Oriani paper on LENR-CANR.org
Jed Rothwell
is no longer available on my ISP. This response is written by Edmund Storms.
Please note again, the Oriani paper is available on LENR-CANR.org, along
with ~100 other papers on cold fusion, photographs of cold fusion
experiments and other information.
- Jed Rothwell]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Comments on the Paper "GENERATION OF NUCLEAR TRACKS DURING ELECTROLYSIS" and
the Comments by Kirk Shanahan.
Drs. Oriani and Fisher published a paper in which they claim to detect
particle emission from a Pd cathode in a Pons-Fleichmann cell using CR-39
track detectors. In response to this article, Kirk Shanahan provided a
critique in which he concludes that the results did not show anonymous
behavior.
The claims are based on two sets of data. The active set is obtained from
CR-39 plastic in contact with an active electrode. The control set control
is in contact with the same kind of electrolyte, but in a separate
container. The authors chose to evaluate the statistical difference in track
frequency using the log(10) of the number of observed tracks in each sample.
Kirk Shanahan observed that the value given in the paper for the mean for
the log values of
2.801 for active samples and 2.187 for control samples do not correspond to
the average values
of 2.565 and 2.373 for the respective sets, which is correct. In addition
the given values do not
equal the median for the respective values either. Therefore the source of
the given mean values
is unknown.
However, the important issue is whether the number of recorded tracks
indicates radiation emission from the electrode. The following two figures
show histrograms of the data. [NOT SHOWN HERE - SEE ACROBAT FORMATTED
VERSION.] The control set has a narrow range of values, most of which fall
below 500 tracks. On the other hand, the active set shows a similar behavior
in the region below 500, but also shows many track numbers above 500 and as
high as 3750. Clearly, a difference exists between these two data sets.
Statistical analysis is useful when a large data set is available in which
small differences are being explored. Clearly in this case, the control and
the active data sets are much different from each other, a fact that can be
determined by applying statistical analysis as well as by simple
observation. Does this prove that radiation is present in the cell on a few
occasions? The answer seems to be yes. Does the experiment show where in the
cell the radiation originates? The answer is no, as explained below.
Kirk Shanahan speculates that recombination at the electrode surface might
produce tracks on CR-39 plastic. Recombination is a very small effect in
electrolytic cells, being detectable only when applied current is below 100
mA. In addition, recombination requires a catalytic surface on which the
process occurs without an explosive reaction. This is common knowledge. The
question is, does a chemical reaction that occurs at a slow rate on a
surface produce tracks on CR-39 plastic? A considerable amount of experience
using this plastic in electrolytic cells shows that the answer is no.
Shanahan's speculation has no basis in the reality of experience. However, a
more serious question needs an answer. Considerable experience shows that a
high surface composition is required to initiate the cold fusion reaction
when the Pons-Fleischmann method is used. Presence of this CR-39 plastic
will shield the surface from electrolytic action, thereby reducing the
surface composition. Why would cold fusion be expected on a surface that is
shielded in this way? In addition, the authors occasionally found tracks on
the side away from the electrode, from which they speculate that the nuclear
products originate in the electrolyte. A more likely speculation is that a
radioactive nuclear product was formed on the electrode and this dissolved
in the electrolyte where its decay was detected by tracks on the CR-39.
This work should be a reason to explore the phenomenon further rather than
reject the observation because it is not absolute proof of the cold fusion
effect or because the reality of cold fusion is not believed. Many good
questions can be asked, but not if the only question is, "is the effect
real?"
- Edmund Storms
Dieter Britz
> [Here is a delayed response to a message posted here by Kirk
Shanahan, which
> is no longer available on my ISP. This response is written by Edmund
Storms.
Things have gone pretty far when I find myself relieved to see
a posting by Rothwell, among Cackleposts and the other raving
lunatics and their baiters, I must say.
--
Dieter Britz http://www.chem.au.dk/~db
Kirk Shanahan
news:3dd95...@nopics.sjc
Edmund Storms posted (through J. Rothwell):
So we agree the paper is messed up.
| However, the important issue is whether the number of recorded tracks
| indicates radiation emission from the electrode.
