I should probably have written 'sense of caution', I got a little caught up in rearranging your parlance.
That in turn leads to a CCS because of the specifics of the cell design.
That in turn leads to a theoretical, or hypothesised, CCS... Possibly better referred to as a/the CCSH. A label you seem to reject?
That in turn leads to a theoretical, or hypothesised, CCS... Possibly better referred to as a/the CCSH. A label you seem to reject?
"CCS" was an acronym I defined to ease my typing efforts. As such, the 10 author's attempt to cast doubt on my proposal by relabeling it a 'hypothesis' is a little amusing.
The fact is, pay attention Zeus, if the heat distribution changes in an asymmetric cell, the prior calibration can be rendered irrelevant. That's a math fact, no doubt whatsoever.
The only question is can that happen? The answer is generically yes, it happens all the time.
So the next question is "How does that happen in these experiments?" ATER is my proposed explanation. If I'm wrong on that, no big deal. The math evidence from the reanalysis still says a CCS may well have occurred. maybe not via ATER, but via something... BTW, the alternative to this is logically the CF mechanism. The idea of CF falls out of the math when you assume the signal is real.
When a 'good' scientist is faced with an alternative explanation of a phenomenon he/she is studying, he/she does not concoct strawman arguments to allow him/her to ignore the alternative. He/she redesigns the experiment to prove/disprove whether the alternative is correct.
As such, the 10 author's attempt to cast doubt on my proposal by relabeling it a 'hypothesis' is a little amusing.
But it is a hypothesis. This type of comment is what I was referring when I questioned your own cause sense of caution.
But it is a hypothesis. This type of comment is what I was referring when I questioned your own cause sense of caution.
No it isn't. It is a fact. If the true calibration equations is P = 17 X + 5, and you use P = 187 X - 5436, you have erred. Fact. Not hypothesis.
The hypothesis is that ATER started up, changed the heat distribution, which invalidated the prior calibration equation.
If the true calibration equation in the lab is P = 17 X + 5, and I sit at my writing desk and say the magic HATER* elf has possibly altered it to P = 187 X - 5436. That's a hypothesis. Fact.
*
I should probably have written 'sense of caution', I got a little caught up in rearranging your parlance.
That in turn leads to a theoretical, or hypothesised, CCS... Possibly better referred to as a/the CCSH. A label you seem to reject?
That is true, but we are comparing CCSH with LENRH, and CCSH is a better fit to the known calorimetric facts in these experiments (excess proportional to heat in when effect is present). Sure, both are unproven - which is why those interested should be trying to find out what are the limits of CCS and whether ATER exists - instead of assuming that observations which could be ATER or LENR must be LENR. Unlike LENRH, CCS/ATERH is disprovable which means it offers more traction to move things forward.
That is true, but we are comparing CCSH with LENRH
...For sure.
CCSH is a better fit to the known calorimetric facts in these experiments (excess proportional to heat in when effect is present)
...A conjecture at best.
AA: yes, I am being snide because you guys are being so belligerent and arrogant. The argument that there have been many things that people denied that turned out to be true is utterly meaningless. It has the same problem as the LENR is true because it hasn't been disproven approach. Are you arguing that everything most people have ever thought was wrong has turned out to be correct? I hope not. We can all agree that most people denying something doesn't necessarily make it false. But it doesn't make it true either.
You can declare that the evidence for LENR is rock solid all day long but that doesn't make that a true statement. You can take Jed's approach that anyone who doesn't draw that conclusion is an ignoramus who just hasn't read enough papers. Personally, I find that more offensive than a little snideness.
And, by the way, I am not even convinced that LENR doesn't exist. I suspect there is a real effect in there. I also suspect that, given the amount of time and effort that has gone into this, there is little chance anything will ever come of it. But, unlike the lot of you, I am quite open to the possibility that I am wrong.
If the true calibration equation in the lab is P = 17 X + 5, and I sit at my writing desk and say the magic HATER* elf has possibly altered it to P = 187 X - 5436. That's a hypothesis. Fact.
Exactly. You proposed a mechanism, just like I did. That is the hypothesis, that some mechanism induced a steady-state change that caused the prior calibration equation to become inaccurate.
Now, what support to you garner from the data that suggests a HATER elf is active?
But, unlike the lot of you, I am quite open to the possibility that I am wrong.
I always find it weird when 'skeptics' make claims of their own mind-reading abilities. Kind of gives their game away, eh?
Now, what support do you garner from the data that suggests a HATER elf is active?
He also blasted some strange-looking exit wounds in the electrodes, made some new elements, and produced a little bit of radiation.
Only elfs do that. 
Only elfs do that.
ref to calibration/characterization studies please?
some strange-looking exit wounds in the electrodes, and made some new elements and produced a little bit of radiation
In reverse order...
I've never claimed to be an expert on radiation detection instrumentation, so I will beg off of a detailed discussion here and just note that some people think 'noise' might be a problem. But, not my field of knowledge....
