WalksOnDirt wrote:LENR or LANR? Honestly, I think that more incomprehensible initialisms just confuse the issue. Stick with cold fusion.
Yup. More evidence of how discredited the entire cold fusion field is. They changed the name once, now they're trying to change it again.
Just like crippled --> handicapped --> disabled --> physically challenged --> differently enabled
They keep changing the label in the foolish hope that this will remove the stigma. Ain't gonna happen, because changing the label doesn't change the reality.
Cold fusion/LENR Believers: If you want to remove the stigma, then actually show us some real results confirmed by real scientists or a real test lab. Until then, all your claims are, as Shakespeare put it:
...a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
WT "labelling" applies here, if you guys could only see it. There have been a number of well documented, peer-reviewed, experiments, not to mention public demonstrations showing various effects which you would classify under the heading of LENR/LANR/Cold Fusion. (Leave Rossi off the list because his claims have not been proven.)
However, the filters come on at this point. Any lab which has done such an experiment and achieved a positive result is immediately classed as "not real", the experimenters become "not real scientists" and the experiment is labelled "not real".
The same thing is going to apply in your minds to any future experiment by a lab not previously involved in LENR. If the result is negative they will have been held to do a "good experiment", but if it is positive then clearly in the minds of the doubters there is something "not real" about the experiment, the lab, or the scientists involved.
So this relabelling clearly has a major psychological component - one which, by its nature, cannot be overcome by positive results from experiments - whoever they are performed by.
Now the mistake made by Psi is to assume that, because the opponents of LENR are guilty of very muddled thinking, that this very fact means that LENR is proven. That conclusion just does not follow.
There are links to good solid experiments detailed on the pages of the New Energy Times web site, whose owner, Steve Krivit, prides himself on getting the facts right and not taking bullshit from either side. It is on the basis of those experiments that LENR's veracity should be assessed. My favourite is that from Prof Arata at Osaka university, but this is not a good one to choose unless you are fluent in Japanese, as he chose to publish in a Japanese journal only. Given the history, it comes as no real surprise that he refused to do so in an English journal.
And according to the Lensman view, we should still be calling our personal vehicles "horseless carriages" instead of "cars" or "autos".
My vote is for Lattice Assisted Nuclear Reactions because it has become clear that a) the reactions are neither nuclear fusion (of hydrogen or deuterium) nor cold and b) neither are they low energy by any measure, requiring considerably fractions of a MeV to kick them off. Since the field is now better understood, it is the only one of the 3 terms to make sense.
Last edited Mon, 27 Feb 2012, 3:47pm
Assumptions: 1) E=1/2CV2. (Only dummies assume this). (I am one of these dummies).