Zeus46
Member
1,271
Aug 14th 2017
#305
If the true calibration equation in the lab is P = 17 X + 5, and I sit at my writing desk and say the magic HATER* elf has possibly altered it to P = 187 X - 5436. That’s a hypothesis. Fact.
*
THHuxleynew
Verified User
4,707
Aug 14th 2017
#306
Quote from Zeus46
I should probably have written ‘sense of caution’, I got a little caught up in rearranging your parlance.
That in turn leads to a theoretical, or hypothesised, CCS... Possibly better referred to as a/the CCSH. A label you seem to reject?
That is true, but we are comparing CCSH with LENRH, and CCSH is a better fit to the known calorimetric facts in these experiments (excess proportional to heat in when effect is present). Sure, both are unproven - which is why those interested should be trying to find out what are the limits of CCS and whether ATER exists - instead of assuming that observations which could be ATER or LENR must be LENR. Unlike LENRH, CCS/ATERH is disprovable which means it offers more traction to move things forward.
Zeus46
Member
1,271
Aug 14th 2017
#307
Quote from THHuxleynew
That is true, but we are comparing CCSH with LENRH
...For sure.
Quote from THHuxleynew
CCSH is a better fit to the known calorimetric facts in these experiments (excess proportional to heat in when effect is present)
...A conjecture at best.
1
interested observer
Member
2,435
Aug 14th 2017
#308
AA: yes, I am being snide because you guys are being so belligerent and arrogant. The argument that there have been many things that people denied that turned out to be true is utterly meaningless. It has the same problem as the LENR is true because it hasn’t been disproven approach. Are you arguing that everything most people have ever thought was wrong has turned out to be correct? I hope not. We can all agree that most people denying something doesn’t necessarily make it false. But it doesn’t make it true either.
You can declare that the evidence for LENR is rock solid all day long but that doesn’t make that a true statement. You can take Jed’s approach that anyone who doesn’t draw that conclusion is an ignoramus who just hasn’t read enough papers. Personally, I find that more offensive than a little snideness.
And, by the way, I am not even convinced that LENR doesn’t exist. I suspect there is a real effect in there. I also suspect that, given the amount of time and effort that has gone into this, there is little chance anything will ever come of it. But, unlike the lot of you, I am quite open to the possibility that I am wrong.
Zeus46
Member
1,271
Aug 14th 2017
#305
If the true calibration equation in the lab is P = 17 X + 5, and I sit at my writing desk and say the magic HATER* elf has possibly altered it to P = 187 X - 5436. That’s a hypothesis. Fact.
*
THHuxleynew
Verified User
4,707
Aug 14th 2017
#306
Quote from Zeus46
I should probably have written ‘sense of caution’, I got a little caught up in rearranging your parlance.
That in turn leads to a theoretical, or hypothesised, CCS... Possibly better referred to as a/the CCSH. A label you seem to reject?
That is true, but we are comparing CCSH with LENRH, and CCSH is a better fit to the known calorimetric facts in these experiments (excess proportional to heat in when effect is present). Sure, both are unproven - which is why those interested should be trying to find out what are the limits of CCS and whether ATER exists - instead of assuming that observations which could be ATER or LENR must be LENR. Unlike LENRH, CCS/ATERH is disprovable which means it offers more traction to move things forward.
Zeus46
Member
1,271
Aug 14th 2017
#307
Quote from THHuxleynew
That is true, but we are comparing CCSH with LENRH
...For sure.
Quote from THHuxleynew
CCSH is a better fit to the known calorimetric facts in these experiments (excess proportional to heat in when effect is present)
...A conjecture at best.
1
interested observer
Member
2,435
Aug 14th 2017
#308
AA: yes, I am being snide because you guys are being so belligerent and arrogant. The argument that there have been many things that people denied that turned out to be true is utterly meaningless. It has the same problem as the LENR is true because it hasn’t been disproven approach. Are you arguing that everything most people have ever thought was wrong has turned out to be correct? I hope not. We can all agree that most people denying something doesn’t necessarily make it false. But it doesn’t make it true either.
You can declare that the evidence for LENR is rock solid all day long but that doesn’t make that a true statement. You can take Jed’s approach that anyone who doesn’t draw that conclusion is an ignoramus who just hasn’t read enough papers. Personally, I find that more offensive than a little snideness.
And, by the way, I am not even convinced that LENR doesn’t exist. I suspect there is a real effect in there. I also suspect that, given the amount of time and effort that has gone into this, there is little chance anything will ever come of it. But, unlike the lot of you, I am quite open to the possibility that I am wrong.
Zeus46
Member
1,271
Aug 14th 2017
#312
Quote from kirkshanahan
Now we also know that electrochemical loading is equivalent to very high pressure gas loading, and we have a proposal out there for something called superabundant vacancies, i.e. ordered arrays of holes in the metal, that serve as bubble nucleation sites, as could these contaminant concentration points, formed by high pressure loading. In any case, once the loading gets high, the internal pressure of these bubbles (caused by molecular hydrogen forming in the holes) can exceed the yield stress and ‘pop’.
Interesting. Is a rough upper limit on the size of these SAVs typically noticed? How many planes would a single SAV typically form in?
Quote from kirkshanahan
New elements? Are you sure? They weren’t there to begin with, maybe hiding? I generally assume these are contaminants present in the starting materials, possibly there when the materials were purchased or introduced later accidentally. To assume they come from LENRs is a wild-eyed hope by CF believers.
You see, metallurgists know that contaminants in metals can be well-dispersed or concentrated in local spots.
Of course one has to assume contaminants are present, but having been taught and then studied more than than my fair share of metallurgy, I have still come across a handful of LENR papers/slides that in my opinion show features that are wholly incongruous with any mass transport mechanisms that I know of, or believe could reasonably exist.
kevmolenr@gmail.com
Member
846
Aug 14th 2017
#313
Quote from interested observer
Drawing parallels between HTS and LENR is a dangerous thing to do. Since 1987, any remotely qualified laboratory in the world could whip up a batch of YBCO and demonstrate superconductivity for you with no more than a day’s notice. They could hand you some samples and you can go off and measure whatever you’d like however you want to do it and prove to yourself that it works. No ifs, ands, or buts. Tell me whose lab to go to for a similar experience with LENR even after 28 years.
LENR is more difficult than superconductors. And that boson theory is only a few short years old, so the unscientists had been operating without a precious superconducting theory for more than 20 years. Tell me who amont the top hundred electrochemists failed to replicate Pons/Fleischmann? There was only one, Lewis, and his error was pointed out. So to call one area a science when it operates without a theory while the other area isn’t a science is simply a pile of bullshit.
kevmolenr@gmail.com
Member
846
Aug 14th 2017
#314
Quote from kirkshanahan
Quick fact check. LENR-CANR.ORG database still only lists 3 of my journal articles, and does not list my whitepaper. And you’ve been told where the papers are, with journal references and web links to manuscripts. Liar, liar, pants on fire...
