How to make LENR technology a reality

  • What would be the best first struggle to make LENR technology a reality? 11

    1. Work experimentally, with instruments, to discover the nature of the phenomenons during LENR effect. (6) 55%
    2. Develop reliable labrats that would be usable by any competent mainstream lab to be convinced (4) 36%
    3. Work to understand the parameters that make the LENR phenomenon happens or not (4) 36%
    4. Set up experiments and publish papers, that will be convincing for mainstream academic (2) 18%
    5. Develop an industrial application, even without any vision of the mechanism. (1) 9%

    I've heard many positions about what to do to make LENR a reality, not a scientific phenomenon as one see if one read the papers or work in labs, but something that is well funded and will after much work from mainstream, produce applications.

    I've evolved myself, and I'm no more certain of any option.


    1. First option is to ignore the scientific question first, and try to develop a working technology, to sell it, and convince the population of LENR interest. The problems raised is that without a vision of the mechanism, there is no way to optimize the technology, and as Jean-François Geneste said, without even a phenomenological theory, you cannot start an industry.
    2. Second option is the one that seems to have been followed by LENR scientists from the early days : to make experiments, and publish results, proving to mainstream scientists that the phenomenon is real, which is scientifically astounding. The problems are that it have been done with hundreds of papers and thousands of experiments, without any success in mainstream circles. Much energy have been used, and reused, and used again, probably wasted, while the mystery of the parameters and the explanation was not enough investigated.
    3. Third option is a variation, and is promoted in some conferences (ICCF, RNBE) : to develop a very reliable experiment that can be replicated by any lab, and would convince mainstream researcher of the reality of the phenomenon. First it is very hard today, without a vision of what is happening and not enough data on the key parameters, and finally it seems mainstream community is not much more open-minded to LENR as flat-earthers to Newtonian mechanics.
    4. Fourth option is to work experimentally to detect signature of what is happening during LENR, with instruments, so a theoretical proposal can be initiated. Theoretical proposal is not only a result of research, but it is also the key ingredient of the design of a lab experiment (Edmund Storms is clearly explaining that point), so it seems a good idea too. But There is still no theory that is accepted by peers, despite dozens of proposals.
    5. Finally, fifth proposal I've heard is the modest idea, not to convince mainstream scientists, nor to really find a theory, or make a lab-rat directly, but just to start to work between LENR scientists to understand the parameter space, the key factors, the conditions and inhibitors, for the LENR phenomenon. Some have done that on few points, and there is for example a very interesting debate between Edmund Storms and Michael McKubre, whether loading or temperature is key throttling factor of PdD LENR. There is also key question on cracks, vacancies, , THz radiation, Laser correlated or not with LENR power. Problem is that it often move into a theoretical debate...


    Each point can be defended, and sure every point will be done during LENR technology inception.

    The real question is what to do first, to allow the pursuit of the other 4 points.

    Multiple vote are allowed.

  • Built nearly 200 years ago, in 1825, Clarendon's Cambridge University batteries generate 2,000 volts, and this high voltage is enough to attract a small brass ball that rings two small bells. This instrument has ringed continuously for two centuries.


    The builder, Watkin and Hill, did not leave any archive, blueprint or recipe about this battery.


    We don't know what's inside! Officially, it would be a "dry" pile of Zamboni. But dry cells of this type usually only lasted a few years. The same goes for the high-voltage dry batteries used by the Germans for the light intensifying spyglasses for snipers of the Second World War.

    At 2 Hertz (2 ringtones per second), and a stroke of about 1 mm, calculate the distance traveled by the brass ball in two centuries and discuss whether the energy can be of chemical origin.


    What if our friend Professor Josephson spent every day beside a steampunk fusion diode without knowing it?


    https://youtu.be/UtQGYz4f3YQ?t=234

  • AlainCo,


    The rumor has it that Duncan of Texas Tech/Seashore Research, will present a paper about his teams findings soon. If it is positive, it could ignite the field, and help it gain acceptance by the mainstream. Once that happens, things would move along much faster towards theory, and application. Since Duncan did attend ICCF21, I am hopeful that is a good omen.


    If, on the other hand, his findings are negative, all I can say is "oh brother". That could send LENR back to the dungeon for a very long time, unless someone stumbles onto the magic formula.

  • Shane D.

