I think its time to “fix” wikipedia. I would like your help with this project.
Please provide me with as many “wikipedia grade” links as you can to the general topic of LENR, and possibly a short blerb about each. Please keep other discussion in this thread to a minimum.
I, (or one of you if you have experience) want to use this large body of evidence to rid wikipedia of its correlation between cold fusion/LENR and “pathological science”. The evidence is now most surely sufficient.
Before going with all of this to wikipedia I will post my proposed submission here for your critique.
March 24, 2012 at 9:00 am |
If you’ve read the talk pages there, many people have tried unsuccessfully to “fix” LENR/cold fusion entries on Wikipedia, only to be reverted and ultimately banned by the resident gatekeepers of consensus science.
March 24, 2012 at 9:34 am |
I am aware of this. One of my bloggers tried to take them on recently. This is why I want to create an undeniably compelling case — not just one or two sources, but clear pronouncements dozens of scientists from dozens of notorious institutions. At some point the case must become compelling enough that it cannot be denied.
If it is denied, I’ll declare it on this site for the world to see.
March 26, 2012 at 12:40 pm |
MY WIKI WORKS
(visit cold fusion talk to comment)
Proposed section header:
“Cold Fusion- Mainstream Science”
Proposed text:
Cold Fusion/LENR LENT is peer reviewed by mainstream science. “Advanced Concepts: LENR, Anti-Matter, and New Physics” [11] “A Game-Changing Power Source Based on Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENRs)” [10] “Cryogenic Ignition of Deuteron Fusion In Micro/Nano-Scale Metal Particles” [12] Presented at the “Nuclear and Emerging Technologies for Space 2012 Topical Meeting and concurrent 43rd Lunar and Planetary Science Conference” [9]
Peer review at CERN cold fusion Colloquium, ”Overview of Theoretical and Experimental Progress in Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR)(LENT)” [13] “Overview of LENT Theory: Low Energy Nuclear Transmutations” [14] Summarizes that LENT (LENR) is replicable science, “Theoretical know how and technology for LENT already exist.” [15] (See pg. 40) “Overview of Theoretical and Experimental Progress in Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR)” [16] Here the description of state of the art LENR/ Cold Fusion environments is, “The use of nano material (powder and thin wires) makes evident the importance of increasing the surface exposed to the gas environment to enhance the effect. Arata (experiment) fully replicated by Mc Kubre (SRII- USA). Nano-dimensionality important by itself, as claimed by Y. Arata and B. Ahern?” [17] (from pg 11) and, “the quality of experiments worldwide performed is so high and the results obtained so widespread/reproduced”, [18] (pg 32) the art of this science has advanced since the emergence of nano technology.
End of text. So that’s it so far. I will clear up the links (all are in the upper body of this section) and await delightful discourse and suggestions or objections. With warm regards and electrifying anticipation. –Gregory Goble (talk) 19:27, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
March 27, 2012 at 5:37 am
MY WIKI WORKS
“I have had a few responces and am engaged in editorial discourse seeking moderation. I love Hackers. DO YOU? Wish me luck.”gbgoble
view to date 3/27/12
This proposal would give far too much weight to those talks. We should be very careful about using any sources which are not from mainstream news outlets or nuclear science journals. Olorinish (talk) 23:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Excuse me Olorinish… “not from news outlets or scientific journals”. What are you, completely unaware that CERN is AND NETS are both leaders in nuclear science peer reviewed presentations and publications. Clearly Wiki Worthy. Tell me why you think they are not or quit commenting on this subject. Thank you for obfuscation. –Gregory Goble (talk) 12:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Why only nuclear science journals ? Any respected science journal is appropriate. The SPAWAR papers (long list) are published in several journals like Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry, Physics Letters A, Fusion Technology, Naturwissenschaften, European Physics Journal of Applied Physics, Radiation Measurements. Yeong E. Kim’s papers are in journals Few-Body Systems, Japanese Journal of Applied Physics, Naturwissenschaften, Physics Letters A, Physical Review A. I could go on and on. There are summary papers published in such journals too.
“Too much weight” is an argument used here to artificially put weight on mainstream science view. There is a significant number of scientific peer-reviewed papers supportive of the minority view. In comparison, rebuttals to these papers are non existent. Based on number of published papers on the subject the WEIGHT in this article must be totally on the minority side. The fact that some journals blatantly refuse publishing anything related to the field and the fact that there is very limited funding for research in the field is not at all an argument for WP-editors to decide where to put the WEIGHT in our article. And you cannot only rely on outdated 20 year old books by biased authors to decide where to put the WEIGHT.
When I use a source from a peer reviewed paper from a science journal, I get an avalanche of “I don’t like it” arguments why it cannot be used: “it’s a primary source”, “it’s a fringe author”, “it’s a non reliable source”, “it’s too much weight”. Your argument that only “nuclear science journals” should be used is just one of them.
