• Jed, that Britz paper just tallies how many there are but it does not list them.


    Do we have to buy Storms's book in order to see that Table 2.

  • Ok, I see. It's Appendix A, List 2 of Jed's tallies. 153 documented peer reviewed Excess Heat findings.



    List 2. Peer-reviewed excess heat papers, from both databases
    1. Agelao, G. and M.C. Romano, Heat and helium production during exothermic reactions
    between gases through palladium geometrical elements loaded with hydrogen. Fusion
    Technol., 2000. 38: p. 224.
    2. Aoki, T., et al., Search for nuclear products of the D + D nuclear fusion. Int. J. Soc. Mat.
    Eng. Resources, 1998. 6(1): p. 22.
    3. Arata, Y. and Y.C. Zhang, Achievement of intense 'cold fusion' reaction. Kaku Yugo
    Kenkyu, 1989. 62: p. 398 (In Japanese).
    4. Arata, Y. and Y.C. Zhang, Achievement of an intense cold fusion reaction. Fusion
    Technol., 1990. 18: p. 95.
    5. Arata, Y. and Y.C. Zhang, Achievement of intense 'cold' fusion reaction. Proc. Jpn. Acad.,
    Ser. B, 1990. 66: p. 1.
    6. Arata, Y. and Y.C. Zhang, Corroborating evidence for 'cold' fusion reaction. Proc. Jpn.
    Acad., Ser. B, 1990. 66(B): p. 110.
    7. Arata, Y. and Y.C. Zhang, 'Cold' fusion caused by a weak 'on-off effect'. Proc. Jpn. Acad.,
    Ser. B, 1992. 66: p. 33.
    8. Arata, Y. and Y.C. Zhang, 'Cold' fusion in deuterated complex cathode. Kaku Yugo
    Kenkyu, 1992. 67((5)): p. 432 (in Japanese).
    9. Arata, Y. and Y.C. Zhang, Reproducible "Cold" Fusion Reaction Using A Complex
    Cathode. Fusion Technol., 1992. 22: p. 287.
    10. Arata, Y. and Y.C. Zhang, Excess heat in a double structure deuterated cathode. Kaku
    Yugo Kenkyu, 1993. 69((8)): p. 963 (in Japanese).
    11. Arata, Y. and Y.C. Zhang, A new energy caused by "Spillover-deuterium". Proc. Jpn.
    Acad., Ser. B, 1994. 70 ser. B: p. 106.
    12. Arata, Y. and Y.C. Zhang, A new energy generated in DS-cathode with 'Pd-black'. Koon
    Gakkaishi, 1994. 20(4): p. 148 (in Japanese).
    13. Arata, Y. and Y.C. Zhang, Achievement of solid-state plasma fusion ("cold fusion").
    Koon Gakkaishi, 1995. 21((6)): p. 303 (in Japanese).
    14. Arata, Y. and Y.C. Zhang, Deuterium nuclear reaction process within solid. Proc. Jpn.
    Acad., Ser. B, 1996. 72 Ser. B: p. 179.
    15. Arata, Y. and C. Zhang, Presence of helium (4/2He, 3/2He) confirmed in highly
    deuterated Pd-black by the new detecting methodology. J. High Temp. Soc., 1997. 23: p.
    110 (in Japanese).
    16. Arata, Y. and Y.C. Zhang, Solid-state plasma fusion ('cold fusion'). J. High Temp. Soc.,
    1997. 23 (special volume): p. 1-56.
    17. Arata, Y. and Y.C. Zhang, Observation of Anomalous Heat Release and Helium-4
    Production from Highly Deuterated Fine Particles. Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. Part 2, 1999. 38: p.
    L774.
    18. Arata, Y. and Y.C. Zhang, Formation of Condensed Metallic Deuterium Lattice and
    Nuclear Fusion. Proc. Jpn. Acad., Ser. B, 2002. 78(Ser. B): p. 57.
    19. Arata, Y. and Y. Zhang, The Establishment of Solid Nuclear Fusion Reactor. J. High
    Temp. Soc., 2008. 34(2): p. 85.
    20. Babu, K.S.C., et al., On the formation of palladium deuteride and its relationship to
    suspected cold fusion. Adv. Hydrogen Energy, 1990. 8 Hydrogen Energy Prog. VIII,
    Vol. 2),: p. 1051.
    19
    21. Battaglia, A., et al., Neutron emission in Ni-H systems. Nuovo Cimento Soc. Ital. Fis. A,
    1999. 112 A: p. 921.
    22. Belzner, A., et al., Two fast mixed-conductor systems: deuterium and hydrogen in
    palladium - thermal measurements and experimental considerations. J. Fusion Energy,
    1990. 9(2): p. 219.
    23. Belzner, A., et al., Recent results on mixed conductors containing hydrogen or deuterium.
    Solid State Ionics, 1990. 40/41: p. 519.
    24. Bertalot, L., et al., Study of deuterium charging in palladium by the electrolysis of heavy
    water: heat excess production. Nuovo Cimento Soc. Ital. Fis. A, 1993. 15 D: p. 1435.
    25. Birgul, O., et al., Electrochemically induced fusion of deuterium using surface modified
    palladium electrodes. J. Eng. Env. Sci., 1990. 14(3): p. 373.
    26. Brudanin, V.B., et al., Search for the cold fusion d(d,(4)He) in electrolysis of D2O. Phys.
    Lett. A, 1990. 151(9): p. 543.
    27. Bush, B.F., et al., Helium production during the electrolysis of D2O in cold fusion
    experiments. J. Electroanal. Chem., 1991. 304: p. 271.
    28. Bush, R.T., A light water excess heat reaction suggests that 'cold fusion' may be 'alkalihydrogen
    fusion'. Fusion Technol., 1992. 22: p. 301.
    29. Bush, R.T. and R.D. Eagleton, Evidence for Electrolytically Induced Transmutation and
    Radioactivity Correlated with Excess Heat in Electrolytic Cells with Light Water
    Rubidium Salt Electrolytes. Trans. Fusion Technol., 1994. 26(4T): p. 334.
    30. Celani, F., et al., Deuterium overloading of palladium wires by means of high power
    microsecond pulsed electrolysis and electromigration: suggestions of a "phase
    transition" and related excess heat. Phys. Lett. A, 1996. 214: p. 1.
    31. Celani, F., et al., Reproducible D/Pd ratio > 1 and excess heat correlation by 1-microsecpulse,
    high-current electrolysis. Fusion Technol., 1996. 29: p. 398.
    32. Dash, J., G. Noble, and D. Diman, Surface Morphology and Microcomposition of
    Palladium Cathodes After Electrolysis in Acified Light and Heavy Water: Correlation
    With Excess Heat. Trans. Fusion Technol., 1994. 26(4T): p. 299.
    33. Dufour, J., Cold fusion by sparking in hydrogen isotopes. Fusion Technol., 1993. 24: p.
    205.
    34. Dufour, J., et al., Interaction of palladium/hydrogen and palladium/deuterium to measure
    the excess energy per atom for each isotope. Fusion Technol., 1997. 31: p. 198.
    35. Fleischmann, M., S. Pons, and M. Hawkins, Electrochemically induced nuclear fusion of
    deuterium. J. Electroanal. Chem., 1989. 261: p. 301 and errata in Vol. 263.
    36. Fleischmann, M., et al., Calorimetry of the palladium-deuterium-heavy water system. J.
    Electroanal. Chem., 1990. 287: p. 293.
    37. Fleischmann, M. and S. Pons, Some comments on the paper Analysis of experiments on
    the calorimetry of LiOD-D2O electrochemical cells, R.H. Wilson et al., J. Electroanal.
