FP's experiments discussion

@Thomas Clarke

Many have been observed. The number of actual nuclides and transitions is immense, compared to the "Chart of the Nuclides". Look at the Firestone compendia:

http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/…productCd-0471356336.html

Before one criticizes W-L (Widom-Larsen) and W-L-S (add Srivastava) theories, one should be willing to conduct simple dispositive experiments that could easily trash such ideas. For example, and I have mentioned this before, the presence of Ultra Low Momentum (UlM) neutrons is essential to the W-L and W-L-S theoretical constructs, as I read it anyway. So why are not researchers putting the W-L key idea to experimental confirmation/disconfirmation? Funding is likely the answer. But it is really quite simple to look at this, at least in my conception:

ULM neutrons can be classified and detected by use of centrifugation... not for artificial g-forces, but simply to give these "slow particles" enough tangential velocity to make them vectorial (specific direction and added velocity) sufficient to impact suitable targets that can then be examined radiometrically for the isotopes generated. Such a scheme can easily include charged plates to deflect protons or electrons from the output. Mass classification, as a bonus, could identify tetrahedral 4N entities as well or other transient neutronic products.

Just to add my two cents:

• I think W-L is unphysical. One can see why this is the case by exploring the consequences of what would happen if there were gobs of free neutrons (~ 1e11 neutrons/s, say) appearing at near-zero energies and then letting them thermalize, noting that the neutron capture cross section is always finite. Rapidly a significant number will thermalize and reflect out of the apparatus, making any graduate students very sick and setting off any GM counters. Any that did not thermalize will leave the host material activated in the same way that neutron-activation analysis does. (Ed Storms pointed this out to me several years ago.)
• I think Ed Storms's theory is unphysical. There are many reasons to conclude this, and Tom's point, here, is a good one. What are the spin-parity assignments of those nuclei that have begun to shrink in size? Do we set aside the nuclear shell model?

Most LENR theories strike me as being deeply unphysical. I usually ignore them. It is the experiments that are interesting.

@Branzell

I suspect that W, L and S may have an answer prepared for that critique.... but I appreciate you pointing it out, and thanks for the reference. I suppose that their coherent plasmonic "Fermi sea" might be invoked to provide an ultra massive Faraday screen against even gammas--- with sufficient extent to thermalize multi-MeV photons.

As that particular part of W-L-S theory is supposed to provide an explanation for the lack of observed gammas--- I understand that this implication of W-L theory is a somewhat later development.

In any case that additional or corollary theory could also be a window of disconfirmation of the gamma blocking theory-- but here I guess, having no expertise to offer.

Crucial tests whose outcomes can disprove a theory are universal in science. All leading theories should be subjected to such efforts, regardless of the field of science in which they reside. Good science does not need dogma, it operatively needs such tests against leading theories (or read transient dogmas of the era). Such tests are done all the time in well-funded science closer to public consensus and outside of the "reputation trap". In my opinion, doing such tests is also important to clearing away the theoretical jungle presently in place in CF / LENR. Simple and inexpensive tests are a key presently... considering the reality of very low available funding. The p + e* --> n idea in W-L seems to be a readily accessible and lower cost window.... no neutrons near the tangential velocity of the centrifuged "generator", no W-L.... Or conversely, neutrons found, W-L survives to fight another day.

Thank you for pointing out the misstatement. That should be "neutron detectors."

Sorry, but I have no interest in discussing once again what Shanahan says. I have been down that road many times over the years without detecting any change in his arguments. I suggest anyone who is still interested in his issues read the following papers.

K. Shanahan, Reply to “Comment on papers by K. Shanahan that propose to explain anomalous heat generated by cold fusion”, E. Storms, Thermochim. Acta, 2006, Thermochim. Acta 441 (2006) 210-4.

E.K. Storms, Comment on papers by K. Shanahan that propose to explain anomalous heat generated by cold fusion, Thermochim. Acta 441 (2006) 207-9.J.

Marwan, M.C. McKubre, F. Tanzella, P.I. Hagelstein, M. Miles, M.R. Swartz, E.K. Storms, Y. Iwamura, P.A. Mosier-Boss, L. Forsley, A new look at low-energy nuclear reaction (LENR) research: A response to Shanahan, J. Environ. Monit. (2010).

As for my explanation, the process of overcoming the Coulomb barrier and the resulting dissipation of energy must be related and combined into a single mechanism. Once this assumption is accepted, the process leaves the world of normal nuclear reactions. Something very new and unique is required to account for the total process. The process also has to account for all the nuclear products found to result when LENR occurs. This in includes helium, tritium without significant neutrons, two different kinds of transmutation, and weak photon radiation. When these conditions are imposed, the possible mechanism becomes even more unusual and the possibilities become very limited. Of course, this challenge attracts people with imagination. Use of imagination is ok, but the effort needs to be consistent to what is actually observed. My imagined process has this consistency. At this time, that is the only criteria we can apply because we do not know enough about this very strange process to make a better judgement. If you can do better, please do.

