The perpetual “is LENR even real” argument thread.

Quote from Curbina

You simply don't accept the possibility. No matter how careful or sloppy the calorimetry may be. You just simply assume it's wrong because "it can't be right". No matter the kind of calorimetry, be it the gold standard of Seebeck, or be it Isoperibolic, custom made, or even a sufficiently well designed thermometry, any energy balance method that would be reasonable enough for any other conventional kind of experiment, if it's about an anomaly that departs from what you believe to be possible, you will never even entertain the possibility of it being real, because "it must be an artifact".

I am not trying to be argumentative here but you have made that point before and I see you believe it.

I think that you are not making a real distinction. I do think LENR is possible. Every now and again I get excited at evidence - neat theories or experiments. But I do not think it is a priori likely. For the reason that we do not yet have theory that coheres with experiment results - or half-coheres - so that the two support each other.

I think that difference in a priori likelihood is something most people here, but it is based on sound science and (in a roundabout way) E.T.Jeynes "The logic Of science" published posthumously. E.T. Jeynes was the great statistician who revived Bayesian statistics and made it what it now is - the dominant way to solve problems about probability and hypothesis checking. The insights from that show mathematically why the skepticism many have towards non-predictive theories which therefore cannot be disproved is correct.

Given that different a priori likelihood I cannot see a positive but questionable result as proving LENR. Nor do many such results, if never strengthened, make for a better case.

I should point out, in science, that no-one does this. Positive questionable results - if good enough to be interesting - are followed by replications which plug gaps in the original experiment and add insight. And they are not believed, if they have no easy theoretical backing - until there is a lot of indisputable replicated evidence.

Example. A calorimetry experiment produces 10% excess power indefinitely. Either there is some calorimetry error at 10%, of there is some above chemical power source. A better experiment, with very different calorimetry, produces 3% excess power, again way above chemical. Does that add credibility? Not a lot. The tighter calorimety led to a lower result. Even though both experiments show anomalies, both have calorimetry which can be questioned - and maybe there is something about the system that means it breaks normal calorimetric assumptions. Whereas sticking with either one of these results and instrumenting the heck out of it, increasing precision as well, testing all assumptions even if they seem obvious, that would strengthen the result.

You might think that the very many different positive electrolysis results are such replications. They are not, because none of them stick with the same setup long enough to plug all the gaps. One famous exception - the F&P boil-off experiment was exactly replicated. This however did not plug gaps, making the same assumptions, and having the same critique.

LENR has an excuse - lack of reproducibility of the effect. However that just means that gaining evidence is harder - it in no way reduces the need for good evidence. In fact it increases it. Lack of quantitative testable predictions is another reason to need better evidence in their evidence.

You see my skepticism as a fixed disbelief. It is not that at all. Better evidence does not mean - no evidence will do. It just means that LENR people need to do what a non-LENR person would do to get that evidence. When you find an anomaly you investigate it every which way - checking everything - trying to see whether it is error, or something real. An LENR person who knows LENR is real does not have that motivation. Hence the lack of good modern evidence.

THH

Quote from RobertBryant

solid phase-gas has less complications.. certainly no recombination possibility

D2 + nano metal surface direct... what's complicated

as with Takahashi et al with their super dooper calorimeter

https://www.researchgate.net/p…E_Experiments_by_D-System

I read very briefly that ppt and it did not say how power generation was measured. From the graphs, and also other Japanese work I've read (not sure if from the same people but i think it may be ) I expect they are measuring temperature of a sample in a chamber and using that as a proxy for power generated by the sample, comparing it with a control.

That can be done, but there are a lot of things to check. At high temperatures we have radiation, convection, conduction. In previous reports I read radiation was an unresolved problem. They had no proof that temperature rise was not caused by a decrease in albedo of the sample.

I can't say for this lot whether that is also true, because they do not provide any details of how they get power from temperature, and how they use controls. The ppt is not meant to do that. You would need to pots the evidence they provide that their stuff actually works.

