User talk:Kirk shanahan/Archives/2009/January

Comments on "The Major ..."
Originally posted after the fifth paragraph of the named section:


 * Yes, that is indeed simple. However, what is not so simple is WHY and HOW the calibration should shift in the first place, for every different kind of calorimeter that has been used,  and especially by just enough, almost always  (in your opinion), to render the measurements invalid.  It is my understanding that things like that don't just happen by themselves, energy must be applied to make them happen.  Where did the energy come from to do that?  In other words, you are presuming your answer, in order to obtain your answer, which thereby hides the energy that causes the "problem" that you claim means no significant energy was produced!  Not very scientific. V (talk) 00:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "However, what is not so simple is WHY and HOW the calibration should shift in the first place, for every different kind of calorimeter that has been used,  and especially by just enough, almost always  (in your opinion), to render the measurements invalid."


 * I have published one why and how, and have discussed it extensively in the CF Talk page. Check the archives and read the papers.


 * ONE "why and how"??? Why would that affect every different kind of calorimeter out there?  And I repeat, decalibrations don't happen by themselves without cause.  I fully recognize that possible causes of decalibration can include material degradation over time, gravity-induced sag, and other slow factors, but it is not reasonable to think that any of these will act quickly between a fresh calibration and the conduction of the experiment that uses the freshly calibrated device.  Any such device that can't hold its calibration for that long is worthless and should be replaced.  The labs where CF experiments are done may be underfunded, but I think the researchers would notice whether or not their measurement tools are constantly needing recalibrations.  ESPECIALLY since they've known they need good measurements, ever since 1989.

"ONE "why and how"??? Why would that affect every different kind of calorimeter out there?" - To be accurate, my one why and how was proposed for a P&F type cell, and would not be applicable to other systems. However, the CCS problem is applicable to any and all calibrated methods, which constitute 99.999+% of quantitative scientific measurements. This is nothing more than a graphic illustration of the analytical chemistry (actually General Science) Golden Rule "You can't calibrate an unstable system." Kirk shanahan (talk) 21:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * SO? In what way is a simple electrolysis cell being fed a steady current an unstable system?  Do remember that if the palladium electrode is "fresh", empty of hydrogen content, it will take a while before it loads up deuterium to the 80+% mark (as many deuterium as palladium atoms) that is claimed to be the level where excess heat starts to appear.  Why wouldn't that load-up time be plenty to get a good STABLE measurement of the heat associated with the electrolysis (simple electric-resistance heating, basically), before the Main Event?  (Also, I recognize that a simplistic electrolysis rig would be not-stable in the sense that as water is electrolyzed, the water level would drop and some of the electrodes might no longer be in the water, thereby leading to a change in the electrolysis rate and associated energy transformations.  But alternate rigs are quite easy to imagine/use, for example one in which an electrode-holder floats on the surface of the electrolyte, and they would not have that problem.)

"And I repeat, decalibrations don't happen by themselves without cause." - Right, which is why for the P&F cells I was studying, I was able to propose a rational mechanism for the cause. Kirk shanahan (talk) 21:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * And as I've specified both above and below this remark, it takes energy in one form or another to cause stuff like decalibration. So, if the measurement device is halfway-decent quality such that one has a right to expect it to stay calibrated under reasonable conditions, decalibration could only occur if something unreasonable is happening.  You are trying to put the cart before the horse, in saying that the decalibration happens before the event that caused it, thereby allowing you to say that the event did not happen.  Bad logic is automatically bad science.

"Any such device that can't hold its calibration for that long is worthless and should be replaced." - you're finally getting my point ;-}. Actually, every calibrated method has an associated error. It is a sign of pseudoscience to try to work inside the error band, so it is critical to accurately know that band. The CFers think the error band is defined by baseline noise. I simply showed that is not true. Kirk shanahan (talk) 21:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This is why I talked about using different scales for different jobs. A meter designed for kilowatts should not be relied on to measure microwatts, and vice-versa.  But a calorimeter accurate to a hundredth of a joule should be just fine for measuring whole joules.  You appear to be claiming that EVERY CF researcher is in-essence using (the equivalent of) a calorimeter designed for kilojoules to measure tenths of a joule (I'm aware that many CF claims of excess heat involve smaller amounts rather than larger amounts, partly because of the difficulty of loading enough deuterium into the palladium).  I would be skeptical of the results, too, if that claim was true.  And yet every CF researcher since the 1989 DOE panel has known they need ACCURATE heat measurements, to convince the detractors.  I find it difficult to believe that many such people, acknowledged as having expertise in the electrochemistry field before becoming outcasts by researching CF, would not know they need APPROPRIATE-scale calorimeters to obtain the desired-by-skeptics accuracy.  Every single one?  You must be joking! (rhetorical statement)

"The labs where CF experiments are done may be underfunded, but I think the researchers would notice whether or not their measurement tools are constantly needing recalibrations." - Hard to tell, they never publish such information.


 * What I meant is that that should be a signal to the researchers, that the measurement tool needs to be replaced.

But I know Ed Storms thinks a 1.7% variation is A-OK, even after I showed him it could cause the signals he observed. Draw your own conclusion from that "ESPECIALLY since they've known they need good measurements, ever since 1989.".


 * I don't have quite enough data about that setup yet (and "could" does not automatically equal "did"). How did the number of joules being measured compare to the sensitivity of the calorimeter?  Is it NORMAL for that particular model to be inaccurate by 1.7%?  If so, why wouldn't Storms know about it, and therefore know he needed something better?

To be fair, the CCS is subtle and not often considered. That's because most people work well above the level of problem it causes. Not so the CFers. Kirk shanahan (talk) 21:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm quite sure the CF researchers WANT their experiments to produce lots of extra joules, as occasionally apparently does happen, such that there could be no doubt. And in their zeal, the ones who see indications of just a few extra joules are willing to think that that suffices for publication.  It is partly because of the occasional big event that I'm willing to think that many of those small events are real.  I remember reading about how gingerly Enrico Fermi pulled that last moderator rod from that first fission reactor under the Chicago sports stadium.  They REALLY did not want an out-of-control reaction!  In CF we don't seem to need to worry about THAT much activity, but there does seem to be a steep rise between just-barely-something-happening and (possible exaggeration) electrolyte-starts-to-boil.  The difficulty is all about reaching that point-of-steep-rise.  But to the extent it has ever happened even once, then that LOGICALLY means some number of the just-barely-something-happening measurements must be real.

"I fully recognize that possible causes of decalibration can include material degradation over time, gravity-induced sag, and other slow factors, but it is not reasonable to think that any of these will act quickly between a fresh calibration and the conduction of the experiment that uses the freshly calibrated device." - What I think is happening in the P&F cell is that material is slowly deposited on the electrode surface and it alters the surface energy such that H2 bubbles adhere better. Then O2 bubbles collide and merge, and the clean metal surface under the bubble catalyzes H2+O2->H2O.


 * That doesn't make any sense at all, in any experiment that isolates the two electrodes such that the gases form can be separately collected. Sure, I know that with palladium there the hydrogen should go into the metal instead of forming bubbles (it depends on NOT maximizing the amount of electric current flowing), and an experimenter might therefore expect to collect only oxygen gas --but still the electrodes are decently separated.  Aren't they?


 * Another separate point is that the amount of gas collected is related to the amount of electrical energy put into the electrolysis cell. If oxygen is behaving as you describe, then it is not being collected with the rest.  That discrepancy, especially if enough to cause excess heat when combining with hydrogen, should be measurable.  In other words: Electrical energy yields some heat directly plus hydrogen and oxygen.  Hydrogen mostly permeates into the palladium electrode and the oxygen bubbles out and can be collected.  In the initial stable phase, as deuterium-hydrogen permeation begins, the rate at which oxygen gas is collected would be a straight-line fraction of the electrical energy supplied.  If O2 starts to go to the other electrode instead of bubbling out, then the gas collection rate must change.  The difference in rate-of-collection of oxygen, if some is assumed to combine with hydrogen and release heat, must match the excess heat measured, for your scenario to be true.  Since oxygen collection is a measurable thing, what is the relevant data?

This requires enough bubbles to be impacted to get a noticeable shift in heat production, which requires enough contaminants or structural changes at the surface to do that. That could take very long times in very clean systems, or, in the case of the co-deposition experiments, it could happen quickly due to the special conditions of that select system. You need to remember that _most_ CF experiments runs hundreds of hours. The Szpak codep process cuts that way down - why? Because it makes dendrititc Pd with lots of contaminants on it (from the plating chemicals). Kirk shanahan (talk) 21:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, that sounds reasonable, on the face of it. However...if the system is very clean, where are the contaminants coming from, that you need to exist?  Yes, I know that most CF experiments run for a long time, in order to load enough deuterium into the palladium.  One question I've had, is, "Why don't the CF researchers pressurize their electrolysis cells?"  Then they could use a higher current and electrolyze heavy water at a faster rate; the pressure would encourage deuterium produced at the increased rate to enter the palladium instead of make bubbles, and the critical loading point would be achieved much sooner --possibly much more easily, also, if there is some equilibrium point where at normal pressure deuterium would rather make bubbles than permeate (pressure would move the equilibrium point to a higher deuterium density in the palladium).


