Mizuno's bucket of water

  • You are saying that peer-reviewed journal papers by Fleischmann are not credible.


    Yes. But I also give the reasons. A.) Inaccurate calorimetry in most cases. B.) In some cases, failure to prove the accuracy/precision of a presumed measurement method (specifically the 'video stills of foaming' method for detecting supposed 'heat-after-death' events). And I put the objections in writing for others to examine and critique. Unlike Fleischmann, who just gets irritated at his critics and throws their papers out. Hint: Fleischmann is not a god. His SERS experience should have told you that.


    You are telling us that a Fellow of the Royal Society writing in a peer reviewed journal is not credible.


    Yes. 'Calls to authority' prove nothing JR. Garbage gets published in peer-reviewed journals all the time. Peer review just minimizes the quantity of it. Further, the CF field is well known for publishing their own stuff after 'within the group' peer review, i.e. after highly pro-biased reviewing.


    Who do you think you are?


    I am an equivalently trained chemist with research experience is several relevant areas to the 'cold fusion' arena. Fleischmann's pedigree is not substantially different or better than mine. His publication record is better, because he went the academic route, while I went the industrial one. That usually means he would get at least 10X the publications that I do. However, that does not guarantee the correctness of said publications. Furthermore, if you'd ever read what I write, you'd understand that my view is that the whole field of CF pre-2002 was caught by an unrecognized systematic error. The failure came when they ignored my discovery and proceeded as if I was wrong.

  • Don't be ridiculous. You know damn well what I mean. I mean there were no fans or ventilation. There was plenty of cold air coming through the windows, which were single panel glass that did not shut well. As I recall, one of them was cracked. Post-war Japanese concrete buildings by that time were warped and falling to pieces. The windows would not shut.


    If there was no ventilation (natural or man-made) there would have been no air flow into or out of the room, i.e. it was sealed. In a sealed room, human beings consume the O2 and exhale CO2. Eventually, CO2 levels become toxic and/or O2 levels get to low and the humans asphyxiate. That obviously didn't happen, therefore the room was not sealed, therefore there was SOME ventilation. Your 'no ventilation' is obviously wrong. Another phrase for 'ventilation' is 'air flow'. Air flow is a critical variable in calculating evaporation rates. Without air flow information, evaporation rates cannot be calculated. Which doesn't matter anyway since the experiment was never replicated.


    P. S. Your 'plenty of cold air coming through the (cracked) windows' is ventilation.


    Also, you don't understand Pd unloading and D2+O2 oxidation on catalysts very well either.

  • There was plenty of cold air coming through the windows


    I might also note that as the cold air coming in through the cracked windows warmed up, it would be able to hold more water vapor. Relative humidity is temperature dependent and another important variable in calculating evaporation rates.


    BTW, the heaters you claim were present would also cause air flow as they added heat to the room. Hot air rises, cold air falls, nice little cycle going there.

  • I am an equivalently trained chemist with research experience is several relevant areas to the 'cold fusion' arena. Fleischmann's pedigree is not substantially different or better than mine. His publication record is better, because he went the academic route, while I went the industrial one. That usually means he would get at least 10X the publications that I do. However, that does not guarantee the correctness of said publications. Furthermore, if you'd ever read what I write, you'd understand that my view is that the whole field of CF pre-2002 was caught by an unrecognized systematic error. The failure came when they ignored my discovery and proceeded as if I was wrong.

    I am irregular on this site but this quote I could not pass unscathed. Martin Fleischmann was one of the top 2 or 3 modern physical electrochemists - the best experimentalist I have worked with. Kirk comparing himself stretches credulity; I certainly would not compare myself to Martin. Perhaps we can cut through the chest beating and allow this group to evaluate your claims? Kirk please cite one paper where you were lead (sole or first author) that displays your skills as you would like us to see them. You claim equivalence - OK show us why. Perhaps you might also explain your "equivalent training". Martin was trained (in part) by two of the greatest men I ever knew: John Bockris and (Sir) Graham Hills at Imperial College (then the finest school of electrochemistry in the English speaking world). This was where and when modern physical electrochemistry was created (along with Frumkin in Russia). Where did you train, with whom and what did you study?


    You claim that "they" (presumably including me) ignored your "discovery" and proceeded as if you were wrong. As I understand your claim, your hypothesis "explains" all FPHE results - irrespective of calorimeter specifics or method. This extravagance is the reason I largely ignore it. But OK, after you have sent and we have examined your citation (above), please explain in the simplest possible way, quantitatively, how your "unrecognized systematic error" produces error in closed cell, >99% thermal efficient, mass flow calorimetry of the sort my group performed. If error is present and unrecognized I would like to know but I have seen nothing at all in your writings that would account for such error.


    I am not inviting open discussion. This thread is not useful (to me) and my discussions with you in the past have been rapidly non-convergent. Cite us your paper. Then explain your "discovery" in the context I asked. As a group we can evaluate both. I do not propose to comment further on this unless your response includes technical error in your description / analysis of SRI mass flow calorimetry; I am not encouraging this.

  • I am irregular on this site but this quote I could not pass unscathed. Martin Fleischmann was one of the top 2 or 3 modern physical electrochemists - the best experimentalist I have worked with. Kirk comparing himself stretches credulity; I certainly would not compare myself to Martin. Perhaps we can cut through the chest beating and allow this group to evaluate your claims? Kirk please cite one paper where you were lead (sole or first author) that displays your skills as you would like us to see them. You claim equivalence - OK show us why. Perhaps you might also explain your "equivalent training". Martin was trained (in part) by two of the greatest men I ever knew: John Bockris and (Sir) Graham Hills at Imperial College (then the finest school of electrochemistry in the English speaking world). This was where and when modern physical electrochemistry was created (along with Frumkin in Russia). Where did you train, with whom and what did you study?


    You claim that "they" (presumably including me) ignored your "discovery" and proceeded as if you were wrong. As I understand your claim, your hypothesis "explains" all FPHE results - irrespective of calorimeter specifics or method. This extravagance is the reason I largely ignore it. But OK, after you have sent and we have examined your citation (above), please explain in the simplest possible way, quantitatively, how your "unrecognized systematic error" produces error in closed cell, >99% thermal efficient, mass flow calorimetry of the sort my group performed. If error is present and unrecognized I would like to know but I have seen nothing at all in your writings that would account for such error.


    I am not inviting open discussion. This thread is not useful (to me) and my discussions with you in the past have been rapidly non-convergent. Cite us your paper. Then explain your "discovery" in the context I asked. As a group we can evaluate both. I do not propose to comment further on this unless your response includes technical error in your description / analysis of SRI mass flow calorimetry; I am not encouraging this.


    Shanahan possibly (or you more likley) could quite easily put hard bounds on to what extent variation in equilibrium conditions caused by "at the electrode recombination" might affect specific results. These would be tighter than the (obvious) bound given by a limiting calorimetric efficiency of 100%. Realistically much tighter bounds could be got, given various assumptions. It would contribute to the debate for those like me who are outsiders, see an issue that might explain (part of) a collection of persistent unexpected positive excess heat results, and have found the published trail on this unsatisfactory. In the case of the SRI MFC results, with some of the tightest calorimetry around, one might expect it to be relatively easy to show results unaffected by Shanahan's suggestion, and that at least would be helpful. More helpful still would be to apply the same limiting process to other studies where one might suppose there is more possibility for significant calibration changes caused by in-cell temperature profiles changing.


