Huffington Post Science Blog Calls for More LENR Research

On the Huffington Post Science Blog today, David H. Bailey of the Lawrence Berkeley National Lab (retired) and University of California, and Jonathan M. Borwein, Laureate Professor of Mathematics, University of Newcastle, Australia have written an article titled “Low Energy Nuclear Reactions: Papers and Patents” in which they take a serious, but very cautious look at some of the recent developments in the LENR field.

Bailey and Borwein discussed LENR in an article about fusion last month and said that while there was reason for skepticism, there was a chance that Andrea Rossi could have discovered something that could revolutionize energy production. In this new article, the authors continue with their caution, but point out that there are some interesting signs. They write:

In the past few years, activity in the LENR arena has picked up considerably, with over20 organizations involved, ranging from universities, national laboratories and NASAto corporations such as Mitsubishi and Toyota. Notables such as Bill Gates and former U.S. Secretary of Energy Steven Chu have expressed interest.

 

Bailey and Borwein focus on papers and patents published by Brillouin and Rossi (and independent E-Cat testers) and admit that if what they report is accurate then we are looking something very important. However, they then go on to emphasize that everything about LENR goes against what physicists say is possible. The Coulomb barrier should not be able to be breached at low temperatures, and it is should not be possible to produce large energy gains without observing radiation.

The authors explain that some notable supposed breakthroughs in science that have been broadcasted around the world have turned out to be based on wrong data, and that LENR could turn out to be the same. However, despite their abundance of caution, Bailey and Borwein feel it’s important to cover the topic.

The present authors are as intrigued about these results as anyone. If upheld, their significance can hardly be overstated, particularly if they can be parlayed into practical, safe, green energy solutions for the world’s economy. What’s more, many other researchers worldwide can and should participate in learning more about these remarkable phenomena. Clearly there are numerous aspects of these experiments that deserve significantly more study, whether or not true nuclear processes are occurring.

  • psi2u2

    Exactly.

  • bitplayer

    I see plenty of honestly questioning comments. I believe though that Frank may for comments that directly and without support refute or denigrate Rossi’s work.

  • Warthog

    “there is no doubt that the rossi tests that you note exist, and contain
    data which trumps any theory. But without a theory there so very very
    many ways that data could be interpreted.”

    I wasn’t talking about Rossi, but the larger area of LENR. Again…the FIRST step in scientific proof is experimental replication. “IF” some form of explanation is offered along with the experimental data, at this stage, it best qualifies as a hypothesis. “IF” that hypothesis suggests other experiments that can be run, “IF” those tests are indeed run, and prove to agree with the original hypothesis, then that theoretical explanation advances to the stage of “theory”. LENR has long since passed this point….despite the fact that Nature, Science, many high-energy physicists, etc (and the skeptopaths that post here routinely) say it hasn’t.

    But it is NOT necessary for either the first experiment nor the replication to offer any explanation as to causation. Case in point…..the radioastronomical discovery of the universal microwave background. Neither the original discovery nor its experimental replication suggested a theoretical causation. Despite that, the discoverers of the original experiment were awarded a Nobel Prize for their discovery.

  • Kevin O

    My favorite replication was Arata’s, because I made money from it. I’m assuming Physics Letters A is a good enough journal for something to be “already science”.

    http://bb.intrade.com/intradeForum/posts/list/75/2239.page

  • Ged

    Actually, Kim’s work on BECNF specifically applies to hydrogen-nickle systems as well, he even directly mentions the e-cat in his 2013 paper and shows the conditions for which BECNF would apply. I don’t see where he hasn’t already addressed the points you bring up with the BECNF theory framework. See also in 2011: http://www.physics.purdue.edu/people/faculty/publications/yekim/BECNF-Ni-Hydrogen.pdf

    As an alternative, here’s an interesting theoretical take I just found: http://vixra.org/pdf/1401.0169v1.pdf

    • Thomas Clarke

      OK,

      I am just looking at what you suggest.

      http://www.physics.purdue.edu/people/faculty/publications/yekim/BECNF-Ni-Hydrogen.pdf

      This newer version of the BEC idea does not really make any new predictions. It has been tweaked to match what (some people think) happens in Ni-H systems. Unfortunately that match is not the theory making new predictions which are subsequently observed, so there is no way the theory is falsifiable on that basis. So I see this modified theory as being much less strong.

      Even so it does not match observations. Cu ash has never to my knowledge been observed from Ni-H reactions (you will remember Rossi’s ash was wrong isotopically to be from the reaction and now is stated by Rossi to be some substituted material given to Kullander who unfortunately did not seem at the time to be aware of the substitution. Alas he is now dead so we will never get his side of this story.

