The perpetual “is LENR even real” argument thread.

Quote from THHuxleynew

You perhaps have paid attention to only part of the thread. I am a relatively undramatic person. However when accused by multiple people here (with no pushback from mods) of being a profit-motivated company with multiple employees all pretending to be me to create Russian disinformation I get annoyed.

Maybe the US would not understand it but sentiment against Putin for consistent and egregious breaking of any sort of rules-based order (the EU likes rules) is strong. You know, land grabs from neighbours, radioactive poisoning of enemies on foreign soil, that sort of thing.

"Pushing back" is not the same as wanting to stifle dissent.

I guess anyone in Russia now understands that - and I hope you do too. Fan clubs cannot tolerate portrayals of their object that they do not like - however well attested.

Display More

what does all this have to do with Putin or Russia?! I never even came close to those terms. I am still trying to figure out what your position is regarding "cold Fusion" please? Land grabs, errrrr what?

Are you actually accusing me of trying to shut 'dissenting" voices?! that would be amusing, since I am not part of the (or any) establishment and feel like our voice (believers that LENR is a real thing and science is not settled) is being censored pretty much everywhere, you know like papers not accepted, because if would violate the Copenhagen interpretation... which did happen to us when offering a paper on SAM, because it is not based on the Copenhagen Interpretation and neutrons are regarded as a fact (yes there is such a thing as the free-neutron, but not as a fundamental particle!), despite the large amount of evidence that the nuclear electron is a real thing and it works even better often than the concept of the neutron. In fact the book we wrote is basically a huge paper.

My simple problem with all this is that I feel mistreated by your writings often ( my perception) and feel like you are treating everyone here as one of your students that need some rectifying to the "settled science". Well Never going to happen, since I do not accept the Copenhagen Interpretation, neutron stars or heavy metals created by colliding neutron stars, nor the Big Bang, nor time travel and most certainly not a believer in dark matter or energy and last one, antimatter. All this is not needed to explain anything on a atomic or nuclear level. That is what I am trying to show others here on this forum. I try to do this via the Structured Atom Model and we wrote a whole book about this. I would ask you to at least try and read up on this, or watch the many video's and presentations about this. Perhaps there is something there worth discussing...
I can provide you with lots of additional information, but our book is most complete and thorough with lots of details and how this all works. In short, the structure of the nucleus as proposed in SAM is key to understanding all the physical and chemical attributes of atoms, meaning the nucleus organization is dictating for example the valence value, or how many isotopes can exist for an element, or what and how the neutron drip line comes into being, Or even the energy released by nuclear fission and on top of that why the fission of Uranium for example always breaks up in 2 different uneven chunks (elements).

There is so much more, but I think I made my point. It would be interesting to see you dive into this material and am serious about this,. please do look at our work and be critical and skeptical and all that. No problem, I think you will see that we are really not that far from mainstream science as you may perceive, despite me not accepting all the mentioned concepts. Norman Cook, pointed out in his book "models for Atomic Nuclei" how the current atomic models are all limited and as far as I know not one model ever provided an explanation for the uneven splitting of the nucleus. I think SAM does. but people like yourself should look at it first.

I am really trying to be polite and very honest here and try to stick to the topic at hand, and on top of that perhaps we can have some sensible debate about all this.

Should you be prepared to read up on this I will sent you the book personally in E format. This stuff is important! and I do not want this childish fighting.

Please can I ask you where you stand on the concept of LENR, meaning with a small input of energy we release the nuclear forces (energy)? Just provide me with a few sentences that would reflect your position, that would be handy to know.

Quote from THHuxleynew

You perhaps have paid attention to only part of the thread. I am a relatively undramatic person. However when accused by multiple people here (with no pushback from mods) of being a profit-motivated company with multiple employees all pretending to be me to create Russian disinformation I get annoyed.

There is pushback. One 2 week ban and other actions.

Quote from Edo

what does all this have to do with Putin or Russia?!

its about the persona rather than LENR...or saving the planet..don't feed the persona

Quote from THHuxleynew

That is one reason I keep on offering to mods here to leave if they want that. But really, any decent funder would get info in other ways than this open board.

So you do, and we always say 'we want you to stay'. As for funders using this space for due diligence? Not in my experience, but they do use it to make potential contacts in the field.

Quote from THHuxleynew

My interest in LENR is that I like mysteries - an I like resolving them.

ETA. I don't think you can do that from a seat in the upper circle.

