User talk:Kirk shanahan/Archives/2009/June

This is an archive of past discussions about 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.

(Convenience break)

You know V, I first thought we were making some progress, but I see really that we aren’t. Examples:

“Anyone who thinks this equation is false: (3*3)+1=10 --that person is wrong, whether idiot or genius.” - Of course you missed the entire point, but it’s not important.

Due to other obligations, it will take some time to properly reply to the stuff you wrote in this area. But at the moment I can reply to the above, as follows: YOU have missed the point. An "idiot's guide" is NOT any such thing if the explanatory cart is placed before the explanatory horse. So, you missed that point when you wrote your equations before you wrote your accompanying explanation, and you missed it again, even after I tried to less-blatantly specify the flaw in that explanation. And if you think that "your papers" are explanatory enough, equivalent to an idiot's guide, when full of specialists' jargon, then you need to seriously think again! V (talk) 14:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

“The only job I'm interested in seeing you accomplish involves describing CCS details in a way that is more reasonable than I've previously seen.” – Can’t do that. As I noted with my Sun Tzu reference, the fault is yours, not mine. I have explained it so an idiot can understand it. Go read the paper. The manuscript version, which has all the technical details, is in Rothwell’s Website.

More illogic (this time of the inconsistency variety) from Kirk. V (talk) 08:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Good grief! Now you're critcising Sun Tzu! ROFL doubled!!!! Kirk shanahan (talk) 15:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

When criticism is deserved, why not? I notice you aren't defending the idea that eliminating a member of a group improves the maximum possible strength of the group....

The inconsistency is that you cannot say that someone is unable to understand something, and ALSO say that that person is deliberately misunderstanding that particular thing. Only if it is understandable/actually-understood can it be deliberately misunderstood. I have now read the Sun Tzu ancecodote. You have not proved you have explained a CCS-causation mechanism in a way that can be understood by concubines, to say nothing of idiots (are you aware that one Chinese concubine managed to beome Empress, ruling alone for a significant time? No idiot, she!). All Sun Tzu had to do was encourage them to follow orders (and beheading was probably excessive; "strength in formation" is always reduced when the size of the formation is reduced, obviously).

You cannot assume the casual reader to have sufficient depth of background (equivalent to "tools to make the tools to make the tools...") to know the terms that specialists bandy about. In my case, some time back, I recall encountering something I perceived to be a logical flaw in your explanation of how CCS could happen. LOGICALLY, in any argument-chain, a flawed link means the rest of the chain, that depends on that link, is incapable of holding the weight it is given. There was no reason for me to read the rest of the chain until the perceived flaw was resolved. YOU failed to resolve it, instead choosing to be offended as if attacked. Get over it; I don't treat your hypothesis any differently from others that don't make complete sense --here's an example I am copying from the CF Talk page:

I'd like to interject a remark regarding my first impressions when I first encountered "hydrino" descriptions. I was aware that in Quantum Mechanics electron orbits are "mapped" in terms of whole numbers; the circumference of the lowest orbit is basically equal to one wavelength of the electron; the circumference of the next-lowest orbit is equal to two wavelengths, and so on. Well, if hydrinos are real, the only way it could make sense in terms of QM (to me, anyway) is if the first orbit smaller than the QM-standard-lowest-orbit was such that twice its circumference equalled one electron-wavelength; in other words, the electron orbits twice while doing one "vibration". Obviously the next smaller orbit would have the electron orbiting three times while doing one vibration, and so on. The PROBLEM I have with that is an orbit is itself a type of vibration (cyclic); we would be saying that the electron can do two or more orbit-vibes at the same time it is doing one (ordinary) vibe, and there is something contradictory about that. So, I cannot much support the hydrino hypothesis, until that contradiction is resolved. But I can keep a somewhat-open mind about it, on the off-chance that the contradiction has been resolved in a way about which I am simply currently ignorant.

Likewise, I await from you, Kirk, an explanation of a CCS-causation mechanism that makes sense. No cart before the horse, either! V (talk) 14:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

For the rest of you, V has the way science is done completely backwards. He apparently won't accept experimental evidence without a 'theory' that justifies it (even while fighting valiently for cold fusion, which has no theory explaining it either). However, real science is data-driven. If an experimentalist can develop a reproducible data set, then that stands as what theory must explain. It doesn't work the other way, i.e. if you don't have a theory to explain good data, you can't believe the data. So, being backwards, V makes vehement demands for a theory of how a CCS can happen. First off then, I don't have to provide one to have demonstrated a CCS is fully capable of explaining excess heat signals. I did that and published it. Second, as an addition, I *also* published, in the same paper, my speculative mechanism as to how such could occur. I have repeatedly tried to explain the CCS details to V, and have pointed him numerous times to my paper(s). He fails to read and understand. I actually don't know if he is incapable or unwilling to do so. But, bottom line, I can't get through to him, so I will not respond to him any more. If any of you can't understand my points, please feel free to comment, but first make sure you have read my paper(s). The original manuscript is on Jed Rothwell's site (the banned lenr-can dot org website). Go to the library, look under the 'S', and find my one entry, then download and read. If you come across the way V does, I will also not respond to you. Kirk shanahan (talk) 15:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

P.S. If you want to understand why the 'bogosity factor' on the hydrino theory is so large, consider how quantum numbers were derived. Kirk shanahan (talk) 15:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

It appears that Kirk has described the Physics community quite well; for twenty years it has failed to accept experimental evidence without a theory that justifies it. Kirk, all I've done is apply their logic to you; how do you like it? Also, you are mixing apples and oranges. With respect to CCS, YOU say it should be considered as a factor in every CF experiment that reports excess heat, but you do not say it should be considered as a factor in every other use of calorimetry equipment that measured heat in experiments for more than the last hundred years. It is that double-standard which requires greater explanation/conflict-resolution than just your say-so. What specific factors lead to CCS in CF experiments and nowhere else (including experiments designed to find it!)??? Also, you have NOT to my knowledge "repeatedly tried to explain the details to V" --I only know of one attempt, at which you failed miserably due to illogic, and which, after being unable to explain why it wasn't illogical, you simply stopped trying. I see no reason to read technical papers full of misunderstandable technical jargon (for all I know, the whole purpose of the jargon is to hide its illogic), when concepts can ALWAYS be explained in plain speech. Details tend to require math, but concepts don't --and concepts that are true always always make logical sense, Quantum Mechanics included. It is therefore extremely important, if CSS is valid in "positive" CF experiments and yet applies nowhere else, that some concept exist to uniquely distinguish CF heat measurements from all other heat measurements. Without that concept, why should anyone believe there is something different, that makes heat detected in CF experiments (and only in CF experiments) only an artifact and not "real"? Just because Kirk Shanahan says so? HAH!!! Per Occam's Razor, the simplest explanation for the heat in CF experiments is that it IS real. (Oh, but now it needs some other explanation, without which the data must be discarded, as the Physics community has done for 20 years, right?...) V (talk) 18:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know where you get the idea that the CCS applies only to cold fusion. It doesn't. I don't know where you get the idea that I have commented on any other application of calorimetry. I haven't. I don't know where you get the idea that I think the way the physic community rejected cold fusion is legitimate. I don't. You are reading your own biases into what I write, so that you can interpret what I say to favor your POV-pushing position, instead of just reading what I write. If you could ever read something in a normal, calm, unbiased fashion, you might be able to make some sense. Kirk shanahan (talk) 18:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I quote from what I wrote above: but you do not say it should be considered as a factor in every other use of calorimetry equipment --where do you get the idea from that, that I said you have commented on any other application of calorimetry ??? It is your LACK of such commentary which is condemnable/revealing as a double-standard, since you focus its application upon CF experiments exclusively, when, if CCS is real, it should have been affecting calorimetry experiments for more than a century. So, YOU are the one reading your own biases into what I write --and thereby are spouting nonsense instead of sense. NOR am I in any way trying to legitimize the way the physic community rejected cold fusion --I was simply giving you the opportunity to be on the rejection side of such behavior AND WITH MUCH MORE REASON, since CCS needs a specific mechanism to ONLY be significant in CF experiments. That is, if it had been significant in many other experiments, discrepancies would have been in the literature such that the CCS explanation would have been developed decades ago. Yet, since chemists' heat measurements have successfully been validated by scaling-up throughout the chemical engineering industry for decades, without such significant discrepancies appearing, it is logical to conclude that CCS has not been a factor needing to be discovered. Now, you say, it is a relevant factor. OK, WHY???!!! V (talk) 19:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

You are truly astoundingly dense V. I really believe you can't handle this, but I will do it once more so other readers can see how dense you really are. I have written this many times before here, on the CF Talk Page, and in my papers, but you can't follow it. So, for the last time: HERE IS THE CONCEPT. THE CONCEPT V. HERE IT IS. MAKE SURE YOU GET THIS.

---concept---concept---concept---concept---

IF one measures a calibration constant(s) at time t0, and THEN conducts an experiment at time t1, AND the system has shifted such that the calibration determined at t0 is incorrect, THEN IT IS AN ERROR TO APPLY THE EQUATION DETERMINED AT TIME t0 TO DATA COLLECTED AT TIME t1.

