The crux of my CCS/ATER proposal is that the calorimeter is NOT spatially homogeneous
Do you know I was never so naive as to think that was the case. And if you look at the discussions around Mizuno's air calorimetry in this forum you would realise that very few others with a technical background think so either. That is what calibration, uniformity of method and repeated tests are all about.
Display MoreYour proof of this? Remember, that all analytical techniques have detection limits, below which analytes cannot be detected. Best example of this I recall is Scott Little's RIFEX report. He ran some RIFEX beads for awhile and detected many.many 'new' elements, in similar appearance to Miley's results. However, then he did the 'verboten' thing, he computed his error level and drew it on the graph. All but 3 or 4 elements supposedly 'detected' fell below the line (i.e. in the noise). Of those 3 or 4 he tracked down the strongest 2 or 3 to leachates from the O-rings (as I recall).
Then there's Iwamura's finding Sr and Pr in Pd-CaO-Pd-CaO-Pd sandwich structures. Only problem is that they later found that S (and Mo) gave similar XPS peaks. Why is that important? Because XPS is an ultra-high vacuum technique, which requires equipment bakeout at c. 300C. That will gall SS bolts and threads, so people use MoS2 lubricant to prevent that. Problem with that is getting it on the sample. Then of course Kidwell also found Pr 'wild' in Iwamura's lab too. The Sr was never explicitly tracked down, but I checked a COA I found on the web for CaO, and guess what, it had 200ppm Sr in it. Wonder if iwamura's did too? We'll probably never know.
W.r.t. your pdf report:
The primary thing to note is that this is a wildly different experimental protocol from anything else. It is another common fallacy in LENR-land that anyone who gets weird results and claims LENR must be right. This experiment must be considered in separation from others. I do not that they are using the 'usual suspects' of analytical techniques, all of which have interferences and detection limits. What are they and how relevant are they? I have no immediate idea. I suggest you consider my criticisms of the RIFEX and Iwamura work above, and try to apply the same criteria to see if the work passes muster. I don't have the energy or the time to do so.
So now analytical techniques become full of mistakes and intereferences, when they report results that "are not possible"?
The follow up paper to the one I posted here (not open access) describes the limits of detection and the accreditation of the llaboratories that performed the analysis.
But in anyway, the finding of a "de novo" concentration of 7000 ppm of Ti and 72000 ppm of Br (I am already substracting the error margin reported in the papers) is waaaaay over anything that an initial limit of detection could account for, if you are claiming that the elements were initially present and somehow magically ended up concentrated above detection threshold after the cavitation treatment.
I understand perfectly that there is no experiment that can prove KS's idea.
While I disagree with this, one thing can be said: There are potentially experiments that can disprove the relevance of my idea. Just calculate your error properly and show your signal is over 3 sigma.
So now analytical techniques become full of mistakes and intereferences
A.) Not mistakes, detection limits
B.) They've always been that way, you just fail to realize it apparently. Look here for ex. to start: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matrix_(chemical_analysis)
Ed Storms' calorimeter only lost 1.6% of the heat input. How much smaller do you think they can get? I think McK may have claimed 99% at best. The point is whether that loss can cause the observed signals or not. The CFers just hand -wave the problem away, with the results being like Ed, who claimed 780 mW of excess heat when I showed it could be noise.
Marwan, et al, did not grasp a.) the mathematical certitude of using a different calibration equation giving a different answer, and b.) the idea of at-the-electrode, under-the-surface recombination (combustion). They were mentally stuck on the parasitic electrochemical oxygen reduction, which they had published papers and calculation on.
Right, it is the loss percentage (that can vary with conditions) compared with ratio of excess power /input power that is significant.
Do you know I was never so naive as to think that was the case. And if you look at the discussions around Mizuno's air calorimetry in this forum you would realise that very few others with a technical background think so either. That is what calibration, uniformity of method and repeated tests are all about.
True, but using Mizuno as an example no quantified error analysis of these things has been done. And, in that case, they could be significant. calibration obviously does not help when calibration and active tests use differently placed and sized reactors.
Do you know I was never so naive as to think that was the case. And if you look at the discussions around Mizuno's air calorimetry in this forum you would realise that very few others with a technical background think so either. That is what calibration, uniformity of method and repeated tests are all about.
But in this case:
(A) I took that problem and fleshed it out, math and all, to show exactly how and why it was a problem.
(B) Given (A) above, are you positive there is no analogous problem in Mizuno's work? Personally, I find his having to change the calibration constant with reactor temperature a very bad sign. He thinks he can calibrate it out, but I'm not so sure. Yet I don't have the time or energy to sit here and work through it as I did for Ed's work (and McK's M4 run). So, I warn Para to get a bigger fan and some canned smoke.
....are you positive there is no analogous problem in Mizuno's work?
Frankly no. As I have no experience of air calorimetry (and little enthusiasm for it either) I am unlikely to prove it for myself one way or t'other.
Then there's Iwamura's finding Sr and Pr in Pd-CaO-Pd-CaO-Pd sandwich structures. Only problem is that they later found that S (and Mo) gave similar XPS peaks. Why is that important? Because XPS is an ultra-high vacuum technique, which requires equipment bakeout at c. 300C. That will gall SS bolts and threads, so people use MoS2 lubricant to prevent that. Problem with that is getting it on the sample. Then of course Kidwell also found Pr 'wild' in Iwamura's lab too. The Sr was never explicitly tracked down, but I checked a COA I found on the web for CaO, and guess what, it had 200ppm Sr in it. Wonder if iwamura's did too? We'll probably never know.
Here you are completely right. Such experiments need reproductions and also all kind of base measurements with active/non active cells.
