Where is the LENR goal line, and how best do we get there?

  • Let me add that THHuxley ignores many other aspects of this experiment which also show that the heat is real, and not an artifact of input power measured incorrectly. I have pointed these other aspects to him many times, and showed him where Fleischmann pointed them out, but he refuses to address them. For example, I pointed out that the cell continues to boil even after the water level falls below the anode and cathode. When that happens, the input power is cut to zero. Electricity will not cross the air gap. During a test with Pt and/or ordinary water, the boiling stops immediately, and the cell begins to cool. After the test, there is a little unboiled liquid left at the bottom of the cell, and the Kel-F plu is intact. Whereas with anomalous excess heat:


    1. Boiling continues until all the water is gone.

    2. The cell does not cool. It often gets hotter after all the water is gone.

    3. The Kel-F plug melts.


    Obviously, spurious heat from a measurement error would not cause these effects. Plastic does not melt because someone misinterprets an instrument reading. It would also not cause two-weeks of excess heat before the boil off


    THHuxley refuses to address these facts and many others. Instead, he continues to claim that pure condensed water can leave the cell in measurable amounts large enough to affect the heat balance. Or he claims that measurable amounts left during the weeks before the boils off, even though the water was measured carefully and no such amounts were detected, and even though it would take hundreds of times more water than there was in the cell to produce megajoules of artifactual excess heat. He claims that differences between Pd and Pt, and between ordinary water and heavy water, might make a tremendous difference in how condensed water droplets behave at the top of the cell. But no such differences are described in the literature, or in techniques used to separate heavy water from light water, and he cannot describe a mechanism that would allow them. This is hand-waving. His hypotheses are all impossible. They are pathological skepticism.

  • 3. The Kel-F plug melts.

    Some tidbits on KelF specs:


    Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polychlorotrifluoroethylene

    "This results in having a relatively lower melting point among fluoropolymers, around 210–215 °C."


    https://www.aetnaplastics.com/…aetnaproduct/18/PCTFE.pdf

    [ASTM Method]D648 Heat Deflection Temp (°F / °C) at 264 psi 258 / 126

    [ASTM Method]D3418 Melting Temp (°F / °C) 415 / 212


    http://www.complast.com/kel-f/neoflon.htm

    Melting Point 210-212°C

    Deflection Temperature (66 psi) [ASTM Method]D-648 126 °C


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_deflection_temperature
    The heat deflection temperature or heat distortion temperature (HDT, HDTUL, or DTUL) is the temperature at which a polymer or plastic sample deforms under a specified load.

  • During a test with Pt and/or ordinary water, the boiling stops immediately, and the cell begins to cool. After the test, there is a little unboiled liquid left at the bottom of the cell, and the Kel-F plu is intact. Whereas with anomalous excess heat:


    1. Boiling continues until all the water is gone.

    2. The cell does not cool. It often gets hotter after all the water is gone.


    reference please.

  • Some tidbits on KelF specs:


    Wikipediahttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polychlorotrifluoroethylene

    "This results in having a relatively lower meltingpoint among fluoropolymers, around 210–215 °C."

    This material is melts at 300°C. More to the point -- as I said -- it does not melt with Pt or H2O and a heat balance of zero, but it does melt with anomalous heat that continues after boiling. When there is no anomalous heat, the power cuts off and boiling stops as soon as water level drops below the anode and cathode. Some water is then left at the bottom of the cell where the Kel-F plug is located, so the plug does not get hot or melt.


    No doubt you will explain why that is an instrument artifact, but I don't think it could be.


    reference please.

    http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmancalorimetra.pdf

  • 2. The cell does not cool. It often gets hotter after all the water is gone.


    From http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmancalorimetra.pdf , page 19

    […] We also draw attention to some further important features: provided satisfactory electrode materials are used, the reproducibility of the experiments is high; following the boiling to dryness and the open-circuiting of the cells, the cells nevertheless remain at high temperature for prolonged periods of time, Fig 8; […]


    BUT, Fig.8 is an expansion of Fig.6B, which shows that voltage remains greater than zero until the cell remains at high temperature. In particular, voltage oscillates around a value of 5-6 volts, a value close to the initial voltage, that - with a current of 200 mA, much less than the final 500 mA - had been enough to increase, from 20 to 30 °C, the temperature of a much higher water content. This behavior was unique among the 4 cells in the documented experiment. For the other three cells, as documented in Figs.6A, 6C and 6D, the voltage dropped directly to zero, and it was followed almost immediately by the decrease of cell temperature.


