho-renge-kyo---Thomas Jefferson (quoting Slartibartfast)

User avatar
RoadScholar
Posts: 5633
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 10:25 am
Location: Baltimore
Occupation: Historic Restoration Woodworker
Contact:

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

Post by RoadScholar » Tue Jun 20, 2017 9:07 pm

Well damn. As far as I follow it (amateur interest only), that all seems pretty reasonable.

Question: since the mechanism of this phenomenon is still mysterious, has anyone attempted using state-of-the-art microscopy to try to observe it? Is imaging of the process 'live' even possible?
The bitterest truth is healthier than the sweetest lie.

User avatar
Suranis
Posts: 13513
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:04 am

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

Post by Suranis » Tue Jun 20, 2017 9:27 pm

Yes, people tried to replicate the experiment, but failed. Also, the fact that Pons and Fliechmann were not currently green and rampaging across the USA meant that there were no Gamma Rays produced, which would have been produced if fusion occurred. (Actually people pointed out that P&F failed to have the right equipment to detect it, so their claims of detecting Gamma Rays were flawed.)

Gamma Rays are basically really high energy bursts of light that most of the energy from fusion would go out as. The explosion flash, as it were.

Rather than copying and pasting huge amount of text, the wiki page has a good summary of peoples attempts to replicate the experiment, and how the scientific view turned against the cold fusion claims being genuine. Claims that everyone else "didn't do it right" are laughable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleischma ... experiment

There is an interesting bit at the end that I think is pertinent to the trial.
Revival and LENR[60]

In the mid-1990s there was heated debate among scientists that promoted the room-temperature fusion and those who observed that isotopic shifts and heavy-element transmutations pointed not to fusion but to some sort of neutron-induced reaction.

In 1997, theorist Lewis Larsen looked at some of this data and suspected that a neutronization process was occurring in low-energy nuclear reactions (LENR). Physicist Allan Widom joined Larsen's team in 2004, and in 2006 they published a theory in the European Physical Journal C – Particles and Fields.

The Widom–Larsen theory is consistent with existing physics and has nothing to do with fusion. Their theory explains nuclear reactions based on creation of ultra-low-momentum neutrons and their recapturing. The reaction rate are based on collective many-body interactions and not on few-body interactions that had been presumed for Fleischmann–Pons experiment.

Many scientific reports, some of them published in respectable peer-reviewed journals, show that LENRs can produce local surface temperatures of 4,000–5,000 K and boil metals (palladium, nickel and tungsten) in small numbers of scattered microscopic sites on the surfaces of laboratory devices. In other words, Fleischmann and Pons misunderstood their own experiment but did not engage in sham science as they were accused of. Ultimately, although their experiment did not show what Fleischmann and Pons thought it did, it prompted new exciting venues of research that may highly expand applications of theoretical particle physics[citation needed].
"I think its pretty troubling when a backyard decoration comes out swinging harder against Nazis than the President of the United States." - Stephen Colbert

neeneko
Posts: 222
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2017 9:08 am

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

Post by neeneko » Tue Jun 20, 2017 10:52 pm

RoadScholar wrote:Well damn. As far as I follow it (amateur interest only), that all seems pretty reasonable.

Question: since the mechanism of this phenomenon is still mysterious, has anyone attempted using state-of-the-art microscopy to try to observe it? Is imaging of the process 'live' even possible?
Generally it doesn't work that way. The best you can do is try to measure and observe byproducts. Even when you are looking at single atom interactions, what they are actually doing is detecting the end products and then tracing back from there.

If anything is happening in these experiments, very little of it is occurring, making even statistical observation difficult.

Abd
Posts: 16
Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2017 6:37 am

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

Post by Abd » Tue Jun 20, 2017 10:54 pm

Slartibartfast wrote:
Sterngard Friegen wrote: Let me be a semantic weenie for a second here. "Cold fusion" is a popular term that is kind of fuzzy, so if you are applying William's blade (see what I did there :towel: ) to the science you should probably frame it around "low energy nuclear reactions" (see below regarding applying it to the invention/technology/commercialization). Strictly speaking, I don't think that you can call that "hooey". There are two issues here, an experimental one and a theoretical one.

The first question is "Has the generation of excess heat been established?" OR doesn't apply here as we don't have competing hypotheses, but rather something that can only be confirmed or denied empirically. I'm willing to concede this point for the sake of argument (to get to the issues I find interesting), although I agree with rpenner about the dodgy statistics and find the rest of his argument persuasive as well.

