The perpetual “is LENR even real” argument thread.

There has been some discussion here about the probability of LENR being real. To muse on this a little, somewhere JedRothwell said there have been (approximately) 4500 positive F&P type PdD electrolysis experiment replications.

Let us imagine that of these experimenters, 1/3 were very careful scientists, 1/3 were normally careful scientists, and 1/3 were poor scientists (a reasonable supposition I think) and we accept that 90% of the careful scientists results were correct, 50% of the normally careful scientists were correct, and just 10% of the poor scientists were correct we end up with 1350 + 750 + 150 correct experiments = 2,250, correct experiments. That is exactly 50% of the total number of experiments performed, but most of those were performed by very careful scientists.

On the whole this shows that LENR is real and proven on the balance of probabilities, because of the 2250 'rejected on imagined grounds of quality or rigour' experiments 1500 (2/3) were carried out by 'less careful or poor' scientists.

I get thrown off by discussion of probability as proof of anything.

It is such an abstract thing to do, and doesn’t help at all to know what is true or not.

Just to use an absurd example: No one denies winning the lottery is possible, there are hundreds of thousands of lottery winners, yet still there are probably what amounts to quadrillions of lottery looseers. Convincing lottery loosers that is possible to win the lottery is a hard task based on probability, yet winning the lottery is a real event.

Quote from Curbina

I get thrown off by discussion of probability as proof of anything.

It is such an abstract thing to do, and doesn’t help at all to know what is true or not.

Just to use an absurd example: No one denies winning the lottery is possible, there are hundreds of thousands of lottery winners, yet still there are probably what amounts to quadrillions of lottery looseers. Convincing lottery loosers that is possible to win the lottery is a hard task based on probability, yet winning the lottery is a real event.

Good point. Using your example, after LENR is produced once, the ability to produce it would become real. The skeptics argue that LENR has never been produced even after thousands of attempts have been made. So, the question is, "How many tickets must be sold that did not win before you would conclude the lottery was rigged?"

There is another connection to the lottery. In many ways it is what serious gamblers call 'a mug bet', since the chances of winning are so low. However, I do it even knowing that fact, because winning the jackpot would be life-changing for me and everyone I love.

Much the same could be said about cold fusion- because getting that organised and marketable would be life changing for our species.

Quote from Alan Smith

There is another connection to the lottery. In many ways it is what serious gamblers call 'a mug bet', since the chances of winning are so low. However, I do it even knowing that fact, because winning the jackpot would be life-changing for me and everyone I love.

Much the same could be said about cold fusion- because getting that organised and marketable would be life changing for our species.

That is the problem. Alan. The introduction of LENR would be life-changing. Imagine what would happen politically and to the financial markets if oil, fission energy, and natural gas became worthless. All of these energy sources are based on debt. Just as soon as such an inexpensive and easily available energy source became available, the loans would be called by the banks. Immediately, these energy sources would become bankrupt and not able to operate. Then what would happen? The message is, Be careful what you wish for.

Quote from THHuxleynew

If we suppose hypothetically, that LENR does not exist, then all of the positive results will be misleading. More of these are likely to come from poor scientists,

In real life, anyone can see that most of the positive results come from excellent scientists. Scientists with world-class reputations, such as Fleischmann, FRS, Bockris, who wrote the book on Modern Electrochemistry, Srinivasan, who designed India's atom bomb, Iyengar, who went on to be chairman of the Indian AEC, and this guy:

Roland A. Jalbert

*25 years working with tritium and tritium detection *involved in the development, design, and implementation of tritium instrumentation for 15 years

*for 12 years he has had prime responsibility for the design, implementation, and maintainance of all tritium instrumentation at a major fusion technology development facility (Tritium Systems Test Assembly ).

*Consultant on tritium instrumentation to other fusion energy facilities for 10 years ( Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor at Princeton)

It is not as if you cannot tell which scientists are good and which ones are poor. It is usually clear. So, if there is "a correlation between positive results and careful scientists" that would boost the likelihood it is real.

