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

  • A few more comments.


    Thanks to THH, who does seem to understand my points. I find his explanations adequate responses to most of what he is addressing, so I don't need to add more.


    To Eric and Alan. I have no obligation to do anything further. You fail to understand the dynamic here. F&P and others have published scientific claims of an unexpected heat source in metal hydrides/deuterides. That represents a safety hazard to me. Therefore I investigated in an unbiased fashion. I found the literature in general to be inadequate to allow deciding if the 'LENR' claims were real or not. Therefore I started searching out the underlying data. McKubre's 1998 report was the first case I found of this, but he had no calibration data included and would not transmit the equations and constants used to me. Then Storms' data popped up. I examined it and discovered a systematic trend that a) suggests the noise level of these experiments is 10-100X what is normally considered to be the noise level, and b) points out that there is likely to be some real underlying chemical effect active. This was novel, as no one seemed to realize the trend was present and what it meant. So, I published it. I went one step further, giving the CFers a freebie. I proposed what the chemical mechanism causing the problem was. That was for them, so they could redirect their experimentation down lines that might be more productive. And that sequence is what a scientist participating in the normal practice of science would do. End of story - or at least it should be.


    But instead of following up on the new information, the CFers took the initially legitimate tactic of trying to disprove my mechanism. This is legitimate as long as that activity remained logical and correct. But they left that behind, first in the Storms 2006 supposed rebuttal (that supposedly allowed him to completely neglect my 2006 response in his 2007 book), and then in the 2010 'rebuttal' that Jed keeps quoting, where they invented a random version of my systematic trend, claiming it was what I had said, which they then (correctly) proved wrong (*their* version, not mine). But they still have not absorbed what I have done. Or maybe they have, and they can't emotionally accept it. IMO, that's where Storms is at.


    I repeat. I have no obligation to do anything at this point. If I wanted to follow up, I could of course. If I don't, there is no rule, written or unwritten, that I am violating.


    The CFers need to understand that the indications are that their signals are 'in the noise' and deal with it.


    To everyone: Jed had raised the idea that my work kills all calorimetry if true. Stop for a minute and think...would *anyone's* work be able to do that? No. So what Jed is doing is just grandiose sputtering. All I have done is point out that even with 98+% efficient calorimeters, you still can get a big noise level if you're not careful. Putting all the heat loss pathways in one small area of a calorimeter, and then treating it as a homogeneous lump is 'not being careful'.

  • I repeat. I have no obligation to do anything at this point. If I wanted to follow up, I could of course. If I don't, there is no rule, written or unwritten, that I am violating.


    Do you acknowledge that your CCS is something new, not documented before as such in electrochemistry or calorimetry? If so, it must be shown to be real, and not simply an intellectual exercise. Someone has to do that empirical investigation. You are the one who claims the CCS is a thing. That puts you on the hook for doing the legwork; or, at least, no one needs to stop what they're doing and worry about it too much until someone takes the initiative of doing the necessary legwork. :) LENR researchers are in the same boat when it comes to their own claims about LENR.

  • Do you acknowledge that your CCS is something new, not documented before as such in electrochemistry or calorimetry?


    No. In fact it is not new. Unless you're talking about the abbreviation itself, which I don't think you are. Every scientist or engineer should know that a system is only calibratable if it is stable. If it is not, then a new calibration is required every single time you use it. The 'CCS' is just an abbreviation used to talk about the fact that this is apparently what happens with 'active' electrodes in an F&P cell.



    If so, it must be shown to be real, and not simply an intellectual exercise. Someone has to do that empirical investigation. You are the one who claims the CCS is a thing. That puts you on the hook for doing the legwork; or, at least, no one needs to stop what they're doing and worry about it too much until someone takes the initiative of doing the necessary legwork. LENR researchers are in the same boat when it comes to their own claims about LENR.


    I pointed out that the interpretation methodology of the F&P-type CF experiments was susceptible to a particular kind of error. It is incumbent upon those doing the susceptible interpretation to prove that is not what is happening.


    I offered a possible mundane chemical mechanism that would seem to conform to the experimental observations and that would produce a CCS as a help to those trying to understand the phenomenon experimentally. They are free to use it or not, or to come up with other alternatives.


