The perpetual “is LENR even real” argument thread.

Quote from Curbina

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.

You are becoming Jedish here - forcing absolute binary choices onto the world.

Why should "it" have to be one of the other of those things? Why should "it" be restricted to those things?

If excess heat is real - it will be possible to find a reference experiment. While I am very supportive of this, suggest how recent experiments could be turned into reference experiments, you all go round in circles avoiding this:

• No-one can do it because 1 in 100 cathodes work (directly contrary to what Staker says)
• There is no point because everyone knows LENR works
• Making a replicable experiment cannot realistically be done because it costs $10M and even then might not work

There is a fundamental divide between the type of evidence that would convince me (and mots mainstream scientists) and the type of evidence that has convinced those in the filed who are sure LENR is real.

To be fair - I see the vast number of apparent anomalies - and I too think "surely they can't all be errors".

• The things that keeps me balanced is these (and many are the responsibility of the LENR community on this site):
• When you examine any of them minutely they are either never repeated outliers, or they have potential mundane causes which the LENR community has rubbished and refused to check - even though checking that would be quite easy.
• When anomalies are found, there is a refusal specifically to check all of the commonly accepted, but not necessary, assumptions. Like recombination. Like worst case distribution of heat in cell not altering calibration.
• When you look at modern careful replications they show very low levels of anomaly (which therefore could more possibly be mistake and error)
• A reference experiment has not yet been found. Those modern replications apparently are not suitable. How can that be true if they so definitely show LENR and are (as they claim) replicable?
• Things like LEC which are highly interesting but no-one outside LENR field would think them nuclear are thought likely nuclear.
• There is not yet any coherent theory that would make real predictions.
• The UAP thing

So I remain unsure, and mostly negative, except for these things where the above comments break down:

• LEC - interesting effect clearly replicable and unexpected (but no reason to think nuclear)
• Electron shielding, plasmonic surface effects, coherent resonances, etc. Set of things, some replicable and proven, that could potentially make nuclear reactions possible in metal lattices

I think the most fruitful thing for people here to do, if they wish to engage with others, is to realise that not everyone shares their judgements, and that those who are not invested in LENR are less likely to be biassed (though they still may be biassed) than those who are so invested. I accept there are some scientists who look at the lack of high energy products* and think that therefore LENR is vanishingly unlikely. But many just reserve judgment. those will not be swayed by "more of the same". They will be swayed by a reference experiment which is clearly anomalous and can be repeated. And that, from my POV, is entirely fair.

* If they existed we could quickly have a reference experiment - e.g. replace CR39 (less certain) by GM tubes (more certain) placed to check alphas.

UAPs and LENR

NASA has rebranded UFOs as UAPs (Unidentified Aerial Phenomena), and stated it is now interested in understanding them. Laudible. I am not saying that the belief that some UAPs are the result if aliens visiting the earth is identical to a belief in LENR, but there are similarities.

• Both hypotheses are in principle possible
• Both hypotheses are not highly predictive (an alien craft could look like anything, and therefore explain many different otherwise anomalous aerial phenomena)
• Both hypotheses are impossible to disprove
• Both hypotheses are supported by "weight of evidence" arguments
• Both hypotheses (so far) are not replicable.

There are many people who view the UAP alien spacecraft hypothesis is being quite likely, given the evidence. They will not see the last 4 points above as strong negatives. I think the same judgements about fact underlie whether you believe in LENR or not. I will bet that most here do not believe UAPs are alien spacecraft in spite of the 5% or so of UAP anomalies which meet the Jed proof test - that despite best efforts a plausible alternative explanation has been found - they seem genuine anomalies. Some however will.

It is no crime to look at unexplained UAPs and believe they must be alien spacecraft. It is however mistaken if you think that the evidence that convinces you of this must convince anyone else who looks seriously at those (truly difficult to explain) anomalies.

A skeptic like me looks at that stuff, finds the anomalies fascinating, but reckons without a crashed UFO to see that unidentified explanation is very much more likely than unidentified alien object - even if the object sightings have many common features.

Jed sees non-replicable and unpredicted science done by experts as more certain evidence than the 5% of high quality unexplained UFO sightings. I don't. I do see LENR as more likely than alien UFOs because for me the alien UFO hypothesis is a lot less likley than the LENR hypothesis. But, for Jed, all hypotheses require the same evidence, so that would not matter.

THH

Quote from JedRothwell

You will see that the oxygen bubbles go straight up to the surface of the water. They do not impinge on the cathode. So there is no way they could recombine underwater.

Right, except when one of

• The two electrodes are close together
• Bubbles (and water bubbles) occur at a high enough rate for high levels of turbulence in the electrolyte

Staker, for example, has an anode grid fully enclosing his cathode and says that O2 and D2 get well mixed, even though he runs electrolysis relatively slowly.

