The perpetual “is LENR even real” argument thread.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    I gave the answer earlier on this thread; saying that I realised no-one in the LENR community would agree.


    LENR experimental evidence has a higher bar to meet than that to support most other theories - because LENR - as a theory - is not highly predictive as to exactly what the results of experiments should be. Indeed there is no possible experiment that would disprove LENR: whatever the results. That makes for a higher needed standard of evidence.


    And all of these uncertainties about experiments could be settled to everyone's satisfaction by repeated exact replication (of a good experiment) adding instrumentation and doing parametrization. In one lab till all uncertainty is removed. Then in another independent lab. Many now think they have decent replicability - say 1 in 5. You would need more repetition than you think necessary. And more instrumentation than you think necessary. But it can be done. So why not?

    You ask why not. The reason is that you demand the impossible. it is impossible to replicate LENR exactly because all of the variables that affect the process have not been identified, and, therefore, they cannot be controlled. Nevertheless, people have replicated close enough and measured exactly the same behavior. For example, I reacted Pd with D using either electrolysis or D2 gas and caused excess energy with the same magnitude and with the same effect of temperature. But, that is not good enough for you. The same agreement is found when both energy and He are measured.


    Yes, LENR is impossible to explain using the mechanisms that apply to conventional nuclear reactions. This means that a new kind of nuclear reaction has been triggered. But, such a novel idea is not acceptable these days. In the past, new ideas in physics were accepted, QM being one of them. But not anymore. Only the most obvious behavior that has an obvious engineering application is accepted. LENR has not only revealed a new source of energy but it has also revealed just how unwilling physicists are to accept new ideas. Increasingly, in both science and politics, personal belief tells more about the nature of the individual's mind and rationally than about the subject. Human behavior has never been particularly rational. But, based on my 92 years of observation, this flaw seems to be getting worse.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    LENR experimental evidence has a higher bar to meet than that to support most other theories - because LENR - as a theory - is not highly predictive as to exactly what the results of experiments should be. Indeed there is no possible experiment that would disprove LENR: whatever the results.

    LENR is not a theory. It is an experimental observation. It would dead simple to disprove it. There are three main methods:

    1. Show that every single calorimetric result was wrong. You have point out, specifically, what error was made in every study. If even one major result such as McKubre's is right, that means cold fusion is real.
    2. Show that every tritium result is wrong. Again, you have to show specific errors. Even if the heat is a mistake, if the tritium is real then cold fusion is a real nuclear effect.
    3. Show that a chemical reaction can produce 50 MJ from 1 g of fuel, and that a chemical reaction can produce tritium.

    The comment that you cannot disprove it is absurd. You can always disprove an experiment. But the only way to do it is to show an error in the instruments or technique. You cannot do it by calling an experiment a "theory." The notion that it cannot be disproved reminds me of what J. B. S. Haldane said when someone asked him how to disprove the theory of evolution. He responded:


    Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian!


    That's all it would take. That would overthrow evolution completely. All it takes to disprove cold fusion is to show that every single experiment is wrong. Not one or two, or most -- but every one of them. Or, I suppose, you could show that calorimetry itself does not work, or that the Laws of Thermodynamics are wrong.



    Quote from THHuxleynew

    LENR experimental evidence has a higher bar to meet than that to support most other theories - because LENR - as a theory - is not highly predictive as to exactly what the results of experiments should be. Indeed there is no possible experiment that would disprove LENR: whatever the results.

    Also about this --


    THH has repeated this bullshit several times. I and others have pointed out to him that LENR is not a theory, and the predicted results are extremely clearcut. They are heat beyond the limits of chemistry with no chemical changes. No scientist after the year 1700 or so would have the slightest difficulty understanding the significance of that, or understanding that is what the experiments show. It is one of the most clearcut experiments in history. When the Curies showed similar results from radium -- heat with no chemical changes -- every scientist instantly understood that it was new and clearly defined anomaly. The proof was calorimetry, and no one questioned the validity of that calorimetry just because it demonstrated something no one expected or could explain.


