Posts by kirkshanahan

    if real it would have some major implications for the science.


    Not really. JR likes to hyperventilate and claim my proposal violates laws of thermodynamics and was proven wrong hundreds of years ago, but he's incorrect on that. What we are seeing are the problems that arise when you don't accurately calculate your error bars. The CF community routinely ignores the fact that the calibration constant is an experimentally determined number. As such it has natural variation in it, and that will impact the variation of anything calculated with it. The size of that variation needs to be checked, which is what I did (apparently for the first time) with my 2002 publication. I found that the impact was much larger than people realized. That's why I wrote the words that Hagelstein quoted in his first few moments of his 2015 'MIT' course on CF, where I said the technique was at its limit of error. It is, the errors from calibration constant variation are of the size of the signals. That means people are 'working in the noise'. Continuing to do so and claiming great success is a classic sign of pathological science.

    Have you ever approached the Electrochemical Society here in the US ( https://www.electrochem.org/ ), or maybe even submitted a paper to them about your CCS/ATER hypothesis


    No I have not, nor is it likely that I will, since the whole thesis is present in my 2002 publication. I will not be attempting to replicate the experiment because (a) I don't think it is worth the time, given the lack of reproducibility of the effect, and (b) if I did I would face a monumental task to gain approval to run the experiment given that it generates an explosive mix of gases that in other experiments has killed and injured researchers. The safety concerns alone would make it almost impossible for me to do, meanng extensive effort to convince the 'overseers' I have to say yes. It isn't worth the time to me.


    As I have said many times, the people with the equipment now should try to examine the veracity of my claims, either through running more experiments or by finding experiments they already have run that clearly cannot arise due to the proposed mundane CCS/ATER thing. Talk to them...

    Anyhow as Fleischmann explained, he did calculate and consider recombination

    Anyway, this peer-reviewed article (1) - published by the prestigious Physics Letters A – contains a lot of errors.



    Another error in the paper being discussed is in the energy balance equation they use to compute power out and therefrom excess power (equation (1) in http://coldfusioncommunity.net…n-Pons-PLA-Simplicity.pdf). The term for the enthalpy lost via the electrolysis gases ("entha;py content of the gas stream") omits a multiplicative term originally in the equation, as it was published in 1990 by Pons and Fleischmann in Fusion Technology, vol 17, page 669 (the correct equation term is given on page 671 under section II.F, point 2.). It includes the gamma variable, which is the fraction not recombined, i.e. gamma = 1 => no recomb. So no, F did NOT consider recombination effects in the paper Ascoli is discussing. F had already concluded gamma was always 1*, but this is just an assertion on his part, which I find unlikely.


    (*)Actually, based on his 2004 publication with Szpak, and various other comments, he actually admitted to an up to 2% electrochemical recombination possibility, but that was 'within the experimental noise' for him and thus not important. This does however clearly indicate his results are no better than that level (i.e. +/- 2%), irregardless of how good a mathemetician he was...

    The Shanahan critisism[s] where also answerred,


    No, they weren't, not intelligently anyway.


    but he claims some ghostly errors, and as you know, ghosts can neither be proven or disproven.


    So clearly you are wrong in what you say because my claimed errors can easily be proven by people with the equipment to do so and the willpower to do so.

    I was under the impression that you also think LENR is junk science. If it doesn't work, why should you be concerned that it might cause a safety problem for you and your colleagues? That doesn't really make sense, like worrying about people having accidents driving cars with no engines.


    Well Alan you are only partly correct. I think the idea that LENR is real is unlikely to be true. All the studies I have seen reporting it have 'fatal flaws', normally in the arena of force-fitting a conclusion to data that doesn't support the implied certainty. Secondly, I am stubborn, and I'd like to see an admission from the primary CFers that their 'proof' that my CCS/ATER idea is bunk is actually bunk. I had hopes when McK signed on her, but alas, no such luck. Thirdly then, I see people like you who keep trying other things and seeing 'LENR', although I admit I'm not as interested in your experiments because I don't normally work in your temperature regime. Fourthly, I do a lot of equilibrium chemistry, which means waiting around for things to equilibrate. reading and replying to posts fills the time when I have nothing else to do. There's probably several more minor reasons. Like, maybe I'm actually wrong and one of you guys will finally get a reproducible, incontrovertible result proving I do need to worry about runaway heating or radiation production.

