Self-Interest and LENR (Edmund Storms)

Quote

Point is that being an LENR skeptic is easy, as Oystla shows here. So simple as settling down for the evenings cocktail in your study, doing a cursory 30 minute perusal of whatever report is in question, laughing as you decide how outrageous your response to come, and tee off in no particular direction. Not even make sense at times. Just let loose.

Conjure up magical electrical tricks, slight of hand fuel switcharoos, black ops helicopters...OK that is unfair, not above background readings, within margin of error. Authors are stupid, sloppy, and by the way... their hairdo sucks, or whatever. Therefore the conclusions must be wrong. So prove me wrong! Such fun.

Does it get any easier than that? So who is to hold these skeptical reviewers to account? Well, it seems no one.

Being an LENR skeptic is only easy when the write-ups of the experiments are incomplete. For example, was it easy for you (or many others) to be skeptical about the Lugano Report?

Otherwise, working out possible errors in methodology, even when they are there before your eyes in a good write-up, is not easy.

You are arguing that because most LENR write-ups are bad or incomplete, and the ones that are not describe experiments with marginal results, so it is easy to be skeptical, therefore we should not be so.

That is silly - it is like saying because we have strong evidence the sun rises in the East we should spend all our time checking whether it is not in fact rising in the west...

Also, I don't see that humour is helpful here. If there are bad or incomplete experiments the most helpful ting is to acknowledge that fact because then experimenters can do better next time. You seem to argue that poor methodology should be encouraged because it shows LENR results when better methodology does not...

Quote

I'd also point out that H is not a good experimentalist (he's basically a theory guy). Nor are Brillouin, because I've noticed:
(1) They use high power RF stimulation of their reactions
(2) They have noted that the reaction response, as measured by TC temperature, to the stimulus is fast
(3) I've not seen any analysis of them of the possible EMC issues, so common whenever high power RF is mixed with low-level instrumentation. It looks like a very plausible explanation for their results which any good experimenter would take great care to rule out, and cross-check that it is ruled out. (This is something I know about).

...arguing from authority - I don't do that.

I'm not, here, arguing from authority. I've given reasons above and willing to defend my statements against examination. As the Lugano testers should have been. If somone wants to argue that EMC in this case cannot be a problem, or is not a very plausible problem, then bring it on. For example - good practice (and easy to implement) would isolate thermocouple inputs with LC filters and cap feedthroughs into an RF tight box. But then we still have the possibility of nonlinearities in the thermocouple junction itself rectifying the induced RF. Also that box had better have every single line into it properly isolated.

You should note: if someone wants to argue that EMC in this case may not be a problem - I'd agree.

If somone wants to ask the experimenters whether they believe RF is a problem - how can that be useful? If they had recognised at the time it was an issue they would have explicitly checked. Easy enough. In this type of work a careful and meticulous contemporaneous write-up is essential. It is awfully easy to think you have checked something when in fact you have not, so the exact manner of the check needs to be recorded and reviewed.

Most experiments do not have such a high burden of checking. But LENR experiments are unusual:
(1) The "results" look very like errors, there is no internal coherence that proves you have signal and not an artifact.
(2) The "results" are near to the noise floor
(3) The "results" are extraordinary, with no fingerprints elsewhere.

When even one of these factors comes into play extra checking is needed. With all three? That requires great care.

Of course - if LENR exists then the factor of 10^6 or so in energies between nuclear and chemical will means, no doubt, that unambiguous experiments with copious heat release well above the noise floor can be designed. Like Rossi's claims, but for real.

In fact, it would be a great coincidence for LENR excess heat to always stay in the difficult to detect hinterland of "near the noise/errors floor". The factors that make LENR sporadic and variable would surely mean that quite often we got much larger excess? And for those who point to exploding reactors let me point out that heating a small reactor with 100s of W of electrical power is a situation close to explosion without the help from LENR. In these experiments the external stimulus is so large that it puts the reactor into a state close to its limits.

