The perpetual “is LENR even real” argument thread.

Quote from JedRothwell

Recently, you claimed that all major experiments are close to the noise. Not true.

Exactly. I never said that. You are doing what i say you always do with my statements. You do not interpret context. First - I never said "close to noise". (or doubt that). A lot of LENR papers have noise/resolution checks and do sigma from that. But it is typically not noise but the extent to which change in conditions between calibration and active runs alters results, or unconsidered effects that could be relevant, that matter. These are the things that do not get put in the noise error bounds - and they are either considered negligible so ignored, or not considered at all. I am not alone in seeing this. One of the ICCF24 participants talked about "uncertainty". A small result in a complex experiment that relies on calibration and a lot of assumptions - even though way beyond the calculated errors - can be uncertain because those assumptions are difficult to prove and the complexity means that some issue not considered or detected by any reviewer (these things happen) might affect results.

Take Staker's paper. Those two effects recombination & evaporation, need to be explicitly considered and proved insignificant. They probably are - but it can't be proven from anything in the paper, nor is there a clear argument for it. I will wait for you not to understand the nuances here (which you would if you read all my posts here) then I will comment further.

THH

Quote from Curbina

Let me say that I wouldn’t go as far as that, as I understand and see it, THH is being stubborn, not deliberate. This is close to a matter of faith, the “mainstream settled science” has no room for this to be real, much less for it to ever have chance to be real. The demand for evidence standard is never satisfied, no matter what. As RobertBryant already pointed out, this is a human psyche problem, not a scientific problem.

Of course, THH can say the same about us. We here are all stubborn, that’s for sure 😎

That is of course one motivation for somone to be very disbelieving of positive LENR results.

There is another reason (which I will of course claims applies to me) which I stated earlier in this thread. It has to do with the problems of a theory which is supported by diverse evidence of anomalies and cannot be disproven. Popper would turn in his grave. Personally, I don't entirely go for Popper. But I do require theories that don't allow disproof to be much, much more clearly supported by evidence than ones that do. And theories that are supported by a wide range of results need more support than ones supported by very specific results (sort of the same thing).

I don't expect anyone on this thread to agree with me. But it is a sound way to reason - supported even by a proper formal framework (Bayesian model testing). Although quantifying this stuff is effectively impossible it justifies the different levels of proof required.

Quote from Curbina

Elemental transmutation, wether you believe it or not, It's a widespread phenomena, people has proven it in a very simple experiment called ULTR, with an ultrasonic water bath and kitchen aluminum foil, in which you can observe new elements appear in the aluminum foil, granted in small amounts, but these elements are found in specific regions of the damage that the ultrasound causes in the aluminum foil, not anywhere else, damage which has a very characteristic "ying yang" topological pattern. The SEM and EDS analysis of these damaged areas have been published in video if you take the time to watch it.

(1) I know very little about these various techniques. So I cannot comment in an informed way.

(2) If the results are certain as you claim, then we have here several replicable, certain experiments showing LENR. You could take the best/easiest and have it replicated and written up properly. Then get mainstream scientists who are expect in the relevant techniques and why such measurements go wrong to agree this is iron-clad evidence.

(3) If they don't (I suspect they don't simply because if they did these experiments would be big news) they will have reasons.

I think I know so little about curbina's claims I will let chatGPT answer for me

There have been studies and experiments exploring the potential for transmutation using ultrasound, specifically in aqueous solutions. These experiments involve the use of high-intensity ultrasound waves to generate cavitation bubbles, which can produce extreme conditions of temperature and pressure within the liquid.

Under such conditions, it has been observed that certain chemical reactions can occur, including the formation of new compounds and the transformation of elements. Some studies have reported observations of apparent transmutation, where the elemental composition of the solution appeared to change.

However, it is important to note that the mechanisms and processes underlying these observations are still a subject of scientific investigation and debate. The exact nature of the observed changes and the extent to which true elemental transmutation occurs are not yet fully understood.

Further research is needed to validate and replicate these findings, as well as to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the underlying mechanisms. It's also worth noting that any claims of elemental transmutation through ultrasound require rigorous scientific scrutiny and confirmation before being widely accepted within the scientific community.

Since I don't have a clue, more chatGPT:

Energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDS) is a technique used for elemental analysis in materials. While EDS provides valuable information about the elemental composition of a sample, the interpretation of the results is not always unique.

EDS works by bombarding a sample with a focused electron beam, which causes the emission of characteristic X-rays from the elements present in the sample. These X-rays are then detected and analyzed to determine the elemental composition.

However, there are certain limitations and challenges associated with EDS analysis that can affect the interpretation of the results. Some of these include:

1. Overlapping Peaks: In complex samples, the X-ray peaks from different elements may overlap, making it difficult to accurately determine the individual elemental contributions.
2. Detection Limits: EDS has certain detection limits for each element, meaning that trace elements or elements present in low concentrations may not be reliably detected or quantified.
3. Surface Sensitivity: EDS is a surface-sensitive technique, which means it primarily provides information about the surface composition of the sample. It may not accurately represent the bulk composition, especially in heterogeneous or layered materials.
4. Matrix Effects: The composition and structure of the sample can affect the generation and detection of X-rays, leading to variations in the measured intensities. Correcting for these matrix effects can be challenging.

