Perhaps you can use me as a surrogate for the elusive entity.
Its Ok.. I found them on Google 
also RG.
The perpetual “is LENR even real” argument thread.
-
-
since no-one has observed endothermic LENR
Yes they have. fabrice DAVID has done so - there are so-called 'freezers'.
-
Its Ok.. I found them on Google
My problem is that I do not know who "they" are. The posted image says it is a talk in ICCF24 but no names.?
-
Yes they have. fabrice DAVID has done so - there are so-called 'freezers'.
Excellent! LENR for better refridgerators!
-
It would be helpful if you could link the written paper - which I see is out now? Not enough info in that screenshot for google. But I'd like to look at it.
There was enough info on the screenshot. This is Storms own paper based in his ICCF24 presentation, it is not available from the JCMNS yet.
-
My understanding is that in any open cell, or closed cell with significant spatial variation in response, the qunatitative effect of recombination is identical to excess heat.
It would be the same in an open cell, except for two reason:
1. It never happens. It is easy to ensure that it cannot happen with the cell geometry and high voltage. Everyone always measures to be sure it does not happen.
2. Even if it did happen, the maximum false excess heat from recombination is usually well below the measured excess heat.
There is no measurable spatial variation in a closed cell. With an ordinary calorimeter, you never see any difference when heat is generated in different places within the cell. You might see that with a special configuration designed for that purpose, such as with an IR camera. That is what Pam Boss did. That is interesting.
Of course, it can be eliminated in other ways in an open cell , e.g. by checking exhaust gasses and fluid level.
It always is eliminated by these methods. Staker and all other electrochemists eliminate it. There are two other methods:
The first is to look at the cell. With full recombination, you would see no bubbles emerge from the anode or cathode. No bubbles would reach the surface of the water. A normal electrochemical cell has about as many fine bubbles as a carbonated drink. You can easily see them. Partial recombination would reduce the bubbles, which would probably be apparent.
The second method is to compare electrolysis to a control cell with the same geometry. This always shows full Faradaic efficiency. Electrochemists have been doing this since 1831, so they know how to do it.
-
There was enough info on the screenshot. This is Storms own paper based in his ICCF24 presentation, it is not available from the JCMNS yet.
Figure 12 is shown modelling a (expected for activation energy-determined rate) log Pexcess vs 1/T linear relationship. (Not clear how well this is fitted, especially for 0.1A D/Pd=0.81). This is for solid Pd and electrolysis.
Figure 13 shows a linear Pexcess vs T linear relationship (especially for the D2 gas points). This is for sintered (?) Pd powder and electrolysis, and (green squares) Pd powder after electrolytic conditioning in D2.
This difference is not (unless I missed it) discussed in the text except to say the temperature effect is largely unchanged. But it is inconsistent? if D diffusion as is suggested is responsible, that the same (activation energy) relationship would be expected in both cases? I am not entirely clear whether the red, black points in Fig13 are excess heat in electrolytic cell, or in D2 after conditioning in cell? I guess the former in which case they should be the same as Fig 12?
-
1. It never happens. It is easy to ensure that it cannot happen with the cell geometry and high voltage. Everyone always measures to be sure it does not happen.
2. Even if it did happen, the maximum false excess heat from recombination is usually well below the measured excess heat.
Jed. I agree with your second comment, I think. Maybe not at high electrolysis rates where also you are trying to reduce heating from the electrolytics current?
I have an exact counterexample to your argument. Straker. Straker has a geometry whether the cathode and anode are close together, with the anode mesh circling the cathode. He states that O2 and D2 are well mixed. So while i agree recombination can be avoided, it is not always avoided. So to say "in never happens" is again a sweeping generalisation.
THH
-
It always is eliminated by these methods. Staker and all other electrochemists eliminate it. There are two other methods:
The first is to look at the cell. With full recombination, you would see no bubbles emerge from the anode or cathode. No bubbles would reach the surface of the water. A normal electrochemical cell has about as many fine bubbles as a carbonated drink. You can easily see them. Partial recombination would reduce the bubbles, which would probably be apparent.