    {added} What they are NOT free to do is misrepresent what I have done for the purpose of misleading people, which is what Storms did in his 2007 book, what the "group of 10" did in the paper Rothwell keeps referencing, or what Hagelstein did in his 2015 "MIT" course of CF.

  • No. In fact it is not new. Unless you're talking about the abbreviation itself, which I don't think you are. Every scientist or engineer should know that a system is only calibratable if it is stable. If it is not, then a new calibration is required every single time you use it. The 'CCS' is just an abbreviation used to talk about the fact that this is apparently what happens with 'active' electrodes in an F&P cell.


    Your CCS goes beyond simple instability and needing to have a system in a steady state in order to be able to calibrate it. You further suggest that it is possible to have a situation where the (mis-) calibrated system systematically overestimates the output, in contrast to what would be expected from random error, along the lines of the misreading of your position by the 10 authors for which you take them to task. I do not know of a documented suggestion about this systematic overestimation of output in calorimetry prior to your papers; do you?

  • Quote

    Putting all the heat loss pathways in one small area of a calorimeter, and then treating it as a homogeneous lump is 'not being careful'


    Of course, this is exactly the design of isoperibolic calorimeters which is why I have long objected to relying on these as much of low power LENR has. As I have reminded Jed frequently, and he seems to have ignored, isoperibolic calorimeters often if not always rely on one or a few point temperature measurements rather than true heat flow measurement.


    @Shanahan


    I wonder if the same issues with the errors you called attention to apply to calorimeters in which heat loss pathways are distributed throughout the calorimeter. An example would be the so-called Seebeck effect calorimeter ( "envelope" calorimeter). In these, thermocouples measure the temperature difference across a dimensionally and thermally stable "gradient layer" and from the delta-T, once can compute heat flow. A calorimeter can have hundreds or thousands of thermocouple junctions and these can be created with masking and electro-plating techniques. IIRC, these calorimeters give stable signal outputs even if a small heat source is moved around inside, especially if the calorimeter incorporates some way of circulating air or liquid inside.


    A variant of this is a calorimeter made with heat flux sensors embedded uniformly throughout its walls. In this case, the transducers contain the thermocouples and the gradient layers.


    Are these prone to the same calibration errors? If not, have any credible results been obtained supporting LENR with these? I know Dr. Storms purchased and built some of these but later apparently gave them up. Perhaps, by working correctly, they didn't give him the results he wanted?


    I am also curious about your response to Eric's question? Is the error always suggesting more heat than is actually present? If so, WHY?


    Or is that maybe a selection error on the part of the experimenter-- they only attend to experiments which show net heat output and discard the ones which go the other way? And then should they not sometimes get results in which the calibration heat they put in not all accounted for by the output signal? Too LOW a signal?

  • Are these prone to the same calibration errors?

    No.

    If not, have any credible results been obtained supporting LENR with these?

    Yes. Many times.


    Rather than ask questions like this, why don't you read the literature? Oh, wait, I forgot. You and Axil don't read anything or know anything. Your job is to pontificate in perfect ignorance. He believes every claim -- including stuff he makes up -- and you believe nothing.

  • I was asking Shanahan. Reading most LENR papers is not informative for me. The ones I have seen, mostly through your recommendations, were bleakly put together and mostly incomprehensible to me due to a lack of detail, especially in the materials and methods portion. The results were often plotted on confusing axes using normalized parameters. Reading that stuff is excruciatingly tedious. My time is not unlimited but yes, I did read some. I don't know anything about electochemistry but I understand calorimetry so these papers should have meant much more than they to me. I think either the work is badly done or the papers don't properly expose what was done or both.


    As for me believing nothing, what a crock of crap. I follow science, including the frontiers and I agree with much of what I read, "don't know" about a lot of it and disagree with some. I don't know whether low power LENR is real. I don't like what I've seen but I don't know. All the claims to useful levels of power, define it as you will, and consistent power production, seem to have been wishful thinking, misperceptions and scams. Especially scams.


    If this is a real phenomenon, after all these years, we should expect much more in the way of proof and workable demonstrations.

  • Your CCS goes beyond simple instability and needing to have a system in a steady state in order to be able to calibrate it.


