69 Comments:

Anonymous said...

Rossi is selling heat with his e-cat SK (cold fusion) reactor. Why don't you, Buzz, buy some heat and verify the COP?

Monday, December 10, 2018 at 12:30 AM

Anonymous said...

Keep this blog as a witness of human prejudice... Don't delete it. It is a record for people to reflect on the importance of keeping an open mind without being hyper-critical at the same time trying not to be be too easily to be taken.

Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 9:05 AM

Anonymous said...

Rossi is trying to sell heat and make a living, by passing the physics scientific enterprise.

Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 8:45 AM

Anonymous said...

Is reproducibility a must? Is there something wrong with the methodology especially based on the scientific method which is overturned by many philosophers of science? Have physicists become the arm-chair philosophers? Why ridicule perpetual motion machines if they can be checked to deliver the promise and benefit mankind? What is preventing physicists to collaborate with electrochemist to do the checking of cold fusion for nuclear processes? Why is there experiment (Michaelson-Morley) before the theory (special relativity)? Why is there theory before the experiment? How can the editor banned a particular topic like LENR? Whose authority does the editor rest on? Let the LENR product by-pass the physics scientific enterprise and write yet another lesson in history about existing human prejudice.

Sunday, November 11, 2018 at 7:57 AM

Gaby de Wilde said...

Not at all, If you look objectively you can see it doesn't follow the most basic Wikipedia guidelines.



Articles about LENR and CMNS have been merged into the article. This places various experiments and many hypothesis in an article about palladium electrolysis. It is like merging an article about mammals into an article about rabbits.



The fallacy is repeated where Pons and Fleischmann become the parent item of cold fusion. One should look if the sub topics are notable enough for their own article. There are simple notability criteria for that. Despite hundreds of books and thousands of news articles the Pons and Fleischman some how failed the notability test? Why would skeptics describe it as THE fiasco of the 20th century if it was less notable than the American Fuzzy Lop?



By those same Wikipedia guidelines LENR should be equally worthy of an article. In stead we see that most of the CF article is dedicated to Pons and Fleischman. If an item on an article merits excessive coverage one should create an article about it. A tiny sub set of other palladium researchers have been reduced to single sentences while others and all LENR topics are not covered. Things like ball lightning.



There should even be a Cold fusion in popular culture article, it is notable enough. Like Terraforming in popular culture, Dyson spheres in popular culture or the African-American Civil Rights Movement in popular culture.



As there is no lack of publications one could write an entire article about cold fusion conspiracy theories



The criticism section, with sources from the 90's talks about Pons and Fleischman, it cant sensibly apply to research after that, LENR it not criticized at all?



Then there is the awkward value attributed to the US DOE report and it is repeated all over the article. It is excessive use of a single source but look what kind of source: It was a talk-only review without any experiments. After the review they took a vote and the "lets not research this" group won by a margin of 1 vote. As the DOE they couldn't find the budget for a flask it is very far from the quality their reviews can have.



The article history has so many tiny tweaks that deleted contritions are impossible to find. All discussions end with a proposal being refused.



There is the use of vote counting to establish what "most scientists say" and to get the slur "pathological science" into the article. Normally that requires sources.



I think Blacklight Power inc, Solar Hydrogen inc and the E-cat can be quite sensibly be referred to as LENR but when one tries to write a LENR article one is told that the topic was merged into the Cold Fusion article, then when one tries to write about them there it is all of a sudden not what the article is about.



Anyone can see those things.

Thursday, January 1, 2015 at 1:55 AM

Buzz said...

I've read a lot more of this crap than I care to recall. I'll gladly eat my hat if CF or LENR ever pay off. My hat, BTW, is not scared.

Thursday, January 1, 2015 at 12:33 AM

Gaby de Wilde said...

no, that would be the link that proves you didn't bother to read them.

Thursday, January 1, 2015 at 12:15 AM

Buzz Skyline said...

I can dream about pixies too. But that doesn't make them real.



There are lots of ideas that are wrong, and cold fusion (LENR) is one of them.



It's OK, though, we may not have cold fusion or pixies, but we still have physics and bunnies. So it's all good.

Thursday, October 23, 2014 at 4:32 PM

Øystein Lande said...

Dear Lazy Bunny Buzz! ;-)



The world needs dreamers and the world needs doers. But above all, the world needs dreamers who do.



Professors Martin Fleischmann and Pons said it started with an idea, a dream.



And we noted then and now the theoretical physicists that likes to talk.



Unfortunately, talkers are usually more articulate than doers, since talk is their specialty.



But talkers have never been good doers. It's the doers that change this world.