    Chem. 332 [1992] 1. J. Electroanal. Chem., 1992. 332: p. 33.
    38. Fleischmann, M. and S. Pons, Calorimetry of the Pd-D2O system: from simplicity via
    complications to simplicity. Phys. Lett. A, 1993. 176: p. 118.
    39. Fleischmann, M. and S. Pons, Reply to the critique by Morrison entitled 'Comments on
    claims of excess enthalpy by Fleischmann and Pons using simple cells made to boil. Phys.
    Lett. A, 1994. 187: p. 276.
    40. Focardi, S., R. Habel, and F. Piantelli, Anomalous heat production in Ni-H systems.
    Nuovo Cimento Soc. Ital. Fis. A, 1994. 107A: p. 163.
    20
    41. Focardi, S., et al., Large excess heat production in Ni-H systems. Nuovo Cimento Soc.
    Ital. Fis. A, 1998. 111A: p. 1233.
    42. Gozzi, D., et al., Evidences for associated heat generation and nuclear products release
    in palladium heavy-water electrolysis. Nuovo Cimento Soc. Ital. Fis. A, 1990. 103: p.
    143.
    43. Gozzi, D., et al., Nuclear and thermal effects during electrolytic reduction of deuterium
    at palladium cathode. J. Fusion Energy, 1990. 9(3): p. 241.
    44. Gozzi, D., et al., Calorimetric and nuclear byproduct measurements in electrochemical
    confinement of deuterium in palladium. J. Electroanal. Chem., 1995. 380: p. 91.
    45. Gozzi, D., et al., Quantitative measurements of helium-4 in the gas phase of Pd + D2O
    electrolysis. J. Electroanal. Chem., 1995. 380: p. 109.
    46. Gozzi, D., et al., X-ray, heat excess and 4He in the D/Pd system. J. Electroanal. Chem.,
    1998. 452: p. 251.
    47. Isagawa, S., Y. Kanda, and T. Suzuki, Present status of cold fusion experiment at KEK".
    Int. J. Soc. Mat. Eng. Resources, 1998. 65(1): p. 60.
    48. Isobe, Y., et al., Search for multibody nuclear reactions in metal deuteride induced with
    ion beam and electrolysis methods. Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. A, 2002. 41(part 1): p. 1546.
    49. Iwamura, Y., et al., Detection of anomalous elements, x-ray, and excess heat in a D2-Pd
    system and its interpretation by the electron-induced nuclear reaction model. Fusion
    Technol., 1998. 33: p. 476.
    50. Iyengar, P.K., et al., Bhabha Atomic Research Centre studies on cold fusion. Fusion
    Technol., 1990. 18: p. 32.
    51. Kainthla, R.C., et al., Eight chemical explanations of the Fleischmann-Pons effect. J.
    Hydrogen Energy, 1989. 14(11): p. 771.
    52. Kainthla, R.C., et al., Sporadic observation of the Fleischmann-Pons heat effect.
    Electrochim. Acta, 1989. 34: p. 1315.
    53. Kamada, K., H. Kinoshita, and H. Takahashi, Anomalous heat evolution of deuteriumimplanted
    Al upon electron bombardment. Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. A, 1996. 35: p. 738.
    54. Kamada, K., Heating of deuteron implanted Al on electron bombardment and its possible
    relation to 'cold fusion' experiment. Fusion Eng. Des., 2001. 55: p. 541.
    55. Karabut, A.B., Y.R. Kucherov, and I.B. Savvatimova. Cold Fusion Observation at GasDischarge
    Device Cathode. in Anniversary Specialist Conf. on Nucl. Power Eng. in
    Space. 1990. Obninsk, Russia.
    56. Karabut, A.B., Y.R. Kucherov, and I.B. Savvatimova, Nuclear reactions at the cathode in
    a gas discharge. Sov. Tech. Phys. Lett., 1990. 16(6): p. 463.
    57. Karabut, A.B., Y.R. Kucherov, and I.B. Savvatimova, The investigation of deuterium
    nuclei fusion at glow discharge cathode. Fusion Technol., 1991. 20: p. 924.
    58. Kirkinskii, V.A., V.A. Drebushchak, and A.I. Khmelnikov, Excess heat release during
    deuterium sorption-desorption by finely powdered palladium deuteride. Europhys. Lett.,
    2002. 58: p. 462.
    59. Kunimatsu, K., Current status of room-temperature nuclear fusion. Excess heat
    measurement. Petrotech. (Tokyo), 1994. 17(12): p. 998 (in Japanese).
    60. Kunimatsu, K., Surface modification of the cathode in the study of cold fusion. Hyomen
    Gijutsu, 1996. 47(3): p. 218 (in Japanese).
    61. Lewis, D. and K. Sk'ld, A phenomenological study of the Fleischmann-Pons effect. J.
    Electroanal. Chem., 1990. 294: p. 275.
    21
    62. Lewis, D., Some regularities and coincidences in thermal, electrochemical and radiation
    phenomena observed in experiments at Studsvik on the Fleischmann-Pons effect. J.
    Electroanal. Chem., 1991. 316: p. 353.
    63. Li, X.Z., A new approach towards nuclear fusion without strong nuclear radiation. Nucl.
    Fusion Plasma Phys., 1996. 16(2): p. 1 (in Chinese).
    64. Li, X.Z., et al., Correlation between abnormal deuterium flux and heat flow in a D/Pd
    system. J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys., 2003. 36: p. 3095-3097.
    65. Liaw, B.Y., et al., Elevated-temperature excess heat production in a Pd + D system. J.
    Electroanal. Chem., 1991. 319: p. 161.
    66. Liaw, B.Y., P.L. Tao, and B.E. Liebert, Helium analysis of palladium electrodes after
    molten salt electrolysis. Fusion Technol., 1993. 23: p. 92.
    67. Lin, G.H., et al., On electrochemical tritium production. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy, 1990.
    15: p. 537.
    68. Lipson, A.G., et al., Generation of the products of DD nuclear fusion in high-temperature
    superconductors YBa2Cu3O7-deltaDy near the superconducting phase transition. Tech.
    Phys., 1995. 40: p. 839.
    69. Lipson, A.G., et al., The nature of excess energy liberated in a Pd/PdO heterostructure
    electrochemically saturated with hydrogen (deuterium). Russ. J. Phys. Chem., 1995. 69:
    p. 1810.
    70. Lyakhov, B.F., et al., Anomalous heat release in the Pd/PdO system electrolytically
    saturated with hydrogen. Russ. J. Phys. Chem., 1993. 67: p. 491.
    71. Mathews, C.K., et al., On the possibility of nuclear fusion by the electrolysis of heavy
    water. Indian J. Technol., 1989. 27: p. 229.
    72. McKubre, M.C.H., et al., Isothermal Flow Calorimetric Investigations of the D/Pd and
    H/Pd Systems. J. Electroanal. Chem., 1994. 368: p. 55.
    73. Mengoli, G., et al., Absorption-desorption of deuterium at Pd95%-Rh5% alloy. I:
    Environment and temperature effects. J. Electroanal. Chem., 1995. 390: p. 135.
    74. Mengoli, G., et al., Anomalous heat effects correlated with electrochemical hydriding of
    nickel. Nuovo Cimento Soc. Ital. Fis. A, 1998. 20 D: p. 331.
