Jed's Three "better than F&P" Excess Heat from Electrolysis Experiments

    Jed challenged me to find fault with 3 electrolysis experiments with better calorimetry than F&P and positive results.


    I will make it easier for Jed. he can post his best 3 electrolysis excess heat experiments of all time. At least I think that is easier - of course if Jed reckons there are less than three such better than F&P experiments he has set me an impossible challenge.


    Given 3 electrolysis GOATs - I promise on this thread to look at them and for each one:


    1. Admit there is no critique I can find that could invalidate the results

    or

    2. Provide in detail such a critique, and how the experiment could be tightened up to avoid it.


    Any one such that stands up to this, from a researcher everyone here trusts, should be a candidate for replication given that we have now (I think?) cracked how to obtain and condition electrode that will work.


    PS - this is a separate thread because if Jed posts his answers on another thread they will get lost in noise and when I have time (probably start of July) to come back to them with some serious checking - which takes time - I will have lots them.


    This is a challenge I do not want to shirk.


    THH

  • THHuxleynew

    Changed the title of the thread from “Jed's Three "better than F&P" experiments” to “Jed's Three "better than F&P" Excess Heat from Electrolysis Experiments”.

    Why use our brains, when we have LENR CANR ChatGPT to do the thinking for us:


    One of the most successful electrolysis experiments was conducted by V. Lesin, S. Tsirlin, and their team. They used electrolytic cells excited by Dardik's Super Wave and achieved significant excess heat (COP) of up to 600% for 24.5 hours. The longest period of excess heat obtained was 134 hours at a COP of 150%. These experiments involved palladium (Pd) foils, some of which were provided by Dr. Vittorio Violante of ENEA Frascatti

    I don't know if these are the best three of all time, but I would suggest:


    McKubre

    Miles

    Fleischmann


    They are well documented, and repeated many times. I am not going to list all individual papers here because there are too many. To find them, go to the library and enter the author name under "First Author" or "All Authors": https://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?page_id=1081


    Here are two of the most detailed papers:


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

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


    There are many other important papers, for example, the Italian ones showing x-rays. There are many irrefutable tritium studies, such as:


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


    This is definitive proof that cold fusion is a nuclear effect. It is as definitive as the excess heat results.


    I would say you need to find a fatal weakness. Not just any weakness, or some problem that cannot affect the main conclusions. The main conclusions such as "there was excess heat beyond chemistry" or "heat was correlated with helium production." The main conclusion in McKubre is summarized as follows:


    "EPRI PERSPECTIVE This work confirms the claims of Fleischmann, Pons, and Hawkins of the production of excess heat in deuterium-loaded palladium cathodes at levels too large for chemical transformation. However, the phenomena were Electric Power Research Institute obtained in only about half the cells. From the conditions of loading, initiation time, and current density on the successful observations of excess heat, it is understood why the phenomena are so difficult to attain. The conditions in the successful cells were not entirely under experimental control because the closed cells slowly leach silica and other materials from the anode and its supports as well as from the cell walls. This leached material can deposit on the cathode surface and interfere with the loading process. Also, the palladium purity depended on whatever was available from the manufacturer. Subsequent research has shown a pronounced batch effect on successful loading from different shipments of palladium from the same as well as from different suppliers. It is suspected that metallurgical conditions as well as impurity content may be the source of this batch effect. . . ."


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


    I would say these are the rules --


    You have to show that conclusion is substantially incorrect. Not slightly exaggerated. No quibbling. You cannot say "because 'successful cells were not entirely under experimental control' we should dismiss these results out of hand." Do not tell us that you read Miles' Final Report, you did not find some detail you expected to find, and you will not read the other 84 papers he authored or co-authored to see if that detail is described. Also, no pretend problems such as nitwit researchers who do not notice an open cell has filled up with water from recombination, or researchers who have never heard of evaporation. If that is the best you can up with, don't bother. You will not convince anyone that these researchers are incapable of junior high school level experimentation, or they overlooked laws of physics established in 1801.


    (I am certain you will ignore these rules and do everything I recommend against here, because that is all you have ever done, and all any skeptic has ever done. I can find more problems in these papers than you have ever found.)


    No experiment is perfect. You can always find weaknesses, and things that could have been done better. For example, as Ed pointed out, McKubre's calorimeter held the temperature at a fixed level. When excess heat went up, auxiliary heating went down, leaving total heat the same. That is how McKubre measured the excess heat. Unfortunately, the level was too low for optimum excess heat production. Plus, this method made it impossible to generate a large heat pulse, which is the recommended method of boosting the heat. Fleischmann criticized McKubre for this design.

    Thanks Jed. That is clear.


    I will address first the excess heat conclusions. After that I will look at tritium but I have much less experience looking at that. Also, excess heat is maybe more suitable as a "replicate and prove to people it works" refrence experiment.


