#7 Hi Kirk. Thank you for your posts, which are appreciated, even when not agreed with. Can I ask a broader question - do you believe in the reality of any of the hundreds of reported LENR phenomena at all? Not just Pd/D, but any?
1
kirkshanahan Member Reactions Received 543 Jun 15th 2017
#8
Quote from Alan Smith do you believe in the reality of any of the hundreds of reported LENR phenomena at all? Not just Pd/D, but any?
The problem with answering your question is that the field has become so inclusive of anomalous results that a 'reported LENR phenomena' could be anything. So let me answer you this way - I do not automatically reject LENR claims, but I am very skeptical. This is based on my interaction with the field since 1995. I usually find LTA efforts to define what could be causing the anomalous results, and I usually find aggressively dismissive consideration of skeptical commentary.
As I've said before, I work with almost all the materials people talk about in the LENR field, and if LENR is true, I need to know. It involves my and my coworkers safety. That's why I studied the F&P-type studies. There was enough crude reproduction of results to suggest something real was going on, and I wanted to know what it might be. I believe I figured it out, but it ain't nuclear, and that has led to mass rejection out-of-hand of my views by those who think it is. That's fine I guess. I just hate it when a newb gets caught up in the fantasy of an free energy world, *and* I am dumb enough to believe scientists try to find the truth, so I keep plugging away. My interactions with the field have gone a long way towards disabusing me of the latter belief in fact.
Bring me something that shows at least a little reproducibility and I'll look at it...
6
Alan Smith Administrator Reactions Received 12,941 Jun 15th 2017
#9 So 'not really' then. Or at least, 'ain't seen nuthin yet'. Thank you.
------------------------------------------------------------
kevmolenr@gmail.com
Member Reactions Received 846 Jun 16th 2017
#11
Quote from kirkshanahan I believe I figured it out, but it ain't nuclear, ....
Bring me something that shows at least a little reproducibility and I'll look at it... There are 153 published peer reviewed replications according to Britz/Jed. It's a good place to start. If you have it figured out then generate a product for us to buy. Even if it is a space heater that is more expensive than using natural gas, it will provoke the next generation to look into it to see if improvements can be made. That seems like such a high duhh factor to me.
1
THHuxleynew Verified User Reactions Received 4,707 Jun 16th 2017
#12
Quote from kevmolenr@gmail.com There are 153 published peer reviewed replications according to Britz/Jed. It's a good place to start. If you have it figured out then generate a product for us to buy. Even if it is a space heater that is more expensive than using natural gas, it will provoke the next generation to look into it to see if improvements can be made. That seems like such a high duhh factor to me.
Kevin. Kirk's point I believe is that those replications have not proved repeatable and (Kirk claims) many (and the most promising ones) could likely result from a systemic error he has noted that could apply specifically to LENR-type electrochemistry.
I think you can get the wrong idea here if you see a scientific paper as fact from heaven, rather than as a thing to read, read around all the related work, and only then come to a conclusion as to what it really means. Young doctoral candidates, on their initial literature survey, start with the idea that the headline results in each paper they read mean what they superficially say. Each paper appears to be making some crucial and significant new discovery.
It is only after reading 50 or so, and comparing what they say with your own understanding, that you start to generate an internal model of what it all means.
You should view this 150 paper list as a starting point for your own LS here. After having done it you will be in a much better position to decide whether Kirk's point is valid or no, and also (independently) whether this constitutes good evidence of new physics.
You see the problem here; few (certainly not me) have the patience or time to do this for real. Skimming headlines just does not work - as I can confirm here from having looked at just a very few of these papers. But if you have ever done a scientific or engineering LS you will realise this because it is a general truth. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
kevmolenr@gmail.com
Member Reactions Received 846 Jun 17th 2017
#16
Quote from THHuxleynew Kevin. Kirk's point I believe is that those replications have not proved repeatable and (Kirk claims) many (and the most promising ones) could likely result from a systemic error he has noted that could apply specifically to LENR-type electrochemistry.
That's 153 replications he's trying to undo. That's quite the tall order. I doubt his finding is significant enough to do it, or otherwise we would have been hearing more about it these last 15 years.
I think you can get the wrong idea here if you see a scientific paper as fact from heaven, Do you see Dolly the Sheep as a "fact from heaven"? It's never been replicated. Lots of "facts from heaven" have had only 2 or 3 replications. 153 replications, well that's significant, especially if they're from what Jed calls the "who's who of electrochemistry".
It is only after reading 50 or so, and comparing what they say with your own understanding, that you start to generate an internal model of what it all means. Not all of us are PhD scientists with the time on our hadns to read 50 replication papers, even if we did spend time trying to get access to them. Did you see my question about "where are those papers"?
You should view this 150 paper list as a starting point for your own LS here. What is an LS? You obviously used an acronym in order to save time and effort, and yet here you are going to have to go back and explain it. Not a very efficient usage of your time.
After having done it you will be in a much better position to decide whether Kirk's point is valid or no, and also (independently) whether this constitutes good evidence of new physics. Kirk wrote 1 paper, right? And yet there are 153 papers that seem to disagree with his stance. Perhaps Kirk should prove how brilliant he is and write his own retort to those 153 papers. There are other papers too, ones that aren't peer reviewed, etc. Kirk should have been a busy man these past 15 years but instead he wants guys like us to do his busywork.
You see the problem here; few (certainly not me) have the patience or time to do this for real. Skimming headlines just does not work - as I can confirm here from having looked at just a very few of these papers. But if you have ever done a scientific or engineering LS you will realise this because it is a general truth. I obviously haven't done enough engineering LS's to know what the acronym stands for. My impression from reading a bunch of the papers in LENR-CANR library (and asking for more) is that Kirk's hypothesis doesn't stand up. It was basically ignored, as far as I can tell. That makes him not too bright, because if he has the SOLUTION to this LENR thing, he could have generated tons of data, material, money, and interest by selling chemically based space heaters. I would buy one, just to be able to play with it. Display Less
1
Rigel Member Reactions Received 332 Jun 17th 2017
#17 kirkshanahan Thank you for the link above. It will take time but I will read it. I am glad you post here. I also appreciate your help when questions arise. Other than Rossi I try to keep my ego out of it and just the facts. Others argue to argue but I argue to learn.
1
kevmolenr@gmail.com
Member Reactions Received 846 Jun 17th 2017
#18
Quote from kirkshanahan keV
none of the other 148 papers is likely to have enough information on their method to tell if their calorimetry is correct or not because they weren’t aware of the problem. Then you should write a paper that replicates their setups and induce the error you claim is happening. In the meantime you could be making a MINT selling LENR calorimetric space heaters.
One of the 5 post-2002 papers is the one by Szpak, et al (ref#144) that I replied to with my second publication in 2005. There I showed that their results were consistent with a CCS being present. You should do it with dozens more. Start with the biggest names on the list. Make a name for yourself.
Since the reception I have received from the CF community has been universally negative, I feel safe in saying that you won’t find any studies to date that contain enough information relevant to the calorimetric method to evaluate the CCS potential. I’d love to be proven wrong on that statement. I am certain that the journal NATURE would accept your paper and peer review it if you took on all the best replications of LENR and showed your CCS thingamajig explains the data. I have no idea how scientists of such magnitude can be so far off when they're looking at a device generating a COP of 10 or more. In my mind there should be some glaring indications of their mistake.
Further, there is a classic problem present in the list, namely the mixing of experimental types, many are not even based in calorimetry. Here is where you can add some value to the field, regardless if someone is a LENR 'believer' or not. You can put together a credible list of how many times the Pons-Fleischmann Anomalous Heating Event has been replicated in peer reviewed journals. That is the starting point of investigation and you're saying that even this starting point is flawed. Add some value, whydoncha?
For example, my papers deal specifically with F&P-type electrolysis cells, but this list mixes those in with plasma discharge experiments and arcs in water experiments and possibly others. That is kinda one indication that this effect is real, if it shows up in other experimental cells than just PdD calorimeters. I gather your hypothesis of error does not apply to the other mixed cells.
That is a typical CFer (cold fusion researcher or cold fusion engineer (the last as per Gene Mallove)) illegitimate tactic. The idea that LENRs are present is about the only thing that links these divergent experimental setups, and they shouldn’t be linked like this until they are actually shown separately to have LENRs present. That has not been done. That is valuable scientific data that you should publish to the community as a whole. If I had the knowledge and wherewithal, that's what I would be doing. There is gonna be some hungry physicist who's itching to take a crack at those other cells and come up with his own error hypothesis.
The calorimetric experiments in F&P-type cells is the largest block of related experiments, and that is what my papers address. I point out that in all cases known to me the calorimetric method used the lumped parameter approach that is susceptible to the calibration constant shift (CCS) problem I outline in my papers. Would it be something you could state categorically that the larger the COP, the larger the error and the more expectation we should have had of these experimenters to see their error?
