Replication of LENR experiments

Quote from maryyugo

Do you (does anyone) see THAT in this (P&F) paper? WHERE? Which plot, which text, which claim, which result?

RTFM. There is a three-hour version in Figs. 8 and 9.

I explained how it works again and again and again. You say you don't understand, or you don't see it. Where, where, where . . . It is right in front of your face! It couldn't be clearer. Okay, you are either pretending not to understand, or you really are not capable of understanding this experiment. Either way you have no business critiquing it. Just admit it is over your head and move on.

Quote from maryyugo

The contortions one has to go to in order to conclude that LENR/cold fusion are real and could potentially provide high power with small amounts of fuel and yet all that is being ignored-- those contortions are immense. May as well believe in unicorns.

Or, perhaps, you might read industrial history which has COUNTLESS of examples of this happening. Such as DEC and Data General ignoring the rise of personal computers and destroying themselves. DEC was the second largest computer company in the U.S. A decade later it was gone. Or GM standing by doing nothing while the other car makers ate their lunch and drove them into bankruptcy in 2009. Or Sears and KMART letting Walmart and Amazon.com take their business away. Or AT&T driving itself into bankruptcy during the largest boom in the history of telecommunications. It happens every decade!

Quote from JedRothwell

To reiterate, Britz tallied 153 papers in the 1990s. See:

Umm Kevin, that was a link, not a question. It linked to a specific post I had made regarding the Roulette paper.

Quote from JedRothwell

Anyway, in normal science, four or five of the top quality, multi-year replications would have convinced every scientist on earth the effect is real. It is ridiculous to demand more than that. No one would demand more if the normal rules of science applied. I mean, for example, the research at SRI, Los Alamos, the NCFI, BARC, China Lake, the ENEA and several of the Japanese labs.

Yes, you're right. And that's exactly why no one is convinced today. IOW, show us the supposed 4 or 5 papers that would convince 'normal' scientists of LENR's validity.

And recall, your link to the Fleischmann and Pons paper isn't one of them, as I have already referred you to my whitepaper (multiple times) which a) shows the F&P calorimetric method has issues, and b) the supposed HAD event described in your linked paper isn't really a HAD.

IOW, quit trying to influence us with assertions. Back up your claims.

Quote from Alan Smith

Bill Gates has invested, Elon Musk is investigating, the Chinese are working on it, the Saudis are watching from behind a dune. Is that enough?

Shows a couple of things...

Previous success is no guarantee of future success.

There's a sucker born every minute.

Quote from JedRothwell

RTFM. There is a three-hour version in Figs. 8 and 9.

I explained how it works again and again and again. You say you don't understand, or you don't see it. Where, where, where . . . It is right in front of your face! It couldn't be clearer. Okay, you are either pretending not to understand, or you really are not capable of understanding this experiment. Either way you have no business critiquing it. Just admit it is over your head and move on.

Back at you! Rossi vs. Darden aftermath discussions

That post explains how a 3 hour elevated temperature could be maintained in the radically altered environment of a boiled-off F&P cell/calorimeter. RTP and DYH.

Regarding the Roulette 100W paper: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RouletteTresultsofi.pdf

Kirk says...

Quote

This details experiments carried out by Pons and associates while at the IRMA lab (Toyota funded) in 1996. Note that this is prior to my CCS publication, so this paper will NOT consider the CCS at all.

Based on this paper, I can say Jed’s comment (“Results from 100 W with no input power”) makes no sense. The paper describes 7 experiments conducted in a new calorimeter, 4 gave no excess, one is listed as ‘Variable’ % excess power with 30.5 MJ of “total energy”, presumably ‘produced’. (Based on the only data table in the paper, which Jed uses in his video.) One gave 150% excess power with 294 MJ produced, and the 4^th in sequence gave 250% excess and 102 MJ produced. There is a line in the table with the label “Pwrexcess/W/4.2hr” which is unclear to me. The values listed are (-0.1, -0.6, 101, 17.3, 13.8, 74.5, 39.4). This is the only line of data that has “W” in the label, so it this the 100W Jed refers to? (If so it refers to run 3, which we have no information on besides what is in the table.)

