Друга верни, который из-за тебя ушел отсюда, не хорошо делаешь...
The perpetual “is LENR even real” argument thread.
-
-
Display More
I agree with what you say, but not that this makes a collectively stronger for a common nuclear origin because by definition positive LENR results are those that imply nuclear origin and therefore they are looked for (by these experiments). Any such anomaly counts as positive - any negative (no anomaly) does not count as negative. Because exactly what anomaly is expected in any individual case is not predicted by LENR. Anyway - I understand that weighting this is complex and can be argued both ways.
That is a worthwhile point. It is true that a single killer experiment would be powerful. But not overwhelmingly so. Scientists rightly never believe single experiments. They get very interested in them, try to reproduce, try to work out theory that could be compatible with the new evidence. You can see that with the FTL neutrino experiment. Equally when the result is not predicted by any otherwise plausible theory they are rightly very cautious about its being real. As indeed the FTL experiment - so carefully checked before publication - turned out not to be real.
The point about reproduction is not just "reproduce exactly the anomaly". It is that as soon as an anomaly is reproducible you can test it in different ways and ask questions about it. That can quickly provide hints as to its origin which may be an unknown experimental artifact, or an unknown law of physics.
The biggest credibility problems for LENR is the large amount of "could be LENR" evidence. That sounds strange! It has two aspects:
(1) (this is unfair - and I agree with people here that it was until team google unfairly discriminated against) the surge of interest a long time ago with no conclusive results, nor plausible theory makes people think now "more of the same" and be overly dismissive.
(2) (this is fair). The more diverse poorly attested anomalies are quoted seriously as LENR the more it looks like a pseudoscience. The Rossi phenomenon. those free energy companies that have claimed commercial results for 20 years, yet whose demos are different over time and rely on ever more complex and uncertain measurements. People who look at the may wonderful not understood phenomena such as ball lightning and hypothesise that is cause by LENR. People who claim a very wide range of transmutations from uncertain experiments. This diverse evidence makes fitting a predictive theory incredibly difficult. For example, it has to be, almost any nuclear transformation can happen, in LENR experiments, while such has never been observed by those not looking for LENR, and the energy mismatch fractionation problem is uniformly solved meaning that expected and very easily measurable high energy porducts are not observed.
(2) is why I am more positive about electrolysis D+D LENR than other things. Even opening it to H+H as well as D+D reduces its credibility (not to zero - but it becomes less attractive) from my POV.
These ideas are I think not ones you can engage with unless you have a truly open mind. They relate to real uncertainty, and weighting the probability of different explanations. They do not prove LENR does not exist, they affect high likely it is to exist. And that judgement is so subjective that I don't see any scientific way it can be resolved, except in a positive way from new evidence. So I do not see LENR can ever be disproved. However, specific LENR theories - e.g. Widom Larsen - can be checked and proved or disproved. The more definite the theory the more it can be disproved. If the theory has steps where the rationale is hand waving it will be more difficult to disprove because you can reasonably posit many different mechanisms and fit whatever results occur to some variant.
Agreed. Although post-team-google this argument applies less. TG had decent funding, and tried hard to find a reproducible "define LENR" experiment. Their work showed some anomalies that were interesting and are still being actively pursued. It is always a judgement call where do you throw money: e.g. LENR or experiments that might test modified GR theories, or deliver info on neutrinos.
The high quality post-F&P work showed results much lower than FP claimed, and to that extent invalidates their claims. You have a credibility problem if you say that both F&P claims and McKubre claims are correct, since the later experiments, with more accurate calorimetry, shows lower results than the original F&P experiments with less accurate calorimetry. Most people, looking at those experiments, would say that if LENR is real either F&P had green fingers never repeated after or F&P's claims were over-egging things a lot. Scientists tend not to believe in green fingers.
The credible modern experiments do not replicate the most interesting (but not replicable) "good quality" post-F&P results. E.g the McKubre series that has one (?) result with much higher excess heat - clearly beyond possible errors - than the others. Ed's very creditable attempts to find a "lab rat" electrolytic experiment with clear excess heat show very low excess heat results. At a level most external observers would not call certain. Those modern experiments replicate low uncertain levels of excess heat. It is frustrating - it means we must stay interested in the phenomena without thinking of it has strong evidence for LENR.
