The perpetual “is LENR even real” argument thread.

  • The LEC effect contains serious irony. For the electron emission to be produced, the cold fusion nuclear reaction must occur. Therefore, the LEC observation is important because the electron current is easier to measure at much lower rates than any other diagnostic for LENR. Consequently, Gordon's experience demonstrates that LENR is much easier to produce than previously thought, although only at very low rates. While the electrons have no practical value, they do provide an easy way to demonstrate that LENR is actually happening.


    The same irony applies to the use of high temperatures. LENR is very sensitive to temperature. As a result, many of the failed attempts done at room temperature would have been successful if the temperature had been increased. Sadly, McKubre worked hard to keep the temperature in his calorimeter constant, which denied this important insight for many years even though Fleischmann said that increased temperature was important.


    The problem now is the absence of the correct description of the conditions required to produce LENR and its mechanism. This flaw will not change because the leadership in this field is no longer able to change their beliefs as new behaviors are discovered. We are now seeing the same rigid beliefs inside the field as is a problem in general science. The ability to ask questions and explore new ideas has been lost.

  • 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.

    TNN! You are an interesting conversationalist! Please read my article and give me your answer - is it true that hydro wave technology exists... ? For example, is it true that radioactive strontium-90 was reformatted by an alpha particle into zirconium-94?


    The use of the hydro wave method for the purification of aqueous solutions and thermonuclear reactions, December 7, 2017 – https://drive.google.com/file/…12BxqdNU/view?usp=sharing

    The use of the hydro wave method for the purification of aqueous solutions and thermonuclear reactions, December 7, 2017 – https://cloud.mail.ru/public/27Ad/4bDGJ92rH

  • Okay, suppose the LEC does not work as well as we hope. Suppose there is nothing along the lines THH asks for. We have to develop it. That might be done with a small group in short time, so maybe it would cost less than $10 million. Then again it might take longer. Or the effort might fail.

    What I have never understood is what appears from the outside to be a double standard here. And, when I am consistent, I am told I am wrong.


    For example: if any of the two modern calorimetric experiments we have seen on this thread show replicable LENR - which I think both have stated they do, and do not have unexpected error sources that invalidate the results: they would make possible relatively cheap replicable experiments. I have said what from my POV both would need to be more credible, but that would not cost more.


    So - if Jed above is correct, what is it about all the current apparently positive experiments that prevents them from being used in this way? Replicating and tightening up such an experiment does not take $10M. If, when tightened up, the results go away - well then my skepticism is jutsified.


    The key thing about such an experiment is that it can be replicated with (statistically) the same results. It is annoying having to run a set of 5 experiments to get one that "works" but not impossible. Staker has claimed his experiment works all the time (although cathodes may crack). Ed has not said where on his histogram the results he has shown come from, so I guess I do not know the number of times you would need to run it to gte clear results (if it were tightened up as could be).


    THH

  • I think we have already settled these issues. You finally made yourself clear in the other thread. I thank you for that. I have been bugging you to provide specifics. Such as when I asked you "give us three examples of calorimeters better than F&P's that produced no heat." Or to explain why the boil off experiment magically stopped producing heat during the boil-off, even though it was producing heat for days before that, up to a a minute before that, and for a day or so after it. You did not respond to these requests, but you finally answered them all -- more or less. You laid your cards on the table. We now know where you stand. My response is here, and it will have to do:

    Wow Jed!


    You are struggling here.


    For me - evaluating evidence is about understanding each bit. individually. Without making cross-assumptions - like "1000s of experiments have produced LENR - unless I can find error in every such - it is disproven".


    you say i have not given specifics. yet i am the only person here who gives specifics!


    F&P boil-off. There are real doubts about the boil-off part due to inaccurate recording - the video and graph do not align. Given that - I cannot trust recording for the other parts of that experiment, or methodology. It is easy to generate positive results by leaving out something, or making some mistake. No-one after can determine what that is easily. However, there is at least one candidate for these open cell experiments which is recombination. The argument that F&P are too eminent to do that (which I have never accepted - eminent people are still people) does not stand. And we have seen (Staker) how easy it is, when you believe on basis of other evidence that recombination cannot happen, not to check some other case where it could happen. F&P couch there papers in non-specific terms. we know they have tested recombination in various ways. we do not know that all their experiments got so tested.