But in the Mizuno case things change. If the signal to noise ratio is very high, small errors will not change the answer that is : High COP out of any doubt it's LENR. Of course quantitative 4-He measurement would be nice to have but costs >100k. He could send a sample to a lab what would be much cheaper.
I personally was never interested in small % LENR as from theoretical point of view LENR is easy to prove and should run everywhere in nature. I will see a COP >= 10 LENR process and as such Mizuno is good starting point.
A.) Not mistakes, detection limits
B.) They've always been that way, you just fail to realize it apparently. Look here for ex. to start: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matrix_(chemical_analysis)
The papers of Cardone et al about mercury transmutation have a very clear description of the detection limits of each technique for each element. They also bound the error of the analysis of each element. Your answer implies they are working without knowledge of that, which is wrong.
You provided a description of an experiment where you re-arrange the contents of the cell and then see if the calibration has changed. That is not IMHO a decent experiment, it is a foolish one.
Actually, that particular experiment has been done many times, but not quite the way you describe it. The contents are not rearranged, but the location of heat generation is shifted. For example, take a closed cell that includes a recombiner and resistance heater for calibration:
During calibration, all of the heat originates at the resistance heater.
During the run-up to the cold fusion event, or in a failed experiment, or a blank, the heat comes from ordinary electrolysis, which is to say the anode, cathode, and the recombiner in the head space.
During a cold fusion event, extra heat comes from the cathode.
When the power is turned off (for a short time or to end the experiment), cold fusion heat comes from the cathode. Some heat comes from the recombiner in the head space, for a while.
With ordinary resistance heating calibrations and ordinary electrolysis, you cannot tell these sources apart. There is no measurable difference between them. You might devise an extremely sensitive isoperibolic calorimeter than could sense them, but I do not see how you could make a flow or Seebeck calorimeter that would do this. In blank tests, the balance is always zero, no matter where the heat originates. This shows that Shanahan is wrong.
This was discussed months ago, but it is a good refresher for helping laymen understand Kirk's theories. The author goes well beyond CCS/ATER/spikes and more, with his own opinions. None very flattering to LENR...but informative on the science, and what mainstream thinks to this day.
If you asked me my takeaway after reading (again), it would be that Byrnes documents a million mistakes one can make with the calorimetry, testing, data analysis, and interpretation, and LENR researchers have made them all. Your choice from a long list to choose from as to what they did wrong with each experiment...all of which you should be familiar with. Shows that the arguments for/against, have not changed in 30 years.
In the comments section, Kirk appears and surprisingly shows a sense of restraint we seldom see here. And the other day Godes, of BEC responded...not very well IMO. Good read for bedtime.
Display More
This was discussed months ago, but it is a good refresher for helping laymen understand Kirk's theories. The author goes well beyond CCS/ATER/spikes and more, with his own opinions. None very flattering to LENR...but informative on the science, and what mainstream thinks to this day.
If you asked me my takeaway after reading (again), it would be that there are a million mistakes one can make with the calorimetry, testing, data analysis, and interpretation, and LENR researchers have made them all. Your choice from a long list to choose from as to what they did wrong with each experiment...all of which you should be familiar with. Shows that the arguments for/against, have not changed in 30 years.
In the comments section, Kirk appears and surprisingly shows a sense of restraint we seldom see here. And the other day Godes, of BEC responded...not very well IMO. Good read for bedtime.
Well, I spent some minutes reading and my impression is that the confusion with hot fusion as Storms has pointed out, reigns.
Every scientist or engineer doing research has to analyze the experimental design thoroughly for potential sources of error and either weed out or control them. This is basic of experimental design. No surprises there and no one would disagree.
But blanket dismissing the whole body of LENR research because of a perceived “rational explanation” is preferred as plausible (but not demonstrated), is a show of bias.
If the signal to noise ratio is very high
And how do you know that is the case? Remember, you are talking about a ratio, which is computed by using two quantities, signal and noise.
The papers of Cardone et al about
And you reply shows you have missed my point totally. OK, fine, go for it.
Actually, that particular experiment has been done many times,
Actually it has not. Your understanding of what I suggest is, as usual, incorrect. In fact, I pointed out in my first paper that Ed got differences in calibration constants when he calibrated with the joule heater vs. when he calibrated with electrolysis. However, both cases used an inactive electrode, so the variance was about what you'd expect for the residual noise after removing the systematic effect I described. But, no one has ever tried less than 100% recombination at the recombination catalyst, probably because (a) they didn't think it would be a problem, and (b) it would be extremely difficult if not impossible to experimentally do that (any setup that potentially could do that would probably be so far from the original as to be worthless). So no, no one has ever tested my thesis.
In the comments section, Kirk appears and surprisingly shows a sense of restraint we seldom see here.
You have a very short memory and a very asymmetric one Shane.
P.S. Can anyone point me to a science text or such that gives a precise definition of the apparently standardized term 'decent'?
Well, I spent some minutes reading and my impression is that the confusion with hot fusion as Stormshas pointed out, reigns.
Considering I read the whole thing and didn't see any confusion at all leads me to believe you read with pre-determined conclusions in mind. How about some examples of this 'confusion'?
Every scientist or engineer doing research has to analyze the experimental design thoroughly for potential sources of error and either weed out or control them. This is basic of experimental design. No surprises there and no one would disagree.
But blanket dismissing the whole body of LENR research because of a perceived “rational explanation” is preferred as plausible (but not demonstrated), is a show of bias.
So we agree on error analysis and control. So why do you think LENR researchers never document any of this, especially after they have been repeatedly challenged on this issue?
I don't think Byrnes 'dismisses' LENR research. He just does the normal thing, and opts for conventional wisdom regarding anomalies, especially given there are viable mundane explanation of such (even though you detest them).
PerhTps we should re-name this thread? 'The Kirk Shanhand-waving Thread.'
