Eric Walker
Verified User
3,426
Jun 26th 2017
#102
Quote from kirkshanahan
I repeat. I have no obligation to do anything at this point. If I wanted to follow up, I could of course. If I don’t, there is no rule, written or unwritten, that I am violating.
Do you acknowledge that your CCS is something new, not documented before as such in electrochemistry or calorimetry? If so, it must be shown to be real, and not simply an intellectual exercise. Someone has to do that empirical investigation. You are the one who claims the CCS is a thing. That puts you on the hook for doing the legwork; or, at least, no one needs to stop what they’re doing and worry about it too much until someone takes the initiative of doing the necessary legwork. LENR researchers are in the same boat when it comes to their own claims about LENR.
kirkshanahan
Member
543
Jun 26th 2017
#103
Quote from Eric Walker
Do you acknowledge that your CCS is something new, not documented before as such in electrochemistry or calorimetry?
No. In fact it is not new. Unless you’re talking about the abbreviation itself, which I don’t think you are. Every scientist or engineer should know that a system is only calibratable if it is stable. If it is not, then a new calibration is required every single time you use it. The ‘CCS’ is just an abbreviation used to talk about the fact that this is apparently what happens with ‘active’ electrodes in an F&P cell.
Quote from Eric Walker
If so, it must be shown to be real, and not simply an intellectual exercise. Someone has to do that empirical investigation. You are the one who claims the CCS is a thing. That puts you on the hook for doing the legwork; or, at least, no one needs to stop what they’re doing and worry about it too much until someone takes the initiative of doing the necessary legwork. LENR researchers are in the same boat when it comes to their own claims about LENR.
I pointed out that the interpretation methodology of the F&P-type CF experiments was susceptible to a particular kind of error. It is incumbent upon those doing the susceptible interpretation to prove that is not what is happening.
I offered a possible mundane chemical mechanism that would seem to conform to the experimental observations and that would produce a CCS as a help to those trying to understand the phenomenon experimentally. They are free to use it or not, or to come up with other alternatives.
{added} What they are NOT free to do is misrepresent what I have done for the purpose of misleading people, which is what Storms did in his 2007 book, what the “group of 10” did in the paper Rothwell keeps referencing, or what Hagelstein did in his 2015 “MIT” course of CF.
Edited once, last by kirkshanahan (Jun 26th 2017).
Eric Walker
Verified User
3,426
Jun 26th 2017
#104
Quote from kirkshanahan
No. In fact it is not new. Unless you’re talking about the abbreviation itself, which I don’t think you are. Every scientist or engineer should know that a system is only calibratable if it is stable. If it is not, then a new calibration is required every single time you use it. The ‘CCS’ is just an abbreviation used to talk about the fact that this is apparently what happens with ‘active’ electrodes in an F&P cell.
Your CCS goes beyond simple instability and needing to have a system in a steady state in order to be able to calibrate it. You further suggest that it is possible to have a situation where the (mis-) calibrated system systematically overestimates the output, in contrast to what would be expected from random error, along the lines of the misreading of your position by the 10 authors for which you take them to task. I do not know of a documented suggestion about this systematic overestimation of output in calorimetry prior to your papers; do you?\\\\
JedRothwell
Verified User
10,094
• Jun 26th 2017
• #106
Quote from maryyugo
Are these prone to the same calibration errors?
No.
Quote from maryyugo
If not, have any credible results been obtained supporting LENR with these?
Yes. Many times.
Rather than ask questions like this, why don’t you read the literature? Oh, wait, I forgot. You and Axil don’t read anything or know anything. Your job is to pontificate in perfect ignorance. He believes every claim — including stuff he makes up — and you believe nothing.
``
JedRothwell
Verified User
10,094
Jun 26th 2017
#109
Quote from maryyugo
Reading most LENR papers is not informative for me.
Sure. As you say, you get information from Washington Post reporters. (Who get information from me, and then garble it.)
Quote from maryyugo
If this is a real phenomenon, after all these years, we should expect much more in the way of proof and workable demonstrations.
Absolutely. Just because Nature and the Washington Post and the rest of the mass media accuse scientists of being lunatics, criminals and frauds; and just because scientists have been harassed and fired for even talking about cold fusion; and there is no funding, we should expect much more in proof. Peer reviewed replications at high sigma from 180 labs is not enough. We should have 1,800 labs. Maybe if we had that many, you would read a paper? Naa! Just kidding. Of course you wouldn’t. It is too confusing.
Eric Walker
Verified User
3,426
Jun 26th 2017
#110
Quote from kirkshanahan
Not specifically no. That was why it was worthy of publication. It showed a new aspect of calorimetry, and theoretically pointed out that baseline noise is not the dominant error term in these systems.
