FP's experiments discussion

Storms wrote:

Quote

The background helium in the atmosphere is not an issue because the systems are tight. Great efforts are made to make sure no atmospheric He enters.

Sometimes great efforts are not enough. Which is why Miles had to shut down the experiment to correct leaks *after* great efforts had been made. Leaks happen.

Quote

If air leaks in, its presence is noted by measuring the Ar content of the gas.

There's a reason helium is used for leak testing vacuums. It's covalent size is more than 3 times smaller than that of argon, so argon is not a good control.

In any case, there was a background of helium from the atmosphere in Miles' measurements. In the metal flask measurements, he measured a background of about 5 ppb in the cells, and found 8 ppb signal (3 above noise), all compared to atmospheric background a thousand times higher at 5 ppm.

Quote

The skeptics seem to think only they realize the effect of an air leak and only they would make sure the systems were tight. The measurements are being made by professional scientists in modern labs, not by high kids in their garage.

I don't think the world is gonna accept claims of cold fusion from scientists just because they're professional and in modern labs. No one is infallible.

Claims of polywater were made by professional scientists in modern labs, and published in Science and Nature. And even though they probably thought of impurities and did their best to exclude them, in the end, they were wrong. The observations were later attributed to impurities.

Moreover, two of the main figures in the helium research -- Miles and McKubre -- admit helium background is a potential problem:

Miles: "The production of helium-4 in these experiments is a very difficult concept to prove since there is always the possibility of atmospheric helium contamination. More studies reporting helium-4 production will likely be required before our helium results become convincing to most scientists."

McKubre: "we cannot rule out the possibility that He-4 was sourced ... or that the measured helium represents a hold-over from helium previously dissolved in D2O or PTFE.... Definitive statements will be difficult to make about 4He production in this or future experiments unless or until it is measured at several times the ambient background level."

Quote

(me:)

In 1858 Abel Niépce de Saint-Victor reported to the French Academy evidence of something weird happening with uranium salts when photographic film was exposed to them. His report makes it was clear he understood that there was an anomaly:

...

The discovery of radioactivity is commonly credited to Becquerel in 1896, 38 years later.

Display More

I'm not clear what your point is. Atomic spectra were observed in the early 19th century, and empirically described by Rydberg in 1888, but given the first physical foundation (even if still somewhat ad hoc at the time) by Bohr in 1913, a century after their discovery.

It took 50 years to explain superconductivity.

There are many other examples.

The point of the QM revolution is that these theories were born of *robust* experimental observations, not a large collection of vague indications that something nuclear is happening. And when revolutionary ideas were introduced to explain them, progress was break-neck. The vagueness of the phenomena in cold fusion, and the *absence* of progress is more consistent with the new ideas being wrong.

The effect of exposing film with uranium is not vague, and your description is definitive, and was no doubt reproducible. Similarly, spectral lines, blackbody radiation, and superconductivity were well defined, robust phenomena.

The phenomena associated with cold fusion are anything but. And experimental improvements usually lead to smaller effects, and sometimes they disappear altogether. It's a common phenomenon associated with claims like N-rays, polywater, and many sciences that have persisted for much longer, like homeopathy, astrology, telekinesis, dowsing, and so on.

Eric

Quote

In 1858 Abel Niépce de Saint-Victor reported to the French Academy evidence of something weird happening with uranium salts when photographic film was exposed to them. His report makes it was clear he understood that there was an anomaly

OK, so here was a clear anomaly, easily reproducible, with no mundane solution. One person did not make enough fuss to get this noted at the time.

The problem with LENR is not that anomalies are not disseminated and considered. It is that when they are noted they don't look like reproducible anomalies, and do look like error.

Dr Storms

Thank you for your reply to my post, it is very much appreciated.

Quote from Storms

In response to my brevity, Tom at al. go to great lengths to make the claims look bad

Yes it is difficult for people like me, a fledgling student, to find guidance from the conflicting opinions expressed in this forum. I suspect this view is held by many also in the investment and commercial community casting a curious eye in this direction who will not have time or the inclination to read the listed papers you recommend. What I can say is that any hint of disrespect towards others who express opinions, tends in my opinion to count against the argument. Yes I know this is purely subjective and certainly not scientific.