It is usually impossible to tell if that problem is relevant, since the CFer authors never give sufficient calibration details and results to allow testing its relevance. Then, do it. Make a name for yourself. Be the go-to guy for generating a scientific baseline in LENR explorations.
Miles is about the only author who does anything along these lines in that he often quotes the standard deviation of his determinations of the ‘heat transfer coefficients’ (which are just the calibration constants of his calibration equation). They typically are about 1% relative standard deviations. I found approximately the same was all that was required to zero out Ed Storms’ 780 mW excess heat signals in his data I reanalyzed. In Storms’ ICCF8 paper on that data, he shows calibration constants obtained by two methods, electrolytic heating and Joule heating, and they differ. He also says he gets different electrolytic calibration results over time, which is consistent with Miles. What does that mean? If you derive a calibration constant by two different methods, how far out of agreement are they expected to be? Or are they expected to be within 6 sigma agreement (which I would highly doubt). If someone gets different electrolytic calibration results over time, does this happen when there is no indication of LENR? If so it could be one of those indications that LENR might be present, assuming there's other indications. Maybe all of this leads to an issue with electrolytic calibration constants, which could be something that gets you nobel prize level recognition.
So, to eliminate the CCS problem from consideration, a paper should list the calibration equation and specify the variation of the calibration constants over time and/or method and/or anything else that might be relevant. You came out with your hypothesis after all those papers so the onus should be on you to back-apply your approach.
This is universally missing to my knowledge. If they don’t give that info, you can’t tell if their excess heat signals are real or an artifact of the math.
It's your theory so you should take ownership of it. Back-apply your hypothesis to a few of the best replications and someone will take notice. Display Less
kevmolenr@gmail.com
Member Reactions Received 846 Jun 17th 2017
#19
Quote from kirkshanahan keV
Note that I agree that there is something going on in F&P cells. I agree. And furthermore I have advocated NOT calling it 'Nuclear' but more like something along the lines of "super-chemical heat generation". That way you can sell boxes and not have the NRC regulate your business.
I proposed a non-nuclear mechanism for what it could be. That has been was attacked by Storms in 2006, but I rebutted his points. The Szpak, et al derogatory comments were non-specific or irrelevant, as were the ones in the Fleischmann version published by Miles in Infinite Energy vol. 132 (2017). I responded to Szpak, et al in 2005, and posted a few comments here about the recent Miles IE132 publication. The upshot is that they don’t rebut my ATER/CCS mechanism. Then set up your own website where you take down every replication using your mechanism. And sell space heaters & electrocalorimeters. There's thousand dollar bills on the ground, just pick them up.
The other 4 post-2002 papers are Ararta, ref 19; Li, ref 64; Mizuno, ref 95; and Szpak, ref 145. The Arata paper is on the Pd/ZrO2 system, which was replicated by Kitamura, et al, in Phys Lett A, 373 (2009) 3109. That paper was one I attempted to rebut, since it had enough details presented to be able to analyze them, but was not allowed to publish. The manuscript for that rebuttal is in the whitepaper I have previously mentioned. (The whitepaper is supposed to be here: https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B3d7yWtb1doPc3otVGFUNDZKUDQ)
You really should set up your own website and have at it with all those replication papers. You'd be doing yourself and everyone else a favor. And you could have a bunch of cash in your pocket also.
My thesis there is that the observations are consistent with known Pd/Zr/ZrO2/H2 chemistry. That would apply to Arata’s paper as well, if enough information had been presented to do so. The Li, et al paper is on D2 permeation through a Pd tube and gives nothing but a single figure claiming abnormal heat flow observation. No details at all to allow one to assess errors, plus it isn’t an F&P-type electrolysis.
Just focus on F&P type electrolysis to begin with and you'll make a name for yourself. The level of heat all these experimentalists claim over months is enough to give you the Nobel prize if you sell just half a dozen space heaters that replicate their results.
The Mizuno paper is on plasma electrolysis with a W cathode, also not an F&P type cell. The Szpak 2005 paper seems to have no information in it regarding excess heat except a mention of ‘hot spots’, so I fail to see why it is on the list at all. It only presents SEM/EDX data.
Set up a website and critique ALL of them. My interest is in generating a trustworthy starting point for further investigation. If, like you say, there's something to this effect, then give us the list of genuine results. And especially, how not to make your CSS error. Display Less
kevmolenr@gmail.com
Member Reactions Received 846 Jun 17th 2017
#20
Quote from kirkshanahan An interesting side note from the discussion we had (email) was that Miles admitted he has never read my papers. I have to wonder how he can know they are ‘wrong’ when he hasn’t. Interestingly enough, I believe it was hyper-critical Jones who said the same thing about LENR papers.
I would encourage you to collect all these incidents and papers into one website where people can go to get their own information. I had my own run-in with Ed Storms. What I would like to see is a relatively lightly refereed forum where guys like you and Ed go at it and we can all see for ourselves who gives the most scientific answers. I suggested the same thing to Ed when he was badmouthing Y.E. Kim but it was Kim who backed away from engaging, to my surprise.
Replicate an artifact?
Alan Smith
Administrator
Reactions Received
12,941
Jun 17th 2017
#21
Quote from kevmolenr@gmail.com
What I would like to see is a relatively lightly refereed forum where guys like you and Ed go at it and we can all see for ourselves who gives the most scientific answers
The fallacy in this otherwise excellent suggestion is the ‘relatively lightly refereed’ part. As soon as anybody who is clearly identifiable as part of the ‘old guard’ starts posting publicly the abuse begins. Jed has suffered such abuse for years- but he is a feisty beggar and can look after himself. Don’t hold your breath waiting for many others to join such an argument- they have done it a hundred times before without any result.
I think there is a huge tendency to spend far too much time and energy picking over the 28 year old bones of Pons and Fleischman’s work to the huge detriment of current work in the field. it’s 2017, time to wake up and smell the coffee instead of bickering over theory . Pd-D has been a great experimental tool, for sure - but it will never sort out the problems we currently face - and neither will hot fusion. What the field needs is a concerted effort to do what Rossi has done (or attempted - for the purposes of this discussion it is irrelevant). Cute experiments are all very well, but they butter no toast. Someone with the resources and the intellectual wherewithal needs to pick up the LENR ball and run with it. The money can be found, the arguments overcome, the legacy systems (the grid for example) protected for long enough for present investors to exit gracefully. There are billions of dollars to be lost, but trillions to be gained.
End of rant. Alan
5
Zephir_AWT
Member
Reactions Received
1,089
Jun 17th 2017
#22
Quote
Pd-D has been a great experimental tool, for sure - but it will never sort out the problems we currently face - and neither will hot fusion
Yep, due to high price of palladium this reaction cannot serve as an economically feasible source of energy by now. But the modern scientists don’t care if something is usefull or not until their money are going and from the same reason they also don’t research anything, until they’re not perfectly sure by its reproducibility (so that they can see the perspective of future grants) . From this perspective the palladium-deuterium fusion is still one of model examples worth of renewal of interest about cold fusion in mainstream physics.
THHuxleynew
Verified User
Reactions Received
4,707
Jun 17th 2017
#23
Quote from kevmolenr@gmail.com
LS = Literature Survey. Apologies, i was careless in forgetting that would not be widely known.
Otherwise there is little in your comments above I need to answer. To summarise:
You judge number of papers without looking at the strength of the evidence in the papers and putting this into context
You judge contrary evidence again on basis of number of papers
My point is that content not numbers are the point here
You say that even one paper (Dolly) is enough. That is true, when the evidence, a living breathing sheep, is strong and can be determined without a scientific paper. And the work on Dolly has been used in 100s of other experiments with success.
You ask why KS 5th paper was not published? Possibly because mainstream editors felt that the to and fro wrangle was highly uninteresting because the original papers are generally thought to have no merit. Hence Shanahan’s claim to have shown why they have no merit is not something of much use to anyone (except the few who believe differently, and they were not interested in Shanahan’s points).
You ask (I think) why are there not 150 rebuttal papers? Surely that is obvious. This is a phenomena that is broadly viewed as experimental error with unconvincing and incoherent results. The set of papers with coherent results KS shows could be something mundane - but most people don’t bother because the effect is so low when if nuclear it would be expected to be easy to get it much higher and easily measurable. The papers showing excess heat are viewed as unconvincing. Writing a refutation is both something few people want to do (what is the point) and something few people want to publish (it makes no contribution, rebutting something not generally accepted is a particularly pointless thing to do).
3
Member
Reactions Received
846
Jun 18th 2017
#25
Quote from THHuxleynew
You judge number of papers without looking at the strength of the evidence in the papers and putting this into context
***The context is that these are the first hundred or so replications of the effect, and that Jed calls some of them the “who’s who of electrochemistry”.
Quote from THHuxleynew
You judge contrary evidence again on basis of number of papers
***Yes, on first pass. And on 2nd pass, reputation of the authors, and 3rd pass how significant the science investigation is.
