Nevalinna on Cobraf : Yeong E Kim funded by Industrial Heat and Cumberland & Western Resources

  • What you fail to mention is the weeks and months *prior* to that that I had to deal with you and your obstruction to my editing attempts at Wikipedia.


    Kirk, there is a bit of a disconnect from history here. Before I pointed out the error in the JEM Letter, I had long been under conflict of interest restrictions on Wikipedia and could not "obstruct" your editing attempts. I think you may have been quite confused. Where I could, I attempted to preserve your work and to find a way to incorporate at least some of it in the encyclopedia, but you did not understand how Wikipedia works. That is common with scientists, by the way. It's a arcane, not what most would expect. Experts often get themselves banned. I never attempted to set up any sanction that would impede you. As well, I opened a door for you on Wikiversity, to encourage you to fully express yourself. You never took advantage of the opportunity. It's still open.


    I also considered your objections and critiques, and responded. You did not take well to that. However, these were mostly discussions on your User talk page, with no effect on your ability to edit. I suspect that if you look back, it would be difficult to find the "obstruction" you mention, at least not obstruction from me. I may have attempted to explain policy to you, and you might have thought that this was pushing a personal agenda.

  • I am asking you to come up with an explanation that involves LENR, and that also fits with other data. That is not proof. It merely creates a possible testable hypothesis.


    Why would you assume I can come up with a better 'LENR' explanations that Storms, McKubre, Miles, etc.? I don't think I could.


    Further, their explanations so far have yielded nothing of note with respect to establishing how to reproducibly, without fail, produce excess heat. I don't feel I can improve on their work, especially since I personally think there is a different kind of explanation that will give the field that level of control. I could make lots of suggestions there, but no one is listening.


    I really don't want to waste my time on a dead issue.


    Note: Szpack codep may give consistent excess heat production (sometimes, see Hagelstein's attempt at using it...) but that type of electrode is highly consistent with my mundane explanation. I take this as proof of the non-LENR nature of the FPHE, not the 'nucklear' one.

  • “Enormous” – not really… Arata almost measured it with his double-structure cathode one time, but his pressure sensor topped out at about 10,000 psia as I recall. But it looked like it wasn’t going to go much higher. 20 kpsia is not ‘enormous’.


    From a tank pressure standpoint 10 kpsia are as high as a professional / military diver might see in say the tiny oxygen
    'make up' tank for a rebreathing apparatus... density equivalent roughly to cryogenic LO2 but giving much longer underwater times since no boil off .


    The diamond anvil maximum pressures are, if I recall correctly much much lower than Nernst pressure computed at an electrode face with even a modest overvoltage. I don't have the numbers at hand, but they can be amazing. No one to my knowledge has yet taken the Nernst pressure argument to a convincing explanation of CF--- but I'd like to see it.

  • The diamond anvil maximum pressures are, if I recall correctly much much lower than Nernst pressure computed at an electrode face with even a modest overvoltage. I don't have the numbers at hand, but they can be amazing. No one to my knowledge has yet taken the Nernst pressure argument to a convincing explanation of CF--- but I'd like to see it.


    The Nernst pressure is, I believe, what F&P brought up at one of their press conferences, and I think it was 10^23 atm. *However* the correct quantity to use is not pressure, but fugacity. Pressure is generally related to fugacity via a simple multiplicative fugacity coefficient.
    Hydrogen's fugacity coefficient is quite large. The fugacity of importance is much lower than the computed Nernst pressure. F&P knew this but chose to go for the splash caused by talking about 10^23 pressure. Says a lot about their POV.

  • I would expect surface state change to take place more slowly.


    Absolutely. The data suggests hundreds of hours required. But once it turns on, it is on (until it goes off...). My question was about how fast it turned on and when it appeared in relation to the observed resistance change. As I noted, I would expect some lag between the two, but the initial change in calorimetric output might occur reasonably quickly as well. I would expect some consistency between 'heat' events in the same apparatus.


    The Szpak codep process shortens this considerably. It produces high surface-to-volume ratio material of a dendritic structure, which is both a superior bubble trap and a superior filter to extract whatever is floating around in the electrolyte to make the SAS.

  • This is, at this point, a thought experiment. Assume that the absorbed laser power is negligible.


    Actually that isn't a good assumption. The laser does deposit heat, which does register, and which will be misinterpreted as showing excess heat if there is a CCS. Matter of fact I tend to take the 'Letts-Cravens' experiments as supportive of the whole CCS thing.


    Correction: It will possibly show as excess if the %power deposited is high enough. If in reality only 2% of the power is deposited and the calorimeter registers 5% response, people would probably assume the laser deposited 5%.

  • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:


    Actually that isn't a good assumption. The laser does deposit heat, which does register, and which will be misinterpreted as showing excess heat if there is a CCS. Matter of fact I tend to take the 'Letts-Cravens' experiments as supportive of the whole CCS thing.


    Correction: It will possibly show as excess if the %power deposited is high enough. If in reality only 2% of the power is deposited and the calorimeter registers 5% response, people would probably assume the laser deposited 5%.


    This is about thinking and approach. The assumption was for a thought experiment, so it was neither good nor bad. It was a proposed assumption, allowing thinking to look for other possibilities. While I used that experiment as a basis, it is not the point. And, by the way, do you think that Letts considered laser power? What would you expect? I haven't looked at those papers for a long time.


    The question of whether or not laser power explains his apparent XP is a distinct one, not asked by me. What if it doesn't? Really, Kirk, I'm surprised and I mean that.


    To repeat the question, how could LENR explain the resistance drop?

  • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:


    Why would you assume I can come up with a better 'LENR' explanations that Storms, McKubre, Miles, etc.? I don't think I could.


    I have not asked you to come up with something "better." I have never seen any commentary from them on the resistance drop. And it is only a short step from what you have already said. Basically, Kirk, I infer that you have a mind-block, because it is rather obvious. What you called the CCS hypothesis (it is misnamed, creating part of the rejection you experience) probably is standing in the way.


    The "explanation" is not about the CF mechanism, and of the three you list, there is only one who is proposing a mechanism, generally (Storms). What I am fishing for is consistent with Storms' explanation, but it could also be consistent with other explanations. It does involve "surface effect."


    Quote

    Further, their explanations so far have yielded nothing of note with respect to establishing how to reproducibly, without fail, produce excess heat. I don't feel I can improve on their work, especially since I personally think there is a different kind of explanation that will give the field that level of control. I could make lots of suggestions there, but no one is listening.


    What I'm fishing for will not create reliability. It is simply a possible understanding of an observation. It is not, in itself, "proof," because, as you know, there are other possible explanations. Kirk, your extensive study, focused on your hypothesis, has created an uneven playing field. This is normal, by the way, we all do this. But science asks us to step outside of that, and to attempt to prove ourselves wrong. That process requires us to come up with alternatives. If you only pick alternatives to examine that are consistent with your expectations, you may miss the reality, if it happens to be different.


    Quote

    I really don't want to waste my time on a dead issue.


    Then why are you wasting your time with LENR, which you apparently believe is a dead issue, unreal, a set of artifacts -- and an unconfirmed anomaly of little consequence other than fooling a crowd of scientists? If you cannot imagine and weigh alternatives, you will be unable to communicate with others who have different alternatives in mind. How's it been going, Kirk?


    This is an exercise, call it a game. You have extensive experience, quite enough to come up with what I have in mind. Instead of my telling you what it is, how about seeing if you can come up with it? Come on. We are both old men. It's good for the brain to stretch it.


