THHuxleynew
Verified User
4,707
Jul 27th 2017
#142
Quote from JedRothwell
Do not mix up apples and oranges. These are different tallies of different things.
Storms listed 180 labs in Table 2 of his first book. That is the number of labs that replicated excess heat. The number that replicated tritium and other effects are listed in other tables. Some labs replicated both heat and tritium. There were actually more than 180 labs, but Storms did not include them all in his database. 180 is enough to be sure, in any case. Five would be enough, in my opinion.
The number of experimental runs greatly exceeds the number of labs, because some labs run hundreds or thousands of tests, typically in an array.
Not all of these labs published papers in peer-reviewed journals. On the other hand, some published more than one paper. I list most of the peer-reviewed papers that are mainly about heat here:
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJtallyofcol.pdf
This is a tally by D. Britz, not me.
Regarding the “essentially zero replications as proposed by the hyperskeptics” that has no basis in realty. Anyone can go to an academic library at a university and find hundreds of papers describing replications of cold fusion. If you want to argue that every single one of these replications was a mistake, you are arguing that the experimental method of science does not work. If that were true, we humans would still be living in caves. Some number of experiments are likely to be wrong, because people make mistakes. But people do not always make mistakes, day after day, year after year. Nothing would work if they did. When you get enough positive replications, done by a large number of people, the likelihood that every one of them is wrong is roughly comparable to the likelihood that today 1,000 electrochemists will simultaneously lose control of their cars and crash into telephone poles.
Display Less
So for these multiply replicated results the issue is not are they replicable but what do the results tell us?
We have anomalous FPHE, always a small percentage of calibration constants, with CCS/ATER or some other calorimetry-related artifact on the table. For a novel heat source to be more plausible here, the issue is why we never get replicable larger results.
For the film results the issue is various experimental lacunae that can lead to them from other causes. We know they are sensitive to that.
For the tritium results these are all at level comparable with atmospheric He and therefore a complex analysis must be done to determine cause which takes into account all data and experiment selection mechanisms (e.g. how are leaks detected and dealt with in the data analysis).
Each separate set of results has different issues, and in all cases the issues are difficult because the data is marginal. This is unexpected given cold fusion, because the sensitivity of different methods of detection would be expected to be very different. For example, for radiation not to be much more sensitive than heat or tritium detection we need the LENR mechanism to alter reaction pathways from normal to ones that very largely favour stable results and non-gamma-producing reaction paths.
None of that is impossible, because LENR is not understood, nor are hypotheses coherent with other data, and therefore mechanisms can be hypothesised that fit whatever LENR experimental data exists.
But, it means that these replications do not constitute, for the wider scientific community, strong evidence of LENR.
JedRothwell
Verified User
10,094
Jul 27th 2017
#146
Quote from maryyugo
The arguments are that the experiments are “noisy” and the signal is not significantly stronger than the noise and that in almost three (1989-2017) decades, this has not significantly improved.
There are two things wrong with that.
First, it isn’t a bit true. Results from 100 W with no input power are much stronger than, say, 50 mW excess with 4 W of input.
Second, even if it were true, it is not a valid metric for judging an experimental result. Many scientific discoveries remained difficult to reproduce or measure for decades, yet no one denied they are real.
JedRothwell
Verified User
10,094
Jul 27th 2017
#148
Quote from kirkshanahan
The tally developed by Britz was based on what was claimed in the paper he was summarizing, and does not imply any actual validity to the claim.
Actually it was biased against the claims. As I point out in my analysis, several authors stated clearly that their results were positive, but Britz put them down as negative. Despite that, I reported his totals.
But — as always — you are missing the point. If hundreds of researchers could make thousands of mistakes over 20 years, doing what they were trained to do in their own specialty, then science would not work. No experiment would be meaningful. I am not exaggerating when I say that civilization itself would not exist.
Of course individuals can be wrong. Or they can be crackpots, like you, who imagine they know more about this subject than people like Fleischmann and Bockris, or Faraday, for that matter. You are a legend in your own mind. Alas, your claims cannot be tested or falsified, and you have not addressed any of the reasons given by the experts in the Marwan paper showing that you are wrong. But, such considerations never faze a crackpot!
I suggest you write papers showing errors in Einstein’s theories. That is the usual target of deluded crackpots like you.
1
JedRothwell
Verified User
10,094
Jul 27th 2017
#149
Quote from THHuxleynew
For the tritium results these are all at level comparable with atmospheric He and therefore a complex analysis must be done to determine cause which takes into account all data and experiment selection mechanisms (e.g. how are leaks detected and dealt with in the data analysis).
