At 12:51 AM 8/18/2012, Jeff Berkowitz wrote:
Good calorimetry is difficult, but comparisons are not. Wouldn't it
be sufficient to demonstrate two parallel implementations, one with
an unprocessed CONSTANTAN wire and no H2, one with a processed wire
and H2, and measure the difference using the same approach?
Why do I even have to pose this question?
Questions like this are what cause the rest of the world to doubt
the whole discipline. How hard is this? What am I missing? Help me out here.
Jeff, the Celani experiment is not designed to show "the rest of the
world" that cold fusion is real. He is investigating a technique, and
for that purpose, if he keeps his apparatus the same, he doesn't need
an absolute control. Rather, he sees the effect on the results from
shifts in materials. His *experimental series* provides the control he needs.
You are correct. He's comparing results. Here, he was only showing
one experiment. His calorimetry was "approximate." If he keeps the
same conditions, his comparisons should be sound, and I'd assume that
the full series would include something not active. That will check
his baseline.
He only demonstrated one experiment out of a series, and that not
under full operating conditions.
This is little more than "show and tell." Demonstrations don't
convince anyone who is truly skeptical, but Celani's full
experimental reports might be better for someone on the fence.
If you want better study, take a look at SRI P13/P14. That series,
done in 1991, I think, shows definitive XP, with matched hydrogen
control; the full series shows the variability of results. The same
cathode, same apparent conditions, two times the same current
excursion was run, no heat. The same with the hydrogen control. Third
time's a charm.
The third excursion is what was published widely, it's in the 2004
U.S. Department of Energy review paper. Without knowing about the
first two excursions, though -- which weren't mentioned in the review
paper -- you'd just think, well, XP tracking input current. This is unusual?
Yes, it is *very* unusual. The hydrogen control is in series,
measured with the same calorimetric method, showing no excess heat,
only an increase in noise with increased current (as would be
expected). The deuterium cell takes off.
The first two runs show that the calorimetry is working. The shutdown
also shows that the calorimetry is working.
The whole series shows that the Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect depends
on uncontrolled variables. Even the *same cathode* did not produce
the same effects.
By the way, SRI monitored the D/PD and H/Pd ratios. It was over 90%
for all excursions. The difference is not due to loading difference.
Storms, now, would explain this by differences in the surface
cracking of the cathodes. Not controlled. It is absolutely no wonder
that many researchers found nothing, and finding nothing proved
nothing other than ... it's possible to do the experiment, as it was
defined, and find nothing.
In science, we look for explanations that cover *all* the work that
has been done. What came to be known, eventually, covers, quite well,
the early negative replications. From what we know, they were to be
expected. Lewis, for example, didn't have over 80% loading, a
necessity with his approach. He may or may not have seen some actual
XP, that issue is covered by the correspondence between Noninski and Nature.
And then there came heat/helium, and knocked the brains out of the
skeptical responses. Except, for those who were pseudoskeptics
instead of real skeptics, believing in themselves more than science,
they haven't noticed yet.... it takes a while for the beast to go
down, since it doesn't depend on higher brain functions.... it only
operates on primitive survival instincts.
