Posts by kirkshanahan


    Considering the specificity of the change in the heat distribution required to produce a CCS per my discussions, the McKubre paragraph you quote does nothing but ask the question: "If he had such data available, why did he sign off on the bogus "random CCSH" strawman in 2010?" The fact that his data that supposedly proved my theories wrong was never even mentioned suggests it actually wasn't relevant.

    All McK does above is continue the CF community's choice to ignore what I suggested.

    And of course, Jed is wrong as always.

    In prior messages I recall Eric commented on my ‘novel’ way of analyzing error. I wanted to comment on that because it’s a very important point, and it’s also not novel. I was taught this in junior-level PChem Lab, but didn’t really start using it heavily until I got out of school and into quality control support work as a PhD. If you haven’t had this before, I’m not surprised because I work with some PhD’s who were never taught this, and some who didn’t get it until grad school, so teaching of this is spotty at best.

    The big difference between modern science and the ancient Greek way of doing science is that today we test out theories. ‘Back in the day’ the idea was truth=beauty and beauty=truth, so if your theory was ‘beautiful’ it must be true. But as soon as we started testing this against reality with some degree of precision, we found out that idea didn’t work all that well, although there are some today who still insist the ‘real’ laws of nature will turn out to be beautiful once we figure them out fully.

    In any case, once we started testing things, we quickly discovered a very important fact, that you didn’t always get the same answer when you supposedly did the same test or experiment. And from that we recognized that natural variation or fluctuation exists. It is somewhat unfortunate that this became known as ‘error’, because that term implies someone messed up. But that’s not true, the correct use of the term when referring to natural variation carries no negative connotations with it. It is just a fact.

    So, when you have a fuzzy measure of a quantity, how do you tell if it has changed when you vary a control parameter in an experiment? Usually via statistics. Means (averages) comparison, standard deviation comparisons, regression analyses with correlation coefficients, etc. One part of that is figuring out how the error in measured quantities translates through a computation to the final computed ‘answer’. The method for this is known as ‘Propagation of Error’ or ‘Propagation of Uncertainty’ and it is a standard approach. See for example (I have an old book with it in also: “Statistical Treatment of Experimental Data”, Hugh D. Young, McGraw-Hill, 1962, pps 96-101. Should be many other books with it in as well.)

    Given an equation to compute an answer (say output power for example) from measured variables, one takes the partial derivative of the equation for each measured variable, squares it, multiplies it by the variance for that variable (square of the standard deviation) and then adds up all the terms for all the variables. The square root of that is the standard deviation of the computed answer. Of course, when you calculate the partials, the other variables are treated as constants in the process, which means they end up in the final expression. Now comes the tricky part. You have to determine which set of measured values to use to plug into this expression. Do you want the error (uncertainly) near the center of the data region, or the extremes, or somewhere else? I typically like to evaluate it at the point of maximum uncertainty, but other choices are equally valid.

    In relation to the CCS thing, the power out equation for a mass flow calorimeter is helpful to look at. It is: Pout = k * Cp * flow * deltaT where Cp is the heat capacity of the calorimeter fluid at constant pressure, flow is the fluid’s flowrate, k is the calibration constant, and deltaT is the temperature different between entry and exit points of the calorimeter fluid. All of the terms on the right-hand-side of the equation are experimentally determined and must be included in the propagation of error (POE) calculation to compute our best estimate of the error in the output power. If you work it out, it turns out the cal constant term is quite significant.

    The problem with all the CF papers I’ve seen so far, is they all neglect this term. Typically they don’t do the POE calc, they just look at the baseline fluctuation of the calorimeter (usually ~50-80 mW) and call that the error. Realizing that the mass flow equation above is translateable to Pout = k*Pin via the calibration process, you can easily see that a 1% error in k (what I relate to the ‘CCS’) gives a 1% error in Pout. If the input power is 20W or so, as it was in Ed Storms’ data, that’s an uncertainty of 200 mW. And since this is a standard deviation derived via random statistics assumptions, we usually multiply that by either 2 or 3 to get the ‘spread’, meaning we are talking about 400-600mW just due to natural variation in the determination of the calibration constant. And a 1% uncertainty is extremely good for these kinds of measurements. If we talk about just ‘good’, and not ‘extremely good’, somewhere in the 2-5% range is typical, meaning in our example we are up to 1.2-3W uncertainty (vs. the usual claim of 0.05-0.08W). That by itself covers the large majority of excess heat claims. If we have bigger claims, we have to examine those a little more to see if this CCS problem still applies.