The paper has several figures of data from experiment 4 (the one that produced 250% excess and 102 MJ). Presumably, the input power profiles are similar for all the experiments (hopefully?). You have to be careful in reading them because some of them have a 1/100 factor involved. The input power however, is never 0, as Jed claims. Figure 3 gives cell voltage (divided by 100) and Figure 4 give the current. During the 1^st 35 hours, the Pin is low, Pin = 0.21A * 0.8*100 V = 17 W. Then the amps jumps up to ~0.9, and the voltage does some strange things. First it starts to increase in a slow, non-linear fashion until the 48^th hr, where it jumps up to about 84V, so Pin is .9*84 = 75.6 W. But this is certainly not “0”. So Jed’s comment seems to be unrelated to this run at least.

THEREFORE due to lack of data and/or misstatements by Jed, I cannot confirm “100W excess power with zero input”. This is a typical result when examining cold fusion reports in detail.

Care to clarify Jed?

More confusion… Figure 5 gives “Cell Temperature”, apparently in degrees C, but the values plotted range from 0 to 1.0. So, I have no idea what this is. No mention of a 100 factor, but maybe we should multiply by 100 again?

The cell has three thermistors installed at different vertical heights (in a typical F&P cell design). I believe the calorimetric method is a type of isoperibolic calorimetry (i.e. Pout = k * (Tcell – Tbath)). They show the ‘excess power derived for each thermistor. They also note that depending on input power regime a different thermistor is used. In the 4^thrun, the bottom one was not valid. Figure 7 and Figure 8 show this for the top and middle thermistor, and both show ~100W signals lasting ~25 hours, with a lead-in ramp up lasting about 16 hours and a following ramp down lasting about 7 hours or so. Figure 9 for the bottom thermistor shows a flat-lined 0 value signal.

Figure 10 shows the % excess heat but the peak value is ~ .16% of Pin (again no 100X mentioned but maybe this is actually 16%? Still, not 150%...).

Figure 11 shows accumulated excess energy and ends at ~310 MJ, but the table lists that run as producing 101 MJ. (Integrated Pin over that period (16+25+7 hrs) is 75W * 48 hrs * 3600 sec/hr = 13.13 MJ.)

So again I can’t make heads or tails from this. What gives Jed? Are you really claiming this paper shows 100W power out with no input? How do you do that?

BTW, there are no calibration equations or coefficients given, so I can’t easily estimate the possible CCS magnitude.

Show me where I’m wrong here folks….

Display More

Which makes some good points about odd units and the like. "Pwrexcess/W/4.2hr" ermm, what?

I'm not sure about the relevance of needing the calibration equations to estimate the 'possible CCS magnitude' though... I think it misses the point a bit.

I actually buy into Kirk's arguments about the potential for a moving heat source being able to positively skew some F&P-type results, and that the percentage of total heat loss from the calorimeter sets an upper bound on the magnitude of the effect. A novel hydrogen-oxygen recombination mechanism happening at the electrode could cause this... in theory. (Please correct me if that's not a good summary).

So the calorimeter in the above paper works by measuring two temperatures across a resistance, near the inner and outer surfaces of a submerged circular tube. The slice where these are measured is above the surface of the boiling electrolysis water inside, meaning the measured temperature difference is proportional to the heat captured from the boiled off steam, a lot of which is likely being lost out of the top of the calorimeter... Which would seem to make the "possible CCS magnitude" quite large.

But isn't the real question: What mechanism, of H-O recombination or otherwise, could cause this apparent shift of the heat source to above the surface of the boiling water?

Quote from maryyugo

Apparently not for Jed and other LENR advocates who are still bleating continuously that they've been screwed by all who fund research.

I have never claimed I was screwed. I have never applied for funding. On the contrary, I have funded experiments.

Quote from maryyugo

Did you or did you not claim 100W, no input power, and days of running?

Yes, of course I did. Repeatedly, right here.

Quote from maryyugo

Three hours are not days.

Obviously I was referring to other results of a similar nature. Anyone can see that is what I meant. Your objection is absurd.

