I watched some more presentations, Biberian - Gordon, Antonio di Stefano about the LEC. I am definitely partial to this development but I was delighted to see these, probably won’t sway any LENR skeptic but the mechanism is so simply fascinating that it is certainly going to attract attention from many. Kudos to Antonio for his detailed and impecable presentation of his replication.
Which ICCF24 presentation is most likely to sway a skeptic?
-
-
I also watched the presentation of Parchi and their results about tritium are outstanding. This IMHO is hard to beat
Yes. Tritium is definitive. I don't know much about it, but the people at BARC said it is easy to distinguish from other radioactive elements, and that as long as you measure the baseline before the test, you can be sure it was generated. Not contamination. It can be concentrated by electrolysis, but you can accurately estimate how much.
-
Levels of up to 100 Bq/l have been detected in water sources
I am thinking that just possibly Pd could be contaminated by tritium from previous lab experiments
They always measure tritium before the test, and after it. In many experiments they measure it several times during the test as well. In heavy water experiments they always measure it in the water before they start, because it is a known contaminant. They always measure it in ambient air and background. So if there was contamination, they would know it.
Anyone who has read about these experiments would know that. Your comment is as uninformed as your previous comment that there might be a difference between heavy water and light water, even when heat is measured outside the cell, and even though all experiments with heavy water are calibrated with heavy water. I suggest you read the literature before commenting on it.
Curbina - I'm happy to listen to reasons and will agree if I'm wrong.
No, you won't. You will not even admit that your previous assertion about heavy water and light water was nonsense. Every cold fusion paper about liquid electrolysis tells you that.
I have watched about 50% of the presentation - so I might have missed something.
I doubt you watched it, but anyway, if you have read any papers about tritium you would know that it is always measured before and after, and the background is always measured, so what you say cannot be true.
-
Kudos to Antonio for his detailed and impecable presentation of his replication.
Yes! And as I mentioned, the paper is here:
-
I'd like to see more LENR science and less LENR advocacy.
Then watch the videos.
What is really sad is that we are posting youtube videos here without accompanying papers. Papers are quicker to find details in and more definite.
If you go here, there is a lot of detail
-
I also watched Egely’s presentation, and albeit it won’t convince any skeptic for me it is a great presentation at least from the point of view of how Egely presents the range of phenomena where LENR can be observed. I have no problem thinking his device may actually do what is claimed, specially because it contains the elements that could produce EVOs or condensed plasmoids as he calls them, but the evidence presented is just enough to tease the intellect.
-
Orsova - forgive me but that is a youtube video - not a paper. if it accompanies a paper please could you link it? If not my experience is that youtube presentations do not contain the detail needed to evaluate results. If you think it does I will spend 20 min of my time wading through it but you will appreciate this is not something I do as a rule.
In normal conferences you attend presentations to see whether something seems interesting - if it is you look in detail at the relevant paper (often - if it is something new - a whole load of related papers too).
Thanks, THH
THH,
You’ll note that Curbina asked us to refocus the discussion on ICCF24 presentations. I was trying to answer you and be respectful of that request.
If you’d like to read a recent paper then Alan has linked you to them. At a website you have previously examined and dismissed as not containing any detail, ironically.
How you spend your time is up to you, but candidly, I found it remarkable that you could be so quick to judgement, supposition and lecturing others, and yet, in the next breath, freely admit that you are not at all familiar with Clean Planet’s lead scientist nor his and his team’s prior published work. One would expect that most people with a sincere interest in this space would be at least somewhat au fait with Iwamura. His earliest paper at LENR-CANR is from 1993. This, compounded by your vertiginous misinterpretation of their work (LENR enhanced hydrogen boilers etc).
It’s odd to me that you could be so sure of yourself based on what amounts to the briefest of skewwhiff skim readings.
-
What is really sad is that we are posting youtube videos here without accompanying papers. Papers are quicker to find details in and more definite.
This thread was started to talk about the videos.
