It is additional evidence but does not settle it because ref 7 says the instrument is modified?
Already addressed by orsova: "it strains credulity to think that an expert in helium detection would modify the instrument so as to make it less sensitive."
Why do you keep beating a dead horse? You know as well as we do your objection is nonsense. Why are you trying to fool?
I've had another look and can't find anything that looks like ref 8.
But here's another earlier paper, from the same group, detailing the same system. They again mention that the system is modified, but don't give any indication that anything major was changed.
I know that THHuxleynew means well when putting things under this kind of scrutiny, which to most of us "heathens" looks non sensical.
I have stated many times before that what I think is that THHs sees anything that challenges "what is known" about nuclear reactions as impossible, therefore he starts from the assumption that a mistake was made. He doesn't know what mistake was made, but it must have been a mistake, so that's why it looks to us naive believers that he is being unreasonable.
We have a clash of dogmatic biases, one that assumes that LENR is imaginary, and the other that thinks is proven and being resisted because of what it implies. Hard to solve this kind of clash. Me being in the "LENR is real" camp, have little else to add to this discussion. Just wanted to state why I understand what THH does.
I know that THHuxleynew means well when putting things under this kind of scrutiny, which to most of us "heathens" looks non sensical.
I don't think it's nonsensical, but I do think it's a stretch to argue that experts in helium detection took an instrument that was able to resolve the difference between helium 4 and deuterium, modified it in a way that impaired the resolution of the instrument, and then fooled themselves into thinking that its resolution was unaffected.
Here's some more from Miles, who also used Rockwell. I know this won't satisfy THH, but it is what it is.
We have a clash of dogmatic biases, one that assumes that LENR is imaginary, and the other that thinks is proven and being resisted because of what it implies.
I think it is more accurate to say that when theory and replicated experiments clash, there are two sides.
Our side -- the "painfully conventional people" (as Fleischmann put it) -- believe that science is based on experiments, and when replicated experiments conflict with theory, the experiments are always right.
THH, Huizenga and some others say they believe that theory overrides experiments. The experiments must be wrong, even when they cannot give a reason. Even when they do not bother to look for a reason. Or when THH comes up with some preposterous reason such as world-class experts at Rockwell deliberately making a helium detector less sensitive. In the past, he latched on to nonsense such as rats drinking water in Mizuno's lab, or magical invisible foam that made F&P calorimetry fail for 10 minutes even though different methods of calorimetry worked before and after the boil off. This is not "grasping at straws." It is trolling. THH and Huizenga both knew perfectly well that what they were saying is bullshit. The only purpose is to fool stupid people into thinking cold fusion experiments might be wrong.
Hard to solve this kind of clash.
It is dead easy. Francis Bacon solved this in 1620 in Nova Organum: "Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed."
There is only one standard of truth in science: the experiment. An appeal to theory is never valid. Making up nonsensical explanations that everyone knows are not in evidence is never valid. Both are grotesque violations of the scientific method. Experiments are not the gold standard of proof. They are the only standard of proof. The only way to disprove an experiment is to find an error in the experimental technique, the instruments, or the interpretation of the results. THH, Huizenga and the others never did this. They never even tried. They are smart people and they know as well as I do there are no errors.
They are smart people and they know as well as I do there are no errors.
I would say that they prefer to believe that there is some kind of error rather than accept a theory they cherish may need reviewing in light of new experimental evidence.
I know that THHuxleynew means well when putting things under this kind of scrutiny, which to most of us "heathens" looks non sensical.
I have stated many times before that what I think is that THHs sees anything that challenges "what is known" about nuclear reactions as impossible, therefore he starts from the assumption that a mistake was made. He doesn't know what mistake was made, but it must have been a mistake, so that's why it looks to us naive believers that he is being unreasonable.
We have a clash of dogmatic biases, one that assumes that LENR is imaginary, and the other that thinks is proven and being resisted because of what it implies. Hard to solve this kind of clash. Me being in the "LENR is real" camp, have little else to add to this discussion. Just wanted to state why I understand what THH does.
The claim of low energy nuclear reaction, LENR is unproven non-sense. There is fusion outside of the Lawson criterion, but it is because of a catalyst which creates an energy distribution which provides anionic hydrogen/deuterium the kinetic energy as required by the physical laws to overcome the coulomb barrier. Electrogravity (electron-gravity) as a cause of nuclear reactions. I have detailed proof that even THHuxleynew hasn't challenged. Catalyzed fusion opens nuclear reaction pathways different from hot fusion, so using helium, tritium, or other measures of hot fusion to claim LENR doesn't change the wrong perception.
