Posts by Eric Walker

    Here is the abstract of the first NASA paper, "Investigation of Deuterium Loaded Materials Subject to X-Ray Exposure":


    Results are presented from an exploratory study involving x-ray irradiation of select deuterated materials. Titanium deuteride (TiD2) plus deuterated polyethylene ([-CD2-]n; DPE), DPE alone, and for control, hydrogen-based polyethylene ([-CH2-]n; HPE) samples and nondeuterated titanium samples were exposed to x-ray irradiation. These samples were exposed to various energy levels from 65 to 280 kV with prescribed electron flux from 500 to 9000 μA impinging on a tungsten braking target, with total exposure times ranging from 55 to 280 min. Gamma activity was measured using a high-purity germanium (HPGe) detector, and for all samples no gamma activity above background was detected. Alpha and beta activities were measured using a gas proportional counter, and for select samples beta activity was measured with a liquid scintillator spectrometer. The majority of the deuterated materials subjected to the microfocus x-ray irradiation exhibited postexposure beta activity above background and several showed short-lived alpha activity. The HPE and nondeuterated titanium control samples exposed to the x-ray irradiation showed no postexposure alpha or beta activities above background. Several of the samples (SL10A, SL16, SL17A) showed beta activity above background with a greater than 4σ confidence level, months after exposure. Portions of SL10A, SL16, and SL17A samples were also scanned using a beta scintillator and found to have beta activity in the tritium energy band, continuing without noticeable decay for over 12 months. Beta scintillation investigation of as-received materials (before x-ray exposure) showed no beta activity in the tritium energy band, indicating the beta emitterswere not in the starting materials.

    Some thoughts here: energies in the 65–280 kV (presumably keV) are an order of magnitude lower that the photodisintegration threshold of 2260 keV (to use your value, THH). The photodisintigration cross section is always quite low, so you'd need a large flux of 2.3+ MeV photons to see appreciable photodisintegration. Where would such an MeV flux arise in a 65–280 keV photon beam?

    The low rate of observed activity is not an issue if the rate is several sigma above the measured background; they mention 4 sigma. I suppose you'd need systematic error or bad controls to discount this detail.

    Or maybe I've mixed up the paper you were referring to, THH, with the other one?

    Side note: tritium has a half-life of 12.5 years. I'm curious whether that's consistent with a lack of noticeable change in rate of decay over a 12 month period. (It might be; I'm too lazy to do the calculation right now.)

    For the curious, here is the abstract of the second NASA paper, "Experimental Observations of Nuclear Activity in Deuterated Materials Subjected to a Low-Energy Photon Beam":


    Exposure of highly deuterated materials to a low-energy (nom. 2 MeV) photon beam resulted in nuclear activity of both the parent metals of hafnium and erbium and a witness material (molybdenum) mixed with the reactants. Gamma spectral analysis of all deuterated materials, ErD2.8-C36D74-Mo and HfD2-C36D74-Mo, showed that nuclear processes had occurred as shown by unique gamma signatures. For the deuterated erbium specimens, posttest gamma spectra showed evidence of radioisotopes of erbium (163Er and 171Er) and of molybdenum (99Mo and 101Mo) and by beta decay, technetium (99mTc and 101Tc). For the deuterated hafnium specimens, posttest gamma spectra showed evidence of radioisotopes of hafnium (180mHf and 181Hf) and molybdenum (99Mo and 101Mo), and by beta decay, technetium (99mTc and 101Tc). In contrast, when either the hydrogenated or non-gas-loaded erbium or hafnium materials were exposed to the gamma flux, the gamma spectra revealed no new isotopes. Neutron activation materials showed evidence of thermal and epithermal neutrons. CR-39 solid-state nuclear track detectors showed evidence of fast neutrons with energies between 1.4 and 2.5 MeV and several instances of triple tracks, indicating greater than 10 MeV neutrons. Further study is required to determine the mechanism causing the nuclear activity

    Note that a nominally 2 MeV photon beam is not "low energy," although assuming there is LENR at lower energies, this may share a common mechanism with LENR. I would question the apparent assumption in the abstract that deuterium is a reactant; assuming LENR for the sake of argument, deuterium might be a catalyst.

    The more surprising is diligent and long arm activity of your admins, Walker in particular: sometimes less is more. For me it's just symptomatic, that just the posts critical to hot fusion were removed. If you want to build a new anti-LENR site from your forum, you're doing it systematically and well.

