The perpetual “is LENR even real” argument thread.

  • 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.”'

    That is perhaps an exaggeration.

    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.”

    Perhaps what he had in mind is that without knowledge of the place, time and culture it can be difficult to know what some paintings signify. Especially the allegorical ones such as Delacroix, "Liberty Leading the People" (1830) or Picasso's "Guernica." Imagine you are trying to explain Delacroix to a Japanese person in 1830 who has no knowledge of the French Revolution. What would he make of this? He would probably see it is a war, but which side does this represent, and what is that half-naked woman doing? Is it supposed to be a joke? Or erotic? Is the artist in favor of these people or against them? It might not seem patriotic in the sense Delacroix had in mind. I know that Japanese people first exposed to western paintings in the Meiji era had very different ideas about what the paintings meant, whether they were beautiful or ugly, and what on earth all those naked people were doing. Naked people everywhere! -- as I recall Thomas Eakins wrote when he first went to European museums. He was not impressed.



    Just offhand, my guess is that a Japanese person in 1830 might think that woman is demon or a badger transformed into a person, or a ghost, and she is up to no good. She is leading those people into some sort of trap. Half-naked beautiful women in Japanese folk tales often turn out to be demons leading men to their demise. If you see an allegorical Japanese painting from 1830 with a figure like this, beware of her. Here is a famous example, the Snow Woman, who is often portrayed more erotically than this. She entices lost men, and then freezes them to death. A European or an American who cannot read the caption, which is "yuki onna" (Snow Woman), might not see anything frightening about this image, but anyone who can read it and knows Japanese folklore will know She Is Out To Get You.


  • Everything you say is very well taken.


    I realise I'm dragging us off topic, but here's Wolfe at further length.


    The Painted Word Tom Wolfe

  • 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.

    All I am asking is for one concrete link of an electrolytic experiment with these "large results" that Jed says are easy to find and decent calorimetry.


    The point here (if I remember - have been a bit busy with other stuff) is Jed's contention that my statement that later replications of F&P using better methodology and/or calorimetry showed much lower excess heat was not true.


    Now, it is difficult for me to provide links to show this - there are many later replications.


    All Jed needs to link is one experiment where the results are high. Hence I have been asking for a link.


    The context of this I think was our different uses of "low". If Jed is right he can easily link his best refutation of my statement. Just one.


    The previous comments relate to a tritium experiment which Jed DID link - although I did not see it for a while. My memory of those experiments is that the careful ones showed very low tritium output and the work required to prove this could not be any of the possible sources; contamination, electrolytic or evaporative concentration (a few others I do not remember). These experiments are particularly difficult to do due to the small results and the fact that (unlike excess heat) you must collect bulk results and test afterwards - which makes checking things challenging.


    I prefer therefore the electrolytic calorimetry experiments where we have more information and the possible errors are easier to bound.

  • The previous comments relate to a tritium experiment which Jed DID link - although I did not see it for a while. My memory of those experiments is that the careful ones showed very low tritium output and the work required to prove this could not be any of the possible sources; contamination, electrolytic or evaporative concentration (a few others I do not remember). These experiments are particularly difficult to do due to the small results and the fact that (unlike excess heat) you must collect bulk results and test afterwards - which makes checking things challenging.

    Okay, but you specifically asked for the tritium paper first.


    Here are the posts:




    Having received the paper you asked for, you now say: "my memory is that the experiment was not conclusive, and so I'm not going to bother with the paper."


    Surely, you must see that if you ask for a paper, specifically say that you would be willing to have a serious discussion about it, and then back away when you receive the paper in question, then people might start to wonder whether you were ever serious about looking at the paper in the first place.


    In another thread, you quite literally said to Jed: "give me the paper and I'll give you the error", but here, the request was fulfilled, and now you don't want to read the paper that you asked for.


