The Industrial Heat Answer

    Quote

    You are missing the point. First of all the historic experiments were already/usually done "properly". By pretending they were not, without evidence, simply casts inappropriate doubt on the pioneers. I have explained in detail why many are not convinced by Heat/4He.


    You are making two assertions here that may be untrue (seem untrue to me at the moment).


    I've documented above why the He/excess heat evidence from historic experiments mostly has holes, and you have not yet addressed my two points. Abd pointed me towards Apicella which on inspection is not "done properly" for He, nor does it claim to be that saying the results are preliminary.


    as for why people are not convinced by the evidence my default position, based on what I've seen, is that for evidence to be convincing it must be strong. The nature of LENR is that you would expect strong evidence from:

    • transmutation
    • excess heat
    • (I leave out radiation though much could be said about it)


    The quoted evidence in these three categories is weak. If the noted marginal phenomena are LENR, a slightly different experiment would provide strong evidence. For a good example He evidence reported from low excess heat setups would, given the documented much higher excess heat setups that LENR research claims, be much easier to detect with no ambiguity. He higher than ambient is very difficult to explain (as long as you are careful about what is ambient, given potential large spatial and temporal variations in labs).


    If the evidence were intrinsically difficult to obtain this would not be the case. But, for He, it must be quite easy to obtain if the LENR hypothesis holds, with the added benefit of clear theoretical tie-in. If, however, there is no such transmutation and the claimed correlations are artifactual, a better experiment will not produce the expected clear-cut results, maybe it will produce different marginal anomalies, but not what would prove the He hypothesis.


    So I find this phenomenon attractive because better experimentation can resolve the matter both ways. We have, unusually for LENR, a tentative hypothesis which can be proved or disproved by further experiment. That makes it science rather than pseudo-science. I welcome all such framing of hypotheses into testable form.


    Quote from Hermes

    If people "outside the LENR field" find the production helium unconvincing then please explain how repetition would help? It will cost millions to repeat, yet still remain unconvincing. We already know that the Q/4He ratio is about 30-40 MeV. If that is not convincing why would exactly 23.8 MeV be more so? No theory predicts 23.8 MeV. Nobody expects it (except a few non scientists).


    The issue is not the precision of the ratio. It is whether the evidence for transmutation (production of He) is bomb-proof. If the historic results are real, as some LENR people who have studies them believe, a better experiment now will be able to produce incontrovertible evidence. If a better experiment produces null He results that also is informative, it shows that this claimed LENR reaction is not happening.


    Regards, THH

    Quote from THHuxley

    So I find this phenomenon attractive because better experimentation can resolve the matter both ways. We have, unusually for LENR, a tentative hypothesis which can be proved or disproved by further experiment. That makes it science rather than pseudo-science. I welcome all such framing of hypotheses into testable form.


    To add as a note, if one is to proceed to further test the 4He business, it is important to be keep in mind that there are multiple explanations, some unrelated to fusion, that predict helium. Ruling out a particular explanation (to the extent that this is possible to do with a small number of experiments), then, will not necessarily impugn the remaining ones.

    Quote from Eric Walker

    Quote from THHuxley: “So I find this phenomenon attractive because better experimentation can resolve the matter both ways. We have, unusually for LENR, a tentative hypothesis which can be proved or disproved by further experiment. That makes it…


    That is very true Eric. The merit of this phenomena is that there is a quantitative prediction for the amount of He available. This has two effects:
    (1) by altering conditions that amount can be made larger and above any alternate explanation
    (2) by null observation of He there is an LENR hypothesis which has been disproved.


    Either way, we have some scientific progress for the LENR field

    Quote from IH Fanboy

    So you're going to stick to your story that Murray wrote Exhibit 5?


    Yes, I am sure he did. Also, that is what I.H. said in the Answer, in Item 78:


    Quote

    Indeed, when Murray eventually gained access to the Plant in February 2016 and examined the Plant, the methodology being used to operate the Plant, and the methodology being used to measure those operations, he immediately recognized that those methodologies were fatally flawed. Some of the flaws that he was quickly able to identify are explained in Exhibit 5.


    You're sure are you? You know quite well that when someone states a thing with such surety, that there is usually some doubt right beneath the surface.


