User talk:Kirk shanahan/Archives/2014/October

This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

The two sections currently at the top of your talk page that are critical of cold fusion are not signed. Also, if you do not want them modified, you could enclose them in {{archivetop}} and {{archivebottom}} . Robert McClenon (talk) 19:19, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

They used to be before my inactive talk page was archived... And thanks for the tip on freezing. Bottom line though is that I really don't care today, as those sections were created in an attempt to get pro-CF editors to understand my suggested additions to the CF article. I finally conclude there would always be another pro-CFer to stand in my way, so I gave up. Alanf777 is a current example from the same mold, so the situation hasn't changed. Kirk shanahan (talk) 13:41, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

It seems that there two different aspects of CF who should not be conflated. As I understand from your edits, you are referring to the excess heat aspect in CF which I think it does not conclusively exclude nuclear aspects being involved. The proof or disproof of nuclear aspects is better done with isotopic composition analysis. How do you think to this aspect?--188.27.144.144 (talk) 12:02, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

In most of my current edits, I have been using the cold fusion community's response to my calorimetric challenges as examples of why one can label them as pseudoscientists, the basic reason being that they do not follow the normal scientific process of properly responding to criticism. However, in my 4th publication I took a broader view, because I was responding to the broad overview presented by Marwan and Krivit in their 2009 paper. Before you can combine results from calorimetry with those from nuclear ash detection, you have to be sure the results stand alone on their own merit first. I currently don't believe there are any results that a) are reproduced adequately to be trustworthy, and b) are not susceptible to arising from mundane (i.e. normal) chemistry and physics. Secondarily, many of the sets of claims, such as for tritium detection for example, are so few in number they fail the 'reproducibility' criterion (thus one doesn't even need to give them serious concern until such time as an adequate number of result sets are produced). The problem with the nuclear ash detection efforts is that the results regularly fall into the 'trace level', which means the analytical methods are quite difficult. I have not seen any real description of how the CFers do their analyses that would develop any confidence that they know how to do what they claim to have done, and I have seen examples of where the CFers seem to have messed it up. Given the radical nature of the claims, more information must be supplied to provide justification for believing their conclusions, but they never do this, instead resorting to 'pathological' tactics like personal attacks, etc. New elements, new isotopic distributions, and excess heat all can be signatures of a possible nuclear reaction, but you have to be convinced of the data's validity before you can use it to form opinions. The CFers never supply enough info to do that for any except 'pathological' believers. Kirk shanahan (talk) 13:00, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree that electrolytic CF systems are difficult in order to discern the factors involved, so I ask if you are aware of some alternating current experiment in electrochemical systems to eliminate electrolysis? If so, what could be the influence of effects like Debye-Falkenhagen effect in CF electrochemical systems experiments ?--188.27.144.144 (talk) 12:08, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't know of any AC electrolysis studies. DC is normally used, with researchers occasionally superimposing AC signals on the DC in the name of 'triggering'. In principle, AC would work but you would be producing H2 at one electrode during one hal-cycle and at the other during the reverse half-cycle. I found a good description of why this would be a problem at http://www.crscientific.com/electrolysis.html . They said: 'Even if it were current-limited, alternating current (AC) would not be appropriate for electrolysis. Because the "cathode" and "anode" are constantly switching places, AC produces explosive mixtures of hydrogen and oxygen.' Of course, CFers routinely do that anyway, which is why their apparati occasionally blow up.

I have pointed out to alternating current experiment in order to exclude electrolysis as an interfering factor to ease the comparison with dry metal hydrogen systems. I have also considered the possibility of frequency variation of the current to high frequencies to completely eliminate electrolysis, thus to use electrochemical impedance spectroscopy in CF experiments.--188.27.144.144 (talk) 13:29, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

But you will get electrolysis with ac current as noted in my comment above, but now you will be doing both cathodic and anodic reactions at each electrode. This would just make data interpretation much more difficult IMHO. Kirk shanahan (talk) 13:50, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Debye-Falkenhagen, are there some experiments designed (and reported) to trigger aneutronic fission in uranium alloys electrode? Could there be uranium metal and salts fission triggered electrochemically? --188.27.144.144 (talk) 12:28, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't know for certain, but if you're talking about nuclear fission, normal chemical means such as applying a current aren't going to trigger nuclear events. Kirk shanahan (talk) 13:15, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Dieter Britz and I did some analysis of the transient AC power arising from rapid fluctuations in the cell resistance during the phase when bubbles were rapidly forming and sloughing off the electrodes.

