The perpetual “is LENR even real” argument thread.

    Quote from Drgenek

    Are you arguing that the only fusion that can be known to science is production of He from deuterium? Catalyzed fusion is not dependent on a solid like Pd.

    As far as I know, it is dependent on a solid like Pd. I have never heard of catalyzed fusion with a gas or liquid.


    However, I did not say it is dependent on a solid. I said that when two deuterons fuse to form a helium atom, they release 24 MeV of energy. Whatever method you use to make them fuse, in a plasma, a solid state, or some state that you know of that I have not heard of, they always produce that much energy. Because of the mass deficit. That is a theory: special relativity. (Apparently, THH does not think special relativity is a theory . . . who knows what he thinks? He won't say.)


    This is similar to the fact that when oxygen and carbon combine, they always produce 393.5 kJ/mol. Whether they combine in a fire, or in your cells with metabolism, they always produce that much heat. That was first confirmed by Lavoisier in 1780. He measured the heat of metabolism and the CO2 production from a guinea pig placed inside an ice calorimeter. He compared the results to combustion. (He also reported that the guinea pig was fine. It "did not suffer" at all.)


    In other words, when the starting and ending materials in a chemical or nuclear reaction are the same, the heat release or absorption will be the same, even when the reaction paths are different. This is thermodynamics. Which is another theory that THH does not think is a theory.

    Gentlemen! There is an endless debate on this Forum: is cold nuclear fusion real or unreal?

    Well, how long can you pound water in a mortar, that is, come up with various theories and conduct numerous “blind” experiments on cold nuclear fusion?! One can get out of this impasse only through a philosophical and metaphysical path, turning the problem into a postulate. Tonight, go outside and look at the stars! 99% of baryonic matter is concentrated in stars and nuclear fusion occurs in them. Temperature and pressure in stars are a consequence, not a cause, of nuclear fusion. If you look closely, you will find Jupiter in the night sky. Jupiter is an immature star-planet that also experiences cold nuclear fusion. Below your feet is planet Earth, where cold nuclear fusion also occurs. This is already 100%. All we have to do is take a decisive mental step and we come to a crazy conclusion: Cold nuclear fusion happens everywhere and always! Cold nuclear fusion is an absolute property of Nature! Since Nature is in eternal absolute motion, then, consequently, Cold nuclear fusion occurs with any and all movement-changes of matter.

    Another thing: this destroys the foundations of the modern scientific paradigm with its Standard Model, the theory of relativity and the Big Bang. But, excuse me, after the evolutionary development of physics, a revolution must occur.

    what do you think about the great paper of the Russian Dr Alexander Parkhomov ? He spoke about neutrinos involvement as you..

    Quote from Aleksandr Nikitin

    Gentlemen! There is an endless debate on this Forum: is cold nuclear fusion real or unreal?

    Well, how long can you pound water in a mortar, that is, come up with various theories and conduct numerous “blind” experiments on cold nuclear fusion?! One can get out of this impasse only through a philosophical and metaphysical path, turning the problem into a postulate. Tonight, go outside and look at the stars! 99% of baryonic matter is concentrated in stars and nuclear fusion occurs in them. Temperature and pressure in stars are a consequence, not a cause, of nuclear fusion. If you look closely, you will find Jupiter in the night sky. Jupiter is an immature star-planet that also experiences cold nuclear fusion. Below your feet is planet Earth, where cold nuclear fusion also occurs. This is already 100%. All we have to do is take a decisive mental step and we come to a crazy conclusion: Cold nuclear fusion happens everywhere and always! Cold nuclear fusion is an absolute property of Nature! Since Nature is in eternal absolute motion, then, consequently, Cold nuclear fusion occurs with any and all movement-changes of matter.

    Another thing: this destroys the foundations of the modern scientific paradigm with its Standard Model, the theory of relativity and the Big Bang. But, excuse me, after the evolutionary development of physics, a revolution must occur.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    As far as I know, it is dependent on a solid like Pd. I have never heard of catalyzed fusion with a gas or liquid.

    I know somebody who is intending to do an LENR experiment where no solids are involved. (Currently in the idea phase)

    I hope this experiment will be done and see if indeed LENR can be achived without a solid.

    Personally I am quite optimistic about that experiment,

    As far as I know from some information I conclude that also Rossi's SK works without a solid.

    (Yes I know, many will state that Rossi's reactors never worked :) )

    This is because you are completly old fashion.. Your words my friend are revealing, how the old guard has been led astray by their complacency..

    You, THH, Storms, Biberian, mcKubre and so many.. no way for them... because never you were able to leave 1989...

