Merged Cold Fusion Claims

[Horatius]

However, as far as I can tell the model also predicts that cold-fusion-capable metals are totally opaque to nuclear radiation, which is experimentally false, so the model is wrong.

And this is something a lot of Cold Fusion (as well as other sorts of fringe science) enthusiasts don't seem to understand: Science doesn't exist in a vacuum. If you assert that you've observed Phenomenon X, you have to consider how X fits in with all the other stuff we already know. If your X also requires Phenomenon Y to be true, and there's no evidence for Y being true, that's a problem that can't just be waved away.

And as has been pointed out in this thread, we see that Cold Fusion requires at least two different Phenomena Y to be true. It requires nuclear reactions that have never been seen outside Cold Fusion, several of which would contradict what we think we know about nuclear reactions. It would require new means for shielding of radiation, that contradicts experimental observations of how radiation propagates.

The more such Ys you add in, the less likely it is that X is true.

 

[ben m]

If you would like to believe that a well funded industrial lab would go out of their way to make a false claim or are incapable of using and ICP-MS,

By publishing a paper making an extremely far-reaching claim based on an ultratrace measurement, but not using the words "interference" anywhere in the paper, they have given me very good evidence that this lab is not very good at ICP-MS.

As a corporation, Toyota is well funded. Is every setup on every lab bench in every hallway of Toyota therefore backed up by the entire corporate research budget? Not at all. That is like saying "Because CERN is respected and well funded, you should stop looking for mistakes in the faster-than-light neutrinos paper."

rather than entertain the thought that Mitsubishi and Toyota have actually observed these transmutations, you are welcome to do so,

They are welcome to try harder to convince me.

 

[Crawdaddy]

They are welcome to try harder to convince me.

If you find this paper unconvincing because there is no mention of interference, when no conceivable interference would show up only when the sample is exposed to deuterium, then you will never be convinced that there is a strong possibility they are observing Pr.

The notion of an isotope dependent interference is even more unlikely when you consider that after Pd digestion the excess deuterium in the active sample vs the controls would be almost nil.

Controls address the issue of interference in the MS data.

Your objections appear subjective.

 

[Dancing David]

 

[catsmate]

Nonsense. There's hundreds of studies showing 'evidence' of LENR. Some people claim those 'evidence' being in error or fraudulent, but still, the 'evidence' is there to argue for, or against.

That's nice. So cold fusion is up there with precognition, alien visitations, homeopathy and post mortem communications.
Where are all those peer-reviewed paper you promised?

When you look in to the cold fusion controversy you'll be surprised to see that the bulk of the critique is done outside the peer review process.

You really don't understand how science works do you?

And I don't believe you.

Of course not.

You're not allowed to post links until you've reached "15 posts". If you look closer you'll see that the Hagelstein paper is my very first link.

That's not a paper, that's a puff piece on a believer website. Try harder.

So, what is wrong with Hagelstein's paper. Don't be shy.

Nope. I'm not wasting my time on that rubbish. Where are all those peer-reviewed papers you promised?

Dancing David did in this case ask for a link to the Hagelstein lecture. I posted it. Period.

Ok. Is there a thread dedicated to LENR science without more or less shady entrepreneurial efforts?

Well given that cold fusion is self-deception, incompetence or fraud this is as good a place as any really.

 

[ben m]

If you find this paper unconvincing because there is no mention of interference, when no conceivable interference would show up only when the sample is exposed to deuterium, then you will never be convinced that there is a strong possibility they are observing Pr.

I'm glad that when I suggest an unlikely-sounding physics phenomenon, you feel free to reject it as "categorically impossible" by merely thinking about it, and discovering "no conceivable interference" after (it sounds like) multiple tens of seconds of intense study. How stupid of me to suggest that an experimental question, even about an unlikely topic, should be resolved by doing an experiment.

Given your intellectual leadership on professional-grade hypothesis-testing, I now realize I have erred in being so open-minded about the "categorically impossible" reaction 133Cs + D + D + D + D --> 141Pr + phonons, which was (as you say) stupid to even suggest in the presence of "no conceivable" mechanism for it. I shouldn't have suggested methods for performing error-proof tests: I should have laughed it off, which is how we should treat "categorically impossible" explanations for experimental data. Thanks for setting me straight.

 

[manifesto]

That's nice. So cold fusion is up there with precognition, alien visitations, homeopathy and post mortem communications.
Where are all those peer-reviewed paper you promised?

I have suggested this one to begin with, and I ask once more ...

