The perpetual “is LENR even real” argument thread.

  • No, we do not say that. Stop putting words in our mouths. The top tier experiment cannot be criticized. They are irrefutable. That is to say, no one has refuted them. Skeptics such as Morrison and you tried to refute them, but you failed. You have not shown any errors in Fleischmann, McKubre, Miles, Storms, Bockris or any other. I know that you think you have, but you are wrong.

    Jed, could we deal with this bit by bit?


    Just - for now - which are the top tier experiments? Presumably not F&P Simplicity - it has been criticised, it has been refuted, ascoli corroborated by me has refuted it and no-one here has denied our refutation (you have just ignored it and said "F&P must be correct because they could not make an error". As always hard refutable facts (a video in this case) weigh heaver than assumptions.

    THHuxleynew , you have not said anything about the excess heat in D gas flow through PdAg tubing walls like Fralick did in 1989 and was confirmed as presented by Benyo at ICCF24. There are other analog results by Li with a Pd thin film that also produced excess heat with an energy density of the order of a modern nuclear fission plant. A couple of days ago I found a series of paper from a Chinese team that were published between 2011 and 2015 and some later from 2021 that are all in Pd D or Ni H flow through metal systems, none of the is electrolytic, and some of them with electric pulses to stimulate the gas flow (similar to what Celani does to his Constantan wire reactor).


    I will paste the papers and or links to those that are only available as abstracts ASAP, but you will find these results are 100% reproducible, and the excess heat is beyond any possible error.

    Curbina - energy density same as modern fission plant? That is an irrelevant metric if the active sample is very small and the apparent excess heat comes from somewhere else. In general it is unhelpful, what we need is:

    • lower bound on excess power integrated over experiment is energy >> possible from chemical means given overall experimental constituents.


    I will look at papers but please note:


    • Anything with pulses cannot be safe without careful checking, because pulses can create anomalous dc readings in TCs. If the apparent excess power is well after the pulses (how long depends on the TC measurement system time constant) it is OK.
    • Anything with TCs and H or D needs to be checked for whether the H or D could contaminate the TCs and lead to anomalous readings (there are good ways to check it, calibration before and after, but was it done?

    Lots of other things - need to see the papers.


    Does anyone see the contradiction here?

    • On the one hand many experiments are claimed definite
    • On the other hand none will do for a reference experiment to convince the real skeptics.


    THH


    PS If this is really replicable and good have you tried arguing for it as reference experiment? it is all the google guys have been asking for.

  • Please explain how the differences between H and D can affect the calorimetry. Please be specific.


    You made this assertion before, but you never explained how it might work. In particular, you never showed how the difference between and H and D might affect calorimetry outside the cell, with a flow calorimeter, Seebeck or copper sheath in an isoperibolic cell. I pointed out this problem to you many times, but you refuse to address it.


    Also, please explain why calibrations with a resistance heater, or Pt-Pt electrolysis, never show any difference between heavy and light water.

    Jed, that is not true of experiments in general: for example anything where results depend on thermal resistance of D vs H gas, Pd resistance varies H vs D by a factor of up to 2, other things.


    Overgeneralising is the problem I noted above.


    I did address the flow calorimeter issue perhaps you did not read it. Where heat losses depend on cell temperature distribution H vs D can matter because (a) it alters gas thermal conductivity and (b) it can alter loading, properties of cathode, amount of H or D in liquid. etc. etc. All of these things can under some conditions alter temperature distribution in the cell.


    Now in a perfect flow calorimeter that does not matter - but no calorimeter is perfect so we need to check the details. As always.


    Similarly for other types.


    Really, instead of generalising in this way, you need to point to specific experiments as being irrefutable (and replicable).

  • Sorry - another H vs D can affect things.


    If for any reason the TC is exposed to H or D atmosphere you will get different results, depending on TC type and exposure time, because TCs are sensitive to H or D contamination, H (more than D) will go through most materials, diffusion times are different for H and D.


    All these things need explicit checking in every experiment that relies on H vs D. Easy to do, but not all do it properly. Running controls before and after experiment under identical conditions will usually sort this one out (but not if experiments are long enough for H or D to be baked out of TCs: the good experiments all do this. Not all are good in that way).

  • I'm not against LENR - I just want to understand why it cannot have a reference experiment. If google can do 400 attempts at Ni-H they can try a bit more with Pd-D once their concerns about loading are put to rest.


    For which we need to look at how Storms compiled his table of loading vs success - what were the measurements used to determine loading and what error bounds did they have?

  • If for any reason the TC is exposed to H or D atmosphere you will get different results, depending on TC type and exposure time, because TCs are sensitive to H or D contamination, H (more than D) will go through most materials, diffusion times are different for H and D.

    The Chinese worked with SS jacketed TCs.

    I certainly Hope to see LENR helping humans to blossom, and I'm here to help it happen.

