Replies

THHuxleynew
Verified User

4,707
Aug 15th 2017

#382

Quote
THH: Yet we need every single possible error to be proven wrong before we have a genuine LENR-capable anomaly.

Jed: 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.

I think you misread what I said, which is identical to what you say.

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.

That is interesting and would indeed be very helpful providing:
(1) All the conditions necessary are testable - e.g. you can check you have got them right independent of the experimental result
(2) The amount of excess heat is quantifiable at some minimum level: thus you can set up an experiment where the predicted excess is guaranteed to be larger than the errors and any mundane mechanisms.

Note that stochastic predictions are Ok providing that quantified lower bounds can be put on the probability expected for an effect to manifest. this, again, allows the hypothesis to be disproved. But “probably” does not quantify.

I would even go so far as to suggest that such a prescription, precisely written up as a challenge to the science establishment, would have significant PR value. IH might juts possibly be persuaded to fund such a “prove LENR correct at scientific level” experiment.

The paper you have cited does not close these gaps. While it gives necessary conditions, it does not give sufficient ones in the form of (1) (2) above.

THH

THHuxleynew
Verified User

4,707
Aug 15th 2017

#383
Jed said:
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

I, with Shane, find these observations highly interesting. Unlike Shane I’d add the following analysis:

The specific electrodes work, others don’t is compatible with CCS/ATER, as it is with LENR.

The He results are interesting and if confirmed would (for me) push probabilities towards D+D-> He fusion occurring at rates much higher than normal expectations would suggest (and therefore definite proof of what is popularly known as LENR). However the available information is not convincing (to me) yet:

He correlated with heat would be expected from atmospheric contamination where (a) both excess heat and He are correlated with time and (b) excess heat could be related to specific physical conditions in the electrolysis cell that promote ingress of atmospheric air
checking atmosphere for He levels does not help (alone) since the nature of many lab environments is that you get sporadic high levels of He which over time average to a level well above the modal value (which is what would typically be tested). However it would be possible to do this experiment well away from any lab that uses He, removing this issue, or to do the experiment under slightly positive pressure from a known He-free source.
The results are at the marginal level which makes such questions relevant.
At the low levels seen here there is the possibility of He outgassing from the electrodes which could again plausibly be linked to ATER electrode activity. I’d hope this could be bounded well below the results.

These observations seem interesting enough that I applaud Abd’s Austin experiment to recheck this: this experiment does come close, if carefully done, to testing a specific prediction. The team there seem to have gone dark (indeed I know nothing about what they are doing). If Jed is correct however their results will be overwhelmingly positive. I’ll await their considered publication with great interest. But, ATM on balance I think it likely they will have a null/inconclusive result. Jed’s point that only 4 out of 100 electrodes actually work is not encouraging and with that low a success rate, unless the working electrode can be reused over multiple experiments, there must be questions of one-off experimental mistake.

JedRothwell
Verified User

10,094
Aug 15th 2017

#384

Quote from maryyugo
No problems accessing the site, individual pages, or downloading papers, for example the Nagel paper under recents.
Thanks for checking.

You would be surprised how often the internet malfunctions and cuts off web sites. It is not as reliable as the telephone network used to be.

THHuxleynew
Verified User

4,707
Aug 15th 2017

#382

Quote
THH: Yet we need every single possible error to be proven wrong before we have a genuine LENR-capable anomaly.

I think you misread what I said, which is identical to what you say.

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHcoldfusionb.pdf

The exact set of parameters you must meet are listed in McKubre’s equation.

The paper you have cited does not close these gaps. While it gives necessary conditions, it does not give sufficient ones in the form of (1) (2) above.

THH

THHuxleynew
Verified User

4,707
Aug 15th 2017

#383
Jed said:
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.

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

I, with Shane, find these observations highly interesting. Unlike Shane I’d add the following analysis:

The specific electrodes work, others don’t is compatible with CCS/ATER, as it is with LENR.

JedRothwell
Verified User

10,094
Aug 15th 2017

#384

Quote from maryyugo
No problems accessing the site, individual pages, or downloading papers, for example the Nagel paper under recents.
Thanks for checking.

You would be surprised how often the internet malfunctions and cuts off web sites. It is not as reliable as the telephone network used to be.

interested observer
Member

2,435
Aug 15th 2017

#390

Quote from AA
What I wrote and what you didn’t address was that it is common for new discoveries that are contrary to conventional wisdom to be disbelieved by the majority.

And what I wrote regarding that observation is that it is irrelevant. This is known as the association fallacy. The fact that some - or even many - new discoveries that are contrary to conventional wisdom and are disbelieved by the majority turn out to be valid says absolutely nothing about whether LENR is valid. There is no linkage. Or are YOU saying that whenever an alleged new discovery is disbelieved by the majority, it MUST be valid?

For somebody who claims to be a scientist, you are extraordinarily illogical in argumentation. You are also highly inclined to attribute positions to your opponents that they don’t hold. You said that I have to show that replications were not valid to prove my point. What point exactly did I make that has to be proven? I didn’t say anything about the validity of any replications. Our discussion relates to the completely nonsensical argument of the form:

People claim that Rossi’s gizmo doesn’t work.
People claimed that the Wright Brothers didn’t really fly.
The Wright brothers really did fly.
Therefore: Rossi’s gizmo works.

That appears to be your argument, which if you are tossing out LOLs, deserves a huge one.

JedRothwell
Verified User

10,094
Aug 15th 2017

#391

Quote from THHuxleynew
He correlated with heat would be expected from atmospheric contamination where (a) both excess heat and He are correlated with time and (b) excess heat could be related to specific physical conditions in the electrolysis cell that promote ingress of atmospheric air

There are no physical conditions in the cell that promote significant ingress, because the background level of helium is the same in blank tests, including deliberate ones with Pd-H and Pd-D that does not work.

The absolute temperature cannot be a factor because the cell is often warmer during a blank run than a run with excess heat.

Virtually no air enters the cell or collection flask. The effluent gas goes through a bubbler to exclude air. If any air entered the flask, it would swamp the background and the helium from cold fusion. The helium level would be totally random, not correlated to heat or anything else.

Miles once illustrated this during a lecture. He was projecting a graph of background helium and helium after a collection period with a cell producing excess heat. The latter was much higher. Quite significant. He moved the laser pointer to the ceiling and said something like, “if this helium were leaking in from the atmosphere, the level would be up there at the sixth floor.” In other words, there is no mechanism that would allow you leak in such minute quantities of helium. You could not do it with any sort of needle valve, for example. The only method would be to let it permeate through glass for a few years. How minute is the amount? If you touch the inside rim of the metal flask, the helium from your fingerprint will swamp the background helium and the helium from the reaction. Miles always wore gloves when handling the flasks.

I copied the configuration schematic into this paper, p. 5:

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJintroducti.pdf

Let me add that various methods are used to check for helium leaks from air, such as looking for argon.

In tritium studies, tritium leaks from laboratory air are ruled out for the opposite reason. In order to leak that much tritium into a cell at a lab like Los Alamos, you would have to increase the atmospheric tritium concentration to such a high level the alarms would go off and the building permanently abandoned, according to Storms.

Quote from THHuxleynew
checking atmosphere for He levels does not help (alone) since the nature of many lab environments is that you get sporadic high levels of He which over time average to a level well above the modal value
No such sporadic changes in background helium were observed in the blank tests. If changes in the lab environment occurred and if they could induce significant variations in the helium collected in the flask, this would have been observed, because these tests were conducted many times over several years.

kevmolenr@gmail.com

Member

846
Aug 16th 2017

#392

Quote from kirkshanahan
Forum members: At this point it is painfully obvious to all that a) I have detailed my CCS/ATER proposal to the nth degree here for all who care to know, b) Jed, Kevin, and others refuse to acknowledge any value to my work,
True. Your work is pretty worthless.

and c) Jed, Kevin, and others support LENR claims unquestioningly,
Horse manure. There’s plenty of real criticism to be applied but when the criticism becomes skeptopathy, it’s more a sign of mental illness than an issue with science.

but normally in an indefensible manner.
Indefensible? I’ve been largely ignoring you, asking you to post on your own thread that the moderators went out of their way to give to you for your pet theory.

So, I am done responding to them.
Oh, thank God.

They don’t want their belief system to be altered,
Same could be said about you or anyone.

and won’t allow the facts to do that.
I’m happy to allow facts to alter my belief systems, but skeptopaths don’t deal in facts.

There is no point is trying to discuss topics or teach them anything. So, I’m done with them.
Good. Best of luck with your theory. Just think, if you’re right, you could have fame and perhaps even fortune.

