How many times has the Pons-Fleischmann Anomalous Heating Event been replicated in peer reviewed journals?

  • What I would like to see is a relatively lightly refereed forum where guys like you and Ed go at it and we can all see for ourselves who gives the most scientific answers


    The fallacy in this otherwise excellent suggestion is the 'relatively lightly refereed' part. As soon as anybody who is clearly identifiable as part of the 'old guard' starts posting publicly the abuse begins. Jed has suffered such abuse for years- but he is a feisty beggar and can look after himself. Don't hold your breath waiting for many others to join such an argument- they have done it a hundred times before without any result.


    I think there is a huge tendency to spend far too much time and energy picking over the 28 year old bones of Pons and Fleischman's work to the huge detriment of current work in the field. it's 2017, time to wake up and smell the coffee instead of bickering over theory . Pd-D has been a great experimental tool, for sure - but it will never sort out the problems we currently face - and neither will hot fusion. What the field needs is a concerted effort to do what Rossi has done (or attempted - for the purposes of this discussion it is irrelevant). Cute experiments are all very well, but they butter no toast. Someone with the resources and the intellectual wherewithal needs to pick up the LENR ball and run with it. The money can be found, the arguments overcome, the legacy systems (the grid for example) protected for long enough for present investors to exit gracefully. There are billions of dollars to be lost, but trillions to be gained.


    End of rant. 8) Alan

  • Quote

    Pd-D has been a great experimental tool, for sure - but it will never sort out the problems we currently face - and neither will hot fusion


    Yep, due to high price of palladium this reaction cannot serve as an economically feasible source of energy by now. But the modern scientists don't care if something is usefull or not until their money are going and from the same reason they also don't research anything, until they're not perfectly sure by its reproducibility (so that they can see the perspective of future grants) . From this perspective the palladium-deuterium fusion is still one of model examples worth of renewal of interest about cold fusion in mainstream physics.


  • LS = Literature Survey. Apologies, i was careless in forgetting that would not be widely known.


    Otherwise there is little in your comments above I need to answer. To summarise:

    • You judge number of papers without looking at the strength of the evidence in the papers and putting this into context
    • You judge contrary evidence again on basis of number of papers
    • My point is that content not numbers are the point here

    You say that even one paper (Dolly) is enough. That is true, when the evidence, a living breathing sheep, is strong and can be determined without a scientific paper. And the work on Dolly has been used in 100s of other experiments with success.


    You ask why KS 5th paper was not published? Possibly because mainstream editors felt that the to and fro wrangle was highly uninteresting because the original papers are generally thought to have no merit. Hence Shanahan's claim to have shown why they have no merit is not something of much use to anyone (except the few who believe differently, and they were not interested in Shanahan's points).


    You ask (I think) why are there not 150 rebuttal papers? Surely that is obvious. This is a phenomena that is broadly viewed as experimental error with unconvincing and incoherent results. The set of papers with coherent results KS shows could be something mundane - but most people don't bother because the effect is so low when if nuclear it would be expected to be easy to get it much higher and easily measurable. The papers showing excess heat are viewed as unconvincing. Writing a refutation is both something few people want to do (what is the point) and something few people want to publish (it makes no contribution, rebutting something not generally accepted is a particularly pointless thing to do).

  • Quote

    What the field needs is a concerted effort to do what Rossi has done (or attempted


    Rossi did nothing other than to scam Focardi, possibly Levi (unless Levi is an accomplice) and some mediocre Swedish scientists, and a couple of investment trusts with more cash than brains. You want a concerted effort to do more of THAT? How about a concerted effort to conduct properly designed, controlled and calibrated studies performed by credible entities such as government labs (Sandia et. al.)?

    • You judge number of papers without looking at the strength of the evidence in the papers and putting this into context

    The context is that these are the first hundred or so replications of the effect, and that Jed calls some of them the "who's who of electrochemistry".

    • You judge contrary evidence again on basis of number of papers

    Yes, on first pass.   And on 2nd pass, reputation of the authors, and 3rd pass how significant the science investigation is.       



    • My point is that content not numbers are the point here

    I agree, but since I didn't go much into the content, you're engaging in a straw argument.

