They use strong alkaline D2O, which load D+ into metal with OD-, not with D+, thus the paradium need to be positive in place of negative, which is the current incorrect condition of strong alkaline D2O Cold Fusion.
But many have used acid electrolytes,
Our entire experience of knowledge leads to an insane conclusion:
Nuclear fusion LENR always occurs with any movement of matter!!!
Biberian tried successfully also protonic conductors D2 loaded.
But many have used acid electrolytes,
Display More
https://www.cleanplanet.co.jp/technology/Note that QHe mechanism is incorrect because Cold Fusion will not be patented due to no common understanding of Cold Fusion mechanism.
Because patent examiners should not be involved in determining the principle of cold fusion, patent application of Cold Fusion will not be patented.
Thus all of the reasearchers must discuss the mechanism of Cold Fyusion in the Society of Physics, including nuclear physics.
Cold Fusion is caused by femto-D2 which electron orbit is at a few femto meters from the nucleus.
but transmutation experiment by Iwamura is inconsistent with nuclear physics because the experiments showed that d is constituted by two protons not by proton and beutron.
Correct Nucleus Model Proved by Transmutation Experiment by Cold Fusion.pdf
Thus common understanding in Physics Society must have the discussion that current nucleus model is incorrect.
No other way to make Cold Fusion real science.
femto-H2 decomposed by bibration of H-H at high heat, so it will be two neutrons( proton with electron in deep orbit)
Water can trigger nuclear reaction to produce energy and isotope gases
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38167629/
The reason (8) above is possible is because neutrin is a pair of proton and electron in deep orbit.
P is a proton with electron in deep orbit.
In other words, femtohydrogen molecules decompose into femtohydrogen atoms at high temperatures.
Because neutrons are formed.
This means that the idea that neutrons are composite particles of protons and electrons in deep electron orbits is correct.
The author has been contacted.
Therefore I think that "As a result of the reaction, copper is synthesized from nickel and a large amount of thermal energy is released!!!" is correct.
This can be a new version of Cold Fusion and I hope this trigger the discussion that current nucleus model is incorrect.
This is a great example of what I DO NOT LIKE about the field of LENR.
I agree that this would be a great thing to master, but the problem arises with the fact that even though this is a proper reaction (real and factual) we simply generally do not even believe it is possible.
The experimental results are trace qtys of 17O and 22Ne. We'd need a person very experienced in mass spectometry (not sure if any are here) to determine what are the possible false positives reading spectra and therefore how reliable are these results. There is no serious exploration of this possibility in the paper. Nor of reaction-induced outgassing or ingress of material that could lead to these results (Ne22 is 10% isotopic distribution of normal Ne). Thus it can be a combination of these two potential mechanisms which opens up a lot of things to consider and rule out.
Many people here present the straw man that such reactions are not believed because of the Coulomb barrier and the perceived difficulty of making nuclear reactions happen.
I disagree, Personally, I have no problem envisaging weird QM processes that allow normally forbidden nuclear transitions. Many such processes have been suggested here.
The problem with the "low-level nuclear reactions of many different sorts happen quite easily" is what happens to the excess energy. It goes like this:
Hagelstein noted this a long time ago and I know tried for quite a while to find solutions. That work or equivalent, if it had experimental evidence and the theory panned out, is what this "lots of nuclear reactions happen" view needs for people to start entertaining it as a sane hypothesis.
And remember - we need not just a "could possibly happen" coupling method. We need a reason why ONLY those nuclear reactions that couple near 100% in this way are allowed: otehrwise we would be getting clearly unambuguous high energy product signatures.
The disconnect for me here is that when you look holistically at the whole problem - people do not join these dots and instead suspend disbelief in this area (where are the high energy results?). Because if you had to characterise what was special about LENR you would say:
LENR reactions do not produce high energy result particles, nor unstable reaction products.
And the skeptics like me would note that this needs an explanation, and there is one obvious candidate:
"The apparent LENR reactions are in fact not nuclear reactions."
which ticks all the boxes in explaining this characteristic.
So: to make this type of "everywhere in many ways" LENR believable I need a better answer to the question: "where are the high energy products / unstable products"?". And I think most physicists who look at the LENR collection of evidence seriously would have the same question.
The expected high energy particles are never observed
This is how deniers work: Postulating nonsense, hence absence of nonsense = prove for non existence of something very real and easy to reproduce. Almost all loading of Ni with D produces a short gamma burst starting with the lines of 62Zn.
This is something old school SM adepts never will understand as I wrote: They do not master physics despite a master in physics.
