orsova Verified User
  • Male
  • from Australia
  • Member since Jun 5th 2019
  • Last Activity:

Posts by orsova

    This is the most thorough and well-documented experiment report I've seen, truly a masterpiece of the art. It appears that after careful analysis, no excess heat was seen from Ni or deuterated Ti powders.

    Interestingly, Benyo says in her ICCF History of NASA/LENR presentation that they did see some anomalous results, though they don’t seem to be reported here.


    ETA: There doesn't seem to be a second report on results at the NTRS. I suppose the possibilities are that one was never written, or, that one was written and it's currently in review somewhere.

    External Content x.com
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

    You are missing the point, I am not celebrating the nolvelty, just the fact that he managed to get it published in a journal that more often than not would have usually rejected to publish about this topic at all.

    The paper doesn't play word games to avoid the association with 'cold fusion' either. It's right there in the first paragraph.

    Because the same archival footage appears in both old ITN broadcasts about cold fusion and the contemporary piece from ITN Truthloader, it seems reasonable to conjecture that at some point ITN received a copy of a raw tape that included the boil offs from Fleischmann and Pons, which they still have on file somewhere.

    I'd just wish the LENR community was strongly pushing for such analysis and reconciliation of results (maybe it is - but I don't see it much here) so that the experimental claims on which LENR theories rest can be made more solid. The point is that with serious replication, and engagement from the original experimenter when replication fails, the results become much more useful.

    it’s interesting that you frame this as a failure of insight or will, rather than as a consequence of the complete lack of funding available for the field.

    My interest on this site has always been to promote understanding - not argue a case. In the heyday of Rossi's popularity the two were easily confused. Now, however, the understanding i seek to promote is why different people of good will and intelligence (e.g. you an me) can reach different conclusions looking at the same evidence - and do so in a way that is in both cases consistent.


    I have stated this different ways above, and not yet received any acknowledgement from anyone else that this is what I have said. (I don't mean agreement that this analysis is correct: I've not yet had anyone engage with the argument). That includes you.

    Fair enough. It's a perfectly reasonable aim. You're right that I haven't engaged with it. And candidly, I really don't have much appetite to. I suspect that we have pretty significant differences in epistemic style. I suppose I regard such differences as somewhat insoluble.

    Quote

    Right. Although I'd question that phraseology, because I do not think it serves to promote or falsify any specific LENR theory.

    My understanding is that what makes the experiment theoretically useful is that it shows that lasers tuned to frequencies corresponding to optical phonon modes in the pd/d lattice enhance excess heat production.


    This supports the hypothesised role of phonons in the lattice as part of the reaction process.


    Link below.


    [ACS Symposium Series] Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions and New Energy Technologies Sourcebook Volume 2 Volume 1029 || Dual Laser Stimulation and Optical Phonons in Palladium Deuteride - Anna’s Archive


    Quote

    OK - so you are interpreting my phraseology differently from me. It is my fault for not being clearer. What I mean by canon in this context is a definite prescription for what needs to be done to make D+D electrolysis experiments work better.

    I actually think it does do this. Certainly, it makes a specific suggestion that proceeds from theory and yields experimental evidence.


    Quote

    This type of coherence is how progress is made in science. Lack of coherence is a sign of artifacts in experiments rather than some underlying common physical mechanism.

    I understand your point, but I don't agree with this. I think that that's a very flat and binary kind of ontology. Complex, multi scalar processes are not always going to behave in ways that might be congruent to the naked eye.


    Does that help us? Not at all. But I think it's important to be able to sit with the ostensible incongruency of differing experimental observations. We should always be mindful of the fact that we don't know what the underlying 'common physical mechanism' is in this case. There could even be a bundle of them.


    Quote

    Of course. Is that not proper?

    From my perspective:


    You identified two primary concerns with the work.


    A) The helium 4 measurement

    B) The tritium energy spectra


    I accept that we've gone as far as we can get on A. I suppose my issue is with B.


    You raised a question about the measured energy spectra. Nobody here has stepped forward to answer that question, but I imagine it could be answered quite easily by taking the query to another forum and asking. It would take all of 15 minutes. You are the one asking for papers to critique, but you're not willing to take the initiative to chase down an answer to your own question.


    A question is not the same thing as a critique. And a critique is not the same thing as identifying an experimental issue of import to the interpretation of results.


    You raised two questions, one of which proved insoluble, the other of which is still live. As far as I can tell, you regard an unanswered question as dispositive, and chose to move on rather than attempting to chase it down.


    This gets back to differences of epistemic style.


    Have you read the report from Garwin and Lewis' trip to see McKubre at SRI?


    Link below.


    https://newenergytimes.com/v2/reports/GarwinLewisReport/1993Garwin-Lewis-SRI-Report.pdf


    This is an interesting one to read because they ask many questions, critique the experiments at length, but ultimately conclude that they can find no error. They quite clearly, though implicitly, delineate between the three.


