Posts by kirkshanahan

Jed Rothwell wrote to Mary Yugo:

"You apparently think it is possible for hundreds of professional scientists to measure heat ranging from 50 mW up to 120 W, in thousands of experiments, and every single one of them was wrong. Every one, every time! Because if even one was right, that makes cold fusion real. No one would argue it is impossible for one or two scientists to do calorimetry wrong. But you are saying that many of world's top experts in calorimetry and electrochemistry got it completely wrong, not just once but in test after test, year after year. As I said, it that could happen, science would not work, and civilization would not exist. We humans would still be living in caves."

Yes, it is entirely possible. It occurs when 'groupthink' predominates. In the case of cold fusion calorimetry it arises specifically because the researchers don't study their methods' noise sufficiently. They eyeball their calorimeter's baseline and say "OK...the error is the baseline variation." and then they stop. Then a 'mythology' develops that "all the errors have been explored and there's none left", and all attempts to move beyond that are ridiculed and lambasted. If the baseline noise is, in fact, NOT the primary error component, then a mistake has been made and it is compounded by enforcing the mythology.

Case-in-point: I looked at Ed Storms' cold fusion data in 2000 and, using a trivial assumption, but working out the consequences of that, showed that at least in his data a trivial variation in calibration constants (which are experimentally determined numbers and thus contain 'error') wiped out his supposed excess heat signals. But even more, I showed that the variation was systematic, which is a clear sign that I was on the right track. But the cold fusion community has actively attempted to suppress my findings when they should have been attempting to incorporate them. The problem I outlined applies to any type of calibration, but the community leaders have refused to recognize this (in the face of simple math) and instead have resorted to extreme methods to justify their ignoring the issue. So, we have today a field where 'hundreds of researchers' are getting it wrong because they prefer their mythology to the facts. As a consequence we have NO confirmed excess heat in any cold fusion experiment.

You grossly underestimate how often this scenario is repeated in the real world. The primary difference with cold fusion is the level of fanaticism the proponents have in maintaining their status quo. I repeat, the problem is failure to admit a systematic error has crept into the field.

With regards as to how science works...normally, when a systematic error is pointed out, the researchers affected by it bang their heads on the desk for a few minutes muttering "Why didn't I see that?", after which they go and see what they have to do to incorporate this new knowledge into their efforts. And science goes on just fine.

On the 18th, Abd wrote:
“There are questions about the heat/helium correlation, within the community. The exact value is disputed. Some dispute it entirely, because of asserted weaknesses in the reports. Hey, ask Joshua Cude, he will point all that out. Or Kirk Shananan, the last standing peer-reviewed published skeptic still writing about cold fusion.”

So…let’s talk about the supposed heat-helium correlation from the He POV. Abd is really big on Miles’ work at China Lake, where he stuck closeable flasks in the exiting gas stream of an open F&P-type electrolysis cell so he could collect and analyze gas samples. The data in the Figure Abd and I were discussing previously (Figure 47 in Storms’ book) is of interest.

I’d like to address a couple of Abd’s prior comments about my comments regarding Figure 47 in my last paper in J. Envir. Mon. First Abd makes a big deal out of the fact that I digitized the plot when the data was in Table 7 on the next page. Mea culpa! I did miss that in the rush to write this stuff up. But really, who cares where the data came from, as long as it is the data? It seems to me that Abd is trying to set up the old “Shanahan made a mistake so he can never be right…” conclusion, which is of course false. It’s good that my ‘error’ was caught, but I never claimed to be perfect. In fact I claimed to make mistakes all the time, which is why I publish and post, to get feedback on what I’m doing and saying…

Next…in the paper I mention Figure 47 and point out that it is not a correlation plot, in fact, its correlation coefficient indicates complete randomness. I should have continued on to say that the correct way to look at it then is as an attempt to display achieving a constant under different conditions, which is what Abd said the plot was. So the correct thing to do is to just look at the mean value and the standard deviation. Supposedly, this value indicates an approach to theoretical yield expected from the standard yield of 23.82 Mev/fusion or 2.6x10^11 He atoms/watt-sec.

So what is that number then? Including all 10 points we get the average = 1.83 x10^11 +/- 1.25 x10^11 (1 sigma). The 2 sigma band on that average then goes from -0.67 to +4.33 x10^11, i.e. it is essentially indistinguishable from 0. There is a ‘flyer’ data point in the set. Excluding that point gives 1.49 +/- .67 x10^11, for a 2 sigma band of +0.15 to 2.83 x10^11, i.e. almost the whole available range (0-2.62 e11). I say it is impossible to make any firm conclusions from that. Storms tries to talk about what fraction of He that might have been produced would have been trapped in the solid, but that is just hand waving to a predetermined conclusion.