 * Regarding the Szpak process, there would still have to be an unusual closeness between the electrodes, for oxygen to so easily find its way to the hydrogen-producing electrode. And why must this electrolyte solution be so much more contaminated than an ordinary heavy-water electrolyte solution?  Sure, I know it needs to have a Pd compound dissolved in it, such that Pd can be electrolzed out and form an electroplating, and I know that the voltage needed to do that must be very close to the voltage for electrolyzing heavy water, but I don't know why a lot of other stuff must exist in the solution, and why it must have a similar electronegativity to hydrogen and palladium, such that the voltage used to do electrolysis causes more depositing than of just palladium and hydrogen.


 * Further you clearly misunderstand the process here when you imply I am tuning my conclusions just so I can reject the CF hypothesis. By defining a potential error in one case that is capable of fully explaining the observations in that one case, I establish a new error bar on that experiment, one that is significantly larger than was previously realized.


 * "defining a potential error" is not the same thing as proving the error was actually present. Certainly I agree that the possibility needs to be investigated.  I do not agree with arbitrarily assuming the error was there, however.

But when the 'potential' error carries full explanatory power, it is expected that its presence be disproven. Kirk shanahan (talk) 21:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I won't disagree with the basic logic, but I can disagree with the assumption that "the potential error carries full explanatory power". So far as I can see, it does not, and therefore the logical conclusion is faulty, that its presence must be disproven.  Because I have no reason to think all those experimenters out there are using identical equipment, with insignificant electrode separation, and just the right sorts of contaminants present in their electrolyte solutions.


 * Then I extend that new interpretation to other cases, and find it MAY be functional in nearly all or all excess heat measurements.


 * This requires the further assumption all the other measurements are using equipment that is subject to that exact same type of error. With laboratories around the world using equipment from different suppliers, and very likely different equipment at that (DON'T tell me there is only one possible type of calorimeter!), this assumption is not reasonable.  Another related issue involves the sensitivity of these devices.  We wouldn't have a unit of energy called the "erg" if it couldn't be measured.  Yet CF researchers typically talk about measuring "joules" of heat, which is a unit ten million times bigger than the erg.  Now while I'm aware you don't use a postage scale to weigh an empty forklift, and I'm aware that putting that vehical on a scale built to handle fully-loaded 18-wheelers will likely not yield high accuracy, there certainly exist scales of intermediate ability.  So, a scale accurate to a hundredth of a joule would have to be WILDLY out of calibration to indicate detection of whole joules that didn't actually exist.  Why would ALL the researchers who KNOW they need high accuracy (to convince the detractors) be using measuring equipment that could get so far out of adjustment???

"This requires the further assumption all the other measurements are using equipment that is subject to that exact same type of error." - The CCS is so generic, it must be checked for in all cases, i.e. calibration stability must be assessed.


 * No, it is only generic with respect to low-accuracy calorimetry equipment. That is, for equipment accurate to one part in a thousand, if it registers a 1.7% increase in heat, then that is outside the normal error zone for that equipment.  If this equipment can become so out-of-calibration as to invalidate the measurement, then the cause is still going to require energy that must be explained.  And then there is the oxygen-gas measuring thing...is NOBODY doing that???

In a different configuration, if a CCS can explain the signal, one has to evaluate the reasonableness of the CCS explanation, i.e. its magnitude. I did this for the Storms' cell in my original paper to prove the CCS was reasonable, and it would need to be done again in each case. Kirk shanahan (talk) 21:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, to show the CCS is reasonable in each case is what you as a critic must do, before you can expect the experimenters in those cases to prove its not there.

"With laboratories around the world using equipment from different suppliers, and very likely different equipment at that (DON'T tell me there is only one possible type of calorimeter!), this assumption is not reasonable." - I repeat - when the 'potential' error carries full explanatory power, it is expected that its presence be disproven. Your guesses as to what errors are or are not present are not proof (they are guesses). We need some proof. Kirk shanahan (talk) 21:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * And I shall continue to disagree with your ASSUMPTION that your potential error is actually a potential error in all those cases.

I don't get your point on the forklift-stuff. The researchers use what they considered to be adequate and sufficeint tools to do the job. I simply showed that this was not so. Kirk shanahan (talk) 21:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

"Why would ALL the researchers who KNOW they need high accuracy (to convince the detractors) be using measuring equipment that could get so far out of adjustment???" - Because they've convinced themselves is is adequate and sufficient, as do any scientists. But that decision was based on the idea that baseline noise was the predominant error. It isn't, ergo, their conclusion was incorrerctly derived, and is incorrect. Kirk shanahan (talk) 21:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This leaves you with showing that there actually is present something more than baseline noise.


 * This means that without additional data, the prior experiments are now to be considered inconclusive because the reported signals are now potentially 'in the noise'.


 * Only experiments using very similar equipment can have that problem. Thus there is more than one type of "additional data" to gather.

I won't argue with that. See my prior comments. I eagerly await all this new data. But you realize you've made my point, it has to be _new_ data. Possibily acquired before and unpublished then, but 'new' as per the literature as it stands today. Kirk shanahan (talk) 21:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You misinterpreted me. For YOU, and the CCS hypothesis, you need more data about the old experiments.  You need to know what equipment they actually used, before you can say your hypothesis applies to their old data.  That said, I agree that we need more new data, too.  You might notice I've made a number of suggestions along that line.


 * As a critic I need to do no more, but I actually went further with my postulated mechanism. Whether that turns out to be right or not has no bearing on what the 'discovery' of the CCS' role in Storms' work does, and whether that is extensible to others' work.


 * You did indeed go farther; you assumed your mechanism was real, and you did at least indicate that lots of CF resarch should be discounted because of it. Even though HERE you are carefully qualifying your claims in a way that clearly means to me, "Hardly any large percentage of CF work must-be/has-been affected by the CCS mechanism".

No, I showed the CCS could explain Storms' result. I pointed out his calorimeter was top notch, and that lesser ones would have bigger problems. And I pointed out that no relevant data hhad been published to date (still true today) that would allow one to evaluate whether a CCS was active in all the other cases. Thsi leads you back to the coice between boring science and sensationalism. (Out of time for today maybe more tomorrow or later tonite, but don't hold your breath. You are making a good case for being a CF fanatic yourself.  Rothwell taught me not to bother too much with you guys.)  Kirk shanahan (talk) 21:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, tell me why the definition of "top notch" means it is only accurate to about one part in a hundred (such that if it shows a 1.7% difference from the norm, it can be argued-about)?


 * "It is my understanding that things like that don't just happen by themselves, energy must be applied to make them happen."
 * No, energy does not need to be applied to make them happen. Read the papers.


 * Energy is ALWAYS involved, one way or another, in causing ANY change-of-state larger than the scale-of-events affected by the Uncertainty Principle. Period.  Whether energy is involved slowly or quickly, whether conversions between potential, kinetic, radiant or other forms are involved, any other description for a change-of-state would be a violation of the energy-conservation law.  For example, a postage scale can become un-calibrated if an internal spring becomes permanently deformed --but it takes energy to do that to that spring.


 * to be clear, there are scads of energy around. They run an amp or two of current through the cells, which heats things up nicely.  They use 'caustic' eletrolytes, which means there is chemical energy available from the hoydroxide dissolution reactions.  There is the exothermic heat of absorption of hydrogen in palladium (when they use Pd electrodes).  there is the usual heat of solution for dissolution of things not in the electrolyte but in contact with it.  Yes, energy is involved, but you don't neeed to apply any extra to get the effects we see.  What i was com[pletely unclear on is why you thought you needed to emphasize that energy is ALWAYS involved.  What was your point?? 18:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * " In other words, you are presuming your answer, in order to obtain your answer, which thereby hides the energy that causes the "problem" that you claim means no significant energy was produced! "
 * Sorry, you're clueless here. I tested the hypothesis that a CCS could account for the excess heat signal, and found it workable.  Now, more testing must be accomplished in order to verify one or the other explanation.


 * I am far from clueless, although I readily admit to not knowing everything. The most important thing about Science is that it makes logical sense.  (Even Quantum Mechanics can make logical sense, but it depends on the approach.)  And very frequently in Science, multiple variables are involved.  Experimenters try to make sure they know what the relevant variables are, in their experiments.  Certainly the CCS mechanism would count as an additional variable for CF researchers to include.  If it was real and not just a postulate.  And if it was relevant across the board.  TWO important things to prove, not just assume.  Have you ever seen the CCS mechanism in NON-CF experiments?  Has anyone?  In the last hundred years of calorimetry, why would the CCS mechanism have waited to appear only in CF experiments?


 * "Certainly the CCS mechanism would count as an additional variable for CF researchers to include." - Thank you for noting my PRIMARY POINT. The CCS potential error MUST BE INCLUDED in analysis of calorimetric data.  The CFers DON"T DO THAT.  The don't even acknowledge it is real (which it is any everyone who can do arithmetic realizes!).  So congrats, you are two or three steps ahead of every CFer in understanding their calorimetry.  Kirk shanahan (talk) 18:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "If it was real and not just a postulate. And if it was relevant across the board.  TWO important things to prove, not just assume."  -  have I ever said anything else?!?!?  My whole point towards the field is that they need to stop claiming a nuclear process is proven.  There are still potentially valid questions that they refuse to even acknowledge, much less address.  The next to the last paragraph of my first publication ends with: "Additional data must be acquired and further analysis performed before the claim of Storms that platinum shows evidence for cold fusion can be taken seriously."  The last paragraph says: "It [this paper] establishes the requirement that the statistical variation in calibration constants must be explicitly determined and considered,".  Kirk shanahan (talk) 18:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "Not very scientific"
 * Perfectly scientific. The fact you don't understand this really disqualifies you as an editor of scientific topics.  You should recuse yourself.


