The perpetual “is LENR even real” argument thread.

Quote from Shane D.

we are 63 pages into trying to convince one, just 1, mainstream, and well placed scientist. If we eventually get him on our side, we only have a few hundred thousand more to go! Each of them, in turn, will need to be taken by the hand through the same laborious, and frustrating, process as THH. Even were he (THH) to start proselytizing for LENR to his colleagues that he "sees the light", they will not believe him, as he doesn't believe you.

I am a mathematically qualified jack of all trades - as such both more and less qualified to look carefully and objectively at these things than those more directly qualified.

But I think Shane here is taking my comments in a pessimistic way. Look at it like this. If you have the (achievable AFAIK) replicable decent experiment, it will convince me, and also many others.

Not that a replicable decent experiment would convince me 1st time, certainly not written up as is typical for LENR, but even written up as is best there would likely be many questions. Those could be easily answered with a bit of extra work (it can be repeated, to resolve any annoying skeptical question). The result would be I believe then be good enough for many independent labs to be interested in replicating.

What will not work for this is relying on very old and effectively not now replicable experiments. And LENR papers which do not explicitly consider evaporation (where it could be relevant) or which dismiss the possibility of recombination will not convince anyone except LENR believers. It does not matter if an experimenter knows something from years of experiments. They have to spell out why they know it and from which measurements for this to stand up in a scientific paper. They can reference past work, but in the case of LENR cannot extrapolate from one anomalous system to another. The anomaly after all is not quantitative or understood, so no assumptions can be made about one such system based on observations of a previous one. If the LENR can vary, then maybe so can other things like recombination. This is basic "write science 101" - something I do know about. It applies to some extent for everything, but especially when trying to convince people of something that is inherently unlikely (that lack of predictivity Bayesian stuff) and which is an idea not previously supported by work that has been accepted.

"Trust me - I'm a calorimetrist" does not work for LENR, now, especially because of the history. But it would not work anyway without replication. It is just that without that history claims from well-thought-of calorimetrists would result in major interest (as it did then).

So the extra work needed now is unfortunate for LENR, but not impossible, if there is something replicable even on a "use this source of cathode, treat it like this, you will then get this histogram of performance results" level.

Of course if F&P had done that precisely, those replicating would have got the expected results, and the negatives would not be a problem.

If the effect is replicable.

Quote from JedRothwell

People can measure recombination by measuring left-over electrolyte. That works.

Jed. I defer to you greater knowledge of most of the topics we discuss, but zero common sense. I have to keep fact checking you. Specifically, you cannot in an open electrolytic cell measure recombination be left-over electrolyte (Staker's case) because the amount of evaporation is an unknown.

left-over electrolyte = total initial (known is this is recorded) + total added (known if this is recorded) - total electrolysed (known from integrated current) + total recombined - total evaporated

You can calculate evaporation approximately, if you have the complete temperature history. If you have (approximately) calculated or (more exactly) measured the evaporation, you can (approximately or more exactly) determine the recombination.

I am not splitting hairs here - it matters. Staker did neither, or if he did, he did not say he did, and in fact implied he did not. And you keep on making imprecise and misleading statements.

How Jed-style lack of precision (to be fair shared by many LENR write-ups including Staker) can get you into trouble.

(1) Any evaporation would reduce measured excess heat (true)

(2) Therefore not measuring it and assuming it is 0 is fine

(3) We do not need to consider recombination because in some other similar experiment I have referenced it was measured as very small, and anyway we can calculate it from fill-up volume, electrolysis rate, and volume remaining as nearly 0.

In this sequence point (3) is false because:

(a) The first part is not reliable. Recombination could be as fickle as LENR, and for the same reasons (electrode charactersitics)

(b) The second part is not reliable. Evaporation was dismissed as 0 because its direct effect on excess heat measurement was negative. However its indirect effect, in cancelling out potential recombination, is positive. (And the effect of recombination outweighs the effect of evaporation of the same volume by a factor of 4). But this is (by mistake) considered impossible because evaporation was assumed 0.

This is a classic mistake where an assumption made correctly in one case (evaporation does not matter so can be assumed 0) is incorrect when it is subsequently used in another case.

Now - with more care - probably recombination could be dismissed.

I do not see that level of care from Jed, or Staker.

This is just one little example, but it is the reason why extreme care and precision is needed, with all assumptions explicitly stated, if you want to convince the wider scientific community of something inherently unlikely and not (yet) understood.

Quote from Storms

Now the issue is why and how does it work. Everyone has their own favorite explanation, most of which are not only inconsistent with the observed behavior but are not even supported by accepted science. The raw material for a useful critique is huge.

