The perpetual “is LENR even real” argument thread.

  • Pharis Williams' phat equation for emission lines from hydrogen E=n2 (13.6 eV) where n is an integer. The value at n=1 is what everyone knows but there are very energetic radiations from a hydrogen ionization source. Note that the higher the integer value of n, the more energetic the photon. Further, the x-ray line is predicted. Pharis Williams found these lines by looking for them in the bureau of standard data. See this reference page 6-7. KM_C364e-20150513135344 (researchgate.net)

  • Pharis Williams' phat equation for emission lines from hydrogen E=n2 (13.6 eV) where n is an integer. The value at n=1 is what everyone knows but there are very energetic radiations from a hydrogen ionization source. Note that the higher the integer value of n, the more energetic the photon. Further, the x-ray line is predicted. Pharis Williams found these lines by looking for them in the bureau of standard data. See this reference page 6-7. KM_C364e-20150513135344 (researchgate.net)

    I guess the differnce in attitude between me and otehrs here is one of curiosity.


    In that paper there is a clearly stated anomaly.


    LENR advocates look at it, see that it all appears correct, and say:

    "This is LENR. We do not have yet a good understanding of what LENR is, but we now have proof there are nuclear reactions"


    Now, that is not the way other science experiments are processed.

    When an anomaly happens, until it is fully explained, it remains a big question-mark.


    That conditions further work write-ups. LENR advocates are happy to write up the anomaly as a not explained but interesting set of phenomena. Because they know many mainstream scientists do not agree with LENR they try to highlight why the new data definitely shows LENR


    But remember - LENR = anything that appears anomalous and could be explained by any sort of unknown nuclear reaction.


    The alternate way of processing these write-ups (which I adopt) is to treat apparent anomalies as juts that and want an explanation.


    the first step in getting explanation of an anomaly is to characterise it. Because I do not have any ready-made explanation I look for all possible causes, and therefore every characterisation that cross-checks things is helpful.


    In this case the anomaly is unexpected detection of radiation. Obviously that could be many things: faulty detector, extraneous signal detected, radioactive contamination of sample, high energy sample treatment causing nuclear reactions that result in radioactive products, etc, and a good number of those things are checked.


    But rather than checking each thing individually in a way that cannot be guaranteed things don't fall through cracks, you could try to characterise the anomaly. In this case, happily, it seems easily characterisable. The characterisation greatly strengthens any other arguments because it narrows down that set of possible mechanisms.


    LENR researchers do not see as much need to do this as mainstream scientists: because LENR researchers has a relatively high probability explanation "It is LENR" which will fit almost anything. Without that, you would naturally not rest when further characterisation of the anomaly was possible. And you would be open to non-obvious artifacts when obvious artifacts have been ruled out.


    I don't have to take a view on whether "It is LENR" is in fact as likely as LENR researchers think. Having that view means you spend less time doing the stuff the Guffey did to check the Letts experiment results. Look at Letts and Guffey - writing up the same experimental setup - to see the difference in approach. Of course Guffey et al had the great advantage of being a replication. They could reflect on the original experiment and try to find things not considered in it and add instrumentation of extra testing to illuminate them.


    Guffey was giving Letts what we would want all LENR results to have: critical scrutiny of the type that can only be done by exact replication and interest in all of the possible error mechanisms.


    We can think of LENR replications where the motivation is to verify the original results, without that level of interest in possible errors and skill in finding them:

    Nature of spontaneous signal and detection of radiation emitted from hydrogen Rydberg matter
    In this article, we report on laser-induced radiation and spontaneous radiation emitted from a chamber containing hydrogen Rydberg matter. The emitted isotropic
    pubs.aip.org


    Anyway, this anomaly is great: it is replicable, it can be further investigated, and from that will come either a genuine LENR effect that can be measured and characterised fully, or a mundane explanation.


    I am just a bit frustrated that this experiment does not yet do as much of the demystification job as I think it could. Given a replication you would expect much better characterisation than original data. I will be interested to see what happens when all the recommendations from the peer reviewers to strengthen the results have been followed.

  • Find the error in the mass balance and stoichiometry analysis of https://www.lenr-forum.com/att…ed-equation-for-icfp-pdf/.


