FP's experiments discussion

"In our view, this absence of commensurate energetic particles is the most important feature of the process which must be addressed theoretically7. For us, it signals clearly that it must be possible to fractionate a large megaelectron volt-scale nuclear quantum into a very large number of much smaller electron volt-scale quanta. No alternative appears to be viable...."

Just a correction. While this observation is correct, I like it too, it is not a theory, merely a constraint that any viable theory must satisfy. Big difference.

"Apologies for enabling the off-topic part which is beginning to occur."

This thread was split off from a different topic, which we barged in on and took over. I don't think any of the current participants care if the subject matter ranges widely within this specific thread. (Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.)

"Testing the tube emissivity/temperature/power portion of the Lugano report is the easiest experiment to manage of all the report problems. ... I can't believe that no one has tried to test this part."

I think MFMP may have looked at this. I'm not sure what they will have found. To my own thinking, the relevant principle here is that you calibrate an instrument within the range that it will be used in an active run for each experiment. Each measurement instrument has its own quirks, and the environmental factors will change over time, so you can't make many assumptions. Without this kind of sensitivity to the quirks of particular instruments, operating ranges and environmental conditions, the CCS conjecture would have nothing to work with. The key detail at issue in the case of the Lugano test pertains to the temperature, for the total power is very sensitive to any errors in it.

"The dummy run provided (some of) the parameters that were used by the Optris to calculate the temperature for the live run. ... 'Disagree.' "

This seems to suggest that, effectively, there was no calibration for the active runs. Is this an incorrect conclusion? (This would be consistent with my own conclusion.)

Quote from H-G Branzell

Longview, let us remember what SPPs really are:

Selling the idea that these feeble surface phenomena could stop gamma radiation is akin to selling cotton T-shirts as protection against AK-47 bullets.

The process of energy transfer an downshifting is more involved as follows:

The SPPs concentrated on the surface of the hydrogen Rydberg matter where their collective activity is organized into a Bose condensate. This bose condensate is a dark mode soliton that can accumulate EMF but not broadcast it to the outside world.

The monopole beam output of this condensate projects from the positively charged head of the HRM crystal. Any nuclear matter that falls in the path of this beam will experience proton and neutron decay while ate the same time transfer nuclear binding energy down the monopole beam to the polariton bose condensate. The condensate will radiate away its accumulated energy content via hawking radiation in the infrared over time. It has be discovered that any dark system with a defined boundary will produce hawking radiation through that boundary where its energy content will be redistributed back to the environment.

FIGURE 6. A subretinal implant allows a blind patient to see again. (Courtesy of Implant AG)In a photonic setup that is not a simulation or imitation, but exhibits a fundamental effect of gravitational black holes, researchers from Universitá degli Studi di Milano, INFN sezione di Milano, Universitá dell'Insubria, and Universitá di Milano-Bicocca in Italy, and Heriot-Watt University in Edinburgh, Scotland use a laser pulse filament to create a traveling refractive-index perturbation within fused silica—with the result that actual Hawking radiation, which is normally only produced at the event horizon of a gravitational black hole, is instead created on an optical table. Hawking radiation is a purely quantum effect in which photon pairs arise from nothing, with one pulled into the black hole and the other radiated out into space. In the lab, the traveling index perturbation is what separates the quantum-vacuum-produced photon pairs.

From

http://www.laserfocusworld.com…ers-a-vital-alliance.html

@Eric Walker,
The MFMP tested a reactor body. What I mean is to test those tubes outside the reactor. One straight wire inside a manufactured alumina tube, maybe with a loose "end cap" on one end, a fat cable connected to the straight heater wire, and the appropriate length... Heat 'er up with known power... stick the emissivity dots on, see where they fall off... Maybe drill a blackbody hole.
The emissivity results could be compared to the MFMP reactor body to see how it looks.

Certainly I agree that the Lugano reactor was never calibrated correctly.

Quote from H-G Branzell

Axil,

I think you forgot to mention the gammas.

