Explain how one experiment can affect the outcome of another.
Jed, your view of causality is a bit simplistic don't you think? Go reread my pots above carefully? Or think a bit more broadly about why multiple positive results need not be dependent on each other.
claimed as the result of LENR transmutation is unobtainium..
The half life is too short. Yet, Cardone et al published the possible detection of a short lived Americium isotope about 20 years ago. This was done submitting ultrapure water to ultrasound.
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.
I did not say what you think I said? (read my post)
Display MoreFrom the post you critique I quoted
9. Effect of Temperature
The increased temperature was known since 1990 to increase power production.[36] Since then, this effect has been studied in greater detail.[35, 37-40] Of importance, most of the samples I have studied made no detectable power at room temperature yet would produce significant power when heated. Perhaps more success would have been reported if the samples had been simply heated.
From
https://www.lenr-forum.com/att…of-low-energy-fusion-pdf/
Now, here's the thing.
- 0 at room temp => 290K
- 0 below room temp
- non-zero and increasing with temp at temp > 290K
=> sudden increase (from gradient 0 to gradient > 0) at 290K.
- You previously did not like my pointing out that for a nuclear process this behaviour - with room temp as a key temperature - was surprising and told me to justify saying this
- I quoted Ed Storms who said this in his authoritative recent summary
- Now you call this a bedtime story?
I see I need to be exact. The amount of power at 20° C (293K) is too small to be detected by the present calorimeters but this does not mean that no power is being produced. The amount of power would continue to decrease as the temperature was further reduced. We have no reason to believe that the effect starts suddenly at a particular temperature. We simply do not have the ability to measure below a certain temperature, which would depend on the number of active sites. Zero degrees C is equal to 273.15 K.
I see I need to be exact. The amount of power at 20° C (293K) is too small to be detected by the present calorimeters but this does not mean that no power is being produced.
The electrical output from Frank and Harper's LEC at room temperature suggests that you are quite right about that.
I quoted Ed Storms who said this in his authoritative recent summary
Now you call this a bedtime story?
No you did not quote Ed
keep it honest THH
Ed not say
" suddenly at 290-C.." you did
suddenly in the late hours of UK time
you created a bedtime story..
as with LENR being a 'common' phenomenon..
Maybe.. just maybe..it is common in magma,, plutonic rocks
but not in the oxygen rich biosphere we live in
Your late night "suddenly" may in fact be happening with
gamma bursts in some temperature bands..
if so thats an interesting phenomenon..
there is a lot that the best brains in nuclear science don't know about
the interaction btw the electron structure and nuclear structure
"there are more things on heaven and (rare) earth..."
We also both know that LENR observations are all over the place - about the only elemnt that has not been claimed as the result of LENR transmutation is unobtainium..
I don;t know that ...339 observed?
another late night random rhetorical assessment of LENR..
AFAIK a whole bunch of actinides have not been observed
"The approximately ninety naturally occurring elements are estimated to occur as 339 different isotopes, of which roughly 250 are stable and 35 are unstable (radioactive) with extremely long half-lives of millions of years. More than 3,000 additional radioactive isotopes have been artificially created.
No you did not quote Ed
keep it honest THH
Ed not say
" suddenly at 290-C.." you did
I could plot graphs etc but my summary of Ed'd comment (which I quoted as justification) stands. LENR excess heat is normally non-zero and increasing with T, is zero (or too small to detect) at 290C. That implies two parts to the graph, or an exponential that just so happens to take of at room temperature. My "sudden" comment is entirely fair.
Whereas the reply to me is "Ed did not state that: your comment is unfair", with added "you are dishonest" and something about my time zone (no idea what this is about) - without quoting Ed's summary from which I draw out the room temperature inflexion point from (correctly). Probably because if those quoting me did also quote Ed's summary it would be clear why what I say is fair.
I accept that LECs - which skeptics like me definitely do not think are nuclear in origin, are an exception to this.
THH
Rather than demonizing thhuxley, perhaps the many participants in this research could observe and replicate staker, or build and disassemble their own living room heater.
Yes you and everyone else on this site knows that both high energy particles and unnatural isotopes are very rare observations in connection with LENR.
How rare? How many studies have looked for unnatural isotopes, how many found them, and how many did not? As far as I know, most studies that looked for them, found them, so they are not "very rare."
Jed, your view of causality is a bit simplistic don't you think?
