Robert E Godes: why Cold Fusion is so opposed by physicists

  • Bizarre arguments, Jed. So are you telling me that if Rossi or someone really had a tabletop device that could produce 10kW (at boiling water temperature, 100 degrees C) for six months on a thimble-full of inexpensive fuel with no radiation, that nobody would market it and nobody would buy it?


    I.H. would buy it and market it. But years ago, Toyota and others developed much smaller devices that could not be controlled, and therefore could not be marketed. In the end Toyota largely abandoned the effort. That was because of politics, as I said. They did not abandon it completely; they are still quietly working on it.


    Other companies did not look at these small cold fusion devices for the same reason you will not look at them. They do not practice the scientific method. They do not believe that replicated experiments are the standard of truth in science. They replace it with some other outlandish arbitrary standard, and they make up irrational excuses to deny reality. You do this, so you should not be surprised that other people also do it. We are living in an unscientific era. You epitomize this.


    History is full of discoveries that were ignored or abandoned or that lay fallow for decades, and were later made useful. If you are not aware of this I suggest you read books about the history of technology. A well known example is the incandescent vacuum lightbulb. It was invented and demonstrated by Moses Farmer and others in the 1850s, long before Edison made it into a practical device. People do not think or invent or solve problems today any faster than they did in 1850. I think it is a myth the progress has sped up.

  • Yeah right... a myth... how long did u think about this sentence before you wrote it down?
    It clearly depends on how you define progress but what makes you say that you have the feeling that progress didnt speed up (since the 1850)?

  • Yeah right... a myth... how long did u think about this sentence before you wrote it down?
    It clearly depends on how you define progress but what makes you say that you have the feeling that progress didnt speed up (since the 1850)?


    I don't necessarily agree with Jed's last sentence, but the gist of his post is spot on. The late 1800s and early 1900s encompassed an age of rapid advances the likes of which the world has not seen since. Minds were open, curious, and there existed little fear to apply the scientific processes and principals of discovery to all kinds of unknown or little-understood phenomena. Consequently, the remarkable advances were made possible, and were made. Reputation traps were much more muted or non-existent. Engineering was elevated to such a status that life-changing devices could be harnessed to alleviate sheer drudgery endured by the huddled masses. We could use more of this mentality today.

  • J

    I have to say, though, the Data General operating systems were far better than the microcomputer and IBM PC ones. I read that IBM asked Data General if they would like to sell their MicroNova operating system to IBM for use in the PC. It is a terrible shame Data General said no. PCs would have worked much better, with reliable multitasking early on, if they had said yes. Data General would still be in business. Microsoft might have been forgotten. That's counterfactual history . . . what might have been.


    If one sees that Unix / DG/UX is the direct precursor of Next (and hence OSX) and of Linux and all Android "open" operating systems .... then in some real sense the MicroNova system lives on (at least as a tag library) and now triumphs over the Kildahl-inspired and Gates marketed PC-Dos which still hobbles on within the whole Microsoft series of operating systems.

  • /* So are you telling me that if Rossi or someone really had a tabletop device that could produce 10kW (at boiling water temperature, 100 degrees C) for six months on a thimble-full of inexpensive fuel with no radiation, that nobody would market it and nobody would buy it? */


    It would, but as you can see, even the inventors of this technology don't hurry very much with its commercialization from various reasons (primarily because it's still too easy to embrace & extend this technology in its primitive state of development). And I don't even talk about legal and political threats connected with potential risks and abuse of cold fusion technology. My problem therefore rather is with ignorant attitude of mainstream science, which isn't expected to commercialize anything.

  • Quote

    Other companies did not look at these small cold fusion devices for the same reason you will not look at them. They do not practice the scientific method. They do not believe that replicated experiments are the standard of truth in science. They replace it with some other outlandish arbitrary standard, and they make up irrational excuses to deny reality. You do this, so you should not be surprised that other people also do it. We are living in an unscientific era. You epitomize this.


    Complete nonsense. All I ask is for high power (in the 25 to >100W range), high COP (>6 arbitrarily) and *proper* replication by *credible* entities. Without those, I don't say it doesn't exist, I say you and I don't KNOW it exists because it could be (easily) measurement artifact and you would not know the difference. I also object to point temperature measurements (isoperibolic calorimetry) because this is not "real" calorimetry-- it is highly prone to errors, for example from changes in local heat transfer with changing experimental conditions. Real calorimetry is mass flow (for example Giancarlo's devices which Rossi could/should have used for the hot cats) or envelope type, for example the Seebeck Effect devices. Also the special case of sparging steam if steam is the output.


