FP's experiments discussion

  • Quote

    And Kirk Sh. would now say, "not CCS, but Stored energy,,recombination, hydrogen release etc.." But these early critical suggestions in 1989 was evaluated and calculated and there is no such possible explanations.


    You are assuming hydras have only one head. I'd be very very surprised if Kirk does this and unless he does what you have here is a pernicious straw man.


    CCS can be a real systematic error (for total heat excess and power bursts)
    Stored energy can be a real systematic error (for power bursts)


    There is no exclusive or here, as you imply.

  • Thomas,


    1. Kirk Sh. Has not shown by calculation what mechanism could fit Sudden onset of 20x input power, which lasted, for in the case mentioned, for 4 days and then suddenly dissapears.


    2. And, If you bothered read the paper, you would see that, in thiese tests the total excess energy for the three Months test period was ranging from typical 11% to 50% of total energy input.


    So: Kirk Sh. Has not shown by calculation how a CCS mechanism or other hypotheticals could fit 11% to 50% excess energy over this long extended period, where also calorimetry where Calibrated dusins of times during the three Months. And Of course his hypothetical explanation must also fit a sudden outburst of energy.


    And yes, recombination, energy storage effects and other possible "mundane artifacts" where suggested early on in 1989 as critisism, and then studied, evaluated, calculated, measured, recalculated, remeasured, and found not a possible explanation.


    Of course F&P had allready looked for these "mundane" explanations prior to 1989, since the start of their research in 1983.


    Anyhow, anyone that feels called to critisize F&P and their results should first read their actual papers, instead for make hypothetical explanations, and repeat old suggestive critisism, which have all been studied and rejected.
    Fleischmann M., Pons S. Calorimetry Of The Palladium-D-D2O System, Proceedings: EPRI-NSF Workshop on Anomalous Effects in Deuterided Metals (1989), p 39 www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/EPRInsfepriwor.pdf


    Fleischmann M., Pons S., et al. Calorimetry of the Pd-D20 System: The Search for Simplicity and Accuracy, Proc. ICCF4 1, (1993), p 23 www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/EPRIproceeding.pdf


    Fleischmann M., Pons S. Heat After Death, Proc. ICCF4 2, (1993), p 107 www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/EPRIproceedinga.pdf


    Fleischmann, M. Cold Fusion; Past, Present & Future, www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmancoldfusion.pdf


    Fleischmann, M. Searching for the consequences of many-body effects in condensed phase systems, Proc. ICCF9 (2002), www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmansearchingf.pdf


    Fleischmann, M. Background to Cold Fusion: the Genesis of a Concept, Proc. ICCF10 (2003), www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanbackground.pdf


    Fleischmann, M. Reflections on the Sociology of Science and Social Responsibility in Science, in Relationship to Cold Fusion, www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanreflection.pdf


    Fleischmann, M. and M. Miles. The "Instrument Function" of Isoperibolic Calorimeters; Excess Enthalpy Generation due to the Parasitic Reduction of Oxygen, www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmantheinstrum.pdf


    Fleischmann, M. and S. Pons Reply to the critique by Morrison entitled 'Comments on claims of excess enthalpy by Fleischmann and Pons using simple cells made to boil, www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanreplytothe.pdf


    Fleischmann, M. and S. Pons. Calorimetry of the Pd-D2O System: from Simplicity via Complications to Simplicity, www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmancalorimetra.pdf


    Fleischmann, M., et al. Calorimetry of the palladium-deuterium-heavy water system, www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmancalorimetr.pdf


    Fleischmann, M., S. Pons, and G. Preparata Possible theories of cold fusion, www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanpossibleth.pdf


    Fleischmann, M., S. Pons, and M. Hawkins Electrochemically induced nuclear fusion of deuterium, www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanelectroche.pdf

  • Oystla - this is the multi-headed hydra issue. So that I and others can correctly understand your post:


    (1) which of your many refs is the 20X input power for 4 days. I know I can work this out but it is really useful to be precise here. There would be one ref for the original data and maybe others for reanalysis etc.


