Posts by orsova

Quote from JedRothwell

Everyone knows that the mass spectrometer must have sufficient resolution to separate these two. Every researcher addresses this. If this particular paper does not, you can be sure others from these authors do. As Ed points out, you are saying that experts do not know the fundamentals, and they make mistakes that only an undergraduate would make.

Coherence is a matter of your opinion, based on your ideas about theory. Cold fusion cannot yet be explained by theory. It is an experimental claim. The tritium is real. That is an experimentally proven fact. You have found no reason to doubt the tritium, or for that matter the heat, or helium. A reason can only be an error in the experimental technique or the instruments. The fact that you find it incoherent is not a valid reason to dismiss experimentally proven facts. Your personal ideas about theory do not overrule instrument readings.

The tritium does not have to "explain" anything. It exists. That is an irrefutable fact. You can confirm it in this paper, or in dozens of other papers. Tritium can only be the product of a nuclear reaction. Therefore, cold fusion is a nuclear reaction.

What you, or I, or anyone says about theory or coherence can never be a reason to reject replicated, high sigma experimental results. That is fundamental to the scientific method.

Display More

Indeed. Theory is a red herring in the context of this exchange, which is about the interpretation and identification of experimental error in a specific experimental result.

I think (hope) that I've now addressed THH's concerns re: the helium result, which only leaves his concern re: the shape of the tritium energy spectrum. His other point (#4 at post #1666) is not really addressable unless a specific mechanism is identified.

THHuxleynew is there any other criticism of / concern about the paper that I've missed?

Quote from THHuxleynew

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.

The assertion of a statement without rationale is not correct. They specifically note that they had adequate resolution between the two. And they reference prior work that provides ample detail. Moreover, Oliver was a world expert in the detection of 4He.

Here is reference 7:

And here's a catalog for the GA-4.

GA-4 residual gas analyzer - Veeco 1967: : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

GA-4 residual gas analyzer - Veeco 1967

archive.org

And here's an old Veeco catalog that details the GA-4R:

High vacuum equipment catalog - Veeco Instruments Inc. 1968: : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

High vacuum equipment catalog - Veeco Instruments Inc. 1968

archive.org

Note the specifications and the example spectra provided in both.

The GA-4 and GA-4R seem to be essentially the same, except that the R is rackmounted.

None of this was hard to find.

FS & IBT - Low energy nuclear reaction

The project will focus on quantifying nuclear reactions, such as the deuterium-deuterium fusion reaction at relatively low reaction energies, below 500 eV. At…

ibt.lbl.gov

Nothing substantial there yet, but LBNL has a page up for Schenkel's LENR work.

A while ago I spent some time with the Open Journal Systems platform, getting to know the backend, and one of the nice things about it was how deeply they integrate propagation.

PKP even goes so far as to offer their own archival system.

PKP Preservation Network - Public Knowledge Project

PKP has developed the PKP Preservation Network (PKP PN) to digitally preserve OJS journals. The LOCKSS program offers decentralized and distributed…

pkp.sfu.ca

Quote from Cydonia

Well, this is what i expect that most of the Lenr websites will dissapear in the close years.

For 2 main reasons, the first one because most of the protagonists became very old.

The second one, no one done a real breakthrough, at reliable Kw range.

As the results the poor exchanges now at ECW or here, for example.

That's open the way to more and more nutcases.

Ps: I don't feel like discussing the relevance of my thoughts with some current nutcases here.

Display More

Regrettably, most of the older personal websites are already gone. I sometimes wonder what happened to the listservs from the early days.

Fulvio Frisone's website seems to have disappeared. However, a lot of it was archived by the Wayback Machine before its demise. He uploaded a huge number of papers and books to it over the years. Many can still be found at:

Wayback Machine

simply type 'pdf' in the 'filter results' box.

Quote from THHuxleynew

He4

The claims rest (I think - can anyone else confirm) on mass spectrometer analysis of the electrodes. [...] They say He4 is detected but do not say how.

This is addressed in the paper.

Quote

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)?

This is also addressed in the paper.

What to make of this?

Quote from the article

“Essentially, what we’ve discovered is that systems that contain an asymmetry in either electrostatic pressure or some kind of electrostatic divergent field can give a system of a center of mass a non-zero force component,” Buhler explained. “So, what that basically means is that there’s some underlying physics that can essentially place force on an object should those two constraints be met.”

NASA Veteran’s Propellantless Propulsion Drive That Physics Says Shouldn’t Work Just Produced Enough Thrust to Overcome Earth’s Gravity - The Debrief

A veteran NASA scientist says his company has tested a propellantless propulsion drive technology that produced one Earth gravity of thrust.

thedebrief.org

What to make of this?

Quote from the article

“Essentially, what we’ve discovered is that systems that contain an asymmetry in either electrostatic pressure or some kind of electrostatic divergent field can give a system of a center of mass a non-zero force component,” Buhler explained. “So, what that basically means is that there’s some underlying physics that can essentially place force on an object should those two constraints be met.”

NASA Veteran’s Propellantless Propulsion Drive That Physics Says Shouldn’t Work Just Produced Enough Thrust to Overcome Earth’s Gravity - The Debrief

A veteran NASA scientist says his company has tested a propellantless propulsion drive technology that produced one Earth gravity of thrust.

thedebrief.org

Quote from THHuxleynew

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.