    I hope it will work, but it seems that convincing with evidence no more work today. Sadly you need a theory, and if you have a good looking theory, probably evidence are no more needed today. (sarcasm).


    If it happening that way, in relative secret, this mean that Duncan have been trying to hide from the mainstream mindguards, which after all seems required.

  • Commercial apps are absolutely unnecessary. All that is needed is a reactor that makes substantial energy for prolonged periods without any power input. Of course, it has to be verified by independent and trustworthy parties such as renown testing labs. It would be just as good to make a lot of energy even if input power/energy is required. But only if you can show a large ratio of Pout/Pin. In that case, it is probably not difficult to make it self sustaining by using its own heat to keep it hot.


    Finally, if control is an issue, just feed all the heat back to the reactor, disconnect power, and hope for thermal runaway or a nice fat explosion. Either way, use a reliable method for determining enthalpy. And get it replicated and verified.


    I know... I know... I expect lots of excuses.


    One thing I like about the current experiment by Alan Smith and Russ George and whoever else are involved. I have heard no lame excuses, just data. Thus far, anyway. Let's hope the data get more and more robust.

  • Finally, if control is an issue, just feed all the heat back to the reactor, disconnect power, and hope for thermal runaway or a nice fat explosion.

    Control is the critical issue. I doubt anyone can deliberately cause a run away reaction. More likely it would fizzle out. But if this could be done, deliberately causing an explosion would be a terrible plan. A "nice fat explosion" might well hurt or kill someone. Because this is 21st century and people have a low tolerance for risk, that might spell the end of cold fusion research. After Mizuno experienced an explosion, the university forbade any more research on cold fusion.


    If we had control over cold fusion, we would have cold fusion cars by now.


    Another example of modern society's excessively low tolerance for risk can be seen in the reaction to the accident with a self-driving car that killed a woman. I read that the company involved may abandon the research. That is irrational; manual driving kills hundreds of people every day. There is no question that automated cars will kill some number of people, and the R&D phase will also kill more people. In the end the technology will probably be far safer than manual driving, so the sacrifices will be worth it. To stop the research now is to make the perfect the enemy of the good.



    I know... I know... I expect lots of excuses.


    If "excuses" are what you think the researchers are giving, then no, you don't know. You don't know a damn thing, and you have no idea how science works. You apparently think research is some version of paint-by-the numbers, where people know the answers but they pretend they do not. As I often say, if you "skeptics" who claim there has been no progress had any idea how difficult this is, you would be amazed at how much progress has been made. I put skeptic in quotes because this is not actual skepticism. It is blind faith in one's own ignorant, baseless opinion.

  • Quote

    . But if this could be done, deliberately causing an explosion would be a terrible plan. A "nice fat explosion" might well hurt or kill someone.

    No, silly goose. Of course I mean in a safe place, not a lab! A while back, some friends of mine conducted an experiment with liquid metals and gas phase mercury that might have been quite lethal in a lab. They did not want to bother with local safety regulations for a one shot deal due to time and expense. So they built the whole mess on an old surplus Army truck and drove the heavy duty rig into the desert near Barstow. They used a huge expanse of fenced off sand and brush belonging to someone they knew. They set up a secure remote control and telemetry system, drove a worst-case-safe distance away, and conducted their experiment. As it happens, it didn't blow up or release noxious vapors, but had it, there would have been little consequence. It would all have diffused to safe levels before any possibility of reaching civilization. That's the sort of thing I mean. Intended thermal runaway or explosion under controlled or completely fail-safe conditions-- not in someone's lab!


    Quote

    You don't know a damn thing, and you have no idea how science works.

    Not sure about that but sure as hell, I know a lot of ways science won't work.

  • Commercial apps are absolutely unnecessary.


    Yes, I agree. We don't need a working reactor for sale to change the mindset. I think all that is needed is one repeatable "effect" (no I am not talking about the Rossi Effect, or Hutchison Effect). I like to think of the Photoelectric Effect, which helped launch a new understanding physics shortly after it's discovery. If somebody can just create a repeatable experiment that breaks the current laws of physics, that should be enough. Maybe something as simple as repeatable transmutations when they shouldn't happen. I don't believe conspiracy theories that the deep state or big oil or the physics establishment will crush it. I also go crazy when people claim all this has been done already, and give crackpot lists of unverified claims.