    Here it is again:



  • OK, so thanks for that. I would point out - due to this site's quoting mechanism, that there was only one link for me to look at.


    https://www.newenergytimes.com/v2/library/1992/1992Bockris-TritiumHelium.pdf


    or:


    On an electrode producing massive quantities of tritium and helium
    A Pd electrode has been examined which produced a concentration of tritium in a 0.1 M LiOD solution around 103 times above background. Tritium product…
    www.sciencedirect.com


    Abstract

    A Pd electrode has been examined which produced a concentration of tritium in a 0.1 M LiOD solution around 103 times above background. Tritium production at a given potential ceased after a few days, but could be restarted by a small increase of the deuterium overpotential. Correspondingly, He4 was found in 9–10 pieces of the Pd electrode at 2–100 times background. Addition of fresh amounts of D2O quenched the T production which began again spontaneously after 1–2 days. If the T had come from contamination, 3He would have been found in the electrode: it was absent. Loss of charge by the nucleus takes place when the fugacity of D in voids exceeds 1017 atm (Lifshitz and Pitaevskii, 1963). Sporadicity of function arises from the state of the surface, which is difficult to reproduce. The surface state controls the mechanism of D2 evolution; only some mechanisms give a fugacity high enough to cause fusion. Only one electrode out of four examined produced T and 4He. The surface of this electrode contained a Cu-mosaic structure, not seen on the inactive electrodes.


    Two claims here, Li and He4.


    He4

    The claims rest (I think - can anyone else confirm) on mass spectrometer analysis of the electrodes. this shows indicative peaks at mass/charge ratio of 1.5 and 2. The authors explain that the mass/charge 1.5 peak is probably an artifact caused by HD (not - as it also could be - 3He). They say He4 is detected but do not say how - they imply it is from mass spectrometry. If this is the case however the obvious question is whether the 4He m/q peak at 2.0 could be a D2 artifact (similar to the HD artifact for the 1.5 peak)?


    Perhaps somone who understands this stuff could answer this. I could not fine any mainstream citations of this paper to help me in interpreting these results.



    Li


    A detailed analysis of the sample energy spectra yielded the correct beta energy
    end point for tritium when compared with a standard tritium sample. Figure 4(a)
    shows a standard tritium spectrum (activity 200000 DPM) and Fig. 4(b) a T sample
    taken before the electrolysis was stopped. Both spectra exhibit the same pattern
    with maxima within the same energy range or at the same corresponding channel
    numbers (130-150).





    I am no expert on these scintillation results. The authors do not comment on what are the expected bin number errors. I think they should, because these two spectra are not as stated in the text - both in range 130-150 channel number.

    Each tick on the Y axis is 50 channels. the sample (b) has peak in range 100-150. The T standard has peak in the range 150-200. This does not just apply to the peak. Take e.g. the 50% peak values, you can see that the standard spectrum occupies bin positions about +20% from the sample spectrum.


    I, being no expert, cannot say what is the significance of this. The authors seem to think these figures matter - but do not explain the discrepancy visible from these graphs. I myself would in their situation point out the discrepancy and then explain why it is not significant (if it is not significant). I'd like this part of the analysis to be peer reviewed by somone with expertise and a neutral stance on this topic.


    (1) The authors have very clear high scintillation results

    (2) they have done lots to eliminate T contamination as cause

    (3) The results do not precisely match T in any case

    (4) they have not considered contamination of something else which would produce these not quite like T results where the contamination is pushed into the electrolyte by the electrolytic process.


    I am interested in these results. If reproducible (at a 1 in 4 electrode rate) they could be further understood and we could find out what they really mean. I will be overjoyed myself it that means yes this is T generated, and 4He generated, from D+D nuclear fusion.


    Taking the authors speculations at face value we have 10^15 T atoms generated in 400 hours or so. Supposing 4MeV for D+D -> T + H we have 1.6*10^-19*4*10^6*10^15 = 640J => 0.5mW over the period. Much much smaller than claimed excess heat in other such experiments. But there are lots of unknowns here.


    It would strengthen this line of evidence if we could get an excess heat / T production correspondence - at some level. If the theory has enough fudge factors that this cannot be done it makes this line of evidence less strong.

  • Taking the authors speculations at face value we have 10^15 T atoms generated in 400 hours or so. Supposing 4MeV for D+D -> T + H we have 1.6*10^-19*4*10^6*10^15 = 640J => 0.5mW over the period. Much much smaller than claimed excess heat in other such experiments.

