[Split] Reconsidering F&P with CCS....

  • 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.


  • [...]


    Is it more likely that CCS conditions are met, or LENR is happening, as explanation for FPHE?
    The original F&P open cells have known issues (I'm hoping Kirk or somone can provide a reference since I'm too lazy) that meet CCS conditions
    Kirk has suggested some mechanisms that meet these conditions and apply to closed cells.


    More likely according to what analysis? CCS would produce one effect, apparent anomalous heat. That would leave all the other reported LENR effects unexplained, without even a context that might make them reasonably possible, even if not specifically understood. So even if it were so that somehow CCS were considered, by some analyst to be more likely to explain a narrow understanding of the FPHE, it would not be satisfactory as an overall explanation, just of one effect. So in order to maintain the plausiblity of CCS, Shanahan then invents a series of other "plausible explanations" -- in his estimation -- and the overall construct becomes inordinately complex.

    Quote

    The argument therefore is about the magnitude of the results, and of the (CCS) conditions. This has to be conducted seriously and quantitatively for specific experiments, not using generalisations.


    Further, Kirk is not arguing he knows CCS applies. He is arguing that it could apply and it is for those claiming specific results as extraordinary to show it does not. That, Kirk says, has not happened.

    The context has shifted. As science moves on, it can easily occur that all the possible objections to some analysis are not considered. For me to decide if CCS has been thoroughly ruled out, for myself, would require quite a lot of work. Why should I undertake this?


    Now, if Shanahan were coming up with generally plausible explanations, I might be more motivated. But I do not find his explanations plausible. So far, he's hinted that he has an explanation for the SPAWAR back-side tracks. I know how he has explained this in the past, and it is little short of preposterous.


    His concept of unexpected recombination at the cathode, from oxygen bubbles hitting the cathode, requires a process that is not observed at the levels required, to my knowledge. This is the bottom line: Shanahan has not convinced those in a position to do the involved work that his ideas are worth any additional effort. He complains about this, but "the burden of proof is on the claimant." If someone is worried that the reported effects are not real, and they find Shanahan cogent, then, yes, they might consider that the "original claimants," cold fusion researchers, have not met some required level of proof. But Shanahan isn't convincing anyone that matters.


    Quote

    Further, it would be foolish to assume, as Abd does in his arguments, that either CCS applies to all these experiments or it applies to none.

    I am not aware that I have assumed that and, in fact, I think I stated that CCS might apply to some experiments. That is not an acceptance that it applies, in fact, to any, but ... calorimetry is difficult and errors abound. This is why, in fact, I call the calorimetry evidence, by itself, "circumstantial." It is what was originally discovered.

    Quote

    The (false) argumnet here is I think that if CCS does not apply to all experiments, then the remainder prove LENR. After LENR is proven to exist in this setup it becomes more likely than CCS for the remainder. i'll call this the "single-headed hydra" argument.
    The problem with "single-headed hydra" is the implicit assumption that only one systematic error can lead to FP positives.

    That would be foolish. This is a straw man argument.

    Quote

    If CCS does apply to some FPHE experiments the fact that this went unrecognised for many years, and is still not accepted by the LENR community, proves Shanahan's point that systematic errors can be an issue here. In which case a careful experimenter would wonder whether there are other systematic errors. The hydra, here, has a number of heads that is in principle unknown. Chop off one and you don't know whether you have finished the job, though you can hope.

    This is the problem: there are an unlimited number of "hydra heads" that can be proposed. How far is it necessary to eliminate all of them. Your analysis, Thomas, claims that Shanahan's work was "unrecognized." No, it was recognized, Storms replied in the journal, and has often referred to it. Rather, CCS has not been accepted as plausible, by many who are expert in calorimetry. And CCS is about their expertise, not about something completely alien (as cold fusion was to nuclear physicists, who probably should have kept their fingers out of the pie, just as Pons and Fleischmann made a mistake using the F word, when they really didn't know what was happening. And, in fact, we still don't know, beyond what I've stated.

    Quote


    It comes back to Ed Storms's remark that I addressed in the link above.


    [the is LENR real question] can only be answered with any confidence by comparing the results of many measurements. Analysis of a single measurement has no meaning because the potential for error is too great. We now have many experiments with common agreement about the basic behavior.


    The existence of systematic errors and selection bias makes this argument unsound.

    . The existence. Thomas, you are stating your interpretation as a fact. Those are default possibilities.

