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

Quote from Curbina

You mean H from the air, at 0.6 ppm?

No, I mean H from the electrode.

Quote from Curbina

Also, why you consider that the short circuit causes any change to the rate of energy production if the underlying phenomena keeps at the same pace?

The question is what is the maximum power out: that is zero for open or short circuit, but a good approx to maximum is when voltage and current are both half of their maximum values.

Quote from Alan Smith

@THH. unfortunately I only have 'now' data on these plates, which didn't form part of the original series I produced for the IWAHLM workshop last year. But they were producing a lot more at the time of manufacture. However in air the output curves decay rapidly. See the table on page 8 of the attached ppt/pdf. Decay curves in hydrogen are flatter, and the base line is much higher. As I said, the 2 brass plates represent the worst possible system treated in the worst possible way..

IWAHLM Assisi 2022 ppoint.pdf

Understood. The data I have seen all show total energy out very low - so although it is not obvious what is the chemical reaction there are certainly not obvious possibilities - e.g. just H diffusing a bit would release enough energy. So without new info I would continue to say that chemistry looks like a probably source for the power here.

Quote from THHuxleynew

H diffusing a bit would release enough energy.

By what reaction in the bronze plate case?

Quote from Alan Smith

Plate area for both brass electrodes is 24 cm2 each. Reasonable estimates for total power output over 5250 hours approx is between a low of 10Wh and a high of 20wH.

Well, that is well below the performance of a lithium AAA battery. Disregarding the facts that two brass plates are not a battery as far as anyone knows, and brass does not absorb hydrogen. Anyway, the Bard chatbot tells me --

A lithium AAA battery electrode is:

• Diameter: 10.5 to 11.6 millimeters
• Height: 4.8 to 5.6 millimeters
• Positive electrode surface area: 0.1 to 0.2 square centimeters
• Negative electrode surface area: 0.2 to 0.3 square centimeters

Output is 2500 mAh or 4.5 Wh.

That is 100 times less surface area and 2 to 4 times less energy.

Your LEC is not optimized. You are telling us it is the opposite of optimized.

Quote from Alan Smith

It was deliberately the opposite of optimised

It would be mildly interesting to get an OOM estimate of the energy available (for given electrode size) from an optimised LEC.

All the figures so far look very small.

Quote from Curbina

By what reaction in the bronze plate case?

Curbina - at the very low levers of energy out shown - just H moving around would do it (it can move pretty well anywhere). But there is no point speculating - we would need the details and only then could we start to thing about reactions. At this low level something that is not commonly thought of as a reaction could still release chemical energy.

Quote from THHuxleynew

It would be mildly interesting to get an OOM estimate of the energy available (for given electrode size) from an optimised LEC.

Would it be "mildly interesting" if you learn that the energy produced by a LEC is a thousand times more than any possible battery or chemical device?

Answer: No you would not be interested at all. Not mildly or any other way. You would dismiss the evidence, as you have done for all other cold fusion experiments. You do not find it even "mildly" interesting when rock solid replicated energy production exceeds the limits of chemistry 100,000 times. So I wonder why you say you would find this mildly interesting, when we all know you will dismiss it no matter how strong the evidence might be.

Quote from Alan Smith

The devices are small and none of the next generation LECs are yet public (wait for ICCF-25.) I do have figures for these, but I'm not going to tell you because you wouldn't believe me.

Do you have any evidence for my lack of belief in what people say? You might notice that my criticisms are nearly always (as above) that what they say is not substantiated - when no evidence is given. I am much less likely than other here to think people liars, or to say it. (Rossi being the only well-deserved exception).

Quote from JedRothwell

Answer: No you would not be interested at all. Not mildly or any other way. You would dismiss the evidence, as you have done for all other cold fusion experiments. You do not find it even "mildly" interesting when rock solid replicated energy production exceeds the limits of chemistry 100,000 times. So I wonder why you say you would find this mildly interesting, when we all know you will dismiss it no matter how strong the evidence might be.

That, Jed, is not correct.

I have never dismissed the evidence about LECs. I have accepted all of the data shown here. I queried Alan's statement because that was so different from any other data I had seen, and what he posted here. But, of course, it will the newer battery LEC plates with solid ionic conductors which we have heard of but not yet seen data for. While it is true that I will not expect anything extraordinary (e.g. over-chemical energy) from those - if it exists - I and many others will be highly interested. And I said mildly interesting because I am not expecting that - but you never know.

Anyway - if you go to the clean energy thread you can see that sometimes my skepticism is bang on the money. Compare their 2022 paper with my comments on the uncertainty in their earlier papers.

PS - rock solid replicated energy production exceeds chemical 100,000 times? Quote the paper, and the replication. Just two precise references. So I can be sure you are not exaggerating.

Quote from THHuxleynew

PS - rock solid replicated energy production exceeds chemical 100,000 times? Quote the paper, and the replication. Just two precise references. So I can be sure you are not exaggerating.

The same ones I gave you before, plus Staker and Roulette. I don't have to quote them. You can do the arithmetic yourself, although of course you will not. Since you won't run the numbers, you won't take my numbers, and you don't believe the authors, there is no point to quoting the details.

You are well advised not to take my numbers without checking them. I made an order of magnitude error on Staker. I had the weight of Pd 120 g/cc. It should be 12 g/cc. (I mixed it up with grams per mole of Pd, which is 106.) Maximum storage if there were any oxygen would be 80 J. So the excess during the second heat burst exceeds the limits of chemistry 1,417 times, and over the entire run 9,675. Since there is no oxygen, we can take McKubre's estimate of how much other chemical fuel there is in a cell. It comes to well beyond 100,000 times.

