Posts by kirkshanahan

    Hey Ed,

    One other thing...

    This paper only gives a small fraction of the issues now known to be involved in making potentially active Pd. My more recent papers go into greater detail and address some of the important issues.

    Does that mean there is no single 'How to' guide for getting the FPE? If such exists, where can it be found?


    Everyone, as I said.

    More Rothwell hot air (pun intended). The fact is that there is no claim to have observed the FPE in F&P-type cells that has adequately examined the errors.

    So you think I am wrong on that? Prove it. Give me the one paper that does. That is a challenge to anyone here. Remember: F&P cells are what I've published on. It may be possible to address non-F&P experiments, but I would only do so from an error analysis perspective.

    Bring it on (as if you all haven't already tried...).

    Martin Fleischmann and Dennis Cravens used these techniques

    So F & C read Storms' paper and then used those techniques? Oh wait...I understand...Storms compiled the supposedly successful strategies of F & C (and others?) into a 'how to' guide... I was asking however, who used Ed's guide to successfully obtain the FPE?

    (BTW, I disagree F & C &/or others were successful, but you knew that...)

    @SOT The Mizuno stuff is not F&P-type electrolysis, so my CCS/ATER or CCS/ATEC does not apply. On the other hand, it is a calibrated method. In fact, the base equation is the same as used by Storms in his flow calorimeter which I critiqued in my 2002 paper. So if anything changes between calibration and experimental runs, you could get a CCS. The mechanism will be different.

    In F&P-type cell calorimetry, like any other kind of experiment, the errors need to be quantitatively evaluated. You yourself have talked about 'night and day differences'. That's just saying the S/N ratio is large. What the CF community routinely does is hand-wave the magnitude of the errors, always to the small side, and end up claiming high S/N when it is likely it isn't (you can't _actually_ tell because they don't publish enough information). Then they refuse to check after the potential flaw is pointed out. That's a clear sign of pseudoscience. What gives anyone confidence Mizuno is any different today? He does no error analysis in his papers. Para at least did a small parametric study (I was shocked RB and Z46 let him get away with it actually), and concluded some interesting facts. Also Jack Cole had some good comments. I encourage more of that, especially from the 'names' of the field.

    Jed is trolling again. For ex., I didn't invoke any of my errors in the comment he replied to. I said 'they' should evaluate 'their' errors. If Jed thinks this is incorrect, he is simply proving he knows nothing about how science is done. Likewise, I clearly stated my criticisms were not addressed ("No refutations of any of my criticisms"). I have also posted here many times, and repeat in in my whitepaper for which I gave you all a URL, that (a) the 10 author response uses the strawman argument fallacy to 'address' my calorimetric criticisms, and (b) that the editor of JEM refused to allow me to respond to the 10 author Reply. That is unusual. Likewise unusual is the very publication of the original Marwan and Krivit article in 2009.

    The abstract of that paper says:

    "This paper presents a new look at low-energy nuclear reaction research, a field that has developed

    from one of the most controversial subjects in science, ‘‘cold fusion.’’ Early in the history of this
    controversy, beginning in 1989, a strong polarity existed; many scientists fiercely defended the claim of
    new physical effects as well as a new process in which like-charged atomic nuclei overcome the
    Coulomb barrier at normal temperatures and pressures. Many other scientists considered the
    entire collection of physical observations—along with the hypothesis of a ‘‘cold fusion’’—entirely
    a mistake. Twenty years later, some people who had dismissed the field in its entirety are considering
    the validity of at least some of the reported experimental phenomena. As well, some researchers in
    the field are wondering whether the underlying phenomena may be not a fusion process but
    a neutron capture/absorption process. In 2002, a related tabletop form of thermonuclear fusion
    was discovered in the field of acoustic inertial confinement fusion. We briefly review some of this work,
    as well."

