FP's experiments discussion

.

Quote from Thomas Clarke

Take for example excess heat. ... Those [experiments] with significant heat deficit will be investigated to debug the experiment, and errors discovered, before ever results are gathered. Those with significant excess heat will be viewed as good evidence.

This particular description sounds like a suggestion of incompetence rather than cherry-picking.

I asked where all those negative heat experiments went, once. There should be some if the results of experiments were reported without bias.

Abd wrote:

Quote

Miles believed he was confirming Preparata's prediction. So this is already a "LENR prediction" that was subsequently found to be true.

Where by "found to be true", you mean in the judgement of a few people.

Quote

I agree, it is real and highly interesting evidence for LENR, and Huizenga thought so in the second edition of his book, 1993.

It is obvious that unequivocal observation of helium produced in cold fusion experiments at any level would be highly interesting.

Quote

However, Huizenga expected that Miles would not be confirmed "because no gammas." Miles was confirmed.

Not in the judgement of the DOE panel or the rest of mainstream science. If it were, Science and Nature would fight for the privilege to publish it, but as it is, the "confirmations" were not published in *any* refereed journal.

And it's not surprising if the ICCF 2000 paper that McKubre wrote is the best he can do. It is woefully inadequate as a scientific report, or as evidence for anything, let alone a revolutionary phenomenon.

Quote

Joshua will then quibble about what "confirmed" means. Must be confirmed in an experimental report published under peer review, not by expert reports under similar conditions as peer-review provides.

It is you that gives peer review such exalted status when you talk about skeptics not publishing under peer review.

But the authors are just as aware as you and I and Tom and Huizenga about the importance of measurements like this, and would therefore be anxious to get the results into good journals so they can get the credit that would be their due. So, the fact that the results weren't published suggests that either they were rejected, or McKubre did not feel sufficiently confident in them to submit them for publication. That seems likely, given the caution he expressed about them in the EPRI report, and the poor quality of the conference report.

Quote

In these discussions, Joshua points to the 2004 U.S. DoE report, which was not a peer-reviewed review of the field.

It was a peer-review of the field. You reject it because the peer-review was not peer-reviewed.

Quote

That report is, on the face, a review of the Hagelstein et al review paper, but in a peer-reviewed review of a paper, there is back-and-forth that takes place, which was missing.

An ordinary peer review involves 2 or 3 referees. This involved 18, half of whom had a month to read the supporting literature, and a day or oral presentations and discussions. That is far more attention than any article for a journal receives.

Quote

Miles was confirmed, and with increased precision, and these results have never been demonstrated to be artifact.

Wrong. There is a claim by McKubre based on selective analysis of a poorly reported experiment, that he did not even publish. Only those already convinced would ever consider that a confirmation.

Quote

At this point, there came to exist a preponderance of the evidence for the reality of the effect. That's basic. That does not mean that it has been proven, but it does mean that the shoe is on the other foot. From the time of confirmation on. Let's say by 2005. Ten years ago.

Of course, you're free to stomp your feet and insist you will now believe cold fusion is real because of the preponderance of evidence until someone proves it's not.

But for most of those who disagree that there is a preponderance of evidence for the effect, they are perfectly happy to allow you to continue to believe it's real. If that status quo -- which has existed for close to 30 years (not just 10) -- satisfies you, then everyone's happy. But if you want to see some actual scientific progress in the field -- to the point that it might actually be exploited -- then better evidence is needed.

Not more argument. Better evidence.

And in this 10 year period you talk about, the evidence has not improved if you go by the refereed literature, which you insist is the measure of the field. The 2 or 3 claims of excess heat in the past decade (Arata-type experiments) have been shown to be consistent with chemical effects by Dmitriyeva et al. (in the literature). Measurements of helium in this period are completely absent, leaving mainly CR-39 neutron measurements, theory, and reviews (more argument). More reviews than experimental reports is a good sign of a moribund field.

Frankwtu: Thanks for your comments. The helium values have been described and evaluated at great length in the literature as well as in my book. This literature is ignored by Tom et al. I do not have time or patience to repeat what has already been discussed. I simply try to provide some new ways to look at the data using brief comments. Some values are clearly wrong and some are clearly good enough, like all measurements made in science. The challenge is to determine what the good measurements reveal about Nature.