Did you give him explicit permission? Jed posted here that he’s been burned at least once by someone who posted on a discussion board that he had permission but the author was full of shit.
1
kevmolenr@gmail.com
Member
846
Aug 14th 2017
#315
Quote from THHuxleynew
That is mostly not true, there is a very good and intuitive underlying theory for HTS based on Cooper pairs (or other mechanisms) coupling electrons into bosonic objects.
I think what you misunderstand is that the details of this remain unclear. Exactly what gets coupled so that an ensemble can have bosonic properties and therefore superconduct is still in some cases active research - it looks as though there are multiple candidates.
The underlying theory (coupling of fermions into bosonic objects) makes quantitative experimental predictions (about how properties change with temperature) which are validated by many many different experiments, and requires nothing not already known, and is predicted from QM that itself is validated in many other ways.
Where you are correct is that no-one is entirely clear what are all the different coupling mechanisms active in different materials, or how best to optimise them. That space remains open but understanding has been growing monotonically. Still there will be new materials exhibiting unexpected behaviour since the type of solid-state interactions that do this coupling are incredibly complex and variable. And no-one says that HTS is fully understood - therefore you will note that all the papers claiming specific detailed mechanisms - until very well validated - are treated with much skepticism.
Display Less
That is like the most roundabout way of saying that they have no underlying theory but they’re getting closer, so what they do is science but what LENR does aint science. You might as well say what’s sauce for the goose aint sauce for the gander.
1
kevmolenr@gmail.com
Member
846
Aug 14th 2017
#316
Quote from kirkshanahan
All correct. Which is why science doesn’t seek to ‘disprove the existence of...’. Science seeks to demonstrate such -and-such an effect through reproducible (i.e. controllable) experiments that can be replicated by those skilled in the art, and many times by just regular old scientists. CF doesn’t meet that mark.
The P-F effect has been replicated in at least 153 peer reviewed publications by the top hundred electrochemists of their day. It meets the mark except that skeptopaths are speaking so loudly, such as what happened with germ theory, plate tectonic theory, and the Wright brothers prior to 1908.
1
JedRothwell
Verified User
10,094
Aug 14th 2017
#317
Quote from interested observer
The most anyone could possibly do is disprove a particular experiment and even that is unlikely.
WHAT the hell are you talking about? Many individual experiments have been disproved. I myself disproved several, including one that I did myself. See:
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJreportonmi.pdf
Here’s one that I called into question:
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJreportonar.pdf
In recent months, I have raised a number of questions about Rossi’s work, to put it in academic-speak.
People disprove experiments all the time. That’s how you do science.
If there were anything wrong with experiments from Fleischmann, McKubre or Storms many skeptics would be eager to find the problem or problems. Morrison and Shanahan thought they found problems, and they were not reticent to publish their findings.
2
kevmolenr@gmail.com
Member
846
Aug 14th 2017
#318
Quote from kirkshanahan
Then I pop up with the CCS/ATER effect/mechanism, which is pretty solid. ....But with my objections, they didn’t find it so easy to dismiss my points, and instead of acknowledging this and responding by testing my theories in their apparati, they concocted a strawman argument and found a friendly journal to publish it in. The use of fallacies to dismiss my objections actually supports the validity of my work, as anyone who debates ideas realizes.
You have a very high opinion of your theory, which has been rightfully rejected by the top electrochemists. You even have your own thread for your theory right here on this forum, and no one bothers to discuss your theory even here.
JedRothwell
Verified User
10,094
Aug 14th 2017
#319
Quote from kirkshanahan
Quick fact check. LENR-CANR.ORG database still only lists 3 of my journal articles, and does not list my whitepaper. And you’ve been told where the papers are, with journal references and web links to manuscripts. Liar, liar, pants on fire...
Let me remind you once again:
I will only upload your papers or add the titles to your papers with your permission. You have to send me permission by e-mail. You have to send me a copy of the paper you would like me to upload as an attachment.
I will not upload anything or any information based on messages in a discussion group. That’s my policy.
I will copy this message to you via e-mail, if your address has not changed. . . .
Nope. No can do. I do not have a current working e-mail address for you. The old one I have says “BLOCKED Denied by policy.” You will have to contact me at JedRothwell@gmail.com
Alternatively, you can continue to accuse me of lying, while you refuse to send me anything. You are not the first to play that stupid game!
Zeus46
Member
1,271
Aug 14th 2017
#312
Quote from kirkshanahan
Now we also know that electrochemical loading is equivalent to very high pressure gas loading, and we have a proposal out there for something called superabundant vacancies, i.e. ordered arrays of holes in the metal, that serve as bubble nucleation sites, as could these contaminant concentration points, formed by high pressure loading. In any case, once the loading gets high, the internal pressure of these bubbles (caused by molecular hydrogen forming in the holes) can exceed the yield stress and ‘pop’.
Interesting. Is a rough upper limit on the size of these SAVs typically noticed? How many planes would a single SAV typically form in?
Quote from kirkshanahan
New elements? Are you sure? They weren’t there to begin with, maybe hiding? I generally assume these are contaminants present in the starting materials, possibly there when the materials were purchased or introduced later accidentally. To assume they come from LENRs is a wild-eyed hope by CF believers.
You see, metallurgists know that contaminants in metals can be well-dispersed or concentrated in local spots.
Of course one has to assume contaminants are present, but having been taught and then studied more than than my fair share of metallurgy, I have still come across a handful of LENR papers/slides that in my opinion show features that are wholly incongruous with any mass transport mechanisms that I know of, or believe could reasonably exist.
kevmolenr@gmail.com
Member
846
Aug 14th 2017
#313
Quote from interested observer
Drawing parallels between HTS and LENR is a dangerous thing to do. Since 1987, any remotely qualified laboratory in the world could whip up a batch of YBCO and demonstrate superconductivity for you with no more than a day’s notice. They could hand you some samples and you can go off and measure whatever you’d like however you want to do it and prove to yourself that it works. No ifs, ands, or buts. Tell me whose lab to go to for a similar experience with LENR even after 28 years.
LENR is more difficult than superconductors. And that boson theory is only a few short years old, so the unscientists had been operating without a precious superconducting theory for more than 20 years. Tell me who amont the top hundred electrochemists failed to replicate Pons/Fleischmann? There was only one, Lewis, and his error was pointed out. So to call one area a science when it operates without a theory while the other area isn’t a science is simply a pile of bullshit.
kevmolenr@gmail.com
Member
846
Aug 14th 2017
#314
Quote from kirkshanahan
Quick fact check. LENR-CANR.ORG database still only lists 3 of my journal articles, and does not list my whitepaper. And you’ve been told where the papers are, with journal references and web links to manuscripts. Liar, liar, pants on fire...
Did you give him explicit permission? Jed posted here that he’s been burned at least once by someone who posted on a discussion board that he had permission but the author was full of shit.
1
kevmolenr@gmail.com
Member
846
Aug 14th 2017
#315
Quote from THHuxleynew
That is mostly not true, there is a very good and intuitive underlying theory for HTS based on Cooper pairs (or other mechanisms) coupling electrons into bosonic objects.