    So once more: want to be believed? All you have to do is provide relatively high power and proper replication by a credible entity. That is hardly irrational, matches your claims but not your ability to deliver-- you can not provide it. No wonder you're sore about it and call me names like irrational and unscientific. I am neither but I suspect most believers in LENR are. For example, you, McKubre, Swartz, Miley, Storms, etc. etc.

  • Complete nonsense. All I ask is for high power (in the 25 to >100W range), high COP (>6 arbitrarily) and *proper* replication by *credible* entities. Without those, I don't say it doesn't exist,


    You have no rational reason to say it does not exist. You have set an arbitrary power level. The first detection of fission in radium was a small fraction of a watt, and the first fission reactor in Chicago was 0.5 W. As long as the power can be measured with confidence there is no reason to reject the measurement based on a number you pull out of a hat.


    As for credible entities, 180 laboratories such as Los Alamos, China Lake and Toyota are as credible as any laboratory can be. You are the one who is not credible when you reject them.

  • Mary Yugo . I believe in LENR. But I share some of your sceptiscm. If I disagree I do appreciate your sincerity. We all need critics. So keep it up please!


    We are all too aware of the field's unscientific and irrational self appointed protagonists. Some of them were once respected scientists, now retired. It's sad to see these heroes suffer from "a hardening of the arteries" (as one professor put it). I would like to see a new generation of scientists grow up to take their place.but I see little sign for optimism. :(


    What I would say is simply this. Rates of reactions whether chemical or nuclear vary by hundreds of orders of magnitude. If CF were real why is it that the excess heat is almost ALWAYS within an order of magnitude of the input energy? How do we explain that in every embodiment of an over unity device we have this strange coincidence? This correlation is good evidence for artifact.


    I agree with Jed that the fission of radium produced a fraction of a watt and that was and is convincing. But convincing only because there was no input energy. Infinite COP. This is what needs to be demonstrated with CF too. For a demo we would not need any calorimetry or other distracting instrumentation. Fraud or error would be rather difficult even in the hands of someone without scientific training.


    Of course the self sustaining device needs to last for a reasonable time - months rather than minutes to ensure there was no energy storage. And yes, proper independent validation following a written recipe by credible entities.


    Of course, proper calorimetry might prove useful to correlate with fuel / ashes for scientific purposes. The requirements of science are quite different from the requirements for demonstration.


    The sporadic reports of self sustaining devices indicates there might be hope. But if after 27 years of effort nobody has a reproducible recipe, I begin to doubt. I think many are beginning to doubt.

  • Mary I am skeptical of Rossi but not LENR. It's not bad thing being a skeptic (it's what keeps all of us alive). But what I see happening is that we are getting lost in the arguments. Then like the species that we are, we begin to argue minutia until its not about numeric logic but about belief systems and the lovely words people craft around them that are used for arguments. Once folks are comfortable in there belief systems they come to a "happy spot" where they rest their mindset,and it becomes very hard to move them from it. So be skeptical but remain flexible. Calling anyone out will get your voiced silenced again. Look at it this way if you remain flexible you will find it easier to move them.
    Look at what Jed has to offer on the database.

  • As long as the power can be measured with confidence there is no reason to reject the measurement based on a number you pull out of a hat.


    To put it in somewhat more technical terms: Most researchers measured excess heat ranging from 0.5 to 5 W. Many at around 3 to 5 W. With any calorimeter made since 1780 (Laviosier and Laplace) you can measure 3 to 5 W with as much confidence as 100 W. The signal to noise ratio is about as good. There is no technical or logical justification for demanding 100 W.


    Laviosier measured the metabolism of guinea pigs, which is roughly 1.2 W. * He measured it repeatedly with good reproducibility, and resolution of about ~0.1 W. That's my translation of his units, which were actually the weight of melted ice. Modern thermodynamic theory did not exist, but Laviosier had a good grasp of heat and a superb grasp of instrument ranges, errors and so on.


    In the 1840s, J.P. Joule made isoperibolic calorimeters with his own superb thermometers that registered to the nearest 0.05 deg F. That rivals expensive modern instruments. His calorimeters and techniques were as good as modern ones. He could have measured 3 to 5 W in his sleep, with absolute confidence. (In his sleep, or during his honeymoon, when he measured the heat added to a stream from a waterfall.)


    Yugo's claim that isoperibolic calorimetery is not reliable is ludicrous.



