The perpetual “is LENR even real” argument thread.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    In that case normally the public disclosure comes from research papers: which are part of the public record. you can find a journal willing to publish pretty well anything and arxiv is available or even vixra.

    In the case of Holmlid (50 + mainstream papers) and Santilli (a seminal book and plenty of papers both self published and in several journals ranking from the average to the bad ones) that did not help at all.


    Omasa’s case was sad because he did not realize his system was causing cavitation and thus he did not cite any of the papers that would have supported his case of transmutation of elements in aqueous solution.

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

    Quote from JedRothwell

    Oh, and one more method should be mentioned. You lie, and lie, and lie about the work in public, you misrepresent every aspect of it, and never bother to read anything. Those are familiar tactics.

    Jed. Do you mean by lie "say things you believe untrue" or "say things deliberately which I know to be untrue - or deliberately distort the truth as i see it".


    The first I will do - we do not agree. You should not call that lying.


    If you insist on saying the second, without apology, then, because my reputation - even as an anonymous poster - matters to me I will stop posting here for a significant period of time. I think this is quite fair. I realise that my views are different from people here, and different from anyone doing serious LENR research. if that irritates people here so much that they see me as an immoral person (believe you me in my book lying is immoral) I should stop. I am bound to irritate people here - I like many am not convinced by the corpus of evidence, though I find it interesting and little bits of it convincing. And this site is not tolerant of such overall views. I would be convinced by the electrolysis evidence if one experiment, replicable, could be repeated even in one lab enough times to deal iteratively with all conceivable errors (if the lab wrote thongs up properly). At 3% power out excess over the input power you need a lot of care to ensure some subtle effect does not influence the result. Just because you, Staker, I, cannot think of such an effect does not mean there is not something. But that challenge, to zero in on an anomaly and either validate it more until it is worth something as new science, or discover that in fact it has some boring cause, is worthwhile. That process is what would convince many people, if iteratively documented. Not easy I know, 3% is small. It is ease of replicability that matters most, so if you have that in the end the truth will out. And that truth, over these experiments, I am truly uncertain about. As I think are most external observers.


    I have no wish to be posting here as a token "liar" for others to revile. And my moral system is old fashioned - I don't much care about effectiveness, or fame, or correctness even, but I detest those (we have all too many politicians now like this) who do not care about truth.


    I have spent a bit of time on this thread this weekend because I had not before looked in any detail at Staker's experiment - I did not bother to look at it carefully when it was first posted here. And posting here helps me to gather my thoughts - and maybe even others here will correct me.


    Feel free to withdraw your accusation - or not.


    THH

    and you never bother to read anything. You are familiar with those tactics.


    I don't do tactics. That is, I post here to say things that interest me and I care about. I do not post with any ulterior motive.


    And I don't read things in detail very often because it takes me a long time, and I need to do it iteratively. For example on this thread I've put maybe 20 hours into the Staker papers and background. And I've still not read them completely. I have avoided trying to think too much about the calorimetry - accepting his error bounds. He seems pretty careful. But if I think about the calorimetry too much I just think - 3% - small differences can alter calibration - uncertain.


    It is strange to accuse me of not reading things - because very few people here put that amount of concentrated effort into understanding new stuff. Ever. So I agree I don't do it all the time but I only take time off from other things occasionally for that.


    You can be quite sure that whatever I say, I can always read more and be more well informed. I probably will not remember stuff well, either, although doing that process a second time is a lot quicker. That is quite different from the way you post knowledge here where you have a large set of fixed in your memory truths. Which makes you great at repeating what is commonly believed in the LENR community, but not great at seeing which elements of that do not make sense to someone on the outside, or even applying that knowledge to some subtly different situation. It makes me less authoritative, less certain, more capable of seeing different angles, all of which is good for unsolved mysteries like LENR. I know for a fact that many times you post here simplifications which are clearly not in general true - and weirdly insist forever that what you have posted must be true!


    Nuance, possible strange errors, etc, are relevant because the LENR corpus is so inconsistent and uncertain. If it ends up being a real nuclear effect you can still bet a lot of that material will end up not being LENR, but mistake. So examining the material for what is stronger, what is weaker, and why, is needed. I do not see the LENR field doing it. I just don't see much interest in critiquing anyone else's paper, or dividing evidence into less and more certain parts, or detailing the key questions that differentiate different hypotheses and if answered would disprove one of them. Even when there are clear large internal inconsistencies between different claims, such as whether LENR does work with H/Pd or only with D/Pd etc. The thing that makes LENR most like a pseudo-science is the way that no-one is prepared to refute what anyone else has said.