This must be a mistake. Tritium results have nothing to do with atmospheric helium. In any case:
Tritium typically ranges from 50 times background to 10E14 times background.
Helium is sometimes lower than atmospheric background. So low, in fact, that it cannot be from a leak or it would be random. In other cases it is higher, for two reasons. Either because it was produced at high rates and it climbed above background, or because the cell was initially filled with enough helium to make it higher than atmospheric background.
There is no selection bias in most studies. All of the results, including negative ones, are listed in the reports. Especially F. Will’s tritium studies, where they went to a lot of trouble running many deliberate blanks.
JedRothwell
Verified User
10,094
Jul 27th 2017
#153
Quote from kirkshanahan
If you will cite a reference that I can look at, I’ll let you know why this is likely wrong.
Give me a break. You know damn well what I am talking about. I am not going to keep giving you and Yugo the same information time after time, just to have you ignore it.
Hint: see my video and accompanying documentation. Look for it yourself.
Member
846
Jul 27th 2017
#155
Quote from kirkshanahan
The easiest way to clarify the discussion is to start talking about ‘control’ instead of ‘replication’.
You have your own thread to discuss your own ridiculous theory. The easiest way to clarify the discussion is to keep you on your thread and let real scientific discussions move apace here. That is one of the stated functions of moderators on this panel. I hope to see them doing what they say they do, because you have already derailed this thread once.
JedRothwell
Verified User
10,094
Jul 27th 2017
#156
Quote from maryyugo
Want to point me to that link again please?
Why the hell should I tell you the same thing again and again and again? You will never read it.
As I said, see the video.
Member
846
Jul 27th 2017
#157
Quote from kirkshanahan
I don’t think I’ll buy it.
You sure have a lot to say about a paper you didn’t read.
Notably missing from this 2007 paper is any mention of my work (from 2002, 2005, 2006).
And rightfully so, because your work has been discredited in the field. You have your own thread for pushing your discredited theory, you should stay on that thread.
Member
846
Jul 27th 2017
#158
Quote from THHuxleynew
None of that is impossible, because LENR is not understood, nor are hypotheses coherent with other data, and therefore mechanisms can be hypothesised that fit whatever LENR experimental data exists.
But, it means that these replications do not constitute, for the wider scientific community, strong evidence of LENR.
This is nonsense. The best example is High Temperature Superconductivity. We still don’t have a valid accepted theory as to why it takes place but the empirical results are accepted.
There was no entrenched self-interested group of scientists in place when HTS results started to be generated, which was right around the time LENR results started to be generated. But there was an entrenched self-interested group of Hot-Fusion scientists in place who knew that LENR would knock them off their pedestal so they rallied against it, often unethically. This POLITICAL activity knocked out the funding for LENR research and it has all but dried up.
Member
846
Jul 27th 2017
#160
Quote from interested observer
There is a strange usage of the term “replication” around here. ....
Jed’s constant refrain that it would take a boatload of money and two years for even the surviving masters of the field to produce results suggests that people cannot even replicate their own work, much less anyone else’s.
I suppose you don’t even see the irony in your own remarks. Scientists do not replicate their own work, so yeah, there really is a strange usage of the term “replication” around here. So if an effect has been replicated 153 times in peer reviewed journals (many of whom were the top scientists in the field of electrochemistry) , is that not enough for you?
Member
846
Jul 27th 2017
#162
Quote from kirkshanahan
Note that this is prior to my CCS publication, so this paper will NOT consider the CCS at all.....
Show me where I’m wrong here folks….
I’ll show you. Your ridiculous discredited theory has its own thread on this forum, so you should be posting your refrains on that thread rather than deliberately derailing this thread.
interested observer
Member
2,435
Jul 27th 2017
#163
@kevetc. So what exactly do you mean when you say that the effect has been replicated 153 times. Try to contain your spittle and answer calmly, if you are capable of such behavior.
1
Member
846
Jul 27th 2017
#164
Quote from interested observer
Apparently there are three options regarding LENR literature:
1) If you don’t read it,
You mean, like Shanahan said about JT He’s paper?
2) If you read it and criticize it, you are a crackpot.
You neglect the case, like Shanahan, where he didn’t read it but still criticizes it.
Display Less
Member
846
Jul 27th 2017
#165
Quote from interested observer
@kevetc. So what exactly do you mean when you say that the effect has been replicated 153 times. Try to contain your spittle and answer calmly, if you are capable of such behavior.