–POVbrigand (talk) 07:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Hey POVbrigand slow down. I understand your frustration. Just go to the local library and you can find very good encyclopedic information about present day LENR science,–Gregory Goble (talk) 12:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
The mainstream secondary sources (many of them being quite recent) leave very clear what is the mainstream view. Also, giving lots of undue weight to conference talks. –Enric Naval (talk) 10:08, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Enric_Naval I Can not understand you. Could you please elucidate further? Thank you for your obfuscation. I apologize for my inability to “GET” what you are saying. Please forgive me. Thank you very much, from the bottom of my heart,. I needed to painfully dredge that one up. Hack Hack.–Gregory Goble (talk) 12:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
I now plead for a moderator to step in before I post this section to the article. A two day grace period is gladly given for substantative discourse. LOVE LOVE LOVE the ridiculousness of the ?Wiki? ?editorial? ?process? which I do not comprehend. In this context I might prevail… trust me on this one… or not. Hackers may be following this closely, or not. I do not know.–Gregory Goble (talk) 12:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC) It would be refreshingly refreshing if an honest idiot chimed in now with an innocent query seeking understanding for encyclopedic information on COLD FUSION and found Wiki sorely lacking on such. WHY? GUESS? this is undergoing deep obervational consideration…. trust me… us… them… OR NOT!–Gregory Goble (talk) 12:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
March 24, 2012 at 9:33 am |
Your entry will have to be rock solid, and backed up with as many reliable sources as possible. The youtube lecture you posted a couple of months ago “Twenty-Year History of Lattice-Enabled Nuclear Reactions (LENR) – Hiding in Plain Sight ” will be a good start for gathering sources and papers. The gatekeepers as Mr. Moho stated will be really hard to convince though.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
March 24, 2012 at 9:36 am |
Please provide links to any sources. I don’t want to search around, even on my site. I want the links to be on this one page. I haven’t the time to properly collect the data myself, what can I say. That’s why I am seeking help from the community.
March 24, 2012 at 9:41 am
Sure, here is the youtube link again.
Will hunt down the papers and see if they are public domain
March 24, 2012 at 9:54 am
References 1. S. Szpak, P.A. Mosier-Boss, M.H. Miles, and M. Fleischmann, ‘Thermal Behavior of Polarized Pd/D Electrodes Prepared by Co-Deposition’, Thermochim. Acta, Vol. 410, pp. 101-107 (2004).
2. P.A. Mosier-Boss and S. Szpak, ‘The Pd/nH System: Transport Processes and Development of Thermal Instabilities’, Il Nuovo Cimento, Vol. 112A, pp. 577-585 (1999).
3. S. Szpak, P.A. Mosier-Boss, and J.J. Smith, ‘On the Behavior of the Cathodically Polarized Pd/D System: Search for Emanating Radiation’, Phys. Letts. A, Vol. 210, pp. 382-390 (1996).
4. S. Szpak, P.A. Mosier-Boss, R.D. Boss, and J.J. Smith, ‘On the Behavior of the Pd/D System: Evidence for Tritium Production’, Fusion Technology, Vol. 33, pp. 38-51 (1998).
5. S. Szpak, P.A. Mosier-Boss, C. Young, and F.E. Gordon, ‘Evidence of Nuclear Reactions in the Pd Lattice’, Naturwissenschaften, Vol. 92, pp. 394-397 (2005).
6. P.A. Mosier-Boss, S. Szpak, F.E. Gordon, and L.P.G. Forsley, ‘Use of CR-39 in Pd/D Co-Deposition Experiments’, Eur. Phys. J. Appl. Phys., Vol. 40, pp 293-303 (2007).
7. P.A. Mosier-Boss, S. Szpak, F.E. Gordon, and L.P.G. Forsley, ‘Triple Tracks in CR-39 as the Result of Pd/D Co-deposition: Evidence of Energetic Neutrons’, Naturwissenschaften. Vol. 96, pp. 135-142 (2009).
All these papers are straight from the video, are in the public domain and available for download.
March 24, 2012 at 9:56 am
Wonderful work! Thanks!
March 24, 2012 at 11:13 am
add the latest CERN conference, and relay it’s content
http://indico.cern.ch/conferenceDisplay.py?confId=177379
one of the best spawar youtube video of their conference
nasa GRC page claiming anomalous heat http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/sensors/PhySen/research.htm
zadowny video for nasa about lenr and space
http://technologygateway.nasa.gov/media/CC/lenr/lenr.html
other slides of nasa abou lenr (dunno for what) slides http://newenergytimes.com/v2/government/NASA/20110922NASA-Nelson-GRC-LENR-Workshop.pdf
the usual Jed Rothwell Tally report
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJtallyofcol.pdf (dunno if acceptable)
by the way bruce, just classic LENR
(no ufo… another story, separate the fights). let it open, and keep the ridiculous pathoskeptics arguments in their article, so they look ridiculous. maybe even put the “believers” vision in the “controversy”…
there is nothing more nasty than letting a dumb, be dumb in public while you naively and shorly show how dumb he is.
the problem is not to have wikipedia admit LENR exist, but make people understand lenr exists, and understand that wikipedia get wrong for long because of unjustifiable reasons…
March 24, 2012 at 9:36 am |
Brucefast dear friend. . Mr. Moho might have a point there but it only raises the spectre of higher degree of intimidation and confluence at work from oil/money barons. Indomitable spirit will get us over this so help us God keep trying. Make sure to include among other things CERN, MIT, NASA (George Myeres 43rd nuclear forum) , the interview with Carat Ruby at Cold FusionNow here; http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nextme.it%2Fscienza%2Fenergia%2F3378-fusione-fredda-e-cat-radiazioni&sl=it&tl=en&hl=&ie=UTF-8 . But most of all. Make sure that everybody gets it that NENR is of “INFINITE ENERGY COP”.
March 24, 2012 at 9:52 am |
Gregoryyc, could you provide links for: CERN, MIT, NASA (George Myeres 43rd nuclear forum).
Unfortunately, I think I must totally disclude Rossi. Rossi has not proven his technology to any reasonable level of “scientific certainty.” Bringing him into the picture will only muddy the waters.