 * Au contraire. Because Science is logical.  And various things written above indicate you are failing at it, not I. V (talk) 19:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It's comments like these that lead me to stop communicating. The above is nothing but an ad hominem attack.  No explanation, no discussion, just "Kirk is a nasty boy".  I've learned to give up when the discussion reaches this level.  The use of ad hom. attacks indicates the user has run out of real arguments.  Kirk shanahan (talk) 18:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * V, it's not as simple as putting all the crap in a special vessel and reading its temperature from an LCD on the outside as the final word on the elthalpy change. You have to do a number of calculations which rely on a number of assumptions, which may not be true.  See, for example, the comments in this totally indepedent paper from the literature from 2006:


 * It has been shown that the error in all aforementioned quantities reflects on the baseline and it can have a very serious impact on the accuracy of the measurement.


 * The fact is that the large majority of cold fusion experiments were done using dodgy calorimetry. And the other fact is that you only need a fraction of cold fusion experiments making calorimetry mistakes, and ordinary publishing bias does the rest.  Calorimetry mistakes happen all the time, but Jed would have us believe that cold fusion researchers are uber duber careful and have eliminated all potential mistakes in most experiments!  Because the heat is "real" to him, all 4000 or so of the papers that show heat must be real too, regardless of how shoddy the calorimetry, not just the bare handful of careful experiments.  Do you see the problem?  I really hope that you do. Phil153(talk) 23:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "The fact is that the large majority of cold fusion experiments were done using dodgy calorimetry." --Well, I don't know that that statement is actually a fact. If it is, then I would have to agree that a lot of the experiments must be ignored.  This still leaves a few, however.  Even you have previously admitted to that.  To whatever extent you wish to consider me to be a CF fanatic, it is due to those few.  Plus the recent indications of nuclear activity as recorded in pits in CR-39 plastic.  AND because I think I know how CF can happen.  I paraphrase your own words: "the hypothesis carries full explanatory power".  It explains heat without significant radiation in bulk metal.  It explains the requirement for high deuterium loading.  It explains the presence of significant particle production when the metal is very thin.  Remember, a lot of detractors think CF can't be true because they don't know any way it MIGHT be true.  Should that change...we still need data, of course.  Would you care to speculate about the physical properties of "pure metallic deuterium"?  The hypothesis suggests making some, to see if it will explode, since it would not be DILUTED by palladium or any other atoms...== Comments on "The Major ..." ==

Originally posted after the fifth paragraph of the named section:


 * Yes, that is indeed simple. However, what is not so simple is WHY and HOW the calibration should shift in the first place, for every different kind of calorimeter that has been used,  and especially by just enough, almost always  (in your opinion), to render the measurements invalid.  It is my understanding that things like that don't just happen by themselves, energy must be applied to make them happen.  Where did the energy come from to do that?  In other words, you are presuming your answer, in order to obtain your answer, which thereby hides the energy that causes the "problem" that you claim means no significant energy was produced!  Not very scientific. V (talk) 00:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "However, what is not so simple is WHY and HOW the calibration should shift in the first place, for every different kind of calorimeter that has been used,  and especially by just enough, almost always  (in your opinion), to render the measurements invalid."


 * I have published one why and how, and have discussed it extensively in the CF Talk page. Check the archives and read the papers.


 * ONE "why and how"??? Why would that affect every different kind of calorimeter out there?  And I repeat, decalibrations don't happen by themselves without cause.  I fully recognize that possible causes of decalibration can include material degradation over time, gravity-induced sag, and other slow factors, but it is not reasonable to think that any of these will act quickly between a fresh calibration and the conduction of the experiment that uses the freshly calibrated device.  Any such device that can't hold its calibration for that long is worthless and should be replaced.  The labs where CF experiments are done may be underfunded, but I think the researchers would notice whether or not their measurement tools are constantly needing recalibrations.  ESPECIALLY since they've known they need good measurements, ever since 1989.

"ONE "why and how"??? Why would that affect every different kind of calorimeter out there?" - To be accurate, my one why and how was proposed for a P&F type cell, and would not be applicable to other systems. However, the CCS problem is applicable to any and all calibrated methods, which constitute 99.999+% of quantitative scientific measurements. This is nothing more than a graphic illustration of the analytical chemistry (actually General Science) Golden Rule "You can't calibrate an unstable system." Kirk shanahan (talk) 21:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * SO? In what way is a simple electrolysis cell being fed a steady current an unstable system?  Do remember that if the palladium electrode is "fresh", empty of hydrogen content, it will take a while before it loads up deuterium to the 80+% mark (as many deuterium as palladium atoms) that is claimed to be the level where excess heat starts to appear.  Why wouldn't that load-up time be plenty to get a good STABLE measurement of the heat associated with the electrolysis (simple electric-resistance heating, basically), before the Main Event?  (Also, I recognize that a simplistic electrolysis rig would be not-stable in the sense that as water is electrolyzed, the water level would drop and some of the electrodes might no longer be in the water, thereby leading to a change in the electrolysis rate and associated energy transformations.  But alternate rigs are quite easy to imagine/use, for example one in which an electrode-holder floats on the surface of the electrolyte, and they would not have that problem.)

"And I repeat, decalibrations don't happen by themselves without cause." - Right, which is why for the P&F cells I was studying, I was able to propose a rational mechanism for the cause. Kirk shanahan (talk) 21:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * And as I've specified both above and below this remark, it takes energy in one form or another to cause stuff like decalibration. So, if the measurement device is halfway-decent quality such that one has a right to expect it to stay calibrated under reasonable conditions, decalibration could only occur if something unreasonable is happening.  You are trying to put the cart before the horse, in saying that the decalibration happens before the event that caused it, thereby allowing you to say that the event did not happen.  Bad logic is automatically bad science.

"Any such device that can't hold its calibration for that long is worthless and should be replaced." - you're finally getting my point ;-}. Actually, every calibrated method has an associated error. It is a sign of pseudoscience to try to work inside the error band, so it is critical to accurately know that band. The CFers think the error band is defined by baseline noise. I simply showed that is not true. Kirk shanahan (talk) 21:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This is why I talked about using different scales for different jobs. A meter designed for kilowatts should not be relied on to measure microwatts, and vice-versa.  But a calorimeter accurate to a hundredth of a joule should be just fine for measuring whole joules.  You appear to be claiming that EVERY CF researcher is in-essence using (the equivalent of) a calorimeter designed for kilojoules to measure tenths of a joule (I'm aware that many CF claims of excess heat involve smaller amounts rather than larger amounts, partly because of the difficulty of loading enough deuterium into the palladium).  I would be skeptical of the results, too, if that claim was true.  And yet every CF researcher since the 1989 DOE panel has known they need ACCURATE heat measurements, to convince the detractors.  I find it difficult to believe that many such people, acknowledged as having expertise in the electrochemistry field before becoming outcasts by researching CF, would not know they need APPROPRIATE-scale calorimeters to obtain the desired-by-skeptics accuracy.  Every single one?  You must be joking! (rhetorical statement)

"The labs where CF experiments are done may be underfunded, but I think the researchers would notice whether or not their measurement tools are constantly needing recalibrations." - Hard to tell, they never publish such information.


 * What I meant is that that should be a signal to the researchers, that the measurement tool needs to be replaced.

But I know Ed Storms thinks a 1.7% variation is A-OK, even after I showed him it could cause the signals he observed. Draw your own conclusion from that "ESPECIALLY since they've known they need good measurements, ever since 1989.".


 * I don't have quite enough data about that setup yet (and "could" does not automatically equal "did"). How did the number of joules being measured compare to the sensitivity of the calorimeter?  Is it NORMAL for that particular model to be inaccurate by 1.7%?  If so, why wouldn't Storms know about it, and therefore know he needed something better?

To be fair, the CCS is subtle and not often considered. That's because most people work well above the level of problem it causes. Not so the CFers. Kirk shanahan (talk) 21:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm quite sure the CF researchers WANT their experiments to produce lots of extra joules, as occasionally apparently does happen, such that there could be no doubt. And in their zeal, the ones who see indications of just a few extra joules are willing to think that that suffices for publication.  It is partly because of the occasional big event that I'm willing to think that many of those small events are real.  I remember reading about how gingerly Enrico Fermi pulled that last moderator rod from that first fission reactor under the Chicago sports stadium.  They REALLY did not want an out-of-control reaction!  In CF we don't seem to need to worry about THAT much activity, but there does seem to be a steep rise between just-barely-something-happening and (possible exaggeration) electrolyte-starts-to-boil.  The difficulty is all about reaching that point-of-steep-rise.  But to the extent it has ever happened even once, then that LOGICALLY means some number of the just-barely-something-happening measurements must be real.