    Note that this is a calculation of a supposed random error. When I actually examined the impact of calibration constant shifts on Storms’ data I also detected a systematic effect.

    In any case, this is what should be done by all competent scientists. Unfortunately as I noted above it is not taught very uniformly and many times you see ‘other’ methods being used (which are usually less reliable and accurate). So again, what I have done is not ‘novel’, it’s just more correct than what the CFers do.

    Could you elucidate a little on the 'cigarette lighter effect' described here please?

    Read it in the Comment by Morrison.

    P.S. I see I erred in what I wrote. Hydrogen reacting with hydrogen? Sorry. Try hydrogen reacting with oxygen. I'm headed off to correct my post now...

    Part 2.

    Jed wrote: “There is no excess water. The amount that leaves the cell is exactly the same as added to it.”

    As shown in the first part of my reply to Jed’s post, this is simply not true. Fleishmann himself reported excess water from one of his experiments (note: signing off as co-author to a paper always makes one responsible for the whole contents of the paper. I refer to the 2004 paper discussed in part 1).

    “In null a boil-off test driven only by electrolysis, such as a test with Pt-H, a little water is left in the cell below the anode-cathode. This is because the moment the electrolyte drops below the anode and cathode, the power is cut off, and heat production stops. Boiling stops, and the temperature drops immediately and monotonically according to Newton's law of cooling. A little water usually remains in the bottom of the cell.”

    This is probably true most of the time, especially with Pt instead of Pd. But what a difference Pd makes!

    “When there is excess heat, the cell remains hot even after the power is cut off, so the remaining water boils away.”

    But there is no *real* excess heat in all likelihood. So what keeps the temperature up? Try ‘cigarette lighter effect’ (CLE). At least for the three hour (and possibly somewhat longer) period referred to in paper #1.

    “There is only hot vapor in the cell. The Kel-F plastic holding the anode and cathode often melt. This never happens in a null test.”

    I use valves in my hydrogen handling system with Kel-F tips. I can attest to the fact that gases, including hydrogen, dissolve in these tips and then come out slowly under vacuum. In a quiescent cell with no ongoing electrolysis, the dissolved hydrogen will also come out, react with ambient oxygen, and deposit heat. So, could it melt Kel-F? Based on F&P’s report I’d guess yes. But to be sure, someone should check.

    “Also, the cell does not cool down. On the contrary, it usually gets hotter, and sometimes even hotter hours later.”

    Changed thermal conductivity, removed stirring, no gases flowing out – all leads to slower heat loss. So not cooling down? Ho-hum. These effects (including CLE) might even cause a brief temperature increase. Further, how is the temp measured? A metal sheathed TC or RTD? Metal–sheathed = metal surface = recombination catalyst => heat deposited right at the TC – guaranteed maximum temp increase. So, need details of construction, is this a concern?

    “This is additional proof of excess heat, rather than only heat from electrolysis. ("Excess" means in addition to the heat from electrolysis. It might be excess heat from chemistry, but there is no chemical fuel, and no chemical changes are observed, so it ain't.)”

    As noted above, I agree there is likely heat being produced in the cell after boil-off, but the real question is: Are they *accurately* measuring the heat, or is it a figment of the methodology?