March 24, 2012 at 1:08 pm |
there is no “hiding consiracy”, just fear of losing your position that lead to intimate and sincere denial, then dissenters self-censors.
look at my theory about that unbelievable denial of the truth…
http://www.lenrforum.eu/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=40
just let them believe you are just an outsider asking for the right to give his heretic vision.
March 24, 2012 at 10:08 am |
best of luck. I have tried and failed years ago attempting to get Chris Dunns version of the pyramids taken seriously.
For anybody not familiar with the Chris Dunn version and you are an engineer or critical thinker try starting at
That is 4th in an 8 part video series, but video 4 has the most compelling logic and facts. Then start the series from the beginning. There was a purpose for these things after all.
Anyways… Best of luck attempting to change wikipedia, however I have looked at the Wikipedia cold fusion website and it seems to be fairly current, and discusses LENR and even Rossi.
I think something better would be to have a well designed webpage so when someone types in cold fusion on “google” they find a few pages supporting it instead of what you do find.
March 24, 2012 at 10:59 am |
relayed on lenrforum.eu
http://www.lenrforum.eu/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=124#p272
March 24, 2012 at 2:13 pm |
Bruce – I think Case’s patent, where he makes Helium from Deuterium using a palladium (or other Platinum group catalyst) coated carbon catalyst, is important. It’s not Ni-H as such (but the same technique could be used) and he got it working 90% of the time. He patented it and explained how it all worked.
http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/CaseLCcatalyticf.pdf
(explanation – I shall hunt for the patent)
March 24, 2012 at 2:25 pm |
Bruce – one of the arguments against LENR being nuclear is that very few neutrons are produced. Here is a paper that states why less neutrons are produced in the Sun than Bethe thought in 1938, and thus also why LENR produces few neutrons:
http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ZhouXbethescalc.pdf
Could be a bit heavy reading for Wikipedia, though.
March 25, 2012 at 9:10 am |
That was an argument, but we know that Neutrons are used to create entirely new atoms with the same weight. Gamma rays are also absorbed by Heavy electrons and converted into harmless infra red.
George Miley goes so far as to claim his LENR device can use and remove radiation from other sources.
March 25, 2012 at 2:34 pm
Kwhilborn – LENR seems to be based on very slow neutrons that are captured by a nearby nucleus – this raises the atomic weight of that nucleus and may make it unstable. Although the W-L theory states that gammas are produced but are absorbed by the plasmons, I don’t buy this since the gammas should be emitted in opposite directions thus at least one of them has a good chance of escaping. It thus seems more likely that a mechanism we don’t yet know of proceeds without emission of gammas in the first place. There will be a few fast neutrons that can be detected and a few gammas from other reaction pathways that are far less likely at these energy levels.
As far as I’ve seen, the lack of major neutron emission is still given as reason why LENR is an unknown chemical reaction rather than a nuclear one, despite the nuclear ash evidence. This is why I think this Beijing paper is a useful addition to the Wiki argument. The maths is somewhat complex, so I have to take it on trust as being correct – someone better than me needs to check that.
March 25, 2012 at 3:15 am |
Les Case’s patents:
http://www.patentlens.net/patentlens/patents.html?patnums=WO_1997_043768_A1&language=en&query=%28%28Leslie%20Case%29%20in%20inventor%29&stemming=true&returnTo=quick.html%3Fquery%3D%2528%2528Leslie%2BCase%2529%2Bin%2Binventor%2529%26stemming%3Dtrue%26collections%3DUS_B%2CEP_B%2CAU_B%2CUS_A%2CWO_A%2CAU_A%26language%3Den%26pageLength%3D10
http://www.patentlens.net/patentlens/patents.html?patnums=US_2001_0040935_A1&language=en&query=%28%28Leslie%20Case%29%20in%20inventor%29&stemming=true&returnTo=quick.html%3Fquery%3D%2528%2528Leslie%2BCase%2529%2Bin%2Binventor%2529%26stemming%3Dtrue%26collections%3DUS_B%2CEP_B%2CAU_B%2CUS_A%2CWO_A%2CAU_A%26language%3Den%26pageLength%3D10
The patent that covers a Nickel-based compound catalyst is
http://www.patentlens.net/patentlens/patents.html?patnums=US_2003_0040433_A1&language=en&query=%28%28Leslie%20Case%29%20in%20inventor%29&stemming=true&returnTo=quick.html%3Fquery%3D%2528%2528Leslie%2BCase%2529%2Bin%2Binventor%2529%26stemming%3Dtrue%26collections%3DUS_B%2CEP_B%2CAU_B%2CUS_A%2CWO_A%2CAU_A%26language%3Den%26pageLength%3D10
Sorry the links are so long – there may be a way to shrink them to just the precise file, or maybe find them on another patent server.
The method has also been checked by McKubre at SRI. See the good Wired article at http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/6.11/coldfusion_pr.html
March 25, 2012 at 3:24 am |
I found the shrunken links:
http://www.patentlens.net/patentlens/patent/WO_1997_043768_A1/en/
http://www.patentlens.net/patentlens/patent/US_2001_0040935_A1/en/
http://www.patentlens.net/patentlens/patent/US_2003_0040433_A1/en/
I hope these help.
March 25, 2012 at 8:52 am |
I again looked at wikipedia “cold fusion”.
It is fairly accurate.
I would change the opening line saying “Cold fusion is a proposed type of nuclear reaction” I’d lose proposed.
On LENR I’d state it is now replicable.
