Validity of LENR Science...[split]

  • Zeus46


    That's always your irrelevant reply. Nobody other than a devoted student can read 124 papers, many, without a doubt, complex and obscure. I have always asked you for one best, clearest, least arguable and most convincing paper and you keep finding excuses and provide mainly insults.

  • maryyugo wrote:

    I change the requirements based on Jed's latest claim. If you could provide a decent paper meeting ANY of the criteria I specified over the years, you'd be a long way toward proving that LENR is real. Problem is, nobody seems to be able to that with clarity and precision.


    Indeed. When I was checking afterwards I hadn't unfairly criticised you (I take your point about just repeating Jed's "wild" claims). I found the post below. I forgot to post it as I was enthralled by the latest barrage of stream-of-consciousness illogical ravings from planet-lomax.com.


    I'd be happy to get into a detailed discussion of the 100W paper. Maybe someone can start a new string about it so we don't bore those who don't care about that claim. I suggest starting with Jed explaining exactly how the calorimeter used in that study works. All I see in the paper is a block of some sort with the cell inside and three thermistor pairs embedded in the plastic (?) wall. One member of each pair is close to the center of the cavity of the calorimeter and the other is just a short distance towards the outside from it. Are these supposed to be a crude measure of heat flux using the material of the calorimeter wall as a "gradient layer" or what? That's the first place I stalled in reading the paper. How the heck does the calorimeter measure the heat flux from the reaction?


    yeah, I know, I am ignorant and never read anything or I'd know... now let's leave that aside and explain how the thing is supposed to measure heat excess.


    Which all deserves some discussion. Might start a new thread.

  • Zeus46


    Jed wrote: "The only method I know that works well is to use dental x-ray film"


    The problem with the dental film approach is that it is sensitive to heat. My recollection of the field is that in all but one case the film images produced by exposing dental film to CF experiments show amorphous blobs of exposure. The experiment descriptions allow for the possibility of heat from recombination 'exposing' the film. Further, there is a technique used by astronomers to sensitize their film for low level exposures from distant stars called 'hypering', which is done by exposing the film to hydrogen. So in your typical CF expt., you have both heat and hydrogen leading to artifactual exposure of the film.


    The one case where defined spots were observed came from the Indian group in Bhabba. They published images that looked like the ones you get from crystalline material. And therein lies the answer. When I did metal single crystal orientation for cutting samples from a boule using a goiniometer to adjust the angles, I was introduced to the process by a lab tech who maintained the room. He very clearly and multiple times told me to always put my film back in the shielded box I got it from before I shot the xrays. Why? So I wouldn't also expose the unused film and then put it back, giving the next guy in line pre-exposed film. Given the Bhabba case is unique, I'd opt for that explanation instead of CF.

  • The one case where defined spots were observed came from the Indian group in Bhabba.


    Karabut et al. [1], Vysotskii et al. [2] and Montereali et al. [3] have seen x-ray film exposures that are not exactly diffuse. I believe others have as well. (I suppose if we want to continue this discussion, we should stop being rude guests and move it to new thread.)


    [1] http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/KarabutABexperimenta.pdf

    [2] http://iccf18.research.missour…iles/Poster/Vysotskii.pdf

    [3] http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Monterealianovellifb.pdf




  • The "different calorimeters can't have the same systematic effect" is a formally valid critique, though even if true (I can think of reasons why it might not be) all you need is different systematic errors which happen to have the same sign.

    This is not about cold fusion. It is about conventional calorimetry. In Fleischmann's experiments it is "painfully conventional" calorimetry, invented in 1840 by J. P. Joule himself, as Fleischmann pointed out. Calorimetry works the same way whether you measure heat from chemical, nuclear or mechanical sources.