    Anyone who has read the literature will know that the tritium is about a million times too small to explain the heat. No one has ever suggested that the tritium can explain the heat. THH's statement is either grossly ignorant, or it is trolling.

  • He4

    The claims rest (I think - can anyone else confirm) on mass spectrometer analysis of the electrodes. [...] They say He4 is detected but do not say how.

    This is addressed in the paper.


    Quote

    If this is the case however the obvious question is whether the 4He m/q peak at 2.0 could be a D2 artifact (similar to the HD artifact for the 1.5 peak)?

    This is also addressed in the paper.

  • This is addressed in the paper.


    This is also addressed in the paper.


    The D2 artifact issue is not addressed. it is stated as fact that this is not a problem without evidence or rationale. For example, evidence would be a spectrum with two distinct peaks for D2 and 4He. Or an analysis of the expected difference, and comparison with the measured resolution.


    Otherwise this is just a hopeful assumption.


    The point is that assumptions like this are not proper when the result of making them is something extraordinary. In fact they are not proper anyway, but with a less unexpected result an unproven case can be more easily accepted as likely. And papers must if they are to be useful point out the assumptions, and detail reasons for making them.



    Anyone who has read the literature will know that the tritium is about a million times too small to explain the heat. No one has ever suggested that the tritium can explain the heat. THH's statement is either grossly ignorant, or it is trolling.


    I do not troll, nor am i grossly ignorant.


    You here are criticising me with a straw man argument. I never said this paper claimed that. rather, when i look at all of the LENR eviudence, I look for coherence, or lack of coherence. I am stating that the tritium results are muhc too low to explain excess heat - which matters because if they were comparable then these two apparently different (unless we have LENR) observations would be coherent.


    Because LENR theories do not exist in any usefully predictive from yet - my main reason for not liking them - the converse argument can never be proven.


    Thus Li much too low to explain the excess heat does not disprove LENR. Nor do I say it does. However anyone understanding my argument would see that the lack of correspondence here makes the Li evidence less strong (for LENR). But it does make the Li evidence more questionable as support for LENR (see arguments below reiterated but I am not sure they are much remarked here - so worth repeating).


    In contrast with historic He4 evidence where it has been suggested that this does correspond to excess heat and if that could be shown it would be positive evidence. i have critiqued here the attempt to do this from historic evidence. But it is interesting. If a genuine correspondence could be found it would be important. I was hoping the experiment Abd hinted at (U of Austin??) would run to completion and find suhc evidence. I have not heard what happened about that - maybe it never ran.


    Science is not about taking sides, like politics. it is about honestly and carefully analysing evidence, drawing conclusions with reasons, accepting that we can all make mitsakes, that different people can draw different conclusions.


    Only on this site do I find some people criticising those who disagree with them personally. it is a poor show. I realise this site is not entirely about science, and is advocacy, etc. But inasfar as i post here it is because I am interested in science and working out what these many anomalies actually mean.


    I do not criticise anyone else (except Rossi and his ilk) in the way that Jed repeatedly criticises me. It is not proper.


    Jed, you feel strongly which i understand. But by playing to a popular audience that takes sides, rather than looking at evidence and facts, you do yourself no favour.


    My arguments here that I think have people riled up are actually meta-arguments. To do with how the collection of LENR-possible anomalies hang together or don't - and how we can judge that. I judge that different from Jed, and give reasons for my difference.


    All scientific interpretation is subject to prior belief. For example, if I had no prior belief that gravity exists, and that the earth is large enough to accelerate objects, i would find the mysterious 1g acceleration of objects near the earth surface quite extraordinary and look carefully at all the data claiming that. Of course there is so much data that even with no rationale the "1g acceleration anomaly" would easily and clearly be accepted - after which more 1g observations would no longer be anomalous. But the 1g anomaly makes very clear predictions which can be measured. It is therefore a better hypothesis even without underlying theory than current LENR hypotheses.