      So my point remains – far from the scientific establishment ignoring LENR many people have tried to find theories that fit the fragmentary evidence and so far none do. That is the scientific establishment being rational, because anomalous results as observed all have other hypotheses (experimental error etc). When you consider how partially results are reported – no-one will want to do experiments with negative anomalous errors – the large number of positives is not surprising. And the evidence that would be a sure sign of nuclear reactions – transmutation, high energy products – does not exist in any significant form. (The evidence that exists at very low levels fits contamination or misinterpretation rather than the predicted byproducts).

      Incidentally, Kim does not in any of his papers address the central issue of high energy products. He notes that they can exist but gives no mechanism for them not existing. It is pretty clear that if LENR is real it is some mechanism that both deals with the Coulomb barrier and spreads the high nuclear product energies over thousands of particles. This “fractionation” is really the most problematic thing, theoretically, and I’d recommend to you Hagelstein’s recent work, 2011 and more recently 2013.

      Let me challenge you: is there any theory that has made substantive predictions only found true after the predictions were made? That is the hallmark of a successful mold-breaking theory.

      • Andreas Moraitis

        If you go through the literature, you will find plenty of evidence for transmutations. Regarding the often ‘missing’ radiation, Widom & Larsen claim in this patent application

        http://www.google.com/patents/WO2007030740A2?cl=en

        that gammas can be shielded by SPPs (collective phenomena similar to BECs). I do not know, however, if there are published experimental studies on this effect. It should not be too difficult to place a gamma source behind a LENR device and to observe what comes through. (This has been proposed by Pekka some time ago on JoNP.) Maybe MFMP could try it in case that they get their reactor running.

        • bitplayer

          So, barging into your very productive discussion with only fractional understanding of the details…

          Andreas’ proposal that there should be something for MFMP to test seems to point to a more general opportunity, which is that…

          For all the experiments and results that are mentioned, there appears to be a gap of some kind, either in the quality of the data or the quality of the theory.

          So, just applying general systems analysis, the work (and a nasty lot of it) of the opportunity would be to make a table with the following columns, for the “top 20” LENR protocols:
          1) Phrase or name identifying the experiment / principals etc.
          2) Summarize the major features of the protocol
          3) Summarize the results
          4) Describe any gap in evidence
          5) Describe any gap in theory
          6) Suggestions on what might bridge the gaps

          One approach would be a quick sketch, using Google Docs, shared prudently (and backed up!), and then filling in the details over time.

          Results might be:
          a) possible insight into where evidence and theories overlap
          b) inspiration to those with the means to extend the experiments and theories.

          I know, easier said that done…

    • Thomas Clarke

      I can’t add this to my post below because the wretched site moderation policy vanishes my reply!

      http://vixra.org/pdf/1401.0169v1.pdf

      A comment on your other suggestion. I’m pretty sure this is complete moonshine. It is incompatible with QM and QED, theories which have been astoundingly successful at precise quantitative prediction of a wide variety of phenomena.

      However – I’m not expecting people here to agree with that. Where it falls down in a way anyone can see is that it does not make any new predictions. The old phenomena it claims to fit were all known before the theory was devised. It is awfully easy to make theories that fit around existing evidence. The claim that there are major holes in standard treatments – in other words that it successfully predicts more than standard theories – is just wrong. In any case this theory is highly qualitative, but even the qualitiative ideas have not been followed through to make predictions about when you would see nuclear reactions.

      And it does not address the high energy product issue. So fails to explain LENR observations.

      In the end it is actually LENR observations, not theory, that makes it so hard for most scientists to take LENR seriously.

      • Ged

        Ah man, I hate when replies get eaten.

        I confess I only skimmed through that new Ryberg matter hypotgesis one I found, but it seemed an interesting “yet another contender” due to the amount of analysis. I’ll take your evaluation of it.

        As I’ve said, I’m strongly in favor of the BECNF theory, due to its testable predictions and ability to explain the data seen so far for both deuterium and hydrogen systems. WL is another alternatuve, but not one that ever seemed plausible from the data to me.

  • Ged

    V1DLLBEC may well be the more viable theory. We just need experiments designed to test it. After all, many body linear BEC is an extension of TBL, and Kim’s work has continued to advance making TBL potentially outdated. But we don’t know more till specifically tested (I am not aware if that has happened yet).

  • Ged

    Really now?

