The perpetual “is LENR even real” argument thread.

    • New
    Quote from orsova

    There's nothing neutral about suggesting that people who accept LENR are of the same ilk as people who believe in Qanon, or that the moon landing was faked, or that climate change is a hoax.

    Yes, but that is really not what I was doing if you read carefully.


    Joining the dots to make a picture is a valuable human ability. Scientists do it. But it is they always a matter of subjective judgement how much weight you give to unusual non-mainstream interpretations as against the boring default view. Some people are more disposed to do this than others - and surely they would be more inclined to see LENR as real.


    I should perhaps not have used those words when talking generally - there are (and I regret it - they do not do LENR any service) some real genuine conspiracy theories that do the rounds.

    • New
    Quote from THHuxleynew

    But it is they always a matter of subjective judgement how much weight you give to unusual non-mainstream interpretations as against the boring default view. Some people are more disposed to do this than others - and surely they would be more inclined to see LENR as real.

    You have that backward. As Martin Fleischmann said, we are painfully conventional people. We see that cold fusion is real because we believe in the laws of thermodynamics; we know that calorimeters invented 150 years ago work as described; we know that results of 300% excess heat cannot be explained away by heat loss errors of 1%; and we know that an error in a calorimeter cannot magically cause an error in helium detectors a thousand miles away. We know that widely replicated high sigma results are the standard of truth in science, whereas you frantically look for some other standard -- any other standard! -- rather than accept the textbook definition of the scientific method. Cold fusion being real is the boring, standard, default conclusion made by conventional experts who look at the facts, such as Gerischer, the Director of the Max Planck Institute for Physical Chemistry. He reviewed the evidence in 1991 and concluded “there [are] now undoubtedly overwhelming indications that nuclear processes take place in metal alloys.” (https://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GerischerHiscoldfusi.pdf)


    YOU are the one with the overactive imagination. You connect invisible dots to come up with extravagancies and absurdities, as Franklin put it:


    "Perhaps the history of the errors of mankind, all things considered, is more valuable and interesting than that of their discoveries. Truth is uniform and narrow; it constantly exists, and does not seem to require so much an active energy, as a passive aptitude of soul in order to encounter it. But error is endlessly diversified; it has no reality, but is the pure and simple creation of the mind that invents it. In this field, the soul has room enough to expand herself, to display all her boundless faculties, and all her beautiful and interesting extravagancies and absurdities."


    -- Benjamin Franklin, Report of Dr. Benjamin Franklin, and Other Commissioners, Charged by the King of France, with the Examination of the Animal Magnetism, as Now Practiced in Paris (1784)

    • New
    Quote from THHuxleynew

    Link to specific experiment please, and I will tell you what is your mistake. I will not spend a few hours searching many papers, so it will need to be precise.

    Take your pick. Most papers with significant excess heat far exceed heat losses. As I said, you can ignore the heat losses (assume 100% recovery) and there is still abundant excess heat.


    I will not spoon feed you the papers. You have shown dozens of times that you will not read them even if I do.


    You will not tell me what is my mistake. You have never done that. Not once. You will invent some preposterous hypothesis that anyone can see is wrong, and you will ignore overwhelming evidence that it is wrong, such as the fact that excess heat is correlated with helium and your pretend errors cannot possibly affect both a calorimeter and three helium detectors.

    • New

    Peter Higgs, the Nobel prize-winning physicist who discovered a new particle known as the Higgs boson, has died.

    Higgs, 94, who was awarded the Nobel prize for physics in 2013 for his work in 1964 showing how the boson helped bind the universe together by giving particles their mass, died at home in Edinburgh on Monday.

    After a series of experiments which began in earnest in 2008, his theory was proven by physicists working at the Large Hadron Collider at Cern in Switzerland in 2012; the Nobel prize was shared with François Englert, a Belgian theoretical physicist whose work in 1964 also contributed directly to the discovery. Nobel prizewinning particle physicist Peter Higgs Peter Higgs interview: 'I have this kind of underlying incompetence'

    Read more

    A member of the Royal Society and a Companion of Honour, Higgs spent the bulk of his professional life at Edinburgh University, which set up the Higgs centre for theoretical physics in his honour in 2012.

