Details matter

More breaking down...

"In any case, Shanahan's claims are physically impossible." Incorrect.

"You cannot have recombination without a deficit in the gas flow..." in an open
cell. (You need that phrase to be correct. You are nonsensical in a closed cell.)

So as I said before, the one case where this was measured (and reported) had a
~+7% error. If you consider the proposed mechanism that gives the CCS in an open
cell, specifically the entrainment point, you would realize that the '7' is a lower
bound, it is probably higher, since increased entrainment during a FPH event would
'cover' for lost gas flow.

"Heat cannot magically move from a cell and concentrate in a thermocouple centimeters
away from the cell." We've been over this before. First, your explanation is
very unscientific in that heat will not concentrate as you postulate. *However*, it
will move centimeters (maybe meters) down a line filled with heat transfer fluid to
cause a thermocouple to register a temperature rise. So...

"[Your] assertions are nonsense, so they explain nothing."

"Even if some cold fusion results are in error (which is likely), Shanahan's
"explanation" for them is worse than an error. It is nonsense."

You do so wish that were true don't you?

------

THHuxley wrote:
"You will argue that F&P were masters of their field and can be trusted. I disagree"
Jed wrote:
"Who the hell are you to judge?"

Trust should not be the issue. That it seems to be is the strongest indication that
the pseudoscientists involved are not following scientific protocol. THH can easily
see that. The 'judgement' is obvious. (And BTW, collections of honors don't immunize
you against this.) (And another BTW, the whole listing out of honors is another
'call to authority' which is not acceptable for scientific decision making.)

THH wrote: "Does it apply in that way to all claimed excess heat calorimetry? No"

I don't think you can say this with certainty yet. Have to check first...

Wyt wrote: "Please explain, why in XRF Cs disappears at the same rate as Pr increases.. "

The Pr, which it probably is since we have multiple techniques being used to
designate it, but which may be subject to some problems even so, is migrating
from wherever it was when the sample was placed in the chamber. It covers the
Cs, so the Cs signal decreases with increasing Pr coverage. No Cs goes away,
no Pr 'appears', things just move around.

"and remember: No contact to environment! Chamber sealed!" Of course. The 'Pr'
is in the starting materials already, probably at levels below the detection
limit. The experiment concentrates it on the surface. That process is actually
interesting chemistry, as H assisted diffusion isn't a well-researched area (let
alone examining the D isotope effect on that).

P.S. Make sure you keep XRF and XPS and XRD and NAA results all straight. They
have different characteristics that are typically useful and used to
figure out what is going on. I say that because you mention XRF, but the figures
on Cs/Pr appearance/disappearance are based on XPS and were published previously.
See Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. Vol. 41 (2002) pp. 4642–4650
(http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/IwamuraYelementalaa.pdf)

The XRF results appear to be a before/after results with no intermediate points,
either in time or in depth. So your phrase "at the same rate" is misapplied. We have
no XRF rate information. The XPS results are from depth profiling work.

In my XRF experience, I have seen major interference issues with Ca that can produce high false Nd and Pr values. I would have to see the XRF data, equipment and calibration details before concluding anything about Nd and Pr measurements from materials that contain significant Ca.

Quote from kirkshanahan

P.S. Make sure you keep XRF and XPS and XRD and NAA results all straight. They have different characteristics that are typically useful and used to
figure out what is going on. I say that because you mention XRF, but the figures
on Cs/Pr appearance/disappearance are based on XPS and were published previously.
See Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. Vol. 41 (2002) pp. 4642–4650

kirkshanahan: You are right about /XRF/XPS. The later one is more complicated and not that error prone. The best thing Iwamura could do, to convince everybody, is doing an etching after the experiment and measure the residual Cs.
Diffusion has always been one argument for the occurrence of strange isotopes on the surface. But these isotopes should also shine up, if no Cs is present. So the second test would be runnning the same experiment without a Cs doped probe.

Quote from THHuxley

It does not matter whether they are this or not. No-one can or should be trusted in science.

Gee, golly, gosh. Have you tried reading the peer-reviewed journal papers by these authors?

Who said you have to trust them?