The perpetual “is LENR even real” argument thread.

Quote from THHuxleynew

Let me give you an example. Compare the excess heat found by Ed in recent work with that claimed from early experiments. You think the magnitude of FPE effect is comparable? Perhaps I should check this to be sure - so i am willing to be corrected with figures after we have agreed exactly how we are comparing numbers, but my understanding is that it was a good deal lower.

Nobody is trying to produce the same power in different experiments. I wish they would, but only Lonchampt the engineer from the French AEC did that.

The experiments are all different. Despite that, power and energy output per gram of nuclear active material, with the same starting materials, at a given temperature, at the same loading level, is comparable between experiments. You can see this in the comparisons made at SRI between their experiments and the ENEA, and the comparison between SRI and Kunimatsu. By "starting materials" I mean either bulk palladium, or palladium powder, or one of the nickel powders. Those three are all different, but when you compare bulk-Pd from one lab to bulk-Pd at another lab, and you adjust for temperatures, the results are in the same ballpark. Or smack on top of one another comparing SRI to the ENEA. SRI and ENEA experiments were about the most similar ones in the literature as far as I know. SRI used cathodes supplied by the ENEA. See:

https://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/McKubre-graph-1.jpg

https://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHcoldfusionb.pdf Figure 3.

Needless to say, it is difficult to make those comparisons, because people use widely varying amounts of material and temperatures. Mizuno ran a 100 g cathode at above boiling temperatures (more than 100 deg C in a pressurized cell). It produced ~100 W for 15 days with no input power, or 85 MJ. That's about 10 MJ/cc. Mike Staker ran a cathode weighing 0.06 g. It produced 150 MJ/cc over a much longer period, at a much lower temperature. Taking one thing and another, the power per cubic centimeter was roughly comparable. What matters is they are far beyond the limits of chemistry, and the s/n ratio of the calorimetry was high in both cases.

https://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTnucleartra.pdf

https://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StakerMRhowtoachie.pdf

Quote from THHuxleynew

You are correct. it is not falsifiable. But, you need to admit also that LENR - as a hypothesis - is equally unfalsifiable.

It is easily falsified. We know for a fact that LENR is deuterium nuclear fusion. It produces helium in the same ratio to heat as one D+D plasma fusion reaction path. Therefore, at some level, it is the same fusion reaction. We also know it is a nuclear reaction because it produces tritium. To falsify it, all you have to do is show that all of the tritium and helium measurements are wrong.

The mechanism of the fusion reaction is not known, but we can still be sure it is fusion. The starting material and ending products are the same. This resembles Lavoisier's claim in 1780 that combustion and metabolism are the same process. He measured heat and CO2 from combustion, and then he put a guinea pig into a calorimeter and measured the heat and CO2 from metabolism. The ratio of heat to CO2 was the same. He did not know how metabolism works. That was not established until 1937, by Krebs. But there was no question they are the same basic process. The Krebs cycle is multi-step and quite different from combustion. I suppose cold fusion is similar: multi-step compared to plasma fusion. In both cases, deuterons fuse to form helium and 24 MeV of energy per helium atom. That's fusion, by definition.

Quote from THHuxleynew

Against, that, the other unfalsifiable explanations need to be considered.

No unfalsified explanations can be considered. That would be like considering magical hocus-pocus. There is no basis to consider them. No criteria to judge them by. They are not scientific.

Quote from Gennadiy Tarassenko

You're a good plagiarist, but you write more about electrogravity, it's very good for me, write. Yes, did I give this data to 25 ICCF? Where did you get the electric gravity, we'll see, but I have everything

In T. Matsumoto’s introduction in “Steps to the Discovery of Electro-Nuclear Collapse” (January 5, 2000) he says:

“Far in the universe, a large amount of stars repeat their generation and depletion. Neutron stars and black holes could be produced by gravitational collapse of those massive stars. However, similar reactions should be easily induced by the electromagnetic force, since it is about 40 orders stronger than the gravitational force. Recently, during the study of so-called Cold Fusion (CF) phenomena, the author discovered a nuclear collapse which was directly induced by the electromagnetic force (August 25, 1990). The phenomenon was called Electro-Nuclear Collapse (ENC), which was one of the most remarkable ENRs. (ENR, Electro-Nuclear Reaction).