The second method is to compare electrolysis to a control cell with the same geometry. This always shows full Faradaic efficiency. Electrochemists have been doing this since 1831, so they know how to do it.I understand that. It is very unclear whether Staker eliminates it, because his only measurement of Faradaic efficiency comes from fill-up volume. He calculates this based on iT not iT and temperature, so does not account for varying evaporation rates, which - based on 200 year theory - appear to be significant.
Personally - although I do not think he properly checks this - I also think recombination is unlikely to be a significant issue in his experiment. But I don't know.
You assume that all people doing these experiments conduct them perfectly, checking everything, when they do not say this in papers, and in some cases reading through gaps in information (which is difficult) or in other ways, it seems pretty clear that they did not check things, but inferred based on other things that checks were not needed.
This is dangerous, especially when dealing with a system expected to have unusual behaviour.
It is also unnecessary - it is not much effort to provide more information.
-
If even a small amount of H2 or D2 leaked into those gaps from the over-pressure inner tube, via the top-end seals, it would alter the sensitivity.
H2 and D2 are lighter than air. When they leave the cell into the atmosphere, they drift up and away, and they are quickly rarified in air. It is not possible the molecules magically stay in a cloud and go down, back into the calorimeter spaces.
In the experiments I have seen, the D2, H2 and O2 leave the cell a good distance away from the cell, through a tube that is usually in a bubbler to prevent any air from getting into the cell. The cell configuration itself, with a narrow, long top, also prevents air from coming into the cell. You can put an inverted test tube full of water into the bubbler chamber, and then redirect the flow of gas into the test tube. You time how long it takes to empty the test tube. This is an effective way to measure the flow rate. It is simpler than using a gas flowmeter. Gas flowmeters are trouble prone in my experience. You cannot see the gas coming through, so I prefer the visual method of watching the water level fall in a test tube. Some researchers use both methods.
It is possible that post-experiment calibration eliminates this.
It is certain the post-experiment calibration and calibration on-the-fly during the experiment eliminate this. That is why all electrochemists do post-experiment calibration and calibration on-the-fly. Staker also eliminated this by running a control cell right next to the active cell.
It is not that recombination is impossible.
Yes, it is impossible, for the reasons given by me and Ed. Ask any electrochemist. You keep saying it is possible, but you cannot show any evidence for that.
Of course it is possible if you turn down the power by a factor of 1000, the way Steve Jones did. Miles had a low opinion of this.
BTW Jed - if you read my original write-up it would answer 80% - though not all - of your questions.
You keep saying recombination is possible and Staker did not measure it, and he did not measure evaporation. That is 100% wrong. So are your statements about positional errors with ordinary calorimeters, the time scale in the Staker graph, D2 or H2 magically leaking down from the atmosphere, and every other substantive technical issue in this discussion. Every single assertion you make is wrong.
-
Every single assertion you make is wrong.
I think that is all rooted in an unconscious need to keep his world view intact.
THHuxleynew, honestly I think that in your world nothing “extraordinary” can happen. If someone sees it happening, it must be a mistake, there’s no other choice. You insist in saying that you just want proof of the extraordinary and that there’a no belief involved.
I think you truly believe that to be the case, but I find no other explanation for insisting on better proof of something that is absolutely proven. We are way past “it is real?”. Now we have to focus in understanding it better to be able to make it useful.
-
I understand that. It is very unclear whether Staker eliminates it, because his only measurement of Faradaic efficiency comes from fill-up volume.
There is no better method of measuring Faradaic efficiency. Even a tiny amount of recombination will show up if you measure the liquid every day. Look up the heat of formation of water and you will see.
Personally - although I do not think he properly checks this - I also think recombination is unlikely to be a significant issue in his experiment. But I don't know.
You do not think he properly checks this? Measuring the water level is improper? What is that supposed to mean?
Recombination is certain to be insignificant. If you do not know this, I suggest you read a textbook about electrochemistry. Also, try running the numbers yourself. You have the heat of formation of water. With full Faradaic efficiency the heat in the cell is (V−1.54)*I, where 1.54 is the thermoneutral potential for heavy water.