Read the thread and in particular, the Tally paper that Jed and I both linked to. If someone comments on a thread without reading it, is that worthy of spittle? You tell me.
Member
846
Jul 27th 2017
#172
Quote from maryyugo
It’s not that the *effect* has to be replicated (by 153 different methods). It’s that an exact experiment has to be replicated including materials and methods and error analysis (thanks, KS). And it helps to pick the very best yielding experiment as your choice of what to duplicate/replicate. That’s why I am after Jed to provide the one or a few BEST tests, not hundreds or thousands which non-enthusiasts have not the time to review.
Seems like standard MY obfuscations that Jed has called you out on. When a bunch of data is presented to you that refutes your position, you say “too much to read”. And when it gets pared down you act as if it’s not surrounded by all the other data.
The PREPONDERANCE of the evidence of >150 replications is strong. You may be familiar with calorimeters but you are nowhere near the top of the elctrochemistry field as these scientists were. I think you hide behind such things.
Member
846
Jul 27th 2017
#173
Quote from kirkshanahan
That’s not a technical basis, that’s a personal basis. Please define your technical basis.
You have your own “technical basis” thread where such discussions should take place. Have those discussions over there. Your goal here is to once again derail this thread.
interested observer
Member
2,435
Jul 27th 2017
#174
Kev: no, none of this is worthy of spittle, at least among sensible people. If you can’t answer a simple question without ranting about what I have read or not read, then it is a YOU problem, not a ME problem. I thought my question was quite simple.
I have repeatedly stated that I am pretty open-minded about LENR in general, but every single one of you guys who champion it act like lawyers who drown their opponents in useless paper in an effort to avoid getting to the meat of the matter. I kind of wonder why you guys argue with skeptics at all. Clearly, you aren’t actually trying to convince us of anything. Your purpose seems to be just to vent about other people not seeing the world the way you do. Well, it’s a (relatively) free blog. So knock yourself out.
2
THHuxleynew
Verified User
4,707
Jul 27th 2017
#176
Quote from JedRothwell
This must be a mistake. Tritium results have nothing to do with atmospheric helium. In any case:
Yes, I’m sorry, I meant the He results.
I have not looked much at the tritium results.
Member
846
Jul 27th 2017
#177
Quote from interested observer
Kev: no, none of this is worthy of spittle, at least among sensible people.
So, commenting on a thread when you haven’t read the thread isn’t worthy of spittle. Sensible people READ THE THREAD. I see you don’t count yourself among sensible people.
If you can’t answer a simple question without ranting about what I have read or not read, then it is a YOU problem, not a ME problem. I thought my question was quite simple.
Read the posts right near your posts, and all around it. Understand the context. You are commenting on a thread without reading it, right in between a crackpot and a notorious skeptopath.
I have repeatedly stated that I am pretty open-minded about LENR in general, but every single one of you guys who champion it act like lawyers who drown their opponents in useless paper in an effort to avoid getting to the meat of the matter.
153 replications IS VERY MUCH the meat of the matter. And so is 14,700 experiments which means that these replications were done multiple times. But to your point, there is a greek word that we get the word “apologetics” from. It comes from “apo” which means “away” and “logos” which is “word”. It is “a word away from” which in greek times meant a word away from critics, who would drown out what people had to say in the public square. When it was determined that the person had something worth hearing, they would conduct a trial so the guy could give his “apology”, his “word away from” the critics. So what you have just done is to criticize the structure and format of this forum, trying to blame us for not having a “word away from”.
I kind of wonder why you guys argue with skeptics at all. Clearly, you aren’t actually trying to convince us of anything.
There is a certain healthy skepticism and then there is hyperskpeticism. I don’t try to convince hyperskeptics of anything. But 153 replications by the leading electrochemists of the day is something that a regular skeptic kinda acknowledges as compelling, while the skeptopaths engage in the behavior that you are obliquely criticizing.
Your purpose seems to be just to vent about other people not seeing the world the way you do. Well, it’s a (relatively) free blog. So knock yourself out.
That is not my purpose. In starting this thread my purpose is to get to the starting point for a healthy skeptic (not for a skeptopath or a crackpot, though). That starting point is >150 replications, >14,000 experiments, >180 labs, and perhaps some other compelling evidence. But LENR is a very difficult field, just ask the MFMP guys.
Display Less
Member
846
Jul 27th 2017
#178
Quote from kirkshanahan
So post your response over there if it’s so important to you. What is your technical basis for claiming my ‘theory’ is discredited?
Post your responses over there if they’re important to you. That is your “technical basis” thread, set up by the moderators, just for you.
