THHuxleynew Verified User
  • Member since Jan 18th 2017
  • Last Activity:

Posts by THHuxleynew

  • The perpetual “is LENR even real” argument thread.

    Quote from orsova

    This is addressed in the paper.


    This is also addressed in the paper.


    The D2 artifact issue is not addressed. it is stated as fact that this is not a problem without evidence or rationale. For example, evidence would be a spectrum with two distinct peaks for D2 and 4He. Or an analysis of the expected difference, and comparison with the measured resolution.


    Otherwise this is just a hopeful assumption.


    The point is that assumptions like this are not proper when the result of making them is something extraordinary. In fact they are not proper anyway, but with a less unexpected result an unproven case can be more easily accepted as likely. And papers must if they are to be useful point out the assumptions, and detail reasons for making them.



    Quote from JedRothwell

    Anyone who has read the literature will know that the tritium is about a million times too small to explain the heat. No one has ever suggested that the tritium can explain the heat. THH's statement is either grossly ignorant, or it is trolling.


    I do not troll, nor am i grossly ignorant.


    You here are criticising me with a straw man argument. I never said this paper claimed that. rather, when i look at all of the LENR eviudence, I look for coherence, or lack of coherence. I am stating that the tritium results are muhc too low to explain excess heat - which matters because if they were comparable then these two apparently different (unless we have LENR) observations would be coherent.


    Because LENR theories do not exist in any usefully predictive from yet - my main reason for not liking them - the converse argument can never be proven.


    Thus Li much too low to explain the excess heat does not disprove LENR. Nor do I say it does. However anyone understanding my argument would see that the lack of correspondence here makes the Li evidence less strong (for LENR). But it does make the Li evidence more questionable as support for LENR (see arguments below reiterated but I am not sure they are much remarked here - so worth repeating).


    In contrast with historic He4 evidence where it has been suggested that this does correspond to excess heat and if that could be shown it would be positive evidence. i have critiqued here the attempt to do this from historic evidence. But it is interesting. If a genuine correspondence could be found it would be important. I was hoping the experiment Abd hinted at (U of Austin??) would run to completion and find suhc evidence. I have not heard what happened about that - maybe it never ran.


    Science is not about taking sides, like politics. it is about honestly and carefully analysing evidence, drawing conclusions with reasons, accepting that we can all make mitsakes, that different people can draw different conclusions.


    Only on this site do I find some people criticising those who disagree with them personally. it is a poor show. I realise this site is not entirely about science, and is advocacy, etc. But inasfar as i post here it is because I am interested in science and working out what these many anomalies actually mean.


    I do not criticise anyone else (except Rossi and his ilk) in the way that Jed repeatedly criticises me. It is not proper.


    Jed, you feel strongly which i understand. But by playing to a popular audience that takes sides, rather than looking at evidence and facts, you do yourself no favour.


    My arguments here that I think have people riled up are actually meta-arguments. To do with how the collection of LENR-possible anomalies hang together or don't - and how we can judge that. I judge that different from Jed, and give reasons for my difference.


    All scientific interpretation is subject to prior belief. For example, if I had no prior belief that gravity exists, and that the earth is large enough to accelerate objects, i would find the mysterious 1g acceleration of objects near the earth surface quite extraordinary and look carefully at all the data claiming that. Of course there is so much data that even with no rationale the "1g acceleration anomaly" would easily and clearly be accepted - after which more 1g observations would no longer be anomalous. But the 1g anomaly makes very clear predictions which can be measured. It is therefore a better hypothesis even without underlying theory than current LENR hypotheses.


    Jed is convinced that his (and others - but not the majority of scientists) analysis of the historic LENR anomalies makes LENR pretty inescapable. Given that conclusion, he interprets current experimental anomalies with LENR as a possible solution. Also, he interprets historical evidence in the light of that conclusion. I do not draw the same conclusions and therefore am much less likely to see anomalies as evidence for LENR. Those who do not understand this paragraph - I think sometimes that Jed is one of them - but perhaps he just forgets it - will see this as either Jed or I being necessarily liars, stupid, or ignorant. I do understand this paragraph and therefore I can tolerate Jed having wildly different views from me about what is most likely in specific experiments.


    As I have said many time here - because LENR does not make precise predictions - in fact does not make any predictions - a very wide variety of anomalous results can be interpreted as LENR. People here see this - with Jed I think - as additional evidence. I do not.


    In fact I see the weakness of LENR as a predictive hypothesis as a major demerit in evaluating it as a reason for all these anomalies - as opposed to a wide variety of interpretation and experimental errors.


    This message is not negative.


    For example, better understanding of putative LENR mechanisms can lead to stronger predictions of results, which can then be measured and either disprove (that particular stronger version) of LENR, or make it much more likely. If LENR exists such understanding will in the end be developed. It is why I like the post-Google efforts that are trying to to this. They succeed, or they fail. Either way we end up with more information about the world. Note that LENR as advocated on this site is such a non-predictive hypothesis that no experimental results can disprove it or even cast muhc doubt on it.


