Quote from Alan Smith

No - first you need data to construct a theory. We are providing that.

Alan - your statement does not contradict mine. (or perhaps it does, and is wrong. Not quite sure what you mean by "no").

"LENR" is a statement. Specifically it is a statement that whatever are the reasons for those anomalies a good number of them must be caused by nuclear reactions.

The fact that you need data to construct a theory is irrelevant, also the fact that you are obtaining data,

You can have all the data in the world : it must still be a match of theory to results that leads to a LENR conclusion rather than a "quantum spookiness heat effect" or a "weird chemical reaction effect" or a "God looks down on us and delivers heat" or a "certain chemicals induce local brain anomalies in lenr researchers" or even, it seems a popular topic here, "the whole thing is set up by secret russian agents" explanation for the experimental data.

You take the data and match each of these hypotheses, and others more plausible, to find what is the best fit.

If you said you were investigating anomalies with an open mind and no supposition there were nuclear reactions then it would be different. Then the field might be called FPHE or something.

Interestingly - LENR as a statement is not enough - because it does not deliver a theory. It is what you get at the end of the whole process, collecting data, finding a predictive theory to explain it, and then if that theory predicts nuclear reactions you have LENR.

Not quite sure why there is any disagreement here - I am just stating clearly what everyone knows, and it is neither pro nor con LENR - just open-minded. perhaps that is the issue? On here one needs to post not-open-minded on the topic of LENR?

Surely not!

Quote from THHuxleynew

The fact that you need data to construct a theory is irrelevant, also the fact that you are obtaining data,

Huxley would kick your tuschi for a statement like that. You cannot just make theories up based on nothing more than imaginary data - people do of course, but they should go find a proper job.

Quote from Alan Smith

Huxley would kick your tuschi for a statement like that. You cannot just make theories up based on nothing more than imaginary data - people do of course, but they should go find a proper job.

Alan - read my WHOLE POST?

such an incorrect parse of my perhaps unclear writing does you no justice - you know full well a lot of research papers are less clear than me!

In addition - you can make up theories based on no data at all (extending, logically, existing theories) - and then go looking for the data. e.g. Higgs boson (Higgs + others) - positrons (was it Dirac?).

That is not my beef with LENR. The issue is that "it was nuclear reactions that did it" is not a theory.

The distinction is probably not one that everyone here thinks is significant - it most certainly is.

@THH - I just quoted what you said. Seems a clear enough statement to me - are you disavowing it now? Did you say one thing and mean something else?

Quote from Alan Smith

@THH - I just quoted what you said. Seems a clear enough statement to me - are you disavowing it now? Did you say one thing and mean something else?

Alan - you must have a poor opinion of the readership here if you think they will be swayed by rhetoric of that sort?

Quote from THHuxleynew

"LENR" is a statement. Specifically it is a statement that whatever are the reasons for those anomalies a good number of them must be caused by nuclear reactions.

The fact that you need data to construct a theory is irrelevant, also the fact that you are obtaining data,

I was as I think you know pointing out that data - or lack of data - is irrelevant to the epistemological status of LENR - which is a statement about the causes of a class of anomalies, not a theory.

I then said:

Quote from THHuxleynew

You can have all the data in the world : it must still be a match of theory to results that leads to a LENR conclusion rather than a "quantum spookiness heat effect" or a "weird chemical reaction effect" or a "God looks down on us and delivers heat" or a "certain chemicals induce local brain anomalies in lenr researchers" or even, it seems a popular topic here, "the whole thing is set up by secret russian agents" explanation for the experimental data.

You take the data and match each of these hypotheses, and others more plausible, to find what is the best fit.

You are misinterpreting an isolated sentence in an argument which I think, read as a whole, is pretty clear.

I am not denigrating the data. I am saying that "LENR" can only be established after a theory is found (incorporating nuclear reactions) that fits the data.

Without that theory you can still say "hey, look - we have found weird anomalies" but to call them LENR at that stage is putting cart before horse.

Quote from THHuxleynew

I am not denigrating the data. I am saying that "LENR" can only be established after a theory is found (incorporating nuclear reactions) that fits the data.

There are several good theories Have you actually bothered to read any of them?

