Merged: Cold Fusion Claims

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by attaboy

You and Craig do make some good points. I must admit there does seem to be a lot of fluff in that power point presentation. But I really don't think you're going to get this data you want. For one thing, there's far too much secrecy going on to expect much useful data to be available. For me, the fact that MIT and NASA are involved is quite convincing, not to mention maybe another half dozen entities with some claim to being credible.

Been down this road, what exactly is MIT's and NASA's involvement.

And where is the data?

[trebor]

Originally Posted by Dancing David

Been down this road, what exactly is MIT's and NASA's involvement.

And where is the data?

Well, as for NASA there seems to be this from NASA watch:

http://nasawatch.com/archives/2012/0...usion-upd.html

It seems as of a year ago all there was is a patent application... This is starting to sound vary familiar.

[leonAzul]

Originally Posted by Craig B

More name dropping! What are NASA and MIT saying about their magic energy involvement?

They were willing to take a look at the evidence.

They are still waiting for that evidence.

[ben m]

MIT's involvement is that, in 1986, they hired an engineer; in 1989 this engineer latched onto the idea of cold fusion and didn't let go. Therefore, for the past 20 years, this one guy's publications and conferences and whatnot all have the words "MIT" on them somewhere.

"MIT" doesn't do research. MIT is a collection of independent PIs who research things. The MIT administration may or may not support a given PI's research---are they building new research centers for you? Hiring more people in your field? Featuring you on its home page? Giving you promotions? In the "field" of cold fusion, yes, there's one MIT employee who is a fan of it. This employee gets zero MIT support, interest, or promotion for this line of work.

That doesn't mean that you can put "there's cold fusion research at MIT" and "there's organic semiconductor research at MIT" and imply that cold fusion research is therefore a serious thing. It's just that one guy.

[Horatius]

Originally Posted by trebor

Well, as for NASA there seems to be this from NASA watch:

http://nasawatch.com/archives/2012/0...usion-upd.html

It seems as of a year ago all there was is a patent application... This is starting to sound vary familiar.

Money Quote:

Quote:

Langley is funding LENR research as an initial, exploratory study of a low technology readiness level, high-risk, high-payoff technology through its Creativity & Innovation (C&I) fund and the Center Innovation Fund (CIF).

Read that as, "It probably won't work, but if it does, we'll be rich, so **** it, we'll toss them a few bucks".

[attaboy]

Originally Posted by Craig B

More name dropping!

You mean like Randi claiming to be bosom buddies With Carl Sagan in that sordid video.

[attaboy]

I don't know why I waste my time here. Obviously most of you are very poorly informed, otherwise you wouldn't ask me to spoon feed you readily available info. But we've been down this road before.

[Roger Ramjets]

Originally Posted by attaboy

I don't know why I waste my time here.

To sharpen up your debating skills? Get other points of view? Learn from people who are more informed than you? If it's none of these things then perhaps you are wasting your time here...

Quote:

Obviously most of you are very poorly informed, otherwise you wouldn't ask me to spoon feed you readily available info.

Unlike some others I have made the effort to read up on all the readily available info. For me the facts are quite convincing. Cold Fusion may be possible, but so far nobody has demonstrated how to do it.

[Craig B]

Originally Posted by attaboy

You mean like Randi claiming to be bosom buddies With Carl Sagan in that sordid video.

No I don't mean that, about which I know nothing. I mean the big lists of names of alleged believers in Cold Fusion which are offered by its fanboys in lieu of non existent evidence.

[ben m]

Originally Posted by attaboy

I don't know why I waste my time here. Obviously most of you are very poorly informed, otherwise you wouldn't ask me to spoon feed you readily available info. But we've been down this road before.

