The perpetual “is LENR even real” argument thread.

Greenyer was upset of course, as he built much of his theory on the Parkhomov results. Bob then said he was going to talk with him (Parkhomov) to ask if Google ever contacted him for guidance. We never heard back from Greenyer though. Real mess.

In their defense, Google had to decide which replication to attempt in 2014-15. That was a time when IH was still backing Rossi, and before we found out the extent of fraud at Doral. Parkhomov was at the time reporting extraordinary Rossi based results, so things did look promising then. I could see how they were lured down that rabbit hole.

Quote from THHuxleynew

I find this very difficult to believe - I'd like to hear their side of it.

I do too. Hagelstein did ask Trevithick why, after the 1st Parkhomov failed test, he did another 399 as I recall. I know because I watched it live. Matt was clearly uncomfortable as Hagelstein is his former mentor, and mumbled something in reply.

They deserve to be heard before condemning them though. Until then I will give them my benefit of the doubt. There is likely much more to the story.

They did so much for the field by helping mainstream the science, clear the way for new blood to enter the field, and lay the foundation for ICCF24 to take place in Silicon Valley, that I am willing to forgive and forget if it comes to that.

Quote from THHuxleynew

I find this very difficult to believe - I'd like to hear their side of it.

There was a long chain of (essentially private) emails from many prominent LENR researchers around the time that the Google team paper was published in Nature expressing incredulity at the fact they did not seek advice. The only exception (from memory) was Ed Storms, who discussed Seebeck calorimetry systems with them, but even he didn't feel the Google team had done enough due diligence before starting their experiments. An apologist for Google (I am not going to name names) said that the reason they didn't seek support is that (I paraphrase) ' they wanted to avoid adopting any preconceptions as to what to do, or how to do it.'

Quote from Shane D.

According to Hagelstein at ICCF24, all of Google's 400 replication attempts were on the Parkhomov experiment.

I think there were 400 replications of the Parkhomov experiment. Peter asked something like: what did you learn from test #400 that you did not know from #399? He was being sarcastic. He meant they should have stopped earlier than that.

I think they also did conventional F&P bulk Pd. (The description was unclear, but I believe that is what the other tests were.) They said they did not achieve sufficiently high loading to produce excess heat. They came close in one instance. They did not say how many times they tried. The statement about high loading was ambiguous. To me, anyway. I wasn't sure what they meant. So I asked them, and they said yes, there was only one case of borderline high-enough loading. In other words, you would not expect any of these tests to work. That is a shame!

Quote from Shane D.

Hagelstein did ask Trevithick why, after the 1st Parkhomov failed test, he did another 399 as I recall.

I think he meant they should have stopped earlier, but not necessarily after the first failed test. Maybe after #20, or #100?? I don't know, but one test is not enough.

Here is Bob Greenyer’s passionate response to the 400 replications.

I was really busy during the days of the ICCF 24 and remember watching this on a “bathroom break” and wondering “what might be the context to this”. Now I understand better.

Quote from THHuxleynew

The problem is that that no controlled LENR results have complete analyses of error.

All the major experiments have complete analyses of error. The errors are the same ones J. P. Joule had in 1841. I mean that literally and exactly. Joule spelled out nearly every reason calorimetry can be inaccurate, and all of his reasons apply to modern calorimeters.

(The errors in tritium and helium detection are also spelled out, but I do not know much about them.)

Errors in cold fusion calorimetry are exactly the same in calorimetry for other uses, such as determining the caloric content of food. I think perhaps you mean parameter determination, or parameter control issues, rather than errors. That's what I would call it, anyway. Perhaps I quibble over terminology. Anyway --

No LENR result is completely controlled. However the control parameters from bulk Pd-D are well known and expressed in McKubre's equation. This is a little tricky but . . . knowing the control parameters and being able to use them are two different things. We know you have to achieve high loading. We know there are various methods to do this. But those methods do not always work. It is a bit like flying an airplane through a hurricane. Pilots know the proper techniques and many of them succeed, but the techniques are difficult and they sometimes failed.

If LENR were completely controlled, we would have cold fusion cars by now.

Quote from THHuxleynew

That is because error estimates must include a term for the differences between control and active runs: that is difficult to bound.

They always do include such estimates. That it not at all difficult to bound.

Quote from THHuxleynew

It is usually assumed negligible - but that assumption may be wrong.

Not at all. Most controls use Pt instead of Pd, or ordinary water instead of heavy water. The differences between Pt and Pd, and between ordinary and heavy water are known in great detail. Electrochemists know a terrific amount about them.

Quote from THHuxleynew

For first principle results where data depends only on direct measurement of excess heat I do not think we have so many positives?

All excess heat is measured directly, by calorimetry. Positive results were reported by over 180 labs. See Storms Table 2. Storms made a histogram of 124 individual test results. (https://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?page_id=1618) He could have added more, but that was enough to show the distribution of power levels. I counted 153 papers in mainstream, peer-reviewed journals that described positive excess heat results. See p. 4:

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

That is 153 papers. Some described many experiments, dozens in some cases. Some were positive, and some negative, but the authors all concluded that the effect is real.