    Quote

    In this case CCS is one example (with strong evidence from Shanahan in at least one case) of a systematic error. To follow Storms above you need to be sure that you know and have cut the head off all systematic (and for isolated less well validated setups individual) errors. You need to note that selection bias will favour experiments with undetected systematic errors, and still find his argument good.


    One hydra or many?

    One with many tentacles.


    Obviously we need to know about what is confirmation bias, called selection bias here, in order to evaluate science in general. However, what's the point here? Unless someone takes up CCS and presents it in a cogent and understandable way, it's going nowhere. I just reread Shanahan's early papers. Nothing stands out as a clear argument. Yes, sometimes, it is necessary to study a paper thoroughly before understanding it. However, what is the motivation to do this? I wrote about, generally, what I know about. I often research a topic and learn about it, but I have limited time. I can't do that with everything.


    Why should I take the substantial time required to study Shanahan's claim in detail? He has received response from scientists in journals. He is unhappy about that, complaining about journal editors and how unfair they are.


    This is not inspiring. That claim from cold fusion researchers went nowhere, even though, yes, a case could be made for unfair reduction of access to journals. In order to move forward, cold fusion researchers had to use what was available, not complain about what was not available.


    --to be continued below--

  • Quote

    Much of the polemic argument here assumes a single hydra. Specifically, the assumption is that if a systematic error can be shown not to apply in one experiment, therefore it must not apply in all.

    Clear straw man argument. Who said that?
    This is about a world that does not exist, a world where *proof* is required before going ahead.


    No, what is needed, ordinarily, and even with something like cold fusion, is preponderance of the evidence. It is not necessary to prove every detail, and unless one has unlimited funding, it is probably impossible.


    The direct evidence for cold fusion is not all that calorimetry, by itself. It is the correlation of anomalous heat with helium.


    Helium was not expected to be the ash. Pons did originally announce finding helium, very early on, when Walling and Simons appeared with the suggestion, but they abandoned it, probably because helium provided them with quite a conundrum. They thought that the effect was a bulk effect, happening in the palladium lattice. If it were, helium generated there would remain in the lattice, almost all of it. Instead, it was only found within the top 25 microns of the surface (and the real figure is probably a micron).


    It was Miles in 1991 who showed helium in the outgas, correlated with heat. The correlation he found and published in the end, was quite clear and unmistakable. He published all his data, he did not cherry-pick. Out of 33 measurements, 12 showed no heat and no helium. Of the other 21, 18 showed helium varying with the heat, with a ratio not far from the theoretical value for deuterium fusion. 3 experiments showed heat and no helium. What happened? Well, one of those involved a power failure and calorimetry error is suspected. Two were the only two measurements involving a PdCe cathode. He reported it all, not just "success."No cherry-picking, no confirmation bias. And Miles has been confirmed.


    All of this work has flaws. It's not perfect. But what is the preponderance of the evidence?


    And then what do we do? Demand a billion dollars per year for cold fusion research?


    No, we are suggesting modest research.The first step is to measure the heat/helium ratio to increased precision. This completely bypasses the Shanahan claims.


    We now know how to do those measurements more thoroughly, and it is probably easier than was thought. While I assume that in the experiments that will be done, cell materials will be analyzed before and after, to capture all the helium from an FP cell, instead of the roughly 60% that Miles found -- if the total figure is at 23.8 MeV/4He -- all it takes is some reverse electrolysis to dissolve the outer layer of palladium. That was done twice, and both times it moved the measured ratio to right on the money for 23.8 Mev/4He, within experimental error. (Which was estimated at 10% in SRI M4).


    That is, Thomas, we know what is happening at the chemistry level, based on the preponderance of the evidence. Deuterium is being converted to helium, and heat. This is taking place at or near the surface of the palladium, so most of the helium escapes, but some is trapped, but only very near the surface. *How* that conversion happens, we don't know. There are ideas, that's all.If this nuclear reaction -- that conversion is a nuclear reaction -- is taking place, all the other effects such as tritium, transmutations, and a few neutrons, become reasonable as rare side-reactions or branches. Almost all the history of cold fusion comes into focus.


    CCS is not worth delaying that relatively simple confirmation work for. If Shanahan wants to be a part of the future, instead of a footnote from the past, he could start seriously cooperating in creating what might be done in those tests. What might be missing from existing calorimetry? How could precision be increased?


    Once the goal is to measure results as accurately as possible (this was not he goal of much cold fusion research! -- usually the goal was to try to increase reliability, not accuracy) if there is some CCS effect, it will be seen.

  • @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.


    Helium.


