On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 4:03 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <[email protected]> wrote:
Rothwell>>> The data clearly shows that some cells produce heat after death, and other do not. What does not make sense here is your demand that all cells do this. Cude>> It's not a demand. It's an identification of an inconsistency. Lomax> So? The implication is that consistency of results is a requirement for an effect to be considered real. That's not a scientific proposition. Consistency here is not the same as reproducibility. The theory that heat is produced by deuterium fusion is contradicted if there is no deuterium present. That's a blatant inconsistency. There are degrees. I was saying that the idea that the heat is produced by deuterium reactions in Pd appears inconsistent with the fact that the heat disappears so quickly. Perhaps not a direct contradiction, just something that appears inconsistent with the proposed theory. Discussion like this -- identification of inconsistencies -- is in fact an integral part of any scientific discourse, contrary to what you say. It was not the only thing my skepticism depends on. My central point, if you paid attention, is that there is no progress in the field and there is no obvious demo, when if the claims were real, it should be easy to set one up. You and Rothwell are using experimental results from the early 90s to argue for the reality of CF. What better illustration of the lack of progress than that? >> "One problem I have with those results. When the current shuts off, the heat dies immediately. It seems implausible that the deuterium would diffuse out of the Pd that quickly. I would expect a more gradual decline. Especially with all the reports of heat after death. That points to artifact to me." > heat after death occurs with some techniques. I do see, by the way, some HAD in that experiment. Just not a lot. Look at how the heat falls, it "bounces." Bounces? Do you think the deuterium diffuses out and then back in? That looks *inconsistent* to me. But no matter. The bounce is entirely within the error bars for the control. > The effect, first of all, is not much seen under equilibrium conditions. If deuterium in palladium produces an effect, then the deuterium has to get out of the Pd for the effect to stop, equilibrium or not. > When the current is rapidly shut down, the deuterium will immediately begin to migrate out, Begin, yes. But the rate is limited by ordinary laws of diffusion. > What you are doing is seeing a mystery, and concluding "artifact." Sort of, yes. Mysteries, inconsistencies, inexplicables all make a theory harder to swallow. When the evidence is not obvious, as in flight, and theory makes a result implausible, then mysteries suggest artifacts. > But what artifact? That's the question, isn't it? Right. But not a very interesting one, for those who feel the evidence is uncommonly weak for nuclear reactions. Finding artifacts is hard, and finding other people's artifacts is hard and boring, especially if no one believes the claims anyway. >> So, given that some cells show heat after death, meaning the deuterium does not diffuse out of the Pd right away, > No, there is an assumption here. Suppose that the effect appears at, say, 90%, and that the SRI cells are *just above that, a smidgen." So you turn off the electrolytic pressure, and the effect immediately disappears, as the loading goes quickly below the required level. Suppose that in another experiment, the necessary loading is the same, but the cell reaches 92%. Turn off the juice, the loading starts to go down, but it takes time to pass the turn-off threshold. This idea of a steep threshold is not consistent (there it is again) with the way the heat ramps up as the current is increased. There are clearly intermediate levels of heat, resulting presumably from intermediate levels of loading. If the threshold were so steep, you might expect a step increase as the current is increased. That's not observed. >> how could it be that in this particularly good experiment, the deuterium could diffuse out seemingly in a matter of seconds. > That chart has a scale of hours, the horizontal scaling is 24 hours per division. "Seconds?" Joshua made that up. Not made up; guessed wrong. The graph you linked to wasn't labelled. You have to go back to the original to get the scale; I thought the axis was labelled in minutes, and it's actually hours. That weakens the objection, but it doesn't remove it. The complete drop takes about an hour, but it's very steep in the middle, dropping by half the amount in about 12 minutes. That still seems like an unreasonable rate for diffusion, when you consider that a tiny foil in Dardik's experiment maintains its output heat for 4 days. We're told that a very special condition is required in Pd for CF, but now it turns out there are 2 very different special conditions required, one in which the deuterium doesn't diffuse below a critical level in 4 days, and the other in which it diffuses below that level in less than an hour. Fishy! > That could mean that it is at very close to the critical level. Except on the way up there were many intermediate levels. > Now, is it plausible that the surface conditions in a loaded palladium rod could alter greatly in one hour of the loss of excess loading pressure? More plausible than it happening in seconds, I'll grant, but to drop by half the power in 12 minutes, when the ramp up clearly shows stable intermediate levels, and Dardik's foil lasting 4 days, I'm gonna go with implausible. > This, again, demonstrates my point. To understand a chart like that of P13/P14, to really "get" the implications, is quite unlikely for someone who just glances at it. If you are ready to believe, you might look at this chart and go "Wow! That's incredible." And if you are ready to discount and reject, you can look at it and quickly make up all kinds of reasons to reject it. As Joshua just did. And if nobody walks you through this, you will then believe