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

  • I am sure Jones Day and others downloaded the misnamed blog Rossi perpetrates so that all his lies and false claims are documented in case they are needed.

  • • Turbo pump capable of 10"6 Torr vacuum pressure

    Reaction Chamber (Denton TX)

    • 38 cm deep by 40 cm diameter cylindrical reaction chamber with eleven 2.75 inch

    diameter radial ports, four 2.75 inch diameter bottom ports, and one 8 inch diameter horizontal port used for turbo pump assembly

    • Two roughing pumps in combination with a turbo pump capable of vacuum pressures between 2* 10"6 Torr and 760 Torr

    This is more than most people can afford. Lipinskis worked at Military labs and at well equipped Universities. They have done 1000+ experimental runs. Their work is ongoing, may be as a part of the military next strategic reactor campaign, which also includes the boron reactor (100mio+ kick-off investment..).

    They actually work on a plasma based Li-H fusion reactor. But this is much more demanding that the lithium disk experiments.

    I remember looking at this. the patent is honest, and makes clear that he has no clear experimental evidence for his suppositions. The results which he claims support this are very indirect, and could be due to many different things. The results quoted in the rest of the patent are (he says) what he would expect to happen according to his weird theory, not what he has gathered.

    THHuxleynew : It is obvious that you in reality only "over-looked" at it, not even grasped that there are two Lipinski's doing the work together. May be by reading the first ten lines it's difficult to judge the scientific content of this breakthrough patent-paper.

    The claims that Lipinski(s) make, are in fact very direct as they measure the 4He production as a LENR fusion output of 7Li+H.

    Of course you are right, that the theory presented in the patent is not proven by their work, that instead directly refutes their theory...

    But this is a mirror image of the US schizophrenic research environment. You are only allow to publish military relevant facts if, an expert, – like you did –, because of obvious “nonsense”, stops further reading and sets the signature...

  • Kevmolenr wrote a multitude of comments on my posts. Taking some of his points out of order…

    Kirk wrote 1 paper, right?

    If that were only true… That’s what I wanted to do. Just a little paper telling the CFers “Hey, you guys missed this…” Then they’d initially say “No way”, but after some serious consideration, they’d say “Hmmm, maybe so. We’d better look into this…” But that’s not what happened. Instead in 2004 (two years after my 1st paper was published) Szpak, Mosier-Boss, Miles, and Fleischmann called my stuff ‘difficult to understand’. So I wrote another try at it in reply. Then in 2006 (6 years after Storms first saw my objections) Storms wrote a rebuttal claiming what I proposed could never happen. So I wrote another reply explaining why his reasons were wrong or irrelevant. Then in 2009 Marwan and Krivit published this article that I responded to with criticisms in 2010, and a group of 10 CF authors (including Marwan, Storms, Miles, McKubre, Hagelstein, Mosier-Boss) said this “random Shanahan CCSH” thing was ridiculous. Problem was that “Shanahan” never said “random”, the group of 10 did. (That’s known as a strawman.) Now I would have written another reply to that, but I asked the editor first, and he refused to publish anymore (reasons unspecified). He wouldn’t request an Erratum to disassociate my name from the “random CCSH” thing either. I did submit a manuscript to Phys. Lett. A, which was rejected because they didn’t want to publish more “CF” papers. So, I gave up on publishing as it took up too much time, and wrote the whitepaper I referred to instead.

    Several related comments:

    "That's 153 replications he's trying to undo. That's quite the tall order. I doubt his finding is significant enough to do it, or otherwise we would have been hearing more about it these last 15 years.”

    “You came out with your hypothesis after all those papers so the onus should be on you to back-apply your approach.”

    “It's your theory so you should take ownership of it.   Back-apply your hypothesis to a few of the best replications and someone will take notice.”   

    Shanahan wrote: “The upshot is that they don’t rebut my ATER/CCS mechanism.”

    Kev: “Then set up your own website where you take down every replication using your mechanism. And sell space heaters & electrocalorimeters. There's thousand dollar bills on the ground, just pick them up.”

    Some of the points I note from the above comments (and others I haven't quoted):

    • Kevin misses the fact that I think there is NO TRUE EXCESS HEAT.

