Posts by Storms

Quote from Alan Smith

There is another connection to the lottery. In many ways it is what serious gamblers call 'a mug bet', since the chances of winning are so low. However, I do it even knowing that fact, because winning the jackpot would be life-changing for me and everyone I love.

Much the same could be said about cold fusion- because getting that organised and marketable would be life changing for our species.

That is the problem. Alan. The introduction of LENR would be life-changing. Imagine what would happen politically and to the financial markets if oil, fission energy, and natural gas became worthless. All of these energy sources are based on debt. Just as soon as such an inexpensive and easily available energy source became available, the loans would be called by the banks. Immediately, these energy sources would become bankrupt and not able to operate. Then what would happen? The message is, Be careful what you wish for.

Quote from Curbina

I get thrown off by discussion of probability as proof of anything.

It is such an abstract thing to do, and doesn’t help at all to know what is true or not.

Just to use an absurd example: No one denies winning the lottery is possible, there are hundreds of thousands of lottery winners, yet still there are probably what amounts to quadrillions of lottery looseers. Convincing lottery loosers that is possible to win the lottery is a hard task based on probability, yet winning the lottery is a real event.

Good point. Using your example, after LENR is produced once, the ability to produce it would become real. The skeptics argue that LENR has never been produced even after thousands of attempts have been made. So, the question is, "How many tickets must be sold that did not win before you would conclude the lottery was rigged?"

THH, the issue is psychological, not scientific. I worked with Google and the effort funded by Gates, I know how people think. I have discussed the issues with many leaders in the field. Many people now believe that LENR is real. A conference on the subject is being held in Poland. The DOE is funding studies to the tune of 10M$. NASA is working to understand the mechanism and hoping to make it useful. That LENR is real is now accepted well enough. What is not accepted is an accurate and useful description and a useful understanding of how to cause the effect. Getting people to agree on this understanding is the problem. You are fighting the wrong battle. The skeptics have lost the war. Now, the people in the field itself have taken on the role of skeptic. People can now produce the effect. They do not know how to understand what they're seeing. They cannot even agree on the meaning of the basic behaviors.

I first heard about the cold fusion effect after having acquired a PhD in radiochemistry, which is a study of chemical and nuclear behavior, and after studying a large number of materials in many different ways for 34 years. In other words, I was a seasoned researcher. I knew the difference between error and real behavior. When we at LANL learned about what Fleischmann and Pons had discovered, we, as the ideal scientists THH admires, set out to replicate their claim. I and several other people were successful in making tritium. We knew we had made tritium because the world's experts in tritium detection were in my group. The results were published after extensive peer review. Later I measured heat production, which was successful and published after extensive peer review. This work was done under the high standards required at LANL, yet the results are ignored to this day. I then worked for another 32 years doing measurements and writing reviews of what other people found.

Now after all this effort by hundreds of professional researchers, THH has the nerve to say that cold fusion has not been proven. Having ignorance is a possible excuse. But after having been educated here, a rejection of the reality of LENR is not only insulting, but it borders on the pathological. Therefore, such a discussion with THH is useless, has no value, and is a waste of time. Therefore, I'm no longer interested in commenting and will move on to more productive work.

I now believe I can explain how LENR works and can now make it work with reliability. Getting anyone to agree will be the challenge. The general rejection of LENR by ordinary scientists is no longer the problem. The problem now is getting people who accept LENR but who have a favorite explanation to change their minds. The problem is the same as before, but now the unwellness to accept new ideas is in the field itself. Rather ironic would you say?

Quote from mjtrac

If I understand the point being made, Ed Storms, after a long career at Los Alamos, has published papers and books more than five years old, but no company or university is interested in exploring his cold fusion / LENR results. Is that an accurate reflection of the position of Dr. Storms and Alan Smith?

Yes, that is an accurate description. Some projects have contacted me in the past and used my knowledge, but only to a very limited extent. Now, I see no interest in exploring what I have gradually learned.

Quote from Alan Smith

Because it is more difficult to criticise, the experiments being better designed and more comprehensively explained. Which is why I shifted the emphasis in this thread from Staker's work to yours.

We await this suggestion to be followed.

Quote from THHuxleynew

What however is not enough is to rely on what normally happens when you do calorimetry.

LENR, after all, is not normal.