The readily available info is:

a) A string of SPAWAR pseudo-papers showing an utterly inadequate understanding of high-energy neutrons, the detection thereof, the specific detectors they used, and generally anything whatsoever to do with calibration.

b) A bunch of videos of Rossi doing nothing whatsoever.

c) A handful of amateur-hour theory papers with flat-out sign errors, wrong numbers, and nonexistent nuclei.

d) Pons and Fleischmann's original crappy calorimetry---now, what, a quarter-century ago?---and its predictable result reporting a calorimetry error.

e) The collection of early-90s attempted "replications", in which various competent high-sensitivity groups disagreed with P&F, and the occasional claims to disagree with P&F were in direct proportion to the incompetence of the claimant?

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by attaboy

I don't know why I waste my time here. Obviously most of you are very poorly informed, otherwise you wouldn't ask me to spoon feed you readily available info. But we've been down this road before.

So again, you can't present evidence and then make some whining noises. It would appear you have a personal belief that you can not support with the data.

[phunk]

Originally Posted by attaboy

I don't know why I waste my time here. Obviously most of you are very poorly informed, otherwise you wouldn't ask me to spoon feed you readily available info. But we've been down this road before.

If it's so readily available, why haven't you been able to show it?

[WhatRoughBeast]

Originally Posted by ben m

e) The collection of early-90s attempted "replications", in which various competent high-sensitivity groups disagreed with P&F, and the occasional claims to disagree with P&F were in direct proportion to the incompetence of the claimant?

I assume you meant "and the occasional claims to agree with P&F"

[leonAzul]

Originally Posted by trebor

It seems as of a year ago all there was is a patent application... This is starting to sound vary familiar.

I took a look at the application and it seems more applicable to atomic-level imaging than directly related to LENR. The development of instrumentation to make good observations at that level and verify or falsify LENR could make the investment worthwhile.

[Crawdaddy]

http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913

You know the part in star wars where Obi Wan shuts down the power to the Death Star shields and a couple of storm troopers are like: "What the hell is going on!?... must be some kind of drill!"

You guys are the storm troopers.

[Aepervius]

Originally Posted by attaboy

I don't know why I waste my time here. Obviously most of you are very poorly informed, otherwise you wouldn't ask me to spoon feed you readily available info. But we've been down this road before.

Ha LOLOLOL, thank you thank you very much you made my day. That made me laugh to tears. You obviously have no idea of what you are speaking about.

[Aepervius]

Originally Posted by Crawdaddy

http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913

You know the part in star wars where Obi Wan shuts down the power to the Death Star shields and a couple of storm troopers are like: "What the hell is going on!?... must be some kind of drill!"

You guys are the storm troopers.

Yawn. I have seen a lot of crap in arxiv. So that abstract don't change anything. Call me back when it is published and readable.

FYI anomalous heat was also reported by others and even P&F and we all know where we are 25 years later.

ETAETA : and again the same people : Levi & Rossi. Not exactely independent. And again no radiation beside EM measured, the content not being exposed, etc...

[Craig B]

Originally Posted by Crawdaddy

http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913

You know the part in star wars where Obi Wan shuts down the power to the Death Star shields and a couple of storm troopers are like: "What the hell is going on!?... must be some kind of drill!"

You guys are the storm troopers.

G. Levi, one of the authors of the paper, produced similar material in 2011. He's one of Rossi's collaborators.

Quote:

Jan. 11, 2011 – University of Bologna Professor Giuseppe Levi writes and distributes press release for Rossi’s Jan. 14, 2011 press conference and demonstration.
Jan. 14, 2011 – Levi organizes press conference and conducts Rossi Energy Catalyzer demonstration. Levi performs “Test 2″ with the involvement of other University of Bologna professors.
Jan. 21, 2011 – University of Bologna professors Levi and Bianchini publish reports on their test of Rossi’s Jan. 14, 2011 demonstration.
Feb. 10-11, 2011 – Rossi, Levi and Passerini perform sub-boiling test on Ross’s device.
Feb. 23, 2011 – Mats Lewan of Ny Teknik writes: “In the morning of February 10, the inventor and engineer Andrea Rossi initiated a new controlled experiment in Bologna…With him was the physicist and researcher Giuseppe Levi from the University of Bologna, who also supervised the public demonstration in January. Together they ran the unit for 18 hours.”

