Rossi vs. Darden aftermath discussions

Quote from kirkshanahan

The factors that change when you disassemble and reassemble a cell cause the cell calibration equation to be different. This is known and obvious. This is NOT moving the heat from one zone to another, as I deem a requirement to see a CCS.

Miles also moved the source of heat from one zone to another, with different configurations. But let us assume you are right, and he did not. In that case, there can be no CCS in his cells. Yet he saw excess heat.

The changes in the cell calibration after disassembly and re-assembly are in noise, which is "±20 mW or ±1% of the input power" (p. 13). He saw up to 360 mW of excess heat (in the studies in this paper).

More to the point, when you disassemble and reassemble a cell, that never causes it to produce spurious excess heat. Even if the calibration constant changes significantly, you always measure the new one; you don't use the old one. And if you did not re-measure the calibration constant, the cell would as likely produce "anomalous cold" as heat. As would your CCS theory; something you have never explained.

Excess heat only occurs with Pd-D, not Pd-H, Pt-H, or Pt-D. It only occurs when loading exceeds a certain level, and when the Pd cathode does not fracture or develops macroscopic cracks. These causal factors cannot affect the calorimetry. They cannot even trigger your imaginary CCS -- even according to you. Yet the excess heat appears only with Pd-D, intact and highly loaded. Your theory cannot explain that. It cannot begin to explain it. No error in calorimetry could be connected with these factors. They are totally independent of the method of calorimetry.

Quote from JedRothwell

As would your CCS theory; something you have never explained.

Or even acknowledged, I believe. (Going by the complaints about Marwan's "random CCSH" comment)

Quote from [email protected]

Kinetic Energy is 0.5mv^2 and momentum is mv.

This is just classical 101 Phsics. In case of particles you better use the relativistic formulation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…E2%80%93momentum_relation

Quote from [email protected]

. That ball stacking display showed how 800% more KE was harnessed from essentially a linear system

NO NO NO NO.

This is out of any Physics.

Total Energy and momentum are conserved.

see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elastic_collision

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elastic_scattering

@forum

Jed responded to a brief post of mine with two separate posts. In the first he mistakenly attributes his words to me. I suspect this is just a function of the quoting option of this forum, but you all need to realize the correct quote is:

Quote from JedRothwell

1. His calibrations show that when you move the source of the heat within the cell, it does not change the cell calibration constant.

2. The schematic of the cell clearly shows that moving the heat source within it cannot affect the calibration constant.

I first became interested in this field in 1995. I really didn't start posting much until 1997-8. Jed was in it from the beginning I believe. But after 15 years (2002-2017) Jed still can't express my proposal with any degree of accuracy. This is why I label him as 'unteachable'. Miles' work does not address the CCS/ATER issue, but Jed chooses not to understand that, and instead chooses to assail me with pseudoscientific claptrap aimed at convincing you all that a) he knows what he is doing, and b) I don't. My suggestion to you is to not fall for that garbage.

As I said previously, since Jed is unteachable I will not respond to his posts. If any of you think there is some point he makes that is important, let me know which one and I'll tell you why it is wrong, and hopefully *you* will get the lesson...

Zeus46 quoted Jed:

Quote from JedRothwell

As would your CCS theory; something you have never explained.

and then wrote:

Quote from Zeus46

Or even acknowledged, I believe. (Going by the complaints about Marwan's "random CCSH" comment)

I have explained what Jed is talking about, in this forum, at least a couple of times. I am trying not to continuously repeat myself, so I'll not rewrite it here. However, if I were to answer I would also have to spend considerable time countering Jed's misrepresentation of what I have said and what the CCS/ATER proposal entails. You should always assume he never gets it right. That has been true for many years now.

It's easiest to say that my CCS/ATER proposal has never been addressed by the CF community. When they claim they have, they are wrong.

Your best bet is to actually try to understand my proposal as THH has done. Then the statement "You don't calibrate with an active electrode." will make perfect sense to you.

Quote from Alan Smith

But have you ever proposed some method of proving CCS/ATER by an experiment? I think not. Without that it is just a hypothesis, and as such merely a unicorn.

Really Alan? Really??

Replication of LENR experiments

[SPLIT]Older LENR Experiments were bad, good... in general

[Split] Reconsidering F&P with CCS....