No, the most important issue is whether there is _really_ any data to
support the claims made. That comes first, everything else is moot and
nothing
but intellectual speculation if the data doesn't exist.
| The following two figures
| show histrograms of the data. [NOT SHOWN HERE - SEE ACROBAT FORMATTED
| VERSION.] The control set has a narrow range of values, most of which
fall
| below 500 tracks. On the other hand, the active set shows a similar
behavior
| in the region below 500, but also shows many track numbers above 500
and as
| high as 3750. Clearly, a difference exists between these two data
sets.
No, not clearly. The point of applying statistics (which O&F did
initially)
is to determine if an apparent behavior is mathematically supported.
This
is done because other methods for interpreting data are not consistent
and
reproducible. Your histogram approach does nothing but visualize the
fact
that two data sets have different variances, (which I indicated also).
In this case, the primary problem is that the paper's commentary does
not fit
the data presented. Thus we should really be asking; "What is the data
in the
Table representing?" So to debate the distribution presented in the
Table
is to acknowledge that the paper's text is incorrect and misleading.
That of
course was my primary point.
Alternatively, the text reflects the real data and the Table is
erroneous and
misleading. In that case, I still note that the statistical test
employed by
O&F was incorrect. I cited a reference to the correct methodology and
used the
Table's data as an example of how to apply it. It is true that I did
not work
out the correct test, but I have now, and I find that if the means and
standard
deviations cited in the text are correct, the means are statistically
different. So the first issue is clearly "what is the correct data?".
(I do
remind the readers that I have still questioned the basis of the method
itself.
See the later comments in my original post and below.)
| Statistical analysis is useful when a large data set is available in
which
| small differences are being explored.
It's also useful for comparing small data sets with apparent large
differences.
The idea is to see if you are being fooled by the small sample size
results.
| Clearly in this case, the control and the active data sets are much
different
| from each other,
Not clearly, as noted above. It depends totally on which data the
authors were
supposed to be talking about. The data in the Table is NOT
statistically
different, you are being fooled by small sample statistics.
| a fact that can be
| determined by applying statistical analysis as well as by simple
| observation. Does this prove that radiation is present in the cell on
a few
| occasions? The answer seems to be yes.
Yes, if the text holds the 'true' values. No if the Table is the real
data.
The question one has to ask now though is "If the authors change the
data
table to a different set, what was the first set?" We are of course
concerned
about the hidden problem of data filtering.
| Does the experiment show where in the
| cell the radiation originates? The answer is no, as explained below.
Let's note that we now leave statistics behind and move to the topic of
the
reliability of the method used to 'prove' nuclear particles are present.
We are now implicitly ASSUMING that the 'real' data show a statistically
significant difference. The question now becomes "what causes the
tracks?"
Ed clearly thinks there is 'radiation' present. I don't reflexively
accept
that just yet.
| Kirk Shanahan speculates that recombination at the electrode surface
might
| produce tracks on CR-39 plastic. Recombination is a very small effect
in
| electrolytic cells, being detectable only when applied current is
below 100
| mA. In addition, recombination requires a catalytic surface on which
the
| process occurs without an explosive reaction. This is common
knowledge.
For those who like to study how people attempt to direct your thinking,
this
passage is a classic. Ed begins by stating that I considered
"recombination".
He then paints the strawman that recombination is small, because it has
been
carefully measured by electrochemists, and is found to decrease with
increasing current. He also however adds a caveat that recombination
requires
a catalytic surface, which is an interesting aside. I'm not sure the
catalytic requirement is necessary for the electrochemically driven
reaction
(Dieter?), but it certainly is for the idea I promote, that of NORMAL
non-electrochemically driven recombination. So Ed is slipping an
objection
to my proposal in under the cover of the electrochemical issue. He then
tops it off with an implicit insult "This is common knowledge", as if I
didn't know that, and suggest it myself! Classic misdirection tactics.
So, let's look at a couple of points.
Point 1: my invocation of recombination. Yes, my alternative to a low
energy
nuclear reaction is a calibration constant shift driven by
under-the-surface
recombination. What I mean by that is that heat energy is being
generated,
most likely at the electrode, by recombination at a point where the
total
amount of that heat captured by the less-than-100%-efficient calorimeter
is
slightly larger than it used to be before the recombination there began.