I will look up the other authors.

[Craig B]

Originally Posted by Crawdaddy

http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913

You know the part in star wars where Obi Wan shuts down the power to the Death Star shields and a couple of storm troopers are like: "What the hell is going on!?... must be some kind of drill!"

You guys are the storm troopers.

Here's another of the authors in April 2011 in New Energy Times. http://www.freeenergytimes.com/2011/...lear-reaction/

Quote:

The swedish web site NyTeknik has a report from Swedish physicists Hanno Essén and Sven Kullander who have a conducted a new test of Andrea Rossi’s Energy Catalyzer and in their opinion some kind of nuclear reaction must be taking place to produce the amount of energy they measured.
In a detailed report they stated “Any chemical process should be ruled out for producing 25 kWh from whatever is in a 50 cubic centimeter container. The only alternative explanation is that there is some kind of a nuclear process that gives rise to the measured energy production.”
The two researchers tested a smaller version of the E-cat than had been used by different testers earlier this year. This one achieved a power output of 4.4 kW.
Kullander said “My belief that there is an energy development far beyond what one would expect has been strengthened significantly as I have had the opportunity to see the process for myself and perform measurements.”
Essén reported,“Everything that we’ve found so far fits together. There is nothing that seems to be strange. All people seem to be honest and competent,”

In my view there is plenty strange about Rossi and his machine. Almost nobody takes him seriously now, and Essén was at best overly credulous in his approach to that contraption.

[catsmate]

Originally Posted by Crawdaddy

You guys are the storm troopers.

No we're people awaiting evidence, not just claims. That "paper" is silly.

• no proper measurement of heat output, relying on a thermal imager
• no proper measurement of energy input
• "It was not possible to evaluate the weight of internal steel cylinder or caps because because E-Cat HT was already running when the test began." Has anyone seen such sloppy methodology in real science?

Garbage science.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Crawdaddy

http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913

Wow - a pre-print that tries to duplicate Rossi and his debunked E-Cat "experiments"!
Sorry Crawdaddy, you are showing signs of being as gullible as these authors. This is the insanity of thinking that there is some magic happening that causes Ni to turn into Cu.

Look at
"As in the original E-Cat, the reaction is fueled by a mixture of nickel, hydrogen, and a catalyst, which is kept as an industrial trade secret. The charge sets off the production of thermal energy".
We all know what that catalyst is - fairy dust !

One actual scientific error is that they call assigning an emissivity of 1 (a black body) to the apparatus "conservative" when this maximizes the power measured via the radiation. So it is an extreme assumption. A value of 1 applies to dull, black surfaces. They have a fairly dull grey surface. The emissivity is less than 1. In fact I suspect it is about 0.1 accounting for the "extra" power that they claim.

[Farsight]

I was reading what Tommaso Dorigo said about this. Like him I'm sceptical about Rossi. But like him, I'm also somewhat taken aback. Maybe not as much as some, because I understand pressure and temperature. In metalwork an arc welder employs blue heat and no pressure, a blacksmith employs red heat and pressure via hammering, and cold welding is no heat and all pressure. And I know a guy who's worked in "LENR" and gave me the lowdown on tricking your way past the Coulomb barrier.

Anyway, when I looked at the paper I was reminded of Doug Coulter, who's involved in a "fusor" group. Fusors are no big deal, fusion is dead easy. Making a fusion device give out more energy than it consumes is tricky. Doug is a great bloke, with a great sense of humour. Cop this:

If I get to gain, I can call, say, Babcock and Wilcox (a firm that makes coal and nuclear plants) and say, hey guys, I have this piece of pipe that stays yellow hot no matter how I try to cool it off, can you help? They'll be here hours later on the private jet to "help".