I think what you misunderstand is that the details of this remain unclear. Exactly what gets coupled so that an ensemble can have bosonic properties and therefore superconduct is still in some cases active research - it looks as though there are multiple candidates.
The underlying theory (coupling of fermions into bosonic objects) makes quantitative experimental predictions (about how properties change with temperature) which are validated by many many different experiments, and requires nothing not already known, and is predicted from QM that itself is validated in many other ways.
Where you are correct is that no-one is entirely clear what are all the different coupling mechanisms active in different materials, or how best to optimise them. That space remains open but understanding has been growing monotonically. Still there will be new materials exhibiting unexpected behaviour since the type of solid-state interactions that do this coupling are incredibly complex and variable. And no-one says that HTS is fully understood - therefore you will note that all the papers claiming specific detailed mechanisms - until very well validated - are treated with much skepticism.
Display Less
That is like the most roundabout way of saying that they have no underlying theory but they’re getting closer, so what they do is science but what LENR does aint science. You might as well say what’s sauce for the goose aint sauce for the gander.
1
kevmolenr@gmail.com
Member
846
Aug 14th 2017
#316
Quote from kirkshanahan
All correct. Which is why science doesn’t seek to ‘disprove the existence of...’. Science seeks to demonstrate such -and-such an effect through reproducible (i.e. controllable) experiments that can be replicated by those skilled in the art, and many times by just regular old scientists. CF doesn’t meet that mark.
The P-F effect has been replicated in at least 153 peer reviewed publications by the top hundred electrochemists of their day. It meets the mark except that skeptopaths are speaking so loudly, such as what happened with germ theory, plate tectonic theory, and the Wright brothers prior to 1908.
1
JedRothwell
Verified User
10,094
Aug 14th 2017
#317
Quote from interested observer
The most anyone could possibly do is disprove a particular experiment and even that is unlikely.
WHAT the hell are you talking about? Many individual experiments have been disproved. I myself disproved several, including one that I did myself. See:
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJreportonmi.pdf
Here’s one that I called into question:
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJreportonar.pdf
In recent months, I have raised a number of questions about Rossi’s work, to put it in academic-speak.
People disprove experiments all the time. That’s how you do science.
If there were anything wrong with experiments from Fleischmann, McKubre or Storms many skeptics would be eager to find the problem or problems. Morrison and Shanahan thought they found problems, and they were not reticent to publish their findings.
2
kevmolenr@gmail.com
Member
846
Aug 14th 2017
#318
Quote from kirkshanahan
Then I pop up with the CCS/ATER effect/mechanism, which is pretty solid. ....But with my objections, they didn’t find it so easy to dismiss my points, and instead of acknowledging this and responding by testing my theories in their apparati, they concocted a strawman argument and found a friendly journal to publish it in. The use of fallacies to dismiss my objections actually supports the validity of my work, as anyone who debates ideas realizes.
You have a very high opinion of your theory, which has been rightfully rejected by the top electrochemists. You even have your own thread for your theory right here on this forum, and no one bothers to discuss your theory even here.
JedRothwell
Verified User
10,094
Aug 14th 2017
#319
Quote from kirkshanahan
Quick fact check. LENR-CANR.ORG database still only lists 3 of my journal articles, and does not list my whitepaper. And you’ve been told where the papers are, with journal references and web links to manuscripts. Liar, liar, pants on fire...
Let me remind you once again:
I will only upload your papers or add the titles to your papers with your permission. You have to send me permission by e-mail. You have to send me a copy of the paper you would like me to upload as an attachment.
I will not upload anything or any information based on messages in a discussion group. That’s my policy.
I will copy this message to you via e-mail, if your address has not changed. . . .
Nope. No can do. I do not have a current working e-mail address for you. The old one I have says “BLOCKED Denied by policy.” You will have to contact me at JedRothwell@gmail.com
Alternatively, you can continue to accuse me of lying, while you refuse to send me anything. You are not the first to play that stupid game!
kevmolenr@gmail.com
Member
846
Aug 14th 2017
#325
Quote from THHuxleynew
Unlike LENRH, CCS/ATERH is disprovable which means it offers more traction to move things forward.
LENRH is not disprovable in your book? That’s a ridiciculous stance. From what I can see, CCS/ATERH is disproven.
kirkshanahan
Member
543
Aug 14th 2017
#326
Quote from JedRothwell
Let me remind you once again:
And let me remind YOU once again.
a.) I don’t believe I have permission to allow you to upload actual journal articles. That belongs to the journals and maybe my company/Site.
b.) that does not stop you from referencing my journal articles, and doing so correctly.
c.) the links already posted to the manuscripts are freely available to the public. Again my permission means zip.
Bottom line, you don’t want this info in your database, you are being forced into it by my challenges to you, but you still resist with hogwash.
kevmolenr@gmail.com
Member
846
Aug 14th 2017
#327
Quote from kirkshanahan
Now, what support to you garner from the data that suggests a HATER elf is active?
The fact that a mod posted that you have been PM’d to take your discussion of your theory to your own thread dedicated to that theory, rather than repeatedly hijacking this thread.
kirkshanahan
Member
543
Aug 14th 2017
#328
Quote from kevmolenr@gmail.com
But the effect itself is replicated, as even you yourself acknowledge.
*Partially*, not fully, therefore not adequately.
kevmolenr@gmail.com
Member
846
Aug 14th 2017
#329
Quote from kirkshanahan
Keep saying it Kev, maybe someday, if you say it enough, it will become true.
You yourself said that the effect has been replicated, just a few minutes ago right here on this thread. I can see why scientists ignore you.
JedRothwell
Verified User
10,094
Aug 14th 2017
#330
Quote from interested observer
But, unlike the lot of you, I am quite open to the possibility that I am wrong.
If that were true I suppose you would read the literature, or you would at least agree that since no one has published a reason to doubt the leading studies, there is at present no reason to think they are wrong. That seems uncontroversial to me. It seems like the standard way to do science. I do not understand what your method is.
Quote from interested observer
You can take Jed’s approach that anyone who doesn’t draw that conclusion is an ignoramus who just hasn’t read enough papers. Personally, I find that more offensive than a little snideness.
Whether I am snide or not has no bearing on whether cold fusion is real. Whether a large number of people believe cold fusion is real, or only a small number think so, also has no bearing on whether it is real. You keep coming up with irrelevant metrics like this. Then you dismiss the findings based on these metrics. I suggest you concentrate on the experimental scientific method. People do experiments. They reach conclusions. The experiments are replicated. Unless someone finds errors in the experiments or the logic, that means the conclusions are correct. A new discovery has been confirmed.
That is how science is done. Let me emphasize: that is the only way science is done. There are no other methods, such as taking a vote, or looking around to see who is snide, or waiting indefinitely in case someone someday comes up with a reason to doubt the experiments. With the latter method, nothing would ever be resolved, and no progress would be made. We must draw conclusions based published papers. Not hypothetical ones or ones that we suppose people might write if they had a mind to. We cannot take into account the possibility that in the future someone might publish a new paper disproving the work. If, after many years of waiting, there are no published papers showing errors in the replicated Pd-D cold fusion experiments, that makes the findings correct. That’s all there is to it. There is no other way a scientific discovery can be correct. There is no other definition of “correct.”
