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
interested observer
Member
2,435
Jun 24th 2017
#81
The concept of a pathological skeptic has some utility. It is well-suited to Holocaust deniers, moon landing deniers, flatearthers, and the like. Of course, in websites of fringe beliefs (and sorry guys, LENR is still a fringe belief), the term simply means anybody who doesn’t agree with your view of the world. Another perfectly good term turned into a meaningless epithet.
1
Online
Alan Smith
Administrator
12,941
Jun 24th 2017
#82
Quote from JedRothwell
For people unaware of the context of this discussion, let me point out that Shananan is a crackpot......
We’re all crackpots here Jed, just that some people seem to use real crack.
2
axil
Verified User
1,717
Jun 24th 2017
#83
The relationship between loading percentage of hydrogen into the palladium lattice is the probability that metallic hydrogen will be produced by the compressive action of the palladium chemical bonds on hydrogen and the subsequent ejection from the palladium lattice. This probability will increase greatly if lithium is also present on the surface of the palladium. The pressure required to produce metallic hydrogen is reduced by 400% when lithium is present over pure metal.
JedRothwell
Verified User
10,094
Jun 24th 2017
#84
Quote from interested observer
Of course, in websites of fringe beliefs (and sorry guys, LENR is still a fringe belief), the term simply means anybody who doesn’t agree with your view of the world. Another perfectly good term turned into a meaningless epithet.
I do not use the term to mean that. In the case of Shanahan, I mean someone who proposes theories or hypotheses that violate elementary laws of physics, are physically impossible & absurd, and that experiments have shown are completely wrong. As you see from the rebuttal to Shanahan, his claims fit all of these categories.
Another thing that makes him a crackpot is the fact that he does not realize his claims have no basis in theory or experiment. A non-crackpot person might make a wild claim that violates the textbook laws, but he will point out that his claim violates these laws. Fleischmann and Pons, for example, claimed that they saw nuclear fusion at ~1 W that did not produce a fatal level of neutron radiation. They understood this violates the known laws of physics. They agreed with that, but they showed experimental evidence that supports their claims and appears to violate the textbook. Obviously, they were old-fashioned scientists who feel that when theory and experiment conflict, the experiment must be right, and the theory must be revised. Younger, modern scientists treat the textbooks as holy writ that cannot be questioned and cannot be wrong, so they throw out experiments instead. Fleischmann, Pons and I regard this as the extreme opposite of science. It is a weird form of religion instead. What Shanahan practices is neither old-fashioned experiment-based science nor the modern textbook based holy writ version, because his claims violate both. I don’t know what to call it, but I think crackpot is a good description.
Edited once, last by JedRothwell (Jun 25th 2017).
3
THHuxleynew
Verified User
4,707
Jun 25th 2017
#88
Quote from JedRothwell
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
Jed. I ignore the personal comment about Shanahan - except to note that it does not in my book constitute any argument for disbelief. Just as somone saying the same of an LENR proponent would be no argument.
You refer to Marwan et al’s contribution to the debate, without comparing that with Shanahan’s response (his white paper published here). you may feel the fact that has never been published ensures it is of bad quality. I’ve read it, compared it with marwan, and the earlier stuff. Shanahan makes valid points which are not answered by Marwan et al. Both, in that some of Marwan et al’s arguments are shown logically wrong, and because some of the points Shanahan has made are not fully addressed by those arguments. That comment, which I make, is a fact, not a judgement. Notice the qualifying some.
That does not mean Shanahan is correct. It does mean that excluding his carefully writtem and substantive points from proper discussion, as Marwan et al do here, is improper.
What M et al do is to say that in their judgement Shanahan’s ideas are wrong. That is fair enough. Just as it is fair for me to say that in my jusgement LENR is wrong. What is not fair (and would not be fair if I did it) is to close down debate, nor refuse to deal with cogent contrary arguments in private or public while continuing to hold the position that these F&P style closed cell experimental results must indicate LENR.
