Online
Alan Smith
Administrator
12,941
Jun 27th 2017
#121
Quote from THHuxleynew
ATER is indeed surprising. The idea that some unusual surface condition in electrodes could make a reaction happen that normally does not.... Sounds very strange does it not? A bit like LENR. But of course it is less strange than LENR because there are fewer unusual characteristics to explain away.
I think that this is commonly referred to as ‘catalysis’.
Zephir_AWT
Member
1,089
Jun 27th 2017
#122
From geometric perspective there exists interesting analogy in catalytic behavior of palladium for chemical and for nuclear reactions. The palladium often catalyses hydrogenations because it strongly absorbs hydrogen, thus transferring the reaction running in volume phase (3D) into a reaction running at surface (2D). It’s evident, if we would convert the same reaction to 1D, it would run even faster - and this is just what the palladium does for nuclear reactions.
If we look at the metal lattice, their long lines of atoms could behave like the pistons - especially these ones along boundaries of crystal grains and similar defects. In addition, the energy of collisions along lines of colliding balls has a tendency to multiply - it’s nicely demonstrated for example here. Therefore locally the energy of these attenuated low-dimensional collisions can reach the levels required for fusion.
This catalytic effect is visible in composition of products of cold fusion, which strongly favors the most stable helium, whereas during plasma fusion many neutrons and tritium is usually formed. These products also waste the energy of reaction, not to say they’re doing everything radioactive. But the cold fusion doesn’t release any neutrons which indicates, it favors the formation of harmless products in similar way, like the chemical catalysts. In similar way, the palladium in cars is used for promote complete burning of fuel into carbon dioxide.
Edit: we discussed it extensively here 1, 2 - just because this forum lacks efficient full-text search and it behaves like the pile of manure covering the former insights with laeyers of another discussion, so we are pre-destined to reinvent the wheel again and again.
Edited once, last by Zephir_AWT (Jun 27th 2017).
Eric Walker
Verified User
3,426
Jun 27th 2017
#126
Quote from kirkshanahan
In the end reproducibility will answer the question. But it will be very difficult to attain reproducibility (which implies control of all relevant variables) when the experimentation is driven by the idea that the FPHE arises from a nuclear process if that is not true. In fact, the failure to reach a reproducible condition after many years of effort is a weak-to-moderate argument against the supposed nuclear nature.
Assuming there’s no E-Cat or IH-Cat on the horizon, I think LENR research will flourish or founder on whether someone is able to come up with a reproducible experiment that can be examined under different conditions and controls, which will allow identification of the mechanism (whatever it is). So I agree with your sentiment about reproducibility. Whether the current difficult-to-reproduce situation is a contraindication of a nuclear mechanism is more debatable.
Online
Alan Smith
Administrator
12,941
Jun 27th 2017
#127
kirkshanahan
I think you might find this paper of interest. One (at least) of the authors is a member of this forum - and occasional visitor.
Oscillatory Behaviour and Anomalous Heat Evolution in Recombination of H2 and O2 on Pd-based Catalysts
Gas flow-through microcalorimetry has been applied to study the Pd/Al2O3 type catalysts in the exothermic hydrogen recombination process: H2 + O2 → H2O, in view of the potential application in the passive autocatalytic recombination (PAR) technology. The flow mode experiments revealed thermokinetic oscillations, i.e., the oscillatory rate of heat evolution accompanying the process and the corresponding oscillations in the differential heat of process, in sync with oscillatory conversion of hydrogen. .....
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10…b00686?journalCode=iecred
Ahlfors
Verified User
1,402
Jun 27th 2017
#128
Alan Smith
MICROSCAL FMC gas flow-through microcalorimeter
Groszek Aleksander Jerzy
https://www.google.com/patents/US3467501
1
Member
846
Jun 27th 2017
#129
Quote from Zephir_AWT
...transferring the reaction running in volume phase (3D) into a reaction running at surface (2D). It’s evident, if we would convert the same reaction to 1D, it would run even faster - and this is just what the palladium does for nuclear reactions.
