The perpetual “is LENR even real” argument thread.

There are plenty of replications of Fralick with difussion through Pd and one of those, through a Pd thin film, proved that the level of excess heat was comparable to nuclear in Energy density.

Biberian also did a replication of sirts with 3 W of excess heat and proposed two mechanisms for explaining the excess heat, one of them nuclear.

Difussion of H through a Nickel tubing was also proven to generate excess heat far beyond that chemically explainable, this is work done by trying to replicate Mills claims, but I mention it because was done by independent party.

Quote from Curbina

There are plenty of replications of Fralick with difussion through Pd and one of those, through a Pd thin film, proved that the level of excess heat was comparable to nuclear in Energy density.

Biberian also did a replication of sirts with 3 W of excess heat and proposed two mechanisms for explaining the excess heat, one of them nuclear.

Difussion of H through a Nickel tubing was also proven to generate excess heat far beyond that chemically explainable, this is work done by trying to replicate Mills claims, but I mention it because was done by independent party.

This is quite a vague list of replications, and Biberian not so much independent. If the whole LENR field thinks that Fralick experiment is the new frontier to demonstrate the existence of LENR, they should declare it explicitly. But, for what I see, this is only your personal opinion.

Presently, the only CF/LENR experiment considered to have been fully replicated by McKubre is the 1992 boil off experiment by F&P. Moreover, the "Simplicity Paper" was on top of the short list of documents submitted in 2004 to DoE by McKubre and four other CF experts, who were the crème de la crème of the field. On the contrary, Fralick is not even mentioned by Storms among the 64 references listed in the preview his last paper. "Simplicity Paper" is there as reference [36].

Until now, the "Simplicity Paper" is still considered by the fusionists the most representative paper of the field, and the "1992 boil off experiment " the most convincing proof that CF is real. But the first is wrong, and the second is effectively the most convincing CF experiment ever done, but for proving the opposite.

In any case, when CF community will recognize the evidence, admitting that F&P were wrong in drawing the conclusions of their 1992 boil off experiment, it will be worth taking into consideration the claims of another experiment. Otherwise, this is only a switching target hunt.

Simplicity comes first, then Fralick or anybody else.

Quote from THHuxleynew

So, which paperd will contain the proof - if you can give me a precise reference I can find it - paywalled or no?

Fralick analog by Liu 2007

https://www.newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2006/2006LiuB-ExessHeat.pdf

Biberian Analog:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237511683_Excess_Heat_Production_During_Diffusion_Of_Deuterium_Through_Palladium_Tubes

And Biberian Follow up

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

Quote from Ascoli65

This is quite a vague list of replications, and Biberian not so much independent. If the whole LENR field thinks that Fralick experiment is the new frontier to demonstrate the existence of LENR, they should declare it explicitly. But, for what I see, this is only your personal opinion.

Presently, the only CF/LENR experiment considered to have been fully replicated by McKubre is the 1992 boil off experiment by F&P. Moreover, the "Simplicity Paper" was on top of the short list of documents submitted in 2004 to DoE by McKubre and four other CF experts, who were the crème de la crème of the field. On the contrary, Fralick is not even mentioned by Storms among the 64 references listed in the preview his last paper. "Simplicity Paper" is there as reference [36].

Until now, the "Simplicity Paper" is still considered by the fusionists the most representative paper of the field, and the "1992 boil off experiment " the most convincing proof that CF is real. But the first is wrong, and the second is effectively the most convincing CF experiment ever done, but for proving the opposite.

In any case, when CF community will recognize the evidence, admitting that F&P were wrong in drawing the conclusions of their 1992 boil off experiment, it will be worth taking into consideration the claims of another experiment. Otherwise, this is only a switching target hunt.

Simplicity comes first, then Fralick or anybody else.

Display More

There’s no single opinion in the LENR field, that’s not how science works. LENR has been proposed as the cause of excess heat / transmutations and “yet to be determined exactly what” particle emissions observed across multiple experimental systems. This is experimental science first and foremost.

Quote from Ascoli65

In any case, when CF community will recognize the evidence, admitting that F&P were wrong in drawing the conclusions of their 1992 boil off experiment, it will be worth taking into consideration the claims of another experiment. Otherwise, this is only a switching target hunt.

Simplicity comes first, then Fralick or anybody else.

You are entitled to your opinion,

but you know that saying about opinions, no need to repeat it here.

Quote from THHuxleynew

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.

List a chemical reaction that can produce 3 to 50 MJ from a few grams of material, with no chemical changes, at a very high power level that is far beyond the margin of error for the calorimeter.

Go ahead. If that is your hypothesis, explain which reaction you have in mind. If you cannot name one, then your hypothesis is wrong. Every textbook written since 1800 will tell you that no chemical reaction can do that, and the upper limit for a few grams of material is about 80 kJ.

Quote from THHuxleynew

(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.

