Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Answer to LA Times about John Huizenga, the physicist who helped discredit ‘cold fusion’ (LENR)
LENRnews.eu ^ | 3 Feb 2014 | AlainCo

Posted on 02/03/2014 11:15:12 PM PST by Kevmo

Answer to LA Times about John Huizenga, the physicist who helped discredit ‘cold fusion’ (LENR)

Just today I fall on another article about the death of John Huizenga, the man who delayed the chance for Cold Fusion to make our world better of 10-20 years.

John Huizenga dies at 92; physicist helped discredit 'cold fusion' John Huizenga worked on the Manhattan Project, helped discover two chemical elements and co-led inquiry into 'cold fusion,' the 'scientific fiasco of the century.'

Thanks to LA Times to allow us to comment (it seems less and less allowed), but my dreamed answer was too long for the rules, and finally it makes a good article. Feel free to critic, correct, comment and improve :

It seems your article is uninformed, but anyway state the current consensus.

One of the best voice to talk on cold fusion science have been Charles Beaudette, in Excess Heat. (You can find his book on the site of University of Tsinghua , courtesy of the author, or on on-line libraries).

His work, was to document and analyse the critics. His book contains much more citation of scientific papers, and by the way many many more after 1989. In fact the only good results appeared after one or two years of hard work, and only by competent electrochemist.

As Beaudette reminded, physicist had abandonned the domain of calorimetry in the 1950s, to focus on nuclear physics, thanks to the success of Manhattan project, which launched many nuclear physicist in the higher governmental sphere.

51F3AT47AHL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_SX342_SY445_CR,0,0,342,445_SH20_OU08_

There have been in 1996 only 4 critics, by Lewis, Hansen, Wilson, Morrison.

The one of Lewis, that the cell was not mixed, was asserted enough strongly in Baltimore conference, with hidden insults and understatements, to convince the planet and terrorize dissenters... it was in fact a huge evidence of his ego and his incompetence. Fleischmann rebutted it quickly showing that his cell was perfectly stirred by design (which Lewis could not imagine without decades of experience). It tooks 2 more years to prove with measurements that the temperature was stable at 0.01C, thanks to the design.

Fleischman&Pons cell design (a Dewar with hard vacuum,tiny and lonk neck, compact shape for self-stirring, open electrolysis, refilling measurement to control recombination) was replicated exactly in 1996 by CEA (Longchampt).

Meanwhile many other design replicated the results, with different techniques : Oriani used seebeck calorimetry with opencell and separated gas to cancel recombination (His paper was peer-reviewed but rejected afterward because of what Scheckman denounce today). McKubre (SRI) used a closed pressurized cell with recombination, with temperature compensation ensure isothermal mode and flow calorimetry. Miles (Of Chinal Lake Naval Air Warfare) used open cells, and captured the gases. He organized double blind measurement of He4 with Bush of Texas university, and proved that Heat and He4 were commensurate. ENEA later with Report41 Deninno confirmed that only active cells did produce He4.

Many labs proved Tritium (but not with heat) which as Huzenga admitted could not be an artifact, from US to India. This is why he concluded it could not be an artifact, thus without any evidence, concluded it was a fraud. 3 inquiry were launched, all failed, but it did not change his position.

Hansen raised the problem of recombination, but again it was rebuted by facts. Fleischmann was measuren the recombination by measureing the refilling. it was below 1% and negligible compared to the 15-50% of anomalous heat (and heat after death).

Wilson produced interesting critics, and by the way he rebutted Lewis and Hansen arguments. He nevertheless admitted undeniable anomalous heat even after his corrections. This was presented as a critic, but was in fact a confirmation.

Morrison critic was just based on misunderstanding, and was not maintained.

None of the 4 critics are anymore defended. The summary is that according to science, Cold fusion excess heat is replicated, measured, and no critic is maintained. Why it is the consensus that Cold Fusion is bad science? It is a cognitive cascade that can be explained by the Groupthink theory of Roland Benabou (Find his papers at Princeton, Groupthink: collective delusion in organizations and markets).

Lewis with Garwin visited the lab of another replicator (McKubre, with closed cell, in isothermal mode using flow calorimetry and recombination), and found nothing. Like any honest man he stay absolutely silent about that fact, moaned about minor details that did not rule out results, and continued like Huizenga to say that since it was impossible, and there was no artifact found, it was thus unknown artifact...

