Merged Cold Fusion Claims

[Crawdaddy]

Can you name a well-done experiment (how do you know?) in a peer-reviewed journal (which one?) by a world leading scientist (who?)?

Here is a recent paper in a pretty good Journal.

http://iopscience.iop.org/1347-4065/52/10R/107301/

It shows transmutations. It is a replication of a Mitsubishi experiment by Toyota. Mitsubishi have since been granted a patent on the process.

 

[manifesto]

Hi, If you post the link in the following fashion ...

Here is the latest paper: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BiberianJPjcondensedk.pdf#page=110

Here is the lecture: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7Kg_Yp0ct8

Here is a shorter presentation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ifAurXX74M

 

[nathan]

Here is the latest paper: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BiberianJPjcondensedk.pdf#page=110

This is a theory paper whose a priori assumption is that Pons & Fleischmann's original result wasn't due to experimental error.

If that's the best evidence you have, then you have nothing.

 

[manifesto]

This is a theory paper whose a priori assumption is that Pons & Fleischmann's original result wasn't due to experimental error.

If that's the best evidence you have, then you have nothing.

This is a respons to a request from Dancing David.

Who are you?

 

[nathan]

*plonk*

 

[Andy_Ross]

Does it matter who he is? It's a public forum. Anyone can respond or take part.

 

[ben m]

This is a theory paper whose a priori assumption is that Pons & Fleischmann's original result wasn't due to experimental error.

Also, it's not even a theory of how cold fusion could happen. It's a theory of if cold fusion is happening why are there no gamma rays or x-rays. It makes a number of suppositions about the nature of the nuclear and phonon systems, and the coupling between them, and argues that this provides for hyper-efficient downconversion of nuclear excitations into phonons.

(First off, given the near-zero number of qualified people who have even read this paper, it'd take some work to convince me that the QM is done correctly to begin with.)

Unfortunately it's ... well, it's experimentally obviously false. I can take an accelerator, a neutron source, a radioactive source, etc., and (100% reproducibly) cause nuclear transmutation to happen in the middle of a block of metal. In every such experiment, performed by me or anyone else, the nuclear gamma rays escape from the metal and can be detected. That includes DD fusion.

This is the same mistake that Widom and Larsen made: they sat down with Schrodinger's Equations and some assumptions and concluded, bizarrely, that metals are opaque to gamma rays. "Of course! That must be why we don't see gamma rays coming from our palladium thingees!" say the cold-fusioneers, satisfied. "Um, metals are demonstrably not opaque to gamma rays" says anyone who has ever detected a gamma ray.

 

[dlorde]

Here is the latest paper: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BiberianJPjcondensedk.pdf#page=110

Are you sure that's the right one? the abstract explicitly says:

The new model predicts anomalies such as excess heat without energetic nuclear radiation, 4He production, low-level gamma emission, and collimated X-ray emission in the Karabut experiment; however, as yet we have not demonstrated agreement between theory and experiment.

 

[ben m]

Here is a recent paper in a pretty good Journal.

http://iopscience.iop.org/1347-4065/52/10R/107301/

It shows transmutations. It is a replication of a Mitsubishi experiment by Toyota. Mitsubishi have since been granted a patent on the process.

They have not "shown transmutations". They did ICP-MS and report that an object containing cesium (A=133) produces ICPMS peaks at A=141, which they interpret as transmutation into praseodymium. The authors appear not to be ICPMS experts, and neither am I, but I do know that ICPMS spectra have peaks all over the place due to polyatomic ions. To me, a peak at A=141 suggests the interpretation Cs2O++ pretty readily. What efforts did the authors make to rule that out? Oh, wait, none. Their machine spit out a nonzero number for A=141 and they decided that was good enough.

Please note that this is not amateur nitpicking. Papers making entirely non-extraordinary claims using ICP-MS seem to think it important to discuss polyatomic interferences. (For example, http://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2014/ja/c3ja50291k )

This is what I mean about "you have to lower your standards". In order to find a positive-sounding cold fusion paper, you have to tolerate papers like this, with far-below-average levels of caution.

 

[catsmate]

Here is a recent paper in a pretty good Journal.

http://iopscience.iop.org/1347-4065/52/10R/107301/

It shows transmutations. It is a replication of a Mitsubishi experiment by Toyota. Mitsubishi have since been granted a patent on the process.

As has been said, the methodology is flawed, the experimental procedure amateurish and the conclusions biased and unjustified. And even then it explicitly states that it doesn't support the Mitsubishi experiment by two orders of magnitude. The journal is generalised, rather than the specialised journal one would expect to publish such material in and of moderate IF.

ETA: the original "research" from Iwamura and co in 2002 also claimed transmutation though this has never been verified.

