Merged Cold Fusion Claims

[ben m]

You are speculating again, Ben.

So are you. Your particular speculation is: You speculate that previously-undiscovered laws of physics include a Ni-H reaction that produces heat. You speculate that this random Italian engineer has discovered this as he claims. You speculate that he has investors. You speculate that the investors have seen the device and tested it. You speculate that the public demo produced 10kW worth of dry steam, although no one actually measured the steam. You speculate that the demo did not draw 10 kW of electrical power, although it was plugged into the wall socket the whole time. You speculate that he's produced a working 1MW device and has yet to unveil it. You speculate that Rossi has mysterious reasons, related vaguely to the investors, for the errors in his public demos. That's all speculation.

You see, Pteridine, I believe that my speculations actually make sense, and that they perfectly follow the behavior of a free-energy fraudster like Keely, Bearden, Papp, etc., and they don't invoke an extraordinary new law of physics.

I believe that your speculations are inconsistent with Rossi's behavior, and they do invoke new physics.

 

[Dancing David]

pteridine,
And the evidence of LENR is?

 

[BenBurch]

If Rossi or anybody else could make LENR work, we wouldn't have been having this discussion for the last two years.

We'd be too busy enjoying the prosperity that infinite energy would mean.

 

[catsmate]

If Rossi or anybody else could make LENR work, we wouldn't have been having this discussion for the last two years.

We'd be too busy enjoying the prosperity that infinite energy would mean.

Or watching the world collapse around us.

 

[pteridine]

So are you. Your particular speculation is: You speculate that previously-undiscovered laws of physics include a Ni-H reaction that produces heat. You speculate that this random Italian engineer has discovered this as he claims. You speculate that he has investors. You speculate that the investors have seen the device and tested it. You speculate that the public demo produced 10kW worth of dry steam, although no one actually measured the steam. You speculate that the demo did not draw 10 kW of electrical power, although it was plugged into the wall socket the whole time. You speculate that he's produced a working 1MW device and has yet to unveil it. You speculate that Rossi has mysterious reasons, related vaguely to the investors, for the errors in his public demos. That's all speculation.

You see, Pteridine, I believe that my speculations actually make sense, and that they perfectly follow the behavior of a free-energy fraudster like Keely, Bearden, Papp, etc., and they don't invoke an extraordinary new law of physics.

I believe that your speculations are inconsistent with Rossi's behavior, and they do invoke new physics.

How do I speculate about new laws of physics, Ben? A new phenomenon could be consistent with the laws of physics. I would think that would be most probable. Maybe you are confusing a process or a theory with a law, but I am willing to hear what laws of physics you think would be violated should the LENR phenomenon turn out to be real. As we don't know what might be happening the laws of physics are probably safe from your analysis for another day. If you wish, you can probably show what processes can't be happening based on the laws of physics.

Because there have been many reports of LENR, over time, it would seem that something unusual is occurring and should be investigated. Not everyone who claims something you can't personally explain is a "fraudster." Some people have what is called 'scientific curiousity' and like to do experiments. That is why there are more known elements than earth, air, fire, and water and why we don't have to consider Phlogiston in our calculations.

My position all along has been that the experiment must be done. Rossi is the latest to claim LENR evidence and has pushed himself to the fore. I thought that if anyone would validate the effect it would be Rossi but he has not yet done so. This is disappointing but the fact that Rossi is focused on his potential investors and doesn't care about JREF forum posters shouldn't come as a big surprise to anyone...except maybe those with an unrealistic sense of their importance.

Of course you believe your speculations make sense or you wouldn't have made them. I await to be enlightened on possible violations of the laws of physics.

 

[ben m]

How do I speculate about new laws of physics, Ben?

Pteridine, I said this earlier. The known laws of physics provide a very clear prediction for what H does while absorbed in Ni, or Pd, or anything else. These laws predict where H/D sit in the lattice, they predict how far they move from lattice sites, and they predict how much nuclear-wavefunction-overlap (and therefore how much fusion) results from that motion.

When you claim that a well-established body of theory is making a wrong prediction, that's the same thing as claiming that the theory is wrong.

