The perpetual “is LENR even real” argument thread.

Quote from THHuxleynew

I am just saying that those outside the LENR community

Have you done a survey or is this just THHChat

The two nuclear scientists I know who care to even think about LENR

accept that the excess heats results are valid..

they just want to see more reproducibility

which is what the Japanese et al are working on

Quote from THHuxleynew

I just have never seen as convincing gas-phase experimental results

IYHO

Quote from THHuxleynew

No-one has come up with a good reason why nuclear reactions should suddenly start at above 290C and get larger in amplitude as temperature increases.

No one has to..convince who?

but you are making a bedtime story..

" nuclear reactions suddenly start at above 290C"

Storms? Mizuno?

who said this? reference please /// I realise its getting late on the armchair

Quote from Alan Smith

And some people think that these kind of 'integrity' problems are unique to LENR ...

Who thinks this? Not me. I guarantee it will not be THH either.

If by "some people" you mean some of the skeptical commentors on this site, then I believe you are wrong. You should think carefully about that. Perhaps it will remove part of the sense of grievance that distorts the LENR field. The skeptics here who have academic science backgrounds are doing nothing more than taking the lessons of a lifetime in research and saying 'OK how do my experiences in other fields apply to this research'. I have made the point before that what TTH does here is pretty darn ordinary activity in other parts of science. Not sure why it is seen as something exotic here.

There are similar 'integrity' problems across all science. I recognize in my own past research projects that it sometimes took a long time to overcome assumptions I was making about how things were supposed to be. Everyone how has experience in basic research knows this phenomenon.

Quote from Bruce__H

I guarantee it will not be THH either.

Quote from Bruce__H

he skeptics here who have academic science backgrounds

You are THHs guarantor? Bravo

I am a skeptic too... but there are different levels of skepticism

I am skeptical about the reproducibility first and then the technological applicability second

Besides being hard to reproduce

Electrochemical cells never really achieved much like COP2

mainly due to limitations of liquid

For technological applicability in boilers etc COP 4

and above is necessary.. and reproducibility

Fleischman's palladium cell for me was very much like Faraday's first electric motor in 1821..but just as with electric motors the first applicable LENR reactor will look very different

from an electrochemical cell.

Funding for gas phase development.

is much more sensible given that there is a limited amount of funds.

and that is where the funding is now directed.

regardless of the armchair chatter on this thread and forum.

Faraday Motor – 1821 - Magnet Academy

Few inventions have shaped technology as much as the electric motor, but the very first version — the Faraday motor — didn't look anything like the modern…

nationalmaglab.org

Quote from THHuxleynew

...an incomplete and sorry patch-up from the unimaginative brains of mainstream science.

Why would such a theory require 'the brains of mainstream science?' I know (because I interact with them often) that there are plenty of very smart people working in the LENR field.

Quote from THHuxleynew

The increased temperature was known since 1990 to increase power production.

Quote from RobertBryant

" nuclear reactions suddenly start at above 290C"

your 290 C "suddenly increase " is still a bedtime story

how do you go from " increase with temp" to "suddenly increase at 290C"

Quote from THHuxleynew

We have an effect which varies enormously in amplitude from COP=1.03 to COP = 6

detailed data please not glib summary,,, and please no 290C

Quote from THHuxleynew

You seem to me to be bang on-message

please enlighten me on your "bang on"..

is that from one of the brains of mainstream science?

you seem to be becoming incoherent..

the last electrolysis in Japan was done in ~1999,,

ten years of electrolysis

since then they have concentrated on solid gas systems

"LENR experiments in Japan (2000 ~)3 From around ~2000, the following experiments have been mainly conducted; 1)Deuterium/Hydrogen absorption/desorption with nano-sized metal composite particles. 2)Deuterium/Hydrogen absorption/desorption with multi-layered metals complex. 3)Deuterium permeation with multi-layered metal complex."

https://arpa-e.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2021LENR_workshop_Narita.pdf

if you would like them to do electrolysis , based on your extensive research experience

put some yen on the table

Quote from THHuxleynew

happen commonly. In many different situations

stated where?

