A Superlative paper on LENR/CANR by Bockris

This forum is for other possible methods for fusion such as Sonolumenescense, Cold Fusion, CANR/LENR or accelerator fusion. It should contain all theory, discussions and even construction and URLs related to "other than fusor, fusion".
Post Reply
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14992
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

A Superlative paper on LENR/CANR by Bockris

Post by Richard Hull »

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BockrisJthehistory.pdf

The above PDF file is 36 pages long and represents one of the best and most interesting stories regarding the transmutation studies hovering around the periphery of so called cold fusion.

Intriguing would be an understatement. I printed the thing out here. Not having this to physically share and loan to others would be a crime. My copy is now in a GBC binding.

It almost makes me want to leap in, but the analysis of the results demands some of the finest and most sensitive and expensive materials and equipment in the world and these are only to be found in a well equipped and funded institutions that are used to looking in parts per million concentrations using 3 or 4 totally difference processes to cross check controls against product.

Poor Bockris. Hounded and scourged by his peers, but like a true pioneer he hung in their and fought for his results and convictions.

Fascinating stuff.

Richard Hull

This paper is a scientific one of 2003 and not the same as his "academic accountability" paper I referenced in the files forum of 2000.
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
Frank Sanns
Site Admin
Posts: 2119
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2002 2:26 pm
Real name: Frank Sanns

Re: A Superlative paper on LENR/CANR by Bockris

Post by Frank Sanns »

When I read this paper, I find little scientific method there. Where are is the statistical treatment of ANY of the data? The levels are miniscule, inconsistant, and may even be from the container if they even exist. You do not know if they threw away dozens of data sets that did not agree with the findings that they wanted. Sorry I do not agree that there is science there. I keep my mind open to just about anything including cold fusion and transmutation but, in my mind the paper does little to prove that. The paper looks more like 19th century alchemy.

I hear things like inconsistant impurities caused it. Good scientific method eliminates that. Start with a large quantity, take representative samples, run replicate experiments, run replicate analysis and replicate controls in between, then you analyse ALL the data. Only then can you see if you have a cause and effect relationship.

This paper does none of this. It presents only isolated data in a format of charts and graphs that is made to look scientific.

Frank S.
Achiever's madness; when enough is still not enough. ---FS
We have to stop looking at the world through our physical eyes. The universe is NOT what we see. It is the quantum world that is real. The rest is just an electron illusion. ---FS
Starfire
Posts: 1482
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2001 2:14 pm
Real name:

Re: A Superlative paper on LENR/CANR by Bockris

Post by Starfire »

Joe Champion has a web page;-

http://www.transmutation.com/


and

http://www.handpen.com/Bio/tamu.htm

Are the elements absolute?



Also see;-
http://www.handpen.com/Bio/student.htm
Roberto Ferrari
Posts: 364
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2004 12:21 pm
Real name: Roberto Ferrari
Location: Argentina
Contact:

Re: A Superlative paper on LENR/CANR by Bockris

Post by Roberto Ferrari »

I agree with Frank S.
That level of traces has to be screened with a detailed experimental design.
The following web site is a useful source of info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_of_experiments

Is a pity to see so many valuable scientists to work without prejudices and honestly but without the right tools.
Roberto
Roberto
Frank Sanns
Site Admin
Posts: 2119
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2002 2:26 pm
Real name: Frank Sanns

Re: A Superlative paper on LENR/CANR by Bockris

Post by Frank Sanns »

Richard,

Today, when I read my response to this thread from last evening I did not read quite the way that I wanted. I did not intend any disrespect or closing off of any ideas to you Richard or anybody else on the board. It seems that typing sometimes is not a good method of communicating since inflection, tone, VOLUME and the like are totally gone. Couple that with my dry humor and spirited reponses and that is what you get. My statements were given with the intent to look at the reliability of the data alone and nothing else.

Frank S.
Achiever's madness; when enough is still not enough. ---FS
We have to stop looking at the world through our physical eyes. The universe is NOT what we see. It is the quantum world that is real. The rest is just an electron illusion. ---FS
DaveC
Posts: 2346
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2001 1:13 am
Real name:

Re: A Superlative paper on LENR/CANR by Bockris

Post by DaveC »

Many thanks for the reference, Richard.

