Merged Cold Fusion Claims

[Aepervius]

Seen on the FreeRepublic forum recently:

The new proverb should read "there is one new scam born every minute".

I have seen in the last 2 years a multiplication of cold fusion scam like rossi's, that include the defecating lion Defkalion.

 

[bruto]

The new proverb should read "there is one new scam born every minute".

I have seen in the last 2 years a multiplication of cold fusion scam like rossi's, that include the defecating lion Defkalion.

There's an old saying over here that it ain't over till the fat lady sings. Perhaps for the Rossi supporters we should change that to "It ain't over till the lion defecates."

 

[ben m]

You then have a free neutron that decays with a half life of 881.5(15) seconds with characteristic products, including some gamma rays.

Actually, unless you take very special care---high-vacuum beamlines, clean reflective surfaces, etc.---it's very rare to see a neutron just decay in the lab. There are simply an overwhelming number of nuclei sitting around waiting to capture them. Neutrons from a laboratory neutron source typically find a place to capture---on H in water and plastic, on Ca in cement, on Fe in steel, etc.---with a sub-millisecond timescale.

 

[Aepervius]

Actually, unless you take very special care---high-vacuum beamlines, clean reflective surfaces, etc.---it's very rare to see a neutron just decay in the lab. There are simply an overwhelming number of nuclei sitting around waiting to capture them. Neutrons from a laboratory neutron source typically find a place to capture---on H in water and plastic, on Ca in cement, on Fe in steel, etc.---with a sub-millisecond timescale.

Still all those cold fusion magic box have millimeter steel plating, and maybe sometimes centimeter worth of AlO or similar rubine ceramic chamber. And pretend to produce kW wise energy thru cold fusion. I can't help but point out that by all means, even at 100 keV gamma, the steel plating would have a half value layer of 2.5 mm and ceramics roughly of the centimeter order of magnitude and so the presented box would be like sieves. Or even the material become so brittle and highly radioactive thru neutron absorption among others. Or naturally a new neutron-less , gamma-less, beta-less emission physic.

 

[Craig B]

... Or naturally a new neutron-less , gamma-less, beta-less emission physic.

These "new physics" theories are frequently invented by cold fusion enthusiasts. Nuclear reactions that produce no observable effects except the emission of heat. Also there are "slow neutrons" and other well-behaved particles that permit CF experimenters to report successes without having to explain why their radioactive remains are not now lying in lead coffins under a metre of concrete.

 

[ben m]

These "new physics" theories are frequently invented by cold fusion enthusiasts. Nuclear reactions that produce no observable effects except the emission of heat.

As though "heat" were some sort of beam that you can emit. "The neutron captured on the nickel nucleus and emitted heat rays, which were absorbed by the solid". I can't even come up with a Star Trek Jargon version of how that is supposed to happen.

(OK, fine, replace "heat rays" with "Omega fluctuations" and you've got the Star Trek version. But, seriously, the heating-without-radiation new physics is *less* plausible in my mind than the "our catalyst magically removed the fusion barrier" new physics.)

 

[pteridine]

If we want to be serious then pteridine needs to realize just how bad his bumps are actually are. What he is actually doing is besmirching any possible legitimate LENR research by associating it with the invalid, non-replicated Fleischmann–Pons experiment and the main subject of this thread - Rossi's probably fraudulent scam:

• "not even an experiment" E-cat Rossi demonstrations that have failed over several years to back up Rossi's claims.
• repeated claims of actual buyers of e-cat systems.
• stupid mechanism behind Rossi's demonstrations.
• quite incompetent "black box" test of one of Rossi's apparatus.

I am glad to see that you allow for "legitimate LENR research." If, as many on this thread confidently assert, LENR is an impossibility, who would do such work and why? They have only to check with the gaggle of nuclear physicists populating this thread to find out that they are wasting their time.
As for my "bumps," I was responding to someone suggesting a bet. Was that suggestion a good bump? How about the strained attempts at humor? Good bumps or bad bumps?
Reference to Nathan Lewis' '20% rule'...Personal Communication, early 1990's.
Lewis tried to replicate the experiments of Fleishmann and Pons, couldn't, and concluded that there was no effect.

 

[Reality Check]

I am glad to see that you allow for "legitimate LENR research."

I allow for all legitimate scientific research.
There have been in the past (and maybe even now) scientists who have run scientific experiments to see if LENR exists. The result from all of this legitimate LENR research is that there is no evidence that LENR exists.

LENR is actually physically impossible according to what we know about physics. But the purpose of research is to check that what we know is correct.

So you are right - any existing LENR research is a waste of time. But there are plenty of stubborn people in the world willing to waste their time looking for any signs of LENR.

The stupidity of supporting Rossi and the other cold fusion projects mentioned in this thread is that they are not doing LENR research. They are frauds.