    "3 examples of calorimeters better that F&P with no heat"? Ok - Staker, Ed here (both for different reasons stated by me here at great length unproven). I'd have to look at more writeups - I have never found one that delivered clear excess heat. the nearest was McKubre and he has so many different write-ups that I cannot google the detailed write-up of his series of experiments that showed some excess heat to give details. My memory of that is that he never checked how heat sourced from the top of the closed cells (in the head space near where things went into/out of the calorimetric thermal boundary) altered calibration. That is the worst case, and also the case that would be met from changes in recombination elsewhere in the cell (not in the recombiner).


    We all accept that recombination happens at some levels in all cells (I was reading an LENR paper quantifying this for a particular case). Therefore it must be explicitly eliminated as a source of closed cell error by showing the varying the recombiner heat does not alter calibration. McKubre did not do this - he showed that heat at different place in the liquid of the cell from the electrode did not alter calibration which is an entirely different thing. (If his test alternative resistive calibration was in the head space by the recombiner I will take that back - let me know - as I say - I do not remember the link and it is not simple to google).


    But, of all those write-ups, we both think McKubre was one of the best, if not the best.


    I am happy to give you more specifics. Every time people have asked, I have done this. But asking me to choose one or 3 from thousands of experiments of varying quality I don't know - that is not fair.


    You show me your 3 exemplary good "better than F&P" experiments - I will (but maybe not over next 16 days - I am a bit busy just now) promise to look them over and admit they seem impossible to challenge or not. It takes me quite some time to look at something complicated and new: but I promise given "3 good ones" I can do this. As you know my attention span is longer that that of most people here.


    If they are impossible to challenge - then they also are candidates for our reference experiment? No $10m needed? That is what I don't get. On the one hand they cannot be criticised - on the other they do not make replicable reference experiments. Electrode variations a problem? Sure. But we now, I thought, understand that much better, have ways to find and condition electrodes.


    Remember:


    It is not that I think controlled calorimetry is an impossible way to get clear results. However, when the excess is a relatively low fraction of the input power so that changes in conditions can matter you need a lot of checking. That is why an experiment which can be repeated at will (subject maybe to needing 5 copies to get one that works, in some clearly stated methodology) is so important. Any "well, what about this?" can easily be answered with better instrumentation or just different methodology.


    We have never had any LENR experiment repeated like this adding methodology to answer skeptics - to my knowledge. And yet, if even 10% of that effort put into experiments now was fixed on one experiment, repeating it until it was fully understood - we have have either LENR or a known null experiment.


    According to you most of the LENR experiments are not null in that way. You can presumably choose one less likely to be null. So what stops this?

  • We have never had any LENR experiment repeated like this adding methodology to answer skeptics - to my knowledge.

    I thought the LEC experiments of Gordon and Whiehouse, an effect now replicated in other laboratories actually did that. Here's my own modest effort. Please point out the 'concerns for skeptics' I didn't acknowledge.


    https://www.google.com/url?client=internal-element-cse&cx=000387708355158880219:p0abzjnugfg&q=https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/SmithAthelecdevi.pdf&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwjOg-zNgZ3_AhVlVPEDHcZSAawQFnoECAMQAQ&usg=AOvVaw0XS4JVtn4UJ8OMI1iSGAqz

  • For example: if any of the two modern calorimetric experiments we have seen on this thread show replicable LENR - which I think both have stated they do, and do not have unexpected error sources that invalidate the results: they would make possible relatively cheap replicable experiments.

    They might well make relatively cheap replicable experiments. That would be great! But until they are replicated we won't know. If they work, then there will be no need to spend $10 million. ~$200,000 should be enough, I suppose.

    So - if Jed above is correct, what is it about all the current apparently positive experiments that prevents them from being used in this way?