Quote from THHuxleynew

I am only every that certain about maths, or physics that is essentially maths made manifest (in which case of course I still know it can be only an approximation). I am never so certain about anomalous results.

Are you sure about the Schrodinger equation, or do you assume that it may be just an approximation? Here I do not mean an approximation to the Dirac equation, but an approximation to the generalized Schrodinger equation, which takes into account gravity (acceleration).

Quote from THHuxleynew

Of course if this site is political advocacy, and a route for funders to find those doing experimental work, I should probably be banned because some funders will be more attracted by an overly positive view than an accurate one.

That is one reason I keep on offering to mods here to leave if they want that. But really, any decent funder would get info in other ways than this open board.

Everyone wants to dive on their sword and be a martyr lately. Must be the moon phase. Now stop being a drama queen. We are NOT asking you to leave. However, we have asked that you start giving credit to the researchers devoting their lives to LENR, that they DO know what they are doing.

Jed has said this well before, so pardon me saying the same thing...so far everything you feel obsessed with "teaching" them is nothing new to them. Yes, they are not stupid and have thought of all this before. They know it is a mystery, and they know they have not put all the pieces of the puzzle together. Little of it makes sense, and contradicts most of what is known science. They were well aware of all this from the very first conferences, through to today.

They have tried telling you that in so many words, but it does not seem to be registering. Now please, take all this into consideration as you carry out your duties as our most important resident skeptic.

Quote from THHuxleynew

The levels detected in all the non-retracted LENR experiments are very low, even though in some cases 10X the background.

1. There are no retracted LENR experiments as far as I know. Which ones do you have mind? Which of these included reports of tritium? Please be specific.
2. Levels of 10 times background to 50 times background are not "very low." They are very high. They are so high that if that level of tritium were in the air, the radiation alarms would be triggered and the laboratory would have to be abandoned. Therefore, the tritium cannot be leaking into the cell from the surroundings.
3. Every expert in tritium I have spoken with has said it would be impossible to miss these levels. It would be like not being able to measure 20 to 100 W of heat, or the difference between 1 cm and 8 cm. (However, you believe that researchers are unable to measure 20 to 100 W, and they cannot tell the difference between 1 cm and 8 cm, so I guess this argument does not sway you.)

Quote from THHuxleynew

I have no idea - it was others who have repeatedly, from time-to-time viewed me as a paid disinformant.

I mentioned it because of the irony: I, like pretty well everyone else in the UK, detests Putin for his actions, and the repression of dissent is indeed not what this forum does, but it it what many voices here are calling for. Since this is a private corner of the internet, and I don't like to go on saying things where not welcome - if I feel overall not welcome (rather than just getting a bit of flak) I am happy to desist here.

That is a very biased position you take there, a political one and since we are here in an international community, as mentioned, a guest, I would rather not see that. I consider many Russian people friends or at least friendly and the rhetoric about Russia in the UK media or any media should not be repeated here unless you want to invoke a counter narrative.

Again I want to invite you to take a look at a recent made post about the mass of the 'neutron', perhaps that is more to your liking? I am asking there for all to take a good look and think it through, to check my rather simple math and how this may some day lead to better insights in the nuclear realm and as a consequence our most fundamental physics.
Or better yet, read the work the SAM team has done in the footsteps of the late Norman Cook about the structure of the nucleus. Should the nucleus not be organized? or is it a chaotic lump of stuff? I first it is the first....

Is the neutron actually less massive than the proton is?!

Quote from THHuxleynew

1approximates 2 approximates 3 approximates 4

4 does not exist yet, but it is clearly in my biassed but informed opinion "real" in some sense - enough work has been done that pans out for that. Not claiming I understand or can work on that math of 4.

And in my humble opinion, 3 does not approach 4 in any way, but 1 is easy to approach 4 as a result of modification of the Schrodinger equation. Similarly, LENR overcomes the Coulomb barrier.

Quote from THHuxleynew

These generalisations from you or me don't help. And when we look at details - as with F&P and foamgate - we disagree.

Yes, that is clear. You think that when Fleischmann, Pons, their staff, their visitors look at a cell with so much foam no one can see the waterline, they think they can see the waterline. They all agree they can see it. In other words, you think these people are insane. That is not plausible, in my opinion.

Quote from THHuxleynew

I'm not trying to continue those arguments.