The experimental results are trace qtys of 17O and 22Ne. We'd need a person very experienced in mass spectometry (not sure if any are here)
This comment was made in another thread. Maybe it was moved here? I responded as follows:
You are not sure? Try reading the paper. It says:
L.T. built the test system. C.K. carried out Neon gas detection. I.F. assisted in test system integration
2 Advanced Thermal Devices (ATD), Inc., Konglin Group, New Taipei City, Taiwan. 3 Mastek Technologies,
Inc., New Taipei City, Taiwan. 4 Institute of Nuclear Engineering and Science, National Tsing Hua University, Hsinchu, Taiwan. 5
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, NV, USA. 6 Department of Mechanical Engineering, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan.
https://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/HuangBJwatercantr.pdf
Anyone can see those people are very experienced in mass spectroscopy. That does not mean they are right, but for you to suggest they are inexperienced is preposterous.
By the way, many months ago, you agreed to tell us why there are major errors in some of the top cold fusion papers. You can pick one or two papers by Fleischmann, Miles or McKubre. You never reported back. Did you find any errors? What are they?
By the way, many months ago, you agreed to tell us why there are major errors in some of the top cold fusion papers.
I mention this because you claimed you know more about electrochemistry and calorimetry than world-class experts such as Fleischmann and McKubre, and now you claim you know more about spectroscopy than the people who manufacture the instruments, who you say are inexperienced amateurs. This is not credible. If you want readers here to believe you, you should make your case. Tell us why McKubre is wrong.
you know more about electrochemistry and calorimetry
now you claim you know more about spectroscopy
Circuitology covers a lot of fields..eg electrical
and 'technological transformation" even more
Circuitology covers a lot of fields..eg electrical
and 'technological transformation" even more
Translating and editing scientific papers also cover a lot of fields, but doing these things has never made me think I know more about electrochemistry than Martin Fleischmann, or more about spectroscopy than the people who design and manufacture the instruments. On the contrary, it makes me realize how little I know.
THHuxleynew suffers from a bloated ego. He claims there are problems with papers by McKubre, but he has never found any significant problem, and he never will. He said he would tell us about these imaginary errors, but he never will. He claims to be a skeptic but he is anything but. He immediately latches on to any half-baked, groundless objection such as the notion that the people in Taiwan are "inexperienced." He will never admit that was an absurd thing to say.
Display MoreThis comment was made in another thread. Maybe it was moved here? I responded as follows:
You are not sure? Try reading the paper. It says:
L.T. built the test system. C.K. carried out Neon gas detection. I.F. assisted in test system integration
2 Advanced Thermal Devices (ATD), Inc., Konglin Group, New Taipei City, Taiwan. 3 Mastek Technologies,
Inc., New Taipei City, Taiwan. 4 Institute of Nuclear Engineering and Science, National Tsing Hua University, Hsinchu, Taiwan. 5
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, NV, USA. 6 Department of Mechanical Engineering, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan.
https://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/HuangBJwatercantr.pdf
Anyone can see those people are very experienced in mass spectroscopy. That does not mean they are right, but for you to suggest they are inexperienced is preposterous.
By the way, many months ago, you agreed to tell us why there are major errors in some of the top cold fusion papers. You can pick one or two papers by Fleischmann, Miles or McKubre. You never reported back. Did you find any errors? What are they?
Sorry JedRothwell , I copied this post in bjhuang ’s thread for answering to THHuxleynew , because this thread is becoming increasingly off topic.
THHuxleynew suffers from a bloated ego
I will say he seems to be using "we" more often...as in being part of the team trying to get to the bottom of this. That is a start, and we can work on that bloated ego later on. 
Display MoreThis comment was made in another thread. Maybe it was moved here? I responded as follows:
You are not sure? Try reading the paper. It says:
L.T. built the test system. C.K. carried out Neon gas detection. I.F. assisted in test system integration
2 Advanced Thermal Devices (ATD), Inc., Konglin Group, New Taipei City, Taiwan. 3 Mastek Technologies,
Inc., New Taipei City, Taiwan. 4 Institute of Nuclear Engineering and Science, National Tsing Hua University, Hsinchu, Taiwan. 5
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, NV, USA. 6 Department of Mechanical Engineering, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan.
https://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/HuangBJwatercantr.pdf
Anyone can see those people are very experienced in mass spectroscopy. That does not mean they are right, but for you to suggest they are inexperienced is preposterous.
By the way, many months ago, you agreed to tell us why there are major errors in some of the top cold fusion papers. You can pick one or two papers by Fleischmann, Miles or McKubre. You never reported back. Did you find any errors? What are they?
Jed,
It is true that I do not wish to be a bore here. You remember the MAJOR PAPER that we discussed for a long time which had major errors in? That was the paper associated with F&P video (foamgate) showing heat after death.