Great care is always taken. You would know that if you would read the papers. As I said, the people at Los Alamos, BARC and the PPPL know how to check for tritium. They describe their methods in the papers. Unless you have found a problem with their methods, you have no basis for this statement. You are saying "things would be so different if they were not as they are." (The Anna Russell dictum)

Quote from THHuxleynew

(1) You will admit no possibility that finely balanced system where between cal and active runs there is maybe 5% difference in heat collected, that error could be some systematic error caused by different experimental conditions

Of course I admit that! Although it would have to be less than 5% to be a problem for most calorimeters. Obviously, the people doing this research also know that. That is why they do not claim significant excess heat when it is near the margin of error. They claim heat it when it is 10%, or 300%. Look at the difference between the control and the excess heat here, for example:

https://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/McKubre-graph-2.jpg

That is way more than 5%. Again, you have gone back to claiming that all results are marginal. That is false. You can't just make up stuff.

Furthermore, all known systematic errors are ruled out, using methods that have been used for 100 to 180 years, millions of times a year. There is nothing about this calorimetry that sets it apart from any other kind. If you, or some other skeptic, wants to claim there is a systematic error, you must identify it. Just saying "there could be some systematic error" proves nothing. It is not falsifiable. It applies equally well to every experiment in history. If you say there is a systematic error, tell us what it is. A skeptical assertion does not get a free pass.

Quote from THHuxleynew

When I read those papers the effect they were trying to catch was so tiny that even with the high levels of care they used, the results were unclear.

That is incorrect. The effects at BARC were often very large.

Quote from THHuxleynew

We do not have a clear replicable effect.

Yes, we do. It is extremely clear. There is no possibility that a chemical effect can produce 50 MJ from 2 g of material with no chemical change. Nothing could be clearer than that.

It is a lot more replicable than cloning mammals today, or Musk's rockets, or transistors in 1953. But even if it was only as replicable as Musk rockets, you would never claim it does not exist for that reason. You would never apply that standard to any other phenomenon in science or technology, because the success/failure rate has no bearing on whether something is real. You apply that standard as an excuse to dismiss the facts.

Quote from THHuxleynew

3 to 50 MJ from a few grams of material, with no chemical changes

(1) there clearly are chemical changes

No there are not. There is loading of the cathode, but it deloads. When the experiment ends, all chemicals are the same state they were at the beginning. It is fundamental to thermodynamics that there can be no net chemical energy released or absorbed when all of the materials end up in the same state they began. (In this case, Pd and D2O, with no free O2 and no absorbed D.)

If that is not the case, tell us what chemical changes you know of. Also, tell us what chemical fuel can produce 50 MJ from 2 g of fuel.

Quote from THHuxleynew

Jed - with respect

You are not a material scientist

LENR papers claim cathode is in different state at end

Which papers?

What state do they describe?

If you mean that some cathodes do not fully degas, tell us how the production of a tiny amount of deuteride could result in the production of 3 to 50 MJ.

Quote from THHuxleynew

LENR experiments are highly unusual as calorimetry goes, and are a clear case for possible unknown systematic errors.

Why are these highly unusual as calorimetry goes? Why is the calorimetry any different from chemical calorimetry done for the last 180 years? The heat from electrolysis was measured with precision by Faraday in 1834. If it could be done then, what makes you think it cannot be done now, and that people cannot be sure the heat exceeds Faradaic efficiency?

Since heat is the same from all sources, and no calorimeter can tell the difference between chemical, nuclear, or electric resistance heating, what could possibly be "unusual" about this calorimetry.

Which systematic errors? Why are these errors more likely in cold fusion calorimetry than calorimetry to measure chemical reactions? If this is a "clear case" then tell us what clear case it is. You should have no difficulty describing a clear case.

If you cannot tell us which systematic errors might be occurring, and if you cannot demonstrate that the researchers have not taken steps to prevent these errors, you have no case. Your assertion is not falsifiable. It cannot be tested. It applies equally well to all experiments with calorimetry, going back to Lavoisier in 1780. (The first calorimeter that could have measured many cold fusion effects with high confidence. It was used to measure the metabolism of a guinea pig, which is about the same as a robust cold fusion cell.)

Waving your hands and saying there might be invisible, unknown errors in a technique that was perfected 100 years ago is not a valid argument. It is not an argument at all. It is impossible for you prove that, or for me to disprove it.

Quote from THHuxleynew

I'd be happier if LENR community admitted F&P evidence is v suspect

What is suspect about it? Give three reasons why anyone should doubt F&P's calorimetry. If you wish to include the foam hypothesis, explain why the cell was producing high heat for days before the boil-off, and for a day or two after it. Why did it stop for 10 minutes, and then start up again?

You keep saying this or that is suspect, or there is a "clear case" for something. Saying does not make it so. You have tell us what that clear case is. If you cannot tell us, then obviously you made that up. You have no case at all, clear or opaque.