So yes, to fusion without expensive tokomaks but no to LENR. It is perception not a fact.
Here's some more from Miles, who also used Rockwell. I know this won't satisfy THH, but it is what it is.
I don't blame THH for his Scepticism. After all, Rockwell know so little about accurate helium and tritium measurement that they are a trusted key player in the job of monitoring the health and well-being of the USA's nuclear stockpile.
In the discussion and dispute “about the reality of cold nuclear fusion LENR,” I want to talk about the following most important factors-arguments for knowledge and solution to the problem:
1) “Turn the problem into a postulate” (Goethe), that is, the philosophical-metaphysical, non-logical, non-mathematical way of knowledge;
2) “Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited, while imagination embraces the whole world, stimulating progress, giving rise to evolution.” (Albert Einstein)
3) “Without theory there is no experiment”
First theory, then experiment. Experiment without theory - too much trial and error, which is what we are seeing now. We are wandering through the forest without a compass.
4) Laboratory experiments are elevated to an absolute level, while little attention is paid to observational experiments that we can observe in Nature using the same instruments.
Already addressed by orsova: "it strains credulity to think that an expert in helium detection would modify the instrument so as to make it less sensitive."
Why do you keep beating a dead horse? You know as well as we do your objection is nonsense. Why are you trying to fool?
Jed - have you actually read ref 7?
And do you know what is meant by "sensitive"?
(Hint - there are two distinct meanings, one of which is the focus of ref 7).
You are, as is common in the LENR community, making assumptions about stuff you have (till you read ref 7) no knowledge.
And surely surprising results require every such assumption to be checked? Your faith in experts is touching. I am, myself, in some areas, an expert. And I know a lot of experts. The one thing they will tell you as that when you are doing something new (which this experiment was) mistakes happen, and they are normally about things you just did not consider because they are always ok and anyway not what was important to you when making the modifications.
Display MoreIn the discussion and dispute “about the reality of cold nuclear fusion LENR,” I want to talk about the following most important factors-arguments for knowledge and solution to the problem:
1) “Turn the problem into a postulate” (Goethe), that is, the philosophical-metaphysical, non-logical, non-mathematical way of knowledge;
2) “Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited, while imagination embraces the whole world, stimulating progress, giving rise to evolution.” (Albert Einstein)
3) “Without theory there is no experiment”
First theory, then experiment. Experiment without theory - too much trial and error, which is what we are seeing now. We are wandering through the forest without a compass.
4) Laboratory experiments are elevated to an absolute level, while little attention is paid to observational experiments that we can observe in Nature using the same instruments.
I agree 3)
That is - experiments are no use without interpretation of results, and that depends on theory. No theory (or predictive hypothesis) and experimental results are very uninformative.
You are, as is common in the LENR community, making assumptions about stuff you have (till you read ref 7) no knowledge.
I have considerable knowledge, because I have read every document about this experiment, and discussed it in detail with Miles, his coauthors, and many experts in mass spectroscopy. I do not recall ever talking to the people at Rockwell, but I might have. I do not have a perfect memory and I do not recall where the specifications for this mass spectrometer are. Miles and others describe them, as noted. Orsova gave you the information, as noted. You pretend he did not, and you pretend the people at Rockwell deliberately degraded performance. We spoon fed you this knowledge again and again, but you pretend it is not there, and you spout patently absurd lies instead of acknowledging that you are wrong.
That is - experiments are no use without interpretation of results, and that depends on theory. No theory (or predictive hypothesis) and experimental results are very uninformative.
There are theories. You do not acknowledge them, but they are right there in the first paper and in just about every other paper in the literature. The theories are:
1. Only a nuclear reaction can produce megajoules of heat per mole without any chemical transformations.
2. A DD fusion reaction produces helium at a fixed rate compared to the heat (24 MeV per helium atom), and cold fusion helium is produced at this rate.
3. Only a nuclear reaction can produce tritium.
These theories are well established.
1. Only a nuclear reaction can produce megajoules of heat per mole without any chemical transformations.
2. A DD fusion reaction produces helium at a fixed rate compared to the heat (24 MeV per helium atom), and cold fusion helium is produced at this rate.
3. Only a nuclear reaction can produce tritium.
These theories are well established.
Any nuclear reaction converts binding energy (an amount of AMU) to energy or vice--a-versa. H to H fusion is not transmutation because the product and the reactant are both the same chemical. However, helium production would be chemical transformation. Hydrogen/deuterium fusion happens in the Kidman reaction as proven by mass balance and stoichiometry. But the heat yield is not in megajoules per mole because the reaction produces the mc. The main product of so call LENR is mc. (Reasonable deduction from theory and interpretation of observations of Rout et al in "Reproducible, anomalous emissions from palladium deuteride/hydride." Tritium is produced mostly by neutron absorption (neutron activation) not fusion. So, your list of three theories are poor predictors for most nuclear fusion reactions that occur outside the Lawson criteria.
