Team Google wants your opinion: "What is the highest priority experiment the LENR community wants to see conducted?"

    Quote from JedRothwell

    ALL of his assertions, without exception, are physically impossible bullshit.


    That is a pretty big accusation!


    I do not feel I am blind and while some points that THH makes are seemingly minor (he normally states they are minor as well) and may not warrant much discussion, I do not see much bullshit. Most are questions regarding a possible situation in his opinion that he simply seeks clarification on.


    Again, interesting on how people perceive or read the same. It would be interesting on how others perceive the exchange between you two. (Although not in this thread.)


    Thanks for your opinion and I will exit this thread topic!

    Quote from JedRothwell

    Power was measured on both sides, as I said repeatedly.



    Your latest nonsense is that the calibrations in the Mizuno experiment are somehow magically different from the excess heat runs, for reasons the defy the conservation of energy and common sense. I am sure you will come up with one version after another of this fairy tale.


    Those answers need more precision to be helpful. For example, my claims are made wrt R19 or R20, not both, and you do not distinguish. i have pointed out this before: i say different things in the two cases, and that you continue to conflate them is unfortunate. Similarly your statement "power was measured on both sides" is not helpful. I mean, I'm sure it was, but when, under which conditions, and are those the same conditions as the paper R20 cal measurements, or active measurements, or both? And how do you know that? These things could be written into the write-up to make all clear.


    I will not waste my time repeatedly pointing out you are wrong, and that heat is heat, and once it is released from a reactor or resistance heater, or a resistance heater in a reactor, it always leaves the calorimeter the same way, by the same paths. There is no magic reason why heat from a resistance heater will penetrate the walls or go through pipes differently than anomalous heat. Once it leaves the steel walls it is all heat, and all indistinguishable. All calibration points from all reactors and bare heaters are indistinguishable. Anyone who has make or operated a calorimeter knows this, and has verified it with calibrations.


    You may have verified this with calibrations - but I've not seen that. Furthermore, what you say above relies on assumptions that are not generally true. They may be true in this case, but I cannot assume that and nor should you.


    Thus: your calorimeter efficiency varies with power by 25% or so as you have measured it. What dtermines the efficiency? The ratio of heat emitted from walls of calorimeter / (heat in output air stream + heat from walls). It is pretty obvious that if the reactors are cooled better by the forced air their surface will be cooler, and therefore a larger proportion of the heat will go to the output air and a smaller proportion (via radiation) to the walls. In addition if there are gaps in the insulation, or air leaks in the enclosure, heat emitted in one part of the enclosure could be less efficiently recovered than another part, because more of it would get out of the box and less go to the output air.


    Now: this is just obvious, and given this air calorimeter is somewhat unusual it needs explicit testing to be sure what are the errors here. Personally, i'd guess they are likley pretty small, but many years of experience have taught me never to guess about suhc things, that way lie dragons. You have not done any error estimates or measurements here other than the overall calorimeter efficiency graph based on (presumably) a reactor in the calibration position inside the calorimeter.


    THH

    Quote from kirkshanahan

    So F & C read Storms' paper and then used those techniques? Oh wait...I understand...Storms compiled the supposedly successful strategies of F & C (and others?) into a 'how to' guide... I was asking however, who used Ed's guide to successfully obtain the FPE?


    Everyone, as I said. Whether they knew it or not. Any experiment that failed to meet these tests also failed to produce heat. There were many reports of failed experiments. When I asked the researchers whether the cathodes distended, bended, or cracked, with many large bubbles form in lines, they said yes. As far as I recall, they all said yes.


    In other words, you have to have palladium that loads to high levels, and does not fracture. The methods of making such palladium were developed by J-M and others long before cold fusion, in the 1930s. That's what Fleischmann and the J-M people told me. They developed it for use in palladium hydrogen filters. When Fleischmann decided to do cold fusion experiments, he called up J-M, said he wanted the highest possible loading, and asked them what kind of palladium to use. They sent him filter palladium, which he called "Type A." It worked. He gave out samples to other researchers, which also worked. He described the same tests and procedures Storms describes in the paper. That's what he told me. See:


    https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJlessonsfro.pdf

    Quote from Bob#2

    That is a pretty big accusation!


