FP's experiments discussion

Quote from joshua cude

The observations can't be explained by a single nuclear reaction, but requires dozens of unprecedented and inconceivable nuclear reactions, and unprecedented mechanisms to convert nuclear energy to heat.

I asked you to look into the Holmlid experiments because it would help to upgrade your LENR knowledge by 20 years. The fact that K-mesons are produced in LENR points to the fact the protons and neutrons are decaying as per accepted theory inside the nucleus. This reaction is in all the particle physics textbooks.

Please update your LENR knowledge base.

See

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton_decay

LENR has produced a quasiparticle that generates a monopole beam. Science is desperate to detect proton decay to validate the grand unification theory.

Searches for proton decay and superheavy Magnetic Monopoles
B. V. Sreekantan

In conclusion, as of 1984 January, it may be stated that the existence of super-heavy monopoles and the phenomenon of nucleon decay, both of which are extremely important from the point of view of grand unification theories, are still very open questions. While there has been just one magnetic monopole candidate so far, there have been several as far as nucleon decay is concerned. The first candidates for nucleon decay came from the fine-grain calorimeters of KGF, and NUSEX; recently there have been candidates from the water Cerenkov experiments as well. The experimental situation regarding the other important phenomena of relevance to grand unification which we have not discussed in this article — like the finite mass of neutrinos, neutrino oscillations, and neutron oscillations — continues to be indefinite though many dedicated experiments are in progress.

With the continued operation of the nucleon decay experiments already collecting data and the commissioning of the new generation of experiments over the next few years, the stage is set for a resolution of this problem in a time scale of 5–10 years. The present indication that the dominant decay mode for the proton (even if it decays) is notp → e+π0 and that the lower limit to the lifetime of the nucleon is 10^^31 yr, does not favour the simple SU(5) type models.

The remarkable discoveries of W± and Z0 with mass values exactly as predicted, have given a boost to the unification based on the gauge theoretical approaches. Whether grand unification can be extended to super-unification, experiment alone can tell. This will be the challenge for the remaining years of this century.

Storms wrote:

Quote

These conclusions also imply the following:

1. Hundreds of otherwise competent scientists become incompetent when they study LENR, even after 27 years,

No, the small fraction of scientists still researching cold fusion out of a thousand times more who have investigated or looked in to it, fell prey to cognitive or confirmation bias, and and once they were hooked on believing the effect was real, could not let it go. (See more in an accompanying essay.)

Quote

2. Calorimetry is not correctly understood after 200 years of application in the field of chemistry,

As Rothwell said, "calorimetric errors and artifacts are more common than researchers realize". Since there is clear disagreement on the interpretation of the calorimetry results in cold fusion experiments, someone has to be mistaken. Either it's the dozens of scientists who believe nuclear reactions are indicated, or its the tens of thousands who think they're not. The smaller number seems more plausible.

axil wrote:

Quote

(me:)

... The fact that K-mesons are produced in LENR ... LENR has produced a quasiparticle that generates a monopole beam...Science is desperate to detect proton decay to validate the grand unification theory.

Like I said... unprecedented reactions and mechanisms in the context...

Quote from joshua cude

Like I said... unprecedented reactions and mechanisms in the context...

Like I said... totally expected and now discovered.

The generic arguments Storms advances here are common among advocates of LENR and other fringe sciences, and I wrote a sort of generic essay as a response several years ago. I beg leave to reproduce it here:

The question is : how can so many scientists fall victim to artifacts and confirmation bias?

Here, in 5 parts, I try to organize the responses that I've come across, although there is considerable redundancy between the points:

1) Pathological Science

This sort of thing happens enough that it has been given a name: pathological science. It happened to a lesser extent with N-rays and polywater, and to a greater extent (though perhaps at a lesser level) in homeopathy and perpetual motion machines.