But more interestingly, I got to wondering how the # of He atoms per watt per second was calculated. From the data in the table, plus info from Miles’ papers, I can see that the concentration of He atoms measured is converted to # He atoms in the collection flask. The table gives the supposed excess power (1st column of Table 7 and of the Table below) measured for that run, so we can divide the # atoms by the Pex to get #atoms/Watt (2nd column). Then we obviously have to divide by some time to get the #atoms/Watt/sec, but Miles does not give this number. But it is trivial to compute it from the published #atoms/W/sec (column 3)(multiply by Pex and divide by #He atoms in 500cc then reciprocate), and we see some interesting hidden data (column 4), a number that represents some sort of time value associated with that run.

Miles never explains how he transitions from the #He atoms/Watt to #He atoms/Watt-sec, thus we don’t know exactly what this time represents, but one would think it is the duration of the excess heat event. I can’t think of anything else it might rationally be, but maybe I just missed something here. In his papers, Miles does say he typically left the flask in line for up to 2 days (8.64 x10^4 sec) and that the time to flow 500cc of exiting gas through the flask under ‘nominal’ conditions is ~4140 (or maybe it was 4410) sec, and those two numbers bracket the computed times, so maybe we are right assuming they are the amount of time that excess power signals were observed. If so, it is interesting to look at a plot of the #He atoms produced vs. that time. What we see is a decreasing # as time increases. A linear regression gives y = -2.714e+9*t+1.316e+14 with an R^2 value of 0.750 (meaning the R = 0.866). But even better is the exponential fit of y= 1.417e+14 * exp( 3.132e-05 * t) with an R^2 of .846 (=> R~0.92) (y = # He atoms in 500cc flask in both equations). These correlation coefficients are high enough than one could start believing them!

This directly implies that the longer one runs the lower the # He atoms found. What this looks like to me is a slow dilution of a single introduction of He atoms into the sample. But wouldn’t we expect a continuous or at least increasing He atom production as long as the 'excess heat' is being produced? So, we are left with the questions “What is really going on here? What are these times? How do they relate to the experiment?”. Miles never explains this. Any comments Abd, any inside information?

In the Ruby Carat video of the Miles interview, he says that he used a sealed system, but in fact he didn’t. The gases exited through an oil bubbler. As long as the internal pressure remains ~equal to the external pressure (i.e. when the pressure differential (dP) is within that that can be compensated by the oil level moving up or down) the system will remain ‘sealed’ (in fact you also have the problem of atmospheric gases dissolving in the oil and then releasing into the apparatus, but that is probably minor, but the measured He levels are on the order of 1-10 ppb, so who knows!). But what if the dP goes too high or too low. Then the oil level either sucks the oil into the experiment and perhaps sucks a little air back with it or pushes the oil far enough out that you can get direct gas to atmosphere flow. Both of these conditions allow for some degree of contamination. Of course, arguments will now ensue about whether that is enough to give the obtained He.

When might such a problem occur? How about when a nearly stoichiometric mixture of hydrogen and oxygen explodes? You will get a pressure surge then (maybe enough to blow out the oil?). Immediately following that the internal experimental pressure should drop significantly (perhaps sucking oil+air back in?). This kind of event would give a spike like introduction of air, with its He content, which would then slowly be diluted away after normal operating conditions returned. Kinda looks like what we see in the Miles data. Speculation I know, but do you have a better explanation for the #He atoms vs time plot? I’d love to hear it.

The real bottom line is that the data set is too small to be trustworthy for anything except speculative conclusions. One’s conclusions will depend on whether the flyer data are trustworthy or not (there actually are one or two more points that are set off from the rest besides the one that I clipped out in the analysis above). The fits above are highly influenced by the flyers, which means we need more data supporting this set before we can conclude anything firmly.

In any case, given the fictional nature of the excess heat values, and the vagaries of the He data, the supposed He-heat correlation is really just wishful thinking.

Storms’ Table 7 + Shanahan computed times
Pex He atoms He/Watt-sec
Watts in500cc sec[KLS]

0.1 1.34E+14 1.90E+11 7.05E+03
0.05 1.05E+14 2.40E+11 8.75E+03
0.02 9.70E+13 4.90E+11 9.90E+03
0.055 1.02E+14 1.60E+11 1.16E+04
0.04 1.09E+14 2.50E+11 1.09E+04
0.04 8.40E+13 1.40E+11 1.50E+04
0.06 7.50E+13 7.00E+10 1.79E+04
0.03 6.10E+13 7.00E+10 2.90E+04
0.07 9.00E+13 1.20E+11 1.07E+04
0.12 1.07E+14 1.00E+11 8.92E+03

Edit: Table headings format got all mucked up. Headings are: Col 1. Pex (watts), Col 2. #He atoms in 500cc, Col 3. #He atoms per watt-sec, Col. 4 seconds (computed by KLS).

'oystla' wrote in 'https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/3374-Jed-Rothwell-on-an-Unpublished-E-Cat-Test-Report-that-“Looks-Like-it-Worked”/?postID=28963#post28963'

First experimenters stumbled on an energy anomalie [anomaly]. - OK...true.

