Looking forward to the results of Thomas's discourse with Pam Mosier-Boss and the discussion of similar papers. My question would be if the phenomena could be attributed to 'background noise' i.e. radon, then what controls were there to eliminate this?
Good controls and enough runs can eliminate this kind of question. Mosier-Boss et al. rule out air-borne radiation. Also, they use an americium standard on the corner of each chip in order to have something to compare against.
The three papers I had downloaded were from slightly earlier - so please give me a precise 2009 reference.
The 2009 paper by Mosier-Boss et al. is here:
P.A. Mosier-Boss, S. Szpak, F.E. Gordon, and L.P.G. Forsley, "Characterization of tracks in CR-39 detectors obtained as a result of Pd/D Co-deposition," Eur. Phys. J. Appl. Phys. 46, 30901 (2009).
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MosierBosscharacteri.pdf
Although I find the Oriani work interesting, I don't place as much trust in it.
OK - so reading that paper my problem is I can't find the basic data, or any information comparing track densities in control and active tests - together with all the differences in conditions so we can see how effective are the controls.
Am I missing something? The paper does not even (clearly) state what other paper actually provides positive results? The comparison made in the paper itself is very second order and how it relates to the real data very unclear. Also elements of M-B's methodology - the "proprietary algorithm to separate background from real tracks" are very difficult to evaluate and could introduce artifacts.
I just can't see anything here to refute - because the paper does not make any real claims relevant to LENR. Perhaps somone else on closer reading can find these, but i think it will be a complex and tenuous argument...
Best wishes, Tom
I just can't see anything here to refute - because the paper does not make any real claims relevant to LENR.
They claim to have seen four orders of magnitude more pits when D2O was used than when H2O was used: "While tracks were observed in the light water system, the density of tracks was at least four orders of magnitude less than was observed in the heavy water system." Seems pretty straightforward -- either they're correct, or they did something wrong. I.e., something to refute. There are many statements in the paper that are of a form that can be refuted:
Each of these statements presents something as a fact that can be challenged.
Mosier-Boss provides an email address; perhaps she will be able to share the data that were used. The 2007 article talks about supplementary online materials. Perhaps you don't want to go to the effort. That's also fine.
All the best,
Eric
But many people, such as me or Joshua Cude, who you might reckon are debunkers, would want evidence strong enough to be relevant to the question and know that in science "proof" is strictly never possible.
Having followed your contributions for the past few weeks on this forum, I would definitely put you and Cude into the same category. Cude is most assuredly in the category of committed activists, well beyond a position that could be identified as agnostic. I'd also put Taubes and Huizenga into this category. Taubes sought to maintain an air of neutral objectivity, so he might dispute this characterization; or maybe not.
Am I misreading the situation?
All the best,
Eric
Thomas
Sorry re:
Display MoreEric
& Thomas
See:
newenergytimes.com/v2/library/…tingScienceColdFusion.pdf
refers and
peswiki.com/index.php/Article:…la_Mosier-Boss_experiment
Not quite sure if this is the original paper though.
It was the closest I could get. But now I see Eric has the post you require: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MosierBosscharacteri.pdf I am not a scientist, but I do think it would be a shame if this is not followed through. To me what Eric is saying carries a great deal of weight and I am persuaded by his arguments. Skeptical criticism is of course of great value providing it is devoid of Huw Price's 'reputation trap' and the associated psychological warfare, which in my humble opinion is much less evident in this recent exchange.
My earlier question was answered by Eric, above, thank you, and in the ‘Conclusions section of the Mosier Boss paper’ by the statement: "A series of control experiments were conducted that indicated that the Pd/Dgenerated pits did not have either a chemical or mechanical origin. In particular, the observed pits were not due to radioactive contamination of the cell components; or to impingement of the gas bubbles on the surface of the detector; or to chemical attack by D2, O2, or Cl2 gases; or to the metal dendrites piercing into the plastic".
Someone should contact Pam Mosier-Boss if the information presented is insufficient to make a credible critique. Does anyone have any links to peer reviews for this paper?
