How do you convince a skeptic?

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    Also, Journals love novelty

    So has THHuxleynew submitted a novel, anomalious paper to a journal.


    In my experience this statement is a misleading generalisation.

    journals will accept anomalous results which will be acceptable within their perceived readershjp

    some are very conservative about the range of acceptable novelty, some are less so.


    The first journal I submitted one of my papers to - Interdisciplinary medicine studies - rejected it

    it was interdisciplinary .. about conflict/miscommunication btw nurses and pharmacists- it showed anomalous results.;

    In the reject letter I detected an attitude which appeared to support the status quo of the power structure in hospitals

    which this paper's results challenged.


    The second journal, a much high impact Nursing journal ,accepted the paper

    Quote from seven_of_twenty

    I see. So if someone critiques your claims, they have to have purely technical reasons and evidence to do so while if you cite something that likely never happened, we have to take your word for it.


    Nope, you do not have to take my word for it. And you will not. I could give any amount of guilt-edged, certified, peer-reviewed proof and you wouldn't believe it. So I suggest you ignore my messages.

    Quote from Alan Smith

    However, they are in LENR-CANR. A google search there for 'gamma radiation' shows over 400 hits. If 90% of those hits are negative, ie. 'gammas not found', that leaves around 40 that are positive.


    You are counting wrong. The phrase "gamma radiation" might appear 400 times, but it is often repeated in the same paper. The number of papers dealing with gamma rays is approximately 37. Some are theory. Such as "Gammas from Cold Nuclear Fusion" which says the absence of gamma rays "constrains" cold fusion theory. It does not discuss actual results. Six are critiques or discussions of other papers, such as "Problems with the gamma-ray spectrum in the Fleischmann et al experiments." The actual number of studies is about 25. Twelve papers were somewhat positive, including things like "Possible Gamma Bursts From Gas Loaded Ti Chips." Ten were negative, and 9 described experiments without reporting results. That's 31 papers, but some experiments were described in 2 or more papers, so the total number of studies was ~25.


    A few of these papers describe variations of plasma fusion that may be applicable to cold fusion, such as bombarding a target with a beam.


    These numbers are approximate. I tallied them by searching through my EndNote database, which has some comments and categorization by Ed Storms. I may have overlooked some papers or categorized them wrong. Some of the positive papers were barely positive, and some of the negative ones said things like: "we saw gammas but we think they were background noise." I suppose that might be positive.


    Here are the titles. Four of them refer to the gamma phase of loading, not particles.


    1. Affatato, S., et al. Measurement of a Very Low Neutron Background Within a Significant Gamma-Ray Environment by Means of a Coincidence Spectrometer with n-g Pulse-Shape Discrimination. in Anomalous Nuclear Effects in Deuterium/Solid Systems, "AIP Conference Proceedings 228". 1990. Brigham Young Univ., Provo, UT: American Institute of Physics, New York.

    2. Albagli, D., et al., Measurement and analysis of neutron and gamma-ray emission rates, other fusion products, and power in electrochemical cells having Pd cathodes. J. Fusion Energy, 1990. 9: p. 133.

    3. Astakhov, I.I., et al., An attempt to detect neutron and gamma radiations in heavy water electrolysis with a palladium cathode. Electrochim. Acta, 1991. 36(7): p. 1127.

    4. Bailey, D.C., Gammas from Cold Nuclear Fusion. 1989.

    5. Bartolomeo, C., et al. Alfred Coehn and After: The Alpha, Beta and Gamma of the Palladium-Hydrogen System. in Fourth International Conference on Cold Fusion. 1993. Lahaina, Maui: Electric Power Research Institute 3412 Hillview Ave., Palo Alto, CA 94304.

    6. Belov, A.S., V.E. Kusik, and Y.V. Ryabov, The nuclear fusion for the reactions (2)H(d,n)(3)He,(2)H(d,gamma)(4)He at low deuterons energy and 'cold' nuclear fusion. Nuovo Cimento Soc. Ital. Fis. A, 1990. A103: p. 1647.