That produces a system response curve (calibration curve) that is
different
from the one determined earlier in the experimental sequence.
Most importantly note that this is NOT electrochemically driven. I am
fully
aware of the many studies that document the electrochemical
recombination
problem and its behavior. That's not what I am talking about. That
happens
IN ADDITION to the recombination I am proposing, if the current is
right.
So the strawman of electrochemical recombination is a concern of Ed's,
not
mine. I believe it is small and basically a minor correction needed at
low
currents. Ed wants you to believe I think it is terribly important. I
don't,
so let's drop the electrochemical recombination red herring.
Point 2: the nature of the recombination I am discussing. As Ed
correctly
points out, a hydrogen/oxygen explosion needs an initiator (such as a
flame,
a spark, or "even" a catalytic metal surface). What _I_ propose is that
a
'special, active surface state' forms that allows hydrogen and oxygen
bubbles to contact a free metal surface and
burn-deflagrate-detonate-explode
(take your choice). In most cases, I suspect this occurs on the
cathode.
Dr. Szpak and coworkers have photographed these explosions, even though
they
claim they are nuclear in nature. However, their 'nuclear' claim is
based
in the same kind of flawed calorimetry that everyone else in the CF
field
uses. The photographs just show heat being produced, not its origin.
The
sad thing is that Dr. Storms understands my proposal. He just doesn't
like
it, so he resorts to faulty tactics to try to discredit it.
So let's reexamine the first few lines of Ed's paragraph.
- Yes, I speculate recombination might cause tracks.
- Yes, _ELECTROCHEMICAL_ recombination is a small, non-relevant effect.
- Yes, _NORMAL_ recombination can use a catalytic surface to initiate.
- Yes, this is all common knowledge.
Hmmm... So why does this paragraph supports Ed's generic thesis brought
out
in his next few lines that I am wrong?
Continuing on...
| The question is, does a chemical reaction that occurs at a slow rate
on a
| surface produce tracks on CR-39 plastic? A considerable amount of
experience
| using this plastic in electrolytic cells shows that the answer is no.
Please cite the studies where the use of CR-39 in the presence of
exploding
H2/D2+O2 bubbles has been studied. (Or for that matter, any study of
CR-39
track content after exposure to localized shocks.)
You might want to note the use of the word 'slow'. It is a value-laden
word
that is unnecessary to the thought except to direct your thinking to a
desired
conclusion. To be exact, an explosion is not usually considered slow.
Try
dropping 'at a slow rate' out of the sentence to see what the real
question
is.
| Shanahan's speculation has no basis in the reality of experience.
Aha! The killer conclusion. False unfortunately.
Note that the following should have been a separate paragraph. Running
multiple topics together is a common tactic used to prevent careful
consideration of the writings while you are reading them.
| However, a
| more serious question needs an answer. Considerable experience shows
that a
| high surface composition is required to initiate the cold fusion
reaction
| when the Pons-Fleischmann method is used.
I prefer the "Fleischmann-Pons-Hawkins Effect" as opposed to the "cold
fusion reaction". Doesn't imply nuclear...
| Presence of this CR-39 plastic
| will shield the surface from electrolytic action, thereby reducing the
| surface composition. Why would cold fusion be expected on a surface
that is
| shielded in this way?
Yes, good question. It leads us to ask about the details of how the
experiments were carried out. How close was the plastic to the
palladium,
what loading was obtained, how was the mixing impacted, etc?
| In addition, the authors occasionally found tracks on
| the side away from the electrode, from which they speculate that the
nuclear
| products originate in the electrolyte.
An intriguing result inadequately presented. As you note, it speaks
greatly
towards the origin of the tracks. More data please... (I note that
none of
the results are outside those of the data table.)
| A more likely speculation is that a
| radioactive nuclear product was formed on the electrode and this
dissolved
| in the electrolyte where its decay was detected by tracks on the
CR-39.
Or some of the microexplosions could be occurring at the Pt anode as
well.
