»If Rossi has indeed managed to overturn physics, [...] he has not acted in a very scientific manner. He has refused to replicate his sales demonstrations under controlled conditions; he has threatened to sue people who elect not to invest in his machine; he has claimed to have sold some of his machines but declines to say to whom; and the results of his sales demonstrations have been found to have been rigged [...]«
"When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong." - Arthur C. Clarke
LENR is real, cold fusion is not. The difference is not semantics.
Check the web site from New Energy Times, especially the Widom Larsen theory portal. Too many good data from reputed source, LENR is real, it is simply ignored. I will take years to develop real working prototypes.
However I agree that Rossi = 1% Edison + 99% Barnum.
@phuet514 its NOT ignored, just none of the supposed inventors have presented a unit for independent testing and verification. So until such a time they can stay in the bullshit bin. Love the LENR people they try to present mr NASA guy as evidence blah blah blah there is NO EVIDENCE. and until such time its pure nonsense.
@incredibleufo And just MAYBE the fact that anyone who passed high school knows a) the basic laws of thermodynamics and b) to be very sceptical of someone who has world changing tech that will make him trillions and keeps so secretive.
Cold fusion would be great, but if it worked this guy would have patented it and be glad to have every scientist in the world look at it and test it in every way. Obvious questions reveal fraud.
Also. It is very possible and fairly simple to carry out nuclear fusion using a 'desktop' size device. The only problem with them is that they use more energy than you get out of it. It is used in universities to demonstrate fusion.
As a physicist both Carl sagan and myself know straight away that cold fusion using their technique was and still is utter bollocks. Remember this was way after the experiment was done and others failed to replicate their results. So everyone knew it was a false report.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Randi is not a scientist and by walking out of the conference without giving Pons and Fleischman a full hearing he and Sagan were only demonstrating what closed minds they have i.e. what bigots they really were.
Interesting video. Just one note: the University of Bologna is the oldest in Europe and one of the most respected. It's sad to see people laugh like kids only for the analogy with the sausage. By the way, no problem, I smiled myself. Bye from Italy
"David Goodstein, a Caltech physicist who is himself skeptical about cold fusion but doesn't categorically dismiss it, says the main problem is that experimental results in the field are rarely repeatable."
ooooh somebody saw it working. where can i invest my money ? :D
many people claim they saw Perendev Magnetic Motors work, but somehow Mike was not able to present such a thing in court and eded up in jail for almost 6 years :D
"...this effect should have been dubbed "anomalous heat effect." ... we don't know what's going on, but it involves heat. Most evidence points to this being a dead end... The evidence also does not indicate that a normal nuclear reaction is occurring. ...It is not being studied very seriously in the US, in fact it is generally frowned upon ...you're still probably going to be hearing lots of stories - an "Elvis sighting" phenomena." (taken from NASA's GRC website)
Following from NASA website. Google search for it: Tests conducted at NASA Glenn Research Center in 1989 and elsewhere consistently showed evidence of anomalous heat during gaseous loading and unloading deuterium into bulk palladium. At one time called “cold fusion,” now called “low-energy nuclear reactions” (LENR), such effects are now published in peer-reviewed journals and are gaining attention and mainstream respectability. The instrumentation expertise of NASA GRC is applied to improve the
@Mucky1454 - You do know governments in the US and other countries have spent amazing amounts of money researching other bogus science as well, such as alien visitors, extrasensory perception, water memory, homeopathy, therapies to correct homosexuality, and some other crazy sh*t: "The National Institutes of Health was given $800,000 in "stimulus funds" to study the impact of a "genital-washing program" on men in South Africa." [Wastebook 2010]
"The Coulomb barrier, named after Coulomb's law, which is named after physicist Charles-Augustin de Coulomb (1736–1806), is the energy barrier due to electrostatic interaction that two nuclei need to overcome so they can get close enough to undergo a nuclear reaction. "
Prof. H. Feshbach (MIT) : "I have had 50 years of experience in nuclear physics and I know what's possible and what's not. . . . I don't want to see any more evidence! I think it's a bunch of junk and I don't want to have anything further to do with it."
Fleischamnn being a superstitious stupid: "If you really don’t believe something deeply enough before you do an experiment, you will never get it to work".
Cal Tech electrochemist Nathan Lewis said, "If cold fusion were true, electrochemists would all have funding beyond their wildest imaginations ... an electrochemist’s wet dream!"
Unbelievable. How does Bologna sound like "boloney"? And anyway, it's only the oldest univesity in the world. Such sickening smugness and arrogance (in every aspect).
Bologna in America is pronounced Baloney. By the way, they weren't making fun of the school, they were making fun of the circumstances - where those who viewed the machine did NOT take a look at the machine's inner workings. Such self-inspired outrage and ignorance (in every aspect).
Here's a few clues for you (and, yes, I am well versed in particle physics and fusion by profession). No matter how you make it happen, the fusion of lighter species into heavier species (in physics, elements are frequently refered to as "species" more from the fact they have isotopes than poetical license) produces a heavier species of element and some subatomic particles. Primary of these are Electrons, Neutrons and Neutrinos. (1)
If you start with Hydrogen, say, you must first drive an Electron into a Proton to form a Neutron. This releases a Neutrino and a photon. More are produced, but the binding force keeping the Electron-Proton pairing in the form of a Neutron are trapped with it. No amount of weird phenomenon can prevent this, so at the very least, you get Neutrinos. Hard to stop or detect, they ESCAPE. So do Neutrons, Electrons and isotopes of Hydrogen and Helium. No process is 100% perfect or efficient. (2)
The Neutrons produced pair up with Protons and produce, eventually, Helium. (He4, the most stable isotope). At higher energy levels, Lithium, Beryllium and all sorts of other elemnts all the way to Iron can be produced. But, in all of these processes, these events happen. All must happen before "fusion" can be claimed. Look up the production of "Technetium" and "medical radioisotopes"... we synthesize these by Fission, so scientists are not unfamiliar with these sorts of things. (3)
@RyuDarragh I get what you're saying that we must observe all these steps to verify it is, in fact, fusion in the sense of it being the process as we know it - but doesn't cold fusion propose a different mechanism of action, while still being a fusion of atoms? Thus, a different mechanism, different process, but still nuclear fusion in the sense of, well, fusion of nuclei.
So we may not expect the fusion to occur in the conventional manner, but still record fact of fusion in the literal sense.
@RyuDarragh Yeah, I noticed you know your stuff. I'm definitely no expert on the matter. I'm just asking out of interest, it's hard to get a straight-forward answer from scientists or literature sometimes. Thanks for that.
I have a rough idea of how fusion works, yes. So that's why I'm asking: if you observe one element of it that is direct evidence of fusion (Helium products, etc.), or others indirect ones that can be verified to be correct (heat, "tripple tracks"), why would you dismiss them?
@SexyMelon: It's like any science or criminal conviction. You need all the particulars to convict. Excess heat isn't neccessary if you have particles indicative of fusion and fusion products of the correct species based on what you input AND (here's the "beyond reasonable doubt" part) a disinterested party can follow your work and REPLICATE it. Any of those particulars missing and it's a fluke. Sadly, Cold Fusion does exist (sort of), but not framed as here. (1)
@RyuDarragh So then, if you have Helium-4 production, then that's indication enough of nuclear fusion in that setup? Weren't you saying you also need to record radiation? Sorry if I'm off track.
Obviously the measurements need to be correct in the first place, that's without saying.
Thanks for the link, too. I'll be damned if I can say I can understand it...
@SexyMelon: Look up ":Neutron generators" on Wikipedia and specifically, "Compact Neutron Source based on Field Ionization Processes". This is cold fusion, in the sense it does not require a lot of heat :P
It's simple. 1) All fusion reactions, regardless of temperature, produce neutrons (with a few exceptions, like He3+H or B11+H, both of which requires millions of degrees). 2) No detected neutrons? 3) Conclusion, it's a hoax/mistake.
@SexyMelon"fusion reaction products" meaning what? Neutrons and neutrinos (both tested for) are the a priori for claiming fusion took place. You would also have to show the pathway for the input elements (Hydrogen, Deuterium, Tritium, Helium or Helium-3, etc...) and output elements as well as checks for contamination and mistakes in the readings. This is not magic and must obey well understood laws. (1 of 2)
@RyuDarragh Well, for example, in the electrolysis of heavy water using palladium and titanium anode and diode, the free positive ions are claimed to fuse into Helium-4. This isn't a naturally occurring element for such a setup and so, accounting for contamination and other factors, its presence would directly indicate nuclear fusion. Hence, how would you interpret its presence in absence of free neutrons?
@SexyMelon: (2 of 2) Higher species (presumably H to He), particles (even if it happens with no Neutrons lost, there would still be Neutrinos when Electrons are joined to Protons to form new Neutrons). Extra heat is meaningless unless there is no other source to account for it and that does not, in and of itself, prove fusion took place. All of the above would be needed to prove "cold" fusion. Even "warm" fusion must be tested (happens at 1000C or so if Mesons replace Electrons). Hot fusion HAS.
@RyuDarragh If it can be verified that there is no extra source to account for extra heat (or other factors), is it relevant to the experiment then? Do you think you need all of the expected factors rather than some of them?
Is your concern the fact that all this data can be subject to error? If so, that's basically the main argument against positive reports of cold fusion as I know it, and the most credible one.
@SexyMelon: Experimental and measurement error account for a lot of fallen and replaced theories in science. A phenomenon, thought to be one thing, turns out to be two or more other phenomenon masqurading as one. A scientist, using his instruments, reads some values and has a "Eureka!" moment, only to later discover his gear had been unplugged or used by a technician to fix his boombox, thus messing with the settings. A worse kind of error is "confirmation bias", rampant here, it seems.
@RyuDarragh True enough. Hey, didn't we just record a "faster than light" particle at LHC? Although it'd be fun just for how much it'd screw with everyone's heads if it was true...
I don't know if all the studies supporting - or, equally, opposing - cold fusion could be fairly classified as researcher bias or even measurement error. It's not exactly particle theory, but there's quite a lot of publications from very high-profile labs, researchers and institutions on these experiments.
@SexyMelon: Yes. The "tachyon", if verified and not due to experimental error, will make String Theorists ecstatic and put some sour grape on Standard Model folks plates, along with a serious helping of Fried Crow for those in love with Einsteins Relativity :P
On the second note, no process can ignore the subatomic fallout and, by definition, must produce numerically higher species of elemnts (specific ones, in the right ratios). Otherwise, it's not Nuclear Fusion.