Thomas

Quote from oystla

Thomas Clarke's last post is a huge insult of the hundreds of scientists

Even though Dr Storms is reluctant to engage in this forum as you do, which I think is regrettable since I think many of your views should be robustly challenged by seasoned scientists, Oystla clinches it for me on Ed's behalf.

Quote from Thomas Clarke

OK, so here was a clear anomaly, easily reproducible, with no mundane solution. One person did not make enough fuss to get this noted at the time.

The problem with LENR is not that anomalies are not disseminated and considered. It is that when they are noted they don't look like reproducible anomalies, and do look like error.

My point is not a very strong one, but there is one there which I think it is relevant. Who knows how much fiddling went on between Niépce's report and Becquerel's investigations? We did not have the Internet back then, so we are not privy to what chatter there was. Obviously any discussion did not make it into the mainstream scientific correspondence (or did it?). But interestingly (and not surprisingly), there was a connection between Niépce and Henri Becquerel. Niepce at one point refers to Edmond Becquerel, Henri's father, and Edmond published a book mentioning Niepce's findings in 1868. So there was some kind of discussion going on at some level.

My point, then, is not that scientific progress is not sometimes rapid. It's that sometimes there are ideas that are lying about that are not being systematically explored by mainstream scientific effort which are nonetheless percolating behind the scenes and perhaps even being given attention.

I am hoping a "lab rat" experiment will be found soon which can be replicated in the labs of skeptical scientists. I agree that this lack of easy reproducibility sets LENR apart from the other discoveries that have been discussed above. Perhaps that detail is sufficient to place it in the bin of pseudoscience. I myself do not find this general kind of meta-historical argument very persuasive, but I'm probably unrepresentative.

Quote

I myself do not find this general kind of meta-historical argument very persuasive, but I'm probably unrepresentative.

Personally, I find historical argument of any kind interesting, but unhelpful. Historians can always argue any side of an issue. Science however must comply with reality. We do not always know what that is, but the endeavour to find it is different from what a historian would do.

"And the Ghost theory of Shanahan is just that: a non provable CCSH ghost."

Typical junk response by a committed CF groupie, who can't read anything unless it says "It must be nuclear".

I have given suggestions in this thread alone for testing the CCS possibility experimentally and numerically.

"Where Fleischmann incompetent of calorimetry? He is a[c]knowledged as one of the best Professors within electrochemistry in the 20th century."

And yet....

In 1974 Fleischmann, et al, reported on a new, anomalous observation of enhanced scattering of light from a pyridine covered, roughened silver electrode's surface. They attributed the enhancement to the roughening causing additional pyridine molecules to be adsorbed. However, two independent groups recognized that explanation as insufficient, and instead proposed an enhancement at the surface, and thus was born the field of Surface-Enhanced Raman Scattering (SERS). (The two independent groups proposed different mechanisms for the effect, and it took roughly 10 years to sort it out.) People I work with are making sensors based on this phenomenon. (Those people rarely know that Fleischmann 'started' their field. They remember the ones who figured out why the effect occurred.)

So I guess lightening *has* struck twice in one place, SERS and CF.

"Where Fleischmann incompetent of calorimetry?"

Not incompetent, just overconfident in their own understanding, which included the idea that at most one would see 2% recombination, and then only at low current densities, and the failure to recongize the possibility of at-the-surface (of the electrode) recombination.

"Ed has never ignored critisism."

Well, yes and no. When he posted his data on the Web in 2000, I immediately began communicating with him regarding his vs. my interpretation. Ed carried on the discussion a long time, over a year at least. That is much better that any other CFer I have tried to deal with. Points to Ed.

But then, he finally wrote a comment to my original 2002 (really should have been 2000) oublication in 2006, which I immediately replied to. Both our papers were published 'back-to-back' in Therms. Acta in 2006. At the same time, Ed was writing his book "The Science of Low...) and in it he briefly mentioned my proposal in two places (pps 41 and 172), and then comments both times that my raised issues have been dealt with. He references my 2002 publication and his 2006 response, but completely fails to mention *my* response to his comments, wherein I challenge all of his comments. (Using logic used elsewhere in this thread...I got the last word so I must have been right, right?) So here he clearly failed to respond to criticism. Furthermore, his only actual response has been to attempt to prove my proposal wrong (at which he never succeeded). He has never incorporated the 'CCSH' into anything he has done. So, no he really didn't deal with criticism. Points lost.

