Are Low Energy Nuclear Reactions for real?

[sfs1]

What that says: LENR researchers are either quacks or fools.

There is robust evidence for the existence and even abundance of both quacks and fools. So far, robust evidence for LENR seems to be lacking. I know which explanation I'd put my money on.

[sylas]

What that says: LENR researchers are either quacks or fools.

NO. That is NOT what is says. Don't put words in my mouth, please. What you quoted from ME was simply a bare factual observations about the slides.

YOU are adding the additional inferences; I do not endorse them. You go too far. You should not (and I do not) go on to make any generalized inference about LENR researchers in general from one flawed slide show. IF anyone really wants to go on and make inferences; then they properly apply only to the author of the slide show -- and perhaps the editors of the website that host it. I also don't think "quack or fool" is an adequate or exhaustive set of possible inferences and absolutely decline to go on into speculations or hypotheses on the highly personal matter of why someone writes something.

This is corrosive of the discussion, which should focus simply on substance. It's no response at all to a criticism of published material to cry "but but that would reflect badly on the authors!".

My recommendation is just DON'T. Don't spend a lot of energy going on to make claims or inferences about WHY the slide show is as it is, or respond to statements specifically on substance by side tracking into persons.

Yes, rather frequently researchers could not get scientific reproduction of experimental results. I am unwilling to dismiss the whole field as of now based on that. And why do you dismiss the claim of 1700+ positive reports? Are there that many quacks and incompetents? Have you investigated a substantial fraction of those? If so, where is your detailed critique that would strongly create doubt?Well, yeah, unfortunately. But to be frank, I suspect you are not as familiar with the LENR field as your replies make you appear to be. Sorry about that opinion.

I don't mind your opinions at all. But again, you are still talking right past what I have actually written.

I have NOT dismissed the whole field. I have said that the indications are that this line of research is unproductive. For all that, I have said people who are more enthusiastic about it should carry on and that it would be great if it does turn up something more useful. That isn't dismissing the field at all.

I did NOT dismiss the claim of 1700 reports. I didn't even mention it. I said rather that the slide show is not giving an adequate account of the research and investigations that have indicated problems with LENR claims. Science is a debate; people propose ideas, and other people test them, and over time the process involves a lot of to and fro and frequently a lot of disagreement. That's fine.

The slide show itself looks pretty dreadful, frankly... but that is a comment on the slide show only. It is not a comment on the author or a comment on LENR in general.

I don't claim any great expertise on LENR. With respect (since you have been so free to get personal with my background I feel it's okay to return the favour) I am pretty sure I have a much better background by far than you do. But it's still pretty small.

It shouldn't matter. I won't mind at all if I am wrong and you actually know more about the field than what you've seen in a quick look at the links you found recently. Nor do I mind at all if you have less background than I yet have difference views. No problem from me at all. As I said -- by all means keep reading and feel free to report any other news as it comes to light. We don't have to compare expertise; we're all onlookers to this.

No one should rely on my background here; I recommend instead looking further; and I've suggested some links (for the specific experiement listed in the OP). By all means look at the website of lenrweb; but don't just take it (or anything else) at face value. Look at the criticisms as well. It's not just because people are being unkind that LENR is so much on the fringe of science. There are LENR researchers who are serious and more credible than Rossi: and there's nothing wrong at all with them continuing to work on the idea. LENR will get more scientific credibility when it gets more reliable and replicable results, more thorough analysis of the specifics of reactions occurring, and some physical theories for the results that can be tested and used as the basis for more experiment; just as for any other new and radical idea in science.

The best available answer at present to the question posed in the OP is --- most likely not: low energy nuclear reactions are probably not real.

The addendum to that is that there are some scientists who are still exploring the possibility that low energy nuclear reactions might be real. Good luck to them. There's nothing wrong with that at all. There are most definitely quacks and fools who are are pushing LENR, which is no doubt embarrassing for other investigators... but DO NOT charge me with painting a broad brush to label all LENR investigators that way. I have not. OK?

Best -- sylas

[Truthseeker]

There is robust evidence for the existence and even abundance of both quacks and fools. So far, robust evidence for LENR seems to be lacking. I know which explanation I'd put my money on.

Please don't just assert. Put on the "robust" evidence or provide links to webpages that provides that.

[Truthseeker]

Let me add that I am puzzled why any reasonable person would run around saying, lack of robust evidence, if he has not actually tried to personally investigate things, such as going to demonstrations, trying to see any problem with them, asking questions about them, chatting with the demonstrations principals, etc.

[Omniskeptical]

It may be that there is such a thing as cold fission, but how much energy does this concept produce? :)

[klaus54]

It may be that there is such a thing as cold fission, but how much energy does this concept produce? :)

Do you mean "fusion"?

K54

P.S. Concepts don't produce energy.

[sfs1]

Please don't just assert. Put on the "robust" evidence or provide links to webpages that provides that.

You need me to provide evidence for the existence of quacks and fools?

[Truthseeker]

You need me to provide evidence for the existence of quacks and fools?

No.

I think it's possible you meant evidence someone in particular is a quack or fool. If you have evidence most people will accept, may we not have it? No mere assertion, please.

[sfs1]

No.

I think it's possible you meant evidence someone in particular is a quack or fool.

That's not what I meant. I meant that the prior probability that people involved in anything are either quacks or fools is non-negligible. (Personally, I would make the range of possibilities larger, since there are multiple ways of fooling yourself even if you're not generally a fool, but you were the one who suggested those as the only possibilities.) I was also suggesting that the prior probability of extraordinary phenomena that violate multiple pieces of well-understood physics is lower than the prior probability of quackery or foolishness. I would require compelling evidence before those priors could be overcome.

[Truthseeker]

Be both skeptical and hopeful. Even if a claim looks doubtful, the payoff (if the claim turns out to be a good one) would be great indeed.

[sfs1]

Be both skeptical and hopeful. Even if a claim looks doubtful, the payoff (if the claim turns out to be a good one) would be great indeed.

You may feel as hopeful as you wish. I've already told you why I'm not hopeful. The number of oddball claims out there that would be really neat or very useful if true is large. Having seen a parade of them pass by over the decades, I have no reason to be hopeful about any of them.

[Truthseeker]

Did you hear about the Volkswagen car that goes 500 miles on 2 gallons? What do you think?

[Sparko]

Did you hear about the Volkswagen car that goes 500 miles on 2 gallons? What do you think?

well at a price tag of over $100K, you would never make up the cost of the car in gas savings during the lifetime of the car

[Truthseeker]

well at a price tag of over $100K, you would never make up the cost of the car in gas savings during the lifetime of the car

You're assuming that the engine can't be mass produced for less. Also assuming that the car is a middle-class or lower-class car?

[klaus54]

Did you hear about the Volkswagen car that goes 500 miles on 2 gallons? What do you think?

No. Could you post a hyperlink?

K54