[Split] Reconsidering F&P with CCS....

  • Mats02 wrote:

    In your latest answer(s) to Abd about CCS you totally ignore his answer to you that FPHE show both excess heat AND excess tritium which rule out CCS because CCS apply to excess heat ONLY.


    This is a classic hydra issue. Mats is arguing that there is additional evidence to excess heat, helium measurements. That if helium measurements show LENR then CCS is irrelevant because excess heat is unnecessary.


    I agree. But that is another separate argument - do helium measurements - or helium correlations with excess heat - show extraordinary evidence?


    What cannot properly be done is to group "maybe helium/heat correlation shows LENR" with "maybe excess heat shows LENR" to get "it is therefore strongly likely LENR exists, because it is supported by two different strands of evidence".


    The combination of systematic error possibility, and experiment selection (certainty) mean that given a concerted 30 years attempt to prove that anomalies consistent with a hypothesis exist you expect quite a lot of distinct anomalous results. You don't expect any of them to be strong - but the fact of a whole load of weak results is what you get from random low-level unrecognised systematic errors and experiment (and hence systematic error) selection to find things that "work" - where work means "are supportive of the wanted hypothesis.


    this selection has elements in common with the well-known p-value mistakes found in low quality drug trials and published easily by "pay to publish" low quality journals:
    The math:
    http://www.biochemia-medica.co…testing-and-some-pitfalls
    Some less math comment:
    http://www.medpagetoday.com/Blogs/TheMethodsMan/52171


    The relevance here is that getting results that are positive for a preconceived and desired outcome is pretty easy. Just try lots of different things and some by chance will be positive. Add in systematic errors and you find that when you try lots of different experiment some will give consistently positive results.


    Back to the hydra. You need to kill every head. Separately for each experiment, since each has a different set of possible systematic (and one-off) errors. There as not as someone said above an infinite number of such heads. for any given experiment there are a finite number of possibles - it is just that you need a lot of good critiquing to locate them all. In science this happens automatically - interesting results get tested and replicated by many different people. the longer they survive (all heads to date identified slain) the more attention they get and therefore the more likely that all heads will be found.


    LENR is not like that because the people who do it mostly have no motive (as Abd eloquently states above) to look for hydra heads. As long as there is no head obviously in sight they can claim positive evidence for LENR, get congratulations and maybe funding, etc.


    Normal science would have the same issue except that normal scientists accept that results get scutinised - the more extraordinary the greater the scrutiny - and those hoping to prove an effect are matched by those honest enough and clever enough to look for hydra heads. Sure - it is not as much fun disproving apparent evidence for FTL neutrinos as finding it. But it is just as important for science.


    By the way - you cannot disprove some hypothesised new effect unless it implies definite new predictions that can be tested. LENR does not make any definite new predictions and therefore can never be disproved. Scientists strongly prefer hypotheses that can be disproved, for obvious reasons!

  • To complete what I'm saying about neutrons, there isn't any "neutron bottle." You cannot hold free neutrons. You cannot spin them in a centrifuge. They are not repelled or attracted by anything other than nuclear forces (which then may pull them into a nucleus, but most matter is empty space, and the neutrons will just wander through it until they find a nucleus to join, if there are any suitable. If you were to somehow accelerate a piece of matter that a slow neutron was within, the acceleration would not affect the neutron, it would continue on its merry inertia way. Fast neutrons will bounce off of nuclei. Slow neutrons, not generally.


    Since I have received only comments from Eric Walker and from Abd Lomax on this proposal, I hope here to keep it alive a bit longer. Abd [above] had likely initially misread my recent suggestion re detection of ULM neutrons. To clarify a bit further, since I consider Abd a worthy and an able critic: I don't propose to "generate" neutrons by centrifugation, store them or push them in a "bottle". I propose that the hypothesized neutrons be given an initial velocity of a hundred or so meters per second. The idea is simple, conduct an LENR reaction in a centrifuge whose peripheral or tangential valocity at speed will be 100 to 200 metes per second (I have such a centrifuge, BTW, with four buckets that can accommodate up perhaps 500 cc and 500 g of "cargo" in each bucket).


    Any ultra low momentum (ULM) neutrons so generated may well be expected to escape outward from the centrifuge in a disc of emission at the tangential velocity of centrifuge rotor, scattered to some vectorial extent by the inherent or birth ULM velocity of say ~7 m/s. ULM neutrons are clearly predicted by at least one theory, that is Widom-Larsen, and may be present by implication in other theories or nascent theories, such as Brillouin, and/or by Lundin & Lifgren. In my tentative, and I believe low cost proposal, the ULM neutron directionality, the escape from the surface of lattice of the 100-200 m/s tangential velocity relative to the frame of the laboratory would make detection, characterization and quantification much more accessible compared to the current nearly complete "black box" situation-- that is surely serving no one well.


    My goal is primarily to gain basic information. For example: can we thereby readily dispose of the ULM neutron and perhaps other neutron LENR theories?


    I'll remind the readers that central to the W-L idea is a p+ + e* --> no, where e* is, in the W-L case at least, one form or another of heavy electron sufficient to make up the modest mass balance deficiency in such a reaction.


    Eric Walker suggested that in his view the presence of such neutrons would create all sorts of products that are not detected. Fair enough, but how much do we really know about the behavior of ULM neutrons? I propose that there may be a low but finite activation barrier slowing or preventing ULM neutron absorption by high cross section nuclei, which otherwise would be classically expected to form the bulk of the neutron absorption cross-section.


    I am not proposing to answer, or attempting to answer questions validly raised to the W-L-S idea that gamma emissions are absorbed or otherwise obviated by patches of superconductive heavy electrons-- or whatever else W-L-S have proposed in augmenting their theory to address the "no dead grad student" problem. That needs to be addressed separately.

  • A few comments to Thomas' post:
    Th: "CCS is not a grand new theory - it is a neat and formal way to describe...... that calibration can shift with change in conditions."


    Could be "neat and formal" If it was provable. But it seems not to be. And If a hypothesis can not be proven, you move on to more valuable hypothesis, like there actually might be something there.


    Some other main issues with this "neat and formal" "CCS description", which Thomas seems to have fallen in love with:


    - Shanahan should, but do not explain why negative excess heat power and energy have never been seen in CF research, which would be interpreted as endothermic Events, but actually would be "CCS".Unless a reason is given for asymmetry in the hypothesized mechanism (or any mechanism given and quantified at all), then the CCSH logically fails


    - Shanahan should, but do not explain why this "CCS " phenomenon have not been identified and known by mainstream science during the 100 years of ordinary electrochemistry science.


    - Shanahan calls it a " Matrix effect" - but do not explain what actually this unexplainable mysterious hypothetical occuring and disappearing ghost is.


    - Shanahan does not explain why CCS never have been discovered In the many recalibrations during tests. Meaning it's just a non provable ghost theory.


    - Shanahan does not explain how this effect could apply on anomalous heat production observed in a wide variety of experimental configurations involving different kinds of calorimeters, e.g. isoperibolic, Seebek, and mass flow.


    - Shanahan has never proven by experiment that his "neat and formal Calibration Constant Shift Hypothesis" Really exists. And when CF researchers say they found no such evidence in their own research, they must Obviously be wrong according to Shanahan, since CF is just a Ghost......eeehh...just like CCS probably ;-)


    - Shanahan does not specify mechanisms by which a calorimeter thermal calibration can change in such a way that, just during the periods of putative excess thermal power production, the calibration constant is different from its initial and final calibrated value.
    -Shanahan never explained how his CCS hypothesis Applied to the SRI mass flow calorimetry. Only 1% of the measured heat output is subject to the vagaries of geometric effects on conduction and radiation. The remaining 99% is determined solely from temperature, mass flow rate and the heat capacity of the convecting fluid. None of these measurements are subject to calibration drift and can be measured and calibrated independent of the calorimeter


    Conclusion. I believe Storms are right when he states:
    “The assumptions used by Shanahan to explain anomalous heat claimed to result from cold fusion are shown to be inconsistent with experimental observation.”


    Despite Shanahan’s unsubstantiated allegations, LENR researchers are well aware of the necessity for controls to verify proper instrument function while eliminating more prosaic explanations for the observed effects.


    Furthermore, contrary to Shanahan’s assertions, the observed effects are often several orders of magnitude larger than the measurement errorors

  • My, my, so many posts in so little time, and one in particular not there. I thought I had posted this last week in response to oystia’s comment about me not responding to his comment about LENR being more than a 1% effect, and I see he has repeated it, probably gaining in confidence as he did. Well, let’s look at that.


    The maximum CCS effect you can get is dependent on two things, the applied voltage and the ‘bump-up’. The ‘bump-up- is the magnification you get from the cal constant when you force the instrument output to match the input. It never will with calorimeters because there are always losses. You can minimize it by capturing the largest % of heat you can, but even at 99.3% (or was it 99.7 that McKubre claimed) you still have to correct for that tiny loss for maximal accuracy. McK’s comment that he didn’t need to calibrate simply means he assumed the cal constants without determining them.