Quote from JedRothwell

The same ones I gave you before, plus Staker and Roulette.

Jed - I am so sorry - but you do need to be clear here because I cannot identify specifics from this. You have previously quoted large numbers of papers, review papers, etc, etc.

If you are to accuse me of specific false statements, I need to understand why you think they are at fault, not just sweeping Jed-style generalisations which cannot be examined.

Quote from JedRothwell

You are well advised not to take my numbers without checking them. I made an order of magnitude error on Staker. I had the weight of Pd 120 g/cc. It should be 12 g/cc. (I mixed it up with grams per mole of Pd, which is 106.) Maximum storage if there were any oxygen would be 80 J. So the excess during the second heat burst exceeds the limits of chemistry 1,417 times, and over the entire run 9,675. Since there is no oxygen, we can take McKubre's estimate of how much other chemical fuel there is in a cell. It comes to well beyond 100,000 times.

Staker - excess heat is not 100,000X that available from chemical. The main result is 770kJ (if you ignore the uncertainty over evaporation/recombination) => you are claiming < 10J is available chemically from that system. Clearly absurd. The second excess heat burst you admit is << 100,000X so I will not bother to check.

Roulette - sorry I'd need a reference - we do not have a specific paper I remember.

McKubre - that could be larger but I do not have the figures and as always the devil is in the detail. I am never sure which McKubre result people are referring to.

Of course the additional issue with all this data is uncertainty - from Staker because of inconsistencies in the report - or - if consistent - we have a path via condensing liquid outside the calorimetry boundary falling back into the cell for an uncontrolled and variable thermal resistance. You cannot trust calibration when such things exist and are not quantified carefully. If there is no such path, then the difference in evaporation between different temperatures makes his statement about "evaporation makes no difference" incorrect. I'm inclined to think he does have such a "condense and return" path. He has not examined it for what change it makes to calorimetry from conduction (you can bound the heat of vaporisation, so I do not mind that).

Quote from THHuxleynew

Jed - I am so sorry - but you do need to be clear here because I cannot identify specifics from this. You have previously quoted large numbers of papers, review papers, etc, etc.

You asked for three, and I gave you three:

Post

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

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
…

JedRothwell

May 30th 2023

Quote from THHuxleynew

Staker - excess heat is not 100,000X that available from chemical. The main result is 770kJ (if you ignore the uncertainty over evaporation/recombination) => you are claiming < 10J is available chemically from that system. Clearly absurd.

It is way over 100,000, because there is virtually no chemical fuel in the cell, and no free oxygen. See McKubre's estimate. There is no uncertainty over evaporation/recombination. You made that up. Just making up things does not make them true. I said 80 J, not <10. You say that is "clear absurd." Why? What is absurd? What chemical fuel is there in the cell? Tell us. If you cannot tell us, your assertion cannot be verified or falsified, and it has no scientific meaning.

Quote from THHuxleynew

The second excess heat burst you admit is << 100,000X so I will not bother to check.

You mean, you will not bother to justify your assertion that this is "absurd." You will just say that, even though it is not true and you have no basis for saying it. We are supposed to believe everything you say even though you never give a verifiable reason. In this case, you will not tell us what the fuel is. You just wave your hand and imply there is something. (Imply; never with any specifics.)

Quote from THHuxleynew

Roulette - sorry I'd need a reference - we do not have a specific paper I remember.

Look it up yourself:

LIBRARY

You don't need me to spoon feed you every single detail. You won't read it even if I did.

Quote from THHuxleynew

Of course the additional issue with all this data is uncertainty - from Staker because of inconsistencies in the report - or - if consistent - we have a path via condensing liquid outside the calorimetry boundary falling back into the cell for an uncontrolled and variable thermal resistance.

This is all nonsense. If it were true, the calibrations before, during and after the tests would not work, and the control cell next to the cell would not work. Furthermore, all the details you claim are not in the papers, are in fact in the papers. You have not read the papers, so you wouldn't know that. Or you looking for what Nixon called "plausible deniability" meaning you didn't see it, so it isn't there.

To put it another way, you have not yet developed object permanence. Most infants develop this by 8 months. You see that Staker's second large burst far exceeds the limits of chemistry. You even agreed that is true . . . for a short while. A day later you are back to saying it is not true. Nothing is permanent with you. You always revert to the assertions that all claims are mistake, or there is some magic unnamed fuel in the cell, or there is recombination that cannot be detected by any of the methods that have worked for the last 180 years . . . Always back to square one. The moment you post a message, you forget everything you said.

Quote from JedRothwell

It is way over 100,000, because there is virtually no chemical fuel in the cell, and no free oxygen. See McKubre's estimate. There is no uncertainty over evaporation/recombination. You made that up. Just making up things does not make them true. I said 80 J, not <10. You say that is "clear absurd." Why?

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.

I say - it is absurd to think the chemical energy available is < 10J (rounding up).

All makes perfect sense if you juts read it.

Quote from JedRothwell

There is no uncertainty over evaporation/recombination. You made that up.

There is, for Staker, uncertainty over evaporation because he did not measure it. The only way it could be low is if he has liquid from outside the cell condensing there and falling back in. In that case there is a liquid bridge from outside to inside - which could alter the (purposefully very high) thermal resistance of these cells changing calibration in an unpredictable way depending on cell conditions.

I've now said this 3 X -- but when i say things you assume it is nonsense - instead of using some brainpower to understand the sense.

THH

Quote from THHuxleynew

There is, for Staker, uncertainty over evaporation because he did not measure it.

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?