The perpetual “is LENR even real” argument thread.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    * 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!

    Great. So - from the paper -

    • how do they do continuous replenishment? Do they manually adjust it? (if not there is a contradiction - they cannot keep meniscus levels correct)
    • did they keep a record of all those manual adjustments?
    • did they know (and look at) the evaporation rate?

    It is pretty clear to me from private communication and the paper that Staker did not consider evaporation rate important. And therefore he would not have recorded it.


    I'd like your answer to these questions, and how you know them. If it is "I know this is what needs to be done, so I'm sure Staker did it" how do you reconcile that with the paper methodology (you can check this from the earliest of the two papers).


    The F&P calorimeter was indeed mathematically complex, because it is (for this purpose) a poor calorimeter. The more you rely on calibration and modelling of the thermal charecteristics the more possibility there is for errors when that model chnages between calibration and active systems.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    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.

    That is clearly not true in general. For example, take recombination. There is every possibility that large amounts of recombination occur specifically in many LENR experiments - for the same reasons - active Pd cathode, that are hypothesised to make NAEs - and that effect will be as elusive and variable as LENR.


    That would not apply to every electrochemical experiment since faraday.


    I recommend that you leave of sweeping generalisations (easily contradicted as I have just done) and make specific points that you know to be true.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    * 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.

    Jed - this experiment, as you say, uses continuous replenishment. That requires a different protocol - given the meniscus level must be kept exactly constant (staker maintains). Therefor it is not the same as for F&P experiments and it is in exactly this bit that things go wrong.


    But I am quite prepared to believe that F&P also made unsafe assumptions about recombination staying the same between different similar runs. I have only read one of their papers in detail and that had no clarity as to which experiments had which checks. The whole paper is written as "we can checked this in this way" with no certainty that any run has all of those checks. That matters, because assumptions can be made from some runs, checked, and extended to other runs (not in that way checked) when that extension is not possible.


    Electrochemists are not used to doing LENR experiments. And F&P in the paper you have directed me to do not show an experiment with all checks. We are expected to believe that because they know how to check everything, that their assumptions must be safe. For lots of reasons no-one sensible would believe that.


    The key reason - any assumption may break when LENR happens - because LENR is by definition abnormal - elusive - not detected in normal experiments except maybe as a one-off that is ignored as error. So standard electrochemistry wisdom cannot be relied on when measuring LENR.


    Another reason - you are personally so prone to provably false generalisations on this topic (picked out in detail by me in this thread) that no-one reading this could take your assurances on these matters of experiment safety. I realise that there are many others in the LENR field less prone to this whose statements may be more reliable. But they are not here, and I can therefore only go by there write-ups.

    THH, as you know, every measurement contains errors. The Staker work has a greater uncertainty than many other measurements because he used a calorimeter of poor design. The question is, "Was any part of the heat he measured the result of LENR?" Or, to the larger question, "Was any part of any measured heat the result of LENR?" If any heat was produced by LENR, then LENR is real. If any helium was produced by LENR, then LENR is real. If any tritium was produced by LENR, then LENR is real.


    Most papers in all fields of science can be shown to have flaws in logic when an effort is made to find a flaw, either real or imagined. In fact, I have peer-reviewed hundreds of papers in my long career. I have seen very few papers I would describe as perfect, including my own. So, when you ask and require a complete write-up, you are asking for the impossible. Nevertheless, many papers that describe LENR are as close to complete as is commonly accepted in normal science, yet they are ignored. Why would you believe that any paper about LENR would not suffer the same fate no matter how well it was written? In any case, you are asking for something that will not and can not be supplied. So, please stop. Please change your focus to something useful.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    no one has found any problems with their work.

    • Morrison (less convincing) and Shanahan (more convincing) have found problems.
    • Ascoli has found a problem with the HAD boil-off data
    • I have noted a problem with the simplicity paper, which is that it is written as a tutorial summarising many different experiments. For example, which runs, of which data, were specifically checked for recombination? This means that we never can tell which checks are done for quoted results. Since no-one has given me their written-up source data other than that, I have to view it as unsafe.


    None of these problems have been satisfactorily answered. For Shanahan I refer you to the set of 5 papers (the last one Shanahan's White Paper). While Shanahan does not prove there are errors for the reason he suggests (except in one case for unpublished data given to him privately), no-one else has proved there are not those errors, or answered his points satisfactorily.


    I read both sides of this and I note that more of Shanahan's points are unanswered, or falsely answered, by the other side, than the other sides points (which are I think are all answered by Shanahan). I do not necessarily think Shanahan is correct, but I do think that the LENR author rebuttals of his points are weak. The burden of proof lies with those claiming extraordinary results without a well-developed theory to predict them and link them with other results

    Quote from Storms

    So, when you ask and require a complete write-up, you are asking for the impossible. Nevertheless, many papers that describe LENR are as close to complete as is commonly accepted in normal science, yet they are ignored.