[The Man]

Originally Posted by Farsight

I was reading what Tommaso Dorigo said about this. Like him I'm sceptical about Rossi. But like him, I'm also somewhat taken aback. Maybe not as much as some, because I understand pressure and temperature. In metalwork an arc welder employs blue heat and no pressure, a blacksmith employs red heat and pressure via hammering, and cold welding is no heat and all pressure.

That’s actually a different type of “fusion”.

Originally Posted by Farsight

And I know a guy who's worked in "LENR" and gave me the lowdown on tricking your way past the Coulomb barrier.

Low-down might be a more applicable term for “tricking your way past the Coulomb barrier” particularly if it involves examples of welding for the type of fusion being considered.

Originally Posted by Farsight

Anyway, when I looked at the paper I was reminded of Doug Coulter, who's involved in a "fusor" group. Fusors are no big deal, fusion is dead easy. Making a fusion device give out more energy than it consumes is tricky. Doug is a great bloke, with a great sense of humour. Cop this:


If I get to gain, I can call, say, Babcock and Wilcox (a firm that makes coal and nuclear plants) and say, hey guys, I have this piece of pipe that stays yellow hot no matter how I try to cool it off, can you help? They'll be here hours later on the private jet to "help".

He shouldn't quit his day job.

[ben m]

Quote:

They were fed by a TRIAC power regulator device which interrupted each phase periodically, in order to modulate power input with an industrial trade secret waveform. This procedure, needed to properly activate the E-Cat HT charge, had no bearing whatsoever on the power consumption of the device ...

Pay no attention to the undocumented secret power supply box behind the curtain.

A "secret waveform" is needed to "activate" mystery powder? By doing extra-super-special resistive heating? Wow.

Also:

Quote:

Upon completion of the test, the E-Cat HT2 was opened, and the innermost cylinder, sealed by caps and containing the powder charges, was extracted. It was then weighed (1537.6 g) and subsequently cut open in the middle on a lathe. Before removal of the powder charges, the cylinder was weighed once again (1522.9 g), to compensate for the steel machine shavings lost. Lastly, the inner powders were extracted by the manufacturer (in separate premises we did not have access to), and the empty cylinder was weighed once again (1522.6 g). The weight that may be assigned to the powder charges is therefore on the order of 0.3 g; here it shall be conservatively assumed to have value of 1 g, in order to take into account any possible source of error linked to the measurement.

The testers observed the heat output of a 1500g cylinder. The cylinder was taken away and something 0.3g lighter was returned. The authors calculate all their crazy-high power densities assuming that the power-density is attributed to this "conservative" gram of missing "charge". Um, how about if the power-density is attributed to the kilogram of stuff that Rossi took into his back room before bringing you an empty cylinder?

Finally, let's look at the supposed 0.3 gram "charge"---suppose that was a 5 millimoles of nickel, of 3e21 atoms. They claim to have gotten 60 kWh, or 216MJ, out of this, amounting to 400 keV per atom. Assuming a nuclear-scale energy source, they're claiming to have burned most of the nickel atoms into something else, and that the missing "3 grams" is not a pile of nickel with some trace elements in it, but is rather entirely different (transformed to copper or something) and easily verified as such. If it were real.

This also contradicts their claim that the reaction runs with due to a "special catalyst". First, if your reaction runs in 3g of "special nickel", then by the end of your experiment your reaction was running in an alloy of half-nickel, half-copper with virtually nothing in common chemically with the original catalyst. So much for "special secret ingredients".

Also, you have a cylinder whose external surface was at 700 degrees and cooling radiatively. Try to get that much heat to flow out of a nickel powder. It won't, the powder will melt first. So much for "special nanocrystalline nickel" or whatever it was.

[Horatius]

It's even simpler than that, guys:

Quote:

An experimental investigation of possible anomalous heat production in a special type of reactor tube named E-Cat HT is carried out.