    (2) I'll address this when I've worked out which experiment you are referring to! So many of the F&P refs are discussions from F&P rather than the precise experimental description and data.


    Perhaps Kirk, who I believe is very familiar with the F&P stuff, can help identify the actual data here.


    One general point. Having many many well-written summaries of given results does not actually make the results stronger or weaker. What matters is the results themselves, the exact experimental conditions, and the argument over what could the errors be. Further, if the results are a single dataset that cannot be reproduced even given extensive efforts, they must be a candidate for "one-off" error.These things happen. So for F&P's results, which have been very carefully replicated with clearly better calorimetry, you need to be brave to assert extraordinary standard of proof for any original result which has not been replicated.


    One specific point. you posted some stuff from F&P with comment a while ago. I ended up not replying to that because the F&P stuff seemed weaker than other things that were being posted. However I had half-processed the arguments, and could do that here if that paper was the 20X over 4 days one. One difficulty - the paper you posted then actually had very sparse experimental data in it but a lot of discoursive analysis. So it may be difficult to know whether or not things like CCS might apply to it. Anyway, please post a precise paper for the original results and we can more forward.

  • Quote

    Kirk Sh. Has not shown by calculation how a CCS mechanism or other hypotheticals could fit 11% to 50% excess energy over this long extended period, where also calorimetry where Calibrated dusins of times during the three Months. And Of course his hypothetical explanation must also fit a sudden outburst of energy.


    If this is an open F&P cell then the potential CCS-type errors are large and difficult to bound. It is for F&P, or others now, to show that these errors could not explain the results.


    Re heat burst we have many-headed hydra. The explanation for a heat burst must be in part different from that for overall energy, since it includes a bound on total chemical energy storage. Again it is for you or others claiming this data is extraordinary to bound that safely. CCS would alter the numbers you had to bound. And differing assumptions about where stored energy might be would also alter them. So this needs some care.

  • @Thomas: You are a wizard of long writings, but many words alone don't give the content any higher quality by default. In your latest answer(s) to Abd about CCS you totally ignore his answer to you that FPHE show both excess heat AND excess tritium which rule out CCS because CCS apply to excess heat ONLY.


    I understand your strategy of answers as 'divide and conquer' and that goes well with your hydra. But this hydra head have BOTH lightning and thunder and both must be explained simultaniously.

  • "I also propose that the issue of ULM neutron hypotheses is important enough to merit at least some attention. Such hypotheses seem to persist due, at least in part, to their perceived relative untestability."


    My impression is that it is the opposite of this in the case with Widom-Larsen. The implications would be so apparent and so counter to what is actually observed that the theory has already effectively been tested on many occasions. (As such, it seems unlikely that another test would put to rest the original W-L claims.)


    I have not spent the time to familiarize myself with their replies to the following implications and would be interested in hearing what they would be from anyone who is more familiar with the work:

    • Neutron activation would be expected; not just activation lasting days, but also radionuclides with half-lives on the order of years, thousands of years, and millions of years, would be created. Free neutrons are indiscriminate in the radionuclides they create.
    • Even if the neutrons start out nearly stationary, a significant fraction would be expected to thermalize (attain thermal energies) by reflecting off of lattice sites and then escape the apparatus.
  • "If this is an open F&P cell then the potential CCS-type errors are large and difficult to bound."


    Here we agree. The CCS is like a hidden snuffaluffagus that eats up any excess energy. It is not clear how to place an upper bound on it, since it comes down to a reinterpretation of the data. You can set those constants to anything you like to make the excess energy go away. Perhaps there are some physical bounds that fall out of things like maximum chemical power output. As I currently understand it, it sounds suspiciously untestable, and hence, unscientific. We need at least one example of it in the wild that affects similar calorimetry, unconnected to LENR.

  • CCS is a handy name for an abstract class of calorimetry erors. It is not a new physical theory. Whether it has ever been "proven" does not make sense because logically whenever its conditions are met it will apply.