It is notable that the "chaotic mixing" case scales asymptotically with increasing electrolysis current and hence temperature: the conditions many LENR scientists have identified as important for higher excess heat.

Jed - you make partial arguments contingent on specific conditions that manifestly do not exist in the experiments we have been talking about - and then use then to contradict me.

I have never said "recombination always happens". Nor have a every said "all anomalous LENR electrolysis results can be explained by recombination".

I have said "recombination can sometimes happen, and could happen at a higher than expected rate", so this must be considered carefully in each case, not ruled out based on some other experiment, or different phase of the same experiment.

I hope you can see the logical gaps in your arguments.

Quote from RobertBryant

ATER..,a speculative phenomenon that has never been observed in electrolytic cells.

Let us just say that the evidence for it is similar to that for LENR. Indirect (that excess heat which cannot otherwise be explained).

While ATER has not been directly observed - it is quite plausible given that Pd is a good catalyst.

Of course, I have no idea whether it does exist. However recombination is a known phenomenon in LENR experiments (and others). I think it would be a brave person who could be sure without specific checking what its level will be for some different experiment, or even same experiment with different current (and therefore mixing) or different electrode.

Quote from RobertBryant

Its interesting that Shanahan never came up with a speculative mechanism to explain away solid gas phase anomalous heat results and retired from his anti cold fusion crusade when these became prevalent after 2017

No. I however, having spent more time observing Rossi's antics, do have such a mechanism.

The "Rossi" effect. rossi's apparent results led many people to think "no smoke without fire".

• Ni-H is easier for many people to use than Pd-H - so more inexperienced experimenters join the ring
• Gas-phase calorimetry at high temperatures has subtle artifacts from radiative losses dependent on surface albedo

But I am glad you are making the case for strong evidence from gas-phase calorimetry. Where is it? I have looked with interest at a lot an dnever yet found it. My understanding is that many of these results are replicable - which makes such experiments prime candidates for the missing reference?

if, that is, the results hold up.

Quote from Daniel_G

“

• Gas-phase calorimetry at high temperatures has subtle artifacts from radiative losses dependent on surface albedo

”

Not necessarily.

1)The Jacques Ruer transpiration calorimeter recovers more than 99% of its input energy in the passing air stream.

2) all calorimeters undertake painstaking calibration procedures to track all relative heat flows under controlled conditions which are also followed under test conditions.

In the first case above there are simply no losses to correct for. In the second case all losses are accounted for via pre and post test calibration runs.

I find it hard to comprehend what possible scenario you could imagine where the purported error would be relevant in a proper calorimetric system.

Could you hand hold me a bit and walk me through your thoughts?

Display More

Certainly Daniel,

In the papers I have read on Ni-H excess heat no proper calorimeters have been used. I would be happy for you to point me to open papers that do this: it is certainly possible.

I agree entirely, proper calorimetry can produce accurate results in many circumstances.

I disagree slightly about painstaking calibration. All calibration depends on conditions in calorimeter being the same calibration and control. There are many scenarios where some subtle change in conditions (what it might be depending on the calorimeter) alters things even after painstaking calibration. Jones & Hansen give an example of this point fairly in a reply [1] to Miles [2] that accuracy and precision are not identical. Precision can easily be calculated, and tested. Accuracy always requires assumptions that conditions do not change between calibration and active experiment.

The accuracy of Miles' heat measurements depends on the assumption that the temperature measured by a point sensor accurately represents the average temperature of the calorimeter wall. This can only be tested by checking the calorimeter calibration with a standard chemical reaction with a well-known heat effect. Electrolysis is not an acceptable standard reaction. It has now been over 2 years since our critique² of Miles' calorimetry appeared, but we have not seen any attempt by Miles to verify the accuracy (as opposed to precision) of his calorimeters. During that time we have done further work ⁵ that supports the conclusions in our critique of Miles' work. We have built and operated calorimeters similar to Miles' and shown that heat measurements made with such calorimeters are usually precise, but subject to large systematic errors if stirring is inadequate to validate the above assumption. This is particularly true for experiments involving high heat rates such as are obtained at the high currents used by Miles.

So my thought in specific cases would depend on all of the details of the specific cases.

For [3] https://jcmns.scholasticahq.co…-of-air-flow-calorimetry:

Although the basic principle is simple, the accuracy of the method is influenced by many factors. We will show that

AFC is able to deliver meaningful results with a careful calibration. This paper is an overview of the main parameters

involved in air flow calorimetry, the possible problems that may affect the accuracy and the potential solutions to solve

these problems.

