Miles-Fleischmann-Szpak-Mossier-Boss Article in IE132

  • THHuxleynew - I will comment on your comments in an out-of-order fashion.


    “I'm never sure why in this case people claiming excess heat as they do jump on nuclear, unless for example the He4 evidence were to become real.”


    When apparent excess heat signals are integrated over the extended times that they have been seen to persist, the total ‘energy’ supposedly released exceeds what could rationally be obtained via chemical reactions computed using generous assumptions. That means that only nuclear energies have sufficient size to account for the observed signals, assuming they are accurate. But if they are not accurate, then the CF researchers are just integrating error, and the numbers are meaningless. This is what the CCS idea strikes at. It shows us how we can get an apparent excess energy signal (that can be integrated as above) when none is actually present. Once the pattern was established initially by F&P, others have just followed their lead.


    “I feel when there is such an attempt at science it should be treated with respect even if totally misguided, and badly done, as long as participants themselves behave properly.”


    I agree, and assert this is what I have done over the years, but the CF community has reacted inappropriately as I’ve explained elsewhere in this thread and forum as well as other places, i.e., they have NOT behaved properly. (In fact, I assert that their failure to participate in the normal scientific process of critical review qualifies them as pathological scientists.) So what do you think the rest of us should do when they behave improperly?


    “The lack of substance in the refutal [refutation] of your ideas as shown in the ten author paper is clear: they have not followed up on detailed points, and made a number of serious mistakes in characterising your argument. That this continues informally is a shame.“


    That this continues informally (and formally) is also the prime indicator of pathological science.


    “I can't say that your argument covers all or even most of the claimed electrolytic cell excess heat results. But, I can't say it does not cover these either.”


    To my knowledge there are no examples of a CF researcher properly considering the impact of calibration constant variation on their results (via, for example, error propagation) and I have followed this field since 1995. When it is possible to estimate calibration equation parameters and operating conditions from the publications, I have found no case that contradicts my theses. It is now 2017, and they are still doing the same thing. Again, this is a pathological science indicator. Once I showed how a ‘trivial’ CCS could wipe out a 780mW ‘excess heat’ signal, it became incumbent upon researchers to evaluate that possibility in their experiments, including revisiting the ones that predated my 2002 publication (which was actually known to the field in late 2000). That that has not happened illustrates pathological denial of criticisms. That conclusion is reinforced by the abortive attempt by the 10 authors to ‘pull a fast one’ on the rest of the science community.


    Discovering a systematic error that applies to a whole field of research is always a painful thing. But pretending there is no error doesn’t make it go away.


    “Were I an LENR researcher placing any reliance on these claims the first thing I'd want to do would be to examine your arguments carefully and see what they apply to.”


    That would be ‘normal’ science at work.


    “Your extending this to a polemic on not trusting LENR researchers is uncalled-for. Though I guess normal on this Forum!”


    As I have stated above, I have found no LENR researcher who is appropriately participating in the scientific process. I have observed lots of results and reports that could well be explained by ‘mundane chemistry and physics’, but never are. It seems to me that the people publishing in this field have given up the ideal promoted by Feynman in his famous quote:


    “You should not fool the laymen when you're talking as a scientist... . I'm talking about a specific, extra type of integrity that is not lying, but bending over backwards to show how you're maybe wrong, [an integrity] that you ought to have when acting as a scientist. And this is our responsibility as scientists, certainly to other scientists, and I think to laymen.”


    If you have a case where you think we should trust some particular CF researcher, would you share the example please? (Also, note that I am speaking about published authors who claim to have found excess heat or other evidence of CF. There are many people who have attempted replications of those claims but have failed to do so. Excluding the initial work of the 1989-1992(ish) time frame, I believe those researchers to have done good work, but of course failing to replicate can always mean you just did the experiments wrong. The early work was hampered by lack of details and a belief that replication could be done ‘quick and easy’.)


    “Whether anyone is right, or wrong, the only proper approach here is to evaluate specific actions of specific people, not to generalise. After a lot of such evaluation you might come to a conclusion that the whole collection of anomalies on which a set of LENR people depend has been well explained in ways that those people refuse to consider. The best way to show LENR ideas right or wrong would be to continue to take them seriously and be interested in them, and follow through the evidence.”


