The perpetual “is LENR even real” argument thread.

Quote from JedRothwell

Also, his comment I just quoted above, that recombination might be caused by something "unusual" and therefore it might not be detected shows that he knows nothing about electrochemistry, he has no grasp of how experiments are done, and he has no common sense.

You have made this claim - stating I believe that unexpected chemical catalytic reactions in a Pd electrode (unknown mechamism - do not always occur) are impossible.

I don't see how you can prove that. When you are also stating that unexpected nuclear reactions (unknown mechanism, do not always occur) are possible.

Surely you can see the similarity of the negative arguments?

Quote from JedRothwell

There is nothing unsafe because people always measure the water level. They have to do that for other reasons. There are no experiments in cold fusion in which recombination would not be detected.

This is a bold and unsafe generalisation. Especially because water level measurement is not exact - and very inexact when there is significant foam.

Jed, thank you for your long rebuttal of the thread's premise. It is worth going through these arguments to identify where I (as an example of an open-minded, relatively well-informed, modern skeptic) agree, or disagree, with the Could Fusion / LENR case.

Quote from JedRothwell

==Cold fusion as a violation of theory==

As you will know, my argument is much more subtle than this. I am happy to look at theories that explain cold fusion. I have recently posted a whole thread on an 1994 paper that summarised 25 suhc theories. I am interested in which of them have the mots evidence now. I am also interested in other theories (I think all the modern ones lie within the scope of those 25 - biut if not please put new theories on that thread). And of course there may be new evidence for specific theories now that was not available in 1994 making them look more attractive.

it is not that CF/LENR violates theory. it is that as yet no alternative theory has been found that looks plausible. That does not mean one will never be found - but until there is one that makes falsifiable predictions CF/LENR remains a candidate for "systematic error / other things" see later. The lack of a plausible theory means that other unexpected but possible ideas, like systematic error, remain onm the table as decent solutions.

Quote from JedRothwell

==Claims that experimental errors have been made==

Since cold fusion is an experimental claim, cold fusion researchers feel that the only way to prove it is wrong is to demonstrate there is an error in the experimental technique or instruments. However, only a few skeptical authors have searched for such errors. Skeptics have written one book, at least five papers, and one magazine article citing errors, but cold fusion researchers feel the skeptics have failed to make their case. Some well-known examples include:

* D. Morrison versus M. Fleischmann debate [33] Morrison accused Fleischmann of employing "a complicated non-linear regression analysis" . . . "to allow a claim of excess enthalpy to be made." Fleischmann pointed out that they did not use that analysis. Morrison estimated that recombination might have produced 1.1 MJ at 145 W maximum power; Fleischmann pointed out that chemistry textbooks prove it could only produce 600 J at 5 mW maximum power. Several other points are disputed.

* N. Hoffman, A Dialogue on Chemically Induced Nuclear Effects [23] Much of this book is devoted to the hypothesis that all tritium results in cold fusion were caused by contaminated heavy water. This heavy water was contaminated, the author says, because the Ontario Hydro Company sold used moderator water from Candu fission reactors through chemical supply houses, to members of the public. There are two problems with this hypothesis. First, tritium levels are always measured before the experiment begins, so if the heavy water was already contaminated this would be noted. Second, upon learning about the book, Ontario Hydro vehemently denied selling used moderator water. They pointed out this would be illegal because this water contains roughly 100 million times more radioactive contamination than allowed by law, and it would cost tremendous amounts of money to remove this contamination and make the water safe. (Other sections of the book dealing with the Joule-Thompson effect and helium studies do not dispute the published results.) Cold fusion researchers at SRI pointed out that this book does not mention any experiment showing excess heat even though most experiments in the field have been done to look for heat.

* W. B. Clarke and Mass Spectrometry. Clarke published several articles with coworkers examining various aspects of helium detection in cold fusion-related samples. One study [42] has led to suggestions that some of the cold fusion researchers have not adequately handled the analytical chemistry technique of mass spectrometry.