Display MoreI have considerable knowledge, because I have read every document about this experiment, and discussed it in detail with Miles, his coauthors, and many experts in mass spectroscopy. I do not recall ever talking to the people at Rockwell, but I might have. I do not have a perfect memory and I do not recall where the specifications for this mass spectrometer are. Miles and others describe them, as noted. Orsova gave you the information, as noted. You pretend he did not, and you pretend the people at Rockwell deliberately degraded performance. We spoon fed you this knowledge again and again, but you pretend it is not there, and you spout patently absurd lies instead of acknowledging that you are wrong.
There are theories. You do not acknowledge them, but they are right there in the first paper and in just about every other paper in the literature. The theories are:
1. Only a nuclear reaction can produce megajoules of heat per mole without any chemical transformations.
2. A DD fusion reaction produces helium at a fixed rate compared to the heat (24 MeV per helium atom), and cold fusion helium is produced at this rate.
3. Only a nuclear reaction can produce tritium.
These theories are well established.
Jed, I am glad you have made this argument.
Which theories do I not acknowledge? I have explicitly referred to the few most popular, and am interested in anything that could be predictive (even if not now predictive). You are just saying that, because you have a reductionist view of my posting here. anything that does not fit it - you filter out. But, if there are new ones, or old ones looking better now, let us have threads here discussing them. Those threads start with the disprovable predictions from the theory (or the proposed possible after more work such disprovable predictions).
On the specific point of the mass spectrometer read ref 7 - it is a non-standard modified instrument changed to allow accurate quantitative measurement. Are you sure all those other usages are modified the same way? It may be the modification has no affect on resolution. My point is that these big loopholes always appear because the people doing the experiments don't reckon it is important enough to close them. After all, they, like you, believe LENR exists.
To deal with your points (1),(2),(3):
Your (1),(3) are not quantitative predictions made by any LENR theory. They are certainly not theories. Nor are they even a complete list of the anomalies that could be attributed to an (unspecified) LENR theory. They are related to D+D -> 4He fusion sub-theories of LENR weakly - because such measurements cannot disprove those theories and it is difficult - without clear replicability and large results - to distinguish D+D-> 4He from many other causes - including various errors.
Your (2) Is a quantitative prediction which I am very interested in, and have posted here about many times (see above). It is a consequence of D+D -> 4He fusion LENR subtheory. Unfortunately it seems very difficult indeed to check securely because measuring the low qtys of 4He and relating those to excess heat is difficult. You know we have discussed Storms' (?) meta-analysis of the old experiments, and my problems with that - both the meta-analysis conditions and the experimenters themselves select results for a positive result:
(a) Too much 4He - equipment is leaking - remove results and redo. Cuts off any data points with too high a slope.
(b) Linear relationship? Both excess heat and 4He (from leakage) scale linearly with experiment time. Many of those nice linear points come from the same experiment running for different times.
Nevertheless I call for this prediction to be explored more carefully. It is solid. I can bet you if it is found disproved LENR enthusiasts will find some reason why it does not apply - e.g. there are additional fusion reactions to the D+D -> 4He one. But even so that is good. it narrows down future research and therefore makes it more likely to be successful.
So I would not widen the hypothesis. I credit the D+D -> 4He LENR sub-theory as a real bit of possible physics with quantitative results and therefore the possibility for it to be disproven. It deserves replication, with much more careful methodology. And were LENR enthusiasts interested in science, they would see its proof or disproof as useful.
In drug trials you register the experiment, the methodology, the results you are testing, what you are looking for BEFORE the experiment is done. Unexpected additional results are rightly viewed with much more skepticism - and never seen as proof of anything.
It is accepted that trials without this pre-registration are not reliable, because experimenters can change what is reported post-data in such a way as to make something random look like a real relationship. Note also the well-known p-value fallacy (still cropping up in some published work). The maths behind this is clear, but not always intuitive.
My point here about LENR theory, and what is needed to make it look much more probably correct, is exactly the same. I have reiterated it here and I'd like to think that mots reader would understand it, and like me look for hypotheses that can be disproven, and experiments that are capable of doing that. Every such hypothesis, making a specific prediction not expected that can be shown true or false, is strengthened by an amount that goes up when the possibility of proving false becomes larger.
(1), (3) are not useful predictions, because they can have many possible causes and no LENR theory can be proven false from such data.
