Nature: Google funded research fails to find excess heat/nuclear signature. Reaches out to LENR community for advice!

  • Why in a thread dedicated to the Google's replication of the F&P effect, RB is allowed to post 4 times the same image about a minor finding of a minor CF researcher (1-2-3-4), but it is forbidden to mention a well known phenomenon which has affected the original experiments of the two CF pioneers and all the many successful attempts to replicate their results (*)?


    FTFY.


    As for 'why not' you have beaten this argument to death. It's a dead Parrot. It is no longer of interest as far as I'm aware to anybody but you and flooding threads with the same argument time after time is boring and intrusive for other members.

  • The prior learning curve of Staker plus the novel phases.. gamma,delta and epsilon may be helpful


    The UBC et al group , Curtis Berlinguette et al actually acknowledge the importance of material science

    in their investigation in their recent Nature report, as quoted below.

    ."

    Our experience affirms that the materials science aspects of

    deuterated metals merit further study, as concluded in the 2004 US

    Department of Energy review, 37.

    If loading metals with exceptionallyhigh concentrations of hydrogen

    is indeed a necessary precursor forcold fusion,

    then more work is required to produce stable samples

    of PdHx where x ≥ 0.875 to comprehensively evaluate these claims."


    Dr Michael Staker has been working on the material science of deuterated metalsfor well over five years and has achieved

    PDHx where x > 0.93 in his calorimetry

    which appears to be a necessary precursor to cold fusion


    Perhaps the UBC people can engage with Dr Michael Staker in further study

  • I do not have much expertise here and in this case (Staker) I have not spent much time. All these replicable (?) modern excess heat experiments are interesting. We should know enough about how to trigger it and how to instrument well to obtain v solid results for FPHE. So I find recent papers like this with v flaky results underwhelming.

    THH

    If you have some basis.. for the comment " v flaky results".

    You are suggesting that these results are unreliable.


    Please tell the forum. If ,as you tell us, you are interested in these results,

    Could you make some helpful suggestions which I can relay to Michael Staker.as to how to

    he could make his results less "flaky"?

    There is also the question of how I might refer to you.. Dr Prof.. etc


    Alternatively you can contact Michael Staker yourself at Loyola Uni.

    https://www.loyola.edu/-/media…0%20dec%202018.ashx?la=en

  • RB: thank you for the comment on Stakes's paper; which is indeed recent which is why I suggested many here might be interested in it.


    I noted that Staker's main interest is metallurgy and materials. In that he may well make a contribution, and if FPHE exists and is linked to high D2 loading, as many think, that obviously could help him to obtain robust and replicable results. But it is separate from the robustness of his experimental results.


    Your review of these is "he replicates F&P". Well, that is not entirely true. There are many similarities, but also many differences. And the results are less clear cut (although in some ways the experiment is better controlled).


    During the phases of the experiment for which he quotes calibration (temperatures below 40C deltaT) the difference in temperature between the D & H (control) systems is < 3%, or a power of around 75mW using the calibration curves. The "runaway" temperature difference is ~ 10%, some 6C - 9C or so, or a power equivalent (from calibration) of 300mW - 550mW. Also worth noting the the runaway behaviour is a progressive, linear, increase in temperature difference with time from 6C to 9C.


    Let us look at some possible effects that could lead to the two results: 3% temperature difference when stable between D & H, and "runaway" of D:


    (1)


    The temperature of the inner tube translates into a power difference based on the effective thermal resistance in the air gap between the tubes. This has diffusive and radiative components (ignoring convection for a small gap), where diffusion dominates. It is essentially the same system as a quadruple-glazed window. The diffusive thermal conduction is sensitive to the gas composition in these air gaps, because it is proportional to molecule speed which is inversely proportional to square root of molecular weight. Leakage of D or H into this gap would increase thermal conductance (and hence decrease temperature differences).

    Suppose D2: MW=4, H2: MW=2, air: MW= 29).


    To take an extreme case, supposing only diffusion determines the thermal conductance and hence temperature drop for given power, we get a temperature which is sqrt(14.5) ~ 4 times smaller for H than air, and sqrt(7.25) = 2.8 X smaller for D than air. So a small amount of leakage of the electrolysed gasses into these air gaps could cause the 3% change in temperature for constant power. the difference between D and H will be larger than this indicates because H permeates everything much more easily than D so we expect H leakage to be higher than D leakage. Indeed we might expect, depending on permeation path, that the D permeation would be zero.


