Which ICCF24 presentation is most likely to sway a skeptic?

It would help if they got, at least, the electron 'right' like Dr. Mills does. That would be a BIG step forward ... meanwhile, the rest looks like so much noise. The presentations during the IAP sessions at MIT were MOST impressive a few years back, but, where is the scale-up of the NANORS by Dr. M. Swartz? Working theory leads to working devices, again, ala Mills.

I pick Anthony and his convincing voice.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343649154_Catalysis_of_Transmutations_by_Heavy_Electron_Quasiparticles_in_Crystallites

I feel very optimistic about Parchi et al.'s work.

Quote from orsova

I feel very optimistic about Parchi et al.'s work.

These are straightforward but elegant and relatively simple experiments with clear and reproducible results. You are right to be impressed, I certainly was. The 5 independent analyses of Tritium by very reputable laboratories are the 'icing on the cake'.

Quote from Alan Smith

These are straightforward but elegant and relatively simple experiments with clear and reproducible results.

That's good, but before nominating them, let us be sure they are independently replicated.

Dear Shane D.

it would have been interesting if someone so neutral from the LF staff made an ICCF summary from this last one, main announcements, progress and promises.

In order to have a basis that we can bring out a little before the next ICCF to compare the successful progress and the relative disappointments in one year.

Only one line by item it will be enough.

Quote from Shane D.

I think we have about all the presentations in. Which, in your opinion, is the one with the best chance to change skeptical opinions? Say a skeptic gave you one, and only one, opportunity to show him/her what you consider the most convincing ICCF24 video...which would you choose? Not easy IMO. There were so many high quality presentations backed by solid lab work that would qualify, but alas, that mean ole skeptic specified only one.

After careful consideration, my choice is the US Navy led team (HIVER Electrochemistry Project). There are many reasons for my decision. They are a large and diverse group, drawing expertise from Indian Head, US Naval Academy, US Army, Dahlgren, NIST, and also recruited outside government labs to industry/academia. They approached the research from all angles; experimentation, theory/analysis, and material science. Basically, they are doing everything the field has been saying for 30 years would be needed to solve the mystery. Most importantly, they were quite successful, having claimed several times "we could do it over and over".

Other factors I considered is that this US Navy led team has already made PR inroads with positive feedback reporting such as the IEEE Spectrum article, so whatever they publish in the future is much more likely to be viewed without the bias we are more familiar with. Lastly, they have money/equipment/logistical support the old guard could only dream of, which will keep them teasing out the LENR secrets for years to come.

So Mr. Skeptic, here is my pick:

External Content youtu.be

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

Quote from Alan Smith

These are straightforward but elegant and relatively simple experiments with clear and reproducible results. You are right to be impressed, I certainly was. The 5 independent analyses of Tritium by very reputable laboratories are the 'icing on the cake'.

Perhaps a naive question, but would it strengthen the results further if they could plot in situ tritium measurement over time; ie. show its building up in the cell in real time?

Quote from orsova

Perhaps a naive question, but would it strengthen the results further if they could plot in situ tritium measurement over time; ie. show its building up in the cell in real time?

Not naive at all, but technically difficult- Tritium is a weak beta emitter, and it's dissolved gas rather than chemically combined into water, something I suspect creates complications.

From the summary:

1. An innovative electrolytic cell that produces Tritium is presented.
2. The production of Tritium occurs contextually to the generation of low energy photons.
3. Electrolysis is activated with a Nickel wire immersed in an electrolytic solution with light-water, opportunely solicited by intense, short electrical pulses.
4. The experiment is now 100% reproducible.
5. The presence of Tritium in the electrolytic solution has been confirmed by different laboratories.
6. The gas produced by the cell emits low energy photons whose energy spectrum matches that of Tritium Beta decay.
7. The experimental results are here presented along with a preliminary theoretical hypothesis.

Quote from orsova

Perhaps a naive question, but would it strengthen the results further if they could plot in situ tritium measurement over time; ie. show its building up in the cell in real time?

Well, by exploring new ways, by thinking different as Steve_Casselman, you have found new interesting results.

Let us hope that more formers will finally dare to leave the tooooo classic P&F way.

Brillouin might be the one.

News - Brillouin Energy

Quote from orsova

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.

I feel very optimistic about Parchi et al.'s work.

Parchi et al.

Summary:

(1) after electrolysis with specific electrical simulation T concentrations of up to 40Bq/l are observed in electrolytic solution.

(2) solution tested before electrolysis shows no detectable T

(3) T confirmed by spectrum of betas

(4) reproducible

Context:

T concentration in water is typically a few Bq/l - mostly background from nuclear tests in 20C, but can vary widely. Some Spanish rivers have 100Bq/l water (downstream of a nuclear power plant).

T has a half-life of 12 years which means that 40 decays/s translates to 5* 10^10 atoms of T / l present in sample.