    Maybe nothing prevents them. If 3 or 4 labs are able to replicate, we are good to go. I suppose this would cost around $50,000 per lab. Unfortunately, I do not know of any labs anywhere that would do it, at any price.

    Replicating and tightening up such an experiment does not take $10M.

    How would you know? It might cost $100 million and it might accomplish nothing, if the people doing it make a mistake early on, and waste their time and money on a dead-end approach. That happens a lot in science and in technological R&D.


    No one has ever done this in the history of mankind. No one knows for sure how to do it. People often make mistakes. So there is no telling how much money it will take, or how much time. Science usually works after many failures, so it is very likely this can be done. But you would have to be omniscient to say how much money it would take. Generally speaking, any kind of research ends up costing far more than initially planned.

  • I thought the LEC experiments of Gordon and Whiehouse, an effect now replicated in other laboratories actually did that. Here's my own modest effort. Please point out the 'concerns for skeptics' I didn't acknowledge.


    https://www.google.com/url?cli…Vaw0XS4JVtn4UJ8OMI1iSGAqz

    Alan - you know my view? LEC is solid established effect - and interesting - but there is no evidence it involves nuclear reactions? There are perfectly good non-nuclear explanations.


    So no concerns from this skeptic, just I don't see it as part of LENR.

  • THH, the cold fusion effect has been replicated many tmes. I have replicated it many times The other people who kept working in the field have replicated it. I can show anyone who is interested how to replicate the process. Of course, skill is required. The proper equipment is required. The willingness to follow instructions is required. Very few people have these characteristics. Also, the replication must be done by a well-known and respected organization and by well-known researchers. My success does not count.


    As Jed points out, serious money is also required. Google, Gates, and NASA have made a serious effort. Only NASA has succeeded. They have described their efforts in print. This description has had no effect on any opinion, including yours. Their success has no effect because the results can not be published in an accepted journal.


    So, rather than keep telling people what they ought to do, why not try to find out what has been done and the consequences? You may have the ability to find errors. I also have this ability because I have seen and studied the errors firsthand. Why not ask questions and learn what other people know before making suggestions?

    That is what I have been doing. I am asking for other people to suggest a clear replicable LENR experiment (with, indeed, precise instructions). If they do that, I am happy to help as much as I can (which may be little) by suggesting ways the same experiment could be made stronger, if I can think of that. No-one can argue that a stronger experiment would be ignored without making an experiment as string as possible.


    And that is not possible without replicability. So if the effect can be replicated, there should be a specific experiment that can be replicated. And it is the responsibility of those working with LENR to find and publish that in a way that allows replication.

  • Alan - you know my view? LEC is solid established effect - and interesting - but there is no evidence it involves nuclear reactions? There are perfectly good non-nuclear explanations.

    No, there not. You cannot list one. Granted, it has only been run far beyond the limits of chemistry one time (as far as I know), but there are no chemical batteries that work like this.

  • Without making cross-assumptions - like "1000s of experiments have produced LENR - unless I can find error in every such - it is disproven".

    I agree! It is a good thing I never said that, because that would be idiotic. Finding errors in thousands of papers would an impossible task.


    But why are you putting idiotic words into my mouth? Do you think no one will notice you are doing this? Who are you trying to fool?


    I said you need to find errors in the top tier of experiments. Maybe 5 or 10 of them, some in calorimetry, others in tritium perhaps. You have not found any errors in any experiment, so I do not think you are capable of this.

  • All measurements contain errors. In the case of cold fusion, THH claims that the magnitude of the error is equal to the total measured value in every case. In addition, this situation occurs no matter what property is measured or by whom. The error is always equal to the total measured value when heat is measured regardless of the type of calorimeter being used, the error is equal to the amount of measured helium regardless of how the measurement is made, and all reported tritium results from an error in the measurement no matter how skilled the measurement. In other words, only incompetent scientists who have no ability to understand how errors can be produced end up making such measurements.