    I'd hope others here, with me, would see the importance of tightening LENR hypotheses, narrowing the set of anomalies explained but explaining some of them more precisely, in a way that allowed disproof, or much stronger positive evidence. I think actually there are quite a few who see this, it is just that they have not yet been able to do this. Nevertheless because unlike me they have a positive judgement on all that collected historic evidence they remain strong supporters of LENR. That is fair enough - but such supporters if scientists will be lamenting the lack of predictivity and working their hardest to change it.


    I suspect that the old LENR crowd, many of them, have got past this simply because they have tried and failed for too long to find useful predictivity and therefore given up.


    If LENR is real it needs people not to give up on that. The best motivation not to give up on it is a skeptical mindset - which is why I wish it was more common in the LENR community. You do see it in some of the post-google work.

  • The perpetual “is LENR even real” argument thread.


    OK, so thanks for that. I would point out - due to this site's quoting mechanism, that there was only one link for me to look at.


    https://www.newenergytimes.com/v2/library/1992/1992Bockris-TritiumHelium.pdf


    or:


    On an electrode producing massive quantities of tritium and helium
    A Pd electrode has been examined which produced a concentration of tritium in a 0.1 M LiOD solution around 103 times above background. Tritium product…
    www.sciencedirect.com


    Abstract

    A Pd electrode has been examined which produced a concentration of tritium in a 0.1 M LiOD solution around 103 times above background. Tritium production at a given potential ceased after a few days, but could be restarted by a small increase of the deuterium overpotential. Correspondingly, He4 was found in 9–10 pieces of the Pd electrode at 2–100 times background. Addition of fresh amounts of D2O quenched the T production which began again spontaneously after 1–2 days. If the T had come from contamination, 3He would have been found in the electrode: it was absent. Loss of charge by the nucleus takes place when the fugacity of D in voids exceeds 1017 atm (Lifshitz and Pitaevskii, 1963). Sporadicity of function arises from the state of the surface, which is difficult to reproduce. The surface state controls the mechanism of D2 evolution; only some mechanisms give a fugacity high enough to cause fusion. Only one electrode out of four examined produced T and 4He. The surface of this electrode contained a Cu-mosaic structure, not seen on the inactive electrodes.


    Two claims here, Li and He4.


    He4

    The claims rest (I think - can anyone else confirm) on mass spectrometer analysis of the electrodes. this shows indicative peaks at mass/charge ratio of 1.5 and 2. The authors explain that the mass/charge 1.5 peak is probably an artifact caused by HD (not - as it also could be - 3He). They say He4 is detected but do not say how - they imply it is from mass spectrometry. If this is the case however the obvious question is whether the 4He m/q peak at 2.0 could be a D2 artifact (similar to the HD artifact for the 1.5 peak)?


    Perhaps somone who understands this stuff could answer this. I could not fine any mainstream citations of this paper to help me in interpreting these results.



    Li


    A detailed analysis of the sample energy spectra yielded the correct beta energy
    end point for tritium when compared with a standard tritium sample. Figure 4(a)
    shows a standard tritium spectrum (activity 200000 DPM) and Fig. 4(b) a T sample
    taken before the electrolysis was stopped. Both spectra exhibit the same pattern
    with maxima within the same energy range or at the same corresponding channel
    numbers (130-150).





    I am no expert on these scintillation results. The authors do not comment on what are the expected bin number errors. I think they should, because these two spectra are not as stated in the text - both in range 130-150 channel number.

    Each tick on the Y axis is 50 channels. the sample (b) has peak in range 100-150. The T standard has peak in the range 150-200. This does not just apply to the peak. Take e.g. the 50% peak values, you can see that the standard spectrum occupies bin positions about +20% from the sample spectrum.


    I, being no expert, cannot say what is the significance of this. The authors seem to think these figures matter - but do not explain the discrepancy visible from these graphs. I myself would in their situation point out the discrepancy and then explain why it is not significant (if it is not significant). I'd like this part of the analysis to be peer reviewed by somone with expertise and a neutral stance on this topic.


    (1) The authors have very clear high scintillation results

    (2) they have done lots to eliminate T contamination as cause

    (3) The results do not precisely match T in any case

    (4) they have not considered contamination of something else which would produce these not quite like T results where the contamination is pushed into the electrolyte by the electrolytic process.


    I am interested in these results. If reproducible (at a 1 in 4 electrode rate) they could be further understood and we could find out what they really mean. I will be overjoyed myself it that means yes this is T generated, and 4He generated, from D+D nuclear fusion.


    Taking the authors speculations at face value we have 10^15 T atoms generated in 400 hours or so. Supposing 4MeV for D+D -> T + H we have 1.6*10^-19*4*10^6*10^15 = 640J => 0.5mW over the period. Much much smaller than claimed excess heat in other such experiments. But there are lots of unknowns here.


    It would strengthen this line of evidence if we could get an excess heat / T production correspondence - at some level. If the theory has enough fudge factors that this cannot be done it makes this line of evidence less strong.

  • The perpetual “is LENR even real” argument thread.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    That is impressive, especially for an air flow calorimeter.


