Merged Cold Fusion Claims
- Thread starter JoelKatz
- Start date
-
- Tags
- andrea rossi cold fusion
- Status
Does that video consists of Hagelstein performing a high-quality experiment in front of a live audience? If not, when someone asks for "evidence of cold fusion" they don't want a link to a YouTube video of a lecture by a theorist, and your personal opinion of the theorists' theory.
Presumably you treat Hagelstein's lecture as "evidence" because he refers to experimental work that you found impressive. Well, tell us what that evidence is.
HighRiser
Graduate Poster
Paulhoff, I think, was saying that when the same two experimental conditions produce conflicting results; one or both of the experiments must be faulty. The problem could be procedural or practical or instrumental, and in order to be validated, the problems have to be sorted out. This is how experimentation works.
In the case of LENR experiments, as far as I know, positive results have not been reproduced in experimental conditions that are rigorously controlled. Ever.
What folks here are asking for is objective evidence. Without that, there is no rational reason to believe any premise is true.
I was asking if someone here would comment on the lecture. Dancing Dave asked for a link to it. I gave it to him. I also posted Hagelstein's latest paper as requested. Finally I posted a shorter presentation in case the lecture is too time consuming.
First, why is "totally unexpected chemical behavior of D2 with no rational explanation" a worse option than "totally unexpected nuclear behavior of D2 with no rational explanation?"
Second, yes, of course polyatomic interferences differs between isotopes. This is trivial. The {something}H ions that contribute to the A=131 peak are *different* than the {something}D ions. A sample contaminated with, say, lanthanum, will show exactly the behavior---a LaD+ peak at 131 when exposed to D2, no peak at 131 otherwise---that you just said has "no rational explanation" whatsoever. Huh. Sounds pretty rational to me, but I'm just a nuclear physicist with mass-spec experience (mostly AMS, only a little ICP-MS.)
Dancing David asked for a link to evidence. He was expecting, I think, a link to some concrete experimental result, preferably a scientific paper.
That's the same thing you have posted three or four times now.
Since you have watched this lecture, why don't you tell us what the evidence for cold fusion is?
Last edited:
temporalillusion
Technical Admin
You should include the prior posts as well.
Dancing David: So far we lack any good evidence of anything happening, like calorimetry with a still water bath for example.
The evidence is underwhelming at best.
You: Are you saying that this is true also for all the peer reviewed scientific papers on LENR/cold fusion published in mainstream journals for the last 25 years?
DD: Start your citations and then we can discuss the specifics.
You: Well, I'm not a physicist but I've been looking at this lecture: MIT Cold Fusion IAP 2014, with Peter Hagelstein and Mitchell Swartz, and I find Hagelstein's model for LENR very interesting.
(Emphasis mine)
Then Dancing David offers to fix the links for you, you eventually post your links, but what you linked to was not peer reviewed scientific papers in mainstream journals, so you still haven't given what you implied was available.
It is not a valid argument to say that magical new chemistry that has never been observed is an obvious source of error in this experiment, the physics that govern the formation of chemical bonds are much more well studied than those of nuclear reactions. Your explanation is more extraordinary than the claim of transmutation.
The idea that polyatomic interference is the source of the observed Pr signal is not rational. It would require the existence of never before observed Cs hydrides of ONLY deuterium, since there is no corresponding "Cs hydride" signal for the hydrogen control. The change from Cs to Pr corresponds to 8 amu, the control would thus show a change of 4 amu, which is not observed.
It is clear that you are a nuclear physicist and not a chemist, otherwise you would not make arguments that lack a sound basis in reality.
a) I didn't say it was a Cs hydride. It could be any species including H/D and anything that happens to have been present in the Cs deposition source and/or chamber.
b) The paper does not show any actual ICP-MS spectra. They don't show one fragment of data representing anything whatsoever other than the a/z=131 rate. Nothing. I agree that the controls are adequate to rule out some backgrounds, and maybe to rule out the simplest backgrounds---but there is no rule saying all backgrounds are simple ones. That's why people making extraordinary claims are asked to put in lots and lots and lots of effort to rule out mistakes---even weird mistakes, rare mistakes, very very unlucky mistakes, etc.
c) Note that they fail to detect Pr using XRF---although XRF is, at least at first order, not prone to interferences. They say it's "probably" just not sensitive enough. Oh, really, authors? You didn't want to follow up on that? You don't want to find out whether or not your XRF experiment contradicts your ICP-MS claim?
I repeat, Crawdaddy, that I have done ICP-MS (and AMS). In fact, I had an opportunity to do an ICP-MS experiment, then (after some practice runs) decided against it after determining that it would produce false positives in my particular case.
Here is a specific non-extraordinary claim which, as far as I can tell, is 100% consistent with the evidence.
a) There was lanthanum contamination during the Cs deposition process.
b) Some LaD compound survived the dissolution process and made LaD+ in the ICP.
I don't see where I had to invent new laws of chemistry to make that claim.
Here is another specific non-extraordinary claim which, as far as I can tell, is 100% consistent with the evidence.
a) The authors are inexperienced with ICP-MS and didn't process the samples, or run the machine, or calibrate the output, professionally. The numbers reported in the paper do not correspond closely to any physical 141-a/z ion concentration.
Why do you say there's "no corresponding Cs hydride" signal? If the A=141 signal were due to CsD4+, then the corresponding CsH4+ peak would be at A=137. They never looked at A=137.
Are you guessing that there's no peak there? (I mean, there probably isn't, CsD4 sounds unlikely, but not so unlikely that I'd base a cold-fusion claim on the guess that it was absent.)
Or do you have some information about an A=137 measurement that's not mentioned in the paper?
May I remind contributors of the OP?
Clearly, Mr Rossi has not made good his claims. Neither has any other proponent of cold fusion. The other contender, a company named Defkalion, suddenly left Greece for Vancouver and seems now to have disappeared altogether.
As you probably know, there's lots of studies showing evidence for LENR, the question is if you believe them or not.
Here's one ...
... and tell me what is wrong with it.
OP?
So, maybe you can show me some peer reviewed critique (not rebutted) showing that experimental error in measuring excess heat?
Of course I have. I suggest that you do the same.
Dancing David asked for a link to the lecture and a relevant paper. I posted it.
Last edited:
No. #1 post this thread.
catsmate
No longer the 1
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2007
- Messages
- 34,767
Ah yes, "as you probably know" what Pratchett called "wallpaper words", designed to cover over the gaping holes in an argument.I note that you have (again) failed to actually supply any of the supposedly numerous peer reviewed papers supporting the reality of cold fusion.
Quelle surprise, yet another attempt to shift the burden of proof.
Let me remind you, you are the one claiming cold fusion is real therefore the requirement is on you to provide supporting evidence.
I don't believe you. You didn't post any reference to the paper until someone else did, only after that did you refer to it repeatedly. Further you don't show any evidence of understanding the claims.
No. He asked you to support your claims, you attempted to deflect this with some worthless nonsense.
- Status