Depends on flow patterns, location of the CR-39, surface state of the Pt
(which you've shown can be 'active'), etc.
| This work should be a reason to explore the phenomenon further rather
than
| reject the observation because it is not absolute proof of the cold
fusion
| effect or because the reality of cold fusion is not believed.
It is only a reason if the conclusions presented in the paper are
justified.
So far, we don't even know what data we are discussing. Let's get that
before
we go any further. If the authors publish an erratum that clears it all
up,
then we can talk further.
| Many good
| questions can be asked, but not if the only question is, "is the
effect
| real?"
| - Edmund Storms
Right, and we need to prioritize those questions and answer them. Let's
start with "What is the real data?", followed closely by "What is the
actual
experimental protocols with regards to plastic positioning and results?"
Also of significance is the answer to the question "If the data in the
Table
isn't the 'real' data, what is it?" If we can get those answered, we
can
move on.
----
Summary
Ed Storms' response claims a) that I am wrong on several points, and b)
that
this work justifies further research. I hope that I have made it clear
that
Ed's proof of my wrongness is not correct. And, sloppy work never
justifies
more of the same. Making assumptions about the validity of the
conclusions
just leads to more questions, not any progress. Let's see the obvious
questions on experimental protocol and actual results addressed.
Now that the O&F paper has been published, it seems clear that a major
erratum
must be published. In that erratum, not only must a correction of
either the
text or the data table be made, but an explanation of the whole mistake
offered.
Otherwise, we all will be left wondering what data led to the part that
was
corrected, and whether it is really relevant or not. A long-time
criticism of
cold fusion researchers is that they choose only the data that supports
their
preconceived notions for publication. Here is a chance to prove that
criticism
wrong.
---
Kirk Shanahan {My opinions...noone else's}
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Dieter Britz
> "Jed Rothwell" <jedro...@infinite-energy.com> wrote in message
> news:3dd95...@nopics.sjc
>
> Edmund Storms posted (through J. Rothwell):
>
> | Comments on the Paper "GENERATION OF NUCLEAR TRACKS DURING
> ELECTROLYSIS" and
> | the Comments by Kirk Shanahan.
[...]
> He then paints the strawman that recombination is small, because it has
> been
> carefully measured by electrochemists, and is found to decrease with
> increasing current. He also however adds a caveat that recombination
> requires
> a catalytic surface, which is an interesting aside. I'm not sure the
> catalytic requirement is necessary for the electrochemically driven
> reaction
> (Dieter?), but it certainly is for the idea I promote, that of NORMAL
I am not sure I know what you mean by electrochemically driven
recombination. If this means, recombination of H2 with O2 at an
electrode, this doesn't happen in quite that way. If any O2 gets
over to the cathode, it will be reduced; similarly, any H2 making
it to the anode gets oxidised. I doubt that this happens to a
significant extent but I can't be sure. If it does, it would
undermine any calorimetry assumptions of zero recombination, but
would not cause violent hot spots in the solution, in my opinion.
I doubt that these gases, dissolved at concentrations under
millimolar, can recombine in solution. They will combine in the
head space if they find a catalytic surface, such as Pt or Pd...
The paper doesn't tell us how the 25x25 mm Pd foil is hung in the
cell - presumably from a Pd wire? Was that covered by an
insulating sheath to prevent recombination in the head space?
This discussion is frustrating to an electrochemist. It seems that
only CNF workers use a cell in which these two gases freely mix.
Normal electrochemists partition their cells, thus separating the
gases. It is easy to do. F&P know this, and I can only assume that
their original cell was very preliminary, and everybody since then
has copied them, not knowing much electrochemistry. F&P did, in
one paper, refer to a measurement of the current efficiency, which
came out to very close to 100%, meaning that there was no reduction
of O2 or oxidation of H2. Maybe it was this that made them feel OK
about their kind of cell. I would still put in a separator, and put
up with the extra resistance.
> Edmund Storms posted (through J. Rothwell):
Here we have Ed, his messages being carried by Rothwell (as well as
Rothwell himself), arguing the case for a paper by Oriani & Fisher.
Wouldn't it be nice if O&F could present their case instead?
Kirk Shanahan
news:3DDB5208...@chem.au.dk
> Kirk Shanahan wrote:
| I am not sure I know what you mean by electrochemically driven
| recombination.