It isn't as if 100 scientists (or however many) were chosen at random to do LENR experiments and they all claimed positive results. The people claiming positive results are the remainder after considerable filtration. In fact, in the 2 cases when panels of experts were enlisted to examine the evidence, their judgements were that cold fusion had not been proven.

After P&F, LENR was widely investigated by probably tens of thousands of scientists. A few of the negative results were famously presented, but most researchers simply went back to their previous interests when their experiments showed nothing, and after they had examined the positive claims in more detail, and satisfied themselves that evidence for cold fusion was not compelling.

But calorimetry experiments are famously prone to artifact, and so it's not unlikely that a few might have stumbled on the same systematic errors or artifacts that others were fooled by. Most of the errors were probably discovered and corrected, and then the researchers went back to their previous interests.

But in a few of the cases where anomalous heat was indicated, the experimenters (in most cases, people with little training in nuclear physics) might have fallen prey to confirmation bias, and once they were hooked on believing the effect was real, could not let it go. This was greatly facilitated by the potential fame and glory that unequivocal evidence for LENR would undoubtedly bring. So, they haven't given up, and every so often, they stumble across another artifact, which is suggestive, but never unequivocal, and they play it up for all it's worth, while ignoring all the failures in between. And so it will appear as if the evidence is building. But the absence of one solid result that can be reproduced quantitatively by other labs (even if only sometimes) after so many years and so many attempts suggests weaker evidence of a real effect to skeptics.

2) Diminishing returns

It is a characteristic of pathological science that the observed effect becomes less prominent over time as the experiment improves. And it is characteristic of real effects that they become more prominent over time, whether the theory is understood or not. That's certainly true of things like high temperature superconductivity, or (to go back a century) discrete atomic spectra, the photoelectric effect, and Compton scattering.

But in the case of LENR, if you look at the tables in Storms' 2007 book, the claimed energy is, if anything, decreasing over time. In the 90s there were several claims of excess power in the range of tens, hundreds, and even thousands of watts, and several claims of heat after death (infinite COP). But since 2000, most claims have been in the range of a watt or less. Even within a group, the claims seem to drop off. Dardik claimed 20W in 2004, but has not been able to match that since. Exceptions to 1 W claim limit include Dardik (as mentioned) and Rossi, both of whom have a background in fraud, but not in physics.

....continued

3) The Loch Ness photographs, or many bad results do not a good result make

Like positive cold fusion claims, there are thousands of photographs that are claimed to be of the Loch Ness monster, and hundreds of thousands of claimed alien sightings. Admittedly, they are not often published in scientific journals, but the phenomenon is the same; the difference is that cold fusion is more obscure or sophisticated and therefore not as easy to dismiss by scientists -- except in the major nuclear physics journals, which do not publish cold fusion results.

The idea that many marginal results represent stronger evidence than a few marginal results is typical of pathological science, and is expressed frequently by advocates like Rothwell or Krivit. It just doesn't seem likely to advocates that so many scientists could be wrong. But when the results are as weak as cold fusion results, in fact it *is* likely. What is not likely is that so many photographs, from so many angles, with so many different cameras, could *all* be blurry. The only reasonable explanation is that when the pictures are clear, it becomes obvious that the image is something other than a monster. Of course the clear photos don't dissuade the believers; they just mean the monster ducked under water at the right moment, and those photos are not shown.

4) argument from authority

The argument that there are a great many claims of cold fusion by scientists is really an argument from authority, which is fine, except that it ignores most of the authority. Advocates find it hard to believe that so many scientists can be wrong, but the alternative is that a great many more scientists (i.e. mainstream science) are wrong. In fact, isn't the bread and butter of the advocates' argument for cold fusion that a large number of scientists *can* be wrong, and have been wrong in the past? What do you think makes the cold fusion scientists immune?

