Posts by THHuxleynew

    I envy you the solar eclipse Alan. One big advantage of living on a very large national land mass. Good luck! I think this time there will be a larger popular following than previously but with luck the track length will allow it to spread out...

    I dislike the dialog being put into characterizations of belief. But this aspect of not accepting perfectly good scientific data until it is commercialized is another threshold to consider about skeptopaths

    [email protected]

    Have you ever done a doctoral Literature Survey? Or supervised others doing this? I have done both.

    It is a weird process but valuable in one very important way. It teaches you how to critically appraise other people's work where there is no consensus, and can be none because individual contributions are unique and in some cases have not been followed up by anyone else.

    Every (well - almost every) doctoral student starts off reading papers and, as you, accepting perfectly good scientific data. Only after they have read around the subject, done some of their own work (whether experimental or analytic) can they come back to the original stuff and have a mature judgement of what the original papers really mean. That will in nearly all cases be much less significant than it seemed when first read.

    So your unconditional acceptance of certain data, together with the lack of detailed analysis in your appraisal of the work you accept, leads me to think that you are at this first starting-out doctoral student stage in your understanding of this subject. The fact that you seem unaware of the subtlety in interpreting scientific research, and the way that individual work will always seem more convincing than it really is until you have a rounded view of the field, makes me think you are not qualified to judge those you call skeptopaths whether your judgement is right or wrong.


    Jed: you make my point. I do not have 30 X a couple of months. Indeed I do not have a couple of months full-time work.

    It is an inherent problem. Do I trust your views on these papers? No on general principles, I would not trust even an expert who had outlying views from consensus without checking, since more often than not such outliers are wrong.

    No specifically because on matters where we have identical information and both looked carefully you have jumped to conclusions i think unwarranted (even though we have basically agreed the overall picture).

    Inherent because LENR was looked at by many a long time ago, but there were political and social issues at the time that made hasty judgments possible. Since then, the best judgement (the US panel) has been broadly negative but not conclusively so. Now, those supporting LENR are clearly outliers and there is no mileage in anyone not supporting LENR to spend any time on the field, so not considered judgement from experts as a group.


    If I've understood correctly so far, Ascoli65's thesis is that Rossi and a small group of people at least initially mostly located around Bologna have been working since 2009, possibly earlier, under the direction of people higher up in various U.S. (and other nations') governmental departments to promote and disseminate propaganda - 'fake news' as it is called nowadays - about cold fusion/LENR (which never existed in the first place), and that other propagandists known in the field took advantage of this propaganda (presumably knowing that it was) to promote and disseminate their own until it served their purposes.

    Ascoli65 never seems to write this directly in a single coherent post, though.

    Yes, something like. I have this problem too. ascoli's thesis is (1) the early academic helpers of Rossi (specifically Levi) were deliberately making the tests look good and (2) something more complex.

    I leave (2) alone, since it is beyond me, and I'm not interested. As for (1) Ascoli brings forward definite evidence of extremely poor experimental practice from Levi and whoever else was endorsing this stuff. Personally I'm unwilling to substitute deliberate malfeasance for incompetence when we are at such a distance, since incompetence is a powerful thing when combined with a charismatic figure leading one in the wrong direction. But it remains possible. those who know Levi seem to think not, but that again I cannot vouch for, and appearances can be deceptive.


    How could you possibly fall for the Gary Wright fantasy about Levi and Randombito being the same person? I assure you that he would sooner excise his navel with a broken ball pen than post in here or indeed any other LENR forum.

    I don't know whether any poster here is Levi - there are candidates, but possibly none are. Several including rb0 have exhibited identical inability to understand IR thermography or be educated it it to Levi. But that in no way proves identity, so you may be right. A shame that Levi in that case does not post here - he would I'd hope improve his experimental methodology if he did.

    First, the percentage is not "error." Electrolysis power is not an error, or noise. It does not add much to uncertainty. Neither is joule heating power. 99% of both can be subtracted with confidence.

