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.

    References

    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 (http://news.newenergytimes.net…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: https://drive.google.com/file/…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".

  • Well, your effect might be bounded:


    (1) in an open cell, if H2 + O2 is out of cell is measured accurately and compared with ttal electrolytic current that can limit available recombination (though not other possible cal shift causes)

    (2) in a very low loss mass flow cell calibration is relatively insignificant, and your mechanism is bounded by the cell losses, and practically significantly smaller than them. (I know this is cell losses on total power in, which may be lagre compared with claimed excess).

    (3) in a cell with good enough isothermal barrier your effect is bounded


    i agree, they have not looked in detail at which results are so bounded.

  • I agree that they have not looked at the implications of my propositions. And I agree with your points 1, 2, and 3. That's why I stated (elsewhere) that this all illustrates the pathological science indicator of the effect getting smaller as the instrumentation gets better.


    P.S. Observing this is complicated by the fact that there is no run-to-run reproducibility. So sometimes it appears to go the other way.

  • i agree, they have not looked in detail at which results are so bounded.

    When you say "they" do you mean the ten authors? Are you serious? Do you actually believe they have not carefully studied the amount of gas produced by their cells, and the water consumed by electrolysis?


    These are professional electrochemists. To suggest that they have not looked in detail at recombination is like suggesting that a professional race car driver doesn't know how to change gears.


    You really, really, REALLY need to read some of these authors before pontificating about their work. They have measured recombination by every known method, volumetric and calorimetric. Recombination depends on current density and the cell geometry. For a typical cold fusion cell that produces 100 to 500 mW, recombination is:


    Volumetrically within the margin of error (anyone)

    Calorimetrically, 1.0 mW +/- 0.1 mW (Fleischmann)

    0.03% of input power at 400 mA/cm^2 (Will)


    See:


    http://coldfusioncommunity.net…a-dot-error/#comment-3017


    Of course you can make recombination much higher. Jones did this by using 100 to 1000 times lower current density and power than any cold fusion experiment, with a cell of the worse possible geometry. You would never see cold fusion under these conditions. Shanahan cites Jones as proof of his hypothesis. He neglected the fact that every electrochemist measures recombination and eliminates it if there is any. Storms pointed out Shanahan's mistakes here:


    http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEcommentonp.pdf

  • Jed proves he hasn’t actually read and understood even my most recent postings…

    For the 537th time…(OK I exaggerate, it’s only 437…)

    “When you say "they" do you mean the ten authors? Are you serious? Do you actually believe they have not carefully studied the amount of gas produced by their cells, and the water consumed by electrolysis?”


    Yes. The proof is in the paper that Mel Miles didn’t even know was published, my 2005 rebuttal of the Szpak, et al 2004 paper, the one where they *carefully* determined that their cold fusion apparatus was producing extra water, to the tune of 6.5%.


    "These are professional electrochemists. To suggest that they have not looked in detail at recombination is like suggesting that a professional race car driver doesn't know how to change gears. "


    If a “professional” race car driver runs around the loop and keeps clipping other cars and bumping the track walls, etc., do you really call him a ‘professional’? The proof is in the performance. What I have seen so far on this topic does not substantiate your claim they do this ‘professionally’. You disagree? Fine, show me where they do. Hard data Jed, not hot air.


    "You really, really, REALLY need to read some of these authors before pontificating about their work. They have measured recombination by every known method, volumetric and calorimetric. "


    Jed, you really, really, REALLY need to read my analysis of some of these authors before pontificating about the quality of their work. They have claimed to have measured recombination by every known method, volumetric and calorimetric, but they never *report* their results for the rest of us to look at (except for Szpak in 2004). You disagree? Hard data Jed, not hand waving.


    "Recombination depends on current density and the cell geometry. "

    ***ELECTROCHEMICAL*** Recombination depends on current density and the cell geometry. That’s not what I talk about when I talk about the CCS.