    I do not feel I am blind and while some points that THH makes are seemingly minor (he normally states they are minor as well) and may not warrant much discussion, I do not see much bullshit.


    Ooo-kay. How would you describe invisible macroscopic drops of water defying gravity and climb out of test tubes? Maybe you missed that particular gem but there are any number of others. Maxwell's demons directing heat from one source out through insulation and out of walls, while leaving other heat alone. Strip away the verbiage and plausible sounding jargon, and you will see that all of his statements are physically impossible bullshit. It is a waste of time trying to point out all the nonsense. He will only pile on more and more of it, saying the same idiotic things in different ways, and demanding "proof" of things the people have knows since the 18th century, such as how phase changes work. Or "those answers need more precision to be helpful" where the level of precision he requires is infinite. Ten calibrations are not enough. A hundred would not be enough. Give him a hundred thousand and he will demand a million.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    Everyone, as I said.


    More Rothwell hot air (pun intended). The fact is that there is no claim to have observed the FPE in F&P-type cells that has adequately examined the errors.


    So you think I am wrong on that? Prove it. Give me the one paper that does. That is a challenge to anyone here. Remember: F&P cells are what I've published on. It may be possible to address non-F&P experiments, but I would only do so from an error analysis perspective.


    Bring it on (as if you all haven't already tried...).

    JedRothwell

    Quote

    He has repeatedly made absurd claims, such the one that a power meter might mistake 300 W for 50 W with an ordinary resistance heater.

    I must have missed that one. Can you link to it or give the post number? Did you really say that THHuxleynew ? Unqualified, that would be a very odd assertion.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    Everyone, as I said. Whether they knew it or not. Any experiment that failed to meet these tests also failed to produce heat. There were many reports of failed experiments. When I asked the researchers whether the cathodes distended, bended, or cracked, with many large bubbles form in lines, they said yes. As far as I recall, they all said yes.


    In other words, you have to have palladium that loads to high levels, and does not fracture. The methods of making such palladium were developed by J-M and others long before cold fusion, in the 1930s. That's what Fleischmann and the J-M people told me. They developed it for use in palladium hydrogen filters. When Fleischmann decided to do cold fusion experiments, he called up J-M, said he wanted the highest possible loading, and asked them what kind of palladium to use. They sent him filter palladium, which he called "Type A." It worked. He gave out samples to other researchers, which also worked. He described the same tests and procedures Storms describes in the paper. That's what he told me. See:


    https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJlessonsfro.pdf

    Over the years, my understanding of how to make active Pd has changed. Unfortunately, when an idea is published, it becomes fact as has the paper about how to produce LENR that Jed quotes, which was published in 1996. This paper only gives a small fraction of the issues now known to be involved in making potentially active Pd. My more recent papers go into greater detail and address some of the important issues.


    As for Type-A Pd, the description Fleischmann gave contains much confusion. In fact, the material used commercially as a hydrogen filter is an alloy of Pd+Ag, which does not expand when reacted with hydrogen, hence does not crack. However, it also does not react with much hydrogen either. In other words, it cannot achieve a high D/Pd ratio, which is considered to be essential. I have tested a variety of Ag contents in this alloy without seeing any excess energy. In other words, Fleischmann did not describe the true nature of what he called Type A Pd. Yes, the Pd supplied by Fleischmann tended to work more often than other sources, but the true nature of this material is unknown. Fleischmann also said the Type-A could be made to produce excess energy because it had been made oxygen-free by adding boron during the batch purification process. We simply do not know what is true because F-P did not bother to analyze their material. Instead they relied on J-M to do the job. Consequently, everything Fleischmann said was second hand from a source that did not want to reveal the true nature of the active material they supplied.