    To put some numbers to it, the calorimeter Ed Storms used to generate the data I reanlayzed _ended up_ as a 98% calorimeter. He sent me data from it from before he added water lines on the top of the cell, i.e. capture of any heat loss out the top was not even attempted. In that configuration it was 78% efficient. That means that at least 20% of the generated heat was going out the top. It also means that for whatever power you put in, the direct, no cal constant used, computed output power was 0.78*Pin and we can call that the effective Pout = Pout,eff. To get the cal condition Pout = Pin then you have to multiply by the reciprocal of the efficiency, i.e. Pout = (1/.78)*Pout, eff= (1/.78)*.78*Pin=Pin. 1/.78 = 1.282. So, the ‘bump-up’ with that calorimeter = 28%. This is why you need to see the full calibration equation, so you can determine the ‘bump-up’.


    On to voltage. The %excess tied to recombination is given by the thermoneutral voltage, Eth, for the isotope you are working with, times 100 and divided by the applied voltage E. In the paper oystia reference, they typically use 6V in heavy water, which implies E=6, Eth = 1.54, and %excess = 100*(Eth)/E = 100(1.54)/6 = 25.7%. So to get oystia’s max %excess would require a ‘bump-up’ of 100%, i.e. a 50% efficient calorimeter, but we don’t know for sure the 6V example corresponds to the 50% excess case. But from this math, you can see that you need input data as well as the calibration curve.


    In an open cell, this can be partially accounted for by using just the ohmic heat to calibrate, and in the F&P complicated calorimetry method they may do this. In other words, when you calibrate via electrolysis, you use Pin = I * (E-Eth), not Pin = I*E. That will kill the voltage problem and then you should directly register I*E Watts when 100% recombination occurs. Then you have to remember how much potential recombination heat you can get and not get excited with less than that. You should report the fraction recombination you get and few do that. Miles has noted up to 10% recombination in some of his work, but he’s about the only one who has done this. I looked at a Figure Storms liked to use showing the electrochemical recombination at various currents, and there were several points that showed greater than 20% recombination beyond that (called ‘noise’ by Storms). So the actual % recombination seems variable. Recall that early on at least, no one recognized that at-the-electrode recomb. might occur. They arbitrarily only considered electrochemical recomb. with dissolved O2 which is typically limited to that 2% number everyone likes.


    You are out of luck in a closed cell, because the design attempts to capture all the heat, and you are forced to calibrate using the full I*E as Pin. It’s not valid to use the ohmic heat alone, because normal operation of this cell is at 100% recombination at the catalyst and that puts that heat into the cell.


    I haven’t found a case where both types are data are fully presented, thus it is impossible for us in the outer world to know what the CCS max might be. And given the extraordinary acceptance the CCS has attained (NOT!), I doubt any CFer has even considered it.


    In the F&P complicated calorimetry case, I did post that you get an unrealistic heat transfer coefficient if you extrapolate their 6-9 degree data to the 27 degree jump in T, it seems to go negative, which means that as the cell is generating excess heat, it also sucks heat out of the environment, which makes no sense. Obviously extrapolating is a bad idea, but we are never shown the 9-27 range such that we could figure out what was actually going on in their model.


    Finally, remember that other errors can also be present, as I think was the case in the Patterson Power Cell that claimed at least 20,000% excess, and maybe 30,000%.

  • "The 'new nuclear mechanism' has a different problem. It requires very surprising new physics ..."


    I disagree. Assuming there are genuine non-chemical anomalies in LENR, as I do, the extent to which surprising new physics is required in order to understand and explain them is a function (1) of the creativity of the person looking at the evidence and (2) a sense of what in physics is still somewhat unexplored or is just conjecture.


    There are many understandings in physics that are partly based upon conjecture. I assume this will always be the case. Currently there are assumptions about the constancy of the speed of light, the meaning of the redshift, the precise way in which galaxies and star systems are formed, and various minutiae going on at the nuclear level. Although we can model the decay rate of alpha emitters pretty well using the Gamow theory, "well" here means essentially that it provides a good estimate of the half-life to within a few orders of magnitude.


    One assumption can be seen quite clearly in this HyperPhysics post, concerning our inability to change the half-life of polonium, an alpha emitter. Here Rod Nave is not speaking on his own but is voicing the mainstream physics view of the situation. By Nave's admission, "The forces inside the nucleus are balanced on a razor's edge." The implication is pretty clear -- if you could alter one of those forces by a small amount, for example, through a change in the electron density surrounding the nucleus, the change in decay rate would be big, either up or down. But Nave dispels those hopes by explaining that "The constants that determine nuclear decay rate are stitched tightly into the fabric of the cosmos. The decay rate can't be changed without changing essentially all of chemistry and physics." In the final analysis a conclusion so sweeping as this is pure assertion; a "teaching," which, as I use the term, is just an opinion, however informed.


    If LENR does indeed go back to non-chemical anomalies, a lack of imagination and an impression that our understanding of nuclear physics is comprehensive will prevent someone from putting in the effort to do the lateral thinking needed to come up with some modest, incrementalist conjectures about what might be going on. A lack of imagination and effort will yield to the conclusion that only a radical, hugely disruptive modification of our current understanding of nuclear physics could possibly explain the LENR results.

  • "Eric Walker suggested that in his view the presence of such neutrons would create all sorts of products that are not detected. Fair enough, but how much do we really know about the behavior of ULM neutrons? I propose that there may be a low but finite activation barrier slowing or preventing ULM neutron absorption by high cross section nuclei, which otherwise would be classically expected to form the bulk of the neutron absorption cross-section."


    In order to avoid getting long-lived radionuclides from ULM neutrons, I think you need to propose that somehow the neutron capture cross sections for isotopes that yield short-lived radionuclides are disproportionately larger than those for long-lived ones. Btw, there is a neutron optical potential, which might be along the lines of what you're suggesting above.

  • Oystia wrote (2/16/16) another good example of the CF groupthink that ignores what I have done so far:


    “A few comments to Thomas' post:Th: "CCS is not a grand new theory - it is a neat and formal way to describe...... that calibration can shift with change in conditions."Could be "neat and formal" If it was provable. But it seems not to be. And If a hypothesis can not be proven, you move on to more valuable hypothesis, like there actually might be something there.”


    I can’t understand why you people can’t get it. I showed mathematically that in a really good calorimeter, a trivial change in calibration constant explained the excess heat signal. That's 'PROVEN' and easily understood. Further, the change was systematic, indicating real chemistry. I further suggested that would occur if recombination occurred at the electrode. Szpak, et al took a video of hot spots on an electrode under the electrolyte, claiming they were ‘mini-nuclear explosions’. I added that they could as easily be chemical. Why do you think this is unprovable, and even, not already proven?


    “Some other main issues with this "neat and formal" "CCS description", which Thomas seems to have fallen in love with:
    - Shanahan should, but do not explain why negative excess heat power and energy have never been seen in CF research, which would be interpreted as endothermic Events, but actually would be "CCS". Unless a reason is given for asymmetry in the hypothesized mechanism (or any mechanism given and quantified at all), then the CCSH logically fails”


    Yes, I did. I didn’t have to, it’s not my job requirement, but I did. In fact it is obvious if you consider *all* the data. (Oh and BTW, the "CCSH" does logically fail. Good thing it was Storms. Hagelstein, McKubre, et al's idea.)


    “- Shanahan should, but do not explain why this "CCS " phenomenon have not been identified and known by mainstream science during the 100 years of ordinary electrochemistry science.”


    Because people normally run electrochemical cells like this with separated H2 and O2 electrodes. Thus no possibility of recombination, except through dissolved oxygen if it can cross the cell compartment boundary.


    “- Shanahan calls it a " Matrix effect" - but do not explain what actually this unexplainable mysterious hypothetical occuring and disappearing ghost is.”


    Look up “Matric Effect” on Wikipedia. In the frammenjammer case, no I don’t. In the F&P case, yes I do.


    "- Shanahan does not explain why CCS never have been discovered In the many recalibrations during tests. Meaning it's just a non provable ghost theory.


    Because they use Joule heaters...


    “- Shanahan does not explain how this effect could apply on anomalous heat production observed in a wide variety of experimental configurations involving different kinds of calorimeters, e.g. isoperibolic, Seebek, and mass flow.”


    Because it’s obvious (to most). If at-the-electrode recombination can occur, then the ‘wrapper’ (the type of calorimeter) doesn’t matter. Only if it is an artifact of a specific calorimeter type will it not appear in other types. If it is based in real chemistry _all_ calorimeters should potentially see it. P.S. They are all ‘calibrated’ aren’t they? Then the CCS can apply.