In response to my brevity, Tom at al. go to great lengths to make the claims look bad in ways that would require hours to refute and many more hours to refute their reply. I have discovered from personal experience that no agreement can be reached. As Tom says, believers are certain they are right and will say whatever is required to support their false belief. That is not how scientific discussion is supposed to be approached. So, I ignore the process. I sympathize with you as a student because such discussions are not designed to provide clarity or facts.

Here is a set of references related to the subject of helium. Before a person is qualified to discuss the subject, they need to master the information contained in these papers.

1. M. Miles, B. F. Bush, G. S. Ostrom, J. J. Lagowski, Heat and helium production in cold fusion experiments, in Second Annual Conference on Cold Fusion, "The Science of Cold Fusion", Ed: T. Bressani, E. D. Giudice, G. Preparata, (Societa Italiana di Fisica, Bologna, Italy, Como, Italy, 1991), 363-372.2. M. Miles, B. F. Bush, Search for anomalous effects involving excess power and helium during D2O electrolysis using palladium cathodes, in Third International Conference on Cold Fusion, "Frontiers of Cold Fusion", Ed: H. Ikegami, (Universal Academy Press, Inc., Tokyo, Japan, Nagoya Japan, 1992), 189-199.3. D. Gozzi, R. Caputo, P. L. Cignini, M. Tomellini, G. Gigli, G. Balducci, E. Cisbani, S. Frullani, F. Garibaldi, M. Jodice, G. M. Urciuoli, Helium-4 quantitative measurements in the gas phase of cold fusion electrochemical cells, in Fourth International Conference on Cold Fusion, Ed: T. O. Passell, (Electric Power Research Institute 3412 Hillview Ave., Palo Alto, CA 94304, Lahaina, Maui, 1993), vol. 1, 6-1 to 6-19.4. D. Gozzi, R. Caputo, P. L. Cignini, M. Tomellini, G. Gigli, G. Balducci, E. Cisbani, S. Frullani, F. Garibaldi, M. Jodice, G. M. Urciuoli, Excess heat and nuclear product measurements in cold fusion electrochemical cells, in Fourth International Conference on Cold Fusion, Ed: T. O. Passell, (Electric Power Research Institute 3412 Hillview Ave., Palo Alto, CA 94304, Lahaina, Maui, 1993), vol. 1, 2-1 to 2-31.5. M. H. Miles, R. A. Hollins, B. F. Bush, J. J. Lagowski, R. E. Miles, Correlation of excess power and helium production during D2O and H2O electrolysis using palladium cathodes. J. Electroanal. Chem. 346, 99-117 (1993).6. M. H. Miles, B. F. Bush, Heat and helium measurements in deuterated palladium, in Fourth International Conference on Cold Fusion, Ed: T. O. Passell, (Electric Power Research Institute 3412 Hillview Ave., Palo Alto, CA 94304, Lahaina, Maui, 1993), vol. 2, 6.7. T. Aoki, Y. Kurata, H. Ebihara, N. Yoshikawa, Helium and tritium concentrations in electrolytic cells. Trans. Fusion Technol. 26, 214-220 (1994).8. M. H. Miles, B. F. Bush, Heat and helium measurements in deuterated palladium. Trans. Fusion Technol. 26, 156-159 (1994).9. M. Miles, B. F. Bush, J. J. Lagowski, Anomalous effects involving excess power, radiation, and helium production during D2O electrolysis using palladium cathodes. Fusion Technol. 25, 478 (1994).10. Y. Arata, Y. C. Zhang, Achievement of solid-state plasma fusion ("cold fusion"). Koon Gakkaishi 21, 303 (in Japanese) (1995).11. Y. Arata, Y.-C. Zhang, Achievement of solid-state plasma fusion ("cold fusion"). Proc. Japan Acad. 71, 304 (1995).12. D. Gozzi, P. L. Cignini, R. Caputo, M. Tomellini, G. Balducci, G. Gigli, E. Cisbani, S. Frullani, F. Garibaldi, M. Jodice, G. M. Urciuoli, Excess heat and nuclear byproduct measurements in electrochemical confinement of deuterium in palladium. J. Electroanal. Chem. 380, 91 (1995).13. D. Gozzi, R. Caputo, P. L. Cignini, M. Tomellini, G. Gigli, G. Balducci, E. Cisbani, S. Frullani, F. Garibaldi, M. Jodice, G. M. Urciuoli, Quantitative measurements of helium-4 in the gas phase of Pd + D2O electrolysis. J. Electroanal. Chem. 380, 109-116 (1995).14. D. Gozzi, R. Caputo, P. L. Cignini, M. Tomellini, G. Gigli, G. Balducci, E. Cisbani, S. Frullani, F. Garibaldi, M. Jodice, G. M. Urciuoli, Calorimetric and nuclear byproduct measurements in electrochemical confinement of deuterium in palladium. J. Electroanal. Chem. 380, 91-107 (1995).15. D. Gozzi, R. Caputo, P. L. Cignini, M. Tomellini, G. Gigli, G. Balducci, E. Asbani, S. Frullani, F. Garibaldi, M. Jodice, G. M. Urciuoli, Quantitative measurements of helium-4 in the gas phase of Pd + D20 electrolysis. J. Electroanal. Chem. 380, 109 (1995).16. Y. Arata, Y.