    I do not believe you can "think of reasons." You can wave your hands and say "let us suppose," but you have not found a reason why the last 230 years of calorimetry have had large errors that no one noticed. You have not found any errors in any of the major papers. You may have doubts, but if so I am sure that your doubts are caused by your own confusion or misunderstandings. Over the years, I have seen exchanges between McKubre and scientists who thought they found a problem in his work, and between Bockris, Fleischmann and Will with such scientists. These were polite discussions, not like Morrison. In every case, the critics made large errors that even I could identify without much difficulty.


    As I said, I am confident that if you were to write a short paper identifying weaknesses in the calorimetry of McKubre, Miles or Fleischmann, if you were to submit it for review by an expert such a McKubre, Miles or Duncan, they would shoot your work full of holes. See Marwan's review of Shanahan, for example.

    In a field such as LENR it would be natural for any positive systematic errors to be propagated by a form of evolutionary selection.

    This is not LENR. It is calorimetry. The people who designed the calorimeters at TAMU and elsewhere had nothing to do with electrochemistry or nuclear physics. Experts such as Rob Duncan (who is the go-to expert in calorimetry in the U.S. and a Fellow of the NSF) had nothing to do with LENR before entering the field. These people worked with electrochemists, but their expertise was in calorimetry. It is simply not possible that every single one of them -- hundreds of people! -- made mistakes which Shanahan alone found. The problems that Shanahan thinks he found are ridiculous and easily disproved.


    In some cases, the proof of excess heat is palpable or visible. In the F&P video, you can see that the electrolyte has boiled off, so there can be no current and no heating. There is no chemical fuel in the cell. In a null experiment, the boiling stops immediately, and the temperature falls by Newton's law of cooling. In these cells, the temperature remains high, and even climbs higher hours later. Needless to say, Shanahan cannot explain this.


    I refer to this video:




    The "Tinkerbell magic" comment is very evocative but I can't understand it. There are surely very many ways in which D and H would be expected to behave differently in these experiments - their physical properties are very different.

    You do not understand it because it makes no sense. Read Marwan. The differences between D and H cannot affect a temperature sensor centimeters away from the cell (in a flow calorimeter), or an IR camera, or your own vision looking at the boil-off video.

    If that were generally the case I'd expect that internet-only-published papers of significantly higher quality than peer-reviewed papers on LENR should exist. I have not seen that, but maybe you have?

    Internet published papers have not been good, but in my opinion the internal reports published at Los Alamos, China Lake, the NCFI and elsewhere have met a higher standard than most peer-reviewed papers.

  • Nobody other than a devoted student can read 124 papers, many, without a doubt, complex and obscure.

    In that case, no one but a devoted student should have any opinion on this subject, positive or negative. Complex scientific questions can only be addressed by experts. Suppose this were a discussion about advanced astronomy, quantum electrodynamics, DNA research or self-driving automobile technology. I doubt you would have the temerity to pontificate about such things unless you had read hundreds of papers and you knew a lot about those subjects.


    For that matter, I doubt you would lecture me about the "linkage of adjuncts; nominal conjoining" in Japanese grammar. That is one of thousands of items in Martin (p. 154 in this case) that I know a lot about and you have never heard of. The point is, people who are experts in a subject really do know far more than non-experts. Your status in cold fusion has no more credibility than a climate denialist or a creationist.

    I have always asked you for one best, clearest, least arguable and most convincing paper and you keep finding excuses and provide mainly insults.

    On the contrary, I have often suggested you read the papers by McKubre and Fleischmann that I recommended in the discussion above, plus McKubre's review. Those are my standard recommendations.


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


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


    The review, which I feature on the front page at LENR-CANR.org, so don't tell me I never suggested it, for crying out loud:


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

  • JedRothwell


    I'm reluctant to reprise points made here quite a while ago, and not resolved. Just one (relatively self-contained) matter:

    Quote

    In some cases, the proof of excess heat is palpable or visible. In the F&P video, you can see that the electrolyte has boiled off, so there can be no current and no heating. There is no chemical fuel in the cell. In a null experiment, the boiling stops immediately, and the temperature falls by Newton's law of cooling. In these cells, the temperature remains high, and even climbs higher hours later. Needless to say, Shanahan cannot explain this.

