User talk:Kirk shanahan/Archives/2010/September

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Kirk shanahan. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Please be careful at Cold fusion.

[1]. Dr. Shanahan, you placed your reply to Judith in the middle of my reply to her. That wasn't proper. You had at least two legitimate choices for where to place your comment, to preserve Talk page coherence. You could have placed it after my collapse (the position I have restored, not by editing or touching your post, but only by restoring my original post as-it-was), or you could have responded directly under Judith's comment, indenting it so that it was clear that this was threaded response.

What you did violated time sequence, and actively concealed my collapsed discussion as a continuation of my response to Judith. (Threaded response violates time sequence, but repairs this by showing threading with indents.) Please understand and trust that my goal is thorough, civil discussion, advising the community, leading to neutral article text satisfying Wikipedia guidelines. I am grateful for your participation in discussion of this, but please be careful to avoid useless contention over minor issues. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 16:27, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

By the way, thanks for this. I hate it when I do that! --Abd (talk) 16:29, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. [2]. More than one way to skin a cat, Kirk. This won't look good if your behavior is reviewed. You may think my collapse is unimportant, you may not like it, but it was part of my response. Yes, you would be allowed, by my signature, to respond to me interspersed. I added that signature precisely to allow such a response to me. But breaking up my response -- which can include collapsed sections if I choose to layer them for critical importance -- by sticking your response to someone else in the middle of it, no.

I am allowed to refactor my own comment, which is all that I did, to restore its integrity. You are not allowed to refactor mine! However, this tempest in a teapot isn't worth making a formal complaint about. You'll see my response on the article talk page. I won't touch your post. I will remove mine. Too bad, Kirk, I was hoping for better from you. --Abd (talk) 17:25, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Summary Outline of Storms(2006) and Shanahan(2006)

There has been considerable negative talk about the Storms-Shanahan debate and my comments on it on the Talk:Cold Fusion page. In particular, the idea that the Storms comment from the 2010 Naturwissenschaften paper is wrong because the timing of article submission, revision, and acceptance would require Storms to have had prescient knowledge of my 2006 rebuttal of his 2006 comment on my 2002 and 2005 papers seems unpalatable to some.

I thought it might be useful for those who don’t have the papers to see an outline/summary of what was written. In the following, KLS is me, ES is Storms. There is no OR in this, no interpretation. This is just an outline summary of what was printed. As usual, please dfon't break this up with comments. Use the follwoing section. To wit:

            Summary of Storms, Thermo. Acta, 441 (2006) 207-209

General: Neglecting the banner, abstract, and references space, the paper is just under 1-1/2 pages of text. It has 8 refs and 2 Figures. The Conclusion section is 1 sentence long. The body has 5 paragraphs.

Overview:

Para. 1: Introductory material

Para. 2:

       States KLS makes 2 assumptions and these assumptions are here shown to be wrong  
       (assumptions: significant heat can be produced at different locations, flow calorimetry is sensitive to where heat is produced)

Para 3: (Outline of claims in paragraph)

       D2 generated at cathode, O2 at anode, rise rapidly as bubbles to surface
       Bubbles contain ‘mainly’ one gas
       Consequently – cannot recombine because no mixing 
       Consequently – surface recombination at electrode is small even if it could occur
       Recombination process is explained, current (I) dependency summarized in Fig. 1
       Basic conclusions – recombination only at low current
       -can only get small heat at low current (i.e. hi % recombination at low I)
       -currents that give high % recomb. do not give FPHE (basic assumption)
       Ex.-1 A => 1.54 W total recomb possible, Fig. 1 shows <5% recomb. (77 mW), 
       -That is all the heat that can move,  .01 A => 4.6 mW
       Recomb catalyst, if present, fixes heat location
       At FPHE conditions – recomb power << Pin which is approx. 20W

Summary:

       amount of power that can change location is very small compared to total amount generated in cell

Para. 4: (Outline of claims in paragraph)

       Presents background on calorimetry
       Refers to ES’ Web tutorial
       3 types of calorimeters used
       Isoperibolic – based on dT across barrier
       If cell wall is barrier, KLS error can occur
       This is well known and acknowledged
       Flow calorimeter – based on dT on flowing fluid
       ES examined effect of heat loc on flow cal. (ref. Infinite Energy pub)
       Ex. – resistor heater – heats at its location
       -  no electrolysis => no heat at electrodes
       -  power involved up to 27W, compared to max produced by KLS effect (<.2W)
       -  heater calibration gives ‘nearly’ same results as dead electrode electrolytic cal
       -  i.e., large change in heat loc gives no effect on calibration
       KLS proposes small change can cause cal change (causing excess power signal)
       KLS proposal made in spite of the above being well known and without acknowledging why these measurements do not apply

Para. 5:

       KLS makes additional assumptions
       KLS rejects excess energy claims because 2.5% CCS explains effect
       But random 1.6% observed over 3 month time span
       KLS did not explain why cal constant would jump when current applied to cause excess power – 4 times – while failing other times
       No random error ever observed with clean Pt or during cals.

Conclusion

“The assumptions used by Shanahan to explain anomalous heat claimed to result from cold fusion are shown to be inconsistent with experimental observation.”

    Summary of Shanahan, Thermo. Acta, 441 (2006) 210-214

Text is about 4 pages, 10 refs, 1 figure, Discussion broken into 5 sections, based on Storms 4 points from prior paper and some additional comments (sec 5)

Discussion

 Summary: lead in paragraphs  
      intro material, notes ES did not challenge CCS math at all, defines ES’ 4 points

Summary against point 1 (mass transport doesn’t allow mixing)

      It is documented that good mixing is required to avoid hot spots
      Researchers went to integrating calorimeters to avoid problem
      Has this completely removed issue?  No.
      F&P published that radial mixing is 7X faster than vertical
      Implies entrained solids or gases could be carried along, hard to see
      Mentions Fluent calculation of downwards flowing bubbles in beer glass
      Conclude this transport is not recognized by researchers
      Point out that transport issue is very important, could invalidate CCS
      SPAWAR IR video pic of  hot spots discussed, spot size ~ bubble size –evidence
      

