Replication of LENR experiments

Quote from Zeus46

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

The calorimeter used in the Roulette paper is slightly different from standard isoperibolic calorimeters (IPBCs). First off, the usual assumption about IPBC's is that they temperature measured is uniform, i.e. no hot spots, etc. The Roulette calorimeter obviously is not uniform in that sense. The three temperature measure points show different temperatures at the same time, which is why the set of TCs used to calculate output power is dependent on input power level. Which set to use at a given point is an interesting question. In any case, I would have to study this more fully to decide how a CCS might occur in this cell (and I don't see the point since I can recall no other repot where this kind of calorimeter is used). As I recall it is an open cell so electrolysis gases are normally exiting the cell, and thus if they find a way to recombine (anywhere in the cell in this case) they could induce a CCS. Also note that since the set used depends on input power, the upper set may not necessarily be covered in condensate as you suggest. Their cell is reminiscent of a distillation column, which initially starts out hot at the bottom and cold at the top during the early boiling phase, but that then proceeds to heat up as more power is applied to the boiler.

But in the end, the one-shot nature of this report is what is important. There are many questions about how the cell/caloriometer functions, and no data to answer them.

Jed wrote:

kirkshanahan wrote:

- 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.

--------------------

First point: Jed omits the part of the quote of what I wrote that indicates what he is quoting is what I say Jed wrote. I.e. I say Jed said " there have been F&P CF experiments..."

Second, if you look at Jed's reply you need to note two things:

1) All of Jed's examples are moving the heat source around in the same 'zone' (as I call it), specifically the electrolyte. This is not what I describe as causing a CCS

but 2) the paper Ed Storms presented at ICCF8(I think) had slightly different cal constants for Joule heating vs. electrolysis heat calibrations. The variations were of the same OOM as what I say was needed to zero out his apparent excess heat signals. So in fact this is real supporting evidence of the CCS effect, which really doesn't need any justification anyway.

I have already suggest in this forum that a standard F&P cell be modified by replacing the Pd-Pt electrode with a *second* Joule heater, that is located via the use of long lead wires, in the gas space.

JedRothwell  Alan Smith

Gentlemen, is it OK if we continue our previous discussion about LENR and calorimetry? I've had time to read some of the documents Jed pointed me to and would like to ask some questions. However after being banned twice I am a bit apprehensive about asking the hard questions as I've put it before. I apologize if I came across strongly in my questioning earlier.

Quote from Alan Smith

I suggest that discussion is possible. But next time you transgress banishment will be permanent. And please stop putting the word 'hard' in bold. It is a juvenile habit.

Thank you for allowing me to post on your forum. LENR is an important technology if it works out but I have my doubts about this as per concerns around calorimetry. I shall take up these discussions with JedRothwell in good time.

Unfortunately meanings are lost when discussions are had in forums. That's why we have mechanisms in place to enhance speech. I feel very strongly about certain things which is why I bold face them. I cannot see why you find this juvenile but that's your prerogative. Is it OK if I ask you from time to time about whether certain methods of expressing oneself is allowed? I would not want to find myself banned again just because I wrote something that did not agree with yourself or Eric Walker

That is not a nice thing to say Shane. Why are you baiting Eric and Alan?

As I said it's Alan's prerogative but does make it hard difficult if you cannot express yourself.