The perpetual “is LENR even real” argument thread.

    Exact replication has no meaning. This would require an exact replication of the Wright Brothers airplane before heavier than air flight would be considered possible. The production of excess energy has been replicated hundreds of times using many different methods and materials, as would be the required behavior of a real phenomenon. Nature never requires a single unique treatment to produce a behavior. The fact that the excess energy and helium can be produced using different materials and treatments adds to the credibility. The production of He and tritium have been replicated less often but by 5 independent studies.


    The problem is no longer replication. I can make the effect work any time I want. The problem is control. Because the active sites are made by an uncontrolled random process, the amount of power is not predictable. Rather than waste time trying to reinvent the wheel, please accept the reality and help to understand how and why it works.


    No one has asked me "What to do next?". I can suggest what needs to be done next, but that is a subject for a different discussion.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    No doubt? Do you have ambient temperature data showing the effects of the AC unit? If you do not, then there is doubt, and you are merely speculating.


    Quote from Ascoli65

    Yes, no doubt.


    Please, read again my sentence above. I was referring to the explanation, and there is no doubt that the effect of an AC unit is a simpler explanation than an unknown nuclear phenomenon.

    I was about to make ascoli's point but i see he has made it.


    Jed - you have not on this forum shown muhc tolerance of, or sophistication in, dealing with uncertainty.


    In this case ascoli is not saying there is no doubt the cause of the results is AC. How could anyone with these experiments looking for errors afterwards have any certainty.


    Ascoli is saying that the AC mechanism is possible and there is no doubt that it is a simpler explanation.


    If you doubt it is simpler - well - I can't understand that!


    You may of course argue that it is not a possible mechanism. I'd guess for that you would need a quantitative argument because ascoli's explanation below sounds plausible.


    Quote from Ascoli65

    As for the ambient temperature, I know that it was kept constant within a small range, but it was done by means of an AC unit inside the cabin containing the cell. However the down-spikes in the TC4 curve are not due to the small ambient temperature cycling, rather to the strong increase of the convective coefficient of heat exchange between the H/D gas pipe and the ambient temperature caused by the periodic activation of the AC unit fan, as I explained in the post linked to my previous comment.


    TC4 measures the temperature of a flange directly connected to the H/D gas pipe, it usually stays at above 250 °C, so when the AC fan blows its temperature starts to quickly drop. This is very old and basic thermodynamics, and provides a perfect explanation of the TC4 behavior, so it should have been preferred over any other new and bizarre explanation.


    Quote from JedRothwell

    It would not be a good idea to do only exact engineering replications. You want to try different instruments to see if the same results are found. If people only used the exact same instrument, they might all be making systematic errors. Whereas there can be no systematic error common to isoperibolic, flow and Seebeck calorimeters. The systems are different.

    Right. But exact engineering replications are helpful when results are uncertain because they can be checked and instrumented better to eliminate possibilities of error. As ascoli points out, the LENR community sees the value in this.


    Whereas to get uncertain results (of marginal excess heat) from many different systems they cannot be combined because of implicit file drawer effect - the experiments, methodologies, groups, etc with null or negative results get rejected. The point is that LENR is known to be variable. So any negative result can be excused. If we had certain results from even one system it could be replicated - and in that case two different systems, both replicated would indeed be more convincing because of reducing the likelihood of systematic errors. But care is needed, if you reckon the systems replicated will be those with methodology/instrumentation/calorimetry with some positive error, and lots of things are tried, it would be surprising if we did not get many positive errors. After all - 50% or all errors will be positive!

    Quote from Storms

    The problem is no longer replication. I can make the effect work any time I want. The problem is control. Because the active sites are made by an uncontrolled random process, the amount of power is not predictable. Rather than waste time trying to reinvent the wheel, please accept the reality and help to understand how and why it works.

    So take the median power, and alter experimental instrumentation and calorimetry so that median power is clear, and could not come from condition changes between calibration and control. You then have a lab rat experiment that anyone can replicate which proves LENR. It is needed.


    Calorimetry error estimation requires bounding the effect of possible condition changes as well as errors. if you cannot do that, you do not know that your results are LENR. If you can do that with a bound 4 or 5 sigmas below results - the world will take notice.


    Note however that if excess power is a small fraction of power in you need a tighter bound on possible errors due to temperature variations inside the reactor between calibration and control. So you can't just take the calorimetry error - you need to consider the error multiplied by input power / excess power for the part of the error that bounds condition changes between calibration and control.