-C. Zhang, Achievement of solid-state plasma fusion ("cold fusion"), in Sixth International Conference on Cold Fusion, Progress in New Hydrogen Energy, Ed: M. Okamoto, (New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Tokyo, Japan, Lake Toya, Hokkaido, Japan, 1996), vol. 1, 129.17. Y. Arata, Y.-C. Zhang, Deuterium nuclear reaction process within solid. Proc. Japan Acad. 72 Ser. B, 179 (1996).18. M. Miles, K. B. Johnson, M. A. Imam, Heat and helium measurements using palladium and palladium alloys in heavy water, in Sixth International Conference on Cold Fusion, Progress in New Hydrogen Energy, Ed: M. Okamoto, (New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Tokyo, Japan, Lake Toya, Hokkaido, Japan, 1996), vol. 1, 20-28.19. B. F. Bush, J. J. Lagowski, Methods of generating excess heat with the Pons and Fleischmann effect: rigorous and cost effective calorimetry, nuclear products analysis of the cathode and helium analysis, in The Seventh International Conference on Cold Fusion, Ed: F. Jaeger, (Published by: ENECO, Inc., Salt Lake City, UT., Held at: Vancouver, Canada, 1998), 38.20. D. Gozzi, F. Cellucci, P. L. Cignini, G. Gigli, M. Tomellini, E. Cisbani, S. Frullani, G. M. Urciuoli, X-ray, heat excess and 4He in the D/Pd system. J. Electroanal. Chem. 452, 251-271 (1998).21. Y. Arata, Y. C. Zhang, Observation of anomalous heat release and helium-4 production from highly deuterated fine particles. Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. Part 2 38, L774 (1999).22. Y. Arata, Y. C. Zhang, Definitive difference between [DS-D2O] and [Bulk-D2O] cells in 'deuterium-reaction'. Proc. Jpn. Acad., Ser. B 75 Ser. B, 71 (1999).23. Y. Arata, Y. C. Zhang, Critical condition to induce 'excess energy' within [DS-H2O] cell. Proc. Jpn. Acad., Ser. B 75 Ser. B, 76 (1999).24. Y. Arata, Y. C. Zhang, Anomalous production of gaseous 4He at the inside of 'DS cathode' during D2O-electrolysis. Proc. Jpn. Acad., Ser. B 75, 281 (1999).25. M. C. H. McKubre, F. L. Tanzella, Results of initial experiment conducted with Pd on C hydrogenation catalyst materials, 199926. M. Miles, M. A. Imam, M. Fleischmann, Excess heat and helium production in the palladium-boron system. Trans. Am. Nucl. Soc. 83, 371-372 (2000).27. M. C. H. McKubre, F. L. Tanzella, P. Tripodi, P. L. Hagelstein, The emergence of a coherent explanation for anomalies observed in D/Pd and H/Pd system: evidence for 4He and 3He production, in 8th International Conference on Cold Fusion, Ed: F. Scaramuzzi, (Italian Physical Society, Bologna, Italy, Lerici (La Spezia), Italy, 2000), 3-10.28. M. C. McKubre, F. Tanzella, P. Tripodi, Evidence of d-d fusion products in experiments conducted with palladium at near ambient temperatures. Trans. Am. Nucl. Soc. 83, 367 (2000).29. M. C. H. McKubre, F. Tanzella, P. Tripodi, V. Violante, Progress towards replication, in The 9th International Conference on Cold Fusion, Condensed Matter Nuclear Science, Ed: X. Z. Li, (Tsinghua Univ. Press, Tsinghua Univ., Beijing, China, 2002), 241.30. A. DeNinno, A. Frattolillo, A. Rizzo, E. Del Gindice, 4He detection In a cold fusion experiment, in Tenth International Conference on Cold Fusion, Ed: P. L. Hagelstein, S. R. Chubb, (World Scientific Publishing Co., Cambridge, MA, 2003), 133-137.31. M. Miles, Correlation of excess enthalpy and helium-4 production: A review, in Tenth International Conference on Cold Fusion, Ed: P. L. Hagelstein, S. R. Chubb, (World Scientific Publishing Co., Cambridge, MA, 2003), 123-131.32. M. C. H. McKubre, Review of experimental measurements involving dd reactions, PowerPoint slides, in Tenth International Conference on Cold Fusion, Ed: P. L. Hagelstein, S. R. Chubb, (World Scientific Publishing Co., Cambridge, MA, 2003).33. A. DeNinno, A. Frattolillo, A. Rizzo, E. Del Giudice, 4He detection during H/D loading of Pd cathodes, Presented at the ASTI-5, Asti, Italy, 2004.34. Y. Arata, Y. C. Zhang, X. F. Wang, Production of helium and energy in the “solid fusion”, in 15th International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science, Ed: V. Violante, F. Sarto, (ENEA, Italy, Rome, Italy, 2009), 72-81.35. M. C. McKubre, The importance of replication, in 14th International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science, Ed: D. L. Nagel, M. E. Melich, Washington DC, 2008), 673-688.36. E. K. Storms, The status of cold fusion (2010). Naturwissenschaften 97, 861 (2010).37. M. C. McKubre, Reproducibility of LENR Reactions, Presented at the ARL Workshop, Adelphi, MD, 2010.38. A. Lomax, Replicable cold fusion experiment: heat/helium ratio. Current Science 108, 574-577 (2015).

