Which ICCF24 presentation is most likely to sway a skeptic?

Quote from Alan Smith

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.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10894-008-9149-y

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.

Display More

You write - "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." I want to support your idea and point out the following - tritium synthesis occurs through the e-capture reaction on a free proton, which occurs as a result of the decay of a water molecule ... But more important the topic is the participation of clusters of free electrons in all these processes ... The resulting neutron - the result of e-capture, participates in the synthesis of deuterium and then another neutron in the synthesis of tritium - the result of the magnetic fusion of deuterium and neutron.

.

Cherepanov2020

Welcome back! We missed you.

Quote from Shane D.

New. This rapper put this together after listening to that ICCF day's presentations. He picked up on the all the right buzzwords, and created this art from that. Very talented individual. I could not possibly do this. My compliments:

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.

Saw this one yesterday, fun, it may not sway skeptics but is indeed fun.

I think I already watched all the presentations that discussed experimental results. My favorite in terms of skeptic swaying still is the one of Guido Parchi when and if they get replicated.

The LEC is by far the strongest result IMO, both for replicability and reliability, and I think the presentation by Antonio Di Stefano should at least convince a skeptic that the LEC is real, wether it’s LENR or not.

The presentation of the Team from India of transmutations is also very interesting for me, I hope they publish a paper, and I invited the member of LENR forum that was part of the team to join the discussion of their results but he hasn’t responded yet.

Quote from Shane D.

I think there are at least 1 or 2 more presentations that deserve some consideration we have not heard from yet. But yes, Parchi and his two colleagues presentation was captivating. Hopefully we will have more info from them in the near future for our LF members and guests.

I focused in the experimental ones, and did not include Iwamura’s and Clean Planet not because I don’t think they are worth mentioning but because we already know them very well, albeit their discovery that reducing the voltage slightly for Short periods creates outbursts of excess heat was really interesting: They finally agreed with Francesco CELANI that the flow is very important. I also liked Celani’s very much as they have gotten very good at replicating the excess heat. Again, I follow them through ResearchGate so there was not much news for me there.

I have to admit, once again, my own personal biases: I am a junkie for transmutations and non calorimetric energy measures, given that calorimetry is an endless tail chasing discussion with skeptics.

As a skeptic - perhaps what would be interesting is to rate each of the ICCF24 experimental results on those two axes - uncertainty and irreproducibility. With the caveat that if a result is reproduced it might go form irreproducibe to reproducible.

The discussion is again coming back to the old “is LENR even real?” side and therefore I again ask you to focus on the ICCF 24th results. If a skeptic thinks There’s nothing at the ICCF 24th That even picks Their curiosity, so be it, nothing new.

The presentation of Theresa Benyo about their replication of the1989 Fralick gas flow excess heat and the transmutation spots they found IMO puts the replicability issue to rest, it was replicated with much better equipment and the transmutations analyzed by different methods. For me this was already old news but the TOF elemental measurements were expanded upon and proven to confirm the EDAX results.

Quote from Curbina

The discussion is again coming back to the old “is LENR even real?” side and therefore I again ask you to focus on the ICCF 24th results. If a skeptic thinks There’s nothing at the ICCF 24th That even picks Their curiosity, so be it, nothing new.

The presentation of Theresa Benyo about their replication of the1989 Fralick gas flow excess heat and the transmutation spots they found IMO puts the replicability issue to rest, it was replicated with much better equipment and the transmutations analyzed by different methods. For me this was already old news but the TOF elemental measurements were expanded upon and proven to confirm the EDAX results.

I will watch that and then comment - no-one had mentioned it before.

However I think you mischaracterise the skeptical response here. An ICCF24 talk discussed this.

It is not "the irreproducibility issue". A skeptic will agree that many LENR results are reproducible and that many are certain, but disagree that the ones with high certainty can be easily replicated.

Transmutation evidence tends to be on the less certain end of the spectrum because of possibilities for:

• contamination
• concentration/movement of existing isotopes/elements
• misinterpretation of elemental or isotopic analysis

Each of these must be ruled out (independently) for every such experiment.

Quote from THHuxleynew

I will watch that and then comment - no-one had mentioned it before.

