Posts by oystla

    Thomas re “we never have results conclusively beyond chemical, yet often have results in the margin of error”

    Thomas, You are entitled to your opinion but not your facts. And The above statement is a claim, not a fact.

    And the conclusion that LENR exists is not only based on excess heat developped, but also on anomalous amount of particles, like tritium, neutrons, He4 generation as some examples.

    The below graph show a nice correlation between He4 generation and excess heat measurement, as one single example from a paper from 1998.

    Thomas, regarding the F&P et. Al paper from 1990, and your:

    “The problem is that heat bursts tend to be uncontrolled and difficult to measure. No-one other than somone wanting LENR data would try to quantify the output from such a burst without the correct "heat burst calorimetry" eqpt.”

    Difficult to measure? And if there was anything Fleischmann was comptetent of in his life, it was calorimetry. The temperature graph from this heat burst is shown in below figure (from the paper).

    I consider this a very strong signal far from any “noise levels”, and which absolutely needs an explanation.


    "........vanishingly small and inconsistent levels of power from LENR" ?

    in the Peer reviewed 1990 paper I linked above from Fleishmann et. al showed 20 times more out than input energy during the heat burst. Hardly inconsistent.

    the problem was repeatability. And you will not get good repeatability before you understand all the parameters that control the reactions, like D/Pd ratio in the F&P cell. what other parameters are there?

    That's why we do research: to understand nature, and identify the parameters that controls LENR.

    The companies you mention have some claims yes, but we have not a full theory yet, so only time will show If they have something repeatable, and enough heat to may be become commercial.

    Pierre,you require CF to be "....SOMETHING that can be used for SOMETHING?"


    We have used Billions of USD to make the CERN Laboratory. It has now proven the Higgs Boson (may be).

    Can the Higgs it be used for something other than expand our knowledge? Probably not.

    Was it worth the money? Definetly.
    CERN expands our knowledge of the universe.

    Same with CF. May be it will not be a cost efficient power source. But it will expand our knowledge of nuclear physics, I'm sure.

    Pierre & Henry,

    Note that developing commercial products may take a long time. Like decades. Very difficult particularly for CF since we don't yet know all parameters that control the excess energy Events.

    Another more conventional example is ocean wave energy. A large energy source, but still companies have not yet been able to make a commercial product after decades of research (and hundreds of failed attempts)

    Being where we are on LENR 26 years after discovery is no surprise to me.

    LENR Replications are well documented in Peer reviewed papers and can be found here.

    But If you would like closer to commercial products, you would have to contract Companies like Brillouin Energy (Godes) or JET energy (Mitchell Swartz), and ask them to demonstrate.

    The NANOR of Swartz was demonstranted at MIT in 2012. Paper from the test can be read here:

    In case anyone are interested in a not-too-scientific-and-complicated but informative slides on the CF history and present status from a Hagelstein veiwpoint:

    His talk at IEEE Sept.23 at 2015 in North Reading sums up his thoughts. Focus on F&P type eletrolysis experiements and a possible theory. In my opninion very interesting summary.

    Interesting to note the work of re-analysing early negative papers using Pd, calorimetry and elecrochemistry)
    --> Negative early replication efforts very liekly caused by none having high enough D/Pd ratio, a requirement that was identified in the 1990’s.

    Also interesting to note the F&P experiment from 1990 showing 630 KJ of excess heat in the heat burst. And this from an electrode of just 0,157 cm3 volume.

    Bursts of heats was also a charactistics of the F&P type experiments. Sudden release of heat lasting various time periods. What caused these bursts of heat? What was the mechanism?

    In chemical energy (my calc) you would need 19 cm3 of gasoline to achieve the same amount of energy, i.e. 123 times larger volume of hydrocarbons compared to the Deuterium loaded Pd electrode in above case.

    Ref. Hagelstein slides…gelstein-Talk-09-2015.pdf

    The F&P paper referred to is this one from 1990:

    Pierre, calm down ;)

    Not healthy to get angry you know :D

    If you have $100 000K to spend you could contact Brillouin Energy (Godes) or JET energy (Mitchell Swartz), and ask them to demonstrate.

    Both companies have have claimed working LENR devices. So it should be easy enough to set up a demonstration.

    But of course, they are just good magicians, nothing real, so move on.

    Thomas, you ask why Lipson is relevant?

    You asked about where this F&P type experiment that documented 5 to 100 times (!!) more tracks in CR-39 during LENR than background. Lipson et al. Paper is the one where this is documented. Don't think F&P themselves ever tried CR-39.

    But you continue to ask for papers from F&P themselves showing clear excess heat.

    Fleischmann produced some 10+ Peer reviewed papers on cold fusion during his period on the subject.

