TheEEStory.com

I'm gonna quote Dr. Mitchell Swartz (Jet Energy Inc.). I think he has a point here:

The name should be LANR, for "lattice assisted nuclear reactions". It most accurately describes the process and without the lattice, there is no coupling (a la Mossbauer effect) and no final products. "Cold fusion", by contrast, has a different connotation. That name was widely spread in March, 1989 when Dr. Stanley Pons (Utah) and Martin Fleischman (Southampton, UK) announced that their "electrochemical experiments" had produced more energy ("excess energy") than could be accounted for by input energy and available chemical reactions..... The early use of the term "cold fusion" and, mainly, the unwarranted post-1989 notoriety of the term "cold fusion", has led some to seek another description of these lattice assisted nuclear reactions. They are consistent with conventional physics and involve high lying energy levels of excited nuclei. .... Such comparison demonstrates these excited nuclear states are very significant in magnitude and clearly not "low energy". Therefore, the name "low energy nuclear reactions (LENR)" is a misleading, inaccurate misnomer. Such a name, LENR, for cold fusion would be wrong for two reasons. First, LENR falsifies the magnitude of the nuclear energy level which is actually observed. Second, if these CF reactions are really "low energy reactions", then why even bother? Fortunately, they are high energy reactions, and the name LENR is simply incorrect.

Makes sense doesn't it?

http://www.ecatplanet.net/showthread.php?231-LE...

Unfortunately, I doubt whether changing its name will make it work any better.

I like your point. We can only hope for it to mean something with an actual proof positive demo or product.

---

Yeah, the author is correct. this is not Low Energy. so the terms Cold Fusion and LENR are clearly not what is going on.

Changing the name is only putting a more precise description on the phenomena.

Lattice Assisted Nuclear Reaction or LANR..

I will work on changing my terminology as well.

You should work on terminology which abbreviated as SCAM

---

Po should study some.

Google Phonon Plasmon Coupling.

You might learn something - er probably not as you will ignore it.

---

Tec is about ten years behind the times in his reading of the *tec*hnical lit on this subject.

Y_po, also, is in fine form. His wit shineth from the brow of glory, as Shakespeare would have said. He already knows more about the subject than NASA, SRI, and MIT.

---

Are you claiming that changing its name WILL make it work better?

Tec wrote:

Are you claiming that changing its name WILL make it work better?

No Sir. I make no comment on whatever you call'it. I care not. I care, sir, that it is real. Look it up.

---

I will reserve judgement until it is clear that it DOES work, thanks.

Until then, I neither know nor care much whether it is real or a scam. I'll read up on it if and when it is demonstrated.

Tec wrote:

I will reserve judgement until it is clear that it DOES work, thanks.

Until then, I neither know nor care much whether it is real or a scam. I'll read up on it if and when it is demonstrated.

It is clear that it works. The fact that you are ignorant of this fact is your problem.

---

It is clear that it works.

Well, you evidently think so. Others are equally convinced it doesn't.

So the jury is still out, and until it is generally accepted that they DO work then I will reserve judgement.

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4955212n

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.

---

Watched the video. A load of talking heads, some saying it works, some saying it doesn't.

I am happy to wait until it is unequivocally accepted.

I don't really understand why you are so keen to persuade people like me, now, that it works, or indeed why others are so keen to persuade us it doesn't. Time will sort this out. Why not just wait, and stop arguing about it?

LENR or LANR? Honestly, I think that more incomprehensible initialisms just confuse the issue. Stick with cold fusion.

---

Psi wrote:

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4955212n


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.

Tom

---

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.

---

Psi wrote:

Tec wrote:

I will reserve judgement until it is clear that it DOES work, thanks.

Until then, I neither know nor care much whether it is real or a scam. I'll read up on it if and when it is demonstrated.

It is clear that it works. The fact that you are ignorant of this fact is your problem.

"LENR works" is at best your inference from a whole load of data. Not a fact. And the clarity you have is not shared by most opinion, nor by most well-informed opinion.

---

ee-tom wrote:

Psi wrote:

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4955212n


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.

Tom

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.

Regards,
Peter

---

Lensman wrote:

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.

Regards,
Peter

Last edited Mon, 27 Feb 2012, 3:47pm by Technopete

---

TP wrote:

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.

That is an unproven and unlikely assertion. It may have ben influential at the time, but not now.

I think most scientists just can't find any convincing evidence of CF, and reckon in 20 years of attempts there ought to be some.

