Measurement Error and LENR: Why scaling up small Cold Fusion claims never works

  • So it appears that the active folks in the LENR field (Rossi, me356, Mills (maybe)et al) have absolutely nothing credible, replicable, and real, and the ones who had real results have all either retired, died, or given up the quest (as Jed implies/states ad nauseam), is this a correct assumption?


    This may not be wholly true, but it's what pops into my mind every day (at least for the last 4-5 years of the longer time that I have followed LENR) as I read post after post of inconclusive results, banter, insults, and opinions of outsiders looking in.


    If Rossi has nothing at all, why do the anti-Rossi folks not just ignore the talk about him and move on to other scientists, tremendously limiting the repetitive posts?


    If Rossi has nothing, and everyone stops talking about him, then what would this Forum contain? The main boards seem to be 95% Rossi "discussions", possibly more. If all of the current researchers who have "nothing" aren't talked about, there is there anything left to discuss?


    Thinking out loud.

  • Quote

    verdict that probably 97%+ of scientists have come to that these claims are inconclusive at best


    Of course these claims aren't conclusive and they even cannot be conclusive given the volume of experimental replication evidence we have.

    But from the same reason - i.e. lack of replications - we cannot say, they're wrong. They cannot be trusted, neither distrusted.

    If scientists feel uneasy with it, nobody prohibits them to do their own replications - this is the standard way, in which science works.


    Otherwise they're expected to remain quiet.

  • Research funds are generally tight. So, you can't expect them to be invested in an area that has had at least two and possibly three independent boards of expert scientists conclude the claims in that field are questionable.


    I'm presenting my opinion as to why claims of low power/ energy LENR can't be scaled up: the low level measurement error does not scale up. Also, when more accurate measurement is done, these low level measurement errors decrease along with the magnitude of the claimed COP. This is pure speculation on my part and not to be considered fact: perhaps certain CF/LENR techs are scaling down to lower powers and not up to higher powers because they are making more accurate measurements and have to go lower to find positive COP.


    If anyone has their own opinion as to why these claims never scale up, feel free to post them.

  • Quote

    Yes, and Rossi was not replicated. He could not even show people how to use his own devices to produce the effect he claimed!


    That of course is true. And also, unfortunately, Mizuno suffered the same fate with IH. I realize that Rossi had much more time but still, the situations are comparable.

    And believe me, I want Mizuno's large claims (500W, a kW, 5kw) to be true. It would be way more fun than if they were not.

  • Research funds are generally tight. So, you can't expect them to be invested in an area that has had at least two and possibly three independent boards of expert scientists conclude the claims in that field are questionable.


    I'm presenting my opinion as to why claims of low power/ energy LENR can't be scaled up: the low level measurement error does not scale up. Also, when more accurate measurement is done, these low level measurement errors decrease along with the magnitude of the claimed COP. This is pure speculation on my part and not to be considered fact: perhaps certain CF/LENR techs are scaling down to lower powers and not up to higher powers because they are making more accurate measurements and have to go lower to find positive COP.


    If anyone has their own opinion as to why these claims never scale up, feel free to post them.


    Scaling up is not the main issue. It is that an exothermic nuclear reaction, to be sustained, seems always to require significant power input (in well instrumented cases large compared with the output). It is very difficult to see why this should be. Temperature can be regulated in many ways without significant power input.


    Jed would point to so-called heat -after-death observations. But I've not seen quality reporting of that other than could be otherwise explained.


    The vast majority of excess heat results are suspiciously strongly related to input power. MFMP for example noted this and decided to make a well insulated device that should deliver clearer results. A great idea. And what happened? I have not heard anything, which I think means that results were not clearer - pretty well a proof that the apparent excess heat was an artifact. If I'm wrong and there were better results, let me know. If this better device has not been tested yet also let me know, but I vaguely remember initial tests being done?

