If you need assistance, please send an email to forum at 4hv dot org. To ensure your email is not marked as spam, please include the phrase "4hv help" in the subject line. You can also find assistance via IRC, at irc.shadowworld.net, room #hvcomm.
Support 4hv.org!
Donate:
4hv.org is hosted on a dedicated server. Unfortunately, this server costs and we rely on the help of site members to keep 4hv.org running. Please consider donating. We will place your name on the thanks list and you'll be helping to keep 4hv.org alive and free for everyone. Members whose names appear in red bold have donated recently. Green bold denotes those who have recently donated to keep the server carbon neutral.
Special Thanks To:
Aaron Holmes
Aaron Wheeler
Adam Horden
Alan Scrimgeour
Andre
Andrew Haynes
Anonymous000
asabase
Austin Weil
barney
Barry
Bert Hickman
Bill Kukowski
Blitzorn
Brandon Paradelas
Bruce Bowling
BubeeMike
Byong Park
Cesiumsponge
Chris F.
Chris Hooper
Corey Worthington
Derek Woodroffe
Dalus
Dan Strother
Daniel Davis
Daniel Uhrenholt
datasheetarchive
Dave Billington
Dave Marshall
David F.
Dennis Rogers
drelectrix
Dr. John Gudenas
Dr. Spark
E.TexasTesla
eastvoltresearch
Eirik Taylor
Erik Dyakov
Erlend^SE
Finn Hammer
Firebug24k
GalliumMan
Gary Peterson
George Slade
GhostNull
Gordon Mcknight
Graham Armitage
Grant
GreySoul
Henry H
IamSmooth
In memory of Leo Powning
Jacob Cash
James Howells
James Pawson
Jeff Greenfield
Jeff Thomas
Jesse Frost
Jim Mitchell
jlr134
Joe Mastroianni
John Forcina
John Oberg
John Willcutt
Jon Newcomb
klugesmith
Leslie Wright
Lutz Hoffman
Mads Barnkob
Martin King
Mats Karlsson
Matt Gibson
Matthew Guidry
mbd
Michael D'Angelo
Mikkel
mileswaldron
mister_rf
Neil Foster
Nick de Smith
Nick Soroka
nicklenorp
Nik
Norman Stanley
Patrick Coleman
Paul Brodie
Paul Jordan
Paul Montgomery
Ped
Peter Krogen
Peter Terren
PhilGood
Richard Feldman
Robert Bush
Royce Bailey
Scott Fusare
Scott Newman
smiffy
Stella
Steven Busic
Steve Conner
Steve Jones
Steve Ward
Sulaiman
Thomas Coyle
Thomas A. Wallace
Thomas W
Timo
Torch
Ulf Jonsson
vasil
Vaxian
vladi mazzilli
wastehl
Weston
William Kim
William N.
William Stehl
Wesley Venis
The aforementioned have contributed financially to the continuing triumph of 4hv.org. They are deserving of my most heartfelt thanks.
Registered Member #543
Joined: Tue Feb 20 2007, 04:26PM
Location: UK
Posts: 4992
Purdue University professor Rusi Taleyarkhan has been debarred by officials in the U.S. Navy's Office of Naval Research and Acquisition Integrity Office. He is prohibited from participating in any federally funded research or contracts for 28 months, as of May 2009.
The Navy ordered the debarment in great part because an attempted science replication, which the Navy funded, failed to produce positive results.
The project was an attempt to replicate the Taleyarkhan group's "bubble fusion" experiment that had been performed at Oak Ridge national laboratory.
The replication attempt was made at University of California, Los Angeles.
Registered Member #543
Joined: Tue Feb 20 2007, 04:26PM
Location: UK
Posts: 4992
MinorityCarrier wrote ...
Bubblegate?
As the mantra goes: Good science is repeatable science, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Sonoluminescence is cool, watched it in a Megasonics cleaning tank at work in Idaho.
Hello there MC,
I've been interested in LENR ever since the Fleischmann-Pons controversry with which it all began, and have contributed to two peer-reviewed papers treating of the bubble fusion claim. In my view, Taleyarkhan may have made mistakes, but it would be quite wrong to accuse him of deliberate scientific misconduct - else why would the US ONR be happy to have him back after 28 months suspension? There must after all be some right to be wrong, or experimentlalism could never happen.
Those who read only pre-digested pop science journalism are probably unaware of the great stream of LENR papers coming from Japan, Korea, China, and Russia in quality peer-reviwed journals - which is why the US ONR are happy to have Rusi back after only a token two year suspension (which came about as a result of most peculiar allegations made by a second-fiddle post-Doctoral - an absurd little figure who has now split the academic scene for richer fields in industry.)
Registered Member #531
Joined: Sat Feb 17 2007, 10:51AM
Location: Burlington, Vermont
Posts: 125
Not sure how acceptable the topic is on this board BUT I have to agree with Stella. Those who's only exposure to LENR is via the silliness of Naudin and the YouTube crowd or the cynical view point of Park's "Voodoo Science" are missing out. It may yet turn out to be a mass self deception but there are many well qualified academics working in the field.