Summary against point 2 (not enough recomb heat to matter)

       Prior KLS pubs shows the point is wrong
       1A = 1.54 W + magnification effect (eq. from earlier pub)
       well explains most reports
       cell design decides details
       Re: ES Fig 1 – KLS agrees “electrochemical” recomb not impt., said so before
       Ergo, ES Fig. 1 not relevant
        

Summary against point 3 (no CCS ever detected)

        Greatest area of confusion, KLS proposal is NEW, therefore not in prior repts.
        Review nuclear explanation
        KLS proposal –incl. ‘Special Active State’ concept – but must be surface (SASS)
        Extant data varied and confused
        Surface state easily altered in available studies
        Impacts adhesive properties of surface and bubble adhesion
        To get FPHE, must have electrolysis in presence of SASS  
        Not easy to get by accident
        Researchers do not control surface, therefore obs. FPHE is sporadic
        Best work – high surface area – Szpak co-dep –
        Facilitates bubble and contaminant capture, retention           
        Assert most reports explainable by a CCS
        Cal resistor, electrolytic pulses not useful – doesn’t test CCS
        CCS required shifted heat source, not additional one
        An additional heat source would be measured accurately if not in new location
        Open cells – recomb and electrol is measured accurately
        Discuss Pd, Pt in gas space or on walls possibility
        Testing CCS requires new cell designs
        ES uses inactive cells to criticize – inactive cell has no SASS => no FPHE, no CCS
        Repeat – FPHE on activated electrode only – bubble adhesion key
        Adhesion facilitates H2/O2 bubble merger
        ‘Dead’ electrode + heater = no FPHE
        Moved heat source required to get FPHE (moved relative to cal conditions)

Summary against point 4 (KLS doesn’t know literature)

         ES data proves KLS points
         Fig 2 (ES) – leftmost 5 points from Jones and Hansen paper – has 1 flyer
         Will model shows 4th point is flyer
         Model based on electrochemical recomb. – KLS agrees – electro not impt.
         ES new data (Fig.2) - high I fit – agrees with Will
         Several points that deviate to positive excess recomb (details discussed) 8-30%
         ES Fig 2 used in ES 2006 pub, therefore already known by KLS
         Note cal const diffs 0.5% in ‘b’, 1.7% in ‘m’ (y=mx+b) – in-line with KLS
         ES says KLS did not offer mechanism – untrue
         Introduce ES data – details
         Discuss time sequencing in cal constants from reanalysis of ES data (KLS Fig.1)
         Reset of sequences noted may be due to negative excess power points
         Discuss 1 exception to that (out of 10 runs)
         Wrap up – Storms needs to explore possibility

Summary of other issues

         ES data highly reproducible, should be followed up
         Pt – no hydride ever forms, therefore hydride loading not a real concern
         Pd hydriding induces dislocations – uncontrolled
         Isotope effects large – H not control for D
         Pt cathode avoids those problems

Conclusions

         H2/O2 bubbles can combine
         ES data shows 10-30% unexpected recombination
         Available excess power = 1.54 * current -3A sweep => 4.6 W available
         ES observes max 0.8W – well within available
         Expecting CCS with dead electrodes is not reasonable
         ALL OF ES POINTS REBUTTED
         Can’t prove cold fusion does not exist
         Chemical explanations need to be considered

Kirk shanahan (talk) 15:00, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments on Summary Outline of Storms(2006) and Shanahan(2006)

Please place all comments regarding preseeding section here. Thank you. Kirk shanahan (talk) 15:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Kirk, can you explain why CCS would cause substantial excess heat to appear with deuterium, but not with hydrogen? Hydrogen control cells (i.e., with light water) typically show a tiny amount of excess heat, possibly attributable to the percentage of deuterium in light water. Fleischmann's controls with light water, he later reported, were not the "clean baseline" he expected. But that doesn't change that the effect is vastly less with light water than with heavy water. I wish he'd used deuterium-depleted light water, as a second control.... I may very well do that, eventually, it's cheap, if I see any signs at all of a reaction with light water (which I don't expect, reducing the neutron signal by a factor of more than a thousand will probably lose it.)

You also seem to treat the experimental results in this field generally as if excess heat, helium, etc., would contradict standard physics, that they are theoretically impossible and to consider them possible would require revising well-known physics. This was based on an uncritically-accepted assumption that if there was a nuclear reaction, it must be d+d -> X fusion. When the helium evidence appeared, this became d+d -> He4, with the obvious question, where was the damn gamma ray? But what if it isn't d+d fusion? What if it is something else? And how can theory rule out "something else"? This was all backwards.

The question should have been asked, from the beginning, not "is there fusion," but "is there excess heat?" Is there helium? Where these were small and possibly noisy results, were they correlated? And if they are correlated, we have a mystery, with possibly circumstantial evidence that there is fusion, but certainly not proof, and little evidence as to mechanism. We would then look for theories as to mechanism that might possibly explain this, make predictions from them, test them, etc. We would proceed based, not on "proof," but on the weight of the evidence. That's how science is supposed to work. You have proposed, effectively, a standard of "proof," requiring that every possible objection, no matter how shaky or even preposterous, must be thoroughly rejected before moving on. And that standard is never satisfied.

Do you have a copy of the review by Storms (2010). Have you read it? --Abd (talk) 14:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

“can you explain why CCS would cause substantial excess heat to appear with deuterium, but not with hydrogen?” -done that many times. It is in my 2002 paper. This again proves you have not comprehended what is in the literature (i.e. RS), yet you continue to pontificate as if you know all. Fleischmann’s explanation is unlikely.

“You also seem to treat the experimental results in this field generally as if excess heat, helium, etc., would contradict standard physics” – This is your own preconceptions being forced upon my writings. I DON’T CARE what the theories are, I am an experimental physical chemist. The data rules, and the data says it might come from conventional chemistry. I have never discussed theories, other than the very generic one that all ‘CF results conme from LENRs’ and my generic one that ‘simple data analysis shows trivial changes can produce excess heat signals, etc.’ In fact I have many times SUPPORTED the CFer contention that the rejection of their results in 89 because “they didn’t fit theory” was inappropriate. Again, your way off base with that comment.