    Forum members: At this point it is painfully obvious to all that a) I have detailed my CCS/ATER proposal to the nth degree here for all who care to know, b) Jed, Kevin, and others refuse to acknowledge any value to my work, and c) Jed, Kevin, and others support LENR claims unquestioningly, but normally in an indefensible manner. So, I am done responding to them. They don’t want their belief system to be altered, and won’t allow the facts to do that. There is no point is trying to discuss topics or teach them anything. So, I’m done with them. Well-thought-out questions from others might get a response.

    kirkshanahan wrote: “reference please.” in reference to this statement by JedR: “Fleischmann demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that there was no entrainment”

    In reply, JedRothwell wrote:

    Fleischmann, M. and S. Pons, Calorimetry of the Pd-D2O system: from simplicity via complications to simplicity. Phys. Lett. A, 1993. 176: p. 118

    Morrison, D.R.O., Comments on claims of excess enthalpy by Fleischmann and Pons using simple cells made to boil. Phys. Lett. A, 1994. 185: p. 498

    Fleischmann, M. and S. Pons, Reply to the critique by Morrison entitled 'Comments on claims of excess enthalpy by Fleischmann and Pons using simple cells made to boil. Phys. Lett. A, 1994. 187: p. 276Y

    Pons, S. and M. Fleischmann. Heat After Death. in Fourth International Conference on Cold Fusion. 1993. Lahaina, Maui: Electric Power Research Institute 3412 Hillview Ave., Palo Alto, CA 94304

    Responding to that:

    The first paper does not mention “entrainment”, “entrain”, and all refs to “water” are NOT to volume measurements. Therefore this paper is irrelevant to the specific question.

    Morrison’s Comment, and F&P’s replay were covered in a recent link posted by Jed (as I recall). The link is:

    In that copy of the Comment and Reply, Morrison makes the claim that Li has been found in the gas vent line, which indicates that the electrolyte has reached this point by some method, for example by entrainment or splashing (a variant of entrainment actually, but could be considered to be sporadic). In their reply, F&P also mention foaming, which plays a crucial part in their claims of heat-after-death events in their original paper. (This is the ‘100W for several days’ claim originally made by Jed and not supported by this paper.) F&P also state in their reply that the titrated the lithium deuteroxide and found 95% of the expected amount (i.e. they lost 5%, which delimits an approximate error size). They also mention potential reaction of Li ions with the glass equipment (which is potentially true). As well, they claim they kept track of water consumption and it *exactly* matched the predicted consumption from evaporation and electrolysis.

    The point is that ALL of these mentions use NO NUMBERS. In other words, they are all ‘hand-waving’ assertions on the part of F&P.

    But we do have a case where they actually DO use numbers. Well F at least. In the 2004 paper in Thermochimica Acta (TA 410 (2004) 101) that I have referred to several times now, Fleischmann, Szpak, Miles, and Mosier-Boss report:

    “In this experiment, the total consumption of D2O was 7.7 cm3 instead of 7.2 cm3, assuming 100% Faradaic efficiency, which is within experimental error.”

    I commented on this in my 2005 Comment on that paper (TA 428 (2005) 207), quoting:

    “SMMF report that their D2O consumption was 7.7 cm3 instead of a computed 7.2 cm3, a 6.5% deviation, and claim this is within experimental error. As was noted in [10], a 2.5% error was able to produce a ∼0.8W apparent excess enthalpy signal, suggesting that the 0.5 cm3 error is more than enough noise needed to produce the reported ∼0.3W apparent excess enthalpy.”

    In other words, when they do report numbers, we find their error is such that they cannot detect whether or not they have significant entrainment. In other words, their assertion that “ALL” water consumption is accurately measured and eliminates the possibility of extra recombination in the cell is NOT supported by the facts.

    The fourth paper has one comment in it regarding water volume measurement:

    “The records of the additions [of heavy water] show that the Faradaic efficiencies for the electrolyses are close to 100%. As we have noted previously this fact alone is sufficient to show that the reduction of oxygen at the cathodes is negligibly small…”

    Again, no error analysis is given. Also note that they are only considering electrochemical recombination, an error that they repeat in their 2004 paper (discussed above) and the recently published 2003 version written by Fleischmann himself (Miles, IE132). But from the 2005 Comment, we see that their conclusions are likely not adequately supported given their failure to understand the CCS issue. When this was pointed out to them by the 2005 Comment, they failed to respond or show any indication in later publications or presentations that they understood the issue.