    "For a typical cold fusion cell that produces 100 to 500 mW, recombination is:

    Volumetrically within the margin of error (anyone)" ***NO***


    "Calorimetrically, 1.0 mW +/- 0.1 mW (Fleischmann)" *****Yes I know he published that, but he’s talking about ***ELECTROCHEMICAL*** Recombination. That’s not what I talk about when I talk about the CCS.*****


    "0.03% of input power at 400 mA/cm^2 (Will)" *****Yes I know he published that, but he’s talking about ***ELECTROCHEMICAL*** Recombination. That’s not what I talk about when I talk about the CCS.*****


    "See: http://coldfusioncommunity.net…a-dot-error/#comment-3017 "


    No can do. My corporate IT group blocks access to file sharing sites and specifically to this one.

    [snip]


    "Shanahan cites Jones as proof of his hypothesis. "


    NO I DON’T.


    "He neglected the fact that every electrochemist measures recombination and eliminates it if there is any. "


    If they do measure it, THEY NEVER REPORT THE RESULTS SO I CAN CRTIQUE THEM. You disagree? Hard data Jed, not hand waving.


    "Storms pointed out Shanahan's mistakes here [Thermochimica Acta 441 (2006) 207–209] "


    HE TRIED, BUT I REBUTTED HIM, [Thermochimica Acta 441 (2006) 210–214] AND THEN HE REFUSED TO REFERENCE MY REBUTTAL IN HIS BOOK, AND EVEN CLAIMED IN HIS BOOK THAT HE HAD DEALT WITH ALL MY OBJECTIONS! Just like Miles in the IE132 article fails to note my rebuttal of Szpak, et al. That’s called ‘intellectual dishonesty’ Jed. It’s Rossi to a lesser degree.

  • FYI…

    Steve Krivit is posting more info on his web page that unfortunately seems designed to give a wrong impression. As I noted before he asked me if I could explain a picture he posted. I asked him what he wanted explained, and he posted


    April 28, 2017, Shanahan: “Probably.””


    I replied to another request and pointed out that I had actually written:


    “Probably, what exactly do you need explained?”


    To that, Mr. K posted

    “May 1, 2017: Shanahan appears to not recognize what is unusual about this graph and asks for more details.”


    This is Krivit’s typical way of deliberately misunderstanding what I’ve written and recasting it in a semi-derogatory way. In fact, the problem is that there are 4 or 5 things about the Figure that are ‘unusual’ and rather than randomly hit or miss what Steve wants, I asked him to state the question clearly, instead of as a fishing expedition.


    So he sent me what he posts here:

    “May 1, 2017, Krivit: Can you explain, by any known scientific process, how the input power drops while the cell temperature increases?”


    That’s a little clearer but not much. I replied today with a 2-page answer. I pointed out the 4 or 5 interesting facets of the Figure and also pointed out 4 or 5 ways the observation he made can be explained. We’ll see what he posts later today (or tomorrow maybe…), especially given his predilections and considering his statement “I reserve the right to edit what I publish of your response”

  • Well, as expected Steven Krivit has once again demonstrated he doesn’t understand the scientific process and that he is untrustworthy when it comes to reporting events relating to LENR. You all have seen my prior posts on the ‘discussion’ I was having with him. I recommend you look at his Web page today. You will note that it has changed significantly, with both omissions and additions. I have a couple of responses (well OK…maybe a ‘few’ responses…).


    Steve ends his missive with “This concludes my discussion of this matter with you.” Of course it does from his POV, he has bastardized what I wrote and misinformed his readers about what he wrote just so he can claim LENR is real and “Shanahan” (who is ‘the man’ apparently (ROFL)) is wrong. So, let’s try to set the record straight. (Fortunately, I saved a copy of the previous version of his Web page.)