Mary
Why Rossi all the time; there are many more - Heinz Gerischer and Robert Park, Robert Duncan, Richard Garwin, Nathan Lewis and John Huizenga, Martin Fleischmann, Michael McKubre, Edmund Storms, John Bockris and Yoshiaki Arata, Dieter Britz, Rothwell, Dennis Cravens and Dennis Letts, Tadahiko Mizuno etc etc.
Thomas
I know you criticise many posts for their lack of Bayesian logic but I notice Dennis Cravens and Dennis Letts (2008) analysed 167 papers published between 1989 and 2007. They found that all negative experimental results could be explained by the experimenters failing to meet one or more of four enabling criteria that are now known to be required for a positive result. Through a Bayesian statistical analysis of 122 of these papers, they show that cold fusion as evidenced by excess heat is a real phenomenon to a 99% confidence level.
Quote"While tracks were observed in the light water system, the density of tracks was at least four orders of magnitude less than was observed in the heavy water system."
They would need to describe precisely the two systems, what are the differences, what controls.
If the CR-39 id close to the H or D we'd also need to check it was not tritium of D contamination that made this difference: it looks very plausible.
My point is - the account as it stands is much too vague to know what can be concluded from this statement.
Nor do I think it is helpful to seek more information from the authors given such a great lack initially. Memories are inexact and when proper contemporaneous information is not taken anything is unreliable. If they did not feel the extra information is important enough to go in the paper I'd not reckon their statements long after to be reliable.
I also don't understand why they would not - somewhere - record such dramatic results. That is track counts high in active and low in control experiments. It is such an obvious thing to do - simpler and (if controls are good enough) more convincing then what they have done?
I'm guessing the precise descriptions are contained in earlier papers in the series, which they reference. Or maybe not! Perhaps there's no precise description anywhere to be found.
If a criticism will not be possible for one reason or another, how about a letter to the editor?
QuoteI know you criticise many posts for their lack of Bayesian logic but I notice Dennis Cravens and Dennis Letts (2008) analysed 167 papers published between 1989 and 2007. They found that all negative experimental results could be explained by the experimenters failing to meet one or more of four enabling criteria that are now known to be required for a positive result. Through a Bayesian statistical analysis of 122 of these papers, they show that cold fusion as evidenced by excess heat is a real phenomenon to a 99% confidence level.
Details matter.
At this level of generality I can just point out that as a matter o scientific logic that shows merely that there is some systematic error 99% likely to have existed when these 4 conditions exist. The given data can show no more than that.
If you gave the reference I could look it up and we could look at precisely what was proven.
Also, why not show this to MFMP? If this result stands all they have to do is meet the criteria and they will get a positive result. No?
I'll still look at it, but I don't think MFMP are that stupid.
QuoteSomeone should contact Pam Mosier-Boss if the information presented is insufficient to make a credible critique. Does anyone have any links to peer reviews for this paper?
That is the wrong way round. The information presented is insufficient to make a credible argument for LENR. The burden for convincing results lies with the one making the claims, not the reviewer.
But, to be fair, neither the abstract nor the conclusions makes any surprising or extraordinary claims, so I have no reason from that to think the paper is wrong. I'm not sure what could be refuted. Have you read them for the paper we seem to have agreed is the relevant one: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MosierBosscharacteri.pdf?
You will have to show me what in the paper makes the argument for LENR.
Best wishes, Tom
Thomas
I think you are assuming "proper contemporaneous information is not taken". Why don't you want to ask, it cant do any harm and might shed a great deal of light on this issue, otherwise it looks very much like you are avoiding a quite proper critique which I have to say is not like you.
Thomas
You will have to show me what in the paper makes the argument for LENR.
4 Conclusions
Earlier we reported that pits formed on CR-39 detectors during Pd/D co-deposition exhibited features that were consistent with those observed for tracks of a nuclear origin.
But, to be fair, neither the abstract nor the conclusions makes any surprising or extraordinary claims, so I have no reason from that to think the paper is wrong.