    * Correction: I originally wrote that guinea pig metabolism is 0.5 W. That's for mice or small birds. Adult guinea pigs are around 1.2 W according to J.H. Brown, "Scaling in Biology" p. 88. Note that Laviosier and Laplace also confirmed CO2 production and showed that the mass of CO2 from metabolism was similar to combustion, so the two processes are fundamentally the same. 18th century scientists understood a lot more about physics than people realize. A lot more than Mary Yugo and other modern "skeptics" understand. I am pretty sure Laviosier would have no difficulty understanding that cold fusion is not a chemical reaction.

  • The sporadic reports of self sustaining devices indicates there might be hope. But if after 27 years of effort nobody has a reproducible recipe, I begin to doubt.


    People do have reproducible recipes. See p. 5:


    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJlessonsfro.pdf


    It is not easy to follow these recipes. You have to be an expert electrochemist. This is true for any technical discipline. Heart surgeons have reliable recipes for heart-transplants, but you have to be an expert to follow the recipe.


    These techniques are manual, and time consuming. You have to devote a year or two to making them work, unless you have millions of dollars of robotic equipment, or a dozen grad students working overtime. It is kind of like building a house by yourself without power tools.


    Reproducibility overall is far higher than it was in 1989. You should not make assertions such as "nobody has a reproducible recipe" without first reading the literature carefully. You sound like Mary Yugo claiming that isoperibolic calorimetry does not work, even though it has worked since 1840, or that she has some magical invisible reason for demanding 100 W instead of 5 W. You can't just make stuff up and claim it is true. That is not how science works.

  • Quote

    You have no rational reason to say it does not exist. You have set an arbitrary power level.

    I don't recall saying something DOES NOT EXIST. I said low power claims, to my view, are too hard to evaluate. In fact, far from saying LENR doesn't exist, I said I don't know if it does and at low levels I am not interested in any case.


    And I set the level of power I'd like to see several orders of magnitude below Defkalion and Rossi, whom most believers embraced. It's also below or around the claims from Toyota which you recently linked to. So, I'd hardly agree that it's all that arbitrary. It's also at a level where you don't need subtle instrumentation and calibration methods and in the range where heat flow is measured in straightforward methods such as Seebeck Effect heat flux transducers and calorimeters. The range is also convenient for mass flow calorimetry and even steam sparging and minimal insulation and caution are needed. So no, not arbitrary at all. I chose a minimum level of power compatible with eliminating easily most measurement errors leaving only fraud to be searched for.


    Finally, I'd not discourage investigators from doing clean research at much lower levels but then I want to see razor sharp calibrations, long runs, minimal mass in the calorimeters and top quality methods and instruments. But mainly, I am personally not interested at the low levels. It's too complex and convoluted for me. Again, I am not discouraging others from doing it. I simply am not interested in it. Similarly I know little about muon-catalyzed fusion and for the moment, don't much care.


    Once again, what brought me to Sniffex, Steorn, Defkalion, Rossi and others were the EXTRAVAGANT and FLORID claims which should have been extremely easy to prove and demonstrate and of course were not. It seems that the same will apply to BLP and also Brillouin though neither has yet revealed enough to make a firm judgment. Absent the incredible claims, Rossi might have continued his deception longer. Defkalion and Steorn also. My interest was to try to understand how so many apparently smart people (and a lot of uneducated and poorly thinking ones as well) are so easily bamboozled by obvious f_ds like Rossi!


    In the alternative, this would also be convincing if replicated by reliable and credible entities:


    Hermes:

    Quote

    I agree with Jed that the fission of radium produced a fraction of a watt and that was and is convincing. But convincing only because there was no input energy. Infinite COP. This is what needs to be demonstrated with CF too. For a demo we would not need any calorimetry or other distracting instrumentation. Fraud or error would be rather difficult even in the hands of someone without scientific training.Of course the self sustaining device needs to last for a reasonable time - months rather than minutes to ensure there was no energy storage. And yes, proper independent validation following a written recipe by credible entities.

    There is more than one way to skin a cat. Or to cheat and lie with one.


    Jed:

    Quote

    Yugo's claim that isoperibolic calorimetery is not reliable is ludicrous.


    Again Jed encourages me to be more precise. The claim is that isoperibolic calorimetry is not reliable when employed to evaluate claims for low power outputs given appreciable power inputs in complex things like electrolytic cells or involving very reactive constituents such as nickel and hydrogen. I know he won't agree with that either but, hey, it's my view. I don't know electrochemistry but I do know calorimetry and it's pretty demanding to do right at low levels of power and within complicated apparatus running inside the calorimeter.

