I attempted to answer the comment from Florian Metzler thrice, and YouTube kept deleting it.
Here’s the third attempt that I managed to capture before getting deleted.
LENR FAQ (for Newcomers)
-
-
never
Ok - well I have set the matter straight.
It is OK changing your mind when you have new evidence you know? Everything I've said is matter of record here, and people will actually think better of you if you change views when given good reason.
Anyway - equally - there is no requirement for you to do that. This is a free site.
-
I attempted to answer the comment from Florian Metzler thrice, and YouTube kept deleting it.
Here’s the third attempt that I managed to capture before getting deleted.You could do this my way and recommend a suitable "replicable and certain" experiment? Then it might not get deleted.
-
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.
I forgot this! Obviously, I was not paying much attention. Anyway . . . when people ask for a protocol and proof, my stock answer is what I wrote above.
-
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?
You do not agree, but all the researchers I know say that the original P&F bulk Pd-D experiment was replicable and others can do it. They say this because they themselves replicated it. It is certain because they are certain of their results. They say other people can do it if those people have a PdD in electrochemistry, many years of experience, and one or two years to devote to the effort. It is roughly as difficult as mastering open heart surgery. Many accomplished surgeons can do this. If you are not a surgeon, you can't do it.
Perhaps what you mean is a relatively easy experiment that any experimentalist can replicate, even if he or she has no experience in electrochemistry. The LEC may fit that description. So far, it seems comparatively easy to replicate. It may be a form of cold fusion. That remains to be seen.
Perhaps that is what Florian meant, but I don't see that in his words. He did not saying anything about an easy experiment, or an experiment that anyone can do. I think you may be putting words in his mouth again. I would rephrase this:
"The real gap - which I think Florian refers to - is lack of a replicable, certain, relatively easy LENR experiment that other experimentalist scientists can do, even if they do not have extensive experience in electrochemistry and they do not wish to spend a year or two doing it . . ."
I too would like to see such an experiment. However, the fact that the present experiments are difficult, they can only be done by experts, and they take years has absolutely no bearing on whether cold fusion is real or not. It is irrelevant. It takes years, billions of dollars, and thousands of experts to build at Tokamak reactor, but no one says plasma fusion does not exist because it is so difficult to replicate. No one says that Mars explorer robots do not exist because they take tremendous expertise and money to build.
-
You could do this my way and recommend a suitable "replicable and certain" experiment? Then it might not get deleted.
I would not attempt to patronise Florian by giving him homework.
-
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
"We" don't know this. You know it. Do not ascribe your views to everyone. Just say, "in my opinion we know now . . ." Saying "we know" is irritating and deceptive. Someone new to the forum might think this is the consensus of opinion, when in fact you and Ascoli are the ones who think this.
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.
That's fine with me! Say it as often as you like. As long as you make it clear this is your opinion, and Ascoli's, and no one else here agrees. It is certain that F&P, their staff, their visitors, and anyone who has seen a better video (including me) does not agree.
-
I would not attempt to patronise Florian by giving him homework.
In my answer to him I wasn’t trying to give him homework, he clearly has done It, But it surprised me a bit that he asked me about information on repeatable experiments.
-
You do not agree, but all the researchers I know say that the original P&F bulk Pd-D experiment was replicable and others can do it.
Actually Jed, you can look back where that was what I suggested the google people replicate. I still think it would be the most fruitful thing.
We know so much more now: ATER/CCS/loading/NAEs/foam
It could be done with both more integrity and higher chance of success.
THH
-
"We" don't know this. You know it. Do not ascribe your views to everyone. Just say, "in my opinion we know now . . ." Saying "we know" is irritating and deceptive. Someone new to the forum might think this is the consensus of opinion, when in fact you and Ascoli are the ones who think this.
Ok - it is this:
ascoli and I claimed that the video showed this: and challenged anyone to show the video did not by posting stills and timestamps - sepaarted by 600s Anyone not able to settle the matter could then compare ascoli's stills + timestamps with the others to see whether in fact the liquid level changed by 50%.
I was quite surprised, and remain surprised, that no-one took up that relatively easy (if you are right) challenge. It is what F&P said they did to determine the 10 minutes.
I thus - given it was an easy challenge - reckon no-one here could rebut ascoli's interpretation of the video evidence. Certainly it seemed worth it to me
I agree no-one here has explicitly supported ascoli's interpretation. But equally no-one has refuted it when to do so would be just "hey - look - here is the video - here are the two frames separated by 10 minutes at the end which show a 50% liquid boil-off if you look at the liquid line".