I think the experiment and the conclusions are pretty astounding, myself. Together they suggest that events in the MeV of energy can be triggered by inputs in the eV, somehow, by running current through an electrochemical cell with the right materials and electrolyte. This is a different beast than, say, sonofusion.
You will have to show me what in the paper makes the argument for LENR.
It's not direct evidence for LENR, and what they're reporting might or might not be LENR; Ed Storms would argue strongly that it's not LENR. Regardless, if the conclusions are true, they would appear to let the camel's nose into the tent, so to speak. What are those eV's of energy doing?
All the best,
Eric
Thomas
See http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/CravensDtheenablin.pdf
Quite impressive I think!
I hope you guys at MFMP are looking at this, grateful to learn how much credence you give to the four enabling criterion summarised on pages 2 and 3.
Best regards
Frank
QuoteI think the experiment and the conclusions are pretty astounding, myself. Together they suggest that events in the MeV of energy can be triggered by inputs in the eV, somehow, by running current through an electrochemical cell with the right materials and electrolyte. This is a different beast than, say, sonofusion.
I can't see that. I think perhaps you conflate "tracks consistent with MeV events" with "tracks that can only be caused by Mev events" and also confuse:
"Tracks observed indicating MeV events" with "LENR causes MeV".
So there are two weak links in the inference to an astonishing result, if either one is broken the result is no longer astonishing.
So there are two weak links in the inference to an astonishing result, if either one is broken the result is no longer astonishing.
Having looked at the paper, and the conclusion, which I suggest you read, your observations of Eric's observations are less than compelling. Your critique is of Eric's comments not of the paper which is of no value whatsoever.
Here is a good history of SPAWAR, which touches on the highlights of their LENR work from FPs to 2013:
http://coldfusioninformation.com/organisations/spawar/
Some interesting tidbits in there.
I think perhaps you conflate "tracks consistent with MeV events" with "tracks that can only be caused by Mev events"
M-B say that the tracks go back to energetic particles traveling at MeV energies, which is a stronger claim than "tracks consistent with MeV events." My personal assessment is that their case is persuasive. Now I've got particles with MeV energies in the world to ponder. Perhaps my intuition in going along with them is wrong, and they're wrong about their conclusions. I am unlikely to be conflating these two scenarios if I'm open to the possibility that M-B might be in error, for if those tracks are simply tracks that are consistent with MeV events, but are not shown to go back to energetic particles, they could be due to anything under the sun -- chemical attack, or waterbears, or something else.
One of the most important ways in which our views differ is in how to sort out the question of whether M-B are correct in their conclusions, which is an epistemological question. I don't trust anyone here to do a good job of showing the error, including myself, in part due to the risks of falling prey to the Dunning-Kruger effect. In addition to intelligence, directly relevant expertise obtained through hands-on experience will be needed to persuade me.
and also confuse:
"Tracks observed indicating MeV events" with "LENR causes MeV".
Yes -- it's possible that M-B are in error in believing that the parameters under their control are the cause of the energetic particles they think they're seeing. Perhaps they're seeing particles with MeV's of energy, and none of the things they think they're doing is causing this. Their claim is that they can turn this effect on and off by varying what they're doing. And all they're doing is taking an electrolytic cell in which Pd has been co-deposited onto the cathode in the presence of either H2O or D2O, and then applying an electric potential to two plates on the outside of the cell or setting up a static magnetic field.
Is what they're seeing LENR, and is LENR causing this? As I've mentioned twice before, perhaps it's not, and Ed Storms thinks it definitely is not. But if it is not LENR, it is another process that is not anticipated by nuclear physics.
The reason the camel's nose gets into the tent if this body of research is sound is that existing nuclear theory says that you shouldn't be getting MeV particles as a result of electrons, photons or phonons in the eV range. Once we allow that this is possible in at least one case (perhaps LENR, perhaps not), we've opened Pandora's box. It should be the objective of all believers against LENR to squash this research into oblivion. For if it is widely believed to be true, one of the most important objections against LENR will be discredited: that there is no way to bring about events with nuclear energies in response to the kinds of things that happen when you run current through an electrochemical cell.