    But, as we see happen over and over again, people adopt the wrong conclusion about what is required to cause LENR and then when they fail say LENR is not real. No one seems interested in asking the right questions and using the answer in the proper way. Apparently, its too much fun to just play the lottery by trying any idea that comes to mind. If a person is sincere in making the effect work, they need to engage in a discussion having much greater depth and detail than can be done in a discussion group. Unfortunately, such an effort would take more time than I can afford to donate, especially when most requests are based only on personal curiosity and not on the ability to actually implement the understanding. Nevertheless, efforts are underway to correct some of these flaws in understanding, but these efforts are highly confidential because reliable success in causing LENR would have great economic value. What is worse, the approach Google is taking, I believe, will not achieve success in causing LENR and will be a waste of time. But, as I have found to be very often true, my opinion is not widely believed.

    Hi Ed,


    Long time no talk.


    Based on communications I had with Melvin Miles in 2017-8, I was led to believe that he and Fleischmann thought your studies with a Pt cathode presented at ICCF8 were in error. Can you confirm or deny that? Was that why you quit working with Pt?


    Kirk

    Hey Ed,


    One other thing...


    Quote from Storms

    This paper only gives a small fraction of the issues now known to be involved in making potentially active Pd. My more recent papers go into greater detail and address some of the important issues.


    Does that mean there is no single 'How to' guide for getting the FPE? If such exists, where can it be found?


    Kirk

    JR confusions


    Maxwell's demons directing heat from one source out through insulation and out of walls, while leaving other heat alone.

    THH: if sources are in a different place, e.g. one closer to walls, or if one source is hotter than another (altering the convection vs radiation balance) you get different amounts of heat conducted through walls versus convected out via hot air. (I've also said that the error here is not large enough to account for R20, but conceivably might account for R19, though even then I'd expect it on its own to be not enough for that.


    He has repeatedly made absurd claims, such the one that a power meter might mistake 300 W for 50 W with an ordinary resistance heater.

    THH: I have actually said three different things, all true, none what JR says I said, though (3) might be confused with this:

    (1) where power is measured via I and V, with I as voltage across shunt, then, different shunt resistors used but by mistake not changed in the calculation could give this error

    (2) where power is measured as V, using a previously known V -> P relation (as M did for airflow vs blower power), a change in this relationship due to a different resistance heater, not changed in the calculations, could lead to this

    (3) where power is measured on input side of a PSU then the output power could be arbitrarily smaller, depending on PSU type. Thus an assumption of fixed PSU efficiency could go wrong if applied to a different voltage output.


    In all these cases the possible mistake could be very large. Of course which of these cases is relevant I do not know without more precise information, so I cannot say whether they apply or no. Nor can I say that these mistakes were made. That does not matter - the point is that no-one, based on what has been said so far, can say they have not been made so more info would be needed to rule these out.


    That clearer, SOT?

    If a person is sincere in making the effect work, they need to engage in a discussion having much greater depth and detail than can be done in a discussion group. Unfortunately, such an effort would take more time than I can afford to donate, especially when most requests are based only on personal curiosity and not on the ability to actually implement the understanding. Nevertheless, efforts are underway to correct some of these flaws in understanding, but these efforts are highly confidential because reliable success in causing LENR would have great economic value. What is worse, the approach Google is taking, I believe, will not achieve success in causing LENR and will be a waste of time. But, as I have found to be very often true, my opinion is not widely believed.


    Ed,


    Forgive me for commenting here. Your position as above is possibly understandable, but I think it unwise. The problem is that it leaves everyone outside the charmed circle with no reason to think that LENR does actually work. That may be your strategy, and it may be correct. Alas others cannot distinguish it from the many vapourware merchants who hide failure to validate their non-working stuff behind commercial secrecy.


    I guess what I'm saying is that I respect your wish to act as you say, but in that case you should expect the general poor reputation that LENR has, because you are acting in a way that validates it.


    The google efforts, from my POV, are a genuine and brave attempt to shed light onto this unpopular and neglected corner of research and discover whether there might in fact be important new science there.


    THH


    PS - if you want my real name, it is known to the mods. For good reasons (possible harrassment) I do not use it openly here.

    Quote from Storms

    We simply do not know what is true because F-P did not bother to analyze their material. Instead they relied on J-M to do the job.