    I do not think this has always been done in reported results. So it is fair to check it.

    Thank you, Dr. Storms, for your reply. I appreciate your attention, even if I didn't find any answer to my specific questions. You are more focused on future developments, that's understandable. Anyway your preprint contains 64 references, most of them refers to old experiments which provide the basis for future researches, so I think, it's also useful to reexamine this old achievements in order to avoid the same mistakes, if any.

    Quote from Storms

    The problem is no longer replication. I can make the effect work any time I want. The problem is control. Because the active sites are made by an uncontrolled random process, the amount of power is not predictable.

    The F&P experiment, cited as [36] in your preprint, featured 4 cells, which behaved exactly in the same way: one after the other, the water contents in each cell boiled off, as temperature approached and reached the boiling point. This doesn't seem to be due to an uncontrolled random process. At paragraph 9 of your preprint, you attributed a certain importance to the effect of the temperature increase. So, what do you think about that specific F&P experiment? What is, in your opinion, the real cause of such impressive common behavior of the 4 cells?

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    Jed - you have not on this forum shown muhc tolerance of, or sophistication in, dealing with uncertainty.


    In this case ascoli is not saying there is no doubt the cause of the results is AC.

    He did say "no doubt." Those are his words:


    "In fact, there is no doubt that the variable cooling effect due to the on-off operation of an AC unit provides a much simpler . . ."


    "The" variable cooling effect means he is sure the effect is real, and "there is no doubt" means he is sure that effect is what explains the outcome. He does not have access to data from the thermostatic cooling system. He does not know whether it corresponds with anything. He does not even know if the cooling makes a measurable difference, or whether it was recorded. He would have to look at temperature data when no experiment is underway.


    You, in this forum, have not shown much sophistication in reading what what people write, or reading the literature. Ascoli made himself quite clear. He is sure he knows the cooling system is the cause of this data. You ignore him. Miles said that all experimental data is in his reports. You claimed that he threw away data instead. You read nothing, you know nothing, and you make stuff up. This is disruptive. It violates the rules of academic discourse. I think you should either do your homework, or shut up.


    Ascoli or THH could express these thoughts in the proper form, without violating academic discourse norms, and without insulting the audience here. Instead of saying, "there is no doubt . . ." Ascoli might write something like:


    "Takahashi ascribes the periodic fluctuations in the temperature in cell to [fill in Takahashi hypothesis]. I think these fluctuations may be caused by the thermostatic heating and cooling of the laboratory air. I say this because the periods are about equal, and the fluctuations are seen at every stage of the experiment [assuming that is true]. If data from the heating and cooling is available, it might show a correlation with the fluctuations in the cell temperature. Without such data, it would be difficult to test my hypothesis."


    You explain what the author said, and you propose an alternative hypothesis. You give reasons supporting your idea, and suggest ways to either confirm or disprove it. You don't just declare that you are right, Takahashi is wrong, and you don't have to give any reasons.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    He did say "no doubt." Those are his words:


    "In fact, there is no doubt that the variable cooling effect due to the on-off operation of an AC unit provides a much simpler . . ."

    Yes, those are my words, but only part of them, you omitted to quote the second term of the comparison. I actually wrote (1): "In fact, there is no doubt that the variable cooling effect due to the on-off operation of an AC unit provides a much simpler, older, and already theoretically explained interpretation of the oscillatory down-spikes in the TC4 signal, rather than any other hypothetical, exotic, and unexplained new nuclear phenomenon."


    Do you think, instead, that a hypothetical, exotic, and unexplained new nuclear phenomenon is simpler than the periodically increased convective cooling due to the on-off operation of an AC unit placed just above the experimental rig?


    It should be obvious to everyone that AC provides a much simpler possible explanation than a controversial nuclear effect.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    Ascoli might write something like:


    "Takahashi ascribes the periodic fluctuations in the temperature in cell to [fill in Takahashi hypothesis]. I think these fluctuations may be caused by the thermostatic heating and cooling of the laboratory air. I say this because the periods are about equal, and the fluctuations are seen at every stage of the experiment [assuming that is true]. If data from the heating and cooling is available, it might show a correlation with the fluctuations in the cell temperature. Without such data, it would be difficult to test my hypothesis."

    Nice wording, wrong conclusion.


