You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Lumifer comments on Open thread, Dec. 21 - Dec. 27, 2015 - Less Wrong Discussion

2 Post author: MrMind 21 December 2015 07:56AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (230)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: Lumifer 22 December 2015 09:34:46PM 4 points [-]

That was a bit... strange.

Huw Price, a professional philosopher who happens to be one of the founders and the Academic Director of the Centre for the Study of Existential Risk (the one in Cambridge, UK), wrote a piece which is quite optimistic about cold fusion in general and Andrea Rossi in particular.

Comment author: knb 24 December 2015 04:08:06AM 3 points [-]

I don't follow LENR research closely, but Rossi seems like one of the least trustworthy people in the field, which speaks poorly of Huw Price's judgement, since he especially emphasizes the plausibility of E-Cat.

I'm very OK with using "sociological" factors to make judgments about these things. Rossi has been involved in a number of extremely suspicious operations and did a stint in prison for fraud. Here's a skeptic's look at the "independent tests" verifying Rossi's device.

Comment author: Gunnar_Zarncke 23 December 2015 08:51:59AM *  1 point [-]

LENR is under-populated. Independent of whether it is valid or not the social effects dominate the scientific ones.

Also interesting: The Fleischman-Pons-Effect may be unreliable in general but the heat/helium ratio is claimed to be stable.

Added: I don't think the paper by the swedish physicists is smelly either (except in so far as it mentions the E-Cat): Nuclear Spallation and Neutron Capture Induced by Ponderomotive Wave Forcing - note that the specific resonance frequency of the effect could explain the unreliability of the experiment.

It may appear strange that one of the authors Rickard Lundin is an astrophysicist but he well established there (look at the citations) and does have significant experience with interactions of ions in strong fields.

Comment author: Lumifer 23 December 2015 04:48:38PM 1 point [-]

LENR is under-populated.

Saying this implies that you know what the proper population level is. How do you know?

Social effects dominate the attempts to build a perpetuum mobile as well.

Comment author: Gunnar_Zarncke 23 December 2015 09:27:12PM 0 points [-]

Saying this implies that you know what the proper population level is. How do you know?

In this I rely on the evaluation of Huw Price who surely has a much better grasp of the field(s) than I do.

Comment author: RomeoStevens 23 December 2015 04:02:52AM 0 points [-]

Indeed strange. Following up on the linked citations finds things that smell pretty dubious.

Comment author: Gunnar_Zarncke 23 December 2015 09:11:15AM 0 points [-]

Could you link to the citations you find smelly?

Comment author: RomeoStevens 23 December 2015 10:02:05PM *  2 points [-]

Top comment here on the Alexander Parkhomov replication: http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/12/30/alexander-parkhomov-on-calibration-in-his-test/

Claims that this: http://animpossibleinvention.com/2015/10/15/swedish-scientists-claim-lenr-explanation-break-through/ bolsters the case smells like typical aggrandizing claim since it is not a replication, but simply a speculative paper on the causal mechanism if such an effect exists. As has been repeated many times, no one is questioning that the energy is there, it's the mechanism by which it actually provides excess power at low temperatures that is under question, see the comments thread in the next big future piece here:http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/06/chinas-lenr-is-getting-excess-600-watts.html#soa_062bbe85

A review of the more credible replication does cause an update in the positive direction, but only a small one: http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue118/analysis.html