    Second, Shanahan's CCS effect does not exist. If it did exist, it would be seen in the data when people move the heat source in a cell, and during calibration. It also violates Faraday's law and thermodynamics. It is wrong for many other reasons listed by Marwan et al. In other words, you are invoking a crackpot theory to support your doubts about a paper that you have not read.

    Marwan et al's response was incomplete and partly wrong for the reasons documented in Shanahan's white paper - at least 70% of which I agree with. Perhaps you'd like to go through his critique and say in detail why it is wrong, on another thread?

    But, I should not have said error, I meant anomalous measured power.

    You should not reach conclusions about McKubre's work until you have looked at and checked the details. You should, at least, read the official publication from EPRI. You should not be discussing his work here if you have not read that yet.

    McKubre has a lot of data. I'm happy to take as "best case" any of these experiments other than those I know - and suspect are best case - M12, M13-14. I'll add M19.

    Unlike you, and others here, it takes me significant effort because:

    (a) I need to read it carefully

    (b) I don't assume the writer makes no mistakes, so I have to check everything and think around setups. Asking people to do this sort of work on say 30 experiments is just silly, when the most clearly anomalous results could be highlighted.

    Because MK is not an idiot I'm quite sure his most compelling data is written up in a research paper. So while the tech reports are needed reference they are not what should be read for purposes of asking whether these results prove LENR as you claim and I have not yet seen evidence for. Hence I look at papers. You are under no obligation to suggest specific better data but If you make claims it would be worth doing that. I'll look at M19 if you feel that the other conditions of that run are sufficiently controlled to make the headline measurements clearly anomalous. I'd trust MK more than you so I'd expect it then to be included in detail in some research paper - so referencing that would be more to the point. And, if it is not, that is probably because MK felt there were issues that made the results less clear-cut than those he does describe in papers.

    All news requires interpretation THH, especially when it is in Swedish. But despite your obvious hopes, I am pretty sure they will be dashed before too long.

    Well I have no strong hopes from the Swedish guys. it would be fun, but a bit sad, if they continue to use the (not admitted wrong by Levi or any possible Levi poster here) wrong IR thermography that would as P points out easily give them COP = 3-4. But I can't really imagine that. In which case we have the excitement of reading what they do say, always assuming they are willing to write it up properly for criticism. I'd hope for a substantive and interesting report.

    I would not bet that...

    Jed: you are making assumptions about my motives here. I'm not willing to use results I have not looked at and checked all details of - since these matter. I'm assuming that the results McKubre highlights are the most significant ones, but if others are more significant no doubt someone else can highlight them as worth checking. And I'll happily look at other cases but it takes time and availability of detailed specific write-ups so please give me the best.

    Worth noting that of these two figures the 24% is relevant, not the 300% which means nothing since a transient power. Also worth noting that if the 24% includes non-equilibrium conditions, as is stated, it may go with much higher error margins - would need analysis. Which is why MK says he highlights the equilibrium cases of significant excess - and I agree.

    The percentage error here does matter because of possible anomalies which give percentage of input power errors, like CCS/ATER.

    "I can't form a conclusion" would automatically nullify whatever he next says.

    As I said, that would be like the politician's get-of-jail-card: "I am not a scientist, but . . ." Hey Senator, if you are not a scientist then please shut up. Also, we see you are not a scientist. No one would mistake you for a scientist.

    Interested Observer is saying all kinds of things here which anyone can see are conclusions about LENR, such as:

    "The quality papers that Jed recommends look to me like very small effects that could well be some sort of artifact."

    Then, as soon as he says this, he says oh but I am not reaching a conclusion, so ha, ha, you can't hold me to it! You can't make me provide evidence for what I just said, because it is not a conclusion.

    Those are conclusions! "Small" and "some sort of artifact" are conclusions. What else would they be? Both are wrong, but they are conclusions.

    Human language does not well indicate the subtleties of probabilities of probabilities.