"I fully recognize that possible causes of decalibration can include material degradation over time, gravity-induced sag, and other slow factors, but it is not reasonable to think that any of these will act quickly between a fresh calibration and the conduction of the experiment that uses the freshly calibrated device." - What I think is happening in the P&F cell is that material is slowly deposited on the electrode surface and it alters the surface energy such that H2 bubbles adhere better. Then O2 bubbles collide and merge, and the clean metal surface under the bubble catalyzes H2+O2->H2O.


 * That doesn't make any sense at all, in any experiment that isolates the two electrodes such that the gases form can be separately collected. Sure, I know that with palladium there the hydrogen should go into the metal instead of forming bubbles (it depends on NOT maximizing the amount of electric current flowing), and an experimenter might therefore expect to collect only oxygen gas --but still the electrodes are decently separated.  Aren't they?


 * Another separate point is that the amount of gas collected is related to the amount of electrical energy put into the electrolysis cell. If oxygen is behaving as you describe, then it is not being collected with the rest.  That discrepancy, especially if enough to cause excess heat when combining with hydrogen, should be measurable.  In other words: Electrical energy yields some heat directly plus hydrogen and oxygen.  Hydrogen mostly permeates into the palladium electrode and the oxygen bubbles out and can be collected.  In the initial stable phase, as deuterium-hydrogen permeation begins, the rate at which oxygen gas is collected would be a straight-line fraction of the electrical energy supplied.  If O2 starts to go to the other electrode instead of bubbling out, then the gas collection rate must change.  The difference in rate-of-collection of oxygen, if some is assumed to combine with hydrogen and release heat, must match the excess heat measured, for your scenario to be true.  Since oxygen collection is a measurable thing, what is the relevant data?

This requires enough bubbles to be impacted to get a noticeable shift in heat production, which requires enough contaminants or structural changes at the surface to do that. That could take very long times in very clean systems, or, in the case of the co-deposition experiments, it could happen quickly due to the special conditions of that select system. You need to remember that _most_ CF experiments runs hundreds of hours. The Szpak codep process cuts that way down - why? Because it makes dendrititc Pd with lots of contaminants on it (from the plating chemicals). Kirk shanahan (talk) 21:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, that sounds reasonable, on the face of it. However...if the system is very clean, where are the contaminants coming from, that you need to exist?  Yes, I know that most CF experiments run for a long time, in order to load enough deuterium into the palladium.  One question I've had, is, "Why don't the CF researchers pressurize their electrolysis cells?"  Then they could use a higher current and electrolyze heavy water at a faster rate; the pressure would encourage deuterium produced at the increased rate to enter the palladium instead of make bubbles, and the critical loading point would be achieved much sooner --possibly much more easily, also, if there is some equilibrium point where at normal pressure deuterium would rather make bubbles than permeate (pressure would move the equilibrium point to a higher deuterium density in the palladium).


 * Regarding the Szpak process, there would still have to be an unusual closeness between the electrodes, for oxygen to so easily find its way to the hydrogen-producing electrode. And why must this electrolyte solution be so much more contaminated than an ordinary heavy-water electrolyte solution?  Sure, I know it needs to have a Pd compound dissolved in it, such that Pd can be electrolzed out and form an electroplating, and I know that the voltage needed to do that must be very close to the voltage for electrolyzing heavy water, but I don't know why a lot of other stuff must exist in the solution, and why it must have a similar electronegativity to hydrogen and palladium, such that the voltage used to do electrolysis causes more depositing than of just palladium and hydrogen.


 * Further you clearly misunderstand the process here when you imply I am tuning my conclusions just so I can reject the CF hypothesis. By defining a potential error in one case that is capable of fully explaining the observations in that one case, I establish a new error bar on that experiment, one that is significantly larger than was previously realized.


 * "defining a potential error" is not the same thing as proving the error was actually present. Certainly I agree that the possibility needs to be investigated.  I do not agree with arbitrarily assuming the error was there, however.

But when the 'potential' error carries full explanatory power, it is expected that its presence be disproven. Kirk shanahan (talk) 21:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I won't disagree with the basic logic, but I can disagree with the assumption that "the potential error carries full explanatory power". So far as I can see, it does not, and therefore the logical conclusion is faulty, that its presence must be disproven.  Because I have no reason to think all those experimenters out there are using identical equipment, with insignificant electrode separation, and just the right sorts of contaminants present in their electrolyte solutions.


 * Then I extend that new interpretation to other cases, and find it MAY be functional in nearly all or all excess heat measurements.


 * This requires the further assumption all the other measurements are using equipment that is subject to that exact same type of error. With laboratories around the world using equipment from different suppliers, and very likely different equipment at that (DON'T tell me there is only one possible type of calorimeter!), this assumption is not reasonable.  Another related issue involves the sensitivity of these devices.  We wouldn't have a unit of energy called the "erg" if it couldn't be measured.  Yet CF researchers typically talk about measuring "joules" of heat, which is a unit ten million times bigger than the erg.  Now while I'm aware you don't use a postage scale to weigh an empty forklift, and I'm aware that putting that vehical on a scale built to handle fully-loaded 18-wheelers will likely not yield high accuracy, there certainly exist scales of intermediate ability.  So, a scale accurate to a hundredth of a joule would have to be WILDLY out of calibration to indicate detection of whole joules that didn't actually exist.  Why would ALL the researchers who KNOW they need high accuracy (to convince the detractors) be using measuring equipment that could get so far out of adjustment???

"This requires the further assumption all the other measurements are using equipment that is subject to that exact same type of error." - The CCS is so generic, it must be checked for in all cases, i.e. calibration stability must be assessed.


 * No, it is only generic with respect to low-accuracy calorimetry equipment. That is, for equipment accurate to one part in a thousand, if it registers a 1.7% increase in heat, then that is outside the normal error zone for that equipment.  If this equipment can become so out-of-calibration as to invalidate the measurement, then the cause is still going to require energy that must be explained.  And then there is the oxygen-gas measuring thing...is NOBODY doing that???

In a different configuration, if a CCS can explain the signal, one has to evaluate the reasonableness of the CCS explanation, i.e. its magnitude. I did this for the Storms' cell in my original paper to prove the CCS was reasonable, and it would need to be done again in each case. Kirk shanahan (talk) 21:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, to show the CCS is reasonable in each case is what you as a critic must do, before you can expect the experimenters in those cases to prove its not there.

"With laboratories around the world using equipment from different suppliers, and very likely different equipment at that (DON'T tell me there is only one possible type of calorimeter!), this assumption is not reasonable." - I repeat - when the 'potential' error carries full explanatory power, it is expected that its presence be disproven. Your guesses as to what errors are or are not present are not proof (they are guesses). We need some proof. Kirk shanahan (talk) 21:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * And I shall continue to disagree with your ASSUMPTION that your potential error is actually a potential error in all those cases.

I don't get your point on the forklift-stuff. The researchers use what they considered to be adequate and sufficeint tools to do the job. I simply showed that this was not so. Kirk shanahan (talk) 21:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

"Why would ALL the researchers who KNOW they need high accuracy (to convince the detractors) be using measuring equipment that could get so far out of adjustment???" - Because they've convinced themselves is is adequate and sufficient, as do any scientists. But that decision was based on the idea that baseline noise was the predominant error. It isn't, ergo, their conclusion was incorrerctly derived, and is incorrect. Kirk shanahan (talk) 21:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This leaves you with showing that there actually is present something more than baseline noise.


 * This means that without additional data, the prior experiments are now to be considered inconclusive because the reported signals are now potentially 'in the noise'.


 * Only experiments using very similar equipment can have that problem. Thus there is more than one type of "additional data" to gather.

I won't argue with that. See my prior comments. I eagerly await all this new data. But you realize you've made my point, it has to be _new_ data. Possibily acquired before and unpublished then, but 'new' as per the literature as it stands today. Kirk shanahan (talk) 21:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You misinterpreted me. For YOU, and the CCS hypothesis, you need more data about the old experiments.  You need to know what equipment they actually used, before you can say your hypothesis applies to their old data.  That said, I agree that we need more new data, too.  You might notice I've made a number of suggestions along that line.


 * As a critic I need to do no more, but I actually went further with my postulated mechanism. Whether that turns out to be right or not has no bearing on what the 'discovery' of the CCS' role in Storms' work does, and whether that is extensible to others' work.


 * You did indeed go farther; you assumed your mechanism was real, and you did at least indicate that lots of CF resarch should be discounted because of it. Even though HERE you are carefully qualifying your claims in a way that clearly means to me, "Hardly any large percentage of CF work must-be/has-been affected by the CCS mechanism".

No, I showed the CCS could explain Storms' result. I pointed out his calorimeter was top notch, and that lesser ones would have bigger problems. And I pointed out that no relevant data hhad been published to date (still true today) that would allow one to evaluate whether a CCS was active in all the other cases. Thsi leads you back to the coice between boring science and sensationalism. (Out of time for today maybe more tomorrow or later tonite, but don't hold your breath. You are making a good case for being a CF fanatic yourself.  Rothwell taught me not to bother too much with you guys.)  Kirk shanahan (talk) 21:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, tell me why the definition of "top notch" means it is only accurate to about one part in a hundred (such that if it shows a 1.7% difference from the norm, it can be argued-about)?


