Alain Dit le Cycliste

Technology watcher, LENR-Forum
Villejuif, France

About Alain

Bio

MSC (Ingenieur ESIEE) in electronics, software engineering and system architecture. Tech-watcher & IT architect in IT R&D center. IT expert in cryptography and digital trust services. Benevolent technology Watcher for LENR-Forum.

Languages

English, French

Areas of Expertise

IT - Cryptography and Digital Trust services, Technology watch

An idea worth spreading

LENR Cold Fusion is getting industrial. Revolution is underway.

Universities

ESIEE Paris

Comments & conversations

216294
Alain Dit le Cycliste
Posted about 1 year ago
NASA LENR Energy is Emergent for Good or Bad
the cognitive cascade that some consider as a suppression seems to be caused by 5 incompetent outspoken, aggressive non-powerful people : Lewis,Hansen,Taubes,Huizenga,Morrison. They had no qualities, but their outspoken positions resonated with the secret desires and bias of very powerful and competent scientist and decision makers, who carefully did not read neither their books and papers, nor any positive paper, but supported blindly and publicly those undefendable claims based on no evidence , many errors, and total lack of ethic. (see groupthink MAD http://www.princeton.edu/~rbenabou/papers/Groupthink%20IOM%202012_07_02%20BW.pdf to understand how intelligent people ca refuse to see evidence) What I say sure looks aggressive, but it is in fact the flat analysis of facts. in the paper making the parallel between Titanic myths and Cold fusion myths some elements are really shocking. http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJcoldfusion.pdf#page=4 It is confirmed with less violence by Charles Beaudette in "Excess Heat" http://iccf9.global.tsinghua.edu.cn/lenr%20home%20page/acrobat/BeaudetteCexcessheat.pdf if you doubt Morrison was incompeten tou can find the debunking of his claims here: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanreplytothe.pdf for Hansen and Lewis who are less incompetent, Beaudette gives the key arguments. Since I ask for any written challenge of F&P calorimetry, I only got the critic of Shanahan (by himself, honestly) which is refuted for reason that everybody can understand. http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/71632 It seems cold fusion deniers are not interested in evidences, rather in theory and conspiracies, like most of the population today, like the Nobel who supported the 5-clowns-gang, like Wikipedia admin, even like most supporters. Cold fusion denial is a fiasco of Aristotelianism, of groupthink,of consensus, or bureaucracy and global media, a failure of materialism, scientific method, experimental sciences, academic freedom.
216294
Alain Dit le Cycliste
Posted over 1 year ago
NASA LENR Energy is Emergent for Good or Bad
the high impact factor journals are currently highly criticized by Nobel for blocking innovation and behaving unethically. http://kingsreview.co.uk/magazine/blog/2014/02/24/how-academia-and-publishing-are-destroying-scientific-innovation-a-conversation-with-sydney-brenner/ http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/dec/09/nobel-winner-boycott-science-journals beside some past tragedy http://invention.psychology.msstate.edu/inventors/i/Wrights/library/WrightSiAm1.html For cold fusion theor organized a visible blocus that is a shame. anyway from what have already been published, and from the facst that there is no written article that is maintained today agains LENr experiments, you can conclude that it is an observation replicated and that cannot be explained by artifact. theoretical argument that it is impossible are not scientific, but dogmatic. as well said this is a chemistry question, and chemistry is clear : there is more heat produced in some situation than what can chemistry provide in any way. if you have an affirmative paper proposing proven artifact challenging the thousands of experiments done (at least McKubre, F&P, Fralick89/NRL2008, Oriani, Miles/Bush,DeNinno) that is not yet rebutted, give it to me and I will relay it to the LENR editor of naturWissenschaften for review and rebuttal. for now there is nothing. what are for you the evidence that prove F&P/Oriani/McKubre/Miles were wrong? forget Lewis/hansen who are incompetent, forget failures which are proving nothing and which are today explained by ENEA, forget conspiracy theories like Huizenga's/Taube's unproven international conspiracy theories... anything ?
216294
Alain Dit le Cycliste
Posted over 1 year ago
NASA LENR Energy is Emergent for Good or Bad
none of them succeded to publish in high impact journal, except F&P , because an unethical blocus is orginased by high impact US journals. see that bad excuse paper http://www.rainews24.rai.it/ran24/inchieste/documenti/letteraSCIENCE001.pdf see that paper by Pam Boss (who published in mid-impact magazine dozens of times) http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BiberianJPjcondensedk.pdf#page=6 "Abstract The purpose of scientific journals is to review papers for scientific validity and to disseminate new theoretical and experimental results. This requires that the editors and reviewers be impartial. Our attempt to publish novel experimental results in a renowned physics journal shows that in some cases editors and reviewers are not impartial; they are biased and closed-minded. Although our subject matter was technical, its rejection was not: it was emotionally charged. It was an agenda-laden rejection of legitimate experiments that were conducted in US DoD and DoE laboratories. This paper describes the flawed journal review process, detailing our own case and citing others. Such behavior on the part of editors and reviewers has a stifling effect on innovation and the diffusion of knowledge." on report 41
216294
Alain Dit le Cycliste
Posted over 1 year ago
NASA LENR Energy is Emergent for Good or Bad