Hi Ed,

I hope you've been reading my comments about your 2010 J. Env. Monitoring. You guys really messed up there, systematic never equals random in my lexicon. But for some reason, the J. Env. Mon. editor wouldn't let me reply to your comment, nor would he ask you guys to correct your mistake. Maybe he thinks random = systematic too?

Kirk

Shanahan's comment. (extract from paywalled whole).

Quote

In 2002, this author published a reanalysis [2] of laboratory data claimed to have shown unequivocal excess heat [3] (or more correctly, power), wherein a previously unrecognized systematic error was demonstrated to have the capacity to explain the observations without invoking a nuclear reaction. This error was termed the ‘calibration constant shift’ (CCS). This explanation was challenged twice,4,5 and responses published,6,7 although the first challenge was non-specific. The second challenge focused on the proposed speculative mechanism for how the CCS might have occurred in F&P type cells rather than on the CCS explanation itself. The responses clarified the issues and left the CCS unchallenged as a potential explanation of apparent excess heat signals. The CCS is a fundamental problem that can actually occur any time a calibration equation is used to interpret experimental data, and thus is actually widely applicable and not just limited to cold fusion calorimetry. The basic requirement for being able to successfully calibrate an analytical device (such as a calorimeter or voltmeter) is for that device to be stable for a reasonable period of time.

If a calibration is established on a device, and then it changes its condition, the previously determined calibration expressed via a calibration equation with constants is suddenly made invalid. If this shift is not recognized, the experimentalist will apply the prior calibration equation with currently invalid calibration constants to compute the experimental result(s), giving an error. What should have been done was to recalibrate under the new steady state and use the new calibration constants, since the constants have now ‘shifted’ to new values. This is the genesis of the term ‘calibration constant shift’

In the reanalysis, [2] a simple assumption was made, namely that the system’s steady state had changed due to the onset of what was called the non-nuclear Fleischmann–Pons–Hawkins effect (FPHE). This change in steady state was assumed to have been accomplished without the introduction of a new excess heat source. The data was then reanalyzed under that assumption and the ‘new’ calibration constants determined for each individual run. The calibration equation used in this case was a simple linear one (y ¼ mx + b) and the slope term was explicitly examined, with the result that the variation in that term of 1% (1 s) was found. This is a common precision level for a good analytical technique, yet it was adequate to explain an excess power signal of 780 mW, which was 10 times the commonly assumed error level determined by baseline noise fluctuation. This is why the CCS is such an important realization regarding these experiments. It increased the quantitative measure of system noise by a factor of 10. And there is no reason to believe this one case developed with a top-line calorimeter (98%+ heat capture efficiency) limits that factor in any way. The CCS is a systematic error, and it is an unfortunate fact of systematic errors that they tend to invalidate all prior work since the error was not recognized before the point where they are delineated. Thus it becomes imperative to evaluate the sensitivity of the calorimetric results to potential changes in the calibration constants in a process knows as sensitivity analysis. To date, no cold fusion calorimetric study has done this, even though this revelation was published 7 years ago.

4 S. Szpak, P. A. Mosier-Boss, M. H. Miles and M. Fleischmann, Thermal behavior of polarized Pd/D electrodes prepared by codeposition, Thermochim. Acta, 2004, 410, 101.

5 E. Storms, Comment on papers by K. Shanahan that propose to explain anomalous heat generated by cold fusion, Thermochim. Acta, 2006, 441, 207.

6 K. L. Shanahan, Comments on ‘Thermal behavior of polarized Pd/D electrodes prepared by co-deposition’, Thermochim. Acta, 2005, 428, 207.

7 K. L. Shanahan, Reply to ‘Comment on papers by K. Shanahan that propose to explain anomalous heat generated by cold fusion’, E. Storms, Thermochim. Acta, 2006, Thermochim. Acta, 2006, 441, 210.

Storms 2010 reply to Shanahan's comment

Quote

To explain the excess heat in these experiments, Shanahan invokes what he calls a Calibration Constant Shift (CCS). This CCS is nothing more than a hypothesis and should be stated as such (CCSH). There is no experimental evidence that it occurs, especially at the level of ±780 mW stated by Shanahan. Furthermore, Shanahan does not specify mechanisms by which a calorimeter thermal calibration can change in such a way that, just during the periods of putative excess thermal power production, the calibration constant is different from its initial and final calibrated value. He employs the calibration constant shift hypothesis (CCSH), unquantified, with the logic that if this can happen in one experiment or calorimeter type, then it must be presumed to happen in all. To dispel this notion, the excess heat results obtained using two completely different types of calorimeters will be discussed.
... isoperibolic calorimeter (China Lake)...
(1.) The excess power effect was typically 5 to 10% larger than the input power. The largest excess power effect was 30% the production of excess thermal power. The excess power measurements 3 were summarized by the following six conclusions:
(2.) The excess power in terms of the palladium volume was typically 1 to 5 W/cm3
(3.) Long electrolysis times ranging from 6 to 14 days were required before the onset of the excess power for Pd rod cathodes
(4.) Excess power production required a threshold current density of 100 mA/cm2 or higher
(5.) Overall, only 30% of the experiments produced excess power (6.) The success ratio in obtaining excess power varied greatly with the source of the palladium It would be nearly impossible to obtain these conclusions if the excess power was due to Shanahan’s random CCSH