If we suppose a ballpark 5MeV released from some unknown nuclear reaction (the known candidates would have other high energy products not observed) this is:

1.6 * 10^-13 J * 5 * 10^10 = 8 mJ

Thus the total energy released from fusion to obtain this much Tritium is in mJ range (assuming 1l electrolyte and all Tritium stays in it to be detected). To heat a 1000g electrolytic cell 1C would be 4000J. Hence deltaT (assuming no heat lost) = 2uC

Thus we are some 6 orders of magnitude away from any connect between observable heating in the cell and this level of Tritium. Even allowing 1 OOM (for say 90% of T lost to air) and 1 OOM (for total nuclear energy release from 1T = 50MeV) - for a total of 0.8J out - we still get a temp rise of around 0.0002C, and that is supposing no energy lost. In reality this system has 80W going in and will heat up according to power out - for which we divide 800mJ by at least 1 hour to get 2uW. Compare that with 80W and you can see the ratio is > 10,000,000. Impossible to measure by a long way.

So, as a skeptic:

(1) Do I find this experiment interesting? Yes, it is fascinating.

(2) Do I believe Tritium is observed after the experiment? Yes, 100%

(3) Do I believe Tritium was created during the experiment? It seems pretty good evidence, very strong but only if the same source of electrolyte can be independently measured before/after. There is room for some uncertainty at the moment because the high T results could be from a high T sample of electrolyte, and from the talk I was not entirely sure whether the measured samples were form the same initial container of water. E.g, take a mixed container of water, measure one half. Electrolyse and then measure the other half. Obviously this is easy to do.

So I'd want:

(1) Clear independent confirmation that the same sample of water produced these clear differential before/after results for Tritium.

Given this, I am happy to take these results as evidence of some low temperature fusion effect.

I'd note this is at levels much too low to account for excess heat LENR, but maybe close to the levels expected from electron screening fusion in a lattice.

(2) Why am I interested?

Because electron-screening fusion in a lattice is not well understood. This is (after (1) is established) clear reproducible evidence of a system in which it happens and generates T - which itself is a bit unusual given that deuterated water did not give different results: so it is T from interaction between H (probably) and nuclei in the lattice.

I am a bit uncertain of (1) because H looks a poorer candidate than D. I think it is OK deuterated water being the same as normal water as long as the D2O is dilute. It would be surprising for any mechanism to give the same results for H and D, but if H predominates in the D2O that is OK.

How would a skeptic present these results?

(1) Present the calculations on amount of T

(2) Give as context the typical (and exceptional) background levels

(3) Be clear that the A/B comparison for radioactivity was before/after from the same water sample divided into two. This is the really unforgivable omission here, but it can easily be put right!

(4) Do the calculation for excess heat from this amount of T and therefore note that this process could not possibly provide observable temperature rise.

(5) Do a better job than me of linking this to electron screening stuff quantitatively. Also note how pure was the D2O, is this really a nuclear reaction insensitive to whether there is D or H in the lattice? If so that is unexpected. Of course, results are results, and even at these low levels if they do not fit what is expected from electron screening that is even more exciting.

Why does this matter?

Linking every observed anomaly to claimed excess heat just shows LENR lack of rigor and thinking things through. I am sure every LENR person doing real experimental work wants to be scientific. It is embarrassing when not done. Peer review could have improved this presentation enormously, and made the results much more valuable to others. This can still happen (but perhaps from someone more tactful than me).

Why do LENR conferences not do this type of checking as informal peer review and therefore lead to better quality presentations?

No idea.

THH

Quote from Shane D.

I think we have about all the presentations in. Which, in your opinion, is the one with the best chance to change skeptical opinions? Say a skeptic gave you one, and only one, opportunity to show him/her what you consider the most convincing ICCF24 video...which would you choose? Not easy IMO. There were so many high quality presentations backed by solid lab work that would qualify, but alas, that mean ole skeptic specified only one.

After careful consideration, my choice is the US Navy led team (HIVER Electrochemistry Project). There are many reasons for my decision. They are a large and diverse group, drawing expertise from Indian Head, US Naval Academy, US Army, Dahlgren, NIST, and also recruited outside government labs to industry/academia. They approached the research from all angles; experimentation, theory/analysis, and material science. Basically, they are doing everything the field has been saying for 30 years would be needed to solve the mystery. Most importantly, they were quite successful, having claimed several times "we could do it over and over".

Other factors I considered is that this US Navy led team has already made PR inroads with positive feedback reporting such as the IEEE Spectrum article, so whatever they publish in the future is much more likely to be viewed without the bias we are more familiar with. Lastly, they have money/equipment/logistical support the old guard could only dream of, which will keep them teasing out the LENR secrets for years to come.

So Mr. Skeptic, here is my pick:

External Content youtu.be

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

Yes, this was a good presentation.

(1) I liked the theoretical ideas

(2) I agree with the overall conclusion. These results are not yet strong enough to be publishable as "we have nuclear reactions". However if strengthened they would be interesting.

• CR-39 - poss of joint chemical/heat effects that would give differential film/no film. And just difficult because of so many possible false positives
• Heat - strong poss of calorimetry artifacts of type many times discussed due to difference between D and H, and catalytic activity in lattice
• Neutron detection - did not look significant to me (as he said) due to background variation over time as is seen leading easily to false positives.