Your suggestion is new, as I have been saying. What you did was to propose a new aspect of calorimetry that has yet to be given a solid empirical foundation. In applying your suggestion to the calorimetry seen in LENR experiments, at the electrode recombination and various other proposals of yours could clearly be things in your imagination rather than something for electrochemists to worry about. You cannot take a shortcut and bypass the empirical method on something like this.
1
Eric Walker
Verified User
3,426
Jun 26th 2017
#113
Kirk, I have no issue with what little I know of your analysis of errors. It’s a very interesting line of inquiry, one that I hope people with relevant expertise can discuss further here. I will readily agree with you that any work that is genuinely in the noise is inherently unsatisfying and unpersuasive.
What we are discussing is not that part of your work, which seems uncontroversial. We’re talking about the elements of your papers in which you introduce novel suggestions for what is going on in LENR electrochemical systems. How do I know for sure you’ve introduced new notions that have yet to be given an empirical basis? Because 10 people with expertise in electrochemistry or related fields believe that to be the case, even allowing that they have misunderstood and misrepresented important parts of your critique. It is these novel suggestions that must be established before they will provide an effective criticism. Until that is done, LENR researchers can heed or ignore these parts of your critique without being remiss in their duty to respond to criticisms.
I’m not at all a scientist. I don’t even know how to calculate AC input power or read a circuit diagram. I would spill dangerous chemicals everywhere if I ever stepped foot in a lab. I’m just making a small but subtle point about who has an obligation to do what, given what we know.
1
THHuxleynew
Verified User
4,707
Jun 26th 2017
#114
Quote from Eric Walker
Your CCS goes beyond simple instability and needing to have a system in a steady state in order to be able to calibrate it. You further suggest that it is possible to have a situation where the (mis-) calibrated system systematically overestimates the output, in contrast to what would be expected from random error, along the lines of the misreading of your position by the 10 authors for which you take them to task. I do not know of a documented suggestion about this systematic overestimation of output in calorimetry prior to your papers; do you?
Eric, let me answer this.
Kirk’s proposed ATER mechanism redistributes heat in a way that would (for all cell layouts with wires coming out the top) mean that ATER heat, because in liquid, is dissipated less than recombiner heat (since the recombiner is at the top of the cell). This is a consequence of a specific cell topology which is nevertheless used a lot (maybe universally - I don’t know) in F&P-type closed cell experiments. It results therefore in CCS being positive.
CCS in general could be positive or negative, and as Kirk says it is not new, just a restatement of how changes in cell heat distribution can affect calorimetry.
\
Member
846
Jun 26th 2017
#116
Quote from kirkshanahan
ROFL. My detection of the CCS problem was from one experimental sequence involving 10 current sweeps. From that I inductively pointed out the the CCS observed there can occur in any type of calibrated experiment (not just calorimetry).
If your theory is derived inductively then by the rules of induction there is a strong possibility your theory is flat wrong. Like I said, most scientists don’t know how to reason inductively.
Eric Walker
Verified User
3,426
Jun 26th 2017
#117
Quote from THHuxleynew
Kirk says it is not new, just a restatement of how changes in cell heat distribution can affect calorimetry.
Ok, THH. If it is mere restatements of existing electrochemical knowledge that have gotten all of the LENR electrochemists rolling their eyes, I encourage you to double-check your conclusion with an academic electrochemist you know or one at a university near where you live and report back what you learn.
One important detail not to lose sight of: there is more to what Kirk is proposing than ATER.
THHuxleynew
Verified User
4,707
Jun 27th 2017
#118
Quote from Eric Walker
Ok, THH. If it is mere restatements of existing electrochemical knowledge that have gotten all of the LENR electrochemists rolling their eyes, I encourage you to double-check your conclusion with an academic electrochemist you know or one at a university near where you live and report back what you learn.
One important detail not to lose sight of: there is more to what Kirk is proposing than ATER.
Eric,
you need to be more [precise. CCS is just obvious. I’m sorry. you need merely decent knowledge of heat flow to see it.
ATER is indeed surprising. The idea that some unusual surface condition in electrodes could make a reaction happen that normally does not.... Sounds very strange does it not? A bit like LENR. But of course it is less strange than LENR because there are fewer unusual characteristics to explain away.
Whether CCS/ATER explains all the good quality excess heat findings I don’t know. It would need careful attention. But, without that attention, it is correct to assert that it could explain all of them. (Not all of the excess heat findings - for example Parkhomov - but all the ones from careful very well controlled calorimetry).