“The question should have been asked, from the beginning, not "is there fusion," but "is there excess heat?" Is there helium?” Which is EXACTLY the question I asked, and I found that there was no credible reason to assume any nuclear reactions. The conventional explanations offered are rejected out of hand by the CFers without adequate thought or testing. That’s bad science. They pre-conclude what needs to be concluded to support their position, and see it in the data no matter what the data says. Read Goodstein’s new book, he points this out specifically as a problem with fradulent and self-deluded work. And once more, for the twentyeth time, correlations between unknown quantities are useless. You must be certain of what you are plotting before the corerlations are useful. I repeat What does a plot of extent of calibration constant shift vs. amount of He inleakage tell us? Ans. Nothing.

“You have proposed, effectively, a standard of "proof," requiring that every possible objection, no matter how shaky or even preposterous, must be thoroughly rejected before moving on.” – Of course I haven’t. This is the CFers knee-jerk response to any critic. They cannot conceive of a non-nuclear solution to the problem, thus anyone who does must automatically be wrong. Since they are wrong (obviously, they disagreed with us…) they need not be dealt with. However, when I can take a 780 mW excess heat signal and show it might arise from a CCS of ~2.5%, and that the CCS shows SYSTEMATIC behavior, that is reasonable to normal scientisits. Since it is reasonable, you have to _prove_ it isn’t happening. Which is tough to do. Best way is to boil a cup of water with the stored excess energy produced by a CF reactor.

I will add something else. One of Langmuir’s symptoms of pathological science is the coming up of ad hoc explanations in response to critics questions. Explanations that are not logical or rational. The CFers love to try to turn it all around on their critics, claiming _they_ are producing ad hoc explanations. In _either_ case, you have to consider the comments and show how they are irrational, illogical, or whatever. You can’t just _say_ “Well, that’s silly”, you have to SHOW it. How can one SHOW it when one won’t address the issue properly? Ans. You can’t. That’s why the Storms misrepresentation on the impact of his and my 2006 publications is so important. Anyone can look at my summary above of those two papers and see that Storms DID NOT respond to my 2006 publication. He raised objections to my _prior_ theories and analyses, and _I_ responded to that, showing why his objections are irrational and illogical. It is up to him to counter my rebuttal now, or concede that I am right. But instead, he just ignores my objections as if he had really dealt with them, a clear sign of pathological science. Kirk shanahan (talk) 16:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Kirk, you seem to prefer to comment on me and my alleged knowledge or lack of knowledge, and on "CFers," rather than the actual scientific issues and what is actually in the literature. It's irritating and it could result in problems. Don't worry, I'm not going to personally complain, but others might. Now, as to that science stuff; what you wrote above is in italics.

“can you explain why CCS would cause substantial excess heat to appear with deuterium, but not with hydrogen?” -done that many times. It is in my 2002 paper. This again proves you have not comprehended what is in the literature (i.e. RS), yet you continue to pontificate as if you know all. Fleischmann’s explanation is unlikely.

Above, you also write:

“You also seem to treat the experimental results in this field generally as if excess heat, helium, etc., would contradict standard physics” – This is your own preconceptions being forced upon my writings. I DON’T CARE what the theories are, I am an experimental physical chemist. The data rules, and the data says it might come from conventional chemistry. I have never discussed theories, other than the very generic one that all ‘CF results conme from LENRs’ and my generic one that ‘simple data analysis shows trivial changes can produce excess heat signals, etc.’ In fact I have many times SUPPORTED the CFer contention that the rejection of their results in 89 because “they didn’t fit theory” was inappropriate. Again, your way off base with that comment.

I have seen no experimental data from you at all, ever. What you have done is to interpret data published from others from the point of view of various theories, including your CCS theory. Data doesn't "say" anything, except observations. I looked at the copy of your 2002 paper that is hosted at lenr-canr.org. It does not mention any explanation of why heat would appear with deuterium and not hydrogen. I cannot access the 2002 paper as-published. Did you add something about to it? It would be useful if you would describe such additions, if you can. In any case, what harm would there be if you explained why, again?

It seems from your many writings on this subject that you require "extraordinary proof." Sure. Before considering any theory as "proven," extraordinary proof is required! But the question being asked is "is there excess heat," and "is there helium?" If we approach this neutrally, we would not consider either "side" of this to be superior to the other side. We would proceed, as to further research, mostly on the basis of the simplest explanation, as to what we decide to test. However, it's true: excess heat and helium, particularly correlated, is a remarkable finding. Should we therefore pour the U.S. research budget into this? Well, not yet! Until a mechanism is known, tested, and found to be predictive, it would be premature, don't you agree? And no mechanism has been found yet that meets Storms' qualifications, nor yours, I imagine. CCS doesn't meet that standard, either, as to rejection. (If so, where is the confirmation? What predictions have you made, not already visible from the data, that turned out to be true. How would your theory be falsified. And, note, even if you come up with the absolute ideal methods, if nobody listens and nobody actually does the experiments, it's almost useless. It hasn't been confirmed. Right?)

Above, you ignore the basic issue, as you have before. There are indications of excess heat. Perhaps it's CCS! But there are also indications of helium, and measurements of helium, in a few experiments, where both helium and excess heat were measured for the same cells. In no case has helium been found in anomalous amounts when there was no excess heat. That's an indication that the experimenters were careful about things like helium leakage. Since the amount of helium found has been correlated with reported excess heat, at roughly the expected value for helium made from deuterium, and since this is multiply confirmed, using different methods and approaches for both the heat and the experimental cell design, we have an Occam's razor hypothesis. It's been ruled out! That is, the simplest hypothesis is that this is d-d fusion, but that was not only ruled out by very strong theoretical arguments, at least as to the reaction behaving like the very well known behavior of d-d fusion, it would indeed require a lot of revision of theory. Nobody has succeeded in figuring out a way for simple d-d fusion to produce the consistent observations: excess heat is not accompanied by radiation at any level that is more than a possible sign of some secondary reaction or unusual branching. Transmutations other than to helium are a tiny amount compared to the helium being found.

