FAQs
A friend pointed out
FAQ - FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
And
FACTS
Well
Inherently a
Fact Sheet
and a
FAQ Sheet
Enough said... Contextually different to a significant degree.
Condensed Matter Physics Departments
Enough for Cold Fusion to nestle into, No?
Condensed Matter Nuclear Science
Intertwined with the other Branches of
Condensed Matter Physics
And the Facts of the Day
The FAQs become embedded in concrete and immovable even if wrong.
FAQ (frequently asked questions) do not contain the most pertinent questions.
Questions frame dialog, in ways that can narrow or end an avenue of thought.
The most important dialog of the day, especially in Condensed Matter Physics, and Condensed Matter Nuclear Science, is not found in old questions posed by skeptics of what Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons presented.
Stationary charge produces no Coulomb barrier only potential repulsion.
Naturally! But here it is implied that since this is plasma, the line of nuclei are formed only on average. And for the formation of this chain and for the formation of a double electric layer, of course, a potential gradient is required.
By the way, it will take you a couple of minutes to understand my concept of overcoming the Coulomb barrier if you look at a couple of paragraphs at the end of the note Vortex plasma thruster
LENR has always had two challenges: Coulomb barrier - and some way to make nuclear reactions that never (or almost never) generate high energy products.
THH
Getting high enough energy to get across the Coulomb barrier and the lack of high energy products can both be answered by a mechanism involving a collision with multi-body catalyst.
The multi-body catalyst (planetoid) is composed of R-electrons. R- is for the Rieman factor (local time-space curvature). The planetoid builds with addition of a R-electron/R-atom one object at a time. Filling of this quantum object is from the lowest energy level. Higher energy levels acquire energy by boson condensation of lower energy levels. The energy of each level n equals n2 (13.584) where n is a quantum number. For example, after 8 anions of R-hydrogen at n=1 are in the planetoid, it can transition to 4 anions of R-hydrogen at n=1 and 1 anion of R-hydrogen at n=1. That transition would produce 3 normal hydrogen atoms and 3 electrons.
Because the planetoid is a quantum object and organized by electronuclear gravity, the electronuclear gravity causes the highest energy particles to have the highest orbitals. A collision with the planetoid could transfer energy in the MeV range. That explains the coulomb barrier. There is no LENR. The planetoid can be maintained by lots of energetic inputs below the MeV range. Hence, the planetoid is an accelerator. It also means the hydrogen-hydrogen or deuterium-deuterium fusion in not the most common nuclear reaction. When the planetoid is produced inside a lattice (by waveguide effects) the most common nuclear reaction is fusion of the atoms of the lattice. See ENECOtheseventh.pdf (lenr-canr.org)
The lack of high energy products is because the energy from an exothermic nuclear reaction is shared with planetoid, so the dispersal of energy to the many bodies in the planetoid yields few high energy nuclear products which exit the local high gravity region. However, if no high energy products escaped, one would not have the data to support the existence of electronuclear gravity. In a gas, the high energies of the planetoid are often confined by an entry barrier and layers of inductively charged atoms.
To get a look at the data and analysis that yields electronuclear gravity look at Ed Storms Amazing results data fitting - Physics - LENR Forum (lenr-forum.com)
For a deeper dive into data for electronuclear gravity look at
Steps to the Discovery of Electro-Nuclear Collapse- Collected Papers (1989-1999) by Takaaki Matsumoto. See remoteview.icu by Bob Greenyer.
Surely with 10^31 times more strength from the electrostatic interaction, the gravitational interaction can be safety ignored to at least 1 part in a quadrillion if not much much more.
Surely with 10^31 times more strength from the electrostatic interaction, the gravitational interaction can be safety ignored to at least 1 part in a quadrillion if not much much more.
Electronuclear gravity has a coupling constant 42 orders of magnitude greater than universal gravity.