    This different behavior is clearly visible in the figures included in the paper, but was not mentioned in the text by the two authors, the legendary F&P, nor highlighted in the comment of their bard!


    (Sorry, Shane, just a technical tie-break from vacation, I couldn't resist. :) )

  • This material is melts at 300°C.


    Then it would not be Kel-F as F&P claim in their paper. Kel-F's melting point is more like 200-215C, as I showed in the references in my prior post. F&P specifically say this: "furthermore the Kel-F supports of the electrodes at the base of the cells melt so that the local temperature must exceed 300ºC. "

    That actually says nothing about what the materials melting point actually is, just that it is less than 300C. But given that Kel-F melts at 215C or so, how can they jump to 'exceed[s] 300C'? The best they could really say is 'exceeds 215C'.


    Furthermore you obviously missed the point of listing the deformation temperatures. You will note they are listed at two pressures and both are 126C, well below the melting point, both being determined via an ASTM method. You will also please note that they are determined to be the same temp at two different applied pressures. That suggests the value may remain the same at even lower applied pressures. In the words, the deformation that F&P noted could easily and with high probability occur at ~125C. That temp is certainly reasonable to obtain in their experiments, especially in the static environment of 'after boil-off'.


    They obviously weren't plastics chemistry experts and seemingly mis-identified the phenomenon that resulted in the deformation. There is only one way to resolve this, and that is to get more data, which is unlikely to happen. So for all intents and purposes we are now left with...wait for it... the Fleischmann and Pons Melted Plug Anecdote! (you may recall that anecdotes aren't science...)




    This paper does not say what you say it does. Surprise, surprise...


    Checking the paper for occurrences of 'pt', I found 16, but only 4 were for 'Pt'. The rest were for 'pt' as part of another word. Also, only one occurrence of 'platinum'. All were with respect to a supposed 'control', or non-excess-heat run. It is acknowledged that F&P *thought* Pt cathodes were inactive, but Storms proved they aren't. However, that whole point is barely relevant because everyone also acknowledges that getting the Fleischmann-Pons-Hawkins Effect (FPHE) is difficult to do. It is likely more difficult on Pt but not impossible. So having a null run is expected.


    The key point with regards to the referenced paper is that *one* 'excess heat' experiment is discussed in detail ("We examine next the results for one Pd cathode "), and *no* other results are presented other than a null Pt 'calibration' run. I noted this problem in another instance in my whitepaper (http://coldfusioncommunity.net…4/SRNL-STI-2012-00678.pdf) w.r.t. the Pd data presented where I overlaid two thermal histories from this paper (and its Phys. Lett. A version). They were identical, yet F&P only talked abut one of them showing excess heat, and specifically after the electrical connection was disrupted, in what everyone calls a 'Heat-After-Death' instance. But why only claim XSH in one case when they show data for two identical thermal histories? Makes no sense... How hard would it have been to put up a table saying 'We ran x experiments and observed XSH in the following:"? This paper is notable for what it *doesn't* report.


    {Note to those who read JR's referenced paper: F&P discuss one run from a set of 4 using similar Pd electrode with slightly different current time profiles. The Figures 6A-D show the thermal histories. It is obvious from the text that the in-Figure caption of 6D is wrong in that it refers to 'electrode 2'. That should be 'electrode 4 instead. The 'x' in 'Demo9_x' is the electrode number.}

  • Then it would not be Kel-F as F&P claim in their paper. Kel-F's melting point is more like 200-215C, as I showed in the references in my prior post. F&P specifically say this: "furthermore the Kel-F supports of the electrodes at the base of the cells melt so that the local temperature must exceed 300ºC. "

    You have a genius for missing the point. Suppose the temperature is 200 - 215 deg C, as you say. The point is, the plug melts in tests with Pd-D when there is excess heat, but it does not melt in control tests with Pt-H or Pd-H, when there is no excess heat. The exact temperature does not matter.


    Your other comments also miss the point or they are mistaken.


