Posts by THHuxleynew

    robert bryant This is the first I heard of Staker and I have not read anything by him. I read the post by THHuxleynew and he is way more qualified to evaluate and comment on this sort of paper than I am. Nonetheless, I will read the material when I have time.


    SOT - I'd welcome many people here taking an interest in Staker's results, as I said I do not have much expertise here and in this case (Staker) I have not spent much time. All these replicable (?) modern excess heat experiments are interesting. We should know enough about how to trigger it and how to instrument well to obtain v solid results for FPHE. So I find recent papers like this with v flaky results underwhelming.

    The temperature of a vessel containing boiling water is much more uniform than the temperature of a vessel containing hot water. As anybody who does calorimetry knows very well.


    Wiki on nucleate boiling:

    Two different regimes may be distinguished in the nucleate boiling range. When the temperature difference is between approximately 4 °C (7.2 °F) to 10 °C (18 °F) above TS, isolated bubbles form at nucleation sites and separate from the surface. This separation induces considerable fluid mixing near the surface, substantially increasing the convective heat transfer coefficient and the heat flux. In this regime, most of the heat transfer is through direct transfer from the surface to the liquid in motion at the surface and not through the vapor bubbles rising from the surface.

    Between 10 °C (18 °F) and 30 °C (54 °F) above TS, a second flow regime may be observed. As more nucleation sites become active, increased bubble formation causes bubble interference and coalescence. In this region the vapor escapes as jets or columns which subsequently merge into slugs of vapor.

    Interference between the densely populated bubbles inhibits the motion of liquid near the surface. This is observed on the graph as a change in the direction of the gradient of the curve or an inflection in the boiling curve. After this point, the heat transfer coefficient starts to reduce as the surface temperature is further increased although the product of the heat transfer coefficient and the temperature difference (the heat flux) is still increasing.

    When the relative increase in the temperature difference is balanced by the relative reduction in the heat transfer coefficient, a maximum heat flux is achieved as observed by the peak in the graph. This is the critical heat flux. At this point in the maximum, considerable vapor is being formed, making it difficult for the liquid to continuously wet the surface to receive heat from the surface. This causes the heat flux to reduce after this point. At extremes, film boiling commonly known as the Leidenfrost effect is observed.

    450px-Boiling_Curve.jpg
    Boiling curve for water at 1atm

    The process of forming steam bubbles within liquid in micro cavities adjacent to the wall if the wall temperature at the heat transfer surface rises above the saturation temperature while the bulk of the liquid (heat exchanger) is subcooled. The bubbles grow until they reach some critical size, at which point they separate from the wall and are carried into the main fluid stream. There the bubbles collapse because the temperature of bulk fluid is not as high as at the heat transfer surface, where the bubbles were created. This collapsing is also responsible for the sound a water kettle produces during heat up but before the temperature at which bulk boiling is reached.

    Heat transfer and mass transfer during nucleate boiling has a significant effect on the heat transfer rate. This heat transfer process helps quickly and efficiently to carry away the energy created at the heat transfer surface and is therefore sometimes desirable—for example in nuclear power plants, where liquid is used as a coolant.

    The effects of nucleate boiling take place at two locations:

    • the liquid-wall interface
    • the bubble-liquid interface

    The nucleate boiling process has a complex nature. A limited number of experimental studies provided valuable insights into the boiling phenomena, however these studies provided often contradictory data due to internal recalculation (state of chaos in the fluid not applying to classical thermodynamic methods of calculation, therefore giving wrong return values) and have not provided conclusive findings yet to develop models and correlations. Nucleate boiling phenomenon still requires more understanding




    So: fully boiling pure water is well mixed. But water with bubbles (foam) will have very different thermal conductivity in foam and water. Boiling water can also lead to different thermal conductivity with container according to what fraction of the container wall in different places is covered by bubbles. And boiling at lower rates is very complex with perhaps only partial mixing in liquid, none in foam.


    I don't agree that astoli has proven a point with foamgate but equally given the acknowledged existence of foam in these systems, or even without it, what you say about fully boiling water where turbulence mixes everything and surface bubbles are rapidly scrubbed may not apply in the F&P cells under all operating conditions.


    And although ascolfi is repetitive, so are those who argue the other side of this here.


    Unless you have some additional argument for this?


    Frankly, until reading arguments here I thought the boil-off evidence from F&P was generally accepted as weak. Just as I similarly view the quite large amount of other uncontrolled "runaway" evidence, unless it can by tied down in absolute terms.


    THH

    Would Dr Michael Staker's research classify as real research?

    Yes or no.?

    Have you read his paper yet?

