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

Quote from JedRothwell

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.

Display More

Jed - I am getting quite tired of you simply repeating things: without engaging with the argument.

I will accept evaporation as negligible.

In that case (you remember I did the calculations - right?) the setup must have a way for vapour to be cooled down to something close to room temperature and the condensed liquid returned to the reaction vessel. That is fine - but how can we be sure that does not affect calibration constants due to conduction or convection via this returning liquid, which obviously travels from lower temp zone into the reaction vessel temp and therefore across a calorimeter thermal boundary? We cannot assume the return liquid stream size is constant between calibration, control, and active.

I think I have said this same thing for 10X now and so don't be surprised if your next non-reply or reply attending to only 50% of what I have said does not get an answer from me...

Anyway I will be poistive and hope for a complete reply understanding the issues and not dismissing them.

Quote from Alan Smith

@THH. If you wish I can weigh it while you try to work out a chemical reaction between brass alloy and hydrogen. Take your time.

Alan Smith , THHuxleynew already shared his view about this as I asked him to specify what chemical reaction between brass and H could generate the energy, his answer was:

Quote from THHuxleynew

Curbina - at the very low levers of energy out shown - just H moving around would do it (it can move pretty well anywhere).

So, now we know H Just “Moving around” is what causes the energy that is detected as electricity from the LEC, so no need to further elucidate anything.

Quote from Alan Smith

Curbina I also linked a paper specifically about hydrogen occlusion in brass alloy, the post-exposure analysis they used showed no hydriding of the brass. So no chemistry.

I think THH should read Hasok Chang's paper- I gave him an open goal.

I agree, my sarcasm did not came out well.

Quote from Curbina

Alan Smith , THHuxleynew already shared his view about this as I asked him to specify what chemical reaction between brass and H could generate the energy, his answer was:

So, now we know H Just “Moving around” is what causes the energy that is detected as electricity from the LEC, so no need to further elucidate anything.

Quote from Alan Smith

Curbina I also linked a paper specifically about hydrogen occlusion in brass alloy, the post-exposure analysis they used showed no hydriding of the brass. So no chemistry.

I think THH should read Hasok Chang's paper- I gave him an open goal.

"no chemistry"

I am not, as you know, a chemist. My point is that for LEC you need a very small amount of energy to get from (some unknown) chemical reaction. You would have to be very brave, or an LENR supporter, to assume there could be no such unaccounted for reaction in a system with H and anything.

My question for you would be: in an LEC plate, what does the surface look like? I mean, if it is clean brass, then we need consider only reactions between H and brass - which if you say so do not exist. It it is anything else - then we have reactions between that stuff and H. You do not need much of a reaction - and H will get into mots things (brass an exception? not sure...).

Quote from Alan Smith

As you know I have commercial/technical interests in the hydrogen business. The problem of what is called 'gas crossover' in large electrolytic systems is known and has been studied extensively because it costs companies money. So I have been digging around in the published research. From this it appears that the the predominant mechanism is gas crossover of oxygen and the resulting catalytic formation of hydrogen peroxide at the anode side of the cell. Which is endothermic.

They don't worry so much about recombination at the cathode, which is considered to be insignificant, and as one paper mentions it actually produces current which in turn splits more water, something which reduces the effect of recombination upon system efficiency.

Which just makes exactly what happens in these systems even is clear.

Whereas LENR supporters can use "it seems likely that...) to support anomalous results which are not anomalous to them, because they indicate LENR...

Other people see anomalies... as anomalies. So you go and check everything, till you find the mistake. And only after multiple checks do you announce it as something unexplained and unexplainable.

This difference in attitude is explains a lot of the arguments between me and others here.