    You're not getting the point. No one cares about a refutation, but Shanahan claims to know why these experimentalists see such high COP in their cells. If it's purely chemical and can generate an appearance of a COP>6, it would make a fantastic new addition to our energy ecosystem. If what he's saying is true, he is sitting on a gold mine.

  • The context is that these are the first hundred or so replications of the effect, and that Jed calls some of them the "who's who of electrochemistry".

    I agree, but since I didn't go much into the content, you're engaging in a straw argument.

    You're not getting the point. No one cares about a refutation, but Shanahan claims to know why these experimentalists see such high COP in their cells. If it's purely chemical and can generate an appearance of a COP>6, it would make a fantastic new addition to our energy ecosystem. If what he's saying is true, he is sitting on a gold mine.


    You need more care with this one. The experiments Shanahan critiques are the (better quality ones) with COP = 1.2 or so. No goldmine. And his point is that this apparent COP is not in fact real, but a calorimetry artifact.


    The high COP results I've looked at are all flaky - based on assumptions, non-equilibrium systems not properly characterised, boil-offs again not fully characterised, one-off results never replicated even when this is attempted by the groups who generated them, etc. Fleishmann has contributed to these, and if you reckon his eminence as an electrochemist means you should believe his results (as many people did initially when the CF debacle was prematurely announced) there is your goldmine. But, since then, no-one has been able to locate the gold though many have tried. What does remain is some interesting anomalies that look above chemical level. Shanahan claims to have explained some (perhaps all) of these. The ones he does not cover would be flakier experiments where the headline results cannot be properly justified, due to lack of control.


    Now, maybe he is right, or maybe not. But his work has not been properly considered by the LENR advocates whose papers it addresses, nor by subsequent work in the field. That, to me, is a shame.

  • Fascinating insight into the sociology of science whereby a group that works on LENR anomolies claims they are being ignored/ostracized by the main stream, and there is probably some truth in this, but then when a critic appears the LENR group ignores/ostracizes that critic.

    So is LENR real or not?

    There are over 150 papers.

    But numbers and effort do not necessarily amount to anything.

    How many smart people wasted their lives trying to turn lead into gold?

    Reminds me of the old saying eat cow poop 100 billion flies can't be wrong.

  • I agree that Shanahan and his opponents seem to be talking past one another and that some of his claims have probably been mischaracterized. But having dug into one of his proposed alternative explanations sometime back, it felt to me all at once implausible, difficult to pin down and difficult or impossible to falsify. I don't think that researchers working on a shoestring can be faulted for neglecting claims that seem to them improbable, roughly akin to "what you see is real but just a misinterpretation of the data," a suggestion that requires a lot of bending over backwards to stay onboard with under scrutiny. Kirk's claims are difficult to pin down because he will often quibble with and dispute whatever restatement one attempts.


    Even if Kirk is addressing claims of experimental phenomena that many people would find suspect or even tendentious, that does not make his own ambitious counterarguments more compelling as a result. His critiques are something that some enterprising researcher who finds them interesting should pick up and look into experimentally. But simply in virtue of being critiques that are out there they do not impose a general obligation on researchers to put time into investigating and rebutting.


    That said, I do like a few things that Kirk has brought up. The analysis of magnitude of errors is quite interesting. (I forget what he called this.) The point about putative excess energy being a small fraction of input energy in many cases is very important and worth really thinking about. A consequence is that there are some instances where a small modification of an important calorimetric equation will null out an excess heat results. What is wanted, then, is a signal that is too far above the baseline to raise questions about being an artifact of some small but defensible adjustment of an equation. (I recall there being such cases.)

  • I agree that Shanahan and his opponents seem to be talking past one another and that some of his claims have probably been mischaracterized. But having dug into one of his proposed alternative explanations sometime back, it felt to me all at once implausible, difficult to pin down and difficult or impossible to falsify. I don't think that researchers working on a shoestring can be faulted for neglecting claims that seem to them improbable, roughly akin to "what you see is real but just a misinterpretation of the data," a suggestion that requires a lot of bending over backwards to stay onboard with under scrutiny. Kirk's claims are difficult to pin down because he will often quibble with and dispute whatever restatement one attempts.