Zeus46
Member
1,271
Jul 28th 2017
#184
Quote from maryyugo
“Please give him the link Jed! Everyone deserves a chance to redeem themselves...”
That is a pompous, inane and asinine remark
So... have you read those slides that you politely asked Dr Celani for yet?
JedRothwell
Verified User
10,094
Jul 28th 2017
#185
Quote from interested observer
1) If you don’t read it, you are worthless scum (unless you embrace it sight unseen.)
2) If you read it and criticize it, you are a crackpot.
3) If you accept it as the gospel according to Jed, you are golden.
1. If you do not read it, you have no business critiquing or discussing it. It is extremely unscientific to blather about experiments you know nothing about, and if you do not read, you do not know. That is clear from the confusion and the errors in messages here from people who have not read the literature.
2. If you read it and criticize it, join the club. There are thousands of papers and many of them are duds, as I have pointed out countless time.
3. No one could “accept” all of the literature because it is so contradictory. Much of it is wrong, as I said. This is normal for science at this stage in its development. See:
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJlessonsfro.pdf
2
The Real Roger Barker
Member
17
Jul 28th 2017
#186
Quote from maryyugo
That is a pompous, inane and asinine remark (note to admins: I am addressing the remark, not the person)
Mary, kindly leave such talk for other places.
axil
Verified User
1,717
Jul 28th 2017
#187
Quote from interested observer
Boy are LENR supporters adverse to defending their positions or even elucidating them. Ask any question and you are told to go read a bunch of papers. How about if you guys explain to us woefully ignorant people what you find so compelling in a paper and why it should be taken seriously. If you can’t do that, then your own belief is based on blind faith. And skip the BS about spoon feeding. That is just a bogus way to say “I can’t produce a cogent argument.”
However, if that is outside of the bounds of what should be going on here, then what is this website for? We have ECW where you can spend your time declaring the great victory that has already occurred for LENR and how it is going to be used in lawnmowers, helicopters and dishwashers starting next week. I thought this was a place for serious discussion, not cheerleading.
http://journals.plos.org/ploso…69895#pone.0169895.ref007
This is Holmlid’s newest peer reviewed paper on chemically induced nuclear reactions.
You can go through the paper and develop questions and If I can answer them then I will, but if I can’t then once we have formulated the question meticulously then we can ask Holmlid directly for clarification. I am excited to interact in the exploration of such an exciting subject.
Member
846
Aug 10th 2017
#188
Louis Reed writes:
Rossi vs. Darden aftermath discussions
JedRothwell wrote: That was a tally by Britz, not me. It was made in the mid to late 1980s.
What on earth are you talking about? You can’t tally replications before the experiment being replicated has been performed.
I was referring to a paper dated 2009, entitled “Tally of Cold Fusion Papers”, for which you (Jed Rothwell) are listed as the only author. Britz’s database is one of the sources, but so is your lenr-canr database. In that paper, there is a topic “Positive, peer-reviewed excess heat papers culled from both databases”, which is presumably a superset of refereed replications of P&F. The description says “The titles are culled from both [databases]”, so it was you doing the tallying, not Britz, even if you used his database. And the complete list of 153 papers is given in an appendix, and it includes a paper by Arata in 2008, so it clearly post-dates Storms’ table 2, published in 2004, which you claimed represents 180 “highly reputable university and government labs” that replicated P&F.
Furthermore, according to your own paper, the list of 153 refereed papers represents only 51 different affiliations, and not all of those are universities or government labs, since they include e.g. BlackLight Power, Toyota’s IMRA, and Swartz’s JET Energy.
Quote Not all of the 180 institutions published papers in the peer-reviewed literature.
Yes, that’s what I argued, and that’s what doesn’t make sense. A highly reputable university or government lab that claims replication of cold fusion would not be reputable if it didn’t publish.
Quote There were 180 institutions in Table 2. I counted them long ago.
You may have counted them, but I don’t believe you got to 180:
1. There are only about 180 entries, and Miles accounts for 9 of them, Zhang and Arata another 9, Eagleton and Bush for 7. There are at least 7 other authors (or author groups) with 5 or more entries, and 28 others with 2 to 5. Now some entries may represent more than one affiliation, but there is no way to make up for the multiple entries from many institutions. This is obvious when you consider the following...
2. All but about 45 of the authors listed in Storms table are accounted for in your list of principal authors responsible for the excess heat papers you tallied. The overlap is probably even stronger since Storms lists first author (and 2nd if there are only 2), and not necessarily principal author. And your list corresponds to 51 affiliations. So, that means the remaining 45 authors would have to account for 129 additional affiliations.
