LENR FAQ (for Newcomers)

Quote from THHuxleynew

Perhaps that is all I need; LENR results that become more convincing when replicated.

For example, Daniel_G's results here would be that, if replication showed something similar.

I find Daniel_G's lastest project intriguing. Not because the evidence is good yet (the ICCF presentation was poor in this respect) but because he proposes to send working reactors to researchers for verification and because he says that he is willing to pay attention to people's suggestions.

It makes me wonder if there is room here for participants on LENR Forum to help craft standards for what would be considered convincing results -- either for or against -- in trials of Mizuno's reactors. My dream would be to come up with a set criteria, ahead of time, for Daniel_G to use that would convince me. I would be putting something at stake.

I'm not sure that this is even possible if researchers are working with sealed black-box reactors (for instance, would you know whether or not your controls are adequate?), but I think it may be valuable to talk about. At least it would be forward looking instead of rehashing 30-year-old results.

Quote from THHuxleynew

I see lack of reproducibility, or lack of clarity with excess heat results close to measurement error that smaller when better experiments are done so they still stay frustratingly close to experimental error. that is not the scaling we expect from a real effect.

The things you see do not exist. You made them up. Everything you say here is incorrect.

1. Most excess heat results are not close to measurement errors. They are far above errors, and they would have been for the last 180 years. For example, McKubre's results are shown below. He did the most rigorous and conservative estimate of errors. Look at the error bars. The results are far above them.

2. The better experiments show more heat, not less. None are frustratingly close to experimental error.

3. There is no reason to think that a scaling up effect would occur from "better" experiments. Scaling up occurs with higher loading and higher temperatures. Whenever there is excess heat, it always increases with loading and higher temperatures, as shown in McKubre's experiment.

What you are doing here is making up bullshit, posting it, and then declaring that it is fact. That's not science. You are not fooling anyone who has read the literature.

Quote from THHuxleynew

The regrettable situation in LENR is that when experiments are replicated with different instrumentation, calorimetry, etc that is more comprehensive effects tend to reduce, or even disappear.

More bullshit. They do not disappear at all. In particular the heat reported at ICCF24 is far higher and more long lasting than ever before.

Quote from JedRothwell

The better experiments show more heat, not less. None are frustratingly close to experimental error.

To be specific, among the best calorimeters were those of McKubre, F&P, Pons et al., Storms, Miles, Dardik and Staker. They included flow, isoperibolic and Seebeck calorimeters. They produced the largest results on record until recently, ranging from 0.5 to 20 W close to room temperature, and at higher temperatures from 30 to 100 W. None of these results were close to experimental error.

Here is another example of results totally at odds with claims by THHuxley. See minute 13 of Benyo's presentation describing the collaboration with U.S. Naval Surface Warfare division. The H2O control cells produced no heat. 6 out of 7 of the D2O cells produced heat ranging from 250 mW to 1500 mW. The calorimetry was excellent. Contrary to everything THHuxley asserted this is very high heat, in the sense that no competent scientist with any properly constructed calorimeter could miss it, or mistake zero heat for these power levels.

Screenshot:

Video:

Put NASA and THHuxley on the same line ?

You have to be in love with him to give him so much credit

Quote from JedRothwell

Here is another example of results totally at odds with claims by THHuxley. See minute 13 of Benyo's presentation describing the collaboration with U.S. Naval Surface Warfare division. The H2O control cells produced no heat. 6 out of 7 of the D2O cells produced heat ranging from 250 mW to 1500 mW. The calorimetry was excellent. Contrary to everything THHuxley asserted this is very high heat, in the sense that no competent scientist with any properly constructed calorimeter could miss it, or mistake zero heat for these power levels.

Screenshot:

Video:

External Content www.youtube.com

Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.

Display all external content

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.

Display More

Daniel_G

Quote from Bruce__H

he says that he is willing to pay attention to people's suggestions.

PineSci (NASA) Theoretical

Theresa Benyo et.al

Found in the most recent patent iteration, owned by the U.S

Metzler outlined that data rich experiments will shed light on the actual events taking place. Benyo's ICCF-24 presentations shows this has been being done at NASA for decades.

I have posted the theoretical underpinnings . Follow the following thread...

