How many times has the Pons-Fleischmann Anomalous Heating Event been replicated in peer reviewed journals?
kevmolenr@gmail.com
Jun 15th 2017
Closed
1
2
3
4
5
…
25
Wyttenbach
Verified User
3,887
Jun 19th 2017
#42
Quote from Alan Smith
• 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
This is more than most people can afford. Lipinskis worked at Military labs and at well equipped Universities. They have done 1000+ experimental runs. Their work is ongoing, may be as a part of the military next strategic reactor campaign, which also includes the boron reactor (100mio+ kick-off investment..).
They actually work on a plasma based Li-H fusion reactor. But this is much more demanding that the lithium disk experiments.
Quote from THHuxleynew
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.
THHuxleynew : It is obvious that you in reality only “over-looked” at it, not even grasped that there are two Lipinski’s doing the work together. May be by reading the first ten lines it’s difficult to judge the scientific content of this breakthrough patent-paper.
The claims that Lipinski(s) make, are in fact very direct as they measure the 4He production as a LENR fusion output of 7Li+H.
Of course you are right, that the theory presented in the patent is not proven by their work, that instead directly refutes their theory...
But this is a mirror image of the US schizophrenic research environment. You are only allow to publish military relevant facts if, an expert, – like you did –, because of obvious “nonsense”, stops further reading and sets the signature...
Member
846
Jun 19th 2017
#43
Quote from Wyttenbach
@Stop making such silly comments. Since the Lipinski experiments there is no more doubt about LENR with very high COP.
I see plenty of doubt. And it’s not like someone is going to replicate Lipinski soon.
Member
846
Jun 21st 2017
#45
Quote from kirkshanahan
Kevmolenr wrote a multitude of comments on my posts. Taking some of his points out of order…
And out of context. Then you pile it all together into one tldr argumentation. I can see why you’ve been ignored.
Kevin misses the fact that I think there is NO TRUE EXCESS HEAT.
You said “Note that I agree that there is something going on in F&P cells. I proposed a non-nuclear mechanism for what it could be.”
Kevin thinks it my job to correct prior workers mistakes and, apparently, republish their work for them.
No, that isn’t what I think. I have posted what I think and you can respond to those posts, or you can continue to use out of context straw argumentation. I don’t think you accomplish much with your approach.
Kevin thinks I want to make a ‘name’ for myself.
Ok, now we gather that you don’t. You proposed a theory that doesn’t fit the facts and the experimentalists dismissed your theory. So you can leave it at that.
Kevin thinks I haven’t taken ownership of my theory/hypothesis/proposal.
Yes I do.
Given that I think there is no true excess heat,
And yet, you say you think there’s something going on. If that is recombination, then getting such a cell to work for months is a solid source of energy. You apparently are claiming to know what causes calculations in error but it appears your hypothesis doesn’t account for how these recombinations and appearance of excess heat can go on for months. If it’s chemical and COP<1, it is still efficient.
I certainly am not going to make space heaters or any amount of money from this. I could care less about making a ‘name’ in this field.
Well then, see ya later, alligator. Don’t be surprised if someone else takes up your mantle and not only makes a name for himself but makes good money at the same time.
Ungrateful little ‘sot’ aren’t you.
Again, I can see why you’ve been ignored in the field.
I point out to you that 148 of 153 references precede my 1st publication, meaning that their results were incorporated into my proposals,
You’re just handwaving. I posted what you could do to correct the whole field but you’re not interested. So your effort will become an asterisk in the field.
I think the applicable term is ‘cheeky’ (Alan?).
Posting stuff out of context is cheeky.
Read them again.
No thank you.
Kevmo: “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.”
As noted above, I find it highly unlikely that any true excess heat source has been discovered.
You’re not getting it. Assume there is no “true” excess heat but this is just a nicely efficient chemical burning process. It would make a great water heater.
So your “SOLUTION” doesn’t exist to my mind. Yes I was ignored, and as THH kindly points out that’s disappointing. I have said it more strongly. I believe it is the primary signature of pathological science.
It is not my solution, it is your solution. You honestly seem to think you have the solution to why all these top notch electrochemists are making some kind of calculation error. Now you are the one retreating and calling them pathalogical scientists. And your solution does nothing towards the findings of gamma rays, Helium, and nuclear ash.
The Cfers have withdrawn from the normal publish-critique-refine cycle that defines modern science.