So, it’s clear from your own writing that 180 affiliations is not justifiable, let alone 180 highly reputable university and government institutions.
Such a cavalier misrepresentation of the contents of your own paper kind of destroys your credibility with respect to the rest of the cold fusion literature. Of course, in the Trump era, dishonesty seems to win a loyal following.
Member
846
Aug 10th 2017
#189
Quote from Louis Reed
Instead, the number of groups actively investigating cold fusion now is a small fraction of 180, which means most of those labs have abandoned the field, many without publishing, and for a phenomenon with the importance of cold fusion, that is inconceivable unless the scientists came to realize the effect was not real.
Kevmo: No, the funding dried up and scientists moved on to other projects where they could get paid.
Funding from respectable sources (like DOE) dried up because the claims did not withstand scrutiny. The claims did not fail to persuade the world because funding dried up.
No, even the 2004 DOE review suggested further funding but everyone knew that wouldn’t happen due to the politics surrounding cold fusion.
Indeed, funding did not dry up. Storms estimates $500M has been spent on the field.
I favor funding something like $1 for every megajoule produced.
P&F got something like $50M from Toyota, about 500 times what they claimed was needed to make the claim in the first place. EPRI funded McKubre, and governments in India, Italy, and Japan continued to fund cold fusion for a long time.
Cold Fusion is 25 ORDERS of MAGNITUDE better bang for the buck. -—————————————————————————— I need to update these figures. I realized I have been comparing OverUnity Apples to UnderUnity Oranges. Up until this week, Controlled Hot Fusion (CHF) experiments haven’t even broken overunity, let alone ignition. Nuclear fusion hits energy milestone http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/nuclear-fusion-hits-energy-milestone-1.2534140 “The final reaction took place in a tiny “hot spot” about half the width of a human hair over about a ten thousandth of a millionth of a second. It released 17.3 kilojoules – almost double the amount absorbed by the fuel.” look again at the two side by side: cold fusion 2 * 3600 seconds average * 1/2* 300 Mjoules (Max) * 14,700 replications / $300k average = 105840 sec*MjouleSamples/$ Hot fusion 0.5 seconds*10^-9 average * 1/2* 17.3KK joules (max) * 20 replications / $2 Billion average = 0.0000000000000000003 sec*MjouleSamples/$ That is now 25 ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE more bang for the buck. On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 4:35 PM, Kevin O’Malley wrote: It does not make sense to compare AVErage to MAXimum, anyways, because it depends upon having access to so much data that one can take the average of it. So I’m going to revise this aspect of the Bang4TheBuck calculation into 1/2 the maximum. One half of 300MJ is 150MJ. One half of 6MJ is 3MJ. Until we hear otherwise and need to revise it, shaving off an order of magnitude here or there. That doesn’t change the fact that LENR is 12 orders of magnitude more bang for the buck than hot fusion. look at the two side by side: cold fusion 2 * 3600 seconds average * 300 Mjoules (Max) * 14,700 replications / $300k average = 105840 sec*MjouleSamples/$ Hot fusion 0.5 seconds average * 6 Mjoules (max) * 20 replications / $2 Billion average = 0.00000003 sec*MjouleSamples/$ That is now 14 ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE more bang for the buck. On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 8:04 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Kevin O’Malley wrote: Controlled Hot-Fusion has generated more energy for longer sustained periods. Until a few years ago the PPPL held the world record. 10 MW for about 0.6 s. (6 MJ). I think some other Tokamak topped that by a wide margin, but I am not sure. ***The average cold fusion experiment generates several hundred megajoules for several hours and costs maybe $300k. No, the average experiment generates a megajoule or two at most. Only a few have generated 10 to 300 MJ. - Jed
Moreover, the incredible potential of cold fusion, were it real, has attracted private funding from the likes of Sidney Kimmel, and lately Bill Gates (allegedly), Larry Page, and Darden and co. The truth is, it is far easier to attract funds in cold fusion (or hydrinos) than in most fields considered legitimate in mainstream science. The likes of Godes, Dardik, and Rossi would have no chance with peer reviewed funding agencies, and all have attracted millions from private investment.
It is simply not the case. Almost all the cold fusion research has been privately funded, all the while the hot fusion guys have been fraudulently taking the lion’s share of research funds.
No, the statement stands: It is inconceivable that reputable institutes would abandon a field like cold fusion unless the scientists believed the likelihood that the phenomenon was real was vanishingly small.
It is utterly conceivable and it has happened. IF you look into cold fusion, your career will suffer.