    Any flow calorimeter will be well insulated. Thus, most of the heat is captured by the flowing fluid. The heat capacity of the fluid is well established, so you can easily estimate total heat capture based on first principles. It is easier to understand than isoperibolic or Seebeck calorimetry, and it is less dependent on calibrations. Mike McKubre has often pointed this out.


    For these reasons, any experiment with good flow calorimetry and significant excess heat, even 5% of input power, will exceed the upper limit for heat losses. Obviously, any experiment with no input power and detectable heat also exceeds these limits, with any kind of calorimetry. There are many experiments like that in the literature. THH could have found many on his own. Or he might have read and analyzed McKubre, the way he said he would a year ago. Of course he never will do that. Now that he has invented the imaginary problem of heat recovery he will go on claiming it is real, and he will never cite an actual example or read any of the papers I tell him show it is not real. He is a troll.

    All I am asking is for one concrete link of an electrolytic experiment with these "large results" that Jed says are easy to find and decent calorimetry.


    The point here (if I remember - have been a bit busy with other stuff) is Jed's contention that my statement that later replications of F&P using better methodology and/or calorimetry showed much lower excess heat was not true.


    Now, it is difficult for me to provide links to show this - there are many later replications.


    All Jed needs to link is one experiment where the results are high. Hence I have been asking for a link.


    The context of this I think was our different uses of "low". If Jed is right he can easily link his best refutation of my statement. Just one.


    The previous comments relate to a tritium experiment which Jed DID link - although I did not see it for a while. My memory of those experiments is that the careful ones showed very low tritium output and the work required to prove this could not be any of the possible sources; contamination, electrolytic or evaporative concentration (a few others I do not remember). These experiments are particularly difficult to do due to the small results and the fact that (unlike excess heat) you must collect bulk results and test afterwards - which makes checking things challenging.


    I prefer therefore the electrolytic calorimetry experiments where we have more information and the possible errors are easier to bound.

  • BLP update

    Quote from Shane D.

    They have checked that "expert review" block many times over.

    Not if you read the "expert" reports!


    for me, and I used to be fascinated by BLP, the killer is this.


    As time has progressed their demos have changed to completely different systems - and each system has got more difficult to do precise measurements on than the previous.


    1. Large cylinder full of chemicals - measure how hot it gets. Claims are that total energy out is larger than anything chemically possible.

    2. Electrolysis/battery with alternated charge-discharge and claimed output << charge/discharge energy.

    3. Explosion caused by large transient energy input - with energy output estimated from light detection.

  • BLP update

    BLP has always been better at commercial fundraising then anyone else. Mills is very good at it. He has a compelling story for anyone who does not trust expert review of his voluminous and impressive output. And he has always had rich backers - once you have those it is easier to get others.


    So:


    • the fundraising is because they need more money
    • the timeline is because you need a timeline to get funds


    That is business as usual for any company in their situation. And certainly business as usual for BLP who have been doing the same thing for a long time. It does not tell you anything about whether they have what they claim. It does tell you that Mills is good at raising funds.


    I will be happy to wait for the end of their timeline and see what emerges?


    It is the same position as Clean planet. they also have a timeline to commercialisation. It has been revised to be longer than initially. That process can go on for some time until those who accept claims on zero independent evidence (the "independent" BLP evidence is not credible when you look at the claims in context of all BLPs similar part claims - and lack of better validation over time).


    So I don't expect anything useful to be concluded until BLP next runs out of funds 9the timeline can be stretched).

  • The perpetual “is LENR even real” argument thread.

    Quote from orsova

    There's nothing neutral about suggesting that people who accept LENR are of the same ilk as people who believe in Qanon, or that the moon landing was faked, or that climate change is a hoax.

    Yes, but that is really not what I was doing if you read carefully.


    Joining the dots to make a picture is a valuable human ability. Scientists do it. But it is they always a matter of subjective judgement how much weight you give to unusual non-mainstream interpretations as against the boring default view. Some people are more disposed to do this than others - and surely they would be more inclined to see LENR as real.


    I should perhaps not have used those words when talking generally - there are (and I regret it - they do not do LENR any service) some real genuine conspiracy theories that do the rounds.

  • The perpetual “is LENR even real” argument thread.

    Quote from orsova

    Naive, pseudoscientific, condescending and frankly, self indulgent, clumsy pop-psych and a waste of everybody's time.

    I seem to have hit a nerve here but I am not sure why.


    I understand with waste of time. If everyone here has the fixed idea that LENR effects are caused by nuclear reactions any explanation of the case for skepticism is a waste of time.


    My post may have been obvious - but I don't understand why it would be any of the other things you say. I was expanding on the idea of psychological bias introduced above. In an entirely neutral way. And explaining my own bias. Conspiracy theories are sometimes true - and as I said above LENR has the same "joining the dots" attraction without the demerit of requiring any conscious conspiracy. Though I should point out a few here claim there is such a conspiracy (of hot fusion scientists - I have even incorrectly been labelled one of them) to discredit LENR.


    Quote from orsova

    the way you comport yourself and interact here

    I am comparing my posts against others that do not attract your ire along those 4 adjectives. I can't say that I am more than the average for any of them, nor can you provide credible evidence of that I think.


