Dennis Cravens sent me some ideas about an experiment he proposes to
do. It is a demonstration intended to convince the public that cold
fusion is real. The information has been somewhat fragmentary; I do not
fully understand it, and I may be confusing two different experiments.
Assuming I have it right, the demonstration would be along the following
lines:
This is similar to Arata's experiment. Deuterium gas is loaded into a
palladium alloy powder. The powder produces heat without input.
Cravens reports that the powder works better at high temperature, which
is often the case with cold fusion. It produces produces 0.25 W/g at
300°C down and 0.01 W/g at 20°C. It is not clear to me what temperature
he proposes to run this test at. He has described a poorly insulated
glass cell. I do not understand why he would select this when a better
insulated cell would drive the temperature higher.
He intends to employ a 400 g sample, which takes up a volume of ~400 mL.
If I understand correctly he expects this will produce roughly 4 W of
heat. He intends to convert heat into electricity with a thermoelectric
device, with 2% efficiency producing ~0.08 W. The electricity will drive
something like an LED. This is a proof of principle demonstration that
cold fusion can produce useful energy.
The thermoelectric device is a small spherical Seebeck calorimeter that
completely surrounds the cell. Like all Seebeck calorimeters this
functions as both a calorimeter and a miniature generator. Cravens
claims that this device is extremely precise and can detect 3 mW. (I do
not know whether this refers to precision or accuracy, or both. I have
seen a photo of the device but I know little about it.)
The experiment will be conducted in a small room with constant
temperature HVAC, so a flowing water envelope for background temperature
is not needed.
Cravens refers to this as a demonstration of engineering breakeven, as
opposed to scientific breakeven. He writes: "I don't see any use in redo
scientific breakeven to 'prove' it to others. That has been done many
times over."
I do not think this is a good design for a demonstration experiment. I
fear it will not be convining, especially to people who are not familiar
with the field. I think that a simpler experiment would not only be more
convincing but it would also take less effort and expense. I have
several objections to this plan:
1. I do not think this "has been done many times over." On the contrary,
nothing remotely like this has been done with gas loading, and nothing
at such high power levels with any technique has been made public. This
is 4 W steady output with no input. Storms and others have told me that
they struggle to achieve 1 W of output, which usually fluctuates.
Previous Arata-style gas loading experiments have been at much lower
power levels. The first set of experiments published by Arata and
Kitamura used inadequate and unconvincing calorimetry. Arata apparently
made large over-estimates of the chemical energy release, and therefore,
presumably, of the cold fusion energy release that followed it.
(Rothwell and Storms).
There have been a few experiments at power levels higher than this. In
France, Fleischmann and Pons ran many cells at much higher power levels
but these cells required input power; very few people were allowed to
observe the cells; and only a little, rather sketchy experimental data
was published. Energetics Technologies has occasionally observed power
levels as high as 20 Watts in a few cases in heat after death mode.
These experiments have not been conducted publicly, although thanks to
"60 Minutes" Robert Duncan observed them and he confirmed that the
methodology is correct.
2. I think this is the wrong kind of calorimeter for a demonstration.
Rather than measuring this 4 W heat flow with a Seebeck calorimeter
capable of detecting 3 mW, I think it would be better to use a
conventional temperature-based calorimeter such as the ones used by
Melvin Miles, McKubre or Energetics Technologies. I say this for several
reasons:
As a general rule, a mensuration technique should be roughly
proportional to the scale and quality of the value you are trying to
measure. If you want to show the difference between a block of wood 4 cm
and one that is 6 cm long, you should use an ordinary ruler. You should
not use a hand-held micrometer with 0.001 mm precision.
The claim that this calorimeter can measure 3 mW is in itself
controversial, and will add to the controversy rather than reduce it.
This is what Langmuir called a "claim of great accuracy," one of the
criteria of pathological science. Langmuir's hypothesis is only a rule
of thumb, but it has some validity. In this case great accuracy is not
even called for, making it even more questionable.
The extreme accuracy of this calorimeter interferes with other aspects
of the experiment, particularly with the need for a qualitative
demonstration, explained below.
3. I recommend a conventional, temperature-based method.
Four watts is a very large heat flow by the standards of calorimetry. It
can be measured easily, with high confidence, using one of the simple,
classical, first-principle methods. No one can dispute such methods.
I recommend the use of both high precision electronic temperature
measuring devices and also mercury thermometers to measure cell
temperature and ambient temperature.
The constant temperature room should allow good accuracy. It is
particularly advantageous because it does not require the use of a
flowing water reference temperature. The cell can be exposed to air.
