The perpetual “is LENR even real” argument thread.

  • As I said, even he couldn't prove he was right (or really understood why he might ne) by proffering a way to test his hypothesis. Smoke and mirrors, not so much falsifiable as unprovable.

    The main argument behind it is “cold fusion is impossible so this must be the explanation for the results”.

    I certainly Hope to see LENR helping humans to blossom, and I'm here to help it happen.

  • If you admit that even 100 results, or even 10, are real, you must admit that cold fusion is real. Your entire argument evaporates.


    Furthermore, if it was possible for hundreds of world class experts to perform ordinary calorimetry, measuring heat with instruments and techniques that could have done that anytime in the last 250 years, yet every one of these experts made mistakes, and all of their results were invalid . . . then experimental science would not work.

    Just to address this. Jed, you know ell that every other theoretical change in physics has been based on certain, reproducible, data. And that has been enough to narrow down the hypothesis space to define (disprovable) hypotheses that predict that dtaa where normal physics does not.


    If LENR gets a certain, reproducible experiment - even one such - it is real.


    The 100s of results are all uncertain or not reproducible. Don't believe me - look at that talk at ICCf24 (?) that said this and that what we needed was an experiment both certain and reproducible.


    The case against cold fusion experiments
    The Fleischmann-Pons press conference was 30 years ago this month! I didn’t pay much attention to it at the time—I was, after all, in preschool—and then I…
    coldfusionblog.net


    You, Jed, see certainty in many places where others have as coined by Steve in the above link section 5.2 "self-critical fastidiousness" (or, in the case of advocating other people's work "critical fastidiousness"). That quality - doubting all assumptions to an almost paranoid level - is not helpful in most of life. But it is helpful when trying to decode how God decided the universe should work. You should not assume from the last sentence that I am a theist - I was using the phrase as in popular parlance.


    For those here not familiar with KS ATER argument - which however is simple - the comments below the blog linked above have Kirk giving a good resume of it as applied to F&P open-cell calorimetry. Note that P-factor argument. This seems quite straightforward - perhaps Jed could explain for us in detail how it fails? I feel it lies within my capability to check it if need be. I can't say I know whether it is correct without working through their heat balance equation for myself and the assumptions behind it.


    In 2012, I released an unreviewed whitepaper that, in part, questioned that same method based on the fact that the temperature-time traces of a supposed ‘control’ cell looked identical to the cell that supposedly was experiencing HAD. It makes no sense to claim HAD in one cell but not the other, which strongly suggested a method error. Ascoli figured that out in detail.

    Phase 2 is tremendously complicated. Once some metal is exposed, it is no longer held to the high loading conditions and it begins to release hydrogen. Meanwhile the covered part is still electrolyzing. Hydrogen therefore enters the cathode and then internally diffuses to the uncovered part since it is now at lower concentration due to the release.

    The rate of release will be modified by the surface conditions. The CCS/ATER proposal assumes a special active environment (SAE) or, alternatively, a special active state (SAS) is formed that brings about ‘cold fusion’ at or in the electrode. The Storms work I reanalyzed for my 2002 paper used a platinum cathode which does not hydride, thus there is no bulk hydrogen, only surface-adsorbed H. Clearly then the SAE or SAS is a surface SAE (SSAE or SSAS). This state is likely formed at least in part by contaminants adsorbed on the surface (Pt is always found on the surface of a Pd cathode for example.) But it is also known that surface contaminants can completely block hydrogen absorption or release, which will make the rates for the release during Phase 2 dependent on the extent and kind of surface contaminants. Trying to accurately model all this would be extremely difficult, especially given that the steady-state is now different from either Phase 1 or 3, so a third ‘calibration equation’ would have to be developed. No one has attempted this so far, and probably won’t.


    F&P’s approach to calorimetry in Phase (1) was to build a dynamic chemical process model (CPM) of the cell for the energy balance (more frequently, CPMs do mass balance first, F&P did not use the mass balance equation however). The base model is described in Appendix 3 of their 1990 paper, but the slightly modified equation is also presented as eq. 1 in the 1993 paper. In their 1993 paper they state: “It will be apparent that for cells operating close to the boiling point, the derived values of Qf and of (k’R)11 , become sensitive to the values of the atmospheric pressure….” In their Figure 6 of the 1992 paper (Figure 8 in the 1993 paper) they indicate apparent excess heat values for cell temperatures up to a little higher that 60C. I examined this phase recently and found that F&P were overly optimistic about their model’s accuracy at intermediate temperatures (between 20 and 100C).


