How many times has the Pons-Fleischmann Anomalous Heating Event been replicated in peer reviewed journals?

  • Science moves forward when a scientist tries to prove something was wrong and fails.


    No. Absolutely not. Failure may teach a scientist something true. But science moves forwards based on positive results. Defining something so well it can be reproduced in detail at will by those skilled in the art.


    As I said before, if you fail to prove something, you just did it wrong. At last that's what can always be said....

  • No. Absolutely not. Failure may teach a scientist something true. But science moves forwards based on positive results. Defining something so well it can be reproduced in detail at will by those skilled in the art.


    As I said before, if you fail to prove something, you just did it wrong. At last that's what can always be said....

    Science moves forward on failures just as well as it does on successes, but someone's career might not move forward if they only generate failures. Notice how you say "No. Absolutely not" but then you practically agree with what was said. This is yet another example of why you have been ignored in this field.

  • Yet we need every single possible error to be proven wrong before we have a genuine LENR-capable anomaly.

    Nope. You have that backwards. All you have to do is show one major error in an experiment, and in most cases that cancels out the entire result. For example, you show that the flow rate was measured wrong in a flow-calorimetry experiment. I have done this, in flow calorimetry with both water and air. I shot down results from 5 or 10 experiments by doing this. The other parameters were measured correctly, but the results were wrong.


    (These experiments were never published, because they were wrong. They were abandoned.)

    In any case your proofs here are assertion. Let us take a very simple case. Morrison suggested the high boil-off phase COP from the classic F&P paper from simplicity through complications.... might be due to liquid entrainment. You will have read MF's answer and think that this disproves that possibility. Yet it does not.

    I think you are flat out wrong about that. Fleischmann demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that there was no entrainment. I gave the reasons elsewhere. I shall take the trouble to repeat them. I suggest you address them.


    Fleischmann’s methods of ensuring there was no entrainment included:


    1. Close attention to cell geometry. There is a small, narrow orifice well above the highest point the boiling water bubbles reach, as you see in the video.


    2. Null runs with Pt-H and electrolysis power driving the boiling. There is no excess heat and only a small deficit from heat losses unaccounted for. If entrained water left the cell there would be an apparent positive balance of excess heat. It is not plausible that the choice of Pd and heavy water turned on entrainment but other metals and ordinary water turned it off.


    3. There were null runs even with Pd-D. That is, no heat before or after the boil off, the same as Pt-H. There was no excess heat during the boil-off in these instances. In other words, there was no entrainment error with Pt-H, Pt-D or with Pd-D that did not produce heat in the other phases. Why would the entrainment error correlate with apparent excess heat in the other phases?


    4. They looked for droplets of electrolyte around the cells.


    5. Most important, after the tests they inventoried the lithium salts remaining in the cell by various methods, including rinsing the cell repeatedly and evaporating the water. The amount of salt recovered was very close to the amount added initially, so no salts left the cell in entrained water. There was a little salt embedded in the glass which they could not wash out. I think they said the glass was discolored by it, which is how they could tell.


    Those are physical reasons why you are wrong, which you can confirm in the papers. Moving on to methodological reasons -- the hypothesis that there was no excess heat during the boil-off phase makes no sense, because there was abundant proof of excess heat for weeks before the boil-off (phase 1), and for hours after it (phase 3). Why would the excess heat stop for 10 minutes (phase 2) and then start up again? The calorimetry used in phase 1 and phase 3 is quite different. Entrainment could not explain it. To make a reasonable, believable case, you have to show mistakes in all 3 phases, and they have to be different mistakes.

  • Fleischmann demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that there was no entrainment


    A.) reference please.


    B.) Fleischmann was co-author of a paper in Thermochimica Acta in 2004 with S. Szpak, P. Mosier-Boss, and M. Miles. This is the very paper that Mel Miles comments on in Infinite Energy issue #132, where he presents a paper that Fleischmann would have preferred to publish instead of what Szpak apparently beat him to publishing. They claimed in TA, 2004 to have measured recombination by collecting water. They reported an excess of 6.5% by volume. As I pointed out in this forum, that number is low if my CCS/ATER proposition is true, since there would have to have been some LOSS in water for recombination to be occurring. Yet they saw an EXCESS. That means there really was probably about a 10% excess. When my comment on the TA2004 paper was submitted, the reviewers just said this measurement was 'in the noise'. If that is so, they how could they distinguish a 1% effect given a 10% error margin? They couldn't is the answer.


