Google (UBC/MIT/LBNL) post Nature updates.

  • For once you are right! I fully agree with the authors of this paper. This is a convincing explanation.


    Yes, I'm right, thanks, but I don't agree with the authors of the Infinite-Energy paper. I'm just confident they have correctly quoted the statements of Naoto Asami, the NHE program manager, which clearly show that the real explanation for the closure of both the Japanese funded initiatives (those carried out in France by Toyota-IMRA and in Japan by MITI-NEDO-NHE), was that - after many years of inconclusive attempts and several dozens of M$ spent on these studies - researchers and managers became convinced that the F&P cells didn't produce any excess heat at all, despite the direct involvement and support of the two fathers of Cold Fusion.

  • From http://www.infinite-energy.com…/pdfs/JapaneseProgram.pdf


    The Yomiuri quoted the NHE program manager:

    In the Pons replication experiment, we saw excess heat and by the same token we saw examples of a heat deficit, where the energy appeared to vanish,” explained program manager Naoto Asami, looking back over the work. “We found problems with their calorimeter, and we feel that their entire data set is weak and questionable."

    […]

    In the case of boiling cells, we were able to verify that the electrolyte is entrained in the vapor column by measuring the pH of the condensate. Whenever excess heat was calculated, it was always due to overestimating the vapor mass transport. This is not to say that P&F did not have valid results. It may be that their equipment generates nuclear excess heat in France and false positives in Japan. All we can say is that our results, using their equipment, was susceptible to false positives, and for that reason we are not convinced by the data set which now exists….

    Anyway, for these reasons I believe that excess heat is at best elusive, and I'm no longer convinced that it exists at all. […]"


    Jed: For once you are right! I fully agree with the authors of this paper. This is a convincing explanation.


    So can we put to rest the contentions from some here that F&P open cell boiling excess heat results (and replications thereof) indicated nuclear levels of excess heat? Personally

    i've never thought this strong evidence for exactly the reason that under these uncontrolled conditions entrainment cannot be ruled out and must be variable.


    I suggest that people reading writeups here from F&P should consider the over-generalisation effect. It is particularly a problem when the people doing experiments have expertise with the system they experiment on and works like this:

    (1) an experiment with a variable error mechanism (in this case entrainment) and proposed variable excess heat effect (FPHE) is run very many times, testing many things.

    (2) in some cases (all the times it is tested) it is shown conclusively that there is no significant entrainment due to careful measurement of salt residue

    (3) in some cases it is shown conclusively that, if there is no significant entrainment, there is significant FPHE.


    Obviously this does not indicate FPHE, but could easily seem like this if written up in a Jeddian way:


    (1) we are experts

    (2) we have performed this experiment many times and carefully measured salt residue to show that entrainment (which would break the assumption that water leaving the cell must be electrolysed or in vapour phase) does not happen in this apparatus.

    (3) we have run the experiment and sometimes (10% of time) we observe strong FPHE.


    The point is that an expert convinced that they understood the experiment, that entrainment could not happen, might continue to assume that even when some tests, with slightly different conditions, did result in entrainment. A skeptic coming to these results afresh would question that, and refuse to believe it unless entrainment was specifically ruled out for the run that gave the excess heat indication.


    My suggestion is that no-one can know, on basis of historic evidence, that F&P were skeptical of their results in a way that would lead them to retest all relevant assumptions whenever they found FPHE. On the contrary, they were sure these results did exist, and also strongly motivated to get them. Expertise does not save scientists from making erroneous assumptions leading to false positibves, whereas skepticism does. (That is, it is not guaranteed to do so, but it helps).


    Which is why LENR replications, to be believable, should best be conducted by true skeptics who think the occurrence of positive results is pretty unlikely and therefore will look at any apparent positives with great suspicion.


    THH

  • Anyway, the elephant in the room here for those who think that historic experiments show undeniable excess heat beyond chemical is why TG have not validated this, and no-one seems able to make recommendations to them that would likely allow them to do this.