    • Kevin thinks it my job to correct prior workers mistakes and, apparently, republish their work for them.

    • Kevin thinks I want to make a ‘name’ for myself.

    • Kevin thinks I haven’t taken ownership of my theory/hypothesis/proposal.

    Given that I think there is no true excess heat, I certainly am not going to make space heaters or any amount of money from this. I could care less about making a ‘name’ in this field. I of course would like to attain some recognition in my field, which I think I have done to a small extent VIA MY OTHER PUBLICATIONS. In fact, my CF field pubs detract from my 'name'. And Kevin, defending my ideas IS taking ownership.

    “And yet there are 153 papers that seem to disagree with his stance.   Perhaps Kirk should prove how brilliant he is and write his own retort to those 153 papers.  There are other papers too, ones that aren't peer reviewed, etc.“ 

    “Kirk should have been a busy man these past 15 years but instead he wants guys like us to do his busywork.”

    Ungrateful little ‘sot’ aren’t you. I point out to you that 148 of 153 references precede my 1st publication, meaning that their results were incorporated into my proposals, and aren’t likely to change that. And then I go on to show why 4 more are also likely to be unhelpful. And I end with pointing out I critiqued that last one left, and you say *I* want *You* to do *MY* homework??? I think the applicable term is ‘cheeky’ (Alan?).

    “My impression from reading a bunch of the papers in LENR-CANR library (and asking for more) is that Kirk's hypothesis doesn't stand up.”

    Read them again. Start with a good understanding of what I propose is the problem.

    “It was basically ignored, as far as I can tell.   That makes him not too bright, because if he has the SOLUTION to this LENR thing, he could have generated tons of data, material, money, and interest by selling chemically based space heaters.   I would buy one, just to be able to play with it.”

    As noted above, I find it highly unlikely that any true excess heat source has been discovered. So your “SOLUTION” doesn’t exist to my mind. Yes I was ignored, and as THH kindly points out that’s disappointing. I have said it more strongly. I believe it is the primary signature of pathological science. The Cfers have withdrawn from the normal publish-critique-refine cycle that defines modern science.

    "but Shanahan claims to know why these experimentalists see such high COP in their cells. If it's purely chemical and can generate an appearance of a COP>6, it would make a fantastic new addition to our energy ecosystem. If what he's saying is true, he is sitting on a gold mine.”

    Actually, I don’t talk about COPs usually. I talk about apparent excess power signals, which are often discussed somewhat inaccurately as ‘excess heat’. And once more, they are artifacts of the data analysis methodology. No true excess energy source present as far as I can see.

    “That is kinda one indication that this effect is real, if it shows up in other experimental cells than just PdD calorimeters.  I gather your hypothesis of error does not apply to the other mixed cells.”

    The fact that multiple researchers got ‘bumps’ in their excess power curves is what led me to want to consider the possibility that they were real. It was only partial replication, but it held the promise of someday being fully reproducible (still unrealized). If true, it represented a safety problem for me and my coworkers. My specific ATER/CCS proposal is for F&P-type electrolysis cells, and thus does not apply to other experimental apparati. I recall you mentioned the Patterson Power Cell previously. That is a modified F&P setup, but I believe the modifications induced a new set of errors that dominated. If those could be eliminated there might be a residual CCS problem as well. Calibration constant shifts, if they occur, will induce apparent excess heat in other apparati. There, the excess could be positive or negative, depending on what causes the shift. In F&P cells, calibration is always done with an ‘inactive’ electrode, which means that anything that causes heat to shift to the electrode area will give positive excess heat signals. Thus the calibration methodology gives only positive excess heat signals. And all of this never negates other error mechanisms, such as for example, thermocouple degradation in the Rossi case.

    “Would it be something you could state categorically that the larger the COP, the larger the error and the more expectation we should have had of these experimenters to see their error?”

    As THH has noted, the ATER/CCS problem has some built in limitations. This is why it should have been easy to disprove, especially for “high COP” cases. The CFers should still have all the data from all their prior work, with some reasonable exceptions allowed of course. All they need to do is trot out the case that shows the CCS problem is not relevant to their results. We’re still waiting for that to happen.