I will not let you or the readers here forget that this argument is outrageous nonsense. So are all your other arguments, but this one is particularly ridiculous. From time to time, I will remind the readers that you evidently think F&P are lunatics. I am sure you will come back and repeat this again and again, just as you keep saying that tritium at 10 times background is "very low." Saying "very low" does not make it low, but you have the notion that repeating something will persuade people, even when it is odds with the textbooks and what every expert says.

Quote from THHuxleynew

PS - as for not reading Miles - I did - a long time ago. And made the same points then I make now. And you did not understand me then.

You are saying that Miles did not understand you. Not me. All of the points in my summary paper came from Miles -- from his papers, lectures, and comments to me. He addressed all of the issues you raised, and many others as well. He reviewed my paper and corrected it, so I am sure I have reported his views accurately.

Miles and I understood what you wrote. We understood it perfectly, long before you wrote it, because other people said the same things. I wrote a careful exposition addressing the issues these people brought up.

Quote from THHuxleynew

I will go back to it and rework it, but I remember the disagreement then - which came when I was reading the relevant papers - so I'd expect it to be rehashed. I am happy to do that.

You should have done that before posting a list of problems. Every problem you listed is addressed in my summary and in the papers by Miles.

FIRST read the paper, THEN write a critique. If you have forgotten it, read it again. This is what they teach in grade school. Do not write a book report on a book you have not read.

I am creating this thread to gather posts that begin to derail other threads when members like THHuxleynew and others begin to question the entire field of LENR and draw the attention of other members to start endless circular arguments that end derailing and diluting the value of the threads where those comments are posted. I will probably move several posts from other threads to this one to offer a space to keep the argument ongoing without disrupting the threads. Everyone is welcome to join the discussion that most probably will rage on this thread as long as the arguments are civil and we avoid insults, mockery or derision.

Moved 96 post from other thread here. Will probably move more as I find them, but this is a good start.

One important note: please do not return to the “foamgate”discussion, it won’t be allowed here. We closed that thread already, no point on going back to that. Posts dealing with that topic will be removed.

Quote from THHuxleynew

The real difference between us, which I have noted a few times and you not acknowledged, is our attitude towards the interpretation of experimental data. You believe that an unbiassed expert, looking at the LENR data, would be convinced that LENR existed. I don't.

I do not "believe" that. I have observed that is a fact. I know just about every expert in the world who has looked at the experimental data. All but three or four of them were convinced that LENR exists. I know in detail why they were convinced, and to what extent, and what aspects of the research they are convinced of; i.e., they are all sure of the tritium but not necessarily biological transmutation claims.

It is true that hundreds of other scientists are not convinced, but these others have not read the literature and they know nothing about cold fusion, so their opinions do not count. I am sure they have not read the literature because most of them say they have not. They say there is no literature. Not only that, but they do not know what instruments were used, what results were obtained, or what conclusions were drawn. A person cannot have a valid opinion about experimental science he has not read.

You say "I don't." Yes, but you have no basis for your belief. You have not spoken with the experts who have looked at the LENR data. You have not read what they wrote. So you have no idea what percent of them are convinced, and what percent are not convinced. You are speculating about the opinions of a group of people you have not met, or talked to, or read. This is your imagination, with no real-world evidence. Whereas I am talking about real people whose opinions I know in detail. Let me repeat: The group of experts who have looked at the data is small, several hundred people. I know them. You don't.

Whether this group is biased or unbiased is another matter. I agree with them, so I think they are unbiased. You haven't read them, or the literature, so you have no idea whether they are biased. You can only judge bias after carefully reading the papers and then reading the critiques of the people whose judgement you wish to judge.

Quote from JedRothwell

The group of experts who have looked at the data is small, several hundred people.

Needless to say, many non-experts have read papers. People have visited LENR-CANR.org 6.7 million times and downloaded 4.5 million papers. When I say "experts," I mean electrochemists, and experts in tritium, calorimetry, and other relevant fields. I mean people who would be qualified to replicate, or assist in a replication.

Electrochemistry is a small world. Martin Fleischmann knew just about every academic electrochemist in the world, and they all knew him. Many people know about tritium, but only a handful of experts know a lot about it. People like Jalbert, who designed the tritium detection facilities at Los Alamos and the PPPL. He along with most other top experts participated in cold fusion experiments and confirmed that the effect is real.

You can probably find a distinguished expert in tritium who does not believe cold fusion is real. Ask him questions, and you will quickly discover that he has not read the papers and he knows nothing about cold fusion experiments. So, obviously, his opinion does not count.