LENR Reviewed - Science or not??

  • Methematician and Blogger David H. Bailey takes a critical but not unkind look at LENR,


    Sample Quote below.

    A selection of LENR literature

    In an attempt to cast some light on this paradox, the present author has collected a set of 39 recent representative published papers in the field — see the Appendix at the end of this article. These papers: (a) have appeared in some credible, peer-reviewed source within the past five years (except [Levi2014]); (b) present or summarize experimental results, as opposed to purely theoretical studies; and (c) are available online in PDF form. Each entry includes a citation, a PDF link and a brief synopsis. Here are some overall observations:

    • Almost every paper mentions “excess heat” — measured output heat energy exceeding the total energy input. In most cases the excess energy is a few watts, but [Mizuno2017], for instance, reports 1 KWatt and [Parkhomov2016] reports 40 KWatt.
    • Other recorded effects include neutrons, energized particle tracks, ultraviolet emanations and nuclear transmutations, which are characteristics of nuclear rather than chemical processes — see [Mills2018], [Rajeev2017], [Roussetski2017], [Violante2016], [Valay2016], [Mills2015], [Levi2014] and others.
    • Some papers mention specific techniques, such as stimulation by lasers of a certain frequency, that enhance the measured effects — see [Letts2015] for instance.
    • Most experiments use relatively sophisticated equipment, such as mass-flow calorimetry, CR-39 energetic particle detectors and time-of-flight secondary ion mass spectrometers — see [Mosier-Boss2017], [Roussetski2017], [Kitamura2015], [Swartz2015b], [Aizawa2014], [Rajeev2017] and others.
    • Reproducibility appears to be significantly improved compared to earlier years. For example, [Letts2015] reports excess power in 161 of 170 experimental runs.
    • Most of these researchers appear to be well-qualified. For instance, the SRI International team, led by Francis Tanzella (see [Tanzella2018], [Mosier-Boss2015], [Godes2014], [McKubre2014]) claims 75 person-years of experience in calorimetry experimentation of the type required for these experiments — they are literally the world’s experts.
    • Most papers have multiple authors. [Celani2018] and [Kitamura2017b] each have 15 authors; [Kitamura2018], [Iwamura2017b] and [Kitamura2017a] each have 17.
    • The collection features 119 distinct authors, representing seven different nations (USA, Japan, Italy, Sweden, China, Russia and Ukraine) and 39 different institutions, ranging from universities such as MIT and Kobe University to NASA, the U.S. Navy, China’s Institute of Atomic Energy, Italy’s National Institute for Nuclear Physics and Sweden’s Royal Institute of Technology, as well as several private entities such as SRI International, Nissan Motors, Brillouin Energy and JET Energy.

    From a first look at these papers there does not appear to be any easy way to dismiss them. For the most part, these experiments are meticulously documented and performed with up-to-date equipment; results are carefully recorded and analyzed; and proper attention is paid to reproducibility, all as far as the present author can determine, although he does not pretend to be an expert in this particular discipline.

    On the downside, whereas most of the publications and conference proceedings listed below are peer-reviewed, articles in top-tier journals (e.g., the Journal of the American Chemical Society and the Physical Review journals) are conspicuously missing. Many of these LENR publications are in the Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science, a publication that was formed and is edited by persons in the LENR field. Researchers in the field acknowledge that their work remains stuck in what Cambridge philosopher Huw Price calls a reputation trap, because of its association with the “cold fusion” fiasco. As LENR researcher Michael KcKubre explains [McKubre2016],

  • I ask physicists to pay attention to the geology of the planet Earth! There is an effect of excess heat, and volcanoes serve as evidence, there are LENR processes, an electrical discharge in the earth's crust melts the rock and it turns out magma! But the main thing is not this effect, the main thing is the model of the planet, where the core consists of cold nuclear fusion plasma such as ball lightning. The rotation of ball lightning and gives a dynamo effect! Geologists have forgotten about terrestrial electricity, so they consider the core to be iron-nickel — and this is wrong! Faraday estimated the capacity of the planet's electron-capacitor at 1 (one) FARADE! So you need to make a model of the planet and we get an electricity generator with ball lightning. We will get anti-gravity and "flying saucers" will replace us with cars that consume the blood of the planet OIL! Let's unite all efforts to create a model of the planet and I guarantee success. And now we are in a big dead end-crisis, we must look for new ways and not dwell on the old physics.

    Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA здесь Название доклада-Gennadiy Tarassenko - Cold Fusion on the Basis of the Model of the Planet Earth! http://world.std.com/~mica/2019colloq.html

  • I am pleased to see the author looked at a wide selection of papers.

    Did he give you a nod?

    I noticed that he solicited advice from ECW before writing the article, and I actually sent him to one of the threads here (all about those 153 peer reviewed replications).


    But no one sent him to LENR-CANR.org and if he hasn't given newbies the nod to go over there, he has done a disservice.

    He seems surprised that LENR papers are not allowed past the peer review process in the major journals.

  • If nothing else, labeling cold fusion as pseudoscience is ungrateful and even rude for dozens of scientists, who already dedicated their lives its research. At any case, the cold fusion has way more robust experimental ground, than let say string theory or supersymmetry - and I even think - at least at later case - this ground can be even common.

  • Mathematician and Blogger David H. Bailey takes a critical but not unkind look at LENR,

    David H. Bailey writes"

    "If the LENR researchers truly have something, they have a moral obligation to the world society""

    I'll write to him ... he is 70 years young

    perhaps David will feel a moral obligation to engage with the 4D/6D math of an emergent LENR theory


  • David H. Bailey writes"

    "If the LENR researchers truly have something, they have a moral obligation to the world society""

    And the rest of that quote:

    "If the LENR researchers truly have something, they have a moral obligation to the world society to come public with their methods and make this technology available worldwide as soon as possible. The author obviously recognizes the need for reasonable privacy of intellectual property, but as Huw Price has noted, missing a desperately needed new energy source could be catastrophic."

    Credit goes to the LENR "old guard", and the Japanese, who understand and practice that principle.

  • ["If the LENR researchers truly have something, they have a moral obligation to the world society to come public with their methods and make this technology available worldwide as soon as possible.]

    Credit goes to the LENR "old guard", and the Japanese, who understand and practice that principle.

    Old guard cold fusion researchers were all government employees. People such as Arata and Mizuno spent their entire careers at national universities. Storms was at LANL (lanolin, as in sheep). They had no choice about revealing their work. They couldn't patent it. They were like the U.S. government employees who invented the internet, and the government contractors who made the first computers.

    I do not think they were especially moral or upstanding.

    The people who invented the internet would have been richer than Bill Gates if they had been allowed to cash in on their inventions, but all they got was their regular government salaries, and some awards in later years. That's how it works when you work for Uncle Sam. They all knew that. We shouldn't feel sorry for them.

    High level government workers are well paid, by the way. We really shouldn't feel sorry for them! Any more than we feel sorry for talented people at IBM who invent things when IBM gets all the profit.

  • Quote

    Mizuno2017], for instance, reports 1 KWatt

    Considering that Swartz, for example, reports, what was it, microwatts, milliwatts maybe? why doesn't everyone in LENR support, fund, and attempt to replicate Mizuno? Maybe because most researchers don't really believe it? What possible other reason could there be for LENR researchers looking at piddly reactor outputs when someone reports they can extract a kilowatt, presumably, for long periods? After all, it's alleged to be a nuclear-reaction-fueled process in which fuel is consumed only in very small amounts. At a power output of 1kW, presumably with a decent out/in ratio, the energy produced would be huge if the reaction could be sustained.

  • Considering that Swartz, for example, reports, what was it, microwatts, milliwatts maybe?