@RyuDarragh Well damn! Do you have any links on that subject? I didn't figure it would turn out to be real, or at least there would be a huge buzz over such a massive discovery.
@SexyMelon: Remember, the worlds entire supply of Element 43 (Techetium) and several other isotopes of various elements, are all man made using Nuclear Fission. We do some pretty incredible things nowadays, including fusion (remember the "Compact Neutron Generator" I mentioned?). Also keep in mind, phenomenon can look like one thing and really be a different phenomenon in the right circumstance or even be a combination of them. That's been the problem here. Even if the experiments do *something*
@RyuDarragh I think we're going around in circles on the radiation question a bit, so I'll stop that. I'm quite fuzzy on what's going on there anyway.
One argument you can make for cold fusion is that the original experiment occurred under some kind of unaccounted circumstances, and then the following ones would either replicate it or not based on sheer luck in that regard. In fact, I hear this has to do with size and purity of the palladium lattice and stimulation frequency...
@SexyMelon ...Although Rossi didn't mention either for his setup. Presumably.
Do you think radiation can be reliably measured on such a scale where even heat output is so minuscule as to require incredibly tight control and precision to be measured? Would it stand out among other factors, or be next to impossible to verify (due to, say, background radiation)?
I think it's not even measured in most literature on the subject, with results for or against.
@SexyMelon: That's exactly the problem. None of the known routes to fusion are found. None of the radiation that should occur (regardless of any other factors) is found. None of the replicated results match the proferred theories or match known theoretical models. In fact, the only known model that any of the results fir... is the one followed due to confirmation bias (meaning, all phenomenon measured and found fit the pet theory, but no part of the theory is falsifiable). Sad to say.
@RyuDarragh That seems like a rather sweeping statement. Are you sure this is the case for all published papers? Can all the participating researchers really be accused of bias? There's definitely incentive for bias in many cases, but there's none in others that I know of, and even then, proper methodology should render bias irrelevant, right?
Also, if the subject is a new form of fusion, then shouldn't we be looking for fusion products rather than known fusion mechanisms?
@SexyMelon: It's truth. If the results are real, and not the ramblings of a bunch of deluded folks, then the papers would be published, results be peer reviewed and would enter the "mainstream". As you saw in the LHC/Tachyon debacle, scientists of real merit do not conceal or conspire to defraud (if they do, they've fallen prey to some damn fool human failing or are simply incompetent or are outright conmen). When you examine "Cold Fusion", all you find are skepticism, failure to replicate, etc.
@RyuDarragh That's not true as far as I know. There's a lot of published papers (peer-reviewed, of course), a lot of replications, a lot of confirmations and support, but not quite that "mainstream" part.
I keep mentioning the SPAWAR studies, they're a good example of both positive and negative results in that regard. Have you seen those? Or do you mean you've never seen positive studies on that subject?
@SexyMelon: The recent discovery of particles that *appear* to be travelling faster than light would make them Tachyons. These would be welcome news to proponents of String Theory and a headache for defenders of the Standard Model. The Higgs Boson, an explanation for mass and inertia is an opposite result: Bad for String Theory, good for the Standard Model. So far, Tachyons 1 (maybe), Higgs Boson 0.
@RyuDarragh Yeah, I know. But what debacle? Last I heard there was that one test at LHC that found it, and then one or two vague confirmations from one test and denial from another, and then sort of... nothing.
Funny you should mention Higgs Boson, that's another one of those things that works oh-just-great in theory and is just assumed to be true, but it never showed up in any test aimed to find it (counting from at least the pre-LHC colliders) so what's there to conclude about it?..
@SexyMelon: The conclusion is that one of the lesser known fun activities for physics is poking holes in theories of all sorts. But, that's with theories that are theories, not just hypothesis (which are what the general public thinks theories are, altogether). Cold fusion, regardless of the credentials of the sponsors or researchers, is on even shakier foothing than String Theory was 20+ years ago. One of the things the JREF has had in spades is conmen, the deluded and just the plain wrong. (1)
@RyuDarragh Err. Did you read my previous comments?
As for Rossi, he decided not to bother with scientific method altogether.
Nonetheless, this is no excuse for JREF to make sweeping ignorant claims on the issue at large, nor to even take potshots at the guy when he uses pretty much exact same methodology as the million dollar challenge.
I think "skeptics" have no business commenting on involved scientific issues unless they're actually involved in the field itself. That's just hubris.
@SexyMelon: Firstly, the JREF has not said anything about serious investigations into "cold fusion", but only about the myriad Rossi's out there and Rossi in particular (exactly the same pattern of con game as the magnetic magic types and OU motor types). Ask and you'll find out they have no comment of any negative sort about serious investigators into "cold fusion"... who follow the proper scientific method and seek peer review. If only "experts" are allowed, you've been conned.
@RyuDarragh Pretty sure JREF - official group or the fanclub alike - have never shied away from "debunking" things first and thinking second. I'd be surprised if they never made such a statement on cold fusion.
Although I was specifically talking about Randi playing the role of ultra-expert on nuclear physics here which is just... wrong... on every level I can think of.
That or pretending you don't need to be bother with such fickle thing as science to explain things, which is worse.
@SexyMelon: The reason they are so not impressed with the current claimant is manifold and mostly due to the way in which the claims are presented. That is, like sincere people, uncertain of their science, hoping to con folks with money for their research funds all in the hope (not certainty) their research will bear fruit. Orgone energy and dowsing rods, anyone?
@SexyMelon: For the most part, no one has a working theory for any of the observed phenomenon (outside of the few, sometimes derogatory, classical ones) or can reliably replicate the few controversial phenomenon claimed. Cold fusion does take place under certain conditions (Compact Neutron Sources operate on this principle), but produce none of the claimed phenomenon. It all strikes me as a disguised hydra where two or more phenomenon are being viewed through out of focus glasses.
@RyuDarragh I don't know if there's anything to qualify under scientific definition of word "theory", but there's at least a couple of working guesses as far as I know, like the one I mentioned about specific stimulation frequencies or superwaves. I know that wasn't the case back in the 90s though, back then there really was no claimed theoretical basis.
Reliability definitely seems to be an issue, assuming replication isn't an error of some sort.
@RyuDarragh It seems plausible that cold fusion may occur under specific conditions that experiments have not accounted for yet, meaning that some researchers can replicate it and others can't, depending on whether they observe said conditions.
But that's arguing the arbitrary. Either way, there has to be some sort of evidence to that end.
I remember hearing about a cryogenic fusion device a few years back. A clever lab demonstration of principles, but since it all happened at liquid nitrogen temperatures it wasn't going to produce usable energy. In fact, energy production was a problem for the cryogenics.
The hostile & insulting one-sided bias here doesn't reveal ANYTHING like healthy scientific skepticism -- what it shows is an attitude of insufferable conceit that purports to 'prove' invalidity of over 20 years of research results demonstrating room-temperature energy production typically labeled (perhaps inaccurately) Cold Fusion via extremely pejorative opinionated putdown having -zero- familiarity with actual subject, not EVEN a 5 minute google search. See youtube @ 7FilflaqbVI for overview.
@yourallbrainwashed It was one of the first claims of achieving cold fusion that gained mainstream attention. However it soon was clear that it was falsified as nobody has ever replicated the results. Pons and Fleischmann were the scientists who announced that they had achieved cold fusion. For more info: Google.
@CriticalThought09 -- That's BULLSHIT. Many dozens scientists have been producing tritium and excess heat, inventing related processes and patenting devices. The highly publicized MIT study which purported to disprove their results was found, on independant review, to have falsified their data in order to find 'no evidence'. This is a continuing field of study. There are several theoretical basis for understanding what might be responsible for experimental observations. This vid is insulting.
That's right, they were the first in history to (supposedly) demonstrate cold fusion in 1989.
It's not fair to say "no one has ever replicated the results", today there are - or claimed to be - dozens to hundreds of such claims, I can't say for sure if there were any at the time of investigation of their study. Whether these replications are correct is another story, but studies or claims of replication are plenty.
@SexyMelon I won't say that it has never been achieved, but if it has already been achieved then who would just sit on a gold mine of that size? I haven't looked into this much, but I know that the first largely publicized study on cold fusion was the Pons and Fleischmann study. If there is another one, please link it to me.
@CriticalThought09 Well, Rossi claims have to have achieved it on a large scale and he supposedly isn't. If you can have working technology, yeah, it makes little sense not to use it.
However cold fusion research always hinged on study of tiny effects that would not be usable as a way of generating energy in their state - it's the idea that they could be understood and perfected that drove the hype at the time.
And yeah, you're right. I just felt I needed to make that one correction. Cheers.
4) The setup they describe in these experiments seems quite simple--just submerge some palladium underwater, and run electricity through it. If this really produces a fusion reaction, why not just scale it up and build a reactor? I'm sure if they could power a building with a palladium fusion reactor (or even just a light bulb), every critic would instantly shut up and get behind them. And they never seem to explain why they don't just do this.
@LegionarioCruel I know you took your time to make those comments, and they're really great at pointing out why we don't/can't have cold fusion.
But the reason they said "We don't need to show that it works to scientists, only customers" is the same reason why that "psychic" bitch whatsherface won't REALLY take the James Randi challenge. Because they know that they're full of bullshit and that it'll be exposed if they actually go through ANY kind of real test or scientific query.
@LegionarioCruel Well, that was quite a spectacular display of hypocrisy on your part.
It's not like you can even deny it: you say you won't discuss science of the matter, we've established you're not even remotely familiar with science of the subject, and yet you go right ahead and make a bunch of these wild sweeping technical claims.
How do you argue with someone who knows nothing on the subject and won't bring forward any evidence, but still feels fine making authoritative claims about it?
@SexyMelon - I am actually quoting other people. I am NOT a scientist but I think all opinions should be heard on the matter. Unfortunately space limiatations won't allow for much, but I will keep trying.
@LegionarioCruel Well, whatever you say. I just can't quite see your logic in this, as aforementioned. It seems like an odd thing to say or do.
I mean, I know little about nuclear physics or cold fusion, so I'm not going to make any hard claims. I could probably cite an MIT study that says it's not real or Department of Energy reviews that say it is, but it seems to be dishonest to pick sides in a debate without knowing.
Thanks for being polite and all though. Pleasure talking with you.