    Quote

    (You might ask why are calorimetry artifacts usually positive? the answer is that any consistently negative artifacts (rather than just transiently negative) are very unexpected to the LENR community as well as to mainstream scientists and will therefore be specially checked for artifacts in a way that positive excesses will be checked by mainstream scientists (for whom they are unexpected0 but not LENR community (for whom they are expected).

    Lets just be clear about what you're saying here. You're saying that LENR researchers are not as skeptical as other scientists, and are credulous about their results. For some fraction this may be true, but to the extent it's true, I wouldn't expect it to be any more prevalent than amongst other scientists not engaged in LENR. There's nothing special about LENR that turns scientists into gullible marks.


    What you're doing here isn't scientific.


    You're reasoning from a judgement about a population. You're indulging a bias. Unless you personally know a large fraction of the scientists in the field, and have observed them up close for an extended period, you really shouldn't make statements like this.


    re: the rest of your post.


    I think you would enjoy watching Hagelstein's 2013 MIT talks, Cold Fusion 101. He does what you're asking for - he's looking for the thread of coherence amongst the experimental results.


    External Content www.youtube.com
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.


    (this link is a playlist - click through for the full series)

    But... rather than make me do all the work it would be fairer for you to argue your case concretely drawing on that reference as your counterexample to what i am saying and being as specific as possible.

    I don't have a case. You're interpreting my comment in the context of the wider themes you're riffing on, but I was making a bounded point.


    You said:


    which however seems not to have been reproduced or entered the canon now as what needs to be done to optimise LENR in D/Pd electrolysis


    To which I replied (indirectly by quoting Alan):


    Letts’ dual laser experiment comes to mind immediately. Well known for its theoretical importance.


    I grant you that the Letts experiment may or may not comport with Apicella. That wasn't my point. Just that the Letts experiment was 'canon'. Peter Hagelstein brings it up quite regularly, for example.


    You then said:


    But it is a natural candidate for testing - just i do not notice any widely accepted prescription for the type of laser stimulation that facilitates LENR. Given how relatively easy it is to check, I'd expect that if it were helpful.


    &


    The difference between me and others here is that I look for effects that can be understood. You don't need a theory. You just need a whole load of laser experiments showing e.g. that 400nm lasers work - 600nm lasers don't - or whatever.


    I again pointed to the Letts dual laser experiment as doing exactly that.


    I doubt you'll be satisfied with the experiments, but that's a separate matter. I wasn't arguing that the experiment proved anything, nor that it was convincing. I was merely noting that it comported with your criteria.


    You were lamenting that a certain type of experiment hadn't entered the 'canon'; ie. had not been recognised as useful. I pointed you to an example of that type of experiment, and suggested that it was well known. That's it. I'm not keen to get into your larger project re: Apicella and what is or isn't convincing.


    If you want, you can look it up - if not, that's fine too.


    I think we might be talking past each other. Perhaps that's my fault for wading into the middle of a larger set of arguments that you're making with a specific comment. Mea culpa.


    re: fairness.


    I spent a decent amount of time verifying Bockris / Oliver et al.'s mass spec details for you, following your insistence that this be checked. But as soon as you were satisfied that you weren't satisfied, you abandoned that conversation and moved on.

    Quote

    In the end i expect that evidence you will consider adequate I will not.

    That does seem to generally be the case.


    It works the other way too, though. Criticism that you consider adequate, I sometimes will not. This was in evidence in the conversation re: Bockris.

    Every now and again JedRothwell laments that he once saw high quality video of a boiling cell, but has never been able to find it again.


    This short piece from ITN Truthloader in 2012 contains archival footage that may fit the bill.


    If so, Sam Datta-Paulin, formerly of ITN, may be able to help with tracking down the original archival source?


    External Content www.youtube.com
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

    Both miss the point, which is that electrolytics D+D / Pd fusion is the most well researched aspect of the LENR canon. Many people (e.g. Storms here) have understood the whole literature and developed replications with the intent of having clear unambiguous replicable LENR signals. I don't notice laser stimulation in these. [...]

    Au contraire, mon ami. It is not I that has missed the point. The Letts dual laser experiment is palladium electrolysis in heavy water.


    Quote


    But it is a natural candidate for testing - just i do not notice any widely accepted prescription for the type of laser stimulation that facilitates LENR. Given how relatively easy it is to check, I'd expect that if it were helpful.

    Have you looked for it? I gave you a reference, but for whatever reason, you didn't investigate it.


    It's exactly what you describe, and it gives you the prescription you're asking for.

    The difference between me and others here is that I look for effects that can be understood. You don't need a theory. You just need a whole load of laser experiments showing e.g. that 400nm lasers work - 600nm lasers don't - or whatever.

    Again, you're describing the Letts dual laser experiment.

    I just types 'laser stimulation'; into Jed's library. search engine. You get 126 results. Searching 'laser' on it's own gives 564 results. I don't have time to check the content, but it does suggest that this method of triggering LENR has probably been replicated more than once.

    Letts’ dual laser experiment comes to mind immediately. Well known for its theoretical importance.

    “University of Missouri in 1991 using titanium powder saturated with deuterium at cryogenic temperatures”


    Who does this refer to? It sounds like Scaramuzzi, but he was not at UofM?