You assume that all people doing these experiments conduct them perfectly, checking everything, when they do not say this in papers, and in some cases reading through gaps in information
There is no such thing as a perfect experiment, any more than there is a prefect program. They can always be improved. There is always a margin of error. I have never once, in 50 years, described any experiment, program, machine or technology as "perfect." You must have confused me with someone else.
There are no gaps in the information in these papers. If there were, I would ask the author. There are no gaps in Staker's paper but in some cases you have read it carefully and do the arithmetic yourself. For example, you have to see that the Fig. 7 caption and the text below it say that one unit in the graph equals 15 minutes. That is a little unusual. Most graphs show minutes or hours.
-
There is no measurable spatial variation in a closed cell. With an ordinary calorimeter, you never see any difference when heat is generated in different places within the cell.
That (1st part) is obviously not true when you have a cell separated from a recombinator. There are differences dynamically - even if you make the assumption there is no in-cell recombination. Without that assumption varying recombination alters the spatial distribution markedly.
Ref Ed'd design.
I'm not sure whether you consider Ed's design an "ordinary calorimeter". You certainly cannot generalise to it without knowing:
- The effectiveness of the fan in equalising temperatures
- The balance of the TEGs in each side
You keep saying recombination is possible and Staker did not measure it, and he did not measure evaporation. That is 100% wrong. So are your statements about positional errors with ordinary calorimeters, the time scale in the Staker graph, D2 or H2 magically leaking down from the atmosphere, and every other substantive technical issue in this discussion. Every single assertion you make is wrong.
I admit to not looking closely at the heat burst timescale till you pointed it out. in my defence - I told you I was not seriously considering the heat burst evidence. Anyway, when you pointed this out I immediately agreed with you and admitted error.
For every other assertion you are misunderstanding me, or else I'd like you to justify your assertion I am wrong with evidence (like you did with the heat burst issue, and I happily admitted mistake).
- Staker did not measure recombination. Please state how he did this, given he did not measure evaporation
- Staker did not measure evaporation. Please state - referencing his two papers - how he did this?
- Positional error ordinary calorimeters. This is a sweeping generalisation - and I am not sure what "ordinary" means. Do you claim this of Ed's calorimeter - the one we have been discussing? Where it is pretty obvious that positional errors are possible. And quantifying them requires info not in the paper.
- Time scale in Staker graph - admitted I was wrong
- D2 or H2 magically leaking from atmosphere. You misunderstand - or maybe did not read and reflect on Staker's papers. He has 4 concentric test-tubes, with plastic separators at the top. The innermost test-tube is deliberately kept with a positive (above atmospheric) pressure of H2 or D2. The whole assembly is enclosed in a housing. The idea is that H2 or D2 could leak out of the inner tube and into the 3 air-gaps between the tubes. Those air-gaps are (by design) meant to determine the thermal resistance between the inner tube and the uniform temperature calorimeter housing. Again by design, the dominant heat transport mechanism is gas conduction. Where any contamination by H2 or D2 would alter thermal resistance.
THH
-
You insist in saying that you just want proof of the extraordinary and that there’a no belief involved.
This is a variation of what Carl Sagan said on television: "extraordinary claims need extraordinary proof." That should have stayed on television. It is a plague and a curse. And, I might add, Sagan was a jerk. Regarding this notion, Melich and I wrote:
"[DoE reviewer #1] Claim 1.5. 'As many have said, extraordinary results require extraordinary proof. Such proof is lacking.'
This is not a principle of science. It was coined by Carl Sagan for the 1980 “Cosmos” television series. Conventional scientific standards dictate that extraordinary claims are best supported with ordinary evidence from off-the-shelf instruments and standard techniques. All mainstream cold fusion papers present this kind of evidence.
Conventional standards also dictate that all claims and arguments must be held to the same standards of rigor. This includes skeptical assertions that attempt to disprove cold fusion, which have been notably lacking in rigor. . . ."
-
That (1st part) is obviously not true when you have a cell separated from a recombinator.
