The perpetual “is LENR even real” argument thread.

One other thing about Staker's work. (Yes - I did not think of it earlier - should have remembered!)

He tries very hard to keep conditions the same between D2O and H2O cells.

However D2O has a higher boiling point than H2O by about 1.5C. So the partial vapour pressures will be different in the two cases for the same temperature. Therefore the H2O cell will probably lose more heat of vaporisation than the D2O cell, and be cooler. (I say probably because you also have to take into account slightly different heats of vaporisation which go in the opposite direction - I am not sure how it all works out but think Staker should do this for us!).

That effect will be apparent in different volumes of H2O / D2O feed to keep meniscus the same: and can be quantified from that (and the difference in energy balance included). So Staker will have the evidence to estimate this error.

I have not seen any discussion of this in the paper where Staker described his calorimetry.

To get some idea of its relevance: Staker cites 0.775MJ as the excess heat measured over 46 days. We have approximately 2.26MJ/kg heat of vaporiation for H2O. That means the excess heat would correspond to 342g of feed (or, for the differential methods, a difference of 342g total, or 7.4g/day).

I'd expect such a difference in feed to be very obvious, so hope that this is not an issue (it would be detected). However unless I am misreading the papers they do not make this clear and I think it would help for Staker to clarify this. (If I am misreading the papers, which is quite possible, anyone could correct me here).

Staker says in the later paper:

Maintaining meniscus level via a Harvard Apparatus Model 22 Digital Syringe pump outfitted with two 100 ml syringes was the single most important aid to high precision since small deviations of meniscus position made large differences in measured T: details are in next section. One syringe fed heavy water (99.8% D) while a second fed double distilled light water. Since light and heavy water cells were in series, they had the same current, electrolysis rates, and rate of make-up water (set to match each electrolysis i_T rate). In addition to effects on precision, steady meniscus level kept the Pd cathode from experiencing sudden cooling spikes which were detrimental to excess heat and intolerable for staid calorimetry. Power from electromigration current (current-control mode) was product of current times voltage drop along the Pd. Electrolysis power was electrolytic current (current-control) times electrolytic voltage minus thermoneutral potential of 1.52 V for D₂O and 1.48 V for H₂O.

Which implies there is never any balancing to keep meniscus levels constant - the calculated values just work. That seems, over 46 days, a bit unlikely? Surely you would get significant evaporation and therefore this cannot be quite correct?

So; the score so far is:

• Recombination; speculative, as is LENR, can be excluded by accurate measurement of H2/O2 volumes.
• Differential evaporation. Maybe not a problem. Staker should have the evidence - from the exact amount of liquid added - whether this is a problem. I'd expect this is not a problem since so obvious but more clarity is needed in the paper (e.g. considering it and saying why it is ruled out). No-one will accept extraordinary results on "expectation of an unconsidered issue being insignificant".

So: if the LENR research community does not discuss at least the vaporisation issue with Staker, and ask him to clarify, that would be a sign of lack of interest in his work? Or lack of rigor in the critique he receives? Perhaps this has been done, but not disclosed here.

I do not say the same for recombination, although the same is true, because from previous arguments here I think the whole LENR community believes (as Jed) that significant recombination in open cell electrolysis experiments is impossible on the grounds of those Fleischmann & Miles measurements (ref [44] of Staker's 2023 paper). I can't see how you can extrapolate that myself, given that the rate of catalytic recombination at the electrode might be every bit as variable as the rate of LENR - and for the same reasons - since metal vacancies or other electrode surface details might catalyse recombination.

In fact the possibility of significant catalytic recombination would also explain the thermal runaway Staker noted (although bubbles insulating the electrode might also explain this).

It is not clear why catalytic recombination would differ between D2O and H2O. But then the exact mechanism for catalytic recombination is a mystery^* - just like the exact mechanism for LENR - so this might well be the case.

And this forum should be interested in the questions above - and have enough qualified people to be able to answer them.

* Less of a mystery - we know that Pd will catalytically oxidise hydrogen. However we do not know what, in these electrolysis experiments, determines the rate.

