The LEC, the CPD, and Dr. Chang the Zombie Hunter.

Quote from THHuxleynew

So - you have answered your own question - if you pause from insulating me and think.

770kJ, 100,000X => chemical < 7.7J

You say 80J - 10X higher.

Okay so it is only 10,000 times above chemical energy. Sue me! I am off by 1 order of magnitude, and you are off by 5.

Besides, you are wrong. As I explained, there would only be 80 J of chemical fuel in the cell if there was free oxygen, and there was no free oxygen. Furthermore, the only way to produce the 80 J would be to completely degas the cathode, and soon as that happened, the cold fusion reaction would stop.

The actual chemical fuel in this cell could only produce a few joules, as McKubre showed.

Quote from JedRothwell

He did measure it, in calibration. Before, during and after the experiment. In the active cell, and in the control cell. What more do you want? How much more could anyone measure this?

He did not measure evaporation.

He measured evaporation - recombination.

And, as you said earlier, what more could be done would be to measure evaporation independently, which is quite possible.

Quote from THHuxleynew

He did not measure evaporation.

Well, he says he did. He calibrated by various method and he says there was no significant evaporation below 80 deg C. You say he didn't, so I guess you know better than does!

Quote from THHuxleynew

And, as you said earlier, what more could be done would be to measure evaporation independently, which is quite possible.

I didn't say that. I said he calibrated with a joule heater, which is how you measure evaporation independently. Plus he calibrated with electrolysis with the control cell, and saw there was no recombination. Plus there is no way anyone could confuse them, and no way evaporation could magically cover up recombination at all temperatures. How would that work, anyway? How would evaporation also always removes just enough water to cover up the water left by recombination, whether the cell is 30 or 60 or 80 deg C? Are you aware of the fact that evaporation changes with temperature?

Plus recombination is impossible with this configuration, at these power levels, which you could easily see for yourself with a simple experiment.

Furthermore, with an isoperibolic calorimeter you don't actually need to separate out different heat loss paths. You could just draw a calibration curve and see if the heat deviates from it. If it deviates with the active cell and not the control, and if calibration during and after the test show that the calibration constant has not changed, that's real heat. Even if you do not do a first principle analysis. Which Staker and everyone else does.

What you are saying makes no sense, for these reasons and more.

Quote from JedRothwell

lus recombination is impossible with this configuration, at these power levels

Narrow-minded conventional wisdom. Like mainstream scientists have when thinking about LENR

Quote from JedRothwell

I didn't say that. I said he calibrated with a joule heater, which is how you measure evaporation independently

You said that evaporation could be measured, independently, by condensing the H2O and measuring its volume. You were correct. He determined fill-up levels (which included evaporation and recombination) from electrolysis currents.

He may have measured evaporation when calibrating. We don't know.

But, in any case, for evaporation to be small enough not to change meniscus levels we must have condensate (at a much lower temperature then the reaction vessel) returning to the reaction vessel. That is not a direct problem (evaporation heat relatively small compared with measured excess). However it means a possible liquid path from outside the calorimetric boundary to inside. One of variable size. The calorimeter here is designed to be particularly sensitive, hence it will be more affected by such additional heat loss paths.

THH

Quote from JedRothwell

Furthermore, with an isoperibolic calorimeter you don't actually need to separate out different heat loss paths. You could just draw a calibration curve and see if the heat deviates from it. If it deviates with the active cell and not the control, and if calibration during and after the test show that the calibration constant has not changed, that's real heat.

No - not if the heat path comes from something that varies over that period.

Quote from JedRothwell

Plus he calibrated with electrolysis with the control cell, and saw there was no recombination. Plus there is no way anyone could confuse them, and no way evaporation could magically cover up recombination at all temperatures. How would that work, anyway? How would evaporation also always removes just enough water to cover up the water left by recombination, whether the cell is 30 or 60 or 80 deg C? Are you aware of the fact that evaporation changes with temperature?

I was the one - above - that calculated the change in this case with temperature. (Between control and active, due to different temps).

And indeed evaporation could cover up recombination at all temperatures. Both effects are temperature-dependent. You don't need "just enough water". Since he does not bother with that - he works out overall fill-up volume from his test runs at specific currents. How could he know what the recombination was?

Quote from JedRothwell

Even if you do not do a first principle analysis. Which Staker and everyone else does.

He has not done that in this case.

