JCMNS volume 20

    • Official Post

    Jean-Paul Biberian have published a new volume of JCMNS, volume 20.


    The first article is a negative replication of Dennis Letts dual-laser experiment, with a credible artifact explanation reproduced.


    Attempted Replication of Excess Heat in the Letts Dual-laser Experiment
    Mason J. Guffey, Yang Tang and P.J. King : ReResearch LLC, 3519 Jack Northrop Ave., Hawthorne, CA 90250, USA


    By attempting a nearly exact replication of prior published work, we test the claim that release of non-chemical excess heat from loaded palladium deuteride (PdD) can be triggered by the application of two laser beams with wavelengths selected at specific difference frequencies around 8, 15 and 20 THz. No significant excess heat events were observed in 231 laser triggered trials across 9 cathode runs. The average excess heat rate observed from all runs was 6.1 ± 21.6 mW with ∼10 W of input electrical power. We found no evidence of excess heat on the order of 100 mW reported by Letts. Calorimetry artifacts stemming from apparatus design issues often exceeded 100 mW and contributed to larger-than-desired uncertainties on individual excess heat measurements.


    A good example of the interest of replicating, and the risk of artifact... Future will say, but currently skepticism is dominant.
    on Vortex, Jed Rothwell make the following comment

    [email protected]/msg112284.html">


    The first paper, by Guffey, is depressing. It appears to show that Letts is wrong about the dual laser experiments. Many papers report failed replications, meaning no heat. This paper is worse. It reports a similar calorimeter that not only failed to produce real it, it produced artifacts that looked like real heat at a substantially high level, up to around 100 mW. When a replication attempt fails to produce heat, you might suspect the materials or techniques are at fault. When it produces what looks like heat, but the author shows is actually an artifact, that calls into question the original claim.



    Another artcle by Swartz experiment the role of phonons in LENR materials (I don't catch much), including NANOR devices.


    As I understand it is experiment results giving hints on theory.


    Peter Halgelstein write an article about hydrogen in palladium



    Edmund Storms write an article about his replication of PdD LENR in electrolysis, and the impact of temperature and loading.



    This is more detailed and more structured than the progress reports on www.lenrexplained.com


    He continues with an article more focused on theory research:


    How Basic Behavior of LENR can Guide A Search for an Explanation
    Edmund Storms∗ LENRGY LLC, Santa Fe, NM 87501, USA



    The LENR effect was identified 27 years ago by Profs. Fleischmann and Pons as production of extra energy in a normal chemical structure, in this case PdD. Over a thousand published papers now support the discovery and the energy is shown to result from fusion of hydrogen isotopes without the need to apply energy and without energetic radiation being produced. By conventional standards, the claims are impossible. Nevertheless, a new phenomenon has been discovered requiring acceptance and understanding. The major behaviors and their present understanding are described in this paper and are used to suggest how an effective explanation might be constructed. Once again, science has been forced to either reject the obvious or accept the impossible. In this case, the normal skepticism needs to be ignored in order to determine if this promised energy source is real and can provide the ideal energy so critically needed.


    Peter Hagelstein continue with a more theoretical article :

    • Official Post

    About Dennist Letts dual laser failure to replicate and arifact identified It may be rational to stay optimistic.
    As I've heard from competent people there is many reason to failed to replicate this complex experiment. The most probable cause is not calorimetry error, but metallurgy. The preparation of the material, as Edmund Storms regularly state, as ENEA showed too, and as Dennis Letts says, is very important, essential.
    Dennis Letts result is probably not an artifact as it is a correlation with laser, and with Laser beat frequency.
    Correlation, is very hard to explain by artifact, as artifact are normally insensible to the initiator signal. (this is one good reason to value He4/Heat correlation experiments).


    LENR like early semiconductor technology is very hard to reproduce. Reproducible does not mean it is more easy than making a junction transistor with 1945 technology. Having no theory that is confirmed does not help in controlling what to check when reproducing.

  • About Dennist Letts dual laser failure to replicate and arifact identified It may be rational to stay optimistic.
    As I've heard from competent people there is many reason to failed to replicate this complex experiment. The most probable cause is not calorimetry error, but metallurgy. The preparation of the material, as Edmund Storms regularly state, as ENEA showed too, and as Dennis Letts says, is very important, essential.
    Dennis Letts result is probably not an artifact as it is a correlation with laser, and with Laser beat frequency.
    Correlation, is very hard to explain by artifact, as artifact are normally insensible to the initiator signal. (this is one good reason to value He4/Heat correlation experiments).