My point is that content not numbers are the point here
***I agree, but since I didn’t go much into the content, you’re engaging in a straw argument.
Quote from THHuxleynew
You say that even one paper (Dolly) is enough. That is true, when the evidence, a living breathing sheep, is strong and can be determined without a scientific paper. And the work on Dolly has been used in 100s of other experiments with success.
***Hagelstein had his experiment up and running for months, inviting his colleagues to come on over and have a look. They REFUSED. Pons & Fleischmann published enough detail that 153 papers were published in replication of their efforts (okay, in deference to Shanahan, maybe about a hundred). The cold fusioneers engaged in proper science, it was their counterparts who screwed the pooch.
You ask (I think) why are there not 150 rebuttal papers? Surely that is obvious. This is a phenomena that is broadly viewed as experimental error with unconvincing and incoherent results.
***From what I can see that “broad view” is incorrect. Even Shahanan thinks there’s something to this effect. This triggered a turf war between electrochemists and physicists. It proved that physicists were fantastic bullshitters.
The set of papers with coherent results KS shows could be something mundane - but most people don’t bother because the effect is so low when if nuclear it would be expected to be easy
***Easy? EASY? You obviously haven’t been reading LENR papers.
to get it much higher and easily measurable. The papers showing excess heat are viewed as unconvincing.
***That view is justifiably suspect.
Writing a refutation is both something few people want to do (what is the point) and something few people want to publish (it makes no contribution, rebutting something not generally accepted is a particularly pointless thing to do).
Display More
You’re not getting the point. No one cares about a refutation, but Shanahan claims to know why these experimentalists see such high COP in their cells. If it’s purely chemical and can generate an appearance of a COP>6, it would make a fantastic new addition to our energy ecosystem. If what he’s saying is true, he is sitting on a gold mine.
1
Member
Reactions Received
846
Jun 18th 2017
#26
Quote from Alan Smith
What the field needs is a concerted effort to do what Rossi has done (or attempted - for the purposes of this discussion it is irrelevant).
I see MaryYugo answered your suggestion with his standard anti-LENR jargon. MFMP is trying to do what you say but they lack resources.
1
THHuxleynew
Verified User
Reactions Received
4,707
Jun 18th 2017
#27
Quote from kevmolenr@gmail.com
The context is that these are the first hundred or so replications of the effect, and that Jed calls some of them the “who’s who of electrochemistry”.
I agree, but since I didn’t go much into the content, you’re engaging in a straw argument.
You’re not getting the point. No one cares about a refutation, but Shanahan claims to know why these experimentalists see such high COP in their cells. If it’s purely chemical and can generate an appearance of a COP>6, it would make a fantastic new addition to our energy ecosystem. If what he’s saying is true, he is sitting on a gold mine.
You need more care with this one. The experiments Shanahan critiques are the (better quality ones) with COP = 1.2 or so. No goldmine. And his point is that this apparent COP is not in fact real, but a calorimetry artifact.
The high COP results I’ve looked at are all flaky - based on assumptions, non-equilibrium systems not properly characterised, boil-offs again not fully characterised, one-off results never replicated even when this is attempted by the groups who generated them, etc. Fleishmann has contributed to these, and if you reckon his eminence as an electrochemist means you should believe his results (as many people did initially when the CF debacle was prematurely announced) there is your goldmine. But, since then, no-one has been able to locate the gold though many have tried. What does remain is some interesting anomalies that look above chemical level. Shanahan claims to have explained some (perhaps all) of these. The ones he does not cover would be flakier experiments where the headline results cannot be properly justified, due to lack of control.
Now, maybe he is right, or maybe not. But his work has not been properly considered by the LENR advocates whose papers it addresses, nor by subsequent work in the field. That, to me, is a shame.
ZenoOfElea
Member
Reactions Received
497
Jun 18th 2017
#28
Fascinating insight into the sociology of science whereby a group that works on LENR anomolies claims they are being ignored/ostracized by the main stream, and there is probably some truth in this, but then when a critic appears the LENR group ignores/ostracizes that critic.
So is LENR real or not?
There are over 150 papers.
But numbers and effort do not necessarily amount to anything.
How many smart people wasted their lives trying to turn lead into gold?
Reminds me of the old saying eat cow poop 100 billion flies can’t be wrong.
Eric Walker
Verified User
3,426
Jun 18th 2017
#29
I agree that Shanahan and his opponents seem to be talking past one another and that some of his claims have probably been mischaracterized. But having dug into one of his proposed alternative explanations sometime back, it felt to me all at once implausible, difficult to pin down and difficult or impossible to falsify. I don’t think that researchers working on a shoestring can be faulted for neglecting claims that seem to them improbable, roughly akin to “what you see is real but just a misinterpretation of the data,” a suggestion that requires a lot of bending over backwards to stay onboard with under scrutiny. Kirk’s claims are difficult to pin down because he will often quibble with and dispute whatever restatement one attempts.
Even if Kirk is addressing claims of experimental phenomena that many people would find suspect or even tendentious, that does not make his own ambitious counterarguments more compelling as a result. His critiques are something that some enterprising researcher who finds them interesting should pick up and look into experimentally. But simply in virtue of being critiques that are out there they do not impose a general obligation on researchers to put time into investigating and rebutting.
That said, I do like a few things that Kirk has brought up. The analysis of magnitude of errors is quite interesting. (I forget what he called this.) The point about putative excess energy being a small fraction of input energy in many cases is very important and worth really thinking about. A consequence is that there are some instances where a small modification of an important calorimetric equation will null out an excess heat results. What is wanted, then, is a signal that is too far above the baseline to raise questions about being an artifact of some small but defensible adjustment of an equation. (I recall there being such cases.)
1
THHuxleynew
Verified User
4,707
Jun 18th 2017
#30
Quote from Eric Walker
I agree that Shanahan and his opponents seem to be talking past one another and that some of his claims have probably been mischaracterized. But having dug into one of his proposed alternative explanations sometime back, it felt to me all at once implausible, difficult to pin down and difficult or impossible to falsify. I don’t think that researchers working on a shoestring can be faulted for neglecting claims that seem to them improbable, roughly akin to “what you see is real but just a misinterpretation of the data,” a suggestion that requires a lot of bending over backwards to stay onboard with under scrutiny. Kirk’s claims are difficult to pin down because he will often quibble with and dispute whatever restatement one attempts.
Even if Kirk is addressing claims of experimental phenomena that many people would find suspect or even tendentious, that does not make his own ambitious counterarguments more compelling as a result. His critiques are something that some enterprising researcher who finds them interesting should pick up and look into experimentally. But simply in virtue of being critiques that are out there they do not impose an obligation on all LENR researchers to put time into investigating and rebutting.
That said, I do like a few things that Kirk has brought up. The analysis of magnitude of errors is quite interesting. (I forget what he called this.) The point about putative excess energy being a small fraction of input energy in many cases is very important and worth really thinking about. A consequence is that there are some instances where a small modification of an important calorimetric equation will null out an excess heat results. What is wanted, then, is a signal that is too far above the baseline to raise questions about being an artifact of some small but defensible adjustment of an equation. (I recall there being such cases.)
So: I’d broadly agree, but with a few additions.
Any researcher claiming anomalous heat from an experiment that could be affected by Shanahan’s issue really must address it for their work to be taken seriously. In some cases it will be easy to bound Shanahan’s putative effect. If that cannot be done, the fact that it looks in some nebulous way unlikely, and is difficult to disprove, does not help us, since LENR is the same. But Shanahan’s criticisms can be quantified and avoided with a bit of effort, so unlike LENR they can be positively disproved in a specific experiment.
Shanahan’s point is really quite simple, and reasonable:
(1) a change in cell temperature gradients during active electrolysis compared with control will result in cal errors that even if small get amplified by the ratio between overall power in, and size of claimed anomalous effect. This potential error must be bounded
(2) One possible mechanism for this is ATER, which in the case of: closed cells, recombiner at top of cell, heat losses higher at top of cell, would systematically result in false positives from systems in which ATER occured (it is generally expected by electrochemists not to occur).
Note that (1) is more general than (2) but without (2) (1) is a good deal more nebulous.
Similarly, any researcher claiming old papers that show excess heat as evidence should be aware of this potential explanation and either hold it open as a mundane explanation of the anomaly or note that it could not apply. There are a number of experiments it cannot apply to - but I believe those are ones that for a variety of other reasons are less convincing. I may be wrong here. But the very tightly controlled closed cell electrolysis experiments looked the best to me, and those are the ones that Shanahan’s idea most directly could affect.
Until LENR has a clear predictive theory, or has clearly replicable evidence, it must be viewed as extraordinary which means to claim it properly requires very careful attention to any possible systematic error.
I’d expect if Shanahan’s ideas were taken into account that a number of old electrolysis experiments would be seen as unsafe. In which case all the arguments about what is the evidence for LENR could be reframed in terms of the other positive evidence. this process of self-criticism would be to the credit of those working in the field. New experiments, such as the Austin ones, would be conducted in a way guaranteed to be safer. Of course, that may happen anyway, i don’t know. But the way Shanahan’s ideas have been dismissed (on incomplete argument) rather than examined and considered makes this uncertain.