IMO LENR occupies an orbit just outside that of my personal favorite subject, Ball Lightning. Both are highly transient, mostly unpredictable and, in the case of BL, so far completely immune to repeatable laboratory reproduction. That said, there is tantalizingly compelling evidence for the existence of both. Not classifiable at this time as a science yet certainly not a pseudoscience, at least not in the accepted definition of the word.
... not Russel! Registered Member #1
Joined: Thu Jan 26 2006, 12:18AM
Location: Tempe, Arizona
Posts: 1052
scott fusare wrote ...
IMO LENR occupies an orbit just outside that of my personal favorite subject, Ball Lightning. Both are highly transient, mostly unpredictable and, in the case of BL, so far completely immune to repeatable laboratory reproduction. That said, there is tantalizingly compelling evidence for the existence of both. Not classifiable at this time as a science yet certainly not a pseudoscience, at least not in the accepted definition of the word.
Both subjects certainly have scientific merit and aren't pseudoscience by themselves. The problem is that pseudoscience has been built up around both, making it very difficult to take a rational look at the subject. According to Wikipedia, the accepted definition of pseudoscience is "a methodology, belief, or practice that is claimed to be scientific, or that is made to appear to be scientific, but which does not adhere to an appropriate scientific methodology, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, or otherwise lacks scientific status."
Attempts to "recreate" BL in the lab is a good example of pseudoscience; there is no accepted set of properties that defines BL, so any attempt at recreation cannot be called scientific. Many of the "observations" of BL are in direct conflict with one another, so the methodology becomes: create something that matches many eyewitness reports, discount the ones that don't fit, and claim success. That's not to say that BL itself is pseudoscience, it's just that most people have got the wrong end of the stick. There's plenty of actual science out there to do, most of it observing and gathering hard data, so that a testable hypothesis can be constructed.
Registered Member #531
Joined: Sat Feb 17 2007, 10:51AM
Location: Burlington, Vermont
Posts: 125
Hi Chris,
Glad that you have chimed in here. I have, with one exception, avoided posting or commenting on the topic of ball lightning on this forum believing it to be too "fringy" a topic. Is it acceptable? It's a particularly favorite topic of mine and one to which I have devoted much research time.
Yes, both topics have a halo of misinformation, silly theory and poor experimentation built up around them. LENR is particularly susceptible to this as it's is quite simple for anyone to demonstrate plasma electrolysis. Credible calorimetry is quite a different matter though...
Chris Russell wrote ...
Attempts to "recreate" BL in the lab is a good example of pseudoscience; there is no accepted set of properties that defines BL, so any attempt at recreation cannot be called scientific. Many of the "observations" of BL are in direct conflict with one another, so the methodology becomes: create something that matches many eyewitness reports, discount the ones that don't fit, and claim success. That's not to say that BL itself is pseudoscience, it's just that most people have got the wrong end of the stick. There's plenty of actual science out there to do, most of it observing and gathering hard data, so that a testable hypothesis can be constructed.
I would disagree with this statement. The general properties are known and accepted among those that study the phenomenon. A typical list appears on page 115 of this paper which was contained in an issue of "The Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society" devoted to the topic of ball lightning.
There are many facets to the phenomenon but I have yet to read any account that was "in direct conflict" with another account. Perhaps you could elaborate on this. References would be great if you have them. I have heard this stated before but never defended.
I do agree completely with your statement on matching some properties and claiming success. The same may be said of the many, many papers that posit theories on the phenomenon. The vast majority of the authors seemingly have not bothered to grasp the observed properties of that which they attempt to explain. I would be more tempted to call this sloppy science than pseudo science although one could argue they are synonymous.
There is intrinsically nothing wrong with approaching a problem by coming up with a good laboratory analog. The natural events are brief and unpredictable rendering them nearly intractable to laboratory study. There is no violation of the scientific method here assuming you have actually done your homework which the vast majority have not. Out of curiosity what would you consider "hard data"?
... not Russel! Registered Member #1
Joined: Thu Jan 26 2006, 12:18AM
Location: Tempe, Arizona
Posts: 1052
scott fusare wrote ...
There are many facets to the phenomenon but I have yet to read any account that was "in direct conflict" with another account. Perhaps you could elaborate on this. References would be great if you have them. I have heard this stated before but never defended.
I don't really keep sources handy on this, but a little digging around will turn up accounts of BL that can pass through solid objects, as well as accounts of BL that cannot. Some reports describe it as attracted to grounded or metal objects; some don't. In some cases the BL simply dissipates, in others it explodes or performs other violent acts. Sometimes it is silent, sometimes it crackles or hisses. This makes it pretty difficult to pin down just what BL can or cannot do. The only thing that almost everyone seems to agree on is the fact that it is a glowing ball, which gives people attempting to recreate it a pretty wide latitude. Most of the "recreation" attempts that I've seen simply select eyewitness observations that are desirable, and discount ones that are inconvenient or difficult to explain.
wrote ...
