Finally: This is possibly how the E-Cat works - Mats Lewan

Even the most entrenched skeptics can't logically deny that Rossi and Piantelli are among the most successful LENR researchers.

It happens that Piantelli's and Rossi's theories are somewhat consistent with each other. Both have had years of experience running experiments. Rossi used to think that nickel was the main fuel in the Ni-H-Li system, but now understands it is lithium.

It is possible that Piantelli's theory is wrong. However chances are it is consistent with both Rossi's and Piantelli's years of experimental results. Therefore it is useful for would-be replicators. The theory is useful as long as it can make correct predictions.

Newton's law of universal gravitation isn't that universal but it's pretty damn useful. Maybe not the best analogy but you get my point.

If the Piantelli theory H- theory is disproved, does that make the Piantelli patent invalid?

Piantelli's H- theory strikes me as an ad hoc explanation for the prompt protons he was seeing in his cloud chamber. I am optimistic that Piantelli has seen some very interesting experimental results. I am pessimistic that he understands what is going on under the hood, for many of the reasons mentioned above.

To amplify one detail that has been alluded to: H- is an unstable species. A small perturbation will cause it to transition to monatomic hydrogen. And when such a species is brought close to a lattice site, the bound electrons will increasingly interact with the electrons in the lattice. The closer the anion approaches the lattice site, the higher the probability that any bound state will be disrupted, and an electron removed. Presumably this will happen long before the H- anion gets anywhere near the nucleus.

A more fundamental problem with the H- account is that there is no energy balance. On one side of the arrow you have an H- ion that is drawn to the nucleus in the chemical regime, and on the other you have a bare proton that is expelled with ~ MeV energies. There is nothing that loses mass-energy in the process. We are to asked to attribute the effect to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, which seems to draw the energy from the vasty deep.

Quote from Eric Walker

Piantelli's H- theory strikes me as a post hoc explanation for the prompt protons he was seeing in his cloud chamber. I am optimistic that Piantelli has seen some very interesting experimental results. I am pessimistic that he understands what is going on under the hood, for many of the reasons mentioned above.

To amplify one detail that has been alluded to: H- is an unstable species. A small perturbation will cause it to transition to monatomic hydrogen. And when such a species is brought close to a lattice site, the bound electrons will increasingly interact with the electrons in the lattice. The closer the anion approaches the lattice site, the higher the probability that any bound state will be disrupted, and an electron removed. Presumably this will happen long before the H- anion gets anywhere near the nucleus.

A more fundamental problem with the H- account is that there is no energy balance. On one side of the arrow you have an H- ion that is drawn to the nucleus in the chemical regime, and on the other you have a bare proton that is expelled with ~ MeV energies. There is nothing that loses mass-energy in the process. We are to asked to attribute the effect to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, which seems to draw the energy from the vasty deep.

How do we know that the particle the Piantelli sees is a proton. It could be a Kaon, meson, electron, pion, and exotic neutral particle, whatever. Do we trust Piantelli to eyeball that cloud chamber to guess what that particle track is?

hendersonmj wrote:

Quote

One test of any model (theory) is: "Does this model suggest a range of changes to the protocol that will improve the outcome in a predictable way?"

So, if someone claims that pigs can fly, even though he hasn't proved it, a theory that proposes they can fly when they eat banana peels because when banana peels interact with their stomach acid they acquire anti-gravity properties is a useful theory because it suggests that feeding pigs more banana peels will make them fly higher?

Of course you can test it, but their are a million such nonsense theories and you can't test them all. Scientists take advantage of what's already been learned in formulating theories and choosing which ones to test. It's called standing on the shoulders of giants.

A theory that is not consistent with experimental observations already accumulated and tested is less likely to be successful than one that is consistent with existing knowledge. And one that is directly contrary to known laws is likely to be fruitless.

