The perpetual “is LENR even real” argument thread.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    Results are always cross-checked. You made that up. You cannot find an example of major experiment that was not cross-checked by every method used in that type of experiment. For example, tritium detection is always confirmed by multiple methods.


    Quote from JedRothwell

    Also explain why tritium from cold fusion is more vague than from other sources. What is vague about it? How can you even tell where it came from?


    I don't think tritium per se is more vague. The issues (which can be surmounted) are:


    (1) unless detritiated electrolyte is used, and great care taken with all other sources of "natural" water: hydrides, water vapour in air, etc, tritium exists in the experiment.

    (2) electrolysis and solution in electrolyte varies between tritium, deuterium, and H. Therefore no assumptions can be made about the fraction of T staying constant over time, or being the same electrolyte and gasses emitted etc.


    So what evidence do we need? Given that the amount of tritium generated (as I understand it) is very low:


    Strong estimates of total tritium input from initial or added reactants and contaminants << total tritium detected. (Estimates allowed from parts of electrolyte as long as constancy of tritium over time is not assumed).


    Anything else and the various fractionation mechanisms allow tritium concentration in some parts of the apparatus, or at some times, so you would need to be very cautious.


    I will change my view on tritium evidence if we have replicable positive results not making dangerous assumptions? I can't now remember what the ICCF24 tritium guys did: I was quite enthusiastic about their work but I think they had a bit more to do to meet this? If you think their evidenbce was watertight we could go back over it?


    Of the old experiments: there was one outlier with very high Tritium never replicated (if I remember right). Discount it. otherwise the evidence was inconclusive for the reasons above - We could look again?

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    But everyone agrees excess heat at some level happens in mots LENR experiments, almost everyone agrees that electrolysis experiments generate He, that correlation would help.

    Really? Everyone, who? And where? For sure in the CF/LENR field, but outside this tiny circle?


    Please,let me know. Do you also agree that excess heat at some level happens in most LENR experiments? And that electrolysis experiments generate He?

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    This is still missing the point.


    Prediction is different from explanation.

    I made a mistake typing my response. I wrote "The explanation for what should happen . . ." I meant to say, "The prediction for . . ." I think that was your original wording.


    There is no explanation.


    Quote from THHuxleynew

    Prediction would be: we use 1g of reactant, get 1g of product + 1GJ of energy. Saying "if we get excess heat so high it can't be anything else - that is LENR" is a catch-all not a prediction.

    That would be like saying: "If we launch this rocket, it will surely reach orbit. If it does not, it isn't a rocket." Or, in 1952: "If we make this transistor, it will surely amplify. If it does not, transistors do not exist." Rockets today, and transistors in 1952 were very unpredictable. They were uncontrolled. Some worked; some did not. Cold fusion today produces 1 GJ/g in some cases, much less in other cases, and nothing in many cases. Very similar to transistors. However, no one would say transistor do not exist because they were unpredictable.


    Also, we do not say "if we get excess heat so high it can't be anything else - that is LENR." We say: "If we get excess heat far beyond the limits of chemistry (which are ~4 eV per atom), with no chemical fuel and no chemical changes, with helium production per joule of energy at the same rate as D-D fusion, with x-rays, transmutations, and sometimes tritium that is LENR."


    Normally, you cannot check for all of those things in every experiment. I suppose it is reasonable to say that when you can only check for heat far beyond chemistry and no chemical fuel or changes, you can pretty sure it is LENR, but not quite as sure as when you also confirm the helium. That seems like nitpicking to me, because experiments with the same materials that produce the same results are probably doing the same thing.


    Quote from THHuxleynew

    if any of those quantities can be measured, the relationship between that and the energy generated - the enthalpy - is precise and predicted.


    For LENR, for obvious reasons, that cannot normally be done.