LENR has no clearly understoof mechanism, so the bar here for an alternative explanation is low. Shanahan’s proposal is no way proven, but remains possible until comprehensively disproved. That has not been done and no fair-minded person reading Marwan et al, and Shanahan’s white paer, would say that is has been done. They might reckon that in their judgement Shanahan was wrong. That is a very different statement, and not sound unless a proper reply is made to Shanahan’s white paper.
1
THHuxleynew
Verified User
4,707
Jun 25th 2017
#89
Quote from maryyugo
Actually, there is a lot on the Internet to prove that Jed was bamboozled by Rossi and that the flavor of his responses to Rossi critics, now proven correct, who questioned him, was the same as his remarks to Shanahan.
That is true, and worth reflection. Jed is rightly popular here as somone who honestly states his views. The difference between him and me, both on IH vs Rossi and on Marwan et al versus Shanahan, is that I am much slower to state something as proven than Jed. I know that assumptions can be wrong, that judgement is often biassed (including my own).
That does not stop me from making judgements, or having biasses, just the same as Jed. But, when pressed especially, I am much less ready to defend a statement that I believe strongly is true but cannot actually substantiate. For me “I think that but if you disagree I cannot prove you wrong - even though I expect you are” is a usual state.
I don’t see any problem with these two positions. Some people (IHFB is a great example) are quick to reach judgement. IHFB’s mild hypocrisy is that he claims to be slower to reach judgement than others here, when in reality his views about IH represent a fixed judgement that he represents as purely factual but is in fact based on his assumptions.
Others are slower to reach judgement. That is sort of boring, and also sort of timid. But it is perfectly proper and I myself will defend it to the last keystroke.
THH
(Thomas Henry Huxley - Darwin’s Bulldog but also the person who coined the word agnostic because he strongly affirmed that he could not reach any judgement over the matter of whether God did or did not exist. At the time that was a big deal)
Edited 2 times, last by THHuxleynew (Jun 25th 2017).
Eric Walker
Verified User
3,426
Jun 25th 2017
#90
Quote from THHuxleynew
[1] LENR has no clearly understoof mechanism, so the bar here for an alternative explanation is low. Shanahan’s proposal is no way proven, but remains possible until comprehensively disproved. [2] That has not been done and no fair-minded person reading Marwan et al, and Shanahan’s white paer, would say that is has been done.
I’ve inserted numbers in brackets into your quote. With regard to point (1), let’s go with it for the sake of argument. We allow, then, that Kirk’s CCS might be a thing that might be demonstrated empirically somehow at some time in the future. Your point (2) does not follow as a consequence if you intended for the two to be connected. We will surely agree that the burden falls upon LENR researchers to show that LENR claims, which are varied and defy important expectations, are real in part, and not upon outside skeptics to show that LENR is not real. I cannot report something that I witnessed in my lab that seems to be LENR, and have you raise a good and standard objection, and then say that you must prove that what I said is wrong, or else my report stands. I must answer your objection with a tighter experiment that takes the objection into account or show that there is a logical flaw. Here the burden remains on me to show that some small LENR phenomenon is real, and not on you to set up an experiment to disprove it. This is because your objection was a standard one, and the claimant always carries the burden of evidence in science. By contrast, if your objection was that a whole new category of matter with different qualities was messing up my result, you would need to show that and not me.
Kirk’s CCS hypothesis suggests a novel and ambitious result that is not at all expected. It is similarly something that Kirk must do in making his CCS claim to show that it is real, and not something that LENR researchers must take active steps to show that it is not real. Kirk must prove his hypothesis with a series of experiments of his own, because the claim is his claim. For practical reasons, this is a subtle but important distinction. It can be expensive and time consuming to go on a wild goose chase by incorporating various controls that one suspects are not needed. This is not all or nothing, and there is an element of judgment involved here. But until Kirk establishes that his phenomenon exists and can under certain circumstances impeach mundane calorimetry, his CCS does not really cast further doubt on the mundane calorimetry seen in LENR experiments. There may be other objections that the researchers must attend to, but this objection is one that Kirk himself must move forward, or possibly someone who takes a special interest in it.
