THHuxleynew you may want to read this. I know you won’t, but I will leave it here just in case.
When have I accused Ed of not knowing about evaporation, or high school physics, etc. My only beef with Ed has been not putting all relevant info in the paper he showed us. He has done previous work on that calorimeter - but it was not clearly (or at all?) referenced with explicit reasoned closure of the single issue I found.
We are talking about Staker in this instance. But you seem to want Storms, Staker, F&P and every other researcher to include every single physics equation and physical law in the textbooks. Their papers would be hundreds of pages long. The calorimetric equations always show what you are looking for in this instance -- evaporation. Staker may not have including the equation in this paper, but he described it: it is mainly based on electrolysis current, meaning it is Faraday's law. It has to be that, because he uses it to keep the water level the same at all times. Anyone knows it would also have to include a term for evaporation at these temperatures. Or, if it did not, it would have to include a small fudge factor instead of evaporation. Just enough to have the exact same effect of keeping the water level the same and keeping the calorimetry simple, with no need for you to consider evaporation (as I explain below).
Jed, you all the time act as though scientific papers do not need to be precise because "everyone knows" and the people doing the experiments are "professional electrochemists" or something like.
Scientific papers do not need to include every single middle school and high school law of physics. It is reasonable to assume the authors know Dalton's law.
As I said, it is 67C not 60C (makes a big difference). The evaporation is ~ 40g (vs 162 g electrolysis water loss) over 46 days. And varies according to temperature so their instrument tables would not be enough.
The temperature is always recorded. You cannot do isoperibolic calorimetry without knowing the temperature. It is always applied to compute evaporation. I do not think it was 67 deg C the entire time, but if that was the average, and you have done your arithmetic right, then 40 g of water was lost over 46 days to evaporation. They could not have missed that. Per day, 0.9 ml is lost to evaporation and 3.6 ml to electrolysis. 4.5 ml/day.
Their IV pump instrument can measure 4.5 ml with confidence. There is no doubt they measured it and recorded the volume delivered to the cell, and there is no doubt they kept the water level the same. That is what the paper says. They would have known perfectly well why the volume was a little more than you get from electrolysis alone (0.9 ml/day more). EVERYONE knows that. Everyone has known that since 1831. It is described in detail in the F&P paper, because with that cell design, with varying water levels and thermal mass, you have to include those terms in the equations. Whereas Staker does not need to include them because he keeps the water level and thermal mass the same at all times. You demand he explain the extra 0.9 ml loss per day, even though everyone knows exactly where it comes from, and even though it makes no difference to the calorimetry. This is nitpicking. You are demanding trivial, obvious and irrelevant details. You are only demanding these things as an excuse to reject the data.
If there had been significant recombination, the excess water would have been some fraction of 3.6 ml, so the pump would overfill the cell. Suppose there was 50% recombination. Over 47 days there would be 81 ml of water more than expected. This would have been obvious. There is no way evaporation could magically increase in defiance of Dalton's law in a way that would hide this 81 ml excess volume. There is no way evaporation could be confused with electrolysis.
What are you suggesting? That there was 10% recombination? 2%? What is a reasonable volume of water they might have missed with these instruments? Run the numbers, and tell us how much heat that would represent. Explain how that might invalidate the results. In other words, give us a quantitative analysis to doubt these results, and base your analysis on the data given in the paper, and the specification of the IV pump. Everything you need to know is right there in the paper. You are demanding other details that the authors do not need to give you. You can prove -- or disprove -- the recombination hypothesis with the information provided.
Yes, I understand that. Of course it can be so. I just do not assume Staker did it when the paper implies he did not do it (it does not explicitly say),
You do not have to assume anything. Everything you need to know is right there. Or, if there is some detail about the IV pump specifications, the make and model is there so you can look it up. That is why authors include the make and model of their instruments.
THHuxleynew you may want to read this. I know you won’t, but I will leave it here just in case.