So universal gravity can be ignored but not electronuclear gravity. Electronuclear gravity is the force which cancels the coulomb force at the escape horizon of an electronegative planetoid. So electrostatic force and electronuclear gravity are not the same force. I would be very interested if you could explain the force balance in terms of the standard 4 forces.
So the question should be when you look at Ed Storms Amazing results data fitting - Physics - LENR Forum (lenr-forum.com) is the derivation of electronuclear gravity supported by the data? Further, do works of Matsumoto support a gravity that is orders of magnitude greater than universal gravity?
This cannot affect measurements taken outside the cell, with flow or Seebeck calorimeters, or isoperbolic cells with the heat measured outside the cell wall. I am sure you know that, and I am sure you know the effect has been measured at high signal to noise ratios with these calorimeters many times. So you are not being serious here.
You are pretending there is a problem which you know damn well have been ruled out. All the other problems you list have also been ruled out. Anyone who has read the papers knows this. Why you make these absurd statements I cannot say. Most skeptics do it to sow doubt and make ignorant people think the effect does not exist. Is that your goal? Or are you so stupid you actually believe what you write?
Jed - We have argued the same thing for many years. I understand your POV. You think these experiments,a nd teh people who did them, are perfect. I don't.
Your first statement is conditional on there being no errors caused by temperature variations, because Seebeck calorimeter has perfectly isothermal surfaces.
Your second statement assumes that in these experiments unexpected problems can be ruled out. They cannot. If McK was a true replication of F&P, and both showed similar results, I'd give you that, the chance of errors in the two different systems being the same would be small.
But McK did not replicate the F&P results - the observed COP was much less. The calorimetry was much better, true. But closed and open cells have completely different potential errors, and we have McKs error estimates not otherwise verified. I can see one error in these, which is that very different temp distributions inside the cell between calibration and active would break error estimates. McK thinks these would be implausible: I cannot say I know they exist. But that possibility is enough to make the results very interesting but possibly subject to some not understood error.
It is a pity that you cannot see why I (and others like me) just do not trust single experiments. McK was that - F&P was different and unconvincing Longchamp similar to F&P (essentially identical, with the same queries).
Since McK I see no results anything like as good as McKs. That is because strong results come from people with relatively sloppy or undocumented (= could be sloppy) methodology. Weak results (e.g. SPAWAR films, which have mundane explanations) are more carefully written up and checked - but in that case the result, while interesting, is not convincing.
In fact, sad to say, the pattern of results since McK has been consistent with LENR does not exist, it is overall negative evidence. Not strong negative evidence - given the nature of LENR strong negative evidence is impossible.
I remain fascinated. For example, the electron shielding stuff could easily deal with Coulomb barrier (and shows signs of this though is a long way from being good enough yet). I have seen no signs (theoretically or experimentally) of something that would so completely prevent high energy products. The (obvious) mechanism which various people have suggested requires quantum coherence through a nuclear reaction. That means that the quark wave functions must be coherent. That is way more difficult than electrons coherent in a way that would break coulomb barrier. I therefore see the lack of high energy products as a strong negative. the experiments that promise, for me, are the ones that do show (the expected) high energy products.
None of the above is certain. Some good experimental evidence and I would freely admit there must be some coherent or whatever mechanism that can prevent high energy products which would otherwise always be seen. For you, who see experimental evidence now as certain, the above is irrelevant. For me it so not. It keeps me skeptical. I do not see LENR as impossible, but I've not seen evidence yet. If the various higher power out experiments (Daniel_G) have genuine results we will quite quickly get a replicated experiment that convinces me and many others. I hope they will: I fear they will not. In parallel, if the electron shielding theory or experiments show a breakthrough that would be a big deal.
Your certainty about LENR is mirrored by your certainty about other areas of science - vaccines - etc. Even though we basically agree about vaccines you make lots of certain statements I never would. You say things never happen when they happen 1:1,000,000, etc.
Therefore you can see the difference between our views is not because I am biased against LENR: it is because I am inherently more skeptical about everything. That is not being a troll.