Quote from Gregory Byron Goble

PineSci Theory Finally

2022-07-06 Publication of EP3864671A4

EP3864671A4 - Methods and apparatus for facilitating localized nuclear fusion reactions enhanced by electron screening - Google Patents

[0276] THEORETICAL SUMMARY [0277] Electron screening plays a critical role in the overall efficiency of nuclear fusion events between charged particles. The kinetic energy transfer to fuel nuclei (D) by neutral particles, such as energetic neutrons or photons, is shown above to be far more efficient than by energetic charged particles, such as light particles (e , e+) or heavy particles (p , d, a). A theoretical framework is provided for d-D nuclear fusion reactions in high-density cold fuel nuclei embedded in metal lattices, with a small fraction of fuel activated by hot neutrons. Also established is the important role of electron screening in increasing the relative probability Psc(ji/2 £ q < p) to scatter in the back hemisphere (p/2 < q < p), an essential requirement for subsequent tunneling of reacting nuclei to occur. This will correspondingly be reflected as an increase in the astrophysical factor S(E).

[0278] Also clarified is the applicability of the concept of electron screening potential energy Ue to the calculation of the nuclear cross section enhancement factor /(£) . It is demonstrated that the screened Coulomb potential of the target ion is determined by the nonlinear Vlasov potential and not by the Debye potential. In general, the effect of screening becomes important at low kinetic energy of the projectile. The range of applicability of both the analytical and asymptotic expressions for the electron screening lattice potential energy Ue is examined, which is valid only for E » Ue (E is the energy in the center of mass reference frame). It is demonstrated that for E < Ue, a direct calculation of Gamow factor for screened Coulomb potential should be performed to avoid unreasonably high values of the enhancement factor /(E) by the analytical and asymptotic formulae.

Quote from Bruce__H

I'm not sure that this is even possible if researchers are working with sealed black-box reactors (for instance, would you know whether or not your controls are adequate?)

I think it would be possible to draw conclusions from sealed black-box reactors. You would know whether your controls are adequate because they work. They control. Or they don't. Many people have no idea how automobile engines, transmissions and brakes work, but they know that their control via the accelerator and steering wheel are adequate because the car stops and starts and goes where they want it to.

I think this would be possible, but it would be pointless. Before the device is sold, it will have to be examined by government agencies and places such as UL. I have seen the UL submission forms. You have to tell them absolutely everything about the device, including complete blueprints and a list of where every component comes from. Every screw and every wire. They take apart the whole thing, and test it by many different methods. Government regulators also do this. In short, you are never allowed to keep any secrets. The government would never allow you to sell a device with an unknown source of energy. It would demand a theory accepted by most academic scientists. Perhaps people can sell or hand out LECs under the radar, but not larger devices.

So, you must file a patent before letting anyone see the device. Since you will have a patent filed (not granted yet), when you give the machine to others to test, you might ask them to sign a temporary secrecy agreement, but I see no point to making it a black box.

Quote from JedRothwell

The things you see do not exist. You made them up. Everything you say here is incorrect.

1. Most excess heat results are not close to measurement errors. They are far above errors, and they would have been for the last 180 years. For example, McKubre's results are shown below. He did the most rigorous and conservative estimate of errors. Look at the error bars. The results are far above them.

2. The better experiments show more heat, not less. None are frustratingly close to experimental error.

3. There is no reason to think that a scaling up effect would occur from "better" experiments. Scaling up occurs with higher loading and higher temperatures. Whenever there is excess heat, it always increases with loading and higher temperatures, as shown in McKubre's experiment.

What you are doing here is making up bullshit, posting it, and then declaring that it is fact. That's not science. You are not fooling anyone who has read the literature.

More bullshit. They do not disappear at all. In particular the heat reported at ICCF24 is far higher and more long lasting than ever before.

Display More

Let us see whether I "made it up"?

I cannot rmeember - so perhaps I did, but I doubt it.

I agree, results from McKubre were well above his estimate of calorimeter error.

My concern is (as always when talking to you) more subtle.

F&P claimed results which were very high. COP of 2 or greater.

For these electrochemistry experiments a good metric for results is COP - because nearly all the errors scale with power in, as do most artifacts.

I don't know whether you think the graph you have posted tells us how marginal were McKubre's results? It tells me nothing. I need to know the power out as a fraction of power in.

My point is that that fraction, which was claimed high by F&P, was much lower with McK.

Of course McK had one of the best ever calorimeters - especially designed to be highly accurate in this measurement, and his results are much better characterised than F&P, whose reporting and record-keeping - like much of LENR (e.g. Mizuno) was sloppy.

