Miles-Fleischmann-Szpak-Mossier-Boss Article in IE132

  • Since there has already been an announcement regarding an article in Infinite Energy Issue 132, I assume it is out and available. I don't get IE but in that issue I have been led to believe that Dr. Melvin Miles presents a paper [1] authored primarily by M. Fleischmann with Miles, S. Szpak, and P. Mosier-Boss as coauthors, which had been rejected for publication in 2003. Miles describes this in a brief ‘cover letter’ [2]. He states therein:

    “This Part 3 paper is especially important because it contains the only written rebuttal by Fleischmann to K. Shanahan, an active and prominent critic of cold fusion calorimetry over many years. This excellent rebuttal of Shanahan by Fleischmann is found in the Discussion section of this paper.”

    As such, I believe this letter-paper combination deserves a response.

    Dr. Miles continues a practice first established by Dr. Storms regarding my rebuttals of negative comments made in the CF-related literature. In 2006, Dr. Storms published a Comment [3] on my 2002 paper [4], which I responded to in an article published immediately after Storms’ [5]. Subsequently, in his 2007 book [6], Storms mentions my 2002 critique and his 2006 rebuttal, but fails to note my response to his critique, instead choosing to say that all concerns raised in the 2002 paper were dealt with in the 2006 paper. Of course they weren’t, as my 2006 rebuttal paper pointed out.

    In the new 2017 letter [2], Dr. Miles references the 2004 paper by the same authors [7], this one being primarily authored by S. Szpak [2], which had also contained criticisms of my 2002 paper. But, as with Storms, Miles fails to note that I replied to that paper in 2005 [8], and rebutted the criticisms. This is a form of intellectual dishonesty. One is expected to present the whole argument in literature papers, and not a subset with selective bias.

    The criticisms raised in the 2003 rejected publication are essentially the same as those in Szpak’s 2004 version, with a couple more misrepresentations/misunderstandings of what I had written. As a practicing scientist, I am quite disheartened by the ease with which these authors fail to understand what I have written. I haven’t found any instance where they seem to have grasped what I wrote, yet what I wrote was in the end, very simple and easy to understand.

    What is so ironic is that the 2003 rejected paper focuses heavily on comparing the various mathematical methods used to evaluate ‘heat transfer coefficients’ from the classic F&P dynamic energy balance equation used in their calorimetric work, which Miles also adopted. That process of determining the ‘best’ method is nothing but an effort aimed at avoiding a mathematically-induced CCS (calibration constant shift), although not having grasped my 2002 argument, those authors would likely not understand the analogy. Their herculean effort to find the best math method should have been matched by an effort to test the possibility of a chemistry-induced CCS (i.e. ATER), but of course it wasn’t.

    I’m not going to go through the CCS argument all over again. I will just state that Fleischmann, et al, didn’t get the point. They claim I was discussing the use of regression analysis, which I wasn’t. They claim I was discussing electrochemical recombination, which I wasn’t. Those two misunderstandings seem to drive their criticisms of my work, but since they are wrong from the start, in fact this paper [1] never addresses my concerns raised in 2002. This mimics the problems with the sequence of papers in the Journal of Environmental Monitoring [9, 10, 11].

    The comments that I would have made to any journal editor who submitted the 2003 paper [1] to me for review are:

    • There is a redundancy in the Figures and data Tables. The Tables should be moved to supplemental material.

    • Figure 6 disagrees with Table 2 during the ‘Day 8’ period. This difference must be resolved.

    • Input power is never delineated. This must be done. A suggestion is on Figure 6 or 8 as a second curve.

    • The idea that the transition occurring between Day 2 and Day 3 illustrates a ‘heat-after-death’ example needs to be clarified extensively. The data simply suggests a slow system response to step-function changes in input power (as evidenced via current).

    • The discussion of Shanahan’s work seems to not actually address his work. This needs to be clarified or deleted. The Shanahan work does not relate to the method of k determination

    • Likewise, the invocation of electrochemical recombination as a criticism is inaccurate. Shanahan invokes simple combustion, not electrochemistry

    • Much is made of determining the ‘best’ method of obtaining the heat transfer coefficients. This seems to be a minor issue as compared to determining if a steady state change has occurred due to in initiation/cessation of ATER during the run. The paper needs to address the potentially more important issue adequately.