What is your definition of "not so many?" If the 124 results shown in the histogram is not enough, or it does not include enough high power results, what would be enough?

Quote from THHuxleynew

Perhaps it would be interesting to look at what fraction of excess heat measurements come from direct measurement.

They all did. Perhaps I misunderstand. What do you mean by "direct" measurement? What would an indirect method be? Finding melted metal in the cathode after the test? This has also been done.

Quote from THHuxleynew

This is covered by this issue: excess heat results got by comparison with a control run (the usual case) do not have this built-in negative bias.

All excess heat results are always in comparison with a control run. They are also always measured by first principles. In other words, the temperature is higher than the calibration curve AND based on a model of the calorimeter and first principles, the higher temperature indicates more heat is coming out than going in.

(First principles are easier to understand with a flow calorimeter than other types. Modeling is a lot better than it used to be, thanks to modern software.)

Quote from THHuxleynew

The level of peer review of these experiments is lamentable.

It is indeed. But after all, hundreds of positive, peer-reviewed papers were published, and the positive ones survived very rigorous, exacting peer-review, according to the authors. It took years in some cases. The negative papers got through to publication like shit through a goose. Any damn nonsense was published without objection. Similar to the Hoffman book. (For which the ANS paid hundreds of thousands of bucks! That's annoying!!!)

Quote from THHuxleynew

But when you say skeptics have found no systematic errors: Shanahan has found two errors which might apply.

I do not think he did. I think his papers are in the "shit through a goose" category. All the researchers I know agree, for the reasons given here:

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

Quote from THHuxleynew

ATER will apply directly to all electrolysis experiments.

What does "ATER" mean? Is that the Shanahan hypothesis?

Quote from THHuxleynew

Thus a systematic error in methodology can be selected - or a systematic unexpected chemical effect - it is indistinguishable in this experimental paradigm from a genuine optimisation of the anomalous effect.

There can be no undiscovered systematic errors in calorimetric techniques that have been used in science and technology for 180 years, thousands of times a day. This is simply impossible. It is a lot like suggesting that mercury thermometers may not work -- they might be wrong by 20 degrees -- and no one ever noticed.

Cold fusion is new, but the methods of measuring it have not changed in 180 years. These methods are grounded in the laws of thermodynamics, which are rock solid. The experimental paradigm is exactly the same one used by Joule to establish his laws; and by chemists to measure the heat of reactions; and by the Curies to measure the heat of radioactivity. Nothing new or different has been used to measure cold fusion heat. No new principles or methods are applied.

Cold fusion researchers consulted with many of the world's leading experts in calorimetry, such as Robert Duncan. Bockris asked "the top expert in the state of Texas" to visit his lab and review the instruments and techniques. The expert showed up, looked around, and asked, "how much heat are you measuring?" Bockris told him, and the expert laughed and said, "anyone can measure that much heat!" He meant it. Any competent scientist in the last 180 years could have. Many things about cold fusion are difficult, but the calorimetry is not. Many things are new but the experimental paradigm is not.

No "systematic unexpected chemical effects" can produce 100,000 times more energy than any known chemical effect with absolutely no measurable changes in the chemical composition. You start with Pd and D2O and you end with the exact same thing -- except for microscopic amounts of D2O converted to helium. Any chemical effect that produces measurable heat must make measurable, macroscopic changes to the chemical composition.

Quote from THHuxleynew

It is logically impossible to include the differences between Pd-H and Pd-D or whatever control you like without instrumenting and measuring temperatures and the things all over the two.

This has been done since heavy water was discovered. The qualities of heavy water are known in tremendous detail and described in the textbooks.

With many methods of calorimetry, you do not need to measure the temperature of the Pd-H or Pd-D directly. You measure the heat outside the cell with flow, Seebeck, or isoperibolic where the temperature is measured outside the cell with a copper sheath.

Quote from THHuxleynew

McKubre - the one I know best - and I believe one of the better experiments - had 3 TCs at different points in the liquid. That is not enough.

Which liquid do you mean? The cooling water in the flow calorimeter? Or the electrolyte? As far as I recall, McKubre placed two thermocouples in the flow, for the inlet and outlet. * Both behind Venturis to ensure a uniform fluid temperature. He did not put thermocouples in the electrolyte. Many other people did. F&P used an array of 5, oriented vertically or horizontally. (They moved the array for different tests.) Other people put thermocouples or thermistors in the electrolyte even though they measured the heat externally, with flow or Seebeck calorimetry. In all cases, multiple temperature sensors showed uniform liquid temperatures. The temperature is the same to within 0.01°C everywhere in the electrolyte except immediately adjacent to the hot cathode and anode. How many more thermocouples would it take to convince you of this? 10 more? 100 more? Why would you expect any temperature difference? What additional information would you learn from confirming it is uniform in 10 places rather than 5? The mixing of water and other fluids under the influence of heat is well understood. It can be modeled in tremendous detail. It is no different from cold fusion heat than from electric resistance heat, fission heat, or combustion.