    If F&P style electrolysis experiments show such excess they are the obvious thing to test. If TG have ignored experts in "making them work" then the obvious solution is to ask TG to implement the protocols known by experts to make these experiments work.


    One of three things then happen:

    (1) TG discover how these protocols lead to false positives: or at least explain why they consider such to be likely and therefore don't favour the experiments

    (2) TG replicate clear scientific evidence of LENR

    (3) We have TG refusing to do the experiments LENR people claim demonstrate excess heat (without explanation)


    Getting TG to try replicating anything else avoids this clear resolution and leaves the elephant still in the room.

  • The simplest explanation I can find for the initial success of F&P's experiments is simply down to the properties of the Pd cathodes they used in 1989 - they contained impurities, notably Rh and Ir which are both hydrogenation catalysts, and over several days of electrolysis perhaps accumulated significant levels of ultra dense deuterium leading to LENR & excess heat etc. Later, purer Pd sadly did not contain these impurities, so the later replications failed. This scientific basis obviously needs to be tested by TG or NASA directly testing Holmlid/Norront Fusion's theories about muon generation etc. If this all turns out to be some more Sci - Fi then we can rest assured LENR and cold fusion always was some basket-case pseudoscience pursued by half-crazy eccentrics planning to solve the energy crisis. But too early to dismiss it all as yet?

  • Or alternatively make Pd cathodes with Ir/Rh alloyed in and then see if F&P's data can be replicated - but I would rather see Holmlid's work substantiated by independent research by NASA or TG, which would be far more important in terms of scientific progress in the field. If the UDH-muon release theory is genuine I think this would be the breakthrough of this century - and would account for all previous cold fusion successes and failures.

  • Quote

    Anyway, for these reasons I believe that excess heat is at best elusive, and I'm no longer convinced that it exists at all.


    One of Fleischman & Pons electrodes melted and bent inside of their electrolyzer. Note that they used a thick rods of palladium, not some nanometers thick sputtered layers.
    Few of them they were caught in the act on video.


    c50ZxOq.jpg

  • Yes, I'm right, thanks, but I don't agree with the authors of the Infinite-Energy paper. I'm just confident they have correctly quoted the statements of Naoto Asami, the NHE program manager, which clearly show that the real explanation for the closure . . .

    Asami's analysis is physically impossible. It shows the cell is endothermic, swallowing up energy for weeks during calibrations. See pages 3, 4, 16 and 17, especially Fig. 4 on p. 17:


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


    See also the references to "Asami" elsewhere in this document. And:


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


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



    Also, by the way, the NHE program was different from the Toyota project. They closed at different times, for different reasons. Fleischmann's comments about the dispute between Toyota and Johnson Matthey had nothing to do with the NHE project. The NHE is part of the Japanese government. It sponsored cold fusion research again in 2016 and 2017, with considerable success. It may extend that funding soon, so in that sense it has not closed.

  • So can we put to rest the contentions from some here that F&P open cell boiling excess heat results (and replications thereof) indicated nuclear levels of excess heat? Personally

    i've never thought this strong evidence for exactly the reason that under these uncontrolled conditions entrainment cannot be ruled out and must be variable.


    Two weeks after P&F 's first (1989) publication US los Alamos national lab did confirm their findings. Excess 4-He was measured from D-D fusion, to exclude any doubt of the origin of the excess energy.


    The true question is: Does it make sense to use Pd electrodes for a process that we can do much cheaper?


    Pd loading e.g has been researched much deeper and load factors up to 1.3 are possible. But this leads to extremely high energy content if all D would fuse. Further Pd is expensive and transmutes to Silver and then to Cadmium and thus finally will be lost.


    The only question today is: How to engineer a LENR cell that produces sustainable excess heat for a long period.


    To solve this real problem the funny comments of THH & Ascoli provide us with the appropriate distractions. It's a big pleasure to watch how much money & time 1000's of physicists at ITER/CERN/ Wendelstein, ..spend, just to produce rubbish models and finally nuclear waste (ITER).


