Quote from JedRothwell

F&Ps experiments are replicable and they have careful documentation. They were replicated by hundreds of researchers. But you don't believe them. If Mizuno's experiment was more widely replicated, I am sure you would invent an excuse to dismiss them, since you dismiss hundreds of other replications for no reason.

That simplicity paper - from F&P - had many holes. It made clear claims but left out much of the methodology and made clear assumptions what to this day are unproven. It was not what you would expect of a carefully reported experiment showing a major unexpected new scientific effect. It assumed ATER was not significant. it assumed cell conditions stayed the same control and active.

We all agree that Longchampt was did a faithful replication of that experiment (and actually documented it better). We could go through that paper on another thread. I will point out why the results are not certain. For now, note that the "boil-off" results prove nothing except that at the end of the experiment with much higher power pushed into the cell due to the CC drive and the expected changes in cell electrolyte and electrode, the cell gets hot.

I don't like the Simplicity paper (as ascoli, though he is less polite). I have asked for better F&P style experiments, since you claim 180 labs with the same results. I claim that 95% of those 180 no longer claim those results because they realised that better instrumentation, closed cells, etc, made any effects go away. McKubre shows a positive result in a long series of careful experiments. However his results are consistently muhc smaller than F&P and with one exception (which he could not replicate and it therefore must be treated with great caution) never found large excess heat.

McKubre provides error calculations for his experiments which assumed, on the basis of minimal checking (he did some checking, but it did not exclude changes due to ATER), that conditions in the cell remain the same between control and active runs. The results depend on that assumption.

Mizuno's results, if replicable, are different. +70% measured power is enough for an absolute determination of power out which therefore requires no calibration.

You say that I am deliberately refusing to "believe" the CF results. I would love to see in them clear new physics, but frustratingly the ones replicable (F&P) are uncertain. The ones certain (Mizuno) are not thus far replicable. I am willing for that to change. Indeed I stay on this site partly in the outside hope that it will change - and things will become much more interesting.

I am open to any credible mechanism for LENR. You will notice I have been cheer-leading the electron shielding (type 2) strand of work. It is credible - even though the numbers do not yet add up, the possibility of coherent electron effects in those lattices that are enough to cause fusion is real. There is as yet no credible mechanism for fractionating the nuclear-level excess energy down to a level where high energy products are not measured as expected, and it has always seemed to me the largest problem for LENR. But, I am open to something completely unexpected.

Far from me being a died in the wool skeptic it is simple that I look at the whole of the LENR evidence without preconceptions or assumptions. There are undoubtedly interesting effects in those metal lattices. They do not fit nuclear reactions. All of the evidence in that direction so far is elusive and vanishes when examined very closely.

I will rest my case on those Tritium results. If they are real, they can be replicated more carefully by other parties, written up carefully checking off every possible error mechanism (1, 2a, 2b, 2c, etc) and providing direct evidence why each of those ways out is not possible. The anomaly will then be inescapable and point to LENR.

I hope that will happen. I expect that on more examination (and I have nothing against the team who produced those results, I am sure they wish this as much as me and) the apparent clear results now will vanish. then, LENR advocates will say that is due to different materials, etc, and the effect is not easily reproducible. I will say it is an effect which was irreproducible.

What LENR advocates here ignore, is that if LENR is a real effect it is implausible that over such a long time, so many different experiments, such (normally) easy ways unambiguously to detect nuclear reactions at the claimed level, the evidence found remains at the level of unusual effects in metal lattices.

• LEC - unusual electron effects in lattices - can break normal rules for electron escape from a surface and thereby generate the seen ionisation.
• F&P - unexpected ATER catalysed by lattice and variable D vs H
• SPAWAR film pits - highly unclear because chemical and heat effects on film could generate the claimed pits
• Mizuno - strong results not replicable
• Clean Planet - claims of strong replicable results are not strong because power out is measured indirectly with an obvious error mechanism (change in emissivity of surface) which strangely is not directly ruled out, for example by putting the replicable reactors in a proper calorimeter. (If they have written up experiments or demos better than what I've seen let me know).
• Nuclear transformations. Such varied and incoherent results. All within possible contamination and movement and spectrum misreading mechanisms.