What I mean is electrochemical reduction of O2 at the cathode
(where H2 is normally produced). In 1995, Jones, Hansen, Jones,
Shelton, and Thorne published J. Phys. Chem. 99, (1995), 6973,
a short study of an F&P-type cell where they shielded the
cathode with a glass tube and then proceeded to bubble N2 and O2
through the tube. They noted Faradaic efficiencies of <100%,
and claimed that was likely the cause of the FPHE.
Then in '97, Fritz Will responded in J. Electroanal. Chem 426
(1997) 177, claiming that there was a parasitic cathode reaction
with O2 that occurred, and he cited some other references that
developed some theory for this, primarily a linearly decreasing
model in current density. The Jones, et al, data did fit that
model reasonably well, with one minor problem. Current CFers love
to cite this paper whenever the word recombination is mentioned.
"Well, it's been shown that that's a minor contributor that
decreases with increasing current density. We run well above
where that is important." That is what I understand and agree
with, even though the 'models' cited by Will are very broad, and
"cover a multitude of sins" so to speak.
The recombination I speak of is the same chemistry as that which
occurs at the recombination catalyst. Now, most cells don't have
any power supply hooked to the catalyst, so it is clear the H2+O2
reaction occurs without any electrons or holes present as provided
by such a power supply. What I contend is that "somewhere in the
cell" such recombination initiates. This is in a location where
the percent of the heat generated there is more efficiently
captured that where it normally is produced (or even not as in the
case of an open cell). That is what changes the calibration
equation, the 'calibration constant shift'.
I tend to believe that the new recombination reaction point is on
the cathode, since there is so much evidence that the FPHE is
correlated to the cathode conditions, even though the full details
aren't worked out yet. However, I don't write off something else.
In fact, the whole body of experimental results probably contains
a mixture of cases.
| If this means, recombination of H2 with O2 at an
| electrode, this doesn't happen in quite that way. If any O2 gets
| over to the cathode, it will be reduced; similarly, any H2 making
| it to the anode gets oxidised. I doubt that this happens to a
| significant extent but I can't be sure. If it does, it would
| undermine any calorimetry assumptions of zero recombination, but
| would not cause violent hot spots in the solution, in my opinion.
You've essentially outlined the Will paper here. His Fig. 2 shows
O2 recombination as a function of current density for several base
temperatures. Basically, it is less than 5% or so by ~300 mA/cm2.
| I doubt that these gases, dissolved at concentrations under
| millimolar, can recombine in solution. They will combine in the
| head space if they find a catalytic surface, such as Pt or Pd...
Here you use 'catalytic' as I intended it in my prior responses.
The metal surface 'assists' the metastable H2/D2+O2 mixture to
recombine, but is unaffected itself, the classic definition of a
catalyst. I definitely agree head space recombination on
metal surfaces is possible and may even occur. A very suspicious
case is F&P's 1990 paper. However, I also suspect H2 bubbles that
form on the cathode which then either mix or simply react with
incident O2 bubbles as the primary cause of the FPHE. (Note this
could well occur at the anode as well! The electrochemical
conditions are irrelevant to this chemistry in the first
approximation.)
| The paper doesn't tell us how the 25x25 mm Pd foil is hung in the
| cell - presumably from a Pd wire? Was that covered by an
| insulating sheath to prevent recombination in the head space?
Right. More details please O&F. And don't forget the nickel wires
used to suspend the CR-39 plates.
| This discussion is frustrating to an electrochemist. It seems that
| only CNF workers use a cell in which these two gases freely mix.
| Normal electrochemists partition their cells, thus separating the
| gases. It is easy to do. F&P know this, and I can only assume that
| their original cell was very preliminary, and everybody since then
| has copied them, not knowing much electrochemistry. F&P did, in
| one paper, refer to a measurement of the current efficiency, which
| came out to very close to 100%, meaning that there was no reduction
| of O2 or oxidation of H2. Maybe it was this that made them feel OK
| about their kind of cell. I would still put in a separator, and put
| up with the extra resistance.
