FP's experiments discussion

Quote from H-G Branzell

Ed, you said:

In an earlier post you also said the this radiation was not very penetrating and could not be properly measured outside of the reaction chamber and therefore it had never been properly characterized.

Is it electromagnetic radiation?
Do you have any idea of the energy spectrum?
What could be done to gain more insight as to the nature of it?

The radiation is charactorized at the following site:

http://restframe.com/rf/home.html

It shows a Exotic Neutral Particle(ENP) that is most often entangled with others of its kind. The mass/energy is very heavy in the giga-electronvolts. It demonstrates a monopole field and is free-floating. This ENP is an ideal candidate for dark matter: wimps: weakly interacting massive particle.

besides all the experiments referenced at restframe, these particles have been detected in the Proton 21 experiment and the titanium exploding wire experiments.

There is a segment of the LENR community who think this finding is important including me.

Hi Shane,

Quote

You act frustrated, as if you are owed (you aren't) their undivided attention. Maybe some young up and comer, hot shot, LENR researcher from SKINR or Texas Tech, will discover this site and address every one of your hydras. In the meantime, may I suggest you just have some fun and stop being so overly sensitive?

I was not aware that I acted in this manner. I just call a spade a spade - politely - of course...

Quote

Tom - I will let you have the last word since your response has failed to acknowledge the value of any of my comments.

Your comments thus far have not provided me with new information, but the context of the debate has been welcome since it has sharpened my understanding of the differences here. For that, I thank you.

Axil and H.G. Branzell-

Most radiation has too low energy to get out of the apparatus. Nevertheless, it has been measured inside the apparatus. Inside the apparatus, photons and charged particles are detected. Outside the apparatus, photons, neutrons, and some strange particles are detected. I'm in the process of trying to unlock the mystery these various radiations have created. It is important not to place too much emphasis on the very rare kinds of detected radiation because these are not carrying the major energy from the LENR process. Many additional but rare processes are possible and are probably operating. We need to focus on the main event, at least initially.

As for the skeptics, we now have evidence for 3 different kinds of nuclear products - helium, tritium, and transmutation - all being created in a common material without applied energy. We now have evidence for the expected energetic radiation required to dissipate the resulting excess mass-energy. We also have evidence for unusually high heat-energy production. We only are missing the correct explanation. At some point the skeptics will have to knowledge the obvious or risk looking really stupid. Their choice.

As an aside, I was looking into one of Miles' old papers (file MileMCorrelatio.pdf at the lenr-canr website, billed as J. Electroanal. Chem., 1993. 346: p. 99), and the first set of results contains calibration curves! Miles, et al used isoperibolic calorimetry, which is a single point measurement, not an integrating method such as mass flow or Seebeck. Their cell was essentially a test tube. They put it in a bigger test tubs and filled the outer tube with water, then measured its temperature. (the outer tube was surrounded by insulating material.) The isoperibiolic calorimetry technique compares that temp to a 'fixed' reference T, typically obtained from a constant temperature bath. They used two 'identical' cells (A and B) and used thermistors mounted in two different positions in each cell outer tube. And guess what, the calibration curves are given, and they're different (for 'identical' cells recall). One cell is significantly worse that the other. The computed difference in output powers for a fixed measured deltaT of 20 degrees was 138 mW for cell A and 19 mW for cell B (really identical aren't they...). Now, Miles attributes this to _thermistor_ differences, which may well be true. But what I find interesting is the statements about which calibration constants were used:

"Previously determined mean values of these constants [11] were used in this study (K1 = 0.138 W/°C, K2 = 0.143 W/°C and K4 = K5 = 0.135 W/°C for the four thermistors in cells A and B). The constants were determined in four separate experiments over a 1 year period and showed standard deviations of less than ±3% with no significant change with time. Calibrations were also determined by Joule heating using a 20 Ω resistor as described previously [11]."

(Note: Isoperibolic cal equation: Pout = K * deltaT + b)

Now what was it I wrote in 2000?...

"Therefore, a simple reinterpretation produces the conclusions that the cell would seem to be close to
power balance as expected, and the excess power detected by Storms was likely due to the systematic
error involving calibration constant variation." (from the Conclusions)

and

"The computed slopes (mCp term) are roughly centered about theoretical, as shown by
the average coefficient values and the percent deviation from the 20 ^oC theoretical value
(Table 1, mean of 0.4% and a S.D. of 1.5%)." (from the Results and Discussion)

(Note: SD = 1.5% implies a 2 sigma band of +/- 3%)

Hmmm.... looks like Miles' excess heats fall within the error band found for Storms' work,
maybe _they_ had a CCS!