Quote

" .....has deliberately cherry picked his data to make a not significant effect look large by choosing the location and threshold of his "large bins"...."

"Cherry picked"?
They deliberately counted "Large circular characteristic deep tracks, and paired large tracks,.."
Which means only the most energetic particle tracks where used. If they had counted smaller tracks, the difference to background would be even lagrer.

Figure 6, above, is relevant. You can see that the raw track counts show a variation with position and highest values far away from the NANOR!

Whereas, the "large" track counts show that impressive looking peak.

But is it so impressive? The authors state they use "large pixels" and indeed you can see that for the large track data the raw counts are all integral or half integral. That tells me that they must be using two pixels per data point and that impressive spike represents a total of just 5 large tracks above the rest of the film. With such small numbers, the ability to choose which tracks count and which don't, as they do here, can easily turn random variation into an apparent correlation.

The graph you show is for the chip that lies straight on top of the NANOR.

And yes there is a distribution of small tracks, but then the question is what particle energies LENR will produce. What you did not show is the 3D figure in fig 6, which is undeniably clear.

The comparison must of course be done between the CR39 on top of NANOR and the other two lying further away. And that is what they show in figure 5. And there is a very clear difference per PIXEL, with Max activity on top of NANOR.

But the interesting ones are of course the most energetic particles, i.e the largest tracks.

And as shown in fig 5 the highest activity of high energetic particles is definetly and undeniably just above NANOR.

And the picture in fig 4 of CR39 NANOR chip and one of the control chips shows very clear activity near to NANOR.

how do I paste pictures on this forum using an I-PAD?

To continue my criticism of Thomas comments:

He make claims like he has read all papers on LENR, when in fact he proves by his comment that he has only read a few, and most likely only one on CR 39 - the one I sent.

And by that he makes an easy judgement on all LENR papers by a lazy statement : "Is it not peculiar that all LENR results (when properly collected) are so near to noise. I mean, for an effect very variable and capable of large energies you'd expect at least some times that the results are clearly higher than background?"

The CR39 paper I linked and he read was the last Peer reviewed Paper from 2015 using CR39, and the first on the NANOR, which was part of the discussion.

But Since Thomas questioned heat effects on CR39 and thinks it was too "low track numbers" compared to background:

As stated in my post, Dr. Pamela Mosier-Boss have long experience with using CR-39 at US NAVY laboratories.

In a paper from 2014 (linked Below) Mosier-Boss et al. explains the use and results on using CR39, including temperature ( which as proven in - yes - mainstream science - has no effect on CR-39).

Also Interesting to note an example of F&P type experiments with 5 to 100 times (!!) more tracks during LENR than background. So yes, there are better examples than the NANOR If you are looking for particular higher signals, but again, the F&P cells operates at much higher power than a single NANOR, so more tracks would be expected If LENR produce any energetic particles. But what was interesting with the NANOR was that even at this low power lever, they found evidence of tracks above background.

It would be interesting to correlate all LENR experiments which has used CR39 with power density level, and check for a consistent trend between power density and track numbers during LENR.

Also interesting are The advantages of CR-39 over real-time, electronic detectors:
(1) CR-39 detectors do not require power and can be placed in close proximity to the cathode. This eliminates the solid angle detection losses.

(2) CR-39 detectors can be used in both electrolysis and gas loading experiments.

(3) CR-39 detectors are not affected by low level electronic noise from the local environment and do not require shielding. Nor do they respond to temperature changes.

(4) CR-39 is an example of a constantly integrating detector. When an event occurs it is permanently stamped in the plastic. Nothing gets averaged away. This is important for reactions that occur sporadically in bursts or at low flux levels, which is often true of LENR experiments.

(5) The size and shape of the tracks in CR-39 detectors can be used to identify the energetic particles that caused them.

(6) CR-39 detectors are robust and inexpensive.

(7) CR-39 detectors retain their record of nuclear activity for decades and can be repeatedly re-examined.

