Which ICCF24 presentation is most likely to sway a skeptic?

Quote from JedRothwell

You have not found any errors. You have no experience.

As often you are agreeing with me - while sounding as though you contradict me. It is annoying.

My point is that my experience has taught me that the real world surprises us. that no matter how certain we are, we can be wrong. Especially in the area of interpreting experimental data when there are apparent anomalies.

Your reply: "you have not found any errors".

That is my point!

I know Jed that you set great store by the experience of scientists. McKubre as an example, whole work is to my (inexperienced) eyes excellent) who have a lot of experience.

You think that because they cannot find reasons for calorimetry errors there can be none such.

I don't.

Specifically - and you of all people should agree to this:

• Those who are very experienced are therefore more likely to make implicit assumptions that have always worked in the past but may in fact not be true in the future
• Those who are less experienced - are less experienced

Neither is in a great position to identify new phenomena that are unexpected. That applies to sub-LENR calorimetry issues just as much as LENR.

My more general point is that new phenomena always seem magical until they are understood - at which point they seem obvious.

LENR evidence is a collection of phenomena which seem magical (of varying replicability).

Don't reply that nuclear reactions are not magical - that would be true for ones well understood - LENR reactions (especially type 1) have large effects and mechanism no way predictively (or any other way) understood. Type 2 a bit better - they have a possible class of vague mechanisms - but they are not clearly backed by the LENR evidence which seldom finds the expected high energy products.

THH

Quote from Alan Smith

I would recommend this paper, by Claytor et al. Tom Claytor is regarded by his peers as being the ultimate expert on the measurement of tritium - for various confidential reasons his day job for many years was travelling around military establishments measuring tritium levels in storage areas.

TRITIUM GENERATION AND NEUTRON MEASUREMENTS IN
Pd-Si UNDER HIGH DEUTERIUM GAS PRESSURE
T. N. Claytor, D. G. Tuggle, and H. O. Menlove
Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM

I have looked at this - and am not ready to post much about it yet because tying it up quantitatively to the Pauci results is a big job (PS - 1nCi = 37Bq).

First reactions: it is excellent work. A bit disappointing because the levels of tritium they detect are so very low. A question I don't have an answer to is with improved neutron detection how does the neutron rate scale with the tritium generation. Even at very low neutron vs tritium levels, correspondence is useful. But mainly the results quoted here (as opposed to the methodology, which is excellent) seem a lot smaller than Pauci.

A depressing feature of many LENR results is that when exquisitely accurate instrumentation is used to redo experiments with apparent definite results, the results reduce by some large factor. That pretty much invalidates the previous results. I have not read enough of the tritium chasing history to know if that is true in this case. Anyway - we have contemporary (larger) results and can ignore the history except to note methodology.

I will post further when I have a few hours free.

THH

Quote from THHuxleynew

Type 2 a bit better - they have a possible class of vague mechanisms - but they are not clearly backed by the LENR evidence which seldom finds the expected high energy products.

High energy products are only expected by people who cannot accept any variation form the standard model.

Here's something to ponder. Where does the tritium come from? Its half-life is too short for it to be primordial. Presumably this has been peer reviewed too.

Tritium Released from Mantle Source: Implications for Natural Nuclear Fusion in the Earth’s Interior - Journal of Fusion Energy

This paper summarizes the observation results of mantle tritium (3H) in two volcanic lakes, Lakes Nemrut (Turkey) and Laacher (Germany). The presence of excess…

link.springer.com

Tritium Released from Mantle Source: Implications for Natural Nuclear Fusion in the Earth’s Interior

Journal of Fusion Energy volume 27, pages346–354 (2008)Cite this article

Abstract

This paper summarizes the observation results of mantle tritium (³H) in two volcanic lakes, Lakes Nemrut (Turkey) and Laacher (Germany). The presence of excess ³H in the lakes can be explained as material released from mantle source because of the correlation of excess ³H with mantle ³He and ⁴He. We conclude that excess ³H in these two lakes, after the origin of the excess ³H from atmosphere and conventional nuclear reactions are excluded and the correlation of the excess ³H and mantle ³He is considered, might be from a mantle source and produced by nuclear fusion (d–d reaction) in the deep Earth. We have also investigated helium isotopes in the hydrothermal vent fluids at Mid-Ocean Ridge (MOR). The results show nearly constant ³He/⁴He ratio (³He/⁴He = 1.12 ± 0.13 × 10⁻⁵) and approximately constant ³He/heat ratios ((5–10) × 10⁻¹⁸ mol/J). The correlation of ³He with ⁴He and heat suggests that it is reasonable to suppose ³He is produced by nuclear fusion (d–d reaction) and ⁴He from α-decay of U and Th in the deep Earth. Based on that, ³He/⁴He ratios for 10 hydrothermal vent fluids are calculated. The results agree with the measurement at hydrothermal vent fluids and Mid-Ocean Ridge Basalts (MORB) on the average. We concludes that the narrow distribution of ³He/⁴He ratio peaked at ∼8 R_A in MORB can be explained by the hypothesis that ³He is produced in nuclear fusion.

