LENR Is Real

Point out news stories, on the net or in mainstream media, related to polywell fusion.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Axil
Posts: 935
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 6:34 am

Re: LENR Is Real

Postby Axil » Sun Jul 19, 2015 6:38 am

When you adapt your experimental results to sustains your dogmatic views than you are not making Science, you are making evangelism.
Real Science requires much more than that attitude.


http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 0614004102

The final paper was peer reviewed in ScienceDirect, It looks like your rejection was not accepted. Others thought it was a valid scientific answer and no matter how you will try to spin it, your evangelistic opinion was rejected, unacceptable, and found generally to be wanting.

Giorgio
Posts: 2643
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: China, Italy

Re: LENR Is Real

Postby Giorgio » Sun Jul 19, 2015 7:54 am

Axil wrote:
When you adapt your experimental results to sustains your dogmatic views than you are not making Science, you are making evangelism.
Real Science requires much more than that attitude.


http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 0614004102

The final paper was peer reviewed in ScienceDirect, It looks like your rejection was not accepted. Others thought it was a valid scientific answer and no matter how you will try to spin it, your evangelistic opinion was rejected, unacceptable, and found generally to be wanting.


ScienceDirect IS NOT a peer review publication but merely an aggregator of publications. You can call it an Amazon for everyone willing to sell his papers and make a buck or two out of it.

Their paper was accepted by the "International Journal of Mass Spectrometry". Now, to publish a Physics and Nuclear Fusion paper in a "Mass Spectrometry Journal" makes you immediately understand what type of peer review the paper might have received.

I am sure that the editorial board of that publication has very good experts in Mass Spectrometry but, by reading their names and CV, I didn't see anyone with a Nuclear Physics background, let alone Fusion.
They could have of course published it on ARXIV in the proper Physics section, but you see, there are real expert there who can spot your mistakes and ask clarifications. Better to avoid such places!!

In the end your poor knowledge of scientific publications magazines is also one of the causes of your poor knowledge of science.
Again I am sorry if I crash your dreams, but I like reality more than fantasy.
Look, stars!

Carl White
Posts: 293
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 10:44 pm

Re: LENR Is Real

Postby Carl White » Sun Jul 19, 2015 8:11 am

Giorgio wrote:Their paper was accepted by the "International Journal of Mass Spectrometry". Now, to publish a Physics and Nuclear Fusion paper in a "Mass Spectrometry Journal" makes you immediately understand what type of peer review the paper might have received.


Considering that they were performing an isotopic analysis, mass spectrometry was a highly appropriate experimental approach. It's not surprising then that the results are being published in a journal of mass spectrometry; those are the people best qualified to judge the merits of the paper. It probably has a higher impact factor than they could have obtained publishing in a physics journal too, with the sort of editorial bias you might expect such journals to display.

Giorgio
Posts: 2643
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: China, Italy

Re: LENR Is Real

Postby Giorgio » Sun Jul 19, 2015 9:49 am

I did not see any indication of a proper TOF Mass Spectrometry experiment in that paper title and highlights, nor he ever did one in his previous papers.
His experimental setup is prone to multiple error instances and his way to characterizing the observed particles is mostly based on "assumptions" instead than on the actual study of the energy and TOF of the emitted particles with a proper instrumental setup.

True that we should read the paper to really understand what he did and if he finally uses some proper equipment and experimental setup.

If someone wants to shed the 39,95$ to purchase it than I will be happy to read it and dissect it and (if the case) to be proven wrong.
It always makes my day when I can learn something new.
Look, stars!

Axil
Posts: 935
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 6:34 am

Re: LENR Is Real

Postby Axil » Sun Jul 19, 2015 4:24 pm

Image


The peer review that a paper from ScienceDirect goes through.

Axil
Posts: 935
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 6:34 am

Re: LENR Is Real

Postby Axil » Sun Jul 19, 2015 4:36 pm

Sveinn did a radio interview



Sveinbjörn, made a translation - it is here:

https://goo.gl/RT71Sa


Sveinbjörn Höskuldsson
Q: What is cold fusion?
A: Conventional release of hydrogen power, such as in hydrogen powered cars is a chemical reaction between oxygen and hydrogen that results in the formation of water and release of chemical energy. Cold fusion releases energy in a similar way as happens in the sun by binding of hydrogen nucleus to form helium. This is therefore nuclear energy but not chemical.
Q: OK, is this dangerous process, sounds like dangerous? Nuclear power, hydrogen...?
A: Yes, this is a dangerous process as it happens in the sun and if you try to replicate the sun you will have a very dangerous and highly radioactive process. Since 25 years ago when cold fusion surfaced the main argument of the skeptics has indeed been that the scientists originally demonstrating the effect did survive the experiment.
Therefore, what they experienced could not have been a fusion process but something else. However, the cold fusion experiments that have
been conducted until now have shown extremely low radiation values.
Q: We all know bad nuclear accidents, such as Chernobyl and Fukushima, do we need to show precaution if we would start harvesting cold fusion as energy source?
A: Yes, precaution is necessary. So far no signs of radiation have been observed but with additional research we will know for sure if the process is always and absolutely free of radioactivity. It is too early to tell at this point in time.
Q: Ok, if it is possible to harvest this type of energy, how complicated is it to build the necessary power stations and how much energy could we expect to be able to generate?
A: Well, it seems to be possible to run the process with a relatively simple equipment, for research purposes we have equipment that easily fits into a corner of a normal room. Even a 1MW power generator fits into a relatively small space. Compared with our geothermal power stations where the energy-source comes from a deep drill-hole, the generating energy-source will be much smaller in size.
Q: Can this technology be used anywhere in the world?
A: Yes, you could say that this technology will revolve the energy market, but we are not there yet, this publication supports the numerous previous publications demonstrating excess heat under circumstances were such energy release should not occur. It provides an understanding of what could be happening, thereby hopefully focusing future research effort on a more focused pathway that will eventually accelerate the progress.
Q: This looks promising and at this time where the leaders of the world are trying to find a way out of using hydro-carbonates as the main energy source, this could be the answer they are looking for?
A: Yes, but the current task is to convince other scientists that this whole thing is not nonsense and that they should spend time and effort into this research field.
Q: Do you then believe that this energy source will totally eliminate the use of hydro-carbonates as energy source?
A: Yes, as long as we can reach sufficiently high reaction rate. There are already a number of groups, public and underground, that claim to have already reach this or that level of power but science has not given this the attention needed to explain what is actually happening.
Q: I assume that this is not embraced by all, there is a large oil industry out there?
A: Yes, but it is not the only business in the world and the rest should be satisfied.
Q: Have you experienced criticism or pressure to withdraw from the research?
A: No. There is probably only around thousand people around the world following the field and making experiments that are leading to excess heat generation. Our publication should be looked at as a step to explain why many of those other experiments are providing seemingly randomly excess heat.
Q: Can you predict how long it will take science to complete the groundwork?
A: Well, no, the resources being spent on this field are very thin so it is hard to predict how long that would take. However if significant science resources would be focused on this field, we cold reach that point of understanding in 1, 2, 5 or 10 years. Hard to say.
Q: Should the Icelandic authorities increase the funding to this field especially?
A: Well, my group will just submit for national research grants like any other scientists here does were the submissions will be classified and rated through a
peer-reviewed process. The Icelandic government is increasing significantly funding for research so there is no need for any other involvement from the state. However the energy companies should most likely spend some of their funding on this field as this is a dynamic world that we live in. At some point in time the energy companies will need to make the decision to change their policies due to changes in technology and face the facts that as energy supplier, they can no longer do things as they are used to.
Q: There has been a loud debate here in Iceland regarding building of new hydropower stations due to environmental concerns, how will this affect that debate?
A: Well, you can in general say that the better that the performance of this technology will get, more and more conventional technologies used for energy generation will become obsolete. The most expensive technologies will be the first to go, probably starting with solar and wind but then carry-on down the ladder. If developers manage to create really high performance solutions, it will eventually kill hydropower as well.
Q: This is exciting and obviously a field starting to pick up speed, but you scientist are now asking for stronger financial support?
A: Well, first we need the scientific acknowledgement that this is actually real science providing real results that should not be taken lightly. There are already significant funding spent on all types of research but not necessarily on the most important fields.

Giorgio
Posts: 2643
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: China, Italy

Re: LENR Is Real

Postby Giorgio » Sun Jul 19, 2015 7:03 pm

Axil wrote:The peer review that a paper from ScienceDirect goes through.

Let me try again.

Science direct IS NOT a peer review publication, ScienceDirect is an AGGREGATOR of publications.
Among these publications there is one called "International Journal of Mass Spectrometry" where Olafsson and Holmlid decided to get peer review of their paper.

Now, asking a Mass Spectrometry scientist to peer review a Nuclear Fusion paper is like asking a surgeon to peer review a a new metallurgical process to manufacture a better scalpel.

You understand the point?

If only Olafsson decided to make a proper TOF Mass Spectrometry setup in the last 5 years we would have already clarified if there is some real evidences here or just smoke coming from instrumental/setup errors.
But alas, looks like he is more busy making radio interviews than to fix the potential error sources in his set up.
It remembers me a lot Rossi behavior.
Look, stars!