Well-thought-out questions from others might get a response.
The snarky thing here to say would be that your questions are not well thought out. Oh well, best of luck to you.
Display Less

THHuxleynew
Verified User

4,707
Aug 16th 2017

#393
@kevmo

You show a profound confusion about worth. Kirk’s ideas may be right or wrong or something in between. But, they are important - as the only (that I know) systematic alternative to nuclear reactions that might explain most of the CF classic data. Also, Kirk produces fact-filled and specific arguments for his ideas, and defenses of them against challenge. Those things do not make me convinced by his ideas, but they make them most definitely valuable.

Whereas your contribution to the debate is....

kevmolenr@gmail.com

Member

846
Aug 16th 2017

#394

Quote from THHuxleynew
@kevmo

Whereas your contribution to the debate is....
I was the one who opened this thread, so there’s that. I have no confusion as to Shanahan’s worth. If you think his ridiculous hypothesis explains away all those 153 peer reviewed replications of the Pons-Fleischmann Anomalous Heat Effect then you’re the one exhibiting tremendous confusion. Even Kirk acknowledges his theory doesn’t account for Helium or Tritium or Gamma Rays.

kevmolenr@gmail.com

Member

846
Aug 16th 2017

#395

Quote from interested observer
People claim that Rossi’s gizmo doesn’t work.
People claimed that the Wright Brothers didn’t really fly.
The Wright brothers really did fly.
Therefore: Rossi’s gizmo works.
Taking it from, say Jed’s perspective (whom I disagree with about some of Rossi’s stuff):
Jed claims Rossi’s gizmo doesn’t work
Jed points out that others claimed the Wright brothers didn’t really fly
The Wright brothers really did fly
Jed still says Rossi’s gizmo doesn’t work.

Basically you just posted one series of incredible straw arguments.

LENR claims are that there’s an anomalous event going on. It’s been replicated.
anti-LENR activists don’t like that it’s been replicated so they’re trying to take down the top hundred electrochemists of their day.
It’s pointed out as an analogy that the Wright brothers DID fly but the scientific consensus of their day was that they DIDN’T fly... until 1908. Similar science-by-consensus arguments about germ theory and plate tectonic theory.
The Wright brothers really did fly; germ theory eventually got accepted and so did plate tectonics. The science-by-consensus folks were wrong and slithered back into their caves.
LENR could work or not work and it would have no bearing on what’s going on with Rossi.

THHuxleynew
Verified User

4,707
Aug 16th 2017

#396

Quote from kevmolenr@gmail.com
I was the one who opened this thread, so there’s that. I have no confusion as to Shanahan’s worth. If you think his ridiculous hypothesis explains away all those 153 peer reviewed replications of the Pons-Fleischmann Anomalous Heat Effect then you’re the one exhibiting tremendous confusion. Even Kirk acknowledges his theory doesn’t account for Helium or Tritium or Gamma Rays.

Continuing the conversation about your IMHO profound confusion about worth: you are here showing that you don’t judge things by content, but instead by whether you think they are relevant. I disagree with your judgement of that for the reasons below.

Suppose I accept your propositions here: and I think I do. Shanahan’s CCS/ATER idea indeed does not cover all of the LENR papers, and by definition does not cover He, tritium, weird transmutation, high energy product claims. Why does that make it uninteresting? There is so much heterogeneous LENR literature identifying as LENR things that look anomalous:

Positive enthalpy (half of all calorimetric anomalies)
Positive radioactive product detection (more than half of such anomalies)
Detection of some unexpected stable element at very low concentration (all contamination and many mislabelling anomalies)

Is it expected that the reasons for all these different things are the same? No - the nature of anomalies is that they have varied explanations. If LENR exists, and explains some subset of these observations, it is still highly unlikely that it explains all. Some will be mundane anomalies.

The job of understanding LENR then is made vastly more difficult by these false positives. In fact if LENR exists you can reasonably argue that the lack of clarity over any theory - even a stable phenomenological theory - is because all these things are being lumped together and many are not LENR. No theory can account for all the observations and the correct set is not known.

Shanahan proposes an idea that promises to contribute to the understanding of LENR by identifying (in a testable way) a non-LENR mechanism for some anomalous excess heat observations.Anyone looking for LENR excess heat might be hit by this if they don’t understand it and therefore Kirk’s work is highly relevant, and valuable. True - his work has not been followed very far: the people needed to do this are those with LENR experiments and as he has pointed out historically they have dismissed his ideas without serious consideration, for reasons that those who look more closely at his work do not accept. Rather like the way LENR is viewed by mainstream science, in a microcosm.

Just as mainstream science refutations of LENR which are dismissive and do not engage with all details don’t seem conclusive to those who see LENR as a plausible hypothesis, so the Marwan dismissal of Shanahan (which I have read in detail) does not seem conclusive to me, nor would to many others who read the chain: Shanahan’s papers -> Marwan et al -> Shanahan’s white paper -> (no reply as far as I know).

So another motivation for LENR advocates (if you are that) to engage fully with Shanahan’s work, whether his ideas apply to any experiments are not, is that it will help to persuade skeptics that you are behaving rationally. A more powerful reason, as above, is that if they do apply to any experiments, they help to simplify the mess of observational anomalies seen currently to support LENR will help those looking for replicability and underlying theories - both of which are sorely needed.

interested observer
Member

2,435
Aug 16th 2017

#397
keV: Sorry but I don’t understand your post at all. My posting of the fallacious syllogism was to point out there is no logical connection with the history of the Wright brothers and Rossi or LENR. Yes, popular opinion can be totally wrong about a new invention and has been on many occasions in the past. That observation is a good counterargument to someone who says that LENR isn’t real because most people think it isn’t. I certainly wouldn’t make that statement. It is true that most people don’t think that LENR is real, but that in itself proves nothing. However, some of you here seem to think that the converse is true: the fact that most people don’t think LENR is real proves that it is because (somehow) that is what happened with the Wright brothers. That bizarre deduction is the essence of my syllogism.

Adrian Ashfield

† Deceased Member

473
Aug 16th 2017

#398

Quote from interested observer
It is true that most people don’t think that LENR is real, but that in itself proves nothing. However, some of you here seem to think that the converse is true: the fact that most people don’t think LENR is real proves that it is because (somehow) that is what happened with the Wright brothers. That bizarre deduction is the essence of my syllogism.
I have yet to see one person make that claim.

Just for the record, do you believe:
1. LENR has ever been proven to produce excess heat?
2. Any of Rossi’s E-Cats (including the QX) have ever worked?

JedRothwell
Verified User

10,094
Aug 16th 2017

#399

Quote from Adrian Ashfield
The fact that most people don’t think LENR is real proves that it is because (somehow) that is what happened with the Wright brothers. That bizarre deduction is the essence of my syllogism.

I have yet to see one person make that claim.
Correct. This is a classic strawman argument. That is to say: Interested Observer is refuting an argument that no one makes.

The only argument made regarding the Wrights in this context is that sometimes the majority of scientists are wrong, so be careful not to point to a majority to support your views. To judge the validity of an experimental claim, look at the experiment. Don’t fret about who believes it or what the majority thinks. Science is not a popularity contest.

kevmolenr@gmail.com

Member

846
Aug 16th 2017

#400

Quote from interested observer
However, some of you here seem to think that the converse is true: the fact that most people don’t think LENR is real proves that it is because (somehow) that is what happened with the Wright brothers.
That’s fascinating. Who here has promoted such a premise? Why go to so much effort over what some SEEM to think? I doubt there is anyone who is posting on this thread that thinks it, so it turns out you’re arguing against what no one thinks, no one has said, and that makes it a straw argument. You propped it up as if someone thought it or promoted it and then tried to shoot it down. That is the essence of a straw argument.
kevmolenr@gmail.com

Member

846
Aug 16th 2017

#401

Quote from Adrian Ashfield
I have yet to see one person make that claim.

Just for the record, do you believe:
1. LENR has ever been proven to produce excess heat?
2. Any of Rossi’s E-Cats (including the QX) have ever worked?

For myself, 1: Yes. 2: At one time, yes, then after he posted a few outright lies I followed his “in mercato veritas” approach and there’s nothing in mercato. I first thought that the chances of Rossi hoodwinking the Swedish Skeptics Society in a black box test, Darden in a yearlong test with an independent test reporter, Levi and Focardi and half a dozen other notable scientists, well that was an extremely stretch. But now I just consider it an unlikely stretch.

kevmolenr@gmail.com

Member

846
Aug 16th 2017

#402

Quote from JedRothwell
Correct. This is a classic strawman argument. That is to say: Interested Observer is refuting an argument that no one makes.