I have referred to force in Matsumoto work as electrogravity rather than electro-nuclear collapse but that is not plagiarism. I used the term electrogravity to define via a mathematical model the exact value of the gravitation constant which couples “pseudo-electrons”. A partial description of the analysis, math and logic to show Matsumoto likely did indeed photograph blackholes is not appropriate to this thread but I intent to provide a pdf with a full description in the other thread.

Quote from THHuxleynew

That is not true. Due to inaccuracy in measurements, uncertainty as to how much tritium is retained in metal lattice etc, those measurements have wiggle room.

No, they do not have significant "wiggle room" (margin of error). You made that up. Helium has been confirmed in 4 major studies. The China Lake study confirmed the results in double blind tests at three of the best helium spectrometers in the world. The Italian ENEA (national labs) used the best instruments in Europe. Tritium has been confirmed in over 100 labs, in some cases at thousands of times background.

You made that up, as I said. You cannot just make things up and declare that A, B and C are true because you say so. Science does not work that way. You have to cite actual facts, and real sources. You have to tell us what "wiggle room" there is in the China Lake and ENEA studies. You have show why they are wrong. You must show this with as much rigor as the authors of these studies demonstrated they are right. You have to start by reading them -- which of course you have not done, and you will not do.

This discussion is the most gross waste of time I have ever seen. This is like trying to debate the question "Is the Earth really round or Does the Earth really revolve around the Sun?". We have intelligence and talent on this Forum. Why not use it productively? Why not try to figure out how LENR works? A Nobel Prize and millions in profit would be the reward.

Quote from THHuxleynew

you need to admit also that LENR - as a hypothesis - is equally unfalsifiable.

Try once to falsify that a cow never gives milk...

I could falsify our LENR gamma radiation!! I did see small green man behind the house...Just one bottle of wine had to be invested....to attract them...

To many junk scientists live on our planet!

I should not have to tell you this but the idea for the need to falsify an idea only applies to mathematics. It does not apply to physical observations. Numerous people seeing the same behavior verify physical observations. The need to falsify does not apply.

In the case of cold fusion, the behavior has been witnessed hundreds of times by many dozens of people using a variety of methods. Overwhelming evidence supports the reality. The only question is, “How does the fusion process work”? I have explained the basic process while using ALL of the observed behavior. No other “theory” does this. If you want to be useful, I suggest you discuss my ideas wuith the goal to understand the details that must operate to cause the observed behavior. The Nobel Prize is hiding in the details.

I don't know if most of people try to reach a Nobel Prize and if it's a relevable target finally.

Quote from Storms

I should not have to tell you this but the idea for the need to falsify an idea only applies to mathematics. It does not apply to physical observations. Numerous people seeing the same behavior verify physical observations. The need to falsify does not apply.

In the case of cold fusion, the behavior has been witnessed hundreds of times by many dozens of people using a variety of methods. Overwhelming evidence supports the reality. The only question is, “How does the fusion process work”? I have explained the basic process while using ALL of the observed behavior. No other “theory” does this. If you want to be useful, I suggest you discuss my ideas wuith the goal to understand the details that must operate to cause the observed behavior. The Nobel Prize is hiding in the details.

Of course, most people do not try to reach a Nobel Prize. The Prize is given when a new understanding of Nature is achieved at the basic level. Cold fusion is impossible to explain using the present understanding of Nature. Therefore, a new natural process is involved. This new process will involve a new and important understanding of Nature, or more exactly electron behavior. Electrons apparently behave in ways that have never before been considered. Instead of discussing pure imagination fueled by ego, let's discuss where the "gold" is actually buried.

I propose to organize an open competition at the Forum LENR with the aim of theoretically and experimentally solving the problem of cold nuclear fusion.

Quote from Aleksandr Nikitin

I propose to organize an open competition at the Forum LENR with the aim of theoretically and experimentally solving the problem of cold nuclear fusion.