    But more importantly, where did this excess water come from, if not entrainment? Does CF create water out of nothing too?

  • Hot fusion skeptics who rarely if ever use calorimetry in their physics profession failed to replicate P&F. They proceeded from that to say that it was proof that LENR wasn't real.

    Actually, to be a little more historically accurate, they did not try to replicate P&F. They tried to replicate one aspect of P&F, which unfortunately, P&F themselves got wrong. What they did in most cases was: set up an electrochemical cell with a palladium cathode and heavy water, and then look for neutrons. They did not look for excess heat, and they did not measure some critical parameters such as loading.


    P&F reported neutrons, but most people soon concluded that part of their paper was wrong. Fleischmann himself thought it was a mistake. He told me that in person, at MIT.


    Excess heat is the most critical parameter. It is the "principal signature of the reaction" as Fleischmann put it. If you don't see excess heat, you don't have cold fusion, so there is no point to looking for anything else. It is like fishing in a dry hole, as Ikegami put it.


    The other mistake made by many hot fusion and high energy physicists was to do the experiment without consulting with electrochemists. They made many mistakes. Enough to eliminate any chance of success. As I put it, they were trying to tune a piano with sledge hammer. See p. 11:


    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJlessonsfro.pdf


    Electrochemists who reviewed other experiments discovered similar errors, such as confusing the anode and the cathode.


    I suppose that if a group of electrochemists were to try to build a Tokomak plasma fusion reactor without consulting with plasma physicists, they would make similar mistakes.

  • A.) reference please.

    Fleischmann, M. and S. Pons, Calorimetry of the Pd-D2O system: from simplicity via complications to simplicity. Phys. Lett. A, 1993. 176: p. 118


    Morrison, D.R.O., Comments on claims of excess enthalpy by Fleischmann and Pons using simple cells made to boil. Phys. Lett. A, 1994. 185: p. 498


    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. 276Y


    Pons, S. and M. Fleischmann. Heat After Death. in Fourth International Conference on Cold Fusion. 1993. Lahaina, Maui: Electric Power Research Institute 3412 Hillview Ave., Palo Alto, CA 94304


    But more importantly, where did this excess water come from, if not entrainment?

    There is no excess water. The amount that leaves the cell is exactly the same as added to it.


    In null a boil-off test driven only by electrolysis, such as a test with Pt-H, a little water is left in the cell below the anode-cathode. This is because the moment the electrolyte drops below the anode and cathode, the power is cut off, and heat production stops. Boiling stops, and the temperature drops immediately and monotonically according to Newton's law of cooling. A little water usually remains in the bottom of the cell.


    When there is excess heat, the cell remains hot even after the power is cut off, so the remaining water boils away. There is only hot vapor in the cell. The Kel-F plastic holding the anode and cathode often melt. This never happens in a null test. Also, the cell does not cool down. On the contrary, it usually gets hotter, and sometimes even hotter hours later. This is additional proof of excess heat, rather than only heat from electrolysis. ("Excess" means in addition to the heat from electrolysis. It might be excess heat from chemistry, but there is no chemical fuel, and no chemical changes are observed, so it ain't.)

  • P&F reported neutrons, but most people soon concluded that part of their paper was wrong.


    Basically, that was where they screwed the pooch. They could have gotten away with science-by-press release, and all the other mistakes. But they trampled onto the hot fusion boys' territory and that was where they were blown out of the water politically.


    Imagine if they had ignored the neutrons and said something to the effect that they think it's a super-chemical reaction unseen before and they could use the help of their nukular physicist brethren to rule out a couple of things.

  • LENR makes no hard predictions that can be refuted - therefore it cannot be disproved.

    What a thing to say! How absurd. Of course it makes hard predictions, and of course they can be refuted. I have refuted dozens of them, and disproved many experiments. (Mainly fifth rate ones, mainly done by me.)