... mass flow calorimeter (SRI)...
A Mass Flow Calorimeter designed with high thermal efficiency, Φ, can operate as a first principles device with no calorimeter specific calibrations. Nevertheless, the calorimeter was periodically calibrated using an internal resistor. The maximum error was determined to be ±50 mW. For a mass flow calorimeter with Φ = 99%, only 1% of the measured heat output is subject to the vagaries of geometric effects on conduction and radiation. The remaining 99% is determined solely from temperature, mass flow rate and the heat capacity of the convecting fluid. None of these measurements are subject to calibration drift and can be measured and calibrated independent of the calorimeter. Thus the CCSH 4 can account for an excess power of at most (and actually much less than) 1% of the output power in the example given. Reported excess power numbers are typically >10% of the input electrical power. The CCSH can thus be shown quantitatively to fail in all cases of excess power reported in mass flow calorimeters. The SRI results typically yielded 5 to 10% excess power with a maximum of 28% excess power; the excess power was 1-5 W/cm3 on the average; the initiation time was on the order of 300 hours for 1-4 mm Pd rods; the threshold current density ranged from 100-400 mA/cm2 ; and the success rate varied greatly with the source of the palladium

Display More

@Branzell

I appreciate that you believe something or other about this subject. Simple analogies and similes are not going to convince many experimentalists.

We also should remember that coherent phonon/boson interactions may explain superconductivity. And then what about high temperature superconductivity?

And why would I mention superconductivity? Meissner effect? The parallel may be more than a coincidence-- or perhaps not.....

But I am not here to defend W-L. or any other theory for that matter.

I have a number of comments on these arguments, but I'll leave off for a little in case Kirk or Ed wish to qualify the above summaries.

"If a calibration is established on a device, and then it changes its condition, the previously determined calibration expressed via a calibration equation with constants is suddenly made invalid. If this shift is not recognized, the experimentalist will apply the prior calibration equation with currently invalid calibration constants to compute the experimental result(s), giving an error."

This is why I wonder whether the Lugano Optris temperature parameters, obtained through a calibration with a 500 W input on the tubes going into the reactor, are valid when applied to the body of the reactor at a 900+ W input.

Quote

This is why I wonder whether the Lugano Optris temperature parameters, obtained through a calibration with a 500 W input on the tubes going into the reactor, are valid when applied to the body of the reactor at a 900+ W input.

They were not so applied. There was no calibration of the (wrong) emissivity from book values at higher temperatures.

No, work is picking up so my time will be more limited in the future. The comparison of my comments to those of the 10 authors above has been dealt with in the majority in pieces in my earlier posts. Have at it, Thomas.

"They were not so applied. There was no calibration of the (wrong) emissivity from book values at higher temperatures."

I didn't follow. Can you clarify?

Do you disagree with any of the following details?

• The dummy run provided (some of) the parameters that were used by the Optris to calculate the temperature for the live run.
• The dummy run only went up to 500 W input power.
• The live run ran up to 900+ W input power.
• The black dots that were used were applied to the cable tubes and not the body of the reactor, because of the fins on the body.
• The temperatures used for the integrated energy calculation included temperatures from the body of the reactor.

Am I missing something simple here? Seems pretty straightforward that there was an inadequate calibration. Do you disagree with the "inadequate calibration" conclusion entirely, or are you simply querying a detail pertaining to the emissivity used for the live run?

Personally I like Peter Hagelstein theory, which may not yet be complete, but I think will be part of the final explanation of LENR:

"In our view, this absence of commensurate energetic particles is the most important feature of the process which must be addressed theoretically7. For us, it signals clearly that it must be possible to fractionate a large megaelectron volt-scale nuclear quantum into a very large number of much smaller electron volt-scale quanta. No alternative appears to be viable...."

Ref.

http://www.currentscience.ac.in/Volumes/108/04/0601.pdf

Quote

The dummy run provided (some of) the parameters that were used by the Optris to calculate the temperature for the live run.

Disagree.

That is strictly not quite true, in the active runs temperature and power from much lower temperature items was estimated, and that would be affected by the low temp adjustment, but that amounts to < 10% of total power and its adjustment is not significant. (I have not checked the data, so this figure may be too high).

The emissivity cal adjustment only affects temperatures as used in the dummy test, and while it alters things because at these lower temperatures the book emissivity is nearer 0.9 (the real value) the cal adjustment is much smaller than the large high temp adjustment. So the combination of relatively small adjustment + small proportion of total power makes this below noise level.

Apologies for enabling the off-topic part which is beginning to occur. I will keep my response short.
@Eric Walker and @Thomas Clarke,
Testing the tube emissivity/temperature/power portion of the Lugano report is the easiest experiment to manage of all the report problems.
There is plenty of data (materials, current used, dots, etc.), there is no special reaction suspected here... It is just glowing wire in a alumina tube.
I can't believe that no one has tried to test this part.