The perpetual “is LENR even real” argument thread.

    Quote from RobertBryant

    as with Takahashi et al with their super dooper calorimeter

    Osaka U calorimetry replicated by Tohoku U

    Kasagi went to great lengths to find out the cause of the xs heat..

    I.m pretty sure he and team checked the calorimetry six ways upside down sideways before

    doing gamma etc investigations

    He's a dyed in uranium nuclear scientist

    You can tell by the razzamatazz.

    just one problem ... he should have consulted with

    LF resident expert on nuclear..calorimetry..vaccination..

    THHmodern.

    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

    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.

    The electrode cannot store more than 800 J, as I showed above. There is no free oxygen in the cell. It is driven out by the effluent gas. External air cannot get into the cell. It is designed to prevent that.


    There is no recombination with this configuration and this power level. It cannot happen. That is why Staker and all others select this configuration. Staker monitors to be sure it does not happen, and if it did, that would be readily apparent.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    Staker followed his reference [44] (Fleischmann & Miles I think) which argues that recombination does not happen in these experiments. He explicitly states this as his reason for not needing to consider recombination.

    It is a fact that recombination never occurs in these experiments. It is physically impossible with this configuration at these power levels. However, it is always measured. It is always included in the calorimetry equations, and if it were occurring, the curves would not fit. Also there would left over water. No one ever said it does not need to be considered. You made that up.

    Quote from Storms

    My use of different sources of heat located at different positions that produced identical behavior demonstrates that the source of the heat is not important. The fan simply speeds up the loss rate and shortens the wait for equilibrium.

    Ah. I knew that you located the heat at different locations, and I understand how each TEC works independently. But I thought the fan also helps assure there are no positional errors. My mistake. I guess I was thinking of the fans in air-cooled flow calorimeter such as Mizuno's.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    People, even famous people, are capable of thinking their work better than it is, and objecting when others don't agree.

    Schwinger quit the APS not because he thought his work was better, but because he felt there was an absolutely unscientific attitude towards Cold Fusion, and that he was being censored, as in not even let the chance of peer review.

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

    Thanks 1 Like 1
    Quote from THHuxleynew

    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.

    The time scale is stated in the caption and in the text. The caption says: "one arbitrary unit on time scale represents 15 min." It is quite clear.


    The runaway begins at point 395 and ends at 500. That's 105, not 10. 105 * 15 minutes = 1,575 minutes. As I said, that is 94,500 seconds. Multiply by 1.2 W gives 113,400 J.


    The power was not turned up. The text says it was turned down: "Excess power stayed in this range most of the 46 days, except for two events of run-away excess

    power that required cutting back iT to prevent cell boil." Power was increased in the control cell. (both p. 9)

    Quote from Curbina

    Schwinger quit the APS not because he thought his work was better, but because he felt there was an absolutely unscientific attitude towards Cold Fusion, and that he was being censored, as in not even let the chance of peer review.

    Schwinger wrote:


    "The pressure for conformity is enormous. I have experienced it in editors’ rejection of submitted papers, based on venomous criticism of anonymous referees. The replacement of impartial reviewing by censorship will be the death of science."


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

    Quote from JedRothwell

    The pressure for conformity is enormous.

    Although Japan is famous for "murahachibu"

    Jirota Kasagi is still visible in mainstream nuclear society.

    2021

    perhaps murahachibu is stronger in the US..now.

