The perpetual “is LENR even real” argument thread.

Ed has measured emissions in detail before coming up with this hypothesis. And apparently NASA is marking his homework right now. Worth adding that radiation measurement and calculation was a great part of his remit when running the Los Alamos rocket propulsion reactor programme

Quote from Alan Smith

Ed has measured emissions in detail before coming up with this hypothesis.

Ed's calorimetry is also useful

Quote from THHuxleynew

"…. or even, it seems a popular topic here, "the whole thing is set up by secret russian agents" explanation for the experimental data.

Some of it is true, in a way. Much intentional disinformation was disseminated about amazing new physics discoveries and even new sciences invented by military interests and the most genius of patriotic scientists. So much so that now it has come full circle and now they believe it and think it is being suppressed somehow by the PTB, or in some cases is now being advanced again for another round of propaganda, this time with additional buoyancy of popular belief.

Quote from THHuxleynew

be working in the shadows without well-written papers, peer-review of those papers by mainstream scientists, robust debate in the literature.

Your comments are idiotic, false and damaging. You should write up your critique and submit it for peer review to the many scientific journals that accept CMNS papers. Stop working in the shadows without well-written papers, peer-review of those papers by mainstream scientists, and robust debate in the literature.

STAY off this thread... STOP commenting on posts, your agenda is false and obfuscates truth.

Moderators

Please give this THHUXLEYNEW his own thread and move all his comments to there.

If not, why should I keep posting here?

Am I supposed to have to argue with him constantly or just let his false narrative stand?

Get him off our backs.

100'S of CMNS papers are published in mainstream journals.

Delete all his comments from this thread at least.

Why should I have to face him everyday?

If that's a requirement I would rather not participate at all.

Lose him or lose me.

Quote from Gregory Byron Goble

Your comments are idiotic, false and damaging. You should write up your critique and submit it for peer review to the many scientific journals that accept CMNS papers. Stop working in the shadows without well-written papers, peer-review of those papers by mainstream scientists, and robust debate in the literature.

STAY off this thread... STOP commenting on posts

Moderators

Please give this THHUXLEYNEW his own thread and move all his comments to there.

If not, why should I keep posting here?

Am I supposed to have to argue with him constantly or just let his false narrative stand?

Get him off our backs.

100'S of CMNS papers are published in mainstream journals.

Delete all his comments from this thread at least.

Why should I have to face him everyday?

If that's a requirement I would rather not participate at all.

Lose him or lose me.

Display More

No need to put things in black of white. We can always strongly disagree without the need to cancel the other person. We won’t be arm twisted into banning anyone just because of different personal styles and views.

Quote from THHuxleynew

But, you see, LENR is not an "effect". It is a statement that said collection of effects are caused by nuclear reactions.

For that you need theory.

No, that is an observation, not a statement of theory. It is a nuclear reaction by definition. That is to say:

There is no chemical fuel, and no chemical changes in the cell.

The heat far exceeds the limits of chemistry.

The reaction produces helium in the same ratio to the heat as one of the plasma fusion D-D reactions.

The reaction sometimes produces tritium, which can only be the product of a nuclear reaction.

None of that is theory, any more than it would be theory to say: "there are flames and smoke, and ashes results, so this must be combustion."

A theory is needed to explain how the deuterons fuse, but the fact that they fuse is an observation.

Quote from THHuxleynew

Also, it removes the main excuse for the LENR community to be working in the shadows without well-written papers, peer-review of those papers by mainstream scientists, robust debate in the literature.

That is incorrect. All major journals reject papers on cold fusion without review. That is what the editors tell authors. Also, in most universities and national labs, if a professor were to begin a cold fusion experiment, or even talk about cold fusion, she would be summarily fired. Even if she had tenure, they would cook up a false reason to fire her, and to deport her if possible. This has happened to a number of professors and to Miles, a Fellow of the Institute.

Nature will probably only publish a negative paper, accompanied by an editorial slandering cold fusion researchers and lying about the results.

Quote from JedRothwell

None of that is theory, any more than it would be theory to say: "there are flames and smoke, and ashes results, so this must be combustion."

Here are three other observations about cold fusion that are not explained by theory. We do not need any theory to confirm these; we need only instruments to observe them:

1. With bulk Pd-D electrolysis, the reaction only begins with high loading. It may continue in heat after death with lower loading.

2. The McKubre equation also applies to bulk Pd-D electrolysis:

Pxs = K(I − I0) 2(X − X0)dX / dt

Excess power = Current density * Loading * Rate of change of loading (flux)

3. According to Ed Storms, cracks one-atom wide and particles of a critical size are needed. This has not been independently observed yet, but if it is, that will be an important observation. It can be confirmed by nano-machining cracks one-atom wide to see of they enhance the reaction. Ed has a theory to explain this. The theory may well be wrong, but if the observations are replicated they will be correct, by definition. There is no other standard of correctness in experimental science.

