@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?
It seemed clear to me too. He said it is a fact that you need data to construct a theory. What did you read?
I disagree, he clearly thinks nothing outside known theories can exist.
Ask him.
It seemed clear to me too.
That's a first for you....
@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?
He said that it is a fact that you need data to construct a theory. Did you misunderstand that?
We all here are doing voluntary work, I have a full time day and night job, being an independent cotractor, and I (and many others) argue with THH as much as we can. I have said this many times, and will repeat it, I strongly disagree with him, but that's no basis for banning anyone.
I am sorry that you find the need reactively to contradict all I say. It might on occasion get you into trouble when I make pro-LENR statements? 
More seriously - it is less constructive than listening to what I say and commenting where you disagree or can add something. I have liked posts by almost everyone here (however much typically I find their contributions unhelpful).
THH said:
But, you see, LENR is not an "effect". It is a statement that said collection of effects are caused by nuclear reactions
No, that is an observation, not a statement of theory.
Jed - in what world did I say that LENR was a statement of theory?
I said it was a statement about theories. Specifically - a statement that whatever theory in the end explains those results - it will include nuclear reactions. If you go back to the complete post and read what I have said and you will see what I mean.
I know sometimes you and I disagree. Often, as here, we agree, but you mistake what I say, often thinking it means the opposite of what it actually says!
It seemed clear to me too. He said it is a fact that you need data to construct a theory. What did you read?
To be fair it is quite subtle.
You don't in principle need data to construct a theory (more correctly a hypothesis) you need data to know whether a theory is a correct (or perhaps, more probabilistically and allowing incompleteness, a useful) description of reality.
I could say LF was a forum where, because of the wise moderation and niche nature of the topic, all posts were reflective and rational. That is a supportable theory - it just bears no relationship to the reality and so is not correct.
I was pointing out that in real physics there is a symbiotic relationship between theory and experiment. Sometimes a theory comes first - predicting a new phenomenon - which is then validated by experiment. Sometimes a new phenomenon is discovered by experiment and then theories are formulated to try and describe it, they are shaped by the data.
I also pointed out that any new theory of nuclear physics (as Storms requires) must correctly predict all of the existing nuclear physics reactions and lifetimes -as well as existing theory - not just the LENR anomalies. That makes it harder to construct a successful theory than you might think.
For LENR the real problem is the lack of a joined up theory that would form the other half of this symbiosis and help sort out the real results from the errors.
Alan has directed me to Storms - which is good but with two gaps, one small and fixable (probably) one large.
It is also true that a 100% certain replicable easyish to do experiment that broke non-LENR physics would be good - that would require a new theory without question - and it would drag in other people.
We sort of have that now for type 2 LENR, but not type 1.
Perhaps someone else should explain to me why these things which are reflective, and which I am saying now, create such turbulence and opposition on this site? They do not seem contentious to me.
I will say one impolite thing. In any other branch of science, if someone reacted so emotionally and unscientifically to questioning and the requirement for well-written argument - whether right or wrong, they would have a short career as a scientist.
THH
Jed - in what world did I say that LENR was a statement of theory?
I said it was a statement about theories.
Perhaps you have lost track of what I was responding to.
You said:
"But, you see, LENR is not an "effect". It is a statement that said collection of effects are caused by nuclear reactions."
Everyone I know says that LENR is an effect. It is definitely a nuclear reaction, because it produces helium and tritium. It is not caused by nuclear reactions; it is a nuclear reaction, by definition. Only nuclear fusion can produce helium and tritium.
That is not a statement, or an opinion, a theory or a synthesis; it is an observation. Smoke and flames are fire; helium and tritium are fusion. That is not debatable. The only thing you can debate is whether the observations are correct, or mistaken. To show this is not fusion, you have to show the heat is a mistake in calorimetry, the helium it correlates with came from somewhere else, and it is an astounding coincidence that they always happen to correlate at the same rate as D-D plasma fusion. *
(Finally, perhaps this is quibbling, but I don't see why you call this a "collection" of effects. The heat, helium and tritium must be caused by one underlying physical process. They all prove it is fusion. I would say that's one effect producing several observations.)
