FWIW: LENR-CANR update

[Dustin]

While I am very skeptical of this process and device,
(a good critique can be found here;
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@es ... 41327.html
)

Richards posted link gives this some credibility,
Brian Ahern received his PhD in material science from MIT, holds 26 patents and was a senior scientist for 17 years in research and development at USAF Rome Lab at Hanscom Air Force Base.
He seems to have the credentials to do some Calorimetry which gives the process some credence.

I think it is an appropriate place (other forms of fusion) to post this even though
not definitively proven as fusion.
It would not be difficult for the amateur to try to replicate.
As much as I respect your opinion, your censoring of topics may not be the general consensus of the forum members and should be open for general discussion.
Steve.

[Carl Willis]

Why The Crap on NextBigFuture.com Should Not be Discussed on Fusor.net, 2nd Edition
(In Three Easy Pieces)

1. It's commercial rather than amateur activity (and for that reason I suppose, lacks the standard of disclosure that is expected).

2. Nobody posting on the Fusor.net forums is actually doing anything with these projects or ideas. Here it's only talk. Of a highly speculative and gossipy nature. As I said before, when someone actually does something and talks about what they have done, the topic of what they are doing will be appropriate for discussion.

3. The projects mentioned so far are objectively sensational and popular discussion topics in many other venues that are more appropriate and easy to find for those who are into that kind of thing.

These criteria are not specific to the Italian catalyst quackery milieu, but have been applied to sedate the most egregiously inappropriate Polywell banter in the past as well. Certain topics just suffer from attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, and I like to poach them in infancy with an elephant gun loaded with Ritalin. You can call my complaining censorship, but another more routine way of looking at it is that I have certain standards regarding what I think this site is about. They are already codified in the "etiquette" section of the board's introductory reading.

-Carl

[Chris Bradley]

Carl Willis wrote:
> Why The Crap on NextBigFuture.com Should Not be Discussed on Fusor.net, 2nd Edition
> 1. It's commercial rather than amateur activity (and for that reason I suppose, lacks the standard of disclosure that is expected).
> 2. Nobody posting on the Fusor.net forums is actually doing anything with these projects or ideas. Here it's only talk. Of a highly speculative and gossipy nature. As I said before, when someone actually does something and talks about what they have done, the topic of what they are doing will be appropriate for discussion.
> 3. The projects mentioned so far are objectively sensational and popular discussion topics in many other venues that are more appropriate and easy to find for those who are into that kind of thing.

I do not necessarily seek to disagree with the conclusions, but the logic seems flawed, for there are also reasons to discuss such things.

In the interest of balance;

1) This forum says it is "for other possible methods for fusion such as Sonolumenescense, Cold Fusion, CANR/LENR ..should contain...URLs related to 'other than fusor' fusion". Therefore Steven's original post with a single URL line would seem appropriate.

2) Notwithstanding the lack of information in the linked site, these types of 'reactors' follow recipies that look simple enough that amatuers may want to see if they can do something similar and make up their own 'recipies', but might need a place where actual experimenters lurk so as to build up some confidence and discuss how to go about attempting them first. How would an uninitiated amateur attempt to try something new if no-one wishes to even begin to countenance a discussion about how to try, let alone move on to propose pros/cons and possible controls and outcomes to experiment for?

3) Publications on LENR 'Crap' can be found in bona fide conferences and journals and is currently being experimented on by major institutional bodies. It would therefore seem a matter of pure sensorship and selectivity to exclude such publications and projects merely by pointing at the 'ficticious' type of 'Journals' like Rossi's, without giving credit to the mainstream publications and Nobel laureats who give a forum for discussion of research in the field.

[Frank Sanns]

I can say for certainty that there is no intent for censorship on this forum. During every meeting and email with the owner of the site and unanimously with all administrators, posts will not be censored.

Posts will be cleaned up, kept organized and be focused. Focused to keep the posts on the mission of the forum which is amateur inertial electrostatic confinement fusion.

Yes, there are other forms of fusion and they can have an interest and role in what is being done on the forum but posts of fringe technologies does not add much value to the forum but it can and does add noise. It seems that the more fringe the technology, the more the number of redundant or posts of lesser significance arise and the hype factor goes up by exponents.

I personally do not care if project x fringe gets another $500,000 to continue the project for another 6 months. Equally I do not think it helps the forum when repeated news flashes of nothing new keep bumping to the top of the Recent Threads page.

If there is something new or a good technical discussion can be mustered for fusion related items then it is good. In theory, a single line post of an alternative fusion technology is appropriate. In the context of multiple shout from the mountain again and again about nothingness is not. To my recollection, Steve Hosemans has been a good contributor on the forum and never one of the noise makers. I just think it was one of the posts that added to the previous noise and was the one that elicited a corrective response from Carl. It is unfortunate that it had to be you Steve as I am certain it was not personal but rather global to the forum.

Frank Sanns

[Carl Willis]

Chris, if you're gonna go to the trouble of quoting my entire post, you might as well go to the trouble of exercising some good ol' fashioned reading comprehension.

Let's run through this again because, although the horse may be dead, that never prevented some of us from wanting to beat it again and again and again and again and again and again and again.

This particular subforum is about "Other Forms of Fusion." The SAME standard applies here as elsewhere on fusor.net: the focus is real, experimental, amateur nuclear fusion. I am not passing judgment on everything possibly described as LENR, but on one persistent bit of popular quackery that for some reason keeps trying to get a foothold here. I welcome anyone on this forum who is actually working on the Rossi concept (or any other concept) and is willing to discuss what they are doing within our rules and open-source framework. However, right now, the purported technical breakthrough in the Rossi project is officially a business secret.

Alas, I repeat myself.

Keep poundin' that horse, see where it takes you.

-Carl

[eprparadox]

Hello - I came across this thread today while familiarizing myself with the fusor.net site, and I thought the contributors might find the following information to be of some interest. I also just become aware of Mr. Rossi and his putative invention this past week. After a cursory investigation, I found that there are physicists researching Rossi's work, notably Yeong Kim of Purdue University. The latter's paper "Generalized Theory of Bose-Einstein Condensation Nuclear Fusion for Hydrogen-Metal System" specifically aims to furnish a theoretical framework for interpreting Rossi's claimed results. I've attached a copy of the paper, which has caused me to take a slightly less skeptical attitude than I originally had... something more like 'wait and see' (the whole thing comes across as bogus, of course, but it is claimed that a commercial plant will be online in the next three months).