    I have promised on another thread to look at Jed's 3 "best" calorimetric papers. I can't do it for a while, but will do this within 6 weeks. There is a thread for that purpose. So I will not be ignoring them.


    I am asking for a more complete writeup.


    I think in Staker's case there is an obvious lack. In your case there is an obvious lack possibly addressed by your previous work, but these are not mentioned in connection with the lack.


    In both cases addressing the lacks would be easy. A "minor change". That is the sort of tightening up that you expect when given good peer review. You are right that everyone leaves things out, it is only human.


    That is why I suggest to have a convincing paper has to be two-phase:

    • write
    • get proper critiques from skeptical people
    • address those and rewrite


    I don't claim to be good at doing "proper critiques". I am not an expert in calorimetry. Nor LENR. But I am not completely inexpert, and my critiques are better than nothing! Really what I think would help is a change of attitude from those doing LENR and writing papers so they helped each other to write better papers through more critical peer review.


    I don't think you can know, till this is done, whether such better papers would be ignored.


    THH

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    Great. So - from the paper -

    how do they do continuous replenishment? Do they manually adjust it? (if not there is a contradiction - they cannot keep meniscus levels correct)

    Yes, that is what the paper says. If they did not adjust it for the current and temperature, it would not work.


    Quote from THHuxleynew

    did they keep a record of all those manual adjustments?

    What do you think? Have you ever heard of an experimentalist who did not keep a record?


    Quote from THHuxleynew

    did they know (and look at) the evaporation rate?

    Everyone since 1801 has done this, and it is described in every textbook I know of, so I suppose they did.


    When you ask, "did they keep a record" and "do they know 220 year old laws of physics" what you are really saying is that Staker is a blithering idiot who could not do a junior high school experiment.


    Quote from THHuxleynew

    That is clearly not true in general. For example, take recombination. There is every possibility that large amounts of recombination occur specifically in many LENR experiments - for the same reasons - active Pd cathode, that are hypothesised to make NAEs - and that effect will be as elusive and variable as LENR.


    That would not apply to every electrochemical experiment since faraday.

    Why would it not apply to every electrochemical experiment since Faraday? Have the laws of physics changed? Does recombination now occur for reasons and in ways it did not occur in 1830?


    Every possibility? Have you actually read anything about recombination in a textbook, or a paper by F&P or Miles, or looked at the graph Ed Storms supplied? No of course you have not. If you had, you would know there is no possibility of recombination in these circumstances. That is, at these power levels, with this geometry. And if it did happen, it would also happen in the control cell next to the active cell. Why would they not notice it in either of these? It is easy to see.


    You say there are "many" LENR experiments in which there is "every possibility" recombination occurs. Okay, list three of them. Explain why it occurs in these experiments even though the textbooks and the data show it does not occur. Explain why the methods used to ensure it does not occur, and to detect it if it does, do not work. Stop claiming that it cannot be separated from evaporation. That is nonsense, but in any case, there are many experiments at room temperature where even you will know that evaporation is negligible.


    If there are many, you should have no difficulty naming three of them. If you are so certain of this that you make a positive assertion that the textbooks and common knowledge are wrong, you must have some basis. You wouldn't just make that up, would you?


    Also, LENR is not particularly elusive or variable compared to many other experimental anomalies. As McKubre said, the effect is "neither small nor fleeting."

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    Morrison (less convincing) and Shanahan (more convincing) have found problems.
    Ascoli has found a problem with the HAD boil-off data

    I do not think so, for the reasons given by Fleischmann in his response to Morrison, and Marwan in his response to Shanahan. Ascoli's hypothesis is batshit crazy, and he has never even tried to address my objections to it. Such as the fact that different methods of calorimetry show heat before the boil off, and after it, so why did the heat magically turn off for 10 minutes, and then turn back on? Perhaps you would like to address that one. I have many other objections, but if you address that one, I will be impressed.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    Why would it not apply to every electrochemical experiment since Faraday? Have the laws of physics changed? Does recombination now occur for reasons and in ways it did not occur in 1830?

    I said I would stop this - it is just Jed keeps on arguing things that don't make sense.


    If a strong unexpected recombination mechanism occurs occasionally, e.g. only in a suitably prepared Pd cathode, then obviously it would not be common place in electrochemisrty. In fact, it could be exactly as common as LENR. since electrochemists managed not to realise LENR was a thing till F&P (maybe there was one earlier exception) the identical case could be true reasonably - because it would involves Pd electrode catalysis - of strong unexpected recombination.