BTW, also from the same paper:

"Because of the use of helium-cooled nuclear magnetic resonance instruments and helium-filled glove-boxes in the building, the helium content of the laboratory air can be significantly higher than 5.22 ppm and was recently measured as 10.27 + 0.03 ppm and 9.89 + 0.03 ppm in two separate experiments."

I have an account where 150 ppm was measured in a different CFer's lab, and I no reason to suspect higher can't be found.

Miles, et al, go to great lengths to ensure no air/He gets into their apparatus, their results cluster (no excess, no He...excess sees He in the majority of cases) but the only way to be certain is to (a) monitor the air He conc during the entire experiment and exceed that amount by a significant factor, or (b) provide a recipe that produces x amount of He every time, and y amount every time from different conditions, i.e. show control and reproducibility. Hasn't been done yet (at least per published results). (P.S. saying they did it but not providing the actual results is LTA.)

Quote from H-G Branzell

Ed, can you elaborate a bit on this statement, please:
Quote: “We now have evidence for the expected energetic radiation required to dissipate the resulting excess mass-energy.”?

I suggest you consult my book - page 81-93.

Quote from H-G Branzell

Axil, you are like a monopole yourself, attracting only the craziest ideas that google can find for you. I think your plan is to make me pissed off and say something no-no so I will get banned.

Instead I think that it is you that should be banned for concocting such sinister schemes.

People see what they want to see and disregard the rest...

Ignoring what makes you afraid, doubtful, and uncertain is a common coping strategy that many people use to get through their day. When something makes you pissed, just ignore it. This is the path to happiness and carefree living.

I myself cannot do this happiness thing. Rossi says that he gets 500 watts of electric power out of 50 watts input. He must be lying, Maybe he will go away; most everyone ignores him: I cannot...I have to understand why.

Holmlid says that he produces 12 billion mesons by flashing a 100 milliwatt laser. Most everyone ignores him; he must be in error...I cannot ignore him...I need to understand how such things can be possible. Don't let my affliction to know the truth effect the happiness in your life. Happy dreams are so wonderful, so comfortable, so secure, when the universe is so cruel.

Quote from Thomas Clarke

If, given current state of evidence, you judge LENR to be likely then there will I think not be much that can dissuade you from that judgement. You have already accepted that any effect is variable and not easily reproducible above possible errors, but nevertheless visible, over multiple indicators each with very different sensitivity. The anomaly inherent in that statement (Josh and I have pointed it above) will weigh on you less than the evidence you believe you have for LENR. Since it is a pretty big anomaly that must mean you think there is even bigger evidence for, and therefore it will be effectively impossible to shake your belief. The LENR hypothesis cannot be falsified (please reply if you dispute that).

I think it's true that LENR as a hypothesis cannot be falsified, at least in practical terms. The reason is that doing this would require going over 27 years of reports of experiments and showing that each observed anomaly can be better explained by some mundane artifact. As long as there is one anomaly remaining, a non-chemical mechanism can still be proposed. At least one can enjoy themselves watching the field once one is persuaded there are some genuine anomalies. Like you say, there's a mystery to be understood and explained.

Being unable to falsify LENR as a hypothesis gives rise to different strategies. There's the meta-historical strategy, where one shows that LENR is fringe and is effectively ignored by mainstream science at this point, apart from a few exceptions. Let us acknowledge that this is basically the case. That fact bears upon one's own assessment of LENR as a science (or pseudoscience) only to the extent that one is willing to delegate one's critical thinking to those scientists who have actually looked at the LENR experiments and decided that LENR is not science. So while we can agree that at the level of sociology it would not be too surprising for someone to conclude that LENR is a pseudoscience, we can disagree at a personal level about whether the actual experiments are no good.