    “- Shanahan has never proven by experiment that his "neat and formal Calibration Constant Shift Hypothesis" Really exists. And when CF researchers say they found no such evidence in their own research, they must Obviously be wrong according to Shanahan, since CF is just a Ghost......eeehh...just like CCS probably ”


    No, and I never will. The CFers have never looked for it because they recognize it will kill the nuclear idea and their groupthink won’t allow them to consider something like that. Instead they resort to illogical arguments and false statements to justify ignoring the idea.


    “- Shanahan does not specify mechanisms by which a calorimeter thermal calibration can change in such a way that, just during the periods of putative excess thermal power production, the calibration constant is different from its initial and final calibrated value.”


    Dude, that’s called the FPHE. What do you think I am explaining? (BTW, in 2000 I used FPHE as Fleischmann-Pons-Hawkins Effect. I find it amusing the CFers are trying to abscond with my acronym just like they tried to alter the CCS one.)


    “-Shanahan never explained how his CCS hypothesis Applied to the SRI mass flow calorimetry. Only 1% of the measured heat output is subject to the vagaries of geometric effects on conduction and radiation. The remaining 99% is determined solely from temperature, mass flow rate and the heat capacity of the convecting fluid. None of these measurements are subject to calibration drift and can be measured and calibrated independent of the calorimeter”


    See above (i.e. Yes, I did).


    “Conclusion. I believe Storms are right when he states:“The assumptions used by Shanahan to explain anomalous heat claimed to result from cold fusion are shown to be inconsistent with experimental observation.””


    I disagree, and have done so in print, a fact which initially Ed wouldn’t acknowledge.


    “Despite Shanahan’s unsubstantiated allegations, LENR researchers are well aware of the necessity for controls to verify proper instrument function while eliminating more prosaic explanations for the observed effects.”


    Ummm…what ‘unsubstantiated allegations’? And no, they’re obviously not.


    “Furthermore, contrary to Shanahan’s assertions, the observed effects are often several orders of magnitude larger than the measurement errorors”


    Nope.

  • AlainCo wrote on Tuesday 2/16/16 :
    “This problem of apparent negative heat never observed remind me the critic of Wilson, that anyway Fleischmann accepted in case, showing it did not change the results.”


    What problem of apparent negative heat? Who has observed *that*? Gosh, if they have I’d better figure out a new theory to match the *new* data. My CCS theory only explains positive apparent excess heats…


    “What is amazing is that if CCS is true, why no engineer of chemis or physicists is investigating on that phenomenon that may be of critical interest in electrochemistry, in powerplant.this phenomenon if confirmed is rewriting all pas results of calorimetry.”


    It’s called “Groupthink” Alain, i.e. “It *has* to be nuclear!”


    “people don't understand that CCS is more challenging for science than LENR. LENR is simply nuclear reaction is condensed matter. Nuclear energy is about 80 years old, and the physics associated was stabilized in the 50s. Condensed matter is something still very immature, probably started with semiconductors, that started to be understood in the 50s.”


    Yeah, neither do I. Can you explain why the CCS problem will rewrite physics textbooks?


    “CCS is challenging calorimetry, based on thermodynamic and heat flow equations which are more than 120 year old.”


    No, not at all.


    “It is clear the phenomenon is emotional/socio(il)logical not rational.”


    No, not at all.


    “LENR is simply the less challenging answer to observations.”


    No, not at all.


    “The problem is that it is challenging, not 120 years of lower science and engineering, but finest experts in leading edge science, the particle physicists.”


    I need some variation here. Instead of “No, not at all.” How about “Say what?”


    “Occam with his razor proposed to keep the simplest explanation, but if you estimate the simplicity to the cost of accepting it, and you integrate in the cost the sociological cost, then clearly it is simpler to imagine that engineers and chemist were wrong since centuries, and that physicists were right despite all evidence. Evidence are cheaper to deny than academic hierarchy.”


    Say what?


    “I did not invent this hierarchy, it is just JP Biberian who in a conference explained the hierarchy of science.”


    So? To paraphrase “Ghostbusters”, is he god?


    “Basically it is from purest and simplest science, to complex and dirty science: first particle physics, physics theory, then material physics, then chemistry, then electrochemistry. Lower than electrochemistry is there biochemistry and then biology...Second hierarchy is budget, and third hierarchy is from academic to national lab then to corporate science, to finish in private labs and hobbist science.There is also an ethnological hierarchy (call that US centrism , racism, and Morrison expressed numerously) LENR is violating this hierarchy with such anomalies :
    - lower scientist have found an anomaly in higher scientists theory
    - lower scientist have reached a practical result that higher and more budgeted science have not reached- anomaly without a theory hare reached a success that science with theory did not reach
    - higher scientists did not find an explanation to what lower scientist have explained- retired scientist have found what paid scientist cannot explain- small science succeeded where big science failed to
    - UK scientists succeeded where paid academic failed
    - Utah, Texas found where California and Boston failed
    - National labs replicate"d what caltech and MIT failed to
    - India succeeded where US dominant labs failed (or believed thei failed, because many have succeeded) “


    Nope. Actually, the ‘hierarchy’ is being supported. The so-called ‘lower scientists’ are coming up with some real crackpot explanations of relatively simple phenomena.


    “consequence is that this cannot be true, and thus :
    - higher scientist and their theory are right, and all that follow is a consequence.- lower scientist and their experiments are wrong”


    Glad you got that right for this case finally.


    “- since higher scientist cannot be wronger than lowest,”


    Say what? Or maybe No, not at all.


    “if lower scientists have evidence that cannot be explained by an artifact, this artifact exist, QED.”


    Lost me there.


    “- if artifact (eg ccs) cannot exist according to lower scientist theory, this theory is wrong.”


    No, not at all. The theory is right because it starts with an incontrovertible fact (a CCS can give erroneous values), shows it happened is a particular case, and then folds reasonable chemical thinking into a proposition it could occur many places. That’s called inductive reasoning.


    “- if artifact (eg heat above chemistry) cannot exist according to higher scientist theory, then lowe scientists have done fraud.”


    Say what? You think they’re fraudulent? That’s really tough to prove Alain.


    “- if higher scientist have done errors in their explanations of artifac (eg caltech), thent they are not wrong and their claims stay.(ie nature/Science don't retract)”


    Say what? What do you think all the arguments in the literature are about? There’s also a website that watches retractions…you might Google it and check it out.


    “- if higher scientist have done frauds in their experiments (eg MIT), then they are not wrong (ie nature/Science don't retract)”


    Double and triple Say what?


    “the same arguments stand also for ethnological and budget hierarchy.”


    Maybe, if I could figure out what you’re saying. But right now it looks like No, not at all.


    “This explains how BARC and Bockris results were ignored and insulted while Caltech failure and MIT fraud stand immaculate.this theory match the observation.”


    No, not at all.

  • "... and its [the 'new nuclear mechanism's] details do not cohere with each other or wit other evidence."


    Perhaps by "its," you're referring to the evidence for LENR as a non-chemical process, taken as a whole? Here I think it's important to recognize that the experimental evidence for LENR is complex and multifaceted. We should avoid assuming or requiring a single mechanism or process (although this might also be the case). There could be two or three related processes which support or compete with one another. For those who assume that LENR is not chemical, there are still the following questions that will need to be considered:

    • Which experiments are solid, and which give an indication of being liable to artifact?
    • Which observations seem intrinsically related to one another, and which look like they might be somewhat independent?
    • Are there conclusions about LENR that are sometimes forcefully asserted by proponents that are largely a matter of conjecture, personal judgment or preference?
    • Which explanations seem to have a seed of plausibility, and which seem implausible and/or hard to connect back to any of one's existing knowledge of physics?

    Obviously this is an abbreviated list.


    "... it has details not explained by any new physics hypothesis to date ..."


    An assessment of this observation is contingent upon answers to the questions above, and as one gradually forms some opinions, the situation becomes increasingly tractable.

  • I see Abd is on here now, spewing a bunch of trash about me. He and I knocked heads on Wikipedia till he got banned for 'wall-of-texting', which you have seen here. I'm not going to read his posts. If he says something in particular I should answer someone let me know please. His big kick is He-heat correlation. He never could understand the concept that correlating to a fictitious number produces fictitious correlations. Since he couldn't get past that, I never tried to do more with him.


    But for the rest of you, the big problem with 4He measurements is whether it is above background, and what background is. All the CFers discuss the average 4He concentration in air (~5 ppm), but that is *outside* air, not lab air. Lab air can have very high He conc. and the CFers need to report lab air 4He measurements that go with their CF cell measurements, but they never do. So you can't tell if it could be from a leak or not. Air inleakage is the most likely culprit, and the papers by Clarke and Oliver regarding the Arata Double-Structure Cathode detail the fact that McKubre sent him 4 Ararta cells to sample, and when he did he found varying amounts of air inleakage in all four. I.e. the implication is the they weren't properly sealed. McK, et al blame Clarke and Oliver of course.

  • Szpak, et al took a video of hot spots on an electrode under the electrolyte, claiming they were ‘mini-nuclear explosions’. I added that they could as easily be chemical. Why do you think this is unprovable, and even, not already proven?