    Therefore I like the electrolysis stuff - which is more definite than most. I like Staker's work because he claims a knowable sequence of instructions that lead to good replicability - though I realise this has been said before and somehow even so things don't get more replicable. But, Staker has a clear method to instrument the state of his cathodes, so that is a win. Whether he is right or wrong it makes things more definite. If he is right - it can be replicated. If wrong, not.


    I should also point out that Staker's work is informed by all the Mat. Sci. SAV stuff. That would be great, if it proved correct. I guess there have been an awful lot of theoretical hypotheses that have turned out wrong so it is worth hoping but not having high expectations. If his use of electromigration current really made FPHE more replicable - as yet unproven - that would be of value both experimentally and theoretically.


    THH



    Quote from Alan Smith

    @THH, are you sure that this is 'all about you'?

    I think Jed's comments are all about me - which is what I was replying to!


    I quite like Jed, but I am not tolerant of being called a liar. And lets face it you have few on this site: ascoli (not now), me, bruce, mjtrac in the red pill corner. To use a meme that apparently now on the internet is associated with the very weird and unpleasant manosphere.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    To use a meme that apparently now on the internet is associated with the very weird and unpleasant manosphere.

    I don’t think you get what red pill means in the “memesphere”, but is not easy to explain. I will give it a try:


    Red Pill comes from the iconic scene in the movie “The Matrix” when Neo is offered the chance of getting the answer of what the Matrix is if he chooses the red pill instead of the blue pill. So, by this definition, someone red pilled is someone out of the matrix. In that sense, and still on this memetical context, one could say that LENR-Forum is a Red Pilled place, and you would be cornered here for not being red pilled. I don’t know if it makes any sense.


    Moving on, you are appreciated here and please do continue to post, even if we don’t almost ever agree, you are valued.

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

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    I meant manosphere. It is a thing apparently and not nice. Have listened to (rather horrifying) programs about it - never looked at it myself. Not my sort of thing.

    Ok, by memesphere I meant “the context of all memes”. On the other hand, the so called “Manosphere” which IMHO is defined so broadly as to be unfair by grouping under an umbrella many completely dissimilar and even antagonistic tendences, is, however, also a range of places where most people present in them think of themselves as being “Red Pilled”, to which I mostly disagree. Other term often used in this alleged “manosphere” is calling mainstream agreeing people “normies”.

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

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    Jed. Do you mean by lie "say things you believe untrue" or "say things deliberately which I know to be untrue - or deliberately distort the truth as i see it".


    The first I will do - we do not agree. You should not call that lying.

    Here is what I mean. You, and thousands of others, know nothing about cold fusion. Every statement you make about it is wrong. Either you have not read the papers; or you do not understand them; or you are lying about them. I cannot tell which of these three statements is true. Here is what I do know. Ed Storms, I, and many others have told you many times that you are wrong, yet you keep repeating falsehoods. For example, you said that Miles throws away data from cells that leak. I am sure you will say that again, and again, and again. Yet if you read Miles' papers you will see he lists all experiments, and he threw none of them. Add up the time it took to do the experiments, and you will see he could not have.


    Your assertions will give anyone the impression the researchers are incompetent idiots, incapable of doing middle-school level experiments. They cannot even measure the volume of make-up water to the nearest milliliter with a syringe. Worse, they don't even bother to do this, even though anyone with the least knowledge of electrochemistry always does it.


    You are making a game of this. I suppose you are saying these things to stroke your own ego. You should realize that words have consequences.


    These researchers are despised by the establishment. They have been in deep trouble from Day 1. Read the letters from Miles to Fleischman to see what I mean. When you and thousands of others spend year after year making absurd, false accusations about them, that adds fuel to the fire. People in the establishment who wish to put a permanent end to cold fusion echo the kinds of statements you and others post in Wikipedia and in the Washington Post. Your words may not have hurt anyone. Then again, the might have. We don't know. But it is certain that the overall effect of you and thousands of others making outrageous, patently false, nonsensical attacks on cold fusion has had an effect.