    One generalizes when one has sufficient detailed data to do so. To my knowledge to date, all CF research involving calorimetry assumes a one dimensional model (i.e. homogeneous) of the system is adequate, even when it is _known_ that the system is non-uniform. Further, to date there are extremely limited numbers of cases where those claiming to have detected 4He as a reaction product will cite the laboratory air 4He concentration. In the few cases where they do, the room and experiment numbers are disconnected and can’t be used to decide if leaks were present. Beyond heat and helium, there is usually an insufficient body of information available for drawing solid conclusions. But even there one can find logic errors that have been promulgated trough the field. A specific example: Ed Storms did a study to try to discount the idea promoted by Gary Taubes that tritium was spiked into some samples and then reported as CF proof. Ed claims in his paper that he disproved the spike idea, when in fact he disproved only one possible spiking method, the simplest imaginable, a single one-time spike. It is a logical error to imply that _all_ spiking was disproven. I could go on with more specific examples, but my point is that I believe I have done what you say, and I now feel I have a body of information sufficient to accurately generalize.


    It really can be summed up quite simply by saying that there is insufficient consideration of final error levels, which leads the CF researchers to conclude noise is signal. As I said, if you have a case where this is not true, let me know. Maybe I missed something, and I’d like to try to live up to the expectation expressed in the Feynman quote above.


    “You have to some extent done this, and to some extent been stopped by those making claims refusing to consider the arguments against: so a shame to fall at the last hurdle. “


    I believe I have done so to a major extent. I have established or adopted basic criteria to judge the quality of the reported work, and I’ve found none that meet the standard. And this standard is not some ‘pathological’ bar that can never be jumped. It is simply evaluating the error in a reasonable way. Claiming that recombination is not a problem by measuring an ~10% _excess_ of collected water in an F&P-type experiment when a 2-3% error in calibration constants can zero out the signal is not acceptable error analysis. Refusing to provide calibration equations and operating conditions used in the power calculations is not an acceptable way to claim excess heat. Etc. ,etc.


    The argument is never finished in science, and tomorrow, someone may show a true, unexpected excess heat. But if so, they must meet the objective criteria established to judge the validity of their claim. Being ‘out of the noise’ is one of them, and so far, no one has done this after 28 years.


    I don’t think I am ‘falling at the last hurdle’. I think I have simply pointed out the hurdles the CFers are running around instead of jumping.

  • Sorry for being off topic but can you please explain why you spend so much time on a LENR forum? Seriously I dont get it. Do you want to save us lost souls? 99.99999% of the people on this planet do not care about LENR or think it is bullshit. The overall money spend on LENR over the last 20 years is well below the additional costs for corruption and bad management of the german Elbphilharmonie construction. And this is just a f**g building.


    So what is your intention? Do you think it is good for humanity to choke every crazy idea and "off the track" science?


    I got into this mainly because of the Rossi test puzzles, and I strongly think Rossi should be called to account. But I like other puzzles and working out what are the LENR anomalies is surely that.


    I've never said money should not be spent on LENR research - I'm not at all against it, and look forward eagerly to the results of the He4 Austin experiments Abd likes. I am against bad research and careless unscientific conclusions. Science is not a political rally where the right thing to do is to talk up prospects regardless of data.

  • Sorry for being off topic but can you please explain why you spend so much time on a LENR forum? Seriously I dont get it. Do you want to save us lost souls? ... So what is your intention? Do you think it is good for humanity to choke every crazy idea and "off the track" science?


    People like THHuxley are the best people to have around for LENR. If only there were ten more of him. They help to increase the rigor of the science of LENR, to suggest improvements that can be made to experiments and to reassess findings that might require additional follow-up before getting excited. Many LENR watchers find this kind of challenge to be distressing and a profound threat, but this is due to a misunderstanding of what science entails. Skeptical challenges are no threat in the slightest, for the truth will always out. It will emerge even from an overly pessimistic analysis, and it is the truth that we should seek, whatever it is.

  • I've never said money should not be spent on LENR research - I'm not at all against it, and look forward eagerly to the results of the He4 Austin experiments Abd likes.


    @THH: Why not looking at the best documented high COP LENR of Lipinski (LiH) ? They see huge amounts of 4He (3He too..). ABD is completely outdated!