    The verdict that would be sent to the Editor would be “do not publish until revised”, and of course the corrected version would have to be reviewed before acceptance as well.


    1. “Our Penultimate Papers on the Isoperibolic Calorimetry of the Pt-D2O and Pd-D2O Systems. Part 3: The Pd-D Codeposition System”, M. Fleischmann, M. Miles, S. Szpak, and P. Mossier-Boss, Infinite Energy 132 (2017) 25

    2. “Introduction to Fleischmann’s Analysis of my Codeposition Experiment”, M. Miles, Infinite Energy 132 (2017) 24

    3. “Comment on papers by K. Shanahan that propose to explain anomalous heat generated by cold fusion”; Edmund Storms Thermochimica Acta 441 (2006) 207

    4. “A Systematic Error in Mass Flow Calorimetry Demonstrated”: K. L. Shanahan, Thermochimica Acta, 2002, 387, 95.

    5. “Reply to ‘Comment on papers by K. Shanahan that propose to explain anomalous heat generated by cold fusion’, E. Storms, Thermochim. Acta (2005)”; K. L. Shanahan, Thermochimica Acta 441 (2006) 210

    6. “The Science of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction”, E. Storms, 2007, World Scientific, Singapore

    7. “Thermal behavior of polarized Pd/D electrodes prepared by co-deposition”; S. Szpak, P. Mosier-Boss, M. Miles, M. Fleischmann, Thermochimica Acta 410 (2004) 101

    8. “Comments on ‘Thermal behavior of polarized Pd/D electrodes prepared by co-deposition’”; K L. Shanahan, Thermochimica Acta 428 (2005) 207

    9. “A new look at low-energy nuclear reaction research”, S. Krivit and J. Marwan, J. Environ. Monitor. 11 (2009) 1731

    10. “Comments on ‘A new look at low-energy nuclear reaction research’”, K. L. Shanahan, J. Environ. Monitor. 12 (2010) 1756

    11. “A new look at low-energy nuclear reaction (LENR) research: a response to Shanahan”, J. Marwan, M. C. H. McKubre, F. L. Tanzella, P. L. Hagelstein, M. H. Miles, M. R. Swartz, Edmund Storms, Y. Iwamura, P. A. Mosier-Boss, and L. P. G. Forsley, J. Environ. Monitor. 12 (2010) 1765

  • I have been informed of an error in my previous posting in this thread. Apparently, the paper by Fleischmann, Miles, Szpak, and Mosier-Boss (ref 1 in the prior post) was not actually previously submitted for publication, and thus was never ‘rejected’.

    In my defense, I note that Miles 2017 comment (ref 2 in the prior post) says:

    “…Martin Fleischmann wrote a series of four papers using the word “Penultimate” in the title of each, ... My name [Miles] was included on each paper because several involved my experiments, and Fleischmann wanted me to check the content and equations and to try to get these papers published in major referred scientific journals. I tried, but this was not successful.”

    and later:

    “This Part 3 paper is especially important because it contains the only written rebuttal by Fleischmann to K. Shanahan,”

    which I took to mean that Miles submitted the Part 3 paper and it was rejected. My apologies for any confusion this may have caused.

  • So, FWIW, Kirk's main issue here summarises my take home from the various discussions. That is:

    (1) Kirk's CCS hypothesis is a systematic calibration error caused by a chemically mediated equilibrium change that occurs only in active systems, due probably to active recombination mediated by special environments in the electrodes. It thus has identical characteristics to claimed LENR.

    (2) As a result of this most of the published critiques don't apply:

    (a) It is not random, could apply with the same sign to many experiments

    (b) It is not normal electrochemistry, therefore cannot be ruled out just because not recognised by electrochemists, or because recombination in normal electrolysis is known low

    (c) It relies in specific characteristics of LENR experiments (chemical recombination in active environments on electrodes) that are only sometiimes present, and do not apply to other experiments.

    (3) Other critiques that I've seen are incomplete:

    (a) This does not apply to high efficiency (say > 99% of heat input will be measured as output) mass flow. Only if the total anomaly is >> the total heat loss, and therefore no calibration is needed. No data is given for positive results satisfying this condition though I'm open to someone proposing these. This is an obvious way in which Kirk's idea could be found not sufficient to deal with all such anomalies.

