FP's experiments discussion

    Quote from kirkshanahan

    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.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    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.


    Quote from JedRothwell

    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.


    Quote from kirkshanahan

    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.

    Ascoli65


    You know there is another consideration not routinely brought up in considering these experiments, namely unloading. For the case of Pd and assuming the bulk loading level matters (which I don't but most CFers do), as the electrolyte level drops below the top of the metal Pd cathode the uncovered portion no longer has the electrolytic force present to keep the H or D in the metal. You have converted to a gas loading situation, with the external H2 pressure being that which is supplied by the electrolysis and limited by the atmospheric pressure plus any flow restrictions. That means that the H concentration in the Pd will drop precipitously in the uncovered region, and the H from the covered region will migrate to the 'lower pressure' unloaded areas. Thus the total H conc in the metal will start dropping. It should rapidly get below the magic H/M of 0.9 or so, down to the 0.7 range, which McKubre says won't do cold fusion.


    (Further, the H in the uncovered Pd is readily able to react with the O2 from the electrolysis, unloading it even faster.)


    By the time the electrolyte level gets to the bottom of the electrode, the H or D concentration should be minimal, and CF should have stopped. So, what would be driving a HAD? Nothing except some data interpretation error IMO.

    Quote from kirkshanahan

    You know there is another consideration not routinely brought up in considering these experiments, namely unloading. ...

    So, what would be driving a HAD? Nothing except some data interpretation error IMO.


    I totally agree with you. It is also well explained in your whitepaper. But you know as well that, in this field, all the problems raised by this kind of considerations are solved by postulating the existence of a few miracles that explain the alleged positive experimental results, which, by definition, are believed to be carried out by experts who are considered unable to make mistakes. The situation is still the same described in 1990 by Morrison in the conclusions of his "Cold Fusion Review" (1).


    This is the reason why I think the most effective considerations are those based on internal inconsistencies, i.e. those present in the same paper (such as the ignored residual voltage at the end of the F&P experiment of Fig.6B), or those among papers issued in the same circle (as the vanishing of excess heat reported by Lonchampt in his replications of the F&P experiments (2)).


    (1) http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MorrisonDRreviewofco.pdf

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

    Ascoli65,


    You also might enjoy http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GoodsteinDwhateverha.pdf It describes the skewed reviewing that happens in the field. Goodstein wasn't aware of my 2002 publication in 2000 (even thought he original manuscript came out then, see http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ShanahanKapossiblec.pdf). I would guess he would be really interested to see the blatant use of a strawman argument in http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MarwanJanewlookat.pdf used to discredit my explanation of the FPHE. To see what I really said you have to look up J. Env. Monitor., 12, (2010), 1756-1764. The 'MarwanJane...' paper immediately followed mine.

    Quote from Zeus46

    Is this statement based on some real mass diffusivity calculations you've done, or is it all just a bit hand-wavey?


    It is based on personal experience with gas loading of a variety of hydrides, including Pd , supported thick film Pd, and Pd alloys. They unload very rapidly when well activated.


    Edit: I should add that when Ed Storms measured loading by weighing loaded electrodes, he did so by immersing them in liquid nitrogen. The H atom recombination reaction goes to near zero rate at <120K or so. If they didn't unload fast, Ed wouldn't have needed to do that.

    So you have personal experience of measuring hydrogen loading in the lower portion of an half-immersed electrode?

    Was this electrode you used of similar cross-section?

    Was its overall length the same?

    What proportion of the electrode was sticking out above the electrolyte's surface in your experiment?

    Was the submerged length the same?

    Did you attempt to quantify the effects of these parameters - to understand whether you could extrapolate your experience in electrolysing half-submerged electrodes, into a general statement?...



    Quote from kirkshanahan

    Thus the total H conc in the metal will start dropping. It should rapidly get below the magic H/M of 0.9 or so, down to the 0.7 range, which McKubre says won't do cold fusion.


    Or did you just make it up?

    Quote from kirkshanahan

    It should rapidly get below the magic H/M of 0.9 or so, down to the 0.7 range, which McKubre says won't do cold fusion.