It’s like what Reagan said about the democrat party: I didn’t leave them, they left me. Cold Fusioneers tried to publish their reports in the “normal” cycle and were dismissed.
Actually, I don’t talk about COPs usually. I talk about apparent excess power signals,
Right there I need to simply call bullshit.
What’cha been smokin’ dude?
Apparently not as good as the stuff you are.
Display More
Rigel
Member
332
Jun 21st 2017
#50
kirkshanahan,
I must say I love how you mumble. It’s refreshing to me, anyway if I may segue for a sec’ do you have any idea how ‘the good Doctore’ salted his ash? Just speculation will do. And don’t truncate the ash on the Rossi I would like to know your point of view.
Member
846
Jun 21st 2017
#52
Quote from kirkshanahan
CFers have NOT evaluated my criticisms appropriately
I have responded to this post and others but my posts are moved to another thread without notice. I can see how that disrupts the narrative.
Zephir_AWT
Member
1,089
Jun 22nd 2017
#55
Quote
Zephir_AWT: “Results with palladium are way more reliable.” Not really…
IMO you’re just poorly informed about subject.
Today the most replicated experiments are based on Palladium Deuterium, electrolysis and gas permeation. Production of heat have been proven above 50 sigma, and at COP above 2.
1
Zephir_AWT
Member
1,089
Jun 23rd 2017
#57
Quote
Then Zeph included a favorite figure used by McKubre
Just because at the case of another LENR systems the reproducibility is not so good for to construct such a graph. Once you find another one - for example with platinum - I’ll link it as an evidence of LENR reliability as well.
Quote
So the McK figure is a pretty graphic used to promote a pet idea, which under scrutiny involving the whole field, just doesn’t hold up
This curve has been confirmed many experiments. On palladium without optimal hydrogenation the LENR doesn’t run well.
Quote
So McK’s plot is only applicable to Pd chemistry at best
Which is why I didn’t talk about platinum or whatever else less reproducible LENR catalyst.
Edited once, last by Zephir_AWT (Jun 23rd 2017).
Online
Alan Fletcher
Member
718
Jun 23rd 2017
#59
I’m wondering why the calibration constant shift peaks at a maximum D/Pd loading of 0.94
1
Zephir_AWT
Member
1,089
Jun 23rd 2017
#60
Quote
Did anyone else notice that Zeph seemed to miss the entire point of my previous reply to him...?
You missed the point instead: I told, that most reproducible LENR is this one with palladium, you started to oppose it with some twaddling about platinum and another off topic things, so I ignored it. I’m just keeping the line of discussion strictly.
Edited once, last by Zephir_AWT (Jun 23rd 2017).
2
Online
Alan Fletcher
Member
718
Jun 23rd 2017
#63
Quote from kirkshanahan
Short answer...no enough knowledge available to know.
Long answer...speculating...
.... THAT is not the question I asked.
I also note that you’ve made a transition in your question that many haven’t made yet. Associating CCS with that graphic requires connecting apparent excess heat to an ATER/CCS issue. Most refuse to even consider such.
Display Less
IF the measured COP is real and not Calibration Constant Shift, then we can indeed inquire as to why they get more successes at a particular loading.
But you say it’s a calorimetry error, and there was no actual excess heat. But what artifact of the calorimeter would know whether the loading was 0.94 or 0.92 ? Why weren’t there as many false reports of success at 0.92 or 0.96? (The plot doesn’t indicate how many FAILED runs there were at each loading for the SRI and ENEA data).
(Also see Letts and Cravens / Beyond Reasonable Doubt)
That diagram is from : http://www.currentscience.ac.in/Volumes/108/04/0495.pdf
It references two papers which I haven’t found yet.
10. McKubre, M. C. H., Crouch-Baker, S., Riley, A. M., Smedley, S.
I. and Tanzella, F. L., Excess power observations in electrochemical
studies of the D/Pd system; the influence of loading. In Frontier
of Cold Fusion (ed. Ikegami, H.), Universal Academy Press,
Tokyo, 1993, pp. 5–19.
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHexcesspowe.pdf Fig 7
11. Kunimatsu, K., Hasegawa, N., Kubota, A., Imai, N., Ishikawa, M.,
Akita, H. and Tsuchida, Y., Deuterium loading ratio and excess
heat generation during electrolysis of heavy water by a palladium
cathode in a closed cell using a partially immersed fuel cell anode.