    75. Mengoli, G., et al., Calorimetry close to the boiling temperature of the D2O/Pd
    electrolytic system. J. Electroanal. Chem., 1998. 444: p. 155.
    76. Miao, B., Experimental exploration on the possible mechanism of D-D cold fusion in
    titanium lattice. Xibei Shifan Xuebao. Ziran Kexueban, 1994. 30(1): p. 39 (in Chinese).
    77. Miao, B., Experimental exploration on possible mechanism of D-D cold fusion in
    titanium lattice. Xibei Shifan Daxue Xuebao, Ziran Kexueban, 1994. 30: p. 44 (in
    Chinese).
    78. Miles, M., K.H. Park, and D.E. Stilwell, Electrochemical calorimetric evidence for cold
    fusion in the palladium-deuterium system. J. Electroanal. Chem., 1990. 296: p. 241.
    79. Miles, M., et al. Heat and Helium Production in Cold Fusion Experiments. in Second
    Annual Conference on Cold Fusion, "The Science of Cold Fusion". 1991. Como, Italy:
    Societa Italiana di Fisica, Bologna, Italy.
    80. Miles, M., et al., Correlation of excess power and helium production during D2O and
    H2O electrolysis using palladium cathodes. J. Electroanal. Chem., 1993. 346: p. 99.
    81. Miles, M., B.F. Bush, and J.J. Lagowski, Anomalous effects involving excess power,
    radiation, and helium production during D2O electrolysis using palladium cathodes.
    Fusion Technol., 1994. 25: p. 478.
    22
    82. Miles, M., B.F. Bush, and D.E. Stilwell, Calorimetric principles and problems in
    measurements of excess power during Pd-D2O electrolysis. J. Phys. Chem., 1994. 98: p.
    1948.
    83. Miles, M. and B.F. Bush, Heat and Helium Measurements in Deuterated Palladium.
    Trans. Fusion Technol., 1994. 26(4T): p. 156.
    84. Miles, M. and B.F. Bush, Heat and Helium Measurements in Deuterated Palladium.
    Trans. Fusion Technol., 1994. 26(4T): p. 156.
    85. Miles, M., Reply to 'An assessment of claims of excess heat in cold fusion calorimetry'. J.
    Phys. Chem. B, 1998. 102: p. 3648.
    86. Miles, M., Reply to 'Examination of claims of Miles et al. in Pons-Fleischmann-type cold
    fusion experiments'. J. Phys. Chem. B, 1998. 102: p. 3642.
    87. Miles, M., Calorimetric studies of Pd/D2O+LiOD electrolysis cells. J. Electroanal.
    Chem., 2000. 482: p. 56.
    88. Miles, M., M.A. Imam, and M. Fleischmann, Calorimetric analysis of a heavy water
    electrolysis experiment using a Pd-B alloy cathode. Proc. Electrochem. Soc., 2001.
    2001-23: p. 194.
    89. Miles, M., M.A. Imam, and M. Fleischmann, Calorimetric analysis of a heavy water
    electrolysis experiment using a Pd-B alloy cathode. Proc. Electrochem. Soc., 2001.
    2001-23: p. 194.
    90. Miley, G.H., et al., Electrolytic Cell with Multilayer Thin-Film Electrodes. Trans. Fusion
    Technol., 1994. 26(4T): p. 313.
    91. Mills, R.L. and P. Kneizys, Excess heat production by the electrolysis of an aqueous
    potassium carbonate electrolyte and the implications for cold fusion. Fusion Technol.,
    1991. 20: p. 65.
    92. Mills, R.L., Reply to 'Comments on "Excess heat production by the electrolysis of an
    aqueous potassium carbonate electrolyte and the implications for cold fusion"'. Fusion
    Technol., 1992. 21: p. 96.
    93. Mizuno, T., et al., Anomalous heat evolution from a solid-state electrolyte under
    alternating current in high-temperature D2 gas. Fusion Technol., 1996. 29: p. 385.
    94. Mizuno, T., et al., Production of Heat During Plasma Electrolysis. Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. A,
    2000. 39: p. 6055.
    95. Mizuno, T., et al., Hydrogen Evolution by Plasma Electrolysis in Aqueous Solution. Jpn.
    J. Appl. Phys. A, 2005. 44(1A): p. 396-401.
    96. Mosier-Boss, P.A. and S. Szpak, The Pd/(n)H system: transport processes and
    development of thermal instabilities. Nuovo Cimento Soc. Ital. Fis. A, 1999. 112: p. 577.
    97. Nakamura, K., T. Kawase, and I. Ogura, Possibility of element transmutation by arcing in
    water. Kinki Daigaku Genshiryoku Kenkyusho Nenpo, 1996. 33: p. 25 (in Japanese).
    98. Noninski, V.C. and C.I. Noninski, Determination of the excess energy obtained during
    the electrolysis of heavy water. Fusion Technol., 1991. 19: p. 364.
    99. Noninski, V.C., Excess heat during the electrolysis of a light water solution of K2CO3
    with a nickel cathode. Fusion Technol., 1992. 21: p. 163.
    100. Notoya, R., Cold fusion by electrolysis in a light water-potassium carbonate solution
    with a nickel electrode. Fusion Technol., 1993. 24: p. 202.
    101. Notoya, R., Y. Noya, and T. Ohnishi, Tritium generation and large excess heat evolution
    by electrolysis in light and heavy water-potassium carbonate solutions with nickel
    electrodes. Fusion Technol., 1994. 26: p. 179.
    23
    102. Numata, H. and M. Fukuhara, Low-temperature elastic anomalies and heat generation of
    deuterated palladium. Fusion Technol., 1997. 31: p. 300.
    103. Ohmori, T. and M. Enyo, Excess heat evolution during electrolysis of H2O with nickel,
    gold, silver, and tin cathodes. Fusion Technol., 1993. 24: p. 293.
    104. Ohmori, T. and T. Mizuno, Nuclear transmutation occurring in the electrolysis on
    several metal electrodes. Curr. Topics Electrochem., 1997. 5: p. 37.
    105. Ohmori, T., et al., Transmutation in the electrolysis of lightwater - excess energy and
    iron production in a gold electrode. Fusion Technol., 1997. 31: p. 210.
    106. Ohmori, T., et al., Transmutation in a gold-light water electrolysis system. Fusion
    Technol., 1998. 33: p. 367.
    107. Okamoto, M., et al., Excess Heat Generation, Voltage Deviation, and Neutron Emission
    in D2O-LiOD Systems. Trans. Fusion Technol., 1994. 26(4T): p. 176.
    108. Okamoto, M., et al., Excess Heat Generation, Voltage Deviation, and Neutron Emission
    in D2O-LiOD Systems. Trans. Fusion Technol., 1994. 26(4T): p. 176.
    109. Oriani, R.A., et al., Calorimetric measurements of excess power output during the
    cathodic charging of deuterium into palladium. Fusion Technol., 1990. 18: p. 652.
    110. Oriani, R.A., An investigation of anomalous thermal power generation from a protonconducting
    oxide. Fusion Technol., 1996. 30: p. 281.
    111. Ota, K., H. Yoshitake, and N. Kamiya, Present status of cold fusion. Hyomen Kagaku,
    1993. 14(9): p. 570 (in Japanese).