    And look at what Jones Day attorney said in the answer. They avoided (probably purposely) saying that Murray wrote Exhibit 5! Why? Because he probably didn't write it! It is pretty clear based on the language used that the author of Exhibit 5 is a lawyer. Where is Murray's name on the document itself? Where is the email metadata? No sign of Murray's name on the document. Not even a mention of Industrial Heat!


    Now, I'm not saying this document wasn't based on Murray's thoughts. Most likely it is. But I suggest that you take a step back and evaluate some of the hard and fast positions that you sometimes take, because I think when viewed in light of the evidence before our very eyes, if you maintain a certain stance that is contrary to what we all see, it damages your standing and reputation in the community. You have evolved into a person with knee-jerk reactions that immediately fall into line with IH's story line, despite what is pointed out to you plain as day. You clearly have significant influence on those of this forum and on the wider LENR community. Be careful with that influence. It can be used productively or not.

    Quote

    Now, I'm not saying this document wasn't based on Murray's thoughts. Most likely it is. But I suggest that you take a step back and evaluate some of the hard and fast positions that you sometimes take, because I think when viewed in light of the evidence before our very eyes, if you maintain a certain stance that is contrary to what we all see, it damages your standing and reputation in the community. You have evolved into a person with knee-jerk reactions that immediately fall into line with IH's story line, despite what is pointed out to you plain as day. You clearly have significant influence on those of this forum and on the wider LENR community. Be careful with that influence. It can be used productively or not.


    Whether this document is verbatim what was asked of Penon I'm not sure, there is wiggle-room. But it is undoubtedly what IH will argue in Court and therefore they will have evidence to support this exemplary issue.


    It seems to me that in this debate continually trying to find ways in which IH could be acting improperly is actually spreading Uncertainty and Doubt (not so sure about Fear). Now, I'm not criticising you for that, just saying that it seems an overblown exercise and a more straightforward reading would give IH a good case based on what we now have (which of course is very partial) and the expectation of more in Discovery.

    Quote from THHuxley

    it seems an overblown exercise


    It might be, you are right. But I'll say this: I'm in this to get to the bottom of what is happening. And I don't appreciate the cavalierness with facts--especially when some espouse certain views loudly and publicly that are full of logical fallacies. I am a fence-sitter. I want to know the truth. I don't give one iota whether IH or Rossi are saints or sinners. I want to know whether there exists a LENR+ solution for the world. And if there exists one, I want to expose those who are attempting to inhibit the proliferation of it. Lots of "ifs" in my statements, because I don't know for sure. I have my leanings, and my hunches. But the banter you see from me on this forum is for one purpose and one purpose only: to uncover the truth of the matter.

    Quote from THHuxley

    So I find this phenomenon attractive because better experimentation can resolve the matter both ways. We have, unusually for LENR, a tentative hypothesis which can be proved or disproved by further experiment. That makes it science rather than pseudo-science. I welcome all such framing of hypotheses into testable form.


    Yes. I find it fun when endless arguments are reduced to claims that can be tested. I found heat/helium attractive for the same reason, back in 2009 when I first discovered the issue was still alive. Huizenga, the more-or-less-king-of-the-skeptics, was a real skeptic, quite open about why he thought what he thought. He recognized the importance of heat/helium. He simply believed that it would not be confirmed, because no gammas. He was obviously stuck on d-d fusion, and that's understandable. After all, if the fuel is deuterium and the product is helium, isn't it obviously d-d fusion? But it's not, and, in fact, d-d fusion -> helium has lots of reasons to be impossible, the whole triple miracle thing.


    The error was then in rejecting the experimental result because the explanation was mysterious and seemed impossible. But something unexpected was happening. That's obvious by now. We still do not know what it is, though, as Stomrs has written, there are "plausible theories." What that means is that there are theories where sane people who understand physics don't fall over laughing. At least some don't. Some might. Multibody fusion? Ha ha ha ha ha!


    But the thinking behind that neglects that condensed matter conditions are very different from plasma, and it's an experimental finding that 3-body hot fusion reactions are enhanced in condensed matter. Takahashi found an enhancement of 10^26. Hence Kim's theory and Takahashi's theory and I've been trying to figure out how to get the two of them to actually talk to each other.


    Cold fusion is a very weird field. That is likely a side effect of the rejection cascade. Most people pulled their heads into their shells, it was not easy to continue, careers were at stake, etc.