    Here is why I (as an outsider) find the dismissal of Shanahan's suggestions without full investigation unhelpful. If they help to explain just some part of the LENR excess heat compendium of historic results that makes any generalisations made from the others more accurate and therefore more likely to give insight into the remaining unexpected phenomenon.


    Such hard limits have the merit of being grounded on known undisputed physics that all can agree.


    The fact that ATER (like LENR), if it exists, is clearly an unexpected phenomena linked to very specific electrode conditions, cuts away many of the plausibility arguments used against it. That is fair, because given unexpected and unexplained observations we must examine more carefully all assumptions.


    Shanahan arguments and LENR counter-arguments are summarised here (he will correct me if this is incomplete)


    Storms: Reply to Shanahan's original papers

    Comment on papers by K. Shanahan that propose to explain anomalous heat generated by cold fusion

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/…cle/pii/S004060310500571X


    Shanahan: Reply to Storms

    Reply to “Comment on papers by K. Shanahan that propose to explain anomalous heat generated by cold fusion”, E. Storms, Thermochim. Acta, 2006

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/…cle/pii/S0040603105005721



    Marwan et al definitive reply to Shanahan:

    A new look at low-energy nuclear reaction (LENR) research: a response to Shanahan. http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MarwanJanewlookat.pdf


    Shanahan White Paper reply to Marwan et al

    A Realistic Examination of Cold Fusion Claims 24 Years Later

    https://drive.google.com/file/…b1doPc3otVGFUNDZKUDQ/view


    The arguments on both sides have insufficient followup to determine which of the classic LENR experiments they apply to. To take one example, Marwan et al point out that 99% efficient calorimeters could be affected by CCS/ATER to at most 1% of total heat flow. True. This is exactly the type of analysis I find helpful. But they do not summarise the various excess heat experiments and state which have results clearly above such a bounding limit and therefore are provably "Shanahan-safe". From my own cursory reading I'd say very few. But a tighter bound might make safe a larger number of experiments.


    Shanahan on the other hand has not attempted quantitatively to bound the effect for any significant number of experiments. While he can properly say it is not his job to do so, a decent attempt would either support or limit the scope his idea.


    I see dismissal of Shanahan's views, without proper consideration, to be unhelpful. Equally Shanahan's lack of further detailed investigation means that his ideas must remain an unexpected and unproven possibility, to set against the unexpected and unproven possibility of LENR. Marwan et al dimiss Shanhan on a collection of independent plausibility arguments (which I consider improper as above) and on the proper bounding argument about calorimetric efficiency which they then do not follow through.


    If those arguing that experimental results thus far prove LENR reckon this collection of excess heat experiments is not important I see no reason to conduct this analysis or be interested in Shanahan's suggestions except when designing new similar experiments. That however was not what Marwan et al argue.


    If these historic experiments remain important evidence for LENR (not overweighed by other more recent results) then anyone wanting to gather more evidence about LENR as a hypothesis, and with detailed knowledge of the experiments, could properly do the bounding work.


    PS - I don't see myself Shanahan as having discovered anything. Rather he has pointed out circumstances under which normal calorimetric assumptions need to be carefully re-examined when unexpected results are found (CCS) and made an unusual suggestion (ATER) for the specifics of a mechanims that might account for a collection of LENR results. Proposing a loop-hole that makes additional checking necessary is hardly a discovery, on the other hand it can be a valuable contribution to the evaluation of these results. And arguments about authority - from Shanahan or others - have no place in the analysis of experimental results other than in weighting plausibility arguments that depend on judgement. For the reason I've given above I don't think those help in this case.

    Personally, I find arguments and counter-arguments over whether ATER is plausible, or whether such a novel effect could exist and not have been discovered during calibration, to be just as vacuous as the same over whether LENR is plausible, or would not have been discovered during other experiments. In fact the two explanations (ATER and LENR) are logically quite similar and both can maintain plausibility only by supposing that the effect requires unusual and not fully understood conditions. Rejecting one but not the other on plausibility arguments is unreasonable.

  • [Please be advised I am preparing additional responses to other points from Dr. McKubre's post.]

    Perhaps you might also explain your "equivalent training".


    Before beginning that, I need to respond to the clear tone of your post, which somehow implies I am trying to besmirch the reputation of Dr. Fleischmann. I assure you I am not. However, he was a human, and thus he was capable of mistakes (as was evident from his inaccurate explanation of what became known as the Surface Enhanced Raman Effect, used in SERS), but that is not a derogatory remark since all of us make mistakes. It simply points out a fact. Systematic errors are some of the most pernicious problems that a scientist can face. What I was explicitly doing in my post that you quote is responding to Jed Rothwell's challenge to my credibility, 'my' credibility, not Fleischmann's. Since you have jumped on that bandwagon with Jed and his acolytes here, I will reply to you.


    I have a Ph.D. in Physical Chemistry, thesis topic of Surface Chemistry, from the U. of California at Berkeley, granted in 1984. My research advisor was Prof. Earl Muetterties, who was an organometallic chemist of some repute, having been the Vice president or Director (i can't recall his title) of Research at E. I. DuPont de Nemours until 1973 (DuPont's Central R&D organization in Wilmington, Delaware (at least back in those days)) when he entered academia. In 1977 when he moved to Berkeley from Cornell, he established a small surface science sub-group. I joined that group in 1979. Prof. Muetterties passed away while at Berkeley, and I am likely the first of his students to graduate without his signature. My thesis was actually signed by Prof. Angelica Stacy, who still teaches there. The other members of my committee were Prof. Gabor Somorjai, a world renowned surface chemist, and Prof. Alexis Bell, a world renowned chemical engineer focused on catalysis (both still teaching at Berkeley).


    While I can't substantiate my next claim for all the years concerned, I believe the following to be true, and I will gladly modify or retract the claim if I can be shown to be incorrect. The Department of Chemistry Graduate School has been among the top 10 in the world for the last 70 years or so, i.e. since roughly WWII. Many Berkeley profs participated in the Manhattan Project, and of course Glenn Seaborg worked at Berkeley for many years, along with other Nobel Prize and Priestly Award winners. When I entered in 1979, a survey had placed Berkeley at #3 in the US. This year, the US News & World Report rankings place Berkeley in a 4-way tie for #2. In 2016, Berkeley was in a 2-way tie for #1. In other words, as I stated, my pedigree to the Doctoral degree level is equivalent to Dr. Flesichmann's.


    Thanks to Ahlfors for posting my publications list. It is slightly incomplete as it doesn't list technical reports, which as an industrial chemist I have many. I will not cite them all, but I will describe certain ones as they bear on my accumulated expertise in relation to the cold fusion arena.


