The perpetual “is LENR even real” argument thread.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

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

    I think that is very disrespectful. I am not aware of anybody doing fundamental research in the LENR field (as distinct from people trying to sell vapourware or raise cash for investment funds who might be involved in what is called 'astroturfing') who mistake patents for practical realities.

    The main reason that their name might appear on one is to appease investors. Discussing this with a very well-known researcher his comment was 'If your investors demand patents be filed, you probably need smarter investors'.

    Quote from Alan Smith

    I think that is very disrespectful. I am not aware of anybody doing fundamental research in the LENR field (as distinct from people trying to sell vapourware or raise cash for investment funds who might be involved in what is called 'astroturfing') who mistake patents for practical realities.

    The main reason that their name might appear on one is to appease investors. Discussing this with a very well-known researcher his comment was 'If your investors demand patents be filed, you probably need smarter investors'.

    Not the first sweeping, disrespectful, gratuitous and self indulgent aside that THH has made about the scientists involved in LENR in this thread.

    Quote from Nar

    Correct I have not watched the video, nor have I much knowledge in tritium, hence asking the question. Sorry, I have missed if there is some point you are trying to make.

    My point is recommending you to watch the video.

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

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    Conference Posters or (worse) Powerpoints are not serious ways to communicate new science.

    If that was about Iwamura’s slide posted by robert bryant , here’s the source paper.


    ShieldSquare Captcha


    The “corpus of Rydberg matter published stuff” has been used to obtain patents, with mixed results (one Sweden grant and one EPO rejection that wasn’t appealed).


    You claim LENR is poor science, do you consider this very exhaustive experimental work, to prove transmutations and rule out contamination and / or transport processes, poor science?


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



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

    Quote from orsova

    Not the first sweeping, disrespectful, gratuitous and self indulgent aside that THH has made about the scientists involved in LENR in this thread.

    • Let me qualify that: I am judging by people posting on LENR forum - you are right that this is (mostly) not scientists.
    • It is true that I am more relaxed in this thread, and less tactful, then normal.
    • It is also true that my comments tend to be related to what I read here and therefore are not accurate if applied to LENR scientists as a whole most of whom would never post here.
    • However some of my comments here are informed by the ICCF24 published info (videos + ppts).
    • Also some of my comments are related to a large number (> 200) of LENR papers I have read. So probably are a fair reflection of LENR scientists.

    At least a few times, when I read somebody in LENR saying, basically, "here, follow this recipe and replication is easy" I check back with them months and then years later to ask if they know of anyone replicating their work, or trying to, or planning to. Aside from secrets that can't be shared, I never am told of any. But there's a pretty reliable stream of breathless reports of new experiments that are also "easily replicated, if the recipe is just followed." As a wannabe science writer, I've given up on the field until one of two things happen: (1) a paper published in a reputable journal, including information on a prior experiment's replication by a different team, or following on to a paper published in a reputable journal, offering a replication of some work previously published in a reputable journal; or (2) a company making profit by selling LENR-based energy (BLP) or products (Aureon).


    By reputable journal, I mean top-tier. It is my fundamental belief that an experiment demonstrating a technology that might save the world will not have difficulty getting published in a top-tier journal, if done properly. I understand that this must mark me as incredibly naive, to anyone who might care. So be it.

    Quote from mjtrac

    At least a few times, when I read somebody in LENR saying, basically, "here, follow this recipe and replication is easy" I check back with them months and then years later to ask if they know of anyone replicating their work, or trying to, or planning to. Aside from secrets that can't be shared, I never am told of any. But there's a pretty reliable stream of breathless reports of new experiments that are also "easily replicated, if the recipe is just followed." As a wannabe science writer, I've given up on the field until one of two things happen: (1) a paper published in a reputable journal, including information on a prior experiment's replication by a different team, or following on to a paper published in a reputable journal, offering a replication of some work previously published in a reputable journal; or (2) a company making profit by selling LENR-based energy (BLP) or products (Aureon).


    By reputable journal, I mean top-tier. It is my fundamental belief that an experiment demonstrating a technology that might save the world will not have difficulty getting published in a top-tier journal, if done properly. I understand that this must mark me as incredibly naive, to anyone who might care. So be it.