    I will just say this one more time and then maybe shut-up because there is no point continuing. While there are absolutes, effects are variable. This is known true for LENR (if it exists). I am suggesting - reasonably - that it is also true for ATER (at the electrode recombination). I am suggesting that instead of LENR being the not understood variable effect unexpected ATER takes its place. This could explain some but no means all of the classic LENR observations. Other errors noticed by Shanahan in at least some LENR error bound calculations - ignoring the amplification effect of calibration errors when the excess power is a small fraction of the input power - could explain other experimental results. It seems unlikely that all experimental results could come from these two mechanisms - but the lack of critical appraisal given to the possibility of unexpected errors as opposed to unexpected nuclear reactions by the LENR community means that we will not ever know.


    However, none of this matters if we have a modern replicable experiment - which could be made certain by repetition answering skeptical questions each time till there are none left and the result is certain.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    .

    • The energy here is low < 50ev or so, but obviously enough to push electrons or ions from the lattice.

    Dear TNN! I am obliged to correct you ... Moreover, I am obliged to inform you that you are not able to explain to me and the entire physical community - what kind of FORCE "pushes out electrons or ions" ... This happens for a very trivial reason - you are mistaken and do not understand that the very depth into which, because of his mistakes, Maxwell plunged you... Physics, which allegedly explains that electrons and ions are pushed out, is absolutely not true... Think about this problem... The old physics is wrong.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    However, none of this matters if we have a modern replicable experiment - which could be made certain by repetition answering skeptical questions each time till there are none left and the result is certain.

    For what it’s worth, we are working on this very issue. We have a working reactor and a dummy. I have brought it to two reputable labs run by credible and well known researchers. We have done a positive run on one calorimeter and then I immediately brought it to another lab with a different type of calorimeter. We are now rotating active reactor runs and dummy runs over several swaps and following if the calibration drifts at all between active runs.


    All of this data is being reviewed by a name everyone here would recognize and we are over the next coming weeks planning some upgrades to our equipment which we hope will bring down uncertainty to the minimum possible with our current budget.


    I can’t make any kind of conclusions until this entire process is complete but if it works out as it currently appears to, it could become a nice reference experiment as you described above, or we might just discover some kind of systemic error and this could just become another false alarm. In any case I feel good about our methodology and really trying to get the best possible data given our limitations.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    If a strong unexpected recombination mechanism occurs occasionally, e.g. only in a suitably prepared Pd cathode, then obviously it would not be common place in electrochemisrty.

    Recombination has been understood in detail for 180 years. It can be detected and measured easily, by methods which are fully understood. Recombination has nothing to do with cold fusion per se. It is not caused by cold fusion. On the contrary, if recombination occurred at the cathode -- which is impossible in the conditions needed for cold fusion -- it would definitely prevent the cold fusion reaction.


    People have been working with Pd electrochemistry for decades, for reasons unrelated to cold fusion. For example, Mizuno used Pd to investigate embrittlement, because it absorbs hydrogen faster than steel, so you can speed up the metallurgical studies. It has also been used in research to develop hydride storage, and as a catalyst. Problems with Pd recombination were identified long ago. The graph that Ed uploaded showing the amperage levels at which it occurs, or does not occur, was known long before cold fusion was discovered.


    In short, recombination is a conventional electrochemical effect. Any electrochemist knows how to identify it, measure it, or prevent it. It is not possible that it occurs "occasionally" in a "suitably prepared Pd cathode" but the electrochemist does not see that, or fix the problem. That is like saying your car runs out of gas occasionally but you don't notice and you keep driving. You cannot keep driving! The car stops. When there is recombination you cannot fail to see it. The cell water level stops falling. Bubbles no longer emerge from the water. You can't miss it!


    Furthermore, even if there was 100% recombination in Staker's experiment, and Staker failed to see it because he is a blithering idiot who knows less about electrochemistry than a 6th grade kid with a D-cell battery and two paperclips, * this would still not affect his conclusion. There would still be massive anomalous excess heat, hundreds of times beyond the limits of chemistry.


    So these statements by THH make no sense, and they have no meaning in the real world.




    * If THH would do some electrochemistry with a D-cell battery and two paperclips, he could easily see for himself how you check for recombination and how you can be completely sure it is not happening. Or that it is happening, if you can arrange for that. THH will see that in normal circumstances you cannot make it happen. Steve Jones made it happen by heroic measures that no one could replicate in a cold fusion experiment. Miles pointed this out.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    I am suggesting - reasonably - that it is also true for ATER (at the electrode recombination). I am suggesting that instead of LENR being the not understood variable effect unexpected ATER takes its place.

    ATER is an absolutely unknown phenomenon that nobody AFAIK has ever demonstrated. Having worked alongside plating and anodising tanks as big a most domestic swimming pools with low-voltage currents of maybe 1000A I know this to be the case, There are possibly a million such high-power electrolysis tanks in the world - I have never ever heard of any of those boiling dry.