Ah, but we've already seen Ed in his response in this thread suggest
that such increased resistance should have killed the effect. In my
paradigm, effectively separating the O2 from the cathode, and vice
versa, would stop the occurrence of the calibration shift. But the
CFers would just claim the 'critical' conditions were never reached
because of the lowered loading due to the changed resistance. What
really must be done is that the calibration must be checked during
a 'cold fusion' event. But that's really tricky too.
| > Edmund Storms posted (through J. Rothwell):
| Here we have Ed, his messages being carried by Rothwell (as well as
| Rothwell himself), arguing the case for a paper by Oriani & Fisher.
| Wouldn't it be nice if O&F could present their case instead?
We can always dream...
Of course, first they have to get their data straight.
Jed Rothwell
> gases. It is easy to do. F&P know this, and I can only assume that
> their original cell was very preliminary, and everybody since then
> has copied them, not knowing much electrochemistry.
You can't be serious. People like Bockris, McKubre, Mizuno, Miles and Oriani
know a great deal of electrochemistry. Recombination is easily measured.
> Wouldn't it be nice if O&F could present their case instead?
They are out of touch right now. They may respond later.
- Jed
Kirk Shanahan
> Dieter Britz writes:
>
> > gases. It is easy to do. F&P know this, and I can only assume that
> > their original cell was very preliminary, and everybody since then
> > has copied them, not knowing much electrochemistry.
>
> You can't be serious. People like Bockris, McKubre, Mizuno, Miles and Oriani
> know a great deal of electrochemistry.
On the other hand, if they tried it with a separated cell, and got
nothing (as both I and Dr. Storms predict), they would have abandoned
that approach and gone back to what 'worked'.
> Recombination is easily measured.
>
Yes, it's easy to set up a test for 100% recombination that can
distinguish between 0% and 100%. But for a 3%, or even a 20% amount?
That gets a little tougher.
>
> > Wouldn't it be nice if O&F could present their case instead?
>
> They are out of touch right now. They may respond later.
>
> - Jed
Dieter Britz
> "Dieter Britz" <d...@chem.au.dk> wrote in message
[...]
> | The paper doesn't tell us how the 25x25 mm Pd foil is hung in the
> | cell - presumably from a Pd wire? Was that covered by an
> | insulating sheath to prevent recombination in the head space?
>
> Right. More details please O&F. And don't forget the nickel wires
> used to suspend the CR-39 plates.
Aaarghh! I overlooked that. More stray reactions, perhaps catalysis...
> | about their kind of cell. I would still put in a separator, and put
> | up with the extra resistance.
>
> Ah, but we've already seen Ed in his response in this thread suggest
> that such increased resistance should have killed the effect. In my
> paradigm, effectively separating the O2 from the cathode, and vice
> versa, would stop the occurrence of the calibration shift. But the
> CFers would just claim the 'critical' conditions were never reached
> because of the lowered loading due to the changed resistance. What
That is not right. All he has to do is to increase the cell voltage.
In fact, at constant current, the control circuit does that
automatically. It would cause a little extra heating in the cell,
that is all. But I don't demand a very fine-pored separator, a rough
one would be fine.
Dieter Britz
> Dieter Britz writes:
>
>
>>gases. It is easy to do. F&P know this, and I can only assume that
>>their original cell was very preliminary, and everybody since then
>>has copied them, not knowing much electrochemistry.
>>
>
> You can't be serious. People like Bockris, McKubre, Mizuno, Miles and Oriani
> know a great deal of electrochemistry. Recombination is easily measured.
Tell us how you would do it, accurately, then. What I am saying is that
it is better to prevent it in the first place - also an easy thing to
do - than to need to measure it and have to persuade others that you
have accounted for it. Some workers believe in low current densities,
if I remember correctly, and then recombination in the form
of O2 being reduced at the cathode gets more serious. Remember that
there is always good mixing in these cells, a point often made by
the proponents.
But OK, I was wrong to use the word "everybody"; the people you name
above do indeed know their electrochemistry. There has been a general
tendency to use cells as much like those of F&P as possible, possibly
for good reason. That being, that since nobody knew (or knows) what
brings on the effect (if any), it is best not to deviate from the
design that succeeded.