    I find it hard to believe THH really does not understand how clearcut the proof is, or the absurdity of calling an experiment a "theory."

    Quote from Storms

    You ask why not. The reason is that you demand the impossible. it is impossible to replicate LENR exactly because all of the variables that affect the process have not been identified, and, therefore, they cannot be controlled. Nevertheless, people have replicated close enough and measured exactly the same behavior. For example, I reacted Pd with D using either electrolysis or D2 gas and caused excess energy with the same magnitude and with the same effect of temperature. But, that is not good enough for you. The same agreement is found when both energy and He are measured.


    Yes, LENR is impossible to explain using the mechanisms that apply to conventional nuclear reactions. This means that a new kind of nuclear reaction has been triggered. But, such a novel idea is not acceptable these days. In the past, new ideas in physics were accepted, QM being one of them. But not anymore. Only the most obvious behavior that has an obvious engineering application is accepted. LENR has not only revealed a new source of energy but it has also revealed just how unwilling physicists are to accept new ideas. Increasingly, in both science and politics, personal belief tells more about the nature of the individual's mind and rationally than about the subject. Human behavior has never been particularly rational. But, based on my 92 years of observation, this flaw seems to be getting worse.

    Amen to that!

    Quote from Storms

    You ask why not. The reason is that you demand the impossible. it is impossible to replicate LENR exactly because all of the variables that affect the process have not been identified, and, therefore, they cannot be controlled. Nevertheless, people have replicated close enough and measured exactly the same behavior. For example, I reacted Pd with D using either electrolysis or D2 gas and caused excess energy with the same magnitude and with the same effect of temperature. But, that is not good enough for you. The same agreement is found when both energy and He are measured.

    As far as I go, both of these statements are not correct.


    it is understood that the magnitude of excess heat, transmutation, etc, etc is variable due to a difficult to control effect.


    That does mean better evidence is required - but if the effect is nuclear then an experiment that often shows anomalous results is enough, providing it can be made very very certain and replicated.


    Replication does not require e.g. that every cathode works in an electrolysis experiment.

    • It requires that if a stated methodology for preparation and testing is followed enough will work to continue practically replicating. 1 in 100 cathodes working would be challenging unless there was a quick screening process.
    • Then, it is required that an initial promising experiment is repeated with additional instrumentation, checks of possible differences between controls and active runs, whatever. Any criticism of skeptics can be answered with additional instrumentation and/or parametrisation, all of which increases certainty and as a bonus provides more data on the exact effect. Several iterations of this may be needed.
    • Then, that package - which looks strong enough to get anyone interested, needs to be replicated independently in another lab (probably one where the replicators are not convinced LENR is nuclear).

    This is not easy: but also not impossible.


    Energy & He. This is definitely not the same. There is a claimed parametric and quantitative result that matches with theory - that makes it inherently stronger. However - the experiments are just so difficult to do. You would need a lot of experiments with very clear methodology and result recording. I guess it would be quite expensive. I guess you would need to do the whole thing under a very-low-He lab atmosphere to reduce all those problems with leaks being conflated with results. The corpus of results so far as interesting but not clear. And I guess results so far were pretty expensive.


    It is the tragedy of LENR that the experiments that offer the best chances to be certain seem the ones that are most difficult/expensive to do. Skeptics would say that is because experiments that can be done easily and accurately, with a lot of replication, show negative.

    Quote from RobertBryant

    It is being done.. mostly in Japan...with Yen..

    and with some Euros

    might take awhile

    Iwamura was talking about 5 years

    Well, we can all hope. However personally I have little hope from the Japanese commercial work. A decent set of university replications could be done and published in 2 years if it was funded and started with a good enough initial experiment. Assuming such a replicable experiment exists.

    I want to add another caveat to the Staker experiment results.


    Is it clear that the difference between D & H in the electrolysis can have no effect on the calorimetry by altering the conductivity of any of the air gaps?


    The positive results are all D, the negative all H. 3% is quite small. The thermal conductivity of D is 1.4 X lower than H - so if there was any leakage into the air gaps that would make the D temperatures up to 1.4 X higher (depending on which if the 4 air gaps were leaking etc). (the calorimeter thermal gap is mostly dominated by gas conductivity through 4 concentric air gaps - the paper says).


