the 1992 boil-off experiment
The 1992 boiloff expt is much more difficult, however Dr Michael Staker
has replicated the F&P experimental results of significant heat
much in excess of any chemical reaction
with extensive documentation.
http://coldfusioncommunity.net…F21_Staker_2_Oct_2018.pdf
The Mizuno R20 experiment is far more easy to replicate than the electrochemical cells by McKubre, F&P and Staker
It is being replicated in the near future
. Well, I am not one to spend much time arguing words
That's a surprise to me.
The boundary between fringe science and pseudoscience
In the end the term fringe science is a vague and imprecise term ,which is a characteristic
of political and rhetorical debate rather than scientific discourse.
So if THHnew wants to persist with the term fringe science he is being rhetorical rather than scientific.
and this thread can be very prolonged... and may even involve unicornology
What can be argued scientifically and quickly are erroneous statements such as this about fluid flow in pipes made by THHnew
" Turbulent flow does not have a flat velocity flow across the middle 3/5"
would however publish a paper showing conclusively that much higher than expected excess heat exists in D/Pd electrolysis, with the checks and instrumentation to back up that claim, without any speculative claim that this comes from LENR (which would be unjustified in absence of high energy products or other evidence).
THHnew has still not publishwd his official rebuttal to Michael Staker's publication.
Is there a date for that .. or will it just be vague sniping on LF as usual.
https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StakerMRpreprintco.pdf
Of course this is fringe science
and Michael Staker iis a fringe scientist according to THHnew
but only when he deals with LENR.
some electron shielding effect in lattices would be an obvious solution.
But not enough by a factor of 160 to 1000 times to explain the observed enhancement by Thomas Shenkel
"
At the lowest ion energies, we observe relative neutron yields that are a factor of 160 to 1000 times higher
than would be expected from the bare nuclei D-D fusion cross section, "
There is (sorry I'm too lazy to find refs again) a whole load of experimental work on lattice enhancement of reactions
The references that THHnewmay have read are the same one's that Thomas Schenkel has read
Schenkel writes
"
But an electron screening potential of ~1000 eV is not consistent with established theories of electron screening which reproduce measured values from gas phase experiments of ~27 eV [1, 5-11].
The references do not support THH's idiosyncratic statement
that Schenkel's findings of neutron emission enhancement are 'expected'
Non established theories by scientists such as Czerski are needed to be accepted to make these neutron results and the results of Fleishmann and Pons and other LENR researchers 'expected'
However since this is fringe science according to THHnew vagary
it is not accepted. But still according to THHnew's idiosyncratic theoretical understanding .. Schenkel's results are expected
??????
I don't see that "fringe science" is offensive here
I see it as offensive and many others here do
The fact that THHnew attempts to divide Hagelstein's work into fringe science and nonfringe science
when it is the same scientist with the same scientific training and employing the same rigor
shows how specious and rhetorical his use of the term FRINGE science is.
On the other hand classifying THHnew as one of
the anonymous fringe is justified.
there was no artifact
Which artefact does TTHnew suggest?
Make a list for Google team. keep it concise... not like this
(1) CCS is Shanahan's grand name for errors caused by cell condition changes altering calibration
(2) While everyone knows this Shanahan pointed out that some LENR papers were ignoring the fact that small call errors of this type get amplified by the ratio between the (external) power in and the (observed) excess heat out. This is pretty obvious, so that for example a 10% excess heat result will be invalidated by a calibration shift (caused by some change in conditions) of only 1%.
(3) There is then the matter of what could cause calibration to change by 1%. Shanahan hypothesised ATER (at-the-electrode-recombination) which LENR guys have uniformly stated is not possible. Well, Shanahan argues that it could be possible in certain special cases whn you have the right electrode preconditioning etc. Sound familiar? ATER has the potential to cause calibration changes by altering the position in the cell where heat is generated. For certain types of closed cell, where a recombiner is used at the top of the cell, it is plausible that moving from recombiner heat to electrode heat would move calibration consistently in the direction of less heat lost and therefore more measured.
(4) From my POV this mechanism does not apply everywhere, but a wide class of LENR expereriments need to be aware of it and check carefully. Good enough calorimetry will reduce this problem to low levels, and some LENR experiments provably have this. Shanahan thought that all such claims should check for this possible error mechanism explicitly: other LENR authors argued that "they had checked and it was obviously not an issue".
(5) From my POV "obviously not an issue" is not good enough when you have surprising results - like excess heat beyond chemical. You need to prove that such a hypothesis does not apply in every specific case that you cite.
(6) The discussion thus is more about "does ATER exist" and "could ATER alter calibration" for specific experiments than it is about CCS. One thing that has sometimes annoyed me is that LENR papers do not always (or even usually) assume what I consider a proper burden of proof. Thus if some error mechanism has been shown not to be relevant in some cases it is assumed not relevant in all cases without careful argument. Because LENR excess heat is found to be erratic, it can be simulated by an error which only happens occasionally, hence the checking for what could possibly be an error needs to be very careful.
(7) Therefore I side with Marwan et al in that there are various good ways to rule out ATER, some of which clearly apply to some LENR experiments. I side with Shanahan in that not all of the considered important LENR experiments, as documented, do rule out ATER.
(8) Shanahan argues that possibly all replicable FPHE observations are due to ATER. I don't have a view on that, it is not entirely clear what constitutes a replicable observation, given teh FPHE effect is hypothesised to depend on not easily determined electroe conditions that cannot be fully controlled nor measured, except by the apparent existence of FPHE. That makes a lot of people seeing FPHE, but not consistently, potentially fit an error mechanism that oes not always apply, but does sometiems.