  • My path of reasoning is the following.

    • To break the wall of denial, best is a working application...
    • Nice, but to develop an application you need a minimum of understanding of what is happening, so you can control it. No need to have the hamiltonian of the NAE, but at least where and what it is, what is needed, the metalurgical conditions, the chemical conditions, and as Jex explain well, something to convince a regulation agency it will not kill someone just as a black swan.
    • So you need to find the explanation, which mean hard work with investigation in what is happening, with expensive instruments, many experts, thus big budget.
    • But to have that big budget, you need to convince mainstream labs, and logically you could do that with nice papers, more or less replicated in various places, with many different protocols and instruments to be sure it is not an artifact. This have been done and it does not work.
    • So maybe developing a lab-rat experiment which is reliable would help, but LENR is very hard to replicate reliably as the least unknown parameter may make it fizzle like a candle in the storm.
    • Finally it seems needed to understand first what are the key parameters to LENR, so at least we can make a lab-rat and why not have int on the explanations, and good ideas for experiments.
  • That's the sort of thing I mean. Intended thermal runaway or explosion under controlled or completely fail-safe conditions-- not in someone's lab!


    I doubt anyone would be convinced by that. For one thing, it would be a one-off event, very difficult to reproduce. People would say it was a conventional explosion.


    What we need is something that can be repeated on demand many times with similar results. Similar, not exactly the same -- that's not necessary. As I said, for that you need more control than we now have. It should be done on a small scale. No more than a few watts. Anyone who does not believe it because it is on a "small scale" is an idiot. That's all the more reason to do it on a small scale. You don't want to deal with idiots, so by keeping the experiment small, you filter them out.


    Even a repeatable, semi-controlled experiment might not convince people. We have seen such experiments in the past, and they did not convince the people who were supposed to evaluate them. F&P did the boil off experiments 16 at a time, dozens of times. Hundreds of tests overall. The experiment worked nearly every time. See the paper and video here:


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




    Unfortunately, this did not convince the Toyota managers. Reportedly because they were nitwits who went to France to play golf, not to look at experiments. That sounds plausible to me. Things like that often happen. I have worked with equally incompetent people at minicomputer and mainframe companies such as DEC and Data General. They were sitting on top of the world, controlling huge shares of the computer market, and they let Microsoft steal their customers and bankrupt their companies.

  • I also go crazy when people claim all this has been done already, and give crackpot lists of unverified claims.

    What list would that be? Does that include claims made by the people at Los Alamos, or the Chairman of the Indian Atomic Energy Commission? Do you mean the Director of the Max Planck Institute for Physical Chemistry, or the guys they named the buildings after at Osaka U. at Case Western? Do you think they were crackpots?


    http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?page_id=463


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


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


    http://chemistry.case.edu/research/yces/


    http://www.jwri.osaka-u.ac.jp/en/about/enkaku.html (Arata Hall)


    Maybe you are not talking about cold fusion.

  • Jed, all theses crackpot lists (I am not calling the people crackpots) are always old and most of the people are dead or they were never able to reproduce the experiments. Can you name one of these people we can contact right now who will corroborate that they can repeatably reproduce LENR in a clearly power out > power in fashion, right now in a lab? I wish this person would start posting instructions. Please name names (not Rossi 😑) if there are hundreds, there should be one we can talk too.

  • Shane D.

    I hope it will work, but it seems that convincing with evidence no more work today. Sadly you need a theory, and if you have a good looking theory, probably evidence are no more needed today. (sarcasm).


    If it happening that way, in relative secret, this mean that Duncan have been trying to hide from the mainstream mindguards, which after all seems required.

    AlainCo,


    Disagree vehemently, my French amigo.


    Edison relentlessly experimented, failed, and did it all again until he came up with a solution. He did not have a theory, he did thought experiments and then went about building solutions.

    Einstein did thought experiments and then built theories to support them.

    Two very different approaches to problem solving.


    As I see it, LENR suffers from not being able to be consistently replicated, ie:


    Use the same bill of materials

    Use the same build instructions

    Use the same testing equipment

    Use the same testing procedures/protocols

    Consistently get the same results


    Now, to be fair, you suggest there are hundreds of papers suggesting the LENR phenomenon produces excess heat,

    I don’t doubt you, however, how many of these experiments followed the above replication requirements?