Are there any examples of that in the literature? Can you point to one? How far away from the electrodes was the recombiner placed? Why on earth would anyone arrange things this way? What was the purpose? To cause an explosion, perhaps? How did they manage to return the recombined water into the cell? Inquiring minds want to know.
Perhaps you are right that a hypothetical arrangement like this would show the wrong amount of heat. However, in that case, the calibrations with ordinary electrolysis would show the wrong amounts of heat. It would be obvious. The reason would be obvious. The researcher would take note of this, and put both the cell and and the recombiner into the calorimeter chamber with a flow or Seebeck calorimeter, which would fix the problem.
-
D2 or H2 magically leaking from atmosphere. You misunderstand - or maybe did not read and reflect on Staker's papers. He has 4 concentric test-tubes, with plastic separators at the top. The innermost test-tube is deliberately kept with a positive (above atmospheric) pressure of H2 or D2.
I do not see where it says the gaps are filled with H2 or D2. It says "air gaps:"
"Heat transfer was largely by conduction in air gaps between test tubes. Thin air gaps minimized convection between test tubes, and close temperatures between each consecutive tube reduced radiative heat transfer because Pyrex is almost opaque at the low temperatures . . ."
p. 7.It would be difficult to fill these gaps with H2. The stuff tends to gradually escape from most containers. Looking at the construction of the calorimeter chamber, with the cells sticking out to give access to them and put in make-up water, I cannot imagine how you could contain hydrogen gas between the cells and the layered walls.
By the way, note that the paper says he recalibrated after the tests. As I mentioned above:
"Extensive calibration of cells before and after a run, and using a control cell in series (see method [19] of establishing a calibration curve by changing Power-In and recollecting the next data very close to the previous conditions giving . . ."
p. 8 -
There is no such thing as a perfect experiment, any more than there is a prefect program. They can always be improved. There is always a margin of error. I have never once, in 50 years, described any experiment, program, machine or technology as "perfect." You must have confused me with someone else.
There are no gaps in the information in these papers. If there were, I would ask the author. There are no gaps in Staker's paper but in some cases you have read it carefully and do the arithmetic yourself. For example, you have to see that the Fig. 7 caption and the text below it say that one unit in the graph equals 15 minutes. That is a little unusual. Most graphs show minutes or hours.Ok - if no gaps - what is the amount of D2O lost to evaporation, please?
-
I do not see where it says the gaps are filled with H2 or D2. It says "air gaps:"
"Heat transfer was largely by conduction in air gaps between test tubes.I should add that I once spent a couple of months in a rather grueling effort to measure the thermal conductivity of different gasses with an ordinary calorimeter. Air, hydrogen, and various others. That is difficult. With the small amount of gas in the air gaps in this calorimeter, there is no way you could detect the difference between H2 and air in the gaps. The difference in conductivity is too small with such a small amount of gas. It is true that hydrogen conducts heat better than air. (I knew that when I was trying to measure the difference.) See:
The thermal conductivity of gases | Electronics CoolingThe value of thermal conductivity for most gases and vapors range between 0.01 and 0.03 W/mK at room temperature. Notable exceptions are Helium (0.15) and…www.electronics-cooling.comAir 0.026 W/mK at 300 K
H 0.182 W/mK at 300 K
Plus, as I said, there is no way you could keep hydrogen between the cell and Wall 1, Wall 2 and so on. How would you do that? Put some kind of rubber collar around the cell?
-
This is a variation of what Carl Sagan said on television: "extraordinary claims need extraordinary proof." That should have stayed on television. It is a plague and a curse. And, I might add, Sagan was a jerk. Regarding this notion, Melich and I wrote:
"[DoE reviewer #1] Claim 1.5. 'As many have said, extraordinary results require extraordinary proof. Such proof is lacking.'
This is not a principle of science. It was coined by Carl Sagan for the 1980 “Cosmos” television series. Conventional scientific standards dictate that extraordinary claims are best supported with ordinary evidence from off-the-shelf instruments and standard techniques. All mainstream cold fusion papers present this kind of evidence.