    112. Ota, K. and T. Kobayashi, Cold fusion and calorimetry. Netsu Sokutei, 1997. 24(3): p.
    138 (Japan., Engl. abstr.).
    113. Ota, K., et al., Effect of boron for the heat production during the heavy water electrolysis
    using palladium cathode. Int. J. Soc. Mat. Eng. Resources, 1998. 6(1): p. 26.
    114. Oyama, N., et al., Electrochemical calorimetry of D2O electrolysis using a palladium
    cathode - an undivided, open cell system -. Bull. Chem. Soc. Japan, 1990. 63: p. 2659.
    115. Oyama, N., et al., Probing absorption of deuterium into palladium cathodes during D2O
    electrolysis with an in situ electrochemical microbalance technique. Jpn. J. Appl. Phys.
    Part 2, 1990. 29(5): p. L818.
    116. Oyama, N. and O. Hatozaki, Present and future of cold fusion - nuclear fusion induced by
    electrochemical reaction. Oyo Butsuri, 1991. 60: p. 220 (in Japanese).
    117. Pons, S. and M. Fleischmann, Calorimetric measurements of the palladium/deuterium
    system: fact and fiction. Fusion Technol., 1990. 17: p. 669.
    118. Pons, S. and M. Fleischmann, Etalonnage du systeme Pd-D2O: effets de protocole et
    feed-back positif. ["Calibration of the Pd-D2O system: protocol and positive feed-back
    effects"]. J. Chim. Phys., 1996. 93: p. 711 (in French).
    119. Preparata, G., M. Scorletti, and M. Verpelli, Isoperibolic calorimetry on modified
    Fleischmann-Pons cells. J. Electroanal. Chem., 1996. 411: p. 9.
    120. Ray, M.K.S., et al., The Fleischmann-Pons phenomenon - a different perspective. Fusion
    Technol., 1992. 22: p. 395.
    121. Santhanam, K.S.V., et al., Electrochemically initiated cold fusion of deuterium. Indian J.
    Technol., 1989. 27: p. 175.
    122. Santhanam, K.S.V., et al., Excess enthalpy during electrolysis of D2O. Curr. Sci., 1989.
    58: p. 1139.
    123. Savvatimova, I. and A.B. Karabut, Nuclear reaction products detected at the cathode
    after a glow discharge in deuterium. Poverkhnost, 1996(1): p. 63 (in Russian).
    24
    124. Savvatimova, I. and A.B. Karabut, Radioactivity of palladium cathodes after irradiation
    in a glow discharge. Poverkhnost, 1996(1): p. 76 (in Russian).
    125. Scott, C.D., et al., Measurement of excess heat and apparent coincident increases in the
    neutron and gamma-ray count rates during the electrolysis of heavy water. Fusion
    Technol., 1990. 18: p. 103.
    126. Scott, C.D., et al., Preliminary Investigation of Possible Low-Temperature Fusion. J.
    Fusion Energy, 1990. 9(2): p. 115.
    127. Shirai, O., et al., Some experimental results relating to cold nuclear fusion. Bull. Inst.
    Chem. Res., Kyoto Univ., 1991. 69: p. 550.
    128. Srinivasan, M., Nuclear fusion in an atomic lattice: An update on the international status
    of cold fusion research. Curr. Sci., 1991. 60: p. 417.
    129. Storms, E., Measurements of excess heat from a Pons-Fleischmann-type electrolytic cell
    using palladium sheet. Fusion Technol., 1993. 23: p. 230.
    130. Storms, E., Some Characteristics of Heat Production Using the "Cold Fusion" Effect.
    Trans. Fusion Technol., 1994. 26(4T): p. 96.
    131. Storms, E., How to produce the Pons-Fleischmann effect. Fusion Technol., 1996. 29: p.
    261.
    132. Swartz, M.R., Codeposition of palladium and deuterium. Fusion Technol., 1997. 32: p.
    126.
    133. Swartz, M.R., Consistency of the biphasic nature of excess enthalpy in solid-state
    anomalous phenomena with the quasi-one-dimensional model of isotope loading into a
    material. Fusion Technol., 1997. 31: p. 63.
    134. Szpak, S., et al., Electrochemical charging of Pd rods. J. Electroanal. Chem., 1991. 309:
    p. 273.
    135. Szpak, S., P.A. Mosier-Boss, and J.J. Smith, On the behavior of Pd deposited in the
    presence of evolving deuterium. J. Electroanal. Chem., 1991. 302: p. 255.
    136. Szpak, S., P.A. Mosier-Boss, and S.R. Scharber, Charging of the Pd/(n)H system: role of
    the interphase. J. Electroanal. Chem., 1992. 337: p. 147.
    137. Szpak, S., et al., Cyclic voltammetry of Pd + D codeposition. J. Electroanal. Chem., 1995.
    380: p. 1.
    138. Szpak, S. and P.A. Mosier-Boss, Nuclear and Thermal Events Associated with Pd + D
    Codeposition. J. New Energy, 1996. 1(3): p. 54.
    139. Szpak, S. and P.A. Mosier-Boss, On the behavior of the cathodically polarized Pd/D
    system: a response to Vigier's comments. Phys. Lett. A, 1996. 221: p. 141.
    140. Szpak, S., P.A. Mosier-Boss, and J.J. Smith, On the behavior of the cathodically
    polarized Pd/D system: Search for emanating radiation. Phys. Lett. A, 1996. 210: p. 382.
    141. Szpak, S., et al., On the behavior of the Pd/D system: Evidence for tritium production.
    Fusion Technol., 1998. 33: p. 38.
    142. Szpak, S. and P.A. Mosier-Boss, On the release of n/1H from cathodically polarized
    palladium electrodes. Fusion Technol., 1998. 34: p. 273.
    143. Szpak, S., P.A. Mosier-Boss, and M. Miles, Calorimetry of the Pd+D codeposition.
    Fusion Technol., 1999. 36: p. 234.
    144. Szpak, S., et al., Thermal behavior of polarized Pd/D electrodes prepared by codeposition.
    Thermochim. Acta, 2004. 410: p. 101.
    145. Szpak, S., et al., Evidence of nuclear reactions in the Pd lattice. Naturwiss., 2005. 92(8):
    p. 394-397.
    25
    146. Takahashi, A., et al., Excess heat and nuclear products by D2O/Pd electrolysis and
    multibody fusion. Int. J. Appl. Electromagn. Mater., 1992. 3: p. 221.
    147. Takahashi, A., Cold fusion research: present status. Koon Gakkaishi, 1993. 19(5): p. 179
    (in Japanese).
    148. Takahashi, A., Production of neutron, tritium and excess heat. Oyo Butsuri, 1993. 62: p.
    707 (In Japanese).
    149. Takahashi, A., et al., Experimental study on correlation between excess heat and nuclear
    products by D2O/Pd electrolysis. Int. J. Soc. Mat. Eng. Resources, 1998. 6(1): p. 4.
    150. Velev, O.A. and R.C. Kainthla, Heat flow calorimeter with a personal-computer-based
    data acquisition system. Fusion Technol., 1990. 18: p. 351.
    151. Yun, K.S., et al., Calorimetric observation of heat production during electrolysis of 0.1
    M LiOD + D2O solution. J. Electroanal. Chem., 1991. 306: p. 279.
    152. Zhang, Q., et al., The excess heat experiments on cold fusion in titanium lattice. Chin. J.