  • Applicants wish to emphasize that in this application various theories will be discussed and positions will be taken with regard to various aspects of the invention. These statements and positions will be based upon the novel theories discussed below, such as in paragraphs [0032] through [0040]; [0123] through [0149] and [0151] through [0260], and also on the experiments conducted by the inventors and discussed in paragraphs [0042] through [0062] and [0070] through [0122]. Statements that do not find support in the experiments are necessarily theoretical and not based upon specific experimental findings. For example, applicants' belief that the rate of fusion efficiency will be close to 100% is based upon the novel theories associated with the invention and upon the belief that the experimental results tend to support this position. Also, the experiments discussed at paragraphs [0151] through [0177] have not been conducted and the inventors' projected results describe what is expected to occur.


    The experiments he has conducted show (he thinks) unexpectedly high fusion rates from Li bombarded with protons at about 300keV. He claims some sort of resonance at 307keV that promotes much higher fusion probability.


    This is not cold fusion. It is accepted that fusion rates of order 1E-7 happen as the result of such bombardment. Such a strong resonance and (again he claims, but with no experimental support) 100% fusion probability would be most surprising, so the key here is experimental evidence.


    I think the evidence he does show is indirect, partial, and difficult to interpret. Without this evidence there is no reason to expect such a resonance (no-one else has seen it).


    His evidence does not come (as you might expect) from directly measuring reaction products and from that calculating fusion probability. Instead he notes that incoming kinetic energy not used to initiate fusion must heat up the sample. He compares the temperature increase of the sample from that which he would expect. A cooler sample this indicates more fusion. however, he does not measure the temperature of his samples, but rather looks to see whether they are destroyed by the incoming beam. His key finding is that a 50u thick samples is destroyed and 100u, 250u samples are not destroyed. He has a limited number of tests, using different beam powers and collimations and sample thicknesses, so the data is partial.


    This I find unconvincing. There are any number of other possibilities for this observation, including variation in beam collimation, other than variable fusion rates within the sample leading to different amounts of kinetic energy absorbed as heat.


    He also has some weird hypothesis that predicts 100% p-Li fusion in this situation. The evidence he shows is very poor even for a non-weird (only a small incremental change to justify from already experimentally validated theory) hypothesis.


    In his favour:

    (1) His theory makes concrete easily testable prediction which if tested and true would lead to novel commercially relevant fusion power sources

    (2) The testing is not very difficult, though it requires more care than he has shown in the set of experiments referenced in the patent

  • People like THHuxley are the best people to have around for LENR. If only there were ten more of him. They help to increase the rigor of the science of LENR, to suggest improvements that can be made to experiments and to reassess findings that might require additional follow-up before getting excited. Many LENR watchers find this kind of challenge to be distressing and a profound threat, but this is due to a misunderstanding of what science entails. Skeptical challenges are no threat in the slightest, for the truth will always out. It will emerge even from an overly pessimistic analysis, and it is the truth that we should seek, whatever it is.


    I am (more or less) completely with you. My question was about his motivation to spend so much time and effort into a field he thinks is bogus. He does not get money (or?) and no recognition and there are only a few people interested in LENR so more or less nobody is watching. But he explained it above and it is reasonable.


    Critizism and questioning methology etc. is important in achieving robust scientific progress until a certain point. After this point it just becomes annoying. Like the work at CERN and the discussion of the micro black holes eating our planet. I am pretty sure CERN receives new warnings about this every week that tackle/challenge their responses of the past. Spending time to defend against every objection is also not the correct way. The weekly letters of the guy who is afraid of CENR experiments are likely directly send to the trash can. And there is much of this in the field of LENR and perhabs kirkshanahan is one of the guys I think can be ignored because he has a clear agenda and belief. Perhabs this is not justified in kirkshanahan case but as a scientist working in the field you have to decide when to stop to listen to such people. Sometimes your decision is correct and sometimes not. But ignoring someone is not necessary an indicator for bad science.


    Back to my CENR example. They decided to ignore the work of R. Mills and his objection that some of the "particles" they are seeing are no real particles but resonances linear combinations of known particles. I bet sometime in the future they regret to put R. Mills work into the trash can. Am I criticizing them for not listening to Mills? A little bit :-) but their decision is understandable.

  • @Epi


    So...having a clear agenda and beliefs about partially defined things means one can safely be ignored...interesting logic there Epi...


    Don't you think a scientist working in *any* field needs to listen to his/her critics? (And I infer 'listening' has occurred when appropriate responses have been made, not when someone simply says "I heard.")