You can find a brief summary of our work here: Analysis of AC Burst Noise in Cold Fusion Electrolytic Cells

~Barry Kort (talk) 16:14, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Also what influence could various electrode alloys have in CF experiments? Are you aware of some uranium-palladium alloys experiments being designed?--188.27.144.144 (talk) 12:12, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I am not aware of what any CFer is doing since they consider me a 'pathological skeptic' and don't communicate with me. In both the 'nuclear' explanation and my normal chemistry/physics explanation, composition is a critical variable. Also, structure, i.e how the components present themselves on the surface (because CF seems to be a surface phenomenon) is probably crucial as well. Kirk shanahan (talk) 13:30, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I was thinking too that surface aspect is very important, so I consider the possibility of using liquid metal electrode and rotating disk electrode experiments to exclude solid surface effects.--188.27.144.144 (talk) 13:37, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure you could electrolyze water with those electrodes, but I agree that it is likely (but not impossible) you wouldn't get any effects like I invoke in the CCS mechanism. That means I expect you to NOT see any signs of CF. The CF community's response to that will be: "Interesting, so we won't bother to look there for our energy source that's going to save the world." In other words, they would blow right past your results, chalking your protocol up as just another way to not get the effect. You have to consider whether the return is worth the investment of your time and money. Kirk shanahan (talk)

It seems that some results have been reported in which electrodes of metal not dissolving hydrogen like Au have given positive results. It would be interesting to see CF experiments with alloys like Au-Pd for instance as electrode.--188.27.144.144 (talk) 12:23, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely, the data Ed Storms produced in Jan. and Feb. of 2000 that I used to develop the CCS 'hypothesis' (the real one, not the group of 10's strawman version) was obtained with platinum electrodes, and Pt does not absorb any appreciable amount of hydrogen. The fact that Ed Storms got a 780 mW 'excess heat' peak from the Pt-Pt system is very revealing. It indicates directly and unequivocally that 'high loading' is not a requirement to get CF-like effects. Likewise, Ni is extremely difficult to load, requiring several thousand psi in gas loading studies near room temp. Electrochemical loading can reach those levels if done correctly, so a Ni electrode might load, but these gas loading cold fusion devices you hear about like Rossi's eCat are almost certainly dealing with surface effects.

In the 'nuclear' theory of CF, a Au-Pd electrode pair would not be significantly different from a Pt-Pd pair, as the anode is not thought to participate in the LENR. However, in the mundane world, it is well known that the Pt dissolves and is transported to the Pd electrode and deposited on the surface. One good possibility for the 'special active state' then is some ordered (or not) array of Pt atoms on the Pd surface. Switching to Au has the potential to change all of the above. Kirk shanahan (talk) 13:30, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

How about hybrid fusion/fission CF experiments? They could take place in uranium alloys and be connected to aneutronic fission.--188.27.144.144 (talk) 12:18, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Since I don't believe any fusion is occurring, you're not going to get anything with an attempt at a hybrid setup. I am not qualified to discuss uranium fission at more than a high school level (without further study of course). Kirk shanahan (talk) 13:33, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I think that until more (mecanistic) info is obtained, a rather agnostic status is recommended by the scientific method instead of apriorical non-belief by default. Presently the status of the evidence in both ways is rather undecided.--188.27.144.144 (talk) 14:59, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Agnostic? Not knowing? But I do know some things. I know that the data obtained in CF studies is explainable by 'mundane' means. I know that when these explanations are profferred, the CFers refuse to deal with them, instead using invalid logical techniques to appear to be responding, which allows them to bamboozle the uniformed. And I know they only do that because they have no good way to defeat the counter proposals. And I know that in science, when you can't exclude an alternate proposal, you can't legitimately choose one over the other. And I know that the CFers do anyway.

There would be nothing wrong with persuing their favorite explanation (LENR) if that's what they and their funders want, IF they would at least acknowledge alternates exist, but that is not what they do. They claim to have provided unequivocable proof, but they haven't. And that all adds up to suggest they can't because LENRs don't happen.