    We can agree, I hope, that conclusions can be varied. For example, one might conclude that the evidence was too uncertain to conclude anything. Do you call that a conclusion, or not? It is semantics and not worth arguing about.

    Such a skeptic position may be right or wrong, and I agree it could be a cop-out, as all sitting on the fence could be a cop-out. In this case the evidence is so difficult to accumulate - with nothing except a whole collection of anomalies and arguments about whether they could or could not have mundane causes - that sitting on the fence seems to me something many rational people would want to do.

    Such a person could reasonably listen to arguments from people who had reached definite conclusions, think them not logically compelling, and say why.

    Just my POV on this useful (though at times repetitive) debate.

    Eric's openness to state and justify moderation principles is welcomed by me because I am in favour of transparency. There are reasons for secrecy - but fear of confrontation is IMHO never a good one amongst civilised people. Where participants here are not civilised there are the means to remove them. Unlike Alan, I don't see this as rising to the bait - although there is moderation in all things and no doubt Eric may on occasion add to a repetitive debate when it would be wiser to leave it be. We are all imperfect.

    Different people have very different views as to what is useful in (any) form on this topic. It is quite clear that Sifferkoll and Zephir have a different idea about this from the LF mods. I would agree with the LF mods in this. I also applaud their efforts doing a difficult and thankless job. One difference relates to character. Personally I have a very thick skin. People can (and do) insult me as much as they like and it will not deter me. I do eventually stop if my only interlocutor is unable or uninterested in listening to what I have to say, but my tolerance for presenting my views when I feel they are clearly deducible from public evidence, and giving the reasons for this is high. I guess that is because I tend to assume (often incorrectly) that given such such a logical argument others will either identify assumptions etc not shared, and we can agree to disagree, or end up agreeing. This is not how it works with some, because they tend to assume that anyone disagreeing with them must have bad motives. I see that as their problem, because in dismissing those with different views they lose information, and in spending effort working out weird conspiracies they waste time.

    Re the (not double standard) priviledges for principal actors. This is pretty obviously sensible and is pragmatic, not ideological. Who here would want to stop Rossi or Darden from making authenticated comments here no matter how impolite they were? Dewey is close to Darden (though not identical) and thus deserves some tolerance. I agree that he very seldom says things that are useful, and that he often uses gratuitous insult. In fact his use of insult is counterproductive as PR. But, he is who he is, his motives FWIW are transparent, and he discloses useful information we otherwise would not have.

    Re the (graduated standard) greater priviledges for those who are useful. I'm less comfortable with this. Personally I'd reckon the people I don't think are useful here do improper things more often than those I do think are useful, so the same standard applied everywhere is fine. Perhaps it is more a question of taking the average badness so as not to overreact by banning a person normally useful who has an atypical and short regression to non-useful behaviour?

    Re pathoskeptics. It is not a useful word. I judge Mary by the expertise and facts she brings to matters, and by how she argues. She has a limited area in which she brings expertise, but it is useful because otherwise unrepresented. Her views are highly predictable, but that does not matter. her arguments are clear and where you disagree with her assumptions you know the conclusions don't follow. She is deemed a pathoskeptic because of here willingness to be very definite about certain things most would not be so definite about. That is identical to Jed, who similar shows great certainty in ways that others would not. I'm not willing to call Jed a patho-believer, though I have learnt not to accept his views at face value, and similarly Mary. Of the two, Mary brings less knowledge to the table than Jed but also she is more transparent in her arguments, so it is easier to interpret her statements and get whatever relevance they have.

    Those who get inflamed about loud skeptics (e.g. me) are I think just thin-skinned. In personal relationships tact is important. In any discourse to find the external truth tact is generally not helpful - freedom of speech does a much better job of finding what is real.

    I was the one who opened this thread, so there's that. I have no confusion as to Shanahan's worth. If you think his ridiculous hypothesis explains away all those 153 peer reviewed replications of the Pons-Fleischmann Anomalous Heat Effect then you're the one exhibiting tremendous confusion. Even Kirk acknowledges his theory doesn't account for Helium or Tritium or Gamma Rays.

