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

Posts by THHuxleynew

  • Which ICCF24 presentation is most likely to sway a skeptic?

    Quote from Alan Smith

    No - first you need data to construct a theory. We are providing that.

    Alan - your statement does not contradict mine. (or perhaps it does, and is wrong. Not quite sure what you mean by "no").


    "LENR" is a statement. Specifically it is a statement that whatever are the reasons for those anomalies a good number of them must be caused by nuclear reactions.


    The fact that you need data to construct a theory is irrelevant, also the fact that you are obtaining data,


    You can have all the data in the world : it must still be a match of theory to results that leads to a LENR conclusion rather than a "quantum spookiness heat effect" or a "weird chemical reaction effect" or a "God looks down on us and delivers heat" or a "certain chemicals induce local brain anomalies in lenr researchers" or even, it seems a popular topic here, "the whole thing is set up by secret russian agents" explanation for the experimental data.


    You take the data and match each of these hypotheses, and others more plausible, to find what is the best fit.


    If you said you were investigating anomalies with an open mind and no supposition there were nuclear reactions then it would be different. Then the field might be called FPHE or something.


    Interestingly - LENR as a statement is not enough - because it does not deliver a theory. It is what you get at the end of the whole process, collecting data, finding a predictive theory to explain it, and then if that theory predicts nuclear reactions you have LENR.


    Not quite sure why there is any disagreement here - I am just stating clearly what everyone knows, and it is neither pro nor con LENR - just open-minded. perhaps that is the issue? On here one needs to post not-open-minded on the topic of LENR?


    Surely not! :)

  • Which ICCF24 presentation is most likely to sway a skeptic?

    Quote from JedRothwell

    That is because you refuse to look. I gave you very specific reasons why your claims about Miles are wrong, and I gave you a short paper, but you refused to read it.

    When was this Jed, and when did I refuse to read it. Was it a summary paper by somone else, or a paper by Miles. I don't like to read summaries because it introduces somone else's judgement into the equation. Often that is OK but with LENR where different people can have wildly different judgements it is not.


    Anyway a short paper by Miles sounds good - and I'd be happy to read it. Perhaps when I refused I was influenced by the claims of wrongdoing between different LENR characters which (perhaps) related to Miles. I have conveniently forgotten those now, if they existed, so unless they crop up in obvious form again he gets a fair hearing.


    Funny thing is, I do vaguely remember looking in detail about some of those results (not sure if it was Miles).


    THH

  • Does ultrasonic transmutation prove LENR?

    Quote from Drgenek

    Yes, it is interesting. But why spend so much time defending data that logic and statistics suggest in too close to noise when others have presented data for non-thermonuclear fusion that is without this ambiguity?


    Thank-you for being supportive. If you want to do more, you could acknowledge or at least ask questions about quality work. In the absence of peer review, we need people who point to the good stuff.

    Sure. I think ICCF24, which we have been looking at, was not so much meant as a venue for high quality papers. It is also difficult to access papers as distinct from videos.


    Some of the old papers are high quality (e.g. those Tritium papers Jed posted).


    Lonchampt F&P replication is medium quality.


    F&P simplicity paper is medium-low quality if taken as a presentation of new experimental results - higher quality if taken as a treatise on electrolysis.

  • Does ultrasonic transmutation prove LENR?

    Quote from Curbina

    Let’s say that I agree with you that they could have done a better presentation of their data. I still don’t see any way in which these results can be dismissed just because they could have been presented in a better way. The phenomena is striking on itself.

    The matter I raised is not about presentation. It was:


    (1) any yes/no comparison as they have given will give expected positives, without any elemental change

    (2) they need to provide detail so that the data can be put into context and evaluated.


    Without that extra data it can't be evaluated. It is not dismissing it - just saying - this is incomplete and therefore does not yet prove anything.


    Because of (1) and (2) together those data are compatible with no elemental change in the sample.


    THH

  • Does ultrasonic transmutation prove LENR?

    I 100% support Daniel_G in his comments here. And I agree with him that it is important the LENR field should be aware of quality standards and keep to them wherever possible, and wherever it is important that results are taken seriously. Why should LENR be different from any other branch of science in this respect?

  • Does ultrasonic transmutation prove LENR?

    Quote from Curbina

    I really don’t understand why you say they don’t show the data. They do. From a chemical analysis point of view the presence or absence of an element in a sample is pretty straight forward to asses (minimum detection thresholds for any specific technique considered). Presenting spectroscopic data itself would not add any further meaningful information.

