The perpetual “is LENR even real” argument thread.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    You wave your hands and talk about imaginary foam, but in real life there is no foam. Recombination at the cathode is also impossible, as you would see if you try to induce it yourself. If it did happen, it would be obvious, using the methods that Staker and all other electrochemists employ. Since we know these imaginary problems do not happen, and cannot happen, you are wrong.

    The F&P video showed what looked like foam. I don't mind at all whether you call it microbubbles or foam. Either way, it can alter calorimetry if the calorimetry depends on the liquid level. Does the part at the top which is foam (call it bubbles if you like - but on that F&P video it looked like foam) behave like liquid or air?


    Please do not invoke the "all other electrochemists" thing. Find three good non-LENR electrochemists to arbitrate (as in a mainstream peer review). Or, better, check carefully all possible artifacts. Which by the way is what all non-LENR scientists do when confronted with unexpected results.


    When results are unexpected, as here, all of the experimental details need to be clear, if anyone other than LENR believers is going to think the result is certain.


    Remember: what LENR needs is certain and replicable experiments. Since Staker's result is replicable (he says) it would be great if it were also certain.


    That comes from being careful about effects that can change calorimetry: especially in this setup which has quite variable calibration constants according to meniscus level.


    THH

    Quote from Alan Smith

    The only way you can get persisting foam in an electrolytic system is of there are film-forming surfctants present. The usual way this comes about is if (for example) you use an alkaline electrolyte and there is grease from fingerprints etc on the tank or the electrodes. The combination of fats and alkalis makes soap. If everything is clean, you see no foam. As for exothermic re-combination, it is as I have said before not seen. However, the endothermic production of hydrogen peroxide at the cathode is possible and has been shown to be real..

    I remember this, and defer to your expertise. Do you think that F&P video was foam, or microbubbles? You would think they would take care to keep things clean: but it certainly made working out the liquid level dificult.


    But in this case we do not know what happened in Staker's experiment?

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    Jed: on this thread: 200 years old physics means that the evaporation rate can be calculated from the temperature.


    In that case we have something not understood about this experiment. The temperature difference between the active and control cells is around 2C - 65C to 67C.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    Interpolate: difference between 65C and 67C is 2.4kPa. Or 2.4% of 1 atmosphere.


    You can then work out the number of moles of H20/D2O difference in evaporation between the two cases. I

    This is discussed by F&P, Staker, various others, and in textbooks on calorimetry. Evaporation is governed by temperature and vapor pressure. However in a test tube or cold fusion cell some other factors come into play. Mainly condensation in the head space and the bottom of the tube. Depending on how these things are shaped, and on the water bath, some of the vapor condenses and falls back into the cell, and some of the heat is trapped in the cell. Some heat radiates out of the top of the cell and the first part of the tube. It is complicated. I think unless you are Martin Fleischmann the only way to determine it is by calibrating. (Martin would predict it by first principles and then measure it by calibration.)


    But however complicated, it is still governed by -- and proportional to -- temperature and vapor pressure. Staker measured it and determined that the effects are insignificant below 80 deg C. That's what he told me on Monday.


    If the cell is designed to condense all of the vapor and capture all of the heat, it is a reflux cell, such as the one described here:


    https://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RouletteTresultsofi.pdf


    What I am saying would be impossible is to have recombination add to the water, and evaporation remove exactly the same amount of water to compensate for that at all temperatures in all electrochemical conditions. That would be a "just so" story.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    Do you think that F&P video was foam, or microbubbles?

    Those were bubbles from boiling, not electrolysis. You can easily tell them apart. Electrolysis bubbles of hydrogen and oxygen are very small. They resemble the bubbles of CO2 in a carbonated drink. They disappear the moment they reach the surface. Bubbles of vaporized water are much larger and they sometimes last for moment at the surface of the water. You can see that by boiling water in glass container. You will also see that it is easy to determine the water level even with the vapor bubbles.


    Bubbles and foam caused by surfactants last longer and -- I suppose -- they might make it difficult to see the water level. You never see them in a cold fusion experiment because they are rigorously excluded. Also because if there were surfactants, there would be no cold fusion. They are mutually exclusive.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    ou would think they would take care to keep things clean: but it certainly made working out the liquid level dificult.

    You can be sure they kept things clean. All electrochemists do. I have been in the lab and watched. It takes a couple of days to clean the electrolyte and electrodes, and be sure they are clean. If they have not cleaned the water and eliminated surfactants, the cell would not have produced cold fusion. Surfactants and other contamination poison the reaction. They also have to be sure heavy water has very little light water in it.