    (b) In these experiments multiple TCs show there are no such effects. I've not seen TCs in the upper air space, where the differential could be obvious. This argument would need much more detail.

    (c) In these experiments thermal barriers with isothermal enclosure make such effects insignificant. Again more detail is needed to show this is true. Here the various inputs and outputs to the vessel at the top represent thermal bridges that break any such isolation and happen to be exactly where the largest CCSH-induced temperature variation would be seen.

    I'd like to see those arguing against Kirk's ideas taking up these challenges (to bound his effect below the results in some of these experiments) rather than arguing it is just not possible. The latter does not yet convince me since I've seen no good argument for impossibility.

    I'm willing to provide further detail on the points above if challenged.

    Regards, THH

  • (3) Other critiques that I've seen are incomplete:

    (a) This does not apply to high efficiency (say > 99% of heat input will be measured as output) mass flow.

    I do not know what you mean by high efficiency. Do you mean the recovery rate is high? You can only have 99% recovery rate in a closed cell calorimeter. There are bound to be heat losses from an open cell, such as the heat carried off by the effluent gas. Shanahan's critique does not work with a closed cell; recombination is 100% all the time, so excess heat has to be something higher than that. (I realize he will say it does apply, but that assertion is nonsense.)

    This leads to another objection to his hypothesis that I think you did not list here: excess heat sometimes exceeds what 100% recombination would produce. I mean it exceeds it by a factor of 10, or 100 in some cases. Even if Shanahan were right, and undetected recombination was occurring (which we know is not the case), it cannot explain heat that exceeds full recombination. (I realize he will say it does apply, but that assertion is nonsense.)

    Other objections did not address include where recombination cannot occur at all, such as heat after death, heat from gas loading, and heat after a boil-of when there is no oxygen in the cell as I pointed out here earlier.

    In short there are lots more reasons to dismiss this. So many, that it is over the line into crackpot, tin-foil-hat science. Marwan covered the main objections, I think. Shanahan never addressed Marwan. (I realize he will say he did, but that assertion is nonsense. -- This should be a keyboard macro when discussing Shanahan.)

  • For F&P it seems recombination was measured at refilling ?

    Perhaps you mean that the lack of recombination was measured at refilling. Yes.

    When they refilled, they determined that recombination had not occurred. The amount of water they added to the cell was the predicted amount for electrolysis plus evaporation. If recombination had occurred, it would have taken less water to replenish the cell.

    This is a good way to confirm there is no recombination. It is cumulative over time. It is easier to measure than an instantaneous measure of of low level recombination would be.

    Full recombination is dead simple to measure. Nothing comes out of the open cell. There is no effluent gas. For Shanahan's hypothesis to be true, no gas would ever emerge. A skilled electrochemist always measures effluent gas, either with a gas flow meter or an inverted test tube under water. The latter method is easier, cheaper, and better in many ways. However, in many cases, you get 3 to 10 times more heat than full recombination could produce, so even in the imaginary situation in which no gas comes out, excess heat cannot be denied. (Macro insertion: I realize Shahanan will deny it, but that assertion is nonsense.)

  • I do not know what you mean by high efficiency. Do you mean the recovery rate is high? You can only have 99% recovery rate in a closed cell calorimeter. There are bound to be heat losses from an open cell, such as the heat carried off by the effluent gas. Shanahan's critique does not work with a closed cell; recombination is 100% all the time, so excess heat has to be something higher than that. (I realize he will say it does apply, but that assertion is nonsense.

    Yes, I mean recovery rate though I think Marwan et al used efficiency.

    Shanahan's critique still applies to a closed calorimeter but the errors it can generate are smaller, and rely on calorimeter recover rate changing for emitted heat in different parts of the closed cell. My argu,ment above is that this must happen to some extent since electrode connections and other things breaking the thermal isolation must always exist. Typically LENR results from such calorimeters are also smaller so it needs a quantitative argument to bound CCS errors in such a device to below the LENR signal. Therefore it cannot (to me) be obvious until I've seen such an argument written down somewhere and I have checked it. I am a great believer in not making assumptions about such things until they are written down, because it is easy to guess OOMs all wrong especially when measuring calibration errors.

    But, I'm very open to the possibility that when this is done we will all agree that his arguments apply to open cells but not closed ones.

