The perpetual “is LENR even real” argument thread.

Quote from THHuxleynew

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.

We suggested a ton of stuff to Google people. They ignored all of it.

Quote from THHuxleynew

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.

Quote from THHuxleynew

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.

Quote from THHuxleynew

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

Quote from THHuxleynew

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.

Quote from THHuxleynew

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.

Quote from THHuxleynew

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.

Quote from THHuxleynew

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.

Quote from THHuxleynew

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.

Quote from Alan Smith

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.

Quote from THHuxleynew

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.

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.

Quote from Shane D.

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.