The one negative from this is hard to quantify. Any level of real nuclear excess heat should - you would expect from every plausible mechanism - be highly variable and often muhc higher than measurement errors so with effort you would expect it to be possible to find a lab rat experiment that shows it clearly. There are challenges to this - such a variable mechanism can destroy NAEs as soon as they become active etc. But it is unlikely that consistent excess heat over a long time can only be found at levels that are so low compared with experimental error. I remind you of the first sentence in this paragraph. This is a genuine argument - but it is hard to quantify its weight. Personally I vacillate - sometimes I think it has ahigh weight, sometimes low. It is ok to be uncertain.
True. But then none of us are qualified to make rigorous critiques of these experiments. Those who are (Ed?) are subject inevitably to the exact group think that those who believe LENR is clearly real think afflicts the rest of the scientific establishment.
What would be needed to find non-LENR reasons for the anomalies is intense interest from many highly qualified who were trying hard to disprove LENR. A sort of anti-team-google. You can see easily that no-one serious would ever want to do that. You can however be sure that LENR would get that interest when it finds a lab rat experiment with certain results. those people would be piling in trying to identify the (obvious) anomaly and equally happy whether they were proving LENR or proving some boring non-LENR error mechanism.
Excuse me, but how long can the problem of cold nuclear fusion be solved at the same scientific level at which it arose.
Within the framework of the modern scientific paradigm: (material particles + fields in space-time) the problem is in principle unsolvable. It is already clear today that improving the Standard Model and Theory of Relativity and the number of different experiments cannot solve this problem.
One can get out of this impasse only through a philosophical and metaphysical path, namely:
1) to postulate the primacy and absoluteness of the movement of our World, we should be interested only in movement and we can influence this movement only by movement,
2) consider material particles and bodies as moving, changing states of the material-neutrino-energy field (our World).
-
I think THH means "you only need one per experiment of the very many that exist."
("You only need one error per experiment . . .")
Perhaps that is what he means, but it makes no sense. Different errors will produce different results. With a flow calorimeter, a flowmeter reading too low will produce one kind of error, and unmixed fluid another. An error in an isoperibolic calorimeter will produce yet another error. The results will not agree. If you take a sample from one calorimeter to another, the results will not agree. They will not be governed by the McKubre equation parameters such as loading and flux. Loading and flux cannot affect calorimeter performance.
Along the same lines, if two tritium detection instruments are malfunctioning, or if the experts at BARC and Los Alamos are incompetent and they do not know how to use the instruments, the readings will be different. An autoradiograph will not show any tritium in the sample. An autoradiograph works on entirely different principles. It cannot be affected by any of the problems that can happen with a detection instrument.
Furthermore, there is not the slightest chance that an error measuring heat would magically correlate with another error measuring helium with three other instruments in different labs weeks later.
If you had one error in one experiment, you could not have that same error in another experiment which uses different instrument types. The second experiment would have to be subject to different errors. The results between experiments would never agree. They would not be governed by McKubre's control parameters. Compared to the known control parameters of cold fusion, the errors would be random, being governed instead by whatever makes the instruments work (flowing water in the case of a flow calorimeter). A mistake measuring the water flow rate cannot produce the same error, in the same direction indicating spurious excess heat, as a mistake made with an isoperibolic calorimeter, or a mistake with exposed electrode leads. Every error type has a different profile.