3
Member
846
Jun 18th 2017
#31
It looks to me that Shanahan’s hypothesis was given due consideration. If you’re aiming to knock out 150 replications you need to put more effort into it.
Member
846
Jun 18th 2017
#32
Quote from ZenoOfElea
How many smart people wasted their lives trying to turn lead into gold?
Very few. And back then they didn’t have peer review.
Interestingly enough, you can turn lead into gold but the process is far more expensive than what gold is worth.
1
Eric Walker
Verified User
3,426
Jun 18th 2017
#33
Quote from THHuxleynew
In some cases it will be easy to bound Shanahan’s putative effect. If that cannot be done, the fact that it looks in some nebulous way unlikely, and is difficult to disprove, does not help us, since LENR is the same.
Can you illustrate this first suggestion by way of a hypothetical example? I think that would help to better understand what falsifying Shanahan’s primary critique of the electrochemical work would look like in a concrete context. If the principle is that a positive result must not hinge on a small but defensible adjustment of an equation, I can definitely get on board with it. If the principle is that LENR researchers must simply and always discount 10 percent or 100 percent of whatever it is they’re seeing, that seems overboard and something that must be considered in context and that merits close scrutiny of the critique itself.
In the case where Shanahan’s proposed effect cannot be falsified, if it does not help LENR claims, neither does it succeed in casting doubt on them. But an important distinction must be kept in mind: In most cases LENR researchers are working with unremarkable techniques, and it is the interpretation of the boring positive results that they obtain that calls into question a physical understanding. In Shanahan’s case we have the reverse: unremarkable techniques are given a new physical interpretation, which leads to mundane results. Here Shanahan is front-loading the mysterious cause where the LENR researchers are back-loading it. It seems to me that Shanahan’s argument is on inherently shakier ground in those cases where LENR researchers are indeed following standard and conservative practices. (They don’t always do this.) Otherwise the practical effect is to fudge on the commitment to empiricism.
2
THHuxleynew
Verified User
4,707
Jun 18th 2017
#34
Quote from Eric Walker
Can you illustrate this first suggestion by way of a hypothetical example? I think that would help to better understand what falsifying Shanahan’s primary critique of the electrochemical work would look like in a concrete context. If the principle is that a positive result must not hinge on a small but defensible adjustment of an equation, I can definitely get on board with it. If the principle is that LENR researchers must simply and always discount 10 percent or 100 percent of whatever it is they’re seeing, that seems overboard and something that must be considered in context and that merits close scrutiny of the critique itself.
In the case where Shanahan’s proposed effect cannot be falsified, if it does not help LENR claims, neither does it succeed in casting doubt on them. But an important distinction must be kept in mind: In most cases LENR researchers are working with unremarkable techniques, and it is the interpretation of the boring positive results that they obtain that calls into question a physical understanding. In Shanahan’s case we have the reverse: unremarkable techniques are given a new physical interpretation, which leads to mundane results. Here Shanahan is front-loading the mysterious cause where the LENR researchers are back-loading it. It seems to me that Shanahan’s argument is on inherently shakier ground in those cases where LENR researchers are indeed following standard and conservative practices. (They don’t always do this.) Otherwise the practical effect is to fudge on the commitment to empiricism.
Well, a trivial example would be absolute mass calorimetry where the losses are bounded at X%, and the excess heat is > x%. You need a bit more work, to show that ATER or some affect does not much change those losses, but that would not be difficult for example with a few extra TCs.
Less trivially using TC’s to check temperature at a number of different points in the cell (rather more than normal) would allow any cal differences due to changing temperature gradients to be bounded. This could be done precisely with a number of differently positioned heaters used in control runs.
The problem with standard practices is that a systematic anomaly can break them, and anomalies can always happen. We need to look for anomalies when we get unexplained results. LENR electrolytic experiments are pretty unusual.
Online
AlainCo
Tech-watcher, admin
3,155
Jun 19th 2017
#35
A big naive question mirror my naive remarks in 1993.
Maybe is LENR just a never need kind of artifact, which as an engineer I woudl consider as something to investigate deeply in case it can make emerge a real technology, on a surprising domain.
Some critics of LENR have propose super chemistry... naively given that chemistry is older than nuclear physics, i consider it as a bigger breakthrough than cold fusion claim (having surprise in quantum mechanics, given it’s youth and numerous evolutions and surprise especially in material science, is more a confirmed prediction than a surprise).
Some have proposed miraculous extreme energy storage, which I am sure would interest engineers working in thermal solar energy, or in engine design...
Miraculous constant change is very important question in calorimetry, as it could not only put many devices in danger of destruction and dramatic accident, but also may create opportunities to new measurement techniques and why not even new machines and technology.
I suspect that many engineers like me have considered the idea, and have look with better competence at this possibility, with the sincere and greedy hope to exploite this artifact...
then they realized it was not an artifact, that it would cause them trouble, it was not their business, and they had better things to do than fight a desperate battle.
My advice to Kirk Shanahan, is that like all people who work on LENR because their have observed it and think it is a nuclear phenomenon, he try to amplify the phenomenon, characterize it, and why not make money with it.
Battling to negate the hope of others is less important than battling for your hope.
This is the difference between mindguard and innovators.
“Only puny secrets need keeping. The biggest secrets are kept by public incredulity.” (Marshall McLuhan)
See my raw tech-watch on http://www.scoop.it/u/alain-coetmeur & twitter @alain_co
Wyttenbach
Verified User
3,887
Jun 19th 2017
#36
Quote from AlainCo
Maybe is LENR just a never need kind of artifact, which as an engineer I woudl consider as something to investigate deeply in case it can make emerge a real technology, on a surprising domain.
@Stop making such silly comments. Since the Lipinski experiments there is no more doubt about LENR with very high COP.
1
zorud
Member
1,088
Jun 19th 2017
#37
If there is no doubt, I wonder why there is not yet at least one successful documented replication of this “High-COP-Experiment”? That would for sure boost this entire field...
2
Online
Alan Smith
Administrator
12,941
Jun 19th 2017
#38
Quote from zorud
f there is no doubt, I wonder why there is not yet at least one successful documented replication of this “High-COP-Experiment”? That would for sure boost this entire field...
I am sure it would- but the equipment required is extensive and expensive- this is one of several variant lists taken from the patent. Not a garage job- and even the inventors are forced to live like Gypsies, traipsing from one lab to another to work.
This work and the theories espoused has not been embraced by any researchers other than the named inventors. As of May 2013, a search on scholar.google.com revealed only one citation to the “Gravity theory” publication, and that was a passing reference. In 2008, editors of Wikipedia went so far as to delete a new article based on the publication. The discovery of the new gravity theory has aroused skepticism by experts and teaching away from acceptance of the new theory.
[0088] To the inventors’ knowledge, no fusion method to date has achieved energy breakeven, i.e. more energy output than input. The inventors’ approach appears to have
generated yields that exceed energy breakeven. Experimental results and breakeven calculations are described in detail in this application.
[0089] This application addresses how to efficiently produce large numbers of energetic helium ions, which is useful for a variety of purposes, including conversion into electricity.
[0090] In summary, the inventors have developed a unique method to produce large numbers of highly energetic helium ions that is a critical step in providing an entirely new source of cheap and safe energy.]
THE INVENTORS’ GRAVITY THEORY
[0091] The Hydrogen-Lithium Fusion Device (HLFD) was developed with years of effort following discovery of the relativistic scalar gravity theory described in “Gravity theory based on mass-energy equivalence,” supra, Acta Physica Polonica B 39, 2823 (2008). With insight and hard work, the technology developed can be seen as consistent with this theory. A more complete discussion of the theory appears in the paper. and not based upon specific experimental findings.
TWENTY FIVE EXPERIMENTAL TESTS
[0124] From March 2007 to March 2014, the inventors conducted 25 series of experimental tests in the course of developing the Hydrogen-Lithium Fusion Device (HLFD). The design of the HLFD and the technology disclosed to achieve proton-lithium fusion draw on the experimental data obtained in these 25 series of experimental tests. Most of the early tests failed to produce the desired levels of fusion. However, beginning in experimental series #13 and following in series #17 - 25, the experimental results showed increasing levels of fusion, ultimately producing sustainable net-energy-positive proton-lithium fusion.