THH, I see we have a basic conflict of understanding. Yes, LENR is not normal. But a calorimeter does not care how the heat is created. It knows only that heat is being made. The measurement is independent of the source. A calorimeter can be tested by measuring a known amount of heat from a known source. Such a test would identify the amount of error produced in any measurement no matter the source. The calibration normally does this. I have made the test in other ways. You want to apply different rules to the heat that results from LENR as if this heat is different from normal heat.

When I make such tests and show that my calorimeter is accurate, why do you keep insisting that any heat that results from LENR must be an error? Why would my calorimeter suddenly create an error equal to the amount of heat only when I claim the heat comes from this source? Testing for accuracy, as you insist, is important. But when such tests are made, your critique makes no sense.

The Staker work is a different issue. He used a poor calorimeter design and an open cell. These are flaws that I have avoided. Why then are you ignoring my work?

Jed, H2 and O2 will not react without a catalyst being present. Nevertheless, my cells have exploded on occasion because a mixture of O2 and D2 is always formed after the Pd has become saturated. In my case, the cells are designed to suffer no harm. Poor design has even caused a loss of life. The use of a catalyst prevents this from happening.

Quote from Curbina

Thanks for sharing your valuable insights with us. I wonder how many people realize how few people have been so deeply involved in this saga since the beginning.

Yes Curbina, and we are getting fewer. Many of the historical details are being lost because no one is yet interested. I have recorded a series of interviews with Tom Grimshaw and Ruby Carat that may someday provide some background and details.

THH, you say you understand statistics and error analysis. I would like you to answer a question based on your knowledge. What is the probability of energy being produced by chance or error from a nonobvious source every time hundreds of studies are done in many different ways, but only when D is present? What is the probability of He being detected with nearly the same He/energy ratio when this unusual energy is produced? What is the probability of tritium slowing forming in a sealed electrolytic cell. How small or large must a probability be before it can be used as proof for a conclusion?

Quote from Curbina

THHuxleynew you may want to read this. I know you won’t, but I will leave it here just in case.

https://thebreakthrough.org/is…/fusion-runs-hot-and-cold

Here is my comment to the author about his article.

Hi Jonah,

Thanks for the well-written and interesting description of cold fusion. I have several comments.

First, Jones caused the hot fusion reaction as the result of fractofusion, not cold fusion. As Mel pointed out, this effect could not be replicated by Jones although the reaction was later replicated and became well understood.

According to Fleischmann, it was Jones who broke the agreement. As a reviewer for the DOE, he was ethically required not to reveal what Fleischmann and Pons had submitted. Instead, he was about to take credit for the discovery. That was the reason why the university held the press conference. Then this event was used against them even though this approach is not uncommon when important discoveries are made. The event demonstrated how a double standard is applied when it's convenient for the power structure. Clearly, the power structure was threatened by this new and less expensive form of energy that could make oil obsolete.

Although Ti has a coating of TiO2 that prevents it from reacting with deuterium, it will react at the edges. This reaction makes excess energy, i.e. cold fusion. Both John Dash and I observed this effect.

I'm in the process of writing a paper that explains how cold fusion works and how it can be reproduced. Unfortunately, everyone has their own idea about how it works, so my effort will suffer from the dilution effect. As for being able to replicate the effect, this has been done many hundreds of times and can, with skill, be replicated at will. Unfortunately, the myths have interfered with having this understanding accepted and applied.

You are right, science will soon have to eat crow.

Ed

Quote from THHuxleynew

Well, actually...

I informally here provided a detailed theoretical critique of the proposition that Ed's calorimeter could safely have errors due to heat variation on the inside of the box bounded << 0.5% based on the 3 tests described in his paper. That theory related to the fact that, in principle, to balance 12 Seebeck effect panels you need 11 (or 12 if calibrating as well) orthogonal measurements.

I have no intention of writing this up formally here - it is basic maths, but I could do so. The formal proof would look at the number of independent linear equations needed to determine uniquely 12 unknown coefficients.

Notwithstanding that, practically - such calibration is not needed. But more calibration than has been done is needed if an accuracy of << 0.5% is required to be proved, and it is pretty simple. note that ed has released no information on the relative matching of the Seebeck effect transducers, nor their model, so this could be looked up. Without that it is important to be pessimistic.

Display More

THH, you do not understand how the Seebeck actually works. I tried to explain but to no effect. So your critique has no meaning.

