How to read LENR experimental results

Quote from Thomas Clarke

What is your explanation for this lack of just one group repeating an experiment with extra controls? The rewards would be enormous if as you believe the effect is real. Of course, if as i believe the effect is not real anyone who tries this will find the tighter experiment leads to lower - still within error - results. That extra controls make apparent positives go away. etc.

In 2008 Michael McKubre, at SRI International, wrote this analysis of a second generation of calorimeters, developed in order to tackle issues with an earlier generation. In this writeup he mentioned the following:

• A group of nine researchers convened at SRI to think through a more effective mass flow calorimeter to avoid potential sources of error encountered in earlier experiments and to make any errors easier to examine.
• With the new calorimeter they're able to get a better than 99 percent accuracy -- 1 mW, or 0.1 percent of input power for periods as long as 1000 hours.

I know very little about calorimetry and am far more interested in charged particle tracks and transmutations. But I have searched Google for you. Hopefully we can assume that they put the new calorimeter to work since 2008; do you agree? If so, will you retract the above assertion? I do not have time to do this for every blanket assertion in your reply above, so I will leave you to do it.

I ask a question that is not posed rhetorically: who do you recommend I take seriously when the subject of calorimetry comes up -- the author of that paper and the eight others on the team with him, along with Robert Duncan, or people on Internet forums with lots of opinions who acknowledge they are just learning about calorimetry?

Quote from Thomas Clarke

If, as I claim, they have no clear heat anomalies from such equipment it surely is exactly consistent with my point here?

My interests lie elsewhere than calorimetry, and I cannot do your homework for you. You will need to ascertain the truth of that claim for yourself. It might be correct or it might be baseless. I suggest you keep it as a question and look into it.

The assertion in need of retracting was not about excess heat. It was about whether at least one group was refining their methods and carrying out experiments again. It turns out that there is at least one group. Just from doing some reading, my own experience suggests that this is often (although not always) the case.

Quote from Thomas Clarke

Since I am not claiming there are clear anomalies anywhere it is surely for those who make that claim to find mass calorimetry experiments with such anomalies. Even if I looked, and said that I could not find such, it would be quite reasonable for those with a contrary viewpoint to reckon I was not looking as thoroughly as possible.

I am not in a position to claim that there are clear calorimetric anomalies; my claim is that there are qualified people who assert as much. I have little knowledge of the topic, and as a participant in Internet forums, I will not be in a good position to defend their claims; it would be a little silly of me to try. They will need to do so. As a person following the topic, my position is clear: one should give weight to the opinions of people who demonstrably know what they're talking about. And it matters little to me whether they've checked off many of the usual boxes that scientists fret over (publishing in a peer-reviewed journal, etc.), which together gradually take on the character of a kind of law-of-science, rather than pursuit of knowledge. Figuring out who knows what he's talking about isn't necessarily straightforward and requires intuition, but we all must do it.

If you seek to ascertain the truth of the matter, or demonstrate to the satisfaction of reasonable people that it's false, by debating with half-knowledgeable people on the Internet, you will fail. It will be a failure both to ascertain the truth and to convince reasonable people of it. I don't think Joshua Cude has persuaded a single reasonable person with his tactics; he just polarized the debate immeasurably.

Quote from Mary Yugo

It is a hallmark of LENR research that such an effort either doesn't happen or doesn't succeed which is why 1) I am not very interested (if at all) in low power level results or small isotope yields and 2) I focus on high power claims which are easily tested but somehow never seem to be tested PROPERLY.

In the past you have been on the fence on the question of whether LENR is real or self-delusion (in contrast to the E-Cat, for example). Am I correct in reading this to mean that you take a more concrete position against it now?

How is 10-100x background counts in a range of isotopes a small isotope yield?

Thomas,

I Wonder If we have read same paper.

My numbers of excess energy is 0,8 KWhr, With an error bound of +/- 0,2 KWhr

Now then. You state they have not considered all possible chemical effects, nor included "non-Ni" atoms.

So let's include all possible atoms in the core, which was ten grams of matter. This means the excess heat was 80 WattHrs pr gram matter.

This is 0,29 MJ/gram matter. In comparison diesel have energy content of 0,05 MJ/gram.

So the Japanese paper indicates an energy content of 6 times more than chemical possibilities If all matter in core where replaced by an energy dense chemical fuel.

And your comment on dynamic energy is of no Value, since this is not concerning the period of excess heat, but the period of ad- / absorption. It's a part only evaluating If the phenomenon is a surface phenomenon or not.