    As for rules: this could be collaborative. I am happy to be corrected by you or anyone else on details missing from teh report. I however will not accept a "general" paper showing that e.g. recombination happens at levels opf < 5% in specific experiments to mean that it always happens at such low levels. the same will be true of other details. From my POV, all details need to be verified -or maybe just one of those details is assumed but fails in this case. That is why a reference experiment is needed that can be repeated - questions over details assumed but not explicitly checked can be resolved by repeating it. My route towards safe results is this:

    1. work out reference experiment which can be replicated. Work out methodology for this - e.g. test electrodes supply multiple electrodes allowing repetition.
    2. do it
    3. write it up
    4. note critiques from close-minded skeptics like me, and anyone else.
    5. note places where write-up was not complete
    6. add methodology/instrumentation to close any such loopholes
    7. redo experiment closing loopholes adding explicit checks/data to answer critics.


    Based on this second write-up if results still look extraordinary you should have something that convinces a few mainstream scientists in labs to replicate.


    this is a lot of work, but it is doable, and it has not to my lnwledge been attempted.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    work out reference experiment which can be replicated. Work out methodology for this - e.g. test electrodes supply multiple electrodes allowing repetition.

    This is not something you are capable of doing.


    Just find a substantial error in those three papers. If you cannot do that, stop saying that cold fusion is not real.


    Quote from THHuxleynew

    Based on this second write-up if results still look extraordinary you should have something that convinces a few mainstream scientists in labs to replicate.

    Any scientist who is not convinced by the papers I referenced above will not be convinced by you. Again, this is not something you are capable of doing. I suggest you focus on one goal only: prove that these three experiments did not work.


    There are dozens more, but perhaps you will agree that if these three worked, that means cold fusion must be real. If you don't agree with that, how many would it take? Five? Ten? 180? If your answer is five I will come with two more, Fritz Will plus one more. If you will not agree there is some definite number of experiments that you have show are wrong, then you are wasting your time.


    Quote from THHuxleynew

    this is a lot of work, but it is doable, and it has not to my lnwledge been attempted.

    It has been done dozens of times.


    Quote from THHuxleynew

    From my POV, all details need to be verified -or maybe just one of those details is assumed but fails in this case.

    Knowing you, that is a Get Out of Jail Free card, meaning you can say: "Ha! This scientist did not confirm that he knows Dalton's law, Faraday's law, or the Second Law of Thermodynamics! He did not explicitly show how the calorimetry takes these things into account! The results go in the trash. There may be 84 reports from Miles, but he never said the magic words I demand, so out they all go." This is the Sovereign Citizen approach to science. "There is no fringe on the flag in the courtroom, so it is not legitimate, so I am not guilty." Any excuse will do!


    To take another example from a "skeptic" someone once said that graph showing voltage only is invalid because we don't know what the amperage is. The paper said it was constant current power supply and it listed the amperage, BUT that's not good enough. It has to show watts. Which is actually what most of papers do, but the author was making a point about voltage. Not good enough! The skeptic has come up with an arbitrary, meaningless critique, but the author should have known in advance the skeptic would do this, and the author should have answered all possible whacko notions the skeptic might come up with, even though this would make the paper hundreds of pages long.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    This is not something you are capable of doing.


    Just find a substantial error in those three papers. If you cannot do that, stop saying that cold fusion is not real.

    Just a correction - repeated:


    We will disagree about what is a substantial error. We will also (not sure, but could well be) disagree that without me or somone else finding a substantial error in these three different papers LENR is proven. You have not addressed the statistically quantifiable ways in which LENR, as a hypothesis, requires stronger evidence than most hypotheses about physics. You probably are not interested in it - but it is real and it is the formal reason for why - informally - many people are less convinced by LENR experiments than you think they should be.


    All that is needed is ONE replicable experiment. Three non-replicable are a lot less strong than that.


    Notwithstanding that - looking for possible errors is interesting, and I to to the best of my efforts will do it. You will need to be a bit patient however, since it cannot be a quick response.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    We will also (not sure, but could well be) disagree that without me or somone else finding a substantial error in these three different papers LENR is proven.

    If no one finds an error after years of searching, we must conclude there is no error. The assertion that "there is an error but no one can see it" is not falsifiable. It applies equally well to every experiment in history.


    Furthermore, the instruments and techniques in these experiments were invented between 1780 and 1840, and they are based on thermodynamics, which was established in 1850. To show that these experiments do not work, you need to show that Joule's calorimetry does not work and Thomson was wrong about thermodynamics. Since these experiments have been done millions of times, and thermodynamics is one of the most widely used and solid theories in physics, it is extremely unlikely they are wrong.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    You have not addressed the statistically quantifiable ways in which LENR, as a hypothesis, requires stronger evidence than most hypotheses about physics.