    The problem centers on what I have called the ‘Pfactor’. The CPM equation is simply an accounting of the various ways energy enters and leaves the cell on an instantaneous basis. The electrolysis gases exiting the cell carries energy away, and there is a term derived from simple chemical thinking, to account for this (I confirm here that their term’s form is correct). Unfortunately, that term contains a built-in math problem.


    Specifically there is a multiplicative term (the ‘Pfactor’) of P/(P*-P), where P is the current water vapor pressure at the current temperature and P* the atmospheric pressure. The definition of boiling is when P = P*, and this leads to a division by zero in the Pfactor. Thus, near boiling the equation cannot be evaluated and a computer program trying to do so will crash. Therefore, F&P correctly say they cannot use their CPM method ‘near’ boiling. The problem is that they did not evaluate the accuracy away from boiling.


    Above, I mentioned that F&P used a ‘slightly modified’ CPM equation. One well-known problem with electrolysis is a parasitic electrochemical recombination reaction. In fact in 2004, Fleischmann (with Szpak, Mosier-Boss, and Miles) criticized my CCS/ATER proposed explanation by claiming that recombination couldn’t exceed 2%, which is the agreed upon value for the electrochemical reaction. Of course, ATER (or perhaps more correctly At-The-Electrode-Combustion, ATEC) isn’t limited like that.


    The modification F&P implemented was to drop a multiplier for the whole term that contains the Pfactor, a preceding ‘gamma’. The gamma factor was a fraction between 0 and 1 indicating the possibility of recombination in the cell. Gamma =1 means no recombination. By dropping the gamma, F&P assume no recombination. That means they always subtract all of the energy possibly used for electrolysis. If any kind of recombination occurs that is an error. But their computer model doesn’t recognize this and in order to match the real world data, the error is lumped into a term they call the ‘excess heat’. This term is actually just an error accumulator and does not specifically indicate any real excess heat is present.


    So, if we have x% recombination at 20C, it will produce an apparent excess heat in F&P’s calorimetric model. But if that recombination remains the same and the cell temperature is increased to say 60C, now the Pfactor comes into play. The vapor pressure of light water can be found on the Web. Assuming the atmospheric pressure is 1 atm., the Pfactor for light water at 20C is 0.02357. At 60C, the Pfactor increases by a factor of 10.4. So, if there is a 2% recombination at 20C, the lack of the gamma term means this will show up at as a 2% excess heat. Then if all remains the same, at 60C that will become a 20.8% excess heat. The majority of excess heat claims, from F&P especially, fall in that window. Therefore we can conclude that F&P’s CPM calorimetry is significantly inaccurate at normal Phase 1 conditions.


    IOW, the original claims of apparent excess heat made by Fleischmann and Pons could well have derived from an erroneous assumption made in their calorimetric model. As is always the case in an antimony, more work is required to sort this out.


    The impact of this realization is huge, since nearly every paper or claim made in this field assumes that F&P found real excess heat, and thus that fact supports the newer claims, just as is typical in other examples of scientific discovery. Unfortunately, that is an incorrect assumption, but this claim serves to interconnect all the other claims made to date. Once that interconnection point is lost, each claim can be seen to be a unique one that needs to be examined independently (which should happen anyway), and all need more support from experimental evidence.

  • For 30 years now we have been struggling like a fish with ice: is cold nuclear fusion real or not, and no one can do a reproducible experiment!


    And you can't solve specific problems without solving the general one, namely: Without a new theory, there is no new experiment! Every now and then you need to get out from behind the trees, climb a hill and see the forest!


    Please, a reproducible experiment:

    + 63 Ni 28 + 1 H→ 63 Cu 29 +e - + + 1 H + Q = E

    PS: No comment from the offspring of a PhD in a white coat from Aus...!!!

  • If you're so clever, go and ask your president of kazakstan so that he can give you the necessary money you need and prove to us that you're a real cold fusion's man... Otherwise stay on your sofa watching footbal...

    Вот уже 30 лет мы бьемся, как рыба со льдом: реален холодный ядерный синтез или нет, и никто не может провести воспроизводимый эксперимент!

    И нельзя решить конкретные проблемы, не решив общую, а именно: Без новой теории нет нового эксперимента! Время от времени вам нужно выбраться из-за деревьев, подняться на холм и увидеть лес!