    Neither Kirk nor as far as I'm aware any skeptic denies the possibility of excess heat in this experiment. The issue is whether excess heat beyond chemical causes exists. In this case an electrolysis experiment running for many days will surely generate hydrogen. A mechanism where significant amounts of this could be stored and later react with atmospheric oxygen would explain these dramatic heat after death observations. That looks very possible, given the nature of the electrode? I'm surprised you say that Kirk has no explanation for this. I remember, on this site when in dialog with you, Kirk pointing out the possibility of large heat release from H2/O2 (or D2/O2) reaction.


    Robert E Godes: why Cold Fusion is so opposed by physicists


    and one perhaps more difficult matter:


    Quote

    This is not LENR. It is calorimetry. The people who designed the calorimeters at TAMU and elsewhere had nothing to do with electrochemistry or nuclear physics. Experts such as Rob Duncan (who is the go-to expert in calorimetry in the U.S. and a Fellow of the NSF) had nothing to do with LENR before entering the field. These people worked with electrochemists, but their expertise was in calorimetry. It is simply not possible that every single one of them -- hundreds of people! -- made mistakes which Shanahan alone found. The problems that Shanahan thinks he found are ridiculous and easily disproved.


    Your point here cuts both ways. The claim of Shanahan is that the CF-type experiments might show errors of an unusual form due to effects like recombination in cells where gasses can mix, directly or indirectly. No doubt experts in electrolysis would be aware of this, but not necessarily experts in calorimetry. And although I say no doubt, experts tend to be good at the agreed phenomena and analysis. There are always uncommon boundary issues that break agreed rules. A true expert, thinking outside the box, with a lot of experience, can often identify these issues but it is hard because the more experience you have the less easy it is to think outside the box. No criticism of these guys, it is just that finding uncommon unusual effects can be tough. In this situation sometimes an outsider with fewer (or different) preconceptions can notice things dismissed as impossible by mainstream scientists in the field and follow them enough until their merit becomes apparent.


    Regards, THH

  • Jed wrote: “This is not about cold fusion. It is about conventional calorimetry. … in 1840 by J. P. Joule himself, … Calorimetry works the same way …I do not believe you can "think of reasons." You can wave your hands and say "let us suppose," but you have not found a reason why the last 230 years of calorimetry have had large errors that no one noticed. [snip]”


    Jed like to use calls to authority to defend his views, but he also fails to read anything I write (which he admitted here a day or so ago), so he routinely gets his ‘rebuttals’ all wrong. The CCS/ATER problem does not in any way invalidate anything to do with calorimetry. It simply clarifies and quantifies an error mechanism in the specific case of F&P electrolysis cells.


    “As I said, I am confident that if you were to write a short paper identifying weaknesses in the calorimetry of McKubre, Miles or Fleischmann, if you were to submit it for review by an expert such a McKubre, Miles or Duncan, they would shoot your work full of holes. See Marwan's review of Shanahan, for example.”


    Case in point. Twice I’ve directed him to my whitepaper that goes over in detail why the Marwan paper is wrong. I’ve also posted the same explanation here many, many times already. ‘Nuff said.


    “This is not LENR. It is calorimetry. The people who designed the calorimeters at TAMU and elsewhere had nothing to do with electrochemistry or nuclear physics. Experts such as Rob Duncan (who is the go-to expert in calorimetry in the U.S. and a Fellow of the NSF) had nothing to do with LENR before entering the field. These people worked with electrochemists, but their expertise was in calorimetry.


    Again, that’s the problem with a systematic error! It keeps being incorporated in new experiments until it is identified and resolved!


    “It is simply not possible that every single one of them -- hundreds of people! -- made mistakes which Shanahan alone found.”


