FP's experiments discussion

  • though it is perhaps diffivult to get tight bounds in open cells.

    The simple Two Zone Model applies in either case. Here are the primary differences:

    In a closed cell, in order to avoid a pressure rupture (which would be most likely followed by a flash fire) there is a recombination catalyst in the gas space of the cell. This is missing in an open cell. Instead we have a vent port through which electrolysis gases, water vapor, and entrained liquid water/electrolyte exit the cell.

    Both types of cell typically (not always) use basic electrolytes. This always dissolves a little bit of the Pt and Pd, which then can deposit in other places. This has been shown to be on the electrodes by surface studies of used electrodes. The dissolved metals, which are in ionic form, can also be splashed onto the sides of the cell in the gas space. There they can (not always) be metalized by reduction with hydrogen, which forms a 'nano'-sized metal particulate on the wall that is an excellent catalyst for recombination. In the closed cell, this will be very difficult to detect since the recombination at the metal particle has not moved to a different enough heat capture efficiency zone. However, in an open cell it should be easily detectable (given the usual detection limit considerations) by two methods: Loss of lost water volume and detection of the recombination heat. Said heat will be in the lower efficiency zone of the Two Zone model, but in fact it may well have another associated detection efficiency, since it is well removed from the major loss pathways represented by the penetrations through the cell top, so it may well be under measured. Details matter here,and the Two Zone Model is not sophisticated enough to quantify this well.

    When ATER begins in an open cell, the recombination heat would be measured no differently from a closed cell, i.e. it is showing up in the high efficiency zone and will be inflated by 'old' (pre-ATER) calibration, giving an inaccurate apparent excess heat.

    But I don't see any particular reason to believe the open cell case would be any less accurate than the closed cell if calibrated as I suggested with two heaters in the cell, one in the liquid and one in the gas. Always open to valid corrections of course.

  • Well, if they won't supply the data, you have no choice but to beat on them until they do.

    Actually I did pretty much that 'back in the day'. As I recall, he would assert he had done CF and I would say 'then show the data'. As I said above he never did, primarily because he was working 'under the radar' and hadn't retired yet. Remind you of any current events...

  • Because it really isn't a 'control'. It's a separate experiment with different uncontrolled conditions. They're uncontrolled because the experimentalists don't control the right things because they all think it's 'nuclear' when it's really chemical.

    Then please explain the (missing) huge chemical excess heat of the control... (I suggest an Axil wormhole implanted deuterium event...)

    Bad for you: We know that's nuclear and discussions under the precondition "its all chemical" I will only continue after two nice bottles of wine.

    I suggest you travel to London and just look at it...

  • Except that I and others have often dug up your messages. When we do that, you shut up for a while. Then you go and make the same claims again. Then after a while you deny you made the claims.

    Actually JR, I am amazed at how much projecting you are doing. You sound like you are describing yourself.

    For the record, your constant referral to the bucket evaporation mis-states the discussion I was adding to w.r.t. a parametric study of what it took as far as temp + air flow + surf area + humidity to get a bucket to evaporate overnight. As is your practice, you take words that are written by your designated enemies (i.e., anyone who disagrees with you or challenges your heroes) and assemble them together in new ways with the intent of denigrating the original writer, with no respect of what was originally said. Then you repeat your construct ad nauseum.

  • For the record, your constant referral to the bucket evaporation mis-states the discussion I was adding to w.r.t. a parametric study of what it took as far as temp + air flow + surf area + humidity to get a bucket to evaporate overnight.

    No, you were not just making a "study." You claimed this happened. That's crackpot nonsense. Even a "study" is crackpot. It is as if you were making a serious analysis of the likelihood that I might jump over the Empire State Building.

    And yes, you also repeatedly claimed that the reactor was hot because someone heated it. I and others pointed out it was heated 3 days before it was found to be hot, and the heater was disconnected from the power all that time, but you ignored that and repeated again, and again, again, that it was hot because it was heated. I guess you are hoping people will fall for this nonsense and say to themselves "yeah, that would explain it."