    All hypotheses must be supported with the same level of rigor. You do not get a free pass just because you have a negative view. After all, you are saying that calorimetry and thermodynamics do not work. That is a radical assertion! Or you are saying that calorimetry does not work in these particular experiments for reasons that no one has detected and that you yourself cannot name.


    There is no way the results from one study can statistically affect the results of another. Miles' use of statistics within his own work, to justify his conclusions about helium, are a valid use of statistics. What you propose is parody of statistics.


    Quote from THHuxleynew

    All that is needed is ONE replicable experiment. Three non-replicable are a lot less strong than that.

    All the experiments I listed have been replicated hundreds of times.


    Quote from THHuxleynew

    Just one please? With the critical papers from skeptics, and the additional work to make the experiment stronger?

    One review that improved the field? Everything written by Storms, including his books.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    If no one finds an error after years of searching, we must conclude there is no error. The assertion that "there is an error but no one can see it" is not falsifiable.

    Suppose there were papers in the literature critiquing McKubre, Miles and F&P. Suppose THH cited them and said, "I agree with these authors. The mistakes they found are real." That would be a valid assertion. It would be falsifiable. We could debate whether these errors are real, or whether the people who wrote the critiques were mistaken.


    That is not the situation here. No one has found any errors. No one has published any papers showing errors, except Morrison (https://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanreplytothe.pdf). THH himself has not found any errors in any paper. Not these three, or any others. So his assertion does not describe anything in the real world. It is hypothetical. He is saying that if someone somewhere ever comes up with an error, then there will be an error. That is a tautology. You might as well say that if someone discovers faster-than-light propulsion, that would prove relativity is wrong. Yes, it would, but it hasn't happened so it is not in the realm of science. It is purely imaginary. THH has not described any errors -- because he cannot. He is saying that in his imagination, someone, somewhere might someday come up with an error, so cold fusion is wrong.


    Not only are your assertions purely imaginary and not falsifiable, they are also unbelievable coincidences. As Ed explained in the other discussion:


    "All measurements contain errors. In the case of cold fusion, THH claims that the magnitude of the error is equal to the total measured value in every case. In addition, this situation occurs no matter what property is measured or by whom. The error is always equal to the total measured value when heat is measured regardless of the type of calorimeter being used . . ."


    It would be astounding if the errors in all cases were always positive, never negative, and they never show up in control experiments. It would be astounding if experts whose lives depend on measuring tritium, and who measure it at levels that would be fatal outside the test tubes, suddenly lose that ability in these experiments -- and never at any other time in their careers.


    You claim cold fusion needs better statistical proof, but your own assertions are wildly impossible by rudimentary statistical analyses. You claim that events which would never happen in the life of the universe -- and which if they could happen would make all of experimental science invalid -- have happened in every single one of thousands of experiments, in hundreds of labs, only in cold fusion, not in any of the other work that Bockris, Mizuno and the others did.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    That is not the situation here. No one has found any errors. No one has published any papers showing errors, except Morrison (https://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanreplytothe.pdf). THH himself has not found any errors in any paper.

    That is true - in the sense that there are not obvious math errors in the calculations.


    But a writeup can be incomplete, making assumptions not explicitly mentioned or proven. That, for Jed, does not matter, because these are all expert calorimetrists who cannot get things wrong (untrue) and anyway I am an amateur (true) whose lack of expertise makes me incapable of commenting in a useful way (untrue). For me that means that if the paper is used to prove something surprising and low probability (like LENR) that takes as proof half of all the anomalous enthalpy results in the world, then those gaps need to be closed. Until they are the paper proves nothing. I gave an example of how assumptions that seem reasonable can go wrong when used in a different context, using as the example of Staker's assumptions, on the other thread (which I notice Jed has avoided?).


    I understand entirely Jed's view, and that it is different from mine. I just wish he would do the same. It is boring repeating oneself.


    Quote from JedRothwell

    All hypotheses musts be supported with the same level of rigor.

    You are wrong. An inductive inference system could not infer consistently if that were true. See this accessible introduction.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    But a writeup can be incomplete, making assumptions not explicitly mentioned or proven.

    No writeup can possibly include all assumptions. It would have to recapitulate the history of modern science. It would have to explain evaporation, calorimetry, Stefan-Boltzmann, thermodynamics and more. Furthermore, even if it were a hundred pages long, it would still be missing some of these details, and you would use that as an excuse to dismiss the result. I mean that literally: it takes hundreds of pages to explain every major aspect of calorimetry. See below.


    Quote from THHuxleynew

    That, for Jed, does not matter, because these are all expert calorimetrists

    No, it does not matter because there is no problem. The write-ups are as complete as an other papers in any branch of science. Furthermore, if you do not find some detail about McKubre's calorimetry in one paper, you will probably find it in another. He published hundreds of pages.


