LENR news Communicate on Low Energy Nuclear Reactions

17Feb/140

Open answer about LENR/Cold Fusion to a consensual anti-scientific science apologist. [Updated 2014-02-17]

Today I found that article reporting the announce of Cherokee fund and industrial Heat, about buying E-cat technology... Nothing worth new except that astounding closing message :

Reminder: Cold fusion has not been verified by science and has been rejected. So I do not allow cold fusion advocates to post claims that it’s being verified all over the world.

So since censorship is announced, I publish here that open answer. The occasion to answer many similar believers in consensus.

"So I do not allow cold fusion advocates to post claims that it’s being verified all over the world. "

This sentence resonated like one of the most awful, anti-scientific, and consensual  position about the cold fusion. So forgive my extensive response, nothing is really personal and feel free to escape from the box.

Do you accept evidence , peer-reviewed papers, with  absence of any written critics that have not been addressed? Or do you prefer theoretical arguments, unwritten and unreviewed critics, rumors, rebutted arguments, organized ignorance of recent result ? I imagine you prefer scientific arguments, based on experimental results, and classic first order logic.

I will base my answer on one of the most serious review of cold fusion research done in 1996, and update about 2000 (no new critic emerged) : the book of Charles Beaudette, "Excess Heat" that he kindly published as PDF for ICCF9 in University of Tsinghua.

The paper of F&P was peer-reviewed, even if criticized later by only 4 authors, Lewis, Hansen, Wilson and Morrison.

The incompetence of Lewis is proven, since instead of admitting his incompetence in calorimetry, not able to stir automatically his cell, he accused without checking, F&P of his incompetence. He also ignored later the work of McKubre who used flow calorimetry at stable temperature (via compensation), the work of Oriani using Seebeck calorimetry (immune to that artifact), the presentation made few days latter by F&P proving with colorant fast mixing, and the precise measurements done by F&P until 2012 proving their cell was precise at 0.01C, and having few % imprecision with few 10% of anomaly... reaching sometime 50 sigma of signal (much above Higgs).

Hansen did the same late about recombination, ignoring the work of McKubre who used closed cell with recombination, of Oriani who separated the gases, and ignoring that F&P were measuring recombination (during refilling) which was kept at the usual (known by electro-chemist, unlike him)

Morrison was enough honest to flee when he realized he simply missed key points.

Wilson  was enough competent to explain how Lewis and Hansen were incompetent and how Fleishmann have proven anomalous heat in the most important event, yet claiming the opposite.

Add to that the paper of Oriani which was Peer-reviewed, even if Nature refused to publish it for no reason relative to the real question, the calorimetry, and no doubt the real reason was cold fusion was satanic for that high impact journal.

The book of beaudette, gives much more detail, about the blank, about the media manipulation, about the ethic violation, about the communication errors of F&P too, about University of Utah responsibility in the carnage, as much as of the "few outspoken US nuclear physicist", son of Manhattan project, who were totally unequipped intellectually to work on a chemistry problem... because yes, cold fusion is experimentally a chemistry problem, to be managed by top electro-chemist. None of the experiments or evidence are nuclear (except latest Tritium and He4 evidences).

 

Beaudette makes a nice summary of the tragedy:

Unfortunately, physicists did not generally claim expertise in calorimetry, the measurement of calories of heat energy. Nor did they countenance clever chemists declaring hypotheses about nuclear physics. Their outspoken commentary largely ignored the heat measurements along with the offer of an hypothesis about unknown nuclear processes. They did not acquaint themselves with the laboratory procedures that produced anomalous heat data. These attitudes held firm throughout the first decade, causing a sustained controversy.

The upshot of this conflict was that the scientific community failed to give anomalous heat the evaluation that was its due. Scientists of orthodox views, in the first six years of this episode, produced only four critical reviews of the two chemists’ calorimetry work. The first report came in 1989 (N. S. Lewis). It dismissed the Utah claim for anomalous power on grounds of faulty laboratory technique. A second review was produced in 1991 (W. N. Hansen) that strongly supported the claim. It was based on an independent analysis of cell data that was provided by the two chemists. An extensive review completed in 1992 (R. H. Wilson) was highly critical though not conclusive. But it did recognize the existence of anomalous power, which carried the implication that the Lewis dismissal was mistaken. A fourth review was produced in 1994 (D. R. O. Morrison) which was itself unsatisfactory. It was rebutted strongly to the point of dismissal and correctly in my view. No defense was offered against the rebuttal. During those first six years, the community of orthodox scientists produced no report of a flaw in the heat measurements that was subsequently sustained by other reports.