What i’m saying is not very strong, nor contentious. It is merely keeping open a possibility that has not been closed and has many characteristics (including the element of surprise to electrochemists) shared with LENR.
For as long as this careful attention is not given to the matter the closed cell F&P style experiments have a significant question-mark. It is specific, and closable in principle if those motivated to support these experiments cared to pay attention and try to close it. As long as they dismiss the idea without looking at it that will not happen.
Eric Walker
Verified User
3,426
Jun 27th 2017
#119
Quote from THHuxleynew
ATER is indeed surprising. The idea that some unusual surface condition in electrodes could make a reaction happen that normally does not.... Sounds very strange does it not? A bit like LENR. But of course it is less strange than LENR because there are fewer unusual characteristics to explain away.
Not only is ATER surprising, it has yet to be empirically tested to see what would actually happen to the measurements. If you could intentionally get recombination to occur at the cathode, e.g., maybe with a bubbler or something, would you get something that looks like excess heat as seen in LENR electrochemical results? If yes, that is indeed interesting. If no, then our ATER is not a very promising example of a surprising result. In that case it would be both surprising and not relevant.
But back to the (inescapably) general point: a number of LENR electrochemists are of the impression that X that Kirk is proposing, where X is some combination of suggestions, has not been seen before. Are they wrong? If they are not wrong, then it seems to me that there needs to be some empirical vetting of X. There has to be some bar for suggestions to cross over before you start worrying about them.
THHuxleynew
Verified User
4,707
Jun 27th 2017
#120
Quote from Eric Walker
Not only is ATER surprising, it has yet to be empirically tested to see what would actually happen to the measurements. If you could intentionally get recombination to occur at the cathode, e.g., maybe with a bubbler or something, would you get something that looks like excess heat as seen in LENR electrochemical results? If yes, that is indeed interesting. If no, then our ATER is not a very promising example of a surprising result. In that case it would be both surprising and not relevant.
But back to the (inescapably) general point: a number of LENR electrochemists believe that X that Kirk is proposing, where X is some combination of suggestions, has not been seen before. Are they wrong? If they are not wrong, then there needs to be some empirical vetting of X.
Well, let us put it this way. The many excess heat experiments are empirical evidence of something anomalous. They support ATER, or LENR. They are specific to neither, and neither ATER nor LENR has highly specific empirical evidence. I don’t see that “ATER has not been seen before” is any more or less true than “LENR has not been seen before”. What is sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander. As you sort of hint, ATER has the merit (as a theory) that it could be reasonable easily disproved. I don’t think LENR could ever be so disproved.
Online
Alan Smith
Administrator
12,941
Jun 27th 2017
#121
Quote from THHuxleynew
ATER is indeed surprising. The idea that some unusual surface condition in electrodes could make a reaction happen that normally does not.... Sounds very strange does it not? A bit like LENR. But of course it is less strange than LENR because there are fewer unusual characteristics to explain away.
I think that this is commonly referred to as ‘catalysis’.
Zephir_AWT
Member
1,089
Jun 27th 2017
#122
From geometric perspective there exists interesting analogy in catalytic behavior of palladium for chemical and for nuclear reactions. The palladium often catalyses hydrogenations because it strongly absorbs hydrogen, thus transferring the reaction running in volume phase (3D) into a reaction running at surface (2D). It’s evident, if we would convert the same reaction to 1D, it would run even faster - and this is just what the palladium does for nuclear reactions.
If we look at the metal lattice, their long lines of atoms could behave like the pistons - especially these ones along boundaries of crystal grains and similar defects. In addition, the energy of collisions along lines of colliding balls has a tendency to multiply - it’s nicely demonstrated for example here. Therefore locally the energy of these attenuated low-dimensional collisions can reach the levels required for fusion.
This catalytic effect is visible in composition of products of cold fusion, which strongly favors the most stable helium, whereas during plasma fusion many neutrons and tritium is usually formed. These products also waste the energy of reaction, not to say they’re doing everything radioactive. But the cold fusion doesn’t release any neutrons which indicates, it favors the formation of harmless products in similar way, like the chemical catalysts. In similar way, the palladium in cars is used for promote complete burning of fuel into carbon dioxide.
Edit: we discussed it extensively here 1, 2 - just because this forum lacks efficient full-text search and it behaves like the pile of manure covering the former insights with laeyers of another discussion, so we are pre-destined to reinvent the wheel again and again.
Edited once, last by Zephir_AWT (Jun 27th 2017).
