News, Reviews and Discussion of EEStor Inc.
Mon, 27 Feb 2012, 3:23pm LENR or LANR? »
Registered: Aug, 2008
Last visit: 15 hours ago
Posts: 2385

ee-tom wrote:

Psi wrote:

I've listened to those others. You are very like them. They are wrong. I don't even have to understand the technical dimensions very clearly -- no one, as the linked 60 Minutes Video shows, really does. I can infer from the sociological dynamic of the debate that the opponents are wrong -- MAYBE not about Rossi or Defkalion, but at least about the reality of underlying phenomenon that Rossi claims to be bringing to imminent commercialization.

If you want "living proof" that not everyone agrees with me, click on the link. The question is not whether some people are still in denial. The question is -- who do you believe? If you believe someone whose best argument seems to be that he's living proof that it ain't so, I venture to suggest that you may want to reconsider your own reasoning.

This is a very interesting, and honest, argument. You are saying that you don't need to understand the technical issues, nor do the debaters, however sociological dynamics can tell you which side is correct.

I'm going to guess that your sociology rests on the facts that when a coherent but very small group of dissenters contradicts the mainstream, and gains adherents over time, it is likely to dominate?

I won't argue the sociology (but please tell me if your reason fits the above, or is more subtle).

I agree it fits science sometimes while the scientific experimental data is unclear and competing theories explain it (tectonic plate theory, big bang vs steady state). People take time to become comfortable with the less familiar theory.

I don't think it applies in science where the claimed novel phenomena are experimental. Scientists get paid for novel ideas, or experiments with novel outcomes. So if in the case of LENR there is some valid phenomenon you would expect over 20 years that experiments would get more and more precise and repeatable, until the experimental results were indisputable. Excess heat does not need rocket science to measure, just careful calorimetry.

Take for example pulsars, or microwave background radiation. In both cases experiment came before theory and the experimental data was contrary to orthodoxy, validated pretty quickly, and not denied.

That has not happened with LENR, even though the experimental data is easy to obtain. Anyone can rerun Piantelli's experiment with better calorimetry to get definitive results.


OK Tom,

We will all stop believing in LENR/LANR/Cold Fusion if you give us a link to the published, peer-reviewed write-up of the second Cold Fusion experiment which was performed by MIT (?) in 1989 immediately after Pons and Fleichman had their press conference, complete with access to the original data set.

Since it is on the basis of this second experiment that most of the world's scientists think that LENR is fiction, this seems only fair - let's apply the same standard of proof to the refutation that you would wish to apply to every other experiment.


Assumptions: 1) E=1/2CV2. (Only dummies assume this). (I am one of these dummies).