    'Environmental monitoring (EM)' is monitoring the indoor or outdoor environment for problems, like pollution or despeciation or even just "How much of X is in the environment?". Do you see anything in the abstract regarding 'EM'? The scuttlebutt at the time was that the editor attended an ICCF or such and asked for a review paper. Why, when it has nothing to do with 'EM', is still unknown. He certainly did not want to continue the debate I started with my 2010 publication however. He wouldn't let me respond, and wouldn't require the 10 authors to correct their mistake of calling my proposed error 'random' when the title of my first paper was “A systematic error in mass flow calorimetry demonstrated.” Clearly some favoritism going on there. But that is old news...

    SOT. I recommend you wait for replication on the recent Mizuno stuff. I am. My personal opinion, based on minimal study, is that Para should get a much bigger fan.

    Here is another copy of that paper:

    That's not 'another' copy, it is the same one.

    The authors do not think you addressed them adequately, and neither do I. Let the reader decide.

    Of course not. Why would they. They successfully suppressed my response. However, for those who want to see it, they can read my whitepaper, which can be found as ref. #14 here:…-a-skeptical-perspective/

    Dr Richard

    I put a compendium of papers covering the Spawar work in this thread :- THE USEFUL BOOK THREAD

    ETA post#5

    All of which ignore my criticisms, except of course the famous 10 author paper. They say:

    28. J. Marwan, M. C. H. McKubre, F. L. Tanzella, P. L. Hagelstein, M. H. Miles, M. R. Swartz, Edmund

    Storms, Y. Iwamura, P. A. Mosier-Boss and L. P. G. Forsley, “A new look at low-energy nuclear reaction

    (LENR) research: a response to Shanahan”, J. Environ. Monit., 12, (2010), 1765-1770.

    In his criticisms of the review article on LENR by Krivit and Marwan, Shanahan has raised a number of

    issues in the areas of calorimetry, heat after death, elemental transmutation, energetic particle detection

    using CR-39, and the temporal correlation between heat and helium-4. These issues are addressed by the

    researchers who conducted the original work discussed in the Krivit and Marwan (K&M) review paper.

    Of course they were addressed...incorrectly,,,as noted in many discussions on this forum and elsewhere.

    End result: No refutations of any of my criticisms (except for Abd noting one error in a paper with which I agreed and clarified, also on this forum).

    Ascoli65 wrote:

    Team Google wants your opinion: "What is the highest priority experiment the LENR community wants to see conducted?"

    I also suggest to look at reference:

    6. S. Szpak, P.A. Mosier-Boss, M.H. Miles, and M. Fleischmann,

    ‘Thermal Behavior of Polarized Pd/D Electrodes Prepared by Co-Deposition’,

    Thermochim. Acta, Vol. 410, pp. 101-107 (2004).

    The golden rules are also listed in the paragraph 2.5. "Dewar-type calorimetry" of the SPAWAR article published in 2004 (1).

    While you're at it, don't forget to look at:

    K. L. Shanahan

    "Comments on ‘Thermal Behavior of Polarized Pd/D Electrodes Prepared by Co-Deposition’",

    Thermochim. Acta, Vol. 428, pp. 207-212 (2005).

    THH wrote something here (How do you convince a skeptic?) that Robert Bryant quoted here (Team Google wants your opinion: "What is the highest priority experiment the LENR community wants to see conducted?"). RB’s quotation is prefaced by “not like this”, indicating that he disbelieves what THH wrote. RB should reconsider. So should Team Google.

    My comments below in normal text responding to what Robert Bryant (RB) quoted (italicized comments, his emphasis):

    (1) CCS is Shanahan's grand name for errors caused by cell condition changes altering calibration

    ‘Grand name’? An emotionally-loaded term. How about ‘acronym’ (for Calibration Constant Shift, the full, descriptive term).

    (2) While everyone knows this Shanahan pointed out that some LENR papers were ignoring the fact that small call errors of this type get amplified by the ratio between the (external) power in and the (observed) excess heat out. This is pretty obvious, so that for example a 10% excess heat result will be invalidated by a calibration shift (caused by some change in conditions) of only 1%.