It's true that most scientists are not even aware of research in cold fusion after the early 90s, but everyone was aware of it back in the day, and for recent work, we have valid samples. First, the two DOE panels were nearly unanimous in judging that nuclear effects were not proven. Second, the failure of LENR researchers to get published in major journals means that referees are rejecting the work. Recently, the entire proceedings of a cold fusion conference was rejected by the ACS. And similarly, most funding agencies that use peer review do not fund cold fusion research. So, most scientists who look at the work, do not agree that cold fusion is real.

There are not very many new recruits to cold fusion, suggesting the the growing body of evidence is not persuading many scientists, even though it appears to persuade internet forum commenters quite easily. There is Duncan as an example of a scientist who examined the work and allows the possibility of fusion, as the exception to prove the rule.

But there are also scientists associated with positive claims who have moved on to other fields, which would be inexplicable if they believed in a phenomenon with such potential for good. I don't know of any that admit disbelief in cold fusion, but I suspect they feel that it will never be *proven* wrong, so they will never have to admit gullibility. Scientists who have moved on include Fritz G Will, director of the National Cold Fusion Inst. in Utah, who went on to study conventional battery technology; D Gozzi, who did some of the most careful work on helium and x-rays and concluded in a 1998 refereed paper that the production of helium was not definitive; and Pons himself, who would undoubtedly still advocate for cold fusion, but inexplicably disappeared from the scene when the lab in France closed down, at what is often a productive age for scientists.

Of course, the argument against the mainstream's rejection of cold fusion is that it's a big conspiracy to suppress cold fusion to preserve the status quo or their grant funding or their peace of mind. Leaving aside the fact that this would almost certainly be impossible if the effect were real, the advocates can't have it both ways. If they are going to distrust the authorities because they are selfish, then why should we trust the cold fusion authorities? They may be selfish too, hoping to secure their own funding, fame, glory or what have you.

5) Show me your best results

Finally, if the best results are analyzed and found wanting, then any lesser results are wanting even more, and it shouldn't matter how many there are. The claim of cold fusion, to be taken seriously, needs at least one result that is unequivocal. Surely, if there are so many, one of them should be unimpeachable.

So, the question is: what are the best results? Most people tend to be evasive when this question is asked, preferring to refer to the totality of the work. Jed Rothwell said several times than Rossi's are the best results in cold fusion, making the whole field vulnerable in the event Rossi flames out… to the extent that Rothwell is taken seriously in the field.

In 2009, the newsmagazine 60 minutes featured the results of Dardik et al. at Energetics. Those results were not even published under peer-review, and if you look at the conference proceedings, it's not hard to see why. The results were all over the map -- no two experiments give the same results -- and yet they claim 70% reproducibility. The experiments have electrical input with superpositions of waves, and acoustic input, so from the conference proceedings, it's hard to figure out what they did, but based on the claims, it's not hard to think of ways to make it more convincing. For example, they claim heat without input for several days from a tiny Pd foil. If that were true, why wouldn't they put the foil in an isolated thermos, and watch the temperature climb?

For heat-helium correlation experiments, you have to go to the mid-nineties for the last peer-reviewed results, and those were crude and preliminary. It's a good experiment, but no one seems to have been able to publish results since. McKubre's results weren't published, and it's not clear he can be trusted anyway after his results were eviscerated by Krivit.

In the Ni-H area, I think most people regard the Piantelli results among the best, but they are largely anecdotal, and used questionable calorimetry that was challenged experimentally by CERN, and have only a few publications in an Italian journal.

And so on. I haven't read every cold fusion paper ever written, but I've read the ones people cite as the best, and none are high quality and fully forthcoming. And it's not just my opinion. That's the opinion of the DOE panels, and even of Nagel -- an advocate -- who expressed it in his scientific review of ICCF2009.

----

That was written in 2012 (I made a few edits), but things have not changed appreciably since. Energetics has morphed into SKINR, but still haven't published. Marwan, who was very active in the ACS symposia series seems to have disappeared from the scene. MFMP was born to identify proof of LENR (conceding it's absence at present), but is struggling to get a positive result. Rothwell no longer thinks Rossi has proved his case, and his favorite paper has fallen back to the McKubre 1994 paper, just emphasizing the total lack of progress in the field. And the publication rate remains a tiny trickle, many times smaller than even the late 90s. What will happen when attrition takes the remaining credentialed academics from the field?

