A new CF video was posted yesterday. Somehow this person thinks cold fusion experiments have never produced significant excess heat. Easily the most boneheaded thing I’ve heard recently.
External Content youtu.beContent 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.
LENR FAQ (for Newcomers)
-
-
A new CF video was posted yesterday. Somehow this person thinks cold fusion experiments have never produced significant excess heat. Easily the most boneheaded thing I’ve heard recently.
External Content youtu.beContent 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.Although many such as Sabine and am sure THH belief the Coulomb barrier is important here, it is simply not correct! How dare I state this?
http://www.panospappas.gr/NaOK.htm
This small piece of information that was not scrubbed from the internet shows (including references and replications) that the fusion of Oxygen with Sodium ions pretty much instantly occurs and produces Potassium.
From this simple experiment (and this is not the only one out there) I conclude that even if there is a Coulomb barrier, it is NOT relevant for fusion. There is no kinetic or other high energy input of energy in any way shape or form. SO there must be another explanation, but the key takeaway is that the Mainstream keeps focusing on this barrier, while not even relevant!
Also, once we accept the nuclear electron and thus the neutron not being a fundamental particle in the nucleus we can completely forget about the "strong nuclear force" which is no more than a postulation to explain the nucleus staying together. As many have shown before, with such a nuclear electron the nucleus can nicely be kept together! (Then add structure and we actually are getting somewhere)
And then even Sabine acknowledges that some experiments in LENR have been successfully been reproduced! Take that THH -
Although many such as Sabine and am sure THH belief the Coulomb barrier is important here, it is simply not correct! How dare I state this?
Dear Edo,
I am not interested in these silly videos - which seem to be an attempt to flood thread here with non-science PR - but:
Please retract this comment.
I am sure it was an unintentional error, due to your not following my admittedly sometimes garrulous posts here over the last few days. But you have severely misrepresented me.
I have been saying for quite some time that type 2 LENR (ways round the Coulomb barrier problem) has been sort of shown possible (with references) - and maybe will very very possible in useful ways - by the electron shielding / nasa / etc people. That stuff has been going on (and I've been backing it with only my usual caution - nothing more) for about 5 years now. It is done by serious people, it has connections with non-LENR literature - it has good theory which helps those trying to make it work optimise results.
The alternate strand - type 1 LENR - where you have LENR without detectable high energy products - is intrinsically much less likely as it requires one extra bit of new science on top on how to overcome CB. And optimisation experimentally is more difficult because you can never easily be sure how much of it you have (you cannot use easily detectable even at low rates high energy products to determine this). The CB stuff has (for many years) had plausible theory. The extra bit has no plausible theory yet. For example Storms theory for this has ONE SMALL GAP AND ONE BIG GAP.
- I don't expect anyone to address the big gap - it requires a whole new theory compatible with existing and yet predicting different decay products, and therefor a special new nuclear state (new particles etc) ONLY FOR LENR nuclei. A big ask, theoretically, but very exciting if it can be done. I've seen no sign.
- I am a bit surprised no-one has systematically plugged the small gap by taking the Storms predicted prodcust and working out which experiements they will / will not be seen in - and comparing that with the rich body of LENR results. A good match would be positive for the Storm hypothesis. A bad match negative. It is sort-of a no-brainer outside of teh LENR community to look for ways of disproving new theories to test them.
I would have thought this board would embrace this stuff with interest - instead of actying as though what Ia m saying here is off-message because it is not equally positive about all strands of LENR work represented at ICCF24
THH
-
And here's another influential sceptic suggesting nobody could repeat F&P's work...reposted from the sceptics thread. such things are common. The video should start at the right part btw - the rest is only moderately interesting.
Absolutely, skeptic here is incorrect - of course we know now that F&P's most celebrated and cited work can be replicated exactly - but the results posted from it do not show LENR (whoops - is that one of the things I will be censored for saying - like ascoli - in which case I will post valedictorian message and be out of here).
-
Basically, whenever people here quote F&P's work generating excess heat as basis for LENR I will point this out. Anything else is dishonest.
Choose a different example for PR purposes!
-
Edo you are very strong on working it out for yourself - which I applaud.
If you go to the recent thread I am not allowed to mention, follow the simple challenge from ascoli or I (which I am not allowed to mention) and post your results - you will not be allowed to do that here but a PM would do - I will accept I am wrong if you provide times and (thing I'm not allowed to mention frames) and a plausible argument that works and validates (what I am not allowed to mention).