ONE MUST USE THE CORRECT CALIBRATION EQUATION TO GET A CORRECT RESULT FROM IT!

---endconcept---endconcept---endconcept---endconcept---

If Joule used a calibration equation that was inappropriate for the time he applied it, he would be wrong. If Einstein used a calibration equation that was inappropriate for the time he applied it, he would be wrong. If Nerst used a calibration equation that was inappropriate for the time he applied it, he would be wrong. If V used a calibration equation that was inappropriate for the time he applied it, he would be wrong. If Storms used a calibration equation that was inappropriate for the time he applied it, he would be wrong. If Fleischmann used a calibration equation that was inappropriate for the time he applied it, he would be wrong. If Shanahan used a calibration equation that was inappropriate for the time he applied it, he would be wrong.

Heh, how nice of you to reveal YOUR OWN mental density, by once again avoiding the question I actually asked. I understood what you meant by the name "Calibration Constant Shift" when I saw the simple algebra and out-of-order explanations at the top of the "Requested Idiot's Guide" section. What I have been asking since then is "how can it happen?" You have gone in all sorts of directions to try to avoid answering that, including the intellectually dishonest route of claiming I should be banned. Tsk, tsk; banning a Questioner doesn't make the Questions irrelevant.

But at last , below this text I'm writing here-and-now, you have finally begun to say something that might be relevant. I'll insert comments as I go through it. V (talk) 05:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Now, I got the REAL DATA from Ed Storms' cold fusion experiment, where he 'saw' a cold fusion excess heat signal, and I REANALYZED it to see if a slight shift in calibration constant would wipe out the signal. IT DID. The shift was 1 to 3%. THAT'S TRIVIAL IN THE REAL WORLD. That means the apparent excess heat signals COULD COME FROM A CALIBRATION SHIFT. That means Storms cannot claim it comes from cold fusion without proving it didn't come from a calibration shift. He did no such work. Therefore, he is INCORRECT in concluding cold fusion caused the signal.

OK, does "That's trivial in the real world" mean that CCS happens to that extent almost all the time in practically all other calorimetry measurements? If not, then you still have no case, until you can explain (as I've been repeatedly asking) why CCS is most likely to happen in CF experiments. V (talk) 05:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't need to do anything else. I showed that a minor CCS could produce Storms' results. Now, does ANY OTHER CFER check for this. NO! In fact, they denigrate the idea, BUT IT IS JUST MATH!!! If they don't check to see if this is happening in their cell/calorimeter, likewise they cannot conclude it isn't and that the signals they observe come from CF. Without checking, there are two alternative explanations, and neither has been eliminated.

BAD LOGIC. You are making the unwarranted assumption that CCS MUST be happening in their experiments, without explaining why it must be happening. Again I point at the rest of the calorimetry field; if CCS happens practically everywhere, THEN OF COURSE the CFers would have a most excellent reason to look out for it. So they denigrate your hypothesis because you fail to explain, SENSIBLY, why only their experiments should suffer from it, and not all those other experiments in chemistry being measured with calorimeters. V (talk) 05:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

However, I continued to go on and show how such a shift might occur. Postulation only V. Not proof of anything, just a good idea. IF you recognize that the CF cell/calorimeter is ACTUALLY heterogeneous, with defined and specific heat loss pathways, then you realize you need, as an absolute bare minimum, a two zone model to describe it. Each zone will have a different heat collection efficiency. If heat moves from the low eff. zone to the high eff. zone, it will produce a need to recalibrate!

Well, that looks like an attempt to answer my question, but the last part of it is about as clear as mud. Certainly the experimental apparatus has multiple different components (heterogeneous). And it is reasonable to say it has defined and specific heat loss pathways, simply because we need to make sure the calorimeter covers all the pathways, to be able to make its measurement. However, EVERY chemistry experiment that yields or absorbs heat is in a similar "boat" to what was just described. That means they all need a minimum-two-zone descriptive model, and blah-blah-blah and recalibration, duh... --and your logic disintegrates with that point-of-failure, so again I don't really need to read more, until after you explain what is so different about CF experiments from other experiments. DO NOTE that I can agree the CFers should check for CCS if it happens all over. But so far, I don't see you saying that (especially because I'm half-remembering some remarks on some Talk page or other about experiments specifically designed to find CCS and failing). V (talk) 05:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

In CF cells of the F&P type, this can happen if heat that is produced by recombination moves from either exiting the cell via the gas stream (open) or from the recombination catalyst (closed) to the electrode!

Now seems like a good time to recall that some time back you talked about hundreds of hours of accumulation of crud on the electrodes, after which somehow a clean electrode surface would be available to catalyze hydrogen-oxygen recombination. More illogic, that was, of the obviously-self-contradictory sort.... V (talk) 05:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

THIS IS ALL IN MY FIRST PAPER! READ IT!! Kirk shanahan (talk) 20:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm amazed it got published. Should I suspect it had so much gobbledygook/jargon in it that the reviewers passed it because they didn't want to admit they couldn't understand how it SUPPOSEDLY made conceptual sense? V (talk) 05:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Let me ask you something V. Did F&P have a viable explanation for how 'cold fusion' worked the first time they presented it? No?? Then why do you insist I do so. As I've said many times, science is data-driven. If you have good data, you aren't required to provide an explanation when you present the data. That can, and often is, done by others. You requirements that you are trying so hard to place on me are bogus. They show your bias, beacause as I note just above, you don't apply the same requirements to F&P.

WRONG --AND you are still wildly missing (or deliberately ignoring) the point I am trying to get at, especially since you have not responded to my Questions above, and (below) are trying to change the subject. That looks like evidence you cannot have a case, and refuse to admit it. If CCS is real, it must be detectable in more than one type of experiment. (Even neutrinos, the least detectable physical thing so far known, can be detected in more than one type of apparattus.) But in more than a century of calorimetry experiments, nothing like CCS has ever been seen. That statement actually includes CF experiments, because if CCS was the explanation for excess heat IN THIS TYPE OF EXPERIMENT, why doesn't it almost always happen? That is, if an experimenter is able to set up 10 identical-as-possible electrolysis cells, and only three shows signs of excess heat, why is CCS happening in those cells and not the other seven??? The factors involved in macroscopic events are far more controllable than the factors involved in nanoscopic events. For CCS to be real, macroscopic things must be happening. For CF to be real, nanoscopic things must be happening. Since the nanoscopic environment can be quite different in different regions of reasonably pure solid metal (examples: actual impurity distribution; the shapes of irregularities in the crystal structure, ...), it is quite logical that it can be difficult to pin down the parameters needed to reliably reproduce conditions in which cold fusion could happen. But for a macroscopic thing like CCS, the conditions needed to reliably reproduce that are of a larger and more manipulable scale (the calorimeter itself is a macroscopic device, and its calibration is a macroscopic thing, see?) -- yet it has been said that CCS has not been reproduced in experiments that looked for it. Therefore Occam's Razor tells us that the CCS hypothesis has a much lower probability of being true, than cold fusion. Finally, you still seem to be ignoring the fact that multiple explanations for CF have been proposed; CCS is not needed to explain the detected excess heat (which is perfectly fine, since, as I've just explained, CCS doesn't appear anywhere else, when it should appear). (later) I see I left out three key words in the preceding, that better explain my position: NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE . That is, the ONLY data "for" CCS is the data that CCS is designed to explain; there is no other data anywhere else hinting that CCS should exist. YOU should be able to specify a rationale for that (which IS something I've been asking for; the hypothesis needs to fit ALL the data, which includes lack-of-data, see?) V (talk) 20:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, you have devolved to the personal attack again, as is your custom. Again, the problem is yours, not mine. End of story. Kirk shanahan (talk) 11:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I quote from Kirk Shanahan: You are truly astoundingly dense V. I really believe you can't handle this -- AND -- you have devolved to the personal attack again, as is your custom. I guess it is once again time to ask you, Kirk, to look up what the psychologists mean, when they use the word "projection". Have a nice day! V (talk) 13:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

“It seems to me that all they need to do is present alternate evidence of excess heat, such as images of boiling electrolyte and melted palladium, for the calorimeter measurements to become well-nigh irrefutable” - Dude, you’re really going backwards now! A) ‘They’ FIRST proposed the nucelar explanation, i.e. ‘true’ excess heat. That is the first alternative. I proposed a SECOND alternative. They have NEVER shot down my proposal. Therrefore, there are TWO proposals out there to explain apparent excess heat. The appropriate thing for a good scientist to do is test the CCS experimentnally. B) I have ALSO proposed conventional explanations for HAD and apparent melting, which by the way you are lumping together without justification. So the situation is that I have heard all their explanations and seen all their evidence, and find a conventional explanation available for all. That means the case is undecided, and will NOT be decided by ‘more of the same’. New work has to be done to test the conventional explanations, or to prove the nuclear one. What is going on so far is just to repeat the old stuff that was inconclusive. Bad science! You ABSOLUTELY must get this concept down – “When two viable explanations exist for a set of observations, it is inappropriate to conclude one or the other is true (or false).”