And still no actual citations, pteridine, to back up your insults about egomaniacs !

Some mysterious "Personal Communication, early 1990's" from Nathan Lewis is not a citation.
Repeating that fact that the experiments of Fleishmann and Pons were flawed and not replicable is not a citation.

 

[pteridine]

Some mysterious "Personal Communication, early 1990's" from Nathan Lewis is not a citation.

Usually citations to personal communications have fixed dates and are citations.

I don't remember the date but I do remember the laughable 20% excess requirement as the "Lewis rule."

 

[Reality Check]

Usually citations to personal communications have fixed dates and are citations.

Citations to personal communications that no one else can access are useless. You may as well cite the secret archives of the Vatican !
Citations to personal communications that do not exist anymore are laughable.
Citations to personal communications that only you remember are laughable.

ETA: You may have missed this, pteridine, but this is a science section of the forum. Citations in science are to the scientific literature.

I don't remember the date but I do remember the laughable 20% excess requirement as the "Lewis rule."

The even more useless quoting of your oh so perfect memory !
If you cannot quote the actual criteria then making up the criteria is ridiculous.

It is quite idiotic to call a "20% excess requirement" laughable if you are working from memory. Relying on your memory is actually laughable, pteridine !

However the number seems reasonable (depending on what this "excess requirement" actually was ). He was not asking for 1000% excess heat. He was asking for an excess heat that was well above any experimental error and maybe above anything expected from chemical reactions. He was asking for excess heat as inferred in the Fleischmann and Pons experiments:

In the Fleischmann and Pons experiments, the rate of inferred excess heat generation was in the range of 10–20% of total input, though this could not be reliably replicated by most researchers.[128] Researcher Nathan Lewis discovered that the excess heat in Fleischmann and Pons's original paper was not measured, but estimated from measurements that didn't have any excess heat.[129]

So I guess that you think that the Fleischmann and Pons experiments were laughable, pteridine, in agreement with most other scientists.

 

[nathan]

I don't remember the date but I do remember the laughable 20% excess requirement as the "Lewis rule."

You remember it as 'the lewis rule', but that may well be not what he wrote/said.

I'm guessing Dr Lewis said something like 'if the excess heat's less than 20%, it's probably experimental error', rather than saying 'The Lewis rule is that excess heat of less than 20% is always experimental error'. Now, it's all speculation of course, but I'm making some deductions from the known veracity of the reporter.

And anyway, I thought these LENR guys claim excess heat of way above that, so it doesn't sound like a very high hurdle. (Rossi's certainly claiming it)

for avoidance of doubt: Dr Lewis is not me.

 

[pteridine]

Citations to personal communications that no one else can access are useless. You may as well cite the secret archives of the Vatican !
Citations to personal communications that do not exist anymore are laughable.
Citations to personal communications that only you remember are laughable.

ETA: You may have missed this, pteridine, but this is a science section of the forum. Citations in science are to the scientific literature.

Reality Check, why don't you look in the scientific literature for a few 'personal communication' citations. They are not uncommon Reality Check and, interestingly, are not readily accessed by others, Reality Check, that is why they are called a "personal communication." Indeed, Reality Check, personal communications referenced in the scientific literature from a few decades ago likely don't exist anymore either. Check Google Maps for directions to a library, Reality Check and enjoy a new experience.
You do seem to have your panties in a twist over Rossi,Reality Check.

 

[pteridine]

You remember it as 'the lewis rule', but that may well be not what he wrote/said.

I'm guessing Dr Lewis said something like 'if the excess heat's less than 20%, it's probably experimental error', rather than saying 'The Lewis rule is that excess heat of less than 20% is always experimental error'. Now, it's all speculation of course, but I'm making some deductions from the known veracity of the reporter.

And anyway, I thought these LENR guys claim excess heat of way above that, so it doesn't sound like a very high hurdle. (Rossi's certainly claiming it)

for avoidance of doubt: Dr Lewis is not me.

That's what he called it at the time.
Unquestionably, Nathan Lewis is an outstanding scientist and likely the 20% excess was selected for the reason you suggested. The claims of excess heat in the early 90's were much smaller on a percentage basis. Some were looking at a few percent which could certainly be among the noise. One of the problems was that when electrolyzing D2O, the effect seemed to be dependent on the source of the Pd and the fabrication of the electrode. Saturation times also varied quite a bit, so the inability to predict when and how much heat was released was also considered proof of an artifact.

 

[ben m]

That's what he called it at the time.
Unquestionably, Nathan Lewis is an outstanding scientist and likely the 20% excess was selected for the reason you suggested. The claims of excess heat in the early 90's were much smaller on a percentage basis. Some were looking at a few percent which could certainly be among the noise. One of the problems was that when electrolyzing D2O, the effect seemed to be dependent on the source of the Pd and the fabrication of the electrode. Saturation times also varied quite a bit, so the inability to predict when and how much heat was released was also considered proof of an artifact.

