H
Axil, Rossi is using H, not D in his system. ... Therefore, a discussion of what Rossi has done is a waste of time.
Moving on to what Holmlid has seen where each laser shot shows the production of subatomic particles whose production rates are in the billions, how does that fit in with the helium conjecture?
Eric, while what you say is true, it is unhelpful.
I think it's important to mention it, and that it's very helpful. You should know what assumptions you're adopting. The people trying to understand beta decay started considering such proposals as the COE being only statistical. This consternation might have been avoided had they been clearer on the assumptions they were starting with (that there was only one daughter of beta decays -- the beta electron).
In addition, I not only think it helpful, I think that it is likely that there is more than one heat-producing process, and that only one of them produces helium. This is my working assumption, in fact. Even Ed Storms's theory fits within this rubric, because he's proposing several reactions, only one of which produces helium.
Tom, why do you trust what Krivit says over what I and McKubre say? What gives Krivit plausibility?
In any case, you are free to read what McKubre or anyone else publishes. All the references are in my book. I presume you have the educational background to understand what you read.
I also find hypocrisy in what the skeptics say. They claim the believers are fixed on a conclusion while they themselves are not aware they also have a fixed viewpoint. They assume that only they have an open mind and can correctly evaluate the experimental information. Never-mind, they probably never used a calorimeter and have no experience in the lab.
QuoteTom, why do you trust what Krivit says over what I and McKubre say? What gives Krivit plausibility?
I thought we had covered that. I don't trust what other people say. In this case maybe looking at the two versions I could be sure the data was uncontaminated, but since both are convincing that would require more than a casual investigation. Without that I trust non-one, and hence not the data.
Krivit is a good journalist, and I'm pretty sure tells the truth as he sees it. Not that that is necessarily right.
QuoteI also find hypocrisy in what the skeptics say. They claim the believers are fixed on a conclusion while they themselves are not aware they also have a fixed viewpoint. They assume that only they have an open mind and can correctly evaluate the experimental information. Never-mind, they probably never used a calorimeter and have no experience in the lab.
Actually, as a skeptic myself, I assume we all have prejudices and are liable to wrong judgements. The context here is that LENR is extraordinary and makes no useful definite predictions (except the He/heat correlation).
Josh and I both have said that secure He production evidence would be a game changer. A sure sign of something nuclear. If the effect is real that will be easy to find, more heat => more He. Easy then to get conclusive well above possible contamination levels. You know this logic is unbreakable.
If there is no such He production then we will not see consistent above local air measurement He concentration. We will not see He in Pd rod above initial levels (Josh's suggestion) etc.
Skeptics here are less fixed, because one positive experiment would chnage their judgment from "almost certain no" to "wow, something here is very interesting, let us check.
Believers are not changed by any evidence (as far as I know). If He experiments don't pan out I'd bet you will find excuses for it? the thing is, it is always pretty easy to find excuses for LENR when the mechanism is unknown. That is what makes it inherently weak, and means the skeptics are right to need strong evidence.
That and the hydra issue, which is subtle but crucial. Correlated results do not necessarily mean anything more than correlated selection of systematic errors.
Believers are not changed by any evidence (as far as I know). If He experiments don't pan out I'd bet you will find excuses for it? the thing is, it is always pretty easy to find excuses for LENR when the mechanism is unknown.
I feel like you're describing the CCS here, if you change some of the labels.
It's all about the total sum of energies (Joules), - if we still agree that is our common understanding of our universe.
Now, how to make experiments of this base assumption? What is energy in the first place?
What about it is acceleration?
The undeniably proof of LENR is the production of subatomic particles produced by chemical means. Keith Fredericks shows this evidence using tracks shown in photo emmusions over all classes of LENR reactions.
"Believers are not changed by any evidence (as far as I know). If He experiments don't pan out I'd bet you will find excuses for it? the thing is, it is always pretty easy to find excuses for LENR when the mechanism is unknown. That is what makes it inherently weak, and means the skeptics are right to need strong evidence."
Tom, your statement is insulting and typical of the arrogance skeptics bring to the discussion. The people getting the evidence supporting LENR are professional scientists with years of training and experience. We are as interested in the truth as are the skeptics. In contrast to the skeptics, we see the effect and we know the real errors in the measurements. The skeptics do not. I have made thousands of measurements only because I see the effect actually take place on occasion. I would not waste my time if I had any doubt about the reality. I also have experienced every possible error - more than you can imagine. As Jed Rothwell has observed, if you want a reason to reject the data, ask Storms. I know all the reasons. Nevertheless, the effect is real because it is present in spite of the potential error.
As for Krivit, I do not believe he is not an impartial journalist. I will say no more because I do not want to get into another pissing contest.
Over all these years of experimentation, I want to know why Ed Storms does not test the ash from successful LENR experiments using photo emulsions to find out if any exotic neutral particles are present. Is it only because he does not believe that these particles are causative?
Axil, I do not make such tests because I do not have the equipment and do not have the money to buy the equipment thanks to the skeptics who have made this effect a subject of ridicule in normal science. Ask the skeptics why they support rejection and the resulting lack of funding. I do the tests I have the equipment to make. I also use a theory as a guide. Consequently, some tests are more important at advancing understanding than others. After all, is not this the way science is supposed to be practiced?
