The perpetual “is LENR even real” argument thread.

  • Furthermore, you said "they could all be missing the same thing." That statement is not falsifiable. You have to tell us what thing they might all be missing.

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

    Therefore I do not need to tell you what they might all be missing.


    I don't mind LENR being a possible explanation for these anomalies. That is - except that a specific theory which works for the anomaly specifics needs to be worked out, fine. I don't expect a specific theory to be easy to work out and I am happy to have LENR as a possible, unfalsifiable, explanation for this stuff.


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


    Although LENR is unfalsifiable, it is provable. Just one lab rate obvious clear and certain (reproducible so it can be examined properly) anomaly-generating experiment would do that.


    Oh - don't say LEC. LEC is an obvious and clear interesting anomaly - but not one that requires LENR to explain it.

  • 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

  • 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.


    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.

  • 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.

    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. Any measurement wildly out would be discarded as leakage or bad cathode etc etc. Some people do not find Tritium - it is explained as something wrong with the experiment (or in at least one case with the experimenter!).


    There is no way that those tritium experimental results could disprove LENR.


    "Showing all those experiments wrong" is not a disproof. A disproof is where a reproducible experiment is supposed to have a given result - the reproducible lack of which disproves the theory. Not, when given a whole load of different experiments that claim to have different anomalies at very low levels but could have contamination, errors, etc, etc, work out exactly what is wrong with each of them.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

    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.

  • 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.

    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.

  • 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)


    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.

  • 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.

    Et tu brute.


    You, as always, have a touching faith that a very complex experiment with many possible error sources showing a positive result must be 100% certain. it's not true.


    In this case you talk about the certainty of the tritium measurement. I agree, that is the most certain aspect of the thing.


    Then there is:

    • contamination (liquid)
    • contamination (from electrode)
    • concentration (from electrolysis).
    • no doubt a few other things I cannot think of.


    The thing about T is the mass difference from H or even D is high, so physical concentration effects are relatively large. It just makes the list of things that need to be ruled out harder.


    You will say: those were all considered and dismissed. Sure, but that is always based on assumptions. The experiments with marginal results cannot be certain. If they were, and showed clearly higher than any contamination levels of T, it would be a great reproducible way to prove LENR. As for, in some cases 1000 times. Well, in some cases contamination cannot be ruled out. And the question is also, if all these effects are LENR why is T on one occasion 1000X higher than at other times. Contamination looks a much more likely candidate for that. Quoting it as support is bad science.


    The main difference I have observed over the years here between Jed and me, on many topics, is that Jed is more certain about experimental science than me. He believes, to take just one example, that famous calorimetrists cannot be wrong. Even when the video evidence from their most famous experiment (the thing I am not allowed to talk about here) is not consistent with the claims in the paper describing it - which itself has many holes.

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.