    I can only conclude that you are angry at the waste of time - but you can keep away from this one thread?

  • The perpetual “is LENR even real” argument thread.

    psychological bias.


    The same psychology that makes people attracted to (or distrustful of) conspiracy theories will tend to make them more attracted to (or distrustful of) LENR as a mechanism for a collection of anomalies.


    • In both cases we have things that can't be explained and an explanation which is psychologically attractive, but lacks definite predictions (or at least definite predictions that have ever been observed).
    • In both cases we have mainstream though versus small groups of unconventional thinkers.


    Now, conspiracies exist, so conspiracy theories are sometimes true. But not, for attractive conspiracy theories, often. For fringe science you do not need an (unlikely) conspiracy of scientists - you just need nearly all scientists to be so invested in one way of thinking that they cannot see something new. Plenty of examples here from history when we did not have such a great diversity of scientific exploration and publication as now. And those historic examples do not last forever - in the end a better hypothesis will triumph due (in all cases?) to its making definite predictions that are found true.


    I annoy many here (from a psychological perspective) because temperamentally I am not fond of conspiracy theories. I see them as inherently unlikely.


    How much we should derive strong probability from "joining the dots" is a balance, and sane people can have different views. If I excluded all possibility that those diverse claimed LENR effects are nuclear in origin I would be unbalanced. Many here claim that having looked carefully at the effects - not to see nuclear reactions as the only plausible solution - is also unbalanced. I disagree. And argue that in generalities and specifics as on other posts here.


    I will very happily become an LENR fan (or at least hopeful fan) as soon as some theory is advocated that is predictive enough to be falsifiable. Turning this round - as Jed does - an saying that I have to provide and exact known (and therefore falsifiable) error mechanism for every experiment with anomalous excess heat results is absurd.

  • The perpetual “is LENR even real” argument thread.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    That is (all but) incorrect. Heat leakage from Seebeck envelope calorimeter is negligible. It is so small you have difficulty detecting it. That is why they are called "envelope" calorimeters. Bomb calorimeter types also have negligible heat losses

    Jed, you are being argumentative here.


    • Bomb calorimeters - irrelevant since cannot be used for the type of experiments we are talking about
    • Seebeck calorimeters - they have an equivalent to leakage - which is uneven heat detection from different heat detectors.
    • Whether leakage is negligible is something to be considered on a case-by-case basis not assumed.
    • Other than Storms's work - where measurement inequality remains an issue because only partially explored (possibly leakage too) - in fact Ed's results are low enough that many things including unknown unknowns remain issues (none of which is in any way the fault of his careful experimentation) - who has positive good quality LENR results from a Seebeck calorimeter?


    You are fond of saying that the factor that matters to determine how convincing results are is magnitude of results / calculated calorimeter error after calibration.


    That is normally true. For experiments where cell conditions are potentially different between calibration and active runs in ways that cannot easily be measure that assumption (that calibration works) breaks down. The real factor is


    magnitude of results / (calculated calibration error after calibration + possible erors introduced by differences between calibration and active runs)


    The latter factor is impossible to measure exactly and is typically bounded (which is fine). However those bounds are made on the basis of assumptions which need case-by-case examination. In particular because electrolysis LENR experiments are rather unusual - compared with normal calorimetry - the assumptions that highly experienced competent calorimetrist normally make may not hold. You need both a highly experienced competent calorimetrist and somone willing to question assumptions looking beyond wat normally happens to potential unusual anomalies - unexpected ATER being one such example.


    Why look so carefully for anomalies when it is not normally done?


    Ummm.... Because for everyone except the LENR community the results are anomalous. Once you accept that LENR is likely to happen - it becomes the preferred solution to a large class of anomalies. It fits almost anything well because its predictions (until we have a more definite underlying theory) are so non-specific.


    Therein lies part of the "psychological bias" we are talking about. And that non-specificity is what all those of good will who want to find high quality evidence for LENR should be concerned about. It must, if LENR is real - be possible to find some more specific results from a combination of better defining the theory or better characterising experiments.


    For as long as CF effects remain so non-specific LENR is not a good scientific hypothesis. Some other hypothesis (e.g. - they are caused by alien scientists who are simulating the universe and want to explore how much unclassifiable anomalies are recognised by earth scientists in order to better understand what level of "contrary to physical laws" influence they can do on earth without being detected) might be more specific.


    There are many strongly accepted physical mechanisms which give rise to non-specific results from some experiments. There are no accepted physical mechanisms that make no specific predictions.


    That does not stop LENR from being a valid hypothesis - just not one that scientists will be very enthusiastic about.


    My personal negativity about LENR comes from the fact that it remains so ill-defined. If folks here were advocating one variety of electrolytic fusion (as was expected at the time of F&P's experiments) then we would have a narrower theory making better predictions. Every time those predictions are negative (e.g. to take the first big issue at that time lack of easily detectable high energy particles) the class of underlying possible mechanisms gets larger, less clear, and more radically different from what we currently have.