I claim that the excess heat he obtained (in terms of COP for reasons above) was nothing like the large values claimed by F&P and accepted by most here, though not ascoli, and not me, as definitive.

I should add, for "good results" we need both excess power above possible artifact (CCS or whatever) level. We also need excess energy well above possible chemical. McK was well

aware of this and I believe he ran experiments long enough for excess energy to be definite (?) - if the excess power is as reported.

But - it is surprising and unfortunate that his signal "COP" is so much lower than that found by F&P. You really would not expect this if the F&P results were correct.

I will let Jed provide evidence to contradict this (I don't think he can). My statement:

The McK results were nearly all showing a much lower effect than that claimed by F&P. There were one (maybe 2) anomalous cases with high apparent results, not replicable.

Jed: I understand your passion, and I also understand that you live in a simpler world then me in which many things are certain. That is fine. But you accuse me of sloppiness or fanaticism I do not have. I looked at those McK results very impressed with the experimental setup, and also very sorry that the results were nearly all unexpectedly small.

Unlike you, I see the possibility of new systematic errors when conducting new experiments: anyone would. The results were not so large as to rule that out (with the one or two anomalous non-replicable ones as exception).

Those results are enough to keep me interested. They are not proof, because the real world is surprising and weird effects break our best assumptions in ways that no-one would expect until afterwards.

Quote from JedRothwell

I think it would be possible to draw conclusions from sealed black-box reactors. You would know whether your controls are adequate because they work. They control. Or they don't. Many people have no idea how automobile engines, transmissions and brakes work, but they know that their control via the accelerator and steering wheel are adequate because the car stops and starts and goes where they want it to.

This appears to be a miscommunication. By "control" I meant an identical but inactive reactor for the purpose of comparison.

Quote from JedRothwell

I think this would be possible, but it would be pointless. Before the device is sold, it will have to be examined ...

I don't think that Daniel_G is proposing to sell the reactors to validators. My understanding is that he is proposing to ship reactors to them so that they can verify in their own labs that the things work as advertised. It's a gutsy call.

And then there was Joseph Papp's Noble Gas Engine which was capable in tests of producing 100 horsepower and was safe to touch, as well as sealed. What I see here are the same closed minds I see everywhere.

Quote from GRMattson

And then there was Joseph Papp's Noble Gas Engine which was capable in tests of producing 100 horsepower and was safe to touch, as well as sealed. What I see here are the same closed minds I see everywhere.

So: these are old debates. I am not sure how detailed your personal study of the Papp Engine stuff is. Many people, looking at it, view the evidence as very unconvincing, and the transparency of the inventor (polite phrase) such that it seems most likely not to be of any use (again polite phrase). Others see this as proof positive of LENR based on its demos.

Here is the old LF thread: Papp and the Papp engine

Perhaps, for this thread, we could examine the broader question your comment raises.

As a skeptic, you would want me to have an open mind - rather than a closed one. What attitude should I have towards a claim of an isolated inventor that they had a revolutionary device? Perhaps it is not fair but you might ask this question in the context of Rossi's claims, and how different people reacted to them. I was fascinated by every one of his demos, loved the details, and found in every single one except (which was it - no 15? the second of the pre-Lugano Lugano-group "validated" demos) obvious red flags - unanswered issues that would allow the claimed results via a non-LENR mechanism. For just one example: measuring input power using average voltage and current meters - which gives a potentially large under-estimate.

Rossi's demos were very ingenious. For example the "samovar" demo which seemed to show (as above) what was possible large heat after death could be explained with "hot core" model fairly naturally. Yet that explanation did not occur to any of those asked for opinions at the time, many of whom were very well qualified (including our Jed).

Perhaps there are questions we could consider.

(1) What level of skepticism is appropriate when (as with Rossi) demos have external observers and show clear over unity results but there are possible holes in the science found only by those looking closely? Suppose you are not yourself in a position to evaluate what experts say (for example about RMS vs average power). Many at the time argued that the experts were trying to find fault with the experiments.

(2) What level of skepticism is appropriate when there are similar over-unity claims and no transparency: little information about the device and a demo that is not well instrumented or observed?

(3) Would the scientific study of LENR be helped or hindered by more skepticism from the LENR community about such devices?

