Transmutations observed from pressure cycling palladium • Hacker News Board

Re: Transmutations observed from pressure cycling palladium

#61

Post by HarryHirsch » Fri, Oct 16, 2020, 6:15 PM UTC

raverbashing wrote: post #37

HarryHirsch wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And all the newly found elements are elements that you'd find in a gas regulator and are at levels close to detection limit. It's all so reminiscent of polywater.

Yes that would have been my initial thought as well From the article: "Examining the exposed Pd25Ag tube reveals a scattering of anomalies on the surface of the tube. Large areas of Cu were observed as well as an area of Zn separate from the Cu, which may indicate that no CueZn alloy is present, removing the possibility of brass contamination. "

Zinc plating and copper plating? But that's not really the point, we are wondering about all sorts of contamination that could easily be ruled out through proper experiment design. Other people have discussed that.

Re: Transmutations observed from pressure cycling palladium

#62

Post by morei » Fri, Oct 16, 2020, 7:30 PM UTC

gnufx wrote: post #47

jiggawatts wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the opposite. Heat is notoriously difficult to measure accurately, especially when small amounts are being produced or if the experiment runs over a long time. Heat can also have many sources, some of which aren't expected by even highly experienced experimenters. For example, hydrogen has spin isomers , and the conversion of orthohydrogen into parahydrogen releases energy. Metals like palladium can also release…

Right, but the simple, reliable measurement is the nuclear radiation if someone is claiming a nuclear process.

No, background radiation makes nuclear radiation a noisy and ambiguous signal.

The unambiguous result is the presence of fusion by-products, but unfortunately they're not seen here.

In particular, there should be detectable amounts of He-3, lithium, beryllium, etc, none of which seem to have been found.

All the listed elements are common cross-metal contaminants and should be present in far lower ratio than He, Li, Be et al.

Re: Transmutations observed from pressure cycling palladium

#63

Post by gus_massa » Fri, Oct 16, 2020, 7:34 PM UTC

lumost wrote: post #56

gus_massa wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Lattice assisted nuclear reactions exist. "Lattice assisted nuclear reactions" is just another name for "cold fusion" (or perhaps a branch of "cold fusion"). All the papers published about this have been unconvincing. > They just don't generate usable amounts of power. All the papers I remember report an small excess of heat. The problem is that heat is very difficult to measure accurately (the different parts of t…

There are strong theoretical grounds for lattice assisted fusion. The metal lattice acts to screen the deuterium atoms, and the lattice increases the overall cross section. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S01685... Unfortunately no practical mechanism for creating a self sustaining reaction has been proposed. Although the theoretical benefit has been demonstrated by heating the fuel via hot neut…

The articles are interesting, but in both case it is not enough the 400°C that they used in this experiment.

I think that "cold fusion" is not theoretically impossible. For comparison, "high temperature superconductivity" is also weird, and in 1985 any result about it would have been received with a big dose od skepticism. The problem is that "cold fusion" has a very bad track record in the last years.

Re: Transmutations observed from pressure cycling palladium

#64

Post by ncmncm » Fri, Oct 16, 2020, 9:00 PM UTC

pfdietz wrote: post #51

ncmncm wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. Claims Require Evidence. Maybe it's contamination. Maybe it is something interesting. Ordinary evidence will reveal which. Demanding extraordinary evidence is just defending turf, and not science.

The level of evidence required increases with the audacity of the claim. That's because outrageous new physics is almost never the case, for the same reason that miracles or aliens are almost never (or just never) the explanation for something.

"Extraordinary evidence" is usually interpreted, nowadays, as unobtainable evidence, with the effect that any discovery incompatible with current consensus is reflexively discounted.

This is less often harmful in cases where the current consensus is based more on actual evidence than on groupthink and conformity. So, in physics, there is actual evidence for most things observable.

But there are plenty of fields where fashion prevails. Without citing current problem children, geology until quite recently forbade mention of catastrophic events like bolide strikes, and psychology filtered all hypotheses through behaviorism.

Re: Transmutations observed from pressure cycling palladium

#65

Post by gnufx » Fri, Oct 16, 2020, 10:09 PM UTC

morei wrote: post #62

gnufx wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, but the simple, reliable measurement is the nuclear radiation if someone is claiming a nuclear process.

No, background radiation makes nuclear radiation a noisy and ambiguous signal. The unambiguous result is the presence of fusion by-products, but unfortunately they're not seen here. In particular, there should be detectable amounts of He-3, lithium, beryllium, etc, none of which seem to have been found. All the listed elements are common cross-metal contaminants and should be present in far lower ratio than He, Li, B…

> No, background radiation makes nuclear radiation a noisy and ambiguous signal.