(2) is genuinely helpful, but especially difficult to run. but, with pre-registration and clear methodology - which could include checking equipment for leakage in a way that meant that does not contaminate the results, it would be known doable evidence for LENR that could not easily be dismissed. The evidence so far might be enough to make such replication worthwhile. I know Abd here was campaigning for it and I agreed (see posts from that time).
But I do not believe (2) is the only quantitative (and therefore capable of disproving the hypothesis) experiment in this area. Surely if a D+D -> 4He hypothesis is correct others exist (like detecting elusive alphas or low-energy betas etc). I am enthusiastic about that stuff, juts as i am enthusiastic (in principle) about D+D -> 4He.
Many people here would however interpret LENR much more broadly than that - in ways that can never be disproved.
Jed, have hope. If some LENR hypothesis is real it can lead to definite experiments that could disprove it. such a disprovable hypothesis, and experiments that bear out its predictions, will attract interest. Just don't expect meta-analyses of past experiments looking for relationships post-hoc to do that.
THH
And for those other than Jed. I am not a closed-minded bigot. Find me my evidence for LENR, or even bits of theory that hang together and look as though they might provide that evidence, and i will be enthusiastic. As I have been e.g. with the low energy electron screening evidence from Csierski (sorry - might have spelt it wrong) onwards. Or with many other little elements of work reported here.
It is just that "brains fall out on the floor" consideration of anything as LENR makes progress impossible (unless some working demo is found) and is really a different enterprise from science.
I am as you know very skeptical about any of the current half-claimed working demos. Give us 3 years more and you can look back and criticise that skepticism (or agree with it).
So, in my view, the way forward for LENR is science. If it exists. You put your cards on the table (a hypothesis). You test it. You refine it if need be but it says something that in the face of additional experiments will either triumph or be discarded as not true.
Giving up on that (and I can see it has been frustrating not having that for so long) is giving up on science. There are post-google people now working to develop theories (well - hypotheses) that can be disproven and find this evidence. I'd wish the LENR community concentrated on that - and recognised the very great value of hypotheses that make predictions that can be disproven. That means honestly recognising when a hypothesis is disproven, or when it is weakened by introducing fudge factors to make it fit data post-hoc, or when it is weak because it can never be disproven and will fit all results.
Jed's (1) and (3) results can only support hypotheses in that weak way, because lack of those results can never disprove any LENR hypothesis.
THH
On the specific point of the mass spectrometer read ref 7 - it is a non-standard modified instrument changed to allow accurate quantitative measurement.
If you don't like Rockwell for this invented reason, I suggest you look at the other two labs that did blind testing of Miles' samples. They got the same answers. Or you could look at any of the other labs that measured helium.
Your (1),(3) are not quantitative predictions made by any LENR theory. They are certainly not theories.
Fleischmann and I consider them theories. He made a quantitative prediction that this is D-D fusion and therefore helium in the same ratio to heat as plasma fusion would be found. Later, Miles and others confirmed this. That was a prediction based on theory but it is now an established fact.
Unless you think nuclear theory does not predict 24 MeV per helium atom. Or you think that is not a theory. In that case, what would it be?
Perhaps you are saying that once a prediction is confirmed, it does not count. It is no longer a prediction. You can dismiss it. Or perhaps you want some new predictions. I am not a theorist, so you are asking the wrong person for new ones. Ed Storms has made various predictions about what will be found with H-H, H-D, and H-T fusion. You could read his papers.
Nor are they even a complete list of the anomalies that could be attributed to an (unspecified) LENR theory.
I did not say this is a complete list. You asked for theories, and I gave them to you.
It is a theory that only a nuclear reaction can produce tritium. That is a very basic, widely believed theory. Perhaps you want something more esoteric? I do not see why you say that is not a theory. Again, what would it be if not a theory?
Your (2) Is a quantitative prediction which I am very interested in, and have posted here about many times (see above). It is a consequence of D+D -> 4He fusion LENR subtheory. Unfortunately it seems very difficult indeed to check securely because measuring the low qtys of 4He and relating those to excess heat is difficult.
Is it "very difficult to check securely"? Compared to what? It is far easier than building a tokamak reactor, a nuclear bomb, or sending a robot explorer to Mars. Do you doubt that tokamaks, nuclear bombs, and robot explorers are real? Do you say they are so difficult to make, they are probably mistakes? Regarding helium, we are talking about the best helium labs in the world. They are tasked with important work with things like the U.S. nuclear weapons. Do you seriously think they might not be able to do what they said, even though the results from many different labs agreed? Including results from double-blind tests.