    No it doesn't. The variation in calibration constant observed was circa 1%RSD, which is characteristic of a very good analytical technique. Storms' data on this fits this, and Miles has many publications showing the same level of variation in his 'heat transfer coefficients'. Yet that error when propagated through the (Storms) power calculation showed up as a 780 mW signal. Every system used in this manner needs to go through the error propagation exercise to assure themselves that they aren't 'working in the noise'. That's true even if they had observed only randomness. But there was actually a systematic trend superimposed, which led to the ATER suggestion.


    You further suggest that it is possible to have a situation where the (mis-) calibrated system systematically overestimates the output, in contrast to what would be expected from random error,


    No, the calibration is ALWAYS performed with an inactive electrode. This means you only have one way to go, towards active. You can't have a less than inactive electrode can you? The system is bounded on the lower end by the calibration procedure (choice of electrode), and as such is not 'random' w.r.t. apparent excess heat, only positives are allowed. If one were to routinely calibrate with an active electrode, while it was active, then perhaps one would routinely see negative excess heats.


    along the lines of the misreading of your position by the 10 authors for which you take them to task.


    The 10 authors' strawman assumes random behavior. As noted above, the actual calibration procedure used precludes this. As such, the data shows that randomness is not the result. Thus the 10 'prove' their point. I agree with them. But they are not discussing my ideas.


    I do not know of a documented suggestion about this systematic overestimation of output in calorimetry prior to your papers; do you?


    Not specifically no. That was why it was worthy of publication. It showed a new aspect of calorimetry, and theoretically pointed out that baseline noise is not the dominant error term in these systems.

  • Reading most LENR papers is not informative for me.

    Sure. As you say, you get information from Washington Post reporters. (Who get information from me, and then garble it.)

    If this is a real phenomenon, after all these years, we should expect much more in the way of proof and workable demonstrations.

    Absolutely. Just because Nature and the Washington Post and the rest of the mass media accuse scientists of being lunatics, criminals and frauds; and just because scientists have been harassed and fired for even talking about cold fusion; and there is no funding, we should expect much more in proof. Peer reviewed replications at high sigma from 180 labs is not enough. We should have 1,800 labs. Maybe if we had that many, you would read a paper? Naa! Just kidding. Of course you wouldn't. It is too confusing.

  • Not specifically no. That was why it was worthy of publication. It showed a new aspect of calorimetry, and theoretically pointed out that baseline noise is not the dominant error term in these systems.


    Your suggestion is new, as I have been saying. What you did was to propose a new aspect of calorimetry that has yet to be given a solid empirical foundation. In applying your suggestion to the calorimetry seen in LENR experiments, at the electrode recombination and various other proposals of yours could clearly be things in your imagination rather than something for electrochemists to worry about. You cannot take a shortcut and bypass the empirical method on something like this.

  • Of course, this is exactly the design of isoperibolic calorimeters which is why I have long objected to relying on these as much of low power LENR has. As I have reminded Jed frequently, and he seems to have ignored, isoperibolic calorimeters often if not always rely on one or a few point temperature measurements rather than true heat flow measurement.


    The problem with 'isoperibolic' calorimeters is that they typically only use a single point temperature measurement (referenced to a stable point to account for room temp drift and such). Any single point measurement (of any kind) is always susceptible to the idea that the placement of the sensor gives a non-representative signal. In temperature, that means it was located at a hot (or cold) spot. That's why people go to integrating detector schemes. That being the ultimate of adding one, two, three, ... more sensors.


    BTW, Jed ignores whatever his 'villans' say. He only listens to his 'heros'. Guess which category you're in....(along with me)...


    I wonder if the same issues with the errors you called attention to apply to calorimeters in which heat loss pathways are distributed throughout the calorimeter. An example would be the so-called Seebeck effect calorimeter ( "envelope" calorimeter). In these, thermocouples measure the temperature difference across a dimensionally and thermally stable "gradient layer" and from the delta-T, once can compute heat flow. A calorimeter can have hundreds or thousands of thermocouple junctions and these can be created with masking and electro-plating techniques. IIRC, these calorimeters give stable signal outputs even if a small heat source is moved around inside, especially if the calorimeter incorporates some way of circulating air or liquid inside.