    What Steven quotes of my email to him seems accurate at first pass. However, he does leave out a few paragraphs. (“[Paragraphs not directly addressing this measurement removed.]“) These are very relevant given that Steve says: “I was very specific in my question. I challenged you to explain the apparent violation of Ohm’s law. I did not challenge you to explain any reported excess heat measurements or any calorimetry.” (that quote came from his response of May 2, under point (or paragraph) 6). But in fact he correctly stated what he requested of me at the start of his May 2 response: “My question to you was, specifically referring to Fig. 1 in the 1993 Fleischmann-Pons Physics Letters A paper, ‘can you explain, by any known scientific process, how the input power drops while the cell temperature increases?’” (Which by the way is technically incorrect, since the Figure in question deals with cell temp and cell voltage, not input power. Input power is determined by multiplying the fixed input current (0.4A) by the cell voltage)” And of course the whole communication started with Steve’s question in the original title of the Web page: “Kirk Shanahan, Can You Explain This?” which is vague and vacuous. So the misdirection began almost immediately and continues to get worse.


    My original response to Steve’s title question was: “Probably, what exactly do you need explained?” since I saw multiple things that he might be referring to, especially considering what the Figure caption in the F&P 1993 paper said. So, eventually (after he misrepresented my reply as “Probably.” (note the quoted period and the omission of the rest of my response)) Steve responded with the question above. He never asked me the question he says he did in point 6. I *assumed* he was interested in the F&P excess heat claim, and I brought up Ohm’s Law to help connect the Figure to the XP (eXcess Power) claim.


    And then he ends his response with: “However, you’ve offered not a single definitive, let alone probable conventional explanation for this reported thermal anomaly.”


    That really points out how little Steve understands about how scientific research is done. Let me make a few key points on that:

    1. Every competent scientist knows that one example of something is merely suggestive, not definitive.

    2. Every competent scientist knows that today, tomorrow, or a hundred+ years from now, new and better data may surface that will change our understanding of anything, from the smallest detail to a seemingly inviolate “Law”

    3. Every competent scientist knows that the smaller the effect, the harder it is to explain (the ultimate being ‘trying to work in the noise’ which is often a sign of pathological science)

    4. Because of 1.), 2.), and 3.), every competent scientist knows that stating ‘conclusions’ as if they were perfect and complete is a wrong thing to do.

    Therefore, when Steve says: “However, you’ve offered not a single definitive, … conventional explanation for this reported thermal anomaly.” he is just wrong. I offered several possible explanations as can be seen. The part I clipped out just now was “let alone probable”. Again, Steve is wrong. I listed chemical effects that _DEFINITELY_ occur. I am simply unsure if they can be tied to the temperature rise quantitatively, which is why (along with 1-4 above) I use terms of less than 100% certainty. Steve, not understanding the scientific process, takes that as “I don’t know.” as in “I have no clue.” Nothing could be farther from the truth.


    Since Steve tries to claim he asked about Ohm’s Law, etc., instead of what he actually did ask, it turns out to be relevant to see what he declined to post from my email.


    The Omitted Paragraphs are:

    *****

    “I am not an electrochemist so I can be corrected on these points (but not by vacuous hand-waving, only by real data from real studies) but it seems clear to me that the data presented is from a time frame where changes are expected to show up and that the changes observed indicate both correlated effects in T and V as well as uncorrelated ones. All that adds up to the need for replication if one is to draw anything from this type of data, and I note that usually the initial loading period is ignored by most researchers for the same reason I ‘activate’ my Pd samples in my experiments – the initial phases of the research are difficult to control but much easier to control later on when conditions have been stabilized.


    To claim the production of excess heat from this data alone is not a reasonable claim. All the processes noted above would allow for slight drifts in the steady state condition due to chemical changes in the electrodes and electrolyte. As I have noted many, many times, a change in steady state means one needs to recalibrate. This is illustrated in Ed Storms’ ICCF8 report on his Pt-Pt work that I used to develop my ATER/CCS proposal by the difference in calibration constants over time. Also, Miles has reported calibration constant variation on the order of 1-2% as well, although it is unclear whether the variation contains systematic character or not (it is expressed as random variation). What is needed (as always) is replication of the effect in such a manner as to demonstrate control over the putative excess heat. To my knowledge, no one has done that yet.