If we look at the metal lattice, their long lines of atoms could behave like the pistons - especially these ones along boundaries of crystal grains and similar defects. In addition, the energy of collisions along lines of colliding balls has a tendency to multiply - it’s nicely demonstrated for example here. Therefore locally the energy of these attenuated low-dimensional collisions can reach the levels required for fusion.
Yes, that demonstration of how one particle in a simple momentum transfer generates 800% more energy than “ordinary chemical energy of collisions” is a good demonstration of 1D effects. I also like how she brought it around to Supernovas, which in recent discussions there is a push for the existence of Bosenovas in LENR.
In 1D, atoms become liquid at much higher temperature, as demonstrated in Luttinger Liquids. And one dimensional BECs could be forming at these much higher temperatures.
All of this I have discussed in my hypothesis of the V1DLLBEC — Vibrating 1 Dimensional Luttinger Liquid Bose Einstein Condensate.
https://www.google.com/search?…0i20k1j0i10k1._r8h9sC94Xs
Ahlfors
Verified User
1,402
Jun 27th 2017
#130
http://www.sciencedirect.com/s…icle/pii/0021951780900032
Member
846
Jun 27th 2017
#131
Quote from kirkshanahan
Let’s go through this once more,
Some of the best scientists looked at your hypothesis and determined it is wrong. Eric Walker said that you should generate some empirical data to back up your claim. The hypothetical case you bring up is that instead of multiplying by 3 and adding 0.7 it appears the empirical case is more like multiplying by 3.1 and adding 0.66. Would you be shouting so loudly if that were the case? (I know, no one ever addresses a hypothetical. Just consider it to be one of the many unanswered questions you leave on the table, right alongside the other researchers’ unanswered questions.)
Member
846
Jun 27th 2017
#132
Quote from THHuxleynew
The many excess heat experiments are empirical evidence of something anomalous.
How many? This thread was started with 153 peer reviewed excess heat replications. Jed said later on that there were 180 labs with results. Where does an ordinary scientist begin his inquiry, with those “first 100 or so replications done by a who’s who of electrochemistry”? Or is it with essentially zero replications as proposed by the hyperskeptics?
Online
Alan Smith
Administrator
12,941
Jun 28th 2017
#134
I have no argument with your definition of catalysis, Mary. Depending in its ‘rate constant’ a catalyst can increase the rate of a reaction from almost zero to ‘considerable’. Under certain circumstances this can mean making a reaction ‘not normally considered possible’ in that the rate is so slow that detection reaction products is very difficult or in some systems impossible, into one that is ‘moderate to vigorous’. I agree with you btw, you are no chemist.
THHuxleynew
Verified User
4,707
Jun 28th 2017
#135
Quote from Alan Smith
I have no argument with your definition of catalysis, Mary. Depending in its ‘rate constant’ a catalyst can increase the rate of a reaction from almost zero to ‘considerable’. Under certain circumstances this can mean making a reaction ‘not normally considered possible’ in that the rate is so slow that detection reaction products is very difficult or in some systems impossible, into one that is ‘moderate to vigorous’. I agree with you btw, you are no chemist.
Chemical catalysis is well understood, and the reasons for it - adjacent atoms will skew quantum orbitals and can make electron transitions otherwise unlikely likely.
Nuclear catalysis from some chemical structure) is unexpected because the things specific to a chemical structure - electron orbitals etc - are way different in length scale from what is needed to affect nuclear forces and therefore not likely to have a large affect on nuclear reaction rates (though electric fields do have some affect, for obvious reasons, especially very strong ones). But going from stable, to noticeable fusion reaction, is a good deal more than just some effect.
Eric Walker
Verified User
3,426
Jun 28th 2017
#136
Quote from THHuxleynew
But going from stable, to noticeable fusion reaction, is a good deal more than just some effect.
I think this is one of several reasons that it is critically important to disentangle claims of fusion from LENR empirical reports. The latter are measurements that are reported, and the former are high-level conclusions derived from those measurements on the basis of often contradictory evidence.
Member
846
Jul 26th 2017
#138
Over on a different thread, Jed says that the LENR effect has been replicated 17,000 times.
Clearance Items
The Real Roger Barker wrote:
So tell me Jed, why were they not able to validate the Pons Fleichmann effect on a regular basis?