THH

For me I welcome all the skepticism you can dish out. I believe it’s good and a critical part of science. It helps us spot our blind spots. The scientist’s job is to design experiments to address legitimate skepticism. Don’t believe me. Believe our ability to design and run experiments and the data has the last word

In my view of science all the interesting stuff happens on the edge where the footing is not stable and the ability to find new paths or fall off the cliff are equally possible. When I see a lot of common threads, that points me in the direction I need to go. You have to be transparent and willing to make mistakes in order to move forward. SpaceX’s willingness to blow up rockets ironically resulted in its catapulting nasa.

Quote from JedRothwell

More bullshit. They do not disappear at all. In particular the heat reported at ICCF24 is far higher and more long lasting than ever before.

I therefore hope we will in time find detailed write-ups of experiments showing the high quality evidence of this better heat, so we can all agree progress is made.

It does sound very exciting - I expect from what you say that 2022 will have better evidence of LENR than any historic experiment.

However - I have had the same feeling many times in the past and been disappointed.

We must be patient and see.

Quote from Daniel_G

SpaceX’s willingness to blow up rockets ironically resulted in its catapulting nasa.

Absolutely, it has also catapulted the skills and imagination of this model rocketeer...

Quote from THHuxleynew

For these electrochemistry experiments a good metric for results is COP - because nearly all the errors scale with power in, as do most artifacts.

No, they do not. You made that up. Furthermore, Faraday discovered electrolysis in 1821 and measured the heat from it with calorimeters well enough to establish Faraday's law, and Joule measured the heat from resistance heaters with calorimetry in 1841 well enough to establish Joule's law. Both of these calorimeters could have measured most cold fusion results with confidence. There were no artifacts in their measurements and there is no reason to think there are any artifacts in the measurements made by professional electrochemists today. They have not forgotten what Faraday knew 200 years ago. They are not less skilled than he was, and their instruments are not less reliable. Their calibrations all agree with Faraday's law.

More to the point, your claim that "there may be artifacts" is not a falsifiable argument. You have to be specific. You have to tell us what errors and artifacts, how they can be detected, in which cold fusion experiments they might have occurred, and why did they not show up in calibrations. Waving your arms and saying "there might be artifacts somewhere" is true of every experiment ever performed. There might be an undiscovered artifact in Newton's prism experiments showing that white light includes all other colors. But until someone demonstrates this artifact, we have to assume Newton was right.

Your claim that there might be an unspecified, undetected problem somewhere does not get a free pass. You have to prove it as rigorously and as quantitatively as the cold fusion researchers prove their claims. They show calibrations and other proof. You need to explain why these calibrations do not prove what the researchers claim.

Quote from THHuxleynew

I don't know whether you think the graph you have posted tells us how marginal were McKubre's results? It tells me nothing. I need to know the power out as a fraction of power in.

I suggest you read his papers.

Quote from THHuxleynew

My point is that that fraction, which was claimed high by F&P, was much lower with McK.

F&P used higher temperatures which produce a larger reaction. They designed their calorimeter to allow high temperatures. Others who used higher temperatures also produce a larger reaction. McKubre deliberately held the temperature steady at a low level, with isothermal calorimetry. He knew this would reduce the highest power, but he felt it would increase precision and accuracy, which increases the signal to noise ratio. Fleischmann criticized him for this design decision.

Quote from Bruce__H

This appears to be a miscommunication. By "control" I meant an identical but inactive reactor for the purpose of comparison.

That would be an interesting control, but not necessary. If Daniel_G provides a reactor, the researcher can put it inside a calorimeter, measure input power, and measure the output power the reactor produces. This will confirm it is producing excess heat (or not!) The researcher can do this without opening up the reactor. To ensure the calorimeter is working correctly, the researcher can compare the reactor to a resistance heater. There is no need to compare it to an inactive reactor.

Obviously, all calorimeters must be calibrated with a resistance heater, before and after testing a cold fusion reaction. Sometimes during the reaction, in what they call calibration on the fly. This can sometimes affect the reaction, boosting it, so you have to be careful when you do it. The resulting increase in power may seem like an artifact, but it is real. Fleischmann recommended this technique.

It would be convenient if the reactor were small enough to fit into an ordinary calorimeter. Presumably one of the larger types such as Seebeck or air flow.

Quote from JedRothwell

More to the point, your claim that "there may be artifacts" is not a falsifiable argument. You have to be specific. You have to tell us what errors and artifacts, how they can be detected, in which cold fusion experiments they might have occurred, and why did they not show up in calibrations. Waving your arms and saying "there might be artifacts somewhere" is true of every experiment ever performed.