(9) Were I wanting to prove FPHE effects as due to above chemical heat production, I'd need to examine the ATER and CCS issue very carefully and list those results which could not possibly be due to it (perhaps because the come from a 99% efficient calorimeter and show excess heat above errors of >> 1%). My reduced list of experiments could then be examined for other possible errors etc. At the enmd of this process the experimenst that stand up would justify Jed's and others certitude.
(10) Shanahan got annoyed with the LENR community because the published (and personal) replies to his hypothesis were dismissive without engaging fully in his arguments nor understanding them. For example, Marwan et al argue (amongst many other arguments) that CCS might lead to random errors which go both positive and negative, but these are not observed. Shanahan rightly pointed out that this was, if it existed, a systematic error mechanism, and therefore any argument about random errors does not apply. He felt that such a gross misunderstanding of his published idea showed they could not have read his paper when replying to it.
Now after that background: note my tense in the sentence you quote: conditional. I cannot prove that CCS exists. Shanahan claimed he had, from analysis of provided unpublished data, strong evidence for it in one case. Obviously that is not proven. Even if CCS does exist it would be surprising for it to apply in all cases. If CCS exists there might be some other condition change causing it, not ATER. But, ATER as hypothesised has the potential to create CCS (obviously) since it alters cell temperature distribution which may create calibration changes.
there is no doubt that the simplest strongest replicable LENR experiment is the boil-off experiment documented by F&P in 1992
Dr Michael Staker has already replicated F&P work thoroughly..strongly.. 2018
perhaps Google X could replicate Dr Staker... after doing R20
However R20 is much simpler to replicate.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=…Vaw0tyXdpHkQQMQ3qZ6pteqVc
From Siyuan Lu and Peter Hagelstein's 2018 Paper
"
Theory suggests that for phonon–nuclear coupling to be strong enough to show observable effects, the frequency
of a vibrational mode ought to be as high as possible.However, suitable commercial sources for THz vibration
excitation have not been available to us at the time of the reported experiments.Collimated X-ray emission in the
Karabut experiment and in the Kornilova experiment suggest that observable effects may also occur at lower frequencyvibrations. Cardone and coworkers have reported a variety of anomalies in experiments in which a steel bar is subject
to vibrations at 20 kHz; including neutron emission [24–29] alpha emission [25,26,30–32], and elemental and isotopicanomalies [33–35] (see the reviews [36,37]).
We interpret the observations of Cardone and coworkers as possibly
resulting from up-conversion mechanisms at play. All of this suggested the possibility of observing effects from upconversionin experiments with vibrations well below the THz regime.
Over recent years, we have been working toward experiments to experimentally investigate phonon–nuclear couplingand expected mechanisms and effects resulting from it.
It is all LENR. This is why his work is presented at LENR conferences
the two "its" represent different areas in which Hagelstein has published.
The one relevant here, where he has been working on LENR theory, and one where he is investigating in detail some interesting details about the ME.
THH's division of Hagelstein's work into
a fringe-LENR part and a non-fringe ME
is entirely rhetorical.
It is all LENR. This is why his work is presented at LENR conferences
or does it indicate genuine confusion?
It does
Which part of Hagelsteins's work is fringe and which is nonfringe?
energies fractioned by the delocalisation are of electromagnetic range
What is the electromagnetic range? The electromagnetic spectrum ranges from far infrared to strong gamma..
It is fascinating, and of course not fringe science
It is fringe science
Is Hagelstein's work fringe science or not fringe science?
also don't trust McKubre's results
Actually I don't trust THH's vague assertions and opinions..
but he is entitled to express them.
"
but no funder would compare fringe science like LENR with conventional science like ITER.
I think the anger here about ITER is just silly.
Its not anger.. its disappointment
but no funder would compare fringe science like LENR with conventional science like ITER.
So Hagelstein's work is fringe science?
Why?
They are doing similar work to Cheng on the magnetoelectric decay mechanism
published in Nature.
Trust is not a binary thing. When I say "I don't trust"
Thanks for clarifying that THH..
So Mckubre is less risky than Mizuno?
but then both have results
I don't trust any set of results
Really .. are you trying to humor the GoogleX guys? THH
I don't trust any set of results
So why bother reading any scientific paper with "results"
But better that than a whole load of non-science spending one could compare it with.
ITER money goes to technological research in teh funding countries so they get back 80% of it. this is a political argument but it affects funders
So the justification for ITER is that it is not nonscience.. and that it is technology that countries get back 80%.
How do they get back 80%.. by employing physics Phd's?
So how is this a specific justification for ITER? as compared with other science/ technology
Why not put the money into LENR,, and still get back 80%
Btw , THHnew Is Hagelstein and Lu's work nonscience? or science?
Sorry RB: I thought my post was clear.
No it wasn't
please explain this sentence
Those who say Mizuno here are taking a risk.
Is this metonymy?
Of course in Japanese ,Mizuno means "of water".
Perhaps water is dangerous?
1keV ion energy some measurable D-D cross-section is expected
THHnew is in agreement with what Schenkel says too...that some is expected
but the D-D cross- section Schenkel finds in his exploration of palladium irradiation is
"a factor of 160 to 1000 times higher
than would be expected from the bare nuclei D-D fusion cross section
, "
I guess THHnew is in agreement with Schenkel's unexpected statement.
So if conventional theory has poor predictions at the 1. 2 keV level ...this explains why Schenkel is interested
to explore the lower energy levels..hopefuly he can get down to the 500 eV levels.
I recall Lipinski found unexpectedly high levels of nuclear reactions
at the 200 eV level with a lithium lattice/ hydrogen combination