  • and for those , not just failing to reproduce, but proposing an explanation in an article that was published (some got published in surprising way, and some were not retracted in surprising way), 4 articles.

    Kirk Shanahan battle to make the 5th published.


    Beaudette summarize the story:

    Unfortunately, physicists did not generally claim expertise in calorimetry, the measurement of calories of heat energy. Nor did they countenance clever chemists declaring hypotheses about nuclear physics. Their outspoken commentary largely ignored the heat measurements along with the offer of an hypothesis about unknown nuclear processes. They did not acquaint themselves with the laboratory procedures that produced anomalous heat data. These attitudes held firm throughout the first decade, causing a sustained controversy.


    The upshot of this conflict was that the scientific community failed to give anomalous heat the evaluation that was its due. Scientists of orthodox views, in the first six years of this episode, produced only four critical reviews of the two chemists’ calorimetry work. The first report came in 1989 (N. S. Lewis). It dismissed the Utah claim for anomalous power on grounds of faulty laboratory technique. A second review was produced in 1991 (W. N. Hansen) that strongly supported the claim. It was based on an independent analysis of cell data that was provided by the two chemists. An extensive review completed in 1992 (R. H. Wilson) was highly critical though not conclusive. But it did recognize the existence of anomalous power, which carried the implication that the Lewis dismissal was mistaken. A fourth review was produced in 1994 (D. R. O. Morrison) which was itself unsatisfactory. It was rebutted strongly to the point of dismissal and correctly in my view. No defense was offered against the rebuttal. During those first six years, the community of orthodox scientists produced no report of a flaw in the heat measurements that was subsequently sustained by other reports.


    The community of scientists at large never saw or knew about this minimalist critique of the claim. It was buried in the avalanche of skepticism that issued forth in the first three months. This skepticism was buttressed by the failure of the two chemists’ nuclear measurements, the lack of a theoretical understanding of how their claim could work, a mistaken concern with the number of failed experiments, a wholly unrealistic expectation of the time and resource the evaluation would need, and the substantial ad hominem attacks on them. However, their original claim of measurement of the anomalous power remained unscathed during all of this furor. A decade later, it was not generally realized that this claim remained essentially unevaluated by the scientific community. Confusion necessarily arose when the skeptics refused without argument to recognize the heat measurement and its corresponding hypothesis of a nuclear source. As a consequence, the story of the excess heat phenomenon has never been told.


    Few people realize how weak is the consensus.

    Consensus exploit mostly failures by people whose competence don't apply (physicists) to the experiment.

    They exploit failures in a reverted Poperian logic.

    They ignore refutation of proposed explanation.

    They ignore the weak number and weak quality of the refutations.

    They ignore reference experimenters who confirmed the results.

    They ignore well known problems experience daily in material science.


    In a way for someone experience in history of science, in epistemology, in semi-conductors, they are incredibly naive and uneducated, and incredibly tolerant with incompetence and fraud when on their side.



    In fact the fallacy at the core of LENR denial is the reverted poperian logic, that things cannot happen if they have no theory.

    If you get that fallacy as true, then LENR was falsified because every theory was refuted, theory that it was easy , that just electrolysis was enough, that it was hot fusion in a jar, and all pet theories,

    This reverted logic is core to today's pathology of science, who prefer unproven coherent theories, refuted numerical models, unrefutable infinitely tunable models, to uncertain experimental results and unexplained anomalies.

    We are back at a dogmatic age.

    Sincerely, Galileo was more respected scientifically than today's experimenters without (official) theory, and got home-arrested only for having insulted the Pope (who did not let his executors burn him)... Today, not only science is politicized, but even when not politic, there is dogma you cannot challenge even with data.


    Even LENR community suffer from that fallacy with pet theory meditations more popular than old experimenters intuitions.

  • @kevm

    Since Alain mentioned me, but seems a bit confused in what he said, let me try to clarify.


    As background, at this point I have published 4 papers relating to CF. The first was about the reanalysis of cold fusion data collected by Dr. Edmund Storms that was posted to the Internet in Feb. 2000. He subsequently presented his interpretation at ICCF8 as showing excess heat. The exciting point in it was that the cathode and anode both were platinum (i.e. no palladium in the system). He obtained excess power signals most of the time when he applied a stepwise increasing to maximum then decreasing to 0 input current. I obtained the data and examined the question of how one could assume there was no excess power actually present, yet obtain the published results. What I found was that a trivial (2-3%) change in calibration constants zeroed out the excess power signals (the maximum size claimed by Storms was 780 mW). My paper was published in 2002. In it I also gave a proposed explanation of what was going on that required no LENRs.


    In 2004 Szpak, Mosier-Boss, Miles, and Fleischmann published a paper claiming what I said was in error and made no sense. I rebutted that in 2005. In 2006, Ed Storms published a Comment on my 2002 paper, and I rebutted that in a paper published immediately following Storms’ paper. In 2009, Jan Marwan and Steven Krivit published a pro-CF article, which I published a Comment on in 2010. A group of 10 CF authors published an attempted rebuttal of my comments/proposals, but they screwed it up so badly it’s embarrassing. However, I was not allowed to publish a reply to their comment. I eventually released a whitepaper that contained what I would have written, plus a comment on the calorimetric method F&P used, plus another manuscript that wasn’t allowed to be published responding to some claims by Kitamura, et al, in Phys. Lett A.


    I have also been active on the Internet ‘promoting’ my views, including trying to edit the Wikipedia page on CF.