    So, those are my quick thoughts on the value of F&P's Figure 1. Let me wrap this up in a paragraph.


    The baseline drift presented in the Figure and interpreted as ‘excess heat’ can easily be interpreted as chemical effects. This is especially true given that the data seems to be from the very first few days of cell operation, where significant changes in the Pd electrode in particular are expected. The magnitudes of the reported excess heats are of the size that might even be attributed to the CF-community-favored electrochemical recombination. It’s not even clear that this drift is not just equipment related. As is usual with reports in this field, more information, and especially more replication, is needed if there is to be any hope of deriving solid conclusions regarding the existence of excess heat from this type of data.”

    *****

    So, what do you all think? Did I “not [offer] a single definitive, let alone probable conventional explanation for this reported thermal anomaly”? I think not, I actually offered several to choose among.


    Steve expresses a lack of understanding regarding entrainment, so let me clarify. The excess water reported by Szpak in the 2004 paper is most rationally explained by the entrainment of water (actually electrolyte) microdroplets in the exiting gas stream. These microdroplets are formed when gas bubbles break the surface of the electrolyte. They are small enough to be carried along with the flowing gases. (As an aside, when ATER starts up, this process will (may) be accelerated, since exploding bubbles will presumably launch more microdroplets into the gas space.) The microdroplets contain the proportionate amount of ions that give the electrolyte its conductivity. The entrainment process removes these ions from the cell. This lowers the conductivity of the cell, increasing the resistance, and thus the deposited power. (This could potentially be compensated for by adding not pure D2O, but D2O with ions of the appropriate concentration.) Would this produce the observed baseline drift? I am quantitatively unsure, but I *know* it will happen to some extent. (BTW, Steve’s other consultant, Tennfors, apparently forgot the system was operated in constant current mode. If the cell conductivity increases, its resistance decreases, and under constant current conditions, the cell will absorb less power. But the entrainment decreases the conductivity, increasing the resistance, causing more power absorbtion, causing the observed very small temperature rise.)


    Steve also fails to understand my ‘glitch’ reference. He even sent me an additional email asking what I meant. So…to see the ‘glitch’ in the last day’s data, start at the beginning of the day, draw a straight line through the 1st third of the voltage data all the way to the end of the day’s data, then do the same with the last third of the data (in reverse direction of course). You will note the lines don’t overlap. Try this for the other days. They seem to overlap. The transition that moves the data stream from the early part of the data to the later part of the last day’s data is “the glitch”. Now do the same with the cell temperature data. No glitch. If the cell temp was *only* a result of Ohmic heating, there would be a ‘glitch’ in the temp data. This simply shows what I said is true, we are dealing with real world data where there is some small, <1% deviation from the ideal Ohmic behavior (see above for reasons this can occur).


    Steve wrote: “Kirk Shanahan is a physical chemist employed by the U.S. Department of Energy’s Savannah River National Laboratory. As this Freedom of Information Act request response shows, he spends a large amount of time attempting to discredit low-energy nuclear reaction research claims.”


    Here again, Steve’s ‘investigative reporting’ is woefully inadequate and deliberately misleading. I have posted many times in many places that my objective was and is to assess the potential of an unexpected heating occurring in H, D, or T-loaded metal hydride. This is a safety issue for me, as I work with these materials (almost daily) and run-away heaters and fires are the two biggest concerns my safety engineers have, and rightfully so. Since no one can tell me with high certainty whether a given metal hydride system is ‘going to go nuclear’ or not, I need to evaluate the possibility myself. If I had found it a viable option, I would have had to modify my operations accordingly. So far, I find no reason to believe any LENR is active anywhere. But as I noted above (points 1-4), all it takes is some good data to change my mind. And yes, I have spent a good deal of time at this, since it affects me personally and most of my colleagues and coworkers if true (that totes up to a few hundred people when you fold in the tritium purification processes we run at the Savannah River Site).