    Name a case where a problem in a design, mathematical solution, proposal of any kind was simultaneously identified by hundreds of people. Hate to tell you this Jed, it may rock your world, but normally it’s one guy who spots a problem and exposes it, then others see it and agree (or not in some cases).


    “The problems that Shanahan thinks he found are ridiculous and easily disproved.”


    So do so! And NO!!. the Marwan+9 paper DOES NOT DO THAT! It’s up to you Jed, set me straight on the problem you can so easily find in my work. Go for it!


    “In some cases, the proof of excess heat is palpable or visible. In the F&P video, you can see that the electrolyte has boiled off, so there can be no current and no heating. There is no chemical fuel in the cell. In a null experiment, the boiling stops immediately, and the temperature falls by Newton's law of cooling. In these cells, the temperature remains high, and even climbs higher hours later. Needless to say, Shanahan cannot explain this.”


    Haven’t really tried, but have noted that the conditions in the cell/calorimeter are radically different that in previous situations. One would need to examine the details of the cell with no electrolyte to be sure how to interpret data from it under the new steady state. However…


    “I refer to this video:”


    I did too, sort of, in that in my whitepaper Figure 1 is an overlay of two F&P figures from their ICCF3 paper, which is substantially the same as their 1993 Physics Letters A paper, wherein they present stills from this video. The overlay I made shows that the thermal history of two cells, one claimed to be illustrating a HAD and one not, are identical for all practical purposes. F&P conclude the “HAD” cell is a “HAD” cell because of a time derived from the video. The overlay proves that measure is inaccurate and misleading.


    P.S. BTW the paper I am trashing right above is the very one Jed recommends, http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmancalorimetra.pdf

  • Marwan et al (claiming to rebut Kirk's hypothesis) http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MarwanJanewlookat.pdf


    Kirk's white paper answering Marwan et al: https://drive.google.com/file/…b1doPc3otVGFUNDZKUDQ/view


    Jed, you say that Kirk's ideas are clearly knocked on the head by Marwan et al. If you identify which part of their analysis specifically does this we can see whether Kirk has answered this, and you or anyone else can reply to his answer.

  • Marwan et al (claiming to rebut Kirk's hypothesis) http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MarwanJanewlookat.pdf


    Kirk's white paper answering Marwan et al: https://drive.google.com/file/…b1doPc3otVGFUNDZKUDQ/view


    Jed, you say that Kirk's ideas are clearly knocked on the head by Marwan et al. If you identify which part of their analysis specifically does this we can see whether Kirk has answered this, and you or anyone else can reply to his answer.


    Dealing just with the calorimetry comments, and CCS(H), these two documents are quite interesting.


    (1) Marwan et al make some general remarks about Shanahan's hypothesis which are not backed with detailed argument and as Shanahan points out inaccurate - his proposal is for a systematic, not random, error in these F&P style experiments. These remarks are just not convincing at all.


    (2) Marwan et al give as evidence that different types of calorimeter show the effect. That is not in itself an argument against Shanahan, since some systematic effect might be present for this type of reaction in multiple calorimetry setups - more is required here. However, it might become this with more detail.


    (3) Marwan et al point out that high efficiency mass flow calorimetry does not require calibration and therefore is immune to CCS(H). This is a valid point. They then quote specific calorimetry from SRI:


    4. M. R. Swartz, Survey of the Observed Excess Energy and Emissions In Lattice Assisted Nuclear Reactions, Journal of Scientific Exploration, 2009, 23(4), 419–436.
    5. M. H. Miles, B. F. Bush and K. B. Johnson, “Anomalous Effects in Deuterated Systems”, NAWCWPNS TP 8302, September 1996.


    This needs further investigation, since they do not quite join up the dots by quoting calorimetric efficiency for the results that they quote. In any case, while this is a possibly (I have not investigated it) valid point that there may be other good evidence for FPHE, it is not a critique of Shanahan's ideas which could nevertheless apply to any similar experiments in lower efficiency mass flow calorimeters. Shanahan does not address this point (as far as I can see, maybe I missed it).