    If they have, then they should ALL be able to be replicated again and again by anyone, anywhere following the same instructions, no?

  • Can you name one of these people we can contact right now who will corroborate that they can repeatably reproduce LENR in a clearly power out > power in fashion, right now in a lab?

    See:


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


    If you are an expert, you have lots of funding, a well-equipped lab, and a year or two to devote to the effort, it is very likely you can replicate cold fusion. If you happen to have ~$20 million you can probably do it in less time than a year. It is much easier than building a tokamak plasma reactor or building and launching a robot explorer to Mars. I would say it is roughly as difficult as doing successful open heart surgery, where the patient survives. Richard Oriani, who was one of the world top electrochemists, said it was the most difficult experiment he ever did. The success rate will be higher than it was for transistors in 1955. Since no one questioned the existence of transistors then, there is no rational reason to question cold fusion now.


    If you are looking for an experiment that you or any amateur can do, forget it.

  • If you happen to have ~$20 million you can probably do it in less time than a year.

    The paper I cited above explains why. It is done manually. You have to test ~100 samples to get ~5 that work well. I have heard about a group with a great deal of money, experience, and robotic equipment designed for a similar research purpose. I have heard they are adapting it to cold fusion research. I believe that costs ~$250 million, but I could be wrong. Maybe more? If that works, they may be able to perform tests and explore the parameter space a few thousand times faster than one person can using the methods described in the paper.


    Once you know how to make a cell, you don't need to make ~100 cells to get 5. You make 100 and they all work. Experts tell me you would need one or two billion dollars to make a production line that produces reliable cells every time. In other words, it would cost about as much as Toyota spent to start mass producing Prius automobile. Not a lot of money by the standards of modern high technology.


    An actual physical cold fusion device resembles a Nicad battery or an LED light that replaces an incandescent bulb. The materials purity, manufacturing tolerances and so on are similar. It is not something you can put together yourself, at home, by hand, with parts purchased from Home Depot. Roseland67 wants something that "anyone, anywhere following the same instructions" can make. I doubt he would demand similar instructions for making a Nicad battery or an LED light. Or for that matter, a Prius or the Top Quark hadron collider. Yet for some reason he believes these things exist. He has never seen a Top Quark or visited the hadron collider, yet he does not demand a lists of supplies and a recipe to make one. I think he has come up with a unique demand for easy reproducibility that he makes for cold fusion, and cold fusion alone. I also suspect that he makes that demand because he has not read the literature and he does not have a clue how cold fusion research is done, or why it is difficult.

  • Quote

    The success rate will be higher than it was for transistors in 1955. Since no one questioned the existence of transistors then, there is no rational reason to question cold fusion now

    Me winces at bad logic. Parallel thoughts: since no one questioned the existence of transistors then, there is no rational reason to question flying pigs now.

  • Me winces at bad logic. Parallel thoughts: since no one questioned the existence of transistors then, there is no rational reason to question flying pigs now.

    If 20% to 50% of pigs flew, and the others failed to get off the ground, you would not question the existence of flying pigs. The success rate for transistors and cold fusion devices varies from around 50% to 20%. The fact that they often fail is no reason to doubt they exist.


    You seem to be saying you do not believe any report that any cold fusion device worked. You think the success rate is zero. That is a different assertion. I suppose if you believed the success rate is 20%, you would concede that proves cold fusion is real. You and many other skeptics are in a tough position. To maintain your belief, you have to reject every single report of every positive experiment, no matter how well it was done, or how many hundreds of times it was repeated. Like Shanahan, you have to come up with excuse after excuse, mainly to avoid looking at the results, but when you do look, you have to come up with wildly improbably reasons to dismiss them, finally resorting to physically impossible nonsense to dismiss them. If even one experiment succeeded, that would mean cold fusion is real. I suppose it would also mean the success rate is 1 in ~14,000 attempts, where the other 14,000 are mistakes. That seems unlikely to me. (There have been approximately 14,000 positive tests, according to someone who counted them at the Institute of High Energy Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences.)


    I don't envy you, or the mental gymnastics you must perform to deny reality. The calorimetry used in cold fusion was first developed by Lavoisier in 1780, and perfected in the 1840s by J.P. Joule. Any scientist from that time on could have confirmed the excess heat. Anyone after 1900 could have confirmed the tritium. When you reject these results, in essence you have to reject the whole of physics going back two centuries, including all of thermodynamics. You have to pretend that fundamental techniques performed thousands of times a day do not work. Your plight is very similar to that of the Rossi supporters, who are also forced to pretend that thermodynamics and the conservation of energy do not exist, and that photos and other hard data proving they are wrong does not exist.

