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

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.

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

For the 537^th 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 1^st 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…

THHuxleynew - I will comment on your comments in an out-of-order fashion.

“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.”

When apparent excess heat signals are integrated over the extended times that they have been seen to persist, the total ‘energy’ supposedly released exceeds what could rationally be obtained via chemical reactions computed using generous assumptions. That means that only nuclear energies have sufficient size to account for the observed signals, assuming they are accurate. But if they are not accurate, then the CF researchers are just integrating error, and the numbers are meaningless. This is what the CCS idea strikes at. It shows us how we can get an apparent excess energy signal (that can be integrated as above) when none is actually present. Once the pattern was established initially by F&P, others have just followed their lead.

“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.”

I agree, and assert this is what I have done over the years, but the CF community has reacted inappropriately as I’ve explained elsewhere in this thread and forum as well as other places, i.e., they have NOT behaved properly. (In fact, I assert that their failure to participate in the normal scientific process of critical review qualifies them as pathological scientists.) So what do you think the rest of us should do when they behave improperly?

“The lack of substance in the refutal [refutation] 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.“

That this continues informally (and formally) is also the prime indicator of pathological science.

“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.”

To my knowledge there are no examples of a CF researcher properly considering the impact of calibration constant variation on their results (via, for example, error propagation) and I have followed this field since 1995. When it is possible to estimate calibration equation parameters and operating conditions from the publications, I have found no case that contradicts my theses. It is now 2017, and they are still doing the same thing. Again, this is a pathological science indicator. Once I showed how a ‘trivial’ CCS could wipe out a 780mW ‘excess heat’ signal, it became incumbent upon researchers to evaluate that possibility in their experiments, including revisiting the ones that predated my 2002 publication (which was actually known to the field in late 2000). That that has not happened illustrates pathological denial of criticisms. That conclusion is reinforced by the abortive attempt by the 10 authors to ‘pull a fast one’ on the rest of the science community.

Discovering a systematic error that applies to a whole field of research is always a painful thing. But pretending there is no error doesn’t make it go away.

“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.”

That would be ‘normal’ science at work.

“Your extending this to a polemic on not trusting LENR researchers is uncalled-for. Though I guess normal on this Forum!”

As I have stated above, I have found no LENR researcher who is appropriately participating in the scientific process. I have observed lots of results and reports that could well be explained by ‘mundane chemistry and physics’, but never are. It seems to me that the people publishing in this field have given up the ideal promoted by Feynman in his famous quote:

“You should not fool the laymen when you're talking as a scientist... . I'm talking about a specific, extra type of integrity that is not lying, but bending over backwards to show how you're maybe wrong, [an integrity] that you ought to have when acting as a scientist. And this is our responsibility as scientists, certainly to other scientists, and I think to laymen.”

If you have a case where you think we should trust some particular CF researcher, would you share the example please? (Also, note that I am speaking about published authors who claim to have found excess heat or other evidence of CF. There are many people who have attempted replications of those claims but have failed to do so. Excluding the initial work of the 1989-1992(ish) time frame, I believe those researchers to have done good work, but of course failing to replicate can always mean you just did the experiments wrong. The early work was hampered by lack of details and a belief that replication could be done ‘quick and easy’.)

“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.”

One generalizes when one has sufficient detailed data to do so. To my knowledge to date, all CF research involving calorimetry assumes a one dimensional model (i.e. homogeneous) of the system is adequate, even when it is _known_ that the system is non-uniform. Further, to date there are extremely limited numbers of cases where those claiming to have detected 4He as a reaction product will cite the laboratory air 4He concentration. In the few cases where they do, the room and experiment numbers are disconnected and can’t be used to decide if leaks were present. Beyond heat and helium, there is usually an insufficient body of information available for drawing solid conclusions. But even there one can find logic errors that have been promulgated trough the field. A specific example: Ed Storms did a study to try to discount the idea promoted by Gary Taubes that tritium was spiked into some samples and then reported as CF proof. Ed claims in his paper that he disproved the spike idea, when in fact he disproved only one possible spiking method, the simplest imaginable, a single one-time spike. It is a logical error to imply that _all_ spiking was disproven. I could go on with more specific examples, but my point is that I believe I have done what you say, and I now feel I have a body of information sufficient to accurately generalize.

It really can be summed up quite simply by saying that there is insufficient consideration of final error levels, which leads the CF researchers to conclude noise is signal. As I said, if you have a case where this is not true, let me know. Maybe I missed something, and I’d like to try to live up to the expectation expressed in the Feynman quote above.

“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. “

I believe I have done so to a major extent. I have established or adopted basic criteria to judge the quality of the reported work, and I’ve found none that meet the standard. And this standard is not some ‘pathological’ bar that can never be jumped. It is simply evaluating the error in a reasonable way. Claiming that recombination is not a problem by measuring an ~10% _excess_ of collected water in an F&P-type experiment when a 2-3% error in calibration constants can zero out the signal is not acceptable error analysis. Refusing to provide calibration equations and operating conditions used in the power calculations is not an acceptable way to claim excess heat. Etc. ,etc.

The argument is never finished in science, and tomorrow, someone may show a true, unexpected excess heat. But if so, they must meet the objective criteria established to judge the validity of their claim. Being ‘out of the noise’ is one of them, and so far, no one has done this after 28 years.

I don’t think I am ‘falling at the last hurdle’. I think I have simply pointed out the hurdles the CFers are running around instead of jumping.

@Epi

So...having a clear agenda and beliefs about partially defined things means one can safely be ignored...interesting logic there Epi...

Don't you think a scientist working in *any* field needs to listen to his/her critics? (And I infer 'listening' has occurred when appropriate responses have been made, not when someone simply says "I heard.")

Oh...and Epi...

Quote from Epimetheus

but as a scientist working in the field you have to decide when to stop to listen to such people

How do you decide to do that, what criteria do you use?