But this is all secondary. Is there heat and is there helium? Each result alone can be challenged, though both with difficulty. It is the correlated result that I consider conclusive. I've been finding that the single strongest piece of evidence for fusion at these temperatures has been buried in a mass of far less consequential details. Hagelstein, in the review presented to the DoE, does make the claim, but it is terribly easy to miss, after reading hosts of far less important pieces of information, all of which is subject to greater question. It is as if the reader is being guided to "Well, maybe, but maybe not," as a standing conclusion, and then something is presented that's a little different. And at least one reviewer misread this, and we know that the DoE bureaucrat missed it even more egregiously. This isn't subject to doubt, Kirk, and it would be helpful if, on Talk:Cold fusion, you'd acknowledge this. You did agree about "electrolytic cells," but not about 5/16 cells producing heat that also showed helium.

Kirk, that would be an anticorrelation, if it were true, not a correlation, so no wonder anyone who thought this was the data thought it wasn't conclusive! It was almost the other way around!

However, reading what I could find about this set of experiments (the experimental series hasn't been well-reported, AFAIK) I infer this: there were sixteen Case cells. Probably half of them were loaded with hydrogen. None of the hydrogen cells -- this is explicit -- showed excess heat, nor did they show helium. That leaves 8 cells. For some reason, data on only 6 cells are shown for helium. Not explained. However, McKubre does report that some of the Case cells were "dead." No excess heat, even with deuterium. 5/8 might be quite what I'd expect from other reports. 5 cells showed excess heat. All showed helium, one in a small quantity. Of the other three cells, they gave helium data on one. No helium.

I intend to ask McKubre for more information about this set of experiments. It could be useful, to dot the i's and cross the t's.

However, there is plenty of evidence, heat/helium has been very well confirmed. Further, consider all the early experiments where they looked for heat and helium and found neither. That is a confirmation of the correlation! As long as they were independent, which they were.

Huizenga rejected the heat/helium work with some remarkable arguments. First of all, each time he talks about one of the three reports he knew of, he said it was unconfirmed. Now, was it conclusively confirmed? Of course not. Only Miles' data was deep enough and strong enough to start to be something testable and clearly confirmable. He dismissed Miles, after noting how important this result was -- if true, it would explain a major mystery -- simply by expecting that it would not be confirmed. But it was confirmed, by multiple research groups. The apparent consensus from the literature is now that helium is the predominant ash, and we can assume, at least tentatively, that the fuel is deuterium. (It's impossible to measure the "consumed deuterium, at least at this point!). Is that "fusion"? Well, if this is true, what do you think? Remember, it is almost certain that it is not "d-d fusion," that is something like muon-catalyzed fusion that is otherwise the same, i.e., will produce tritium or He-3, and neutrons or protons, and a tiny amount of helium with commensurate gamma rays.

Sorry, CCS plays no role in this. A small amount of unexpected heat from CCS (not major heating) would not correlate with helium. This actually rules out CCS as an explanation for the excess heat, unless you can come up with yet another unknown reaction besides the oxygen bubble theories you have advanced.

I will add something else. One of Langmuir’s symptoms of pathological science is the coming up of ad hoc explanations in response to critics questions. Explanations that are not logical or rational. The CFers love to try to turn it all around on their critics, claiming _they_ are producing ad hoc explanations.

Perhaps because, Kirk, you are? What explanation here is "not logical or rational"? Many times, discussing various experimental reports, you have come up with "ad hoc explanations," proposing that they should stand equally with much simpler explanations, because? There is certainly a role for this. But the explanations you come up with and assert are frequently contradictory to the full experimental reports. Try this one out: explain the finding of what appear to be charged particle tracks, what look exactly like charged particle tracks on the back of SPAWAR CR-39, a mm thick! You have proposed that the "miniexplosions," as I understand it, create a shock wave that damages the plastic on the back. You don't mention that this shock wave would almost certainly damage the front even more, the side closest to the cathode. You don't mention that the "shock waves" are so tiny as to be only seen with a piezo-electric sensor that is actually the cathode substrate. And, again, why not with hydrogen?

You are postulating chemical behavior that is radically different between hydrogen and deuterium, which, itself, would be quite remarkable. (Not "impossible," but something new, and thus something that should be subject to verification before it is assume, as anything other than an "ad hoc explanation" for some remarkable phenomenon.)

And I've seen this happen with conversations with you. When the logical basis for what you are saying is shown to be contradictory to the evidence, you tend to shut up and go away for a while, and you have, because I've pointed out such shortcomings, imagined that I was attacking you. No, I want you to participate here, because I believe that you are about the only serious critic left standing. And you are having difficulty with it. There are obviously many who remain "unconvinced," but that's the way people are, when they have heavily committed themselves. I imagine that there will be some of these skeptics who will go to their graves complaining about how the "true believers" someone managed to fool everyone, except, of course, them and their vanishing cohort of friends.

But I'm not a "true believer." I'm simply a skeptic who remembered to be as skeptical of skeptical opinion as I was of any other assertions not accompanied by strong evidence. I'm doing experimental work, Kirk, and I'm going to report that work regardless of the results I get. Do you realize how cheap it can be to replicate the SPAWAR neutron findings -- if it works? I've designed and will be selling a single cell, including radiation detector SSNTDs, for $100. Add $70 for a control cell with light water, everything else exactly the same. I'll make a profit on those! (Basically, the profit comes from buying materials in quantity.) Connect them in series and run the protocol currents through them for the protocol times. Pull and develop the SSNTDs and analyze them. (There will be control SSNTDs included, and the primary SSNTD will be a stack of 2 LR-115 films, front to front, so that the detection layer is buried with 100 microns of polyester mylar on each side; each detector layer is 6 microns of deep red cellulose nitrate. The images are very crisp and clear compared to CR-39, and I'll have two layers of information, with those pieces of film not pressed together until the experiment starts. This, in this configuration, would be insensitive to almost anything other than neutrons, and prior exposure can be ruled out due to the two-layer coincidence analysis.)