I could be proven wrong tomorrow of course, but as it stands now, the safe bet is against LENRs. Kirk shanahan (talk) 20:36, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Are you absolutely sure that the data obtained in CF studies is exclusively explainable by 'mundane' means? As you said when you can't exclude an alternate proposal it is advisable that excluded middle should not be used, the situation being rather undetermined (for the moment). On the other hand there isn't unequivocable evidence for LENR not happening and in science the legal concept of burden of proof is not applicable (at least not in the same extent as in the judiciary system). --188.27.144.144 (talk) 12:51, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely? Of course not. I have not looked at all the data, but what I have looked at is explainable without invoking LENRs and without getting crazy in the mundane explanations offered. But I am sure that the CF community has resorted to illegitimate methods to reject my explanation of excess heat signals in F&P-type cells. If F&P had had access to my comments in 1989 or 90, when they were making the seminar rounds and found out their nuclear data was incorrect, I doubt we would have had the whole 'cold fusion fiasco'. However today, people have invested so much ego into the nuclear explanation that rationality has gone out the window. The nuclear ash methods are all subject to interferences and contamination, and the results are in the range where that is a concern. And we have examples of the problem cropping up (Little's RIFEX study, Clarke's He study, Kidwell's Pr study), and the CFers refuse to deal correctly with the issue (there have been some inadequate token efforts yes, but they were hardly conclusive, even though the CFers claim they are). These examples give us pause regarding believing the ash results, and the CFers response to them is again inappropriate. In that situation, it is incorrect to claim a choice is "clear and unequivocal", the situation is actually unresolved. That means that work needs to be done to investigate the mundane explanations and determine if they hold any real explanatory power, i.e. if they can give any degree of reproducibility and control. Kirk shanahan (talk) 14:14, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

How do you consider the scientific plausibility/validity of hydrot(r)on mechanism hypothesis proposed by Storms?--188.27.144.144 (talk) 15:08, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I have just started looking at it, but I consider it relatively unlikely. Please recall I don't feel there is a sufficient case for LENR, and that all observations to date can be explained within the context of 'normal' chemistry and physics, so the invention of a highly structured arrangement of protons in a nanometer wide crack that vibrate such that they can fuse and release large amounts of energy in multiple small steps seems far fetched to me, but I am not a theoretician. If someone actually shows reliable measurements of nuclear heat, and can show 'new' detected atomic species do not arise from contamination, then maybe I will give it a second look. Until then it is just like the other theories of LENR, an attempt to explain 'ghosts', i.e., something that's not there.

Of course contamination has to be excluded. The model seems rather simplistic. Nevertheless, Brian J has forwarded the reply from two theoreticians (Gordon Baym and Anthony Leggett) that experiments are only arbiters between various theoretical formulations. The real issue is on the explanatory power and predictive power of this model that could validate or falsify it. These aspects hold for all scientific models, that's what the logic of science says.--188.27.144.144 (talk) 13:00, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

The difference between the science of today and that of Aristotle's time is the reliance on reproducible data. The reproducibility need not be obtained through a physical/chemical mechanistic theory, a statistical model is adequate. Once reliable data is obtained, theories can be developed that can extend our understanding to unexplored regions with some degree of reliability, i.e. the theory will offer predictability within reason. Then refinement can occur which can lead to very good theories with high predicatability and the capability of accurate extrapolation. But it all drives off of data...reliable data...AND the data interpretations. I question the reliability of most of the data interpretations that are currently out there. Because they have the wrong 'theories' about what is happening, they are not able to demonstrate control over the results, which is the first requirement for proving a point 'scientifically'.

Our current level of scientific knowledge does allow us to predict a great many things, but anomalies are still found. At that point, the 'standard' knowledge has to be modified to account for the anomaly, and then that hypothesis has to be tested to confirm its accuracy. Confirmation comes from re-attaining predictability (i.e. reproducibility). So far, the CF community has not produced a fully reliable theory, and I have proposed alternative ones that should be tested, but are currently being ignored due to the biases on both sides of the fence. Kirk shanahan (talk) 14:29, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

What do you propose in order to minimize cognitive biases on both sides of the fence as you call it? And is the bias just cognitive, or is there another type of it besides cognitive one?--188.27.144.144 (talk) 15:11, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

{orig pos}

I don't have time to figure how the biases I refer to fit into the categories noted in the linked article. What I am referring to is the CFers bias against investigating WITHOUT involving LENRs, and the mainstream's bias in assigning CFers' results to the 'totally worthless' pile. My position is in-between these extremes, I believe F&P&H found an effect, mediated by surface chemistry, which is somewaht interesting to a few people but not likely to save the world. So, I propose that somebody investigate the idea that H2+O2 recombination occurs on the surfaces of electrodes that have been processed to have a 'special active surface state' (currently unknown structure), which certainly would alter things like the tenacity with which bubbles adhere to the surface. I also propose people modify their cell/calorimeter models to take into account the possibility of a CCS problem and then reconsider their data in that light. Kirk shanahan (talk) 15:24, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