More to the point, every expert knows about these profiles. They know what kinds of errors can occur. They know that a flowmeter needs a mixer (such as a Venturi) and a flow rate sufficiently high. They know this for the same reason I know how to correct a compiler error. Because I have been programming for 55 years. It is not because I am perfect and never make a mistake (which is what THH accuses me of saying about Bockris or Miles). It is because I have made hundreds of thousands of mistakes. I make them every day, and I correct them as easily as a farmer chops a weed with a hoe. People who have measured tritium for decades, whose lives depend getting the right answer, know how and why the instruments malfunction. They always do control experiments to confirm that the instruments are working correctly. They always use multiple instrument types to avoid systematic errors. They will not be mislead by an error. THH apparently thinks the experts at BARC and Los Alamos are incompetent idiots who cannot tell the difference between no tritium and tritium leaking into the cell from the surroundings at concentrations that will kill everyone in the lab. He thinks it never occurs to them to measure tritium in the heavy water before they start. He is wrong about that. Read any paper and you will see that he is wrong.
-
Since the experts at Los Alamos are also entrusted with the job of checking the USA's nuclear weapons stockpile for Tritium leaks I suspect that they have some idea of how it is done.
-
True. But then none of us are qualified to make rigorous critiques of these experiments. Those who are (Ed?) are subject inevitably to the exact group think that those who believe LENR is clearly real think afflicts the rest of the scientific establishment.
What would be needed to find non-LENR reasons for the anomalies is intense interest from many highly qualified who were trying hard to disprove LENR. A sort of anti-team-google. You can see easily that no-one serious would ever want to do that. You can however be sure that LENR would get that interest when it finds a lab rat experiment with certain results. those people would be piling in trying to identify the (obvious) anomaly and equally happy whether they were proving LENR or proving some boring non-LENR error mechanism.
Perhaps I can help with this point. First, Ed has made a point that what I present as fusion outside the Lawson criterion is not LENR. Per his definition LENR is process that lowers the coulomb barrier to fusion. However, I have made the point the LENR may not exist.
There is no reason to claim a lowering of the coulomb barrier if the reaction mechanism creates an energy distribution with includes energies in MeV range which could cause fusion at known values for the coulomb barrier for an initial fusion reaction or first elementary reaction. Hence, subsequent fusion steps can be catalyzed by a cluster of particles acting both as an accelerator to fusion energies for an initial fusion step and an absorber of energy from fusion to enable subsequence fusion steps.
In contrast to being subject to group think, the method of mass balance and stoichiometry on Santilli's ICFP is a mathematical analysis with all the basis and logic is exposed. The resultant balanced equation for a nuclear reaction cannot be faked. Neither is claim of conspiracy supported. The amount of heat produced is large. The accuracy of the balance is to the limit of detection instrument. Further application of the stoichiometry to the case of AquaFuel confirms by mass balance the expectations of transmutation by fusion. So, no single experiment involved, and fusion process has been repeated many times. Again, there is no conspiracy with AquaFuel, since the composition analysis was provided by NASA.
Further research under the LENR provision of US department of energy was excluded because the LENR definitions by the research provision exclude it. However, USPTO inhibits normal development research by including my research as cold fusion.
In nearly 5 years I have been part of his forum, I have developed a model which I claim is likely better than Ed's as an explanation of anything claimed to be LENR. I realize this is a bit of campaigning and I apologize since I find campaigning for some theory undesirable for the progress of science. However, a model is better than a theory since is provide a basis for testing.
Lastly, since I am offering path forward to "is LENR real" debate close to what you propose, I think my work could be a starting point to get to the answer to the is LENR real debate. Am I out of line?
Perhaps the path forward you propose won't work because as you imply anyone willing to do it, will raise a question of "why should he be taken seriously?"
-
The problem of whether cold fusion is real is no longer related to anything scientific. The problem is psychological. The problem is only in the minds of people who do not share a common reality. Everyone who has examined the data using the normal criteria agrees that the effect is real. The only conflict is in its explanation. Everyone has a different explanation depending on which data set they choose to believe. All of the explanations are in conflict either with other data sets or with accepted Natural Laws. We have to allow the funeral process to resolve the conflicts because they will not be resolved by discussion, as these discussions have demonstrated.
-
The problem of whether cold fusion is real is no longer related to anything scientific. The problem is psychological. The problem is only in the minds of people who do not share a common reality. Everyone who has examined the data using the normal criteria agrees that the effect is real. The only conflict is in its explanation. Everyone has a different explanation depending on which data set they choose to believe. All of the explanations are in conflict either with other data sets or with accepted Natural Laws. We have to allow the funeral process to resolve the conflicts because they will not be resolved by discussion, as these discussions have demonstrated.