    LENR like early semiconductor technology is very hard to reproduce. Reproducible does not mean it is more easy than making a junction transistor with 1945 technology. Having no theory that is confirmed does not help in controlling what to check when reproducing.


    Yes, Alain. Correlation has been missed, and I find this not uncommon in LENR. In most scientific fields correlations between conditions and results are common, and when there are many data points, correlation study can actually pick good signals out of noise.


    I saw this paper being referred to as some sort of terrible blow to LENR, but, in fact, the work was premature, not really ready for publication, and particularly not with the stated conclusion. Dennis Letts had claimed that the dual-laser effect he had found was "highly reproducible." I know what he meant, and with his meaning, he was highly reproducible. For him.


    That is not the same as "easily reproducible," and there can be an obvious cause: the experimental conditions are not fully specified or were otherwise not exactly matched. If we read the paper, the protocol used for cathode preparation was extremely complex. Any deviation in that could result in a non-functional cathode, and the experimental evidence shown is fully consistent with "nonfunctional cathode." There is no sign of activity, other than noise that occasionally produces an individual "sample" that is apparent XE.


    It is not clear to me that a clear artifact was shown that would apply to Letts' work. The "artifact" appears to be noisy calorimetry that then, with some measurements, produced an appearance of excess energy. This, then would be a "file drawer effect claim." I.e, the idea that Letts had selected positive results and reported them. There are two problems with this.


    When Letts claimed high reproducibility, he was referring to an extensive experimental series where he appears to have reported every trial, showing consistent results.


    The paper mentions that the Letts Dual Laser Experiment was considered important, but actually neglects to consider why. It seems to be looking for excess heat as some sort of proof of nuclear reaction. Letts is not the most important work for that, by far.


    What Letts showed, however, was *control of the reaction* .... i.e., turning on the laser turned on the reaction, and, as well, he scanned the entire frequency range from 3 THz beat frequency to over 20 THz, not just a few frequencies.


    The replicators found no laser effect at all. This was simply a failed replication, and it shows how those unskilled with calorimetry can make a lot of mistakes!


    They attempted laser stimulation near the previously reported beat frequencies, instead of scanning the range, as Letts had. (It is possible that the active frequencies vary with the sample!) Their results look nothing like what Letts showed. They look like nothing, period.


    Letts did cooperate with this experiment, but both the authors and Letts regret that his participation was limited. This was, more properly, a pilot study, perhaps a first step, and they acknowledge that.


    Cold fusion cathode preparation is still a rare art. There is experimental work that bypasses this problem (heat/helium work makes the cathode unreliability into an experimental control, where active cathodes are compared with dead cathodes with no other changes.)


    ENEA has apparently developed techniques where more than 50% of cathodes will be active.


    However, a Letts cathode is not an ordinary cold fusion cathode. It has been plated with a layer of gold, which is probably necessary to create phonons in the material at the beat frequencies. The exact conditions of the gold plating were a bit obscure.


    I encourage researchers to publish all experiments (to avoid the file drawer effect). Whether or not this should have been published in JCMNS is another issue, but definitely, peer review should have insisted on correcting the unwarranted conclusions, which have led to some over-excited comments.

  • Jed Rothwell wrote:


    This was a premature comment by Jed. If the Letts experiment had purely been a report of excess heat, there would be a greater problem. But it wasn't that. It was a report of correlation between heat, dual laser stimulation, with a beat-frequency dependence that happened to match some Hagelstein predictions.


    The "artifact" found was only noisy calorimetry. It seems extraordinarily noisy, but that would take more analysis. To convert this issue into misleading results, one would have to cherry-pick the "positive results."


    No effect was found from laser stimulation. None. The plot shows massive noise. No visible correlation stands out (which is a far cry from Letts' results). So the default hypothesis is simple: the Letts Effect was not created.


    What would have been of far more interest, in a "negative" sense, would be that the Effect was created, they saw laser turn-on, for example, and then were able to show that this was artifact.

  • If the Letts experiment had purely been a report of excess heat, there would be a greater problem. But it wasn't that. It was a report of correlation between heat, dual laser stimulation, with a beat-frequency dependence that happened to match some Hagelstein predictions.


    That was apparent excess heat. Meaning anomalous heat; heat that cannot be explained by chemistry.


    The calorimeter was very similar to Letts'. Both were noisy, according to both Guffey and Letts. This is not good. Even if there is correlation with the lasers with Letts, the results are called into question by the noise. Frankly, I am surprised and disappointed that anyone would use an instrument with up to 100 mW of noise in a study at this power level.

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.