It is in the context of one's high-level assessment of the experiments that the argument about signals being close to noise, and about increasing accuracy of measurements causing the signal to decrease further, comes into play. The point is to show that the science of LENR follows the historical progression of a typical pseudoscience such as n-rays or polywater, etc. This argument is a bit harder to make, because it requires broad generalizations about the progression of a given type of experiment. Unless one has an expert command of the entire experimental record for a given question, there will be reasonable room for doubt about whether a generalization is accurate. And ultimately this is a meta-historical argument, where the audience is being asked to place LENR in the category of homeopathy and ufology and so on. Its effectiveness at a practical level can be gauged by whether the audience actually changes their mind as a result; in my own experience, people rarely do.

Another strategy is to look at individual experiments and try to make sense of the situation for oneself. In this context although it would be hard to falsify LENR as a hypothesis, one can assess the credibility and impact of individual experiments, and one can assess whether the reported observations falsify proposed explanations for LENR. If one is burned enough times, although this would not disprove LENR overall, it could be sufficient to motivate one to move on to other topics of interest. So although we cannot falsify LENR, we can falsify individual reports of anomalies and individual explanations for anomalies. And eventually one might lose interest, or help others to lose interest. This will be made more difficult by the fact that people's hopes will make them less than objective about competing interpretations of the evidence.

Quote from Thomas Clarke

Whichever way you swing: "corpus as a whole convinced" or "corpus as a whole unconvinced" then changes your "best fit" interpretation of the individual evidence. It is an inevitable positive feedback that makes those who look seriously at the evidence more likely to have one-sided views.

I think it's reasonable for someone to try to come up with an explanation that best fits a subset of the reported anomalies, even if this means there will be added complexity. The question is which of these competing explanations feels most plausible. The question of plausibility is a ultimately a subjective one, but it's one that can change over time and in response to new information.

Tom, as with all aspects of life, plausibility depends on how well the explanation fits the facts. Of course, a person has to actually examine the facts and understand what the proposed explanation actually says. At this time, neither the skeptics, conventional scientists, or even people in the field are willing to meet these two requirements, you included. I know this to be true because I have actually read all the papers and evaluated all the theories. I see no similar effort being made. Even the books describing my efforts are largely ignored.

Explaining a chosen subset of behaviors is a waste of time. Theory gains its support and benefit by being able to explain everything, including ideas that are not yet considered. The present theories are useless because they conflict with too much of what is known to be true. Also, they can not show how to make the effect work on demand. In many cases, they result by throwing an idea on the wall to see what sticks. It is a game to see who can show the greatest amount of imagination with the least clarity. This is a waste of everyone's time.

The process of explanation starts by acknowledging that a new effect actually exists. No progress can be made when the claimed effect is repeatedly rejected, as you and other skeptics do. The next step is to learn from the experts. Pretending you know more that a person who has studied the effect for years is arrogant and foolish. Once you have learned what is known and why this information is considered important, you are then qualified to make suggestions. You have not reached this level yet.

Nevertheless, your interest is appreciated provided you ask rather than tell.

Quote

The process of explanation starts by acknowledging that a new effect actually exists. No progress can be made when the claimed effect is repeatedly rejected, as you and other skeptics do.

If by progress you mean getting people to agree with you that is true.

However, I note on this thread considerable progress in explaining anomalous results that might be interpreted as a new effect.

I'm not rejecting anything, it is just that credible evidence of a new effect seems much weaker than might be expected from the strength of your conviction.

Again, you have not acknowledged the hydra argument and how this applies to preponderance of evidence.

Storms wrote:

Quote

Attached is a histogram of the helium /energy measurements. The collection of 16 values clusters around a value that is about 40% of the value expected to result from D+D=He fusion. Because the ratio of two independent measurements is plotted, the ratio can fall anywhere between 0 and infinity if error were the main cause of the value. Instead, the value shows a tight cluster that can be fit by a Gaussian error function. In all other field of science, this is called a very tight and meaningful correlation.

It certainly looks impressive, and if the results were credible and comprehensive, they would be revolutionary. But simply presenting a graph does not give any indication of the credibility or comprehensiveness of the data. You've been cagey about the origin of these particular results, but there are only 16 values, and even your 2010 review used 25 values to get a ratio, so I assume this is a subset of those. If so, they consist of Miles results which were at the low ppb level and challenged in the literature, and McKubre's and Bush and Lagowski's results, which did not even rise to the modest level of peer review.