    No, it was obviously not obvious since no one ever (to date!) takes this into account. Instead, any positive excursion in the apparent excess energy curve is taken as ‘proof’ of LENR, and whether it is encompassed by an error such as described is never, ever discussed (to date).

    In fact, after 20 years of harping on this, how much error analysis do we see in the new, great result from Mizuno? Zip.

    (3) There is then the matter of what could cause calibration to change by 1%. Shanahan hypothesised ATER (at-the-electrode-recombination) which LENR guys have uniformly stated is not possible. Well, Shanahan argues that it could be possible in certain special cases whn you have the right electrode preconditioning etc. Sound familiar?

    Yes, there is that matter. I published one possibility that seemed to work and that had the additional advantage of explaining (predicting) other observed experimental effects. I always said the mechanism was postulated. BTW, it should ‘sound familiar’ because if it didn’t, it would be disqualified as a viable explanative mechanism.

    ATER has the potential to cause calibration changes by altering the position in the cell where heat is generated. For certain types of closed cell, where a recombiner is used at the top of the cell, it is plausible that moving from recombiner heat to electrode heat would move calibration consistently in the direction of less heat lost and therefore more measured.

    Your wording is accurate. It should be read with a sense of correctness, not questioning. If ATER occurs in a real, non-homogeneous calorimeter (the ‘certain type’, NOT just ‘mass flow’ or ‘Seebeck)’, it can cause a CCS. Note that it can also happen in open cells.

    (4) From my POV this mechanism does not apply everywhere, but a wide class of LENR expereriments need to be aware of it and check carefully. Good enough calorimetry will reduce this problem to low levels, and some LENR experiments provably have this. Shanahan thought that all such claims should check for this possible error mechanism explicitly: other LENR authors argued that "they had checked and it was obviously not an issue".

    Lower than 1% is _extremely_ difficult to achieve. Tough, really tough, to get better than that. The ‘other LENR authors’ never demonstrated that they checked for a CCS. Some of them made noises like the had made attempts at this, but failed to establish that what they did was an actual test of the issue.

    (5) From my POV "obviously not an issue" is not good enough when you have surprising results - like excess heat beyond chemical. You need to prove that such a hypothesis does not apply in every specific case that you cite.

    Agreed. A quantitative error analysis should do that.

    (6) The discussion thus is more about "does ATER exist" and "could ATER alter calibration" for specific experiments than it is about CCS. One thing that has sometimes annoyed me is that LENR papers do not always (or even usually) assume what I consider a proper burden of proof. Thus if some error mechanism has been shown not to be relevant in some cases it is assumed not relevant in all cases without careful argument. Because LENR excess heat is found to be erratic, it can be simulated by an error which only happens occasionally, hence the checking for what could possibly be an error needs to be very careful.

    Sounds fine.

    (7) Therefore I side with Marwan et al in that there are various good ways to rule out ATER, some of which clearly apply to some LENR experiments. I side with Shanahan in that not all of the considered important LENR experiments, as documented, do rule out ATER.

    Marwan, et. al, never ruled out CCSs. They ruled out randomness in the results, which I basically agree with (within limits, there is residual error, probably random). They then mistakenly said my CCS/ATER proposal was fundamentally random. It isn’t. They are wrong.

    (8) Shanahan argues that possibly all replicable FPHE observations are due to ATER. I don't have a view on that, it is not entirely clear what constitutes a replicable observation, given teh FPHE effect is hypothesised to depend on not easily determined electroe conditions that cannot be fully controlled nor measured, except by the apparent existence of FPHE. That makes a lot of people seeing FPHE, but not consistently, potentially fit an error mechanism that oes not always apply, but does sometiems.

    No disagreement.

    (9) Were I wanting to prove FPHE effects as due to above chemical heat production, I'd need to examine the ATER and CCS issue very carefully and list those results which could not possibly be due to it

    Absolutely. The CCS/ATER explanation has limitations. Anything outside those limits must be something else.

    (perhaps because the come from a 99% efficient calorimeter and show excess heat above errors of >> 1%).