Rather like Rossi/DGT. If they had something you would expect convincing evidence to emerge. You can't easily hide a 10kW heater.

If what you think is true, then the DKF tests will happen, and prove positive and conclusive. I bet they won't, (or will not in any real sense happen) but of course I'll be delighted if they do. The current claimed tests should have been running for 4 days now. Doubtless DGT will say something at some point.

Tom

---

Peter,

what evidence (experiments) do you think is good solid and convinces you? One we can all read?

And do you not worry that currently all LENR theories are unfalsifiable? Thus there is no prediction they make that can be refuted by an experiment. Normally theories gain credibility when they make predictions which can be refuted.

Best wishes, Tom

---

Y_Po wrote:

You should work on terminology which abbreviated as SCAM

Simply Cooking an Amalgam of Metals

wikipedia wrote:

The calculation of excess heat in electrochemical cells involves certain assumptions.[165] Errors in these assumptions have been offered as non-nuclear explanations for excess heat.

One assumption made by Fleischmann and Pons is that the efficiency of electrolysis is nearly 100%, meaning nearly all the electricity applied to the cell resulted in electrolysis of water, with negligible resistive heating and substantially all the electrolysis product leaving the cell unchanged.[22] This assumption gives the amount of energy expended converting liquid D2O into gaseous D2 and O2.[166] The efficiency of electrolysis will be less than one if hydrogen and oxygen recombine to a significant extent within the calorimeter. Several researchers have described potential mechanisms by which this process could occur and thereby account for excess heat in electrolysis experiments.[167][168][169]

Another assumption is that heat loss from the calorimeter maintains the same relationship with measured temperature as found when calibrating the calorimeter.[22] This assumption ceases to be accurate if the temperature distribution within the cell becomes significantly altered from the condition under which calibration measurements were made.[170] This can happen, for example, if fluid circulation within the cell becomes significantly altered.[171][172] Recombination of hydrogen and oxygen within the calorimeter would also alter the heat distribution and invalidate the calibration.[169][173][174]

John R. Huizenga who co-chaired the DOE 1989 panel stated simply a priori: "Furthermore, if the claimed excess heat exceeds that possible by other conventional processes (chemical, mechanical, etc.), one must conclude that an error has been made in measuring the excess heat."[175]

Here is a middle of the road account of some of the potential experimental erors in the FP experiment. Does your claim of positive results from a second experiment stack up against these possible errors?

---

Technopete wrote:

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.

I think it's due more to the many attempts to repeat many cold fusion claims, and in every case, more rigorous experimental techniques causes the claimed excess heat to disappear into experimental error.

It's absurd to claim that just because there is increasing interest in cold fusion/LENR, this means it's "real". There was increasing interest in parapsychology in the sixties, and perhaps more recently, interest in n-rays and polywater. All those things turned out to be pathological science.

If you want us to believe cold fusion/LENR is anything but just another example of pathological science, then show us an experiment which can actually be replicated by someone outside the cold fusion/LENR community using rigorous experimental techniques.

Just one. Until then, we'll follow Occam's Razor and assume it's just another pathological science.

---

Technopete wrote:

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.

I'm sure there were many people working in the field of parapsychology in the sixties and perhaps even seventies who would have claimed the same, Technopete.

They turned out to be wrong.

As with parapsychology, there are many claims for success, but not one single bit of actual repeatable experimental proof.

If there was such proof, then people would be using the method to produce useful power. Point to just one cold fusion/LENR experimenter who is using his method or device to produce power in his own lab.

Again: Just one, that's all we ask.

The fact that you can't produce even one speaks more loudly than all your claims.

Believers seem to have the fundamental problem that they don't differentiate between claims and facts or evidence and they don't require independent testing before they accept things they like to hear.

--Mary Yugo

---

Insisting that it doesn't work is every bit as ridiculous as asserting that it does at this stage. Basically, nobody knows either way for certain.

The way round it is to research the claims and this seems to have resulted in some folk finding what they claim is excess heat and other finding nothing.

There are enough respectable scientists who HAVE found something, though, to make it worthwhile pursuing the research.

It is not that unique to find effects which are not reproducable by everyone when you really don't have a very good idea of what is really going on.

In the early days of electrical research some electrostatic effects were reproducible only when the atmosphere was dry and the charge didn't leak away, but the whole idea of charge and atmospheric resistance was unknown to the researchers at that point. Some managed to reproduce the claims, others didn't.