Quote from joshua cude

Exceptions to 1 W claim limit include Dardik (as mentioned) and Rossi, both of whom have a background in fraud, but not in physics.

Physics is not the unassailable repository of truth that you assume. If you accept physics as presented today, you are deluding yourself.

For example, the Sun is assumed to be a ball of plasma hosting a fusion reaction. In reality, it is a liquid that is hosting a cold fusion reaction.

Now just imagine how much Pathological Science has grown up around this plasma Sun fantasy that you accept whole cloth. Now don't you feel silly in assuming science is unquestioned truth.

See

Quote from H-G Branzell

You mentioned that a voltage of 10000 V could be expected. Well, that corresponds to over 10⁸ K which incidentally is the temperature in the interior of the sun. Obviously we are not talking Cold Fusion anymore. As interesting as this is, cracking hydrogen embrittled palladium will never be the energy source of the future.

Loading palladium is an engineering approach to the production of LENR. A better approach might be to use sintered nickel but both approaches use topological discontinuity to collect polaritons and produce liquid hydrogen.

How do you know that the center of the Sun is 10^8 K, did you measure it or did you see it in a book. Prove this to me.

Axil wrote:

Quote

(me:)

Physics is not the unassailable repository of truth that you assume.

There is nothing I said -- and certainly nothing you quoted -- that makes any assumptions about an unassailable repository of truth.

In any case, physics is a subject, not a repository. Presumably you mean what we know about physics, but most of the time your writing is not comprehensible to me. You're out of my league.

Quote from joshua cude

In any case, physics is a subject, not a repository. Presumably you mean what we know about physics, but most of the time your writing is not comprehensible to me. You're out of my league.

When you buy a E-Cat at home depot, you need not understand how it works. Just get an electrician to install it for you. I am sure you do not understand how your Iphone works either but you use that fairly well.

axil wrote:

Quote

I am sure you do not understand how your Iphone works either but you use that fairly well.

Actually, I do know an iPhone works. There are tiny black holes that suck up dark matter and produce beams of monopoles in a ladder of powerful exponentially increasing interdependent processes of self-reinforcing amplification. I'm surprised you didn't know that.

Quote from joshua cude

axil wrote:

Actually, I do know an iPhone works. There are tiny black holes that suck up dark matter and produce beams of monopoles in a ladder of powerful exponentially increasing interdependent processes of self-reinforcing amplification. I'm surprised you didn't know that.

So you were playing dumb all along. You just wanted to aggravate ED and ABD all along by going back 20 years and using those old tired P&F arguments. There is a new LENR day starting on Wensday. Gird your loins for some new LENR breakthroughs. It might hurt real good.

Quote

For example, the Sun is assumed to be a ball of plasma hosting a fusion reaction. In reality, it is a liquid that is hosting a cold fusion reaction.

Now just imagine how much Pathological Science has grown up around this plasma Sun fantasy that you accept whole cloth. Now don't you feel silly in assuming science is unquestioned truth.

Well, were that true, I'd still feel a bit less silly than if I assumed Pathological Science was unquestioned truth.

I'm trying to understand the attitudes operating during these discussions, assuming the people have a sincere belief. The responses give me an impression, which seems to be shared by other observers. Several of the people who are most active share a common belief and goal I will try to describe. I will not identify these people but allow them to identify themselves if they wish.