    Quote

    Note: Szpack codep may give consistent excess heat production (sometimes, see Hagelstein's attempt at using it...) but that type of electrode is highly consistent with my mundane explanation. I take this as proof of the non-LENR nature of the FPHE, not the 'nucklear' one.


    Your use of the word "proof" betrays attachment. How codep heat would "prove" your "mundane explanation" -- which is actually not "ordinary," it apparently contradicts the extensive experience of most electrochemists -- is beyond me. This would be extremely weak anecdotal evidence, on the order of "it could be ..." and therefore "it is," because you give greater weight to your own expectations and lesser weight to those of others.


    In fact, there was almost no experience with highly loaded PdD; McKubre immediately realized that Pons and Fleischmann must be working in the unexplored territory of high loading, because he had extensive experience with loading below 70%. We may easily believe that our experience of reality, where the experience is familiar, must extend into what we have not yet seen. This is an extension of babies learning that we are still there even if we move behind some object. It's normal. And limiting.


    There is a problem with single-measure experiments. I hope you understand why I consider heat/helium correlation the only confirmed direct evidence of the nuclear nature of the FPHE, and why I promoted for some years the confirmation of this with increased precision. As you know, I assume, that study is under way. Care to predict the results from your CCS theory?


    Within the relatively anecdotal evidence as to excess heat, there are correlations with conditions. For an effect to be large with deuterium and missing or almost missing with hydrogen is an indication contrary to your hypoethesis. Yes, deuterium and hydrogen behave differently, as to the physical chemistry, but a great difference? Again, not proof, but "evidence" which is a far better term to use. By confusing evidence with proof, both pseudoskeptics and believers are led into many logical errors.

  • Amongst all the psycobabble, Abd does make one good point… “Then why are you wasting your time with LENR,” … but it really should be “why am I wasting my time with Abd?”


    The answer is that I realize I have no hope of changing Abd’s mind, he is a “true believer” and can’t be bothered to deal with the facts and the evidence in a rational and logical manner. But…there are others on this forum who may not be such a lost cause, and it is for them that I try to correct Abd’s fallacies. To whit:


    “I hope you understand why I consider heat/helium correlation the only confirmed direct evidence of the nuclear nature of the FPHE”


    Because of his bias, Abd fails to realize that there is no solid evidence of any true excess heat having ever been measured. Thus there is no validity in the correlation statistics derived from comparing heat and helium numbers. Further, there is no reason to believe the He numbers represent anything but leaks. Make a real setup (not a con or a fake) that makes 7-10 vol% He in a closed system while ensuring the surrounding’s He concentration remains at ppm levels (even hundreds of ppm, which is quite possible). Close the loop on an excess heat gizmo and make it self-sustain for months. Then you might have some validity. Until then it is all wishful thinking that any LENR-driven physics/chemistry is occurring. Wishful thinking is fine if you maintain some balance, but generically speaking, the CF community went over the edge years ago.


    “For an effect to be large with deuterium and missing or almost missing with hydrogen is an indication contrary to your hypoethesis.”


    No it is not. I explained this in my last big post, but one more time…chemistry is the study of how chemicals react, and the trends detectable across the Periodic Table. When an effect is found in one system, a chemist immediately wonders how one can propagate that across the table to near neighbors. In the specific case above, it is clear that what was done to Pd (for example) to make it react with D2 may not directly work with Ni or Pt. But would modifications that adjust for the chemistry differences? In the case of Ni, the answer is certainly ‘yes’, researchers have shown CF effects with protium on Ni. In the case of Pt, also ‘yes’, see Storms’ papers for example. My hypothesis covers all these… (P.S. I ‘expect’ that Sc or Bi could show ‘excess heat’ effects with the ‘right’ treatments too…i.e. I have no inherent limitations as Abd implies.)


    “Yes, deuterium and hydrogen behave differently, as to the physical chemistry, but a great difference?”


    For the observers…isotope effects are usually thought of as being based on relative mass changes. This is further based in the simplistic Hook’s Law approach to understanding bonds and molecular vibrations. The relevant factor that falls out of that analysis is the square root of the mass ratio. So for 235-U vs 239-U that would be sqrt(239/235) = 1.00847. In other words a 0.8% difference. However for protium vs deuterium, the number is 1.41, or a 40% difference. It’s tough to work with a 0.8% difference, but it can be done of course. It is 'trivial' to work with (and observe in real life) a 40% difference. And I at least consider such a large difference to be ‘great’, because the observed facts shows that hydrogen isotope effects are the largest around…


    “because he [McKubre] had extensive experience with loading below 70%” Really? Evidence of that?


    I wrote “I take this as proof of the non-LENR nature of the FPHE” to which Abd replied “Your use of the word "proof" betrays attachment.”


    I was a little sloppy here with the word ‘proof’, so let me expand and expound on the issue.


    In the process of developing a theory, one collects a set of experimental observations, formulates a hypothesis, and then tests the hypothesis with the observations, some of which may be acquired in subsequent additional work. If the hypothesis holds up through several rounds of this, it begins to earn the right to be called a ‘theory’, especially if it becomes a little more general. In my development of the at-the-electrode (ATE) recombination theory, I started with the Storms’ data, but I also folded in prior data such as any and all calorimetric studies reported in the literature, and some that weren’t (McK’s 1998 report, the ‘M4’ run in particular). Also, the negatives were included, first to emphasize the low rate of success in standard F&P experiments, and then to incorporate the Oriani report using isolated electrodes (which is the normal way of doing electrochemistry). Putting that all together with the mathematical results of the CCS problem in Storms’ report and the implications of the two-zone cell/calorimeter model, I came to a physical/chemical picture of what would produce all those results.


    *Then* I observed the Szpak ir video and stills from it and the increased success of the codep prep technique, and noted that that conformed to expectations, which further increases the confidence in the ATE theory. In that sense, the Szpak data is (loosely) more ‘proof’ of the ATE theory. I continue to look for further ‘proofs’ and especially for contradictions, which are actually more important, and haven’t found any yet that require a change in the ATE theory. However, that negative ‘proof’ (evidence) may show up tomorrow. That’s the way it is with theories (and to a lesser extent with ‘Laws’).


    In any case, Abd’s psycobabble-term ‘attachment’ is unwarranted. I am just following the standard protocol. When he claims to have some ‘negative’ evidence, I of course analyze it to see if that is true, and I’ve never found a case where he was right.


    “of the three you list, there is only one who is proposing a mechanism, generally (Storms).” McK pushed the high loading mantra, which incorporates the D-D fusion mechanism. Miles pushes the He results, also pushing the D-D fusion mechanism. All with modifications of course to ‘explain’ (or not as the case may be) the disagreement between ‘cold’ and ‘hot’ fusion.


    “What I'm fishing for…” …is a ‘scientific’ veneer for an exercise in intellectualism. Not interested. I want to see the hard data, the derived conclusions, and the logical pathways between. I will then evaluate the consistency of all that, and in the final analysis, look at the reproducibility level. Cold fusion is a great dream. Maybe someone will finally show it exists. But so far, no luck.