@SexyMelon - I find it funny that you admit you know little about the topic, but defend it so vehemently. On the other hand, published studies normally refer to positive findings. It would be funny for a research group or investigation center to go public with all their failed experiments, but whatever.
@LegionarioCruel I didn't notice defending it. Did I ever say it was true? Here, I can say now: I have no idea.
A grand majority of scientific studies fail from the onset, actually...
Negative results are just as important in science as positive ones. Namely, one would have no ground whatsoever for saying Cold Fusion isn't real if there weren't dozens or hundreds of studies that failed to replicate the effect. What other ground could there possibly be?
@SexyMelon - That's like saying god exists because there are no scientific studies that disprove his existence. Sorry but that point of view is pretty lame. Only positive findings are important in the construction of scientific truths and the understanding of the universe, and cold fusion experimental findings are dubious at best (and I am being VERY generous here).
@LegionarioCruel What is like that? We've been through this already: I'm not saying cold fusion is real, I'm not saying there are no studies that disprove it, I'm saying it's unfair to say there are no studies *supporting* it when there just are. It's unfair.
Whatever side is right in this debate, by however big or small margin, however right or wrong they are, it's not fair to ignore their existence.
@LegionarioCruel I have to disagree about positive findings being the only ones that count. In fact, failing to find proof - or, better yet, finding proof that something isn't there - is one of the main drives of science.
The reason we have Relativity at all is because Newtonian Physics couldn't accurately account for observed large-scale phenomena. That's a negative.
Why do you think their findings are "dubious", by the way?
@SexyMelon - Well... it kind of comes together, you can't have positive findings without having negative results... but you were saying that I should quote studies DISPROVING cold fusion, and well, I don't see any failed experimenter publishing his results, and science doesn't work that way. Darwin proved evolution (kind of), a positive finding, and in doing so he disproved creationism. But the driving motor of his research was not disproving creationism.
@LegionarioCruel Well, you were simply wrong about that, as I pointed out: there are plenty of studies discussing both failure and success in cold fusion experiments. Why wouldn't there be? You can look up SPAWAR ones...
Darwin didn't publish anything that could be called a scientific article by today's standards as far as I'm aware... And Creationism, believe it or not, didn't exist at the time. If anything, what he did was argue against Lamarckian Evolution, the popular theory at the time.
@LegionarioCruel So yes, there are plenty scientific papers about conducted cold fusion experiments: some report failure, some report success. That's it.
You already discussed both, in fact: the 2009 SPAWAR paper, and the follow-up study that failed to replicate its results.
3) No fusion products have ever been observed--fusion would be plausible if they were able to show that the reactions produced some helium-3 or lithium or whatever.
2) the only evidence anyone has ever offered was calorimetry of a small-scale experiment. But calorimetry is a complicated thing--you have to model the insulation of the system just right, and you have to measure the heat inputs for the system correctly, and so on.
1) There was never any clear reason why electrifying palladium should create pressures sufficient to ignite a fusion reaction. Without a mechanism, this seems to be the most ridiculously radical and sensational conclusion possible, even if the calorimetry says that electrified palladium creates net energy somehow. Why not start with simpler explanations than saying that it's fusion?
@LegionarioCruel ...And now you go into discussing the scientific intricacies on the subject right after admitting you couldn't do so.
Even though you know you cannot possibly back up your original claims because you never researched them, even though you've been proved wrong on claims of no scientific replication, you still feel entitled to make yet more false or unproven claims on matters you never researched and never checked.
Just like there's pseudo-science, there's pseudo-skepticism...
"..Rob Duncan, vice chancellor of research at the University of Missouri, went to Israel with 60 Minutes to visit Energetics Technologies, which claims SuperWave Fusion will solve the energy problem. The genius behind ET is the Chief Visionary Officer, Irving Dardik, who got into cold fusion after losing his license to practice medicine in New York. It puts us in mind of Randy Mills of BlackLight Power, another MD who says he can solve the energy problem. Is SuperWave Fusion another scam?"
"It shouldn’t be necessary to remind scientists that neither visiting a laboratory, nor peer reviewing a manuscript, is enough. There must be independent replication of the ET claims. Without replication, the claims are nothing..."
"Cold fusion is impossible. It contradicts all that we know in nuclear physics, and no concrete evidence, theoretical or experimental, has ever been forthcoming. No single working device has ever been demonstrated. The only journals that publish papers on cold fusion today are pro-cold fusion journals, which seek to promote the field, rather than critically examine it. Cold fusion is a dream, a golden promise of a world with unlimited energy and no pollution, but a dream nonetheless."
@LegionarioCruel I'm reminded of the good old Christian tactic of quoting the Bible when there's no more argument to make... And it's not like I've ever said cold fusion is real for those quotes to be relevant either. You just assume I did because I contradicted you, didn't you?
Do you think these quotes of personal opinions hold more weight than scientific consensus?
@SexyMelon - You said before neither Randi nor me I have any authority to discuss the topic (I guess you do), so let's hear what the experts have to say on the topic. Since the fact that experiments are inconclusive is not relevant to you, and since you prefer to hear the voice of the expert, I guess all I can do is reproduce what actual scientists have to say on the topic.
@LegionarioCruel That's not quite what I said. What I said is that you shouldn't be talking on the subject you know little to nothing about, and that has proven true in both cases so far. Unless I misunderstood your lack of knowledge about SPAWAR?..
I don't personally care about personal opinions of experts. But if you do - once again - what do you say to experts that SUPPORT Cold Fusion rather than oppose it? Do you dismiss them completely? Or don't you know they exist?
@LegionarioCruel To make myself more clear: I think you shouldn't talk with authority about things you have little research in. That's why I'm not making any sweeping judgements, and why I criticize you and Randi for doing so.
I think this issue, like any other, should be decided on weight of evidence - scientific consensus, ideally - not personal opinion of scientists or, worse yet, people who have nothing to do with science.
@SexyMelon - I would not (and have not ) tried to discuss the scientific intricacies of the impossibility of cold fusion (since I am not a scientist). the problem is that apparently you won't give credit to anyone who speaks against it, not even members of the scientific community. Randi is not giving a scientific opinion on the topic, because he is no scientist, he just gives his opinion as a scam debunker.
@LegionarioCruel Actually, you said: cold fusion is impossible, there has never been any evidence of it, no replication of it, no reputable research on it. What is this if not commenting on impossibility of cold fusion?
Most or all of this is outright false, and you have provided no proof to support yourself. Not only do you have none, you actually dismissed when I brought up scientific studies to the contrary.
So, are you actually saying you think you can dismiss this without even knowing?
@LegionarioCruel You did present a couple of quotes from opponents of cold fusion, so I have to ask you yet again: if those "quotes" from scientists or non-scientists alike are proof enough for you, then will you then admit cold fusion is true given enough quotes from many experts that DO support it?
So it appears to be a double standard: you can't present any research to support your claims, yet you will dismiss research that goes against them. What's up with that?
@LegionarioCruel So if you don't think you can comment on "scientific intricacies" - and indeed you have no research on the subject - why then do you feel you can make judgment about it? How can say? How can you honestly make an argument when you just don't know?
How can you base your opinion on the subject on nothing more than quotes or research picked from ONLY ONE side of the debate and call yourself a skeptic?
@LegionarioCruel How can you ignore scientific research speaking for one side, yet be satisfied with quotes of personal opinion speaking for the other?
How is this not a double standard, or hypocrisy?
You can say you weren't aware of evidence to the contrary, but then why do you feel entitled to talk on the subject at all? More so, how can you be unaware when I just presented evidence that there was, indeed, research into Cold Fusion well past the original experiment, and you admitted to it?
"The overwhelming judgment of the community of physicists worldwide is that cold fusion is an illusion, a melange of measurement errors, absence of proper control experiments, and a confusion of chemical with nuclear reactions" Carl Sagan
@LegionarioCruel Carl Sagan has no authority on this subject, and he cites no scientific analysis to back up this claim. Unless he does somewhere else, in which case you should bring up that, not opinions of single individuals. On top of that, if that was true in his time, do you think it's still relevant now, after much more research?
Again, would similar quotes by cold fusion advocates convince you, or would you dismiss them out of hand?
Do you think Carl Sagan's personal opinion on the subject holds more weight than scientific research of dozens of accredited scientists that support (or oppose) Cold Fusion?
@SexyMelon - So you think we need to poll scientists to validate or discredit the cold fusion htpothesis? I don't think science works that way. Carl Sagan was not only an astrophysicist but one of the most important science communicators of the time, affiliated with both the academy and the government. When he says that the consensus (at least back in 1996) was that cold fusion was an illusion, you should take him seriously. It is not his personal opinion.
@LegionarioCruel The opposite, actually: I think polls of personal opinions of scientists is completely irrelevant. Which is why I wondered why you'd bring up personal opinion into the discussion. What matters is scientific consensus, the consensus of results of research, consensus of facts and evidence.
@LegionarioCruel Carl Sagan did not measure, judge, or could possibly judge scientific consensus on the issue, and he brings up no such thing in this quote. So why are you using his personal opinion if you just said it's not okay?
Are you saying it's not okay to poll scientists directly, but it's okay for Sagan to speak on their behalf? Really?
And if it's not his personal opinion, then why are you quoting it? Cite the actual data. Cite the study. The name of the paper.
"...Some claim the process works with normal water, others that it can be used to transform any element into another. A number of cold fusion companies have been formed and have spent millions of dollars of investors' money in research and development. While amazing claims for the potential of cold fusion have been made, not one working device has ever been demonstrated or patented..." Dr. David Tulloch
"...even those few who were privileged with all the technical details could not reproduce the results. Supporters of cold fusion have made various claims ever since, ranging from effects that are barely detectable, to claims of limitless energy production, and beyond..."
"Despite all the refutations and flaws, Fleischmann and Pons continued to claim that they had produced fusion. The lack of reproducibility was attributed to poor methods by other experimenters, caused by their having insufficient details or their poor understanding of the intricacies of the experiment (which were the fault of Fleischmann and Pons themselves)."
@LegionarioCruel Why do you bring up this quote? It doesn't seem to have anything to do with our discussion, and it cites no relevant sources.
Do you think you can back up your opinion with a single (or maybe multiple) quotations alone? You should know cold fusion advocates can just as easily conjure similar quotes for their side of the argument. Would you agree with them if they did? Or dismiss them out of hand?
