Replication of LENR experiments

Quote from interested observer

Since I have not studied the requisite hundreds of papers required to have an informed opinion about LENR, I am quite willing to admit that I don't have one

Quote from maryyugo

My position also. Perhaps IO and I are twins, separated at birth.

Your position is more like, "I didn't read it at all, despite you telling me the page numbers, now here's my dumb opinion... What page number was it again? This graph's too hard for me to understand. No it says the opposite of what you think. Wait a minute, what page number again... and what section?... The 'Notes' section at the end? I don't care anyway".

link ...for those who are incredulous that a person can be that ridiculous.

Quote from maryyugo

WHat Zeus links to proves the opposite of what he claims. What happened here is that Zeus claimed Celani used 4 wires. He didn't. He used 4x as many knots whatever the hell THAT means.

LOL. Still not read it properly then Yugo? Still stuck looking in the 'notes' section? Ha!

Quote from maryyugo

Zeus and others also pointed to the wrong place in the documentation

Aha! ...Apparently you are.

Quote from maryyugo

Zeus claims are specious and this individual is not worth addressing

How do you know this? ...as you obviously still haven't read the article. PDF here. ...Slide 27, for the non-retarded.

Quote from Zeus46

Your position is more like, "I didn't read it at all, despite you telling me the page numbers, now here's my dumb opinion... What page number was it again? This graph's too hard for me to understand. No it says the opposite of what you think. Wait a minute, what page number again... and what section?... The 'Notes' section at the end? I don't care anyway".

Exactly! It is like spoon feeding a 1-year old baby who is not hungry. She mainly wants to spit and throw creamed bananas everywhere. As an experience parent let me suggest you take the kid off the highchair when that starts. Take her outside and let her play with the water hose. She'll be cleaned up in no time!

As an experienced librarian at LENR-CANR let me suggest that you should dismiss people such as Yugo. I know the type. Again and again they demand to be spoon-fed the data, but they never read what you suggest. They never do their homework. They are not serious. They say nothing has been published, so I point out there are THOUSANDS of papers. They whine and kvetch that thousands are too many, how can I be expected to read so many, why can't you narrow it down and point to a few?? So I point to a few, which are featured on the front page at LENR-CANR.org, for crying out loud. How hard was that? Too hard, I guess. They don't read them and then they whine and kvetch because I only gave them four titles and why aren't there more papers!??

Very similar to a tired baby.

Quote from interested observer

I have been exposed to enough material to feel safe in saying that there have been no reliable, reproducible and well-defined manifestations of LENR.

You are incorrect. Recipes for reproducible, well defined manifestations of cold fusion were published long ago. I described them here, starting on p. 5:

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

If you want to replicate by these methods, it takes about as much skill as surgery, and it takes about $100,000 and a few years of difficult work. If you happen to have ~$50 million burning a hole in your pocket, you could hire experts and build machines that could automate the process and do it in a few hours, instead of two years. They could produce effects hundreds of times larger than the ones demonstrated so far. Toyota did something like that. But the methods described in these papers call for slow, painstaking, manual labor.

For the seventh time: YOU ARE STILL LOOKING IN THE 'NOTES' SECTION. YOU UTTER PILLOCK. LOOK AT SLIDE 27.

This whole situation is the most prolonged bout of idiocy I have ever witnessed... Must have been three weeks now?

Why not just read the whole damn paper*? ...it's only 30 pages or so, and the text is very big. It would save you from looking so silly.

* instead of repeatedly proving my point that 'you never read the papers you comment on'.

Quote from [email protected]

That is consistent with the evidence. The first hundred or so replications of Pons-Fleischmann Anomalous Heat Event was done by electochemists, who regularly use calorimeters. The first null results were from physicists who do not regularly use calorimeters. This set up a science-political turf war.

Well if you want to talk about calorimeters then the person to talk to is Mary. Mary knows more about calorimeters than many have forgotten.

In particular Mary has intimate knowledge of the calorimeter you can see in my avatar.

Quote from JedRothwell

I expect most professional academic electrochemists reported their results. Electrochemistry is a small world and every professional knew Fleischmann and Bockris, and communicated with them.

This is what I was told by Martin Fleischmann, Stan Pons, Bockris, Fritz Will, Mizuno, Robert Huggins and other prominent electrochemists. Fritz Will was in charge of the NCFI and had his ear to the ground. He is the one who compiled the list of replications I linked to above.

Quote from JedRothwell

This is what I was told by Martin Fleischmann, Stan Pons, Bockris, Fritz Will, Mizuno, Robert Huggins and other prominent electrochemists. Fritz Will was in charge of the NCFI and had his ear to the ground. He is the one who compiled the list of replications I linked to above.

So tell me Jed, why were they not able to validate the Pons Fleichmann effect on a regular basis? Are you telling all their caliormetery methods were flawed?