    LOLs Thomas, you may as well be honest and say CCS, to you, means: "There must be some mistake", as your colleagues have been claiming since 1989. Skeptics start with that as a premise, and it is no wonder they conclude with that as their default mode. Whether they wrap it up in a catchy acronym, or say it flat out like Garwin did, it is all the same...there WILL be something wrong. A mistake, error, something. There has to be. Although, not quite sure what it is. Kind of makes it useless for LENRers to even argue their case...don't you think?


    I get the impression you don't think KSs argument is particularly sound, but you are bored and want to argue for arguments sake. You are wandering all over the place, and it shows. :)

  • Thomas:


    Wrt your "If this is an open F&P cell then the potential CCS-type errors are large and difficult to bound. "


    This is a claim of Yours, and not a fact. CCS would have been discovered In the many recalibrations during tests.


    More importantly one should see negative heat Events which would be interpreted as endothermic Events, but actually be "negative CCS". None such have been observed.


    Th.: "It is for F&P, or others now, to show that these errors could not explain the results."


    Yes, and they did check for all relevant critisism. The CCS is a rather obscure hypothetical phenomenon which is just not occuring. If it did, it would show up also in the many control Runs If it was a reality.


    And If you say "it can't show up in control Runs, since conditions is different", then CCS is just a ghost which can not be proven.


    For the F&P paper with excess power 20x input, I have allready provided a link in my previous posts. So to be precise : Read my posts ;-)

  • "This is a claim of Yours, and not a fact. CCS would have been discovered In the many recalibrations during tests."


    I don't think so. Kirk Shanahan's thesis is that calibrating with a resistance heater does not shift the constants, while whatever is going on when LENR is supposedly happening does shift the constants. Shanahan does not dispute any of the raw data in these instances; he disputes interpretations of the data using fitted polynomials derived from calibrations. He says that those polynomials could be inapplicable in instances of suspected LENR.


    I.e., it sounds untestable, and not something that can be picked up by recalibrating.

  • Quote

    For the F&P paper with excess power 20x input, I have already provided a link in my previous posts. So to be precise : Read my posts


    Oystla - in this case "read my posts" when there are some 300 of these is not feasible. Your most recent such post (and I remember many others) has about 10 links. This is a weaker version of the classic reply that when asked for a single strong paper with peer-reviewed evidence of LENR 10,000 lenr-canr papers are linked. If these heat events are significant as you claim then it is fair to everyone that you give one paper with the data, so that it can be carefully considered and the possible effect of CCS evaluated. And fair also that you give it here - rather than ask everyone interest to check through 300 of your posts (I'm not sure how I'd know which one was relevant).

  • Quote

    He says that those polynomials could be inapplicable in instances of suspected LENR.


    I.e., it sounds untestable, and not something that can be picked up by recalibrating.


    I more or less agree. And of course if CCS is untestable, then the experimental results are unsound, inasfar as CCs could explain them. The real issue is whether possible mechanisms for CCS (or some other artifact - since CCS is defined as linear deviations and in general non-linear deviations are also possible) can be bounded.


    Take an open F&P cell. There are clear issues to do with convection changes, change is specific heat capacity, change in cell characteristics as electrolyte evaporates, variable recombination (in/out of the cell) etc. These are much reduced by using a closed cell. A control that heated the cell would deal with some of these issues but not all.


    Is it impossible to get bomb-proof results from these tests? No. A closed cell, with isothermal surround and flow calorimetry with thermocouples separated from the surround and helical piping through surround to mix cooling liquid well would be pretty good. And an extra layer of heat transfer would make this even better. The point being that these layers of isolation would make it very difficult to obtain artifacts where the cal (heat inner cell through resistor) case was different from the active (heat inner cell through FPHE/electrolysis). But you need enough layers to ensure that differences between the two cases inevitable in the inner cell cannot have any effect on the calorimetry. You also need to work on total heat in/out over a long period to avoid chemical energy storage issues. How much you need to do these things depends on the magnitude of the results you get.

