The perpetual “is LENR even real” argument thread.

Quote from RobertBryant

to who?

To the USPTO examiner. On multiple grounds. See her Non-Final Rejection letter of 05/03/2019 (here).

It is also intuitively obvious. And, as well, I think that Wyttenbach is saying it too.

Quote from RobertBryant

to who?

To anyone who understands what is actually patentable.

Copied wrong thing..

Quote from Paradigmnoia

Wyttenbach ,

How are anticipating defending you patent application against the “law of nature” criticism that will almost certainly applied?

Are you of the opinion that there is a sufficient level of process described that can be successfully patented?

From 2018

Quote from THHuxleynew

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

I know you here are talking about the work of Guido Parchi, but the Miley Patterson publication from 1996 showed exhaustively that contamination could not account for the whole mass of new elements found, not even 10% of it, and these were analyzing the bulk of all the materials involved, not just the surface, by INAA. They also performed blanks with non metal coated beads and found no significant contamination leaking from the system. They even used reactors made as a whole from organic / metal free materials, to minimize the potential contamination, and also performed blank tests on those to have a precise figure of how many and how much elements could you get leaking from the system itself to the electrolyte and bead surfaces and substracting them from the new elements observed after the live experiments. So, the elemental transmutation in electrolysis with Ni and Pd metal lattices was shown to exist with a high standard of proof, and therefore doubting it is rooted in a belief that this is not possible, rather than a careful consideration of the evidence available. Once transmutation has been proven to a high standard, even if this puts nuclear science in uncharted waters, other claims of transmutation are much more plausible to consider as valid.

Elemental transmutation, wether you believe it or not, It's a widespread phenomena, people has proven it in a very simple experiment called ULTR, with an ultrasonic water bath and kitchen aluminum foil, in which you can observe new elements appear in the aluminum foil, granted in small amounts, but these elements are found in specific regions of the damage that the ultrasound causes in the aluminum foil, not anywhere else, damage which has a very characteristic "ying yang" topological pattern. The SEM and EDS analysis of these damaged areas have been published in video if you take the time to watch it.

Now you may say that ultrasound has nothing to do with LENR, but this is just not being aware that cavitation creates multiple repetitive events of bubble collapse where charge separation is produced, and therefore you get transient and very localized areas where H+ OH- exist impacting on a metal lattice, in multiple events when the frequency is in the 22 KHz or above, therefore the conditions are there for the phenomena to happen.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

From 2018

I think its a "protect the planet" application..probably outside the scope of the USPTO..

Quote from JedRothwell

professional scientist were to tell his colleagues: "I am going to look at a cold fusion experiment. It might be interesting . . ." he would be fired in a week.

Iwamura et al market their stuff as Quantum Heat Energy with good reason..

.perhaps if marketed as cold-fusion they would not have got

20 million or so funding..

its really not about "how science works"

its about how humans work..

back in the day in 1821 or so...Faraday stop working on electromagnetism

for a few years... a decade or so?

Reason? Sir Humphrey Davy's ego got in the way..

"that's how humans work.."

"

Davy had a notoriously sensitive ego. He was also upset that Faraday failed to adequately credit his friend William Hyde Wollaston, who had been studying the problem of rotary motion with currents and magnets for more than a year. Faraday mentions both men in his article, as well as Ampère, Ørsted, and some others. But he doesn't credit anyone as a collaborator, influencer, or codiscoverer. Faraday didn't work directly with Davy and Wollaston on their experiments, but he did overhear a conversation between them and understood the direction of their work. Plus it was (and still is) a common practice to credit your adviser in early publications.

When Faraday's reputation began to eclipse that of his mentor's, Faraday made several missteps while navigating the cutthroat, time-sensitive world of academic publishing.

Faraday fought to clear his name against the charge of plagiarism and mostly succeeded, although his relationship with Davy remained strained. When Faraday was elected a fellow of the Royal Society in 1824, the sole dissenting vote was cast by the society's president, Humphry Davy.

Faraday avoided working in the field of electromagnetism for the next few years

200 Years Ago, Faraday Invented the Electric Motor

After Faraday published his results, his mentor accused him of plagiarism

spectrum.ieee.org

and there is this anecdote from the UK

perhaps its an anomaly..??

"

Then someone in the audience mentioned cold fusion. If you have ever seen someone overcome by the red mist - this was it. His face went a light shade of purple, he started to shake, and spluttered "but that's... that's... that's... FRAUD!" A stunned silence fell across the room. Eventually one of the hosts had to ask a totally unrelated question to get things moving again.

My partner was shocked. She had not really believed me when I'd previously told her about the attitude to CF research within the "science establishment". But this was a clear and graphic example of the pure anger that could be invoked by simply mentioning the phrase 'cold fusion'.

Post

RE: The perpetual “is LENR even real” argument thread.

[…]

About a decade ago my partner and I were at a Cafe Scientifique talk - which was being given by a nuclear physicist from our local university. He was nearing retirement, and had worked on a lot of different projects, in various universities and research institutes, over the years. He was also a proponent of, and strong advocate for, Thorium Fueled Accelerator-driven Subcritical Reactors - which was the main subject of his talk.