    Think about Atlanta in 1975. Imagine a quiet, polite, respectable middle class white person who sometimes makes racist remarks about black people. Maybe only his wife notices. Maybe his co-workers do. That may have no effect on black people. Now take a million respectable people like that in 1975. All of them saying racist things. That has an effect. It encourages the more violent racists. It gives the government an excuse to fund black schools at a fraction of white schools. In black public schools, there are practically no books in the libraries, no instruments for the band, the building are dilapidated to the point of being dangerous, and the schools are so crowded, the children have to be divided in to two groups, one who attends in the morning, and one in the afternoon. That was how things were in Atlanta in 1975. Words have consequences. Irresponsible, antisocial, anti-scientific words and false assertions about scientists -- or grade-school children -- have consequences. You are as much to blame for what happens to cold fusion researchers as the respectable middle class white people were to blame for the appalling state of black Atlanta public schools in 1975. You contribute a little calumny; the plasma fusion researchers and Nature editors contribute a lot, but you are all responsible.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    know nothing about cold fusion. Every statement you make about it is wrong. Either you have not read the papers; or you do not understand them; or you are lying about them. I cannot tell which of these three statements is true. Here is what I do know. Ed Storms, I, and many others have told you many times that you are wrong, yet you keep repeating falsehoods. For example, you said that Miles throws away data from cells that leak. I am sure you will say that again, and again, and again. Yet if you read Miles' papers you will see he lists all experiments, and he threw none of them. Add up the time it took to do the experiments, and you will see he could not have.

    Ok, so every statement you make there is a gross simplification. The thing is - you see things in terms of these very simple yes/no logic, and then when i say things you interpret what i say the same way - so it is obviously wrong.


    Every statement I make about LENR is wrong. That is rubbish and you know it. maybe many statements I make are wrong. Almost certainly a few statements i make are wrong. But certainly most statements i make are going to be misinterpreted by you!

    Example - "Miles throw away data cells that leak.". In what context? For He experiments - I am quite certain that one of those classic runs of experiments had a protocol where leaks were detected and apparatus remade. It would be surprising if that was not the case because you need very very leaktight apparatus.


    So what are you saying: that no leaks happen? or that eqpt with leaks is used (enormous He concentration up to atmospheric)?


    I an not very clear which runs of those He experiments is which. So maybe some were hoping to detect he levels higher than atmospheric so leak no longer an issue?


    Yet if you read Miles' papers you will see he lists all experiments, and he threw none of them.

    An experiment with leaky apparatus would not be recorded as an experiment? Would it?


    In any case, since I am not interested enough to chase down all the original results in the meta-analysis, we can't make progress with this unless you answer these questions:

    (1) Does the meta-analysis select for experimental results? if so what are the inclusion/exclusion criteria?

    (2) For the results selected, what was the methodology for publishing them (e.g. how were the inevitable possible leaks dealt with? As v high He results published? Or discarded?)


    You can probably see that if you admit the possibility of leaks, either you have some super-high results in the meta-analysis - or somone filters them.


    So although I am not sure how this slices without reading all the papers (original and meta-analysis) the fact of He concentrations below atmospheric means that some way to detect and exclude leaks is needed. The question then is how does that affect the meta-analysis. And i don't know. Nor do you - because selection effects on meta-analyses are the type of nuance I have never heard you consider. Forgive me if I am doing you an injustice.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    You are making a game of this. I suppose you are saying these things to stroke your own ego. You should realize that words have consequences.

    I don't believe my words on this site have significant consequences. it would be weird if they did.


    "This" - for me - is fun. it is true. And, because I do not have skin in the game I am not particularly concerned about whether people do or don't think LENR is real.


    My interest is very largely understanding the anomalies. If it was obvious to me LENR did not exist I would not stay here. If it was obvious to me it did exist I would probably not stay here. Because it is uncertain (to me) I find it fascinating. I vary between thinking it more or less likely - and of course some bits of it i think inherently less likley.


    But what I think is sort of irrelevant. I don't know, and know I don't know. The problem is that there are these very specific anomalies, like the electrolysis excess heat. There are tantalising hints that mechanisms might work. Yes, at the same time, the evidence is very incoherent and the field behaves in way which raise pseudo-science red flags.


    So I get interested when there is some possibility of definite evidence - as with Staker's experiment. I want to see what are its strengths, weaknesses, how could it be improved (by making the results more certain), and most importantly does it look like a replicable thing.


    And I get frustrated when everyone has their favourite claimed LENR evidence and I cannot know but strongly suspect a lot of it 9particularly alas the transmutation stuff) is a combination of mistake and misunderstanding and in some cases misreading spectral lines.