Here is my comment to the author about his article.
Hi Jonah,
Thanks for the well-written and interesting description of cold fusion. I have several comments.
First, Jones caused the hot fusion reaction as the result of fractofusion, not cold fusion. As Mel pointed out, this effect could not be replicated by Jones although the reaction was later replicated and became well understood.
According to Fleischmann, it was Jones who broke the agreement. As a reviewer for the DOE, he was ethically required not to reveal what Fleischmann and Pons had submitted. Instead, he was about to take credit for the discovery. That was the reason why the university held the press conference. Then this event was used against them even though this approach is not uncommon when important discoveries are made. The event demonstrated how a double standard is applied when it's convenient for the power structure. Clearly, the power structure was threatened by this new and less expensive form of energy that could make oil obsolete.
Although Ti has a coating of TiO2 that prevents it from reacting with deuterium, it will react at the edges. This reaction makes excess energy, i.e. cold fusion. Both John Dash and I observed this effect.
I'm in the process of writing a paper that explains how cold fusion works and how it can be reproduced. Unfortunately, everyone has their own idea about how it works, so my effort will suffer from the dilution effect. As for being able to replicate the effect, this has been done many hundreds of times and can, with skill, be replicated at will. Unfortunately, the myths have interfered with having this understanding accepted and applied.
You are right, science will soon have to eat crow.
Ed
THH, you say you understand statistics and error analysis. I would like you to answer a question based on your knowledge. What is the probability of energy being produced by chance or error from a nonobvious source every time hundreds of studies are done in many different ways, but only when D is present? What is the probability of He being detected with nearly the same He/energy ratio when this unusual energy is produced? What is the probability of tritium slowing forming in a sealed electrolytic cell. How small or large must a probability be before it can be used as proof for a conclusion?
Display MoreHere is my comment to the author about his article.
Hi Jonah,
Thanks for the well-written and interesting description of cold fusion. I have several comments.
First, Jones caused the hot fusion reaction as the result of fractofusion, not cold fusion. As Mel pointed out, this effect could not be replicated by Jones although the reaction was later replicated and became well understood.
According to Fleischmann, it was Jones who broke the agreement. As a reviewer for the DOE, he was ethically required not to reveal what Fleischmann and Pons had submitted. Instead, he was about to take credit for the discovery. That was the reason why the university held the press conference. Then this event was used against them even though this approach is not uncommon when important discoveries are made. The event demonstrated how a double standard is applied when it's convenient for the power structure. Clearly, the power structure was threatened by this new and less expensive form of energy that could make oil obsolete.
Although Ti has a coating of TiO2 that prevents it from reacting with deuterium, it will react at the edges. This reaction makes excess energy, i.e. cold fusion. Both John Dash and I observed this effect.
I'm in the process of writing a paper that explains how cold fusion works and how it can be reproduced. Unfortunately, everyone has their own idea about how it works, so my effort will suffer from the dilution effect. As for being able to replicate the effect, this has been done many hundreds of times and can, with skill, be replicated at will. Unfortunately, the myths have interfered with having this understanding accepted and applied.
You are right, science will soon have to eat crow.
Ed
Thanks for sharing your valuable insights with us. I wonder how many people realize how few people have been so deeply involved in this saga since the beginning.
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.
The O-rings are between the inner test tube and the outer ones. To keep them in position. The gas cannot leak into that gap. It cannot permeate sideways through the glass in a measurable amount. It can only escape upward, through the lid. Even if hydrogen did manage to go sideways through glass, no ordinary o-ring would contain it. To contain hydrogen you need something more elaborate: heavy duty bolts and a copper flange. That is how gas loaded cells are made. This cell is designed to have the free hydrogen escape out of the capillary tube. A little will escape out of the other parts of the top (the lid) but that makes no difference.
Frankly I don't particularly think these things are particularly likely - but then neither is LENR.
LENR is 100% likely in this case. When there is excess heat and no chemical changes, that is definitely cold fusion. You can be 100% certain it is, unless you find an error in the calorimetry. You have not found one in this case.
Of course, you claim the phenomenon itself may not exist. It has been replicated hundreds of times in hundreds of different labs. That makes it real. There is no other standard of being real. You would never doubt that some other widely replicated experimental result is real, and you have no rational reason to doubt this one.
I cannot rule them out and I have learnt over many years not to make assumptions without evidence.
All the evidence you need is in this paper.
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,
Of course it is done immediately! Why would anyone wait? But let's suppose they waited. First of all, the gas could never get into the gap, but we are playing make-believe, so let us say it did, during the course of the experiment. In that case:
Calibration before the experiment would show one value.
Calibration on the fly during the experiment would show a lower value, because gas conduction was increased.
Calibration immediately after the experiment would show the same low value . . .
Sometime weeks or month later, as the hydrogen gas leaked out, calibration would show the same value as before the experiment.
What would that tell Staker? It would tell him the calorimeter is not working! It would tell him to start over again with a different calorimeter design. In other words, if the problem you describe were to happen, he would see it, and know the results are invalid. The problem would not hide and make people think there was excess heat. On the contrary, it would look like anomalous cold. Like energy vanishing into a black hole.
Thanks for sharing your valuable insights with us. I wonder how many people realize how few people have been so deeply involved in this saga since the beginning.
Yes Curbina, and we are getting fewer. Many of the historical details are being lost because no one is yet interested. I have recorded a series of interviews with Tom Grimshaw and Ruby Carat that may someday provide some background and details.
Sometime weeks or month later, as the hydrogen gas leaked out,
Actually, when hydrogen is mixed with air, I believe it gradually combines with oxygen and turns into water. I read that somewhere. It might not leak out.
When you allow even a little air into a container of hydrogen, that becomes very dangerous. It can explode. That I am sure of, because it is described in books about hydrogen blimps and Zeppelin airships. I have read several books about that. The airship crews had to monitor air concentration in the hydrogen envelopes.
If you are interested in a heartbreaking story of engineers and workmen struggling to finish a gigantic airship project in a short time working on shoestring, read about the British R.100 airship, which crashed and burned on its maiden flight. "Airship on a Shoestring," J. Anderson.
Just a reminder of what happens when Hydrogen and Oxygen do when exposed to a flame...
Hydrogen on air burns, hydrogen with pure oxygen detonates.
Jed, H2 and O2 will not react without a catalyst being present. Nevertheless, my cells have exploded on occasion because a mixture of O2 and D2 is always formed after the Pd has become saturated. In my case, the cells are designed to suffer no harm. Poor design has even caused a loss of life. The use of a catalyst prevents this from happening.
We are talking about Staker in this instance. But you seem to want Storms, Staker, F&P and every other researcher to include every single physics equation and physical law in the textbooks.
No, just the relevant experimental data that shows their results.
+ any assumptions they make, with reasons.
Really no more than is conventional.
What however is not enough is to rely on what normally happens when you do calorimetry.
LENR, after all, is not normal.
LENR, after all, is not normal, really?
Then explain the nuclear reactions going on in your body as you read this. Low energy nuclear reactions are normal and happen all day long in your body
Are there ever nuclear reactions happening in our bodies?
What however is not enough is to rely on what normally happens when you do calorimetry.
LENR, after all, is not normal.
THH, I see we have a basic conflict of understanding. Yes, LENR is not normal. But a calorimeter does not care how the heat is created. It knows only that heat is being made. The measurement is independent of the source. A calorimeter can be tested by measuring a known amount of heat from a known source. Such a test would identify the amount of error produced in any measurement no matter the source. The calibration normally does this. I have made the test in other ways. You want to apply different rules to the heat that results from LENR as if this heat is different from normal heat.
When I make such tests and show that my calorimeter is accurate, why do you keep insisting that any heat that results from LENR must be an error? Why would my calorimeter suddenly create an error equal to the amount of heat only when I claim the heat comes from this source? Testing for accuracy, as you insist, is important. But when such tests are made, your critique makes no sense.
The Staker work is a different issue. He used a poor calorimeter design and an open cell. These are flaws that I have avoided. Why then are you ignoring my work?
Why then are you ignoring my work?
Because it is more difficult to criticise, the experiments being better designed and more comprehensively explained. Which is why I shifted the emphasis in this thread from Staker's work to yours.
Because it is more difficult to criticise, the experiments being better designed and more comprehensively explained. Which is why I shifted the emphasis in this thread from Staker's work to yours.
We await this suggestion to be followed.
If I understand the point being made, Ed Storms, after a long career at Los Alamos, has published papers and books more than five years old, but no company or university is interested in exploring his cold fusion / LENR results. Is that an accurate reflection of the position of Dr. Storms and Alan Smith?
If I understand the point being made, Ed Storms, after a long career at Los Alamos, has published papers and books more than five years old, but no company or university is interested in exploring his cold fusion / LENR results. Is that an accurate reflection of the position of Dr. Storms and Alan Smith?
Yes, that is an accurate description. Some projects have contacted me in the past and used my knowledge, but only to a very limited extent. Now, I see no interest in exploring what I have gradually learned.
Now, I see no interest in exploring what I have gradually learned.
Although I work from a much smaller store of knowledge and experience I suspect there is another factor beyond lack of interest. The 'fear of contagion' caused by the possibility of seeing something that cannot easily be explained away.
Yes, that is an accurate description. Some projects have contacted me in the past and used my knowledge, but only to a very limited extent. Now, I see no interest in exploring what I have gradually learned.
If I understand the point being made, Ed Storms, after a long career at Los Alamos, has published papers and books more than five years old, but no company or university is interested in exploring his cold fusion / LENR results. Is that an accurate reflection of the position of Dr. Storms and Alan Smith?
There are two options for anyone in your position. (And I guess that applies to other in the LENR community).
1. You can assume that the people who you'd expect to be interested in your work are all stupid/incompetent/prejudiced and therefore will never be interested.
2. You can find out from them why they are not interested. My guess is because they do not believe LENR is a real nuclear effect, because if so it would eb very interesting to many people.
The point is not even science, it is a standard human problem of communication. When you need to communicate it is important to see things from the other person's point of view and address there doubts. It does not matter that you know they are wrong. You need to provide the correct information for them to realise they are wrong. If you have a replicable clear experiment this is always possible. If there is disagreement it will be about some specific aspect where you and they disagree. that can be resolved with additional tests etc.
In your writeup you posted here the areas as I see them which if addressed would strengthen the results. They can be done incrementally:
(1) you do not reference the earlier paper that describes the calorimeter in more detail (I found it by chance googling). (Maybe you do reference it, but you do not highlight it and say explicitly where it contains additional tests etc. Nor do you explicitly say whether it refers to the exact same calorimeter, or the same calorimeter design).
(2) given you have an effect that is variable, you do not specify how it varied. In other words, for a given calorimeter, how many cathodes did you test; what were the (according to your "find a good cathode" protocol) results; which cathodes did you then test fully. And what is your protocol for all this testing.
(3) You are using a Seebeck calorimeter which looks a good fit to the problem but still has some problems with variable response to different heat distributions - you use a fan which will reduce these problems and also problems with parts of the experimental apparatus getting too hot. You could without too much difficulty examine how the calorimeter behaves with various clearly worst-case distributions. If that was lower than you required accuracy you are done. If higher, you could add instrumentation to determine what is the typical heat distribution during the experiment, and the calibration. Basically a lot of work to characterise the errors worst case and quantitatively. There are other things you need to check. AFAIK you have checked them all satisfactorily - although I am not an expert. If you got a non-LENR skeptical expert to look at the experiment they could maybe suggest additional checks that would strengthen it.
(4) Given that the characteristics of the sensors in the panels are critical, you would need to say what they are I think.
(5) you need to describe precisely your calibration methodology. What do you do, when in relation to actual results. it is not that I doubt your calibration - but precise methodology helps readers who are suspicious - and these are the ones you need to convince.
(6) You need to describe all necessary details, e.g. how you measured and added fan power, everything else.
(7) It would help for you to have the raw data published on a server (there is certainly a call for this for medical experiments - and it is not difficult to do if you keep good records).
The purpose of all these things that seem unnecessary to you are because they are the first step in convincing the people who are not now convinced.
They have been done in the past. E.g. McKubre's electrolyis experiments were pretty well documented, with one gap (actually a bit like yours) where the tested "different heat distributions" did not cover the possible "different heat distribution".
As with those experiments - skeptical observers will still have doubts, but those doubts can be answered by replication and adding to protocols as needed for the specifics.
And an experiment which has clear results and it relatively easy to replicate will allow replication.
I see your work as potentially satisfying all of these things except that the excess heat observed is relatively small in terms of potential Seebeck calorimeter errors. So you need a lot of work to show in fact the errors here are small as above. The merit however is that it is replicable - that makes it much more valuable.
Otherwise, you need very careful methodology and recording. Not exactly a problem, but often not done.
Here is what would - having done all this work, make the results less strong, and therefore probably not convince everyone.
(1) If your level of positive results comes from 1 cathode in 100, where there is no separate protocol to select working electrodes. That is because with a very low success rate it is more difficult to rule out some one-off and undetectable error which happens 1% of time.
(2) If comprehensive heat distribution checking did not demonstrate that your results are really accurate +/- 0.3%.
(3) lack of clear documented methodology and rigorous documentation of all tests
(4) It is not actually replicable with a different calorimeter etc.
(1) is probably fixable by a "find the right cathodes" protocol
(2) would if problematic require higher level results or better heat distribution. The latter is maybe manageable with baffles, fans, etc.
(3) is a pain, but not a problem.
If the LENR community says - well - we know this is needed - but we do not have enough money to do it. I'm sympathetic.
If the community says: "that should not be needed - everyone must be biassed - so even if we did that they would not be convinced". I'm not sympathetic.
Would everyone be convinced by a good experiment as above, with clear positive results. No. But a few would be interested enough that they would want to replicate. and experiment documented as above would be relatively easily replicable.
THH
PS - when you have clear experimental anomalies and no obvious theory to explain them, as here, it is better PR (and no disbenefit) to stay open about mechanism. If I wanted people to look at these heat results I would not mention the word nuclear, call then anomalous, point out they were replicable and inexplicable and indicated on the face of it above chemical levels of heat generation or some not understood calorimetry error.
(1) If your level of positive results comes from 1 cathode in 100, where there is no separate protocol to select working electrodes. That is because with a very low success rate it is more difficult to rule out some one-off and undetectable error which happens 1% of time.
The rate was about ~5% for Pd-D with Ed's old protocol. But you are wrong.
First, there is no such thing as an "undetectable error." If is undetectable it does not exist. If you -- or anyone else -- claim there is an error, you have to specify what it is and how it can be confirmed or falsified. Non-falsifiable statements are not science.
Second, by the time calorimetry is performed to search for excess heat, the success rate is close to 100%. The 95% of rejected cathodes were not rejected by calorimetric methods. They were not rejected because they did not produce excess heat. They were winnowed out because they cracked, or increased in size (pillowed up), or for some other reason. The methods of testing them may have had problems, but they could not be problems with calorimetry.
See:
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEhowtoprodu.pdf
In other research projects, especially in Italy, cathodes were winnowed out by examining their crystal structure, and by various other techniques, not by calorimetry. By the time calorimetry was done to look for excess heat, the success rate was far above 1%.
Most research projects these days have higher success rates than 1%, even without winnowing.