    (BTW, I actually already did what you requested…I suggested excess heat events were caused by leprechauns running across my backyard (the ‘heat-leprechaun correlation’)! That’s LENR (a Leprechaun Event – Neighborhood Race (they only cross backyards in significant numbers during a race…)) right? Oh…not ‘scientific’ enough for you? OK. No problem. Of course ‘heat-He correlation’ is about as equally well founded…)

  • Re "nuclear or not, that is the question", I would love to know your opinion on the production of neutrons from the so-called fracto-fusion in hydrides. Several studies have shown that when one triggers a rapid temperature increase in an hydride, the emission of neutrons is observed. This phenomenon, and maybe more importantly that the underlying reaction is nuclear, is generally accepted. However, I don't understand the physics behind and I'm not aware of any "good" explanation. Storms believes this is unrelated to LENR.


    I have not looked in any detail at fracto-fusion, so I'm sorry but I have no strongly-held opinion. That being said, my knee-jerk reaction is the usual 'unlikely' or 'maybe there is something there, but probably not what the proponents are claiming' (which was my reaction to the 1989 F&P announcement BTW). I do know that people reported x-ray emission during the peeling back of Scotch-type tape, so who knows? I also recall there was an appendix about this in a book (Hoffman?) written several years back speculating it was due to accidental cooling of electronics by boil-off LN2. Also, I have always made it clear I have no expertise in electronic radiation counting instrumentation, so I can't fairly evaluate those type of claims anyway. You'll have to find someone else to comment. But I would listen to Ed, he is a reasonably good scientist except for his CF bias.

  • The question of whether or not laser power explains his apparent XP is a distinct one, not asked by me. What if it doesn't? Really, Kirk, I'm surprised and I mean that.


    If it does he may have shot down my theory. Kind of telling that no one in the field wants to look into that, isn't it?


    To repeat the question, how could LENR explain the resistance drop?


    The same way my non-LENR response does. R drops due to cooling is what I said. Cooling occurs because of endothermicity for example. Suppose an endothermic LENR. It causes cooling, R drops. Heat then subsequently appears because LENR rx 2 kicks in...now, what are the LENRs? You have to use analytical chemistry to collect the measures of reaction products, and from that back-postulate the reactants. (But you'd better do your analytical chemistry right...) Then you revamp your experiment to demonstrate that that is true (by showing control over the extent of reaction). Once you've successfully done that, you're 'done', you have developed a reproducible method that those skilled in the art can follow. Patent or publish as you desire.

  • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:


    If it does he may have shot down my theory. Kind of telling that no one in the field wants to look into that, isn't it?


    I think you meant "doesn't." The issue of laser power, as I recall, is addressed in the papers, but I'm not looking now. I have, in fact, asked Letts for some data and he might answer. Or maybe eventually I'll go and read the papers again. This was not the purpose of this inquiry, for me, it was to explore how we think about LENR and consider hypotheses.


    Kirk, let me break it to you: what people do not look at demonstrates very little of anything. Maybe they are distracted by pizza or the opposite sex or their 401K or something. It is not "telling," except for those who like to make up stories about life and how the world works.


    I've asked a question about the resistance drop and, as it happened, the same question came up privately in a discussion. And the various possibilities here were mentioned, including the one that I asked Kirk if he could imagine or see or postulate, a "LENR explanation" for the resistance drop. And, now, it was not "heating." As I mentioned, Kirk already got close, just not quite there.


    Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:

    Quote

    To repeat the question, how could LENR explain the resistance drop?


    The same way my non-LENR response does. R drops due to cooling is what I said. Cooling occurs because of endothermicity for example. Suppose an endothermic LENR. It causes cooling, R drops. Heat then subsequently appears because LENR rx 2 kicks in...now, what are the LENRs?[/quote]
    The resistance drop appears immediately, before the cell has time to change much in temperature. I will give the hypothesis I have in mind below.


    Quote

    You have to use analytical chemistry to collect the measures of reaction products, and from that back-postulate the reactants. (But you'd better do your analytical chemistry right...) Then you revamp your experiment to demonstrate that that is true (by showing control over the extent of reaction). Once you've successfully done that, you're 'done', you have developed a reproducible method that those skilled in the art can follow. Patent or publish as you desire.


    Kirk's thinking is complicated and convoluted. He is describing, I think, what one would do before announcing some hypothesis as supported by evidence. I am here looking at the generation of hypotheses, a step well before what he's focused on.


    The hypothesis: the resistance drops because the LENR reaction is a surface reaction and generates helium, and the helium has a "birth energy." From the Hagelstein limit, we know that this birth energy must be below 20 keV. If the reaction starts up suddenly, as with laser stimulation, this low-energy alpha radiation will cause ionization in the electrolyte interface layer, a major source of cell resistance exists. That ionization immediately lowers resistance, before the heat can raise temperature. (In the measurements, every 1 minute, the resistance drop shows up and then, the next minute, temperature rise begins.)


    Now, obviously, we would need to look at other possibilities, such as laser effects, the most obvious.

  • Amongst all the psycobabble, Abd does make one good point… “Then why are you wasting your time with LENR,” … but it really should be “why am I wasting my time with Abd?”


    The answer is that I realize I have no hope of changing Abd’s mind, he is a “true believer” and can’t be bothered to deal with the facts and the evidence in a rational and logical manner. But…there are others on this forum who may not be such a lost cause, and it is for them that I try to correct Abd’s fallacies.


    I have spent a great deal of time looking at Kirk's ideas, even lamenting that they may not have been understood, but I will now short-circuit this: if any of the "others" want my comment on Kirk's ideas, ask me. Kirk understands a lot, but also misses even more. I look here only at the beginning of his rant:


    Quote

    To whit:


    Wit.


    Quote

    “I hope you understand why I consider heat/helium correlation the only confirmed direct evidence of the nuclear nature of the FPHE”


    Kirk completely misses the point. I am not here making the claim directly, but hoping that Kirk would understand why I consider heat/helium important. He completely misses it, with an objection that demonstrates clearly that he fails to understand the power of correlation in science. It is an appalling shortcoming. Correlation is used to cut through noise and "unreliability."


    Quote

    Because of his bias, Abd fails to realize that there is no solid evidence of any true excess heat having ever been measured.


    Well, in 2004, a sample of experts, 18 of them, in the DoE review, were evenly divided, half thinking that the evidence of anomalous heat was conclusive. Given the conditions of that review, that was quite high. "True excess heat" means something special to Kirk, but what is being confirmed is a heat anomaly, and, in fact, Kirk thinks there really is one, but it is non-nuclear in origin.


    So what happens, then, if we look for nuclear products? This is what was done in 1989 and 1990, and little was found, and this was a major factor in the rejection cascade. No ash, there must be no reaction, and there was a sensibility to that.


    However, in 1991, Miles found that helium -- which had already been reported, but without any correlation study -- was being produced, correlated with the heat anomaly. This was a bombshell, to Huizenga, who thought it amazing, but who then considered it would probably not be confirmed, "because no gammas." I.e., Huizenga showed that he was thinking of a particular reaction, d+d -> 4He, which, it can be argued -- true or not -- must be accompanied by a gamma. Huizenga was comparing the result with a known reaction. Let's just say that cold fusion is not that known reaction, it is something else, and I leave it as a mystery at present.


    Is the Anomalous Heat Effect -- now often referred to as the AHE -- correlated with helium? Then, if it is, why? Leakage? That seems to be all that Kirk can think of, because he only comes up with non-nuclear hypotheses, we just showed that with that little exercise about resistance lowering just before onset of temperature rise from the AHE.


    This is a question answerable by experiment. Storms lists many confirmations, there are at least a dozen, and in two experiments, anodic reversal was used and apparently releases all the helium, and those values were within experimental error of the theoretical value for deuterium conversion to helium. (SRI, 10% error reported, and ENEA, about 20% error). Attempting to explain this with leakage is a futile exercise, it won't fly, and nobody is going to pay attention to Shanahan, anyway, he already shot his wad on this, with his Letter to JEM.


