Posts by kirkshanahan

    This paper has some bad news for the Shanahan hypothesis:

    The quote you give is exactly why I wrote a Comment to show why it was wrong. The Comment was published in 2005 (since I was never informed that this paper was published and I ran across it by chance). There was no reply from the authors.

    In 2017, Miles published a draft of a paper written by Fleischmann himself in Infinite Energy (vol 132 I think) that said essentially the same things. It also was wrong and I pointed that out on this thread on L-F: Miles-Fleischmann-Szpak-Mossier-Boss Article in IE132

    P.S. Jed's comment once again proves he hasn't a clue about my contribution to understanding what goes on in F&P cells.

    a 7% error would not affect the conclusion.

    a 7% error in water volume measurement might not affect a particular conclusion (which you don't specify) but 'a 7% error' certainly would affect the calorimetry. The CCS is a 3% error in Storms' work, and that was a 780 mW signal. This is exactly what I was talking about when I discussed:

    ) the level of accuracy generally practiced by CFers in toto

    Since Jed only parrots what he hears from his heros, we can assume this is exactly the comment that the paper authors would make (which they did in the peer review process). Time to tune it up folks.

    Regarding this discussion of liquid water exiting F&P-type electrolysis cells:

    As mentioned several times already (and being soundly ignored by certain parties), Fleischmann, et al found an excess of water exiting the cell (as reported in their 2004 Thermochimica Acta paper). The excess is based on what was expected from reacted and condensed D2+O2. This is a reported fact.

    Their explanation was "It's just noise." That is unacceptable, as the excess amount was 7% of the collected amount, which is easily measured, and thus is much more than 'noise'.

    So the question is: Where did this excess water come from? Perhaps CF fanatics would claim that something was being transmuted into water, but conventional science would expect something like the process described as 'entrainment'. The water mass leaving the cell via entrained microdroplets would alter the energy balance, just like the gaseous mass does. F&P's fancy calorimetric method does not account for this.

    However, my calcs indicate this is a minor component of the heat balance, so getting very excited about it isn't very productive. It does point out a missing term in their heat balance equation though. As well, the initiation of ATER would promote increased microdroplet formation and increased mass loss, which is another example of how the steady state changing would affect the calorimetry.

    On the other hand, the "It's just noise." comment clearly shows a) the level of accuracy generally practiced by CFers in toto, and b) the CFers unwillingness to take constructive criticism. As a reminder, the CCS effect found in Storms' work was a 1% level effect, and thus is below what the CFers consider important, but that 1% effect wiped out the whole excess heat signal (780 mW), illustrating that the CFers need to get more accurate and precise that they think is necessary.

    We (I think?) [know] no such details of the salt measurements from F, and therefore must trust his judgement, ill-advised because everyone makes mistakes.

    The problem with that is that CF researchers have shown an almost universal tendency to overestimate the accuracy and precision of their measurements. Thus F would say "I measured that and it showed nothing." when in fact his error bars would preclude drawing that consideration if they had been accurately determined and properly utilized.

    "I raised a specific point (that condensed liquid egress from these cells during the boil-off phase was very possible, and would match the results). You no doubt can refute it if you are 99.99% certain?"

    "Yes, I can. Fleischmann gave a number of reasons why this could not have happened. For example, they inventoried the salt left in the cell and found that no significant amount left. And they ran blanks where the energy balance was zero. I gave you the list of reasons why this did not happen. I did not see a response from you. If you did respond, and you still think there is a problem, I would say it is 99.99% certain you are wrong."

    The 2004 publication by Szpak, Mosier-Boss, Miles, and Fleishmann (SMMF) reports a 7% excess in the water collected from the cell's exit. It amounted to about 0.5 cc of water. In my comment on that paper in 2005 I pointed that out and suggested it was attributable to entrained microdroplets. SMMF responded in peer review that 'that was just noise'. The question then regarding their supposed measurement of electrolyte salt concentration is: What is the error on that and how does it impact conclusions? I doubt they did it accurately enough to account for a loss on the order of 7-10%.