At first blush, results like these seem indisputable, but on further consideration, it becomes clear that it is a combination of a suitable ambient level of helium, confirmation bias, and shameless cherry-picking. To elaborate:

1) suitable ambient level

There are many claimed products of nuclear reactions in cold fusion experiments (neutrons, tritium, various transmutation products, He-3, gamma rays) and with a little discrimination, they would probably all give a similarly shaped distributions with the peak in the neighborhood (or just above) the detection limit, especially when plotted on a log scale. But none of them are commensurate with claimed heat, because the detection limit is usually orders of magnitude below that expected based on the heat.

In the case of helium, however, because of the 5 ppm level in the atmosphere, with the appropriate excess power level or duration, the detection limit (or just above) *does* correspond to the excess heat. Depending on the method, this appropriate power level is a fraction of a watt for measurements on the scale of hours, very typical of electrolysis experiments. Much higher power levels have been claimed, but few reports of helium measurements are connected to such claims, and none are used in Storms' 2010 review for the calculation of the ratio, or presumably for the chart shown here (more on this in part 3).

Under these circumstances, data points between zero and the detection limit cannot be measured. Measurements of zero helium would be off-scale on a log plot, in spite of the erroneous label at the origin (it should be 0.01, not 0). So, results in the noise are either considered at the noise level, or more often ignored. For example, in McKubre's 2000 proceedings, the electrolysis measurements (meant to replicate Miles) show 3 points with helium at the noise level, and 3 points with the same power but with helium 2 or 3 times above the noise. McKubre only uses the non-zero points for his calculation of the ratio.

And if the measurements are result of artifact, they will not stray very far above the detection or noise limit, and so, you have a distribution right where you want it.

2) Confirmation bias

When helium does appear significantly above the expected value, the experimenters rightfully suspect a leak and work to correct it. In fact, Miles writes that in the first 12 days of their 1990/91 experiment, the electrolysis was shut down several times to correct leaks. But when the value fits their expectation, they are not motivated to look for leaks. So, too low, and it's below the detection limit and ignored. Too high, and the leak is fixed. Just right, and it's tabulated.

In McKubre's gas-loading experiment (2000) cited by Storms, McKubre uses the results from only one out of 16 cells to calculate the heat-helium ratio. He shows helium levels for 6 of the 16 cells, and of those 3 show no helium, but there is no mention of the heat. (More on the McKubre results below.)

3) Cherry picking

This is similar to part 2, but applies to a meta-analysis of different studies, as Storms has done in the 2010 review:

Storms refers to several helium measurements, but selects only a subset to calculate the helium to heat ratio. So, for example, DeNinno claims helium an order of magnitude above the expected value, but it's not used because they think the calorimetry was wrong.

Arata claimed considerably higher heat, and for a longer duration, but still only measured helium near the detection limit, in this case putting it orders of magnitude below the expected value. This is not considered reliable enough to use.

Takahashi's results showed many cells with heat but no helium and many with helium but no heat. The corresponding ratios of zero and infinity are ignored for the calculation.

The claimed values provided by Bush and Lagowski were not to Storms' liking, "so the values in Table 3 are based on detailed information communicated to Storms by Bush in 1998 (Storms 1998)." None of this information is communicated to the reader to give confidence to this re-analysis.

Thirteen of the 25 values used in the 2010 review come from McKubre's gas-loading experiment, reported sketchily in a conference proceeding in 2000. These are the data that Abd is so enamored of, but using the data from one cell out of 16, and treating the observations as 13 independent measurements is grossly misleading for the following reasons:

(i) What is observed (or claimed) is a steady increase of the helium over a period of 20 days, and a constant excess power of less than 100 mW. Both of these could be caused by artifact -- helium infusion (a leak) to produce the steady increase in helium, and an error in interpreting isolated temperatures to give a small excess power. The result of these two phenomena are that both the total energy and the helium increase together, even if they're caused by two completely independent errors. So the claimed correlation here is meaningless. But more importantly, it's really only one result. The graph (Fig. 3) actually only shows 10 data points, so it's not clear where the 13 came from, but it could have been measured 100 times. That wouldn't make the results more significant, but would have made for a much sharper histogram, which is to say that once the observation of a steady increase is established, the number of measurements is arbitrary.

(ii) In Fig 2, it is shown that the helium measurements for that cell actually continue for another 15 days, and the concentration peaks and then decreases, even while the total energy presumably continues to increase. Why were these additional points not used?