Very funny joke about University of Bologna but do you know that it's the oldest University of Western world ? What did Americans all day in the fourteenth century... perhaps hunt raccoons naked ?
and as for you thinking that I'm disagreeing with your nonsense statements because I'm some huge fan of Randi's, I've only seen a few videos on him on Youtube where as you seem to have some sick obsessive hatered of the fellow, and I get the impression you've seen like a hundred more times the amount of material he's done than I have. So you don't like the dude, so what, get over it.
(cont.) In fact, the word skeptic specifically includes people who are skeptical of even things that have been well proven. You can say that somebody is overly-skeptical, or unreasonably skeptical, but to claim that somebody isn't a skeptic or that they are a "skeptic", or a pseudoskeptic because you don't think they have any proof that something isn't true is pure nonsense.
FFS FIND A DAMN DICTIONARY AND LOOK UP THE WORD SKEPTIC OR SKEPTICISM because you have no fucking clue what they actually mean. You can't just pull a definition out of your ass and then claim that you're the only true skeptic in the world. There is nothing in the definition of skepticism that says that somebody has to have a valid reason for doubting something to be a skeptic.
د.مصطفى ابوشاقور غيث نائب لرئيس الوزراء . 2. د. عمر عبدالله عبدالكريم نائبا لرئيس الوزراء . 3. أسامة جويلي وزيرا للدفاع - وكلاء وزارة الدفاع يوسف المنقوش ، الصديق المبروك وكيلا لشؤون أمن الحدود و المنشآت الاستراتجية و الحيوية ) 4. فوزي عبدالعالي وزيرا للداخلية - وكلاء وزراة الداخلية ( عمر حسين الخذراوي مع اثني...
SexyMelon: I suggest you read Hagelstein's review paper. I put a copy in the "2004 DoE Review" section. This is handy because I added links to many of the papers he references at the bottom of this screen. The reviews by Storms and Nagel and Beaudette book are good.
Regarding public opinion polls, I know of only one, taken in Japan in the mid-1990s among professional scientists. Roughly half believed cold fusion exists. Most supported the research.
@JedRothwell Thanks a bunch. I'm pretty much your Joe Ordinary, but I'll look into it as far as I can.
There was the famous government hearing in the US that would ultimately shut down Cold Fusion research around the globe, I'm pretty sure it used popular vote as its main determining factor (which came out strikingly negative). I don't know of any meaningful opinion polls since then, but it seems to me the attitude towards the subject is overwhelmingly negative.
@SexyMelon - How am I being silly? The Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann experiment on cold fusion in 1989 was shown to be nothing but an not-so-elaborate scam through which they planned to receive government funds in an amount of $25 million dollars to "further their research". We live in an era of energy crisis and we wwill keep seeing more and more of these bogus claims. Today we have people trying to replicate those stupid experiments; are their intentions any different?
@LegionarioCruel I was referring to your "rules". You really shouldn't make lists like this, even jokingly.
I'm not aware of that experiment being a scam. Admittedly I haven't looked into it too deeply, so can you prove that?
As for whether claims are "bogus" or not, first you'd need to make a case as to why that is. You can't just assume everyone working in the field is a fraud. Again, would you accuse SPAWAR program of being fraudsters? It's a long stretch, and an insult.
That set of rules is actually very serious. SPAWAR is hardly about cold fusion, but anyway, I am not aware the US Navy claimed to have succesfully obtained energy out of nowhere. I am not against researching on new sources of energy (including LENR) but that is different from claiming the thing is real. Peer reviews are not intended to validate an experiment, only that a certain protocol is followed; I bet you there are more "peer reviewed" articles on homeopathy than on cold fusion.
@LegionarioCruel SPAWAR - Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command, US Navy - did a fairly massive amount of research on cold fusion, with a lot of positive results. You should probably check it out; like I said, your claims of "no serious research" just aren't true.
There's plenty of good research that yields positive results, there's plenty that yields negative ones. We should be fair and honest about that.
I don't know much about homeopathy, I can't talk about that.
Even the SPAWAR 2009 experiment has been replicated with negative results. It can't become a scientific truth if independent scientists are unable to replicate the experiment AND the results anywhere. And goverments will spend money in the most stupid projects. Money is a big incentive for futile research.
@LegionarioCruel Interesting. Just an hour ago you didn't even know what SPAWAR is, and now you know for sure they're wrong based on one supposed negative result. If I had to guess, I'd say your conclusions are driven by pure bias.
Again, do you accuse US Navy researchers, everyone involved in the SPAWAR Cold Fusion program, to be frauds? To all be in error? Blanket statement?
You said there is no "respectable research" in the field. This just isn't true. None of what you hastily said was.
@SexyMelon - Now you're talking full blown BS. My points are very clear; scientists would love cold fusion to be true, but the problem is when someone (doesn't matter if it is a "New Energy" institute or the US Navy) comes with a positive result, no one is able to replicate the same experiment with the same result afterwards, so you need to take all those "peer reviewed" articles with a grain of salt.
@LegionarioCruel Now, you've been wrong before, you're wrong again now. How is it you're still saying "no one is able to replicate it" when I've just mentioned a reputable and independent - from supposed "scams" of Fleisch-Pons - institution replicating the experiment?
And it's not like you even looked up what I'm talking about. What's this "New energy institute"? It was SPAWAR Cold Fusion research program.
How can you say it's wrong when you don't even know what that is?
@LegionarioCruel Basically, you're talking on the subject without actually knowing it. Why? I've just corrected you when you said there's no "reputable research" supporting cold fusion claims, and you either change subject or dismiss it? Isn't that just dishonest?
You said there's no such studies. This isn't true. Now you're saying there are no replications. This isn't true either.
There's a small mountain of studies both supporting and opposing cold fusion. You should be aware of that.
Brian Dunning in the Skeptoid podcast #298:
»If Rossi has indeed managed to overturn physics, [...] he has not acted in a very scientific manner. He has refused to replicate his sales demonstrations under controlled conditions; he has threatened to sue people who elect not to invest in his machine; he has claimed to have sold some of his machines but declines to say to whom; and the results of his sales demonstrations have been found to have been rigged [...]«
virumoz 3 days ago
"When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong." - Arthur C. Clarke
IamRelease 3 days ago
Cold fusion...funny how people claim it works but refuses to demonstrate it to scientists
TheZachary86 1 week ago
University of Baloney? Quality.
Nilguiri 2 weeks ago
randi show..this is typical america..... nothing new works.. ? well go on sleeping ..
The e -cat is real...
imenhoteb 2 weeks ago
@imenhoteb
Yeah, it's a real scam
ytmoog 2 weeks ago
LENR is real, cold fusion is not. The difference is not semantics.
Check the web site from New Energy Times, especially the Widom Larsen theory portal. Too many good data from reputed source, LENR is real, it is simply ignored. I will take years to develop real working prototypes.
However I agree that Rossi = 1% Edison + 99% Barnum.
phuet514 4 weeks ago
@phuet514 its NOT ignored, just none of the supposed inventors have presented a unit for independent testing and verification. So until such a time they can stay in the bullshit bin. Love the LENR people they try to present mr NASA guy as evidence blah blah blah there is NO EVIDENCE. and until such time its pure nonsense.
nbrado 3 weeks ago
Why don't we hear more about this wonderful machine?
Because THEY control the media. Do your RESEARCH people! WAKE UP!
incredibleufo 4 weeks ago in playlist The Randi Show
@incredibleufo And just MAYBE the fact that anyone who passed high school knows a) the basic laws of thermodynamics and b) to be very sceptical of someone who has world changing tech that will make him trillions and keeps so secretive.
holleridio 4 weeks ago
University of Bologna is not something to be funny with. It is simply the oldest university in the world. And it is not baloney...
falcosolitario 1 month ago
well...?sorry guys...it woeks...and they are not from usa..
imenhoteb 1 month ago
@imenhoteb prove please! oh whats that you have none? :D :D :D
nbrado 3 weeks ago
Cold fusion would be great, but if it worked this guy would have patented it and be glad to have every scientist in the world look at it and test it in every way. Obvious questions reveal fraud.
SmokeRingsPipeDreams 1 month ago in playlist More videos from JamesRandiFoundation
What is the name of the song during this show
floridaman2000 1 month ago in playlist The Randi Show
Also. It is very possible and fairly simple to carry out nuclear fusion using a 'desktop' size device. The only problem with them is that they use more energy than you get out of it. It is used in universities to demonstrate fusion.
mik99D 2 months ago
As a physicist both Carl sagan and myself know straight away that cold fusion using their technique was and still is utter bollocks. Remember this was way after the experiment was done and others failed to replicate their results. So everyone knew it was a false report.
mik99D 2 months ago
Decent Father Xmas
killdeslm 2 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Randi is not a scientist and by walking out of the conference without giving Pons and Fleischman a full hearing he and Sagan were only demonstrating what closed minds they have i.e. what bigots they really were.
baddoggie101 2 months ago
Interesting video. Just one note: the University of Bologna is the oldest in Europe and one of the most respected. It's sad to see people laugh like kids only for the analogy with the sausage. By the way, no problem, I smiled myself. Bye from Italy
SergioZetaTube 2 months ago
@SergioZetaTube this claim is disputed. like pretty much everything in Italy.
nbrado 3 weeks ago
@SergioZetaTube Al-Azhar University in Cairo, Egypt, is generally considered to be the oldest university in the world. hate to educate you there ;)
nbrado 3 weeks ago
When James said he was on his last leg, I felt my heart drop out of my chest :(
iruparatso 2 months ago
"David Goodstein, a Caltech physicist who is himself skeptical about cold fusion but doesn't categorically dismiss it, says the main problem is that experimental results in the field are rarely repeatable."
LegionarioCruel 2 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I hope that fucker dies soon. Actually both of them.
Iffy50 2 months ago
@Iffy50 Make them overdose on homeopathic pills. Oh wait, they do that weekly. You might have to actually use real medicine.
iruparatso 2 months ago
@iruparatso Clever. Seriously, that was very clever.
Iffy50 2 months ago
ooooh somebody saw it working. where can i invest my money ? :D
many people claim they saw Perendev Magnetic Motors work, but somehow Mike was not able to present such a thing in court and eded up in jail for almost 6 years :D
Aanthanur 2 months ago
Comment removed
neverfearchrisishere 3 months ago
Comment removed
neverfearchrisishere 3 months ago
@BitterBurst before that happens we'll be mining other planets and potentially comets and asteroids :)
tahshin1601 3 months ago
Great vid! Also, Bryan (Brian?) Thompson looks like James Urbaniak without the mole.
thirtysilver 3 months ago
@BitterBurst teleportation and implanted learning wont happen either in my humble opinion but the planetary shit cud happen i think.
tahshin1601 3 months ago
cold fusion is one of those things that mankind will never be able to achieve along with time travel
tahshin1601 3 months ago
@tahshin1601
'Travelling' forwards in time is possible, it's backward time travel that can't happen.