    I graduated from high school in 1973. I graduated with a B.S. honors degree from U. Nebraska-Lincoln in 1976. I had completed 1-1/2 years of undergrad research under Dr. Charles Kingsbury, having worked on two different projects. One was simply to get a FORTRAN program for 1H-NMR data from lanthanide shift reagent studies operational, which I did (after learning how to program in FORTRAN). The other was my thesis topic and involved studying the mechanism and kinetics of ketoester cyclization reactions with hydrazines via 1H-NMR, which included low temperature work.


    After graduation, I worked at Sandia National Laboratory in Albuquerque, New Mexico for 3 years in two groups, the Explosive Components and Explosive Materials groups. I was initially hired as a technician, meaning I worked with a PhD staff scientist (Dr. J. Q. Searcy), however, Sandia encourages their people to perform to the limit of their abilities, and I was nearly independent after about a year. I also enrolled in the graduate chemistry department of the U. of New Mexico in Albuquerque in the Masters degree program under a Sandia continuing education program. I worked with Prof. William F. Coleman there. Initially I was going to study gas-phase luminescence of europium compounds on campus and had begun work in that arena, but after a few months my Sandia management insisted I do my thesis work at Sandia, so I had to change my topic. I chose to attempt to study a corrosion problem we had experienced via the technique of Inelastic Electron Tunneling Spectroscopy. I was to study nano-sized Ni particles deposited on alumina and treated with various chemicals of interest. Unfortunately, the lost time upset my schedule, and to complete the Masters degree I would have had to delay my entry to the Berkeley PhD program by a year, which was unacceptable. So I withdrew from UNM after 3 semesters with no degree. But this period of time familiarized me with explosives and explosives technology, thin film deposition, and liquid helium handling, and many ramifications of them that have been useful in understanding CF claims.


    While at Berkeley, I procured and assembled my experimental apparatus (UHV chamber with LEED, Auger, and TDS (i.e. mass spectrometer)) , which initially led to some down time while waiting for parts to arrive. In that time period, I took up photography as a hobby, loading rolls of film, shooting photos, developing the film, and printing them. This gave me a good knowledge of film technology, which allows me to understand the issues of using dental films in supposed x-ray detection.


    After graduation in 1984, and after looking for a change of pace, I joined the DuPont Dacron R&D organization with the intent of constructing a computer model of the polymerization process of high enough quality to use for direct process control (model-based process control). I spent 18 months there learning how to do what now is called 'big data' by assembling process and product historical data, and in economically justifying my project, which I found to be an issue given the poor market for Dacron at the time. So in 1986 I transferred to the TiO2 R&D group where I spent the next two years in research and quality control work. The QC work is highly relevant to the CF arena as I advanced my statistical skills to a high level and applied them to fixing broken analytical methods, which I continue to do to this day as the need arises. I also did analytical method development as part of my research, and tinkered a making nanoparticulate TiO2 (before the 'nano' prefix became a buzzword).


    For personal reasons, I transferred to the Savannah River Laboratory in late 1987. DuPont left in 1989 and we have been run by various 'teams' over the years since then. We are now Savannah River National Laboratory and part of the Savannah River Site (SRS). SRS is a DOE-owned, contractor operated facility that is part of the nuclear weapons production complex. I have had multiple assignments hear as you might expect. They have included: more dynamic chemical process modeling of varying degrees of sophistication, some discrete event simulation, a touch of steady-state chemical process modeling, more SQC work, and more sensor development work, but most importantly, since 1995 I have worked with metal hydrides and all isotopes of hydrogen, include almost all of the materials claimed to show LENR, as you can see from my publications that Ahlfors has pointed out.


    So, how's that for 'grandstanding'. Your turn now. Aside from your acknowledged experience in calorimetry, what do you bring to the 'LENR' table.

  • I might also note that as the cold air coming in through the cracked windows warmed up, it would be able to hold more water vapor. Relative humidity is temperature dependent and another important variable in calculating evaporation rates.

    Put a bucket in a room in these conditions and see if 20 L of water evaporate overnight. You will find that does not happen. You are grasping at straws here. Something like cold air entering the room will have an effect far too small to evaporate the entire bucket full of water.


    You can easily test this. You should stop making assertions contrary to elementary science and common sense.

  • As I understand your claim, your hypothesis "explains" all FPHE results - irrespective of calorimeter specifics or method. This extravagance is the reason I largely ignore it. But OK, after you have sent and we have examined your citation (above), please explain in the simplest possible way, quantitatively, how your "unrecognized systematic error" produces error in closed cell, >99% thermal efficient, mass flow calorimetry of the sort my group performed.


    THHuxley (THH) has pointed to several of the relevant publications. The original manuscript of my first paper in this field (sole-authorship, since you see to think 'lone-wolfery' is good) can be found on Jed Rothwell's site here: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ShanahanKapossiblec.pdf The actual final version is slightly altered and is listed in Ahlfors list, but for ease:

    "A Systematic Error in Mass Flow Calorimetry Demonstrated:, Kirk L. Shanahan, Thermochimica Acta, 387(2) (2002) 95-110 (Please note the word 'systematic' in the title, which is different from the manuscript's title.)


    Also missing is my 2005 reply to the 2004 Szpak, Mosier-Boss, Miles, and Fleischmann publication (S. Szpak, P. A. Mosier-Boss, M. H. Miles, M. Fleischmann, Thermochimica Acta 410 (2004) 101): "Comments on 'Thermal behavior of polarized Pd/D electrodes prepared by co-deposition'" : Kirk L. Shanahan, Thermochimica Acta, 428(1-2), (2005), 207



    In the simplest possible way: All CF calorimetric methods assume the temperature distribution inside the cell is unimportant. (In dynamic chemical process modeling, a subregime of chemical engineering, this is known as the 'lumped parameter' assumption.) This is only correct if it is, and must be tested to show that is so. In my first CF-related publication I test this idea. I assume (actually derive) different calibration constants for each voltage excursion used by Storms in his data used for his ICCF8 presentation by assuming there was in fact no excess heat. Then, I examine the results of that process for rationality.


    I find the changes made to calibration constants to lie well-withing reported experimental variation of calibration constants. Ergo, I propose that a calibration constant shift (CCS) nullifies the exclusive claim of excess heat being present. Further I note that as this is just math, the potential problem could be present in any calibrated calorimetric experiment. (By the way, assuming one's particular calorimeter is so good it "doesn't need to be calibrated" is just assuming specific values for the calibration constants with no justification.) This leaves us collectively with an indeterminate situation. Does a CCS explain other apparent excess heat claims?


    Upon examination of the extant data, I conclude it can (NOT absolutely does without a doubt). I have acknowledged many times what THH repeated, namely that there are limitations to this problem that might be exceeded, invalidating the idea that a CCS caused the observations. But no one has attempted to show such a case. Further, as THH has noted, that would also not necessarily disprove the existence of a CCS problem in other cases. Therefore, each claim of excess heat must be checked for this, but none have to date (aside from the one case where I did this for Ed Storms, much to his chagrin).