    Recently, Krivit misrepresented an email I sent him in answer to a question he asked me. Also, Miles published an article in vol 132 of Infinite Energy, wherein he says he is publishing a paper written primarily by Fleischmann in 2003 but not published because of the Szpak 2004 paper, which is extremely similar. Miles precedes the paper with a 1 page note, claiming that Fleishmann rebutted my work, but I responded in this forum showing that no, he didn’t. In fact he makes the same mistakes that he made in the Szpak 2004 version. See Miles-Fleischmann-Szpak-Mossier-Boss Article in IE132 An interesting side note from the discussion we had (email) was that Miles admitted he has never read my papers. I have to wonder how he can know they are ‘wrong’ when he hasn’t. Storms also recently published a new paper that I comment on here: Edmund Storms publish a paper in "Environmental Science: An Indian Journal" : A New Source of Energy using Low-Energy Fusion of Hydrogen


    Perhaps the easiest thing to do to catch up is just click on my name and get the list of posts I made. There are only 330 or so of them, and they are grouped into just a few threads so it should be easy to ‘catch up’ (compared to Jed, Alain, etc.).


    With respect to excess heat and LENR, I have found no examples of any published calorimetric work that does not have the same basic flaws in it that I noted in my 2002 paper. Therefore, the question of whether excess heat has really been detected or not remains unanswered to this day. The key flaw is that everyone treats the calorimeter/cell as a homogeneous unit when it doesn’t appear to be. This induces an artificial apparent excess power signal via a mathematical problem with how they interpret their temperature data. You can read the original manuscript version of my first paper here: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ShanahanKapossiblec.pdf


    This is a thread that goes into a little detail on these issues as well:

    [Split] Reconsidering F&P with CCS....

    I don’t believe I make any of the mistakes Alain accuses others of, but he seems unable to grasp that. You can read what I write and decide for yourself though.

  • do you believe in the reality of any of the hundreds of reported LENR phenomena at all? Not just Pd/D, but any?


    The problem with answering your question is that the field has become so inclusive of anomalous results that a 'reported LENR phenomena' could be anything. So let me answer you this way - I do not automatically reject LENR claims, but I am very skeptical. This is based on my interaction with the field since 1995. I usually find LTA efforts to define what could be causing the anomalous results, and I usually find aggressively dismissive consideration of skeptical commentary.


    As I've said before, I work with almost all the materials people talk about in the LENR field, and if LENR is true, I need to know. It involves my and my coworkers safety. That's why I studied the F&P-type studies. There was enough crude reproduction of results to suggest something real was going on, and I wanted to know what it might be. I believe I figured it out, but it ain't nuclear, and that has led to mass rejection out-of-hand of my views by those who think it is. That's fine I guess. I just hate it when a newb gets caught up in the fantasy of an free energy world, *and* I am dumb enough to believe scientists try to find the truth, so I keep plugging away. My interactions with the field have gone a long way towards disabusing me of the latter belief in fact.


    Bring me something that shows at least a little reproducibility and I'll look at it...

  • kirkshanahan ,

    I was that newb, and in some regards I still am. But I like to have the critical viewpoint. Some people like to argue, some learn others just believe. I have never seen you insult someone just educate and clarify based on a careful reading of the data. Sometimes the truth can be ugly, but it should be educational.

  • I believe I figured it out, but it ain't nuclear, ....


    Bring me something that shows at least a little reproducibility and I'll look at it...

    There are 153 published peer reviewed replications according to Britz/Jed. It's a good place to start. If you have it figured out then generate a product for us to buy. Even if it is a space heater that is more expensive than using natural gas, it will provoke the next generation to look into it to see if improvements can be made. That seems like such a high duhh factor to me.

  • There are 153 published peer reviewed replications according to Britz/Jed. It's a good place to start. If you have it figured out then generate a product for us to buy. Even if it is a space heater that is more expensive than using natural gas, it will provoke the next generation to look into it to see if improvements can be made. That seems like such a high duhh factor to me.


    Kevin. Kirk's point I believe is that those replications have not proved repeatable and (Kirk claims) many (and the most promising ones) could likely result from a systemic error he has noted that could apply specifically to LENR-type electrochemistry.


    I think you can get the wrong idea here if you see a scientific paper as fact from heaven, rather than as a thing to read, read around all the related work, and only then come to a conclusion as to what it really means. Young doctoral candidates, on their initial literature survey, start with the idea that the headline results in each paper they read mean what they superficially say. Each paper appears to be making some crucial and significant new discovery.


    It is only after reading 50 or so, and comparing what they say with your own understanding, that you start to generate an internal model of what it all means.


    You should view this 150 paper list as a starting point for your own LS here. After having done it you will be in a much better position to decide whether Kirk's point is valid or no, and also (independently) whether this constitutes good evidence of new physics.


    You see the problem here; few (certainly not me) have the patience or time to do this for real. Skimming headlines just does not work - as I can confirm here from having looked at just a very few of these papers. But if you have ever done a scientific or engineering LS you will realise this because it is a general truth.

  • keV


    In order to help you a bit I have looked over the list of 153 references that Jed claims are ‘excess heat papers’.


    First off, out of the 153 papers (you dropped 153 from your post BTW) only 5 were published after my 2002 paper on the systematic calorimetric error I detected, so none of the other 148 papers is likely to have enough information on their method to tell if their calorimetry is correct or not because they weren’t aware of the problem. One of the 5 post-2002 papers is the one by Szpak, et al (ref#144) that I replied to with my second publication in 2005. There I showed that their results were consistent with a CCS being present.


    Since the reception I have received from the CF community has been universally negative, I feel safe in saying that you won’t find any studies to date that contain enough information relevant to the calorimetric method to evaluate the CCS potential. I’d love to be proven wrong on that statement.


    Further, there is a classic problem present in the list, namely the mixing of experimental types, many are not even based in calorimetry. For example, my papers deal specifically with F&P-type electrolysis cells, but this list mixes those in with plasma discharge experiments and arcs in water experiments and possibly others. That is a typical CFer (cold fusion researcher or cold fusion engineer (the last as per Gene Mallove)) illegitimate tactic. The idea that LENRs are present is about the only thing that links these divergent experimental setups, and they shouldn’t be linked like this until they are actually shown separately to have LENRs present. That has not been done.


    The calorimetric experiments in F&P-type cells is the largest block of related experiments, and that is what my papers address. I point out that in all cases known to me the calorimetric method used the lumped parameter approach that is susceptible to the calibration constant shift (CCS) problem I outline in my papers. It is usually impossible to tell if that problem is relevant, since the CFer authors never give sufficient calibration details and results to allow testing its relevance. Miles is about the only author who does anything along these lines in that he often quotes the standard deviation of his determinations of the ‘heat transfer coefficients’ (which are just the calibration constants of his calibration equation). They typically are about 1% relative standard deviations. I found approximately the same was all that was required to zero out Ed Storms’ 780 mW excess heat signals in his data I reanalyzed. In Storms’ ICCF8 paper on that data, he shows calibration constants obtained by two methods, electrolytic heating and Joule heating, and they differ. He also says he gets different electrolytic calibration results over time, which is consistent with Miles.


    So, to eliminate the CCS problem from consideration, a paper should list the calibration equation and specify the variation of the calibration constants over time and/or method and/or anything else that might be relevant. This is universally missing to my knowledge. If they don’t give that info, you can’t tell if their excess heat signals are real or an artifact of the math.