Then by careful analysis chemical sources where discarded. - False, analysis was not careful...conclusion drawn is incorrect.

What's left is a nuclear reaction. - Typical if A and B, then C. But it is NOT B, therefore it goes If A and not B, then not C.

But the excact mechanism is yet to be agreed upon, - and never will because there isn't one...

among the dusins [dozens] of theories proposed. - Funny how many theories can be proposed based on nothing isn't it?

When science has agreed upon the theory, you will find reports in your precious nuclear databases. - but no theory will ever be chosen (except one using mundane chemistry), so nothing will end up in the database...

Quote from Shane D.

kirkshanahan wrote:
Oh, and Kidwell's claims are very credible.

Kirk,

Kidwell is a believer in LENR though, as his being awarded a recent patent for excess heat proves. So if you felt he was "credible" when he took after Iwamura back then, is he still credible now?

Display More

Shane,
I have communicated with Kidwell and know he thinks there is something worth investigating, and I know he filed and got some patents, but I haven't investigated his claims and their support in detail. I looked briefly at his patent for excess enthalpy from small particles on supports today and have some questions I'd like answered. But we all know patents never have enough scientific info in them, so no surprise. I apply the same standards to Kidwell's work as anyone else's, the first being reproducibility. So, are his enthalpy claims credible? I don't know right now. In the quote above I was speaking of his finding wild Pr in Iwamura's lab, and the fallout of that. He has that story correct.

Alain wrote:
"The worst is that there is a claim that Iwamura was wrong, by Kidwell, and not only he tried to replicate unsuccessfully, but he never moaned on the fact it was impossible... He pushed a theory of contamination that was not so credible, ..."

Hmmm...what about my comments in J. Envir. Mon., 2010? I have a couple of columns devoted to heavy metal transmutation and why the appearance of heavy metals is not necessarily indicative of transmutation... I do reference Kidwell and others too.

Of course, the 10 Famous Authors contest my comments as expected, but if you read them, they are full of assertions of what I know and don't know or could show or can't show, etc. But they are *assertions*, meaning no proof is given. In fact they claim a whole host of other elements were detected in Iwamura's work. You ought to read it. I at least, point to direct possibilities that can be checked.

Oh, and Kidwell's claims are very credible. In fact, the finding of 'wild' Pr in Iwamura's lab invalidates the claimed Pr transmutation for any competent chemist...don't know about those physicists...they're a crazy bunch...

The other thing you should try to look into is what the contaminants are in CaO. Way back I found a sample Certificate of Analysis for some purity of CaO, don't recall what grade, that listed ppm level contaminants. Cs was one of the bigger ones... Unfortunately when I went back much later to retrieve it, it was gone, so you'll just have to take what I say as good advice...

On Wednesday, 7/13/16, 8:42pm, in thread Jed Rothwell on an Unpublished E-Cat Test Report that “Looks Like it Worked”, IH Fanboy wrote:

“To the contrary, cold fusion lost its acclaim when certain hot fusion scientists from MIT altered experimental evidence…” and linked to an Infinite Energy ‘report’ written by Eugene Mallove in 1999 that purportedly describes how MIT scientists ‘fraudulently altered’ their data to be more supportive of the ‘no such thing as cold fusion’ position.

Unfortunately, the analysis by Gene, which is based in large part on comments by Mitchell Swartz, doesn’t hold up to examination. In the Mallove report, he shows data figures showing the excess power curves that MIT used and some preliminary versions of them he obtained as the MIT Science Press Officer. Of particular note are the applied power curves for the H2O and D2O cells. The MIT researchers used two matched calls, one with H2O, one with D2O, for their experiments. The cells were open, so water was lost through release of electrolysis gases to the atmosphere. Since the chemistry is different for the two materials, different results were expected with regards to rate of electrolysis.

The calorimetry was the power compensation type. The cells were held at some slightly elevated temperature with a heater, and any power appearing in the cell from any other source would cause a lowering of the heater power needed to maintain that temperature. So the applied power curves would show a drop if any excess energy was present. But, they also showed a drop due to water electrolysis, so the data MUST be corrected for that before any excess signal can be detected. Also, when the electrolyte is ‘topped off’, the power had to go up to heat up and maintain the now larger volume of water. This would induce baseline shifts in the applied power time plots.

The preliminary data supplied to Mallove showed both the H2O and D2O cell power traces for a timespan indicated as 0 to 80 hours for the H2O cell, and 0 to 120 hours for the D2O cell. The plots looked like continuous, noisy lines. The H2O trace had a baseline shift at about 62 hours, and the D2O had two, one at about 16 hours and one at ~100 hours (with a big noise spike going both positive and negative at ~22 hours). But the plots appear to be basically level, i.e. the dropping from water loss is not seen. Obviously the plots were corrected for this. And further, the correction is obviously not the same for the two cells, since the rate is isotope dependent.