-
Curbina - I'm happy to listen to reasons and will agree if I'm wrong. I have watched about 50% of the presentation - so I might have missed something.
Wait a minute.. you only watched half the Parchi presentation?
-
Well THHuxleynew , you mention tritium coming off Pd when the cell is built with Ni wires. This means you pay very little attention to what you are watching.
You also imply that tritium is so often found in water that it could have entered the Nickel wires in the past and just decide to come out after a while.
Ah - yes - I remember now. Not Pd - you are right, and i was wrong.
But it does not change my point.
When you consider possible artifacts there are two types:
(1) the radiation tests are not tritium
(2) there is tritium, but it is environmental, rather than generated in the experiment.
(2) splits into two versions:
(2a) the electrolyte used is variable, some contains tritium, some does not
(2b) some of the component of the cells contains tritium which leaches into the electrolyte during the electrolysis (since Ni absorbs H as well, the point here is the same https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1821841
(2c) there is environmental contamination by tritium (well - maybe TH) in the air from some other (man-made) source at some point - or possibly throughout the experiment. The electrolysis folds this into the electrolyte.
(2d) added this thanks to Jed. The electrolyte contains tritium which is concentrated by the experiment - for example if electrolysis removes 90% of the water, this might preferentially be H and not T, so getting background concentration up to the observed 45Bq/l. I had not thought of this, but Jed with much greater experience than me of this stuff had it in his mind.
The reason I have been interested in these results is that none of these alternate options seem plausible to me. Without them we appear to have tritium generation. All of them can be investigated further over time - in fact that will happen naturally as the experiment is repeated if the investigators are alert to possibilities.
Being a non-believer, I do not accept any one sequence of experiments no matter how convincing as definitive. But, when I see a mystery like this I am very interested, and hope it will get resolved.
Although replication by different people would give extra information, the best way forward here, I suggest, is for better characterisation by the team that has found these (replicable) results. That will have a number of advantages:
(1) It will aid replication by others. For example, is that electrical stimulus needed? Or would imparting the same energy to the cell thermally be as good? Does it work with other types of electrodes? Does it word equally with 100% D2O? Does it require 80W and these quite large cells - tritium detection should be as sensitive on a few ccs of electrolyte? Do the Tritium amounts found scale linearly with the electrolysis time? Does adding a recombiner up the tritium amount (it would be weird if it did not). In fact, adding a recombiner and making the cell closed would be very helpful, it would remove a lot of uncertainty and allow quantitative measurements to be interpreted with confidence.
(2) It will help, if done with care, reduce the likelihood of 1, 2a,2b,2c.
(3) if replicated by others you can be sure that (unless done very carefully) many changes will be made together. Possibly, the effect will go away. We will be left, as so often in the past, with an anomaly that we do not understand but which no-one outside the LENR community thinks represents evidence for nuclear reactions.
Given that I am pretty positive about this one, why do I remain skeptical?
(1) The amounts of tritium here are low, near environmental limits (well - 10X higher than typical, but 2X lower than max detected T in outside water sources).
(2) The most obvious mechanisms would be highly sensitive to D vs T - there is some evidence these results are not - though that is a bit weak.
(3) Lack of higher energy products (?) The tritium half-life is 12 years. the experiment a few days. The reaction rate in the experiment is therefore some 2000 times higher than in tritium results seen so far. If whatever reaction generates the tritium has any detectable high energy products these should be very far above background. It is really difficult to do nuclear reactions without detectable high energy products (type 1 LENR, as I call it). That requires some as yet unknown mechanism - and one which (I think) utilises quantum coherence at the level of quark wave functions.
My skepticism, or anyone else's belief, in nuclear reactions as a cause for these results is completely irrelevant to the science, These experiments can be characterised and replicated in different labs (preferably characterised first). Doing this thoroughly to a definite conclusion either positive or negative would show LENR to be a scientific endeavour rather than woo-woo. For this purposes a followed through and understood negative explanation would be as good as a positive one - though much less exciting.
