Replication of LENR experiments

  • 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?

  • 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.

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

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

    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.

  • 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.


    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.

  • 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.


    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.

  • - 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.

  • What about all the experiments done in Italy up till 2005 at least, many showed considerable excess heat, and none involved Rossi or electrolysis?


    "Research on nickel-hydrogen systems began from an experimental observation made by Francesco Piantelli towards the end of 1989 on a strange thermal effect, which occurred at low temperature in a sample of hydrogenated nickel. Piantelli talked with Focardi and Habel during the Conference of SIF held in Trento in October 1990 and they agreed to verify experimentally the phenomenon observed, taking into account the results obtained in electrolysis from Fleischmann, Hawkins and Pons (j. Electroanal. Chem, 261, 301 (1989)).

    The experiments, which had been preceded by several experimental observations made in Siena from only Piantelli began to Bologna, Cagliari and Siena, of course conducted in the utmost secrecy, given the importance of the phenomenon that could have been used for energy transformations. Later, experiments were also performed in Colleferro and Pavia However the venue is the highest experimental activity occurred from the very beginning and also below has always been Siena.

    The main difficulties encountered from the beginning have been the chronic lack of funding, limitation or always completely insufficient, having been able to rely only on 40% funds distributed locally in universities. It was possible that despite conducting a research activity by virtue of temporary loans, but in some cases become permanent from colleagues and friends, also to other universities, INFN and ENEA. Even today we borrowed two diffusion pumps, electronics from CISE, neutron monitor from a group of medical physics, a cloud Chamber of the city of Bologna. This is unfortunately of instruments that were built many years ago, much more accurate maintenance of their modern versions."LNER overview of italian experiments.pdf

  • 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.


  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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