    So, net conclusion: Jed has not supported his statement with any acceptable analyses. Further, published results imply the CF community does not understand the impact of measurement error on their conclusions.

    (Part II addressing the rest of Jed’s reply to follow…got work to do right now.)

    Fleischmann demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that there was no entrainment

    A.) reference please.

    B.) Fleischmann was co-author of a paper in Thermochimica Acta in 2004 with S. Szpak, P. Mosier-Boss, and M. Miles. This is the very paper that Mel Miles comments on in Infinite Energy issue #132, where he presents a paper that Fleischmann would have preferred to publish instead of what Szpak apparently beat him to publishing. They claimed in TA, 2004 to have measured recombination by collecting water. They reported an excess of 6.5% by volume. As I pointed out in this forum, that number is low if my CCS/ATER proposition is true, since there would have to have been some LOSS in water for recombination to be occurring. Yet they saw an EXCESS. That means there really was probably about a 10% excess. When my comment on the TA2004 paper was submitted, the reviewers just said this measurement was 'in the noise'. If that is so, they how could they distinguish a 1% effect given a 10% error margin? They couldn't is the answer.

    But more importantly, where did this excess water come from, if not entrainment? Does CF create water out of nothing too?

    OK. How could LENR be disproved?

    It couldn't. The only thing you can do is prove it exists.

    If you run an experiment that tries to find LENRs and fails, the 'skeptics' (usually known as the 'believers') would just say you did something wrong, especially since they claim others have proven it.

    The debate always centers around what you can do. What you can't do only lasts as long as someone doesn't figure out how to do it.

    Re., I'd like to read your final unpublished journal letter rebutting (Marwan et al)? I've heard it said (probably by Abd) that this means et al had the last word, and hence 'won' the argument in the eyes of the editors. Surely no copyright issues too...

    Link to it in this article:…s-article-of-cold-fusion/

    @Jed - for the last time

    Go to Google Scholar and type in "KL Shanahan" "cold fusion", then hit <return>.

    This doesn't list the JEM article, so go to the JEM homepage (Google it) and search for 'shanahan' (no caps needed). I got two hits:

    or just try this:…nvironmental%20Monitoring

    Oh...and link to whitepaper in this article:…s-article-of-cold-fusion/

    But you stoop to calling Jed a liar/liar/pantsonfire? Geez, what a despicable game you play.

    Jed has been playing this game for a long time. When I first started talking about my paper on spf, he tried the same hogwash. So, yes, I am repeating myself.

    Or is it you don't understand copyrights and such. My company, as part of the DOE-complex, has a separate, special copyright arrangement with journals. I have to send them a copy of it every time I publish something.

    You yourself said that the effect has been replicated, just a few minutes ago right here on this thread. I can see why scientists ignore you.

    *Partially*, not fully, therefore not adequately.

    Let me remind you once again:

    And let me remind YOU once again.

    a.) I don't believe I have permission to allow you to upload actual journal articles. That belongs to the journals and maybe my company/Site.

    b.) that does not stop you from referencing my journal articles, and doing so correctly.

    c.) the links already posted to the manuscripts are freely available to the public. Again my permission means zip.

    Bottom line, you don't want this info in your database, you are being forced into it by my challenges to you, but you still resist with hogwash.

    The P-F effect has been replicated in at least 153 peer reviewed publications by the top hundred electrochemists of their day.

    Keep saying it Kev, maybe someday, if you say it enough, it will become true.

    rightfully rejected by the top electrochemists

    No, not rightfully. Fallaciously. Also, point of interest, out of the 10 authors I speak of, I think only McKubre has electrochemical training. Might be wrong on the Japanese authors. Jed will correct this I'm sure.

    Did you give him explicit permission?

    See upcoming response to Jed.

    Interesting. Is a rough upper limit on the size of these SAVs typically noticed? How many planes would a single SAV typically form in?

    The primary researcher who was investigating this is Yuh Fukai. He also wrote a book on hydrides. He is no longer following it up. I was there at one of the International Symposia on Metal-Hydrogen Systems when he announced he was getting out of it due to lack of interest by the community. As I recall, he initially got onto the work by noting that high pressure cycled Pd showed holes in SEM. I think they were of the low nanometer sizes, but I could be wrong.