The two attempts to find errors, by Morrison and Shanahan, failed, in my opinion. I invite you read them and form your own opinion.
A paper attempting to disprove a result by finding an error has to be held to the same standard of rigor as one that tries to prove a result. You cannot allow a weak, unsupported claim such as Morrison’s with many blatant errors, or a crackpot theory that violates fundamental laws such as Shanahan’s, to overrule conventional, high sigma, replicated results by McKubre and others.
1
kevmolenr@gmail.com
Member
846
Aug 14th 2017
#331
Quote from kirkshanahan
And let me remind YOU once again.
a.) I don’t believe I have permission to allow you to upload actual journal articles. That belongs to the journals and maybe my company/Site.
But you stoop to calling Jed a liar/liar/pantsonfire? Geez, what a despicable game you play.
maryyugo
Member
731
Aug 14th 2017
#332
Quote
LENRH is not disprovable in your book?
Whatever LENRH is, no it’s not. Otherwise, please describe in detail an experiment or other course of action which would disprove it (maybe after you explain what the H stands for, not that it matters). Also describe a test to disprove my assertion that I maintain a small herd of pink invisible flying unicorns in my garage. They are also very skinny and very quiet.
kevmolenr@gmail.com
Member
846
Aug 14th 2017
#333
Quote from kirkshanahan
*Partially*, not fully, therefore not adequately.
I can see that you have been partially but not fully silenced by the qualified critics, therefore not adequately.
kevmolenr@gmail.com
Member
846
Aug 14th 2017
#336
Quote from maryyugo
Whatever LENRH is, no it’s not. Otherwise, please describe in detail an experiment or other course of action which would disprove it (maybe after you explain what the H stands for, not that it matters). Also describe a test to disprove my assertion that I maintain a small herd of pink invisible flying unicorns in my garage. They are also very skinny and very quiet.
When you pass the bar of having your pink yet invisible flying unicorns replicated by the top hundred electrochemists of the day and there are NO papers generated to disprove it, then I shall admit that your scientific finding is proven, even though there would be no theory to explain it.
1
JedRothwell
Verified User
10,094
Aug 14th 2017
#337
Quote from kirkshanahan
And let me remind YOU once again.
a.) I don’t believe I have permission to allow you to upload actual journal articles. That belongs to the journals and maybe my company/Site.
Okay, then send me the full titles and bibliographic info, with links to the publisher. Both EndNote and my on-line index require that I fill in several fields. Nowadays, I can often download an EndNote compatible record directly from the publisher site, which reduces errors.
If you have a self-published White Paper you would like me to upload, send me the paper as an attachment in the exact, final form you want to see uploaded. Do not send a link. Also, send me a full bibliographic description with a publisher. If you published it yourself, I will list you as the publisher as well as the author. I do not generally upload self-published papers but I will make an exception for you in this instance.
Quote from kirkshanahan
b.) that does not stop you from referencing my journal articles, and doing so correctly.
Send it to me the information or the links by e-mail. I do not accept information from discussion groups. I must have permission from you by e-mail.
kevmolenr@gmail.com
Member
846
Aug 14th 2017
#338
Quote from JedRothwell
I do not generally upload self-published papers but I will make an exception for you in this instance.
He is not worth making an exception over.
BTW, your library has been around for decades now. Why don’t you open up your own discussion board? I have it on good authority that the owner of “Cold Fusion” on DISQUS would be willing to sign it over to you.
https://disqus.com/home/channel/coldfusion/
JedRothwell
Verified User
10,094
Aug 14th 2017
#339
Quote from kevmolenr@gmail.com
even though there would be no theory to explain it.
Theory is never required to accept an experimental result. If we demanded a theory before accepting an experiment, progress in science would stop, because in most cases, a discovery is first made by experiment, then later explained by theory. There are only a few instances in which a discovery was predicted by theory and later confirmed by experiment.
Most discoveries are not particularly surprising and they are soon explained by theory. Cold fusion is one of the few modern ones that is very surprising, unexpected, and which has still not been explained many years later. However, that is not a valid reason to doubt it. It is fundamental to the scientific method that when replicated, high-sigma experiments conflict with theory, or cannot be explained by theory, theory must give way. Experiments always win; theory always loses. Anything else would be a perverse form of religion, not science. Science must always be based on observations or experiments. The human imagination and our theories must give way to what nature teaches. As Francis Bacon explained in 1620:
“Now the empire of man over things is founded on the arts and sciences alone, for nature is only to be commanded by obeying her.”
That is the very essence of science. No one has understood it or defined it better. Bacon also wrote:
“We may also derive some reason for hope from the circumstances of several actual inventions being of such a nature, that scarcely any one could have formed a conjecture about them previous to their discovery, but would rather have ridiculed them as impossible. For men are wont to guess about new subjects from those they are already acquainted with, and the hasty and vitiated fancies they have thence formed: than which there cannot be a more fallacious mode of reasoning, for streams that are drawn from the springheads of nature do not always run in the old channels.”
Zeus46
Member
1,271
Aug 14th 2017
#340
Thanks Kirk, interesting stuff re. tritium, helium, dendrites etc.
Re. LENR-CANR.org, I’d like to read your final unpublished journal letter rebutting (Marwan et al)? I’ve heard it said (probably by Abd) that this means et al had the last word, and hence must have ‘won’ the argument in the eyes of the editors. Surely no copyright issues too.