    Resonance-like structure near the $\ensuremath{\eta}d$ threshold in the $\ensuremath{\gamma}d\ensuremath{\rightarrow}{\ensuremath{\pi}}^{0}\ensuremath{\eta}d$ reaction
    To investigate the interaction between the nucleon $N$ and nucleon resonance $N(1535)1/{2}^{\ensuremath{-}}$, the $\ensuremath{\eta}d$ threshold structure…
    journals.aps.org

    "to investigate the interaction between the nucleon N and nucleon resonance N(1535)1/2−, the ηd threshold structure connected to the isoscalar S-wave N−N(1535)1/2− system has been experimentally studied in the γd→π0ηd reaction at incident photon energies ranging from the reaction threshold to 1.15 GeV. A strong enhancement is observed near the ηd threshold over the three-body phase-space contribution in the ηd invariant-mass distribution. An analysis incorporating the known isovector resonance D12 with a spin parity of 2+ in the π0d channel reveals the existence of a narrow isoscalar resonance-like structure with 1− in the ηd system. Using a Flatté parametrization, the mass is found to be 2.427+0.013−0.006 GeV, close to the ηd threshold, and the width is (0.029+0.006−0.029GeV)+(0.00+0.41−0.00)pηc, where pη denotes the η momentum in the rest frame of the ηd system. The observed structure would be attributed to a predicted isoscalar 1−ηNN bound state from ηNN and πNN coupled-channel calculation, or an ηd virtual state owing to strong ηd attraction.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    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.

    That is incorrect. Evaporation is measured when calibrating with a resistance heater, when there is no electrolysis. If the amount of water that is evaporated did not equal the expected amount based on the temperature, that would be obvious.


    Evaporation can also be measured when it happens during electrolysis. Terms for both evaporation and recombination are included in the calorimetric equations. The equations predict how much of both there should be. Even if there were more of one and less of the other, the surplus and deficit would not exactly balance out. That is extremely unlikely. It would be an incredible coincidence. They are completely different phenomena with no causal connection. There is nothing that could increase one while it reduces the other. Since they would not balance, the data would not fit the equations, and it would be obvious there is something wrong. In other words, by comparing the predictions from the equations to the measured data, you can easily separate out the effects of evaporation and Faradaic efficiency.


    You don't need to measure water in the exhaust. The total amount that leaves is known with high precision. The only question is, when the amount is extremely close to what is predicted by 19th century physics (Dalton and Faraday), how likely is it that both amounts are wrong, one too high, one too low, in a way that balances exactly?


    Also, electrochemists have been doing this since Faraday discovered his laws in 1831, so they probably know what they are doing.

    Quote from RobertBryant

    Although Japan is famous for "murahachibu"

    Come now, let us not use obscure foreign words without translating them. Murahachibu (村八分) means ostracism.


    Long ago, I heard about a grad student at someplace like Oxford where the professors used to pepper their lectures with Latin and Greek. This student got fed up with that, and took a few semesters of Chinese so he could throw Chinese words at them.


    That could be apocryphal but I like to think it happened.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    But, given we know LENR is a variable effect, given we know Pd surface is variable, and catalytic

    The Pd surface is not catalytic. When the geometry is correct, there is never recombination on the cathode. This is shown in control experiments with no heat, and cold fusion experiments with excess heat. There is never any excess water left in the cell, as there would be if there were recombination. Gas flow meters always show the expected amount leaving the cell.


    You need to let go of this nonsense. There is absolutely no evidence for your claim that recombination might explain these results. It is not possible, and it is always measured to be sure it did not happen.


    Quote from THHuxleynew

    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.

    It is well understood. It never happens. You can tell by looking. Oxygen bubbles from the anode do not go near the cathode unless there is intense stirring, and even they come out of the water at the same rate. If you put the cathode directly on top of the anode, it might catalyze some of the oxygen, but not much. It is difficult to catalyze H2 + O2 underwater. That is why recombiners are always in the head space. If they get wet and covered with water, they stop working, and the cell explodes. That is what happened in the fatal accident at SRI. (The emergency relief valve also failed, in a hideous coincidence.) It happens often in other labs, but the cells are usually made of glass so if the relief valve sticks they only shatter.


    Quote from THHuxleynew

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

    What does this mean? What "leakage"?

    Quote from JedRothwell

    The electrode cannot store more than 800 J, as I showed above. There is no free oxygen in the cell. It is driven out by the effluent gas. External air cannot get into the cell. It is designed to prevent that.