    Here is the best known prediction: If you manage to load a Pd-D cathode above a certain level, and maintain current density at a certain level according to McKubre's equation, it is likely the cathode will produce excess heat. At a very high level, it is almost certain to produce excess heat. See Fig. 1 here:


    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHcoldfusionb.pdf


    The exact set of parameters you must meet are listed in McKubre's equation.


    Here is another: If a cell is producing excess heat, you can probably boost the power level by quickly raising the cell temperature. You can raise the temperature by various methods such as electrolysis, joule heating or a laser. It usually boosts output.


    Here is how you disprove these predictions:


    Show that there was no heat in the experiments by McKubre, the ENEA and the others he cites. As I said, you show an error. One error will usually clobber the whole experiment. Show that that flow rate was wrong, for example. That is the most likely problem with flow calorimetry, in my experience. The temperature measurements are usually right, but that does no good because the results go down the tubes anyway.


    Good luck trying to prove that McKubre's flow measurements are wrong! They are described in detail, so have at it:


    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHisothermala.pdf


    When there is a mistake, you usually find there is both excess heat and "excess cold." That is, the cell will as likely appear to be swallowing up heat as producing it. This is impossible. Look for that: it is a good tell-tale starting point. During a lecture, Fleischmann rather famously showed this was happening in one of the early negative experiments that supposedly disproved cold fusion. In that case, the researchers did measure the heat. He graphed their data and showed the heat appeared to be vanishing, so obviously their calorimetry was wrong. I don't recall the reason, but he described it in detail.


    You yourself took a crack at showing an entrainment error in the boil off phase of Fleischmann's experiment. You have the right idea. That is the sort of thing that can go wrong. However, in my opinion, you failed to show an error. In fact, I do not see where you gave any reasons at all why there might be such an error, other than "I suppose." But keep trying! That is the only way you -- or any one else -- can disprove cold fusion. It is experimental science, not theory. You will never find one mistake or one overarching factor that cancels out all evidence. You have to wade in and deal with details. Detail after detail after detail. Even if you clobber McKubre's flow measurement technique, that leaves dozens of other flow measurements by Storms (rather similar!) and by many others (completely different), and you have show that every one of them was wrong, or that something else went wrong.


  • IO,


    I'm with the LENR is real crowd, but will break ranks just to say your post was funny. I sometimes wonder, and maybe you can take a wag at it: Say we take 100 of the worlds 8,000 Electrochemists, give them a standard resistance heater. Lie and tell them it is a special heater, that may go nuclear on them. Have them run it for a year or two, measuring every conceivable parameter, then make a report.


    Would you expect some to report seeing excess heat, or radiation, or Tritium, He, HAD, or even have a few blow up, along with the occasional melt down?

  • IO,


    I'm with the LENR is real crowd, but will break ranks just to say your post was funny. I sometimes wonder, and maybe you can take a wag at it: Say we take 100 of the worlds 8,000 Electrochemists, give them a standard resistance heater. Lie and tell them it is a special heater, that may go nuclear on them. Have them run it for a year or two, measuring every conceivable parameter, then make a report.


    Would you expect some to report seeing excess heat, or radiation, or Tritium, He, HAD, or even have a few blow up, along with the occasional melt down?

    I doubt you can make it into becoming one of the top hundred electrochemists by reporting ridiculous results. But we might actually get to the bottom of how much Helium gets trapped in a cell, so it might be a worthwhile experiment.


    The simple fact is, running an experiment like that for a year or two would be very expensive and you probably couldn't keep up the lie after a while. It's better to just explain that it's a double blind experiment and there's a possibility they could be looking at the control or the actual subject.

  • I doubt you can make it into becoming one of the top hundred electrochemists by reporting ridiculous results. But we might actually get to the bottom of how much Helium gets trapped in a cell, so it might be a worthwhile experiment.


    The simple fact is, running an experiment like that for a year or two would be very expensive and you probably couldn't keep up the lie after a while. It's better to just explain that it's a double blind experiment and there's a possibility they could be looking at the control or the actual subject.