BTW, are you a robot, axil? I doubt it that you would pass the Turing test.

The transfer of energy between the disrupted nucleus(s) and the Hydrogen Rydberg matter is done through quantum entanglement using the monopole beam as an energy conduit and not through EMF photons.

Quote

This seems to suggest that, effectively, there was no calibration for the active runs. Is this an incorrect conclusion?

Rossi does not encourage calibration of his stuff, and indeed the active test calculation here was based on absolute measurements and theory with no calibration. It was one of the many methodological weirdnesses.

"the active test calculation here was based on absolute measurements and theory with no calibration."

This makes a lot of sense to me. I do not know what parameters apart from the emissivity were set in the Optris during the dummy run, but that seems like a secondary question, in light of the more basic problems. Hopefully I'm describing the consensus when I agree that there was effectively no calibration for the active runs, then. Someone please correct me if they disagree.

If for the sake of argument we go with the CCS conjecture (which I otherwise find implausible), and the possibility of a 10x systematic error above the baseline uncertainty, what can we conclude about the temperature and power in Lugano in the absence of a calibration?

This is from Kirk Shanahan, quoted above: "This is a common precision level [1 percent] for a good analytical technique, yet it was adequate to explain an excess power signal of 780 mW, which was 10 times the commonly assumed error level determined by baseline noise fluctuation. This is why the CCS is such an important realization regarding these experiments."

I'll step in say, probably with agreement from even MY and TC, that attempting to determine a possible CCS error range is impossible with the sloppy work in the Lugano test, whether or not it might have performed an unknown reaction of any type.

"attempting to determine a possible CCS error range is impossible with the sloppy work in the Lugano test, whether or not it might have performed an unknown reaction of any type."

Would it be a misstatement of your view that the CCS error could be very small (leading to potentially accurate analytical calculations) or it could be immense (leading to useless analytical calculations)?

Thomas:

Haha, I did not say it was THE theory.

the quote from Hagelstein :
"In our view, this absence of commensurate energetic particles is the most important feature of the process which must be addressed theoretically7. For us, it signals clearly that it must be possible to fractionate a large megaelectron volt-scale nuclear quantum into a very large number of much smaller electron volt-scale quanta. No alternative appears to be viable...."

Is just the starting point of Hagelsteins work.

Ref.
http://www.currentscience.ac.in/Volumes/108/04/0601.pdf

It is also the (as of now) ending point of his work - modulo lots of things that don't work.

@Eric Walker,
The data supplied is just such a mess of inconsistencies that using it to calculate almost anything is source of massive errors uncertainties swamping the originals, IMO.
We must test and calculate so many variables ourselves, and add them to the "data", so that the errors are compounded and confounded to such a degree that statistical tests become subject to our own biases and misinterpretations, in addition to, or multiplied by those of the Professors. IMO.

Edit: If we had a significant portion of one day's actual data, actual data logs, then there might be enough information to work with. There is almost no hard data at all in the report. Most of it is calculated results based on formulas, generic assumptions, and textbook figures. Even the measurements are averages over one day.

I would like to add a few general thoughts. While it is fun to discuss details of an experimental study, we have two basic questions requiring attention before the details have any meaning. The first is, "Is LENR a real phenomenon or just the result of error"?. If the answer is yes, LENR is real, then a second question becomes important. The second question is, "How does LENR work?"
The first question can only be answered with any confidence by comparing the results of many measurements. Analysis of a single measurement has no meaning because the potential for error is too great. We now have many experiments with common agreement about the basic behavior. This collection shows that LENR is real, it involves fusion and transmutation reactions, and it takes place in a chemical structure without applied energy. We know how to make it work if the required conditions are used and many of the nuclear products have been identified. If a person does not accept this conclusion, they are ignorant of the information available in the literature. General skepticism is not longer rational.
The challenge is to use this vast amount of information to find the explanation. As expected, observed behavior severely limits what can be proposed. This fact is generally ignored by most theories. Instead, the authors are content to select only behavior that fits the imagined model or use physics jargon to hide any understanding. A casual reader of a theory would have no way of knowing how the model conflicted with what is known. So, I wrote a book (The explanation of low energy nuclear reaction -Amazon) in an effort to define these limitations and show how the major theories conflict with known behavior. I say this with no intent to promote the book but instead to educate so that a lot of time is not wasted in ignorant discussion. I may be wrong, but I have good reasons for my beliefs and I show the evidence as well as where it can be found. I would be glad to discuss details once some homework is done and useful questions can be explored.