    Пожалуйста, воспроизводимый эксперимент:

    + 63 Ni 28 + 1 H→ 63 Cu 29 +e - + + 1 H + Q = E

  • If you're so clever, go and ask your president of kazakstan so that he can give you the necessary money you need and prove to us that you're a real cold fusion's man... Otherwise stay on your sofa watching footbal...

    PS: No comment from the offspring of a PhD in a white coat from Aus...!!!

  • For 30 years now we have been struggling like a fish with ice: is cold nuclear fusion real or not, and no one can do a reproducible experiment!


    And you can't solve specific problems without solving the general one, namely: Without a new theory, there is no new experiment! Every now and then you need to get out from behind the trees, climb a hill and see the forest!


    Please, a reproducible experiment:

    + 63 Ni 28 + 1 H→ 63 Cu 29 +e - + + 1 H + Q = E

    PS: No comment from the offspring of a PhD in a white coat from Aus...!!!


  • No comment only pictures what well summarize all the things..

  • Just to address this. Jed, you know ell that every other theoretical change in physics has been based on certain, reproducible, data.

    Cold fusion is certain and reproducible. Once you achieve the known parameters such as loading, it always works. It takes a lot of effort to achieve them -- years of work -- but the methods are well established.


    However, you are wrong. Reproducibility has never been considered necessary to accept an experimental claim or a theoretical change. Many experiments are extremely difficult to reproduce. Cloning mammals worked only 0.1% of the time yet it was fully accepted. Rockets in 1960 were very difficult to replicate. Most of them exploded, like the Vanguard, yet no one claimed the rockets did not exist.


    Cold fusion is far more reproducible than most transistors were in 1955, but no one claimed transistors did not exist. It would be difficult to quantify the Top Quark experiment reproducibility. It can only be done at one lab, and it takes trillions of collisions to produce one positive result. Yet no one says it did not work because it cannot be replicated anywhere else, and it has not been replicated.


    Experimental results have to be replicated to be believed, but there has never been any rule that they need to be easily replicated, or that positive replications must outnumber failed replications.


    Many scientists take pride in their ability to replicate difficult experiments and technologies. The people who make robot explorers on Mars, and Space Telescopes, for example. Only NASA and the other agencies can replicate a space telescope, and it takes them years and billions of dollars. Would you say space telescopes do not exist because they cannot be independently replicated (or reproduced)? Of course you would not say that! That is preposterous. You invented this "need to be reproducible" criterion as an excuse to dismiss cold fusion. You would not think of applying it to any other science or technology.


  • If everything is so good, why is everything so bad!?

  • The 100s of results are all uncertain or not reproducible. Don't believe me - look at that talk at ICCf24 (?) that said this and that what we needed was an experiment both certain and reproducible.

    First there are thousands, not hundreds. Some are uncertain, others are very certain. There are hundreds of very certain ones, such as 10 to 100 W of heat with no input for hours or days. If this were any other experiment, you would never reject such high sigma results. You would never pretend that the low-sigma or failed experiments magically cancel out the high sigma ones.


    Some of these were difficult to reproduce. Others were reproduced nearly every time. See, for example, F&P in France, or Miles with J-M materials. But, as I said, ease of reproducibility, or the ratio of success to failure has NEVER been held as a necessary criterion to accept an experimental finding. You made that up and applied it cold fusion, and you would never apply it to anything else.


    Second, this ICCF24 paper is bullshit.


    Third, the graph you show here is only about transmutations, not heat, helium or tritium. The transmutations might be reproducible. No one knows, because the experiments have only been done a handful of times.

  • You misunderstood me. For me, coherence implies there is some common specific hypothesis that predicts the things. I agree I was not very precise about that - but I can be when pushed - as you are pushing me.


    Think about it - otherwise what do you mean by coherence? Let us have your definition.

    No. You defined the word - originally, in this context - in terms of phenomenology. I adopted your definition and offered correlations that I asserted met your criteria. You have subsequently shifted your definitions, and now claim I misunderstood you.


    I did not.


    Part of the problem here is that you're having multiple conversations at once, and are not understanding the way that I've delimited the argument I'm making.


    I'm not going to recapitulate definitions ad infinitum. The definition is secondary to the actual substance of the argument, which is that experimentally, a set of correlations have been observed amongst experimental variables and measurements of heat and helium-4.