    Hydrogen finds its way into the grain structure of the transition metal lattice where it accumulates in a defect in that lattice structure. The chemical bonds forming the lattice compresses the hydrogen as the amount of hydrogen atoms increase. Phonon vibrations also contributes to increasing pressure on the aggregation of hydrogen atoms confined within the lattice.


    When the density of hydrogen atoms increases to a transformative level catalyzed by an increasing level of pressure, a change in state occurs in the cluster of hydrogen atoms where that cluster transforms from a gas into a metal. This solid hexagonal crystalline nanoparticle is then coated with Surface Plasmon Polaritons(SPP) which provides superconductivity together with the meissner effect. Such a transition has been experimentally observed by Miley, Holmlid and Hora.


    After its formation, this hydrogen crystal erupts from the lattice and forms a crater most often marked by a melt of high temperature resistant metal lattice material mushrooming from a central exit cavity. The LENR reaction that produces this eruptive event results in a copious generation of alpha particles that are broadcast from the lattice in a spherical pattern whose density is governed by the inverse square law. The energy produced by the emergence of the hydrogen crystal from the lattice is captured and stored on the surface of the hydrogen metal particle and magnetically reinforces its structural integrity. The hydrogen crystal is now independent of the lattice and proceeds to catalyze more LENR reactions. Sourced by the metal lattice, the eruptive event most generally is surrounded by transmutation products derived from the lattice metal and other lattice surface material coverings that are then broadcast from the eruptive event.

  • So :


    Shanahan: ".....the change was systematic, indicating real chemistry. I further suggested that would occur if recombination occurred at the electrode."


    So now we are talking, "CCS" hypothesis is relying on recombination on the cathode.


    But:


    Firstly, Fleischmann and Pons calculated and proved recombination represented a Max Value of 1%.


    Secondly, for closed cells, recombination is what you want to achieve. If it happens in the gas phase above (catalyser) or in the water phase does not matter. The whole thing is immersed in the calorimetry bath, so where heat is originating from inside the cell does not matter, since energy is measured accurately by the calorimetry Anyhow.


    And CCS can therefore not explain excess energy of 11 to 50 % over extended time when also recombination is included in the budget.

  • In my view, LENR is caused by a long sought after effect that has not yet been found by professional science involving monopole magnetism. Science has predicted all the effects seen in LENR that do in fact exist in the presence of a monopole. This includes disruption of subatomic particles including protons and neutrons within the nucleus. The production of mesons which involve the strange nuclear property is clear proof of proton decay.



    Holmlid has produced up to 12 billion kaons in his experiments from the excitation of metalized hydrogen using a single low power laser pulse. This is unambiguous proof that proton decay is occurring in LENR.


  • Holmlid has produced up to 12 billion kaons in his experiments from the excitation of metalized hydrogen using a single low power laser pulse. This is unambiguous proof that proton decay is occurring in LENR.



    OK, Axil, great. But, I see a positron exiting the system (diagram that does not seem to paste out for me, proton on the left pion [kaon?] on the right with positron above). What is to become of the likely terrestrial annihilation gamma decay from that? Is this the reason W-L or others postulate a gamma shield? And what about quark conservation, if you will excuse my ignorance.


    Thanks, Longview

  • "Firstly, Fleischmann and Pons calculated and proved recombination represented a Max Value of 1%."


    This is based on a raft of assumptions, and IT IS FOR ELECTROCHEMICAL RECOMBINATION. Not what I am talking about.


    "Secondly, for closed cells, recombination is what you want to achieve. If it happens in the gas phase above (catalyser) or in the water phase does not matter. The whole thing is immersed in the calorimetry bath, so where heat is originating from inside the cell does not matter, since energy is measured accurately by the calorimetry Anyhow."


    So you have been asleep... The CCS is for closed cells too. Your conclusions above are wrong.


    "And CCS can therefore not explain excess energy of 11 to 50 % over extended time when also recombination is included in the budget."


    No, it can quite easily. See my recent post on this...

  • OK, Axil, great. But, I see a positron exiting the system (diagram that does not seem to paste out for me, proton on the left pion [kaon?] on the right with positron above). What is to become of the likely terrestrial annihilation gamma decay from that? Is this the reason W-L or others postulate a gamma shield? And what about quark conservation, if you will excuse my ignorance.


    Thanks, Longview


    The energy transfer path between the disturbed nucleus and the metalized hydrogen nanoparticle is mediated by entanglement with a bose condensate on the surface of the nanoparticle through a magnetically establish transfer path. All excitation energy is relieved in this energy transfer process. Without latent nuclear post reaction excitation energy, there exist no gamma or subatomic particle formation activity possible. There is no Gamma and positron formation nuclear based energy available to support post reaction energy release. The exception is alpha particle release which happens at the time of nuclear disintegration.


    It is interesting and informative to look at the Holmlid experiment where large numbers of alpha particles are produced together with the generation of a comparable amount of neutral molecular fragments moving outward with high kinetic energy. Even in this environment where high kinetic energy interactions between both these types of particle clusters would be expected to produce gamma radiation from the release of kinetic energy produced by the impact with these fast moving particles with the structure of the experiment, this high energy radiation is not produced. This leads to the possibility that the entire experiment is enclosed in a bose condensate based entanglement environment where nuclear level energy is absorbed into the EMF surface bose condensate on the surface of the metalized hydrogen.


    Through entanglement with the BEC, because all nuclear level based radiation is thermalized implies that BEC based radiation transfer and absorption is an integral component of all LENR reactions.

  • You wrote what I was responding to before I wrote the comment about "one hydra with many tentacles." That was about a different hydra. Your usage of hydra is an artifact. There are an infinite number of possible artifacts. The idea that there is only one possible artifact, which you have attributed to me and to others, is a straw man argument, and remains so. I have never thought or believed or stated that CCS was the only possible artifact. Refutation of any single artifact such as CCS does not prove cold fusion.

    Quote

    And your arguments throughout implicitly assume it. Let me elaborate on that:


    But that is only true if there is one hydra, or if there is no possibility of selection bias for systematic error.

    You made that up.

    Quote

    You rely on the chances of different experiments having such error being independent. In that case, given enough positive experiments, you can make the chances of them all being error arbitrarily small. "Preponderance of evidence" wins. However, if there are possible systematic errors (hydra heads) then errors are not independent and this does not work.

    This is a radical misunderstanding. I have written about circumstantial evidence, such as uncorrelated heat and nuclear products. So there are many who find heat, say. Could there be some systematic artifact? Sure. However, if the various experiments use different protocols and approaches and calorimetric methods, the chances of this are reduced. Not eliminated. There are indications that there is no such systematic error, such as the development of treated palladium that is more successful. The ability to improve results in this way is an indication of a real effect. But it's all relatively vague and difficult to assess definitively.


    However, heat/helium is another story. In this case, even if there were only one protocol, there would need to be two systematic errors that correlate. They must be, in fact, more like a single artifact that generates two apparent effects. And this gets very difficult to find. As I've mentioned, I've seen no plausible proposals. Further, with additional protocols and additional precision, the results tightened. Again, this strongly indicates that this is not artifact.

    Quote

    Even then if there is only one hydra you can cut off all of its heads pretty easily. For any head (systematic error) you can find an experiment which has clearly cut it off. One hydra and it is dead.


    So your two assumptions here:
    There is only one hydra


    Not assumed as to cold fusion. Identified as to pseudoskepticism. One hydra that generates an unlimited number of objections.

    Quote

    Preponderance of evidence means details need not be proven


    Also straw man argument. Preponderance of evidence is not proof. "Proof" in science means "strong evidence." Preponderance of the evidence is enough for some decisions. To fund a million dollar CF project, where prior work shows high probability of either success or identifying artifact (which would be another form of success), requires one level of evidence. To create a billion dollar project when the effect is not understood would require another level of evidence.

    Quote


    Are linked and if one falls so does the other. I realise you may not have thought about the matter like this before. I've noted your comments on this thread and they are great polemic.

    Thanks.

    Quote


    That is a separate matter. If you were prepared to admit that "preponderance of evidence" does not work for the F&P + replication excess heat, so there is no strong evidence for LENR there, then of course there may be some other work that does provide strong evidence. I'm with you on He/excess heat correlations, if they exist, being interesting but you will have to be awfully careful because heat will obviously affect outgassing of diffused He in apparatus, electrodes, and electrolyte. The correlation, if you presume D+D reaction, is known and predictive so should this be established to good accuracy, it would indeed be useful evidence.