    Jed is convinced that his (and others - but not the majority of scientists) analysis of the historic LENR anomalies makes LENR pretty inescapable. Given that conclusion, he interprets current experimental anomalies with LENR as a possible solution. Also, he interprets historical evidence in the light of that conclusion. I do not draw the same conclusions and therefore am much less likely to see anomalies as evidence for LENR. Those who do not understand this paragraph - I think sometimes that Jed is one of them - but perhaps he just forgets it - will see this as either Jed or I being necessarily liars, stupid, or ignorant. I do understand this paragraph and therefore I can tolerate Jed having wildly different views from me about what is most likely in specific experiments.


    As I have said many time here - because LENR does not make precise predictions - in fact does not make any predictions - a very wide variety of anomalous results can be interpreted as LENR. People here see this - with Jed I think - as additional evidence. I do not.


    In fact I see the weakness of LENR as a predictive hypothesis as a major demerit in evaluating it as a reason for all these anomalies - as opposed to a wide variety of interpretation and experimental errors.


    This message is not negative.


    For example, better understanding of putative LENR mechanisms can lead to stronger predictions of results, which can then be measured and either disprove (that particular stronger version) of LENR, or make it much more likely. If LENR exists such understanding will in the end be developed. It is why I like the post-Google efforts that are trying to to this. They succeed, or they fail. Either way we end up with more information about the world. Note that LENR as advocated on this site is such a non-predictive hypothesis that no experimental results can disprove it or even cast muhc doubt on it.


    I'd hope others here, with me, would see the importance of tightening LENR hypotheses, narrowing the set of anomalies explained but explaining some of them more precisely, in a way that allowed disproof, or much stronger positive evidence. I think actually there are quite a few who see this, it is just that they have not yet been able to do this. Nevertheless because unlike me they have a positive judgement on all that collected historic evidence they remain strong supporters of LENR. That is fair enough - but such supporters if scientists will be lamenting the lack of predictivity and working their hardest to change it.


    I suspect that the old LENR crowd, many of them, have got past this simply because they have tried and failed for too long to find useful predictivity and therefore given up.


    If LENR is real it needs people not to give up on that. The best motivation not to give up on it is a skeptical mindset - which is why I wish it was more common in the LENR community. You do see it in some of the post-google work.

  • The D2 artifact issue is not addressed. it is stated as fact that this is not a problem without evidence or rationale.

    Everyone knows that the mass spectrometer must have sufficient resolution to separate these two. Every researcher addresses this. If this particular paper does not, you can be sure others from these authors do. As Ed points out, you are saying that experts do not know the fundamentals, and they make mistakes that only an undergraduate would make.


    You here are criticising me with a straw man argument. I never said this paper claimed that. rather, when i look at all of the LENR eviudence, I look for coherence, or lack of coherence. I am stating that the tritium results are muhc too low to explain excess heat - which matters because if they were comparable then these two apparently different (unless we have LENR) observations would be coherent.

    Coherence is a matter of your opinion, based on your ideas about theory. Cold fusion cannot yet be explained by theory. It is an experimental claim. The tritium is real. That is an experimentally proven fact. You have found no reason to doubt the tritium, or for that matter the heat, or helium. A reason can only be an error in the experimental technique or the instruments. The fact that you find it incoherent is not a valid reason to dismiss experimentally proven facts. Your personal ideas about theory do not overrule instrument readings.


    The tritium does not have to "explain" anything. It exists. That is an irrefutable fact. You can confirm it in this paper, or in dozens of other papers. Tritium can only be the product of a nuclear reaction. Therefore, cold fusion is a nuclear reaction.


    What you, or I, or anyone says about theory or coherence can never be a reason to reject replicated, high sigma experimental results. That is fundamental to the scientific method.

  • The D2 artifact issue is not addressed. it is stated as fact that this is not a problem without evidence or rationale. For example, evidence would be a spectrum with two distinct peaks for D2 and 4He. Or an analysis of the expected difference, and comparison with the measured resolution.


    Otherwise this is just a hopeful assumption.