Jed Rothwell: They did validate Fleischmann Pons on a regular basis. Roughly 17,000 times according to a grad student at the Institute of High Energy Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, at 180 labs according to Ed Storms. (Not me. I didn’t count ‘em.)
They are not replicating on a regular basis now because they are dead. Of old age.
The Real Roger Barker wrote:
17,000 times?! That would mean we should all be powering our homes with palladium based fusion reactors in our basements. We know this is not happening so someone got something wrong here.
Jed Rothwell: You misunderstand. That is a tally of positive experimental runs. Those were mainly small devices. In some cases, they were run 100 at a time, in a 10 x 10 array, or 16 at a time. None of those devices is working at the moment as far as I know. Most were consumed in destructive testing.
ADD: Plus, as I recall from the paper, the tally included multiple test runs for the same device (same cathode) in some cases.
The paper is: He, J., Nuclear fusion inside condense matters. Front. Phys. China, 2007. 1: p. 96-102., Table 1. That’s HE Jing-tang, Institute of High Energy Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, but I think a grad student compiled the table. I did not study it carefully but it looks like it is in the ballpark.
JedRothwell
Verified User
10,094
Jul 27th 2017
#140
Quote from kevmolenr@gmail.com
How many? This thread was started with 153 peer reviewed excess heat replications. Jed said later on that there were 180 labs with results. Where does an ordinary scientist begin his inquiry, with those “first 100 or so replications done by a who’s who of electrochemistry”? Or is it with essentially zero replications as proposed by the hyperskeptics?
Do not mix up apples and oranges. These are different tallies of different things.
Storms listed 180 labs in Table 2 of his first book. That is the number of labs that replicated excess heat. The number that replicated tritium and other effects are listed in other tables. Some labs replicated both heat and tritium. There were actually more than 180 labs, but Storms did not include them all in his database. 180 is enough to be sure, in any case. Five would be enough, in my opinion.
The number of experimental runs greatly exceeds the number of labs, because some labs run hundreds or thousands of tests, typically in an array.
Not all of these labs published papers in peer-reviewed journals. On the other hand, some published more than one paper. I list most of the peer-reviewed papers that are mainly about heat here:
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJtallyofcol.pdf
This is a tally by D. Britz, not me.
Regarding the “essentially zero replications as proposed by the hyperskeptics” that has no basis in realty. Anyone can go to an academic library at a university and find hundreds of papers describing replications of cold fusion. If you want to argue that every single one of these replications was a mistake, you are arguing that the experimental method of science does not work. If that were true, we humans would still be living in caves. Some number of experiments are likely to be wrong, because people make mistakes. But people do not always make mistakes, day after day, year after year. Nothing would work if they did. When you get enough positive replications, done by a large number of people, the likelihood that every one of them is wrong is roughly comparable to the likelihood that today 1,000 electrochemists will simultaneously lose control of their cars and crash into telephone poles.
THHuxleynew
Verified User
4,707
Jul 27th 2017
#142
Quote from JedRothwell
Do not mix up apples and oranges. These are different tallies of different things.
Storms listed 180 labs in Table 2 of his first book. That is the number of labs that replicated excess heat. The number that replicated tritium and other effects are listed in other tables. Some labs replicated both heat and tritium. There were actually more than 180 labs, but Storms did not include them all in his database. 180 is enough to be sure, in any case. Five would be enough, in my opinion.
The number of experimental runs greatly exceeds the number of labs, because some labs run hundreds or thousands of tests, typically in an array.
Not all of these labs published papers in peer-reviewed journals. On the other hand, some published more than one paper. I list most of the peer-reviewed papers that are mainly about heat here:
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJtallyofcol.pdf
This is a tally by D. Britz, not me.
Regarding the “essentially zero replications as proposed by the hyperskeptics” that has no basis in realty. Anyone can go to an academic library at a university and find hundreds of papers describing replications of cold fusion. If you want to argue that every single one of these replications was a mistake, you are arguing that the experimental method of science does not work. If that were true, we humans would still be living in caves. Some number of experiments are likely to be wrong, because people make mistakes. But people do not always make mistakes, day after day, year after year. Nothing would work if they did. When you get enough positive replications, done by a large number of people, the likelihood that every one of them is wrong is roughly comparable to the likelihood that today 1,000 electrochemists will simultaneously lose control of their cars and crash into telephone poles.