I could go on. If LENR is real one or other of these results will pan out. That has not yet happened. There is however still much interest in the work for people like me who like mysteries. I want to understand what are those metal lattice effects. I want to understand what are the limits of electron screening - how much can it be boosted in metal lattices - and if the answer ends up being enough to generate useful LENR power I will cheer. (That however, will probably be type 2 - the results measured so far are nuclear reactions with the expected easily measured products). Combine that with a type 1 mechanism and all is open for LENR as a potentially useful new effect, because those low particle counts from screening experiment can be multiplied. A (presumed largely biassed towards product energies being fractionated. A type 1 mechanism would mean maybe only 0.1% or less of the reactions generated high energy products thus multiplying the calculated reaction rates from those experiments. I can live in hope of that - but I see not nearly evidence for it yet for that to be what I expect. Thus far, over 10 years here, my expectations have been realistic.

With Rossi - I was correct. Admittedly I had an advantage over most here in that I understood the electrical tricks he played, and understood in great quantitative detail (a lot of work) the emissivity trick he played. I expected that initially because of the man's character. If he talks and looks land behaves like a Charlatan - he probably is one. If he really had what he claimed and were sane he would have got his Nobel Prize, or his $100,000,000, or both.

I was deeply unhappy about "the Rossi effect". While it dragged money and interest towards LENR it was based on a lie. I was very happy about the google team investigation. I see no evidence that they were part of some sinister campaign to disprove LENR, or that they were stupid, or that they did not seek expert advice.

Unfortunately they have not yet discovered LENR. The ideas from that which NASA is exploring remain just possible, and are exciting.

Most people here - if they had my view - would be bored with the field. they want cheap easy energy, not better weight/power ratio radioisotope sources. And they are not interested in the science. I am juts more curious - I really like to understand these mysteries even when mostly the understanding lies in the realm of psychology not physics - and therefore is in the end unsatisfactory and unknowable. I love these 1 in 10,000 chances that electron screening might make for really large reaction rates under some conditions, or that some completely not understood fractionating mechanism is 100% effective in masking LENR by removing every single high energy product. But, I am realistic. The masking thing is unevidenced.

THH

Quote from JedRothwell

Yes. As Fleischmann et al. put it in 1990: "It is hardly tenable that the substantial number of confirmations of the calorimetric data using a variety of techniques can be explained by a collection of different systematic errors nor that tritium generation can be accounted for by any but nuclear processes."

I did not see this earlier. To decompose it:

ATER + CCS are potential systematic error sources that will affect all of those F&P replication experiments. They were not recognised by many researchers and I do not think there is anyone who has fully excluded them. I challenge Jed or anyone else to post to the contrary. Mkcubre - the non-replicable large results from his runs would be definitive if replicated. They were not. The typical results, I claim, can be explained through ATER changing the temperature of the electrode (which has a conductive path through to the outside) relative to the electrolyte. This was not checked, and indeed would be difficult to check, although the relative temperature of the electrolyte in two different places was checked.

Tritium generation would indeed be a great thing, and indicate nuclear sources. The issues with the older tritium experiments were very low levels of apparent generation which were difficult to separate from error effects when replicated. If however this ICCF24 experiments continues to show the results claimed, and can rule out all the error possibilities and get itself replicated, I would agree that we have very good evidence for LENR.

It is actually a logical error to suppose that because there is an LENR hypothesis for a not understood effect, therefore the effect is evidence for LENR.

If there were a predictive LENR theory that made a falsifiable informative prediction about these cells - that would be different!

Quote from Curbina

This proves once again that you really not read papers nor watch the presentations. The main hypothesis of why the LEC works is that the co deposited metal hydrogen layer, or as Alan Smith has shown, hydrogen loaded cathode, generates an emission of some kind of radiation that ionizes gases at close range.

I have read the papers, and I understand that hypothesis. However does not seem to me evidence for LENR, since the results do not require that hypothesis. There are non-radiative ionisation mechanisms and given all the craziness supposed of electrons and photons in lattices as mechanism for LENR that same craziness (without LENR) could be doing the short-range ionisation. Or something else.