    Steve’s new Web page title is: “Kirk Shanahan, Can You Explain This? (He Couldn’t)” Really? Really???


    I could say more, but that’s enough for now.

  • The saga continues...


    Krivit has added a section to his Web page on my "inability" to answer his unasked question. It is a letter written to him by Dr. Melvin Miles, a well-known cold fusion researcher. Dr. Miles seems to think I thought the electrochemical cell is nothing but an Ohmic device. Of course, anyone reading what I wrote to Steve (parts posted on his Web page too, the rest is noted above in post #26) sees immediately that that is not the case. I wonder why Dr. Miles didn't see that...hmmm...maybe because he didn't _see_ that (i.e. he didn't bother to actually read what I wrote)?


    Dr. Miles sent his note to me via email, and I have replied, pointing out the obvious. We'll see what transpires...


    (Krivit's page: http://news.newenergytimes.net…han-can-you-explain-this/ )


    EDIT: Oh BTW, the Dr. Miles I refer to is the one who published the IE132 article that this thread was started on.

  • So perhaps we have the final chapter now. Dr. Miles and I continued our email exchange. (Krivit opted out once he had enough info to adequately misrepresent on his Web page.) (I was going to say communications, but he doesn’t actually seem to have read anything I wrote.) He has resorted to accusing me of distorting his work. I have noted in many settings and many places that people who accuse others of doing something nefarious are usually the actual ones doing such. What I find amusing here is that that observation applies. Dr. Miles has written several times and places that my ATER explanation of F&P excess heats can’t be real because Fritz Will showed that electrochemical recombination rarely exceeds 2% of the input power. What Dr. Miles ignores is that I agree totally with him regarding electrochemical recombination and did so in writing in my 2005 publication responding to the Szpak version of the paper that Miles just had published in Infinite Energy. He also ignores my discussions of all the ways that the electrodes can be affected in F&P setups (as published on Krivit’s recent Web page addition) and how that would affect the overvoltages, instead saying I only consider the Ohmic behavior of the cells, which is an obvious distortion. Further, he claims *I* distort *his* work by my claims that his apparent excess heat signals are just recombination. He says that any kind of recombination in the cell would be accurately measured, which flies in the face of my reanalysis from 2002 and the whole CCS idea. Of course, he did admit he never had read anything I wrote, which makes me wonder how he can claim as one of the ten co-authors of the 2010 logically incorrect diatribe that my ATER/CCS mechanism was wrong… That question also applies to everything he has written in his recent emails and in the 2017 Infinite Energy 132 cover letter to the Flesichmann ‘rebuttal’ of my proposals. BTW, Fleischmann also makes all the same mistakes. Miles is frustrated with me and has resorted to name calling and I now see it is pointless to continue. His mind is cemented in. So we are probably done.

    This is why I can’t understand why anybody would trust anything these people say (any of them – Fleishmann, Pons, Miles, McKubre, Hagelstein, Rossi, Celeni, Piantelli, (fill in the blank with your preferred CF ‘true believer’)). They clearly don’t critically evaluate information available to them, apparently preferring to depend on selected individuals to do their homework for them. But it is clear those people aren’t doing their job either. Yet a ‘cold fusion water heater’ (to make tea of course) is just around the corner. Right… Folks, it ain’t nuclear. Start there…