Are you going to wish me luck? I may need it, there are many ways to get this wrong. --Abd (talk) 17:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Responding to Abd’s wall of text (3-1/2 pages in Word each, overkill don’t you all think…):

“I have seen no experimental data from you at all, ever” – Your point? In this context (CF) all I have done to date is reanalyze Ed Storms’ data, and then defend against the subsequent attacks. I have many publications in the metal hydride field (i.e. gas-loading) where I present my own data. That experience and the interactions with collegues in the field give me tremendous insight on the CF field. Add to that that I have also done dynamic chemical process modeling, applied statistical analysis, and have worked with explosives in the past, and my background becomes even more relevant.

“Data doesn't "say" anything” – Data says a lot to people who listen.

“I looked at the copy of your 2002 paper…” – you caught me. It isn’t in the 2002 publication, it is in the 2005 and 2006 one. So, you’ve got a repreive. Go get them and read them, then you can criticize if you prove you first understand what is said.

“It seems … that you require "extraordinary proof."” – Typical cold fusioneers knee-jerk response. “We don’t need no EXTRA-ordinary proof!” – No Abd, I require adequate proof of all claims.

“But the question being asked is "is there excess heat," and "is there helium?"” – Exactly. With heat, we are not sure it is there. With He, it might be there, but we are not sure it is NOT from the ambient.

“If we approach this neutrally, we would not consider either "side" of this to be superior to the other side.” – Your definition of neutral is inconsistent with standard scientific practice. Neutral simply means what appears to be an incredible explanation will be given a hearing, which is exactly what happened in 1989-1992. Neutral means that explanations that invoke radical challenges to the knowledge base are by default not preferred to those that do not. Neutral means that from the moment a CFer opens his/her mouth and begins speaking, their ideas are evaluated against known science, and their data is evaluated against known performance standards. This is as opposed to not listening at all. It is a well known fact of scientific practice that those who seek to overturn the status quo have a harder row to hoe than those who simply confirm it. If successful however, the rewards are greater, fame, fortune, and glory.

“it's true: excess heat and helium, particularly correlated, is a remarkable finding.” – if confirmed, i.e., if the heat is real and the He is not from leaks, otherwise it’s just junk.

“CCS doesn't meet that standard, either, as to rejection.” – Yes, it does. It is demonstrated unequivocably. It is easily understood. It requires no new theory. It is just algebra.

” That's an indication that the experimenters were careful about things like helium leakage.” - Except they probably weren’t as shown by Clarke’s work. I say probably because there is a less than 10% chance that Clarke and/or Oliver could have screwed up the sample. However, both those guys have been in this business for over 30 years, producing results and papers in other areas with the same techniques that have withstood criticism. McK and friends however, have only reported on ‘anomalous He’. The probabilities are they are making a mistake. But, it is still a somewhat open issue.

“Since the amount of helium found has been correlated with reported excess heat, at roughly the expected value for helium made from deuterium, and since this is multiply confirmed, using different methods and approaches for both the heat and the experimental cell design” – This all presumes the measurements are reliable. I disagee.

“It is the correlated result that I consider conclusive.” – Because you don’t understand accidental correlation.

{Skipping the case cell stuff because I have not thought through what went into these studies. Case published nothing. McK did one set of experiments. As always, replication is required, not just in 1 set, but over several sets and several exeperimenters.)

“heat/helium has been very well confirmed” – You keep saying this, so I will keep saying “No it isn’t.”

“Further, consider all the early experiments where they looked for heat and helium and found neither. That is a confirmation of the correlation!” – So, absence of an effect proves something? OK, that means CF is not real because there are plenty of negative experiments to look at. Bottom line is that if there really is He in some cases, they just didn’t do whatever was required to get it, be that ‘CF’ or bad technique allowing leaks.

“Huizenga…” – not my job to defend Huizenga. Moving on…

“A small amount of unexpected heat from CCS (not major heating) would not correlate with helium.” – Of course if it’s a CCS, there is NO excess heat, but the point is that one can get VERY LARGE excess heat signals from a CCS, contrary to the twisted affirmations of Storms and associates. And, since we don’t know exactly what causes the CCS, just like CF, we can’t say what we would expect or not. Once someone works out the caue of the CCS, then maybe we can shed some light on the ‘accidental’ correlation of leaking and the CCS.

“Perhaps because, Kirk, you are?” – If so then document it. Make sure, unlike the Cfers, that you CORRECTLY state the thesis you are attempting to disprove. Everyone knows disproving a strawman proves nothing except you can formulate a disprovable strawman.

“But the explanations you come up with and assert are frequently contradictory to the full experimental reports.” – such as?

“Try this one out: explain the finding of what appear to be charged particle tracks, what look exactly like charged particle tracks on the back of SPAWAR CR-39, a mm thick!” – OK. What do you think a shockwave does when it impinges on an interface, say air-solid or liquid-solid? It just disappears right? No. It is a wave, and like any wave it will potentially both be reflected and transmitted. _IF_ enough energy is transmitted what then? End of story? No. It proceeds through the new material. What might it do there? How about the same thing as what it did at the impact point? It will cause damage if things are right. Now what happens with it hits the next interface? It stops dead and disappears right? No. Again, it is transmitted and reflected. And now let’s think about two waves. At the first interface you now have 4. Ever hear of interference effects? What might that do? I actually don’t know, the real situation, with thousands of waves impinging on and traveling through the CR-39 is beyond my simple brain’s capacity to compute on the fly. I just realize that it probably will take experimental confirmation of all of the above theory to show exactly what does happen, but this will have to be in an controlled experiment. A CF cell is not an adequate environment, especially since there’s a bunch of people claimimg there are processes active that produces neutrons and alphas. Of course, the reverse is true too. All I know is distinguishing pits from mechanical damage is difficult. And leads to the possibility of error.

“You are postulating chemical behavior that is radically different between hydrogen and deuterium, which, itself, would be quite remarkable.” - Dude, my whole research for the last 15 years as been predicated on the fact that there IS significant differences in the chemical reactivity of H and D. If you don’t believe me, try drinking some heavy water…NOT!!!! It will kill you because of just such differences! Sheesh! THEY ARE CHEMICALLY DIFFERENT!