 * "It is my understanding that things like that don't just happen by themselves, energy must be applied to make them happen."
 * No, energy does not need to be applied to make them happen. Read the papers.


 * Energy is ALWAYS involved, one way or another, in causing ANY change-of-state larger than the scale-of-events affected by the Uncertainty Principle. Period.  Whether energy is involved slowly or quickly, whether conversions between potential, kinetic, radiant or other forms are involved, any other description for a change-of-state would be a violation of the energy-conservation law.  For example, a postage scale can become un-calibrated if an internal spring becomes permanently deformed --but it takes energy to do that to that spring.


 * to be clear, there are scads of energy around. They run an amp or two of current through the cells, which heats things up nicely.  They use 'caustic' eletrolytes, which means there is chemical energy available from the hoydroxide dissolution reactions.  There is the exothermic heat of absorption of hydrogen in palladium (when they use Pd electrodes).  there is the usual heat of solution for dissolution of things not in the electrolyte but in contact with it.  Yes, energy is involved, but you don't need to apply any extra to get the effects we see.  What I was completely unclear on is why you thought you needed to emphasize that energy is ALWAYS involved.  What was your point?? 18:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The point is, any calorimeter worth its salt would be accommodating of the amounts of heat it is designed to measure. Only something out-of-the-ordinary should upset its calibration.  It is the "out of the ordiniary" which would involve extra energy, such as I was talking about.  And yet you are claiming that the ordinary heat it is designed to measure can always throw it out of calibration.  That just plain is-not-logical, for any properly designed and built piece of equipment.  Especially since calibration errors should 50/50 go both ways.  If someone is willing to say "heat is mysteriously appearing" when the change is +1.7%, why wouldn't that person say, "heat is mysteriously disappearing" when the change is -1.7%???  YOU might say, "In CF research, nobody would want to make such a claim", but *I* would say, "The researcher who sees that should realize that the +1.7% measurement could be erroneous, too."  Therefore I'm willing to submit to you the possiblity that those researchers have NOT seen energy-loss measurements, thereby indicating the CCS mechanism is only hypothetical and not at all real.


 * " In other words, you are presuming your answer, in order to obtain your answer, which thereby hides the energy that causes the "problem" that you claim means no significant energy was produced! "
 * Sorry, you're clueless here. I tested the hypothesis that a CCS could account for the excess heat signal, and found it workable.  Now, more testing must be accomplished in order to verify one or the other explanation.


 * I am far from clueless, although I readily admit to not knowing everything. The most important thing about Science is that it makes logical sense.  (Even Quantum Mechanics can make logical sense, but it depends on the approach.)  And very frequently in Science, multiple variables are involved.  Experimenters try to make sure they know what the relevant variables are, in their experiments.  Certainly the CCS mechanism would count as an additional variable for CF researchers to include.  If it was real and not just a postulate.  And if it was relevant across the board.  TWO important things to prove, not just assume.  Have you ever seen the CCS mechanism in NON-CF experiments?  Has anyone?  In the last hundred years of calorimetry, why would the CCS mechanism have waited to appear only in CF experiments?


 * "Certainly the CCS mechanism would count as an additional variable for CF researchers to include." - Thank you for noting my PRIMARY POINT. The CCS potential error MUST BE INCLUDED in analysis of calorimetric data.  The CFers DON"T DO THAT.  The don't even acknowledge it is real (which it is any everyone who can do arithmetic realizes!).  So congrats, you are two or three steps ahead of every CFer in understanding their calorimetry.  Kirk shanahan (talk) 18:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Jumping to conclusions, are you? Must I always precede a statement with an if, instead of qualify it afterward?


 * "If it was real and not just a postulate. And if it was relevant across the board.  TWO important things to prove, not just assume."  -  have I ever said anything else?!?!?


 * To the best of my knowledge, you have indeed elsewhere indicated that your CCS work practically/automatically means a very large percentage of CF experiments must be dismissed without examination, to see whether or not CCS is indeed a factor. HERE, of course, you are being more careful.


 * My whole point towards the field is that they need to stop claiming a nuclear process is proven. There are still potentially valid questions that they refuse to even acknowledge, much less address.  The next to the last paragraph of my first publication ends with: "Additional data must be acquired and further analysis performed before the claim of Storms that platinum shows evidence for cold fusion can be taken seriously."  The last paragraph says: "It [this paper] establishes the requirement that the statistical variation in calibration constants must be explicitly determined and considered,".  Kirk shanahan (talk) 18:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)




 * "Not very scientific"
 * Perfectly scientific. The fact you don't understand this really disqualifies you as an editor of scientific topics.  You should recuse yourself.


 * Au contraire. Because Science is logical.  And various things written above indicate you are failing at it, not I. V (talk) 19:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It's comments like these that lead me to stop communicating. The above is nothing but an ad hominem attack.  No explanation, no discussion, just "Kirk is a nasty boy".  I've learned to give up when the discussion reaches this level.  The use of ad hom. attacks indicates the user has run out of real arguments.  Kirk shanahan (talk) 18:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * And your own comment that preceded mine was not an attack, based on a faulty assumption about my level of ignorance? If you can't take it, why are you dishing it out?


 * And your own comment that preceeded mine was not an attack, based on a faulty assumption about my level of 'scientific-ness'? If you can't take it, whay are you dishing it out?  Kirk shanahan (talk) 12:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * V, it's not as simple as putting all the crap in a special vessel and reading its temperature from an LCD on the outside as the final word on the elthalpy change. You have to do a number of calculations which rely on a number of assumptions, which may not be true.  See, for example, the comments in this totally indepedent paper from the literature from 2006:


 * I'm perfectly aware that even an ordinary thermometer can get out of calibration, simply due to expansion or contraction of the material upon which Degrees Celsius have been inscribed. On the other hand, for such a decalibration by that mechanism to become noticable, the thermometer would probably break first, due to being far outside its designed temperature range.  And yes, I know that measuring joules is not the same thing as measuring temperature.  But the principle just described is what I was talking about, in saying that appropriate equipment can be expected to stay within its calibration range for the duration of an experiment.  IF IT HAPPENS that calorimetry is a bit more sensitive to decalibration than simple thermometry, then the experimenters should know about it!!!  So, for an experiment in which the researcher knows that it takes hundreds of hours to load palladium with deuterium, and when the researcher KNOWS about calorimetry sensitivity, then it would be logical to do a recalibration at some point reasonably short of the minimum expected time (e.g., at 250 hours when 300 hours are expected to pass).  Do no researchers do anything like that at all?  If not, then the assumption about calorimetry sensitivity --the foundation of your CCS work!-- needs to be revisited, as it is possibly an erroneous assumption.  Simple logic.


 * It has been shown that the error in all aforementioned quantities reflects on the baseline and it can have a very serious impact on the accuracy of the measurement.


 * The fact is that the large majority of cold fusion experiments were done using dodgy calorimetry. And the other fact is that you only need a fraction of cold fusion experiments making calorimetry mistakes, and ordinary publishing bias does the rest.  Calorimetry mistakes happen all the time, but Jed would have us believe that cold fusion researchers are uber duber careful and have eliminated all potential mistakes in most experiments!  Because the heat is "real" to him, all 4000 or so of the papers that show heat must be real too, regardless of how shoddy the calorimetry, not just the bare handful of careful experiments.  Do you see the problem?  I really hope that you do. Phil153(talk) 23:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "The fact is that the large majority of cold fusion experiments were done using dodgy calorimetry." --Well, I don't know that that statement is actually a fact. If it is, then I would have to agree that a lot of the experiments must be ignored.  This still leaves a few, however.  Even you have previously admitted to that.  To whatever extent you wish to consider me to be a CF fanatic, it is due to those few.  Plus the recent indications of nuclear activity as recorded in pits in CR-39 plastic.  AND because I think I know how CF can happen.  I paraphrase your own words: "the hypothesis carries full explanatory power".  It explains heat without significant radiation in bulk metal.  It explains the requirement for high deuterium loading.  It explains the presence of significant particle production when the metal is codeposited/very-thin.  Remember, a lot of detractors think CF can't be true because they don't know any way it MIGHT be true.  Should that change...we still need data, of course.  Would you care to speculate about the physical properties of "pure metallic deuterium"?  The hypothesis suggests making some, to see if it will explode, since it would not be DILUTED by palladium or any other atoms... V (talk) 00:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

V's ad hominem attacks
As you probably observed above, V has devolved to ad hominem attacks.


 * As you probably observed above, Kirk devolved to personal-attack mode first. Per this quote (from a movie, not necessarily from a real famous person) at http://www.quotes.net/mquote/96963 one can conclude that Kirk has lost this little debate.  I explained how his argument was illogical, and then referred to that in saying "various things written above indicate" a failure on his part to be logical.  Is it not perfectly logical that if one presents an illogical argument, then that one is exhibiting illogic?  How is it an attack to describe a truth?  Perhaps it can be concluded that to assume a statement-of-truth is an attack is to exhibit even MORE illogic....