More to the point, you can read the papers and see for yourself whether the work is careful or sloppy. You can see whether it is convincing, or not convincing. It is difficult to do this research, but less difficult to judge whether it has been done well. Here is Plan B. If you are incapable of judging whether the work is good or bad, you can read evaluations by outside experts who have examined the experiments, such as Heinz Gerischer and Robert Duncan. You will see that these evaluations are positive. The outside experts were convinced. You have to look at evaluations of experiments, made by experimentalists. Not evaluations of theory. Because cold fusion is an experimental finding, not theoretical. You cannot look at evaluations done by experts who have not read papers or examined experiments. There are dozens, perhaps hundreds, of such evaluations in the mass media, and countless more on the internet. They are worthless. You can tell at a glance that the author knows nothing about the subject.

Quote from THHuxleynew

scientists that never get positive results (the more careful ones) will not do a lot of experiments, and may even not publish a few negative results. I doubt such would be published in the LENR publications, nor elsewhere.

That is called 'the file drawer effect' (also the laundry basket effect) and is very well known. And not relevant here, because I am only talking about the 4500 positive reports. And rejecting 50% of them.

Quote from THHuxleynew

That is incorrect use of probability theory because it assumes:

No correlation between positive results and correct results

No correlation between positive results and careful scientists

No correletion between careful experimenters and those doing LENR

And now you are assuming no correlation with realities.

Quote from Storms

Just as soon as such an inexpensive and easily available energy source became available, the loans would be called by the banks. Immediately, these energy sources would become bankrupt and not able to operate. Then what would happen?

Most of the coal companies in the U.S. are bankrupt or close to bankrupt, because natural gas, solar and wind have taken away half of their business, and will soon take the rest. (https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=44155) That is a shame for the company owners, shareholders and miners, but it has no effect on the rest of us. The coal industry is $39 billion per year. In comparison, the cosmetics industry is $91 billon.

General Electric has been one of the largest and most successful companies in U.S. history. It has now been removed from the Dow, and it is on the verge of collapse. Mainly because of mismanagement and investments in natural gas turbines. Natural gas turbines are in trouble because they cannot compete with solar or wind. The market is collapsing in slow motion. Not as fast as coal, but it has only one direction to go. See the book "Lights Out: Pride, Delusion, and the Fall of General Electric." Again, this hurts GE shareholders, but not the rest of us. Every dollar GE no longer earns goes to some other company making solar cells.

The oil industry is beginning to feel the effects of electric cars. Most oil is used for transportation. A generation from now, there will be no gasoline automobiles. The money that ExxonMobil made will go to whoever makes batteries, instead.

This is also how cold fusion would take over the energy market. It would bankrupt what is left of coal, oil and nuclear power. But the money will not be wire transferred to Alpha Centauri. It will go to the companies that make cold fusion devices, and cold fusion powered machinery. Over the long term, 50 to 100 years, total profits from cold fusion and cold fusion machinery will fall. That is the trend in all modern industry. The cost of food, electricity, lighting, automobiles, air transport, computers and everything else has fallen drastically in the last 150 years. But the change is gradual, and new industries pop up from time to time, soaking in the extra money.

To summarize, I do not think you need to worry about the economic impact of cold fusion, unless you own shares in coal or oil. If you own shares in coal, they will soon be worthless no matter what happens. Coal futures moved up in 2022 but they are falling again:

Some people imagine that "big industry" might oppose cold fusion because it will bankrupt big industrial companies such as ExxonMobil. There is no doubt that ExxonMobil will oppose it! They will fight it by every means possible. When wind turbines began to hurt the coal industry, the Members of Congress who were bought and paid for by coal companies tried to have wind turbines declared illegal, and removed. The big energy companies will fight cold fusion, but other big industrial companies such as Ford, Hitachi, or GE (if it is still in business) will see that cold fusion is a gold mine. A fantastic source of profit for the first few decades after it is introduced. Hitachi does not care what happens to ExxonMobil. If Hitachi can take a billion dollars away from ExxonMobil, they will do that. Any corporation is happy to drive another company out of business if they can make a profit doing that. That's capitalism for you. There is no unified "big business" entity when it comes to technological competition. There is unity when it comes to taxes, employee wage and benefits, and other policy matters that affect all companies the same way.