However I think you mischaracterise the skeptical response here. An ICCF24 talk discussed this.

It is not "the irreproducibility issue". A skeptic will agree that many LENR results are reproducible and that many are certain, but disagree that the ones with high certainty can be easily replicated.

Transmutation evidence tends to be on the less certain end of the spectrum because of possibilities for:

• contamination
• concentration/movement of existing isotopes/elements
• misinterpretation of elemental or isotopic analysis

Each of these must be ruled out (independently) for every such experiment.

Display More

You always assume that the people doing these things are morons that need to be told what errors to look for, I will let Theresa answer your doubts:

Quote from Curbina

You always assume that the people doing these things are morons that need to be told what errors to look for,

Yes. And he does not read the papers, because if he did, he would see that the researchers always check for the errors he lists. They always rule out these errors.

Quote from JedRothwell

Yes. And he does not read the papers, because if he did, he would see that the researchers always check for the errors he lists. They always rule out these errors.

Indeed, in this case contamination, migration and measurement artifacts were cross checked. Theresa talks about all this and the paper of late 2020 also discusses this.

Quote from Curbina

Indeed, in this case contamination, migration and measurement artifacts were cross checked.

Yes. If THH were an honest critic, here is what he would say:

"I suppose there might be contamination, migration or measurement artifacts in this experiment. Those are the only errors I can think of. So let's look at the papers . . . Okay, the authors checked for these problems and did not find them. So, as far as I can judge, there are no significant errors, and the papers are right. I am not an expert. An expert might find errors that I did not think of. But as far as I know, this experiment is right."

Here is what he says instead:

"I suppose there might be contamination, migration or measurement artifacts in this experiment. Because I suppose these things, they must be true. I am not going to check the papers. Curbina tells me the papers show these errors are ruled out, but I will not read the papers or respond to Corbina. Instead, I will repeat myself again and again, claiming these errors happened, until other people no longer bother to respond. Then I will say the issue is settled and the experiments are invalid."

Francesco Celani has asked me post a link to his ICCF-24 presentation- these are certainly interesting experiments. And not impossible to replicate.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363611617_Progresses_on_confirming_simple_procedures_to_produce_AHE_and_investigate_their_origin_by_thin_Constantan_wires_under_H2_D2_gases_at_high_temperatures

Following the efforts to find simple procedures to activate the specific material we developed (since 2011; based on surface-modified Constantan in the shape of long and thin wires, Joule heating), able to produce measurable values of AHE we reproduced them. Made new specific tests to investigate also isotopic effects. Moreover, according to our interpretation of the results, the main origin of AHE seems reconfirmed: in agreement with the initial (some since 1989) results of Researchers in USA, Japan, Italy. The work was originated because we would like to reconfirm the procedures we discussed deeply, both at the talk and after waiting 1 month for questions (by web), during the ANV8 Workshop: held in Assisi-Italy on December 2021 (DOI:10.13140/RG.2.2.27006.6683).

Quote from THHuxleynew

The LEC is something of a mystery but I fail to see what connection it has with LENR?

This proves once again that you really not read papers nor watch the presentations. The main hypothesis of why the LEC works is that the co deposited metal hydrogen layer, or as Alan Smith has shown, hydrogen loaded cathode, generates an emission of some kind of radiation that ionizes gases at close range.

Quote from Alan Smith

Francesco Celani has asked me post a link to his ICCF-24 presentation- these are certainly interesting experiments. And not impossible to replicate.

https://www.researchgate.net/p…ases_at_high_temperatures

Following the efforts to find simple procedures to activate the specific material we developed (since 2011; based on surface-modified Constantan in the shape of long and thin wires, Joule heating), able to produce measurable values of AHE we reproduced them. Made new specific tests to investigate also isotopic effects. Moreover, according to our interpretation of the results, the main origin of AHE seems reconfirmed: in agreement with the initial (some since 1989) results of Researchers in USA, Japan, Italy. The work was originated because we would like to reconfirm the procedures we discussed deeply, both at the talk and after waiting 1 month for questions (by web), during the ANV8 Workshop: held in Assisi-Italy on December 2021 (DOI:10.13140/RG.2.2.27006.6683).

