Ed Storms Pre-print on Cold Fusion, Materials and Gaps. Comments Please!

Quote from Storms

Normally, the basic conclusions resulting from good studies are not rejected just because some error is present or can be imagined, especially when several people see the same behavior. Only in this field is everything rejected because an error can be imagined.

THH and others cannot imagine an error. They can only imagine that they imagine there is an error. They cannot think of any verifiable error, so instead they say it may be that "both the excess measured energy and the excess measured He4 both depend on the same variables." That is impossible. THH cannot suggest any way that might happen, but he thinks he does not need to be specific. Just proclaiming Impossible Hypothesis X or Preposterous Hypothesis Y automatically wins the argument in his world.

When you imagine that you imagine an error, you are twice removed from the scientific method. It is but the dream of a dream, as they say in Japanese.

Quote from rubycarat

You claim that high-loading is not necessary to initiate or sustain a reaction.

Not to put words in Ed's mouth, I think he says high-loading is needed to initiate the reaction with bulk Pd electrolysis, but not to sustain it later in heat after death. High loading is apparently not needed with other techniques such as gas loading. Gas loading cannot achieve loading as high as McKubre shows is needed here:

Introduction

I think that graph is proof that high loading is necessary with bulk Pd. It has data from SRI and ENEA, and others have confirmed this.

Let me copy the graph here for convenience:

Ok, now what's about the NIH way ?

Quote from JedRothwell

Pour ne pas mettre les mots dans la bouche d'Ed, je pense qu'il dit qu'une charge élevée est nécessaire pour initier la réaction avec l'électrolyse Pd en vrac, mais pas pour la maintenir plus tard dans la chaleur après la mort. Un chargement élevé n'est apparemment pas nécessaire avec d'autres techniques telles que le chargement de gaz. Le chargement de gaz ne peut pas atteindre un chargement aussi élevé que le montre McKubre est nécessaire ici :

https://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?page_id=263

Je pense que ce graphique est la preuve qu'un chargement élevé est nécessaire avec le Pd en vrac. Il dispose de données du SRI et de l'ENEA, et d'autres l'ont confirmé.

Permettez-moi de copier le graphique ici pour plus de commodité :

Display More

Quote from David Nygren

Many thanks Storms for sharing your insights!

And thanks to everyone who writes, let's keep this thread on topic!

Thanks David and everyone who is trying to understand this very odd phenomenon. Clearly, the very odd behavior has exceeded the ability of modern science to understand. So, the idea is treated to either rejection or explanations that are based on pure imagination. Somehow, the behaviors need to be evaluated objectively and then combined to reveal the hidden mechanism. I'm trying to do this. This effort has resulted in 10 review papers and two books, most of which are not read by skeptics nor by people who make up the theories. The paper being discussed here is another effort to get people to focus on what is real rather than on what they think they know. Getting this paper published in a conventional journal will be my next challenge. Hopefully, the comments made here will help me to modify the text to eliminate any confusion.

Quote from rubycarat

You claim that high-loading is not necessary to initiate or sustain a reaction.

Is this an accurate statement of your model?

High loading is only required when the extra expansion caused by high loading is required to expand the gaps to the critical size in PdD. After the critical size is created, the high loading is no longer required because the gap size becomes stable and is not changed by the loading. If the critical gap size can be achieved by less expansion, high loading would not be required. Other materials would have different behavior in this regard.

That is my story and I'm sticking to it.

Ed

To be clear, electrolysis and gas loading are identical from the material's viewpoint. The difference is only in the chemical activity applied. Electrolysis allows a much higher chemical activity to be achieved. The conditions in the original material determine the chemical activity required to create the critical gap size, not the method used to apply the chemical activity.

Nickel can be used just like Pd as long as gaps of a critical size can be created. These can exist within the solid structure or between small particles. The effect does not care where the gaps are located. Only the gap size matters.

