Self-Interest and LENR (Edmund Storms)

Eric,

Where we differ is the idea that LENR is in an initial "non-scientific" mode.

There are two factors here:
(1) Your Pd-D vs Ni-H distinction
(2) Your contention that things are still non-scientific

Pd-D vs Ni-H is interesting. The two sets of phenomena are superficially similar, but in terms of any physical model of LENR very different. Of course, in terms of my preferred "error + chemical" model they are natural bedfellows and the phenomenological similarity comes from a causal similarity.

So if you hypothesise the physical version of LENR you have an immediate decision:
(1) Pd-D and Ni-H are both true examples of this
(2) Pd-D is a true example, Ni-H is "error+chemical"
(3) Pd-D is "error + chemical", Ni-H is true example

According to which you choose you have different issues to reconcile.

For your comment to make sense I guess you follow (1). But in that case the inherent implausibility goes up further because the physical phenomena in the two cases are very different, and comprise two different extraordinary mysteries.

As far as theoretical physics goes the "four irrationalist" arguments don't hold, and Feyerabend in particular is just wrong. (I have some sympathy with Popper who makes at least one good point, though does not understand it mathematically as is now possible). Specifically the history of physics has been a clearly ordered set of refinements in which each advance explains both a large range of phenomena, and old phenomena more accurately, with the previous theory seen as a decent approximation to the new and better one. I don't claim that all science is like this. Soft sciences, for example, are rather different.
polemic but nevertheless accurate at least as far as physics goes:
http://ontology.buffalo.edu/stove/500-600.htm

and, for a mathematics that in principle neutralises claims of irrationality (I'll address the issue of objective priors for hypotheses if you wish):
http://bayes.wustl.edu/etj/prob/book.pdf

Also, if you follow (1), Ni-H may be non-scientific (I'd put that rather stronger), but Pd-D is now a mature field of scientific investigation. Why are the current examples of it not clearly sharper than the old ones?

Quote

That system is less understood than the PdD system, so things are in an Edisonian mode of exploration. And there are a lot of hobbyists (like myself) who do not feel fully committed to the methods of normal science in the present context, which makes things even more Edisonian than they otherwise would have been.

Edisonian exploration is possible when there is some underlying physical phenomena to explore. Otherwise apparent Edisonian exploration (indistinguishable by the practitioners from the real thing) is in fact delimiting a set of methodological errors and chemical phenomena.

I think given the evidence so far calling what happens Edisonian exploration is perhaps putting the cart before the horse. Of course, experimental work is valuable, and whichever of these two options is true good work must bring greater understanding.

Quote from Thomas Clarke

Edisonian exploration is possible when there is some underlying physical phenomena to explore. Otherwise apparent Edisonian exploration (indistinguishable by the practitioners from the real thing) is in fact delimiting a set of methodological errors and chemical phenomena.

I don't disagree with this. It is a good point.

Quote from Thomas Clarke

So if you hypothesise the physical version of LENR you have an immediate decision:
(1) Pd-D and Ni-H are both true examples of this
(2) Pd-D is a true example, Ni-H is "error+chemical"
(3) Pd-D is "error + chemical", Ni-H is true example

According to which you choose you have different issues to reconcile.

My position is more nuanced than (1). It's something more like, there's good (great actually) reason to think that PdD LENR involves the release of heat beyond what can be accounted for by chemistry as well as a correlation between heat and helium. On balance the evidence is strong enough that it would be unscientific to dismiss it.

NiH is less well established. There might be LENR, and there might not be LENR. In addition: the investigation of it is fascinating to watch.

Quote from Thomas Clarke

For your comment to make sense I guess you follow (1). But in that case the inherent implausibility goes up further because the physical phenomena in the two cases are very different, and comprise two different extraordinary mysteries.

Perhaps this is true; or perhaps it is a failure of imagination. This is such a wide field that has been abandoned by physicists that I think there are several Nobel prizes worth of material waiting for unschooled hobbyists to come along and get the scoop, before the academic physicists get there. The prospect of that happening is by itself absolutely lovely. I suppose it would sow great distress within academia.