We reconfirm that the simple procedure, just DC Joule heating at high power (100-150 W) and long times (50-150 h), was effective to activate a virgin
Constantan coil with thin wire’s surfaces properly treated (mainly by Low Work Function materials). Again, we found that the AHE measured, during the
cooling cycles from the highest power, depends on the time previously spent by the reactor’s core at the highest powers. We found that there is a sort of “positive
memory effect” (in respect to AHE), lasting usually 10-20 h. Moreover, AHE increases increasing the number of cycling (high->low->high power).
We found, also, that increasing the wire resistance by proper “aging” treatments, increased the amount of AHE. We speculated that it could be related to increased
surface area, spongy like, of the wire that allows, among others, easier income<-->outcome of active gases, i.e. flux. We measured that D2 gas (latest experiment)
gave larger values of AHE (9 W) in respect to H2 (5 W), at input power of 130 W.
BTW, AHE are related to the voltage drop along the wire (as larger as better): possible candidates are electromigration, NEMCA, “Preparata” effects. We
observed such behaviour even since 1995 by using long-thin Pd wires. Obviously, our speciality of high-peak-power pulsing procedure (at proper duty cycles)
is the most promising to increase both the AHE and overall COP of the system: toward practical applications.

(1) this is a COP of 7% and 4% - with a 3% difference.

(2) these are results that require differences between control and active runs (and between the two different active runs) to be very small.

(3) The remark about higher voltage leading to larger effects, together with the note that pulses are used, characterises the effects as something that could be caused by RFI issues where indeed any effects would scale with the pulse voltage. Such issues are very difficult to rule out, and not addressed by the experimenters

(4) The results given do not state whether they come from the "activation period" when RFI issues are relevant, or from measurements after this, which are stated to be time-dependent and decaying, but with no quantitative details. Without the missing info in this paper I find it difficult to evaluate this.

(5) I looked for a clear description of methodology, or exactly which temperatures in the multi-walled reactor were used to infer power flux, together with exactly what each of the power-flux measurement gaps was - two surfaces and gas - for the various experiments - control and active. I did not find this. Nor did I find a reference to an earlier paper with a clear description of methodology. It is frustrating but perhaps someone here with more background in these experiments could fill this in. Assuming (A1) that the measurement gap is well controlled (e.g. surfaces are under same conditions in all experiments and do not change emissivity, surface temperatures are the same (because that may change emissivity) there is then the question (A2) of bounding differential errors (A2) between the control and active experiments. Both A1 and A2 require a lot of detail, and with results relatively small subtle effects could be causing them.

Everyone here wanting to gain useful info from these experiments should be interested in much more details, error bars, etc all carefully written up so that the results can be carefully considered. Without that the characterisation does not help to characterise LENR because we do not know is it LENR or some other aspect of the system that is making the observed differences.

Anyway - it is a real shame that in this case such an interesting and detailed set of experiments is not written up in a way which allows it to be evaluated at all. Perhaps though that will follow?

For those who think a reconfirmation experiment can be cavalier about procedures because they have been tested previously - well in that case it is not reconfirmation. In any case then it would start by referencing the earlier detailed description of methodology, assumptions, error bounds for the known sources of error. That costs the authors nothing, and adds credibility as well as allowing a new reader to understand in detail what is happening.

THH

Quote from Curbina

This proves once again that you really not read papers nor watch the presentations. The main hypothesis of why the LEC works is that the co deposited metal hydrogen layer, or as Alan Smith has shown, hydrogen loaded cathode, generates an emission of some kind of radiation that ionizes gases at close range.

I have read the papers, and I understand that hypothesis. However does not seem to me evidence for LENR, since the results do not require that hypothesis. There are non-radiative ionisation mechanisms and given all the craziness supposed of electrons and photons in lattices as mechanism for LENR that same craziness (without LENR) could be doing the short-range ionisation. Or something else.

I agree that it is an interesting phenomena, and I am glad it is being investigated.

It is actually a logical error to suppose that because there is an LENR hypothesis for a not understood effect, therefore the effect is evidence for LENR.

If there were a predictive LENR theory that made a falsifiable informative prediction about these cells - that would be different!