  • Quote

    Scaling up is not the main issue. It is that an exothermic nuclear reaction, to be sustained, seems always to require significant power input (in well instrumented cases large compared with the output). It is very difficult to see why this should be. Temperature can be regulated in many ways without significant power input.

    This has always puzzled me too. Rossi's claims are the poster child for this issue because he doesn't even bother to add forced cooling to his supposed "hot cats." But he does add a ton of Joule heating, none of it properly calibrated. That NEVER made sense but his fans seemed not to notice.

  • Jed would point to so-called heat -after-death observations. But I've not seen quality reporting of that other than could be otherwise explained.

    No, you tried to explain it in various ways, but the papers show that your explanations are ruled out.


    The vast majority of excess heat results are suspiciously strongly related to input power.

    No, they are not. There is no correlation at all. Input power is a function of electrolysis, and it can always be explained by conventional electrochemical factors such as the distance between the anode and cathode, and the concentration of the electrolyte.


    You just made that up, out of whole cloth, without a shred of evidence. Just the way you pretend you can explain heat after death, even though your explanations (at Abd's site) are easily shown to be wrong.

  • Quote

    I'm presenting my opinion as to why claims of low power/ energy LENR can't be scaled up: the low level measurement error does not scale up


    This is nonsense, as this opinion considers, that all cold fusion technologies presented so far are bogus. But these technologies also presented additional effects, which couldn't be explained in other way. For example Lipinski observed the cumulation of charge due to formation of alpha particles. Japanesereplicated cold fusion with 100% reliability and so on.

  • So it appears that the active folks in the LENR field (Rossi, me356, Mills (maybe)et al) have absolutely nothing credible, replicable, and real, and the ones who had real results have all either retired, died, or given up the quest (as Jed implies/states ad nauseam), is this a correct assumption?

    Not so wrong. As I have realized, the best replicated evidences are quite old, made by seasoned experts of their time.


    The F&P electrolysis line of experiments is replicated (Miles, Lonchampt, many smaller)

    Fralick gas permeation is replicated (Biberian2007, Uni Tsinghua2005, Nasa GRC 2008, Fralick 2012).

    Iwamura 2001 thin films is replicated (Takahashi 2013, and some more but I forgot who)

    Bockris tritium is replicated by Storms, by BARC, and few others

    McKubre He4/Heat is replicated by ENEA and few other...


    what is not replicated is industrial claims, and even some frauds have been spotted, and some are suspected by even some LENR supporters.


    The old experiments don't attract big budgets, neither small budgets.


    My bet would on those old confirmed experiments, not on grandiose claims.

  • No, you tried to explain it in various ways, but the papers show that your explanations are ruled out.


    No, they are not. There is no correlation at all. Input power is a function of electrolysis, and it can always be explained by conventional electrochemical factors such as the distance between the anode and cathode, and the concentration of the electrolyte.


    You just made that up, out of whole cloth, without a shred of evidence. Just the way you pretend you can explain heat after death, even though your explanations (at Abd's site) are easily shown to be wrong.


    Jed, I won't attmpt to change your mind, but will answer your points:


    (1) re papers show my explanations are ruled out. That is no doubt your bald summary of a long technical debate we could have (perhaps have had). It is not mine. To advance further we would need to return to the debate, best on a dedicated thread. I am aware, as is everyone here except perhaps some new people, that your views and mine are different. And I stand by my views especially on the paper that we have looked at most, Fleishmann's from simplicity to complexity....


    (2) Since no repeatable, well-instrumented, and carefully controlled CF experiments show COP of > 1.3 and the input power varies over a wide range my point is made.

  • (2) Since no repeatable, well-instrumented, and carefully controlled CF experiments show COP of > 1.3 and the input power varies over a wide range my point is made.

    That is 100% pure, complete, unmitigated bullshit. Where on earth did you get that idea? It would appear you have not read the literature.