    Continuing the conversation about your IMHO profound confusion about worth: you are here showing that you don't judge things by content, but instead by whether you think they are relevant. I disagree with your judgement of that for the reasons below.

    Suppose I accept your propositions here: and I think I do. Shanahan's CCS/ATER idea indeed does not cover all of the LENR papers, and by definition does not cover He, tritium, weird transmutation, high energy product claims. Why does that make it uninteresting? There is so much heterogeneous LENR literature identifying as LENR things that look anomalous:

    • Positive enthalpy (half of all calorimetric anomalies)
    • Positive radioactive product detection (more than half of such anomalies)
    • Detection of some unexpected stable element at very low concentration (all contamination and many mislabelling anomalies)

    Is it expected that the reasons for all these different things are the same? No - the nature of anomalies is that they have varied explanations. If LENR exists, and explains some subset of these observations, it is still highly unlikely that it explains all. Some will be mundane anomalies.

    The job of understanding LENR then is made vastly more difficult by these false positives. In fact if LENR exists you can reasonably argue that the lack of clarity over any theory - even a stable phenomenological theory - is because all these things are being lumped together and many are not LENR. No theory can account for all the observations and the correct set is not known.

    Shanahan proposes an idea that promises to contribute to the understanding of LENR by identifying (in a testable way) a non-LENR mechanism for some anomalous excess heat observations.Anyone looking for LENR excess heat might be hit by this if they don't understand it and therefore Kirk's work is highly relevant, and valuable. True - his work has not been followed very far: the people needed to do this are those with LENR experiments and as he has pointed out historically they have dismissed his ideas without serious consideration, for reasons that those who look more closely at his work do not accept. Rather like the way LENR is viewed by mainstream science, in a microcosm.

    Just as mainstream science refutations of LENR which are dismissive and do not engage with all details don't seem conclusive to those who see LENR as a plausible hypothesis, so the Marwan dismissal of Shanahan (which I have read in detail) does not seem conclusive to me, nor would to many others who read the chain: Shanahan's papers -> Marwan et al -> Shanahan's white paper -> (no reply as far as I know).

    So another motivation for LENR advocates (if you are that) to engage fully with Shanahan's work, whether his ideas apply to any experiments are not, is that it will help to persuade skeptics that you are behaving rationally. A more powerful reason, as above, is that if they do apply to any experiments, they help to simplify the mess of observational anomalies seen currently to support LENR will help those looking for replicability and underlying theories - both of which are sorely needed.


    You show a profound confusion about worth. Kirk's ideas may be right or wrong or something in between. But, they are important - as the only (that I know) systematic alternative to nuclear reactions that might explain most of the CF classic data. Also, Kirk produces fact-filled and specific arguments for his ideas, and defenses of them against challenge. Those things do not make me convinced by his ideas, but they make them most definitely valuable.

    Whereas your contribution to the debate is....

    I selected this particular graph because it was convenient. It happens to be on my web page. I suppose you realize McKubre published many other graphs with much larger output to input ratios. If you do realize this, why did mention this non-issue? Are you trying to give readers here the impression that all of McKubre's results are at a low ratio?

    Of the results he highlights only M12 had much larger ratio - and that was 10% not 5%.

    That is incorrect. McKubre achieved very clear-cut results, such as the ones shown in this graph:…loads/McKubre-graph-2.jpg

    The issue with these results cannot be seen from that graph - and you need the details.

    The excess power was 5% of the input power, and (as shown) roughly proportional to input power. That makes artifacts possible, and arguing that none such could exist complex. Hence not clear cut.

    And by fast forwarding to 2017 with $100M you're looking at companies that are trying to go into production, not replicating the effect.

    Which companies are trying to do into production with a scientifically definite replicable effect? IH is looking for such and has high hopes but no definites yet, so I wonder what you refer to? In the nature of these things (take superconductivity,as is popular here although not a great comparable) there is a lot of research work done before the commercial applications kick in.