Probably the easiest ones to confirm/deny are the apparent 25% or so excess heat.

THH

Quote from THHuxleynew

Parchi et al.

....

(1) Clear independent confirmation that the same sample of water produced these clear differential before/after results for Tritium.

Given this, I am happy to take these results as evidence of some low temperature fusion effect.

I'd note this is at levels much too low to account for excess heat LENR, but maybe close to the levels expected from

How would a skeptic present these results?

(1) Present the calculations on amount of T

(2) Give as context the typical (and exceptional) background levels

(3) Be clear that the A/B comparison for radioactivity was before/after from the same water sample divided into two. This is the really unforgivable omission here, but it can easily be put right!

No idea.

THH

Display More

It has been done

Quote from gio06

It has been done

I saw these - did I miss (videos are difficult) the methodology?

e.g. were these two samples taken from a single mixed H2O source - one part sent for pre-testing, another part post-electrolysis testing?

I'd expect that to be the case but know from experience as an engineer you should never make assumptions?

The point being that different H2O samples can have very different T levels though 45 Bq/l is at upper end and would not be expected unless you are on a river downstream from a nuclear power plant.

Anyway, the merit of this measurement is that it is quantitative and all variables used can be removed one-by-one to see what affects the results.

My point about not enough T for excess heat is maybe not entirely fair. If electrolysis continues for a long time and this is an open cell you might get some 99.9% of T in atmosphere. however we are 7 OOM from what could lead to measurable heat so gaining 3 OOM would not help!

A closed cell with a recombiner (pp 15) would help get accurate quantitative results since then a lot of the T would be in the water - though I remember quite a lot gets locked up in the Pd electrodes so unless they can be flushed that is still not v accurate. Perhaps I'm missing some things - is there a written paper?

THH

Quote from THHuxleynew

I saw these - did I miss (videos are difficult) the methodology?

e.g. were these two samples taken from a single mixed H2O source - one part sent for pre-testing, another part post-electrolysis testing?

I'd expect that to be the case but know from experience as an engineer you should never make assumptions?

Obviously both the "bianco" sample and the tritium sample have been taken from the same ultra-purified water source!

Simply the first one has been taken before the experiment and the "tritium" one after!

Quote from THHuxleynew

I saw these - did I miss (videos are difficult) the methodology?

e.g. were these two samples taken from a single mixed H2O source - one part sent for pre-testing, another part post-electrolysis testing?

My point about not enough T for excess heat is maybe not entirely fair. If electrolysis continues for a long time and this is an open cell you might get some 99.9% of T in atmosphere. however we are 7 OOM from what could lead to measurable heat so gaining 3 OOM would not help!

A closed cell with a recombiner (pp 15) would help get accurate quantitative results since then a lot of the T would be in the water - though I remember quite a lot gets locked up in the Pd electrodes so unless they can be flushed that is still not v accurate. Perhaps I'm missing some things - is there a written paper?

THH

Display More

Low level radioactivity has been detected immediately after the start of the reactor.

A recombiner would help, that's sure.

Only Nickel or Costantan wires have been used.

Quote from gio06

Obviously both the "bianco" sample and the tritium sample have been taken from the same ultra-purified water source!

Simply the first one has been taken before the experiment and the "tritium" one after!

Assuming that your slightly cryptic statement here is because you have direct knowledge I will accept this. If you are just making an (obvious) assumption about how the testing was done the rule is: when things are unexpected don't make assumptions. For any skeptic LENR is unexpected. I sometimes think much of the differences of interpretation between LENR advocates and others derive from this. Anomalous behaviour is expected (from LENR) by LENR advocates. And unexpected by others. So others will have a stronger "question every assumption" instinct. This will seem silly to those who are

So - looking at these results - if easily reproducible - here is what I'd do.

(1) Although I can't see how tritium could be leached out of the electrodes or cell somehow this has not been positively excluded: anything present in the electrodes containing tritium would do the trick and we need v low concentrations. I don't rate this. You would need some material in which the tritium was highly concentrated from its low background level. Itb seems v unlikely. Nevertheless the engineer "don't make assumptions" thing tells me to keep this in mind when looking at what influences these results. Quite easy to check though if it comes into question - just do a low energy beta radioactivity check on the electrodes before the experiment.

(2) Check one by one all of the experimental conditions to see what controls the high Tritium results.

Carefully doing (2) will in the end lead to understanding what here is going on. If it is LENR it will lead to something LENR has never yet had: quantitative results that are indisputably nuclear, controllable, and can be used to investigate what is going on at a predictive phenomenological level.

Re low-level radioactivity: you can do the calcs for number of tritium atoms generated and relate that to the levels found. Since LENR as is is non-predictive you can make up whatever branching ratios you like, and also make up whatever nuclear reactions you like, so it is not a very useful test, and low-level radioactivity measurements have false positives...

THH