If you cannot evaluate a claim yourself, perhaps you should assume the majority is right. That is a weak position. But after all, the majority is usually right, especially about uncontroversial claims, so you will probably be correct.
Dang it, I should have read through the thread before posting because you said almost exactly the same thing I did.

1
interested observer
Member

2,435
Aug 16th 2017

#404
I am happy to hear that nobody actually is making the ridiculous argument that I put forth about the Wright brothers. However, I don’t understand what point you all keep making about them is. Yes, many people were wrong about the Wright brothers and, if it turns out that LENR is the real deal, then many people will have been wrong about that as well. My point with regard to that is: so what?

If I am interpreting Jed and Kev correctly, they are stating that since they and some others are completely convinced that LENR has been adequately proven to exist and since I and others have not studied the literature in great detail and have not found specific objections to each paper, we should consider it proven to exist. Now Jed says that if you can’t evaluate a claim yourself, then perhaps you should assume the majority is right. Of course, the majority considers LENR not to exist. But Jed further asserts that the majority has formed this opinion out of ignorance at best and antipathy at worst. So I guess his advice is to assume that only the people he says to listen to are right.

I guess I might as well answer Adrian’s questions so he can decide whether or not to put me on his shit list. I really don’t know if LENR has been proven to produce excess heat. I find many of the criticisms of the literature to be well-founded but certainly not decisive. I think the existence of LENR - to extent that there is even a well-formed definition of the phenomenon - is still an open question. I realize that this sort of skepticism is not acceptable to anyone here. If you are not a believer, you are a pathological skeptic. There are no maybes allowed for the faithful. But my position is “I don’t know” and if you don’t like that, tough.

As for Rossi, I don’t believe any version of the e-cat is anything more than a fraudulent piece of junk designed to sucker in LENR fans. I thought this within weeks of my first exposure to Rossi’s stuff in 2011 and my convictions have only strengthened over time. My opinions about LENR have nothing to do with that conclusion. I don’t think Rossi’s work ever has had anything to do with LENR and each new version of his gizmo is even less plausibly related to any LENR experiment ever described.

1
JedRothwell
Verified User

10,094
Aug 16th 2017

#406

Quote from kevmolenr@gmail.com
I should have read through the thread before posting because you said almost exactly the same thing I did.
This is an important point, worth repeating. This is a particularly blatant strawman argument. Sometimes, people misunderstand an argument, distort it a little and then post a rebuttal. That would be an accidental strawman argument. In this case, no one made an argument even remotely close to this, so I suspect Interested Observer may realize this is unreasonable.

kevmolenr@gmail.com

Member

846
Aug 16th 2017

#407

Quote from THHuxleynew
you are here showing that you don’t judge things by content, but instead by whether ...they are relevant.

***Well you’re right about that. When someone like Shanahan continues to seagull over a thread with irrelevant stuff, I find it pretty damned useless.

I disagree with your judgement of that for the reasons below.
Suppose I accept your propositions here: and I think I do. Shanahan’s CCS/ATER idea indeed does not cover all of the LENR papers, and by definition does not cover He, tritium, weird transmutation, high energy product claims. Why does that make it uninteresting?
***Because it is irrelevant. Look at the title of this thread. Does Shanahan’s bullshit apply to the title? Not really. Maybe he shaves off a few replications that were close to the noise, but from what I have seen of the counterarguments to his claims, he doesn’t even do that. Let’s say he did. Then how many of those 153 peer reviewed replications does he shave off? Maybe 13? That makes it 140 remaining peer reviewed replications to knock out, and he doesn’t do that, he doesn’t support his theory very well, he doesn’t take it to his own thread like the moderators have suggested.

There is so much heterogeneous LENR literature identifying as LENR things that look anomalous:
Positive enthalpy (half of all calorimetric anomalies)
Positive radioactive product detection (more than half of such anomalies)
Detection of some unexpected stable element at very low concentration (all contamination and many mislabelling anomalies)
Is it expected that the reasons for all these different things are the same? No
***To hear Ed Storms say it, the answer is YES. But like you say, there’s enough anomalous stuff in the LENR literature to have allowed in a few extra anomalies that won’t be explained by whatever theory emerges to push LENR into the daylight.

- the nature of anomalies is that they have varied explanations. If LENR exists, and explains some subset of these observations, it is still highly unlikely that it explains all. Some will be mundane anomalies.
***So if your theory explains 13 out of 153 replications then maybe you should stay on your own thread with your own 13/153 theory and explain it to all comers.

The job of understanding LENR then is made vastly more difficult by these false positives.
***True. The story about Feynman getting the Nobel Prize fits that issue to a T.

When Dr. Feynman came up with his famous theory, he had to throw out a supposition that others had been relying upon but he felt its proof had come up short. ————————————————————————————— Feynman’s own words. I’ll reprint some of his story here, which I found also posted online at http://www.zag.si/~jank/public/misc/joking_feynman.txt The 7 Percent Solution The problem was to find the right laws of beta decay. There appeared to be two particles, which were called a tau and a theta. They seemed to have almost exactly the same mass, but one disintegrated into two pions, and the other into three pions. Not only did they seem to have the same mass, but they also had the same lifetime, which is a funny coincidence. So everybody was concerned about this. .... At that particular time I was not really quite up to things: I was always a little behind. Everybody seemed to be smart, and I didn’t feel I was keeping up. Anyway, I was sharing a room with a guy named Martin Block, an experimenter. And one evening he said to me, “Why are you guys so insistent on this parity rule? Maybe the tau and theta are the same particle. What would be the consequences if the parity rule were wrong?” .... So I got up and said, “I’m asking this question for Martin Block: What would be the consequences if the parity rule was wrong?” Murray Gell-Mann often teased me about this, saying I didn’t have the nerve to ask the question for myself. But that’s not the reason. I thought it might very well be an important idea. .... Finally they get all this stuff into me, and they say, “The situation is so mixed up that even some of the things they’ve established for years are being questioned — such as the beta decay of the neutron is S and T. It’s so messed up. Murray says it might even be V and A.” I jump up from the stool and say, “Then I understand EVVVVVERYTHING!” They thought I was joking. But the thing that I had trouble with at the Rochester meeting — the neutron and proton disintegration: everything fit but that, and if it was V and A instead of S and T, that would fit too. Therefore I had the whole theory! That night I calculated all kinds of things with this theory. The first thing I calculated was the rate of disintegration of the muon and the neutron. They should be connected together, if this theory was right, by a certain relationship, and it was right to 9 percent. That’s pretty close, 9 percent. It should have been more perfect than that, but it was close enough. .... I was very excited, and kept on calculating, and things that fit kept on tumbling out: they fit automatically, without a strain. I had begun to forget about the 9 percent by now, because everything else was coming out right. .... The next morning when I got to work I went to Wapstra, Boehm, and Jensen, and told them, “I’ve got it all worked out. Everything fits.” Christy, who was there, too, said, “What beta-decay constant did you use?” “The one from So-and-So’s book.” “But that’s been found out to be wrong. Recent measurements have shown it’s off by 7 percent.” Then I remember the 9 percent. .... I went out and found the original article on the experiment that said the neutron-proton coupling is T, and I was shocked by something. I remembered reading that article once before (back in the days when I read every article in the Physical Review — it was small enough). And I remembered, when I saw this article again, looking at that curve and thinking, “That doesn’t prove anything!” You see, it depended on one or two points at the very edge of the range of the data, and there’s a principle that a point on the edge of the range of the data — the last point — isn’t very good, because if it was, they’d have another point further along. And I had realized that the whole idea that neutron-proton coupling is T was based on the last point, which wasn’t very good, and therefore it’s not proved. I remember noticing that! And when I became interested in beta decay, directly, I read all these reports by the “beta-decay experts,” which said it’s T. I never looked at the original data; I only read those reports, like a dope. Had I been a good physicist, when I thought of the original idea back at the Rochester Conference I would have immediately looked up “how strong do we know it’s T?” — that would have been the sensible thing to do. I would have recognized right away that I had already noticed it wasn’t satisfactorily proved. Since then I never pay any attention to anything by “experts.” I calculate everything myself. When people said the quark theory was pretty good, I got two Ph.D.s, Finn Ravndal and Mark Kislinger, to go through the whole works with me, just so I could check that the thing was really giving results that fit fairly well, and that it was a significantly good theory. I’ll never make that mistake again, reading the experts’ opinions. Of course, you only live one life, and you make all your mistakes, and learn what not to do, and that’s the end of you. —————————————————————————————

In fact if LENR exists you can reasonably argue that the lack of clarity over any theory - even a stable phenomenological theory - is because all these things are being lumped together and many are not LENR. No theory can account for all the observations and the correct set is not known.
***Yes I agree, but Shanahan’s continual focus on his explanation of a small sliver of experiments doesn’t remove any of that “lumped together” stuff.