There is a lost performative in that, a common one. "established according to whom or by what standard, and how would we know?"


In 2004, there was a second DoE review based on a document by Peter Hagelstein et al, New Physical Effects in Metal Deuterides. Many review documents are available here: http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?page_id=455.

My take-home from it: the review was way silly rushed. It took me years of studying the history and the documents to get a clear sense. They had one day (plus a huge pile of papers to read). There was obviously no back-and-forth, because the reviewers very clearly misinterpreted some of the papers and that would have been quickly fixed if there had been that conversation. Ask random scientists about cold fusion, the answers are fairly predictable, because most are unfamiliar with the evidence, but know what they heard 25 years ago and on and on.... to shift that takes substantial time and study. I don't expect it (and don't blame people for being skeptical). However, when people are hired to investigate cold fusion, they tend to come to different conclusions. Mike McKubre was retained for that, at SRI. Robert Duncan, who is behind the Texas Tech initiative, was retained by CBS Sixty Minutes. He was skeptical. He was amazed at what he found. However, even given the major structural shortcomings of that review, and the errors, still:

Evaluations by the reviewers ranged from: 1) evidence for excess power is compelling, to 2) there is no
convincing evidence that excess power is produced when integrated over the life of an experiment. The
reviewers were split approximately evenly on this topic.


There were reviewers, clearly, who were not going to approve anything "cold fusion" no matter what. So half is pretty good. So half are not convinced. In the context, this is actually a major advance over 1989, when there may have been two or three out of about 15 reviewers that thought there was anything worth looking at. The unanimous conclusion was that more research was called for....

The strongest evidence for "nuclear" is the heat/helium correlation. That was covered in the review paper, but the documents were misinterpreted, clearly, the review actually contradicts the paper as to what was presented and then what was actually a very high correlation is read as an anti-correlation. I could fault the review paper, and I know the politics behind it. The field needed skilled writers and, in fact, lawyers, people who know how to write polemic. Instead, Hagelstein et al wrote like scientists for a journal, expecting that the readers would do some heavy lifting. A few did, but most did not. After all, why waste time with this nonsense?

My paper covers the heat/helium issue, which is a reliably reproducible experiment. I.e., the heat isn't reliable, it will vary, but that creates "control experiments," experiments where the only difference is the observed heat. Does the helium vary with that (Yes, strongly.) http://www.currentscience.ac.in/Volumes/108/04/0574.pdf

The anonymous reviewer for that paper was very negative at first (giving the standard objections I would expect from a physicist). But I rewrote the paper to specifically address his concerns, and everything in the paper was sourced. He did a complete about-face, and helped me write my conclusions.

My point is not "proving" anything, but suggesting that there is ample evidence to support more careful investigation. A major donor agreed. $12 million for research at Texas Tech.

The theoretical question is (assuming heat production), "Is this heat being produced by LENR?" Until or unless the first question is definitively answered in the positive, there is no need for anyone to come up with a hypothesis to explain the heat without LENR, so there's really no work for OR here, at least not yet. In this case I think that looking at things in the best possible light for LENR is useful for understanding the behavior of Abd, Rossi, and IH et al., even though I think that perspective is unlikely to be correct.
That's an excellent way to approach an issue like this.

In 1989, the most obvious objection to the "nuclear" claim was the lack of nuclear products. The neutron radiation reported was an artifact, error, and the levels were ridiculously low if the reaction were ordinary deuterium fusion, anyway. There were extensive searches for neutrons, and that few, if any, were found, was considered "replication failure," even though the primary finding was anomalous heat, and if you didn't find anomalous heat, there would be zero reason to expect neutrons. It was not until 1990 that decent evidence appeared that the nuclear product was helium. But no gammas.
Sterngard Friegen wrote: "Funded to cover the trial" is suspicious to me.

Well, I certainly agree that the comment piqued my interest as well. Hopefully Abd will clarify what he meant.

I think it's circumlocution for "being paid to testify" (as an expert). Or that he has a piece of the action; or both.