    Price, nor the lie is important, since this is a hypothetical. But your point about "double blind" is good, so let us say that. Take 100 control electrochemists and give them a regular heater, but tell them it is a special heater. Take another 100 and tell them the truth...that it is a regular heater. Let both groups run the tests for 2 years, and see what they report.

  • Price, nor the lie is important, since this is a hypothetical. But your point about "double blind" is good, so let us say that. Take 100 control electrochemists and give them a regular heater, but tell them it is a special heater. Take another 100 and tell them the truth...that it is a regular heater. Let both groups run the tests for 2 years, and see what they report.

    You're sorta exposing 2 separate parameters. In a double blind experiment, neither the electrochemists nor the test administrators would know which cells are which. By telling some and not others, you're introducing an expectation variable, which is what I suspect you actually want to look at.


    It reminds me of an ancient chinese story about the emperor giving a hundred of the smartest kids in the empire a gift of a bean seed in a pot. Only one kid reported back to the emperor that he couldn't grow a bean or anything. It turned out that all the plants were sterilized, and all the 99 other kids reported results they thought were expected. The 1 true honest kid became the emperor.

  • I sometimes wonder, and maybe you can take a wag at it: Say we take 100 of the worlds 8,000 Electrochemists, give them a standard resistance heater. Lie and tell them it is a special heater, that may go nuclear on them. Have them run it for a year or two, measuring every conceivable parameter, then make a report.


    Something similar has been done, many times. We know the results. Many researchers went for months or years running Pd-D experiments that did not work. Miles and Storms are good examples. Storms tested ~100 cathodes and found 4 that worked. That took a year or two.


    None of the researchers who went through long dry spells with no heat reported anything else unusual in those failed experiments.


    There have also been single blind experiments. Not double blind, but single. The best example was the mass spectroscopy portion of Miles' experiments. He knew which cathodes produced excess heat. He sent samples of the gas to three different mass spec. labs, with random numbers encoding the sample. So, he knew but they did not. They measured the helium and reported it back to him. He also sent blanks such as flasks for room air. The results were:


    All three labs reported the same levels of helium.


    Samples that produced excess heat had higher levels of helium, proportional to the heat, at a rate of 24 MeV.


    The helium was not correlated with heat, because some of the blank cells ran hotter with higher electrolysis power than the ones that produced excess heat.


    The helium was not correlated with anything else, other than excess heat.


    See:


    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MilesManomalousea.pdf

  • I don't understand your explanations of the results. I'm having trouble downloading the file, maybe I'll get it later.

  • I don't understand your explanations of the results. I'm having trouble downloading the file, maybe I'll get it later.


    If you still don't get what I meant, I can try rephrasing later. PLEASE let me know if you continue to have trouble downloading. Try downloading any other paper. Display some pages from LENR-CANR.org. If an error message appears, let me know what it is. My ISP once shut down a whole geographic area for a month by accident.


    Contact me by e-mail. The address is at LENR-CANR.org

  • No problems accessing the site, individual pages, or downloading papers, for example the Nagel paper under recents.

    Accessed from SoCal. If you need a major city or a country tested, let me know and I can probably do it via VPN. Might take some time before I can get to it.

  • Quote
    THH: Yet we need every single possible error to be proven wrong before we have a genuine LENR-capable anomaly.

    Jed: Nope. You have that backwards. All you have to do is show one major error in an experiment, and in most cases that cancels out the entire result. For example, you show that the flow rate was measured wrong in a flow-calorimetry experiment. I have done this, in flow calorimetry with both water and air. I shot down results from 5 or 10 experiments by doing this. The other parameters were measured correctly, but the results were wrong.


    I think you misread what I said, which is identical to what you say.


    Here is the best known prediction: If you manage to load a Pd-D cathode above a certain level, and maintain current density at a certain level according to McKubre's equation, it is likely the cathode will produce excess heat. At a very high level, it is almost certain to produce excess heat. See Fig. 1 here:


    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHcoldfusionb.pdf



    The exact set of parameters you must meet are listed in McKubre's equation.


