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

  • I'm wondering why the calibration constant shift peaks at a maximum D/Pd loading of 0.94


    Short answer...no enough knowledge available to know.


    Long answer...speculating...


    First, the peak being at 0.94 may be a result of the sample size and the binning method used to make the histogram, i.e. a mathematical artifact. D/Pd = 1.0 is a 'magic number', since at that point all octahedral holes of the Pd lattice are filled with a D, so the max may actually be closer to 1.0. Need more data....


    Second, under the assumption that the absorption process creates a 'special active state' (SAS) precursor, and that that may require a certain number of dislocations + superabundant vacancies (or the probability of forming the SAS is proportional to the number of acceptable surface defects), the ~0.94 number may simply be the point where the probability of forming the SAS has now reached a high enough level to be noticeable in these experiments, but some random variation around that is to be expected, since the process is not being well-controlled at this time (otherwise the CFers would have the level of reproducibility needed to claim 'full' repro.). Also one needs to remember that attaining these high loadings is not an instantaneous process. It usually requires some cook time (i.e. an induction period). So the .94 number might change is a different loading protocol was used. McKubre did a very large study of this which he reported on in his 1998 EPRI report. It was called the 'Degree of Loading' experiments and consisted of about half of the reported effort (450+ page report). The use of a histogram to illustrate the results is perhaps not the best way for analysis, but is good for visual impact on the audience. In the end...need more data.


    That 'more data' would need to probe various hypotheses about what is going on, not just be 'more of the same', i.e. a little tinkering on methodology would be indicated.


    I also note that you've made a transition in your question that many haven't made yet. Associating CCS with that graphic requires connecting apparent excess heat to an ATER/CCS issue. Most refuse to even consider such.

  • You missed the point instead: I told, that most reproducible LENR is this one will palladium, you started to oppose it with some twaddling about platinum and another off topic things, so I ignored it. I'm just keeping the line of discussion strictly.


    And you missed all of my points. let me simplify for you:


    1.) Your statement mixes two separate types of experiments which have different issues involved.

    2.) Your numerics illustrate the problem of people refusing to acknowledge the CCS error may be the dominant error, and if so, the numbers you quote reflect 'working in the noise', which is an accepted sign of pathological science.

    3.) You incorrectly infer that Pd CF results are reproducible. They are not by the accepted definition of the term. CFers want to use the term loosely however in order to facilitate obtaining funding. In fact it was the _partial_ reproducibility of the FPHE (Fleischmann-Pons-Hawkins Effect) that led me to give serious consideration to the field instead of just blowing it off like most scientists do today.

    4.) The Pt results (and Ni to a lesser extent) negates any extensive relevance of loading level. Some significance may be present in Pd alone, but since those results are not very reproducible, it will be only marginally useful in understanding how the apparent excess heat signals can be made to appear.

    5.) The McKubre figure illustrates a biased point of view. Enough similar results at D/Pd<0.85 exist to again indicate loading level is of secondary importance.


    These points are offered as simple assertions here. I personally dislike it when people assert things without backing up their claims. But you didn't seem to follow when I did that, so I devolve to the assertion method here to clarify for you.


  • IF the measured COP is real and not Calibration Constant Shift, then we can indeed inquire as to why they get more successes at a particular loading.

    But you say it's a calorimetry error, and there was no actual excess heat. But what artifact of the calorimeter would know whether the loading was 0.94 or 0.92 ? Why weren't there as many false reports of success at 0.92 or 0.96? (The plot doesn't indicate how many FAILED runs there were at each loading for the SRI and ENEA data).


    ?key=23800c041eeca5d69934154372d50b034d38161ea563d398d7dd98d52d34e68d-aHR0cDovL2kuaW1ndXIuY29tLzVLQldJR1UuanBn


    (Also see Letts and Cravens / Beyond Reasonable Doubt)

    That diagram is from : http://www.currentscience.ac.in/Volumes/108/04/0495.pdf

    It references two papers which I haven't found yet.


    10. McKubre, M. C. H., Crouch-Baker, S., Riley, A. M., Smedley, S.
    I. and Tanzella, F. L., Excess power observations in electrochemical
    studies of the D/Pd system; the influence of loading. In Frontier
    of Cold Fusion (ed. Ikegami, H.), Universal Academy Press,
    Tokyo, 1993, pp. 5–19.