Feynman put it like this:

"The whole question of imagination in science is often misunderstood by people in other disciplines. ... They overlook the fact that whatever we are allowed to imagine in science must be consistent with everything else we know. ... We can't allow ourselves to seriously imagine things which are obviously in contradiction to the known laws of nature. ... One has to have the imagination to think of something that has never been seen before, never been heard of before. At the same time the thoughts are restricted in a straitjacket, so to speak, limited by the conditions that come from our knowledge of the way nature really is."

Quote

I believe the challenge to the LENR community is NOT "how do we make this theory conform to existing understanding of subatomic physics." That will come later.

Rather the challenge is "how do we apply this model to make LENR reactions occur repeatably at the time and place of our choosing." The model certainly suggests many, many directions for exploration. As those prove correct or are falsified, improve the model.

But if the theory *is* consistent with existing observations, it is more likely to be successful at improving LENR, if it can be improved. If you simply ignore what's known, it becomes a random search for a needle in a haystack.

Quote

There was a time when observation preceded theory in physics. That period seems to have died in the last century. Today it seems theory must precede experimental observation or you are considered a kook out on the fringe. That seems sad.

It would be sad, but it's utter nonsense. What is theory except a generalization of experimental observation?

Scientists crave revolutionary and disruptive results. Of course, there is caution, as there should be, when results seem contrary to widely held expectations. But when the evidence is strong, science rewards innovation -- change in thought. It's very clear that honor, fame, glory, and funding come to those who make major discoveries. Not those who add decimal points. The most famous scientists are those who revolutionized fields.

The Nobel prize for high temperature superconductivity was awarded within a year of its discovery, in spite of the fact that it was not understood. That is hardly considering its inventors as kooks on the fringe.

Likewise, Nobel prizes were awarded in 2011 for the unexpected acceleration of the expansion of the universe, which was *contrary* to theory. One of the laureates, Perlmutter, said this in his Nobel address:

"Perhaps the only thing better for a scientist than finding the crucial piece of a puzzle that completes a picture is finding a piece that doesn't fit at all, and tells us that there is a whole new part of the puzzle that we haven't even imagined yet and the scene in the puzzle is bigger, richer than we ever thought."

That doesn't sound like science considers observation-first kooky, does it?

There is also the example of the faster than light neutrinos controversy of a few years ago. Most physicists were skeptical, but the idea was certainly given a hearing: Here's a scientist quoted in a report in the Washington Post at the height of the commotion: “The theorists are now knotted up with conflicting emotions. As much as they support Einstein, they’d also love for the new finding to be true. It’d be weirdly thrilling. They’d get to rethink everything. If neutrinos violate the officially posted cosmic speed limit, the result will be the Full Employment Act for Physicists.”

Cold fusion itself represents a counter-example to what you are claiming. In 1989, before the evidence had been scrutinized, mainstream science went absolutely nuts for cold fusion. Some were skeptical from the start, but most didn't think P&F could have got fusion wrong, and so thousands rushed to the lab to get in on the revolution. Storms (in Science of LENR) gives a detailed account of the excitement and activity in the field in the weeks after the announcement. Here's Douglas Morrison, a highly qualified nuclear physicist, who would later become one of cold fusion's most effective skeptics, in the weeks after the P&F announcement:

"… I feel this subject will become so important to society that we must consider the broader implications as well as the scientific ones. Looking into a cloudy crystal ball, […] the present big power companies will be running down their oil and coal power stations while they are building deuterium separation plants and new power plants based on cold fusion. No new nuclear power stations will be built except for military needs…."

That doesn't really sound like science considering contrary ideas automatically kooky. It was only when the evidence didn't stand up to scrutiny, and mistakes were discovered, that scientists realized that P&F *were* capable of getting fusion wrong. And then the wheels fell off the wagon.

@Joshua Crude
You've made my point. You selected three examples that were immediately reproducible and a fourth that was not. Cold fusion got banished to the Siberia of science. But if the fire can be lit on command, then all will be forgiven and it will need to be reconciled with current theory. In the meantime ... who cares? Haters gotta hate. There is no point in arguing theory unless that discussion takes us closer to the goal of reproducibility. The rest is froth.