    Tritium is also seen, but has never been correlated with heat. There has been a lot of confusion about this. Tritium is not "commensurate" with heat, that was obvious from the start, but the question of whether or not it is correlated (as in heat, tritium, no heat, no tritium, perhaps) is of high interest. Storms thinks that tritium is produced by the same process, though at much lower rate, when hydrogen and deuterium are the reactants. Maybe. But we have almost no data that can be used to study the correlation, a great deal of cold fusion research simply did not look for it.

    Quote

    I understand your strategy of answers as 'divide and conquer' and that goes well with your hydra.


    Now, be nice, Mats!

    Quote


    But this hydra head have BOTH lightning and thunder and both must be explained simultaniously.

    Yes, you get my point. It blows CCS out of the water, relegating it to a possible historical detail. I consider there is already enough work that's been done to show this, but if anyone disagrees, we can hope that Texas Tech and ENEA will complete their work in not long, in measuring this ratio to increased precision. This effort involves people with high experience at generating the effect, i.e., McKubre and Violante, and Duncan will, I'm confident, ensure that it's all done with high integrity.


    The Wall is coming down.


  • OK, I like the ideas Eric, and they seem decisive. Perhaps something may be missed there, even though it sounds credible to my nuclear naivete.


    Possible issue: are ULM neutrons truly indiscriminate in creating products? I suspect W-L-S view the process as somehow biased against long lived isotopes... easy in, easy out so to speak. The time to neutron absorption in W-L hypothesis is extremely short.... or so they claim. Is their an activation energy at low ambient cold neutron absorption that is missed or hidden with hotter neutrons?


    Why harp on W-L?


    Simple theory, at least some of W-L is.... which has attracted a lot of adherents.... admittedly not among the "experts"..... but once those expert folks are without the senatorial robes (that is from their possible failure to recognize reality), they begin to look a lot like the rest of the peasants :-).

  • 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.


    Yes, my notion is likely dependent on the neutron flux being very much a surface or very near surface phenomenon. Of course the path out of the bucket must be evacuated or at least very low cross-section to ULM or cool neutrons. Even the 150 m/s neutrons are very cold... if I understand the relationship that you reiterate, they need to see nothing until they register on a suitable target for their assessment by induced short lived radioisotopes in the stationary periphery of the centrifuge or further out.


    If the LENR process is generating ULM neutrons, and if it is confined to the surface of the generating substrate matrix, then nearly half of the neutrons would be disposed to exit the matrix with minimal chance at nuclear encounter before being accelerated away.

  • Dear Abd,


    Thank you for your detailed replies to my posts on this issue of CCS and the F&P experiments.


    You raise many issues, and I'm going to reply to your concerns in two (long) future posts. This post can serve as a marker and index.


    my first replywill be addressing your question "Why should I bother to disprove CCS?". In this I will also deal with some of your questions about the hydrae - that analogy goes to the heart of the matter.


    My second reply will be looking at Oystla's "strong evidence" F&P paper. I promised here to look thoroughly at a (different) F&P paper and its critique by Morrison. I never got around to that, partly because the F&P claims were so insubstantial. However this paper has very substantial claims. I will go through:


    the paper itself:
    Calorimetry of the palladium-deuterium-heavy water system
    Martin Fleischmann. Stanley Pons, Mark W. Anderson, Lian Jun Li and Marvin Hawkins
    http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmancalorimetr.pdf


    Wilson et al's critique
    http://newenergytimes.com/v2/l…AnalysisOfExperiments.pdf


    Fleischman and Pons's reply to Wilson et al's critique:
    http://newenergytimes.com/v2/l…schmannM-SomeComments.pdf


    This string of comment is useful and while I'm no calorimetry expert it is possible to trace through arguments and counter-arguments. Further, I'm a good enough mathematician not to be blinded by science here. Kalman filters lie within my area of competence and I know how they can be used and abused. I think I have enough statistical background to note issues in data processing. So this will be fun.

  • Why should Abd care about CCS?


    I'll get to that question, the topic of this post, in a roundabout way...


    Abd wrote:


    Clear straw man argument. Who said that?


    You said it in the post immediately preceding your question!
    in response to:

    TC wrote:

    One hydra or many?


    you wrote:

    Abd wrote:

    One with many tentacles.


    And your arguments throughout implicitly assume it. Let me elaborate on that:


    Quote

    No, what is needed, ordinarily, and even with something like cold fusion, is preponderance of the evidence. It is not necessary to prove every detail, and unless one has unlimited funding, it is probably impossible.


    But that is only true if there is one hydra, or if there is no possibility of selection bias for systematic error.