Now that you acknowledge that there is such a thing as "noise" in measurements, then you must admit that Lewis is correct to ignore the small reported effects---which are, as you say, in the noise---and concentrate on the biggest ones. In other words, contrary to your previous denunciation, it sounds like he was *right* to set a threshold.

 

[Reality Check]

You do seem to have your panties in a twist over Rossi,Reality Check.

The Rossi situation is obvious to anyone, pteridine. Rossi is a fraud as shown by his many lies over the years (just where are those power plants in Florida, pteridine?).
Pointing this out to anyone so gullible that they believe his claims is a public service.

 

[Reality Check]

Unquestionably, Nathan Lewis is an outstanding scientist and likely the 20% excess was selected for the reason you suggested. ...

What in this science or his (so far imaginary) personal communication makes Nathan Lewis an egomaniac, pteridine?

I am still waiting for citations (even to imaginary personal communications ) to back up your claim that Richard Garwin is an egomaniac, pteridine.

 

[pteridine]

Now that you acknowledge that there is such a thing as "noise" in measurements, then you must admit that Lewis is correct to ignore the small reported effects---which are, as you say, in the noise---and concentrate on the biggest ones. In other words, contrary to your previous denunciation, it sounds like he was *right* to set a threshold.

Why would I need to acknowledge that there is noise in measurement? Do you acknowledge that there may be aspects of physics that are not well understood that may explain the mechanism of LENR?

Of course Lewis is correct to ignore small changes, as many lie within experimental error. Lewis set an arbitrary limit of 20%, which is on the high side but that is his choice. The point is that he presumptuously called it the "Lewis rule" as though he was the final arbiter of what was acceptable proof and what was not. Hence, my earlier statement.

 

[Aepervius]

Citations to personal communications that no one else can access are useless. You may as well cite the secret archives of the Vatican !
Citations to personal communications that do not exist anymore are laughable.
Citations to personal communications that only you remember are laughable.

ETA: You may have missed this, pteridine, but this is a science section of the forum. Citations in science are to the scientific literature.

Reality Check, why don't you look in the scientific literature for a few 'personal communication' citations. They are not uncommon Reality Check and, interestingly, are not readily accessed by others, Reality Check, that is why they are called a "personal communication." Indeed, Reality Check, personal communications referenced in the scientific literature from a few decades ago likely don't exist anymore either. Check Google Maps for directions to a library, Reality Check and enjoy a new experience.
You do seem to have your panties in a twist over Rossi,Reality Check.

It is indeed possible to cite a personal communication, but where I used to work it would only be used in very few rare case, and never to refute an argument without evidence accompagnying it. I saw it used as suggestion, way to suggest possibilities of correction of data, reference to new idea, etc... But the way you use it, is definitively more hearsay than science.

 

[Aepervius]

Why would I need to acknowledge that there is noise in measurement? Do you acknowledge that there may be aspects of physics that are not well understood that may explain the mechanism of LENR?

To do so you would have to provide evidence of phenomenon. The problem is up to now, there isn't anything to explain.

Of course Lewis is correct to ignore small changes, as many lie within experimental error. Lewis set an arbitrary limit of 20%, which is on the high side but that is his choice. The point is that he presumptuously called it the "Lewis rule" as though he was the final arbiter of what was acceptable proof and what was not. Hence, my earlier statement.

Well sorry, but in this case , you cannot cite personal communication, this is gossip and nothing else. You cannot simply refute that , as Nathan supposed, you misunderstood what was told to you. But even if he did, who cares ? Fact is cold fusion has enormous problem of reproduction, measurement near noise floor. It is telling that after 20 years nobody came nowhere near a single well reproducible experiment.

At the moment there is nothing to explain, because there is nothing highlighted.

 

[ben m]

Of course Lewis is correct to ignore small changes, as many lie within experimental error. Lewis set an arbitrary limit of 20%, which is on the high side but that is his choice. The point is that he presumptuously called it the "Lewis rule" as though he was the final arbiter of what was acceptable proof and what was not. Hence, my earlier statement.

So! Never mind what the experts actually concluded, you're just going to reject their conclusions because you don't like their attitude.

This is great! This opens up great vistas of science for us. If we can reject anyone's conclusions because we don't like their attitude, then anything is possible. Like: Project Blue Book concluded that UFOs don't exist. But I don't like Edward Condon's haircut, so clearly the UFO question is still open. They say there's no such thing as perpetual motion, which they teach the Freshmen at Ohio State, and we can ignore that because the Buckeyes are under NCAA sanctions and can't be objective.