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

  • 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.

  • 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


    There are no physical conditions in the cell that promote significant ingress, because the background level of helium is the same in blank tests, including deliberate ones with Pd-H and Pd-D that does not work.


    The absolute temperature cannot be a factor because the cell is often warmer during a blank run than a run with excess heat.


    Virtually no air enters the cell or collection flask. The effluent gas goes through a bubbler to exclude air. If any air entered the flask, it would swamp the background and the helium from cold fusion. The helium level would be totally random, not correlated to heat or anything else.


    Miles once illustrated this during a lecture. He was projecting a graph of background helium and helium after a collection period with a cell producing excess heat. The latter was much higher. Quite significant. He moved the laser pointer to the ceiling and said something like, "if this helium were leaking in from the atmosphere, the level would be up there at the sixth floor." In other words, there is no mechanism that would allow you leak in such minute quantities of helium. You could not do it with any sort of needle valve, for example. The only method would be to let it permeate through glass for a few years. How minute is the amount? If you touch the inside rim of the metal flask, the helium from your fingerprint will swamp the background helium and the helium from the reaction. Miles always wore gloves when handling the flasks.


    I copied the configuration schematic into this paper, p. 5:


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


    Let me add that various methods are used to check for helium leaks from air, such as looking for argon.


    In tritium studies, tritium leaks from laboratory air are ruled out for the opposite reason. In order to leak that much tritium into a cell at a lab like Los Alamos, you would have to increase the atmospheric tritium concentration to such a high level the alarms would go off and the building permanently abandoned, according to Storms.


    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

    No such sporadic changes in background helium were observed in the blank tests. If changes in the lab environment occurred and if they could induce significant variations in the helium collected in the flask, this would have been observed, because these tests were conducted many times over several years.

  • @kevmo


    You show a profound confusion about worth. Kirk's ideas may be right or wrong or something in between. But, they are important - as the only (that I know) systematic alternative to nuclear reactions that might explain most of the CF classic data. Also, Kirk produces fact-filled and specific arguments for his ideas, and defenses of them against challenge. Those things do not make me convinced by his ideas, but they make them most definitely valuable.


    Whereas your contribution to the debate is....

  • @kevmo


    You show a profound confusion about worth. Kirk's ideas may be right or wrong or something in between. But, they are important - as the only (that I know) systematic alternative to nuclear reactions that might explain most of the CF classic data. Also, Kirk produces fact-filled and specific arguments for his ideas, and defenses of them against challenge. Those things do not make me convinced by his ideas, but they make them most definitely valuable.


    Whereas your contribution to the debate is....

    I was the one who opened this thread, so there's that. I have no confusion as to Shanahan's worth. If you think his ridiculous hypothesis explains away all those 153 peer reviewed replications of the Pons-Fleischmann Anomalous Heat Effect then you're the one exhibiting tremendous confusion. Even Kirk acknowledges his theory doesn't account for Helium or Tritium or Gamma Rays.

  • Taking it from, say Jed's perspective (whom I disagree with about some of Rossi's stuff):

    Jed claims Rossi's gizmo doesn't work

    Jed points out that others claimed the Wright brothers didn't really fly

    The Wright brothers really did fly

    Jed still says Rossi's gizmo doesn't work.


    Basically you just posted one series of incredible straw arguments.


    LENR claims are that there's an anomalous event going on. It's been replicated.

    anti-LENR activists don't like that it's been replicated so they're trying to take down the top hundred electrochemists of their day.

    It's pointed out as an analogy that the Wright brothers DID fly but the scientific consensus of their day was that they DIDN'T fly... until 1908. Similar science-by-consensus arguments about germ theory and plate tectonic theory.

    The Wright brothers really did fly; germ theory eventually got accepted and so did plate tectonics. The science-by-consensus folks were wrong and slithered back into their caves.

    LENR could work or not work and it would have no bearing on what's going on with Rossi.

  • I was the one who opened this thread, so there's that. I have no confusion as to Shanahan's worth. If you think his ridiculous hypothesis explains away all those 153 peer reviewed replications of the Pons-Fleischmann Anomalous Heat Effect then you're the one exhibiting tremendous confusion. Even Kirk acknowledges his theory doesn't account for Helium or Tritium or Gamma Rays.


    Continuing the conversation about your IMHO profound confusion about worth: you are here showing that you don't judge things by content, but instead by whether you think they are relevant. I disagree with your judgement of that for the reasons below.