    Instead they have attempted to discredit the ATER part of my proposal, usually with very weak argumentation and no real data. They even resorted to the “random Shanahan CCSH” fallacious argument to try to do so. What that seems to show of course is a.) they have no data that can’t be explained away by CCS, and b.) they refuse to accept the idea they might be wrong in invoking “LENRs”.

    KLS wrote: “That is a typical CFer (cold fusion researcher or cold fusion engineer (the last as per Gene Mallove)) illegitimate tactic. The idea that LENRs are present is about the only thing that links these divergent experimental setups, and they shouldn’t be linked like this until they are actually shown separately to have LENRs present. That has not been done.”

    And Kevin responded:

    “That is valuable scientific data that you should publish to the community as a whole.”

    What’cha been smokin’ dude? That’s just basic science. If some guy waves a magic wand around and says I just did xxx, are you going to fold that into your thinking about xxx? No, you’re going to say “That didn’t measure up to normal scientific standards and I can’t use it.” Substitute “LENR in an arc” as well as “LENR in a chicken” for xxx. The conclusion remains the same. No incorporating any experiment until it has been shown to be valid.

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

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

    Jones? Not Steve Jones, originator of the ‘other CF claim’. Parks has been quoted saying something to that effect, and it is obvious many of the people involved in critiquing the CF field early on didn’t keep up after the first DOE review. So yes, in their cases, the same applies which is part of why I decided to take a look at it starting in 1995.

    A couple of others wrote:

    AlainCo: “My advice to Kirk Shanahan, is that like all people who work on LENR because their have observed it and think it is a nuclear phenomenon, he try to amplify the phenomenon, characterize it, and why not make money with it.”

    Do you think I hadn’t thought of this? Silly boy! I just can’t think of a way to capitalize on a hydrogen/oxygen recombiner configured as an F&P cell. I mean you split the water and then immediately reform it? Why?

    There have been proposals for example to place Pt wire in the top of nuclear reactor containment structures to recombine any released hydrogen before it blows up and ruins the containment, and while that makes sense and is a very passive way to do it, I can’t see putting an F&P cell up there and keeping it running would be of benefit…

    Zephir_AWT: “Results with palladium are way more reliable.”

    Not really…

  • Replying to Kev’s recent post…

    kirkshanahan wrote: “Kevmolenr wrote a multitude of comments on my posts. Taking some of his points out of order…”

    Kev replied: “And out of context. Then you pile it all together into one tldr argumentation. I can see why you've been ignored. “

    Sorry you find my rearrangement offensive, but you expressed similar thoughts in several places that were scattered about. I simply tried to collect them in one place so I could avoid repeating myself multiple times. I will avoid that from now on for your benefit.

    BTW (by the way), what’s tldr? (You should stop using undefined acronyms…)

    kirkshanahan wrote: “Kevin misses the fact that I think there is NO TRUE EXCESS HEAT.”

    Kev replied: “You said "Note that I agree that there is something going on in F&P cells. I proposed a non-nuclear mechanism for what it could be."”

    Yes. And if you followed my theses you would realize that what that means is there is no beneficial source of unexpected energy in the cell. Likewise a COP ~=1 in the *calibrated* calorimeters is expected. It’s not like this is a study on an ICE. The researchers put 1 watt in, and they measure some fraction of a watt coming out due to losses. They then create a calibration equation to correct for those losses, and report the corrected Pout as 1 watt. COP = Pout/Pin = 1W/1W = 1.

    kirkshanahan wrote: “Kevin thinks it my job to correct prior workers mistakes and, apparently, republish their work for them.”

    Kev replied: “No, that isn't what I think. I have posted what I think and you can respond to those posts, or you can continue to use out of context straw argumentation. I don't think you accomplish much with your approach.”

    You repeatedly suggested that I redo the 150+ papers and then make a bundle by selling spaceheaters (or something similar). A.) I can’t do that because I don’t have either the original data or the equipment. And B.) That’s not the job of a critic in the scientific process. The critic points out possible mistakes. The researchers evaluate them and respond appropriately. CFers have NOT evaluated my criticisms appropriately and thus they have not responded. This means they still use the same lumped parameter approach to calorimetry, which in turn means the ATER/CCS mechanism is still possible (in F&P setups). The 150+ refs were primarily pre-2002, and that time frame was dominated by F&P setups. I repeat, I know of NO paper or presentation describing a CF calorimetric study that does not use the lumped parameter approach.

    kirkshanahan wrote: “Kevin thinks I want to make a ‘name’ for myself.