  • Jed, could we deal with this bit by bit?


    Just - for now - which are the top tier experim

    ents?

    The ones I listed: Fleischmann, McKubre, Miles, Storms, Bockris. Plus, I would say, Will, Huggins, Claytor, Mizuno, Gozzi, Srinivasan et al., Yeager, and Oriani. There are several others but those are the early ones I am most familiar with.


    Presenubly not F&B Simplicity - it has been criticised, it has been refuted, ascoli corroborated by me has refuted it and no-one here has denied our refutation

    Definitely Simplicity. You and Ascoli think you have refuted it, but you have not. I and others denied your refutation, for example by pointing out that the heat was measured before and after the boiloff by different methods, and it makes no sense to say it stopped for 10 minutes. You and Ascoli have found no errors in the other two methods. You haven't even tried to find errors! Not that you found any in the boiloff, but you apparently believe you have.


    Feel free to dismiss "Simplicity" for your imaginary reasons. Go ahead and ignore it. Despite what Ascoli says, even if that paper is wrong, that would not make the rest of the literature wrong. I suggest you try to find an error in McKubre instead. I already gave you the paper to look at for that purpose, but here it is again. Have at it!


    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHisothermala.pdf


    Curbina - energy density same as modern fission plant? That is an irrelevant metric if the active sample is very small and the apparent excess heat comes from somewhere else.

    I do not understand why energy density no longer matters if the sample is very small. Density is density. But in any case the sample is large in this experiment. As you would know if you bothered to read anything about it, which of course you have not. Or if you thought about it for a moment. A "very small" hydrogen filter would not work. It would take too long. Perhaps you should learn something about the experiment or the Johnson-Matthey model HP-25 before spouting off about them.


    I do not understand what you mean by "apparent excess heat comes from somewhere else." If it is real excess heat, it cannot come from somewhere else. That would violate the Second Law. If it is apparent, but not real, it does not come from anywhere. It is an instrument artifact. You have not shown any instrument artifact, and I am sure you cannot show one.

  • The Chinese worked with SS jacketed TCs.

    Indeed. Many people will do this, in which case all should be good for that one thing as long as the TC seal is good (you need to look in detail at the spec for long-term exposure of the part where the wires come out). But I'd expect this to be good.


    My point is you need to check every possible error mechanism for applicability to every experiment - not just find that one error does not apply to every experiment.


    It is hard work.

  • They don't need tons of stuff. they need one reference experiment which you guys should be able to agree upon?

    I mean there was a list of stuff agrred upon between us and suggested to them and they pretty much never said anything positive or negative about it.

    I certainly Hope to see LENR helping humans to blossom, and I'm here to help it happen.

  • they need one reference experiment which you guys should be able to agree upon?

    Everyone I know agrees that the original F&P Pd-D experiment is a reference experiment. It is well defined. The control parameters are clear. It was widely replicated at high signal to noise ratios. What else does a reference experiment need to be?


    Perhaps your definition of "reference experiment" is different from the usual. I think it usually means an experiment that everyone agrees is real because it has been widely reproduced with similar results, and much is known about it. It is the standard for other experiments in the field. Given all the literature on the P&P Pd-D and things like the McKubre equation, I would say that fits the bill. Here is one definition of "reference experiment:"


    "The experimenter seeks to replicate both the procedural and outcome variables of a reference experiment. An attempt is made to duplicate [exactly] the sampling procedure, experimental conditions, measuring techniques and methods of analysis of the reference experiment."


    Descriptions of the Replications Typologies


    I do not know anyone who has the money or the time to replicate P&F Pd-D but it is well defined, and there are specific step-by-step instructions from Storms, Cravens, Fleischmann and Miles.


    If the LEC is shown to be anomalous to most people's satisfaction, I think it would make a better reference experiment.



    Perhaps you mean an easily performed experiment. There is no such thing, alas. Not in cold fusion or plasma fusion. However, cold fusion experiments cost a few hundred thousand dollars, whereas ITER will cost . . . well, that depends on who you ask. QUOTE:


    "The initial budget was close to €6 billion, but the total price of construction and operations is projected to be from €18 to €22 billion; other estimates place the total cost between $45 billion and $65 billion, though these figures are disputed by ITER."


    So I would say cold fusion is comparatively simple and easy.

  • If for any reason the TC is exposed to H or D atmosphere you will get different results, depending on TC type and exposure time, because TCs are sensitive to H or D contamination, H (more than D) will go through most materials, diffusion times are different for H and D.

    Some are, and some are not subject to hydrogen attack- Type C for example, which will give reliable service up to 2000C in a hydrogen atmosphere.