It is fairly accurate and think the small changes necessary might be possible.
March 26, 2012 at 8:59 am |
The “proposed” bit has got to go. But its the 11 references to “pathological science” that offends me.
March 25, 2012 at 10:48 am |
I just found this infoe by fellow named Woomera at this web site. We may finally get Hyperion in July this year yet !! Very interesting. !!! http://www.chrismartenson.com/forum/cold-fusion/51623?page=4#comments
Only negative is price point. They say it is equiped with 5 reactor units in the module, although they can selectively used one at a time , this could mitigate price at many-thousands-$$$ at least. That will knock off alot of average people including me…
Read this.
” Online Member
Posts: 19 Joined: 11/08/2008 .I just had a good talk with Defkalion
G’Day, I was JUST in Athens and met with representatives of Defkalion. They told me that they were going to begin selling their LENR device this July 2012. I was shown their R&D model which just starts with a flick of the switch. It also turns off with a just a flick of the same switch. They have their model running at 250degc. They can get their LENR to run over 350degc (dry steam), but they need something more than the current fluid that they are using. Rossi has problem shutting down his E-CAT. Rossi is a “one-man-band” and Defkalion has 27 scientists.
Several groups have come to see them including NASA. They have taken down their blog on their website to enable their 27 scientists to just concentrate on their work to finalize a commercial LENR. Each unit will have as many as five (5ea) LENRs, each running at 5kw. I went there to investigate possible investment. They only want BIG investors. They have MANY OEM (original equipment manufacturers) already on board internationally. They intend to manufacture 300,000 units in the first year. It will cost only 30 Euros/year to operate each LENR device
They have all the European certificates. Everyone else in the world recognises the EU certificates, except the United States. Defkalion had decided the US is in the ‘too-hard-basket’ and won’t manufacture or sell to the US. The units will be monitored via mobile telephone or internet to insure their proper operation.
I was told that they were trying to actually see what happens in their device with some glass with a melting point of 1500degc. They saw it light up like the sun and then it melted the glass. This just took a second or two. I was told what their working theory was, but they really don’t know what is going on. They have brought in several academics with a myraid of explanations.
This looks like a real go’er. It will change the world. I’m sorry for not disclosing more. I was told specifics, but was asked to keep them confidential.
These are exciting times. The whole world awaits. Life is about to change.
Oh yes, I went to Greece, just to go island hopping for a week. I was on the 1st boat of the season. I would suggest May or September. DO NOT GO in August! The islands double in population in August and it’s TOO HOT and windy. Lovely place with lovely people!
Regards, Woomera ”
.
March 25, 2012 at 10:55 am |
An addendum :
I think for all honesty Dr. Rossi should move to another country more receptive to his machine before it’s too late… USA and Canada ( by virtue of being its patsy neighbor and run by Fake Haper Conservtive government that wants to sell oil ) among hew stuborn places will be complied and dragged to soon enough once it starts elsewhere. Kicking and howling .
March 26, 2012 at 9:00 am |
You’ve got to be a fellow Canadian.
March 25, 2012 at 11:07 am |
Post addendum :
We have enough freee and clean energy to last billions of years !!!
Here is a technical data on energy content of Nickel through its isotope components and world nickel production. It should more than satisfy hunger for understanding of basis of such marvelous exothermic process called ECat and Hyperion. Have a Gday to yall.
http://ecatreport.com/andrearossi/earths-nickel-deposits-and-its-energy-content-through-andrea-rossis-energy-catalyzer-e-cat
March 25, 2012 at 10:04 pm |
MY WIKI WORK
(visit and comment)
I propose a new section “Mainstream Science Cold Fusion/LENR”
LENR hob nobs with leading nuclear scientists. LENR scientists end the conference with this wonderful presentation of Cold Fusion Technology.
Presented at the “Nuclear and Emerging Technologies for Space 2012 Topical Meeting” [1] which includes the following (and more):
The Lunar and Planetary Institute – 43rd Lunar And Planetary Science Conference
ANST – Aerospace Nuclear Science and Technology
USRA – Universities Space Research Association
ANS – American Nuclear Society
NASA
“A Game-Changing Power Source Based on Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENRs)”
Xiaoling Yang and George H. Miley, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801 (104 S Wright Street, 216 Talbot Laboratory, Urbana, IL 61801 [2] –Gregory Goble (talk) 21:10, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Many attended the NETS topical meeting and heard the following presentation of theory developing from LENR science, which was delightfully billed as:
“Advanced Concepts: LENR, Anti-Matter, and New Physics” [3]
“CRYOGENIC IGNITION OF DEUTERON FUSION IN MICRO/NANO-SCALE METAL PARTICLES” Y. E. Kim, Department of Physics, Purdue University Physics Building, West Lafayette IN 47907. [4]
Being the final presentation on the Friday of this three day meeting infers significant weight to the attendees.
Cold Fusion/LENR is peer reviewed by the best and brightest, hence its’ advancement.–Gregory Goble (talk) 23:34, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
LENR scientists are welcome in the most revered hallowed halls of physics. This is so worthy of posting in this section. Yea!!!