  • I set it several orders of magnitude below Defkalion and Rossi, whom most believers embraced.


    Whether they believed or not is irrelevant. That does not give you any technical, science-based justification to select 100 W.


    It's also below or around the claims from Toyota which you recently linked to. So, I'd hardly agree that it's all that arbitrary.


    You fail to understand the concept of "arbitrary" in a scientific context. This is arbitrary because it has no relationship to the signal to noise ratio, to the ease of measurement, the confidence level, or any other experimental metric. There is no technical justification for setting this standard. You set it only as a way to exclude most findings. If most researchers had measured 100 W, you would demand 200 W. If most had measured 200 W, you would demand 1000 W. You are moving the goalposts to give yourself a phony reason to dismiss the facts. You have moved the goalposts off the playing field, out of the stadium, and into the next county. There is no end to these absurd evasions of yours.


    Your claim that the research institutions are not "legitimate" is the same kind of arbitrary nonsense. For no reason, you declare SRI is not legitimate enough. I point to results from Los Alamos, China Lake or Toyota and suddenly -- for no reason -- you declare they are not legitimate enough. I could list a hundred more, or 180 more, but you would keep moving the goalposts. To your great surprise, you would keep discovering that these places just are not legitimate enough. Gadzooks! Who knew? No institution will ever be good enough for you. No experiment will ever satisfy your exacting standards. Exacting yet undefined, because you have not actually read any papers, you have no idea what the researchers did, and you have never given any reason to doubt the results. You know in your heart they must be wrong, and that faith is enough! You know that isoperibolic calorimetry does not work because . . . you just know! You are practicing a sort of perverse religion. You hope you are right, and that magically makes you right, and to hell with evidence, numbers, temperatures, 180-year-old settled science. For you, faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

  • The claim is that isoperibolic calorimetry is not reliable when employed to evaluate claims for low power outputs given appreciable power inputs in complex things like electrolytic cells or involving very reactive constituents such as nickel and hydrogen. I know he won't agree with that either but, hey, it's my view.


    Oh and "your view" magically overrides what every professional electrochemist knows to be true. Quite a powerful view you have there. You know that Fleischmann, Bockris, Mizuno, McKubre and hundreds of others with PhDs and decades of experience are wrong, the textbooks are wrong, the calorimetry performed for ordinary electrochistry for the last 180 years is all wrong, and you are right, because . . . because that's your view.


    Oh wait, you may agree that the conventional heat of formation numbers in the textbooks for electrochemistry are right. Never mind that Fleischmann and Bockris literally wrote those textbooks. They were right when you agreed with them, but wrong when you disagreed, even though you have not actually read their papers. "Your view" is the ultimate, be-all, indisputable standard by which all claims must be judged. Settled science since 1840? WRONG! Isoperibolic calorimetry applied to electrochemistry? WRONG! (Unless it gives a conventional answer.) Anything Mary Yugo disagrees with? WRONG! The experts are wrong. All of them. Hundreds of them, in thousands of replicated experiments. WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. No reason given, and no reason is needed. They are just wrong, because that's your view.

  • Well, last I looked, most professional electrochemists don't embrace the reality of LENR. So you've hoisted yourself on your own petard, as the expression goes.


    I just noticed Alan Smith said to back off... so I suppose from here on, Jed is the only person entitled to voice his views about these issues.

  • Let me reiterate what is going on here. Imagine that for the past 20 years, Mary Yugo, Shanahan and others were going around posting messages at textbook reviews on Amazon and at the electrochemical society saying: "The heat of formation listed in textbooks for electrochemical reactions are wrong! The techniques don't work. The instruments are unreliable."


    Everyone would say these people are crackpots. No one would take them seriously.


    What they are actually saying is that the heat from cold fusion is wrong. Yet this heat is measured the same way as chemical heat is. It is measured by the same researchers who wrote the textbooks. People such as Fleischmann, FRS and President of the Electrochemical Society, and Yeager, who they named the institute after:


    http://chemistry.case.edu/department/research/yces/


    Yeager et al. used the same instruments and techniques to measure cold fusion heat as they have been using for the last 140 years to establish the chemical heat of formation for electrochemical reactions. Yet for various ethereal reasons known only to crackpots with their magical "views," these techniques work for chemistry but not for cold fusion.