People should really read the book of Beaudette to read the details, to check the scientific articles, and judge of their respective quality, and about the ethical structure of each camp. This book is boring like an attorney report, but raise furror to the one who understand what it reveal.

The argument that there was no neutron is like a cowboy saying that bull dont produce milk, or birds don't have horn. The only question was about the excess heat, and it is proven.

It is true that all physicist, except one trained by Heinz Gerischer (a skeptic German top electrochemist of Plank Institute who admitted in 1992 that Excess heat was real), failed to reproduce Excess Heat. Most did not measure it and focused on neutrons.

Many did not know the required conditions, discovered few years after, about deuterium loading, current density, palladium impurity selection, crystallographic structure of the surface (found recently by ENEA/NRL/SRI). Their main problems were that they were assuming cold fusion was hot fusion, expecting what was not there, they expected quick result where it tooks minimum 3 month to obtain a single result, and finally they were simply incompetent relatively to the extreme complexity of the calorimetry, which was challenging even for the top expert.

Serious electro-chemist obtained results in more than 1 year, often 2 or 3 years to cross-check all...

Back to business and free-market, please note that Cherokee fund (who manage billions of $ in energy) have invested 12million$ in an LENR technology (E-cat bought by Industrial Heat LLC).

They have signed agreement with the technology park of Badoing HIDZ, known as the valley of electricity in China.

Darpa is funding LENR research, hidden as nanotechnology since few years.

US navy after SPAWAR (closed when boss changed), is researching actively in NRL with Italian ENEA and SRI. It seems even that SRI is subsidized to test the technology of others commercial companies, and have replicated 5 of them (from SRI McKubre).

NASA GRC state on their internet site that Excess Heat is proven, and Doug Wells works for NASA/NARI to study LENR propulsion for planes, in seedling project (conference soon in 2014).

Toyota have recently replicated the research of Mitsubishi (Iwamura), and published in JJAP a peer-reviewed journal... Unlike the myth, many LENR papers are published in peer-reviewed papers like in Naturwissenschaften, Journal of electroanalythical chemistry, JJAP... Thanks to Pamela Boss (Spawar), Schekman, to have described the problem to publish in high-impact journals, that Enea report41 DeNinno and Oriani have revealed.

I have no doubt that Huizenga was sincere and honest when seing that Bockris (and others in US and India) cells were producing tritium, he concluded that it could not be an artifact, and THUS it HAVE TO BE A FRAUD.

Future will say how that statement have to be judged. Sadly many scientist of that affair are dying, and it will ruin our chance to obtain excuses.

Sorry for the family. I have no doubt all was done with sincerity. It is a tragedy of Groupthink, like are subprimes, Challenger, Enron, and... many others in process...

All assertion on theoretical question, either in 1989 or today, are for me without foundation until we have more data. No theory works. It seems data will came from free market and venture capitalist, not from peer-review or pet-theories.

Best regards

---AlainCo

Published on 3 Feb 2014 By AlainCo (alainco@lenrnews.eu)


TOPICS: Business/Economy; History; Science
KEYWORDS: canr; cmns; coldfusion; lenr

1 posted on 02/03/2014 11:15:12 PM PST by Kevmo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: dangerdoc; citizen; Liberty1970; Red Badger; Wonder Warthog; PA Engineer; glock rocks; free_life; ..

The Cold Fusion/LENR Ping List

http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/coldfusion/index?tab=articles


http://lenr-canr.org/

Vortex-L
http://tinyurl.com/pxtqx3y

Best book to get started on this subject:
EXCESS HEAT
Why Cold Fusion Research Prevailed
Free Download:

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


2 posted on 02/03/2014 11:16:11 PM PST by Kevmo ("A person's a person, no matter how small" ~Horton Hears a Who)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo
Wayne Huizenga killed mom and pop video stores. Then went on to kill Major League Baseball by purchasing a World Series team and then promptly disbanding it after he got his trophy.

I'm sure this other Huizenga is a close relative.

3 posted on 02/03/2014 11:32:44 PM PST by who_would_fardels_bear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo
John Huizenga dies at 92; physicist helped discredit 'cold fusion' John Huizenga worked on the Manhattan Project, helped discover two chemical elements and co-led inquiry into 'cold fusion,' the 'scientific fiasco of the century.'

