Merged Cold Fusion Claims

[CORed]

Pons and Fleischmann boiled water in 1989. Funding has been virtually non-existent. Hot fusion has spent billions over 50+ years and "if it really worked as claimed, putting the apparatus in a pressure vessel, boiling some water and generating electricity would be child's play, and extremely profitable."

Pons and Fleishcmann boiled water with the electrolytic cell hooked to an external power source. I can do that with a heating element. If it actually worked, the external power source should be necessary only to start the reaction. The cold fusion apparatus is much simpler and cheaper than a hot fusion apparatus. Lack of funding is not the reason nobody has gotten to work. Nobody has gotten it to work because it simply doesn't work. It would be really cool if cold fusion worked, but neither theory nor experiment has given us any reason to believe that it does. We know hot fusion works. We can observe it working in the sun and in thermonuclear weapons. Scaling it down to run a power plant has proven to be an extremely difficult, maybe even impossible engineering challenge. Nonetheless the potential, IMO justifies further efforts to make it into a practical energy source.

Cold fusion is now entirely in the realm of crackpots and scam artists. If somebody in the private sector chooses to invest throw away their money to fund it, fine, but I don't want one dollar of my tax money wasted on it.

 

[CORed]

It means that there may be more information. There have been 16 ICCF conferences, alone. The last was this February in Chennai, India. At each, experimental results were presented. Have you classified all those researchers as frauds?

Many who immediately rejected LENR as fraudulent because it burst their respective bubbles are now trying to spin things so that if the effect is found to be real, they can pretend to be scientists. It will be interesting to see what John Huizenga, Nathan Lewis, and others have to say about it, should it prove out.
In 1989, Stan Pons had many immediately claiming to have seen the effect but hadn't reported it. On crucifixion of Pons and Fleischmann, all those who wanted a bit of the limelight became quiet and suddenly hadn't seen the effect, reaffirming the proverb "Success has many fathers but failure is an orphan." Lewis made up the "Lewis Rule" on the spur of the moment that required a 120% output to make the effect real. Steve Jones then weighed in with his opinions. Big physics was threatened and hot fusion research [Huizenga was from U Rochester; a big hot fusion player at the time] rooted out the heresy of two electrochemists using borrowed Palladium and observing an unusual result. All energy sources were threatened with obsolescence but the hot fusion physicists were most immediately effected, took the lead, and expunged the results from the scientific record. The final projectile was Huizenga's book that ridiculed the scientists and their results. The entire production should have been titled "Scientists Play Politics or It's All About [Research] Money."

Now you're clearly in conspiracy theory thinking. All of the evil physicists suppressed da twoof so they could keep the hot fusion cash cow alive. I'm surprised you haven't blamed the oil companies. After all they are the ones that would go out of business if cold fusion were real (actually, they'd just go into the cold fusion business if they were smart, and, for the most part, they are). The reality is that Pons and Fleishmann did some sloppy calorimetry, thought they had discovered something big, but when other scientists tried to replicate their results, they couldn't. That sort of thing happens sometimes in science. It's why experiments are repeated, and it doesn't make too much sense to get excited until results are confirmed.

 

[pteridine]

Sorry, I spoke imprecisely. Yes, there have been thousands of experiments with absorbed D2 and H2 on Pd. Including (but not restricted to) experiments explicitly attempting to replicate Pons and Fleischmann's setup, and disagreeing with their results.

It appears that the Ni-H system is more predictably loaded. Electrolysis cells have far too many variables to easily replicate conditions no matter the explicit attempts. The electrode materials and processing are important as are electrolyte impurities. What was last in the cell and what was used to clean the cell also have a bearing on the reaction. Johnson-Matthey provided the Pd but didn't know why some worked and some didn't. I have been told that one of the key variables in the Pd-D experiments was the level of boron impurities in the Pd. If it was too low, the effect was not seen. The other big problem was loading the Pd where electrode geometry was important so replication had to include that also. Given all of this, the effect for Pons and Fleischmann replicating experiments would occur unpredictably in time and amplitude; sometimes not at all and sometimes with enough energy to damage facilities.

The thing to observe is thermal output. There is no way of knowing if neutrons will always be released or if they are a side reaction that is also dependent on conditions. Heat will show if the effect is real and heat is what is important to commercialization. Calorimetry experiments will trump radiation as a measure of usefulness but radiation measurements will be necessary for determination of a mechanism.

 

[Dancing David]

Well, Ben, you can write off that theory if you don't like it. It seems that invoking things "that don't actually exist" is a common practice when it comes to theories. Physics has a penchant for such. Strings, imaginary time, etc., are all invoked along with other dimensions. A heirarchy of particles has been compiled and the search is on for a particle that confers mass on things.
Consider the knowledge base for particle physics. The experiments were done with particles having energies in the tens of kiloelecronvolts and greater. Can that be extended 4 orders of magnitude to particles with energies of, say, 2 or 3 electron volts?

I see so a theory that directly contradicts the evidence is just fine, please mark any bridges you design as an engineer so I won't cross them.