You went on to say:
"For that you need theory."
No theory is needed. Whether you call the heat, helium and tritium a collection of effects, or manifestations of the same effect, they directly prove this is fusion. Only fusion can do this. There is no theory to explain how this fusion works, or how it is caused.
* Most people would say that such a coincidence is out of the question, but you skeptics will believe any damn thing, no matter how outlandish or unlikely, rather than believing the simple truth which all the evidence points to.
"But, you see, LENR is not an "effect". It is a statement that said collection of effects are caused by nuclear reactions."
Everyone I know says that LENR is an effect. It is definitely a nuclear reaction, because it produces helium and tritium. It is not caused by nuclear reactions; it is a nuclear reaction, by definition. Only nuclear fusion can produce helium and tritium.
OK - well of course you are closer to the field than me. I was going by the words:
Low Energy Nuclear Reactions
And the fact that LENR results include many things - some of which have nothing to do with Helium or Tritium but all of which claim some nuclear reaction.
To go with the words:
LENR is not "caused by nuclear reactions". It may be associated with a set of effects - but it is clearly more than that because skeptics, with skeptic explanations for those effects, are not espousing LENR.
FPHE is an effect.
LENR is a statement that this effect is caused by nuclear reactions.
It is also true that a 100% certain replicable easyish to do experiment that broke non-LENR physics would be good - that would require a new theory without question
Not at all. Throughout history, countless phenomena have been made easy, more controlled, and more predictable without any theory. In ancient times, things like shipbuilding, metallurgy, Damascus steel, stone construction of aqueducts and cathedrals, fermenting wine, and thousands of other things were brought to a level of perfection that rival the best modern techniques. Ancient people did this even though they had practically no theory in the modern sense. They had no knowledge of atoms or chemical elements; no idea that fire is oxidation, or that heat and work are the same thing, or why rocks have different bearing strength. They discovered by trial and error that some rocks can hold up an aqueduct while others crumble.
In modern times, radio waves, X-rays and fission were discovered by accident, without any theory to explain them. So was cold fusion, of course.
It is entirely possible that an easyish cold fusion experiment will be discovered by trial and error. In fact, the LEC appears to be just that. If it is more widely replicated it will definitely be an easy experiment with no theoretical basis.
Granted, it can be easier to develop an experiment based on theory, but it is not necessary.
That is not a statement, or an opinion, a theory or a synthesis; it is an observation. Smoke and flames are fire; helium and tritium are fusion. That is not debatable.
It is highly debatable in the sense in which I think you mean it.
For example tritium at low concentrations can come from many proximate sources including tap water. And can be concentrated to higher concentrations by many things, including electrolysis, or found naturally in concentrated form if on the same river as a nuclear power plant.
The origin of tritium is a nuclear reaction: typically fusion - and caused by nuclear reactors, bombs, or high energy cosmic rays.
Observing higher than normal concentrations of Tritium? Many possible causes, as above. The observation that higher concentrations of tritium are found in an experiment is just that. When many different reasons are ruled out you can end up with "fusion happened in this experiment". That however requires a lot of analysis and judgement and care. It is debatable.
It is entirely possible that an easyish cold fusion experiment will be discovered by trial and error. In fact, the LEC appears to be just that. If it is more widely replicated it will definitely be an easy experiment with no theoretical basis.
Easy yes. Definite results, yes. "No theoretical basis" remains to be seen. "LENR" no - the evidence as I have seen it includes things other than nuclear reactions as possible cause.
OK - well of course you are closer to the field than me. I was going by the words:
Low Energy Nuclear Reactions
The word is not thing it represents in the real world. All words are approximations. People define the same word in different ways, and disagree over what exactly it means. I think it was clear from context that by "cold fusion" I meant the effect that causes heat, helium correlated with heat at the same ratio as D-D plasma fusion, and tritium. I did not mean anything else. Theory play no role in this definition.
And the fact that LENR results include many things - some of which have nothing to do with Helium or Tritium but all of which claim some nuclear reaction.
I made it quite clear which of those many things I had in mind. I doubt you were confused. I think you are quibbling.