What side of the theory is wrong? Whatever you want. You can make quantum theory wrong, and let the the nickel wavefunction have some weird long-distance tails. You can make thermodynamics wrong, and make large-amplitude energy flucutations anomalously common. You can make solid-state physics wrong, and invent some sort of wacky new 50+ keV phonon. You can make energy conservation wrong. (Each of these things ought to have some experimental consequence other than cold fusion.)

Because there have been many reports of LENR

There have also been many reports that the HeNe laser wavelength is 610-620nm. These reports have one thing in common: they were performed by undergrads in my lab class, and they were riddled with experimental errors. If I want to know the wavelength of a HeNe, I don't average together fifteen poor experiments, I look for one really good experiment.

Not everyone who claims something you can't personally explain is a "fraudster."

Never said they were. I said Rossi seems to be a fraudster. Pons, Fleischman, Mosier-Boss, etc., seem to have made honest mistakes.

My position all along has been that the experiment must be done.

It was. Over the past 25 years. The result was "no effect".

 

[RobDegraves]

Because there have been many reports of LENR, over time, it would seem that something unusual is occurring and should be investigated. Not everyone who claims something you can't personally explain is a "fraudster."

There have been many reports of ghosts. Not everyone who claims they saw ghosts is a fraudster right?


There are many reports of the Bush family being lizards. Not everyone who claims that is a fraudster right?


Or.. maybe they are.

 

[Dancing David]

Because there have been many reports of LENR, over time, it would seem that something unusual is occurring and should be investigated.

And those reports that have been replicated are?

 

[pteridine]

Pteridine, I said this earlier. The known laws of physics provide a very clear prediction for what H does while absorbed in Ni, or Pd, or anything else. These laws predict where H/D sit in the lattice, they predict how far they move from lattice sites, and they predict how much nuclear-wavefunction-overlap (and therefore how much fusion) results from that motion.

When you claim that a well-established body of theory is making a wrong prediction, that's the same thing as claiming that the theory is wrong.

What side of the theory is wrong? Whatever you want. You can make quantum theory wrong, and let the the nickel wavefunction have some weird long-distance tails. You can make thermodynamics wrong, and make large-amplitude energy flucutations anomalously common. You can make solid-state physics wrong, and invent some sort of wacky new 50+ keV phonon. You can make energy conservation wrong. (Each of these things ought to have some experimental consequence other than cold fusion.)



There have also been many reports that the HeNe laser wavelength is 610-620nm. These reports have one thing in common: they were performed by undergrads in my lab class, and they were riddled with experimental errors. If I want to know the wavelength of a HeNe, I don't average together fifteen poor experiments, I look for one really good experiment.



Never said they were. I said Rossi seems to be a fraudster. Pons, Fleischman, Mosier-Boss, etc., seem to have made honest mistakes.



It was. Over the past 25 years. The result was "no effect".

Well, Ben, you are correct when ideal systems are modeled. Did you use VASP or Gaussian, or did you calculate it by hand? What were the conditions modeled in the systems? What was the composition of the Ni alloy? What were the temperature and pressure ranges? Can you say that you know what happens to the proton electron pair in electromagnetic fields of varying strengths and frequencies, say in micropores or at grain boundaries? I’ll bet those models have a tough time with intermetallic inclusions, too. How about when the magnetic and electric fields are separated and applied individually or additional fields and potentials are applied? My bet is that the modelers didn’t even begin to cover all the possibilities and as they move up the periodic table, relativistic effects complicate things even more. I don’t know much about any of this but I’d suggest that maybe the laws of physics aren’t in immediate danger after all.

My position is that models are fine but experiments are needed.

 

[ben m]

Well, Ben, you are correct when ideal systems are modeled. Did you use VASP or Gaussian, or did you calculate it by hand? What were the conditions modeled in the systems? What was the composition of the Ni alloy? I’ll bet those models have a tough time with intermetallic inclusions, too. How about when the magnetic and electric fields are separated and applied individually or additional fields and potentials are applied?

Do you have any idea what you're talking about?

VASP is pretty common around here. It works fine for the godawful heterostructures, ferroelectric materials, etc., that they use it for---what makes you think it doesn't work for hydrogen?

Which of these things you mention generates an error of fifty orders of magnitude in a fusion-rate calculation, while getting work functions, B fields, NMR observables, piezoelectricity, ferromagnetism, ferroelectricity, etc., etc., etc., correct to good precision?