“neutron tracks are potentially pretty convincing evidence” – conventional explanation available, not neutrons, therefore ‘CF is nuclear’ is premature.

“I don't see any reason to agree with that assessment until the pheomenon is reliably documented to have occurred in experiments that specifically look for it” – note crucial concept above – you are doing this backwards, which is the sign of having an explantion you like and forcing the experimental data to ‘match’ it. Let me be very clear: Demonstrating a CCS is a viable explanation in ONE case, and ONE case only, is adequate grounds to consider the possibility in any similar experimental data set. The ONLY criterion here is: Was a calibration equation used?

“And I disagree because of (so far as I know at this writing) the lack of evidence that CCS has ever happened anywhere.” – Lack of evidence??? See Thermochimica Acta 387 (2002) 95.

“It appears you are jumping to conclusions moreso than me.” - I have jumped to no conclusions. I have, literally, spent years coming to mine.

“but with CCS in CF experiments not even having at least an explanation...see?” See Thermochimica Acta 387 (2002) 95. (or the manuscript on Rothwell’s site – technically the same thing.)

“Yes and no; the thing you proposed needs to be considered as a factor after it is proved that such a factor actually exists. So far as I've seen, though, nobody has yet demonstrated an actual case of genuine CCS in action.” - Where did you learn to do science? Even in high school the ‘scientific method’ is taught as “observe-hypothesize-test-refine”. The “test” is of the hypothesis, i.e. the first thing you do after observing something interesting is propose an explanation (a ‘hypothesis’). You formulate a hypothesis, then you go test it. Normally, one tries to propose rational and reasonable hypotheses before going off and spending time and money to collect more observations. Buy you ‘prove’ such a factor exists by proposing it and designing a refined experiment to test it There is no other way to ‘prove’ it exists. So, no, you don’t have to prove something exists before you consider it. Further, ‘somebody’ has demonstrated an actual case of genuine CCS in action. That somebody is me, and I did it with Ed Storms results.

“Ummm...actually, the conclusion I had in mind was, "CCS happened in lots of other experiments, even predating CF experiments by decades", and what you have just written does not seem to support that.” – How would I know if a CCS has occurred in other, pre-CF, experiments? Cite the ones you refer to. Otherwise your argument is just B.S. The way science normally works is that serious errors don’t become apparent until some grandiose claims are made based on them. Then the scientific community responds and finds the errors. Then the experimenters are supposed to go back and prove (i.e. satisfy themselves) that such an error was present. No CFer has done that, and I have no clue about whether such a claim was ever made pre-CF. Agin, cite your cases or quit bringing up this fictional red herring. As far as I know, the CF use of calorimetry is unique, that’s why they all claimed back in 1990 that one had to be an expert in CF (i.e. worked with F&P or under their direction) for at least two years before the researchers could be considered ‘trained’.

“else CCS as a hypothesis for explaining various measurments would have first appeared many decades ago” – one of the many ‘Golden Rules of Thumb’ in analytical chemistry is that “You can’t calibrate an unstable system.” The term ‘CCS’ is a short-hand notation I introduced here in CF discussions to simplify the discusssion. It describes what happens when your system is unstable and you try to calibrate it. The principle is well known and has been for generations. All I did was to point out dramatically that it has the potential to explain most, if not all, claims for excess heat. P.S. That doesn’t touch on any other specific claims aimed at supporting nuclear reactions. But those other claims are all explanable by even less dramatic conventional explanations.

“If the CF'ers are finding heat outside that range, yet it is inside the noise range after CCS is PRESUMED to occur, then it becomes extremely important to prove that CCS does indeed occur.” – Finally, something that is absolutely correct. Wonder why the CFers can’t see this?? And why they can’t see that is EXACTLY what I did in my 2002 paper…

I am devoting too much time trying to get the concubines to do the formation, while NOT having the authority of the emperor to lop off heads. Lacking that authority, the laughing and giggling can go on forever. I disengage now. But for the record I restate, there are conventional explanations for _every_ type of claim made to support the proposed nuclear nature of ‘CF’. (The CCS is _only_ directed at apparent excess heat so far.) Thus the jury _should_ still be out. People who claim the decision is in are doing so not based on science but on personal belief. The CF article needs to make that clear, and does not. Kirk shanahan (talk) 15:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Continuing with V’s Intransigence

Picking up from section "Convenience Break" above:

I wrote: “If you have good data, you aren't required to provide an explanation when you present the data. “. V replied: “WRONG” - Sorry V, but the above statement is perfectly true.

That word "WRONG" was not for the part you quoted of yourself, but for this part that you did not quote (and so your feeble attempt to distort the conversation gets you nowhere):

Your requirements that you are trying so hard to place on me are bogus. They show your bias, because as I note just above, you don't apply the same requirements to F&P.

I also wrote, to better explain why you are wrong, this: (later) I see I left out three key words in the preceding, that better explain my position: NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. That is, the ONLY data "for" CCS is the data that CCS is designed to explain; there is no other data anywhere else hinting that CCS should exist. YOU should be able to specify a rationale for that (which IS something I've been asking for; the hypothesis needs to fit ALL the data, which includes lack-of-data, see?) --That is, the rationale for lack of data for CCS in other places needs to be part of the hypothesis, and that "requirement" is not in the slightest "bogus"; it is another key to pointing the way toward verifying CCS as a real phenomenon.

Now compare that to your false claim that I don't apply the same requirements to F&P; I explained the difference between macroscopic control of experimental parameters (which we do have) and nanoscopic control (which is still-budding technology). SOME things are quite solidly established, such that excess heat does not appear until quite a lot of hydrogen has permeated into metal. It could very well be that the nanoscopic structure of the palladium used in electrolysis experiments usually allows hydrogen to leak out almost as fast as it permeates in, so that only rarely does the critical proportion of hydrogen-to-metal get reached (and takes many many hours, when it does happen; relevant quote: "a stern chase is a long chase"). I think I've mentioned an electron-catalysis hypothesis that matches many aspects of CF experiments (why metal is required, why so much hydrogen permeation is needed, why neutron production is so rare, yet happens more often in codeposition experiments, etc.). By comparison CCS hypothesis is nowhere near as complete (yet you resist completing it). Electron-catalyzed fusion is also is not limited to electrolysis experiments, while CCS, if needing hydrogen-oxygen recombination as a source of energy to shift the calibration constant of a calorimeter, cannot explain excess heat production when deuterium gas is pressurized into metal (no oxygen around, nor any electric-resistance heating; the only heat sources are the well-understood Gas Law and the exothermics of hydrogen "dissolving" into metal--different substances, different heats-of-solution; nothing strange there). V (talk) 12:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

“since you have not responded to my Questions above” - But I have, many many times. You just don’t like my answer.

WRONG, AGAIN, since my Questions have been and still are about a completed hypothesis, even when not specifically phrased that way, while your repeated so-called (and actually worthless) "answer" is to say you don't need to answer my Questions. V (talk) 12:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

V also wrote: “ If CCS is real, it must be detectable in more than one type of experiment. ” – Sorry V, that’s wrong too. What if the mechanism is only applicable in these situations (which in fact is what I propose in my first paper)?

Then you need a complete rationale to support that hypothesis, which you have refused to provide (and to the bare extent you have provided anything along that line, fails to explain excess heat production in pressurized-gas experiments). V (talk) 12:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

“can be detected in more than one type of apparattus” – But it has, closed and open cells, cells irradiated with laser light, cells irradiated with ultrasonics, isoperibolic calorimeters, flow calorimetes, Seebeck calorimeters, etc., etc. What is it about understanding all this that is so hard for you? You keep attributing things to me that you claim I have or haven’t done, and you are flat out wrong on them.. I tell you, but you don’t hear or comprehend.

WRONG, AGAIN; because you are strictly focussing on CF experiments, while calorimetry has been used in all sorts of chemistry experiments for many decades, and in none of those places has CCS appeared to have affected the data --yet the calorimeters used should have been just-as-susceptable (perhaps more so, to the extent that "older" equals "lesser precision"). I quote from above, a place you failed to respond:

Well, that looks like an attempt to answer my question, but the last part of it is about as clear as mud. Certainly the experimental apparatus has multiple different components (heterogeneous). And it is reasonable to say it has defined and specific heat loss pathways, simply because we need to make sure the calorimeter covers all the pathways, to be able to make its measurement. However, EVERY chemistry experiment that yields or absorbs heat is in a similar "boat" to what was just described. That means they all need a minimum-two-zone descriptive model, and blah-blah-blah and recalibration, duh... --and your logic disintegrates with that point-of-failure, so again I don't really need to read more, until after you explain what is so different about CF experiments from other experiments. DO NOTE that I can agree the CFers should check for CCS if it happens all over. But so far, I don't see you saying that (especially because I'm half-remembering some remarks on some Talk page or other about experiments specifically designed to find CCS and failing). V (talk) 12:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

“But in more than a century of calorimetry experiments, nothing like CCS has ever been seen.” – So what? To see neutrinos, don’t you need a special apparatus that detects neutrinos?