    In recent posts, you have attacked one member as a hot fusion troll, you've implied that the goal of LENR Forum in putting up posts about EVOs and a fusion reactor technology is to detract from LENR, and you've attacked the forum moderation as imbecile as well as attacking individual forum mods. You do not like how this place is run, and your participation is not really valued here. The fit is not a good one. You will be permabanned before long, I assume, as you cannot seem to dial down your caustic behavior. Please go somewhere else.

    Just to cut to the chase, you will get a two-week timeout without much ado if you attack me or others in response.

    Consider two separate cases:

    1. Careful LENR researchers who report relatively small results of the kind you allude to (not all of the reported results are small, though).
    2. Entrepreneurs, some of whom are controversial (to put it mildly), who claim very large and consistent results.

    You are safe to ignore claims made by those in category (2) entirely until they put up some real evidence to back up their claims. With regard to those in category (1), most report having very little control over the process, and the results are sporadic and hard reproduce. This is a situation that bedevils the field. You cannot chain together several devices and expect to amplify an effect if you have little control over when it actually happens.

    Are the researchers in category (1) correct in their conclusions about LENR, as they believe, or are they the victim of measurement error and inadequate methods? That is something that each person must decide for themselves after looking into the details on a case by case basis.

    Several of the "validators" repeat paragraphs very similar to the one in the abstract above over and over in their reports, with small variations. It seems to come from a template. (Too lazy right now to see how similar the language is.)

    [Quoting the abstract:] The peak power of 20 MW was measured using absolute spectroscopy over the 22.8-647 nm region wherein the optical emission energy was 250
    times the applied energy.

    When I looked into this, I believe it was pointed out by a more cagey reviewer that a novel and unproven technique was being used to measure power-out.

    Another absolute? I believe it is for the future to tell, don't you?

    Readers will be the judge of whether you have successfully shown that TC's paper is a simple hit job, different in kind from Bob Higgins's analysis, by arguing at the level reputation, anonymity and conclusions about experimental methodology in the section on isotope changes in the fuel.

    Also I conclude that these ad-homs seriously affects the bias of the report. We can thereby safely assume that TC would leave out any evidence of a working reactor from the report. It is a simple hit job done on limited data from a distant wannabe. Nothing more to it.

    When a paper has been pored over and debated as much as the TC paper, we can safely conclude no such thing, unless we are only now coming up to speed on the matter. Many electrons have been sacrificed here and elsewhere picking apart that paper. If it were a simple hit job, as you tendentiously contend, it would have been called out as such by people at the technical level within days or weeks of it being made available. This has in fact happened to other analyses.

    The handling of the fuel is an obvious problem with the Lugano test. It does not show that Rossi did something underhanded. It shows that one cannot conclude one way or the other whether Rossi did something underhanded. That is not ad hom. That is pointing out a basic methodological flaw.

    Your contention will find no purchase unless you can drop to the level of technical details.

    I've been thru this with Eric already who compared with Higgins who is areal scientist and which is shown his presentation of his paper, ie. no ad-homs and not anonymous.

    And I showed conclusively why your assertion about TC's paper being conspiracy theory was both tendentious and manifestly incorrect. It is the technical details that matter. They place Bob Higgins's analysis and that of TC on the same level. You will not be able to counter that argument with one about the reputability of the source, which is ad hominem, as you demonstrably know.

    Please stop trolling this place.

    If your assertion is that TC's conclusions are defeated by illegitimate ad hom arguments, you will need to point out the specific arguments and how they undermine his conclusions.

    Well. If you publish a paper and want it to be taken seriously and want to get feedback from the real scientists, you should not be anonymous. Especially if you at the same time accuse these scientists of being corrupted/dependent etc.

    It is not my position that TC should expect feedback from real scientists, e.g., the Lugano scientists. His view perhaps differs from mine in that regard. But his argument that the Lugano scientists did not publish, and so he should not have been expected and required to publish, is also a good one.

    Am I actually interpreting you correctly when you argue that someone like TC should be taken seriously?

    On a forum like this, very much so. This forum does not have the same bar for admission as academic journals. My sense is that anyone who genuinely is interested to know about the strengths and weaknesses of the Lugano report should take TC's paper, Bob Higgins's paper, and the analyses done in this forum by Paradigmnoia and others seriously.

    BTW, are you sure he is a real person? Have you met him?

