Where is the LENR goal line, and how best do we get there?

  • Replicating the instrument is not the best way to prove a point. changing the measurement method is good to cross check.

    Yes. The only problem is when the instrument affects the performance of the experiment. For example, some kinds of calorimeters prevent the cell from getting hot. If a reaction occurs, heat will enhance it, but these calorimeters will prevent that.

  • The only problem is when the instrument affects the performance of the experiment.


    This would have been a problem if the claimed phenomenon was real, but being LENR a non-existent phenomenon, the apparently positive performances obtained in some experiments are always due to one or more flaws in the instruments or in the method used to measure the data and calculate the energy balance. This is why in order to successfully replicate the results of a alleged positive LENR experiment, it is ESSENTIAL to exactly reproduce the original test set-up and carefully follow the original procedures step by step.


    This maniacal care in reproducing every detail of the original tests, allowed Lonchampt to successfully replicate the F&P original experiments, achieving the same results. Today, after many years, the quite good description of his work presented at ICCF6 and ICCF7, allows us to better recognize the incredible flaws that determined those apparently positive results, both in the original experiments of F&P, and in the accurate replications of Lonchampt.

  • Why do you visit this forum? For closed minds there are better places - like the catholic church, just to name one...


    Because CF/LENR is the most interesting socio-psychological phenomenon in the last decades. Nothing better than LENR shows to what extent humans are capable of self-delusion. It has been a privilege to have had the possibility to examine its technical details and to exchange opinions with some of its main protagonists. I learned a lot discussing about the Ecat, and LENR in general. LENR touches almost every aspect of the reality of our world: science, politics, finance, psychology, rhetoric, global emergencies such as depletion of resources and climate change, and even … religion, why not? After all, science and technology - especially their pseudo-versions - operate nowadays as the new universal religions of the humankind.


    This forum started his activity in February 2014 (1), strongly supporting the reality of the Ecat. At least 3 out of 5 administrators were fervent supporters of this "faith". The icon of one of them showed a hot-cat and the words "I WANT TO BELIEVE". But thanks to the mind openness of these same administrators, this forum has also accepted the opposite point of views, so that now, after 4 years, only few of his members still believe the Rossi-says, and these lasts are considered as members of a cult or a religion (2). All the other former believers have lost a "faith" but have acquired a "truth". Was it a positive or a negative outcome for them? And for you?


    What if the "cult in the Ecat" is just a sect of a larger "cult in CF/LENR" which lasts since F&P spread it in 1989 (which in turns is a sect of the "super-cult in science and technology")?


    This thread is devoted to investigate where the goal line of LENR is. It might be useful to remember where the starting line was, and also to consider the possibility that the two apostles of this religion were simply wrong.


    (1) Welcome

    (2) Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

  • What if the "cult in the Ecat" is just a sect of a larger "cult in CF/LENR" which lasts since F&P spread it in 1989 (which in turns is a sect of the "super-cult in science and technology")?


    Ascoli,


    IMO, that is being overly harsh. Even with a (?) mark at the end. Cult's can never be convinced otherwise. Once we saw the facts as laid out in the court documents, we were convinced and now are Rossi's most ferocious critics. Even before that, there was much suspicion, but that was held in check by Rossi partnering up with IH.


    It is also unfair of you to lump Rossi in with the rest of the field, portraying all as one "socio-psychological phenomenon". Even you must realize that is a bit if a stretch? LENR history, quality of the research/researchers, motivations, personalities, are all different from, and better than Rossi and his story. They could not be more different. Obviously, as others have said, you will not be convinced of that, so I will not try.


    Overall, I thought your post was bitter, almost personal, and very unlike you. You have always had it in for those surrounding Rossi's early years, but were usually polite about it I thought, and you targeted only them. Now, after slaying the Ecat, you seem to have set your sights on doing the same to LENR, and anyone associated with it. That is fine by me. We have plenty of skeptics here, yet LF is still thriving. Just keep in mind that there is no crime in doing the research, or believing in those doing the research. So no reason to make it personal.

  • Because CF/LENR is the most interesting socio-psychological phenomenon in the last decades. Nothing better than LENR shows to what extent humans are capable of self-delusion. It has been a privilege to have had the possibility to examine its technical details and to exchange opinions with some of its main protagonists. I learned a lot discussing about the Ecat, and LENR in general. LENR touches almost every aspect of the reality of our world: science, politics, finance, psychology, rhetoric, global emergencies such as depletion of resources and climate change, and even … religion, why not? After all, science and technology - especially their pseudo-versions - operate nowadays as the new universal religions of the humankind.


