LENR FAQ (for Newcomers)

Thanks again... Time for me to study up, no doubt.

Dense Atomic H Catalysts

The Subtle Atomics dense atomic hydrogen catalyst model was explored by members of the LENR Forum research group in late 2018, and a comprehensive catalyst ... http://www.subtleatomics.com › tran... Transmutation - Subtle Atomics

"A new model for identifying catalysts for low energy nuclear reaction (LENR) processes was identified by Subtle Atomics in 2018. The new model provides new ...

More results from subtleatomics.com

http://mail.zpenergy.com › modules

LENR Experimentalist - ZPEnergy.com

Sep 27, 2018 — ICCF21 abstracts: LENR Catalyst Identification Model by Simon Brink /Subtle Atomics, Australia/ Manningham Council, Australia.

Quote from Gregory Byron Goble

The experiments described herein were guided by the theoretical analysis. The experiments described below further illustrate the fundamental concepts of some embodiments of the present invention, namely, locally hot - globally cold fuel, process initiation and control by hot neutrons created in this particular case by photodistintegration of deuterons by gamma radiation, high density cold fuel, and highly screened fuel nuclei created from a combination of shell and conduction electrons and plasma channels from gamma irradiation.

-end quote

GBG - that is not credible science. That is somone saying something in a patent.

I would be happy if somone presented this credible science (as detailed papers) so that it can be reviewed by other scientists and found of merit (or otherwise).

You are I think influenced by NASA, military etc interest. I am profoundly skeptical of both. That is - NASA have the resources and people to do good experiments and validations, they have their share of way out ideas and are not known for new theoretical developments. The military do even better with way out ideas, and I would not trust their interest as an indication that something was real.

So what influences me? Good scientific papers, critiqued by other scientists. Companies who actually have working stuff. Pre-production - that has useful characteristics - is fine - a demo that it is claimed demonstrates some non-standard theory that (it is claimed) would enable future technology to be developed is not fine. For that i want the scientific papers and experiments backing them up. For LENR a black box reactor clearly testable as delivering useful amts of power for long enough periods to make chemical sources impossible would be fine, if independently tested by serious parties (not tame academics liked by the inventor).

Anyway delving into teh patent literature you can find everything under the sun - not working. Looking at expressions of low cost interest, or especially things done behind closed doors, from any governmental organisation you also find everything under the sun. If I claimed I had a spay that could make people grow a second head, and might therefore help decapitated soldiers to fight on, I bet it would be snapped up by the US military and classified on scanty evidence.

THH

Quote from Daniel_G

What specifically would you say the problem would be? I send out reactors which contain a temperature dependent heat source inside. The researchers can easily test energy out vs energy in. This is what calorimeters do.

You have been testing power in vs temperature. Nt power in vs power out.

I don't know what the problem would be but, for example, you have told me in the past that the nonactive reactors you use for calibration do not have any sort of mesh inside. They are not, therefore, precise physical matches for the active reactors. And being sealed, validators cannot look inside the active reactors and create a close, but inactive physical replica for purposes of comparison. Nor can they determine where to put thermocouples to possibly account for such discrepancies. That is the sort of problem I had in mind.

I am content if it is determined that sealed systems can yield convincing results. That is a possible result. I just want to create conditions such that LENR sceptics and supporters alike would agree beforehand that the results would be persuasive whatever they may be.

the fundamental concepts of some embodiments of the present invention, namely, locally hot - globally cold fuel, process initiation and control by hot neutrons created in this particular case by photodistintegration of deuterons by gamma radiation, high density cold fuel, and highly screened fuel nuclei created from a combination of shell and conduction electrons and plasma channels from gamma irradiation.

And this is an example of where things get slippery.

All of the above is uncontentious. It is backed by peer-reviewed literature.

photodisintegration of deuterium (1942)

Screening (Pines, NASA, 2020)

But it is not theory that supports LENR, because without very high energies (which cost you more than what you get out) in the published work shows reaction rates much too low to be useful. By a very large amount. There is quite a lot of interest in finding laser targets which could release more energy than goes in and potentially be a source of energy. This is mainstream fusion research (I suspect a lot related to weapons rather than civil fusion). The part of the google guys research that is easily picked up is where they look at how nuclear reaction rates could be increased by screening in metal hydrides etc. I like it - and hope for something surprising and good to come of it. I am not however that hopeful - what everyone says that that very high screening ratios happen at low energies: which sort of does not help because the non-screened reaction rates are then astronomically low! The rates found are just nowhere near what could be useful.

Anyone can jump on that and claim that their poor calorimetry that shows anomalous excess heat is doing it for that reason. You would need characterisation that made a more direct link to believe it. Patents tend to make these claims because the bar is not high to get a patent passed, if you can attach your claim to some vaguely plausible bit of theory people let it through knowing that real challenge comes from Courts and only if it ever works.

Quote from Bruce__H

You have been testing power in vs temperature. Nt power in vs power out.

I don't know what the problem would be but, for example, you have told me in the past that the nonactive reactors you use for calibration do not have any sort of mesh inside. They are not, therefore, precise physical matches for the active reactors. And being sealed, validators cannot look inside the active reactors and create a close, but inactive physical replica for purposes of comparison. Nor can they determine where to put thermocouples to possibly account for such discrepancies. That is the sort of problem I had in mind.