    The after calibration might detect this - it would depend whether the leakage stayed in the gaps, and whether the D or H leaked as much without active electrolysis.


    This makes my point that it is really difficult to think of these things!


    And my point about replication is that of course that experiment could be done with additional work to make quite sure this was not happening.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    And my point about replication is that of course that experiment could be done with additional

    armchair speculation but you wouldn't give a dime..

    any way despite Stakers replication efforts the field has moved on to gas phase.

    External Content www.youtube.com
    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 THHuxleynew

    That does mean better evidence is required - but if the effect is nuclear then an experiment that often shows anomalous results is enough, providing it can be made very very certain and replicated.

    The result is very, very certain. There is never any need to make a result very replicatable, or easily replicated. That standard has never been applied to any other scientific discovery or technology. Cloning mammals remains very difficult to replicate. The failure rate is far higher than for cold fusion, but no one claims that cloning does not exist. The failure rate for rockets is roughly as high as it is for cold fusion projects, but no one claims that rockets do not exist.


    You have invented an arbitrary standard that you apply to cold fusion -- and cold fusion alone. If someone else were to apply the "must be easily replicated" standard to any other experiment or technology, you would say that is absurd.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    Skeptics would say that is because experiments that can be done easily and accurately, with a lot of replication, show negative.

    You would say that. It is not a bit true, and it makes no sense. Why would people do experiments with "a lot of replication" if they "show negative"? What is the point of replicating something that does not work? Who does that? If they "show negative" they are not replicated.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    the absurdity of calling an experiment a "theory."

    Jed, where have a called an experiment a theory? Don't you think imagining I would say that is absurd?


    I am (being generous) calling LENR a theory. And it is a theory (or at least a hypothesis) - just not a very useful one.


    For example, I can have a hypothesis that red-haired people on average live less longer than black-haired people. It does not give a clue as to mechanism: but if found true over a wide range of data would be accepted as a theory.


    LENR is actually more mechanistic than that - since it specifies that nuclear reactions are responsible for a range of observed apparent anomalies.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    The comment that you cannot disprove it is absurd. You can always disprove an experiment. But the only way to do it is to show an error in the instruments or technique. You cannot do it by calling an experiment a "theory." The notion that it cannot be disproved reminds me of what J. B. S. Haldane said when someone asked him how to disprove the theory of evolution.

    OK, so what experimental result, if fully replicable, would disprove LENR?


    I can give one for every other physics theory - and for more red-haired lifespan hypothesis. (The red-haired thing relies on large numbers - so the disproof would be a statistical statement about large numbers of experiments - but that is ok).


    Anyway Jed, I thought you were aware of some of the philosophy of science - argue with Popper not me.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    The result is very, very certain. There is never any need to make a result very replicatable, or easily replicated. That standard has never been applied to any other scientific discovery or technology. Cloning mammals remains very difficult to replicate. The failure rate is far higher than for cold fusion, but no one claims that cloning does not exist.

    You have missed the point. cloning mammals has been done - with clear results (you think there is argument about whether Dolly is a mammal? About whether dolly was cloned?). And those clear results have been repeated many times by many labs. case closed.


    The failure rate is not the point - as I said but it seems you did not read this properly - except it adds to the cost of doing enough replication to make results certain.


    The LENR results are not, individually, very very certain. Take, for example, Staker's results. And they have never been exactly replicated in a different lab with the same results except where those results have contentious interpretations (e.g. CR39 film bubbles).


    As a corpus they do not necessarily become more certain than they are individually. That is a calculation that the LENR community adds up differently from everyone else. This is because of the peculiarly not-very-predictive nature of LENR results which means a wide variety of different results can all be claimed as LENR. That non-specificity makes aggregating results to get better certainty more problematic.


    Jed, you are on this thread managing to misunderstand what I say rather more than usual.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    A pity this change is made before the initial electrolytic replication

    Ii think you may be unaware of the development of LENR..

    this change was well underway years before Staker's expts started arounf 2015?