“When the logical basis for what you are saying is shown to be contradictory to the evidence” – You have never done that.

“you tend to shut up and go away for a while, and you have, because I've pointed out such shortcomings, imagined that I was attacking you.” – No, first off, I have a job and a life, and dealing with you is painful and excruciatingly slow, since your obstructionist tendencies and fanatical devotion to the nuclear solution make it impossible for me to correct you. So, I usually have better things to do. I repeat, you have NEVER said anything that proved me wrong, or pointed out an error in the principles and concepts I am trying to get across.

“No, I want you to participate here” - yes, so you can ‘correct’ me and gain some kind of personal satisfaction from that. Except, you never really do that. You just spout fanatic’s comments that don’t stand up to logic, and then claim they do. You can’t even grasp the concept that plotting the number of ducks landing on Lake Ponchetrain vs. the number of grandparents stopping at McDonalds for coffee is a meaningless plot, even if you happen to get an apparent corelation of the two.

“but that's the way people are, when they have heavily committed themselves” – pot-kettle

“Do you realize how cheap it can be to replicate the SPAWAR neutron findings” – Of course, it will be cheap and easy, and just as unuseful for the same reasons. All you are doing is wasting time and money.

“would be insensitive to almost anything other than neutrons” – and shockwaves. And therin lies the rub, which is it?

Finally, “And you are having difficulty with it.” – Yes, I realize I have far too concerned with you, and that I am probably going to have to end up getting you banned again. You obstruct everything I try to do, because you are a fanatic true believer and can’t stand to having anything other than the nuclear solution discussed. So, I will just ignore your obstruction until it can’t be ignored, probably by continued block deletions like Pcarbonn did, at which point I will have to fight. Back then, when Pcarbonn was the prime obstructionist, the mantra he used was “It has to be RS! It has to be RS!” ignoring the fact that the RS policy allows a) standard knowledge in a field to be included without citation, b) select referenceing of marginal sources for singular purposes, and c) basic, straigheforward logical analysis (nothing fancy, that’s OR). Well, the big diference today is that everything Pcarbonn objected to is now official RS, and neither he nor you should be able to stop its inclusion in the article. I am going to proceed, at my own pace, on that premise.

Well, you've said several things that I'll bite on. First of all, drinking heavy water. People tell me that it tastes a bit sweeter than regular water. I've never heard that it's particularly toxic. I wouldn't want to drink much of it, for sure. For the expensive, if nothing else! I've got a kilogram of 99.9% D2O and I sure can/t afford to drink it! But human cells are pretty sensitive to small differences. Hydrogen is certainly not chemically identical to deuterium. Just very similar. Secondly, shock waves. That shock waves would produce the small pits characteristic of knock-on protons, on the other side of the plastic, seems awfully unlikely. What would focus the shock waves so tightly? And triple tracks? Three tracks, with a common origin point visible in the best images as a groove at the bottom, as expected from C-12 breakup and looking exactly like C-12 breakup tracks? Again, this is solid plastic, flat. What would focus those shock waves? Third, my experiment. I'll not be using CR-39, and because, unlike the Galileo project, I'm looking for neutrons (using a gold cathode), I'm working dry. The detectors will be LR-115, used commercially for neutron detection as well as alphas. I'll have the 6 micron detector surface outside the cell, flat against the acrylic wall, facing away from the cathode on an innermost sheet, and another sheet with the detector surface facing inwards just next to that, so I should be able, from this sandwich, in later analysis, to determine vector information, as well as to eliminate prior background exposure. This will be a radically different material than CR-39. You think I'll see the same "focused shock wave damage" as with CR-39? You really are dreaming, Kirk. Ah, yes, one more thing. You did not get me banned before, it took some real political hacks to do that, and you won't get me banned again, and as to "massive deletions," you are dreaming even more. I'm COI, Kirk, I don't delete anything unless it's blatant vandalism or it's on my Talk page and I Don't Want It There.

Kirk, again, you aren't going to listen to me, you have made that quite clear, and I don't waste my time indefinitely, so ... again, bye. Have the last word here, enjoy yourself. --Abd (talk) 04:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

“drinking heavy water … I've never heard that it's particularly toxic.” – Abd

“Heavy water exhibits dose and species-dependent chemical toxicity.” – Wikipedia –Heavy Water

“Despite the fact the light water and heavy water are chemically identical, heavy water is mildly toxic.” - http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2135/is-heavy-water-dangerous

“That shock waves would produce the small pits characteristic of knock-on protons, on the other side of the plastic, seems awfully unlikely” – Abd

“We quickly discovered that mechanical damage often leads to round, track-like marks after etching. “ - http://www.earthtech.org/CR39/index.html

Oriani also noted mechanical damage led to pits, and noted in his publication (I believe it was a JJAP pub, but I can confirm if needed) that he only allowed himself to count pits so that such pits would not be include – take that to read the pits look like neutron pits.

“What would focus the shock waves so tightly?” – why do you think they need to be focused (i.e., quit pulling out strawmen, just respond to the comment, don’t ad lib)? Often they are initiated right on the CR-39. Other times the CR-39 is a few mm away in the electrolyte. We all know shock waves propagate quite well in water, dynamite is a very effective fishing tool.

“And triple tracks? Three tracks, with a common origin point visible in the best images” – ‘best’ is the key. What we are seeing is the subselected images of what highly biased authors consider to be evidence for nuclear reactions. What I want to know is what an independent source would note on these plates. But even with the biased set of data we have, the not-quite-the-best images don’t show nearly as nice a ‘common origin point’. In other words, it is completely unclear if these are triple tracks at all. Further, would interfereing shock waves produce triple tracks (and double, and quadruple, and …)? Who knows until the idea is tested.

“You think I'll see the same "focused shock wave damage"” – No clue. What happens when you take a pin and scratch the surface?

