Cavitation (sonofusion) reactor from B-J. Huang et al.

Quote from Curbina

Bob has already engaged this discussion and has been able to keep a level head, in spite of the patronizing and poorly disguised bad will of all the commenters so far.

In my view any paper that mentions neutrinos as a part of a reactions has a high charlatanry coefficient. Neutrino claims never can be verified with today's and even tomorrows means. Why using standard model garbage to explain CF when we know that these model can't do it at all?

The good standard reference for sono fusion is Stringham and not Russian fantast journals..

From ECat World with comments from B.G.

Nature Article: “Water can trigger nuclear reaction to produce energy and isotope gases” (B. J. Huang, et. al) –

Quote from Curbina

In case anyone is interested, there’s a Pubpeer page where the recent paper of bjhuang is being exposed to a sort of open peer review by anonymous participants. I took a look and it caused me a significant amount of disgust, Bob has already engaged this discussion and has been able to keep a level head, in spite of the patronizing and poorly disguised bad will of all the commenters so far.

https://pubpeer.com/publicatio…3E1095141473B5B733FA004#9

BG did a masterful job of replying to the one anonymous, and one named commenter. Nothing to worry about (so far) IMO.

Could not help but laugh at this though. Sums up the main stumbling block with LENR:

Quote from JedRothwell

"The maximum boiler input is 10 kW, but it ranges 6-10 kW, mostly 8 kW, during the tests."

In recent experiments, the largest ratio (COP) reported was 1.6. So the excess is ~4.8 kW. That is impressive, and easy to measure. I think this is the highest power from cold fusion in history.

For comparison Santilli's intermediate fusion heat balance from [0074-0078] of US2012/0033775.

Heat from rise in temperature of steel of reactor: 7404 BTU = (449 j/kg x 137 kg x 127 C)/1055 J/BTU/kWh = approximate output. Heat from electrical arc: 4533 BTU = ((kWh x 2)/60) x 3400 BTU/kWh = input. COP = output/input = 7404 BTU/ 4533 BTU = 1.63 COP.

Accounting is more impressive than B. J. Huang. For the above fusion reaction 4604 ppmv Oxygen + 40655 ppmv Deuterium goes to 10333 ppmv Nitrogen and 10312 ppmv Hydrogen. Some of the deuterium consumed fuses to oxygen and that de novo oxygen is consume in sequence of reaction that produce de novo nitrogen and de novo hydrogen. One can see the accounting in the transmutation reaction is 99.9%. Like for B. J. Huang reaction the first transmutation step is production of oxygen-17.

What is really impressive about the boiler reaction is that heat is produced from heat rather heat energy produced from electrical energy. The reaction for B. J. Huang's boiler appears to be a shortened sequence compared to what happens in intermediate fusion. That is oxygen17 fuses to oxygen17 then fissions to carbon and neon-20. Whereas in intermediate fusion multiple deuterium fusion steps leads to Silicon-28 which fissions to nitrogen.

What still needs an answered for the boiler reaction is how much transmutation leads to how much excess heat. As noted in comment above, mass to energy conversion may be miserly in perfect with the vast majority of free energy being converted to entropy.

Following the barrage of mostly anonymous criticism to bjhuang ‘s paper, Bob shared with me that they have been put on notice by the Chief Editor that the article will get an “Editor’s note” due to “several readers” questioning the validity of the results. This IMHO puts the whole “peer review” in shame as the readers end having more weight than the peers.

Quote from Curbina

This IMHO puts the whole “peer review” in shame

Yes, it all seems rather sordid, and cowardly.

This is the pubpeer faq:

PubPeer - Search publications and join the conversation.

They don't seem to claim that comments have any more validity than those on, say, Reddit.

Quote from JedRothwell

As long as they do not take the paper down who cares what the editor says?

It is, more often than not, the first step.

Bob Greenyer has good news:

"We are happy to report that the Chief Editor of Nature - Scientific reports has worked with us to resolve the competing interests and related acknowledgement statements to everyone's satisfaction. We thank the Chief Editor for his brevity and swift action to resolve this matter."

bjhuang also reported to Bob that in three days the paper had also rose to the top 4% in popularity, so is probably no wonder that is experiencing push back.

Quote from Curbina

Bob Greenyer has good news:

"We are happy to report that the Chief Editor of Nature - Scientific reports has worked with us to resolve the competing interests and related acknowledgement statements to everyone's satisfaction. We thank the Chief Editor for his brevity and swift action to resolve this matter."

bjhuang also reported to Bob that in three days the paper had also rose to the top 4% in popularity, so is probably no wonder that is experiencing push back.

I was trying to see where the 4% top popularity could be verified, and I found it here:

So it is correct (65/1646 is 3.94%).

B.G. Posting. ECW.

Bob Greenyer 21 hours ago

Curbina over at LENR Forum corroborated the statement from Professor Bin-Juine Huang about the paper being in the top 4% of papers from an independent tracking organisation. And it indicates that sharing it could allow more critical eyes on it, so if you can, please act accordingly.

I'm looking at https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-50824-8.epdf - Though I understand a revision is in the works.

One grammatical change to the abstract :

Many of this research has been published formally or informally.

A grammatical change of Many to Much would (to me) imply the current author's research

I suggest

Much previous research has been published formally or informally.

or even

Much previous research on cavitation has been published formally or informally.

Quote from Alan Fletcher

I'm looking at https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-50824-8.epdf - Though I understand a revision is in the works.

One grammatical change to the abstract :

Many of this research has been published formally or informally.

A grammatical change of Many to Much would (to me) imply the current author's research

I suggest

Much previous research has been published formally or informally.

or even

Much previous research on cavitation has been published formally or informally.

Display More

One can be making such changes for a long while.

Quote from Curbina

I was trying to see where the 4% top popularity could be verified, and I found it here:

So it is correct (65/1646 is 3.94%).

As time passes, the popularity of this article seems to keep increasing, even after the Editor's notice was slapped onto the paper.

It is now in the top 3% of the same age articles in the journal, and the top 4% of the same age articles in all journals. I think this is good news.

I forgot to mention that the Nature Scientific Reports page of bjhuang ’s article, at the very bottom of it, has a Disqus powered comments section.

So far I have been the only one posting a comment there, but if someone feels so inclined, give it a try.

Water can trigger nuclear reaction to produce energy and isotope gases - Scientific Reports

www.nature.com

Quote from JedRothwell

Here is the latest notice on the Huang paper. It seems if they can't quash it one way, they will try another:

05 January 2024 Editor’s Note: Readers are alerted that the conclusions presented in this article are subject to criticisms that are being considered by the Editors. A further editorial response will follow the resolution of these issues.

This was slapped onto it days ago. One can trace it, through pubpeer and retractionwatch, back to Sylvie Coyaud and her pack of nasty followers, one in particular might have been the one leading the attack, who often uses the pseudonym Smut Clyde.

Quote from Curbina

This was slapped onto it days ago. One can trace it, through pubpeer and retractionwatch, back to Sylvie Coyaud and her pack of nasty followers, one in particular might have been the one leading the attack, who often uses the pseudonym Smut Clyde.

I like Sylvie usually. Does she have a good argument?
She rarely arrives without dry ammo.

You know where the "old geese" posts her scathing pieces in Italian. Won't link to that place here.