[EQUIPMENT FOR SERIES #1 1 - 15 EXPERIMENTAL TESTS
Series #11 - 14 Laboratory
• Louisiana Accelerator Center, University of Louisiana, Lafayette LA
Series #15 Laboratory
• Physics Department, University of North Texas, Denton TX
Proton Gun
• IonEtch Sputter Ion Gun (Genii) available from tectra GmbH
• Proton plasma beam from 99.9% pure hydrogen gas
• Proton energy between 50 eV and 5 keV
• Proton current between 4 μΑ and 320 μΑ
• Argon plasma beam from argon gas
Target
• 99.9% pure lithium disks available from American Elements Inc
• 3 inch diameter
• 1 mm thick
HLFD Prototype #6
• 8.7 inch diameter aluminum disk with a 78° inward chamfer angle to a 2.5 inch
diameter center hole
• 3 inch diameter x 3 mm deep depression holds the lithium target
• 3 inch diameter x 2 mm aluminum retaining ring holds the target at the center of the aluminum disk
• Target support electrically isolated from reaction chamber by a ceramic support base in series #11 - 13, a rotatable Teflon support base in series #14, and a rotatable nylon/alumina support base in series #15
Bias Voltage Power Supply
• DC power supply capable of -5 kV to +5 kV
• SHV connection flange capable of 5 kV
Particle Detectors
• In series #1 1 - 12 silicon surface barrier detectors available from ORTEC Inc
• In series #13 - 15 silicon p-i-n diode detectors available from Hamamatsu Corporation
• Small Faraday cups with 1/16 inch Teflon insulation
• Two stainless steel bias screens at 4 cm distance in front of each detection device in series #13
• Aluminum foil particle shields in front of each detection device in series #14 - 15
Reaction Chamber (Lafayette LA)
• Modified bell reaction chamber with twelve 2.75 inch diameter radial ports at the
target’s center horizontal plane at a distance of 20 cm
• Turbo pump capable of 10”6 Torr vacuum pressure
Reaction Chamber (Denton TX)
• 38 cm deep by 40 cm diameter cylindrical reaction chamber with eleven 2.75 inch
diameter radial ports, four 2.75 inch diameter bottom ports, and one 8 inch diameter horizontal port used for turbo pump assembly
• Two roughing pumps in combination with a turbo pump capable of vacuum pressures between 2* 10”6 Torr and 760 Torr
zorud
Member
1,088
Jun 19th 2017
#39
Quote from Alan Smith
I am sure it would- but the equipment required is extensive and expensive...
Alan, thanks. Costs / material obvioulsy still far away from todays billions spent in hot fusion....so still I am curious why this group seemed to gave up based on their promising (?) results.
THHuxleynew
Verified User
4,707
Jun 19th 2017
#40
Quote from Alan Smith
I am sure it would- but the equipment required is extensive and expensive- this is one of several variant lists taken from the patent. Not a garage job- and even the inventors are forced to live like Gypsies, traipsing from one lab to another to work.
This work and the theories espoused has not been embraced by any researchers other than the named inventors. As of May 2013, a search on scholar.google.com revealed only one citation to the “Gravity theory” publication, and that was a passing reference. In 2008, editors of Wikipedia went so far as to delete a new article based on the publication. The discovery of the new gravity theory has aroused skepticism by experts and teaching away from acceptance of the new theory.
[0088] To the inventors’ knowledge, no fusion method to date has achieved energy breakeven, i.e. more energy output than input. The inventors’ approach appears to have
generated yields that exceed energy breakeven. Experimental results and breakeven calculations are described in detail in this application.
[0089] This application addresses how to efficiently produce large numbers of energetic helium ions, which is useful for a variety of purposes, including conversion into electricity.
[0090] In summary, the inventors have developed a unique method to produce large numbers of highly energetic helium ions that is a critical step in providing an entirely new source of cheap and safe energy.]
THE INVENTORS’ GRAVITY THEORY
[0091] The Hydrogen-Lithium Fusion Device (HLFD) was developed with years of effort following discovery of the relativistic scalar gravity theory described in “Gravity theory based on mass-energy equivalence,” supra, Acta Physica Polonica B 39, 2823 (2008). With insight and hard work, the technology developed can be seen as consistent with this theory. A more complete discussion of the theory appears in the paper. and not based upon specific experimental findings.
TWENTY FIVE EXPERIMENTAL TESTS
[0124] From March 2007 to March 2014, the inventors conducted 25 series of experimental tests in the course of developing the Hydrogen-Lithium Fusion Device (HLFD). The design of the HLFD and the technology disclosed to achieve proton-lithium fusion draw on the experimental data obtained in these 25 series of experimental tests. Most of the early tests failed to produce the desired levels of fusion. However, beginning in experimental series #13 and following in series #17 - 25, the experimental results showed increasing levels of fusion, ultimately producing sustainable net-energy-positive proton-lithium fusion.
[EQUIPMENT FOR SERIES #1 1 - 15 EXPERIMENTAL TESTS
Series #11 - 14 Laboratory
• Louisiana Accelerator Center, University of Louisiana, Lafayette LA
Series #15 Laboratory
• Physics Department, University of North Texas, Denton TX
Proton Gun
• IonEtch Sputter Ion Gun (Genii) available from tectra GmbH
• Proton plasma beam from 99.9% pure hydrogen gas
• Proton energy between 50 eV and 5 keV
• Proton current between 4 μΑ and 320 μΑ
• Argon plasma beam from argon gas
Target
• 99.9% pure lithium disks available from American Elements Inc
• 3 inch diameter
• 1 mm thick
HLFD Prototype #6
• 8.7 inch diameter aluminum disk with a 78° inward chamfer angle to a 2.5 inch
diameter center hole
• 3 inch diameter x 3 mm deep depression holds the lithium target
• 3 inch diameter x 2 mm aluminum retaining ring holds the target at the center of the aluminum disk
• Target support electrically isolated from reaction chamber by a ceramic support base in series #11 - 13, a rotatable Teflon support base in series #14, and a rotatable nylon/alumina support base in series #15
Bias Voltage Power Supply
• DC power supply capable of -5 kV to +5 kV
• SHV connection flange capable of 5 kV
Particle Detectors
• In series #1 1 - 12 silicon surface barrier detectors available from ORTEC Inc
• In series #13 - 15 silicon p-i-n diode detectors available from Hamamatsu Corporation
• Small Faraday cups with 1/16 inch Teflon insulation
• Two stainless steel bias screens at 4 cm distance in front of each detection device in series #13
• Aluminum foil particle shields in front of each detection device in series #14 - 15
Reaction Chamber (Lafayette LA)
• Modified bell reaction chamber with twelve 2.75 inch diameter radial ports at the
target’s center horizontal plane at a distance of 20 cm
• Turbo pump capable of 10”6 Torr vacuum pressure
Reaction Chamber (Denton TX)
• 38 cm deep by 40 cm diameter cylindrical reaction chamber with eleven 2.75 inch
diameter radial ports, four 2.75 inch diameter bottom ports, and one 8 inch diameter horizontal port used for turbo pump assembly
• Two roughing pumps in combination with a turbo pump capable of vacuum pressures between 2* 10”6 Torr and 760 Torr
Display More
I remember looking at this. the patent is honest, and makes clear that he has no clear experimental evidence for his suppositions. The results which he claims support this are very indirect, and could be due to many different things. The results quoted in the rest of the patent are (he says) what he would expect to happen according to his weird theory, not what he has gathered.
It seems flimsy evidence.
Edited once, last by THHuxleynew (Jun 19th 2017).
What a mess! I hope you are proud of your extreme cut and paste abuse. It is incredible that anyone has managed to wade through this monstrosity.
Is there an executive summary (fewer than 100,000 words) ?
ML/NJ
Not lookin at all that mess
List 2. Peer-reviewed excess heat papers, from both databases
1. Agelao, G. and M.C. Romano, Heat and helium production during exothermic reactions
between gases through palladium geometrical elements loaded with hydrogen. Fusion
Technol., 2000. 38: p. 224.
2. Aoki, T., et al., Search for nuclear products of the D + D nuclear fusion. Int. J. Soc. Mat.
Eng. Resources, 1998. 6(1): p. 22.
3. Arata, Y. and Y.C. Zhang, Achievement of intense 'cold fusion' reaction. Kaku Yugo
Kenkyu, 1989. 62: p. 398 (In Japanese).
4. Arata, Y. and Y.C. Zhang, Achievement of an intense cold fusion reaction. Fusion
Technol., 1990. 18: p. 95.
5. Arata, Y. and Y.C. Zhang, Achievement of intense 'cold' fusion reaction. Proc. Jpn. Acad.,
Ser. B, 1990. 66: p. 1.
6. Arata, Y. and Y.C. Zhang, Corroborating evidence for 'cold' fusion reaction. Proc. Jpn.
Acad., Ser. B, 1990. 66(B): p. 110.
7. Arata, Y. and Y.C. Zhang, 'Cold' fusion caused by a weak 'on-off effect'. Proc. Jpn. Acad.,
Ser. B, 1992. 66: p. 33.
8. Arata, Y. and Y.C. Zhang, 'Cold' fusion in deuterated complex cathode. Kaku Yugo
Kenkyu, 1992. 67((5)): p. 432 (in Japanese).
9. Arata, Y. and Y.C. Zhang, Reproducible "Cold" Fusion Reaction Using A Complex
Cathode. Fusion Technol., 1992. 22: p. 287.