    For some years, I promoted the idea of repeating the heat/helium work -- which hadn't been done in ten years -- with increased precision, to nail this. I suggested that this was work that was very likely to produce results, being confirmation, not exploration. The money would not be wasted. Within the field, there was opposition, on the idea that heat/helium was already known and this would not help with what was Really Important, i.e., control of the reaction and More Heat. And so it would be a waste of precious funds.


    Whether as a result of my work or not, this idea was accepted and has been fully funded, unlike anything coming from Kirk Shanahan.


    This is real science: what Kirk thinks I "believe" is simply what I see as the implications of the preponderance of the evidence, and Kirk is steadfastly ignoring much of the evidence, focusing on his own pet ideas. What I have promoted is a definitive test of what I've claimed has been shown.


    A few weeks ago I experienced a health situation where I could have died, and it was clear to me: I was ready, because I have made a difference, with my family and with my communities and the world. However, the chance of my dying soon is now reduced below 1% or so. I will very likely see the results of that research. What if the AHE is *not* correlated with helium? This, from the existing evidence, is extremely unlikely, but if there is no heat/helium correlation, then helium is not the ash, and there is no other reasonable candidate.


    At this point I would very likely abandon cold fusion as a project of mine. I have many others that might be just as important, not to mention my 7 children and 6 grandchildren so far.


    I pushed for a test, that would challenge my own ideas. That is science, not attachment to personal views. My trust is in Reality, not in what I think about it.


    Quote

    Thus there is no validity in the correlation statistics derived from comparing heat and helium numbers. Further, there is no reason to believe the He numbers represent anything but leaks.


    Because Kirk says so? It's actually preposterous. Kirk simply states this about leaks without looking at how leaks would function, without looking at the actual research and seeing how the leak possibility was addressed, and especially not looking at all the no-heat experiments that were otherwise identical, but the cathode was "dead," not producing XP, because of the famous unreliability. Why would these experiments all show no helium? Does a "dead cathode" somehow protect against leaks? Sometimes people think that cells with XP are hotter than cells without. Not always, they might be cooler, sometimes temperature is constant, and in most experiments, the temperature rise is quite small, certainly not enough to have a massive effect on leakage.


    Kirk is demonstrating exactly how he thinks, and it's obvious. Kirk, the future is watching. I keep that in mind, constantly. I recommend it.

  • Kirk simply states this about leaks without looking at how leaks would function, without looking at the actual research and seeing how the leak possibility was addressed, and especially not looking at all the no-heat experiments that were otherwise identical, but the cathode was "dead," not producing XP, because of the famous unreliability. Why would these experiments all show no helium? Does a "dead cathode" somehow protect against leaks? Sometimes people think that cells with XP are hotter than cells without. Not always, they might be cooler, sometimes temperature is constant, and in most experiments, the temperature rise is quite small, certainly not enough to have a massive effect on leakage.


    Yup, yup, yup on all counts. Abd has repeated this many times with great patience, which is laudable. He did not come up with this. Mel Miles did, and Shanahan should have read and understood Miles long ago.


    I too summarized Miles, bringing up many of these points such as the fact that the temperature is sometimes higher in a cell with no excess heat, so high temperature cannot be causing helium to leak in.


    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJintroducti.pdf

  • Abd:“I think you meant "doesn't."


    I actually had that first, and now I see I should have expressed it differently, to wit[thank you, but remember ‘speling dunt kount’]:


    If an XP signal is obtained upon a laser pulse, one must be certain one is correctly measuring the deposited power. If one can prove no CCS is active, then an XP (implying additional output power) would at least partially validate a CF claim. This has always been my position. I showed Ed’s data could be reinterpreted without stretching the bounds of reasonableness as a CCS effect. I speculated that might be the case in other results. I found insufficient information published in all other cases, so was unable to confirm or deny the postulate of ‘universal CCS presence’ in the rest of the CF field, but did find hints I was correct in some cases. The point is that unless a CF researcher shows his signal is outside the bounds of a CCS, claiming CF activity is illegitimate, another possibility remained that doesn’t require LENRs.


    Now, the CF community should have the necessary information/data in their laboratory records. The simplest way to ‘invalidate’ my claim is to trot out the data that proves their case and defeats mine. But what do we see? Ten top CF researchers using a fallacious strawman argument to ‘defeat’ my concern, and nothing else, even after 15 years of knowing what should be done.


    I therefore conclude they have no such ‘proof’. I’m sure they have the data. That leads directly to my subsidiary conclusion: There is no excess heat. That in turn, leads to my conclusion: There is no heat/helium correlation. This is without considering the numerous problems with He measurements as reported in the CF literature.


    But the appearance of excess heat signals IS an _indicator_ that something has changed (which I believe is the onset of at-the-electrode recombination), and that means one might be able to use the XP signal in a binary off/on fashion for some purposes, like detecting that other products (supposed) seem to occur only when the apparent XP signal is ‘on’. At _best_, that’s what you can do right now. But that is contradicted by the lousy stats on the so-called 24 Mev number Abd likes to cite (the Figure in Storms’ text that I erred on which Abd seems to think is so important). There the data actually encompasses the 0 value when error bars are considered, and thus means nothing conclusive, all hand-waving from the peanut gallery aside.


    Abd: “The issue of laser power, as I recall, is addressed in the papers, but I'm not looking now.” Me either. My recollection is Letts reported laser power in, but Scott Little questioned the validity of his methods.


    {snip}


    “Kirk, let me break it to you: what people do not look at demonstrates very little of anything. … It is not "telling," except for those who like to make up stories about life and how the world works.”


    Really? Try telling that to Galileo. Remember how ‘damning’ it was to have some Catholic Church officials refuse to look through his telescope? Did their reticence “demonstrate very little”? While there are some typically unmentioned ramifications to that story that makes their behavior a bit more understandable, their behavior is almost always used to illustrate ‘pathologically biased’ behavior. Likewise here. The failure of the CF community to _properly_ deal with the CCS issue is equally indicative of a pathological bias.


    {snip}


    Abd wrote:“To repeat the question, how could LENR explain the resistance drop?”


    I replied:“The same way my non-LENR response does. …”


    Abd responded:“The resistance drop appears immediately, before the cell has time to change much in temperature. I will give the hypothesis I have in mind below.”


    Before I look at that I will remind everyone that I am concerned with lag times. Electrical resistance measurements are expected to be faster (possibly greatly so) that physical measurements like temperature. As well, temperature effects might be masked by physical realities like the sensor being far from the action point for example, so you might not even see a temp change in some cases. Leads to lots of potential confusion. Careful experimentation is required.


    I wrote:“You have to use analytical chemistry to collect the measures of reaction products, and from that back-postulate the reactants. (But you'd better do your analytical chemistry right...) Then you revamp your experiment to demonstrate that that is true (by showing control over the extent of reaction). Once you've successfully done that, you're 'done', you have developed a reproducible method that those skilled in the art can follow. Patent or publish as you desire.”


    Abd:“Kirk's thinking is complicated and convoluted. He is describing, I think, what one would do before announcing some hypothesis as supported by evidence. “


    No, it is clear and straightforward, and represents the scientific investigative process.


    Abd:“I am here looking at the generation of hypotheses, a step well before what he's focused on.”


