Where is the close-up video of Fleischmann and Pons boiling cell?

  • 2003 Old News


    Consider this as High Energy Physics or Low Energy Physics


    "A Petawatt per Picosecond is not that many Joules" - Gregory Goble 2022


    Source

    Science, also widely referred to as Science Magazine, is the peer-reviewed academic journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and one of the world's top academic journals. It was first published in 1880, is currently circulated weekly and has a subscriber base of around 130,000.

    https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.301.5640.1631e

    Your connection to this site is secure


    Ultrafast Petawatt Lasers

    SCIENCE
    19 Sep 2003
    Vol 301, Issue 5640
    pp. 1631-1633
    DOI: 10.1126/science.301.5640.1631e

  • Which ICCF24 presentation is most likely to sway a skeptic?

    I think there are at least 1 or 2 more presentations that deserve some consideration we have not heard from yet.

    Any student of skepticism at the American Physical Society is likely swayed already.


    Julian Schwinger’s theoretical cold fusion musings, unpublished at APS, yet Lawrence Forsley succeeded.


    Now CMNS is sponsored at APS by the CMP Division and Hora's cold fusion paper published, unlike Schwinger’s.


    JedRothwell  Frank Gordon  NEPS*NewEnergy Brian Josephson  Peter Gluck  rubycarat


    Seriously

    Someone should petition APS to publish Schwinger’s Cold Fusion Papers posthumously. Perhaps Hora or Miley will. Or Forsley, Mosier-Boss, the NASA Lattice Confinement Fusion group, MIT or Hagelstein...


    Schwinger’s Solid-State Atomic and Fusion Energy X Prize


    What does Heinrich Hora think about Julian Schwinger and Cold Fusion now?


    Source

    lenr-canr.org was first indexed by Google more than 10 years ago

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

    Your connection to this site is secure


    Hora, H. Summary about theoretical results of the 9th international conference on cold fusion. in The 9th International Conference on Cold Fusion, Condensed Matter Nuclear Science. 2002. Tsinghua Univ., Beijing,

    China: Tsinghua Univ. Press.

    SUMMARY ABOUT THEORETICAL RESULTS OF THE 9TH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON COLD FUSION - by Heinrich Hora,

    Department of Theoretical Physics, University of New South Wales, Sydney 2052, Australia


    GBGOBLENOTE

    Quote

    For summarizing theoretical papers of the ICCF9 conference, a short reminder should be given about some significant experimental results that can form a basis for a theory of low energy nuclear reactions (LENR). For a more historic view, the motivation for the Fleischmann-Pons experiment or the Preparata effect were well explained while-as an unusual view-L. Case reported that experiments may be understood by a simple chemical process involving catalytic surface properties. This could also explain why heat production happens in some cases and not in other cases. Contrary to this is the history of the observation of neutron emission from palladium compounds [1] or from deuterated palladium [2] that indicate nuclear processes.


    ALSO note

    Quote

    Today we have the significant result of Tian, Li et al [3] that the reaction of palladium wires after reacting with a hydrogen atmosphere during a current discharge, when the energy input was stopped and the gas evacuated, generated “heatafterdead” for43 hours producing about 3.6kW/cm3

    or 13 keV/atom Pd.


    ALSO note

    Quote

    Several authors are still basing their theories on localized lattice states, e.g. Qiugquan Gou with describing the PdD compound as an ionic crystal, or the lattice focal model (Takahashi).


    ALSO NOTE



    Quote

    "The original lattice dynamic theory of Julian Schwinger is being followed up by several authors, e.g. S. & T. Chubb (including broken gauge symmetry), P. Hagelstein and others."

    - Heinrich Hora 2002


  • GBG


    I am all for the various attempts to find coherent theory that would explain LENR claimed experimental results. In fact given that fact that experiments are either irreproducible or uncertain (That good ICCF24 talk with the graph on what was needed to convince skeptics) I am guided by plausibility of new theory as to which of the many contradictory LENR claims might be showing unexpected physics.


    I am extremely unconvinced (as should you be) by recycling old theory without the most recent contributions. The theoretical stuff that looks plausible gets followed up - as does any interesting and real (as opposed to kooky - Mills, W, etc - serious people ignore it because it does not make sense) theory. So if you post a 20 year old paper you had better look at all the citations and then see what progress the later work has made. If it is zero progress you might want to consider the possibility that the old stuff is an attractive dead end.