    He makes these assertions with conviction and sincerity. His statements are valuable because he is speaking for most of the scientific profession, which he takes pride in doing. So, THH is providing a valuable reminder of what is believed by most leaders in the scientific establishment. This general belief will not be changed by anything THH suggests. The belief is too strongly held to be changed by a few experiments, no matter how simple. The change will come only after a working generator is made available by a country or company. So, our job should be directed toward that end. In other words, stop wasting time trying to address the issues THH raises and start trying to discover how LENR actually works and how it can actually be made useful.

  • And the un-addressed ones are?

    Not sure what you mean Alan?


    For LECs, my understanding is that (and please correct me - because I have not looked at a collation of all the evidence for a while):


    • We have unusual ionisation (electron, or negative ion) emission from a plate of metal.
    • The energy here is low < 50ev or so, but obviously enough to push electrons or ions from the lattice.
    • The energy to do this remains available for some significant time after the electrode has been prepared and dried


    So there are two potential anomalies:

    • How does the ionisation happen
    • What is the energy source


    And perhaps relevant to both:

    • How do we get from chemical or thermal levels of energy up to the high levels needed for this effect?


    Nuclear reactions would be indicated if:

    • The total energy was >> that available chemically (not I think true?)
    • The individual ionisation energy was higher than could be achieved via surface effects e.g. thermally-driven plasmons.


    Finally the fact that we have here surface energies higher than expected could have some relevance to an LENR mechanism - although I don't see any very direct link.


    I am actually very interested in this - do we have anywhere a decent write-up of current state of information? The LEC thread seems to have dissappeared?


    THH

  • THH claims that the magnitude of the error is equal to the total measured value in every case.

    You are making a good point. And of course I think that would be pretty well impossible (over many experiments).


    It is more that Staker's experiment (and maybe we should not generalise to all experiments from it - but we can to some) appears superficially well-written but the calorimetry - which has been in many ways carefully done - contains gaps in the write-up of what was measured that make decoding what was actually done very difficult.


    In this situation - even though you can try and bound all the errors and say - "well there is still and above chemical anomaly" - you do not have confidence that this is real, rather than some other undocumented thing in the experiment that no-one (including Staker) has considered. because you know the experiment does not document things that could be significant - even though they are not.


    So incomplete write-ups lead to uncertainty. Which is a shame when it is an interesting experiment with potentially useful results, and potential replicability.

  • Is one.


    But for a general overview try this. Not hard to find, just type 'Frank Gordon' into 'search'.


  • Is one.


    But for a general overview try this. Not hard to find, just type 'Frank Gordon' into 'search'.



    There are so many links there - and it is not clear where is the latest: here are the things we do / do not know about LECs are.


    Your 2022 paper - it is good but it addresses only the mat sci "what does it" space, not the to me more interesting "what are the exact electrical and electrical/time properties of the effect" question.


    I remember a good, but quite old, summary from Frank (?) or somone. I was hoping there would be an updated one :)

  • It is more that Staker's experiment (and maybe we should not generalise to all experiments from it - but we can to some) appears superficially well-written but the calorimetry - which has been in many ways carefully done - contains gaps in the write-up of what was measured that make decoding what was actually done very difficult.

    It is only very difficult if you do not know much about calorimetry or electrochemistry. I am not a physicist or an electrochemist, but I have read many similar papers and some books, so I had no difficulty understanding it. * There are no missing details. There are no gaps, except in your knowledge. If you would read books about calorimetry and electrochemistry, you would understand everything Staker says. His methods have been used since 1840. They are standard. As Fleischmann pointed out, they were invented by Faraday and Joule. They still work. Staker's calorimeter and methods are very similar to F&P, and no one has found any problems with their work. Some modern methods such the Seebeck calorimeter are easier to understand, but this is not difficult.


    All of the problems you think it might have are imaginary. If these problems were real, they would apply to every electrochemical experiment since Faraday. They would have been discovered and corrected by now. It is not possible you have unearthed problems that no one else noticed in the last 180 years.




    * Granted, I forgot some details such as the continuous replenishment with make-up water, but as soon as I read the paper again, I understood it. Continuous replenishment eliminates several problems, and reduces the complexity you see in the F&P calorimeter. And if you think this paper is difficult, try reading theirs!

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.