LENR Researchers Deal Decisive Blow to Shanahan

By Steven B. Krivit

In a group paper coordinated by Pamela Mosier-Boss (SPAWAR Pacific) and Larry Forsley (JWK Technologies), several LENR researchers identified erroneous and unsupported claims in a paper by Kirk Shanahan (Savannah River National Laboratory). Both papers polished online in the Journal of Environmental Monitoring on Aug. 6.

The New Energy Times article “Krivit Responds to Shanahan’s Department of Energy-Sponsored Comments” provides more background on the papers.

For many years, Shanahan has attempted to discredit the idea of excess heat observed in LENR experiments. The authors of the group paper explain the core weaknesses of Shanahan’s speculation.

“Shanahan invokes what he calls a Calibration Constant Shift (CCS),” the authors write. “This CCS is nothing more than a hypothesis and should be stated as such (CCSH). There is no experimental evidence that it occurs, especially at the level of +/-780mW stated by Shanahan.

“Furthermore, Shanahan does not specify mechanisms by which a calorimeter thermal calibration can change in such a way that, just during the periods of putative excess thermal power production, the calibration constant is different from its initial and final calibrated value.

“He employs the calibration constant shift hypothesis (CCSH), unquantified, with the logic that, if this can happen in one experiment or calorimeter type, then it must be presumed to happen in all.
…

“Since the CCSH has no reason for bias in sign, it may equally increase or decrease the measured output and thus excess power. In no case that we are aware of have significant ‘negative excess’ powers been observed in calorimetry experiments except in transient departures from the steady state. Unless a reason is given for asymmetry in the hypothesized mechanism (or any mechanism given and quantified at all), then the CCSH logically fails.”

The authors note that Shanahan briefly introduces doubt about temporal correlation of excess heat and 4He production “with an odd argument posed as a rhetorical question.”

Shanahan’s question is, “‘If in fact there is no excess heat, then what exactly is being plotted on the Y axis?’”

The authors object to Shanahan’s argument.

“Where does the ‘fact’ that ‘there is no excess heat’ come from?” they write. “It comes from the strained logic that the CCSH ‘explains all excess heat results.’ As discussed above, CCSH has no validity.”

In addition to addressing the discussion of excess heat, the LENR researchers rebut Shanahan’s comments on the topics of transmutation and energetic charged particles.

I have only two minor quibbles with the group’s paper.

The first quibble: Michael McKubre, a co-author of the paper, in an attempt to explain why his “Case” replication failed to exhibit 24 MeV of heat per helium-4 atom, assuming no other nuclear products, suggests that, “at elevated temperatures, 4He absorbs or adsorbs to a modest degree into or onto carbon.”

McKubre uses this suggestion to justify why “the measurements reported therefore reflect a slight systematic undermeasurement of the 4He consistent with the measured Q value correlation between the rates of heat and helium production.”

The only problem is that McKubre doesn’t cite any experimental evidence for his helium-on-carbon absorption or adsorption hypothesis.

The second quibble: Mosier-Boss told me that Jan Marwan, another co-author, contributed to the paper only by writing the introduction.  The first three paragraphs of the introduction are reprinted from the description of the American Chemical Society symposium series book Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions Sourcebook (Vol. 1) and were written primarily by me.  Those paragraphs should have been cited appropriately.