The scientific fiasco of the century is global warming/climate change. Trillions have been spent on that fraud.

4 posted on 02/03/2014 11:37:33 PM PST by Major Matt Mason ("Journalism is dead. All news is suspect." - Noamie)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo

I reject your physics and substitute them with my own.


5 posted on 02/03/2014 11:46:20 PM PST by Organic Panic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Organic Panic

Well, then, what is your own physics?

http://www.spidercox.co.uk/pooh.htm


6 posted on 02/04/2014 12:09:57 AM PST by Kevmo ("A person's a person, no matter how small" ~Horton Hears a Who)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo

Is this written in English?


7 posted on 02/04/2014 2:30:33 AM PST by ZULU (Magua is sitting in the Oval Office. Ted Cruz/Phil Robertson in 2016.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo

Was that the actual response printed in the paper? Because, if it is, it’s unreadable.


8 posted on 02/04/2014 4:09:22 AM PST by saganite (What happens to taglines? Is there a termination date?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: saganite; Kevmo

The article reads like a digital translation of some Euro-language.

I have one question about cold fusion - where’s the beef?

There’s been all this talk, all this hype, and yet there’s been not one machine made with this concept that can “produce” enough power to light a single light bulb.

No wonder people are skeptical.


9 posted on 02/04/2014 4:27:48 AM PST by canuck_conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo

I’m sure the readers of the LA Times will be impressed by this refutation. But it might be a bit more effective if it was in English.


10 posted on 02/04/2014 4:29:21 AM PST by Rocky (The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it. George Orwell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: canuck_conservative
"I have one question about cold fusion - where’s the beef?"

That's the right question to ask!!

A few years before the "cold fusion" claim, another claim was made that violated a different theory, one that had been long established, won the Nobel Prize for three scientists, and had plenty of support from solid research. Yet this other claim, and the experimental evidence to support it was easily replicated by other (amazed) scientists, and eventually in the early 1990s, even by high school science fair projects. Thus new theories had to be developed to explain the evidence for high-temperature superconductors which violated the old BCS theory of superconductivity.

Over the last quarter century, "cold fusion" has failed to produce even a fraction of similar experimental results with any data above background noise. Thus "cold fusion" joins other similar claims as a "pathological science."

11 posted on 02/04/2014 5:12:57 AM PST by Carl Vehse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo
For the grammar police, here's my edited version:

Answer to LA Times about John Huizenga, the physicist who helped discredit ‘cold fusion’ (LENR)

Just today I saw another article about the death of John Huizenga, the man who delayed for 10 to 20 years the chance for Cold Fusion to make our world better.

John Huizenga dies at 92; physicist helped discredit 'cold fusion' John Huizenga worked on the Manhattan Project, helped discover two chemical elements and co-led inquiry into 'cold fusion,' the 'scientific fiasco of the century.'
Surprisingly the LA Times allowed comments, but my answer was too long for their rules, so I turned it into this article. Feel free to critique, correct, comment and improve:

---------------

Although your article is uninformed, it is consistent with the current consensus.

One of the best voices on cold fusion science has been Charles Beaudette, in his book Excess Heat. (You can find the book on the site of University of Tsinghua, courtesy of the author, or in on-line libraries).

His work, was to document and analyse the critiques. His book contains substantial citation of scientific papers, and mostly well after 1989. In fact the only good results appeared after one or two years of hard work, and only by competent electrochemist.

As Beaudette reminded us, physicist abandoned the domain of calorimetry in the 1950s, to focus on nuclear physics. The success of Manhattan projec launched many nuclear physicists into the higher governmental sphere.

By 1996 the four main critiques were by Lewis, Hansen, Wilson, and Morrison.

Lewis’s claim, that the cell was not mixed, was asserted strongly enough in a Baltimore conference, with hidden insults and understatements, to convince the planet and to terrorize dissenters. Scientifically, it was only evidence of his huge ego and his incompetence. Fleischmann rebutted it quickly, showing that his cell was perfectly stirred by design (which Lewis could not imagine without decades of experience). It took two more years to prove with measurements that the temperature was stable at 0.01C, thanks to the design.