    This is a large effect, relatively, and while it may well be that no progressive permeation of H (D) into the air gaps is possible I'd want this checked. The calibration does not necessarily prevent this effect because of differences between the active and cal systems. Still it might be enough - applied with care - to eliminate this error. Also, this mechanism does not fully describe the runaway where temperature increases progressively. That would need D initially present in the air-space, and progressively lost, with (for some reason) no H present and not lost. Unlikely.


    (2)


    Recombination/D2 oxidation. F&P assume that recombination (or other oxidation) does not occur at all in the cell. While this is normally true for electrolysis we must question whether it might occur in the unusual circumstances of highly D2 loaded Pd electrodes and this experimental setup. The vacancies noted by Staker could act as catalytic chambers for recombination: the limitation being how could some oxidising agent (e.g. the electrolysed O2, or O2 from outside air pulled in to the tube by the negative pressure) exist near to these electrodes. I don't know the answer to this. I certainly don't think this effect can be assumed not existing. The equipotential power is approximately 600mW during the runaway period, so recombination (or external O2 oxidation) of only half of the generated D2 would cause the observed runaway. I'd suggest if this is the mechanism that the already loaded D2 could be involved in the oxidation.


    Now, (1) can be easily checked and eliminated. maybe Straker has done this and not written it up (though that would be unusual and very counter-productive - the more checking of issues is found in a paper with extraordinary results the better.


    (2) is quite tricky to check: I'm not entirely sure the best way to do this, because the proposed oxidation mechanism, just like proposed LENR, is not understood and could be sensitive to almost any detail of the experimental setup.


    In the above I've ignored effects due to bubbles and foam. They may be relevant, but this would be through some mechanism too complex easily to analyse. For example, bubbles on the tube surface might alter thermal resistance to tube, or radiative transfer across the inner air gap. Obviously I'd not expect any such mechanism - but then also I'd not expect nuclear reactions so the fact that these experiments do show higher temperatures D/Pd than H/Pt motivates looking for unusual mechanisms - whether this is LENR or some mundane but also surprising issue.


    Summary


    Experiments like this and Mckubre's work lead me to think there is some real and interesting effect in these D/Pd cells. I'm not inclined, given these results (or McKubre's) to jump on LENR as the only possible, or indeed the most likely, option for this. I don't understand what this effect is, in detail, which is a negative. Equally (a negative) I don't understand how LENR would work. Since much more effort has gone into theorising about LENR as explanation for these results than other things, with not much (theoretical) success, I'd want to explore the other options in much more detail.


    Straker's experiment is good for that. It looks to be independently replicable (though there I guess the proof of the pudding must be in the eating).

  • RB: thank you for the comment on Stakers's paper; which is indeed recent which is why I suggested many here might be interested in it.


    I noted that Staker's main interest is metallurgy and materials. In that he may well make a contribution, and if FPHE exists and is linked to high D2 loading, as many think, that obviously could help him to obtain robust and replicable results. But it is separate from the robustness of his experimental results.


    Your review of these is "he replicates F&P". Well, that is not entirely true. There are many similarities, but also many differences. And the results are less clear cut (although in some ways the experiment is better controlled).


    During the phases of the experiment for which he quotes calibration (temperatures below 40C deltaT) the difference in temperature between the D & H (control) systems is < 3%, or a power of around 75mW using the calibration curves. The "runaway" temperature difference is ~ 10%, some 6C - 9C or so, or a power equivalent (from calibration) of 300mW - 550mW. Also worth noting the the runaway behaviour is a progressive, linear, increase in temperature difference with time from 6C to 9C.


    Let us look at some possible effects that could lead to the two results: 3% temperature difference when stable between D & H, and "runaway" of D:


    (1)


    The temperature of the inner tube translates into a power difference based on the effective thermal resistance in the air gap between the tubes. This has diffusive and radiative components (ignoring convection for a small gap), where diffusion dominates. It is essentially the same system as a quadruple-glazed window. The diffusive thermal conduction is sensitive to the gas composition in these air gaps, because it is proportional to molecule speed which is inversely proportional to square root of molecular weight. Leakage of D or H into this gap would increase thermal conductance (and hence decrease temperature differences).

    Suppose D2: MW=4, H2: MW=2, air: MW= 29).