    Even if Kirk is addressing claims of experimental phenomena that many people would find suspect or even tendentious, that does not make his own ambitious counterarguments more compelling as a result. His critiques are something that some enterprising researcher who finds them interesting should pick up and look into experimentally. But simply in virtue of being critiques that are out there they do not impose an obligation on all LENR researchers to put time into investigating and rebutting.


    That said, I do like a few things that Kirk has brought up. The analysis of magnitude of errors is quite interesting. (I forget what he called this.) The point about putative excess energy being a small fraction of input energy in many cases is very important and worth really thinking about. A consequence is that there are some instances where a small modification of an important calorimetric equation will null out an excess heat results. What is wanted, then, is a signal that is too far above the baseline to raise questions about being an artifact of some small but defensible adjustment of an equation. (I recall there being such cases.)


    So: I'd broadly agree, but with a few additions.


    Any researcher claiming anomalous heat from an experiment that could be affected by Shanahan's issue really must address it for their work to be taken seriously. In some cases it will be easy to bound Shanahan's putative effect. If that cannot be done, the fact that it looks in some nebulous way unlikely, and is difficult to disprove, does not help us, since LENR is the same. But Shanahan's criticisms can be quantified and avoided with a bit of effort, so unlike LENR they can be positively disproved in a specific experiment.


    Shanahan's point is really quite simple, and reasonable:


    (1) a change in cell temperature gradients during active electrolysis compared with control will result in cal errors that even if small get amplified by the ratio between overall power in, and size of claimed anomalous effect. This potential error must be bounded

    (2) One possible mechanism for this is ATER, which in the case of: closed cells, recombiner at top of cell, heat losses higher at top of cell, would systematically result in false positives from systems in which ATER occured (it is generally expected by electrochemists not to occur).


    Note that (1) is more general than (2) but without (2) (1) is a good deal more nebulous.


    Similarly, any researcher claiming old papers that show excess heat as evidence should be aware of this potential explanation and either hold it open as a mundane explanation of the anomaly or note that it could not apply. There are a number of experiments it cannot apply to - but I believe those are ones that for a variety of other reasons are less convincing. I may be wrong here. But the very tightly controlled closed cell electrolysis experiments looked the best to me, and those are the ones that Shanahan's idea most directly could affect.


    Until LENR has a clear predictive theory, or has clearly replicable evidence, it must be viewed as extraordinary which means to claim it properly requires very careful attention to any possible systematic error.


    I'd expect if Shanahan's ideas were taken into account that a number of old electrolysis experiments would be seen as unsafe. In which case all the arguments about what is the evidence for LENR could be reframed in terms of the other positive evidence. this process of self-criticism would be to the credit of those working in the field. New experiments, such as the Austin ones, would be conducted in a way guaranteed to be safer. Of course, that may happen anyway, i don't know. But the way Shanahan's ideas have been dismissed (on incomplete argument) rather than examined and considered makes this uncertain.

  • In some cases it will be easy to bound Shanahan's putative effect. If that cannot be done, the fact that it looks in some nebulous way unlikely, and is difficult to disprove, does not help us, since LENR is the same.


    Can you illustrate this first suggestion by way of a hypothetical example? I think that would help to better understand what falsifying Shanahan's primary critique of the electrochemical work would look like in a concrete context. If the principle is that a positive result must not hinge on a small but defensible adjustment of an equation, I can definitely get on board with it. If the principle is that LENR researchers must simply and always discount 10 percent or 100 percent of whatever it is they're seeing, that seems overboard and something that must be considered in context and that merits close scrutiny of the critique itself.


    In the case where Shanahan's proposed effect cannot be falsified, if it does not help LENR claims, neither does it succeed in casting doubt on them. But an important distinction must be kept in mind: In most cases LENR researchers are working with unremarkable techniques, and it is the interpretation of the boring positive results that they obtain that calls into question a physical understanding. In Shanahan's case we have the reverse: unremarkable techniques are given a new physical interpretation, which leads to mundane results. Here Shanahan is front-loading the mysterious cause where the LENR researchers are back-loading it. It seems to me that Shanahan's argument is on inherently shakier ground in those cases where LENR researchers are indeed following standard and conservative practices. (They don't always do this.) Otherwise the practical effect is to fudge on the commitment to empiricism.