    Against that we have some positives. A definite theory (have not yet seen a preferred one) of NAE nuclear activity that generates only alpha particles would surely be testable by electrolytic experiments designed so that alpha detectors could be in close proximity to the NAEs. The CR39 alpha claims could be folded into this both quantitatively and qualitatively and a coherent predictive theory would start to emerge.


    That (example) positive comes with a caveat. When it is definite enough to be a good hypothesis it will also be definite enough to be shot down if its specific testable predictions are found to be wrong.


    Scientists without psychological bias - both experimental and theoretical - can look for such hypotheses and the definite predictions they make.

  • The perpetual “is LENR even real” argument thread.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    There are no errors that could affect liquid flow calorimeters, Seebeck and microcalorimeters. If you claim there are such errors, please list three of them, and list specific experiments with different calorimeter types that had these errors. If you claim there are such errors you must tell us specifically what they are. Otherwise your statement cannot falsified. It cannot be debated.

    Jed - I have given you one specific error cause - ATER. I know what you will say about it. And to save us time, perhaps you will remember my previous replies to that. and there are other mechanisms. suppose heat bursts from some mundane well understood mechanism (do I need to spell it out) the circulation of bubbles and foam in the reaction vessel changes, so altering heat distribution.


    But the second part of your argument here is logically incorrect.


    Let me use the analogy of a very complex computer program that the writer claims proves Fermat's last theorem. He says, as you do, show me the exact error in it, if you cannot, then your claim the proof is not sound is untrue. After all without details, any such claim cannot be refuted and so is unscientific.


    That is clearly absurd. Anyone can (with automatic aids) write a program so obfuscated that no-one else can work out how it works or does not work. More realsistically, in complex programs there can easily be not obvious bugs that no-one checking is able to find.


    An experiment is like that. Less complexity - but against that you do not have the precise code, so you cannot fully check it without reproducibility and repetition. experiments are always obfuscated because we have only partial information on exactly what happened from what was recorded.


    If I was claiming that those old experiments definitely had errors enough to account for the small positive results, you would be right. I am not, I am just saying they could have such errors and therefore the "error" hypothesis must be weighted against the "LENR" hypothesis when deciding which is most likely. Neither, by definition, is certain. Which is mots likley then is a very complex judgement call.

  • The perpetual “is LENR even real” argument thread.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    There are no errors that could affect liquid flow calorimeters, Seebeck

    All calorimeters have errors due to heat leakage. These are compensated by calibration. Change in heat distribution in the calorimeter vary (slightly) the amount of this leakage.


    Therefore any effect that alters heat distribution in the cell between calibration runs and active runs will be seen as an error.


    ATER (if different between calibration and active) does this rather obviously in any closed cell. But there can be other such effects if anything about the thermal characteristics of the cell changes between the two cases.


    I cannot tell you how large these errors are because no-one has ever tested it exactly it is quite difficult. Some experimenters have tested the error from heat production at different points in the cell - but they are not identical points or conditions from the active and calibration runs, so extrapolating from that is an assumption that may not be justified. It must be justified on a case by case basis (assuming the check has been done at all) by arguing that any possible change in heat distribution must be less significant in terms of its effect on heat loss than the change checked.


    Such errors do not much effect absolute calorimeters - where leakage by design is so low that calibration is not needed. But I know of no LENR experiments that do not use calibration (it would be weird).

  • Correct mechanism of Cold fusion of Clean planet

    Quote from Calliban

    A question to any resident quantum mechanics experts on this board. From what I remember from undergraduate materials science, the Schrodinger equation tells us that the position of a particle within a system can be described in terms of a probability density function. This probability declines exponentially as distance increases from the most probable position. However, it never quite declines to zero, suggesting that there is a small but real probability that two deuterium nuclei in a heavy water molecule will fuse even under standard conditions, because a tiny but real proportion of their probability density functions overlap. If true, this would suggest that nuclear fusion is taking place in ordinary water under standard conditions, but at an infinitesimal rate that is so slow that it would be difficult to detect. Even this a true description of reality?

    Yes, indeed. Wave function decay is often exponentiual (not always) but it is true that reaction cross section is never zero.


    The NASA people are keen on potential mechanisms enhancing cross-sections that will bridge the many OOMs gap between the cross section expected and that needed to deliver useful (or even measurable) excess heat. Some of these mechanisms are well substantiated. others still speculative. We need a number of mechanisms all acting together. And there is discussion on how branching ratios could maybe change to deliver heat without easily observable high energy products - though that is less substantiated.


    And there has been much discussion here about them. But I'd recommend the published papers.


    here is (not really published paper) presentation https://www1.grc.nasa.gov/wp-c…ced-Nuclear-Reactions.pdf


    It is one bit of LENR (if you want to call it that) which is also a corner of mainstream science.


    THH

  • The perpetual “is LENR even real” argument thread.

    Quote from Storms

    Thanks Jed. Only you understand what I'm trying to say because you do not have the psychological problem I'm identifying. The problem with psychological problems is that the people who have the problem seldom know they have a problem. These discussions go nowhere because the people involved are not describing the same reality. Everyone is in their own little world with no ability to see anything else.