Interjection: YES, except that "special" in this case is also NOT-special in a certain way; widely different substances have been used to detect neutrinos, from chlorine-containing compounds ( http://www.bnl.gov/bnlweb/raydavis/research.htm ) to pure ordinary water ( Super-Kamiokande ) to elemental gallium ( GALLEX ) to pure heavy water ( Sudbury Neutrino Observatory ). V (talk) 12:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Why would the CCS be any different?

Interjection completion: OK--Where is the equivalent wide differences in substances, reacting, that cause CCS? V (talk) 12:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The cold fusion electrolysis cell is quite unique. And as I have said, I haven’t studied other configurations, like the Arata experiments (even tho there are obvious problems with that), so I have no idea why they might show a CCS. But I know what it takes to discredit the idea of a CCS being active, and no cold fusioneer has done that. Ergo, the possibility remains.

HAH! The possibility can be ignored so long as (A) it remains undetectable anywhere else, AND (B) no rationale exists to explain why it has never affected experiments anywhere else. Your "ad hoc" hypothesis is simply too incomplete to be credible. I refer you again to the paragraph quoted a short distance above, which explains similarities between CF and other experiments, and to which you did not originally respond. V (talk) 12:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

“That is, if an experimenter is able to set up 10 identical-as-possible electrolysis cells, and only three shows signs of excess heat, why is CCS happening in those cells and not the other seven??? “ – Let’s be very clear, 10 cells where 3 show ‘abnormal’ or ‘unusual’ activity are not identical.

Interjection: I specified "identical-as-possible", and I phrased it that way because it is not currently possible to ensure the nanoscopic conditions inside palladium metal are identical in a group of experimental set-ups. I repeat that different nanoscopic conditions can play a key role in CF experiments, provided CF is real . Meanwhile, CCS remains macroscopic. V (talk) 12:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The experimentailst may have thought they should be, but guess what, they weren’t. My proposed mechanism gives one an idea of what to look for to answer your question, if it so happens my proposed mechanism has some correctness to it. That is why I proposed it, to give CFers something to look for, instead of mindlessly wandering around chanting “It’s Nuclear. It’s Nuclear.”.

(A) You are acting no differently, apparently mindlessly chanting, "CCS did it..." without adequate details.

(B) WRONG --since more-complete CF hypotheses exist than the simple/basic "It's Nuclear".

“For CCS to be real, macroscopic things must be happening. For CF to be real, nanoscopic things must be happening. “ Absolutely correct for once. But, since you are trying to use it to ‘prove me wrong’, I would guess you don’t know why. CCS _is_ a macroscopic thing. The _proposed_ energetics of the CF solution to the dilemma of why 3 of 10 are abnormal forces the CF solution to be nanoscopic. Unfortunately, I challenge the proposed energetics directly, by saying “There ain’t no excess heat!” The CFers have not produced a counter to my CCS proposal such that they could say the reverse thing towards me.

Yet you utterly fail to explain why CCS does not happen in the other seven cells, when all ten are producing lots of hydrogen and oxygen that might recombine and do "whatever" to shift calibrations, after the same length of run-time (or even longer, since run-time is not a known/fixed parameter for CF experiments). And, because you fail to explain that, that is a major reason why CCS does not make adequate sense, especially when the CF explanation can make a lot of sense. V (talk) 12:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

“But for a macroscopic thing like CCS, the conditions needed to reliably reproduce that are of a larger and more manipulable scale (the calorimeter itself is a macroscopic device, and its calibration is a macroscopic thing, see?) -- yet it has been said that CCS has not been reproduced in experiments that looked for it. Therefore Occam's Razor tells us that the CCS hypothesis has a much lower probability of being true, than cold fusion. “ – More screwy logic V. Occam’s Razor tell us the CCS is much more likely because no ‘miracles’ are required.

Interjection: There are no miracles required for electron-catalyzed fusion, either, and therefore you are wrong again, especially because ECF is a more complete hypothesis than CCS, which fails to explain why CCS doesn't happen in long-running "failed" CF experiments. I am therefore correct about Occam's Razor. V (talk) 12:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

You are correct that, in principle, the CCS is more manipulatable than the proposed CF mechanism. But you have to go out and try to do that to be able to do that. You follow? You have to define the parameters to be manipulated quantitatively via experimentation. Please point to where a CFer has manipulated a cold fusion cell in an attempt to prove that there is a special active surface state that fosters at-the-electrode recombination which only develops under special circumsatnces? Can’t find one?

I recall that somebody among the CF editors mentioned that there had indeed been some experiments specifically set up to find CCS, and they failed to find it. Meanwhile, I can remind you of the pressurized-gas experiments as an alternate way to produce excess heat. That's a widely different manipulation of the conditions of the experiment, right? See, if CF is real in electrolysis experiments, then it does not really matter HOW the deuterium gets into the metal; all that matters is that enough gets in! (I'd like to see a variant electrolysis experiment that uses a pressurized cell; perhaps that hydrogen-leakage thing I mentioned above can be reduced to the point that excess heat will practically always appear.) V (talk) 12:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

So why do you expect there to be any ‘proof’ for the conventional explanation at this point? There isn’t. The mechanism is just ‘proposed’, not proven. What is proven mathematically is that the CCS might have the potential to explain the large majority of excess heat claims. Pretty darn good reason to go try to prove or disprove it’s there don’t you think?

NOT AS LONG as it can't explain its nonexistence everywhere else, ESPECIALLY including "failed" CF experiments. V (talk) 12:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

“Finally, you still seem to be ignoring the fact that multiple explanations for CF have been proposed; CCS is not needed to explain the detected excess heat (which is perfectly fine, since, as I've just explained, CCS doesn't appear anywhere else, when it should appear).” - The reason multiple explanations have been proposed is because none of them fit all the data,

Interjection: That may have recently changed, with the electron-catalyzed-fusion hypothesis. V (talk) 12:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

and none of them give any predictability.

What sort of predictability would you like? I've seen proposals associated with ECF that involve elemental lead as the metal to use (lots cheaper), and also cold/superconducting titanium (the idea there was that if CF energizes electrons, in a superconductor the result might be the straightforward generation of Direct Current power). Of course, none of them have been tried yet.... V (talk) 12:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

And, you are flat out wrong in stating that CCS _must_ appear somewhere else. It might, it may, but there is no _requirement_ that it does.

I misphrased that, not to mention it is only half the argument; CCS must be able to appear somewhere else OR there must be an iron-clad rationale why not. V (talk) 12:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

CCS _is_ needed because none of the other theories have any predictive power nor have they produced any improved control over the effect. The proof you understand what you are doing is in demonstrating control over the effect. Never been done with ‘cold fusion’. Kirk shanahan (talk) 18:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

WRONG AGAIN, PARTLY, simply because the percentage of experiments producing some excess heat has risen significantly over the past two decades. For CCS to be the explanation of that, it means the calorimeters have become more faulty instead of more reliable! V (talk) 12:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

V has clearly demonstrated (once again) that he has a completely warped view of how science is conducted. He insits vehemently that I MUST provide an theory for how a calibration constant shift can occur before anyone needs to consider it. Of course this is nonsensical. It does however, fit nicely with the way cold fusioneers think. They routinely gather insufficient amounts of data and leap to grandiose conclusions and then defend them to the death with whatever tactics they can use. The fact is that once the CCS is defined mathematically, and demonstrated in one case as reasonable, and extended to other similar cases inductively, then it must be considered a possibility. There may well be cases where it is unlikely, as might be the case in the ficticious examples V keeps referring to, but that is not determined _before_ the data is collected. Only after. And, for the record, V’s recollection is wrong on whether anyone has tested for a CCS. They haven’t. It’s easy to do, but they don’t do it.

I’d love to just quit arguing with V, as he has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that he doesn’t understand scienctific research (even if he does have a PhD as Hipocrite has suggested), but V is a disruptive editor of the CF article. He attempts to force his warped views on science and cold fusion onto the rest of us, and goes on and on and on about it (just like Abd). Instead of seeking consensus and some semblance of scientific fact in a technical article, he tries to wear the rest of us down so we quit. For that reason, I feel I must continue to point out his errors and inaccuracies.

BTW V, the mechanism you want is fully described in my first paper, which is downloadable from the Internet. By not doing so and reading it, you prove your intent is just to argue and browbeat. For more information on it, you can go to my 2nd and 3rd (esp.) publications, but I know you won’t. Before I conduct any more discussions with you, you must prove that you have read and understood the homework I am assigning. You must repeat back my physical/chemical mechanism for a CCS. then you will have shown you have read it. But, I'm sure you'll find some lame excuse not to do this, because to actually read and understand what I write will force you to change your viewpoint. Old saying: “The Truth hurts…” Kirk shanahan (talk) 13:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Kirk Shanahan has clearly demonstrated (once again) that he has a completely warped view of how science is conducted. He insists vehemently that he must NOT provide a theory for how a calibration constant shift can fail to occur before anyone needs to consider it. Of course this is nonsensical. It does however, fit nicely with the way CF-detractors think. They routinely play with large amounts of obsolete data and leap to grandiose conclusions and then defend them to the death with whatever tactics they can use. The fact is, once the CCS is defined mathematically, and demonstrated in one case as reasonable, and NOT extended to other nearly-identical cases where it should have occurred and obviously didn't, then it must be considered completely ignorable, due to very obvious logical inconsistency . There may well be cases where it is likely, as might be the case in the examples Kirk keeps referring to, but that is not determined in the absense of complete data, involving both CCS-events and non-CCS-events. Only after. And, for the record, Kirk’s claim that a CCS is easy to find is wrong. No one ever found it, in more than a hundred years of calorimetry measurements, before Kirk concocted it out of thin air.