No, sorry, the problem of cold nuclear fusion is not psychological, but scientific. The problem just needs to be solved at a higher and deeper scientific level.
It is necessary to turn this problem, which has already become universal, into a postulate, namely:
Cold nuclear fusion is a method and form of motion of matter as a process of material-neutrino-energy induction. Cold nuclear fusion occurs always and everywhere; it is an absolute property of matter.
In this paradigm, the problem of cold nuclear fusion finds a simple solution.
-
The problem of whether cold fusion is real is no longer related to anything scientific. The problem is psychological. The problem is only in the minds of people who do not share a common reality. Everyone who has examined the data using the normal criteria agrees that the effect is real. The only conflict is in its explanation. Everyone has a different explanation depending on which data set they choose to believe. All of the explanations are in conflict either with other data sets or with accepted Natural Laws. We have to allow the funeral process to resolve the conflicts because they will not be resolved by discussion, as these discussions have demonstrated.
Agreed that there is a psychological problem, not just with this topic, but science in general, but that will always be with us. What is the psychological problem? It is in the questions that we must ask: What data can be trusted? What conflicts exist between explanations or explanations and accepted natural laws? Nobody can examine all the data. One must use the date one understands. Everyone has their own mind-set because we all have different expertise and training. The funeral process is natural. Either someone will bring out convincing arguments or the lack of interest in a particular set of data will bring a death to that line of scientific pursue.
I don't see a funeral for cold fusion or LENR soon. There is enough interest to keep it going. Further, I am not worried about the effects of the efforts in hot fusion. I will believe the constantly updated claims of hot fusion when or if it becomes practical. Until then nothing has changed.
Only my death or my own decision to stop my research will stop me from making my research practical. I am an engineer. Anyone who knows an engineer, knows we always think we have a path to complete a task, or we would tell you so.
-
I don't see a funeral for cold fusion or LENR soon.
Ed refers to the quote from Max Planck that progress in science occurs "funeral by funeral." He explained: "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."
-
Thanks Jed. Only you understand what I'm trying to say because you do not have the psychological problem I'm identifying. The problem with psychological problems is that the people who have the problem seldom know they have a problem. These discussions go nowhere because the people involved are not describing the same reality. Everyone is in their own little world with no ability to see anything else.
Ed refers to the quote from Max Planck that progress in science occurs "funeral by funeral." He explained: "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."
-
Amen ohhh great Storms
Thanks Jed. Only you understand what I'm trying to say because you do not have the psychological problem I'm identifying. The problem with psychological problems is that the people who have the problem seldom know they have a problem. These discussions go nowhere because the people involved are not describing the same reality. Everyone is in their own little world with no ability to see anything else.
-
The problem of whether cold fusion is real is no longer related to anything scientific. The problem is psychological. The problem is only in the minds of people who do not share a common reality. Everyone who has examined the data using the normal criteria agrees that the effect is real. The only conflict is in its explanation. Everyone has a different explanation depending on which data set they choose to believe. All of the explanations are in conflict either with other data sets or with accepted Natural Laws. We have to allow the funeral process to resolve the conflicts because they will not be resolved by discussion, as these discussions have demonstrated.
“In my long life, I have learned the peculiarity that all our science seems primitive and undeveloped when compared with reality, and yet this is the greatest treasure that we possess...” [A. Einstein]
-
("You only need one error per experiment . . .")
Perhaps that is what he means, but it makes no sense. Different errors will produce different results. With a flow calorimeter, a flowmeter reading too low will produce one kind of error, and unmixed fluid another. An error in an isoperibolic calorimeter will produce yet another error. The results will not agree.CF results do not agree. The accepted lack of certainty in when CF happens means that you get different results even from the same apparatus, and this is ok.
To take (since you quote it - and it is best understood) excess heat. 50% of all errors will be positive. And there are underlying "error" mechanisms documented which affect all calorimeters - although in complex and different ways.