    Easy to think, and it shows ignorance of the experimental conditions. "Excess heat" in cold fusion experiments sometimes does not mean increased temperature. In other experiments, the temperature increase is a few degrees C at most. Further, that this manages to show just the right amount of helium to match the calorimetric results is an astonishing coincidence, and that it does this across multiple protocols indicates strongly that we are observing a single effect produced in various ways.
    No, I am not "prepared" to discard proponderance of the evidence with regard to the evidence other than heat/helium. There is still a preponderance of the evidence there, just not as strong and clear. There is strong evidence that tritium is being produce in these experiments, for example. And the heat evidence is strong, in spite of all the mishegas about CCS. My point, however, is that CCS is made irrelevant by heat/helium. The heat/helium evidence indicates that there is a single effect that produces both heat and helium.
    Had heat/helium been known in 1989-1990, had Pons and Fleischmann cooperated with Morrey et al, history would have been very different. I consider that very possibly a $20 trillion error.


    Miles started out with order-of-magnitutde helium measurements, and found strong correlation, and that the reaction Q was within an order of magnitude of the theoretical value for d+d->4He was considered astonishing by Huizenga. He recognized the significance, but simply thought that Miles would not be confirmed. But Miles was confirmed. His work was tightened up with better helium precision, and others confirmed the ratio as well. Only two experiments, however, actually took steps to capture all the helium. Obviously, that's a limitation, but on the other side of this, both those experiments found the theoretical value within experimental error (+/-10% for SRI M4, and about +/- 20% for Apicella et al Laser-3).


    At this point, in the field, the controversy is only over the ratio. One theory, for example, predicts about 30 MeV/4He. I consider that barely possible.

    Quote


    Coming back to the post topic
    Abd wrote:


    I agree, you could reasonably (and sensibly) follow most scientists and view the F&P and replication work as a whole as not showing strong evidence for LENR.

    Where does this "most scientists" come from? What scientists have reviewed this work? This is the function of peer-reviewed reviews. There is Storms in Naturwissenschaften (2010). McKubre was retained from the beginning to investigate this, originally by the Electric Power Research Institute, then by various defense agencies, customers who want to know reality, not fantasy. And he wrote a recent review in Current Science, covering the state of the field. Then there is Robert Duncan, again retained by CBS News, who studied the calorimetry and came up with a conclusion that it was sound.


    No, the only scientists who are arguing against cold fusion are those who don't know the field, with very, very few exceptions. Shanahan knows a bit. Joshua Cude knows more, I'd say, but is not willing to stake his personal reputation on it, maintaining anonymity. Neither one has come close to experimental work, and the field is almost entirely experimental.


    In 2004, with a relatively casual review, the DoE review was evenly split between evidence for anomalous heat being conclusive, and not conclusive. And most of the reviewers clearly misunderstood the heat/helium evidence. (That was blatant. Dead wrong as to how they described the reported work.) However, "strong evidence"? Again and again I've said that heat alone is circumstantial evidence. But to be clear: the preponderance of the evidence there is that the effect is real and that it is nuclear. "Nuclear" becomes crystal clear from helium as a product, and as to circumstantial evidence of "nuclear" the tritium would be strongest. And SPAWAR neutrons are right up there.

    Quote


    In that case more work to establish this would be wasted. You could in that case gain some scientific credibility for your LENR arguments by agreeing that the F&P results do not show strong evidence for LENR, showing you understand that "preponderance of evidence" only works under the assumption of no systematic errors (which you made replying to Shanahan) or the assumption that there is only one hydra, so its heads can be cut off in different experiments (which you made here).

    This becomes tedious. I am not seeing any reason to invest the time. Shanahan has been answered in the journals, and his arguments are dead.

  • That description of "new nuclear mechanism" gives it a very low probability rating:
    (1) it is inherently complex
    (2) it has very low specific ability to predict observation.


    that was more or less the situation 27 years ago. It's was not inherently complex, but it was not yet into "specific ability to predict observation." This was the original problem in the field. However, it simply is not that way any more. The "unknown reaction" or "new nuclear mechanism? isn't vague and more, it's specific, that is, what it does is specific.


    It converts deuterium to helium and heat, leading to this very clear prediction: if the FP heat effect is set up, using any of a number of protocols known to work with reasonable reliability, and anomalous heat is measured, and de novo helium is measured, and all the helium reservoirs are included (i.e., retained helium is released) the heat generated will be close to 23.8 MeV/4He.


    Given the apparent absence of radiation that doesn't end up as heat, and other nuclear products in significant quantities, that figure is thermodynamically necessary. There is nothing revolutionary so far. The mechanism is not known, and therefore it is not known if new physics is required. My personal impression is that, no, new physics is not required, only the application of known physics to a very unusual physical condition.


    That application is mathematically complex (read Takahashi!), but that is only about theoretical understanding. The phenomenon as described is quite simple, merely originally quite unexpected. Everyone had assumed that certain approximations held, that it wasn't necessary to address many-body physics, that 2-body analysis was good enough. Pons and Fleischmann suspected that the solid state would have an effect, but also expected it would be too small to detect, but decided to look. They were not looking for cheap energy, as has often been claimed. They were doing basic science.


    And then the thing melted down. They got a bit excited, eh? Still, five years later, they were not ready to announce, but events overtook them. And they were wrong about a lot.


    But their calorimetry was good.

  • Mats02 wrote:


    This is a classic hydra issue. Mats is arguing that there is additional evidence to excess heat, helium measurements. That if helium measurements show LENR then CCS is irrelevant because excess heat is unnecessary.

    Consistently, Thomas is misrepresenting what is written. Mats erred and accidentally wrote "tritium" in place of "helium." There is, indeed, additional evidence involving tritium, but it does not bear on the CCS issue. It has not been correlated with heat, it is merely that it has been found with "similar protocols" as found heat.


    It is not just "helium measurements." Helium was measured and reported by Pons. Helium was measured and reported by Morrey et al. There was other early work finding helium. This was merely anecdotal evidence, circumstantial, and not probative. It was the finding of a correlation between heat and helium that was consistent even though the heat results varied greatly that was so important. This identified the "ash." The lack of an identified ash was probably the strongest theoretical argument against cold fusion. No longer is there only heat being produced. Helium is being produced, and the only way to produce helium is through a nuclear reaction. Heat could be produced in many ways. The anomalous heat found was considered to be probably nuclear because the apparent energy density was quite high, and there were no known chemical mechanisms to explain this. More heat was being generated than could be explained by every possible reaction in the cells taking place. More than could be stored in the cells by some battery-like effect. Now, that is according to the analysis of chemists. Hey, what do chemists know about chemistry? Everyone knows that physics rules the universe, right?


    Now, Shanahan is a chemist and he believes he has an unexpected chemical effect, and to apply that to known excess heat results is a complex exercise, I'm certainly not going to undertake it here. However, I see no way at all that this could then create *correlated* helium, at the right levels to match nuclear conversion energy from deuterium to helium. It is not heat alone and not helium alone, nor separate findings of heat and helium, but rather heat/helium, i.s., a ratio, experimentally found to be "commensurate with" the deuterium fusion value.


    Quote

    I agree. But that is another separate argument - do helium measurements - or helium correlations with excess heat - show extraordinary evidence?

    Yes. Absolutely. That is, if confirmed. They have been confirmed. There is practically no contrary experimental evidence. Huizenga knew that Miles' findings were extraordinary, and wrote so. Then he predicted that Miles would not be confirmed "because no gammas," which was a refrain of his. He believed that helium production must be accompanied by a very hot gamma ray. With ordinary d-d fusion, he's quite correct, it is required by conservation of momentum. However, there are possible reaction pathways that don't generate that gamma. Huizenga, in his book, essentially assumes that cold fusion must be like hot fusion, the same reaction, and therefore it was a mistake.


    The experimental evidence is that all the energy ends up as heat. Now, there is still room for slop. But it is likely less than 20%. We will know when the work is repeated with increased precision, as is currently planned -- or happening.


    What cannot properly be done is to group "maybe helium/heat correlation shows LENR" with "maybe excess heat shows LENR" to get "it is therefore strongly likely LENR exists, because it is supported by two different strands of evidence".


    Correlated. Not "different." That's the error here. There is no intrinsic connection between excess heat and LENR, because many effects can show heat. With excess heat measurements, there can be errors, and maybe even systematic errors. However, even one clear correlated effect can drastically change the situation. "Maybe excess heat shows LENR" is fair. "Maybe helium/heat correlation shows LENR" is a misrepresentation. It conclusively shows LENR if confirmed. And confirmation here is very different from the kind of confirmation shown in excess heat measurements. I.e, we tried X and we got some heat. Another lab does the same, but the levels of heat vary. And sometimes there is heat and sometimes there is not


    With heat/helium, some experiments show heat and some show no heat and both are valuable. Some experiments show helium at a level, and some show no elevation of helium above background. That data is collected, and the helium is often collected blind, i.e, the lab measuring the helium has no idea what the activity of the cell from which the sample was taken was.


    If those results are correlated, and especially if they are correlated at a physically significant ratio, this is the very essence of extraordinary evidence. The only stronger evidence would be devices with major and reliable heat. (In theory that would not show "nuclear," but, of course, such devices would make measurements of the ash easier.