    I cannot tell if you are actually a crackpot, or if you are only a troll who hopes to fool people with crackpot nonsense, the way Rossi does. Either way, you are no scientist. Fleischmann pegged you correctly from the start.

  • Wet steam definition:

    "Wet steam is a mixture of steam and liquid water. It exists at a saturation temperature containing more than 5% water. It is said to be a two-phase mix: steam contains droplets of water that have not changed phase."

    That is the entrained water hypothesis.

    Either that, or it is the hypothesis that the steam cools so much, it partly condenses and comes out wet. That is highly unlikely given this is a well insulated Dewar with a narrow vent from the source of the boiling out of the top. So well insulated, it radiates only 11 W when the internal temperature is 100 deg C. Where would the heat from the vapor go, as it condenses? How can it cool down?

    In any case, as you see in the video, it does not boil at all with this level of electrolysis input. Bear in mind that is a time-lapse video. The electrolysis continues for more than 10 minutes at 38 W, with no sign of boiling. Then when it starts to boil, the graphs show that input electrolysis power decreases, because steam bubbles form on the anode. Then the power cuts off completely, yet boiling continues. That can't be caused by electrolysis.

    It starts to boil only when the cathode gets hot but the anode does not. That also can't be electrolysis, and there is no other external source of power.

  • Don't claim that I claimed.

    Oh please don't make me dig up your quotes again. It is too much of a pain in the butt looking for messages in this system. Someone else may have links to them . . .

    You get away with this nonsense because it is so hard to find your messages and pin them on you, but we have done that many times. You want us to do it again? What's the point? You'll go silent for a week and then come right back, claiming the bucket did evaporate, or claiming there were thousands or rats, or this or that nonsense, and then you will deny you ever said it. Who are you trying to kid?

  • Oh please don't make me dig up your quotes again. It is too much of a pain

    Expected begging off...everyone realizes that you claimed

    Except that I and others have often dug up your messages.

    So, supposedly you have already done this. Shouldn't be that hard to point to that perfect example where you quote what I said that you seem to think is so ridiculous. C'mon Jed, do it for the newbies reading here...

  • Responding to Jed's post from here: Atom-Ecology

    JR: "Why would anyone doubt such results?"

    Maybe because he says this in K. Cedzynska, S. C. Barrowes, H. E. Bergeson, L. C. Knight, F. G. Will, Fus. Tech. 20 (1991), 108-112

    “Unfortunately, in evaluating the applicability of this analytical procedure for reliable tritium determination, we find the open-system technique to be sometimes subject to artificially high count rates (due to color effects in the solutions and, possibly, to metal contaminants in the palladium), and also to artificially low count rates (due to possible loss of gaseous tritium during the various steps involved in the open-system procedure.)

    And this:

    “It is much more likely [compared to the idea of T contamination from manufacture of Pd] that tritium contamination is introduced through improper handling of the metal or improper analytical procedures.

    And this in K. Cedzynska, F. G. Will, Fus. Tech. 22 (1992) 156-159

    “In a previous technical note [refs the 1991 paper quoted immediately above], we described the results of tritium analysis in palladium employing an open-system analytical procedure essentially identical to that used by Wolf [refs the transcript of a talk given at Stanford U. on 8/11/90]. …we concluded that this technique cannot be expected to yield reliable results.


    “We have developed…[a closed-system method]. This technique employs a [micro]distillation and catalytic gas recombination procedure…”


    “The closed-system analytical procedure described here is not affected by the shortcomings of open-system techniques, such as falsely low or high tritium readings.

    Then add in the fact that I recall about zero tritium reports where the analytical method was clearly delineated. In the paper Jed quoted, Will says "The H2O and 0.5 M H2SO4 contained no measurable tritium within the accuracy of the liquid scintillation counting [29,30]". Refs 29 and 30 are the two papers I quote above. But which method did he use? Technically, if he believes his own work, he would use the 1992 method (ref 30) and forego ‘29’ (the 1991 ‘open’ method) totally. He does reference the closed 1992 method for the Pd analyses, but what about the electrolyte?