    You dismissed these, claiming that you could explain them in terms of prosaic phenomena. You have not.


    You were talking about my arguments. I have discussed several.

    Argument. Singular. You made other arguments to other people. I have not engaged with those.


    Quote


    You need more than that. I can trivially in electrochemistry or any other experiment give you such correlations. For example in a constant condition electrolysis experiment the results measured energy emitted, (and also excess energy calculated) are proportional to the experimental variable: length of time measured. That is not evidence for any specific hypothesis of what is going on in the experiment. But it is a cast-iron correlation always found in such experiments.

    Of course all experiments have correlations in them. That is a given. This proves nothing and says nothing with respect to the discussion we're engaged in.


    You said that you could explain a set of anomalous correlations between experimental variables and excess heat and helium-4 in terms of experimental artifacts. That's an entirely separate issue.


    The existence of a prosaic experimental correlation says nothing about how an anomalous experimental correlation might be explained.


    I'm sorry, but this is nonsensical. I'm genuinely floored by this argument.


    Quote


    And I maintain the correlations you mentioned were (less cast iron but plausibly) predicted from non-LENR hypotheses. Neither of us have given all of the details - it is arduous - I doubt either of us will have time.

    You can maintain it all you like. The point is that you said that you could explain them and you can't.


    All you have offered is Shanahan's CCS. This is a completely implausible way to explain the set of correlations I originally offered.


    Quote


    So on this site we tend to go by what seems plausible.


    No. You might 'go by what seems to be plausible.' But that's not thinking. That's guessing.


    For mine, I have not done any guessing. Instead, I have done my best to engage substantively with the literature, think about it and arrive at the best conclusions I'm capable of.


    What I write here is my best understanding. Flawed, no doubt, but certainly not guessing based on 'plausibility'.


    Again, I'm floored.


    Quote


    Of course, I might be wrong. And you might be wrong. I am not saying i know i am right, just that I could plausibly be right which is enough to counter your argument that these correlations are strong evidence for LENR. And we have not yet established whether you are right: you could be wrong also.

    "I know that I could plausibly be right, and so this refutes your argument."


    No. I'm sorry. This is nonsensical.


    Moreover, let's be clear on one point:


    You haven't actually offered any argument for why the correlations I offered are explainable as artifacts. You have said that an explanation exists. But, you have not provided it. You have offered Shanahan's CCS, but he does not address the topic at hand (these specific correlations), and you have not substantiated his link to the specific topic under discussion.


    So, realistically, putting aside whether it's appropriate to consider a hunch as dispositive, you don't even have a reasonable basis to believe that you could plausibly be correct, because you have no substantive argument.

    Quote


    Ok - that is fine. In that case I am not sure why you are disagreeing with me? If you avoid theory then all you have is a much weaker statistical sense of the word correlation. Which, in these cases, is by itself no evidence for anything.

    Here is the sequence of the discussion from my perspective.


    1) You argue that LENR experiments display a wide range of anomalous phenomena that cannot be explained by any single theory. As such, you argue that this is dispositive evidence that LENR does not exist. You further argue that the experimental observations make no sense in the context of each other. That they are not coherent phenomenologically with each other.


    2) I offered a set of experimental observations of correlations between experimental variables and measurements of heat and helium-4 as highly suggestive that the experimental observations were a single phenomenon. An entirely phenomenological argument.


    3) You argued that these correlations could be explained by heat artifacts.


    4) I asked you to do this.


    5) You began to make a number of subsidiary arguments about the impossibility of LENR. And how you were not obliged to answer my question.


    That's the arc of the conversation between us. I was asking you to substantiate your refutation of my argument, which was specifically about experimental observation, not theory. You have refused to do so.

    Quote


    Which of the correlations (other than excess heat / He which I have many times agreed would be strong evidence) do you want us to check this with? You first.

    Here is the original question I asked you:


    Please explain a proportionate, time resolved and correlated observed relationship between measured excess heat and changing cell potential in the absence of any true excess heat.

    Edited 6 times, last by orsova ().

  • You can maintain it all you like. The point is that you said that you could explain them and you can't.


    All you have offered is Shanahan's CCS. This is a completely implausible way to explain the set of correlations I originally offered.

    Shanahan's CCS describes a hypothetical error in calorimetry. It has nothing to do with helium detection. It cannot explain the correlation with heat and helium. Even if you accept that the heat is an artifact caused by the CCS, that artifact cannot explain the helium results measured with other instruments, sometimes in other labs weeks later. An error measuring temperatures (heat) cannot cause a mass spectrometer to malfunction. It cannot cause a correlation.


