Rather than demonizing thhuxley,
No demon... just a wriggler..
His rationalising out of 'suddenly' is just par for the course.
"you are dishonest" is his quote not mine..
" nuclear reactions suddenly start at above 290C"
Storms? Mizuno?
who said this? reference please //
show me the abruptness on a temperature plot..
show me the abruptness on a temperature plot....
"" nuclear reactions suddenly start at above 290C
quote THHnew on LF forum
Note that the "power in" is the power that heats up the electrolyte and electrodes.
Repeat after me:
Input power is not noise.
Input power is not noise.
Input power is not noise.
Do you understand what that means? It means that input power can be measured with great precision, and accounted for.
Staker follows [3] and assumes recombination does not happen.
No, he does not. He follows [3] and ensures it does not happen. All electrochemists do.
show me the abruptness on a temperature plot....
"" nuclear reactions suddenly start at above 290C
quote THHnew on LF forum
That is your graph - and as you know by "suddenly start" I mean a sudden change in gradient from 0 to non-zero:
No, he does not. He follows [3] and ensures it does not happen. All electrochemists do.
How does he do that Jed? You might find it helpful to look at my writeup. He does check it by noting that the fill-up volume equals the expected volume lost from electrolysis. But working through everything you will see:
(a) technically that is not enough - because however unlikely recombination could be balanced by evaporation.
(b) the necessary low evaporation over 46 days for his measurements to mean small recombination look very unlikely given calculations from H2O partial pressure. In fact, coincidentally, the calculated evaporation from partial pressure looks pretty close to that needed to account for the excess heat from recombination. Though I feel that would be unexpected - but you cannot argue with the figures.
Please do check all my figures. It is quite likely there are errors in them. however the main issue - that evaporation should be significant here but is supposed zero - remains.
Display MoreRepeat after me:
Input power is not noise.
Input power is not noise.
Input power is not noise.
Do you understand what that means? It means that input power can be measured with great precision, and accounted for.
Jed, could you please read my writeup and find where I either assume or imply that input power = noise? In fact, in my writeup - I accept Staker's bound on noise and input power precision and note that the expected excess energy is far enough above Staker's error + noise bound that I am happy to set the noise bound to 0. It is just not significant here.
So who said this apart from THH
the wriggle continues
" nuclear reactions suddenly start at above 290C
That is a COMPLETE misrepresentation of what I have said!
Misrepresentation ..rephrasing exaggeration .. par for the course
like "unobtainium"
"bang-on"
We also both know that LENR observations are all over the place - about the only elemnt that has not been claimed as the result of LENR transmutation is unobtainium..
How does he do that Jed?
The same ways everyone else does. By keeping track of makeup water. Also, often with a gas flow meter. Since you don't believe me and you don't think that is what his paper says -- and what Ref. 3 says -- why don't you ask him? His e-mail address is in the paper. If it doesn't work, I will find it for you.
Ask him, or ask my invisible friend! She'll tell you:
How do electrochemists ensure there is no recombination in open-cell cold fusion experiments?
BOT: Electrochemists use various methods to ensure there is no recombination in open-cell cold fusion experiments:
1. Measuring the electrolyte water level: The water level in the cell falls by the predicted amount every day, indicating that the free hydrogen and oxygen are leaving the cell. When replenishing the cell, they record the amount of heavy water added.
2. Measuring gas flow rate: Some researchers use a gas flow meter or collect the gas in an upside-down test tube held underwater to measure the gas flow rate.
3. Using closed cells with a catalytic recombiner: Researchers like Storms and McKubre use closed cells with a catalytic recombiner in the headspace, which eliminates the possibility of a recombination error.
Remember that these methods are specific to the dataset provided and may not cover all possible techniques used by electrochemists in the field.
(To be honest, I suspect she is quoting me. I am honored!)
The same ways everyone else does. By keeping track of makeup water. Also, often with a gas flow meter. Since you don't believe me and you don't think that is what his paper says -- and what Ref. 3 says -- why don't you ask him? His e-mail address is in the paper. If it doesn't work, I will find it for you.
I have done that Jed. And yes, he relies in the fill-up (make-up?) water volume. As you see in my writeup which I have asked you to read several times, because it will clear up your misunderstandings, In my write-up I analyse this, agreeing that recombination can be related to make-up water, and assuming his make-up water measurements are correct.
EDIT - I've changed fill-up to make-up throughout my write-up. My non-standard terminology, for which I apologise - I am an amateur in these matters, might have been a barrier for some in understanding the content.
Jed, could you please read my writeup and find where I either assume or imply that input power = noise?
So what is your 3% supposed to represent? Is it 3% above the noise? I don't think so! Here is what the paper says about precision:
"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. Cell temperatures were from thermocouples (Type T used throughout this study) inside two capillary tubes (inside diameter of about 1.3 mm and outside diameter of about 2.0 mm) in each cell. An acquisition processor card 2400a by Microstar Laboratories Inc. Was used for data acquisition of voltages, and currents (measured as a voltage drop across precision resistor) for power input, and for thermocouple readings. Precision, after extensive averaging, for power-in was ± 0.0005 W, DT was ± 0.05 C (or better as explained in Ref. [19]) and power-out of ± 0.015 W (based on DT and calibration slope). This gives overall precision of ± 0.5%."