    The prediction in LENR is more precise than it is for nuclear fission, or a fusion bomb. No one has measured the mass loss or the transmutations from those reactions with as much precision as helium in measured in cold fusion, on a macroscopic scale. Consider Pu-238, which produces alpha particles and heat. Some samples have produced intense heat for years, in laboratories. (Others are dispatched in rockets to Mars and places like that.) Mass decreases as heat is produced. No one has ever measured that mass decrease in a Pu-238 sample, although there have been proposals to do that. No one has added up the alpha particles to prove beyond doubt that they fit special relativity. No instrument is sensitive enough to do that. But everyone accepts that if you could do that, it would fit conventional theory. You can do it with cold fusion, because it is easier to contain and measure with high precision.


    You cannot measure the mass changes or the total energy in a fission reactor fuel rod, a fission bomb, or a fusion bomb with the kind of precision you can with cold fusion. Yet no one says there may not be a nuclear reaction in these devices. That is what you would conclude, based on the logic you employ here. "Since we cannot measure the reaction precisely, we cannot be sure that a hydrogen bomb really is producing nuclear fusion."


    Quote from THHuxleynew

    If LENR had strong quantitative correlation between He and excess heat that matches nuclear mass loss I would change my tune.

    Yes, LENR does have a strong quantitative correlation. Stronger than any other fission or fusion reaction. No, you would not change your tune. They could demonstrate it to 4 decimal places and you would still not believe it. I mean that. Cold fusion produces heat at levels 4 orders of magnitude higher than any possible chemical reaction, with no detectable chemical changes. It is inconceivable that that much energy is entirely a measurement error, or that there really are chemical changes, but no one has spotted them. Despite that, you don't believe it. You reject results certain to 4 orders of magnitude, and you would reject 8 orders or 10 just as quickly. No level of certainty will convince you, because you can always dream up another reason to reject the facts.

    In 1875 Thomas Edison was responding to withering letters, in the correspondence section of the Scientific American, about articles reporting the results of some of his experiments. He finished one long and detailed reply with the following:

    Quote

    In conclusion, I suggest that, as I have freely laid myself open to criticism by presuming to believe in the capacity of Nature to supply a new form of energy, which presumption rests upon experiment, it is but fair that my critics should also back up their assertions by experiment, and give me an equal chance as a critic.

    A century and a half later, his words are still relevant.


    Project MUSE - The Papers of Thomas A. Edison

    "The most misleading assumptions are the ones you don't even know you're making" - Douglas Adams

    Thanks 4
    Quote from Frogfall

    In 1875 Thomas Edison was responding to withering letters, in the correspondence section of the Scientific American, about articles reporting the results of some of his experiments. He finished one long and detailed reply with the following:

    A century and a half later, his words are still relevant.


    https://muse.jhu.edu/pub/1/oa_monograph/book/26667

    👏👏👏👏👏👏

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

    Quote from Frogfall

    In 1875 Thomas Edison was responding to withering letters, in the correspondence section of the Scientific American, about articles reporting the results of some of his experiments. He finished one long and detailed reply with the following:

    A century and a half later, his words are still relevant.


    https://muse.jhu.edu/pub/1/oa_monograph/book/26667

    I have quoted from time to time skeptic papers that instead of denying the excess heat have been able to replicate it but claim the excess heat is perfectly explainable by non nuclear methods. IMHO These are the only skeptic papers worth discussing.

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

    Like 1
    Quote from Ascoli65

    Really? Everyone, who? And where? For sure in the CF/LENR field, but outside this tiny circle?


    Please,let me know. Do you also agree that excess heat at some level happens in most LENR experiments? And that electrolysis experiments generate He?

    Sorry - I meant "everyone working in the LENR field".


    Indeed not everyone agrees there is excess heat unexplainable by chemical means. Although I think the mainstream consensus would be that the chemical reactions around those deuterated or hydrided palladium electrodes, and the possible chemical enthalpies there, are not fully understood.