    (4) Marwan et al say that heat production correlates with D/Pd ratio, and this excludes a CCS(H) like artifact. That would need much more careful analysis to make good, since there could easily be such a correlation within Dhanahan's proposed effect (which is not random) and which relies on some type of recombination of other mechanism that would be influenced by local chemistry.


    (5) Marwan et al note compelling HAD (Heat After Death) evidence. Shanahan strongly disputes this, with what seem detailed reasons. I have not checked this (how accurate the claims - which of them does Shanahan rebut, etc)..


    This is a first pass review, I've probably missed quite a bit.


    Where I can immediately agree with Shanahan is his comments about the importance of putting feelings to one side and considering claims carefully on their merits - on both sides of this debate. Shanahan admits this is not always done by the skeptics. There is specific evidence from these two papers however that it is not always done by the LENR community as represented by these 10 authors.

  • The issue is whether excess heat beyond chemical causes exists. In this case an electrolysis experiment running for many days will surely generate hydrogen. A mechanism where significant amounts of this could be stored and later react with atmospheric oxygen would explain these dramatic heat after death observations.

    Very little hydrogen is stored. Most of it leaves an open cell, or it is recombined in a closed cell. It is easy to estimate the total amount that could be stored in the cathode assuming a 1:1 ratio of H to Pd. Such a high ratio never happens, but you can compute how much energy it would store. It is about 10,000 less than the cells in this study release. In heat after death it ranges from 1000 to 2000 times less.


    In any case, recombination is impossible. There is no atmospheric oxygen in this cell after the boil-off. There is only water vapor, and it is not easily replaced with air with this cell geometry. This was confirmed by plasma fusion researchers in Nagoya at the National Fusion Research Center who replicated this experiment. So even if the hydrogen emerged from the cathode, it would not recombine.


    Furthermore, even if there were recombination, as Fleischmann pointed out, the maximum power from recombination in this system would be 5 mW. The hydrogen would take weeks to emerge, whereas this happens over several hours. At this power level, the hydrogen would all be consumed in about 5 seconds. See Fleischmann's response to Morrison.

    That looks very possible, given the nature of the electrode?

    No, it is impossible, for the reasons I listed above. (And for some other reasons.)

    I remember, on this site when in dialog with you, Kirk pointing out the possibility of large heat release from H2/O2 (or D2/O2) reaction.

    There is no oxygen in the cell during heat after death, as I said. There is a small amount during electrolysis in the headspace, but there cannot be much. It either leaves an open cell, or recombines in a closed cell, or the cell explodes.

    The claim of Shanahan is that the CF-type experiments might show errors of an unusual form due to effects like recombination in cells where gasses can mix, directly or indirectly.

    That is not possible. The heat is measured externally to the cell in many cases, such as with Miles, or with any flow, Seebeck or ice calorimeter. Heat from recombination or other events inside the cell cannot be distinguished from other chemical heat or nuclear heat. It is not possible to determine the location of the heat release, and moving the location, for example with a joule heater, has no measurable effect. Yet we know this is nuclear heat because:


    1. It exceeds the limits of chemistry by factors ranging from 1000 to 100,000.

    2. It is correlated with helium, tritium and transmutations.

    3. There is no chemical fuel in the cell.

    4. There are no net chemical changes in the cell. (Or, if there are, the cold fusion effect never happens.)

    5. The heat balance with null experiments is zero. There is no excess and no deficit.

    6. The maximum apparent heat from recombination is easy to compute, and it is always far less than a cold fusion reaction. Thousands of times less, in some cases.

    7. In a closed cell, recombination always occurs (or the cell explodes) but it never produces spurious excess heat.


    All of this is explained in the literature. I suggest you read it more carefully before commenting. You don't really need me to tell you these things. Needless to say, I and others have told Shanahan all of this countless times, but he ignores it.

  • admins - I'm sorry - I wonder if all the Jed/Shanahan CCS(H) etc posts could be extracted onto another thread? I realise this is work...

