Talk-Polywell.org

Sounds fair to me. They are saying they don't have any credible evidence their stuff works and will emerge from the shadows if/when they do.

It won't stop some here from assuming they cannot be chasing moonbeams, and this means LENR exists...

tomclarke


It seems that you have overlooked Defkalion's statement that they will be presenting a paper showing results at the upcoming LENR conference in August.

One would think that Defkalion would know if they had positive results before committing themselves to presenting a paper.

Uh. In science. Honest science. Negative results are as important as positive results. No brass ring. But a contribution has been made.

_________________
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/07/anoth ... rts-today/

MSimon, Of course negative results are important. It is just that Defkalion would not be presenting a paper if that was all they had.

Sorry skeptics, there just too many scientists involved in this now for there to be no fire beneath the smoke.

There were a lot of scientist involved in phlogiston. Only smoke.

There were a lot of scientists who were sure Einstein was wrong. Only smoke.

A LOT of scientists proves nothing. A power plant proves something. HTS MRIs proves something.

I await their equivalent of an atomic bomb.

_________________
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

MSimon,
Your examples were about quibbling with theories. What I was talking about was independent groups producing experimental data of anomalous heat.

"Anomalous heat" and power plants are two different things. One may not lead to the other.

_________________
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

This is what Rossi is fond of saying almost word for word.

Indeed. The difference is that Rossi is also saying he has that power plant, but he is unwilling or unable to submit it to scrutiny, or even to end use demonstration in any meaningful way.

Dan Tibbets

_________________
To error is human... and I'm very human.

Personally, I think comparing cold fusion to something like high temperature superconductivity is a better illustrative comparison.

Same decade of announced discovery. Similar revolutionary potential. Same scientific community. Same huge press reception and speculation on potential. Same lack of an initial theory. Similar need for new physics. Similar problems with initial replication of results. Same scientific stampede towards replication.

Cold fusion died with the majority of the scientific community because it could never be reliably duplicated and had no workable theory. A tiny community of enthusiasts carried on and we are still waiting for the next conference or paper that will show us the light.

Meanwhile, high temperature superconductivity overcame replication problems, was conclusively demonstrated, quickly won a Nobel prize, saw a four fold improvement in temperature in a year, has had over 100,000 papers published, has reasonable theory, has found two classes of high temperature superconductors and is beginning to see commercial applications.

It is the same story within the same scientific community happening in the same decade. One revolutionary discovery passes scrutiny and is heralded. The other doesn't come close.

_________________
Stick the thing in a tub of water! Sheesh!

There was one other difference between the two techs, the HTSC wasn't "outed" before it was ready. Unlike P&F, the Swiss team had the time to get their ducks in a row. The Swiss didn't have stupidvisors asking for megabucks of Fed $ in their initial press release.

_________________
Dan,
Do the numbers... correctly, "think Hydrogen".

Well... not quite. Cold Fusion suffered badly from the perception that Pons & Fleishman were not rigorous or honest.

The experiments showed fairly quickly (by 1995) that there were small amounts of cold fusion happening in deuterium loaded metals.

_________________
Wandering Kernel of Happiness

National Instruments sponsored a talk by Dr. Robert Duncan Vice-Chancellor Research University Missouri on the topic of cold fusion.

They published the video on their website.

https://decibel.ni.com/content/docs/DOC ... _CcPYPOY4g

58 minutes. Fairly interesting.

http://www.superconductors.org/rtsc2mkt.htm

Wrong again as usual and still living in a dream world.

It means only that invited parties are not interested in such collaboration. However, it does not mean they are not interested to have such tech. In some cases they may have ongoing R&D in house in such case they likely will not even reply; for others, the right offer should be made to have their attention... btw, the bookkeeping of "offenders" is a quite indicative signature ;o)