Quote from Curbina

Haven’t watched any of the Japanese ones yet but mostly because I follow their work closely through ResearchGate and I know they are getting remarkably good results with excess heat and 100% reproducibility but all of their nanoparticle material is propietary so it’s a bit of a downer for me that they have been able to reproduce their work between different labs but no one outside their loop has the chance to independent replication. However their results and methods are really outstanding.

Perhaps you could link RG papers etc. The Japanese stuff I have looked at so far is Iwamura (leading to Clean Planet claims).

Papers | CLEAN PLANET Inc.

The excess heat there has been detected only indirectly - and in a way that seems very obviously unsafe? Am I wrong about that? The issue is that emissivity of different samples (plain vs nano-deposited film) is not necessarily constant - nor its it necessarily constant over time after heating. And the effect they get is consistently around 20% well within emissivity change level.

The combination of those two unknown effects makes determining excess heat via temperature in a calorimeter which is relying on heat balance between a hot sample and reactor walls very challenging.

The indirect methods they have added on to try to show excess heat - make more assumptions...

So in that specific case I view the methods (or results - depending on which way you look at it) as poor. I guess therefore you are referring to something else?

Quote from Alan Smith

High energy products are only expected by people who cannot accept any variation form the standard model.

Would you like to justify that?

A broad class of models will naturally provide high energy products because the stable nuclei (known from experiment) have varying (known from experiment) binding energy and when you look at possible products in terms of (known from experiment) conserved quantities you get nearly always a mismatch.

There are ways round this - but they are not picked up by "any variation from standard model". In fact I have not seen any alternative to the model which would get rid of these products that was capable of complying with the above results.

I don't think you have.

There are, my understanding, some hand-waving not fully worked out mechanisms which rely on some assumptions and say nothing themselves about the standard model.

I would really like to be given a counter-example to the above?

THH

Quote from THHuxleynew

My point is that my experience has taught me that the real world surprises us. that no matter how certain we are, we can be wrong. Especially in the area of interpreting experimental data when there are apparent anomalies.

That is incorrect. When an experiment has been widely replicated at a high signal to noise ratio by experts, and these replications carefully reviewed, there cannot be errors in it. If there could be errors, the scientific method would not work. No experiment would ever be certain; no fact confirmed; and no scientific laws established. We would still be arguing over whether Newton's prism experiment was right, and white light has all colors in it.

There has to be some reasonable limit to the number of replications and the s/n ratio we reach before a question is settled.

You are saying that experimental techniques perfected by Faraday and J. P. Joule don't work. You are saying they may have hidden errors and surprises. Faraday and Joule could have detected cold fusion in most experiments. They would have instantly known there is some source of heat in the cell, just as Curie did when she measured 12 mW from radium. This is not debatable. It is absolutely certain. Calorimetry on this scale, at these power levels, has been settled science for 200 years. You claim that experiments perfected 201 years ago may not work. You never give a valid reason, but only nonsense about the difference between heavy water and light water, or facts about tritium that every expert has known since the 1930s.

Quote from THHuxleynew

Your reply: "you have not found any errors".

That is my point!

You have not found any errors and neither has anyone else. You and others such as Morrison have been looking for decades. You claim that a 201-year-old experiment does not work. How much longer do you want? 300 years? A thousand years? There has to be statute of limitations after which everyone agrees that facts are facts and the issue is settled.

Quote from THHuxleynew

I know Jed that you set great store by the experience of scientists. McKubre as an example, whole work is to my (inexperienced) eyes excellent) who have a lot of experience.

You think that because they cannot find reasons for calorimetry errors there can be none such.

Again, you totally misrepresent me. You say the very opposite of what I say. I do not set store by the experience of any one scientist. Not McKubre, Fleischmann, Storms or any other. I set store by the scientific method and by replications and signal to noise ratios. Plus I have great faith in techniques perfected 200 years ago, and the conservation of energy.

If Fleischmann alone had made this claim, I would not believe it. McKubre himself says that an unreplicated result is tantamount to no result. McKubre and I never put faith in the work of one person, no matter how experienced or famous that person is. We have faith in the scientific method itself. We know it works, because if it didn't people would still be living in caves.