    Now, to keep it simple I could stop right there. The variation in calibration constants of +/- ~3% max flat-lines a 780 mW 'excess heat' signal in a 98.4% efficient calorimeter. Roughly speaking a span of 3% means a relative standard deviation of ~1%, which based on my years of SQC experience is a top-notch technique. It would be exceptionally hard to get better than this. Yet, 780mW goes to 0 by not assuming that you can 'lump the parameters'. This is not a 'hypothesis' as you claim in your 2010 JEM publication. It is simple math.


    Of course, you will ask "How can that happen?". That's natural. But it is really irrelevant. I have shown a math trick can nullify a 'big' excess heat signal ('big' because it is in a highly efficient calorimeter). The question you have to answer is "Can that happen in my work?". There is only one way to answer that question. We have to look at your math. That's why I asked twice for your calibration data, and then tried to see if anyone else knew it when you declined to answer me. Your refusal to test your data to see if a CCS might explain your results leaves us in an undetermined state: CCS or LENR?


    As a conservative-minded scientist I lean towards CCS. You might be more liberal than me and lean towards LENR. But neither of us can reject the other's potential explanation without more data and analysis.


    (I will address follow-on issues in a separate post to keep it simple.)


    If error is present and unrecognized I would like to know


    Doubtful. If you did you would have supplied me with your calibration equations when I twice asked for them in 1999.


    but I have seen nothing at all in your writings that would account for such error.


    That would be because of


    I largely ignore it.

  • If there was no ventilation (natural or man-made) there would have been no air flow into or out of the room, i.e. it was sealed. In a sealed room, human beings consume the O2 and exhale CO2. Eventually, CO2 levels become toxic and/or O2 levels get to low and the humans asphyxiate.

    I am sure you realize this is preposterous. This is a building where people worked every day, in laboratories and classrooms. Mizuno spent years there, and I spent weeks, and we are both alive. Not asphyxiated.


    This has nothing to do with the discussion. Why do you say things like this? What is the point? This is trolling. You know perfectly well that any building used by people has sources of fresh air. You know what ordinary room temperature conditions are like. Conditions in a Japanese post-war concrete building in winter were different from what you are used to, but they were not so extreme as to cause 20 L to evaporate overnight. You can easily simulate these conditions. Put a bucket in a refrigerator, or leave it on the porch in winter.


    You can easy test all of your hypotheses with a bucket of water. You will see that nothing you say is true, and none of it even makes sense.

  • Continuing with simple explanations of the CCS...


    Imagine a box, with two point sources (*) of heat in it, call then P1 and P2.



    |--------------------------------|

    |.......................................|

    |...* P1................P2 * ....|

    |.......................................|

    |--------------------------------|


    Now assume we want to measure the power input to this box. If it makes no difference where we put the power (lumped parameter assumption) then we can do whatever we want and come up with our Pout number. (But Pout is a little less than Pin.) We then 'calibrate' by saying Pout should equal Pin, therefore we will put an 'adjusting factor', i.e. Pin = Pout, cal = k * Pout, meas (+ b in some cases).


    But now, let's assume that when we put X watts into P1 we detect 99.99% of that. i.e. if no P2, k_o= k1 = 1/.9999. But for P2 we find instead that P2 = 75% of the actual P1,in. So what we get for Pout, meas = .9999*(P1,in) + .75*(P2,in). Clearly then is we fix Pin,tot to some number, how we divvy up the power between the two points will affect what Pout, meas we seem to detect. Now as long as your calibration method accounts for that, everything would be fine. But all CF calorimetrists don't do that. Instead they always apply some variant of the 'simple' calibration technique from the lumped parameter assumption.


    So what they actually do is compute Pout, cal via an equation that actually looks like this


    Pout, cal = k_o * (.9999*(P1,in) + .75*(P2,in)) + b (k_o is the 'overall konstant') (recall .75*P2,in = P2,out, meas)


    And what is crucial to understanding the problem, all these calibrations are done in 1 of 3 ways: 1) with electrolysis using a non-active electrode (this fixes P2 to one value), 2) with a Joule heater in the high efficiency region, or 3) with a combination of 1) and 2). The key point being that P2 is either 0 in open cells, or fixed at 100% recombination in closed cells.


    But now consider the case where 1W of recombination power moves from P2 to P1 (closed cell config.) Prior to the move, only 75% of that watt was detected, so the 1W would be multiplied by k_0 times .75. After the move it would be multiplied by k_0 times .9999, which is larger than what was assumed to be the case via the prior calibration. So the new Pout,cal will show an excess heat signal since Pin did not change, just its split between P1 and P2.


    What this means is that because some of the power moved from P2 to P1, the calibration previously determined is no longer valid.


    Moving to the 'real world' now. I believe this two-zone model approximates the real situation in part because the design of every CF cell I have ever seen has all the cell wall penetrations exiting through one limited ares (usually the 'top' of the cell). This places the primary heat loss pathways (that cause less than 100% efficiency) all in one place, and thus I believe that heat produced there is less efficiently captured by the calorimeter. However, when it moves to the electrode, it is captured more completely because it is spatially removed from the major heat loss pathways, and it is now produced in a region where liquid heat transfer dominates vs. gas heat transfer.


    Open cells would have this same problem, but it would be masked even more by the fact that P2 is assumed to be 0 in all cases.


    The inherent limitations to this analysis are obvious, meaning that if you get an excess heat signal that can't reasonably fit the above model, it is unlikely your apparent excess heat signal arises from this CCS/heat redistribution mechanism, as THH also has noted.


    It is also obvious how one might test this. A.) Replace the electrodes with a heater that is placed in the gas space. Then simulate the above problem by calibrating with fixed but positive P2 and then lower P2 and increase P1 the same amount and see what your calibrated Pout does. Or B) redesign the cells so that not all penetrations are in the same place. (The ultimate of this would be to turn your cells upside down, which will require some modification to relocate the recombiner or vent line.)


    I am done for today, see you all next week. I reserve the right to correct errors in the above posts, this was all done relatively quickly.


    P.S. Jed, you still don't get it. How sad.


    EDIT - L-F won't let me use spaces or tabs to get the far wall of the box to line up. Please take that into account.

    2nd edit - modified the box drawing by using periods for spaces, This puts the far wall in proper alignment.

  • Now, to keep it simple I could stop right there. The variation in calibration constants of +/- ~3% max flat-lines a 780 mW 'excess heat' signal in a 98.4% efficient calorimeter. Roughly speaking a span of 3% means a relative standard deviation of ~1%, which based on my years of SQC experience is a top-notch technique. It would be exceptionally hard to get better than this. Yet, 780mW goes to 0 by not assuming that you can 'lump the parameters'. This is not a 'hypothesis' as you claim in your 2010 JEM publication. It is simple math.


    Putting it simply, I don't see this as a physically feasible shift in mass flow calorimeters. Specifically, an efficiency of more than 100% is not possible, and temperature change in the measured cell cannot increase efficiency above 100%. Finally, the detected heat must be proportional to cell efficiency. There may be second order effects but this would seem to make positive calibration constant shift bounded +1.6%, and realistically quite a bit lower than this.


    The same argument does not apply to calorimeters where close-to-cell temperatures are used as proxies for heat flow since these can have changes unrelated to calorimeter efficiency due to lack of isothermality.


