for that to work with LENR you need to get universities to teach it as a fact.
then you could provide a detailed account of this interesting call
Manana...life is long
, then you could provide a detailed account of this interesting call a
the type of questions you ask...
are they questions or assertions?
Manana...life is long
the type of questions you ask...
are they questions or assertions?
was that a question or an assertion?
My questions are always questions. Go look.
I mean that the excess, 300mW, is 1% of the input power 30W.
Okay, so what do you estimate the error is for this calorimeter? In percent terms, and in absolute terms?
Lots of assumptions! I don't know. Nor do you.
Not assumptions. Those are tried and true physics, hundreds of years old, confirmed in calibrations. What more do you want?
I would point out, private communication which you have, Staker said the evaporation rate was at 10X lower than what those calculations say it should be.
If he pointed that out, it must because he measured it. Right? How else could he say it was less then, equal to, or more than "those calculations"?
hundreds of years old, confirmed in calibrations.
Not much wriggle room left now..
just "calibration error"
from the resident calorimetry expert
like Shanahan
whose only experience of calorimetry was hot air
Jed. I am not sure I understand you? I quoted in detail the sections of the papers that mentioned the test-tube air gaps, and how the tops were blocked, because you said you did not know how the tops were blocked but you though anything would leak.
I think you mean the top of the cell is blocked, so the gas all goes out of the tube, into the bubbler, and then out into the atmosphere. Yes. That works okay with effluent gas, but I meant there would be no way to seal hydrogen into the multi-wall arrangement with one test tube in another. It would leak out. I believe you were saying that gap is filled with hydrogen, not air. It is definitely air.
I agree with you. Given it is H or D I think it might leak.
H or D will definitely leak from anything other than a carefully designed container with top notch Swagelok connectors, like the one Miles used in his hydrogen studies. It is hard to contain. You can measure the flow rate with confidence, but you can't keep it in that kind of container for long.
Hydrogen did stay for weeks in the container I tried to measure gas conductivity in. The pressure gauge did not decrease measurably.
Okay, so what do you estimate the error is for this calorimeter? In percent terms, and in absolute terms?
I do not know. And neither do you - unless you have more info than is in that paper?
I accept all Ed's calculations about error, except that his check that the calorimeter is insensitive to heat distribution changes was not enough to check that, because the distributions he checked were not typical of those in use, and not at all close to worst case.
As always the difficult check to do in calorimeters is what error comes from differences between calibration and active conditions. There are many ways to control that. This calorimeter is pretty vulnerable to it - but it does have a fan which helps.
If you can tell me that no Seebeck calorimeter of this design can ever have > 0.3% change in output when the same power is distributed in a different way, or that you know the fan in this calorimeter will ensure heat is spread enough... Well, are you sure you know that?
If not, my suggestion that the results would be stronger with some simple extra calibration stands.
THH
I did not say published a critique. I have no intention of publishing a critique of the two experiments we have been discussing here.
If it isn't published, it doesn't count. Informal gab session exchanges like this don't count. You have to write a paper. It is best to have it pass peer review. A critique of cold fusion will pass peer review like shit through a goose, so that is not a problem.
Informal gab session reports of successful experiments do not count either.
H or D will definitely leak from anything other than a carefully designed container with top notch Swagelok connectors, like the one Miles used in his hydrogen studies. It is hard to contain. You can measure the flow rate with confidence, but you can't keep it in that kind of container for long.
Hydrogen did stay for weeks in the container I tried to measure gas conductivity in. The pressure gauge did not decrease measurably.
Yes, I thought so. .
I am not saying the air gaps are meant to be full of D2. I am saying the D2 from the inner tube might - or might not leak into the meant-to-be-air air-gap.
Whether there is D2 leakage into the air gaps is quite complex. Maybe the only leakage route is via the large calorimeter interior, and that has more leakage to external air than the leakage to the H2/D2? I just had it down as something that was not directly checked and could be a problem because it might vary randomly and with temperature. Maybe it was checked but not mentioned in the report. or maybe it was not considered.
THH
If it isn't published, it doesn't count. Informal gab session exchanges like this don't count. You have to write a paper. It is best to have it pass peer review. A critique of cold fusion will pass peer review like shit through a goose, so that is not a problem.
Informal gab session reports of successful experiments do not count either.
I agree with you there. But this is a good way for me to educate myself. And even informal reviews can be helpful to authors. And if I ever feel strongly enough that something is a contribution I am quite capable of writing it up.
Yes, I thought so. . Whether that leads to leakage into the air spaces in the is quite complex. Maybe the only leakage route is via the large calorimeter interior, and that has more leakage to external air than the leakage to the H2/D2?
