The perpetual “is LENR even real” argument thread.

    THHuxleynew thank you for your reply.

    yes, you are right calorimetry principle used here needs speciality to avoid some fake.

    However i think it was reliable because correlated with so many runs the experimenter done.

    if they haven't been so reliable he wouln'd not be able to well conclude what he said because the dispertion measurements.

    i contacted him and we should have a meeting soon together.

    Well this work interest me because in my mind that could be sticked with the Rayleigh plasma or some Kervran expectations.

    Quote from orsova

    Again, please note that we are not talking about the validity of results. We are not looking for reasons to dismiss the observations made. We are talking about your inaccurate characterisation of the claims made by LENR scientists.

    Quote from Paradigmnoia

    I hope they do not conflate the pyrometer emissivity for temperature measurement with the total emissivity for heat calculations.

    Well, if you have some questions about his calorimetry as i said i should have a meeting with him so i could transfert them.

    Please make me a list of some points you want to check.

    Thank you for this paper. It is definitely high quality work that deserves careful consideration. Also I do not remember having looked at it in detail before.


    The key thing about this work is that they claim heat bursts, not continuous excess heat, that cannot be explained by chemistry or heat storage.


    So although the bursts are well over my limit - this is not actually a counterexample to my claim. Indeed they point out that it is difficult to argue convincingly that continuous apparent excess of 10% or so - as many have claimed - is not some measurement artifact. they are much more sophisticated in this than Jed's statements here.


    I agree with most, but not all, of the author's analysis. The weak point of these measurements is that they are both uncommon (6% of electrodes) and transient (time-limited heat burst). That makes investigating the phenomena in detail very challenging. It also makes it an obvious candidate for experimental artifact - where some occasional defect in the experimental apparatus generates the apparent excess heat signature.


    The authors recognise this, and do a good job of investigating and ruling out possible defects. They concentrate most effort (correctly - I agree) in trying to eliminate electrical errors that would generate the apparent excess via an intermittent short circuit.


    It is a problem in their otherwise excellent setup that they use a supply circuit that can, in some fault conditions, deliver much more than the measured input power. They argue that such a mechanism could not deliver enough power to explain two of their 4 positives - out of 60 experiments. They do not provide the details, but while I don't expect them to get this wrong they have not ruled out more subtle electrical issues.


    Suppose that the supply they use (CC or CP) can under some unexpected load conditions oscillate. Such oscillation could easily be beyond the bandwidth of their measuring system but enough to significantly alter input power. This is more likely in their system where they have two separate controlled supplies that interact via the electrolysis. While mostly my suggestions about artifacts come from things I have no expertise in, I have a lot of expertise here. There are systems that would be completely immune from such artifacts, but also systems where they are very possible. We would need the details to eliminate that: and it is, except in passive systems, very difficult to eliminate for sure.


    This is no criticism of the experimenters. The observation here, reproducible at 6% rate and transient - so that the anomaly occurs for only a few hours in a 600 hour run and therefore over only 1 in 2000 of the experimental run time, is exactly the condition that makes checking and ruling out mechanisms impossible real-time. Indirect arguments must be used and they are much more difficult to make water-tight. Reproducibility is a great boon and although this is maybe reproducible enough to be redone in another lab, the fleeting nature of the anomaly makes investigating it properly extremely challenging.


    You can view this as either expected: LENR is likely to be difficult to observe in exactly this way, there is something in the mechanism that ensures that. Or as evidence that this is most likely some obscure but possible error - which because it is intermittent has never been understood. The second explanation is why alas results of this type will never cause mainstream scientists to be that interested.


    Still, their later experiments have ruled out everything that I can think of except electrical issues, and those could definitely be closed with further work.


    THH

    Quote from Cydonia

    Well, if you have some questions about his calorimetry as i said i should have a meeting with him so i could transfert them.

    Please make me a list of some points you want to check.

    (1) How can he be sure the emissivity of the Constantin wire does not vary due to surface changes caused by the hydrogen atmosphere interacting with the metal, or with oxide film on it.