    Quote


    No. What we know is that the measured ratio is roughly that, in FPHE experiments where the outgas is measured. However, in two experiments, unusual measures were taken to recover all the helium. As I found, this was mostly accidental, what seems to have worked was anodic erosion, something done sometimes to clean up a cathode and try to stimulate heat production. So with Apicella et al, it was done with the lowest-performing cathode. With SRI M-4, McKubre was attempting to "flush" helium out -- probably doomed, helium is tenacious and known not to be affected by loading and deloading, and, as part of that, to encourage rapid deloading, there was anodic reversal.


    Those two results are essentially on the money for being within experimental error of 23.8 MeV/4He. With M4, the stated precision is +/- 10%. With Apicella et al, Laser-3, it is roughly +/- 20%. It would be much better precision if the higher heat results had been treated this way. This then leads to an obvious avenue for further research. Most commenting on this had thought that it would be necessary to melt the cathodes to get the helium. Apparently not. Apparently the helium is trapped in a narrow region near the surface (as it would be if generated by a surface effect).


    Quote

    The issue is not the precision of the ratio. It is whether the evidence for transmutation (production of He) is bomb-proof.


    "Bomb-proof is overstating the matter. What's the preponderance of the evidence? I am not looking for some final answer, but for guidance for further research, such that further research is likely to produce results worth the effort.


    Quote

    If the historic results are real, as some LENR people who have studies them believe, a better experiment now will be able to produce incontrovertible evidence. If a better experiment produces null He results that also is informative, it shows that this claimed LENR reaction is not happening.


    Yes. And this is exactly the proposal. Null results, given the extensive confirmation, are quite unlikely, but, of course, possible. The experiment is presented as measuring the correlation, but that would clearly fail if there is no correlation. It would also be very unlikely to come up with the "magic value" if there were no common cause of a fusion effect. Huizenga was amazed by the measurements coming with in an order of magnitude in the first report.


    (to be continued)

    @THHuxley


    There is little doubt that we live in a universe of uncertainty. So we assign probabilities to everything (either consciously or otherwise). So I do get what you are saying. And what fascinates me about this episode (since 2011) is that I have not yet been able to discern one probability being significantly greater than the other. And as I'm sure you have as well, it is not for lack of attention to the details. For whatever reason, there are plumes of misdirection all over the place in this tempest. What may seem to be one thing one day, shifts to something entirely different the next, based on a small piece of new information. And so, we shall continue this path together until either of us becomes bored, I suppose.

    Quote

    Cold fusion is a very weird field. That is likely a side effect of the rejection cascade. Most people pulled their heads into their shells, it was not easy to continue, careers were at stake, etc.


    I agree about the weirdness. it is fun. But I'd caution that LENR borders on pseudo-science, and it requires care to distinguish weirdness for the reason you suggest or some other, from weirdness due to pseudo-science.

    (continued)
    Here:
    http://www.iccf19.com/_system/…ster/AP52_Scarborough.pdf


    I have been told that this work has been fully funded.


    Returning to one statement:


    Quote

    We already know that the Q/4He ratio is about 30-40 MeV. If that is not convincing why would exactly 23.8 MeV be more so? No theory predicts 23.8 MeV.


    If deuterium is being converted to helium, by whatever mechanism, and if there is no significant radiation leakage or other ash, so the energy is entirely converted to heat, the laws of thermodynamics require
    23.8 MeV. No other products have been identified that are correlated with heat, above a million times or more down from helium. No significant radiation escape is known, i.e., if there is radiation, it appears to be entirely absorbed internally to the experiments.


    Alpha radiation would be absorbed. We know -- the "Hagelstein limit" -- that there is no charged particle radiation above about 20 keV. Definitely, any CP radiation would be absorbed, then. The expected 23.8 MeV gamma from ordinary d+d -> 4He fusion would mostly escape, and would not only be readily detectable, to produce the observed heat, the radiation would be deadly. It's not seen. Fast Neutrons would escape (likewise be deadly) but they are a million million times down from helium, and not correlated with heat, either. (Slow neutrons would create transmutations that are not seen at relevant levels).


    If neutrinos are generated, these would not have been detected, so there is possible energy leakage there. As mentioned, the exact value of the ratio is not known, there is only one experiment that takes this to within 10%. That's weak. Hence we want to know the ratio to better precision, and it's gravy if this generates buzz and a wider understanding of the reality of the effect. Notice the plan: multiple experiments, multiple institutions. McKubre and Violante have already done this work. Duncan is highly reputable as a physicist, and Scarborough is his grad student. She's new and we wish her all success. She has the opportunity of a century here.


