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

• OK:

runtime

excess heat ~ runtime

leakage from atmosphere ~ runtime

The meaning is a little unclear to me. I think you are saying that both excess heat and leakage increase with time, so they will both go up in a correlated way.

Are you confusing power (that is, heat) with energy? In most cases shown by Miles, excess heat does not increase with time. It varies within a range, but you do not get more with more time. See the graphs at the end of this paper:

Net excess energy, when present, does increase over time, of course. Both the power and the energy from electrolysis have no effect on the helium level.

Miles does not measure helium during electrolysis, but helium must increase over time, because it does not leak. After a test, the same amount of helium is found in the collection flask when it is measured repeatedly, several times, months apart, so we know it is not leaking in or out. Helium also increases monotonically in experiments where people measure it on-line during electrolysis. It increases faster when there is more excess heat.

With Miles, the duration of the helium measurement was always the same, 1.2 hours. So if helium was leaking in at a constant rate, there would be the same amount in every sample. It would not correlate with excess heat. If it was leaking in at random rates, it would not correlate with excess heat or anything else.

A small amount of helium does leak in at a constant rate. The background helium. It is the same for all 1.2 hour samples: 3.4 to 4.6 ppb, with no excess heat. With excess heat it was 7 to 9 ppb, correlated with the level of excess heat. If this was a leak, it would be somewhere around 1,000 to 5,400 ppb (atmospheric). In some experiments, they start out at 5,400 and go up from there, which eliminates the leak hypothesis.

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

Runtime is always 1.2 hours, as I said. With other on-line experiments, runtime for helium is the entire experiment, including times when it produces excess heat, and times when it does not. But excess helium above background only appears when there is heat, and the amount is correlated with the heat. When there is no excess heat, neither excess heat nor excess energy for the entire experiment increase at all. They are both zero, and there is never any excess helium in these cases. Nothing above background.

I discussed these issues here:

• After a test, the same amount of helium is found in the collection flask when it is measured repeatedly, several times, months apart, so we know it is not leaking in or out.

A small amount of helium does leak in at a constant rate. The background helium. It is the same for all 1.2 hour samples: 3.4 to 4.6 ppb, with no excess heat.

That sound contradictory, but it isn't. There are two different vessels here: the cell and the collection flask. During the experiment, helium leaks into the combined cell, hose and collection flask. The collection flask is left in place for 2 days (48 hours). Given the level of electrolysis, effluent gas passes through the cell and flask, with a total volume 40 times larger than the two. So the final volume is collected over 1.2 hours. The first 46.8 hours of effluent gas purge the cell and flask. After 48 hours, the flask is closed off. During the last 1.2 hours, 3.4 to 4.6 ppb of helium leak in. After the flask is closed off, practically no helium leaks in or out for months. It is a tightly sealed metal flask.

The flask was sent to 3 different labs to measure the helium in double blind tests. All 3 labs came up with the same numbers. Some of the flasks had different kinds of samples, such as air from the laboratory, instead of effluent gas from electrolysis. These samples had the expected amount of helium.

• I think the chart I remembered is on page 20 of 2011
https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHwhathappen.pdf

vs the next chart for "Maintain High Average Loading [for a long time]

and also in 2012
https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/TanzellaFLcmnsresear.pdf

Edit: also see plot

[6] B. Baranowski, S. Filipek, M. Szustakowski, J. Farny and W. Wornya, J. Less
Common Met., 158, p. 347, (1990).

• The meaning is a little unclear to me. I think you are saying that both excess heat and leakage increase with time, so they will both go up in a correlated way.

Are you confusing power (that is, heat) with energy? In most cases shown by Miles, excess heat does not increase with time. It varies within a range, but you do not get more with more time. See the graphs at the end of this paper:

Net excess energy, when present, does increase over time, of course. Both the power and the energy from electrolysis have no effect on the helium level.

Yes - I was using heat in the physically correct nomenclature - e.g. energy.

And saying that total He leakage in from atmosphere (nwith constant leakage rate) and excess heat would both scale linearly with experiment runtime.

Why does the graph sit with its peak < expected He output?

To answer Ed's point, and yours...

One effect that can address this is selection. In these experiments which suffer atmospheric leakage apparatus may have too much leakage - which will be obvious because the He found is larger than that expected. If experiments have a methodology which checks for leakage and stops/cancels experiments, restarting them with new seals, when the He level is too high this is a mechanism for ensuring that variable leakage rates have a stochastic distribution between 0 and some upper limit not much higher than the He level expected. If experiments designed to measure He come in with values obviously too low they will be regarded as failures and I expect not inlcude din Ed's meta-analysis. There is also the question of how those 16 studies included in the histogram are selected. there are many ways to select that many studies, some will produce nicer histograms than others. In order to take the niceness of the histogram as evidence of anything we need the selection criteria, as well as an analysis, based on experiment protocol, of the prior probability distribution expected from leakage as selected by the experiment methodology.

You can't say that histogram is evidence without examining all of these effects.

THH

• This is such a tired old argument. I would point out that there are people working in this field (Tom Claytor for one) who are considered to be global authorities on the measurement of T and He.