    Quote from Curbina

    I have quoted from time to time skeptic papers that instead of denying the excess heat have been able to replicate it but claim the excess heat is perfectly explainable by non nuclear methods

    The excess heat is a definite term for something which is as reported experimentally very variable and indeed since the chemical reactions in the electrodes are not well understood it is difficult to know what is the possible chemical enthalpy. Some people suggest that might be quite high.


    So given variable amount of excess heat and variable chemical enthalpy possible it is not surprising some people suggest chemical explanation.


    You will find those so claiming are replicating quite modest amounts of excess heat.


    You understand that "replicating excess heat" is meaningless unless qualified, and that "greater than chemical possible" is not very clear since we do not know what are the chemical enthalpies here given those NAEs (or possibly CAESs!).

    Quote from Frogfall

    In 1875 Thomas Edison was responding to withering letters, in the correspondence section of the Scientific American, about articles reporting the results of some of his experiments. He finished one long and detailed reply with the following:

    A century and a half later, his words are still relevant.


    https://muse.jhu.edu/pub/1/oa_monograph/book/26667

    I actually disagree.


    It is impossible to disprove that some new form of energy, or new law of physics exists. As long as it hides well enough that most experiments do not show it!


    Whereas it is very possible to prove that such exists.


    So the burden is on the side of proof. For example, I cannot disprove that God exists and every decade enables 100 miracles in the first hour of the first day of the decade. Should I be required to do that for somone with that hypothesis not to be believed?


    In the case of Edison - the theory of electricity already existed - and the fact that it carries energy - and many different examples of its effects. What Edison did for the first time is show that useful amounts of electric power could be generated and distributed, and used in a way that benefits mankind (or at least allows mankind to become more nocturnal).

    Quote from Alan Smith

    Is there anything that would make you change your mind about LENR ?

    "d. Until an experiment is reproducible more-or-less at will, producing more-or-less the same results (including magnitude and timing) more-or-less every time then we cannot know that it is real and fully under our control." (McKubre, ICCF23)

    Quote from Ascoli65

    "d. Until an experiment is reproducible more-or-less at will, producing more-or-less the same results (including magnitude and timing) more-or-less every time then we cannot know that it is real and fully under our control." (McKubre, ICCF23)

    There are experiments reproducible at will that show more or less the same results, i.e. the anomalous heat during difussion of H or D through the PdAg tubing of a Johnson Mathey Hydrogen purifier (Fralick et al 1989, repeated several times and last confirmed by Benyo et al 2020 and further expanded at ICCF 24th).

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

    Thanks 1
    Quote from JedRothwell

    That would be like saying: "If we launch this rocket, it will surely reach orbit. If it does not, it isn't a rocket." Or, in 1952: "If we make this transistor, it will surely amplify. If it does not, transistors do not exist." Rockets today, and transistors in 1952 were very unpredictable. They were uncontrolled. Some worked; some did not. Cold fusion today produces 1 GJ/g in some cases, much less in other cases, and nothing in many cases. Very similar to transistors. However, no one would say transistor do not exist because they were unpredictable.

    Rockets and semiconductors obeyed quantitative laws. For example, rocket impulse can be calculated and related orbital velocity. Rocket engine thrust, and impulse, can be experimentally determined. The two things can be used to determine whether a given rocket engine can reach orbit.


    Similarly with semiconductors: The band gap of a semiconductor is very characteristic and can be measured quantitatively in a number of ways. The exponential V/I relationship can be measured, etc.


    Orbital rockets are a poor parallel with LENR because all the theory of rocketry was understood before rocket technology was perfected. No-one was saying that physics was wrong because maybe rockets work.


    Transistors in 1952 are also a poor parallel because, again, the band theory of semiconductors was all worked out and ready long before by Wilson in 1931. It just took a long time to get it to work.


    https://djena.engineering.cornell.edu/hws/history_of_semiconductors.pdf


    A better parallel would be semiconductors pre-1900, where various effects were observed, starting from Faraday 1833 with the AgS decrease in resistance with temperature, and including rectification and photoelectricity - all observed quantitatively and replicably before semiconductor theory was worked out.