Thomas Clarke's last post is a huge insult of the hundreds of scientists that has worked in the field of LENR the past 27 years. Let's go through his statements:

Thomas : "It is difficult to understand why Ed is ignoring the negative evidence here"

Ed has never ignored critisism. He HAS studied and answerred critisism in every form. But I fully understand If Ed now choose to ignore old reborn repetitive critisism already answerred in past times.

Thomas: "Excess heat reduces to error level when reproduced with better calorimetry. Early F&P observations fully explained by errors. Systematic mechanisms for errors identified."

Very dirsrespectful statement! Thomas assumes F&P did NOT think of every possible error in their 20+ years of CF research. F&P answerred every published critisism of their work and papers. Their reply where never challenged, so F&P got the last Word in the debate. Where Fleischmann incompetent of calorimetry? He is aknowledged as one of the best Professors within electrochemistry in the 20th century. If there where serious errors during the 20+ years they would have discovered it.

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

Thomas: "He measurements all below plausible lab He concentration. Correlations can be explained because both erroneous excess heat and erroneous leakage will scale linearly with time. Correlation magnitude will be viewed as experimental error and corrected if too large or much too small. He measurements not made from experiments with larger excess heat that would lead to high He concentration."

Again very insulting statement. Thomas is calling the hundreds of scientists in the LENR field incompetent wrt calorimetry and He measurements. It is more than pure luck When the experiements identify changes in Helium correlated in time with excess heat Events.