Within at least one experimental framework my good friend Ed Storms ( Storms above) has solved the problem of reproducible LENR.

Well, your game is already over, you just to ask the DOE/DOD to know the truth, if they are willing to .

Quote from Aleksandr Nikitin

I propose to organize an open competition at the Forum LENR with the aim of theoretically and experimentally solving the problem of cold nuclear fusion.

Well, ok, what should happen when an Hydrogen or D will touch with its electron another nucleus when its external electrons stay exactly at opposite side ? That implies a kind of kinetic coupling between them.

Quote from Storms

Electrons apparently behave in ways that have never before been considered.

Hi Alan,

The behavior has been and can be reproduced many different ways using electrolysis, direct reaction with D2 or H2 gas, application of low voltage gas discharge, or by laser stimulation. Making a material nuclear active is the only challenge. The present conflict in understanding involves how to form the nuclear active environment ( NAE). Once the NAE is formed, the conflict in understanding involves how the hydrogen nuclei are assembled and how the resulting Coulomb barrier is reduced. The next conflict involves how the energy is dissipated such that the momentum can be conserved when only a single nuclear product is formed. In other words, a series of mysteries must be solved with each solution being consistent with all the others. Right now, such consistency does not exist in any of the popular explanations. I have tried to achieve such consistency in my explanation.

Quote from Drgenek

When I joined LENR forum I wanted to discuss nuclear reactions that occur without meeting the Lawson Criterion. Is LENR even real? Perhaps LENR isn't real; it depends on how one defines it. What is real is fusion without meeting the Lawson Criterion. I hope by my participation in this forum that people would become curious about a proof I have. I believe that anyone logical enough and with at least the skill to follow the logic and put numbers into a spreadsheet can verify A Data Derived Balanced Equation for ICFP.pdf

Over my years on this forum, I have produced other analyses to provide a more complete understanding of how this kind of fusion happens. I link here to string for that discussion.

Electrogravity (electron-gravity) as a cause of nuclear reactions. - Physics - LENR Forum (lenr-forum.com)

Quote from Drgenek

When I joined LENR forum I wanted to discuss nuclear reactions that occur without meeting the Lawson Criterion. Is LENR even real? Perhaps LENR isn't real; it depends on how one defines it. What is real is fusion without meeting the Lawson Criterion. I hope by my participation in this forum that people would become curious about a proof I have. I believe that anyone logical enough and with at least the skill to follow the logic and put numbers into a spreadsheet can verify A Data Derived Balanced Equation for ICFP.pdf

Over my years on this forum, I have produced other analyses to provide a more complete understanding of how this kind of fusion happens. I link here to string for that discussion.

Electrogravity (electron-gravity) as a cause of nuclear reactions. - Physics - LENR Forum (lenr-forum.com)

Cold Fusion is NOT plasma fusion, thus the condition of lawson criteria is not applicable to Cold Fusion.

Cold Fusion is caused by femto-D2 which electron orbit is at a few femto meters from d.

thus covalent electron can shield the coulomb repulsive force between d-d.

In place of D2, H2 is easier to explain the feature of femto-H2, because H2 is used in industry.

femto-H2 cause hydrogen embrittlement.

I explained the mechanism of cold fusion in the paper below.

DOI : https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7894536

Hi nkodama

I do not want to be insulting but your attached description of cold fusion is word salad. It has no meaning either in chemistry or physics. So, I have no idea how to reply. If you want to make a useful comment, you need to learn and acknowledge how the process actually behaves and how elections are known to behave. For example, what you call fento-H2 does not exist in Nature. The D2 molecule, which contains two electrons, does not fuse under any condition. The electrons do not bring the two nuclei together.

You are correct in saying that the Lawson criteria does not apply because the effect does not occur in plasma. In fact, when fusion occurs in plasma at high applied energy, the fusion process involves a different mechanism and produces different nuclear products. Therefore, these two kinds of fusion have NO relationship to each other.

You are correct in saying that electrons are required to lower the Coulomb barrier. How you apply this idea is the problem because you ignore the observed behavior. Please read my paper before trying to explain something.