    The CCS occur because the steady state changes, and because the cell design introduces heterogeneity (which is ignored by all (except me)). It doesn't matter they type of calorimeter, none is immune. Storms used a mass flow calorimeter that 'fully' covered the cell with tubing that contained the heat capturing fluid (water). He captured over 98% of it, and that tiny residual amount was enough to induce a 1% RSD variation (in my theory when the ATER fired up), which in turn translated to the observed 780mW signal. That's what Fig 3 of my first paper showed. (http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ShanahanKapossiblec.pdf) The same thing can happen in any calorimeter. The Seebeck ones aren't significantly better than Storms' mass flow one.



    A variant of this is a calorimeter made with heat flux sensors embedded uniformly throughout its walls. In this case, the transducers contain the thermocouples and the gradient layers.


    Yes. McKubre used an interesting design that simplified this. In his big report put out in 1998, he surrounded a cell with 6 Al plates and had a temp sensor in each plate. The Al is supposed to collect the heat like your 100's of TC would do. He found he had to multiply the bottom plate's signal by 3 to get good calibration. He didn't detect any excess heat with this design.


    Are these prone to the same calibration errors? If not, have any credible results been obtained supporting LENR with these? I know Dr. Storms purchased and built some of these but later apparently gave them up. Perhaps, by working correctly, they didn't give him the results he wanted?


    As noted above, they can be. No, no data that can't be theoretically reduced to zero by a CCS. Who knows though, might be some data out there that eliminates this possibility. They would have to show that though and no one has to date. They prefer to wave their hands and cast curses on me, and then conclude *that* worked so they don't have to do the math. Working correctly...maybe, we can only know what is published...


    I am also curious about your response to Eric's question? Is the error always suggesting more heat than is actually present? If so, WHY?


    See response above. Basic problem is in the calibration methodology. They always use inactive electrodes to calibrate. I didn't write that into my papers since it should be obvious to anyone who follows my arguments.


    Or is that maybe a selection error on the part of the experimenter-- they only attend to experiments which show net heat output and discard the ones which go the other way?


    The definitely don't go into negative results much. In the early days 1989-1991ish, the normal publishing rules were suspended due to the potential impact of the proposed technology, and a lot of negative results were published. Circa 1992 that stopped, and things returned to normal in that respect.


    And then should they not sometimes get results in which the calibration heat they put in not all accounted for by the output signal? Too LOW a signal?


    The idea of calibration is to avoid that. Under normal conditions the calibration equation makes power out actually be equal to power in. That is required because all calorimeters will lose some heat in unmeasured pathways, normally a small percentage. But there are reports of ~75% efficient calorimeters, they can be used by calibrating, as long as the heat losses don't change. That's the key about ATER. It takes heat from location A, close to lossy places, and moves it away to B where it is more completely detected.


    But it could be possible to have weird conditions that do what you say. I don't know what they would be though. Maybe the opposite of ATER, calibrate with a 100% ATER active electrode, and then the recombination stops, you'd get a low heat output then (of the cell didn't blow up before you noticed it).

  • Your suggestion is new, as I have been saying, then. What you did was to propose a new aspect of calorimetry that has yet to be given a solid empirical foundation. In applying your suggestion to the calorimetry seen in LENR experiments, at the electrode recombination and various other proposals of yours could clearly be things in your imagination rather than something for electrochemists to worry about. You cannot take a shortcut and bypass the empirical method on something like this.


    You mean you never knew that, in reference to your own experimental work, when you were instructed to multiply your measured voltage by 3 to get the 'real' voltage, that if you multiplied it by 4 you would get the wrong answer? C'mon Eric! A calibration constant shift means the previously determined calibration equation is invalid. You have to use different numbers to get the right answer in that case.


    You never knew that calibration was done to correct measured values to the right ones?


    Step 1 of my reanalysis of Storms data was to show that trivial changes in the calibration constants zeroed out the apparent excess heat. That fact has never been dealt with by the CFers. It hasn't even been acknowledged.


    The only thing they have done is to wave their hands and say it can never happen...even though it did! As I showed in my paper. My reanalysis shows they are working in the noise!