Shanahan proposes an idea that promises to contribute to the understanding of LENR by identifying (in a testable way) a non-LENR mechanism for some anomalous excess heat observations.
***Then let him defend his theory on his own thread rather than seagulling on this thread. I don’t think his theory explains anything, but that has no bearing on it. From what I can see, Shanahan’s theory explains away less than 1% of the anomalies, and none of that shaving away contributes to the end game, i.e. none of the results he would shave off are much different than the other results.

Anyone looking for LENR excess heat might be hit by this if they don’t understand it and therefore Kirk’s work is highly relevant, and valuable.
***I really think you attribute far more value to his theory than is warranted. It amounts to a guy who used calorimeters lecturing the top hundred electrochemists of the day on calorimetry.

True - his work has not been followed very far: the people needed to do this are those with LENR experiments and as he has pointed out historically they have dismissed his ideas without serious consideration,
***I can see why.

for reasons that those who look more closely at his work do not accept. Rather like the way LENR is viewed by mainstream science, in a microcosm.
***No, not really. LENR was knocked out of the big science chair because there was hundreds of $billions worth of hot-fusion at stake. Shanahan is dismissed because his theory barely explains 1% of any anomalous results and doesn’t move the dial any further.

Just as mainstream science refutations of LENR which are dismissive and do not engage with all details don’t seem conclusive to those who see LENR as a plausible hypothesis, so the Marwan dismissal of Shanahan (which I have read in detail) does not seem conclusive to me,
***Then take it up on that very special thread set up for Shanahan to discuss his theory. It becomes irrelevant on this thread.

nor would to many others who read the chain: Shanahan’s papers -> Marwan et al -> Shanahan’s white paper -> (no reply as far as I know).
***Best of luck to you and Shanahan on your dedicated thread.

So another motivation for LENR advocates (if you are that) to engage fully with Shanahan’s work, whether his ideas apply to any experiments are not, is that it will help to persuade skeptics that you are behaving rationally.
***Shanahan is not behaving rationally. He has a theory that explains 1% of the anomalous results in those 153 peer reviewed replications and he acts like it explains the entire field away. The rational thing to do is let him explain away on his own thread and let the weight of replications be felt on this thread. By continually bringing his irrelevant hypothesis onto this thread, it pollutes the rational scientific finding that LENR is a well replicated phenomena.

A more powerful reason, as above, is that if they do apply to any experiments, they help to simplify the mess of observational anomalies seen currently to support LENR will help those looking for replicability and underlying theories - both of which are sorely needed.
***Again, it appears you have a highly inflated view of the value of Shanahan’s hypothesis. You neglect the value it generates for skeptopaths, the value of the seagull. When kids try to eat their lunch in the school yard, the seagulls gather, swoop in, make a lot of useless noise, steal tidbits and leave behind their business. That’s the value of a seagull, and Shanahan’s theory has a lot of value to seagulls but the kids in the schoolyard won’t eat after the seagulls have touched the food.

JedRothwell
Verified User

10,094
Aug 16th 2017

#408

Quote from maryyugo
Jed says that now. For more than three years, perhaps four, Jed maintained that the experiments by the Swedes and Levi were credible and that Rossi’s claims were real. He even used the word “incontrovertible” regarding some of the evidence advanced for Rossi claims and he used the phrase “on first principles” for explaining why he thought continued boiling after electrical power shut off proved that the “ottoman” sized ecats worked. Of course, it turned out to be only stored heat and the apparent excess power was, most likely, caused by deliberate misplacement of temperature sensors
I do not think that is likely. I do not know what caused the apparent heat. I do not think Mary Yugo knows either. She has given no evidence of this hypothesis. “Most likely” according to what? Who saw that the temperature sensors were misplaced? How could this have caused the device to be so hot it burned someone long after it was turned off? This claim might be real for all I can tell. For that matter, Rossi’s the results published here might be real for all anyone knows:

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LeviGindication.pdf

As far as I know, neither Yugo nor anyone else has proposed technical reasons why these results may be wrong.

kevmolenr@gmail.com

Member

846
Aug 16th 2017

#409

Quote from maryyugo
The things that we skeptopaths wouldn’t be convinced by anyway except that we would if it were done correctly by credible people.
It’s good to see you count yourself among the skeptopaths. And when you throw out the top tier of electrochemists, the “who’s who of electrochemistry” in one wave of your hand saying you demand results “correctly by credible people”, it is another sign of your agenda. You really do think the top hundred electrochemists of their day were not credible, but that you are.

kevmolenr@gmail.com

Member

846
Aug 16th 2017

#410

Quote from maryyugo
Jed says that now. For more than three years, perhaps four, Jed maintained that the experiments by the Swedes and Levi were credible and that Rossi’s claims were real. He even used the word “incontrovertible” regarding some of the evidence advanced for Rossi claims and he used the phrase “on first principles” for explaining why he thought continued boiling after electrical power shut off proved that the “ottoman” sized ecats worked. Of course, it turned out to be only stored heat and the apparent excess power was, most likely, caused by deliberate misplacement of temperature sensors, a Rossi trademark move. Jed was quite insistent, arrogant and nasty about it at times. Let’s keep the history straight.
Jed says that the Penon report is what turned his perspective. I keep hoping that he’ll publish his own thread with a paragraph by paragraph dismantling of the report. It would appear he has better things to do.

kevmolenr@gmail.com

Member

846
Aug 16th 2017

#411

Quote from maryyugo
Absolutely not. There is no vestige of a chance that Rossi’s garbage assemblies do anything except to fool the lowest denominator victims and marks. I have presented the evidence for this time and again as have others. It’s conclusive.
I see this a lot. You characterize the evidence as conclusive. Jed calls it proof of fraud. IF it was so conclusive and so much proof of fraud then the criminal authorities would have taken that evidence entered onto the docket and locked Rossi up as a con man. But they didn’t. It does not meet the easier legal standard of “preponderance of the evidence” and sits there limply on the criminal legal standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt”. So it is legal proof that Rossi isn’t a fraud, and your evidence isn’t as conclusive as you portray or otherwise the Rossi vs. Darden case would have been a slam dunk.

JedRothwell
Verified User

10,094
Aug 16th 2017

#412

Quote from interested observer
If I am interpreting Jed and Kev correctly, they are stating that since they and some others are completely convinced that LENR has been adequately proven to exist and since I and others have not studied the literature in great detail and have not found specific objections to each paper, we should consider it proven to exist.
Nope. Neither of us said that. This has nothing to do with you. If you, personally, have not read the literature then of course you can have no specific objections, or general objections. You cannot critique cold fusion. You cannot defend it either. Until you read the literature you have no business forming any opinion about it.

The point I was making is not about you, it is about scientific skeptics in general. Other than Morrison and Shanahan, they have not published any papers showing experimental errors in any of the major experiments. Therefore, they have not given any reason to doubt the experiments. They have had nearly 30 years to do this. If they have not found anything by now, I doubt they ever will. There has to a reasonable time limit. We cannot wait decades before declaring that an experiment is right, or we would still not believe something like Faraday’s law or the Second Law.

Quote from interested observer
Now Jed says that if you can’t evaluate a claim yourself, then perhaps you should assume the majority is right.
Yes. That is a weak argument, but better than nothing. It is more a rule of thumb than a scientifically valid argument.

Quote from interested observer
Of course, the majority considers LENR not to exist. But Jed further asserts that the majority has formed this opinion out of ignorance at best and antipathy at worst. So I guess his advice is to assume that only the people he says to listen to are right.
Yes, this is an example where the majority is wrong, so the above rule of thumb fails. As I said, this is a weak argument at best.

There is no doubt the majority opinion is formed out of ignorance. You can easily verify this. Read the literature and then compare it to the majority opinions. You will see that Sci. Am., Wikipedia, the 2004 DoE panel and others are wrong and the authors know nothing about cold fusion. This is not a difficult analysis. It is not debatable. It isn’t as if these people make subtle mistakes in interpretation about things that reasonable people might differ. These people do not have the slightest idea what instruments are used, what is detected, or what is claimed. They resemble Mary Yugo who has no idea what boil-off calorimetry is, or Newton’s Law of Cooling, or the Second Law, or why it is anomalous when a hot body with no chemical or electric energy input remains hot instead of cooling.

