The past is past..
Anyone who expects a source of power from the transformation of those atoms is talking moonshine 1933
Guess who?
The perpetual “is LENR even real” argument thread.
-
Peanut gallery arguments...in perpetuum
-
The constructive way to take these arguments is to look for the changes in evidence that would change them, and push those forward.
Equally you could agree that since no good evidence of LENR exists we could all stop looking, go down the pub, and barbecue the planet.
-
Equally you could agree that since no good evidence of LENR exists we could all stop looking, go down the pub, and barbecue the planet.
To be fair, that's what most of the world has done as far as I can tell. There is little point IMHO in arguing now over historical papers that garnered little attention at the time. I'm more interested to see what the likes of e.g. CP/Miura manage to achieve as credible results going forwards. Then we/they can work backwards as to who to credit for the journey.
-
To be fair, that's what most of the world has done as far as I can tell. There is little point IMHO in arguing now over historical papers that garnered little attention at the time. I'm more interested to see what the likes of e.g. CP/Miura manage to achieve as credible results going forwards. Then we/they can work backwards as to who to credit for the journey.
In the end the success should always spill back to the inspiration spark provided by F&P, which inspired others as Fralick. I consider that the CP/Miura development can be directly related to the Fralick et al work. Is hydrogen flowing through the composite nano layers causing excess heat at possibly also transmutation.
-
Equally you could agree that since no good evidence of LENR exists we could all stop looking, go down the pub, and barbecue the planet.
Alan - if scientists felt like that we would never get new science? For inventors - maybe breakthrough inventors have to be fanatics who believe their thing will work and continue to chase it beyond all reason. Scientists on the other hand can go on chasing beyond all reason things they do not understand, without knowing what will happen.
There is a difference between:
(1) There is no possibility of LENR (prob LENR = 0%)
(2) LENR ( => more nuclear reactions happening that the rest of the world believes) is certain. (Prob LENR = 100%)
Am I the only person on this site able to see that we do not know whether (1) or (2) is true?
When I challenge (2) - you act as though in that case I am arguing (1).
However - unless you go for (1) or (2) then it matters which bits of the claimed LENR evidence are stronger, which weaker, which are consistent with each other, which inconsistent etc. Even if you go for (2), if you want a chance of finding a better theory, or a working system, you need to know which bits of evidence are real and which not. For example, suppose D/Pd electrolysis produces nuclear reactions etc. IT MATTERS whether H/Pd electrolysis does the same (as seems thought by many now) or not - as thought by everyone in the LENR field in the 1980s to the extent that H/Pd was used as control for LENR D/Pd experiments..
I get that many people in the LENR field act like inventors. Some however must act like scientists?
-
There is a difference between:
(1) There is no possibility of LENR (prob LENR = 0%)
(2) LENR ( => more nuclear reactions happening that the rest of the world believes) is certain. (Prob LENR = 100%)
Am I the only person on this site able to see that we do not know whether (1) or (2) is true?
No. I see it too. But when you participate on this site you find yourself in the land of the zealots and there is not a lot of appetite for anything in between (1) and (2).
-
I get that many people in the LENR field act like inventors. Some however must act like scientists?
External Content www.youtube.comContent 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.Have you watched this with attention?
-
the land of the zealots
More peanuts from the gallery..
zealots......"violent. radical freedom fighters who eagerly sought the Messiah to overthrow the defiling dominance of Roman laws in Israel"
the closest thing to zealotry is Ascolian fantasy..
"
at least until cold fusion happens. …”
– We are dealing with the tip of a single iceberg, but I imagine there are countless blogs denouncing much junk academic production.
It was a single iceberg that caused the sinking of the Titanic. The myth of inexhaustible nuclear energy is an iceberg that could do the same with the world, and the FF is its tip, clearly visible, but whose substrate we didn't want to take into account.
Its hard to find such zealotry in Guido.Parchi... Celani Alan
maybe there is some zeal .. but it is not overt..
Maybe Dr Michael Staker...
replicating Fleischmann
maybe.. in another time.
manning the walls of Masada,,
External Content www.youtube.comContent 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. -
External Content www.youtube.comContent 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.
Have you watched this with attention?
OK - I spent a long time watching that video and then wishes I had not! It was very low info content.
I am not sure what you wanted me to get from it, but having spent all that time I will give you my views. you should understand - there was less info in that than the ICCF24 poster, so...
I like Guido - I'd say he is type (2). He made it clear in the video he was convinced LENR exists. He talks about his idols amongst the old guard - and how he found some of the old evidence compelling.