10. Arata, Y. and Y.C. Zhang, Excess heat in a double structure deuterated cathode. Kaku
Yugo Kenkyu, 1993. 69((8)): p. 963 (in Japanese).
11. Arata, Y. and Y.C. Zhang, A new energy caused by "Spillover-deuterium". Proc. Jpn.
Acad., Ser. B, 1994. 70 ser. B: p. 106.
12. Arata, Y. and Y.C. Zhang, A new energy generated in DS-cathode with 'Pd-black'. Koon
Gakkaishi, 1994. 20(4): p. 148 (in Japanese).
13. Arata, Y. and Y.C. Zhang, Achievement of solid-state plasma fusion ("cold fusion").
Koon Gakkaishi, 1995. 21((6)): p. 303 (in Japanese).
14. Arata, Y. and Y.C. Zhang, Deuterium nuclear reaction process within solid. Proc. Jpn.
Acad., Ser. B, 1996. 72 Ser. B: p. 179.
15. Arata, Y. and C. Zhang, Presence of helium (4/2He, 3/2He) confirmed in highly
deuterated Pd-black by the new detecting methodology. J. High Temp. Soc., 1997. 23: p.
110 (in Japanese).
16. Arata, Y. and Y.C. Zhang, Solid-state plasma fusion ('cold fusion'). J. High Temp. Soc.,
1997. 23 (special volume): p. 1-56.
17. Arata, Y. and Y.C. Zhang, Observation of Anomalous Heat Release and Helium-4
Production from Highly Deuterated Fine Particles. Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. Part 2, 1999. 38: p.
L774.
18. Arata, Y. and Y.C. Zhang, Formation of Condensed Metallic Deuterium Lattice and
Nuclear Fusion. Proc. Jpn. Acad., Ser. B, 2002. 78(Ser. B): p. 57.
19. Arata, Y. and Y. Zhang, The Establishment of Solid Nuclear Fusion Reactor. J. High
Temp. Soc., 2008. 34(2): p. 85.
20. Babu, K.S.C., et al., On the formation of palladium deuteride and its relationship to
suspected cold fusion. Adv. Hydrogen Energy, 1990. 8 Hydrogen Energy Prog. VIII,
Vol. 2),: p. 1051.
19
21. Battaglia, A., et al., Neutron emission in Ni-H systems. Nuovo Cimento Soc. Ital. Fis. A,
1999. 112 A: p. 921.
22. Belzner, A., et al., Two fast mixed-conductor systems: deuterium and hydrogen in
palladium - thermal measurements and experimental considerations. J. Fusion Energy,
1990. 9(2): p. 219.
23. Belzner, A., et al., Recent results on mixed conductors containing hydrogen or deuterium.
Solid State Ionics, 1990. 40/41: p. 519.
24. Bertalot, L., et al., Study of deuterium charging in palladium by the electrolysis of heavy
water: heat excess production. Nuovo Cimento Soc. Ital. Fis. A, 1993. 15 D: p. 1435.
25. Birgul, O., et al., Electrochemically induced fusion of deuterium using surface modified
palladium electrodes. J. Eng. Env. Sci., 1990. 14(3): p. 373.
26. Brudanin, V.B., et al., Search for the cold fusion d(d,(4)He) in electrolysis of D2O. Phys.
Lett. A, 1990. 151(9): p. 543.
27. Bush, B.F., et al., Helium production during the electrolysis of D2O in cold fusion
experiments. J. Electroanal. Chem., 1991. 304: p. 271.
28. Bush, R.T., A light water excess heat reaction suggests that 'cold fusion' may be 'alkalihydrogen fusion'. Fusion Technol., 1992. 22: p. 301.
29. Bush, R.T. and R.D. Eagleton, Evidence for Electrolytically Induced Transmutation and
Radioactivity Correlated with Excess Heat in Electrolytic Cells with Light Water
Rubidium Salt Electrolytes. Trans. Fusion Technol., 1994. 26(4T): p. 334.
30. Celani, F., et al., Deuterium overloading of palladium wires by means of high power
microsecond pulsed electrolysis and electromigration: suggestions of a "phase
transition" and related excess heat. Phys. Lett. A, 1996. 214: p. 1.
31. Celani, F., et al., Reproducible D/Pd ratio > 1 and excess heat correlation by 1-microsecpulse, high-current electrolysis. Fusion Technol., 1996. 29: p. 398.
32. Dash, J., G. Noble, and D. Diman, Surface Morphology and Microcomposition of
Palladium Cathodes After Electrolysis in Acified Light and Heavy Water: Correlation
With Excess Heat. Trans. Fusion Technol., 1994. 26(4T): p. 299.
33. Dufour, J., Cold fusion by sparking in hydrogen isotopes. Fusion Technol., 1993. 24: p.
205.
34. Dufour, J., et al., Interaction of palladium/hydrogen and palladium/deuterium to measure
the excess energy per atom for each isotope. Fusion Technol., 1997. 31: p. 198.
35. Fleischmann, M., S. Pons, and M. Hawkins, Electrochemically induced nuclear fusion of
deuterium. J. Electroanal. Chem., 1989. 261: p. 301 and errata in Vol. 263.
36. Fleischmann, M., et al., Calorimetry of the palladium-deuterium-heavy water system. J.
Electroanal. Chem., 1990. 287: p. 293.
37. Fleischmann, M. and S. Pons, Some comments on the paper Analysis of experiments on
the calorimetry of LiOD-D2O electrochemical cells, R.H. Wilson et al., J. Electroanal.
Chem. 332 [1992] 1. J. Electroanal. Chem., 1992. 332: p. 33.
38. Fleischmann, M. and S. Pons, Calorimetry of the Pd-D2O system: from simplicity via
complications to simplicity. Phys. Lett. A, 1993. 176: p. 118.
39. 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. 276.
40. Focardi, S., R. Habel, and F. Piantelli, Anomalous heat production in Ni-H systems.
Nuovo Cimento Soc. Ital. Fis. A, 1994. 107A: p. 163.
20
41. Focardi, S., et al., Large excess heat production in Ni-H systems. Nuovo Cimento Soc.
Ital. Fis. A, 1998. 111A: p. 1233.
42. Gozzi, D., et al., Evidences for associated heat generation and nuclear products release
in palladium heavy-water electrolysis. Nuovo Cimento Soc. Ital. Fis. A, 1990. 103: p.
143.
43. Gozzi, D., et al., Nuclear and thermal effects during electrolytic reduction of deuterium
at palladium cathode. J. Fusion Energy, 1990. 9(3): p. 241.
44. Gozzi, D., et al., Calorimetric and nuclear byproduct measurements in electrochemical
confinement of deuterium in palladium. J. Electroanal. Chem., 1995. 380: p. 91.
45. Gozzi, D., et al., Quantitative measurements of helium-4 in the gas phase of Pd + D2O
electrolysis. J. Electroanal. Chem., 1995. 380: p. 109.
46. Gozzi, D., et al., X-ray, heat excess and 4He in the D/Pd system. J. Electroanal. Chem.,
1998. 452: p. 251.
47. Isagawa, S., Y. Kanda, and T. Suzuki, Present status of cold fusion experiment at KEK".
Int. J. Soc. Mat. Eng. Resources, 1998. 65(1): p. 60.
48. Isobe, Y., et al., Search for multibody nuclear reactions in metal deuteride induced with
ion beam and electrolysis methods. Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. A, 2002. 41(part 1): p. 1546.
49. Iwamura, Y., et al., Detection of anomalous elements, x-ray, and excess heat in a D2-Pd
system and its interpretation by the electron-induced nuclear reaction model. Fusion
Technol., 1998. 33: p. 476.
50. Iyengar, P.K., et al., Bhabha Atomic Research Centre studies on cold fusion. Fusion
Technol., 1990. 18: p. 32.
51. Kainthla, R.C., et al., Eight chemical explanations of the Fleischmann-Pons effect. J.
Hydrogen Energy, 1989. 14(11): p. 771.
52. Kainthla, R.C., et al., Sporadic observation of the Fleischmann-Pons heat effect.
Electrochim. Acta, 1989. 34: p. 1315.
53. Kamada, K., H. Kinoshita, and H. Takahashi, Anomalous heat evolution of deuteriumimplanted Al upon electron bombardment. Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. A, 1996. 35: p. 738.
54. Kamada, K., Heating of deuteron implanted Al on electron bombardment and its possible
relation to 'cold fusion' experiment. Fusion Eng. Des., 2001. 55: p. 541.
55. Karabut, A.B., Y.R. Kucherov, and I.B. Savvatimova. Cold Fusion Observation at GasDischarge Device Cathode. in Anniversary Specialist Conf. on Nucl. Power Eng. in
Space. 1990. Obninsk, Russia.
56. Karabut, A.B., Y.R. Kucherov, and I.B. Savvatimova, Nuclear reactions at the cathode in
a gas discharge. Sov. Tech. Phys. Lett., 1990. 16(6): p. 463.