    When you say "some of these experiments were deemed positive" then that means the effect is real.

    That is clearly not universally true. It would depend who did the deeming, and how strong was the evidence. In this case even many LENR people say the evidence from any one specific experiment is not convincing, so again you'd ned to post specifics for your assertion to be tested. it is not general knowledge.

    There seems to be no other field in science where there is such reticence to accept peer reviewed factuality from top experts.

    True, but there are pseudosciences where the same degree of caution exists. LENR, sociologically, is on the borderline between pseudoscience and science. The type of argument you advance here, general and dismissive of skeptics, is typical of pseudoscience. however there are real scientists generating results. Some of these write up the results in a way that is similar to pseudo-science, with inflated claims and a lack of checking. Others do good work, but not thus far, even after many years, with results that will convince skeptics who hope for LENR but follow rational methods in evaluating claims.

    So, NO, it does not mean the success was likely noise or some other error.

    We partly disagree. Partly, because low-level calorimetric issues - as Kirk notes, seem real and require an explanation. For me, some variant of Kirk's CCS/ATER seems most plausible for these specific results. Other results seem likley noise or error (and I can provide candidates for almost all of these), though that could change (U of Austin experiments ongoing).

    That simply does not happen in science with the top electrochemists.

    Everyone can make errors, which is why top experimentalists have methodology that guards against this. Such methodology, written up with experimental results, would represent something interesting. Unfortunately thus far the better the methodology and checking, the less clear-cut the results. McKubre is a good example here. Replicating high level results with very accurate calorimetry and careful practice, he got results that were much lower level.

    Worth noting that where a top electrochemist has bet their career and reputation on a specific controversial hypothesis, they more likely not to present results with the required objectivity. Only human nature.

    Jed said:

    Storms tested ~100 cathodes and found 4 that worked. That took a year or two.

    None of the researchers who went through long dry spells with no heat reported anything else unusual in those failed experiments.

    There have also been single blind experiments. Not double blind, but single. The best example was the mass spectroscopy portion of Miles' experiments. He knew which cathodes produced excess heat. He sent samples of the gas to three different mass spec. labs, with random numbers encoding the sample. So, he knew but they did not. They measured the helium and reported it back to him. He also sent blanks such as flasks for room air. The results were:

    All three labs reported the same levels of helium.

    Samples that produced excess heat had higher levels of helium, proportional to the heat, at a rate of 24 MeV.

    The helium was not correlated with heat, because some of the blank cells ran hotter with higher electrolysis power than the ones that produced excess heat.

    The helium was not correlated with anything else, other than excess heat.


    I, with Shane, find these observations highly interesting. Unlike Shane I'd add the following analysis:

    • The specific electrodes work, others don't is compatible with CCS/ATER, as it is with LENR.

    • The He results are interesting and if confirmed would (for me) push probabilities towards D+D-> He fusion occurring at rates much higher than normal expectations would suggest (and therefore definite proof of what is popularly known as LENR). However the available information is not convincing (to me) yet:

    1. He correlated with heat would be expected from atmospheric contamination where (a) both excess heat and He are correlated with time and (b) excess heat could be related to specific physical conditions in the electrolysis cell that promote ingress of atmospheric air
    2. checking atmosphere for He levels does not help (alone) since the nature of many lab environments is that you get sporadic high levels of He which over time average to a level well above the modal value (which is what would typically be tested). However it would be possible to do this experiment well away from any lab that uses He, removing this issue, or to do the experiment under slightly positive pressure from a known He-free source.
    3. The results are at the marginal level which makes such questions relevant.
    4. At the low levels seen here there is the possibility of He outgassing from the electrodes which could again plausibly be linked to ATER electrode activity. I'd hope this could be bounded well below the results.

