Anomalous Heat from Nickel Hydrogen Systems - Report from Clean Planet Japan.

    • Official Post

    An interesting abstract from the 16th meeting of the Japan Cold fusion Group earlier this year. If anyone (Jed?) has access to the complete paper I - and others I am sure- would be very interested to read it.




    Thermophysical analysis of anomalous heat generation (AHG) reaction between metal and hydrogen Tadahiko Mizuno (HEAD Co.) Hideki Yoshino (C. P. Company LTD.)


    We have developed a strict method of measurement and analysis to confirm AHG between hydrogen and metal. The factors involved in the energy analysis are electricity, mass (heat capacity), thermal conductivity, mechanical and thermal radiation. These contribute the most to heat analysis and can be easily estimated using matrix equations to calculate unknown quantities. We describe the results of the AHG experiment and the methods of thermal calibration within the framework of our chosen measurement system. To confirm AHG, we elected four factors that contribute to positive heat values: input power, ambient temperature, temperature of the reaction system, and pump temperature. For simplicity, we neglected heat losses from radiation or evaporation of the recirculating water. We estimated that an even larger heat generation would result from incorporating these heat losses into the calculation.


    The observed value of ratio of heat out and input (Hout/Hin) was less than unity for the plasma discharge test. The value of excess heat could be estimated from the input energy that was consumed by the chemical reaction during the plasma discharge. We can compare the AHG test with the calibration and to obtain the mathematically proven that abnormal heat was produced because the correlation coefficient R of the calibration data was very high as 0.9996. We limit out focus to the range of input was from 40 to 50 W; there are 10 calibration data sets and 20 AHG data sets in this range. We use Welch’s t-test to compare the average value of the Hout/Hin for the experimental tests with the calibrations to determine whether there is a statistically significant difference between the two results. Null hypothesis: H0, the average value of Hout/Hin is equal for the test and control data sets.


    Alternative hypothesis: H1, the average value of Hout/Hin for the test data set than is larger than that for the control data set. From the significant difference test results, when it is the critical region 1%, the P-value (one side) is many orders of magnitude smaller than 0.01, and the t-value is much larger (10.81) than the t-boundary value. Further, we reject the null hypothesis; the average value of the test data is greater than the calibration data with 99% accuracy. We confirmed the occurrence of AHG through experiments and mathematical analysis. We measured excess heat was 10 W at input was 40 W; we estimated that the specific AHG was 0.3 W/g (on the basis of the mass of the Ni reacting material) and 30 mW/cm (on the basis of the surface area of Ni). This excess heat generation was calculated by a rigorous thermal analysis. Until now, AHG was confirmed due to its low experimental reproducibility and disagreement with theory; however, this study definitively confirmed AHG. This finding is a significant advancement with important ramifications. Further research is needed to elucidate the theory and mechanisms underlying this phenomenon. Varying different parameters, such as the reactant gas, we will be able to develop methods for controlling the process and harnessing the phenomenon for practical applications. We plan to conduct even stricter thermal analyses in the future and to broaden the scope of parameters evaluated.

  • What does "CCS" stand for. I could find no acronym that made sense.


    It is a Shanahanism. It means Calibration Constant Shift. However, what most electrochemists will think when they read that is something different from what Shanahan proposes.

  • What does "CCS" stand for. I could find no acronym that made sense.


    Calibration Constant Shift. It is a shorthand notation for the idea that the calorimetry models used by most cold fusioners (their term) don't allow for any heterogeneity effects. I have published (and defended twice) a paper that uses data obtained by Ed Storms to illustrate the problem. Use of the wrong model is a systematic error. The CCS problem has the potential to explain away *all* claims of excess heat, but no one will publish the data required to test it in all but the Storms case. Instead they try to explain why it couldn't possibly happen in their apparati (without success), even resorting to false logical tactics to do so. The abstract referred to above is another case in point.


    The CCS is a fact. It says that if your 'correct' calibration equation is Y = m *x +b, and you instead use y = n *x + c, you will get the wrong answer. Pretty simple. The problem is as I said it invalidates almost all claims to have observed excess heat. We can't have that can we?



    P.S. I'm not responding to Abd anymore, because he promulgates wrong ideas and won't admit it. FYI, he did it again above.

  • P.S. I'm not responding to Abd anymore, because he promulgates wrong ideas and won't admit it. FYI, he did it again above.


    Here is what I wrote:


    Quote

    anonymous wrote:


    It is a Shanahanism. It means Calibration Constant Shift. However, what most electrochemists will think when they read that is something different from what Shanahan propose


    I have studied Shanahan's CCS, and I responded with three things.


    The first was that the expression is a "Shanahanism." I.e., he is the only person to use "CCS" or the full phrase the way that he uses it. To electrochemists, calibration constant shift actually means something different, and they know that this different thing is not a major factor in their work. Shanahan is positing a systematic effect.


    The next was the definition of CCS, which he confirmed.


    The other third was how electrochemists think when they see "CCS." Which they do. They do not think what Shanahan means, and Shanahan gave some more information about what he means, which certainly was not contradicted by what I wrote. I know what they think, partly from what was written in the response to Shanahan's JEM Letter, and partly what I see expressed privately.


    Most scientists in the field have such a highly negative opinion of Shanahan that they reject his ideas, sometimes, on shallow understanding. He then quotes them, complaining that what they wrote was wrong, not what he claims. And, on that, he may be correct. However, that doesn't make his claims valid, just as cold fusion is not valid because some of the rejection was based on misunderstandings of the claims. These represent communication failures, and if one wants to be an effective communicator, my strong suggestion is to take responsibility for the effect of the communication.


    Shanahan makes controversy where it is completely unnecessary. He just presented a whole analysis based on two or three major errors, and, note, he is bailing immediately after that. He has done this many times.


    He doesn't have to answer anything.


    Horse. Water. Drink?

  • Most scientists in the field have such a highly negative opinion of Shanahan that they reject his ideas, sometimes, on shallow understanding. He then quotes them, complaining that what they wrote was wrong, not what he claims. And, on that, he may be correct. However, that doesn't make his claims valid, just as cold fusion is not valid because some of the rejection was based on misunderstandings of the claims.


    An interesting and valid point. You cannot judge a scientific controversy by looking at who's for it and who's against it. That's illogical. Still, it is gratifying! It's . . . Maybe there's a German word for it, like schadenfreude.


    It is a good intuitive heuristic. When the idiots are lined up agin' something, it's probably right. As FDR put it, "I ask you judge me by the enemies I have made."

Subscribe to our newsletter

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

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

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

Our Partners

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