Quote from THHuxleynew

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

A person who is sincerely interested in cold fusion would not say this. He would say: "Thanks Jed, for putting 2,391 papers on line with a comprehensive mySQL index that makes it easy to find papers by author, title, keywords, or abstract. I can find whatever I want!"

A petulant pathological skeptic who has no intention of reading anything will demand I spoon feed him the papers, and even when I do that he will not read them. When I get fed up having done that dozens of times already, he will use that as an excuse to avoid reading anything. Like a spoiled 7th grade kid. "It is some work. It's too ha-a-a-rd! You won't do my homework for me. It isn't fair!!"

Quote from THHuxleynew

Define "large result. And quote the study please.

A large result is one that far exceeds the margin of error for instrument in question. For example, with an ordinary calorimeter, it would be 0.5 W. With a microcalorimeter, it would be 1 mW. With a mercury thermometer marked it tenth degrees, it would be 1 degree. With a precision thermocouple that reads 0.001 degree with confidence, it would be 0.01 degrees. I learned that in 6th grade, so I am a little surprised you did not know it.

I quoted two studies already, and I gave you the names of other authors. There are plenty more. See, for example, "On an electrode producing massive quantities of tritium and helium."

Quote from THHuxleynew

My definition of large result is > 10 X average precipitation background for the year in which the experiment was conducted.

How about 50 times background? How about 10^16 tritium atoms?

Oh wait. I already quoted the 50 times background result. So of course you will now demand 100 times. Or 1000 times. You will move the goalposts off the field, out of the stadium, and into the next county.

Quote from THHuxleynew

Why do I ask you to quote numbers and link a paper?

Because you are lazy. Because you want me to spoon feed you every detail, and even when I do that, you will not read anything. Because you want plausible deniability. I know your stupid little tricks. That is how you skeptics roll. I will not give you any titles. You can look up whatever you like here:

LIBRARY

You will find 367 papers about tritium. Needless to say, you will look up nothing, read nothing, and then you will tell us there are no papers.

Quote from Storms

Alan, I doubt enriched U is used in tank rounds.

Enriched U is not used. Depleted U is. It was used in the Gulf war and in Ukraine today. It is used to penetrate armor. Not because of any nuclear effects, although Fleischmann thought there might be nuclear effects. It caused health hazards:

VA.gov | Veterans Affairs

Apply for and manage the VA benefits and services you’ve earned as a Veteran, Servicemember, or family member—like health care, disability, education, and more.

www.publichealth.va.gov

QUOTE:

First deployed on a large scale during the Gulf War, the U.S. military uses depleted uranium (DU) for tank armor and some bullets due to its high density, helping it to penetrate enemy armored vehicles. DU is a byproduct of the Uranium (U) enrichment process where the ratio of natural U isotopes from the earth’s crust is ‘enriched’ with higher energy U isotopes to produce U suitable for use in nuclear reactors. The U remaining is "depleted" of about 40 percent of its radioactivity, but retains the same chemical toxicity as natural uranium. If you think you were exposed to depleted uranium during your service, talk to your local VA Environmental Health Coordinator. Ask to be screened for depleted uranium exposure.

Quote from orsova

This was a particular concern of Fleischmann’s.

'This,' meaning uranium rounds in artillery shells. Yes, he talked about this in his letters to Miles. Do a search for "uranium" here:

https://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanlettersfroa.pdf

Frogfall asks: "But where will it lead?"

Who cares?
"Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down?

That's not my department!" says Wernher von Braun

Quote from Shane D.

Thanks, I didn't know it cost that much. I would venture to guess few in the public do, nor appreciate what it takes in terms of skill, and time to attempt replication.

Most of the expense is not for the device itself, but rather for the equipment such as vacuum pumps, and diagnostic equipment such as SEM. So, my offer to help pay for LEC replications is not very generous. I am offering money to pay for materials and perhaps an upgrade or repair to equipment such as a vacuum pump. I cannot afford to build an entire lab. Anyone who wants to replicate this must already have the equipment they need, and the skills to operate it. You cannot start from zero. Suppose I found an enthusiastic but inexperienced person who wanted to replicate. Even if I handed them $200,000, they probably could not do it.

Quote from THHuxleynew

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

No, you don't "remember" that. You made that up. There are dozens of cases with large results, from Will, Bockris, BARC and many others. You would know that if you had ever read the literature, but you have not.

Why do you keep making up stuff? Who do you think you are fooling? What is the point?

Quote from Storms

I agree, we need people to replicate the effect. Unfortunately, this is not easy to do.