  • To repeat my original question, "Can you name one of these people we can contact right now who will corroborate that they can repeatably reproduce LENR in a clearly power out > power in fashion, right now in a lab?"


    So Jed, after reading what you said, I take it your answer is no? I only saw one name mentioned and that person is dead. I would like to see if we can get one of these crackpot list people onto this board to corroborate. I don't think the people are crackpot, I think the list is crackpot.

  • Evidence is not the problem; not the solution, not the question, there is a lack of theory which unlike in the openminded 1920s, prevent authorized people to accept facts.

    Sadly I see many proposal which are today accepted as fact despite there is not much solid evidence but great theories.

  • AlainCo what do you think is going to mark the event of the birth of the theory?

    Single publication in major journal, a number of publications, Nobel, something else?

    I don't see how people making investment decisions would be able to assess any theory.

    I believe the major factor is human. Thiose people who have ears of the decision makers are major reason of lenr not being accepted.

  • There has been some talk lately about trying to get JM to re-start production of their special Pd batch that brought so much success to FP's/Miles. Also, I think the Japanese had a special source that produced better than the rest. Any movement on that front?


    Upping the success rate, might get things moving along faster.

  • Me winces at bad logic. Parallel thoughts: since no one questioned the existence of transistors then, there is no rational reason to question flying pigs now.

    Let me reiterate there are two separate, unrelated arguments here.


    ME: A low success rate does not call into question the validity of a claim. The first cloned mammal experiment worked only once in ~1000 attempts, but no one denied that Dolly the sheep was a clone.


    Seven_of_twenty: Cold fusion is like flying pigs. It has never happened, in any test. The failure rate is not 20%. It is 100%. All ~14,000 positive tests in the literature are mistakes. Every single peer-reviewed report by McKubre, Fleischmann, Miles, Srinivasan, Yeager, Bockris, Oriani and the other experts has mistakes in it. No one has identified these mistakes. There is not a single published paper pointing out mistakes in any of these papers, yet I am sure they are wrong. I am sure there is a not a single instance of an actual positive cold fusion experiment in history. Neither heat nor tritium has been detected. If there were one successful instance, that would mean the cold fusion effect is real.


    I would say that is bad logic. You should consider wincing at it. Or reconsidering. Your position is extreme. I have not exaggerated it. What I describe is the conclusion you must reach -- reach, and then cling to -- if what you say is correct, and cold fusion is impossible like flying pigs. Every single report must be wrong.

  • There has been some talk lately about trying to get JM to re-start production of their special Pd batch that brought so much success to FP's/Miles.

    I have not heard that. Who is trying to do that? Fleischmann and I tried many years ago, as described in the Fleischmann - Miles letters. I don't think anyone has tried since then. Mike McKubre mentioned that he got some of the old material and tried it, and it worked pretty well.


    Someone should try the modern version. That is to say, the palladium J.M. sells for hydrogen filters today. I'll bet it works as well as the older material did. The relevant material charactoristics are the same. If they were not, it wouldn't work as a filter. It would crack and leak after a while. Presumably, the resistance to cracking at high loading is what makes it work well as a cold fusion cathode. That's what Martin thought. The people at NASA and at BARC both used actual hydrogen filter machines to do cold fusion (Milton Roy electrolyzers), with deuterium gas instead of hydrogen. It worked. I do not know if that was with old or new filter material, but anyway, they say it worked. See:


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


    Also, I think the Japanese had a special source that produced better than the rest. Any movement on that front?

    At ICCF21 they wouldn't tell us anything, and they won't share the material. "Us" includes me, so they can't use the old "I have trouble with English" excuse. Within Japan, Arata refused to share his material with others, so others reverse engineered him. Now they won't share with us. Fortunately, Brian Ahern has some made at Ames Nat. Lab. and it seems to work pretty well. I guess we shouldn't give any to the Japanese. That'll fix their wagons!


    This is typical of cold fusion. It is typical of most academic science. If computer science worked this way, we would still be using vacuum tube computers.