    Kev replied: “Ok, now we gather that you don't. You proposed a theory that doesn't fit the facts and the experimentalists dismissed your theory. So you can leave it at that. “

    No, my ‘theory’ does fit the facts quite well. That only makes sense. If it didn’t fit the facts, it wouldn’t be a threat to them, and they wouldn’t have to resort to a strawman method to try to dismiss it. As you have noted in other cases, a strawman approach is illegitimate.

    kirkshanahan wrote: “Kevin thinks I haven’t taken ownership of my theory/hypothesis/proposal.”

    Kev replied: “Yes I do.”

    Doesn’t seem so. You seem to think I need to do lots more work in the area. I think I am about done.

    kirkshanahan wrote: “Given that I think there is no true excess heat,”

    Kev replied: “And yet, you say you think there's something going on. If that is recombination, then getting such a cell to work for months is a solid source of energy. You apparently are claiming to know what causes calculations in error but it appears your hypothesis doesn't account for how these recombinations and appearance of excess heat can go on for months. If it's chemical and COP<1, it is still efficient.”

    Injecting energy into water to break it into H2 + O2 and then recombining them doesn’t seem too efficient to me. Everyone in the energy field recognizes this. That’s why we are still burning oil or coal. The only problem with that is the greenhouse gas problem, which water doesn’t have because the water absorption band for solar energy is already saturated. The big problem in converting to a hydrogen economy is the added cost of production, i.e. the net lower efficiency in turning water into fuel as opposed to oil into fuel.

    kirkshanahan wrote: “I certainly am not going to make space heaters or any amount of money from this. I could care less about making a ‘name’ in this field.”

    Kev replied: “Well then, see ya later, alligator. Don't be surprised if someone else takes up your mantle and not only makes a name for himself but makes good money at the same time. “

    I won’t be, don’t worry.

    kirkshanahan wrote: “Ungrateful little ‘sot’ aren’t you.

    Kev replied: “Again, I can see why you've been ignored in the field.”

    No, the sad thing is you can’t.

    kirkshanahan wrote: “I point out to you that 148 of 153 references precede my 1st publication, meaning that their results were incorporated into my proposals,

    Kev replied: “You're just handwaving. I posted what you could do to correct the whole field but you're not interested. So your effort will become an asterisk in the field.”

    Less than that actually. But that’s fine, it looks like psuedoscience so far.

    kirkshanahan wrote: “I think the applicable term is ‘cheeky’ (Alan?).”

    Kev replied: “Posting stuff out of context is cheeky. “

    Yes, would be if I actually did that.

    kirkshanahan wrote: “Read them again.”

    Kev replied: “No thank you.”

    Your loss. You’ll never understand why F&P didn’t win the Nobel Prize then.

    kirkshanahan wrote: “Kevmo: “It was basically ignored, as far as I can tell. That makes him not too bright, because if he has the SOLUTION to this LENR thing, he could have generated tons of data, material, money, and interest by selling chemically based space heaters. I would buy one, just to be able to play with it.”

    kirkshanahan wrote: “As noted above, I find it highly unlikely that any true excess heat source has been discovered.

    Kev replied: “You're not getting it. Assume there is no "true" excess heat but this is just a nicely efficient chemical burning process. It would make a great water heater. “

    No, you’re not getting it. See comment above on this topic.

    kirkshanahan wrote: “So your “SOLUTION” doesn’t exist to my mind. Yes I was ignored, and as THH kindly points out that’s disappointing. I have said it more strongly. I believe it is the primary signature of pathological science.”

    Kev replied: “It is not my solution, it is your solution. You honestly seem to think you have the solution to why all these top notch electrochemists are making some kind of calculation error. Now you are the one retreating and calling them pathalogical scientists. And your solution does nothing towards the findings of gamma rays, Helium, and nuclear ash.”

    (The “SOLUTION” term refers back to Kev’s quote of my quote of his words in the prior comment above.)