    Yes or No.?

    http://coldfusioncommunity.net…F21_Staker_2_Oct_2018.pdf


    Robert - it is as always a pleasure for me to read and try to make sense of these detailed reports. I had not paid attention to that one before (or if I had do not remember this). I've found that often it takes me many hours of work to do this - mainly because I have good background knowledge - enough to review expert work - but only with a lot of interspersed background reading. I think that is quite a good position, because I'm less likely to make "we don't question this because no-one ever has" type assumptions but it also leaves me vulnerable to mistake, so I welcome your perhaps expert critique. Our approaches are also quite usefully complementary - it seems that you ask the experimenters for clarification - whereas i try to look at what they have written


    Just one thing: moderators: please could you ask Robert to refrain from personal comments. The comment below seems like some (unsuccessful) attempt to doxx me.

    How shall I refer you,,, Dr THHuxleynew? MS?



    Staker's 2018 report


    A calibration curve of 𝚫T versus power-in was run for cells with 1, 2, 3 and 4 nested tubes in an effort
    to assess sensitivity by adding tubes. This was motivated by the small volume of Pd electrode, anticipated
    power density releases (watts/cc), and a desire to distinguish between chemical energy (a few eV/atom) and
    nuclear energy (between keV/atom to MeV/atom, depending on fraction of atoms participating, see Results
    section below). The sensitivity increased with each nesting Pyrex tube and its associated dead air space.


    This curve (tested before and after the experiment) stops at 2.6W in (37C above ambient). Supposing ambient = 25C, that is still only calibration up to 62C measured.


    "runaway" behaviour is shown as (figure 23) starting at 74C. Well outside the calibration range.


    I have no doubt that this behaviour exists, but suggest it could be because of some nonlinear difference in thermal conductivity between the nested tubes, for example caused by the development of bubbles, or some other effect. To accept these results we would need high temperature calibration data with the setup run for a long period of time (enough for bubbles etc to form).


    Bubble formation might of course be different between D2 & H2 systems, because the physical properties are different.


    There remains the non-runaway behaviour difference between H and D cells. That is 1C at 66C, or 2.5% power difference between the cells. The real physical difference between the H and D, and the fact that what is measured here is not (precisely) power, but temperature, make this essentially a null result.


    So to summarise:


    "runaw-away" behaviour significant but outside of calibration range, and has possible causes in this complex multi-tube system.

    "normal" behaviour a small difference in temperature between the two cells, easily realisable from physical differences between D and H.


    Context


    the context on this thread - forgotten it seems - is the claim that LENR results are as obviously clear as the Curie results showing power emitted from Radium samples. The three characteristics of the Curie measurements that make their acceptance so easy are:


    • No power in
    • Controllable power out as shown from temp rise by moving the (small) sample
    • Easily replicable by anyone.

    The complexity and number of assumptions needed to translate the Staker runaway temperature into a genuine runaway power make it so very unclear, compared with this. In fact it is that lack of clarity from the LENR results (like this one) that do seem replicable that makes the interpretation of these experiments as LENR so contentious for science.


    THH


    Sounds interesting work: perhaps you could link a full paper when one is available so that it can be evaluated.

    I knew that hydrogen can effect thermocouples, you knew. So your suggestion that the authors did not is (I'm afraid) pure guesswork.


    Alan, I think you have this backwards. The whole point id that they could have made the results 100X more convincing by detailing in the report the work they did to check that calibration shift in the TC was not a problem. You don't assume that a new effect not predicted by existing theory exists when given results that could be good, or could be completely artifactual.

    At least I hope you don't?


    You are right: it is an obvious problem. And when reporting unusual results it is all the more important to make such checks and document them. Without such documentation we are left not knowing, as you say.


    I'd like to point out that LENR reports, as this one, that show strong positive results do often, as here, leave out description of the necessary validation leaving the reader having to guess.


    In the context here this is not irrefutable evidence like the Curies provided. In fact it is weak evidence.


    THH


    Alan:


    (1) Of course I don't know. That is why it should have been checked.

    (2) Did it fix itself? Maybe I missed something but at the end of the experiment it was reading high? You'd think it might change again when the atmosphere changed after the experiment of course.


    The context here is trying to find some irrefutable evidence (similar to the Curies) for LENR.


    Re topic raised by authors. They mentioned that mono-H was highly reactive in a different context: not with any view that it might affect the Pt thermocouple readings.


    In this experiment they note that the high temp tungsten heater (associated with the HAD phenomenon) can generate highly reactive H. They do not do any post-experiment calibration of the Pt thermocouple, nor specify its details. Therefore one obviosu unexplored possibility for these results is progressive contamination of the thermocouple by mono-atom H leading to higher readings.