    The point is that assumptions like this are not proper when the result of making them is something extraordinary. In fact they are not proper anyway, but with a less unexpected result an unproven case can be more easily accepted as likely. And papers must if they are to be useful point out the assumptions, and detail reasons for making them.

    The assertion of a statement without rationale is not correct. They specifically note that they had adequate resolution between the two. And they reference prior work that provides ample detail. Moreover, Oliver was a world expert in the detection of 4He.


    Here is reference 7:


    Summary Abstract: A mass spectrometer system to determine very low levels of helium in small solid and liquid samples
    Harry Farrar, IV, B. M. Oliver; Summary Abstract: A mass spectrometer system to determine very low levels of helium in small solid and liquid samplesSummar
    pubs.aip.org


    And here's a catalog for the GA-4.



    And here's an old Veeco catalog that details the GA-4R:



    Note the specifications and the example spectra provided in both.


    The GA-4 and GA-4R seem to be essentially the same, except that the R is rackmounted.


    None of this was hard to find.

  • Indeed. Theory is a red herring in the context of this exchange, which is about the interpretation and identification of experimental error in a specific experimental result.


    I think (hope) that I've now addressed THH's concerns re: the helium result, which only leaves his concern re: the shape of the tritium energy spectrum. His other point (#4 at post #1666) is not really addressable unless a specific mechanism is identified.


    THHuxleynew is there any other criticism of / concern about the paper that I've missed?

    Edited once, last by orsova ().

  • LENR, occurs as a non-mechanical process of material-neutrino-energy induction.

    Before some time I explained here the catalysis of nuclear reactions with neutrinos, as observed by Parkhomov and others. It just follows the surface tension aspect of nuclear liquid-drop model. Nuclear fusion works similarly to merging of metal droplets. When you shake mercury in test tube, you'll obtain black dust composed of tiny small droplets. But these droplets don't merge fast, because of their high surface tension and curvature. But when you add surfactant like ethanol to this dust, then the dropplets immediately coalesce and one large drop of mercury is obtained again. This is because ethanol decreases surface tension of mercury, it thus serves as a catalyst for droplets merging and energy release from this process.



    Mercury Droplets Join Funny Way Hg Stock Footage Video (100 ...


    So in this theory neutrinos and dark matter also behave like catalyst for merging of atom nuclei by decreasing their surface tension. Neutrinos are tiny bubbles of antimatter of negative space-time curvature, which compensates highly positive surface curvature of atom nuclei which allows their merging. Dark matter works similarly (neutrinos are solitons of scalar waves forming the dark matter). I utilize this theory for explanation of epizods of global warming induced by LENR in Earth crust and oceans catalyzed by dark matter clouds, between others.

  • Of course neutrino catalysis of LENR can not serve for its explanation as such: there are multiple another mechanisms involved, which don't require neutrinos. Which explains why LENR runs in reactors without any neutrinos involved. Note also, when two positively curved surfaces merge, the negative curvature of space-time will get released. The merging of two droplets requires temporal formation of thin neck with strong negative space-time curvature. The LENRs are thus not only catalyzed by dark matter, they also emanate dark matter (neutrinos, vortex rings EVO's and similar stuff) in analogous way, like photochemical reactions catalyzed by photons often release their energy in form of another photons (dark matter photoluminiscence of sort). Therefore in principle the chain cold fusion reaction mediated by neutrinos instead of neutrons is also possible.

  • ... in principle the chain cold fusion reaction mediated by neutrinos instead of neutrons is also possible.

    You understand the essence of my proposal, namely:

    Carry out a chain reaction of cold nuclear fusion by bombarding the nuclei of atoms with neutrinos (neutrino field). (by formal analogy with the experiment of Lise Meitner and Otto Hahn on the fission of a uranium nucleus when bombarded with neutrons).

    Specific suggestions in my article and comments on this forum.