    Thomas has raised the spectre of confirmation bias. Maybe only positive experiments are being reported. Miles reported all his experiments. Notice how with heat/helium, the "null results" in excess heat experiments become controls. If there is helium with those controls, it's gotta be leakage or something like that. There is no helium without anomalous heat.


    Quote

    The combination of systematic error possibility, and experiment selection (certainty) mean that given a concerted 30 years attempt to prove that anomalies consistent with a hypothesis exist you expect quite a lot of distinct anomalous results. You don't expect any of them to be strong - but the fact of a whole load of weak results is what you get from random low-level unrecognised systematic errors and experiment (and hence systematic error) selection to find things that "work" - where work means "are supportive of the wanted hypothesis.

    Heat/helium results are not "weak." They are significant and they are consistent.


    Mats was right. Thomas is ignoring this evidence, or trying to dismiss it without actually looking at it. Here. Replicable cold fusion experiment: heat/helium ratio.


    The skeptical rants here could not get published in a mainstream scientific journal. Maybe Skeptical Inquirer would publish something, but, of course, that's a highly biased publication.


    For reference, here is the whole Special Section from that issue of Current Science: Special Section: Low Energy Nuclear Reactions
    Some of those 34 papers are basically news of activity of certain kinds, but some are experimental and scientific analysis.


    I wrote the heat/helium paper to encourage the kind of work that is now being planned, having been announced at ICCF-19.

  • I see Abd is on here now, spewing a bunch of trash about me. He and I knocked heads on Wikipedia till he got banned for 'wall-of-texting', which you have seen here. I'm not going to read his posts. If he says something in particular I should answer someone let me know please. His big kick is He-heat correlation. He never could understand the concept that correlating to a fictitious number produces fictitious correlations. Since he couldn't get past that, I never tried to do more with him.

    Very typical Shanahan. We did not "knock heads" on Wikipedia. I attempted to create an article with his calorimetric work, it was ultimately deleted by an administrator who hated everything cold fusion. What I actually did on Wikipedia was confront administrative abuse, and that preceded my interest in cold fusion, and I was only starting to learn about cold fusion back then (2009). Shanahan gets the cause of my ban wrong, as he does a lot. I was not banned for writing "walls of text." That was an excuse that was used at various points by an administrative faction that definitely saw me as a risk, given that I got one of them reprimanded by the Arbitration Committee and the other, by far the most popular, lost his tools. I assure readers I did not accomplish that with "walls of text." And my final ban was for a completely different reason.It was on Wikipedia, however, that Shanahan started explaining some of his very far-out theories.


    Here, he shows a complete misunderstanding of correlation. Correlation can punch through noise. What happens when one correlates with fictitious numbers is that one gets no correlation. Correlation studies require multiple samples or experiments. The results of a correlation study will be a correlation coefficient, showing covariance, and data on the ratio of the variables.


    Shanahan attempted to study data he digitized from a chart in Storms (2007), in his Letter to the Journal of Environmental Monitoring in 2010. He calculated a correlation coefficient, and it was quite low. He did not seem to realize was that he had studied, not heat vs helium, but helium/heat vs heat. Storms was showing, in that chart, how, the more heat, the more the ratio settled. With the lowest figures for heat, the ratio varied wildly. This is what would be expected from a real effect, given the noise.


    Shanahan's low correlation coefficient showed that heat/helium did not correlate well with heat. In other words, heat/helium is really a constant, so all he was doing was looking at the scatter. If the measurements were more precise, the coefficient would have been even closer to zero.


    This was such a preposterous error that the scientists who responded to him didn't seem to notice it. They just affirmed that heat and helium are correlated. It can be difficult to understand complete nonsense.


    Quote

    But for the rest of you, the big problem with 4He measurements is whether it is above background, and what background is.

    Background can be relevant, or not. Background doesn't explain correlation.

    Quote

    All the CFers discuss the average 4He concentration in air (~5 ppm), but that is *outside* air, not lab air. Lab air can have very high He conc. and the CFers need to report lab air 4He measurements that go with their CF cell measurements, but they never do. So you can't tell if it could be from a leak or not.

    Again, this is Shanahan's very incomplete armchair understanding. Miles was working with very low helium levels, far below ambient. He used flushing techniques to avoid leakage, he maintained positive pressure. Leakage would have produced uncorrelated helium. When he had no excess heat, he had no helium, with a dozen samples like that. Only when there was heat was there helium. In other work, hydrogen controls, no helium. Only with deuterium. Again, a very consistent pattern.
    {quote] Air inleakage is the most likely culprit,[/quote]In the work of Apicella et al, ambient helium was not excluded, so what was measured was elevation above ambient. Again, correlated with heat, and very consistently. Leakage simply doesn't work. This is why correlation is so important. Simply the fact that helium was found would, indeed, not be so remarkable, because of ambient helium. In the Case studies, they had flushed helium and measured helium accumulating, and levels rose above ambient and continued rising as they passed ambient. Again, well correlated with heat.


    Quote

    and the papers by Clarke and Oliver regarding the Arata Double-Structure Cathode detail the fact that McKubre sent him 4 Ararta cells to sample, and when he did he found varying amounts of air inleakage in all four. I.e. the implication is the they weren't properly sealed. McK, et al blame Clarke and Oliver of course.

    This sarcasm, essentially a personal attack on McKubre, betrays the pseudoskepticism. Where do McKubre et al "blame" Clarke and Oliver? What I recall is that McKubre said, about that work, that something must have happened with leakage, and not just a little leakage, major leakage. Apparently helium didn't leak in, it leaked out. This was a very, very different experimental design from normal FP Heat Effect work. However, something else was found in that work. Helium-3, in the outer cathode, apparently deposited from tritium migrating out. This is part of the circumstantial evidence for cold fusion. It has not been considered a heat/helium result, because of the loss of integrity.


    (The Arata cathodes were designed to generate extremely high internal pressures. It's simply not surprising that some leakage path opened up.)


    Nobody is listening to Shanahan any more, and he's been on the fringe for a long time. But, hey, he can get someone going here!

  • Abd wrote:

    Quote

    No, what is needed, ordinarily, and even with something like cold fusion, is preponderance of the evidence. It is not necessary to prove every detail, and unless one has unlimited funding, it is probably impossible.


    A preponderance of evidence is a legal term, but used descriptively, presumably it means that, based on the evidence, someone judges something to be more likely than not. You are saying, presumably, that in your judgement, the evidence indicates cold fusion is more likely to be real than not. But you are not in a position of authority to make such a judgement for anyone else. You don't have a science degree or any experience in scientific research. Moreover, you have admitted that your advocacy has been paid for.


    Those who do have relevant expertise and experience, for the most part, are not convinced cold fusion is real, so that means that, in their judgement, the preponderance of evidence fails to make cold fusion more likely to be real than not. Such experts are of course considering the copious and consistent and reproducible evidence from a century of nuclear physics that collectively suggests strongly that nuclear reactions would not happen in the context of cold fusion experiments. Next to this, the erratic, marginal, inconsistent, and irreproducible results associated with such experiments are far more plausibly explained by artifacts. Which is to say, in the mainstream view, the preponderance of evidence points to artifact, and by a vast margin.


    Of course, absolute proof of anything is not possible, but something like cold fusion could surely be proved to arbitrary certainty if it were real, much as high temperature superconductivity was not doubted by any experts after the first publication became available. It is almost inconceivable that an energy density a million times that of dynamite, accessible at ordinary conditions could not be made obvious in 27 years, but it is completely plausible that artifacts producing a variety of confounding effects that look like cold fusion if you squint would be too elusive to be nailed down in 27 years.

  • Abd wrote:


    Quote

    I have written about circumstantial evidence, such as uncorrelated heat and nuclear products. So there are many who find heat, say. Could there be some systematic artifact? Sure. However, if the various experiments use different protocols and approaches and calorimetric methods, the chances of this are reduced.


    Not if most experiments do not produce apparent heat, and the ones that do are all over the map, showing no consistency with any sort of measurable parameters, and more importantly no progress. Real effects invariably become more manifest with a search of parameter space and improvement in technique, even if no mechanism is identified. Artifacts become less so. The history of cold fusion fits the latter more closely.


    Quote

    There are indications that there is no such systematic error, such as the development of treated palladium that is more successful. The ability to improve results in this way is an indication of a real effect. But it's all relatively vague and difficult to assess definitively.


    But the reports in the literature have become more scarce and more modest, showing the opposite of improved results. Indeed, the electrolysis experiment is hardly being performed anymore. I'm not aware of a single refereed publication of excess heat in an electrolysis experiment in more than a decade (other than secondary reference to conference proceedings or the like in review articles).

  • Abd wrote:


    Quote

    However, heat/helium is another story. In this case, even if there were only one protocol, there would need to be two systematic errors that correlate.


    It's not so unlikely that systematic errors might correlate. But when the correlation is as weak as the one observed, when it is challenged in the literature, and when it is not reproduced in the literature, even the existence of a correlation is in doubt, which is why, in spite of the fact that you are so enamored of the results, almost no one else is.