    What is the point of making assertions wildly at odds with the facts? Anyone who has read the literature will see that you are making stuff up. This is an annoying era we are living through, in which people boldly invent their own reality. Annoying, but also puzzling. Who are you trying to kid? What is the point?

  • What is the point of making assertions wildly at odds with the facts?


    Jed, that statements applies to your assertion. My 1st statement is a counterfactual:

    Since no repeatable, well-instrumented, and carefully controlled CF experiments show COP of > 1.3

    No amount of facts can prove what I say. However you can try to disprove it with factual evidence (which however I may interpret differently from you). You are, ironically, guilty of what you accuse me!


    My second statement:

    the input power varies over a wide range

    does require proof, if you dispute it, but I thought it was uncontentious. Do I need to do this?

  • I cannot know about everyone. Eventually I will study Lipiniski.


    First, let's clarify the spelling for those interested: it is Lipinski. The WIPO application of 2014 that I, and others, have given links to over the years, now unfortunately devolves to the Google Patentscope version. The original was a relative pleasure to read, the Patentscope character-read version loses a lot of tabular collation, images and other important features that made the 130 plus pages relatively easy. Perhaps you, Jed Rothwell, with your great skills and resources as curator of the LENR CANR database can dredge up the original. Several, including TC/THH appear to drastically misread the considerable efforts of the Lipinskis. Their efforts initially are seen to first replicate and confirm the very high energy proton beam to lithium target gives a very low cross-section published by Herb et al in 1938. They go on to show that by contrast to Herb, much much lower energy protons give much higher alpha yields in the expected MeV ranges, provided proton energies are LOW (< 3500 eV) and that Li targets are positively and/or alternately electrically biased. And the Lipinski results, as has been mentioned here, apparently occur without the expected (says Peter Ekstrom) gamma accompaniment. It concords with a notion that "how excitation or activation occurs, determines to some extent the nature and spectrum of the products". Perhaps no surprise to chemists, physical chemists, condensed matter theorists and biochemists. Apparently difficult for some of those versed in, or wedded to, plasma and /or collisional physics, otherwise often designated "hot fusion".


    As has been mentioned here, the "Q" for many of these Lipinski reactions ranges up to several thousand. "Q" here is an approximate surrogate for COP.

  • I still cannot receive an answer to my question: with all of these claimed positive results, why has every effort to every effort to scale this up and verify these claims outside of the sphere of the claimant lead to failure? From what I can tell, 100% of the times companies have spent millions of dollars to scale these claims up and verify them, they have not been able to. There is really only one explanation for this disconnect.

  • I still cannot receive an answer to my question: with all of these claimed positive results, why has every effort to every effort to scale this up and verify these claims outside of the sphere of the claimant lead to failure?


    lenrisnotreal: please take a moment to read my response to you to this very question here, and we can go from there. (You have received an answer, you probably just didn't like it.)

  • Well, at least you have managed to break away from believing in so called "high power" LENR. A lot of people are still clinging to that despite the long list of well documented failures.


    The reason these low power results fail to be reproduced outside of "LENR friendly" laboratories is that many of the errors and artifacts which produce these effects are actually known in the scientific community. That's why these low power results you believe in disappear when companies make their first attempt to characterize them at a high accuracy level: they already have an idea what the error might be. High accuracy characterization measurements are a precondition for commercialization. I hate to break it to everybody but LENR fails at this step 100% of the time.


    Also, does anyone know why MFMP has gone silent?

  • The reason these low power results fail to be reproduced outside of "LENR friendly" laboratories is that many of the errors and artifacts which produce these effects are actually known in the scientific community.


    I'm sorry, but you're speaking at the level of sweeping generalities, glossing over a lot of detail. In order for your critique to gain traction, you will need to comment upon individual experimental writeups by individual researchers, and upon specific independent replication attempts. And only after that will you be in a position to zoom out a bit and attempt to draw safe, conservative generalizations from your fine-grained analysis. Neither step will be easy, especially if you lack relevant training.