Yes, calorimetry remains the best toy for the old guard... to play with their microwatts.

I remember maybe 15 years ago when i meet and helped Pr Biberian .. He said all the time "calorimetry" "calorimetry" and said also my calorimeter doesn't watch its microwatts because he ( Biberian) was short of money...

Now after 4 years of funded Clean HME project, money was.. so i expect that its calorimeter rised more of microwatts..?

Same reasoning about McKubre..

Quote from JedRothwell

That is correct, and it is important. A classic example of this was when someone asked J. B. S. Haldane: What would disprove evolution? He said, "fossil rabbits in the Precambrian." That does not mean anyone expects find fossil rabbits in Precambrian rocks. As far as anyone knows, that is impossible. However, if rabbits were found it would disprove much of evolutionary theory. It is a logical assertion, not an assertion about what is likely to happen, or what can happen.

Cold fusion is predicated on calorimetry, which in turn is based on the second law of thermodynamics. The only way you can disprove cold fusion is to show that heat can of itself pass from a cooler body to a hotter body. Hypothetically, someone might devise an experiment that does this, but you will not find a single physicist or chemist who thinks that that could happen. As a practical matter, the second law is irrefutable, and that makes cold fusion irrefutable.

To put it another way, THHuxleynew has to prove that every major type of calorimetry, including isoperibolic, phase change, temperature based, flow and Seebeck does not work. Or they have worked in millions of experiments over the last 250 years, but for unknown reasons they failed in thousands of cold fusion experiments done by world class experts. His hypothesis is that these experts made thousands of mistakes for 30 years. There is not a single valid example of excess heat. Yet no skeptic, including THHuxleynew himself, has ever found one of these errors. If there was even one valid experiment, that would prove cold fusion exists, and the other 9,999 mistakes would not disprove anything. So the skeptics must show that every single published positive experiment is wrong. Of course the other 9,999 are not wrong! If hundreds of experts could make undetected, unknown errors using 250-year-old techniques, experimental science itself would not work. We would still be living in caves. It is astounding that any scientist believes such nonsense.

Display More

Quote from THHuxleynew

Give me an experiment that confirms or refutes LENR?

Or, more narrowly, give me an experiment that confirms or refutes those old D2O/Pd excess heat experiments?

They all do. In the past I suggested you try to refute McKubre, because his work is published in the most detail. You could do the entire EPRI book, but why not do this paper?

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

The book is here:

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

It is clear you do not understand these things. Perhaps this paper would help:

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

There is no phase change calorimetry in these papers, so your imaginary foam-gate problems are ruled out.

Well, i don't refute the Dr McKubre involvement, quality of work, papers.. etc.

However i have difficulties with the fact that these old guard members were highlighted most of the time as the absolute references of truth..

Now,we could have the same reasoning with the current scientists and their particle accelerators.

It reminds me of all those stray whales that come ashore on the sand and take their whole tribe with them..

In this way some THH words can make sense indeed.

Quote from JedRothwell

They all do. In the past I suggested you try to refute McKubre, because his work is published in the most detail. You could do the entire EPRI book, but why not do this paper?

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

The book is here:

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

It is clear you do not understand these things. Perhaps this paper would help:

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

There is no phase change calorimetry in these papers, so your imaginary foam-gate problems are ruled out.

Display More

Quote from Cydonia

Yes, calorimetry remains the best toy for the old guard... to play with their microwatts.

Well, 100 W in Fleischmann's case, and 8 kW in the recent experiments by Huang. A bit more than microwatts.

Quote from Cydonia

However i have difficulties with the fact that these old guard members were highlighted most of the time as the absolute references of truth..

Nobody ever said anything about absolute references. They were highlighted because there are no other experiments. Very little research has been done in the last 10 or 20 years, because there is so much opposition.

Quote from JedRothwell

Very little research has been done in the last 10 or 20 years, because there is so much opposition.