They have indications of "possible" heat production - in a device that was claimed to be a commercial-ready 10 kilowatt reactor a few years ago. Claim decay == fake.

[Craig B]

Cogent objections have been raised in a comment in another blog. The questions and objections listed here need to be answered.

http://pesn.com/2013/05/20/9602320_V...east-10x-gain/ Comment by Mark Euthanasius:

Quote:

It is unfortunately a very poor quality report that is unlikely to find general acceptance. One of the ‘elephant in the room’ questions the report leaves unanswered is how it is possible to have a process that is supposed to generate tremendous heat once started, but that cannot keep itself going with that tremendous heat, yet can be stimulated to restart after it has cooled down with modest heat. Disturbing parts of the report with respect to the lack of control by the investigators include statements that the device was already running when tests began denying the investigators even the opportunity to inspect the device prior to the experiments. Further serious data quality questions arise from the statements that the input power was the result of proprietary power waveforms that the investigators assumed were processed accurately by the test instrumentation.

We seem to have the perennial issue of devices allegedly capable of generating vast quantities of energy, but requiring to be kept continuously attached to an external power source.

[Craig B]

See aso the sober comments by Vincent at http://coldfusionnow.org/andrea-ross...port-released/

[Kid Eager]

Originally Posted by Craig B

See aso the sober comments by Vincent at http://coldfusionnow.org/andrea-ross...port-released/

... and the credulous comments thereafter. Disappointing - people *want* it to be true, so suspend all disbelief and ignore the problems with the experiment.

[Aepervius]

Quote:

It is unfortunately a very poor quality report that is unlikely to find general acceptance. One of the ‘elephant in the room’ questions the report leaves unanswered is how it is possible to have a process that is supposed to generate tremendous heat once started, but that cannot keep itself going with that tremendous heat, yet can be stimulated to restart after it has cooled down with modest heat. Disturbing parts of the report with respect to the lack of control by the investigators include statements that the device was already running when tests began denying the investigators even the opportunity to inspect the device prior to the experiments. Further serious data quality questions arise from the statements that the input power was the result of proprietary power waveforms that the investigators assumed were processed accurately by the test instrumentation.

My solution to that is very simple : make sure you got big enough cable to heat the things, feed it enough electricity to go red hot, then cheat out and fake that it is not feeding so many energy, make sure you get the cylinder back to hide the resistance inside get gullible people and make bad energy measurement.

SSDD in Rossi land.

Et voila.

ETA: And the objection about how the process would not be a run away reaction once it reaches the temperature of reaction, since it pretends to produce more heat than provided, has always been there from starts, I can remember when I was on Rossi own blog/forums I stated the question never to be answered. I am pretty sure I can see why it was not answered (I wasn#t alone a horde of people asked the same question). The reality is that Rossi more or less ingeniously heat the stuff 100% , he jsut fake out how much is going "in". He was even caught suspiciously near the voltage regulator FFS, years ago in the first photo/video of his e-nothing.

[Farsight]

Originally Posted by The Man

That’s actually a different type of “fusion”.

That it is. My point was that fusion is portrayed as something very difficult and futuristic, when actually it's rather straightforward and has been around for fifty years. See the Farsnsworth fusor.

Originally Posted by The Man

Low-down might be a more applicable term for “tricking your way past the Coulomb barrier” particularly if it involves examples of welding for the type of fusion being considered.

It is. You sneak under the barrier rather than trying to climb over it.

Originally Posted by The Man

He shouldn't quit his day job.

Doug's a good bloke, and his physics is good too. Don't knock it.

Originally Posted by Kid Eager

... and the credulous comments thereafter. Disappointing - people *want* it to be true, so suspend all disbelief and ignore the problems with the experiment.

There's people who *want* it to be untrue too.

Like I said, I'm sceptical of Rossi but not so sceptical of LENR. This should sort itself soon and we'll know one way or another. Until then I'll examine the evidence, and I will not allow my scepticism to cause me to disregard that evidence. One thing that interests me is that the cylinder was glowing red-hot. You could achieve that with say a big current or inductive heating or thermite. But if you were faking it, why go so far as to make it red hot?

