I have an important question for TTH. What is your motive for taking the time to reply here? What is your goal? An answer would help structure a proper reply. Right now the discussion is going in circles. You seem determined to suggest any idea that can show the claim for cold fusion is wrong. Even when the results are presented using accepted arguments and formats, you suggest a flaw. Even when independent measurements agree, you suggest reasons why the results can not be believed. Even after 34 years of study by dozens of professional scientists, the results of which are published in over 2000 peer-reviewed papers, you find reasons to reject the conclusions. What is your motive? Why would you now only believe the results that result from the work funded by the DOE? Your approach made sense 30 years ago. Now it does not look rational. In any case, your approach is useless to me and to the other people who are trying to solve this important mystery.
Ironically, 34 years ago civilization was given the means to avoid the catastrophe that will result from global warming. This critical energy source was rejected with your help. Now, it's too late. I hope you are pleased with the result of your efforts.
Ed
You seem determined to suggest any idea that can show the claim for cold fusion is wrong
Below, I explain motivation. There is a difference between unproven, and wrong. Rossi's setups were wrong (22/23 probably so - with that track record we do not need to consider the one not provably, but possibly, wrong one). Rossi has been a big distraction for LENR research and is not typical. He is a proven liar and cheat. Perhaps though, since interest in LENR was as you say unjustly stifled 30 years ago - having it for equally bad reasons (Rossi effect) enhanced now is only fair.
Anyway - what you (& Jed) don't like me not being convinced by is evidence that is very interesting, and suggestive of LENR, but not proven LENR. Though it is proven something. It is a pity we do not now have the funding to rerun those electrolysis experiments - using modern knowledge about what materials work, and get better certainty from careful replication. It was what I thought the google team should have done - I still don't understand the tangled story of why they did not.
The work that I like now is a different type of result. It is quantitative, indisputable (high energy particle detection multiple ways leaves no uncertainty) and characterised parametrically which also increases certainty. It builds on 20 years of previous experiments (Czerski et al) making progress incrementally as would be expected. It makes predictions which are found true on further experiment. There is some DOE work that I don't like. No-one has done and published work as good as the old excess heat experiments. (FYI I have no connection to Czerski or any of the groups doing electron screening stuff - I just like the work).
Even after 34 years of study by dozens of professional scientists, the results of which are published in over 2000 peer-reviewed papers, you find reasons to reject the conclusions. What is your motive?
I had no involvement 30 years ago. Perhaps, if I had had that, I would be as discouraged as you think I should be.
My motive being here is that I like to understand mysteries. LENR is a mystery. For me, I am not very biased which way the solution goes - e.g. nuclear reactions, or a collection of experimental anomalies. I have always been in the middle between those who see experiment as primary, and those who see theory as primary. I see understanding as primary and that means making sense of the experimental results. I am motivated to stick with LENR because I am very perseverant and the results do NOT make sense - although efforts to do this (such as yours) are around and to be applauded.
I was (and am) most interested in the Czerski lattice electron screening stuff [1] - in fact 5 years ago (?) I did an extensive forward/backward Literature review based on Czerski trying to make sense of all the experimental data indicating high screening in metal lattices (varying by metal).
My viewpoint: I see new fundamental electronic interactions as extraordinarily unlikely (we would have hints) - for all the normal reasons. But unexpected behaviour of electrons in lattices, or lattices at gaps/discontinuities/whatever, or surfaces - that is fine. Frankly the LEC results (indisputed) show such unexpected electronic behaviour. I see unexpected nuclear woo-woo* reactions as extraordinarily unlikely (we would have hints). However the range of possible non-woo-woo behaviours of nuclei is very large - unlike electrons they are v complex not fully understood systems. So something that pushed reaction rates in unusual ways is quite possible. in fact there are many effects which we know do that. The issue for LENR is just that the pushing is a few more OOMs than we would normally expect.
When I feel positive about LENR - it is looking at all those interesting theoretical effects - plasmonic effects, nuclear resonances, screening, coherence effects.
What experimental data makes me positive? I am pushed a bit towards positivity by all that high quality old data - much less so by the newer Ni-H excess heat data - I think it is less reliable. All that is needed is for one of the Mizuno-replicant groups to provide a black box with COP=1.5 or so for proper 3rd part testing using different calorimetry and it would become very reliable. I've always seen this as something that will happen, or not. If not, the longer we wait the larger my doubts in its reliability. But I do not feel just because one set of LENR data proves unreliable that it all must be that.
When I feel negative about LENR, it is the fact that thus far all attempts to tie down or amplify effects using scaling, or get parametric insight, have failed. Thus when McKubre replicated F&P electrolysis with superb calorimetry the magnitude of the observed effect (except for a I think two unreplicable outliers) goes down to something which while above calorimetry errors is not above some potential system difference between active and control runs not understood. When MFMP tried to scale early Rossi-type reactors in the obvious way (increasing thermal resistance to ambient thereby reducing input power required) it did not scale (though of course there was lower expectation in that case!). The lack of scaling pushes me in the direction of the results being artifacts, as does (some) of the scaling with temperature (e.g. on another thread here Daniel's).