    Quote

    Further, with additional protocols and additional precision, the results tightened.


    This is not accurate. Miles claimed a very weak correlation, in which results changed by an order of magnitude between interpretations, in which 4 control flasks also had helium, in which most of the controls were performed after the fact in a different experiment, when maybe their exclusion of helium had improved, and in which one experiment that produced substantial excess heat but no helium was simply ignored. And if the quantitative correlation with the amount of heat was weak when the glass flasks were used, it was essentially absent when the experiment improved and metal flasks were used. Tightening up the experiment made the results looser, not tighter.


    Miles results were challenged in the refereed literature, and after that no quantitative correlation met the modest standard of peer review.


    Indeed, 4 years after Miles, Gozzi published a careful helium study under peer review and admitted that "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". After that his experimental activity in the field seems to have stopped.


    And of the other (mainly unpublished) groups Storms cites that reproduced Miles, two groups (Chien and Botta) did not measure heat, and so could not have observed a correlation; two groups (Aoki and Takahashi) report results that suggest an anti-correlation; another group (Luch) has continued experiments until recently, but stopped reporting helium; two groups (Arata and DeNinno) do not claim a quantitative correlation, but in one case (Arata) the helium levels seem orders of magnitude too low to account for the heat, although extracting information from his papers is difficult, and in the other (DeNinno) the helium level is an order of magnitude too high.


    The only results since Miles that Storms has deemed worthwhile (i.e. cherry-picked) to calculate energy correlation come from McKubre's <b>unrefereed</b> experiments, which include experiments described in the 1998 EPRI report, where McKubre himself is initially negative about, saying "it has <b>not been possible</b> to address directly the issue of heat-commensurable nuclear product generation". His confidence in the results seems to have grown since then, but Krivit claims to show (with considerable evidence) that he manipulated the data to support his thesis.


    This is the sort of evidence you regard as confirmation. This is what passes for conclusive in the field of cold fusion. This is good enough that no measurements of helium-heat in the last decade entered Storms' calculations.


    You make a big deal about the absence of skeptical papers in the literature in the last decade, suggesting it means skepticism is dead. Well (apart from the fact that there are more negative papers than new claims of the excess heat) there are no first hand papers in the refereed literature reporting correlations for *20* years. There are reviews that cite conference papers reporting old results, but being cited in a review is not the same as undergoing primary review of the original experiment.


    Real scientists obsess about details, especially in critical experiments like this. Any real scientist thinking there is anything to cold fusion would not rest until the helium question was nailed down. Millikan's experiment was not accepted as good enough, but was repeated endlessly. Scientists are still toiling to reduce the limit of error on measurements of Einstein's time dilation, and improve the value of the gravitation constant, and so on. But in cold fusion, the last refereed paper on a quantitative helium correlation was in the 90s, and it was challenged in the literature.


    Quote

    At this point, in the field, the controversy is only over the ratio.


    Sure, but "in the field", people are convinced about cold fusion without the helium correlation. And as it happens, the correlation is not a particularly active topic at all, let alone controversial. If it were, some researchers would have been actively trying to measure it with better accuracy.

  • Abd wrote:


    Quote

    Where does this "most scientists" come from? What scientists have reviewed this work? This is the function of peer-reviewed reviews.


    It comes from 17 of 18 experts enlisted by the DOE to examine the best evidence. And it comes from peer reviewers for the best journals and the funding agencies who have largely rejected cold fusion. That's why cold fusion papers appear only in low impact journals, and why helium correlations can't even manage that, and why the ACS rejected an entire volume recently. You yourself call it the rejection cascade, and others like Hagelstein and Boss complain about the difficulty in getting into good journals. So, peer reviewers are rejecting cold fusion with regularity.


    Quote

    There is Storms in Naturwissenschaften (2010).


    This is a review by an editor of the journal. Such things are not reviewed for the content, but only for the accuracy with which they reflect the existing literature, which in the case of the helium correlation is almost all conference proceedings.


    Quote

    McKubre was retained from the beginning to investigate this, originally by the Electric Power Research Institute, then by various defense agencies, customers who want to know reality, not fantasy.


    Right. And McKubre published modest excess power of a few percent in the early 90s, claiming a high reproducibility. But then in 1989 he admitted that "with hindsight, we may now conclude that the presumption of repeatable excess heat production was premature, and that this has limited the progress achieved…”


    He did not publish his correlation results in refereed literature, and EPRI cut his funding, and he abandoned his own experiment saying he got tired of trying to "science cold fusion", essentially an admission that he had failed.


    Quote

    And he wrote a recent review in Current Science, covering the state of the field.


    ... a journal with an impact factor less than 1, that published a special issue on LENR, for which they *invited* reviews from the major researchers. They can't reject invited papers, so that means that friendly reviewers had to be used. This issue indicates there is an editor or two on the board that is sympathetic to cold fusion research, but little more than that.


    In any case, conspicuously absent from McKubre's paper (which is titled "Cold fusion: comments on the state of scientific proof) is any mention or citation of his helium correlation work. Evidently he no longer regards it as integral to the evidence for cold fusion.


    Quote

    Then there is Robert Duncan, again retained by CBS News, who studied the calorimetry and came up with a conclusion that it was sound.


    He studied one experiment (at Energetics) for a few days -- a more casual review than the DOE review. And it's an experiment that has not been published under peer review, and neither have Duncan's conclusions about it. In fact the successor to that organization (SKINR) has not published any results under peer review in several years of operation, and the results reported so far at ICCF fall far short of the claims made by Energetics. Once again, with improved experimentation, the claims become more modest.

  • Abd wrote:


    Quote

    No, the only scientists who are arguing against cold fusion are those who don't know the field, with very, very few exceptions.


    It's true there are few scientists *arguing* against cold fusion, but then there are even fewer arguing against phlogiston. That doesn't mean they accept the phenomenon as real. It means they are ignoring it because they are nearly certain it is not real.


    The best scientists make it their business to be informed about relevant new results, which is why the subject was given such an enthusiastic welcome back in 1989, and why scientists all over the world went to the lab to get in on the revolution. None of them wanted to be left behind. So, I don't think you can know whether or not current skeptics are sufficiently informed to justify their skepticism. It's probably not a coincident that all the smartest scientists are skeptical, like Nobel laureates Gell-Mann, Weinberg, Glashow, Lederman, Seaborg, and also distinguished scientists like Close, Lewis, Koonin, Garwin, and Park.


    Essentially all scientists working in the energy field (or advocating alternative energy) have rejected cold fusion implicitly. These people include Stephen Hawking and Brian Cox, who advocate hot fusion research, Frank Close, who (like Cox) is passionate about science and society, and Nobel laureate Carlo Rubbia, who has in fact given cold fusion an audience, and was involved in cold fusion experiments (including helium correlation measurements), but is now working on sub-critical thorium reactors.


    Now, I know the response to this is always that these poor laureates don't have the benefit of having seen those all-important web sites and blogs, which hold the secret to utopia. But that's unlikely, because we all know what would happen if the evidence studied in as much detail as you please were persuasive to even a small fraction of qualified experts. We saw it in 1989. It would be an exponential explosion of interest. Because some scientists *do* see the data, and it is their nature to tell others -- many, many others -- and for a subject like this, to become involved themselves.


    Apart from the many referees that are called upon to review cold fusion manuscripts and routinely reject them, and the two DOE panels who have rejected it, scientists like Ekstrom and Thieberger and Motl and Eriksson and Pomp have all been involved in the ecat debate, and will have looked at those all-important web sites. Ekstrom, e.g., has been active on some Swedish forums, and was involved in an exchange with Krivit, and wrote a critique of the Levi paper, so you can be sure he's seen much of the evidence. Thieberger wrote a rebuttal to the WL theory, so he is likely informed. Other scientists have written recent rebuttals to the WL theory (Cuiche et al and Tennfors), so they're clearly aware of the activity. Garwin was interviewed in 2009, so you can be sure he was made of aware of the claims up to then.


    Duncan is an example of someone who was convinced by the evidence, and look at the exposure he's given it, with colloquia at Missouri and even a conference at Missouri, and the establishment of two institutes. Other physicists could not miss this exposure, and yet, the subject fizzles instead of explodes. Missouri had to issue a correction when Duncan claimed sponsorship. They were embarrassed instead of convinced. Much like the physics department at Bologna, which could not have escaped the publicity of Rossi's ecat, but instead of the belief spreading through the department like a virus, they had to issue statements denying formal support.


    And there are also peer reviewed papers that are negative about cold fusion.


    An Italian group published a rebuttal to neutron emission claims, and offered some plausible CR-39 artifacts that may have caused spurious effects (Faccini et al., Eur Phys J. C 74 (2014) 1).