    You apparently simply assumed they did not keep things clean. This is the height of presumptuous ignorance on your part. It shows that you have no idea how electrochemists work or how these experiments are performed. Many papers describe the elaborate steps needed to keep the cell contents free of surfactants and other contamination. Not all papers, because this is common knowledge. Of course it is discussed in a textbook. Since you have not bothered to read the literature or a textbook, you did not know this. Since you are a presumptuous know-it-all, you assume you know better than Martin Fleischmann, FRS, about how to do high-school level electrochemistry.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    It takes a couple of days to clean the electrolyte and electrodes, and be sure they are clean.

    With ordinary water, this is done with a Milli-Q purifier:


    https://www.sigmaaldrich.com/US/en/technical-documents/technical-article/analytical-chemistry/wet-chemical-analysis/milli-q-iq7003-7005


    The specifications show there is less than 5 ppb contamination. THH apparently does not know that. Or he imagines these gadgets leave so many surfactants in the water you can see foam from them.


    Heavy water has to be purified by the supplier. It has to be tested for purity, and also to be sure it has very little light water. I do not think you can run it through a Milli-Q gadget. Mizuno had a large, elaborate, multi-stage heavy water purifying system he designed himself, for his pre-cold fusion research. It was mounted on a 6' x 3' plywood on the wall in the Nuclear Engineering Lab.


    The cell itself and the electrodes are washed in Milli-Q water, and subjected to ultrasonic cleaning in Milli-Q water for hours, or days.


    As I said, this is common knowledge. Anyone reading the cold fusion literature or the literature on electrochemistry would know it. Since THH knows nothing he just assumed the F&P and the others went ahead with contamination in the electrolyte which caused visible foam. Ascoli apparently also believes that.

    Came across this electrolysis paper that I had not read before, and called my attention mostly because it claims that the so much sought after Heat After death was observed for the notable duration of 4 days.


    https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Graham-Hubler/publication/364331220_Long_Term_Anomalous_Heat_from_9_nm_Pd_Nanoparticles_in_an_Electrochemical_Cell/links/63499ea82752e45ef6b7c830/Long-Term-Anomalous-Heat-from-9-nm-Pd-Nanoparticles-in-an-Electrochemical-Cell.pdf


    I certainly Hope to see LENR helping humans to blossom, and I'm here to help it happen.

    Like 1

    One good thing of this paper is that they specifically checked for recombination and found none. They are still cautious to call it AHE, which is not necessarily bad and THHuxleynew might like it.

    I certainly Hope to see LENR helping humans to blossom, and I'm here to help it happen.

    About this paper from Hubler et al, I asked the author at ResearchGate if they had performed any analysis of the deposits in the electrode that gave the anomalous heat, as I am sure the results had been interesting if this had been done.


    His answer was that they had not performed any analysis because they had run outof funds soon after these experiments were performed. This is the kind of stuff that makes any LENR reearcher's blood boil when confronted with the pilfering budget and delays of the ITER project. If we only had half of the initial 5 billion euros committed to ITER in 2006, where could LENR be now?

    I certainly Hope to see LENR helping humans to blossom, and I'm here to help it happen.

    Like 2 Thanks 3
    Quote from Curbina

    About this paper from Hubler et al, I asked the author at ResearchGate if they had performed any analysis of the deposits in the electrode that gave the anomalous heat, as I am sure the results had been interesting if this had been done.


    His answer was that they had not performed any analysis because they had run outof funds soon after these experiments were performed. This is the kind of stuff that makes any LENR reearcher's blood boil when confronted with the pilfering budget and delays of the ITER project. If we only had half of the initial 5 billion euros committed to ITER in 2006, where could LENR be now?

    The problem is not the absence of money. The problem is the absence of the ability to focus on a subject and seek to find the answer to simple questions. I have attempted on the LENR Forum to explore the facts and logic that would lead to a correct understanding of how LENR works. On both occasions, the discussion was hijacked by people who have no interest in exploring any idea except their own.


    I have discovered this flaw is common within this field, so my complaint is not just about my experience here. I have watched for the last 32 years as nonsense is accepted without effective debate. I have watched as people bemoan the rejection of this claim by normal scientists, yet provide only conflict and confusion about the basic behaviors as justification for the reality. I have watched as my efforts consisting of two books and nearly 100 published papers describing the subject are largely ignored in favor of ideas and conclusions that have no relationship to reality or to observed behavior. The effort to understand reality is always difficult but the process is done with much greater skill by people involved with the other sciences.


    Naturally, the response to my complaint is that this is just my opinion. That is true, but some opinions are clearly better than others. I spent 36 years in fields of science in which opinions were based on facts. My opinions are based on facts. In this field, and especially on the LENR Forum, most opinions are not based on facts, yet they are held with extreme confidence.