S. Szpak, P.A. Mosier–Boss,1 and R.D. Boss
Naval Command, Control and Ocean Surveillance Center RDT & E Division San Diego, CA 92152 - 5000
and
J.J.Smith
Department of Energy, Washington, DC 20585

ABSTRACT
Evidence for tritium production in the Pd/D system under cathodic polarization is presented. A comparison of the observed distribution and that calculated, based upon the conservation of mass, leads to the conclusion that tritium is produced sporadically at an estimated rate of ca 103–104 atoms per second. The results of several runs are interpreted by employing the concept of an electrode/electrolyte interphase and the accepted kinetics of hydrogen evolution. Observation of burst-like events followed by longer periods of
inactivity yield poor reproducibility when distributions are averaged over the total time of electrolysis.

http://www.newenergytimes.com/v2/lib...e-behavior.pdf

... what's wrong with it?

That's not a paper, that's a puff piece on a believer website. Try harder.

You do have a slow learning curve.

Nope. I'm not wasting my time on that rubbish.

Precognition ...

 

[catsmate]

I have suggested this one to begin with, and I ask once more ...

Dead link. On a believer website.
Where are all those peer-reviewed paper you promised?

... what's wrong with it?

Well if you'd managed to actually post a working link I might look........
Where are all those peer-reviewed paper you promised?

You do have a slow learning curve.

That's not what they said at college.

Precognition ...

Where are all those peer-reviewed paper you promised?

 

[manifesto]

Dead link. On a believer website.

I noticed the term 'believer'.


http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/SzpakSonthebehavc.pdf

 

[manifesto]

Where are all those peer-reviewed paper you promised?

1. I started out asking for someone here to comment on the Hagelstein lecture.

2. I posted Hagelstein's most resent theoretical paper to clarify.

3. In the paper there is a reference list which shows among other things, all the experimental papers (the data) the paper is referring to.

4 Here is one of them: B.F. Bush, J.J. Lagowski, M.H. Miles and G.S. Ostrom, Helium production during the electrolysis of D2O in cold fusion, J.
Electroanal. Chem. 304 (1991) 271. http://iccf9.global.tsinghua.edu.cn/lenr home page/acrobat/BushBFheliumprod.pdf

5. Now, please tell me what is wrong with it.

 

[Horatius]

5. Now, please tell me what is wrong with it.

Well, here's what should be the first clue:

Evidence for tritium production in the Pd/D system under cathodic polarization is presented.

Helium production during the electrolysis of D2O in cold fusion

which they interpret as transmutation into praseodymium

They're all reporting different transmutations. That's not exactly "replication" is it?

Are we expected to believe that cold fusion is so prevalent that we can see multiple types of transmutation, but we still can't get one good solid example of a particular result being replicated?

 

[manifesto]

No he did not:

He asked for the specific research papers that the lecture referenced. You have still not provided them, despite having quoted this request several times.

I posted Hagelstein's most resent theoretical paper and in that paper there is a reference list listing all the experimental papers (the data) referred to in the paper.

Because you post things like this:


No-one who understood anything about the scientific process would be surprised by this. When you look at any science, the vast majority of the critique occurs outside the peer review process. Peer review is a very limited initial sanity check. It's an attempt to determine if a piece of research could possibly be worth the time and effort to read at all - is it obviously horribly flawed or fake? The real criticism only starts after that, when other scientist try to replicate, build on it, or tear it apart. You don't need to be a scientist to understand how the scientific process works, but things like the above, and your links to Youtube instead of the papers you claim exist, suggest you are seriously lacking in that understanding.

Example. There is no peer reviewed, not rebutted, critique of F&P's original claim of excess heat. This is a bit peculiar don't you think?

Indeed. Just one correct experiment would completely change everything. Everything has not changed. QED.

I agree, this is indeed remarkable.

 

[manifesto]

Well, here's what should be the first clue:

Wrong paper.

 

[TjW]

Why not ask the authors? It's been 23 years. If I had usable excess heat from a process 23 years ago, I'd be selling domestic water heaters today.

 

[manifesto]

If I had usable excess heat ...

Where does it states that the excess heat is "usable"?

 

[tsig]

Where does it states that the excess heat is "usable"?

Is non-usable heat like dessicated water?

 

[ben m]

Example. There is no peer reviewed, not rebutted, critique of F&P's original claim of excess heat. This is a bit peculiar don't you think?

No, it's not so peculiar at all. First, "not rebutted"? Why? Is the last word in an argument always right? There is no "not rebutted" paper critiquing Plasma Cosmology, either. (All this tells you is that the pro-plasma-cosmology people are more enthusiastic about writing rebuttals than mainstream cosmologists are about writing critiques. Sort of a case of "Because the fox is running for his dinner, but the rabbit is running for his life.").