"Beside that Edmund Storm recent LENR 'lab rat' should be a good target both for people wanting to understand what happens, and those wanting to confirm/exclude CCS (probably a "combat d'arrière-garde" as we say in french)."

The nice thing about the CCS conjecture is that it is not specific to LENR, as was made clear in an excerpt quoted in this post: "The CCS is a fundamental problem that can actually occur any time a calibration equation is used to interpret experimental data, and thus is actually widely applicable and not just limited to cold fusion calorimetry." Presumably, then, you can test it without needing an involved LENR setup. This situation is also what makes the CCS conjecture seem unlikely to me, for calorimetry is used for practical things, in a wide range of applications. If there was an error this basic, with the potential for being as large as has been suggested, there will have been hundreds of years of practical calorimetry during which to identify that there is a problem.

If people want to test the CCS conjecture, perhaps they may want to do so outside of the context of LENR calorimetry, which adds in an additional set of considerations, such as whether there has been excess heat or not. It's good to keep things as simple as possible.

"I would like to add a few general thoughts. While it is fun to discuss details of an experimental study,
we have two basic questions requiring attention before the details have any meaning. The first is, "Is
LENR a real phenomenon or just the result of error"?."

This is absolutely one of if not the most important questions. And when you have two or more viable
explanations of the data, the question hasn't been answered if any of them don't involve LENR.

The reanalysis of your data that I did wherein I assumed no excess heat and determined what had to be
tweaked to make that a rational option means my proposal is a viable option. You have never shown any
problem with my analysis deriving run-specific calibration constants that gave zero excess and that then
showed minor variations were all that was needed, and on top of that, that a systematic trend in the data
exists.

The only thing you and any one else for that matter have criticised is my proposed chemical mechanism.
Now, I responded to all those points and showed how if what you said was right, your calorimetry was
then directly suspect (recall that the CCS error is an error of interpretation of data, not of the
data itself) due to inadequate mixing leading to hot spots, etc. Really, whether my mechanism is
right, partly right, or totally wrong is irrelevant. The fact is that a systematic minor variation
in calibration constant describes the data. The correct response to that is to say, "Well, that's
interesting. Does that occur in other experiments?" But that's not what you did. What you and all
your colleagues did was to blow smoke and mirrors at me. That proves nothing and we are just left
wondering why you did that, instead of just looking at old data to see if the CCS thing might work
or not, and then proceeding to check the 'hypothesis' with new experiments of a design that would
allow proving or disproving it. It seems to me that you jumped to your second question before
answering your first.

"If the answer is yes, LENR is real, then a second
question becomes important. The second question is, "How does LENR work?" "

That is _a_ second question, and it has its value if it can be answered, but it is unlikely to be
answered with irreproducible data, which is all the field has provided so far. An equally valuable
question is "What else gives the effect?" One answers that through experimentation, where different
reactants, procedures, equipment, etc. are substituted to parameterize what is takes to get the
effect. In fact, this activity has gone on even without being sure of the first question's answer
and what has been found is that a lot of things can give the effect, but so far it isn't
reproducible. But there are indications the effect is real, thus the failure to control it to make
it reproducible generically indicates that the wrong things have been tried as controlling variables.
A new paradigm that suggests different potential controlling factors is advisable.

"The first question can only be answered with any confidence by comparing the results of many measurements.
Analysis of a single measurement has no meaning because the potential for error is too great. We now
have many experiments with common agreement about the basic behavior."