Ed

Quote from THHuxleynew

My comment about lack of replication was that Ed was, as I understand it, summarising work in the field.

Quote from JedRothwell

The methods used to measure energy are totally different from those used to measure helium. In most studies, helium is measured after the experiment concludes, from samples taken during the experiment. With Miles and some others it was measured with 2 or 3 different mass spectrometers, in double blind tests, in labs that did not measure heat. There is no conceivable systematic error that could cause these values to correlate. The systems (instruments) used to measure them are totally different in principle and construction, located in different labs, and operated by different people.

In short, your suggestion is preposterous.

Jed. You did not read my post. All that is needed is an independent variable, uncontrolled, with which both excess heat and He4 correlates. So your first paragraph (even if true - since I've not thought about it I am willing to accept your greater knowledge for now at least) does not imply your second paragraph.

Please state that you agree with the paragraph above, or if you do not understand it ask for more clarification, or provide some counter-argument?

Quote from JedRothwell

The papers give you all of the "source data" you need to understand it is preposterous. I cannot imagine you read them because anyone who reads them would know what I just said. You wish to avoid "elaborating" is an excuse to avoid reading the papers, or stopping to think for a moment.

That is not true, because at least some experimental write-ups have described methodology - including selection methodology, exact conditions for stopping/rerunning tests, etc, etc in detail. If experiments do not do this, then their results cannot safely be used in any sort of statistical aggregation (even within one group).

By source data I did not mean the experiment source data, but details of how the aggregation is done, how many groups, what number variation between groups, are different groups averages averages or is it an average of all runs etc. Just what would normally be needed.

Toi validate any statistical aggregation you need to know:

(1) balance between different groups. For example 150 runs aggregated with 120 runs coming from one group does not give much additional information.

(2) selection methodology for experiments/groups chosen to aggregate

(3) details, for the individual experiments, of experiment methodology specifically exclusion criteria, experiment stopping criteria, etc.

Without all those three things I can show you a way that aggregation could give highly misleading results. With them - it is possible to check whjetehr it might give highly misleading results.

My comment about lack of replication was that Ed was, as I understand it, summarising work in the field.

Jed then quoted my quote exactly as above and said

Quote from JedRothwell

It would appear you did not read the paper. There are 64 footnotes listing his sources. Most of them list other people's work.

Please, Jed, abstain from making reactive criticism of what I write based on what you expect it to be, when reading what I actually say shows that in fact I say the opposite. In this case it is an extreme example - the tiny fragment you quote contradicts what you accuse me of.

Unless you think I think a review paper is written with zero references?

THH

Quote from THHuxleynew

Jed. You did not read my post. All that is needed is an independent variable, uncontrolled, with which both excess heat and He4 correlates.

I did read your post. Several times. Rubbing my eyes after reading. Okay, so tell us:

What independent variable would that be? Give an example. How could it affect both the heat and helium mass spectroscopy? BE SPECIFIC. No handwaving about imaginary or hypothetical variables; tell us about an actual variable that might exist with this equipment, with these techniques, showing the same answer in 3 mass spectrometers used months after the heat is measured.

I gave an example above from someone who actually tried to address the issue. They speculated that higher heat caused more helium to leak in from the atmosphere. Miles addressed that and showed it is not the case. Now it is your turn. Tell us what variable might cause this.

Also, if this variable is uncontrolled, why would the heat correlate with many parameters such as loading, materials characteristics, and temperature? It would be random. It would not fit in McKubre's equation.

Quote from THHuxleynew

Without all those three things I can show you a way that aggregation could give highly misleading results. With them - it is possible to check whether it might give highly misleading results.

TH, you ask for the impossible. The effect is not statistical. It is not based on a random process. When the required conditions are present, it happens without any doubt. The excess power is easy to measure without ambiguity. Why are you so determined to deny this fact?

Of course, you are welcome to believe that I and everyone else are incompetent and do not know how to measure heat energy; that only you can understand the errors that we are making. If this is the case, we would have nothing to discuss.