    No matter how much you focus on experiments where there are possible errors then make unwise generalizations, your presentation is just blowing smoke. Hard science will win out over your attempted distractions. It is a show, we have to wait until the fat lady sings.

  • In this case the anomaly is unexpected detection of radiation. Obviously that could be many things: faulty detector, extraneous signal detected, radioactive contamination of sample, high energy sample treatment causing nuclear reactions that result in radioactive products, etc, and a good number of those things are checked.

    This are children arguments. If you say faulty you must explain what type of fault they should express... It's not just ice cream on soil or in hand...old sandbox rule...


    The Holmlid reaction clearly is LENR as the input energy is 0W or close to it and happens at rest. It also produces 4-He as a fusion result and some other atoms. But the energy release is not LENR as the reaction is quasi open air an not in sync with any surrounding matrix. In fact it's hotter than any hot fusion...


    The gammas one often sees from the Holmlid reaction are from muon conversion reactions - also not typical LENR.


    Our classic powder LENR approach always produces a large set of expected gammas as LENR is well explained since 2019. Unluckily the old guard still is drunk from standard model booze and never will get it.

  • THHuxleynew

    LENR advocates look at it, see that it all appears correct, and say:

    "This is LENR. We do not have yet a good understanding of what LENR is, but we now have proof there are nuclear reactions"


    Now, that is not the way other science experiments are processed.

    When an anomaly happens, until it is fully explained, it remains a big question-mark.

    I would point out that the acronym used as the name of the upcoming meeting 'IWAHLM' - incidentally the 16th in the series - is short for 'International Workshop on ANOMALOUS heat in Hydrogen Loaded Metals'. Is that anomalous enough do you think?

  • Hard science will win out over your attempted distractions. It is a show, we have to wait until the fat lady sings.

    Precisely. Till then all is smoke and mirrors. You see LENR, I see... smoke.


    There are enough anomalies for me to want to have it cleared up. I am not saying i know it is nothing BUT smoke. Equally, sometimes when the smoke is cleared away there is nothing.

  • Anyway - asking for everyone with a genuine reproducible anomaly to examine it forensically and parametrically to gain maximum info instead of just "this don't make sense" is not a distraction. It is i am sure what everyone wants to do. Maybe it would be done better if instead of 2N experiments we had N experiments + n like as possible replications but with more instrumentation and a skeptical frame of mind after initial write-up shows something that is anomalous.


    That is sometimes what is done. I cannot see any merit in experimental work not subjected to such scrutiny.

  • Precisely. Till then all is smoke and mirrors. You see LENR, I see... smoke.


    There are enough anomalies for me to want to have it cleared up. I am not saying i know it is nothing BUT smoke. Equally, sometimes when the smoke is cleared away there is nothing.

    No. If you would review this thread, you will see that I don't see LENR (low energy nuclear reactions). Rather, I provide hard science evidence (mass balance and stoichiometry) of nuclear fusion outside the Lawson criteria. https://www.lenr-forum.com/att…ed-equation-for-icfp-pdf/ Ed Storms said in this thread my research was not LENR.


    If you want to apply your critic well advised, you may point out any flaw you see in the math for a data derived balanced nuclear reaction equation (see above). Alternatively, you could read and comment on New Experimental Summary From Ed Storms,.


    Tell us why Ed's/my hypothesis is not likely to lead something that could clear the smoke.

  • Meanwhile, what do you think of this paper by SindreZG and sveinol ?

    I just had a look into the paper and was a kind of astonished how one can waste time & money with an incomplete setup....

    Using a naked PMT as a radiation detector is nothing else than a highly sensitive Geiger counter. You can get timing information and counts but never the energy of any radiation as for this it would be necessary to exactly know all material inside the tube...


    We can easily see that the PMT source spectra of 137Cs/22Na just deliver counts based on the material used in the PMT that gives a natural limit by the k-shell electrons of the most heavy atoms used. So basically these spectra are useless.


    Key for using a multi channel analyzer is an upfront universal radiation to photo electron converter with a first order linear behavior. So a good compromise is a 2or 3 inch CsI crystal.