    This is not scientific, to say the least.

  • Well, last I looked, most professional electrochemists don't embrace the reality of LENR.


    That's because you have not looked. Around 1995, most of the world's top echelon of electrochemists had successfully replicated cold fusion.


    I should add that every electrochemist in the world in 1995 knew who Fleischmann, Bockris, Yeager and the others top echelon were. I doubt many of them would categorically reject experiments published by these people. They may have reserved judgement but I doubt they said, "it can't be true!" (There are not many electrochemists. I have probably met a large fraction of them.)


    Also, the ones who have not read the literature don't count. They have no basis for believing or not believing.

  • Ah I see. Electrochemist, noun, definition: a scientist who has read the LENR literature, believes in LENR and has replicated cold fusion.


    If you name electrochemists who have "replicated cold fusion" it will be a list of "the usual suspects".

  • If you name electrochemists who have "replicated cold fusion" it will be a list of "the usual suspects".


    No, it will be most of the top people in the field. You know, the people who wrote the textbooks, were elected Fellows of the Royal Society, and the people they named laboratories, buildings and academic medals after. Yeager, Arata . . . You call them "suspects." In academic science they are known as the elite, top, most respected, authoritative experts. Crackpots such as you often think you know better than experts when in fact you know nothing. You haven't even read the papers you are pontificating about.


    One of the many odd things about cold fusion is that the people who replicated it and proved it are mainstream respected scientists, and the people who denounced it then and now were mainly ignorant crackpots. Yet the mass media and the public perception has it the other way around. This is what happens when people read nothing and know nothing about history or science. They say whatever pops into their heads, and others in the echo chamber believe them and repeat the nonsense. Mary Yugo refers to distinguished scientists she has never heard of as "the usual suspects." Others simply assume she is right. No fact checking or knowledge is needed. Whatever your "view" is, it must be right. That's the Internet! The entire Wikipedia article on cold fusion is a compendium on this kind of fact-free nonsense. When I last checked, no actual information was included in it. The whole thing might have been authored by Mary Yugo. Every substantive assertion was either impossible or contrary to the facts. That's the modern era for you, featuring anti-vaccination crackpots, science denial, and Donald J. Trump.

  • Well, last I looked, most professional electrochemists don't embrace the reality of LENR. So you've hoisted yourself on your own petard, as the expression goes.


    I just noticed Alan Smith said to back off... so I suppose from here on, Jed is the only person entitled to voice his views about these issues.


    You must be lucky MY: Nobody is talking with real Pokemons...


    Bdw.: Did You at least read the first two sentences of the proposed papers..?

  • I said low power claims, to my view, are too hard to evaluate.


    Since you have not evaluated them, or even read them, how the hell would you know? Where did you get that information from? I'll tell you where: you made it up. You pulled it out of . . . thin air. If you would read textbooks on electrochemistry or calorimetry, or talk to experts in those fields, you would know that measuring 3 to 5 W is no harder to evaluate than 100 W, or 1000 W for that matter.


    And yes, I have read textbooks, and yes I have talked to a significant fraction of the world's electrochemists and experts in calorimetry. I know what I am talking about, and you don't. I suggest you stop making a fool of yourself and do some homework. Learn something about the subject before spouting off. You sound like Randy from Boise in Wikipedia:


    http://www.wired.com/2006/04/the-wikipedia-faqk/

  • Oh, OK, Jed. Then I guess there are no problems with cold fusion and LENR except the silly prejudices of a few cranks and fools like me. So I guess I will see my next space heater powered by LENR and available in Home Depots, and courses in LENR will be taught in all the major university physics departments ... S∞N.

  • Then I guess there are no problems with cold fusion and LENR except the silly prejudices of a few cranks and fools like me.


    Don't be asinine. I have gone to a lot of trouble to bring you actual scientific information from distinguished scientists about this subject. Do not mock the researchers -- or me -- with this sort of appeal to ridicule logical fallacy. If you are not willing to make an effort to learn about this subject, admit you are lazy and ignorant, stop wasting our time, and shut up.


    There is no area of science or technology without problems. I have pointed many of the problems in cold fusion.


    It isn't a few cranks like you who oppose the scientific method. It is a large group. The whole darn Republican Party is a war with science and rationality these days. You -- and they -- attack researchers they have never heard of, regarding subjects they know nothing about. You assume that you know more than the experts. Such arrogance! You invent countless unfounded assertions such as how much more difficult it is to evaluate 5 W compared to 100 W. Unfortunately, other ignorant people think you know you are talking about, so you end up spreading nonsense, confusion and misunderstandings. You should be ashamed of yourself. If you know nothing about a subject and you are too lazy to learn, say nothing.