    I fear, that we addressing two different sources of alleged excess heats:


    You are correct. The latter heat, near boiling, however was claimed to be a 'Heat-After-Death' event, which is distinguished from excess heat during the run by the fact that current flow was stopped. As I indicated in my whitepaper, the HAD claim was nonsensical. You have added teeth to that claim. But the bottom line was that the method was never used again. In fact Pons later reported on an 'improved' calorimeter system where "Foam rise in the calorimeter at the boiling temperature has been minimized." (http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RouletteTresultsofi.pdf) I don't know why they would do that if it was a better method to detect excess heat...

    kirkshanahan: You misunderstood my intention. First you have to have Metal Hydride. Then you have to coat it safely. How? This is another task.

    But if you have such hydride that has a lot of hydrogen inside what pressure could be developed upon heating while blocking hydrogen right at the surface?


    I think that extreme pressure could be easily obtained at a nanoscale.

    Imagine you will enclose 10Kg of PdH2 in a stainless steel vessel with no free volume. Then you will heat it up. What do you think will happen?

    Very same thing could happen at a nanoscale level within cracks, pores and lattice itself. But strangely there is nobody that is thinking about it, at least publicly.

    Could anyone tell me why it would not work, please?



    Umm...I don't have to imagine. We do that here daily. What will happen if you raise the temperature enough is the container will rupture. A coated particle is just a very small vessel. Same concerns apply, but if 1 particle pops its not as big a deal as if your 10kg vessel pops. (but what if all your particles pop...) Once again, this deals in material yield stresses. If P exceeds the yield stress, you get a rupture.



    To calculate the pressure you can start with the ideal gas law. Assume all the hydride H forms H2 and calculate the moles. Then calculate the pressure vis PV=nRT. Realize though that once you get to roughly 400-500 psi, the ideal gas law starts to break down and you need to use another equation of state. We typically use the compressibility equation, which is PV= znRT, where z is the compressibilty factor. This equation works to several 10's of thousands of psi, but I don't know about 100,000 psi and greater. Check the literature.


    You might be able to electrolessly plate Ni on TiH2 but I'm not sure. I have never had TiH2 on the benchtop or in water, so please check if it is stable before trying that.


    kirkshanahan: No, I don't wish to coat Palladium and Titanium with Nickel. I want to coat Palladium/Titanium Hydride. This is big difference. Coating unhydrided metal will cause many cracks upon loading. So this would be a bad idea.


    Yes, you are correct. The molar volume changes upon hydriding. I think Pd for example increases about 20%. However, if you start with a hydrided hydride material and drive the H2 out, it will shrink. This may be a deleterious to your coating integrity as expansion was.

    Yes, I know all that Kirk. My post was not intended to be about you, but why the DOE would contract you out to counter a relatively benign article about LENR.


    They didn't. I work for the SRNL. My job includes being concerned about safety. As a matter of fact, my management often felt I was wasting my time. Out of several mangers, I've really only had one who understood the underlying safety issue. The rest were like the rest of the 'mainstream' and thought CF was junk science.


    why this one in particular required a response


    Because I wanted to?


    pay you on top of your salary



    Nope. No additional bonuses. Unless you count the Lamborghini they gave me for my first paper, and the 40-bathroom mansion for the second, and the private Lear jet (with pilot and gas forever) for the third, and, of course, the small island in the Bahamas for my summer home for the infamous JEM paper...

    What error have you, Ascoli, estimated for Lonchampt's paper and with what confidence interval?


    Lonchampt et al, used 0.5 A current. Using 1.54 V as the thermoneutral voltage, that means they have a maximum available recombination heat if 0.77 W. Anything less than that could be ATER.