He was not aiming this at a scientific audience but even so his summary of his own experiment - why he was so sure it was definite proof - was very incomplete. I'm not sure why. Let me summarise, logically (you don't need to be a scientist for this) his argument.
(1) He has an experiment which does electrolysis
(2) Initially, he uses water with a < 8Bq/l tritium content. (Although I'm not sure whether every sample is so measured?)
(3) At end he finds the tritium content is higher.
He described how carefully he checked (external reputable labs, etc) that the final tritium content was high.
I was so frustrated by the vagueness of this that I went back to the ICCF24 video. And watched that. It was better, but there was still nowhere near enough info in it. But at least more than the youtube interview Curbina linked. I don't understand; if the results are very strong as Guido obviously believes why not write them up fully, so that they can be critiqued by others.
Ok, so here goes, as far as content:
(1) After the experiment T level in electrolyte (in one case it seems in gaseous form) is significantly higher than the level before (up to 5X). I accept the higher concentration. The possibility that this is from dissolved T gas needs confirmation. The solubility of H2 (or T2) in water is extremely low.
(2) XRF data shows that after electrolysis the surface of the cathode has changed completely, and now is Al + various other elements found commonly (e.g. most of them in steel). I accept
(3) Background GC counts close to the experiment were higher when a high power pulse waveform was switched on going through the experiment. I accept.
(1) I don't know. This is the most interesting result, but it needs a lot more work to understand it. Since tritium sources are quite common in households, and the detected Tritium has a concentration in liquid only 5X higher than possible "blank", the possibility of contamination from experiment-induced mixing must be ruled out. Contamination is one of those things that is always very difficult to ruled out.
(2) Why does it surprise anyone that a very thin surface film of different metals is present on a cathode after electrolysis
(3) This is so vague it could have very many different causes. We have seen it (as an artifact) before...
I was interested in this experiment when I first saw it.
Guido said (in the interview):
No-one was replicating this - maybe it would happen next year.
They were trying to make the experiment replicable (which they had succeeded) and get useful heat from it.
Well, if the aim is to advance the field of LENR, and the experiment is replicable, the thing that would win a Nobel prize - or at least lots of credit - would be to reduce the uncertainty of the tritium generation results.
The solubility of H2 in water is roughly 1.6mg/kg = 1.6 mg/l. If the T detected in the electrolyte is all in gaseous form that means 20Bq/l = 20Bq/1.6mg.
T weighs 240g/m^3 (roughly). So 1.6mg is roughly 7cc. So 1m^3 has 3 million Bq/m^3. The typical atmospheric concentration is max 50mBq/m^3 so that is a factor of 50 million times larger than normal.
So to get obviously high tritium concentrations - a factor of 1,000,000 more convincing (less likely to be due to contamination):
(1) run the experiment enough time for the water to be saturated with H (or T). That is not very long!
(2) capture the cathode emitted gas, run it through a small amount of something that will efficiently capture H2 and form a hydride etc. O2 would be inconvenient.
(3) the small amount of hydride should contain a very high fraction of T.
Slightly less good than this: capture the emitted gas from the cathode. Wait till you have maybe 100cc of it. That should be ~ 300Bq. Enough to measure properly? Much more direct than extracting from evaporated T from electrolyte in which it is dissolved - you can quickly get more of it too.
NB - there will be differential electrolysis of T & H, but not by such a very large factor.
Why does this matter? High concentrations of T are easy to detect with certainty and, with a bit of care, impossible to imagine from contamination. So this would then be proof that anyone would sit up and take notice of. Or, if this stubbornly does not happen - more effort can be put into checking for contamination.
You'd need replication - but credible evidence of high levels of T (as the claims here indicate must exist, if they are true) would be enough to make many people interested in it.
I'd not recommend chasing anything else from this system: The T results are the one thing (if not contamination) that could be easily made clear.
THH
EDIT: maybe there is some glaring mistake in my suggestion for how to get better evidence from this experiment?
-
Its hard to find such zealotry in Guido.Parchi... Celani Alan
maybe there is some zeal .. but it is not overt..
No zealotry - just clear belief born from years of following one track . It is a track where once you start to believe it, it is very easy to see more evidence everywhere and cement that belief. Helped by groupthink because as a persecuted minority LENR researchers need to stick together!
Nothing wrong with that. A very large number of people believe counterfactual things like that homeopathy works for real not juts placebo & talking therapy (that extra-diluted water has properties). Including the current King of the UK. Some of these people are scientists. So it is not shameful to believe strongly something that is a lot more plausible than non-placebo homeopathy.
-
The past is past.