I really do not understand what you mean! The H2/D2 will never leak into the calorimeter interior. It goes right out the top of the cell, through the bubbler, and into room air. A microscopic amount may permeate through the glass into the air gap after a few years, but not enough to make any measurable difference.
Nothing leaks into the air spaces in the calorimeter. Nothing leaks out. Even if the series of test tubes inside of test tubes is not tightly sealed, and it admits a little air, nothing will leak out or in. It is as atmospheric pressure. It is quiescent. Miles and others made similar calorimeters with air, foam insulation, or crumpled up aluminum foil. There was no issue with leaking. I do not think they were tightly sealed shut. (https://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MilesManomalousea.pdf p. 55)
You can tell the calorimeter is stable. As Staker says, it is calibrated before, during and after the experiment. The performance does not change. You keep saying there are instabilities. There are none! They would be show up in the calibrations.
Nothing leaks into the air spaces in the calorimeter. Nothing leaks out. Even if the series of test tubes inside of test tubes is not tightly sealed, and it admits a little air, nothing will leak out or in. It is as atmospheric pressure. It is quiescent. Miles and others made similar calorimeters with air, foam insulation, or crumpled up aluminum foil. There was no issue with leaking. I do not think they were tightly sealed shut. (https://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MilesManomalousea.pdf p. 55)
H or D will definitely leak from anything other than a carefully designed container with top notch Swagelok connectors, like the one Miles used in his hydrogen studies. It is hard to contain. You can measure the flow rate with confidence, but you can't keep it in that kind of container for long.
It is a bit difficult for me to reconcile those two statements. Perhaps I am not understanding you.
Excellent! LENR for better refridgerators!
No, it's not exactly that. What I call "Freezers" are the exact opposite of "breathers", that is to say areas where the thermal agitation of atoms is very different from the average thermal agitation. The "temperature" in the sense of Boltzmann is different at these places. We have an excess temperature in the case of breathers, and a deficit in the case of breathers. But of course, the LENRs that are made possible by these "freezers" are not endothermic reactions.
Freezers & breathers
It is a bit difficult for me to reconcile those two statements. Perhaps I am not understanding you.
The two statements being:
1. Nothing leaks into the air spaces in the calorimeter. Nothing leaks out. . . .
2. H or D will definitely leak from anything other than a carefully designed container with top notch Swagelok connectors . . .
Let me insert the Fig. 11 schematic from https://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StakerMRpreprintco.pdf. It is below.
Statement 1: No significant amount of hydrogen goes out of the walls of the test tube into the air gap with the other test tube. The place where it says "O-Rings." A tiny amount will gradually permeate through the glass into those spaces. Not enough to make a measurable difference. Also, similar air gap calorimeters I have seen are not sealed. They just have dead air.
Statement 2: Hydrogen will leak out of the Teflon top and the capillary tube. That is the weak point. As the caption says, the top has the "cathode, two cathode leads (Cu), anode lead (Pt), two small Pyrex tubes (two) for thermocouples, make-up water from syringe, and exit gas tube come through." That is a lot of holes! The hydrogen will leak though some of those holes into the air. But as you see in the diagram, those leaks from the Teflon top and the capillary tube will go into the atmosphere, not into the spaces between the nesting Pyrex test tubes.
I have seen Teflon tops similar to this in Mizuno's cells and other cells. They often have electric leads built in to the plastic. That is fairly leak tight, but not good enough to contain hydrogen indefinitely. I don't see how you could make the syringe hole or the exit gas tube leakproof enough to contain hydrogen. Some is bound to leak out. If it were leaking from the Teflon top directly into the air gap between the nesting cells, that would definitely be a problem!
Figure 12 is interesting. It shows the syringe dropping make up water into the cell Very Slo-o-o-ly. 10 minutes per drop. It says:
"Figure 12. Suspension of D2O or H2O droplet from make-up water syringe tube in the head space above electrolyte allowed growth and thermal
equilibration before dropping into the electrolyte. Typically this took about 10 min, depending on electrolysis current to which the delivery rate was
matched."
It says "thermal equilibration." I thought I read that somewhere in Staker's papers. I did not recall where. That's what I mentioned above. He wants to avoid the thermal shock that clobbered F&P's cells once a day, as shown in their graphs.
As you see, they tweaked the delivery rate of the IV pump syringe gadget to match electrolysis current. That is to say, to match the rate at which electrolysis removes water. If there was recombination, this would not work. There would be extra water every day. They checked every day to be sure it was delivering just enough water. They turned it up once to see what happens when you overfill. They turned it off to see what happens when the water level falls.
With this cell and this calorimetry, the water level and the total thermal mass of the water make a big difference, as described in the paper. F&P went to a lot of trouble to allow varying water levels and thermal mass, with their underwater window and complex equations that take into account the mass of water. Staker make things easier for himself by keeping these parameters unchanged. I described the F&P "window" and whatnot here.
https://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJreviewofth.pdf
This should give you a headache! "Simplicity" my ass. You see why Ed prefers a Seebeck calorimeter.