The blatant discrepancies there were so unanswerable (literally - no-one answered the statements of errors) that the topic was banned here. I refer anyone wanting to continue that conversation (I will not) to the thread then.
And quite right too! This forum is for what people here want to discuss. You would like me to propose major errors in papers only if you can dismiss them. And, i suspect you usually can, and that is because you have different standards from me about what set of results is definitive. Look at all the flaky modern stuff we people here view it is likely LENR and it is just pseudo-science or (more charitably) interesting difficult to explain phenomena. The fact that LENR can be used to explain suhc things means that it is too imprecisely defined to be science - and therefore pseudo-science. The bits of LENR that are science (and they exist) can be better confirmed, or refuted, by current experiments. While there is no negative experiment that would for you refute LENR, it is not, for you, science.
I look at the progression of evidence. I personally think that the early papers on excess heat from D2O-Pd electrolysis are more convincing than any other of the corpus of LENR evidence. And that for me is a big negative. I would agree that the NAE hypothesis is plausible and might account for such excess heat. But also that the same work - where active environments in Pd can perform unexpected catalytic reactions - offers possible non-nuclear explanations for enough of the evidence that the rest loses coherence.
And that is where we part company. For you, once that stuff is proved, it is proved. There is not need for coherence.
I very much welcome the convergence of Material Science, theory (a whole load of screening + resonance + coherent behaviour ideas) and experiment - measuring reaction rates from lowish-energy collisions etc. That is real science which might explain some of the results as unexpected nuclear reactions. It might also explain relative lack of reaction products from certain specific reactions: though it is a bit of a coincidence that those are the only ones that happen to be allowed by screening/resonances/etc.
Why am I pessimistic? The arguments for absence of high energy reaction products remain very speculative. I know there is a putative branching ratio change idea together with lowish energy alphas being blocked that might help. We will see. It looks contrived to me - but i will like it a lot more if it leads to doable experiments which can confirm or refute it.
The post-google (actually - though I hate to say it - post-Rossi - to give credit where it is due) influx of interest and money should make things less speculative. If those old experiments were real we now know so much more that we should have much clearer results soon (maybe we should already have had them - it has been some time). We do not yet. It is perfectly fair to live in hope.
Give me an experiment that confirms or refutes LENR?
Or, more narrowly, give me an experiment that confirms or refutes those old D2O/Pd excess heat experiments?
The modern ones are characterised by results that get smaller when the experiments get higher accuracy and more certainty, or experiments with large uncertainties or lack of replication (Mizuno's untestable by anyone else super-reactors). I bet before Ed did his "relatively cheap" accurate calorimetry, together with careful cathode selection, he expected he would get results as good as other less accurate and careful experiments. It is what i would expect were the effect real. In which case that would have been lab rat proof of LENR and even without disprovability the results would be so interesting to non-believers that effort would go into the field. But the nature of LENR is that no experiment can disprove it. That is what makes it non-science. Specific hypotheses within LENR can be disproved, or proved. They are science. And post-google much effort is going into some of those hypotheses.
I live in (some) hope. Mainly because I am an eternal optimist. I will start being more interested when the comment here and elsewhere centres around real science.
Oh - and to keep Alan happy - yes LEC is real interesting science. I've yet to see anything that makes LENR a likely explanation for it - unless you already think LENR is a common effect. LENR is so un-predictive that it can be used to explain almost any weird results...
THH
The fact that LENR can be used to explain suhc things means that it is too imprecisely defined to be science - and therefore pseudo-science.
I would remind you that something that is not falsifiable is definitely not science. For example, the scientific claims that come out of CERN are not falsifiable, because nobody else has the equipment to replicate them, so that never happens, the algorithms used to extract results are secret and thus not available for error checking, and the raw data itself is never released.
Apart from those problems I believe every claim they make. Even if the evidence is not so much imprecisely defined as totally invisible, because they all have nice clean lab coats.
It is true that I do not wish to be a bore here. You remember the MAJOR PAPER that we discussed for a long time which had major errors in? That was the paper associated with F&P video (foamgate) showing heat after death.
The heat after death occurred after the alleged foam (the boil off). The method of measuring it had nothing to do with the boil off. See:
https://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJreviewofth.pdf pages 15 and 18
Furthermore:
In short, the there is not a shred of evidence for the "foamgate" assertion, and it is physically impossible.
I have said all of this before but you -- of course -- never acknowledge it.
The blatant discrepancies there were so unanswerable (literally - no-one answered the statements of errors) that the topic was banned here. I refer anyone wanting to continue that conversation (I will not) to the thread then.
There are no such discrepancies. I and others answered your statements many times, and so did the papers from F&P. The topic was not banned here. I repeat: You have never discovered a single substantive error in any paper by Fleischmann, McKubre, Storms, Miles or any other leading author. Imaginary and impossible errors do not count.