* K. L. Shanahan and Calibration Constant Shifts. K. L. Shanahan has published 3 articles proposing a non-nuclear means to obtain apparent excess heat signals in cold fusion cells. In the first[34], Shanahan proposed that the system heat distribution and/or heat flow pathways might change and that this would induce a change in the calibration constants for the cell. He reanalyzed some actual cold fusion data published by E. Storms[37], under an assumption of zero excess heat, and found a variation in calibration constants of +/- 3% would explain the results, which is within typical error bounds of a fairly high quality scientific study. Subsequently, Szpak, Mossier-Boss, Miles, and Fleischmann questioned the proposal[39], and Shanahan replied [35] with an expanded explanation and applied it to explain the authors results. E. Storms rebutted Shanahan [38] by pointing out that the data does not fit his model.

Display More

This is a summary of substantial argument. Let me point out that rebutting a specific mechanism does not rebut the more general hypothesis. Thus the Candu water mechanism may be wrong, but the general case remains. As always all of the details matter. For example

• D2O used for electrolysis has 1ppm T.
• After electrolysis the D2O in the vessel is measured as having 10ppm T

Does that show T production? Obviously not for reasons you know. My point is that there is a whole long set of links in the chain that must be checked before in any specific experiment T production can be substantiated. I have never seen you take any interest in checking all of these. you have cited authors who have stated what i have just said, and tried hard to close all these loopholes. the then apply Jeddist logic:

"These are experienced and highly competent scientists - better than you or me" - agreed

"They have looked very carefully at possible non-nuclear transformation causes" - agreed

"Therefore nuclear transformation is certian" - not agreed

Looking at those papers the results are (correctly) presented as indicative of T production by some unknown cause (e.g. nuclear reactions). Not as proving that. You don't get to the proof level when the argument is so complex and tenuous without more evidence. That is typically some type of quantitative scaling that is measured, could easily disprove a nuclear theory, but does in fact prove it.

I will comment further on your summary of the debate because it is important to compare all of the arguments and counter-arguments, and see which are not answered.

Quote from JedRothwell

==Burden of proof argument==

Many skeptics have said that the burden of proof is on cold fusion researchers to prove their point. As the editor of the Scientific American put it: "But it is not up to mainstream physicists to disprove LENR-CANR [cold fusion]; it is up to LENR-CANR's physicists to come up with convincing proofs. The burden of evidence is on those who wish to establish a new proposition." [Piel, ibid.]

Cold fusion researchers feel they have met this burden.

Indeed. And skeptics feel they have not. I have, as a contribution to this bifurcation, pointed out that quite properly, if you think LENR exists, you will see any LENR experiment as muhc stronger evidence for LENR than if you don't think LENR exists. Thus skeptics and believers will naturally and properly have differing standards of evidence needed. See aove in this thread where tehre are examples.

Quote from JedRothwell

==Explicit rejection of the experimental method==

This would only apply to skeptics who did not look carefully at that evidence and make arguments of the type that I do on this thread. But there is an implicit assumption here that a the current corpus of experimental evidence can only be interpreted as showing LENR - whereas skeptics will as other arguments here show disagree.

Quote from JedRothwell

==Cold fusion as pathological science==

This is sociology - and my raising the matter here had to do with the way that people on this site talk about LENR (which in some cases is clearly as though it is pathological science). If you think about it, science is never pathological. Rather groups of people talking about science can be that. And I don't consider my interest in mots but not all of the LENR stuff - which remains open - at all pathological. Nor the interest of many of the people who post here. I am just pointing out that there is a pathological "woo-woo" element as well.

Quote from JedRothwell

===The effect is almost undetectable===

Let me summarise hundreds of pages of argument here.

What I do not like is that originally strong results, still quoted here is definite, such as the F&P open cell work (COP= 50% or more), cannot now be replicated. For example Storms here find COP = 2% (sorry i forget exactly) or so.

It is strange that replicable more precise calorimetry leads to lower COP - such that the replicable effect always remains arguably within the range of systematic error.

this is a challenge for experimenters. Since power in does not scale in the same way as any of the hypothesised mechanisms - it should be possible to change conditions so that for the same experiment, with constant replicability, COP is pushed higher from that originally discovered.