  • When journals stop publishing them?


    Depends on which journals. When CF was first announced in '89, major journals like Science and Nature published several papers on the subject, but when it devolved into an irreproducible phenomenon they quit publishing them. That is exactly what was to be expected though as Science and Nature are 'hot topic' publishers, and while a controversy is interesting, it isn't what 'hot topic' journals are looking for. (Yes, the editor of Nature made some poorly chosen remarks at the time, but that doesn't alter the fact that the controversy made them unfit subjects for Science and Nature.) Publication them moved to journals whose topical fields were consistent with the CF work, i.e. Fusion Technology (renamed later to Fusion Science and Tech.), J. of Electroanalytical Chemistry, Physics Letters, etc.). Then those journals started to cut back, primarily because there was no resolution to the conflict and lack of reproducibility occurring. So then the CFers started up their own publishing sub-network (Proc. of ICCFxx, J. Cond. Nuc. Mat. Sci., etc.). So technically, to date they haven't stopped being published, so I believe your criterion is not adequate. And besides, the CFers just claim 'establishment suppression' anyways.


    Personally, I don't think you should ever stop listening completely, but when a field has persisted in producing non-reproducible results for many years, and when the prime researchers in the field clearly ignore critics and make gross errors in their response when they don't, others are at least justified in requiring some semblance of good scientific practice from the researchers before they are given any significant attention. That's just my opinion though. I was wondering what Epi thought was the criteria. Maybe I can be convinced I *can* ignore them...

  • Lipinski research is most generic case of cold fusion, which enabled me to understand its dominant mechanism. His experiments are difficult to reproduce, because they do require to keep lithium surface very clean and molten just a few degrees above melting point, so that the subsurface crystalline lattice gets preserved. Because during fusion a layer of hydride/deuteride is produced which blocks the further reaction a mechanism for cleaning surface must be developed. Also because the impacts of ions and fusion itself generate lotta heat the careful temperature control within thin film of lithium must be provided. The thinner the lithium film is, the wider is the temperature range of cold fusion reaction and the lower is the energy of ion required, which is why some high-temperature lithium based systems (ECat/Me356/Parkhomov) can work in thermal regime only for some time.

  • Zephir_AWT wrote

    "If it is so easy to build a working reactor, why further invest billions in something that will probably hardly or never generate excess energy like ITER?"


    Arata 2008 and Mizuno 2014 have both built working deuterium/solidcatalyst reactors with significant excess heat, both replicated.


    Raising the COP to 3-4 and maintaining durability and controllability appear not to be so easy..but the efforts so far have cost far less then ITER.


    The war incentive to develop LENR is not there as it was with the jetplane 1913-1940: LENR can not be weaponised.

  • high fusion rates from Li bombarded with protons at about 300keV.

    Sorry to say, you must not have carefully read the whole UGC document (over 100 pp. IIRC) . The maximum yields are/were seen at approximately 1000-fold lower energies than this. Last I looked at the document (I hope it has not been redacted, replaced or otherwise altered) the optimal yields were never seen at such high energies, quite the contrary. The optimal yields, IIRC, were in the 100 to 1000 eV range. The energies are/were sufficiently low to suggest that they might be taken out of an accelerator context and placed in a simple thermal excitation regime. The optimized low energy scenarios reported in great detail by the Lipinskis / UGC also involved modulated and often positive potentials applied to the lithium targets.

  • The experiments he has conducted show (he thinks) unexpectedly high fusion rates from Li bombarded with protons at about 300keV. He claims some sort of resonance at 307keV that promotes much higher fusion probability.

    Where are you taking this from? I assume you may refer to the Lipinski team, "he" and "he thinks". But, if it is the UGC WIPO application experiment series, where is this "300keV"?


    If it is father and son Lipinski "he" you refer to, their theory predicts a resonance at 223 eV. That's eV NOT keV. Perhaps they predicted another resonance at 307 keV?


    Regarding the Lipinskis and their UGC theory, I suspect that patent disclosures seeking to gain patentablility and exclusivity in such a fundamental area, are best advised to find fundamental theory that is both explanatory and predictive. To some extent it appears that the Lipinski abstractions at least begin to serve that purpose, with all due respect to what appears to be excellent empirical work in several very highly qualified USA National Accelerator facilities. At least it allowed them the opportunity to gain patents in what might otherwise be thought of as CF or LENR work (to which they explicitly disclaim their phenomena have any connection).