THH
-
Thanks Jed. Only you understand what I'm trying to say because you do not have the psychological problem I'm identifying. The problem with psychological problems is that the people who have the problem seldom know they have a problem. These discussions go nowhere because the people involved are not describing the same reality. Everyone is in their own little world with no ability to see anything else.
I agree. I'd just add that in such cases both sides think the other has a psychological problem - and perhaps both are right!
I am trying to see both sides - but it is quite difficult.
Although only a few here realise it - I do not dismiss all those positive LENR results. Neither the old ones nor the new ones - like yours or Staker's. They are enough to keep me interested looking at every bit of new evidence in the hope that it advances state of knowledge. Yet, with that, I am not committed to LENR being real, and till the evidence is there I do not think this.
I expect that if a LENR phenomenon showing heat in electrolysis from nuclear reactions is real, however stochastic, it should be possible to optimise for it. I know you have tried more (and with much more skill) than most. it is a bit disappointing to me that your "simple calorimeter" excess heat results are so relatively small. If the NAE hypothesis is correct you would expect that over time a good deal of optimisation could push marginal results up by say a factor of 5 or so to become incontrovertible.
I have never yet seen gas/Ni experiments with positive results I trust - the write-ups have holes in them (those experiments Clean Planet rely on) - or do not exist (Clean Planet claims) - or (Mitzuno) come from lab methodology which is not good enough and with lack of expected reproducibility. Gas phase calorimetry is just more difficult, the ways it is done in those experiments are more prone to anomalies.
CR39 - if alphas exist from LENR they should be possible to detect in ways that do not have as many error possibilities as film where you can only integrate data over a long time.
Transmutation: the interpretations of spectral lines is complex and easy to misread. - so without peer review in the wider community and proper debate i don't think anyone except perhaps isolated experts will believe them. Or should believe them. It is a catch 22 that LENR papers do not usually get mainstream scrutiny. I am sorry for it.
He or T - both interesting and more plausible than random could-be-anything transmutation. Both formidably difficult to detect at such low levels with no possibility of error. Unlike high energy particles where you can get documented variation over time correlated with other changed - they can only be detected integrated over some period. It makes for difficult experiments.
I still think of all the LENR results liquid-phase excess heat generation is the mots plausible to get solid results from.
(I am not including here the experiments on electron screening etc where the results are clear and positive and accepted by me. That is a possible route to solid LENR evidence but at the moment it looks like it will be relatively limited in what it covers. I still hope).
If the above is the result of a psychological disturbance - well all I will say is that humans have psychology - we are all irrational in different ways. The art is to understand our own peculiarities - and that is not easy.
-
CF results do not agree.
They do agree. See the McKubre equation.
To take (since you quote it - and it is best understood) excess heat. 50% of all errors will be positive.
Nearly 100% of cells that meet McKubre's parameter produce positive excess heat and helium. Those parameter cannot affect calorimetry or helium detection. There are no errors that can affect calorimetry and helium detection, yet the two are linked. Therefore this cannot be an error, and it is not 50% positive.
And there are underlying "error" mechanisms documented which affect all calorimeters - although in complex and different ways.
That is bullshit. You made that up. There are no errors that could affect liquid flow calorimeters, Seebeck and microcalorimeters. If you claim there are such errors, please list three of them, and list specific experiments with different calorimeter types that had these errors. If you claim there are such errors you must tell us specifically what they are. Otherwise your statement cannot falsified. It cannot be debated. Your statement is no better than saying "there might be subtle and complex errors in geography that make the world seem round when it is actually flat."
Next you will tell us there are subtle and complex errors that cause spurious excess heat in one lab, and spurious helium proportional to that heat in three other labs thousands of miles away and weeks later.
-
There are no errors that could affect liquid flow calorimeters, Seebeck
All calorimeters have errors due to heat leakage. These are compensated by calibration. Change in heat distribution in the calorimeter vary (slightly) the amount of this leakage.