    You rely on the chances of different experiments having such error being independent. In that case, given enough positive experiments, you can make the chances of them all being error arbitrarily small. "Preponderance of evidence" wins. However, if there are possible systematic errors (hydra heads) then errors are not independent and this does not work.


    Even then if there is only one hydra you can cut off all of its heads pretty easily. For any head (systematic error) you can find an experiment which has clearly cut it off. One hydra and it is dead.


    So your two assumptions here:

    • There is only one hydra
    • Preponderance of evidence means details need not be proven


    Are linked and if one falls so does the other. I realise you may not have thought about the matter like this before. I've noted your comments on this thread and they are great polemic.


    Quote

    The direct evidence for cold fusion is not all that calorimetry, by itself. It is the correlation of anomalous heat with helium.


    That is a separate matter. If you were prepared to admit that "preponderance of evidence" does not work for the F&P + replication excess heat, so there is no strong evidence for LENR there, then of course there may be some other work that does provide strong evidence. I'm with you on He/excess heat correlations, if they exist, being interesting but you will have to be awfully careful because heat will obviously affect outgassing of diffused He in apparatus, electrodes, and electrolyte. The correlation, if you presume D+D reaction, is known and predictive so should this be established to good accuracy, it would indeed be useful evidence.


    Coming back to the post topic

    Abd wrote:

    For me to decide if CCS has been thoroughly ruled out, for myself, would require quite a lot of work. Why should I undertake this?


    I agree, you could reasonably (and sensibly) follow most scientists and view the F&P and replication work as a whole as not showing strong evidence for LENR. In that case more work to establish this would be wasted. You could in that case gain some scientific credibility for your LENR arguments by agreeing that the F&P results do not show strong evidence for LENR, showing you understand that "preponderance of evidence" only works under the assumption of no systematic errors (which you made replying to Shanahan) or the assumption that there is only one hydra, so its heads can be cut off in different experiments (which you made here).


    In that case you could properly argue for strong evidence elsewhere, where the evidence really was strong, and be taken more seriously.


    Of course, it may be that you have some argument, or evidence, not yet posted here that would show the F&P excess heat experiments to be clearly strong evidence. Perhaps some replication that provides strong evidence? Again, in that case your judgement will be more believable if you do not also assert the existence of strong evidence where it does not exist, either from F&P (my arguments will be in next post) or from "preponderance of evidence" - my arguments why this falls are given here and I hope easily understandable.


    Best wishes, Tom

  • "OK, I like the ideas Eric, and they seem decisive. Perhaps something may be missed there, even though it sounds credible to my nuclear naivete. ... Why harp on W-L?"


    Don't take my word for it! I'm also a nuclear naif. I'm just arguing a position (one that I agree with). I like to argue, but I might be wrong. In this particular instance I'm hoping someone will provide additional information that will modify those last two implications, in light of a better understanding of W-L's positions, which I assume are sophisticated enough to anticipate the complaints I've made.


    I am pessimistic that experimental evidence will sway W-L in a different direction, but that's just from my own assessment that they didn't bother to look at any experiments in the first place, and started from an ab initio excercise to figure out how you might get nuclear levels of energy without having to deal with Coulomb repulsion. But it might be that putting their theory to the test would be useful, as you suggest.

  • This problem of apparent negative heat never observed remind me the critic of Wilson, that anyway Fleischmann accepted in case, showing it did not change the results.


    What is amazing is that if CCS is true, why no engineer of chemis or physicists is investigating on that phenomenon that may be of critical interest in electrochemistry, in powerplant.
    this phenomenon if confirmed is rewriting all pas results of calorimetry.


    people don't understand that CCS is more challenging for science than LENR.
    LENR is simply nuclear reaction is condensed matter.
    Nuclear energy is about 80 years old, and the physics associated was stabilized in the 50s.
    Condensed matter is something still very immature, probably started with semiconductors, that started to be understood in the 50s.


    CCS is challenging calorimetry, based on thermodynamic and heat flow equations which are more than 120 year old.


    It is clear the phenomenon is emotional/socio(il)logical not rational.


    LENR is simply the less challenging answer to observations.


    The problem is that it is challenging, not 120 years of lower science and engineering, but finest experts in leading edge science, the particle physicists.


    Occam with his razor proposed to keep the simplest explanation, but if you estimate the simplicity to the cost of accepting it, and you integrate in the cost the sociological cost, then clearly it is simpler to imagine that engineers and chemist were wrong since centuries, and that physicists were right despite all evidence. Evidence are cheaper to deny than academic hierarchy.