  • Oh, OK, Jed. Then I guess there are no problems with cold fusion and LENR except the silly prejudices of a few cranks and fools like me. So I guess I will see my next space heater powered by LENR and available in Home Depots, and courses in LENR will be taught in all the major university physics departments ... S∞N.

    This is standard pseudoskeptical rant. a straw man argument.


    Rothwell is not predicting your "next space heater powered by LENR." I do predict LENR will be taught in major universities, within a few years. What department, though, is unclear. The field is an experimental one, and theory of mechanism remains a mystery. Physics or Chemistry?


    What this will take is not what Storms thinks, a new theory. It will take a breakthrough paper that establishes the reality of the FP Heat Effect beyond doubt, and the correlated helium. Then the full resources of the mainstream will be brought to bear on the problem of theory, as far more evidence is found, such as low-energy-photon spectra or more detailed work on stimulation at THz phonon frequencies.


    The heat/helium correlation has already been reported, published under peer review, confirmed by about a dozen research groups, and there is a current joint project of Texas Tech (Duncan and Scarborough), ENEA (Violante), with the collaboration of McKubre (formerly of SRI), to confirm this with increased precision.


    The correlation is already easily enough to establish a strong preponderance-of-the-evidence conclusion. The heat is real, connected with elemental transmutation generating de novo helium. This is not any longer in reasonable doubt.


    Yes, "Mary," and someone who would use a female pseudonym for many years as a pseudoskeptical commentator on cold fusion, apparently not learning anything, qualifies as a "crank." While pseudoskepticism -- more like ignorance -- is still quite common, people dedicating themselves to it have become rare.


    (Skepticism was natural, "fusion" was highly unlikely under FP conditions. But the reaction may not be fusion. We do not know what it is.)


    What has been appearing more recently is genuine skepticism, that is actively investigating and studying, a sign that the field is maturing.


    Artifact is common in reported heat at low levels, and even some reported at higher levels. Jed is correct, though, that calorimetry, handled by experts, can be quite accurate. The resolution of the Pons and Fleischmann work was in the milliwatt range, as I recall. SRI used a more first-principle approach, designed to be bulletproof, at about 50 mW resolution.


    In the Energetic Technologies replication, SRI considered heat at about 5% of input energy to be significant. SRI also apparently reported all runs, so the "file drawer effect" can be set aside (unfortunately, ENEA's part of that collaboration only reported positive results, a common error, my opinion, in cold fusion work, for obvious reasons). Some cells had far, far higher than 5% XE.


    Jed's focus has long been calorimetry. The problem with calorimetry is that it is a single-measure, and could be vulnerable to some systemic artifact, as Shanahan claims. Contrary to what is sometimes written about Shanahan, he is claiming a heat anomaly of some kind. I.e, a prosaic explanation, and this would not be random in direction, but would be erratic. Where Shanahan goes off the rails is in imagining that if heat can be artifact or prosaic, and if helium can be artifact or prosaic, therefore the correlation can be the same. The correlation shows common causation, and because "heat" is not "temperature," what would be the common cause?


    In the absence of a plausible alternative hypothesis consistent with the experimental conditions -- and I have seen none -- the default conclusion is clear. The effect is real and nuclear in nature.


    And calorimetry is still the basic way that the effect is detected, because there is, so far, no other confirmed and correlated result, helium being very difficult to measure at the low levels involved.

  • /* In the absence of a plausible alternative hypothesis consistent with the experimental conditions -- and I have seen none -- */


    We discussed this theory here recently and many other theories exist [links to LENR theory pages]

    Those are nuclear reaction theories, not theories of how helium could be correlated with heat absent a nuclear reaction. The "hypothesis" is that the correlation of heat and helium are due to a nuclear reaction. (Not necessarily "fusion.") An alternative hypothesis would be something like, say, the tiny recombination explosions theorized by Shanahan cause vibrations that will cause leakage of atmospheric helium into the cell.


    If anyone wants to seriously argue that theory, we could look at it. In short, it is preposterous, due to many failures to match experimental conditions and what is known, and, then, the maintained closeness of the ratio to the theoretical deuterium fusion ratio across many different experimental conditions and setups would be an astonishing coincidence. Huizenga thought it was amazing at an order-of-magnitude similarity. It's quite a bit better than that.