    And I don’t find that a useful process. I feel you also need to evaluate the probability of being able to detect and quantify the parameters necessary to confirm the hypothesis. So shoot me.


    Abd:“The hypothesis: the resistance drops because the LENR reaction is a surface reaction and generates helium, and the helium has a "birth energy." “ I.e. you postulate a _specific_ endothermic LENR.


    “From the Hagelstein limit, we know that this birth energy must be below 20 keV. If the reaction starts up suddenly, as with laser stimulation, this low-energy alpha radiation will cause ionization in the electrolyte interface layer, a major source of cell resistance exists. That ionization immediately lowers resistance, before the heat can raise temperature. (In the measurements, every 1 minute, the resistance drop shows up and then, the next minute, temperature rise begins.)Now, obviously, we would need to look at other possibilities, such as laser effects, the most obvious.”


    Wonderful, a highly detailed hypothesis that should have many testable features. Go for it. Maybe you will finally provide some solid CF evidence, instead of the mish-mash typically presented as definitive when it is clearly not.

  • "Yeong E Kim funded by Industrial Heat and Cumberland & Western Resources"


    Kim had better read the fine print, as those bloodsuckers might play the corporate shell game and leave some fictional entity to go bankrupt on him after stealing his technology. :blackeye:

  • In what follows, Abd’s comments will be denoted with quotation marks, except in cases where I also repeat some of my comments. There I will endeavor to make it clear who said what.


    “Kirk completely misses the point.”


    Again presuming to know my mind. The CIA needs people like you Abd, you should apply.


    “I am not here making the claim directly,”


    Not “here” in this specific thread perhaps, but everywhere else…


    “but hoping that Kirk would understand why I consider heat/helium important.”


    Since correlation does not indicate causation, the importance of the correlation must be established. IF true excess heat was measured AND IF reliable helium measurements were obtained simultaneously AND IF those things then correlated AND IF there was a causal connection found, THEN the putative heat-He correlation would be ONE point supporting LENR, IF the causal connection indicated that. Thus the heat-He correlation has the potential of contributing confidence to a LENR conclusion, if so indicated by THE REST of the body of evidence, which is why the CF community first began investigating it.


    Abd: “He completely misses it, with an objection that demonstrates clearly that he fails to understand the power of correlation in science.”


    No, you fail to understand the limitations of it. The reproducibility criterion everyone says must be met is, in fact, a ‘correlation’ that is obtainable by any skilled in the art. You can’t get more important than that.


    One limitation for example: Correlation was developed statistically using random distributions. But chemistry rarely allows for that. For example, measuring He in a CF experiment as time progresses might give a series of increasing values. Simultaneously an apparent excess heat signal might appear and its integrated value would also increase with time. That will produce a correlation. But this He… would it suddenly disappear totally, and then reappear at a different value, and then jump to 500X that value in a sequence of 3 measurements? Of course not. Chemistry limits the available range of the subsequent measurement. In our example, the idea is usually that the He will either stay the same or increase (in fact it might also decrease), but the magnitude of the change will be ‘reasonable’ as defined by the chemistry and physics. That produces ‘self-correlated’ data, which is NOT fully random. Thus a methodology derived from full randomness will NOT be FULLY applicable. That’s why the only coefficients I am concerned with are those above .9 or so in most cases. Lesser coefficients are perhaps suggestive and might be useful to point directions out for an experimentalist, but they aren’t very conclusive overall.


    “It is an appalling shortcoming.”


    Yup. Failure to understand the limits of a technique (mathematical, instrumental, whatever) is often a critical contributor to failure.


    “Correlation is used to cut through noise and "unreliability."”


    Correlation is used to provide a predictive equation. All correlations have error bars, and you have to know those to evaluate the utility of the correlation. As correlation is a statistical procedure, its purpose is to reduce ‘noise’, but it never eliminates it. One always has to compute the error and compare it to the signal to tell if the implied conclusion is valid. Thus the genesis of the CCS problem.


    KLS: “Because of his bias, Abd fails to realize that there is no solid evidence of any true excess heat having ever been measured.”


    Abd: “Well, in 2004, a sample of experts, 18 of them, in the DoE review, were evenly divided, half thinking that the evidence of anomalous heat was conclusive. Given the conditions of that review, that was quite high. "True excess heat" means something special to Kirk, but what is being confirmed is a heat anomaly, and, in fact, Kirk thinks there really is one, but it is non-nuclear in origin.”


    As it turns out I know 2 of these people personally. One participated in the written review (where 9 reviewers got papers to read and report upon) and one participated in the 1-day oral review (where the other 9 listened to and questioned Hagelstein, and the others). I asked both of them if my work had been presented, and the both replied “No”. (The written reviewer did know of my work independently (from me!) and he recommended in his written report that my work be considered.) I don’t care how much of an ‘expert’ you are, getting less than all of the information will bias the conclusions.


    Further, how much of an ‘expert’ was each of those people on ‘cold fusion’ and what was happening in the field? I doubt any of them would claim ‘expert’ status in CF. They are experts in what they do, which the DOE committee selector assumed was at least partially relevant to the review task, that’s all.


    What do you think they might have concluded overall had someone stood up and said, “The Shanahan work has established a criterion for determining the validity of excess heat reports that has not yet been met by any CF research report.”? What if they had heard, “Helium measurements are all less than nominal atmospheric levels, and lab He levels are rarely reported, and in one case, a calibration technique that used standards 10X the sample range were used.”? How about, “Heavy metal transmutation results do not exclude contamination and mis-identification issues.”?


    Yes, it is ridiculous to not see the anomalous heat signals. That’s primarily what it’s all about isn’t it? The XP results form the largest block of ‘evidence’ for LENR don’t they? But I claim we are unsure today if they are real or they are noise. You know of course, that if they are noise, they aren’t LENR.


    “So what happens, then, if we look for nuclear products? This is what was done in 1989 and 1990, and little was found, and this was a major factor in the rejection cascade. No ash, there must be no reaction, and there was a sensibility to that.” It is difficult to imagine a nuclear or chemical reaction that does not produce some products besides heat. It is an error to conclude such a reaction in a radically different environment will do exactly as it does elsewhere. Things _could_ be different. That was why I decided to look into the whole business in 1995 when I became involved in working with the materials claimed to do CF.


    “However, in 1991, Miles found that helium -- which had already been reported, but without any correlation study -- was being produced, correlated with the heat anomaly.”


    Today that conclusion is unsupported, because apparently Miles didn’t bother to explain how he established it. (Go back to my comments to you Abd in the other [SPLIT] thread we participated in a couple of months ago.) As I indicated there, his derivation of the ‘correlated’ data is unclear, and until that is cleared up, I can’t just accept what he says. (What do you think the 18 reviewers would say if I showed them the problem? I bet they’d want an explanation too.)


    “This was a bombshell, to Huizenga, who thought it amazing,” This has always been true for everyone. IF CF is real, it is amazing. Then we’ll get over it and put it in the textbooks and get on with more science. “but who then considered it would probably not be confirmed, "because no gammas." I.e., Huizenga showed that he was thinking of a particular reaction, d+d -> 4He, which, it can be argued -- true or not -- must be accompanied by a gamma. Huizenga was comparing the result with a known reaction.“


    As I said above, this is a problem. It doesn’t _have_ to be true, but Huizenga was just giving the probability of violating _known_ physics a very small number, which is a choice. I personally avoided making a choice on this and investigated the claims based on scientific rigor requirements.