    These observations seem interesting enough that I applaud Abd's Austin experiment to recheck this: this experiment does come close, if carefully done, to testing a specific prediction. The team there seem to have gone dark (indeed I know nothing about what they are doing). If Jed is correct however their results will be overwhelmingly positive. I'll await their considered publication with great interest. But, ATM on balance I think it likely they will have a null/inconclusive result. Jed's point that only 4 out of 100 electrodes actually work is not encouraging and with that low a success rate, unless the working electrode can be reused over multiple experiments, there must be questions of one-off experimental mistake.

    THH: Yet we need every single possible error to be proven wrong before we have a genuine LENR-capable anomaly.

    Jed: Nope. You have that backwards. All you have to do is show one major error in an experiment, and in most cases that cancels out the entire result. For example, you show that the flow rate was measured wrong in a flow-calorimetry experiment. I have done this, in flow calorimetry with both water and air. I shot down results from 5 or 10 experiments by doing this. The other parameters were measured correctly, but the results were wrong.

    I think you misread what I said, which is identical to what you say.

    Here is the best known prediction: If you manage to load a Pd-D cathode above a certain level, and maintain current density at a certain level according to McKubre's equation, it is likely the cathode will produce excess heat. At a very high level, it is almost certain to produce excess heat. See Fig. 1 here:

    The exact set of parameters you must meet are listed in McKubre's equation.

    Here is another: If a cell is producing excess heat, you can probably boost the power level by quickly raising the cell temperature. You can raise the temperature by various methods such as electrolysis, joule heating or a laser. It usually boosts output.

    That is interesting and would indeed be very helpful providing:

    (1) All the conditions necessary are testable - e.g. you can check you have got them right independent of the experimental result

    (2) The amount of excess heat is quantifiable at some minimum level: thus you can set up an experiment where the predicted excess is guaranteed to be larger than the errors and any mundane mechanisms.

    Note that stochastic predictions are Ok providing that quantified lower bounds can be put on the probability expected for an effect to manifest. this, again, allows the hypothesis to be disproved. But "probably" does not quantify.

    I would even go so far as to suggest that such a prescription, precisely written up as a challenge to the science establishment, would have significant PR value. IH might juts possibly be persuaded to fund such a "prove LENR correct at scientific level" experiment.

    The paper you have cited does not close these gaps. While it gives necessary conditions, it does not give sufficient ones in the form of (1) (2) above.


    OK. How could LENR be disproved?

    The skeptics said that recombination could account for the supposed excess heat. But they've been proven wrong time and again. Perhaps in the most egregious of cases, Heat After Death, they could have proven that every single instance was utterly fraud.

    Or one of those replications could have shown why & how it was a chemical phenomena. I know that Shanahan likes to claim this is what he's done but he's almost completely full of bullshit. Surely by now all those top electrochemists must have been doing something wrong in their electrochemistry cells?

    Those kinds of things seem to be what has happened since P&F came out with their results. It's almost as if the folks who regularly use calorimetry in their electrochemistry cells were competent, while those who don't regularly use calorimetry nor electrochemistry were incompetent. Gosh, whoda thunk?

    Jed will note 100s of experiments apparently showing LENR. And we know it is an effect that is not always present. So, if some of F&Ps results prove to be erroneous how does that disprove LENR? I can hear what you would say already...

    LENR makes no hard predictions that can be refuted - therefore it cannot be disproved. That is (the proper reason) why it requires stronger evidence to be held as plausible than any hypothesis coupled to a quantitative theory that can therefore be disproved.

    In fact your arguments above are logically incomplete. Consider - there are maybe 5 possible ways that occur to an informed critic why given results may be erroneous. And likely a few more that would surprise the critic - the real world is a bitch and comes up with wierd things.

    You are holding up as evidence for LENR that some of the possible errors suggested for key experiments prove wrong. Yet we need every single possible error to be proven wrong before we have a genuine LENR-capable anomaly. In any case your proofs here are assertion. Let us take a very simple case. Morrison suggested the high boil-off phase COP from the classic F&P paper from simplicity through complications.... might be due to liquid entrainment. You will have read MF's answer and think that this disproves that possibility. Yet it does not. Do you know why? It is always the things not said in research papers that are most revealing...