    I am also unconvinced when evidence is cited that just is not coherent with most of the claims here - and you do not highlight the contradiction.


    For example, Holmlid is an outlier in the space of LENR claims. If he is correct then we have type 2 LENR (low energy circumventing of Coulomb barrier, significant generation, as would be expected conventionally, of high energy detectable products). Muons are very detectable, and juts not found in other experiments to which LENR claims attach.


    Personally, I see type 2 LENR as much more plausible than type 1 (nuclear reactions at low energies with only low energy products), because while both Coulomb barrier and lack of high energy products are quite difficult to find theoretical explanations for, Coulomb barrier has many well worked out, lack of high energy products has none worked out and is signiifcantly contrary to all other understood experiment and theory.


    So; science is about seeing how things fit together. People often mistake this for political argument, where you pile on possible reasons why something is correct. In science, what matters is whether the disparate sources of evidence are consistent with each other. If they are - you get more interested. If they are contradictory you get less interested - or look harder for some new theory that would remove the contradiction.


    Finally:


    the significant result of Tian, Li et al [3] that the reaction of palladium wires after reacting with a hydrogen atmosphere during a current discharge, when the energy input was stopped and the gas evacuated, generated “heatafterdead” for43 hours producing about 3.6kW/cm3


    I disagree that the reported results show what you summarise (even though that is also claimed in that paper). If you post a link (I seem to have lost it) we could go over why.


    However - if we ignore my annoyance at your uncritically aggregating inconsistent evidence - I am interested in all the lattice stuff - especially the deuterated lattice stuff.

  • So: the answer to your question is pretty obvious.


    We are talking here about nuclear physics. hence what is relevant is the available energy per nucleon.


    With this laser - that depends on collimation - it is W/m^2 that scales how interesting it is - but most petawatt lasers are up in MeV I'd expect and therefore high energy.


    Another way to look at it is the field strengths generated by the radiation - once those are comparable to the field very close to the nucleus you can naturally get high tunelling rates.


    Strong field physics pursued with petawatt lasers - AAPPS Bulletin
    Recent ultra-short high-power lasers can provide ultra-high laser intensity over 1022 W/cm2. Laser fields of such extreme strengths instantaneously turn matter…
    link.springer.com


    “New directions in science are launched by new tools much more often than by new concepts. The effect of a concept-driven revolution is to explain old things in new ways. The effect of a tool-driven revolution is to discover new things that have to be explained,” [1] said Freeman Dyson, one of the founders of quantum electrodynamics (QED) [2]. The term “tool-driven revolution” may be just the right words to describe the progress of strong field physics wherein a quantum jump in laser intensity has always led to novel physics areas.

    Light intensity above 106 W/cm2 became available from the very first laser invented in 1960 [3]. In the very next year, two-photon absorption [4] and second harmonic generation [5] were reported, which heralded non-linear optics. When the intensity jumped to 1013 W/cm2, the resulting electric field was comparable to the atomic Coulomb field, and strongly non-linear responses of atoms began to be investigated, such as high harmonic generation and above-threshold ionization [6, 7]. A critical stage was reached when the intensity rose to 1018 W/cm2. The electric field of such a high intensity light could drive electrons close to the speed of light in a fraction of an optical period. Thus, physical systems showing relativistic collectivity were realized in the labs [8, 9]. Such systems, called relativistic laser-plasmas, produce highly energetic electrons, ions, and photons. High-energy particle generation is one of the most prominent topics in strong field physics [10,11,12,13,14]. Currently, the record intensity values go beyond 1022 W/cm2 [15,16,17]. At such extreme intensity, light can directly subject electrons to strong radiation reaction [18]. Furthermore, non-linear QED phenomena can occur when such an intense laser pulse collides with GeV electrons. Under such an intense field, the vacuum can behave as a dielectric, which may be probed with X-rays ([19, 20], and references therein). As the laser intensity increases further, we can expect to encounter entirely new phenomena.