Therefore any effect that alters heat distribution in the cell between calibration runs and active runs will be seen as an error.
ATER (if different between calibration and active) does this rather obviously in any closed cell. But there can be other such effects if anything about the thermal characteristics of the cell changes between the two cases.
I cannot tell you how large these errors are because no-one has ever tested it exactly it is quite difficult. Some experimenters have tested the error from heat production at different points in the cell - but they are not identical points or conditions from the active and calibration runs, so extrapolating from that is an assumption that may not be justified. It must be justified on a case by case basis (assuming the check has been done at all) by arguing that any possible change in heat distribution must be less significant in terms of its effect on heat loss than the change checked.
Such errors do not much effect absolute calorimeters - where leakage by design is so low that calibration is not needed. But I know of no LENR experiments that do not use calibration (it would be weird).
-
There are no errors that could affect liquid flow calorimeters, Seebeck and microcalorimeters. If you claim there are such errors, please list three of them, and list specific experiments with different calorimeter types that had these errors. If you claim there are such errors you must tell us specifically what they are. Otherwise your statement cannot falsified. It cannot be debated.
Jed - I have given you one specific error cause - ATER. I know what you will say about it. And to save us time, perhaps you will remember my previous replies to that. and there are other mechanisms. suppose heat bursts from some mundane well understood mechanism (do I need to spell it out) the circulation of bubbles and foam in the reaction vessel changes, so altering heat distribution.
But the second part of your argument here is logically incorrect.
Let me use the analogy of a very complex computer program that the writer claims proves Fermat's last theorem. He says, as you do, show me the exact error in it, if you cannot, then your claim the proof is not sound is untrue. After all without details, any such claim cannot be refuted and so is unscientific.
That is clearly absurd. Anyone can (with automatic aids) write a program so obfuscated that no-one else can work out how it works or does not work. More realsistically, in complex programs there can easily be not obvious bugs that no-one checking is able to find.
An experiment is like that. Less complexity - but against that you do not have the precise code, so you cannot fully check it without reproducibility and repetition. experiments are always obfuscated because we have only partial information on exactly what happened from what was recorded.
If I was claiming that those old experiments definitely had errors enough to account for the small positive results, you would be right. I am not, I am just saying they could have such errors and therefore the "error" hypothesis must be weighted against the "LENR" hypothesis when deciding which is most likely. Neither, by definition, is certain. Which is mots likley then is a very complex judgement call.
-
All calorimeters have errors due to heat leakage. These are compensated by calibration. Change in heat distribution in the calorimeter vary (slightly) the amount of this leakage.
That is (all but) incorrect. Heat leakage from Seebeck envelope calorimeter is negligible. It is so small you have difficulty detecting it. That is why they are called "envelope" calorimeters. Bomb calorimeter types also have negligible heat losses.
Isoperibolic calorimeters depend on the heat loss. They would not work without it. The heat loss is computed by first principles and then measured during calibration. The two agree to within a percent or less, so excess heat of, say, 300%, cannot be explained by undetected heat losses.
In any case, anyone who has ever used a calorimeter knows there are heat leaks. They are always measured and accounted for. There is not the slightest chance they could explain cold fusion excess heat, because in some cases it far exceeds the compensation for any possible leak. In other words, you could ignore heat leaks and assume all the input power is recovered and the output would still far exceed input. In some cases there is no input power at all, so you could assume the calorimeter recovers 100% of the heat, with no losses (which is impossible) but there would still be excess heat beyond any question. In other words, heat leaks, no matter how big or small, can only increase the excess heat measured when there is no input power. No one can accidentally underestimate or overestimate the heat leak and come up with a spurious positive result. You can ignore heat leaks completely and still be sure the effect is real.
In other words, you have invented an imaginary problem that would "vary (slightly) the amount of this leakage." That cannot possibly explain away excess heat of 300% which is ~3,000 times more than any conceivable slight variation caused by your imaginary problem. It is imaginary because everyone knows about things like this, and they always either measure the effects and account for them (what F&P did), or measure them and confirm they are so negligible they cannot affect the result.