    Thus far I've never seen the critics of Shanahan's ideas take them seriously enough to work out quantitatively how they might apply in specific cases.

  • Quote

    However, in many cases, you get 3 to 10 times more heat than full recombination could produce, so even in the imaginary situation in which no gas comes out, excess heat cannot be denied.

    Jed. I believe this statement is possibly wrong, because if the effect modifies calibration constants then the error generated can be greater than the direct error from recombination. But, I might be wrong. Till I've worked this through, or seen a detailed argument fully written out from someone else, I'm going to stay uncommital on this.

    The key thing that makes your statement above not obvious to me is that "excess heat" is calculated, not real, making assumptions about losses from calibration data.

  • Marwan covered the main objections, I think. Shanahan never addressed Marwan.

    So, I've read Marwan. And Shanahan's <i>white paper</i> on the other thread answering Marwan. Shanahan to my view answered most of Marwan's objections. Maybe not all, but then the ones not answered I felt were assumptive, or at least needed confirmatory details. We could go through this if you find the Marwan arguments yyou think survive, and say why you believe shanahan's critique of them is wrong (or if it does not exist in the White Paper then why the Marwan argument obviously holds).

  • Shanahan's critique still applies to a closed calorimeter but the errors it can generate are smaller, and rely on calorimeter recover rate changing for emitted heat in different parts of the closed cell.

    This effect has never been measured with an actual water-based calorimeter. It is much too small, and heat is measured too far from the cell. A micro-calorimeter might detect it, I suppose.

    My argu,ment above is that this must happen to some extent since electrode connections and other things breaking the thermal isolation must always exist.

    It may exist but it is far too small to detect with conventional instruments, as I said. It never shows up in calibration.

    Jed. I believe this statement is possibly wrong, because if the effect modifies calibration constants then the error generated can be greater than the direct error from recombination.

    If it affected calibration constants, calibration would not work. The response would not be linear, or there would be outliers. The whole point of calibration is to detect problems that affect the calibration constant, making it inconstant. If you do not see any problems, they do not exist. They do not suddenly erupt when you use palladium and heavy water. They cannot be uniformly positive: they would have to be randomly positive or negative.

    For this this problem to be the cause of the excess heat detected in this experiments, it would sometimes have to produce gigantic errors, such as apparent heat 3 to 10 times input, or 10 W absolute, or 50 to 100 W when there is no input at all and no possible recombination. The worst possible recombination error is a small fraction of input power. In other words, this artifact would at most produce an error of 5 to 10% of input power (depending on voltage). That is the most recombination there can be. It could not be 300% of input power. Furthermore, it would have to show up during calibration, and it would as likely be negative as positive, since this positional shift that magically reaches out and affects the inlet and outlet thermocouples centimeters away would be as likely to stop the heat from reaching them as it would to send more heat to them. The calibration constant would be too high or too low depending on what position the heat was coming from when the calibration constant was first measured.

    Plus, it would go away when calibration is done with a joule heater and no electrolysis. That would produce a different calibration constant. It does not.

    You say if this "modifies calibration constants then the error generated can be greater . . ." If it modifies the calibration constant, it would have to happen during calibration with electrolysis. People would see that happening. The calibration constant would be inconstant; the ratio of input power to output heat would vary. If it does not vary, the problem is not happening. Either the source of heat is not moving, or that movement cannot be detected centimeters away through glass, water and wires. In point of fact we know there is no movement. If oxygen started recombining anywhere but in the recombiner in the head space, that would wreck the cathode and the effect would be apparent to the naked eye. The cathode color would change. We also know that even if this could happen, it would be a microwatt effect that cannot magically cross space, work through glass and flowing water, and affect thermocouples that only measure 10 mW at best.

    Calibration constants do, in fact, change. They are indeed sometimes inconstant. But the reasons are well understood; they are always discovered and fixed; and they are NEVER the reasons postulated by Shanahan. (A typical actual problem would be something like instrument drift.)

  • There has been a lot of talk about ‘efficiency’ in this thread and in discussing the CCS. I want to be sure what I mean by ‘efficiency’ is understood.