    Fair game. No one will hold it against you. Others choose to get involved and learn a thing or two on the way. Either choice is totally respectable.

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

    Haha 1

    Jurg’s views are his own, he is not alone in his distaste for peer review, tho.


    I haven’t asked a cow about abstract painting, but the sole paper I can claim as main author received a harsh and totally wrong criticism during the first submission from someone that probably wasn’t aware that plants spend energy in their metabolism, and was supposed to by my peer.

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

    Like 1
    Quote from mjtrac

    At least a few times, when I read somebody in LENR saying, basically, "here, follow this recipe and replication is easy"

    Who said that? I have never heard of anyone saying that.


    When Fleischmann introduced cold fusion I think he said it is "relatively simple." He did not say "easy." He meant it was simpler than a Tokamak reactor.

    See, e.g., https://www.sciencedirect.com/…cle/pii/S0360319922047140


    "Ten hard-to-achieve but vital conditions are disclosed for a recognizable (measurable) Fleischmann-Pons heat effect; and these resulted in 100% reproducibility within this study."


    True, the conditions are given as hard-to-achieve. But the statement is that anyone who properly follows the recipe provided gets the results observed. No replicator in public, though. Meanwhile, I read about how the Egyptians knew about cold fusion, and various wonderful theories explaining why everyone in mainstream physics is either wrong or a conspirator. After watching from the sidelines for several years, I find myself left with a vague sense of disgust for the field's participants, particularly the cheerleaders.

    Quote from mjtrac

    No replicator in public,

    the.electrolytic setup. needs. a lab and. 20000. $. at least.. got some spare cash?

    also. spare time..

    Dr Staker. took. quite a few. years to. achieve this

    Are you saying that his results are not valid?

    The problem with electrolysis is. that it is limited/complicated.by the fluid/metal interface

    and the BP. 100C

    most research. is now concentrating on gas phase LENR

    eg Clean Japan..Takahashi



    External Content youtu.be
    Content 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.

    Quote from mjtrac

    See, e.g., https://www.sciencedirect.com/…cle/pii/S0360319922047140


    "Ten hard-to-achieve but vital conditions are disclosed for a recognizable (measurable) Fleischmann-Pons heat effect; and these resulted in 100% reproducibility within this study."


    True, the conditions are given as hard-to-achieve. But the statement is that anyone who properly follows the recipe provided gets the results observed. No replicator in public, though. Meanwhile, I read about how the Egyptians knew about cold fusion, and various wonderful theories explaining why everyone in mainstream physics is either wrong or a conspirator. After watching from the sidelines for several years, I find myself left with a vague sense of disgust for the field's participants, particularly the cheerleaders.

    This paper was shared in the News Thread a few months ago, being released just past January, and if you have read it is a publication of data that took several years to gather. Working against the grain with marginal resources is never a fast thing.

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

    Quote from Curbina

    The “corpus of Rydberg matter published stuff” has been used to obtain patents, with mixed results (one Sweden grant and one EPO rejection that wasn’t appealed).


    You claim LENR is poor science, do you consider this very exhaustive experimental work, to prove transmutations and rule out contamination and / or transport processes, poor science?


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

    Re Rydberg stuff - yes that aligns with my understanding


    Re Miles paper: notice that I made an exception for older papers many of which are good science. You post work 27 years old.


    That paper is influential (within LENR). It has 48 citations - all of them LENR people.


    Somehow none of the replications has made it to the level of more certain positive corroboration that would encourage more non-LENR-convince scientists to take a look.


    Remember: scientists are rewarded for new discoveries. Greatly. Many (at the more prosperous institutions) have lab equipment and Phd candidates free for pursuing way out ideas. Anything strange but half-convincing is worth one PhD investigating when you have available the equipment. And if there is a real effect, replicable, the extra evidence of an independent lab finding it who did not expect it (and therefore was, in there own ways - properly skeptical) will encourage an avalanche of independent replication.


    This lack of follow through is what makes me pessimistic. And all the excuses here would count for more if those who were putting effort into LENR now cared more about showing it was real, rather than keeping their audience of fellow-converts happy.


    Which was why I was very happy about the google-funded investigators. I still do not understand what they did wrong with thoise electrolysis experiments (as the rumour is here).