If either of those things are true then "funded to cover the trial" seems dodgy, but Abd has implied neither of these things are true and I'm not sure what he would get out of commenting here if they were true. The longer he sticks around, the less likely it seems.
If one wants to know, one could ask, eh? I thought it was pretty clear. "Cover' means to write about. "Funded" means expenses are being fully or at least partially paid. https://www.gofundme.com/cold-fusion-journalism

If that were all I received, I wouldn't be going to Florida. However, there were people who wanted to donate who did not want to see the GoFundMe charge eat some of it, and I was sent a substantial check -- enough to get me to Florida and pay for an AirBnB room for two weeks, and I've been promised more. No donations have been made, as far as I know, from any party in Rossi v. Darden. There have long been people supporting my work who are known scientists in the field. This is the first major trip, though, where I may receive enough donations to cover expenses. I did receive a major grant in 2015 which gives me a cushion. This is also from someone involved in the field, but, again, not a party in the case.

At this point, I would not dream of approaching Elon Musk. However, the heat/helium work is being supported by a bigger name than Musk. And it's not a business plan, it is philanthropy, supporting science. The largest business investor in recent times in LENR, by far, has been Industrial Heat, but there is some substantial money behind Brillouin Energy. The results there are not yet spectacular.

I understand the idea that they don't seem competent. However, this was the situation when they invested in Rossi: Rossi obviously looked like a con artist. Most people in the field thought his results were fake. But not "impossible." It was becoming difficult for scientific projects to find funding. As I wrote before, why support work with watts when Rossi is claiming kilowatts? Why not wait until his devices hit the market? There were some scientists supporting his claims.


[I have discovered that the editor here has eaten much of what I quoted, it disappeared when I previewed it, so my responses may seem floating. And I don't have time to fix it.]

This [the idea of IH incompetence] all makes good ordinary sense. However, the setup with Rossi was that he would not allow independent testing, and he readily and freely walked away from anyone who showed an inclination to verify any of his results. He was "eccentric." Or a total con. His friends accepted that he was paranoid and believed that people would try to steal his secrets, and that he wanted to look like a con artist to discourage people from investing heavily in trying to find out what he was doing -- to steal it. I wrote about this extensively (and mostly privately) in 2011-2012. Basically, there was no clear way to tell the difference between an eccentric inventor pretending to be a con artist and a just plain con artist with a twist. And the involvement of Rossi and Sergio Focardi gave Rossi some glitter. Nobody suspected that Focardi would be likely to support a scam, if he knew, so Rossi, if this was fraud, must have been fooling Focardi. Bottom line, IH has said that if there was a 1% chance that Rossi had something real, it was, to them, worth the risk. They were thinking that if it were real, it would be worth, not merely billions, but trillions.

These are not stupid people. They are highly successful with very risky ventures. They played the odds, as they always do. When you play the odds, it doesn't pay off sometimes. That, by itself, is not evidence of incompetence.

Rossi had said that he would sell his secret for $100 million. So that is what they offered him, but they set it up in stages. Rossi essentially wrote the Agreement. IH saw that the Validation Test was flaky, but ... if they didn't accept it, they would not have had an opportunity for the disclosure. Everyone knew that Rossi would walk if suspicion was shown. However, that last payment of $89 million was definitely a bridge too far. Had Rossi actually shown them how to make devices that work, paying him it would have been well worth it. But that was a test that Rossi either couldn't pass, or decided that he was being cheated and he withheld some critical secret. Almost certainly, though, it was a total scam. Personally, I think Rossi is insane and believes many or most of his lies. That he would sue IH was probably not anticipated. As people have said, "He would have to be crazy."

My opinion is that cold fusion is not ready for commercialization. It might never be ready, or it might take twenty years. Not knowing how it works makes it difficult to predict! There are plenty of hints, though, that something might be possible.

You can save time here. It's not ready. Take it from me. However, I don't know everything that is going on, some projects are quite secretive. What I know -- not "believe," this is a preponderance of the evidence conclusion -- is that the effect is real, but that does not lead to confidence in practicality. A sane business practice here would be to watch the field, and occasionally support what might be missing. Industrial Heat shut their lab down, more or less, discharging the staff. But they may be ready to start up if an opportunity appears, having experts available on contract. I'll be talking with them, I assume, in Miami.

Industrial Heat did not just invest in Rossi. They appear to have spent, perhaps, about as much money (S20 million or more) on other research as on Rossi. The Murray deposition covers some of this. So far, no champagne being broken out.