Fleischman&Pons’s cell design (a Dewar with hard vacuum, a long thing neck, compact shape for self-stirring, open electrolysis, refilling measurement to control recombination) was replicated exactly in 1996 by CEA (Longchampt).

Meanwhile many other designs replicated the results, with different techniques. Oriani used seebeck calorimetry with open cell and separated gas to cancel recombination. (His paper was peer-reviewed but rejected afterward because of what Nobel Prize winder Schekman denounces today as flawed scientific publishing). McKubre (SRI) used a closed pressurized cell with recombination, with temperature compensation ensuring isothermal mode and flow calorimetry. Miles (Of Chinal Lake Naval Air Warfare) used open cells, and captured the gases. He organized double blind measurement of He4 with Bush of Texas university, and proved that heat and He4 were commensurate. ENEA later with Deninno confirmed that only active cells produced He4.

Many labs, from the US to India, proved production of tritium, which as Huizenga admitted could not be an artifact. Since it could not be an artifact, he concluded, without evidence, that it was fraudulent. Three inquiries were launched. All failed, but he did not change his position.

Hansen raised the problem of recombination, but this was also rebutted by facts. Fleischmann assessed recombination by measuring refilling. Refilling was below 1%, negligible compared to the 15-50% of anomalous heat (and continued heat production after disconnection of electrical input).

Wilson produced interesting critiques, including a rebuttal of Lewis’s and Hansen’s arguments. He nonetheless admitted undeniable anomalous heat even after his corrections. This was presented as a critique, but was in fact a confirmation.

Morrison’s critique was based on misunderstanding, and was not sustained.

None of the 4 critiques are defended anymore. We now know that cold fusion excess heat has been replicated and measured, with none of these critiques being sustainable. Why is it the the continuing consensus that Cold Fusion is bad science? It is a cognitive cascade that can be explained by the Groupthink theory of Roland Benabou (Find his papers at Princeton, Groupthink: collective delusion in organizations and markets).

Lewis, with Garwin, visited the lab of another replicator (McKubre, with closed cell, in isothermal mode using flow calorimetry and recombination), and found nothing that would rule out excess heat. Like any honest man he stayed absolutely silent about that fact, moaned about minor details that did not rule out results, and continued like Huizenga to rest his anti-cold fusion conclusions on the “impossibility” of the phenomenon and the lack of artifacts.

Read Beaudette’s book to see the details, to check the scientific articles, and to judge their respective quality and the ethical structure of each camp. This book is as dry as a legal report, but raises furor in anyone who understands what it reveals.

The argument that there were no neutrons is like a cowboy saying that bull don’t produce milk, or birds don't have horns. The primary question was about the excess heat. Excess heat has been proven

It is true that all physicists, except one in the lab of Heinz Gerischer (a skeptic German top electrochemist of Plank Institute who admitted in 1992 that excess heat was real), failed to reproduce excess heat. Most did not bother to measure it and instead focused on neutrons.

They did not know the required conditions, discovered a few years later, about deuterium loading, current density, palladium impurity selection, crystallographic structure of the surface (found recently by ENEA/NRL/SRI). Their main problem was that they were assuming cold fusion was hot fusion. Expecting what was not there, they sought quick results and found them. The calorimetric approach, however, takes a minimum of three month to obtains a single result in the hands of a top calorimetry expert, which they were not. Serious electrochemists took two to three years to gather and cross-check their results.

Parts of the business world are also taking cold fusion seriously. The Cherokee Fund (who manage billions of dollars in energy) have invested $12 million in a LENR technology (E-cat bought by Industrial Heat LLC). They have also signed an agreement with the technology park of Badoing HIDZ, known as the valley of electricity in China.

In the U.S. government, DARPA is funding LENR research, hidden as nanotechnology for several years. The US Navy is researching actively with SRI and Italian ENEA. It seems even that SRI has been contracted to test the LENR technology of other commercial companies, and have produced five replicated (from SRI McKubre). NASA GRC states on their web site that Excess Heat is proven, and Doug Wells is working for NASA/NARI to study LENR propulsion for airplanes, in a seedling project (conference soon in 2014).

Toyota have recently replicated the research of Mitsubishi (Iwamura), and published in JJAP a peer-reviewed journal. Contrary to myth, many LENR papers are published in peer-reviewed journals such as Naturwissenschaften, Journal of Electroanalythical Chemistry, and JJAP.