CERN Colloquium in Geneva, Switzerland
Overview of Theoretical and Experimental Progress in Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR) [5]
Chaired by Francesco Celani with a presentation by Yogendra Srivastava Thursday, March 22, 2012 from 16:30 to 18:00 (Europe/Zurich) at CERN ( 500-1-001 – Main Auditorium )
Two Parts
ONE
“Overview of LENT Theory: Low Energy Nuclear Transmutations” [6] (LENR) by Yogendra Srivastava, Professor of Physics. INFN & Department of Physics University of Perugia, Perugia, Italy
Summary clearly states that LENR is replicable science, “Theoretical know how and technology for LENT already exist.” [7] (See pg. 40)
TWO
“Overview of Theoretical and Experimental Progress in Low Energy Nuclear Reactions(LENR)” [8] Francesco CELANI – National Institute of Nuclear Physics, Frascati National Laboratories. Vice-President of International Society for Condensed Matter Nuclear Science.
Encyclopedic works concerning science need be reflective of the present state of the art of the environmental, experimental, or observational element of science over the theoretical state of the art.
If you and others really really really see something that does not fit theory… theories change while all physical phenomenon are real.
The present state of the art for LENR/ Cold Fusion environments is explained in this presentation… “The use of nano material (powder and thin wires) makes evident the importance of increasing the surface exposed to the gas environment to enhance the effect. Arata (experiment) fully replicated by Mc Kubre (SRII- USA). Nano-dimensionality important by itself, as claimed by Y. Arata and B. Ahern?” [9] (from pg 11)
As this CERN presentation shows, “the quality of experiments worldwide performed is so high and the results obtained so widespread/reproduced” [10] (pg 32) we see the science has indeed advanced since the emergence of nano technology.
This litany of Cold Fusion/LENR Condensed Matter Scientific Works has been entered into the record of CERN. Both presentations were peer reviewed and approved months in advance and are now undergoing a more intense peer review as all published scientific works do.
Everything in these presentations is WIKI WORTHY if presented in the proper light.
This article still has a bad bad time relevance and censorship problem compared to all of the recently published encyclopedias I just read. OH well what the ##### love keeps on going and going and going. We eventually figure it out.
With warm regards and electrifying anticipation.
So much of the WIKI article on cold fusion is focused way back in time because of the 10 year heavy edit battle.
We wonder (socialcencorshiporcorporate?hmmmm);
private investigators are looking into this now.
Grist for the film industry; now tracking
all editor sources.
Gregory Goble
March 29, 2012 at 11:21 pm |
Here is a link to a good article summarizing CF.
http://coldfusionnow.org/?p=15437
April 1, 2012 at 8:08 pm |
My Wiki Works
Thanks
visit
talk
continued from last week… will soon make final edit and post
WOW there is must be great data here (hack hack)of which I have no knowledge. The discourse is extremely interesting and contains useful information to include in the proposed suggestion. I will work on a revised title and proposed text to post here in a coupla days. Fellow editors may have a revision to propose as well. Suggestions to title and text of this proposed section are appropriate at this time. Two or three versions would be helpful. As a team we could glean from these that which would best improve the article with fact. With warm regards and electrifying anticipation.–Gregory Goble (talk) 23:06, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Which of these presentations are considered secondary source by discerning Wiki experts and why? Thanks for the material POVbrigand The list of presentations:
Miley – NASA LENR Innovation Forum Workshop at Glenn Research Center in Cleveland, Ohio – September 22, 2011
Miley – World Green Energy Symposium in Philadelphia, PA – October 19-21, 2011.
Miley – Nuclear and Emerging Technologies for Space in The Woodlands, TX – March 21-23, 2012
-> peer reviewed paper in preparation
Kim – Asia Pacific conference on Few-Body Problems in Physics in Seoul – August 22-26, 2011
-> peer reviewed paper “Nuclear Reactions in Micro/Nano-Scale Metal Particles” published in Few-Body Systems journal
Kim – Nuclear and Emerging Technologies for Space in The Woodlands, TX – March 21-23, 2012
Celani – World Sustainable Energy Conference in Geneva – January 10-12, 2012
Celani – CERN LENR colloquium in Geneva – March 22, 2012
Srivastava – CERN LENR colloquium in Geneva – March 22, 2012
–Gregory Goble (talk) 03:24, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Anyone care to suggest other recent peer reviewed Cold Fusion/LENR works that have been entered into the record of recognized institutions of mainstream science?–Gregory Goble (talk) 03:38, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Of course, CERN colloquiums are just “Non-technical talk[s] of general interest addressed to all people at CERN from all departments.” [19], it’s one of many “public seminars taking place at CERN”[20], and they can be about any science topic. –Enric Naval (talk) 09:47, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