If you think I am a troll, it is because you do not understand the above.
I agree with your view that engaging with me will not help you: you have not changed your views, I have not changed my overall view although I am newly interested (from about 5 years ago) in the electron shielding stuff).
THH
The multi-body catalyst (planetoid) is composed of R-electrons. R- is for the Rieman factor (local time-space curvature). The planetoid builds with addition of a R-electron/R-atom one object at a time. Filling of this quantum object is from the lowest energy level. Higher energy levels acquire energy by boson condensation of lower energy levels. The energy of each level n equals n2 (13.584) where n is a quantum number. For example, after 8 anions of R-hydrogen at n=1 are in the planetoid, it can transition to 4 anions of R-hydrogen at n=1 and 1 anion of R-hydrogen at n=1. That transition would produce 3 normal hydrogen atoms and 3 electrons.
Quantum and spacetime (GR) scales can coexist. But you need conditions very extreme to do this - You have not explored the quantitative (scaling) aspects of this which limit any such ideas. They are a very strong limit.
Quantum mechanics and spacetime are definitely related - there is so much promising work showing that - and anyway it must be. But, you need to respect the conditions under which perturbation of spacetime by mass-energy is significant, and under which quantum effects are significant, to find the intersection. (Of course curved spacetime is significant all the time).
Jed - We have argued the same thing for many years. I understand your POV.
It is not a point of view. It is textbook physics and chemistry going back to 1780.
You think these experiments,a nd teh people who did them, are perfect. I don't.
Don't be ridiculous. I never said anything like that. What I said was:
When hundreds of experienced, professional scientists do an experiment that has been done repeatedly for 200 years, some of them might make mistakes, but they cannot all be wrong. If that could happen, the experimental method would not work.
Furthermore, you have not found any errors in any major experiment, so your assertion is mere handwaving. You have to find specific instances of errors, not "someone somewhere might have made an unspecified error." That's not falsifiable. It isn't science.
Your first statement is conditional on there being no errors caused by temperature variations, because Seebeck calorimeter has perfectly isothermal surfaces.
That's ridiculous. There is no such thing as a perfectly isothermal surface. It only has to be isothermal enough that the error is not significant. Researchers always check for this by calibrating. As I am sure you know.
And how do we know researchers always check, and always calibrate? Because that is what the papers say. And because every researcher who did this going back to Joule knew what sort of errors can occur, and they made sure the errors are not significant. Joule listed them carefully. Every researcher I know listed the same errors Joule discussed (as well as others), and they all checked to be sure these errors were not significant. Everyone knows there are temperature variations. This was brought up repeatedly by skeptics, and answered in every single paper. F&P answered in detail. See pages 25 - 28:
https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJreviewofth.pdf
McKubre describes the use of Venturi mixers to reduce this problem to negligible levels. If you did not know that, read his papers more carefully.
If you have not read the papers, I recommend you do that before commenting, because everything you say is wrong and you make yourself look foolish. If you have read the papers then you know as well as I do that the problems you just listed have been addressed, and they are not significant. In that case, why do you say these things? Who are you trying to fool? Anyone who has read the papers will see you are wrong.
Quantum and spacetime (GR) scales can coexist. But you need conditions very extreme to do this - You have not explored the quantitative (scaling) aspects of this which limit any such ideas. They are a very strong limit.
Quantum mechanics and spacetime are definitely related - there is so much promising work showing that - and anyway it must be. But, you need to respect the conditions under which perturbation of spacetime by mass-energy is significant, and under which quantum effects are significant, to find the intersection. (Of course curved spacetime is significant all the time).
I plan to post a video "A Hack for Quantum Gravity". I provide details conditions in that video. Unfortunately, I am waiting for a review to be completed. That looks like it will be another two weeks.
Electronuclear gravity has a coupling constant 42 orders of magnitude greater than universal gravity.