    I did not invent this hierarchy, it is just JP Biberian who in a conference explained the hierarchy of science.
    Basically it is from purest and simplest science, to complex and dirty science: first particle physics, physics theory, then material physics, then chemistry, then electrochemistry. Lower than electrochemistry is there biochemistry and then biology...


    Second hierarchy is budget, and third hierarchy is from academic to national lab then to corporate science, to finish in private labs and hobbist science.
    There is also an ethnological hierarchy (call that US centrism , racism, and Morrison expressed numerously)


    LENR is violating this hierarchy with such anomalies :
    - lower scientist have found an anomaly in higher scientists theory
    - lower scientist have reached a practical result that higher and more budgeted science have not reached
    - anomaly without a theory hare reached a success that science with theory did not reach
    - higher scientists did not find an explanation to what lower scientist have explained
    - retired scientist have found what paid scientist cannot explain
    - small science succeeded where big science failed to
    - UK scientists succeeded where paid academic failed
    - Utah, Texas found where California and Boston failed
    - National labs replicate"d what caltech and MIT failed to
    - India succeeded where US dominant labs failed (or believed thei failed, because many have succeeded)



    consequence is that this cannot be true, and thus :
    - higher scientist and their theory are right, and all that follow is a consequence.
    - lower scientist and their experiments are wrong
    - since higher scientist cannot be wronger than lowest, if lower scientists have evidence that cannot be explained by an artifact, this artifact exist, QED.
    - if artifact (eg ccs) cannot exist according to lower scientist theory, this theory is wrong.
    - if artifact (eg heat above chemistry) cannot exist according to higher scientist theory, then lowe scientists have done fraud.
    - if higher scientist have done errors in their explanations of artifac (eg caltech), thent they are not wrong and their claims stay.(ie nature/Science don't retract)
    - if higher scientist have done frauds in their experiments (eg MIT), then they are not wrong (ie nature/Science don't retract)



    the same arguments stand also for ethnological and budget hierarchy.
    This explains how BARC and Bockris results were ignored and insulted while Caltech failure and MIT fraud stand immaculate.


    this theory match the observation.

  • Quote

    people don't understand that CCS is more challenging for science than LENR.


    CCS is not a grand new theory - it is a neat and formal way to describe what everyone knows can happen to any calorimetric setup - that calibration can shift with change in conditions. Engineering is like that - your neat equations rely on assumptions and approximations. When those break the equations work less well.


    Every different experiment has its own issues and it is the job of a good experimenter to work out what they are and control or compensate etc. I think the problem is when you view specific equations as some unalterable shiboleth. Science is above all about reality, and while there are unchanging and exact underlying equations most of real science is done based on a whole load of approximations.


    Quote

    Occam with his razor proposed to keep the simplest explanation, but if you estimate the simplicity to the cost of accepting it, and you integrate in the cost the sociological cost, then clearly it is simpler to imagine that engineers and chemist were wrong since centuries, and that physicists were right despite all evidence. Evidence are cheaper to deny than academic hierarchy.


    We have a set of observations - the excess heat experiments from F&P, Wilson, McKubre, etc. We have an observed anomaly. The question for science is what is the simplest hypothesis to explain this. The two suggestions are "systematic experimental errors" or "some new nuclear reaction mechanism not hinted at elsewhere in physics".


    The details of experimental errors can be very complex, just as the detailed stricture of a sea-shell can be very complex. However the underlying physics is simple and tested by observation over centuries. Nothing new. What activates Occam in this case is whether the errors considered require very unlikely conditions, or are quite plausible. Even without a specific known mechanism (see my next post) "surprising experimental error" is likely - we see it all the time.


    The "new nuclear mechanism" has a different problem. It requires very surprising new physics, it has details not explained by any new physics hypothesis to date, and its details do not cohere with each other or wit other evidence.


    Thus we have a set of "LENR positive observations" claimed by those specifically trying to find LENR. From that we have "How LENR works" hypothesis. This does not well explain the LENR positives which remain inconsistent and surprising, nor does it cohere with any other physical evidence.


    That description of "new nuclear mechanism" gives it a very low probability rating:
    (1) it is inherently complex
    (2) it has very low specific ability to predict observation.


    So Occam is the opposite of what Alain says. I have not addressed his sociological arguments because they are not science. Sure, scientists are human, subject to bias, error, etc etc. But the chances of all scientists being affected the same way are nil and it takes only one to do new work and grasp a Nobel prize, if there really is some new phenomena. So the meta-evidence (which I distrust anyway) does not fall the way Alain thinks.