Furthermore, it is not possible the McKubre equation control parameters for cold fusion can cause variations in heat leakage, so right from the git-go anyone can see you are wrong. The control parameters would not work if this were a heat leak. There would be some other parameter that affects heat leaks, such as the amount of exposed electrode leads outside the cell.
If I was claiming that those old experiments definitely had errors enough to account for the small positive results, you would be right. I am not, I am just saying they could have such errors and therefore the "error" hypothesis must be weighted against the "LENR" hypothesis when deciding which is most likely. Neither, by definition, is certain. Which is mots likley then is a very complex judgement call.
No, they could not have such errors. The experimental techniques rule out these errors. And yes, you are asserting that. Your "error" hypothesis is easily weighed. Anyone who reads the literature and understands calorimetry can weigh it -- and dismiss it, for many reasons, such as the ones I just gave. Also, as I said countless times, because an error in calorimetry cannot magically affect helium detection.
No, this is not a "judgement call." It is a technical discussion. It must be grounded in the laws of physics and textbooks on calorimetry. No judgement is involved; only facts that have been firmly established for 150 years, and which are the basis of the laws of thermodynamics. You ignore these laws and the whole of modern physics and chemistry. You substitute bullshit and imaginary problems that cannot actually happen. You do not point to any specific experiment that might have your imaginary problems, because there are none. You give no specific, measurable, quantitative methods to confirm or falsify your hypotheses because there are no such methods. All of your hypotheses would be undetectable. Invisible. No one can measure them, so you can never be proven right, or wrong. And in the best case, your hypotheses would be thousands of times too small to explain anything.
If you wish to make a case for these absurd hypotheses you must point to specific experiments they might apply to, with actual instruments described in the literature and textbooks, and you must compute the actual numbers these instruments would produce and show how they might be mistaken for the excess heat these instruments measured. You are handwaving and saying: "in an imaginary world an error magically increased by 3,000, nobody noticed, and I don't have to show that actually happened; it could have happened here in the real world and oh by the way, that error reached out and caused three of the world's best helium detectors a thousand miles away to go wrong by just the right amount! It is a judgment call!" That is not science.
-
it is important to know that FP experiment was incorrect voltage of Pd , which is negative. they use strong alkaline which hav by far larger number of OD- than D+.
thus the heat generation is 9 digit lower than the correct voltage. But the negative voltage can trigger of cold fusion, and positive voltage need to raise Pd up to the triggering temperature, which is very difficult.
This is the reason why most researcher has difficulty to prove cold fusion real. actually cold fusion on the desk top test tube can generate 1MW , which is very difficult to be handled. you can get papers in Research gate or google.
Correct D 2 O Cold Fusion Reactor with Strong Alkaline Electrolyte (Heat Generating Metal Needs to be Anode)
Conceptualized D 2 O Cold Fusion power generator with steam turbine
-
As I said, you can eliminate any possible heat loss error by assuming that 100% of the heat is recovered. Along the same lines, you can eliminate all recombination errors by assuming there is 100% recombination. You do that even when you can see the gas leaving the cell, and you measure every day to confirm the expected amount is leaving.
Many researchers make these conservative assumptions. They assume 100% heat recovery so that any actual heat loss can only add to the excess heat. Even though that is physically impossible. Anyone who has read the literature knows this. THH has read nothing and knows nothing, so he did not realize that heat loss errors are ruled out. Contrary to what he said, this is not a bit complex. J. P. Joule made adiabatic calorimeters in 1840s. He noted there are heat losses, but as far as I can tell from his tables of results, he did not include these losses in his calculations, making his measurements conservative, as I just described.
Every scientist who did calorimetry since 1780 has understood these issues, and has known how to ensure that heat loss errors never happen. Every textbook has covered them. There are many other potential sources of error. More than THH knows about, since he knows nothing. For example, Joule described uncontrolled changes in ambient air temperature and the "difficulty which exists in keeping the air of the room in the same state of quiet, of hygrometry, &c. during the different days on which the experiments were made." These are actual errors, not the magical imaginary ones THH comes up with.