    7. Buehler, D.B., Possible Gamma Bursts From Gas Loaded Ti Chips. 1992.

    8. Cecil, F.E., et al., Measurement and Application of DD-gamma, DT-gamma and D He -gamma Reactions at Low Energy. Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A, 1985. 10-11: p. 411.

    9. Celani, F., et al. The Effect of Gamma-Beta Phase on H(D)/Pd Overloading. in ICCF7, Seventh International Conference on Cold Fusion. 1998. Vancouver, Canada: ENECO, Inc., Salt Lake City, UT.

    10. Celani, F., et al. The Effect of Gamma-Bet Phase on H(D)/Pd Overloading. in ICCF7, Seventh International Conference on Cold Fusion. 1998. Vancouver, Canada: ENECO, Inc., Salt Lake City, UT.

    11. Didyk, A. and R. Wisniewski, Changes Observed in the Elemental Composition of Palladium and Rhenium Specimens Irradiated in Dense Deuterium by gamma-Quanta with Boundary of Energy 23 MeV. J. Condensed Matter Nucl. Sci., 2014. 13.

    12. Fleischmann, M., et al., Measurements of gamma-rays from cold fusion. Nature (London), 1989. 339(622): p. 667.

    13. Gai, M., et al., Upper limits on neutron and gamma-ray emission from cold fusion. Nature (London), 1989. 340: p. 29.

    14. Gai, M., et al., Upper limits on emission rates of neutrons and gamma-rays from 'cold fusion' in deuterated metals. J. Fusion Energy, 1990. 9: p. 217.

    15. Gorodetskii, V.G., et al., Emission of neutrons and gamma quanta from palladium upon its saturation with deuterium in the gas phase. Fiz. Metal. Metalloved., 1991(7): p. 176 (in Russian).

    16. Hagelstein, P.L., Directional X-ray and gamma emission in experiments in condensed matter nuclear science. Curr. Sci., 2015. 108(4).

    17. Ilic, R., et al., A search for neutrons, protons, tritons, (3)He ions, gamma- and x-rays from deuterium-deuterium nuclear reaction in electrochemically charged palladium. Nucl. Tracks Radiat. Meas., 1990. 17: p. 483.

    18. Jones, S.E., et al. Search for Neutron, Gamma, and X-ray Emissions from Pd/LiOD Electrolytic Cells: A Null Result. in Fourth International Conference on Cold Fusion. 1993. Lahaina, Maui: Electric Power Research Institute 3412 Hillview Ave., Palo Alto, CA 94304.

    19. Jones, S.E., et al., Search for Neutron, Gamma, and X-Ray Emissions From Pd/LiOD Electrolytic Cells: A Null Result. Trans. Fusion Technol., 1994. 26(4T): p. 143.

    20. Jorne, J., Neutron and gamma-ray emission from palladium deuteride under supercritical conditions. Fusion Technol., 1991. 19: p. 371.

    21. Lipson, A.G., I.I. Bardyshev, and D.M. Sakov, Generation of hard gamma-radiation in KD2PO4 single crystals during the ferroelectric phase transition. Tech. Phys. Lett., 1994. 20: p. 957.

    22. Lopez Garcia, A.R., et al., Gamma-radiation detection limits for electrochemically induced deuterium cold-fusion rates. Nuovo Cimento Soc. Ital. Fis. A, 1992. 105: p. 987.

    23. Metzler, F., P.L. Hagelstein, and S. Lu, Observation of Non-exponential Decay in X-ray and gamma Emission Lines from Co-57. J. Condensed Matter Nucl. Sci., 2018. 27: p. 46-96.

    24. Mizuno, T., et al., Anomalous gamma peak evolution from SrCe solid state electrolyte charged in D2 gas. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy, 1997. 22: p. 23.

    25. Narita, S., et al. Gamma Ray Detection and Surface Analysis on Palladium Electrode in DC Glow-like Discharge Experiment. in Tenth International Conference on Cold Fusion. 2003. Cambridge, MA: LENR-CANR.org.