I showed a comparison between four separate studies of the He/energy ratio in the papers I provided. Why is this evidence not good enough? McKubre made the same measurements using gas loading of a different material and measured the same behavior. Why not give these measurements the benefit of doubt and try to explore what this behavior means?

Jed,

We disagree about a number of things, but I've noted an unfortunate tendency, when you reply to me a lot all at once, of your completely misunderstanding what I say.

In each of the three posts above I have highlighted where you have misunderstood me, and then said something not very polite about me based on what you think I said, but where in fact I said something different - or opposite.

In the way of this site - your incorrect replies are liked - as though this was some sort of pro/anti LENR game of cricket. Absurd. Personally, it interests me how evidence stands up, what indications it can give to some greater understanding of the world, not whether it agrees with my expectations.

I am no shrinking violet and will post things I think are interesting and logically related to other stuff here - independent of views of others.

I will also happily engage in dialog and correct any mistakes I make.

I'd recommend to you that you read what I write and think about it before replying. I'd also recommend you entertain the possibility that when you do not understand me... it is becasue you have misunderstood me - not that I am talking nonsense or wrong.

I am sometimes wrong, but I seldom talk nonsense. When i am wrong I admit it, or else we can drill down to some judgement about the world where you and I simply have different views. I think everyone here accepts there are those different views, and therefore discounts that part of what I say. Mostly though I am interested in the internal consistency and consequences of things other people post - for that whatever judgements I or you make about the overall preponderance of evidence on LENR in the world is irrleevant,

As a general point. If Daniel and various other people here are correct, we will very shortly have clear indisputable evidence of LENR ion a form that will convince everyone - including me. I look forward to this - and I hope for this. However I have been on this site for some time, and looked at LENR a bit before coming to this site (though of course nowhere near as long as you). My experience has taught me to be cautious.

My posts here reflect that caution - by suggesting ways in which apparently slam dunk results might in fact not turn out to be what they seem, when I can see such ways.

THH

Quote from Storms

TH, you ask for the impossible. The effect is not statistical. It is not based on a random process. When the required conditions are present, it happens without any doubt. The excess power is easy to measure without ambiguity. Why are you so determined to deny this fact?

Ed - the random stuff related specifically to H4 correlations - where one issue is leakage which can be modelled as a random process, both lab elevated He4, and leakage of given equipment. Otherwise, unless the conditions for success are as you say known and can be measured and recorded, conditions that are variable behave as a random process and introduce the standard statistical issues.

I am more interested in your question, and comment on it below.

That is a very good question. That you state it with assurance gives me hope. On this site there is been discussion of a "lab rat" experiment that could fairly easily be replicated and would give clear evidence of LENR. Thus far, I don't think there is any consensus as to what experiment fulfills those criteria - though I think people have hopes:

LEC - I agree it is lab rat and shows unexpected production of atmospheric ions (best guess), and therefore indicates unexpected surface behaviour. I don't agree it points to LENR, although it could hint at surface mechanisms (high Q plasmons etc) that might be required to generate LENR. I also note that the LEC phenomenon has been noted before in other contexts (sorry - I and otehrs put links on the LEC thread, I do not have them to hand). So I think understanding LECs is very worthwhile, and might have some utility in theorising about LENR, but I do not think the LEC phenomenon is LENR.

Excess heat experiments (e.g. Daniel - following Mizuno - gaseous H/Ni mesh). Hope I've got that right Daniel. There has been less high quality work in this area then for D/Pd electrolysis and I have not yet seen any detailed experimental writeups which taking all into account look convincing. But Daniel and maybe others think they do have not yet released evidence which is convincing. So we will see, and I am very interested, though even more cautious. (The Clean Planet published experiments are distinctly not convincing when viewed as a time series and appraised).