THH
PS https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1821841 might be useful for the experimenters to read, if they are not aware of it - I'd expect that they are.
-
Wait a minute.. you only watched half the Parchi presentation?
Yes - I am very intolerant of presentations without written papers. It shows a lack of courtesy to those interested in the work (if papers are to follow I'd rather not comment much till we see those). Presentations without research papers are a way to convey PR and interest rather than useful scientific information. I watched all the way through but used FF quite a lot.
-
Thanks to Alan for this.
Two papers here 2020-2021 and a 2014 Mizuno paper.
We have looked here in detail and Mizuno results: and have found these frustrating because of some sloppiness in the methodology and raw result documentation. Anyway this is historic.
I'll stick to the later two.
J. Condensed Matter Nucl. Sci. 33 (2020) 1–13 Research Article Excess Energy Generation using a Nano-sized Multilayer Metal Composite and Hydrogen Gas Yasuhiro Iwamura∗, Takehiko Itoh†and Jirohta Kasagi Research Center for Electron Photon Science, Tohoku University, Sendai, Miyagi 982-0826, Japan Shoichi Murakami and Mari Saito CLEAN PLANETInc., Tokyo 105-0022, Japan
New type of excess heat experiments using a nano-sized metal multilayer composite and hydrogen gas have been performed based on the permeation-induced transmutation experiments with multilayer thin film and excess heat experiments with nano-particles. Two nano-sized metal multilayer composite samples, which were composed of Ni, Cu, CaO, Y2O3 thin films on bulk Ni (25 mm ×25mm×0.1mm),wereplaced in a vacuum chamber. These samples were fabricated by Ar ion beam sputtering method. After baking of the samples, H2 gas was introduced into the chamber up to about 230 Pa at 250◦C. Then, the Ni based multilayer thin f ilms started to absorb H2 gas. Amount of absorbed H2 gas can be evaluated by the pressure measurement of the chamber. Typically, after about 50,000 s, H2 gas was evacuated and simultaneously the samples were heated up by the ceramic heater up to 500–900◦C. The evacuation and heating process seem to trigger heat generation reactions. Heat burst phenomena were simultaneously detected by a radiation thermometer looking at the surface of the multilayer thin film and a thermocouple located near the metal composite. It shows that heat measurement by the thermocouple embedded in the ceramic heater correctly reflects surface temperature detected by the radiation thermometer. Excess energy generation using nano-sized multilayer Cu/Ni metal composite and Cu/Ni metal with third material (CaO, Y2O3) composite were presented. Maximum released excess energy reached 1.1 MJ and average released energy per absorbed total hydrogen was 16 keV/H or 1.5 GJ/H-mol. It cannot be explained by any known chemical process and suggests that the observed heat generation must be of nuclear origin. Various analysis methods, such as SEM-EDX or TOF-SIMS, had been applied to obtain information about what kind of reactions occur by the interaction of the nano-sized multilayer metal composite with hydrogen gas.
The obvious question is - how does this excess measured energy compare to the energy input to the system, and what are the calorimetry error bars? Everyone here will remember calorimetry errors...
Section 3: excess power is measured relative to a blank run using Ni without the multilayer film. Fig 3b shows the blank run (used for calibration) results, the authors note that they assume:
(1) Thermal conduction via H2 gas is negligible as H2pressure is low enough.
(2) Radiation from chamber wall is negligible because TW is room temperature.
(3) The electrical input power is constant. blank run, in which same sized Ni bulk.
They use an equation where the heat calculated depends largely on the (total) emissivity of the sample surface (as would be expected). So there is also:
(4) The emissivity of active and control samples are both accurately known from other data.
They say this will be examined later in the paper to make the results more accurate. A brief scan of this did not however give me the necessary error bars to know how accurate this determination is.