I read the text and find myself having similar reservations to those expressed by Frank. I find the experimental descriptions, lacking in any kind of customary technical completeness.

For example, elemental analysis shows excess of heavy elements, in the ppm range. But how is this measured? I had in my research lab at the utlity company, a microgram balance (Cahn). When properly set up and computer controlled, it could provide 0.1 ugm resolution and stability over days. All it took was laboratory temperature and humidity regulation to +/- 2deg F, and a few percent RH, and ....a radioactive source in the measuring chamber to discharge misc. static charges that created electrostatic forces many times stronger than the weight of u grams of material. A very delicate piece of equipment, indeed. So, how were micorgrams of materials, in samples weighing a number of grams, actually meaured?

But, ...as an account, indeed, as a history, one cannot fault the report. It tells its story. Unfortunately, with some of the players, there seems to be little credibility. With Prof. Bockris, I am inclined to think he is a man of integrity, but I am unconvinced that he has established a case for cold nuclear reactions.

Dave Cooper
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14992
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: A Superlative paper on LENR/CANR by Bockris

Post by Richard Hull »

I agree with all here on methodology. However, this WAS NOT a peer reviewed scientific paper! Bockris and colleagues have actually published many on this subject. This was an overview of the entire program at Texas A & M over the years delivered before a CF conference and covered many experiments over many years with only highlighted data. It was not meant to stand alone on any one of the many experiments. I was really the author showing how he slowly became convinced that something new was taking place in spite of the turmoil and political wranglings his group had to suffer at the hands of fellow academicians and con-artists. CF is definitely an uphill battle. However, the government and DOE are now taking a serious second look after blowing the subject off over 13 years ago.

They are not only reviewing the now hundreds of peer reviewed articles between 1989 and 2003, but funding some specific research. The latter they never did back in 1990.

Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
Roberto Ferrari
Posts: 364
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2004 12:21 pm
Real name: Roberto Ferrari
Location: Argentina
Contact:

Re: A Superlative paper on LENR/CANR by Bockris

Post by Roberto Ferrari »

Richard,
You are absolutely right, that was only an informative article.
Can you point us to some web-published research papers?
I am open to anything if can go through the scientific method. As a matter of fact, I read with interest, many years ago, about the Kervran' biological experiments.
Roberto
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14992
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: A Superlative paper on LENR/CANR by Bockris

Post by Richard Hull »

Kervran was ahead of his time on this issue, but just had zero data in his book, but a lot of good theories. I definitely did not like his constant offering up of elevated names in French science as if seeking favor within his work. Not a good thing. But it may turn out that he was the first real voice in this matter that put forward a book on the subject albeit speculative in nature.

As regards micrograms of transmuted elements or parts per million..............If some form of unappreciated fusion is making these elements and assuming some reactions to be exothermic, It is a damned good thing that there are only trace amounts!!! For to crank out gram quantities in even weeks would seem to demand megawatt outputs.

The important thing here is not turning something into something else (lead into gold) on an industrial scale, or even to make cheap energy for the future, but perhaps simply new science in the offing.

A number of scientific papers can be found in the CANR/LENR site's paper reference library. It is by no means complete or comprehensive but is a collection of the best of some of the work.

http://lenr-canr.org


Go to the site given in my earlier post and check it out. One of the earliest postings in this forum. There are hundreds of papers there by the better researchers such as Bockris et al, Miles, Storms, Chubbs, etc.

This forum is fledgling and is not bulked up like the rest due to the theoretical and speculative nature of the material and the general lack of experimenters here to "play in the field". Far too much specialized equipment demanded to make your work credable.

We have spent many billions on Hot, (read acceptable), fusion since 1952 and where are we??? What about a few hundreds of millions to chase some of this CF/CANR/LENR stuff down to the mat. Certainly, hot fusion is readily done even by us, but all the kings horses and all the kings men can't make it go on the large or efficient.

Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
Frank Sanns
Site Admin
Posts: 2119
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2002 2:26 pm
Real name: Frank Sanns

Re: A Superlative paper on LENR/CANR by Bockris

Post by Frank Sanns »

I have been to many a cold fusion/transmutation website. My concerns still stand. The scientific method is NOT well applied there.
I have yet to see ANY work is documented in sufficient detail so that others can duplicate it.