THHuxleynew
Verified User
4,707
Jun 25th 2017
#91
Quote from Eric Walker
I’ve inserted numbers in brackets into your quote. With regard to point (1), let’s go with it for the sake of argument. We allow, then, that Kirk’s CCS might be a thing that might be demonstrated empirically somehow at some time in the future. Your point (2) does not follow as a consequence if you intended for the two to be connected. We will surely agree that the burden falls upon LENR researchers to show that LENR claims, which are varied and defy important expectations, are real in part, and not upon outside skeptics to show that LENR is not real. I cannot report something that I witnessed in my lab that seems to be LENR, and have you raise a good and standard objection, and then say that you must prove that what I said is wrong, or else my report stands. I must answer your objection with a tighter experiment that takes the objection into account or show that there is a logical flaw. Here the burden remains on me to show that some small LENR phenomenon is real, and not on you to set up an experiment to disprove it. This is because your objection was a standard one, and the claimant always carries the burden of evidence in science. By contrast, if your objection was that a whole new category of matter with different qualities was messing up my result, you would need to show that and not me.
Kirk’s CCS hypothesis suggests a novel and ambitious result that is not at all expected. It is similarly something that Kirk must do in making his CCS claim to show that it is real, and not something that LENR researchers must take active steps to show that it is not real. Kirk must prove his hypothesis with a series of experiments of his own, because the claim is his claim. For practical reasons, this is a subtle but important distinction. It can be expensive and time consuming to go on a wild goose chase by incorporating various controls that one suspects are not needed. This is not all or nothing, and there is an element of judgment involved here. But until Kirk establishes that his phenomenon exists and can under certain circumstances impeach mundane calorimetry, his CCS does not really cast further doubt on the mundane calorimetry seen in LENR experiments. There may be other objections that the researchers must attend to, but this objection is one that Kirk himself must move forward, or possibly someone who takes a special interest in it.
Kirk’s work is in two parts. the first one - that cal changes (due most likely, but not exclusively, to conditions changing temp distribution in cell between control and active) can result in significant errors is uncontentious. It is a catch-all that should make such results without an explicit check for cal changes somewhat uncertain.
The second part, a proposed mechanism, is as you say novel and ambitious but not nearly as much so as LENR. It is veryy comparable. In both cases a specially prepared surface, loaded with D, is needed to cause the thing to happen. In the ATER case that thing is a plausible chemical reaction that clearly could in principle be catalysed by some surface condition. In the LENR case that is a nuclear reaction, catalysed by some surface condition.
The difference here is that Kirk proposes a specific (but maybe unlikely) mechanism that fits the data. There is no such specific mechanism relating to LENR that fits the data. You need somehow to deal with the lack of alternate reaction paths as well as the Coulomb barrier. Both these issues can be dealt with, but both are highly unexpected.
the difference between us is one of judgment, not fact. How do you way these various unlikelihoods? So I don’t expect it to be resolved. But, the judgement of people who think LENR is likley (or at least plausible) will be different from those who think the reverse and Shanahan’s proposal will stay on the table for everyone without such a view that something else extraordinary (LENR) is in fact likely.
That is then slightly circular because for some (though by no means all) the best evidence for thinking LENR likely comes from things that are possibly invalidated by Shanahan’s idea.
Online
Alan Smith
Administrator
12,941
Jun 25th 2017
#92
So what we are balancing here is one person’s thought experiments against many hundreds of data points from real experiments. I agree with Eric that Kirk should maybe think about providing some experimental evidence for his ideas.
THHuxleynew
Verified User
4,707
Jun 25th 2017
#93
Quote from Alan Smith
So what we are balancing here is one person’s thought experiments against many hundreds of data points from real experiments. I agree with Eric that Kirk should maybe think about providing some experimental evidence for his ideas.
What data from real experinents distinguishes between LENR and CCS? Both are hypothetical explanations for something that otherwise does not make sense. Why do you not have this same criteria for LENR (e.g. - prove it is nuclear)?
Eric Walker
Verified User
3,426
Jun 25th 2017
#94
Quote from THHuxleynew
The difference here is that Kirk proposes a specific (but maybe unlikely) mechanism that fits the data. There is no such specific mechanism relating to LENR that fits the data. You need somehow to deal with the lack of alternate reaction paths as well as the Coulomb barrier. Both these issues can be dealt with, but both are highly unexpected.
