lenrisnotreal Member
  • Member since Aug 20th 2016
  • Last Activity:

Posts by lenrisnotreal

    What's the highest temperature for their calibration run vs the highest temperature for their claim of excess heat? If the highest temperature for their calibration run does not match the highest temperature for their claim of excess heat, I consider the result to be inconclusive at best.


    Did you notice that the lead author of that report on how to avoid calorimetry errors is Melvin Miles? He was one of the first to replicate FPs, and an LENR proponent to this day. So you cite an LENR calorimetry expert's paper, to make your point about the many ways to err in LENR experiments. Funny. Like McKubre said: We know what we are doing!

    KS is not going to like this BTW! MIles does not believe his CCS/ATER theory.

    Of course I'm aware of that. Not all experiments are done the same. This work seems to eliminate the results of many experiments. And, since it's from a respected LENR person, I feel it gives more weight to my argument: LENR researchers are acknowledging possible errors in the work of other LENR researchers.

    As I said, I have more papers which deal with errors that I'll post as I have a chance to look over them in detail.

    The Wendelstein hot fusion device is scheduled to start running in early September.


    Between Iter, this thing, and many other designs, hot fusion is entering a very active phase. Either hot fusion or CF/LENR (if it works as people continue to claim) will be the tech for the first working fusion power plant. My money, if there were bets, is of course on hot fusion. One of the limiting factors for hot fusion was computing power. Since you can now buy computing devices that can process over 100 terabits of data per second for $500 dollars or less, this is no longer an obstacle.

    The link to the SRI paper someone asked about is


    Ah, I see your point. Yes, there wasn't much energy production in this paper, although it far exceeded the limits of chemistry, as the authors pointed out. So, let's pretend the rest of the literature does not exist! Let's pretend this was the only replication of the effect, and thousands of other tests that produced far more energy just never happened.

    If you narrow your vision down enough and refuse to look at more than one fact at a time, you can prove just about anything, or deny anything. When evaluating case A, pretend that cases B through Z do not exist.

    Sir - I am attempting to focus on one item at a time in detail. I've pointed out the possible issues that, in my opinion, require additional review in the 1989 document. Unless these issues were addressed in a later published document, this document is inconclusive at best to me. I've also stated the two issues I have with the recent Dec. 2016 SRI document: 1) using analysis and not direct measurement to determine the input power, 2) stating in the conclusions that they are still trying to improve the calorimetry. So, the SRI document is also inconclusive at best to me. If the publishers of these two documents had waited until these issues were resolved either positively or negatively before making the decision to publish, then perhaps I could draw a conclusion from them.



    Lack of expected reaction products

    Conventional deuteron fusion is a two-step process,[text 6] in which an unstable high energy intermediary is formed:

    D + D → 4He* + 24 MeV

    Experiments have observed only three decay pathways for this excited-state nucleus, with the branching ratio showing the probability that any given intermediate follows a particular pathway.[text 6] The products formed via these decay pathways are:

    4He*n + 3He + 3.3 MeV (ratio=50%)4He*p + 3H + 4.0 MeV (ratio=50%)4He*4He + γ + 24 MeV (ratio=10−6)

    Only about one in one million of the intermediaries decay along the third pathway, making its products comparatively rare when compared to the other paths.[40] This result is consistent with the predictions of the Bohr model.[text 8] If one watt (1 eV = 1.602 x 10−19 joule) of nuclear power were produced from deuteron fusion consistent with known branching ratios, the resulting neutron and tritium (3H) production would be easily measured.[40][137] Some researchers reported detecting 4He but without the expected neutron or tritium production; such a result would require branching ratios strongly favouring the third pathway, with the actual rates of the first two pathways lower by at least five orders of magnitude than observations from other experiments, directly contradicting both theoretically predicted and observed branching probabilities.[text 6] Those reports of 4He production did not include detection of gamma rays, which would require the third pathway to have been changed somehow so that gamma rays are no longer emitted.[text 6]

    The known rate of the decay process together with the inter-atomic spacing in a metallic crystal makes heat transfer of the 24 MeV excess energy into the host metal lattice prior to the intermediary's decay inexplicable in terms of conventional understandings of momentum and energy transfer,[138] and even then there would be measurable levels of radiation.[139] Also, experiments indicate that the ratios of deuterium fusion remain constant at different energies.[140] In general, pressure and chemical environment only cause small changes to fusion ratios.[140] An early explanation invoked the Oppenheimer–Phillips process at low energies, but its magnitude was too small to explain the altered ratios.[141]

    No, it cannot. You made that up. There is no basis for that statement in any paper on cold fusion or any textbook on calorimetry.