    Here is another: If a cell is producing excess heat, you can probably boost the power level by quickly raising the cell temperature. You can raise the temperature by various methods such as electrolysis, joule heating or a laser. It usually boosts output.


    That is interesting and would indeed be very helpful providing:

    (1) All the conditions necessary are testable - e.g. you can check you have got them right independent of the experimental result

    (2) The amount of excess heat is quantifiable at some minimum level: thus you can set up an experiment where the predicted excess is guaranteed to be larger than the errors and any mundane mechanisms.


    Note that stochastic predictions are Ok providing that quantified lower bounds can be put on the probability expected for an effect to manifest. this, again, allows the hypothesis to be disproved. But "probably" does not quantify.


    I would even go so far as to suggest that such a prescription, precisely written up as a challenge to the science establishment, would have significant PR value. IH might juts possibly be persuaded to fund such a "prove LENR correct at scientific level" experiment.


    The paper you have cited does not close these gaps. While it gives necessary conditions, it does not give sufficient ones in the form of (1) (2) above.


    THH

  • Jed said:

    Storms tested ~100 cathodes and found 4 that worked. That took a year or two.


    None of the researchers who went through long dry spells with no heat reported anything else unusual in those failed experiments.


    There have also been single blind experiments. Not double blind, but single. The best example was the mass spectroscopy portion of Miles' experiments. He knew which cathodes produced excess heat. He sent samples of the gas to three different mass spec. labs, with random numbers encoding the sample. So, he knew but they did not. They measured the helium and reported it back to him. He also sent blanks such as flasks for room air. The results were:


    All three labs reported the same levels of helium.


    Samples that produced excess heat had higher levels of helium, proportional to the heat, at a rate of 24 MeV.


    The helium was not correlated with heat, because some of the blank cells ran hotter with higher electrolysis power than the ones that produced excess heat.


    The helium was not correlated with anything else, other than excess heat.


    See:


    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MilesManomalousea.pdf



    I, with Shane, find these observations highly interesting. Unlike Shane I'd add the following analysis:


    • The specific electrodes work, others don't is compatible with CCS/ATER, as it is with LENR.


    • The He results are interesting and if confirmed would (for me) push probabilities towards D+D-> He fusion occurring at rates much higher than normal expectations would suggest (and therefore definite proof of what is popularly known as LENR). However the available information is not convincing (to me) yet:


    1. He correlated with heat would be expected from atmospheric contamination where (a) both excess heat and He are correlated with time and (b) excess heat could be related to specific physical conditions in the electrolysis cell that promote ingress of atmospheric air
    2. checking atmosphere for He levels does not help (alone) since the nature of many lab environments is that you get sporadic high levels of He which over time average to a level well above the modal value (which is what would typically be tested). However it would be possible to do this experiment well away from any lab that uses He, removing this issue, or to do the experiment under slightly positive pressure from a known He-free source.
    3. The results are at the marginal level which makes such questions relevant.
    4. At the low levels seen here there is the possibility of He outgassing from the electrodes which could again plausibly be linked to ATER electrode activity. I'd hope this could be bounded well below the results.



    These observations seem interesting enough that I applaud Abd's Austin experiment to recheck this: this experiment does come close, if carefully done, to testing a specific prediction. The team there seem to have gone dark (indeed I know nothing about what they are doing). If Jed is correct however their results will be overwhelmingly positive. I'll await their considered publication with great interest. But, ATM on balance I think it likely they will have a null/inconclusive result. Jed's point that only 4 out of 100 electrodes actually work is not encouraging and with that low a success rate, unless the working electrode can be reused over multiple experiments, there must be questions of one-off experimental mistake.

  • kirkshanahan wrote: “reference please.” in reference to this statement by JedR: “Fleischmann demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that there was no entrainment”


    In reply, JedRothwell wrote:


    Fleischmann, M. and S. Pons, Calorimetry of the Pd-D2O system: from simplicity via complications to simplicity. Phys. Lett. A, 1993. 176: p. 118


    Morrison, D.R.O., Comments on claims of excess enthalpy by Fleischmann and Pons using simple cells made to boil. Phys. Lett. A, 1994. 185: p. 498


    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. 276Y


    Pons, S. and M. Fleischmann. Heat After Death. in Fourth International Conference on Cold Fusion. 1993. Lahaina, Maui: Electric Power Research Institute 3412 Hillview Ave., Palo Alto, CA 94304



    Responding to that:


    The first paper does not mention “entrainment”, “entrain”, and all refs to “water” are NOT to volume measurements. Therefore this paper is irrelevant to the specific question.