    So, I have given up wasting my time here. I have very little confidence that this phenomenon will ever be mastered and applied. Society is entering a time of great trouble. Cold fusion is now the least of our problems.

    Quote from Storms

    The problem is the absence of the ability to focus on a subject and seek to find the answer to simple questions.

    We all agree that cracks are a kind of hosts for cold fusion. This was my thinking already in 1987!! But from thinking to final prove its a long, long way.

    Cracks = topology of reactions site is just one aspect of the problem. We found that removing the fusion energy is the absolute key for successful CF. As said D*-D* will relax to 4-He within about 19 hours (half live) what is far to slow. We (in London) had > 10 different powder mixtures that all did produce significant gamma radiation. These powders have not been based on Pd at all.

    We also did find a totally different new CF reaction that involves Samarium and 4-He spallation.

    The other deep source of knowledge is the Holmlid reaction and may be Mills H*-H* for the first step.


    All these experiments show us that the standard model is garbage and we have to use new physics. On the other side we can start to use random material (as done in London) or well defined patterns - with the current Nickel chips we did produce. All this is still basic science and we just make educated guesses. But at least we found some minimal coatings that show a gamma signature from room T to higher T. Even if we can reproduce these reactions this does not mean that we produce significant energy.


    For me its clear. With a fraction of the ITER money we could have 2-3 different working CF/LENR processes that produce significant excess energy - within 3 years. So its a question of money and also a question of knowing all aspects of LENR/CF what includes new physics. So I agree that for most folks that currently do CF money is no real help as the understanding is completely lacking.

    Also a final solution should only use fractions of precious metals!! So any bulk Pd approach has no value. Just once make the calculations: A nuke is 1000MW net. How many would you need? 1 for 1 million people as in France? (If all energy comes from nukes).

    Quote from Storms

    The problem is not the absence of money. The problem is the absence of the ability to focus on a subject and seek to find the answer to simple questions. I have attempted on the LENR Forum to explore the facts and logic that would lead to a correct understanding of how LENR works. On both occasions, the discussion was hijacked by people who have no interest in exploring any idea except their own.

    Dear Ed, thanks for your willingness to share your thoughts and ideas here.


    I can fully understand your anger! We here on LF forum are a collection of individuals with sometimes controversial attitudes. This can be fruitfull or in some cases in the contrary! However I believe, it is a quick way to exchange ideas, thoughts and opinions, up to a certain degree.


    IMO most of us here share a common goal. (de-code LENR) We (a team of three) try to do exactly that, by also using some of your ideas (NAE).


    We have made some progress (nano fabricated Ni foil+ a few experiments with a clear gamma signature) but it takes time and certainly resources. One improvement we try to achieve.... invest in better controllable coating technology like sputtering. This is difficult to all get financed privately. So if you are interested and you have some contacts who would be willing to help, we are open for a discussion.

    Someone could think I am masochistic to come back to this thread to post a new paper by Galushkin (Mr. FPE is real but is not nuclear). Nothing really new in this paper, but is from 2023 so, one can confirm tha Galushkin is still claiming he solved the FPE effect.


    Here it is.


    https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Nikolay-Galushkin/publication/372705769_The_Process_of_Thermal_Runaway_Is_the_Reason_of_Fleischmann-Pons_Effect/links/64c76917545060019e42e533/The-Process-of-Thermal-Runaway-Is-the-Reason-of-Fleischmann-Pons-Effect.pdf

    I certainly Hope to see LENR helping humans to blossom, and I'm here to help it happen.

    Quote from Cydonia

    Very nice paper from a time when printers didn't existed yet :)

    In the same way, i like reading again some first investigations what could not be necessary unrelevant, as this Vigier's thoughts.

    The history of cold fusion is a remarkable story at the confluence of science and sociology. This paper - written from an arts perspective - shows how tricky it is to reach scientific conclusions from contested data.


    Yet - all major science advance comes eventually from a better theoretical understanding that turns messy anomalous contested data into stuff that is understood.


    BTW - just to burnish my skeptical credentials - note that the converse is not true. Messy anomalous contested data may be just that, a sociological artifact or even just a sign of looking for things that capture the imagination but cannot be disproved or proved. Many examples of that - e.g. evidence for bigfoot.


    I am highlighting the paragraph below in the conclusions. I agree that the early CF debate was frames as physicists vs chemists. I agree also that initially physicists were predisposed against seeing CF as nuclear, whereas chemists more open. I disagree that the continued negativity of most physicists was unreasonable.


    Initially - F&P claimed conventional nuclear fusion (with expected energy and particle byproducts) from an electrochemical reaction. Physicists reacted with extreme skepticism because that seemed unlikely - the Coulomb barrier (CB) argument.