    While I agree that as an experimental tool high power density lasers are fascinating - breaking new ground - and also a potential way to reach practical fusion although we have still some way to go to make this feasible - calling them low energy in the context of LENR is wrong.


    You might however point out that potentially a very high power density pulse laser need not require big power supplies or be physically large (though there are I think strong technological constraints that mean you need to start with a large resonant cavity and collimate after).



    THH

  • No - I argue that the experiments are either uncertain (with complex and easy to dispute interpretations, or clear unproven assumptions) or irreproducible.


    The reproducible but uncertain ones can be made more certain pretty easily by the correct combination of characterisation, adding instrumentation, changing measurement setup, etc. However I do not know of clear reproducible results that stay that when this is done.

  • In fact given that fact that experiments are either irreproducible or uncertain

    Many are not the least bit uncertain. The signal to noise ratio for many is very high. For example, the calorimetry in experiments that produce 50 to 100 W of heat with no input power. That could have been measured with confidence by anyone in the last 2 million years (since the invention of fire). I am not exaggerating. Tritium at levels from 50 times background to several million times background can also be measured with very high confidence.


    There are some uncertain experiments, but they do not reduce the certainty of other experiments. They do not cast doubt on the high sigma ones. To say they do would be absurd, like saying that the failed Vanguard rocket tests in 1957 mean the U.S. never reached space and the moon landings were fake.


    To put it politely, your statement is not in evidence. I am sure you know that many experiments are not "uncertain." You know this as well as I do. So why do you say this? What is your point? What are you trying to accomplish? It seems your only goal would be to confuse the issue, or make naïve readers think that all experiments are uncertain.

  • Many are not the least bit uncertain. The signal to noise ratio for many is very high. For example, the calorimetry in experiments that produce 50 to 100 W of heat with no input power. That could have been measured with confidence by anyone in the last 2 million years (since the invention of fire). I am not exaggerating. Tritium at levels from 50 times background to several million times background can also be measured with very high confidence.


    There are some uncertain experiments, but they do not reduce the certainty of other experiments. They do not cast doubt on the high sigma ones. To say they do would be absurd, like saying that the failed Vanguard rocket tests in 1957 mean the U.S. never reached space and the moon landings were fake.


    To put it politely, your statement is not in evidence. I am sure you know that many experiments are not "uncertain." You know this as well as I do. So why do you say this? What is your point? What are you trying to accomplish? It seems your only goal would be to confuse the issue, or make naïve readers think that all experiments are uncertain.

    Jed - if you read carefully my point was exactly NOT what you say it is.


    I was following the argument in the ICCF24 presentation from the guy with the graph pointing out that experiments tended to be either highly reproducible or highly certain (as he defined it) but not both, whereas that was needed for skeptics.


    So I agree that many LENR experiments are highly certain - but then turn out not be to reproducible. And vice versa. What is needed is experiments that are reproducible and certain.

  • So I agree that many LENR experiments are highly certain - but then turn out not be to reproducible. And vice versa.

    That is not a bit true. The original Fleischmann Pons bulk Pd-D experiment was reproduced in more than 180 labs, often at very high signal to noise ratios. As I am sure you know.


    Perhaps you mean "easily reproducible," or reproducible by anyone. Easy reproducibility has never been held as a standard for believability. Many things are difficult to reproduce, but everyone knows they are real. Things such as Tokamak plasma fusion reactors, robot explorers on Mars, or Tesla automobiles. Would you say that open heart surgery does not exist because only experts can reproduce it? Or because it sometimes fails and the patients die? Would you say there are no robots on Mars because several of them crashed or failed to work for other reasons?


    What is needed is experiments that are reproducible and certain.

    We have had such experiments since 1990. You refuse to acknowledge them, but your refusal does not make them go away. No one has replicated the original F&P experiment for many years, because it is difficult and it takes man-years to do. Richard Oriani said that it was the most difficult experiment he replicated in his 50-year career. He was one of the world's top electrochemists, so if he found it difficult, anyone would. He and the others who replicated have not done so recently because they are dead. You can tell they were the creme-de-la-creme because they have research labs named after them, such as the Ernest B. Yeager Center for Electrochemical Sciences (https://chemistry.case.edu/research/yces/) and Arata Hall.