Why does this thread not appear on the "portal" page?
As you see, they tweaked the delivery rate of the IV pump syringe gadget to match electrolysis current. That is to say, to match the rate at which electrolysis removes water. If there was recombination, this would not work. There would be extra water every day.
I thought that originally, reading the second paper. But that of course would not work precisely because of (variable with temperature) evaporation.
Then I saw the second paper with its instrument tables
But it is a mess, it cannot be used to exclude recombination unless evaporation (which is significant) is quantified.
Why does this thread not appear
too much of the same old same old
a resting place for rhetoriticans like Ascoli also
but thanks for your education about endothermic LENR..
I think its been said in some papers too..Hora 2002..
"The LENR-result again indicated the probability that the nucleus may have been an intermediary state for reactions of the protons in the palladiumhostmetal for endothermic compound nucleus process in order to finally arrive at...
which directly could have been produced only by an endothermic process....
"
Display MoreThe two statements being:
1. Nothing leaks into the air spaces in the calorimeter. Nothing leaks out. . . .
2. H or D will definitely leak from anything other than a carefully designed container with top notch Swagelok connectors . . .
Let me insert the Fig. 11 schematic from https://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StakerMRpreprintco.pdf. It is below.
Statement 1: No significant amount of hydrogen goes out of the walls of the test tube into the air gap with the other test tube. The place where it says "O-Rings." A tiny amount will gradually permeate through the glass into those spaces. Not enough to make a measurable difference. Also, similar air gap calorimeters I have seen are not sealed. They just have dead air.
Statement 2: Hydrogen will leak out of the Teflon top and the capillary tube. That is the weak point. As the caption says, the top has the "cathode, two cathode leads (Cu), anode lead (Pt), two small Pyrex tubes (two) for thermocouples, make-up water from syringe, and exit gas tube come through." That is a lot of holes! The hydrogen will leak though some of those holes into the air. But as you see in the diagram, those leaks from the Teflon top and the capillary tube will go into the atmosphere, not into the spaces between the nesting Pyrex test tubes.
I have seen Teflon tops similar to this in Mizuno's cells and other cells. They often have electric leads built in to the plastic. That is fairly leak tight, but not good enough to contain hydrogen indefinitely. I don't see how you could make the syringe hole or the exit gas tube leakproof enough to contain hydrogen. Some is bound to leak out. If it were leaking from the Teflon top directly into the air gap between the nesting cells, that would definitely be a problem!
Figure 12 is interesting. It shows the syringe dropping make up water into the cell Very Slo-o-o-ly. 10 minutes per drop. It says:
"Figure 12. Suspension of D2O or H2O droplet from make-up water syringe tube in the head space above electrolyte allowed growth and thermal
equilibration before dropping into the electrolyte. Typically this took about 10 min, depending on electrolysis current to which the delivery rate was
matched."
It says "thermal equilibration." I thought I read that somewhere in Staker's papers. I did not recall where. That's what I mentioned above. He wants to avoid the thermal shock that clobbered F&P's cells once a day, as shown in their graphs.
As you see, they tweaked the delivery rate of the IV pump syringe gadget to match electrolysis current. That is to say, to match the rate at which electrolysis removes water. If there was recombination, this would not work. There would be extra water every day. They checked every day to be sure it was delivering just enough water. They turned it up once to see what happens when you overfill. They turned it off to see what happens when the water level falls.
With this cell and this calorimetry, the water level and the total thermal mass of the water make a big difference, as described in the paper. F&P went to a lot of trouble to allow varying water levels and thermal mass, with their underwater window and complex equations that take into account the mass of water. Staker make things easier for himself by keeping these parameters unchanged. I described the F&P "window" and whatnot here.
https://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJreviewofth.pdf
This should give you a headache! "Simplicity" my ass. You see why Ed prefers a Seebeck calorimeter.
Right. That is what I thought - although from the description I am not sure that the Teflon above the O-rings does not cover all the tubes, in which case it would act as a hat with a higher D2 partial pressure beneath it and therefore O-ring leakage.
In addition, given that the outer enclosure is sealed, and not that large, I do not know what the equilibrium partila pressure of D2 in it would be. If this is significant it will get into the air gaps.
Frankly I don't particularly think these things are particularly likely - but then neither is LENR. I cannot rule them out and I have learnt over many years not to make assumptions without evidence.
A bit more information on the post-experiment calibration would settle this - because if it is done immediately, and quick enough for the gas content of the air gaps to remain the same, and without disturbing the apparatus in any way, any leakage would be seen by that and detected. It was not, so that would mean this issue had been closed.