Quote from Zeus46

I actually buy into Kirk's arguments about the potential for a moving heat source being able to positively skew some F&P-type results, and that the percentage of total heat loss from the calorimeter sets an upper bound on the magnitude of the effect.

You should not buy that, because actual data from real calorimeters in which the heat source was deliberately moved show no significant effect. In other words, cold fusion experiments prove that Shanahan is wrong. We are talking about cold fusion experiments here, not hypothetical experiments that might have been performed somewhere, sometime, someplace.

This is experimental science. All questions must be settled with reference to actual data from real instruments. Not by theory, or guesswork, or hand-waving. Shanahan has proposed a hypothesis: that you can affect the performance of the calorimeters used in cold fusion experiments by moving the heat source within the cell. For example, from the anode and cathode to a joule heater. That is done all the time. There are hundreds of examples. There is not a single instance in which it make a measurable, significant difference in the cell calibration constant. If it had made a difference, the researcher would have rebuilt the calorimeter to eliminate this problem. That's the whole point of calibrating.

Quote from Zeus46

But isn't the real question: What mechanism, of H-O recombination or otherwise, could cause this apparent shift of the heat source to above the surface of the boiling water?

That cannot be the real question because it never happens. There is no H-O recombination in cold fusion experiments with open cells. It is easy to confirm that, and electrochemists always do confirm it. There is 100% certain recombination with closed cells, and it is always above the waterline. If it does not happen above the waterline at a dry recombiner, the cells explode.

The "real question" in experimental science is not an imaginary event that demonstrably does not happen. That's fantasy, not science.

Quote from JedRothwell

There is not a single instance in which it make a measurable, significant difference in the cell calibration constant. If it had made a difference, the researcher would have rebuilt the calorimeter to eliminate this problem. That's the whole point of calibrating.

Yeah that does seem like a fairly basic principle when building one.

Quote from JedRothwell

That cannot be the real question because it never happens. There is no H-O recombination in cold fusion experiments with open cells. It is easy to confirm that, and electrochemists always do confirm it.

Hence why it is the real question, for Kirk to answer at least.

Jed Rothwell wrote a bunch of garbage that was supposed to convince everyone of a few things.

He asserts that

- there have been F&P CF experiments where the heat source was deliberately moved and no change in calibration was noted.

- I have claimed that moving heat from the anode to cathode will cause a CCS (he had several accompanying sentences with this one about what researchers would do in various hypothetical cases)

- recombination never happens in open cells.

- researchers always check for recombination

and throughout his diatribe he a) casts aspersions on me and b) fails to cite one verifiable reference. Those reading his post should note that, as it is typical 'true believer' fare.

It's relatively easy to recognize the problems with what he says, if you think about what would have happened out there in the real world if he was correct. First, if there were actual experimental results where the heat source was deliberately moved in a fashion that would possibly generate a CCS, and none was seen, why did the '10 authors' resort to a strawman argument to try to defeat my proposal? Wouldn't it make much more sense just to cite these supposed iron-clad experiments that proved me wrong? Obviously it would have. As late as 2015, Hagelstein is still denigrating my conclusions without even bothering to explain why. Where are all these experiments Jed? References? Any?

And BTW I have never claimed that heat moves from the anode to the cathode or vice versa. What I do claim it that a heat shift from a low efficiency region to a high heat capture efficiency region can produce a CCS. In a standard open or closed F&P cell that is from the gas phase to the liquid phase. That jed even suggests his anode-cathode thing is a testament to how badly he misunderstands what I suggest. That's because he never really bothered to look at it. He's a librarian. This is science, and its obviously out of his league.

Also, I have claimed at some points that the ATER action might actually occur at the Pt anode. Since I'm not talking about an electrochemical reaction, the polarity makes little difference. So. it might even happen at both!

As a fact, recombination does happen in open cells. In particular in the CF arena, Melvin Miles has published proof of that. Typically he claims it is only a few %, and he doesn't believe it can get bigger than that. This is probably because he's still stuck on the difference between what I propose and electrochemical recombination, but that's just a guess on my part. That mistaken understanding by the CFers was an issue early on. In my 2005 paper I clearly state this.