In Frontiers of Cold Fusion (ed. Ikegami, H.), Universal Academy
Press, Tokyo, 1993, pp. 31–45
Edited 3 times, last by Alan Fletcher: link to paper with McKubre plot, link to ref 10 (Jun 23rd 2017).
Online
Alan Fletcher
Member
718
Jun 23rd 2017
#65
Short summary : I see nothing in McKubre Ref 10 fig 7 to indicate a sudden onset of Calorometric Callibration Shift Errors.
Edited once, last by Alan Fletcher: McKubre Fig 7 (Jun 23rd 2017).
1
Online
Alan Fletcher
Member
718
Jun 23rd 2017
#66
Likewise Kunimatsu http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/KunimatsuKdeuteriuml.pdf Fig 13
Edited 2 times, last by Alan Fletcher (Jun 23rd 2017).
1
Member
846
Jun 23rd 2017
#67
Quote from kirkshanahan
I saw those responses today. My response: No, the CFers have not responded appropriately.
My response: Yes, the CFeers have responded appropriately. Your tldr argument is something to go over piece by piece at a later time when I’m not on probation.
Member
846
Jun 23rd 2017
#68
Quote from kirkshanahan
But I hate to tell you, you’re going to have a very hard time reaching any valid conclusions about CF if you don’t read.
I read. I just stop reading bloviaters.
Member
846
Jun 23rd 2017
#69
Quote from Alan Fletcher
Likewise Kunimatsu http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/KunimatsuKdeuteriuml.pdf Fig 13
Considering the title of this thread, how many times do you think the PF AHE has been replicated in peer reviewed journals? And where are those reports?
Member
846
Jun 23rd 2017
#70
Quote from Alan Fletcher
Short summary : I see nothing in McKubre Ref 10 fig 7 to indicate a sudden onset of Calorometric Callibration Shift Errors.
Excellent graph. How many of those data points represent peer reviewed Pons-Fleischmann AHE replications?
Member
846
Jun 23rd 2017
#71
Quote from kirkshanahan
I have avoided the Rossi stuff because it’s all anecdotal information, and you can’t do science from anecdotes. Maybe they can inspire you to do some work, but science requires reproduction, and Rossi never seems to do anything the same twice....
That was a smart move. Rossi isn’t a scientist, he’s a businessman. He stated explicitly that he didn’t want to do ANY demos except to paying customers, but when Focardi started dying of cancer and wanted recognition for his work, he relented.
Trying to piece information from Rossi’s statements is an excercise in induction, not deduction. Scientists don’t know how to do inductive reasoning.
1
Online
Alan Fletcher
Member
718
Jun 24th 2017
#72
Quote from kevmolenr@gmail.com
Excellent graph. How many of those data points represent peer reviewed Pons-Fleischmann AHE replications?
Ummm ... those ARE the results (each DOT is one run by SRI and INRA respectively) published in the proceedings of the peer-reviewed ICCF3.
So ..... ALL OF THEM.
Zephir_AWT
Member
1,089
Jun 24th 2017
#73
Quote
Your statement mixes two separate types of experiments which have different issues involved
They were both about palladium and as such supposed to support my point (palladium is currently most reproducible (and also reproduced) LENR system). The number and coherence of experimental points linked above with A. Fletcher speaks for itself.
Wyttenbach
Verified User
3,887
Jun 24th 2017
#74
Quote from kirkshanahan
5.) The McKubre figure illustrates a biased point of view. Enough similar results at D/Pd<0.85 exist to again indicate loading level is of secondary importance.
Kirk always likes to stay in a safe haven. So don’t fight him with old stuff!
Recently (couldn’t find the ref...) Storms? told that only one initial Pd loading around 1:1 is needed. As soon as the reaction is running, it goes on even with loads below 50%! Today loadings above 1:1 are possible and in mixed systems they already talk of factors 2-3.
But Kirk is absolutely right if he says Pdxy D-D fusion is a surface effect.
Please do longer discuss old style Pd-D-D fusion experiments. These may be interesting as demos or as a theory test-bed. Nobody intends to burn down (transmute) Palladium any more, if there are cheaper material around. Mixed fuels containing PdZrOCuNiAlLi work even with hydrogen. See newest Asti papers.