Jed Rothwell
> > You can't be serious. People like Bockris, McKubre, Mizuno, Miles and
Oriani
> > know a great deal of electrochemistry. Recombination is easily measured.
>
>
> Tell us how you would do it, accurately, then.
"Accurately" means different things to different people, in different
circumstances. Let us define it here to mean "accurately enough to be sure
that excess heat is not caused by recombination." I realize that definition
is not quite relevant, because in this particular experiment, heat is not
measured. We are discussing the Shanahann hypothesis that recombination
affects the CR-39. No matter how carefully we prove by both experiment and
theory that this is physically impossible, and no matter how much we reduce
the recombination, Shanahan will continue to assert this nonsense. He will
define any level of recombination as too high -- even a level that cannot be
measured with any known technique. (Particularly a level that cannot be
measured, since that makes it impossible to refute his argument.)
Anyway, getting back to your question, I would measure recombination by:
1. Recombing everything in a closed cell. The only problem is the heat
shifts to the head space. That shift is too small to be detected with most
calorimeter types, and with many -- such as flow or Seebeck -- it makes no
difference, and cannot be detected even in principle.
2. Measuring the gas flow. There are some remarkable new gas flowmeters
nowadays. I was just now editing a paragraph about a Kofloc Corp., model
3100. "The minimum detectable flow rate is 0.001 cc/min, and the resolution
is within 1%." (says Mizuno). See: http://www.kofloc.co.jp/3440.htm (in
Japanese)
3. Measuring the fluid consumption. This gets complicated at high
temperatures, since you also lose a significant amount of water to
evaporation.
Methods 2 & 3 combined are usually good enough to ensure that recombination
cannot account for excess heat, but of course that depends on how much
excess heat there is. 30% excess, for example, is usually more than enough,
but ~2% may not be. Most poeple would not consider ~2% excess significant
anyway. (I mean 30% when present; not 30% for the average of the entire
run.)
> What I am saying is that
> it is better to prevent it in the first place - also an easy thing to
> do . . .
You miss the point. You cannot prevent it COMPLETELY. You cannot stop every
atom of O from finding H. No matter how low the level, and no matter how
conclusively Oriani and others prove that even massive recombination cannot
cause the effects observed here in any case, Shanahan will claim that
recombination is the cause. Imaginary levels of recombination are fine with
him, since his problem and his analysis are both imaginary.
> But OK, I was wrong to use the word "everybody"; the people you name
> above do indeed know their electrochemistry.
You knew the author is Oriani, and you know that he is an expert, so why did
you say that? I suppose you were hoping to convince other member of the
audience that Oriani is an amateur blunderer, since they do not know his
reputation.
- Jed
Jed Rothwell
> . . . I was just now editing a paragraph about a Kofloc Corp., model
> 3100. "The minimum detectable flow rate is 0.001 cc/min, and the
resolution
> is within 1%." (says Mizuno). See: http://www.kofloc.co.jp/3440.htm (in
> Japanese)
Actually, that web page only shows the model 3440 series, which measures 10
to 500 sccm. I wish I could find a spec for the model 3100, to be sure I
translated this stuff from Mizuno correctly.
This is the upcoming paper, T. Mizuno, T. Akimoto, T. Ohmori, "Confirmation
of anomalous hydrogen generation by plasma electrolysis." (Anomalous in
sense that there is too much; more than Faraday's law predicts. Probably
caused by pyrolysis. Hmm . . . Maybe that title should be revised.)
- Jed
Kirk Shanahan
> Kirk Shanahan wrote:
>
> > "Dieter Britz" <d...@chem.au.dk> wrote in message
>
>
{snip}
> That is not right. All he has to do is to increase the cell voltage.
> In fact, at constant current, the control circuit does that
> automatically. It would cause a little extra heating in the cell,
> that is all. But I don't demand a very fine-pored separator, a rough
> one would be fine.
OK, I'll buy that. However, when it fails to produce the CF or
FPH effect, the CFers will just say that you changed 'something' that
was necessary to it, and then say you have to do an 'exact' replication
if you expect to get the effect. I think the real bottom line is that
someone has to explain _exactly_ what is happening in CF cells as they
are before anyone will believe the effect is an error as I suggest.