Thursday, October 23, 2014 at 4:18 PM

Buzz Skyline said...

https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/the-e-cat-cold-fusion-or-scientific-fraud-624f15676f96

Thursday, October 23, 2014 at 12:34 PM

Buzz Skyline said...

"CF is alive and well, and good replications had been performed just too many times by too many good scientists in too many good places."



No, no it's not.

Thursday, October 23, 2014 at 12:33 PM

Øystein Lande said...

HaHaHa, "Wikipedia the teller of truth", HiHiHi, "Wikipedia the Objective source of information", HAHA please stop I'm laughing to death here, "don't need to look at other sources of information than Wikipedia" HoHoHo, I almost Choke laughing now, please STOP hahahaha.



CF is alive and well, and good replications had been performed just too many times by too many good scientists in too many good places. And still it is not part of mainstream science. Why? Because experimental results would not comply to our precious theory of physics.



So theory rules over experiment? In the 1930's it was the other way around.



The whole issue is pure insanity. And in 2014 LENR is more "alive" than ever, with or without mr.Rossi.



F&P discovered a new branch of nuclear reactions happening in deuterated condensed matter. Many theories have been suggested that would embrace both new and "old" physics.

Thursday, October 23, 2014 at 12:22 PM

Øystein Lande said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

Thursday, October 23, 2014 at 12:20 PM

maryyugo said...

@Anonymous



Not sure what you mean "Mary Yugo's back." Where did I go? Rossi, on the other hand, is fading fast. Hey, he says his newest test could be positive or negative! His only honest word in a long time and it's a tautology!



Something big? Nah. Rossi's deconstruction isn't big. But it could be fun!

Friday, September 5, 2014 at 3:45 PM

Anonymous said...

Something big must be about to happen, Mary Yugo's back.

Thursday, September 4, 2014 at 1:05 PM

Alain_Co said...

What is crazy is that such incredible example perfectly match too this epistemology failure.



I never imagined that cow would fly, but they do.

The worst is that I jumped from plane designed to transport cattle. I should have known.

Thursday, September 4, 2014 at 8:15 AM

drboblog.com said...

Alain,



If we only study birds under water we could easily be lead to believe that birds does not fly either.



In the right environment a cow will most certainly fly!



* In a airplane

* In the weightlessness of space

* In a tornado

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kaCa_lR_J6E



The cow in the vortex of a tornado is of course a great example of how the environment at extreme situations can change the properties of an object making it behave different than what we are used to.





Thursday, September 4, 2014 at 7:34 AM

Alain_Co said...

In some top japanese kindergarten, there is a competition to get in.



they let the kids get in

thy put some big heavy bag in from of each kid



and they say that the bag have to be moved





and they have successful kids who have moved the bag, and understand the secret of life, of entrepreuneurship, and of cold fusion.



They don't have a PhD in physics, but they understand some secret of nature.



I told you.



the second is that if cows don't fly, this mean this is not cows who fly, not that no animal fly.

Wednesday, September 3, 2014 at 4:14 PM

drboblog.com said...

If you do, Dr Michio Kaku might consider to mention you as a reference when he writes Physics of the Impossible II (?)



Based on some of your earlier work, these calculations would take your no less than 5 minutes.



I think however that you should take things to another level. If you could calculate the probability of using spontaneous fusion reactions in glasses of water as a commercially viable power source, then I would be really impressed.



Heck, I would even publish such a scientific paper on my webpage after peer review.



The problem however is - as you correctly pointed out the the probability of such reaction is very low. According to my estimations we would have to wait at least between 4-10 billions of years before such an reaction takes place and the water would probably evaporate long before that. To back up your theory with observations within our lifetime we would probably need many billions of glasses of water in some kind of purpose built underground particle detector.



There is however something else I rather want your opinion on. Something even more taboo than Cold Fusion that few people in the Science Community dare to address - may I?



Kind Regard / DB









Wednesday, September 3, 2014 at 2:52 PM

Buzz Skyline said...

DB, I confess, I misread your comment (I was browsing on my phone). I thought you said "Fusion will take place in a glass of water if you let it stand for ten years."



I imagine fusion could eventually take place in a room temperature glass of water via quantum tunneling, but I wouldn't be surprised if the chances of it happening in the lifetime of the universe is vanishingly small. It would be an interesting calculation. I may attempt to estimate it, if I have a spare moment or two,

Wednesday, September 3, 2014 at 11:03 AM

drboblog.com said...

Hi Buzz,

You are pretty sure about much things that are not correct



The glass of water analogue is not something I have taken out of a text book, its a quote from my teacher. Supposedly it can happen but its a very rare reaction with low probability.