Quote from JedRothwell

An apparent burst of heat from recombination cannot exceed 0.667 W. The heat bursts shown in Fig. 7 were larger than that, so they cannot be caused by recombination. Furthermore, recombination was ruled out by carefully measuring the make-up water, as I noted before.

Jed you are wrong about burst.

For example: D2 is stored in the electrode and driven out by higher temperature at faster rate than it is generated. It goes to the recombiner where it combines with O2. the transient power can be muhc faster than the average production limited only by storage of D2 and 9maybe O2. I say maybe O2 because there is an opening to the air which allows pressure relief, but which under transient conditions could maybe bring in external air.

You are also wrong about make-up water. if there is significant evaporation you cannot use that to detect recombination unless you also measure water in the exhaust which was not done in this case.

Quote from JedRothwell

Figure 7 shows 325 "arbitrary units" of time. Each unit is 15 minutes, so that is 487.5 minutes, or 81 hours, or 3.3 days. The second "run-away 100% excess" burst lasted 105 units = 1,575 minutes = 26.25 hours = 94,500 seconds. Excess power was 1.2 W, so energy was 113,400 J.

I do not think the mass of palladium is given in the paper but we can work it out. It says, "The total excess heat over the 46 day period was 0.775 MJ or 150 MJ/cm3 of Pd." So that means there was 1/193 cm3 of Pd which is 0.0052 cm^3. The density of Pd is 120 g/cm3, so that's 0.6 g Pd, which sounds about right. From the dimensions of the cell that is about as much as you can fit.

So, during this burst, 0.6 g of Pd produced 113,400 J, or 1,890,000 J/g. Gasoline is the most energy dense common chemical, and one of the most energy dense of any chemical. It produces 48,000 J/g, with many extra grams of oxygen, so in the first approximation the Pd greatly exceeded that, and there is no free oxygen in the cell. The O2 and D2 leave immediately.

But let us pretend there is unlimited oxygen in the cell. What chemical storage is possible? See McKubre's analysis. There is only one kind of chemical storage that could hold measurable amounts of energy: the formation of Pd-D hydride. Other chemical products of this reaction hold orders of magnitude smaller amounts of energy.

So, how much energy can 0.6 g of Pd hydride or deuteride hold? 0.6 g Pd = 0.0056 mol. 1 atom of Pd fully loaded with hydrogen can hold 1 atom of H. Actually, not that much, but we'll take that as an approximation. So that is 0.0056 mol H, which when fully released from the hydride, given unlimited amounts of air, will produce 0.0028 mol H2O. (Half as many moles.)

The heat of formation of water is 285,800 J/mol, so that is 800 J. In real life, there is no oxygen and you could not possibly degass all of the Pd in 26 hours, but anyway, ~800 J is the most chemical energy you can store in this system. So the second burst exceeded the limits of chemistry by a factor of 142.

Display More

That is much better. I agree that Fig 7 runaway could not be chemical - not quite as clearly as you but I fully accept you are right.

In Figure 7 the time scale is not clear. However the "runaway" part lasts maybe 10 points = 150 minutes (stated 15 min readings). Note the period before that is not runaway - it is where the input power was turned up.

We have therefore 10.8kJ or recombination of 1.5g of D2.

The cell cathode is almost exactly 1g of D2.

Unalloyed Pd from Johnson–Matthey was used as 0.5 mm diameter rod of length 25.4 mm in an electrolytic cell.

So I agree with you - that "burst" lasts too long to be chemical. I am unsure about no oxygen due to the fact that the reactor is open to the air via a small hole, but it makes no difference - I cannot see enough possible free H2.

In my writeup (sorry - no link this time) you will note I have two issues with the writeup - one is the lack of consideration of evaporation, which while it looks ok (evaporation could only reduce excess measured) makes the statement that recombination does not happen unsafe.