    The other thing I didn't mention is that He bubbles form in Pd when loaded with tritium and allowed to decay for a few weeks. He is highly insoluble in Pd, so the bubbles form fast, and then grow by a mechanism where the small bubbles disappear and large ones get bigger (there's a name for this mechanism that escapes me at the moment). Eventually the bubbles near the surface crack through and the He is released. Internally bubbles crack through to other bubbles as well. Personally, I can see ultrahigh loading do the same thing with H2 in Pd or other metals, but that's just an opinion. The He bubbles initially are also on the few nanometer size scale when they become visible in SEM and TEM.

    Of course one has to assume contaminants are present, but having been taught and then studied more than than my fair share of metallurgy, I have still come across a handful of LENR papers/slides that in my opinion show features that are wholly incongruous with any mass transport mechanisms that I know of, or believe could reasonably exist.

    No material is 100% pure. The question is always "do the contaminants matter?" But to answer that you have to identify and quantify the contaminants. However it is typical that heavy metals like Pd have a few ppm of several other metal atoms floating around in them. Likewise, dissolved light elements like C, S, and O are often present to some extent.

    W.r.t. mass transport - don't discount the 'lubricating' effect H has on metal and light atom diffusion. I personally think this might be an interesting area to investigate, especially since I see a lot of hints of it in CF results. For example, when I was making metallized beads back in the late 90's-early 00's, I took some sulfonated polystyrene beads (Patterson Power Cell) and added ionic Cu and Pd. When I hit them with H2, the Pd and Cu metallized, but the neat thing was that the Cu agglomerated into half-mm sized lumps and literally fell off the beads. The Pd also agglomerated but did not fall off, and instead formed dendritic layers on the plastic (kinda like a fern-leaf laid down on the bead). As ions they were uniformly distributed, but they moved around quite dramatically when the metallization reaction took off. This process put out a good bit of heat, sometimes I saw external temps on the reactor on the order of 100C. Still that's a lot lower than the 1/2 the melting point most people talk about for sintering and such.

    Only elfs do that.

    ref to calibration/characterization studies please?

    some strange-looking exit wounds in the electrodes, and made some new elements and produced a little bit of radiation

    In reverse order...

    I've never claimed to be an expert on radiation detection instrumentation, so I will beg off of a detailed discussion here and just note that some people think 'noise' might be a problem. But, not my field of knowledge....

    Now I have commented on CR39 evidence, primarily w.r.t. plates in the electrolyte. So if that's what you mean, there are alternative explanations for pits in CR39 from these systems.

    New elements? Are you sure? They weren't there to begin with, maybe hiding? I generally assume these are contaminants present in the starting materials, possibly there when the materials were purchased or introduced later accidentally. To assume they come from LENRs is a wild-eyed hope by CF believers.

    You see, metallurgists know that contaminants in metals can be well-dispersed or concentrated in local spots. Such concentrations might actually arise due to increased diffusion rates in hydrided materials, whose lattice has expanded up to 20% or so. Those concentrations will have a different local yield stress due to different bonding that comes about because of different elements and orbitals.

    Now we also know that electrochemical loading is equivalent to very high pressure gas loading, and we have a proposal out there for something called superabundant vacancies, i.e. ordered arrays of holes in the metal, that serve as bubble nucleation sites, as could these contaminant concentration points, formed by high pressure loading. In any case, once the loading gets high, the internal pressure of these bubbles (caused by molecular hydrogen forming in the holes) can exceed the yield stress and 'pop'.

    Same thing happens in steam and methane embrittlement, where H reacts with dissolved O or C to make water and methane _inside_ the metal. The water and/or methane then accumulate in bubbles until the pressure gets high enough and then they 'pop' too.

    Some people also comment about the appearances of melting on the crater edges. Well, appearances can be deceiving, and I suppose that the sharp edges of the crater we all expect to see are in fact rounded off, probably during the unloading process (which shrinks away that 20% expansion noted before) that occurs when they take the electrodes out and prepare them for the SEM. Difficult to study that, but possible with a lot of effort.