"F&P answerred every published critisism of their work and papers."

No they didn't. Szpak, Mosier-Boss, Miles, and Fleischmann wrote a paper in 2004 originally for an ICCF. it was later published in Thermochimica Acta (410 (2004) 101–107) and contained a 'new' section not found in the ICCF version that discussed my proposal a little. Quoting:

"And yet the notion that recombination is responsible for the excess enthalpy generation persists.
For example, Shanahan [11] observed that the short-lived hot spots [12,13] support
the recombination theory. In his view, to quote: “The infrared photography of Szpak et al.
is supportive evidence of this, if one considers the oxidation in subsurface bubbles to
be rapid, which should be true of D2+O2 flames”. Such interpretation
is, indeed, difficult to understand and therefore accept. As pointed out by Fleischmann
and Pons [14], such “hot spots” would have an intensity of ca. 6 nW—hence, impossible to
detect by IR camera."

I responded to that in Thermochimica Acta 428 (2005) 207–212, by explaining it again, and showing how the results they reported in their TA paper were interpretable via the 'CCSH'. Quoting:

"Unfortunately, Szpak and his coauthors (in fact, most of their colleagues in the cold fusion research
field) make a fundamental mistake exactly at this point. The references cited clearly deal with electrochemical oxygen reduction, a parasitic reaction whose impact is largest at low
cell current. That reaction is mediated by dissolved oxygen. This author completely agrees with this point; electrochemical reduction mediated by dissolved oxygen is not significant to the apparent excess enthalpy issue. Thus SMMF’s use of the three references to eliminate recombination as the apparent
excess’ source is irrelevant." (Note: SMMF = Szpak, Mosier-Boss-Miles, and Fleischmann)

and later on:

"The exact bubble composition is not known, but if an optimum 2:1 mixture of H2 and O2 and
the 285.8 kJ/mole heat of formation of water is assumed, one bubble will produce ∼0.00347 J
(milliwatts per bubble, not nanowatts), giving from 0.35 to 1.05 J for 100–300 bubbles.
Of course, bubble size is critically important, as the volume of the bubbles is dependent on the
cube of the radius, requiring a factor of eight more bubbles for a halving of bubble diameter
to produce approximately equivalent heat output. SMMF report apparent excess heat output
ranging up to∼0.3W, which, given the variability possible in this computation, represents
good agreement between the computation and the results."

There's more of course. The point is, they never replied to this, so I guess I am right again, right?

To provide some relief for the students reading this long-winded exchange, I would like to explore the human condition instead of LENR. An observer of human nature will notice two extreme types of human minds. We can identify the explorer mind in a person who looks for new ideas, explores the unknown, and enjoys finding what others miss. The other kind of mind we will call the contrarian. This mind tries to challenge every new idea, attempts to explore the opposite of every statement, and is never satisfied with any idea another person suggests. Agreement between these two kinds of mind is impossible.

The first kind leads the human condition in new directions while the second kind slows progress, although occasionally prevents mistakes from being made. The first kind creates excitement while the second kind generates frustration and confusion. Progress is determined by which kind of mind has the greater influence. Of course, most people have a mind somewhere between these two extremes. The ordinary person has to decide what to believe based on a debate between the explorer and the contrarian minds.Fortunately in science, unlike in politics, this conflict can be resolved before too much harm is done.

Nevertheless, great harm can result when the conflict is not resolved correctly. We are seeing that conflict between these two kinds of minds being played out in discussions about global warming as well as in the LENR debate; two issues that are related. The conflict is not about facts but about how individual minds evaluate the facts. Eventually, reality will settle the issue, but only after a great deal of suffering.

Ask yourself what would the present time look like if Fleischmann and Pons had been immediately acknowledged as great discovers and the energy they promised were now being used to reduce CO2 emissions and eliminate the threat of nuclear fission power. Ask yourself what benefit the contrarian mind has given to mankind over the last 27 years. Even if the contrarians are right and the LENR energy were determined not to be real after a sincere and effective examination was made, would the situation now be any the worse as result of this wasted effort? Can anyone say we now are better off because of the contrarians? Or have they simply wasted 27 years of time that could have reduced the disaster that is about to befall us?