I agree that it is an interesting phenomena, and I am glad it is being investigated.

Quote from Alan Smith

Francesco Celani has asked me post a link to his ICCF-24 presentation- these are certainly interesting experiments. And not impossible to replicate.

https://www.researchgate.net/p…ases_at_high_temperatures

Following the efforts to find simple procedures to activate the specific material we developed (since 2011; based on surface-modified Constantan in the shape of long and thin wires, Joule heating), able to produce measurable values of AHE we reproduced them. Made new specific tests to investigate also isotopic effects. Moreover, according to our interpretation of the results, the main origin of AHE seems reconfirmed: in agreement with the initial (some since 1989) results of Researchers in USA, Japan, Italy. The work was originated because we would like to reconfirm the procedures we discussed deeply, both at the talk and after waiting 1 month for questions (by web), during the ANV8 Workshop: held in Assisi-Italy on December 2021 (DOI:10.13140/RG.2.2.27006.6683).

We reconfirm that the simple procedure, just DC Joule heating at high power (100-150 W) and long times (50-150 h), was effective to activate a virgin
Constantan coil with thin wire’s surfaces properly treated (mainly by Low Work Function materials). Again, we found that the AHE measured, during the
cooling cycles from the highest power, depends on the time previously spent by the reactor’s core at the highest powers. We found that there is a sort of “positive
memory effect” (in respect to AHE), lasting usually 10-20 h. Moreover, AHE increases increasing the number of cycling (high->low->high power).
We found, also, that increasing the wire resistance by proper “aging” treatments, increased the amount of AHE. We speculated that it could be related to increased
surface area, spongy like, of the wire that allows, among others, easier income<-->outcome of active gases, i.e. flux. We measured that D2 gas (latest experiment)
gave larger values of AHE (9 W) in respect to H2 (5 W), at input power of 130 W.
BTW, AHE are related to the voltage drop along the wire (as larger as better): possible candidates are electromigration, NEMCA, “Preparata” effects. We
observed such behaviour even since 1995 by using long-thin Pd wires. Obviously, our speciality of high-peak-power pulsing procedure (at proper duty cycles)
is the most promising to increase both the AHE and overall COP of the system: toward practical applications.

(1) this is a COP of 7% and 4% - with a 3% difference.

(2) these are results that require differences between control and active runs (and between the two different active runs) to be very small.

(3) The remark about higher voltage leading to larger effects, together with the note that pulses are used, characterises the effects as something that could be caused by RFI issues where indeed any effects would scale with the pulse voltage. Such issues are very difficult to rule out, and not addressed by the experimenters

(4) The results given do not state whether they come from the "activation period" when RFI issues are relevant, or from measurements after this, which are stated to be time-dependent and decaying, but with no quantitative details. Without the missing info in this paper I find it difficult to evaluate this.

(5) I looked for a clear description of methodology, or exactly which temperatures in the multi-walled reactor were used to infer power flux, together with exactly what each of the power-flux measurement gaps was - two surfaces and gas - for the various experiments - control and active. I did not find this. Nor did I find a reference to an earlier paper with a clear description of methodology. It is frustrating but perhaps someone here with more background in these experiments could fill this in. Assuming (A1) that the measurement gap is well controlled (e.g. surfaces are under same conditions in all experiments and do not change emissivity, surface temperatures are the same (because that may change emissivity) there is then the question (A2) of bounding differential errors (A2) between the control and active experiments. Both A1 and A2 require a lot of detail, and with results relatively small subtle effects could be causing them.

Everyone here wanting to gain useful info from these experiments should be interested in much more details, error bars, etc all carefully written up so that the results can be carefully considered. Without that the characterisation does not help to characterise LENR because we do not know is it LENR or some other aspect of the system that is making the observed differences.

Anyway - it is a real shame that in this case such an interesting and detailed set of experiments is not written up in a way which allows it to be evaluated at all. Perhaps though that will follow?

For those who think a reconfirmation experiment can be cavalier about procedures because they have been tested previously - well in that case it is not reconfirmation. In any case then it would start by referencing the earlier detailed description of methodology, assumptions, error bounds for the known sources of error. That costs the authors nothing, and adds credibility as well as allowing a new reader to understand in detail what is happening.