So universal gravity can be ignored but not electronuclear gravity. Electronuclear gravity is the force which cancels the coulomb force at the escape horizon of an electronegative planetoid. So electrostatic force and electronuclear gravity are not the same force. I would be very interested if you could explain the force balance in terms of the standard 4 forces.
Bravo. I think we also -because of that have relativistic intra-nuclear time elongation- which is not the same as the time we experience.
Display MoreIt is not a point of view. It is textbook physics and chemistry going back to 1780.
Don't be ridiculous. I never said anything like that. What I said was:
When hundreds of experienced, professional scientists do an experiment that has been done repeatedly for 200 years, some of them might make mistakes, but they cannot all be wrong. If that could happen, the experimental method would not work.
Furthermore, you have not found any errors in any major experiment, so your assertion is mere handwaving. You have to find specific instances of errors, not "someone somewhere might have made an unspecified error." That's not falsifiable. It isn't science.
That's ridiculous. There is no such thing as a perfectly isothermal surface. It only has to be isothermal enough that the error is not significant. Researchers always check for this by calibrating. As I am sure you know.
And how do we know researchers always check, and always calibrate? Because that is what the papers say. And because every researcher who did this going back to Joule knew what sort of errors can occur, and they made sure the errors are not significant. Joule listed them carefully. Every researcher I know listed the same errors Joule discussed (as well as others), and they all checked to be sure these errors were not significant. Everyone knows there are temperature variations. This was brought up repeatedly by skeptics, and answered in every single paper. F&P answered in detail. See pages 25 - 28:
https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJreviewofth.pdf
McKubre describes the use of Venturi mixers to reduce this problem to negligible levels. If you did not know that, read his papers more carefully.
If you have not read the papers, I recommend you do that before commenting, because everything you say is wrong and you make yourself look foolish. If you have read the papers then you know as well as I do that the problems you just listed have been addressed, and they are not significant. In that case, why do you say these things? Who are you trying to fool? Anyone who has read the papers will see you are wrong.
Jed - we are repeating ourselves. You don't understand my reasons for skepticism. That is OK. You believe I am a fool. That is also OK, I have been called worse, and my foolishness or not does not change because of your opinion.
I will repeat: because you are not acknowledging what I have saiod. The McK results are strong - but they are just one set of results. Everyone makes mistakes, including McK, and sometimes nature surprises us. You believe calorimetry cannot have that sort of surprise. The McK results keep me interested, but they are not alone enough. Since then experimental results have been unsatisfactory.
That ICCF24 graph plotting CF experiments against reproducibility and certainty shows it. McK was highly certain, but not reproducible (that is, it has not been reproduced). A single result (or in this case sequence of results from one lab and one methodology) is not ever enough. The work since then has been much less certain.
If there is some LENR mechanism that works eventually somone will be able to discover what it is with measurements that show specific outputs validating the specific mechanism.
The most unsatisfactory thing about the LENR experiments so far is that they show every possible sign of nuclear reactions - and none of it is reproducible. (Well, the stuff that is reproducible is unclear because there are has known non-LENR explanations).
The broad range of systems and detected anomalies, with an extraordinary range of claimed nuclear reactions, actually counts against the likelihood of it being LENR, rather than a set of non-nuclear anomalies: and of course if some proportion of these are real, it makes it much more difficult to find them.
THH
Jed - we are repeating ourselves. You don't understand my reasons for skepticism. That is OK.
I understand your reasons better than you yourself do. You have no rational reasons. Only excuses. If you had any, you would tell us what mistakes have been made. The fact that you only say "someone somewhere may have made some sort of mistake" or you come up with nonsense such as "a perfectly isothermal surface" tells us you have no reasons.
You believe I am a fool.
Anyone can see you are not a fool. Perhaps you are trying to fool others. I do not understand why else you would drown the discussion in absurdities such as "a perfectly isothermal surface."
I will repeat: because you are not acknowledging what I have saiod. The McK results are strong - but they are just one set of results.
Yes, and there are hundreds of other results from other researchers. They cannot all be wrong.