• A small amount of helium does leak in at a constant rate. The background helium. It is the same for all 1.2 hour samples: 3.4 to 4.6 ppb, with no excess heat. With excess heat it was 7 to 9 ppb, correlated with the level of excess heat. If this was a leak, it would be somewhere around 1,000 to 5,400 ppb (atmospheric). In some experiments, they start out at 5,400 and go up from there, which eliminates the leak hypothesis.

If there is a tiny leak the atmospheric He3 will leak into the experiment at a slow rate. We know this can happen. We also know that larger leaks can happen - and are easily detected. That is my point. There is no way to distinguish between a small leak and He generated from the reaction. You cannot control for this, because to change the reaction you need to unseal/reseal the apparatus. In addition, leaks can be temperature-dependent, and not be present when apparatus is initially tested, which further complicates any attempt to control this effect. Careful methodology can do this, I agree, given enough effort and testing.

Jed's statements relates to large leaks. But the integrity required for these tiny amounts of emitted He is much higher than that, and no-one can say a small leak (if you like, diffusion through a seal which is almost leaking) is not possible.

THH

• . I would point out that there are people working in this field

and then there are circuitologist(s?) who specialise in words

• If there is a tiny leak the atmospheric He3 will leak into the experiment at a slow rate. We know this can happen. We also know that larger leaks can happen - and are easily detected. That is my point. There is no way to distinguish between a small leak and He generated from the reaction. You cannot control for this, because to change the reaction you need to unseal/reseal the apparatus. In addition, leaks can be temperature-dependent, which further complicates any attempt to control this effect.

Are you suggesting that He only leaks in one direction?

• This is such a tired old argument. I would point out that there are people working in this field (Tom Claytor for one) who are considered to be global authorities on the measurement of T and He.

And we have been arguing about it for long periods of time without ever convincing people that believe it is impossible. This is the tragedy of LENR, an observation that is unexpected and is ignored because it can't be predicted by theory. Reality ignored because no theory has room for it, "therefore reality must be wrong". The folly is painful at this point.

I certainly Hope to see LENR helping humans to blossom, and I'm here to help it happen.

• One effect that can address this is selection. In these experiments which suffer atmospheric leakage apparatus may have too much leakage - which will be obvious because the He found is larger than that expected.

Thousands of times larger, as Miles pointed out. There is no leak so small it can produce 9 ppb.

You can't say that histogram is evidence without examining all of these effects.

All of these effects have been examined in detail, as you would see if you read the literature.

Jed's statements relates to large leaks.

There are no leaks this small, as I said. You could not leak such small amounts deliberately, with an ordinary mechanical device such as needle valve. You can let helium permeate through materials, which is what happens here. The rates are well known and they do not vary. Any physical hole, no matter how small, will admit thousands of times more than permeation.

That's what the experts tell me. You can read about it in various places.

• In addition, leaks can be temperature-dependent, and not be present when apparatus is initially tested,

As I said, Miles ran null electrolysis at higher temperatures than electrolysis + excess heat. He saw no excess helium. So, the helium is not temperature dependent. Also, most of the equipment is the tube and flask which are far from the cell, and not affected by its temperature.

If the leaks began after gadget was initially tested, the background levels would change. They do not. (It couldn't be leak in any case, because levels would suddenly be thousands of times higher than any excess heat event or calibration.)

The main point is, leaks cannot correlate with excess heat. You need to come to grips with that fact. There is nothing about the production of 0.3 W of excess heat that can cause helium permutation or leaks to change. That level of heat is far too small to have any effect

.

• This thread is wandering off topic, back to 'is it real'.

I and presumably Ed would be interested to hear more comments about the paper that started this thread. for example, considering it's length, is it comprehensive enough? I will post some more questions when I get out of my next meeting.

• Are you suggesting that He only leaks in one direction?

when it has a much higher concentration in atmosphere than in experiment: yes!

• As I said, Miles ran null electrolysis at higher temperatures than electrolysis + excess heat. He saw no excess helium. So, the helium is not temperature dependent. Also, most of the equipment is the tube and flask which are far from the cell, and not affected by its temperature.

If the leaks began after gadget was initially tested, the background levels would change. They do not. (It couldn't be leak in any case, because levels would suddenly be thousands of times higher than any excess heat event or calibration.)

The main point is, leaks cannot correlate with excess heat. You need to come to grips with that fact. There is nothing about the production of 0.3 W of excess heat that can cause helium permutation or leaks to change. That level of heat is far too small to have any effect

I think you mean in some cases, leaks did not correlate with excess heat.

We can go through Miles's methodology in detail and see what is possible.

If the leaks began after gadget was initially tested, the background levels would change. They do not. (It couldn't be leak in any case, because levels would suddenly be thousands of times higher than any excess heat event or calibration.

Could you possibly amplify that statement with your reasoning - I am not sure that I understand what you mean?

• There are no leaks this small, as I said. You could not leak such small amounts deliberately, with an ordinary mechanical device such as needle valve. You can let helium permeate through materials, which is what happens here. The rates are well known and they do not vary. Any physical hole, no matter how small, will admit thousands of times more than permeation.