    There is no recombination with this configuration and this power level. It cannot happen. That is why Staker and all others select this configuration. Staker monitors to be sure it does not happen, and if it did, that would be readily apparent.

    Perhaps you had not read my post on the previous page, where I agree with you that the heat burst trace from Staker rules out recombiunation?


    I agree with you - recombination is severely limited by cathode size. And possibly oxygen - but I am less sure about extrnal air getting in because of what I read Staker had done - I would have to check that - but no need because as you say that electrode cannot store more than 1.2kJ or so. (See my post above, it is 1g not 0.6g Pd).


    I would suggest a different way to phrase this: recombination has limited energy available above electroneutral power (always) - so long heat bursts cannot be that.


    It is not that recombination is impossible.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    It is a fact that recombination never occurs in these experiments. It is physically impossible with this configuration at these power levels. However, it is always measured. It is always included in the calorimetry equations, and if it were occurring, the curves would not fit. Also there would left over water. No one ever said it does not need to be considered. You made that up.

    Ok - I am willing to look with you at the details - any specific case - as always. And agree that what recombination can explain is limited. I have never seen recombination as the only explanation for FPHE - merely that it needs to be elimiated on a case-by-case basis.


    However it is always measured. No - Staker did not measure it - because he did not quantify evaporation.


    It is always includes in calorimetry equations - and - if it were happening - the curves would not fit. Give me an example? My understanding is that in any open cell, or closed cell with significant spatial variation in response, the qunatitative effect of recombination is identical to excess heat. Of course, it can be eliminated in other ways in an open cell , e.g. by checking exhaust gasses and fluid level. It can be dismissed in a closed cell if the type of heat asymmetry expected from it is tested.


    Also there would left over water. No one ever said it does not need to be considered. You made that up. Staker said that evaporation was obviously too small to alter the heat balance, and therefore need not be considered. And, in written paper, he did not consider it. Maybe others would say the same? What - exactly - did I make up?


    More generally. Your blood pressure reading this site would perhaps benefit if you generalised less about me. And your statements about LENR experiments would be more accurate if you made fewer sweeping generalisations about them (e.g. Staker where even after we have thoroughly dissected it, you nmake generalisations as above which do not apply to it).


    I think in yoiur mind I as an evil skeptic am unjutsifiably dismissing 100s of experiments on the basis of weird not-likley phenomena which are usually ruled out.


    Far from it. I am not dismissing anything. I am just skeptical, and I will not accept broad generalisations which might not apply in some cases.. I would want, for any specific experiment, to consider carefully all of its data. And, if it panned out, and was cheap enough for it to be sensible, I'd want to campaign for its replication.


    Would I campaign for Staker? I'd like it to be redone eliminating leakage. I mean - calibration - if done in the right way - could definitely eliminate leakage. Maybe Staker did this - but he did not consider it necessary to write that up. That is a real flaw, which, however, could be remedied in any replication.


    Actually - I think Ed's design is a better bet for showing FPHE. It needs more attention to symmetry (easily done). But then, if it showed the same excess as many other experiments (including Staker) it would be very strong replicable evidence. And it is relatively cheap. I mean almost everyone has N.I. DAC.s The rest of it looks (Unless - on continued thought - I or any other skeptic find other issues that need to be tightened up in it).

    Quote from JedRothwell

    That is incorrect. Evaporation is measured when calibrating with a resistance heater, when there is no electrolysis. If the amount of water that is evaporated did not equal the expected amount based on the temperature, that would be obvious.

    Not by Staker. You may be right that most people measure this. However you will forgive me, if they do not record that fact, how they measured it, what conclusions they drew, in a write-up - it will not be so strong.


    Normally peer review would always tighten stuff like that up. After all, if you pend 50K+ on an experiment it is worth a few hours carefully documenting it. Anyone showing an extraordinary effect would be asked to be explicit and precise about every possible loophole. Only for some reason many LENR papers do not get that sort of peer review. It does the experimenters a great disservice.