    Not 100 percent sure. Haven't met him. But that is the scenario that makes the most sense to me at the moment.

    I the case of TC I find the anonymousity a red flag. There is a reason for it and as a spelled out numerous times it is highly suspicious. I'm curious to know why you who seem very thourogh in your argumentation does not view the anonymousity of TC in the same way?

    First, as I said, TC is not really anonymous. He's a real person. As has been sleuthed out. Second, there are legitimate reasons for wanting anonymity. You yourself are anonymous, and that does not invalidate your arguments here. Perhaps TC works in a context in which his employer would frown on his engaging in discussions about LENR. That would not be very surprising.

    But for the sake of argument, let's say TC's motives were the worst possible ones. What conclusions do we draw on that basis about the technical discussion in the TC paper?

    And, yes I consider the motives and incentives of the author to be central of any rational evaluation of the work, dont you?

    I find motives hard to discern and easy to get wrong. There have been enough abortive attempts to identify people's real motives off and on on this forum and others to make me nervous about going too far in that direction. There are people, for example, who I get the impression had unsavory motives in producing technical rationalizations to support various statements made about the Doral stuff. But in the end what matters is whether what people say is true and self-consistent, on one hand, or incorrect, on the other. Motives are an interesting side show. Technical arguments are the most interesting.

    I tentatively conclude that you have not really reviewed the technical arguments in TC's paper, and that apart from some information available or lacking about the authors, you are unable to spell out why at a technical level TC's paper is different in kind from Bob Higgins's analysis.

    Getting back to your earlier complaint about ad hom a few days ago, I don't see how TC's arguments depend upon his being anonymous or not. In that paper they are nearly all technical. Do you have a technical basis for saying that TC's report is "exactly what I would call a textbook type of conspiracy theory"? Or are you just going off of high-level impressions formed from trying to discern the author's motives?

    So, Tony. Are you interested and willing to provide support for the following statement of yours? If TC's analysis is a conspiracy theory, there will be all kinds of nonsequiturs at a technical level.

    I know about the "TC" Lugano job. It's exactly what I would call a textbook type of conspiracy theory (even though it carefully tries to look like something "scientific").

    Also, is TC's analysis different in kind from Bob Higgins's analysis, or is the latter also a conspiracy theory?

    Just one point of clarification. TC's report is not anonymous. It was authored by Thomas Clarke:

    I agree that the conclusion that some people have made about Rossi's handling of the "fuel" being fraudulent goes too far. But this is not TC's conclusion, nor is it implied.

    Can you clarify why you think it is a "pseudo report"? Is it different in kind from the analysis that was made available by Bob Higgins?

    Now, what are your complaints about the TC hypothesis Eric?

    My complaints are twofold. First, I saw the original Lugano report as having a fundamentally flawed methodology, in which an attempt was made to use first-principles calculations to calculate radiant power (and energy) from the Boltzmann equation, when calorimetry would have been the sensible thing to do. Despite claims to the contrary by the authors, I suspect calorimetry would have been possible. In the case where it was not possible, and the object under test really did need such an approach, there would be a strong impetus to change the device so that it could be measured with calorimetry. (All of this is just to get to TC's paper; there were other problems in the Lugano report as well.)

    TC (perhaps for the sake of argument) goes along with the premise of the calculations and then does similar ones himself. The Lugano conclusions, and TC's conclusions, felt like rickety towers waiting to topple over.

    My second complaint had to do with too many assumptions being made in the isotope section of TC's paper. There was a long thread on this two or three years ago.

    Hi Adrian,

    I am genuinely interested in Tony's critique of TC's analysis of the Lugano report. I have my own complaints, both about the Lugano report and about TC's analysis.

    MY is unwilling to go far in engaging details on demand. Six years of her posts on different forums have demonstrated this. I don't see the point in calling it out every time or have the energy to do so. Jed seems to have the energy and does a good job of this. Sometimes MY has interesting tidbits of information.

    Tony ,

    Care to make your argument specific, i.e., at the level of technical detail, rather than left to vague high-level statements such as:

    I know about the "TC" Lugano job. It's exactly what I would call a textbook type of conspiracy theory (even though it carefully tries to look like something "scientific").

    For example, can you mention some specific details in the writeup that you did not agree with? This will be off-topic in the present thread, but it won't be hard to move the discussion to a more suitable thread.