    26. Noninski, V.C., J.L. Ciottone, and P.J. White, Experiments on a possible gamma-ray emission caused by a chemical process. J. Sci. Expl., 1995. 9: p. 201.

    27. Noninski, V.C. and C.I. Noninski, Comments on 'measurement and analysis of neutron and gamma-ray emission rates, other fusion products, and power in electrochemical cells having palladium cathodes'. Fusion Technol., 1991. 19: p. 579.

    28. Park, Y.W., et al., The observation of 2.2 MeV gamma-rays in an electrochemical cell. Sae Mulli, 1989. 29: p. 231.

    29. Petrasso, R.D., et al., Problems with the gamma-ray spectrum in the Fleischmann et al experiments. Nature (London), 1989. 339(6221): p. 667.

    30. Pons, S. and M. Fleischmann, Concerning the detection of neutron and gamma-rays from cells containing palladium cathodes polarized in heavy water. Nuovo Cimento Soc. Ital. Fis. A, 1992. 105A: p. 763.

    31. Salamon, M.H., et al., Limits on the emission of neutrons, gamma-rays, electrons and protons from Pons/Fleischmann electrolytic cells. Nature (London), 1990. 344: p. 401.

    32. Sannikov, V.I., et al., Emission of neutrons and gamma-quanta from a titanium electrode polarised by a current in the gas phase over LiD. Rasplavy, 1991(4): p. 86 (in Russian).

    33. Savvatimova, I., G. Savvatimova, and A.A. Kornilova. Gamma Emission Evaluation in Tungsten Irradiated By Low Energy Deuterium Ions. in Proceedings of the 8th International Workshop on Anomalies in Hydrogen / Deuterium Loaded Metals. 2007. Sicily, Italy.

    34. Scott, C.D., et al., Measurement of excess heat and apparent coincident increases in the neutron and gamma-ray count rates during the electrolysis of heavy water. Fusion Technol., 1990. 18: p. 103.

    35. Stella, B., et al., A high efficiency, low background neutron and gamma detector for cold fusion experiments. Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A, 1995. 355: p. 609.

    36. Villa, M., On the gamma radiation measurements on the Rossi system. 2011, Bologna University and INFN Sezione di Bologna.

    37. Vysotskii, V., et al. The Experimental Discovery of the Phenomenon of Controlling and Changing Probability and Time of Spontaneous Decay and Gamma-Transmutation of Excited Nuclei Statuses. 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.

    38. Vysotskii, V., et al. Direct Observation and Experimental Investigation of the Process of Gamma-Decay Controlling in Quantum Nucleonics. in 8th International Conference on Cold Fusion. 2000. Lerici (La Spezia), Italy: Italian Physical Society, Bologna, Italy.

    39. Wakao, S., K. Ozeki, and H. Sawa, Gamma-ray emission from hydrogen-absorbing metal cathodes in D2O. J. Adv. Sci., 1990. 2(3): p. 149 (in Japanese with English abstract).

    40. Wang, D., et al., Neutrons, gamma-rays and x-rays in a gas discharge. Yuanzi Yu Fenzi Wuli Xuebao, 1993. 10(3): p. 2789 (in Chinese).

    41. Wolf, K.L., et al. A Search for Neutrons and Gamma Rays Associated with Tritium Production in Deuterated Metals. in NSF/EPRI Workshop on Anomalous Effects in Deuterated Metals. 1989. Washington, DC.

    Quote

    Nope, you do not have to take my word for it. And you will not. I could give any amount of guilt-edged, certified, peer-reviewed proof and you wouldn't believe it. So I suggest you ignore my messages.

    In other words and to return to the issue, no skeptic on this forum actually demanded a kilowatt. You made it up.


    Well, yes I find it easy to get papers published if they are highly novel, though I have never submitted an anomaly. HTS (much quoted here) would be a classic example of an experimental anomaly. Or, as I said, the FTL neutrinos.


    I think you are confusing different types of anomaly. Nothing in medicine is an exact law - a result may be surprising but only in a statistical sense, since the subjects are so infinitely variable. Whereas physics is much more clear cut. high energy radiation when not expected is of a quite different level of novelty, if real, from an unexpected but not contrary to laws that have proven 100% reliable for a long time anomaly.