It sounds like a reasonable proposal, but how can that be implemented practically in order to get testable predictions to certainly exclude some factors from having an influence?--188.27.144.144 (talk) 15:36, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the objective is to exclude factors, the objective is to find the controlling factors. Initially this could be semiquantiative, and a lot of the extant data should be relevant, especially studies with deliberate additives. However, they should now be approached from the point of view that they might be forming that 'SASS' (special active surface state), and studies of what they do to the electrode surface when added would conceivably help. Also one would need to consider how the eletrolye viscosity changes, especially since some of the time it is in a two-phase form with gas bubbles being present. You are trying to increase the bubble adhesion by altering surface tension and/or decreasing viscosity. The difference here is to focus on the chemistry rather than the nucleonics/ Kirk shanahan (talk) 18:55, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Of course finding controlling factors does not exclude the exclusion of factors that have been proved not to have influence according to the method of falsifiability. I think (electro)chemical and nucleonic aspects should both be considered in the frame of the hybrid discipline of nuclear (electro)chemistry. I'll post a new section titled Nuclear electrochemistry aspects to discuss the appropriate combination of factors.--188.27.144.144 (talk) 10:57, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps a distinguishing experiment which does not involve water should be used as a control. From what I understand it seems that Yoshiaki Arata has obtained some positive results with non-aqueous cell containing ethanol.--188.27.144.144 (talk) 15:41, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

When you go from aqueous to non-aqueous, you are doing so massive chemical changes. I'm not sure that is a good plan at this stage. I'd have to spend some time (which I don't have) thinking about it. Also, positive in what way? Excess heat signals? Helium in his hollowed-out Pd electrodes? The current 'mundane' thinking is his He comes from air inleakage. Does he eliminate that a la the Clarke studies? The heat signals could be the 'same' thing, or it could be something else if that's what he sees. Kirk shanahan (talk) 18:55, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I took the liberty of moving this from its prior location above (indicated by '{orig pos}')

Also what can be done for new phenomena that are inherently not totally reproducible similar in this respect to the rather old phenomenon of nuclear fission where an individual fission does not yield reproducible products, just a statistic distribution of fission product yield?--188.27.144.144 (talk) 15:17, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

The 'old' field of nuclear fission is just old because there have been massive efforts over the years that have accumulated a large database of information on the topic. A new field only gets to be an old field by doing that. I am not a nuclear chemist, but I assume there was a lot of false starts and messed up experiments back in the formative days of fission studies, that were eventually worked out and are now almost forgotten. If CF were real, it would have to go through the same process. Even if it is just normal chemistry as I propose, the control required for good reproducibility will take some effort to achieve. The problem is we're never going to get there when the practitioners wear blinders like they do today. Kirk shanahan (talk) 19:02, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

How do you consider the validity of Huizenga's criticism pertaining to misinterpretation of Nernst equation by Fleischmann and Pons? I consider that Huizenga may be right in stating that F&P could have misinterpreted NE but not on this aspect automatically invalidating claims of nuclear reactions mechanism. The Nernst equation has the potential of a tacit misinterpretation due to the questionable concept involved in its original derivation by its author when the electron was not known explicitly as a particle, namely the concept dissolution tension/pressure of metals which had implausibly large values.--188.27.144.144 (talk) 13:20, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

All I know of this is that F&P supposedly claimed they were obtaining Pd loadings electrochemically that equated to pressures on the order of 10e23. However, that came from the Nerst equation using pressure as a variable, when in fact real systems must use fugacities. Hydrogen's fugactity coefficients are big, and this greatly reduces the needed applied pressure, down to the range of Gigapascals or a few thousand atmospheres, instead of 10e23rd. I can't help but believe F&P knew this, and were just trying to be grandiose for the press, which seemed to have backfired on them. Kirk shanahan (talk) 14:34, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Of course fugacities in gas phase and activity in solid solutions should be used. But are you aware of the fact that the initial/original derivation of Nernst equation by Nernst appealed to the dissolution tension/pressure of metals that had the order of 10e23? This concept of dissolution tension has not entirely and explicitly been eliminated from electrochemical science. It lurks in the background of treatises of electrochemistry being encountered allusively in some wordings from those textbooks.--188.27.144.144 (talk) 15:28, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

What do you consider about the possible involvement of adsorption in metal hydrogen systems in CF claimed results?--188.27.144.144 (talk) 10:39, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any real relevance, since Storms' Pt work showed it is not related to absorbed H. Kirk shanahan (talk) 13:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps just Storms' work showed such thing because Pt is known not to dissolve hydrogen. Adsorbtion, especially of hydrogen in metals, may be connected to the (CF) puzzles regarding Nernst equation and solid solutions, where a puzzling state of proton interacting with conduction band electron(s) has been observed.--188.27.144.144 (talk) 08:19, 20 August 2014 (UTC)