They believe that LENR is not a real phenomenon of Nature and that the behavior attributed to LENR results from error and misinterpretation of common behavior. They believe they have the duty to educate people about the mistakes so that additional time is not wasted studying and advocating this erroneous claim. They believe they are sincere and are using the highest standards required of science to make this understanding known. They believe the people advocating for the reality of LENR are delusional, suborn, and perhaps incompetent, but wrong. They believe a complex series of errors occur in the various experiments that must exist even when they are hard to identify. Unwillingness to make the search for the errors results from a siege mentality. When the errors are identified by someone, failure to a knowledge the error results from an unwillingness to apply the scientific method. They are absolutely sure they are right and will accept no evidence or argument that conflicts with this belief. They believe they are showing great patience in their effort to educate people about this error in judgement.

I apologize if this description does not fit your approach. I see no common ground with such an attitude. I see no way to reach a shared understanding. No matter what I say, the response is always a rejection or a distortion of what I said. We simply do not have a common language, common goal, or a common understanding of how Nature works. Consequently, I see no reason to engage further with such people.

If someone wants to have a productive discussion, I would be pleased to engage.

In response to the comment about 10,000 V being equal to the temperature of the sun, hence not possible to form in a material - is the voltage in my old TV set equal to the temperature of the sun. If so,why is my TV still working? Why has the 1,000,000 V in the wires delivering power to cities not melted the wires. The answer is that a voltage difference is not related to temperature!! A voltage is a force: it is not energy. Temperature is energy; it is not a force. The voltage creates energy only when a charge is caused to move. The amount of energy being released includes the number of charges being moved.

Quote

I'm trying to understand the attitudes operating during these discussions, assuming the people have a sincere belief.

That is admirable, but may I suggest that trying to understand their reasons for said views might be even more productive?

Quote

They believe that LENR is not a real phenomenon of Nature and that the behavior attributed to LENR results from error and misinterpretation of common behavior.

It may seem pedantic, but it is not. Josh and I have repeatedly said that we view LENR - as an explanation for the observations reported to date, as highly unlikely. It is a bad fit, whereas assorted error is a much better fit.

By rephrasing this view in deductive terms you think in terms of "proof" or "disproof". We may sometimes use these terms loosely but must keep in mind that neitehr are true. LENR can never be disproved. It cannot be proved, because it is not a predictive theory, but certainly good enough evidence would prove extraordinary physics and at that point it is possible that nuclear reactions would be part of the solution. I'n not quibbling over this - and were any extraordinary physics proven I'd be happy to concede that LENR research had it right (though for the wrong reasons).

Quote

They believe they have the duty to educate people about the mistakes so that additional time is not wasted studying and advocating this erroneous claim.

Not me. I enjoy this argument, and am still awaiting your reply to the hydra issue which relates to whether "preponderance of evidence" is safe.

When I'm criticised as being against LENR I'm happy to point out that criticism is exactly what LENR needs. But I don't feel any particular duty to provide this.

Quote

They believe they are sincere

What is the difference between sincerity and belief that one is sincere?

Quote

and are using the highest standards required of science to make this understanding known.

Ed - your analysis is here is often black and white. I try to communicate accurately and correctly, according to my understanding of science. Why would I do other? But "highest standard"? I doubt it... Josh will no doubt answer for himself, but I'd expect that he would say he does his best without the arrogance of this superlative.

Quote

They believe the people advocating for the reality of LENR are delusional, suborn, and perhaps incompetent, but wrong.

Would you care to find quotes from this thread to support that (from me)? (for the first 3 adjectives applied in general)

I do believe LENR advocates are:

(1) wrong if they reckon LENR is likely real (you might be an advocate for more research while sharing my more pessimistic view, though that is I guess less likely)

(2) ill-advised in how they dismiss criticism. They should address criticism. Saying that you can't be bothered to do this because the criticism is wrong without citing specific rebuttal of specific points is weak. If Josh and Kirk and (to a lesser extent) I can make specific points identifying issues, surely we deserve specific replies. These need be no longer than the points themselves, and may of course leave the matter unresolved, but they would show what are the specific differing viewpoints on specific issues. Of course internet forums don't matter, but doing the same in the published literature would allow LENR to hold its head up. Note also that a reply is not the same as a reply to the specific points - as we can see from F&P's reply to Wilson et al which managed to avoid Wilson's points.