Here are two examples of what I mean. A quick look at Sci. Am. by me:

http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?p=294

A detailed, blow-by-blow analysis of the DoD report to Congress by Abd:

http://coldfusioncommunity.net…clear-reactions-research/

kevmolenr@gmail.com

Member

846
Aug 16th 2017

#413

Quote from interested observer
I am happy to hear that nobody actually is making the ridiculous argument that I put forth about the Wright brothers.

I am happy to hear that nobody actually is making the ridiculous argument that I put forth about the Wright brothers.
***Then why did you argue against it? It is a straw argument that YOU put forth.

However, I don’t understand what point you all keep making about them is. Yes, many people were wrong about the Wright brothers and, if it turns out that LENR is the real deal, then many people will have been wrong about that as well. My point with regard to that is: so what?
***Then listen to the scientific evidence, that’s what.

If I am interpreting Jed and Kev correctly,
***No, you are not. The leopard does not change his spots, it would seem.

they are stating that since they and some others are completely convinced that LENR has been adequately proven to exist and since I and others have not studied the literature in great detail and have not found specific objections to each paper, we should consider it proven to exist.
***That is pretty standard scientific protocol, right there. You have to study the literature and you have to find specific objections to each replication if you’re gonna shoot down >150 peer reviewed replications.

Now Jed says that if you can’t evaluate a claim yourself, then perhaps you should assume the majority is right.
***Interesting claim. Are you saying that you can’t evaluate a claim yourself?

Of course, the majority considers LENR not to exist. But Jed further asserts that the majority has formed this opinion out of ignorance at best and antipathy at worst. So I guess his advice is to assume that only the people he says to listen to are right.
*** You “guess” his advice is...? You’re building up yet another straw argument here. Why not just go directly to saying that you are smarter than the top hundred electrochemists of the day and everyone should just listen to you, even though you don’t read the papers and can’t evaluate the claims? See how this straw argument stuff works?

I guess I might as well answer Adrian’s questions so he can decide whether or not to put me on his shit list. I really don’t know if LENR has been proven to produce excess heat.
***You’re the 2nd person to say “I dunno”. If you don’t know, then why don’t you keep reading those replication papers? Basically you folks are proceeding from a fallacy, the argument from silence. You are saying you don’t know... and you proceed as if you do know. You presume that the evidence is silent but it isn’t.

I find many of the criticisms of the literature to be well-founded but certainly not decisive.
***How can you find that? You just said that you don’t know. Rational people would consider 153 peer reviewed replications to be decisive.

I think the existence of LENR - to extent that there is even a well-formed definition of the phenomenon - is still an open question.
***You just said that you don’t know. Now you’re saying that those 153 peer reviewed replications generates an open question? You don’t seem to understand how replication, peer review, and science works. Who the hell are you to say that the “who’s who of electrochemistry” got it wrong when you don’t even read the papers, you proceed from logical fallacies, you don’t know how science works?

I realize that this sort of skepticism is not acceptable to anyone here. If you are not a believer, you are a pathological skeptic.
***False dichotomy, yet another logical fallacy.

There are no maybes allowed for the faithful. But my position is “I don’t know” and if you don’t like that, tough.
***If your position is “I don’t know” then how is it you proceed from that position as if you do know? You are openly using a logical fallacy, the argument from silence.

JedRothwell
Verified User

10,094
Aug 16th 2017

#414

Quote from kevmolenr@gmail.com
IF it was so conclusive and so much proof of fraud then the criminal authorities would have taken that evidence entered onto the docket and locked Rossi up as a con man.
Not necessarily. As I pointed out several times, for 3 reasons:

1. Maybe they will, but they have not gotten around to it yet. The newspapers often report on cases of fraud that are prosecuted years after the crime is committed.

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/article164232522.html

• kevmolenr@gmail.com
Member

846
o Aug 16th 2017
o #415
Quote from JedRothwell
Not necessarily. As I pointed out several times, for 3 reasons:

1. Maybe they will, but they have not gotten around to it yet. The newspapers often report on cases of fraud that are prosecuted years after the crime is committed.
For the time being, Rossi is not in jail. And IH didn’t have enough evidence to slam dunk this case with the lower legal standard of “preponderance of evidence”. So for the time being, the inductive evidence from Rossi vs. Darden is that Rossi is proven not to be a fraud. If he gets arrested for fraud based on this evidence, the inductive case shifts. But every day that goes by strengthens the inductive case (especially since he’s considered a flight risk to Sweden) that he aint a fraud.

2. In Florida alone, there are thousands of fraud cases, many of them for more money than this. Perhaps the police do not have the manpower to pursue this. I wouldn’t know, but billions of dollars have been stolen and thousands of criminals have not been caught.
And as you said, this has been pointed out several times so we’ll go through it again this time. Thousands of fraud cases, averaging about $3M per case which puts Rossi above average with $11m as the nut. But out of those thousands of cases > $10M nut, there is likely to only be 2 or 3 that have the evidence introduced into a court of law under penalty of perjury. If a judge were to see such strong evidence of fraud in her courtroom, she would immediately notify the authorities. So if the evidence was that strong, it would put Rossi at the top of the heap for those poor overworked criminal investigators.

3. I am just speculating, but I suppose the government’s first priority would be to go after people who defraud the government itself. And people who work in the government. Medicare fraud alone comes to billions of dollars. One case in Miami was for a billion dollars, stolen by a government worker!
That sounds like a reasonable speculation to me. But my speculation is that anyone who works so hard at establishing fraud would love to have a bluebird land on his lap with all that juicy evidence already entered into the court docket. So maybe our competing speculations cancel eachother out.

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/article164232522.html
Display Less
o
•
• JedRothwell
Verified User

10,094
o Aug 16th 2017
o #416
Quote from kevmolenr@gmail.com
I think the existence of LENR - to extent that there is even a well-formed definition of the phenomenon - is still an open question.
***You just said that you don’t know. Now you’re saying that those 153 peer reviewed replications generates an open question?
Yes. As I said, a person who has not read the literature and who says he does not know cannot judge this kind of issue. He cannot say it is an “open question” whether there is “a well-formed definition.” He has no basis for any opinion about this, positive or negative. He has no business asserting that cold fusion does exist.

Except, as I said, on the basis of a rule of thumb such as “the majority is often right.” That rule fails in this case, but it often works. It is better than nothing.

Just about everything that I think I know is based on this kind of weak evidence. I read in the newspaper that scientists say X, Y or Z about cancer, or some other subject about which I know next to nothing. “Experts at the WHO say processed meat is carcinogenic.” I assume the reporter got the story straight, and those scientists are right, so I guess maybe processed meat is carcinogenic. How would I know? Who am I to judge?

I could read a few articles in journals and maybe form an idea of how likely it is that eating moderate amounts of processed meat will increase the chances of getting cancer. I might have some doubts about the seriousness or the statistical significance of the findings. (I have no idea whether I actually would in this case — but I have seen what I suspect is iffy epidemiology in other medical research.) However, I would never go one on one with a WHO expert and challenge his conclusions! I wouldn’t think of doing that. It would be extreme hubris.

I am not an expert in cold fusion. But I have read the literature. I have conducted experiments, been to labs, spent a week with Martin Fleischmann, and copy-edited hundreds of boring papers and four books. So I know at least as much as a well-educated chemistry department secretary would know. Now along comes Interested Observer and he, she, or it says:

1. I have not read the literature.
2. I admit frankly I do not know about this subject. (Good on you!)
3. Despite this, I declare categorically it is an “open question” whether there is “a well-formed definition.”

I can give you a well-formed definition in my sleep! Seriously, if you woke me at 3 am and asked me to define cold fusion technically, I could give a 20-minute impromptu lecture describing the technical definition as put forth by Fleischmann, Storms and others, and where they agree and differ.

This person, entity, cerebration or insect horde from Alpha Centauri, or whatever Interested Observer is — this thing about whom we know nothing, who appears to have no qualifications or knowledge — is here disputing this question with me, and by extension with Fleischmann and others. That’s who I got my info from. The entity gives us no technical reasons to back up any of his assertions. He gives no reason why we should take him seriously. This is not how you conduct a technical discussion, and it sure as hell is not how you win one.
1
o

interested observer
Member

2,435
Aug 16th 2017

#418
Gosh Kev, pretty much everything you say to me is in the form of a straw man argument. I make the statement that I can’t really form a conclusion about LENR and you insist that I have formed one. You keep yakking about the holy numbers of 100 top electrochemists and 153 replications. Among other things, how exactly do you define a replication? My understanding of an experimental replication is to use the same setup and same methodology to achieve the same results. Disparate experiments that all show various amounts of “excess heat” under a variety of conditions do not constitute replications.