    As a much simpler possible cause of the down-spikes, the intermittent operation of the AC unit should have been considered as the first option by Takahashi et al. It should have been their duty to investigate first this possibility, and be sure that it was not the real cause of the TC4 strange behavior. Of course, the experimental data used to exclude such hypothesis should have been included in the report, but this was not done. This is their fault. So, the AC unit hypothesis, the simpler one, remains the more logical and legitimate to be considered as the real cause of the TC4 down-spikes.


    But let's give a look to the Takahashi explanation. In (2) he wrote:

    … The oscillatory TC4 fluctuation looks chaotic as you see in Fig.7.

    This is regarded as an indication of strong local AHE, which makes H-gas turbulence by generation of chaotic up- and down-stream-paths of convection gas flow in RC.

    …

    and he concluded:

    As new findings, the H(D)-gas turbulence effect in reaction chamber (RC) under strong AHE power becomes strong in our C-calorimetry system, when we have met strong local AHE power evolution in RC. This gas turbulence effect cooled the RC upper flange and generated chaotic temperature evolution of TC4 upper flange temperature …

    So, Takahashi also hypothesizes a periodic increase of the convective cooling on the RC upper flange, but due to a supposed periodically enhanced turbulence induced by a mystery AHE power evolution.


    But this explanation is evidently wrong.


    In order to induce a down-spike the convective gas should be colder than the flange, as is the case of the air blown by the AC unit. But the H (or D) gas inside the RC is much hotter than the flange! You can see this, for example, on the slide 12 of the Takahashi presentation at JCF20 (3). The lower left diagram shows that TC4 is normally at 270 °C and it spikes down twice to about 175 °C. The upper left diagram shows instead that the temperature inside the RC ranges from 320 to 520 °C. So the internal cooling invoked by Takahashi cannot be the cause of the down-spikes recorded by TC4!


    This would be against any old law of physics. Just a nonsense.


    (1) RE: The perpetual “is LENR even real” argument thread.

    (2) https://www.researchgate.net/p…-Metal_and_HD-Gas_revised

    (3) https://www.researchgate.net/p…_of_Nano-Metal_and_HD-Gas

    Quote from Ascoli65

    I actually wrote (1): "In fact, there is no doubt that the variable cooling effect due to the on-off operation of an AC unit provides a much simpler, older, and already theoretically explained interpretation of the oscillatory down-spikes in the TC4 signal, rather than any other hypothetical, exotic, and unexplained new nuclear phenomenon."

    Okay, so you wrote "the variable cooling effect." In English, the use of definite article "the" in this context indicates the thing actually exists. It is known to the reader. You are sure there is a variable cooling effect from the AC unit. Where is the data from the AC unit? How do you know this effect exists, and it is large enough to detect? If you had said, "a cooling effect . . . would provide a much simpler . . ." or "might provide . . ." that would be putting it in proper academic form. If you had added, "We have no data from the AC, but the data from the calorimeter suggests . . . [this hypothesis]," that would be okay.


    It is a hypothesis, not a fact. It may be plausible, but it is not proven. You seem to have difficultly distinguishing plausible from proven. Just because you imagine X, or you think X may well explain something, that does make it true. You have to actually show experimental data proving it is true. In this case, there is probably no such data. Probably, no one recorded the power consumption of the AC unit. You should say that. You should state that your hypothesis cannot be confirmed or falsified.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    Ascoli or THH could express these thoughts in the proper form, without violating academic discourse norms, and without insulting the audience here. Instead of saying, "there is no doubt . . ." Ascoli might write something like:


    "Takahashi ascribes the periodic fluctuations in the temperature in cell to [fill in Takahashi hypothesis]. I think these fluctuations may be caused by the thermostatic heating and cooling of the laboratory air. I say this because the periods are about equal, and the fluctuations are seen at every stage of the experiment [assuming that is true]. If data from the heating and cooling is available, it might show a correlation with the fluctuations in the cell temperature. Without such data, it would be difficult to test my hypothesis."

    Ascoli has replied.


    But all discourse properly indicates likelihood. It is juts that for others here it is an article of faith that when dealing with LENR no hypothesis is any more likely than any other one.


    For example: I am sitting in the kitchen - the lights go off, then 4s later they go on. Someone else says: oh look - more evidence for Poltergeists. I could use your carefully wording which does not admit the possibility of some theories being more likely than others. Or, I could say "In fact, I know that outages of this length can be caused by circuit breakers - there is no doubt that this is a more likely explanation than poltergeists."


    You are arguing it violates academic discourse norms to acknowledge that circuit breakers are a much more likely explanation of light outages than poltergeists.