    To measure hard gammas you need a different tube as linearity is typically given max for 0.008...1MeV or 1..10MeV.

    Here a photon sensitive multiplier is used what explains Fig 14 that exactly shows the electronic spectrum of the PMT internal material. It also shows that the upper resolution limit(sensitivity) is below 150keV. Basically one can say nothing about gammas.

    I hope that the experiment once will be repeated with a proper gamma sensor tube and really measuring is done at > 7 meters not just claiming it, to get the proper muon energies with a high time resolution TOF gate.

  • No. If you would review this thread, you will see that I don't see LENR (low energy nuclear reactions). Rather, I provide hard science evidence (mass balance and stoichiometry) of nuclear fusion outside the Lawson criteria. https://www.lenr-forum.com/att…ed-equation-for-icfp-pdf/ Ed Storms said in this thread my research was not LENR.


    If you want to apply your critic well advised, you may point out any flaw you see in the math for a data derived balanced nuclear reaction equation (see above). Alternatively, you could read and comment on New Experimental Summary From Ed Storms,.


    Tell us why Ed's/my hypothesis is not likely to lead something that could clear the smoke.

    Sure.


    Assuming the HT1 / HT2 data is correct (not certain, but lets do that):


    The element determination is not at all certain. For example the Ar could (in principle) be any one of:


    Search Results


    with the same ionic charge, where the necessary elements are present. There are lots of options. (And you get even more options considering different charges on the ion).


    Magnecules not needed.


    Concluding that any nuclear transformation has taken place from this data is impossible because there are so many possible ion species other than those considered in the given data and mass spectrometry can only distinguish mass/charge. (sometimes charge as well, depending).


    We would need to know what assumptions were being made in the analysis determining those specific species. Are they 100% certain? Or just most likely guesses?


    I do not actually believe the mass spectrometry can give certain and precise answers given such a large number of candidate elements.


    Do we have a detailed report from whomever did the analysis?


    THH

  • Alternatively, you could read and comment on New Experimental Summary From Ed Storms,.


    Tell us why Ed's/my hypothesis is not likely to lead something that could clear the smoke.

    I did read it, and thought about commenting but it would get involved.


    What I like about this are the things that can potentially be proved or falsified. e.g. those electrons. If they exist, they should be detectable. The problem is that there is a lot of wiggle room. If they are not detected does that destroy the hypothesis? I rather think we are not sure about energies, rate of emission, etc. Still - you'd expect that emission of high energy electrons can be definitively detected.


    What i don't like is the assumptions - e.g. again that LEC evidence implies low energy betas. It does not. Furthermore the large number of metals exhibiting LEC effects counts against their being some specific and unusual LENR mechanism in some metal lattices.


    Anyway, balancing all this up and working out what is a specific and definite prediction that would prove or disprove Ed's hypothesis is difficult. If it cannot be disproved I'd say it will make little progress because by definition its predictivity is too low to allow experiments to guide theory.


    I'm hoping somone else will do the work needed on it: because there are lot of "predictions". Basically - ask which new predictions are definite enough that a set of experiments can disprove them - or at least cast very strong doubt on them.

  • Concluding that any nuclear transformation has taken place from this data is impossible because there are so many possible ion species other than those considered in the given data and mass spectrometry can only distinguish mass/charge. (sometimes charge as well, depending).


    We would need to know what assumptions were being made


    THH

    Thank-you

    One can say there is too much uncertainty and therefore just not try. However, then nothing would ever be done.


    The object of basis is frame how large an uncertainty there might be. These basis/assumptions are listed. For example, the assumption that argon is not synthesized so it must be something else so how can the excess argon be assigned? The unknown fraction comes from somewhere, so how can unknowns be sorted out? There is contamination of the deuterium as a source and from atmospheric gas, so what uncertainty can be expected? How much error might be introduced by not accounting for each isotope of each gas? How can one account for combustion products in all their varieties? These basis/assumptions are listed in the details of the analysis. Are they reasonable basis/assumptions?