With a small (half liter) insulated cell, the surface area should be
small enough that the heat from the outer wall will be palpable (that
is, sensible). A person observing the cell will be able to feel the heat
coming from it with the palm of his hand. This gives the observer
qualitative proof that the heat is real. The calorimetry provides
quantitative proof.
The Seebeck calorimeter that Cravens proposes to use looks fairly large
to me. It has to envelop the entire cell. My guess is that 4 W would not
produce palpable heat on the outer surface of it, but I do not know this.
It is possible to fake something like an 80 mW LED. This could be driven
by a small battery hidden in a half-liter cell. A skeptic with a
suspicious attitude may suspect something like this. It is utterly
impossible to fake palpable heat.
Conventional techniques allow the use of a well insulated container,
which lets you raise the temperature as high as you like using only the
heat from the reaction. (You may need an auxiliary heater to trigger the
reaction at first.) This would probably not be a transparent cell. It
need not be transparent as long as it is small enough and light enough
that a chemical device of the same mass, such as a battery or Sterno
can, will soon run out of fuel.
Heat is proof that energy is being released, according to the laws of
thermodynamics. I do not think any scientist will dispute this. This was
the same proof of energy release cited by the Curies when they
discovered heat from radium. Cravens has called this "scientific proof"
rather than "engineering" proof. I quibble with that. This is a proof of
principle demonstration that cold fusion can be used for space heating,
cooking or other heat processing. That is just as important as electric
power generation. A large fraction of the heat generated from fossil
fuel is used for space heating and heat processing.
An object that remains palpably warmer than the surroundings is as
convincing as anything can be. Lighting an LED with thermoelectric power
will not enhance credibility. On the contrary, I think it would actually
reduce credibility because it gives the impression that the person doing
the experiment does not understand thermodynamics. This is the sort of
convoluted, unnecessarily complex experiment that nonscientists are
prone to do, especially people making dubious over-unity energy claims
such as the people at Steorn. Obviously, Cravens fully understands
thermodynamics! But an observer who knows nothing about him might get
the wrong impression.
While I recommend simpler temperature-based calorimetry I will grant
that Seebeck calorimetry might also be convincing. However, it should
only be done with a commercial off-the-shelf Seebeck calorimeter with
known characteristics, such as the Thermonetics device. When you make
your own unique calorimeter, the person evaluating the experiment has to
believe both the experiment itself and also your ability to build a
calorimeter. Cravens says that his calorimeters are better than the
Thermonetics unit, or the Seebeck calorimeters made by Storms. This may
be so, the point is to use an instrument that other people are familiar
with and already have confidence in, to reduce the burden of proof, you
might say.
4. The design of the experiment and calorimetry are vitally important.
Obviously only Cravens can decide them. I am only recommending a general
approach: temperature-based measurements rather than thermoelectric
conversion (Seebeck), for the reasons listed above. As I said, a wide
variety of temperature-based calorimetry is available and Cravens should
use whatever works best with this particular material and cell design.
However, beyond the experiment itself, it is also important to present
the information in such a way that it can easily be accessed, and in a
format that is understandable and appears credible to scientists. I
think that Cravens has given insufficient consideration to this. Some of
his previous papers were not adequate. He does superb research but he
does not present the information in a way that other people can easily
understand. He should collaborate with someone who is more skilled at
writing and presenting information (such as me). Martin Fleischmann
nominated Cravens' work as the "best in conference" at ICCF-4, and the
others there agreed, yet many people are unaware of this body of work,
and others do not appreciate it. I think this is mainly because it has
not been published often enough, not published in detail, and not
described well.
The use of an LED strikes me as a stunt, and I think that many
scientists will see it that way. It detracts from the seriousness of the
experiment. He is considering the use of video cameras and other
high-tech methods of disseminating data. I recommend Cravens conduct an
ordinary experiment using standard, conventional instruments and
techniques, and he should further:
Report the results in an ordinary scientific paper with copious
electronic data to back up the claim.
Invite a small number of highly qualified people such as Robert Duncan
to observe the experiment directly and to write independent evaluations.
Publish the results in the next ICCF conference proceedings, the CMNS
discussion group (which is closed to the public), Vortex (which is
open), ICMNS.org, LENR-CANR.org, and in various other places so that
anyone can find them easily.
Publish a short video on YouTube. Video is a great idea but doing too
much of it can become a distraction, and I do not suppose a real-time
camera or data stream would enhance credibility much.
- Jed