Yes! That sure is the problem. It seems the LEC is easier to replicate than other experiments. I hope it is. I am trying to facilitate replications. I have offered to pay for the equipment. So far, no one has been able to take up my offer. They don't have the time or the right lab tools.

Quote from Curbina

I read the paper, the references, even extend the search for references, and provide my constructive feedback through the eye of my own experience. That could not be done by AI by any stretch of imagination.

Yes. AI has no experience so it cannot apply it through its own eye. On the other hand, AI can do many useful things. It can point out some of the problems you might find. It uses an entirely different set of procedures, because it is an alien form of intelligence (if we grant it is any kind of intelligence).

The Microsoft Word Review, Spelling and Grammar check feature can also do many useful things. It is far less capable than AI, yet some of the corrections and suggestions it makes are similar to what a good copy editor does, and some are even what a peer-reviewer does. It reduces the need for peer review. It partially automates some aspects of peer review. I think it is an overstatement to say that AI and Microsoft Word Review cannot do any degree of peer review, "by any stretch of the imagination."

AI and Microsoft Word are inhumanly thorough. If they are capable of finding a problem at all, they seldom overlook it or forget to mention it. I have seen AI forget to translate part of a Japanese document into English. It left out a clause. When I pointed this out, it put the clause in and apologized.

I expect AI will make rapid progress. In a few years it will be able to do most kinds of peer-review as well as a human. It will have a synthetic form of experience. Perhaps I should say "simulated experience." If this simulated experience is functionally similar to your actual experience as a human being, and based on the simulated experience, it reaches useful conclusions similar to what a person would reach, I do not see why it would matter that the experience is simulated. Functional equivalence is fine with me.

Quote from Storms

The flawed opinions of Scientific American and the other skeptics are driven mainly by political goals.

Yes! Academic politics. And also regular public policy politics, such as Congressional funding of plasma fusion.

Quote from Storms

The conditions have to change before progress is possible.

I agree. I think conditions will only change if we can facilitate the replication of some experiment, and the number of people who see the effect in their own lab increases exponentially to 5, 10, 20 . . . up to hundreds.

Quote from JedRothwell

No, the results are very large. Why do you make up this kind of bullshit? Who are your trying to fool? Obviously you have not read the papers. Do you think no one else has read them?

I suppose I should give the actual numbers from the literature. Obviously, THH never will. THH claims that contamination has not been accounted for, and that the amounts of tritium are small. Here are some quotes from Will et al.:

Contamination

The closed-system procedure has been applied to nearly 100 as-manufactured palladium wire samples of various lots and sizes from two different sources. None of these samples show any tritium contamination within the detection limit of 5 x 10^7 tritium atoms.

Amount of tritium detected

The largest amount of tritium, generated in 7 days of continuous electrolysis, was 2.1 × 10^11 tritium atoms, compared with a background of 4 × 10^9 tritium atoms. The concentration of tritium and its axial distribution in the Pd were determined and
concentrations of up to 9 × 10^10 atoms/g Pd were found compared with a maximum background of 5 × 10^8 atoms g^-1. . . .

. . . The palladium cathode area in all four cells was approximately 2 cm^2 and the number of T atoms generated in the four cells is in a relatively tight band, from 4.3 x 10^10 to 1.1 x 10^11 T atoms/cm2. These values are in good agreement with those obtained by several research groups at the Bhabha Atomic Research Center in Bombay, India [7]. Their values run from a low of 5 x 10^9 to a high value of 1.7 x 10^14 T atoms/cm2. Predominantly, however, their values are in the range from 10^10 to 10^11 T atoms/cm2. These experiments were run for comparable lengths of time as our experiments. The average tritium generation rate in our experiments varies from 5.8 x 10^4 to 2.0 x 10^5 T atoms/cm2/sec and the tritium enhancement factor (tritium after to tritium before
the experiment) attained values of up to 52. . . .

Quote from Fm1

it's time to block THH posts so the rest of us can benefit from your experience.

52 times background is not small or difficult to detect. I suppose THH has not read these papers, because everything he says is contradicted by them. Perhaps he has read them, and he is trolling us, hoping to deceive people who are too lazy to read the literature. Either way, his behavior is annoying. However, it does prove that THH -- along with the editors and Scientific American, and other skeptics -- is completely wrong. In a sense his contributions to this forum are valuable because they prove that the skeptics are wrong and they contribute nothing to the discussion. So I do not think we should block him.

Quote from THHuxleynew

Papers by F.G. Wills and others may claim that contamination is ruled out. And certainly show that some obvious types of contamination are ruled out in some experiments. But I gave three different error mechanisms - all in play because the claimed results are so very small.

No, the results are very large. Why do you make up this kind of bullshit? Who are your trying to fool? Obviously you have not read the papers. Do you think no one else has read them?