    This is one of those repeating theme comments Kev. You think I have some solution about how to generate excess energy that could turn me into a billionaire. What I have is a hard reason why their numbers are wrong and mislead them into thinking they have an excess energy source when they don’t. Why would I ever pursue experimentation on that? To prove Pout always equals Pin when you do the calorimetry right? Don’t think so.

    kirkshanahan wrote: “The Cfers have withdrawn from the normal publish-critique-refine cycle that defines modern science.

    Kev replied: “It's like what Reagan said about the democrat party: I didn't leave them, they left me. Cold Fusioneers tried to publish their reports in the "normal" cycle and were dismissed.”

    They weren’t ‘dismissed’, they failed to pass the minimum quality standards of the peer-review system, OR they tried to publish in high impact journals whose focus was hot topic research (Nature, Science). As soon as the irreproducibility of the field became apparent, CF dropped off those journal’s radar. Of course they would be rejected by them at that point. In fact there were many peer-reviewed CF publications in the years following the loss of impact, so the system worked fine. But after a while, the submissions were just ‘more-of-the-same’ and added no clarity or novelty to the situation. That is a prime requirement of publications (novelty, which includes work that clarifies prior difficulties). So they got rejected. Yes, sometimes reviewers used the rationale “CF is junk science”, which I agree was inappropriate, but when the CFers used that logic on me, I argued, modified, submitted elsewhere, etc. to get published. It was a lot of work. They just gave up trying to conform to minimum standards.

    kirkshanahan wrote: “Actually, I don’t talk about COPs usually. I talk about apparent excess power signals,”

    Kev replied: “Right there I need to simply call bullshit.“

    And why would that be? I’ll grant you that ‘here’ people always talk about COP, but in the pre-2002 CF literature, it’s not common. My papers don’t use the term. But if you talk about it and I answer without using the term, that just creates difficulty in understanding.

    kirkshanahan wrote: “What’cha been smokin’ dude? “

    Kev replied: “Apparently not as good as the stuff you are.”

    OK so you don’t like my humor. I should have said: “You haven’t shown any understanding of what my work means to the CF field, or about how real scientific progress is made.” Better?

  • Oh, BTW, forgot this one...

    Kev wrote: "And your solution does nothing towards the findings of gamma rays, Helium, and nuclear ash."

    Yup, why would you expect a calorimetric math error to impact radiation or nuclear ash results?

    Actually though, the ATER process has some answers buried it in. Not on radiation detection by instrumental methods, which is an area I have always admitted I am not commenting on, but as for helium, tritium, CR39 results, X-ray film, heavy metal 'transmutation', well, that's falls right out. There's even a couple of other things that could be going on to give false results in those area.

  • kirkshanahan wrote: BTW (by the way), what’s tldr? (You should stop using undefined acronyms…)

    ***Hah hah, touche'. tldr is too long, didn't read. It's how you win an argument on the internet by generating so much bloviating that the other side stops reading it. You're pretty close to winning.

    Actually I should have know that but I forgot it. Sorry...

    But I hate to tell you, you're going to have a very hard time reaching any valid conclusions about CF if you don't read. I have read most papers in CF, excluding radiation detection by instruments, and that totes up to 1000's of pages. I started in 1995 and my first paper was written in 2000. I know it's daunting, and probably impossible for most.

    So what I like to do is boil it down to essentials. The biggest single factor is lack of full (detailed) reproducibility. Until that is obtained, the field is still open to alternative interpretations. But the CFers don't act that way. It must be LENR!

    Next, is the way the CFers have handled my work. It's actually pretty trivial what I did, and most of it was actually suggested by what others have said. I just did it though, and I found something interesting, a systematic trend in the calibration constant shifts (CCS) that correlated with what was done experimentally. That is very powerful evidence of real chemistry ongoing in the effect. The problem is that the CCS wipes out the apparent excess heat with trivial changes. That defines a very tough problem to study, they're working at the noise level, which is extremely difficult.

    Then look at the way they responded to my illustrating the problem to them. It's just math, but they invent scads of reasons why it can't happen. OK, so maybe my idea about why is wrong. What's their's - does it produce reproducibility and control? No. So maybe they should look at alternatives. Like an ATER/CCS situation. But they don't. That means they are pre-deciding the conclusions of their experiments, which is not good science.