    If the true calibration equation in the lab is P = 17 X + 5, and I sit at my writing desk and say the magic HATER* elf has possibly altered it to P = 187 X - 5436. That's a hypothesis. Fact.

    Exactly. You proposed a mechanism, just like I did. That is the hypothesis, that some mechanism induced a steady-state change that caused the prior calibration equation to become inaccurate.

    Now, what support to you garner from the data that suggests a HATER elf is active?

    But it is a hypothesis. This type of comment is what I was referring when I questioned your own cause sense of caution.

    No it isn't. It is a fact. If the true calibration equations is P = 17 X + 5, and you use P = 187 X - 5436, you have erred. Fact. Not hypothesis.

    The hypothesis is that ATER started up, changed the heat distribution, which invalidated the prior calibration equation.

    That in turn leads to a theoretical, or hypothesised, CCS... Possibly better referred to as a/the CCSH. A label you seem to reject?

    "CCS" was an acronym I defined to ease my typing efforts. As such, the 10 author's attempt to cast doubt on my proposal by relabeling it a 'hypothesis' is a little amusing.

    The fact is, pay attention Zeus, if the heat distribution changes in an asymmetric cell, the prior calibration can be rendered irrelevant. That's a math fact, no doubt whatsoever.

    The only question is can that happen? The answer is generically yes, it happens all the time.

    So the next question is "How does that happen in these experiments?" ATER is my proposed explanation. If I'm wrong on that, no big deal. The math evidence from the reanalysis still says a CCS may well have occurred. maybe not via ATER, but via something... BTW, the alternative to this is logically the CF mechanism. The idea of CF falls out of the math when you assume the signal is real.

    When a 'good' scientist is faced with an alternative explanation of a phenomenon he/she is studying, he/she does not concoct strawman arguments to allow him/her to ignore the alternative. He/she redesigns the experiment to prove/disprove whether the alternative is correct.

    You lump yourself in the same box IMO, by seeming to display little 'cause for caution'. Why not refer to ATER as the hypothesis that it is? The word 'mechanism' is generally reserved for a tangible, understood process.

    Proves either a) you don't read, or b) your reading comprehension is near 0.

    I have said many, many times that at-the-electrode-recombination (ATER) is a proposed mechanism to alter the heat distribution in the cell. That in turn leads to a CCS because of the specifics of the cell design. The fact you'd get a CCS if a heterogeneous heat distribution is altered is just math.

    I also point out that no CFer ever challenged the math of my reanalysis, or the math of a CCS. They only claim ATER can't happen, for a variety of misconstrued reasons. OK, so maybe they're right . What then invalidates the idea of the CCS, which I showed to be a 1%RSD effect in Storms' work? It certainly explains the observation of apparent excess heat...

    P.S. What do you mean by 'cause for caution'?

    There is also "anodic stripping," where the current is reversed for a period of time, which will presumably result in a little electroplating of platinum onto the cathode. And, I vaguely recall, "cycling" of some sort that is sometimes reported during the setup. (I might have misunderstood what was being done here.)

    Yes, that (stripping) is what I noticed seemed to reset the drop-off in activity that Ed Storms' obtained in his Pt-D experiments. The dissolution/deposition of Pt on Pd is just base chemistry (most electrolytes are slightly basic) but can be countered by electrochemistry. This is one of the difficulties in working out the details of the non-nuclear mechanism I suggest exists for ATER. Very tricky business, as evidence by all the varied results people get with additives. I always wondered if there was enough info out there from that arena to go a little further in my mechanistic speculations, but I never had the energy to pursue that. Cycling complicates things even more.

    Jed wrote:

    kirkshanahan wrote: 

    - there have been F&P CF experiments where the heat source was deliberately moved and no change in calibration was noted.

    Well, F&P did not use this technique often. They usually calibrated with electrolysis with an open cell, so the heat source would not move. But many others calibrated with joule heaters, which are located in a different part of the cell. You can't fit them right where the anode and cathode are located. So that moves the heat source. Others used blank cells with only heaters, or they used various cell geometries with the anode and cathode moved up or down depending on the size and the number of gadgets attached to the anode-cathode pair.