    Note that I agree that there is something going on in F&P cells. I proposed a non-nuclear mechanism for what it could be. That has been was attacked by Storms in 2006, but I rebutted his points. The Szpak, et al derogatory comments were non-specific or irrelevant, as were the ones in the Fleischmann version published by Miles in Infinite Energy vol. 132 (2017). I responded to Szpak, et al in 2005, and posted a few comments here about the recent Miles IE132 publication. The upshot is that they don’t rebut my ATER/CCS mechanism.


    The other 4 post-2002 papers are Ararta, ref 19; Li, ref 64; Mizuno, ref 95; and Szpak, ref 145. The Arata paper is on the Pd/ZrO2 system, which was replicated by Kitamura, et al, in Phys Lett A, 373 (2009) 3109. That paper was one I attempted to rebut, since it had enough details presented to be able to analyze them, but was not allowed to publish. The manuscript for that rebuttal is in the whitepaper I have previously mentioned. (The whitepaper is supposed to be here: https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B3d7yWtb1doPc3otVGFUNDZKUDQ) My thesis there is that the observations are consistent with known Pd/Zr/ZrO2/H2 chemistry. That would apply to Arata’s paper as well, if enough information had been presented to do so. The Li, et al paper is on D2 permeation through a Pd tube and gives nothing but a single figure claiming abnormal heat flow observation. No details at all to allow one to assess errors, plus it isn’t an F&P-type electrolysis. The Mizuno paper is on plasma electrolysis with a W cathode, also not an F&P type cell. The Szpak 2005 paper seems to have no information in it regarding excess heat except a mention of ‘hot spots’, so I fail to see why it is on the list at all. It only presents SEM/EDX data.

  • Quote

    You can read the original manuscript version of my first paper here (Possible Calorimetric Error in Heavy Water Electrolysis on Platinum).


    Results with palladium are way more reliable. In addition, you cannot fake the thermal artifacts chemically. Bellow is Fleischmann-Pons electrolytic cell ruined and partially molten by heat evolved during thermal runaway, despite it's electrodes are made of massive palladium rod.


    byC1oh6.jpg

  •   

  • An interesting side note from the discussion we had (email) was that Miles admitted he has never read my papers. I have to wonder how he can know they are ‘wrong’ when he hasn’t.

    Interestingly enough, I believe it was hyper-critical Jones who said the same thing about LENR papers.


    I would encourage you to collect all these incidents and papers into one website where people can go to get their own information. I had my own run-in with Ed Storms. What I would like to see is a relatively lightly refereed forum where guys like you and Ed go at it and we can all see for ourselves who gives the most scientific answers. I suggested the same thing to Ed when he was badmouthing Y.E. Kim but it was Kim who backed away from engaging, to my surprise.

  • What I would like to see is a relatively lightly refereed forum where guys like you and Ed go at it and we can all see for ourselves who gives the most scientific answers


    The fallacy in this otherwise excellent suggestion is the 'relatively lightly refereed' part. As soon as anybody who is clearly identifiable as part of the 'old guard' starts posting publicly the abuse begins. Jed has suffered such abuse for years- but he is a feisty beggar and can look after himself. Don't hold your breath waiting for many others to join such an argument- they have done it a hundred times before without any result.


    I think there is a huge tendency to spend far too much time and energy picking over the 28 year old bones of Pons and Fleischman's work to the huge detriment of current work in the field. it's 2017, time to wake up and smell the coffee instead of bickering over theory . Pd-D has been a great experimental tool, for sure - but it will never sort out the problems we currently face - and neither will hot fusion. What the field needs is a concerted effort to do what Rossi has done (or attempted - for the purposes of this discussion it is irrelevant). Cute experiments are all very well, but they butter no toast. Someone with the resources and the intellectual wherewithal needs to pick up the LENR ball and run with it. The money can be found, the arguments overcome, the legacy systems (the grid for example) protected for long enough for present investors to exit gracefully. There are billions of dollars to be lost, but trillions to be gained.


    End of rant. 8) Alan

  • Quote

    Pd-D has been a great experimental tool, for sure - but it will never sort out the problems we currently face - and neither will hot fusion


    Yep, due to high price of palladium this reaction cannot serve as an economically feasible source of energy by now. But the modern scientists don't care if something is usefull or not until their money are going and from the same reason they also don't research anything, until they're not perfectly sure by its reproducibility (so that they can see the perspective of future grants) . From this perspective the palladium-deuterium fusion is still one of model examples worth of renewal of interest about cold fusion in mainstream physics.


  • LS = Literature Survey. Apologies, i was careless in forgetting that would not be widely known.


    Otherwise there is little in your comments above I need to answer. To summarise:

    • You judge number of papers without looking at the strength of the evidence in the papers and putting this into context
    • You judge contrary evidence again on basis of number of papers
    • My point is that content not numbers are the point here

    You say that even one paper (Dolly) is enough. That is true, when the evidence, a living breathing sheep, is strong and can be determined without a scientific paper. And the work on Dolly has been used in 100s of other experiments with success.


    You ask why KS 5th paper was not published? Possibly because mainstream editors felt that the to and fro wrangle was highly uninteresting because the original papers are generally thought to have no merit. Hence Shanahan's claim to have shown why they have no merit is not something of much use to anyone (except the few who believe differently, and they were not interested in Shanahan's points).


    You ask (I think) why are there not 150 rebuttal papers? Surely that is obvious. This is a phenomena that is broadly viewed as experimental error with unconvincing and incoherent results. The set of papers with coherent results KS shows could be something mundane - but most people don't bother because the effect is so low when if nuclear it would be expected to be easy to get it much higher and easily measurable. The papers showing excess heat are viewed as unconvincing. Writing a refutation is both something few people want to do (what is the point) and something few people want to publish (it makes no contribution, rebutting something not generally accepted is a particularly pointless thing to do).

  • Quote

    What the field needs is a concerted effort to do what Rossi has done (or attempted


    Rossi did nothing other than to scam Focardi, possibly Levi (unless Levi is an accomplice) and some mediocre Swedish scientists, and a couple of investment trusts with more cash than brains. You want a concerted effort to do more of THAT? How about a concerted effort to conduct properly designed, controlled and calibrated studies performed by credible entities such as government labs (Sandia et. al.)?

    • You judge number of papers without looking at the strength of the evidence in the papers and putting this into context

    The context is that these are the first hundred or so replications of the effect, and that Jed calls some of them the "who's who of electrochemistry".

    • You judge contrary evidence again on basis of number of papers

    Yes, on first pass.   And on 2nd pass, reputation of the authors, and 3rd pass how significant the science investigation is.       



    • My point is that content not numbers are the point here

    I agree, but since I didn't go much into the content, you're engaging in a straw argument.

    You're not getting the point. No one cares about a refutation, but Shanahan claims to know why these experimentalists see such high COP in their cells. If it's purely chemical and can generate an appearance of a COP>6, it would make a fantastic new addition to our energy ecosystem. If what he's saying is true, he is sitting on a gold mine.