    You say any uncertainty is unacceptable without a massive effort to eliminate each one. However, many professionals disagree if not most disagree. Here is the logic. Basis/assumptions tell us how we have biased the results. If the bias led to a greater match to an expected true value, then the bias provides clues to what is true. The expect true value are the coefficients for the balance equation. So, a professional not of your mind set looks at how well the things seem confirmed. Of course, that doesn't mean we have absolute truth. But one get much further in an investigation the more one understands the illusion of truth.


    The result: the nearest expectation to truth is a balanced nuclear equation accurate to 4 decimal places. Maybe not to your standard but I venture it is excellent by the standards of most professionals. However, the show isn't over until the fat lady sings. Further, I am happy to be wrong when the next analysis gets me closer to something that might be practical.

  • I did read it, and thought about commenting but it would get involved.


    Anyway, balancing all this up and working out what is a specific and definite prediction that would prove or disprove Ed's hypothesis is difficult. If it cannot be disproved I'd say it will make little progress because by definition its predictivity is too low to allow experiments to guide theory.

    It will take work. From my model, I can make more specific predictions. We will see where that goes.


    I intend to make some comments myself in that thread.

  • You mean stuff like this? Which you have read and understood?

    Yes, I have read statistics and probability theory, and yes I understand it. I never studied the subject formally but I learned a lot from my late mother. The title of this book is:


    PROBABILITY THEORY – THE LOGIC OF SCIENCE


    I think it should say "the logic of some science." There are many fields in which probability must be taken into account. Especially medical science. The 1919 eclipse proof of relativity was somewhat probabilistic in nature, as described by Collins and Pinch in "The Golem." But probability plays no role in other fields, such as chemistry. Experiments often produce such clear results that even one test proves the point. The most extreme example in history was the first test of an atomic bomb. There was no doubt it was a nuclear explosion. There was no significant chemical fuel and it far exceeded the limits of chemistry.


    Some cold fusion results are probabilistic. You need to apply statistics to confirm the results. Miles' helium results are a good example. He explains the statistics on pages 43 - 45:


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


    Other experiments are self-evidently positive and need no statistical validation. They produce heat that is easily detected and far beyond the limits of chemistry, similar to an atomic bomb. An experiment that produces 100 W excess for weeks, amounting to ~10,000 more than any possible chemical reaction, needs no statistical justification. If that experiment was run 100 times and it only worked once, that would still be irrefutable proof that the reaction is real. The fact that it only happens rarely, 1% of the time, is irrelevant.

  • You mean stuff like this? Which you have read and understood?


    https://bayes.wustl.edu/etj/prob/book.pdf


    (This is on internet and free - a better edited version can be bought, I believe).

    What probability of correctness would you assign to your assertion that a world expert in tritium measurement modified his mass spec to make it less sensitive and then also didn't detect this before completing a series of measurements?


    Presumably this would be a compound probability?

  • How often? Do other critiques often reflect the conditions of the person making them? In that case you must be grossly incompetent about every aspect of science

    Not so much science, or intellectual critiques. However descriptions of personality v often have this property - people see in others what in fact they themselves have.


    It has porbably got a name...

  • Not so much science, or intellectual critiques. However descriptions of personality v often have this property - people see in others what in fact they themselves have.

    Okay, so you imagine that Fleischmann, Storms and these others are incapable of doing middle school level science. You think they are making egregious mistakes that no trained scientist would make. You keep listing such mistakes. Such as modifying a tritium detector accidentally making it less sensitive, and never testing it. Or not looking at the computer record to see when boiling began and ended. Such horrendous mistakes are more personality shortcomings than technical errors. So, based on what you say here, your claims are projection. "People see in others what in fact they themselves have." It is not that Storms and these others are incapable of measuring tritium because they are morons and they never read the textbooks. It is you who has this problem. You are the one who makes stupid mistakes.


    Anyone can read the papers and see that the researchers did not make the mistakes you ascribe to them. Anyone can see you made this stuff up, and then claimed it was the researchers who did these things. Apparently you would make this kind of mistake, and you assume everyone else does, too.


    Either that or you are trolling us. Hoping to convince people who have not read the literature that Storms and the others do not understand the first thing about tritium, calorimetry, helium detection and so on.


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.