    If you think cold fusion is easy to replicate, or that someone claimed it is easy, or that being easy or hard has any bearing on whether it exists . . . you have no idea what you are talking about.


    The LEC may be easier to replicate. Mizuno and I hoped that his experiment would be easier to replicate than the original F&P experiment. I think it was, but not as much as we hoped. However, being easy or hard has absolutely nothing to do with whether it is scientifically proven.

  • The original Fleischmann Pons bulk Pd-D experiment was reproduced in more than 180 labs, often at very high signal to noise ratios. As I am sure you know.

    Why should THH know something that even McKubre says is not true? In fact, McKubre said last year at ICCF23(1) : "As far as I am aware Lonchampt and his team were and are the only group ever to attempt an exact engineering replication of the original Fleischmann Pons experiment."


    And, anyway, THH already said that he has no "interest in F&P experiment [is] because it is a bad experiment". So why do you keep on asking him about F&P?

    If you want to convince a skeptic that F&P were right, please, reply to my post in the appropriate thread (3).


    Quote

    No one has replicated the original F&P experiment for many years, because it is difficult and it takes man-years to do. … If you think cold fusion is easy to replicate, or that someone claimed it is easy, or that being easy or hard has any bearing on whether it exists . . . you have no idea what you are talking about.

    No one has replicated the original F&P experiment, including their claims of 400% excess heat and the HAD effect, simply because these F&P's claims were wrong!


    Everyone knows that is impossible to replicate a wrong claim, unless a similar error is repeated. Lonchampt, in his successful replicas, repeated the error made by F&P and thus claimed to have obtained a 150% excess heat, but still no HAD (4): "We have never observed any heat after death as mentioned by Fleischmann and Pons."


    (1) http://ikkem.com/iccf23/speakervideo/1a-IN01-Mckubre.mp4

    (2) RE: Where is the close-up video of Fleischmann and Pons boiling cell?

    (3) RE: Where is the close-up video of Fleischmann and Pons boiling cell?

    (4) http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LonchamptGreproducti.pdf

  • just noting that your post quoted above misquotes me.

    No it does quote you. The apple analogy is... Only an analogy, a poor one at that.


    You are wrong. Your skepticism is not valuable, relevant or up to date in regards to CMNS research. Your arguments simply an intentional distraction.


    the position of somone more skeptical

    You are not more skeptical than I am


    Perhaps certain ignorance is not an issue or problem? Time for me to study up, once again, with a bit of healthy skepticism.


    "Healthy skepticism" a valuable old saying which is rich in scientific wisdom.


    Skeptical folks are a subject of this thread so I hope the following article helps some...


    Which ICCF24 presentation is most likely to sway a skeptic?


    I've been pondering this and reading the studied opinions found here. I've narrowed my choice to one, which was difficult to do. I will post it soon.


    Meanwhile... A healthy skeptical recommendation for Study.


    Quote


    IN BRIEF

    Skepticism is a fundamental doctrine for any scientist that asserts nothing should be accepted nor rejected without considerable evidence. Science denial, on the other hand, abjectly refuses to accept established facts.


    "What Is "Healthy Skepticism" in Science?"

    by Robert Pratta

    September 25, 2016

    Source

    futurism.com was first indexed by Google more than 10 years ago

    Article link

    What Is "Healthy Skepticism" in Science?
    Skepticism is a fundamental doctrine for any scientist that asserts nothing should be accepted nor rejected without considerable evidence. Science denial, on…
    futurism.com

    Your connection to this site is secure

  • Perhaps you mean "easily reproducible," or reproducible by anyone. Easy reproducibility has never been held as a standard for believability.

    This is not to suggest that easy reproducibility is not important, or not desirable. It would be wonderful if we could achieve it! I would be thrilled. I hope the LEC is easily reproducible. However, whether it is easy or hard has no bearing on whether it is true. As long as the effect is widely replicated at high signal to noise ratios, it is true. That is the only standard of truth in experimental science.


    How widely it needs to be replicated, and how high the signal to noise ratio must be, are judgement calls. Some people say three good replications are needed. Others may hold out for 5 or 10. The original F&P experiment was replicated at ~180 labs (Storms book). Anyone who says that is not enough is irrational. Such people would not be satisfied with 1,000 replications, or 10,000. I'm lookin' at you, THH.