And here is the excess heat:
"Excess power = 0.32 Watts +/- 0.015 W (3.65 - 3.33) 9.6%."
That's 9.6% of input power. Which is not noise. It is a lot more than 3% above the noise.
How does he do that Jed?
Revisiting this question . . . Did you try reading the paper? No, of course you didn't! Did you even bother to look for the words "recombination" or "syringe"? Nope. Because the answer to your question is right there, plain as day, bold as brass:
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) . . .
Each cell contained a thin round horizontal Teflon baffle plate in the head-space just below the end of the tube from the syringe. This allowed Li that splashed up into the head-space (carried by D2 and O2 bubbles) to be washed back into the electrolyte by the incoming heavy or light water. This minimized, but not eliminated, upward cell voltage creep from diminution of concentration of Li during long time runs . . .
Ten measures, chronicled above, for NAE in Pd and to produce a recognizable (measurable) Fleischmann-Pons heat effect (next section) comprise:
. . .
6. Stabilizing the meniscus level via a syringe pump for the make-up light and heavy water
7. Eliminating the thermal shock of manually adding make-up water via a syringe pump
At times when electrolysis is stopped, there is no excess power, and the clustered data set at the left and below the line near power-in of 2.850 W is the result of deliberately overfilling the cell by about 1.5 mm from the equilibrium calibration mark, then allowing the electrolysis to run again without syringe pump filling. At the point where data characters (small crosses) meet the calibration line, the electrolyte level meets the 18.0 ml equilibrium level mark. This behavior
was tested again at 3.290 W (tight cluster) with about 1 mm overfill and then allowed electrolysis to run until a 1 mm under-fill condition (data above line). Overfilling results in a false underestimates of DT (too cool) and underfilling results in false overestimates of DT (too hot). . . .
https://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StakerMRhowtoachie.pdf
Of course you will continue to insist that Staker and every other professional electrochemist never measures make-up water and thus never checks for recombination. Yawn . . .
Display MoreSo what is your 3% supposed to represent? Is it 3% above the noise? I don't think so! Here is what the paper says about precision:
"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. Cell temperatures were from thermocouples (Type T used throughout this study) inside two capillary tubes (inside diameter of about 1.3 mm and outside diameter of about 2.0 mm) in each cell. An acquisition processor card 2400a by Microstar Laboratories Inc. Was used for data acquisition of voltages, and currents (measured as a voltage drop across precision resistor) for power input, and for thermocouple readings. Precision, after extensive averaging, for power-in was ± 0.0005 W, DT was ± 0.05 C (or better as explained in Ref. [19]) and power-out of ± 0.015 W (based on DT and calibration slope). This gives overall precision of ± 0.5%."
And here is the excess heat:
"Excess power = 0.32 Watts +/- 0.015 W (3.65 - 3.33) 9.6%."
That's 9.6% of input power. Which is not noise. It is a lot more than 3% above the noise.
Jed, I think it really would help you to read my write-up. Analysing any experiment is complex, as I am sure you know.
The 3.5% is not relevant to any argument except that it allows me to relate the excess heat in the experiment to other quantities. The input power is not relevant to my argument except that I wanted to understand all the parameters, as you will see if you read what I have said. The noise, and precision, is not relevant to my analysis at all, except that it seems much lower (precision better) than all the important quantities, so I do not bother to consider it.
I think you are assuming I am saying bad things about this experiment. I am analysing it - neither good nor bad. The analysis took me a long time to work out in all its detail but I have stated it in enough detail for a reader to understand.
THH
And yes, he relies in the fill-up (make-up?) water volume. As you see in my writeup which I have asked you to read several times, because it will clear up your misunderstandings, In my write-up I analyse this, agreeing that recombination can be related to make-up water, and assuming his make-up water measurements are correct.
So . . . What is the problem here? He relies on make-up water volume. Are you saying that method does not work?
I have read it several times. When he wrote it, I read every word many times. I am the copy editor.
You say "recombination can be related to make-up water." Yes, as sunlight is related to the dawn. What on earth do you mean by "related"? They are one and the same thing.
Do you have any reason to think his make-up water measurements are wrong? He gave a complete description of his methods. If you cannot tell us what the problem is, then you don't know of any problem, and you have no case. Don't say there may be invisible, undetectable, unknown problems. That is not falsifiable!
Any junior high school kid could measure make up water and the water level in the cell accurately enough to ensure there is no significant recombination. So, when you say that Staker may not be able to do that, or that he didn't think to do it, or he thought it was not necessary because (you imagine, wrongly) Fleischmann did not do it . . . you are saying that Staker is a blithering idiot who cannot do elementary experiments in his own field. You are saying that Staker -- and all other cold fusion electrochemists -- did not take the steps or use the equipment described in their papers. You would be insulting him, if you comments were not so idiotic they make you look worse than you are trying to make him look.
