The perpetual “is LENR even real” argument thread.

Quote from THHuxleynew

So this is a misunderstanding.

No, it wasn't.

Quote from THHuxleynew

Reference - and I will then agree my comment is not UNIVERSAL (I never said it was)

Yes, you did. See below:

Quote from THHuxleynew

All LENR excess heat experiments rely on large amounts of externally applied power dissipated as heat, to show small excess heat. I know of no systems that when carefully replicated end up with more than about and extra 10%: the excess depending critically on the replicating calorimetry.

"All LENR excess heat experiments" is universal and unequivocal.

Quote from THHuxleynew

I was referring to Staker & Storms - but maybe the Storms results are old ones?

I believe he has done mainly gas loading in recent years. You are right that he did electrochemistry more recently than 2009. I also overlooked Miles & Imam, PdB, 2019:

https://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BiberianJPjcondensedzb.pdf#page=21

There may be a few others.

Incidentally, for people who want to learn about materials, I highly recommend Imam's papers and video lectures.

Quote from THHuxleynew

And I allow the high temperature ones but you should note that the calorimetry for them is often much less safe.

No, it isn't. You made that up. You will not find any justification for that in any textbook on calorimetry.

Quote from THHuxleynew

I expect there are a very few ok looking claims - but nothing that is replicable.

On the contrary, all of the major claims are replicable, and have been replicated. Again, you made that up.

Quote from THHuxleynew

See earlier (OK - I can't find it) for quote from McKubre where he said that LENR electrolysis experiments are unlike any other and presented unique calorimetry challenges.

Every groundbreaking experiment in history has been unlike any other. It would not be groundbreaking otherwise. It would be a replication of previous work, or something like an undergraduate textbook experiment. Electrochemical calorimetry was invented by Faraday and J. P. Joule. It was improved since then, but it was somewhat old fashioned by 1989. It was brought up to date by Fleischmann, McKubre and others. Since then, the excess heat results were replicated and confirmed by over 180 laboratories. It was replicated in many different kinds of calorimeters: isoperibolic, flow, Seebeck and phase change. So it may have been somewhat unusual or novel in 1989, but by 1995 it was as well established as any modern form of calorimetry.

Furthermore, in many experiments, this calorimetry was designed by a cadre of experts at places like Los Alamos, or by people who are members of National Academy of Science for their contributions to calorimetry. If there were any errors in this calorimetry, they would have been discovered by now. The chances that these people are wrong and you are right, or that you know better than they do, are roughly 1 in 1 million.

Quote from THHuxleynew

The question is how the implemented it. I agree, a commercial supply would be fine. Now sure how they implement a CP supply?

By the following method:

1. Look in a laboratory equipment catalog.

2. Place an order for the power supply that best suits your needs.

I have been in many labs and I have seen many power supplies. They all came from commercial supply houses. That is also true of every oscilloscope, mass spectrometer, SEM machine and, indeed, every other piece of standard equipment.

Quote from THHuxleynew

As you well know I don't make things up

You have made up DOZENS of nonsensical claims. You have a fecund imagination. Your recent discussion of water levels and recombination displayed an extraordinary ability to confuse cause and effect, and to make mistakes in everyday physics that a 6-year-old would not make. Your ability to deny obvious facts merits an Olympic Record. Such as the fact that excess heat does not turn off when boiling begins, and then magically turn on again, or that anyone can see the power stops by looking at the power record, so there is no need to see the water level. Let me again quote:

"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)

Still a favourite of mine

Quote from Alan Smith

Still a favourite of mine

External Content youtu.be

Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.

Display all external content

Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

No it’s not.