    Upping the success rate, might get things moving along faster.

    True that.

  • Jed, where do you come up with 14000 results? Why not 15000?

    In your opinion, what is the single most irrefutable experiment of these 14000. And why has this greatest example not come to the forefront somehow. Can we talk to the people that know about and can duplicate the experiment? I assume they are dead too? I think it is time to revisit the most successful experiments and see if they can be duplicated.

  • I have not heard that. Who is trying to do that? Fleischmann and I tried many years ago, as described in the Fleischmann - Miles letters. I don't think anyone has tried since then. Mike McKubre mentioned that he got some of the old material and tried it, and it worked pretty well.


    I was hoping you would not ask that. :) I thought it was Miles in his CFN's podcast whom mentioned about trying to persuade JM to make another batch, but the cost to ramp up a line for such a small amount was too high. Or maybe it was FP's from your letters? I could not find a reference though. There has been talk here though, about those special batches of Pd:


    Uploaded Letters from Martin Fleischmann to Melvin Miles


    The 21st INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE FOR CONDENSED MATTER NUCLEAR SCIENCE - ICCF-21 registration is open


    Of course, we know about JM, but in the one thread you mention Violante at the ENEA making productive Pd, which was interesting. I will look, as I recall also the Japanese saying something similar about their supplier.

  • Jed, where do you come up with 14000 results? Why not 15000?

    As I noted above, that wasn't me. That was someone at the Institute of High Energy Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences. A grad student, I'll bet. Imagine trying to count all those experiments! See Front. Phys. China (2007) 1: 96 102


    In your opinion, what is the single most irrefutable experiment of these 14000.


    There is no single most irrefutable. The well-funded studies by world class people such as Fleischmann, McKubre, Bockris, Will, Oriani, Storms and Miles have not been refuted. So that makes them irrefutable. Right? Morrison and Shanahan are the only two who even tried to refute them as far as I know. I encourage you to read their papers and judge for yourself whether they succeeded. See:


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


    These are all Pd-D electrolysis experiments, because these people were electrochemists. They used the same techniques and materials. These are close replications, with similar success rates. Other groups of experiments are quite different, such as Arata's. I think only 5 or 6 groups replicated him.


    The best papers were written by McKubre, Storms and Miles, because they did good work and they write well. Fleischmann's experiments are the most convincing, and they were repeated hundreds of times at enormously high s/n ratios, but his writing can be difficult to understand. To learn about the field I would start here:


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


    I used this as the basis for my video.


    And why has this greatest example not come to the forefront somehow.

    The forefront where? At LENR-CANR.org? In Ed Storms book? In my book? They are not at the forefront in Nature, Sci. Am. or the Washington Post because the editors at those publications say that all cold fusion researcher are frauds, criminals and lunatics; the effect was never replicated; and no paper about it was ever published in the peer-reviewed literature. I think they sincerely believe that, but they are mistaken. The rest of the mass media often claims the effect was never replicated. No mass media outlet anywhere in the U.S. or Japan will publish a letter or paper from any scientist disputing this view, or pointing to evidence contrary to it. Believe me, the researchers and their supporters have tried.


    Can we talk to the people that know about and can duplicate the experiment?

    Most of them are dead, so no. You can read their papers. You, personally, probably cannot duplicate their experiments, any more than you could perform open heart surgery. I have hung around with these people, spent weeks in the labs, attended conferences and I have read, translated and copy edited HUNDREDS of their papers, but when they start talking about the nitty-gritty details of chemistry and electrochemisty, this instrument, that technique, or what-have-you, I have no clue what they are saying. I could not actually do the physical experiments to save my life. If you want to know what they know, see how far you get with Bockris' textbook, "Modern Electrochemistry" which is the gold standard:


    https://archive.org/stream/Joh…28BookSee.org%29_djvu.txt


    If you cannot understand every chapter of that textbook about as well as I understand a Pascal programming manual (which is to say, in my sleep), you are not capable of doing cold fusion.


    As I described above in messages 14 and 15, you could only duplicate this work if you happen to be a world-class electrochemist with a fully equipped laboratory and 1 or 2 years to devote to the effort. Or you could do it faster if you happen to have $20 million burning a hole in your pocket. You can go even faster and enhance the likelihood of success even more if you happen to have ~$250 million in robotic test equipment for chemistry research, as I explained above.