Just stop it. Follow the rule of holes: When in a hole, stop digging.
Display MoreRevisiting this question . . . Did you try reading the paper? No, of course you didn't! Did you even bother to look for the words "recombination" or "syringe"? Nope. Because the answer to your question is right there, plain as day, bold as brass:
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) . . .
Each cell contained a thin round horizontal Teflon baffle plate in the head-space just below the end of the tube from the syringe. This allowed Li that splashed up into the head-space (carried by D2 and O2 bubbles) to be washed back into the electrolyte by the incoming heavy or light water. This minimized, but not eliminated, upward cell voltage creep from diminution of concentration of Li during long time runs . . .
Ten measures, chronicled above, for NAE in Pd and to produce a recognizable (measurable) Fleischmann-Pons heat effect (next section) comprise:
. . .
6. Stabilizing the meniscus level via a syringe pump for the make-up light and heavy water
7. Eliminating the thermal shock of manually adding make-up water via a syringe pump
At times when electrolysis is stopped, there is no excess power, and the clustered data set at the left and below the line near power-in of 2.850 W is the result of deliberately overfilling the cell by about 1.5 mm from the equilibrium calibration mark, then allowing the electrolysis to run again without syringe pump filling. At the point where data characters (small crosses) meet the calibration line, the electrolyte level meets the 18.0 ml equilibrium level mark. This behavior
was tested again at 3.290 W (tight cluster) with about 1 mm overfill and then allowed electrolysis to run until a 1 mm under-fill condition (data above line). Overfilling results in a false underestimates of DT (too cool) and underfilling results in false overestimates of DT (too hot). . . .
https://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StakerMRhowtoachie.pdf
Of course you will continue to insist that Staker and every other professional electrochemist never measures make-up water and thus never checks for recombination. Yawn . . .
Jed, please read my write-up where I explictly say the opposite of what you say here.
Let me state it in 3 paragraphs - but I'm afraid the complete analysis needs as much space as I have given it.
The first issue is complex
The second issue is much simpler - how can anyone know that the results are not due to leakage from the H2/D2 in the electrolysis chamber into the air gap? the obvious answer is the pots-experiment calibration. But that would be long - due to the long thermal time constant of the experiment. maybe enough for the leakage to change (e.g. air leaks into the air gap). I just do not know, because Staker has not said what he does to show there is no significant leakage. It is quite possible that no leakage happens here - but since it could easily account for all the excess heat, and would show D2O as different from the two H2O tests, as staker found - I think it needs to be explicitly eliminated.
The 3.5% is not relevant to any argument except that it allows me to relate the excess heat in the experiment to other quantities.
I suggest you compare 0.32 W to +/- 0.015 W.
I see a problem with evaporation, assumed negligible (implicit in paper).
Not assumed. It is not difficult to estimate evaporation. The cell temperature is known. The physics of evaporation were well established 200 years ago.
I can't really believe that evaporation exactly matches recombination in this way.
You seriously do not think Staker and the others know how to measure and estimate evaporation?
Do you have any reason to think his make-up water measurements are wrong? He gave a complete description of his methods. If you cannot tell us what the problem is, then you don't know of any problem, and you have no case. Don't say there may be invisible, undetectable, unknown problems. That is not falsifiable!
Dear Jed,
For, now, I believe, the 5th time. Please read my full writeup where all your questions are answered. I am not saying any of the things you guess I am. I am not questioning any of the things you think I am questioning - I accept all that. I am stating what is my issue (a very definite, could with effort be checked easily, problem. Another very definite, could be checked also - less easily - possible problem) with detail and clarity.
I detect that you are unwilling to do this.
In that case please read my summary write-up. But it has gaps, for which you need the full write-up.
Not assumed. It is not difficult to estimate evaporation. The cell temperature is known. The physics of evaporation were well established 200 years ago.
Ok, great - so you agree with my 200 year calculations that the evaporated water volume, assuming equilibrium, is 45g and therefore there must be 42g recombination which roughly balances the stated excess heat?
Staker implicitly (explicitly in private correspondence) assumes evaporation is very small in this experiment. He may be right - but when I looked up the H2O partial pressure at 67C (200 year old calculation) and plugged in the numbers it seemed large. I said all this in my write-up. you'd save yourself time if you read it?
Maybe I made a mistake with that? But it matches intuition where even at only 20C you'd expect some significant evaporation from a water surface over 46 days.
I'd welcome you going over all my logic and conclusions, because they do not make sense. normally that means I've made a mistake. So perhaps I have.
THH
EDIT - I actually expect that 45g to be wrong. But I do not expect it to be negligible! So the problem of consistency remains - it is just not likely that recombination would exactly balance evaporation.