    They mention halving the current at one point. That halves the maximum too. But it does not necessarily mean you will see a halving in the apparent excess heat if the amount needed can still be sustained by the lower current.


    Note they report .07 to .17W excess heat. That is 22% of the 0.5 amp max, and 44% of the 0.25A max. Well within the recombination heat available. I would also note that a 20% value is frequently seen as I recall.


    And yes, I know I am not Ascoli65...

    Because upon heating Metallic Hydride will try to free up some Hydrogen. But since its surface will be tightly coated with Nickel extreme pressure will build up.

    If coating will be strong enough I would bet that it will produce some kind of a high energetic particle.

    Please let me know what is wrong with this? Is my assumption correct?


    The amount (depth) and perfection (defect level) will determine what will happen. First, if you have a thick defect-free coating you likely will not load anything into the 'hydride' you coated with Ni. H does not form Ni-H until you reach gigapascals at high temps (400C at least). Ni is a good dissociation catalyst however, so you could form a monolayer of atomic H even at room temp and 1 atm. But it won't get to the hydride unless there are imperfections in the Ni layer. You potentially could get intergrain diffusion along the grain boundaries even with a good thick Ni layer, but I can't say if that will happen or not. Just assume thick Ni might well be a problem.


    A thin Ni layer can potentially be used to atomize molecular hydrogen and then diffusion of H to the hydride could well occur.


    BTW, this technique is routinely used by coating a difficult-to-hydride hydride material with Pd (instead of Ni).


    If you should hydride the hydridable material, and then heat it, you will desorb H2 but it will be in a very small volume which means the pressure will increase rapidly. Once the yield stress of the Ni film is reached, the Ni film will burst, just like a balloon. Typically yield stresses are on the order of 10-100,000 psi as I recall, but check that. Film integrity will also impact that.



    Something in my head is telling me that this must produce something interesting.


    Try taking some ibuprofen...

    I guess you should once ask Boing what they think about possible LENR runaways of Li-ion batteries during a flight.

    7Li has a very low work-function to induce LENR. Additionally batteries can have high currents/strong fields what is also a promotor of LENR.



    Li-ion batteries have well known problems that have nothing to do with LERN. much research is ongoing to make them more stable...normal, mundane chemical research. 'LENR' is not in the running for the cause, except in your mind.


    Pd only will show problematic behavior if it is significantly loaded with deuterium, what is quite unusual if you talk of alloys. But I very well know what concerns you!



    I can't make sense of what you say here about alloys, but I seriously doubt you "very well know what concerns you[me]!".


    PdD shows the FPHE after appropriate treatment. But there is a proposed mundane chemical cause for the FPHE. No nuclear required.

    Wrong, many replications and strong signals.


    Like the excact copy of Lonchampt and colleauges, but with improved data logging, and confirming F&P results.


    http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LonchamptGreproducti.pdf



    a.) Since I assert there is a real FPHE, it is not surprising that someone would see the effect.


    b.) I searched L's paper for 'recombination' and found no hits. That means they did not consider it at all, which is the basic error all CFers make to date (noting that some do consider it, but incorrectly).


    c.) Therefore the Lonchampt paper does not resolve the issue of "LENR or ATER?".

    May be you have forgotton that there was always a drift before the refill


    Maybe you missed my edit where I addressed that...



    Edit: BTW, the fact that the Qf curves are not flat indicates the model used to compute it needs improvement. Especially for a 'blank' cell, it should be flat (and at 0).




    You also never refuted the claims by other reviewers that did exclude any energy relevant recombination.



    No one ever did what you claim here. If you think you know of such a paper, please cite a reference.


    May be you could tell us about your independence...



    As Ascoli noted, Hansen accepted most (all?) of F&P's assumptions without question. That was his primary mistake.

    According to Krivits, Shanahan was paid by the DOE to critique he and Marwan's paper:


    Ah yes, the conspiracy theorists at work again. I find it funny that you can recall all these other details about LENR goings-on, and not recall all the posts I have made on this. Sounds like you're part of an anti-Shanahan conspiracy to me....