    Alan Smith seems to have the same opinion,

    I split and move the thread relative to non E-cat LENR. Hope this helps.

  • Ok, so I have been instructed that LENR has been amply proven to be a valid physical phenomenon and that skepticism about it reflects some combination of ignorance, stupidity or a hidden agenda. I have also been instructed that it requires professional expertise in electrochemistry and, preferably, hands-on experience with LENR experiments in order to be qualified to judge the validity of LENR literature (criteria that no doubt virtually everyone here easily meets.) I also now understand that despite the cries of suppression and career destruction associated with any positive action with regard to LENR, there are now more than 90 efforts going on in the US alone and many others in other countries. I guess the suppression is not entirely successful.


    In order to improve my education, I would ask for some of the experts here to give me a succinct definition of what LENR is. By this I mean a phenomenological definition, not a theory. This seems to be a distinction that is poorly understand in this community. Let me give you an example for the phenomenon of superconductivity.


    Superconductivity is a phenomenon of exactly zero electrical resistance and expulsion of magnetic flux fields occurring in certain materials, called superconductors, when cooled below a characteristic critical temperature.


    This definition could have been written by 1933, some 24 years before there was an accepted theory for the phenomenon. It does not explain why superconductivity happens or how superconductivity happens; it simply states what happens. If you take certain materials and reduce their temperature below a certain value, their electrical resistance disappears and they expel magnetic flux. These are the defining characteristics of superconductivity.


    So I have been told that there are hundreds or thousands of observations of LENR, a hitherto unknown nuclear process. Can someone present a phenomenological description of LENR? What are its defining characteristics?

  • Ok, so I have been instructed that LENR has been amply proven to be a valid physical phenomenon and that skepticism about it reflects some combination of ignorance, stupidity or a hidden agenda.

    I do not know of any hidden agenda. The skeptics opposed to cold fusion were quite open about their reasons. They made bold accusations in the Scientific American, the Washington Post and the American Physical Society. They said cold fusion is "delusion, error and fraud" and that all cold fusion researchers should be fired from their jobs. Most of them were, in fact, fired. Park stood before the APS and bragged about his role in helping to "root out and fire" researchers. I was there, and that is what he said.


    F. Slakey, the Science Policy Administrator of the American Physical Society, said that cold fusion scientists are "a cult of fervent half-wits" "While every result and conclusion they publish meets with overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary, they resolutely pursue their illusion of fusing hydrogen in a mason jar. . . . And a few scientists, captivated by [Fleischmann and Pons'] fantasy . . . pursue cold fusion with Branch Davidian intensity."

    I do not see how they could have made their point more clearly. If that is not suppression and ridicule, what would be?

    I have also been instructed that it requires professional expertise in electrochemistry and, preferably, hands-on experience with LENR experiments in order to be qualified to judge the validity of LENR literature (criteria that no doubt virtually everyone here easily meets.)

    I do not know anyone here who meets that criterion. I sure don't.

    I also now understand that despite the cries of suppression and career destruction associated with any positive action with regard to LENR, there are now more than 90 efforts going on in the US alone and many others in other countries.

    There were 180 successful programs on record in the peer-reviewed literature when Storms published his first book. All of the authors of those studies are retired or dead. At present I know of only two research projects in the U.S., and perhaps 5 or 6 in Europe and Asia.

    I guess the suppression is not entirely successful.

    You are wrong. It was quite successful. If anyone proposed a cold fusion experiment today at a university or national lab, except for Texas Tech and a few others, opponents of cold fusion would quash it immediately. They have done that often in recent years.

    So I have been told that there are hundreds or thousands of observations of LENR, a hitherto unknown nuclear process. Can someone present a phenomenological description of LENR? What are its defining characteristics?

    I suggest you read the literature. Start here, and then read the two books by Storms:


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


    Do not ask people to spoon-feed you this information. If you wish to know, you should read original sources.