Quote from THHuxleynew

The people who are unsure about those CF results do not doubt the observations* - they doubt the interpretation.

No, they say the observations are mistakes and fraud. You yourself constantly say the results are mistakes because they are small, as you just did. Claiming a result is close to the margin when it is actually high sigma is tantamount to falsely claiming it is a mistake.

Quote from Frogfall

Does that mean that the Adobe AI is dragging extra information from other sources (i.e. from the internet) without letting its users know?

It does seem that way.

When I set up the bot at LENR-CANR.org I set it to use only the information that I uploaded. Of course, it used its own general knowledge of English and things like arithmetic. But I do not think it would extrapolate or cite information not specifically listed in the papers.

Quote from Alan Smith

I think that you need to create a rotating magnetic field. As in a 3-phase electric motor. And you can do that cheaply enough.

I have a submerged pond pump with a built in rotating magnetic field. This is called a magnetic drive. The motor is in a sealed waterproof portion. It produces a rotating magnetic field. The impellor has a permanent magnet. It fits into a circular hole, and the field drives it around. If you need only a small device that can fit into the impeller shaft hole, you could use one of these. The shaft is about 1 cm diameter by 4 cm long.

Pondmaster Magnetic Drive Utility Pumps

Shop at The Pond Guy and browse our Pondmaster selections for a dependable Magnetic Drive Submersible Pump like the Pondmaster Magnetic Drive Utility Pumps.

www.thepondguy.com

The Adobe Acrobat AI described my paper. She added some details I did write. They are underlined in this example:

Control over the reaction: Complete control over the cold fusion reaction needs to be achieved. This means being able to initiate, sustain, and control the fusion process reliably and consistently. Control is essential for the practical and efficient use of cold fusion technology.

I do not see those two points in the paper. They are correct. But I didn't say 'em. It is problematic that the bot is explaining things the author did not. There is a trendy term "mansplaining." I guess this would be "botsplaining" or "AI condescension."

Quote from Alan Smith

You can tell for example from this advertisement that Harrods in London doesn't sell many ironing boards.

That link did not work. Here is an image of the page, which is hilarious:

This is what my mother would call "the carriage trade." For people who have more money than sense. Which is even in the dictionary:

more money than sense

1. used to talk about people spending a lot of money on something that you…

dictionary.cambridge.org

Quote from GRMattson

I would still drive ten miles for gas .

If your car had a small tank with 200 mile range, would you drive 200 miles for gas? No, because you would not have any gas left when you got back home. This is a variation of a statement about energy made decades ago, to wit:

If you were starving, you might pay $100 for an apple. You might even pay $1000. But you would never pay two apples for one apple. The energy overhead of extracting and refining oil is about 10% to 20% of the oil, depending on where the oil comes from. If the overhead reached 50%, it would hardly be worth doing. If it reached 110%, no one would use oil. That is what we mean when we say "oil will run out." Not that there will be none left anywhere on earth, but rather there will none left that is worth the energy overhead or the money needed to extract it.

Getting back to the actual scenario in which many gas stations close, you might be willing to drive 10 miles, but in Atlanta I would not, because going 10 miles in any direction means a half hour fighting traffic. I might continue driving 10 miles to buy gas until my car wears out, but the next car I buy would be an EV just to avoid the hassle. In other words, the inconvenience would drive many people to stop using gasoline cars, even if gas were still available.

Someone suggested to me that if EV become popular and gasoline consumption drops, gasoline will become very cheap. It might even compete with EV electricity. I do not think so. There is a price floor below which you cannot produce gasoline. It costs ~$2.00 to make a gallon of gas. You cannot sell it for less. EV are cheaper than that. I estimated this years ago. The other day I ran the numbers again, as follows:

It costs $20 to $50 to pump 1 barrel of oil from a U.S. onshore well. In Saudi Arabia it is about $10. Offshore wells cost as much as $90.

It is unclear how much it costs to ship oil to a refinery in the U.S. from a U.S. well, or from Saudi Arabia. There is something called the "Crude Oil Composite Acquisition Cost by Refiners." It is presently $72. At the height of the pandemic it was $19. I read they were losing money at that rate. I suppose that means the actual cost, without profit, is around $60. Of course you cannot sustain a business without profit.