MudHut67 2 months ago in playlist More videos from JamesRandiFoundation
Interviewer resemble Tobey Maguire as Peter Parker in Spider-Man.
Ace900809 3 months ago
LOL "Are you doing something different with your beard?"
LsBaba 3 months ago
"...this effect should have been dubbed "anomalous heat effect." ... we don't know what's going on, but it involves heat. Most evidence points to this being a dead end... The evidence also does not indicate that a normal nuclear reaction is occurring. ...It is not being studied very seriously in the US, in fact it is generally frowned upon ...you're still probably going to be hearing lots of stories - an "Elvis sighting" phenomena." (taken from NASA's GRC website)
LegionarioCruel 3 months ago
Following from NASA website. Google search for it: Tests conducted at NASA Glenn Research Center in 1989 and elsewhere consistently showed evidence of anomalous heat during gaseous loading and unloading deuterium into bulk palladium. At one time called “cold fusion,” now called “low-energy nuclear reactions” (LENR), such effects are now published in peer-reviewed journals and are gaining attention and mainstream respectability. The instrumentation expertise of NASA GRC is applied to improve the
Mucky1454 3 months ago
@Mucky1454 - You do know governments in the US and other countries have spent amazing amounts of money researching other bogus science as well, such as alien visitors, extrasensory perception, water memory, homeopathy, therapies to correct homosexuality, and some other crazy sh*t: "The National Institutes of Health was given $800,000 in "stimulus funds" to study the impact of a "genital-washing program" on men in South Africa." [Wastebook 2010]
LegionarioCruel 3 months ago
"The Coulomb barrier, named after Coulomb's law, which is named after physicist Charles-Augustin de Coulomb (1736–1806), is the energy barrier due to electrostatic interaction that two nuclei need to overcome so they can get close enough to undergo a nuclear reaction. "
LegionarioCruel 3 months ago
Prof. H. Feshbach (MIT) : "I have had 50 years of experience in nuclear physics and I know what's possible and what's not. . . . I don't want to see any more evidence! I think it's a bunch of junk and I don't want to have anything further to do with it."
LegionarioCruel 3 months ago 6
This video is full of hotties.
carriepoppy 3 months ago 17
LegionarioCruel, sexyMelon: remember this year. You losers are in for one hell of a shock.
Mucky1454 3 months ago
Suggested lecture: "Bad Science: The Short Life and Weird Times of Cold Fusion" by Gary Taubes, Random House, NY.
LegionarioCruel 3 months ago
Fleischamnn being a superstitious stupid: "If you really don’t believe something deeply enough before you do an experiment, you will never get it to work".
LegionarioCruel 3 months ago
Cal Tech electrochemist Nathan Lewis said, "If cold fusion were true, electrochemists would all have funding beyond their wildest imaginations ... an electrochemist’s wet dream!"
LegionarioCruel 3 months ago
Unbelievable. How does Bologna sound like "boloney"? And anyway, it's only the oldest univesity in the world. Such sickening smugness and arrogance (in every aspect).
benetedmunds 3 months ago
@benetedmunds
Bologna in America is pronounced Baloney. By the way, they weren't making fun of the school, they were making fun of the circumstances - where those who viewed the machine did NOT take a look at the machine's inner workings. Such self-inspired outrage and ignorance (in every aspect).
Erectoralporicy 3 months ago
Baloney! HHAHAHAHAHA Totally powned by the Amazing Randi!
Wireless? Nope. Telegraphy? HA!
jabowery 3 months ago
ok so lets see what we got here :
brian josephson is wrong .denis bushnell is wrong .the american chemical society is wrong .
and just the all mighty jim randi is right !!
jim it is ok to be skeptic . however not checking new data when it arrives is the sort of ignorance that slows down scientiffic progress .
anfortunetly you have large portions of it .
ebach1 3 months ago
Here's a few clues for you (and, yes, I am well versed in particle physics and fusion by profession). No matter how you make it happen, the fusion of lighter species into heavier species (in physics, elements are frequently refered to as "species" more from the fact they have isotopes than poetical license) produces a heavier species of element and some subatomic particles. Primary of these are Electrons, Neutrons and Neutrinos. (1)
RyuDarragh 3 months ago
If you start with Hydrogen, say, you must first drive an Electron into a Proton to form a Neutron. This releases a Neutrino and a photon. More are produced, but the binding force keeping the Electron-Proton pairing in the form of a Neutron are trapped with it. No amount of weird phenomenon can prevent this, so at the very least, you get Neutrinos. Hard to stop or detect, they ESCAPE. So do Neutrons, Electrons and isotopes of Hydrogen and Helium. No process is 100% perfect or efficient. (2)
RyuDarragh 3 months ago
The Neutrons produced pair up with Protons and produce, eventually, Helium. (He4, the most stable isotope). At higher energy levels, Lithium, Beryllium and all sorts of other elemnts all the way to Iron can be produced. But, in all of these processes, these events happen. All must happen before "fusion" can be claimed. Look up the production of "Technetium" and "medical radioisotopes"... we synthesize these by Fission, so scientists are not unfamiliar with these sorts of things. (3)
RyuDarragh 3 months ago
@RyuDarragh I get what you're saying that we must observe all these steps to verify it is, in fact, fusion in the sense of it being the process as we know it - but doesn't cold fusion propose a different mechanism of action, while still being a fusion of atoms? Thus, a different mechanism, different process, but still nuclear fusion in the sense of, well, fusion of nuclei.
So we may not expect the fusion to occur in the conventional manner, but still record fact of fusion in the literal sense.
SexyMelon 3 months ago
@RyuDarragh Yeah, I noticed you know your stuff. I'm definitely no expert on the matter. I'm just asking out of interest, it's hard to get a straight-forward answer from scientists or literature sometimes. Thanks for that.
I have a rough idea of how fusion works, yes. So that's why I'm asking: if you observe one element of it that is direct evidence of fusion (Helium products, etc.), or others indirect ones that can be verified to be correct (heat, "tripple tracks"), why would you dismiss them?
SexyMelon 3 months ago
@SexyMelon: It's like any science or criminal conviction. You need all the particulars to convict. Excess heat isn't neccessary if you have particles indicative of fusion and fusion products of the correct species based on what you input AND (here's the "beyond reasonable doubt" part) a disinterested party can follow your work and REPLICATE it. Any of those particulars missing and it's a fluke. Sadly, Cold Fusion does exist (sort of), but not framed as here. (1)
RyuDarragh 3 months ago
@RyuDarragh So then, if you have Helium-4 production, then that's indication enough of nuclear fusion in that setup? Weren't you saying you also need to record radiation? Sorry if I'm off track.
Obviously the measurements need to be correct in the first place, that's without saying.
Thanks for the link, too. I'll be damned if I can say I can understand it...
SexyMelon 3 months ago
@SexyMelon: Look up ":Neutron generators" on Wikipedia and specifically, "Compact Neutron Source based on Field Ionization Processes". This is cold fusion, in the sense it does not require a lot of heat :P
RyuDarragh 3 months ago
It's simple. 1) All fusion reactions, regardless of temperature, produce neutrons (with a few exceptions, like He3+H or B11+H, both of which requires millions of degrees). 2) No detected neutrons? 3) Conclusion, it's a hoax/mistake.
RyuDarragh 3 months ago
@RyuDarragh How do you interpret presence of high temperatures and fusion reaction products in absence of free neutrons?
SexyMelon 3 months ago
@SexyMelon"fusion reaction products" meaning what? Neutrons and neutrinos (both tested for) are the a priori for claiming fusion took place. You would also have to show the pathway for the input elements (Hydrogen, Deuterium, Tritium, Helium or Helium-3, etc...) and output elements as well as checks for contamination and mistakes in the readings. This is not magic and must obey well understood laws. (1 of 2)
RyuDarragh 3 months ago
@RyuDarragh Well, for example, in the electrolysis of heavy water using palladium and titanium anode and diode, the free positive ions are claimed to fuse into Helium-4. This isn't a naturally occurring element for such a setup and so, accounting for contamination and other factors, its presence would directly indicate nuclear fusion. Hence, how would you interpret its presence in absence of free neutrons?
Same for high temperatures and other products.
SexyMelon 3 months ago
@SexyMelon: (2 of 2) Higher species (presumably H to He), particles (even if it happens with no Neutrons lost, there would still be Neutrinos when Electrons are joined to Protons to form new Neutrons). Extra heat is meaningless unless there is no other source to account for it and that does not, in and of itself, prove fusion took place. All of the above would be needed to prove "cold" fusion. Even "warm" fusion must be tested (happens at 1000C or so if Mesons replace Electrons). Hot fusion HAS.
RyuDarragh 3 months ago
@RyuDarragh If it can be verified that there is no extra source to account for extra heat (or other factors), is it relevant to the experiment then? Do you think you need all of the expected factors rather than some of them?
Is your concern the fact that all this data can be subject to error? If so, that's basically the main argument against positive reports of cold fusion as I know it, and the most credible one.
SexyMelon 3 months ago
@SexyMelon: Experimental and measurement error account for a lot of fallen and replaced theories in science. A phenomenon, thought to be one thing, turns out to be two or more other phenomenon masqurading as one. A scientist, using his instruments, reads some values and has a "Eureka!" moment, only to later discover his gear had been unplugged or used by a technician to fix his boombox, thus messing with the settings. A worse kind of error is "confirmation bias", rampant here, it seems.
RyuDarragh 3 months ago
@RyuDarragh True enough. Hey, didn't we just record a "faster than light" particle at LHC? Although it'd be fun just for how much it'd screw with everyone's heads if it was true...
I don't know if all the studies supporting - or, equally, opposing - cold fusion could be fairly classified as researcher bias or even measurement error. It's not exactly particle theory, but there's quite a lot of publications from very high-profile labs, researchers and institutions on these experiments.