    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHexcesspowe.pdf Fig 7


    11. Kunimatsu, K., Hasegawa, N., Kubota, A., Imai, N., Ishikawa, M.,
    Akita, H. and Tsuchida, Y., Deuterium loading ratio and excess
    heat generation during electrolysis of heavy water by a palladium
    cathode in a closed cell using a partially immersed fuel cell anode.
    In Frontiers of Cold Fusion (ed. Ikegami, H.), Universal Academy
    Press, Tokyo, 1993, pp. 31–45

  • IF the measured COP is real and not Calibration Constant Shift, then we can indeed inquire as to why they get more successes at a particular loading.


    That's the $64 billion question isn't it. Is that COP>1 real or not? And yes, if the COP>1 is real, than one would certainly want to investigate why.


    But you say it's a calorimetry error, and there was no actual excess heat. But what artifact of the calorimeter would know whether the loading was 0.94 or 0.92 ? Why weren't there as many false reports of success at 0.92 or 0.96? (The plot doesn't indicate how many FAILED runs there were at each loading for the SRI and ENEA data).


    I've gone through the basic process before, but to repeat... All F&P type cells have been designed to date with all penetrations for electrode and sensor leads through the top of the cell. Those penetrations are heat loss pathways. They allow calories to slip out undetected, which is why one has to calibrate. When you put 1W in, you don't actually measure directly 1W out. (Highly efficient calorimeters get quite close, and some people say that they therefore don't need to calibrate. But that just means they are assuming a particular value of the calibration constant.) To compensate for the loss, the calibration equation typically 'bumps up' the measured value to what it was supposed to be. Then that equation is applied to temperature data from a non-calibration run, i.e. an actual experiment.


    All F&P type cell calorimetry has assumed a single equation is all that is needed. A temperature or temperature difference or voltage (as in Seebeck cal.) is multiplied by a factor with perhaps an added offset value. More complicated equation forms have been used too, such as the McKubre transfer function approach. But because of the location of all residual heat loss pathways in one concentrated area, heat produced closer to that area will lose a slightly higher fraction out those paths. Heat produced further away has a better chance of being captured. So if you take some of the heat from near the loss points and move it to farther away, more of it will get registered as temperature rise, i.e. signal, and that extra fraction is then multiplied up and shows up as 'excess power'.


    So, to get apparent excess power, heat has to move from one location in the cell to another (we're talking closed cells here), or appear where it wasn't before at all (as in an open cell where the effluent gases recombine instead of exit the cell). That means (closed cell) that recombination has to start someplace in the area away from the loss paths to get 'overdetected', and that means that process has to start up and start operating. To do that the special active state has to form, which requires whatever it is it requires to happen to do that. Apparently, based on the data, in Pd systems that is facilitated by having a higher loading, which as I described previously would theoretically cause a more active surface to form the higher the loading. Specifically how high loading translates to more active surfaces, especially given the impact of additives, is the open research area. But it should be reasonably easy to envision that, with a fixed experimental profile. that would occur at a reasonably fixed place. Of course a little bit of 'noise' would be associated with that, which is why you would expect a spread and not an absolutely singular number for the initiation point.


    To fully understand the McKubre figure you need to know all the experimental operation details, which might be in his report, but I don't think so based on my vague recollections at this time. You would also need to compare the conditions used by MIT and Caltech as well. And of course the materials themselves can have an influence, it's chemistry after all.


    Regarding false reports...there are many more of those...all the 'failed' replications. The CFers are right in that the early replication attempts were not adequate in many cases, but the key is to recognize that means F&P were premature in their announcement. Normally, one does not announce 'ground-breaking' results via press conference until they are ready to be published by a journal. F&P were forced into it though because of University concerns over IP rights. But the onlookers didn't know that and expected that what they presented met the normal reproducibility requirements. Unfortunately they didn't, and F&P still had to play coy because of IP concerns, and that just ticked off a whole bunch of people, and we ended up where we are today.


    What we learned since then is that a there are a lot of F&P-type systems that can give apparent excess heat signals. What we haven't learned yet amazingly enough is whether they are real or not.

  • I have avoided the Rossi stuff because it's all anecdotal information, and you can't do science from anecdotes. Maybe they can inspire you to do some work, but science requires reproduction, and Rossi never seems to do anything the same twice....

    That was a smart move. Rossi isn't a scientist, he's a businessman. He stated explicitly that he didn't want to do ANY demos except to paying customers, but when Focardi started dying of cancer and wanted recognition for his work, he relented.


