How do you convince a skeptic?

  • A while back, I asked Kirk why he never submitted his CCS/ATER theories to any of the Electrochemical Societies, such as this one https://www.electrochem.org/ As I recall, he said he just did not want to. That made no sense to me. He has spent 20 years locked in this contentious battle with CF researchers, but is not interested in having his papers peer reviewed by an organization that may be able to quickly determine their merit?

  • The physical properties of H2 ad D2, including diffusion, are very different. so it is not at all surprising that ATER and hence CCS should be very different between H2 and D2.

    For ATER there may be merit in this explanation.

    I guess D2 being heavier would diffuse a bit slower than H2 in palladium.

    This could explain why with deuterium you might get much lesser hypothetical ATER than with H2 because by common sense there would be less

    deuterium to combine.. but I guess it really does need experimentation, since its only a theory.


    Its unfortunate that Kirkshanahan had no access to any electrochemical apparatus since2005

    in the Savannah River DOE laboratories.to test his theory out since 2005.

    His paper talked about Szpak codeposition electrodes

    but perhaps ATER effect could also be seen with the simpler Fleischmann electrodes.

    I will reread the 2005 paper to check this.


    For CCS on the other hand whether or not H2 or D2 are present does not seem to be a factor.

    that's from my reading of the 2002 paper.

    Interesting stuff.. the things electrochemists must know is amazing.

  • "CCS errors from this cell of an ATER type would follow from the special active environment on

    the electrodes created from the D electrolysis that allows ATER"



    I have read both the 2002=CCS paper and the 2005 paper= ATER paper by Kirkshanahan in Acta Thermochimica

    My reading of these shows no support for this statement that you have written


    I think your irony detectors are not sensitive enough in this case. I have of course no evidence for that sentence. It is pure speculation. In exactly the same way that LENR (induced by a special active environment) is pure speculation. Both hypotheses have the same merit - they explain the FPHE observations.


    It would be difficult to publish such speculation in mainstream publications where it is not accepted that FPHE exists and needs any explanation.


    However, once you cross that bridge, and reckon the evidence for something weird is strong enough to posit (with no specifically nuclear fingerprints) an unexpected nuclear reaction disobeying normal branching ratios, then other weird things, like ATER become important. In a perfect world ATER would be published in LENR journals. Unfortunately while mainstream journals are biassed against LENR, LENR journals are biassed for LENR (have you even seen a paper in them arguing that FPHE is in fact just an artifact)? My evidence for this bias being real comes from the Marwan paper which conatins at least one mistake and is dismissive of the CCS/ATER claims, rather than engaging with them and investigating whether they might have merit. I find the analogies with the way LENR is treated by many mainstream publications ironic.

  • In exactly the same way that LENR (induced by a special active environment) is pure speculation.


    No back to troll status again. But I'm pretty sure you will find an excuses, to explain us that you only one one specific active environment.


    There is more prove for LENR now since about 10 years, than we have for hot fusion since 50 years.


    And don't tell me there is hot fusion in hydrogen bombs, that mainly burn 6Li...

  • Well, there are several people here who endlessly tell me how little I know about science


    YOU are the one who says that!! You make technical assertions but when someone asks you for details, you say you don't know science, you haven't read the literature, etc.


    Above you said that cold fusion may be impossible to make into a practical source of energy because "the fundamental nature of the phenomenon [could be] the ultimate stumbling block." Okay, why? What is it about the fundamental nature that could be the ultimate stumbling block? What are the reasons? You won't say. Has anyone else said that? You won't say. Is there any paper showing how the fundamental nature could be a stumbling block? You won't say.


    You make a technical assertion that no one else has made. You claim it is true, and when anyone asks why, you suddenly don't know anything.

  • I have of course no evidence for that sentence. It is pure speculation. In exactly the same way that LENR (induced by a special active environment) is pure speculation.


    That is not pure speculation at all. It is based on the fact that cold fusion only works with certain materials, and these materials have a well defined set of physical charactoristics. The charactoristics were defined by Storms, Cravens and the people at the ENEA in a series of papers. The fact that some materials do not work, some work a little, and some work 10 times better than anything else was first demonstrated by Melvin Miles. (See https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJlessonsfro.pdf) This is one of the best understood aspects of cold fusion.

  • For CCS on the other hand whether or not H2 or D2 are present does not seem to be a factor.


    Therefore the CCS hypothesis is wrong. Because without D2 and Pd, you never get excess heat. Therefore, the CCS cannot explain the heat. The CCS would have explain why heat only happens with Pd+D.


    Needless to say, there are many other reasons the CCS hypothesis is wrong.

  • "cold fusion may be impossible to make into a practical source of energy because the fundamental nature of the phenomenon [could be] the ultimate stumbling block"


    And I thought you were a native speaker of English. I realize that you live for picking fights, but this is absurd. Until cold fusion IS made into a practical source of energy, it is POSSIBLE that it can't be. I am not taking any stand on the issue. And until we truly understand the fundamental nature of the phenomenon, it is POSSIBLE that because of that fundamental nature, practical use won't happen. Again, I am not implying anything of the kind. I am not laying odds. I am not taking sides.