[Kid Eager]

Originally Posted by Farsight

That it is. My point was that fusion is portrayed as something very difficult and futuristic, when actually it's rather straightforward and has been around for fifty years. See the Farsnsworth fusor.

It is. You sneak under the barrier rather than trying to climb over it.

Doug's a good bloke, and his physics is good too. Don't knock it.


There's people who *want* it to be untrue too.

Like I said, I'm sceptical of Rossi but not so sceptical of LENR. This should sort itself soon and we'll know one way or another. Until then I'll examine the evidence, and I will not allow my scepticism to cause me to disregard that evidence. One thing that interests me is that the cylinder was glowing red-hot. You could achieve that with say a big current or inductive heating or thermite. But if you were faking it, why go so far as to make it red hot?

The corollary equally applies - if you were faking it, why would you *not* make it red hot? "Look! It's RED HOT! Therefore, fusion!"

I am skeptical that the experimental controls were adequate, and the report is my reference point.

[Farsight]

Me too. And I have to say I don't quite trust the impartiality here. But I'm not so sceptical that I'm going to dismiss scientific evidence. I think there's too much of that sort of thing on JREF. At times guys here come across like creationists. You show them the fossils, the strata, the radiocarbon and other dating, and they dismiss it all saying that's not evidence. I think they call it hyperskepticism. There was a similar sort of irony going on in the Dawkins Forum before the plug got pulled. People were behaving just like the people they mock. Dawkins too.

[Aepervius]

Originally Posted by Farsight

Me too. And I have to say I don't quite trust the impartiality here. But I'm not so sceptical that I'm going to dismiss scientific evidence. I think there's too much of that sort of thing on JREF. At times guys here come across like creationists. You show them the fossils, the strata, the radiocarbon and other dating, and they dismiss it all saying that's not evidence. I think they call it hyperskepticism. There was a similar sort of irony going on in the Dawkins Forum before the plug got pulled. People were behaving just like the people they mock. Dawkins too.

It get dismissed because scientific evidence require a certain standard. That report do not meet that standard. It is not hyper-skepticism or whatever, it is just applying the same standard to everything.

[Farsight]

Scientific evidence gets dismissed on specious grounds by people with convictions, Aepervius. Sadly people who consider themselves to rational and scientific are not immune to this.

By the way, I don't know if anybody here has mentioned it, but as a guy mentioned on Tommaso Dorigo's blog, using an infra-red camera to measure temperature seems a bit odd.

[TjW]

Originally Posted by Farsight

Scientific evidence gets dismissed on specious grounds by people with convictions, Aepervius. Sadly people who consider themselves to rational and scientific are not immune to this.

By the way, I don't know if anybody here has mentioned it, but as a guy mentioned on Tommaso Dorigo's blog, using an infra-red camera to measure temperature seems a bit odd.

The difference being that there are methods of calorimetry that people would accept. Which are studiously avoided in favor of demonstrations.

[Aepervius]

Originally Posted by Farsight

Scientific evidence gets dismissed on specious grounds by people with convictions, Aepervius. Sadly people who consider themselves to rational and scientific are not immune to this.

By the way, I don't know if anybody here has mentioned it, but as a guy mentioned on Tommaso Dorigo's blog, using an infra-red camera to measure temperature seems a bit odd.

Except that the lot of objection above make sense.

heck even the very important one like that one "why the reaction stops when you stop providing heat, when it generate more heat supposedly than the one initially provided"
those never got a proper answer.

If you decide to see that as dismissing on specious ground, well sorry. Those are important objection which would have needed an answer years ago, but was never given. that and the absence of non EM radiation.

You may decide to give the benefit of doubt. But that's your choice. Science does not work by giving the benefit of doubt.