Thomas: "Radiation measurements are much more sensitive (1000000X?) than heat evidence but nevertheless show marginal results."

"Marginal results" must be the biggest distortion and understatement in the history of CF. The CR39 experiements show clear and undeniable evidence of track numbers during LENR far above background levels. Like one Oriani paper showing 43 different control Runs with a mean track densities varying from 6 to 16 tracks / cm2. The highest recorded number was 24. And then - in 25 actual experiments 15 experiments had average more than 100 tracks/cm2. One had track number so great that counting was impractical.

Thomas : "I think the reason is that he is convinced by "preponderance of evidence". ..."

Strange and a rather insulting remark from Thomas, when he knew very well what Storms has said on the issue.

Thomas : "My view of the same phenomena is that a combination of systematic errors, experiment selection, and in some cases result selection, will give this preponderance."

Finally, Thomas used a precise Word, "my view". And he is fully entitled of his view and claims, But not his " facts".

And after reading a few papers, he has concluded on the matter, no more analysis required.

A big problem with Thomas way of argumenting, is that he put forwards his views and "analysis" as the final truth of the matter, when it is a matter of his opinion and his analysis using his methodology.

Thomas: "Take for example excess heat. Arbitrary errors will give either heat excess or heat deficit, so 50% are showing FPHE even without selection. Those experiments with neither will be dismissed as one of the cases where LENR is not working. Those with significant heat deficit will be investigated to debug the experiment, and errors discovered, before ever results are gathered. Those with significant excess heat will be viewed as good evidence."

This is a strange statement. Is he claiming that F&P where dishonest, not reporting or explaining any possible "heat deficit" in their experiments? Of course heat deficit would be as interesting as excess heat bursts, and should be investigated. Of the papers I've read and interviews I've seen with professor Fleischmann, never any bursts of "heat deficit" where observed.

But energy storage where early on suggested that may have ended in heat bursts. This possibility where investigated, but none such mechanisms where found that could explain FPHE.

Thomas : " The same phenomena for He results has been suggested by Josh above and not yet refuted by Ed."

How does Thomas know what Ed has investigated During his 27 years in the field? Has Ed a special obligaton To answer all old critisism reappearing on this forum? Especially when Thomas has not read any of Storms books on the subject?

Thomas : "The root problem in all these cases is that the desired result is known ab initio and experiments designed to show it. "

This is a huge insult. And why is Thomas using Latin? To sound more "Scientific"? Thomas easily dismiss all hundreds of scientists in the field of LENR during the 27 years of CF research, and calls them in reality dishonest and incompetent.

In my VIEW, they where looking for the truth in their experiments, and did not Expect or decide on positive results for the beginning as Thomas claims. A Scientific protocol of LENR positive results have not existed, so they could not design an experiment for an expected result.

Thomas : "Even one experiment with correct methodology, believable detailed reporting, and results well beyond error would change these things."

Many such papers has been published, but ignored by mainstream. What is needed is a definitive protocol that will produce consistent and repeatable LENR results. When this has been found and developped, then the mainstream science will wake up and the science of LENR will rise. This may come from within CF science community, or it may come from some outside commercial Company that Starts selling a LENR based product on the market. The latter would be unique, and a huge surprise for science community in general. But I would not be surprised, since any that found the above "holy grail of LENR protocol" would probably think of commercial possibilities first and and progress of science second.....

But back to insults: It's unfortunate that Thomas has chosen this path of insulting argumentation.

I encourage Ed, Tom, Cude, and others, to move on from the comfort of the familiar: the P&F LENR experimental format to the new LENR catalytic based tech involving metalize hydrogen as developed by Holmlid. The results of those experiments are so unexplainable by current theory that an accumulation of expert, professional, and cutting edge brain power needs to be applied to this area.

Holmlid will most likely be unsuccessful in attracting mainstream scientific help to his efforts due to the LENR stigma. Even when the motive to look at Holmlid's tech is negative and sceptical, any research feedback will help.

Holdmld's tech is closer to Rossi's tech that it is to the old P&F stuff and has the advantage that it's data is open and published.