THH

Quote from JedRothwell

If you think cold fusion is easy to replicate, or that someone claimed it is easy, or that being easy or hard has any bearing on whether it exists . . . you have no idea what you are talking about.

The LEC may be easier to replicate. Mizuno and I hoped that his experiment would be easier to replicate than the original F&P experiment. I think it was, but not as much as we hoped. However, being easy or hard has absolutely nothing to do with whether it is scientifically proven.

The LEC is something of a mystery but I fail to see what connection it has with LENR?

Mizuno's experiments, if replicable with careful documentation and methodology, would be real proof. It is a shame that this has not yet happened.

Quote from JedRothwell

The original F&P experiment was replicated at ~180 labs (Storms book). Anyone who says that is not enough is irrational. Such people would not be satisfied with 1,000 replications, or 10,000. I'm lookin' at you, THH.

The original F&P experiment was highly uncertain - which is why those 180 labs did not continue to do CF work - they did not believe the results were best explained by novel nuclear activity.

That may be right or wrong - but it is uncertain.

The experiment described in the Simplicity paper is also highly uncertain - for the reasons Ascoli points out.

Quote from JedRothwell

They used different cell geometries, different kinds of calorimeters and so on. Some used closed cells. However, these replications produced the same results.

The experiments all produced quantitatively different results, with the better controlled experiments producing much lower COP than the more poorly controlled ones. The fact that results were so different, and also different between different cells for the same experimenter, shows either irreproducibility or uncertainty - take your pick.

Those supporting LENR as an explanation for this as always have to assume LENR effects are inherently difficult to reproduce precisely, and sensitive to uncontrollabel (or at least not controlled) factors. While that may be true (and can never be disproved) it also makes the evidence less convincing.

Quote from Alan Smith

I think it important to note that it was the process that was replicated, not every physical detail in every case. People add their own flourishes inevitably. But this makes the case stronger in that nobody (even THH) could reasonably claim that every one of these experiments showed the same schoolboy errors.

Well Shanahan claimed that these experiments (or at least a very large number of them) did show two errors:

(1) Incorrect calculation of experimental error in the case the COP is close to 1 due to calibration constant error. Not everyone did this (I think?) but certainly many did. That is a schoolboy error but one easy for calorimetrists to make because COP ~ 1 is not a very usual calorimetry condition.

(2) ATER - which, rather like LENR - remains uncertain. What is certain is that those experimenters did not consider the possibility of differential D/H ATER.

The mistake here is to assume that a large number of variable results all positive in a binary sense but without quantitative characterisation. In other words they agree over a binary hypothesis "more heat out than in" and nothing else - reinforce a hypothesis. They do not, because "more heat out than in will occur half the time and any experimenter showing less heat out than in will check everything till that no longer appears to be the acse. Any non-LENR experimenter will put similar effort into the more heat out than in case. However an LENR experimenter will check the obvious things and then reckon they have evidence of LENR. Taht is a recipe for very many experiments generating false positives. Note that those 180 labs with positives were not all of teh labs replicating. Some labs found nothing.

So - we have two potential systematic errors not considered (and even when raised by Shanahan they were still not in the literature addressed). We have a prediction - COP > 1, which is so vague that we expect half of experiments with difficult to find errors to satisfy it.

My stance here, which seems unpopular, is that addressed by one of the ICCF24 talks. It is a coherent and arguable stance - as that speaker pointed out. Those wanting to change skeptics minds could, as that speaker noted, try to find an experiment which is both certain and reproducible.

I actually think that is what has mostly happened. Reproducible experiments get made more certain, certain experiments get replicated in the hope they will be replicable. It is just that the results are not good. I await with great interest more info on the excess Tritium results. The experimenters know what is needed, in clear written form, to answer my 1, 2a,b,c etc (when I say mine I think 2c was down to Jed). And of course they can reference and engage with the material from the very useful much older papers on measuring Tritium, showing that they have exercised similar care and cross-checking - though since their apparent results are significantly larger they will have an easier time of it than those early researchers did.