Eric Walker
Verified User
3,426
Jun 27th 2017
#126
Quote from kirkshanahan
In the end reproducibility will answer the question. But it will be very difficult to attain reproducibility (which implies control of all relevant variables) when the experimentation is driven by the idea that the FPHE arises from a nuclear process if that is not true. In fact, the failure to reach a reproducible condition after many years of effort is a weak-to-moderate argument against the supposed nuclear nature.
Assuming there’s no E-Cat or IH-Cat on the horizon, I think LENR research will flourish or founder on whether someone is able to come up with a reproducible experiment that can be examined under different conditions and controls, which will allow identification of the mechanism (whatever it is). So I agree with your sentiment about reproducibility. Whether the current difficult-to-reproduce situation is a contraindication of a nuclear mechanism is more debatable.
Online
Alan Smith
Administrator
12,941
Jun 27th 2017
#127
kirkshanahan
I think you might find this paper of interest. One (at least) of the authors is a member of this forum - and occasional visitor.
Oscillatory Behaviour and Anomalous Heat Evolution in Recombination of H2 and O2 on Pd-based Catalysts
Gas flow-through microcalorimetry has been applied to study the Pd/Al2O3 type catalysts in the exothermic hydrogen recombination process: H2 + O2 → H2O, in view of the potential application in the passive autocatalytic recombination (PAR) technology. The flow mode experiments revealed thermokinetic oscillations, i.e., the oscillatory rate of heat evolution accompanying the process and the corresponding oscillations in the differential heat of process, in sync with oscillatory conversion of hydrogen. .....
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10…b00686?journalCode=iecred
Ahlfors
Verified User
1,402
Jun 27th 2017
#128
Alan Smith
MICROSCAL FMC gas flow-through microcalorimeter
Groszek Aleksander Jerzy
https://www.google.com/patents/US3467501
1
Member
846
Jun 27th 2017
#129
Quote from Zephir_AWT
...transferring the reaction running in volume phase (3D) into a reaction running at surface (2D). It’s evident, if we would convert the same reaction to 1D, it would run even faster - and this is just what the palladium does for nuclear reactions.
If we look at the metal lattice, their long lines of atoms could behave like the pistons - especially these ones along boundaries of crystal grains and similar defects. In addition, the energy of collisions along lines of colliding balls has a tendency to multiply - it’s nicely demonstrated for example here. Therefore locally the energy of these attenuated low-dimensional collisions can reach the levels required for fusion.
Yes, that demonstration of how one particle in a simple momentum transfer generates 800% more energy than “ordinary chemical energy of collisions” is a good demonstration of 1D effects. I also like how she brought it around to Supernovas, which in recent discussions there is a push for the existence of Bosenovas in LENR.
In 1D, atoms become liquid at much higher temperature, as demonstrated in Luttinger Liquids. And one dimensional BECs could be forming at these much higher temperatures.
All of this I have discussed in my hypothesis of the V1DLLBEC — Vibrating 1 Dimensional Luttinger Liquid Bose Einstein Condensate.
https://www.google.com/search?…0i20k1j0i10k1._r8h9sC94Xs
Ahlfors
Verified User
1,402
Jun 27th 2017
#130
http://www.sciencedirect.com/s…icle/pii/0021951780900032
Member
846
Jun 27th 2017
#131
Quote from kirkshanahan
Let’s go through this once more,
Some of the best scientists looked at your hypothesis and determined it is wrong. Eric Walker said that you should generate some empirical data to back up your claim. The hypothetical case you bring up is that instead of multiplying by 3 and adding 0.7 it appears the empirical case is more like multiplying by 3.1 and adding 0.66. Would you be shouting so loudly if that were the case? (I know, no one ever addresses a hypothetical. Just consider it to be one of the many unanswered questions you leave on the table, right alongside the other researchers’ unanswered questions.)
Member
846
Jun 27th 2017
#132
Quote from THHuxleynew
The many excess heat experiments are empirical evidence of something anomalous.
How many? This thread was started with 153 peer reviewed excess heat replications. Jed said later on that there were 180 labs with results. Where does an ordinary scientist begin his inquiry, with those “first 100 or so replications done by a who’s who of electrochemistry”? Or is it with essentially zero replications as proposed by the hyperskeptics?
Online
Alan Smith
Administrator
12,941
Jun 28th 2017
#134
I have no argument with your definition of catalysis, Mary. Depending in its ‘rate constant’ a catalyst can increase the rate of a reaction from almost zero to ‘considerable’. Under certain circumstances this can mean making a reaction ‘not normally considered possible’ in that the rate is so slow that detection reaction products is very difficult or in some systems impossible, into one that is ‘moderate to vigorous’. I agree with you btw, you are no chemist.