The ATER I propose was novel, no one I know of had thought of that. What I had seen described is where some of the dissolved metals (the basic electrolyte dissolves a little of the Pt and Pd electrodes) are dried onto the cell walls as droplets that splash up dry out. Then the hydrogen metallizes the metals and makes nano-sized metal clusters, which catalyze recombination just like a regular recombination catalyst.

One of the other challenges I made, especially in reference to the 2005 Comment I made on the article by Szpak, Mosier-Boss, Miles, and Fleischmann, was that the monitoring of extent of recombination was inadequate. That's because in their 2004 paper, they report collecting an excess of water, i.e. they got out more than they should have. I suggested entrainment was a good candidate cause. That paper is about the only one where anyone actually reports numbers on 'checking for recombination'. Other papers assert they did it but offer no data. So again, if such data was available, why wasn't it used to rebut me in 2010 instead of using a faulty logic tactic like a strawman? Maybe because such data really doesn't exist?

What Jed does is listen to his heroes at conferences and reads what they write in their blogs and emails. He takes this as fact. He then mixes it all up and spits out a confused account of 'what is known'. That's why he never cites good references, repeatedly cites ones that have been shown to have issues, and can't even tell MY where the 100W for many days paper is (if it exists...). Jed spins a good story, but it is heavily laced with mythology, and he doesn't know which is real and which is not. Or...he does, but doesn't want you too.

Quote from kirkshanahan

- there have been F&P CF experiments where the heat source was deliberately moved and no change in calibration was noted.

Well, F&P did not use this technique often. They usually calibrated with electrolysis with an open cell, so the heat source would not move. But many others calibrated with joule heaters, which are located in a different part of the cell. You can't fit them right where the anode and cathode are located. So that moves the heat source. Others used blank cells with only heaters, or they used various cell geometries with the anode and cathode moved up or down depending on the size and the number of gadgets attached to the anode-cathode pair.

You can see from the data that switching from a calibration with electrolysis to a joule heater does not significantly affect the calibration constant. That's my point.

Quote from kirkshanahan

The ATER I propose was novel, no one I know of had thought of that. What I had seen described is where some of the dissolved metals (the basic electrolyte dissolves a little of the Pt and Pd electrodes) are dried onto the cell walls as droplets that splash up dry out. Then the hydrogen metallizes the metals and makes nano-sized metal clusters, which catalyze recombination just like a regular recombination catalyst.

But this doesn't apply to the Roulette paper, as a constant flow of condensation would stop the cell walls from drying out.

Quote from Zeus46

Regarding the Roulette 100W paper: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RouletteTresultsofi.pdf

Kirk says...

Which makes some good points about odd units and the like. "Pwrexcess/W/4.2hr" ermm, what?

I'm not sure about the relevance of needing the calibration equations to estimate the 'possible CCS magnitude' though... I think it misses the point a bit.

I actually buy into Kirk's arguments about the potential for a moving heat source being able to positively skew some F&P-type results, and that the percentage of total heat loss from the calorimeter sets an upper bound on the magnitude of the effect. A novel hydrogen-oxygen recombination mechanism happening at the electrode could cause this... in theory. (Please correct me if that's not a good summary).

So the calorimeter in the above paper works by measuring two temperatures across a resistance, near the inner and outer surfaces of a submerged circular tube. The slice where these are measured is above the surface of the boiling electrolysis water inside, meaning the measured temperature difference is proportional to the heat captured from the boiled off steam, a lot of which is likely being lost out of the top of the calorimeter... Which would seem to make the "possible CCS magnitude" quite large.

But isn't the real question: What mechanism, of H-O recombination or otherwise, could cause this apparent shift of the heat source to above the surface of the boiling water?

Display More

Zeuss - I'm just throwing out a casual comment based on your post since without reading the paper carefully I may be very wrong.

Most closed cell electrolysis experiments for CF/LENR has a recombiner in the airspace above the top of the cell which combines H or D and O, getting hot in the process...

The ATER issue is that if recombination can happen at the electrode it will to that extent not happen at the recombiner.

Et tu Huxleyy? Always had you down as a reader.