SexyMelon 3 months ago
@SexyMelon: Yes. The "tachyon", if verified and not due to experimental error, will make String Theorists ecstatic and put some sour grape on Standard Model folks plates, along with a serious helping of Fried Crow for those in love with Einsteins Relativity :P
On the second note, no process can ignore the subatomic fallout and, by definition, must produce numerically higher species of elemnts (specific ones, in the right ratios). Otherwise, it's not Nuclear Fusion.
RyuDarragh 3 months ago
@RyuDarragh Well damn! Do you have any links on that subject? I didn't figure it would turn out to be real, or at least there would be a huge buzz over such a massive discovery.
Haha. Ties nicely into this subject, actually...
SexyMelon 3 months ago
@SexyMelon: Remember, the worlds entire supply of Element 43 (Techetium) and several other isotopes of various elements, are all man made using Nuclear Fission. We do some pretty incredible things nowadays, including fusion (remember the "Compact Neutron Generator" I mentioned?). Also keep in mind, phenomenon can look like one thing and really be a different phenomenon in the right circumstance or even be a combination of them. That's been the problem here. Even if the experiments do *something*
RyuDarragh 3 months ago
@RyuDarragh I think we're going around in circles on the radiation question a bit, so I'll stop that. I'm quite fuzzy on what's going on there anyway.
One argument you can make for cold fusion is that the original experiment occurred under some kind of unaccounted circumstances, and then the following ones would either replicate it or not based on sheer luck in that regard. In fact, I hear this has to do with size and purity of the palladium lattice and stimulation frequency...
SexyMelon 3 months ago
@SexyMelon ...Although Rossi didn't mention either for his setup. Presumably.
Do you think radiation can be reliably measured on such a scale where even heat output is so minuscule as to require incredibly tight control and precision to be measured? Would it stand out among other factors, or be next to impossible to verify (due to, say, background radiation)?
I think it's not even measured in most literature on the subject, with results for or against.
SexyMelon 3 months ago
@SexyMelon: That's exactly the problem. None of the known routes to fusion are found. None of the radiation that should occur (regardless of any other factors) is found. None of the replicated results match the proferred theories or match known theoretical models. In fact, the only known model that any of the results fir... is the one followed due to confirmation bias (meaning, all phenomenon measured and found fit the pet theory, but no part of the theory is falsifiable). Sad to say.
RyuDarragh 3 months ago
@RyuDarragh That seems like a rather sweeping statement. Are you sure this is the case for all published papers? Can all the participating researchers really be accused of bias? There's definitely incentive for bias in many cases, but there's none in others that I know of, and even then, proper methodology should render bias irrelevant, right?
Also, if the subject is a new form of fusion, then shouldn't we be looking for fusion products rather than known fusion mechanisms?
SexyMelon 3 months ago
@SexyMelon: It's truth. If the results are real, and not the ramblings of a bunch of deluded folks, then the papers would be published, results be peer reviewed and would enter the "mainstream". As you saw in the LHC/Tachyon debacle, scientists of real merit do not conceal or conspire to defraud (if they do, they've fallen prey to some damn fool human failing or are simply incompetent or are outright conmen). When you examine "Cold Fusion", all you find are skepticism, failure to replicate, etc.
RyuDarragh 3 months ago
@RyuDarragh That's not true as far as I know. There's a lot of published papers (peer-reviewed, of course), a lot of replications, a lot of confirmations and support, but not quite that "mainstream" part.
I keep mentioning the SPAWAR studies, they're a good example of both positive and negative results in that regard. Have you seen those? Or do you mean you've never seen positive studies on that subject?
SexyMelon 3 months ago
@RyuDarragh Wait... What LHC/Tachyon debacle?..
SexyMelon 3 months ago
@SexyMelon: The recent discovery of particles that *appear* to be travelling faster than light would make them Tachyons. These would be welcome news to proponents of String Theory and a headache for defenders of the Standard Model. The Higgs Boson, an explanation for mass and inertia is an opposite result: Bad for String Theory, good for the Standard Model. So far, Tachyons 1 (maybe), Higgs Boson 0.
RyuDarragh 3 months ago
@RyuDarragh Yeah, I know. But what debacle? Last I heard there was that one test at LHC that found it, and then one or two vague confirmations from one test and denial from another, and then sort of... nothing.
Funny you should mention Higgs Boson, that's another one of those things that works oh-just-great in theory and is just assumed to be true, but it never showed up in any test aimed to find it (counting from at least the pre-LHC colliders) so what's there to conclude about it?..
SexyMelon 3 months ago
@SexyMelon: The conclusion is that one of the lesser known fun activities for physics is poking holes in theories of all sorts. But, that's with theories that are theories, not just hypothesis (which are what the general public thinks theories are, altogether). Cold fusion, regardless of the credentials of the sponsors or researchers, is on even shakier foothing than String Theory was 20+ years ago. One of the things the JREF has had in spades is conmen, the deluded and just the plain wrong. (1)
RyuDarragh 3 months ago
@RyuDarragh Err. Did you read my previous comments?
As for Rossi, he decided not to bother with scientific method altogether.
Nonetheless, this is no excuse for JREF to make sweeping ignorant claims on the issue at large, nor to even take potshots at the guy when he uses pretty much exact same methodology as the million dollar challenge.
I think "skeptics" have no business commenting on involved scientific issues unless they're actually involved in the field itself. That's just hubris.
SexyMelon 3 months ago
@SexyMelon: Firstly, the JREF has not said anything about serious investigations into "cold fusion", but only about the myriad Rossi's out there and Rossi in particular (exactly the same pattern of con game as the magnetic magic types and OU motor types). Ask and you'll find out they have no comment of any negative sort about serious investigators into "cold fusion"... who follow the proper scientific method and seek peer review. If only "experts" are allowed, you've been conned.
RyuDarragh 3 months ago
@RyuDarragh Pretty sure JREF - official group or the fanclub alike - have never shied away from "debunking" things first and thinking second. I'd be surprised if they never made such a statement on cold fusion.
Although I was specifically talking about Randi playing the role of ultra-expert on nuclear physics here which is just... wrong... on every level I can think of.
That or pretending you don't need to be bother with such fickle thing as science to explain things, which is worse.
SexyMelon 3 months ago
@SexyMelon: The reason they are so not impressed with the current claimant is manifold and mostly due to the way in which the claims are presented. That is, like sincere people, uncertain of their science, hoping to con folks with money for their research funds all in the hope (not certainty) their research will bear fruit. Orgone energy and dowsing rods, anyone?
RyuDarragh 3 months ago
@SexyMelon: For the most part, no one has a working theory for any of the observed phenomenon (outside of the few, sometimes derogatory, classical ones) or can reliably replicate the few controversial phenomenon claimed. Cold fusion does take place under certain conditions (Compact Neutron Sources operate on this principle), but produce none of the claimed phenomenon. It all strikes me as a disguised hydra where two or more phenomenon are being viewed through out of focus glasses.
RyuDarragh 3 months ago
@RyuDarragh I don't know if there's anything to qualify under scientific definition of word "theory", but there's at least a couple of working guesses as far as I know, like the one I mentioned about specific stimulation frequencies or superwaves. I know that wasn't the case back in the 90s though, back then there really was no claimed theoretical basis.
Reliability definitely seems to be an issue, assuming replication isn't an error of some sort.
SexyMelon 3 months ago
@RyuDarragh It seems plausible that cold fusion may occur under specific conditions that experiments have not accounted for yet, meaning that some researchers can replicate it and others can't, depending on whether they observe said conditions.
But that's arguing the arbitrary. Either way, there has to be some sort of evidence to that end.
SexyMelon 3 months ago
I remember hearing about a cryogenic fusion device a few years back. A clever lab demonstration of principles, but since it all happened at liquid nitrogen temperatures it wasn't going to produce usable energy. In fact, energy production was a problem for the cryogenics.
goneutt 3 months ago
The hostile & insulting one-sided bias here doesn't reveal ANYTHING like healthy scientific skepticism -- what it shows is an attitude of insufferable conceit that purports to 'prove' invalidity of over 20 years of research results demonstrating room-temperature energy production typically labeled (perhaps inaccurately) Cold Fusion via extremely pejorative opinionated putdown having -zero- familiarity with actual subject, not EVEN a 5 minute google search. See youtube @ 7FilflaqbVI for overview.
starmanskye 3 months ago
Comment removed
SexyMelon 3 months ago
never heard of Pon's and Fleischmann before, what is it exactly?
yourallbrainwashed 3 months ago
@yourallbrainwashed It was one of the first claims of achieving cold fusion that gained mainstream attention. However it soon was clear that it was falsified as nobody has ever replicated the results. Pons and Fleischmann were the scientists who announced that they had achieved cold fusion. For more info: Google.
CriticalThought09 3 months ago
@CriticalThought09 -- That's BULLSHIT. Many dozens scientists have been producing tritium and excess heat, inventing related processes and patenting devices. The highly publicized MIT study which purported to disprove their results was found, on independant review, to have falsified their data in order to find 'no evidence'. This is a continuing field of study. There are several theoretical basis for understanding what might be responsible for experimental observations. This vid is insulting.
starmanskye 3 months ago
@starmanskye Could you elaborate on the supposedly falsified MIT study? Thanks.
SexyMelon 3 months ago
@CriticalThought09 (wouldn't let me reply for some reason)
That's right, they were the first in history to (supposedly) demonstrate cold fusion in 1989.
It's not fair to say "no one has ever replicated the results", today there are - or claimed to be - dozens to hundreds of such claims, I can't say for sure if there were any at the time of investigation of their study. Whether these replications are correct is another story, but studies or claims of replication are plenty.
SexyMelon 3 months ago
@SexyMelon I won't say that it has never been achieved, but if it has already been achieved then who would just sit on a gold mine of that size? I haven't looked into this much, but I know that the first largely publicized study on cold fusion was the Pons and Fleischmann study. If there is another one, please link it to me.
CriticalThought09 3 months ago
@CriticalThought09 Well, Rossi claims have to have achieved it on a large scale and he supposedly isn't. If you can have working technology, yeah, it makes little sense not to use it.
However cold fusion research always hinged on study of tiny effects that would not be usable as a way of generating energy in their state - it's the idea that they could be understood and perfected that drove the hype at the time.
And yeah, you're right. I just felt I needed to make that one correction. Cheers.