I am very interested in how it works - which is experimentally determined and I think necessary before why.

is there agreement on how?

I think how could be discussed, assuming LENR real, quite independently of the question of "is LENR real?".

Quote from Curbina

Unlikely according to who or what?

I've said it before.

The predictions made by LENR are not quantitatively precise*. And there is no supporting evidence for LENR except a set of (not precise) anomalies, nor predicting theory that is supported by other evidence. That corresponds to a low likelihood hypothesis.

If you could parametrise the set of all possible hypotheses you could quantify that. It is not practical to do that - but the fact remains.

Low probability hypotheses can be true, of course, but they require relatively more sure evidence for a consistent person to rate them as likely true. The sort of not-picking detail that I ask for, which nevertheless, if LENR is real, should with care and effort be obtainable.

People here raise the point that mainstream scientists seem to require a higher standard of proof for LENR than other things. It depends what the other things are - (UFOs in the same way are low probability - with no precise predictions). But when compared with most physical theories, which make predictions precise enough to be disprovable, it is fair.

The extreme case of this phenomenon is the hypothesis that God (or - if you like - extra-universal aliens running a universe simulation) make miracles happen.

Suppose we have documented anomalies - one-off events well attested that appear impossible. The God/interfering alien hypothesis explains them all. However when viewed as a scientific hypotheses (this is not a religious argument about the existence of God) it is lower probability than hypotheses that predict specific characteristics of the miracles and would be disproved if those characteristics are not met in a miracle.

* If the "He4 left in the electrode makes results smaller" get-out was eliminated, by measuring that as well as exhaust He4 - then excess heat / He4 would be a tight quantitative prediction derived from a sub-class of LENR hypotheses.

However - suppose that was disproved. I suspect that the LENR hypothesis would happily stretch to suppose that He4 was created in some different proportion relative to excess heat - perhaps because of additional reactions. But this prediction, if found true in a "tight" form, would boost the probability of that narrow form of the LENR hypothesis.

Quote from Daniel_G

THH, in a small 1L reactor weighing 1.8kg, containing only hydrogen, how much output energy would convince you that the reaction is not chemical?

Note if it was full of only H2 and it was oxidized fully to water it would produce on the order of 18kJ.

Daniel,

it would depend on how sure I was that the reactor itself could not take part in chemical reactions (that 18kJ).

But in this hypothetical case I would probably be more uncertain about the measurement of the output energy than anything else.

After all, you can I'd guess continue for long enough that an excess, correctly measured, would be larger than possible chemical heat?

If you'd care to share a complete write-up I will be happy to comment?

If this is a matter of hints: while that may be understandable, you will also understand that I would never accept those, nor third party reports. And after the Rossi debacle a few others would be unsure about such things too...

Anyway - if you have good evidence of LENR that is great. I will await either for a world-headline-making commercial reveal - or a Nobel-Prize-winning research paper.

THH

Quote from Storms

such a calculation has no meaning.

Probably no meaning. You might get chemical state changes in that layer based on reactor gas contents - so if those change there could at some point be a small chemical heat increase or loss.

Quote from Daniel_G

Stainless steels oxidize in an approximately 20 micron layer at high temperatures so I’m trying to calculate the maximum potential heat of oxidation of 1400 mm3 of stainless steel

Based on the heat of combustion of iron, and 20u depth, it works out at around 64J/cm^2 I think: 4kJ/g, 8g/cm^3, 20/10000 = 1/500 cm.

Or for 1.4 cm^3 => 45kJ. Not exact, I cannot found SS heat of combustion, so iron is very approximate.

But you should maybe consider other surface reactions if H is around, and also not assume only 20u is involved in that case?

Still, it does not seem like a lot.

You might find errors due to heat capacity of a large SS vessel are more significant? (I have not worked it out - and it would depend on what was changing).

THH

Quote from Curbina

The post above your last one may help to understand the purpose, futile as it may be: Trying to satisfy the quirks from someone that has decided that no evidence is good to prove what his mindset believes to be "improbable".

Curbina - it is true - if you think the only point in dialog is to persuade people of LENR right or wrong - then I am an unsatisfactory interlocutor, not easily swayed.

But it would be really boing here if that was the content. It is all the details that are interesting of specific experiments, what they do or don't show, how they are analysed. I learn stuff from people here, or sometimes am challenged to research stuff for myself, much of the time, and it keeps me interested even without the elusive breakthrough that would significantly alter my personal dial for LENR likelihood.