    How different from LENR? well LENR is not a well established set of interesting effects that no-one understand and eventually it gets understood as physics is developed by a new theory that did not exist.


    LENR is a claim that a set of effects (which are not so well established, or easily replicable) can only be explained by nuclear reactions in a manner contrary to established theory. So LENR is claiming experimental evidence that contradicts an established theory, whereas before bad-gap theory there was no claim that superconductivity effects were anything specific - they were just something not understood.


    It is different because the history of LENR experiments has been targeted - looking for things that might be expected from nuclear reactions - and finding them - sometimes - in very small amounts. So the effects claimed for LENR are contentious.


    Whereas the effects that in the end were all explained by superconductivity and existed long before anyone has a clue about the theory were large and undeniable. Anywone could take a lump of AgS and notice that its resistivity had negative temperature coefficient.


    Another difference - the theory of superconductivity - when finally worked out - was not contradicting a previous very well understood theory. It was working in an area where there had been no previous theory.


    Anyway - all this shows is that these PR-style comparisons - Wright Bros, superconductivity, etc, have no merit unless you dig deeply into all of their aspects with genuine neutrality and see what they do or don't tell us. Mostly the comparisons come from technological breakthroughs which do not however advance physics. Semiconductivity is one of the many examples where experimental data, refined and quantified over many years, eventually is all explained by one great coherent theory. If you reckon that is a comparison with LENR you should be expecting:

    • Clearer, more quantitative, experimental data, with many more unexplained examples and quantitative work more precise, over a 50 year period.
    • Everyone agrees the experimental data is real - but does not know how to explain it
    • Those working on the experiments before the correct explanation do not have a "preferred explanation". They just don't know, and none of the various ideas are particularly compelling.

    That is typical of science.


    THH

    Quote from Curbina

    There are experiments reproducible at will that show more or less the same results, i.e. the anomalous heat during difussion of H or D through the PdAg tubing of a Johnson Mathey Hydrogen purifier (Fralick et al 1989, repeated several times and last confirmed by Benyo et al 2020 and further expanded at ICCF 24th).

    Could you give me a complete reference for these two papers? Googling hits lots of similar things, and I will spend a long time wading through them to find the right ones. So: I want the writeups of the PdAg tubing experiments showing clear excess heat so I can see how much excess there is and what if any are the systematic errors that might be common across the replications?


    from Benyo https://arpa-e.energy.gov/site…21LENR_workshop_Benyo.pdf


    it looks as though attempts are underway to tighten up the original results, which are unclear, but that does not say it has been done?? Maybe I am not understanding Benyo - and of course I am happy to look at the original data myself.


    To be clear - what I understand from Benyo above is that anomalous heat was observed - especially locally - in these experiments. But not that it was higher than possible chemically. Since we know Pd/D is very complex chemically anyway - for somone without prior information - nuclear reactions would not be the first explanation that came to mind.


    THH

    Quote from Alan Fletcher

    Nature Reviews Physics volume 3, pages462–465 (2021)https://www.nature.com/articles/s42254-021-00324-3

    Yes - but that is because the systems concerned are complex - not because such a theory breaks existing theories or existing theories say something different. And there has been a good mechanisms, just lack of clarity how it is implemented in HTS.


    And, happily, as I'm sure you know, your review is now out of date:


    https://www.quantamagazine.org/high-temperature-superconductivity-understood-at-last-20220921/


    The new measurement matches a prediction based on the theory, which attributes cuprate superconductivity to a quantum phenomenon called superexchange. “I’m amazed by the quantitative agreement,” said André-Marie Tremblay, a physicist at the University of Sherbrooke in Canada and the leader of the group that made the prediction last year.


    The mechanism is that which has been proposed for 30 years or so (BCS theory) - just we have not had definitive evidence.


    of course, that is what LENR needs. But first we must have a theory that makes quantitative predictions.