Iwamure Asti : IwamuraYanomaloushea.pdf
Or Hagelstein : lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Hagelsteinnewphysica.pdf
A broad discussion : V.F. Zelensky
1
Online
Alan Fletcher
Member
718
Jun 24th 2017
#75
Quote from Wyttenbach
Please do longer discuss old style Pd-D-D fusion experiments.
Iwamure Asti : IwamuraYanomaloushea.pdf
Or Hagelstein : lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Hagelsteinnewphysica.pdf
A broad discussion : V.F. Zelensky
Ah ... but even Zelensky refers to the McKubre (a version of McKubre with error bars) and Kunimatsu results, so my time wasn’t wasted! .
Online
Shane D.
Moderator
7,501
Jun 24th 2017
#76
Well, at least there is still some funding of LENR by the DOE. This clip is from the article posted today about Dr. Claytor receiving the Preparata Award at the recent International Workshop on Anomalies:
“While at LANL, in addition to on and off research into LENR funded by Laboratory Directed Research and Development, Director’s Reserve and technology transfer funds.”
The LDRD is funded by the DOE:
Laboratory Directed Research and Development (LDRD)
The Department of Energy’s Engine of Discovery
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is charged with a large and complex mission—“to ensure America’s security and prosperity by addressing its energy, environmental, and nuclear challenges through transformative science and technology solutions.” The DOE executes this mission to a large extent at its seventeen national laboratories, a group of institutions which were created and are supported by the Federal government to perform research and development (R&D) in areas of importance to the DOE and, where appropriate, to other Federal agencies.
Today, the national laboratories are performing R&D in support of DOE’s goals in catalyzing the transformation of the nation’s energy system, securing our leadership in clean energy, maintaining a vibrant scientific and engineering effort, and enhancing nuclear security through defense, nonproliferation, and environmental efforts. In recognition of the importance of the long-term health of these institutions, the U.S. Congress has authorized and encouraged them to devote a relatively small portion of their research effort to creative and innovative work that serves to maintain their vitality in science and technology (S&T) disciplines relevant to DOE and national security missions. Since 1991, this effort has formally been called Laboratory Directed Research and Development (LDRD).
Member
846
Jun 24th 2017
#77
Quote from Alan Fletcher
Ummm ... those ARE the results (each DOT is one run by SRI and INRA respectively) published in the proceedings of the peer-reviewed ICCF3.
So ..... ALL OF THEM.
Now if we can only get guys like Shanahan to agree with your statement, we have a place to begin. How many dots is that, anyways?
THHuxleynew
Verified User
4,707
Jun 24th 2017
#78
Quote from Alan Fletcher
Short summary : I see nothing in McKubre Ref 10 fig 7 to indicate a sudden onset of Calorometric Callibration Shift Errors.
Alan: and everyone else following.
I find your argument here impossible to follow. Perhaps I’m being dim, and you will correct me; but otherwise you (plural) are all misunderstanding the point.
CCS errors from this cell of an ATER type would follow from the special active environment on the electrodes created from the D electrolysis that allows ATER. That is almost the same condition (and equally difficult to pin down) as claimed LENR. So the two hypotheses cannot be distinguished from that graph - they both fit. The difference is that one is a chemical/caorimetric explanation, and the other is a nuclear but surprising because does not seem in other ways to be nuclear mechanism.
As always, should Abd’s pet Austin experiment show convincing evidence of He generated, and correlation between He and excess heat from D at the expected ratio, that statement could be revised.
Also, CCS can be ruled out with a bit more work from people conducting experiments. But it is systematic over a wide range of F&P style experiments and does explain the results - though without extra work that explanation must be speculative.
Online
Alan Fletcher
Member
718
Jun 24th 2017
#79
Quote from Alan Fletcher
Ummm ... those ARE the results (each DOT is one run by SRI and INRA respectively) published in the proceedings of the peer-reviewed ICCF3.
So ..... ALL OF THEM.
Clarification on McKubre. One RUN of a cell takes about 800 hours, with useful results between 300 and 780 hours.
Each DOT on the graph is a reading of the calculated loading and excess power at some (unspecified) time for this ONE cell.
Note: this is the experiment which exploded, with one fatality, 70 hours later.
I don’t have the time (or much inclination) to follow up on kirkshannahan’s comments, particularly as it’s very old data.
JedRothwell
Verified User
Reactions Received
10,094
Jun 24th 2017
#80
For people unaware of the context of this discussion, let me point out that Shananan is a crackpot and his claims were disproved years ago. See:
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MarwanJanewlookat.pdf