In [3] the summary of potential errors is fair - with one possible source not mentioned: potential radiative, convective, or conductive transfer from reactor surface, or heated inner baffles, to the output TC. This obviously can quite easily be minimised: but that needs careful checking. In [3] the following things can limit accuracy even with an (achievable) 99% heat capture:

• errors in air speed measurement
• errors in input temperature measurement
• errors in output temperature measurement

[1] Steven E. Jones,, Lee D. Hansen, and, David S. Shelton. An Assessment of Claims of Excess Heat in Cold Fusion Calorimetry. The Journal of Physical Chemistry B 1998, 102 (18) , 3647-3647. https://doi.org/10.1021/jp962038x

[2] Reply to “Examination of Claims of Miles et al. in Pons−Fleischmann-Type Cold Fusion Experiments”

Melvin H. Miles The Journal of Physical Chemistry B 1998 102 (18), 3642-3646 DOI: 10.1021/jp961751j

Quote from orsova

So long as you refuse to look carefully at the work that has been suggested to you, you have no right to make binary, reductive and absolute claims like the above. Moreover, you have no right to lecture others in the verbose and condescending manner that you sometimes lapse into.

I apologise for my manner. But I have every right to pontificate in a verbose manner here - just as Jed has a right, which he exercises repeatedly, to insult me and make false claims about my errors. I mean - I make errors. but Jed assumes everything I say is an error and insults me with it - even when his comments are obviously incorrect (as I show).

You might imagine that my verbiosity comes from this continual barrage of inaccurate insults. And I have every right to reply to them.

reductive and absolute claim?

If excess heat is real - it will be possible to find a reference experiment.

I used a future tense (look, more verbiosity and pontification, but you, too, encourage it).

is my statement really reductive and absolute? It is not a very strong statement because I do not say when it will be possible to do this.

Take the counterfactual:

Even if excess heat is real, It will never be possible to find a reference experiment.

Suppose it is true - you are saying that it might plausibly be true. That means, for example:

• There will never be commercially useful LENR (could simply be repurposed into a reference experiment)
• None of the current experiments (e.g. the ones Daniel is doing) are both certain and replicable

Now that seems to me reductionist and absolute.

Quote from orsova

You undermine your own position by opting not to look at credible answers to your prior requests for a reference experiment.

I have opted to look at what was posted - but while I can idly and quickly post stuff now I cannot spend the length of time needed to do that yet. I have given my time frame and would only undermine my position on that thread if I did not meet it.

Unless you meant something other than "Jed's 3 best"? I think I looked at anything else proposed.

Quote from JedRothwell

ou explain away Staker's results by recombination. That is incorrect because his heat far exceeds the limits of recombination, and Staker would see there is recombination, so he would not be fooled.

I really want to leave this - but i'm a sucker for Jed saying false things I can correct. here goes:

1) I do not try to explain away Staker's results (all of them) via recombination. We agree the burst heat after higher temps cannot be so explained. In fact I initially did not look at that closely, you pointed it out, I agreed with you (and thanked you). Evidence that I change my mind and admit error. something i'd more of on this site.

2) It is true that the amount of possible recombination, undetected because Staker does (it seems) not bother to detect evaporation, is about the same as the excess heat results. That would be close to 100% recombination - but Staker has quite an unusual electrode setup and runs his experiment slowly, it is in theory possible.

3) You argue that very high recombination is not possible. But with no evidence it is impossible. Just "it does not usually happen at high rates". That is not enough when comparing it with LENR, which also does not usually happen (well - skeptics would say there is as yet no evidence it happens at all). It si circular argument to say LENR happens, if you reckon already that LENR happens. So recombination must be checked. Staker did NOT check it - for the quite complex reasons I have previously pointed out. That is, he does not say he checks it, but also he does not do the measurements needed to check it and his methodology makes that difficult. So it is pretty clear he does not check it.

4) In fact, in spite of all that - I don't THINK recombination is an issue for Staker. But I now do not trust his results because what he says in his paper is not exactly possible, you have to suppose he does something different to make things work from what he says like adjusting the fill-up to account for different evaporation at different temps. That is not what he says he does, and in fact he explicitly says he presets fill-up rate based on tables. So while many things are good about his approach all the details do not add up and in that situation his work cannot be trusted.

As often, the real situation, and my views, are complex. (I mean - my views may not be identical to what is real - but both are complex in this case).

The key difference between us is this: you say:

"Staker would see there is recombination, so he would not be fooled"

I say:

"In Staker's system calculated evaporation is about equal the amount of recombination that would deliver the stated excess heat. Staker dismisses evaporation is small and does not measure it. Therefore he might well miss recombination."

Your view is based on "what usually happens" and "Staker is a good electrochemist" and "scientists never make mistakes of that type".

Well I have no reason based on qualifications to think Staker is a particularly experienced electrochemist. His work has been in Material Science. So he could easily have made a mistake: we will never know because the details of his experiment cannot be identical to his write-up, and therefore are undocumented.

My view in any case, unlike yours, ignores qualifications. It is based on a detailed (more so than you) reading of his two linked papers + (limited) personal communication.

THH