Quote from joshua cude

And it's not surprising if the ICCF 2000 paper that McKubre wrote is the best he can do. It is woefully inadequate as a scientific report, or as evidence for anything, let alone a revolutionary phenomenon.

Do you have a full reference for this paper or a link to a PDF? I suspect it was a high-level summary of previous results, e.g., SRI TR-107843-V1. In that case I doubt much can be inferred from it about McKubre's ability to prepare a technical report.

Eric,

i believe he refer to this one:

http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHtheemergen.pdf

Note the helium graph of figure 2. He increase inside cell, and stable content in air outside.

Eric Walker wrote:

Quote

(me:)

Do you have a full reference for this paper or a link to a PDF?

McKubre, M.C.H., et al. The Emergence of a Coherent Explanation for Anomalies Observed in D/Pd and H/Pd System: Evidence for 4He and 3He Production. in 8th International Conference on Cold Fusion. 2000. Lerici (La Spezia), Italy: Italian Physical Society, Bologna, Italy.

Quote

I suspect it was a high-level summary of previous results, e.g., SRI TR-107843-V1.

No, I don't think so. The EPRI report does not cover the gas-loading experiment (Case replication), which is the experiment Storms extract data from. And in the EPRI report, McKubre says "it has *not been possible* to address directly the issue of heat-commensurable nuclear product generation"

As I said earlier, Storms gives 2 other references for the same helium work, also in 2000. One is from the same proceedings on finite element modeling, but I couldn't find a copy, and the other is in Trans Am Nucl Soc 83:367, also not accessible to me. The latter is also a proceedings of some sort, I think.

In any case, in the submission to the DOE in 2004, they give an appendix to support the helium correlation work, and it is essentially the same as the ICCF8 (2000) proceedings.

Quote

In that case I doubt much can be inferred from it about McKubre's ability to prepare a technical report.

It's clear McKubre has the ability to prepare a technical report -- there are many examples. The poor quality of this one reflects on the quality of the evidence.

Quote from oystla

Ed has never ignored critisism. He HAS studied and answerred critisism in every form. But I fully understand If Ed now choose to ignore old reborn repetitive critisism already answerred in past times.

I disagree with Ed about many things. But it's a little painful to see sweeping criticisms put to him that he's addressed in the past, primarily in his useful review book "Science of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction." One can surely dispute every detail in that review. But, at least nominally, it addresses the many of the criticisms here that he's been accused of ignoring. I think the sane thing to do here would be to read that book first (as Joshua surely has) before continuing to interrogate him. (If one finds this a slightly sketchy suggestion, because the book has to be purchased, read several of his review papers instead.)

oystla wrote:

Quote

Note the helium graph of figure 2. He increase inside cell, and stable content in air outside.

There is a dashed line presumably indicating the putative level of atmospheric helium. There is no indication that the level in the laboratory was measured, or how or that the mass spectrometer was calibrated for quantitative helium measurement.

It's common in physics buildings for the helium levels to exceed normal by a factor of two because of helium cryogenics, helium glove boxes, and even helium liquefiers. Miles, e.g., reported that the helium level in his laboratory was twice the normal level.

Storms wrote:

Quote

Here is a set of references related to the subject of helium....

A lot of papers, to be sure, but here's one simplification:

Gozzi appears in the list 7 times, but the most recent, and most comprehensive, and seemingly the most careful paper is in 1998. And in the abstract of that paper he writes:

"The energy balance between heat excess and 4He in the gas phase has been found to be reasonably satisfied even if the low levels of 4He do not give the necessary confidence to state definitely that we are dealing with the fusion of deuterons to give 4He."

Given the extraordinary nature of the claim, results that are not definitive are really not persuasive.

Gozzi did not denounce the field as a result of this, but tellingly, he seems to have abandoned the field after this paper. At least, I have not seen another report of newer experimental work on cold fusion from his group.

Any scientist confident that such an important effect was real, and that he was close to proving it, would not rest until he *got* definitive evidence. Particularly, since if it were real, definitive evidence should be rather easy to get.