    It's is OK to debunk Rossi, who simply has no clue about the physics, that is underplayed to his experiments.


    But unluckily for you, soon people will call today standard model physics being pseudo science. Hot fusion, the offspring of a military lie, will be named the most unsuccessful project ever, burning megatons of money, we would need to educate, e.g. 90% of the undereducated US population.


    The sect of standard model physicists is worse than the catholic church, but the successful explanation of LENR physics will "push them over the cliff".

  • IMO, that is being overly harsh. Even with a (?) mark at the end. [...] So no reason to make it personal.


    Not my intention to be harsh and, in my comment, there was nothing personal against anyone.


    I was replying to a (quite harsh, in this case) comment which was blaming me for a religious mind closure. I have only observed that this psychological limitation is very common in our current society, and it concerns science and technology as a whole, with no exceptions, cold (and hot) fusion included.


    Quote

    It is also unfair of you to lump Rossi in with the rest of the field, portraying all as one "socio-psychological phenomenon". Even you must realize that is a bit if a stretch? LENR history, quality of the research/researchers, motivations, personalities, are all different from, and better than Rossi and his story. They could not be more different.


    IMO, there are many similarities and coincidences showing that the Ecat farce is the natural evolution of the CF/LENR history. Both initiatives began with a patent application, followed by a public event in which the media were invited to directly communicate these alleged inventions to the public, bypassing the usual scientific procedure. Subsequently, the rights on the F&P patents were acquired by ENECO, a company who reminds of IH (1). Moreover, one of the main ENECO's stakeholder and a first protagonist of the CF/LENR field, closely accompanied Rossi in his first steps in this exclusive world (2).


    Last but not least, in evaluating the excess heat produced by their cells, F&P made the same wrong assumptions on the dryness of the outgoing steam, which also allowed to overestimate the heat produced by the Ecat by a factor of up to 6 times during the demo held on January 2011 (the balance to the x12 gain, stated in the calorimetric report, being obtained by misrepresenting the water flow rate).


    Quote

    Now, after slaying the Ecat, you seem to have set your sights on doing the same to LENR, and anyone associated with it.


    I just followed the appeal launched by JR in this same thread. He strongly urged those who are not persuaded by the reality of the CF/LENR phenomena to look at the technical details of the boil-off experiments performed by F&P and by their replicators, in particular Lonchampt. I did it and the most meaningful results I found are summarized in the following table:



    All maximum values of the excess heat (XH gain) were obtained at boiling conditions. It's obvious to everyone, where these seemingly positive results come from (3):

    slide_21.jpg


    The gain decrease in the above table can be easily explained by the extra care taken in improving the test set-ups along the years, which caused the excess heat to progressively fade away, as is typical when measurement artifacts are involved.


    Finally - as already mentioned (4) - in his second paper on the F&P experiments, Lonchampt anticipated his intention to repeat the tests "with mass flow calorimetry that will simplify the possible calibration errors". But he has not publish any other paper on this same subject. Not a good sign for those who wish to convince people that "F&P ont répliqué et été réplique, de plus avec des méthodes calorimétrique plus simples (car Fleischmann étant a des plus grands experts du monde à ce sujet avait, comme l’a bien démontré George Lonchampt utilisé des astuces d’experts loin devant les autres notamment Caltech et MIT)."


    (1) Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

    (2) Where is the LENR goal line, and how best do we get there?

    (3) http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GrabowskiKrobustperf.pdf

    (4) Where is the LENR goal line, and how best do we get there?

  • I just followed the appeal launched by JR in this same thread. He strongly urged those who are not persuaded by the reality of the CF/LENR phenomena to look at the technical details of the boil-off experiments performed by F&P and by their replicators, in particular Lonchampt.


    LENR is far more than just demonstrating successful excess heat. May be you should spend some time with reading papers and attending meetings. Jaque Ruer (presented this spring in Paris) recently analyzed ( in a professional lab) one of the famous Fleischmann electrodes, that produced a lot of excess-heat, to look for transmutations. The seen isotope shift can only be explained by a nuclear reaction between palladium and deuterium.


    But we need not to convince you that LENR is real. It's your turn to explain why one silver isotope is seen in a much higher, than the natural ratio.


    If you don't understand that it is your turn to disprove all the LENR findings, then may be, you don't understand how science works.

  • LENR is far more than just demonstrating successful excess heat. May be you should spend some time with reading papers and attending meetings.