I have used a GM and SBD detector to measure radiation and have reported the results. This work has been ignored. In fact, most work in the field has been ignored because the skeptics are too lazy to read the literature.
Axil, I do not make such tests because I do not have the equipment and do not have the money to buy the equipment thanks to the skeptics who have made this effect a subject of ridicule in normal science. Ask the skeptics why they support rejection and the resulting lack of funding. I do the tests I have the equipment to make. I also use a theory as a guide. Consequently, some tests are more important at advancing understanding than others. After all, is not this the way science is supposed to be practiced?
I have used a GM and SBD detector to measure radiation and have reported the results. This work has been ignored. In fact, most work in the field has been ignored because the skeptics are too lazy to read the literature.
ED
Thanks for the reply. I appreciate it.
How about this photo paper for a cost effective try. If it worked for Madame Curie, it might work for us.
Ilford Multigrade IV RC Deluxe MGD.1M B&W Paper (8 x 10", Glossy, 25 Sheets Plus 10 Additional)
Price:$29.42 & FREE Shipping
After you believe you have had a reaction going, put the ash on a piece of paper with the photo-paper underneath and exposed for 24 hours. I would love to see the results if any tracks show up. You might post the tracks here.
Dektol Paper Developer, 1Gallon mix
by Kodak
Price:$9.40 + $5.49 shipping
It been a while since I developed film. you might need a fixer and a tank. Some learning is required about photo developing on your part.
Send me your mailing address and the associated costs via E-Mail(vortex), I will contribute the cost for the paper and the developer plus all shipping.
Quote"Believers are not changed by any evidence (as far as I know). If He experiments don't pan out I'd bet you will find excuses for it? the thing is, it is always pretty easy to find excuses for LENR when the mechanism is unknown. That is what makes it inherently weak, and means the skeptics are right to need strong evidence."
Tom, your statement is insulting and typical of the arrogance skeptics bring to the discussion. The people getting the evidence supporting LENR are professional scientists with years of training and experience. We are as interested in the truth as are the skeptics.
I have no doubt of your interest in the truth. However, insulting though it may be, you are not disputing my point I expect because it is true.
My approach to these matters of strong feelings is to try to dissociate personal feelings (which we all have) from the facts. In this case my prediction here is not actually a personal one. If, given current state of evidence, you judge LENR to be likely then there will I think not be much that can dissuade you from that judgement. You have already accepted that any effect is variable and not easily reproducible above possible errors, but nevertheless visible, over multiple indicators each with very different sensitivity. The anomaly inherent in that statement (Josh and I have pointed it above) will weigh on you less than the evidence you believe you have for LENR. Since it is a pretty big anomaly that must mean you think there is even bigger evidence for, and therefore it will be effectively impossible to shake your belief. The LENR hypothesis cannot be falsified (please reply if you dispute that).
QuoteIn contrast to the skeptics, we see the effect and we know the real errors in the measurements. The skeptics do not. I have made thousands of measurements only because I see the effect actually take place on occasion. I would not waste my time if I had any doubt about the reality. I also have experienced every possible error - more than you can imagine. As Jed Rothwell has observed, if you want a reason to reject the data, ask Storms. I know all the reasons. Nevertheless, the effect is real because it is present in spite of the potential error.
I think that statement is over-confident - almost arrogant. A skeptic would never say they know the real errors in measurements. Nor would most scientists. And would welcome severe critiques proposing possible errors, directly answering them with the necessary extra analysis or experiment, or an admission that the results are not safe. You I am sure meant to say that you know well how to bound errors: but the best scientist can misinterpret marginal data through some small but unrecognised systematic error. A skeptic would therefore always to be cautious with error bounds, especially when analysing sets of cold experiments that cannot be retested.
Skeptics are allowing uncertainty - that breath of real world cussedness that afflicts and sometimes delights us all - its place. That is a humility in the face of the real world that T.H. Huxley would have approved of.
I'm also thinking that neither you, nor Abd, have seriously engaged with the "hydra" argument. You have both implicitly or explicitly stated that it is preponderance of evidence, not specific strong evidence, that informs your judgement.
You are well aware of the statistical fact that multiple independent sources of weak evidence all pointing the same way result in a strong conclusion. Science uses that all the time. And the Bayesian mathematical basis for it is well understood and easily applied.
I'm not however sure that you have taken into account the contaminating effect of experimental selection applied to low-level (or in some cases high-level) systematic errors. Even given perfect reporting of all results, that will lead to a preponderance of evidence in the direction looked for. No LENR researcher will choose an experiment less likely to exhibit an LENR effect, so experimental selection is a given. No common cause is needed, low-level selection of apparatus, methodology, conditions can all conspire to maximise multiple low-level systematic errors in the direction of the wanted results.