    I'm not being disrespectful here, just stating the real truth.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    As far as I know, it is dependent on a solid like Pd. I have never heard of catalyzed fusion with a gas or liquid.

    According to my understanding it already exists a NON ITALIAN patent with only gases excited by microwave with a cop 5... unfortunately, the badsss as TG, McKubre team, Biberian CleanHME etc etc by their ignorance, with oneself have stolen money from those who REALLY know.... Fuck !

    Quote from LDM

    I know somebody who is intending to do an LENR experiment where no solids are involved. (Currently in the idea phase)

    Quote from Cydonia

    According to my understanding it already exists a NON ITALIAN patent with only gases excited by microwave with a cop 5... unfortunately, the badsss as TG, McKubre team, Biberian CleanHME etc etc by their ignorance, with oneself have stolen money from those who REALLY know....

    How do TG, McKubre and the others prevent the development of this microwave technique? What are they doing to impede it? Surely you are not suggesting they are soaking up funding. Their funding is microscopic. Billions of dollars would be available for the microwave technique if it can be replicated and demonstrated.


    You cannot be suggesting that McKubre et al. are using their influence to stymie the microwave research. They have no influence! No one listens to them.


    It is conceivable the plasma fusion Tokamak program is preventing research into the microwave technique. But it is very unlikely anyone in plasma fusion has heard of this.


    Microwave is only one way of engineering , the important thing to know is the main principle involved, that all..

    next it's only engineering.. Unfortunately probably only me can understand the relevance of last Parkhomov work..

    About soaking funding, even a garage labo as where started Jobs was great to my poor means.. The one who catch the more was always the one who spoke the more high and this one who was always in a center of so many ICCF pictures..

    Billions were promised at last US ICCF, where they fell ? In only and so many untalented US teams...

    Quote from JedRothwell

    How do TG, McKubre and the others prevent the development of this microwave technique? What are they doing to impede it? Surely you are not suggesting they are soaking up funding. Their funding is microscopic. Billions of dollars would be available for the microwave technique if it can be replicated and demonstrated.


    You cannot be suggesting that McKubre et al. are using their influence to stymie the microwave research. They have no influence! No one listens to them.


    It is conceivable the plasma fusion Tokamak program is preventing research into the microwave technique. But it is very unlikely anyone in plasma fusion has heard of this.

    Edited once, last by Cydonia ().

    Quote from JedRothwell

    Fleischmann and I consider them theories. He made a quantitative prediction that this is D-D fusion and therefore helium in the same ratio to heat as plasma fusion would be found. Later, Miles and others confirmed this. That was a prediction based on theory but it is now an established fact.

    Jed, perhaps you did not read my post.


    i stated exactly that - the excess heat / 4he ratio is a quantitative prediction of the LENR sub-theory that states D+D -> 4He fusion happens during electrolysis with a near 100% branching ratio (if not near 100% the prediction is not quantitative).


    And, if you read what I say rather than what you think a biased person like me is likely to say, I said i though that prediction deserved to be properly tested - difficult as that may be due to the challenging nature of the measurements.


    Quote from JedRothwell

    On the contrary, they say it is not real. There have been heated discussions with them about this. Mel Miles recently wrote:


    "Brian Oliver of Rockwell International was never considered as a supporter of cold fusion but his very accurate He-4 measurements were essential for this correlation of excess heat and He-4 production."


    Brian Oliver was not happy with the correlation. Fortunately, these were double blind tests, including some blanks (with no heat), and some background atmospheric samples. So he had no way of knowing it was a correlation.


    When a result is against your interests, because you were hoping it would not be positive, that is a good reason to think it is correct.

    Thanks for that correction. I agree, it makes the results of positive experiments from Oliver more interesting. Anyway such speculation does not matter - as you point out above: the written papers are what can - even now - be evaluated.


    On an electrode producing massive quantities of tritium and helium
    A Pd electrode has been examined which produced a concentration of tritium in a 0.1 M LiOD solution around 103 times above background. Tritium product…
    www.sciencedirect.com


    Which we have been discussing is not authored by Oliver? Ref 8, which would be authored by Oliver, is presumably what we need?


    Quote from JedRothwell

    The helium is not only strong support of the hypothesis that this is fusion. It is irrefutable proof of that. We know it is irrefutable because THH and the other skeptics have never refuted it. They would if they could.

    I am not quite sure what this means. Are you implying that were I not a skeptic, but could refute this, I would (because of my lack of skepticism) not refute it? If not, what is the point of this statement?


    I think you are yourself impugning the scientific integrity of the (non-skeptic) LENR community.


    Quote from Drgenek

    There is no error in the mass balance and stoichiometry in https://www.lenr-forum.com/att…ed-equation-for-icfp-pdf/ The measurements and analysis are hard science. So, there is fusion, and the data provides no evidence of Helium.