    Good theory is a real advance - if LENR had it we might well get better working LENR pretty quickly


    “If this class of theory is correct,” Davis said, referring to the superexchange theory, “it should be possible to describe synthetic materials with different atoms in different locations” for which the critical temperature is higher.


    Of course this is science - and those advocating superexchange, and finding this evidence for it, cannot be sure it is a done deal.


    But Yazdani and other researchers caution that there’s still a chance, however remote, that glue strength and ease of hopping move in lockstep for some other reason, and that the field is falling into the classic correlation-equals-causation trap. For Yazdani, the real way to prove a causal relationship will be to harness superexchange to engineer some flashy new superconductors.


    I guess if LENR ever had a theory - it would be similarly provable or disprovable.


    There is no reason why LENR could not have some similar collective effect theory - which it is similarly difficult to be sure about. The difference is that superconductivity had from the beginning candidate theories that could, in (sic) theory, work, and which did not break any fundamental theories. Attempts to find such a candidate for LENR have less success.


    THH

    Fralick 1989 is a classic


    https://www.newenergytimes.com/v2/library/1989/1989Fralick-NASA-Results-of-an-attempt.pdf


    Fralick 2020 (the follow up of which was presented by Benyo at ICCF 24)


    two versions, one at Nasa and the other at the IJHE


    https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20205008118/downloads/E-19811J-4%20Revised%20Paper%20Clean%20Copy%20Final%20Proof%20Edits.pdf


    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/346079932_Transmutations_observed_from_pressure_cycling_palladium_silver_metals_with_deuterium_gas

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

    Quote from Curbina

    There are experiments reproducible at will that show more or less the same results, i.e. the anomalous heat during difussion of H or D through the PdAg tubing of a Johnson Mathey Hydrogen purifier (Fralick et al 1989, repeated several times and last confirmed by Benyo et al 2020 and further expanded at ICCF 24th).

    Do you mean Fralick et al 1989, Fralick, Benyo et al in 2020, and Fralick, Benyo et al at ICCF24? Is this the new reference for experiment replications which demonstrate the reality of LENR?


    McKubre seems not to be aware of these achievements. Is it your personal opinion, or is it largely shared in the LENR field?


    In any case, please, remind me of this Fralick experiment when it will be replicated "more-or-less the same results (including magnitude and timing) more-or-less every time" by some other lab and authors in the world.


    In the meanwhile, the only replicated experiment in the LENR field remains the 1992 boil-off experiment by F&P, but the reported conclusions were wrong.

    From Fralick89



    While shows interesting (presumably chemical) behaviour, it does not show any evidence of nuclear reactions. For that we would need the excess heat to be quantified and shown larger than possible from chemical.


    The difference between H & D does not indicate possible LENR nuclear activity:

    (1) If it did, it would be incoherent from other LENR claims (Summarised by Storms here on another thread) where H & D both show nuclear excess heat.

    (2) D and H have very different behaviour wrt diffusion into metals, thermal conductivity, and other rates: it is therefore very possible that one generates chemical temp rise when the other does not.


    I am interested in this temperature rise: why is D different (and why is D not different in many of the other excess heat claims)? I just see no evidence that this is nuclear in origin.


    Given the original does not show nuclear excess heat - the second paper would not be a replication of this. Looking at it, the results show evidence of anomalous temperature rise, no evidence at all that this anomaly is not due to complex Pd-D (or even something else-D chemistry). Anomalous chemical reactions are sort of expected in this type of system - we do not understand everything about how D & H interact chemically with metal lattices such as Pd. So unless the excess heat is quantified as much larger than possible chemically this is not LENR evidence.


    The focus in the second experiment is on transmutation evidence. A separate matter with its own (different) issues. I think it is clearer to keep to excess heat evidence and examine its strength. In that case this is not a good example, because it is clear the experimenters were not very concerned about measuring excess heat.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.