    Without quantitative data and given only "minimum threshold" yes/no results you expect, due to normal variability that there will be elements, not detected initially and detected after. We have very little information here.


    In addition, because this type of data is easy to misinterpret, as Daniel_G points out, any referee would rightly need a lot of detail and a description of rationale so that others could check whether they agrees with the author's conclusions.


    THH

  • Which ICCF24 presentation is most likely to sway a skeptic?

    Quote from Gregory Byron Goble

    Many and various types of LENR research and experiments in this field are replicable. Your arguments are faulty in this regard. Energies beyond your unknown chemical reasoning... Nuclear dense. Excess energy clearly proven and replicated since 1989. Keep in mind that the original wet cell has Lattice has Plasma has acceleration of Deuterons... Also has, as you like to say about LENR 2, has that Coherence stuff.


    Dry cell just no water.

    (1) no replicable experiment I know is highly certain in indicating LENR: in that I only follow one of the ICCF24 talks - so you may hold a different view, as is your privilege, but others do not agree.


    (2) excess energy not clearly proven. But this is an argument that will have no end, and would take a long time because you have 100s of cases where disagree to argue about. Let me give as an example that F&P boil-off phase experiment, where I say not proven at all Jed and many others here have said (still say?) proven 100%. In that specific case I can justify my not proven simply.


    (3) Original wet cell has plasma and deuterons. That distinction is that those original experiments, in is generally accepted, never generated high energy products, hence are not type 2. Read my post again and you will see I talk about this.


    (4) That coherence stuff - yes indeed it is possible in lattices or on lattice surfaces. Where did I say no?


    THH

  • Which ICCF24 presentation is most likely to sway a skeptic?


    why "relatively unsurprising"? For the reasons I give.


    Why "If"?


    LENTR - even type 2 - is still not well understood. This is one experiment. I am being cautious - as is proper. Just because I think something is probably true does not mean it is true! Hence if.


    Re Cardone papers


    Thank you for these useful papers. I started to read (the first one) then realised:

    (a) I need to read the lot

    (b) It was not immediately obvious (from the first one I read) what the transmutation evidence was based on (I could so the post-reaction data, but not clear what was the comparable pre-reaction data). I expect more careful reading of all the papers will sort that out (I am not saying you are wrong because I have no idea) but it is sit down for an afternoon to do it not do a quick scan now and I do not just at the moment have an afternoon. It is on my list and I will make no further comments about transmutation till I have read those papers without qualifying my comments.


    Re explanation

    Post-hoc explanations are two-a-penny and don't count for much unless precisely predictable from known theory. There is no known theory that can lead to that expected fractionation of high energy products from nuclear reactions.


    THH

  • Which ICCF24 presentation is most likely to sway a skeptic?

    Quote from Gregory Byron Goble

    he new method amassed considerably more data than previous studies. After plasma treatments, tracks in the CR-39 detectors consistently corresponded to 138 ± 21 keV alpha particles emitted from the palladium electrodes. The track densities for deuterium discharges wereoften ∼100 times above controls with hydrogen and helium. Currently, there are no known means to accelerate ions to these energies within the apparatus. The energy estimates plus other factors like the ion directionality indicate these ions were created by nuclear reactions.

    So - one of the reasons this work gets much more easily believed is the predictivity. The reactions possible lead to energy and directionality estimates which can be quantitatively substantiated or not. If they prove true we have a quantitatively predictive theory (and equally incoherent energies and directions disproves this theory).


    Its called science.

  • Which ICCF24 presentation is most likely to sway a skeptic?

    So - this is LENR work that is relatively unsurprising - and many people will think it likely.


    That does not mean it is correct - of course - but it looks solid. And it is not that surprising so as a Baysian I am more inclined to give it benefit of any doubt. (Everyone here does that - it is juts their Baysian priors start with "I know type 1 LENR is real").


    Now - since I agree that this is most likely real that means I think LENR is real - which qualifies me for this site.


    However - I am much more cautious about many of the claims made here. Which means basically that half of the posters here consider me a Russian-controlled company pretending to be a person trolling to destroy the nascent western LENR industry (I kid you not).


    Talk about hubris!


    Ignoring that, here are the bits of LENR "waffle-theory" that lead me to liking some things more than others. I say "waffle-theory" because they are sort of guesses. Clear experimental results always trump such things.