One example of that with the H-NI stuff is simply to add insulation so that higher temperatures are achieved with lower power in, and the same power out. I look for that type of scalability as evidence that the excess heat claimed is real. I do not find it (please post a thread here with counter-examples).

Quote from JedRothwell

===The causative agent is not commensurate with the effect===

Not sure about this argument - don't think I have ever argued it? It seems like a straw man to me. I agree there are many poor criticisms of LENR. But the fact that people make poor easily rebutted criticisms does not in any way prove the thing criticised if there are other better criticisms! I'd suggest we all ignore the low quality critiques.

Quote from JedRothwell

===Proposed explanations===

I think covered elsewhere?

Quote from JedRothwell

===Initial interest in the topic does not last===

Good point. That is in fact why i also stay interested. two things have revived modern interest:

(1) Rossi. He should not have done this, since he is a scammer and has made zero scientific contribution. But popular interest is not rational, and TG for example would not have happenned without the rossoi phenomenon.

(2) TG. I see this more as turning again to old ideas looking at them with fresh eyes. As is fair.

So (2) - if you ignore the impetus given by Rossi - is a good counter to this argument showing non-pathological type of interest. And, indeed, I view a lot of the pots-TG work as non-pathological - as well as the TG work itself.

Quote from JedRothwell

==Doubts on the quality of the cold fusion scientists==

I think my point is that all scientists make mistakes. Scientists as a group make mistakes. therefore viewing complex experimental evidence as certain just because a whole group of scientists all interpret it the same way is wrong. They might all be ignoring some subtle systematic error(s). I have pointed out that Earth Tech have eloquently found CF electrochemistry to be particularly susceptible to such subtle systematic errors. I have pointed out that some have been proposed and not rebutted.

Quote from JedRothwell

===Martin Fleischmann===

We agree here. MF is not the only evidence, and his evidence is of low quality. However on this site I have never understood the strong argument that his evidence must be good.

Quote from JedRothwell

==Claims that experiments have been debunked or that they are fraudulent==

That applies to Rossi and a few others. There might be one of two of the "old, famous" experiments that are contentious because of claims that results have been manipulated etc. That is normally not fraud, but an experimenter being less careful they should. Given a very large number of experiments we might expect that a few have such poor practice. And we cannot assume that any specific scientist, no matter how famous, has not on an occasion done that. Scientists are human. The special case of CF where those who believe in it are convinced something that would safe the world is being unjustly ignore create conditions where something not a strong as fabricating evidence, perhaps just selecting results to make them look better, is very tempting for anyone in the field.

Quote from JedRothwell

==Claims that all cold fusion researchers are deluded or incompetent==

I've never made such claims, and dispute them.

Quote from JedRothwell

I do not know what you see, but if you think wind turbines operate 2% of the time you know nothing about them. Land-based turbines operate at ~35% capacity factory. That is, 35% of their nameplate capacity. They are erected in places where there are strong, steady winds. No one would put one in a place where it only operates 2% of the time.

Here are the capacity factors for various generator types:

Fuel Type/Capacity Factor

• Nuclear: 93.5%
• Geothermal: 74.4%
• Wood: 60.9%
• Biopower: 59.2%
• Natural gas combined-cycle gas turbine: 56.8%
• Coal: 47.5%
• Hydro: 39.1%
• Wind: 34.8%
• Solar photovoltaic: 24.5%
• Solar thermal: 21.2%
• Natural gas steam turbine: 14.3%
• Natural gas combustion turbine: 13.9%
• Petroleum steam turbine: 12.7%
• Natural gas turbine: 11.8%
• Petroleum combustion turbine: 2.2%
• Petroleum gas turbine: 1.1%

https://energyknowledgebase.com/topics/capacity-factor.asp

"Natural gas turbine" means a single cycle turbine, not combined cycle. This is energy inefficient so it is turned off as much as possible. Combined cycle, wind and other generators are used instead. You could run a natural gas turbine at more than 11.8% capacity factor but you would be wasting money. Solar photovoltaic, on the other hand, cannot generate more than a 24.5% capacity factor. Even at that, it is by far the cheapest source of electricity per megawatt hour.