    In point of fact, the data from many calibrations proves that Shanahan's CCS does not happen. It is physically impossible.

  • Cold fusion is far more reproducible than most transistors were in 1955, but no one claimed transistors did not exist. It would be difficult to quantify the Top Quark experiment reproducibility. It can only be done at one lab, and it takes trillions of collisions to produce one positive result. Yet no one says it did not work because it cannot be replicated anywhere else, and it has not been replicated.

    Top quark: in 1992 first detection was 1 event. But it had a high prior since there was specific theory that predicted it. But those particle physicists did not say it was discovered until 1995 when there was lots of evidence, reproducible, with characterisation (mass) the same across multiple experiments. Don't be confused - different detectors on one accelerator => independent experiments measuring things different ways. And note that after that newer higher energy accelerators showed lots of top quarks.


    The Tevatron was (until the start of LHC operation at CERN in 2009) the only hadron collider powerful enough to produce top quarks. In order to be able to confirm a future discovery, a second detector, the DØ detector, was added to the complex (in addition to the Collider Detector at Fermilab (CDF) already present). In October 1992, the two groups found their first hint of the top, with a single creation event that appeared to contain the top. In the following years, more evidence was collected and on 22 April 1994, the CDF group submitted their article presenting tentative evidence for the existence of a top quark with a mass of about 175 GeV/c2. In the meantime, DØ had found no more evidence than the suggestive event in 1992. A year later, on 2 March 1995, after having gathered more evidence and reanalyzed the DØ data (which had been searched for a much lighter top), the two groups jointly reported the discovery of the top at a mass of 176±18 GeV/c2.[2][3][17]


    1955 transistors. Not sure why you choose that date. The theory was proposed in 1920s. Patents claiming devices (but never followed up) in 1930s. First invention creditted 1947 when a reproducible transisitor could be made. Note that does not mean every transistor worked, or transisitors stayed working forever (point-contact devices specially flaky). But a device working would work lo=ng enough to be characterised with clearly and repeatable anomalous characteristics by multiple labs. Even by a single lab - because transisistors did not immediately blow up, proper characterisation could be done, and any lab could do it.


    Then there is some time before they are useful commercially (not very long though!). What science needs is certain and reproducible measurements. Transistors could porvide this even at an early stage when whetehr you had a transisitor or a lump of metal was a bit random. The pointis thattransistors stayed transisitors long enough to be properly characterised



  • Shanahan's CCS describes a hypothetical error in calorimetry. It has nothing to do with helium detection. It cannot explain the correlation with heat and helium. Even if you accept that the heat is an artifact caused by the CCS, that artifact cannot explain the helium results measured with other instruments, sometimes in other labs weeks later. An error measuring temperatures (heat) cannot cause a mass spectrometer to malfunction. It cannot cause a correlation.


    In point of fact, the data from many calibrations proves that Shanahan's CCS does not happen. It is physically impossible.

    • CCS - hypothetical errror - yes - one that is naturally large in the typical LENR conditions (COP ~ 1) and small enough to be ignored in most calorimetry.
    • Nothing to do with He detection - true. I remember my caveats above? Glad you agree with me
    • Can't explain He. Well it is only a very few of the many excess heat experiments that measure He. I direct you to https://coldfusionblog.net/201…-cold-fusion-experiments/
    • Can explain a lot of (not all) the LENR results and especially can explain, with ATER, the original Fleischmann open cell results.
    • Data from calibration can never prove it does not happen. That is absurd. What you mean is that if when calibrating under different conditions you get identical constants it cannot happen as long as you have covered all experimental conditions in your calibration. True. But if you look at papers calibration constants often shift with conditions (e.g. temperature). And there is then the question of whether baseline error is correctly included (amplified by a suitable factor). All of these things depend on details. There is no hard and fast "not a problem" or "always a problem". You do agree that F&P's open cells were susceptible to the ATER amplification effect Shanahan describes above? Or can you go through what he says and fine the error? Alas I will not do that now - still a bit busy...
    • Physically impossible. No, by definition CCS effect is possible physics.
    • I realise I went from CCS to ATER amplified in a way that is not exactly CCS in the last point. But it has the same effect of a small, normally insignificant error, therefore ignored, but amplified in the specific conditions of the LENR experiment.