Quote from Thomas Clarke

As far as theoretical physics goes the "four irrationalist" arguments don't hold, and Feyerabend in particular is just wrong.

Ok. You think Feyerabend is just wrong. I think he's pretty much correct. How are we to resolve this difficulty?

Quote from Thomas Clarke

Specifically the history of physics has been a clearly ordered set of refinements in which each advance explains both a large range of phenomena, and old phenomena more accurately, with the previous theory seen as a decent approximation to the new and better one.

Even if for the sake of argument we were to allow your assertion that physics has seen a ordered set of refinements, without any of the difficulties that Kuhn and Feyerabend describe, I do not see any reason to think that LENR is a subfield of physics; it seems to be a weird amalgam of chemistry, physics and metallurgy.

Thomas;

Wrt. "Inevitably, for a real phenomena with physical basis, with continued attention and collection of evidence, the phenomena will become, sharper, more reproducible, more understood. By far the best evidence will be recent. Which is why I see the historical bent of much LENR community discussion as profoundly negative."

And by what evidence do you base your conclusion that no progress have been made since 1989?

If you are basing this on discussions in this LENR forum, you are Absolutely at the wrong place. You need to go to the site for International Society for Condensed Matter Nuclear Science to find what the real progress have been.
http://www.iscmns.org

Your certainty in the present knowledge and situation of LENR science is a claim of Yours - not a fact.

My impression is the contrary. The science has developped and replication of F&P effect has improved considerably. Like when Co-deposition was introduced by SPAWAR.

But you have continued asking for old F&P papers, although better papers on F&P effect have been produced by others after F&P.

Now then: The lack of funding have resulted in slow progress of the field. But not NO progress. Many scientists have funded their own research, or have recieved funding from interested philanthropists, since most of mainstream considers the field pathological and of no Value.

Edmund Storms have a Nice summary of status from 2012, where he also includes Ni-H LENR.
http://700902909.r.lightningba…12/06/Explaining-LENR.pdf

And the francesco Celani summary at the Colloqium in CERN in 2012 is also a good summary of the status of LENR.
https://indico.cern.ch/event/1…24018/CERN220212_2203.pdf

I would also suggest reading Read Thomas Kuhn's book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. LENR will most likely be a good example of a Paradigm shift as detailed by Thomas Kuhn.

My conclusion:
It's time that the mainstream science community gets onboard and some real funding is put in place to find out what is going on...

And LENR science is in desperate need of testing the various proposed theories. Present lack of acceptance and progress is caused by lack of effective guidance by theory

@'Eric

We have perhaps reached the stage where we must agree to disagree.

Re Feyerabend - it is a real difference between us. I'm confident that physics has progressed, no-one looking at the successive refinements and the coherence of the unifying theories could think otherwise. And I see F as somone who denies what he cannot understand, or perhaps what he dislikes. The two are often linked.

Re LENR. The nuclear bit puts it firmly within physics. The problem is that so much about the elementary particles is already known. It is not that new things are impossible - they are inevitable. But they must be consistent with a vast body of observations that are all coherent and explained by a very simple set of linked theories. Physics is like no other branch of science in its underlying coherence. I don't think it is something anyone who has not enough maths to understand Maxwell's equations and QM can fully appreciate - word pictures are not coherent.

Re Pd-D vs Ni-H

You sound now to be plumping for (2). That is actually my favourite - it is least bad. The problem is that all the Ni-H apparent evidence then shows how easily something not real can seem real.

Anyway, I can understand your views. Unlike many I don't mind others having different views from me, even when I am pretty confident they are wrong. It is a God-given right for us all to reach our own conclusions and have our own errors. Over this matter what raises my ire is people like Rossi and the Lugano testers who distort truth blatently and for whatever reasons (different in the two cases no doubt) do not correct their falsehoods.

It is of course always possible that F&P or the S-H papers will change my views. Let us hope they are stronger meat than the ridiculous BLP paper on the other thread!

Quote

Wrt. "Inevitably, for a real phenomena with physical basis, with continued attention and collection of evidence, the phenomena will become, sharper, more reproducible, more understood. By far the best evidence will be recent. Which is why I see the historical bent of much LENR community discussion as profoundly negative."And by what evidence do you base your conclusion that no progress have been made since 1989?