    You can see from the data that switching from a calibration with electrolysis to a joule heater does not significantly affect the calibration constant. That's my point.


    First point: Jed omits the part of the quote of what I wrote that indicates what he is quoting is what I say Jed wrote. I.e. I say Jed said " there have been F&P CF experiments..."

    Second, if you look at Jed's reply you need to note two things:

    1) All of Jed's examples are moving the heat source around in the same 'zone' (as I call it), specifically the electrolyte. This is not what I describe as causing a CCS

    but 2) the paper Ed Storms presented at ICCF8(I think) had slightly different cal constants for Joule heating vs. electrolysis heat calibrations. The variations were of the same OOM as what I say was needed to zero out his apparent excess heat signals. So in fact this is real supporting evidence of the CCS effect, which really doesn't need any justification anyway.

    I have already suggest in this forum that a standard F&P cell be modified by replacing the Pd-Pt electrode with a *second* Joule heater, that is located via the use of long lead wires, in the gas space.

    But this doesn't apply to the Roulette paper, as a constant flow of condensation would stop the cell walls from drying out

    The calorimeter used in the Roulette paper is slightly different from standard isoperibolic calorimeters (IPBCs). First off, the usual assumption about IPBC's is that they temperature measured is uniform, i.e. no hot spots, etc. The Roulette calorimeter obviously is not uniform in that sense. The three temperature measure points show different temperatures at the same time, which is why the set of TCs used to calculate output power is dependent on input power level. Which set to use at a given point is an interesting question. In any case, I would have to study this more fully to decide how a CCS might occur in this cell (and I don't see the point since I can recall no other repot where this kind of calorimeter is used). As I recall it is an open cell so electrolysis gases are normally exiting the cell, and thus if they find a way to recombine (anywhere in the cell in this case) they could induce a CCS. Also note that since the set used depends on input power, the upper set may not necessarily be covered in condensate as you suggest. Their cell is reminiscent of a distillation column, which initially starts out hot at the bottom and cold at the top during the early boiling phase, but that then proceeds to heat up as more power is applied to the boiler.

    But in the end, the one-shot nature of this report is what is important. There are many questions about how the cell/caloriometer functions, and no data to answer them.

    However, even 3 hours of HAD in the paper I pointed to is far beyond the limits of chemistry.

    The cells that produced HAD also produced massive amounts of energy before heating up (phase 1), and during the boiling event (phase 2).

    No it is not beyond the limits of chemistry as I have explained many times. As well, I have explained that Fleischmann made a big boo-boo in the paper you refer to. It is detailed in my whitepaper. Turns out he missed *completely* a second cell showing an identical HAD...or maybe, he claimed a cell behaving normally was showing a HAD. See my whitepaper for details.

    Blank cells such as Pt-H driven to boiling by conventional electrolysis never show excess heat

    Of course Pt-D does show excess heat signals (see Storms ICCF8 (I think) paper). Since H is chemically significantly different from D, to be able to see an apparent excess heat with Pt-H would require some modifications to the protocol. But we do know Ni-H cells show apparent excess heat.

    I am much more confident the skeptics are wrong, by the way they are sure of their point, which is irrational.

    Let's be clear on this. The history of the field breaks the 'skeptics' into a couple of different groups. First there is the group consisting of people who chimed in in the earliest days, say 1989-1992. Their objections were many, but mainly based on two complaints. First what was suggested was radical, and had never been seen anywhere. That is a definite cause for caution. But Fleishmann had done this once already with his discovery (in the mid 70's) of what came to be known as Surface Enhanced Raman Scattering. Unfortunately, his published explanation of what caused the effect was way off base. It wasn't until the early 80's that people worked out was actually happening. And in that process Fleischmann was mostly forgotten in that sub-field. Second, there were a batch of people who tried to replicate, failed, and tried to get info from F&P to correct what they apparently did wrong. F&P had violated scientific etiquette by claiming a great discovery in a press conference without publishing or patenting first. As it turned out they were grossly premature. But they started playing the IP game at that point, which just incensed a portion of the replicators. Then, based on these two things, and the ERAB report, and the opinions of those like Maddox and others, the field was relegated in the general scientific community to the 'bad science' category. After that almost everybody lost interest in the field and just accepted the 'bad science' moniker. The undercurrent was also that if there really was something there, it would eventually be proven by replicatable controllable experiments.