    One thing - in most cases you would not put routine details in the write-up - but you would have them available as supplementary freely available data. And in the writeup you would explain what you did with that data, and protocols needed for that use to work, and what the results were. That would just take a few sentences (+ a lot of carefully recorded data).


    Careful recording of all data (e.g. McKubre) is a pain - but worthwhile if you want your experiment to be evidnece for something extraordinary and not commonly expected.


    THH

    EDIT:


    Yes I mostly agree - for the burst second event which is approx 1 day long, excess energy as as you say.


    However that 2nd event is caused (and sustained) by turning power up (and keeping it up). Just like the previous event. only for the second event the power increase needed is very small.


    Power is cut back after the 1st burst (to stop it).

    Quote from JedRothwell

    What does this mean? What "leakage"?

    The calibration constant for Staker's calorimeter is determine by tiny air gaps ( a few mm) between concentric test-tubes. He chooses this so that air conduction is the primary method of heat transport, which simplifies things and makes response linear.


    If even a small amount of H2 or D2 leaked into those gaps from the over-pressure inner tube, via the top-end seals, it would alter the sensitivity.


    To take an extreme case: all D2 versus all H2 would lead to a 40% difference in sensitivity (sqrt(2)) given thermal conductivity of a gas is inversely proportional to average molecular weight.


    There are 3 air-gaps, so you might consider leakage in just one, or all, of them.


    It is possible that post-experiment calibration eliminates this. The problem is that Staker does not say exactly how he does that, nor how much, so there is not enough info in the report to know. If calibration is not done immediately after the electrolysis - or if it takes longer than the leak pressure equalisation time constant, it will not detect the leak because calibration is (expected) done without excess pressure H2/D2 in the inner tube. Again - you could do calibration maintaining excess pressure H2/D2 - at cost of some complexity. I think you could easily eliminate this (and a few other things) by doing regular calibration throughout the experiment: changing the heating from electrolysis + electrode to a separate resistive heater in the tube - but also comparing electrolysis + electrode heating with electrolysis-only heating. In each case you would observe temperature for the same total power in - and compare control and active systems. All that data would reduce skeptic wiggle-room a lot. I think. I guess I cannot be sure without going through and writing it up myself, and analysing all the possibilities. It is a lot of work - but satisfying. And this LENR experiment with that amount of cross-checking, considering explicitly all possibilities, would provide strong results (if it showed 3% FPHE).


    Generally I like very many things about Staker's design. Particularly elegant is his use of electrode current to compensate power and also measure electrode resistance so he can track loading/unloading. Also the metered continuous fill-up to prevent thermal shocks and also keep meniscus level constant. But like any open-cell experiment of this type it requires a lot of care and he has just not shown that care in the write-up in the areas I've mentioned. He has however taken a lot of care in some other areas. alas it needs only one unconsidered error that sometimes (variably) happens and it can be mistaken for FPHE. So the extreme care I say is needed - is needed.


    There may be a few issues we have not yet considered. The one thing that bugs me is where he says that calibration depends on meniscus level. The question then is how to bubbles affect that. However I have not looked at that properly - I am inclined to trust that Staker has - because he explicitly mentions it and says quite a bit (which have not yet properly read) about it. (To read his stuff you need to go through not one but two papers and put them together).

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    I thought you had more experience with practical setups than that. You think one fan, in that box, would equalise temperatures << 5C? Even on the sides blocked by recombinator or cell? And that 5C is what would be needed if the TEG sensitivity had a tolerance of 10%.

    Jed is a skilled observer and commentator, but not an electro-chemist or experimenter in general. I agree with you about the problems of positional uncertainty, but they are of course problems that also attach to the idea of placing an additional resistor in the box. There is no perfect system, but you must admit that Ed has addressed and minimised sources of error wherever they occur, which should push them to way below the noixe level. Or do you think otherwise?

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.