Okay, but you specifically asked for the tritium paper first.

Here are the posts:

Post

RE: The perpetual “is LENR even real” argument thread.

[…]

If you want to argue specifics - we can argue specifics.

There was one (two?) cases with very large results where other factors (contamination if I remember right) are very possible.

Otherwise the tritium results are relatively small compared to the very variable background water levels.

But my memory might be wrong - please cite papers and quote claimed tritium level in each and we can have a proper quantitative discussion.

THHuxleynew

Mar 29th 2024

Post

RE: The perpetual “is LENR even real” argument thread.

[…]

Define "large result. And quote the study please.
My definition of large result is > 10 X average precipitation background for the year in which the experiment was conducted. (Background tritium has varied by factor of 1000X between 1970s and now).

This argument I know will not change your mind or mine, but without precise numbers what is the point?

Why do I ask you to quote numbers and link a paper? Well, you are making this claim, not me. And it is some work - though more for me than you…

THHuxleynew

Apr 2nd 2024

Having received the paper you asked for, you now say: "my memory is that the experiment was not conclusive, and so I'm not going to bother with the paper."

Surely, you must see that if you ask for a paper, specifically say that you would be willing to have a serious discussion about it, and then back away when you receive the paper in question, then people might start to wonder whether you were ever serious about looking at the paper in the first place.

In another thread, you quite literally said to Jed: "give me the paper and I'll give you the error", but here, the request was fulfilled, and now you don't want to read the paper that you asked for.

Here it is again:

Post

RE: The perpetual “is LENR even real” argument thread.

[…]


[…]

https://www.newenergytimes.com…Bockris-TritiumHelium.pdf

orsova

Apr 3rd 2024

Quote from JedRothwell

That is perhaps an exaggeration.

Perhaps what he had in mind is that without knowledge of the place, time and culture it can be difficult to know what some paintings signify. Especially the allegorical ones such as Delacroix, "Liberty Leading the People" (1830) or Picasso's "Guernica." Imagine you are trying to explain Delacroix to a Japanese person in 1830 who has no knowledge of the French Revolution. What would he make of this? He would probably see it is a war, but which side does this represent, and what is that half-naked woman doing? Is it supposed to be a joke? Or erotic? Is the artist in favor of these people or against them? It might not seem patriotic in the sense Delacroix had in mind. I know that Japanese people first exposed to western paintings in the Meiji era had very different ideas about what the paintings meant, whether they were beautiful or ugly, and what on earth all those naked people were doing. Naked people everywhere! -- as I recall Thomas Eakins wrote when he first went to European museums. He was not impressed.

Just offhand, my guess is that a Japanese person in 1830 might think that woman is demon or a badger transformed into a person, or a ghost, and she is up to no good. She is leading those people into some sort of trap. Half-naked beautiful women in Japanese folk tales often turn out to be demons leading men to their demise. If you see an allegorical Japanese painting from 1830 with a figure like this, beware of her. Here is a famous example, the Snow Woman, who is often portrayed more erotically than this. She entices lost men, and then freezes them to death. A European or an American who cannot read the caption, which is "yuki onna" (Snow Woman), might not see anything frightening about this image, but anyone who can read it and knows Japanese folklore will know She Is Out To Get You.

Display More

Everything you say is very well taken.

I realise I'm dragging us off topic, but here's Wolfe at further length.

The Painted Word Tom Wolfe

'One day in April of 1974, the New York Times reviewed an exhibition of realist art taking place at Yale University. The reviewer, Hilton Kramer, made this observation: “Realism does not lack its partisans, but it does rather conspicuously lack a persuasive theory. And given the nature of our intellectual commerce with works of art, to lack a persuasive theory is to lack something crucial—the means by which our experience of individual works is joined to our understanding of the values they signify.”

The writer Tom Wolfe, reading this, was, by his own description, “jerked alert.” Wolfe understood Kramer to be saying, in Wolfe’s words, “In short: frankly, these days, without a theory to go with it, I can’t see a painting.”'

Collier is such a fantastic science communicator.

Quote from THHuxleynew

Link to specific experiment please, and I will tell you what is your mistake. I will not spend a few hours searching many papers, so it will need to be precise.

as it should be - such strong evidence should be highlighted here.

Why not read the tritium paper that Jed already suggested?

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

Quote from THHuxleynew

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.

I apologise for speaking so strongly.

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.

We're talking about the interpretation of highly technical experimental results; couched in a somewhat unique sociology and history. It's an academic disagreement over the interpretation of evidence.

That's fundamentally different to the kind of thing that conspiracy theorists are up to.

People Drawn to Conspiracy Theories Share a Cluster of Psychological Features

Baseless theories threaten our safety and democracy. It turns out that specific emotions make people prone to such thinking

www.scientificamerican.com

Quote from THHuxleynew

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

No. It's the comparison. I found it insulting. I'm going to delete my post. We can do without its bluntness - and rudeness.

THHuxleynew

Are you going to read and comment on the paper that Jed suggested, and that I linked for you earlier in the thread?