    • Official Post
    Quote from Paradigmnoia

    How are gammas differentiated from x-rays in your work?


    If we had X-Rays they would be secondaries, since we have no primary source of X-rays in the system, which runs at low voltage when on, and most gamma spec measurements are taken with zero power input. We cannot see anything below around 50keV, and though hard X-rays can go up to 100KeV it takes some serious equipment to produce them. We have at various times used different shielding materials to help with characterisation of course. But the strongest indications we are seeing gammas are those where we see multiple-energy level gamma signals clearly - and those multiple gammas are ones indicative of isotopes of materials that theory (and the fuel ingredients) suggests we should be able to see. If you can see enough whorls to prove that a fingerprint belongs to a particular culprit then you can be sure of your catch. As a final point, X-rays are best detected with 'thin-chrystal' scintillators, and we are using 1" thick types, or thicker.


    I stand by this distinction. Any statements made about humans (or even human tissues) are inexact unless genetic, epigenetic, and environmental effects are all controlled. Proving that has all been done is difficult, and therefore the surprise of any anomaly is of quite a different order from replicable surprising nuclear physics.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    Any statements made about humans (or even human tissues) are inexact unless genetic, epigenetic, and environmental effects are all controlled. Proving that has all been done is difficult, and therefore the surprise of any anomaly is of quite a different order from replicable surprising nuclear physics.


    I agree. But cold fusion is not in the category "surprising nuclear physics" yet. I hope it will be eventually. I would say it is in the category of surprising material science, or surprising electrochemistry. The results are nuclear beyond any question, and without ambiguity. But the things that make it difficult to replicate are related to material science and electrochemistry. Those two fields are less replicable than particle physics. Compared to nuclear physics they are more art than science. Electrochemists tell me they do many procedures "because it works, but no one knows why." I have the impression that nuclear physics are cleaner. Not easier or simpler, but cleaner.


    Still, cold fusion is a lot more controlled and far simpler than biology or medicine. In biology, genetic, epigenetic, and environmental effects are NEVER controlled. A behavioral science biologist once told me that under the most exactly controlled laboratory conditions the organism will do whatever the hell it feels like doing. He was talking about guppies. In his studies that I participated in with guppies, I confirm: they have a mind of their own; they do as they please; and they seem to have more free will and smarts than you might imagine. In other words, they can out-think you, when it comes to being a guppy.

    Quote from seven_of_twenty

    In other words and to return to the issue, no skeptic on this forum actually demanded a kilowatt. You made it up.


    Nope. I lack the imagination to make up the kind of bullshit that skeptics proclaim. It would never occur to me that anyone would demand a kilowatt, or a "lab rat" experiment that "anyone" could do is needed, or any of the wild and crazy random goalpost moving demands that skeptics come up with. Demanding a kilowatt is as nutty as demanding cold fusion powered devices be sold in Walmart before you believe them. I think I recall some skeptics making that demand -- maybe not here. Anyway, it is the sort of lunatic demand that I never imagined anyone would make.


    I also lack the imagination to come up with the notion that foam can remove water from a cell yet it leaves all of the salts behind, or that you can boil 40 ml of water for hours, causing large bubbles, easily observed. Or that a bucket of water will evaporate overnight at room temperature.


    As Fleischmann said, we are painfully conventional people. We lack the kind of imagination that drives the so-called skeptics to come up with endless lunatic scenarios to explain away cold fusion. They have an effusion of imagination that I am simply not capable of, with my a plodding, literal minded, stick-to-the-textbook mind. I assume that calorimeters do what they are supposed to do, and that the laws of thermodynamics are correct. Whereas skeptics here and elsewhere casually throw away the whole of physics going back to Lavoisier if that is what it takes to deny that cold fusion is real. Benjamin Franklin described their mindset:


    "Perhaps the history of the errors of mankind, all things considered, is more valuable and interesting than that of their discoveries. Truth is uniform and narrow; it constantly exists, and does not seem to require so much an active energy, as a passive aptitude of soul in order to encounter it. But error is endlessly diversified; it has no reality, but is the pure and simple creation of the mind that invents it. In this field, the soul has room enough to expand herself, to display all her boundless faculties, and all her beautiful and interesting extravagancies and absurdities."