FPHE is an effect.
LENR is a statement that this effect is caused by nuclear reactions.
LENR is a word, not a statement. As you say, it means different things to different people, but as I made abundantly clear, I am using it to mean exactly the same thing as "the FPHE effect," or "cold fusion." In the most widely used, widely agreed upon definition, they all three mean the same thing: heat, helium, tritium. Beyond that, people sometimes use them to refer to biological transmutations and other things which seem to be related, but may not be. We'll find out. The LEC also seems to be cold fusion, but I suppose it is too early to be sure.
When things are first discovered, it sometimes seems they are unrelated to one another. Such as visible light, radio and x-rays. Later on people discover they are the same underlying phenomenon. We may find out that the LEC is another manifestation of cold fusion.
Display MoreNot at all. Throughout history, countless phenomena have been made easy, more controlled, and more predictable without any theory. In ancient times, things like shipbuilding, metallurgy, Damascus steel, stone construction of aqueducts and cathedrals, fermenting wine, and thousands of other things were brought to a level of perfection that rival the best modern techniques. Ancient people did this even though they had practically no theory in the modern sense. They had no knowledge of atoms or chemical elements; no idea that fire is oxidation, or that heat and work are the same thing, or why rocks have different bearing strength. They discovered by trial and error that some rocks can hold up an aqueduct while others crumble.
In modern times, radio waves, X-rays and fission were discovered by accident, without any theory to explain them. So was cold fusion, of course.
It is entirely possible that an easyish cold fusion experiment will be discovered by trial and error. In fact, the LEC appears to be just that. If it is more widely replicated it will definitely be an easy experiment with no theoretical basis.
Granted, it can be easier to develop an experiment based on theory, but it is not necessary.
Ok - this is you misunderstanding me again. And, to be fair, this time I was using words perhaps loosely.
What I meant was that IF we had said experiment THEN a Theory would be required.
Not "a theory is required in order to have such an experiment".
I made it quite clear which of those many things I had in mind. I doubt you were confused. I think you are quibbling.
Again - in this case I am uncertain - a state which I have noticed I tend to have more than you.
LENR is a word, not a statement. As you say, it means different things to different people, but as I made abundantly clear, I am using it to mean exactly the same thing as "the FPHE effect," or "cold fusion." In the most widely used, widely agreed upon definition, they all three mean the same thing: heat, helium, tritium. Beyond that, people sometimes use them to refer to biological transmutations and other things which seem to be related, but may not be. We'll find out. The LEC also seems to be cold fusion, but I suppose it is too early to be sure.
So the point is that all these things may not go together - which they would if you had cold fusion.
For example you might have FPHE anomalous excess heat without tritium or helium, and it would not be cold fusion.
cold fusion, or LENR requires that the reasons for the anomalies are nuclear reactions.
As you say, cold fusion or LENR is an explanation, not the effect itself, and sometimes, as with LEC, it is not clear whether it applies.
Needless to say, some of the other claims that people categorize as cold fusion, such as biological transmutation, are nowhere near as well established as the heat, helium and tritium. The LEC is not as well established. These things might be mistakes. Even if they are real, they might be unrelated. But the heat, helium and tritium are now so widely replicated, at such high signal to noise ratios, that I think a mistake is ruled out.
THH agrees with Huizenga that all results are mistakes, no matter how many people replicated them. Even tritium at 50 times background or heat at 100 W for weeks are mistakes. As Huizenga put it:
"Furthermore, if the claimed excess heat exceeds that possible by other conventional processes (chemical, mechanical, etc.), one must conclude that an error has been made in measuring the excess heat."
Huizenga was certain all experiments are wrong based on his knowledge of nuclear theory. I do not know why THH is equally certain -- and equally dismissive. Theory perhaps? This is experimental science, not based on theory, so an appeal to theory is not valid. The only way to disprove cold fusion is to find errors in the experiments. All of the experiments. If even one shows actual heat and tritium, cold fusion must be real. (Helium has not been measured as often.) THH, Huizenga, Morrison and all the other skeptics never found an error in any major experiment. All of the errors that THH thinks he found are misunderstandings or physically impossible nonsense such as heavy water and light water magically affecting the calorimetry outside the cell. He has no reason to doubt any of these results, but he rejects them all.