Other lab rate stuff currently being pursued? Perhaps, Ed, you would suggest a D/Pd classical experiment, or given what you say H/Pd the same, which would serve this purpose. Personally I've always been more interested in D/Pd than anything else because it has a clearer track record of positive results. If due to your work it is possible reliably to obtain working materials then I think on this site we should reopen the question of "what is a good lab rat experiment?".

Quote from THHuxleynew

In each of the three posts above I have highlighted where you have misunderstood me,

I do not misunderstand you. Your writing is clear and easy to understand. You say there is an independent, uncontrolled variable that causes spurious readings of both heat and helium. Okay, so what is it? Tell us, specifically, what variable could have that effect?

If you cannot list an actual variable that might affect thermocouples in one lab, and then three mass spectrometers in other labs months later, you have no case.

You might come up with a hypothesis like the one I listed above: actual heat (real heat, not spurious) causes extra helium to enter the cell. It makes the equipment walls more permeable. Miles showed this does not happen. However, the hypothesis is plausible. It can be tested. It was tested and found wrong. You have not given us any hypothesis that we can test.

By the way, I discussed the permeable cell material hypothesis here, on p. 8:

https://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJintroducti.pdf

Quote from JedRothwell

What independent variable would that be? Give an example. How could it affect both the heat and helium mass spectroscopy? BE SPECIFIC.

OK:

runtime

excess heat ~ runtime

leakage from atmosphere ~ runtime

There are various arguments against this, and also more elaborate (realistic) models of what happens which address those arguments against. All of which depend on experimental methodology. For example, when you run and experiment maybe you observe higher than expected He4, and conclude that is due to leakage. So you rerun the experiment with new apparatus.

More subtly:

excess heat - depends on runtime

runtime - depends on excess heat. e.g. if no excess heat some protocols will terminate the experiment early (F&P have done this).

THH

PS - I have another variable that could cause correlations, if you don't like the one above.

Quote from JedRothwell

I do not misunderstand you. Your writing is clear and easy to understand

In

Quote from THHuxleynew

My comment about lack of replication was that Ed was, as I understand it, summarising work in the field.

Jed then quoted my quote exactly as above and said

Please, Jed, abstain from making reactive criticism of what I write based on what you expect it to be, when reading what I actually say shows that in fact I say the opposite. In this case it is an extreme example - the tiny fragment you quote contradicts what you accuse me of.

Unless you think I think a review paper is written with zero references?

THH

Display More

I think you misunderstood me. (you need to click through to the post to see what you said - I hate this site's cross-referencing capabilities)_.

Quote from JedRothwell

If you cannot list an actual variable that might affect thermocouples in one lab, and then three mass spectrometers in other labs months later, you have no case.

This is a matter of causality.

All I need is an uncontrolled variable (that is one that varies and is not included in the results) which correlates with both He4 and excess heat. That will result in a correlation.

Of course a fusion reaction could be such a variable. But so could many other things.

So observation of a correlation on its own is not enough - and for He measurements the problems from lab atmosphere leakage - which is difficult to control - make otehr correlations quite possible.

THH, please examine this attached figure. It compares 16 measurements made by 4 independent studies. The histogram shows that a random error is present, as you suggested. But the amount of this error is not sufficient to negate all of these measurements being caused by a common process. The probability of all the values agreeing with each other and giving an average that is 50% lower that the ratio produced by 2D=He is too small to consider. I suggest you do the calculations if you do not believe me. The missing He would be contained in the PdD lattice because the expected trapped He was not measured. When Mckubre used the Case material, the agreement with the expected ratio was much closer because solid Pd was not used.

As for using a lab rat, success requires the use of active material. This has been a problem, as my paper acknowledges. Based on my experience, CoDep has the highest success rate when it is done correctly. Nevertheless, the success is not 100% because it's difficult to control all the variables. This is where the random chance operates.

I have published a similar figure for tritium production, which also should not be produced in a material. Consequently, we are provided with a large collection of evidence, not just He. Why is this huge body of evidence ignored?

Ed