You have not given any technical reasons to doubt these results. The only reason you have come up with is that the task is "very difficult." The people who do the work disagree with you. They do not consider it any more difficult than the other helium detection they have been doing for decades. (They told me so.)
Also, by the way, I have never heard of a "subtheory." I don't know what makes a theory sub- or super-. But in any case, you will not find any scientists who doubts the three theories I listed, whether they be super- or sub-.
Out of curiosity, what super-theory would you say sub-theory number 1 is?
"1. Only a nuclear reaction can produce megajoules of heat per mole without any chemical transformations."
Perhaps you have demoted that below sub-theory, and you do not even consider it a theory. What do you call it? What is it? Do you doubt that only a nuclear reaction produce megajoules with no chemical transformations? Do you know of some other natural phenomenon that can do that?
Jed's (1) and (3) results can only support hypotheses in that weak way, because lack of those results can never disprove any LENR hypothesis.
Lack of helium with Pd-D would prove that cold fusion is not fusion. It would be something unknown to science.
The helium is not only strong support of the hypothesis that this is fusion. It is irrefutable proof of that. We know it is irrefutable because THH and the other skeptics have never refuted it. They would if they could. The only thing THH can come up with is that it is "very difficult." As I said, he would never dismiss a tokamak experiment, or a robot explorer on Mars because they are difficult. He made up this absurd standard as an excuse to dismiss cold fusion, and he would not think of applying it to any other scientific claim.
Also, cold fusion helium detection is not particularly difficult for the leading helium experts. That is why three of them got the same results from the same set of samples, independently and double-blind. If it were difficult or problematic that would never happen. It is not difficult, and even if it were, that is no reason to dismiss it.
On the specific point of the mass spectrometer read ref 7 - it is a non-standard modified instrument changed to allow accurate quantitative measurement. Are you sure all those other usages are modified the same way? It may be the modification has no affect on resolution. My point is that these big loopholes always appear because the people doing the experiments don't reckon it is important enough to close them. After all, they, like you, believe LENR exists.
Three things.
You call it a large 'loop hole', but that's an assumption on your part. You don't know what they did. And neither do we. Whatever they did to modify the instrument, one would think it standard that they would recalibrate it against both helium 4 and deuterium post these modifications. To suggest otherwise is to assert that they were incompetent. After all, they were looking for helium 4 in a deuterium rich environment.
You say that the Rockwell group didn't think it was important to 'close' the 'loop hole'. There's nothing scientific about the imputation of belief.
You say that they (Rockwell) like us, believe that LENR is real, and then imply that this is why they didn't 'close' the 'loop hole'. Again, imputation of belief is not scientific. I doubt the Rockwell group had an opinion one way or another. It's a bit insulting to dismiss them as sloppy 'true believers'.
This really isn't a scientific argument. We've given you suggestions as to why the reasonable position is to conclude that the modification very likely didn't vitiate the measurements.
Briefly:
operator expertise
unmodified instrument resolution
earlier operator report that modifications weren't particularly significant
assumed recalibration post modification
operator confirmation of resolution in the original Bockris paper
Your response to these is essentially to impugn the expertise and intent of those who made the measurements.
You say that they (Rockwell) like us, believe that LENR is real, and then imply that this is why they didn't 'close' the 'loop hole'.
On the contrary, they say it is not real. There have been heated discussions with them about this. Mel Miles recently wrote:
"Brian Oliver of Rockwell International was never considered as a supporter of cold fusion but his very accurate He-4 measurements were essential for this correlation of excess heat and He-4 production."
Brian Oliver was not happy with the correlation. Fortunately, these were double blind tests, including some blanks (with no heat), and some background atmospheric samples. So he had no way of knowing it was a correlation.
When a result is against your interests, because you were hoping it would not be positive, that is a good reason to think it is correct.
The other two labs are supportive, as far as I know. One of them definitely.
As usual, THH is speculating about things he knows nothing about. Brian Oliver's attitude in this case.
Lack of helium with Pd-D would prove that cold fusion is not fusion. It would be something unknown to science.
Are you arguing that the only fusion that can be known to science is production of He from deuterium? Catalyzed fusion is not dependent on a solid like Pd.
There is no error in the mass balance and stoichiometry in https://www.lenr-forum.com/att…ed-equation-for-icfp-pdf/ The measurements and analysis are hard science. So, there is fusion, and the data provides no evidence of Helium.
Just because the hard science does not fit your perception does not mean that a better explanation than yours are not true. It is very inadequate to say that whatever I am investigating is not LENR, as Ed Storms did earlier in this thread. It is not the number of investigations or the amount of data, rather the strength of data that matters.