    Morrison’s Comment, and F&P’s replay were covered in a recent link posted by Jed (as I recall). The link is: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanreplytothe.pdf


    In that copy of the Comment and Reply, Morrison makes the claim that Li has been found in the gas vent line, which indicates that the electrolyte has reached this point by some method, for example by entrainment or splashing (a variant of entrainment actually, but could be considered to be sporadic). In their reply, F&P also mention foaming, which plays a crucial part in their claims of heat-after-death events in their original paper. (This is the ‘100W for several days’ claim originally made by Jed and not supported by this paper.) F&P also state in their reply that the titrated the lithium deuteroxide and found 95% of the expected amount (i.e. they lost 5%, which delimits an approximate error size). They also mention potential reaction of Li ions with the glass equipment (which is potentially true). As well, they claim they kept track of water consumption and it *exactly* matched the predicted consumption from evaporation and electrolysis.


    The point is that ALL of these mentions use NO NUMBERS. In other words, they are all ‘hand-waving’ assertions on the part of F&P.

    But we do have a case where they actually DO use numbers. Well F at least. In the 2004 paper in Thermochimica Acta (TA 410 (2004) 101) that I have referred to several times now, Fleischmann, Szpak, Miles, and Mosier-Boss report:


    “In this experiment, the total consumption of D2O was 7.7 cm3 instead of 7.2 cm3, assuming 100% Faradaic efficiency, which is within experimental error.”


    I commented on this in my 2005 Comment on that paper (TA 428 (2005) 207), quoting:


    “SMMF report that their D2O consumption was 7.7 cm3 instead of a computed 7.2 cm3, a 6.5% deviation, and claim this is within experimental error. As was noted in [10], a 2.5% error was able to produce a ∼0.8W apparent excess enthalpy signal, suggesting that the 0.5 cm3 error is more than enough noise needed to produce the reported ∼0.3W apparent excess enthalpy.”


    In other words, when they do report numbers, we find their error is such that they cannot detect whether or not they have significant entrainment. In other words, their assertion that “ALL” water consumption is accurately measured and eliminates the possibility of extra recombination in the cell is NOT supported by the facts.


    The fourth paper has one comment in it regarding water volume measurement:


    “The records of the additions [of heavy water] show that the Faradaic efficiencies for the electrolyses are close to 100%. As we have noted previously this fact alone is sufficient to show that the reduction of oxygen at the cathodes is negligibly small…”


    Again, no error analysis is given. Also note that they are only considering electrochemical recombination, an error that they repeat in their 2004 paper (discussed above) and the recently published 2003 version written by Fleischmann himself (Miles, IE132). But from the 2005 Comment, we see that their conclusions are likely not adequately supported given their failure to understand the CCS issue. When this was pointed out to them by the 2005 Comment, they failed to respond or show any indication in later publications or presentations that they understood the issue.


    So, net conclusion: Jed has not supported his statement with any acceptable analyses. Further, published results imply the CF community does not understand the impact of measurement error on their conclusions.


    (Part II addressing the rest of Jed’s reply to follow…got work to do right now.)

  • The argument that there have been many things that people denied that turned out to be true is utterly meaningless.

    LOL. Facts you don't like don't count. What I wrote and what you didn't address was that it is common for new discoveries that are contrary to conventional wisdom to be disbelieved by the majority. It is pathetic to suggest this could only happen if the majority were stupid or that if the majority beeves something that proves the minority wrong.


    The only way you can prove your point is to show that the half dozen good replication by well known people were wrong. I don't think you can do that.

    Alternatively, as someone suggested, the effect is real, but because it is not understood somehow then it doesn't count. The question was "How many times has F&P been replicated."

  • Part 2.