Nuclear plants are run 24/7 for as long as possible because you cannot turn them off, and because they are very cheap, provided they are used for baseline power 24-hours a day and they do not have an accident. If they have an accident or they are neglected and mismanaged they become the most expensive source of power ever invented. Kind of the way the Concord supersonic plane went from being the safest modern passenger airplane (with zero fatalities) to being the most dangerous one after one accident. The Connecticut Yankee nuclear plant was an example of mismanagement. Quoting the Connecticut Attorney General’s Office News Release in 1997, "What we have here is a nuclear management nightmare of Northeast Utilities' own making. The goal is no longer to decommission a nuclear power plant, but rather to decontaminate a nuclear waste dump."

No matter how incompetent the power company is, or what accident happens, wind and solar installation never convert to economic disasters or cause 90,000 people to lose their houses and farms. They are far safer than any other source of energy. They are also safer for the people who erect and maintain them.

Display More

Just to explain: the fossil fuel options (which cost money when running) have low capacity factors because they are used only when other demand is more than can be met by other cheaper (and also lower carbon) resources.

Quote from orsova

Which of his papers have you actually read front to back?

The one Jed recommended a long time ago - and still recommends - I think - as best evidence.

Calorimetry of the Pd-D2O system: from simplicity via complications to simplicity

We present here one aspect of our recent research on the calorimetry of the Pd-D2O system which has been concerned with high rates of specific excess …

www.sciencedirect.com

Long discussions elsewhere here.

Quote from orsova

And have you read Hansen's analysis of F&P's work?

No - but i read it now. (I normally don't trust otehr people talking about writeups second hand - but if there are concrete arguments there that contradict me I am happy to review them).

To make our position clear at this point we offer two examples from a long list. Mike
McKubre1 et al, using closed cell electrochemical calorimetry both simple and accurate, found
and confirmed several times large amounts of excess heat. In their examples the largest total
excess heat was 450 eV/atom normalized to the Pd lattice or to the D in the lattice at a loading
taken as ~1.
In a completely independent set of experiments, Edmund Storms2 found excess heat
produced to about 400 eV/Pd atom, in a different closed electrochemical calorimeter design.
Before going to other details, stop and focus on the implications of these numbers.

This is not (here) a concrete argument. But it shows a misunderstanding of the question. The large excess heat per atom can only be considered with error bars quantified and put onto the same scale. It says nothing about what those error bars are. In addition - the critique of these experiments is that the error analysis assumes ZERO error due to condition change between calibration and control. (At least for F&P). There are arguments that such change is small - but those arguments are based on a set of assumptions which may (reasonably) not be correct and have not properly been tested.

I can give you the details.

We submit as self-evident that in these matters experimental observation must always have the
last word. And indeed it will. Since nothing involving human reasoning is absolute, it is a
matter of individual opinion as to when "yes" is proven by observation. Proving the answer
to be "no" is a much more difficult subject. An observation that simply fails to answer "yes"
(call it "negative") does not answer "no." It simply gives no answer at all. Failing to catch a
fish from a favorite trout stream on a particular outing says essentially nothing about the total
absence of fish in the stream. All active researchers doing calorimetry have negative results,
and that will probably continue until details are worked out. It is absurd to suggest that
Question 1 be answered by taking a tally of the number of positive and negative results

On the one hand it is not reasonable to dismiss some effect that cannot be fully controlled and therefore has (uncontrollable) negative results. On the other, such variability makes it much more difficult to distinguish between "real" effect and some artifact - because the lack of repeatability makes analysing exactly what is going on by re-running and parametrising the results in different ways problematic. the analysis in this paper shows a real lack of understanding of the interplay between hypotheses and experimental work.

In all of the rest of science theoretical hypotheses are accepted only when they make predictions which can be disproven.

LENR uniquely is supported by a set of anomalous results, unrepeatable and variable, where LENR competes with various "systematic error" "one-off experimental error" etc causes. Because the results vary and are not certain it is difficult to rule those other options out. In one specific case that has not happened (the Shanahan / others debate). Jed has noted that and we need to marshal all the papers (there are 5 i know of but maybe Jed is invoking a 6th from Ed (not sure) compare each argument from one side to see is it addressed by the other side.