57. Karabut, A.B., Y.R. Kucherov, and I.B. Savvatimova, The investigation of deuterium
nuclei fusion at glow discharge cathode. Fusion Technol., 1991. 20: p. 924.
58. Kirkinskii, V.A., V.A. Drebushchak, and A.I. Khmelnikov, Excess heat release during
deuterium sorption-desorption by finely powdered palladium deuteride. Europhys. Lett.,
2002. 58: p. 462.
59. Kunimatsu, K., Current status of room-temperature nuclear fusion. Excess heat
measurement. Petrotech. (Tokyo), 1994. 17(12): p. 998 (in Japanese).
60. Kunimatsu, K., Surface modification of the cathode in the study of cold fusion. Hyomen
Gijutsu, 1996. 47(3): p. 218 (in Japanese).
61. Lewis, D. and K. Sk'ld, A phenomenological study of the Fleischmann-Pons effect. J.
Electroanal. Chem., 1990. 294: p. 275.
21
62. Lewis, D., Some regularities and coincidences in thermal, electrochemical and radiation
phenomena observed in experiments at Studsvik on the Fleischmann-Pons effect. J.
Electroanal. Chem., 1991. 316: p. 353.
63. Li, X.Z., A new approach towards nuclear fusion without strong nuclear radiation. Nucl.
Fusion Plasma Phys., 1996. 16(2): p. 1 (in Chinese).
64. Li, X.Z., et al., Correlation between abnormal deuterium flux and heat flow in a D/Pd
system. J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys., 2003. 36: p. 3095-3097.
65. Liaw, B.Y., et al., Elevated-temperature excess heat production in a Pd + D system. J.
Electroanal. Chem., 1991. 319: p. 161.
66. Liaw, B.Y., P.L. Tao, and B.E. Liebert, Helium analysis of palladium electrodes after
molten salt electrolysis. Fusion Technol., 1993. 23: p. 92.
67. Lin, G.H., et al., On electrochemical tritium production. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy, 1990.
15: p. 537.
68. Lipson, A.G., et al., Generation of the products of DD nuclear fusion in high-temperature
superconductors YBa2Cu3O7-deltaDy near the superconducting phase transition. Tech.
Phys., 1995. 40: p. 839.
69. Lipson, A.G., et al., The nature of excess energy liberated in a Pd/PdO heterostructure
electrochemically saturated with hydrogen (deuterium). Russ. J. Phys. Chem., 1995. 69:
p. 1810.
70. Lyakhov, B.F., et al., Anomalous heat release in the Pd/PdO system electrolytically
saturated with hydrogen. Russ. J. Phys. Chem., 1993. 67: p. 491.
71. Mathews, C.K., et al., On the possibility of nuclear fusion by the electrolysis of heavy
water. Indian J. Technol., 1989. 27: p. 229.
72. McKubre, M.C.H., et al., Isothermal Flow Calorimetric Investigations of the D/Pd and
H/Pd Systems. J. Electroanal. Chem., 1994. 368: p. 55.
73. Mengoli, G., et al., Absorption-desorption of deuterium at Pd95%-Rh5% alloy. I:
Environment and temperature effects. J. Electroanal. Chem., 1995. 390: p. 135.
74. Mengoli, G., et al., Anomalous heat effects correlated with electrochemical hydriding of
nickel. Nuovo Cimento Soc. Ital. Fis. A, 1998. 20 D: p. 331.
75. Mengoli, G., et al., Calorimetry close to the boiling temperature of the D2O/Pd
electrolytic system. J. Electroanal. Chem., 1998. 444: p. 155.
76. Miao, B., Experimental exploration on the possible mechanism of D-D cold fusion in
titanium lattice. Xibei Shifan Xuebao. Ziran Kexueban, 1994. 30(1): p. 39 (in Chinese).
77. Miao, B., Experimental exploration on possible mechanism of D-D cold fusion in
titanium lattice. Xibei Shifan Daxue Xuebao, Ziran Kexueban, 1994. 30: p. 44 (in
Chinese).
78. Miles, M., K.H. Park, and D.E. Stilwell, Electrochemical calorimetric evidence for cold
fusion in the palladium-deuterium system. J. Electroanal. Chem., 1990. 296: p. 241.
79. Miles, M., et al. Heat and Helium Production in Cold Fusion Experiments. in Second
Annual Conference on Cold Fusion, "The Science of Cold Fusion". 1991. Como, Italy:
Societa Italiana di Fisica, Bologna, Italy.
80. Miles, M., et al., Correlation of excess power and helium production during D2O and
H2O electrolysis using palladium cathodes. J. Electroanal. Chem., 1993. 346: p. 99.
81. Miles, M., B.F. Bush, and J.J. Lagowski, Anomalous effects involving excess power,
radiation, and helium production during D2O electrolysis using palladium cathodes.
Fusion Technol., 1994. 25: p. 478.
22
82. Miles, M., B.F. Bush, and D.E. Stilwell, Calorimetric principles and problems in
measurements of excess power during Pd-D2O electrolysis. J. Phys. Chem., 1994. 98: p.
1948.
83. Miles, M. and B.F. Bush, Heat and Helium Measurements in Deuterated Palladium.
Trans. Fusion Technol., 1994. 26(4T): p. 156.
84. Miles, M. and B.F. Bush, Heat and Helium Measurements in Deuterated Palladium.
Trans. Fusion Technol., 1994. 26(4T): p. 156.
85. Miles, M., Reply to 'An assessment of claims of excess heat in cold fusion calorimetry'. J.
Phys. Chem. B, 1998. 102: p. 3648.
86. Miles, M., Reply to 'Examination of claims of Miles et al. in Pons-Fleischmann-type cold
fusion experiments'. J. Phys. Chem. B, 1998. 102: p. 3642.
87. Miles, M., Calorimetric studies of Pd/D2O+LiOD electrolysis cells. J. Electroanal.
Chem., 2000. 482: p. 56.
88. Miles, M., M.A. Imam, and M. Fleischmann, Calorimetric analysis of a heavy water
electrolysis experiment using a Pd-B alloy cathode. Proc. Electrochem. Soc., 2001.
2001-23: p. 194.
89. Miles, M., M.A. Imam, and M. Fleischmann, Calorimetric analysis of a heavy water
electrolysis experiment using a Pd-B alloy cathode. Proc. Electrochem. Soc., 2001.
2001-23: p. 194.
90. Miley, G.H., et al., Electrolytic Cell with Multilayer Thin-Film Electrodes. Trans. Fusion
Technol., 1994. 26(4T): p. 313.
91. Mills, R.L. and P. Kneizys, Excess heat production by the electrolysis of an aqueous
potassium carbonate electrolyte and the implications for cold fusion. Fusion Technol.,
1991. 20: p. 65.
92. Mills, R.L., Reply to 'Comments on "Excess heat production by the electrolysis of an
aqueous potassium carbonate electrolyte and the implications for cold fusion"'. Fusion
Technol., 1992. 21: p. 96.
93. Mizuno, T., et al., Anomalous heat evolution from a solid-state electrolyte under
alternating current in high-temperature D2 gas. Fusion Technol., 1996. 29: p. 385.
94. Mizuno, T., et al., Production of Heat During Plasma Electrolysis. Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. A,
2000. 39: p. 6055.
95. Mizuno, T., et al., Hydrogen Evolution by Plasma Electrolysis in Aqueous Solution. Jpn.
J. Appl. Phys. A, 2005. 44(1A): p. 396-401.
96. Mosier-Boss, P.A. and S. Szpak, The Pd/(n)H system: transport processes and
development of thermal instabilities. Nuovo Cimento Soc. Ital. Fis. A, 1999. 112: p. 577.
97. Nakamura, K., T. Kawase, and I. Ogura, Possibility of element transmutation by arcing in
water. Kinki Daigaku Genshiryoku Kenkyusho Nenpo, 1996. 33: p. 25 (in Japanese).
98. Noninski, V.C. and C.I. Noninski, Determination of the excess energy obtained during
the electrolysis of heavy water. Fusion Technol., 1991. 19: p. 364.
99. Noninski, V.C., Excess heat during the electrolysis of a light water solution of K2CO3
with a nickel cathode. Fusion Technol., 1992. 21: p. 163.
100. Notoya, R., Cold fusion by electrolysis in a light water-potassium carbonate solution
with a nickel electrode. Fusion Technol., 1993. 24: p. 202.
101. Notoya, R., Y. Noya, and T. Ohnishi, Tritium generation and large excess heat evolution
by electrolysis in light and heavy water-potassium carbonate solutions with nickel
electrodes. Fusion Technol., 1994. 26: p. 179.
23
102. Numata, H. and M. Fukuhara, Low-temperature elastic anomalies and heat generation of
deuterated palladium. Fusion Technol., 1997. 31: p. 300.