    But maybe you can find a paper with experimental evidence of ATER taking place?

    Quote from Alan Smith

    ATER is an absolutely unknown phenomenon that nobody AFAIK has ever demonstrated. Having worked alongside plating and anodising tanks as big a most domestic swimming pools with low-voltage currents of maybe 1000A I know this to be the case, There are possibly a million such high-power electrolysis tanks in the world - I have never ever heard of any of those boiling dry.


    But maybe you can find a paper with experimental evidence of ATER taking place?

    This is very good reflection of the kind of skepticism THHuxleynew represents. He prefers to believe in a truly unproven and hypothetical mechanism to explain the observations, because it fits his world view, not because it is supported by evidence. For him is the only plausible explanation of "improbable" LENR.

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

    Like 1
    Quote from Alan Smith

    ATER is an absolutely unknown phenomenon that nobody AFAIK has ever demonstrated. Having worked alongside plating and anodising tanks as big a most domestic swimming pools with low-voltage currents of maybe 1000A I know this to be the case, There are possibly a million such high-power electrolysis tanks in the world - I have never ever heard of any of those boiling dry.


    But maybe you can find a paper with experimental evidence of ATER taking place?

    Normal electrolysis experiments, high or low power, don't boil dry because only F&P think it is appropriate to use a high power CC source which pushes more power in as electrolyte gets lower and bubbles get larger, hence providing positive feedback. Name me an electrolysis tank designed so that peak and achievable electrolysis power is some 20X the typical power?


    Given such very obvious and deliberate positive feedback from the drive circuit (I am not exaggerating, look at the V/T graph and work out from that how power in increases during boil-off) it is pretty difficult to say anything much about excess heat - but if you must do it is a good idea for the time scale on the graphs you publish to match that on the video you release.


    THH

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    Normal electrolysis experiments, high or low power, don't boil dry because only F&P think it is appropriate to use a high power CC source which pushes more power in as electrolyte gets lower and bubbles get larger, hence providing positive feedback.

    The input electric power could not cause the boiloff. The pulse only lasts a few minutes, and then the power is turned back down to where it was when there was no boiling. The boiloff begins after that. The heat from it cannot be coming from electrolysis. Furthermore, the boiling continues even after the electrolyte evaporates to a level below the electrodes, so there is no connection between the electrodes, and there can be no input power.


    During a calibration with high input electrolysis power, you can boil off the water, but the heat balance is always zero, and when the water falls below the electrodes and power is cut off, boiling stops abruptly. The remaining water does not boil off.

    This is at least a bit more fun than the search for “the error in calibration that must exist in order to keep my world view intact” that motivates THHuxleynew .


    The idea that somehow Pd or Ni can store astronomical amounts of H and release them suddenly to create these heat bursts by recombination is what one Russian researcher that confirms that the FPE exists unequivocally proposes, but this is because he is looking for an explanation for the runaway NiH batteries phenomena which is his usual line of research. Wether he doesn’t believe at all on this being a nuclear effect, he indeed believes this can lead to a revolutionary / disruptive energy storage technology.


    So, which is it THHuxleynew , The FPE effect is a yet to be found calorimetry error, or a poorly understood phenomenon that can be developped into a disruptive energy technology if properly understood, but IYO cannot be nuclear? It cannot be all three things.

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

    Thanks 1 Like 1

    I often forget the name of this Russian, Galushkin. His paper from 2020 speaks exactly of the burst type Fleischmann and Pons experiments. I can’t upload here for some quirk of the forum software.


    Mechanism of thermal runaway as a cause of Fleischmann-Pons effect
    Starting from papers by Fleischmann and Pons, many investigators have found the excess power effect during a heavy water electrolysis. They connected …
    doi.org


    From the conclusions:


    “Nevertheless, the obtained by us real specific energy being accumulated by a cathode exceeds significantly the specific energy of contemporary organic energy carriers [45], which opens great possibilities for development of new forms of power industry.


    Undoubtedly, the F-P effect requires further both experimental and theoretical investigations.”

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

    Like 1

    Thanks to this discussion I found a paper I was unaware of, Hideo Kozima published his comment on the Galushkin paper.


    On the paper “Mechanism of thermal runaway as a cause of Fleischmann-Pons effect,” by N.E. Galushkin et al. Published in the Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry, 870, pp. 114237–114246 (2020), ISSN 0022-0728
    The paper “Mechanism of Thermal Runaway as a Cause of Fleischmann-Pons Effect,” by N.E. Galushkin, N.N. Yazvinskaya, D.N. Galushkin, published in the …
    www.sciencedirect.com


    The Galushkin paper has been quoted 10 times, most of them by Galushkin or his collaborators, who all work in NiH batteries research.

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

    Like 1

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.