LENR occurs " commonly in many different situations"?

in the atmosphere,, in the ocean?

.. with nuclear reactions suddenly increase at 290C?

THH you are a bit loose with your claims about LENR..

is that for rhetorical effect?

Please THH, if you want to keep people honest about their work, please study and understand what is actually being claimed. I have explained the effect of temperature in papers and in my last book. This description is obvious and supported by the observed behavior. So, please change your opinion.

When D is converted to a nuclear product, the D has to be replaced. The surrounding PdD lattice provides the source of D. Therefore, a D must diffuse from its source location to where the fusion reaction occurs. This replacement rate determines how fast power can be produced. Diffusion is sensitive to temperature. Therefore, the power will increase when the temperature is increased. This description is supported by the activation energy for power production being very close to the activation energy for the diffusion of D in PdD. This effect shows a steady behavior from 20° C up to at least 500* C with no change in the smooth increase at 290° C.

Quote from THHuxleynew

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.

Explain how one experiment can affect the outcome of another.

Quote from THHuxleynew

but that is not true - contemporaneous with those experiments there were a whole load of negative experiments, from other groups.

Not a whole load. There were ~20 other experiments that attempted to find excess heat, but failed. The reasons they failed are well understood. There were ~30 other failed experiments that looked for neutrons and other nuclear effects. The reasons they failed are also well understood. For example, in one highly funded case that was featured in the mass media, the researchers confused the anode and cathode.

There were also 3 experiments at CalTech, MIT and Harwell that the researchers reported failed, but they probably worked. Those are false negatives. There are probably some false positives as well.

Quote from THHuxleynew

And even negative experiments from the same groups that after much trial and error found positive ones.

Not the same 50 groups that reported negative results in 1989 and 1990. There are no examples of that in the literature. See:

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJtallyofcol.pdf

Quote from THHuxleynew

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.

To disprove cold fusion, you have to show that all of the positive experiments are not actually positive. If an experiment does not have the correct cathode treatment then it will not work. It will be a negative. You do not have to show why all negative experiments are negative. They do not count.

The proof of cold fusion is not statistical, except in the correlation of heat and helium. There could be thousands of negatives and only a few positives. That would prove the effect is real. Before December 17, 1903, there were dozens of attempts to fly airplanes. All of them failed. Between 1903 and 1912 there were ~50 other failed attempts to fly. Those numbers prove nothing, because on Dec. 17, 1903, the Wrights definitely did fly, and that proved flight is possible. Nothing before or after could ever disprove that.

Quote from THHuxleynew

LENR as stated here is the hypothesis that nuclear reactions without the obvious fingerprints (high energy particles, non-natural isotopes) happen commonly.

Incorrect. There are non-natural isotopes. Tritium is not found naturally, because the half life is 12 years. Other non-natural isotopes are found in used cathodes. There are high energy particles, but nowhere near as many as plasma fusion. Perhaps future theorists will wonder why there are too many in plasma fusion.

Anyone who has read the literature knows this. Have you never read the literature? Trick question! Even a non-sentient ChatBot knows more than you do:

Do cold fusion experiments produce non-natural isotopes?

Yes, cold fusion experiments have been reported to produce non-natural isotopes. In some cases, isotopes have been detected that were not present before the electrolysis process. Researchers have assigned these isotopes to various elements such as 197Pt, 153Sm, and 155Sm, which are thought to have been produced during the experiment. They speculate that these isotopes and the nuclear reactions that lead to their formation may be key to understanding cold fusion.

Do cold fusion experiments produce high energy particles?

Yes, cold fusion experiments have been found to produce energetic particles, including alpha, proton, triton, and neutron particles. These particles have been detected at very low but significant levels in some experiments. However, it is important to note that these emissions are not necessarily associated with energy production in the cold fusion process. The challenge lies in finding a conventional explanation for these energetic emissions, as their presence presents a conflict with conventional understanding.

This paper from 2004 contains a nice table with a summary of successes and failures of replication of Ni-H experiments in the group that the late Sergio Focardi worked.

They saw the whole range of phenomena.

https://www.newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2004/2004CampariEGoverviewOfH-NiSystems.pdf