The community of scientists at large never saw or knew about this minimalist critique of the claim. It was buried in the avalanche of skepticism that issued forth in the first three months. This skepticism was buttressed by the failure of the two chemists’ nuclear measurements, the lack of a theoretical understanding of how their claim could work, a mistaken concern with the number of failed experiments, a wholly unrealistic expectation of the time and resource the evaluation would need, and the substantial ad hominem attacks on them. However, their original claim of measurement of the anomalous power remained unscathed during all of this furor. A decade later, it was not generally realized that this claim remained essentially unevaluated by the scientific community. Confusion necessarily arose when the skeptics refused without argument to recognize the heat measurement and its corresponding hypothesis of a nuclear source. As a consequence, the story of the excess heat phenomenon has never been told.

 

 

It is clear, but the various chapters, like the chapter in an attorney general report, covers in detail many points, many dimension of the tragedy, from the pathetic undocumented books of Huizenga, to the Cal-tech/Baltimore TV show of Lewis which convinced the planet based on his pure  incompetence in calorimetry (chemistry is a job) and his huge ego of physicist.

Normally just those 2 replications  are enough. I let you analyse the work of McKubre, and Miles. Miles collaboration in double blind with Bush, proving Heat and Helium-4 correlation may surely convince you of no artifact or fraud.

You don't need to read the replications of Tritium, Helium-4, since all is already in calorimetry evidences. Maybe just seeing how Gary Taubes facing tritium evidence, impossible to claim as artifact, chose like a conspiracy theoretician, to claim fraud without any evidences, ignoring the parallel replications... No fraud (except , guess where) was ever found, but that does not stop conspiracy theoreticians.

Did you know Lewis Visited McKubre lab for DoE, with Garwin... they noticed no real problem, but since for them it was impossible they just said there was something not identified... good science !

Beaudette stay very moderate, but the facts he describes talk alone. One of his gem is the description of the denialist, that he name "skeptics" by oppositions to critics (the real skeptics):

In general, skeptics display the following habits.

  1. They do not express their criticism in those venues where it will be subject to peer review.
  2. They do not go into the laboratory and practice the experiment along side the practitioner (as does the critic).
  3. Assertions are offered as though they were scientifically based when they are merely guesses.
  4. Questions are raised that concern matters outside of the boundaries of the claimed observation.
  5. Satire, dismissal, and slander are freely employed.
  6. When explanations are advanced for a possible source, ad hoc reasons are instantly presented for their rejection. These rejections often assert offhand that the explanation violates some physical conservation law.
  7. Evidence raised in support of the claims is rejected outright if it does not answer every possible question. No intermediate steps to find a source are acceptable

I make a call to skeptics to find me a real critic, rebutting F&P, Oriani, McKubre, Miles/Bush that was not addressed and rebutted to the point of dismissal. I will surely manage to bring  the rebuttal after some inquiries to more competent people.

Before facing risk of ridicule one can also ask directly to Ed Storms, the LENR editor at Naturwissenschaften, who published one among the few LENR review in 2010.

Of course if your position is that only what the physicist admit as real is real, then there is no hope, since they will never admit the screwed-up like college student, so far, so deeps, so many people, with so huge impact, despite so clear evidence, just because they were not chemist, yet  egotic.

I really wait for the written critics on the calorimetry you claim. Please no theory, and nothing about the radiation measurement and the fact that LENR produce too few neutrons, and cows don't fly. Only about calorimetry.

If you need articles, read the book of Beaudette which is one of the only book which cover results after 1989. You can even consult his own library, which helped to write his book donated to "Willard Marriott Library of the University of Utah , in Salt Lake City , Utah"

The Charles G.Beaudette Papers (Accession #2297) contains over 1,800 papers written by cold fusion researchers; 700 quotations; 40 interviews from the period starting in March 1989 and continuing through 2005; the proceedings for the first through eleventh International Conferences on Cold Fusion; technical reports from other conferences, such as the EPRI/NSF meeting of October 1989; photographs of many members of the cold fusion community; about 40 CDs of e-mails, photographs, and technical papers recorded on gold-film disks; miscellaneous popular press articles about the field; and a sampling of the various monthly journals and magazines that were published from 1989 to 2005, including but not limited to Cold Fusion TimesInfinite EnergyNew Energy News, and New Energy Times. Also included are draft and final versions of both the first and second editions of Excess Heat.