    We will see in 3 days at the MIT LENR Colloquium if he has improved on that. They have a solid line-up of presenters, and hopefully that is because something interesting is going to be reported. Hard to get that many to fly in, just for a few milliwatts.

    I think IH may have someone there to follow the proceedings, and if so maybe Dewey will be so kind as to make it public? If not Ruby will be there.

  • At a power output of 1kW

    Mizuno's problem was/is the preparation time for the palladium/nickel reactor core, it took days.

    and requires skill and attention to detail by the dedicated operator(Mizuno).

    Since late 2017 there is a simpler procedure but testing, optimisation takes time, earthquake-free time.

    Mizuno is also thinking to try different metal additives( Ag, Mo, Rh???) to increase COP which was 2.0 max

    cf Brillouin currently 2.64 with Q-pulse.

    2.5 Preparation of reacting material

    The Ni mesh around the inner surface of the reactor is discharged by high voltage of DC current between the wire

    around the heater electrode and another Pd wire electrode. The reaction
    gas is 99.9% pure deuterium

    The electrode preparation treatment procedure is as follows:

    The gas in the reactor is evacuated to several Pa of pressure.

    2) D2 gas is supplied to the reactor at several hundred Pa.

    Electric power to the heater around the reactor is supplied at 50 W for 10

    and the temperature of the reactor reaches around 50°C.

    4) The gas in the reactor is evacuated to ~40 Pa.

    5) High voltage is supplied to
    the wire around the ceramic heater. Plasma is formed. At this stage, if the
    plasma is difficult to generate

    you can increase input voltage, but it is better to keep the D2 gas pressure below 50 Pa. The current becomes stable at ~40 mA.

    This discharge
    is continued for several hours. With this process, the pressure in the reactor
    increases over time.

    This is because gases absorbed in the sample and the
    reactor body are released.

    If this gas release stops and the pressure does not change,

    the discharge can be stopped.

    Additional procedures are performed:

    6) When the impurity gas release stops, gas inside the
    reactor is again evacuated while heating the reactor body.

    7) New D2 gas is then supplied at 50 Pa, with 100 W of input power to the reactor heater.

    When the temperature has stabilized, that is, when it reaches approximately 100°C,

    the high voltage current is again supplied to the Pd fine wire around the ceramic heater.

    Discharge starts at around 500 V. If the glow discharge does not appear, voltage is increased until it appears. T

    he discharge is continues for several hours.

    Then the pressure in the reactor is increased again.

    The pressure inside the reactor finishes increasing, and when stabilized, the reactor is again evacuated.

    During steps
    (7) to (8) the reactor temperature is gradually raised up to 350°C.

    When residual gas stops coming out from the reactor and the amount of D2 gas component is large, a light blue discharge appears,

    .This is observed at a pressure of less than 5 Pa. When the impurity gas disappears, while keeping the reactor temperature high,

    the D2 gas is finally supplied at 500 Pa and the heating of the reactor is stopped.

    The operator then waits until the temperature drops to room temperature.

    When the
    temperature drops to room temperature, gas is evacuated from the furnace down
    to 50 Pa or less.

    Thereafter, a current with a high voltage of 500 V is supplied to the electrode on which the Pd wire is wound around the Pd rod.

    If discharge is difficult to start, the gas pressure is lowered to about 10 Pa and voltage is raised high.

    The current at that time is about several 10 mA. This discharge is continued more than several hours.

    Since D2 gas comes out from the Pd rod and wire at the beginning of
    the discharge, the plasma covers the entire electrode..

    After that, when the gas is exhausted from the wire and rod, the whole inside of the reactor emits blue plasma .

    After this
    processing, the final step is taken. Keeping the pressure intact, electric
    power is supplied to the ceramic heater,

    and the ceramic heater temperature is raised to 700 to 800°C. . The heater shows red incandescence.

    This state is continued
    for about 10 to 20 hours, and Pd is deposited on the nickel surface

    Doing this produces the conditions needed to generate excess heat.