JedRothwell Verified User ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10,094 Aug 14th 2017 #342 Quote from kevmolenr@gmail.com He is not worth making an exception over. It is no big deal. My policy is like the pirates' code, "more what you'd call 'guidelines' than actual rules." The part about not accepting submissions from internet gab-groups is to protect me from getting sued by crazy scientists. That ain't going to change. Quote from kevmolenr@gmail.com BTW, your library has been around for decades now. Why don't you open up your own discussion board? Because I want to avoid controversy. If I allowed comments or if I publish anything other than anodyne announcements of upcoming conferences, some scientists will take offense and withdraw their papers. They already threaten to do that from time to time. Prof. A will say: "Prof. B is a charlatan and if you upload Prof. B's work, I will withdraw my papers in high dudgeon." In response, I say "that would be a shame but I cannot play favorites, so let me know if you want me to remove your paper." It is like herding cats. 1 JedRothwell Verified User ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10,094 Aug 14th 2017 #348 Quote from kirkshanahan @Jed - for the last time Go to Google Scholar and type in "KL Shanahan" "cold fusion", then hit . This doesn't list the JEM article, so go to the JEM homepage (Google it) and search for 'shanahan' (no caps needed). I got two hits: No Can Do. Nope, nope, nope. You must contact me by e-mail giving explicit permission. I have been dealing with people like you for a long time. I know your little tricks. You refuse to contact me by e-mail now. You will not take two minutes to do that. Why not? What are you up to? I don't know, but with people like you it is usually some stupid trick. Such as Dr. Herr Dr. Professor who keeps baiting me to upload his papers, after he threatened to file a lawsuit for copyright infringement when I did upload one. He threatened me not once, not twice, but three times! (I pulled it immediately.) I don't mind uploading your papers, but I sure as hell will not buy trouble from you. If you did not have a stupid trick up your sleeve, you would do what all other authors do without a second thought, and you would send me an e-mail. Your refusal tells me all I need to know. 1 kevmolenr@gmail.com Member ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 846 Aug 14th 2017 #349 Quote from JedRothwell Because I want to avoid controversy. Understandable. If you want to have better control over the direction of discourse, I have it on good authority that you would be welcomed as the first moderator over there. kevmolenr@gmail.com Member ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 846 Aug 14th 2017 #350 Quote from THHuxleynew OK. How could LENR be disproved? Let's take a historical example. The skeptics said that P&F weren't mixing their cells enough. That would have proven P&F's findings were in error. P&F put dye in their cell to show that it mixed properly, and did the skeptics withdraw, saying that they were wrong? Nope. The skeptics said that recombination could account for the supposed excess heat. But they've been proven wrong time and again. Perhaps in the most egregious of cases, Heat After Death, they could have proven that every single instance was utterly fraud. Or one of those replications could have shown why & how it was a chemical phenomena. I know that Shanahan likes to claim this is what he's done but he's almost completely full of bullshit. Surely by now all those top electrochemists must have been doing something wrong in their electrochemistry cells? Those kinds of things seem to be what has happened since P&F came out with their results. It's almost as if the folks who regularly use calorimetry in their electrochemistry cells were competent, while those who don't regularly use calorimetry nor electrochemistry were incompetent. Gosh, whoda thunk? 1 interested observer Member ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2,435 Aug 14th 2017 #351 I am beginning to think that LENR supporters have a specific brain anomaly. They must be the only people in the world who don't understand that it is impossible to disprove the existence of something. Incredible! On the other hand, these people are the keepers of amazing detailed information about who the top 100 electrochemists in the world are. How does one get on this list and who compiles it? Like I said, there are 8,000 members of the Electrochemical Society. Did only the card-carrying top 100 replicate LENR? Were the other 7,800 forbidden to try? Or did they fail? Or are they all morons and only the official top-100 count? LENR has a rotten reputation because the people who speak on behalf of it make preposterous statements like this over and over again. Jed is always lecturing us on how science works and he seems to not have a clue. There is no other field in which such ludicrous claims are routinely made in an attempt to argue for results that should stand on their own if they are valid. In any other field, people might say that many renowned researchers have seen similar results, or perhaps that some of the top people in the discipline have replicated an experiment. That would be fine. All this top-100 talk is bullshit. The excuse is that LENR researchers are mistreated, prevented from doing their work, crucified or dead. But somehow there is proof positive from the top 100 electrochemists in the world at major institutions despite the fact that they are mistreated, prevented from doing their work, crucified, or dead. Quite a trick! There are no doubt some top-flight scientists who have done and may still be doing LENR research. Perhaps some of them have observed physical phenomena that cannot be explained by any conventional mechanisms. That might well be. On the other hand, the people who inhabit websites and battle the world on behalf of LENR seem to all be crackpots. 1 kevmolenr@gmail.com Member ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 846 Aug 14th 2017 #352 Quote from maryyugo You missed the point entirely. It's not about being able to prove that the unicorns are real. It's about the inability to prove that they are not real. Absence of proof that they are real is not proof that they are not real. The point, of course, is that it makes no sense to ask skeptics to prove that LENR is not real or give up their skepticism. That's what believers often do. I don't miss the point. What you're doing is almost pure bullshit. So go ahead and have your unicorns generate some real findings in real scientific journals with real replications, and I can spend some time on your bullshit. Hot fusion skeptics who rarely if ever use calorimetry in their physics profession failed to replicate P&F. They proceeded from that to say that it was proof that LENR wasn't real. You seem to miss the point entirely yourself, that you have lumped yourself in with these incompetent souls due to your irrational dislike of LENR. You like to walk around a huge pile of bullshit to point to a small pile of sparrow poop and say that it's somehow the big issue. Now THAT's missing the point entirely, kevmolenr@gmail.com Member ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 846 Aug 14th 2017 #353 Quote from maryyugo Link please. Kirk Shanahan's critique of LENR experiments THHuxleynew Verified User ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4,707 Aug 14th 2017 #355 Quote from THHuxleynew OK. How could LENR be disproved? The skeptics said that recombination could account for the supposed excess heat. But they've been proven wrong time and again. Perhaps in the most egregious of cases, Heat After Death, they could have proven that every single instance was utterly fraud. Or one of those replications could have shown why & how it was a chemical phenomena. I know that Shanahan likes to claim this is what he's done but he's almost completely full of bullshit. Surely by now all those top electrochemists must have been doing something wrong in their electrochemistry cells? Those kinds of things seem to be what has happened since P&F came out with their results. It's almost as if the folks who regularly use calorimetry in their electrochemistry cells were competent, while those who don't regularly use calorimetry nor electrochemistry were incompetent. Gosh, whoda thunk? Jed will note 100s of experiments apparently showing LENR. And we know it is an effect that is not always present. So, if some of F&Ps results prove to be erroneous how does that disprove LENR? I can hear what you would say already... LENR makes no hard predictions that can be refuted - therefore it cannot be disproved. That is (the proper reason) why it requires stronger evidence to be held as plausible than any hypothesis coupled to a quantitative theory that can therefore be disproved. In fact your arguments above are logically incomplete. Consider - there are maybe 5 possible ways that occur to an informed critic why given results may be erroneous. And likely a few more that would surprise the critic - the real world is a bitch and comes up with wierd things. You are holding up as evidence for LENR that some of the possible errors suggested for key experiments prove wrong. Yet we need every single possible error to be proven wrong