    I don't otherwise disagree with Kirk's point.

  • Quote

    The same argument does not apply to calorimeters where close-to-cell temperatures are used as proxies for heat flow since these can have changes unrelated to calorimeter efficiency due to lack of isothermality


    Isn't "temperature as proxy for heat flow" the principle used in all "isoperibolic" calorimeters?

  • I am surprised that there is so much angst and uncertainty about this issue. This was highly discussed and heavily worked out in “the early days”. I can't speak for anyone else but I expect it is true for others as well. The phenomenon that Kirk proposes was well anticipated (and better understood) by the design team for our first mass flow calorimeter (up to 1992) and improved in both design and understanding afterwards. Our calorimeters were designed to operate on first principles (first law). Where systematic errors could conceivably occur the calorimeter was designed to be conservative - anticipated errors leading to under-measurement of heat. Some of you will remember me discussing this seemingly endlessly in 1989-1992.


    We obviated the precise issue that Kirk speaks about as follows:

    1. The electrochemical cell was enclosed (at pressure) in a metal heat integrator (“isothermal wrap” in THH's words).

    2. Nothing left the cell except wires and a gas pipe for initial H2or D2gas charging.

    3. A complimentary Joule heater was intimately wound into the metal heat integrator axially symmetric to the electrochemical cell.

    4. The calorimetry fluid submerged and completely enveloped the integrator bathing externally all surfaces and picking up heat from wherever sourced (BTW there are 7 conspicuous heat sources in FPHE calorimeters, not just 2):

    a. The anode (I * V anode)

    b. The electrolyte (I2 * R electrolyte)

    c. The cathode (I * V cathode)

    d. Any excess power

    e. The recombiner (I * [V cell-V thermoneutral])

    f. The complimentary Joule heater that kept the sum of input power constant (I2 * R heater)

    g. The wires (I2 * R wire). Note that since V was measured at the calorimeter boundary only the wires inside the calorimeter contribute to this term, and it is fully measured

    5. The thermal efficiency of our early design was ~98%, later improved to 99.3%.

    6. Only the missing 0.7 to 2% (that is lost primarily by thermal conduction to the ambient down wires and the pipe) needs to be “calibrated”.

    7. Calibration of the first law parameters (I, V, ∂m, ∂t) were performed independently of the calorimeter.

    8. At constant input power the presence of excess heat can be inferred qualitatively by a rise in temperature of the outgoing fluid (normally water). Our largest excess power levels were ~300% in input power. Our largest statistical significance (Excess power / measurement uncertainty) is 90 sigma.

    9. We tested our assertion that heat was measured equally independent of its source position two ways:

    a. Finite element calculation (this is a complex matter not handled by two term algebra) which modeled the entire calorimeter up to its isothermal boundary: submerged in a water bath held at constant temperature ±0.003°C; in a room held constant to ±1°C

    b. Experimentally testing the influence of current to the cell and the complimentary Joule heater over a wide range in blank cells (H2O, Pt or poorly loaded Pd cathodes, early before initiation of the FPHE)

    10. The calorimeters were proven to be heat-source position-independent already by 1991 when I stopped worrying about this effect for our calorimeters. The fact that long long long hours of calorimetry were performed (>100,000), covering wide variations of cell and heater power, with calorimetric registration of zero excess heat sadly but conveniently reinforces our conviction that the Shanahan hypothesis that heat excess can be incorrectly measured (always positively?) by the displacement of heat sources – plays no significant role in our calorimeters.

    11. This last conclusion, equally rigorously supported by their designers and authors, applies to the two other modes of calorimetry with which I am closely familiar: F&P’s partially mirrored dewar design; the heat flow calorimetry of Violante and Energetics (using heat integrating plates).


    There are more insidious potential error sources possible particularly in electrochemical calorimetry. Ed discovered one in simple isoperobolic calorimetry for which the thermal barrier was the (pyrex) cell wall (changing wall hydraulics). Others exist and we should always be alert and open to suggestion. On the other side I suggest that the suggestors pay close attention to the literature, make quantitative calculation modeling the physical processes that drive the putative mechanism, and do not make global claims of “it is all wrong because…”.


    It is not that I claim that Kirk’s suggested semi-mechanism has never applied to LENR calorimetry. The effect he describes did play a role in the NRL / Coolescence Seebeck calorimeters when the recombiner is more or less well coupled to the predominant heat-flow path. But this was recognized by them. It is not that his “discovery” is never significant, or never could be. It is that the mechanism is well known, was historically anticipated, and is irrelevant to most of the calorimeters with which I am familiar. Even if he could show one case quantitatively, it would not affect the whole of our understanding.


    Here endeth the lesson. I will answer only relevant technical questions for clarification (and then probably slowly).

  • It is pleasant to see you at our forum! We are familiar since 2007! We didn't find yet new energy because we want to receive heat, and it is necessary to want to receive at once electricity!


    Generator Tarasenko based on the model of the planet Earth

  • Isoperibolic can be made much more independent of cell conditions with multiple isothermal wraps.

    If this means multiple layers, some people use that, but it is not needed. One large wrap around the entire cell works. That is what Miles used. A copper jacket. The temperature may vary in the cell, but it is the same anywhere on the jacket, because copper conducts heat well. See p. 55:


    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MilesManomalousea.pdf


  • Thanks for this detailed summary.


    I was rather expecting that from my memories of what you had done. For such 99%+ efficiency calorimetry I don't see much scope for heat source position errors. And your experiments were (to my knowledge) more carefully conducted than anyone else's.


    When going from that to the significance of the results as indicating non-chemical (nuclear) energy transfers the headline figures of 300% don't mean anything by themselves (because of the stored chemical energy issue) : but that is not the argument at hand.


    I won't speak for Kirk but what I'm suggesting is that change in cell conditions is difficult to rule out. To take an example, what matters is not just position of heat source, but thermal conductance between sources and sinks. In a system with liquid and bubbles that is difficult to control and so any number of single factor checks may miss something significant that relies on multiple factors (e.g. as just one example change in electrode to liquid thermal conductance and change in power emission at electrode). Also, even for your work, I'm wary of the single factor problem: where effects are ruled out because past rigorous testing has shown them not to be significant but then might re-emerge in combination with other factors. Which is why lots of checking is needed, and for those experiments less well checked than the ones you describe above Kirk's points remain in play.


    My position would be that understanding in detail and quantitatively the possible error mechanisms is helpful, and in a skeptical climate best done openly, and the published response to Kirk's commentary has not shown much acknowledgement of that.


    I sometimes think that the whole "persistent excess heat mystery in certain electrochemical cells" matter would have been much better and more fairly judged if no-one used the words nuclear or fusion in connection with it. Ever. Until the mystery was better understood than is the case now at which point they might be indicated - or not. That would allow fair consideration, without heated emotions, of the phenomenal aspects.

  • Cold nuclear synthesis takes place in crust, but as the main element the rotating plasma like a fireball serves! It gives a dynamo effect and processes of cold nuclear synthesis will be on the second plan, plasma and electricity to them created is primary!