This is a good point Jed.

And I agree with you. There can be unexpected and unknown errors in any experiment.

Now - when the experiment is in line with what is expected such unknown errors are discovered (the "wrong" result) and diagnosed.

When the experiment has no expectations - e.g. a LENR experimenter is expecting unusual things but cannot quantify what they are or how they depend on controllable variables - these unexpected and unknown errors will not be discovered.

That is why, when experiments show something new and surprising, no-one believes them without replication.

The issue here is the quality of the LENR replication. The case at point is F&P high COP replicated as McK much lower COP.

I don't dismiss the McK experiments. They are interesting, and with more data we could try to explain them. Maybe then we would decide nuclear reactions were the best explanation. However low apparent COPs can be got from unexpected differences in thermal gradients between control and active, and D vs H gives significant physical changes as well as the nucleus changes, so these results are enough to intrigue me but not enough to jump on any specific reason for the results. They are still enough that I am more interested in the electrochemistry LENR stuff (and stuff strongly related) than in other claims. Those metal hydrides exhibit weird behaviour.

I stand by what I have said. If Mizuno's results are replicated, as Daniel_G hopes, and characterised, again as Daniel_G hopes to do, we will have something much clearer and which will make a lot of people take interest. That would be true whatever the COP if different types of calorimeters all gave similar (well above expected error bounds) results, and the characterisation (how does apparent excess heat scale with things you would expect to affect it e.g. temperature) was the same in these different setups. You don't require each run to be identical.

Whereas different characterisation with temperature in different calorimeters looks more like calorimeter artifacts than it does some real effect.

To avoid any clownish blabla we decided to confirm cold fusion by measuring the gamma spectrum at various temperatures, pressure etc..

Gamma radiation is always present if you know how CF is produced. But as we are researchers that like to more deeply understand the interplay between the elements, we do not comment about heat or energy produced as this does not explain the physics.

So in our case there is no discussion about the if...So far I can only say that CF follows from what we wrote the last 4 years...

Quote from THHuxleynew

When the experiment has no expectations - e.g. a LENR experimenter is expecting unusual things but cannot quantify what they are or how they depend on controllable variables - these unexpected and unknown errors will not be discovered.

Of course they will be discovered! In the calibrations. That is why people calibrate. Why would an artifact show up with Pd-D and not any other time? The choice of cathode material cannot affect the calorimetry, despite what Shanahan says. Even if it could with one calorimeter type, it could not with externally measured heat such as a Seebeck, flow, or Miles' China Lake calorimeter.

All cold fusion experiments now have clear expectations. With bulk Pd they will follow McKubre's equation, which is very specific.

They produce helium in the same ratio to the heat as DD fusion. This has been found every time helium was measured. That cannot be a coincidence. An artifact cannot cause helium to correlate with heat. An artifact that causes heat cannot also cause helium.

Many experiments produce tritium, which is irrefutable proof that a nuclear reaction is occurring. If you say "no, the tritium is also an artifact" then you have invented a new artifact, because an artifact that magically makes calorimetry fail (but not during calibrations) cannot also create tritium. An artifact that magically makes helium appear and correlate with heat cannot also cause tritium.

Many different types of calorimeters have been used. One artifact cannot affect all of them. You need three different artifacts for flow, isoperibolic and Seebeck calorimeters. As I said, you need one artifact for an isothermal calorimeter where heat is measured in the electrolyte, and another different artifact when heat is measured outside an isoperbolic cell with a copper jacket (Miles).

In short you are imaging artifact after artifact. You have imagined at least eight so far, all totally unrelated from one another. All undetected, and not a single one of them described by you. You are multiplying entities unnecessarily. Multiplying them like rabbits! You have not even suggested how these miraculous artifacts might occur -- because you cannot. As I said, you do not get a free pass. You must be held to the same standards as the researchers. If you wish to make a technical assertion, you must tell us in technical terms what it is. "There might be an artifact but I have no idea what it might be" is not falsifiable. You are not doing science.

Ockham's razor says you should not invent 8 imaginary, unrelated, unnamed artifacts when one unified explanation fits the facts. The explanation is that a nuclear reaction is occurring. All of the evidence points to it. None of it points to swarms of unnamed, undetected, impossible artifacts.