    — Benjamin Franklin, Report of Dr. Benjamin Franklin, and Other Commissioners, Charged by the King of France, with the Examination of the Animal Magnetism, as Now Practiced in Paris (1784)

    The big picture of cold fusion from dense aether model perspective is actually very similar to the conundrum of overunity, scalar physics, antigravity and room temperature superconductivity: it's negative time arrow of low dimensional geometry. It works like this: our Universe is actually highly dimensional emergent system. But the three dimensional slice of it is largely dominant for human observer and its higher dimensions are thus difficult to access. The key for exploiting and utilizing high-dimensional phenomena which would break the 3D thermodynamics is in utilizing lower-than-three dimensional geometry and arrangement. This aspect is pervading like Ariadne's red silk of destiny all breakthrough findings of the last decades.


    At the case of cold fusion the basic exploit of low-dimensional geometry is rather simple and it follows from attenuation of energy during piston collisions. Actually one of mainstream approaches to hot fusion is already based on the concept of colliding pistons, but it's still contaminated with classical 3D approach: the pistons are used for concentration of energy into a single point and for formation of dense plasma, the particles of which will still collide in 3D. The problem of 3D plasma approach is, it not only increases the temperature by adiabatic compression, but it also greatly dilutes and scatters energy during mutual collisions of its particles.


    Piston fusion schematic


    But what if we would exclude the 3D concept from 1D fusion completely and leave atom nuclei colliding along long rigid chains like sorta miniature pistons? And this is IMO just what the cold fusion is actually all about: the miniaturized one-dimensional piston fusion, arranged with single rows of atoms! I collected multiple indicia for this mechanism already, but IMO the most prominent one is the Unified Gravity approach to cold fusion, which consists of shooting protons into surface of molten lithium (BTW note how thorough and specific this particular patent application actually is!). During this the fusion readily runs in high yield under formation of alpha particles according two main reactions:


    p+6Li → 3He (2.3 MeV) + 4He (1.7 MeV) and p+7Li → 4 He (8.6 MeV) + 4He (8.6 MeV)


    This type of fusion resembles many unsuccessful attempts for hot fusion in colliders, but the spectacular point here is, only very low energy of protons is actually required here for to have fusion running - just about one thousand of Volts or even less - so that we can really talk about "cold" fusion here, despite it's still classical "accelerator" based approach like the fusor.


    But the most spectacular aspect of this arrangement is in point, it runs only when the surface of lithium remains tightly bellow its melting point - not less, not more. Here we have nuclear reaction running at MeV scale which not only requires input energy just at one keV scale, but this reaction can be even modulated by energy changes at the milielectronvolt scale - which is simply unbelievable according to laws of thermodynamics and all activation energy theorems, which follow from it. Which also enforces me in conviction, that this way of fusion is not fake, because you couldn't invent such an insight ad-hoc: one must really observe something like it for being able to bring it up.


    My explanation of this fascinating subtlety is, the surface of molten lithium bellow its melting point remains semicrystalline due to surface tension forces with planes of atoms perfectly arranged in sort of crystal lattice. So that once proton hits some lithium atom at the surface, this energy is mediated and transferred along long line of adjacent lithium atoms - but not to neighboring atoms, which would dilute and scatter the energy of impact into an outside. The classical thermodynamics developed for large atom ensembles colliding in 3D thus cannot be applied here.

    It may be well possible, that most recent Andrea Rossi E-Cat SK / Quark X reactor work on the same principle, just in more primitive arrangement. In essence, Lipinski's are shooting protons into a thin surface layer of molten lithium covering the anode and such a reaction can run within Rossi discharge reactors as well: Andrea Rossi just replaced low pressure by inert gas (argon) and he utilizes high-frequency component of discharge. Which also gives sense (the same ions can collide multiple-time with lithium surface, not to say about various resonance effects which may apply there). Note also that protons would oxidize lithium, so that they must be replaced by electrons during every half-period for to leave the surface of lithium anode pure and clean (which is principle of TIG welding of aluminum, for example).