I have no doubt that Huizenga was sincere and honest when, seeing that Bockris (and others in US and India) cells were producing tritium, he concluded that it could not be an artifact, and THUS HAD TO BE A FRAUD. The future will judge that statement.

My condolences to the family. I have no doubt all was done with sincerity. I believe it is a tragedy of Groupthink, like subprimes, Challenger, Enron, and many others in process.

All theoretical assertions, either in 1989 or today, are for me without foundation until we have more data. No existing theory works. It seems that data will come from the free market and venture capitalists, not from peer-review or pet theories.

12 posted on 02/04/2014 9:05:05 AM PST by AZLiberty (No tag today.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ZULU; Rocky
"Is this written in English?"

Don't confuse poor English for poor science. The author is currently engaged in a long research effort following in the footpaths of George Beaudette to gather the historical facts about CF. I suspect his ultimate goal is to write an HONEST history of the field, rather than the confabulation of memes originated by the anti-LENR crowd.

13 posted on 02/04/2014 10:32:48 AM PST by Wonder Warthog (Newly fledged NRA Life Member (after many years as an "annual renewal" sort))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: canuck_conservative
"I have one question about cold fusion - where’s the beef?"

Growing.

"There’s been all this talk, all this hype, and yet there’s been not one machine made with this concept that can “produce” enough power to light a single light bulb."

Not true. Several devices have produced HUGE amounts of energy, far more than needed to light a single bulb. The problem is that the energy cannot (yet) be delivered on demand.

"No wonder people are skeptical."

Only those who haven't studied the data available on the subject.

14 posted on 02/04/2014 10:35:52 AM PST by Wonder Warthog (Newly fledged NRA Life Member (after many years as an "annual renewal" sort))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Carl Vehse
"Over the last quarter century, "cold fusion" has failed to produce even a fraction of similar experimental results with any data above background noise. Thus "cold fusion" joins other similar claims as a "pathological science."

Nope. But you "are" exhibiting "pathological skepticism". Plenty of experiments well above "background noise". Read Beaudette.

15 posted on 02/04/2014 10:37:37 AM PST by Wonder Warthog (Newly fledged NRA Life Member (after many years as an "annual renewal" sort))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Carl Vehse
"Over the last quarter century, "cold fusion" has failed to produce even a fraction of similar experimental results with any data above background noise. Thus "cold fusion" joins other similar claims as a "pathological science."

Nope. But you "are" exhibiting "pathological skepticism". Plenty of experiments well above "background noise". Read Beaudette.

16 posted on 02/04/2014 10:37:37 AM PST by Wonder Warthog (Newly fledged NRA Life Member (after many years as an "annual renewal" sort))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo

Don’t bother reading. Just ask Jennifer!

http://coldfusion3.com/


17 posted on 02/04/2014 1:09:07 PM PST by TexasGator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: canuck_conservative; Kevmo

“I have one question about cold fusion - where’s the beef?”

Kevmo gets all his LENR info from Jennifer.

http://coldfusion3.com/

Jennifer also pimps a steam engine. Kevmo’s famous Purdue LENR phyicist is a consultant for ...... THE STEAM ENGINE!

What a nice web they weave ...


18 posted on 02/04/2014 1:11:50 PM PST by TexasGator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog

“Not true. Several devices have produced HUGE amounts of energy, far more than needed to light a single bulb. The problem is that the energy cannot (yet) be delivered on demand.”

Oh. You mean no one has actually witnessed the ‘claims’ ?


19 posted on 02/04/2014 1:13:56 PM PST by TexasGator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: canuck_conservative; Kevmo

Funny videos ...

http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/RossiECat/Failure-of-Rossis-Energy-Catalyzer-Caught-on-Video.shtml


20 posted on 02/04/2014 1:15:18 PM PST by TexasGator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog; Kevmo

“Several devices have produced HUGE amounts of energy, far more than needed to light a single bulb. “

More power has been consumed by Wonder Warthog and Kevmo posting than LENR has ever produced!


21 posted on 02/04/2014 1:18:18 PM PST by TexasGator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: canuck_conservative; Kevmo

Kevmo’s source:

http://coldfusion3.com/

A blog by Jennifer!