    Just because the hard science does not fit your perception does not mean that a better explanation than yours are not true. It is very inadequate to say that whatever I am investigating is not LENR, as Ed Storms did earlier in this thread. It is not the number of investigations or the amount of data, rather the strength of data that matters.

    I think you are not taking my point.


    My point is that for theoretical hypotheses to be science they need to make predictions which allow the hypotheses to be falsified. the more precise those predictions (and therefore easy to falsity) the stronger the evidence from a prediction found true.


    For LENR a lot of the evidence is "something unexpected that could be explained by nuclear reactions of a type not otherwise seen". But with the exception discussed above, and a few others, the hypothesis does not make precise predictions and therefore can be supported by a wide variety of anomalous results.


    That is weaker evidence since anomalous results can be the result of errors, misinterpretations, etc, etc unless clear and replicable. Especially when they are typical LENR results. It is a great pity that LENR reactions - unique amongst all nuclear reactions to my knowledge - specifically do not generate the evidence of nuclear activity that could be very unambiguously and easily detected and correlated with conditions (real-time high energy particle detection). If they did, that would maybe form a lab rat experiment that would convince all skeptics.


    Whereas a precise prediction replicated, even if it cannot be correlated with conditions, is unlikely to be coincidence and points specifically to the predicting theory.

    Quote from Aleksandr Nikitin

    Gentlemen! There is an endless debate on this Forum: is cold nuclear fusion real or unreal?

    Well, how long can you pound water in a mortar, that is, come up with various theories and conduct numerous “blind” experiments on cold nuclear fusion?! One can get out of this impasse only through a philosophical and metaphysical path, turning the problem into a postulate.

    I beg to disagree. It can be got out of by finding unambiguous replicable evidence of LENR. This has been discussed many times.


    I do partly agree. If LENR does not exist I do not think the debate would ever close because LENR can never be disproved.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    In other words, when the starting and ending materials in a chemical or nuclear reaction are the same, the heat release or absorption will be the same, even when the reaction paths are different. This is thermodynamics. Which is another theory that THH does not think is a theory.

    Do you have any evidence for that statement about what I think? It seems to have come out of nowhere.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    Do you have any evidence for that statement about what I think? It seems to have come out of nowhere.

    You said there are no theories to support the claim that cold fusion is, in fact, deuterium fusion. Thermodynamics supports that claim, because the starting and end products are the same as plasma fusion. Thermodynamics is a theory. So is special relativity, which also supports the claim that Pd-D cold fusion is D-D fusion.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    i stated exactly that - the excess heat / 4he ratio is a quantitative prediction of the LENR sub-theory that states D+D -> 4He fusion happens during electrolysis with a near 100% branching ratio (if not near 100% the prediction is not quantitative).

    The branching ratios are close to 100%. Especially when you measure the helium left in the palladium. In some cases nearly all the helium escapes in effluent gas. In other cases some is left behind. The reasons for this are understood.


    Quote from THHuxleynew

    And, if you read what I say rather than what you think a biased person like me is likely to say, I said i though that prediction deserved to be properly tested - difficult as that may be due to the challenging nature of the measurements.

    The prediction has been tested many times by the best helium detection labs in the world, in the U.S. and Europe. It could be tested a hundred times more by these labs, or a thousand times more, but you would still say it has not been "properly tested." You cannot tell us how it might be tested "properly." You cannot say how the experiments might be improved. "Properly tested" is vague. It cannot be falsified.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    As far as I know, it is dependent on a solid like Pd. I have never heard of catalyzed fusion with a gas or liquid.

    The reason I provided this link https://www.lenr-forum.com/att…ed-equation-for-icfp-pdf/ was because I wanted you to see that catalyzed fusion in a gas is an irrefutable fact unless you are willing to abandon Lavoisier. The link provides the source experiment and basis. What disappears and what appears for the nuclear reactions is accountable to the limit of measurement, 3 ppmV.


    Quote from JedRothwell

    This is similar to the fact that when oxygen and carbon combine, they always produce 393.5 kJ/mol. Whether they combine in a fire, or in your cells with metabolism, they always produce that much heat. That was first confirmed by Lavoisier in 1780.


    In other words, when the starting and ending materials in a chemical or nuclear reaction are the same, the heat release or absorption will be the same, even when the reaction paths are different. This is thermodynamics.

    The heat released does depend on the reaction path. The free energy does not. The free energy is the amount of energy that is released by the change in state. The overall change in state include the change in chemical composition (between reactants and products) and the change in element/isotopes composition. Gibb's free energy equation equates the free energy to the sum of enthalpy (heat) and the product of change in temperature multiplied by the entropy produced. It is believed that entropy increases as the number of new states increases. Hence, if the reaction path converts free energy to new states, the entropy term would get bigger.