I’d love to just quit arguing with Kirk, as he has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that he doesn’t understand scienctific research, but Kirk is a disruptive editor of the CF article. He attempts to force his warped views on science and cold fusion onto the rest of us, and goes on and on and on about it (as bad as Hipocrite's Soviet-style vetoing of anything he doesn't write). Instead of seeking consensus and some semblance of scientific fact in a technical article, he tries to wear the rest of us down so we quit. For that reason, I feel I must continue to point out his errors and inaccuracies.

BTW Kirk, the mechanism I want is not at all described in any of your papers, which are downloadable from the Internet. By not writing and posting it, you prove your intent is just to argue and browbeat. Before I conduct any more discussions with you, you must prove that you have read and understood the homework I am assigning. You must present a physical/chemical mechanism for failure of CCS to appear in experiments basically identical to those in which you claim it does appear, failed experiments which provided plenty of time and opportunity for CCS to appear. Only then you will have shown you have a hypothesis worth reading. But, I'm sure you'll find some lame excuse not to do this, because to actually think about the problem is to understand that it is inherently logically flawed, forcing a change in your publicly stated viewpoint. Old saying: “The Truth hurts…” V (talk) 16:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Clearly there is no point in continuing this. This page however will serve as a guidepost to interested readers. Some may think V is right, some nmay think I am right. Bottom line, my approach is how science is done. I stand by it. Kirk shanahan (talk) 17:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

And I stand by my approach; science is always about both generalities and specifics, not just one of them, and logical consistency throughout is paramount. V (talk) 18:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Psst V, if we do a simple substitution of 'DCF' (Deuterium Cold Fusion) for 'CCS' in the above, let's see what we get. You must present a physical/chemical mechanism for failure of DCF to appear in experiments basically identical to those in which you claim it does appear, failed experiments which provided plenty of time and opportunity for DCF to appear. . Wow! I guess F&P are jerks just like me!! Insisting DCF works when they can't explain why it doesn't work in all those failed runs.

And of course, the mainline physicists who lambasted F&P (and others) for proposing a wild, hare-brained theory that doesn't conform at all to what we _know_ is the way D-D fusion works, they were all *completely* justified and correct in their rejection of 'DCF', right? Kirk shanahan (talk) 13:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Tsk, tsk, I already explained it clearly. Have you forgotten so soon? We are not yet able to ensure the palladium electrodes are identical at the nanoscopic scale. Since fusion, if it occurs inside metal, is necessarily nanoscopic (even sub-nanoscopic), it follows that different events can occur in different electrodes (leading to other differences like megajoules or no joules of excess heat). Meanwhile, CCS is macroscopic --you agreed that it is!-- and at that scale, we can make the cells identical enough to expect consistent experimental results. And therefore CF is still a better, more "fitting" explanation, for the experimental results, than CCS. V (talk) 08:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

If you substitute the word 'ghostly' for 'nanoscopic', you get something which means about as much as what you wrote. Until you define what your nanoscopic process is definitively, you could just as well say 'a ghost did it'. Not a scientific explanation in either case. Kirk shanahan (talk) 02:33, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

More illogic from Kirk: I had previously written, and I now quote: "(examples: actual impurity distribution; the shapes of irregularities in the crystal structure, ...)" as examples of things at the nanoscopic scale that can differ between one piece of metal and another. To the extent that the hypothesis of fusion is supported by the evidence, that evidence is quite clear that differing batches of palladium can affect the electrolysis experiments. We do not yet know the KEY WAY those batches are different, that enhances or inhibits those experimental results. But it is perfectly logical that if fusion is sometimes happening inside the palladium, then something about its internal structure needs to be "right", to encourage it. For all I know, all it needs is some kind of "dam" (of impurities?) that causes deuterium flowing through the metal to accumulate in some locale faster than it can exit; the gas-pressurization experiments, so far as I've read about them, don't seem to have the reliability issues of the electrolysis experiments (not counting the codeposition experiments). MEANWHILE back to the subject Kirk is trying to avoid: CCS is still macroscopic, and we can make the cells identical enough at that scale to expect consistent experimental results, if CCS was the explanation for the claimed observations of excess heat. Since we don't get consistent results in the standard electrolysis experiments, CCS does not fit all the data, and therefore is lacking in believability as an explanation for that data. V (talk) 05:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

There is a definition of insanity that says it is repeating the same thing time after time and expecting a different result. I think we've reached that point. V's post above rehashes stuff he and I have discussed many times, and V won't listen and learn. I quit here and now dealing with him, not because I am wrong or don't have an answer, but because V is unteachable on this. Kirk shanahan (talk) 15:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Kirk, do you enjoy describing yourself in such detrimental terms? You've been pushing CCS for how long, expecting different results than explanations of its faults? Okay.... V (talk) 13:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Vacation

Some of you will undoubtedly be glad to know that I will be taking some vacation in the next few weeks. I doubt I'll participate here much. Please don't take my silence as agreeing to anything. I have been very clear where I stand. All the attacks and crazy logic V, Abd, and PCarbonn have thrown at me haven't changed a thing. it takes real, solid logic to do that. Kirk shanahan (talk) 13:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Guide Posts for the Interested Reader

I'm an interested reader, but am finding all the above discussions so filled with diversions that the idea of CCS is getting obscured. I am also a scientist (qualified chemist, etc), have published my own research (not in cold fusion or related areas). So, all I am interested in is understanding Kirk's work as it relates to reports of excess heat. Leaving aside wiki-disputes and all related issues, I'd like to summarise what I understand from the above discussion about CCS. Kirk, I'd be interested in comments / corrections, and in advance, I admit to not having read your paper. I'll do that if my interpretation of the above turns out to be way off, I promise, and naturally all comments here are my interpretation and nothing more, allbeit sometimes with my own training / experiences reflected.

Calorimetry is a well-established, dependable, uncontroversial method of measuring heat changes in chemical systems. There are numerous possible calorimetric set-ups, each requiring appropriate measurements be taken and errors recognised for valid and accurate results to be obtained. Calibration of such systems is essential.

Reports of excess heat in CF systems have been happening ever since the original P-F work. These reports suggest an anomaly not explained by conventional theory. However, the results are also not (yet) reproducible in the way that would make them uncontroversial. If observations of excess heat become reliably and independently reproducible then they will certainly pose a challenge in that the origin of the effect requires explanation.

CCS offers one potential such explanation, although the quantity of excess heat reported would be an important factor. CCS seems to me to illustrate one way in which apparent 'signal' can actually be 'noise'. Recognising that larger differences between signal and noise reduce the reasonableness of dismissing signals as noise, evidence of sufficiently large excess heat would allow CCS to be discounted as the explanation.

Since postulated CCS effects tend to interfere at the third and fourth significant figure, they need not be considered in conventional calorimetric experiments. However, these CF experiments are examining excess heat above expectation from existing understanding, and as such are a case where CCS interference becomes substantial.

Crude (made up) illustration. Suppose we had a measurement, M, where calibration showed that at time t, M = 931.6t + 117.5, so that the measured heat was M = 931.6 * 1 + 117.5 = 1049.1 = 1049 J (4 sig. fig.) IF the calibration equation by the point where t = 1 was actually M = 931.3t + 117.4, then the measured heat would actually be M = 931.3 * 1 + 117.4 = 1048.7 = 1049 J (4 sig. fig). The result is the same (to 4 sig fig), and this is the typical situation for calorimetry.

However, the CF version of the experiment has the above measurement as the 'expected' and the 'excess heat' measurement being (say) 1049.5 J. The 'excess' is then 1049.5 - 1049.1 = 0.4 J for the first case but 1049.5 - 1048.7 = 0.8 J for the second. Because the numbers are so large compared to the difference, a variation of much less than 1% in the measurement in bluk calorimetry has become a 50% variation in the difference. If he excess heat measurement were 1149.5 J (for an ~100 J difference), then CCS would be a fairly trivial error to ignore - it might make a 1% difference in the effect, but it would not call into question whether the effect was actually an artefact.