  • Can you illustrate this first suggestion by way of a hypothetical example? I think that would help to better understand what falsifying Shanahan's primary critique of the electrochemical work would look like in a concrete context. If the principle is that a positive result must not hinge on a small but defensible adjustment of an equation, I can definitely get on board with it. If the principle is that LENR researchers must simply and always discount 10 percent or 100 percent of whatever it is they're seeing, that seems overboard and something that must be considered in context and that merits close scrutiny of the critique itself.


    In the case where Shanahan's proposed effect cannot be falsified, if it does not help LENR claims, neither does it succeed in casting doubt on them. But an important distinction must be kept in mind: In most cases LENR researchers are working with unremarkable techniques, and it is the interpretation of the boring positive results that they obtain that calls into question a physical understanding. In Shanahan's case we have the reverse: unremarkable techniques are given a new physical interpretation, which leads to mundane results. Here Shanahan is front-loading the mysterious cause where the LENR researchers are back-loading it. It seems to me that Shanahan's argument is on inherently shakier ground in those cases where LENR researchers are indeed following standard and conservative practices. (They don't always do this.) Otherwise the practical effect is to fudge on the commitment to empiricism.


    Well, a trivial example would be absolute mass calorimetry where the losses are bounded at X%, and the excess heat is > x%. You need a bit more work, to show that ATER or some affect does not much change those losses, but that would not be difficult for example with a few extra TCs.


    Less trivially using TC's to check temperature at a number of different points in the cell (rather more than normal) would allow any cal differences due to changing temperature gradients to be bounded. This could be done precisely with a number of differently positioned heaters used in control runs.


    The problem with standard practices is that a systematic anomaly can break them, and anomalies can always happen. We need to look for anomalies when we get unexplained results. LENR electrolytic experiments are pretty unusual.

  • A big naive question mirror my naive remarks in 1993.

    Maybe is LENR just a never need kind of artifact, which as an engineer I woudl consider as something to investigate deeply in case it can make emerge a real technology, on a surprising domain.


    Some critics of LENR have propose super chemistry... naively given that chemistry is older than nuclear physics, i consider it as a bigger breakthrough than cold fusion claim (having surprise in quantum mechanics, given it's youth and numerous evolutions and surprise especially in material science, is more a confirmed prediction than a surprise).


    Some have proposed miraculous extreme energy storage, which I am sure would interest engineers working in thermal solar energy, or in engine design...


    Miraculous constant change is very important question in calorimetry, as it could not only put many devices in danger of destruction and dramatic accident, but also may create opportunities to new measurement techniques and why not even new machines and technology.


    I suspect that many engineers like me have considered the idea, and have look with better competence at this possibility, with the sincere and greedy hope to exploite this artifact...

    then they realized it was not an artifact, that it would cause them trouble, it was not their business, and they had better things to do than fight a desperate battle.


    My advice to Kirk Shanahan, is that like all people who work on LENR because their have observed it and think it is a nuclear phenomenon, he try to amplify the phenomenon, characterize it, and why not make money with it.


    Battling to negate the hope of others is less important than battling for your hope.

    This is the difference between mindguard and innovators.

  • Maybe is LENR just a never need kind of artifact, which as an engineer I woudl consider as something to investigate deeply in case it can make emerge a real technology, on a surprising domain.


    @Stop making such silly comments. Since the Lipinski experiments there is no more doubt about LENR with very high COP.

  • f there is no doubt, I wonder why there is not yet at least one successful documented replication of this "High-COP-Experiment"? That would for sure boost this entire field...


    I am sure it would- but the equipment required is extensive and expensive- this is one of several variant lists taken from the patent. Not a garage job- and even the inventors are forced to live like Gypsies, traipsing from one lab to another to work.


    This work and the theories espoused has not been embraced by any researchers other than the named inventors. As of May 2013, a search on scholar.google.com revealed only one citation to the "Gravity theory" publication, and that was a passing reference. In 2008, editors of Wikipedia went so far as to delete a new article based on the publication. The discovery of the new gravity theory has aroused skepticism by experts and teaching away from acceptance of the new theory.


    [0088] To the inventors' knowledge, no fusion method to date has achieved energy breakeven, i.e. more energy output than input. The inventors' approach appears to have

    generated yields that exceed energy breakeven. Experimental results and breakeven calculations are described in detail in this application.