SexyMelon 3 months ago
@CriticalThought09 thanks for the info : ]
yourallbrainwashed 3 months ago
4) The setup they describe in these experiments seems quite simple--just submerge some palladium underwater, and run electricity through it. If this really produces a fusion reaction, why not just scale it up and build a reactor? I'm sure if they could power a building with a palladium fusion reactor (or even just a light bulb), every critic would instantly shut up and get behind them. And they never seem to explain why they don't just do this.
LegionarioCruel 3 months ago
@LegionarioCruel I know you took your time to make those comments, and they're really great at pointing out why we don't/can't have cold fusion.
But the reason they said "We don't need to show that it works to scientists, only customers" is the same reason why that "psychic" bitch whatsherface won't REALLY take the James Randi challenge. Because they know that they're full of bullshit and that it'll be exposed if they actually go through ANY kind of real test or scientific query.
Squiglypig 3 months ago 2
@LegionarioCruel Well, that was quite a spectacular display of hypocrisy on your part.
It's not like you can even deny it: you say you won't discuss science of the matter, we've established you're not even remotely familiar with science of the subject, and yet you go right ahead and make a bunch of these wild sweeping technical claims.
How do you argue with someone who knows nothing on the subject and won't bring forward any evidence, but still feels fine making authoritative claims about it?
SexyMelon 3 months ago
@SexyMelon - I am actually quoting other people. I am NOT a scientist but I think all opinions should be heard on the matter. Unfortunately space limiatations won't allow for much, but I will keep trying.
LegionarioCruel 3 months ago
@LegionarioCruel Well, whatever you say. I just can't quite see your logic in this, as aforementioned. It seems like an odd thing to say or do.
I mean, I know little about nuclear physics or cold fusion, so I'm not going to make any hard claims. I could probably cite an MIT study that says it's not real or Department of Energy reviews that say it is, but it seems to be dishonest to pick sides in a debate without knowing.
Thanks for being polite and all though. Pleasure talking with you.
SexyMelon 3 months ago
@SexyMelon - I find it funny that you admit you know little about the topic, but defend it so vehemently. On the other hand, published studies normally refer to positive findings. It would be funny for a research group or investigation center to go public with all their failed experiments, but whatever.
LegionarioCruel 3 months ago
@LegionarioCruel I didn't notice defending it. Did I ever say it was true? Here, I can say now: I have no idea.
A grand majority of scientific studies fail from the onset, actually...
Negative results are just as important in science as positive ones. Namely, one would have no ground whatsoever for saying Cold Fusion isn't real if there weren't dozens or hundreds of studies that failed to replicate the effect. What other ground could there possibly be?
SexyMelon 3 months ago
@SexyMelon - That's like saying god exists because there are no scientific studies that disprove his existence. Sorry but that point of view is pretty lame. Only positive findings are important in the construction of scientific truths and the understanding of the universe, and cold fusion experimental findings are dubious at best (and I am being VERY generous here).
LegionarioCruel 3 months ago
@LegionarioCruel What is like that? We've been through this already: I'm not saying cold fusion is real, I'm not saying there are no studies that disprove it, I'm saying it's unfair to say there are no studies *supporting* it when there just are. It's unfair.
Whatever side is right in this debate, by however big or small margin, however right or wrong they are, it's not fair to ignore their existence.
That's it.
SexyMelon 3 months ago
@LegionarioCruel I have to disagree about positive findings being the only ones that count. In fact, failing to find proof - or, better yet, finding proof that something isn't there - is one of the main drives of science.
The reason we have Relativity at all is because Newtonian Physics couldn't accurately account for observed large-scale phenomena. That's a negative.
Why do you think their findings are "dubious", by the way?
SexyMelon 3 months ago
@SexyMelon - Well... it kind of comes together, you can't have positive findings without having negative results... but you were saying that I should quote studies DISPROVING cold fusion, and well, I don't see any failed experimenter publishing his results, and science doesn't work that way. Darwin proved evolution (kind of), a positive finding, and in doing so he disproved creationism. But the driving motor of his research was not disproving creationism.
LegionarioCruel 3 months ago
@LegionarioCruel Well, you were simply wrong about that, as I pointed out: there are plenty of studies discussing both failure and success in cold fusion experiments. Why wouldn't there be? You can look up SPAWAR ones...
Darwin didn't publish anything that could be called a scientific article by today's standards as far as I'm aware... And Creationism, believe it or not, didn't exist at the time. If anything, what he did was argue against Lamarckian Evolution, the popular theory at the time.
SexyMelon 3 months ago
@LegionarioCruel So yes, there are plenty scientific papers about conducted cold fusion experiments: some report failure, some report success. That's it.
You already discussed both, in fact: the 2009 SPAWAR paper, and the follow-up study that failed to replicate its results.
SexyMelon 3 months ago
3) No fusion products have ever been observed--fusion would be plausible if they were able to show that the reactions produced some helium-3 or lithium or whatever.
LegionarioCruel 3 months ago
2) the only evidence anyone has ever offered was calorimetry of a small-scale experiment. But calorimetry is a complicated thing--you have to model the insulation of the system just right, and you have to measure the heat inputs for the system correctly, and so on.
LegionarioCruel 3 months ago
Why is cold fusion considered bogus?
1) There was never any clear reason why electrifying palladium should create pressures sufficient to ignite a fusion reaction. Without a mechanism, this seems to be the most ridiculously radical and sensational conclusion possible, even if the calorimetry says that electrified palladium creates net energy somehow. Why not start with simpler explanations than saying that it's fusion?
LegionarioCruel 3 months ago
@LegionarioCruel ...And now you go into discussing the scientific intricacies on the subject right after admitting you couldn't do so.
Even though you know you cannot possibly back up your original claims because you never researched them, even though you've been proved wrong on claims of no scientific replication, you still feel entitled to make yet more false or unproven claims on matters you never researched and never checked.
Just like there's pseudo-science, there's pseudo-skepticism...
SexyMelon 3 months ago
"..Rob Duncan, vice chancellor of research at the University of Missouri, went to Israel with 60 Minutes to visit Energetics Technologies, which claims SuperWave Fusion will solve the energy problem. The genius behind ET is the Chief Visionary Officer, Irving Dardik, who got into cold fusion after losing his license to practice medicine in New York. It puts us in mind of Randy Mills of BlackLight Power, another MD who says he can solve the energy problem. Is SuperWave Fusion another scam?"
LegionarioCruel 3 months ago
@LegionarioCruel - Quote from Dr. Bob Park.
LegionarioCruel 3 months ago
"It shouldn’t be necessary to remind scientists that neither visiting a laboratory, nor peer reviewing a manuscript, is enough. There must be independent replication of the ET claims. Without replication, the claims are nothing..."
LegionarioCruel 3 months ago
"Cold fusion is impossible. It contradicts all that we know in nuclear physics, and no concrete evidence, theoretical or experimental, has ever been forthcoming. No single working device has ever been demonstrated. The only journals that publish papers on cold fusion today are pro-cold fusion journals, which seek to promote the field, rather than critically examine it. Cold fusion is a dream, a golden promise of a world with unlimited energy and no pollution, but a dream nonetheless."
LegionarioCruel 3 months ago
@LegionarioCruel I'm reminded of the good old Christian tactic of quoting the Bible when there's no more argument to make... And it's not like I've ever said cold fusion is real for those quotes to be relevant either. You just assume I did because I contradicted you, didn't you?
Do you think these quotes of personal opinions hold more weight than scientific consensus?
SexyMelon 3 months ago
@SexyMelon - You said before neither Randi nor me I have any authority to discuss the topic (I guess you do), so let's hear what the experts have to say on the topic. Since the fact that experiments are inconclusive is not relevant to you, and since you prefer to hear the voice of the expert, I guess all I can do is reproduce what actual scientists have to say on the topic.
LegionarioCruel 3 months ago
@LegionarioCruel That's not quite what I said. What I said is that you shouldn't be talking on the subject you know little to nothing about, and that has proven true in both cases so far. Unless I misunderstood your lack of knowledge about SPAWAR?..
I don't personally care about personal opinions of experts. But if you do - once again - what do you say to experts that SUPPORT Cold Fusion rather than oppose it? Do you dismiss them completely? Or don't you know they exist?
SexyMelon 3 months ago
@LegionarioCruel To make myself more clear: I think you shouldn't talk with authority about things you have little research in. That's why I'm not making any sweeping judgements, and why I criticize you and Randi for doing so.
I think this issue, like any other, should be decided on weight of evidence - scientific consensus, ideally - not personal opinion of scientists or, worse yet, people who have nothing to do with science.
Do you think that's fair?
SexyMelon 3 months ago
@SexyMelon - I would not (and have not ) tried to discuss the scientific intricacies of the impossibility of cold fusion (since I am not a scientist). the problem is that apparently you won't give credit to anyone who speaks against it, not even members of the scientific community. Randi is not giving a scientific opinion on the topic, because he is no scientist, he just gives his opinion as a scam debunker.
LegionarioCruel 3 months ago
@LegionarioCruel Actually, you said: cold fusion is impossible, there has never been any evidence of it, no replication of it, no reputable research on it. What is this if not commenting on impossibility of cold fusion?
Most or all of this is outright false, and you have provided no proof to support yourself. Not only do you have none, you actually dismissed when I brought up scientific studies to the contrary.
So, are you actually saying you think you can dismiss this without even knowing?
SexyMelon 3 months ago
@LegionarioCruel You did present a couple of quotes from opponents of cold fusion, so I have to ask you yet again: if those "quotes" from scientists or non-scientists alike are proof enough for you, then will you then admit cold fusion is true given enough quotes from many experts that DO support it?
So it appears to be a double standard: you can't present any research to support your claims, yet you will dismiss research that goes against them. What's up with that?
SexyMelon 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LegionarioCruel So if you don't think you can comment on "scientific intricacies" - and indeed you have no research on the subject - why then do you feel you can make judgment about it? How can say? How can you honestly make an argument when you just don't know?
How can you base your opinion on the subject on nothing more than quotes or research picked from ONLY ONE side of the debate and call yourself a skeptic?
SexyMelon 3 months ago
@LegionarioCruel How can you ignore scientific research speaking for one side, yet be satisfied with quotes of personal opinion speaking for the other?
How is this not a double standard, or hypocrisy?
You can say you weren't aware of evidence to the contrary, but then why do you feel entitled to talk on the subject at all? More so, how can you be unaware when I just presented evidence that there was, indeed, research into Cold Fusion well past the original experiment, and you admitted to it?