    Will specifically says: After completing an experiment, which generally lasted for about a week, the electrolyte, Pd electrode and gas were analyzed for tritium and compared with the amounts of tritium present before the experiment. The Pd electrodes were cut into several pieces, of which four were analyzed individually.” which gives no information on how he analyzed the electrolyte.

    Does he confirm that there are no problems with measuring T in the electrolyte as he found for measuring T in dissolved Pd solutions? No. He is *very* clear w. r. t. the Pd, but not with the electrolyte. The field of Pd CF is loaded with examples of surface contaminants on the electrodes. Where do those come from? Probably deposited from solution (at least some of them). Does that impact the T measurement like it can in the dissolved Pd cases? Unknown.

    So even Will himself is skimping on the analytical method description, and by dual-references he leaves us wondering which he used. Most of the time, other CFers just say ‘we used LSC’ with no further comments. That’s like saying ‘we used calorimetry’. Totally inadequate description. Inadequate descriptions inspire no confidence. residual ambiguities inspire no confidence.

    Secondarily, there's rarely any significant level of replication in the experiments, so we have the usual 'much claimed, little supported' situation with tritium analyses. From the paper Jed quoted (regarding prior T determinations) "Unfortunately, these findings are not generally reproducible or predictable," So that means you have to discount all the papers he references in his introduction to the paper (refs 1-25).

    So in the field as a whole one has to ask: “Are there any reproduced and reproducible tritium measurements?” My answer to that right now is "No".

  • So in the field as a whole one has to ask: “Are there any reproduced and reproducible tritium measurements?” My answer to that right now is "No".

    We had reliable evidence from Abd that a group from (U Austin?) somewhere were going to replicate electrolysis experiments making both excess heat and Tritium measurements, attempting to find correlations.

    That was a while ago, and we have heard nothing since. I'd be expecting at least positive rumours if they had had any success.

    The trouble with LENR however is that no negative experimental results can ever disprove it, because no-one knows precisely what it is...

  • AA: You simply won't accept that anomalous heat has been demonstrated on many occasions.

    That is completely untrue.

    You conflate "anomalous heat has been demonstrated" with "a device with demonstrable beyond all error heat has been properly tested and found to exist"

    The two are very different, as the long history of excess heat anomalies in LENR found eventually to be known bugs, and the lack of replicability when the best experiments are replicated, should show. In this respect the early history of MFMP will open your eyes.

  • The two are very different, as the long history of excess heat anomalies in LENR found eventually to be known bugs . . .

    You made that up. There are no "known bugs" in any major experiment by Fleischmann, McKubre, Miles or anyone else. You claim you found errors, but when I and others point out your mistakes, you do a vanishing act. You refuse to address the points listed by the authors. Let me repeat the points from the Fleischmann boil off tests that you have never addressed, even though you claim you found problems in it:

    1. A heat balance of zero in several different calibrations.
    2. All of the salts left in the cell.
    3. Boiling with no input power, much longer and hotter than in the calibrations.
    4. Boiling with Pd-D2O only, and not with Pt, H2O or a resistance heater. How can the choice of metal or water affect cause the "droplet" theory to work? How can the source of heat do this?
    5. Melted plastic when the calibration leaves the plastic underwater.
    6. Excess heat a week before the boiling, and for up to a day after it. Why did it stop for 10 minutes only?
    7. Boiling on the cathode only.
    8. Droplets so small they cannot be detected, yet so large they produce a gigantic error, making 30 W look like 150 W.
    9. Impossible physical theories that violate 18th and 19th century laws of physics, yet -- by some miracle -- produce exactly the same results as conventional theories, so that there is no test that can distinguish which is right, and no way to falsify the new theories. The conventional theories prove there is excess heat; the impossible theories rely on things like droplets too small to measure that leave no physical, measurable trace, yet magically remove most of the water. This is pathological science.

    Not only have you failed to find any known bugs, but you cannot point to a single legitimate paper showing any such bugs. There are only two such papers, by Shanahan and Morrison, who are both certified crackpots. If you think their paper have any merit, you too are a crackpot.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.