    I should probably have written 'sense of caution', I got a little caught up in rearranging your parlance.

    That in turn leads to a theoretical, or hypothesised, CCS... Possibly better referred to as a/the CCSH. A label you seem to reject?

    That is true, but we are comparing CCSH with LENRH, and CCSH is a better fit to the known calorimetric facts in these experiments (excess proportional to heat in when effect is present). Sure, both are unproven - which is why those interested should be trying to find out what are the limits of CCS and whether ATER exists - instead of assuming that observations which could be ATER or LENR must be LENR. Unlike LENRH, CCS/ATERH is disprovable which means it offers more traction to move things forward.

    Zeuss - I'm just throwing out a casual comment based on your post since without reading the paper carefully I may be very wrong.

    Most closed cell electrolysis experiments for CF/LENR has a recombiner in the airspace above the top of the cell which combines H or D and O, getting hot in the process...

    The ATER issue is that if recombination can happen at the electrode it will to that extent not happen at the recombiner.

    Just apply your approach to High Temperature Superconductors, where there is also no underlying theory and tell those guys that what they're doing is not science. Just friggen' incredible.

    That is mostly not true, there is a very good and intuitive underlying theory for HTS based on Cooper pairs (or other mechanisms) coupling electrons into bosonic objects.

    I think what you misunderstand is that the details of this remain unclear. Exactly what gets coupled so that an ensemble can have bosonic properties and therefore superconduct is still in some cases active research - it looks as though there are multiple candidates.

    The underlying theory (coupling of fermions into bosonic objects) makes quantitative experimental predictions (about how properties change with temperature) which are validated by many many different experiments, and requires nothing not already known, and is predicted from QM that itself is validated in many other ways.

    Where you are correct is that no-one is entirely clear what are all the different coupling mechanisms active in different materials, or how best to optimise them. That space remains open but understanding has been growing monotonically. Still there will be new materials exhibiting unexpected behaviour since the type of solid-state interactions that do this coupling are incredibly complex and variable. And no-one says that HTS is fully understood - therefore you will note that all the papers claiming specific detailed mechanisms - until very well validated - are treated with much skepticism.

    For example Cravens spheres generated more than 100 watts on their own. There are many similar examples (Patterson, Piantelli, Cellani, etc cells).

    Jed Rothwell regularly links his sources. But you won't read them, because you're a pathoskeptical troll.

    (1) If these spheres actually did this they could be black box tested by anyone and Craven would be instantly (OK, within 6 months or so) very very famous.

    (2) Craven's data is unconvincing because he relies on TC's buried in the spheres. These (I looked up the type number a while ago - but sorry don't have the link to my post here then) are not robust to industrial conditions and known to be sensitive to reducing atmospheres. therefore the chance of diffusion of H2 or D2 into these TCs altering calibration is high, and this mechanism fits all the observations Cravens has made and is nowhere checked (of if checked not written up). Since for those knowledgeable about TCs the issue of long-term drift due to contamination is well known I find the lack of this from Cravens to be salient. Either he is not knowledgeable in the calorimetry he uses, or he cannot for some reason provide evidence that contamination is not the issue here.

    (3) As always differential behaviour D and H is no control, because these have very different physical propertiues - particularly when it comes to diffusion which would be an obvious issue here. The initial high temperature conditioning period used looks to fit the mechanism of TC drift due to long-term contamination very well - you'd get higher diffusion rates at this elevated temperature, and once contaminated the TC's would stay indicating this spurious extra temperature indefinitely.

    (4) This issue - TC contamination - is relevant for quite a number of the other examples in this area - though no ways all and there are other known mechanisms (as for example MFMP found out in their early days when as amateurs with no preconceptions they did some excellent work, learning as they went on).

    (5) if I'm wrong Craven has a demo worth billions and IH and many others would be interested!

    @Zephir. I refuse to go over this again but I can assure you that Craven's experiments fascinated me - I read the original write-up and a slightly more complete write-up someone posted here more recently, from which the diffusion/contamination mechanism emerged as an obvious unchecked candidate when i checked the TC part numbers.