    Because I have a reaction equation for the nuclear fusion for the case in the link above, I can calculate the energy released if 100% of the mass loss (based on E = mc2) becomes heat. I provided that information in this thread here. RE: The perpetual “is LENR even real” argument thread.


    Unfortunately, the heat yield is not orders of magnitude greater than chemical processes. I believe this is why Brillant Light Power invented hydrinos. The heat yield is reduced because "cold fusion" radiates an extremely light particle, mc. I have derived the math for mc, and other important facts as listed here. RE: Electrogravity (electron-gravity) as a cause of nuclear reactions.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    I think you are not taking my point.


    Whereas a precise prediction replicated, even if it cannot be correlated with conditions, is unlikely to be coincidence and points specifically to the predicting theory.

    No, I am precisely on point. You are slightly off because a prediction is not necessary. One doesn't have to make a prediction of the answer to a math problem. I have provided hard science that fusion happen in a liquid and a gas. The only true proof of nuclear reaction is a data derived reaction equation based on mass balance and stoichiometry, everything else is interpretation based on preconceived perceptions.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    I beg to disagree. It can be got out of by finding unambiguous replicable evidence of LENR. This has been discussed many times.


    I do partly agree. If LENR does not exist I do not think the debate would ever close because LENR can never be disproved.

    I have already written many times that in order to falsify my theory it is necessary to perform an experiment (formally similar to Faraday’s experiment, when a moving magnetic field generates an electric current in a conductor, that is, electromagnetic induction occurs):

    1) It is necessary for a moving neutrino field to influence matter, as a result of which we must observe a material current (the movement of matter), that is, material-neutrino-energy induction must occur in the form of cold nuclear fusion!

    Quote from JedRothwell

    The prediction has been tested many times by the best helium detection labs in the world, in the U.S. and Europe. It could be tested a hundred times more by these labs, or a thousand times more, but you would still say it has not been "properly tested." You cannot tell us how it might be tested "properly." You cannot say how the experiments might be improved. "Properly tested" is vague. It cannot be falsified.

    I'd want an experiment where 4He concentrations were >> atmospheric 4He which ran a long time to accumulate higher concentrations, sampled from time to time, where there was no uncertainty as to whether what was measured was D2 or 4He, and where the 4He correlated well with excess heat. The 4He would be samples from emitted gasses in a system with a recombiner. The atmospheric 4He needs to be measured on occasion, and the lab where the experiment happens must not be used for other potentially 4He generating activities. Or else the experiment is housed in a gas-proof enclosure which measures - from time to time - 4He on the inside.


    The various errors can then be addressed:


    • 4He in electrode or solution: "edge effect" can be disambiguated from time vs 4He graph
    • 4He from atmosphere: can be disambiguated from time vs 4He graph as long as 4He concentrations become >> atmospheric 4He. The possibility of sporadic high 4He lab atmosphere concentration - silly example - a 4He party balloon bursts - not detected by 4He spot checks is eliminated by the conditions.
    • 4He/excess heat ratio. As long as excess heat can be accurately measured (Using Jed's measure: excess power / calorimeter calculated error after calibration* - that would be true of many experiments) the slope of the 4He vs excess heat graph over a long time should accurately equal that expected from the D+D-> 4He nuclear reaction (given what Jed says about branching ratio).


    Jed, we could look at the single 4He / excess heat experiment you think best matches up to this? Obviously the Tritium experiment we were looking at does not.


    My calculations have emission of 4He the same as can be found in 1l of atmosphere (5ppm by volume) every week from 100mW excess heat. That means in a closed cell with 100cc gas you would be clear of atmospheric leak issues in a few days if you could get 100mW excess heat - which I think many of the old experiments did (you would say)?

    THH


    * I do not necessarily agree with this because the assumptions that control and active runs have identical calorimetry sometimes break - but I think Jed would reckon this can be eliminated as a factor so an accurate experiment could be fairly easily made.


    PS - I am not saying this is an easy experiment to do! Far from it.

    Quote from Aleksandr Nikitin

    I have already written many times that in order to falsify my theory it is necessary to perform an experiment (formally similar to Faraday’s experiment, when a moving magnetic field generates an electric current in a conductor, that is, electromagnetic induction occurs):

    1) It is necessary for a moving neutrino field to influence matter, as a result of which we must observe a material current (the movement of matter), that is, material-neutrino-energy induction must occur in the form of cold nuclear fusion!

    For that to be helpful it would need to be quantitative. Otherwise no experiment could ever falsify it!

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