    Several basic rules of how to do science are being violated by the CFers. That drops their credibility to near zero in my book. But you may have a different book. Its your time and your money, spend the, as you like. I just want you to understand what I'm saying.

  • I must say I love how you mumble


    do you have any idea how 'the good Doctore' salted his ash? Just speculation will do.

    No, not really. When I saw the analyses on this I didn't believe it. I assumed that a natural process was going to produce a mix, not a nearly pure sample. But I'm not a nuclear chemist, so I don't know if there is a nuclear reaction that could do that or not. And hey, it might be a LENR right? However, allowing Rossi to fiddle with the samples was a bad move. It makes it easy to suggest sleight-of-hand tricks, and given his rep, that is hard to fight off. If he really wanted to prove his process, he needed to step all the way away. That's just my opinions though, and they're no better than any of the ones presented all over this forum.

    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....

  • I have responded to this post and others but my posts are moved to another thread without notice. I can see how that disrupts the narrative.

    I saw those responses today. My response: No, the CFers have not responded appropriately. In scientific discourse via the literature, it is expected that what is published will be digested by the readers. Then, they may comment back, either directly via Comments or indirectly in the body of related publications of new work. Storms did the former with his 2006 Comment, and Szpak, et al, did the latter in their 2004 paper. Then it's the original author's turn (actually anyone can chime in). I replied immediately to the Storms comment, and somewhat later to the Szpak, et al, paper (because I didn't see it right away). In those replies I gave reasons why what the commenters said was irrelevant or incorrect. Normally, the debate would continue, usually in subsequent publications but once in a while in a second layer of Comment and Reply, but that's where this drama goes off script. The CFers quit responding. Instead Storms published a book in 2007 where he mentions my objections and claims he addressed all concerns, referencing my 2002 paper and his 2006 response, but completely failing to mention my 2006 reply to his comment. IOW he implies the issue was settled by his pointing out my 'mistakes', and by not mentioning my rebuttal, he further implies to the reader that there was none, solidifying his implicit claim of 'putting me in my place'. That is inappropriate.

    There never was a response to the 2005 paper until Miles (one of the authors of the 2004 paper I commented on) published his recent 2017 article in Infinite Energy vol 132. There, Miles claims that the paper he is publishing was written primarily by Fleishmann and that it rebutted my objections. But Miles also failed to note my 2005 rebuttal, even admitting he had never read *any* of my papers on the subject. Also inappropriate behavior.

    Then there is the 10 author rebuttal of my 2010 comment on the 2009 Marwan and Krivit article, where they misrepresent what I write by attempting to convert the CCS abbreviation I use to CCSH, which stands for Calibration Constant Shift Hypothesis, followed by attempting to convince the reader that I discuss random errors when I clearly talk about systematic ones. (In case you or someone else is unfamiliar with the terms, random and systematic are diametrically opposed.) This is a clear case of the use of the strawman argument which is known as a fallacious logical tactic. Yet from that time they have proceeded to act as if they 'put the final nail in the coffin' regarding my ATER/CCS (at the electrode recombination/calibration constant shift) proposed mechanism for getting apparent excess heat signals. Also inappropriate behavior.

    Since I rebutted their objections to my proposals, and demonstrated that it worked in the case of the Szpak, et al, 2004 paper's results (plus several other cases via Internet forum discussions), the ball is in their court to continue scientific discourse. But they didn't. They labeled me a 'skeptopath', and thereby justified their ignoring me. Just look at how Hagelstein handled the question on my work from his audience in his 2015 'MIT' Cold Fusion course. First off, he doesn't know what the *only* publishing skeptic says about CF, he has to go and look it up. This is true even when he is quoting conclusions from my 2010 paper in his slides! When he comes back the next day, he restates my theses reasonably well, but then says nothing. But his body language does... Combine that with the fact that he was presenting my work in the section where he was warning the course attendees about the 'difficulties' they will face when and if they decide to do CF research, and you get a pretty good idea where he stands on the validity of my work. But I have to ask, on what basis does he make this decision? The erroneous "random Shanahan CCSH" strawman he and 9 others invented? Again, quite inappropriate.

    So, no, they have not even dealt with correctly evaluating my work, let alone the next phase where they respond to it.