  • My point is you need to check every possible error mechanism for applicability to every experiment

    Which all authors have done. They have checked for more errors than you know about. Even when they prove there is no error, you refuse to accept their proof. They checked for the difference between H and D and proved there is no difference, yet you keep insisting there might be a difference. Every single error you have come up with has either been disproved, or it is a violation of physics, such as your suggesting that the heat is coming from somewhere else, or that power density is an "irrelevant metric" with a small sample.


    How can H and D affect the calorimetry? You won't say. There is no physical mechanism that would allow H and D to affect calorimetry, and the calibrations show they do not affect the calorimetry, yet you repeatedly insist that they do. Why? How? If calibration does not prove you are wrong, what would? You won't say.


    In short, what you say cannot be tested and it is not falsifiable.

  • Some are, and some are not subject to hydrogen attack- Type C for example, which will give reliable service up to 2000C in a hydrogen atmosphere.

    Which every experimenter knows. They read the specifications before ordering a thermocouple. The sales reps ask them what they want to use the thermocouples for, to be sure they are ordering the correct type. The thermocouples and thermistors used in these experiments often cost $1,000 to $12,000 including the gadgets used to read them. So people are careful to order the right kind.


    Also, these experiments are carefully reviewed by many experts, including people who know a lot about thermocouples. There was a parade of experts filing through SRI. If there was a problem, the reviewers would point it out. For example, while I know nothing about the Miura company, because they are the largest boiler manufacturer in Japan, I am sure they know a lot about thermocouples. Their boilers would be exploding every day otherwise. They have been collaborating with Clean Planet for 3 years. If Clean Planet were using the wrong kind of thermocouple, Miura would have noticed by now.


    THH apparently assumes that the researchers know nothing about thermocouples. He imagines he has discovered a potential error, but every researcher knows all about this error, and avoids it. He would know they avoid it, if he were to read the papers and look up the equipment they list. In many cases the papers say, "we selected this or that type of thermocouple" for thus and such reason, or "we put the thermocouple in a glass sleeve" or what-have-you. In other words, if THH would bother to read anything, or learn anything before spouting off, he would know without being told that he is wrong. That, he will never do.

  • For which we need to look at how Storms compiled his table of loading vs success - what were the measurements used to determine loading and what error bounds did they have?

    I believe you mean McKubre. What were the measurements and error bounds? Hmmmm . . . How can we find out?!? Let's try your method. Let's sit still, do nothing for years, and keep spouting off the same questions, again and again. We appeal to nature itself to somehow put this knowledge in our minds, in a flash of inspiration. Kind of like Zazen mediation, where you sit for hours on a tatami mat on the veranda at 5 in the morning, with frost on the ground and you hardly dressed, with a Zen master monk who whacks you with stick if you lose concentration, or fidget. You try to answer the unanswerable koan -- basically an irrational question, where even the predicate makes no sense, such as "what if the apparent heat is coming from somewhere else"? This gradually dissolves your sense of logic and faith in reality, leading to satori -- the revelation that reality is not what it seems!


    That would be one method of learning about the measurements and error bounds. I wouldn't recommend it. I actually have some experience doing this sort of thing at 5 in the morning. I cannot recommend it. What I recommend instead is that you try reading the literature.

  • There was a strong discharge at 2:24 min., look, it will be a new energy.


    External Content www.youtube.com
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

    Нефть - это кровь планеты, надо сделать модель планеты и мы получим генератор Тарасенко, эта энергия покорит вселенную! :lenr:

  • Everyone I know agrees that the original F&P Pd-D experiment is a reference experiment. It is well defined. The control parameters are clear. It was widely replicated at high signal to noise ratios. What else does a reference experiment need to be?

    Perhaps you could link a write-up of this?


    Simplicity was obviously not suitable, and It would be interesting to see here a proper write-up of an F&P experiment without holes that could be used now for that purpose.


    Or, if F&P never wrote it up, perhaps somone else has?


    Anyway I am with you in that D/Pd electrolysis seems to me to be the best bet. We juts need to remove all holes in the experiment, and use best understanding now of how to get higher probability of it working. All that needs to be incorporated in the reference experiment spec.


    THH

  • I can see where this is going...right back to Foamgate. How about we keep it at "You are wrong, I am right" and vice versa, and leave it at that? No more deep dives.


    It can be like the old "Tastes great...less filling!" beer commercials. Never a real resolution to the debate as it is really about personal opinion. Same with the FP boil-off.

  • I can see where this is going...right back to Foamgate. How about we keep it at "You are wrong, I am right" and vice versa, and leave it at that? No more deep dives.


    It can be like the old "Tastes great...less filling!" beer commercials. Never a real resolution to the debate as it is really about personal opinion. Same with the FP boil-off.

    Just so everyone knows, I warned once that I would delete posts relating to that, and I have simply done exactly as warned, I don’t mind keep doing that, we are not going back to that topic again. The closed thread contains all the arguments from both sides that will ever be.

    I certainly Hope to see LENR helping humans to blossom, and I'm here to help it happen.