May 2017 be for LENR what 2016 wasn't

Hey MY,

I'll be very interested in your analysis. The operation at nearly absolute zero is what intrigues me...

OK, I'm being disrespectful.... In Figure 5, the internal cell temp as a function of time is supposedly shown. It supposedly starts at 0.3 degrees and rises to 1.0 degrees. That is what the axis says. I *assume* that the axis is actually the temperature in degrees C divided by 100, but that isn't what the axis label says. In other figures, there is a little annotation in the upper left-hand corner "1/100.0" (Fig 3, 7, and 8), which I am guessing means the values are divided by 100, but there's no such notation in Figure 5. So to start, we need that clarified. What are the actual units of the various axes.

Next, the only time the word 'recombination' is present is in the Introduction where it is noted that cells with recombination catalysts present will be discussed elsewhere. Does that mean this cell is open? The paper doesn't specify. Back in 1996 CFers were acting like they had proved recombination wasn't an issue and could be ignored (NOT!). Is that what is going on here?

Then, this is the only calorimeter I've seen based on temperature measurements in the gas phase being used to measure excess heat. As you noted there are 3 sets that apparently top out at different power levels, yet there is no discussion of how to decide which set to use. Perhaps it is the one that gives the biggest excess heat number? You probably need more info on that...

Figure 6 is almost useless. Everything is on top of everything else. I assume the data up around 78W input power is the excess heat event. Figure 7, 8 and 9 supposedly show excess heat production, but again, the axes are all messed up and you can't tell what is what. Have fun....

Figure 10 suggests they only observed ~0.1% excess power for 45-50 days. That means about 0.1W. Of course the Table says they observed either 150 or 250% excess. 50 days = 4.32e6 seconds. Since a W = 1 J/sec, that implies a total production of 4.32e5 J or 0.432 MJ. This disagrees with Figure 11, which supposedly integrated the energy produced to get ~300-320 MJ. A few digits off there...

Anyways...have fun figuring this out....

Quote from maryyugo

If the ratio of output signal to input signal is higher, inaccuracy in measurement won't matter as much. Right? If output over input is something like 1.2 and the error band is something like 20%, confidence is low.

That depends on the nature of the input power. If it is direct current electricity it is easy to measure with extreme precision, so it can be subtracted with confidence.

In any case, there are many examples of high powered cold fusion with no input power at all, and there are many other ratios well above 1.2, so obviously an input power measurement error cannot be the cause of the effect.

Quote from JedRothwell

n any case, there are many examples of high powered cold fusion with no input power at all, and there are many other ratios well above 1.2, so obviously an input power measurement error cannot be the cause of the effect.

There are many examples of claims of high powered cold fusion with no input power at all. None of them stand up to scrutiny. There are almost no cases where errors are analyzed analytically to prove a "1.2" is significant. I only say almost because of an abundance of caution, not because I can cite a study where the authors actually analyze the error properly.

Quote from kirkshanahan

There are many examples of claims of high powered cold fusion with no input power at all. None of them stand up to scrutiny.

Hundreds of them stood up to scrutiny in the literal sense, "a close and searching look." That is to say, you could see the cells were boiling. After a while there was no more liquid between the anode and cathode, so there was no electrical current. Blank cells driven to high power immediately stop boiling when this happens, yet these cells not only continued to boil, they remained hot to the touch for hours.

You need to take off the tin-foil hat and stop listening the voices that tell you of deus ex machina, crack-pot magic factors that spring into existence with heavy water and palladium, and never with any other materials.

Quote from Mary Yugo

I guess nobody cares about discussing the details of the so-called 100W experiment. That's what usually happens with LENR reports.

No, this one has been discussed at great length. Not here, but elsewhere.

Quote from Mary Yugo

So can anyone explain precisely how the calorimeter used in that experiment measures heat flow and heat production ?

I think the paper describes that pretty well. I will not repeat what it says.

As I mentioned, I think the caption is wrong. I am waiting to hear back from one of the authors. Also as I mentioned, I uploaded a version with some OCR corrections, that were my fault.

Quote

Hundreds of them stood up to scrutiny in the literal sense, "a close and searching look." That is to say, you could see the cells were boiling. After a while there was no more liquid between the anode and cathode, so there was no electrical current. Blank cells driven to high power immediately stop boiling when this happens, yet these cells not only continued to boil, they remained hot to the touch for hours.

@Jed. It is obvious that a few blog posts cannot settle this disagreement easily. However I do notice when someone makes comments which are internally innaccurate. In your case your point only stands if there are no chemical sources of heat present after death in the active cells and not in the control. Yet, this is exactly what Kirk claims and has proposed a mechanism for.

I realise you don't view his claims as likely. But you cannot use this argument, as stated, as additional ammunition against them because if they are true it falls.

On a more general point I view this type of anecdotal evidence with suspicion. If definitive it could now be replicated, with careful instrumentation, and would be the clear evidence Abd et al want once chemical causes had been eliminated.

Quote from THHuxley

It is obvious that a few blog posts cannot settle this disagreement easily. However I do notice when someone makes comments which are internally innaccurate. In your case your point only stands if there are no chemical sources of heat present after death in the active cells and not in the control.

First, there is no chemical fuel in any cold fusion cell, period. Not ever. There are no significant chemical changes in the composition. The chemicals in these systems have been exhaustively measured and characterized because they are presumably important clues to what is happening in the cell, and what chemical environment triggers the reaction.

Second, the cells in heat after death have produced up to 10,000 times more energy than any chemical system of equivalent mass could produce, so a chemical source is ruled out.

Quote from THHuxley

On a more general point I view this type of anecdotal evidence with suspicion.

This is not anecdotal. It was published in peer-reviewed papers in J. Electroanal. Chem. and elsewhere. The tests were conducted hundreds of times by Toyota, and later by others.

Quote from Mary Yugo

No, this one has been discussed at great length. Not here, but elsewhere.
For example?

ICCF conferences.

Quote from Mary Yugo

I think the paper describes that pretty well. I will not repeat what it says.
Of course not. Everyone who doesn't grasp it at first reading is either stupid or negligent. Typical.

As many reading as it takes, I guess. I have talked this one to death and edited papers about it. I am not interested in discussing it more. I went over it here a little. You can do a search, maybe. Basically when it is boiling at 1 atm, it saturates the bottom sensor, then the middle, leaving only the top one to show differences in power. Not that complicated. Other people made similar calorimeters and confirmed they work as described.

Quote from Mary Yugo

What does "saturate" mean in this context?

I mean it reaches 100 deg C and can get no hotter. The cell is boiling at 1 atm.

Just read the paper. It isn't complicated. I am not going to spoon-feed you. You never listen anyway.

Quote from Mary Yugo

Quote: “I have talked this one to death and edited papers about it.”What papers, please?

Quote: “Basically when it is boiling at 1 atm, it saturates the bottom sensor, then the middle, leaving only the top one to show differences in power. Not…

Hi Mary! Great to see you back and posting. It feels like you never left on your Christmas break. Hope all is well with you. I've had a bit of a cold. Been sniffing and slurping a lot if you know what I mean.

BTW, how did you find those calorimeters I sent you? Did you put them to good use?