    You seem to be missing the point. ALL cold fusion experiments produce total energy >> chemical. Sometimes 10,000 times more, sometimes 100,000 times more. If a cold fusion reaction were chemical, it would stop after a minute or less, but it always runs for days continuously, and sometimes for weeks.


    MANY cold fusion experiments have no power input. Others have input that can be measured with extremely high precision and confidence, and that can be subtracted. This was first done by Faraday.


    The calorimetry IS EASY and it IS BOMB-PROOF. It could have been done with confidence by any scientist in the last 240 years.


    Jed: read what I wrote, and note there were two conditions - both needed.


    The calorimetry in CF experiments is not bomb-proof. You think this, but it depends on assumptions about constancy of conditions between calibration and active which you point out have been known true for 100s of years. But they are not provably always true. It can be (and has been argued) that these assumptions may fail in specific systems, sometimes. Difficult to prove or disprove that.


    Whereas the Curie case requires no such assumptions.


    To be constructive, I think our difference is that you classify this science, and its interpretation as meaning that LENR must exist, as "certain" - in which case "more certain" is no better. Many others don't.

    Robert: I won't do a tit-for-tat quote thing again because it is confusing. Perhaps you could clarify what you are saying that contradicts my point, made now several times? I'll reiterate it:


    1) LENR science is viewed as fringe science - not generally accepted.


    2) The fact that my boring mainstream position on this is considered (by you and I'd agree) fringe here, further makes this point.


    The point I understand you are saying is that Max was addressing a primarily fringe LENR audience (this site) not a mainstream audience. I accept that, and have never thought or implied otherwise.


    But: the mainstream of a fringe audience is fringe :)



    It is unfortunate that you did not read my reply to your previous (similar) comment above. You state that I am fringe here. Well, yes. Just as LENR would be fringe on a mainstream physics site. in your heart I'm sure you know this. Popularity, or acceptance, id no guarantor of truth. But, if you want to seek truth, you should assess it dispassionately, not try to push one side of a debate.


    re your comparison.


    The first (Nature) paper is providing a theoretical explanation of a well attested (multiple groups, replicable experiments) experimental observation made elsewhere. The experimental data is strong (a given rate of decay).


    The second (ICMNS) paper details an experiment made to check a possible LENR-related theory. The expected result was not found. However, they note a small anomaly in the shape of the decay graphs, dependent on the mechanical condition of the specimen, and not predicted before the experiment.


    On May 20, 2017, we started a series of experiments with the goal of observing vibrationally induced excitation transfer of the
    14.4 keV nuclear state from excited Fe-57 to ground state Fe-57 nuclei. A steel plate with a Co-57 substrate on the front surface
    was vibrated by a piezoelectric transducer near 2.21 MHz; and emission in the X-ray region was recorded with an Amptek X-123
    detector on the front side, a scintillator/photomultiplier detector on the back side, and a Geiger counter on the back side. The
    experiments provided a negative result for the originally sought ultrasonically induced excitation transfer effect, but instead showed
    non-exponential time histories for photon counts on all three detectors. Specifically, increased emission of the 14.4 keV gamma,
    Fe Kα and Kβ X-rays was observed at early time. This enhancement was present at the start of the experiments at about 19%
    above expected levels for the 14.4 keV gamma, and about 17% for the Fe K-alpha, with the enhancement decaying away with a
    time constant of about 2.5 days. Emission on the Sn Kα was consistent with the expected exponential decay of Co-57 at the 1%
    level. Non-exponential decay with an enhancement at early time was also seen for the weak Fe Kα escape peak, and in the backside Geiger counter data; and a reduction at early times was seen on the higher energy channels of the scintillator/photomultiplier
    detector counter both looking at the back side. The observed non-exponential decay is connected with the tightening of bolts
    on wooden clamps on the corners of the steel plate, which apply mechanical stress to the sample. Candidate interpretations are
    considered, in which the stress induced in the steel results in scattering and generation of THz phonons by dislocations, and in
    which phonon–nuclear coupling mediated by THz phonons leads to the transfer of nuclear excitation to other nuclei ("excitation
    transfer"), which can cause spatial delocalization of the source and angular anisotropy of the photon emission.


    They are both science. However the first one is a new and plausible theoretical explanation for known otherwise unexplained clear data. The second one is a failure to discover data that would validate a novel theoretical mechanism, together with some slightly (low level) anomalous data that was not previously predicted, and for which a few candidate explanations are given. However the data is weak, the explanations are speculative, and other (also speculative) explanations for this type of small departure from an exact exponential might exist.