 * "I explained how his argument was illogical" - No, you didn't. Your explanation/commentary was filled with errors I have been trying to correct.  For example, see below.  Kirk shanahan (talk)

To show "I can do it to" I added a few of my own, but what was really amusing was the last one I added today. I only had to alter one word to keep the chain going! Seriously though, V fails to understand a core concept of science, namely that you must quantify as best you can your errors in any scientific study, and then NOT draw conclusions from signals 'in the noise'. That is one of Langmuir's signs of pathological science. This is why the CCS issue is so crucial to understanding what is and isn't reliable about cold fusion claims.


 * It is only crucial if it actually is real. So far you have a hypothesis that you ASSUME is real.  Whether or not CCS was actually present in Storms' experiment would involve checking the calibration of that calorimeter right after the experiment.  If it wasn't done then TECHNICALLY your explanation for the results of the experiment is no better than Storms' explanation.  And there is a more-fundamental issue involved, which has hardly been discussed at all.  "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."  This is a mantra often spouted by anti-CF people, and  it is reasonable only so long as the claims truly qualify as extraordinary.   In the case of CF, the rationale for insisting the claims are extraordinary was entirely based on the lack of a good explanation for how it could possibly be true.  But that has changed, per http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue81/index.html
 * So long as the claims were truly extraordinary, one could rationally promote all sorts of hypotheses for why an experiment must be faulty. When "extraordinary" is no longer an aspect of the situation, though, then data such as Storms' does not need to be automatically assumed to be erroneous in accordance with a hypothesis such as CCS.  Certainly it might actually be erroneous.  But it is no longer reasonable to automatically ASSUME it is erroneous. V (talk) 15:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "It is only crucial if it actually is real. So far you have a hypothesis that you ASSUME is real." - You really haven't got it yet after all these words and time?  Once more, primarily for the interested observer, as V is emotionally committed to his interpretation, and I have given up hope he will understand it.


 * The CCS is mathematically true.


 * Oh, what fun! NOW you say it is mathematically true, when before you called it a postulate, or a hypothesis.  INCONSISTENCY IS A SIGN OF BAD LOGIC.  I hardly need more than this proof to support the factual statement that you indeed do exhibit illogic, sir.


 * Ummm..dude, go back up to "The Major Fallacies..." and read down a few paragraphs to where I talk about P=5x+3 vs. P=4x+3. The next sentence starts with 'clearly', which in my book means 'patently obvious to anyone and therefore universally true'.  You see why I say you're not understanding what I write?  Kirk shanahan (talk) 20:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It was shown to be fully explanatory for the Storms Pt CF claim in the 2002 publication. In other words, the CCS is real.


 * More obviously-bad logic. The fact that data supports a hypothesis does not make the hypothesis real.  By that logic, I can say I have here a lucky charm that keeps the Earth from blowing up.  Riggghhhhtttt....


 * OK, we have a different definition of 'real' I guess. Clearly, the nuclear hypothesis is not real either.  What I mean by real is reasonable and rational.  Since the CCS is mathematically true it is reasonable.  Since the magnitudes determined for it so far are right in line with observations, it is reasonable.  And, by that definition, the nuclear hypothesis is not real.  Kirk shanahan (talk) 20:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The experimental apparatus it was shown to be true in was one of the better ones of its type.


 * The calorimeter may indeed have been one of the better ones of its type. But the statement "[CCS] was shown to be true in [that apparatus]" is not proved at all, unless, as I indicated elsewhere, a calibration test was done right after the experiment, and an out-of-calibration situation was discovered that matched the CCS explanation for the experimental results.


 * Umm, as I said, it essentially was. Kirk shanahan (talk) 20:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Therefore, it is reasonable to worry that it will be active and functional in those other similar apparati IN ORDER TO NOT BE MISLEAD INTO FALSE CONCLUSIONS.


 * GIGO ("garbage in; garbage out") Even perfect logic requires a valid assumption to reach a valid conclusion. Since you have in fact not actually proved that CCS was a factor in Storm's experiment, it is premature to reach such a conclusion.  You haven't even so far responded to points I raised about separation of the electrodes (how close?) and oxygen-gas collection/measuring (did they), which would offer additional ways for you to support the CCS hypothesis.


 * Most people who see a successful application of an alternative interprative method assume there is reasonableness in the alternative method, unless it can be shown otherwise. That is a common problem in science, some dude comes up with an equally valid but different explanation for you results, and it's back to the lab to try to figure out how to redo the experiments so they will distinguish between the options.  Kirk shanahan (talk) 20:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * How close? Very.  In most designs, possibly excluding some of the Szpak work, the wrap a Pt anode around the Pd cathode to supposedly mimimize electric field gradients which allow H to escape from the Pd.  I think the standoff distances are on the order of a few mm.  O2 collection/measuring?  They have never measured O2 content of the offgas to my knowledge.  To my knowledge, only in the one case I mentioned regarding the external recombiner that Szpak et al used do they reconvert the H2/O2 to water and try to measure it, but they (Szpak) don't even do that routinely, vis-a-vis the Miles comments.  Mostly, they just measure how much water they have to add to the cell to keep a level constant, and as I noted before that is a confounded measurement.  The Miles technique is the usual one.  Kirk shanahan (talk) 20:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Likewise, the aparatus was not that different from open cell calorimetry setups. Since similar results are claimed for those, it is also very reasonable to ask if the CCS is active there too.


 * And it is equally reasonable to ask why it should be assumed present, when its actual existence is yet to be proved.


 * One good reason is that the only other alternative available is considered unreasonable. But note that one is not choosing which is correct, one is testing both to determine if one can be eliminated.  Kirk shanahan (talk) 20:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * In other experimental setups, similar results are claimed. Could the CCS be active there?  Possibly, but we'll never know if the possibility isn't investigated.  Now, I did investigate that superficially in the rebuttal to the SMMF publication that denigrated the CCS idea without explaining why, and I found the CCS to be reasonable at the level I could attain with only cursory data available.  Other than that, there is no other evaluation of the CCS reported, which is interesting, since it came out 7 years ago.


 * That is indeed interesting. Perhaps an obvious explanation for why the CCS idea can be denigrated has already been presented on this page, and you didn't notice.  Here, I'll quote it:
 * The point is, any calorimeter worth its salt would be accommodating of the amounts of heat it is designed to measure. Only something out-of-the-ordinary should upset its calibration. It is the "out of the ordiniary" which would involve extra energy, such as I was talking about. And yet you are claiming that the ordinary heat it is designed to measure can always throw it out of calibration. That just plain is-not-logical, for any properly designed and built piece of equipment. Especially since calibration errors should 50/50 go both ways. If someone is willing to say "heat is mysteriously appearing" when the change is +1.7%, why wouldn't that person say, "heat is mysteriously disappearing" when the change is -1.7%??? YOU might say, "In CF research, nobody would want to make such a claim", but *I* would say, "The researcher who sees that should realize that the +1.7% measurement could be erroneous, too." Therefore I'm willing to submit to you the possiblity that those researchers have NOT seen energy-loss measurements, thereby indicating the CCS mechanism is only hypothetical and not at all real.


 * In my 2002 proposal, I explained how a shift in the heat distribution in a cell can produce a CCS. That is also mathematically true (and has never been challenged).  So, if the CCS is true, and there is a known true way to get it...  And by the way, don't we all agree that "something out of the ordinary": is going on in these experiments?  And it doesn't REQUIRE extra energy, just a CCS (which occurs within the framework of the available energy).


 * Re; "properly designed and built" - the point is that there is a new error type possible in these configurations. Kirk shanahan (talk) 20:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You do bring up one point I have not touched on here before, but is the subject of my Figure 1 in my 2006 publication. The distribution of CCS changes is one-directional, so I would not expect a CCS, if produced by the chemical/physical processes I described in my pubs., to produce a negative excess heat signal.  It is not random, it is guided by chemistry.  This comes about because the norm in calibration is to use a 'dead' electrode, i.e. one that shows no apparent excess heat.  Kirk shanahan (talk) 20:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * To put it bluntly, once an error is shown to be present, it must be assumed it arises from a real physical/chemical process, and that those processes or variants of them could be active elsewhere. Therefore, every researcher in 'the field', being loosley defined as anyhting that the error might impact, needs to evaulate the how big that error is in his/her apparatus.


 * AGREED, " once  an error is shown to be present". Which you haven't actually done yet.


 * You've completely missed the point V. I HAVE shown it is present in 1 case.  I have REASONABLY extrapolated it to similar cases.  As a critic, that's all I need to do.  The rest is up to the actual CFers.  End of story.  Kirk shanahan (talk) 20:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * To look at it a different way, the CFers are claiming that the signals observed, which we all attribute to a systematic error, are in fact new and revolutionary nuclear processes. First, before doing that, they need to show it really isn't the CCS everybody thinks it is.  As I said in the Conclusions of my 2005 comment, "..the conclusion that a nuclear process has been proven is premature."  Kirk shanahan (talk) 17:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Only when there is no good explanation for CF signals is it perfectly logical to attribute CF signals to a systematic error. But that logic breaks once such an explanation exists.  Do you recall why Newton had to distinctly specify the First Law of Motion, when it is implicit in the Second Law?  It is because he was going up against Aristotle's very-long-standing claim that it was natural for moving objects to lose speed unless effort was continually applied.  Newton's First Law both overthrows Aristotle's rule and explains the data in a new way, that moving objects typically encounter external resistance to their motion.  Similarly, the hypothesis that all CF signals must be erroneous obviously demands additional hypothetical explanations for how they are erroneous.  Yet that initial hypothesis can be overthrown by a good alternate explantion for the data (that is, not the mere claim that fusion is happening, but an explanation for HOW it could happen).