    That takes being even-handed too far.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    Okay, so you wrote "the variable cooling effect." In English, the use of definite article "the" in this context indicates the thing actually exists. It is known to the reader. You are sure there is a variable cooling effect from the AC unit. Where is the data from the AC unit?

    It is common knowledge that AC units switch on and off, and therefore can have variable cooling effect.


    The thing is, when you have evidence explained by a variable heating effect, and something that can plausibly provide that - it is a good explanation. Even without precise proof. Of course maybe something else did it - say a Poltergeist, or somone coming into the room with a large amount of snow which then melts. Or a nuclear reaction. But we do not jump to these inherently less plausible explanations.


    This is a specific example of wanting possible non-nuclear explanations for anomalous results to be proven - and dismissing them as less likely than a nuclear explanation when they cannot be proven. The point being that unproven but plausible non-nuclear explanations are more likely than nuclear mechanisms.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    It is a hypothesis, not a fact. It may be plausible, but it is not proven. You seem to have difficultly distinguishing plausible from proven. Just because you imagine X, or you think X may well explain something, that does make it true. You have to actually show experimental data proving it is true. In this case, there is probably no such data. Probably, no one recorded the power consumption of the AC unit. You should say that. You should state that your hypothesis cannot be confirmed or falsified.

    99% of LENR experimental data has this form:

    (1) do an experiment

    (2) detect some result which could indicate excess heat, or trace qtys of some possible stable nuclear product not in the reactants. (Umm - that is trace quantities of ANYTHING). Or marginal evidence that could indicate a higher than background rate of higher energy particles.


    In this situation the LENR positive tells have potential mundane solutions - calorimetry errors caused by high input power relative to output and changes in cell temperature gradient - effect of radon dust, or slightly more radioactive than normal material leakage of high atmospheric He into the apparatus.


    No-one outside the LENR world thinks this type of evidence is positive for LENR unless all mundane solutions can be certainly ruled out.


    The LENR community thinks this type of evidence is not certain, but positive for LENR unless a mundane solution has been proven (which of course is usually impossible). Then, the LENR community views many different such positive indications as being cumulatively certain.


    File drawer effect here works well to explain why many of these not certain positives can exist. Why? Because LENR is known to be a variable effect. In any one experiment, the LENR hypothesis goes, the level of activity is a priori unknown. It may be measurable, or not. That excuses rerunning experiments, changing conditions etc, until a positive result is found. It excuses a positive result not being replicable.


    Now, maybe LENR exists, and indeed if it exists it pretty well has to have those qualities. But, in that case, it is not proper to conclude from a large number of positive indications, that "no smoke without fire" LENR therefore exists. Especially when the most common (reference many recent posts here) indication, excess heat, will happen naturally from half of all possible small unanticipated errors. So random errors of some not anticipated form are bound to be interpreted as LENR.


    It is worse than that. An LENR researcher who obtains a negative enthalpy balance will recheck everything and find the error. The same, with a positive enthalpy balance, will not check and recheck - because they will think what they have is indeed the expected LENR result. There is zero motivation for anyone in the LENR field to take their fairly obtained positive results and look for unexpected systematic errors that might explain them.


    Which is why I have little patience with the "work or not" class of LENR results. How things scale, how different qtys relate to each other (as with possible correlation between He and excess heat), whether semi-plausible half theories make predictions which are testable, all of that is much better evidence. Unfortunately the evidence total remains - as the flakiness of the He evidence when you look carefully at it shows - uncertain. (I will happily look at He evidence on a separate thread if we can get hold of the source write-ups from which the re-analyses and meta-analyses are derived).


    Let me point out as always that if the people posting here claiming they have replicable LENR are correct - certain evidence is just a short while away - soon to happen. I will be as happy as anyone (happier than most - since I guess most think that has already happened) if it happens.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    It is a hypothesis, not a fact. It may be plausible, but it is not proven. You seem to have difficultly distinguishing plausible from proven.

    THH has already properly answered to you: a plausible cause is a more than sufficient explanation, when compared to a weird nuclear hypothesis.


    Moreover, in the case of the Takahashi experiment, we can also add that his hypothesis is not only weird, but also blatantly wrong: a temperature down-spike can't be caused by the enhanced turbulence of an hotter gas.


    So, the effect of the AC unit is the only cause to be considered as true in this specific case. And not only in this case.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    It is common knowledge that AC units switch on and off, and therefore can have variable cooling effect.