But all of this is beside the point. I have not concluded that LENR isn’t real despite your insistence that I have. But apparently I am not even entitled to have my doubts. I am evidently not qualified to have doubts. But I am not arguing with your 100 electrochemist heroes. Maybe they are right. But why do I have to sign off on this at all? I am not fighting against LENR or standing in the way of it. I have nothing to do with it one way or another. I hope it is real because anyone with a lick of sense would want it to be real. And I don’t happen to believe that a bunch of plasma physicists rule the world and are preventing powerful corporations and governments around the world from developing the technology. The lack of any progress is the problem.

Perhaps you can somehow comprehend that “I don’t know” means “I don’t know” and not “No”. The quality papers that Jed recommends look to me like very small effects that could well be some sort of artifact. But I am not arguing that they are artifacts. I am saying that I am not convinced. You are saying that I have no right to not be convinced. Once again, it doesn’t matter what I think. I am not trying to dissuade anybody about LENR. Those of you who are convinced that it is proven ought to stop arguing about it and try to figure out how to help the field make progress. If there has been any progress, it must be a secret. I can assure you that stiffling maryyugo will not make a bit of difference. But if you prefer to spend your time prattling about skeptopaths, that is your perogative.

maryyugo

Member

731
Aug 16th 2017

#419
JedRothwell

This is Krivit’s article about the ottoman ecat experiments including comments by Patterson and Ahern. There was also a clear picture somewhere of the misplaced thermocouple but I don’t have a bookmark to it and I can’t take time to find it now.

http://news.newenergytimes.net…uples-appears-deliberate/

Perhaps you missed that discussion when it was current.

JedRothwell
Verified User

10,094
Aug 16th 2017

#420

Quote from maryyugo
Many issues were raised about the paper by Levi et. al.
They were raised, and then answered by the authors. The authors were communicating back then. They revised the paper. I do not know why they stopped communicating later on.

Quote from maryyugo
t was a while back and I don’t recall them all. The hot cat was never the “right experiment” — the three phase power input, the use of a fourth power computation to derive the output and the presence of Rossi at various points in the work.
The 4th power computation is not an issue because they confirmed the temperature with a thermocouple.

(Why they did not do that in the next experiment is a mystery to me.)

Quote from maryyugo
all undermine the credibility of ALL hot cat experiments.
I do not see how a mistake in one experiment, which was not made in a second experiment, can magically undermine the credibility of the second experiment. Would that be quantum mechanical spooky action at a distance?

Quote from maryyugo
So you still believe Rossi’s crappola even now? Wow. Metal stores heat, in case you didn’t know.
Ah, but it does not violate Newton’s law or the second law of thermodynamics. Also, the specific heat of metal is about 10 times smaller than water, so it doesn’t store much.

JedRothwell
Verified User

10,094
Aug 16th 2017

#422

Quote from interested observer
Perhaps you can somehow comprehend that “I don’t know” means “I don’t know” and not “No”.
If you do not know, you should not pontificate. You have made many assertions here that only a person who knows a lot would be qualified to make.

Quote from interested observer
The quality papers that Jed recommends look to me like very small effects that could well be some sort of artifact.
If they look that way to you, you have not understood them. First, because in many cases the effects are large, not small. Second, you cannot say “they could well be some sort of artifact.” That isn’t science. You have to say what artifact they might be. Show evidence. Make your case. Your assertion has to be backed up with as much rigor and proof as the assertions made by the authors of these papers. You do not get a free pass.

A negative opinion does not get a free pass. When you predicate your opinion by saying “I don’t know” or “I have not read this carefully” or “it looks to me . . .” then your opinion is nowhere near as credible as the authors’, because they are world-class experts who spent years studying these issues. They carefully ruled out every plausible artifact, and they listed the ways they did this. I am 100% confident that you cannot find an artifact they did not already rule out. In fact, I am confident that you have no specific artifact in mind. In experimental science, you must be specific or you have no case.

You remind me of politicians who denounce a scientific finding by saying, “I am not a scientist but . . .” That cancels out the rest of their statement. If you are not a scientist, or you have not read the literature carefully, you have no business expressing an opinion.

kevmolenr@gmail.com

Member

846
Aug 16th 2017

#423

Quote from interested observer
Gosh Kev, pretty much everything you say to me is in the form of a straw man argument.
Gosh Kev, pretty much everything you say to me is in the form of a straw man argument.
***I suspect you don’t even know what a straw man argument is.

I make the statement that I can’t really form a conclusion about LENR and you insist that I have formed one.
***I did not insist. I observe. You sure act like someone who has formed a conclusion. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, acts like a duck, it’s probably a duck. If you REALLY are trying to form a position that you can’t form a conclusion about LENR then say that, whenever you put forth an argument. Because you belie your own position whenever you don’t do that.

You keep yakking about the holy numbers of 100 top electrochemists and 153 replications.
***That’s pretty much what this thread is all about. And the skeptopaths keep trying to derail attention to that detail.

Among other things, how exactly do you define a replication?
***I am willing to proceed forth whatever standard definition there is. Let’s presume there’s some American Association for the Advancement of Science definition.

My understanding of an experimental replication is to use the same setup and same methodology to achieve the same results.
***Have you checked your understanding of that against whatever the standard that might exist? My understanding is that when a paper identifies itself as a replication of a prior experiment and it is accepted by the peer review process, it qualifies as a replication.

Disparate experiments that all show various amounts of “excess heat” under a variety of conditions do not constitute replications.
***That there would be a classic “Humpty Dumpty” interpretation of what a replication is.

But all of this is beside the point. I have not concluded that LENR isn’t real despite your insistence that I have.
***You quack like a duck, you walk like a duck, you sound like a duck.

But apparently I am not even entitled to have my doubts. I am evidently not qualified to have doubts.
***Go ahead and express them as doubts. But when you say things like “I did not read the papers” and “to ME, replication means... such & such” and argue from demonstrable fallacies, perhaps you should not expect your doubts to be entertained.

But I am not arguing with your 100 electrochemist heroes. Maybe they are right. But why do I have to sign off on this at all? I am not fighting against LENR or standing in the way of it. I have nothing to do with it one way or another.
***Look through your arguments. Look at who else is arguing the same thing. When you find yourself in a mob surrounded by NAZIs who are fighting against communists, it’s a bit disingenuous to say that you aren’t a NAZI. I know, I know, using that NAZI connotation really gets under the skin of the average skeptopath, so insert some other uniformed group of fascists or whatever suits your fancy.

I hope it is real because anyone with a lick of sense would want it to be real. And I don’t happen to believe that a bunch of plasma physicists rule the world and are preventing powerful corporations and governments around the world from developing the technology. The lack of any progress is the problem.
***It is the plasma physicists who created this problem. They caused the funding for the research in this area to dry up.

Perhaps you can somehow comprehend that “I don’t know” means “I don’t know” and not “No”.
***I don’t know means you don’t know. You shouldn’t proceed forth as if you do know.

The quality papers that Jed recommends look to me like very small effects that could well be some sort of artifact.
***See here, this is where you go way off into the weeds. You acknowledge you haven’t read the papers. You admit to being ignorant of the facts. But you try to characterize the work of the top electrochemists of the day as some sort of artifact. What you need to do is take some kind of class in how to recognize bullshit.

But I am not arguing that they are artifacts. I am saying that I am not convinced. You are saying that I have no right to not be convinced.
***No, I’m saying that when you move forward from the “I Dunno” state, in lockstep with skeptopaths who are questioning the integrity of the top electrochemists of the day, and you don’t read the papers and you use fallacious arguments, maybe you should step back from your lockstepped crowd and learn a few things by reading the papers, understanding solid reasoning, and using standard scientific principles.

Once again, it doesn’t matter what I think.
***I suppose I might actually agree with that.

I am not trying to dissuade anybody about LENR. Those of you who are convinced that it is proven ought to stop arguing about it and try to figure out how to help the field make progress.
***One of those things involves knocking out the kind of ignorance that you have manifested here.

If there has been any progress, it must be a secret. I can assure you that stiffling maryyugo will not make a bit of difference. But if you prefer to spend your time prattling about skeptopaths, that is your perogative.
***You seem to like spending your time showing off your own ignorance and prattling about that, so in a way our prattling cancels eachother out. What stands afterwards is that LENR is a peer reviewed phenomenon replicated by the top electrochemists of the day.