    A calorimeter measures power (i.e. Joules/second) coming out of what is inside of it. But because of losses, what it measures in practice is always less than what goes in. I.e. all calorimeters have losses. Because of those losses, the computed power out must be multiplied by a calibration constant to ‘correct’ the output power reported in order to match the input power. As well, many times the calorimeters are not linear or if linear in one region, their calibration curve does not extrapolate to zero power out for zero power in. Thus sometimes non-linear equations are used, or a linear equation with an offset (the ‘b’ term in the y = m*X + b cal equation) are used as long as it is recognized that there is the ‘baseline offset’ (which is what a non-zero ‘b’ does). In any case, all calibration equations have specific regions of high accuracy, and extrapolating outside those limits leads to greater error.

    When someone says “My calorimeter is so good that I don’t need to calibrate it!”, what they are actually saying is that the heat losses, which they are not measuring, are so small they are not relevant to any error in the computed output power. Thus the arbitrarily say ‘m=1’ or Pout = Pin exactly. That statement carries with it the assumption that the required error in Pout due to losses is unimportant. My CCS paper of 2002 showed that is not acceptable thinking for Ed Storms’ high efficiency calorimeter (and by inductive reasoning, potentially any other calorimeter).

    For the linear calibration case, the power out computed from the experimental data must be increased by some amount to make Pout = Pin (with possible modification due to a non-zero b). In Ed Storms’ case where he used a mass flow calorimeter, he used the equation Pout = 0.0712 * mass flow rate * (Tout – Tin) + 0.13. But, the mass flow rate was in grams/minute, and the theoretical equation is Cp * mass flow rate * deltaT (Cp = heat capacity at constant pressure). So the m term actually has 3 parts; the actual value of Cp for the appropriate temperature (because Cp depends on T, units are J/g-degC), the unit conversion factor to convert minutes to seconds, and the unitless ‘bump-up’ term to correct for heat losses.

    So… Using Cp = 4.18 J/g-degC at ~20C, 0.0712 = 4.18 J/g-degC * 1 min/60 sec * k where I use ‘k’ for the unitless ‘calibration constant’. That means k = 0.0712 * 60 /4.18 = 1.0220. (Note the slight ‘bump-up’ here of a little over 2%). I define the calorimeter efficiency as 100 / k = 97.8%, which is why I always call Ed’s calorimeter a 98% efficient one.

    Cp at 49C = 4.1804; at 35C = 4.1785; and at 20C = 4.1819 J/g-degC. In Ed’s cell that means the 3-part m term can vary from .07117 to .07123 or by 0.08% of the smaller term, which implies using a single Cp value may not cause a problem. That leaves flow rate, temperature, and ‘k’ variations to account for the production of apparent excess heat signals. I concede that flow rate and temperature measurements are not the problem in Ed’s data. That leaves ‘k’, the experimentally determined, heat transfer (loss) related term. And from there I get to the CCS, since the span of ‘m’ terms I used to flatline Ed’s results ran from .06856 to .07132.

    The way the CCS works in F&P cells is postulated to be due to greater % heat lost for heat produced near to some heat loss path. So if one has heat being produced in the gas space of an F&P cell (as in a closed cell) a slightly greater fraction of it is lost as compared to if that heat were produced in the liquid phase region (since liquid is a better heat transfer agent than gas and since the heat has further to go in the cell before it exits, allowing for a greater % to be captured). Therefore, a simple 1 zone model as has been universally used to this point in all CF calorimetry (to my knowledge) will never be able to adequately compute the power out if the heat shifts around in the cell. That gives apparent excess heat peaks. The less efficient the cell, the bigger the ‘bump-up’, and the more room for mismeasurement. This is just a direct illustration of the idea that as you improve your equipment you get better results.

    Also in Storms’ original paper (2000), he reported different calibration constants from Joule heating vs. electrolysis heating, and he reported time varying electrolytic calibration constants. No one else has bothered to my knowledge to report that type of info. They need to.


    So in response to some of the comments written so far…

    All calorimeters lose heat, some more than others. Note that ‘all’ mean ALL, not just 1 type, and the form of the calibration equation used is not important for a chemically-driven CCS.

    Note that assuming a calorimeter is good enough to ‘not need’ calibration implies a certain error level is unimportant. One needs to be sure that is true. In Ed Storms’ case, 98% efficient isn’t good enough to avoid a problem. I doubt 99% would be either, but who knows. But you can’t just wave your hands and assume that is true. You have to calculate it out to confirm.