I wrote: Surely, if this claim of 180 (or 90) reputable university labs having replicated cold fusion held water, there would have been no need for the formation of the MFMP whose first aim is to identify an experiment that can be replicated by university labs.
Most of the replications involved excess heat. It’s unfortunate that hot fusion guys had so little experience in calorimetry and electrochemistry but were so incredibly arrogant, but they managed to squash the research efforts, even when they had positive results that they unethically covered up.
So, I repeat, if 180 reputable institutes had replicated in a credible way, MFMP would be superfluous.
I have had my own frustrations with MFMP. They had Gamma rays 4 years ago and just blithely went off and did other things.
I don’t even know who the top 100 electrochemists are, but if you provide a list, and they all claim cold fusion is real, I’ll consider it.
That is Jed’s claim. I’m sure he’ll look at those 153 peer reviewed papers and point out that most of the top electrochemists are represented.
But you’re probably right. I base my evaluation of the field on the quality of the published claims, and they fail to persuade.
Sometimes I think maybe 20 of those 153 peer reviewed replications were wrong. That’s still more than a hundred replications. You wanna be persuaded? Call up MIT and ask why they fraudulently chose to hide their positive results.
But if I were to base my view of the field on authority, I would put more weight on the thousands of top nuclear physicists who are all but certain it’s bunk, than on 100 unnamed electrochemists.
As I posted above, cold fusion is 25 orders of magnitude more bang for the buck than hot fusion. Hot fusion guys don’t regularly do electrolysis, but electrochemists do.
Display Less
1
Member
846
Aug 10th 2017
#191
Quote from kirkshanahan
Kev wrote: “Call up MIT and ask why they fraudulently chose to hide their positive results.”
They didn’t. (Please don’t bring up the 1999 Infinite Energy - Gene Mallove report on this. ....
That was a case of fraud, which some of the people around here as so acutely attuned to. Naturally when the fraud comes from the skeptopaths, suddenly the requirements for proving fraud are sky high.
Yes, in LENR, the only time we’ve seen a verified fraud was from MIT when they fraudulently changed their results that were actually positive. A report by Dr. Eugene Mallove explains how MIT falsified tests of Pons and Fleishmann back in 1989 in order to squash cold fusion. They wanted to maintain their lucrative hot fusion research grants. This fraud by MIT is partly responsible for setting back cold fusion research over the past 25 years.
http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/mitcfreport.pdf
Member
846
Aug 10th 2017
#193
Quote from kirkshanahan
You really can’t read can you Kev. I ask you to not bring up the Mallove report because ...
You can’t read either, can you? It was proven that MIT lied about their positive results but you keep coming back for more and more, crackpot that you are. There’s a difference between not being able to read and choosing not to answer a crackpot on his own terms.
JedRothwell
Verified User
10,094
Aug 10th 2017
#194
Quote from kevmolenr@gmail.com
That was a tally by Britz, not me. It was made in the mid to late 1980s.
What on earth are you talking about? You can’t tally replications before the experiment being replicated has been performed.
Obviously, I meant to write “late 1990s.” Please do pretend you have found a significant error when anyone can see it was typo. Surely you do not think I believe in time travel.
Quote from kevmolenr@gmail.com
In that paper, there is a topic “Positive, peer-reviewed excess heat papers culled from both databases”, which is presumably a superset of refereed replications of P&F. The description says “The titles are culled from both [databases]”, so it was you doing the tallying, not Britz,
Good catch. It was from both.
I counted 180 institutions somewhere. Probably my own database, since it is easier to count things with an EndNote file than by hand.
Member
846
Aug 10th 2017
#197
Quote from kirkshanahan
, I prepared a detailed response based on the referenced document (http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/mitcfreport.pdf ).
....
Reading the document, it is clear Mallove has an axe to grind, and he tries to use the data manipulation to put a sharp edge on his beliefs. Unfortunately, it really just dulls it.
So what we have in this forum is Kevin spouting standard CF propaganda without the ability to defend his position, and then immediately descending into ad hominem attack. Typical true believer behavior.
Display Less
Uhh, what we have here is that you posted your rebuttal and Mallove is dead
On April 20, 2012, the Norwich Bulletin stated that: “An ongoingmurder trial came to an abrupt halt Friday when Chad Schaffer, of Norwich, decided to accept an offer of 16 years in prison, pleading guilty to the lesser charge of first-degree manslaughter in the 2004 beating death of Eugene Mallove.”