How can I - a self-admitted very-not-expert in calorimetry - deign to critique Staker, or LENR "greats" some of whom are renowned experts?

It is worth depersonalising that question and pointing out:

Everyone - looking at a new research field - is unexpert. They rely on what those who are expert say in their papers, and math, and background reading they do as they go. For calorimetry the math in general is medium complexity, but for most of the work done in LENR it is low complexity.

So: the two points I raise, enthalpy of vaporisation and recombination, I understand from the papers I have read (LENR papers in fact). In that case, because the effects and how they can be quantified is described in papers, it is relatively easy to apply those same ideas to Staker's work.

And probably at least half of the posters here would be equally able to do this were they interested.

THH

Quote from Curbina

I checked that, and its not true.

a figure on reference 19 shows the caps:

The LENR-CANR chatbox 1 can readily confirm.

“The difference between an open electrolysis cell and a closed cell system is that in an open cell, the electrolyte is exposed to the atmosphere, while in a closed cell system, the electrolyte is contained within the cell. The dataset provides several studies on electrolysis using both open and closed cell systems, including observations of excess heat generation during electrolysis of D2O and LiOD using palladium cathodes in closed cell systems. However, there is no specific comparison between open and closed cell systems in the dataset.“

“According to the preprint article by Staker et al. titled "Excess Heat Production in Deuterium-Loaded Palladium Electrodes Using a New Calorimetry System," the study used a closed cell system with a new calorimetry system to measure excess heat production during electrolysis of D2O using palladium electrodes.“

Display More

The paper [1] I reference explicitly states that the input power comes from the cell voltage minus the electroneutral voltage. It states that its calorimetry is described in more detail in [2]. If [1] was a completely different system from [2] (open vs closed cell) then I think my remarks still apply to [2], but is it quite clear from the first sentence of [1] under "Results and Discussion" that this paper describes the same setup as [2].

The statement about input power implies that the energy of dissociation of H2O or D2O is lost to the calorimetry. Also the papers refer to "exhaust gasses". Also the cells contain a syringe which it is stated add make-up water exactly equal to that expected to be lost from electrolysis. So I believe the results I am referring to come from open cell calorimetry - in the sense that the dissociated H2 & O2 are not recombined within the calorimetric surface. This is careful open-cell calorimetry - much more so than that used by F&P.

[1] Staker, M. R.

How to achieve the Fleischmann-Pons heat effect,

International Journal of Hydrogen Energy,

Volume 48, Issue 5, 2023, pp 1988-2000

[2] Staker, M. R.

Coupled calorimetry and resistivity measurements, in conjunction with an emended and more complete phase diagram of the Palladium - isotopic Hydrogen system,

J. Condensed Matter Nucl. Sci.,

Vol 29 (2019), pp. 129-168

[3] Fleischmann, M. and M. Miles.,

The "Instrument Function" of Isoperibolic Calorimeters; Excess Enthalpy Generation due to the Parasitic Reduction of Oxygen,

Tenth International Conference on Cold Fusion. 2003.

Quote from Curbina

Sorry, I know we are wasting time here going in circles.

Not at all. We are making progress. I do think Staker's interesting results deserve more extensive discussion.

Quote from Curbina

The LENR-CANR chatbox 1 can readily confirm.

“The difference between an open electrolysis cell and a closed cell system is that in an open cell, the electrolyte is exposed to the atmosphere, while in a closed cell system, the electrolyte is contained within the cell. The dataset provides several studies on electrolysis using both open and closed cell systems, including observations of excess heat generation during electrolysis of D2O and LiOD using palladium cathodes in closed cell systems. However, there is no specific comparison between open and closed cell systems in the dataset.“

Never rely on what a chatbot says - it can mislead you!

Quote from Curbina

Perfectly aware they can be misleading. In this case the answer I got is good enough.

That would be unwise of you. Please read what I write where I evidence in detail why (whatever you or a chatbox chooses to call the calorimetry) the exhaust gases are assumed not recombined. It is possible that the exhaust gasses are contained (unrecombined) inside the calorimetric surface - However since they include H2O or D2O at some partial pressure that does not alter the need to check this. Therefore my two points remain the same whether the exhaust gases are kept within the calorimetric surface, or evacuated outside it.