before we have a genuine LENR-capable anomaly. In any case your proofs here are assertion. Let us take a very simple case. Morrison suggested the high boil-off phase COP from the classic F&P paper from simplicity through complications.... might be due to liquid entrainment. You will have read MF's answer and think that this disproves that possibility. Yet it does not. Do you know why? It is always the things not said in research papers that are most revealing... kevmolenr@gmail.com Member ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 846 Aug 14th 2017 #356 Quote from interested observer LENR has a rotten reputation because the people who speak on behalf of it make preposterous statements like this over and over again. Yeah, it is SO preposterous to say that those 153 peer reviewed replications are evidence of.... replication! kevmolenr@gmail.com Member ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 846 Aug 14th 2017 #357 Quote from kirkshanahan The debate always centers around what you can do. What you can't do only lasts as long as someone doesn't figure out how to do it. Science moves forward when a scientist tries to prove something was wrong and fails. Then another scientist tries something else to prove it wrong and he fails as well. It's important to post those failures as well as successes so that other scientists can build on the work. But anti-LENR activists have simply failed and then hand-waved, saying that "surely there is something wrong with this replicated finding". 1 JedRothwell Verified User ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10,094 Aug 14th 2017 #358 Quote from THHuxleynew OK. How could LENR be disproved? That's obvious! You just show there is a mistake in an experiment, and out it goes. The way I did here, with my own work: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJreportonmi.pdf Do that for every major study and hey-presto, cold fusion is gone. Dead as Polywater. You yourself gave it a shot the other day by trying to prove that the boil-off phase of Fleischmann's experiment here can be explained as entrainment: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmancalorimetra.pdf In my opinion, you were wrong for a variety of reasons, and even if you had been right that would still not explain the excess heat in the first few weeks before the boil-off, or the heat after death after the boil-off. So it would not kill off this experiment. As I explained in the comments here: http://coldfusioncommunity.net…-blew-up-it-must-be-lenr/ I think you failed (the reader can judge) but anyway, that is how it is done. Finding errors and showing that the author's conclusions are mistaken is the one and only way to disprove an experimental discovery. You have to do that for every single major study. Even if 49 are wrong and 1 is right, the cold fusion effect is still real. That is the only way a widely replicated effect can be proven wrong. Theory cannot touch it. You have to show that every single test in every replication study is a mistake. The likelihood of that is astronomically small. Because it would only happen if hundreds of world-class experts in electrochemistry, tritium detection, mass spectroscopy, and various other disciplines made serious blunders, over many years, doing things they had done for 30 to 50 years. For people such as Bockris, Fritz Will, Yeager, or Mel Miles, they were doing things they were world-famous for doing. By "famous," I mean they were made Fellows of The Royal Society or the AAAS, they wrote the leading textbooks, they had buildings, institutes, international prizes and so on named for them. How likely is it that such people would make elementary blunders such as not measuring recombination, or not looking for entrainment? Or that despite extensive peer-review, not a single one of their colleagues realized these people were making mistakes. How likely? Well, it is roughly as likely as if you picked 200 experienced drivers at random, and on the morning of August 1, 2017, in clear weather for no apparent reason every single one of them accidentally drove off the road into a telephone pole. Actually, you don't have to wonder whether they made these blunders. You can read their papers and see for yourself they did not. Disproving one experiment out of many does nothing to disprove a claim. It is like proving that Hiram Maxim did not technically fly in 1894 even though his airplane left the ground. That is true. But it does not prove that Orville Wright did not fly in December 1903. The fact that Orville was not able to fly for many weeks in the summer of 1904, and the overall success rate for the first year of aviation was something like 20 flights out of 120 attempts, also proves nothing. Low reproducibility does not mean the effect does not exist. It doesn't mean anything like that. It means flying is harder than you might think. Cold fusion is also harder than you might think. 1 kevmolenr@gmail.com Member ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 846 Aug 14th 2017 #359 Quote from interested observer On the other hand, the people who inhabit websites and battle the world on behalf of LENR seem to all be crackpots. The people who inhabit websites and battle the world on behalf of anti-LENR advocates seem to all be missing that gene that tells you what real science is all about. They see 153 peer reviewed replications by the top hundred or so electrochemists and seem to think somehow that they're smarter than those electrochemists. It's like they've developed a huge appetite for the stuff that comes out of the back end of a bull. kevmolenr@gmail.com Member ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 846 Aug 14th 2017 #361 Quote from THHuxleynew Jed will note 100s of experiments apparently showing LENR. And we know it is an effect..... Thank you for verifying that the effect has been replicated. kevmolenr@gmail.com Member ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 846 Aug 14th 2017 #364 Quote from THHuxleynew That comment does not advance the debate. You mean the last sentence? Because the earlier stuff I pulled almost word for word from the previous post. kevmolenr@gmail.com Member ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 846 Aug 14th 2017 #365 Quote from kirkshanahan No. Absolutely not. Failure may teach a scientist something true. But science moves forwards based on positive results. Defining something so well it can be reproduced in detail at will by those skilled in the art. As I said before, if you fail to prove something, you just did it wrong. At last that's what can always be said.... Science moves forward on failures just as well as it does on successes, but someone's career might not move forward if they only generate failures. Notice how you say "No. Absolutely not" but then you practically agree with what was said. This is yet another example of why you have been ignored in this field. JedRothwell Verified User ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10,094 Aug 14th 2017 #366 Quote from THHuxleynew Yet we need every single possible error to be proven wrong before we have a genuine LENR-capable anomaly. Nope. You have that backwards. All you have to do is show one major error in an experiment, and in most cases that cancels out the entire result. For example, you show that the flow rate was measured wrong in a flow-calorimetry experiment. I have done this, in flow calorimetry with both water and air. I shot down results from 5 or 10 experiments by doing this. The other parameters were measured correctly, but the results were wrong. (These experiments were never published, because they were wrong. They were abandoned.) Quote from THHuxleynew In any case your proofs here are assertion. Let us take a very simple case. Morrison suggested the high boil-off phase COP from the classic F&P paper from simplicity through complications.... might be due to liquid entrainment. You will have read MF's answer and think that this disproves that possibility. Yet it does not. I think you are flat out wrong about that. Fleischmann demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that there was no entrainment. I gave the reasons elsewhere. I shall take the trouble to repeat them. I suggest you address them. Fleischmann’s methods of ensuring there was no entrainment included: 1. Close attention to cell geometry. There is a small, narrow orifice well above the highest point the boiling water bubbles reach, as you see in the video. 2. Null runs with Pt-H and electrolysis power driving the boiling. There is no excess heat and only a small deficit from heat losses unaccounted for. If entrained water left the cell there would be an apparent positive balance of excess heat. It is not plausible that the choice of Pd and heavy water turned on entrainment but other metals and ordinary water turned it off. 3. There were null runs even with Pd-D. That is, no heat before or after the boil off, the same as Pt-H. There was no excess heat during the boil-off in these instances. In other words, there was no entrainment error with Pt-H, Pt-D or with Pd-D that did not produce heat in the other phases. Why would the entrainment error correlate with apparent excess heat in the other phases? 4. They looked for droplets of electrolyte around the cells. 