I said that companies which make and sell cold fusion generators or cold fusion powered cars will make a fantastic profit, especially at first. They will take these profits away from ExxonMobil, and other energy companies. That does not mean they will earn as much as ExxonMobil loses. It may not be that $1 of profit going to Ford or Hitachi will be balanced by a $1 loss to ExxonMobil. Perhaps ExxonMobil will lose $2 instead, and overall the economy will contract somewhat. However, even if there is an imbalance, and overall the economy does shrink because of cold fusion, I do not think the effect would be drastic. Cold fusion products will have added value, so people will pay a premium for them, at first.

A cell phone that never needs recharging is attractive, and worth more than today's battery powered models. When I say cold fusion will lower the cost of energy, that does not mean it will also lower the cost of all cold fusion powered devices. Some will be improved, which will raise the cost. Cell phones will be worth more, so consumers will be happy to pay more for them. The price premium for cold fusion power will gradually fall as competition increases and patents expire.

By the way, here is another look at energy sources such as coal and oil. Coal now produces half as much energy as it did at its peak in 2005. It is now back to the level it was in 1960. It increased a little in 2022, but the long term trends are clear, because it cannot compete. Power companies are retiring old cold fired plant and not building new ones. Renewables are now 12 quads and growing rapidly. Coal is 11 quads. If renewables double, coal will be zero. It is the most expensive, so it is the first thing the power companies retire.

U.S. energy facts explained - consumption and production - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Quote from THHuxleynew

Re "seeing for yourself". It is true, I can tell myself whether work is written better or worse - which correlates a bit with better or worse scientist.

It correlates a lot! I am sorry to sound like an elitist, but the studies from people like Fritz Will, Bockris or Miles are WAY better than studies from obscure people. That is partly because Miles had access to some of the best equipment in the world at China Lake, and when he wanted three other labs to do double-blind helium studies, he called the three best in the world. Because he had clout they answered the phone and were happy to help him.

Miles has a long list of accomplishments on his CV, such as awards from a UN agency as I recall. He was a Fellow at China Lake, which is a big deal.

Distinguished researchers at places like China Lake and Los Alamos publish better work partly because those places have lots of money and high standards. Miles may not be a better electrochemist than Staker, who was slogging away at the U.S. Army all those years, but Miles was in a lab that could afford to have high standards.

Quote from THHuxleynew

What I cannot do is distinguish between an excellent scientist writing outside their field and missing things (which I will also miss) and the same inside their field.

In that case, go to Plan B. Read what Heinz Gerischer and Robert Duncan have to say. Or Melvin Miles and Ed Storms. They are experts, after all. They were not "insiders" before 1989. They did not believe in cold fusion. No one did.

Now look for an evaluation of cold fusion experiments by an expert who says the experiments are invalid and the effect does not exist . . . And . . . You will not find one. There are no such evaluations. No expert has ever found a significant problem in the major studies. Because there aren't any significant problems. That is the same reason no expert has found a problem in any other widely replicated scientific or technological discovery. Because science works. Replication works. You can be sure that a high-sigma replicated effect is real. There is no other way to be sure of it.

Yes, coal is being phased out in the USA but not in China. The oil that we do not use in our electric cars is being sold to the rest of the world at a profit. Yes, the stockholders will lose money, but in the case of oil, the economies of several countries are based on the sale of oil. Lose of this income would cause national collapse. This situation is not like most economic changes. I predict the transition would be very painful. Of course, a lot of pain could be avoided by competent regulations. However, we can see from past experience that competent regulations are seldom applied.

The companies can replace coal with natural gas without too much cost. However, cold fusion would require an entirely different structure, especially if the power can be produced by many local generators.

Quote from Storms

Yes, coal is being phased out in the USA but not in China.

It is being reduced in China, both as a percent of total generating capacity, and -- soon -- in absolute terms. It peaked at around 80% and it is now 60%.