Beside that scientific question, which is closed since 1992-96, you can see what the business actors are doing currently despite the pathological consensus:

This Executive summary of policy makers is not the best written, but it is a start. This one by LENR FTW is better written I agree.

As you say I predict I will be censored. I will anyway keep your article for history, and take the care to answer it, and I agree answer to the similarly uninformed articles.

Roland Benabou theory of groupthink predict you will never read anything that dissent with your belief. To understand the model that predict that behavior, best it to read his paper "Group-think : Collective delusions in organizations and markets"

To understand how such a pathological consensus can appear (Benabou explain how it resists to reality) a first reference is the well known and consensually rejected vision about experimental anomaly denial during scientific revolution by Thomas Kuhn (see that summary of Kuhn):

To understand how academics put theoretical question before experimental evidence, and that practitioners are the real inventors and discoverers, and how like Kuhn says to the history is rewritten to hide that, the book Antifragile by Nassim Nicholas Taleb contains two key chapters "Lecturing birds how to fly" and "History being written by the losers".

Hope you make me lie and prove Roland Benabou MAD theory is wrong. At least read the book... and if you don't accept some claims, check the citations. And if you don't accept anything that face you belief, be a priest.

 

UPDATE,PS: I added a shorted comment, hoping it is published... Who knows, theories sometime are wrong.

The end is clear, and it inspired an open answer to your final censorship announce.

http://www.lenrnews.eu/open-answer-about-lenrcold-fusion-to-a-consensual-anti-scientific-science-apologist/

Clearly you ignore the facts on cold fusion, and you should first read the book of Charles Beaudette.

I keep your article for history.

Prove me I'm wrong about groupthink and MAD,
either by finding a written critics on F&P experiments, on McKubre experiments, on Oriani experiments,on Miles/Bush experiments, and on the hundreds of others including the latest by SRI/ENEA/NRL which at last explain why this chemistry experiment was so hard to replicate (because beside loading, current density, evident contamination, there are requirement on the crystallographic structure and impurity of the palladium - https://mospace.umsystem.edu/xmlui/handle/10355/36833 ).

or by admitting you are wrong.

anyway best regards, and I hope good reading.

UPDATE2: I noticed that conversation on an italian skeptic site. It seems that they are today afraid that a public panel like the DoE ERAB, in Italy, may lead to part of the panel follow the "Beaudette Doctrine" like I do...

Ascoli65: To me, though, it was a good opportunity for the Ministry of Education to investigate what had happened in the field of Cold Fusion  in the last 25 years and especially since 2011, and inform, through the Parliament, all Italian citizens.
Camillo Franchini: ... I guess you mean the establishment of a commission similar to the two panels of the DoE. Who would consist of? Someone would have immediately proposed to apply the Beaudette's doctrine . It may on the other hand a Ministry decree authority if a 25-year research must cease or continue, when they are involved in the DF of a University, a Polytechnic, INFN, ENEL? I think not. More than the Ministry of Education would be a task of the Ministry of Energy.

...

The most appropriate thing would have been to encourage internal defense reactions such as those put in place by INFN, but Ferroni and Dosselli have been described as two reactionaries who suppress the free search. Even in this blog frequented by people who are mature and prepared someone is inquietato.By a government to end like that of Letta you would not expect an intervention on cold fusion, run by almost all characters "in share". Now there is an establishment in Italy oriented  Cold Fusion to the right.

They have no shame to admit that Beaudette doctrine, that experiments precede theory, that there is no written critic that hold,  is really convincing for non physicists... for competent people, with no theory to protect.

After all Cold Fusion evidence are purely chemistry evidence, chemistry lab experiments, chemistry problem. Only the theory is nuclear, and this have no room to challenge the experimental results. Not only the ruin the job of competent people, the chemists, but they are unable to do their job, find an explanation. This is maybe why they thy to hide that fiasco, blaming their victims, and using lobbyist methods instead of risky scientific method.

---

AlainCo

Published on February 16th, 2014
By AlainCo (alainco@lenrnews.eu)

Discuss about that article
on LENR-forum.com

Go to the Forum if you want to write Comments on this Topic!