The intense peer review process at CERN ensures that quality science is found in all “Non-technical talk[s] of general interest addressed to all people at CERN from all departments.” CERN has a strong reputation to stand on and MAINTAIN; does the editorial process here as well?–Gregory Goble (talk) 12:54, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Please point out where it says that these colloquiums pass a peer-review process. –Enric Naval (talk) 15:09, 31 March 2012 (UTC) And there is no such thing as a “CENR LENR colloquium”, what you have is two “CERN colloquiums” that happen to be about LENR. Only because someone proposed to make a seminar about LENR, and the organizer accepted. There have been many seminars in CERN about many topics, and it doesn’t mean that CERN endorses every one of those topics. –Enric Naval (talk) 09:47, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Intense obfuscation or not by Mr. E.N…. I counter that every thing, and I do mean everything, entered into the CERN record first undergoes intense peer review. Cold Fusion/LENR science has new information entered into the CERN record for further scientific review. The fact that Cold Fusion/LENR is science you may dispute Enric Naval (YOU certainly are not CERN caliber nor am I); yet you can not reasonably dispute that Cold Fusion/LENR Science has passed the muster of CERN. OR DO YOU argue that CERN beds Crackpots, Pseudoscience, or BAD science? I do not bed bad editors.–Gregory Goble (talk) 12:54, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Please point out where is CERN saying as an official position/statement that “Cold Fusion/LENR Science has passed the muster of CERN”. –Enric Naval (talk) 15:09, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Distorting the importance of seminars is not helping your point. –Enric Naval (talk) 09:47, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Thank you Enric Naval for not distorting my point here. Topics at CERN colloquiums “can be about any science topic”, the CERN review process shuns Quackery, Pseudo-Science, Bad Science or Garbage. Using this to argue that LENR/Cold Fusion is not science is not helping your point. (compost) My point is that Cold Fusion/LENR Research is Science; now bearing fruit of a deeper understanding of these misunderstood/little-understood phenomenon and the environments in which they occur. CERN reviewed, approved of, and allowed a presentation of such (Cold Fusion/LENR Science) to be entered into the record of CERN for further scientific review. Science not quackery. Can I speak Duck? Quack Quack.–Gregory Goble (talk) 12:54, 31 March 2012 (UTC) With warm regards and electrifying anticipation thanks for the source code. –Gregory Goble (talk) 13:02, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Think about it. If someone holds a seminar in an institution, inside a cycle of assorted seminars, does it mean automatically that the institution endorses a certain position about the topic of that seminar? Are you saying that the official position of CERN has to fully endorse the topics in every and all of those seminars, only because it was held inside CERN? –Enric Naval (talk) 15:09, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Obfuscatingly thinking about it. Are you saying that CERN “endorses” like NIKE? I will tell you this Mr. Enric Naval, CERN is meticulously professional when carefully reviewing publications that carry its’ letterhead. Silly laugh do you?–Gregory Goble (talk) 14:03, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
I have looked at that CERN colloquium page and I don’t see any indication that colloquiums are carefully reviewed or that CERN endorses its contents in any manner. If you want to claim those things, you will have to provide some sort of proof. –Enric Naval (talk) 19:19, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
CERN papers and presentations of science are reviewed for publication to any chosen media. In this respect CERN “endorses” LENR research as good science. Be sure to understand the meaning; never was it inferred that CERN “believes” in cold fusion. Tim Berners-Lee, a scientist at CERN, invented the World Wide Web (WWW) in 1989. [21] Info.cern.ch was the address of the world’s first-ever web site and web server, running on a NeXT computer at CERN.[22] This important explanation helps one to understand how science is percieved at CERN Science:
A Subatomic Venture
“Imagination is more important than knowledge.”
These were the words of the famous physicist Albert Einstein, who went on to say that “Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world.”
If you venture into the subatomic world in an attempt to unveil its inner workings, possession of all the knowledge in the world is not enough. Instead, invite your imagination to serve as a guide, because many rules as we know them no longer apply. Just like the story of Alice In Wonderland, this new world may look familiar but it is not fully comprehensible. Scales shift and matter transforms. Transitory twins appear and extra dimensions hide.
Nature has the ability to throw us the biggest surprises, so expect dramatic twists and unexpected turns; many before you have dreamed up mind–blowing theories and crazy concepts. Some of these have prevailed against the tests of time and armies of knowledgeable critics – thus far.
Someone, sometime, somewhere, may succeed in completing these unfinished mysteries, or even rewrite the chapters entirely. The book is by no means finished.[23]
This shows how CERN remains a leading science organization. The reputation of high quality science content at CERN is only maintained by its’ strong professional review process. I am in correspondence concerning the review of LENR prior to CERN publication. Logic dictates CERN didn’t just allow LENR publications wily nilly with only whimsical lackadaisical conCERN. You most likely would not Mr. Enric Naval and certainly not I. Now for proof… one moment please. W/WR and EA.–Gregory Goble (talk) 02:39, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
April 21, 2012 at 4:38 pm |
Why bother taking on Wikipedia? I just heard from Kim Komando that 60% of the articles in Wikipedia contain factual errors.
April 25, 2012 at 3:58 am |
My Wiki Works
as does yours….