Anyone who expects a source of power from the transformation of those atoms is talking moonshine 1933
Guess who said that?
History is the mother of truth
-
(1) I don't know. This is the most interesting result, but it needs a lot more work to understand it. Since tritium sources are quite common in households, and the detected Tritium has a concentration in liquid only 5X higher than possible "blank", the possibility of contamination from experiment-induced mixing must be ruled out. Contamination is one of those things that is always very difficult to ruled out.
That's quite an understatement. Let's say for the sake of argument that the Tritium is not sythetized "de novo" as we LENR heretics propose. How in God's Universe you propose that the Tritium contamination finds its way to 5X the inicial concentration? Would'nt it be an ever bigger surprise? "Guys! We found a way to concetrate tritium already present in the air and water, WoooHooooo!!!!"
(2) Why does it surprise anyone that a very thin surface film of different metals is present on a cathode after electrolysis
Where do the "contaminants" come and how they get deposited there? You are the one that claims these are contaminants. We claim they are transmuted Nickel.
-
I suppose you have seen Guido's ppoint?
http://www.cleanhme.eu/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/ICCF24_Parchi_presentation.pdf
-
I suppose you have seen Guido's ppoint?
Yes. I did see it a while ago, when I was quite impressed.
That's quite an understatement. Let's say for the sake of argument that the Tritium is not sythetized "de novo" as we LENR heretics propose. How in God's Universe you propose that the Tritium contamination finds its way to 5X the inicial concentration? Would'nt it be an ever bigger surprise? "Guys! We found a way to concetrate tritium already present in the air and water, WoooHooooo!!!!"
Where do the "contaminants" come and how they get deposited there? You are the one that claims these are contaminants. We claim they are transmuted Nickel.
Contaminants:
Ok, so Al + steel - all that is needed is for these metals to exist in the electrolytic cell at the same potential as the anode. The high-power pulses will potentially do strange things so I'd be careful with any metal potentially in contact with electrolyte or foam. The very high Al content looks very atypical of any transmutation - but very typical for electroplating.
Re tritium: I don't know, which is why I think this result is worth investigating. My supposition would be contamination of equipment from some lab or household source of tritium - it used for a whole load of things. That might be wrong. It is the unknown unknowns that always get you, so guessing is a mugs game when things are not obvious. Guido put a lot of effort into detecting tritium. The same amount of effort needs to go into ruling out contamination. Also a written description of the exact protocol, and how it was followed, is needed, so that the negative and positive tests are linked, we know which batch is used for what, etc, etc. It may seem annoying but when things are unusual keeping track of every little bit is helpful.
Of course, maybe Guido, and the LENR community, don't care whether anyone outside that community pays attention to their work. After all none of you need additional checks - you all believe strongly this is LENR. in which case all my annoying points are irrelevant.
You should realise this is atypical science. When you have an apparent ground-breaking anomaly (as transmutation would be) most people keep on with the clearest part of it, replicating themselves, checking all of details. Nearly all the transmutation claims in LENR have great uncertainty. Here the tritium claims look concrete - and can either be confirmed or given some mundane mechanism with further work. Assuming that as Guido says the lithium production is replicable.
It is no point those who are already convinced LENR transformations happen saying "we think it is transformation - everyone else is an idiot". Those who do not think they already happen will view them as being highly improbably, for many good reasons. Therefore you need certainty (and replication). Guido says replication cannot happen for quite some time (I was not clear exactly why). So I am addressing the certainty element. The more certain, the easier to will be to find replicators with money and time.
It is fine that all those LENR people who have (let us say) replicable LENR want to be inventors and make the world's first small cheap fusion power source. In which case LENR will be judged by its commercial viability - you know - like Rossi asks his fans to judge his work.
However IMHO that is not the smartest route. Not that this is my decision, Guido has every right to do whatever he wants, juts as others outside the LENR community have every right not to take seriously evidence pointing to such transmutation unless it is very certain. (And replicated - but replicators will exist if the evidence looks good enough). It is as LENR people above all know highly risky to commercialise something not fully understood. You get better understanding by doubling down on your most certain anomalous results, quantifying, parametrising, making as easily replicable as possible. In this case that is tritium and if gaseous tritium, the calculations show (unless i made a mistake - quite possible) that collecting it directly from the reaction must give a certain results (thousand of times higher than expected).
-
Guido says replication cannot happen for quite some time (I was not clear exactly why).
Infineon is a commercial project. gio06 may know what their imperatives are right now, my guess is that Guido and co are fully occupied working on the CleanHME project, which the group is part of.