Comparing Figs 3b and 6 we have a maximum excess as determined by power in difference for same temperature of approx 20% an 10W control, 12W active. I am eyeballing the graphs - and it is not easy to do this accurately, the paper does not provide this info.
20% change in total emissivity is entirely plausible for different samples, and even for the same sample over time given induced surface changes.
So this particular paper shows no direct calorimetric evidence of excess heat.
It is certainly not "proof of concept that CE have a usable nuclear kW-level power source".
The other one is from ICCF21:
Evidence for Surface Heat Release Reaction over Nano-sized Multilayer Metal Composite with Hydrogen Gas Y. Iwamura, T. Itoh, M. Saito, S. Murakami, J. Kasagi
Excess energy generation using a nano-sized multilayer metal composite with hydrogen gas has been investigated. Two nano-sized metal multilayer composite samples, which were composed of Ni, Cu, CaO thin films on bulk Ni (25 mm×25 mm×0.1 mm), were used. These samples were fabricated by Ar ion beam or magnetron sputtering method. Heat burst and excess energy generation were observed during the experiments using nano-sized metal multilayer composite on Ni substrate and hydrogen gas. Maximum average released energy per absorbed total hydrogen was 21 keV/H or 2.0 GJ/H-mol up to now. Heat burst phenomena were simultaneously detected by two radiation thermometers looking at both surfaces (A and B) of the multilayer thin films and a thermocouple (TC) located near the metal composite. An experimental example showed that heat burst reaction occurred at the surface A at first and propagated to the TC and afterwards heat burst reaction occurred at the surface B. This type of clear evidence that heat release reactions occur in the near surface region of the nanosized multilayer metal composite with hydrogen gas was often obtained during recent experiments. It also demonstrates that observed excess energy in our experiments was due to real heat generation and cannot be attributed to the artifact like variation of a calibration curve on the relationship between electrical input and TC. These experimental results cannot be explained by any known chemical process and implies that the observed heat generation must be of nuclear origin.
Given this abstract, I am not sure more is needed. The only assurance we have that sustained excess heat is produced is this indirect measurement - and not secure.
The experimental results here are the same as previous - this time they have usefully combined the control and active powers on one graph wrt temperature. Again the apparent excess is around 20% which is well within what might happen from emissivity changes.
Given 20% excess heat as from the previous paper, it would be relatively easy to make this much more secure using a calorimeter with controlled surfaces (rather than the sample surface) to give direct calculation of total excess heat - the thing relevant to whether this thing works usefully. Such a measurement done with say 3% accuracy, as is quite possible, would show well beyond doubt that we have beyond-chemical level energy generation here.
If they really have proof of concept useful power production - I am a bit surprised that CE have not done this - I am sure it would be more convincing to scientific advisors of potential investors - and allow more competitive investment terms. However, they seem to have found investment without that assurance, which means they can continue theie work but not that we can see this as clearly (or even likely) viable.
If you were CE with a replicable 20% excess thermal power source of this type would you not try one of:
A. Measure it in a calorimeter with known errors < 20%
B. Put it in a more highly insulated system so that the ratio of power out/power in went up to say 100%. So much more convincing for investors, and easy to do...
THH
-
This thread was started to talk about the videos.
Forgive me, I thought it was about ICCF24, and I perhaps unwisely assumed that most presentations would have accompanying papers. The presentations alert you to the papers you want to read.
-
A true skeptic should have serious doubts about the physical reality of quarks (never observed) and should be open on the possibility of unknown mechanisms.
Display MoreAh - yes - I remember now. Not Pd - you are right, and i was wrong.
....
Being a non-believer, I do not accept any one sequence of experiments no matter how convincing as definitive. But, when I see a mystery like this I am very interested, and hope it will get resolved.
(3) Lack of higher energy products (?) The tritium half-life is 12 years. the experiment a few days. The reaction rate in the experiment is therefore some 2000 times higher than in tritium results seen so far. If whatever reaction generates the tritium has any detectable high energy products these should be very far above background. It is really difficult to do nuclear reactions without detectable high energy products (type 1 LENR, as I call it). That requires some as yet unknown mechanism - and one which (I think) utilises quantum coherence at the level of quark wave functions.