I will repeat: because you are not acknowledging what I have saiod. The McK results are strong - but they are just one set of results. Everyone makes mistakes, including McK, and sometimes nature surprises us.
Yes, this is one set of results. Are you pretending that the other results from Miles or Fleischmann do not exist? Are you playing the skeptic's game of looking at one result at a time, while ignoring all others? I see you are pretending the helium and tritium results do not exist, because they bolster the calorimetry and prove this is D-D fusion. You pretend there is only calorimetry, and no helium -- one result at a time! Or you will look at the tritium or the x-rays and pretend the calorimetry does not exist.
Yes, everyone makes mistakes. Every individual makes mistakes. But hundreds of professional scientists do not all make mistakes for 30 years, in ever single experiment. If such an unlikely event could occur, experimental science would not work.
Electrochemists such as Fleischmann, Bockris and Miles spent a lifetime doing experiments. They made hundreds of mistakes. Thousands. As many mistakes as I have made writing thousands of programs over the years. But here is the thing: when professionals make mistakes, they find the mistakes and fix them. That's what we do all day long, day in and day out. It takes months or years, but we get it right. How do I know that? Because programs usually work. You seldom see a commercial program come up with a drastically wrong answer. Because airplanes seldom fall from the sky. Our technology is all based on scientific research, and it is reliable because the science is right. (Mostly right.) We can be sure that Fleischmann, Bockris and Miles did not make catastrophic errors they did not catch, because their work stood the test of time. They did commercial applications, such as reducing damage in salt water, and the equipment they designed works. Mizuno and his colleagues designed nuclear reactors, using electrochemical techniques to test embrittlement. Their reactors work well. You are saying hundreds of experts did an experiment measuring heat, first done by Michael Faraday. Their calibrations and blanks all matched Faraday's result. They got hundreds of positive results exceeding Faraday, listed by Storms and others. You are saying that every single positive result was a mistake. A mistake they never found, despite their proven skills and knowledge.
This is absurd, but suppose they only got it right a hundred times. That would still mean the effect is real.
You believe calorimetry cannot have that sort of surprise.
Any experiment can be a surprise, but calorimetry has been done for over 200 years at a level that could have detected many of these results. It is simply not possible that every single expert in calorimetry who has detected cold fusion heat made a mistake. It is especially impossible because neither you nor anyone else has found any error in any major study. If there is one, where is it? Do you need another 30 years? There has to be some reasonable limit to your search for an error. A statute of limitations you might say, or skeptics will never accept any new result. You might as well be arguing that Ohm's law is still open to question. Or Curie's claim of radioactivity, that was also based on calorimetry.
You have had 30 years to find a mistake, but you cannot point to anything other than preposterous stuff like "a perfectly isothermal surface" -- which I am sure you know as well as I do does not exist, and is not needed. Calibration proves a surface is good enough and the effects of imperfection are small and accounted for. Every "objection" you have raised has been an obvious mistake such as this one, or an unfalsifiable vague assertion that applies equally well to every experiment in history.
Are you playing the skeptic's game of looking at one result at a time, while ignoring all others?
This is not the "skeptic's game", but exactly what you suggested to THH a few years ago when he asked "How could LENR be disproved?":
QuoteThat's obvious! You just show there is a mistake in an experiment, and out it goes.
[…]
Do that for every major study and hey-presto, cold fusion is gone. Dead as Polywater.
On the contrary, it seems that your are playing the game of changing your mind according to the convenience of the moment.
Anyway, too bad that THH keeps wasting his time by inconclusively addressing his objections to several CF/LENR experiments all at once, instead of following your wise suggestion to focus his attention on one experiment at a time.
As you pointed out, it makes no sense to just say "someone somewhere may have made some sort of mistake". There is no need to be so elusive. F&P, the pioneers of CF, have made huge and well-defined mistakes in their … well, I'm not allowed to mention it in this thread, but it's not difficult to find where.