First principle analysis would be to calculate the equilibrium expected evaporation (large in this case). Then - depending on experiment design - calculate the effect of water condensing outside the reactor and returning back inside the reactor. How can you do that first principle?

Quote from JedRothwell

Sue me! I am off by 1 order of magnitude, and you are off by 5.

The difference is you are making sweeping definite statements. I am juts saying that the results are not certain - it is an easier position to hold when aspects of the experiment ... are uncertain.

recombination is impossible with this configuration, at these power levels

Quote from THHuxleynew

Narrow-minded conventional wisdom.

No, it is an observation. Try doing electrolysis with this geometry and these power levels and you will observe that yourself.

Quote from THHuxleynew

You said that evaporation could be measured, independently, by condensing the H2O and measuring its volume. You were correct. He determined fill-up levels (which included evaporation and recombination) from electrolysis currents.

And from joule heating.

Quote from THHuxleynew

He may have measured evaporation when calibrating. We don't know.

Well, he said he did.

Quote from THHuxleynew

No - not if the heat path comes from something that varies over that period.

How would calibration with resistance heating or electrolysis at a given power level vary in heat? If the heat level could vary, why would that not show up in the calibration? If it showed up, Staker would know there is something wrong. That is the whole point of calibration. Evaporation varies with temperature in a predictable way. It does not magically stay the same at all temperatures, just enough to cover up recombination. (Magic evaporation which covers up pretend recombination which you can see does not occur.)

Your version of things is a gigantic impossible "just so" story. I think you should stick to real world physics instead of magic.

First principle analysis --

Quote from THHuxleynew

He has not done that in this case.

He said he did. He said that is how he set the IV pump flow rate correctly every day. Do you think he did that by guessing?

Actually, as I said, you do not need a first-principle analysis when you have a calibration curve from repeated measurements at the same power level steps. An amateur (me) would just use that curve and look for excess heat events well above it. That works. You confirm there is no recombination by measuring the water level. That also works, despite your assertion that evaporation always magically covers it up exactly at all temperatures (an absurd impossibility). Evaporation would be included in a calibration curve.

Quote from JedRothwell

He said he did. He said that is how he set the IV pump flow rate correctly every day. Do you think he did that by guessing?

Jed, please quite from the (two) papers?

The descriptions of how the IV pumps are set are different, but the first paper, which described the calorimetry, has more details.

It says that the pumps are pre-set to rates based on those expirically determined from the specific electrolysis current.

Coupled Calorimetry and Resistivity Measurements, in Conjunction with an Emended and More Complete Phase Diagram of the Palladium–Isotopic Hydrogen System | Published in Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science

By Staker M. R. Staker M. R.. Experimental Article

jcmns.scholasticahq.com

p140 - top of page

Quote from Alan Smith

I assume you mean 'empirically' as if this was some kind of guesswork. Staker himself says that the drip-rate was set using tables of data from precious experiments - the evaporation rate was baseds on electrolysis current of course.. How else would he do it - by guesswork or phoning his Mum?

Why do you assume that Alan? By empirically I mean just that.

The fill-up rate could have been set theoretically based on calculated evaporation (maybe problematic) + electrolysis (fine) ignoring recombination (most here think fine, and maybe it is).

Or it could be set empirically, as Staker says, based on measured values at different electrolysis current rates.

How else do you do it?

It would be helpful to have a table with two input variables: electrolysis current and temperature - rather than assuming temperature (which affects evaporation) depends only on electrolysis current. Since it clearly is affected by other things.

My issue mainly though is the lack of transparency of these issues.

For example, if the experiment relies on vapour condensing at a much lower temperature and running back into the test-tube, so that evaporation is less than the equilibrium expected at the electrolysis tube temperature - that should be mentioned together with an analysis of how that "cold return path" liquid affects calorimeter performance: or some way to show it is identical between calibration and active runs. The issue here for this experiment is not heat of vaporisation (relatively small) but heat loss though the liquid via conduction or convection. It is not necessarily a problem - but also not necessarily not a problem. We know the calibration is significantly affected by liquid levels in the electrolysis tube.

I am continually surprised at how ground-breaking unexpected experimental results which if certain would undoubtedly lead to a scientific revolution and Nobel Prize or two are treated casually, without strenuous efforts to show validity. I think it is because much of the LENR community still believes LENR exists (as a foxed fast) and therefore they know better than mots scientists, for whom LENR existing is an open question. The LENR community does not understand the magnitude and importance of the claims it makes -

If it did - modern experiments like Staker's and Ed's which are replicable would be much more carefully scrutinised and written up to make them certain, and to encourage replication by other groups.