The Y scale on both is -.2W to +.3W. The zero watt line seems to be drawn through the average value of the H2O data prior to the baseline shift. The D2O zero on the other hand seems to me to be drawn a little lower than the average of the values between the two shifts. It seems more to be drawn through the average of the ~16 hr to ~50 hr section. The ~50 hr to ~100 hr data seems to average slightly higher, perhaps at ~0.02W or so.

The final, published data uses unconnected dots instead of continuous lines. The places where the baselines shift are not shown, and the part of the D2O plot prior to the first baseline shift that was centered about ~+0.25 W is also not shown. In other words, the presented data is clipped a little in the time axis.

The Y axes now go from -0.2 to +0.2W. The Y axis zero for the H2O cell is about the same, but the Y zero for the D2O data is now shifted up a little such that it is more in line with the overall average for the whole region. I recall reading somewhere that the dots are local averages computed from the raw data, i.e. they are smoothed a little, but I am not sure that is correct. I can’t see much effect on peak heights due to the smoothing, and normally I would expect a little peak height reduction if smoothing was used.

Instead the Y axis labels may indicate what is going on. The preliminary data used “POWER (WATTS)” and the published used “P-CAL (WATTS)”. This says to me that the heater calibration curve has been used to subtract off the heater input power. In the preliminary data, excess power would be indicated by negative values (since we are looking at the applied power, not the excess), but one could not be sure it was not due to a shift in heater power. That is fixed in the published data; now any rises would indicate ‘true’ excess power. A key point is that there are no positive excursions in the D2O data larger than the ones in the H2O data. Recall that H2O was not supposed to show excess power, This means that no excess power is observed in the D2O cell. This all seems pretty reasonable to me. But apparently the shift from raw applied power to the power difference coupled with the flattening of the curves to take out the mass loss effect sent Mallove over the edge. He resigned his post because the University wouldn’t ‘investigate’ the issue. I don’t see anything to investigate myself.

But Mallove wrote: “The Phase-II Calorimetry curves were later investigated in the outstanding analysis by my cold fusion colleague and fellow MIT graduate Dr. Mitchell R. Swartz. There can be no doubt now that these curves were the end result of a serious lapse in scientific standards in this affair that happened at MIT.”

Mallove also quotes a letter from Dr. Swartz:

“The light water curve was published by the PFC essentially intact after the first baseline shift, whereas the heavy water curve was shifted a second time. The cells were matched,12 and solvent loss would be expected to be greater for H2O.

The Phase-II methodology is flawed because it masks a constant [steady-state] excess heat. Furthermore this paradigm fails to use either the true baseline drift, and may avoid the first 15% of the D2O curve in Types 3, 3B, 4, and 5 curves. What constitutes “data reduction” is sometimes but not always open to scientific debate.

The application of a low pass filter to an electrical signal or the cutting in half of a hologram properly constitute “data reduction,” but the asymmetric shifting of one curve of a paired set is probably not. The removal of the entire steady state signal is also not classical “data reduction.” “

So the first ‘shift’ is the sloping baseline correction, and the second shift is the different zero point in the D2O curves I guess. But both of those are fine. Fleischmann and Pons' calorimetric method also accounts for the baseline shift, albeit in a different manner. And the zero shift would seem to be the result of the heater power subtraction. Note that the subtracted power was probably an ‘ideal’ power, i.e. with no noise. So what’s wrong with that? Not a thing, it’s SOP in most cases.

The ‘masking’ claim could be real, but it requires that the excess power production be constant and unchanging over the span shown, which is unlikely. Most excess power curves show considerable variation. There was one paper by some Italians that showed a baseline shift when the electrolysis power was turned on that was claimed as excess heat, but I publicly criticized that because baseline shifts are notorious and can arise from many sources. In their work, they varied experimental parameters a lot and didn’t get any change in their amount of supposed excess power, another indication the baseline shift arose from a different source.

As well, the Storms data I reanalyzed for my first CF-related publication was his second set of data. He posted a first set in January 2000. I immediately noted a strong negative feedback signal in the excess power curve that tracked the input power and told him so. This was also noted independently by Scott Little and he reported it to Ed as well. To his credit Ed figured out he had some ground loop problems, reconfigured his electronics, and removed about 95+% of the feeedback in the second set (you could still detect a very small signal, which was unimportant).

Furthermore, I haven’t actually read the MIT paper because they only ran for 10 days. This was before anyone used codeposition, and it usually took hundreds of hours of running to form the ‘special active state’ that gives the effect (if they even could get it after that long!). So the expectation, even after the fact now, was that no excess power signal was likely to be observed. However Swartz claims a 62 mW signal. How he gets that I don’t know but I don’t believe it.

