Talk:Wikiversity/Cold fusion/Skeptical arguments

From CFC
Jump to: navigation, search

Disclosure of conflict of interest[edit]

I created the page, Skeptical arguments, and I am involved in an effort to create and sell kits for replication of certain well-known cold fusion experiments. --Abd 06:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The Miles-Fleischmann Model[edit]

In fact it's the only technical model to be found anywhere in Cold Fusion that meets the criteria for a testable scientific model with explanatory and predictive power. —Caprice 13:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

That's poppycock, but I'm not going to bother with it beyond mentioning. The basic model of deuterium fusion (reaction mechanism unknown, but fuel is deuterium and ash is helium) predicts that non-chemical heat will be 23.8 MeV/He-4. Explanatory power -- only partially explanatory! --, predictive, testable, falsifiable, etc. --Abd 04:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
  • The Miles-Fleischmann Model isn't poppycock, but it's probably missing a term or two. The Pgas component of their model needs to include a term for any mist that flows out with the D2, O2, and D2O vapor. There is no term in the Miles-Fleischmann Model for heat from nuclear reactions; rather there is a term, Pex, for leftover heat not accounted for by any other explicit term in their model. Pex could be from any number of imaginable processes not expressly modeled in their energy budget equations. One possibility is that Pex could be a placeholder for Pmist, which needs to be expressly incorporated into their model. Caprice 13:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The Miles-Fleischmann Model has a term, Pgas, that accounts for heat lost through the venting of D2, O2, and D2O vapors. Their model assumes that all the vented D2O is in the vapor phase, and none in the condensed (liquid) phase. Is this a good assumption? During operation of the cell, D2 and O2 gas is bubbling up. When bubbles break the surface, they "spritz" some droplets into the air, much like carbonated beverages do. When cells are run at elevated temperatures (as they often are), there will also be some amount of steam, fog, mist, or other forms of condensation or precipitation of moisture in the air space. Some amount of moisture in the liquid phase will be swept along with the D2, O2, and D2O vapor as it vents from the cell. But water in the liquid phase does not carry off as much heat as water in the vapor phase. When the lost water is plugged into the Miles-Fleischmann Model, the formula will assume that the amount of heat lost corresponds to that for water in the vapor phase. For every mole of water that was vented in the liquid phase (as steam, fog, or mist), 45 KJ of heat will be left behind, to show up as anomalous "excess heat." —Caprice 03:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

First of all, that there is no liquid water escaping may be a simple observation. I've read many descriptions of cells operating, but I'll confess I haven't actually seen one of the F-P type. Nevertheless I've never heard of it. Strikes me as a really bad cell design if it's spitting heavy water, or even emitting some sort of visible fog, i.e., "steam," which means condensed steam, not live steam. If the calorimeter is emitting live steam, that will be visible as such, i.e., it will be invisible at the point of emission, but visible shortly away from that, as the steam condenses in the air. I have no idea what the boiling cells of Fleischmann and Pons looked like.
The analysis of boiling cells is obviously complex. Experimentally, though, it is easy to arrange that only water vapor leaves the cell, and isn't this what you'd do if you were doing this work? I haven't read the reports on boil-off and the details of the experimental apparatus, but that this term is missing indicates to me that they took the precautions. The M-F model is only for isoperibolic calorimetry with a particular experimental design.
You are correct in one way. If liquid water is leaving the cell, at boiling temperature, but condensed, and if this water is assumed to be vapor instead of condensed water, and thus a correction is applied for vapor, incorrectly, the heat error you mention will appear as excess heat. The formula obviously assumes the lack of liquid water in the exhaust gas. Given that the lack of such is easy to arrange, I'd assume that the equation simply reflects the experimental conditions, which they are thoroughly familiar with.
Now, you may come up with a hypothesis that excess heat is explained by such water leaving the cell, but being interpreted as vapor. To sustain and test this idea, you'll need to look at some actual experiments, with specific apparatus, and specific calculations. Further, you must note that this only applies to certain kinds of CF experiments.
And then there is helium. And then there are all the reports of excess heat so far above possible calorimetry error, so far above the possibility of energy storage under the circumstances that it's not funny. Someday soon, you'll stop dreaming, someday soon. --Abd 04:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

There's a Kind of Spritz[edit]

Title: There's a Kind of Spritz
Artist: Abd, Moulton, and Dieter Britz
Composer: Les Reed, Geoff Stephens, and Barsoom Tork Associates
YouTube: There's a Kind of Hush - Herman's Hermits (Rare Clip-Synced Version)

There's a kind of spritz all over the fusion cell.
All over the cell you can hear the noise of bubbles in fizz.
You computed the mean.
Just the buzzing hiss that nobody else could hear.
There's nobody else and Kirk's the one who's breaking your spell.

So listen very carefully.
Closer now and you will measure the mean.
It's all been a dream.


So listen very carefully.
Closer now and you will measure the mean.
It's all been a dream.
The crackling sound that you will hear
Is popping bubbles in your ear
Fizzing there forever and ever.

There's a kind of spritz all over the fusion cell.
All over the cell you can hear the noise of bubbles in fizz.
Yeah, they're popping in hiss.
Spritz! "They're crackling," says Britz.

CopyClef 2011 Les Reed, Geoff Stephens, and Barsoom Tork Associates.
Resurrection Hackware. All songs abused.

Why this farrago of arguments and detailed pages?[edit]

... because there are writers on the field who have practiced skeptical argument for years, presenting, often, a vast array of them in a single comment. To respond to such can take even larger comments, they become entirely unreadable. This resource will look at each argument, individually. We may eventually write summary essays to examine the sum of them, but each argument itself has been designed to be at least somewhat plausible. A collection of plausible arguments can look like a proof, and these are commonly presented as such. This is not science, it's polemics.

The inspiration for this page was a single post on a Scientific American article comment page that collected an array of arguments, it was dense with them. The stated author was "Kemo Sabe." I am tempted to push this entire topic to a subpage, because "Kemo Sabe," also known as "Josuha Cude," "Popeye," and likely by other names, is anonymous, and thus there is no individual with a reputation at stake behind his opinions, he is merely prolific. Yet what Kemo Sabe wrote expresses, concisely, ideas which are held by many. He expresses what people think, but which has not been published in a peer-reviewed journal.

Kirk Shananan is quite different, a real scientist, using his real name, with real publications in peer-reviewed journals. So my inclination may be to give his critiques of cold fusion more prominence. --Abd (discusscontribs) 19:25, 26 September 2013 (UTC)