I have also heard that Nuclear Fusion takes place inside the Large Hadron Collider - sometimes - with a very low probability but slightly higher than that of Fusion processes in a glass of water. And then I heard about a 4th Nuclear Technology called Muon Catalyzed Fusion where Fusion takes place quite a lot but not often a lot yet for commercial practical technologies.



Then we have the X - factor, anomalies in nature which we can not explain, for example the "Oh My God Particles". Lets say a "Oh My God Particle" collides with my plate of porridge in the morning, that would make a whole lot of mess in my kitchen all though its just a subatomic particle. The Oh My God Particles carries 40 millions times more energy than the Protons within the LHC, no wonder that no one have been able to explain them fully yet. Being hit by a Oh My God Particle would feel like being hit by an Apple coming at you at 100 km/h, quite an energetic reaction - right?



The Coulomb Barrier makes sure that particles does not fuse to often, and thank God for that because I kind of like matter being stable rather than unstable.



Within Cold Fusion - which is in fact a material science based on nano technology - we see that there is reactions that can take place under just the right conditions. What is being done right now in labs all over the world (ukraine, japan, china, finland, france, italy, us......) is to research on how to optimize materials in order to make sure that these reactions takes place more frequently.



Hydrogen Atoms are very very small, we use many millions of them. If we can have a minute amount of them create a reaction forming Helium4, then the excess energy from that reaction whatever it is - is more than enough to cool keep your Igloo cool during the summer.





I look forward to your reply





Your Friend / DB

Tuesday, September 2, 2014 at 5:51 PM

Alain_Co said...

calorimetry is a job.



it is not because physicist are culturally incompetent that they can dismiss competent experimenters.



It is tricky, and it is real that many negative experiments, end all the authors of critical papers (Hansen, Lewis, Morisson) except Wilson (who in fact confirmed beside correcting) had done basic mistakes that competent calorimetricians know about.



yo claim there is an artifact you have to find which one..

In can just say LHC, which is not a reproduced experiments, is wrong in it's mesurement... needing no evidence. It would be less unfair than what is done on cold fusion.



For a course on calorimetry, you could read the book of edmund Storms http://www.amazon.com/Science-Energy-Nuclear-Reaction-Comprehensive/dp/9812706208,

where there is also basic directive to make a calorimeter.



you can also read that free student guide

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





of this one

http://eu.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-1118694430.html



best is anyway to let professional do calorimetry, and work on theory to explain the results.



the summary of history is that cold fusion is a chemistry experiment that was massively replicated, with huge signal over noise.



Simply physicist could not find any theory, so they assumed the chemist were wrong as you do.



no need of any evidence (required since there is none) since physicist are always perfect.



Some were more honest and admitted they have to find a better theory, but they were insulted. not very motivating.

Tuesday, September 2, 2014 at 12:54 PM

Alain_Co said...

you cannot exclude that there si some collective phenomenon.



your hypothesis is based on hidden assumption of two body physics in free space. too bad it is something between bulk and surface, probably none of those, probably in undetermined alloy and lattice context, in non-equilibrium conditions... I agree it is a mess, but science is not easy.



HTSC was also judged impossible, and scientist had to hide their findings in footnotes to make them pass, until is worked so reliably that they dared to publish it really...

this mean that for yes (not decade like CF) people could not exchange about anomalies they observed because there was no theory, and too much unknown in the required conditions...

http://www.mosaicsciencemagazine.org/pdf/m18_03_87_04.pdf



the ego of physicist is so high that they refuse to work on uncertain phenomenon in uncertain condition, even if it is intriguing and anomalous.



more ego the curiosity is not good for science.



HTSC discoverer were just more lucky because physicist were more competent in electricity than in calorimetry...



Just read the theory of Edmund Storms, the less weird, based on careful analysis of the experimental results accumulated since 25 years.

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

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

best is to read his book, which contain more details, better review of experiments and theories, with numerous problems listed.

http://lenrexplained.com/





about why physicis refuse anything without a theory and absolute reproducibility, unlike many real science domain like chemistry, you should read the book of Charles Beaudette in the second part "Validation"



http://iccf9.global.tsinghua.edu.cn/lenr%20home%20page/acrobat/BeaudetteCexcessheat.pdf



Tuesday, September 2, 2014 at 12:42 PM

Buzz Skyline said...

drboblog, I'm pretty sure that's not right.

Tuesday, September 2, 2014 at 12:32 PM

drboblog.com said...

lol - Fusion will take place in a glass of water if you let it stand long enough

A 10 year old kid would know that











Tuesday, September 2, 2014 at 12:18 PM