    Reading papers is exactly what I did to better understand the soundness of the calorimetric measurements performed by F&P, as strongly suggested by JR (who probably has read much more papers and attended much more meetings than any else here on L-F)


    As for attending meetings, it's too demanding. But, looking at the "A Brief History of ICCFs" by McKubre (1), I admit that it would be a nicer way to realize that "LENR is far more than just demonstrating successful excess heat".


    Quote

    Jaque Ruer (presented this spring in Paris) recently analyzed ( in a professional lab) one of the famous Fleischmann electrodes, that produced a lot of excess-heat, to look for transmutations. The seen isotope shift can only be explained by a nuclear reaction between palladium and deuterium.


    Are you talking about the author of the article titled "Analysis of the Potential Thermal Behavior of the Energy Catalyzer as Described in the Patent US 9,115,913 B1" (2)?


    Quote

    But we need not to convince you that LENR is real. It's your turn to explain why one silver isotope is seen in a much higher, than the natural ratio.


    Probably for the same reason that isotopic shifts were claimed for the various Ecat versions since 2008 (3).


    Quote

    If you don't understand that it is your turn to disprove all the LENR findings, then may be, you don't understand how science works.


    All the (alleged) LENR findings? Well, it would require too much time, but for what I've already seen, I think to have better understood how science works.


    (1) Media reports, no discussion please.

    (2) http://www.e-catworld.com/2015…entist-on-e-cat-greenwin/

    (3) https://patents.google.com/patent/US20110005506A1/en

  • It's is OK to debunk Rossi, who simply has no clue about the physics, that is underplayed to his experiments.


    But unluckily for you, soon people will call today standard model physics being pseudo science. Hot fusion, the offspring of a military lie, will be named the most unsuccessful project ever, burning megatons of money, we would need to educate, e.g. 90% of the undereducated US population.


    The sect of standard model physicists is worse than the catholic church, but the successful explanation of LENR physics will "push them over the cliff".

    Wyttenbach,


    You have drunk deeply from the Rossi

    KoolAid machine, to the point of using his favorite descriptor, “Soon”


    Maybe you have the cajones to actually define “soon”.

    Give me any realistic date and I will

    take the over


  • Delivering a useful nuclear based energy production commercial product is not an easy job to do. Ask ITER. if their product is going to be available shortly...soon.

  • If you don't understand that it is your turn to disprove all the LENR findings, ...

    All the (alleged) LENR findings? Well, it would require too much time, ...


    Actually, there is a much shorter way to do this: identify the most representative document in the LENR field, and disprove its findings, or, even better, let some recognized LENR expert do it.


    JR has just posted this comment:

    ... I talked to many experts such as Adm. Griffin, Fleischmann, and many distinguished non-experts such as Clarke. I listened carefully and I ran the manuscript past them to be sure I described their points of view correctly. I consulted with most of the people who knew about cold fusion at that time.

    [...]
    * See: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJcoldfusionb.pdf


    In the linked document - "Cold Fusion Will Lower the Cost of Both Energy and Equipment", a recent paper presented at ICCF20 in 2016 - JR cites only one reference relating to CF/LENR findings [bold added]:

    From http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJcoldfusionb.pdf

    […]

    In contrast to the conventional sources of energy in Table 1, cold fusion has characteristics that may make it very inexpensive. It is safe, easy to produce, flexible, scalable and clean. We know it has these qualities because on rare occasions it has produced stable, high power continuously for weeks, at boiling temperatures. In the best experiment on record, the Icarus 9 reactor produced the same power density as a fission reactor core (Table 2). [4] The performance demonstrated in these tests would suffice for nearly all practical applications.

    […]

    4. Roulette, T., J. Roulette, and S. Pons.

    Results of ICARUS 9 Experiments Run at IMRA Europe. in Sixth International Conference on Cold Fusion, Progress in New Hydrogen Energy. 1996. Lake Toya, Hokkaido, Japan: New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Tokyo, Japan.


    So, JR (the most informed expert in the CF/LENR field) identified Icarus 9 (a test carried out 20 years earlier) as the best experiment on record.


    But, wait, this is the same experiment for which Lonchampt wrote in 1998 (1): "The boiling experiment deserves more attention, as shown by Roulette et al. who demonstrated that more excess heat could be obtained that way. We have in progress a similar experiment, but with mass flow calorimetry that will simplify the possible calibration errors. Blank runs with platinum have already been done showing that this type of calorimetry has a sensitivity better than 2%."