    Холодный ядерный синтез проходит в земной коре, но главным элементом служит вращающаяся плазма типа шаровой молнии! Это дает динамо-эффект и процессы холодного ядерного синтеза будут на втором плане, первична плазма и электричество им создаваемое!

  • I won't speak for Kirk but what I'm suggesting is that change in cell conditions is difficult to rule out. To take an example, what matters is not just position of heat source, but thermal conductance between sources and sinks. In a system with liquid and bubbles that is difficult to control and so any number of single factor checks may miss something significant that relies on multiple factors (e.g. as just one example change in electrode to liquid thermal conductance and change in power emission at electrode). Also, even for your work, I'm wary of the single factor problem: where effects are ruled out because past rigorous testing has shown them not to be significant but then might re-emerge in combination with other factors. Which is why lots of checking is needed, and for those experiments less well checked than the ones you describe above Kirk's points remain in play.

    That is correct. Kirk’s “semi-mechanism” (I call it semi because it is generic not specific as to physical cause) is conceivable (and therefore must be guarded against) and has applied to some calorimeters (I will give an example below).

    What it is not correct is:

    a. It was unanticipated by early researchers until Kirk “discovered” it

    b. It applies to all forms of calorimetry

    c. It can explain all excess heat results (as has been claimed – in person if not in writing).


    Ed Storms abandoned the specific form of calorimetry that was used by many early explorers (including all three “famous” negatives). Calorimetry in which heat flow is measured from the difference in temperature across the outer wall of an electrochemical cell with undefined and uncontrolled thermal resistance and no “isothermal wraps”, can be compromised by this form of error – I believe fatally. What Ed discovered was that the controlling thermal barrier is not one but two: the glass (pyrex) wall; the hydrodynamic boundary layer of electrolyte. The first may be considered fixed. The second, in series, is subject to change with changes in electrolysis bubble pattern, natural convection, imposed stirring, temperature, electrolyte viscosity, deposition of crud on the wall, surface tension, etc.


    The early “famous” replication by Lewis et al at Caltech was subject to this error form and that may have been the reason why they needed to re-calibrate their calorimeter every day (by pre-supposing that excess power = 0). Here the issue is not so much moving heat source as moving heat leak pathway, which physically makes much more sense. But an analysis of how much their calibration constant needed to be changed each day, in terms of this hypothesis, would be a useful exercise for this community and may be a way for Kirk to redeem and test his hypothesis. My guess is that Lewis would share his data. Harwell and MIT were also subject to this (Storms) error form.


    So the effect is not non-existent - it is even relevant - to some. But however this exercise turns out, it will not bear significantly on any of the results that SRI reported, or Fleischmann and Pons (and there are many more results out there to which I would extend this exclusion). We and they were well aware of this issue; appropriate precautions were taken, and elaborated in early talks and papers.

  • mmckubre,


    I found it interesting how Kirk made it a point to mention he was taking a vacation -immediately after his post to you. What timing!


    FTR, I like Kirk. Anyways, good to have you engaged here. Hopefully you stay tuned.


    Take care

  • I sometimes think that the whole "persistent excess heat mystery in certain electrochemical cells" matter would have been much better and more fairly judged if no-one used the words nuclear or fusion in connection with it. Ever. Until the mystery was better understood than is the case now at which point they might be indicated - or not. That would allow fair consideration, without heated emotions, of the phenomenal aspects.

    Abd and others have said this. I don't buy it. Anyone could see that if it was not an error, it had to be a nuclear effect. Even if F&P had never said that, it would be obvious. Even if the results had leaked out without any comments from them, most scientists would instantly see it is a nuclear effect.


    The first result reported was 4 MJ/cm^3 of palladium. That has to be a nuclear reaction. It is far, far beyond the limits of chemistry. Furthermore, there was never any significant amount of chemical fuel in that cell or any other.


    Not only that, but soon after the announcement, people at Los Alamos, BARC, TAMU and NCFI confirmed that the effect produces tritium. That, too, is irrefutable proof that the reaction is nuclear.


    I am no physicist but the first time I saw the details of the experiments and how much heat they produce, I knew at once it had to be nuclear (or a mistake). Fleischmann pointed out that we know this for the same reason the Curies knew the heat from radium could not be chemical. Because radium produces thousands of times more heat than any chemical reaction per gram of fuel, and because there are no chemical transformations in the radium. Fleischmann showed that calorimetry was one of the most sensitive and important tools in elucidating nuclear reactions at first. M. Curie wrote:


    "Radium possesses the remarkable property of liberating heat spontaneously and continuously. A solid salt of radium develops a quantity of heat such that for each gram of radium contained in the salt there is an emission of one hundred calories per hour. Expressed differently, radium can melt in an hour its weight in ice. When we reflect that radium acts in this manner continuously, we are amazed at the amount of heat produced, for it can be explained by no known chemical reaction.The radium remains apparently unchanged. If, then, we assume that it undergoes a transformation, we must therefore conclude that the change is extremely slow; in an hour it is impossible to detect a change by any known methods.


    As a result of its emission of heat, radium always possesses a higher temperature than its surroundings. This fact may be established by means of a thermometer, if care is taken to prevent the radium from losing heat."


    https://history.aip.org/exhibits/curie/article_text.htm



    I also knew cold fusion could not be a miniature version of plasma fusion. I figured that out 5 seconds into reading the Wall Street Journal article. F&P were still alive, so that was ruled out. I did not know much about plasma fusion -- honestly, I still don't -- but I used to hang around in the Cornell plasma fusion lab, so I knew that much! I was amazed that any scientist said: "This can't be fusion because plasma fusion would produce a deadly flux of neutrons, so it must be a mistake." How illogical! Yes, of course it can't be that kind of fusion. So if it isn't a mistake, it has to be something else.

  • I also knew cold fusion could not be a miniature version of plasma fusion. I figured that out 5 seconds into reading the Wall Street Journal article. F&P were still alive, so that was ruled out. I did not know much about plasma fusion -- honestly, I still don't -- but I used to hang around in the Cornell plasma fusion lab, so I knew that much! I was amazed that any scientist said: "This can't be fusion because plasma fusion would produce a deadly flux of neutrons, so it must be a mistake." How illogical! Yes, of course it can't be that kind of fusion. So if it isn't a mistake, it has to be something else.


    JedRothwell : After the master/phd study the mind of most scientists is formed. Most of them anyway never had the ability to question the models they learnt. The remaining ones, that have to teach the new generation cannot be blamed for not committing they might teach the wrong story.


    Up to now nuclear & particle physics was based on kinetic experiments. Unluckily people only use the nice Pauli/Dirac formalism (that by the way can be expressed with one quaternion equation) to understand the results, where charges are points or densities and the result are waves or densities.

    Even worse: Most physicists still believe that there is a "coulomb style" strong force potential, what is blatantly wrong. We only have magnetic flux/mass that is rotating.

    Nevertheless, in the limit, the behavior of a particle collision must be conform (momentum) to Newtons laws.


    Now we go back to LENR. In LENR the reacting particles/isotopes have no (or a very small) linear(kinetic) momentum. Even more severe, the reacting partners retain their symmetry = no stimulus for asymmetric decay.