Eugene Mallove - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Mallove
so he can no longer answer your nonsense. But it’s good to know where you posted your stuff so that anyone interested in what you have to say can go over there and be fascinated by it.
Member
846
Aug 10th 2017
#198
Quote from maryyugo
That’a way to avoid answering the question... so once more... no verified fraud hey? So again, what did you think of Defkalion?
https://matslew.wordpress.com/2014/05/12/defkalion-demo-proven-not-to-be-reliable/
No, it’s a way of expressing that I suspect your post is probably going to be moved to the junkyard thread. If you want me to answer and have confidence it will stay up, you can post it on the Cold Fusion DISQUS site.
https://disqus.com/home/channel/coldfusion/
Member
846
Aug 10th 2017
#199
Quote from JedRothwell
I counted 180 institutions somewhere. Probably my own database, since it is easier to count things with an EndNote file than by hand.
Actually, it was Louis Reed who wrote that. He seems to be whittling down your 180 institutions number, and I’d like to know what that gets whittled down to. He did a similar thing to the 153 peer reviewed replications number. I just want to know what an ordinary scientest would accept as the number of peer reviewed replications and how many labs...
JedRothwell
Verified User
10,094
Aug 11th 2017
#200
Quote from kevmolenr@gmail.com
I just want to know what an ordinary scientest would accept as the number of peer reviewed replications and how many labs...
What does it matter? If this were treated rationally, like any other experiment, five replications at places like Los Alamos, China Lake and BARC would convince everyone. There would be no argument. Debating whether it has been replicated at 180 labs or only 90 is absurd. Either number is far greater than any rational scientist would demand for proof. It is like arguing whether you should spend $100 million repairing your Toyota Corolla transmission, or only $52 million.
Member
846
Aug 11th 2017
#201
Quote from JedRothwell
What does it matter? If this were treated rationally, like any other experiment, five replications at places like Los Alamos, China Lake and BARC would convince everyone. There would be no argument. Debating whether it has been replicated at 180 labs or only 90 is absurd. Either number is far greater than any rational scientist would demand for proof. It is like arguing whether you should spend $100 million repairing your Toyota Corolla transmission, or only $52 million.
I agree, but when I go on elsewhere and quote 53 peer reviewed replications, 180 labs, 14,700 replication experiments I want it to be a relatively hardened figure. Yes I know it means repairing the Toyota for $52M but if you settle on $52M and reasonable skeptics settle on $52M then I don’t have to go through this again and again. This is my third time trying to get at a secure number.
Member
846
Aug 11th 2017
#204
Quote from THHuxleynew
keV @mods
As one example of behavior that is troll-like I note this argument. It is a rhetorical device with no information content (other than the death of Mallove) and no relevance to the issue. To see its absurdity pick any dead physicist holding ideas now considered wrong - or equally a dead devil-worshipper holding objectionable ideas now thought to be wrong. Holding to this argument, all these people would equally deserve to be believed because they have no ability to reply, and ones belief system must therefore be hopelessly overloaded.
That’s troll like, but arguing against the “who’s who of electrochemistry” in their replications is not considered troll like? Alice has truly stepped through the looking glass.
JedRothwell
Verified User
10,094
Aug 11th 2017
#209
Quote from maryyugo
Are we at the “appeal to authority” fallacy yet, Jed?
Nope. Not as long as the people we are talking about really are experts in a discipline relevant to the problem. If you cite experts in plasma physics and say that their cold fusion experiments prove the effect does not exist, that would be a fallacious appeal to authority, because they do not know how to do electrochemistry, as you see from their papers. Or, if you were to cite the opinions of electrochemists regarding the ITER project, that would be a fallacious appeal to authority.
It is not complicated. Is the person you cite a recognized authority in a field relevant to the discussion? In cold fusion that would be an expert in electrochemistry, calorimetry, tritium or helium detection, for example. If so, you have not made a logical fallacy.
Arguing against the who’s who of electrochemistry is as troll-like as a troll can be. To take some similar hot-button examples, it is like claiming that climatologists have no business expressing opinions on global warming, or doctors know nothing about obesity and we should defer to the latest fad diet advocate instead.
3
JedRothwell
Verified User
10,094
Aug 11th 2017
#210
Quote from JedRothwell
Or, if you were to cite the opinions of electrochemists regarding the ITER project, that would be a fallacious appeal to authority.
That is not to suggest electrochemists should express no opinions about ITER. It just means their opinions are not privileged. Electrochemists do not deserve extra respect or deference when it comes to ITER. They may deserve somewhat more respect than, say, people who have no scientific or engineering background. But I don’t suppose they know more about ITER than biologists, civil engineers, or semiconductor experts.