(ETA: and, I want to reemphasize, yes of course it's possible for new experiments to discover new laws of physics. Even dramatic ones. Show me a competent experiment and I'll take it seriously. Handwave about a hypothetical future experiment and I won't.)

My position is that models are fine but experiments are needed.

... as long as they're not the experiments that don't show cold fusion, then they should be handwaved away, right?

 

[pteridine]

Do you have any idea what you're talking about?

VASP is pretty common around here. It works fine for the godawful heterostructures, ferroelectric materials, etc., that they use it for---what makes you think it doesn't work for hydrogen?

Which of these things you mention generates an error of fifty orders of magnitude in a fusion-rate calculation, while getting work functions, B fields, NMR observables, piezoelectricity, ferromagnetism, ferroelectricity, etc., etc., etc., correct to good precision?



... as long as they're not the experiments that don't show cold fusion, then they should be handwaved away, right?

Of course it works for hydrogen. Usually it is a model of hydrogen and something else. The size of the ensemble is limited, but it works. If things get complicated, it is difficult to model systems completely and many more processors are needed. No, I don't have any idea about this complicated stuff. I was hoping you would explain the limits of what was modeled so I would know. It would be fairly clean metals for hydrogen diffusion or it would be various crystal planes showing surface chemistry. No LENR happens under those conditions so it would be a surprise if the models said it did.

It is possible to run lab experiments in the range claimed to provide the LENR effects. Alloys, coatings, and promoters are all in play. It should be possible to experimentally separate the electric and magnetic fields of certain EM and look at the effects separately. Because bulk conditions and local conditions can be entirely different, the structure of the matrix will have to be known in detail. I just wondered how much was modeled. I'd bet there is a lot of modeling to be done to cover all the possibilities, isn't there?

The point I am making is that the modelers may have looked at hydrogen distribution and diffusion in metals but haven't covered everything. Usually they like the Platinum triads and other transition metals. Rossi could have stumbled across the winning combination of alloy, promoter, temperature, pressure, and electromagnetic field etc., and I am waiting for the experiment before I call him a fraud.

Computational methods are nice and can do a great deal, but this needs a real experiment so the modelers know what system to model. It really saves time and CPU hours if you know what elements to start with.

I hate to be picky, but on several occasions I suggested that your assumption that fusion was involved was premature but you keep talking about it. When you talk about "a fusion-rate calculation" it seems as though you are assuming that fusion is occurring and we haven't determined that yet or even if anything is occurring. I'll assume that it was a test to see if I am tweaking you and that you are a disinterested scientist and not assuming fusion is involved.
It is true that there are a lot of experiments that don't show LENR. Many others don't show first order kinetics. It is possible to list bunches of things that a given experiment doesn't show.

 

[pteridine]

pteridine

Why so unpleasant? Posting questions about Rossi's credentials is not the same as thinking that one has unique insights into the Meaning of Life, or is a Martyr to Truth. Why do you write such things? A moment's reflection would convince you that you risk seeming merely ridiculous to your readers.

I missed this in the posts and should answer you. I am not being any more unpleasant than anyone else. Read some of the responses to my posts. David usually fires off two or three short one-liners. There is some posturing that is humorous and some that is obnoxious. I will try to be less unpleasant and will expect the same.

As to the insights and martyrdom, that was in response to a few posts. The insight remarks were for the repetitous comments about the failings of the public/private demonstrations as though no one else had noticed their shortcomings. Many people know this and there is no need to keep attacking.

The martyrdom comment was in response to BenM with his statement "But no, according to Pteridine, I'm not allowed to think about that. I'm supposed to sit here and believe everything Rossi says, because that's the only source of information, and therefore it is presumed true until proven false." I never said any of that but Ben thought I did and felt put upon. I am painted as the villain demanding that he believe what Rossi says and hapless Ben is forced to sit in time-out and not think bad thoughts. He is now back on track thinking bad thoughts and providing a good discussion.
I keep stating my position and told Ben that there is no need for resolution [neither of us will change our positions] and that I intended to wait for the experiment. While Ben is quite knowledgeable he is of the opinion that this can't be and I say it could be. As you have seen we continue to disagree. I expect that most side with Ben because of his superior knowledge of physics and I can understand that they want to be on a "winning side."

 

[Acleron]

...
I expect that most side with Ben because of his superior knowledge of physics and I can understand that they want to be on a "winning side."