    (2) Has he checked the band emissivities of the constantin surface and alumina in the wavelengths used for temperature determination. I'd guess the constantin is close to black body (except for possible surface changes). But guesses are not good enough! I know the alumina has very variable emissivity with wavelength, and the variation depends on the alumina microstructure.


    (3) Has he taken into account the effect of the constantin wire surface not being flat - but effectively being corrugated due to the individual windings. That will alter emissivity under any conditions it is not close to 1. I doubt this is a problem, but everything needs to be checked and it is easy for people to forget it.


    (4) He needs to apply these possible corrections both to his temperature measurement, and to his estimation of the output power which will be dominated I think by radiant power. They affect both, but in different ways due to band emissivity issues.


    (5) Has he considered the possibility that the alumina surface changes its optical properties over time due to reaction with H2. https://www.sciencedirect.com/…icle/pii/0021951771901497


    Paradigmnoia may have other issues to consider.


    Simple version: don't use calorimetry that depends on surface characteristics when the surfaces in question are then put into reactive hydrogen atmospheres at high temperature.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    Still, their later experiments have ruled out everything that I can think of except electrical issues, and those could definitely be closed with further work.

    There is one other possibility. Conditions inside the cell and on the electrode surfaces could result in variable electrode heating with hot-spots. If those ever got > 100C unusual things would happen with boiling altering electrolyte resistivity. The energy stored in host-spots could then be released. (Or - maybe - the hot-spot energy could be released in some other mechanism - it is very open).


    They rule this out on the grounds that they can see no way thermodynamically for part of the cell to become very hot. But of course with continuous 8W applied power, and where that power is dissipated variable, hot-spots storing much more energy than the "equipment warm-up" energy that the authors quote are possible.


    The authors might be able to eliminate this with more careful arguments bounding the maximum hot-spot energy possible? They say the experiment is isothermal but it is difficult with local heating and possible bubble insulation to be sure of that?

    Quote from orsova

    Again, please note that we are not talking about the validity of results. We are not looking for reasons to dismiss the observations made. We are talking about your inaccurate characterisation of the claims made by LENR scientists.

    So this is a misunderstanding. obviously, there are very many different results that have been claimed to show LENR. My point about low excess fractions applies to the (large number) of experiments claiming continuous low excess heat. My point is that you do not get credible continuous excess heat claims at higher fractions of the input power. That is a bit surprising, if LENR is real, because there is no obvious reason based on mechanisms why that should be a limit. Nuclear reaction rate would not be expected to scale in that way. Calorimetry errors would.


    Burst heat effects are quite different, and they are very difficult to make safe for the reasons I have indicated above. But my comment does not apply to them.


    Finally, there are many diverse other claims, transmutation, neutron emission at low levels, alpha emission, He & Li, all of which have different issues - and also which I have spent much less time studying. It has always seemed to me that if LENR is real electrolysis excess heat should be a decent way to detect it. It seemed so to F&P.

    Quote from Cydonia

    Well, if you have some questions about his calorimetry as i said i should have a meeting with him so i could transfert them.

    Please make me a list of some points you want to check.

    I would like, if they will provide, a complete and clear description of the method and calculations used for calculating Pout. Including the Stefan-Boltzmann shorthand.


    (Pout is not explicitly shown, table 1, but must be calculated from Pout/Pin.)

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    We agree. And my "filtering" is to ignore those where accurate and careful description does not exist.

    The most accurate and careful descriptions of experiments include some that have far less input than output, and others that have no input power. So you are mistaken. Or, I guess we can say, your filter is arranged to block out any data you do not want to see.


    Furthermore, input power can be measured with very high precision. It is electricity, which can be measured with the highest accuracy and precision of any form of energy. So, only a tiny fraction of input power is noise. With laboratory grade instruments, the noise is at parts per million or parts per billion. So, if input power is 4 W and output is 0.1 W, at a laboratory such as SRI or Toyota, the noise from input power is hundreds of thousands of times below output. There are other sources of noise far greater, but even so, the signal to noise ratio is high, regardless of the ratio. See:


    https://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/McKubre-graph-2.jpg


    In short, the input power can be subtracted completely, and it has no effect on the scientific quality of the data. Perhaps it would make a practical device impossible, but it has no bearing on the conclusions we draw from the data.