And so little money. However there have been some important papers from Ed Storms for example. Don't let the gruff exterior fool you, his ideas and logic are backed up by experimental evidence.

Quote from THHuxleynew

I always claim that no person is infallible, and that experts in a specific field may have group think that means they all miss the same thing.

They could not all be missing the same thing because they use completely different instruments and methods. Even if Fleischmann made a mistake with phase-change (boil-off) calorimetry, it is not possible that McKubre made a similar mistake with flow calorimetry, or that Storms made a similar mistake with a Seebeck calorimeter, and others could not have made that mistake with microcalorimeters. Many different types of calorimeter and mass spectrometers have been used. No one measures the water level with a closed flow calorimeter, or a Seebeck calorimeter. Bubbles cannot obscure the results.

In other words, systematic errors are ruled out by using different systems. That is deliberate. The researchers have often told me they used different types of instruments, based on different physical principles, so they can be sure they are not all "missing the same thing" as you put it. They might all be missing different things, but that is exceeding unlikely.

More to the point, you have never identified even one thing that one researcher missed. You have not found a single error in any major paper. You claim here that they might all be missing the same thing, but that is impossible. The only way you can justify your opinion is to show that every single researcher made mistakes in every single experiment. Because if even one is right, cold fusion exists, and your objection is invalid. You imagine (incorrectly) that you found an error in Fleischmann's phase change calorimetry. For the sake of argument, suppose that is true. Suppose the middle phase did not produce heat. You still have not shown a problem with the isoperibolic phase before that, or the thermometry after it. You still have not shown a problem with McKubre's flow calorimetry, or Oriani or Storms Seebeck calorimetry.

(Plus, as I said, you have not shown why the heat continued for a week before the boil off, and a day after it, yet it magically turned off for 10 minutes during the boil off, and yet it still melted the plastic, which calibrations never did, and it boiled with far less input power than the calibrations.)

You seem to think that if you find an error in the phase change boil-off, that magically disproves the entire field. That error reaches out and invalidates McKubre's flow calorimetry. So you don't need to show a problem with McKubre. That makes no sense! Even if you have actually shown a problem in the phase change in that experiment, you have not shown a problem in the other phase change experiments (both boil-off and ice calorimetry) or flow, Seebeck or any other experiment. Or the tritium findings, or the helium. The tritium proves this is a nuclear reaction, even if you disprove the heat.

FP experiment has mistake of the metal potential. The heating metal need to be positive because it uses the strong alkaline D2O which has very low concentration of D+ and very high concentration of OD-.

thud the heat generation is very low.

mechanism of trigger of cold fusion need the negative metal potential.

http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.24667.75045

Quote from THHuxleynew

That is not technically true. There could be some effect that related to the electrochemistry - not in the canon

No, because the effect has also been seen with gas loading, with no electrochemistry. And because the effect produces tritium, x-rays, and helium, which are not products of electrochemistry. Also, the effect does not correlate with electrochemical conditions. Ordinary electrochemistry with H2O and Pt does not produce the effect, whereas highly loaded bulk Pd D2O does. There is no difference in electrochemistry between these two systems.

Quote from THHuxleynew

Since results between different equipment and methods are very inconsistent - with differing amounts of apparent excess heat and no "expected value of excess heat" - they could all be missing the same thing.

On the contrary, the results are consistent, and the control parameters are well established:

1. The results with different equipment and methods are very similar. In some cases exactly the same, where two methods are used on the same sample, one after the other or simultaneously (such as isoperibolic and Seebeck calorimetry).
2. The effect occurs when electrochemistry is turned off, in heat after death.
3. With bulk Pd the heat is proportional to loading. (See: https://lenr-canr.org/wordpres…ngexponentialincrease.jpg) Ordinary electrochemistry never causes heat, no matter how high the loading is.
4. The temperature is a well known, well defined control parameter, that has nothing to do with electrochemistry. Temperature does not cause or increase excess heat with ordinary electrochemistry.
5. The helium is proportional to the heat in the same ratio as it is with D-D fusion.