I would remind you that something that is not falsifiable is definitely not science. For example, the scientific claims that come out of CERN are not falsifiable, because nobody else has the equipment to replicate them, so that never happens, the algorithms used to extract results are secret and thus not available for error checking, and the raw data itself is never released.
Apart from those problems I believe every claim they make. Even if the evidence is not so much imprecisely defined as totally invisible, because they all have nice clean lab coats.
Sorry, but according to Popper’s criterion, a scientific theory must have the possibility of falsifiability (the possibility of fundamentally falsifiability experimentally), and not immediate falsifiability, that is, a scientific theory cannot be fundamentally irrefutable.
Display MoreWhy am I pessimistic? The arguments for absence of high energy reaction products remain very
Give me an experiment that confirms or refutes LENR?
Or, more narrowly, give me an experiment that confirms or refutes those old D2O/Pd excess heat experiments?
The modern ones are characterised by results that get smaller when the experiments get higher accuracy and more certainty, or experiments with large uncertainties or lack of replication (Mizuno's untestable by anyone else super-reactors). I bet before Ed did his "relatively cheap" accurate calorimetry, together with careful cathode selection, he expected he would get results as good as other less accurate and careful experiments. It is what i would expect were the effect real. In which case that would have been lab rat proof of LENR and even without disprovability the results would be so interesting to non-believers that effort would go into the field. But the nature of LENR is that no experiment can disprove it. That is what makes it non-science. Specific hypotheses within LENR can be disproved, or proved. They are science. And post-google much effort is going into some of those hypotheses.
I live in (some) hope. Mainly because I am an eternal optimist. I will start being more interested when the comment here and elsewhere centres around real science.
Oh - and to keep Alan happy - yes LEC is real interesting science. I've yet to see anything that makes LENR a likely explanation for it - unless you already think LENR is a common effect. LENR is so un-predictive that it can be used to explain almost any weird results...
THH
Why such pessimism? Look out the window! Nature moves and changes. This means that cold nuclear fusion occurs in it! Only in such a paradigm can one live and learn the secret of cold nuclear fusion!
Sorry, but according to Popper’s criterion, a scientific theory must have the possibility of falsifiability
I'm sorry if I was not clear. My point was that the claims from CERN (for example) do not have any possibility of being falsified, in that nobody has access to the machine, the raw data, or the data engineering methods used. It might be good science, it might not, but nobody outside CERN could ever know.
nobody outside CERN could ever know
and nobody inside CERN will even glance at LENR..
its contrary to the HENR dogma .
They are still in the Collision age of Nuclear Physics
You remember the MAJOR PAPER that we discussed for a long time which had major errors in?
Yes we all remember your mental troubles claiming to see bubbles at a time where there was no water at all...
Did you finally consult a health professional?
Sorry, but according to Popper’s criterion, a scientific theory must have the possibility of falsifiability (the possibility of fundamentally falsifiability experimentally), and not immediate falsifiability, that is, a scientific theory cannot be fundamentally irrefutable.
That is correct, and it is important. A classic example of this was when someone asked J. B. S. Haldane: What would disprove evolution? He said, "fossil rabbits in the Precambrian." That does not mean anyone expects find fossil rabbits in Precambrian rocks. As far as anyone knows, that is impossible. However, if rabbits were found it would disprove much of evolutionary theory. It is a logical assertion, not an assertion about what is likely to happen, or what can happen.
Cold fusion is predicated on calorimetry, which in turn is based on the second law of thermodynamics. The only way you can disprove cold fusion is to show that heat can of itself pass from a cooler body to a hotter body. Hypothetically, someone might devise an experiment that does this, but you will not find a single physicist or chemist who thinks that that could happen. As a practical matter, the second law is irrefutable, and that makes cold fusion irrefutable.
To put it another way, THHuxleynew has to prove that every major type of calorimetry, including isoperibolic, phase change, temperature based, flow and Seebeck does not work. Or they have worked in millions of experiments over the last 250 years, but for unknown reasons they failed in thousands of cold fusion experiments done by world class experts. His hypothesis is that these experts made thousands of mistakes for 30 years. There is not a single valid example of excess heat. Yet no skeptic, including THHuxleynew himself, has ever found one of these errors. If there was even one valid experiment, that would prove cold fusion exists, and the other 9,999 mistakes would not disprove anything. So the skeptics must show that every single published positive experiment is wrong. Of course the other 9,999 are not wrong! If hundreds of experts could make undetected, unknown errors using 250-year-old techniques, experimental science itself would not work. We would still be living in caves. It is astounding that any scientist believes such nonsense.