Granted, it can be easier to develop an experiment based on theory,
It can be very expensive
and the theory can always be wrong..
How much have the Higgsing 2sigma bumps cost so far?
What I meant was that IF we had said experiment THEN a Theory would be required.
Why? The LEC experiment is easy compared to most. Do we require a theory for the LEC experiment? If so, why? Are you going to reject the LEC results because there is no theory?
For the sake of argument, let us assume the LEC is cold fusion. Or, if you don't like that, let us suppose Ed Storms is right and his material works well nearly every time. Or, let us just pretend someone comes up with a very easy, highly replicable experiment. Why do you say "a Theory would be required"? Who would require it? For what reason?
I really do not understand what you mean by this.
Display MoreNeedless to say, some of the other claims that people categorize as cold fusion, such as biological transmutation, are nowhere near as well established as the heat, helium and tritium. The LEC is not as well established. These things might be mistakes. Even if they are real, they might be unrelated. But the heat, helium and tritium are now so widely replicated, at such high signal to noise ratios, that I think a mistake is ruled out.
THH agrees with Huizenga that all results are mistakes, no matter how many people replicated them. Even tritium at 50 times background or heat at 100 W for weeks are mistakes. As Huizenga put it:
"Furthermore, if the claimed excess heat exceeds that possible by other conventional processes (chemical, mechanical, etc.), one must conclude that an error has been made in measuring the excess heat."
Huizenga was certain all experiments are wrong based on his knowledge of nuclear theory. I do not know why THH is equally certain -- and equally dismissive. Theory perhaps? This is experimental science, not based on theory, so an appeal to theory is not valid. The only way to disprove cold fusion is to find errors in the experiments. All of the experiments. If even one shows actual heat and tritium, cold fusion must be real. (Helium has not been measured as often.) THH, Huizenga, Morrison and all the other skeptics never found an error in any major experiment. All of the errors that THH thinks he found are misunderstandings or physically impossible nonsense such as heavy water and light water magically affecting the calorimetry outside the cell. He has no reason to doubt any of these results, but he rejects them all.
Jed, he is playing a game of semantics with you, waiting to see if he can trip you up. Don't fall for his word salad.
So the point is that all these things may not go together - which they would if you had cold fusion.
That is incorrect. Heat and helium do go together. In the physical sense. You never get one without the other. They are correlated in the same ratio as one D-D plasma fusion path. They are never found in a different ratio. So you definitely have cold fusion because only fusion can cause deuterium to transmute into helium producing 24 MeV per helium atom.
Tritium sometimes appears, and sometimes does not. It is not correlated. But it always appears in the same physical system, under similar conditions, with cathodes that pass the same narrow range of physical structure and behavior. Very rare cathodes. So it is likely to have the same underlying cause.
Other claims such as the LEC are more loosely connected and may be unrelated. Claims that have not been widely replicated may be mistakes. The only things that definitely prove this is nuclear fusion are the heat, helium and tritium.
For example you might have FPHE anomalous excess heat without tritium or helium, and it would not be cold fusion.
That is a hypothetical statement. It has not happened yet, and it seems unlikely to happen. If it happens, it will disprove cold fusion to some extent.
That is like saying that if someone discovers a Maxwell Demon process that makes heat go of itself from a cooler body to a hotter body, that would disprove the Second Law. Yes, it would, but it has not happened, and there is no reason to think it will happen, or that it can happen. What you say: "you might have FPHE heat without tritium or helium" is equally impossible as far as anyone knows. After hundreds of experiments, there is no hint it might be possible.
We have to stick to what the experiments show. You can't just say out of the blue "you might have" excess heat without helium. We don't have that. If it shows up, you will have a valid point. Although in that case you will still have to explain heat without any chemical changes, and the tritium. Fusion would remain the most likely explanation. The helium nails the case. Even Huizenga admitted that, but he dismissed helium as experimental error.