    You are wrong by many orders of magnitude. The excess heat ranges from 1 MJ to 294 MJ. That is 239 to 70,268 food calories, or the equivalent of 12 kg of potato chips, coming from a device weighing ~1 g. That's roughly 12,000 times more energy than any chemical device can produce.

    Sir, you seem to be mistaken. Here is a quote from your earlier post:


    "The calorimetry conclusively shows excess energy was produced within the electrolytic cell over

    the period of the experiment. This amount, 50 kilojoules, is such that any chemical reaction

    would have had to been in near molar amounts to have produced the energy. Chemical analysis

    shows clearly that no such chemical reactions occurred. The tritium results show that some form

    of nuclear reactions occurred during the experiment."


    You may not believe it is a nuclear effects, but you should not project your belief onto the researchers. I do not think you can find a single paper by anyone who replicated who claims it is not a nuclear effect.



    I checked the paper. The timeframe was roughly two months for 50Kjoules of excess energy. I focused on this paper since you chose it as an example. I have papers which talk about the possible 30% error in calorimetry measurements and I will post them shortly. Also, please stop applying my statements to everything with broad strokes. I DID NOT say that 100% of all calorimetry experiments have ~30% error. The errors in some may be around that or higher. If some LENR experiments have much lower calorimetry error than this, then other error mechanisms and sources need to be investigated to determine if they provided the "claimed" excess energy.

    Here is a link to recent CF results posted this year and dated December 2016.


    They claim the typical few watts of output power at a claimed COP of the typical 1.2 to 1.4. Note that they don't use the total energy that goes to the heating resistor as input energy. They try to determine the total energy from the heating element that actually makes it to the heating core as input energy. I don't necessarily agree with this method because in the real world there is always imperfect transfer of heat from one source to another. That lost energy still counts as input.

    Also, in the conclusions section, they make the following statement :


    Better calorimetry is regularly being optimized and implemented.


    These are their words and not mine. So, even in results of less than one year ago, the authors acknowledge that they are still improving the calorimetry used to measure the CF results. I respect their honesty. I'll let people draw their own conclusions about that statement without mentioning my own.

    My credibility is 100% intact. Many of these papers presented as "evidence" are dated from 1989 and 1990. Their techniques are likely not as accurate as now. In fact, some of the papers themselves allude to the high errors associated with calorimetry. For example, the tip of your index finger can put out as much heat in 2 or 3 hours as that one experiment claimed to generate in almost 2 months. You should try reading some of the papers critically before questioning my posts.

    The nuclear guys regularly spend their time on effects where you're talking about 10^-16 to 10^-20, so saying that something on the order of 10^-9 "shouldn't be allowed here" is pure skeptopathy.

    We are talking about claims of excess heat here and not normal exploratory science. The hot fusion scientists are being honest about the fact that they haven't generated controlled excess heat except perhaps briefly in one NIF experiment. I respect that.

    I agree with the rest of your post but this doesn't make sense to me. If someone designs an experiment for which a clear cut positive result is defined, the probability of error in measurement is extremely low (including good calibration methods, best measurement methods and devices, reliable labs doing the measurement, accounting for or ruling out Shanahan's calibration constant drift, and so on)... if that can be accomplished even once out of many tries, I would be pretty sure there is an accounted phenomenon present, some sort of anomaly. If there is a low yield, I would certainly try to account for it, but it would not rule out concluding that *occasionally* known and unknown parameters of the experiment "lined up right" and something strange was indeed happening. Might even be LENR.