    A classic example is that surface elemental analysis from the tritium experiment. The after electrolysis cathode data with completely different metals than before, and no consideration that it might be plated from some metal at anodic potential in the enclosure. Now, maybe it is, maybe it is not. But the first thing any write-up must do if it is to be believed is to explicitly rule that out checking anything metal that could possibly be in contact with the electrolyte. Maybe it is just a mistake. But to take it as most likely transmutation when:

    • It is so unlikely in terms of the elements and how completely they are changed from the original Ni
    • There is the obvious possibility of inadvertent electroplating

    is not proper.


    If LENR field wants more mainstream interest - and if LENR is real it certainly deserves and needs that - so that papers can be properly published and critiques, with more people looking at them properly - then a more scientific attitude would help. That means when you see an anomaly you at least consider (in your write-up) possible reasons for it - which maybe you then give evidence for why none work, and then offer "well - it good be some LENR transmutation reaction driven to completion".


    I feel the lack of such caution means the written output from LENR shoots itself in the foot. Though, to be fair, that tritium experiemnt has not been written up yet, meerely a ppt. Still, a ppt can be a bit more cautious.

    All these transmutations occur in the earth's crust and this is due to the formation of minerals gold, iron, etc. as well as ore and oil, water, in general, all minerals. There are constant discharges in the earth's crust and they make cold nuclear fusion in the earth's crust.34 years have passed and they need to calm down, but they won't let me go anywhere, they don't like the earth's crust.

    Scientific novelty and significance of the project

    1. In the scheme under consideration, the formation of molecules of chemical compounds in the plasma that are part of natural gases and oil and their stay in the gaseous phase is assumed. With subsequent discharges, condensation occurs from the gaseous stage to the droplet-liquid state, migration, accumulation of liquid in traps in the Earth's crust. Plasma chemical reactions of the formation of chemical compounds that make up oil can begin with the formation of hydrocarbons and hydrogen in their free state. They can also begin with the decomposition of carbon compounds or hydrogen-containing organic or inorganic compounds in an electric discharge and then the synthesis of the formed elements, free radicals or products of the destruction of the molecules of the initial compounds. [7].




    The proposed hypothesis of formation of molecules of compounds in the Earth's crust that are part of hot gases and oil does not exclude other ways and ways of formation of gas and oil, including the ways indicated by organic or inorganic hypotheses. Plasma chemical reactions can take effect at some stage of the processes described by the inorganic and organic hypotheses of oil formation, for example, from the stage when methane or carbon dioxide and hydrogen are obtained during the decomposition of organic matter, etc. Subsequently, hydrogenation, polymerization, cyclization and other reactions of obtaining complex organic compounds will occur in the plasma. According to the inorganic hypothesis of the formation of oil or gas:




    A) hydrocarbons are released from magma;




    B) hydrocarbons are synthesized from C and H2 by the catalytic action of rocks.

    Нефть - это кровь планеты, надо сделать модель планеты и мы получим генератор Тарасенко, эта энергия покорит вселенную! :lenr:

    Like 2
    Quote from THHuxleynew

    Yes, but the gap is when a patent is so vague that it in no way discloses how to make something that might work. You don't have to disclose everything - details are for patent litigation should that ever occur, but you need some idea that if the instructions are followed someone can make a working product.


    Obviously not true in this case!

    Maybe it depends in what country you file the patent and "who" you are?


    I asume that for instance the Airbus patent(s) concerning LENR are still valid, but I have never heared about or seen a working prototype.


    DEPATISnet | Bibliografische Daten

    Quote from gerold.s

    Maybe it depends in what country you file the patent and "who" you are?


    I asume that for instance the Airbus patent(s) concerning LENR are still valid, but I have never heared about or seen a working prototype.


    https://depatisnet.dpma.de/Dep…at&docid=EP000003070050A1

    Yes, how good your patent lawyer is, which country, and how lucky you are with a given patent inspector.


    But it is not really working prototype (how could P.O. know)? It is "does this set of instructions enable somone skilled in the art to make something that night work".

    Quote from Gennadiy Tarassenko

    hydrocarbons are synthesized from C and H2 by the catalytic action of rocks.

    https://www.usnews.com/opinion…t%20from%20fossil%20fuels.


    Gregg Laskoski is a senior petroleum analyst with GasBuddy.com.

    says the abiotic theory is worth exploring... perhaps you can ask him for funding..


    but don't mention LENR

    it is in direct competition with CO2 generating "fossil"/abiotic? fuels..

    which is of course a huge problem with finding funding in Kazakhstan..Saudi Arabia..