Axil
Posts: 935
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 6:34 am

Re: LENR Is Real

Postby Axil » Sun Jul 19, 2015 8:19 pm

I found the peer review under the Elsevier Publishing Campus guide lines

http://www.elsevier.com/reviewers/what-is-peer-review

The authors who produced the paper never said that the process was fusion. They said that the laser process exciting hydrogen on the surface of a catayst produced 10^13 high energy particles between 14MeV and 3 MeV. The reviewers checked the experimental setup and methods to ensure that the spectoscopic experiment was set up properly and the particle flow was properly charactorized. No one said that what happened was fusion. The production of those particles sort of fits the profile of D D fusion, but just might be an as of yet unexplained process. D D fusion would have produced tritium which was not seen.

You are jumping to unjustified conclusions. The first step is to find out what particles were produced.

Time-of-flight (TOF) energy measurements of ions from pulsed laser-induced processes in ultra-dense deuterium D(0) have been accomplished. The scintillation detector is a fast plastic scintillator preceded by a thin Al foil, with photo-multiplier detection of the scintillations. Signal is normally observed only when the laser focus is moved over the target, which means that the process is critically dependent on the state of the D(0) layer. Ions require up to 1 MeV u−1 to penetrate through the Al foil and the observation of a signal in this setup proves directly that nuclear processes take place. Most TOF peaks agree with 4He ions ejected with 3.5–3.6 MeV energy in the D + D nuclear fusion process. These ions are further delayed by collisions with deuterium atoms or ultra-dense deuterium clusters. All probable collision processes of 4He and 3He are observed. T emission is not observed, as expected due to the large reaction rate for T + D. To exclude that after-pulses in the photo-multipliers can give a similar signal, two flight lengths, two photo-multipliers with several mounting methods, several optical filters, and both oscilloscope and pulse-counting detection methods have been employed to study the TOF distributions.


palladin9479
Posts: 388
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 5:22 am

Re: LENR Is Real

Postby palladin9479 » Mon Jul 20, 2015 6:19 am

I am one of those person who does not, and many other posters here are the same.


After observing your interactions with those you oppose, I do believe you are precisely what I said. Your enemies could post a picture of a blue duck, and you would feel compelled to criticize it.

Anyhow as I mentioned before, there has been too many groups tripping over things that shouldn't be there for everything to be a "measurement error", that's how AGW alarmists think and talk. There is likely a QM related explanation to whats happening, some new particle, new mechanism with existing particles, or some property that's interacting with other matter in a unique way. There are still gaping holes in our understanding of the universe, some so large that the standard model functions like a standard guesstimate. Because of that, it's not possible to say with absolute certainty that "it's all fake", and thus you must recognize that there is a possibility something new or unexplained is happening.

You just dismissed an entire paper without reading it or even reading the synopsis, what does that say about your supposed unbiased nature?

Giorgio
Posts: 2643
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: China, Italy

Re: LENR Is Real

Postby Giorgio » Mon Jul 20, 2015 6:44 am

palladin9479 wrote:You just dismissed an entire paper without reading it or even reading the synopsis, what does that say about your supposed unbiased nature?

Maybe because is 7 years that the guy is publishing the same paper using the same experimental setup, using a TOF method that he designed and realized, making assumptions on the results not based on actual data but based on his personal idea that "because is not this than it must be for sure that", refusing to discuss any critic on his results and finally, refusing to use standard equipment to actually prove his claims.

I think there is enough evidence here to be a little bit "biased" toward him, don't you think?

If he really think he has something revolutionary than he could just publish it in a open system where anyone can check it out and evaluate it. Choosing to publish behind a paywall is almost always a sign of a poor content paper with little data to support one's claims and just a way to get some extra income out of it.

Such a huge claim is worth a couple of Nobel prize at least, if people like Axil are convinced thus is such a breakthrough paper than why don't they fork out the 39,95$ to purchase it and make it available to public judgement?

In Italy we say that one should put his money where is mouth is, else it is better to just keep silent.
Look, stars!

Giorgio
Posts: 2643
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: China, Italy

Re: LENR Is Real

Postby Giorgio » Mon Jul 20, 2015 7:46 am

Axil wrote:I found the peer review under the Elsevier Publishing Campus guide lines
http://www.elsevier.com/reviewers/what-is-peer-review

My point was not on the way to make peer review, but on who is making the peer review.
If you want to peer review on nuclear reactions you should have nuclear scientists to do it.


Axil wrote: No one said that what happened was fusion. The production of those particles sort of fits the profile of D D fusion, but just might be an as of yet unexplained process. D D fusion would have produced tritium which was not seen.
You are jumping to unjustified conclusions. The first step is to find out what particles were produced.

Come on Axil, the guy has been bragging about LENR since ever, even in the radio interview is saying it.
I don't jump at any conclusion, I limit myself to judge what he claims.