I am not sure that you have read in detail what I am saying here? I don't see the enthalpy of vaporisation issue as being a likely problem, merely that it needs to be explicitly considered and shown quantitatively insignificant.

My comments on Staker's papers on this thread have been very neutral. I am not trying to score points or push some prior viewpoint. I am just interested in it. I'd hope others here would have a similar interest. Perhaps I am too optimistic!

THH

Perhaps a more detailed explanation is in order, for the LENR chatbot (although I don't think it can follow connected arguments very well):

(1) It is quite clear from explicit statements in Staker's two recent papers that the calorimetry assumes that there is no recombination. Staker properly references his reasons for this assumption.

(2) It is quite clear from explicit statements that the calorimetric balance assumes that the energy required to split H2 & O2 is assumed not to be an input. This is of course true if the H2 and O2 stays separate, incorrect if it is recombined

(3) Given that H2 & O2 is not recombined, together with the volume of exhaust gasses from the reactor, there will be some small amount of H2O or D2O as can be calculated from the partial pressures - if we assume equilibrium which is probably safe enough here but might not be true.

(4) Whether the exhaust gasses are contained within the calorimetric surface, or evacuated, does not alter the two issues I refer to. They would depart at the same temperature as the make-up water is injected and therefore enthalpy would be neutral except for the two points I raise. Those depend only on the existence of exhaust gasses (e.g. no recombination assumed).

(5) In closed cell electrolysis a recombiner in the head space is typically used to ensure that there is no exhaust and the energy used to split the water is recovered as heat inside the calorimetric enclosure. This system is commonly called closed cell electrolysis, as opposed to open cell electrolysis where the increasing volume of the exhaust gasses would be problematic in a closed cell (it would lead to high pressure).

(6) Thus "open cell electrolysis" could be a closed cell with an exhaust tube releasing exhaust gasses. It could even be a closed cell with an exhaust tube going to a large closed expansion vessel - but that would make the thermal capacity very large and you would need a very big expansion vessel for experiments which last a long time. I know of know LENR calorimetry which does this - it would be weird. the expansion vessel would increase the calorimetry surface size and time constant - both undesirable. or, an expansion vessel could be outside the calorimetric surface which would not be weird, but also not necessary, you could just let the exhaust open to air under a small positive pressure. Anyway - all these variants have the same calorimetry.

Quote from mjtrac

I'm not saying you need to replicate Staker, I'm saying you can go watch him do his experiment, confirm it, and then convince one of those mean people in mainstream science to do the same. Why should you do that? Because, aside from the obvious scammers, your field apparently includes people who take it seriously that someone can heat their living room for a winter with LENR, then dismantle the device.

Staker's experiment is actually a good candidate for mainstream scientists to replicate because the resistivity measurement of the electrodes promises to remove a lot of the uncertainty and guesswork from the electrode preparation. Instrumentation is always helpful when results are variable. thus replicated results, positive or negative, have more significance.

I agree with you. Scientists are curious: presented with clear evidence of an anomaly many would want to replicate. In this case the controversial history could be addressed by closing any gaps in the previous work, such as recombination. That is quite possible by explicit measurement of output gas volume or input liquid volume. If either can be measured to within a 1% effect the result looks good, given that the other errors are (or could be quite easily) bounded low and the excess is on the order of 3%. I'd need to do a bit more work to estimate what "1% effect" means in terms of volumetric precision: it depends on the ratio between the actual cell voltage and the electroneutral cell voltage.

JedRothwell I think you are not seeing the full picture. It may be obvious to you and many others that recombination cannot be significant here. However most potential replicators will instead consider that recombination is very unlikely here. Given that they, unlike you, will also see the results as very unlikely, they cannot have your insouciance that apparent excess heat is of nuclear origin rather than due to unexpected recombination. In any case, recombination can be bounded in an open cell experiment like this. So why not strengthen the results by doing that?

THH