“You did not get me banned before, it took some real political hacks to do that, and you won't get me banned again, and as to "massive deletions," you are dreaming even more.” – You are misreading again. Pcarbonn did the block deletions, you haven’t had that opportunity yet. And, yes, I did not get you banned, I didn’t participate, I have better things to do with my time. I wrote “I am probably going to have to end up getting you banned again”. The ‘again’ referred simply to the fact that the anticipated event would be the second time, not that I had anything to do with no. 1. I am simply anticipating the future outcome of my proposed edit, given the gross similarities in behavior between Jed Rothwell, Pcarbonn, V, and you, and what has already occurred.

"Have the last word here" - I will. Kirk shanahan (talk) 13:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Can Little Hydrogen Bubbles Melt Pd?

This is an interesting question related to the CFer claim that what appear to be molten globules located on the periphery of crates in Pd CF electrode surfaces could only have arisen from nuclear level heats, i.e. available H2 + O2 reactions aren’t enough. A good example of such a crater/globules is shown in Krivit and Marwan’s 2009 J. Environ. Monitoring article as Figure 7. By clipping this picture out of the text and enlarging it somewhat I culd just make out markings on the edge of the photo indicating scale, and I could barely see the half-clipped numbers co-located there. I used what I though I saw to measure the crater and globules, and I estimate the crate is about 5mm across, and the globules are maybe 1/3rd of that. We will use that as one starting point. The other starting point will be a hypothetical H2 bubble that is about 1mm across, i.e. smaller than the crater.

First what heat can we get from buring the H2 in that bubble. I will use the value of 57 kcal/mole produced for buring hydrogen to water (gaseous). That might not be absolutely correct, maybe it should be free energy vs enthalpy, etc., but it is a start. We’ll see it isn’t really critical anyway, as long as your in the ballpark. We compute the volume of the sphere and used the ideal gas law to compute moles H2, which comes out 5.24e-4 cc and 1.98e-5 millimoles. At 57 kcal/mole (= 57 cal/mmole), that means we have about 1.14e-3 cal to work with, i.e. a millicalorie.

Now we have to see how much Pd that could melt…or do we? In fact, sintering can occur at much lower temperatures than melting, usually it starts at about ½ the melting point, and sintering would ‘round out’ sharp protusions. Why would there be sharp proturusions? Because something popped to make the crater and the intial form of the metal at that point would be with sharp edges. Then it would melt or sinter. So now the problem has become potentially easier. We only have to raise the metal’s temperature to about 914K (half the 1828K mp).

That kind of calulation uses the heat capcity at constant pressure of the material. The CRC Handbook of Chemisty and Physics that I have gives coefficients of an equation to compute that for several metals, including Pd. It also gives the integrated form of the equation used to compute the heat required to change the metal’s temp (which is an analytic solution of the integral of the CpdT function). As long as no other phase changes and such occur, that’s all the heat you need. The equation for Pd was

Heat = 5.8 * (T2 – T1) + .5*1.38e-3 ( T2^2 – T1^2) in cal/mole T1<T2

For T1 = 50C (an average value for a working F&P cell) and T2=1828K, that computes to 11,063 cal/mole by by estimate (check my math, I make mistakes).

So dividing the heat available by the heat required we get that we could heat up 1.03e-7 moles of Pd (that’s ~1.1e-5 grams). Not very much!

A Pd sphere about 1.8mm dia. (~1/3 of 5) has a volume of 3.053e-3 cc, and at 12g/cc density, that means 0.0366 grams Pd. Quite a bit larger than what we could heat to melting. Obviously, nothing would be left to melt it either after heating it up.

But, what if we only go to the sintering point, 914K. I get ~3932 cal/mole required. That means 37 cal/gr. With 1 millicalorie I could heat up 2.7e-5 gr Pd to 914K, still not good enough. Well, I guess we conclude no dice right? Not so fast. This is where things get tough because now we have to think about reality instead of our assumed scenario. The biggest problem there is supposing the whole globule has to melt. Why must we assume that? Maybe it’s right, but maybe it isn’t. To get a ‘molten’ look on a sliver of Pd sticking out of a popped bubble, maybe only part of the glob has to melt, just enough to smooth the edges. Can we do that perhaps?

This gets trickier to calculate because we have to start making more assumptions. What is the shape of the sintered zone for example. Let’s try this. Imagine we have a circular slab of Pd. How big of a slab can we sinter with the 37 cal/g? We will have to assume some dimensions and see what we can match to the available heat. The millicalorie of heat mans we can heat up 2.7e-5 gr Pd or 2.25e-6 cc of Pd. Ok, volume of slab = pi(r^2)h. What r, what h? You can try a lot of numbers but let’s use some chemistry. Atomes are about say 5 angstroms wide, roughly, order of magnitude. That’s 5e-10m or 5e-8 cm. 1 micron is 1 e-4 cm. Let’s assume we have to heat a 1 micron thick slab and compute r (that’s a block 2000 atoms thick). I get .0846cm or .846mm. Thus our slab would be 1.692 mm across, about the size of the globule.

One other reality factor we have to remember. The photo is taken after everything is over. There is no way to know if _all_ the sharp edges of the popped top of the crater (which used to be a void) melted at the same time. Sharp protursions like we are discussing are excellent bubble catchers, and it is well known that uneven electric fields leads to deloading of the Pd in these cells. The fields around these protursions will not be as nice as on a smooth flat surface, so a hydrogen bubble should preferetially grow here.

By the way, people often see ‘new’ metals in these craters. CFers like to claim transmutation, but there is another reality factor that has to be considered. Any metal has impurities in it, and it is well known in material science that in some systems the impurities segregate preferentially to preferred locations, grain boundaries being one of them. The idea here is that the H (or D) in the Pd nucleates a bubble because of the high effective pressure, and a bubble close to the surface can push or pop the Pd off of it to escape. Impurities collectd at one point would provide a preferred nucleation point for the bubbles, and possibly a reduced yield stress in that area. (By the way, Fukai has studied this bubble nucleation idea, and a similar thing happens when the H reacts with dissolved O or C in some metals. In that case, water or methane is formed, and the processes are called steam embrittlement or methane embrittlement. Fast has pictures of it in is 1961 book.)

So, can a little hydrogen bubble ‘melt’ Pd? Maybe. If everything lines up right, it could.