...
THH
...
-
I hope to be able to record an interview or two at IWAHLM that may answer some more of these questions. I also think that Iwamura is doing work that provides a practical basis for further development of the boiler project - they are connected by common purpose rather than scale.
-
A true skeptic should have serious doubts about the physical reality of quarks (never observed) and should be open on the possibility of unknown mechanisms.
(1) Quarks - the evidence for something that can be called "quarks" is overwhelming - any theory will match those experiements and so give rise to things that could be called quarks.
(2) Whether quarks are fundamental, or not, or some emergent artifact of some other simpler and better explanation - it is not necessary to have a view on this., and I don't.
(3) We have plenty evidence for many things not directly observed - like electromagnetic or other fields, or virtual particles. And similarly - whether these are really fields or something else that behaves like a field (virtual particles) is not the point. Conventionally most fields, but maybe not gravitational field, would be seen as an approximation of the effect of continuous virtual particle exchange. If the end maths is the same, and the experimental predictions are the same, it does not much matter how you choose to formulate things until some other distinguishing evidence comes up.
should be open on the possibility of unknown mechanisms.
I am - it is just that I've not seen a coherent unknown mechanism for type 1 LENR - and it interests me so I have been looking. Hagelstein is the person most relevant here that I know of. I rate his effort and identification of the issue, but not his results thus far, nor his ability as a theoretician. (It is much better than mine, of course, but not exactly cutting edge).
PS - I've not looked recently - anyone got useful recent (written paper please) research on a mechanism for thermalising nuclear-level energies? As i say, I know only of a few papers by Hagelstein.
-
I suggest you look at this potted biography of PeterH before you downgrade his abilities.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_L._Hagelstein
-
My point about nuclear vs electronic wavefunction coherence is that whatever model of the nucleus you like there is plenty experimental evidence of extra degrees of freedom inside it. Since nuclear reactions arrange the insides for a reaction to exhibit a preference for only low energy products you would need multi-particle coherence at the level of those inner degrees of freedom as well as other things.
Or so I think. Might be wrong.
Anyway lots of LENT people prefer type 2 LENR so anti-type-1 arguments do not have to be tribally knocked down here.
-
I suggest you look at this potted biography of PeterH before you downgrade his abilities.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_L._Hagelstein
Alan,
I am not actually talking about his abilities.
It is just that for very novel high energy physics I'd look to string theory or one of the spacetime/QT "one emerges from the other" descriptions not semiclassical phonon work. Hagelstein is not working in those new areas, and never has. He is a solid-state physics person and naturally applies those ideas to problems.
What I mean is that he is trying to explain type 1 LENR using established ideas which at best give only half of the solution.
THH
-
The reason I have been interested in these results is that none of these alternate options seem plausible to me. Without them we appear to have tritium generation. All of them can be investigated further over time - in fact that will happen naturally as the experiment is repeated if the investigators are alert to possibilities.
Being a non-believer, I do not accept any one sequence of experiments no matter how convincing as definitive. But, when I see a mystery like this I am very interested, and hope it will get resolved.I think you do a great job pointing at the obvious sources of error that the work presented by Guido Parchi could have incurred into, but a very poor job at realizing every single one of them has been identified and weeded out by the researchers. In case you haven’t realized, gio06 is one of the team members that is performing this research.
Now, By acknowledging you are a “non-believer” you are putting yourself in a delicate position because you are admitting that you have a faith issue that is not going to be swayed by data.
I can’t be sure about the absoluteness of the following statement I will make, but I think no one here is a “believer”, most of us are either scientists or technical savvy people. I may be a humble engineer with a B Sc degree, with less than a dozen published works and only one as main author, but I don’t “believe” in things, I research and study them.