If ascoli is wrong, or it is debatable - that would be the obvious thing to do. It might not shut him up - but it would shut me up unless at those timestamps the thing claimed as liquid looked white and bubbly - obvious that would not be as required.
So unlike most arguments here this is a very concrete one. Ascoli has provided concrete evidence, I am not certain he is right, but anyone here could look at the video and provide a concrete rebuttal.
That is really why I have been difficult to shut up because I believe in answering direct challenges of this sort. And I like to think this site is about finding truth. Usually the challenges are words, the answers are more words, and it is unsatisfactory.
In this case the challenge is to find (50 + x)% of unfoamy liquid 600s from the end of the experiment (or 600s from a chosen by you de facto endpoint where there only x% of unfoamy liquid).
Without this F&P's calculation is clearly wrong: you could perhaps argue that the bubbles could only be a small %age of the water total so it did not matter - that the white stuff was nevertheless obviously nearly all liquid because that is what happens in boiling liquids or something? No-one has argued that yet.
I just want a logical reply to a (simple) logical challenge to show that matters here are carried out in a proper fashion.
It is that lack of reply + lack of any other answer to an easily closable question that allows me to conclude that people here agree with ascoli and Robert Horst - even though they don't want to say it.
THH
-
In my answer to him I wasn’t trying to give him homework, he clearly has done It, But it surprised me a bit that he asked me about information on repeatable experiments.
Curbina - so can you specify one concrete replicable certain experiment?
If you let people guess then you will just say it is not repeatable maybe.
THH
-
Curbina - so can you specify one concrete replicable certain experiment?
If you let people guess then you will just say it is not repeatable maybe.
THH
The gas flow through PdAg by Fralick in 1989, as mentioned by Theresa Benyo in her ICCF 24 presentation, was repeated some times by the NASA (then LENR now LCF team) and a very similar experiment was performed by Li with a Pd foil through which deuterium was pushed through with unexplainable excess heat and a energy density comparable to fission reactors. A somewhat similar experiment performed by a team attempting to replicate Mills claims also produced remarkable excess heat pushing hydrogen through the walls of a nickel tubing at 1000 psig, all the thing being immersed in a K2CO3 solution. This team claims the excess heat was generated in the moment the hydrogen started to permeate out of the tube and contacted the K2CO3 solution (what in their opinion confirms Mills theories), but the important fact is the remarkable excess heat without any external heating and only caused by the flow of an hydrogen isotope through a metallic lattice.
The Fralick, Benyo and other NASA people paper from 2020.
The Nickel Tubing paper mentioned.
https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GernertNnascenthyd.pdf
The Liu replication:http://www.newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2006/2006LiuB-ExessHeat.pdf
-
Display More
The gas flow through PdAg by Fralick in 1989, as mentioned by Theresa Benyo in her ICCF 24 presentation, was repeated some times by the NASA (then LENR now LCF team) and a very similar experiment was performed by Li with a Pd foil through which deuterium was pushed through with unexplainable excess heat and a energy density comparable to fission reactors. A somewhat similar experiment performed by a team attempting to replicate Mills claims also produced remarkable excess heat pushing hydrogen through the walls of a nickel tubing at 1000 psig, all the thing being immersed in a K2CO3 solution. This team claims the excess heat was generated in the moment the hydrogen started to permeate out of the tube and contacted the K2CO3 solution (what in their opinion confirms Mills theories), but the important fact is the remarkable excess heat without any external heating and only caused by the flow of an hydrogen isotope through a metallic lattice.
The Fralick, Benyo and other NASA people paper from 2020.
https://www.researchgate.net/p…metals_with_deuterium_gasThe Nickel Tubing paper mentioned.
https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GernertNnascenthyd.pdfGreat. So someone could write this up as a reference "makes excess heat" experiment - based on one of other of these. Everyone could check what was needed to bound errors below the expected excess heat. It could answer people who wanted a replicable certain result? As long as the excess heat is clearly above chemical, after subtracting experiment error bounds.
It would also be possible to correlate the excess heat with the expected (from conventional D+D fusion) high energy products. Not sure if need to consider neutron stripping of Pd or Ag - neutron capture seems implausible it would be strongly endothermic.
I guess these experiments all checked there was not catalytic oxidation of the D - which would be exothermic?