    Not rapid. It takes 27 hours. See p. 12:


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


    Quote from kirkshanahan

    By the time the electrolyte level gets to the bottom of the electrode, , the H or D concentration should be minimal, and CF should have stopped. So, what would be driving a HAD?

    No, that takes 10 minutes, not 27 hours.


    Quote from kirkshanahan

    So, what would be driving a HAD?

    The HAD with a sample of this size lasts about 27 hours.



    Elsewhere:

    Quote from kirkshanahan

    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.

    In that case, why didn't the plug melt in the control runs? Presumably because it remained submerged in water. It remained submerged because the boiling stopped as soon as the power was cut. The question then becomes: Why did the boiling continue after the power was cut to zero? There has to be some other source of heat. Most people would say that. You, however claim that just because something remains hot that does not mean there is a source of heat, and you claim that you can heat a 10 kg sample of metal, leave it in air, and it will still be hot 3 days later. So obviously you have no trouble believing that a plastic plug will melt even though the power turns off, the cell cools rapidly, and the plug remains submerged.

    Quote from Zeus46

    So you have personal experience of measuring hydrogen loading in the lower portion of an half-immersed electrode?


    No, I have experience loading Pd foils of the same approximate size in gas loading experiments, which is equivalent to the situation of the UPPER half of the electrode. Since the upper half remains attached to the lower half, the H in the lower half _will_ move into the upper half as the H in the upper half exits it to attain equilibrium with the gas space, which constantly changes due to outflow through the vent and D2+O2 reactions on the exposed upper half of the electrode. Note that this actually starts happening when the very first bit of the electrode is exposed and continues until it is all exposed.


    As an aside I will also remind you of the care CFers take to make sure the Pt counterelectrode, which normally is wound around supports and encloses the Pd cathode, is wrapped uniformly. They do that to prevent electric field variances at the Pd electrode surface that allow 'leaks' to develop. IOW, the leaky areas would be seeing a reduced field strength which translates to lower loading in that area. The 'leak' is exactly the same as I am describing above.


    Also note that the H formed at the covered part of the electrode will be absorbed now due to the depletion from the upper half. When the electrode was covered and fully loaded, most of the H just formed D2 and bubbled away.


    I consider it unlikely that the designated magic loading number of >0.85 or so will be maintained under these conditions, but the problem is that F&P are claiming a HAD after the electrode is fully exposed. It definitely will not remain at >0.85 D/M for more than a very few minutes, while the HAD is supposed to have gone on for hours.


    But also note that as I noted in my discussion with Ascoli65 the question is indeterminate with regards to whether the electrode is fully exposed (0V) or not.


    So once again, the point is that the experiment was not very useful due to missing information. Par for the course...

    Quote from JedRothwell

    Not rapid. It takes 27 hours. See p. 12:


    There is no "27' or 'twenty' even on pg. 12 or in the entire document. More made-up stuff JR? Please quote what you are claiming supports your contention so I can actually find what you are talking about in the paper if you expect a reply.


    Quote from JedRothwell

    In that case, why didn't the plug melt in the control runs?


    How would I know JR? My point is that it is unproven that it 'melted' at all. It is much more likely it deformed, and the conditions for doing that are widely variable. Without more info, we cannot make any use of this info, i.e. it is an anecdote, stimulating to some, boring to others.


    Quote from JedRothwell

    The question then becomes: Why did the boiling continue after the power was cut to zero? There has to be some other source of heat. Most people would say that.


    Have you ever boiled a pot of water on a stove? When you got the water boiling and cut off the heater, did it immediately stop boiling? In my experience the answer is "No, not immediately." There is a thing called thermal inertia. It comes from the parts of the container and contents that got heated to a point greater than they would be at when in equilibrium with 100C water. It would all depend on those details, which again we don't have...


    Quote from JedRothwell

    You, however claim that just because something remains hot that does not mean there is a source of heat, and you claim that you can heat a 10 kg sample of metal, leave it in air, and it will still be hot 3 days later. So obviously you have no trouble believing that a plastic plug will melt even though the power turns off, the cell cools rapidly, and the plug remains submerged.


    Back to the stupidity trolling again JR? No comment.

    Quote from kirkshanahan

    There is no "27' or 'twenty' even on pg. 12 or in the entire document. More made-up stuff JR?