    By the way, information not found in this paper can be found in others, so perhaps you should misconstrue them as well.

  • You have a genius for missing the point. Suppose the temperature is 200 - 215 deg C, as you say. The point is, the plug melts in tests with Pd-D when there is excess heat, but it does not melt in control tests with Pt-H or Pd-H, when there is no excess heat. The exact temperature does not matter.


    And you are an idiot savant at missing the point, twice now. The melting point is not the issue, the deformation temperature is. That value is 126C based on literature references. So, the 'damage' F&P saw was likely caused at ~125C, not at over 300C. 125C at the plug in that apparatus after electrolysis stopped is reasonable, not exceptional. No excess heat required.


    Your other comments also miss the point or they are mistaken.


    By the way, information not found in this paper can be found in others, so perhaps you should misconstrue them as well


    No, they're don't.


    I asked for references and you pull the old 'go find it yourself', while asserting vehemently (in all your posts) that what you say is true. My experience with you is that you make things up when you need them, so like those who choose to ignore Rossisays, I choose to ignore Jeddisays. I will consider actual references that support your assertion. But so far you are zero out of one.

  • Ascoli65


    Your comments made me take a second look and I found something interesting. As I noted in my whitepaper, the ICCF3 paper that JR referred to was later published in a slightly modified form in Phys. Lett. A, 176 (1993) 118. They presented the Figures 6B and D from ICCF3 as FIg 8a and b in PLA93. I compared the B and D figures in my whitepaper, but comparing the D and b Figures (i.e. supposedly the same data) I find a discrepancy. The cell voltage at the end of the run in Fig. 6D is at 0V exactly, while in 8b is shows as a few volts positive! (See attachment. Note that the blue shaded boxes are 'select' boxes and were drawn with the top of the box at exactly 0 V.)


    Applying Gene Mallove's criteria, we can call F&P frauds and con men based on this!!


    (Note: Gene Mallove disputed the legitimacy of the MIT authors clipping their CF study results to omit baseline shifts up and down at the start and end of their Figure. They also called the center of the noisy trace as 0. Gene thought this was fraudulent. In fact it is SOP since baseline shifts like that are a common problem. However in F&P's data that we discuss here, it makes a difference, because 0V means no conductivity and no ohmic heating. Positive V on the other hand leaves an active heat source in the cell by implication. The final point is the same as made by myself and Ascoli65, F&P did a poor job when writing this paper.)

  • Hi Kirk,

    thanks for your information and attention.


    Ascoli65- You may want to glance at Fig. 1 in http://coldfusioncommunity.net…4/SRNL-STI-2012-00678.pdf


    I don't see any significant difference.


    My conclusion was the method used to claim excess heat was flawed.


    These are also my conclusions, inferred on the basis of the internal inconsistencies in the ICCF3 paper and the results of the Lonchampt's replications.


    Fig.1 of your whitepaper is interesting, as shows that the two cells behaved the same way regardless of the initial elapse time. The big difference is in the final "heat after death" claimed by F&P for the cell of Fig.6B. This presumed HAD is based on the erroneous assertion (see Page 19) that, during the period in which the cell B remained at high temperature, the electrical circuit was open due to a complete dry-off of the cell. This is not true. Not for cell B. In fact, Fig.6B clearly shows that a residual voltage (about 5-6 V on average) lasted until the cell remained at high temperature. What happened?


    It seems that the test procedure was that the current had to be manually interrupted once the cell was apparently dry, in fact at the end of the ICCF3 paper we read "We have therefore chosen to work with "open" systems and to allow the cells to boil to dryness before interrupting the current." It is possible that when cell B looked dry, the current was not interrupted but inadvertently reduced to a lower value, maybe at the same initial value of 200 mA, and then completely shut off only a few hours later. Evidently this residual power was sufficient to maintain a high temperature around the thermocouple.


    Whatever the cause of this anomalous behavior, F&P had the original data of both temperature and voltage, and as they expanded the final period of the former they could (and probably did) have expanded even the latter, so they should have been aware of the fact that the voltage (as well as the current) was not zero. Therefore, they should have included a figure in their paper showing this voltage anomaly and provide a suitable explanation for it. But they didn’t, giving rise to the anecdote - one of the many myths in CF field - of the ability of their cell to run in HAD mode.