    So now we begin to see the second group of skeptics, now much fewer in number. Morrison is perhaps the prime example of this, with his constant request for a cup of cold-fusion-heat brewed tea. Add to that Steven Jones (which Jed conveniently forgets), who had a literature debate with Miles in the mid 90's. That's when I started to get interested. Personally, I found the arguments of Jones, et al, and Morrison not very convincing. So I started looking into it for my own (safety) reasons. And it wasn't until 2000 that I officially voiced any issues.

    So, the early group were not basing their objections on much solid fact, just the general idea that the claims made seemed a little far-fetched. That isn't a particularly strong argument. The Jones-Miles debate and the Morrison comments were more solid, but not definitive. Then I pop up with the CCS/ATER effect/mechanism, which is pretty solid. No new physics, a little new chemistry. but in a relatively unexplored field (solid-liquid-gas interface).

    The CFer response mirrors this. With the first crop, easily voiced similar 'theory' based objections sufficed (by that I mean they pointed out that the objections didn't apply to 'new' phenomena). With the second crop, there was some literature debate involved, and my opinion is that it was pretty much a draw, no one won out. But with my objections, they didn't find it so easy to dismiss my points, and instead of acknowledging this and responding by testing my theories in their apparati, they concocted a strawman argument and found a friendly journal to publish it in. The use of fallacies to dismiss my objections actually supports the validity of my work, as anyone who debates ideas realizes.

    So Alain, trying to lump all of us into one box is inappropriate and incorrect.

    nobody will ever disprove the existence of LENR

    A priori I can state that the existence of LENR cannot be disproven

    And by similar reasoning, nobody is going to disprove my invisible unicorns either

    You can't prove that something doesn't exist unless it is logically impossible.

    All correct. Which is why science doesn't seek to 'disprove the existence of...'. Science seeks to demonstrate such -and-such an effect through reproducible (i.e. controllable) experiments that can be replicated by those skilled in the art, and many times by just regular old scientists. CF doesn't meet that mark.

    Pt-D and Pt-H cathodes do not produce heat.

    Pt-D definitely does. It is what Storms used in his experiments that IO reanalyzed. 780mW apparent excess heat sign al. Not the biggest but definitely not insignificant.

    Several cold fusion systems have no platinum in them

    You speak of the Rossi-type? Be specific. Most of the early work was in F&P electrochemical cells, and I can't recall a system that didn't use a Pt anode. Further, the electrolytes always dissolve a little of that Pt and some of that deposits on the Pd.

    such as Arata's

    DS-cathode type? That used Pt counter electrode. Arte you speaking of something else?

    If there were papers describing errors, I would probably know about them. Since I do not, the ball is in your court. You should tell me WHERE ARE THESE PAPERS???

    Quick fact check. LENR-CANR.ORG database still only lists 3 of my journal articles, and does not list my whitepaper. And you've been told where the papers are, with journal references and web links to manuscripts. Liar, liar, pants on fire...


    At this point in history, any list of who's who in an field you choose to define is composed of human beings (with the minor possibility of defining a field only populated by current and former AI programs - which is not relevant here because I doubt we would call them 'experts' of AI, their human creators are the experts). Human beings make mistakes. Irregardless of their level of expertise. Thus, what they communicate must be considered to potentially contain errors. Thus, what they communicate must be analyzed. Calling upon what 'authorities' of a field say without analyzing them is guaranteed to lead one to error, since the authorities' errors will never be noted.

    Your list of who's who in electrochemistry is worthless unless you are trying to assign prizes or awards. Science requires them to be questioned just like anyone else, and if found in error, to be corrected.

    You might want to read