-
What is the evidence for Tritium production in LENR
There is strong evidence for the production of tritium in LENR experiments.
Tritium is a fusion product that is produced at low levels and without the number of neutrons expected on the basis of generally accepted nuclear theory.
However, it is infrequently measured, so its production may be more common than is generally thought.
Evidence for tritium production has been published numerous times, and it has been detected in cells containing deuterium or light-water, as well as when gas discharge is used at low applied energy.
The Case Western group published a paper in two places, the proceedings of the first International Conference on Cold Fusion in 1990 and in a report to the government the same year, which indicated that enhancement of tritium in the D2O solution was found in two open-type glass cells as well as in four other cells with Ni anodes.
The largest enhancement factor found was 50.
Tritium cannot be produced by chemical reactions, so LENR do, indeed, involve nuclear reactions.
It is widely accepted now by persons familiar with the relevant literature that tritium can be produced in LENR experiments due to the existence of many strong reports by competent scientists of the generation of tritium in such experiments.
-
The Case Western group published a paper
The Case Report recommends more work on tritium
"
GENERAL DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
The results reported here support, to a certain extent, the claims of tritium generated in
the electrolysis of D2O on Pd of deuterium reported by Fleischmann, Pons and Hawkins
(1). The following conclusions have been reached:
1. Enhancement of tritium was found in two out of five open cells with Pt-anodes and
four out of four cells with Ni-anodes. The largest enhancement factor with respect to
D2O is ~50. The heat level is by three orders of magnitude larger than the heat
corresponding to the observed tritium levels.
2. The ratio of deuterium to palladium atoms was found to be 1 for 0.25 mm wire,
charged at E = -0.3 - 0.65 V.
3. The neutron radiation measurements were inconclusive due to the uncertainty in
determining the background correction.
In general, on the experimental side there are, however, many questions to be answered
in order to increase the understanding of this phenomenon. These include the
irreproducibility and sporadicity of the phenomenon, necessity for a prolonged
electrolysis before the excess heat or tritium production occur, the role of the
microstructure and of the trace impurities in palladium, the difference between the
amount of excess heat in open and closed cell, the role of surface impurities and the role
of lithium, if any.
On the theoretical side the questions appear even more difficult. Table 4 lists possible
fusion reaction of deuterium. According to the accepted theories the evidence for fusion
of deuterium requires, besides the heat generation, a corresponding amount of neutrons,
tritium and 3He. The branching ratio of reaction A and B (Table 3) is approximately one.
The cross section for reaction C is on the order of 107 lower than for A and B (1). γ-rays
should be observed if the reaction C occurs in the electrochemical cell.
No data on electrochemically induced fusion satisfies indisputably any of these
requirements. In order to overcome these difficulties several new mechanisms of fusion
have been proposed. These include the mechanisms in which the energy from the reaction
C dissipates into the lattice as heat rather than γ-photon (17, 18), or in which two
deuterons as bosons are squeezed together in a sphere of an octahedral site (19).
Dendrites on Pd surface have been suggested as an explanation for tritium generation,
due to increased electric fields around the dendrite tips (13). Fracto-fusion was also
mentioned as a possible explanation in analogy with the explanation of neutron
generation upon fracturing LiD single crystals (19). There is, obviously, a need for more
work in order to estimate the merits of these explanations, as well as reach a complete
understanding of the Fleischmann and Pons phenomenon.
-
It is widely accepted now by persons familiar with the relevant literature that tritium can be produced in LENR experiments due to the existence of many strong reports by competent scientists of the generation of tritium in such experiments.
This is a very clear description of how LENR faith works:
The LENR community (persons familiar with the relevant literature) believes (widely accept) that a abnormal phenomenon (LENR) exists because certain anomalous evidences (in this case, generation of tritium during experiments) are reported by competent scientists.
So, this LENR belief is based on a chain of assumptions which starts from and relies on the competence of a few LENR scientists.
But competence is not enough, what matters is reliability. Are LENR scientists all reliable? Well, evidences show that at least some of the most important and representative LENR scientists are not so reliable. The list includes F&P (CF's pioneers), Takahashi (president of ISCMNS), and others, who made documented huge errors in reporting some of their most important achievements.
The results reported here support, to a certain extent, the claims of tritium generated in
the electrolysis of D2O on Pd of deuterium reported by Fleischmann, Pons and Hawkins
(1). The following conclusions have been reached:
Now, considering that the two main authors of the above mentioned report overestimated the power output from their cells by a factor 4, because they ignored the presence of a well visible element such as foam, how is it possible to give credit to their claim to have generated invisible particles such as tritium?