    “Let's just say that cold fusion is not that known reaction, it is something else, and I leave it as a mystery at present.”


    Fine with me. What proof do you have that there is a LENR involved. (Answer: No definitive proof.)


    “Is the Anomalous Heat Effect -- now often referred to as the AHE -- correlated with helium? Then, if it is, why? Leakage? That seems to be all that Kirk can think of, because he only comes up with non-nuclear hypotheses, we just showed that with that little exercise about resistance lowering just before onset of temperature rise from the AHE.”


    Again, I let the data drive me, not intellectual gamesmanship. Saves time.“This is a question answerable by experiment. Storms lists many confirmations, “ Except his ‘confirmations’ don’t stand up to rigorous examination.


    “there are at least a dozen, and in two experiments, anodic reversal was used and apparently releases all the helium, and those values were within experimental error of the theoretical value for deuterium conversion to helium. (SRI, 10% error reported, and ENEA, about 20% error). Attempting to explain this with leakage is a futile exercise, it won't fly, and nobody is going to pay attention to Shanahan, anyway,”


    All BS, Abd.


    “he already shot his wad on this, with his Letter to JEM.”


    Not hardly. You really are fixated on the fact that the editor didn’t want to let the debate continue aren’t you? For the record, my response would have been a couple of paragraphs stating “the random CCSH thing ain’t mine” and “so it’s time to address my issues right?” plus some comments on the only point they made not dependent on their strawman (CR39 stuff).


    “For some years, I promoted the idea of repeating the heat/helium work -- which hadn't been done in ten years “ Imagine that…a _crucial_ experimental fact not being replicated…where have we heard that before???...Oh yea, all through the CF field…


    {snip}


    “Whether as a result of my work or not, this idea was accepted and has been fully funded, unlike anything coming from Kirk Shanahan.”


    I never sought funds to do anything. The criticism was published, abortive attempts made to dismiss it, but in Real Science, people would fold it in. Not me, as I am only an external critic with a vested interest in knowing the truth, not an active CFer.


    {snip}


    “and Kirk is steadfastly ignoring much of the evidence, “


    No Abd, this is more of you ‘knowing’ what is going on in my head. Actually, I have included all of the evidence I can find on this in my thinking. I keep demonstrating that for you, and you keep ignoring it to be able to maintain your pathological belief system. I have come to a ‘different’ conclusion. You on the other hand are just following the pack.


    “focusing on his own pet ideas. What I have promoted is a definitive test of what I've claimed has been shown.”


    Should be: …focusing on a validity criterion that is not being employed, which had led to erroneous conclusions, polarization of the chemical/physical community, and lots of wasted time and money.


    {snip}


    “My trust is in Reality, not in what I think about it.” ROFL


    KLS: “Thus there is no validity in the correlation statistics derived from comparing heat and helium numbers. Further, there is no reason to believe the He numbers represent anything but leaks.”


    Abd:“Because Kirk says so?”


    No, because anyone with intelligence understands that ‘correlating’ to a fictitious number is bogus.


    {snip}


    “Kirk is demonstrating exactly how he thinks, and it's obvious.


    ”Yup. Boils down to “Know your errors.”


    {snip}


    {sigh...} I have devolved past the point of usefulness. I will not respond again to Abd. If he makes a point that you might think is valid and want my comment, you'll have to ask for it. I may respond to you (whoever you are).

  • "Yeong E Kim funded by Industrial Heat and Cumberland & Western Resources"


    Kim had better read the fine print, as those bloodsuckers might play the corporate shell game and leave some fictional entity to go bankrupt on him after stealing his technology.


    Kim doesn't have a "technology." He is a theoretician, like Hagelstein, who is also funded. The story here is apparently based in a belief that IH screwed over Rossi.


    Kim has actually been given cash, not stock or promises. I'm amazing at the idiocy that passes for "thinking" sometimes. If IH goes bankrupt, Kim loses nothing. (At this point, though, the money is elsewhere, not in IH. It is passing through IH, coming from IHHI, apparently, which is sole owner of IH; IHHI then is owned by its shareholders, and is not likely to go bankrupt any time soon. Given what they are doing, they could stay the course for many years.)


    Nobody makes money from "stealing technology." They might make it from applying the technology or selling licenses (where someone else applies it). IH has not "made" any profit. They have cash flow because of their investments in LENR, accepted by Woodford and maybe others. It is clear that they are using this cash flow to support general LENR research, and Kim is an example, one where specific profit would not be a motive, this would be general research support that might produce overall results, supporting later applications, speculatively. Same with Hagelstein. Generally, it appears, the results of sponsored research like this is being published.


    And Rossi still has his technology and could still develop and sell it, say in Sweden. Yes, the Agreement requires him to give a a right of first refusal to IH. I.e. they'd need to give him more money. But there is zero sign that he has asked. And right now, my guess, they would pass. "Good luck, Andrea. Don't take any wooden nickels, unless you want them for your collection."


    If Rossi is left bankrupt, it would be because IH wins a substantial judgement in Rossi v. Darden, which is certainly possible. That would be a result of his own actions. He created that case, in haste, and U.S. Federal court is not Planet Rossi.

  • Yes, it is ridiculous to not see the anomalous heat signals. That’s primarily what it’s all about isn’t it? The XP results form the largest block of ‘evidence’ for LENR don’t they? But I claim we are unsure today if they are real or they are noise. You know of course, that if they are noise, they aren’t LENR.


    {sigh...} I have devolved past the point of usefulness. I will not respond again to Abd. If he makes a point that you might think is valid and want my comment, you'll have to ask for it. I may respond to you (whoever you are).



    Thanks “Kirk” for defogging your point of view. Any, prior to be published, paper, etc. needs the help of an other clear thinking, critical expert.
    Even if, for what ever reasons, experts like TC or You can't live with a LENR reality, you are a big help to structure the knowledge. People like ABD may be good for spreading or advocating ideas, but they are always goal driven, no primarily serving science.


    The biggest weakness of most LENR researchers is the eagerness to be the first to find, publish etc. a new effect/theory. Even more severe is the lack of widespread communication – which is a consequence of finally being paid to be the first...


    LENR is not only a new field it is already, or soon will lead to a revolution in nuclear physics. This is a fact what people like ABD or even TC cannot see, as they don't spend much time digging in the field. The problem with ABD's logic is that he is, traditionally based, insisting on PaD LENR, which is the least suited one for doing detailed measurements. Even worse if you run your experiment at the wrong working point, you will transmute your Pd catalyzer up and!, downwards the periodic system.. and never measure Helium.


    Thus, dealing with PdD, I would only accept significant excess heat/self sustain as a proof for LENR. (Not as a proof for a long term sustainable heat source!)

  • KLS: “Thus there is no validity in the correlation statistics derived from comparing heat and helium numbers. Further, there is no reason to believe the He numbers represent anything but leaks.”


    Abd:“Because Kirk says so?”


    No, because anyone with intelligence understands that ‘correlating’ to a fictitious number is bogus.


    Actually, correlation with "fictitious numbers," if the correlation is strong enough, is evidence that the numbers are not "fictitious." Rather, there is some common cause or condition linking them. Kirk, so convinced is he of his own rightness, is massively careless in what he writes. Let's look at this narrow point and how it actually applies.


    What are the allegedly "fictitious" numbers? Let's look at Miles.


    He measured anomalous heat in his experiments, using calorimetry similar to that of Pons and Fleischmann (which was precise.) Shanahan believes that these results were from a "prosaic cause," but does not deny the anomaly, generally. He simply thinks that it is a chemical anomaly. However, bottom line, the measured heat was measured, with actual values being reported.