    Proper material analysis and not just isotope contents down to trace elements but also the surface nanostructure

    will be useful for elucidating LENR mechanism.. easier said than done..

    but also useful is.. examination of the gamma spectrum in the 5-200 keV region.. also easier said than done

    External Content www.youtube.com
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

    • Official Post
    Quote from Storms

    Nevertheless, efforts are underway to correct some of these flaws in understanding, but these efforts are highly confidential because reliable success in causing LENR would have great economic value.


    LENR would make large parts of today's energy market obsolete. Therefore, both policymakers and all entrepreneurs in the market will prevent LENR technology from unregulated destroying the markets where trillions of dollars are earned and millions of people (ie voters) work and earn a living.

    Quote from kirkshanahan

    More Rothwell hot air (pun intended). The fact is that there is no claim to have observed the FPE in F&P-type cells that has adequately examined the errors.


    So you think I am wrong on that? Prove it. Give me the one paper that does. That is a challenge to anyone here. Remember: F&P cells are what I've published on. It may be possible to address non-F&P experiments, but I would only do so from an error analysis perspective.


    Bring it on (as if you all haven't already tried...).

    It seems to me you're in the wrong thread and should be moved

    THH as you know, all fields of science are based on observation. Nature reveals what is true and what is not. A person gains access to this information by careful study of publications describing the observations and by discussions with people who have acquired the knowledge, i.e. the experts. No shortcut exists to knowing what is real and what is not. Speculation and imagination do not do the job. Hard work is required. Also, a charmed circle does not exist. Anyone can be in the circle who takes the trouble to learn the facts about a subject. Normally a person goes to university to become an expert, but that path is not available to people who want to learn about LENR. Instead, they have to do the hard work themselves.


    I'm trying to teach what I have learned is real. You have the choice of being taught or not. I'm telling you that LENR is real and it involves a new science. Arguing otherwise is no longer rational or useful. In addition, you are not the only one who has questioned the reality of the claim, looked at all possible errors, and questioned conclusions. You are not the only person who has the ability to find flaws in arguments. Hundreds of other people have gone down this skeptical road and came to the conclusion that LENR is real, including myself. Now the only problem is convincing other people to study the reaction in an effective way. Yes, LENR has a poor reputation thanks to people who will not do the homework required to know the facts. Instead, they start with the belief that everyone who accepts LENR must be either incompetent or without the basic skill to know that is real and what is not, a skill that the skeptical person thinks he has. I have discovered in all cases of applied skepticism, the skeptic knows less than people in the field who actually accept the evidence. I see no benefit to skepticism except during the early stage of a discovery. After that, the effort is pointless and counter productive, as hundreds of examples involving every aspect of human discovery have confirmed.


    Yes, Google is trying to explore LENR, but I suggest in an totally ineffective way. They ask for help, which is to their credit. I can give help but not in the way the request is framed and applied. I do not say this lightly but based on 30 years of experience involving many hundreds of experiments done in my own laboratory. They and you have the choice to believe me or not. It matters not to me which conclusion you accept. I can only tell you what I know to be true, nothing more. In fact, I'm tired of having to make arguments as if I'm dealing with children. An amazing phenomenon has been discovered with profound implications for the history of mankind. It's about time the subject is treated with the seriousness it deserves.

    Storms

    Quote

    I have discovered in all cases of applied skepticism, the skeptic knows less than people in the field who actually accept the evidence. I see no benefit to skepticism except during the early stage of a discovery.


    IMO, the benefit of skepticism is to expose frauds and cons like you-know-who-s-initials-are-AR. And the cost of AR to Darden and others was only the tip of the iceberg in terms of lost resources and effort to scammers. Scientists tend to be too trusting. When they look for problems with experiments, they are not looking for sleight of hand and outright cheating and lying. But those are all too common. It's not that the skeptic knows more about the field, it's that sometimes the things a skeptic knows and can detect are different from what a scientist versed in a specific field can see. Skeptics are also useful at detecting non-obvious errors. And while they may not know all the inside information experts in a field do, they know portions of some methods more in depth. Skeptics can keep people steeped in a given field out of trouble. There is room for lots of skills and skepticism is just one of them.

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