    Jed wrote: “There is no excess water. The amount that leaves the cell is exactly the same as added to it.”


    As shown in the first part of my reply to Jed’s post, this is simply not true. Fleishmann himself reported excess water from one of his experiments (note: signing off as co-author to a paper always makes one responsible for the whole contents of the paper. I refer to the 2004 paper discussed in part 1).


    “In null a boil-off test driven only by electrolysis, such as a test with Pt-H, a little water is left in the cell below the anode-cathode. This is because the moment the electrolyte drops below the anode and cathode, the power is cut off, and heat production stops. Boiling stops, and the temperature drops immediately and monotonically according to Newton's law of cooling. A little water usually remains in the bottom of the cell.”


    This is probably true most of the time, especially with Pt instead of Pd. But what a difference Pd makes!


    “When there is excess heat, the cell remains hot even after the power is cut off, so the remaining water boils away.”


    But there is no *real* excess heat in all likelihood. So what keeps the temperature up? Try ‘cigarette lighter effect’ (CLE). At least for the three hour (and possibly somewhat longer) period referred to in paper #1.


    “There is only hot vapor in the cell. The Kel-F plastic holding the anode and cathode often melt. This never happens in a null test.”


    I use valves in my hydrogen handling system with Kel-F tips. I can attest to the fact that gases, including hydrogen, dissolve in these tips and then come out slowly under vacuum. In a quiescent cell with no ongoing electrolysis, the dissolved hydrogen will also come out, react with ambient oxygen, and deposit heat. So, could it melt Kel-F? Based on F&P’s report I’d guess yes. But to be sure, someone should check.


    “Also, the cell does not cool down. On the contrary, it usually gets hotter, and sometimes even hotter hours later.”


    Changed thermal conductivity, removed stirring, no gases flowing out – all leads to slower heat loss. So not cooling down? Ho-hum. These effects (including CLE) might even cause a brief temperature increase. Further, how is the temp measured? A metal sheathed TC or RTD? Metal–sheathed = metal surface = recombination catalyst => heat deposited right at the TC – guaranteed maximum temp increase. So, need details of construction, is this a concern?


    “This is additional proof of excess heat, rather than only heat from electrolysis. ("Excess" means in addition to the heat from electrolysis. It might be excess heat from chemistry, but there is no chemical fuel, and no chemical changes are observed, so it ain't.)”


    As noted above, I agree there is likely heat being produced in the cell after boil-off, but the real question is: Are they *accurately* measuring the heat, or is it a figment of the methodology?


    Forum members: At this point it is painfully obvious to all that a) I have detailed my CCS/ATER proposal to the nth degree here for all who care to know, b) Jed, Kevin, and others refuse to acknowledge any value to my work, and c) Jed, Kevin, and others support LENR claims unquestioningly, but normally in an indefensible manner. So, I am done responding to them. They don’t want their belief system to be altered, and won’t allow the facts to do that. There is no point is trying to discuss topics or teach them anything. So, I’m done with them. Well-thought-out questions from others might get a response.

  • AA wrote:

    What I wrote and what you didn't address was that it is common for new discoveries that are contrary to conventional wisdom to be disbelieved by the majority.


    And what I wrote regarding that observation is that it is irrelevant. This is known as the association fallacy. The fact that some - or even many - new discoveries that are contrary to conventional wisdom and are disbelieved by the majority turn out to be valid says absolutely nothing about whether LENR is valid. There is no linkage. Or are YOU saying that whenever an alleged new discovery is disbelieved by the majority, it MUST be valid?


    For somebody who claims to be a scientist, you are extraordinarily illogical in argumentation. You are also highly inclined to attribute positions to your opponents that they don't hold. You said that I have to show that replications were not valid to prove my point. What point exactly did I make that has to be proven? I didn't say anything about the validity of any replications. Our discussion relates to the completely nonsensical argument of the form:


    People claim that Rossi's gizmo doesn't work.

    People claimed that the Wright Brothers didn't really fly.

    The Wright brothers really did fly.

    Therefore: Rossi's gizmo works.


    That appears to be your argument, which if you are tossing out LOLs, deserves a huge one.