(8) Real-time electronic detectors require expensive and complicated electronic modules that are required for both timing and background discrimination, even if shielding is present. Unlike CR-39, electronic, real-time detectors tend to discriminate against multiple simultaneous events. This results in an undercounting of the nuclear products.

Ref Page 34+:
http://www.iscmns.org/CMNS/JCMNS-Vol14.pdf

You have to use a web service that hosts pics. I just google and got tinypics, I think. then (img).....(/img) replacing () by sq brackets does it. web services have a post image into forum link ready-made.

Quote

He make claims like he has read all papers on LENR, when in fact he proves by his comment that he has only read a few, and most likely only one on CR 39 - the one I sent.

You must have misunderstood me. I'm not such a masochist. I've read a good few and whenever somone says one is particularly interesting (like you did with this one) I read it.

I'd actually welcome a robust discussion of H's other experimental papers. Inasfar as I've looked they all seem to have similar flaws. They are well written but the real results (when you manage to decode them from the spin) are all marginal or from experiments with flawed methodology. If the discussion runs at a slow enough pace for me to spend a bit of time reading the things it might be useful.

It does take time and effort to read these things, and when you do the results dissappoint . Can you blame mainstream scientists for mostly having given up?

Quote

Also Interesting to note an example of F&P type experiments with 5 to 100 times (!!) more tracks during LENR than background. So yes, there are better examples than the NANOR If you are looking for particular higher signals, but again, the F&P cells operates at much higher power than a single NANOR, so more tracks would be expected If LENR produce any energetic particles. But what was interesting with the NANOR was that even at this low power lever, they found evidence of tracks above background.

I notice quite often claims that the original F&P experiments were so much better than those run now, and showed indisputable results.

Well, we cannot know unless you show me a high quality writeup - not a summary - with the detailed methodology written contemporaneously. I'm pretty sure such does not exist because it would have been critiqued at the time, unless f&P had deliberately hidden it.

More seriously it must be the case, if any LENR effects are real, that 25 years of experimentation from people (including F&P) would get more substantive results. What other area of science do you find people referencing 25 year old experiments as best evidence? I keep asking people for killer papers from F&P's later work, and would welcome some posted here. From the way people talk it would seem certain that they must have ironed out any experimental errors and have got indubitable evidence of their effect after such a long period of work? Again, not summaries, but raw contemporaneous accounts so that the details can be examoned.

Quote

And by that he makes an easy judgement on all LENR papers by a lazy statement : "Is it not peculiar that all LENR results (when properly collected) are so near to noise. I mean, for an effect very variable and capable of large energies you'd expect at least some times that the results are clearly higher than background?"

I think "strong prediction" would be closer than "easy judgement". I give you the ability to prove me wrong. Go for it. I'd welcome the killer data, properly collected, not near to noise. And if you believe LENR likely exists then surely such data, by now, must exist.

re F&P tracks - you'd need to look into possible tritium contamination of the large qtys of deuterium they used. It used to be quite common. As well, of course, as many other things.

Thomas, If you bothered to read the Mosier-Boss et al. Paper from 2014 i Linked, you would also find the reference to the mentioned example of F&P type experiments with 5 to 100 times (!!) more CR-39 tracks during LENR than background.

And for your last comment: both background and foreground where immersed in the same electrolyte, so any tritium would affect both.

But this is the link to the paper:
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LipsonAGphenomenon.pdf

And If you think, it is straight forward in science to get solid good papers published, that contradicts present consensus in science, you may read the Mosier-Boss et al. story from 2013,

The first article
http://www.iscmns.org/CMNS/JCMNS-Vol12.pdf

oystla - who said I wanted a paper published?

All I want is a well-written paper!

True, published papers (in good journals - e.g. not JONP or many of the good looking but no standards "pay to publish" journals) tend to be of better quality. They have gone through at least one round of critique by vaguely competent other people. I don't want to make too much of this - peer reviewers are unpaid and do not always do a good job. But out of three reviewers you usually get at least one with detailed and useful suggestions.

But F&P, if both decent scientosts, could critique each others work. So they don't have that as an excuse.