    Only one or two where accepted by mainstream Scientific journals. I will give you the last one published in mainstream (from 1993), which has some importance for several reasons:
    - it was published in Physics letter A
    - they claimed serious excess power of some 4 times input.
    - they claimed power densities of several KW/cm3
    - and particularly interesting is that this paper where critiqued afterwards by the CERN physisist Douglas Morrison. That's how science should work. Claims, publishement, critique and debate.

    But when F&P answerred the Morrison critique, where all misunderstandings by Morrison where clarified, Morrison went silent and never replied. Nor did any other mainstream scientist. Why did the Scientific discussion stop at F&P getting the last Word????

    This is where the Scientific community really should wake up and investigate. But they went silent and turned their back fully on CF.

    And here is the F&P paper
    M. Fleischmann, S. Pons, "Calorimetry of the Pd-D2O system: from simplicity via complications to simplicity," Physics Letters A, 176 (1993) 118-129


    And here is the Douglas Morrison critique and F&P response

    Thomas, If you bothered to read the Mosier-Boss et al. Paper from 2014 i Linked, you would also find the reference to the mentioned example of F&P type experiments with 5 to 100 times (!!) more CR-39 tracks during LENR than background.

    And for your last comment: both background and foreground where immersed in the same electrolyte, so any tritium would affect both.

    But this is the link to the paper:

    And If you think, it is straight forward in science to get solid good papers published, that contradicts present consensus in science, you may read the Mosier-Boss et al. story from 2013,

    The first article

    To continue my criticism of Thomas comments:

    He make claims like he has read all papers on LENR, when in fact he proves by his comment that he has only read a few, and most likely only one on CR 39 - the one I sent.

    And by that he makes an easy judgement on all LENR papers by a lazy statement : "Is it not peculiar that all LENR results (when properly collected) are so near to noise. I mean, for an effect very variable and capable of large energies you'd expect at least some times that the results are clearly higher than background?"

    The CR39 paper I linked and he read was the last Peer reviewed Paper from 2015 using CR39, and the first on the NANOR, which was part of the discussion.

    But Since Thomas questioned heat effects on CR39 and thinks it was too "low track numbers" compared to background:

    As stated in my post, Dr. Pamela Mosier-Boss have long experience with using CR-39 at US NAVY laboratories.

    In a paper from 2014 (linked Below) Mosier-Boss et al. explains the use and results on using CR39, including temperature ( which as proven in - yes - mainstream science - has no effect on CR-39).

    Also Interesting to note an example of F&P type experiments with 5 to 100 times (!!) more tracks during LENR than background. So yes, there are better examples than the NANOR If you are looking for particular higher signals, but again, the F&P cells operates at much higher power than a single NANOR, so more tracks would be expected If LENR produce any energetic particles. But what was interesting with the NANOR was that even at this low power lever, they found evidence of tracks above background.

    It would be interesting to correlate all LENR experiments which has used CR39 with power density level, and check for a consistent trend between power density and track numbers during LENR.

    Also interesting are The advantages of CR-39 over real-time, electronic detectors:
    (1) CR-39 detectors do not require power and can be placed in close proximity to the cathode. This eliminates the solid angle detection losses.

    (2) CR-39 detectors can be used in both electrolysis and gas loading experiments.

    (3) CR-39 detectors are not affected by low level electronic noise from the local environment and do not require shielding. Nor do they respond to temperature changes.

    (4) CR-39 is an example of a constantly integrating detector. When an event occurs it is permanently stamped in the plastic. Nothing gets averaged away. This is important for reactions that occur sporadically in bursts or at low flux levels, which is often true of LENR experiments.

    (5) The size and shape of the tracks in CR-39 detectors can be used to identify the energetic particles that caused them.

    (6) CR-39 detectors are robust and inexpensive.

    (7) CR-39 detectors retain their record of nuclear activity for decades and can be repeatedly re-examined.

    (8) Real-time electronic detectors require expensive and complicated electronic modules that are required for both timing and background discrimination, even if shielding is present. Unlike CR-39, electronic, real-time detectors tend to discriminate against multiple simultaneous events. This results in an undercounting of the nuclear products.

    Ref Page 34+:

    The graph you show is for the chip that lies straight on top of the NANOR.

    And yes there is a distribution of small tracks, but then the question is what particle energies LENR will produce. What you did not show is the 3D figure in fig 6, which is undeniably clear.

    The comparison must of course be done between the CR39 on top of NANOR and the other two lying further away. And that is what they show in figure 5. And there is a very clear difference per PIXEL, with Max activity on top of NANOR.

    But the interesting ones are of course the most energetic particles, i.e the largest tracks.

    And as shown in fig 5 the highest activity of high energetic particles is definetly and undeniably just above NANOR.

    And the picture in fig 4 of CR39 NANOR chip and one of the control chips shows very clear activity near to NANOR.

    how do I paste pictures on this forum using an I-PAD?