103. Ohmori, T. and M. Enyo, Excess heat evolution during electrolysis of H2O with nickel,
gold, silver, and tin cathodes. Fusion Technol., 1993. 24: p. 293.
104. Ohmori, T. and T. Mizuno, Nuclear transmutation occurring in the electrolysis on
several metal electrodes. Curr. Topics Electrochem., 1997. 5: p. 37.
105. Ohmori, T., et al., Transmutation in the electrolysis of lightwater - excess energy and
iron production in a gold electrode. Fusion Technol., 1997. 31: p. 210.
106. Ohmori, T., et al., Transmutation in a gold-light water electrolysis system. Fusion
Technol., 1998. 33: p. 367.
107. Okamoto, M., et al., Excess Heat Generation, Voltage Deviation, and Neutron Emission
in D2O-LiOD Systems. Trans. Fusion Technol., 1994. 26(4T): p. 176.
108. Okamoto, M., et al., Excess Heat Generation, Voltage Deviation, and Neutron Emission
in D2O-LiOD Systems. Trans. Fusion Technol., 1994. 26(4T): p. 176.
109. Oriani, R.A., et al., Calorimetric measurements of excess power output during the
cathodic charging of deuterium into palladium. Fusion Technol., 1990. 18: p. 652.
110. Oriani, R.A., An investigation of anomalous thermal power generation from a protonconducting oxide. Fusion Technol., 1996. 30: p. 281.
111. Ota, K., H. Yoshitake, and N. Kamiya, Present status of cold fusion. Hyomen Kagaku,
1993. 14(9): p. 570 (in Japanese).
112. Ota, K. and T. Kobayashi, Cold fusion and calorimetry. Netsu Sokutei, 1997. 24(3): p.
138 (Japan., Engl. abstr.).
113. Ota, K., et al., Effect of boron for the heat production during the heavy water electrolysis
using palladium cathode. Int. J. Soc. Mat. Eng. Resources, 1998. 6(1): p. 26.
114. Oyama, N., et al., Electrochemical calorimetry of D2O electrolysis using a palladium
cathode - an undivided, open cell system -. Bull. Chem. Soc. Japan, 1990. 63: p. 2659.
115. Oyama, N., et al., Probing absorption of deuterium into palladium cathodes during D2O
electrolysis with an in situ electrochemical microbalance technique. Jpn. J. Appl. Phys.
Part 2, 1990. 29(5): p. L818.
116. Oyama, N. and O. Hatozaki, Present and future of cold fusion - nuclear fusion induced by
electrochemical reaction. Oyo Butsuri, 1991. 60: p. 220 (in Japanese).
117. Pons, S. and M. Fleischmann, Calorimetric measurements of the palladium/deuterium
system: fact and fiction. Fusion Technol., 1990. 17: p. 669.
118. Pons, S. and M. Fleischmann, Etalonnage du systeme Pd-D2O: effets de protocole et
feed-back positif. ["Calibration of the Pd-D2O system: protocol and positive feed-back
effects"]. J. Chim. Phys., 1996. 93: p. 711 (in French).
119. Preparata, G., M. Scorletti, and M. Verpelli, Isoperibolic calorimetry on modified
Fleischmann-Pons cells. J. Electroanal. Chem., 1996. 411: p. 9.
120. Ray, M.K.S., et al., The Fleischmann-Pons phenomenon - a different perspective. Fusion
Technol., 1992. 22: p. 395.
121. Santhanam, K.S.V., et al., Electrochemically initiated cold fusion of deuterium. Indian J.
Technol., 1989. 27: p. 175.
122. Santhanam, K.S.V., et al., Excess enthalpy during electrolysis of D2O. Curr. Sci., 1989.
58: p. 1139.
123. Savvatimova, I. and A.B. Karabut, Nuclear reaction products detected at the cathode
after a glow discharge in deuterium. Poverkhnost, 1996(1): p. 63 (in Russian).
24
124. Savvatimova, I. and A.B. Karabut, Radioactivity of palladium cathodes after irradiation
in a glow discharge. Poverkhnost, 1996(1): p. 76 (in Russian).
125. Scott, C.D., et al., Measurement of excess heat and apparent coincident increases in the
neutron and gamma-ray count rates during the electrolysis of heavy water. Fusion
Technol., 1990. 18: p. 103.
126. Scott, C.D., et al., Preliminary Investigation of Possible Low-Temperature Fusion. J.
Fusion Energy, 1990. 9(2): p. 115.
127. Shirai, O., et al., Some experimental results relating to cold nuclear fusion. Bull. Inst.
Chem. Res., Kyoto Univ., 1991. 69: p. 550.
128. Srinivasan, M., Nuclear fusion in an atomic lattice: An update on the international status
of cold fusion research. Curr. Sci., 1991. 60: p. 417.
129. Storms, E., Measurements of excess heat from a Pons-Fleischmann-type electrolytic cell
using palladium sheet. Fusion Technol., 1993. 23: p. 230.
130. Storms, E., Some Characteristics of Heat Production Using the "Cold Fusion" Effect.
Trans. Fusion Technol., 1994. 26(4T): p. 96.
131. Storms, E., How to produce the Pons-Fleischmann effect. Fusion Technol., 1996. 29: p.
261.
132. Swartz, M.R., Codeposition of palladium and deuterium. Fusion Technol., 1997. 32: p.
126.
133. Swartz, M.R., Consistency of the biphasic nature of excess enthalpy in solid-state
anomalous phenomena with the quasi-one-dimensional model of isotope loading into a
material. Fusion Technol., 1997. 31: p. 63.
134. Szpak, S., et al., Electrochemical charging of Pd rods. J. Electroanal. Chem., 1991. 309:
p. 273.
135. Szpak, S., P.A. Mosier-Boss, and J.J. Smith, On the behavior of Pd deposited in the
presence of evolving deuterium. J. Electroanal. Chem., 1991. 302: p. 255.
136. Szpak, S., P.A. Mosier-Boss, and S.R. Scharber, Charging of the Pd/(n)H system: role of
the interphase. J. Electroanal. Chem., 1992. 337: p. 147.
137. Szpak, S., et al., Cyclic voltammetry of Pd + D codeposition. J. Electroanal. Chem., 1995.
380: p. 1.
138. Szpak, S. and P.A. Mosier-Boss, Nuclear and Thermal Events Associated with Pd + D
Codeposition. J. New Energy, 1996. 1(3): p. 54.
139. Szpak, S. and P.A. Mosier-Boss, On the behavior of the cathodically polarized Pd/D
system: a response to Vigier's comments. Phys. Lett. A, 1996. 221: p. 141.
140. Szpak, S., P.A. Mosier-Boss, and J.J. Smith, On the behavior of the cathodically
polarized Pd/D system: Search for emanating radiation. Phys. Lett. A, 1996. 210: p. 382.
141. Szpak, S., et al., On the behavior of the Pd/D system: Evidence for tritium production.
Fusion Technol., 1998. 33: p. 38.
142. Szpak, S. and P.A. Mosier-Boss, On the release of n/1H from cathodically polarized
palladium electrodes. Fusion Technol., 1998. 34: p. 273.
143. Szpak, S., P.A. Mosier-Boss, and M. Miles, Calorimetry of the Pd+D codeposition.
Fusion Technol., 1999. 36: p. 234.
144. Szpak, S., et al., Thermal behavior of polarized Pd/D electrodes prepared by codeposition. Thermochim. Acta, 2004. 410: p. 101.
145. Szpak, S., et al., Evidence of nuclear reactions in the Pd lattice. Naturwiss., 2005. 92(8):
p. 394-397.
25
146. Takahashi, A., et al., Excess heat and nuclear products by D2O/Pd electrolysis and
multibody fusion. Int. J. Appl. Electromagn. Mater., 1992. 3: p. 221.
147. Takahashi, A., Cold fusion research: present status. Koon Gakkaishi, 1993. 19(5): p. 179
(in Japanese).
148. Takahashi, A., Production of neutron, tritium and excess heat. Oyo Butsuri, 1993. 62: p.
707 (In Japanese).
149. Takahashi, A., et al., Experimental study on correlation between excess heat and nuclear
products by D2O/Pd electrolysis. Int. J. Soc. Mat. Eng. Resources, 1998. 6(1): p. 4.
150. Velev, O.A. and R.C. Kainthla, Heat flow calorimeter with a personal-computer-based
data acquisition system. Fusion Technol., 1990. 18: p. 351.
151. Yun, K.S., et al., Calorimetric observation of heat production during electrolysis of 0.1
M LiOD + D2O solution. J. Electroanal. Chem., 1991. 306: p. 279.
152. Zhang, Q., et al., The excess heat experiments on cold fusion in titanium lattice. Chin. J.
At. Mol. Phys., 1995. 12(2): p. 165.
153. Zhang, Q., et al., The experimental study on the 'excess heat' for deuteron absorbed in the
lattice of titanium. Chin. J. At. Mol. Phys., 1998. 15: p. 210 (In Chinese).