No-one has done it yet (maybe I'm not allowed to mention that either - not sure!).
-
Also, once we accept the nuclear electron
That is going to be possible when you have answered the two obvious ways in which that hypothesis contradicts experiment? Perhaps you do not think what I say is correct, but both are quite simple, and easily followed up.
-
I will be censored for saying - like ascoli
Ascoli was never censored for anything remotely to do with science. He was asked to refrain from being boring. obsessive, and never listening to any other voices than the ones in his head. He was so far from being censored several special threads were created to discuss foamgate - just to stop him presenting his one and only topic in all the others.
So to say he was censored in completely wrong, he was censured (gently) chided (moderately) and eventually we all got bored with it and we asked him to stop. That's it - we regard foamgate as a dead topic entirely devoid of interest, a nonsensical s/n ratio destroyer and completely irrelevant to the hundreds of experiments that preceded it and followed it, and the experiments that are still going on now.
As for you, regularly offering to leave is a bit wimpy isn't it? You know you like it here so don't make with the snowflake stuff. We cover your back (as we do with all those who deserve it) pretty well, so enjoy it while we are spared.
-
And here's another influential sceptic suggesting nobody could repeat F&P's work...
Shermer is a world-class jerk. So is Bill Nye, the Science Guy, who keeps saying F&P were not replicated and it was a mixing error. I sent him two or three e-mails and a printed letter in October 2020. No response. On the other hand, he hasn't said that since 2020 as far as I know. Google Alerts might tell me if he did.
-
No-one has done it yet (maybe I'm not allowed to mention that either - not sure!).
I think I did, and so did many others. I suggest you say: "no-one has done it yet to my satisfaction."
Again, let me suggest you stop putting your own opinions into other people's mouths. For example, you should not say:
"The researchers report very low levels of tritium."
That is not what they report. You should say:
"The researchers report what they say are very high levels of tritium, which they say are easily detected, but I disagree. I think these levels are low."
Make it clear who said what.
-
If you want state of the art mass flow you can use something like the Quadratherm 780i.
If you have to ask how much it costs, you can't afford it. You have to "Request a quote":
https://www.sierrainstruments.com/products/quadratherm/780i.html
I kid. This site says it costs $375:
^^ SIERRA QUADRATHERM 780I - 780I-VT-1-N5-E2-P2-V2 | For Sale | Labx Ad 6024958
-
A new CF video was posted yesterday. Somehow this person thinks cold fusion experiments have never produced significant excess heat. Easily the most boneheaded thing I’ve heard recently.
It was boneheaded but still somewhat positive. Takahashi and others were pleased to see it. I have mixed feelings. The comments at YouTube are more positive than I would had expected. I wrote this comment at YouTube:
"Hossenfelder says that no one was able to replicate several experiments. Some of those were replicated. No one has tried to replicate the others."
Following that:
"My point is that if several people try to replicate an experiment but they fail, that may indicate a problem in the experiment. But when no one tries, that tells you nothing about the experiment. It tells you that cold fusion is underfunded."She should have said: "no one has tried to replicate this yet, so we don't know if it is true." That puts things in a different light.
-
JedRothwell , I don’t know how well you know Florian Metzler, he responded to my comment on Sabine’s video, is he aware of the body of knowledge gathered at LENR-CANR.org ?
-
As for you, regularly offering to leave is a bit wimpy isn't it? You know you like it here so don't make with the snowflake stuff. We cover your back (as we do with all those who deserve it) pretty well, so enjoy it while we are spared.
Well, no censorship is good - and necessary. And, I have a broad back. As token skeptic I will do my bit to ensure I'm not used as a propaganda tool for the enemies of truth, motherhood, and apple pie (should any such exist here).
THH
-
JedRothwell , I don’t know how well you know Florian Metzler, he responded to my comment on Sabine’s video, is he aware of the body of knowledge gathered at LENR-CANR.org ?
I am 100% with Florian here. Anyway this thread is not downplaying gaps:
- I have helpfully drawn everyone's attention to the one's in Storms hypothesis re type 1 LENR
- Ascoli has done same re F&P boil-off
- The real gap - which Florian refers to - is lack of a replicable certain LENR experiment that others could do. We discuss it from time to time and I don't think we have any agreed recommendation? Worth continuing to do this.