that you had "good reasons" to be unimpressed. It's how the mind works, it's like clockwork. > Hence my suspicion that the biggest problem with DoE 2004 was that there was no extended back-and-forth, no discussion, questions and answers and more questions and more answers, so that the reviewers thoroughly understood the claims. Yea. That must be it. Because, like on an internet forum, those panel members got the units wrong. And if there had only been a little back and forth, they would have got the units right, and all would be well in the CF world. As if the entire objection to CF is based on this inconsistency, which is still there. > Half the 2004 panel thought that the existence of a heat anomaly was "conclusive" or "somewhat conclusive." Really? No. Not really. Half found the evidence compelling. A third were somewhat convince. "Conclusive" is much stronger. The 2004 report was framed in kinder language than the 1989 report was, but that's probably because there was no reason to be mean. In 1989, the fear of a very expensive wild goose chase probably influenced the language. But still the 2004 report was almost unanimous (17/18) that evidence for nuclear reactions was not conclusive. No other active scientific field would ever get such a negative review from a similar review panel. > There is one approach that can do this, because a difference of 4 degrees C can be palpable. It's really expensive, turns out. I've thought of offering it, but I'd probably need some kind of subsidy or investment to do it. The original work, Arata, used 7 g of nanoparticle palladium alloy, to produce a 4 degree temperature differential, which, from his published work, is maintained for the length of the experiment, after loading, about 3000 minutes. I don't know what happens after that (he supposedly sends the contents out for helium analysis, no reported results that I know of, and, yes, all this sucks compared to what I'd want to see.... but that's Arata, the Grand Old Man of Japanese physics.) To do this as a demo, I'd probably need to use more material, to get a higher temperature differential. This would be an expensive little puppy. Who is going to pay for it? If the heat is continuous, you just need better insulation to get a bigger temperature difference. But yes, more palladium should work too. But it's been a few years now since Arata's big claim. The experiment is still no better. > Suppose, to give a CF example, I run a hundred cells. […] CF has not demonstrated any sort of statistical reproducibility either, although I recognize that could be difficult. But again, one cell would convince the world if it stayed palpably warmer than its surroundings for a really long time; just like Rothwell said. > The 2004 panel recommended research under existing programs to resolve unanswered questions, They recommended well-designed proposals should be entertained; they did not recommend research. They also pointed out that the submissions to the panel contained no well-designed proposals. > What happened is that scientists did submit proposals, the proposals were rejected, because the skeptics still have political power and absolutely don't want to fund something that competes with what they want: more funding for hot fusion and high-energy nuclear research. Maybe its because the CF people are not capable of producing a well-designed proposal. That's much more plausible than fear of competition. The DOE, like all funding agencies, are careful not to use reviewers with a conflict of interest. And, as I've argued before, a real CF effect conflicts with only a very narrow slice of the population, but it is perfectly aligned with the interests of the country, its government, and its people. >> It's only about twice the size of the polywater cohort, and probably smaller than the homeopathy cohort, and certainly smaller than the UFO cohort, so I'm not buying it. There are many examples of large groups of scientists being wrong. And to repeat, if CF is right, then a much larger group of scientists would have to be incompetent. >No, not incompetent, but perhaps holding some opinions outside their competence. CF does not take place under plasma conditions. Not all physics, or even nuclear physics, happens in a plasma. Many nuclear reactions, including fission, and your favorite, muon-catalyzed fusion, happen in solids, and are perfectly well-understood by theory. The only holding of opinions outside their competence is from the CF advocates who are ignorant of nuclear physics. >> And I'm not obligated to believe Dardik's tiny electrode produces .5 W for 4 days without any power input, if he can't take it out and prove it in a thermos of water. > Eh? In other words, radically change the experimental conditions, something else happens? What experimental conditions? If there is no power, the only condition is that it is inside an electrolyte. So lift it out of the apparatus with the electrolyte inside a small tube. No change in conditions. > This would prove what? That a piece of palladium deuteride, sitting in a thermos of water, doesn't do anything? Didn't we already know that? Yes, we did. But going by Dardik's claims, it should do something. You're grasping here. Heat after death and gas-loading experiments should be much more obviously demonstrable. And even the input power claims with high gains should be designed to be self-powering. > Whoever could find the artifact and, more, demonstrate it, would become famous. Consider Wood and N-rays! But N-rays were at the stage of CF in 1989. In fact Koonin and Lewis did gain a lot of fame debunking CF. Now, if anyone did it, people would just say Duh, and wonder why anyone would waste time on it. >>>>> But heat can be demonstrated simply and visually. . . >>>> It can, and it has been. >>>Not as simply and visually as you have described and wished for. Not simply and visually enough to persuade a panel of experts. >In one day. Yup. Bring in a beaker of water with a piece of foil in it, and if it stays warm for a day, you'll have something.
