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

  • for example - did Staker continuously adjust his fill-up tables which (we hope - they must) compensate for evaporation for temperature?

    Obviously he did. He said he did, and he said the waterline did not change. When he deliberately lowered it 2 ml and then raised it 2 ml, that caused errors in calorimetry. If he had not adjusted the fill rate every day to make up for changes in electrochemical power and temperature, it would have changed several milliliters per day. You can't miss that! It is certain he would have seen it, and adjusted for it.


    He said he based the daily fill level on the current. That is to say, on Faraday's law. He said that worked. The only question is, did he also compensate for evaporation at high temperatures, where it makes a significant difference. The answer is yes, he must have, because otherwise the water level would have fallen. What you have suggested is a just-so story --


    There was recombination, which raises the water level.


    But at the same time there was evaporation, and the evaporation exactly compensated for the recombination, which is preposterous.


    It is impossible to measure the effect of evaporation during calibration, or predict it based on 220 year old physics. It is impossible to separate out the effects of recombination and evaporation, even though they have different causes and the causes are well known and have been for 200 years.


    Staker forgot to take into account the evaporation. He noticed the water level was falling more than Faraday's law predicts, but he thought, "oh well, I guess there is no reason for that, ho hum" because that is what all experimental scientists do. They ignore the instruments and they fail to understand grade-school level physics. Because they are all idiots.



    This is highly improbable. But so is everything else you say, which boils down to assertions that calorimetry does not work, x-ray film does not work, tritium detection does not work, and the laws of thermodynamics have been cancelled. You are the one making radical assertions and claiming the textbooks are all wrong. As Fleischmann said, we are painfully conventional people. You are rejecting all of established science. We accept it.

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

    No LENR person ever did that. No one is that stupid. No one is that careless. You made that up. If they were that stupid, and recombination occurred, their calorimetry would not work, the water level would be wrong, and that fact would be obvious.


    Measuring the water level is not a "cursory check." This is like saying that a mercury thermometer gives only a cursory check of the temperature. A mercury thermometer is 400-year-old technology that depends on visual observations, the same way looking at the water level is visual. But a thermometer or the tick mark on a test tube is completely reliable. Ancient methods work just as well now as they did in 1611.


    Saying that an electrochemist would dismiss recombination is a lot like saying that a programmer would ship out a program to the customer the moment it compiled, without checking to see if it gets the right answer. No one does that. No programmer is that stupid. (Granted, some lawyer filed a brief written by ChatGPT that was full of hallucinations and imaginary legal cases, so I guess there might be a programmer that stupid . . .)


    My criticism of Staker's paper took me a while and is not simple at all.

    The paper does take a while to understand. I read it when he wrote it, but I forgot important details. It is dense with details. The method is more complicated than something like a Seebeck, which is why Ed does not like it. Your criticism is not simple. It is also physically impossible and it violates 220 year old laws of physics.


    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.

    You would see these departures during calibration. That's what calibration is for. In Staker's experiment, you would see them in the control cell next to the active cell.

  • You would see these departures during calibration. That's what calibration is for. In Staker's experiment, you would see them in the control cell next to the active cell.

    I agree, but just to be clear, I was referring to something more general like omitting one step or using a different instrument than usual. Something noteworthy that should have been mentioned.

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

  • If no one finds an error after years of searching, we must conclude there is no error.

    Or we (e.g.) conclude not enough skilled, knowledgeable people cared, for whatever reason, either then or now. Unfortunately I doubt this will be settled either way until there is a commercial application available in the market. My fingers are crossed.

  • 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 understand that. The LENR community expects excess heat from these experiments and so takes a different approach.


    My point throughout this debate is that you should not expect those who do not think nuclear reactions at low energies from stable elements to take the same view.


    And the paper itself, in this one case, does not help matters. It states for example that recombination can be assumed zero. It states that that fill-up rates are looked up from tables that depend on electrolysis current (but not temperature). None of these things prove that Staker got the experiment wrong. (what Jed needs). Whereas somone not expecting this unpredictable result would need better proof than this.


    The LENR community, on evidence of its write-ups (which could be better) has been talking to itself, not to a wider scientific audience.


    In this situation I think many of the complaints of prejudice against LENR papers could be a misunderstanding - they just need to be written more carefully.


    ICCF24 was sating "it would be good to have a replicable and certain experiment". Part of certainty is about tying down all those "don't need to consider because..." variables. There is little cost in doing this - so I cannot understand why LENR authors do not do so.


    It is not about teaching people physics. It is about complete documentation of experiments - something that can reasonably be expected when the results are so very surprising (except that to those in the LENR field they are not).

  • I agree, but just to be clear, I was referring to something more general like omitting one step or using a different instrument than usual. Something noteworthy that should have been mentioned.

    Anyone outside the field would say that treating evaporation as insignificant in this experiment (if you work it out - it is significant) is missing a step - not because enthalpy from evaporation is insignificant (correct) but because evaporation determines recombination and the equivalent enthalpy from recombination is significant.