-
Great. So someone could write this up as a reference "makes excess heat" experiment - based on one of other of these. Everyone could check what was needed to bound errors below the expected excess heat. It could answer people who wanted a replicable certain result? As long as the excess heat is clearly above chemical, after subtracting experiment error bounds.
Just linked all The papers in the post for you. An energy density akin to nuclear fission is hard to confuse with a chemical reaction.
-
In my answer to him I wasn’t trying to give him homework, he clearly has done It, But it surprised me a bit that he asked me about information on repeatable experiments.
Florian did some "small" work for Hagelstein that showed a tiny effect. Now he believes he is mister LENR... So don't waste your time. He has no deep knowledge.
-
The gas flow through PdAg by Fralick in 1989, as mentioned by Theresa Benyo in her ICCF 24 presentation, was repeated some times by the NASA
Also done at BARC.
-
Actually Jed, you can look back where that was what I suggested the google people replicate.
[That, meaning the original F&P bulk Pd-D experiment]
I believe they tried to replicate this. Pretty sure, but the paper was vague, and they were not talkative in person. They said they never achieved high enough loading. Bulk Pd is the only kind of experiment where this is a problem.
As far as I know, they did not consult with anyone who replicated it. Granted, most of those people are dead, but they did not consult with the living. I think learning from others might have helped.
-
I have never heard of Metzler.
Ah, I should have remembered his name. I apologize to him (if he is here). Yes, I saw that presentation at the conference. I just watched the above video again. Some comments --
The history part was good. I made some similar observations in my papers about the history of transistors. He brought out some things I did not know, and he made more technical comparisons. Most welcome!
I agree with him that a proof of principle machine will probably be necessary.
Prolonged ambiguity is indeed characteristic of nascent science, such as semiconductors from the 1920s to 1948. I think he should have mentioned that in this case, academic politics are prolonging even more than the vicissitudes of science itself.
He seems convinced that cold fusion is real, so I do not understand why he asked the above question.
I have one disagreement. It is about theory, a subject I approach with trepidation, since he knows about a thousand times more about physics than I do. However . . . He think that neutrons tell us a lot about the reaction, and heat is a byproduct of the reaction. Heat is "secondary," neutrons are "primary." I think that is how he put it. I think it is the opposite. Heat is primary. It is also the principal signature of the reaction, as Fleischmann put it. No heat means no cold fusion. There is no point to looking for neutrons or anything else in the absence of heat. Furthermore, because neutrons come and go, and they are often missing, I think they are secondary. They are a byproduct of the main reaction. Ed Storms think they may be from fractofusion, where the cathode is fracturing under high loading. If so, they are prosaic and unimportant. I have no idea how that can be explained by theory, but it seems likely, based on experimental observations.
-
Furthermore, because neutrons come and go, and they are often missing, I think they are secondary.
I mean they sometimes come and go while the heat remains steady. You can have heat without neutrons, but I doubt you have neutrons without heat. It is not clear because some neutron studies did not include calorimetry. Granted, Takahashi once found they seemed to be mutually exclusive, as if neutrons were a precursor reaction before heat appeared, analogous to smoke before flame. But I think for the most part they are sporadic, and heat is steady.
Assuming the LEC is cold fusion, you might say, "that is a nuclear signature without heat." Maybe, but I expect there is heat, but it is too small to measure. In this case the voltage measurement is far more sensitive than any calorimeter. If they can scale up a LEC we will learn whether it always produces heat. Whether heat is still the principle signature of the reaction.
Frank thinks the ratio of heat to electricity from the LEC is not fixed. He thinks they can make one LEC put out more electricity per watt of heat than another. I guess by collecting ions before they whack into the walls? I have no idea. But anyway, I hope he is right, and I hope the LEC can be optimized to put out electricity. I hope it can be scaled up!
As long as it can be scaled up and it produces electricity I couldn't care less whether it is cold fusion or not. Let the boffins worry about that.
-
As Ed Storms has said, there's a 'How' to make LENR happen, and there's a 'Why' it happens. We have partial answers to How, but no single convincing one for Why.
You've nailed it! This is a difference between what I see going on in academic science in general and what goes on here.
The most sciency part of science is saying that some claim or theory seems to be wrong. But I see little appetite for this sort of activity here. The LENR community thus opens itself to charges that it practices a pseudoscience.
Can anyone here point to a fundamental LENR theory or claim from the past 30 years that the community now sees as wrong? (I exclude the unmasking of charlatans like Rossi)