So the Lipson paper has what relationship to the F&P experiment we are talking about?

Do you claim extraordinary results from Lipson et al? In which case I'll look at it carefully.

For extraordinary results I'm afraid we need more than second-hand reporting.

Do you have the F&P write-up?

Thomas, you ask why Lipson is relevant?

You asked about where this F&P type experiment that documented 5 to 100 times (!!) more tracks in CR-39 during LENR than background. Lipson et al. Paper is the one where this is documented. Don't think F&P themselves ever tried CR-39.

But you continue to ask for papers from F&P themselves showing clear excess heat.

Fleischmann produced some 10+ Peer reviewed papers on cold fusion during his period on the subject.

Only one or two where accepted by mainstream Scientific journals. I will give you the last one published in mainstream (from 1993), which has some importance for several reasons:
- it was published in Physics letter A
- they claimed serious excess power of some 4 times input.
- they claimed power densities of several KW/cm3
- and particularly interesting is that this paper where critiqued afterwards by the CERN physisist Douglas Morrison. That's how science should work. Claims, publishement, critique and debate.

But when F&P answerred the Morrison critique, where all misunderstandings by Morrison where clarified, Morrison went silent and never replied. Nor did any other mainstream scientist. Why did the Scientific discussion stop at F&P getting the last Word????

This is where the Scientific community really should wake up and investigate. But they went silent and turned their back fully on CF.

And here is the F&P paper
M. Fleischmann, S. Pons, "Calorimetry of the Pd-D2O system: from simplicity via complications to simplicity," Physics Letters A, 176 (1993) 118-129

Link: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmancalorimetra.pdf

And here is the Douglas Morrison critique and F&P response

http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanreplytothe.pdf

Thanks for that. The to and fro between F&P and Morrison is very helpful.

Strangely, I had looked at the F&P paper previously. I thought then, as does Morrison, that for many reasons the X4 excess enthalpy in the later stages is highly unsafe. I did not see any clear calculation of significant excess enthalpy in the previous stages: but perhaps I missed it. F&P certainly don't highlight it!

I was provisionally weighing the arguments as I read them. My first impression is that I'm not impressed by the F&P side. But this requires careful reading and re-reading. I also concur 100% with a subsidiary comment made by Morrison and not replied to by F&P.

While I do that (and Lipson will have to wait till F&P has been considered) perhaps you could tell me: which stages of this experiment (using Morrisons terminology) do you think show killer excess enthalpy results? I'll pay more attention to them.

Best wishes, Tom

Sorry. New to this forum and struggling to find how and where to post. https://www.youtube.com/playli…QGU7tw4tivk57nPAJQF33cTKT

Try drag and drop for pictures from Apple devices. My pad drives me nuts when trying to edit my own posts, never mind attempting images. I revert to my PC to do anything complicated. If Apple put cut-paste functions accessible to the keyboard on devices, I would be very pleased.

Quote

Re-reading that reminds me of how sharp Fleischman was. Easy to see how he was one of the worlds few top nuclear chemists.

I agree Fleischmann was sharp, and he was also, from his obit below, charismatic. And, Shane, if you've as much experience of different people as I'd hope, you will realise that a clever person with an idee fixee is as easily badly wrong as anyone else with an idee fixee, but unfortunately is likely to be a lot more convincing.

As far as F being a nuclear chemist -
http://www.rsc.org/chemistrywo…mann-cold-fusion-obituary

He was a great electrochemist, and made his reputation with an anomalous phenomenon which he took seriously (SERS). I guess his mind-set was to think outside the box and see anomalies as possibly something real. Which worked for him with SERS, but not with CF. You can however see that the experience with SERS primed him to be a CF believer.

But nuclear chemist? There is nuclear physics in his training, nor, as far as I can see, has he ever done any nuclear experiments unless you count CF, which as you all point out is a collection of anomalies, not a theory and therefore cannot yet be properly called nuclear even if the anomalies have some real, extraordinary physics, explanation.