There is intrinsically nothing wrong with approaching a problem by coming up with a good laboratory analog. The natural events are brief and unpredictable rendering them nearly intractable to laboratory study. There is no violation of the scientific method here assuming you have actually done your homework which the vast majority have not. Out of curiosity what would you consider "hard data"?
That is quite true; there's nothing wrong with attempting to recreate something that occurs naturally or unpredictably in a predictable laboratory environment. The problem is, all anyone has are eyewitness accounts of BL (along with some fairly questionable photographs), many of which are seemingly in conflict. Hard data is necessary -- in this case I would consider anything more reliable than eyewitness testimony to be a step in the right direction. The best hard data would be detailed photographs, videos, measurements of electromagnetic fields, and so on. The fact that it will be very difficult to gather such data doesn't dismiss it from being required.
Registered Member #543
Joined: Tue Feb 20 2007, 04:26PM
Location: UK
Posts: 4992
I couldn't agree more that the dapper French alchemist N, and people like him, have done a great deal to undermine serious professional LENR research. In one experiment of his 'experiments' that I recall, he seemed to think he would be able to detect a minute neutron flux with a kiddy's 100 bucks GM counter, while he electrolysed potassium carbonate solution or whatever.
He compiles tables etc, which may give the inexperienced the impression of scientific method, but if he came down to Brighton, I'd tell him to wipe his mouth with restroom paper because he talks so much blick. (A bit crude, perhaps, but there is good reason to be cross with him!)
The damage that quacks like N have done can be measured by Scotty's query: "Not sure how acceptable the topic is on this board" i.e. Scotty was afraid (has been made afraid?) of expressing an opinion, or showing an interest in about a possibly taboo subject- in a word, a kind of pressure has been applied to him - to all of us - to renounce observational science which must ever be free to enquire, to question, to doubt, to hypothesise, to speculate, to reconfigure, to rearrange and to dream.
It is said with good reason that "extraordinary claims demand extraordinary levels of proof,' but let us never get into a situation where we put the cart before the horse, and say that the absence of extraordinary levels of proof means that a claim, notion, idea, is invalid, or incorrect, and should not therefore should not be invesitgated. Several very eminent Victorian scientists of great talent claimed that "there was now nothing more to be discovered.!"And think how long it took before it occurred to the quiet persistence of the kind and gentle Eddington saw that the solar eclipse of 1919 might provide the first empirical evidence in support of the General Theory.
After this vigorous blast by me, friends will no don't want to ask whether I 'believe' in 'cold fusion.'
And my belief is this - to the best of knowledge, certain extremely small anomalies have been observed by excellent metrologists which can not be wholly accounted for in our present state of knowledge - and to me that can only mean one thing - a big signpost - REAL SCIENTISTS THIS WAY!
... not Russel! Registered Member #1
Joined: Thu Jan 26 2006, 12:18AM
Location: Tempe, Arizona
Posts: 1052
Proud Mary wrote ...
After this vigorous blast by me, friends will no don't want to ask whether I 'believe' in 'cold fusion.'
And my belief is this - to the best of knowledge, certain extremely small anomalies have been observed by excellent metrologists which can not be wholly accounted for in our present state of knowledge - and to me that can only mean one thing - a big signpost - REAL SCIENTISTS THIS WAY!
My thoughts exactly. Some small anomalies have been observed, duly recorded, and the methodologies which produced them have also been detailed. Time for science! We may discover it's all just a folly, but it seems silly to not investigate.
I had a physics professor who put it this way when asked whether he "believed" in a particular theory: "Belief is a matter of faith. As a physicist, I only believe in two things: that the Universe is mathematical in nature, and that use of the scientific method will allow us to understand it. Everything else is subject to scrutiny, and may go out the window tomorrow to be replaced by something new."
Registered Member #2123
Joined: Sat May 16 2009, 03:10AM
Location: Bend, Oregon
Posts: 312
Jan H. Schon is a good example of someone making extraordinary claims. When researchers got around to analyzing his extraordinary evidence, his rather large fraud was uncovered. Plus no one could repeat his experiments and obtain the results he claimed he did.
Bubble fusion may be possible, but Rusi's apparent fraud, uncovered at Purdue University, follows a similar pattern as Schon's. There's a write-up about it in Scientific American.
I also followed the Cold Fusion debacle as it happened, the first thing that set off alarm bells was that Fleischman and Pons held a news conference, they didn't previously submit their data for peer review and publication.
Hero-worship happens, people want to believe, but scientific claims have to be verified. Faith has to be set aside or we end up with George W. Bush science.
This site is powered by e107, which is released under the GNU GPL License. All work on this site, except where otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 License. By submitting any information to this site, you agree that anything submitted will be so licensed. Please read our Disclaimer and Policies page for information on your rights and responsibilities regarding this site.
Bubble Fusion Prof Debarred By Office of Naval Research