    MFMP’s work (and ongoing) with a replication of Celani’s device (when they were using borosilicate housing like Celani) certainly qualifies. As does that Italian “high school” experiment that was replicated several times (both successfully and unsuccessfully maybe, I’m not as up-to-date on that one). Or Toyota’s replication of Mitsubishi’s work http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/12/07/report-toyota-replicates-mitsubishi-lenr-transmutation-experiment/ . Or the numerous replications of Brillouin’s work that they list on their web site. Or Defkalion’s original replications of the e-cat (before they went off on their own tanget). Or the very recent timeline of a small cross section of replications/new experiments over time listed by McKubre (of which he was part of some of the successful replications) http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/11/23/mckubre-slides-from-norway-presentation-chronicle-sris-lenr-replications-brillouin-featured/ . Do I really need to go on?

    There’s been a lot of replications by teams following instructions from another team (e.g. ENEA’s publications as well). I guess, like the theories, we need a resource page for people to one stop look up these things, and for recall.

    • ivanc

      As far as I understand MFMP has not replicated Celani device.
      defkalion does not count, they could not demo any excess power.
      Mckubre has work on many projects, but no one has replicated his work.
      This is the problem with LENR. The experiment is not replicable yet.
      about toyota or mistsubishi, I not sure, they may have done, but they not making a lot of noise.
      Brillouin’s is also a secretive company.
      I you know of a experiment. then publish the protocol

    • GreenWin

      The very first P&F experiments have been replicated many times – in the case of MIT they doctored the results to eliminate the excess heat. Ged, ivanc does not want to learn, like so many. Don’t waste your time.

  • Gerrit

    E.ON to spin off conventional power generation business.

    http://tinyurl.com/prtcuet

    • Andreas Moraitis

      “Through co-investments, E.ON already partners with European and American start-ups that are developing promising energy solutions that incorporate technologies of the future.”

      Johannes Teyssen, CEO of E.ON, stated in an interview (I think it was in October 2013), that the best energy sources were “perhaps not yet known.” And a representative of E.ON is member of the Elforsk board which has been responsible for the E-Cat research project…

      • Fortyniner

        E.On have also been quietly backing out of nuclear power for about three years. It would be interesting to know what they intend to do with their massive nuclear liabilities in Germany (2 reactors already shut down plus another 4, the last of which must be shut down by 2022) and Sweden (3 reactors). The decommissioning and disposal costs will run into many billions of Euros.

        http://www.eon.com/en/business-areas/power-generation/nuclear/current-information.html

        • georgehants

          Morning Peter, unfortunately Mr. Cameron is unaware of all these things, so the U.K. will become admired for having more nuclear power stations and waste to deal with in thirty or so years.
          But like Blair we can be sure that when he leaves office he will miraculously become a multi-millionaire very quickly.

          • Fortyniner

            Morning George. I don’t know how you could possibly be so cynical about our selfless leaders, who I’m sure only have our very best interests at heart.

            Camerons’s Hinkley C deal seems to be running out of sellotape and string – I just pray that nothing irreversible gets signed before he is kicked out of office next year.

        • http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/ barty

          There is also the possibility that Eon just wants to shift the responsibility and costs of the currently ongoing removal of some Eon owned nuclear fission plants into a subsidiary which is easy to give up for insolvency. So the taxpayer can pay for the atomic trash…

          • Fortyniner

            Yup – that seems to be the plan. I hope that Swedish and German politicians won’t sleepwalk blindly into the trap. The same pattern is likely to be repeated by all nuclear concerns across the Western world, and there will be plenty of politicians who have been encouraged to look the other way while it takes place, predictably, and in plain sight.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            Now the pseudoskeptics have a unique opportunity to demonstrate how convinced of their own opinion they are. They just need to buy up all the ‘poisoned’ shares.

            • BroKeeper

              Andreas, Are you saying “Put-up or shut-up?” I love it.

        • Andreas Moraitis

          The spin-off will be solely responsible for the costs of denuclearization. After the split, shareholders of E.ON will receive a proportionate amount of stock of both the old and the new company. E.ON says that they plan to sell subsequently their own share in the spin-off. Who would have guessed?

    • Oceans2014

      E.ON looks like a highly developed mature alternative energy dev company, look to hear more from these guys on LENR > E.ON “Now is good time for other European countries to emulate Germany’s commitment to transforming its energy system”.

      • Bernie777

        Right, it is also time for the US to emulate Germany’s energy system!

  • jousterusa

    I just checked out the readership and “shares” of my CNN story on cold fusion at the APEC summit. Wow!

    Signals at the APEC Summit Show Big Changes Ahead

    by Joe Shea Bradenton, Fla. November 12, 2014   A…

    9,071
    VIEWS

    27
    COMMENTS

    787
    SHARES

    • Bob Greenyer

      Well done Joe, great stats!

    • Builditnow

      The link to the ireport is broken for me, try this one http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-1187686

      • TomR

        Thank you Builditnow, your link worked fine, where Joe’s didn’t. That was the second time I read the article and the comments.