    THH

  • 1955 transistors. Not sure why you choose that date.

    Because I knew people who were manufacturing them in the mid-1950s. They told me that for some devices, in some cases, the entire batch would fail and no one knew why. Or a few percent would work. This is less reproducible than cold fusion is. Many things are less reproducible. No one ever said that means those things do not exist. You made up that standard, and you apply it to cold fusion alone.


    The theory was proposed in 1920s. Patents claiming devices (but never followed up) in 1930s. First invention creditted 1947 when a reproducible transisitor could be made.

    My statements have nothing to do with theory. The theory of transistors was made by Shockley et al. in 1947. They got the Nobel prize for it, which I suppose means they were the main contributors. Not Lilienfeld. All that is irrelevant. You keep saying that discoveries and inventions are not accepted until they are reproducible. That people look at something that is very difficult to reproduce, which only works once per thousand times, such as cloning, and they say "that can't be real because it is so hard to do." You cannot come up with a single example of a discovery that was ignored or not believed until it was easily reproduced. Many machines and scientific experiments are extremely difficult decades or centuries after they were discovered, and probably always will be.

  • CCS - hypothetical errror - yes - one that is naturally large in the typical LENR conditions (COP ~ 1) and small enough to be ignored in most calorimetry.

    CCS does not exist. It is physically impossible. Data from calibrations and null runs proves it never happens. The heat source always shifts in the cell during an experiment, but that never affects the calorimetry. It shifts in all calorimetry in which the measured effect is compared to resistance heating. Not just electrochemistry or cold fusion. People have been comparing reactions to resistance heating since Joule invented the technique in 1840. If this caused a CCS error, they would have noticed by now.

    Nothing to do with He detection - true. I remember my caveats above? Glad you agree with me

    If it has nothing to do with He detection, why does the helium correlate with the heat? By magic? For that matter, why do loading, current density and x-rays correlate with heat? How can an artifact cause these other effects? How can these things be correlated with heat, and with one-another, if the heat does not exist? If it is an instrument error?


    I suggest you try to answer this. You have evaded it countless times, which makes you look foolish.

    Can't explain He. Well it is only a very few of the many excess heat experiments that measure He. I direct you to https://coldfusionblog.net/201…-cold-fusion-experiments/

    No, it is measured in every published example of heat in which helium was measured. With helium in the same ratio, within the margin of error. The blog you direct me to is bullshit.

    Can explain a lot of (not all) the LENR results and especially can explain, with ATER, the original Fleischmann open cell results.

    ATER, like the CCS, does not exist.

    Data from calibration can never prove it does not happen. That is absurd. What you mean is that if when calibrating under different conditions you get identical constants it cannot happen as long as you have covered all experimental conditions in your calibration.

    As I said, calibrations always shift the source of heat from one location to another. They have been doing this since the technique was invented by Joule. This does not affect the the heat measurement. You cannot see any difference. Degrees Celsius per watt remain the same, even when you measure inside the cell, or at the cell wall, in adiabatic or isoperibolic calorimetry. When you measure far away from the cell, in flow or Seebeck calorimetry, obviously it is not possible to change the result by moving the source of heat in the cell. For that matter, as a test you can move the entire cell -- or a plain resistance heater -- left to right, up and down, closer and farther from the walls, yet the Seebeck measures the same value at a given power level. Since cold fusion heat has often been confirmed with flow and Seebeck calorimeters, it must be real even if the isoperibolic types are subject to CCS.


    Do you understand that? Or do you claim that moving the heat source can magically affect the walls of a Seebeck calorimeter centimeters away, separated by air that is stirred with a fan? Is that really what you believe? That is so impossible I doubt even you or Shanahan would believe it, so I expect you will refuse to answer. You will evade the issue.

  • I realise I went from CCS to ATER amplified in a way that is not exactly CCS in the last point. But it has the same effect of a small, normally insignificant error, therefore ignored, but amplified in the specific conditions of the LENR experiment.

    I have to grant, you have at last made an actual technical assertion that can be tested and falsified. It is wrong, as anyone can see from the experimental literature in electrochemistry, cold fusion, or a textbook on calorimetry. You can not point to any experimental proof of this assertion. There are no specific conditions in LENR -- or any other experiment -- that could give rise to CCS or ATER. They are imaginary effects.