    So I don't see the second as LENR: unless you count the primary negative LENR result. And its relatively weak publication is explained by the fact that it is a negative result on a fringe theory.


    The other results in the second paper are very weak and would probably not merit publication without further investigation of the possible anomalous non-exponential decay. If everyone who discovered slight deviations from expected results in experiments thereby thought that LENR existed we would indeed have mainstream acceptance of LENR. Still, this is the type of anomaly that IF REAL can be further investigated and sharpened until it is something that carries higher rate. Or, for example, an LENR theory that explains it could be checked via some independent different experiment that might corroborate the theory.


    THH


    THH

    THHuxleynew is the mainstream audience on this forum?

    I doubt it.


    More like the skeptic fringe


    Robert: you are making my points for me!


    I agree. On this forum I am part of the skeptic fringe. Just as, conversely, on a less LENR-focussed site (e.g. Physics.org) I'd be close to the mainstream and most of the other views here would be represented but fringe.


    That makes the point about LENR research being a fringe activity?


    THH

    Funnily enough for the last month (approx) we have been collecting data every second round the clock from an experiment similar to the Curie one. A few grams of 'past it's best' CF fuel and a thermocouple inside a Dewar, inside a Dewar, inside a fleece-packed jar inside a 12mm thick steel box which is connected to earth and covered in 4mm thick lead sheet. Effectively in a Faraday cage. An entirely passive set-up in which the test samples are never at the same temperature as their environment, which is monitored by several other very sensitive thermocouples.


    Alan - that is very sensible. And, should you see a similar controllable temperature rise: I'm quite sure that would be accepted by most of the academic community as evidence of something new and highly significant.

    Let's not blame Google's team for not using massive amount of knowledge on repeatable experiments yielding excess heat barely over the error margin. If you want ot make a bang make something that bangs and don't blame nature editors or man in black for everything.


    and



    My second area of profound disagreement.


    Of course the google guys, who as no-one has gainsaid have contributed significantly to LENR research with experimental investigation and equipment innovation, will frame their results in skeptical tones. (PS - I'm just waiting for somone to attack this statement by pointing out that no positive results => no helpful contribution. Untrue!).


    Suppose they did have (or hope soon to have) supporting evidence. What is the best way to engage the rest of the academic community? By showing that you are aware of the historical lack of success in this area, and the fact that it has become a fringe activity.


    Thinking otherwise - that by talking up 30 years of inconclusive results will make your presentation of new results more powerful - is profoundly silly.


    In fact by far the best (possibly the only way) to convince those highly skeptical is to start from their position and show how new replicable evidence changes the picture.


    The fact that most LENR reports do not do this - but spend 50% of words repeating previous contested claims as though that helps - reduces their credibility.


    Note that I'm not saying that LENR reports should omit background. A short resume of other related and coherent work is essential - look at McKubre's excellent experimental work. What is unhelpful is starting by saying that your thesis (LENR exists) has been proven elsewhere. Since your mainstream audience does not agree with that they will never be convinced by a paper that as an initial position insists that is true.

    I have to say that this thread shows comment where I profoundly agree with the dominant opinion here. And I challenge it: I think in two ways it is obviously wrong.


    First one: Jed's argument re the Curies:


    The Curies used ice calorimetry, with no input. They measured 10 to 100 times less power than many cold fusion experiments produce, but no one questioned their results. Several cold fusion experiments used ice calorimetry, and several had no input power, in heat after death or gas loading.


    Details of the Curies' calorimetry are below, from a book by Rutherford "Radio-Activity" (1905). He uses the term "gram-calorie" which means 1 calorie, 4.184 J. He says they measured 14 gram-calories per hour. That's 59 J per hour, or 16 mW, which is less than most cold fusion experiments. They then measured a 5% change in that rate, the contribution from beta-rays.


    No one questioned their results because in 1895 any competent scientist could measure that much heat. No one should question the vast majority of cold fusion experiments for the same reason. As I have often pointed out, Lavoisier used ice calorimetry to measure the heat of guinea pig metabolism in 1780, which is 2.1 W, and many cold fusion experiments produce more heat than that. So the claims made by you and others that the calorimetry in 180 labs and several thousand experiments might all be wrong is . . . totally without foundation. It is blather. You are making excuses to pretend the results might be in question. You are saying that thousands of scientists are incapable of making a measurement that scientists made with accuracy and confidence 240 years ago.


