Rothwell retracts his Report on Mizuno’s adiabatic calorimetry

  • Quote

    I regret to report that I must retract the conclusions I reached in my
    paper, "Report on Mizuno’s adiabatic calorimetry." I uploaded a new version
    of the paper with an Appendix A explaining the reasons.


    Already three months ago the analysis of GSVIT engineers demonstrated that calorimetry was absolutely wrong.


    https://gsvit.wordpress.com/20…erformed-on-mizunos-cell/

    JoNP means Journal of Null-Physics (the house of hoax,trickery, junk and psychopathological science).

  • Hurray! Science at work. :thumbsup:


    Not every paper written, report published, measurement taken, by scientist will be without flaws. We all know that. We are perhaps a bit too self conscious about at as LENR is still in question among acolytes of the patho skeptic persuasion, and they will grab any such revelation of flawed result as the final nail in the coffin, as though the coffin - in their mind - needed any more nails to be done.


    It is good that data is scrutinized, and even though the experiments at hand were discounted, it does not mean that all LENR experiments have been discounted - not at all and far from it.


    Mizuno might come out the wiser and device another experiment, that has a more clear cut calorimetry and get good results.


    No worry.

  • in fact the critic is not the same as GSVIT which explain the misunderstanding.


    GSVIT criticized the estimation of pump power transmitted to the fluid. Jed not only disagreed on the value, from the data he had, but also stated that it had no importance.


    The real problem was elsewhere, it was on the management of ambient temperature change. GSVIT overstated that problem, and Jed reanalysed all, and it seems the problem is serious after reanalysis.

  • Really Alain?


    Quote

    "This time constant should be made as large as possible and should be much greater than the period of the fluctuation of the ambient temperature (if present), so that the system acts as a low pass filter and the fluctuations of ambient temperature appear attenuated on the measurement fluid.
    This concept becomes very important whenever the fluctuations in ambient temperature are not negligible compared to the temperature change of the measurement fluid.
    Unfortunately, these concepts do not seem clear to the author and he does not care that the external time constant of the test system is less than 6 hours, or about one quarter of the period of variation of the ambient temperature while, as mentioned above, should always be considerably higher; even more in this case as the fluctuation of the ambient temperature is very high."


    You cannot understand measurement aspects even if here would represent you like an expert (tech-watcher).
    In any case, the calorimetry was wrong, you said many times that it was OK, now you can say what you want in order to justify yourself but final result is: you were wrong.


    This is the fact, accept it and go on.

    JoNP means Journal of Null-Physics (the house of hoax,trickery, junk and psychopathological science).

    The post was edited 3 times, last by Henry ().

  • I reported the position of Jed Rothwell.


    He was right, and I agreed on the facts that the pump hand no impact as it was base line.


    When I see the discussion oevolve an ambient impact, you will notice that I let the door open as Jed did.


    my definition of being right or wrong include what you criticize.
    GSVIT was wrong on the impact of pump on the result and did not accept it.
    Jed see he was wrong on the ambient temperature impact and retracted.


    i relayed the information I obtained and checked the coherence.


    GSVIT for example criticize both the emissivity and the electric measurement on Lugano, which is impossible both. they are not scientific but emotional.
    They are by the way unable to accept they weakness of their claims, the difference between their setup and Mizuno, and unable to say they don't know. They insult (say fraud) without clear evidences, which in itself remove them any scientific credibility.


    They may even be right, like a dead clock. problem is that they are so biased than when they say the sun is in the sky, I will check myself.


    Jed can be wrong, but he is honest. This is why I trust him more when he says he is sure.


    once again he proved it. :thumbup:


    that is science.

  • Quote

    "They insult (say fraud) without clear evidences, which in itself remove them any scientific credibility."


    Jed is honest but you (in addition to be ignorant) are just a professional slanderer.
    You only write on web about conspiracy and fraud theories, these are your better brain production.
    Luckily LENR researchers are not all as you, they are damaged from people like you. :)

    JoNP means Journal of Null-Physics (the house of hoax,trickery, junk and psychopathological science).

    The post was edited 2 times, last by Henry ().

  • Quote

    you should read me more


    Read more? You already write everywhere, lengthy sermons on any blog. :sleeping:
    It's impossible don't meet your mental delirium somewhere. :thumbsup:

    JoNP means Journal of Null-Physics (the house of hoax,trickery, junk and psychopathological science).

  • :huh: Henry,


    What is your aim? You seem so personally invested.


    Alain has an opinion about GSVIT. Anybody who know who they are have an opinion. Big deal.
    Alain is spending some time to keep a watchful eye on this subject. He share and disseminate information.


    What be your contribution in this?