Eventually, either some reproducible effect will be found, or it will turn out that there is notheing there, but at this point the matter is far from certain either way, and whether you believe in it or not is a rather irrelevant matter.

What DOES matter is that it be properly researched. My opinion for what its worth is that the possible gains are so great that NOT researching it would be crazy. Let us shut up about 'belief' or 'non belief' and see what can be discovered about it.

Is that such a revolutionary suggestion?

ee-tom wrote:

That is an unproven and unlikely assertion. It may have ben influential at the time, but not now.

I take that as an admission that various underhand things went on from the MIT miscreants at the time that you would rather forget, since to bring them to the surface once more does not suit the critics case because it rather proves that once Cold Fusion was labelled as impossible then it is always easier to label the experimental results as bad science than to bother to understand what is really going on.

Besides, if the first public refutation was properly conducted and followed the rules you wish to apply, then surely you should be able to find the documentary evidence I ask for (which is no different from what you are asking from me).

John R. Huizenga who co-chaired the DOE 1989 panel stated simply a priori: "Furthermore, if the claimed excess heat exceeds that possible by other conventional processes (chemical, mechanical, etc.), one must conclude that an error has been made in measuring the excess heat."

That statement more or less encapsulates the critic position of "I know in my heart without bothering to look objectively at the evidence that there cannot be any such effect. Therefore, any experiment which shows said effect must be bad science." We are back to Rutherford and the exploding wires.

Irrespective of the quality of the evidence it is going to be dismissed out of hand if it provides any sort of validation that LENR effects might be real.

And a lot of the LENR experiments have been very elegant in that it is difficult to ascribe the results to measurement errors - Arata's experiment ends up measuring an gross production of excess energy, not the difference between energy in and energy out.

Now go read the New Energy Times papers - with an open mind.

Regards,
Peter

Last edited Mon, 27 Feb 2012, 6:14pm by Technopete

---

Technopete wrote:

...the critic position of "I know in my heart without bothering to look objectively at the evidence that there cannot be any such effect. Therefore, any experiment which shows said effect must be bad science." We are back to Rutherford and the exploding wires.

Irrespective of the quality of the evidence it is going to be dismissed out of hand if it provides any sort of validation that LENR effects might be real.

If you want to see how real scientists deal with experimental data that suggests one of our fundamental scientific theories is wrong, look at this thread:

OT: CERN claims faster-than-light particle measured

The CERN scientists did not say "Hey, we've discovered Relativity is wrong, and that the speed of light isn't the universal speed limit!"

What they said was "We've got some experimental evidence we can't explain, and appears contrary to the fundamental laws of physics as we understand them."

When cold fusion/LENR researchers claim they've got the Holy Grail before results are confirmed by independent tests, that's not science at work. That's a bunch of Believers supporting each others' work. That's more like how UFO cultists and Bigfoot hunters work; uncritically accepting and supporting each others' claims.

Yes, the reaction of the mainstream scientific community to the initial Fleischmann & Pons announcement about "FREE ENERGY!!"-- er, excuse me, "cold fusion", was indeed dismissing the claims before the evidence was in.

But two wrongs don't make a right. What grew into the cold fusion/LENR research community has abandoned rigorous science, and has watered down the real peer review science process to the point that it's literally a mutual admiration society-- without any scientific value whatsoever. They may offer mainstream science's initial dismissal of the cold fusion claims as an excuse-- but that's all it is, an excuse. It's not a valid reason for abandoning real science for pseudo-science.

If cold fusion/LENR researchers want to be taken seriously, then they should raise the bar on the quality of what they call "science". They need to raise it quite a few notches. Because currently, it's not up to the standards of real science. Rational people have no reason to believe any of the many, many premature and poorly researched claims which come from a pseudo-science community.

No more than we have any reason to believe UFO cultists or Bigfoot hunters.

---

Tec wrote:

What DOES matter is that it be properly researched. My opinion for what its worth is that the possible gains are so great that NOT researching it would be crazy. Let us shut up about 'belief' or 'non belief' and see what can be discovered about it.

Is that such a revolutionary suggestion?

That's quite an emotional, stirring speech you wrote there, Tec.

But you're confusing science with magic and mysticism. Science advances by logic, not by appeals to emotion. And it advances by investigating how the world actually does work-- not how we wish it would work.

Hoping or believing the world works a certain way and then looking for evidence to prove that, is the province of magic, mysticism, and spiritualism. Not science.

---