    Suppose I accept your propositions here: and I think I do. Shanahan's CCS/ATER idea indeed does not cover all of the LENR papers, and by definition does not cover He, tritium, weird transmutation, high energy product claims. Why does that make it uninteresting? There is so much heterogeneous LENR literature identifying as LENR things that look anomalous:


    • Positive enthalpy (half of all calorimetric anomalies)
    • Positive radioactive product detection (more than half of such anomalies)
    • Detection of some unexpected stable element at very low concentration (all contamination and many mislabelling anomalies)


    Is it expected that the reasons for all these different things are the same? No - the nature of anomalies is that they have varied explanations. If LENR exists, and explains some subset of these observations, it is still highly unlikely that it explains all. Some will be mundane anomalies.


    The job of understanding LENR then is made vastly more difficult by these false positives. In fact if LENR exists you can reasonably argue that the lack of clarity over any theory - even a stable phenomenological theory - is because all these things are being lumped together and many are not LENR. No theory can account for all the observations and the correct set is not known.


    Shanahan proposes an idea that promises to contribute to the understanding of LENR by identifying (in a testable way) a non-LENR mechanism for some anomalous excess heat observations.Anyone looking for LENR excess heat might be hit by this if they don't understand it and therefore Kirk's work is highly relevant, and valuable. True - his work has not been followed very far: the people needed to do this are those with LENR experiments and as he has pointed out historically they have dismissed his ideas without serious consideration, for reasons that those who look more closely at his work do not accept. Rather like the way LENR is viewed by mainstream science, in a microcosm.


    Just as mainstream science refutations of LENR which are dismissive and do not engage with all details don't seem conclusive to those who see LENR as a plausible hypothesis, so the Marwan dismissal of Shanahan (which I have read in detail) does not seem conclusive to me, nor would to many others who read the chain: Shanahan's papers -> Marwan et al -> Shanahan's white paper -> (no reply as far as I know).


    So another motivation for LENR advocates (if you are that) to engage fully with Shanahan's work, whether his ideas apply to any experiments are not, is that it will help to persuade skeptics that you are behaving rationally. A more powerful reason, as above, is that if they do apply to any experiments, they help to simplify the mess of observational anomalies seen currently to support LENR will help those looking for replicability and underlying theories - both of which are sorely needed.

  • keV : Sorry but I don't understand your post at all. My posting of the fallacious syllogism was to point out there is no logical connection with the history of the Wright brothers and Rossi or LENR. Yes, popular opinion can be totally wrong about a new invention and has been on many occasions in the past. That observation is a good counterargument to someone who says that LENR isn't real because most people think it isn't. I certainly wouldn't make that statement. It is true that most people don't think that LENR is real, but that in itself proves nothing. However, some of you here seem to think that the converse is true: the fact that most people don't think LENR is real proves that it is because (somehow) that is what happened with the Wright brothers. That bizarre deduction is the essence of my syllogism.

  • It is true that most people don't think that LENR is real, but that in itself proves nothing. However, some of you here seem to think that the converse is true: the fact that most people don't think LENR is real proves that it is because (somehow) that is what happened with the Wright brothers. That bizarre deduction is the essence of my syllogism.

    I have yet to see one person make that claim.

    Just for the record, do you believe:

    1. LENR has ever been proven to produce excess heat?

    2. Any of Rossi's E-Cats (including the QX) have ever worked?

  • The fact that most people don't think LENR is real proves that it is because (somehow) that is what happened with the Wright brothers. That bizarre deduction is the essence of my syllogism.


    I have yet to see one person make that claim.

    Correct. This is a classic strawman argument. That is to say: Interested Observer is refuting an argument that no one makes.


    The only argument made regarding the Wrights in this context is that sometimes the majority of scientists are wrong, so be careful not to point to a majority to support your views. To judge the validity of an experimental claim, look at the experiment. Don't fret about who believes it or what the majority thinks. Science is not a popularity contest.


    If you cannot evaluate a claim yourself, perhaps you should assume the majority is right. That is a weak position. But after all, the majority is usually right, especially about uncontroversial claims, so you will probably be correct.

  • However, some of you here seem to think that the converse is true: the fact that most people don't think LENR is real proves that it is because (somehow) that is what happened with the Wright brothers.

    That's fascinating. Who here has promoted such a premise? Why go to so much effort over what some SEEM to think? I doubt there is anyone who is posting on this thread that thinks it, so it turns out you're arguing against what no one thinks, no one has said, and that makes it a straw argument. You propped it up as if someone thought it or promoted it and then tried to shoot it down. That is the essence of a straw argument.