    Had it been considered significant the writeup would have needed to say:

    The fill-up rate was worked out from electrolysis current and then corrected manually to account for variable evaporation.


    (This is what Jed suggested would be done. Which would mean they did not check recombination)


    or


    The fill-up rate was worked out from electrolysis current. Manual adjustments were made due to differential evaporation. These were recorded and amounted to an insignificant difference (< 2cc) between control and active runs. This supports [44] showing that recombination is not significant.


    (which would mean they did not check whether the active run had recombination)


    or (this is sufficiently complex that you might want to expand it)


    The fill-up rate required to keep meniscus levels constant was measured on the control runs and compared with the rate expected from electrolysis. The additional fill-up volume matches the expected evaporation at the measured control-run temperature to within 0.5cc. The same measurement was done on the active runs (correcting for the different active run temperature). The volume again matched that expected from evaporation to within 2cc and therefore it is certain that recombination does not significantly affect excess heat in this experiment.


    (which would mean recombination was properly checked).


    Each of these sentences corresponds to something different done. The last one makes the experiment more certain by showing that recombination was checked on both control and active runs. It is not significantly more work - either to check in the experiment or to write up.


    In a private communication to me, Staker indicated that in this experiment evaporation was not important because it was small and in any case would make the excess heat lower than expected. I assume from that that he did not bother to measure it in the main experiment. Why should he? At the time I had not worked everything out (that in fact it could not really be called small) and I thought that very reasonable.


    Both true - but the conclusion is wrong. The only check on recombination is evaporation. Unless you accurately measure fill-up volume and compare that with calculated evaporation you cannot say how significant is fill-up volume.


    Finally - Jed points out that the excess temperature after input power is temporarily increased - is still anomalous at what seem to be nuclear levels and beyond that available from recombination. That is true. But it is less carefully checked result than the overall 46 day excess heat one.


    No decent scientist would be happy with the safety of the results given the writeup in its current from. Carelessness over writing up recombination vs evaporation will mean that even the part of the results that (with effort) can be worked out valid even without checking for recombination will be viewed as uncertain. Why? Well, maybe during this period foam changes the heat loss - we know this depends critically on meniscus level so it might also change with foam. Given known lack of checking of something definitely significant, no-one will assume that things possibly significant are also checked.


    Certainty is a high bar. LENR writers seem to alternate between "certainty is easy - everything is certain" and "certainty is an impossibly high bar, nothing we can do will meet it".


    How about something in the middle: do your best to make things certain?

  • LENR is found in the earth's crust, where oil and minerals are formed by cold nuclear fusion. To do this, you need to look at the ground and charge any ingredient with pressure and temperature, then you will have everything, but from your positions there will be no energy, it must be done with great tension, which you unfortunately did not do. And it’s not worth disassembling LENR as before ... youtube.com/shorts/eM_ZLEvhmh4 https://youtube.com/shorts/Fr6Sd7C56co

  • Jed could reasonably say - well - Staker is a modern LENR writer - he is not a calorimetrist - his main field is material science - and you would not expect the same care from him that the early and certain LENR experiments produced.


    I'd agree that. But it is not what those in the LENR field say. And to convince anyone else you need a modern, replicable, certain experiment.


    If you believe Staker's results are genuine what is needed to make them certain is just a bit more care in write-up and measurement - no change in apparatus.

  • Sorry - the comments on Staker are OT for this thread it is just I will need a good deal of free time to look at Jed's 3 best experiments and comment.


    Warning: when I do it is likely Jed will not accept my issues - in the same way that he does not accept there is any issue with Staker's results. But, Jed will have the satisfaction of knowing that my (from his POV) prejudice is informed prejudice. Unless of course I find zero issues...


    PS Jed - have you yet followed my reference (it contains the working from first principles, and it is mainstream maths not some whacko theory. I posted it because it is a self-contained and complete description, designed to be accessible) which shows why hypotheses that accurately predict results require less evidence than those which have less precise predictions?


    That theory is used today in thousands of AI algorithms, and has been tested both theoretically and practically in thousands of research papers.

  • It is impossible to measure the effect of evaporation during calibration, or predict it based on 220 year old physics. It is impossible to separate out the effects of recombination and evaporation, even though they have different causes and the causes are well known and have been for 200 years.

    Jed, you do realise this is the exact opposite of your argument earlier on this thread, when you said evaporation could be exactly calculated?


    It is possible to precisely bound evaporation based on 220 year old Physics. And, on reflection, given this is a slow experiment, I think the bound based on temperature must be pretty exact. My (modern web calculator) of reaction rates seemed to confirm that.

    Saying that an electrochemist would dismiss recombination is a lot like saying that a programmer would ship out a program to the customer the moment it compiled, without checking to see if it gets the right answer.

    Glad you mention this.