Jed, surely you can see this is bogus.

We agree low leak rates come from diffusion through some membrane. We agree leaks (air gaps through a seal) are possible. Therefor a partial air gap through a seal must be possible - with diffusion through a small part of the seal that is blocking the gap. Further, such gaps would very likely be temperature dependent. Very possibly they would open up only after some time. You cannot assume because you have tested one apparatus and it had leaks below a certain level, that this is always the case. Nor can a single heat cycling episode ensure that.

What you can say is that sometimes the leaks will be low.

• I think you mean in some cases, leaks did not correlate with excess heat.

Leaks never correspond with anything. Leaks did not occur with Miles' studies. Permeation occurred. It did not correlate with anything. It did not change. It was not affected by ordinary electrolysis, electrolysis with excess heat, or no electrolysis.

We can go through Miles's methodology in detail and see what is possible.

You should have done that before saying anything about this study. You should have done it years ago. If you have not gone through this in detail, you should not say anything about it, or venture any opinions.

If the leaks began after gadget was initially tested, the background levels would change. They do not. (It couldn't be leak in any case, because levels would suddenly be thousands of times higher than any excess heat event or calibration.

Could you possibly amplify that statement with your reasoning - I am not sure that I understand what you mean?

This is not my reasoning. It is what experts say. There are no physical leaks that could admit such low levels of helium into a cell (3 or 4 ppb).

If there is a tiny leak the atmospheric He3 will leak into the experiment at a slow rate. We know this can happen.

No, we don't know that. You made that up. The expert say that is not possible. To admit 3 or 4 ppb, you would have to use permeation, not a tiny leak.

Jed, surely you can see this is bogus.

We agree low leak rates come from diffusion through some membrane. We agree leaks (air gaps through a seal) are possible. Therefor a partial air gap through a seal must be possible - with diffusion through a small part of the seal that is blocking the gap. Further, such gaps would very likely be temperature dependent.

Okay, so you are saying that you know better than the experts, and what they say is "bogus." (The experts -- not me.) We agree that air gaps are possible. They would introduce hundreds to thousands of times more helium than is measured. You don't agree with that. I suppose you think there can be gaps only a few atoms wide. You think the gaps would be temperature dependent. I wouldn't know about that, but I am sure there are no such temperature dependent gaps in Miles' studies, because the background flow of helium did not change, and the temperature did not vary. The temperature of the cell varied slightly with electrolysis or no electrolysis -- excess heat made no difference, being less than maximum electrolysis input. the temperature of the hose and flask did not vary. So even if you are right and holes a few atoms wide can change with temperature, that did not happen.

• and then there are circuitologist(s?) who specialise in words

And some people who are just nasty who specialise in veiled insults!

But personalisation is not helpful. You will find any type of person, with any type of motivation, and only God can be sure what any given person's motivation is. Fixating on that will just result in your feeling bad about things, being impolite, and serve no purpose. Life is too short to worry about more than the arguments presented, dealing with them on merits.

• This thread is wandering off topic, back to 'is it real'.

I and presumably Ed would be interested to hear more comments about the paper that started this thread. for example, considering it's length, is it comprehensive enough? I will post some more questions when I get out of my next meeting.

A good rule, in a review paper, is that the statements which are made are all backed up by references, or immediate argument from references, or cross-reference to another part of the document. I think the sections I quoted, but also some other parts, would benefit from such references. The paper as is has a lot of references, but seldom indicate what the references say (e.g. do they back up what is being summarised or not). More detail on this would make the conclusions much more authoritative.

• OK:

runtime

excess heat ~ runtime

leakage from atmosphere ~ runtime

Yes - I was using heat in the physically correct nomenclature - e.g. energy.

Okay, so you meant excess energy increases with runtime. Researchers measure excess power (when present) and compute total excess energy, so the total energy is known.

We know the leakage from the atmosphere from permeation. That is measured in every test, including null tests and tests with no electrolysis. The rate does not change. We know the total runtime, so it is easy to compute total permeation. With Miles, the runtime is always 1.2 hours. Accumulated helium is always 3 or 4 ppb, unless there is excess heat, in which case it is ~7 ppb. It never correlates with anything other than excess heat. This cannot be a coincidence or a random result indicating some hidden cause, for the reasons spelled out by Miles on p. 45:

"The odds are, therefore, approximately one in a million that our complete set of 33 heat and helium results could be obtained from random experimental errors in our calorimetry and helium measurements. A more rigorous treatment in Appendix C [p. 89] gives the probability as one out of 750,000 for our set of 33 heat and helium results. Permanent laboratory records always defined the presence or absence of excess power prior to the helium measurements."

With other studies, helium is measured continuously. So if the rate at which enters the cell varied, you would see that as it happened. If the variation correlated with anything other than excess heat, you would see that.

In short, there is no way different runtimes could confuse the researchers. Simple arithmetic tells you how much helium should accumulate. It is the background flow rate times runtime. Simple arithmetic tells you how much excess heat energy there was: power times seconds. Changing the runtime duration will not confuse anyone.

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!