[Aepervius]

Originally Posted by TjW

The difference being that there are methods of calorimetry that people would accept. Which are studiously avoided in favor of demonstrations.

I think demonstration is the important word.

Obviously , other nuclear scientist using calorimetry are not the targeted audience.

I may be wrong, but it seems to me the targeted audience are actually those which already accept Rossi's word.

If the targeted audience were other scientist, then proper calorimetry and explanation, as well as transparency would be provided. Instead we get stalling and wafting about patent and secret ingredient (that one was very funny).

And where are we years after the initial wave ?

No where. No reactors place can be named. No commercially available to all gizmo. no truly independent verification. Always the man behind the curtain directing the show and refusing to let anybody too near the circus.

I predict that in 2 years it will be the same.

[The Man]

Originally Posted by Farsight

That it is. My point was that fusion is portrayed as something very difficult and futuristic, when actually it's rather straightforward and has been around for fifty years. See the Farsnsworth fusor.

See, it is much easier to make your point when you say it directly rather then just mentioning different welding techniques.

So "it's rather straightforward and has been around for fifty years"? Certainly someone or something has gotten lost along the way for something "rather straightforward" after "fifty years" as there are still major difficulties (like just the break even point and a self sustaining reaction) the solutions for which are still, well, "futuristic" to say the least.

Originally Posted by Farsight

It is. You sneak under the barrier rather than trying to climb over it.

So sneaky apparently that they can't even do it reliably and effectively after fifty years of something you have claimed to be "rather straightforward". It seems the Coulomb barrier isn't the only thing that some may be trying to sneak under by being low-down.

Originally Posted by Farsight

Doug's a good bloke, and his physics is good too. Don't knock it.

"a great bloke, with a great sense of humour", as you posted. You may find that "Don't quit your day job." is a common humorous response to one pining for their big break as perhaps a singer, actor, writer, artist and now even "Fusor".

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Farsight

That it is. My point was that fusion is portrayed as something very difficult and futuristic, when actually it's rather straightforward and has been around for fifty years. See the Farsnsworth fusor.

You are almost right, Farsight: It is sustainable fusion that is portrayed correctly as something very difficult and futuristic. You mentioned this before.
Fusion itself has been going on for billions of years. It is simple - all you need is a lot of hydrogen.

Originally Posted by Farsight

It is. You sneak under the barrier rather than trying to climb over it.

That is impossible - it is a barrier so you cannot go under it .
But you can tunnel through some potential barriers in QM which would be a mechanism for cold fusion if it was unknown science. However it is well-known science that rules out cold fusion.

However you know "know a guy who's worked in "LENR" and gave me the lowdown on tricking your way past the Coulomb barrier". SO you can explain this and give citations:
Farsight,
how did this some guy trick his way past the Coulomb barrier?

Originally Posted by Farsight

Doug's a good bloke, and his physics is good too. Don't knock it.

What evidence have you that Doug of Coulter's Smithing is a good or evil bloke, Farsight ?
You have not cited any of his physics.
His fusor physics is probably good because this is standard physics. As you have noted fusors have been around for decades.

You seem to think that he is working on cold fusion - citations please.

[Kid Eager]

Originally Posted by Farsight

Me too. And I have to say I don't quite trust the impartiality here. But I'm not so sceptical that I'm going to dismiss scientific evidence. I think there's too much of that sort of thing on JREF. At times guys here come across like creationists. You show them the fossils, the strata, the radiocarbon and other dating, and they dismiss it all saying that's not evidence. I think they call it hyperskepticism. There was a similar sort of irony going on in the Dawkins Forum before the plug got pulled. People were behaving just like the people they mock. Dawkins too.

Neither is anybody else here - it's a moot point. When there is *scientific evidence* supporting the claim, rather than "we looked at a bunch of stuff", I will be happy and delighted that something new has arrived.

Labelling something "hyperskepticism", because others don't subscribe to your beliefs, is not furthering the discussion. Bring evidence.