Without reading Kirk's paper, my science and maths background immediately suggests to me that:

errors in small differences between large numbers are notorious for substantial increases in size
the question of what is artefact in such cases is resolved statistically, and such statistical techniques are well established and uncontroversial
variations in calibration values at the relative scale I have described would be very difficult to measure (but not impossible) and irrelevant for most regular applications of calorimetry
simple entropy suggests a plausible reason for small variations in calibration values - for example, in a gas-generating electrochemical system, slight differences in the energy of released gas molecules (ie. gas molecules within different bubbles having slight differences in average kinetic energy) as against energy going to the electrode or to bulk solution are entirely plausible. Conservation of energy requires the sum of the pathways along which energy is being released to be constant, but entropy almost guarantees minor variations over time. Consequently, if the calibration is measuring only the electrode then minor fluctuations in calibration are also entirely plausible.
a gradual increase in reported frequency of the observation would be expected as measurement sensitivity increases

Does this seem a reasonable summary, Kirk? Please tell me if I am grossly off, or off in parts. Others, I would appreciate any comments be directed solely at CCS and the wiki-issues be set aside in this thread. Obviously, with it being Kirk's page he can over-rule my request, but I find it helpful to get the science clear in my head before turning to the wiki issues. Thanks. EdChem (talk) 23:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

EdChem. your arithmetic is correct of course, and this is the basic error the CFers are making. They fail to realize that their calibration has shifted. Note that even if you are just doing straight calorimetry, not a difference, if the cal shifts enough, you can can get a mismeasurement. This is why you periodically check you calibration, i.e. recalibrate. The problem is that the CFers never considered the problem prior to my bringing it up, and have refused to do so after I did.

Next, make sure you understand why the less efficient a cell is, the bigger the potential 'excess heat' signal. Then understand that shifting heat between a lossy region and a high capture efficiency region might produce an excess heat signal. Then all you need is a chemical/physical means to do that, and I also supplied a candidate process for that too. If you really want to understand, make sure you read my first paper at least. It's not that long and you already understand half of it.

But the issues on the CF Talk page are not just this. I attempted to put some mainline thinking into the article and was Wikilawyered to death over that. All the claimed CF evidence has potential conventional explanations which the CFers don't eliminate. My whole point is that they are incorrect is exclusively asserting the 'nuclear' explanation. But V and Abd with their crazy logic have blocked every attempt I make to do so. That's the real issue here. And one I can't seem to beat. Kirk shanahan (talk) 02:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Kirk, thanks for your response. I'll add that paper to my list of reading. The potential for a greater anomaly with greater ~~efficiency~~ inefficiency^{changed to inefficiency when error noted by Kirk below. EdChem (talk) 23:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)} seems obvious to me - simple random variation ensures greater differences will be observed when measurements are less precise. One thing I have been wondering, shouldn't there also be 'insufficient heat' measurements to match the 'excess heat' cases? After all, if the calibration is sometimes causing artificially inflated observations, shouldn't there also sometimes be artificially low observations?

As for the CF pages, they are a whole other issue. I wanted here to focus specifically on the science because I find it difficult to comment about article content without understanding the science being described. In other words, for me to form a sensible view on the appropriate coverage (if any) of CCS on the CF page I believe it is necessary for me to comprehend CCS and how it may offer an explanation for anomalous heat observations. EdChem (talk) 06:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Other way round Ed. As the efficiency goes up, anomaly size goes down. This conforms to one of Langmuir's criteria of pathological science. Think of it this way. As the heat losses go down there is less need to bump up the signal (calibration constants approach ideal). Then any 'new' heat source coming from moving heat from a lossy region to a higher efficiency region (in my proposal) is likewise bumped up less by the now-invalid calibration. W.r.t. the unidirectional nature of the CCS - in theory there should be 'negative-going' excess heat signals, if it was a random process. But in practice, the calibration process is always done with 'dead' electrodes, which means that usually there is no heat redistribution. Then the electrode becomes active, that brings on the redistribution to what I call 'at-the-electrode'. That makes the observations unidirectional. Your problem is typical in that you are trying to think of random changes in cal constants, but the changes are not random. You can see the pattern in the data table in my first pub, but I also made a graph of it and discussed it at some length in my 3rd pub on the subject. W.r.t. the impact of the CCS, it's straightforward. Since no one reports information that can be used to evaluate it's presence or absence, all claims of extraordinary results have to be put on hold until the issue is resolved. In principle, such information currently exists in CFers lab notebooks. But, it's been 7 years now (actually 9) and no CFer has even accepted the ideas I present in my pubs. Unlikely we will ever get the data to resolve the issue. Kirk shanahan (talk) 13:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Other way round Ed. As the efficiency goes up, anomaly size goes down. Of course - this was a typo on my part, I meant The potential for a greater anomaly with greater inefficiency seems obvious to me. I have edited to correct my typo. I'll need to give some thought to unidirectionality, thanks for the explanation. EdChem (talk) 23:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

In the interest of efficiency, Shanahan's theory is not described fully by "CCS." His theory, if I have it right, is that there is an effect that causes unexpected recombination at some particular spot on an electrode, that this effect is the non-nuclear equivalent of Storms' NAE (nuclear active environment), and that this effect then causes calibration, based on known heating at some other location, to be off. This effect would then appear only with some electrodes and not with others, depending on heat distribution in the cell and whether the effect arises or not. It would show an analogous or similar difficulty of reproduction as the original "cold fusion" phenomenon. My problem: sure. Maybe. However, that would not explain correlation with other effects, such as helium (multiple studies showing on the order of 25 MeV/He4), radiation (apparent alpha tracks, copious, multiple reports now, secondary sources covering it) (low-level neutrons, much secondary sources on the Mosier-Boss report), X=rays, the sheer magnitude of the P-F effect in some cases, steady heat from non-electrolytic gas loading of nanoparticle palladium, local melting of electrodes immersed in heavy water (well, maybe that one -- I suppose the recombination, we could speculate, could get pretty hot), an astonishing array of reports of elemental transformations, etc. --Abd (talk) 11:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

As to coverage of the Shanahan theory, we need to consider availability of sources. Primary reliable source exists, the Shanahan papers. These are, by the way, theoretical review papers, analyzing, to some extent, existing reports, they are not reports of experiment, so they are, technically, secondary source, reporting speculative and unconfirmed analysis of prior work. The publication establishes notability for his theory, barely. That is increased by the fact that cold fusion researchers have responded to his criticism, there was mention of it in the 2004 DoE review. There is, to my knowledge, no "mainstream" response to Shanahan, his work has been largely ignored, perhaps due to the unfortunate policy of some major journals to refuse to even submit any paper on cold fusion (positive or negative) for peer review. However, other journals will publish, such as Thermochimica Acta, where Shanahan's work has been published. My view is that his work is sufficiently notable to be reported, with balance, which would mean that the responses -- in the same journal -- would be covered as well. As matters stand, his work stands out as almost unique as to recent criticism of cold fusion work in peer reviewed journals, there are few other examples. The calorimetry has been widely accepted as legitimate, and we have plenty of reliable secondary source on that. It's only rejected, as it is, by sources and authorities which are depending on old analysis, not by a full review of the field, mostly on the basis that it must be artifact, because theory, it's claimed, says it's impossible. The criticisms I've read simply don't match the peer-reviewed publication record, claims that, for example, as accuracy increases the effect disappears. That's based on early replication failures where some did report excess heat, then found none as accuracy increased, probably because they weren't setting up the effect, and there has been a recent study, ICCF14, 2008, a Bayesian analysis of excess heat replications, that was able to accurately predict excess heat findings based on characteristics of each study as shown in the papers. Note, however, that this doesn't fully address Shanahan's objections, because CCS may depend on the same conditions, such as details of the palladium microstructure or loading ratio (which are connected, microcracks in the palladium prevent high loading from being achieved).

I'm skeptical that the CCS effect could apply to all forms of calorimetry that have been used to demonstrate excess heat. However, the proof of the pudding is in correlation with other phenomena that are both expected to occur with fusion (or other nuclear process that we might not call fusion): the reaction products, such as helium, tritium, and various forms of radiation, as well as transmutation products caused, perhaps, by secondary reactions. The Be-8 hypothesis, for example, expects energetic alpha particles, which can cause secondary fusion, they have more than enough energy to overcome the Coulomb barrier. Signs of this are reported, this is the explanation advanced by Mosier-Boss in the recent well-noticed report on neutrons at very low levels, but quite adequately above background, and correlated with excess heat, I believe. Helium has been reported, and leakage from ambient, the normal reason given to dismiss this, isn't adequate to explain the results, leakage would show asymptotic approach to ambient, but the time-analysis shows levels that pass ambient without slowing down. The point is that Shanahan's theory is reasonable enough to warrant, outside, more detailed attention, but here it's a detail, not supported by ample source, just enough to warrant mention here, and possibly more mention in a detailed article such as existed in what is now User:Abd/Calorimetry in cold fusion experiments, mostly written by Shanahan. --Abd (talk) 13:36, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

[unindent]A point by point response. Sorry for the length EdChem, but Abd does that. He rolls 5000 errors into one paragraph, and it takes 5000 paragraphs to explain each one. And he doesn't seem to learn when it goes against what he 'believes'.