  • Possibly relevant to this discussion. :)


    Charge Clusters, Low Energy Nuclear Reactions and Electron Structure - April 2024 Georgio Vasallo




    Description and figures

    This paper proposes the possibility that the formation of coherent charge clusters in nanometric gaps may have a role in the generation of Ultra Dense Hydrogen, Compton Scale Structures and in the catalysis of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions. This hypothesis is strictly related to a simple and intuitive theoretical framework that, in agreement with Occam's razor principle, proposes a common origin of fundamental physical properties as charge, mass, relativistic mass, spin and magnetic moment. This approach needs a particular Zitterbewegung electron model derived by a purely geomet-ric/electromagnetic interpretation of Maxwell-Proca, Planck, De Broglie, Schrödinger, relativistic energy momentum and Aharonov-Bohm equations. Starting from this Zitterbewegung model a realistic hypothesis may be formulated on the structure of exotic vacuum objects (EVO) and dense charge clusters seen by Shoulders and other researchers in their experiments. key words Aharonov-Bohm equations, aneutronic and many-body low energy nuclear


    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/380122888_Charge_Clusters_Low_Energy_Nuclear_Reactions_and_Electron_Structure?channel=doi&linkId=662bd22506ea3d0b740fd467&showFulltext=true

  • Everyone knows that the mass spectrometer must have sufficient resolution to separate these two. Every researcher addresses this. If this particular paper does not, you can be sure others from these authors do. As Ed points out, you are saying that experts do not know the fundamentals, and they make mistakes that only an undergraduate would make.

    Jed, if you personally know this fact I'd be grateful if you referenced where it is described in detail? It is a pity the authors did not do this. I admit my ignorance.


    Massive assumptions such as this are unhelpful - for example "every mass spectrometer has a different resolution" is another massive generalisation which I am a good deal more confident about and which contradicts your statement (as a generalisation). I am happy that in this particular experiment it may be the case: I'd like the evidence which would relate the known difference in mass/charge


    Especially because 3He can, it seems, be mistaken for HD


    Until you find this reference, here are some calculations. All units AMU (Dalton).

    4He mass: 4.002603

    3He mass: 3.016029

    H mass :1.007825

    D mass: 2.014101


    3He - HD mass = 0.0005897 Da

    4He - D2 mass = 0.0256 Da


    Which mean that any spectrometer with resolution

    FWHM >> 160 can resolve D2/He4

    FWHM >> 5000 can resolve 3He/HD


    It is quite plausible that they used a mass spectrometer with resolution between these two values.


    In that case the assumption made in the paper is correct if there was enough D2 in the measured sample for both He4 and D2 peaks to be present - or if the mass spectrometer was was well enough calibrated to have an accuracy also in that range.


    think (hope) that I've now addressed THH's concerns re: the helium result, which only leaves his concern re: the shape of the tritium energy spectrum. His other point (#4 at post #1666) is not really addressable unless a specific mechanism is identified.


    THHuxleynew is there any other criticism of / concern about the paper that I've missed?


    Orsova - thank you very much for your links here. It saved me a lot of time. To answer your question: you need to find me ref 8 for detailed reasons as below.


    ref [7] 7 H. Farrar IV and B.M. Oliver, J. Vat. Sci. Technol. A4, 1740 (1986).


    That is a very interesting reference about their innovative method accurately to measure the qty of He3 or He4 by "spiking" a sample with a known qty of 4He or 3He. It does imply that if this method is used they would indeed not be able to detect one of either 3He or 4He. But of course as they state below they can do the measurement twice, once without a spike, once with. It also states that the spectrometer used to do this is a modified residual gas analyser (the Veeco GA-4) - and does not state the mass/charge accuracy. From your useful link I cannot tell this - even if the actual resolution/accuracy did not depend on the modifications (I think it would). This link is all about measuring amounts of 3He/4He - not distinguishing between He4/D2. The paper says nothing about the resolution their eqpt has except to note that 3He/4He have a mass ratio of 1.5 and can therefore easily be distinguished.


    Let me repeat this: Jed's "everyone knows - it is obvious" assumption does not apply in this case because they are using a non-standard MS in a non-standard way specifically to obtain high accuracy quantitative measurements. The question is what does that do to the resolution and accuracy? Ref [7] does not address that.