Now I have commented on CR39 evidence, primarily w.r.t. plates in the electrolyte. So if that's what you mean, there are alternative explanations for pits in CR39 from these systems.
New elements? Are you sure? They weren't there to begin with, maybe hiding? I generally assume these are contaminants present in the starting materials, possibly there when the materials were purchased or introduced later accidentally. To assume they come from LENRs is a wild-eyed hope by CF believers.
You see, metallurgists know that contaminants in metals can be well-dispersed or concentrated in local spots. Such concentrations might actually arise due to increased diffusion rates in hydrided materials, whose lattice has expanded up to 20% or so. Those concentrations will have a different local yield stress due to different bonding that comes about because of different elements and orbitals.
Now we also know that electrochemical loading is equivalent to very high pressure gas loading, and we have a proposal out there for something called superabundant vacancies, i.e. ordered arrays of holes in the metal, that serve as bubble nucleation sites, as could these contaminant concentration points, formed by high pressure loading. In any case, once the loading gets high, the internal pressure of these bubbles (caused by molecular hydrogen forming in the holes) can exceed the yield stress and 'pop'.
Same thing happens in steam and methane embrittlement, where H reacts with dissolved O or C to make water and methane _inside_ the metal. The water and/or methane then accumulate in bubbles until the pressure gets high enough and then they 'pop' too.
Some people also comment about the appearances of melting on the crater edges. Well, appearances can be deceiving, and I suppose that the sharp edges of the crater we all expect to see are in fact rounded off, probably during the unloading process (which shrinks away that 20% expansion noted before) that occurs when they take the electrodes out and prepare them for the SEM. Difficult to study that, but possible with a lot of effort.
Now we also know that electrochemical loading is equivalent to very high pressure gas loading, and we have a proposal out there for something called superabundant vacancies, i.e. ordered arrays of holes in the metal, that serve as bubble nucleation sites, as could these contaminant concentration points, formed by high pressure loading. In any case, once the loading gets high, the internal pressure of these bubbles (caused by molecular hydrogen forming in the holes) can exceed the yield stress and 'pop'.
Interesting. Is a rough upper limit on the size of these SAVs typically noticed? How many planes would a single SAV typically form in?
New elements? Are you sure? They weren't there to begin with, maybe hiding? I generally assume these are contaminants present in the starting materials, possibly there when the materials were purchased or introduced later accidentally. To assume they come from LENRs is a wild-eyed hope by CF believers.
You see, metallurgists know that contaminants in metals can be well-dispersed or concentrated in local spots.
Of course one has to assume contaminants are present, but having been taught and then studied more than than my fair share of metallurgy, I have still come across a handful of LENR papers/slides that in my opinion show features that are wholly incongruous with any mass transport mechanisms that I know of, or believe could reasonably exist.
Drawing parallels between HTS and LENR is a dangerous thing to do. Since 1987, any remotely qualified laboratory in the world could whip up a batch of YBCO and demonstrate superconductivity for you with no more than a day's notice. They could hand you some samples and you can go off and measure whatever you'd like however you want to do it and prove to yourself that it works. No ifs, ands, or buts. Tell me whose lab to go to for a similar experience with LENR even after 28 years.
LENR is more difficult than superconductors. And that boson theory is only a few short years old, so the unscientists had been operating without a precious superconducting theory for more than 20 years. Tell me who amont the top hundred electrochemists failed to replicate Pons/Fleischmann? There was only one, Lewis, and his error was pointed out. So to call one area a science when it operates without a theory while the other area isn't a science is simply a pile of bullshit.
Quick fact check. LENR-CANR.ORG database still only lists 3 of my journal articles, and does not list my whitepaper. And you've been told where the papers are, with journal references and web links to manuscripts. Liar, liar, pants on fire...
Did you give him explicit permission? Jed posted here that he's been burned at least once by someone who posted on a discussion board that he had permission but the author was full of shit.
Display MoreThat is mostly not true, there is a very good and intuitive underlying theory for HTS based on Cooper pairs (or other mechanisms) coupling electrons into bosonic objects.
I think what you misunderstand is that the details of this remain unclear. Exactly what gets coupled so that an ensemble can have bosonic properties and therefore superconduct is still in some cases active research - it looks as though there are multiple candidates.
The underlying theory (coupling of fermions into bosonic objects) makes quantitative experimental predictions (about how properties change with temperature) which are validated by many many different experiments, and requires nothing not already known, and is predicted from QM that itself is validated in many other ways.
Where you are correct is that no-one is entirely clear what are all the different coupling mechanisms active in different materials, or how best to optimise them. That space remains open but understanding has been growing monotonically. Still there will be new materials exhibiting unexpected behaviour since the type of solid-state interactions that do this coupling are incredibly complex and variable. And no-one says that HTS is fully understood - therefore you will note that all the papers claiming specific detailed mechanisms - until very well validated - are treated with much skepticism.
That is like the most roundabout way of saying that they have no underlying theory but they're getting closer, so what they do is science but what LENR does aint science. You might as well say what's sauce for the goose aint sauce for the gander.