I don't want to argue about "is the McK data so definite it proves LENR". It is high quality data without obvious issues. It has possible not obvious issues, in spite of excellent attempts to control for it, based on just plausible differential heat gradients between control and active runs caused by recombination. We have argued around this a lot: it is not fruitful to revisit it. My problem is that much better apparatus and methodology normally makes effects much easier to see. In this case much better apparatus and methodology (from McK) led to a lower effect that would be expected based on previous results.
I'd extend that to the Ni-H stuff. Everyone is interested in it (I think?) based on a number of very encouraging results from Mizuno and other Japanese researchers. If the replicated systems, better instrumented, all end up giving results 5X smaller or more than the systems they replicate I do not believe them. Why? Because then nearly all of the original result was error. It therefore provides no support for Ni-H anomalies. I could not see any clear error in the M results, even though there were a few red flags in terms of methodology. If they are proved wildly wrong why would I have confidence in some other similar work in which I could also see no obvious error?
The flip side of this is that if clearly high results as from Mizuno and claimed by a number of replicators (I'm including Clean Planet in this - even if they are not replicating M) are real then unambiguous replicable results can be found, and if any of the parties are willing tested in a way that would convince me and (pretty quickly) everyone.
My big push negative is the lack of experimental progress from F&P, who claimed high excess heat. Personally as I've argued on another thread after being convinced to the dark side by ascoli - I had for so long not wanted to look at that poor quality difficult to analyse boil-off data simply reckoning no-one in their right minds could trust it - I now have no trust in any high F&P results. Which explains the lack of replication at a similar magnitude. But anomalous Pd-D excess heat remains.
F&P were not the first people to observe anomalous excess heat in D-Pd systems and I can be interested in the anomalies in spite of my lack of confidence in their data. Theoretically, I don't see LENR as impossible at all, it is just that (1) the experimental data is not enough yet and (2) what data there is, is too heterogeneous and not clearly nuclear for my comfort. If I compare "unknown LENR theory" with "collection of experimental anomalies" the way that the observed effects are so scattered and the LENR mechanism forced to be an unusual one that is coincidentally just very difficult to detect makes me negative, as a whole, about the experimental stuff.
As I've said above, I greatly enjoy the theory regardless of whether it works (and tiny bits of it, as a minimum, the enhanced lattice screening at low energies, are now proven to work). And I am fascinated by the anomalies - both at an experimental level (what caused those McK differences between active and calibration, active and control systems?) and because Pd-D or Pd-H lattices are such a complex system so capable of being surprising.
Forums like this tend to be fan clubs - with trolls. I am just unusual in that I am neither a fan nor a troll. From my POV everyone should welcome that - even if it is sometimes annoying and no use. But the social media tribalism means that people try to see me as having some positive or negative motive - an agent in some war. I am of course always positive about research - especially because I see a non-instrumental value in solving mysteries.
THH
PS - many here find it impossible to believe that I can be interested in this stuff, and open-minded, while being at the moment broadly negative about the experimental stuff. I am sure anyone sticking with the field for 34+ years understands this negativity well. The negativity comes from a continued lack of replicability or coherent characterisation in spite of claims of much better results. It can be excused - the excuses come, for me, with a burden of negativity, which will be dispelled as soon as either we have replicability (not much - just a single extraordinary system continuing to work and tested by different labs each with their own different calorimetry and parametric data that makes sense) or we have scaling results that tie in strongly with a theory and give us a clear way forward. Also, if (e.g. Clean planet) have their claimed LENR powered boiler success will shortly emerge, making all doubt irrelevant. The rewards from LENR are high and justify continued research even with a low probability of success. Maybe as somone who likes the theory anyway I am more tolerant of possible negative experimental results?
[1] https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/CzerskiKthehdphrea.pdf
The 2H(d, p)3H reaction in metallic media at very low energies
Europhys. Lett., 68 (3), pp. 363–369 (2004)
DOI: 10.1209/epl/i2004-10209-3
PPS - I don't see LENR as being needed for a green energy transition. Enormous improvements, as we have made, in PV, and wind power are enough. It is just political will that is lacking. Governments are stupid. We also need and are getting slowly improvements in battery technology. I'm not sure there can be enough hydro to handle base load so we will need cheaper batteries for short and medium-term storage, but the road map to those is well laid out.
*woo-woo nuclear behaviour. Something predicated on a new fundamental theory of physics (e.g. alternative to Standard model) that shows itself only in LENR anomalies and pseudo-scientific numerology. There is ample room within standard theory for unexpected and difficult to understand effects. And the barrier for any new fundamental theory that changes real world predictions at normal energies is that we have in all those particle physics and other experiments no hint of it.