Actually cold fusion ‘modern culture’ is not about a bunch of old movies. Contemporary (ie. modern culture) ‘cold fusion’-LENR is about energy (heat) from low energy nuclear reactions (see LENR in any modern encyclopedia). Particularly of interest to modern culture (post 2009) is gas loaded ‘cold fusion’ environments. Also to note is LENR – ‘cold fusion’ devices soon entering the marketplace. a. http://brillouinenergy.com/ b. http://www.ecat.com/ c. http://www.defkalion-energy.com/ You might want to research the following to get sorta up to date on all of this “old hat” encyclopedic “stuff”. Like ‘n your stocking stuff; thank yous’ all. –Gregory Goble (talk) 09:56, 25 April 2012 (UTC) Actually the following is sorta ‘old hat’ compared to contemporary status of ‘cold fusion-LENR”–Gregory Goble (talk) 09:56, 25 April 2012 (UTC) abstract: Preface JOURNAL OF CONDENSED MATTER NUCLEAR SCIENCE, Volume 1, April 2007 “In the beginning years of Cold Fusion, attention was concentrated on excess heat, neutron production and helium detection mostly during electrolysis in the palladium heavy water system. Later on, it was discovered that other metals and hydrogen could be used. Excess heat has been measured by many scientists, helium-4 detected in a dozen laboratories, low-level neutrons measured with difficulties in few cases. However, in addition to what was expected, transmutation of elements also has been detected. Recently, new triggering techniques have been developed from gas phase to plasma discharges, complex non-dc electrical stimulation and ultrasound activation.”–Gregory Goble (talk) 09:56, 25 April 2012 (UTC) abstract: Palladium Fission Triggered by Polyneutrons John C. Fisher, Abstract: Polyneutron theory is applied to experiments of Iwamura et al. that show evidence for titanium and for an anomalous iron isotope ratio in palladium cathodes following electrolysis. Theory and experiment are in reasonable agreement. Experiments are suggested for additional testing of the theory. © 2007 ISCMNS. All rights reserved.–Gregory Goble (talk) 09:56, 25 April 2012 (UTC) abstract: A Particle Physicist’s View on the Nuclear Cold Fusion Reaction Tetsuo Sawada∗ Institute of Quantum Science, Nihon University, Tokyo 1018308, Japan abstract: There are two different types of scientists who believe in the reality of the nuclear cold fusion. The researchers, who observed the excess energy by experiments, belong to the first type. On the other hand, a small number of theoreticians, who are working on the physics of the magnetic monopole, know that the nuclear reaction of the zero incident energy proceeds when the system involves a magnetic monopole. Since the former group still lacks a theory of the nuclear cold fusion based on the first principle of the natural law, I believe it is fruitful to explain to the former group how the theoretician of the particle physics comes to arrive at the conclusion that the nuclear cold fusion must occur if a magnetic monopole exists, in the framework of the quantum theory. © 2007 ISCMNS. All rights reserved.–Gregory Goble (talk) 09:56, 25 April 2012 (UTC) LINKS ON DEMAND–Gregory Goble (talk) 10:22, 25 April 2012 (UTC) LOVE Thanks for all source code. (hack hack) Attempting to figure all of this… succeeding beyond belief (HACK HACK)cough!–Gregory Goble (talk) 10:32, 25 April 2012 (UTC) With the truest and warmest of regards and certifyable and absolutely electrifying anticipation.–Gregory Goble (talk) 10:43, 25 April 2012 (UTC)LINKS ON DEMAND
Of course this post and version to date is copied and posted elsewhwere. THANK YOU! Gregory Byron Sprout Amir Goble. Smiles–Gregory Goble (talk) 10:55, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
April 25, 2012 at 4:12 am |
Keep hacking at them Greg – you’re doing a good job. I don’t believe in magnetic monopoles, though there may be something that acts as if it is. If it aids us get the technology sorted, then it’s not a critical point – a better explanation will come in due course.
April 25, 2012 at 4:30 am
Actually ‘magnetic monopoles’ are a theoretic understanding of ‘observed cold fusion phenomenon’ which certainly helps science much more than a denial or falsififcation of observed phenomenon as seen by the early (1989) MIT ‘hot’ fusion folks. By the way, hot fusion is costly, BULKY, very diffucult, and BUT of course “energy” (AND MONETARILY) costly, Net gain demonstateably near impossible and idiotic compared to Cold Fuson/LENR. Thank you for the continuation of “Undead Science” – Cold Fusion/LENR.
September 26, 2012 at 1:10 am |
In earlier times, people like you would be discussing the best way to build an ever-overbalancing wheel. You are a disgrace to the very concept of scientific education: you shuffle pseudo-facts and fit them into pre-formed theory without any degree of self-questioning. Aristotle would be proud of you (and that is not a good thing).
September 26, 2012 at 11:47 am |
Hey mister crackpotwatch. Perhaps this will help you move on to other places, sights, and sounds. Go somplace else with your keen scientific mind.
But first view this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ooIjPAU269A.
A friend once said “Learn to think with your heart and feel with your mind, that path is the mobius strip of the soul. Travel it and you’ll be all right.”
I am glad that Aristotle is proud of me and it brings me even greater pleasure that you are displeased. Now I will ignore your ignorance and your refusal to learn the lessons before you.
September 26, 2012 at 4:27 pm
We are practising scientists who have also made extensive studies of pseudoscience and its psychopathology. We do not argue with crackpots: it would like arguing with a snowman in Death Valley.
September 26, 2012 at 6:50 pm
Crackpotwatch,
Hope you enjoyed the magnetic mobius.
Leading scientists are still figuring this one out.
Maybe poetry is even better for you.
ON A FALLEN TREE ACROSS THE ROAD
The tree a tempest with a crash of wood
Throws down in front of us is not to bar
Our passage to our journey’s end for good,
But just to ask us who we think we are,
Insisting always on our own way so.
She likes to halt us in our runner tracks,
And make us get down in a foot of snow
Debating what to do with an ax.
And yet who knows obstruction is in vain:
We will not be put off the final goal
We have hidden in us to attain,
Not though we have to seize earth by the pole
And, tired of aimless circling in one place,
Steer straight off after something into space.
(To hear us talk) by Robert Frost
Or maybe this bring you great feelings of a magnificent moment.
For further reflection are the words of Louis Pasteur, in his last speech, given upon being awarded the Diamond Cross of Saint Anne from the Czar of Russia. Louis Pasteur addresses his words to the students in the crowd, his voice ringing with conviction…
“You young men, doctors and scientists of the future, do not let your selves be tainted by a barren skepticism, nor discouraged by the sadness of certain hours that creep over nations. Do not become angry at your opponents, for no scientific theory has ever been accepted without opposition. Live in the serene peace of libraries and laboratories. Say to yourselves first: ‘What have I done for my instruction?’ and as you gradually advance: ‘What am I accomplishing?’ until the time comes when you may have the immense happiness of thinking that you have contributed in some way to the welfare and progress of mankind.” (Vallery-Radot 1901, vol. 2, pp. 297–298)
http://coldfusionnow.org/real-popular-cold-fusion/
September 26, 2012 at 12:33 pm |
Crackpot, please read: http://nickelpower.org/2011/12/30/replicators-as-if-december-30-2011/ before continuing to open your mouth. Please feel free to express your skepticism. However if you are a blind skeptic, determined not to to look at the evidence, I will moderate you away. I am less and less fond of those who only have mouths and not ears.