Before the development of modern physics, up to around 1700, there were countless confirmed observations not supported by theory. Because there was not much theory. Even the nature of things like combustion and metabolism were a complete mystery, but people knew a great deal about both. The theories they did have were wrong. The caloric theory was wrong. They did not understand that heat and work are the same thing. Despite this, they accomplished many practical tasks with fire.

Before 1952, there was no theoretical basis for genetics, but there was no question that genes existed, and they are in the chromosomes. There were large textbooks full of useful information about things like dominant and recessive genes. There was a great deal of confusion and controversy about the theoretical basis of these observations.

Quote from Curbina

But you assume it doesn’t because no theory predicts it. Ain’t that a bit blind?

Based on what he has said, THH has made no such assumption.

Quote from JedRothwell

Also, in most universities and national labs, if a professor were to begin a cold fusion experiment, or even talk about cold fusion, she would be summarily fired. Even if she had tenure, they would cook up a false reason to fire her, and to deport her if possible.

About a decade ago my partner and I were at a Cafe Scientifique talk - which was being given by a nuclear physicist from our local university. He was nearing retirement, and had worked on a lot of different projects, in various universities and research institutes, over the years. He was also a proponent of, and strong advocate for, Thorium Fueled Accelerator-driven Subcritical Reactors - which was the main subject of his talk.

He was certainly not a fan of Hot Fusion - and during the Q&A related a whole catalogue of problems with how the various HF projects had unfolded over the years.

Then someone in the audience mentioned cold fusion. If you have ever seen someone overcome by the red mist - this was it. His face went a light shade of purple, he started to shake, and spluttered "but that's... that's... that's... FRAUD!" A stunned silence fell across the room. Eventually one of the hosts had to ask a totally unrelated question to get things moving again.

My partner was shocked. She had not really believed me when I'd previously told her about the attitude to CF research within the "science establishment". But this was a clear and graphic example of the pure anger that could be invoked by simply mentioning the phrase 'cold fusion'...

Quote from Frogfall

Then someone in the audience mentioned cold fusion. If you have ever seen someone overcome by the red mist - this was it. His face went a light shade of purple, he started to shake, and spluttered "but that's... that's... that's... FRAUD!" A stunned silence fell across the room.

I have seen similar reactions, in person and on the internet. Especially Robert Park at the APS. I described some of this on p. 4 here:

https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJcoldfusion.pdf

Quote from Gregory Byron Goble

Moderators

Please give this THHUXLEYNEW his own thread and move all his comments to there

Quote from Curbina

arm twisted into banning anyone

Quote from Gregory Byron Goble

Why should I have to face him everyday?

If that's a requirement I would rather not participate at all.

Lose him or lose me.

Curbina A third choice...

Take on the full time job of critiquing each of the false statements he makes.

Quote from Bruce__H

Based on what he has said, THH has made no such assumption.

I disagree, he clearly thinks nothing outside known theories can exist.

Quote from Gregory Byron Goble

Curbina A third choice...

Take on the full time job of critiquing each of the false statements he makes.

We all here are doing voluntary work, I have a full time day and night job, being an independent cotractor, and I (and many others) argue with THH as much as we can. I have said this many times, and will repeat it, I strongly disagree with him, but that's no basis for banning anyone.

Quote from Curbina

I have said this many times, and will repeat it, I strongly disagree with him, but that's no basis for banning anyone.

Amen! I strongly agree.

Besides, he makes a good foil, in the sense that Hamlet described, only not with a poisoned tip:

HAMLET

I embrace it freely;

And will this brother's wager frankly play.

Give us the foils. Come on.

LAERTES

Come, one for me.

HAMLET

I'll be your foil, Laertes: in mine ignorance

Your skill shall, like a star i' the darkest night,

Stick fiery off indeed.

LAERTES

You mock me, sir.

HAMLET

No, by this hand.

If THH does start waving around a foil with a poisoned tip, he should be banished. Or we can force him to drink poison.

Quote from Curbina

I disagree, he clearly thinks nothing outside known theories can exist.

I don't think that is true about THH in general. But, more specifically, do you not see that as a matter of logic what he said does not entail what you have concluded about him?

Quote from Bruce__H

I don't think that is true about THH in general. But, more specifically, do you not see that as a matter of logic what he said does not entail what you have concluded about him?

Perhaps as an isolated analysis of the phrase alone, but I never separate a phrase from the whole context.