For the benefit of people who have not read the literature, let me point out some more problems with the hypothesis that heat is an artifact caused by the difference between heavy water and ordinary water.
The differences between heavy and light water are listed in the textbooks. You can plug the numbers into the equations.
BUT no one does this, or needs to, because people who measure heat in the electrolyte calibrate with heavy water. They use platinum electrodes or resistance heaters. So there is no need to adjust light water calibrations.
FURTHERMORE as I said, many calorimeters measure the heat outside the cell walls, where any differences could not affect the results.
If THH has read the literature, he knows this as well as I do. If he has not read it, he should not say anything in favor of or against cold fusion. No comments, no hypotheses, no speculation. Do not discuss a scientific subject you know nothing about. Do your homework, or shut up.
Couldn't electronuclear gravity be a second or even third order effect of electrostatics? I've thought for some time that the static electric field and the gravitational field must be imbedded in space in similar ways giving rise to the possibility of localized gravitational fields from electrical phenomena.
... You are saying hundreds of experts did an experiment measuring heat, first done by Michael Faraday. Their calibrations and blanks all matched Faraday's result. They got hundreds of positive results exceeding Faraday, listed by Storms and others. You are saying that every single positive result was a mistake. A mistake they never found, despite their proven skills and knowledge.
This is absurd, but suppose they only got it right a hundred times. That would still mean the effect is real.
This is a totally wrong and unscientific statement!
McKubre was much more correct in his presentation last year at ICCF23:
QuoteFrom: RE: What should we do next ? - A relevant question from Matt Trevithick :
"d. Until an experiment is reproducible more-or-less at will, producing more-or-less the same results (including magnitude and timing) more-or-less every time then we cannot know that is real and fully under our control."
So, if you have hundreds, thousands, or even millions of not replicable claims you can't say that the effect is real. All you can say is that many people have gotten and published a lot of possible false positive results.
You need at least one replicable experiment to say that an effect is real. For McKubre, in the CF/LENR, there is only one experiment which has been properly replicated:
QuoteFrom: RE: What should we do next ? - A relevant question from Matt Trevithick :
"b. 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."
Therefore, up to now, the only CF/LENR experiments which can be considered by a scientific PoV are those mentioned by McKubre in the ICCF23 slide. All the rest, including his own experiments, can be ignored, because they have not been properly repicated.
The most unsatisfactory thing about the LENR experiments so far is that they show every possible sign of nuclear reactions - and none of it is reproducible. (Well, the stuff that is reproducible is unclear because there are has known non-LENR explanations).
Our clown certainly knows how non LENR gammas are produced by heating stable isotopes....
Couldn't electronuclear gravity be a second or even third order effect of electrostatics? I've thought for some time that the static electric field and the gravitational field must be imbedded in space in similar ways giving rise to the possibility of localized gravitational fields from electrical phenomena.
Maybe. How would a boson condensation be explained in electrostatics?
It is simpler to see gravity as a type of magnetism. A matter-antimatter pair in orbit of an electron is held in orbit by relativity which in this case is magnetism. How Special Relativity Makes Magnets Work - YouTube
Constrain: the matter-antimatter pair can't annihilate because they possess too little mass to allow the development of the electromagnetic fields which allow the conversion to light.
An equation of the form E=n2(energy value) is the root of electronuclear gravity. Where n is a quantum number. See Ed Storms Amazing results data fitting - Physics - LENR Forum (lenr-forum.com) I interpret it as a boson condensation.
They cannot all be wrong
Yes, they can. File drawer effect + (more subtle) the LENR experiments that have worked get replicated with the same issues.
These experiments are alas not replicable. That could have other explanations, but the simplest is that what they show is not what it appears. If, for example, Mizuno's results are replicable, which it did appear initially they might be, this statement will change, as will my view of the current state of LENR.
And, to be fair, "wrong" is the wrong word for most of these results, which are not well enough checked to allow any conclusion, right or wrong.