    I asked Akito Takahashi about this 'face to face'. He told me that the lab temperature was stable to less than 1 degree - I think he mentioned 0.1 degree and it was continually logged. If anybody thinks that this work was done without anybody checking fluctuations in the ambient temperature they need their thermostat changing.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    You are arguing it violates academic discourse norms to acknowledge that circuit breakers are a much more likely explanation of light outages than poltergeists.


    That takes being even-handed too far.

    No, I am arguing that when hundreds of world-class experts in electrochemistry, calorimetry, tritium, nuclear physics and all other relevant scientific fields do thousands of experiments, and when they get consistent, high-sigma results, those results are real. By definition. There is no other standard of truth. You and Ascoli are saying, no, the results are not real. He makes up impossible reasons that the researchers ruled out long ago. You do not make up any reasons; you just tell us "there must be a reason, obvious or not obvious." Or you make stuff up. For example, you claim that there are calorimeters better than F&P's that measured no heat, but you will not tell us where or when these imaginary calorimeters were used. Ascoli, at least, would come up with some specific calorimeter somewhere -- but you don't even bother.


    Or you tell us there must some obvious or not obvious reason the tritium appeared at Los Alamos. You don't give any candidate reason. The experiments rule out any source of contamination or concentration, but you don't address that fact. Ascoli would read the papers and come up with some preposterous nonsense explanation for how the tritium got there. He would be wrong, but you are less than wrong. You don't even try to make your case.

    Quote from Alan Smith

    I asked Akito Takahashi about this 'face to face'. He told me that the lab temperature was stable to less than 1 degree - I think he mentioned 0.1 degree and it was continually logged. If anybody thinks that this work was done without anybody checking fluctuations in the ambient temperature they need their thermostat changing.

    Alan, nobody is saying that the ambient temperature was not maintained in a tiny range, not me for sure.


    The TC4 down-spikes are the direct consequence of this strict temperature control, because they are caused by the continuous on-off operation of the AC unit required to keep constant the ambient temperature.

    Quote from Ascoli65

    THH has already properly answered to you: a plausible cause is a more than sufficient explanation, when compared to a weird nuclear hypothesis.

    There are no other plausible causes.


    That is a weird nuclear effect. It is not a hypothesis. It is an observation. When you see 10,000 times more energy than any chemical reaction, no chemical fuel, helium in the same ratio as plasma fusion, and tritium, you are seeing nuclear fusion. By definition that is what you are seeing. No other phenomenon produces those results. The only way it might not be nuclear fusion would be if the measurements were all wrong, in every laboratory. If there was never any excess heat, and all of the helium and tritium measurements were wrong. That is THH's hypothesis. He is saying that every single professional scientist and tritium expert is an idiot who cannot do his job.


    It has to be every one of those experts, because if even one of them is right, then cold fusion is real.


    As a practical matter, we can be sure that most researchers are right. If hundreds of scientists could be wrong for 30 years, science would not exist. We would still be living in caves. Saying they are all wrong is like saying that no bank on earth can keep track of money, and no programmer ever wrote a line of code that worked, and no sailor ever set out from London and managed to find his way to New York. Most people do their jobs right, most of the time. It is not possible the Reactor Safety Group at BARC and the all of the other experts at other labs are incapable of detecting tritium at the levels found in cold fusion experiments.

    Quote from Ascoli65

    The TC4 down-spikes are the direct consequence of this strict temperature control, because they are caused by the continuous on-off operation of the AC unit required to keep constant the ambient temperature.

    You say "they are caused" as if you know that for a fact. Okay, it is plausible, but until you show us data from the AC unit, and show that it correlates with the TC4 spikes, you have no proof.


    Do you not understand this?


    Or do you have proof? Did Takahashi send you time-stamped AC unit power consumption data?

    Quote from JedRothwell

    You say "they are caused" as if you know that for a fact. Okay, it is plausible, but until you show us data from the AC unit, and show that it correlates with the TC4 spikes, you have no proof.


    Do you not understand this?


    Or do you have proof? Did Takahashi send you time-stamped AC unit power consumption data?

    Jed, you are reversing the duty of the proof.


    If the AC unit operation is a plausible cause, then the burden to demonstrate that it actually is not the cause of the TC4 down-spikes is on the authors' shoulders. If they have not provided any documentation to disprove such a plausible cause, it follows that this same plausible cause is the only one that can be reasonably and legitimately considered as true. Not the other way around.


    Science works in this way.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.