    Therefore, the LENR findings that - after 20+ years - JR still considers the best on record were already heavily challenged in 1998 by Lonchampt, the nuclear expert who is considered by JR (and by other LENR supporters, like AlainCo) the best replicator of the F&P experiments, and who "de facto" disproved the findings of the two CF fathers (2)!


    Now, it's your turn to demonstrate the logic of this Catch22 situation.


    (1) http://www.jeanpaulbiberian.net/Download/Paper%2046.pdf

    (2) Where is the LENR goal line, and how best do we get there?

  • Actually, there is a much shorter way to do this: identify the most representative document in the LENR field, and disprove its findings, or, even better, let some recognized LENR expert do it.


    As said and many times repeated in this forum: The best documented and radiation measured LENR experiment is Lipinski's Lithium H* fusion.


    search for: WO 2014/189799 A9 or US 2016/0118144 A1 Patents!! 100eV is the input energy with the highest COP (>1000).


    We would be very pleased if you can refute these claims...



  • Further to this point, and Jed's possible rebuttal stating that F&P were aware of the issue and checked salt levels to show that in fact the expected amount of water was boiled off, and not entrained.


    Entrained water droplets (resulting in the false positive energy excess as above) can derive from two mechanisms:


    (1) direct entrainment - salt content will equal that of liquid and therefore entrainment leads to total salt loss.

    (2) distillation: liquid -> vapour -> liquid within the calorimetry envelope. In this case entrainment carries no salt.


    Without careful analysis to disambiguate these two distinct mechanisms salt measurement says nothing about quantity of entrainment.


    F&P say they measured salt levels to to provide assurance that there was no significant liquid entrainment: that does not cover the case of distillation within the calorimetric boundary.


    F&P do not note this lack, nor consider the possibility of (2).


    More generally: an effect which is much larger under boil-off conditions should be viewed with suspicion. The electrolyte temperature is no different from what it would be at 100C but with low evaporation. However all these potential error sources, and others caused bu turbulent conditions in vessel being different from those found in calibration, are much more significant.


    THH

  • Entrained water droplets (resulting in the false positive energy excess as above) can derive from two mechanisms:


    (1) direct entrainment - salt content will equal that of liquid and therefore entrainment leads to total salt loss.

    (2) distillation: liquid -> vapour -> liquid within the calorimetry envelope. In this case entrainment carries no salt.


    Without careful analysis to disambiguate these two distinct mechanisms salt measurement says nothing about quantity of entrainment.


    F&P say they measured salt levels to to provide assurance that there was no significant liquid entrainment: that does not cover the case of distillation within the calorimetric boundary.

    As I pointed out to you -- time after time after time -- they also checked within the calorimetric boundary. That is to say, they carefully washed out the cells with ultrapure water and then tested to see how much salts were removed, then they used other techniques to determine how much salt was permanently in the wall. They described this in the papers I pointed out to you. You refuse to admit they thoroughly addressed this issue, and you refuse to tell us what other technique they might have used to prove there was no significant entrainment.


    You will not take "yes" for an answer.



    More generally: an effect which is much larger under boil-off conditions should be viewed with suspicion. The electrolyte temperature is no different from what it would be at 100C but with low evaporation.

    And as I pointed out again, and again, and again, if there was a problem it would show up in the calibrations, which showed no heat. And, no, there is no suspicion, and no difference between the power level during the boil off phase and the phases before and after it. The cell is just as hot in the heat after death phase following boil off, although of course a different calorimetric method must be used.

  • https://coldfusionnow.org/cfnpodcast/


    As Alan pointed out on another thread, Ruby's (thank you) latest podcast features Dennis Craven. Craven works with IH's Dennis Letts now, and has worked with many of the old guard going back many years. He and Letts made a presentation at ICCF21. Some interesting comments from the interview:


    The Pd-D gas "LT LENR Tubes" are pretty reliable. They generally run 5-7 Ws XH for days, but some have peaked at 10-20Ws for an hour.


    When they run SEMs on them , they have the pits like Stringhams pictures, which he attributes to vacancies.


    The use of dual lasers is tricky to coordinate, but when they were successful, they matched Hagelstein's theory, which made Hagelstein happy.


    Has no theory, but Letts has workable mathematical model.


    He can get a self sustaining/self powered (infinite COP) at very low mW's. (reminds me of Swartz), but the COP goes down, as the power levels go up. Looking to get 50W/gram Pd to make it viable.


    Talked about Jim Patterson, the beads, and that story...which is interesting.