    >>1% is not a good enough criterion. The results have to be greater than that obtained from 100% internal recombination at the electrode as magnified by the calibration process (said magnification being minimized by high heat capture efficiency).

    My reduced list of experiments could then be examined for other possible errors etc. At the enmd of this process the experimenst that stand up would justify Jed's and others certitude.

    Possibly. There is always the possibility of other errors, even while another is occurring. Reproducibility in detail is the final proof.

    (10) Shanahan got annoyed with the LENR community because the published (and personal) replies to his hypothesis were dismissive without engaging fully in his arguments nor understanding them. For example, Marwan et al argue (amongst many other arguments) that CCS might lead to random errors which go both positive and negative, but these are not observed. Shanahan rightly pointed out that this was, if it existed, a systematic error mechanism, and therefore any argument about random errors does not apply. He felt that such a gross misunderstanding of his published idea showed they could not have read his paper when replying to it.

    Now after that background: note my tense in the sentence you quote: conditional. I cannot prove that CCS exists. Shanahan claimed he had, from analysis of provided unpublished data, strong evidence for it in one case. Obviously that is not proven.

    What I _proved_ is that a proposed 780mW excess heat signal was potentially the product of a +/2-3% (3-sigma) change in calibration. That error level occurs in very good, high-quality techniques, and thus is not unexpected. IOW, the 780mW is the noise level. The baseline noise of the calorimeter is not the whole error level.

    What I _suggested_ is a mechanical theory as to how that would work, and a chemical mechanism that fit the mechanical theory. 3 levels: math, mechanics, chemistry. The math is certain, the mechanics is highly reasonable, the chemistry is reasonable but unproven.

    Even if CCS does exist it would be surprising for it to apply in all cases.

    Why? All the researchers are essentially trying the same thing. I’d expect the same error to arise in that case. Your doubt is unjustified.

    If CCS exists there might be some other condition change causing it, not ATER.


    But, ATER as hypothesised has the potential to create CCS (obviously) since it alters cell temperature distribution which may create calibration changes.

    To the Google team: Whatever you do, evaluate your error quantitatively and correctly.

    (2) I have not done the work to bound it (need to work out for myself what KS is saying about the "gamma" term). It might bound in such a way as to justify KS's statements, or not. Again this is what it would be interesting to see laid out here.

    In order to simplify your task a little I will explain. This is all in prior posts but it is scattered about and confused by the ramblings of the peanut gallery, so I’ll clarify.

    The F&P calorimetric method is actually a dynamic chemical process model heat balance equation. They construct an equation that supposedly accounts for all the instantaneous changes to the energy content of the cell. Thus they have terms for heater inputs, radiative heat loss, energy carried away with mass loss, and a term for 'excess heat'. The mass loss term is what I am discussing here. Ascoli is correct that this does not apply to the so-called ‘HAD region’, since the energy balance equation becomes undefined when the electrolyte is boiling, and since when the electrical contact is broken by electrolyte loss, the current stops.

    F&P went to great lengths to define the radiative heat loss constant ‘properly’, and this activity was the primary subject of several papers by them, including the 2004 paper by Mosier-Boss, Szpak, Miles, and Fleischmann that critcized my work, and the unpublished manuscript of Fleischmann’s that Miles published in Infinite Energy in 2017 which repeated the prior noted critcisms.

    So, to reiterate, I will discuss below the term developed to account for the energy content lost by the electrolysis gases leaving the cell. (BTW, this means this calorimetric method only applies to open cells. You wouldn’t have that term in a closed cell.)

    In the original formulation of the term, shown in Oystla’s post F&P's experiments – 30 years after CF announcement (Fig. A.3.1), there is a Greek letter ‘gamma’ at the front of this term. You have to check their glossary to see what it is, but it is a numeric measure of the ‘faradaic efficiency’, as they term it. (That is something of a misnomer if ATER (ATEC) occurs.) However, they actually apply a modified version of the original equation where they have dropped out the gamma, the one you showed in F&P's experiments – 30 years after CF announcement (also they drop a beta term too, but that’s another story.) The term is included as a loss of energy, so the leading sign is negative. Thus, by dropping the gamma, they assume it equals 1, and therefore subtract all the possible heat loss for 100% Faradaic efficiency. They then ‘tune’ their calibration constants (‘heat transfer coefficients’) to match the results of a calibration run or period of a run. They then apply that semi-empirical equation to an ‘unknown’ run.