I am quite consistent - for example I've said that I think certain type 2 LENR hypotheses are quite likely. Those hypotheses have a complete theory that is quantitative and explains the results (bits of it, like the coherent stuff, are in principle quantitative and definite with known equations but I agree have not been worked out fully - so if you want to accuse me for being too eager to declare plausible LENR I admit it).

BTW - type 2 LENR was what F and many others were looking for in the early days, and what many people now are still looking to.

Quote from THHuxleynew

I am not denigrating the data. I am saying that "LENR" can only be established after a theory is found (incorporating nuclear reactions) that fits the data.

Last time I checked, one derived theories from observations / experiments that provide data, known otherwise as "the scientific method" and not the other way around.

Quote from Alan Smith

There are several good theories Have you actually bothered to read any of them?

For fractionation of high energies down to low energy quanta? I've only read Hagelstein (in some detail).

I'd welcome research papers on this problem with more detail or a different approach.

I've asked here several times - I am aware that my reading is limited.

We can agree that LENR is a mainly experimental field with a wide array of working hypothesis that their proponents call theories. That would be more close to a formal depiction.

Quote from Curbina

Last time I checked, one derived theories from observations / experiments that provide data, known otherwise as "the scientific method" and not the other way around.

Curbina: have you read anything about physics over the 20th century? How many times the theory came first, and predicted specific quantitative things which the experimentalists found afterwards?

It is a match between theory and experiment that science needs. Sometimes the theory comes first, sometimes the data.

A brief history of a boson: Timeline of Higgs

In the culmination of a 50-year quest, physicists at CERN are expected to announce the discovery of the Higgs boson – we show how they got there

www.newscientist.com

https://timeline.web.cern.ch/p…late%20upon%20interaction.

and of course the most famous ones: special and general relativity...

(I'm quoting the theory first things because you are maybe not aware of them - the "experiment first" things have many examples too).

And here is an article which is on this topic - I have not read it but it looks fascinating - no idea whether I will agree with it. It is psychology so I suspect I will not like it!

Prediction and Explanation in a Postmodern World

The experimental research paradigm lies at the core of empirical psychology. New data analytical and computational tools continually enrich its methodological…

www.frontiersin.org

The "theory first" approach creates a lot of insentive to cheat in the experiments, and/or interpretation of observational data. A problem we are experiencing to this day.

Quote from Curbina

We can agree that LENR is a mainly experimental field with a wide array of working hypothesis that their proponents call theories. That would be more close to a formal depiction.

Agreed. I am not clear though whether an experimenter looking at FPHE anomalies has to subscribe to a specific "nuclear reaction" working hypothesis, or maybe have the unscientific view that out of all possible working hypotheses only the nuclear ones can have merit, to be classified as LENR.

I guess it is up to those in the field to demarcate it, words are what you want them to mean, paraphrasing Humpty Dumpty.

Post

RE: USEFUL PAPERS THREAD

Here is the latest paper from Ed Storms:

Storms, E. The Nature of Cold Fusion (Cold Fusion Made Simple). in ICCF24 Solid-state Energy Summit. 2022. Mountain View, CA.


http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEthenatureoc.pdf

JedRothwell

Oct 1st 2022

Try this recent theory from Ed Storms. Not everyone in the field agrees with it, but it is derived from extensive data.

Quote from THHuxleynew

Agreed.

But, you see, LENR is not an "effect". It is a statement that said collection of effects are caused by nuclear reactions.

For that you need theory.

THH

Display More

The great Teslas and Edisons didn't know what was going through the wires. That didn't stop them from changing the world.

For a century, we did not know the mode of action of Aspirin, but it remained the most effective drug.

I started research by studying Alzheimer's disease, which is a dissolution of consciousness and memory. We don't know what consciousness is or where it is, and there is no scientific consensus regarding the molecular basis of memory. Yet there is little doubt that consciousness and memory exist. (I would like to find a process to increase both)

So a theory for LENRs would be useful, but less so than a DeLorean powered by a Cold Fusion generator.

Quote from THHuxleynew

It is a match between theory and experiment that science needs.

Higggs. Hickkss more beer more money... more and better cheating. The Higgs particle energy has been known for more than 20 years. It has nothing to do with the Higgs particle and its prediction... There was also no need for two new accelerators to detect it. Propose something great and you get the Jackpot money...

Please do/support research. Talking is for children that have no clue of how to do it.

I'm probably not going to view them all, but .....