  • So perhaps we have the final chapter now. Dr. Miles and I continued our email exchange. (Krivit opted out once he had enough info to adequately misrepresent on his Web page.) (I was going to say communications, but he doesn’t actually seem to have read anything I wrote.) He has resorted to accusing me of distorting his work. I have noted in many settings and many places that people who accuse others of doing something nefarious are usually the actual ones doing such. What I find amusing here is that that observation applies. Dr. Miles has written several times and places that my ATER explanation of F&P excess heats can’t be real because Fritz Will showed that electrochemical recombination rarely exceeds 2% of the input power. What Dr. Miles ignores is that I agree totally with him regarding electrochemical recombination and did so in writing in my 2005 publication responding to the Szpak version of the paper that Miles just had published in Infinite Energy. He also ignores my discussions of all the ways that the electrodes can be affected in F&P setups (as published on Krivit’s recent Web page addition) and how that would affect the overvoltages, instead saying I only consider the Ohmic behavior of the cells, which is an obvious distortion. Further, he claims *I* distort *his* work by my claims that his apparent excess heat signals are just recombination. He says that any kind of recombination in the cell would be accurately measured, which flies in the face of my reanalysis from 2002 and the whole CCS idea. Of course, he did admit he never had read anything I wrote, which makes me wonder how he can claim as one of the ten co-authors of the 2010 logically incorrect diatribe that my ATER/CCS mechanism was wrong… That question also applies to everything he has written in his recent emails and in the 2017 Infinite Energy 132 cover letter to the Flesichmann ‘rebuttal’ of my proposals. BTW, Fleischmann also makes all the same mistakes. Miles is frustrated with me and has resorted to name calling and I now see it is pointless to continue. His mind is cemented in. So we are probably done.

    This is why I can’t understand why anybody would trust anything these people say (any of them – Fleishmann, Pons, Miles, McKubre, Hagelstein, Rossi, Celeni, Piantelli, (fill in the blank with your preferred CF ‘true believer’)). They clearly don’t critically evaluate information available to them, apparently preferring to depend on selected individuals to do their homework for them. But it is clear those people aren’t doing their job either. Yet a ‘cold fusion water heater’ (to make tea of course) is just around the corner. Right… Folks, it ain’t nuclear. Start there…


    • The lack of substance in the refutal of your ideas as shown in the ten author paper is clear: they have not followed up on detailed points, and made a number of serious mistakes in characterising your argument. That this continues informally is a shame.
    • I can't say that your argument covers all or even most of the claimed electrolytic cell excess heat results. But, I can't say it does not cover these either. Were I an LENR researcher placing any reliance on these claims the first thing I'd want to do would be to examine your arguments carefully and see what they apply to.
    • Your extending this to a polemic on not trusting LENR researchers is uncalled-for. Though I guess normal on this Forum! Whether anyone is right, or wrong, the only proper approach here is to evaluate specific actions of specific people, not to generalise. After a lot of such evaluation you might come to a conclusion that the whole collection of anomalies on which a set of LENR people depend has been well explained in ways that those people refuse to consider. The best way to show LENR ideas right or wrong would be to continue to take them seriously and be interested in them, and follow through the evidence. You have to some extent done this, and to some extent been stopped by those making claims refusing to consider the arguments against: so a shame to fall at the last hurdle. For most a cursory look at the area makes these ideas look unlikely to yield up anything more, so it is not an issue.


    Free energy ideas will always exist - it is human nature. What is so annoying about LENR is that the level of scientific engagement in this process is much higher than for other free energy ideas. I feel when there is such an attempt at science it should be treated with respect even if totally misguided, and badly done, as long as participants themselves behave properly. That way in the chance there is something weird going on this gets considered. What makes LENR unlikely as science is not the Coulomb barrier, but all the other things that don't fit nuclear reactions. In which case you have a choice of non-nuclear really weird (because we don't have another way that makes sense to get the claimed energies) or nuclear nothing fits. I'm never sure why in this case people claiming excess heat as they do jump on nuclear, unless for example the He4 evidence were to become real.

  • ...What is so annoying about LENR is that the level of scientific engagement in this process is much higher than for other free energy ideas...


    Sorry for being off topic but can you please explain why you spend so much time on a LENR forum? Seriously I dont get it. Do you want to save us lost souls? 99.99999% of the people on this planet do not care about LENR or think it is bullshit. The overall money spend on LENR over the last 20 years is well below the additional costs for corruption and bad management of the german Elbphilharmonie construction. And this is just a f**g building.


    So what is your intention? Do you think it is good for humanity to choke every crazy idea and "off the track" science?