Quote from THHuxleynew

My more general point is that new phenomena always seem magical until they are understood - at which point they seem obvious.

Nothing ever is magical, or seems magical. No scientist in history has said anything like that. When Curie discovered radioactive heat in radium, she did not claim it was magical. When alpha particle bombardment produced transmutation products in 1919, no one said that was magical. Everyone knew that theory said elements are unchangeable for the life of the universe, but everyone soon recognized that was not true. Facts are facts. No one understood how alpha particles transmuted elements, and they did not figure that out for a long time, but they believed it. It was obvious because the experiments were replicated and irrefutable. That is the only standard of obviousness in science. Understanding has nothing to do with it.

At no time in the history of science has anyone demanded an explanation or a theory before accepting a widely replicated, high sigma result. That is violation of the scientific method. If there is conflict between replicated experiments and theory, the experiments always win; theory always loses. No exceptions granted. That is the bedrock basis of the scientific method. When you doubt an experiment because you do not understand it, or it seems surprising, or it seems to violate theory -- when you call it "magical," or even say it seems like magic -- you are doing a debased form of religion. Not science.

Quote from THHuxleynew

There are ways round this - but they are not picked up by "any variation from standard model". In fact I have not seen any alternative to the model which would get rid of these products that was capable of complying with the above results.

I don't think you have.

Think on THH. I am not a theoretician, but anybody who believes that the SM is the final or even partially correct model of matter at all energy scales doesn't know much about the state of physics, or possibly hasn't read the latest begging letters from the LHC.

8 very recent posts about F&P -pretty much off-topic here - moved to this thread....as will any more about experiments performed decades ago. This thread is about current events.

Post

RE: Where is the close-up video of Fleischmann and Pons boiling cell?

[…]

Everyone agrees that Newton, Faraday and Joule's experiments have been replicated and that their science is correct. But what about LENR?

Last year, McKubre said (1) that LENR has a "limited replicability – but not on demand – or from written description alone".

Do you agree with him? Is this level of replicability comparable to the science of Newton, Faraday and Joule?

[…]

THH hasn't, but I (IMO) did. The problem is that he refuses to look closely at the only CF experiment (to be discussed in…

Ascoli65

Sep 6th 2022

I watched Storms presentation last night albeit I was so tired at the moment that I will have to watch it again, but I think it was really good and I hope he helps many others to replicate his results.

Probably not enough for “skeptics” as well, but I thought it was a great presentation even if my attention level was significantly lowered at the moment of watching it.

I re watched Storms presentation and now with a proper level of attention I realized I had missed a lot. The interaction at the end with the guy offering to make the contact with the company that makes the machine to produce controlled size of nano scale holes was really interesting.

Quote from Curbina

The interaction at the end with the guy offering to make the contact with the company that makes the machine to produce controlled size of nano scale holes was really interesting.

We did it already!

I also watched Iwamura’s presentation, it was really entertaining and the spontaneous heat bursts by transient variations of the input power begs the question if they are already doing it routinely. The SEM analysis finding spots of high oxygen concentration is deeply interesting for me, and I would bet Bob Greenyer also would find this observation very interesting.

Quote from Wyttenbach

We did it already!

And how did it go?

Quote from Shane D.

So if you were able to supply your samples to somebody who has calorimetric competence and
they confirm the result, that’s so much more valuable.

Didn't some of the Duncan/Kimmel group do just that using "active" materials from .. France?

I watched several other presentations, the one by the lady from Clean Planet, the one by Fukuhara, the one by Takahashi, some of the posters. One presentation in particular from India called my attention because they looked for transmutation in the nickel electrode, and found significant changes. I wonder why no one has ever analyzed the electrolyte for new dissolved ions before / after, why everyone assumes that all the changes occur in the lattice of the metal, ultrasound has shown that water alone, more so if it contains dissolved solids, is a place where transmutation occurs.

Quote from Curbina

One presentation in particular from India called my attention because they looked for transmutation in the nickel electrode, and found significant changes.

The PhD supervisor for that experiment is a member here, he might with to comment.

Quote from Alan Smith

The PhD supervisor for that experiment is a member here, he might with to comment.

Here is the presentation

and some of the most visually appealing slides:

beyond the elements that are shown, what I find appealing is the relatively simple setup, and relatively short time. I think in this kind of experiments, performing a survey of changes and new elements in the electrolyte, would add a lot of strength to already interesting results that are hard to dismiss without trying, and failing, to replicate them.

Just finished watching this other related presentation which also found evidence of transmutations in cathodes of alloys. I now realize their line of research is comparing alloys to pure metals, and they imply alloys are much better for reproducible LENR.