September 26, 2012 at 4:41 pm
And you really cannot appreciate the irony in that last line? Threatening to censor what you do not like; how unlike your image of genuine science is that? You should be honoured that some real scientists even look at your site.
September 27, 2012 at 12:42 pm
I have not threatened to censor what I do not like, I have threatened to censor those who talk but don’t dare to find out what they are talking about.
Rossi is unnecessary for the LENR claim, it is made by: Ames National Laboratory, NASA, University of Missouri–Kansas City, University of Illinois, University of Siena, SRI, National Institute of Nuclear Physics and MIT to drop a few respectable names.
Crackpot, please put your future posts in the “Replicators” thread. Please make it clear that you have given at least 5 minutes to the text of that post. Otherwise, please go away.
September 26, 2012 at 1:22 pm |
Crackpotwatch – a lot of our science is based on what the alchemists tried. They were the crackpots of their time. Progress can mean going outside what you are comfortable with.
Rather than putting a first comment under a pseudonym, and insulting everyone here, would it not be better to learn something about the subject first?
September 26, 2012 at 4:46 pm
Alchemists did not turn into chemists simply by dropping the magic; they became scientists by adopting Baconian habits of self-questioning. This is something that crackpots always fail to do. That is largely what makes them crackpots.
September 27, 2012 at 12:40 am
You knew Newton was an alchemist? You would also probably class Einstein as a crackpot at the time – someone else who went against current thinking. Heisenberg too.
Look back through this blog and you’ll find Peter Thieberger as one of the contributors. Look him up at Brookhaven. He’s not scared to post under his real name.
You obviously consider yourself to be an authority on what can be done in Physics and what can’t be done. Such Luddite attitudes are not useful – we don’t yet know the limits of what is possible, or the limitations of the laws.
September 27, 2012 at 9:41 pm
Not only that, there are probably a few instances of certifiable crackpots that have made useful inventions.
September 27, 2012 at 11:44 pm |
Iggy
You say “Not only that, there are probably a few instances of certifiable crackpots that have made useful inventions.” and I agree. Now in God’s name let us see something useful coming out of cold fusion research. By that criterion it is a miserable failure.
And I notice that Rossi, whose activities originally inspired this site, has been completely written off by the handful of people still posting here. The pathosceptics were right about him, as I am sure they are right about Defkalion.
It’s just another bunch of free energy scams after all, selling “licenses” rather than the useful inventions you have been hoping for.
September 28, 2012 at 1:45 am |
Craig – Rossi certainly brought a lot of publicity, and I still think that his earlier devices worked at times, but not reliably or for long. Although I think that the current hot-cat is basically a glorified electric heater, he may still surprise us by coming out with something that does work – sometime. Defkalion may be closer to solving their reliability problems, but they are further away from a commercial device than they were saying. Again, it’s quite a bit of puff there, but there’s a basis in truth.
I think that neither of these has been a scam in the normal sense – scammers know that they have nothing, but I think that both Rossi and Defkalion thought they had a viable technology – Rossi probably because his measurements were pretty lousy. Getting investors to put money into a project often involves hiding the downsides.
If this technology is really to sell in large numbers, selling licenses for big companies to make them is a logical route, and one that I’d take. The difference is that I’d have something testable to show people before selling the license. Prove that it works on a smaller-scale, and let the large companies with a good engineering team take it to large-scale. Where I feel Rossi and Defkalion have verged on scam is to sell licenses before they have anything reliable to show-and-tell. On the other hand, it takes a lot of money to develop some of these things, and the licenses fund the research – OK if the licensees understand that point, not kosher if they aren’t crystal-clear about it.
Still, Rossi and Defkalion aren’t the only players, luckily. It looks like Miley has gotten further along, Celani has a lot of the basic physics of the fuel understood and Brillouin are still chugging along and getting closer. It could be we’ll see some reliable and reasonable-power experimental devices of the kilowatt level by the end of this year. You’ll also have noticed, maybe, that Beijing University have got quite a few papers out to do with LENR, and there could be developers in the East who are more advanced than we know about. I’d expect China have far fewer regulatory problems than in the States and Europe, so I would expect that they will be the first to have a system on sale. It’s got to be a Good Thing for China to stop building their brown-coal fired power stations and build LENR ones instead.
September 28, 2012 at 4:05 am |
It has been a long cold fusion summer. Fall is upon us soon and the race to cold fusion LENR engineered power is on.
An October Suprise is imminent.
LONG COLD FUSION SUMMER
Practicing patience
….. is such a timeless.
Waste!
Waiting to make sense
…. really is nerveless.
Watched … a pot… or is it not,
Boiling with fury
Time… is…
Such a rot!
Impatiently
Patient
Blah!
gbgoble2012
http://coldfusionnow.org/gallery/gregory-goble/
September 28, 2012 at 10:26 am |
A watched boy won’t pot.
May 27, 2013 at 5:12 am |
Wonderful, what a website it is! This web site provides helpful data to us, keep it up.