    If you need to know more about calorimetry than you find in the papers by McKubre or Storms, you should read a textbook on calorimetry. You will see that they did things by the book, and made no mistakes. I recommend Hemminger and Hohne. It is 308 pages long. That is how many pages it takes to explain calorimetry in depth. In effect, you are demanding that every paper in cold fusion be 300 pages long. You cannot expect McKubre to spoon-feed you every last detail about calorimetry. You, the reader, have to bring some level of knowledge to the paper. You also have to bring some common sense. You also have to assume that professional scientists understand high-school level physics and chemistry, and they do not all make idiotic mistakes such as ignoring evaporation at temperatures where it is bound to make a significant difference.


    No skeptic has discovered a substantive error. They have looked assiduously. You have not discovered any error, but you have not even looked, so that is a different story.


    Your only claim is that some imaginary problems that you suppose might someday be found by someone -- problems have no basis in reality and which would apply to every other calorimetric experiment in history -- are reasons to dismiss cold fusion.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    No writeup can possibly include all assumptions. It would have to recapitulate the history of modern science. It would have to explain evaporation, calorimetry, Stefan-Boltzmann, thermodynamics and more.

    I have given you an example of how lack of precision can result in problems. You are setting up a straw man here. Saying how you have measured or calculated evaporation is not explaining it! This is about what are the measurements you have made, and how you use them. Not Physics 101.


    for example - did Staker continuously adjust his fill-up tables which (we hope - they must) compensate for evaporation for temperature? I very much doubt it - but we don't know, because he said nothing about evaporation.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    I have given you an example of how lack of precision can result in problems. You are setting up a straw man here. Saying how you have measured or calculated evaporation is not explaining it! This is about what are the measurements you have made, and how you use them. Not Physics 101.

    Well, you are overlooking that no one would expect that an author explain details that are obvious to any peer. If you are talking calorimetry, there are baseline assumptions everyone would agree. You just don't agree because you are incredulous of the excess heat claim.

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

    Like 2
    Quote from THHuxleynew

    For me that means that if the paper is used to prove something surprising and low probability (like LENR) that takes as proof half of all the anomalous enthalpy results in the world, then those gaps need to be closed.

    Fortunately, no papers say that. This a purely imaginary situation that you just now dreamed up. It is a strawman argument. If there were papers that take as proof half of the anomalous energy claims, and someone needed to "close the gaps," that person would have to do far more work than I did to copy edit 300 papers. It would be an impossible task. Perhaps you are setting this up as a way to move the goal posts.


    Do you not agree that if you cannot disprove 3 of the top papers, that means cold fusion is real? If 3 is not enough, would 5 be enough? I can add two more. Or, are you now saying that you or I -- or someone else -- will have to review half the excess heat papers in the field, and make sure there are no errors in them? Hundreds of papers. Is that your new criterion? If it is, you are wasting your time.


    This thread is about 3 papers. Three of the leading tier of papers. That is a reasonable number. You picked that number. Five or 10 would also be reasonable. Hundreds would be absurd, and impossible to manage.

    Quote from Curbina

    Well, you are overlooking that no one would expect that an author explain details that are obvious to any peer.

    No. You have not read my critique of how the way Staker's assumptions do not work together are not obvious to any peer. At least clearly not obvious to Staker. Nor Jed.


    I know this because many (not all) LENR people use Staker's Fleischmann & Miles reference to dismiss recombination on a cursory check.


    Perhaps you could give details yourself of which omission "obvious" details I am critiquing here? My criticism of Staker's paper took me a while and is not simple at all.


    One thing to remember is that when things go wrong it is often the "everyone knows it" assumptions - which in specific unusual cases fail - that cause problems.

    Quote from Curbina

    Well, you are overlooking that no one would expect that an author explain details that are obvious to any peer. If you are talking calorimetry, there are baseline assumptions everyone would agree. You just don't agree because you are incredulous of the excess heat claim.

    To complete this thought, one only explains ultra basic, known by everyone stuff, when one takes any measure that departs from the baseline assumptions. Not the other way around.

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

    Like 2
    Quote from THHuxleynew

    Perhaps you could give details yourself of which omission "obvious" details I am critiquing here? My criticism of Staker's paper took me a while and is not simple at all.

    Your main objections are that neither evaporation nor recombination are specifically talked about or quantified. Yet the calorimetry equations contain terms for both. You perhaps want to see the data points of those variables, and see if they were measured or assumed. Your want to know, if they were assumed, if that asumption is possibly the source of the excess heat.


    I think the author omitted any specific mention because he checked these variables and considered them in the error margin. That's what any experienced calorimetry researcher would do and should do. You say you can't assume that because the result is improbable. I say making such a mistake is improbable, or, better said, the researcher would have realized of that obvious mistake and not published anything, if that was the case.

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

    Like 2

Subscribe to our newsletter

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

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.