    Ok, Nice of you to read the paper, and here is my critique of your comments:

    "I actually enjoy reading Hagelstein/Schwartz's papers. They deliberately lack context, ..."
    Lack context??

    Here they have a claimed LENR (LANR) device, NANOR, and the question is as stated in the paper;
    - does it produce tracks in CR-39 similar as reported on other LENR systems performed by other researchers ( explained in the papers introduction chapter) ?

    And please note, it is not a "hagelstein/Swartz paper", but Swartz, Verner, Tolleson, Wright, Goldbaum, Mosier-Boss and Peter L. Hagelstein paper.

    At least Mosier-Boss have long experience with the use of CR-39 as particle detector.

    "Hagelstein points out..."
    Hagelstein? There where 7 people writing this paper, so You probably mean "the papersstates..."

    " to measure change in radiation with time under different conditions."

    I assume you refer to input power as stated in the paper:
    "Therefore, a pretested NANOR⃝R -type system was used at a number of input powers [8], run autonomously over days examined by Geiger Muller tube and CR-39, a polyallydiglycol carbonate polymer used as a time-integrating, solid state, nuclear track detector. "

    But the "therefore" as I understand it is to ensures the NANOR exhibit excess energy during the period, which is ensures by varying the input power.

    " is near the noise floor - so only becomes significant over long integration times"

    Since CR39 is time-integrating the radiation, the difference to background should be less and less Significant over time, so better with days than hours.

    Also note the statement "Many of the problems which exist in CR-39 analysis are partially surmounted here. These include relative insensitivity (which requires irradiation over long times), difficulty in resolving precise moieties,..."

    "What he does not say (though hints at) is that almost anything can alter the background count, so the tiny variations he notes can have almost any cause."

    "He"? You probably mean the "paper states"...

    "Anything" ? No not anything. To produce tracks in CR39 you need something that actually produce energetic particles. And not any ionizing radiation. Not x-rays, not Gamma's, not beta. You should have been curious enough to check this before you make claims. And read an article about it in a "real Journal"

    "results for total track count show no significant correlation with the NANOR"

    Yes they do. And note They only counted certain types of tracks. The picture in fig 4 shows very clearly that NANOR has impacted the CR39.

    "results for large tracks show four counts around the NANOR in excess of the background. "

    It is four Count PER PIXEL. Over 24 PIXELS this is definetly Significant inexcess of background"

    " way ruled out the NANOR carrier material having slightly higher background radiation than is the case for a shielded detector. Many materials would be such."

    You mean "the paper does not state If the background radiation of the carrier and core material has been tested." The paper does not say, but this is easy enough to check. I will send a question to the authors and ask. Core material in question her is Zirconium, Palladium, oxygen, deuterium.

    " .....has deliberately cherry picked his data to make a not significant effect look large by choosing the location and threshold of his "large bins"...."

    "Cherry picked"?
    They deliberately counted "Large circular characteristic deep tracks, and paired large tracks,.."
    Which means only the most energetic particle tracks where used. If they had counted smaller tracks, the difference to background would be even lagrer.

    ".... not ruled out the possibility that the heat from the NANOR, on the film, alters its characteristics slightly to make large tracks more probable"

    CR 39 has been widely used for many years as particle detector material. Temperature effects have also been evaluated by many papers. And the general answer is.....
    "Bulk etching remains constant for all irradiation temperatures...", ref.

    " To make this result really interesting you would therefore need a lot more work which he has not done"

    He? You mean the LENR science community.

    Actually many papers have been produced on the matter, but this I believe was the first on NANOR. And the general picture is that LENR produce particle counts above background.

    Also the paper after this one in the same PDF file details results from the geiger counter mentioned Inge paper. also interesting.

    "He has done everything he can to make his setup as sensitive as possible"

    NANOR is a very low power device, I don't see any problem with placing detector close to the device to check is particles is produced. Which actually is positive thing. The close the better.

    "...has looked at the results lots of different ways trying to find interesting correlations."
    "Different ways"? In my opinion the right ways.

    ".....not seriously investigated what are the mechanisms for these results but, because he is expecting some nuclear activity, supposed they are because of that."

    Wrong. They clearly state in the conclusion:

    "What is precisely the source of the tracks in the CR-39? Although it is relatively insensitive to gamma rays there could be additional contributions ..........." And they state other possible

    My conclusion:

    This paper builds further evidence together with all the many other CR39 papers to indicate that tracks are formed above expected background in LENR experiments, and that further investigations should be performed.

    The only issue I have with this one is the low power of the NANOR. A 10* higher power NANOR should be tested to check the resulting difference, since more tracks should then be expected.

    "You are arguing from authority - this one guy is so wonderful that we must all believe him."No idea what You're trying say. What I'm saying is that somewhere in life you have to start trusting first hand experiences from competent scientists.