Swartz is known for some shaky math. He once got into an argument with Scott Little about data Scott had collected. Swartz claimed he could pick out an 80 nW (as I recall) signal from typical calorimetric data that had a baseline noise of 50-80 mW. When it’s in the noise, it’s in the noise…

The expectation was for zero. The MIT guys did what anyone would do with their data, no faking or falsification, and they found zero, which in the end proved nothing since they hadn’t run long enough. To conclude that the MIT folks removed a constant amount of apparent excess power from the curves, especially just so they could reject cold fusion claims, in unsupported speculation based on the data shown in the Mallove report. If the data covered a longer period and if it showed excess power signals, it would be worth getting the original data and a full description of data workup protocols, but they didn’t do that or get that.

So IHFanboy, the MIT work is sound.

Now the hoopla with press conferences, interviews, press releases, yada, yada, was a zoo and didn’t enhance anyone’s standing…

2.1 What is a Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA)?

ANSWER: A Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) is a notice used by ARPA-E to
announce a specific funding opportunity and to seek applications for financial assistance.

Re: Holmlid

http://www.sciencedirect.com/s…cle/pii/S1387380616000245

Also, see comment in last paragraph of

http://scitation.aip.org/conte…dva/3/7/10.1063/1.4816407

specifically, "UDD does not appear to have been synthesized in bulk, and no independent confirmation of the existence of UDD has been reported." (UDD = ultradense deuterium - a proposed Rydberg Matter)

On June 9, 2016, Abd wrote……
several derogatory comments about my written critiques of SPAWAR CR-39-based conclusions of charged particle and neutron production…such as:
“The only critique I have seen from you, in non-journal discussions, is preposterous…”
“…what you write about simply does not resemble what is actually shown…”
“You point out much that is simply irrelevant to the neutron claims…”

These types of comments indicate Abd’s mindset, namely that my proposal and concerns are always irrelevant and immaterial as far as he’s concerned. He is essentially unteachable, and I won’t try to do that here. But for those interested, please read on…

The SPAWAR folks prepared cathodes for F&P-type cells by chemically reacting Pd in solution to form metallic Pd adhered to a base metallic mesh. The Pd so formed is dendritic (i.e. fern-leaf-like) in appearance. They placed the Pd-coated mesh directly on a CR-39 plate. (CR-39 is a clear polymeric material usually used to make eyeglasses.) CR-39 is known to display pits after being exposed to radiation and then etched (i.e. ‘eaten away’) by concentrated sodium hydroxide for 5-7 hours at 70-90C or so. Longer times give more material removed, and one can ‘depth profile’ the plates by etching and examining in stages. The SPAWAR folks do electrolysis for a while, then remove the plates and etch them and they see many thousands of pits. These pits overlap extensively and appear to cover the surface, although not uniformly. Some of them are ‘triplets’, which has been related to neutron exposure in other controlled experiments with known neutron sources. So, the SPAWAR folks call their triplets ‘neutron created’ also.

That is their first problem. They take a radiation detection device and place it right in the middle of their experiment, as close to the action as is physically possible, and then assume its behavior will be unchanged from the situation where it would be placed in a holder and exposed to radiation at some distance from the source. My *primary* critique of this is that they cannot be certain of this, as there are chemical means to cause the CR-39 to show pits upon etching. That is, I believe, what Abd considers preposterous.

In other forums and papers, I talk about the possibility of either H2 or O2 chemically reacting with the plate material to form a pit nucleation point (normally formed by interaction with the radiation in the normal use situation). The SPAWAR folks did a little work to try to disprove this, but I feel that what they did was inadequate to prove their point.

But that is not really important, as I feel the biggest problem they have is the effect of the FPHE (Fleischmann-Pons-Hawkins Effect, specifically a non-nuclear one) on the material. The biggest factor is the presence of explosions at the CR-39. The SPAWAR folks captured them with an ir video, and have published stills from that, in which they claim the hot spots that form and disappear arise from ‘mini-nuclear explosions’. I on the other hand think they come from chemical ones (H2 + O2), the at-the-electrode recombination I have mentioned before.

What are the typical effects of a nuclear explosion? How about heat, light, radiation, and… a shockwave. A chemical explosion also has heat, light, and a shockwave, no radiation though. What does a shockwave do to matter that it impinges on? Depending on the strength, it often destroys it, by tearing it into pieces. Now the hot spots the SPAWAR folks photographed are about 1 mm in size, pretty small. That size of a mixed H2+O2 bubble isn’t going to develop enough energy to rip the CR-39 apart, but it *might* have enough energy to damage a small point on the surface. That’s all you need to form (or nucleate) an etch pit.

Also, what will happen to the shockwave itself? Depends on how much energy it loses on impact right? It is a ‘wave’, might it not act like one at the CR-39-electrolyte interface? That suggests some of them might even get transmitted through the material to the backside, where you have the reverse transition, but where you also might get more damage. (The SPAWAR folks also see pits on the backside of their plates.)