THHuxleynew
Verified User
4,707
Jun 28th 2017
#135
Quote from Alan Smith
I have no argument with your definition of catalysis, Mary. Depending in its ‘rate constant’ a catalyst can increase the rate of a reaction from almost zero to ‘considerable’. Under certain circumstances this can mean making a reaction ‘not normally considered possible’ in that the rate is so slow that detection reaction products is very difficult or in some systems impossible, into one that is ‘moderate to vigorous’. I agree with you btw, you are no chemist.
Chemical catalysis is well understood, and the reasons for it - adjacent atoms will skew quantum orbitals and can make electron transitions otherwise unlikely likely.
Nuclear catalysis from some chemical structure) is unexpected because the things specific to a chemical structure - electron orbitals etc - are way different in length scale from what is needed to affect nuclear forces and therefore not likely to have a large affect on nuclear reaction rates (though electric fields do have some affect, for obvious reasons, especially very strong ones). But going from stable, to noticeable fusion reaction, is a good deal more than just some effect.
Eric Walker
Verified User
3,426
Jun 28th 2017
#136
Quote from THHuxleynew
But going from stable, to noticeable fusion reaction, is a good deal more than just some effect.
I think this is one of several reasons that it is critically important to disentangle claims of fusion from LENR empirical reports. The latter are measurements that are reported, and the former are high-level conclusions derived from those measurements on the basis of often contradictory evidence.
Member
846
Jul 26th 2017
#138
Over on a different thread, Jed says that the LENR effect has been replicated 17,000 times.
Clearance Items
The Real Roger Barker wrote:
So tell me Jed, why were they not able to validate the Pons Fleichmann effect on a regular basis?
Jed Rothwell: They did validate Fleischmann Pons on a regular basis. Roughly 17,000 times according to a grad student at the Institute of High Energy Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, at 180 labs according to Ed Storms. (Not me. I didn’t count ‘em.)
They are not replicating on a regular basis now because they are dead. Of old age.
The Real Roger Barker wrote:
17,000 times?! That would mean we should all be powering our homes with palladium based fusion reactors in our basements. We know this is not happening so someone got something wrong here.
Jed Rothwell: You misunderstand. That is a tally of positive experimental runs. Those were mainly small devices. In some cases, they were run 100 at a time, in a 10 x 10 array, or 16 at a time. None of those devices is working at the moment as far as I know. Most were consumed in destructive testing.
ADD: Plus, as I recall from the paper, the tally included multiple test runs for the same device (same cathode) in some cases.
The paper is: He, J., Nuclear fusion inside condense matters. Front. Phys. China, 2007. 1: p. 96-102., Table 1. That’s HE Jing-tang, Institute of High Energy Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, but I think a grad student compiled the table. I did not study it carefully but it looks like it is in the ballpark.
JedRothwell
Verified User
10,094
Jul 27th 2017
#140
Quote from kevmolenr@gmail.com
How many? This thread was started with 153 peer reviewed excess heat replications. Jed said later on that there were 180 labs with results. Where does an ordinary scientist begin his inquiry, with those “first 100 or so replications done by a who’s who of electrochemistry”? Or is it with essentially zero replications as proposed by the hyperskeptics?
Do not mix up apples and oranges. These are different tallies of different things.
Storms listed 180 labs in Table 2 of his first book. That is the number of labs that replicated excess heat. The number that replicated tritium and other effects are listed in other tables. Some labs replicated both heat and tritium. There were actually more than 180 labs, but Storms did not include them all in his database. 180 is enough to be sure, in any case. Five would be enough, in my opinion.
The number of experimental runs greatly exceeds the number of labs, because some labs run hundreds or thousands of tests, typically in an array.
Not all of these labs published papers in peer-reviewed journals. On the other hand, some published more than one paper. I list most of the peer-reviewed papers that are mainly about heat here:
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJtallyofcol.pdf
This is a tally by D. Britz, not me.
Regarding the “essentially zero replications as proposed by the hyperskeptics” that has no basis in realty. Anyone can go to an academic library at a university and find hundreds of papers describing replications of cold fusion. If you want to argue that every single one of these replications was a mistake, you are arguing that the experimental method of science does not work. If that were true, we humans would still be living in caves. Some number of experiments are likely to be wrong, because people make mistakes. But people do not always make mistakes, day after day, year after year. Nothing would work if they did. When you get enough positive replications, done by a large number of people, the likelihood that every one of them is wrong is roughly comparable to the likelihood that today 1,000 electrochemists will simultaneously lose control of their cars and crash into telephone poles.