Conventional standards also dictate that all claims and arguments must be held to the same standards of rigor. This includes skeptical assertions that attempt to disprove cold fusion, which have been notably lacking in rigor. . . ."Yes, well that convention is a bit old - and does not consider the science of hypothesis testing.
The amount of "proof" (in a sense that can be precisely defined by Bayes's theorem - even if calculating it in practical cases is difficult) needed to prefer one hypothesis over another depends on the prior probability of the hypothesis - and on the extent to which the posterior predictions "fit" the experimental results - e.g. are they broad predictions, or more precise ones.
- LENR has a low prior because it is an extraordinary claim. That is what the informal word extraordinary means.
- LENR also has very low specificity of predictions in experiments done so far. that might change in the future - but it is where we are.
Those two things both make for much higher levels of proof needed for the same posterior probability of the hypothesis.
This is nothing to do with convention (which I've always been suspicious of - it is often wrong). This is the maths that underlies science:
however - you will be glad to know, this does not disprove LENR. It juts means that without additional proof beyond what might otherwise be normal it is less likely.
Have you ever heard me say i thought LENR was, or could be, disproven?
-
Display More
I should add that I once spent a couple of months in a rather grueling effort to measure the thermal conductivity of different gasses with an ordinary calorimeter. Air, hydrogen, and various others. That is difficult. With the small amount of gas in the air gaps in this calorimeter, there is no way you could detect the difference between H2 and air in the gaps. The difference in conductivity is too small with such a small amount of gas. It is true that hydrogen conducts heat better than air. (I knew that when I was trying to measure the difference.) See:
https://www.electronics-coolin…al-conductivity-of-gases/
Air 0.026 W/mK at 300 K
H 0.182 W/mK at 300 K
Plus, as I said, there is no way you could keep hydrogen between the cell and Wall 1, Wall 2 and so on. How would you do that? Put some kind of rubber collar around the cell?
Dear Jed,
I read the two Staker papers quite carefully - if a bit selectively, and they address your questions.
Ref [19]
The cells were constructed by nesting four slightly different size Pyrex test tubes, each separated by two O-rings and a thin air space. A Teflon top, sealed with O-ring, excluded ambient atmosphere by allowing the positive pressure of O2 and D2 gas to exit through a capillary tube into a reservoir of vacuum pump oil. This arrangement is shown inFigs. 11–13. Fleischmann and Miles [44] showed recombination is either zero or too small to be a source of heat.There was visual monitoring of cell electrolyte level and exit gasses. This configuration of four-nested tubes reduced overall heat transfer from the inner test tube and increased sensitivity (producing a larger delta Temperature, ∆T, foreach input watt). Cells were calibrated by measuring the power in and ∆T, the difference between cell temperature and surrounding air temperature inside the calorimeter.
Later paper:
Complete experimental details of the calorimeter are in Ref. [19], but the electrolytic cells, with Pd/D2O (active cell) and Pt/H2O (control cell) are shown in Fig. 5. This arrangement has the ability to measure resistivity in situ and excess heat. Nested test tubes, not shown, are described below. A Teflon top, with an O-ring seal, excluded ambient atmosphere and carbon dioxide contamination by positive pressure of O2 and D2 which exited a capillary tube into a reservoir of vacuum pump oil.
and
Concentric Pyrex tubes (outside diameter x length of: 20 x 200, 25 x 200, 32 x 200, and 38 x 200 in mm) separated by O-rings, allowed observance of the meniscus level continuously. Delta T (ΔT) versus Power-In was calibrated before experimental runs and re-calibrated afterwards: outcomes showed no calibration shift, Figs 19 and 20 of Ref. [19]. Using four concentric test tubes caused higher ΔT for any given input. Heat transfer was largely by conduction in air gaps between test tubes. Thin air gaps minimized convection between test tubes, and close temperatures between each consecutive tube reduced radiative heat transfer because Pyrex is almost opaque at the low temperatures and the small differences in temperatures of each consecutive test tubes (“heating of car in sun” effect).