22 posted on 02/04/2014 1:23:27 PM PST by TexasGator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: ZULU

Obviously, English is Alainco’s second language.


23 posted on 02/05/2014 8:24:41 PM PST by Kevmo ("A person's a person, no matter how small" ~Horton Hears a Who)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: saganite

I don’t really care to put much effort in explaining things to the PTSIFOM crowd, so maybe you’ll take your bandwagon joining to some other thread.


24 posted on 02/05/2014 8:25:51 PM PST by Kevmo ("A person's a person, no matter how small" ~Horton Hears a Who)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: canuck_conservative

I have one question about cold fusion - where’s the beef?
***You mean, 14000 replications isn’t “beef” enough for you? Or the leaders in Instrumentation, Scientific Instruments, saying that there is a verified Anomalous Heat Event here after reviewing 150 replications? Or that Ross has sold at least some of his IP for $20M? Where does “Beef” begin and Baloney end? Because at this point, NO ONE wants the Controlled-Hot-Fusion IP, we’ve lost hundreds of $billions of taxpayer money to that fraud, and they’re STILL quoting a 50 year corner-turn. Now, talk about a REAL scam. Where’s the beef there?

There’s been all this talk, all this hype, and yet there’s been not one machine made with this concept that can “produce” enough power to light a single light bulb.
***You just haven’t been following the latest developments such as Hagelstein’s NANOR demo which lasted 5 months last year and his class had a demo this year for any skeptic to come along and show us all how it’s a huge mistake or somesuch baloney.

No wonder people are skeptical.
***People who claim to be skeptical don’t seem to be able to address the 14000 times the F-P Anomalous Heat Effect has been replicated. Huizenga was one of those hyperskeptopaths.


25 posted on 02/05/2014 8:32:29 PM PST by Kevmo ("A person's a person, no matter how small" ~Horton Hears a Who)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Rocky

LENR expertise is more based in Europe than in the USA and we will lose out because of the complete irresponsibility of American scientists.


26 posted on 02/05/2014 8:34:00 PM PST by Kevmo ("A person's a person, no matter how small" ~Horton Hears a Who)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Carl Vehse

Your treatment of the evidence is pretty good except for 2 points.

Point 1: The Pons-Fleischmann Anomalous Heat Effect has been replicated more than 14000 times.

——————www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg85732.html-—————

Point 2: There was no entrenched multi$billion industry with much to lose is the HTSC claims were real. So it did not have to endure irrational levels of skepticism the way that LENR did because of all those guys sucking on the guvmint teat to build HBombs and push the Controlled-Hot-Fusion fraud.


27 posted on 02/05/2014 8:40:07 PM PST by Kevmo ("A person's a person, no matter how small" ~Horton Hears a Who)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Carl Vehse

Your treatment of the evidence is pretty good except for 2 points.

Point 1: The Pons-Fleischmann Anomalous Heat Effect has been replicated more than 14000 times.

——————www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg85732.html-—————

Point 2: There was no entrenched multi$billion industry with much to lose is the HTSC claims were real. So it did not have to endure irrational levels of skepticism the way that LENR did because of all those guys sucking on the guvmint teat to build HBombs and push the Controlled-Hot-Fusion fraud.


28 posted on 02/05/2014 8:40:08 PM PST by Kevmo ("A person's a person, no matter how small" ~Horton Hears a Who)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: TexasGator

Geesh, what is it about you that makes you proclaim Ignorance like a cock in the morning as if it were some kind of virtue?


29 posted on 02/05/2014 8:42:32 PM PST by Kevmo ("A person's a person, no matter how small" ~Horton Hears a Who)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: TexasGator

Kevmo gets all his LENR info from Jennifer.
***What a bunch of horse manure. I’ve been posting LENR threads for 5 years from multiple sources. Geez, where do you get this stuff?


30 posted on 02/05/2014 8:44:05 PM PST by Kevmo ("A person's a person, no matter how small" ~Horton Hears a Who)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: TexasGator

Jennifer also pimps a steam engine.
***Like you pimp ignorance? I wasn’t aware that ‘jennifer’ promotes anything. She has a LENR article worth posting so I posted it.

Kevmo’s famous Purdue LENR phyicist is a consultant for ...... THE STEAM ENGINE!
***My goodness, your displayed ignorance is incredible. Perhaps you simply do not realize that the way to make money from so much “Excess Heat” is to produce Steam and make Electricity from it? What a buffoon.