(iii) The fact that the level saturates suggests helium infusion. The level (as measured) does exceed the putative background value by something less than a factor of 2, but the problem is *measurement* of the background value is not reported, nor is any calibration of the concentration measurement presented. So, it's possible the levels are off a little, or that the background is elevated. Miles reported earlier that the helium background in their lab was twice the normal background, which is not surprising given the usual presence of helium cryogenics and helium glove-boxes in physics labs.

(iv) The estimate of excess power was not made using any kind of reliable *calorimetry*, but by the measurement of isolated temperatures, and by methods that are not described in any detail. This kind of determination of excess power was shown to be seriously flawed in CERN's replication of the Piantelli work, where CERN attributed the apparent excess power to changes in the thermal properties of the nickel caused by hydrogen absorption. And they were claiming tens of watts. Here, only about 90 mW is claimed, so that result has little credibility. Furthermore, determinations of excess power were not reported for any of the other cells, and in particular the cells that showed no helium.

(v) A general comment. Only one of the 3 references Storms gives for this work is easily accessible (ICCF8, 2000), but that document is woefully inadequate as a scientific report. Much is left out, and many questions are unanswered. If that's the best McKubre can do, or if he doesn't have good answers to those questions, it's not surprising that the work was never published in a proper journal, and for the same reason, it is completely unjustified to use the data from a single dubious cell to comprise more than half of the data points contributing to Storms helium ratio in the 2010 review.

Storms wrote:

Quote

In order to understand any phenomenon, we have to start by making plausible assumptions. These are then used to guide future work. No progress is made if every observation is questioned and rejected because it is not perfect.

Imperfect interpretations of observations and assumptions must compete as to plausibility. Based on a century of copious, robust, consistent, and reproducible evidence, the possibility of phenomena collectively described as cold fusion are extremely *implausible*, and when observations used to claim such phenomena are very plausibly explainable by artifacts, errors, and confirmation bias, then future work should be guided as far away from further pursuit as possible.

You can't just keep chasing something because it is desirable. When 27 years of effort are unable to improve the evidence for something so ridiculously implausible, which again is plausibly caused by artifact, then it becomes time to cut losses.

Quote

The He/energy result is the best quantitative value we have in the LENR field.

And that's the sad part of it. Because, when your citations are actually examined, it becomes clear that the helium research is a dog's breakfast. And that's the best there is.

There are claims of excess powers more than a watt, or even 10 watts, and these are said to be reliable. Why not look for helium in those experiments? A watt of excess power for one month would produce unequivocal levels of helium in the electrode or the gas. Arata claimed to measure 5 W for 2000 hours (83 days), corresponding to 36 MJ, but the helium he observed (as near as I could deduce) was a million times too low to account for the heat.

It's not that all the observations made in this business can be easily explained by artifact, although Shanahan makes a valiant effort. For me, it's about "What if?" questions. If the claims that are made had merit, it would be easy to make nuclear phenomena stand out. If a tiny foil produces 25 watts in the Energetics experiment, then use one 10 times bigger. If Celani's wires produce 10 W, use 10 wires, some insulation, and it self-sustains. If 60 mW produces 8 ppb helium in one hour, then 1 W for a month will exceed ambient contributions by a factor of 10.

That's the sort of scaling that made Lavoisier and Curie famous, by allowing them to identify the source of combustion or radiation. And if anything, nuclear reactions in the context of cold fusion experiments should be far more manifest. But nothing ever scales in cold fusion. When the experiments are improved, the effect gets weaker. It's been more than 10 years since the last helium correlation experiments were done, or at least reported. If that's the best experiment going, and the existing results haven't been published (without challenge), why has no one tried to improve them?

Thanks for that Josh, as seems usual on this thread, the detailed information I need to interpret gnostic comments from Ed or Abd is provided by you. But - I'm still confused. We don't really know what were the points highlighted by Ed as evidence. He won't give the attribution, and previously referred me to "his book". Why can't he just quote published literature?

It does seem mildly insulting that he should think a few points displayed on a graph could be of use to me without all the data.

It appears that in the case of He measurements we sometimes have result reporting selection: more effective than experiment selection. Perhaps Ed can cite some unselected sets of independent He data, with the exact data collection methodology described, including all the criteria for excluding data points or checking the setup for leakage?

Ed - before you ask why I believe Josh not you, I don't believe anyone. It is just that Josh is providing details and you are not.