To overcome these challenges and improve the accuracy of EDS analysis, it is common to combine EDS with other analytical techniques, such as scanning electron microscopy (SEM) or wavelength-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (WDS), which provide complementary information.

Overall, while EDS elemental analysis is a valuable tool for qualitative and semi-quantitative assessment of elemental composition, the interpretation of results requires careful consideration of the sample characteristics, potential limitations, and the use of appropriate calibration and correction methods.

-------------

Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) coupled with energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDS) is a powerful technique used for elemental analysis of materials. Like EDS alone, the interpretation of SEM-EDS results is not always unique and requires careful consideration.

SEM-EDS analysis works by scanning a focused electron beam across the sample surface, which generates characteristic X-rays from the elements present. The emitted X-rays are then detected and analyzed to determine the elemental composition.

The interpretation of SEM-EDS results can face similar challenges as EDS alone, including overlapping peaks, detection limits, surface sensitivity, and matrix effects. These factors can impact the accuracy and precision of the analysis.

However, SEM-EDS offers additional advantages over EDS alone. The SEM imaging capability provides detailed surface morphology and microstructural information, allowing for the correlation of elemental analysis with the sample's physical features. This can aid in identifying specific regions of interest for elemental analysis and understanding the spatial distribution of elements.

Furthermore, the combination of SEM and EDS allows for simultaneous imaging and elemental analysis at high spatial resolution. This can be particularly useful in materials characterization, such as studying the composition of particles, analyzing the elemental distribution within a material, or investigating interfaces and interfaces.

Despite these advantages, it's important to note that the interpretation of SEM-EDS results still requires careful consideration and should be complemented by other analytical techniques when necessary. The complexity of the sample, potential artifacts, and limitations of the technique should be taken into account to ensure accurate and reliable interpretation of the elemental analysis results.

So - since I don't know what are these potential artifacts etc, nor I bet do 99% of this site, it is difficult to see any such results as certain. I think what would be convincing is expert non-LENR comment on the spectra (not however partial comment - as always the answer you get will depend on the context and the question you ask).

Having got that info - we could check for all of these experiments how carefully they check possible sources of the (certainly detected) elements.

If the papers using these results gave a full analysis of possible artifacts that would be helpful?

And, just so y'all know how extraordinarily unbiassed I am:

Cavitation can create very extreme local conditions - so it is not impossible nuclear transmutations would happen in that case. As with "normal" LENR the lack of high energy products reliably detected is a big negative. If an experiment reliably detects high energy products (case above of very unreliable and inconsistent detection above does not alas count) then maybe it is nuclear reactions. Such can be investigated quantitatively. If cavitation can cause nuclear reactions it is pretty certain that altering conditions etc can vary the level at which said reactions happen to make them clearer. if that is not the case - then what is being seen is probably not cavitation-induced nuclear reactions.

Quote from Alan Smith

Well, this would be an easy experiment you could do. You need an ultrasonic water bath, a roll of kitchen foil and know somebody with an SEM. Thats all.

I could not do it - I have no idea about SEM. Nor do I know much about keeping stuff clean. Though I guess I might know people who know that. But there must be LENR people who could replicate it and do the SEM/EDS stuff properly. My guess is:

• The SEM/EDS qtys so small inconclusive
• The spatial correspondence could be an artifact or not significant

If we have a paper in a non-LENR journal on this we could do a forward citation search to see if anyone has replicated outside of LENR field, or an SEM/EDS expert commented?

or we could look at a wikipedia page for arguments on both sides? (Sometimes works)

Quote from Curbina

You can do the replication as it pleases you, and then send the samples for independent analysis to a laboratory. Bob Greenyer either

- delivers the samples to be analyzed to magicsound, who then performs the analysis in the SEM with EDS capabilities in his laboratory, or

- pays for the SEM time along with the specialist assistance in the local University where he lives in Czechia. He has shared videos of the entire SEM sessions for some of the samples that have been analyzed this way.

It would help if there was a proper write-up. But looking at the MFMP page - I cannot see any anomaly here worth investigating?

There are some differences here between the LENR community (online, that I observe) and most other scientists. The former tend to see as potential anomalies what others would see as interesting behaviour - no anomaly. And they tend to weight the likelihood of such potential anomalies as being caused by unexpected (to everyone except the LENR community) nuclear reactions muhc higher than anyone else would.

I think in any case this is all a distraction. The Miles & Patterson work is much more substantive, and interesting. a candidate for replication if others believe the certainty of the SEM-EDS results and the calculations about total mass. I looked at the paper quickly and realised it would take me a long time to understand fully the calculations about total mass - and as above I have no expertise in what are the uncertainties of SEM-EDS - nor is this something I can quickly learn. So i cannot contribute anything. But - if the experiment is good - it can be replicated and published again.

What is needed, is felicitously what is proposed here. Note the caveats, and steps suggested to make results more certain.

Metzler, Florian and Hunt, Camden and Messinger, Jonah and Galvanetto, Nicola, Probing Neutrons and Purported Fission Daughter Products from Gas-Loaded, Laser-Irradiated Metal-Hydrogen Targets (April 5, 2023). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4411160 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4411160