    -

  • As I pointed out to you -- time after time after time -- they also checked within the calorimetric boundary. That is to say, they carefully washed out the cells with ultrapure water and then tested to see how much salts were removed, then they used other techniques to determine how much salt was permanently in the wall.


    jed, I understand that, and I'm sure they did, but that does not answer the point. If the entrained water is distilled then no amount of checking salt content within the calorimetry boundary will distinguish between entrained water (no excess enthalpy of vaporisation) and water vapour (excess energy of vaporisation).

  • jed, I understand that, and I'm sure they did, but that does not answer the point. If the entrained water is distilled then no amount of checking salt content within the calorimetry boundary will distinguish between entrained water (no excess enthalpy of vaporisation) and water vapour (excess energy of vaporisation).


    And if the calorimeter had a hole in the bottom that would give an equally misleading result. If 'ifs and ands were pots and pans' we could go into the catering business. The point is that Martin Fleischmann was a world-class experimentalist who got a Nobel Prize for producing a body of work based on thousands of experiments. Having seen XSH in electrolytic loading of metals myself at levels well above the noise and at temperatures way below 60C I have zero doubts about the effect. PdD is a door-opener to a whole new kind of physics. I'm not sure that of itself it is particularly useful method of creating useable amounts of energy, but it is an excellent system for use when creating a theoretical model that is accord with the measured effects.

  • And if the calorimeter had a hole in the bottom that would give an equally misleading result. If 'ifs and ands were pots and pans' we could go into the catering business. The point is that Martin Fleischmann was a world-class experimentalist who got a Nobel Prize for producing a body of work based on thousands of experiments. Having seen XSH in electrolytic loading of metals myself at levels well above the noise and at temperatures way below 60C I have zero doubts about the effect. PdD is a door-opener to a whole new kind of physics. I'm not sure that of itself it is particularly useful method of creating useable amounts of energy, but it is an excellent system for use when creating a theoretical model that is accord with the measured effects.


    Nor have I doubts about XSH in metals. I do however have doubts about the same in qtys clearly above possible chemical mechanisms.


    If your personal results remove those doubts then writing them up properly would be worthwhile.


    Till that is done, and the whole subjected to critique, no skeptic would or should be swayed by anecdotes.


    THH


  • Shane, I like to look at all these claims, and Craven has provided interesting material in the past (alas invalid due to a clear TC contamination mechanism - validated by data from specific Tc used).


    However I'd need a journal or conference style paper writeup to check the details. Without that, in this area, I'm just not interested. Too many variables not tied down. Do you know title + web link?

  • "PdD is a door-opener to a whole new kind of physics."


    The ease in the production of ultra dense material may be proportional to the atomic weight of the material being compressed. Protium is the hardest to compress, then deuterium is a little easier, next is lithium. Maybe lithium 7 is easier that lithium 6 to compress. And water could be the easiest compound to compress since it is a very heavy compound atomic weight wise compared to protium. Noble gases like xenon might be very easy to compress, possibly only using a shock wave from a spark discharge.

  • If the entrained water is distilled then no amount of checking salt content within the calorimetry boundary

    I do not understand what this means: "if the entrained water is distilled." Do you mean that water is first boiled and distilled inside the test tube separating from the salt, then it condenses, and then without mixing in with the electrolyte it leaves the cell? How would that work? The only way it can leave is as vapor. Also, the top is a narrow long tube that will not allow any liquid out.


    The salt left in the cell was exactly the same amount that was added with the electrolyte, as closely as can be measured with modern instruments. That includes salt left free in the bottom of the test tube, and salt embedded in the walls. Both are measured. Since all of the salt added as electrolyte is found, none of it leaves the cell during the test. Therefore, the water was boiled away; it did not leave as droplets. Droplets would remove some of the salt.

  • The point is that Martin Fleischmann was a world-class experimentalist who got a Nobel Prize

    No, he didn't. He told me he was "within shouting distance" of a Nobel. He was an FRS, he got the palladium medal and was president of the electrochemical society, but he never got the Nobel. Which, in my opinion, speaks poorly of the Nobel committee and tells us nothing about Fleischmann.

  • No, he didn't. He told me he was "within shouting distance" of a Nobel. He was an FRS, he got the palladium medal and was president of the electrochemical society, but he never got the Nobel. Which, in my opinion, speaks poorly of the Nobel committee and tells us nothing about Fleischmann.


    I know Jed. I just wanted to see if THH would bite. Apologies, sometimes I cannot resist a little mischeif.