Quote

They believe a complex series of errors occur in the various experiments that must exist even when they are hard to identify.

Often not complex. Just not recognised. It is a human lack that we are good at not seeing things, even when in front of our noses. Scientists are no different from others. That is why they rely on criticism to identify errors and that is where it seems many LENR researchers fall down. Not incompetence. Arrogance.

Quote

Unwillingness to make the search for the errors results from a siege mentality.

That is meta-information. It may be true. There might be many other reasons. It is not anyone's place to speculate, except idly for fun without weight.

Quote

When the errors are identified by someone, failure to a knowledge the error results from an unwillingness to apply the scientific method.

Again, you are going deductive (binary) on us. Potential errors are identified. And failure to check carefully for the error, or else mark the experimental results as inadequate to support extraordinary physics, is what has happened here. You have even given your reason for this "preponderance of evidence".

Quote

They are absolutely sure they are right and will accept no evidence or argument that conflicts with this belief.

This is a repeat binary assertion, and as equally untrue. How could anyone be absolutely sure an undisprovable proposition (LENR) was false? It might be we are missing some key experiment with very high integrity that shows LENR, or some magic theory that turns inchoate data into an understood pattern. All skeptics can say is that what has been advanced so far does not do that, and the pattern of lack of evidence makes it look very unlikely this will change.

Quote

They believe they are showing great patience in their effort to educate people about this error in judgement.

I don't specially believe that. I don't expect you to agree with me for the reasons I've clearly stated. But I'm still interested in whether you see "preponderance of evidence" as being less strong than it otherwise would be due to possible systematic error, and experiment and result selection.

Quote

I see no common ground with such an attitude. I see no way to reach a shared understanding

That may be true. But your making this issue a matter of black and white instead of probabilities does not help matters, and is not accepted by this skeptic.

Quote

No matter what I say, the response is always a rejection or a distortion of what I said.

A rejection with reasons you could dispute. Then we see the real difference in views. If a distortion, you could note this again with reasons.

Quote

We simply do not have a common language

Untrue.

Quote

[we do not have a] common goal,

Probably true, but different goals do not necessarily affect understanding or communication.

Quote

or a common understanding of how Nature works.

Indeed no, and that is true for any two scientists with different hypotheses. That is no barrier to scientific debate.

Quote

Consequently, I see no reason to engage further with such people.

And that is where you are self-confessedly unscientific. If you will not engage with contrary viewpoints you cannot advance in science, which works through disproof. We are all really bad at critiquing our own ideas.

Quote from H-G Branzell

You mentioned that a voltage of 10000 V could be expected. Well, that corresponds to over 108 K which incidentally is the temperature in the interior of the sun. Obviously we are not talking Cold Fusion anymore. As interesting as this is, cracking hydrogen embrittled palladium will never be the energy source of the future.

You and Ed are talking past one another. Ed agrees with you that what he identifies as fractofusion, suggesting that ions are being accelerated across crack walls and so on, is not LENR.

Quote

The answer is that a voltage difference is not related to temperature!! A voltage is a force: it is not energy. Temperature is energy; it is not a force. The voltage creates energy only when a charge is caused to move. The amount of energy being released includes the number of charges being moved.

This is mostly true, but slightly loose (temperature and energy do not equate, something it is easy to forget reading some LENR write-ups, and voltage is not force, it is the integral of force/charge wrt distance)

The serious point is this. In terms of "hot fusion" what matters is particle kinetic energy. This can be got from thermal velocity, or accelerator velocity - whether the accelerator is a charged crack or SLAC. And voltage is an accurate measurement of accelerator energy Ep for a given particle of charge q. (Ep = V/q)

There are differences, once velocities have thermalised the distribution has a high-end tail much higher in energy than the average and therefore thermalised energy per particle is more effective at doing fusion than mono-energetic accelerator energy.