“In the interest of efficiency, Shanahan's theory is not described fully by "CCS." “ - If you want to lump all three parts of my proposal for a conventional explanation of apparent excess heat, feel free. Just don't do what the Cfers tried to do: Criticize the most speculative part of the 3 (incorrectly at that), then claim the whole thing was 'proven' wrong. I learned from this that I had to be more specific, so when I use 'CCS' I simply mean the demonstrated mathematical fact that calibration constant shifts can and appear to induce apparent excess heat peaks. Everything past that is somewhat speculative and not restrictive of other ways to get a CCS.

“His theory, [snipped for brevity] phenomenon. “ - So why couldn't you do this when I asked you too? Your grade is now up to 50%. You still need to understand the impact of this and some of the subtleties of it. Hint: I give some of it away in my latest response to EdChem.

“My problem: sure. Maybe. However, that would not explain correlation with other effects, such as helium (multiple studies showing on the order of 25 MeV/He4), - Already answered, but since EdChem is watching...first off – not enough replication. Second, if there is no excess heat, there is no real correlation. Third, the error bars on the data in the correlation plots need to be doubled or tripled at a minimum. That means the next time the experiment is replicated, a completely different result could easily be obtained based on statistics. Third, chemical processes are highly autocorrelated, so that needs to be taken into account in analyzing the data, in addition to the fact that linear regression analysis is based in error-free X's. The fact that the errors in X are large requires less confidence in any derived correlation coefficient.

“radiation (apparent alpha tracks, copious, multiple reports now, secondary sources covering it) (low-level neutrons, much secondary sources on the Mosier-Boss report), “ - Pits in CR39 are known to arise for other reasons that radiation. One of those sources is physical damage. Explosions produce shockwaves. Shockwaves produce physical damage. Every exploding bubble (or 'nanoscopic nuclear explosion') could in theory produce a pit. Now, go look at the physical distributions of the SPAWAR pits. A second source might be oxidative attack by pure O2 in a bubble. That would also explain the pits in CR39 plates placed above the electrolyte in earlier experiments (as I recall, by Oriani?) - Easy to come up with untested conventional explanations.

“X=rays,” - I don't believe there is any such evidence that also doesn't have a conventional explanation. Explain this more and I could comment more.

“the sheer magnitude of the P-F effect in some cases,” - such as?

“steady heat from non-electrolytic gas loading of nanoparticle palladium,” - the Arata experiment I suppose. Again, lots of conventional possibilities, but I haven't thought it through enough to settle on one, primarily because of lack of adequate replication.

“local melting of electrodes immersed in heavy water (well, maybe that one -- I suppose the recombination, we could speculate, could get pretty hot),” - Yes it can, in my earlier explanations of the Patterson Power Cell, posted to spf in c.1995-6, I cited a study by a chem. eng. who blew a hydrocarbon/oxygen mix over a Pt wire at high speed (to limit the amount of oxidation, he was trying to make oxygenated hydrocarbons, not CO2). The Pt got white hot, i.e. >900C. H2 would do the same thing. However, the 'melting' Abd is talking about is not really melting if I understand what experiment he is referring to. I believe he refers to the ET experiment where ultrasonics are shot into the cell. This is a variant of the Russ George expts of the same nature. George claimed that the sonication induced bubbles over the Pd foil surface. These bubble catastrophically collapse making a 'cavitation jet' of material that is injected at high speed into the Pd. That chews it up, simulating 'melting'. As I've noted before Pd is ductile and flows easily under these kinds of stresses (jets, explosions).

“an astonishing array of reports of elemental transformations, etc. --Abd (talk) 11:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC) “ - contamination concentration, not 'transmutation'.

“As to coverage of the Shanahan theory, we need to consider availability of sources. Primary reliable source exists, the Shanahan papers. These are, by the way, theoretical review papers, analyzing, to some extent, existing reports, they are not reports of experiment, so they are, technically, secondary source, reporting speculative and unconfirmed analysis of prior work. “ - No, the papers are a presentation and defense of a theoretical explanation of an observed but unexplained phenomenon. As such, they are primary.

“The publication establishes notability for his theory, barely. That is increased by the fact that cold fusion researchers have responded to his criticism, there was mention of it in the 2004 DoE review.” - forgot my response to this - I can't find a reference to my work in the review. When the individual reviewer comments were 'leaked', there was one reviewer who suggested my work needed to be considered. The Cfers however, always ignore my work or claim it was successfully dealt with, which is not true by any stretch of the imagination. Kirk shanahan (talk) 15:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

“There is, to my knowledge, no "mainstream" response to Shanahan, his work has been largely ignored, perhaps due to the unfortunate policy of some major journals to refuse to even submit any paper on cold fusion (positive or negative) for peer review.” - And what would you expect? A mainstream that suddenly jumped up a published a bunch of attaboys for my work, this after they all moved on in c. 1995? Get real Abd, your bias is making you expect things that are completely irrational. The bringing up of journal policies is also irrelevant to this issue.

“However, other journals will publish, such as Thermochimica Acta, where Shanahan's work has been published. My view is that his work is sufficiently notable to be reported, with balance, which would mean that the responses -- in the same journal -- would be covered as well. “ - I attempted to do this and was struck down by PCarbonn. If you do it make sure that you note that a) all substantive comments were against the proposed and speculative mechanism, not the CCS, or the heat redistribution explanation, b) I rebutted all such points point-by-point, c) Storms chose to ignore that rebuttal in his book. It goes to reliability issues. It shows that Storms uses a 'baby with bath water' approach in rebutting my arguments, which is not logical, and that he is highly biased when presenting the 'facts' of cold fusion.

“As matters stand, his work stands out as almost unique as to recent criticism of cold fusion work in peer reviewed journals, there are few other examples.” - Except for the Clarke work, and the reports in self-published papers and ICCF (and such) proceedings that are clear examples of problems with the claims of the field.

“The calorimetry has been widely accepted as legitimate, and we have plenty of reliable secondary source on that.” - No you don't.

“It's only rejected, as it is, by sources and authorities which are depending on old analysis, not by a full review of the field, mostly on the basis that it must be artifact, because theory, it's claimed, says it's impossible.” - Understand this Abd – My pubs are primary peer-reviewed source that disagrees with what you wrote. Get up to speed. Your biased interpretations of the state of the field do NOT lead to a good article.

“The criticisms I've read simply don't match the peer-reviewed publication record, claims that, for example, as accuracy increases the effect disappears.” - Why do you continue to expect to find main stream antiCF publications past the '93-95 timeframe? Can't you understand what being declared 'pariah' does?

“That's based on early replication failures where some did report excess heat, then found none as accuracy increased, probably because they weren't setting up the effect, and there has been a recent study, ICCF14, 2008, a Bayesian analysis of excess heat replications, that was able to accurately predict excess heat findings based on characteristics of each study as shown in the papers. ” - Not RS, as it is a publication from a conference of fanatics, 'reviewed' by fanatics who stopped critically thinking a long time ago. Critical thinking is the basis of accurate and reliable peer review. If it gets published in an actual peer reviewed journal I might take official note.

“Note, however, that this doesn't fully address Shanahan's objections, because CCS may depend on the same conditions, such as details of the palladium microstructure or loading ratio (which are connected, microcracks in the palladium prevent high loading from being achieved).” - Two more points. You're up to 52% now. Further explain the details of the above for more points. For ex. How does the microstructure (note: not 'nanostructure') impact the conventional explanation? What part would the loading level play in this? Etc.

“I'm skeptical that the CCS effect could apply to all forms of calorimetry that have been used to demonstrate excess heat. “ - That's because you haven't thought it through.

“However, the proof of the pudding is in correlation with other phenomena that are both expected to occur with fusion (or other nuclear process that we might not call fusion): the reaction products, such as helium, tritium, and various forms of radiation, as well as transmutation products caused, perhaps, by secondary reactions.” - All of which have conventional explanations, when there is enough replication to get an idea of what is happening. For ex, even Storms didn't bring up tritium detection results, and he said it was because there weren't enough.

“The Be-8 hypothesis, for example, expects energetic alpha particles, which can cause secondary fusion, they have more than enough energy to overcome the Coulomb barrier. Signs of this are reported, this is the explanation advanced by Mosier-Boss in the recent well-noticed report on neutrons at very low levels, but quite adequately above background, and correlated with excess heat, I believe.” What you believe aside, this 'theory' is an excellent example of what happens when a scientist deliberately ignores a reasonable and rational explanation he/she doesn't like. Things just go wild.

“Helium has been reported, and leakage from ambient, the normal reason given to dismiss this, isn't adequate to explain the results, leakage would show asymptotic approach to ambient, but the time-analysis shows levels that pass ambient without slowing down.” - garbage, air inleakage is the most probable explanation.