    Prof Peter Mathieson, the university’s principal, said: “Peter Higgs was a remarkable individual – a truly gifted scientist whose vision and imagination have enriched our knowledge of the world that surrounds us.

    “His pioneering work has motivated thousands of scientists, and his legacy will continue to inspire many more for generations to come.”

    Prof Fabiola Gianotti, the director general at Cern and former leader of the Atlas experiment, which helped discover the Higgs particle in 2012, said: “Besides his outstanding contributions to particle physics, Peter was a very special person, a man of rare modesty, a great teacher and someone who explained physics in a very simple and profound way.

    “An important piece of Cern’s history and accomplishments is linked to him. I am very saddened, and I will miss him sorely.”

    Jon Butterworth, a member of the Atlas collaboration, said Higgs was “a hero to the particle physics community”.

    “Even though he didn’t much enjoy it, he felt a responsibility to use the public profile his achievements brought him for the good of science, and he did so many times. The particle that carries his name is perhaps the single most stunning example of how seemingly abstract mathematical ideas can make predictions which turn out to have huge physical consequences.”

    The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, which awards the Nobel, said at the time the standard model of physics which underpins the scientific understanding of the universe “rests on the existence of a special kind of particle: the Higgs particle. This particle originates from an invisible field that fills up all space.

    “Even when the universe seems empty this field is there. Without it, we would not exist, because it is from contact with the field that particles acquire mass. The theory proposed by Englert and Higgs describes this process.”

    An immensely shy man who disliked the fuss, Higgs had left home for a quiet lunch of soup and trout in Leith on the day of the announcement, to be stopped by a former neighbour who gave him the news on his way home.

    Born in Newcastle upon Tyne, Higgs leaves two sons, Chris and Jonny, his daughter in law Suzanne and two grandchildren. His wife, Jody, a linguistics lecturer from whom he was separated, died in 2008.

    • New
    Quote from Cydonia

    Higgs, 94, who was awarded the Nobel prize for physics in 2013 for his work in 1964 showing how the boson helped bind the universe together by giving particles their mass, died at home in Edinburgh on Monday.

    After a series of experiments which began in earnest in 2008, his theory was proven by physicists working at the Large Hadron Collider at Cern in Switzerland in 2012;

    You should not repeat telling fairy tales about a fictive particle nobody ever did find.


    The sad reality is the large hadron collider could not find any energy/resonance of this fictive particle. So the investment made did flow down the river Rhone.


    What one declared the Higgs was a particle found around 2001 one did keep as a spare in case of such a failure, The spare particle has absolutely nothing in common with the proclaimed Higgs...as it is a real particle and worst a Doublette as all proton derived particles....



    The Higgs Nobel is the culmination of today's mafia science politics where one honors the guy that did bring in most money into the physics science circus.

    • New

    Well, I'm not enough intelligent to lose myself in such philosophical considerations.

    All I know is that in my lifetime there's been a lot of talk about Higgs, so I imagined he was someone who might be important, may be ?

    Anyway, the nucleus science is so complex that it will take, I expect, the hindsight of centuries to come to finally know who was right and who was wrong, isn't it ?

    • New
    Quote from orsova

    Why not read the tritium paper that Jed already suggested?

    Well, he has said that the tritium is contamination, but in this case he is looking for evidence that the heat is an artifact of heat losses. It would be easiest to spot that with a flow calorimeter. There are many papers about flow calorimeters such as McKubre. I have often suggested THH look at McKubre, but he never has looked, and he never will.


    You can also prove this with any cell that has no input power, such as a cell in heat after death or a gas loaded cell.


    It is somewhat more difficult to prove this with an isoperibolic cell with input power, but you can with first principle analyses such as F&P or Miles.