I'm going by papers that have been offered to me over the last 5 years as evidence of progress. they have not been. The effort in LENR has been on understanding the anomaly - what conditions are needed etc. Whereas the progress that is needed is on proving that a definite anomaly exists. That has not happened.

Normally, understanding conditions etc will sharpen proof, as will time and better experimentation even without understanding. If that had happened there would now be better evidence. Maybe that exists recently, and after looking at F&P I'll look at whatever you or others think is the most convincing new evidence. I'm not holding my breath. This has been claimed many times over the last 5 years and I've never yet seen better evidence.

That lack is what i base my views on.

Tom,

Yes -- we can agree to disagree. I don't mind a lack of agreement on issues; in fact, it has been a fruitful source of ideas for me. I wish more people were comfortable with this.

Quote from Thomas Clarke

You sound now to be plumping for (2). That is actually my favourite - it is least bad. The problem is that all the Ni-H apparent evidence then shows how easily something not real can seem real.

Almost. My position is perhaps better stated as "1.5," where I can think of how NiH might actually be a thing but haven't seen reliable evidence yet. See my question over at physics.SE. In that question I mention two related but different sets of processes; one might predominate in PdD and the other in NiH. I mention this only as an example of how a lack of imagination seems to have prevailed, and not as something I'm convinced is going on. But if I were to ask you, does physics already know about a process in which heat is seen, and there is a correlation of heat with helium, the answer would be "yes," and every physicist knows about it, and it is not controversial.

Eric

Quote

This is such a wide field that has been abandoned by physicists that I think there are several Nobel prizes worth of material waiting for unschooled hobbyists to come along and get the scoop, before the academic physicists get there. The prospect of that happening is by itself absolutely lovely. I suppose it would sow great distress within academia.

That is far from the truth. Physicists would love new phenomena, especially ones with such utility. I've noticed many here have a poor view of scientists. I'm not saying that all scientists are well motivated, or that any scientists are perfect. But there is a bias towards intellectual curiosity and following facts however inconvenient. And it only takes one or two to make a new field respectable, if there is indisputable evidence. The beauty of physics is that lots of bad physicists do not make for bad physics. The better theories win out.

The analogies with (for example) plate tectonics are not precise. LENR is not some phenomena we decode from indirect evidence. There is nothing more direct and definite than nuclear reactions, with a definite signature in transmutation and very high specific enthalpy change.

In case this was not recognized for what it is, I am reposting with thanks to Jed Rothwell and posthumously to Eugene Mallove:

See this from 1991, summarizing around 90 reported examples of confirmation of cold fusion before 1991:

lenr-canr.org/acrobat/WillFGgroupsrepo.pdf

These 90 reported examples are not however confirmation. You might call them possible anomalies. If you believe they are proof choose any one and I will have a look (it will need a decent writeup so "1" ones would be best.)

Tom

Quote from Longview

In case this was not recognized for what it is, I am reposting with thanks to Jed Rothwell and posthumously to Eugene Mallove:

See this from 1991, summarizing around 90 reported examples of confirmation of cold fusion before 1991:

lenr-canr.org/acrobat/WillFGgroupsrepo.pdf

It's not advocacy. I highlight this here since it seemed interesting and relevant. It does show how early some level of evidence existed for the correlation of heat and helium production. Generally, the more carefully the experiments are done, the more likely this correlation is to be seen. The dearth of subsequent work may say a lot about a general failure in the physics community, their "peer review" process, and their funding mechanisms.

Thomas;

" Whereas the progress that is needed is on proving that a definite anomaly exists. That has not happened."

Yes it has, so I disagree. And the positive confirmation using CR39 is alone enough to convince me.
CR 39 has been used by the Industry since late 1970's as particle detector and is well understood.

But What you proved of knowledge of CR39, indicates to me that you have not studied enough of the evidence within LENR science.

Quote from oystla

Thomas;

" Whereas the progress that is needed is on proving that a definite anomaly exists. That has not happened."

Yes it has, so I disagree. And the positive confirmation using CR39 is alone enough to convince me.
CR 39 has been used by the Industry…

So would you care to prioritise papers.