Well. you are wrong about this. There is no winning side, there is no competition. Your contention is just a poor insult.

Science has worked very well by testing hypotheses. There may be a better method of progressing but no-one has found it.

Rossi has an hypothesis that he can get energy from somewhere. If he doesn't want to disclose the method, then fine, but it is up to him to provide evidence of this quite extraordinary claim. He has had the opportunity but he declined to provide the evidence. He has a history of fraud one can conclude that this is has a high probability of being a fraud.

All this can be worked out with a very simple knowledge of physics, Ben provides detailed high level explanations of why this is all so improbable.

 

[Dancing David]

My position is that models are fine but experiments are needed.

And that is great, however:

Which ones show LENR?

 

[BenBurch]

And that is great, however:

Which ones show LENR?

In particular, I knew a guy who spent years trying to replicate about a dozen different CNF results and who got nothing at all. He was uber-careful with controls, measurement, and logging, and I think that is why he had no results; None were to be had once you controlled the experiment correctly and removed sources of error.

I have a background in calorimetry, and it is EASY to do it BADLY.

 

[ben m]

The martyrdom comment was in response to BenM with his statement "But no, according to Pteridine, I'm not allowed to think about that. I'm supposed to sit here and believe everything Rossi says, because that's the only source of information, and therefore it is presumed true until proven false."

Here's where I get that statement. Crudely paraphrased, this is what I heard:

me: "I've read a lot of cold-fusion papers and my scientific judgement of this dataset is that it does NOT show a power source, just experimental error."

you: "But Rossi has a 1MW machine secretly-tested and sold to secret customers!"

me: "He says that, but his 10kW machine was publicly mis-tested and I think he's lying about the 1MW."

you: "How dare you pass judgment! That's unscientific! Wait for Rossi's upcoming papers! etc."

In 2009, the cold fusion situation was "after 22 years of research I don't see evidence of a real effect." In 2012, the cold fusion situation is "after 25 years I don't see evidence of a real effect ... plus there's some shady entrepreneur talking big but not producing anything". Scientifically speaking, that's the same as the 2009 situation. I think you are being unreasonable for insisting that I treat Rossi's nonexistent secret evidence as though it were on par with the previous 25 years.

I have the right to read the 25-year-collection of (real, published, non-secret) cold fusion papers, and apply scientific and/or critical thinking skills to it. But you're telling me not to---you're telling me that Rossi's take-my-word-for-it report should shut me down and put me in a "wait for evidence" holding pattern. Possibly forever. Therefore, I criticized you for applying too much weight---really, "stop the presses, hold everything until this is resolved" weight---to statements made by Rossi on his blog.

ETA: Of course, scientists are always in a wait-for-evidence mode, but that doesn't stop us from thinking about the evidence we already have. I might wake up tomorrow and find "neutrinos faster than light", "special relativity doesn't apply to tungsten carbide", and/or "Ni-H systems undergo room temperature fusion" on the cover of Nature. That doesn't mean I have to apologize for assuming, today, that tungsten carbide obeys SR.

 

[pteridine]

Here's where I get that statement. Crudely paraphrased, this is what I heard:

me: "I've read a lot of cold-fusion papers and my scientific judgement of this dataset is that it does NOT show a power source, just experimental error."

you: "But Rossi has a 1MW machine secretly-tested and sold to secret customers!"

me: "He says that, but his 10kW machine was publicly mis-tested and I think he's lying about the 1MW."

you: "How dare you pass judgment! That's unscientific! Wait for Rossi's upcoming papers! etc."

In 2009, the cold fusion situation was "after 22 years of research I don't see evidence of a real effect." In 2012, the cold fusion situation is "after 25 years I don't see evidence of a real effect ... plus there's some shady entrepreneur talking big but not producing anything". Scientifically speaking, that's the same as the 2009 situation. I think you are being unreasonable for insisting that I treat Rossi's nonexistent secret evidence as though it were on par with the previous 25 years.

I have the right to read the 25-year-collection of (real, published, non-secret) cold fusion papers, and apply scientific and/or critical thinking skills to it. But you're telling me not to---you're telling me that Rossi's take-my-word-for-it report should shut me down and put me in a "wait for evidence" holding pattern. Possibly forever. Therefore, I criticized you for applying too much weight---really, "stop the presses, hold everything until this is resolved" weight---to statements made by Rossi on his blog.