    Quote from Gennadiy Tarassenko

    All these transmutations occur in the earth's crust and this is due to the formation of minerals gold, iron, etc. as well as ore and oil, water, in general, all minerals

    I think the translation is wrong " due to" should be " leads to"

    Wyttenbach has documented

    the LENR terrestrial(Essex) transmutations in rareearth nickel and other 'magnetic; element mixtures.

    and developed the 'atomecology' theory

    which is contrary to the 'twinkle"theory of such transmutations only occurring in stars faraway....

    although Iwamura has documented a few too .. Ba >>> Sm Cs>>>Pm

    in Tohoku, Honshu...


    "

    142Nd + 2H → 144Sm :: Is a low visible path - difficult to see final line because of high energies.

    142Nd + 2H → 144Pm → 144Nd :: Some evidence (476.78 and 696.49keV lines) at certain T

    144Nd + 2H → 146Pm → 146Nd. more likely than 146Sm that is not stable.

    146Nd + 2H → 148Pm ?? → 144Nd + 4He evidence low

    146Sm + 2H → 148Eu not seen!

    148Sm → 144Nd + 4He this evidence is low

    148Sm + 2H → 150Sm full down scaling seen (see below)

    150Sm + 2H → 152Eu → 152Gd → 148Sm + 4He :: 152Gd full down scaling seen up to Q value of 2.2!

    150Sm + 2H → 152Eu → 152Sm :: full down scaling seen. Most lines up to Q value of 2.1MeV

    152Sm + 2H → 154Tb → 154Gd :: All lines up to the 154Tb Q-factor (3550keV) are seen.

    152Eu :: More than 70 lines have been found!

    154Gd + 2H → 156Tb → 156Gd :: All lines up to the 156Tb Q-factor (2444keV) are seen.


    https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Juerg-Wyttenbach/publication/356972251_A_new_experimental_path_to_nucleosynthesis/links/61b4e39d1d88475981e117dc/A-new-experimental-path-to-nucleosynthesis.pdf?origin=publicationDetail&_sg%5B0%5D=5abNodjr_4cWSQp9OU2F5Q0vemKy9fkqG7-5XbbFDvFQktLgyKl1tUSr0EloQmioxxet0wDxYwdGSfCxqWOS2g.ZN3ixmIAJCnssrYqwJ4_wiY7rs8o1Q1HQvLpWDOoOGGzlqFQGZh8xWDpP5kbW3wKk-BHr5rQgZvH8hVxq7MOhw&_sg%5B1%5D=qYXlvEjwcGg7EBR5ZgYBsrRSgkWQ86Ayi9Fw9OsTCuEPu9Q9SIdm5K7Owh47r-XYAnzaaIka-iglNPC2hahgu8JUF22vBSiSrdDKNA1AF2Zw.ZN3ixmIAJCnssrYqwJ4_wiY7rs8o1Q1HQvLpWDOoOGGzlqFQGZh8xWDpP5kbW3wKk-BHr5rQgZvH8hVxq7MOhw&_iepl=&_rtd=eyJjb250ZW50SW50ZW50IjoibWFpbkl0ZW0ifQ%3D%3D

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    since I don't understand the evidence.

    but will comment "fantastical" nevertheless :P

    a nothing comment

    "its not all about you"


    "Thomas Gold, a respected astronomer and professor emeritus at Cornell University in Ithaca, NY, has held for years that oil is actually a renewable, primordial syrup continually manufactured by the Earth under ultrahot conditions and tremendous pressures. As this substance migrates toward the surface, it is attacked by bacteria, making it appear to have an organic origin dating back to the dinosaurs, he says.

    All of which has led some scientists to a radical theory: Eugene Island is rapidly refilling itself, perhaps from some continuous source miles below the Earth's surface. That, they say, raises the tantalizing possibility that oil may not be the limited resource it is assumed to be.

    Quote from gerold.s

    Maybe it depends in what country you file the patent and "who" you are?

    The USPTO is for US.. not all.. not Japan..not Europe. the world.. for "US"

    " Under this system of protection, American industry has flourished. New products have been invented, new uses for old ones discovered, and employment opportunities created for millions of Americans. The strength and vitality of the U.S. economy depends directly on effective mechanisms that protect new ideas and investments"

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.