Display Less
So for these multiply replicated results the issue is not are they replicable but what do the results tell us?
We have anomalous FPHE, always a small percentage of calibration constants, with CCS/ATER or some other calorimetry-related artifact on the table. For a novel heat source to be more plausible here, the issue is why we never get replicable larger results.
For the film results the issue is various experimental lacunae that can lead to them from other causes. We know they are sensitive to that.
For the tritium results these are all at level comparable with atmospheric He and therefore a complex analysis must be done to determine cause which takes into account all data and experiment selection mechanisms (e.g. how are leaks detected and dealt with in the data analysis).
Each separate set of results has different issues, and in all cases the issues are difficult because the data is marginal. This is unexpected given cold fusion, because the sensitivity of different methods of detection would be expected to be very different. For example, for radiation not to be much more sensitive than heat or tritium detection we need the LENR mechanism to alter reaction pathways from normal to ones that very largely favour stable results and non-gamma-producing reaction paths.
None of that is impossible, because LENR is not understood, nor are hypotheses coherent with other data, and therefore mechanisms can be hypothesised that fit whatever LENR experimental data exists.
But, it means that these replications do not constitute, for the wider scientific community, strong evidence of LENR.
JedRothwell
Verified User
10,094
Jul 27th 2017
#146
Quote from maryyugo
The arguments are that the experiments are “noisy” and the signal is not significantly stronger than the noise and that in almost three (1989-2017) decades, this has not significantly improved.
There are two things wrong with that.
First, it isn’t a bit true. Results from 100 W with no input power are much stronger than, say, 50 mW excess with 4 W of input.
Second, even if it were true, it is not a valid metric for judging an experimental result. Many scientific discoveries remained difficult to reproduce or measure for decades, yet no one denied they are real.
JedRothwell
Verified User
10,094
Jul 27th 2017
#148
Quote from kirkshanahan
The tally developed by Britz was based on what was claimed in the paper he was summarizing, and does not imply any actual validity to the claim.
Actually it was biased against the claims. As I point out in my analysis, several authors stated clearly that their results were positive, but Britz put them down as negative. Despite that, I reported his totals.
But — as always — you are missing the point. If hundreds of researchers could make thousands of mistakes over 20 years, doing what they were trained to do in their own specialty, then science would not work. No experiment would be meaningful. I am not exaggerating when I say that civilization itself would not exist.
Of course individuals can be wrong. Or they can be crackpots, like you, who imagine they know more about this subject than people like Fleischmann and Bockris, or Faraday, for that matter. You are a legend in your own mind. Alas, your claims cannot be tested or falsified, and you have not addressed any of the reasons given by the experts in the Marwan paper showing that you are wrong. But, such considerations never faze a crackpot!
I suggest you write papers showing errors in Einstein’s theories. That is the usual target of deluded crackpots like you.
1
JedRothwell
Verified User
10,094
Jul 27th 2017
#149
Quote from THHuxleynew
For the tritium results these are all at level comparable with atmospheric He and therefore a complex analysis must be done to determine cause which takes into account all data and experiment selection mechanisms (e.g. how are leaks detected and dealt with in the data analysis).
This must be a mistake. Tritium results have nothing to do with atmospheric helium. In any case:
Tritium typically ranges from 50 times background to 10E14 times background.
Helium is sometimes lower than atmospheric background. So low, in fact, that it cannot be from a leak or it would be random. In other cases it is higher, for two reasons. Either because it was produced at high rates and it climbed above background, or because the cell was initially filled with enough helium to make it higher than atmospheric background.
There is no selection bias in most studies. All of the results, including negative ones, are listed in the reports. Especially F. Will’s tritium studies, where they went to a lot of trouble running many deliberate blanks.
JedRothwell
Verified User
10,094
Jul 27th 2017
#153
Quote from kirkshanahan
If you will cite a reference that I can look at, I’ll let you know why this is likely wrong.