Let me take as an example where efforts have been made but not succeeded Clean Planet. They claim a large excess heat effect which is reproducible. They have reproduced it. However in their published data which I have been given linked here they have not made the data less certain by closing possible obvious loopholes even when it would be quite easy to do that, and they have repeated experiments.

Maybe they are unusual - the "less convincing" end of modern experiments. What annoys me is that many here seem to think them the mots convincing end of the modern experimental work.

Quote from Fm1

you provide plenty yourself cowboy

LOL. Yes - but mine are accurate!

Do we have on this site a convenient set of links indexed for ICCF24? It is difficult for me to link things I refer to - or to watch the presentations people have talked about that I have not seen now when I have lost the original links.

Quote from JedRothwell

Many are not the least bit uncertain. The signal to noise ratio for many is very high. For example, the calorimetry in experiments that produce 50 to 100 W of heat with no input power. That could have been measured with confidence by anyone in the last 2 million years (since the invention of fire). I am not exaggerating. Tritium at levels from 50 times background to several million times background can also be measured with very high confidence.

There are some uncertain experiments, but they do not reduce the certainty of other experiments. They do not cast doubt on the high sigma ones. To say they do would be absurd, like saying that the failed Vanguard rocket tests in 1957 mean the U.S. never reached space and the moon landings were fake.

To put it politely, your statement is not in evidence. I am sure you know that many experiments are not "uncertain." You know this as well as I do. So why do you say this? What is your point? What are you trying to accomplish? It seems your only goal would be to confuse the issue, or make naïve readers think that all experiments are uncertain.

Jed - if you read carefully my point was exactly NOT what you say it is.

I was following the argument in the ICCF24 presentation from the guy with the graph pointing out that experiments tended to be either highly reproducible or highly certain (as he defined it) but not both, whereas that was needed for skeptics.

So I agree that many LENR experiments are highly certain - but then turn out not be to reproducible. And vice versa. What is needed is experiments that are reproducible and certain.

Quote from Curbina

The discussion is again coming back to the old “is LENR even real?” side and therefore I again ask you to focus on the ICCF 24th results. If a skeptic thinks There’s nothing at the ICCF 24th That even picks Their curiosity, so be it, nothing new.

The presentation of Theresa Benyo about their replication of the1989 Fralick gas flow excess heat and the transmutation spots they found IMO puts the replicability issue to rest, it was replicated with much better equipment and the transmutations analyzed by different methods. For me this was already old news but the TOF elemental measurements were expanded upon and proven to confirm the EDAX results.

I will watch that and then comment - no-one had mentioned it before.

However I think you mischaracterise the skeptical response here. An ICCF24 talk discussed this.

It is not "the irreproducibility issue". A skeptic will agree that many LENR results are reproducible and that many are certain, but disagree that the ones with high certainty can be easily replicated.

Transmutation evidence tends to be on the less certain end of the spectrum because of possibilities for:

• contamination
• concentration/movement of existing isotopes/elements
• misinterpretation of elemental or isotopic analysis

Each of these must be ruled out (independently) for every such experiment.

Quote from Gregory Byron Goble

Ok

just noting that your post quoted above misquotes me.

Like, if I'd said "I do not know of any apple trees that bloom when after the tree is dead" and you had then shortened that to "I do not know of any apple trees that bloom".

It is sort of an easy way to misrepresent the position of somone more skeptical than you on any topic?

Quote from Gregory Byron Goble

You argue that LENR suffers from a...

complete...

lack of reproducible results. THHuxleynew

I'm not concerned with image

or false imaginings based on old stories.

2022

Condensed Matter Physics

Condensed Matter Nuclear Science

Nano Fhysics

Nuclear Science

Display More

No - I argue that the experiments are either uncertain (with complex and easy to dispute interpretations, or clear unproven assumptions) or irreproducible.

The reproducible but uncertain ones can be made more certain pretty easily by the correct combination of characterisation, adding instrumentation, changing measurement setup, etc. However I do not know of clear reproducible results that stay that when this is done.

Re low voltage measurements: what is the specified DC input impedance of the load (maybe just that of your DVM)?

Quote from Fm1

Nope! (you all have the references in detail for why such comparisons are grossly in error).

Ya it's called propaganda, shall I post the definition so you understand?