I might add that the SPAWAR folks have also put their electrodes on piezoelectric crystals and recorded these waves, so we have proof they do exist. I simply contend one needs to consider what they might do to the CR-39 before one jumps to the conclusion the pits *must have* come from radiation. There are no studies of this extant, so we have no idea if what I say is true, but I surmise it probably is, since I believe a correct analysis of their calorimetry would show that no true excess heat is being generated, i.e. no LENR.

With regards to ‘triple tracks’, I have to ask the question “Is there a way to form what appear to be classic triple tracks via these thousands of little shockwaves impinging on the CR-39?” I can’t exclude the possibility, so I am left needing to know more information about this, but of course there isn’t any because this is the first time these plates have been used thusly (applied in an electrolysis cell). So I’m left in limbo, waiting for experiments that likely never will be done because CFers always assume that “it must be nuclear”.

So let’s summarize. SPAWAR says there are mini-explosions occurring at the electrode. They have photographed them and recorded them via a piezoelectric crystal signal. CR-39 placed in close proximity to the electrode can be etched to show many thousands of pits, some of which appear to be ‘triplets’. They assume since CR-39 can be used to detect radiation, that their pits come from radiation. They do not consider the essentially physical mechanism to nucleate etch pits. I propose the explosions *can* nucleate etch pits. They deem my explanation ‘preposterous’ to borrow a word from Abd.

You can make your own choice, but I will wait for someone to investigate this, or for someone to come up with a completely reproducible method to get CF from these systems, before I abandon my ideas.

Joshua wrote: "It refers to just about the only two excess power claims in refereed literature in the past decade (excluding retrospective references in the 3rd rate journal that published a special issue of invited papers): Arata's 2008 paper (J High Temp Soc 1) on D2 gas loading of Pd/ZrO2, and Kitamura's claimed replication in 2009 (Phys Lett A373, 3109)."

Ah, so not the F&P stuff, the other stuff. One of the appendices of my whitepaper is a manuscript of the rebuttal I wanted to publish to Kitamura, et al's paper. PLA wouldn't publish it...another long story.

Bottom line is that the data they publish is consistent with known chemistry. They make unsubstantiated claims as to the fact that they precluded this, but I find it unlikely. For details see the paper that Abd posted the link to.

Thanks (not That’s) to Abd for posting the direct link to the paper.

Abd wrote the following regarding the whitepaper I wrote:“The paper is embarassing. “

Not to me. However your comment “I have not read the meat of it,” should be exceedingly embarrassing to you.

“because Kirk spends pages sputtering about "straw man arguments," instead of dealing with the substance.”

I find the fact that 10 prominent CF authors had to resort to a strawman argument to ‘refute’ me very substantial. I think most neutral observers would too.

In fact, Wikipedia says this about that:

“A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent”
and
“This technique has been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly in arguments about highly charged emotional issues where a fiery, entertaining "battle" and the defeat of an "enemy" may be more valued than critical thinking or understanding both sides of the issue.”
and
“The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument: [snip]This reasoning is a fallacy of relevance: it fails to address the proposition in question by misrepresenting the opposing position.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Abd wrote: “This would never get past a journal editor.”
It should, it points out the big flaws of their supposed rebuttal.

“It's not about cold fusion, it's about people and their unfair rejection of Kirk Shanahan. Kirk, if you rewrote that paper to be about cold fusion experiments and prosaic explanations, it could receive some serious attention. Otherwise you are relying on four-year-old regurgitation about transient fluff.”

You certainly have a problem understanding the written word….I’m not going to waste more time on this. I will note however that you represent the CF community well in your denial of what I am saying.

Abd wrote: “That's for the link, Kirk; however, you have missed the point. "Shown to be rooted in artifact" does not arise because someone posits an artifact and even if it matches the data as well as the original claim. It is shown by controlled experiment that tests the hypothesis.”

Ummm…if an error in the math model used is identified, that means the results from that model will be incorrect to some extent. Ergo, since the F&P calorimetric model described in their famous paper on it (a) doesn’t have the capability of simulating an at-the-electrode recombination reaction adequately, and (b) contains a term in the energy balance equation that blows up (i.e. becomes infinite) as you approach the electrolyte’s boiling point, the model’s calculations for power out (and thereby excess power) will not be accurate whenever either of those two situations is present. That’s a mathematical fact.

"Meanwhile, you've got quite an uphill push to convince someone else to test your theory, given that hardly anyone even understands it” - so you agree the 10 authors don’t understand my criticism? Wow!

Actually, everyone I have explained this to that doesn’t have an emotional commitment to the existence of LENRs understands it quite well.

“You may believe you "refuted" this or that, but you have lost objectivity, you are assessing your own work, having lost the scientific method yourself.” – horse puckey.

“Good luck. As you should know, there is work afoot to measure the heat/helium ratio in the FP experiment with increased precision. Tell me, how would one manage to do that with double artifact, i.e, bogus heat and bogus helium?”