No, you have many experiments with similarities, but no detailed reproducible recipe. Further, each
single measurement must be believable before you fold it into your overall picture. Your community
seems to have forgotten this. You have some suggestions as to what to do next, but you refuse to
do it. Guessing, I'd say the reason is a strong emotional committment to one particular answer that
causes a great reluctance to investigate fairly anything not incorporating that pre-determined
conclusion. In other words, you all have gone back to Aristotlian science where if it sounds good, it
must be right. Today, we judge what is'right' by what gives reproducible results.

"This collection shows that LENR is real, it involves fusion and transmutation reactions, and it takes
place in a chemical structure without applied energy. We know how to make it work if the required
conditions are used and many of the nuclear products have been identified."

No to all of that.

"If a person does not accept this conclusion, they are ignorant of the information available in the
literature."

This is the implicit and explicit assertion you and your community have made against me many times,
with no proof. You need to stop that. It's unscientific and just embarasses you. And on top of
that, it is wrong, as you know.

"General skepticism is not longer rational."

Perhaps true when we have cold fusion water heaters, if not in our home, at least on the demo floor
at appliace shows. Or when we have "Mr. Fusion" reactors on our flying cars.

But we don't have that. We have instead a mismash of mixed results from a lot of labs who can't seem
to come up with any consistency. General skepticism is fine in that situation. Specific skepticism,
such as I have supplied, is even better for you, as it points you to the specific problems to
address (experimentally not vocally) next.

"The challenge is to use this vast amount of information to find the explanation. As expected, observed
behavior severely limits what can be proposed. This fact is generally ignored by most theories."

That's becasue the expermental results all seem inconsitent when viewed through the LENR lens. So the
theorists pick and choose what they like (as long as it's nuclear), and since the results are uniformly
inconsistent, the choices they make seem almost random. Try the CCS lens and see if that sharpens
things up a bit.

"Instead, the authors are content to select only behavior that fits the imagined model or use physics
jargon to hide any understanding. A casual reader of a theory would have no way of knowing how the model
conflicted with what is known."

...or not known, since dissenting opinions not involving LENR are arbitrarily rejected.

"So, I wrote a book (The explanation of low energy nuclear reaction -Amazon)"

I haven't checked...did you include my rebuttal to your comments on my proposal this time?

"in an effort to define these limitations and show how the major theories conflict with known behavior."

Hard to do well when you _only_ consider LENR-involving theories...

"I say this with no intent to promote the book but instead to educate so that a lot of time is not wasted
in ignorant discussion. I may be wrong, but I have good reasons for my beliefs and I show the evidence
as well as where it can be found. I would be glad to discuss details once some homework is done and useful
questions can be explored."

Ummm...yeah...

BTW folks, that last phrase "once some homework is done" means you must talk LENR, otherwise you don't have
"useful questions [that] can be explored".

"If people want to test the CSS conjecture, perhaps they may want to do so outside of the context of LENR calorimetry, which adds in an additional set of considerations, such as whether there has been excess heat or not."

Or one can just do a thought experiment...

Assume we have an analytical device that measures flammenjammers. You make us a standard containing 100 flammenjammers, and you run it through the machine, and it spits out '98 flammenjammers'. Hmmm...not 100?

You check it at other values and find that it has a calibration equation of True # flammenjammers = reported # of flammenjammers / .98 + .05.

So now you go to measure a new material, but due to a matrix effect (and you don't know this has happened!), it changes the way the instrument functions such that the *new* calibration equation is True # flammenjammers = reported # of flammenjammers / .96 + .5. But this is unknown to you.

Now you feed it your unknown, and it reports "52". That really means (52/.98 + .05 = 53.11) flammenjammers in the sample right? At least that's what you think since you have not discovered "the change". The real answer is ( 52/.96 + .5 = 54.67). So, you have a hidden error of -1.56 flammenjammers, or 2.8%.

That's how a CCS works.

Now figure out how you would detect that and you can get a job as an analytical chemist....