In short, your statement is completely wrong. You made that up. Evidently you have not read the literature. I suggest you refrain from making up stuff and commenting on scientific papers you have not read. It is a disservice to readers here.

Furthermore, you said "they could all be missing the same thing." That statement is not falsifiable. You have to tell us what thing they might all be missing. Otherwise there is no way to evaluate your assertion. Plus the assertion is equally applicable to every experiment in history. Newton showed that white light includes all other colors, in a spectrum. Many people have replicated that. However, they might all be wrong, and they could all be missing the same thing.

You cannot say that cold fusion is less well established than Newton's spectrum. Cold fusion is based on the Laws of Thermodynamics and calorimetry. These have been firmly established for 150 years. To disprove cold fusion you have to show that thermodynamics are wrong and calorimetry does not work. It is not possible that hundreds of expert scientists did calorimetry, and got very high signal to noise results, with copious calibrations, and clear correlations to helium and other parameters, yet they were all wrong, and all for different reasons. The experimental method would not work if that could happen.

It is also not possible that experts in places like BARC and LANL cannot detect tritium. They would be dead if that were the case.

Quote from THHuxleynew

with differing amounts of apparent excess heat and no "expected value of excess heat" - they could all be missing the same thing.

This is the famous Hoaxly pub law we know since Friday 23 o'clock. The more Beer the more bubbles you see and from 1 o'clock on you also see bubbles without any more beer....

To be sure, there has been some terrible calorimetry in cold fusion. Some false positives, and some false negatives. Here is a well known example:

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJhownaturer.pdf

Fleischmann made scathing remarks about the calorimetry at the NHE. See p. 251 and 496:

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

That may be a little hard to follow. I explained it in simpler terms on p. 16 of that document. And on p. 33:

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

I do not think THH will find any errors in top notch leading papers. He has not found one in 30 years. He hasn't even looked. However, anyone can find bad papers by third-rate researchers. You can't miss 'em. There are even bad papers by people who are considered distinguished experts. They may be experts in their fields, but they are not good at electrochemistry. I described one of their experiments as "trying to tune a piano with a sledgehammer." McKubre called it "a profligate squandering of resource and opportunity."

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

When I joined LENR forum I wanted to discuss nuclear reactions that occur without meeting the Lawson Criterion. Is LENR even real? Perhaps LENR isn't real; it depends on how one defines it. What is real is fusion without meeting the Lawson Criterion. I hope by my participation in this forum that people would become curious about a proof I have. I believe that anyone logical enough and with at least the skill to follow the logic and put numbers into a spreadsheet can verify A Data Derived Balanced Equation for ICFP.pdf

Over my years on this forum, I have produced other analyses to provide a more complete understanding of how this kind of fusion happens. I link here to string for that discussion.

Electrogravity (electron-gravity) as a cause of nuclear reactions. - Physics - LENR Forum (lenr-forum.com)

You're a good plagiarist, but you write more about electrogravity, it's very good for me, write. Yes, did I give this data to 25 ICCF? Where did you get the electric gravity, we'll see, but I have everything

https://drive.google.com/file/…QQWy87SIMXjPa913CWS3/view

https://www.youtube.com/clip/U…_Tos7VJWMTQRdxNRPkTNHSIqc

https://yandex.kz/video/preview/16826912500967754314

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/eM_ZLEvhmh4

https://www.youtube.com/clip/U…2IxfRAiAR4D08K4-OqWGm6A26

What do you repeat all the time (the word “halva” won’t make your mouth taste sweet):

calorimetry, calorimetry..., excess heat, excess heat...

What is thermal energy? This is the mechanical kinetic energy of the movement of material particles. The movement of particles is the result of cold nuclear fusion.

Consequently, it is necessary to achieve a stable reaction of cold nuclear fusion, and excess thermal kinetic energy of particles will always appear as a result of this fusion.

As said we (in CF) always measure gamma lines we can predict... May be we live in the wrong church...