    Jed, why don't you stop this ridiculous attack mode already. It forces you to simultaneously claim that cold fusion is well understood and under control and that it is poorly understood and requires much more work if it is ever to come to something. Depending on who you feel like fighting with, you take either position. Enough already. I imagine that if I said that cold fusion was the greatest thing since sliced bread, you would say that it sucks. Chill out already!

  • Until cold fusion IS made into a practical source of energy, it is POSSIBLE that it can't be.


    Anything is possible. It is possible white light does not actually have a complete spectrum and Newton was wrong. However, someone has to give a reason why it might be possible, or we are not talking science. It is empty speculation. For example, the reasons why tokamak plasma fusion might never become practical are well understood. The walls of the reactor become too radioactive and embrittled, and there is no practical way to convert the energy into electricity. Even the plasma fusion scientists agree that until these problems are addressed it is not likely plasma fusion can be made practical. To take a second example, muon catalyzed fusion cannot be intensified for theoretical reasons.


    Can you point to any similar factors in cold fusion? Are there are any known engineering or theoretical factors that might prevent commercialization? If you cannot cite any, you are making an assertion totally without evidence, without backing by a single expert opinion or paper. It is apparently based on your own personal speculation about a subject you have repeatedly insisted you know nothing about.


    Even if you can point to a theory that indicates cold fusion may not be practical, the experiments show the theory is wrong. The experiments prove beyond question that it can be produced at high temperatures and power density, and only control is missing. No theory predicts it cannot be controlled. Many methods of control have been discovered, and control is improving. This is the opposite of the situation with plasma fusion, in which both experiments and theory indicate that plasma fusion is not practical.

  • Ok Jed. Have it your way. If it turns out that CF never ends up becoming a practical technology, it will be entirely a result of academic politics, the most powerful force in the world. A trillion-dollar industry will never exist because of it. End of story.


    That makes no sense. I suppose it is a joke, but even as a joke it fails. Obviously, if it becomes practical, that will be despite academic politics, not because of them. Many previous discoveries such as the laser, the MRI, and the cure for stomach ulcers were blocked by academic politics, but they succeeded despite that.


    Instead of reacting with this kind of evasive nonsense, I suggest you address the issues. You claimed that "the fundamental nature of the phenomenon [could be] the ultimate stumbling block." Explain why you say that. What experimental or theoretical evidence is there for your claim? If you have none, then I suggest you say "this is pure speculation" or something like that.

  • It forces you to simultaneously claim that cold fusion is well understood and under control and that it is poorly understood and requires much more work if it is ever to come to something.


    That is 100% contrary to what I said. I said it is not under control. If it were, it could be scaled up. Also, it is not well understood. That should be obvious. If it were well understood it could be controlled.


    I suggest you read what I write more carefully before responding. Do not claim I said the very opposite of what I actually said. That annoys me, and it makes you look bad.

  • think your irony detectors are not sensitive enough in this case. I have of course no evidence for that sentence. It is pure speculation. In exactly the same way that LENR (induced by a special active environment) is pure speculation. Both hypotheses have the same merit - they explain the FPHE observations


    One problem is that THHuxleynew appears to have made a variaton the Kirkshanahan theories.

    His statement

    "CCS errors from this cell of an ATER type would follow from the special active environment on

    the electrodes created from the D electrolysis that allows ATER"

    indicates causation via the expression "follow from"

    Kirkshanahan never stated that the SAE caused CCS

    Now THHuxleynew brings in irony detector... there is no irony here.

    Also THHuxleynew cites pure speculation..... there is no speculation here,

    What is here in this statement is CONFUSION and BABBLE .

    THHuxleynew could not remember exactly what Kirkshanahan wrote in 2002, 2005 and cobbled together

    what he could to make some kind of offthecuff expert-sounding response to answer my question at that time.

    Another problem that arises is that THHuxleynew brings in the idea of MERIT.

    Kirkshanahan's theories are not based on his calorimetry and electrochemical experimentation

    An examination of his 43 papers from 1985 to 2017 shows colorimetry as the nearest thing!

    https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Kirk_Shanahan2


    Kirkshanahan's theories are verified by ZERO experiments even though 17 years has elapsed since CCS's conception.

    He has had ample time to do this in the DOE Savannah labs. and now

    unfortunately has been removed from there to the Seminary for another mission.

    So his CCS/ATER theories will never be experimentally verified.


    The anomalous excess heat in LENR has demonstrated experimentally by hundreds of researchers

    from 1989 to 2917. The transmutations in LENR similarly.

    The theories behind LENR are still being tested by researchers such as Mosier-Boss and Takahashi

    who have the relevant expertise and the relevant experimentation and the WILL to do so.

    Kirkshanahan's theories have very LOW MERIT.

    and yet THHuxleynew states in another offthecuff expert-sounding response

    "CCSH is a better fit to the known calorimetric facts in these experiments (excess proportional to heat in when effect is present). "


    Perhaps this matter deserves an entirely NEW THREAD entitled

    "THHuxleynew's variation on CCS causation and effect."