    My point:


    This was accepted (would be accepted now easily) because:

    • Total energy >> chemical
    • No power input

    Therefore the calorimetry can very easily be made bomb-proof. In this case because the power is generated from a small amount of material that can be added or taken away so providing control, and there is no input required, hence the output power is the only source of heat in the system. That makes any number of easy types of calorimetry possible, showing extraordinary results without possibility of error.


    Jed - can you not see that as always the details matter. I told you what was significant here, no power input, easy-peasy measurement with precise control (remove the sample, the thermometer stops increasing). Replicable by anyone. It is not the amount of power generated. It is the signal to noise ratio, and the number of assumptions needed to make the measurement.


    You incorrectly - very obviously incorrectly - compare that to the validation made from CF experiments where:


    99% require power input (those you mention that do not require power input - please quote the papers and how to replicate - I do not believe there are any such even though if LENR exists you would expect such an experiment to be possible). The only ones I can think of are heat after death claims where there is no control, no replicability, and no proof that the heat generated is >> chemical.


    I can understand that most here would accept a lower standard for proof than I do generally, and thus accept LENR evidence. That is proper: I am naturally skeptical. But this is about comparing one set of evidence with another. If you cannot see that the Curie's claims for heat emission from radium are very substantially stronger than the experimental claims for LENR - because of the reasons I gave above and restated here, I don't think I can help you further: we will have to disagree. For the reasons given here I think your judgement of this matter is flawed.


    BTW: no-one would be sure the Curies had not had a marital delusion in making these experiments, but the easy replicability means that any such concerns would be quickly assuaged. It probably also helped that this evidence was not unexpected. The fact that "mystery rays" came from Radium - an attested fact - makes it plausible that there is some new power producing process. But, and this is the key issue, with no other straws in the wind, the Curie evidence Jed has posted is much much stronger than any LENR evidence I've seen on these pages or elsewhere.


    fringe science: scientific work not accepted as correct science by most scientists where the current publications are mostly outside mainstream journals


    high reputation: state where negative comments like the ones above many here don't like will not be written.


    has their been a poll: no idea. In any case polls are not reliable.


    I thought I was clear above:

    (1) LENR is currently fringe science

    (2) Not inasfar as it is linked in PR terms with Rossi or other scam-like enterprizes.

    I guess if people are paid they can not be trusted?

    What a load of codswallop??

    What happens to all the other clients of SRI?

    can you trust your dentist with your teeth?

    Do you make this up as you go along THHuxleynew? Who trusts you, a skeptic of dubious background?


    Not at all: I've just said I do trust SRI. To do a professional paid job. In this case you do not add additional speculative (and not understood) caveats into work that is otherwise well understood. It is not what you are paid to do. I expect the attitude to this to be similar to yours here - dismissing as wild speculation and rumourmongering any possible issues that might exist but have no evidence because the work to find that has not been done. It would be quite wrong for SRI to include such stuff in the report for Brillouin - not would Brillouin think it acceptable if they did. Rather like you.

    Not a flattering article about LENR (they refer to as CF), or IH. Anyone who makes a cursory read of it, would think LENR is a fringe, disreputable science. That IH is using it in some scheme to sucker wealthy investors like Brad Pitts out of their money, and anyone who invests in it should be ashamed of themselves.


    I get the impression they are trying to hang this whole Woodford mess, on IH and CF. IH may have to do some damage control to counter this.


    LENR is a fringe science: we would all like it to become mainstream - but it ain't there yet.


    Is it disreputable? Yes if its advocates give credence to the likes of Rossi, as some but no ways all LENR researchers did 5 years ago.


    Let us all work for it to have a high reputation.

    Really funny, now the “prof-to-prof” comment, dated June 13, 2019 at 2:30 PM, disappeared from jonp.

    Rossi failed also managing sock puppets he created.

    His ”genius” is no more sufficient to cover all the lies published on jonp and this scam.

    He’s being ridiculous and age effects are evident.


    Hunter: to be fair to Rossi (you know I am always fair to him) that comment could have been a non-Rossi spoof comment posted for laughs. Some here have done such things. Or, it could be as you say.


    THH

    In 1895 the Curies demonstrated that radium produces heat continuously, indefinitely, at a fraction of a watt. It would eventually add up to millions of times more energy than any chemical reaction could produce. Okay, so tell us: Was that proof of concept that a nuclear reactor might a useful source of energy?


    Yes, since it implied some completely new beyond chemical energy source.


    My proviso would be the standard:


    calorimetry good without assumptions that could be questioned. (In this case there is NO POWER IN) so it is v easy to have bomb-proof calorimetry. That is what many people have hoped LENR would provide of course).

    integrated energy out >> max possible chemical energy


    I guess they met those two standards?