That is (all but) incorrect. Heat leakage from Seebeck envelope calorimeter is negligible. It is so small you have difficulty detecting it. That is why they are called "envelope" calorimeters. Bomb calorimeter types also have negligible heat losses
Jed, you are being argumentative here.
- Bomb calorimeters - irrelevant since cannot be used for the type of experiments we are talking about
- Seebeck calorimeters - they have an equivalent to leakage - which is uneven heat detection from different heat detectors.
- Whether leakage is negligible is something to be considered on a case-by-case basis not assumed.
- Other than Storms's work - where measurement inequality remains an issue because only partially explored (possibly leakage too) - in fact Ed's results are low enough that many things including unknown unknowns remain issues (none of which is in any way the fault of his careful experimentation) - who has positive good quality LENR results from a Seebeck calorimeter?
You are fond of saying that the factor that matters to determine how convincing results are is magnitude of results / calculated calorimeter error after calibration.
That is normally true. For experiments where cell conditions are potentially different between calibration and active runs in ways that cannot easily be measure that assumption (that calibration works) breaks down. The real factor is
magnitude of results / (calculated calibration error after calibration + possible erors introduced by differences between calibration and active runs)
The latter factor is impossible to measure exactly and is typically bounded (which is fine). However those bounds are made on the basis of assumptions which need case-by-case examination. In particular because electrolysis LENR experiments are rather unusual - compared with normal calorimetry - the assumptions that highly experienced competent calorimetrist normally make may not hold. You need both a highly experienced competent calorimetrist and somone willing to question assumptions looking beyond wat normally happens to potential unusual anomalies - unexpected ATER being one such example.
Why look so carefully for anomalies when it is not normally done?
Ummm.... Because for everyone except the LENR community the results are anomalous. Once you accept that LENR is likely to happen - it becomes the preferred solution to a large class of anomalies. It fits almost anything well because its predictions (until we have a more definite underlying theory) are so non-specific.
Therein lies part of the "psychological bias" we are talking about. And that non-specificity is what all those of good will who want to find high quality evidence for LENR should be concerned about. It must, if LENR is real - be possible to find some more specific results from a combination of better defining the theory or better characterising experiments.
For as long as CF effects remain so non-specific LENR is not a good scientific hypothesis. Some other hypothesis (e.g. - they are caused by alien scientists who are simulating the universe and want to explore how much unclassifiable anomalies are recognised by earth scientists in order to better understand what level of "contrary to physical laws" influence they can do on earth without being detected) might be more specific.
There are many strongly accepted physical mechanisms which give rise to non-specific results from some experiments. There are no accepted physical mechanisms that make no specific predictions.
That does not stop LENR from being a valid hypothesis - just not one that scientists will be very enthusiastic about.
My personal negativity about LENR comes from the fact that it remains so ill-defined. If folks here were advocating one variety of electrolytic fusion (as was expected at the time of F&P's experiments) then we would have a narrower theory making better predictions. Every time those predictions are negative (e.g. to take the first big issue at that time lack of easily detectable high energy particles) the class of underlying possible mechanisms gets larger, less clear, and more radically different from what we currently have.
Against that we have some positives. A definite theory (have not yet seen a preferred one) of NAE nuclear activity that generates only alpha particles would surely be testable by electrolytic experiments designed so that alpha detectors could be in close proximity to the NAEs. The CR39 alpha claims could be folded into this both quantitatively and qualitatively and a coherent predictive theory would start to emerge.
That (example) positive comes with a caveat. When it is definite enough to be a good hypothesis it will also be definite enough to be shot down if its specific testable predictions are found to be wrong.
Scientists without psychological bias - both experimental and theoretical - can look for such hypotheses and the definite predictions they make.