 

[CORed]

It appears that the Ni-H system is more predictably loaded. Electrolysis cells have far too many variables to easily replicate conditions no matter the explicit attempts. The electrode materials and processing are important as are electrolyte impurities. What was last in the cell and what was used to clean the cell also have a bearing on the reaction. Johnson-Matthey provided the Pd but didn't know why some worked and some didn't. I have been told that one of the key variables in the Pd-D experiments was the level of boron impurities in the Pd. If it was too low, the effect was not seen. The other big problem was loading the Pd where electrode geometry was important so replication had to include that also. Given all of this, the effect for Pons and Fleischmann replicating experiments would occur unpredictably in time and amplitude; sometimes not at all and sometimes with enough energy to damage facilities.

The thing to observe is thermal output. There is no way of knowing if neutrons will always be released or if they are a side reaction that is also dependent on conditions. Heat will show if the effect is real and heat is what is important to commercialization. Calorimetry experiments will trump radiation as a measure of usefulness but radiation measurements will be necessary for determination of a mechanism.

There is some truth to this, but, if a nuclear reaction is taking place, even one hitherto unknown to science, something besides heat is going to be produced. If neither neutrons, gamma rays, nor helium are showing up, it's pretty hard to make a case for any nuclear reaction occurring. I'm pretty sure ben m, who obviously knows a lot more about nuclear reactions than I do, will tell you how wrong you are shortly.

 

[Dancing David]

It means that there may be more information. There have been 16 ICCF conferences, alone. The last was this February in Chennai, India. At each, experimental results were presented. Have you classified all those researchers as frauds?

And if that is the case, where is the data to examine?

Where are the results and the replication?

 

[Dancing David]

OK. Widom-Larsen is out.
The Krivit site, invoked earlier, has a collection of theories. Theory will follow experiment and, should there be a successful experiment, many of those now clamoring for the gibbet for LENR will be clamoring for attention to their pet theory explaining the effect while lobbying the Nobel committee because they are so much smarter than those undeserving professors. Winston Smith will be rewriting scientific history so that future generations may admire the honest scientists who searched for truth. Likely there will be some revisions to the literature and a book burning or two to save scientists of note.

Blah, blah, blah.

Where are the results?

 

[Dancing David]

OK, Ben. I don't affect publication standards and only read the papers. Any unfunded research area has to expect varying levels of standards, instrumentation, and number of experiments. I understand your position.

The latest from Rossi is that a 45 MW unit is under construction. There will be no way to sneak 45 MW into the system. If it works, it will be difficult to deny the phenomenon exists, bad neutron counters or not.

In your opinion, how do gel neutron detectors stack up with integrating spheres? If you saw a gel detector with, say, a dozen bubbles and an identical detector 20 feet away with no bubbles, could you conclude anything from that experiment?

When Rossi, shows data?

When Rossi allows someone to do a still water bath?

When you made these speculations last year?

 

[Dancing David]

Read again! I said high probability - - - not certainty.
People on here are far too combative to be given much credence.

So you are afraid to show the data, because you haven't got it.

Asking you for data and evidence is not combative, you are silly.

 

[pteridine]

Now you're clearly in conspiracy theory thinking. All of the evil physicists suppressed da twoof so they could keep the hot fusion cash cow alive. I'm surprised you haven't blamed the oil companies. After all they are the ones that would go out of business if cold fusion were real (actually, they'd just go into the cold fusion business if they were smart, and, for the most part, they are). The reality is that Pons and Fleishmann did some sloppy calorimetry, thought they had discovered something big, but when other scientists tried to replicate their results, they couldn't. That sort of thing happens sometimes in science. It's why experiments are repeated, and it doesn't make too much sense to get excited until results are confirmed.

It wasn't just the R&D funding, it was the idea that there was somethng entirely new that all the big egos had completely missed. Being trumped by two electrochemists with a battery and borrowed palladium was too much for the folks who had worked for years hoping to show progress with a 10% return or maybe even the big goal; "break even."
See my post to Ben, above, for the replicating part. It also doesn't make much sense to reject LENR out of hand given the body of evidence that the phenomenon is real. Because of the value of such technology, it is likely that much of the work is unreported.

 

[Dancing David]

You come on here with bits and pieces (or less) of what you call evidence, and then try to come up with a big case of skepticism. Meanwhile, you show indication that you know very little about what is going on overall with lenr. There's a lot more happening than just what Rossi does. But you don't even seem to be aware of that and I'm not going to take the time to educate you.

That is because you haven't anything to show or educate.
You have nothing, so you show nothing.
And your rhetoric is empty.
I have not been rude to you but you rudeness is apparent.

I don't claim to have great lenr knowledge either. But I've read enough to know that only a fool would designate Rossi's work to present as either an outright fraud or a smashing success.

You haven't shown the evidence, I suspect you can't. We played this game last year too.

You won't show the evidence, that is your problem. I have not made a claim that cold fusion exists, I have stated that I will judge what evidence is presented.

There is none that supports it at this time.

You played this game last year too, you say there is a high probability, and yet you can't show a reason why. I never claimed anything, other than what I have seen so far is less than an indication.

I have stated that Rossi has presented no reason to show anything, when he uses real calorimetry then he may have something to show.