  • Here are some sample paragraphs from the Bockris textbook. I grabbed these because they cite some fiends and teachers of Mizuno and various people associated with cold fusion such as Gerischer. I have no clue what this means. If you read these paragraphs and say to yourself, "ah, yes, I knew that." Or at least, "interesting . . . good point" then perhaps you know enough to do cold fusion. Maybe. On the other hand, Richard Oriani, who published 200 papers and certainly knew everything in this textbook, said it was the most difficult experiment he ever did. You can read about his work and judge how much he knew.


    From the book:


    Quote

    The great emphasis laid by the early workers in the theory of photoelectro-chemistry on processes within the semiconductor arose because the principal authors (Gerischer, 1970s; Pleskov and Gurevich, 1980s) stressed only the region of photocurrent near the limiting current. Hence, the electrode was in a condition in which the transport of electrons or holes within the semiconductor was indeed the rate-determining step. It was Uosaki 9 and Kita (1981) who first found normal Tafel relations in photoelectrochemical reactions occurring at current densities well below the limiting-current region. Such a result suggested that interfacial electron transfer is the rate-determining step in photoelectrochemical reactions (Fig. 10.13).

    More striking evidence of the effect of surface properties on the rate of photoelectrochemical reactions is provided from experiments on the effect of etching the surfaces of p-silicon and evolving H 2 photoelectrochemically on varying surfaces (Szklarczyk and Bockris, 1984). Thus, depending on the degree of etching (i.e., the degree to which an oxide film is removed and the underlying Si exposed the overpotential to reach a certain current density (e.g., 10 mA cm -1 ) was decreased. The effects are large (see Fig. 10.14); the photocurrent density at a given overpotential changed by about 10 6 times as the structure of the anodic surfaces on p-Si was changed.

    Thus, below the limiting-current density, for photoelectrochemical hydrogen or oxygen evolution reactions, an interfacial charge-transfer process is rate controlling. In support of this contention, the photocurrent density at a given electrode depends greatly on the nature of the solute species that supplies or takes away electrons at the interface (Gonzalez-Martin, 1993). This would of course be very difficult to interpret if the Schottky barrier approximation (diffusion of internal charge carriers that are in rate control) continued to be rate determining 10 below the limiting current region.


    If you read that and you think, "yes, indeed, of course it would be difficult to interpret if the Schottky barrier approximation continued at that rate" then okay, you may know enough. If you don't know that, or at least understand it, you are not a PhD in electrochemistry and you probably cannot do cold fusion.


    I have programmed millions of lines of Pascal, so I can probably do it better than you. I don't know everything in a Pascal programming manual, but there is no section I cannot quickly understand and make use of. (Unless it is some mathematical function or what-have-you that I don't understand outside the context of the language.) Obviously, I don't have the whole manual memorized. The point to a manual is to look things up! The point of this textbook by Bockris is to look up stuff about electrochem. But if you can't understand them having looked them up, and "of course" is not of course to you, you are not ready to do cold fusion.


    Bockris himself could lecture in detail on any part of this textbook without notes, writing the equations on the blackboard at speed without error. He was astounding. That's according to Mizuno and McKubre who knew him well. I spent several days with him all told, and I don't doubt that. Among 20th century electrochemists, he was second only to Fleischmann. That's why those two could do cold fusion. Actually, most active, professional PhD electrochemists can. There are only a few hundred of them in the world, and a large fraction of them did replicate cold fusion, but Fleischmann and Bockris were really good at it. As was Stan Pons, to give credit where it is richly deserved.

  • Evidence is not the problem; not the solution, not the question, there is a lack of theory which unlike in the openminded 1920s, prevent authorized people to accept facts.

    Sadly I see many proposal which are today accepted as fact despite there is not much solid evidence but great theories.

    AlainCo,


    This is not religion, philosophy, economics or politics. It is not a high school debate class yo be argued, it is science.


    “IF”,


    My experiments are accurately built, properly measured, getting the same results every time, are the experimental results not valid simply because there is no theory?


    Of course not.

    Damn the theory, in all cases the replicable experiment trumps the theory or lack thereof.


    Jed, and many others are missing a very important point about replication.


    “IF” the experiment does not get the same results EVERYTIME, then it has not been replicated.

    Something changed, this is science,

    there is an answer, find it.