    Quote from Zephir_AWT

    But what if we would exclude the 3D concept from 1D fusion completely and leave atom nuclei colliding along long rigid chains like sorta miniature pistons? And this is IMO just what the cold fusion is actually all about: the miniaturized one-dimensional piston fusion, arranged with single rows of atoms!


    This is exactly what I postulated several years ago with my V1DLLBEC theory. Vibrating 1Dimensional Lutinger Liquid Bose Einstein Condensate Theory.


    https://www.google.com/search?…0j33i299j0i13.o6fTuxqca1w

    Quote from Zephir_AWT

    p+6Li → 3He (2.3 MeV) + 4He (1.7 MeV) and p+7Li → 4 He (8.6 MeV) + 4He (8.6 MeV)


    This type of fusion resembles many unsuccessful attempts for hot fusion in colliders, but the spectacular point here is, only very low energy of protons is actually required here for to have fusion running - just about one thousand of Volts or even less - so that we can really talk about "cold" fusion here, despite it's still classical "accelerator" based approach like the fusor.

    Zephir, I like this approach very much. We should start a thread for this 1 dimensional theoretical approach.

    Quote from RobertBryant

    The editors of physics journals and indeed all scientific journals are just as inexact as THHuxleynew...

    being subject to normal human bias and social mores..

    maybe its different in electrical???


    Indeed. Everyone is inexact. And no journal is perfect - there will sometimes be conflicts of interest, etc, etc.


    But overall good papers get published a lot easier than bad papers. If a good paper is refused (because 1 of the three reviewers does not read what they review, and another one has a personal bias) that is just one journal, try again somewhere else. And my experience is that while reviewers are variable in how carefully the review, and indeed how deeply they understand the topic, overall they do a reasonable job most of the time.


    The issue here is not about LENR. It is about whether an experimental paper showing anomalous results, which are replicable, would be embraced with enthusiasm or rejected through fear of its novelty.


    If the anomaly is particularly striking it would be sensible to replicate it - say setting up the same experiment - and add a bit more instrumentation - and report on that best effort sanity checking. Somone claiming major novelty without that sort of careful checking would get published.


    Look at what the FTL neutrino people did, they made a lot of check internally, only went to publish when they could not find any issue themselves, and their paper was good because they detailed that careful process of checking. Even though, in the end , they did not check enough!

    Results that seem mildly anomalous are not enough. Suppose you have a small bench reactor, monitored by an ionising radiation detector. The reactor has been measured carefully when inactive and gives counts in the range 30 - 100. When it is heated up to operating temperature counts increase to the range 1,000 - 10,000. When it is cooled down counts decrease.


    This is replicable. Different reactors do the same thing. Different detectors all show the same picture, consistent with detected radioactivity, but only when the reactor is on.


    Now Alan, and savvy experimental guys, would not see that set of statements as indicating anything anomalous, though they would want to investigate further. A paper documenting all of that without more checks would be thrown out as not demonstrating any novelty. A few more sanity checks, if they passed, and that same data would be seen as highly significant.

    • Official Post
    Quote from THHuxleynew

    But overall good papers get published a lot easier than bad papers. If a good paper is refused (because 1 of the three reviewers does not read what they review, and another one has a personal bias) that is just one journal, try again somewhere else.


    One of our friends has just had a previously peer reviewed and accepted paper refused by arxiv. Some might say 'the fix is in'.

    Quote from Alan Smith

    One of our friends has just had a previously peer reviewed and accepted paper refused by arxiv. Some might say 'the fix is in'.


    You can publish on vixra. But as with all things it is necessary to be tactless. Like, not mention LENR (which tends to stir prejudices) in connection with the reporting of any anomaly. But arxiv goes on author prior history of publihsed on arxiv but never for real papers when accepting, so maybe there is that as well?

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.