    • New

    The best flow calorimeter I have seen is that of Jaques Ruer design and used in JP Biberian's lab. This transpiration calorimeter recovers more than 99% of the heat input, practically eliminating calibration error in the heat recovery step.


    A 5 or 10% XSH result in such a calorimeter would meet the gold standard for a positive XSH experiment.


    Running such an experiment for a period of time as to eliminate all possible chemical energy sources would bolster the nuclear source hypothesis.


    Ruer (2).pdf

    • New
    Quote from Daniel_G

    Running such an experiment for a period of time as to eliminate all possible chemical energy sources would bolster the nuclear source hypothesis.

    The energy freed by reaction become heat (enthalpy) or is an unknown lost (entropy) as a function of temperature. For example, one might know from mass balance and stoichiometry what reaction happen and how much. However, the entropy term could be very high, and the heat yield low. In which case the method of heat recovery doesn't help because the entropy isn't recovered as heat. In the case of Santilli's ICFP something around 5/10,000th of the freed energy from the nuclear reaction is enthalpy. I will post the calculation when I get to it on Electrogravity (electron-gravity) as a cause of nuclear reactions. - Physics - LENR Forum (lenr-forum.com)


    One would be well advised to focus on experiments designed to produce heat rather than being deceived by a false perception of high efficiency heat yield from reaction. It seem to me that it is foolish to scale method that can't power a small space heat and to expect that such method could power a city.

    • New
    Quote from Daniel_G

    The best flow calorimeter I have seen is that of Jaques Ruer design and used in JP Biberian's lab.

    That is impressive, especially for an air flow calorimeter.


    Any flow calorimeter will be well insulated. Thus, most of the heat is captured by the flowing fluid. The heat capacity of the fluid is well established, so you can easily estimate total heat capture based on first principles. It is easier to understand than isoperibolic or Seebeck calorimetry, and it is less dependent on calibrations. Mike McKubre has often pointed this out.


    For these reasons, any experiment with good flow calorimetry and significant excess heat, even 5% of input power, will exceed the upper limit for heat losses. Obviously, any experiment with no input power and detectable heat also exceeds these limits, with any kind of calorimetry. There are many experiments like that in the literature. THH could have found many on his own. Or he might have read and analyzed McKubre, the way he said he would a year ago. Of course he never will do that. Now that he has invented the imaginary problem of heat recovery he will go on claiming it is real, and he will never cite an actual example or read any of the papers I tell him show it is not real. He is a troll.


    • New
    Quote from Drgenek

    The energy freed by reaction become heat (enthalpy) or is an unknown lost (entropy) as a function of temperature. For example, one might know from mass balance and stoichiometry what reaction happen and how much. However, the entropy term could be very high, and the heat yield low. In which case the method of heat recovery doesn't help because the entropy isn't recovered as heat. In the case of Santilli's ICFP something around 5/10,000th of the freed energy from the nuclear reaction is enthalpy. I will post the calculation when I get to it on Electrogravity (electron-gravity) as a cause of nuclear reactions. - Physics - LENR Forum (lenr-forum.com)


    One would be well advised to focus on experiments designed to produce heat rather than being deceived by a false perception of high efficiency heat yield from reaction. It seem to me that it is foolish to scale method that can't power a small space heat and to expect that such method could power a city.

    It seems we have a misunderstanding here. I am talking about the act of measuring heat with calorimeter. When I apply 500W of heat via a Kathal wire to the system, I get between 495 and 500W of heat captured in the transpiration air flow as calculated by the Delta-T, Mass flow and specific heat capacity of air.


    Now when I add a LENR reactor the system and add the same 500W input, I get 550W out which gives us 50W of XSH, which is about 10x the uncertainty of 5W (oversimplified for discussion purposes).


    With a real water flow calorimeter I have used last year, the heat capture was about 85%. Various calibrations gave anywhere from 82-90% depending on temperature. This roughly 5% of uncertainty in the water flow calorimeter represents 25W of a 500W input. This gives much lower statistical significance to the same result. Therefore any calorimeter that have a higher heat recovery efficiency will always yield cleaner data with a higher statistical significance.