You make a decent measurement -- my former speciality. That's not waving a Geiger counter surrounded by concrete or granite. (It just wouldn't have been worth the effort at the time of the original cold fusion nonsense.) Sure, about atomic reaction products if you can analyse their appearance as well as neutrons and gamma rays.

Re: Transmutations observed from pressure cycling palladium

#66

Post by gnufx » Fri, Oct 16, 2020, 10:11 PM UTC

torotonnato wrote: post #48

gnufx wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the absence of real nuclear physics data, the only thing available for experts to criticize if the lack of those data.

Absence is a bit of a stretch. Look at that paper, it's interesting

You'd have to help me on that one.

Re: Transmutations observed from pressure cycling palladium

#67

Post by pfdietz » Fri, Oct 16, 2020, 10:25 PM UTC

ncmncm wrote: post #64

pfdietz wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The level of evidence required increases with the audacity of the claim. That's because outrageous new physics is almost never the case, for the same reason that miracles or aliens are almost never (or just never) the explanation for something.

"Extraordinary evidence" is usually interpreted, nowadays, as unobtainable evidence, with the effect that any discovery incompatible with current consensus is reflexively discounted. This is less often harmful in cases where the current consensus is based more on actual evidence than on groupthink and conformity. So, in physics, there is actual evidence for most things observable. But there are plenty of fields where…

It's evidence so incontrovertible and ironcland that the chance it is wrong (or faked) is less than the chance the outrageous claim is true.

This could be close to unobtainable, for sufficiently outrageous claims. The argument I am making goes all the way back to Hume's "Of Miracles".

In the specific case of Cold Fusion and the like, the evidence is further impeached by the lack of progress. What's happening looks just like a pseudoscientific study of nothing that spits out bad results that never goes anywhere.

Re: Transmutations observed from pressure cycling palladium

#68

Post by nextaccountic » Sat, Oct 17, 2020, 7:09 AM UTC

pfdietz wrote: post #49

jacobwilliamroy wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As far as I can tell, the only reason cold fusion is even a thing is because someone published a paper that has never been reproduced. P=NP is at least possible: it has to be true or untrue. I'm not even sure if our current understand of physics even supports cold fusion. I guess maybe it does seeing as how I got downvoted? Presumably by amazing scientists who have developed cold fusion technology? Or at least have a…

The weird thing about the field is that a negative result should REDUCE the estimate of how likely something is. And yet, after P&F, people took it more seriously.

P&F?

Re: Transmutations observed from pressure cycling palladium

#69

Post by pfdietz » Sat, Oct 17, 2020, 10:47 AM UTC

nextaccountic wrote: post #68

pfdietz wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The weird thing about the field is that a negative result should REDUCE the estimate of how likely something is. And yet, after P&F, people took it more seriously.

P&F?

Pons and Fleischmann.

Re: Transmutations observed from pressure cycling palladium

#70

Post by ncmncm » Sat, Oct 17, 2020, 10:38 PM UTC

pfdietz wrote: post #67

ncmncm wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Extraordinary evidence" is usually interpreted, nowadays, as unobtainable evidence, with the effect that any discovery incompatible with current consensus is reflexively discounted. This is less often harmful in cases where the current consensus is based more on actual evidence than on groupthink and conformity. So, in physics, there is actual evidence for most things observable. But there are plenty of fields where…

It's evidence so incontrovertible and ironcland that the chance it is wrong (or faked) is less than the chance the outrageous claim is true. This could be close to unobtainable, for sufficiently outrageous claims. The argument I am making goes all the way back to Hume's "Of Miracles". In the specific case of Cold Fusion and the like, the evidence is further impeached by the lack of progress. What's happening looks ju…

That presupposes a correct probability, implicitly assuming the consensus model is correct. That begs the question, a fundamental cognitive mistake.

The current consensus model does not deserve any privilege over any other model that also accounts for the same body of evidence. The degree of privilege afforded to it is exactly the inertia that prevents progress.

Science does not need for there to be a consensus model. Nature doesn't have one. Insistance on a single model when more than one meets requirements is purely human pigheadedness, and a primary impediment to progress.

None of this means that low-energy fusion happens, or doesn't. But the vociferous attacks on reports of what looks like it are the absolute antithesis of science. Science says only, "Try it again, more carefully."

Ordinary evidence.