LENR research is quite difficult. I proposed the heat/helium work for funding because it was already confirmed, multiply, and merely needed increased precision and hopefully a longer experimental series. As well, new basic research could be published, whereas the existing evidence was mostly old. I believed that nailing heat/helium (whichever way it turned out) would be valuable. If cold fusion is some weird artifact, we need to know. In fact, I have found most genuine skeptics are quite supportive of this approach.

Sometimes, in fact, more supportive than old-timers in the field, who thought repeating the heat/helium work was a waste of time. After all, they already knew it. While I understood this, I saw the need to broaden support, with definitive work, designed to be conclusive. To solve the cold fusion theory problem might take the best minds on the planet, working for years. that is not going to happen if the belief remains widespread that it was all found to be bogus over 25 years ago. There never was any conclusive showing of that, any demonstration that the basic calorimetry was wrong. And heat/helium has never been shown to be artifact.

User avatar
Slartibartfast
Posts: 6631
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:52 pm

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

Post by Slartibartfast » Wed Jun 21, 2017 4:56 pm

Abd,

Thank you for answering my questions and the information you shared. For myself, I'm completely satisfied with your bona fides and explanations. You've also been very clear on the state of cold fusion research as you see it. I'm looking forward to your reports on the trial.

I especially found what you said about Steven Jones interesting. After 9/11 he did studies of dust collected (in uncontrolled circumstances) in lower Manhattan after the collapse of the Twin Towers and claimed to find evidence of thermite. His results were widely debunked and he was forced to publish in vanity journals until he started his own Journal Of 9/11 Studies (or JONES), which only publishes articles that share Jones' viewpoint. I have no knowledge of him at BYU and before, but, since he jumped on to the truther train, his work has no scientific value.
"Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat."
---Sun Tzu (quoting Thomas Jefferson)
nam-myoho-renge-kyo---Thomas Jefferson (quoting Slartibartfast)

User avatar
RoadScholar
Posts: 5633
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 10:25 am
Location: Baltimore
Occupation: Historic Restoration Woodworker
Contact:

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

Post by RoadScholar » Wed Jun 21, 2017 5:32 pm

A popular formula for thermite is powdered aluminum and rust. Who could imagine Jones finding finely ground aluminum and rust as trace components of the WTC dust? Why, it's practically a smoking gun!

Yeesh. :roll:
The bitterest truth is healthier than the sweetest lie.

User avatar
Slartibartfast
Posts: 6631
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:52 pm

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

Post by Slartibartfast » Wed Jun 21, 2017 6:37 pm

RoadScholar wrote:A popular formula for thermite is powdered aluminum and rust. Who could imagine Jones finding finely ground aluminum and rust as trace components of the WTC dust? Why, it's practically a smoking gun!

Yeesh. :roll:
He covers that up with a lot of pseudo-scientific claptrap and cherry picking.

Jones is kind of the Mario Apuzzo of 9/11 truthers. Although I bet Mario wishes he had his own birther journal instead of his pathetic echo chamber of a blog.

Winning!
:thumbs:
"Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat."
---Sun Tzu (quoting Thomas Jefferson)
nam-myoho-renge-kyo---Thomas Jefferson (quoting Slartibartfast)

Abd
Posts: 16
Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2017 6:37 am

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

Post by Abd » Thu Jun 22, 2017 8:37 pm

Slartibartfast wrote:I find it fascinating how quickly bad blood can arise from a failure to understand each other's position (and grumpiness too, also1). In an effort to get an interesting thread back on track and prevent someone who seems to me to be making a worthwhile contribution from getting turned off, let me see if I can help explain... or at least make things worse.
:towel:
I had missed this post.... I have responded in detail to my limited Fogbow experience, in the light of thirty freakin' years of on-line discussion experience, on the blog, coldfusioncommunity.net. It's long, and it took a long time to write. I may not see responses here, but comments there are open and, as admin, I will see them.

Thanks to those who welcomed me, and questions may be asked on the blog. I'm leaving for Miami tomorrow. Fun.

User avatar
RoadScholar
Posts: 5633
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 10:25 am
Location: Baltimore
Occupation: Historic Restoration Woodworker
Contact:

Re: Rossi v Darden : Cold Fusion Trial

Post by RoadScholar » Thu Jun 22, 2017 9:20 pm

Your long post showed that you are not in fact a crackpot with an axe to grind. It was lucid and patient, informative and not defensive. Kudos.

Have fun, and drop in again. What you have to say on this topic is quite interesting.
The bitterest truth is healthier than the sweetest lie.

Post Reply

Return to “Science & Technology”