ETA: Of course, scientists are always in a wait-for-evidence mode, but that doesn't stop us from thinking about the evidence we already have. I might wake up tomorrow and find "neutrinos faster than light", "special relativity doesn't apply to tungsten carbide", and/or "Ni-H systems undergo room temperature fusion" on the cover of Nature. That doesn't mean I have to apologize for assuming, today, that tungsten carbide obeys SR.

Ok. How about this version?

Ben: "I've read a lot of cold-fusion papers and my scientific judgement of this dataset is that it does NOT show a power source, just experimental error."

Pteridine: “So you claim every observation was experimental error?”

Ben: "Errors by incompetents; all of it. “Twenty three years and I don’t see evidence of a real effect. If the effect was real it would have been published in Science or Phys Lett B."

Pteridine: “There wasn’t much in the way of funding to investigate it and the topic was verboten. By decree of a few, LENR was ‘bad science.’”

Ben: “I have the right to read the 25-year-collection of (real, published, non-secret) cold fusion papers, and apply scientific and/or critical thinking skills to it.”

Pteridine: “If the right to read isn’t specifically in the Bill of Rights, it should be.”

Ben: “But you're telling me not to---you're telling me that Rossi's take-my-word-for-it report should shut me down and put me in a "wait for evidence" holding pattern.”

Pteridine: “No, I am not telling you to do anything. I understand your position, Ben, and I assume that you understand mine. I cannot explain the actions of Rossi nor do I feel the need to speculate on details of his business of which I have no knowledge.
There is no need for consensus or conflict. I will continue to wait for experimental resolution as a neutral observer.”

 

[TjW]

This is obviously some new usage of the word neutral with which I was previously unfamiliar.

 

[Reality Check]

Pteridine: “So you claim every observation was experimental error?”

ben m is clear when he states that the dataset of observations that he has read do not show a power source, just experimental error.

Pteridine: “There wasn’t much in the way of funding to investigate it and the topic was verboten. By decree of a few, LENR was ‘bad science.’”

There has been plenty of discussion of LENR.
By the judgement of the majority of the scientific community, LENR was bad science to pursue because the likelihood of it being valid was and remains tiny.
The likelihood of LENR being valid was and remains tiny, thus the lack of funding.

Pteridine: “If the right to read isn’t specifically in the Bill of Rights, it should be.”

Any one has the right to read .
What ben m is saying is that anyone (including him, me and you) has the right to read the 25-year-collection of real, published, non-secret cold fusion papers, and apply scientific and/or critical thinking skills to it.
Well really obvious!

Pteridine: “No, I am not telling you to do anything. I understand your position, Ben, and I assume that you understand mine. I cannot explain the actions of Rossi nor do I feel the need to speculate on details of his business of which I have no knowledge.

The first bit that is sensible.
Rossi 's actions are not explainable for a competent scientific researcher. No published results, no experiments (just "demonstrations"), rudimentary instrumentaion, etc.
The details of his business are simple enough - he has been promising to produce power plants for over a year now. He has not. He has been unable to convince anyone to buy his proposed plants.

So the basics are:

• He has produced no scientific evidence for his claims.
• He has produced no commercial proof of his claims.

There is no need for consensus or conflict. I will continue to wait for experimental resolution as a neutral observer.

The problem is that experimental resolution has already been achieved (no credible evidence for LENR) and thus you are not a neutral observer.
You are just clinging only the hope that LENR will be shown to exists and so you are a biased observer (or in a more charitable light - an extremely optimistic observer).

Maybe you are still waiting for the "experimental resolution" of perpetual motion machines .

 

[Roboramma]

Pteridine: “No, I am not telling you to do anything. I understand your position, Ben, and I assume that you understand mine. I cannot explain the actions of Rossi nor do I feel the need to speculate on details of his business of which I have no knowledge.”

Okay, so that leaves us with the 25 years of poorly done experiments. If you can't explain the actions of Rossi and don't feel the need to speculate on the details of his business, then clearly you can't consider him to be evidence that cold fusion works. Which leaves us back where we started: no good evidence for cold fusion.

Seems we should base our estimations of the likelihood that cold fusion works on the actual things that we do know, rather than the ones of which we "have no knowledge".