    LENR advocates think they have reached that criterion but I am not convinced I have seen it demonstrated. And I resent the defensiveness with which it is all discussed. Asking for easy to read graphs and papers is "spoonfeeding" and asking for high level level results in which error would be extremely unlikely is "shifting the goal posts." Requesting high level results together with good calibration and calorimetry, long duration, and high signal to noise ratio is being overly fussy. Then, it follows, according to believers, I/we wouldn't believe it anyway unless the device was for sale (ridiculous!) Those are the problems. Not reaching 100% consistent results. In my estimation.

    Well, you can't compromise on science. Given that calorimetry can have an error rate of 30% or more, most low level CF excess energy results should be considered inconclusive or failures unless backed up by other evidence. The excess energy from this experiment is equal to about 12 food calories or about 2 potato chips over a timespan of ~ 2 months, so this is certainly low level. And, since these are claimed atomic reactions, you also expect to see byproducts the same as other experiments. This theory that you and others might be advocating, that LENR/CF has a lower standard of proof than other fields of science is unacceptable. Only accounting for 1 part in 200,000,000 of a"claimed" event in a published paper isn't normally allowed in real science and it shouldn't be allowed here.

    Then you acknowledge there is a nuclear effect.

    Heh. Let's not get into semantics here. I acknowledge their "claim" that it is nuclear to make another point. I will never acknowledge the existence of LENR/CF unless there is an experiment that is repeatable 100% of the time by reputable entities with 100% (and not just 1 part out of 200,000,000) of the energy clearly accounted for by quantities measured during the experiment. Atom reactions at this level have by-products that are measurable. Unlike a lot of people, I'm not giving the CF/LENR people a pass on having independent 3rd parties independently collect, measure, and analyze by-products from these experiments to verify them.

    The competing process must also be nuclear. There is no chemical fuel, and no chemical changes are observed. They did not know what this other process could be, but later research indicated it is probably some form of D+D => helium-4.

    You may not agree with the authors that this competing process must be nuclear, but I am 100% sure that is what the authors meant. I know this because I spent a lot of time with them and discussed this in detail.

    Did they design their experiment to control for and, possibly, measure any excess helium 4 production?

    An excerpt from the paper you posted


    10^17 such reactions would have been required to produce 50 Κjoules of
    energy. Our measurement of tritium shows an excess of 5 × 10^8 atoms. In other words, tritium production would only account for about 5 × 10^-9 of the observed excess energy. The main point of the tritium in this experiment is then that there are some nuclear processes involved. Some competing process must be highly favored.


    They acknowledge that, per their own measurements, only one part in 200,000,000 of the energy is nuclear. The rest is from "some competing process". Since nothing seems to have become of this result, my opinion is that this "competing process" was most likely measurement error. If this is the best example there is for CF/LENR, where only 1 part in 200,000,000 is proven to be nuclear, while the rest is some unknown "competing process" with no followup publication as to what the "competing process" is, then say my name.

    With new advances in nanotechnology, it's possible there is some small low temperature effect when different materials are loaded into each other. However, much work on at least a theoretical level needs to be done to make this believable. That's why I say people should focus on substance over buzz.

    Not real-I am with Jed- where do you get that 100M figure? The largest expenditure I have seen is the F&P lab in France supported by Toyota /IMRA was only $40M. And they did get "replications of the effect" even to the level of boil offs lasting for days. It is just that did not seem to achieve commercial viability due to the difficulty of consistency of materials.


    from wikipedia:

    In 1992, Pons and Fleischman resumed research with Toyota Motor Corporation's IMRA lab in France.[54] Fleischmann left for England in 1995, and the contract with Pons was not renewed in 1998 after spending $40 million with no tangible results.[56] The IMRA laboratory stopped cold fusion research in 1998 after spending £12 million.[1] Pons has made no public declarations since, and only Fleischmann continued giving talks and publishing papers.[56]

    You can't pick and choose. A quick search will show there have been likely thousands of failed CF/LENR attempts. Also, a high percentage of the positive claims were retracted once experts used their advanced techniques to study the data.

    Take these values and plug them into the inflation calc. Then add all the other millions spent by various groups during this time and you will get $100 million + in 2017 dollars.