Of course all arguments must be considered on their own merits. But, if you are not an expert, and you have difficulty understanding a technical subject, I think you should defer to experts until you have a good reason to think they are mistaken. For example, it it is clear that Mary Yugo does not understand the boil-off calorimetry in this paper by Fleischmann:
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmancalorimetra.pdf
Fleischmann did understand this, in great detail, and he was an expert in calorimetry. So, it would not be a fallacious appeal for Yugo to say, “even though I personally don’t understand this, I am going to assume it is correct because Fleischmann was an expert in this field, and there are no published papers by other experts citing errors in this work.”
Of course, Yugo would never say that. On the contrary, the gist of her argument is often: “anything I do not understand or I have not bothered to read must be wrong.” That is kind of a reverse appeal to authority. It is an appeal to ignorance. It is saying that people who know nothing and who cannot be bothered to learn anything are inherently more believable than world-class experts and Fellows of the Royal Society.
1
Member
846
Aug 12th 2017
#211
Quote from kirkshanahan
Listing a “who’s who” *without* judging the quality and relevance of their relevant work is the logical tactic known as ‘call to authority’.
When it’s the top hundred or so experts in some particular field, it is not a logical fallacy to rely on their authority, because they have some authority in their field.
Now, if it were the top 100 experts in a field saying that it’s bogus IN THEIR FIELD, that’s different. The situation we had was a few experts in nuclear hot fusion who were dependent upon guvmint grants for their living, they were saying that those top hundred experts in the OTHER FIELD had got it wrong. It is not a stretch to suggest that people who regularly use electrochemistry and calorimetry in their line of work have more authority than people who rarely if EVER use calorimetry in their line of work.
2
Member
846
Aug 12th 2017
#212
Quote from maryyugo
It was essentially rhetorical, Kev. In point of fact, based on your unpleasant style and your previous writing, I don’t give a _ _ _ _ what you think.
Of course not. Arguing points of view and supporting one’s views is what forums should be about. Are we at the “appeal to authority” fallacy yet, Jed?
In point of fact, you are one of the most unpleasant trolls on the internet, you’ve been banned from Vortex and probably other sites so I don’t care what you think for the most part. But you serve as a good pasquinade. And sure enough, you jump right over the line of rationality in your next sentence where your own supposed authority is lined up against the top hundred experts in electrochemistry. You are not among those top hundred experts in electrochemistry, even if you know a thing or two about calorimetry, but your stuff doesn’t even come remotely close. Go on and keep arguing that irrational point of view, it works for me.
Member
846
Aug 12th 2017
#213
Quote from JedRothwell
Gee, golly, gosh. Again and again, is it? Well, you could try doing it yourself. What’s stopping you? Most of the data is at LENR-CANR.org and in Ed’s book. You should read the book if you are seriously interested in this subject. If you are so anxious to pin down the number, do your own homework.
It is almost as if you expect me to spoon feed you the information.
I myself find this whole discussion silly, and inconsequential. Once the number of replications exceeds 5 or 10, it makes no difference how many there are. 90, 180, or 20,000 would be the same. I wrote the Tally paper at the request of a researcher. I do not know why he wanted the information, but it wasn’t hard for me to assemble the report using my EndNote relational database, so I did it. It is not important.
I have read Ed’s book, etc. So calm down. I don’t expect you to spoonfeed me. You wrote the tally and it got untied by a skeptopath so I would like to know your response. Where does the rational line get drawn? You say it makes no difference, but it does... to a skeptopath. If we ever get a skeptopath to accept that there are dozens of replications, that is a rational line drawn. I have seen it done before, and the skeptopath went back into hiding as a result.
You fed us the information, so now that skeptopaths are refusing to eat I would like to know where that line gets drawn for true and rational skeptics. For me personally, I have read enough papers to know that this effect has been replicated far more than 153 times. But I’m no authority on this subject. Your tally of peer reviewed replications is the closest thing we have to an authority on the subject. Asking you for your response when someone questions your tally isn’t even remotely asking to be spoonfed. Maybe you should add some more bran to your diet.
Member
846
Aug 12th 2017
#214
Quote from JedRothwell
Arguing against the who’s who of electrochemistry is as troll-like as a troll can be.
I suppose now it’s time for the supposed experts on this particular forum to weigh in on whether or not this is as troll-like as a troll can be — those supposed experts would be the moderators on this forum. My prediction is the sound of crickets or maybe a post about me saying they’re not at my beck and call, something like that, but not directly addressing the issue at hand.