    I have specifically and repeatedly invited anyone studying their very impressive WIPO disclosure to disregard the theory and attend to the methods and results.


    Hopefully these links will lead to a wider understanding of the actual claims:


    http://www.unifiedgravity.com/…014189799-PAMPH-330-2.pdf


    UGC Lipinski Replication

  • LENR can not be weaponised.


    If the reports of tritium are accurate, this product would be of great interest to the military. I myself wonder whether in some reports there was (possibly LENR-related) beta activity that was observed in a context that led researchers to assume it was due to tritium, without having dotted all of the i's and crossed all of the t's to get to that conclusion.


    More generally, the dearth of knowledge about any particular variety of LENR leaves open the possibility that there could be military applications that would be difficult to anticipate without a greater understanding.

  • Unified Gravity Corporation Inviting Replicators to Peer-Review Hydrogen-Lithium Fusion Process Unified Gravity Corporation is a Morgan Hill, California company that claims a method of creating energy through a proton-lithium fusion method using hydrogen and nickel as fuel, for which they have applied for a US patent.


    On the main page of their Unified Gravity web site is a link to their paper on Gravity Theory. They state that Unified Gravity was established in 2007 in order to experimentally prove the Lipinski’s theory and also to verify if it can be used for efficient power generation. The Lipinski’s theory is that gravity acts instantaneously. Since it was recently found through LIGO that gravity travels at or nearly at the speed of light, the theory that forms the basis of their technology seems incorrect. Alternative (and IMO way more plausible explanation) is that the effect observed by LIGO aren't gravitatonal waves predicted by general relativity, but ipso-facto violating it.


    Edit: Regarding the UGC replication, you may want to visit this thread and my posts here and here.

  • Not sure where this goes best-- I don't want to derail the discussions elsewhere or here but ... sometimes it is useful to review the past. Some very good and elaborate arguments for and against the validity of any LENR claims was given here way back in 2013. Has anything much really changed since then? The discussions are mainly by Jed Rothwell and the pseudonymous Joshua Cude along with Rich Murray and some others:


    https://skeptoid.com/blog/2013…r-a-bright-future-part-1/


    I notice Rothwell called Cude an "internet nutcase" so I guess he does insult people from time to time.

  • The discussions are mainly by Jed Rothwell and the pseudonymous Joshua Cude along with Rich Murray and some others:


    https://skeptoid.com/blog/2013…r-a-bright-future-part-1/

    Ye Gods, what a waste of time that discussion was! I should know better than to respond to these trolls.


    I notice Rothwell called Cude an "internet nutcase" so I guess he does insult people from time to time.

    No often enough.

  • Yet somehow I understand and agree with Cude's position way more than yours. I must be an internet nutcase too. And so, probably, is anyone who disagrees with you, no matter how well reasoned, about LENR. Any exceptions? Know anyone who doesn't believe that LENR has been solidly proven to be a real phenomenon rather than methodological and measurement errors ... and who is not a nutcase?

  • Yet somehow I understand and agree with Cude's position way more than yours.

    That is because you cannot tell the difference between 6 seconds and 3 hours, and -- as you yourself have pointed out time after time -- you have read nothing and know nothing about most cold fusion experiments.

    I must be an internet nutcase too.

    Yes, anyone who makes a mistake by a factor of 1,800 and does not realize it, or acknowledge it, is a nutcase. In a technical discussion, that's pretty much the definition of a nutcase. In an English literature forum, if you were to confuse Shakespeare with Agatha Christie, and then refuse to admit you made a mistake, you would be a nutcase. That's the scale of the mistakes you have made in cold fusion again, and again, and again.


    You are also a nutcase for making assertion after assertion about the experiments and then, as soon anyone challenges you, for saying "oh, but I have not read anything and I don't claim to know anything." Which is it? Do you know what you are talking about, or don't you? (You don't -- it is obvious.) You think you can have it both ways, but you only make yourself look like a nutcase.


    The fact that you "understand" Cude's fact-free blather is also telling. There is nothing for you to "understand" about it. It has no technical content. It is all emotion, denial, distraction and confabulation. He posts whatever nonsense pops into his head. Cold fusion has been funded with $200 million, for example. Even if that were true, it has no bearing on the experimental evidence.