And I do fully agree that we should before not only find out what particles was produced, but also IF any particle was produced. His set up is prone to a lot of reading and instrumental and calibration errors.
That has been my point from the very start.


Edited to fix missing end of quote
Last edited by Giorgio on Mon Jul 20, 2015 4:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Look, stars!

parallel
Posts: 1131
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 8:24 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: LENR Is Real

Postby parallel » Mon Jul 20, 2015 10:32 am

Giorgio,
My point was not on the way to make peer review, but on who is making the peer review.
If you want to peer review on nuclear reactions you should have nuclear scientists to do it.


How many experts are there in a totally new field - whose selection you would be happy with for peer review?
More like those hot fusion experts at Cal Tech and MIT who celebrated the demise of cold fusion before the poorly executed effort at replication was even completed?

Giorgio
Posts: 2643
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: China, Italy

Re: LENR Is Real

Postby Giorgio » Mon Jul 20, 2015 1:41 pm

parallel wrote:Giorgio,
My point was not on the way to make peer review, but on who is making the peer review.
If you want to peer review on nuclear reactions you should have nuclear scientists to do it.


How many experts are there in a totally new field - whose selection you would be happy with for peer review?
More like those hot fusion experts at Cal Tech and MIT who celebrated the demise of cold fusion before the poorly executed effort at replication was even completed?


You can't refuse experimental data if they have been correctly executed. Same as you can't expect other experts to approve your data if your experimental set up is full of holes and imperfections.

The constant refusal of cold fusion scientists to actually implement a correct experimental protocol is what bring demises to their work.
Look, stars!

ScottL
Posts: 1113
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 11:26 pm

Re: LENR Is Real

Postby ScottL » Tue Jul 21, 2015 6:36 pm

palladin9479 wrote:
I am one of those person who does not, and many other posters here are the same.


After observing your interactions with those you oppose, I do believe you are precisely what I said. Your enemies could post a picture of a blue duck, and you would feel compelled to criticize it.


Yet they haven't posted a picture of a blue duck yet (or LENR for that matter). So until they do, I think this claim of yours is at best extremely weak. Most of us would love a well thought-out, fact-based article on LENR, we're just waiting for one. There have been a few that are intriguing, just not what's posted here unfortunately.

palladin9479 wrote:Anyhow as I mentioned before, there has been too many groups tripping over things that shouldn't be there for everything to be a "measurement error", that's how AGW alarmists think and talk.


Yet every supposed result (trip) is within the measurement error range. Yeah sure it's on the high end of the error/noise level, but still within it.

palladin9479 wrote:There is likely a QM related explanation to whats happening, some new particle, new mechanism with existing particles, or some property that's interacting with other matter in a unique way.


Or there is not. LENR is far from conclusive or inconclusive. It could just as likely be simple error as much as it could be a small effect. You nor I are experienced enough or authoritative figures to state one way or another. Time will be the judge.

palladin9479 wrote:There are still gaping holes in our understanding of the universe, some so large that the standard model functions like a standard guesstimate.


That's why we're here, to read, to learn, to evolve. I don't know why stating the obvious was required. We all know this basic fact and it gets reiterated here time and again as a poor attempt of arguing. It's about as effective as anyone one of us making some absurd claim and then stating well you can't know for sure. Pointless in the end. Passionate, sure, but still pointless.

palladin9479 wrote:Because of that, it's not possible to say with absolute certainty that "it's all fake", and thus you must recognize that there is a possibility something new or unexplained is happening.


And pigs may grow wings and start flying tomorrow. You can't say it won't happen with absolute certainty and thus you must recognize that there is a possibility that it will happen. (See, absurd)

palladin9479 wrote:You just dismissed an entire paper without reading it or even reading the synopsis, what does that say about your supposed unbiased nature?


Giorgio addressed this a few times about the paper not being new or novel, so I won't dog pile.

Axil
Posts: 935
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 6:34 am

Re: LENR Is Real

Postby Axil » Fri Aug 07, 2015 11:42 pm

LENR is moving into science.

Today we got a update from Dr. Sveinn Ólafsson

Muon detection studied by pulse-height energy analysis: Novel converter arrangements http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.4928109

The Rydberg matter story is showing more mysteries, muons, kaons! pions! are detected!

How can single fusion 24MeV/c^2 event create a 105MeV/c^2 particle??? the only way out of this dilemma is? Entanglement and condensation perhaps?

Muons can also be used to catalyse fusions?

I think Leif Holmlid’s work will soon be very well know and discussed.

At this day 70 years after Hiroshima bombing can the nuclear force finally be peacefully entangled outside the nucleus?

Greetings

Sveinn



Research Professor
Dr. Sveinn Ólafsson
Science Institute
University of Iceland
Dunhaga 3
107 Reykjavik
Iceland


Return to “News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: paperburn1 and 12 guests