Take that chip off your shoulder and stop blaming me for what others have said.

 

[Dancing David]

It wasn't just the R&D funding, it was the idea that there was somethng entirely new that all the big egos had completely missed. Being trumped by two electrochemists with a battery and borrowed palladium was too much for the folks who had worked for years hoping to show progress with a 10% return or maybe even the big goal; "break even."

Bullcrap, everybody went crazy for it and tried it themselves.

It didn't work.

See my post to Ben, above, for the replicating part. It also doesn't make much sense to reject LENR out of hand given the body of evidence that the phenomenon is real.

And this amazing evidence is?

Because of the value of such technology, it is likely that much of the work is unreported.

 

[ben m]

It also doesn't make much sense to reject LENR out of hand given the body of evidence that the phenomenon is real. Because of the value of such technology, it is likely that much of the work is unreported.

You keep talking about this "body of evidence" as though it existed.

I've looked for the body of evidence, pteridine. Neutrons, gamma rays, helium, calorimetry. Everything I've seen, especially in my area of expertise, was utterly incompetent, and incompetent in particular in was that allow you to think you've seen a signal when you have not. I've talked to calorimetry experts (here at JREF) who say the calorimetry is equally bad. I know one of the physicists who performed the 2004 DOE review, he told me the whole review packet was full of crap.

Tough luck for you, pteridine. A bunch of crackpots convinced you, and themselves, and each other, that there is a body of data supporting cold fusion. They did this by overselling their pile of ill-analyzed noise data. You fell for it. The rest of the world did not.

 

[CORed]

It wasn't just the R&D funding, it was the idea that there was somethng entirely new that all the big egos had completely missed. Being trumped by two electrochemists with a battery and borrowed palladium was too much for the folks who had worked for years hoping to show progress with a 10% return or maybe even the big goal; "break even."
See my post to Ben, above, for the replicating part. It also doesn't make much sense to reject LENR out of hand given the body of evidence that the phenomenon is real. Because of the value of such technology, it is likely that much of the work is unreported.

You know, there's two ways you can go with cold fusion. You can go the science route, get funding, prove it works, and find the mechanism, or you can go the commercial route. We don't care how it works, but we'll produce energy and make some money. Let the scientists figure out the complicated part. Rossi would have people believe he is going the second route, but appears to be running a scam. He provides no credible eveidence for his claims, and makes promises of Something Really Big Real Soon Now that never seems to materialize. So far cold fusion has failed miserably by both routes. When Rossi actually gets his 45MW plant going (which I believe will be never), I'll be impressed.

 

[pteridine]

There is some truth to this, but, if a nuclear reaction is taking place, even one hitherto unknown to science, something besides heat is going to be produced. If neither neutrons, gamma rays, nor helium are showing up, it's pretty hard to make a case for any nuclear reaction occurring. I'm pretty sure ben m, who obviously knows a lot more about nuclear reactions than I do, will tell you how wrong you are shortly.

Something should be produced in addition to heat. The question is what is being produced and how would it be measured, especially if it is a low energy particle inside a metal reactor. The proof is still in the heat output being greater than that from any chemical reactions.

 

[Aepervius]

When Rossi, shows data?

When Rossi allows someone to do a still water bath?

When you made these speculations last year?

Warning, you are dangerously close to earn the snake-clown title (*)




(*) insult that rossi throw away to people asking for data and independent replication

 

[pteridine]

Bullcrap, everybody went crazy for it and tried it themselves.

It didn't work.

And this amazing evidence is?

I see you are still dancing, David. You didn't read the comment on how difficult it is to replicate the electrolysis experiments, did you.

 

[CORed]

You keep talking about this "body of evidence" as though it existed.

I've looked for the body of evidence, pteridine. Neutrons, gamma rays, helium, calorimetry. Everything I've seen, especially in my area of expertise, was utterly incompetent, and incompetent in particular in was that allow you to think you've seen a signal when you have not. I've talked to calorimetry experts (here at JREF) who say the calorimetry is equally bad. I know one of the physicists who performed the 2004 DOE review, he told me the whole review packet was full of crap.

Tough luck for you, pteridine. A bunch of crackpots convinced you, and themselves, and each other, that there is a body of data supporting cold fusion. They did this by overselling their pile of ill-analyzed noise data. You fell for it. The rest of the world did not.

To me, a non-expert, the whole "Some times it works and sometimes it doesn't. You have to get just the right conditions, but we don't really know what they are" thing is a dead giveaway. These folks did some sloppy work, and let the outliers fool them into thinking they really had something. It's too bad. It would be so cool if it worked. I has really high hopes when Pons and Fleishmann made their announcement, one day before the Exxon Valdez spill (quite a coincidence). At this point, I see no reason to believe that it was anything other than a mistake.

 

[CORed]

I see you are still dancing, David. You didn't read the comment on how difficult it is to replicate the electrolysis experiments, did you.

The most likely explanation for the difficulty of replicating the experiment is that there is nothing to replicate.

 

[Dancing David]

Warning, you are dangerously close to earn the snake-clown title (*)




(*) insult that rossi throw away to people asking for data and independent replication

I am the King!