    The point being that this is their SOP, errors on the order of 10% or so. The CCS error that I found in Ed Storms work was a 1% level effect but it gave heat errors of 780mW (and possibly larger). They need to do their work at the 1% level and document that. Otherwise they are just blowing smoke.

    it is funny that we replicate more and more, and in fact the more it is replicated, the more it need to be replicated, while being less and less replicated...

    Sometime I think there is a logical problem in the way this affair is managed? don't you think so?

    I agree, there is a logical problem. It boils down to the old definition of insanity, which is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

    The correct approach to all this is to run experiments probing what effect varying select variables have, and when they have none, dropping them out of consideration, and adding new ones in. 'ATER' gives the CFers a whole new set of variables to explore if they chose to.

    Within this perspective, I find it interesting that KS claims all CF calorimetry is/was wrong. I wonder what F would have said, were he still around to read that? SRI reads LF, and I am sure they took exception to that blanket statement also. Maybe KS did not really mean to say it that way.

    I don't think you have reached the pages I quoted in my first post in this thread (where I tried to focus on Fleischmann, and not Mizuno), but the answer is right there. He got so irritated at my work he threw it away. And I note that I wasn't even talking about his work in 2002-3.

    My blanket statement stands as stated. To my knowledge, to this day, no one has done the F&P CF cell experiment calorimetry right. They all assume no effect from a heterogeneous temperature distribution, and thus mathematically treat the system as if it were totally homogeneous. But CCS in this case comes from shifting around the heat. As long as they have to potential to generate heat in an unexpected place (by recombination most likely), that assumption will cause difficulties.

    If I had been in communication with F, I would have pointed out what I did in my whitepaper (2012 I think?). The comments F makes in his letters pretty much convince me he would have not reacted well.


    Did you try reading this? (My whitepaper referenced in the article...)…-fusion-a-year-later.html

    In it I address several problems with the Fleischmann paper. Including how the use of the video you put up leads to an erroneous HAD conclusion.

    Have you never even GLANCED at the paper?!?

    That's a pretty stupid comment Jed, considering the discussion at this point is centering on my comments on the very paper you're claiming I haven't read.

    What I was specifically referring to was Jed's comments here:

    Mizuno's bucket of water

    Cell temperature is >100 deg C.

    April 26. Cell temperature has not declined. Cell transferred to a 15-liter bucket, where it is partially submerged in water


    Do I need to explain to you that pressurized liquid boils at a higher temperature than liquid at 1 atm?

    I'm taking about the liquid in the bucket Jed, which is supposed to be water. Water in an open bucket boils at ~100C, so if the cell was at >100C for a long time, why wasn't the water boiling?

    And even if the electrolyte in the cell were boiling, how would Mizuno and Akimoto put their hands inside the cell into the boiling electrolyte?

    And of course this comment is nonsensical since I wasn't talking about the cell innards. But it does illustrate how far Jed gets off track in his fervor to 'prove me wrong'.

    What I was specifically talking about is how M and A decided the cell was 'too hot to touch', and the subjectivity of that 'measurement'.

    Again, you failed to read the description. They read the temperature off the pen recorder, which was still connected to the thermocouple. They did not infer it. They held their hands near the cell to confirm that the thermocouple was functioning correctly. Then they disconnected the TC from the pen recorder, wrapped the cell in towels and moved it to the other lab.

    And again Jed, you have failed to understand the objection I am making. The above quote deals exclusively with the situation while the cell was in its original location and the immediate move. I have already agreed it was likely hot, since they heated it there! But I have not agreed the TC reading was correct. That seems to me to be a potential root cause of the apparently anomalous cell behavior. Subsequent to moving it and reading the TC while in the other lab, the 'too hot to touch' comment is affected by their predispositions formed by reading the supposedly malfunctioning TC. Yes Jed, this is all speculative, but a good scientist tries to explain anomalous readings via errors or other such problems, because, most of the time, that's what causes them. Since Mizuno never repeated this experiment, we will never know if it was real or not, which is why further discussion of this is pointless.