[Split] Reconsidering F&P with CCS....

[Split] Reconsidering F&P with CCS....

do experiment, report results and let peer decide if you did the experiment correctly or not.

@Alan

No I didn't do it and to a high degree of certainty. I probably won't. I once outlined the reasons for this for Jed back on spf, and I've done it here too. It boils down to no funding and the massive administrative barriers towards working with experiments that can explode. That's runs the cost and time requirements through the roof for me. And I have the same funding issues you do. I work for a company and am not independently wealthy.

But how hard is it for Storms or McKubre or ... to have done what I suggest? How hard is it for them to have realized that's all it takes (I believe), instead of spinning tales to put down my ideas? How hard is it for them to look at their old data and find a case where the CCS problem doesn't potentially explain away their observations?

Quote from kirkshanahan

But how hard is it for Storms or McKubre or ... to have done what I suggest?

They don't need to. Their experiments already prove you are wrong. So do the experiments by Miles and by everyone else. For the reasons given by Marwan and me, such as: the choice of cathode material cannot cause the effects you ascribe to your theory. Your theory would produce anomalous cold as often as heat. Etc.

You are demanding that other people prove you are wrong, when they have already done so.

Quote from maryyugo

I assume this translates to calibrating while electrolysis is taking place

Nope , not what I mean. ("active" => showing excess heat effect)

Quote from maryyugo

Why not add Joule heat in varying known quantity during an electrolysis run (with a special heater for the purpose) at constant electrolysis input power (in one instance) and constant temperature in the cell (in another instance) and seeing the effect of the added heat on output? It would be at least interesting.

They have done this with calibration pulses while electrolyzing. Won't show a problem as long as the heater is where it normally is, in the electrolyte. You need to simulate the change in steady state that occurs (for ex. in a closed cell) when recombination moves from the recomb. catalyst to the electrode. So you'd need a heater in the gas space to simulate the recomb cat., reduce power to it, incr power to the immersed heater, presumably voila, excess heat.

Quote from maryyugo

OK. I wonder at what level of excess heat and out/in power ratio CCS would stop to be a reasonable consideration

The maximum amount of recombination is given by the current (I) times the thermoneutral voltage (Eth) (which is 1.41 for H and 1.54 for D I think). The electrolysis power in is split into the power that goes into making H2 and O2 (I * Eth) and Ohmic heating of the electrolyte (Ein-Eth)*I = Eohm*I. Apparent excess heat could be up to 100% of the I*Eth term, but there is also a 'bump-up' as I call it to account for the thermal losses which can magnify the apparent excess heat. The size of the bump-up depends on the overall heat capture efficiency of the calorimeter system. But I doubt it would ever be greater than 2 (guessing!). So you can estimate the maximum 'CCS-based' apparent excess heat by taking the I*Eth term and multiplying it by 2, then dividing by the total input power and multiplying by 100 to get a %. If your measured %excess heat is greater than that, you may be on to something (assuming no other errors are present).

This is why looking at old data could potentially negate the CCS concern. The calc is reasonably simple.

For maximum sensitivity, you'd want as little ohmic heating as possible (Eohm~0), but that means measuring lower power levels which gets trickier of course.

Quote from maryyugo

I realize it may be different for different experiments and different geometries but for example, in the Mizuno case, there must some level he can reach where it stops to really matter.

Because there is no mechanism I can think of akin to ATER in his setup, I kind of doubt a CCS is relevant. Of course it could, but I'd personally suspect something else, such as feedback or ground loop issues. That's why it is important to get the time sequencing of experimental runs down. Ideally you want the cal runs interspersed with the active runs.

Quote from maryyugo

Just out of curiosity, and if you can say, how do you use deuterated metals in closed containers... generically if you can't be specific

I work at the Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL) which is one functional unit of the Savannah River Site (SRS), which is a DOE-owned, contractor operated facility for the production of nuclear weapon materials. I support the tritium separation and purification process, which uses Pd to separate and purify tritium, and other hydride-forming materials for storage of tritium (such as U, Ti, La-Ni-Al alloys). We place kgs of these metal in SS vessels to do this processing, and of course they are closed. There are lots of publications out there about our tritium processes, just do a lit search. I also do hydride material development and R&D.