  • Zeph wrote: “IMO you're just poorly informed about subject.” {ROFL}

    and “Today the most replicated experiments are based on Palladium Deuterium, electrolysis and gas permeation. Production of heat have been proven above 50 sigma, and at COP above 2.”

    Then Zeph included a favorite figure used by McKubre.

    Zeph, you’ve just proven how uninformed you really are. Let’s start with what you wrote. So, COP>2. What do you mean by that? Do you mean COP=500 or 10 million or maybe just COP = 2.x where x=0-9? I’ll assume you mean the latter, and just call it COP=3. That means Pout/Pin =3 and then Pex = 2Pin. OK. So if that is ~50 sigma, that means 2Pin ~= 50 sigma, and sigma = .04Pin. Usually people talk about ~50 mW as being 1 sigma, so that means Pin was ~1.25W and Pex was ~2.5W. This is your best case, assuming COP=3 and sigma = .05W.

    Now, the data Ed Storms used to demonstrate excess heat signals from Pt used ~20W Pin values. The strongest signal he had was peaked at 780mW. My reanalysis of that same data showed that could be obtained by a 2-3% calibration constant shift, which is just a typical noise level on a well determined experimental number. IOW, the correct figure to use for the noise level of the experiment was not 50-80 mW but 500-800mW (roughly). Using that number, your Pex above is just 3-5 sigma, not 50.

    3 sigma is considered ‘in the noise’, but the LHC guys who found the Higgs boson use 5 sigma as a detection level in their work. IOW, your ‘best case that proves CF is real’ is potentially just noise. This of course assumes the method for getting your 2.5W Pex was calorimetric. If it wasn’t, the preceding may not directly apply. So you see, you shouldn’t just bandy numbers about, you should cite the specific refs.

    Additionally, electrolysis and gas permeation experiments are significantly different configurations, so I’m back to the point of proving each separately is valid before you lump them together.

    Now to the McKubre figure. First off, you recall I just mentioned the Storms data, determined on platinum (NOT palladium) cathodes? That proves ‘loading’ is not the generic controlling factor for generating apparent excess heat signals. (Note that CF signals from Ni-light water F&P systems also support this idea.) Hydride chemists have tried extensively to hydride Pt, but have never succeeded. Pt does not form a hydride. So McK’s plot is only applicable to Pd chemistry at best. Since we did see apparent excess heat from Pt, we can surmise it is a surface effect only. That suggests that the same could be said of Pd.

    Now as I mentioned in response to your picture in post #14 in this thread, Pd swells when it absorbs H. In addition, there are several papers out there by Yuh Fukai that suggest the formation of ‘superabundant vacancies’ (or voids inside the Pd) at high loadings (H/Pd>~.85). Those vacancies are thought to form by ejecting the Pd atoms that were in the void and shifting them to the surface (by a domino like effect, the ejected Pd atom is probably not the one that gets pushed up onto the surface). Alternatively, they can lead to a higher degree of dislocation formation than usually observed when hydriding Pd (normal loading form dislocations). It is my opinion that those newly formed surface atoms serve as the basis for the ‘special active state’ that promotes ATER. The key point is that it is not how many H atoms are in the bulk that causes the effect, it is the ease of forming the special active surface state.

    So the McK figure is a pretty graphic used to promote a pet idea, which under scrutiny involving the whole field, just doesn’t hold up. Hmmm…where have we heard of an idea being ignored in favor of promoting a pet position…? There’s more I could say, but I expect it would be wasted, so I’ll stop here…

  • Quote

    Then Zeph included a favorite figure used by McKubre

    Just because at the case of another LENR systems the reproducibility is not so good for to construct such a graph. Once you find another one - for example with platinum - I'll link it as an evidence of LENR reliability as well.


    So the McK figure is a pretty graphic used to promote a pet idea, which under scrutiny involving the whole field, just doesn’t hold up

    This curve has been confirmed many experiments. On palladium without optimal hydrogenation the LENR doesn't run well.


    So McK’s plot is only applicable to Pd chemistry at best

    Which is why I didn't talk about platinum or whatever else less reproducible LENR catalyst.

  • Quote

    Did anyone else notice that Zeph seemed to miss the entire point of my previous reply to him...?

    You missed the point instead: I told, that most reproducible LENR is this one with 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.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.