    • bachcole

      Is that good or bad? I never share anything; I am not even certain what it means.

      • pelgrim108

        Good bad
        Here is an example of how to share a youtube video to facebook
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfKCC_a1fLE
        So basically “sharing” means featuring something you find on the web on your own facebook page or google+ page or any place like a forum for example.

        Today its all made easy for you by just clicking some “share” buttons that are provided with the good stuff that you want everybody to know about.
        If you post a link on “the always open thread” then that can be called “sharing” also.
        ——–
        I have an unused google+ account. Never did any sharing, like you. But now I am tempted to start doing it.

  • http://renewable.50webs.com/ Christopher Calder

    I wonder if you combined titanium hydride (TiH2) and lithium aluminum hydride (LiAlH4) in a vacuum and stimulated the mixture with heat and intermittent sparks if you would get a reaction. Titanium hydride is explosive, so you would want an oxygen free environment. Or, try mixing the lithium aluminum hydride and titanium hydride with iron dust plus heat and electromagnetic pulses. Just an idea. I would stand back just in case.

    • Axil Axil

      The Titanium hydride should be milled to a particle size of between 2 and 5 microns. The temperature of the titanium hydride (TiH2) and lithium aluminum hydride (LiAlH4) mix should be maintained at 1000C in an air, and water free environment to free all the hydrogen primarily from the LiAlH3..
      Both titanium and zirconium reflect infrared photons almost as good as nickel. So stabilized zirconium hydride might also work well.

      • warthog

        Any hints on tungsten?? Irving Langmuir thought he had detected “over-unity” heat during his experiments with tungsten and hydrogen….and discussed it with Niels Bohr by correspondence. Bohr told him it “….was not possible….”, and Langmuir dropped the research.

        Sound familiar????

        • Axil Axil

          http://www.photonics.com/EDU/Handbook.aspx?AID=25501

          See: Metal mirror coatings
          We are interested in the 2 to 10 micron range in the infrared for an E-cat type reactor..
          The higher the reflectivity of the metal surface, the better will be its LENR capability in that wavelength.
          Most transition metals have excellent reflectivity in the infrared range.

  • psi2u2

    Of course, the sun does not really rise in the east. But maybe that’s nitpicking your argument.

    “The Rossi tests….contain data which trumps any theory.”

    Exactly. The smart people will start to realize that means that we need more, newer theories, or hypotheses, that might explain these “trumping” results. It doesn’t matter whether you call them LENR or something else – that is all a form of linguistic idolatry. What matters is that new ideas are needed to explain the results.

  • Axil Axil

    I am excited by one of the comments on this article authored by Gregory Byron Goble · Works at Citywide Dispatch Robert Cheshire.

    It points to the origin of mass as an electromagnetic impedance matching process. The standard modal is incorrect in two important areas.

    From the reference: http://vixra.org/pdf/1408.0109v4.pdf

    “Mass generation via chiral symmetry breaking and the
    Higgs becomes irrelevant for two independent reasons.
    First, in the absence of the weak force there is no need for
    massive gauge bosons. And second, the chiral impedance
    is scale invariant, cannot communicate energy but rather
    only quantum phase, cannot deliver mass.

    Similarly, mass generation in QCD via dynamic chiral
    symmetry breaking is seen to be not possible in light of
    the scale invariance of chiral impedances.

    In the impedance approach the origin of mass is the
    energy in the fields of the coupled modes represented in
    the impedance network and connected by impedance mis-
    matches. The calculated mass of the electron is correct
    at the nine signicant digit limit of experimental accu-
    racy, the muon at a part in one thousand, the pion at two
    parts in ten thousand, and the nucleon at seven parts in
    one hundred thousand[126].”

    This says that there is no Higgs field. The electromagnetic field condenses under the action of quantum EMF impedance to form the mass of the electron, pion, and meson. I have been postulating EMF condensation into particles as an important mechanism in LENR. This quantum impedance idea supports that belief.

    The discovery of the “God particle” has been brought into question recently as a misidentification.

    I believe that when LENR is accepted, the standard model will need a rework to get rid of the Higgs field.

  • psi2u2

    I disagree entirely that moderation should facilitate the lack of civility found at Ecat News. If you want to participate in those uncivil discussions, that is the place to go. I come here precisely because moderation keeps the more aggressive and less substantive expressions of “skepticism” on a reasoned path.

    • Anon2012_2014

      “I disagree entirely that moderation should facilitate the lack of civility”

      I never said that. I like moderation to prevent people from behaving boorishly. I don’t understand why the ECN people talk the way they do to each other.

      • psi2u2

        Thanks for the clarification. I apologize if I misconstrued your position.

      • Anon2012_2014

        No problem psi2u2,

        Anon12/14