All correct. Which is why science doesn't seek to 'disprove the existence of...'. Science seeks to demonstrate such -and-such an effect through reproducible (i.e. controllable) experiments that can be replicated by those skilled in the art, and many times by just regular old scientists. CF doesn't meet that mark.
The P-F effect has been replicated in at least 153 peer reviewed publications by the top hundred electrochemists of their day. It meets the mark except that skeptopaths are speaking so loudly, such as what happened with germ theory, plate tectonic theory, and the Wright brothers prior to 1908.
The most anyone could possibly do is disprove a particular experiment and even that is unlikely.
WHAT the hell are you talking about? Many individual experiments have been disproved. I myself disproved several, including one that I did myself. See:
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJreportonmi.pdf
Here's one that I called into question:
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJreportonar.pdf
In recent months, I have raised a number of questions about Rossi's work, to put it in academic-speak.
People disprove experiments all the time. That's how you do science.
If there were anything wrong with experiments from Fleischmann, McKubre or Storms many skeptics would be eager to find the problem or problems. Morrison and Shanahan thought they found problems, and they were not reticent to publish their findings.
Then I pop up with the CCS/ATER effect/mechanism, which is pretty solid. ....But with my objections, they didn't find it so easy to dismiss my points, and instead of acknowledging this and responding by testing my theories in their apparati, they concocted a strawman argument and found a friendly journal to publish it in. The use of fallacies to dismiss my objections actually supports the validity of my work, as anyone who debates ideas realizes.
You have a very high opinion of your theory, which has been rightfully rejected by the top electrochemists. You even have your own thread for your theory right here on this forum, and no one bothers to discuss your theory even here.
Quick fact check. LENR-CANR.ORG database still only lists 3 of my journal articles, and does not list my whitepaper. And you've been told where the papers are, with journal references and web links to manuscripts. Liar, liar, pants on fire...
Let me remind you once again:
I will only upload your papers or add the titles to your papers with your permission. You have to send me permission by e-mail. You have to send me a copy of the paper you would like me to upload as an attachment.
I will not upload anything or any information based on messages in a discussion group. That's my policy.
I will copy this message to you via e-mail, if your address has not changed. . . .
Nope. No can do. I do not have a current working e-mail address for you. The old one I have says "BLOCKED Denied by policy." You will have to contact me at [email protected]
Alternatively, you can continue to accuse me of lying, while you refuse to send me anything. You are not the first to play that stupid game!
Interesting. Is a rough upper limit on the size of these SAVs typically noticed? How many planes would a single SAV typically form in?
The primary researcher who was investigating this is Yuh Fukai. He also wrote a book on hydrides. He is no longer following it up. I was there at one of the International Symposia on Metal-Hydrogen Systems when he announced he was getting out of it due to lack of interest by the community. As I recall, he initially got onto the work by noting that high pressure cycled Pd showed holes in SEM. I think they were of the low nanometer sizes, but I could be wrong.
The other thing I didn't mention is that He bubbles form in Pd when loaded with tritium and allowed to decay for a few weeks. He is highly insoluble in Pd, so the bubbles form fast, and then grow by a mechanism where the small bubbles disappear and large ones get bigger (there's a name for this mechanism that escapes me at the moment). Eventually the bubbles near the surface crack through and the He is released. Internally bubbles crack through to other bubbles as well. Personally, I can see ultrahigh loading do the same thing with H2 in Pd or other metals, but that's just an opinion. The He bubbles initially are also on the few nanometer size scale when they become visible in SEM and TEM.
Of course one has to assume contaminants are present, but having been taught and then studied more than than my fair share of metallurgy, I have still come across a handful of LENR papers/slides that in my opinion show features that are wholly incongruous with any mass transport mechanisms that I know of, or believe could reasonably exist.
No material is 100% pure. The question is always "do the contaminants matter?" But to answer that you have to identify and quantify the contaminants. However it is typical that heavy metals like Pd have a few ppm of several other metal atoms floating around in them. Likewise, dissolved light elements like C, S, and O are often present to some extent.
W.r.t. mass transport - don't discount the 'lubricating' effect H has on metal and light atom diffusion. I personally think this might be an interesting area to investigate, especially since I see a lot of hints of it in CF results. For example, when I was making metallized beads back in the late 90's-early 00's, I took some sulfonated polystyrene beads (Patterson Power Cell) and added ionic Cu and Pd. When I hit them with H2, the Pd and Cu metallized, but the neat thing was that the Cu agglomerated into half-mm sized lumps and literally fell off the beads. The Pd also agglomerated but did not fall off, and instead formed dendritic layers on the plastic (kinda like a fern-leaf laid down on the bead). As ions they were uniformly distributed, but they moved around quite dramatically when the metallization reaction took off. This process put out a good bit of heat, sometimes I saw external temps on the reactor on the order of 100C. Still that's a lot lower than the 1/2 the melting point most people talk about for sintering and such.