 * No, hypotheses are not overthrown by proposing alternatives. Each hypothesis should be independently tested.  However, in the real world there are some economic constraints on this, so sometimes the 'believability' of the hypothesis comes into play.  prior to my demonstrating the CCS effect in Storms' work, there was no acceptable conventional hypothesis for the apparent excess heat signals, so a new and unexepected energy source was the only potulate around.  Today, there is a contender.  Kirk shanahan (talk) 20:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "Whether or not CCS was actually present in Storms' experiment would involve checking the calibration of that calorimeter right after the experiment." - No, because right AFTER the experiment, the chemistry causing the CCS is gone. In fact that's what Storms' did, he did check it, and he got variation, variation that was of the same exact size that ended up explaining his apparent excess heat signals via a CCS.  Kirk shanahan (talk) 17:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Please be more clear. You seem to be saying two contradictory things.  If Storms measured a calibration variation that directly explains the 1.7%, then it would be irrational to report the result, and irrational for a peer-reviewed publication to accept that report.  If he measured a smaller calibration variation, then that means at least some of the 1.7% must have been real.  Are you actually expecting someone to believe that an instrument that becomes even-more decalibrated during an experiment can magically recalibrate itself by itself afterward, to hide the fact that it had been uncalibrated?????


 * V! Hello!  Are you there!  The CCS is caused by chemistry, chemistry that derives from running the experiment.  If the experiment is over, the chemistry is gone, and so is the CCS!  When the CCS-causing chemistry goes away, the cell returns to normal, i.e. the calibration as done witnh a dead electrode.  Simple isn't it.  To be exact, citing from my paper, which replicated Storms', the calibration constant for the cell derived via electrolysis (i.e. with a dead electrode) was 2.19% greater than that theoretical at 20C;  the value obtained after the experiments by electrolysis was 1.71% above theoretical; and the value obtained from a Joule heater was 3.46% above.  The spread of the 10 shifts needed to zero out the excess heat signal was -2.5 to +2.33% of theoretical.  But all of the CCS constants were below Storms' initial electrolysis constant, which is what he used to interpret data.  Now, with these variations Storms' published, although it was in an ICCF conference Proceedings.  I won't comment on the rationality of this. Kirk shanahan (talk) 20:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "your explanation for the results of the experiment is no better than Storms' explanation" - Which of course, is my point.  Turned around, it means my explanation is as good as Storms'.  Kirk shanahan (talk) 17:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I will not disagree with that, except for the matter that you apparently have not actually proved CCS is real, while now we have a good hypothesis to explain why Storms' and others' data need not be arbitrarily declared unreal.


 * Re: the 'extraordinary claims' discussion. In most scientific research, there is a building upon what has been discovered before.  The results one gets correlate to those others got, perhaps as interpreted through a theory.  That correllation is a datum, which separately adds to the confidence of one's conclusion.  In the CF case a large block of prior knowledge is claimed to be not relevant.  Thus, the number of correlations to prior data is greatly reduced, and that lost confidence must be replaced with more supporting data.  That's why "extraordinary...".  The theories currently proposed to explain CF are numerous, not accepted, sometimes contradictory, and based on cherry picked data, thus they don't add a lot of confidence, if any.  Kirk shanahan (talk) 17:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No objection to your remarks about those other hypotheses. The particular hypothesis to which I am referring has only one real problem so far:  not many know of it yet.  There is some discussion about it on my talk page here.  Would you care to add something to it (point out an error in fact or logic)?


 * "Storms' does not need to be automatically assumed to be erroneous in accordance with a hypothesis such as CCS" - I never assumed such.  I used his data straight, no alterations.  What I assumed need testing was his assumptions, and I was proven right.  Kirk shanahan (talk) 17:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * FALSE. "the signals observed, which we all attribute to a systematic error," is what you wrote above, thereby proving that you are seeking ways to show that an error must be present, since  that is your primary assumption. 


 * "But it is no longer reasonable to automatically ASSUME it is erroneous" - It is, however, required that real errors found in other work that rationally might be present in yours be evaluated.  Kirk shanahan (talk) 17:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * AGREED. As long as we are talking about real and not hypothetical errors. V (talk) 19:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * For the interested reader who's made it this far. By now I hope you can appreciate the impact of my discovery of a CCS in Ed Storms' work.  Because of uncertainties in its extent, it has to be checked for before conclusions can be drawn.  This has cast a nasty big old black cloud over all cold fusion calorimetry, becaue I have redefined the error bar to be much larger than was thought.  That's tough to handle if you are a CF researcher, but life ain't easy.  Kirk shanahan (talk)


 * It's hard to appreciate theoretical predictions which the people making the empirical measurements say simply are not explaining the measurements. You seem certain that you will always be able to produce an alternative explanation. What do you say about the researchers who have tried to verify your predictions and have been unable to do so? GetLinkPrimitiveParams (talk) 22:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Another late response, sorry.


 * Umm...and who might that be?? To my knowledge, NO ONE has tried to do so.  Kirk shanahan (talk) 18:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * P.S. There isn't much that needs to be done.  Check their calibration data for the extent of variation, see if the apparent excess heat signal is reasonably explained by that (being generous on 'reasonable' since we are working with anomalies.)  Kirk shanahan (talk) 18:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Prior to my publication of 2002 which delineated the CCS in action, one could reasonably assume the cold fusion researchers had adequately characterized their calorimetric error. They were in fact following the norm in taking the baseline noise as the 'error'. However, my paper showed that this was not correct, in fact the baseline noise was significantly smaller than that induced by the CCS. Therefore, if they were 'good' scientitsts the CFers would stop and reconsider, and then move forward with the new error limits in mind. Instead they continue as before, trying hard to ignore Shanahan, and when they can't, they run him down. You decided if that is 'good' science.

Also, someone, I don't recall who right now, has criticized me for using the term 'CFers'. I use it because it is an abbreviation of the term 'cold fusioneer', which was coined, I believe, by Eugene Mallove, former Scientific Press Officer at MIT who resigned because he thought the negative MIT results on CF had been delibverately fudged, and the founder and first editor of Infinite Energy magazine, and author of some proCF books. They picked the term, I just use it, so stop criticizing me for that. Kirk shanahan (talk) 13:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * P.S. CFer is also a contraction of 'cold fusion researcher', so even if someone decides Mallove didn't coin it and 'cold fusioneer' is derrogatory, I'll still use CFer.  Kirk shanahan (talk) 17:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

A Modest Condensation
Due to various repetitions above, I'll try to condense certain points here. First, I wrote:
 * "In other words, you are presuming your answer, in order to obtain your answer, which thereby hides the energy that causes the 'problem' that you claim means no significant energy was produced! Not very scientific."

Later, you wrote:
 * "In my 2002 proposal, I explained how a shift in the heat distribution in a cell can produce a CCS. That is also mathematically true (and has never been challenged). So, if the CCS is true, and there is a known true way to get it... And by the way, don't we all agree that "something out of the ordinary": is going on in these experiments? And it doesn't REQUIRE extra energy, just a CCS (which occurs within the framework of the available energy)."

And now I get to write (perhaps you should read the second paragraph below first):
 *  You say you need a real heat-distribution-shift to be present  in order for the CCS to become a factor. I'm aware of the difference between the meaning of "a shift in the distribution of existing heat", and "extra heat".   I'm also quite aware that by definition a heat-distribution shift, throughout an electrolysis cell, means that some parts become cooler while other parts become warmer, if one is to say that no excess heat has appeared in the cell.  Yet you have not been consistent with that definition; you have explained only where some EXTRA heat might come from (a hydrogen-oxygen chemical reaction).  Also, you have not explained why this must be associated with a cooling in some other part of the cell, or how such cooling could happen, so that there is merely a heat-distribution "shift".   AND THEN, once you have a hot spot to cause the CCS effect, you try to use CCS to say that no significant heat appeared, pretty much as I wrote in the first paragraph above.   Of course  from such contradictions I conclude your logic is faulty.  I don't have to care at all, not one whit, about what SORT of extra heat might have been present to cause your CCS effect.   All I need know is that SOME extra heat appeared in fact -- and you agreed with it! -- to conclude that your method cannot possibly work to explain that quantity of excess heat out of existence. 


 * Nevertheless, I'm willing to think that with some rephrasing of statements on your part, your goal was not so much to explain all excess heat out of existence, but instead to show how the magnitude of excess heat could be explainable in terms of chemical and not nuclear reactions. The whole idea that CF can happen ultimately depends on there being THAT much excess heat, after all.  In that small percentage of experiments where it is claimed something as extraordinary as (possible exaggeration) electrolyte-solution-boiling happened, I doubt even your CCS idea can be stretched far enough to explain that.  Certainly one would not need a calorimeter in such an experiment, to realize that a huge amount of heat was coming from somewhere.  I note that those are also the experiments where it is claimed that the electrolysis can be switched off, and heat continues to appear for quite a while (an hour?) afterward.  It should be obvious that if hydrogen had been combining with oxygen to create heat in accordance with the CCS idea, then that would STOP almost as fast as turning off the electricity to the cell.  Obviously, we need more of that sort of experiment!


