Quote from Curbina

I am just coming back to you from the very arguments you use to cast doubts in every aspect of what we discuss at LENR-forum. You either use the “is a systematic error that you haven’t found” or “is real but is not nuclear”. I brought up Galushkin results precisely because he kills the “systematic error” argument, as he claims to be able to reproduce the FPE consistently, and also because he goes around telling this not as support for the nuclear origin but as support for his own assertion that this is because Pd and Ni have a miracle like capacity of storage of D or H in the electrodes that leads to sudden periodical release of heat bursts and that this is what we need to focus on as a revolutionary energy storage technology. Arguments about Galushkin idea of excess heat explaining mechanism have already been raised so so I won’t repeat them. I just use his example because it shoots down the systematic error myth.

So, you yourself got into that corner.

I am not now sure what corner this is? I was not aware I had said anything significant about Galushkin, I have certainly not read his stuff in detail. Nor do I understand why he "kills" the systematic error argument.

But, just from what you say - it seems he has got a reference experiment: certain and replicable - which demonstrates above chemical levels of excess heat. So why is the LENR community not adopting it? His theoretical ideas don't matter.

Do you feel his experiment is your "best bet" for certain and replicable? I'd certainly look at it, if it lies within my area of competence which is (not zero, as Jed would like you to believe) but limited.

I think you should put his write-up forward as your killer answer to reference experiment that will convince skeptics - instead of asking me to shoot it down?

OK - I have now found your reference - which I managed to miss before (easy to do).

Post

RE: The perpetual “is LENR even real” argument thread.

I often forget the name of this Russian, Galushkin. His paper from 2020 speaks exactly of the burst type Fleischmann and Pons experiments. I can’t upload here for some quirk of the forum software.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jelechem.2020.114237

From the conclusions:

“Nevertheless, the obtained by us real specific energy being accumulated by a cathode exceeds significantly the specific energy of contemporary organic energy carriers [45], which opens great possibilities for development of new forms…

Curbina

Jun 1st 2023

The paper is RE: The perpetual “is LENR even real” argument thread.

Mechanism of thermal runaway as a cause of Fleischmann-Pons effect

Nikolay E. Galushkin, Nataliya N. Yazvinskaya, Dmitriy N. Galushkin

August 2020. J. ElectrAnal Chem. Vol 870

Starting from papers by Fleischmann and Pons, many investigators have found the excess power effect during a heavy water electrolysis. They connected this effect with the deuterons “cold fusion”. A significantly larger number of investigators did not have found this effect, so they do not agree with the proposed explanation and consider the results of Fleischmann and Pons being a mistake or an instrumental artifact. In this paper experimentally proved that the Fleischmann-Pons effect (of burst type) is caused by an exothermic reaction of a recombination of the atomic deuterium accumulated in electrodes during electrolysis of the electrolyte. This reaction is similar to the reaction of thermal runaway in electrochemical batteries with aqueous electrolyte. Thus experimentally proved that the Fleischmann-Pons effect is not associated with cold fusion of deuterium nuclei. While the Fleischmann-Pons effect (of the weak type) is due to a partial recombination of the deuterium and the oxygen, i.e. in this case the excess power is apparent or imaginary. It is shown that the established mechanism of Fleischmann-Pons effect explains all the currently known experimental facts. The recommendations are given allowing a reproduction of this effect without a failure.

and

Based on the conducted investigations and data from the Table 1, it follows that in the process of a long-lasting heavy water electrolysis, inside of a cathode, the energy is accumulated in the form of the palladium deuterides with density equal to 0.381 MJ cm⁻³ (Table 1, #71, type A). This estimation is more than ten times less than estimation made by Fleischmann and Pons for specific energy released by a cathode, which was obtained based on erroneous account of the apparent excess power (of the type В) [1,13] and 5.036 MJ cm⁻³ (Table 1, #107). Nevertheless, the obtained by us real specific energy being accumulated by a cathode exceeds significantly the specific energy of contemporary organic energy carriers [45], which opens great possibilities for development of new forms of power industry.

Undoubtedly, the F-P effect requires further both experimental and theoretical investigations. Nevertheless, the determined in this paper mechanism of the F-P effect allows explaining all availablt should be especially noted that the current of the F-P effect initiation must not be too high. In a case of really great heating of the cathode up, all the energy accumulated in it in the form of deuterides can be released not during 5.5 h as it is shown in the Fig. 3(a) but instead during several seconds. This will result in an explosion of the cell. The phenomenon of cells explosion is very rare and yet it was observed by a number of investigators and described in the papers [1,[41], [42], [43], [44]]. As for this phenomenon, repeatedly we reproduced it in our laboratory, letting a current impulse through the cell, three times stronger than the one described above.e currently experimental data.

He is applying his knowledge of NiH battery chemistry and has found a Pd-H similar mechanism for chemical energy storage and exothermic release at higher temperatures.

He has methodology which conditions the electrode (in ways quite similar to LENR recommendations). He says the excess heat is higher than the case of other solid chemical carriers - though not very high. 0.381 MJ cm⁻³

He notes that the exothermic runaway can cause the cell to explode:

It should be especially noted that the current of the F-P effect initiation must not be too high. In a case of really great heating of the cathode up, all the energy accumulated in it in the form of deuterides can be released not during 5.5 h as it is shown in the Fig. 3(a) but instead during several seconds. This will result in an explosion of the cell. The phenomenon of cells explosion is very rare and yet it was observed by a number of investigators and described in the papers [1,[41], [42], [43], [44]]. As for this phenomenon, repeatedly we reproduced it in our laboratory, letting a current impulse through the cell, three times stronger than the one described above.

He has 100% reproducibility in his own experiments for both the slow release effect and the explosion effect.

This is nice quantitative work which is replicable, based on known chemistry, and will explain phenomenologically (but not quantitatively) most of the LENR electrochemistry results. Not, however, all of them.

It should be explored further - and replicated - as a possible form of not miracle but potentially useful chemical energy storage. If replicated, he might of course have made mistakes, or he might be correct.

Curbina - I don't understand why you say he explodes the idea that there are systematic errors? He provides a good explanation for burst effects (although it is limited in total energy that can be released so would not explain alone all such results).

His summary is:

Many investigators studying the F-P effect [10,11,13] point out that the excess energy can be of two types.

(Type A). The excess energy releases instantly in a form of a burst. In this case, the power released by a cell is superior several times to the power received at the moment by the cell from a power source. This type of the excess energy emerges very seldom and it is observed only after several weeks or months of electrolysis. This type of the excess energy can not be explained by any experimental mistakes.

(Type B). In this case, also the power released by a cell is superior to the power received at the moment by the cell from a power source but rather insignificantly. The excess energy of this type emerges on 2nd or 4th day after the electrolysis initiation and can be continued during many days. In our investigations, this type of the excess power emerged approximately in 7% of cases. Usually, this type of the excess power is explained by errors of calibrating or other experimental errors [[2], [3], [4], [5], [6]].

I get from his results that the energy stored as hydrides in these experiments after electrolysis can be a bit larger than you might expect, and can be released suddenly as a burst or even explosion.

Jed and others here would argue that even so some of the LENR results are quantitatively beyond even what this effect can provide. I'd agree.

I'd also agree with him that the remaining effects are likely to be calibration or other experimental errors, of all sorts, some probably systematic in the sense that they apply to many experiments.

It is however very notable that what he says is needed for his effect is very similar to what many LENR authors say is necessary for their effects.

THH

Just to compress all that.

This guy Galushkin says what I think everyone here would agree - that electrode deloading is exothermic. His experiments replicate F-P and quantify heat available from deloading, also they show sudden energy release (explosion) from the same mechanism.

He has a clear mechanism with analogy from Ni-H cells - which he knows well. He obtains energy storage (from he thinks deuteride dendrites/deposits) not unreasonable but a bit higher than many would expect (0.381MJ/cc).

Thus for a 1cc (12g) Pd cathode he would expect storage of 0.38MJ ~ 1W excess power for 4 days - to give you some idea of how much this could explain long-term excess heat.

It would certainly explain some LENR results - but not all. Galushkin thinks it explains F&P's claimed results, which however he says are 10X larger than his.

Based on the conducted investigations and data from the Table 1, it follows that in the process of a long-lasting heavy water electrolysis, inside of a cathode, the energy is accumulated in the form of the palladium deuterides with density equal to 0.381 MJ cm⁻³ (Table 1, #71, type A). This estimation is more than ten times less than estimation made by Fleischmann and Pons for specific energy released by a cathode, which was obtained based on erroneous account of the apparent excess power (of the type В) [1,13] and 5.036 MJ cm⁻³ (Table 1, #107).

Curbina hope I've answered your point now about Galushkin. Thanks for that reference - it is good to see somone quantifying that stuff, but not I think very surprising.

Quote from Curbina

And this exactly my point, when someone claims the FPE is real but it falls within your range of pre conceived possibilities, all is well for you, no more talk about systematic error, and you have a safe place where is possible to accept excess heat without it being nuclear, which is my entire point: That you don't even conceive the possibility of this being of nuclear origin.

I can conceive of the possibility - just as alien UAPs are possible (and in fact a bit more so) but it is very unlikely - for all the reasons you know from the early days when it gradually became clear that if LENR was nuclear it had to preferentially deliver undetectable products (stable isotopes, no high energy particles). That on top of the (actually much more plausible) coulomb barrier issue makes it less likely than other solutions.

But, you will note - that I did talk about error. I did not trust that one guy's results.

Quote from Alan Smith

So we have very few 'conventional' explanations for exothermy, one real outlier from Galushkin et al, plus Steve Jones and the (AFAIK) un-supported claims for Shanahan's ATER. I asked @ kshanahan several times to describe clearly an experiment to demonstrate ATER which I offered to perform, but he never came across with one. Incidentally he has not logged in since early 2020.

I don';t rate any of these explanations very highly. The difference, which surprises Curbina, is that when there are multiple hypotheses we choose the most likely. LENR starts off very unlikely, and does not make the precise predictions which would push it up enough post-unreplicable-and-certain-experiment. So it needs very very good experiments before nosing ahead.

Quote from Alan Smith

Dead right desorption is an endothermic process. This paper was written in 1971, and it describes an experiment I and a bunch of classmates repeated not long afterwards (probably because the college had just acquired a DSC. and were very proud of it)

Desorption of Hydrogen from Palladium and Palladium-Silver Alloys followed by Differential Scanning Calorimetry Chemistry Department, University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont Received October 18, 1971

I think he is saying here that the desorption alone - for Deuterium - is exothermic. and that he has experimental evidence of that.

This is different from the release from electrode and recombine reaction whoich he gives for H2 (and of course the heat release is much smaller).

Is he wrong (we know that deloading deuterium without recombination is not exothermic)?

Or am I misunderstanding his point here? Explosion etc could be reloading + recombination in many cases - but less so when there is an open cell.

It does not much sense to me unless he is saying that deloading alone is exothermic.

But, anyway, I don't favour any one of these many explanations. And I certainly do not expect any one explanation to cover all the experiments. Why should it? In fact I expect multiple explanations combining together in an unexpected way.

We have as possible explanations the list below. I include fraud although it is v low probability. It has however applied in a few cases of (non-electrolytic) LENR results: Rossi, Parkhomov. Parkhomov's case was massaging of data - which I believe he says is not fraud - but any significant post-processing of data not disclosed makes the results fraudulent even if the intent was not fraudulent (which I am quite prepared to believe).

• Ignoring or not fully evaluating accuracy issues (considering only precision, not testing worst case differences between calibration and active)
• Mistakes calculating accuracy - as opposed to precision - due to neglecting the amplifying effect of high input/excess powers on the accuracy bound where that relates to errors that scale with input power.
• Assuming recombination is zero
• Deloading and recombination for bursts
• Deloading (of D) alone for bursts (if galushkin is to be believed)
• Ignoring the effect of foam on calorimetry
• H2 or D2 leaking into air gaps
• Conflating checks (on one run) and positive results (on another unchecked run).
• Something not considered
• Mistakes in data collection
• Fraud

Since I admit - and as Jed is so keen to tell me - I am no expert here - something not considered is a big deal.

PS - I now expect Jed to read this and enumerate specific experiments where some subset of these things obviously do not apply...

For example, maybe deloading from highly loaded cathodes is exothermic?

Galushkin may of course just be totally wrong, or I may be misunderstanding what he says.

In which case one of those options can be removed (and if need be because we are wrong in that, brought back under the always possible something not considered).

Quote from Cydonia

My current job is the Li-ON cells manufacturing and i never seen what you said.

Sorry - Cydonia - what (that I said) did you not see? I am not sure quite what sort of hypotheses you have in Li-ion manufacture - nor whether you do hypothesis testing? In which case you would not see (my comment about that) anyway!

If you do hypothesis testing, but without considering the a priori likelihood of hypotheses, that will work if you do so implicitly by selecting as candidate hypotheses only the ones that seem most likely? That is actually what mots people do. So that "Russian hackers controlled my PC to fake the results" is not normally considered as a hypothesis for unusual results even though it might, in principle, be possible.

Quote from Cydonia

You have no expertise and are a mythomanic ball, so shut up...

That is not polite. Better you shut up for a little?

Quote from Alan Smith

I would just point out that battery electrodes are not Palladium, but other metals. So-called Palladium Hydride is not really an ionic hydride, but a pseudo non-eutectic alloy,.

Yes, Ni-H cathodes are some hydrogen-absorbing metal, not (for cost and I guess stability reasons) Pd. And PdHx is Pd with H diffused into it interstitially.

Hydrogen, considered as metal under high pressures, is very interesting:

In 1968, Neil Ashcroft suggested that metallic hydrogen might be a superconductor, up to room temperature (290 K or 17 °C). This hypothesis is based on an expected strong coupling between conduction electrons and lattice vibrations.^[12] This may have actually been confirmed as of early 2019; metallic hydrogen has been made at least twice in the laboratory, and a 250K Meissner effect has been tentatively observed but not independently verified by Silvera et al. and a team in France.^[13]

I guess in PdHx the bonding with the interstitial H is not ionic because the H electron is delocalised rather than bound to a specific local Pd?