    Note that ‘calibration’ is always done with inert electrodes, that means it’s always done with one fixed heat distribution (ohmic heating in the electrolyte, remaining power in in the gas space in closed cells or out the vent in open cells). Change the distribution, change the calibration equation. Since the heat is moving one-way (from gas to liquid space), this leads to one-sided effects, i.e. 0 to some positive value of apparent excess heat.

    This whole discussion is about one specific type of problem. There can be an infinite number of others. They might be more or less important.

    Directly stated, the CCS works in closed cells, it can produce more apparent excess heat than 100% recombination because of the multiplicative nature of the ‘bump-up’, but the better the calorimeter the smaller that effect should be. An apparent excess heat greater than allowed by a CCS would be interesting if it wasn’t traced to another error like using a bidirectional flowmeter or an optical pyrometer to measure the temperature of a non-Plankian radiating body.

    The CCS I have ‘preached’ is tied specifically to an F&P-type electrolysis setup. Other experimental apparati or protocols would have the potential for a CCS, since all analytical techniques are ‘calibrated’, but the ATER mechanism I discuss only applies to the F&P cells.

    And don’t forget, we are deriving the whole 780 mW Storms excess heat signal from a 2% heat loss issue. The heat flow up those electrode wires, thermistor/thermocouple wires, and electrode and/or recombination catalyst supports is suggested to be the whole cause of this in closed cells. You can get quite a big bang for your buck here.

    And finally, don’t ever forget the analytical chemistry axiom “One can’t calibrate an unsteady system.”

  • There has also been some talk about how %recombination is measured and thus excludes the CCS/ATER mechanism. This would be true if there was a _reliable_ measure of %recombination in use. That is why my 2005 paper that Miles fails to reference in his 2017 IE cover letter is so important. In that paper I am commenting on the 2004 ‘Szpak version’ of the 2003 Fleischmann, Miles, Mosier-Boss, Szpak paper. They report there a volumetric measurement of the water captured from the exit of the open cell they used, which includes water formed by recombining the effluent hydrogen and oxygen. They report an EXCESS of 6.5%. During the review process, one reviewer called this ‘unimportant’. That comment is another one illustrating the failure to accurately assess error levels and their relevance to the issues.

    First are we to assume CF creates water too? I think not.

    Second, the error isn’t just 6.5% _IF_ a CCS/ATER situation is in effect. It is in fact 6.5% + whatever the water volume that should have remained in the cell was. I recall Miles reporting 5% of so recombination signals in some of his work, and I personally concluded from looking at the Storms’ figures using the Will model for _electrochemical_ recombination, that about 20% recombination was needed before most people started claiming excess heat. So, guessing here, it looks like they are only measuring their water found outside the cell to +/- 10% or so. The CCS occurs with +/-2.5% changes. In other words, the one reported case of measuring water externally is too inaccurate to be conclusive. Since, no one else bothers to report these kind of results, I’d guess they are just following Fleischmann’s lead as usual. So CFers, prove me wrong (with data not hand waving)!

    The measured excess means that there is another way to get water out of the cell besides evaporation and as electrolysis gases. I suggested entrainment of microdroplets. The whole ‘exploding bubble’ picture would support that, since I think they act just like a depth charge does when it goes off, and throw us a water spray at the surface. The exiting gases capture more microdoplets in that case, since more are present. Complicates the use of water volume measurements to some extent. If you don’t like my supposition here, fine, what’s yours? Remember, the report is of 6.5% MORE water than expected.

    To be fair, I need to discuss McKubre’s M4 experiment a little. He ran a closed cell F&P setup with an internal thermocouple (thermistor?) measuring recombiner catalyst temperature. During the one 360mW excess heat event recorded, the recombiner catalyst temp appeared not to change. McK took that to mean no ATER/CCS. I don’t believe that is necessarily true. I believe heat and mass transfer effects could have limited the expected drop in temp. What should have happened though as well, is that a drop in internal cell pressure should have occurred if there was ATER. McK did have a pressure sensor supposedly measuring cell pressure, but the recorded data seems flaky to me. The time plot shows what seems to me to be a digitized signal oscillating between a few digital values (i.e. an A-to-D conversion issue). As I recall the pressure units were not specified, so one couldn’t tell what was going on straight up (another of those things McK didn’t put in his monster 1998 EPRI report), but it is true that there didn’t seem to be a dip in the values. But was the pressure sensor adequate for the job? Was it functioning properly at that time? So maybe McK is sitting on the data/information that would deal a death blow to the CCS/ATER proposal. So why hasn’t it been brought out then? It’s only been 17 years… Instead he signed off on the 'random CCSH' strawman, an obviously incorrect thing to do.