5. Most important, after the tests they inventoried the lithium salts remaining in the cell by various methods, including rinsing the cell repeatedly and evaporating the water. The amount of salt recovered was very close to the amount added initially, so no salts left the cell in entrained water. There was a little salt embedded in the glass which they could not wash out. I think they said the glass was discolored by it, which is how they could tell. Those are physical reasons why you are wrong, which you can confirm in the papers. Moving on to methodological reasons -- the hypothesis that there was no excess heat during the boil-off phase makes no sense, because there was abundant proof of excess heat for weeks before the boil-off (phase 1), and for hours after it (phase 3). Why would the excess heat stop for 10 minutes (phase 2) and then start up again? The calorimetry used in phase 1 and phase 3 is quite different. Entrainment could not explain it. To make a reasonable, believable case, you have to show mistakes in all 3 phases, and they have to be different mistakes. JedRothwell Verified User ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10,094 Aug 14th 2017 #368 Quote from kevmolenr@gmail.com Hot fusion skeptics who rarely if ever use calorimetry in their physics profession failed to replicate P&F. They proceeded from that to say that it was proof that LENR wasn't real. Actually, to be a little more historically accurate, they did not try to replicate P&F. They tried to replicate one aspect of P&F, which unfortunately, P&F themselves got wrong. What they did in most cases was: set up an electrochemical cell with a palladium cathode and heavy water, and then look for neutrons. They did not look for excess heat, and they did not measure some critical parameters such as loading. P&F reported neutrons, but most people soon concluded that part of their paper was wrong. Fleischmann himself thought it was a mistake. He told me that in person, at MIT. Excess heat is the most critical parameter. It is the "principal signature of the reaction" as Fleischmann put it. If you don't see excess heat, you don't have cold fusion, so there is no point to looking for anything else. It is like fishing in a dry hole, as Ikegami put it. The other mistake made by many hot fusion and high energy physicists was to do the experiment without consulting with electrochemists. They made many mistakes. Enough to eliminate any chance of success. As I put it, they were trying to tune a piano with sledge hammer. See p. 11: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJlessonsfro.pdf Electrochemists who reviewed other experiments discovered similar errors, such as confusing the anode and the cathode. I suppose that if a group of electrochemists were to try to build a Tokomak plasma fusion reactor without consulting with plasma physicists, they would make similar mistakes. 3 kevmolenr@gmail.com Member ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 846 Aug 14th 2017 #369 Quote from THHuxleynew That comment also does not advance the debate. It is pretty straightforward in pointing out that replication of the effect has been acknowledged. That DOES advance the debate. 1 JedRothwell Verified User ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10,094 Aug 14th 2017 #370 Quote from kirkshanahan A.) reference please. Fleischmann, M. and S. Pons, Calorimetry of the Pd-D2O system: from simplicity via complications to simplicity. Phys. Lett. A, 1993. 176: p. 118 Morrison, D.R.O., Comments on claims of excess enthalpy by Fleischmann and Pons using simple cells made to boil. Phys. Lett. A, 1994. 185: p. 498 Fleischmann, M. and S. Pons, Reply to the critique by Morrison entitled 'Comments on claims of excess enthalpy by Fleischmann and Pons using simple cells made to boil. Phys. Lett. A, 1994. 187: p. 276Y Pons, S. and M. Fleischmann. Heat After Death. in Fourth International Conference on Cold Fusion. 1993. Lahaina, Maui: Electric Power Research Institute 3412 Hillview Ave., Palo Alto, CA 94304 Quote from kirkshanahan But more importantly, where did this excess water come from, if not entrainment? There is no excess water. The amount that leaves the cell is exactly the same as added to it. In null a boil-off test driven only by electrolysis, such as a test with Pt-H, a little water is left in the cell below the anode-cathode. This is because the moment the electrolyte drops below the anode and cathode, the power is cut off, and heat production stops. Boiling stops, and the temperature drops immediately and monotonically according to Newton's law of cooling. A little water usually remains in the bottom of the cell. When there is excess heat, the cell remains hot even after the power is cut off, so the remaining water boils away. There is only hot vapor in the cell. The Kel-F plastic holding the anode and cathode often melt. This never happens in a null test. Also, the cell does not cool down. On the contrary, it usually gets hotter, and sometimes even hotter hours later. This is additional proof of excess heat, rather than only heat from electrolysis. ("Excess" means in addition to the heat from electrolysis. It might be excess heat from chemistry, but there is no chemical fuel, and no chemical changes are observed, so it ain't.) 1 kevmolenr@gmail.com Member ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 846 Aug 14th 2017 #371 Quote from JedRothwell P&F reported neutrons, but most people soon concluded that part of their paper was wrong. Basically, that was where they screwed the pooch. They could have gotten away with science-by-press release, and all the other mistakes. But they trampled onto the hot fusion boys' territory and that was where they were blown out of the water politically. Imagine if they had ignored the neutrons and said something to the effect that they think it's a super-chemical reaction unseen before and they could use the help of their nukular physicist brethren to rule out a couple of things. 1 JedRothwell Verified User ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10,094 Aug 14th 2017 #372 Quote from THHuxleynew LENR makes no hard predictions that can be refuted - therefore it cannot be disproved. What a thing to say! How absurd. Of course it makes hard predictions, and of course they can be refuted. I have refuted dozens of them, and disproved many experiments. (Mainly fifth rate ones, mainly done by me.) Here is the best known prediction: If you manage to load a Pd-D cathode above a certain level, and maintain current density at a certain level according to McKubre's equation, it is likely the cathode will produce excess heat. At a very high level, it is almost certain to produce excess heat. See Fig. 1 here: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHcoldfusionb.pdf The exact set of parameters you must meet are listed in McKubre's equation. Here is another: If a cell is producing excess heat, you can probably boost the power level by quickly raising the cell temperature. You can raise the temperature by various methods such as electrolysis, joule heating or a laser. It usually boosts output. Here is how you disprove these predictions: Show that there was no heat in the experiments by McKubre, the ENEA and the others he cites. As I said, you show an error. One error will usually clobber the whole experiment. Show that that flow rate was wrong, for example. That is the most likely problem with flow calorimetry, in my experience. The temperature measurements are usually right, but that does no good because the results go down the tubes anyway. Good luck trying to prove that McKubre's flow measurements are wrong! They are described in detail, so have at it: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHisothermala.pdf When there is a mistake, you usually find there is both excess heat and "excess cold." That is, the cell will as likely appear to be swallowing up heat as producing it. This is impossible. Look for that: it is a good tell-tale starting point. During a lecture, Fleischmann rather famously showed this was happening in one of the early negative experiments that supposedly disproved cold fusion. In that case, the researchers did measure the heat. He graphed their data and showed the heat appeared to be vanishing, so obviously their calorimetry was wrong. I don't recall the reason, but he described it in detail. You yourself took a crack at showing an entrainment error in the boil off phase of Fleischmann's experiment. You have the right idea. That is the sort of thing that can go wrong. However, in my opinion, you failed to show an error. In fact, I do not see where you gave any reasons at all why there might be such an error, other than "I suppose." But keep trying! That is the only way you -- or any one else -- can disprove cold fusion. It is experimental science, not theory. You will never find one mistake or one overarching factor that cancels out all evidence. You have to wade in and deal with details. Detail after detail after detail. Even if you clobber McKubre's flow measurement technique, that leaves dozens of other flow measurements by Storms (rather similar!) and by many others (completely different), and you have show that every one of them was wrong, or that something else went wrong. 