So now you want me to comment on the relevance of a correlation derived from two bogus values? OK…zero squared.

You know, the funny thing is that if you’d take the time to understand my at-the-electrode-CCS proposition, and if you knew anything about hydrogen handling difficulties, you’d realize there might be a non-LENR way to believe the current correlation. *But* - to prove LENR, you will have to get He numbers for the experiment’s environment at the same time as you collect samples from ther experiment. A concentration not attainable by a leak is interesting. Anything below that is not. *And* the He analysis methodology must be vetted to verify there are no systematic errors.

“Miles used blind testing. I suspect that Texas Tech and ENEA will do the same.” Actually, that level of effort is only needed if the results are expected to be challenged, which is probably likely in the CF arena. However, if they were doing this without having to deal with the CF arena’s baggage, showing that their He numbers were above the local environment’s level and that the ‘excess’ heat was real (and not a CCS) would probably be sufficient. Reproducibility s required *and* you have toprove the apparent excess heat is real, probably by ‘closing the loop’ so to speak.

“Given the equipment likely available to them and the techniques I expect they will use, I think they should be able to get results from a substantial series of experiments, with a precision of better than 10%. What do you predict? Will the helium results correlate with heat? If so, at what value and with what variance?”

Ummm…you realize the CCS arises from a 3% or less variation right? 10% isn’t very good, but the bottom line is whether one can show a signal that is above the noise (assuming you have accurately characterized the noise, which is what the CF calorimetrists don’t do if they ignore the CCS problem).

“(they will, I expect, be using reverse electrolysis to release all the helium, so that retention variation, if it happens, won't be an issue.)”

This comment only makes sense if you presuppose that any He being created forms inside the electrode, not at the surface. If it was formed at the surface it immediately escapes and the Storms Pt results basically prove it is a surface effect.

However, if formed in the bulk, most will be trapped there. In my group’s studies of tritium decay effects in metal tritides, we see 3-5% release in the early stages, before nearing the breakout point. Reverse electrolysis however will do nothing to release trapped He.

“Are you happy to see this work being done? “

Not in the sense I believe the time and money is being wasted by people who are trying to force their experiments to give predetermined solutions. But it won’t disturb my sleep at all, since waste like that goes on all the time. Just look at all the calorimetry work in the CF arena that has gone on since 2000 that is indeterminate because they don’t accept the idea that there may be a mundane explanation of their results…

Also, Abd wrote:
* Arata-type excess power claims. I'm not sure what that refers to. What I was writing about is the extreme skeptical position, not the existence of critique of some particular experiment or conclusion or theory. If there is a peer-reviewed critique of Arata's work, I'd love to see it.
* SPAWAR neutron claims. Kowalski questioned a particular interpretation of the CR-39 results, but not the neutron claims. They stand as neither confirmed nor dismissed, AFAIK. Kowalski knows that cold fusion is real.

As I recall the Arata work was done with a hollowed out Pd rod filled with Pd powder and used as a cathode in an F&P-type cell - that places it under the CCS umbrella and since they also gave no calibration details, that means their work is indeterminate.

The SPAWAR neutron claims were based on CR-39 plates right? I criticized that in the JEM article 'replied to' by the 10 CF authors who used the strawman argument against my calorimetric ones. The only point in their rebuttal NOT using that was their attempt to rebut my CR-39 arguments. Since I wasn't allowed to reply, that issue remains open and I assert here that their rebuttal was inadequate. Upshot: don't trust CR-39 results.

Abd wrote: [...]I'll repeat, the anomalous heat effect found by Pons and Fleischmann was never shown to be rooted in artifact."

In 2012, I wrote a whitepaper (SRNL-STI-2012-00678) entitled "A Realistic Examination of Cold Fusion Claims 24 Years Later" in which I outline the problems with the F&P calorimetric method. I believe it was Mark Gibbs that posted it to a google drive somewhere, but I may be wrong on that.

[found it... http://www.networkworld.com/ar…-fusion-a-year-later.html]

I summed it up thusly:

"Regarding Fleischmann and Pons Lumped Parameter Model Calorimetry
(1) The basic equation used to represent the gas stream enthalpy has multiple flaws
(2) The model cannot be used for charging periods, or during or near boiling
(3) The model does not include entrainment
(4) The model cannot simulate the two-zone model that the CCS uses (at minimum)"

The upshot is that concluding there is an unknown source of heat in their cells was invalid.

I also offered more discussion of the CCS model, and included a response to Krivit's April 20, 2010 'critique' of my JEM paper and an unpublished manuscript of a comment on Kitamura, et al's, Physics Letters A paper of 2009, both in appendices. The Kitamura comment was not published because of anti-cold fusion bias in the PLA editorial staff and was released via OSTI (Comments on "Anomalous effects
in charging of Pd powders with high density hydrogen isotopes", Kirk L. Shanahan, SRNL-STI-2009-00616).