    To remind you, I work for the Savannah River National Laboratory, which is one of the US DOE labs. DOE owns the facility and contracts a management team to operate it. Thus, I am paid indirectly by the US DOE, but I work for a contractor to be exact. They and DOE always require I put the funding source in any paper's acknowledgements.


    I got involved in watching this field because if what the CFers claim is true, I and several hundred of my co-workers are at risk for a runaway LENR event in the Pd and La-Ni-Al alloy bed-based chemical operations and lab research that we run here. Plain and simple, it is a safety issue. We are very concerned about safety here and in the DOE in general.


    This has all been posted many times and in many places. No surprises, no conspiracies...


    As to Krivit's specific claims, he is incorrect as usual. I was paid to do my job, which includes being aware of and fixing safety issues. I do the CF stuff in my spare time, while accomplishing my primary job responsibilities. Check my publication record (which was also posted here as well) for details of my normal job activities.

    Sometimes Krivit makes valid statements....sometimes


    Actually not often. Thanks for the link though, I hadn't seen that particular page before, as I don't follow Krivit. He posted a long response to the JEM comment I wrote claiming the editor wouldn't publish it, which I agree with as it was not very 'scientific'. Instead Marwan and the other 9 authors wrote that infamous response where they completely misrepresent what I said (the "random Shanahan CCSH" in their parlance). The page you linked to has nothing on it I need to comment on. I would also remind you that I was asked by Krivit to respond to a question, and when I did he completely misrepresented what I said in a post on his site. See: Miles-Fleischmann-Szpak-Mossier-Boss Article in IE132


    Also, I responded to his original long-winded complaint about my JEM article in an Appendix of my whitepaper.

    More than a dozen of Labs did repeat the above extraordinary claims. They all found them being true including some military labs... All confirmed large excess energy of much higher than chemical level in amounts of Pd atoms present.


    Not quite. They ran similar experiments and got vaguely similar results, but not to any confidence-inspiring level. Also, they all failed to consider CSS/ATER, which leaves open the possibility that their 'excess heat' signals are due to the use of the wrong thermal model to interpret their data. And 'large'? Not so much even if true.



    Ascoli too knows the independent confirming report of Hansen



    Hansen didn't confirm anything except the math produced signals. For ex., check Figure 2 in the Hansen report. This is for a 'blank' cell, i.e. no supposed excess. Except the Qf curve (i.e. excess heat) shows an excess of ~80mW at the peak of the cycle ending at ~75C (roughly) when using 6.1e-10 for kr'. Assuming the bath T is 300K, the radiant heat term in the F&P equation gives an output power of 4.15W. The plot shows ~80mW 'excess heat' at that point for the 6.1e-10 curve. That is covered by a 2% increase in kr'.


    In Fig. 4, for the same cycle (i.e. ~75C ending T), there is an ~330 mW 'excess heat' in the 6.1e-10 curve. That can be obtained by an 8% error in kr'. Now from the blank cell we expect at least 2%. The question is, of the 6% left, how much is error in the math method, how much is ATER, and how much is LENR? Personally, without more data on calibration variation, I can't separate the observed 'excess heat' into the appropriate bins. The results seem to fall within 'experimental error'.


    BTW, the currents used in the whole study were 200, 400 and 800 mA. With a thermoneutral voltage of 1.54V, that means that available recombination heat is 308, 616, 1232 mW respectively. The cells represented in Figs 2 & 4 only used 800mA however. That means the maximum excess heat signal represented only 100*330/1232 = 26.8% of the maximum available signal, assuming no 'bump-up' factor (which may be reasonable for open cells like these). The whole signal could be nothing but ATER, as studies of those other 'replications' suggest is likely.


    You are force fitting your desired conclusion to data that doesn't really answer the question.


    Edit: BTW, the fact that the Qf curves are not flat indicates the model used to compute it needs improvement. Especially for a 'blank' cell, it should be flat (and at 0).


    2nd Edit: I just recalled that the Qf is calculated with the whole F&P equation which includes the P/(P*-P) term. At 75C, there may be a significant error starting to creep in via that term as well...