The perpetual “is LENR even real” argument thread.

Quote from Curbina

My goodness, this really baffles me that you point me to articles that are studying metal separation by electrolysis in which the metals are known and purposefully added to the electrolite and hence expected to be deposited in either electrode.

My point is that this is an example if the very many experiments that do electrolysis and then check for elemental surface composition.

It does not matter what they expect - should weird things happen they will be noted and investigated.

I was addressing my point, which you queried, about mainstream experiments which would be expected to pick up transmutation if it ever actually happened.

In this case you could just ask Guido, what metals are inside his cells, how and where are the contacts to the electrodes made, etc.

Quote from Curbina

What I meant (kind of obvious tho) is anyone finding them when the electrolitic solution is made of ultrapure water and p.a. salts, for hydrogen production.

LENR has been found in very may different scenarios - if you believe the LENR evidence. I don't - but if you do then it occurs in some many different circumstances - e.g. inside the earth, in plants, etc, etc. It would be very strange for some controlled experiment somewhere not to have seen these transmutation products.

Quote from Curbina

We can ask gio06 , but ruling out contamination is kind of the baseline methodology of LENR transmutation claims.

The reason for writing things up - in detail - is so that when extraordinary results are found other people can check this. It is what , for example, the FTL neutrino people did. And they still got it wrong.

THH

Quote from Curbina

But the some see it even when not expecting it:

https://www.researchgate.net/p…Synthesized_on_D16T_Alloy

Right. LENR is pretty well synonymous with "something anomalous here". And no-one expects anomalies. But they are do happen a lot.

That was a general statement, not an assertion of my belief in LENR!

Quote from Curbina

Or in this case where the anomaly is not seen in elemental composition but in unexpectwd material damage that would require more energy than available for it. https://www.researchgate.net/p…um_oxide-metal_structures

Not precise enough. More energy than available electrostatically.

And your implication that this is evidence for LENR (If I am understanding you) rather makes my point about all anomalies being seen as such evidence?

"It is therefore concluded that the electrical breakdown triggers an event which releases much more energy than stored in the electrical field. This is in analogy to a spark which triggers an explosion. In our former publication [16] we could prove that hydrogen is present in the aluminum oxide. Also, Pd can absorb hydrogen from the atmosphere. The hydrogen then diffuses into the oxide. Since using the Pd-electrode much more breakdown spots are observed (Figure 8), it is possible that hydrogen is involved in the partial breakdown processes. Depth and volume of these holes are comparable to the holes found using Cu-electrodes. Probably the hot breakdown channel triggers local hydrogen explosions on the microscale which deliver the energy necessary to produce the craters."

Quote from RobertBryant

It wouldn't matter to the USPTO..what method is used

Mitsubishi's transmutation patent rejected 2021..

even though Toyota replicated..

It is only the LENR community, and a few whacky pseudo-science companies, who mistake patents (granted or no) for science.

The P.O. cannot possibly validate complex science. Nor is it necessary: patents that are ever relevant will have claims tested in Court.

So they only refuse patents when claims described are those commonly made incorrectly (free energy, zero-inertia drives) and have no scientific merit. The LENR field, with the exception of the new google stuff, has shown no ability to distinguish fact from fiction in claims - as can be seen from the fact that no-one here (I think) can specify an LENR claim that has been rejected by the LENR community, in the way that the science community regularly rejects whacko claims. (Not implying all LENR claims are whacko - but some are!).

The bias against LENR should be seen in that context as a result of the 1980s controversy.

And so what? Getting the opinion as to scientific possibility reversed is an awful lot easier than commercialising a working LENR device.

I am always annoyed by the way this site looks at patents to discover possibly inklings of revolutionary science knowledge. That has never been the way things work. Technology - perhaps.

Quote from RobertBryant

It wouldn't matter to the USPTO..what method is used

Mitsubishi's transmutation patent rejected 2021..

even though Toyota replicated..

"

The Examiner finds that:

There is no reputable evidence of record to support the

claim that the present invention involves nuclear fusion, nor is

there evidence that claims of ‘nuclide transmutation’ are valid

and reproducible, nor is there evidence that the invention is

capable of operating as indicated or capable of providing a useful output.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Ex parte YASUHIRO IWAMURA, TAKEHIKO ITOU,

KENJI MUTA, and SHIGENORI TSURUGA

Appeal 2021-001922

Application 14/374,483

Technology Center 3600

Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, MICHAEL L. WOODS, and

MATTHEW S. MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judges.

WOODS, Administrative Patent Judge.

Iwamura's research was on the CERN server awhile ago... not any more..

https://indico.cern.ch/event/1…NTrans_Iwamura_Celani.pdf

https://coldfusionnow.org/mits…transmutes-nuclear-waste/

Display More

If this transmutation research were reputable it would (by now) have multiple citations in serious journals.

Conference Posters or (worse) Powerpoints are not serious ways to communicate new science. They are ways to get people interested in new work so they can go read the real stuff written up elsewhere, or otherwise talk to the author. If the work is important it will be available in a more substantive form as first Conference and then Journal papers.

Even though I and various others think, alas, looking at the whole corpus, that the whole "Rydberg matter" saga is rubbish, it is published rubbish so could have been used to support patents (not so sure now though - it has received enough mainstream attention perhaps to knock it on the head).

Quote from Alan Smith

Recommended- Guido speaks well and the experiment itself is not complicated.

Watch it 1.5X

There is some info in speech not in the ppt - not much though (I mainly found it helpful for the non-English ppt slides).

Don't ask me why the LENR community published ground-breaking and revolutionary scientific results in a form that is less easily accessible than a properly written (translatable via google if need be) paper.

Anyone would think they did not want mainstream scientific attention!

THH

If anyone wonders why the especially dark-side THH is seen in this thread - it is of course the title. I am on topic.

It is a chance for me to point out that LENR researchers shoot themselves in the foot when they embrace poorly written-up science (in many cases poor science) which claims positive LENR effects.

Of course you can find poor science everywhere. But for those outside the LENR community high quality science, written up well, is needed if anyone is to take any notice. All these apparently "we have cracked it" modern researchers will not be taken seriously until either they have real working demos (not Rossi-style or BLP-style) or they have serious new science.

The google stuff is that, even if inconclusive and mostly negative. Many of the early papers were that. Probably (for good or ill) chatGPT will lead to a vast superficial improvement in the quality of LENR written work - although chatGPT cannot (at the moment) give you accurate references or a coherent connected argument. Its products lack critical appraisal of the literature - but then that is typical for LENR papers so no difference in that respect.