I'm going to do F&P first. Largely because F is a clever guy, and there has been some comment from the other side, together with F's rebuttal. That can all be compared.

What do you think is most convincing? NANORs, or CR-39, or both? Post the one killer paper that really convinces you (a modern one please). Unlike some here I can see that you read the papers you say convince you, which is admirable, and therefore your view on this would be helpful to me. I'd rather look at the best evidence.

On the other thread destroying the claims made here for BLP is not much fun, it is too easy! I'm only doing it because it does the whole of internet comment on LENR a disservice to be associated with such incorrect spin.

Quote from Thomas Clarke

What do you think is most convincing? NANORs, or CR-39, or both? Post the one killer paper that really convinces you (a modern one please). Unlike some here I can see that you read the papers you say convince you, which is admirable, and therefore your view on this would be helpful to me. I'd rather look at the best evidence.

I would start with these researchers: Michael McKubre (helium, calorimetry), David Kidwell (calorimetry), Pamela Mosier-Boss (CR-39). They are experimentalists whose work strikes me as good and free from theoretical preconceptions. David Kidwell has had a skeptical view for many years and has been involved in several null results (along the lines of MFMP), including working with other authors who were reporting interesting things.

It is hard to recall reading a single killer paper that cinches things. I doubt such a paper exists. I suggest doing some searching around. It does not hurt to glance through the Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science (JCMNS) or conference proceedings from time to time. Brillouin are a private company that releases press releases that are run through-and-through with theoretical preconceptions, which is not to say that they're not seeing anything, of course. I have similar complaints about NANOR.

Beaudette provides a good overview up to around 2002 or so, although it's definitely written in a polemical style, which can be distracting.

You know my views on quantity versus quality. After all, were a nuclear excess effect real and being regularly measured, it would be very surprising for killer evidence not to exist. Think about it! So I need the one best paper - and I think something from an academic not a free energy company where the expectation of honest reporting is always lower.

My suggestion, Miles' helium paper:

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MilesMcorrelatio.pdf

Which is further discussed here:

Miles, M., Reply to examination of claims of Miles et al. in PonsFleischmann-type cold fusion experiments

Miles, M., Reply to an assessment of claims of excess heat in cold fusion calorimetry

And this paper builds on the theme, correlating helium with heat:

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHtheemergen.pdf

Thomas, of the 1000+ papers at ISCMNS, I have only so far read a tiny fraction. So any papers I give you may or may not be the killer you look for (likely not). But The work done at SPAWAR I've looked at lately seems both convincing and competent. Difficult to choose papers, since papers often build upon previous research, but on the subject of CR39, I've listed a few Below.

Please also note: The scientists at SPAWAR invented co-deposition, which lead to fast and repeatable F&P type excess heat Events in addition to more heat than the F&P solid Pd cathodes. They Proved hotter cathode than the electrolyte (should be reverse), ten times increase of the tritium in the solution was noticed, identified x-rays, confirmed the high D/Pd ratio requirement, they identified hot spots on the cathodes producing the heat and that the heat is not continuous on the electrode surface, but is condensed on hot spots that erupt and then diminish, they also identified transmutations (as in The Japanese research),

CR39 research started around 2006. Papers - and note - Peer review in "real real journals" ;-):
2007:
http://www.newenergytimes.com/…e-Naturwissenschaften.pdf

From 2007 (European physical journal in Applied physics):
http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MosierBossuseofcrinp.pdf

2009 -" naturwissenschaften"
http://www.newenergytimes.com/…/2008BossTripleTracks.pdf

From 2009 (European physical journal in Applied physics):
http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MosierBosscharacteri.pdf

Unfortunately, In 2011, SPAWAR was ordered to cease all activity related to cold fusion. The order came from Rear Admiral Patrick Brady, commander of SPAWAR, who in 2010 replaced the retired Rear Admiral Michael C. Bachmann, a supportive, open minded and scientific defender of the cold fusion. The LENR research team was instructed to immediately cease all research activity, return all remaining funds for cold fusion research, cancel any pending requests for research and stop publishing any cold fusion related papers.