Not sure what Shanahan is trying to imply here, but accuracy and truth is definetly not his field of expertise:

Shanahan: " And yet.... In 1974 Fleischmann, et al, reported on a new, anomalous observation of enhanced scattering of light from a pyridine covered, roughened silver electrode's surface. They attributed the enhancement to the roughening causing additional pyridine molecules to be adsorbed. However, two independent groups recognized that explanation as insufficient, and instead proposed an enhancement at the surface, and thus was born the field of Surface-Enhanced Raman Scattering (SERS). (The two independent groups proposed different mechanisms for the effect, and it took roughly 10 years to sort it out.) People I work with are making sensors based on this phenomenon. (Those people rarely know that Fleischmann 'started' their field. They remember the ones who figured out why the effect occurred.) "

So this was Shanahans version of the story. Now then, it's seldom that final correct explanation of new discoveries comes from the same scientists that made the discovery.

Now, let's see If we can find a more accurate description of the story:

"We were well aware of the unusually large observed signals, and this was puzzling and unexplained. Was an insoluble compound being formed at the surface that was more soluble on reduction?"

"Martin, Pat and I met periodically to discuss the results and strategy. These were lively meetings, rich with ideas, and a good deal of sifting was required at the end to sort out the best way forward. We had one such meeting on 17 October from the morning through to after lunch, and Martin came up with the idea that the shifts in the physisorbed pyridine bands with potential might be due to electrode-surface water reorientation as the surface charge changes sign. By early December, we had not found any major new experimental results, in spite of a number of ideas having been pursued, and began putting a paper together for Chemical Physics Letters. This was finally sent to David Buckingham on 21 February 1974 after considerable discussion over unresolved aspects, such as the unusually high observed Raman intensities. In the end no comment was included on the intensities. The response from David Buckingham less than a week later was to say that the paper had been accepted and that ‘you appear to have found an interesting phenomenon’."

Ref. http://rsnr.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/63/1/105

"SERS from pyridine adsorbed on electrochemically roughened silver was first observed by Martin Fleischmann, Patrick J. Hendra and A. James McQuillan at the Department of Chemistry at the University of Southampton, Southampton, UK in 1973.[6] The initial publication (1974) has been cited over 4000 times. The 40th Anniversary of the first observation of the SERS effect has been marked by the Royal Society of Chemistry by the award of a National Chemical Landmark plaque to the University of Southampton in 2013. In 1977, two groups independently noted that the concentration of scattering species could not account for the enhanced signal and each proposed a mechanism for the observed enhancement. Their theories are still accepted as explaining the SERS effect. Jeanmaire and Van Duyne[7] proposed an electromagnetic effect, while Albrecht and Creighton[8] proposed a charge-transfer effect. Rufus Ritchie, of Oak Ridge National Laboratory's Health Sciences Research Division, predicted the existence of the surface plasmon.[9]"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik…hanced_Raman_spectroscopy

Quote from Storms

Nevertheless, great harm can result when the conflict is not resolved correctly. We are seeing that conflict between these two kinds of minds being played out in discussions about global warming as well as in the LENR debate; two issues that are related. The conflict is not about facts but about how individual minds evaluate the facts. Eventually, reality will settle the issue, but only after a great deal of suffering.

I don't really agree that there is a problem here with the various conflicting viewpoints. Even the most skeptical people here are willing to look at and evaluate new experiments. It seems to me that the need, then, is for additional experiments, ones whose low-level data everyone can agree on, even if there is a difference of opinion on the interpretation of the data. A kind of feedback loop, where someone says, "yeah, but that could have been such-and-such," and then one asks, "how would you control for such-and-such?," and they say, "well, you could do such-and-such, and also would you provide all of your data in a computer-consumable format?"

The main challenge, right now, it seems to me, is that we're trying to argue from old results that were interesting and suggestive at the time, but which can be improved upon in various ways. You will not get further agreement by plowing old ground over and over.