note that like what Charles Beaudette explain, http://iccf9.global.tsinghua.edu.cn/lenr%20home%20page/acrobat/BeaudetteCexcessheat.pdf and as heinz Gerischer admitted, in 1992 the it was clear Anomalous Heat was real and proven... http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GerischerHiscoldfusi.pdf Beaudette explains well that it is worst sign of incompetence to judge of a chemistry experiment without many details, in 6 weeks or 3month, when you are not a chemist. http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2012/ICCF17/papers/Miles-Examples-Isoperibolic-Calorimetry-ICCF17-ps.pdf http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJhownaturer.pdf in 1992 all was clear. The question of groupthink in organization is not covered by chemistry but by phychology, sociology and economics : http://www.princeton.edu/~rbenabou/papers/Groupthink%20IOM%202012_07_02%20BW.pdf as shown by Semmelweias, Wegener, Wright, it can last years, decades or centuries. for latest results, beside the NiH breakthrough which is now an industrial question under NDA, you can see that conference in EU parliament. http://www.enea.it/it/Ufficio-Bruxelles/news/new-advancements-on-the-fleischmann-pons-effect-paving-the-way-for-a-potential-new-clean-renewable-energy-source/ as said earlier, this article decribe the latest condition (crystallography) to trigger LENR https://mospace.umsystem.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10355/36833/ExcessPowerDuringElectrochemical.pdf?sequence=1 note also that to prevent publication, most magazine organized an unethical blocus against LENr papers. it is clear and evident ,and by honesty you cannot ask for something nearly impossible. Strangely Pamela Mosier Boss passed the wall... In Japan and China, LENr is a genuine research domain, and JJAP have no problem... this is why skeptics refuse to take into account non US high impact journals, who all organized a blocus.
216294
Alain Dit le Cycliste
Posted over 1 year ago
NASA LENR Energy is Emergent for Good or Bad
you can find the papers of Toyota and Mitsubishi http://jjap.jsap.jp/link?JJAP/52/107301/ http://jjap.jsap.jp/link?JJAP/41/4642/ or the numerous papers of US navy Spawat. http://newenergytimes.com/v2/government/NAVY/20120207SPAWAR-JWK-Synopsis-of-Refereed-LENR-Publications.pdf of the reviw by Ed Storms you can also contact Ed Storms who wrote that answer to your questions http://fusiontorch.com/uploads/StormsJudgingValidityOfFleischmannPonsEffect2009.pdf Oriani paper is not published but it was peer reviewed (rejected for lack of theory, and for ... taboo). after that there is strong opposition like against Report 41 Deninno of ENEA proving corelation between Heat and He4 (like Liles Bush) http://www.rainews24.rai.it/ran24/inchieste/documenti/letteraSCIENCE001.pdf if by peer review you mean peer review by peer, this mean by LENr scientists, thare are many more, and read the JCMNS maintained by Biberian with papers from ICCF. this presentation by ENEA present latest result about the cause of difficult replications of F&P electrolysis https://mospace.umsystem.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10355/36833/ExcessPowerDuringElectrochemical.pdf?sequence=1 you can find many articles ad check those whose review match your criteria. http://newenergytimes.com/v2/reports/Selected-LENR-Research-Papers.shtml anyway i'm used to rejection of all those evidence without reading. no time, no room, not the good journal... surprise me. by the way I'm still looking for a peer-reviewed, or even written, critic of LENr experiments (as a whole) which describe any artifact canceling all experiments. Beaudette found none alive. I imagine one need to be chemist to propose a serious one, and as Jed says, nobody competent honest and reading the existing paper can sustain it was artifact. Huizenga refused to read such papers. if you are interested in replicating you can read that book, and hire an experienced chemist: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEastudentsg.pdf
216294
Alain Dit le Cycliste
Posted over 1 year ago
NASA LENR Energy is Emergent for Good or Bad
you are right no one in the physics communityreplicated it, except one physicist who worked with Heinz gerischer, a leading electrochemist (head of a lab in Max Planck institute ). It was however replicated by engineers and chemists, used with chemistry hard experiments. LENR is a chemistry experiment, often in electro-chemistry context, with chemistry/catalysis problems, and is measured through calorimetry which today is a specialty of chemistry. Physicist are not concerned by the experimental question, by artifacts,... it is a job of chemist to judge that. This is whay among the only 4 written critics on F&P experiments, the two physicist (Nathan Lewis, Hansen) were ridiculed by reviewer like Wilson... Morisson simply mixed up all and flee. Wilson, after rebuting Lewis and Hansen introduced possible correction, but not enought to deny the positive results. moreover the experiments is widely replicated with various protocols (flow calorimetry, seebeck calorimetry...) and all the claimed and rebutted artifacts are anyway impossible in the replications. You should really read the book "Excess Heat" by Charles Beaudette, who explain well that misunderstanding (book is published as pbdf by the editor on University of Tsinghua site. Here is one quote: "Unfortunately, physicists did not generally claim expertise in calorimetry, the measurement of calories of heat energy. Nor did they countenance clever chemists declaring hypotheses about nuclear physics. Their outspoken commentary largely ignored the heat measurements along with the offer of an hypothesis about unknown nuclear processes. They did not acquaint themselves with the laboratory procedures that produced anomalous heat data. These attitudes held firm throughout the first decade, causing a sustained controversy. ... The community of scientists at large never saw or knew about this minimalist critique of the claim. It was buried in the avalanche of skepticism that issued forth in the first three months."