Claims of impurities in the starting materials affecting different results, is just one indication of poor experimental procedure. When the end result is going to be near the noise floor, great efforts must be made to minimize introduced random or systematic errors.

Most definitely, when the products will be at very low levels, you should always start with enough homogenized raw materials to run many experiments so that variation in starting material is not even an issue. I have yet to see this done in any of the experiments. This is a more complicated issue than most can imagine. Just the casting process of the palladium (or other materials) can transfer the impurities from the mold to the top atomic layers. The next problem is how to form or cut the material into a form for a cold fusion or transmutation test. Once you touch it, you have put impurities on the surface that will show up in the analysis. If you cut it, it now has the materials from the cutter contaminating it. Not just base material of the cutter but any impurities on the cutter (like what was ever cut with it or how was it stamped or molded). At these levels, even a speck of dust floating around the lab and falling into the experiment is enough for an extraneous result. All of this before you even get to the analysis which in itself has its share of problems.

It is quite easy when a direct cause and effect relationship can be seen at levels that are high above the noise floor. It is quite the opposite when the effects rise and fall below the noise floor. This is kind of like pulling the handle of a slot machine. You pull it hard once and you just happen to win. You then think that if you pull it hard again you will win. If you keep it up long enough you will indeed win again but you may have spent your winnings many times over before the chance of wining comes up again. This superstitious psychological response is called an intermittent reinforcement schedule. It is tough to break because just about the time you want to give up and think it is hogwash, you win again and start all over again. Cold fusion seems to be just like this.

Every once in a while enough of the noise adds up in such a way as to appear to be a positive result (statistical variation). We keep hoping because we sometimes see a positive result but nothing is reproducible.

When there is a ROBUST procedure to prove cold fusion or transmutation then I will be a believer. Until then I will be only be able to dream of the implications and theories if indeed it does happen to be true.

Frank S.
Achiever's madness; when enough is still not enough. ---FS
We have to stop looking at the world through our physical eyes. The universe is NOT what we see. It is the quantum world that is real. The rest is just an electron illusion. ---FS
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14992
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: A Superlative paper on LENR/CANR by Bockris

Post by Richard Hull »

The issues you speak of are very old and have been routinely addressed since 1990 by anyone in the field with a serious bent.

No metal can be purified to much better that six nines and most not even that far. Most researchers have always started with 4 nines and take borings and surface scrapings with diamond wedges and drills as controls. Where the controls differed, the metal was rejected for use outright. Hoover and Strong was forced to take back about $3,000 worth of 4 nines palladium by one researcher as his controls were just everywhere. It is now a virtual given that numerous controls are taken and acceptable starting points of the controls all lie well within similar materials and abundances. Several papers were written on the methodologies used in this effort back in 1993.

Chemists are especially careful as they know the analysis will be in tens of parts per million. Sometime 100's of parts per million are seen in thin films especially which are way beyond simple comtamination. Some few have gone to vacuum vapor deposition sampling and used these as controls and active elements. Still, some show results, others don't yet the best researchers remain convinced that they knew the materials via multiple controls and samples of selected materials. The strangest work involves the production of several non-earthly isotopic abundances of common elements that were never present in the controls to the level of hundreds of parts per million. There are a lot of papers out there.

If this process is real, there is a key no one is seeing in obtaining warranted replication. The best of the researchers admit this readily. It makes them fume and smolder under the surface. This is why so many think there is new science of a totally unexpected nature.

If it were easy, it would have been easily picked up on far earlier. It is only with the advent of about 4 different methods of testing to parts per million and a price reduction in the machines that do this that has allowed this viel to be peered through only recently.

What used to take a million dollar machine taking up a full room worked by 4 operators, 4 days to determine, can now be done by one technician with a desk top machine in minutes. The machine costing under $100,000. More parts per million samples, faster, cheaper, easier, is starting to become the norm. This never existed even in the 80's.

You and I will never be able to play here, now, but then in the 50's we couldn't have been making amateur fusors either.

Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
Post Reply

Return to “Other Forms of Fusion - Theory, Construction, Discussion, URLs”