Not sure what Oystia is trying to imply here, but accuracy and truth is definitely not his field of expertise:

My primary source is:

"Surface-enhanced Raman scattering"
A. Campion, P. Kambhampati, Chemical Soc. Rev. 27 (1998) 241

They indicate a 10-year long, furious debate over the two different proposed mechanisms put forth by the groups indicated in oystia's post.

So what did I say? That Fleischmann had made a previous discovery and that he attributed it to the wrong thing. Does anything that Oysia posted contradict that? No...

So what's the point of your post Oystia? Just wanting to trash me again....well, you've learned fast from your
'heros'...just imply I said something I didn't and then label me a (fill in the blank)....

Gosh Ed, I thought the two types of humans were the haves and have-nots....

Ed, your post goes a long way towards explaining your behavior. You have
arbitrarily divided the world into two parts. You segregate based on the
answer to the question "Is it nuclear?" If the answer is "Yes", you've
got a 'good-guy' on the line and all is well. If the answer is anything
else, look out!, you're dealing with a bad-guy, a contrarian. And like any
other type of bigotry you can name, this premise is false.

But it does provide you with a good way to avoid having to face the hard
issue that you are unable to show why my proposal is wrong, which in real
science means you should be incorporating it and considering it. But it
doesn't require 'nuclear', so it *must* be wrong, and the guy putting it
forth *has to be* a bad-guy, a contrarian, and you are always safe
ignoring those types.

You know Ed, mistresses have often led to the downfall of the keeper. I
think we are seeing another example.

Storms wrote:

Quote

I would like to explore the human condition instead of LENR.

Non-specific discussions of speculation vs skepticism like this are frequently raised by advocates of new claimed phenomena that are not accepted by the mainstream. And for someone sympathetic to a particular claim or phenomenon like cold fusion, it sounds reasonable and forward looking.

But since the discussion is not specific, it also applies to things like homeopathy, bigfoot, perpetual motion, dowsing, explosive detectors, and vaccine causing autism and many many more.

So, unless one is supportive of all research identified by the mainstream as pseudoscience or fringe science, it is necessary to distinguish the field one is advocating from things like homeopathy and perpetual motion and so on. And for this, the general discussion has no value. One has to be specific, and to argue the merits of the field itself. And that is what is happening in this long-winded discussion.

Quote

An observer of human nature will notice two extreme types of human minds. We can identify the explorer mind in a person who looks for new ideas, explores the unknown, and enjoys finding what others miss. The other kind of mind we will call the contrarian. This mind tries to challenge every new idea, attempts to explore the opposite of every statement, and is never satisfied with any idea another person suggests.

To begin with, this observer (me) does not notice these two extremes. *All* scientists look for new ideas, explore the unknown, and enjoy finding what other people miss. That is what science is all about. That's why awards in science, selected by scientists, are given to scientists who discover or explain the most novel phenomena that have the greatest influence of subsequent thought or on our practical existence.

And, I submit, *all* scientists challenge new ideas and attempt to explore the opposite of every statement. Feynman recommended exactly that, and he was one of the more productive and innovative minds of the 20th century, and also one of the most contrarian when it came to extraordinary claims, especially claims of free energy.

The thing that distinguishes the minds that pursue extraordinary claims that are unsupported by good evidence is not openness to new ideas, but a lack of appropriate skepticism, that is critical to progress in science.

Quote

The first kind leads the human condition in new directions while the second kind slows progress,

Again, I think all scientists fit both extremes, but if you separate the minds into those who advocate cold fusion and those who are skeptical of it, then this statement is manifestly wrong. Cold fusion researchers have not led the human condition in new directions, whereas many of the explicit skeptics of old fusion (Gell-Mann, who called it baloney, Weinberg, Glashow, Lederman, Seaborg, Schmidt, Riess) have won Nobel prizes for leading science in new directions, some since P&F claims of cold fusion.

Quote

Ask yourself what would the present time look like if Fleischmann and Pons had been immediately acknowledged as great discovers

They were. They were on the cover of every major journal in the world. You should read your own account of how the world welcomed their claims with enthusiasm, and all the scientists that went to the lab to get in on the revolution.

Quote

and the energy they promised were now being used to reduce CO2 emissions and eliminate the threat of nuclear fission power.