    Ref [8] - analysis of errors in their specific experiment "B Oliver et al - to be published." It is entirely proper that the authors acknowledge they need to do this. And fair that it is published after the original paper. But this is what we need to find to answer the question I raised. Maybe Jed has it?




    THH

  • ndeed. Theory is a red herring in the context of this exchange, which is about the interpretation and identification of experimental error in a specific experimental result.

    Actually, while I am questioning assumptions everywhere in this paper - as should be done - you are right it is a red herring.


    I am as Jed points out no expert here - nor is Jed. You, orsova - may be? In which case you can help us. But as is often the case the experiment here is complex, it has non-standard elements (see my post above), working out exactly what it means requires a lot of detail and can easily be got wrong by anyone, even an expert. Which is why we rely on peer review with a lot of extra attention given to extraordinary results. Have I identified real problems? No idea! My questions have not yet been addressed here. But that Ref 8 might do this if we can find it?


    That is where - when a result is really important and extraordinary - you normally get a lot of competent peer reviewers looking at the evidence and questioning it as well as trying to replicate it. Note that these would include not juts "experts" who might all make group assumptions that sometimes fail but well-qualified scientists in adjacent fields not exactly expert but able to challenge those assumptions. (I am not claiming to be that by the way).


    We just do not have that level of scrutiny here from the LENR community. It is a shame. I'd wish that we had serious critiques of all these experiments from mainstream scientists. But you can see why few would be motivate to do it unless they, like Jed, had an overall view that LENR results were indeed nuclear reactions. And in that case the level of scrutiny immediately drops - because the questions of interest about these experiments change from "is there a nuclear mechanism for real?" to "what can we deduce about the (known to exist) nuclear mechanism?". And, of course, those scientists become part of the LENR community.


    The LENR community is alas qualified to answer "is there a nuclear mechanism for real" and also uniquely uninterested doing so in a way that would convince those not in that community. The mainstream community might interested in "is LENR for real", and is also so qualified (even more so - by weight of numbers), but is not interested enough to review properly the many old experiments.


    Notice there is no critique here of the LENR community. Were I as convinced as Jed I'd not think my time well spent critiquing these old experiments. After all, I'd not expect them to have errors - or at least no more than the usual number, and it would as a question not interest me much. However, in that case, the lack of belief in the mainstream community should also not be criticised. We are now at a "fossilised" stage in the debate about LENR where not many people are truly questioning. The Google work opened things up a bit - letting a few uncommitted but interested people take genuine interest. Which is why some of the post-Google experiments are worth watching.


    Never mind: if LENR is real one of those apparent large LENR effect commercial ventures will eventually deliver at least patentable scientific results which are indisputable, or convincing black box demos that are indisputable and raise worldwide interest as well as unlocking very large funding? Something like what Rossi did but for real not being an (obvious - to some of us) fake.


    THH

  • From your useful link I cannot tell this - even if the actual resolution/accuracy did not depend on the modifications (I think it would). This link is all about measuring amounts of 3He/4He - not distinguishing between He4/D2. The paper says nothing about the resolution their eqpt has except to note that 3He/4He have a mass ratio of 1.5 and can therefore easily be distinguished

    The answer to this is in the linked catalogs. These clearly show the ability to discriminate between the two. See attached screenshots.


    Your point re: the fact that the instrument is modified is well taken, but it strains credulity to think that an expert in helium detection would modify the instrument so as to make it less sensitive.


    Quote

    But this is what we need to find to answer the question I raised. Maybe Jed has it?

    I looked for it but couldn't find it. That was what led me to the catalogs, as I was aware of the same lack of detail as you rightly highlight. I included ref 7 because it gave the crucial clue: the instrument used. Again, from the attached screenshots, it should be clear that the instrument used was sensitive enough.


    I don't know that we need to track down ref 8. In the original paper, they state that they had adequate resolution, and here we confirm that the instrument used (in unmodified form) did indeed have adequate resolution. I would submit that this settles the question.

  • It is additional evidence but does not settle it because ref 7 says the instrument is modified?


    They were doing all they could to measure absolute values for the He4 & He3. I am not sure if that meant compromise on resolution.

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.