    Radiation needs either an excess momentum or a nuclear gamma level that is triggered by the reaction. Only the second may be the case. But most elements have gamma levels that are out of reach for the gained energy. Especially 4-He has no way to either radiate or decay under LENR conditions.


    Unluckily the early PD experiments were the 4-He production experiments, that need a new physical model of dense matter for a complete understanding. But which physicist is able to accept, that he learned, taught etc. outlandish rubbish? And that this state of failure happens since about 100 years!


    LENR is the tomb stone of the standard model!

  • Returning after a nice holiday break, with a response to Mizuno's bucket of water


    Quotes of Dr. McKubre’s comments are enclosed in “” below.


    “I am surprised that there is so much angst and uncertainty about this issue.”


    That’s probably due to the fact that you don’t seem to understand the issues. This is most clearly illustrated by your co-authorship of the 2010 J. Envir. Mon. article that replied to my comment on the prior Marwan and Krivit paper. Trying to a) pass off the CCS as a ‘hypothesis’ is incorrect, and likewise b) trying to assign my description of an issue as ‘random’ when I clearly and multiple times have called it ‘systematic’ is also incorrect. Now, the way I heard the paper was constructed was that the various authors contributed parts to Marwan and he combined them, so perhaps you missed the fact that my whole thesis and results were incorrectly presented. Do you stand by your supposed use of the term “random Shanahan CCSH” from that paper?


    “This was highly discussed and heavily worked out in “the early days”. I can't speak for anyone else but I expect it is true for others as well.”


    Really, so why did you apply an incorrect approach to you data analysis then?


    “The phenomenon that Kirk proposes was well anticipated (and better understood) by the design team for our first mass flow calorimeter (up to 1992) and improved in both design and understanding afterwards. Our calorimeters were designed to operate on first principles (first law).”


    Well technically I haven’t been able to check your work because you wouldn’t supply me with calibration equations from your massive 1998 EPRI report, and the prior one only presented Figures, not ‘raw’ data as you did in the attached CD on the 1998 report. However, in your M series runs, you observed two runs without any apparent excess heat and two with. I took the two without and used them as ‘calibration runs’ for a more standard type of calibration equation approach (using y=mx+b) than your transfer function approach, and I found a) the excess heat peak height was predictably variable (i.e. consistent with my claims and concerns) when the calibration constants were varied by a few percent, and b) that there were significant baseline shifts present that somehow disappeared when you used your transfer function calibration method. I would still love to see how you do that. I might find it useful myself some day. Care to share at this point?


    But I’ve seen no evidence you ever considered the ‘lumped parameter’ approach problem that allows the CCS problem to appear when the heat distribution in the cell changes from the calibration state. I suppose it’s possible you handled this, but you’ve never explained how that I can find. Please give me a reference to where I can obtain this information for study. Thanks.


    “Where systematic errors could conceivably occur the calorimeter was designed to be conservative - anticipated errors leading to under-measurement of heat.”

    I see no evidence your design fixes the lumped parameter approach. You should note that this problem is not a calorimeter design problem, it is a data analysis method problem. However, an altered calorimeter/cell design might potentially minimize the issue.


    “Some of you will remember me discussing this seemingly endlessly in 1989-1992."


    I didn’t get involved until 1995, so no, I don’t ‘remember’. This is why all of what you are talking about should be written down somewhere. Reference?


    “We obviated the precise issue that Kirk speaks about as follows:

    1. The electrochemical cell was enclosed (at pressure) in a metal heat integrator (“isothermal wrap” in THH's words).”


    And Ed Storm’s calorimeter also did the same thing with the heat-collecting fluid, but that still left ‘the problem. Likewise, you wrap does not prevent the problem.



    “2. Nothing left the cell except wires and a gas pipe for initial H2or D2gas charging.”


    Yes, yes, closed cell. So was Ed’s calorimeter.


    “3. A complimentary Joule heater was intimately wound into the metal heat integrator axially symmetric to the electrochemical cell.”


    Did it or was it used to probe changes in the heat distribution in relation to proposed high and less high heat capture efficiency zones? No. Didn’t think so…


    “4. The calorimetry fluid submerged and completely enveloped the integrator bathing externally all surfaces and picking up heat from wherever sourced (BTW there are 7 conspicuous heat sources in FPHE calorimeters, not just 2):”


    Just like Ed’s (effectively, Ed used a different design of course, but tried to do the same thing in his design. He achieved ~98.4% (as I recall) total efficiency, yet saw a fictitious 780 mW excess heat signal).


    Recall my little box diagram in the prior post. Call the high efficiency zone ‘Zone 1’, and presume it was where the electrolyte was. The gas space is ‘Zone 2’ and normally contains all penetrations through the cell wall, which remain together when exiting the calorimeter (i.e. these are the primary unaccounted for heat loss pathways)..


    “a. The anode (I * V anode)

    b. The electrolyte (I2 * R electrolyte)

    c. The cathode (I * V cathode)

    d. Any excess power”


    All Zone 1.


    “e. The recombiner (I * [V cell-V thermoneutral])”


    Zone 2.


    “f. The complimentary Joule heater that kept the sum of input power constant (I2 * R heater)”


    Power compensation calorimetry, fine. Henry Randolf (sp?) of SRNL used the same thing for his study as presented at ICCF1.


    This is technically a new wrinkle for me as I haven’t explicitly discussed power comp calorimetry before, but it’s not a significant one. The heat flowing out of the cell plus the heater power is held constant. When ‘excess heat’ appears, to keep the temperature the same, the heater power is decreased and the drop measured and reported as positive excess heat.


    But, heat lost up the tubes and wires never figures into this balance except via the correction that calibration gives, so if the heat loss changes, specifically by dropping when heat moves from the recombiner to the electrode for example, you get your CCS.


    “g. The wires (I2 * R wire). Note that since V was measured at the calorimeter boundary only the wires inside the calorimeter contribute to this term, and it is fully measured”


    I’m not concerned with power losses in wires and leads. I know some have claimed that as a problem in some cases, but I’m talking specifically about a CCS. If you lose power in the leads and don’t correct for that, shame on you, but I’d guess you did. What I am concerned with is how much heat from wherever is lost and not accounted for up the wires, and if that changes during an experiment. Apples and oranges here.


    “5. The thermal efficiency of our early design was ~98%, later improved to 99.3%.”


    A.) Ed’s as also 98% or so. B.) I’d like to look over you calcs. Reference?


    “6. Only the missing 0.7 to 2% (that is lost primarily by thermal conduction to the ambient down wires and the pipe) needs to be “calibrated”.”


    Correct. And changes in that during an experiment are one way a CCS could be induced.


    “7. Calibration of the first law parameters (I, V, ∂m, ∂t) were performed independently of the calorimeter.”


    Fine. You still calibrated. That means you are dependent on a maintained steady state condition to maintain calibration equation veracity. I propose you did not maintain a constant steady state due to some interesting physics and chemistry.


    “8. At constant input power the presence of excess heat can be inferred qualitatively by a rise in temperature of the outgoing fluid (normally water). “


    Not if there is a change in the steady state heat distribution as I postulate.