JedRothwell
Verified User

10,094
Aug 16th 2017

#424

Quote from kevmolenr@gmail.com
I make the statement that I can’t really form a conclusion about LENR and you insist that I have formed one.
***I did not insist. I observe. You sure act like someone who has formed a conclusion. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, acts like a duck, it’s probably a duck. If you REALLY are trying to form a position that you can’t form a conclusion about LENR then say that, whenever you put forth an argument.
“I can’t form a conclusion” would automatically nullify whatever he next says.

As I said, that would be like the politician’s get-of-jail-card: “I am not a scientist, but . . .” Hey Senator, if you are not a scientist then please shut up. Also, we see you are not a scientist. No one would mistake you for a scientist.

Interested Observer is saying all kinds of things here which anyone can see are conclusions about LENR, such as:

“The quality papers that Jed recommends look to me like very small effects that could well be some sort of artifact.”

Then, as soon as he says this, he says oh but I am not reaching a conclusion, so ha, ha, you can’t hold me to it! You can’t make me provide evidence for what I just said, because it is not a conclusion.

Those are conclusions! “Small” and “some sort of artifact” are conclusions. What else would they be? Both are wrong, but they are conclusions.

interested observer
Member

2,435
Aug 16th 2017

#425
Ok guys. Apparently your purpose in life is to muster up outrage and vitriol against people who don’t share your viewpoint. What the hell, there is plenty of that going around these days anyway. Since my interest in this whole business is primarily on the human behavior side, it suits me as well as anything. I will try to be stunned by how you really “got me.” I hope hurling insults and arrogant belittling is pleasurable for you. Otherwise, it is sure a waste of whatever talents you may have. Meanwhile, I will continue to “pontificate” when I feel like it. Feel free to ignore me or continue to lecture me on how I am not qualified to say anything. TTFN

Online
Alan Fletcher
Member

718
Aug 16th 2017

#426

Quote from maryyugo
So you still believe Rossi’s crappola even now? Wow. Metal stores heat, in case you didn’t know. So do other substances. Rossi did not allow full inspection of the interior of the massive ottoman ecat.
We actually have quite a lot of information about the contents of the “ottoman” :

1. Mats’ photo showing a) thin walls, 2) fins in most of the top half 3) a likelyhood that there are fins in the bottom half too and that there is a central “wafer”
2. The volume from the time to fill the cavity
3. The volume from the time taken to dump the water

Also, see Bog Higgins’ schematic

It was most certainly not a block of solid metal.

I agree on the thermocouple placement : I disqualified the experiment as “not proven” (subtly different from DIS-proven).
http://lenr.qumbu.com/rossi_ecat_oct11_c.php

ele
Member

381
Aug 16th 2017

#427

Quote from JedRothwell
They were raised, and then answered by the authors. The authors were communicating back then. They revised the paper. I do not know why they stopped communicating later on.
Probably because in the net one is exposed to so many Trolls ....... you can answer Saint Mary of the Unbelievers a hundred times but she from her Holy Grace will keep bashing you so you can repent from your heresy and return to the Church of True Science.

ele
Member

381
Aug 16th 2017

#428

Quote from Alan Fletcher
Also, see Bog Higgins’ schematic
Bob Higgins schematic is quite old and also the photo of Mats Lewan is extremely old !
The photo refers to one early test in Bologna, we can’t know if and how the reactor was changed after,
Note that that test that has given positive results was done using a heat exchanger so to avoid all problems with steam.

Online
Alan Fletcher
Member

718
Aug 16th 2017

#429
This is my main document :
http://lenr.qumbu.com/rossi_ecat_proof_frames_v430.php

Search for “Oct (Self-sustaining) with MAIN unit” and go down to “SPH” (Specific Heat).

The entire cavity would have to be filled with LEAD to prove it Fake. Iron is marginal.

Online
Alan Fletcher
Member

718
Aug 16th 2017

#430

Quote from ele
Bob Higgins schematic is quite old and also the photo of Mats Lewan is extremely old !
OK ... I shall reject all of Einstein’s and Newton’s work because they are “quite old” and “extremely old”.

However, this was the experiment MY was referring to.

Online
Alan Fletcher
Member

718
Aug 16th 2017

#431

Quote from ele
Note that that test that has given positive results was done using a heat exchanger so to avoid all problems with steam.
This is the test that I (and others) disqualified because of the thermocouple placement.

Zeus46
Member

1,271
Aug 16th 2017

#432

Quote from maryyugo
BTW, isobaric volumetric specific heat of aluminum is about half that of water

Meanwhile, on planet earth, it’s only 21% that of water.

kevmolenr@gmail.com

Member

846
Aug 17th 2017

#433

Quote from Alan Fletcher
OK ... I shall reject all of Einstein’s and Newton’s work because they are “quite old” and “extremely old”.
Well, if either of them were to start openly publishing again, I would be extremely wary.

kevmolenr@gmail.com

Member

846
Aug 17th 2017

#434

Quote from interested observer
Ok guys. Apparently your purpose in life is to muster up outrage and vitriol against people who don’t share your viewpoint.
Typical of a skeptopath, you got that wrong as well.

What the hell, there is plenty of that going around these days anyway. Since my interest in this whole business is primarily on the human behavior side, it suits me as well as anything.
Then perhaps you can explain your own behavior on this thread.
kevmolenr@gmail.com

Member

846
Aug 17th 2017

#434

I will try to be stunned by how you really “got me.”
Did we REALLY “get you”? Be careful now because I’m going to phrase this the same way you do: I don’t know.

I hope hurling insults and arrogant belittling is pleasurable for you.
Typical of a skeptopath, you consider correcting your logical fallacies to be “hurling insults” and “arrogant belittling”.

Otherwise, it is sure a waste of whatever talents you may have. Meanwhile, I will continue to “pontificate” when I feel like it.
So you learned nothing.

Feel free to ignore me or continue to lecture me on how I am not qualified to say anything. TTFN
Thanks. We probably would have done that even without your permission, but every little bit helps. Now maybe you can run along, now, and try to learn some scientific principles.
Display Less

Ascoli65
Member

444
Aug 17th 2017

#435
@ Alan Fletcher,

Quote from Alan Fletcher
The entire cavity would have to be filled with LEAD to prove it Fake. Iron is marginal.
Nearly 40 kg of iron (about 5 dm3, less than the volume of the inner box) added to the mass of container and fins, are sufficient to store all the heat necessary to explain the actual behavior of the Ecat test held on October 6, 2011.

See: https://www.lenr-forum.com/for…t/?postID=22374#post22374

kevmolenr@gmail.com

Member

846
Aug 17th 2017

#436

Quote from JedRothwell
Second, you cannot say “they could well be some sort of artifact.” That isn’t science.
Maybe you found MaryYugo’s invisible pink flying unicorn, it is hiding behind “some sort of artifact”. Doh! We shoulda known all along.

THHuxleynew
Verified User

4,707
Aug 17th 2017

#438
“I can’t form a conclusion” would automatically nullify whatever he next says.
As I said, that would be like the politician’s get-of-jail-card: “I am not a scientist, but . . .” Hey Senator, if you are not a scientist then please shut up. Also, we see you are not a scientist. No one would mistake you for a scientist.
Interested Observer is saying all kinds of things here which anyone can see are conclusions about LENR, such as:
“The quality papers that Jed recommends look to me like very small effects that could well be some sort of artifact.”
Then, as soon as he says this, he says oh but I am not reaching a conclusion, so ha, ha, you can’t hold me to it! You can’t make me provide evidence for what I just said, because it is not a conclusion.
Those are conclusions! “Small” and “some sort of artifact” are conclusions. What else would they be? Both are wrong, but they are conclusions.

Human language does not well indicate the subtleties of probabilities of probabilities.

We can agree, I hope, that conclusions can be varied. For example, one might conclude that the evidence was too uncertain to conclude anything. Do you call that a conclusion, or not? It is semantics and not worth arguing about.

Such a skeptic position may be right or wrong, and I agree it could be a cop-out, as all sitting on the fence could be a cop-out. In this case the evidence is so difficult to accumulate - with nothing except a whole collection of anomalies and arguments about whether they could or could not have mundane causes - that sitting on the fence seems to me something many rational people would want to do.

Such a person could reasonably listen to arguments from people who had reached definite conclusions, think them not logically compelling, and say why.

kevmolenr@gmail.com

Member

846
Aug 17th 2017

#439

Quote from THHuxleynew
Human language does not well indicate the subtleties of probabilities of probabilities.
We can agree, I hope, that conclusions can be varied. For example, one might conclude that the evidence was too uncertain to conclude anything. Do you call that a conclusion, or not?
You’re just trying to cling to your skepticism in the face of the evidence that the top 100 electrochemists of their day replicated this LENR thing in >150 peer reviewed papers.