  • That is 100% contrary to what I said. I said it is not under control. If it were, it could be scaled up. Also, it is not well understood. That should be obvious. If it were well understood it could be controlled.

    “You claimed that "the fundamental nature of the phenomenon [could be] the ultimate stumbling block." Explain why you say that.”


    I say it because it is not well understood and there is no guarantee that it will ever be well understood.


    Your turn to read what I write more carefully. I am not saying that it won’t eventually be well understood. I am saying that it is possible that it won’t. That is not absurd. Not all scientific puzzles get solved even if those working on them are convinced that they will figure them out. In this case, it hasn’t happened in 30 years and it might not in 30 more. Or it might all get figured out quite soon. I don’t know. And despite your haughty and overbearing attitude, you don’t know either.

  • I say it because it is not well understood and there is no guarantee that it will ever be well understood.


    There is never any guarantee of anything in research and development. It wouldn't be "research" if it were guaranteed.


    Suppose it is never well understood. That will not mean "the fundamental nature of the phenomenon [could be] the ultimate stumbling block." That does not follow. There is, at present, no means to detect Alzheimer's disease in a living person, and no means to prevent it, or reverse it. However, we cannot conclude from those facts that the fundamental nature of the disease prevents detection, prevention or cure. On the contrary, most experts think these things are possible, but they have not been achieved yet.


    The fact that we have not yet learned enough about cold fusion to control it does not in any way indicate there might be some fundamental aspect that prevents such control. There are fundamental problems with other technologies, such as plasma fusion. We know what a fundamental problem looks like. So far no fundamental problems have emerged from cold fusion. There is also no reason to think we cannot learn much more about it, and learn to control it. On the contrary, people at Google and elsewhere have plans for robotic research projects that might reveal a great deal about it. (They discussed them with me informally at ICCF21.) These projects would cost a terrific amount of money -- far more than has been spent on cold fusion for the entire history of the field. They would be met with tremendous opposition from academia. So they may never be implemented. While we cannot be sure they would work, I do not think there is any clearly defined technical reason to think they would fail. I doubt you know of any reason.



    I am saying that it is possible that it won’t. That is not absurd.


    It is not absurd, but it applies equally well to every other unsolved problem. It is possible we will never understand high temperature superconductivity, or how to detect Alzheimer's disease, or why radioactive elements decay at different rates, or any of a million other unsolved mysteries. What you are saying is not absurd but it is a vacuous truism. It is like saying some days the weather is warm, and some days it is cold.



    Not all scientific puzzles get solved even if those working on them are convinced that they will figure them out.


    No one is convinced cold fusion will be figured out. On the contrary, it probably will not be figured out. Probably, the academic politics will continue, there will be no funding, and the researchers will all die off. However, if there were funding, the problems might be solved. Science often works. Not always of course. A great deal has been spent on things like plasma fusion and cancer research, but little progress has been made.



    And despite your haughty and overbearing attitude . . .


    This is projection on your part. I have no such attitude. I write like a programmer critiquing a badly written program, or a copy editor correcting mistakes in a paper. Because that is what I do, and have done for 40 years. I point out mistakes and I describe them in detail, so there is no confusion. This upsets some people. People do not like to be told "you have not presented any reason for your hypothesis, so I suggest you say it is pure speculation." However, that is what a copy editor does. Some distinguished professors have it in for me because I write comments like that on their papers. Others appreciate it.

  • Don’t forget that MMkubre is on record as stating that multiple heat source locations were both tested and FEA modelled in his own experiments.


    Most cells produce heat at different locations within the cell. So, if this produces a measurable effect, researchers will see it. Cells produce heat at 2 or 3 locations:


    1. At the electrolysis electrodes.

    2. At a resistance heater, which is used for calibration, or as a compensation heater (to keep output the same).

    3. In some cases, at a recombiner in the head space.


    These three produce heat in different locations in the cell. When some calorimeter types, which are extremely sensitive, and which measure the heat directly inside the cell or from the cell walls, the data shows differences between heat from these 2 or 3 locations. These differences are at the milliwatt level. Meaning, they are 2, 3 or 4 orders of magnitude smaller than anomalous heat from cold fusion. So there is no way this could explain the anomalous heat, and no way anyone could confuse these differences with anomalous heat. Note they are "differences;" not excess heat or a heat deficit. Moving a heat source does not reduce it or increase it measurably. If the calorimeter is sensitive enough to detect the movement, it will continue to show the correct heat balance.


    There are many other factors that cause milliwatt level changes, either noise or actual changes. For example, there is heat lost from the wires going through the cell lid. These losses might be microscopically larger with heat from a recombiner, because it is closer to the lid. But the difference would be so small, I expect it would be lost in the noise. Things like bubbles or heat from the overhead light would probably swamp this effect.


    Other types of calorimeters, such as some flow calorimeters, measure heat indirectly, far outside the cell. They usually cannot detect a change in the location in the cell where the heat is generated. I do not think a Seebeck calorimeter could detect such a change. Seebeck calorimeters are the most sensitive and precise, but they are blind to this particular effect.