    I agree. I'd just add that in such cases both sides think the other has a psychological problem - and perhaps both are right!


    I am trying to see both sides - but it is quite difficult.


    Although only a few here realise it - I do not dismiss all those positive LENR results. Neither the old ones nor the new ones - like yours or Staker's. They are enough to keep me interested looking at every bit of new evidence in the hope that it advances state of knowledge. Yet, with that, I am not committed to LENR being real, and till the evidence is there I do not think this.


    I expect that if a LENR phenomenon showing heat in electrolysis from nuclear reactions is real, however stochastic, it should be possible to optimise for it. I know you have tried more (and with much more skill) than most. it is a bit disappointing to me that your "simple calorimeter" excess heat results are so relatively small. If the NAE hypothesis is correct you would expect that over time a good deal of optimisation could push marginal results up by say a factor of 5 or so to become incontrovertible.


    I have never yet seen gas/Ni experiments with positive results I trust - the write-ups have holes in them (those experiments Clean Planet rely on) - or do not exist (Clean Planet claims) - or (Mitzuno) come from lab methodology which is not good enough and with lack of expected reproducibility. Gas phase calorimetry is just more difficult, the ways it is done in those experiments are more prone to anomalies.


    CR39 - if alphas exist from LENR they should be possible to detect in ways that do not have as many error possibilities as film where you can only integrate data over a long time.


    Transmutation: the interpretations of spectral lines is complex and easy to misread. - so without peer review in the wider community and proper debate i don't think anyone except perhaps isolated experts will believe them. Or should believe them. It is a catch 22 that LENR papers do not usually get mainstream scrutiny. I am sorry for it.


    He or T - both interesting and more plausible than random could-be-anything transmutation. Both formidably difficult to detect at such low levels with no possibility of error. Unlike high energy particles where you can get documented variation over time correlated with other changed - they can only be detected integrated over some period. It makes for difficult experiments.


    I still think of all the LENR results liquid-phase excess heat generation is the mots plausible to get solid results from.


    (I am not including here the experiments on electron screening etc where the results are clear and positive and accepted by me. That is a possible route to solid LENR evidence but at the moment it looks like it will be relatively limited in what it covers. I still hope).


    If the above is the result of a psychological disturbance - well all I will say is that humans have psychology - we are all irrational in different ways. The art is to understand our own peculiarities - and that is not easy.

  • The perpetual “is LENR even real” argument thread.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    ("You only need one error per experiment . . .")


    Perhaps that is what he means, but it makes no sense. Different errors will produce different results. With a flow calorimeter, a flowmeter reading too low will produce one kind of error, and unmixed fluid another. An error in an isoperibolic calorimeter will produce yet another error. The results will not agree.

    CF results do not agree. The accepted lack of certainty in when CF happens means that you get different results even from the same apparatus, and this is ok.

    To take (since you quote it - and it is best understood) excess heat. 50% of all errors will be positive. And there are underlying "error" mechanisms documented which affect all calorimeters - although in complex and different ways.


    THH

  • The perpetual “is LENR even real” argument thread.

    Quote from orsova

    Agree to disagree. There may not be a theory, but there is a commonality of materials, experimental design, methodology and observation. Moreover, there is also a commonality amongst the observations - all the claimed products seem to be nuclear in their origin.

    I agree with what you say, but not that this makes a collectively stronger for a common nuclear origin because by definition positive LENR results are those that imply nuclear origin and therefore they are looked for (by these experiments). Any such anomaly counts as positive - any negative (no anomaly) does not count as negative. Because exactly what anomaly is expected in any individual case is not predicted by LENR. Anyway - I understand that weighting this is complex and can be argued both ways.

    Quote from orsova

    A) The super majority of papers that report tritium fail to adequately account for possible sources of error.


    B) One paper is absolutely exemplary and conclusively shows a large, anomalous amount of tritium.


    If you make an argument in general terms based on the observation of A, and find that argument to be dispositive, then you're never going to get to B, which is really the useful conclusion to get to.

    That is a worthwhile point. It is true that a single killer experiment would be powerful. But not overwhelmingly so. Scientists rightly never believe single experiments. They get very interested in them, try to reproduce, try to work out theory that could be compatible with the new evidence. You can see that with the FTL neutrino experiment. Equally when the result is not predicted by any otherwise plausible theory they are rightly very cautious about its being real. As indeed the FTL experiment - so carefully checked before publication - turned out not to be real.


    The point about reproduction is not just "reproduce exactly the anomaly". It is that as soon as an anomaly is reproducible you can test it in different ways and ask questions about it. That can quickly provide hints as to its origin which may be an unknown experimental artifact, or an unknown law of physics.


    The biggest credibility problems for LENR is the large amount of "could be LENR" evidence. That sounds strange! It has two aspects:

    (1) (this is unfair - and I agree with people here that it was until team google unfairly discriminated against) the surge of interest a long time ago with no conclusive results, nor plausible theory makes people think now "more of the same" and be overly dismissive.