    To take an extreme case, supposing only diffusion determines the thermal conductance and hence temperature drop for given power, we get a temperature which is sqrt(14.5) ~ 4 times smaller for H than air, and sqrt(7.25) = 2.8 X smaller for D than air. So a small amount of leakage of the electrolysed gasses into these air gaps could cause the 3% change in temperature for constant power. the difference between D and H will be larger than this indicates because H permeates everything much more easily than D so we expect H leakage to be higher than D leakage. Indeed we might expect, depending on permeation path, that the D permeation would be zero.


    This is a large effect, relatively, and while it may well be that no progressive permeation of H (D) into the air gaps is possible I'd want this checked. The calibration does not necessarily prevent this effect because of differences between the active and cal systems. Still it might be enough - applied with care - to eliminate this error. Also, this mechanism does not fully describe the runaway where temperature increases progressively. That would need D initially present in the air-space, and progressively lost, with (for some reason) no H present and not lost. Unlikely.


    (2)


    Recombination/D2 oxidation. F&P assume that recombination (or other oxidation) does not occur at all in the cell. While this is normally true for electrolysis we must question whether it might occur in the unusual circumstances of highly D2 loaded Pd electrodes and this experimental setup. The vacancies noted by Staker could act as catalytic chambers for recombination: the limitation being how could some oxidising agent (e.g. the electrolysed O2, or O2 from outside air pulled in to the tube by the negative pressure) exist near to these electrodes. I don't know the answer to this. I certainly don't think this effect can be assumed not existing. The equipotential power is approximately 600mW during the runaway period, so recombination (or external O2 oxidation) of only half of the generated D2 would cause the observed runaway. I'd suggest if this is the mechanism that the already loaded D2 could be involved in the oxidation.


    Now, (1) can be easily checked and eliminated. maybe Straker has done this and not written it up (though that would be unusual and very counter-productive - the more checking of issues is found in a paper with extraordinary results the better.


    (2) is quite tricky to check: I'm not entirely sure the best way to do this, because the proposed oxidation mechanism, just like proposed LENR, is not understood and could be sensitive to almost any detail of the experimental setup.


    In the above I've ignored effects due to bubbles and foam. They may be relevant, but this would be through some mechanism too complex easily to analyse. For example, bubbles on the tube surface might alter thermal resistance to tube, or radiative transfer across the inner air gap. Obviously I'd not expect any such mechanism - but then also I'd not expect nuclear reactions so the fact that these experiments do show higher temperatures D/Pd than H/Pt motivates looking for unusual mechanisms - whether this is LENR or some mundane but also surprising issue.


    Summary


    Experiments like this and Mckubre's work lead me to think there is some real and interesting effect in these D/Pd cells. It is one reason I stay interested in LENR (the other stuff seems to me to be unsubstantiated at best and plain silly at worst - bad for LENR reputation that such stuff gets lumped in with more credible experimental evidence). I'm not inclined, given these results (or McKubre's) to jump on LENR as the only possible, or indeed the most likely, option for this. We don't understand what this effect is, in detail, which is a negative for the alt-explanation. Equally (a negative for LENR) we don't understand how LENR would work. Since much more effort has gone into theorising about LENR as explanation for these results than other things, with not much (theoretical) success, I'd want to explore the other (alt-explanation) options in much more detail.


    Straker's experiment is good for that. It looks to be independently replicable (though there I guess the proof of the pudding must be in the eating).


    THH

  • noted that Staker's main interest is metallurgy and materials


    He is materials science by training, which covers a broad ambit. I myself in my second degree Chemical +Materials Engineering

    touched upon electrochemisry in my corrosion research

    and silicon magnesium alloys in another research project... about thirty years ago

    The PdH2 calorimetry is a field that few have experience in which is why the UBC people were on a steep learninng curve.

    Staker has learned it by going through a learning curve over a period of four years at least

    Staker keeps himself busy...I am sure that as a professor he will supervise his PhD students well as welll as conduct his own research

    and do the other minutiae of academic life... grants application..ethics approval.. safety etc etc well.

    In a busy university time is short.


    He has little time for speculation

    If you have some legitimate areas of concern supported by the literature/calculation

    and cogently expressed he might address them. Oherwise no.

    The paper has already been peer reviewed by at least six people.


    Thank you for your response.

    I realise that you no longer support you previous contention that Staker's work is v,flaky.