    Tennfors (Eur Phys J Plus 128 (2013) 1 ) and Ciuchi et al. (Euro Phys J C 72 (2012)1) published rebuttals to the WL theory. <i></i>


    Dmitriyeva et al. (Thermochim. Acta 543 (2012) 260) debunked the Arata gas-loading claims, which are just about the only excess heat claims in the last decade in refereed literature.


    A little further back, Kowalski published a negative article about CR-39 (Eur Phys J Appl Phys 44 (2008) 287).


    And there are at least two analyses of the publication record, which show that the cold fusion publication record is distinctly different from real fields, and closely resembles that of other pathological sciences: Bettencourt et al, Journal of Informetrics 3 (2009) 210–221, and Ackermann, Scientometrics 66 (2006) 451.


    And there's a comparison of cold fusion with phlogiston in an essay about trying to prove a negative (Labinger & Weininger, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 44 (2005) 1916.


    And all these are in spite of the fact that most skeptics simply ignore the field. It hardly seems worth the trouble to refute claims that no one of any stature takes seriously anyway.


    Scientific literature reflects the view of scientists. Any subject that is not fringe science appears in refereed journals. A subject like cold fusion would appear thousands of times a year if it were viewed as anything but pseudoscience.


    And yet, not counting the special issue, there have been *zero* claims of excess heat in the literature in the last 6 years (according to the Britz bibliography 2010 - 2015), and *zero* papers on the helium correlation in more than 15 years. Even if you include the special issue, it mainly represents reviews of work from before 2010.

  • Quote

    In 2004, with a relatively casual review, the DoE review was evenly split between evidence for anomalous heat being conclusive, and not conclusive.


    That's not accurate. The summary report says: "Evaluations by the reviewers ranged from: 1) evidence for excess power is compelling, to 2) there is no convincing evidence that excess power is produced when integrated over the life of an experiment. The reviewers were split approximately evenly on this topic." Compelling is not conclusive. And considering only one reviewer considered the evidence for nuclear reactions conclusive, 17 of 18 felt a non-nuclear explanation for the observed heat was plausible.


    Quote

    And most of the reviewers clearly misunderstood the heat/helium evidence. (That was blatant. Dead wrong as to how they described the reported work.)


    So, you're suggesting that experienced scientists couldn't explain something, which is obvious to a lay observer like you, to a group of other expert scientists, even when there was so much at stake. That sounds a little implausible to me.


    But if the misunderstanding was so blatantly obvious, couldn't it have been straightened out afterward? Instead, in the dozen years since, not only has no improved explanation been accepted by the DOE, but no further experimentation has taken place on the subject of the helium correlation.


    A few years ago, you were proposing to come to the rescue of Hagelstein and McKubre and approach the DOE with a better explanation than they had been able to write. But now you're instead proposing to (finally) do more experiments, essentially conceding that the weakness was in the evidence, not in the explanation.

  • Abd wrote:


    Quote

    that was more or less the situation 27 years ago. It's was not inherently complex, but it was not yet into "specific ability to predict observation." This was the original problem in the field. However, it simply is not that way any more. The "unknown reaction" or "new nuclear mechanism? isn't vague and more, it's specific, that is, what it does is specific.


    It converts deuterium to helium and heat, leading to this very clear prediction: if the FP heat effect is set up, using any of a number of protocols known to work with reasonable reliability, and anomalous heat is measured, and de novo helium is measured, and all the helium reservoirs are included (i.e., retained helium is released) the heat generated will be close to 23.8 MeV/4He.


    And yet, that prediction has not been borne out in a single refereed publication since Miles (other than by secondary reference in literature reviews). Indeed, Gozzi explicitly said the contrary (under peer review): "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"


    And as I said in detail above, Storms' other references don't support the prediction either. Even McKubre contradicted the prediction initially when he said "it has <b>not been possible</b> to address directly the issue of heat-commensurable nuclear product generation".

  • Abd wrote:


    Quote

    Given the apparent absence of radiation that doesn't end up as heat, and other nuclear products in significant quantities, that figure is thermodynamically necessary. There is nothing revolutionary so far. The mechanism is not known, and therefore it is not known if new physics is required. My personal impression is that, no, new physics is not required, only the application of known physics to a very unusual physical condition.


    To initiate a nuclear reaction requires either screening the nuclear charge, and without exotic particles (which require high energy to make) takes energy to sufficiently confine electrons, overcoming the Coulomb barrier, or making neutrons. All of those processes involve focusing very high energy onto individual atomic sites. That's revolutionary. It's the first miracle.


    Whatever reaction is happening, it is completely unprecedented. The production of helium as the main product of deuterium reactions has not been previously observed, and is contrary to theoretical predictions based on copious experimental evidence obtained in all phases of matter at a wide variety of energies. And that includes copious experimental work done with palladium deuteride for military and commercial purposes, and the observed reactions -- the branching ratios -- are the same as observed in vacuum, plasma, gas, or liquid. That's the second miracle.


    The release of nuclear energy entirely by heat, with almost undetectable radioactive signatures, is also unprecedented, particularly in reactions that produce helium from deuterons. There are radionuclides (like Pu-238, Po-210) that decay by alpha emission, which is easily shielded. These are used in radioisotope thermoelectric generators, but even in these cases, the low level radiation is unmistakeable if you look for it. That's why the Russian's who poisoned Litvinenko with Po-210 could be traced weeks after the fact. That's the third miracle.


    So, you're mistaken. Cold fusion would be revolutionary, if real, and that's why the world reacted as it did in 1989. But don't take my word for it. Hagelstein wrote: "such an effect is not consistent with condensed matter physics, and also not consistent with nuclear physics. In essence, it is impossible based on existing theory in these fields. There is no question as to whether this is true or not (it is true);"

  • Abd wrote:


    Quote

    The phenomenon as described is quite simple, merely originally quite unexpected.


    Well, it's simple to say deuterons join to form helium and release heat. It's not simple to explain how that is possible, and it is not just "quite unexpected", it is considered miraculous based on what's known about nuclear physics.


    Quote

    Everyone had assumed that certain approximations held, that it wasn't necessary to address many-body physics, that 2-body analysis was good enough.


    These were not assumptions. They were experimental observations. Nuclear reactions -- fusion in particular -- have been extensively studied in palladium deuteride. You can buy neutron sources off the shelf that are based on fusion in palladium, and the reactions follow exactly the theoretical predictions. There are no surprises. The range of nuclear forces is something like 0.1 million times smaller than the atomic spacing in palladium, so it is not surprising that the solid state environment has little influence on nuclear reactions.


    And in nuclear weapons (based on fusion), palladium is used to filter deuterium, and solid lithium deuteride is used as fuel, so they have studied nuclear reactions in solids with great motivation.


    In any case, chemical effects on nuclear reactions are not new to physicists. There are cases where the chemical (atomic) environment can influence nuclear reactions -- such as the isomer effect observed by Mossbauer spectroscopy -- but these effects are extremely small, and fit theoretical predictions. After P&F in 1989, many physicists *did* consider the effect of palladium on cold fusion, and came up empty. It would still be a miracle x 3.


    Quote

    Pons and Fleischmann suspected that the solid state would have an effect, but also expected it would be too small to detect, but decided to look.


    This is not consistent with what P&F said in interviews in 1989. They *expected* that the absorption of deuterium in palladium would bring them close enough to cause conventional fusion. Simple calculations show that is completely wrong. The idea of the palladium performing miracles came after their naive ideas were shown to be wrong.


    Quote

    They were not looking for cheap energy, as has often been claimed. They were doing basic science.


    Can you provide some documentation to prove this? That is, something written before they claimed to see cold fusion? Because this is completely inconsistent with what they themselves said even after the announcement. They said they *were* looking for abundant energy.


    Quote

    And then the thing melted down. They got a bit excited, eh? Still, five years later, they were not ready to announce, but events overtook them. And they were wrong about a lot.


    But their calorimetry was good.


    But they claimed tens of watts with large COPs from the beginning. This has not been readily reproduced by others. And the most reliable work usually cited as replication is McKubre's fraction of a watt, with a COP of 1.05 or less. That's why in 2001, Rothwell wrote: "Why haven’t researchers learned to make the results stand out? After twelve years of painstaking replication attempts, most experiments produce a fraction of a watt of heat, when they work at all. Such low heat is difficult to measure. It leaves room for honest skeptical doubt that the effect is real."


    That would suggest that P&F's calorimetry was not good, given that painstaking efforts were not enough to reproduce it.

  • Quote

    LENR researchers are not (generally) nuclear physicists because the experimental methods are not -- at all -- those of nuclear physics.


    Apart from the fact that one has to understand the subject of the investigation, and not just be familiar with the tools, calorimetry is certainly an experimental method used by physicists, including nuclear and particle physicists. Joule, after all, was a physicist.


    And if the phenomenon were accepted, and there were tools or methods needed to investigate it, then those in the relevant field would avail themselves of the necessary expertise. Scientists don't simply ignore results and phenomena critical to the understanding of their own field because they involve tools from another field.