    I never mentioned anything about heat yield from the LENR itself. I am focusing only upon calorimetry.

    • New
    Quote from Drgenek

    The energy freed by reaction become heat (enthalpy) or is an unknown lost (entropy) as a function of temperature. For example, one might know from mass balance and stoichiometry what reaction happen and how much. However, the entropy term could be very high, and the heat yield low. In which case the method of heat recovery doesn't help because the entropy isn't recovered as heat. In the case of Santilli's ICFP something around 5/10,000th of the freed energy from the nuclear reaction is enthalpy. I will post the calculation when I get to it on Electrogravity (electron-gravity) as a cause of nuclear reactions. - Physics - LENR Forum (lenr-forum.com)


    One would be well advised to focus on experiments designed to produce heat rather than being deceived by a false perception of high efficiency heat yield from reaction. It seem to me that it is foolish to scale method that can't power a small space heat and to expect that such method could power a city.

    Here is an update to heat efficiency of Santilli's ICFP. My best estimate of the moles of gas at in his reactor at the start of his experiment is 1.9488 gm moles. The mass balance and stoichiometry yield the mole percents of the gas which disappear from before reaction, and which appear after reaction. Those values are accountable to the 3 ppmv which is the accuracy of the MS measurement; therefore, to four decimal places for the reaction. Hence based on the derived balance nuclear reaction equation, the missing mass via transmutation in gms is .001705. If all this mass was converted to energy the expectation is 1.53e11 joules. Santilli provide a low but real value of 2871 BTU= output-input (7404-4533). So, COP = 1.633. However, reported yield/ expected 100% theoretical yield is 1.975e-5 or 2 parts in 100,000. The high entropy yield will be explained in Electrogravity (electron-gravity) as a cause of nuclear reactions. - Physics - LENR Forum (lenr-forum.com) as soon as I can get the pdf ready.

    • New

    'One day in April of 1974, the New York Times reviewed an exhibition of realist art taking place at Yale University. The reviewer, Hilton Kramer, made this observation: “Realism does not lack its partisans, but it does rather conspicuously lack a persuasive theory. And given the nature of our intellectual commerce with works of art, to lack a persuasive theory is to lack something crucial—the means by which our experience of individual works is joined to our understanding of the values they signify.”

    The writer Tom Wolfe, reading this, was, by his own description, “jerked alert.” Wolfe understood Kramer to be saying, in Wolfe’s words, “In short: frankly, these days, without a theory to go with it, I can’t see a painting.”'

    • New
    Quote from orsova

    'One day in April of 1974, the New York Times reviewed an exhibition of realist art taking place at Yale University. The reviewer, Hilton Kramer, made this observation: “Realism does not lack its partisans, but it does rather conspicuously lack a persuasive theory. And given the nature of our intellectual commerce with works of art, to lack a persuasive theory is to lack something crucial—the means by which our experience of individual works is joined to our understanding of the values they signify.”

    The writer Tom Wolfe, reading this, was, by his own description, “jerked alert.” Wolfe understood Kramer to be saying, in Wolfe’s words, “In short: frankly, these days, without a theory to go with it, I can’t see a painting.”'

    There is such a theory!

    This theory is very simple:

    - Everything is One - our World.

    - Our World is one, eternal and infinite.

    - In our World, the primary, absolute and fundamental is its non-mechanical movement, occurring exclusively as a spherical drain-source, convergence-divergence, birth-disappearance, synthesis-analysis. Particles, bodies, fields are the corresponding moving states of our World!

    The materiality of our World lies in its movement!

    This movement cannot be influenced, it can only be used!

    - Cold nuclear fusion is the absolute form of movement of our World. Cold nuclear fusion occurs always and everywhere with any movement.

    - The task of science: to describe this movement physically and mathematically.

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.