Also, no, there's nothing uncommon about this sort of consensus emerging outside of the peer-reviewed literature. Happens all the time. You won't find any peer-reviewed "critiques" of the amazing device-physics discoveries of Jan Henrik Schoen, although later reports on the affair make it clear that failure to reproduce Schoen's results and skepticism about his claims were widely shared in the relevant community. (And later Schoen was proven to be a fraud and stripped of his degree.)

 

[leonAzul]

I have suggested this one to begin with, and I ask once more ...

S. Szpak, P.A. Mosier–Boss,1 and R.D. Boss
Naval Command, Control and Ocean Surveillance Center RDT & E Division San Diego, CA 92152 - 5000
and
J.J.Smith
Department of Energy, Washington, DC 20585

ABSTRACT
Evidence for tritium production in the Pd/D system under cathodic polarization is presented. A comparison of the observed distribution and that calculated, based upon the conservation of mass, leads to the conclusion that tritium is produced sporadically at an estimated rate of ca 103–104 atoms per second. The results of several runs are interpreted by employing the concept of an electrode/electrolyte interphase and the accepted kinetics of hydrogen evolution. Observation of burst-like events followed by longer periods of inactivity yield poor reproducibility when distributions are averaged over the total time of electrolysis.
http://www.newenergytimes.com/v2/lib...e-behavior.pdf

... what's wrong with it?

Did you even read to the end of the abstract? It says that the concept was tested and found to be unpredictable, which is no better than random noise.

That's not a very promising foundation for a new theoretical system.

 

[Crawdaddy]

I'm glad that when I suggest an unlikely-sounding physics phenomenon, you feel free to reject it as "categorically impossible" by merely thinking about it, and discovering "no conceivable interference" after (it sounds like) multiple tens of seconds of intense study. How stupid of me to suggest that an experimental question, even about an unlikely topic, should be resolved by doing an experiment.

Given your intellectual leadership on professional-grade hypothesis-testing, I now realize I have erred in being so open-minded about the "categorically impossible" reaction 133Cs + D + D + D + D --> 141Pr + phonons, which was (as you say) stupid to even suggest in the presence of "no conceivable" mechanism for it. I shouldn't have suggested methods for performing error-proof tests: I should have laughed it off, which is how we should treat "categorically impossible" explanations for experimental data. Thanks for setting me straight.

You are the only one talking about things that are "categorically impossible".

All I have done is point out that your stupid argument that would make a first year undergraduate laugh is no scientific basis to reject the Toyota findings. Findings that are supported by more than a decade of experiments including XRF, XPS, and SIMS. I imagine you will come up with some other ignorant reason that those results should be ignored too!

There is nothing more amusing than a nuclear physicist blathering about what is "categorically impossible". Until a few years ago, you people didn't even notice that certain beta emitters are influenced by sunspot activity.

The first published observation of anomalous effects in palladium electro-chemistry dates back to the 1920s, before your branch of science even existed. You religiously make statements about things being "categorically impossible" like some Mayan priest about to cut out some innocent's heart, while pointing to a few equations and a data set.

Thankfully we chemists, with a data set spanning centuries, are here to pick up the ball and actually do some research.

 

[Cuddles]

I posted Hagelstein's most resent theoretical paper and in that paper there is a reference list listing all the experimental papers (the data) referred to in the paper.

So you have not, in fact, done as Dancing David requested. Once again, he requested that you post the specific research papers referenced in the lecture you keep going on about that you are interested in discussing. Instead, you post a link to a single paper and just say "all the references". Was that paper you linked one of those in the lecture? Were all the references in it in the lecture? Are you interested in discussing the paper you linked and all the references in it?

These are not merely questions for their own sake. Clearly you believe there is something interesting here to discuss. If you will not tell us what it actually is that you find interesting, there will be no discussion. "Every reference in a paper" is not a useful starting point.

Example. There is no peer reviewed, not rebutted, critique of F&P's original claim of excess heat. This is a bit peculiar don't you think?

No, it is not peculiar in the slightest. There are no peer reviewed critiques of unicorns either.

I agree, this is indeed remarkable.

I did not use the word "remarkable" and clearly you do not agree with what I said at all. Perhaps if you spent more time actually thinking about the subject and less trying to play silly word games, you find your participation here rather more satisfying. Who knows, you might even learn something.

As a corporation, Toyota is well funded.

I can't help noticing that a just a page or two back the argument was that it's impossible to get funding for cold fusion research and that's why there is no good evidence or any replication. Yet now apparently we can't criticise work on cold fusion because their labs are so well funded by big corporations that they're incapable of ever getting something wrong.