    “Our largest excess power levels were ~300% in input power. Our largest statistical significance (Excess power / measurement uncertainty) is 90 sigma.”


    Your 90 sigma is a bogus number. Your 1 sigma value is only one component of the total variation and a minor one at that. Looking at the baseline noise in inadequate. Ed’s experiments that I reanalyzed had a claimed 1 sigma of ~80mW and a peak signal of ~780mW for an ~10sigma signal. But in fact a 2-3% change in the calibration constant wiped out that 780mW signal, showing that 1 sigma was at least 780/3=260mW, not 80. You aren’t calculating the error in your results properly.


    “9. We tested our assertion that heat was measured equally independent of its source position two ways:

    a. Finite element calculation (this is a complex matter not handled by two term algebra) which modeled the entire calorimeter up to its isothermal boundary: submerged in a water bath held at constant temperature ±0.003°C; in a room held constant to ±1°C”


    As a chemical process modeling expert, I know the ‘Golden Rule’ of modeling: A model is only as good as the assumptions (equations and parametric ranges and values) you put into it. Did you try to simulate the effect of a heat distribution change such as I propose?


    “b. Experimentally testing the influence of current to the cell and the complimentary Joule heater over a wide range in blank cells (H2O, Pt or poorly loaded Pd cathodes, early before initiation of the FPHE)”


    Again, you need to try to account for my scenario. Did you do so? Also, the numerical results from this are of interest. What averages and standard deviations did you obtain from the different calibrations you did on a particular configuration?


    “10. The calorimeters were proven to be heat-source position-independent already by 1991 when I stopped worrying about this effect for our calorimeters. “


    Where can I examine this data? (recall that unpublished data/results doesn’t count)



    “The fact that long long long hours of calorimetry were performed (>100,000), covering wide variations of cell and heater power, with calorimetric registration of zero excess heat sadly but conveniently reinforces our conviction that the Shanahan hypothesis that heat excess can be incorrectly measured (always positively?) by the displacement of heat sources – plays no significant role in our calorimeters.”


    Really? I thought we all understood that ‘excess heat’ was a rare event. That’s all you established with the above studies.


    Also, regarding “(always positively?)”: This is just another example that proves you have not even considered my explanations. Your comment indicates you are still stuck on ‘random’. But your calibration methods as described above are clearly not random, and thus the change that we know as the FPHE is thus not random either. (The reason the excess is always positive is that you always calibrate with an ‘inactive’ electrode (or heater).)


    “11. This last conclusion, equally rigorously supported by their designers and authors, applies to the two other modes of calorimetry with which I am closely familiar: F&P’s partially mirrored dewar design; the heat flow calorimetry of Violante and Energetics (using heat integrating plates).”


    It is really immaterial to my theses what type of calorimeter is used. All of them have heat losses. All of them are calibrated (or assumed to be perfect, which is just assuming a particular set of calibration constants). All of them are studying the same system (I only refer to electrolysis cells) . Thus all of them are susceptible.



    “There are more insidious potential error sources possible particularly in electrochemical calorimetry.”


    I never said there weren’t. My CCS thing is just one potential error. It does not address others. But it seems to be quite large in relation to reported signals.


    “Ed discovered one in simple isoperobolic calorimetry for which the thermal barrier was the (pyrex) cell wall (changing wall hydraulics). Others exist and we should always be alert and open to suggestion.”


    Exactly. Like the whole CCS/ATER thing…


    “On the other side I suggest that the suggestors pay close attention to the literature, make quantitative calculation modeling the physical processes that drive the putative mechanism, and do not make global claims of “it is all wrong because…”."


    ROFL. A.) I’ve real ‘all’ the literature (an assertion, maybe I only hit 94%, but the point is I’ve read enough). B) My whole CCS thing derives from quantitative re-calculation based on real data. C) You cut off the important part with your ellipsis. It should have read: it is all wrong because a common mistake is being made in the data analysis. In other words, there is a systematic error in the calorimetric data analysis of F&P-type experiments that produces

    spurious excess heat signals.


    “It is not that I claim that Kirk’s suggested semi-mechanism has never applied to LENR calorimetry. The effect he describes did play a role in the NRL / Coolescence Seebeck calorimeters when the recombiner is more or less well coupled to the predominant heat-flow path. But this was recognized by them.”


    Thanks for writing that. I have pointed out many times before that Seebeck calorimeters can show the problem, but every time I do JR screams at me that I am wrong. Perhaps now he will learn something. However, what you write about the mechanism isn’t quite what I say.


    “It is not that his “discovery” is never significant, or never could be. It is that the mechanism is well known, was historically anticipated, and is irrelevant to most of the calorimeters with which I am familiar. “


    No. The problem is quantitatively documented in one highly efficient mass-flow calorimeter, and easily extended to all other calibrated methods, and is never tested for in any CF excess heat reports. So it appears to be unanticipated and highly relevant.


    “Even if he could show one case quantitatively, it would not affect the whole of our understanding.”


    Really? If I show a systematic error in your methods it is of no value to your whole understanding? Really?


    “Here endeth the lesson.”


    Hardly-eth. It seemeth to barelyeth have beguneth…


    “I will answer only relevant technical questions for clarification (and then probably slowly).”


    Ditto. One can check many of my posts on this forum however for more details.

  • Putting it simply, I don't see this as a physically feasible shift in mass flow calorimeters. Specifically, an efficiency of more than 100% is not possible, and temperature change in the measured cell cannot increase efficiency above 100%. Finally, the detected heat must be proportional to cell efficiency. There may be second order effects but this would seem to make positive calibration constant shift bounded +1.6%, and realistically quite a bit lower than this.


    So, where is the error in my math then? I calculated the local calibration constants that would zero out excess heat, examined the results, and found that the required changes were trivial. I offered explanations for that that were, to me at least, very physically feasible. Please elaborate on where you see an error in my analysis.


    In fact it is not possible to have a 100% efficient real calorimeter, because a real calorimeterr needs sensing elements to detect changes, and those elements provide heat loss pathways. One can get very good though, up to 98-99%.


    I assume you mean systematic errors by "second order effects".



    The same argument does not apply to calorimeters where close-to-cell temperatures are used as proxies for heat flow since these can have changes unrelated to calorimeter efficiency due to lack of isothermality.


    I believe I disagree with this statement if I understand it correctly. If I place a temperature sensing device 'close to the cell' why would changes in cell temperature arising from a more efficient detection of internal heat not register in the device? I think it would. You just add another layer of complexity to the thermal transfer conditions without changing the base problem. However, that added layer can have additional problems above and beyond the CCS thing. Is that what you mean?

  • For such 99%+ efficiency calorimetry I don't see much scope for heat source position errors.


    Well, Ed's calorimeter was 98.4% efficient and showed a 780mW excess heat signal. If Mike's 99.3% calorimeter was the M series calorimeter, he only saw a 360mW signal. Cut the lost heat in half, cut the excess heat signal in half, seem straightforward to me...:) I know. The point is that without calculating the actual errors from calibration constant variation, you can't conclude there is no room for the detection of apparent excess heat due to a CCS.