    Just to give you an idea: A recent temporary resonance found in one CERN experiment triggered 600 papers.... now all in the waste bin... How man Higgs related papers will end in the same place? My guess is 100000's...

  • The true question is: Does it make sense to use Pd electrodes for a process that we can do much cheaper?

    The dollar cost does not matter at this stage in the research. The purpose is to discover the physics of the reaction, not to make a practical device. If some other material works better, it should be used. On the other hand, at this stage researchers know more about bulk Pd than any other material, so it might be best to use it. That's up to the individual researchers to decide.

  • dear Wyttenbach

    you suggest to switch Pd cathode metal however by which one ?

    Then how you reach 1,3 loading factor because the great and incriticable ( here) McKubre said to have never overcome 0,9 ?


  • I don't think the level of loading is an important issue any more especially since low pressures of H or D seem to be more effective in inducing LENR excess heat (in Mizuno & Holmlid's case). The high loading level became a kind of dogma (presenting difficult-to-attain experimental conditions to account for lack of repeatability} - although Staker's recent paper still makes the case with new discovery of delta Pd - maybe this novel crystal isoform of Pd becomes a hydrogenation catalyst and forms ultra dense H or D only at high loading levels? LENR is full of contradictions.

  • Regarding the hypothesis that the boil off experiments were wrong because unboiled water left the cell, note the boiling tests were repeated with a closed, reflux cell, where no water or vapor left the cell. These tests also showed excess heat. That, plus other checks, rule out the hypothesis.


    See: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RouletteTresultsofi.pdf


    You have not specified other checks.


    But that tests with a reflux cell also showed excess heat does not speak to the validity of the open cell tests. And therefore does not in any way rule out this hypothesis.


    It merely means that (possibly) these tests with a reflux cell are good evidence for LENR. It is fine if open cell results are retracted as being unreliable, and these reflux cell results then taken as the proper evidence.


    It is not fine if the reflux cell results are taken as evidence that the open cell tests are valid.


    Interestingly, this type of illogical argument is also a form of overgeneralisation, it is similar to the logical fallacy of the undistributed middle.


    A => B


    C => B


    ===>


    C => A (a false deduction)


    This is not just logic chopping. it is exactly through such over-interpretation of results beyond what they actually say that a number of inconclusive partial results can get wrongly interpreted as a cast iron full result.


    THH

  • You have not specified other checks.

    Fleischmann did, as I am sure you know. You are trolling, as usual.

    But that tests with a reflux cell also showed excess heat does not speak to the validity of the open cell tests. And therefore does not in any way rule out this hypothesis.

    Yes, they do rule out this hypothesis. They are physically the same except that in the reflux cell, the vapor is condensed and it falls back into the cell. As always, there is no logical or physical basis for your assertions.

  • Yes, they do rule out this hypothesis. They are physically the same except that in the reflux cell, the vapor is condensed and it falls back into the cell. As always, there is no logical or physical basis for your assertions.


    I really must call you out on this, and RB for liking your post.


    This is about the logic, not the facts. However exact logic is important when drawing conclusions from large numbers of facts.


    The reflux cell results cannot possibly show whether there was in fact entrainment in the open cell results. Therefore that possibility remains and the open cells results cannot be taken as clear evidence of LENR (without other checks).


    You are arguing that if LENR occurs in the reflux cell then it must also occur in the open cell.


    That may be true - though not definitely so because there might be some other difference.


    But that is not my point. My point is that the open cell results as reported do not show LENR in this case. Whether LENR was actually known for some other reason to be occuring or not, the open cell results do not provide evidence for this and therefore do not strengthen the evidence for LENR.


    Such details matter because, in the case that there are other, different questions about the reflux cells one might be tempted to take the open and reflux results together as supporting each other. And anyway if the reflux cell results are strong I fail to understand why people here would put forward the less strong open cell results as best evidence of FPHE.