Here is the latest paper: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BiberianJPjcondensedk.pdf#page=110

Here is the lecture: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7Kg_Yp0ct8

Here is a shorter presentation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ifAurXX74M

So, no peer-reviewed paper just a website of cold fusion believers and a couple of Youtube vids?

 

[manifesto]

As has been said, the methodology is flawed,

How? Be specific.

the experimental procedure amateurish

Why is that?

and the conclusions biased and unjustified.

Both? How come?

And even then it explicitly states that it doesn't support the Mitsubishi experiment by two orders of magnitude.

Still, it's a 1000% increase of Pr. Where did it all come from?

The journal is generalised, rather than the specialised journal one would expect to publish such material in and of moderate IF.

So, the peer review is flawed in this case? In what way?

ETA: the original "research" from Iwamura and co in 2002 also claimed transmutation though this has never been verified.

And?

So, no peer-reviewed paper just a website of cold fusion believers and a couple of Youtube vids?

As I said, it was at the request of Dancing David.

 

[Crawdaddy]

To me, a peak at A=141 suggests the interpretation Cs2O++ pretty readily. What efforts did the authors make to rule that out? Oh, wait, none. Their machine spit out a nonzero number for A=141 and they decided that was good enough.

Please note that this is not amateur nitpicking. Papers making entirely non-extraordinary claims using ICP-MS seem to think it important to discuss polyatomic interferences. (For example, http://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2014/ja/c3ja50291k )

This is what I mean about "you have to lower your standards". In order to find a positive-sounding cold fusion paper, you have to tolerate papers like this, with far-below-average levels of caution.

The contention of interference is not credible. The experiment is conducted with hydrogen controls. The idea that in a system permeated with D2 there would be polyatomic interference and that the same interference would not be observed when D2 was replaced with H2 is unprecedented in the literature and has no rational explanation. The observed dependence of Pr detection on volume of D2 permeation also points to the fact that polyatomic interference is not the source of the signal.

You contend that the experiment is flawed but the flaw you point out is ruled out by the controls and pressure dependence of the observed Pr signal. I would love to hear how you imagine that the proposed interference would only happen when D2 is being used and would be dependent on the volume of D2 permeating the sample.

 

[manifesto]

Are you sure that's the right one? the abstract explicitly says:

If you read the final conclusion in the same abstract, it says ...

Our conclusion in the end is that the theory, model, and interpretation are “close” to the experimental results in the case of the Karabut experiment, but some problem remains.

... that is, the model needs som further calibration against experiment but should be sufficient to explain, in principle, how LENR works.

 

[HighRiser]

Hi, Paul.

You just described the scientific process.

Umm... I don't get the impression that you have a good grasp on the process you're referring to. Maybe I've misunderstood?

 

[Giordano]

If you read the final conclusion in the same abstract, it says ...



... that is, the model needs som further calibration against experiment but should be sufficient to explain, in principe, how LENR works.

The paper tried to make up theoretically (out of the air) the values actually observed, and could not. In this case, "close" is "no cigar."

 

[Giordano]

How? Be specific.

Still, it's a 1000% increase of Pr. Where did it all come from?


As I said, it was at the request of Dancing David.

He was specific, by referring to the post before him.

Do you know what three orders of magnitude means in this case?

I assumed from the context that Dancing Dave was also specifically asking for peer-reviewed published papers in widely accepted scientific journals and proof of reproduction of results by others. But whatever- it appears that two youtube videos are among the best pieces of evidence that you can produce in response to this request. Is that true?

 

[Dancing David]

This is a respons to a request from Dancing David.

Who are you?

And the evidence you cited was something different? I asked for evidence of cold fusion. What data did you link to?

 

[catsmate]

How? Be specific.

Already answered by ben m.

Why is that?

Already answered by ben m.

Both? How come?

1. They admit that they didn't replicate the prior experiment, being out by a factor of ~100.
2. The authors refuse to entertain other, vastly more plausible explanations for their results, such as errors.

Still, it's a 1000% increase of Pr. Where did it all come from?

Nowhere. There's no actual evidence there was any increase.

So, the peer review is flawed in this case? In what way?

In allowing such manifestly shoddy science to be published. Such material should be submitted to a more specialised journal, where it'd be subject to more specific review. Of course this may have been the intent.

And?

Sigh. Twelve years yet the believers still haven't shown any evidence for their claims. Shades of a couple of electro-chemists from the eighties.

As I said, it was at the request of Dancing David.

So when will you be citing those peer-reviewed paper you claimed exist? Or will you be proffering excuses instead?

 

[catsmate]

If you read the final conclusion in the same abstract, it says ...

You haven't even read the paper have you?

And the evidence you cited was something different? I asked for evidence of cold fusion. What data did you link to?

A couple of Youtube vids................

 

[manifesto]

Umm... I don't get the impression that you have a good grasp on the process you're referring to. Maybe I've misunderstood?

Why is that?