    Like when not one but many phyisicists say - yes they has visited labs, yes they have studied the setups, the results and yes there is a mystery to be explained.

    Like professor Robert Duncan, who prior to 2009 did not believe in possibilities of LENR reactions. But after taking a jurney through the various labs he saw something that requires explanation. And he is still at it.

    "You can surely see that over any science issue there will always be outliers."
    Of course, so what?
    And is Brillouin an outlier? They use "hydrogen, nickel and electricity" as input and gets an anomalous amount of heat generated. Hmmmmmm, I've heard about this before somewhere?

    But where did This Nickel- hydrogen LENR start? With Rossi? No

    And If you have any curiosity at all, you should read this interview with Professor Focardi linked Below:

    It was however Professor Piantelli that Originally discovered nickel/hydrogen anomalous excess heat ( that is after he heard of Fleischmann and Pons Discovery he rechecked his own strange results on Ni/H research). Indicates how rich this field really is. So Rossi did not really invent anything from scratch, but build on the work from real scientists.


    "You have not addressed my point about H."
    Yes I'm fully aware Hagelstein is a theoretical scientist. And a good one. So what? He has also written Peer reviewed papers together with experimental physcists, like Swartz, , and experimental electrochemists on CF, like Mckubre. And I choose to trust his judgement of the CF field.

    And now it is your turn to read the CR39 paper I linked.

    Several more Peer reviewed papers on CR39 has been published proving there is an anomalous amount of energetic particles generated in CF.

    "....and supposing such to happen in absence of high energy particles would be a hypothesised interpretation of an anomsly - not an anomaly."

    as indicated in my last post. A number of experiments using CR39 have shown anomalous amounts of energetic particles, which leads to the conclusion of nuclear reactions.

    therefore calling it LENR is fully justified.

    But again, the term LENR is just naming the mechanism, it's not a theory. Theory is much more, the explanation of how it can occur within the standard model of physics, giving us a basis for a protocol, something we can use to make predictions. Etc .

    "A Hagelstein summary of F&P. You must forgive me. I don't accept summaries. That is someone else's view of the work. It can't be critiqued. Imagine if I'd accepted one of the many internet summaries of the Lugano results."

    Haha, you are funny. Comparing professor Hagelstein with "internet summaries"
    Of course it can be critiqued. Anyhow it's more than a summary, but you have already made up your mind so don't bother ;-)

    But also you are way too lazy and have a lack of curiosity. If you really are curious of what F&P did you may find all their papers here:

    But i understand you have already made up your mind on Cold Fusion and then it is impossible to change. Fleischmann called this the sign of "pathological skepticism

    "A Brillouin summary of other people work"

    Haha, Again, you did not bother to click the link to read the papers. Again lack of curiosity. The papers had nothing to do with Brillouin. It was just Peer reviewed papers brillouin had listed on their website, not Brillouins work. But very interesting papers from competent scientists.

    For Brillouin, I have no partial opinion. And If they use RF stimulation - so what? The real question is : is there excess energy and what is the source of energy? To be of commercial interest output would in any case have to be many times input energy, so it would be easy to rule out "poor measurements".

    "So even if I did accept other people's opinion, I would not choose them on the matter of experimental methodology."

    I don't Ask you to accept second hand opinions. Try reading the Peer reviewed papers I linked, that is If they are not too advanced for you.

    "If you do accept other people's opinion there must then be the question of why you choose these outliers rather than the much more frequent view?"

    No, I read with interest the first hand testimony of ISCMNS Peer review papers with interest and are fully convinced that nature still have some surprises left to show us.

    A set of about 20 really really interesting papers from Schwartz......

    "But, I'm happy to look at these. Which one is most interesting? (20 is too many for me)."

    What I find interesting, may differ from your interest....but using CR39 to detect anomalous amount of energetic particles I find fascinating, and is enough alone to convinced me that nuclear processes are happening (that shouldn't occur)

    Scroll to page 88:

    "Where is F&P's writeup of their experiment that has never been replicated but proves LENR? (Why, BTW, has it not been replicated?)."

    Wrong. F&P where replicated by Mckubre at SRI.

    You Ask for some scholarly writings?

    This one may be a nice start from professor Hagelstein, which sums up some F&P experiments with clear excess heat.…sReport-3696_48_PR152.pdf

    This paper I found interesting:…eposition-experiments.pdf

    And this one explains why the institutes in 1989 where not able to replicate F&P, critical conditions where found later in the nineties, but then the mai stream science community showed no interest to go back and investigate,…e-of-scientific-proof.pdf

    And here, a paper on anomalous heat evidence on the Nanor of Dr. Mitchell Swartz®-type-CFLANR-components.pdf

    Do you want more? May be some from Japan or Italy or others?