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.

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.

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".