U.S. Crude Oil Composite Acquisition Cost by Refiners (Dollars per Barrel)

Anyway, 1 barrel produces 45 gallons of fuel of various types. At $60/barrel that comes to $1.33. Another estimate is $1.39:

What Determines Retail Prices for Gasoline and Diesel? | Volta Oil, MA RI CT

There are four cost components that make up the retail price of gasoline and diesel. Those components include: crude oil cost, refining cost, distribution and…

voltaoil.com

It costs $0.40 to $0.70 to refine the fuel, depending on the quality of the crude oil and whether you want summer or winter fuel. So, total production cost is ~$1.73 - $2.09. That is before shipping it to gas stations, and vending it to drivers.

The average U.S. car gets 21 mpg city, 27 mpg highway. An EV gets 3 - 4 miles/kWh. The U.S. average cost of electricity is 15.73 cents/kWh. Comparing lowest cost to lowest cost:

$1.73 / 27 mpg highway = 6.4 cents per mile
15.73 cents / 4 miles/kWh = 3.9 cents per mile

Highest to highest:

$2.09 / 21 mpg city = 10.0 cents per mile
15.73 cents / 3 miles/kWh = 5.2 cents per mile

As a practical matter, no one can sell gasoline for less than $2.50 and stay in business, whereas the actual retail cost of electricity is 15.73/kWh, and power companies make plenty of profit. So the actual cost of gasoline comes to at least 9.2 cents per mile. It is not possible to produce gasoline at a cost competitive with an EV. Not in the U.S., the EU or the third world. You could compete in Saudi Arabia or Russia.

Also as a practical matter, most people with EV do not pay 15.73 cents per kilowatt hour. They have smart meters, and they recharge overnight at greatly reduced rates. In Atlanta you can pay 25 cents during the day and 6 cents at night:

Nights & Weekends

www.georgiapower.com

Or there Super-EV rate of 1.8 cents, which I do not think they will offer for long:

Plug-In Electric Vehicle

www.georgiapower.com

In parts of Texas with abundant wind power you pay zero cents at night. It is free. They make it up with a fixed cost per month. Anyway, even at 6 cents per kilowatt hour there is no way gasoline could ever compete, even if the Saudis started giving away the oil for free.

Quote from Frogfall

Consider it a gift from BBC license fee payers

I wish Japan's NHK national TV was as generous. You can't even reach it from the U.S. without a VPN. You cannot view it unless you are a Japanese subscriber. And they won't let you subscribe! The Japanese Amazon Kindle books are similarly restricted. It is as if they don't want your money.

Nature:

Is AI ready to mass-produce lay summaries of research articles?

The latest version of Adobe Acrobat has a built-in AI assistant that can summarize papers. It does a pretty good job. Here it summarizes my paper

How to fix global warming with cold fusion

https://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJhowtofixgl.pdf

[The links in this forum are not working right]

The document discusses how cold fusion technology can help mitigate global warming by eliminating carbon emissions and enhancing carbon sequestration through reforestation projects.

It continues --

Here are some suggestions you can try:

What are the six things needed to use cold fusion for various applications?

The six things needed to use cold fusion for various applications are:

1. Sufficiently high power density: Cold fusion generators need to have a high power density to be compact and practical for direct use. This is important for applications such as powering electric cars or small devices.

2. High Carnot efficiency: Cold fusion devices should have a high Carnot efficiency, which refers to the efficiency of converting heat into useful work. This is important for maximizing the energy output of the device.

3. High energy density: Cold fusion technology should have a high energy density, meaning it can store a large amount of energy in a small volume. This is important for applications where space is limited, such as portable devices or vehicles.

4. Perfect safety with no tritium, or at least no tritium leaks: Cold fusion devices should be safe to use and operate without any tritium leaks. Tritium is a radioactive isotope of hydrogen that can be produced in some cold fusion reactions. Ensuring safety and preventing any potential radiation hazards is crucial for the widespread adoption of cold fusion technology.

5. Reasonably low-cost materials and manufacturing: Cold fusion devices should be made from materials that are readily available and affordable. Additionally, the manufacturing processes should be cost-effective to make the technology accessible and economically viable.

6. Control over the reaction: Complete control over the cold fusion reaction needs to be achieved. This means being able to initiate, sustain, and control the fusion process reliably and consistently. Control is essential for the practical and efficient use of cold fusion technology.

These six requirements are necessary for the successful implementation of cold fusion in various applications and to make it a viable alternative energy source.

What is the purpose of cutting deadwood into chips?

The purpose of cutting deadwood into chips is to make it easier to transport and to convert it into charcoal. The deadwood is cut into chips to reduce its mass and volume, making it more manageable for transportation. Additionally, the chips are then baked into charcoal using cold fusion technology. . . .

. . . If you would like to see a summary and sample questions for some other document, let me know.

Quote from Frogfall

For those of you outside the UK, who are probably blocked (are you?) - I'll see if I can capture and extract the audio.

It is available in the U.S.