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.
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.
@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..
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.
You mean H from the air, at 0.6 ppm?
No, I mean H from the electrode.
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.
Reasonable estimates for total power output over 5250 hours approx is between a low of 10Wh and a high of 20wH.
While this figure is low these 2 plates have not been stored optimally, having been stacked face-to face in a box for most of the 5250 hours since creation. That this affects performance is shown by the fact that it takes around 10 minutes in an optimal configuration with a nylon mesh spacer (.01mm thick approx) for the voltage to recover to today's figure of 14mV and 10 microamps.
5250 hours
14mV * 10uA * 0.25 (is measured short-circuit vis open circult) 35nW
175uW-hours? That is 100,000 X smaller than your figure.
I guess we would need a bit more info about how "reasonable estimate" is obtained. I realise it was initially at a higher voltage and current. We need the voltage and current vs time graph - or at least a few points on it.
@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.
So - are these high energy LECs (not sure how high they are) all working in a noble gas atmosphere? Otherwise we have possible chemical reactions with H.
Hi Jed. We are looking at a surface-based phenomenon si area is key. I'll measure it tomorrow. I think we can do an estimate.
Although that may be true - we need the mass of the electrode that might contain diffused hydrogen or something else and be chemically reactive.
Not arguments: evidence. Observations. So far, the evidence indicates that a LEC produces far more energy than any equivalent chemical system can produce, with no chemical changes, and no chemicals known to produce electricity (such as those in batteries). That rules out chemistry.
Could we have some ball park figures for energy produced (vs mass of electrode?). Because that is needed for your argument to be definite.
Can you estimate the active surface, or the active mass of material, and total energy output so far? I would like to see a very rough estimate to compare to a battery. I suppose surface area is a better metric than the mass of material.
I agree - and also what is important is the current and voltage over that time. Since it is power integrated over time that matters. But in this case we will allow you equivalent power from 1/4 of (short circuity current X open circuit voltage) - integrated over time!
The figures I've seen for this so far are very small.
So, just to be clear, this is chemistry after all? Or this has been nuclear all the time, staring at our face, and we just did not realize until now? Or we still don’t know?
Chemistry and physics.
But no reason for anything nuclear (though others here may have their arguments for why there could be such a reason?).
I think that is a good enough general framework but of course the details can be spectacularly complex. The point is that modern theory and simulations solve this - but they do not reduce exactly to simple rules of thumb hence the problem looked at classically last century stays complex.
The RNA produced by the organism is completely subservient to the DNA. That is in a healthy, uninfected cell. A cell that is infected by a virus (or an mRNA vaccine) is no longer under control of the organism that cell is part of. It is a different organism. It is a sort of parasite.
Foreign (to a cell) RNA can be used beneficially in signalling etc: so you might want to view it as a symbiont on those cases:
Display MoreSounds like a dogma regurgitated by a non expert..
I rote learned this doing biochemistry 50 yrs ago
Of course there is an input from the environment..
and then there is RNA... which is much more than a DNA subservient messenger
especially when it is a Pfizer R*NA which hijacks the cell to make it a spike protein factory
the spike protein is part of the Pfizer genSome not the human genome..
Agrees. During development cells are differentiated by chemical (non-DNA) signals. While in a foetus all of this is "programmed" by DNA, the data comes from environment only some of which comes from DNA.
What genetics has told us over that last 50 years is that the exquisitely complex ways that genes are switched on and off, and other cells processes occur, depends on both the cell DNA (nuclear and mitochondrial) and its environment.
I hold that view. But it does not mean much. It is not profound. It is not even controversial from my point of view. It is like saying that a computer program is a long list of instructions recorded magnetically that are executed by the CPU. That does not tell you the purpose of the program, or whether it was written by someone with an evil intention. It just tells you what the program is in physical terms. That is all it is, on one level. A person or other living creature has only one fundamental purpose at the level of DNA -- to survive and reproduce. This causes all kinds of interesting meta-phenomena such as birdsongs, romantic poetry, and people making thermonuclear weapons. But at the atomic level, it is all DNA driven. DNA all the way down. (Of course life also involves metabolism, brain function, etc., but every aspect of living things is controlled by DNA.)
So: materialism (the bit I think is held by few) states specifically that the only purpose to human lives is to live and reproduce.
Based on what you write here (and elsewhere in fact) I think you have purpose to your life other than this, and therefore are not a materialist. Purpose is not the same as cause. You can believe in material-only causes (I do - no divine hand doing miracles for me) without saying there is no higher (than to live and reproduce) purpose.