    Here are some notes from my invisible friend describing the accuracy and precision of measuring electricity --



    The precision with which dc electricity can be measured using laboratory-grade instruments depends on several factors, including the type of instrument, the measurement range, and the environmental conditions. Here are some of the key instruments and their typical precisions:

    1. Digital Multimeters (DMMs):
      • High-precision DMMs can measure dc voltage with an accuracy of up to ±0.001% or better.
      • These instruments often have resolutions down to microvolts (µV) for voltage measurements, microamps (µA) for current measurements, and microohms (µΩ) for resistance measurements.
    2. Precision Voltage References:
      • Instruments like voltage reference standards can provide extremely stable and precise voltages with accuracies down to ±0.0001%.
    3. Source Measure Units (SMUs):
      • SMUs can source and measure voltage and current with very high precision, typically down to nanoamperes (nA) and microvolts (µV).
    4. Precision Resistors:
      • High-precision resistors are used for measuring current with accuracy down to parts per million (ppm).
    5. Null Detectors and Electrometers:
      • These instruments can measure very small differences in voltage with high sensitivity, often down to picovolts (pV) or femtoamperes (fA).
    6. Data Acquisition Systems (DAQs):
      • High-end DAQs can measure dc signals with accuracies of ±0.005% or better, depending on the specific system and configuration.

    Key Factors Affecting Precision:

    • Calibration: Regular calibration against known standards is crucial for maintaining measurement precision.
    • Environmental Conditions: Temperature, humidity, and electromagnetic interference can affect measurement precision.
    • Instrumentation Quality: The design and build quality of the instruments play a significant role in their measurement capabilities.

    In a well-controlled laboratory environment with high-quality, calibrated instruments, dc electricity can be measured with extraordinary precision, often down to the level of parts per million or even parts per billion in some cases.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    The energy stored in host-spots could then be released.

    The maximum possible chemical energy stored in the entire cathode is 1,700 times less than what is released during the course of the experiment. If you assume that all of the heat prior to the boil off is from cold fusion, the heat release during the boil off is 133 times more than any possible chemical storage. (Of course you will never admit that the heat prior to the boil off is cold fusion, because you would have to explain why it magically turned off.)


    To put it another way, at this power level, all of the chemical heat would come out in 4.5 seconds, whereas the reaction continued for 600 seconds. Furthermore, the maximum power level it could be is 5 mW , so it would take many days for the deuterium to emerge.


    See:


    https://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanreplytothe.pdf


    Needless to say, there are many other reasons why this is impossible. I will not bother to list 5 or 10 others.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    The most accurate and careful descriptions of experiments include some that have far less input than output, and others that have no input power. So you are mistaken. Or, I guess we can say, your filter is arranged to block out any data you do not want to see.

    Reference - and I will then agree my comment is not UNIVERSAL (I never said it was) or say why such claims are obviously not safe. (Like that of Schwartz) I would also add that if it is so easy to obtain (correct) high continuous levels of output why do those excellent modern experimenters redoing electrolysis experiments not find it.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    The maximum possible chemical energy stored in the entire cathode is 1,700 times less than what is released during the course of the experiment. If you assume that all of the heat prior to the boil off is from cold fusion, the heat release during the boil off is 133 times more than any possible chemical storage. (Of course you will never admit that the heat prior to the boil off is cold fusion, because you would have to explain why it magically turned off.)


    To put it another way, at this power level, all of the chemical heat would come out in 4.5 seconds, whereas the reaction continued for 600 seconds. Furthermore, the maximum power level it could be is 5 mW , so it would take many days for the deuterium to emerge.

    Actually i agree with you that hot spots are unlikely - but you have completely misunderstood what I said.


    I said hot-spot => it is physical heat not chemical heat and there is in principle no limit although in practice there is of course a limit.


    Re heat prior to boil-off - we were talking here about a different experiment from the one you are thinking of? read above. One thing that makes your comemnts on what i say less useful than i'd like is thatyou do not pay attention to the details: e.g. which experiment am I commenting on.

    Your invisible friend has probably never worked with home-brew active CC or CP circuits.