Give me a break. You know damn well what I am talking about. I am not going to keep giving you and Yugo the same information time after time, just to have you ignore it.
Hint: see my video and accompanying documentation. Look for it yourself.
Member
846
Jul 27th 2017
#155
Quote from kirkshanahan
The easiest way to clarify the discussion is to start talking about ‘control’ instead of ‘replication’.
You have your own thread to discuss your own ridiculous theory. The easiest way to clarify the discussion is to keep you on your thread and let real scientific discussions move apace here. That is one of the stated functions of moderators on this panel. I hope to see them doing what they say they do, because you have already derailed this thread once.
JedRothwell
Verified User
10,094
Jul 27th 2017
#156
Quote from maryyugo
Want to point me to that link again please?
Why the hell should I tell you the same thing again and again and again? You will never read it.
As I said, see the video.
Member
846
Jul 27th 2017
#157
Quote from kirkshanahan
I don’t think I’ll buy it.
You sure have a lot to say about a paper you didn’t read.
Notably missing from this 2007 paper is any mention of my work (from 2002, 2005, 2006).
And rightfully so, because your work has been discredited in the field. You have your own thread for pushing your discredited theory, you should stay on that thread.
Member
846
Jul 27th 2017
#158
Quote from THHuxleynew
None of that is impossible, because LENR is not understood, nor are hypotheses coherent with other data, and therefore mechanisms can be hypothesised that fit whatever LENR experimental data exists.
But, it means that these replications do not constitute, for the wider scientific community, strong evidence of LENR.
This is nonsense. The best example is High Temperature Superconductivity. We still don’t have a valid accepted theory as to why it takes place but the empirical results are accepted.
There was no entrenched self-interested group of scientists in place when HTS results started to be generated, which was right around the time LENR results started to be generated. But there was an entrenched self-interested group of Hot-Fusion scientists in place who knew that LENR would knock them off their pedestal so they rallied against it, often unethically. This POLITICAL activity knocked out the funding for LENR research and it has all but dried up.
Member
846
Jul 27th 2017
#160
Quote from interested observer
There is a strange usage of the term “replication” around here. ....
Jed’s constant refrain that it would take a boatload of money and two years for even the surviving masters of the field to produce results suggests that people cannot even replicate their own work, much less anyone else’s.
I suppose you don’t even see the irony in your own remarks. Scientists do not replicate their own work, so yeah, there really is a strange usage of the term “replication” around here. So if an effect has been replicated 153 times in peer reviewed journals (many of whom were the top scientists in the field of electrochemistry) , is that not enough for you?
Member
846
Jul 27th 2017
#162
Quote from kirkshanahan
Note that this is prior to my CCS publication, so this paper will NOT consider the CCS at all.....
Show me where I’m wrong here folks….
I’ll show you. Your ridiculous discredited theory has its own thread on this forum, so you should be posting your refrains on that thread rather than deliberately derailing this thread.
interested observer
Member
2,435
Jul 27th 2017
#163
@kevetc. So what exactly do you mean when you say that the effect has been replicated 153 times. Try to contain your spittle and answer calmly, if you are capable of such behavior.
1
Member
846
Jul 27th 2017
#164
Quote from interested observer
Apparently there are three options regarding LENR literature:
1) If you don’t read it,
You mean, like Shanahan said about JT He’s paper?
2) If you read it and criticize it, you are a crackpot.
You neglect the case, like Shanahan, where he didn’t read it but still criticizes it.
Display Less
Member
846
Jul 27th 2017
#165
Quote from interested observer
@kevetc. So what exactly do you mean when you say that the effect has been replicated 153 times. Try to contain your spittle and answer calmly, if you are capable of such behavior.
Read the thread and in particular, the Tally paper that Jed and I both linked to. If someone comments on a thread without reading it, is that worthy of spittle? You tell me.
Member
846
Jul 27th 2017
#172
Quote from maryyugo
It’s not that the *effect* has to be replicated (by 153 different methods). It’s that an exact experiment has to be replicated including materials and methods and error analysis (thanks, KS). And it helps to pick the very best yielding experiment as your choice of what to duplicate/replicate. That’s why I am after Jed to provide the one or a few BEST tests, not hundreds or thousands which non-enthusiasts have not the time to review.