Discovery in science is a direct consequence of the advance in experimental equipment. Age old theories like the existence of gravitational waves and the Higgs particle were found through the construction or improvement in experimental equipment. Cold fusion is no different.

The probe sent to Pluto recently has shown that there is a tremendous amount of heat coming from the interior of Pluto and its small satellite; so much so, that the surface of Pluto is continually resurfaced by the eruption of ice from the interior of Pluto. Also there is a constant replenishment of the nitrogen atmosphere of Pluto from the interior.The standard causes given for planetary heat production in the core does not apply, that being heat from the sun, radioactive decay, and friction caused by tidal stretching. Furthermore, there is evidence that other smaller free standing bodies in the Kuiper belt sometimes called the Edgeworth–Kuiper belt, are at the far edge of the solar system are producing their own internal heat inside their cores. Although to date most KBOs still appear spectrally featureless due to their faintness, there have been a number of successes in determining their composition. In 1996, Robert H. Brown et al. obtained spectroscopic data on the KBO 1993 SC, revealing its surface composition to be markedly similar to that of Pluto, as well as Neptune's moon Triton, possessing large amounts of methane ice.Water ice has been detected in several the Kuiper belt objects (KBO)s, including 1996 TO66, 38628 Huya and 20000 Varuna. In 2004, Mike Brown et al. determined the existence of crystalline water ice and ammonia hydrateon one of the largest known KBOs, 50000 Quaoar. Both of these substances would have been destroyed over the age of the Solar System, suggesting that Quaoar had been recently resurfaced, either by unexplained internal tectonic activity or by meteorite impacts.

All this new observational evidence points to the existence of billions of years long chemical production of nuclear heat in a cold environment. Cold fusion exists without any doubt. LENR's proof of concept is establish without any doubt. It’s just a matter of finding how the production of cold nuclear energy works.

"I think equation guessing might be the best method to proceed to obtain the laws for the part of physics which is presently unknown. Yet, when I was much younger, I tried this equation guessing, and I have seen many students try this, but it is very easy to go off in wildly incorrect and impossible directions."
-Richard Feynman
...........................................
"It is impossible to contemplate the spectacle of the starry universe without wondering how it was formed: perhaps we ought to wait, and not look for a solution until have patiently assembled the elements … but if we were so reasonable, if we were curious without impatience, it is probable we would never have created Science and we would always have been content with a trivial existence. Thus the mind has imperiously laid claim to this solution long before it was ripe, even while perceived in only faint glimmers—allowing us to guess a solution rather than wait for it."
-Henri Poincaré
............................................
“Deviner avant de démontrer! Ai-je besoin de rappeler que c'est ainsi que se sont faites toutes les découvertes importantes?"
-Henri Poincaré
............................................

There are three schools of magic.
One: State a tautology, then ring the changes on its corollaries; that's philosophy.
Two: Record many facts. Try to find a pattern. Then make a wrong guess at the next fact; that's science.
Three: Be aware that you live in a malevolent Universe controlled by Murphy's Law, sometimes offset by Brewster's Factor; that's engineering.
-Anonymous

hendersonmj wrote:

Quote

You've made my point. You selected three examples that were immediately reproducible and a fourth that was not.

The point I responded to was "There was a time when observation preceded theory in physics. That period seems to have died in the last century. Today it seems theory must precede experimental observation or you are considered a kook out on the fringe."

In the examples I gave, observation led theory, in direct contradiction to your point.

Quote

Cold fusion got banished to the Siberia of science.

But it was first accepted enthusiastically. It was after the evidence was closely examined that it was banished. The difference between HTSC and cold fusion is the quality of the evidence.

Quote

But if the fire can be lit on command, then all will be forgiven and it will need to be reconciled with current theory.

Obviously. The same can be said about perpetual motion claims.