  • It seems Krivit has issued me a challenge (…han-can-you-explain-this/) but provided no way to respond. So I'll do it here...

    My first answer is: Probably, what exactly do you need explained?

    Krivit takes Fig. 1 from Fleischmann and Pons' 1993 Phys. Lett. A paper and adds some lines to it to make the displayed figure. Apparently he is unable to understand why the temperature can increase and the voltage decrease over time in the cell without excess energy from LENR being the cause. I would suggest he read the section of my whitepaper discussing the flaws in the F&P calorimetric method. THH conveniently posted a link (Mar 2nd 2017 post #92 in thread "Validity of LENR Science...[split]" "Kirk's white paper answering Marwan et al:…b1doPc3otVGFUNDZKUDQ/view) to it. Then think it through while chanting "CCS CCS CCS".

    BTW, there are other reasons besides ATER/CCS for this as well (and I suspect the cause of the drift shown in the Figure is actually not ATER, that comes later in the paper). Ask an electrochemist.

  • Krivit is not a scientist and maybe he doesn't understand that temperature is a measure of energy whereas voltage determines power. He's comparing apples with oranges. If you heat something more slowly (by reducing the heater voltage) then the temperature can still continue to increase. A further complexity is loading , if you reduce the voltage, the rate of loading will decrease and indeed may become negative. As loading can be endothermic, this may appear as unexpected heat.

    Whether or not any of this was the case in the F & P experiment is another matter. :)

  • Going back to the original post. LENR advocates would I think agree that they get relatively little scientific critiques from mainstream scientists, or indeed anyone who is technically competent and highly skeptical, so interested in finding holes in arguments.

    They need that. So I find no excuse for the process Kirk notes in the first posts here. Marwan et al may believe they have settled Kirk's points. More likely (and my judgement reading the source material) they have partially addressed them. The way to elucidate this is for them to defend their work against critiques of their defence - not to ignore the critiques of the defence and answer only the original points. Kirk similarly of course, but in this case I have noticed this phenomena less, he picks up on nearly all of the points made by Marwan et al. From such a to and fro one can obtained a balanced view of the likely validity of each point. Normally both sides end up agreeing, or at least agreeing that areas of disagreement require further work. Typically what happens here is that points made are valid for a specific set of circumstances, and elucidating whether than covers the matters of interest takes time and effort.

    The issue here is not primarily about who is right in this exchange. It is about how you convince independent observers that you are right.

  • Hermes

    Agreed that Krivit is not a scientist, but the Figure in question comes from Fleischmann and Pons' 1993 paper in Phys. Lett. A. The caption of the figure claims they are making 45 mW excess heat on Day 2, 66 mW on Day 3, 86 mW on Day 4, and 115 mW on Day 5. My points are:

    - the F&P calorimetric method is susceptible to a CCS (see my whitepaper)

    - the excess levels claimed initially are typical of noise in other systems, the latter two numbers are probably higher due to the obvious baseline drift

    - there are a variety of real world reasons voltage (or resistance) drifts over time

    And just to note, there are some interesting features of the T drops (due to replenishing D2O) that suggest something strange is going on (like ATER).

    You are also correct that if these are the traces of the very first few days, there are a lot of chemical issues to consider outside of the normal steady state operation. Which is why I recommended Krivit ask an electrochemist.

    FYI - it seems Mel Miles is involved. Krivit modified his Web page over the weekend, and he sent me an email with the text in it.

  • @THH

    I can't see how the "Group of 10" authors addressed anything I wrote about what likely causes the observed apparent excess heat signals. Thus I can't see how they have even 'partially' addressed the issues I raise. They basically construct a completely incorrect caricature of my proposal and 'prove' it wrong, and then claim that therefore I don't know what I am talking about. That's irrational.

    But let me reiterate. With Miles writing the IE132 cover letter to the F&P paper, he reconfirms that he believes what was said by the "Group of 10".