Erik Ziehm - Detection of Alpha Particles Using CR-39

Noting that I was personally convinced by Pamela Mosier-Boss's early CR39 reports This one really does seem to exclude everything else.

Quote from Curbina

Why do you say is “relatively unsurprising”?

Why the “If”‘ when you are seeing evidence of it? Here you show your bias against it.

F&P did make it repeatable, and the fact that not all the samples of Pd worked is well documented.

The expectation of high energy particles is something that has indeed stumped the development of the field, because we have the arrogance of thinking we know how nature works. When nature shows us something we didn’t expect we should change our understanding of how nature works, not dismiss it as an error. Have you read the Cardone Papers? They do analyze the puzzling lack of high energy particles, gammas and neutrons, you May agree or disagree on how they explain it, but you can’t say they did not go to great extremes to prove the elemental synthesis they observed wasn’t due to “contamination”.

Display More

why "relatively unsurprising"? For the reasons I give.

Why "If"?

LENTR - even type 2 - is still not well understood. This is one experiment. I am being cautious - as is proper. Just because I think something is probably true does not mean it is true! Hence if.

Re Cardone papers

Thank you for these useful papers. I started to read (the first one) then realised:

(a) I need to read the lot

(b) It was not immediately obvious (from the first one I read) what the transmutation evidence was based on (I could so the post-reaction data, but not clear what was the comparable pre-reaction data). I expect more careful reading of all the papers will sort that out (I am not saying you are wrong because I have no idea) but it is sit down for an afternoon to do it not do a quick scan now and I do not just at the moment have an afternoon. It is on my list and I will make no further comments about transmutation till I have read those papers without qualifying my comments.

Re explanation

Post-hoc explanations are two-a-penny and don't count for much unless precisely predictable from known theory. There is no known theory that can lead to that expected fractionation of high energy products from nuclear reactions.

THH

(PS - sorry - this maybe never got posted - it is out of sequence)

Quote from Gregory Byron Goble

The LENR Doctoral Thesis

An Experimental Investigation of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions in a DC Glow Discharge

Final Examination (Dissertation Defense) for Erik Ziehm

Alan Fletcher

YES of particular interest.

Erik Ziehm - Detection of Alpha Particles Using CR-39

This presentation is my best choice... The LENR Doctoral Thesis it references establishes a great point of entry for newcomers. Erik Ziehm's successful defense of his thesis means that CMNS is established in the Department of Nuclear, Plasma & Radiological Engineering at Urbana-Champaign University in Illinois.

Working in the arena of "cold fusion" no longer ruins your reputation.

This is another project he is involved in right now.

"Performance Analysis of HIIPER MPD Thruster"

Rohan Puri, George H. Miley, Erik P. Ziehm, Raul Patino and Raad S. Najam

AIAA 2021-3402

Session: RF Thrusters II

Published Online: 28 Jul 2021 https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2021-3402

View Video Presentation: https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2021-3402.vid

Abstract

Helicon Injected Inertial Plasma Electrostatic Rocket (HIIPER) is an innovative magnetoplasmadynamic (MPD) thruster developed at the University of Illinois UC. It is considered a stepping stone towards nuclear fusion space propulsion system. It comprises of a two-stage mechanism – helicon injection into an Inertial Electrostatic Confinement (IEC) fusion chamber and plasma extraction, and expulsion, using the IEC cathode grid. Two salient features of HIIPER are explained as follows. Firstly, IEC cathode grids generate a stream of electrons which neutralize the exhaust plume and prevent the space vehicle from getting charged. Secondly, the presence of a helicon bias grid at the upstream end of the quartz tube increases the most probable ion energies inside the system. Langmuir probe analysis was done at various locations inside the system to check for wall losses. Ion density trends are established by changing the axial magnetic field, IEC grid voltage and helicon bias grid voltage. Retarding Potential Analyzer (RPA) is used to measure the most probable ion energy with changing helicon bias grid voltage. A Mach probe is also used to measure ion velocity distribution with changing bias grid potential. Although it was assumed that the helicon bias grid will collimate the plasma beam and reduce wall losses, the observed trend showed only a weak effect. However, it was established that the helicon bias grid increased the most probable ion energy and flow velocity. These results provide the basis for the next experimental setup, with an optimized quartz tube, replacing the metal bellow coupling to minimize wall losses.