    The shift to gasphase dates way back to Arata-s time in 2008.. Arata also did electrolysis..

    Mizuno Takahashi Celani. etc


    Staker setup was not unique in principle,,, and he had difficulty in getting reproduciblity..

    like the others


    As I have said before and is obvious to most researchers electrolysis limits you to temperatures less than 100.. and controlling the temperature and reaction is difficult..

    I don't think Staker did much after the "runaway"

    How do you prevent "runaway" happening..run the expt at a max of 60C?

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


    ,,

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    Anyway Jed, I thought you were aware of some of the philosophy of science - argue with Popper not me.

    Cold Fusion / LENR is a case better described by Kuhn. However, you at some stages, specially when finding grounds for your doubts, sound more like Feyerabend.

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

    Haha 1
    Quote from THHuxleynew

    Jed, where have a called an experiment a theory? Don't you think imagining I would say that is absurd?

    You said it right here:


    "LENR experimental evidence has a higher bar to meet than that to support most other theories - because LENR - as a theory - is not highly predictive as to exactly what the results of experiments should be."


    ". . . a higher bar than most other theories . . ." "LENR - as a theory" You are saying it is theory. It is not a theory; it is an observation with no theoretical explanation. You are also saying it not predictive, which is equally absurd. It makes very clear predictions.


    Before people had any theories explaining anything, they understood that many phenomena are highly predictive. If you put dry wood into a fire, it will burn. That is a prediction. People who had no idea what fire is, or what oxygen is, understood that. People today who do cold fusion understand that when certain conditions are met, the reaction will produce far more heat than any chemical reaction can, with no chemical changes. It is difficult to meet those conditions, but we know what the conditions are, and we know what happens when you meet them.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    Show that every single calorimetric result was wrong. You have point out, specifically, what error was made in every study. If even one major result such as McKubre's is right, that means cold fusion is real.
    Show that every tritium result is wrong. Again, you have to show specific errors. Even if the heat is a mistake, if the tritium is real then cold fusion is a real nuclear effect.
    Show that a chemical reaction can produce 50 MJ from 1 g of fuel, and that a chemical reaction can produce tritium.

    3. is basically the same as 1 & 2. Obviously, the uncertainty lies in whether the claimed excess heat is that, or something else. Take Staker's experiment, where that 3% excess heat so far beyond the "noise" that you like to quote could perhaps come from H vs D leakage into one of the 4 concentric rings of air gap, or from catalytic recombination (though that looks pretty unlikely when you crunch the numbers).


    The other mistake you make implicitly is one of statistics. It is a very basic one which is you assume that the chances of errors in all these experiments are independent: so that each experiment has its own chance of being correct. but that is not true - contemporaneous with those experiments there were a whole load of negative experiments, from other groups. And even negative experiments from the same groups that after much trial and error found positive ones.


    The final mistake you make is one of the assumption that science is easy. You are sure there are not a number of undetected systematic errors in various of the LENR experiments that have never been proven. But the nature of positive LENR results makes their confusion with rare but possible systematic errors awfully easy. (a great example would be, for open cell and even closed cell with higher heat loss in head space close to recombiner electrolysis, catalytic recombination).


    I am not the one saying any of these things have to happen. Maybe some or even all of those classic experiments could be replicated, instrumented further, and would then without doubt prove LENR. I am just saying that those outside the LENR community who are unsure of that are rational, and looking at a very large number of uncertain LENR results does not make them much more certain as proof of LENR due to a combination of factors as above which we could enumerate.


    Quote from JedRothwell

    You have point out, specifically, what error was made in every study.

    Ok - I did not reply to your absurd "show every single LENR claim experiment wrong" as a way to disprove LENR. Because it would not disprove LENR. For example, for the electrolysis experiments, maybe none of them has the correct cathode treatment. They just did not do the right things to show LENR at a measurable level. So they can all be negative but LENR is still correct.


    But I must reply to this statement. No-one has to show what is the error in every experiment. That is not the way science works at all - for very good reasons. Do I need to say more about this?

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.