The other issue is that the results depend on the tube air-gaps not filling with H2 or D2 from leakage.

Excess power during run-away was triggered by increasing electrolysis current i_T, “the great enabler”. Before run-away, the light and heavy water cells were matched in input power by trimming I. Power input to the cell consisted of the electrolytic power from the electrolysis current (and cell voltage) and the electromigration current (and the voltage drop along the length of the Pd cathode (for active cell) or Pt cathode (for control cell). This enabled balancing the input powers to both cell via a small change in the electromigration current to either cell, easily controlled to ± one mW. With balanced input power, any difference in cell temperature, is produced by a nuclear source of energy. The fact that the heavy water cell was hotter by 2.50 °C shows it was producing excess power. When electrolysis current i_T was increased from 444 to 535 mA and the control cell (light water) was again matched in power (via the electromigration current), the temperature of the heavy water cell started to run-away necessitating i_T be cut back to 435 mA; but excess power continued. With modest increase in current (435–442 mA), temperature ramped into run-away again, but stabilized near 82 °C, considerable higher than prior (67 °C). This second run-away event produced 2.40 W with 1.20 W input. The total excess heat over the 46 day period was 0.775 MJ or 150 MJ/cm³ of Pd or 14 000 eV/Pd atom (integrating power). This is of such a magnitude that it must be nuclear; but there is no evidence which nuclear reaction.

My suggestion here is that the runaway was in fact a leakage event - after which the temperature stays higher due to D2 in the inter-tube space. I would also suggest that - given your excellent analysis of this runaway event - that means most likely the apparent excess is also due to leakage. That would make sense of everything. Whether it works depends on exactly how post-experiment calibration was done - did it allow enough time air to leak back in or not.

Quote from Curbina

They have reported numerous times they do calibration curves with a dummy sample, as all the people that works in gas loading, that match the power input to the observed temperature obtained, and then compare it to the temperature with the active sample in the place of the dummy. It's really the only practical way, and for anyone reasonable, more than good to prove that a heated active sample is generating heat.

Right. So what makes the active sample active? And how do they know whatever that is does not also alter the surface albedo?

Quote from Curbina

When it becomes partisan, as in the case of LENR, peer review to mainstream journals is never really honest.

You are saying that peer review in LENR journals is not honest. I disagree.

Mainstream peer reviewers have much less motivation to be dishonest - and generally I'd say scientists are honest (about science). At least good ones are.

Quote from Storms

Here is a figure showing the relationship between recombination and applied current. Notice that recombination is neglectable at a high current. Therefore, this is not an issue for Staker.

That is useful. But, given we know LENR is a variable effect, given we know Pd surface is variable, and catalytic, I don't think we can assume that recombination in Pd cathodes is at all well understood, so I'd take this as only indicative.

Jed's point about the heat burst however makes me more in favour of leakage as mechanism for Stakers results and therefore less recombination.

Quote from Curbina

I would really like you to explain me what albedo has to do with how a set of thermocouples registers the temperature. I would understand if we were talking about IR thermometry, but not in the context of a thermocouple based calibration.

Ok - sorry - I thought they had a sample in a chamber where the sample lost heat through radiation from its surface? Please post the paper which explains how they did calorimetry and I can comment! As I said, I was going by the only calorimetry I'd read for Ni-H gas Japanese results.

In general - if radiation is a viable heat transfer method - you need to consider changed albedo. One reason the higher temperature experiments are more complex.

Quote from Curbina

No, I am saying that when it comes to LENR, mainstream journals peer review is normally not honest, at least biased. And I am not really saying that as much as echoing the experience that led Julian Schwinger to complain about it.

Well, some people do complain about some things. And some journals will have biassed (or just bad) reviewers. That is true for all fields. But there are lots of journals and you can get a fair hearing if you are persistent. I think one person's experience is not enough to generalise from. People, even famous people, are capable of thinking their work better than it is, and objecting when others don't agree.