My reply to your original graph "I'd need more information to evaluate that" was typical British understatement.

Storms wrote:

Quote

The next best is the tritium /neutron measurements. These measurements provide a path to eventual understanding. This path has become clear.

There has been zero increased clarity on either of those topics. The early tritium claims (with which you were involved) were far higher than the later ones. But the last reported from LANL that I have seen was from you colleague Claytor, and he wrote "due to the subtle and weak nature of the signals observed, we have taken many precautions and checks to prevent contamination and to confirm the tritium is not due to an artifact". So, a measure of nuclear reactions some million times more sensitive than heat, is *still* "subtle and weak".

McKubre was even more negative in 1998, when he wrote "we may nevertheless state with some confidence that tritium is not a routinely produced product of the electrochemical loading of deuterium into palladium"

And there has been little activity on the tritium front since. Claytor is making some noises about it again, but nothing detailed has been published yet.

And in 27 years, nothing specific has been resolved about tritium -- how to increase it, what mechanism is plausible in the context (particularly that would not produce neutrons at a similar level), and so on.

As for neutrons, P&F original claim was retracted. Jones early claims were already at level far below those expected based on the claimed heat, and in careful studies at Kamiokande and Gran Sasso, were eventually retracted as well. What's left is the SPAWAR one-neutron-per-hour claims, that have been challenged in the literature, and failed the Galileo test, and shut down by SPAWAR itself. The recent Italian paper on CR-39 and neutrons (Faccini et al., Eur Phys J. C 74 (2014) 1) really casts all the CR-39 claims in a doubtful light.

It is difficult to understand why Ed is ignoring the negative evidence here:

• Excess heat reduces to error level when reproduced with better calorimetry. Early F&P observations fully explained by errors. Systematic mechanisms for errors identified.
• He measurements all below plausible lab He concentration. Correlations can be explained because both erroneous excess heat and erroneous leakage will scale linearly with time. Correlation magnitude will be viewed as experimental error and corrected if too large or much too small. He measurements not made from experiments with larger excess heat that would lead to high He concentration.
• Radiation measurements are much more sensitive (1000000X?) than heat evidence but nevertheless show marginal results.

I think the reason is that he is convinced by "preponderance of evidence". From his POV any one result can be criticised but so many different results showing the same thing must represent a real effect.

My view of the same phenomena is that a combination of systematic errors, experiment selection, and in some cases result selection, will give this preponderance.

Take for example excess heat. Arbitrary errors will give either heat excess or heat deficit, so 50% are showing FPHE even without selection. Those experiments with neither will be dismissed as one of the cases where LENR is not working. Those with significant heat deficit will be investigated to debug the experiment, and errors discovered, before ever results are gathered. Those with significant excess heat will be viewed as good evidence.

The same phenomena for He results has been suggested by Josh above and not yet refuted by Ed.

The root problem in all these cases is that the desired result is known ab initio and experiments designed to show it. When the results from this are variable and near error threshold you cannot know whether they are real, or the result of the various selection processes.

Even one experiment with correct methodology, believable detailed reporting, and results well beyond error would change these things.

Dear Dr Storms

Like a lot of people on this forum I have a great deal of interest but very little expertise. I am therefore excited at every opportunity to learn from scientists like yourself, I have your book 'The explanation of low energy nuclear reaction'. I note the References starting on page 256 onwards total 904. I have written one paper in my field 'safety law' which was peer reviewed which gave only 10 references. Your work is most impressive.

However, I also note in Chapter 6 on page 252 6.0.0 Scientific, your observation that many conventional scientists are arrogant in that any new idea that conflicts with what they were taught must be wrong. Claims that Pons and Fleishmann must have made a mistake but that mistake cannot be found. Since then you say nearly a thousand papers show P&F were correct but that the papers were largely unknown or unread because of what Price might have called a Reputation Trap' discussed at length on another thread.

I have had a few 'exchanges' with Thomas elsewhere who strikes me as pedantic but one thing that strikes me is that he gives reasons for his view which may or may not be balanced or objective particularly in my opinion those regarding MY. However, the exchange regarding calibration is very interesting and I wonder why you appear to have dismissed his contribution as uninformed and by implication worthless which it may well be. For my benefit it would be helpful to know why.

Quote from Storms

Nevertheless, your interest is appreciated provided you ask rather than tell.