    You could do some simple experiments in calorimetry and you would see that for yourself. Or you could read a textbook. In the message above, for example, I described moving a cell or a plain resistance heater left, right, up and down to see if that has a measurable effect on a Seebeck or an air flow calorimeter. You could try that. Note that I have actually done that, and so did every researcher I know who used those types.


    You could try it . . . I kid! I kid! Of course no "skeptic" will ever do an experiment or read a textbook.


  • I have to grant, you have at last made an actual technical assertion that can be tested and falsified. It is wrong, as anyone can see from the experimental literature in electrochemistry, cold fusion, or a textbook on calorimetry. You can not point to any experimental proof of this assertion. There are no specific conditions in LENR -- or any other experiment -- that could give rise to CCS or ATER. They are imaginary effects.

    First, on CCS. Shanahan summarises it nicely:


    Another point of clarification. RB wrote: “KS says it applies to ALL physical chemistry”. This is his typical mangling of the message. What he is trying to discuss is the calibration constant shift error I proposed as the primary systematic error in Fleishmann and Pons-type electrochemical cell calorimetric studies. And yes, it is a 100% generic error. Any time you calibrate anything (anytime, anywhere, anyhow), and then apply that calibration equation to a system that has changed steady-state conditions, you are applying the ‘wrong’ equation. In other words, if the true calibration equation is y = 3x + 6, and you use y = 4x +6, you are computing the wrong y value. This is just basic analytical chemistry. Like I said, nothing but algebra. What was unique was that I detected a systematic trend in the calibration constant shift, and proposed a non-nuclear mechanism that induces a steady-state shift that would produce that effect.


    CCS is very obvious, always relevant where calibration conditions change. Calorimetrists know this. The question is whether in any specific LENR paper error analysis they remember to apply a typically very larger (10X or more) CCS factor to error terms in order to determine the actual excess heat error. I have noted before that error analysis is done in a rather naive way in some of these experiments. Like everyone calorimetrists make simplifying assumptions that work under expected conditions. However, any such simplifications must be checked for LENR experiments where conditions are unusual with COP ~ 1.


    On ATER


    Jed, I have not made any assertion, except noting that Shanahan has made an assertion which looks quite simply refutable or provable.


    I am suggesting that you refute it: you have an near encyclopaedic knowledge of those old F&P papers.


    Shanahan's statement (below is that:


    1. F&P remove a term from their heat balance equation that represents recombination, because of evidence that at 20C this accounts for < 2%
    2. This term has a multiplier of P/(P*-P) where P is the PVP of heavy water, P* is atmospheric pressure. Obviously, at 60C this "recombination" term is 10X larger, and indeed becomes infinite at ~100C.
    3. Although removing this term is reasonable at 20C, it leads to a large inaccuracy at high temperatures that could be mistaken as excess heat.


    I am highlighting this statement, not asserting it is true, because it looks to me easily provable or disprovable. Is it true? It is referenced well enough to check I think. This is a matter of maths - not experimental results. However, if it is true, then any heat balance calculation at elevated temperatures using F&Ps CPM model will be badly affected by even very small amounts of ATER at elevated temperature. So their modelled excess heat will be inflated in a way that could account for results easily.


    Shanahan's statement


    From: https://coldfusionblog.net/201…-cold-fusion-experiments/ (April 23 Comment)


    F&P’s approach to calorimetry in Phase (1) was to build a dynamic chemical process model (CPM) of the cell for the energy balance (more frequently, CPMs do mass balance first, F&P did not use the mass balance equation however). The base model is described in Appendix 3 of their 1990 paper, but the slightly modified equation is also presented as eq. 1 in the 1993 paper. In their 1993 paper they state: “It will be apparent that for cells operating close to the boiling point, the derived values of Qf and of (k’R)11 , become sensitive to the values of the atmospheric pressure….” In their Figure 6 of the 1992 paper (Figure 8 in the 1993 paper) they indicate apparent excess heat values for cell temperatures up to a little higher that 60C. I examined this phase recently and found that F&P were overly optimistic about their model’s accuracy at intermediate temperatures (between 20 and 100C).

    The problem centers on what I have called the ‘Pfactor’. The CPM equation is simply an accounting of the various ways energy enters and leaves the cell on an instantaneous basis. The electrolysis gases exiting the cell carries energy away, and there is a term derived from simple chemical thinking, to account for this (I confirm here that their term’s form is correct). Unfortunately, that term contains a built-in math problem.