    (1) D reaction is more plausible than H fusion (that extra neutron helps with its shielding)

    (2) Fusion which fractionated inevitable high energy excess in products much less likely than fusion that has high energy products

    (3) Metal lattices containing D certainly provide electron-screening, and there are potential mechanisms for enhancing the screening based on coherent electronic behaviour in lattices.


    The alert reader who has been blocking accusations of Russian-controlled trolling will also wonder about the connection between this and the F&P debacle.


    Short answer; I don't know.


    Longer answer:


    (1) Certainly Pd lattices (and Ni, etc) can absorb H or D, and there are interesting not fully understood chemical reactions that will provide anomalous enthalpy and might be mistaken for LENR. Because chemical - there would be no high energy products.


    [ I hear people here pointing out all the F&P - and other - experiments - show many things outside of what this could explain. That is true. And also not the point. We do not have nuclear reactions as an explanation that fits all of the data (no predictivity - unexpected no theory yet fractionation of high energy results in some cases, high energy results in others - some experiments showing "transmutations" to pretty well any element which is even less likely than other sorts of LENR). So trying to fit everything is a mugs game, and since none of this data is lab rat experiment replicable (except maybe the stuff in the

    (thesis above) we need to be cautious about all of it.]


    (2) If unexpected effects in lattices can lead to D nuclear reactions then F&P could have seen some of this - but not have been able to make it repeatable. Against that, and this was what (mainly) sank LENR in those early years - the expected high energy products were not found.


    (3) But - surely the coincidence of F&P finding this stuff (r thinking they did) and these lattice effects being real is too much? Well - perhaps - but the problem is the "lattice effects" side of LENR - which I call type 2 - has very different characteristics from type 1. It DOES result in easily detectable high energy products. Finding some variant of it that fractionates all those products in some circumstances is a big ask.


    So that is the "not died-in-wool-LENR-believer-but still-open-minded" side of things.


    Yes - by the site's definition - I am not censored here because I am part of the community of people who things LENR is possible.


    There is no need for factional infighting (such as what some here are doing with me). You can see from the above that whether a type 1 or type 2 LENRer there are mysteries here. Type 2 LENR is pretty well at the lab rat everyone knows it exists stage. Whether type 2 works as well with H is unclear (and if it does a bit surprising - the theories we have would say it should work less well).


    Although no need for infighting, also it is dangerous to over-generalise. Whatever LENR mechanism is proven is likely to explain only some part of the diverse evidence posted here. That is the price you pay for including absolutely everything under the umbrella "LENR". Insisting like some latter-day Spanish Inquisition that all keep the faith and have non-heretical beliefs is frankly both unpleasant and deeply wrong.


    THH


    PS - as some will note - I am still not happy about the Russian multi-person troll abuse - which is tolerated and (Alan saying ascoli is irrational) to some extent encouraged here. My lack of happiness is not specifically personal. If this site stops being a place for civilised, frank and open discourse - as is useful in science - it has no value to me. So keeping me happy is identical to keeping this site a better place.


    :)

  • Where is the close-up video of Fleischmann and Pons boiling cell?

    Jed, I have raised issues. You have said you have addressed them. Perhaps, to save time, you could quote an answer more specific than


    17 pages - your paper - could not find my issue addressed? I scanned it quickly.


    91 pages (Miles) where is my issue addressed? I was not up to reading 91 pages on spec.


    etc.


    It does not help, when specific issues are raised, to quote several 100 pages of stuff and say "the answer is in there somewhere".


    I did look at this stuff a long time ago - I may have missed answers to my issues, in which case I'm sure you can direct me to them since you are more familiar than I am with the literature.

  • Where is the close-up video of Fleischmann and Pons boiling cell?

    Quote from Alan Smith

    THHuxleynew


    Obsessive might fit you and Ascoli both, but in different ways, but IMHO Ascoli65 is irrational on this topic at least, where as you are not.

    Yes, I am obsessive in the sense that I do not like to see lack of clarity when clarity is easily possible - and will continue forever to correct obviously false statements (even when it is clearly a Sysyphean task). It makes me a bad politician!


    However, unlike some, when the two sides have made their pitch and the difference in views is clearly understood: I do not go on trying to change other people's minds. So it is quite a positive obsession.

  • The Playground

    Quote from Fm1

    Problem Thomas, everyone believes you to be a troll for years, yet your still here, I for one enjoy the comic value of your posts

    I do hope you are wrong - it would be a shame for LF and (much less) me.


    But I fear perhaps you are right.

  • Which journals are still refusing LENR papers?