    There are a number of posters who are polite and informed, who focus on technical details and whose posts are generally pleasant to read. And there are a smaller group of posters who are boors, who complain a lot about other forum members and how the forum is run, who are uninformed, who readily resort to insults or who otherwise generally make reading through the threads a slog. Perhaps the best advice for anyone who cares about the changes coming up is to follow the example of the first group and to avoid the example of the second group.

    I did not state my opinion was unbiased. You did. However if you state yours is unbiased I (as I said) don't believe you.

    My stating that your conclusion was unbiased and clear-sighted was a subtle way of highlighting that it might not be unbiased or clear-sighted. I will admit to my biases; but biases informed by long experience are different from biases informed by other things.

    I suppose the socratic method of dialogue can both be called debating and a path to the finding the truth, don't you agree?

    The socratic method is indeed a good path to truth. What you're doing doesn't really feel like the socratic method. You're selectively replying to secondary details while omitting to rebut or acknowledge primary points that are made. Finding any little thing to quibble with is something different than the socratic method.

    My apologies to the thread for letting this get so meta.

    Good for you. You actually make a lot of sense here. I guess you simply fell into a cognitive bias trap investing so much time and effort in your position. Hard to quit I guess.

    To draw your unbiased, clear-sighted conclusion about the cognitive bias in my conclusions, we must set aside information acquired from watching Rossi do the same thing over and over in different forms. Usually the way it works is that the more information that one can draw upon, the more informed the conclusions.

    Your flip responses give me the impression that you're here with the specific purpose of debating.

    If "flawed" is a simply word with applied value of the user than "secretive" could mean the same thing and make much more sense considering the available information and agreed upon goals of the demo (investors/partnering etc).

    The word "flawed" has a pretty straightforward meaning in this context. If Alan Fletcher is willing to call the demo a null result, one can safely conclude that there is little support for the claims that have been made in connection with it, for Alan is willing to bend over backwards to give Rossi's demos a charitable interpretation. Needless to say, it didn't have to be that way. It was a result of a choice Rossi made, possibly consciously,


    Agree you're only covering all exits at the dark end. You seem to be quite narrow minded in that regard.

    It is not "covering all exits" to not conclude what one does not know. Regarding being quite narrow-minded, this is not really true. I've been following developments related to Rossi since 2011 or 2012. I started out with a very charitable view. Here is an early post of mine to the Vortex mailing list, in May 2012:

    Agreed. I wonder whether a lot of the frustration with Rossi is more just a residue of people's initial skepticism towards cold fusion in general. The first reaction is to disbelieve any suggestion of cold fusion out of hand and for that reason to adopt the initial assumption that Rossi is lying. Once the reflexive doubt about cold fusion wears away, some of Rossi's unguarded public statements can be distracting. But when one listens to him speak in an interview, he sounds pretty reasonable. And if his inventions end up doing half of what he's reporting, I think humanity will owe him a huge debt of gratitude. In light of all of this, it seems safest to withhold judgement and see where things go.

    Here is another post of mine from November 2012:

    I very much doubt his [Rossi's] claims are fraudulent -- it would be a very impressive fraud, more impressive than the alternative possibility that he's simply been flighty and loose with the details. I'm kind of rooting for him, and I find his interaction with the public a source of amusement. My suspicion is that he's stumbled onto something. I have questions about whether it will see the light of day anytime soon.

    Over five or six years, one begins to discern a modus operandi. One begins to form opinions about where things might be headed next.

    It could certainly be intentionally "flawed". At least we can be sure not all information was revealed. The reason for this could be argued from any direction I suppose. So I don't understand you point here otherwise than having a personal opinion. Seems like you try to cover all exits...

    Not trying at all to cover all exits. I predicted that the demo would be intentionally flawed in early October:

    I predict that there will be an element of willful shoddiness to the upcoming QuarkX demo, going beyond the minimum needed to make it hard or impossible to verify any claims that are made. These demos seem to have become a game for Rossi, perhaps to see how people react.

    I may have gotten the motive wrong; one is tempted to consider even darker possibilities. But if the demo was intentionally flawed, at a minimum there is the whiff of manipulation.

    All witnesses however seems to agree there were potential investors/partners lining up to meet with Rossi, so in that respect and according to general sentiment from witnesses it does not seem at all that flawed. So in that respect it doesn't really matter you arguing something happened that did not happen here, or?

    The dark interpretation is clearly that this was a means of sifting through possible marks. Is that what happened? I don't have enough information to conclude one way or another.