    Miles also captured the produced gases, deuterium and oxygen, measuring the volume, such that he knew the volume of gas generated in a period with so much "excess energy." He sent these samples to an independent laboratory, which did not know the heat results, and which then reported the helium results.


    What is "fictitious" here? Kirk is very sloppy in his thinking and writing. Miles is a careful scientist. He reported all his results, apparently (out of 33 measures, there are 3 outliers, both with excuses he could have used to leave them out. He reported it all.)


    Miles used a specific technique to calculate heat. It is certainly possible to argue that there was calorimetry error, and that is what both Shanahan and Jones claimed. (In fact, Shanahan's general position is that the calorimetry is not wrong, rather, there is a "non-nuclear explanation." And that sometimes this creates calorimetry error. If the heat is from recombination in the cell, however, one of Shanahan's ideas -- he has two major ones --- the calorimetry would not be "wrong," rather there would be a chemical explanation.)


    Then the helium data comes from an independent analysis. Miles did not cherry-pick it.


    Again, it could be argued that -- in this case, not in all heat/helium work -- the helium is from leakage. The levels of helium found are below ambient, making that seem possible.


    However, the correlation is strong. Very strong. Way beyond any likelihood of chance. Anomalous heat and helium are correlated. Shanahan covers that up, claiming that correlation with garbage data is useless. In fact, such correlations are used in science to detect signals in the presence of high noise. In medical practice, every patient is different. Medicines work for some and not for others. However, when possible, controlled experiments are done. Is there a correlation between the use of a medicine vs. a placebo, and the medical outcomes? If so, and if that correlation is strong enough and confirmed, the medicine is accepted and used. Even if it is unreliable and a given patient might not recover. An additional check is dose/response. Do results correlate with dosage? If there is no dose-response effect, it is likely that any correlation is artifact, produced by chance in small studies. (But sometimes a very small dose might be effective, so this does require caution.)


    There is an equivalent to dose-response in the variation of helium results with anomalous heat. The more helium, the more heat. There is another "coincidence" that Huizenga -- the highly skeptical co-chair of the famous 1989 ERAB panel that considered evidence for cold fusion not established -- noticed in his book, second edition: the ratio of heat and helium was within an order of magnitude of the value that would result if deuterium were being converted to helium, with no leakages of energy, if it all ends up as heat. Huizenga remained skeptical, predicting that Miles would not be confirmed, but he recognized the importance of the work, and wrote that, if confirmed, this would solve a major mystery of cold fusion. His reason for thinking it would not be confirmed was simple: "no gammas." It's understandable, but depends on an obvious assumption, that the reaction would be a known reaction, just because the "fuel" and "ash" might be the same. In fact, they were obviously not the same, because if the reaction were d+d -> 4He plus gamma, the gamma energy would mostly escape the cell and it would not heat as observed, It must be something different.


    Later work tightened up the correlation such that the two experiments that did anodic reversal (which would release trapped helium from the near-surface in palladium) found the theoretical value within experimental error.


    Shanahan has had many opportunities to come up with a plausible explanation for the correlation, but he generally bails at this point, blaming me for being a stubborn believer. Pot. Kettle. Black.


    The obvious alternative explanation that is most easily suggested is that somehow heat causes the seals to leak atmospheric helium into the cell, which would then create a heat/helium correlation. I am not going into the reasons why this idea is rejected, but it is not actually plausible, for many reasons. Shanahan's garbage-in, garbage-out argument is utterly bankrupt, he could not get it published in any peer-reviewed journal worth publishing in. The correlation demonstrates that the data is at least approximately valid.


    This isn't close, some mere disagreement. The only reason Shanahan keeps insisting on this is that the actual experimental results challenge his theory, so he must have a way to dismiss them. He has convinced himself, but I have never seen him convince anyone knowledgeable about either science and scientific process or LENR.


    There is a discussion currently on the CMNS list, where a researcher who has been trying for a decade or more to see LENR effects has failed to see them. When I look at what he has tried, it has been what I call "marginal" research, generally unconfirmed. That is not the place to start with LENR! There are a million ways to get an experiment wrong, and then there are reported results that are artifact or not understood. I'm suggesting to him that he back up and attempt to confirm, not the sexier results that he has worked on, but plain old boring FP Heat Effect. That is quite difficult enough!


    However, this researcher doesn't doubt that LENR is real, and he is perplexed by his "failures." (In fact, I don't think he has failed, rather he has demonstrated methods that don't work, and maybe that some original reports were, in fact, artifact. It certainly happens!) Why is he convinced?


    Heat/helium. I will repeat what Shanahan mostly ignored or rejected out of hand with his GIGO argument: this is the only *direct* evidence that cold fusion is not only a real heat effect, but is also nuclear in nature. As such, I considered it well worth putting it to the classic "pathological science" test: repeating the work with increased precision, and that is what is happening. The evidence is already strong, but there is room for improvement, and the exact value of the heat/helium ratio has theoretical implications. Tightening it may eliminate some theories from consideration.


    [quote']I have devolved past the point of usefulness.[/quote]
    Indeed.

  • I went back to find the He data I was mentioning and had trouble finding it, so I decided to repost just the data. This is derived from the data that makes up Storms' Fig. 47 in his book, found in the following table (in the book). I simply take the reported atoms-He/W-sec and divide it by the reported atoms-He/W to get the time, which I convert to minutes for convenience. If you plot the He data as a function of time, you get an decreasing plot, which can be transformed by taking the natural log of the atoms-He/W and correlating it with time using a linear equation. The resulting correlation coeff is -0.93. This strongly suggests to me that Miles had a procedural step that introduced a slug of air that was then bled down over time. However, Abd insisted that the "time" was a fixed value, which Miles had mentioned as his _normal_ sampling time in the text of a report. I need clarification of this, since my interpretation is that the He signal is an error at this point.



    (calc'd min) (atoms-He)/.5L x 10e-14
    11.75 1.34
    14.58 1.05
    16.50 0.97
    19.32 1.02
    18.17 1.09
    25.00 0.84
    29.76 0.75
    45.19 0.61
    17.86 0.9
    14.86 1.07

  • @Kirk:

    Quote

    I have devolved past the point of usefulness. I will not respond again to Abd.

    Abd puts up such a blizzard of a sh*tstorm that it would take all day every day to keep up. He's like the energizer bunny of mixing an occasional tidbit of sense with a huge garbagy mess of crappola.


    Abd : Abd agains postulates that Rossi may have some technology to sell to the Swedes. ROTFWL! Rossi's only "technology" is bamboozling and flummoxing. Actually, as I noted before, his real gift is in choosing his marks and in telling them what they want to hear and are likely to believe. Rossi has never had a customer (unless you count the dupes at IH), has never had a proper independent test, has no factory (much less a robotic one) and the QuarkX is pure fantasy. At least the ecat and the hotcat had useless kluges that hapless investors could be snowed with. I doubt that Rossi even has that much for the QuarkX.

  • Quote

    Bankruptcy order or not, I should imagine that trying to get money out of Rossi would be like trying to push butter up a mongoose's ass with a red-hot needle...


    Rossi, when last checked, had ten or so condos in and around Miami, worth quite a bit of money. A court could put a lien on these to insure he pays any judgements against him. I suppose he could liquidate those and leave the country to a non-extradition nation but that's a bit difficult. Hiding the money from the court or giving it to a third party in the face of a large court judgement against him would be a crime, I think.