When I question this - I get told that "it is obvious and certain" and "there can be no errors".

Quote from Alan Smith

As for Staker just basing his tables on current alone, how dumb do you think he was? Even a schoolboy knows that water evaporates faster when hotter. Personally I would also not be surprised if he took other things not mentioned into account - lab temperature, prevailing wind, phase of moon etc. It is what people do when they perform experiments.

I don't think he is dumb at all. It is a mystery to me because what he says is that he does not take temperature into account (and did not need to) because if that were the case he could not use preset tables based solely on electrolysis current - there is variation of 2C fro same current (and more during "heat bursts").

Which is why I suspect that the vapour condenses outside the calorimetric boundary and is returned to the electrolysis vessel as liquid. That process could make evaporation much lower than that (which I calculated) based on the electrolysis liquid temperature. It is the lack of clarity over what exactly is going on here that detracts from what is otherwise an excellent writeup. Does the returning liquid provide a path of heat loss - and if so does the path vary according to cell conditions? I don't know because this is not explicitly characterised nor discussed.

Quote from Alan Smith

You actually wrote 'expirically' I though it was a new portmanteau word

mea culpa

Quote from Alan Smith

Even a schoolboy knows that water evaporates faster when hotter.

About that obsession of THHuxleynew with evaporation, I really would like him to understand that evaporation doesn’t depend only on temperature, it also depends in open surface magnitude and morphology (I know most say it doesn’t,’but anyone that has studied plant physiology and how plants transpire will strongly disagree, a leaf can evaporate several orders of magnitude more than an equivalent open surface just because of the morphology of leaf stomata allows it), and also that it is an equilibrium with the mixture of gases which is receiving the water vapor. In a capped tube with only capillaries allowing exit of anything, evaporation could never be accurately calculated just by temperature vs water vapor pressure alone. This is why empirical determination is fundamental. And the fact that leaves can evaporate orders of magnitude more water per unit of surface than an open surface was also discovered empirically.

Quote from THHuxleynew

The fill-up rate could have been set theoretically based on calculated evaporation (maybe problematic) + electrolysis (fine) ignoring recombination (most here think fine, and maybe it is).

Or it could be set empirically, as Staker says

He said both, and he meant both.

It was based on calibrations (what you call empirical).

It was also based on first principles. That is, electrolysis and Faraday''s law. Faraday's law agreed with the calibrations, so the two methods both worked. If they hadn't agreed, he would not have proceeded. He would have found the problem and fixed it.

He said recombination never happens with this geometry and power level. Ed Storms gave you data showing this. You can see this for yourself with some stiff wires, a battery and salt water. Anyone in the last 180 years could have seen it. It is not a profound observation, or difficult to replicate. I mean you can literally see it, and measure it with an inverted water filled test tube, and by watching the water level.

He said evaporation was negligible at these temperatures. He confirmed that. You could confirm that anytime you like. Make a similar cell, heat it, and measure evaporation.

He measured the water level to be sure there was no recombination. You claim that evaporation at any power level might magically remove just enough water to hide recombination. That's impossible. The temperatures during calibration and during the run with both the active and control cells varied over a wide range, so any evaporation would have varied. It could not magically equal recombination, because recombination is not governed by temperature. Again, if you dispute this, I suggest you do a simple experiment and see for yourself.

Quote from Curbina

In a capped tube with only capillaries allowing exit of anything, evaporation could never be accurately calculated just by temperature vs water vapor pressure alone. This is why empirical determination is fundamental.

Yes. That is what Staker said in his papers, and what he told me the other day. I have often said "evaporation depends on temperature and vapor pressure" (Dalton's law) but I did not mean you can predict the exact level of evaporation from these two alone. I mean that evaporation varies with temperature, so if it "covers up" up recombination at 80 deg C, it will not also cover it up at 20 deg C.

Evaporation varies with temperature; recombination does not. So they cannot be equal at all temperatures. Actually, the chances of them being equal at any temperature is nil.

Empirical determination -- that is, calibration -- is essential in all experiments. Fleischmann often said that. Nobody did first-principle modeling better than he did, or in more detail, but he also did calibration after calibration. His equations included a term for evaporation. It played an essential role in the boil-off experiments.