-
Display More
Dear Edo,
I am not interested in these silly videos - which seem to be an attempt to flood thread here with non-science PR - but:
Please retract this comment.
I am sure it was an unintentional error, due to your not following my admittedly sometimes garrulous posts here over the last few days. But you have severely misrepresented me.
I have been saying for quite some time that type 2 LENR (ways round the Coulomb barrier problem) has been sort of shown possible (with references) - and maybe will very very possible in useful ways - by the electron shielding / nasa / etc people. That stuff has been going on (and I've been backing it with only my usual caution - nothing more) for about 5 years now. It is done by serious people, it has connections with non-LENR literature - it has good theory which helps those trying to make it work optimise results.
The alternate strand - type 1 LENR - where you have LENR without detectable high energy products - is intrinsically much less likely as it requires one extra bit of new science on top on how to overcome CB. And optimisation experimentally is more difficult because you can never easily be sure how much of it you have (you cannot use easily detectable even at low rates high energy products to determine this). The CB stuff has (for many years) had plausible theory. The extra bit has no plausible theory yet. For example Storms theory for this has ONE SMALL GAP AND ONE BIG GAP.
- I don't expect anyone to address the big gap - it requires a whole new theory compatible with existing and yet predicting different decay products, and therefor a special new nuclear state (new particles etc) ONLY FOR LENR nuclei. A big ask, theoretically, but very exciting if it can be done. I've seen no sign.
- I am a bit surprised no-one has systematically plugged the small gap by taking the Storms predicted prodcust and working out which experiements they will / will not be seen in - and comparing that with the rich body of LENR results. A good match would be positive for the Storm hypothesis. A bad match negative. It is sort-of a no-brainer outside of teh LENR community to look for ways of disproving new theories to test them.
I would have thought this board would embrace this stuff with interest - instead of actying as though what Ia m saying here is off-message because it is not equally positive about all strands of LENR work represented at ICCF24
THH
never
-
I don’t know how well you know Florian Metzler,
I have never heard of Metzler.
Anyway, if he is looking for a protocol, I would suggest the Storms "how to" paper:
https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEhowtoprodu.pdf
You might want to specify that this protocol takes a year or two, and it can only be done by experts. It will produce excess heat far beyond the limits of chemistry, with no chemical changes. Most researchers consider this to be an an unambiguous nuclear anomaly. If you measure the helium, you will find it correlates with the heat at a ratio of 24 MeV per helium atom, the same as one D-D plasma fusion reaction. It is very difficult and expensive to measure helium, so most people do not do this. Perhaps Metzler does not consider excess heat thousands of times above the chemical limit, or helium to be unambiguous nuclear anomalies. Perhaps he is looking for neutrons, and will not consider this other evidence unambiguous. In that case, we cannot satisfy his demand. You should make that clear.
-
JedRothwell , I don’t know how well you know Florian Metzler, he responded to my comment on Sabine’s video, is he aware of the body of knowledge gathered at LENR-CANR.org ?
For the record, I sent Florian mutiple emails requesting him to test our Mizuno reactors in his own calorimeters and attempted to contact him via ICCF24 channels but all requests received zero responses from him. Not sure why that would be. One should consider for themselves.
-
This is from the ICCF24:
External Content youtu.beContent 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.Florian is one of us, and also has his own blog:
-
Display More
I have never heard of Metzler.
Anyway, if he is looking for a protocol, I would suggest the Storms "how to" paper:
https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEhowtoprodu.pdf
You might want to specify that this protocol takes a year or two, and it can only be done by experts. It will produce excess heat far beyond the limits of chemistry, with no chemical changes. Most researchers consider this to be an an unambiguous nuclear anomaly. If you measure the helium, you will find it correlates with the heat at a ratio of 24 MeV per helium atom, the same as one D-D plasma fusion reaction. It is very difficult and expensive to measure helium, so most people do not do this. Perhaps Metzler does not consider excess heat thousands of times above the chemical limit, or helium to be unambiguous nuclear anomalies. Perhaps he is looking for neutrons, and will not consider this other evidence unambiguous. In that case, we cannot satisfy his demand. You should make that clear.
Well, he presented at ICCF 24 as you did so I was under the impression you may have had the chance of getting to know him there.
External Content www.youtube.comContent 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.Anyway, if he isn’t aware of LENR-CANR.org by now, he has a huge blind spot.