    Rossi got upwards of $11M. I doubt his parties are so lavish that he expended it all already. His so-called "plant" certainly did not consume that much cash.

  • If IH is investing in Dr. Kim's theory, IH is actually investing in the ill fated Defkalion technology. The common wisdom is that DGT had nothing. But this latest move from IH speaks against this nonsense. IH does not permit dimwitted venial jealousies to prohibit them from looking for the diamonds in the rough. IH believes the Dr Kim has those sparkling diamonds stored in his memory banks as informed by the experiments that he observed at Defkalion. This teaches us that the jealous rantings of so many infamous characters mean nothing when it comes to the pursuit of money. Once those slanders have done their disgusting work, it is time for the smart money to pick up the pieces and turn shard reminisce of the dreams and genius of the defeated into gold. This also teaches a lesson about the FUD operations and the war to dominate that they come from directed at putting the competition out of business so that the smart money can take advantage of the never ending FUD storm.

  • I simply take the reported atoms He/W-sec and divid it by the reported atoms He/W


    Kirk has stated this backwards. That is, the total atoms would be divided by the rate to get time. A simple slip.


    The collection period would vary with the electrolytic current, not with helium reported. My recollection is that I checked and Miles collection time did vary, a little, but I'd need to look again, and Shanahan didn't look.


    What is the He/W figure? The data table (Table 7) shows figures for power (which I think is XP), helium atoms per 500 ml (the collection volume, this is a helium analysis result), and the calculated helium/watt-sec. It is obvious that the anomalous energy was calculated from the experimental record, as integrated power. It is not clear to me what "power" means here. Average power for the collection period? Let's assume it is.


    So what Kirk is doing is to looking at the number of atoms reported, (He/500 ml), and dividing that by the average power in watts. He then uses the calculated helium/watt-sec ratio to calculate collection time for that sample. (Helium/watt-sec will depend on average power times the collection time, which is excess energy for that time).


    The data in Storms is "selected results" from http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MilesMcorrelatioa.pdf which is a review by Miles published in 2003, based on earlier data. Analyzing Storms (2007) is analyzing a secondary source, and Storms does contain occasional errors. The Storms data that Kirk is analyzing has been calculated by Storms, not Miles.


    Assuming the data is valid, Shanahan finds a correlation between helium and calculated collection period.


    Miles claims:


    Quote

    It requires 4440 s to produce 500 mL of electrolysis gases (D2, O2) at 525 mA for normal laboratory conditions (T=296 K, P=690 Torr) at China Lake


    That is not quite the same as claiming that the collection period is constant, but it does give us something to look at. 4440 seconds is 75 minutes. This is very different from what Kirk calculates. What gives?


    Shanahan has:


    Quote

    This strongly suggests to me that Miles had a procedural step that introduced a slug of air that was then bled down over time.


    This appears to assume that the "collection time" shows experimental time sequence, when it would probably not. To really look at this would be a piece of work. These experiments were spread out over years.


    Storms has compiled those numbers from various tables in his source. Associating the dates from the review with the numbers of helium atoms:
    12/30/91-B 1.34x10^14
    12/30/91-A 1.05x10^14
    01/03/92-B 0.97x10^14
    (5/21/93) 1.02x10^14
    (5/21/93) 1.09x10^14
    (5/30/93) 0.84x10^14
    (5/30/93) 0.75x10^14
    (7/7/93) 0.61x10^14
    (9/13/94) 0.90x10^14
    (9/13/94) 1.07x10^14


    Miles gives his calculation for the first result:


    (1.34 - 0.51) x 10^14 He atoms / 500 ml
    divided by
    (4440 s / 500 ml)(0.100 Watt)
    equals
    1.9 x 10^11 He atoms / W-sec.


    0.51 x 10^14 is the figure for mean background helium (not ambient). A series of experiments are given that show this result.


    Kirk gives 11.75 minutes, or 705 seconds, for this same result, compared to Miles' 4440 seconds.


    Let's follow his track. Right off, Kirk has not used the corrected atom count, but the raw count. I will, for the following, use the raw count:


    1.34 x 10^14 He atoms / 0.100 W
    divided by
    1.9 x 10^11 He atoms/W-sec
    equals
    7053 seconds.


    It looks like Kirk forgot to consider that this was a tenth of a watt, not a watt. He left the power out of his calculation. At least with this value.


    Kirk neglected the consistent background correction, but used the corrected He/heat figure, and then his math was wrong, and then he seems to have assumed time sequence from data that was not in time sequence. I could examine this further, but why bother? What would a time correlation show? His "slug of air"? When the experiments were spread out over almost three years? When Miles did not take samples one after another, and I'm sure allowed time for flushing. Essentially, Shanahan assumes that Miles was an idiot. He is searching desperately for Something Wrong, and he is way too quick to accept whatever he comes up with.


    Further, this was 10 samples out of a total of 33 for Miles, which were 12 no-heat samples (no helium) and 21 with heat. And the Bush and Lagowski data was more "on the money," Storms shows three samples. The bulk of the data shows, without anodic reversal, roughly 60% helium collection, leaving perhaps 40% trapped -- if the production ratio is the theoretical value. Looking at the Stomrs plot, there is a major outlier, and the cause is obvious. That was at the lowest power level, so calorimetric error -- and possible helium error, made it a flyer. As power increases -- this was the purpose of the Storms plot -- the value settles, because error has less of an effect.

  • Rossi, when last checked, had ten or so condos in and around Miami, worth quite a bit of money. A court could put a lien on these to insure he pays any judgements against him. I suppose he could liquidate those and leave the country to a non-extradition nation but that's a bit difficult. Hiding the money from the court or giving it to a third party in the face of a large court judgement against him would be a crime, I think.


    Actually, Mary, you bring up an interesting point.
    If I am not mistaken, in Florida, they cannot take or sell your home (or garnish your pension) to pay for a court judgment. That, I think, means one's primary home.
    (I think OJ Simpson bought a large home in Fl to take advantage of this)
    So maybe only most of the Condos could go on the block, if the situation arises.

  • f IH is investing in Dr. Kim's theory, IH is actually investing in the ill fated Defkalion technology. The common wisdom is that DGT had nothing. But this latest move from IH speaks against this nonsense.


    Axil. I once told you that every time you mention Dr. Kim's name in connection with Defkalion a kitten dies.


    Apart from the fact that AFAIK Dr.Kim never actually saw a DGT reactor in action, DGT's own staff have confessed they had nothing, their former business partner in Italy said they had nothing and Professor Stremmenos their one time advocate told me (in person) they had nothing.


    By what magic do you deduce that they did?

  • Axil. I once told you that every time you mention Dr. Kim's name in connection with Defkalion a kitten dies.


    Apart from the fact that AFAIK Dr.Kim never actually saw a DGT reactor in action, DGT's own staff have confessed they had nothing, their former business partner in Italy said they had nothing and Professor Stremmenos their one time advocate told me (in person) they had nothing.


    By what magic do you deduce that they did?


    If the truth requires the sacrifice of a megaton of kittens then so be it.


    The heritage of the DGT technology in successor systems such as the Airbus reactor and the SunCell shows that even if the DGT technology was flawed, it was theoretically well grounded.


    The FUD based cry of "they had nothing" is simplistic like the people who use it: politically motivated, wrecking in jealousy and steeped in envy, and offered without nuance. A simple catch phase for simple minds.