“The point is that Shanahan's theory is reasonable enough to warrant, outside, more detailed attention, but here it's a detail, not supported by ample source, just enough to warrant mention here, and possibly more mention in a detailed article such as existed in what is now User:Abd/Calorimetry in cold fusion experiments, mostly written by Shanahan. --Abd (talk) 13:36, 8 June 2009 (UTC) “ - Your analysis does not include the CCS' impact on reported excess heat. For more points, explain how it impacts that. 74.230.182.89 (talk) 14:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC) Kirk shanahan (talk) 15:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Kirk, no, I'm not looking for points. I was trying to facilitate your discussion with EdChem, so more of the foundations might come out more quickly. Try to tone down the common hostility and contempt. My comments were, I think EdChem will recognize, friendly. I suspect you don't understand the meaning of "primary" and "secondary" source. Primary sources are largely unusable, were you aware of that? By calling them secondary sources, I was *raising* their usability, as being comments on the calorimetry work of others. However, as to your own theories, they are, indeed, primary sources. Some of what you write is preposterous, in the larger context, or even from some simple facts I alleged. For example, SPAWAR CR-39 pits. Copious pits on the side facing the electrode. Fine, chemical damage from oxygen, perhaps, except the oxygen is evolved at the other electrode, and there is no massive damage on the back side. Okay, damage from miniexplosions at the surface, from some unexpected recombination or other effect. When they accidentally left the protective plastic on the CR-39, they still got pits in the pattern of the electrode, but at reduced levels. When they put the CR-39 outside the cell, with the electrode next to a thin plastic or borosilicate window, the CR-39 was still pitted, at reduced levels as would be expected from alpha losses in the plastic. The question of chemical damage is considered in the paper presented in the ACS Sourcebook (2008), "Detection of Energetic Particles and Neutrons Emitted During Co-deposition," Mosier-Boss et al. This is largely a review of their earlier work, published, as I think you know, in peer-reviewed journals. In the Sourcebook, they argue that damage from energetic charged particles creates conical pits, which can be recognized as such by how the image of the pit changes as focus is changed. General chemical damages looks not at all like radiation damage, and it's hard to understand how local heating, a miniexplosion, could create a conical pit, that's not the damage pattern that would form. They've considered dendrites and damage from high electrical field, possibly; again, the intervening window would be an obstacle, and, again, there are the triple tracks. Various controls have eliminated other explanations. Triple tracks, quite simply, couldn't be the result of chemical damage. They aren't visible in the heavily pitted areas, they are masked by all that damage, but they are found on the other side of the detector, and in areas where the alpha pitting doesn't show because the distance to possible NAE is too far, the alphas are absorbed. Additional apparent neutron tracks or other knock-ons are found by deeper etching of the plastic, so the neutron tracks aren't just surface phenomena, as would be chemical damage. What's unique about your complete CCS theory is that the conditions are hypothesized to be like those of the alleged NAE: unusual, not found with controls, because there is an unusual environment required. So you bypass the arguments like those Objectivist (V) has been making. But there are all the other phenomena to explain, then, and you are mostly standing on unverified speculations, but we'd have to look at each experimental finding in detail. The triple-track findings were important because neutrons are characteristic of fusion reactions, and there should be *no* fusion reactions taking place in the cell. The triple-tracks, sorry, can't be the result of chemical damage. These results explain and confirm *all* the early work on neutrons: both the negative findings -- what they confirmed was a flux below the detection levels of much early work -- and some of the positive ones -- which showed very low levels, sometimes in bursts. What was always a problem with that early work was that levels were so close to background. But by putting the detector right in the cell, the SPAWAR group captured more of the neutron tracks, accumulated for weeks, without increasing background. (A CR-39 detector accumulates damage gradually over time, because of cosmic rays and other environmental radiation. So they always had control detectors, I think, or areas of the detector away from the electrode also serve as a kind of control.) I think they sometimes expose a corner of the detector to a radioisotope to create calibration tracks. Don't try to answer this all at once. Just pick one part, and you and Ed can discuss it, if you really are interested in getting to the bottom of this. (EdChem, discussion of something here doesn't mean that I think the time is ripe for inclusion in the article, though there is secondary source review of much of this. This is, as it would be on Talk cold fusion, background.) --Abd (talk) 22:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

(noindent) Every post like this moves Abd closer to an indefinite block. He seems to have little or no expertise in the topics he is attempting to discuss, yet he persists. Mathsci (talk) 23:36, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Eh? Wikipedia editors are supposed to have expertise in a topic? Mathsci, you are confidently predicting, for me, a fate which might befall you, more likely. Be careful. Now, Kirk, if my posting here is offensive to you, you should know that you have no obligation to permit this on your Talk page, you can ask me to stop and I will, period. I'm discussing here with your permission. Mathsci has no concept of the issues being discussed, as far as I've been able to see, and is purely following a wikipolitical agenda, making disruptive comments about editors instead of discussing issues, it's not about finding consensus among editors, which sometimes takes a lot of discussion. EdChem appears to be both knowledgeable and serious about learning what your theory is about. I suggest answering him carefully, it appears he's likely to ask cogent questions. I've raised reasons to respect your theory, and reasons to consider it ultimately as moot, but I'm not the judge, the community consensus is the judge, and I trust that process. It rarely fails me when it's given enough time. --Abd (talk) 04:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Making unjustified and impertinent assertions does not make anything you say correct, Abd. There are deep problems with the way in which you think you can "read" other people. You pose as having some kind of academic authority, but I can't quite see why. In my case I am an established academic. I don't find your ad hominem remarks offensive. That is because they are written by you. I do not find them particularly intelligent. In fact, in scientific subjects, your comments seem to verge on trolling. You seem to relish winding up other editors with your non-sequiturs. Mathsci (talk) 23:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I've stated many times I have no academic authority, so I have no clue as to what "pose" means. Mathsci claims to be an established academic. I have no particular reason to doubt that, though surely the field would be relevant. "Pure mathematician" is the user page claim. So, exactly what qualification does this confer as to expertise with cold fusion issues? I haven't seen in any of his posts a sign that he understands the issues involved; if he does, he's hidden it well, the posts are almost entirely ad-hominem. I find it ironic that Mathsci denies that I can "read" other people, but in the same sentence, is claiming that he knows what I think. I'm not found to be "particularly intelligent"? Gee, is that an insult? Given test scores back when, my reputation in many fields, indeed, given my reputation here, in general, except among certain editors who'd rather I didn't exist, the claim simply exposes the claimant for what he is, and I don't have to say it. My intelligence, such as it is, confers on me no privileges here. --Abd (talk) 03:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Your namespace editing record speaks for itself. The problem is with your wikilawyering about sources; you also often try to evaluate scientists or would-be scientists by wikilawyering. FYI many mathematicians are well versed in quantum field theory, just as many self-respecting string theorists use the notion of derived category. I've personally also had experience with fraud in chemistry. The use and evaluation of scientific sources does not vary from subject to subject. Mathsci (talk) 07:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the support Mathsci. Abd is quite frustrating. The other problem he has is that his criticisms are usually half-baked. I have tried to get him to think things through before running off at the keyboard. A prime example is his discussion of pits in CR-39. He misses the simple fact that they haven't done any 'controls' to test any of these supposed reasons why the two different mechanisms I proposed in 2002 'couldn"t be true', they just handwave it away, if anything. Kirk shanahan (talk) 12:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, Kirk, you make me wonder if you've read the SPAWAR work. Lots of controls. And you are singularly vague. The SPAWAR work has been published for many, many years, regularly, in peer-reviewed journals. If you are going to cite mechanisms that you "proposed" in 2002, you could at least state what they are, and show why the controls used by the researchers were, in your view, inadequate. But you don't even mention the controls. This is next to useless. Mathsci, you don't know what's in front of your nose, you mistake your projections for reality. If your judgment as to what is happening on Wikipedia is corrupt, why should I trust your judgment on science? What does "fraud in chemistry" have to do with this? There are no significant standing allegations of fraud with respect to the vast bulk of the research involved. Wikilawyering about sources? What wikilawyering? I'm arguing that we should apply RS, straight on, and it doesn't get complicated unless there is conflict of sources. Enough. Kirk, you were carrying on a discussion with EdChem which was interesting. Mathsci is just here to disrupt and distract. Be careful who you align yourself with. Carry on. --Abd (talk) 18:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I assume Abd's quite unreasonable hostility to me is due to the fact that I was partially responsible for precipitating his unpalatable topic ban. I hope that Abd will now be able to move on, stop making personal attacks, conduct discussions in a more rational way and hone his editing skills on uncontroversial wikipedia articles, in particular learning how to use secondary sources. I wish him all the best of luck. Mathsci (talk) 21:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow! Mathsci, you had something to do with my alleged ban? (I'm not banned, per WP:BAN, WMC tried to ban me, but that's moot.) I had thought the ban was a unilateral, isolated, quirky decision by WMC, but if you were involved, that changes the complexion of the whole thing. WTF are you doing here, Mathsci? --Abd (talk) 00:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about, because you commented at length when I made the suggestion on a previous thread on WP:ANI. Please see the current discussion there. Writing "what the fuck are you doing here" seems highly uncivil and not helpful to discussions. You have been evading discussions about (a) your misuse of scientific sources and (b) your personal evaluations of science and scientists. That seems to be the crux of the matter. Mathsci (talk) 07:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Cold fusion mediation

I have been asked to mediate the content dispute regarding Cold fusion. I have set up a separate page for this mediation here. You have been identified as one of the involved parties. Please read through the material I have presented there. Thank you. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 19:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)