What a nice web they weave ...
***When you practice to jump on a bandwagon with a bunch of Adam Henries.


31 posted on 02/05/2014 8:46:31 PM PST by Kevmo ("A person's a person, no matter how small" ~Horton Hears a Who)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: TexasGator

Anomalous Heat Effect has been replicated hundreds of times by more than a
thousand scientists, even in mainstream peer-reviewed journals.

https://springerlink3.metapress.com/content/8k5n17605m135n22/resource-secured/?target=fulltext.pdf&sid=xwvgza45j4sqpe3wceul4dv2&sh=www.springerlink.com
.
Jing-tang He
• Nuclear fusion inside condense matters
• Frontiers of Physics in China
Volume 2, Number 1, 96-102, DOI: 10.1007/s11467-007-0005-8
This article describes in detail the nuclear fusion inside condense
matters—the Fleischmann-Pons effect, the reproducibility of cold fusions,
self-consistency of cold fusions and the possible applications
.
Note that Jing-tang He found there were 14,700 replications of the Pons
Fleischmann Anomalous Heat Effect.
http://www.boliven.com/publication/10.1007~s11467-007-0005-8?q=(%22David%20J.%20Nagel%22)

.
National Instruments is a multibillion dollar corporation that does not
need to stick its neck out for “bigfoot stories”. After noting more than
150 replications, they recently concluded that with so much evidence of
anomalous heat generation...
http://www.22passi.it/downloads/eu_brussels_june_20_2012_concezzi.pdf
Conclusion
• THERE IS AN UNKNOWN PHYSICAL EVENT and there is a need of better
measurements and control tools. NI is playing a role in accelerating
innovation and discovery.

The current state of the science of LENR is that the Pons Fleischmann
Anomalous Heat Effect has been replicated and it is an established
scientific fact. But it is not an established ENGINEERING field because the
effect is difficult to generate and there is still some lingering stigma
associated with the field. The level of pathological resistance this field
receives is unconscionable for those of us who seek scientific answers and
engineering solutions.


32 posted on 02/05/2014 8:48:06 PM PST by Kevmo ("A person's a person, no matter how small" ~Horton Hears a Who)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: TexasGator

This is not a Rossi thread.

-——————www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg87491.html-——————

funny image...

http://www.google.com/imgres?hl=en&tbm=isch&tbnid=EVD9YfGaJA04pM%3A&imgrefurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.flickr.com%2Fphotos%2F10956124%40N04%2F4353616500%2F&docid=fDvmTGRG2eMm0M&itg=1&imgurl=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm5.staticflickr.com%2F4016%2F4353616500_9c291f2938_o.jpg&w=3896&h=2616&ei=cRXzUuvZA5LYoATGnIHwCA&zoom=1&ved=0CMkBEIQcMCQ&iact=rc&dur=2742&page=2&start=17&ndsp=20&biw=1226&bih=651


33 posted on 02/05/2014 8:54:47 PM PST by Kevmo ("A person's a person, no matter how small" ~Horton Hears a Who)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: TexasGator

asked & answered

——————www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg85822.html———————


34 posted on 02/05/2014 8:56:18 PM PST by Kevmo ("A person's a person, no matter how small" ~Horton Hears a Who)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: TexasGator

My source for this article is

http://www.lenrnews.eu/

but thanks for bumping this thread, T4BTT

-———————www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg85827.html-——————


35 posted on 02/05/2014 8:58:51 PM PST by Kevmo ("A person's a person, no matter how small" ~Horton Hears a Who)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo

You do realize they picked your response to print because it was illiterate and suited their purpose of illustrating their opinion that cold fusion/lenr believers are uneducated rubes don’t you? I’m sure they had a good laugh at your expense.


36 posted on 02/05/2014 10:59:38 PM PST by saganite (What happens to taglines? Is there a termination date?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: saganite

And yet, we find you on the side of LA Slimes, Opec, and whatever other anticonservative trends... Maybe YOU are the illiterate, the CONSERVative illiterate... YUP. That makes sense.


37 posted on 02/05/2014 11:23:20 PM PST by Kevmo ("A person's a person, no matter how small" ~Horton Hears a Who)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson