Why is this fact ignored?Storms, E. (2019). "The Enthalpy of Formation of PdH as a Function of H/Pd Atom Ratio." J. Cond. Matter. Nucl. Sci. 29: 275-285.
In the case of this skeptic - it was ignored because you did not reference it in the paper you posted here. (Or at least not explicitly in that context). I realise thought that was only a draft!
Is it possible that a small additional amount of heat energy comes from the physical re-ordering of the lattice when the D2/H2 is desorbed?
Alan, The reported value for the formation reaction contains all sources of energy. The reverse reaction must have exactly the same value as the forward reaction. Otherwise, energy could be produced forever simply by reversing a reaction.
In the case of this skeptic - it was ignored because you did not reference it in the paper you posted here. (Or at least not explicitly in that context). I realise thought that was only a draft!
THH, I'm not faulting you personally. The paper you quoted contains the original ignorance. You only failed to apply your critical skills.
Another semi famous skeptic paper that claims that the origin of excess heat in LENR comes from an ion exchange process between H and D, at least shows clearly that it is initially endothermic, and the reasons they give to justify this as “the origin of excess heat claims” completely ignore that a calorimeter catches this process right away.
https://www.colorado.edu/faculty/moddel/sites/default/files/attached-files/dmitriyeva12b.pdf
2) It is true that the amount of possible recombination, undetected because Staker does (it seems) not bother to detect evaporation, is about the same as the excess heat results.
No, that is not a bit true. During the heat bursts, complete recombination would produce far less apparent heat than what he measures. Evaporation would decrease the excess heat, not increase it. It would remove enthalpy. So if there is undetected evaporation, that means his excess heat is more than he reports, not less.
It is also not true that Staker "does not bother to detect" evaporation. He couldn't miss it. He would definitely detect it using the methods he describes, which are monitoring the temperature, setting the flow rate of the IV pump, and checking the water level. Anyone would see evaporation by doing that, and there is no way that evaporation could hide recombination. You have been saying that could happen, but you are wrong. It is easy to tell them apart. Anyway, if evaporation magically hid the effects of recombination, that would hide more excess heat than it would create false excess heat.
THH, I'm not faulting you personally. The paper you quoted contains the original ignorance. You only failed to apply your critical skills.
Ed - you do realise that is an oxymoron?
You argue that very high recombination is not possible. But with no evidence it is impossible. Just "it does not usually happen at high rates".
I know for a fact it is impossible. But suppose I am wrong. The methods described by Staker would definitely reveal recombination. He could not fail to see it, and evaporation cannot hide it.
No, that is not a bit true. During the heat bursts, complete recombination would produce far less apparent heat than what he measures. Evaporation would decrease the excess heat, not increase it. It would remove enthalpy. So if there is undetected evaporation, that means his excess heat is more than he reports, not less.
It is also not true that Staker "does not bother to detect" evaporation. He couldn't miss it. He would definitely detect it using the methods he describes, which are monitoring the temperature, setting the flow rate of the IV pump, and checking the water level. Anyone would see evaporation by doing that, and there is no way that evaporation could hide recombination. You have been saying that could happen, but you are wrong. It is easy to tell them apart. Anyway, if evaporation magically hid the effects of recombination, that would hide more excess heat than it would create false excess heat.
Jed. I have agreed that several times.
I'm talking about the overall hest budget over 46 days - not the heat burst.
I agree with you that it would have effects - if he monitored it.
You said, however, that he would manually adjust the preset fill-up - as needed. I agree that is about the only way what he says make sense. But in that case "he would notice" is your assumption.
Another semi famous skeptic paper that claims that the origin of excess heat in LENR comes from an ion exchange process between H and D, at least shows clearly that it is initially endothermic, and the reasons they give to justify this as “the origin of excess heat claims” completely ignore that a calorimeter catches this process right away.
It's obvious and common knowledge that all kinds of chemical processes can generate temporary energy in a chemical system. This paper describes such a source. The authors made the error of relating this chemical energy to the energy resulting from cold fusion. The two sources have no relationship in magnitude, duration, or logic. Consequently, this paper should be an embarrassment to the authors and to anyone using the paper as support for the rejection of cold fusion.
I know for a fact it is impossible. But suppose I am wrong. The methods described by Staker would definitely reveal recombination. He could not fail to see it, and evaporation cannot hide it.
I actually agree - as I've said above, the amount of recombination needed for this excess heat would probably be noticeable. But I do not trust these results given that what is said in the paper is not what actually must have been done. And Staker says that the amount of evaporation is not significant, which makes me think he would not have measured it.
Ed - you do realise that is an oxymoron?
Perhaps, but I would say this is the same as the difference between a liar and a person who fails to detect the lie.
Jed. I have agreed that several times.
I'm talking about the overall hest budget over 46 days - not the heat burst.
What do you mean by that? The 28-hour heat burst alone produced far more heat than any chemical effect could have, or than recombination could have. It was far more than any chemical storage could have put into the cathode. The heat burst alone is proof of a non-chemical effect. The overall heat budget for 46 days is irrelevant. Why are you even talking about it? If you cannot explain the heat burst, you have to agree there is non-chemical excess heat.
I actually agree - as I've said above, the amount of recombination needed for this excess heat would probably be noticeable.
Probably? Do you think no one would notice the cell has filled up and is overflowing? He said the water level did not change. Are you saying you don't believe him? If you don't believe what he wrote, you might as well dismiss the entire paper as fiction.
And Staker says that the amount of evaporation is not significant, which makes me think he would not have measured it.
He could not have avoided measuring it. You cannot fail to see it with the methods he used. The cell fills up with water! If evaporation magically removed that exact same amount of water -- always the right amount, even though the temperature changed radically -- that would increase the excess heat, not decrease it.
Ed - you do realise that is an oxymoron?
I am sure he thinks you are smarter than that.
What do you mean by that? The 28-hour heat burst alone produced far more heat than any chemical effect could have, or than recombination could have. It was far more than any chemical storage could have put into the cathode. The heat burst alone is proof of a non-chemical effect. The overall heat budget for 46 days is irrelevant. Why are you even talking about it? If you cannot explain the heat burst, you have to agree there is non-chemical excess heat.
As always, I mean what I say.
There were two extraordinary results from that paper, the 46 day result, and the heat burst result.
They need to be considered separately. Neither is irrelevant (or they would not have been calculated). Both claim to show LENR. Both need analysis.
You are as always doing a binary LENR / no LENR analysis of work. Whereas I am critically appraising it, as one should, trying to work out what it means, how it can be replicated, etc.
I agree (I did that several pages ago when we first discussed it, after you pushed me to look at it) that the burst data shows above chemical excess heat if the calorimetry is accurate for that. It is stronger than the 46 day evidence, The question would be - is anything (e.g. foam, bubbles) that might alter the calorimetry different between the control and active tubes during that period. Since meniscus level (Staker says) alters results I guess foam might as well. The burst data is less well validated for that so I am less inclined to take it as strong evidence. But, even the non-burst data needs validation for foam altering calorimetry?
Your approach is fine: but not good science. You have to look at all of these details one by one and make sense of them - not make sweeping statements.
THH
He could not have avoided measuring it. You cannot fail to see it with the methods he used. The cell fills up with water! If evaporation magically removed that exact same amount of water -- always the right amount, even though the temperature changed radically -- that would increase the excess heat, not decrease it.
Jed, you are not reading the paper, and thinking through.
He SAYS that he has a pre-computed set of fill-up speeds based on electrolysis current.
Now, that would be worked out from initial runs, and include evaporation. So it would work, without explicitly measuring evaporation.
Then, given there is a different temperature in the active cell, that would lead to a difference in evaporation and therefore over a long time level. What does he do? Manual ad hoc fill-up (probable) - or nothing. Does he record that extra fill-up? Unlikely, since he never mentions it. From his point of view it is safe not recording it because evaporation does not need to be measured.
Evaporation not recorded would be conservative (reduce the apparent excess heat)
Evaporation + the same amount of recombination would however increase the apparent excess heat.
What we have is an unknown amount of evaporation + recombination. If he was exactly measuring fill-up and relating that to the predicted temperature-dependent evaporation - he would exactly know recombination. He is not doing any of that.
The fact that he does not say how he resolves this issue, and that his assumption that evaporation does not matter is incorrect, because he cannot know recombination without knowing evaporation, makes his results questionable. He probably never checked.
It is silly really, a bit more care with the details would have sorted this out. We would know how he dealt with things and very possibly it would be safe enough.
In reality - the most likely errors here are calorimetry due to changes in cell conditions - since we know meniscus level change is an issue and foaming may alter things. But without precise measurement of everything we (and he) cannot check everything properly and errors can then not be found.
And Staker says that the amount of evaporation is not significant, which makes me think he would not have measured it.
Actually, I asked him. He said the effects of evaporation cannot be detected below 80 deg C.
The question would be - is anything (e.g. foam, bubbles) that might alter the calorimetry different between the control and active tubes during that period.
There is no foam in a cold fusion cell. If there were any, it would poison the cold fusion reaction. There are bubbles, but at these power levels, not enough to obscure the water level. No doubt you dispute that. You don't believe it. I suggest you try doing some electrolysis and you will see for yourself. But of course you will never do that!
Your approach is fine: but not good science.
Whereas your approach is to make up imaginary nonsense that you could easily disprove with grade school level experiments, or by reading a textbook, but you never take these steps.
He SAYS that he has a pre-computed set of fill-up speeds based on electrolysis current.
He also says these fill-up speeds worked. They kept the water level the same. In both the cold fusion cell and the control cell. The current and the fill-up rate was exactly the same in both. So the excess heat was not caused by them, and it was not hot enough to affect the water level with extra evaporation.
He confirmed that in a message to me, today, as it happens.
Then, given there is a different temperature in the active cell, that would lead to a difference in evaporation and therefore over a long time level. What does he do? Manual ad hoc fill-up (probable) - or nothing.
As I said, he confirmed the different temperature was not high enough to change the fill-up rate. There was no manual ad hoc fill up. No "fudge factor" needed. (Fudge factor is how I put it.) I asked about that, too, before I read your message.
Why do you say "probable" here? Probable based on what? Where did you get that information? Answer: Nowhere. You made that up. Stop making things up.
In reality - the most likely errors here are calorimetry due to changes in cell conditions - since we know meniscus level change is an issue and foaming may alter things.
No we do not "know" that. It is nonsense. Any electrochemist who saw foam in the cell would discontinue the experiment. Foam is known to clobber cold fusion and many other reactions. It comes from surfactants. There is never any foam. There are bubbles, but they immediately pop and go away.
There are no likely errors in this calorimetry. If there were any errors, they would show up during calibration which is done before, during and after the tests, and they would show up in the control cell which is next to the active cell, and which is subjected to exactly the same electrolytic power and IV pump fill-up rate. You cannot find any errors in this calorimeter, or the calorimetry in any other major cold fusion paper. You have never found an error. You wave your hands and talk about "changes in cell conditions" but you never specify which conditions. Because you do not know of any. No one can prove or falsify a vague statement about "changing conditions" unless you spell out what conditions they are, and how they might change the calorimetry.
You wave your hands and talk about imaginary foam, but in real life there is no foam. Recombination at the cathode is also impossible, as you would see if you try to induce it yourself. If it did happen, it would be obvious, using the methods that Staker and all other electrochemists employ. Since we know these imaginary problems do not happen, and cannot happen, you are wrong.
He also says these fill-up speeds worked. They kept the water level the same. In both the cold fusion cell and the control cell. The current and the fill-up rate was exactly the same in both. So the excess heat was not caused by them, and it was not hot enough to affect the water level with extra evaporation.
As I said, he confirmed the different temperature was not high enough to change the fill-up rate.
Jed: on this thread: 200 years old physics means that the evaporation rate can be calculated from the temperature.
In that case we have something not understood about this experiment. The temperature difference between the active and control cells is around 2C - 65C to 67C.
You (please do it - I did it many pages ago - but I'd appreciate a check) can calculate the two different equilibrium vapour pressures for H2O. The graph of equilibrium vapour pressure goes up sharply as you approach 100C - where it is 1 atmosphere (100kPa).
Vapour pressure of water - Wikipedia
65C 25kPa
70C 31kPa
Interpolate: difference between 65C and 67C is 2.4kPa. Or 2.4% of 1 atmosphere.
You can then work out the number of moles of H20/D2O difference in evaporation between the two cases. It will I am sure not surprise you that it is roughly 2.4% of the total amount electrolysed, and hence the total fill-up. (By the same reasoning the total evaporation is roughly 27% if the electrolysed amount).
I say roughly because partial pressures need to be converted to moles, but:
The partial pressure of an individual gas is equal to the total pressure multiplied by the mole fraction of that gas. Because it is dependent solely on the number of particles and not the identity of the gas, the Ideal Gas Equation applies just as well to mixtures of gases as it does to pure gases.
So: a mole fraction of 2.4% corresponds to:
2.4% mol H20 vs 100% mol (H2 + 0.5O2)
Or a 1.5X increase by mass
2.4% X 1.5 of 162cc = 6g ~ 6cc (I remember it being lower when I calculated it before - but I'm sure you can correct this).
Anyway - even 1cc would I believe matter since Staker says the meniscus level is critical to the calorimetry.
I am very glad you are in communication with him - you will be able to resolve this.
If he kept the experiment under a very high pressure - e.g. 5 atmospheres - that would reduce evaporation and hence the magnitude of this effect? he says he uses a positive pressure but I imagined only a small positive pressure to prevent atmospheric ingress.
Had he published a few more details we would not need all this analysis...
I assume that we do not have the exhaust gasses cooling down outside the calorimetric boundary such that the condensed vapour can return to the cell because that would mean that varying evaporation, or D2 vs O2, would change the calibration constant. Perhaps though this is OK? The heat of vaporisation is much smaller then the excess heat - so that is not the issue. But differential heat transfer from outside to inside due to conduction through variable amounts of liquid is an issue. What do you think?
THH
You wave your hands and talk about imaginary foam, but in real life there is no foam. Recombination at the cathode is also impossible, as you would see if you try to induce it yourself. If it did happen, it would be obvious, using the methods that Staker and all other electrochemists employ. Since we know these imaginary problems do not happen, and cannot happen, you are wrong.
The only way you can get persisting foam in an electrolytic system is of there are film-forming surfctants present. The usual way this comes about is if (for example) you use an alkaline electrolyte and there is grease from fingerprints etc on the tank or the electrodes. The combination of fats and alkalis makes soap. If everything is clean, you see no foam. As for exothermic re-combination, it is as I have said before not seen. However, the endothermic production of hydrogen peroxide at the cathode is possible and has been shown to be real..