    Trying to piece information from Rossi's statements is an excercise in induction, not deduction. Scientists don't know how to do inductive reasoning.

  • Quote

    Your statement mixes two separate types of experiments which have different issues involved


    They were both about palladium and as such supposed to support my point (palladium is currently most reproducible (and also reproduced) LENR system). The number and coherence of experimental points linked above with A. Fletcher speaks for itself.

  • 5.) The McKubre figure illustrates a biased point of view. Enough similar results at D/Pd<0.85 exist to again indicate loading level is of secondary importance.


    Kirk always likes to stay in a safe haven. So don't fight him with old stuff!



    Recently (couldn't find the ref...) Storms? told that only one initial Pd loading around 1:1 is needed. As soon as the reaction is running, it goes on even with loads below 50%! Today loadings above 1:1 are possible and in mixed systems they already talk of factors 2-3.

    But Kirk is absolutely right if he says Pdxy D-D fusion is a surface effect.

    Please do longer discuss old style Pd-D-D fusion experiments. These may be interesting as demos or as a theory test-bed. Nobody intends to burn down (transmute) Palladium any more, if there are cheaper material around. Mixed fuels containing PdZrOCuNiAlLi work even with hydrogen. See newest Asti papers.

    Iwamure Asti : IwamuraYanomaloushea.pdf

    Or Hagelstein : lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Hagelsteinnewphysica.pdf

    A broad discussion : V.F. Zelensky

  • Well, at least there is still some funding of LENR by the DOE. This clip is from the article posted today about Dr. Claytor receiving the Preparata Award at the recent International Workshop on Anomalies:


    "While at LANL, in addition to on and off research into LENR funded by Laboratory Directed Research and Development, Director’s Reserve and technology transfer funds."


    The LDRD is funded by the DOE:


    Laboratory Directed Research and Development (LDRD)


    The Department of Energy’s Engine of Discovery


    The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is charged with a large and complex mission—“to ensure America’s security and prosperity by addressing its energy, environmental, and nuclear challenges through transformative science and technology solutions.” The DOE executes this mission to a large extent at its seventeen national laboratories, a group of institutions which were created and are supported by the Federal government to perform research and development (R&D) in areas of importance to the DOE and, where appropriate, to other Federal agencies.


    Today, the national laboratories are performing R&D in support of DOE’s goals in catalyzing the transformation of the nation’s energy system, securing our leadership in clean energy, maintaining a vibrant scientific and engineering effort, and enhancing nuclear security through defense, nonproliferation, and environmental efforts. In recognition of the importance of the long-term health of these institutions, the U.S. Congress has authorized and encouraged them to devote a relatively small portion of their research effort to creative and innovative work that serves to maintain their vitality in science and technology (S&T) disciplines relevant to DOE and national security missions. Since 1991, this effort has formally been called Laboratory Directed Research and Development (LDRD).

  • Short summary : I see nothing in McKubre Ref 10 fig 7 to indicate a sudden onset of Calorometric Callibration Shift Errors.


    lenr_loading_01.jpg


    Alan: and everyone else following.


    I find your argument here impossible to follow. Perhaps I'm being dim, and you will correct me; but otherwise you (plural) are all misunderstanding the point.


    CCS errors from this cell of an ATER type would follow from the special active environment on the electrodes created from the D electrolysis that allows ATER. That is almost the same condition (and equally difficult to pin down) as claimed LENR. So the two hypotheses cannot be distinguished from that graph - they both fit. The difference is that one is a chemical/caorimetric explanation, and the other is a nuclear but surprising because does not seem in other ways to be nuclear mechanism.


    As always, should Abd's pet Austin experiment show convincing evidence of He generated, and correlation between He and excess heat from D at the expected ratio, that statement could be revised.


    Also, CCS can be ruled out with a bit more work from people conducting experiments. But it is systematic over a wide range of F&P style experiments and does explain the results - though without extra work that explanation must be speculative.


  • Ummm ... those ARE the results (each DOT is one run by SRI and INRA respectively) published in the proceedings of the peer-reviewed ICCF3.

    So ..... ALL OF THEM.


    Clarification on McKubre. One RUN of a cell takes about 800 hours, with useful results between 300 and 780 hours.

    Each DOT on the graph is a reading of the calculated loading and excess power at some (unspecified) time for this ONE cell.

    Note: this is the experiment which exploded, with one fatality, 70 hours later.

    I don't have the time (or much inclination) to follow up on kirkshannahan's comments, particularly as it's very old data.