Okay then. Explain why the Wright brothers did not fly on Dec. 17, 1903 because all previous flights failed. Explain why the U.S. and Russia have never launched a missile because nearly all U.S. missiles launched before 1958 failed. You are saying that failed cold fusion experiments magically reach out and invalidate successful ones, "because statistics." This seems like a misuse of statistics to me, but perhaps you will explain the causality.
The positive results are all D, the negative all H. 3% is quite small.
Repeat after me:
Input power is not noise.
Input power is not noise.
Input power is not noise.
Okay then. Explain why the Wright brothers did not fly on Dec. 17, 1903 because all previous flights failed. Explain why the U.S. and Russia have never launched a missile because nearly all U.S. missiles launched before 1958 failed. You are saying that failed cold fusion experiments magically reach out and invalidate successful ones, "because statistics." This seems like a misuse of statistics to me, but perhaps you will explain the causality.
Birds, bees, arrows, and leaves in the wind made it obvious that powered flight was feasible, however the successful design for an engine made with the ‘new’ metal aluminium made it possible in practice. An engine with a sufficient power to weight ratio was the novel step. Kelvin imagined iron steam engines as the power plant, and realized that this was not going to work (requires lifting water and large amounts of fuel as well as the engine, passengers, and the actual conveyance as well). He probably did not imagine the use of a new metal more expensive than gold (at the time) and very light would become commercially and fairly cheaply available enough to build engines with.
Rockets and ballistic trajectories are not very new to humans and progress is not surprising.
however the successful design for an engine made with the ‘new’ metal aluminium made it possible in practice. An engine with a sufficient power to weight ratio was the novel step.
I do not think so. Wilbur Wright wrote that the best, lightweight steam engines of the 1880s had sufficiently high power to weight ratios for airplanes. The engines used in the airplanes made by Maxim and Langley were certainly light enough. Furthermore, most engines made after 1910 were steel, not aluminum. Such as WWI rotary engines (Le Rhône 9C, etc.) Granted, the Wright 1906 model crank case was aluminum:
Rather than demonizing thhuxley, perhaps the many participants in this research could observe and replicate staker, or build and disassemble their own living room heater.
Au contraire, 'tis THH who would demonise us.
I do not think so. Wilbur Wright wrote that the best, lightweight steam engines of the 1880s had sufficiently high power to weight ratios for airplanes. The engines used in the airplanes made by Maxim and Langley were certainly light enough. Furthermore, most engines made after 1910 were steel, not aluminum. Such as WWI rotary engines (Le Rhône 9C, etc.) Granted, the Wright 1906 model crank case was aluminum:
Their mechanic learned how to machine aluminum specifically to build the necessary lightweight engine.
Here is a nice write up on the engine: https://www.wright-brothers.or…s_&_Props/1903_Engine.htm
Their mechanic learned how to machine aluminum specifically to build the necessary lightweight engine.
Yes. I have a whole book about that! An autographed copy from the author, who recreated the engine. Apparently my book is now worth $591:
They could not get a sufficiently light engine with a high power to weigh ratio from any automobile company. The auto companies did not have one. So they made one themselves. But other people, especially Langley, did have such engines. In 1907 and 1908 French aviators were finally beginning to get off the ground. They had far more powerful engines then the Wrights, but their propellers were poorly designed so they developed less thrust. I do not know if the 1907 French engines were made of aluminum, but anyway, lightweight steel engines were soon available.
Au contraire, 'tis THH who would demonise us.
That is a bit sensitive. why does the whole LENR field seem so threatened when those form the outside ask - with reasons nothing to do with the quality of the work - for a higher standard of proof to accept LENR is "proven"?
I have several times - in different ways - said what these reasons are. They are nothing bad about the LENR experimenters - just what you must have when chasing a possible theory for a set of anomalies where:
This collection of things is unusual. They might change - e.g. a post-google theoretical mechanism that makes specific predictions which could disprove it, and these pan out. Or a replicable experiment.
Anyway - those things are why scientists do not take LENR seriously without a higher level of proof than now exists. Even so, the TG stuff has effectively detoxified LENR and there are more people looking at it - on the off chance there could underneath those experiments be something very interesting. As they should - I am all for it.
All I argue here against is the overly rosy view taken here of LENR results:
1. Actually is poisonous for the formation of LENR theories - it pushes people to cover a wider variety of phenomena than is required. Whereas if you take a less rosy view of things some of this stuff need not be covered
2. Makes LENR researchers, and the community that critiques them, unwilling to investigate anomalies properly.
As example of the second point:
Staker's interesting experiment. Who at ICCF (or wherever) brought up the following issues?