    It is very easy for any feedback stabilised PSU to oscillate - and such oscillation will not be detected by any of those methods which assume we are measuring dc. Oscilation will only hppen for specific load conditions, which is why it can be difficult to analyse unless directly detected with a VHF scope. Oscillation in a power supply can corrupt measurements in two ways:


    (1) rather obviously, an ac signal imposed on a dc one into a resistive load will result in higher power than the (correct) average dc voltage and current readings provide. We (well, I) have discussed this here many times.


    (2) Less obviously, ac signal can be rectified by some part of the instrumentation before measurement to make unclear errors. That should not happen, but it can happen especially when non-experts put together unusual PSUs.


    I have no idea whether that is the case in the paper we are talking about because there were no details. More work might be able to find them in another paper and clarify this.


    Why do I think LENR experiments may have such problems? Simple. Any other experiment: Pout > Pin would be a clear sign of some experimental error. The investigators would keep on looking at things until eventually they found the problem. But in LENR experiments there is no such reason to persevere. The experimenters think it quite plausible there should be excess heat. They do the normal checks but no more.


    Yes, anyone doing experiments knows that especially with unusual experiments (which McKubre and Earth Tech both point out LENR electrolysis is) weird things can happen and not always be quickly detected.


    THH

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    Why do I think LENR experiments may have such problems? Simple. Any other experiment: Pout > Pin would be a clear sign of some experimental error. The investigators would keep on looking at things until eventually they found the problem. But in LENR experiments there is no such reason to persevere. The experimenters think it quite plausible there should be excess heat. They do the normal checks but no more.

    Having performed many such experiments, and sometimes finding XSH and mostly not, I can assure you that the first thing everybody does when it happens is check everything - for example- has the heater thermostat/PSU failed 'on'? I have known switching Mosfets do that, so it is always the first thing I check. Has the thermocouple failed? Cross check it with the spare uncoupled one that sensible people incorporate into their systems. And on and on.

    Experiments take a lot of time, thought, and often money. So the people who perform then take care to make them 'fail safe' as much as possible. LENR experimenters are not a unique class of people who ignore the possibility of errors, in fact in my experience they tend to be a little paranoid about positive results and when they appear check everything more assiduously than most.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    I would also add that if it is so easy to obtain (correct) high continuous levels of output why do those excellent modern experimenters redoing electrolysis experiments not find it.

    Mike Staker is the only modern experimenter re-doing the electrolysis experiments as far as I know. He achieves high continuous levels of output. Other than that, it has not been done for 15 years or more. All of the people who did those experiments are retired or dead.


    But what are you talking about? Why do you think that an experiment must produce high or continuous output to be valid? Low and sporadic output has never been held as a reason to reject a result. It has no bearing on the signal to noise ratio. (Because the high part -- input -- is easily subtracted.) Yes, it does mean the technique may have no practical use, but it has no scientific significance.


    You would never cite these as reasons to reject any other claim; you only apply this made-up standard to cold fusion. You would never say that tokamak plasma fusion is not real because input is larger than output and the reaction only lasts a few seconds.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    Why do I think LENR experiments may have such problems? Simple. Any other experiment: Pout > Pin would be a clear sign of some experimental error. The investigators would keep on looking at things until eventually they found the problem. But in LENR experiments there is no such reason to persevere. The experimenters think it quite plausible there should be excess heat. They do the normal checks but no more.

    Hearsay. Reminds me of the old Garwin defense when reporting on his visit to SRI: "equipment and data check out, but they must have missed something!". From all that I have read, what you say is simply not true. It might be for a few...especially when the science was run underground, but LENR has been replicated in so many quality labs in just the past few years that it is almost laughable to keep saying this.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    It is very easy for any feedback stabilised PSU to oscillate - and such oscillation will not be detected by any of those methods which assume we are measuring dc

    That is an absurd objection, not even worthy of your ill-informed critical mindset. Every power supply of commercial quality or better will have substantial capacitor(s) on its output to filter residual noise and rf. I've been designing, building and testing electronic apparatus for over 50 years and have never seen a dc power supply oscillate as you propose.


    It may be possible to purposely create a set of conditions far outside the design envelope of the equipment to intentionally cause such oscillation, but even an amateur experimenter would know better unless acting maliciously.

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.