I have used 5 different Seebeck designs as well as the flow method, the isoperibolic method, and combinations of all the methods. I probably have more practical knowledge about calorimeters than anyone in this field, yet my advice has no more value than yours. You might ask Staker why he chose to use such a poor calorimeter design when other designs were available. The answer is that no one in this field pays attention to what anyone else is doing. Everyone thinks they are an expert.

Yes, errors can be produced using the Seebeck design. But to you, every error is enough to invalidate the claim for excess energy. In fact, the error is only a small fraction of the measured value. But proving this to you would require a major effort without giving any useful information about how LENR works or how it might be caused. In this sense, you correctly represent the skeptical community and why very little progress is made. After all, we have been studying this effect for 34 years and still can not agree on how to make it occur or the mechanism that causes fusion. Many people still believe all behaviors result from prosaic processes. Yet, people keep doing the same thing while expecting different results. Yes, this is evidence of insanity.

THH, replication is easy. But, the effort requires knowledge and a willingness to explore. Google did not have this knowledge, would not accept this knowledge, and did not know how to explore. They were strongly influenced by the skeptical attitude, i.e."what is the point of exploring when the phenomenon is the result of error? So, we will do what is easy so as not to waste time and money. If the effect is real, it should be easy to cause."

Your willingness to look for every possible error as an explanation is typical of why failure keeps happening. When a person is only motivated to focus on every possible error, very little time is spent trying to understand the process that causes LENR. For example, you and Jed use up a lot of time debating about the method Staker used while ignoring the scientific implications of the observed behavior. You say you are willing to explore new ideas but when they are suggested, you work hard to show why they have no meaning because they could result from error. If you implicated all of the controls you say are required, very little time and money would be available for the actual research.

As for reproducibility, I can suggest two methods that when used properly will produce LENR. I can also suggest a calorimeter design that avoids ALL of the sources of error. I can suggest experimental procedures that avoid wasting money and time. All of this information has been published. Getting anyone to listen is the problem. When I have been asked for information, it is in the context of an already well-established procedure and theory. I'm not asked how I would design the study and what needs to be learned. These questions have already been answered by other people.

Quote from Curbina

Storms , by all means, feel free to share your proposal to break the cycle, we are indeed a bunch of rascals, I give you that, but we can be disciplined.

The flaw is easy to correct. As an example, in my past life when I was an expert on high-temperature chemistry and materials, various universities would ask me to come as a visiting professor. I would give lectures for a few weeks about the details of how such materials behave and how they had to be studied.

Now, I'm only asked to give short lectures at several ICCF conferences about how calorimetry is done. These lectures had no influence as far as I can tell. Instead, a university needs to create a course of study focused on LENR and invite people to lecture about various aspects of the subject. Now, such a lecture could be done using Zoom and recorded for future generations. Instead, all of the institutional knowledge is being lost as the pioneers get old and die. Now, we can only hope that a young mind sometime in the future will discover the information in an obscure journal and have success. Now, the only information of value to the future is contained in the published papers. It is not contained in the discussions that are happening here.

I have been trying to think of how to form my reply in order to produce the response; "Yes, I understand and I agree with your explanation". And also; "I think you might consider the following additional ideas." At this point in the discussion, we could move on to explore new and exciting ideas. But, this response never happens. Instead, the discussion is stuck in a logical rut; a repeating cycle that goes nowhere. If I were the professor in a classroom, I could easily break the cycle, but not here. Here, everyone has equal authority and each idea has equal value, with THH being the spokesman for the skeptical community.

Even when a correct understanding might result from these discussions, it would have no effect on the future of LENR unless it was shared with the people who control the funding and how the experimental studies are designed. Indeed, I have watched as significant money has been wasted on ineffective experimental design and on chasing false explanations. From my perspective, this is like watching a train wreck while trying to avoid being injured but without the ability to stop the events. I'm sure other people have the same belief. The DOE had the ability to correct this flaw by how the 10M$ was allocated, but they chose not to. Perhaps efforts to correct this flaw will be successful in other countries, but not in the USA. We all can only wait and hope. Does anyone have a suggestion about how this flaw might be removed?

THH, I did what you required. Here is the figure showing the result, which is in the paper I cited. I compared the heat produced by the resistor in the cell to heat produced by an incandescent light bulb that took the place of the electrolytic cell. This would be the worst possible condition. The bulb was heated by different sources of DC current. Each time, the results showed excellent agreement.