Seems like standard MY obfuscations that Jed has called you out on. When a bunch of data is presented to you that refutes your position, you say “too much to read”. And when it gets pared down you act as if it’s not surrounded by all the other data.
The PREPONDERANCE of the evidence of >150 replications is strong. You may be familiar with calorimeters but you are nowhere near the top of the elctrochemistry field as these scientists were. I think you hide behind such things.
Member
846
Jul 27th 2017
#173
Quote from kirkshanahan
That’s not a technical basis, that’s a personal basis. Please define your technical basis.
You have your own “technical basis” thread where such discussions should take place. Have those discussions over there. Your goal here is to once again derail this thread.
interested observer
Member
2,435
Jul 27th 2017
#174
Kev: no, none of this is worthy of spittle, at least among sensible people. If you can’t answer a simple question without ranting about what I have read or not read, then it is a YOU problem, not a ME problem. I thought my question was quite simple.
I have repeatedly stated that I am pretty open-minded about LENR in general, but every single one of you guys who champion it act like lawyers who drown their opponents in useless paper in an effort to avoid getting to the meat of the matter. I kind of wonder why you guys argue with skeptics at all. Clearly, you aren’t actually trying to convince us of anything. Your purpose seems to be just to vent about other people not seeing the world the way you do. Well, it’s a (relatively) free blog. So knock yourself out.
2
THHuxleynew
Verified User
4,707
Jul 27th 2017
#176
Quote from JedRothwell
This must be a mistake. Tritium results have nothing to do with atmospheric helium. In any case:
Yes, I’m sorry, I meant the He results.
I have not looked much at the tritium results.
Member
846
Jul 27th 2017
#177
Quote from interested observer
Kev: no, none of this is worthy of spittle, at least among sensible people.
So, commenting on a thread when you haven’t read the thread isn’t worthy of spittle. Sensible people READ THE THREAD. I see you don’t count yourself among sensible people.
If you can’t answer a simple question without ranting about what I have read or not read, then it is a YOU problem, not a ME problem. I thought my question was quite simple.
Read the posts right near your posts, and all around it. Understand the context. You are commenting on a thread without reading it, right in between a crackpot and a notorious skeptopath.
I have repeatedly stated that I am pretty open-minded about LENR in general, but every single one of you guys who champion it act like lawyers who drown their opponents in useless paper in an effort to avoid getting to the meat of the matter.
153 replications IS VERY MUCH the meat of the matter. And so is 14,700 experiments which means that these replications were done multiple times. But to your point, there is a greek word that we get the word “apologetics” from. It comes from “apo” which means “away” and “logos” which is “word”. It is “a word away from” which in greek times meant a word away from critics, who would drown out what people had to say in the public square. When it was determined that the person had something worth hearing, they would conduct a trial so the guy could give his “apology”, his “word away from” the critics. So what you have just done is to criticize the structure and format of this forum, trying to blame us for not having a “word away from”.
I kind of wonder why you guys argue with skeptics at all. Clearly, you aren’t actually trying to convince us of anything.
There is a certain healthy skepticism and then there is hyperskpeticism. I don’t try to convince hyperskeptics of anything. But 153 replications by the leading electrochemists of the day is something that a regular skeptic kinda acknowledges as compelling, while the skeptopaths engage in the behavior that you are obliquely criticizing.
Your purpose seems to be just to vent about other people not seeing the world the way you do. Well, it’s a (relatively) free blog. So knock yourself out.
That is not my purpose. In starting this thread my purpose is to get to the starting point for a healthy skeptic (not for a skeptopath or a crackpot, though). That starting point is >150 replications, >14,000 experiments, >180 labs, and perhaps some other compelling evidence. But LENR is a very difficult field, just ask the MFMP guys.
Display Less
Member
846
Jul 27th 2017
#178
Quote from kirkshanahan
So post your response over there if it’s so important to you. What is your technical basis for claiming my ‘theory’ is discredited?
Post your responses over there if they’re important to you. That is your “technical basis” thread, set up by the moderators, just for you.