 * Next, regarding your mathematics, I'll start by half-jokingly noting that it is of course obvious that 2+1=2, since two hydrogen molecules plus one oxygen molecule yields two water molecules (heh, also 2+2=2, when the result is hydrogen peroxide). Obviously,  math can require referents to make sense.   In a more serious vein, there's a web page I'd like for you to at least skim through, because in one sense it is highly relevant.  This page (equations and all) was created (probably a copyvio) from a magazine article that was published in 1962, and its math has never been seriously challenged (a couple of minor typos were pointed out in later issues).  Well, this article indicates that we should be able to make a device that looks like a "reactionless drive" --if the math was perfect and unchallenged, why don't we have any such devices more than 45 years later???  http://www.rexresearch.com/dean/davis4.htm  One answer, highly relevant here, is that mathematics, like logic, can be perfectly correct, yet lead to a wrong conclusion when an initial assumption or concept or data-item is faulty (GIGO).  I do not yet know what initial information and concepts you used for your CCS idea.


 * I do know of another way to test part of what you wrote in our previous discussion. Simply take the electrodes used in the experiment, before and after it, to an X-ray spectrometer.  Look for an addition of the contaminants that your CCS idea requires to be present, particluarly contaminants able to catalyze the the hydrogen-oxygen reaction. V (talk) 20:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

- Writing now for the readers who are following this debate: I have to ask myself what benefit I am getting from doing all this writing, and the answer is ‘none’. I originally got involved naively thinking I would edit the ‘anti’ section and be done, but this has dragged on forever. I am going to respond to V one last time and that is it.

So far V, you don’t seem to have grasped what I am communicating. For example, you wrote:

“Yet you have not been consistent with that definition; you have explained only where some EXTRA heat might come from (a hydrogen-oxygen chemical reaction).”

What I have explained it that in P&F type cells, open or closed, the possibility of a CCS must be considered. The CCS does not arise due to extra heat, at least in a closed cell. That is the part-gets-hotter-part-gets-cooler idea you mentioned (except that I get the impression that you think an actua cooling method must be injectd into the cell to accomplish this, which is not true). In an open cell however, the heat ‘shift’ that occurs is that the ‘heat’, i.e. energy, that is normally carried away outside of the cell through the gas vent now appears in the cell itself, inside the calorimter boundary. This heat is then mathematically double-counted (with possible scaling errors from a CCS) by the measuring of this previously non-existent heat in the cell and the continued accounting for it that occurs in the calibration equations. In fact, I suppose that it is not even really a ‘CCS’, but it certainly isn’t proper calorimetry. The ‘CCS’ in the open and closed cells in my proposition are related by the fact that I propose both are caused by under-the-surface, at-the-electrode chemical recombination. It is also possible in cells to get catalytic deposits formed in the gas space that would promote the chemical recombination. (This is exactly what a recombination catalyst does in a closed cell.) Whether that would shift the distribution enough in closed cells is an open question, but it would definitely impact open cells. The point is that this is all just a redistribution of energy put into the system by the electrolysis power supply. The ‘cold fusion’ explanation however, postualtes a new energy source, as you keep referring to. Again, my explanations are all done without any extra energy source. But the fact is that I have explained this ad nauseum. Somehow however, you keep missing it. This was the last time I try to get it across. So to conclude my response to your first paragraph, I propose that NO EXTRA HEAT appeared in the cell outside of that supplied by the electrolysis power supply.

On to paragraph 2. “Nevertheless, I'm willing to think that with some rephrasing of statements on your part, your goal was not so much to explain all excess heat out of existence, but instead to show how the magnitude of excess heat could be explainable in terms of chemical and not nuclear reactions.”

As noted above, this is not my position. At this time, because no CFer has considered my proposal seriously, the origin of all _apparent_ excess heat signals is suspect. In the case of the Storms data set I reanalyzed, it would seem to be a false signal generated by a CCS. My goal was to get CF researchers to recognize a previously unrecognized error source in their data analysis methodology that has the potential of explaining all apparent excess heat results to date. I tried to achieve this goal by 1) explaining the error, 2) demonstrating it in action in the Storms research, 3) proposing rational and reasonable mechanisms for it to occur, and 4) publishing it in the open literature.


 * What I wrote above was due to a possible misunderstanding about how you were using the term "excess heat". To get at that, first there must be an agreement about "ordinary heat", which I at least had thought was that which results from electrical resistance in the elctrolysis cell; this production of heat should be constant as long as the cell runs at a constant voltage/amperage, and the electrolyte in the cell is maintained at a fixed level.  Do note that while electrolysis itself is the conversion of electrical energy into chemical energy (gas molecules separated from water), it does not involve HEAT (all associated heat is already included in the electrical resistance thing).  So, "excess heat" can be anything beyond that "base" level, with one caveat; it is known that when hydrogen permeates palladium, this is a modestly exothermic event, which should add to the measurable total heat.  However, the rate at which this heat is produced should drop off as the palladium becomes more and more loaded-up with hydrogen.  That takes us almost back to the original "base" level, beyond which anything at all might be called "excess heat".  OR, "excess heat" can be something not explainable by chemical reactions such as hydrogen-plus-oxygen-yields-water.  Obviously if that or any other exothermic reaction occurred, energy can be added to the system above the base level represented by the system's electrical resistance.  The added amount can either be explained by chemistry (it would not be "excess heat"), or it cannot be explained by chemistry (it would be "excess heat").  I'm pleased that you have now clarified your meaning.  However, your "final rebuttal" here is essentially you simultaneously saying that no excess heat above the base level occurs, and that nevertheless the water-producing reaction occurs.   You cannot have both without violating the Energy Conservation Law of Physics.   And therefore you have lost this debate, period.  Nobody ever again needs to take your illogical/nonscientific CCS idea seriously.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Objectivist (talk • contribs) 19:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Saying it is so doesn't make it so. Kirk shanahan (talk) 21:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Say anything you want, now. The record is clear, that you claim hydrogen can chemically combine with oxygen inside a system (underwater at surface of electrodes, via catalysis) --one of the most exothermic reactions known!-- without contributing detectable heat energy to the system.  Unless that reaction's rate is miniscule (and thus irrelevant to any OTHER purpose), you are outright/totally wrong about the physics of the situation.V (talk) 14:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Proof positive that V hasn't understood a thing I've written. Kirk shanahan (talk) 16:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Proof positive that Kirk hasn't written anything actually understandable, in terms of real Science. V (talk) 17:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

With regards to the Wiki article, my goal was to present the available conventional explanations for any data proposed to support the nuclear postulate for the Fleischmann-Pons-Hawkins Effect.

“I doubt even your CCS idea can be stretched far enough to explain that.” Your doubt is insufficient to negate the need to check for it. You seem to be laboring under the assumption that some methods must be ‘bullet-proof’ in some conditions. In my professional career I have always been impressed by men’s ability to screw up an analytical method. So, I don’t assume, I check.

“It should be obvious that if hydrogen had been combining with oxygen to create heat in accordance with the CCS idea, then that would STOP almost as fast as turning off the electricity to the cell.” No, it wouldn’t. The electrodes are loaded with H when the power is cut. It comes out VERY SLOWLY, i.e., over many hours. (This in fact is a prime requirement for the’good’ electrodes.)  As well, the calorimeter is now in a COMPLETELY different state. There is no way a cal. eqn. deermined under active electrolysis could hold. Clearly, a ‘CCS’ situation if there ever was one. Also, I believe the ‘heat-after-death’ experiments are all done in open cells, which will allow atmospheric O2 to diffuse back into the cell, and THAT process can be hampered by the cell design. Many hours of ‘excess heat’ is not surprising at all under these conditions. To recap, all such experimenta are done in an uncalibrated system. Any attempts to interpret the data in that condition are suspect.

From para. 3, “I do not yet know what initial information and concepts you used for your CCS idea. “ That’s your fault, not mine. For the Wiki article, you really don’t need to know that anyway, as the papers are published, and any such issue if serious should have either been brought out in peer review or in the attempted rebuttals.

Re. para. 4: That’s been done many, many times, including the fact that they have added nearly every element known to man to the electrolytes. They find all kinds of stuff afterwards. Originally, they (the CFers) made no claims about it, and the rest of us knew it was contamination concentration/deposition. These days they claim it is ‘heavy metal transmutation’. If you had read my 3rd paper, you would realize that the one new point I brought out in that was the fact that whatever the active state was that caused the CCS, it seemed to disappear when certain conditions were met (namely nearly 0 or 0 voltage or current). I had a Figure that illustrated how there were 3 sequences of 3 runs in the data separated by the points where that condition had been reached. This makes it very difficult to do what you suggest, as the actual active state seems to voltage dependent, and disappears when it reaches 0. Nasty problem. That requires in situ studies of the surface under actual run conditions. Not easy to do at all. But, one could still define the conditions necessary to get the active state without actually defining it. There’s lots of chemistry studies that have done just that in other areas. But, you do have to realize a) that it’s a surface effect and b) it’s not nuclear to want to do those studies.

That’s it, no more for me thanks. Kirk shanahan (talk) 17:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)