    That morphed over time as expected particle (and reactant) product measurements proved elusive - and belief in any such measurements was not helped by initial false positive errors in measuring particles!


    Fusion without the expected products from known reactions seemed to physicists even less likely. The no-expected-product argument (NEP).


    Now, both CB and NEP arguments can be got round. Branching rates for nuclear reactions could be affected greatly by novel reaction mechanisms so that we have unexpected results in both areas is not as surprising as it might otherwise seem. But, both arguments require something new and surprising to overcome the skepticism. Of the two - the CB argument is the easiest to get round.


    For me, that remains the case now. I see this playing out in two ways:


    (1) LENR positives stay elusive. The sign for that would be that decades-old data remains the "best quality evidence". Funding now, post google-guys-effort (for which incidentally we should be thanking Rossi) is large enough to generate new better results and advance the filed.


    (2) The hypotheses needed for arguments that counter CB and NEP get filled in. They have been formulated and new more informative experiments are being done. The sign of these experiments is that what you get out is more self-validating than "heat/no heat" or "neutrons/no neutrons". It could be LENR-adjacent work: for example looking at how reaction rates as evidenced by products are characterised from input energy or something else. Or looking theoretically or via simulation and how reaction branching rations change. It could be other stuff where new physics unrelated to LENR leads to new nuclear reaction possibilities. Or even something LENR-contradictory where new physics leads to non-nuclear-reaction high energy and power density power production (e.g. hydrinos, weird Rydberg states, weird alternatives to QM). I have never seen any LENR-contradictory stuff yet that looks remotely close to explaining the corpus of LENR evidence - and in fact it all looks like woo-woo at the moment.


    So - we get papers like #245, #246. #247 above (Ahlfors) which do not mention LENR but are LENR-adjacent and could lead to undeniable LENR evidence.


    The conclusion of the arts degree dissertation below misses an important scientific point and simplifies what is scientific progress. It also misses the point about LENR.


    Both quantum physics and relativity emerged from a maelstrom of previous novel theories [1,2] trying to explain anomalous data. The anomalies were undisputed, out there all over the place, and clear. How to explain them required radical new ideas and was not clear. But both special relativity and quantum mechanics were theories that had many less successful but building-block theoretical precursors. They (SR and QM) were accepted in the end because they explained so many disparate observations with better economy than alternatives and made new predictions that turned out right.


    [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_quantum_mechanics

    [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_priority_dispute


    In the case of LENR things are a bit different. We do not have anomalies cropping up all over physics from assorted non-LENR research. Nor do we have significant LENR quantitative predictions validated by LENR experiments. (the few cases here are contentious). Nor do we have (yet) a comprehensive theory that emerges from prior less successful theories addressing the anomalies.


    The point is that the groundbreaking "major" physics discoveries have build on a lot of previous work both experiment (clear anomalies found by assorted people without any theoretical axe to grind) and theory (those anomalies attract interest and theoreticians try to find solutions - even though before the final synthesis these are partial).


    If that analogy was to apply to LENR then it is work like the papers linked by Ahlfors that are needed first - before any successful "LENR discovery". And the discovery would be some major shift in our understanding of (most probably) nuclear reaction rates or (less probably) something woo-woo due to lack of coherent anomalies giving it support.


    At the moment the LENR anomalies are comparable to the situation before QM or relativity - where things were not well understood. But then the anomalies stood as real without the need for a hypothesised explanatory theory. They were things that needed explaining. Too much of the LENR corpus is backwards-looking: LENR is hypothesised and indirect evidence that seems to support it is highlighted.


    It is - as a matter of science - nor surprising that this type of evidence is less convincing than the anomalies that led after many years of incremental theory generation to the success of relativity or quantum mechanics.


    Happy Christmas & New Year everyone.


    THH



    Your thoughts make sense.
    In the same way what do you think in the case of a codeposition process about nickel sulfamate ?

    i read that deposition speed of nickel onto some parts is linked with the nickel molecule type.

    Apparently nickel sulfamate is able of high speed deposition.

    This deposition generating hydrogen which we expect to penetrate the host metal.

    in another cases with another nickel types, the nickel deposition can be done without any hydrogen production..

    I think it's an important point never highlighted by the P&F followers.

    Quote from nkodama

    Cold Fusion is real but D2O Cold Fusion is incorrect sinse FPE.

    They use strong alkaline D2O, which load D+ into metal with OD-, not with D+, thus the paradium need to be positive in place of negatrive, which is the cirrent incorrect condition of strong alkaline D2O Cold Fusion.

    Correct D2O Cold Fusion Reactor with Strong Alkaline Electrolyte.pdf

    Conceptualized D2O Cold Fusion power generator with steam turbine.pdf

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.