FM1 - you well know that you have not done this. You have posted youtube talks, and non-science trialsite propaganda, and studies that do not even attempt the necessary data analysis to work these things out.

The question was ; what meaning can we attach to 44% hospitalisations from COVID being boosted?

If you post your single best link explaining this and attaching meaning, I will comment (if it contradicts what is correct, which i will also post in reply)

Whereas on the link i showed you there are about 4 sublinks (not difficult to find) addressing the popular misuses of statsitics in the context of COVID.

Well worth reading just so that you understand the statistical issues which apply to many other subjects.

Quote from Fm1

IT means that the vaccines and boosters don't keep you out of the hospital. You can continue to pretend this is normal for a vaccine but we all know you are full of crap!

It is normal for a vaccine.

For example flu vaccine - very normal - reduces deaths and hospital admission. It does not however prevent it.

Cohort Study of the Effectiveness of Influenza Vaccine in Older People, Performed Using the United Kingdom General Practice Research Database

Abstract. Background. The effectiveness of influenza vaccination against hospitalization and death can only ethically be assessed in observational studies. A co

academic.oup.com

Background. The effectiveness of influenza vaccination against hospitalization and death can only ethically be assessed in observational studies. A concern is that individuals who are vaccinated are healthier than individuals who are not vaccinated, potentially biasing estimates of effectiveness upward.

Methods. We conducted a historical cohort study of individuals >64 years of age, for whom there were data available in the General Practice Research Database for 1989 to 1999 in England and Wales. Rates of admissions for acute respiratory diseases and rates of death due to respiratory disease were compared over 692,819 person-years in vaccine recipients and 1,534,280 person-years in vaccine nonrecipients.

Results. The pooled effectiveness of vaccine against hospitalizations for acute respiratory disease was 21% (95% confidence interval [CI], 17%–26%). The rate reduction attributable to vaccination was 4.15 hospitalizations/100,000 person-weeks in the influenza season. Among vaccine recipients, no important reduction in the number of admissions to the hospital was seen outside influenza seasons. The pooled effectiveness of vaccine against deaths due to respiratory disease was 12% (95% CI, 8%–16%). A greater proportionate reduction was seen among people without medical disorders, but absolute rate reduction was higher in individuals with medical disorders, compared with individuals without such disorders (6.14 deaths due to respiratory disease/100,000 person-weeks vs. 3.12 deaths due to respiratory disease/100,000 person-weeks). Clear protection against death due to all causes was not seen.

Conclusions. Influenza vaccination reduces the number of hospitalizations and deaths due to respiratory disease, after correction for confounding in individuals > years of age who had a high risk or a low risk for influenza. For elderly people, untargeted influenza vaccination is of confirmed benefit against serious outcomes.

May I suggest you check facts and details before making insults?

Quote from Alan Smith

This one is a real puzzler. 'Soft' ferrocerium fire-starter, it produces a voltage at some distance from the anode, and (here's the puzzle) it onlt produces a tiny a voltage when only separated from the counter electrode by a paper towel, but produces a good voltage when separated by a glass microscope slide - which should be impervious to ions.

This picture shows a carbon rod counter-electrode nearest the meter, and just visible in the bottom left corner the ferrocerium working electrode separated from it by a glass slide...but if I put paper between - even 3 or 4 layers, negligible votage.

that meter can give voltages due to rectified ac so you might want to check that said small voltage remains when all is Faraday caged. You might also want to check with a scope, if the electrical stimulus you provide has ac components.

As a skeptic - perhaps what would be interesting is to rate each of the ICCF24 experimental results on those two axes - uncertainty and irreproducibility. With the caveat that if a result is reproduced it might go form irreproducibe to reproducible.

Quote from Gregory Byron Goble

2003 Old News

Consider this as High Energy Physics or Low Energy Physics

"A Petawatt per Picosecond is not that many Joules" - Gregory Goble 2022

Source

Science, also widely referred to as Science Magazine, is the peer-reviewed academic journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and one of the world's top academic journals. It was first published in 1880, is currently circulated weekly and has a subscriber base of around 130,000.