I have done this for the 5 papers I know. That includes Ed's analysis. Conveniently someone else has linked them all:

• (1) “A systematic error in mass flow calorimetry demonstrated” (2002), in which he reanalyzes the calorimetry results described this paper by Edmund Storms and suggests that a non-nuclear explanation he calls “Calibration Constant Shift” (CCS, Section 3 below) is compatible with the data.
• (3) Comments on “Thermal behavior of polarized Pd/D electrodes prepared by co-deposition” (2005), a response to (2) this paper by Szpak et al. The Szpak paper had claimed to rule out CCS, but Shanahan argued that they were misunderstanding CCS, and in fact CCS explained the Szpak data beautifully.
• …then Ed Storms replied to these two Shanahan papers (4) here, prompting Shanahan to reply back with (5) Reply to “Comment on papers by K. Shanahan that propose to explain anomalous heat generated by cold fusion”, E. Storms, Thermochim. Acta, 2006 (2006). I can’t find a response back by Storms … and in (5X) one of Storms’s books later on, there’s a discussion of this exchange that does not even acknowledge the existence of Shanahan’s reply, let alone answer it.
• (7) Comments on “A new look at low-energy nuclear reaction research” (2010), a response to (6) this paper. Here Shanahan addresses both calorimetry (Section 3 below) and evidence for nuclear effects (Section 4). Shanahan’s comment was in turn was responded to by pro-cold-fusion folks (8) here. Shanahan was not allowed to re-reply in the journal, but he has a point-by-point rebuttal (9) here. More on this below.

We can identify claim / counter-claim sequences that need to be followed through to determine merit:

1 -> 2 -> 3 -> 4 -> 5 -> (no reply)

6 -> 7 -> 8 -> 9 -> (no reply)

I have myself traced through the later and I think more complete sequence 6->7->8->9 in each case comparing argument with counter-argument and seeing what is left. Maybe it needs to be done again? I am not sure that my sequences are the same as these (they are mostly) anyway i was only aware of 5 papers so there is more work here needed.

Jed cites (4) as a definitive reply but of course to see whether that is so:

(a) you need to check whether (4) addresses all the points from (3) or (1)

and

(b) see whether (5) replying to (4) has any merit.

and

(c) see how (4) related to (6), (7). (8), (9)

Finally to add to this there is another Shanahan argument I was not previously aware of (about F&P "modified CPM" dropping a term they argue is insignificant that could in fact in some cases explain the apparent excess heat) referenced here https://coldfusionblog.net/201…-experiments/#comment-136. Shanahan makes a claim that can I think be directly checked. I want to do this.

It always fascinates me comparing argument and counterargument. We need another thread. We could focus on (4) as cited by Jed and see what merit it has when critically appraised with 1,2,3,5? We will also need to look at 6,7,8,9 as well which may provide more complete coverage of the issue.

Remember - when reading these papers it is determining the claims made by one side that are NOT addressed (or incorrectly addressed) by the other side that is where you can determine the merit of the arguments. Such gaps or errors can be explicitly argued, as I have in the past.

I am now thinking that I have not explicitly addressed (4) but I suspect Jed would have raised in in earlier discussions and that would be just because the (6), (7), (8), (9) sequence was more complete.

Anyway it needs to be done. I am aware that this type of detailed unprejudiced cross-checking is of no interest to others here - so "if you want something done properly - do it yourself". I wish that it was not thus because it helps to have multiple people looking at things.

My memory when I last did this was that some of Shanahan's points were - arguably but reasonably - answered. Some were not. That lack then made the relevant work unsafe in some of the ways Shanahan suggested.

THH

I am sometimes disappointed by the level of critical analysis here. But, you must admit, I seldom whinge about it and instead attempt to do myself what others are to ****ing lazy to do themselves!

Quote from JedRothwell

claim that Mizuno's heat after death result was caused by rats drinking water in his lab. He is not a bit serious.

To be fair, that was never submitted for publication by him, but was a comment here. Perhaps the lack of seriousness had to do with that?