He was certainly not a fan of Hot Fusion - and during the Q&A…

Frogfall

Oct 5th 2022

Quote from THHuxleynew

Fund it enough to repeat it in the same lab - with very careful documentation of all results and closing any loopholes as above. that would not be proof without replication

That's whats happening in Japan now,, for some time

I think Iwamura and Takahashi went to gas phase a long while ago..

after trying electrolysis for years

Electrolytic cells are difficult to do and limited by the 100C temperature

Takahashi gave up on them as unreliable..

as well there's not enough wiggle room for the reaction conditions..

Stakers effort was replication ... not directed towards a working prototype reactor

Quote from Curbina

I would say that this is because, in this particular case, what is being attempted to patent is a new understanding about what matter is and how it behaves, which in turn opens many practical aplications. You can’t patent new physic principles or models, only their application to specific problems. However this does serve the purpose of public disclosure and public record that Jurg went for.

Yep, you can't patent that sort of thing.....and I know from personal experience that Sharon M Davis is a tough cookie. I would not like to go up against her with a self-penned, self-prosecuted patent application that was clearly deficient.

I highly doubt that the purpose was for "public disclosure and public record" there are much cheaper ways to do that than a USPTO application, and if that was the purpose, why try to argue for the patent?

Quote from Paradigmnoia

It was immediately obvious that Jurg’s application did not meet the criteria for a real patent.

Seems you have no dust about patenting. There are method patents e.g. for DFT so no need for any physical counterpart.

Brought to my attention by Jed Rothwell. I wonder if it makes the grade with THHuxleynew new ? In particular, did they consider all the likely causes of artifacts.

https://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MilesMradiationm.pdf

Miles, M. and B.F. Bush. Radiation Measurements at China Lake: Real or Artifacts? in The Seventh International
Conference on Cold Fusion. 1998

ABSTRACT

Anomalously high radiation counts were observed using several different Geiger-Mueller
(GM) detectors as well as sodium iodide (NaI) detectors during electrolysis experiments with
palladium cathodes in heavy water. These high radiation counts were often observed in codeposition experiments where palladium metal is deposited from a D2O solution onto a copper
cathode in the presence of evolving deuterium gas. The anomalous radiation counts reached
values as high as 73 sigma above normal background counts. The anomalous radiation would
appear within a few hours in the co-deposition experiments where the palladium is loaded with
deuterium as it deposits from solution. In contrast, the appearance of anomalous radiation
required days of electrolysis for the palladium rods that load much slower. The real or artifact
question stems mainly from the fact that two similar GM detectors often gave different results in
monitoring the excess radiation. A few experiments, nevertheless, gave simultaneous anomalous
effects from two different radiation detectors.
cont....

Quote from THHuxleynew

My understanding is that the scope of calorimetry artifacts from gas reactors (as run in Japanese experiments reported so far) is far superior to that available in well understood lower temperature electrolysis systems.

Once again, gas loading experiments in which deuterium flux through a Pd foil have been shown to generate a heat signature that requires nuclear fission energy density levels to be explained are published since 2007. This is no small energy density.

Quote from THHuxleynew

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.

That is incorrect. You are not making subtle distinctions. You statements are not arguably true, or perhaps misinterpretations. They are not matters of opinion.

All of your major assertions are false. They are odds with the facts. Recently, you claimed that all major experiments are close to the noise. Not true. You said that Miles threw away data from experiments with leaks. Not true. You claimed there are calorimeters much better than F&P's which showed no heat. Not true. You claimed that tritium was not measured before the experiment, and tritium in the surroundings was not accounted for at Los Alamos and BARC. Not true.

These are simple facts. With such facts, there are Yes or No answers. Either all experiments are close to the margin, or they are not. Either there were leaks, or there were not. Assertions in a theory paper might be debatable, subtle or blurry. Some experimental claims are debatable. A question such as: "Have there been enough replications to believe the Ni K2CO3 results?" is a matter of opinion. It is a judgement call. Was the Niedra experiment sufficient proof of the K2CO3 claim? That is a matter of opinion. Neidra herself is somewhat undecided. It would reasonable for you to say "No" while others say "Yes." But, whether the people at Los Alamos measured tritium in the materials before they began is not a matter of opinion. It is not debatable. You have not found any reason to doubt their methods of checking materials.

Let me repeat. You have not made one or two incorrect statements about the facts in the experimental literature. Every major assertion you have made here, going back for years, has been utterly false. Anyone who has read the literature will see this. You repeat these false statements so often, despite being corrected, that I can only assume you are doing this deliberately.

Quote from THHuxleynew

My understanding is that the scope of calorimetry artifacts

your understanding arty-facts.. word spiel?

THe calorimetry used by Iwamura and Takahashi has

become considerably more sophisticated in the years since Arata's time..2008 or so

Jed. We need skeptics to keep us all honest, and THH is actually doing us a favour by (even if mistaken at times) pointing out all the weak points in our work.

Quote from Alan Smith

We need skeptics to keep us all honest,

Actually Massimo.. an Italian mechanical engineer skeptic picked up one silly mistake in Mizuno;s work which none of the other LENR illuminati did.. which I duely corrected.

just before publication .. you might recall.. Graci Massimo

Quote from THHuxleynew

So we can go on upping the CO2 level indefinitely with global warming and ocean acidification?

Assalaam 'alaikum... as they say in Saudi Arabia