    Leaving the intemperate and personalised language to one side, the point IO makes here is one I fully agree with. In fact I'd point out that following Popper until there is a concrete hypothesis for LENR that makes refutable predictions, LENR is not science.

    Hold it everyone - I'm not saying that LENR as a real set of anomalies with a plausible solution (nuclear reactions at rates much higher than expected) cannot be thought plausible until a mechanistic theory is discovered and checked. Merely that until then LENR is not a theory (uncontentious) and as not-a theory it requires much better evidence before it is accepted as probably true. That is because without a predictive known underlying mechanism it is easy to match heterogeneous results to a hand-waving idea, and therefore such results (by Bayes) are less strong evidence for it.

    This is a crucial point in epistomology that is often just not considered. It is the one that differentiates modern science from the set of vague knowledge that preceded it. And, even if you dislike Popper, Bayesian methods provide another way to understand intuitively and analytically the same concept.

    What constitutes a short but valid cold fusion period? That is where the trouble starts. Many outside observers don't necessarily find existing reports credible. Jed would argue that the bar has been more than passed by well-qualified scientists using normal, tried-and-true methods. Even Kirk agrees that something unusual is going on, while disagreeing on the interpretation. Here a related but not identical scientific need to having a lot of replications is to have a recipe that will allow professionals to replicate for themselves whatever effect is being reported within their own labs, so that they can rule out competing hypotheses for themselves. Having such a recipe would probably lead to a lot of replications. There have been claims of such a recipe, although I'm doubtful that one that is straightforward to use has been fully disclosed yet.

    So my view as a skeptic (and not a skeptopath - any such label would be wide of the mark).

    The very many high quality and slightly above unity COP values, especially from McKubre whose documentation of his experiments is superb, points to something likely real. The effect appears to be proportional to input power (with some threshold before activation, and also not always active). That fits Kirk's suggestion of some unexpected phenomenon that changes calibration better than an extremely power and energy dense nuclear effect. Why? Because any such would be expected often to give much larger excess power values, and indeed to have power related to temperature rather than power in. Although the fact that any temperature relationship appears to be proportional to difference from ambient, rather than Kelvin value, again pushed an observer in the direction of a calorimetry anomaly. Should there be a reaction anomaly, the timescales here make chemistry impossible so it would have to be nuclear, or some reaction totally unexpected. That is again negative, because the nuclear proposition is also (quite strongly) unexpected due to departure from normal branching ratios.

    On top of that - probably real, and certainly mysterious - anomaly, we have a collection of other phenomena:

    Reports of much higher power generation. These however do not seem to survive replication in well-controlled environments. Jed would point to the HAD inferred by MF after his boil-off experiments. I remain very unconvinced by that since the assumptions that lead to HAD inference are based on normal cell calibration and operation - there is no direct control to ensure that these inferences are safe, and no guarantee, in this case, that some chemical mechanism is not involved. Other high power reports seem just to be bad experimental design not properly validated, or explained by short-term chemical changes. Rossi being a classic but very atypical example of bad experimental practice in that his level of obvious badness is much higher than typical. I'd not mention him with the rest except that the LENR community considers him as possibly working on their stuff.

    Sporadic reports. In some cases there are single experiments, not replicated by the same team with the same apparatus. In any field other than LENR these would be considered "unknown experimental error" and not considered.

    Reports of nuclear reaction products. Again the problem here is that these things are looked for, and the results all one way or another marginal and in nearly all cases much lower than expected from any plausible nuclear mechanism. Should the UoAustin attempts to get high quality replicated correlation between He and excess heat show positive results that would be a big deal, and also indicate strongly a possible mechanism. But, that experiment needs to be done carefully to eliminate the various obvious false positives that could exist, and could explain earlier results.

    So none of this collection looks to me like justifying LENR as likely mechanism, although there are elements in it that remain mysterious and thus justify further targeted research.