  • Eric,


    Wrt. "Kirk Shanahan's thesis is that calibrating with a resistance heater does not shift the constants, while whatever is going on when LENR is supposedly happening does shift the constants. "


    So Kirk says when whatever chemical reactions happens and chemical heat is produced, CCS may or may not kick in ( for some unknown reason) and enhance the measurment signal, haha.


    And of course this is never seen when calibrating with electrical heater.


    Haha, then this "CCS " phenomenon should also be well known by mainstream science during the 100 years of ordinary electrochemistry science.


    But it's not. It's a ghost, and as you say, non- testable.


    Kirk called the CCS a " Matrix effect" - haha a fitting name for some unexplainable mysterious hypothetical occuring and disappearing something.


    Anyhow If CCS where real, one should also see negative heat Events which would be interpreted as endothermic Events, but actually be "CCS". None such have been observed.


    I think we need to move on to more interesting discussions.

  • "Anyhow If CCS where real, one should also see negative heat Events which would be interpreted as endothermic Events, but actually be 'CCS'. None such have been observed."


    Yes -- I do not remember how Kirk replied to this point. Presumably there is some way in which this objection arises from a misreading of his proposal; I would be interested in knowing what the reply is. But I think the point is a good one.


    "I think we need to move on more interesting discussions."


    I agree. Apart from that last remaining question, my own curiosity has been satisfied, and I think I now understand the proposal to be able to accurately describe it to someone else without misrepresenting it, which is what I originally hoped to get out of this discussion. Hopefully someone will figure out a way to place quantitative bounds on the proposal so that it can be falsified at some point.

  • Thomas ,
    Regarding you comment:
    "Take an open F&P cell. There are clear issues to do with convection changes, change is specific heat capacity, change in cell characteristics as electrolyte evaporates, variable recombination (in/out of the cell) etc. "


    Thomas, you are asking some really basic A-level chemistry questions here. You think it has not been considdered?


    Listen: Professor Martin Fleischmann is recognised as one of the leading electrochemists of the 20th century. He was intelligent, practical, inventive and was awarded prices for his work within electrochemistry and thermodynamics.


    And you question his work and asessment of his open electrolytic cells?


    Leave it. You embarass yourself.


    http://www.infinite-energy.com…/pdfs/Fleischmannobit.pdf

  • I'm going to reiterate that the neutron-formation hypotheses of LENR are not sufficiently plausible, in my view, to be worthy of significant experimental effort. Now, Brillouin is based on a neutron hypothesis, but that work is not adequately disclosed to be a basis for much consideration. The FP Heat Effect could not be arising from neutron generation and resulting neutron absorption. Too many effects would be seen that are not seen, and, quite simply, there is no experimental evidence supporting it.


    ULM neutrons would formed with very low momentum relative to the lattice. The neutrons are subject to gravity, and there is nothing to resist their "fall" out of the material where they are formed, but they will be absorbed by nuclei. Because the absorption cross-section of the neutrons varies inversely with velocity, ULM neutrons will have a very high absorption cross-section, they will quickly be absorbed.


    In the Brillouin approach, as I understand it, the neutrons are formed in lattice vacancies which attract protons or deuterons. Because the neutrons are formed with low momentum, they then do not leave the site, usually, rather a proton or deuteron is attracted to the same position, and neutron absorption will occur. I still don't find this plausible, personally. If Brillouin has anomalous energy results, it is likely not coming from his hypothesized mechanism


    Essentially, it seems you want to create neutrons in an accelerating bucket. The feasible accelerations are, I suspect, way too low to generate a neutron flux. Those neutrons will still be absorbed nearly immediately, before the matrix forming them is accelerated away.

  • "You also need to work on total heat in/out over a long period to avoid chemical energy storage issues."


    I agree that integrated energy (including periods of endotherm) is a better figure of merit than excess power, and that it will be more persuasive if it is large compared to possible chemical sources.