It is semantics and not worth arguing about.
Then why are you arguing about it?

Such a skeptic position may be right or wrong, and I agree it could be a cop-out, as all sitting on the fence could be a cop-out.
Yes.

In this case the evidence is so difficult to accumulate - with nothing except a whole collection of anomalies and arguments about whether they could or could not have mundane causes -
Characterizing the top hundred electrochemists of the day replicating a finding as a “whole collection of anomalies” is just throwing around words trying to cling to your skeptical point of view rather than being rational about it. They looked at this issue and found that it could not have mundane causes, unless you consider superchemical events to be mundane. And Jed pointed out upthread that basically NO ONE has generated a paper that disproves these experiments. The rational thing to do is to accept that this is a replicated phenomenon.

that sitting on the fence seems to me something many rational people would want to do.
No it is not the rational thing to want to do. What has happened is that many skeptics have wrapped their identity around being skeptical and when confronted with rational evidence from the top hundred electrochemists of their day with > 150 replications, there is this desperate need to cling to your former ego’s position because it does not want to admit that it was rationally incorrect.

Such a person could reasonably listen to arguments from people who had reached definite conclusions, think them not logically compelling, and say whY
YOu can say why all day and night, but you have stepped off the rational path. The simple scientific finding is that it is a replicated event, and the arguments against that rational position are falling apart. You like to think of yourself as coming up with logically compelling argumentation but it falls flat in the face of experts who have investigated this phenomena and subjected their experiments to peer review. How rational is it to suppose that the top hundred electrochemists of the day have all committed a huge brain fart? If that is the rational position to hold then it is up to the skeptics to prove the brain fart.
Display Less
Edited once, last by kevmolenr@gmail.com: improving grammar (Aug 17th 2017).
1

JedRothwell
Verified User

10,094
Aug 17th 2017

#440

Quote from Alan Fletcher
OK ... I shall reject all of Einstein’s and Newton’s work because they are “quite old” and “extremely old”.
I’ll see you and raise you by 100 skeptical units. I reject Newton’s work because he believed in alchemy.

JedRothwell
Verified User

10,094
Aug 17th 2017

#441

Quote from THHuxleynew
We can agree, I hope, that conclusions can be varied. For example, one might conclude that the evidence was too uncertain to conclude anything. Do you call that a conclusion, or not? It is semantics and not worth arguing about.
Of course that is a conclusion! What else would it be? It is not “semantics” at all.

A person who thinks that the evidence is too uncertain to reach a technical judgement has reached a definite conclusion. That conclusion being: Not enough information. We cannot judge yet. That is as definite as “surely yes” or “definitely no.”

“Not enough information” is a clear-cut conclusion. It must be supported by evidence just as much as any other conclusion, or it should be ignored. If there is, in fact, enough information, then this conclusion is wrong.

Indeed, it is flat-out wrong. Asserting that we cannot tell whether cold fusion is real or not is like saying no one knew for sure whether nuclear fission was real in 1942, because it was mighty difficult to make sub 1-watt reactor, there was only one reactor in the world, and there were no practical applications such as bombs.

interested observer
Member

2,435
Aug 17th 2017

#442
“If you are not with us, you’re against us!”

“There is only one way to look at this: our way.”

Pretty much the M.O. of every lunatic fringe on the planet. If the shoe fits...

Adrian Ashfield

† Deceased Member

473
Aug 17th 2017

#443

Quote from interested observer
“There is only one way to look at this: our way.”

That does seem to be your position.

I was interested in your position on LENR & Rossi because I hope the matter will be clarified later this year I wanted a handy quote to compare with the facts as they emerged.
My position, as I’ve stated several times. is wait and see. LENR is proven, Rossi’s E-Cats not yet.
From your comments it would seem Rossi was right - it will take commercial operation for you to believe.

Ascoli65
Member

444
Aug 17th 2017

#444
@ maryyugo,

Quote from maryyugo
And to create all new issues with carefully and purposefully misplaced thermocouples. Or one could speculate that it was designed by a moron. I guess you get your choice.
No need to speculate. Announcing the imminent October 6, 2011 test, a privileged source revealed who, since February, thought about the setting, and who subsequently validated it:

Quote
From: http://22passi.blogspot.it/201…l-brian-josephson-il.html

Mi sembra giusto sottolineare che trattasi esattamente del setting sperimentale che Giuseppe Levi, già a febbraio, mi spiegò di avere pensato per i test ufficiali sull’E-Cat programmati all’UniBO, setting in seguito convalidato assieme ai professori dell’Università di Uppsala.

Google translation:
It seems to me right to point out that this is exactly the experimental setting that Giuseppe Levi, already in February, explained to me that he had thought about official E-Cat testings programmed at Unibo, subsequently validated with the professors at Uppsala University.
Display Less

So, the intricate setting of this test is the answer of the academicians to all the critics and suggestions arisen after the first Ecat tests. Guess why.

Now, let’s give a “Look at the BIG PICTURE …”:
- Before the test, the academic boost: Levi > Josephson > CMNS > 22passi > blogosphere;
- After the test, opinion makers at work: “… and you will see this is irrefutable proof” (1).

(1) http://www.mail-archive.com/vo…@eskimo.com/msg52546.html

Wyttenbach
Verified User

3,887
Aug 17th 2017

#445

Quote from Eric Walker
I’m saying I reserve judgment. To my own mind, fusion of deuterium has not been given more than a circumstantial basis, and one that remains open to questions@

Eric Walker : Sono fusion of Deuterium (D2O) produces tons of 4He... Totally verified - still supported by DOD...

interested observer
Member

2,435
Aug 17th 2017

#446

Quote from Adrian Ashfield
I wanted a handy quote to compare with the facts as they emerged

Well, if LENR is “clarified” later this year, you can certainly look at my quote about being undecided and say.... um, what?

But I will try to remember your quote about later this year. I’ve been hearing that sort of thing from believers on an ongoing basis for 6 years. “We’ll have the answer in June... in January... next fall.... real soon.... etc.”

If you want to quote me about anything, it is that I can assure you that next year, Rossi believers (albeit somewhat fewer of them, I suspect) will still be defending his nonsense despite nothing tangible in sight and LENR will be in the same state it has been for decades.

As an aside, I’d like to understand how your “LENR is proven” equates to “Wait and see” while my “I don’t know” equates to “I think it doesn’t exist”. You seem to have a unique understanding of the English language.
Eric Walker
Verified User

3,426
Aug 17th 2017

#449

Quote from Wyttenbach
Eric Walker: Sono fusion of Deuterium (D2O) produces tons of 4He... Totally verified - still supported by DOD...

Sonofusion is not necessarily the same as, and is indeed thought to be quite different from, what is happening in the Pons and Fleischmann experiment. So a conclusion drawn about sonofusion cannot be applied to PdD electrolytic cells without a case being made that they are the same.

2
Ascoli65
Member

444
Aug 17th 2017

#451
@ maryyugo,

Quote from maryyugo
I think I followed Rossi and Levi pretty closely in 2011 and 2012 and I have no idea what that post means. Not even what the topic is. HELP!
The topic is in the comment of yours, that I quoted before. You were speculating on who could have designed the October 6, 2011, test. I gave you the answer in accordance to a post published by a Levi’s friend on the blog “22passi”: “… this is exactly the experimental setting that Giuseppe Levi, already in February, explained to me that he had thought about official E-Cat testings programmed at Unibo …” (Google translation).

Quote
I don’t want to “guess why” — EXPLAIN PLEASE.
As you know, since the first demo in January 2011, many people on internet suggested the testers (I mean the academicians who did the measurements and reported the results) how to setting up a much more significant test. The main suggestion was to regulate the coolant flow rate, in such a way to maximize the delta T, but avoiding any phase change. The above excerpt from “22passi” shows that the testers did never had any intention to follow this simple suggestion. I think there is only one reason for this behavior.

Quote
What does this MEAN please? I don’t know— does being extrasupercryptic somehow help?
I don’t find it so cryptic. Did you read the linked email? Did you see its title?

It’s just an example of what I already told you in another thread (1-2). But you keep on saying: “Misplacement of thermocouples seems to be a trademark Rossi move and is probably how he originally fooled Focardi and Levi with the first ecats.”

Hard to say who fooled who. The trademark of the Ecat affair, as well as of other CF/LENR initiatives, is the combination of academic (or equivalent) authoritative declarations, followed by opinion campaigns carried on especially in the blogosphere. Rossi by his own couldn’t fool anyone. He was not credible since the beginning.

(1) Is there evidence for LENR power generation of 100W for days without input power?
(2) Is there evidence for LENR power generation of 100W for days without input power?