Other than the purpose bit - I would be with you in agreeing with materialism. But - purpose is a big deal and encompasses all that stuff: morality, spirit, religion.
The only way you can get persisting foam in an electrolytic system is of there are film-forming surfctants present. The usual way this comes about is if (for example) you use an alkaline electrolyte and there is grease from fingerprints etc on the tank or the electrodes. The combination of fats and alkalis makes soap. If everything is clean, you see no foam. As for exothermic re-combination, it is as I have said before not seen. However, the endothermic production of hydrogen peroxide at the cathode is possible and has been shown to be real..
I remember this, and defer to your expertise. Do you think that F&P video was foam, or microbubbles? You would think they would take care to keep things clean: but it certainly made working out the liquid level dificult.
But in this case we do not know what happened in Staker's experiment?
You wave your hands and talk about imaginary foam, but in real life there is no foam. Recombination at the cathode is also impossible, as you would see if you try to induce it yourself. If it did happen, it would be obvious, using the methods that Staker and all other electrochemists employ. Since we know these imaginary problems do not happen, and cannot happen, you are wrong.
The F&P video showed what looked like foam. I don't mind at all whether you call it microbubbles or foam. Either way, it can alter calorimetry if the calorimetry depends on the liquid level. Does the part at the top which is foam (call it bubbles if you like - but on that F&P video it looked like foam) behave like liquid or air?
Please do not invoke the "all other electrochemists" thing. Find three good non-LENR electrochemists to arbitrate (as in a mainstream peer review). Or, better, check carefully all possible artifacts. Which by the way is what all non-LENR scientists do when confronted with unexpected results.
When results are unexpected, as here, all of the experimental details need to be clear, if anyone other than LENR believers is going to think the result is certain.
Remember: what LENR needs is certain and replicable experiments. Since Staker's result is replicable (he says) it would be great if it were also certain.
That comes from being careful about effects that can change calorimetry: especially in this setup which has quite variable calibration constants according to meniscus level.
THH
He also says these fill-up speeds worked. They kept the water level the same. In both the cold fusion cell and the control cell. The current and the fill-up rate was exactly the same in both. So the excess heat was not caused by them, and it was not hot enough to affect the water level with extra evaporation.
As I said, he confirmed the different temperature was not high enough to change the fill-up rate.
Jed: on this thread: 200 years old physics means that the evaporation rate can be calculated from the temperature.
In that case we have something not understood about this experiment. The temperature difference between the active and control cells is around 2C - 65C to 67C.
You (please do it - I did it many pages ago - but I'd appreciate a check) can calculate the two different equilibrium vapour pressures for H2O. The graph of equilibrium vapour pressure goes up sharply as you approach 100C - where it is 1 atmosphere (100kPa).
Vapour pressure of water - Wikipedia
65C 25kPa
70C 31kPa
Interpolate: difference between 65C and 67C is 2.4kPa. Or 2.4% of 1 atmosphere.
You can then work out the number of moles of H20/D2O difference in evaporation between the two cases. It will I am sure not surprise you that it is roughly 2.4% of the total amount electrolysed, and hence the total fill-up. (By the same reasoning the total evaporation is roughly 27% if the electrolysed amount).
I say roughly because partial pressures need to be converted to moles, but:
The partial pressure of an individual gas is equal to the total pressure multiplied by the mole fraction of that gas. Because it is dependent solely on the number of particles and not the identity of the gas, the Ideal Gas Equation applies just as well to mixtures of gases as it does to pure gases.
So: a mole fraction of 2.4% corresponds to:
2.4% mol H20 vs 100% mol (H2 + 0.5O2)
Or a 1.5X increase by mass
2.4% X 1.5 of 162cc = 6g ~ 6cc (I remember it being lower when I calculated it before - but I'm sure you can correct this).
Anyway - even 1cc would I believe matter since Staker says the meniscus level is critical to the calorimetry.
I am very glad you are in communication with him - you will be able to resolve this.
If he kept the experiment under a very high pressure - e.g. 5 atmospheres - that would reduce evaporation and hence the magnitude of this effect? he says he uses a positive pressure but I imagined only a small positive pressure to prevent atmospheric ingress.
Had he published a few more details we would not need all this analysis...
I assume that we do not have the exhaust gasses cooling down outside the calorimetric boundary such that the condensed vapour can return to the cell because that would mean that varying evaporation, or D2 vs O2, would change the calibration constant. Perhaps though this is OK? The heat of vaporisation is much smaller then the excess heat - so that is not the issue. But differential heat transfer from outside to inside due to conduction through variable amounts of liquid is an issue. What do you think?