1. Evaporation. The data appears to show negligible evaporation from a glass tube over 42 days when the equilibrium partial pressure of H2O at 67C + the volume of exhaust gas means that there should be a large amount of exhaust water vapour. I try to justify it on the basis of non-equilibrium dynamics - but it does not pass the cat water bowl test by a large margin. This is actually - now I have worked through it- by far the most worrying issue until it is understood. Jed or somone please explain it. I am very open to some obvious answer.
2. Recombination. Seems particularly possible here where H2 and O2 are strongly mixed and Pd catalysis is possible. Recombination would have to balance evaporation for the given liquid volume fill-up rate exactly as calculated from dissassociation rate. If evaportaion was zero it would prove recombination zero. But that is hardly believable. Equally, with non-zero evaporation the idea that recombination would exactly balance it, while quantitatively possible, is too much of a coincidence to be believable.
3. H2/D2 leakage into the air gap(s) between the tubes that determine the calibration constant. That is a simple mechanism that would make D2 tubes higher temperature than H2 tubes. It works quantitatively.
All of these things are easily fixable - without extra equipment - by going over carefully all these issues and plugging the holes while the experiment is running.
Except for recombination they are not even mentioned (as possible issues) in the writeups - unless I have missed something in which case I apologise. Recombination cannot be ruled out for a new experiment of this type from the reference given. Evaporation is a weird big anomaly I don't understand. Perhaps somone else here could explain what is going on? Have I got the numbers wrong?
I know it took me a long time to worth through those issues - but I am just an interested amateur. Surely the LENR community can do a better job of critiquing its own work and so strengthen it? Maybe the many people here better at this stuff than me ( Paradigmnoia ?) could do more of this if the LENR scientists not here do not do it. Or, if they do do it, maybe publication standards for LENR journals could be higher with more requirement for points raised by peer reviewers to be at least acknowledged as unresolved - if not resolved?
OK - I have just realised Alan - that is my criticism. But I don't think it is any technical lack. It is a disinclination to look for potential errors because you all know LENR happens so why bother!
That is absolutely the LENR field's priviledge. Maybe making a working reactor is more important use of valuable resources that properly reviewing papers that simply show what you all believe anyway. But in that case note that the attitude from much of mainstream science, and relative small resources given to LENR, is not prejudice, rather a reflection of choices made by LENR scientists.
All I argue here against is the overly rosy view taken here of LENR results:
That almost all must be real (in Jed's words - if you cannot find a non-nuclear mechanism - there can be no non-nuclear "error" mechanism)
That is a COMPLETE misrepresentation of what I have said! I have said again and again that many cold fusion results have not been replicated, so we cannot believe them, and many others are probably wrong. I have pointed that this situation is typical of nascent science. A classic example:
Serge said of writings by Hahn and Meitner on the road to the discovery of fission, "Their early papers are a mixture of error and truth as complicated as the mixture of fission products resulting from the bombardments. Such confusion was to remain for a long time a characteristic of much of the work on uranium."
Why do you make up this horseshit about me and others? Why don't you stick to the facts, and respond to what we actually say, instead of trying to make us look like idiots by putting words in our mouths that no one would ever say? Who on EARTH would say that almost all cold fusion results must be real?!?
Also, if you cannot give a non-nuclear mechanism, then non-nuclear mechanisms are off the table. You cannot claim "there might be a mechanism" if you cannot think of any mechanism. Your statement cannot be falsified. It is like saying there might be an invisible, undetectable poltergeist. If this might be chemical, tell us what chemical reaction produces 50 MJ with 1 g of material. Also explain why a process that fuses deuterium to form helium in same ratio as plasma fusion is not fusion, and tell us what it is instead. You don't get free pass for saying "it may not be X." You have to make affirmative, testable, falsifiable statements. That's how science works.
That LENR is proven beyond reasonable doubt.
What is proven beyond doubt is very limited. Heat beyond the limits of chemistry, no chemical changes, tritium and helium. Many other claims are doubtful. You don't even believe the parts that are beyond doubt. You lump together doubts about theory with fake doubt about 160-year-old calorimetry and electrochemistry techniques. You claim that a faulty experiment by Prof. X means the Prof. X's work might by wrong, by some magical "statistical" effect, spooky action at a distance.