    Edit: I'm not going to address Zeus46's post, since it's just more smoke about the anecdote. My final point is one I have made before, but Z and JR don't seem to get: Anomalous events are usually tracked down to mundane problems, not radical new physics and chemistry. But you actually have to go and track the causes down. As a properly skeptical scientist I need more than a poorly documented anecdotal story to convince me that Nobel prizes should be awarded. If Mizuno had replicated the work in a controlled fashion, that would be a different story. But he didn't. And with that, I am done on this topic.

    “[quoting F&P] It is a Pyrex Dewar with the upper part sliver [silver] coated to prevent heat radiation losses in this area, and to make the heat losses by radiation insensitive to the water level.”

    In this point Abd may be right in that I misinterpreted the writing, but that is because they make a classic mistake of English grammar that I didn't catch. The second part of the sentence is an 'and' clause, but they switch subjects on us. Normal grammar is to assume that the subject of this subjectless clause is the most recently used subject in the preceding sentence or part of sentence. I.e. without the first clause, it would read:

    "... Pyrex Dewar with the upper part silver coated to make the heat losses by radiation insensitive to the water level.”

    That is apparently not the case.

    And you call this a 'humdinger'? Get real. You're 'straining at gnats' here.

    Claiming that I said Mizuno and Akimoto put their hands in boiling water. Who would do that? Why? What boiling water?

    My questions exactly. (Especially the fact that if the cell and water were at >100C, why wasn't it boiling?) That means they inferred the temperature by close proximity. The point is, which you should know, that utilizing subjective human sensory input as 'scientific data' is a good way to get in trouble. Just ask Blondlot.

    never even read it

    Your ad hom assumption. "What the hell is the matter with you?"

    It is impossible to confirm that an object is very hot by sense of touch without grasping it

    Say what? "What the hell is the matter with you?"

    You're devolving Jed, better quit before you get so far behind you can never catch up.

    more character assassination from Zeus.

    A.) I have never claimed to be immune to making mistakes.

    B.) What Zeus wants to construe as 'mistakes', 'failures', 'howlers', etc. w.r.t. the bucket anecdote simply reflect his inability to understand how to attempt to determine the believability of a truly astounding (if true) claim.

    Your hypotheses violate elementary laws of physics and common sense


    It is a conclusion you reached before you read anything.

    Double - no, triple ROFL

    since you thought that Mizuno and Akimoto put their hands in boiling water, which is ridiculous,

    On 9/20/2001, Jed Rothwell wrote:

    "2. Mizuno said the cell was too hot to touch for several days."

    (See the last post in the google groups ref to the old spf newsgroup I gave earlier in this thread for the source of the above quote.)

    So, how did Mizuno know if it was too hot to touch for several days if he didn't touch it? Did he read the malfunctioning thermocouple to get those tidbits?

    I agree, if they thought the cell was burning hot, they wouldn't touch it. But maybe you can tell what I think really happened from the above questions.

    You say that "to your knowledge" they don't do it right

    More precisely, to my knowledge every CF calorimetry experiment is analyzed under the 'lumped parameter' approach which assumes the cell/calorimeter is totally homogeneous, which is certainly not the case in closed F&P cells, and would not be the case in open cells where recombination is occurring anywhere.

    It is "to my knowledge" because I won't state that I covered every case, I may have missed one or two. Please point them out if you find some.

    I understood only too well what you were doing with your calculations.

    No, you didn't, as is obvious.

    Interestingly both Huxley and ABD seem to only have a limited clue as to your whole issues with the 'ten scientists',

    Really, you think so. So you think claiming XYZ said "It's random!" when XYZ actually said "It's systematic!" and "It's non-random." is hard to understand? Hmmm...

    Well yes, but by this stage you are having to "distrust" a lot of scientists / data

    No, not really. Normally I take the data as give, such as for Storms and McKubre's published data sheets. Now the recent Mizuno stuff Jed put up left me with some questions, and I showed figures as to why, but that's unusual.

    "F&P, and all other CFers using calorimetry, to my knowledge don't do it right." A very bold statement

    Not really. F&P and Miles implicitly recognize it as true when they spend hours figuring out which is the best mathematical method to determine their calibration constants(oh, excuse me, heat transfer coefficients) from their calibration runs. They clearly know that using the 'wrong' constants give the wrong answer. That's all the 'CCS' is.