And estimating error bars in experiments is basic science that these scientists knows everything about.

Your way of critizising the Japanese researchers estimation of error bars is just a polite way of calling these scientists completely imcompetent. It does not serve your case well.

Using spesific heat data to correct calibration for the convection part Is not uncommon, and rather accurate, if you have any knowledge of the subject. Anyhow; convection part is a very small part of the heat exchange from core. Conduction and radiation for core material will be much larger.

Your comment on vacuum chamber (your p.b) is clearly wrong, and indicates a lack of understanding heat exchange.

Recalibration is not mentioned, so you cant conclude it was not done. Anyhow, recalibration rarely result in Significant changes.

I think I need to repeat my last posting

"
But back to basic physics:

Have another look at formulas for conduction, convection and radiation.

The energy transfer from a box of any shape and to the surroundings does NOT depend on what occurs inside the box or how many chambers and walls there are inside.

It depends on the exterior surface geometry, wall boundary parameters and exterior surface temperature only. So your long Tedius descriptions of possible internal complications are of no Value.

And then for your questions on the Japanese paper,

1. Yes the error bound for calorimetry can be calculated:
The paper states "The accuracy of excess heat-power level is estimated to be good with error bar of less than ±0.5 W."

And knowing Nickel content in the CNZ samples was 2,07 grams, you may be able to calculate the error bound /gram yourself.

Wrt error bound pr. Atom, I have calculated the number for you, and it is 211,6 eV pr. Nickel atom. So the excess heat result was 800 eV/Ni atom +/- 211 eV/Ni atom. A lower level of excess heat of 600 eV/atom is still far beyond chemical posibilities.

Again: chemical reactions are just a few eV pr. Atom.

And yes, For the 0,5 watt number as excess power error bound I trust their competency. Calculations Error bounds are basic science and no "hokus pokus".

2. Chemical energy: This have been discussed in many papers. To have a full understanding you Will have to read all the Japnese related papers from when they started with this system back in 2008 until today.

3. "Dynamic measurements": as I read the paper these measurements will give some indications If the reactions are occuring on surface of particles or inside the lattice. And as paper states the indications are that these occurs on surface. Just as concluded on wet Palladium /D systems after years of research.

"

Anyhow : The Japanese are planning new tests with ten times larger test chamber. Let's wait and see new results then

Environmentalists will do whatever they must to keep LENR from moving forward, they can’t risk it actually being true.

“Green” energy isn’t about being clean, or sustainable, it’s about being expensive. All one needs to do is evaluate the I=PAT equation to see what I’m talking about.

Dwarakesh Babu

I suspect you are commuting the means for the end. I have not met, heard or read any environmentalist opposed to LENR because it might lower their "profits" from the task of saving the biosphere.

Chennai may be great for software. But, it looks, at least in this case, not so great for atmospheric science or other aspects of non-sustainable uses of Earth resources to the apparent single end of more short-term "benefits" to human consumers.

Alain,

What do you mean "Anyway I can exclude that the question is CO2"?

Certainly, the short term risk of methane leakage and/or co-production (drilling, hydraulic fracturing, natural gas transport, processing, refining, along with feed lots etc.) is likely a strong forcer of warming today. But the half life of methane in the atmosphere is much shorter.... ultimately CO2 will become a much more insistent issue if carbon combustion remains "cheap".

Carbon (CO2) capture is something that could be done. There are ways to reform CO2 into other useful products, at least in theory. Disposal of CO2 is believed to be possible, although the geologic time scale for such deposition into (for example) alkaline sub-surface brines, and their ultimate capacity is in question. Injection of CO2 into subducting lithosphere has a nice theoretical sound to it, ultimately placing it in a strongly reducing hot and high pressure environment where the reduced product could be geologic carbon or hydrocarbons such as methane.

As for "immorality".... that is a strong term that I too have seen. Ruining the planet that gave rise to us seems stupid, even criminal by some standards. But, those who willfully do so, may not be judged at all, since human history may be rewritten or even erased by the survivors.... if there are any sentient enough to write.

Surely high COP LENR, if and when perfected, as for any energy source, will be used for good and for ill. The planet saving aspect is that it would enable powered exploration and colonization deeper in space. Even if the colonists themselves are advanced robots of some sort. At least that transcendent intelligence might have the wisdom to preserve the Earth as something of a museum of how biology developed into technology and beyond.