    Re other checks, there may be other reasons to take the open cell results as known. I can't actually remember, all I do remember is F&P being vague about what specifically was tested in the run whose results they provide, which means these other tests too might be over-generalised. However I'm willing to be put right here based on precise text stating that sufficient other tests are done on a run that demonstrates excess heat (because I think it is easy to infer from the F&P paper more than it actually says). My point about over-generalisation is that just having done other tests is not enough. I remember Berlingette (?) replication accepting the assumptions made by F&P which I in these posts question as the result of over-generalisation.


    And regardless of other checks my point here about incorrect logic remains true. If other checks are what validate the results let us hear them properly argued without relying on evidence that does not validate anything.


    THH

  • I don't think the level of loading is an important issue any more especially since low pressures of H or D


    The high level loading of H and D may be more important at low temperatures obtaining in most electrolysis experiments


    _around 100 C ..the boiling point of water.

    There is one of the limitations of electrolysis


    ...pressurised electrolysis is much less amenable to flexible experimentation...perhaps Jed has a differing view


    Current gas phase experiments are operating at much higher temperatures 300C..plus?,,

    ( with the exception of

    the stanniferous recipes in Essex..

  • Quote

    Others do not understand why it is significant that cell that has no chemical fuel and could not produce heat for even a few seconds at 100 W continues for 90 days at that power level.

    I think the real reason was that whoever you are talking about did not believe the claim, not that they found such a claim insignificant if true. You may disagree but at least, describe it correctly. If it really is that noted authorities discounted well documented, irrefutable claims of continuous 100W excess power for 90 days, on the basis of insignificance, please cite it.

  • So can we put to rest the contentions from some here that F&P open cell boiling excess heat results (and replications thereof) indicated nuclear levels of excess heat? Personally i've never thought this strong evidence for exactly the reason that under these uncontrolled conditions entrainment cannot be ruled out and must be variable. [...]


    I agree with the analysis contained in your comment, with one major difference: entrainment is not the only cause for the "false positive" claimed for the F&P open cell boiling tests. Entrainment can only account for a small percentage of error, which is negligible compared to the 300% excess heat claimed by F&P, as correctly pointed out at the end of the Infinite-Energy article (1):

    "[…] The NHE and other establishment labs do “science by press conference.” […] The problem they cite is orders of magnitude too small to explain anything, so they refuse to do a quantitative analysis. They pretend that a 3% error can explain away a 300% result. […]"


    However, the 300% excess heat claimed by F&P in the PLA article describing the "1992 boil-off experiment" (2) can be easily explained by considering the effect on the apparent level of the electrolyte caused by vapor bubbles and foam build-up that occurred in the last phase of the boil-off transient, as shown in this LENR forum about a year ago (*). Foaming is the real cause of the erroneous estimation of a 300% excess heat, claimed by F&P in 1992 and supported for almost 3 decades by their fans.


    Anyway, the elephant in the room here for those who think that historic experiments show undeniable excess heat beyond chemical is why TG have not validated this, and no-one seems able to make recommendations to them that would likely allow them to do this. [...]


    I fully agree with this proposal. The only way to spot the "elephant in the room", or to solve the "CF cold case" as announced on Nature last May, is to estimate the amount of "wishful thinking" which animated F&P and all their epigones during the last three decades. The best way to do this is to replicate the "1992 boil-off experiment" for the reasons already explained in the previous thread on suggestions for the next Team Google activity on CF (**).


    (1) http://www.infinite-energy.com…/pdfs/JapaneseProgram.pdf

    (2) https://www.sciencedirect.com/…icle/pii/037596019390327V

    (*) FP's experiments discussion

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

  • around 100 C ..the boiling point of water.


    The gasphase reactors seem to run at much higher temperatures than the electrolysis reactors.

    For example ... recently Michael Staker's Replication of the F&P results operated at 82 C whereas

    Mizuno's gas phase reactor is operating at

    300 C or so.. but with pure low pressure D2.. and 50 mg of palladium..


    to get the large heat releases... only a microscopic proportion of the D2 needs to react

    .. so a bulk D2:Pd or D2:Ni ratio may be misleading.. or irrelevant