    Now, as you say, ATER is an invention of my imagination, but that imagination was driven by the whole field of observations. One very big one was the Szpak ir video, that showed the Special Active State form and begin triggering heat releases, which Szpak call mini-nuclear explosions, and which I call ATER. Yes, to prove ATER is the cause, some experimental work needs to be done, but it ain't my job. It doesn't interest me.


    But proving ATER does or does not occur does NOT change the fact that small CCSs wipe out 780 mW of excess heat in a really good calorimeter.

  • Kirk, I have no issue with what little I know of your analysis of errors. It's a very interesting line of inquiry, one that I hope people with relevant expertise can discuss further here. I will readily agree with you that any work that is genuinely in the noise is inherently unsatisfying and unpersuasive.


    What we are discussing is not that part of your work, which seems uncontroversial. We're talking about the elements of your papers in which you introduce novel suggestions for what is going on in LENR electrochemical systems. How do I know for sure you've introduced new notions that have yet to be given an empirical basis? Because 10 people with expertise in electrochemistry or related fields believe that to be the case, even allowing that they have misunderstood and misrepresented important parts of your critique. It is these novel suggestions that must be established before they will provide an effective criticism. Until that is done, LENR researchers can heed or ignore these parts of your critique without being remiss in their duty to respond to criticisms.


    I'm not at all a scientist. I don't even know how to calculate AC input power or read a circuit diagram. I would spill dangerous chemicals everywhere if I ever stepped foot in a lab. I'm just making a small but subtle point about who has an obligation to do what, given what we know.

  • Your CCS goes beyond simple instability and needing to have a system in a steady state in order to be able to calibrate it. You further suggest that it is possible to have a situation where the (mis-) calibrated system systematically overestimates the output, in contrast to what would be expected from random error, along the lines of the misreading of your position by the 10 authors for which you take them to task. I do not know of a documented suggestion about this systematic overestimation of output in calorimetry prior to your papers; do you?

    Eric, let me answer this.


    Kirk's proposed ATER mechanism redistributes heat in a way that would (for all cell layouts with wires coming out the top) mean that ATER heat, because in liquid, is dissipated less than recombiner heat (since the recombiner is at the top of the cell). This is a consequence of a specific cell topology which is nevertheless used a lot (maybe universally - I don't know) in F&P-type closed cell experiments. It results therefore in CCS being positive.

    CCS in general could be positive or negative, and as Kirk says it is not new, just a restatement of how changes in cell heat distribution can affect calorimetry.

  • I'm not at all a scientist.

    OK, so I better understand things now. You are working under mistaken assumptions.


    I will start by pointing out there is no authority that issues orders to a generic scientist about what he or she should or shouldn't do. In some cases that may not be true, but in general it is.


    The 'system' that has developed since the days of Roger Bacon and Issac Newton is that someone who thinks they have made a discovery publishes it, and if anyone in the general scientific community is interested, they read it and perhaps respond. When they respond in print, they usually are critiquing something and thus are a critic. A critic's job is to critique, nothing more. I critiqued Storms' work, and drew some general criticism from it that applied to the CF field as a whole.


    The scientist who has been critiqued now has some options, but certain ones are proscribed by the 'system'. Namely, if the criticisms hold up and he/she can't find an error in them, he/she is supposed to fold that into their thinking and *modify* what they are doing appropriately. In the case like mine where a 'new' option has been presented, he/she is supposed to work at testing them out. The critic is now out of the loop, unless he/she desires to stay involved.


    But there is no authority to make it happen this way. And what the CFers did was not what was typical. They did try to test the validity of the proposal, but then they resorted to bad logic to claim they had found an error. (This involves much more than just the group of 10's paper.) They used their bad logic to justify ignoring the criticisms. And they pretend they got away with it, and promote that POV to whomever is listening. Some unfortunately buy it hook, line, and sinker.


    But 'real' scientists, i.e. those who still participate in the give-and-take of the scientific review process, see this and recognize it for what it is. When the CFers try to inflict their falsehoods on them, they just get mad. Some respond inappropriately, and that just reinforces the cycle.


    So, again, I am under no obligation to do anything here. The only reason I would is if I thought there was a good reason. I don't. The results the CFers spout are 'in the noise', they know it, but won't deal with it. We call those people pathological believers or, often, true believers. In turn, they call 'us' pathological skeptics, because it absolves them from facing the facts.