Quote from Storms

The oil that we do not use in our electric cars is being sold to the rest of the world at a profit.

Not for long. Electric cars are inherently cheaper to make, and far cheaper to operate. As soon as the premium for the new and better technology wears off, electric cars will be cheaper everywhere, not just in the U.S. Oil will have a much smaller market everywhere. Not zero, because of things like aviation, but it will be reduced. The rest of the world is not technologically behind the U.S.

Electric cars are rapidly gaining market share in Europe and China. 80% of new cars sold in China are electric. That is one of the reasons coal consumption in China is not falling as rapidly as in the U.S. -- they are powering cars with coal, instead of oil. That produces less CO2 per passenger mile than gasoline, but more pollution. They will soon begin retiring coal in favor of solar. It is cheaper for them, just as it is for us.

Quote from THHuxleynew

However, of those 4500 experiments only one, optimised and modernised, is enough to prove LENR, if it can be published in a form with clear results and straightforward (stochastically defined) replicability.

Now you are being silly. You don't even know if an experiment that meets your requirements is already in the library because you won't look. And if it was you would probably say 'that's just one experiment, it doesn't prove anything because there are 4499 which are no good'.'.

Quote from Storms

The companies can replace coal with natural gas without too much cost. However, cold fusion would require an entirely different structure, especially if the power can be produced by many local generators.

Cold fusion will not require what you might call a "new" structure. It will be installed where we now have space heating furnaces and air conditioners (HVAC). That is an existing structure. Cold fusion will be in co-generators, which are already in use in Japan and elsewhere. Co-generators are about the same size as today's HVAC equipment, or emergency generators. They cost more, but they do not take up more space. They will be installed by the companies that now install HVAC and emergency generators. They take no more effort or manpower than today's equipment, and they should last about as long, so they will not cost more to install and maintain than the HVAC equipment we already have in houses and buildings.

They will be installed gradually, as older HVAC wears out.

It would make no sense to produce electricity with cold fusion in a central generator. That would cost about 200 times more than local generators. See:

https://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJmoreaboutw.pdf

Power companies and oil companies will gradually go out of business as HVAC equipment is replaced by cold fusion powered models. They will go bankrupt, "slowly at first, and then suddenly" as F. Scott Fitzgerald put it. Every major industry and every major corporation since 1860 has gone bankrupt -- slowly at first, then suddenly. It is the iron law of capitalism. Examples include the Pennsylvania Railroad, north Atlantic ocean liners, AT&T, General Motors, IBM (almost!) and now General Electric. It is nothing to be afraid of, unless you own stock in these companies.

Automobiles will also gradually be replaced with cold fusion powered models. Automobiles last about 11 years, so about 11 years after all sales are cold fusion powered models, gasoline sales will fall close to zero. If electric powered car sales in China go from 80% to 100%, then 11 years from now, China will stop consuming gasoline. Nearly all gasoline, except for some trucks, some rail, and aviation. China consumes 13% of the gasoline in the world, so that will greatly reduce OPEC and Russian sales of oil. There is no reason to think China will not be 100% electric in a few years. Much of Europe will be. The U.S. and Japan are lagging.

Today's trend in electric cars will hurt ExxonMobil but help whoever makes batteries. Cold fusion will do the same, on steroids. ExxonMobil and the electric power companies will be bankrupted in no time. Ford, Hitachi, and whoever else makes cold fusion powered equipment will make a ton of money.

Quote from THHuxleynew

However, of those 4500 experiments only one, optimised and modernised, is enough to prove LENR, if it can be published in a form with clear results and straightforward (stochastically defined) replicability.

That was done 30 years ago. Not with one experiment, but with dozens. As I said, McKubre, Storms, Miles . . . for tritium, Will or Bockris. The results are clear. They are presented in great detail. They are definitely straightforward, and totally convincing to every expert who has looked at them, such as Gerischer, Duncan, Miles, Storms, and just about every academic electrochemist in the world. (There are only about 100 of them, but they all confirmed cold fusion.)

You refuse to look at these reports, so you cannot say that Gerischer, Duncan and the others are wrong.