So: multiple hydra, each with an a priori unknown (but small) number of difficult to find heads, each head on each hydra must independently be identified and slain. That skews the "gut feeling" that enough evidence exists, because seemingly independent evidence pointing the same way can have a non-LENR cause. And I've not heard from LENR advocates any acknowledgement such an effect exists. Abd and others, replying in print to Shanahan, restates "systematic" as "random". A slip perhaps such as we all make, but significant. No-one aware of the hydra issue could treat the difference between systematic and random error so lightly.
This issue applies only to the type of low-level and fragmentary evidence shown from LENR. The key factor here is claimed anomalies of multiple types (heat, radiation, transmutation) which have a qualitative connection (nuclear) without any explanatory theory that makes testable predictions. I cannot think of any other scientific phenomena which shares that characteristic.
The tribal nature of these debates, in which arguments from different "sides" seem sharply opposed, does not necessarily indicate different rational judgement over the strength of individual components of LENR evidence.
If you are persuaded there must be some LENR effect, from preponderance of evidence, then that given affects your analysis of every LENR claim. Naturally you therefore allow an "LENR explanation" a higher a priori likelihood, since it is known to exist in other experiments, than if you are not convinced from preponderance of evidence that LENR is real.
So: my suggestion here is that all (or nearly all) the apparent differences in judgement might have as a root different analysis of the significance, not of individual experiments, but of the corpus of data all looked at together. LENR advocates are on record as saying that it is this corpus as a whole that convinced them. Skeptics do not rate "corpus as a whole" when the individual components are weak.
Whichever way you swing: "corpus as a whole convinced" or "corpus as a whole unconvinced" then changes your "best fit" interpretation of the individual evidence. It is an inevitable positive feedback that makes those who look seriously at the evidence more likely to have one-sided views.
Thomas, time will tell - may be soon?....
It seems the closer a potential reveal ?? of a working ?? device, that uses - let's call it for now an anomalous heat effect - will be, your and other users efforts to defend the "brave" side of science that is hardly accepting new ways of thinking or thoeries that do not (yet) fit to current peer-reviewed standard models seem to intensify... I am optimistic that we all will be excited about some news sooner or later, and then it would be really interesting to see how these kind of discussions may evolve...they are anyway interesting to follow, but I have a hard time not to lose focus on what the topic sometimes is...
QuoteIt seems the closer a potential reveal ?? of a working ?? device
You are right to be cautious, that has been the impression for maybe 20 years...
Alex- This method is called the autoradiograph and it has been applied on several occasions by several people. Radiation is detected, including from isolated patches of tritium. However, the method generally does not reveal the source or the kind of radiation. In addition, this radiation results only from decay of radioactive elements, which are rarely produced by LENR. The method does not give the half-life or energy, which provide important information. I prefer to use a GM or SBD. Nevertheless, I agree, the radiation emitted during and after LENR provides important information about the process and this information is generally ignored. What is worst, the conventional dogma is that no radiation is produced, which is simply not true. The radiation at the source is intense and complex, which provides further evidence for a novel nuclear process.
Tom- I will let you have the last word since your response has failed to acknowledge the value of any of my comments. You clearly like to argue and are not seeking a resolution to the conflict. I do not have time to simply argue for the sake of argument. I have addressed the issues in detail in my book, which you apparently have not read. I do not have time to repeat the same arguments. I prefer to argue with Nature.
So: my suggestion here is that all (or nearly all) the apparent differences in judgement might have as a root different analysis of the significance, not of individual experiments, but of the corpus of data all looked at together. LENR advocates are on record as saying that it is this corpus as a whole that convinced them. Skeptics do not rate "corpus as a whole" when the individual components are weak.
In addition, the differences in how people are willing to go about reasoning from mutually agreed upon experimental observations are profound. My working hypothesis is very different from that of Ed Storms's or Abd Lomax's, for example, not because we disagree all that much about the validity of most specific, concrete observations. But because we have very different ideas about what conclusions can be drawn from them and what generalizations can be made.
Ed, you said:
QuoteThe radiation at the source is intense and complex, which provides further evidence for a novel nuclear process.
In an earlier post you also said the this radiation was not very penetrating and could not be properly measured outside of the reaction chamber and therefore it had never been properly characterized.
Is it electromagnetic radiation?
Do you have any idea of the energy spectrum?
What could be done to gain more insight as to the nature of it?
Thomas,
I think you should keep in mind that many of the LENR stalwarts have been trying to convince skeps like you for many years now, and are simply tired of politely answering the same questions time after time, year after year, mostly to no avail. You are just another "johnny come lately", asking the same things your fellow skeps have asked before. I could go back to FPs, and lift the same questions, and the same answers, but from another time, another era...nothing has changed really in 27 years.
You act frustrated, as if you are owed (you aren't) their undivided attention. Maybe some young up and comer, hot shot, LENR researcher from SKINR or Texas Tech, will discover this site and address every one of your hydras. In the meantime, may I suggest you just have some fun and stop being so overly sensitive?
I have enjoyed this thread. Lots of substantive info discussed by each side; each well versed in the literature, and in Dr. Storms case...the lab. It has been informative to see such perspective from both inside the field, and out. Yes, sometimes style trumps substance, data is cherry picked for advantage, but hey...that has it's own entertainment value. 
Take care