Quote

Very dirsrespectful statement! Thomas assumes F&P did NOT think of every possible error in their 20+ years of CF research. F&P answerred every published critisism of their work and papers.

No assumption. I make my statement based on the substantive Wilson et al critique of substantial claims made by F&P in one paper. I've read the critique, in detail, and the paper it refers to, in detail, and F&P's reply to Wilson, in detail. I will need to reread all these when writing up my account, but the main points are clear enough.

Quote

Their reply where never challenged, so F&P got the last Word in the debate.

Well, yes they did. But no further reply was necessary since they did not address Wilson's criticism and in fact doirectly confirmed some of it. If you read the reply you will see how it criticises things which are not the main criticism and goes off at a tangent without answering the substantive questions.

Quote

Where Fleischmann incompetent of calorimetry? He is aknowledged as one of the best Professors within electrochemistry in the 20th century. If there where serious errors during the 20+ years they would have discovered it.

I would not accuse him of incompetence. What I can say, based on his original account, Wilson et al, and his reply to Wilson is that:
(1) He made approximations throughout his work that are only safe at low temperatures (< 60C).
(2) The results he presented showing excess heat were, based on retrofitting data and equipment, taken at high temperatures (and even if not, without recording the temperature they would therefore be unsafe, because might be at high temperatures.
(3) He made calorimetric assumptions about his experiment (see Shanahan's comments - the typical CCS case applies here) that have since been shown to be wrong.

Proof from authority is never used in science, because authorities, like all other humans, can be wrong. That is especially the case when they are working isolated from most scientists feeling that their work is unfairly criticised and therefore not properly attending to the critiques they do get (e.g. Wilson for F&P, but the same phenomenon would seem, on the basis of this thread, to be so for Shanahan too. I'm not familiar with all the history so I can't be sure).

You may believe that F&P are perfect, and such total rejection of critiques is because those doing that were incompetent or uninformed. That is not true in the case of Wilson, who had spent considerable time replicating F&P's work, noting and solving experimental issues. Further, they did not actually reject his critiques, because they did not directly address them.

Best wishes, Tom

Quote

"The energy balance between heat excess and 4He in the gas phase has been found to be reasonably satisfied even if the low levels of 4He do not give the necessary confidence to state definitely that we are dealing with the fusion of deuterons to give 4He."

This is a very weak conclusion because this balance will be satisfied (without fusion) if:
(1) the He measured is due to slow leaks, and at a low level relative to lab atmosphere.
(2) the heat excess scales linearly with experiment time
(3) specific setups with leaks higher than the "balance" expected are seen as leaky and removed from results, or made less leaky before subsequent reuse.

I guess I'd need to read his account carefully to know whetehr those three conditions apply but (1) and (2) go with the territory and (3) is plausible. After all, leaks do occur and when they are noted they must be corrected.

Quote from oystla

i believe he refer to this one:

lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHtheemergen.pdf

Note the helium graph of figure 2. He increase inside cell, and stable content in air outside.

This paper seems like a progress report of sorts intended for conference proceedings. I know there was the Case replication and the Arata-Zhang replication, which this paper refers to. I do not know much about the history of those replications; I assume they were SRI and perhaps EPRI efforts. There may be unpublished reports for those replications, or perhaps published ones. If there are no published reports, it is entirely possible that this paper mentions some of the key findings for the first time. They did not bother to reference earlier reports, at any rate.

This paper does not attempt to put forward a rigorous discussion. I would not reference it, myself, unless I were writing up something really speculative, and I made this clear. (In the past year or two I have been totally unpersuaded by the case for the energy/4He ratio being consistent with the fusion of deuterium. I suspect the ratio is not even stable. At any rate, there's good evidence against the proposed ratio in this very paper.)

Quote from Ed

In response to my brevity, Tom at al. go to great lengths to make the claims look bad in ways that would require hours to refute and many more hours to refute their reply.

Josh's points were pretty short. You could do what Josh does, and note each point with a short summary of why it is wrong backed by short argument or reference. I agree that then resolving the matter might take a long time and a lot of careful checking. But, at the moment, we have Josh's criticism and no reply from you, here. Not all readers of this thread will buy your book.

