Apparently, Kirk does not give up easily even when the facts that
dispute his claim are presented to him on several occasions. His
mechanism is at odds with observation because recombination does not
occur on the cathode surface, as has been demonstrated by measurement
and by simple logic. In addition, the calorimeter I used is insensitive
to where heat is produced within the cell. based experimental
measurement. All of these facts have been given to Kirk without having
any effect on his behavior. On the other hand, he shows no experimental
evidence that his model is real, in contrast to being a figment of his
imagination. Such is the kind of people cold fusion has to deal with.
Regards,
Ed
Steven Krivit wrote:
Vorts -
Kirk Shanahan
posted the following message to the Wiki cold fusion
page on 2 March, at 16:45.
Eight minutes later, Wiki watchdog David W. Brooks, an apparent sysop
for the page - most appropriately - erased this entire entry, reverting
to the prior revision.
I wonder if Dr. Shanahan is reading Vortex and picked up the recent
threads regarding Wiki and decided to use that to express his views.
If so, I wish you luck in your efforts, Dr. Shanahan, and hope that you
do your homework.
Steve
Recently, a chemical explanation of the excess heat observations has
been promoted by Dr. K. L. Shanahan, Savannah
River National Laboratory in two publications in the scientific journal
Thermochimica Acta (TA). In the first -(TA, 387(2), (2002), 95),
experimental data collected by Dr. E. Storms and posted to the Internet
in January/February, 2000, and presented at the 8th International
Conference on Cold Fusion was reanalyzed from the point of view of a
system that produced no true excess energy, but that apeared to do so.
What was found was that
-a simple variation in calibration constants within +/- 3% would account
for the observed apparent excess heat. The article focused on presenting
these results, which provide a convenient explanation for a large
fraction of observed excess heat results. However, no detailed mechanism
for the calibration constant shift mechanism was presented there, and
subsequently Szpak, Mosier-Boss, Miles, and Fleischmann, while reporting
new claims of observed cold fusion (TA, 410(1-2), (2004), 101),
criticized Shanahan's work. In response Shanahan has submitted a new
paper (TA (2005, article in press)) responding to the criticism and
detailing the proposed mundane (but interesting) chemical mechanism,
while also commenting on the Szpak, et al, paper.
-
-In simple terms, the Shanahan explanation consists of the slow
development of a contaminated electrode surface which promotes the
at-the-surface, under-the-electroyte joining of H2(D2) and O2 bubbles,
which then ignite and burn on the electrode surface. This redistributes
the heat produced in the cells, and can produce a calibration constant
shift, which in turn produces an apparent excess energy signal. This
surface chemistry explanation is driven by the realization that the work
of Dr. Storms was done on a Pt cathode, instead of the 'ususal' Pd, and
Pt does not hydride. Thus, bulk hydriding levels are not directly
relevant to the effect, in contrast to the claims of McKubre and
Hagelstein.
-
-Excess heat claims constitute the most common form of evidence
presented for a nuclear explanation of the cold fusion claims, but there
are additional claims to have observed a wide variety of nuclear ash
(nuclear reaction products). Dr. Shanahan has posted extensive
discussions of how such nuclear ash observations could have been
obtained by the various researchers involved on the Internet Usenet
newsgroup sci.physics.fusion. Most of these explanations invoke poor
analytical chemistry practices.
-
-The claims of Dr. Shanahan represent an alternative explanation to the
nuclear version of 'cold fusion' and, barring some reasonable
explanation as to why Dr. Shanahan's theses are incorrect, as such
clearly establish that the issue of the nuclear nature of 'cold fusion'
is not yet decided, over 15 years afer the initial announcements of such.
*********
The following subsequent conversation occurred between Shanahan and Brooks:
KS:
David, Any particular reason that you reverted my addition to the Cold
Fusion main page (Hidden Chemistry)? Kirk Shanahan (new Wikipedia user -
KirkShanahan)
DB:
Yes - I apologize for not putting a discussion on the Talk page; I was
having wikipedia problems and the system kept timing out on me. Your
posting was way, way too long. It was more appropriate for a research
publication or a Web forum; this is supposed to be an overview
encyclopedia article, not an in-depth analysis of all old, new and
potentially relevant research findings. You can imagine what would
happen if every research lab in the world that has new data relating to
cold fusion were to put in three or four paragraphs about its work here
- the article would be so enormous that no browser could handle it, and
no human being could read it.
If you think this work is truly new, signifcant and informative enough
to make the level of this article, then one or two sentences - no more,
please! - and an "external link" at the bottom would be appropriate. But
in a field as cutting-edge as this, new research should be approached
with extreme caution: should we perhaps wait until it gets more
supporting tests from others?
By the way, why not create an account, so you can sign and time stamp
your entries? No personal information needs to be given out, if you
prefer. - DavidWBrooks <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DavidWBrooks>
19:33, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
KS:
Ok - when I printed out the Wikipedia page on CF for my files, it was 11
pages long, and only about 3/4 of a page was my contribution, so I
didn't think I had been excessive. I wanted to let Wiki's readers know
that there is an actual chemical explanation of CF out there, and to
give a brief overview of it. As well, I pointed to the newsgroup and
literature which is many, many pages to read. What do I need to do to
my section to get it included? - Kirk Shanahan
-end