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.301.5640.1631e

Your connection to this site is secure

Ultrafast Petawatt Lasers

SCIENCE
19 Sep 2003
Vol 301, Issue 5640
pp. 1631-1633
DOI: 10.1126/science.301.5640.1631e

Display More

So: the answer to your question is pretty obvious.

We are talking here about nuclear physics. hence what is relevant is the available energy per nucleon.

With this laser - that depends on collimation - it is W/m^2 that scales how interesting it is - but most petawatt lasers are up in MeV I'd expect and therefore high energy.

Another way to look at it is the field strengths generated by the radiation - once those are comparable to the field very close to the nucleus you can naturally get high tunelling rates.

Strong field physics pursued with petawatt lasers - AAPPS Bulletin

Recent ultra-short high-power lasers can provide ultra-high laser intensity over 1022 W/cm2. Laser fields of such extreme strengths instantaneously turn matter…

link.springer.com

“New directions in science are launched by new tools much more often than by new concepts. The effect of a concept-driven revolution is to explain old things in new ways. The effect of a tool-driven revolution is to discover new things that have to be explained,” [1] said Freeman Dyson, one of the founders of quantum electrodynamics (QED) [2]. The term “tool-driven revolution” may be just the right words to describe the progress of strong field physics wherein a quantum jump in laser intensity has always led to novel physics areas.

Light intensity above 10⁶ W/cm² became available from the very first laser invented in 1960 [3]. In the very next year, two-photon absorption [4] and second harmonic generation [5] were reported, which heralded non-linear optics. When the intensity jumped to 10¹³ W/cm², the resulting electric field was comparable to the atomic Coulomb field, and strongly non-linear responses of atoms began to be investigated, such as high harmonic generation and above-threshold ionization [6, 7]. A critical stage was reached when the intensity rose to 10¹⁸ W/cm². The electric field of such a high intensity light could drive electrons close to the speed of light in a fraction of an optical period. Thus, physical systems showing relativistic collectivity were realized in the labs [8, 9]. Such systems, called relativistic laser-plasmas, produce highly energetic electrons, ions, and photons. High-energy particle generation is one of the most prominent topics in strong field physics [10,11,12,13,14]. Currently, the record intensity values go beyond 10²² W/cm² [15,16,17]. At such extreme intensity, light can directly subject electrons to strong radiation reaction [18]. Furthermore, non-linear QED phenomena can occur when such an intense laser pulse collides with GeV electrons. Under such an intense field, the vacuum can behave as a dielectric, which may be probed with X-rays ([19, 20], and references therein). As the laser intensity increases further, we can expect to encounter entirely new phenomena.

While I agree that as an experimental tool high power density lasers are fascinating - breaking new ground - and also a potential way to reach practical fusion although we have still some way to go to make this feasible - calling them low energy in the context of LENR is wrong.

You might however point out that potentially a very high power density pulse laser need not require big power supplies or be physically large (though there are I think strong technological constraints that mean you need to start with a large resonant cavity and collimate after).

THH

Quote from Gregory Byron Goble

Which ICCF24 presentation is most likely to sway a skeptic?

Any student of skepticism at the American Physical Society is likely swayed already.

Julian Schwinger’s theoretical cold fusion musings, unpublished at APS, yet Lawrence Forsley succeeded.

Now CMNS is sponsored at APS by the CMP Division and Hora's cold fusion paper published, unlike Schwinger’s.

JedRothwell  Frank Gordon  NEPS*NewEnergy Brian Josephson  Peter Gluck  rubycarat

Seriously

Someone should petition APS to publish Schwinger’s Cold Fusion Papers posthumously. Perhaps Hora or Miley will. Or Forsley, Mosier-Boss, the NASA Lattice Confinement Fusion group, MIT or Hagelstein...

Schwinger’s Solid-State Atomic and Fusion Energy X Prize

What does Heinrich Hora think about Julian Schwinger and Cold Fusion now?

Source

lenr-canr.org was first indexed by Google more than 10 years ago

https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/HoraHsummaryabo.pdf

Your connection to this site is secure

Hora, H. Summary about theoretical results of the 9th international conference on cold fusion. in The 9th International Conference on Cold Fusion, Condensed Matter Nuclear Science. 2002. Tsinghua Univ., Beijing,

China: Tsinghua Univ. Press.