Quote from The Real Roger Barker

So tell me Jed, why were they not able to validate the Pons Fleichmann effect on a regular basis?

They did validate Fleischmann Pons on a regular basis. Roughly 17,000 times according to a grad student at the Institute of High Energy Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, at 180 labs according to Ed Storms. (Not me. I didn't count 'em.)

They are not replicating on a regular basis now because they are dead. Of old age.

Quote from The Real Roger Barker

Are you telling all their caliormetery methods were flawed?

Nope. No skeptic has ever found any problem with the calorimetry in any mainstream study. They have looked, but they found nothing. I am sure you would not find anything if you were to read the literature, which I am equally sure you will not do.

Quote from The Real Roger Barker

17,000 times?! That would mean we should all be powering our homes with palladium based fusion reactors in our basements. We know this is not happening so someone got something wrong here.

You misunderstand. That is a tally of positive experimental runs. Those were mainly small devices. In some cases, they were run 100 at a time, in a 10 x 10 array, or 16 at a time. None of those devices is working at the moment as far as I know. Most were consumed in destructive testing.

ADD: Plus, as I recall from the paper, the tally included multiple test runs for the same device (same cathode) in some cases.

The paper is: He, J., Nuclear fusion inside condense matters. Front. Phys. China, 2007. 1: p. 96-102., Table 1. That's HE Jing-tang, Institute of High Energy Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, but I think a grad student compiled the table. I did not study it carefully but it looks like it is in the ballpark.

Quote from The Real Roger Barker

I'm not a calorimeter expert. Mary Yugo is though [identifying suppositions omitted ...].

No, she is not an expert. She does not even understand McKubre's paper, which is one the easier ones. She has not identified anything as far as I know, and she has not published any papers pointing out errors. No one has, except Morrison (linked to above), and Shanahan.

Quote from The Real Roger Barker

Mary has identified numerous shortcomings of the calorimetry methods used by P&F and Rossi as well. IIRC Mary has raised concerns about the probe locations and insertion methodology.

No, she has not. Her only comments have been: "I have not read it." "I read it but I don't understand it." And, "The results are too small for me to think about" where "small" is defined as whatever power level the researchers achieved.

Quote from JedRothwell

You misunderstand. That is a tally of positive experimental runs. Those were mainly small devices. In some cases, they were run 100 at a time, in a 10 x 10 array, or 16 at a time. None of those devices is working at the moment as far as I know. Most were consumed in destructive testing.

ADD: Plus, as I recall from the paper, the tally included multiple test runs for the same device (same cathode) in some cases.

The paper is: He, J., Nuclear fusion inside condense matters. Front. Phys. China, 2007. 1: p. 96-102., Table 1. That's HE Jing-tang, Institute of High Energy Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, but I think a grad student compiled the table. I did not study it carefully but it looks like it is in the ballpark.

No, she is not an expert. She does not even understand McKubre's paper, which is one the easier ones. She has not identified anything as far as I know, and she has not published any papers pointing out errors. No one has, except Morrison (linked to above), and Shanahan.

No, she has not. Her only comments have been: "I have not read it." "I read it but I don't understand it." And, "The results are too small for me to think about" where "small" is defined as whatever power level the researchers achieved.

Display More

Firstly Jed, I can assure you I am no troll. No more than Mary is. Yes, I get under Mary's skin because I have given her the HARD questions, just like you have, and Mary has no response. However credit where credit is due and Mary is an EXPERT on calorimetry. This I have established based on the countless posts she has made and the many sessions we've had together.

Now back on topic. My point still stands about the so called "thousands of successful tests" of the P&F effect. If we've had so many successful tests then surely one would have created a working reactor a long time ago.

Quote from The Real Roger Barker

However credit where credit is due and Mary is an EXPERT on calorimetry.

No, she isn't. She says she does not understand McKubre's papers. Anyone who does not understand those papers does not understand calorimetry, because McKubre's calorimetry is relatively simple and easy to understand, by design, as McKubre himself explains in his papers.

Quote from The Real Roger Barker

My point still stands about the so called "thousands of successful tests" of the P&F effect. If we've had so many successful tests then surely one would have created a working reactor a long time ago.

Yes, there were hundreds of working reactors. They were run thousands of times, as the paper from He shows. They were all small laboratory bench-top devices. Larger reactors cannot be constructed. No one knows how to effectively control the reaction so it cannot be scaled up. Some progress in control and reproducibility has been made, as you see in the papers by McKubre and the ENEA.

There are not now, today, hundreds of reactors because -- as I said before -- the researchers are dead from old age. Dead people do not conduct experiments.

(Note that when I say "as you see" I mean you have to actually read the papers. You have not read the papers, and I doubt you will. If you had read anything, you wouldn't need me to spoon-feed you the above information. Anyone familiar with the research knows what I just wrote.)