    THH

    Quote from mjtrac

    and these resulted in 100% reproducibility within this study."

    There you have it. You misread that. It means' It worked every time I tried it.' It does not say 'anyone can do it.'


    The paper says 'In this study seven Pd specimens were run: six gave excess power, two excess heat similar to that reported above (150 MJ/cm3 of Pd or 14 000 eV/Pd atom). The ones giving excess power (but not excess heat) were the result of stopping for various reasons not associated with performance – not run long enough to determine excess heat exceeding limits of chemistry. It is reasonable they would have given excess heat, since they showed the same other characteristics. Higher power densities would have resulted if iT had not been cut back. Another specimen (seventh) had a visible longitudinal crack, and did not load properly (never exceeded 0.7 D/Pd) during the 2 weeks it ran. The reason for failing to load is given in Ref. [19]. It was used as a control experiment, verifying loading as a critical parameter. It gave no excess power or heat and was not expected to since it did not meet items 3 and 4 in the list of necessary conditions to produce the Fleischmann-Pons heat effect.


    So even Staker din't do it every time.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    Re Miles paper: notice that I made an exception for older papers many of which are good science. You post work 27 years old.


    That paper is influential (within LENR). It has 48 citations - all of them LENR people.

    It being "old" doesn't mean is less valid, and the 48 citations "all fo them LENR people" is because only LENR people dare quote such an Heretic work.

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

    Like 2
    Quote from Curbina

    This paper was shared in the News Thread a few months ago, being released just past January, and if you have read it is a publication of data that took several years to gather. Working against the grain with marginal resources is never a fast thing.

    How to achieve the Fleischmann-Pons heat effect
    To understand if cold fusion produces nuclear energy, a calorimeter was designed for electrolysis of Pd in heavy water with a precision of ± 0.5%: it …
    www.sciencedirect.com


    This paper is what this site should be discussing - looking in detail at all of its elements. I was unhappy at the time with the relative lack of detailed critique - yet this data is surely more interesting (because more detailed and well described) than Mizuno's experiment about which there were 100s of pages of comments.


    In order to understand what this paper does, you need to read:


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


    which discusses the electrolysis experiment in detail.


    Also - you get to this in a roundabout way with citation search -


    Nuclear Fusion by Lattice Confinement
    The experimental data for the screening potential in metals shows evidence of huge enhancements in the nuclear fusion cross section at energies ≤10 keV. These…
    ui.adsabs.harvard.edu


    and - same stuff but commercial with more guesswork on usefulness as mechanism for LENR:


    http://www.targettechnology.com/images/R&D/Papers/H_Nee_06_04shf.pdf


    Now, these papers (and ones like them) are what give me hope LENR might exist - although maybe not at useful rates. They are completely coherent, and do not have any obvious need for divergent theory which would have been seen elsewhere. They break some modern lenr canons: supposing lenr is not possible with H.


    Only hope though - there are some issues with both:


    (1) The theoretical stuff - suggesting high density of H or D in Ni or Pd vacancies. It is indicative only, and could be making approximations that invalidate it. DFT is good for many things but not necessarily this unusual situation - so I would not trust this until it received a lot of attention and critique from people who do detailed electron wave function simulations and can estimates the likely errors from DFT in this work.


    (2) The experimental work.


    A. Staker's attention to exact calorimetry is extraordinary and excellent. His use of resistivity to monitor D (or H) loading is excellent - though I am not sure how he gets his exact figures for loading - I think these may be contentious. I'd like to understand it and make sense of it in the context of the detailed work some of the google people did on measuring loading to see what is what.


    B. There is a big elephant in the room - which perhaps invalidates all Staker's careful work. The cells he uses are open cells. The power in calculation assumes that the thermoneutral voltage (what is needed to electrolyse water) should not be included. He calibrates D vs H of course. If there is any recombination, not expected, but therefore could be elusive and different D from H, it would look, in this experiment, like excess heat. Staker relies on:


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


    Which says that recombination is zero, or too small to alter heat balance, in such open cell calorimetry. This needs investigation. If the result is experimental - because recombination is elusive and could well be as variable as LENR - how do the authors know it is always so small?


    THH

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.