    (2) (this is fair). The more diverse poorly attested anomalies are quoted seriously as LENR the more it looks like a pseudoscience. The Rossi phenomenon. those free energy companies that have claimed commercial results for 20 years, yet whose demos are different over time and rely on ever more complex and uncertain measurements. People who look at the may wonderful not understood phenomena such as ball lightning and hypothesise that is cause by LENR. People who claim a very wide range of transmutations from uncertain experiments. This diverse evidence makes fitting a predictive theory incredibly difficult. For example, it has to be, almost any nuclear transformation can happen, in LENR experiments, while such has never been observed by those not looking for LENR, and the energy mismatch fractionation problem is uniformly solved meaning that expected and very easily measurable high energy porducts are not observed.


    (2) is why I am more positive about electrolysis D+D LENR than other things. Even opening it to H+H as well as D+D reduces its credibility (not to zero - but it becomes less attractive) from my POV.


    These ideas are I think not ones you can engage with unless you have a truly open mind. They relate to real uncertainty, and weighting the probability of different explanations. They do not prove LENR does not exist, they affect high likely it is to exist. And that judgement is so subjective that I don't see any scientific way it can be resolved, except in a positive way from new evidence. So I do not see LENR can ever be disproved. However, specific LENR theories - e.g. Widom Larsen - can be checked and proved or disproved. The more definite the theory the more it can be disproved. If the theory has steps where the rationale is hand waving it will be more difficult to disprove because you can reasonably posit many different mechanisms and fit whatever results occur to some variant.

    Quote from orsova

    Ok, but we should make some allowance for the fact that you can't get sponsored to do this work, and it's career suicide if you do. And then, on top of that, it's an extremely challenging experiment. In a way, it's not really a fair critique because the resources available to researchers haven't been continuous and stable.

    Agreed. Although post-team-google this argument applies less. TG had decent funding, and tried hard to find a reproducible "define LENR" experiment. Their work showed some anomalies that were interesting and are still being actively pursued. It is always a judgement call where do you throw money: e.g. LENR or experiments that might test modified GR theories, or deliver info on neutrinos.


    Quote from orsova

    Besides, what do the results of recent experiments say about the quality of older experiments? You imply that recent results somehow invalidate or cast doubt on prior results. That doesn't make sense.


    Again, you make a general argument: "All the recent results are worse than the older results" and use it to cast doubt on F&P's work.

    The high quality post-F&P work showed results much lower than FP claimed, and to that extent invalidates their claims. You have a credibility problem if you say that both F&P claims and McKubre claims are correct, since the later experiments, with more accurate calorimetry, shows lower results than the original F&P experiments with less accurate calorimetry. Most people, looking at those experiments, would say that if LENR is real either F&P had green fingers never repeated after or F&P's claims were over-egging things a lot. Scientists tend not to believe in green fingers.


    The credible modern experiments do not replicate the most interesting (but not replicable) "good quality" post-F&P results. E.g the McKubre series that has one (?) result with much higher excess heat - clearly beyond possible errors - than the others. Ed's very creditable attempts to find a "lab rat" electrolytic experiment with clear excess heat show very low excess heat results. At a level most external observers would not call certain. Those modern experiments replicate low uncertain levels of excess heat. It is frustrating - it means we must stay interested in the phenomena without thinking of it has strong evidence for LENR.


    The one negative from this is hard to quantify. Any level of real nuclear excess heat should - you would expect from every plausible mechanism - be highly variable and often muhc higher than measurement errors so with effort you would expect it to be possible to find a lab rat experiment that shows it clearly. There are challenges to this - such a variable mechanism can destroy NAEs as soon as they become active etc. But it is unlikely that consistent excess heat over a long time can only be found at levels that are so low compared with experimental error. I remind you of the first sentence in this paragraph. This is a genuine argument - but it is hard to quantify its weight. Personally I vacillate - sometimes I think it has ahigh weight, sometimes low. It is ok to be uncertain.

    Quote from orsova

    But it's not useful unless you've actually read a specific paper and are making a specific argument about that paper.


    "Maybe there's an error, because there's often an error" isn't a rigorous critique.

    True. But then none of us are qualified to make rigorous critiques of these experiments. Those who are (Ed?) are subject inevitably to the exact group think that those who believe LENR is clearly real think afflicts the rest of the scientific establishment.


    What would be needed to find non-LENR reasons for the anomalies is intense interest from many highly qualified who were trying hard to disprove LENR. A sort of anti-team-google. You can see easily that no-one serious would ever want to do that. You can however be sure that LENR would get that interest when it finds a lab rat experiment with certain results. those people would be piling in trying to identify the (obvious) anomaly and equally happy whether they were proving LENR or proving some boring non-LENR error mechanism.

  • The perpetual “is LENR even real” argument thread.

    Quote from orsova

    To speak in abstract, hypothetical terms about what may or may not be wrong about whole swathes of literature is not an adequate response to the specific task of reviewing a specific paper - which is the task that you and Jed were negotiating.


    And it is certainly not grounds for the rejection of the claims of any specific paper.


    In this case, you cannot prove a particular with a generality.

    I think this is a slight misunderstanding of the contention here.