I am content if it is determined that sealed systems can yield convincing results. That is a possible result. I just want to create conditions such that LENR sceptics and supporters alike would agree beforehand that the results would be persuasive whatever they may be.

Bruce we measure out vs in power. The x axis is watts so not sure what the meaning of your statement is.

Dummy reactors are not necessary. Why would they be? The interior is 100% turbulent flow. TC values varied by less than 1C. We are not searching for mW here. We will be searching for kW. Our calorimeters give the same results no matter what is or is not placed inside. It’s not a real calorimeter otherwise.

There is a long list of experiments that LENR advocates would say show positive results, in some cases replicated.

Skeptics would disagree and say that the results are either irreproducible (one-off never seen again) or inconclusive - not enough characterisation to eliminate unexpected experimental errors.

It might be useful to have a list of the replicated results.

THHuxleynew

Quick response time 🤔 Well thought out I'm sure. Thanks

Yes peer-reviewed publication and publications of replication by independent labs... The SPAWAR Co Dep Protocol.

A lot to read.

Within these are references as required reading.

A lot to read.

Many of us have.

Patent Iterations

A lot to read.

Within these are references, peer-reviewed publications as required reading.

A lot to read.

Many of us have

The subject and intent of this thread might be misunderstood.

For our review. I am on topic. I am presenting facts. Again.

Papers published and published replicated as facts which you would certainly know of.

I cannot establish what motivates the determination of facts here.

I recognize you present facts for skeptics and in support of it.

Would you correct this impression or agree 🤔

That's what is being established.

The first two posts define the topic of this thread.

To think 🤔

Present facts that would answer questions posed by skeptics.

Or is it 🤔 Our task on this rhread

To counter falsifiable statements bourne out of ignorance, or intent.

Quote from Rob Christian

I see a thread on the forum here titled LENR Wiki, but this isn't quite what I have in mind. Has anyone compiled an LENR Wiki FAQ for the common questions posed by skeptics? Such a resource would be very useful.

Quote from Alan Smith

If you could actually supply us the skeptical questions you would like to see answered, I am sure that people here will attempt to respond. That seems to me to be a more targeted method of creating the document you would like to see.

😊

Three FAQ Sheets sounds right.

Yes the purpose of a fact sheet varies. It can be a sales pitch.

Or can be purposed to support a proposal.

Or convey solid reference points in a complex subject.

Thanks for the vids.

I find this thread fascinating. I measure everything against what I know about Papp's engine. It was the perfect black box, putting power out with nothing going in. It would fail all attempts at calorimetry. A great discussion about nothing. Wunderbar!

Quote from GRMattson

I find this thread fascinating. I measure everything against what I know about Papp's engine. It was the perfect black box, putting power out with nothing going in. It would fail all attempts at calorimetry. A great discussion about nothing. Wunderbar!

On the contrary - such a perfect box would be very easy to test - black box - in a calorimeter. You would need to extract enough energy out total for this to be more that could reasonably be got from chemical reactions inside the box (think oxyacetylene cylinders, although there are many other options, delivering more energy for given volume.

PS - reminded by Daniel_G below that Papps Engine had torque out.

That would need to be measured for mech power out. The problem there is that you can get a lot of mechanical power from a small cylinder of LNG and O2 from the air. Or even O2 from another cylinder. So testing it - you would need a lot of effort to rule out the possibility that in fact it was some engine based on normal chemical reactions. Mechanical power out for a very long time with nothing in would do it.

The Papp demos had power going in?

THH

Quote from GRMattson

I find this thread fascinating. I measure everything against what I know about Papp's engine. It was the perfect black box, putting power out with nothing going in. It would fail all attempts at calorimetry. A great discussion about nothing. Wunderbar!

I don't understand your point. The Papp engine produced mechanical torque. LENR devices produce heat. Mechanical power can be measured on a dynamometer and heat is measure with...?

I am not familiar with all the tests and demos of the Papp Engine, but I know in the demonstration that ended up being a disaster there was a thin wire providing power to the control system. Anyone who is interested in the Papp Engine should know that Chukanov has videos on YouTube showing his artificial ball lightning producing mechanical force. Moreover, he has demonstrated, like SAFIRE has done, that the self organized plasma in the chamber can produce powerful pressure changes. Of course, I don't think Chukanov's demonstrations of mechanical force or pressure changes is in anyway as optimized as Papp's system.

You heard the threads author warning to stick to topic. 6 posts moved.

FAQ Cold Fusion Skeptics

Here we post all

Cold Fusion Pseudo-Science YouTube productions

Peer-reviewed papers on Cold Fusion is not science.

Healthy doubters thoughts and concerns.

FAQ Cold Fusion Theories

List of all Cold Fusion theories.

FAQ Cold Fusion Patents

FAQ Cold Fusion Career Breaker/Maker

FAQ Cold Fusion PEER-REVIEWED

FAQ Cold Fusion Condensed Matter Physics

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340803283_Nuclear_fusion_reactions_in_deuterated_metals