@Alain

Yes, in fact that's what you have to do. Forget swapping D for H or vice versa. Instead postulate a controlling factor and try to set it at different values in separate experiments. If you know what is going on, you will be able to do that easily. (Note that a null result experiment is not necessarily a blank. A blank is often assumed to deliberately have a key ingredient missing.) The intent is to extract a quantitative relationship that gives accurate predictions.

Edmund is well aware of the inactivation and activation of electrodes. The problem is he thinks he is modifying a 'special nuclear environment', which means he does not accept my mundane explanation for how you get apparent excess heat signals when none is really present. His experiments from 2000 that I reanalyzed represent some of the best controlled experiments to date. However, it seems he abandoned them because they used Pt (not Pd) as the anode (as well as the cathode), and Pt doesn't hydride (i.e. load up with H to a H/M ratio > some number like .2 or .5. That led to conflicts with those who think CF requires > .7 loading (such as M. McKubre). What Ed's work shows it that it is clearly a surface effect. So, codeposited dendritic Pd and 'nano'-Pd would be a favored material due to high S/V ratio, which is what people have found by trial-and-error.

Metallurgical details are only of import via how they affect the surface in my mundane explanation. You do have to form and active surface, since the largest block of data is where no excess heat was observed. Appropriate metallurgy can foster or hinder that. Loading Pd to >.7 produces maximizes stress relief mechanisms that produce irregular or rough surfaces. I think this all leads to a picture where contaminants collect on the surface and organize into those active areas.

(Remember the Rossi stuff is not the F&P configuration...)

@stefan

The idea that the reported excess heat signals are 'small' is a recent development. Personally I think it is a cop-out on the part of the CFers since they used to be fine with the signals until I showed that a 780 mW signal could be 'noise'. Note that none of them admits that though. McKubre has said that the effects are too small to do anything useful with, so perhaps that is the genesis of the comment. But Storms shows points in his plot of number of events with such-and-such excess heat that appear around 45W for example. However, the stronger results tend to be less documented...

What we have today is a collection of many reports of excess heat which agree with none of the others in detail. Many of those reports are difficult to criticize in terms indicating they are totally messed up. En masse they are probably enough to claim that there is an effect, but that's all. More work is needed aimed at developing control, so that one can produce a given signal in a given situation (i.e reproducible). So far they haven't achieved that in the F&P type of experimental setup, and they have been very quiet the last few years. Most public attention has been on the Rossi stuff, but Rossi is an 'inventor' who is uninterested in good science, so we get a lot of anecdotal stories but little that is scientifically satisfactory.

There may be enough info in the existing data to suggest good control variables, but I can't say one way or the other. The requirements arising from the CCS and its proposed mechanism could likely be answered by researchers just revealing what they have in their notebooks, but for some reason they never do. Until they are willing to more thoroughly examine the 'mundane' explanation(s), nothing will change in the field.

@axil

Building a better leprechaun detector might help too...

@stefan

I agree with all you are saying, and I use those methods myself when applicable. The problem for the CFers is the lack of funding though, as you also noted. What I would do today is review all the work done previously, which was done under the "it must be nuclear" viewpoint, from the point of view of "what mundane, everyday chemistry was happening?". The large number of reports of observed excess heat indicate to me that there *is* something going on, but the inability to gain reproducibility means to me that they are looking at the wrong variables as potential control variables. They need to stop, back up, and go down the 'normal chemistry' road for awhile. They might find some interesting new things (but probably not nearly as important as a new, free, cheap source of energy).

@stefan

The problem with the normal/heavy water experiments is that there is a very strong iostope effect in general, and specifically for Pd. The conditions to achieve the same H isotope concentration in Pd are different for H and D (and T). Therefore you can use the same parametric settings on your power supplies and gas flows, etc., but you will have different conc. of H or D in the Pd. If you adjust for the isotope effect, you now have different experimental voltages, pressures, etc. What people have to do is just find a reproducible method, meaning one that can be translated easily from lab to lab and from one piece of Pd to another. That isn't going to happen though, in my opinion at least, until they recognize that non-nuclear explanations might be valid and they then go about exploring parameters related to that paradigm.

Oh, one other thing…

On Planet Abd, the word ‘rebut’ has a different meaning than here on Earth. Here we use the following definition (thefreedictionary.com)

rebut, refute - To rebut a statement is to offer clear evidence or a reasoned argument against it; to refute a statement is to prove it wrong (neither means "contradict" or "deny").

On Planet Abd, the words “clear evidence” and “reasoned argument” and “prove it wrong” are missing. I can’t access Planet Abd’s dictionary, but their definition of ‘rebut’ is obviously “to reply to”. So, on Planet Abd, I *have* been rebutted, but not on Planet Earth.

Readers, take care when you read things from Planet Abd….you could be impacted by similar difficulties.