    Sure, there are a whole load of LENR papers (generally the modern ones, and some of the late F&P ones) which can be rejected. But there are also the post-F&P high quality early papers - a lot of them - which Jed puts his faith in. Those are serious and show genuine anomalies.


    The question is whether those anomalies are specific to the experiments, and or whether they all have the same (presumably nuclear - but with no theory that predicts them all) cause.


    The arguments on this thread that are general are essentially reiterating that point. You are right - neither Jed's contention, nor mine, repeated, adds anything. Both sides see the other as ignoring something that is obvious.


    I guess I am more interested in that type of reasoning than most. It is a problem properly solved by Bayesian probability theory - but too complex for that ever to be helpful.


    You are thinking that either I can find a mistake in every string LENR paper, or Jed is right. But that is not true. Those individual papers do not support LENR. They each show an anomaly. The different anomalies are not all predicted by a single LENR theory - yet. Until that happens the individual evidence in each case is just "appears to be an anomaly" and lack of clear reproducibility makes that inconclusive.


    For example, Jed will say (as will everyone here): anomalous excess heat is well proven and reproducible. Yet the modern attempts to find this are all uncertain, and show results much lower than those original F&P results. I don't dispute anomalous heat from electrolytic H or D + Pd experiments. I dispute nuclear reactions as being the mots likely reason for it. I don't dispute apparent excess Tritium from the Tritium experiments - i dispute LENR as mots likely reason for it. In that case I can say in some cases what is a likely reason - e.g. electrolytic or evaporative fractionation - and in other cases just point out that contamination has not been ruled out.


    On any single experiment Jed will say - you are supposing some unlikely source of error. I will say - yes but it does not have to be very likely, because the set of possible anomalous "LENR" results is quite large, and the number of error mechanism sis also quite large. You only need one error mechanism and one anomaly to generate LENR evidence.


    Jed will then say - ah - but all these results add certainty. I will say - no they don't for the reason in the paragraph above.

  • The perpetual “is LENR even real” argument thread.

    Quote from orsova

    There’s a pattern that I’ve noticed in the way you sometimes respond here, in that you zoom out and speak in general terms about various hypothetical sources of error, and then use that discussion as the basis for rejection of specific experiments or claims.

    I did not see the specifics i asked for. Jed knows his library very well and could, were he willing, provide this. If I have missed this I am sorry - the link above is a link to Jed's library.


    Searching for a paper is not a great idea in this situation - i will probably get the wrong one even if given an author. Really, there is no substitute for a specific link which is what i give people when seriously looking at things.


    But perhaps Jed is not interested in doing that because what separates us is generalisations. Jed looks at the collected evidence and finds it compelling because the whole is greater than the parts. i don't - becayuse the lack of specificity and coherence with specific theories makes the whole no greater than teh parts.


    That could change as I've said many times. Change could come from either of:

    1. A reproducible certain experiment now
    2. A specific LENR theory that made falsifiable predictions

    If LENR exists I'd expect both to be possible. The post-google stuff on lattice enhancement is getting close to 2. Although even though that is supported by definite reproducible quantitative results there are quite a few not yet substantiated pieces for it to even be useful LENR: and the ideas that go with it for aneutronic reactions are particularly unsubstantiated. I'd therefore not be surprised if most people here view it as a poor potential explanation.

  • The perpetual “is LENR even real” argument thread.

    One thing that would also help is clarity about what is the nuclear reaction?


    "Besides helium, other nuclear products are detected in much smaller quantities. Early in the
    history, great effort was made to detect neutrons, an expected nuclear product from the d-d
    fusion reaction. Except for occasional bursts, the emission rate was found to be near the limit of
    detection or completely absent. This fact was used to reject the initial claim. It is now believed
    that the few observed neutrons are caused by a secondary nuclear reaction, possibility having
    nothing to do with the helium producing reaction. Tritium is another expected product of d-d
    fusion, which was sought. Too little tritium was detected so that once again the original claims
    were inconsistent with expectations. Nevertheless, the amount of tritium detected could not be
    explained by any prosaic process after all of the possibilities had been completely explored. The
    source of tritium is still unknown although it clearly results from a nuclear reaction that is
    initiated within the apparatus. Various nuclear products normally associated with d-d fusion also
    have been detected as energetic emissions, but at very low rates. Clearly, unusual nuclear
    processes are occurring in material where none should be found."


    Storms 2006


    One of many more recent runarounds of how can the observed results be fitted to possible nuclear reactions as determined by conservation laws (ignoring can they happen or why do they decay that way).


    My point is that detecting He or T quantitatively as a fingerprint of LENR required that we assume a specific reaction, and test it. That indeed is good science. But it is not LENR because the results are variable - I know of no single reaction that can explain them all.


    And if it could be any reaction or indeed none - that weak predictivity makes it impossible to disprove LENR experimentally, and means that a very wide range of anomalies can be claimed as evidence for it.


    That is the source of my skepticism. I am however quite optimistic about the possibility of some real definite lattice-enhanced LENR reaction causing a small subset of these results in a way that makes complete sense and is quantitatively provable or disprovable.