But that same question could be asked about Papp and his engine. What if Feynman hadn't worked to debunk Papp and the energy he promised were now being used to reduce CO2 emissions?

Obviously if either Papp or cold fusion were real, then we would be better off with them. But the view of most scientists was that the evidence did not support the claims, and given how unlikely it is, most judged that resources were better placed into other pursuits. Before you can convince skeptics that they have prevented that fantasy from happening, you have to convince them that the *specific* claims have merit.

Quote

Ask yourself what benefit the contrarian mind has given to mankind over the last 27 years.

Pretty much all the scientific progress in the physical sciences in the past 27 years has been made by scientists who are skeptical of cold fusion, what you call contrarians. That is to say, anyone not skeptical would surely have pursued it, given its importance and the honor and glory associated with it.

And to the extent that the vocal contrarians prevented scientists from wasting 27 years pursuing wild geese, they have contributed to progress. Imagine if good scientists like Pons and Fleischmann and Hagelstein and McKubre and you had not wasted 30 years on this topic. Maybe you would have discovered a new solar panel or some other contribution to mankind.

Quote

Even if the contrarians are right and the LENR energy were determined not to be real after a sincere and effective examination was made, would the situation now be any the worse as result of this wasted effort?

There is no way to know how many more careers might have been wasted on cold fusion were it not for the contrarians.

"Ask yourself what would the present time look like if Fleischmann and Pons had been immediately" been shown to be an error of data interpretation...

When F&P went out to try to present their results at various major laboratories around the world, it was rapidly noted that their radiation detection results had a major inconsistency with what was expected. They agreed and ceased presenting that data, leaving only their excess heat data to hang their hats on. What if, instead of appearing in 2002, my paper had shown up in 1992...I tend to think the whole 'cold fusion fiasco' would never have occurred. Interesting thought experiment...

Dr Storms

I have a very high respect for you and your work. Some comments on this forum do not appear to be sympathetic to the progress of LENR and LANR discovery. Others pointedly seek to discredit those involved. But due to the administrators these appear to be less conspicuous now, which is progress in itself in my opinion.

It appears to me even the most vociferous sceptic's acknowledge the presence of anomalies regarding LENR or LANR, particularly when they are presented with high quality evidence, but almost always retreat now with a cry of observation or interpretation error. This is progress since cry's of fraud and hoax appear to be having less and less of an impact although they can still be heard.

It would, I think, be wrong to exclude those who are by their own admission 'passionate agnostics'. The science will speak for itself given time, providing it is not somehow 'de railed'. And therein lies a risk where there are conspiracies and suspicions. I think we must not countenance this on this forum since we risk a McCarthyism style of censorship which is to be avoided at all costs, even if this means a delay in the progress of discovery.

And who knows, some sceptics contributions may lead to an acknowledgement that not only will the scientific community need to convince itself of the reality of LENR or LANR, but will also need to present the resulting 'disruptive' applications to the public.

The public will be influenced by 'the establishment sceptics' (those who have most to loose). So we need sceptics in order that we can anticipate the questions and responses so that we can craft the idea of a better carbon free future based on robust science and present that in such a way that the uptake is not delayed by controversy.

We need to be thinking about that now....

Quote

The other kind of mind we will call the contrarian. This mind tries to challenge every new idea, attempts to explore the opposite of every statement, and is never satisfied with any idea another person suggests. Agreement between these two kinds of mind is impossible.

This quote from Ed is so inaccurate I feel I must join the chorus with my pennyworth.

The definition of scientific method is the synthesis of these two characteristics. Scientists imagine new hypotheses, and then subject them to rigorous critique. Those that survive get stress tested (more imagination) by new experiments. With imagination and no ability to challenge and find mistakes you will make perhaps a good creative writer, but not get far in advancing science.

Quote

So we need sceptics in order that we can anticipate the questions and responses so that we can craft the idea of a better carbon free future based on robust science and present that in such a way that the uptake is not delayed by controversy.

Following the previous remark. Any good scientist will welcome skeptical comment because it provides help by critiquing hypotheses. Either the hypothesis survives the criticism and is stronger, or it falls, leaving room for some new hypothesis that is more realistic. Both outcomes are better than no criticism. So what is to fear?