    However, at the same time, they acknowledge that there can be up to a 2% recombination reaction occurring from a parasitic electrochemical reaction at the electrodes (this is NOT ATER/ATEC). For them, this is just 'noise' and is unimportant. This is what the so-called ‘Will’ (from Fritz Will) model models. So, they acknowledge that the faradaic efficiency can be as low as 0.98 sometimes. Therefore, if that reaction is occurring, gamma should be 0.98, not 1.0. That means their model will subtract too much heat out under those conditions (2%). The only way their model can then be matched to the real data (without changing the calibration constant) is to offset the extra loss with a gain in the term they call ‘excess heat’. In reality, that term is just an ‘error accumulator’. Having a positive value for it can arise from the impact of assumptions just as shown above, and does not force one to the conclusion that a true, extra heat source has appeared.

    Now you might think that limits the error to 2%, but you would be forgetting the Pfactor (a sub-part of the whole mass loss term). I detailed the effect in post F&P's experiments – 30 years after CF announcement . The point is that that 2% error, which F&P and SMMF consider ‘just noise’, gets increasingly magnified by the Pfactor the higher the temperature of the cell goes. As I noted 2% at 20C turns into 12% at 50C, etc.

    Now, the Will model predicts that the % electrochemical recombination will fall off as T increases, and in fact that’s what we see in the F&P data shown on the Figures (I’m recalling Fig. 6 here), so that is a confounding factor.

    But further, if the ATER or ATEC I proposed based on the Storms data occurs, that doesn’t have to follow that rule, and it will also be improperly compensated for by the ‘no-gamma’ model F&P (and later M. Miles) used. So we have two separate mechanisms that can produce less than 100% ‘Faradaic’ efficiency, yet F&P assume it is always 1.0. And most importantly, they don’t evaluate the magnitude of this error at their usual operating temperatures. The things they report as excess heat could just as easily be recombination.

    Kirk: I have not read your comment on F&P - I guess this problem (problematic assumption of thermal equilibrium in exhaust gasses) was what you identified?

    No, but you are correct that thermal equilibrium may not be obtained and that the equations' bases assume equilibrium. However, calibration doesn't require equilibrium it just requires steady state, and steady state doesn't imply equilibrium is attained either. What I have been discussing in this thread is the mathematical impact of a) the Pfactor term [ P/(P*-P) ] combined with b) the dropping of the gamma term. Those combine to make all of F&P's claims in this series of papers lie in the noise. Once that is established the rest of the arguments being made are somewhat unimportant to the final decision on the overall validity of whether F&P found 'excess heat' or not. (And just for the record, this is a separate issue from CCS/ATER (or maybe ATEC), although CCS/ATER can still apply if warranted.)


    Perhaps you should reread this: F&P's experiments – 30 years after CF announcement

    There, I show that F&P's method begins to be highly inaccurate by approx. 50C. That's why F&P said it can't be used 'near' boiling. Any discussion of using the F&P model near boiling is incorrect, because of what I outline above. Originally I missed that they admit this, but they actually do, they simply don't explain why. I do so above. In fact, all of their claims in the papers that have been discussed here so far are within the noise band, a clear sign of psuedoscience.

    Likewise, in the HAD region I long ago pointed out the temperature profile of the one claimed to show HAD was no different from the one claimed to be the 'control' . Ascoli did this also way back at the start of the prior thread on this. If one is a HAD why not the other? The whole video-basedmethod is worthless, as Pons admitted in a later paper by claiming they still needed to develop better calorimetry.

    F&P's results are all noise. Anyone who points to them as 'support' for their results being CF or LENR or LANR or CANR or... is hurting their credibility.