I do not understand what you would expect to find with more thermocouples.

The electrolyte is always well mixed by conventional electrochemical bubbles and the heat. This is good to know, but not essential to know when heat is measured externally.

* CORRECTION. It looks like 2 RTDs in the inlet, and 2 in the outlet. p. 9:

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

I asked Shanahan several times (in this forum) to describe to me an experiment which confirmed his speculations so I could perform it. He always evaded the question or claimed he had already done so (which he had not). He's a member here btw, but not present much lately.

Quote from THHuxleynew

Yes, there can if those errors relate to systems with new electrochemical effects never before seen.

Please explain this in more detail. How can a new electrochemical effect reach outside the cell and change the performance of a flow calorimeter or a Seebeck calorimeter? Be specific.

Be more specific. How can this electrochemical effect continue to change the performance of the calorimeter for 1 to 3 days after electrolysis stops, in heat after death? How does this new electrochemical effect also produce errors in measuring helium in another lab, weeks later? Why does this error always come up with a ratio of 24 MeV of heat per helium atom? Errors, by their nature, produce random values. How does this electrochemical error also fool the instruments used to measure tritium, including instruments far from the cell, and tritium measured repeatedly months after electrolysis stops? How does a new electrochemical effect produce spurious x-rays in autoradiographs placed outside the cell, or in the electrolyte? How does it cause the same pattern of x-rays in many different films, some placed on top of one another? Again, errors do not produce consistent, repeatable results.

For that matter, how would the new electrochemical affect cause a problem with isoperibolic calorimetry measured in the electrolyte when we know the electrolyte temperature is uniform? A new electrochemical effect cannot change the heat capacity of water, or the Stefan-Boltzmann coefficient, or the other parameters that govern heat losses from a glass cell. The glass itself is not changed, except by very small amounts of lithium salts in the glass that cannot be removed, and these same amounts are left by control experiments with Pt and no heat.

You cannot just wave your hands and say that a new electrochemical effect never seen can cause these errors. You have to specify how and why it could cause them, and how it manages to continue causing them long after electrolysis stops. And, for that matter, how non-electrochemical methods of creating hydrides such as gas loading also causes these errors. I, on the other hand, can explain all of these things with a different hypothesis. I think there is nuclear fusion occurring in the cell. That explains the heat, helium, tritium and x-rays.

Quote from THHuxleynew

Anyway - I think rather than abstractly arguing this it would be better to look at a specific set of experiments (McKubre if you like) and see which errors are considered and which ones are not considered, or assumed insignificant.

I invite you to do that. McKubre himself did it every day for years. He showed the experiment to dozens of world-class experts, who asked him hundreds of questions. He answered very tough questions from peer-reviewers before his papers were published. This took years in some cases. He put the answers to all of these questions in his papers. So I am confident that whatever reasonable questions you come up with, you will find the answers in his papers. You will see that he did consider every error you can think of, and many others as well.

You have come with some unreasonable questions that will not be addressed in his papers, or other papers. Such as: "We know the temperature is uniform to within 0.01°C in 5 locations in the electrolyte, but can you be sure it is uniform in 10 places? Or 100 places?" No one checked for that, but I do not think it is reasonable to check for it. Everyone assumes that 5 is enough. If you have some reason to think 10 or more are needed, you should tell us what it is.

(If a uniform temperature is not what you are looking for, why would you want additional thermocouples? The only thing they measure is temperature. When they all measure the same temperature, adding additional ones that also measure the same temperature will not tell you anything else about the experiment.)

Quote from JedRothwell

I invite you to do that. McKubre himself did it every day for years. He showed the experiment to dozens of world-class experts, who asked him hundreds of questions. He answered very tough questions from peer-reviewers before his papers were published. This took years in some cases. He put the answers to all of these questions in his papers. So I am confident that whatever reasonable questions you come up with, you will find the answers in his papers. You will see that he did consider every error you can think of, and many others as well.

You have come with some unreasonable questions that will not be addressed in his papers, or other papers. Such as: "We know the temperature is uniform to within 0.01°C in 5 locations in the electrolyte, but can you be sure it is uniform in 10 places? Or 100 places?" No one checked for that, but I do not think it is reasonable to check for it. Everyone assumes that 5 is enough. If you have some reason to think 10 or more are needed, you should tell us what it is.

(If a uniform temperature is not what you are looking for, why would you want additional thermocouples? The only thing they measure is temperature. When they all measure the same temperature, adding additional ones that also measure the same temperature will not tell you anything else about the experiment.)

With all this we are drifting again To the territory where the only justification that THHuxleynew has to insist is that he doesn’t believe the results to be possible at all, so he starts imagining implausible escenarios where his belief can remain intact. We can keep doing this exercise virtually for ever, because in his frame of mind excess heat is impossible in these systems so he is sure there’s an error to be found. No matter how, the excess heat can’t be true.