    [0089] This application addresses how to efficiently produce large numbers of energetic helium ions, which is useful for a variety of purposes, including conversion into electricity.

    [0090] In summary, the inventors have developed a unique method to produce large numbers of highly energetic helium ions that is a critical step in providing an entirely new source of cheap and safe energy.]


    THE INVENTORS' GRAVITY THEORY

    [0091] The Hydrogen-Lithium Fusion Device (HLFD) was developed with years of effort following discovery of the relativistic scalar gravity theory described in "Gravity theory based on mass-energy equivalence," supra, Acta Physica Polonica B 39, 2823 (2008). With insight and hard work, the technology developed can be seen as consistent with this theory. A more complete discussion of the theory appears in the paper. and not based upon specific experimental findings.


    TWENTY FIVE EXPERIMENTAL TESTS

    [0124] From March 2007 to March 2014, the inventors conducted 25 series of experimental tests in the course of developing the Hydrogen-Lithium Fusion Device (HLFD). The design of the HLFD and the technology disclosed to achieve proton-lithium fusion draw on the experimental data obtained in these 25 series of experimental tests. Most of the early tests failed to produce the desired levels of fusion. However, beginning in experimental series #13 and following in series #17 - 25, the experimental results showed increasing levels of fusion, ultimately producing sustainable net-energy-positive proton-lithium fusion.


    [EQUIPMENT FOR SERIES #1 1 - 15 EXPERIMENTAL TESTS

    Series #11 - 14 Laboratory

    • Louisiana Accelerator Center, University of Louisiana, Lafayette LA

    Series #15 Laboratory

    • Physics Department, University of North Texas, Denton TX

    Proton Gun

    • IonEtch Sputter Ion Gun (Genii) available from tectra GmbH

    • Proton plasma beam from 99.9% pure hydrogen gas

    • Proton energy between 50 eV and 5 keV

    • Proton current between 4 μΑ and 320 μΑ

    • Argon plasma beam from argon gas

    Target

    • 99.9% pure lithium disks available from American Elements Inc

    • 3 inch diameter

    • 1 mm thick

    HLFD Prototype #6

    • 8.7 inch diameter aluminum disk with a 78° inward chamfer angle to a 2.5 inch

    diameter center hole

    • 3 inch diameter x 3 mm deep depression holds the lithium target

    • 3 inch diameter x 2 mm aluminum retaining ring holds the target at the center of the aluminum disk

    • Target support electrically isolated from reaction chamber by a ceramic support base in series #11 - 13, a rotatable Teflon support base in series #14, and a rotatable nylon/alumina support base in series #15

    Bias Voltage Power Supply

    • DC power supply capable of -5 kV to +5 kV

    • SHV connection flange capable of 5 kV

    Particle Detectors

    • In series #1 1 - 12 silicon surface barrier detectors available from ORTEC Inc

    • In series #13 - 15 silicon p-i-n diode detectors available from Hamamatsu Corporation

    • Small Faraday cups with 1/16 inch Teflon insulation

    • Two stainless steel bias screens at 4 cm distance in front of each detection device in series #13

    • Aluminum foil particle shields in front of each detection device in series #14 - 15

    Reaction Chamber (Lafayette LA)

    • Modified bell reaction chamber with twelve 2.75 inch diameter radial ports at the

    target's center horizontal plane at a distance of 20 cm

    • Turbo pump capable of 10"6 Torr vacuum pressure

    Reaction Chamber (Denton TX)

    • 38 cm deep by 40 cm diameter cylindrical reaction chamber with eleven 2.75 inch

    diameter radial ports, four 2.75 inch diameter bottom ports, and one 8 inch diameter horizontal port used for turbo pump assembly

    • Two roughing pumps in combination with a turbo pump capable of vacuum pressures between 2* 10"6 Torr and 760 Torr


  • I remember looking at this. the patent is honest, and makes clear that he has no clear experimental evidence for his suppositions. The results which he claims support this are very indirect, and could be due to many different things. The results quoted in the rest of the patent are (he says) what he would expect to happen according to his weird theory, not what he has gathered.


    It seems flimsy evidence.