So what’s the point here? The point is that it is rational and reasonable to postulate a chemical/physical cause for the appearance of ‘melted’ Pd around these holes in the Pd surface (and for the holes themselves!). It’s a complicated one, but rality is complicated. Because of that, you can NOT jump to the conclusion that it took a nuclear explosion to do this. In fact looking at these craters isn’t really of much use at all, given the raft of assumptions either the CFers or people like me have to make to explain them away. Science works on data. So if someone can establish a LENR, maybe a nuke is the answer. If not, conventional means should be explored. Once the effect is 99% controlled, these side issues have a chance of being resolved.

What are the assumptions in the above:

Bubble grows and peels back Pd vs. explosion blows it out and melts H2 burning sinters Pd at ½ mp vs. explosion melting it 1mm dia bubble H2, ideal gas law, 57 kcal/mole heat produced when burnt –heat source CRC eq. for Cp and integral, 106.4 g/mole, 12 g/cc, 1282K mp for Pd lots of assumptions as to size/shape of sintering zone Secondary one, i.e. may not be imporant – impurities segregate lowering yield stress That I got the scale right from the SEM photo

Note that the bubble diameter one is a biggie. If I went to a 2mm bubble I would get ~8X the volume, and therby 8X the moles and heat – leads to a lot bigger sinter zone.

Serious comments on this are welcomed, especially if you spot an error, but please use the next section. Thanks. People who can’t grasp the idea that when you have two essentially equivalent choices, you can’t arbitrarily choose one need not comment (at least in science, every day people do this, but we all know it is nothing but personal preference). Kirk shanahan (talk) 17:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments on Can Little Hydrogen Bubbles Melt Pd?

Please put comments regarding prior section (Can Little Hydrogen Bubbles Melt Pd?) here. Thanks. Kirk shanahan (talk) 17:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Sure, thanks for the opportunity, Kirk. But it seems you have missed something. Elsewhere I've described these craters as about 10 microns across, yet you propose craters that are 5 mm across. A bit of a difference there, eh? Do you realize that the whole cathode is a wire that is typically 0.01 inch in diameter, or 250 microns, yet you infer a hole in the surface that is on the order of 5000 microns? You should be glad you didn't try to publish this! I believe you misread that partially visible scale.

For some better images, see www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/DardikIultrasonic.pdf. These are not from codeposition, I believe. They show a series of craters on the order of five microns across. I couldn't find other images quickly, I've been assuming roughly ten microns, and I know there are other images available.

How about trying a heat calculation with a ten micron bubble of explosive mixture D2/O2? You know it has to be an explosive mixture because if the heat isn't released very quickly, it will simply be absorbed by the electrolyte and cathode with no melting. Of course, you also have to imagine that, to get ejecta, that the bubble somehow penetrates into the surface of the cathode, which normally both molecular deuterium and oxygen can't do....

So how much heat would a ten micron bubble of explosive mixture generate, and how hot would it make a ten micron sphere of, let's imagine that the palladium is spongy, 50% palladium and 50% heavy water?

Not to mention the inconvenient question of, why doesn't this happen with light water? Okay, I'm not certain, maybe this particular experiment hasn't been done with a light water control. They can't test everything, so, if that's true, I'll be the first. Because I'll have a light water cell next to and in series with my heavy water cell, and both will have microphones on them. And the cathodes of both can later be examined at high magnification. Wish me luck, Kirk, I might need it. (I intend to publish the results whether they are positive or negative.) --Abd (talk) 18:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

No, Abd, once again you misread. I specifically stated how I got 5mm. I also specifically stated that was a guesstimate as the scale was somewhat cut off on the photo from Krivit and Marwan’s article. However, you do realize that decreasing the pit size just helps my argument right? The H2 bubble size is defined by the balance of adhesive forces and buoyant forces plus viscosity effects coupled with stirring. It has nothing in particular to do with the pit size. All the pit edge does is serve as a prime spot for H released from the bulk to recombine and form the H2 bubble. That won’t change if the hole is a nanometer or a kilometer across. So by reducing the pit size, you proportionately decrease the amount of Pd I have to sinter or melt. Given that my stated case was right on the ragged edge of believability, you have only helped my argument look better. I could probable even shrink the H2 bubble a bit (but it does have to remain visibly noticeable). Thanks. (FYI, I doubt a burning 10 micron H2 bubble would cause melting/sintering of any appreciable amount, but of course that doesn’t matter when the reality is that there are mm-sized bubbles around.)

“You know it has to be an explosive mixture because if the heat isn't released very quickly” – H2/O2 flames have the fastest flame speed known I believe. This necessitates special setups when dealing with H2 lines to prevent flames from travelling back into the lines. Personally, I don’t know how fast the heat has to be deposited to overcome the heat conductivity rate. Maybe someone can calulate, maybe not, in the end it will need to be tested to reject this possibility.

“Not to mention the inconvenient question of, why doesn't this happen with light water?” – “The H2 bubble size is defined by the balance of adhesive forces and buoyant forces plus viscosity effects coupled with stirring.” - H2O and D2O viscosity are significantly different. I expect the adhesiveness of a given surface condition will also interact with H2 and D2 bubbles differently, but that is untested, just an expectation. Different viscosity = different stirring and different balance of buoyant force vs. adhesiveness. Etc., etc.

“Of course, you also have to imagine that, to get ejecta, that the bubble somehow penetrates into the surface of the cathode,” - No Abd, the crater is formed by the bursting of a self-nucleated H2 bubble in the solid, born close enough to reach the surface when big enough to allow such bursting. I cited two examples of that with steam and methane bubbles, and referred to Fukai’s work on the self-nucleated bubbles, so again you didn’t read and understand. Your problem is you are time compressing all events into one. Stop. First, the crater forms. Then, later, the crater nucleates a growing H2 bubble. Then, later, an O2 bubble reaches it (maybe not the first H2 bubble formed at that site, several may have formed and released), merges and burns/explodes, which finally sinters the Pd. We have two types of bubbles Abd. The internal one is the same kind that forms voids deep in the Pd that Ed Storms like to measure (as a total void volume). The external one is the obvious electrolysis product which normally just bubbles away. Kirk shanahan (talk) 14:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)