When considering LENR, LENR experiments and LENR theories, it is pretty important (as you know) to distinguish between broad experimental findings, on one hand, and more tentative conclusions, on the other. In the former category is the finding of a correlation of heat with helium in several PdD experiments, and, more generally, a finding that the amount of heat seen in excess of input is sometimes greater than can be accounted for by known chemistry. In the latter category of more tentative conclusions are such things as the notion that in PdD electrochemical experiments there is seen a fusion of deuterium to produce helium, the notion that palladium is somehow involved, and the notion that deuterium is a precursor to a fusion reaction. All of these more tentative conclusions are the proponents’ best guesses as to what is going on, gleaned from incomplete and often contradictory evidence. The latter category of tentative conclusions include all of the conclusions based upon a “preponderance of evidence,” as some people argue tirelessly for. Once LENR claims are stripped of the more tentative findings (ones that are obviously more tentative, despite advocates’ best efforts to argue otherwise), your objections about the lack of alternative reaction pathways and about the Coulomb barrier become premature, and, in that regard, no longer objections. I personally think the mixing of tentative, specific conclusions, with general, and more solid conclusions, has been to the field’s great detriment, as it seems to have locked in a whole generation of researchers into a certain set of assumptions that have been hard to step out of.
What is left when one excludes the more specific conclusions drawn on the basis of incomplete and contradictory evidence? A set of experimental findings that are more general, easier to defend, and, in my opinion, more interesting. It is no doubt in the spirit of the more general findings that Robert Duncan coined the phrase “anomalous heat effect.” It is with these experimental results that the likelihood of Kirk’s constant calibration shift hypothesis must be compared.
1
JedRothwell
Verified User
10,094
Jun 25th 2017
#95
Quote from THHuxleynew
Jed. I ignore the personal comment about Shanahan - except to note that it does not in my book constitute any argument for disbelief.
This is not a personal comment. Shanahan made various claims. Scientists responded to his claims in the paper I pointed to, and in various other papers. They showed that his arguments violate theory and there is no experimental evidence for them. That, to me, constitutes a crackpot view. This is not about him; it is about his theories and claims.
That’s all there is to it. The authors of that paper and I have said nothing about his personality or any other aspect of his person. I know nothing about him.
2
JedRothwell
Verified User
10,094
Jun 25th 2017
#96
Quote from THHuxleynew
What data from real experinents distinguishes between LENR and CCS?
There is excess heat. It is a calorimetric result. It can either be explained as LENR or as the CCS effect. The data set of evidence is exactly the same for both. * The question is, which explanation fits conventional textbook calorimetry better. The answer is LENR. It fulfills every expectation for calorimetry, albeit NOT for nuclear physics. In the 1990s, hundreds of leading experts on calorimetry — including many people from outside the field and outside of electrochemistry and nuclear physics — reviewed the calorimetry. They found no errors in the major experiments. In contrast, if the CCS theory were true, calorimetry would not work. It would be meaningless. All discoveries based on it going back to around 1840 would have to be thrown out, including the laws of thermodynamics. The CCS is equivalent to discovering that Ohm’s law does not work.
* That is to say, the data sets pointed to by Shanahan are exactly the same. However, there are many cold fusion experiments that flat out prove he is wrong. He will not discuss these or acknowledge that they exist. The CCS theory would only apply to a narrow range of experiments with one particular type of calorimeter. It cannot apply to Miles’ calorimeter with the copper sheath, or a Seebeck calorimeter because even if you could move the source of heat within the cell that would not affect the result. Shanahan may claim that it would, but that goes beyond his other claims.
In other words, in a closed cell where heat is measured in the cell, the CCS is at least plausible. The source of heat might move, affecting the calorimetry. Actual experiments prove that never happens, but it is conceivable that it might. However, when you measure the heat with a copper sheath, or in a location far outside the cell, the hypothesis is no longer plausible.
Edited 3 times, last by JedRothwell (Jun 26th 2017).