    It is actually like a programmer shipping out a program in the following case:

    (1) a small change is made in one module

    (2) the module changed passes unit tests for the changed module, and part-product integration tests.

    (3) The full integration tests are not redone (they take a long time, and require some other conditions difficult to achieve). But the change is considered one unlikely to affect other modules, and the combination of unit tests and local integration tests seems pretty good in this case.


    The software than fails in the field.


    That case, and those arguments, are common. And arguing like that is a common reason for regression errors after fixes.


    The analogy with software shows exactly why the care I am asking for is necessary. And also how in spite of its being best practice it is often not done.

  • Saying that an electrochemist would dismiss recombination is a lot like

    Just to be clear - the case here is not Staker dismissing recombination. He had several reasons for not thinking it significant:

    • explicit (his reference [44])
    • implicit - it would show up in different fill-up volume.


    And these reasons could be correct. But they contain uncertainty because of the steps not included in the write-up.


    Do I think recombination is actually a problem here? Not if the fill-up volumes were carefully checked, and compared with calculated evaporation, and also between control and active.


    Do I know the fill-up volumes were carefully checked? No. The writeup does not say this, and implies what Jed suggested, that they should have been adjusted manually. Although since this is not what is actually said (the opposite was said), I do not actually know what was done.

  • Regarding the likelihood of someone finding an error in cold fusion:

    Or we (e.g.) conclude not enough skilled, knowledgeable people cared, for whatever reason, either then or now.

    That would be true for an obscure experiment, but cold fusion attracted a lot of attention. Many, many physicists despise it. They tried to find errors with all their might. They published hundreds of efforts to find errors. Not in formal papers, but informally in internet discussion groups, at Wikipedia, and in the mass media such as the Washington Post and the Scientific American. Here is one of the Scientific American efforts to find a mistake in cold fusion:


    The Scientific American Slams Cold Fusion Again


    Note that I am talking about efforts by skeptics to show there are experimental errors. There are countless papers, books and articles by skeptics that say "cold fusion is not real because it violates theory." Huizenga's book is the best example.


    As I said, there was one paper that attempted to find errors, by Morrison. That was flat out wrong. It was stupid. See: https://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanreplytothe.pdf There was also the batshit crazy paper by Shanahan, but I suppose even THH would find that beyond the pale. Most of the arguments THH makes are in Morrison's paper. Especially his recent claims that recombination can cause an error about 100 times larger than it can actually cause. (In effect that is what he says. He has not done the math so he does not realize that is what he is saying.)

  • He had several reasons for not thinking it significant:

    explicit (his reference [44])
    implicit - it would show up in different fill-up volume.

    Do you have any reason to doubt the fill up volume would be different? If you know why that is not true, publish your reasons and you will win a Nobel Prize for chemistry. You will be the most important electrochemist since Faraday.


    Regarding this experiment, you should try running the numbers. Even if there were 100% recombination, that would not begin to explain the excess heat during the two bursts shown in Fig. 7. So your entire discussion is meaningless.


    And these reasons could be correct.

    Could be? You are saying it "could be" that every electrochemist for the last 180 years was correct, and the methods they use actually work. Or maybe not?


    But they contain uncertainty because of the steps not included in the write-up.

    That could be for the same reason physics papers do not restate Newton's laws of motion. That could be because everyone knows those laws, and everyone assumes they are right, so no one sees the need to restate them. Either that, or every scientist is an idiot and only you can see that.

  • Glad you mention this.


    It is actually like a programmer shipping out a program in the following case:

    (1) a small change is made in one module

    (2) the module changed passes unit tests for the changed module, and part-product integration tests.

    Yes, I have probably made that mistake myself. That is not what I meant. I was describing an absurd mistake that no programmer would make. I hope. Which is to compile and ship without even a quick test with a limited dataset. Any module should have test data you run through it to confirm it is working.


    You are saying the entire set of modules might be affected by the change, and they might get the wrong answer, but you wouldn't know unless there is a full test. That does not happen as often as it used to, thanks to object oriented modulization. The best thing since sliced bread. I guess it still happens when the new module corrupts the data, and you don't notice. It is the kind of nightmare problem that can happen.

  • FPR is incorrect voltage setting.

    they used strong Alkaline D2O to increase current and to prevent the damage of metal, so they used strong alkaline D2O. note that OD- concentration is by 9-10 digits larger than D+ concentration, the loading of D into the Pd with negative potential.

    thus this is incorrect setting of potential. however negative voltage makes insulator on Pd and current path is limited to cause local heating to the Pd surface without insulator film.

    Conceptualized D 2 O Cold Fusion power generator with steam turbine

    http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.24667.75045

    Correct D 2 O Cold Fusion Reactor with Strong Alkaline Electrolyte (Heat Generating Metal Needs to be Anode)

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/373041414_Correct_D_2_O_Cold_Fusion_Reactor_with_Strong_Alkaline_Electrolyte_Heat_Generating_Metal_Needs_to_be_Anode

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.