THH
He could not have avoided measuring it. You cannot fail to see it with the methods he used. The cell fills up with water! If evaporation magically removed that exact same amount of water -- always the right amount, even though the temperature changed radically -- that would increase the excess heat, not decrease it.
Jed, you are not reading the paper, and thinking through.
He SAYS that he has a pre-computed set of fill-up speeds based on electrolysis current.
Now, that would be worked out from initial runs, and include evaporation. So it would work, without explicitly measuring evaporation.
Then, given there is a different temperature in the active cell, that would lead to a difference in evaporation and therefore over a long time level. What does he do? Manual ad hoc fill-up (probable) - or nothing. Does he record that extra fill-up? Unlikely, since he never mentions it. From his point of view it is safe not recording it because evaporation does not need to be measured.
Evaporation not recorded would be conservative (reduce the apparent excess heat)
Evaporation + the same amount of recombination would however increase the apparent excess heat.
What we have is an unknown amount of evaporation + recombination. If he was exactly measuring fill-up and relating that to the predicted temperature-dependent evaporation - he would exactly know recombination. He is not doing any of that.
The fact that he does not say how he resolves this issue, and that his assumption that evaporation does not matter is incorrect, because he cannot know recombination without knowing evaporation, makes his results questionable. He probably never checked.
It is silly really, a bit more care with the details would have sorted this out. We would know how he dealt with things and very possibly it would be safe enough.
In reality - the most likely errors here are calorimetry due to changes in cell conditions - since we know meniscus level change is an issue and foaming may alter things. But without precise measurement of everything we (and he) cannot check everything properly and errors can then not be found.
What do you mean by that? The 28-hour heat burst alone produced far more heat than any chemical effect could have, or than recombination could have. It was far more than any chemical storage could have put into the cathode. The heat burst alone is proof of a non-chemical effect. The overall heat budget for 46 days is irrelevant. Why are you even talking about it? If you cannot explain the heat burst, you have to agree there is non-chemical excess heat.
As always, I mean what I say.
There were two extraordinary results from that paper, the 46 day result, and the heat burst result.
They need to be considered separately. Neither is irrelevant (or they would not have been calculated). Both claim to show LENR. Both need analysis.
You are as always doing a binary LENR / no LENR analysis of work. Whereas I am critically appraising it, as one should, trying to work out what it means, how it can be replicated, etc.
I agree (I did that several pages ago when we first discussed it, after you pushed me to look at it) that the burst data shows above chemical excess heat if the calorimetry is accurate for that. It is stronger than the 46 day evidence, The question would be - is anything (e.g. foam, bubbles) that might alter the calorimetry different between the control and active tubes during that period. Since meniscus level (Staker says) alters results I guess foam might as well. The burst data is less well validated for that so I am less inclined to take it as strong evidence. But, even the non-burst data needs validation for foam altering calorimetry?
Your approach is fine: but not good science. You have to look at all of these details one by one and make sense of them - not make sweeping statements.
THH
I know for a fact it is impossible. But suppose I am wrong. The methods described by Staker would definitely reveal recombination. He could not fail to see it, and evaporation cannot hide it.
I actually agree - as I've said above, the amount of recombination needed for this excess heat would probably be noticeable. But I do not trust these results given that what is said in the paper is not what actually must have been done. And Staker says that the amount of evaporation is not significant, which makes me think he would not have measured it.
No, that is not a bit true. During the heat bursts, complete recombination would produce far less apparent heat than what he measures. Evaporation would decrease the excess heat, not increase it. It would remove enthalpy. So if there is undetected evaporation, that means his excess heat is more than he reports, not less.
It is also not true that Staker "does not bother to detect" evaporation. He couldn't miss it. He would definitely detect it using the methods he describes, which are monitoring the temperature, setting the flow rate of the IV pump, and checking the water level. Anyone would see evaporation by doing that, and there is no way that evaporation could hide recombination. You have been saying that could happen, but you are wrong. It is easy to tell them apart. Anyway, if evaporation magically hid the effects of recombination, that would hide more excess heat than it would create false excess heat.
Jed. I have agreed that several times.
I'm talking about the overall hest budget over 46 days - not the heat burst.
I agree with you that it would have effects - if he monitored it.
You said, however, that he would manually adjust the preset fill-up - as needed. I agree that is about the only way what he says make sense. But in that case "he would notice" is your assumption.