    Quote from Rob

    Which journals are still refusing LENR papers? I’d like to have a comprehensive list and understand more fully where things stand on this front.


    Can someone show me actual journal rejection letters? The more I can collect, the better.

    It is sensitive - people quite properly might not want you to see them.


    But, it would be interesting to see how many were on "we refuse to publish this topic" and how many were "this experiment does not justify the claimed results" (which if supporting LENR would certainly count as high novel).


    In the latter case there should be an argument as to why the experimental results do not justify the conclusions. Of course, many here would consider probably the rejection wrong, because they'd think the work did justify the conclusions. But the rejection letter would make the grounds clear.


    What I'd hope to see (but maybe would not see) is rejections supported by detailed description of evidentiary gaps and what additional evidence would be needed to fill them.


    THH

  • Which journals are still refusing LENR papers?

    Quote from Curbina

    AFAIK Nature has accepted one Cold Fusion Paper (1989, Steven Jones, direct antagonist of Fleischmann and Pons). It also published the 2019 Paper on revisiting cold fusion, which was negative with a positive after taste.

    Nature has also published F&P's comment on Petrussi's comment on F&P (see my links above). Not quite the same as a paper, but still shows a fair-minded approach to publishing controversy.

  • Which journals are still refusing LENR papers?

    Quote from Curbina

    This article reports that Fleischmann and Pons were denied publication of their paper in nature:

    https://www.osti.gov/biblio/6651933


    while this other claims they withdrew the paper.


    https://apnews.com/article/6fd5ea1b6dababe4ec5a83f30d1fc1a1

    Quite likely they were allowed to publish subject to minor changes - which they refused to make.


    That would be quite normal - and fit both accounts.


    For example - they might have been asked to make less definite their conclusions, because in the view of the reviewers the evidence in the paper did not warrant them.

  • Which journals are still refusing LENR papers?

    Quote from Curbina

    Nature did not publish an article from Fleischmann about cold fusion, but it published a letter of response to a criticism of his work. Never seen this one before.

    https://www.nature.com/articles/339667a0.pdf

    It is an interesting and perhaps considered important at the time scientific argument. Nature published both Petrassi and Fleischmann!


    For reference here are the constituents.


    (1) F et al published a paper in J. electroanalytical chem:

    Fleischmann, M., Pons, S. & Hawkins, M. J. electroanalyt.
    Chem. 261, 301-308 (1989); and errata


    (2)

    Petrasso et al published a critique in Nature. Can I suggest the reason might be either J. electroanalytical Chem refused to publish (would be unusual) or Nature has a more convenient publication date for this type of immediate corrective response?

    Problems with the γ-ray spectrum in the Fleischmann et al. experiments - Nature

    Note that full text from this link is still paywalled

    The pages (with the detailed critique) are below




    (3)


    F et al (different set of authors) reply to the critique also in Nature


    Measurement of γrays from cold fusion - Nature


    This reply is one page from that link (shown above in the post I am replying to)


    (4) Petrasso et all reply to the reply (in Nature. You can see the start of this on the same page linked above, but the

    detailed argument is on the next page and is as below):




    So my point here is that this is an example of NO-ONE being censored and a scientific controversy being fully published.


    We have two papers from each side so far: the original, the critique, the response to the critique, the response to the response to the critique.


    I have not read through them all. Has anyone done this - they could summarise it? It seems to be about whether F&P's interpretation of the gamma ray spectral evidence is correct. We might want to consider the expertise (on gamma ray spectra) of F, his co-authors, versus Petrussi, and his co-authors. Perhaps that also was why it went to Nature - it is not really about electrochemistry at all.

  • Where is the close-up video of Fleischmann and Pons boiling cell?

    And - BTW - please do ponder further action in my case, in the light of the above "obsessive and irrational" post. If you believe I am mistaken and its conditions for ending the matter are already met by some post I missed - thus someone has referenced a video link and two times separated by 600s in said video as showing 50% liquid reduction, or has agreed there are none such but thinks this is irrelevant because we should believe F&P anyway, they may not have evidence we can see on a video but they are expects and can eyeball the video better than us, or maybe had access to an unpublished different video - then we can stop.


    If moderators here believe that I am "obsessive and irrational" I will indeed leave the forum - I would not wish to post where rules are so defined. And I will be sorry: perhaps LENR is a cult, or, more likely, this public internet discussion of LENR does not reflect what those actively involved think. Either way not much point me staying here.