    Specifically there is a multiplicative term (the ‘Pfactor’) of P/(P*-P), where P is the current water vapor pressure at the current temperature and P* the atmospheric pressure. The definition of boiling is when P = P*, and this leads to a division by zero in the Pfactor. Thus, near boiling the equation cannot be evaluated and a computer program trying to do so will crash. Therefore, F&P correctly say they cannot use their CPM method ‘near’ boiling. The problem is that they did not evaluate the accuracy away from boiling.

    Above, I mentioned that F&P used a ‘slightly modified’ CPM equation. One well-known problem with electrolysis is a parasitic electrochemical recombination reaction. In fact in 2004, Fleischmann (with Szpak, Mosier-Boss, and Miles) criticized my CCS/ATER proposed explanation by claiming that recombination couldn’t exceed 2%, which is the agreed upon value for the electrochemical reaction. Of course, ATER (or perhaps more correctly At-The-Electrode-Combustion, ATEC) isn’t limited like that.

    The modification F&P implemented was to drop a multiplier for the whole term that contains the Pfactor, a preceding ‘gamma’. The gamma factor was a fraction between 0 and 1 indicating the possibility of recombination in the cell. Gamma =1 means no recombination. By dropping the gamma, F&P assume no recombination. That means they always subtract all of the energy possibly used for electrolysis. If any kind of recombination occurs that is an error. But their computer model doesn’t recognize this and in order to match the real world data, the error is lumped into a term they call the ‘excess heat’. This term is actually just an error accumulator and does not specifically indicate any real excess heat is present.

    So, if we have x% recombination at 20C, it will produce an apparent excess heat in F&P’s calorimetric model. But if that recombination remains the same and the cell temperature is increased to say 60C, now the Pfactor comes into play. The vapor pressure of light water can be found on the Web. Assuming the atmospheric pressure is 1 atm., the Pfactor for light water at 20C is 0.02357. At 60C, the Pfactor increases by a factor of 10.4. So, if there is a 2% recombination at 20C, the lack of the gamma term means this will show up at as a 2% excess heat. Then if all remains the same, at 60C that will become a 20.8% excess heat. The majority of excess heat claims, from F&P especially, fall in that window. Therefore we can conclude that F&P’s CPM calorimetry is significantly inaccurate at normal Phase 1 conditions.

    IOW, the original claims of apparent excess heat made by Fleischmann and Pons could well have derived from an erroneous assumption made in their calorimetric model. As is always the case in an antimony, more work is required to sort this out.

    The impact of this realization is huge, since nearly every paper or claim made in this field assumes that F&P found real excess heat, and thus that fact supports the newer claims, just as is typical in other examples of scientific discovery. Unfortunately, that is an incorrect assumption, but this claim serves to interconnect all the other claims made to date. Once that interconnection point is lost, each claim can be seen to be a unique one that needs to be examined independently (which should happen anyway), and all need more support from experimental evidence.

  • Jed, I have not made any assertion, except noting that Shanahan has made an assertion which looks quite simply refutable or provable.

    Yes. It is dead easy to test. You or I anyone with an isperibolic calorimeter can test it. Just make one with three resistance heaters in three locations, similar to the calibration heater, the anode and cathode, and the recombiner in a cell. Turn on the heaters and simulate a cold fusion reaction. Move the site of heat generation in a cell from one place to another. That happens in nearly all experiments, cold fusion or otherwise. If you do not see a measurable effect from that, it does not exist. Perhaps at the nanowatt level you might detect it


    I trust that even you would not claim the CCS happens with a flow calorimeter or a Seebeck calorimeter. Right? Or do you claim it might? Since it does not happen with these types, and since they have often been used to measure cold fusion heat, obviously the heat must be real, and this discussion is a waste of time.


    Also, you and Shanahan have not told us how the choice of cathode material makes his magic effect appear, or why it happens with deuterium but not hydrogen in a bulk-Pd cell, or why loading or high current density causes it, or why his effect generates helium, tritium, x-rays, and sometimes gamma rays. Or, for that matter, why gas loaded cells produce heat even when there is no input and the source of heat does not move.


    No doubt you will simply repeat this empty, meaningless assertion that the effect has been proven and it proves that all experiments with all types of calorimeter, x-ray detectors, helium detectors and all other instruments are wrong.


    I think I should not address this tiresome nonsense any more. However, if you keep bringing it up, in an effort to troll this site and fool people who know little the subject, I will respond.

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.