    That's what 'they' all say - until an experiment gets replicated, of course. In which case it becomes "they are also doing it wrong". See above for an example of this.

    Typical character assassination.

    THANK YOU for saying this. At last you have clarified your position.

    Except I don't think you have a clue what it really is.

    I have never hidden the fact that I am conservative in my approach to this field, meaning I need good solid evidence of LENR to convince me the observations are not grounded in mundane chemistry and physics. I have found that CFers routinely neglect to probe mundane explanations of their results to the necessary level, so my efforts in this area are to do that. I don't need to repeat what they have done, I do what they have not. While doing that, I have found that in those cases where enough replication attempts have been made, mundane explanations are as viable as the astounding LENR ones.

    The Mizuno bucket thing, Rossi's demos, the Patterson Power Cell...all insufficient info. You can spend forever trying to guess what happened, or you can just not worry about it and concentrate on cases with enough data to work with, which is what I have done with the Storms' work and the subsequent CCS/ATER thing.

    What really gives away that I am on the right track are the facts that Jed feels it is so important to 'prove me wrong', and that group of ten authors had to resort to a false strawman argument to try to do so as well.

    Of course, some might argue that puts you firmly in the camp of the pathological skeptic, and well, maybe some others might not be too surprised by that.

    No, I believe it is properly skeptical to distrust data that suggests physics textbooks need to be rewritten when based on 'measurements' that aren't confirmed by replication and verification of functionality, and instead supported by pre-conditioned human sense responses. Sounds too much like n-rays to trust blindly.

    Replicate the experiment and then I might revise my opinion.

    No, that is not at all true. Fleischmann and Pons replicated heat after death hundreds of times, in the boil off experiments. Others observed this at power levels up to ~20 W, lasting a day or so.

    However, I am sure you do not believe any of these reports either. That's okay. You can always say "personally I lean toward no." That is a "gut feeling" with no rational or scientific basis. It does not need any basis. Anyone can have a "gut feeling" about any subject. It does not violate thermodynamics, as Zeos46 put it.

    No Jed, you 'misrepresent' again. I have repeatedly said several things in relation to your misrepresentaions above:

    1) F&P, and all other CFers using calorimetry, to my knowledge don't do it right.

    2) Their data is usually OK, with certain exceptions.

    3) F&P's big Heat-after-death claim in their 1993 paper is based on a bogus

    measurement. I showed this in my whitepaper.

    4) most other HAD events aren't long enough to prove it isn't just bad calorimetry again (that old CCS-thing, remember)

    But you refuse to understand the criticisms, even after years of trying to get you to, so I'm sure you will just blather on the same way as you do.

    BTW, I don't think Mizuno, et al, are liars, I believe they are self-deluded about the temperature in the bucket incident.

    The problem with the nuclear fume hood hypothesis is that the airflow would have to be turned down each day to match the diminishing amount of water evaporated...

    The problem with your comment is that you continue to believe the numbers presented. I'll agree that, if true, they present an interesting anomaly. But are they true, that is the question isn't it? Personally I lean towards no.

    But the key point that everyone refuses to deal with is that this event is a one-time event, that was never replicated. That means the best it can be is suggestive. It helps explain why Mizuno continued on with CF work. But it proves nothing scientifically. That requires replication, which, Jed's objections notwithstanding, never occurred.

    I am done with the speculations on this event, because we can never get beyond that, and persisting is a waste of time.

    As an aside, while trying to find where I picked up the 'abandoned' descriptor for the building (didn't find it yet, may not), I ran across an amusing thread in the old spf archives. You all might find it interesting too.!searchin/sci.physics.fusion/rothwell$20$20mizuno/sci.physics.fusion/cFgl1mvoxRc/A_k0ZPcDaecJ

    Make sure you note the dates.

    Okay, so what potential error could cause two people to mistakenly think that an object radiating heat and it so hot it will burn them?

    so let me get this straight...

    the TC registered over 100 deg C

    Mizuno and friend repeatedly stuck their hands in a bucket of boiling water to prove the 'heater' was still working. Is that really what you're saying?

    What error can cause a bucket of water to evaporate overnight in ordinary room temperature conditions?

    Not an error, a high airflow rate over the water.