Quote from THHuxleynew

Not constant is not the same as "has a random component". For example, if the calibration constant varies by 1% depending on which side of the box heat is emitted on (for example, the fan is not 100% effective in equalising temperatures) that is not properly a random change. It is a systematic change depending on cell conditions.

You may choose to call this a random component - but detecting for it is different. For an independent random component you can just repeat calibration. For variation in constants with cell conditions you need to check all the relevant cell conditions - or at least extreme points within the parameter space of possible cell conditions.

What you say is only true under the assumption that there are no such changes, so that all change is independent random.

That assumption may be (effectively) true for your calorimeter. But it is not necessarily so.

THH

In the case of LENR, a person might measure .5 watts but the actual value would be 0.4 watts. You always assume the value is always zero regardless of how much power is measured.

Display More

If the calorimeter calibration constant changes because the cell is not in the same place or because some condition changes, this is not random but results in a change in the calibration constants. In other words, the wrong information is being used. On the other hand, the random effects are superimposed on this kind of change. A good calorimeter does not change its calibration constant. If such a change were to occur, this would be obvious. You keep assuming that I or other people would not know that such a change had taken place. In any case, I have demonstrated that my calorimeter does not have this problem.

Yes, all measurements contain errors. But this error does not manifest as a reproducible behavior. In fact, we now have hundreds of such measurements showing nonzero power. You assume each of them is wrong by an amount that would give zero power if the truth were known. When are you going to stop beating the dead horse and work to understand this amazing discovery?

THH, as I described in the paper you were tasked to read and critique, active sites can be created many different ways. Each of these treatments has a different collection of variables that determine the outcome. Gaining control over these variables is required but is seldom studied by anyone. I have described one method to control the process in a recent paper. This skill is gradually being mastered. However, it will never be mastered as long as people have the wrong understanding of the active environment. I had hoped this environment could be discussed on the Forum, but sadly, that is not the subject of interest.

Instead of these questions being discussed, we keep addressing issues that have no relationship to how LENR can be made to occur at higher rates. Why??

When you say that a calorimeter does not have a constant calibration constant, you are saying that the constant has a random component. This random error can be determined, which I have done. Unfortunately, you are handicapped by not having a good background in error analysis, which causes this discussion to go off the rails.

Quote from THHuxleynew

Ed,

One clear needed addition to your experimental results: you need to specify the area of the Pd cathode. (Maybe I did not look in the right place - but i could not find it).

You and Staker both give excess heat as W/cm^3. This is helpful when considering excess in terms of what is possible chemical energy. But when comparing different electrode treatments etc (assuming the experiment results are believed) between different experiments it is actually the excess in W/cm^2 that is relevant. So both figures are important. (Straker has - for his long-term test - 0.3W over 4cm^2).

The set of metrics:

1. excess power /cathode area

2. excess power / cell heating input power

3. excess power

4. excess power / cell electrolysis splitting power (this with 3. determines electrolysis current)

5. excess power/ cathode volume

6. excess power / cell accuracy (ok - some disagreement over what is needed to measure that)

Are all a useful comparison of different experiments.

Thanks, THH

Display More

THH, the production of power is a volume effect because it results from special sites located throughout the volume. The surface area plays no role. This issue was confused by Fleischmann, which has caused problems ever since.

Each piece of Pd is different because each piece contains a different number of active sites. Here is a comparison of 157 samples. The behavior indicates that the number of sites is random with the probability of adding more sites decreasing as the number is increased.

Science has accepted ways to determine the accuracy of measurements that you seem to ignore. All measurements contain two kinds of error, one is the result of random effects, and the other results from the use of incorrect values in the calibration equation. I have addressed both kinds of errors. In addition, normally people test their measurements against known behavior. I have done this. In other words, I have applied all of the methods accepted and used by science to my measurements. Your criteria are not part of how measurements are normally evaluated, yet skeptics continue to use your approach. Clearly, a double standard is applied to LENR, which you are helping.

Quote from Curbina

Bottom line: LENR is a complex scientific field that is left in the hands of a hominid species with a complex psychological behavior to resolve. That explains a lot of what we see.

You have nailed the problem. We are seeing psychological behavior rather than scientific understanding. The people who are skilled and logical are employed in other fields because the skeptics made a study of LENR unsustainable. Unfortunately, psychological behavior is not changed by facts and logical discussion. Only death allows progress to be made, as has been noted in other fields.