You may not wish to devote time to this forum, as Josh does, to make your points. That is your priviledge. But as it stands his points look stronger than yours.

Quote from Ed

I have discovered from personal experience that no agreement can be reached.

That I can believe, and I'm sorry.

Quote from Ed

As Tom says, believers are certain they are right and will say whatever is required to support their false belief.

That is not what I've said (to my recollection).

I said that believers, if rational and well-informed, would have to judge "preponderance of evidence" to be very very strong, in the way that it would be were all of the different positive results completely independent and unselected. For example, in that case to get 20 different positive excess heat results from different groups, even within error, would be highly unexpected unless there were some real positive effect.

I showed how in fact that intuition on this matter could be distorted by what I've called here "the hydra problem" and I've described it enough in detail for you to engage with this. You could say: yes, I understand that and have analysed it and see that it is not significant. Or: it is logically incorrect for the following reason. With no reply I must think it at least very possible that you have not considered this matter and therefore your judgement of statistical likelihood here could be flawed.

Best wishes, Tom

Storms wrote:

Quote

Simply rejecting every observation as error is not only wasteful but makes reaching the goal impossible.

If every observation *is* in error, and the goal *is* impossible, then rejecting them saves wasted time and resources that can be devoted to other pursuits that *are* feasible.

The skeptical goal is not to trash everything new. It is to point out the flaws in extraordinary claims to avoid wild goose chases. If observations can be plausibly explained by ordinary causes (artifacts, errors in calibration), then it is unreasonable to invoke extraordinary phenomena to explain them. And if one believes the extraordinary phenomenon is real, then it is incumbent on them to design an experiment that excludes ordinary explanations. This has not been done in cold fusion.

Feynman says "There is no harm in doubt and skepticism, for it is through these that new discoveries are made."

Storms wrote:

Quote

This is like when painting a picture, no single dab of paint has any meaning until the collection of dabs suddenly can be recognized as the intended object. No painting would be understandable if each dab were viewed individually, which is what you and others try to do with LENR.

This seems a particularly inapt metaphor for what happens in science. I'm at a loss to think of a revolutionary new idea -- particularly one in bench-top physical science -- that resulted from pattern recognition after a large number of imperfect, erratic, erroneous experimental results.

Quantum mechanics was discovered and gradually built up based on individual, robust experiments, from Planck's successful formula to describe the highly robust blackbody spectrum, to Einstein's explanation for the photoelectric effect, to Bohr's explanation for the spectral lines, to Compton's scattering, and deBroglie's waves and electron diffraction. All individual blobs of paint, all with clear reproducible and robust results. And these, and many others -- the most revolutionary concepts in physics in centuries -- were discovered or developed in about the time that absolutely nothing has been learned in cold fusion.

Even in the case of Darwin, who did not have the luxury of controlled experimentation, the epiphany came from the focused study of individual traits within species.

The idea that there are many imperfect vague indications of something nuclear happening is not at all convincing. And more indications that do not improve in quality makes the likelihood of such a phenomenon less to my thinking. Because it seems inconceivable that so many very different kinds of investigation, with sensitivities that vary by factors of a million or even a billion, *never* result in an unequivocal result.

It's like the tens of thousands of sightings of bigfoot or the hundreds of thousands of claims of alien visitations. Advocates will argue that they can't all be wrong, but skeptics remain skeptical because it's far less likely that no one can get the camera focused, even if just by chance.

Quote from joshua cude

And these, and many others -- the most revolutionary concepts in physics in centuries -- were discovered or developed in about the time that absolutely nothing has been learned in cold fusion.

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:

Quote

A drawing traced on a piece of carton with a solution of uranium nitrate … whether or not exposed before to light, and applied on a piece of sensitive paper prepared using silver chloride will print its image ... If the drawing made on the carton with the uranium nitrate solution ... is traced with large strokes, it will be produced even at 2 or 3 cm further away from the sensitive paper.

(Excerpt quoted here.) The discovery of radioactivity is commonly credited to Becquerel in 1896, 38 years later.