SexyMelon 3 months ago
"The overwhelming judgment of the community of physicists worldwide is that cold fusion is an illusion, a melange of measurement errors, absence of proper control experiments, and a confusion of chemical with nuclear reactions" Carl Sagan
LegionarioCruel 3 months ago
@LegionarioCruel Carl Sagan has no authority on this subject, and he cites no scientific analysis to back up this claim. Unless he does somewhere else, in which case you should bring up that, not opinions of single individuals. On top of that, if that was true in his time, do you think it's still relevant now, after much more research?
Again, would similar quotes by cold fusion advocates convince you, or would you dismiss them out of hand?
SexyMelon 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SexyMelon - Do you know what a straw man argument is?
LegionarioCruel 3 months ago
@LegionarioCruel Actually, to be more direct:
Do you think Carl Sagan's personal opinion on the subject holds more weight than scientific research of dozens of accredited scientists that support (or oppose) Cold Fusion?
SexyMelon 3 months ago
@SexyMelon - So you think we need to poll scientists to validate or discredit the cold fusion htpothesis? I don't think science works that way. Carl Sagan was not only an astrophysicist but one of the most important science communicators of the time, affiliated with both the academy and the government. When he says that the consensus (at least back in 1996) was that cold fusion was an illusion, you should take him seriously. It is not his personal opinion.
LegionarioCruel 3 months ago
@LegionarioCruel The opposite, actually: I think polls of personal opinions of scientists is completely irrelevant. Which is why I wondered why you'd bring up personal opinion into the discussion. What matters is scientific consensus, the consensus of results of research, consensus of facts and evidence.
SexyMelon 3 months ago
@LegionarioCruel Carl Sagan did not measure, judge, or could possibly judge scientific consensus on the issue, and he brings up no such thing in this quote. So why are you using his personal opinion if you just said it's not okay?
Are you saying it's not okay to poll scientists directly, but it's okay for Sagan to speak on their behalf? Really?
And if it's not his personal opinion, then why are you quoting it? Cite the actual data. Cite the study. The name of the paper.
SexyMelon 3 months ago
"...Some claim the process works with normal water, others that it can be used to transform any element into another. A number of cold fusion companies have been formed and have spent millions of dollars of investors' money in research and development. While amazing claims for the potential of cold fusion have been made, not one working device has ever been demonstrated or patented..." Dr. David Tulloch
LegionarioCruel 3 months ago
"...even those few who were privileged with all the technical details could not reproduce the results. Supporters of cold fusion have made various claims ever since, ranging from effects that are barely detectable, to claims of limitless energy production, and beyond..."
LegionarioCruel 3 months ago
"Despite all the refutations and flaws, Fleischmann and Pons continued to claim that they had produced fusion. The lack of reproducibility was attributed to poor methods by other experimenters, caused by their having insufficient details or their poor understanding of the intricacies of the experiment (which were the fault of Fleischmann and Pons themselves)."
LegionarioCruel 3 months ago
@LegionarioCruel Why do you bring up this quote? It doesn't seem to have anything to do with our discussion, and it cites no relevant sources.
Do you think you can back up your opinion with a single (or maybe multiple) quotations alone? You should know cold fusion advocates can just as easily conjure similar quotes for their side of the argument. Would you agree with them if they did? Or dismiss them out of hand?
SexyMelon 3 months ago
Very funny joke about University of Bologna but do you know that it's the oldest University of Western world ? What did Americans all day in the fourteenth century... perhaps hunt raccoons naked ?
red5goahead 3 months ago
James Randi is a heavy metal Gandalf.
freakystyley4000 3 months ago
@SexyMelon
and as for you thinking that I'm disagreeing with your nonsense statements because I'm some huge fan of Randi's, I've only seen a few videos on him on Youtube where as you seem to have some sick obsessive hatered of the fellow, and I get the impression you've seen like a hundred more times the amount of material he's done than I have. So you don't like the dude, so what, get over it.
Primalxbeast 3 months ago
(cont.) In fact, the word skeptic specifically includes people who are skeptical of even things that have been well proven. You can say that somebody is overly-skeptical, or unreasonably skeptical, but to claim that somebody isn't a skeptic or that they are a "skeptic", or a pseudoskeptic because you don't think they have any proof that something isn't true is pure nonsense.
Primalxbeast 3 months ago
@Primalxbeast "In fact, the word skeptic specifically includes people who are skeptical of even things that have been well proven."
Nice gem.
I think we can discuss this later if you care to be a little more polite.
SexyMelon 3 months ago
@SexyMelon
FFS FIND A DAMN DICTIONARY AND LOOK UP THE WORD SKEPTIC OR SKEPTICISM because you have no fucking clue what they actually mean. You can't just pull a definition out of your ass and then claim that you're the only true skeptic in the world. There is nothing in the definition of skepticism that says that somebody has to have a valid reason for doubting something to be a skeptic.
Primalxbeast 3 months ago
@Primalxbeast Nice talking to you too.
SexyMelon 3 months ago
GO GO RANDI
paperjack93 3 months ago
د.مصطفى ابوشاقور غيث نائب لرئيس الوزراء . 2. د. عمر عبدالله عبدالكريم نائبا لرئيس الوزراء . 3. أسامة جويلي وزيرا للدفاع - وكلاء وزارة الدفاع يوسف المنقوش ، الصديق المبروك وكيلا لشؤون أمن الحدود و المنشآت الاستراتجية و الحيوية ) 4. فوزي عبدالعالي وزيرا للداخلية - وكلاء وزراة الداخلية ( عمر حسين الخذراوي مع اثني...
krishnadas4x 3 months ago
SexyMelon: I suggest you read Hagelstein's review paper. I put a copy in the "2004 DoE Review" section. This is handy because I added links to many of the papers he references at the bottom of this screen. The reviews by Storms and Nagel and Beaudette book are good.
Regarding public opinion polls, I know of only one, taken in Japan in the mid-1990s among professional scientists. Roughly half believed cold fusion exists. Most supported the research.
(can't rsp your posting for some resaon)
JedRothwell 3 months ago
@JedRothwell Thanks a bunch. I'm pretty much your Joe Ordinary, but I'll look into it as far as I can.
There was the famous government hearing in the US that would ultimately shut down Cold Fusion research around the globe, I'm pretty sure it used popular vote as its main determining factor (which came out strikingly negative). I don't know of any meaningful opinion polls since then, but it seems to me the attitude towards the subject is overwhelmingly negative.
Thanks!
SexyMelon 3 months ago
Seven Warning Signs of Bogus Science:
The discoverer pitches the claim directly to the media.
The discoverer says that a powerful establishment is trying to suppress his work.
The scientific effect involved is always at the very limit of detection.
Evidence for a discovery is anecdotal.
The discoverer says a belief is credible because it has endured for centuries.
The discoverer has worked in isolation.
The discoverer must propose new laws of nature to explain an observation.
LegionarioCruel 3 months ago
@LegionarioCruel Don't be silly.
SexyMelon 3 months ago
@SexyMelon - How am I being silly? The Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann experiment on cold fusion in 1989 was shown to be nothing but an not-so-elaborate scam through which they planned to receive government funds in an amount of $25 million dollars to "further their research". We live in an era of energy crisis and we wwill keep seeing more and more of these bogus claims. Today we have people trying to replicate those stupid experiments; are their intentions any different?
LegionarioCruel 3 months ago
@LegionarioCruel I was referring to your "rules". You really shouldn't make lists like this, even jokingly.
I'm not aware of that experiment being a scam. Admittedly I haven't looked into it too deeply, so can you prove that?
As for whether claims are "bogus" or not, first you'd need to make a case as to why that is. You can't just assume everyone working in the field is a fraud. Again, would you accuse SPAWAR program of being fraudsters? It's a long stretch, and an insult.
SexyMelon 3 months ago
That set of rules is actually very serious. SPAWAR is hardly about cold fusion, but anyway, I am not aware the US Navy claimed to have succesfully obtained energy out of nowhere. I am not against researching on new sources of energy (including LENR) but that is different from claiming the thing is real. Peer reviews are not intended to validate an experiment, only that a certain protocol is followed; I bet you there are more "peer reviewed" articles on homeopathy than on cold fusion.
LegionarioCruel 3 months ago
@LegionarioCruel SPAWAR - Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command, US Navy - did a fairly massive amount of research on cold fusion, with a lot of positive results. You should probably check it out; like I said, your claims of "no serious research" just aren't true.
There's plenty of good research that yields positive results, there's plenty that yields negative ones. We should be fair and honest about that.
I don't know much about homeopathy, I can't talk about that.
SexyMelon 3 months ago
Even the SPAWAR 2009 experiment has been replicated with negative results. It can't become a scientific truth if independent scientists are unable to replicate the experiment AND the results anywhere. And goverments will spend money in the most stupid projects. Money is a big incentive for futile research.
LegionarioCruel 3 months ago
@LegionarioCruel Interesting. Just an hour ago you didn't even know what SPAWAR is, and now you know for sure they're wrong based on one supposed negative result. If I had to guess, I'd say your conclusions are driven by pure bias.
Again, do you accuse US Navy researchers, everyone involved in the SPAWAR Cold Fusion program, to be frauds? To all be in error? Blanket statement?
You said there is no "respectable research" in the field. This just isn't true. None of what you hastily said was.
SexyMelon 3 months ago
@SexyMelon - Now you're talking full blown BS. My points are very clear; scientists would love cold fusion to be true, but the problem is when someone (doesn't matter if it is a "New Energy" institute or the US Navy) comes with a positive result, no one is able to replicate the same experiment with the same result afterwards, so you need to take all those "peer reviewed" articles with a grain of salt.
LegionarioCruel 3 months ago
@LegionarioCruel Now, you've been wrong before, you're wrong again now. How is it you're still saying "no one is able to replicate it" when I've just mentioned a reputable and independent - from supposed "scams" of Fleisch-Pons - institution replicating the experiment?
And it's not like you even looked up what I'm talking about. What's this "New energy institute"? It was SPAWAR Cold Fusion research program.
How can you say it's wrong when you don't even know what that is?
SexyMelon 3 months ago
@LegionarioCruel Basically, you're talking on the subject without actually knowing it. Why? I've just corrected you when you said there's no "reputable research" supporting cold fusion claims, and you either change subject or dismiss it? Isn't that just dishonest?
You said there's no such studies. This isn't true. Now you're saying there are no replications. This isn't true either.
There's a small mountain of studies both supporting and opposing cold fusion. You should be aware of that.
SexyMelon 3 months ago