  • What the field needs is a concerted effort to do what Rossi has done (or attempted - for the purposes of this discussion it is irrelevant).

    I see MaryYugo answered your suggestion with his standard anti-LENR jargon. MFMP is trying to do what you say but they lack resources.

  • The context is that these are the first hundred or so replications of the effect, and that Jed calls some of them the "who's who of electrochemistry".

    I agree, but since I didn't go much into the content, you're engaging in a straw argument.

    You're not getting the point. No one cares about a refutation, but Shanahan claims to know why these experimentalists see such high COP in their cells. If it's purely chemical and can generate an appearance of a COP>6, it would make a fantastic new addition to our energy ecosystem. If what he's saying is true, he is sitting on a gold mine.


    You need more care with this one. The experiments Shanahan critiques are the (better quality ones) with COP = 1.2 or so. No goldmine. And his point is that this apparent COP is not in fact real, but a calorimetry artifact.


    The high COP results I've looked at are all flaky - based on assumptions, non-equilibrium systems not properly characterised, boil-offs again not fully characterised, one-off results never replicated even when this is attempted by the groups who generated them, etc. Fleishmann has contributed to these, and if you reckon his eminence as an electrochemist means you should believe his results (as many people did initially when the CF debacle was prematurely announced) there is your goldmine. But, since then, no-one has been able to locate the gold though many have tried. What does remain is some interesting anomalies that look above chemical level. Shanahan claims to have explained some (perhaps all) of these. The ones he does not cover would be flakier experiments where the headline results cannot be properly justified, due to lack of control.


    Now, maybe he is right, or maybe not. But his work has not been properly considered by the LENR advocates whose papers it addresses, nor by subsequent work in the field. That, to me, is a shame.

  • Fascinating insight into the sociology of science whereby a group that works on LENR anomolies claims they are being ignored/ostracized by the main stream, and there is probably some truth in this, but then when a critic appears the LENR group ignores/ostracizes that critic.

    So is LENR real or not?

    There are over 150 papers.

    But numbers and effort do not necessarily amount to anything.

    How many smart people wasted their lives trying to turn lead into gold?

    Reminds me of the old saying eat cow poop 100 billion flies can't be wrong.

  • I agree that Shanahan and his opponents seem to be talking past one another and that some of his claims have probably been mischaracterized. But having dug into one of his proposed alternative explanations sometime back, it felt to me all at once implausible, difficult to pin down and difficult or impossible to falsify. I don't think that researchers working on a shoestring can be faulted for neglecting claims that seem to them improbable, roughly akin to "what you see is real but just a misinterpretation of the data," a suggestion that requires a lot of bending over backwards to stay onboard with under scrutiny. Kirk's claims are difficult to pin down because he will often quibble with and dispute whatever restatement one attempts.


    Even if Kirk is addressing claims of experimental phenomena that many people would find suspect or even tendentious, that does not make his own ambitious counterarguments more compelling as a result. His critiques are something that some enterprising researcher who finds them interesting should pick up and look into experimentally. But simply in virtue of being critiques that are out there they do not impose a general obligation on researchers to put time into investigating and rebutting.


    That said, I do like a few things that Kirk has brought up. The analysis of magnitude of errors is quite interesting. (I forget what he called this.) The point about putative excess energy being a small fraction of input energy in many cases is very important and worth really thinking about. A consequence is that there are some instances where a small modification of an important calorimetric equation will null out an excess heat results. What is wanted, then, is a signal that is too far above the baseline to raise questions about being an artifact of some small but defensible adjustment of an equation. (I recall there being such cases.)

  • I agree that Shanahan and his opponents seem to be talking past one another and that some of his claims have probably been mischaracterized. But having dug into one of his proposed alternative explanations sometime back, it felt to me all at once implausible, difficult to pin down and difficult or impossible to falsify. I don't think that researchers working on a shoestring can be faulted for neglecting claims that seem to them improbable, roughly akin to "what you see is real but just a misinterpretation of the data," a suggestion that requires a lot of bending over backwards to stay onboard with under scrutiny. Kirk's claims are difficult to pin down because he will often quibble with and dispute whatever restatement one attempts.


    Even if Kirk is addressing claims of experimental phenomena that many people would find suspect or even tendentious, that does not make his own ambitious counterarguments more compelling as a result. His critiques are something that some enterprising researcher who finds them interesting should pick up and look into experimentally. But simply in virtue of being critiques that are out there they do not impose an obligation on all LENR researchers to put time into investigating and rebutting.


    That said, I do like a few things that Kirk has brought up. The analysis of magnitude of errors is quite interesting. (I forget what he called this.) The point about putative excess energy being a small fraction of input energy in many cases is very important and worth really thinking about. A consequence is that there are some instances where a small modification of an important calorimetric equation will null out an excess heat results. What is wanted, then, is a signal that is too far above the baseline to raise questions about being an artifact of some small but defensible adjustment of an equation. (I recall there being such cases.)


    So: I'd broadly agree, but with a few additions.


    Any researcher claiming anomalous heat from an experiment that could be affected by Shanahan's issue really must address it for their work to be taken seriously. In some cases it will be easy to bound Shanahan's putative effect. If that cannot be done, the fact that it looks in some nebulous way unlikely, and is difficult to disprove, does not help us, since LENR is the same. But Shanahan's criticisms can be quantified and avoided with a bit of effort, so unlike LENR they can be positively disproved in a specific experiment.


    Shanahan's point is really quite simple, and reasonable:


    (1) a change in cell temperature gradients during active electrolysis compared with control will result in cal errors that even if small get amplified by the ratio between overall power in, and size of claimed anomalous effect. This potential error must be bounded

    (2) One possible mechanism for this is ATER, which in the case of: closed cells, recombiner at top of cell, heat losses higher at top of cell, would systematically result in false positives from systems in which ATER occured (it is generally expected by electrochemists not to occur).


    Note that (1) is more general than (2) but without (2) (1) is a good deal more nebulous.


    Similarly, any researcher claiming old papers that show excess heat as evidence should be aware of this potential explanation and either hold it open as a mundane explanation of the anomaly or note that it could not apply. There are a number of experiments it cannot apply to - but I believe those are ones that for a variety of other reasons are less convincing. I may be wrong here. But the very tightly controlled closed cell electrolysis experiments looked the best to me, and those are the ones that Shanahan's idea most directly could affect.


    Until LENR has a clear predictive theory, or has clearly replicable evidence, it must be viewed as extraordinary which means to claim it properly requires very careful attention to any possible systematic error.


    I'd expect if Shanahan's ideas were taken into account that a number of old electrolysis experiments would be seen as unsafe. In which case all the arguments about what is the evidence for LENR could be reframed in terms of the other positive evidence. this process of self-criticism would be to the credit of those working in the field. New experiments, such as the Austin ones, would be conducted in a way guaranteed to be safer. Of course, that may happen anyway, i don't know. But the way Shanahan's ideas have been dismissed (on incomplete argument) rather than examined and considered makes this uncertain.