1 Online Shane D. Moderator ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7,501 Aug 15th 2017 #373 Quote from interested observer I am beginning to think that LENR supporters have a specific brain anomaly. They must be the only people in the world who don't understand that it is impossible to disprove the existence of something. Incredible! On the other hand, these people are the keepers of amazing detailed information about who the top 100 electrochemists in the world are. How does one get on this list and who compiles it? Like I said, there are 8,000 members of the Electrochemical Society. Did only the card-carrying top 100 replicate LENR? Were the other 7,800 forbidden to try? Or did they fail? Or are they all morons and only the official top-100 count? LENR has a rotten reputation because the people who speak on behalf of it make preposterous statements like this over and over again. Jed is always lecturing us on how science works and he seems to not have a clue. There is no other field in which such ludicrous claims are routinely made in an attempt to argue for results that should stand on their own if they are valid. In any other field, people might say that many renowned researchers have seen similar results, or perhaps that some of the top people in the discipline have replicated an experiment. That would be fine. All this top-100 talk is bullshit. The excuse is that LENR researchers are mistreated, prevented from doing their work, crucified or dead. But somehow there is proof positive from the top 100 electrochemists in the world at major institutions despite the fact that they are mistreated, prevented from doing their work, crucified, or dead. Quite a trick! There are no doubt some top-flight scientists who have done and may still be doing LENR research. Perhaps some of them have observed physical phenomena that cannot be explained by any conventional mechanisms. That might well be. On the other hand, the people who inhabit websites and battle the world on behalf of LENR seem to all be crackpots. Display Less IO, I'm with the LENR is real crowd, but will break ranks just to say your post was funny. I sometimes wonder, and maybe you can take a wag at it: Say we take 100 of the worlds 8,000 Electrochemists, give them a standard resistance heater. Lie and tell them it is a special heater, that may go nuclear on them. Have them run it for a year or two, measuring every conceivable parameter, then make a report. Would you expect some to report seeing excess heat, or radiation, or Tritium, He, HAD, or even have a few blow up, along with the occasional melt down? 1 kevmolenr@gmail.com Member ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 846 Aug 15th 2017 #374 Quote from Shane D. IO, I'm with the LENR is real crowd, but will break ranks just to say your post was funny. I sometimes wonder, and maybe you can take a wag at it: Say we take 100 of the worlds 8,000 Electrochemists, give them a standard resistance heater. Lie and tell them it is a special heater, that may go nuclear on them. Have them run it for a year or two, measuring every conceivable parameter, then make a report. Would you expect some to report seeing excess heat, or radiation, or Tritium, He, HAD, or even have a few blow up, along with the occasional melt down? I doubt you can make it into becoming one of the top hundred electrochemists by reporting ridiculous results. But we might actually get to the bottom of how much Helium gets trapped in a cell, so it might be a worthwhile experiment. The simple fact is, running an experiment like that for a year or two would be very expensive and you probably couldn't keep up the lie after a while. It's better to just explain that it's a double blind experiment and there's a possibility they could be looking at the control or the actual subject. 1 Online Shane D. Moderator ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7,501 Aug 15th 2017 #375 Quote from kevmolenr@gmail.com I doubt you can make it into becoming one of the top hundred electrochemists by reporting ridiculous results. But we might actually get to the bottom of how much Helium gets trapped in a cell, so it might be a worthwhile experiment. The simple fact is, running an experiment like that for a year or two would be very expensive and you probably couldn't keep up the lie after a while. It's better to just explain that it's a double blind experiment and there's a possibility they could be looking at the control or the actual subject. Price, nor the lie is important, since this is a hypothetical. But your point about "double blind" is good, so let us say that. Take 100 control electrochemists and give them a regular heater, but tell them it is a special heater. Take another 100 and tell them the truth...that it is a regular heater. Let both groups run the tests for 2 years, and see what they report. kevmolenr@gmail.com Member ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 846 Aug 15th 2017 #376 Quote from Shane D. Price, nor the lie is important, since this is a hypothetical. But your point about "double blind" is good, so let us say that. Take 100 control electrochemists and give them a regular heater, but tell them it is a special heater. Take another 100 and tell them the truth...that it is a regular heater. Let both groups run the tests for 2 years, and see what they report. You're sorta exposing 2 separate parameters. In a double blind experiment, neither the electrochemists nor the test administrators would know which cells are which. By telling some and not others, you're introducing an expectation variable, which is what I suspect you actually want to look at. It reminds me of an ancient chinese story about the emperor giving a hundred of the smartest kids in the empire a gift of a bean seed in a pot. Only one kid reported back to the emperor that he couldn't grow a bean or anything. It turned out that all the plants were sterilized, and all the 99 other kids reported results they thought were expected. The 1 true honest kid became the emperor. JedRothwell Verified User ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10,094 Aug 15th 2017 #377 Quote from Shane D. I sometimes wonder, and maybe you can take a wag at it: Say we take 100 of the worlds 8,000 Electrochemists, give them a standard resistance heater. Lie and tell them it is a special heater, that may go nuclear on them. Have them run it for a year or two, measuring every conceivable parameter, then make a report. Something similar has been done, many times. We know the results. Many researchers went for months or years running Pd-D experiments that did not work. Miles and Storms are good examples. Storms tested ~100 cathodes and found 4 that worked. That took a year or two. None of the researchers who went through long dry spells with no heat reported anything else unusual in those failed experiments. There have also been single blind experiments. Not double blind, but single. The best example was the mass spectroscopy portion of Miles' experiments. He knew which cathodes produced excess heat. He sent samples of the gas to three different mass spec. labs, with random numbers encoding the sample. So, he knew but they did not. They measured the helium and reported it back to him. He also sent blanks such as flasks for room air. The results were: All three labs reported the same levels of helium. Samples that produced excess heat had higher levels of helium, proportional to the heat, at a rate of 24 MeV. The helium was not correlated with heat, because some of the blank cells ran hotter with higher electrolysis power than the ones that produced excess heat. The helium was not correlated with anything else, other than excess heat. See: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MilesManomalousea.pdf 1 kevmolenr@gmail.com Member ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 846 Aug 15th 2017 #378 Quote from JedRothwell All three labs reported the same levels of helium. Samples that produced excess heat had higher levels of helium, proportional to the heat, at a rate of 24 MeV. The helium was not correlated with heat, because some of the blank cells ran hotter with higher electrolysis power than the ones that produced excess heat. The helium was not correlated with anything else, other than excess heat. Display Less I don't understand your explanations of the results. I'm having trouble downloading the file, maybe I'll get it later. Online Shane D. Moderator ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7,501 Aug 15th 2017 #379 Thank you Jed. I have actually been on your site a number of times. The Miles account is a good one. He did an interview about 2 years ago on Cold Fusion News I believe, and recounted that story and some others. JedRothwell Verified User ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10,094 Aug 15th 2017 #380 Quote from kevmolenr@gmail.com I don't understand your explanations of the results. I'm having trouble downloading the file, maybe I'll get it later. If you still don't get what I meant, I can try rephrasing later. PLEASE let me know if you continue to have trouble downloading. Try downloading any other paper. Display some pages from LENR-CANR.org. If an error message appears, let me know what it is. My ISP once shut down a whole geographic area for a month by accident. Contact me by e-mail. The address is at LENR-CANR.org