    Quote: "Needless to say, the D in the lattice could not reach the surface in that time (the diffusional relaxation time is ~ 10^5 s) while the rate of diffusion of oxygen through the boundary layer could lead at most to a rate of generation of excess enthalpy of ~ 5mW."


    10^5 seconds = 27 hours. Sorry I was not more specific.


    By the way, once it is triggered, HAD does not require the entire sample to be at high loading. The effect occurs at near surface areas, which remain at high loading even while average loading declines.


    Quote from kirkshanahan

    How would I know [why the plug did not melt] JR?

    Any physicist would know it did not melt because it did not get hot. Any person with an ounce of common sense would know that. Therefore, it did not get hot. As I said, the question is: Why didn't it get hot?


    Quote from kirkshanahan

    My point is that it is unproven that it 'melted' at all.

    You don't believe Fleischmann?


    Quote from kirkshanahan

    t is much more likely it deformed, and the conditions for doing that are widely variable.

    No, plugs do not get "deformed" for no reason in test tubes. Nothing was putting pressure on it. No one squeezed it with a pliers. The only reason it could change shape would be because it melted. There are no other widely variable conditions that could cause this.


    Quote from kirkshanahan

    Have you ever boiled a pot of water on a stove? When you got the water boiling and cut off the heater, did it immediately stop boiling?

    The thermal mass of metal on a stove and in a pot are much larger than in this test tube, so the boiling takes a little longer to stop in a pot. The thermal mass of a little palladium, platinum and glass is small, so a few seconds after the power is cut, water vapor removes much of the heat and boiling stops abruptly.


    You don't believe that, of course, and you will go on insisting that boiling continues, just as you say that a bucket of water left in a room will evaporate overnight. However, if anyone reading this tries boiling some water in a test tube with a 100 W resistor, they will see that it stops boiling immediately, and they will see that you are wrong.


    Quote from kirkshanahan

    Back to the stupidity again JR? No comment.

    You don't need to comment on your own statements. We have pointed them out to you again and again. You keep saying this stuff, and then for good measure you deny that you said it. This is not a winning argument. You are debating yourself.


    Now you have claimed that boiling water in a test tube with a resister is like boiling water on a stove. No, it isn't. Anyone should know that, and anyone can prove it with a test tube, but that won't stop you from repeating it.

    JedRothwell ,

    I think around 3 to 4 degrees difference is easily obtained. Modified by the purity of the water, gas content of the water, and the surface conditions/material of the container, the boiling temperature, at standard atmospheric pressure, can be quite variable. However, 10 degrees higher than normal is possible in some fairly simple configurations, as well as maybe 7 or 8 degrees lower than normal with bubble nucleation improvements (chips, rough surfaces (ceramic is good), gas impurities, and micro contaminants in suspension). That is with plain water. The boiling point of water is a surprisingly complex phenomena. The record for the highest boiling point of “pure” water at standard pressure is around 200 C, in specific conditions.


    I am not aware if there are any extensively reported boiling point experiments done with prepared electrolytes. I suppose to some extent, electrolysis type CF experiments would indirectly be a large part of that body of work.


    Just some food for thought for the weekend...

    Quote from kirkshanahan

    I have experience loading Pd foils of the same approximate size in gas loading experiments, which is equivalent to the situation of the UPPER half of the electrode. Since the upper half remains attached to the lower half, the H in the lower half _will_ move into the upper half as the H in the upper half exits it to attain equilibrium with the gas space,


    So a foil is relatively thin, in one dimension: You would expect diffusion across that dimension to happen relatively quickly, given constant diffusivity. But, when considering diffusion orthogonally to that, we don't have much cross-sectional area to work with - it's the limiting factor, so diffusion from the lower to upper half is greatly hindered. Result: Bottom half pretty-much fully loaded, top half pretty-much unloaded, with a step gradient in a layer surrounding the electrolyte's boundary... This ain't rocket science. In fact, it's just thermodynamics,* with heat replaced by atoms.


    (It's the same as claiming the lower portions of that same half-in-half-out foil electrode would be at a dramatically lower temperature than the surrounding electrolyte: An obviously daft idea, when given more than a moments thought.)



    * hmmmmmm..... I think I see the problem.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.