    So the prediction of 23.8 Mev/4He is actually quite simple, following from the known experimental conditions and basic principles of physics.

    Quote from THHuxley

    it requires care to distinguish weirdness for the reason you suggest or some other, from weirdness due to pseudo-science.


    Of course. The rejection cascade was pseudo-science, itself, and it created some level of pseudoscience as a response. This whole sequence is fascinating as to the sociology of science involved, and it has already been studied with respect to that, see Undead Science, and there is a great essay on Pathological Science by Bauer, in which he points out that Pathological science isn't pathological (generally, as to the examples cited -- vis. cold fusion, N-rays, and polywater, but simple, in the case of N-rays and polywater, errors, and errors are part of the process of science. Rejection of supposed error out of hand because it contradicts existing ideas is pseudoskepticism. Ordinary skepticism simply does not accept, postponing judgment. Making funding decisions is not necessarily pseudoskeptical. One of the really weird and frustrating things about cold fusion is that both U.S. DoE reviews actually recommended research, but this was then converted by pseudoskeptics in to rejection as if it were bogus and pseudoscientific. This history drove some people buggy.


    We are seeing blind belief on Planet Rossi, obviously. The scientists in the field have almost entirely rejected the Rossi claims, once the lawsuit was filed. Before then, it looked like an independent organization (Industrial Heat) was confirming the Rossi Effect. Rossi's filing exploded, then, the only somewhat-independent confirmation.

    As if there was not tons and tons of information on which to impeach and doubt Rossi before the lawsuit? Starting with his felonious past, his failed projects (Petroldragon and thermoelectric) and complete lack of success at anything provable or verifiable? As if all his lies about isotopes on the cheap, customers and sales galore, and robotic factories were not enough? As if all the defective tests, lack of calibrations, and lack of replication or verification were not enough? What do you need for him to do before you can assume he's guilty? Rape someone on the courthouse steps during a political rally?

    Not sure who you directed to this to, but I'll provide you with a response, if that will lighten up your day.


    Quote from Mary Yugo

    As if there was not tons and tons of information on which to impeach and doubt Rossi before the lawsuit?


    Yada yada. Boring. As if this has never been discussed before.


    Quote from Mary Yugo


    Starting with his felonious past, his failed projects (Petroldragon and thermoelectric) and complete lack of success at anything provable or verifiable?


    By many accounts, he had tons of success. Which is why he was taken down.


    Quote from Mary Yugo


    As if all his lies about isotopes on the cheap


    Have no idea what you are referring to here. Care to expound?


    Quote from Mary Yugo


    , customers and sales galore,


    He's mentioned a few over the years. Some fell through. Galore?


    Quote from Mary Yugo


    and robotic factories were not enough?


    It was his intention (and probably still is) to use robots in a factory. Who wouldn't these days? I never got anything more from his announcements of such plans other than that. It is the pathological skeptics that morph things into something entirely different. Fun eh?


    Quote from Mary Yugo


    As if all the defective tests,


    Most (every?) of the tests have been deemed anomalous by others, and not by your typical every-day-Joe-off-the-street kind of "others."


    Quote from Mary Yugo


    lack of calibrations,


    No calibrations ever, really? Do you live on Planet Zero?


    Quote from Mary Yugo


    and lack of replication or verification were not enough?


    Are you kidding me? That is what he has been doing for the past 5 years.


    Quote from Mary Yugo


    What do you need for him to do before you can assume he's guilty? Rape someone on the courthouse steps during a political rally?


    Guilty of what? Criminal fraud? Last I checked, no criminal charges have been filed. Currently, this isn't a matter of "guilt." It is a contract dispute.

    Quote from IH Fanboy

    You're sure are you? You know quite well that when someone states a thing with such surety, that there is usually some doubt right beneath the surface.


    In that case, how could I indicate I am sure? If saying "I am sure" means I am not sure, what should I say to mean that I am sure?


    Your assertion seems paradoxical. Not falsifiable. If "when you declare X it means not X" then it becomes logically impossible to declare X.


    Perhaps I should say "I have no idea whether it was Murray" which -- by your logic (sic) -- means I am quite sure (as we say in ordinary English).


    In any case, it was Murray.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.