  • If any experimental scientist had little time for speculation then he would not be proposing unproven and indeed unsupported by coherent theory LENR explanations for results.


    The material science issues are less speculative here - but do not imply an LENR explanation for this data. I'd hope that this are of experimentation is now ell enough explored that whatever FPHE effects exist can be consistently replicated in different setups and therefore understood. Until then, the whole area, and staker's paper in particular, is full of speculation, inevitably.


    As for v flaky: I have spent a bit more time reading the paper and my opinion is higher wrt:

    • airgap calorimetry, with all airgaps except innermost well controlled (but note small caveat re contamination of airgap with H2/D2 - I'd want explicit acknowledgement that the relative pressures make that impossible).
    • good calibration before and after (but i need to examine again the exact terms of this, for various reasons)


    D/Pd has generated higher temperatures than H/Pt over enough setups that it seems quite possible there is an effect here, and the highly complex nature of D loaded Pd provides a speculative partial mechanism.


    It is flakey wrt:


    • Quoted calibration data is well outside the temperature range of the relevant (runaway) results. These little things can happen easily in papers not properly peer-reviewed - but I'm surprised when you say it has already been so checked.
    • The results support something unusual - but jumping on unexpected nuclear reactions, rather than unexpected recombination/oxidation, is surely speculative and poor judged speculation. In a paper to be taken seriously I'd want both options to be considered.
    • The key (non-runaway) results are small


    WRT unexpected recombination: the vacancies in Pd known to be loaded with D have obvious catalytic possibilities. The issue would be how easily could O2 from atmosphere or electrolysis reach the Pd cathode surface. The lack of support for such "non-standard" recombination is no larger than impediment than the lack of support in the literature for nuclear reactions. If other options are ruled out this must therefore be investigated.


    It is Staker's priviledge if, as you claim, he would not consider as worth exploring explanations other than LENR. LENR, as a theoretical explanation, has no coherent supporting literature. The very many experimental claims for LENR do not provide such support, nor does the speculation about pd/D structure. So i don't see it as being more worthy of investigation than other unexpected but hypothesised effects.


    I'm not dismissing LENR as a possible explanation for this FPHE just because it is not understood. However, I think for you or Staker or anyone else to be dismissing other possible explanations that are not understood, rather than trying to exclude or prove them, would show a regrettable lack of open mindedness.


    In this data there is one clue as to the "runaway" mechanism, very different from F&P, which is that it appears to be linearly increasing over time. Neither LENR nor oxidation/recombination explains that.


    THH

  • Recombination/D2 oxidation. F&P assume that recombination (or other oxidation) does not occur at all in the cell.


    They did not assume that. They measured using several different method to confirm that significant recombination does not occur, in both the excess heat tests and the control runs. Also, the cell is designed in a way that is well known to prevent recombination.

  • robert bryant


    OK, I've had a chance to skim the Staker paper. Most of the detailed description and theory is well (very much )beyond my areas of both expertise and interest. I understand the paper purports that the results support claims by P&F. Most of the data suggests a general range of 0.3W excess power over an input power of around 3W (give or take). I appreciate that the authors observed an incident of "run-away" where output power was 2.4W for an input of about 1.2W (page 18). The time axis isn't labelled so I can't tell how much time this lasted. From the text: "Each number on the time scale is 12 minutes (data taken every 15 minutes)." Really? It doesn't matter but I find that annoying. Why not provide the horizontal axis with a normal time measurement? Anyway, I have no idea what to make of it all. I will leave it to others. The paper is obviously for highly specialized individuals and that's fine. I am not one of those. The detail is excellent for potential replicators. There does seem to be a phenomenon worthy of further research.


    I think I will find Mizuno easier to follow when I get around to that work.

  • It is Staker's priviledge

    THH, Its your privilege to substantiate your flakey .


    Unless you write a proper refutation fully supported from the scientifc

    literature with calculations your obviously strident concerns will

    be interpreted as effete... a voice crying in the wilderness


    They could even be interpreted as vexatious rather than legitimate.


    But you are entltled to continue maintaining that Staker's work is flakey on this forum.

    Not many will take such claims seriously.

    I understand the paper purports that the results support claims by P&F.

    SOT, Thanks for reading the paper. I was thinking that SOT and THH were a team.

    But now I know that your views do not extend to flakey .

    I look forward to your critique of the Mizuno paper.