  • ROFL. My detection of the CCS problem was from one experimental sequence involving 10 current sweeps. From that I inductively pointed out the the CCS observed there can occur in any type of calibrated experiment (not just calorimetry).

    If your theory is derived inductively then by the rules of induction there is a strong possibility your theory is flat wrong. Like I said, most scientists don't know how to reason inductively.

  • Kirk says it is not new, just a restatement of how changes in cell heat distribution can affect calorimetry.


    Ok, THH. If it is mere restatements of existing electrochemical knowledge that have gotten all of the LENR electrochemists rolling their eyes, I encourage you to double-check your conclusion with an academic electrochemist you know or one at a university near where you live and report back what you learn. :)


    One important detail not to lose sight of: there is more to what Kirk is proposing than ATER.

  • Ok, THH. If it is mere restatements of existing electrochemical knowledge that have gotten all of the LENR electrochemists rolling their eyes, I encourage you to double-check your conclusion with an academic electrochemist you know or one at a university near where you live and report back what you learn. :)


    One important detail not to lose sight of: there is more to what Kirk is proposing than ATER.


    Eric,

    you need to be more [precise. CCS is just obvious. I'm sorry. you need merely decent knowledge of heat flow to see it.


    ATER is indeed surprising. The idea that some unusual surface condition in electrodes could make a reaction happen that normally does not.... Sounds very strange does it not? A bit like LENR. But of course it is less strange than LENR because there are fewer unusual characteristics to explain away.


    Whether CCS/ATER explains all the good quality excess heat findings I don't know. It would need careful attention. But, without that attention, it is correct to assert that it could explain all of them. (Not all of the excess heat findings - for example Parkhomov - but all the ones from careful very well controlled calorimetry).


    What i'm saying is not very strong, nor contentious. It is merely keeping open a possibility that has not been closed and has many characteristics (including the element of surprise to electrochemists) shared with LENR.


    For as long as this careful attention is not given to the matter the closed cell F&P style experiments have a significant question-mark. It is specific, and closable in principle if those motivated to support these experiments cared to pay attention and try to close it. As long as they dismiss the idea without looking at it that will not happen.

  • ATER is indeed surprising. The idea that some unusual surface condition in electrodes could make a reaction happen that normally does not.... Sounds very strange does it not? A bit like LENR. But of course it is less strange than LENR because there are fewer unusual characteristics to explain away.


    Not only is ATER surprising, it has yet to be empirically tested to see what would actually happen to the measurements. If you could intentionally get recombination to occur at the cathode, e.g., maybe with a bubbler or something, would you get something that looks like excess heat as seen in LENR electrochemical results? If yes, that is indeed interesting. If no, then our ATER is not a very promising example of a surprising result. In that case it would be both surprising and not relevant.


    But back to the (inescapably) general point: a number of LENR electrochemists are of the impression that X that Kirk is proposing, where X is some combination of suggestions, has not been seen before. Are they wrong? If they are not wrong, then it seems to me that there needs to be some empirical vetting of X. There has to be some bar for suggestions to cross over before you start worrying about them.

  • Not only is ATER surprising, it has yet to be empirically tested to see what would actually happen to the measurements. If you could intentionally get recombination to occur at the cathode, e.g., maybe with a bubbler or something, would you get something that looks like excess heat as seen in LENR electrochemical results? If yes, that is indeed interesting. If no, then our ATER is not a very promising example of a surprising result. In that case it would be both surprising and not relevant.


    But back to the (inescapably) general point: a number of LENR electrochemists believe that X that Kirk is proposing, where X is some combination of suggestions, has not been seen before. Are they wrong? If they are not wrong, then there needs to be some empirical vetting of X.


    Well, let us put it this way. The many excess heat experiments are empirical evidence of something anomalous. They support ATER, or LENR. They are specific to neither, and neither ATER nor LENR has highly specific empirical evidence. I don't see that "ATER has not been seen before" is any more or less true than "LENR has not been seen before". What is sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander. As you sort of hint, ATER has the merit (as a theory) that it could be reasonable easily disproved. I don't think LENR could ever be so disproved.