SUMMARY ABOUT THEORETICAL RESULTS OF THE 9TH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON COLD FUSION - by Heinrich Hora,

Department of Theoretical Physics, University of New South Wales, Sydney 2052, Australia

GBGOBLENOTE

Quote

For summarizing theoretical papers of the ICCF9 conference, a short reminder should be given about some significant experimental results that can form a basis for a theory of low energy nuclear reactions (LENR). For a more historic view, the motivation for the Fleischmann-Pons experiment or the Preparata effect were well explained while-as an unusual view-L. Case reported that experiments may be understood by a simple chemical process involving catalytic surface properties. This could also explain why heat production happens in some cases and not in other cases. Contrary to this is the history of the observation of neutron emission from palladium compounds [1] or from deuterated palladium [2] that indicate nuclear processes.

ALSO note

Quote

Today we have the significant result of Tian, Li et al [3] that the reaction of palladium wires after reacting with a hydrogen atmosphere during a current discharge, when the energy input was stopped and the gas evacuated, generated “heatafterdead” for43 hours producing about 3.6kW/cm3

or 13 keV/atom Pd.

ALSO note

Quote

Several authors are still basing their theories on localized lattice states, e.g. Qiugquan Gou with describing the PdD compound as an ionic crystal, or the lattice focal model (Takahashi).

ALSO NOTE

Display More

GBG

I am all for the various attempts to find coherent theory that would explain LENR claimed experimental results. In fact given that fact that experiments are either irreproducible or uncertain (That good ICCF24 talk with the graph on what was needed to convince skeptics) I am guided by plausibility of new theory as to which of the many contradictory LENR claims might be showing unexpected physics.

I am extremely unconvinced (as should you be) by recycling old theory without the most recent contributions. The theoretical stuff that looks plausible gets followed up - as does any interesting and real (as opposed to kooky - Mills, W, etc - serious people ignore it because it does not make sense) theory. So if you post a 20 year old paper you had better look at all the citations and then see what progress the later work has made. If it is zero progress you might want to consider the possibility that the old stuff is an attractive dead end.

I am also unconvinced when evidence is cited that just is not coherent with most of the claims here - and you do not highlight the contradiction.

For example, Holmlid is an outlier in the space of LENR claims. If he is correct then we have type 2 LENR (low energy circumventing of Coulomb barrier, significant generation, as would be expected conventionally, of high energy detectable products). Muons are very detectable, and juts not found in other experiments to which LENR claims attach.

Personally, I see type 2 LENR as much more plausible than type 1 (nuclear reactions at low energies with only low energy products), because while both Coulomb barrier and lack of high energy products are quite difficult to find theoretical explanations for, Coulomb barrier has many well worked out, lack of high energy products has none worked out and is signiifcantly contrary to all other understood experiment and theory.

So; science is about seeing how things fit together. People often mistake this for political argument, where you pile on possible reasons why something is correct. In science, what matters is whether the disparate sources of evidence are consistent with each other. If they are - you get more interested. If they are contradictory you get less interested - or look harder for some new theory that would remove the contradiction.

Finally:

the significant result of Tian, Li et al [3] that the reaction of palladium wires after reacting with a hydrogen atmosphere during a current discharge, when the energy input was stopped and the gas evacuated, generated “heatafterdead” for43 hours producing about 3.6kW/cm3

I disagree that the reported results show what you summarise (even though that is also claimed in that paper). If you post a link (I seem to have lost it) we could go over why.

However - if we ignore my annoyance at your uncritically aggregating inconsistent evidence - I am interested in all the lattice stuff - especially the deuterated lattice stuff.

Quote from Curbina

If you can't disprove him experimentally, is not fair.

That would be true of many people telling stories that are implausible (alien abductions etc).

It is perfectly fair not to count story-telling without substantive evidence as science, especially when the story-tellers have been asked to provide better evidence (which they could) and refused to do so.

Whether, when somone persists in claiming that is science, you see them as incorrect, uninformed, fanatic, careless, or a charlatan is I guess in the realms of psychology not science?