    The success or failure rate of replications also has no bearing on whether it is true. It might succeed in only one test per thousand. That was the situation with the first mammal clone, Dolly the sheep. Whether it works once per thousand, or once per million makes no difference. When it does work, as long as the signal to noise ratio is high, you can be sure it is real. Yes, it has to be replicated in other labs. Even if every lab struggles to make it work and has to repeat it thousands of times, as long as they are sure of the results on those rare occasions when it works, it is case closed.

  • The original F&P experiment was replicated at ~180 labs (Storms book). Anyone who says that is not enough is irrational.

    I think it important to note that it was the process that was replicated, not every physical detail in every case. People add their own flourishes inevitably. But this makes the case stronger in that nobody (even THH) could reasonably claim that every one of these experiments showed the same schoolboy errors.

  • On the contrary, many people replicated it. They also replicated heat after death, which means the excess was more than 400%. It was infinite.

    So, do you mean that McKubre was wrong in saying that "As far as I am aware Lonchampt and his team were and are the only group ever to attempt an exact engineering replication of the original Fleischmann Pons experiment."? [my emphasis]


    Which other people have replicated the 400% excess heat and the HAD phenomenon claimed by F&P?


    You are the LENR librarian. Are you able to provide a list, even a short one, of papers demonstrating that these two F&P's claims have been replicated in similar experiments?

  • So, do you mean that McKubre was wrong in saying that "As far as I am aware Lonchampt and his team were and are the only group ever to attempt an exact engineering replication of the original Fleischmann Pons experiment."? [my emphasis]

    No, he was right. All other replications were inexact. They used different cell geometries, different kinds of calorimeters and so on. Some used closed cells. However, these replications produced the same results.


    Scientists tend to do things their own way. Engineers such as Lonchampt tend to do exact replications. Both methods had advantages and disadvantages. When scientists do the same basic experiment, but they use different kinds of calorimeters, thermocouples instead of thermistors, different methods of measuring loading, and so on, that proves there can be no systematic errors. The systems are different. That's important. On the other hand, it can be difficult to compare experiments. In some cases, the experiments fail because they are different from the original experiment in ways that affect the results.


    There were some exact replications from one lab to another. In some cases, they used the very same equipment, loaned from one lab to another. When Miles went to Sapporo, he used a cell that Fleischmann loaned to the lab. He did one of the experiments Fleischmann did earlier. So that was an exact replication. The results were also positive, at about the same level. But it was not what McKubre referred to as the original experiment. It was a later one.


    Which other people have replicated the 400% excess heat and the HAD phenomenon claimed by F&P?

    Read the literature and you will see.

  • I think it important to note that it was the process that was replicated, not every physical detail in every case.

    That is very important! In the other thread about the boil off experiment, I wrote about that just now. Ascoli asked, reasonably: "So, do you mean that McKubre was wrong in saying that 'As far as I am aware Lonchampt and his team were and are the only group ever to attempt an exact engineering replication of the original Fleischmann Pons experiment.'?"


    My answer is what you said: "No, he was right. All other replications were inexact. They used different cell geometries, different kinds of calorimeters and so on. Some used closed cells. However, these replications produced the same results.


    Scientists tend to do things their own way. Engineers such as Lonchampt tend to do exact replications. Both methods had advantages and disadvantages. When scientists do the same basic experiment, but they use different kinds of calorimeters, thermocouples instead of thermistors, different methods of measuring loading, and so on, that proves there can be no systematic errors. The systems are different. That's important. On the other hand, it can be difficult to compare experiments. In some cases, the experiments fail because they are different from the original experiment in ways that affect the results. . . ."


    Then I recalled there was one exact replication. In Sapporo Mel Miles used equipment that Fleischmann gave to the lab there. He got the same results.


    But this makes the case stronger in that nobody (even THH) could reasonably claim that every one of these experiments showed the same schoolboy errors.

    Yes. As Fleischmann et al. put it in 1990: "It is hardly tenable that the substantial number of confirmations of the calorimetric data using a variety of techniques can be explained by a collection of different systematic errors nor that tritium generation can be accounted for by any but nuclear processes."


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