    Seriously. Drop it. It is not contributing to anything worth while at this point.




  • Agree with you

  • Quote

    Anybody who know who they are have an opinion.


    Sure, but:


    Quote

    "They insult (say fraud) without clear evidences..."


    These words are are quite different from a simply "opinion", its purpose is to defame.


    Do you agree that anybody can use these terms?


    Quote

    What is your aim?


    Same question, yours?

    JoNP means Journal of Null-Physics (the house of hoax,trickery, junk and psychopathological science).

  • I seems there is a mix between my position, the position i relayed, and judgement of what is insult.


    I read GSVIt critics, and asked Jed who explained the idea of the baseline having no impact on adiabatic calorimetry. I know enough to agree.
    I did not took position on the pump, except to raise the clear fact that they were comparing different situation, and asserting without any question on their own work.


    I did not even say they were wrong, just that they were making uncertain claims, because setup may be different.


    When someone make hidden accusation of fraud, I consider it is an insult unless there is evidence. in fact it is libeling, which is worst. GSVIT is all the time sending accusation of fraud, not even considering the own weakness of their claims.


    For Lugano they accused of inverted clamps, which in that context is fraud, then exploited with talent MFMP result, forgetting the calibration phase as evidence. They may be competend but their bias is much more than mine. I can rationalize evidences stating that success is possible, and failure incoherent with other evidences, but I don't make evidence disappears.


    Finally an independent weakness of the report was found after discussion with Jed who investigated and retracted.


    It is not the pump, nor any fraud. it is management of ambient temperature and time constant of the calorimeter.
    as soon as I see Jed talking of that I said it was a problem to be confirmed, and yes I continued in saying that pump was not a problem...


    As it happen often, I can support wrong result, but I do it until i have evidence against my position.
    the difference with GSVIT and alike is I admit my errors.


    And I can make the difference between being right because of evidence, and being right just by an erroneous reasoning and luck.


    This is science, not football.
    In science, being right with a wrong reasoning, without evidences, is wrong.

  • Quote

    I seems there is a mix between my position, the position i relayed, and judgement of what is insult.


    Your position seems quite clear, release a long sermon (talking about other things "Lugano", "inverted clamps" ???) and then still accuse of fraud.



    Quote

    ...it is management of ambient temperature and time constant of the calorimeter.


    As said before, they wrote exactly this but three months ago. You still cannot admit it.



    Quote

    This is science, not football.


    Being you not an expert, you should remember this very well and not cheer for faith like a football supporter.

    JoNP means Journal of Null-Physics (the house of hoax,trickery, junk and psychopathological science).

  • :D
    Henry,


    My aim? To have you drop this subject as it does not contribute in any way. You are have some personal beef with Alain, and seem happy to expand that to whomever confronts you.


    Do note that "opinion" does not necessarily mean that what is said is nice, and can seem defaming to the other part, without being so. It is still opinion. Note also that aggression begets aggression. Alain likely to some extent base his opinion on the fact that groups like GSVIT often are quite (and needlessly) aggressive in their remarks in their self imposed quest to separate truths from lies.


    Then, being convinced that they are wrong in some of their assertions it is no stretch to conclude that they are drawing their conclusions based on vague information and that the conclusions are in fact insinuating foul play. In that light, one might ask who is defaming who? Are not GSVIT defaming the scientists they try to debunk using aggressive language? Are you not aiming at defaming Alain in your very actions here?


    Many are the critics to LENR that use this tactic, boiling down to the preset notion that LENR is not real, not a science, blatantly ignoring the massive amount of evidence that is at hand, and anybody that say anything to the contrary are by default either ignorant, deluded of fraudulent.


    I see no defamation in the opinion expressed by Alain. But I do see resentment and anger in your comments. They amount to zero contribution to the debate.

  • I never never accused GSVIT of fraud.


    Just of intellectual dishonesty, clear bias, exaggeration, conspiracy theory and defamation.
    In a way that is not so criminal on internet, except maybe the Defamation.


    GSVIT is one of the most competent group of anti-LENR.
    They do experiments and that is much above average of the usual skeptics.


    What make me emotional is how fro measurement which are probably right and well described, they CONCLUDE.
    They don't even consider that they may be wrong, that they are missing key data.


    More shocking they IGNORE some data that dissent with their claims.
    For example they ignore the calibration data, which I agree cause more puzzle, as no theory either pro- or anti-Lugano seems to work.


    They also do the same about the inverted clamps, ignoring that the scientists did the measurement and filmed all.


    They also refuse to integrate their theories together, and to admit that they are exclusives.



    I agree I am biased, but at least honest.
    When a LENR-Claim is attacked, I accept it is possible, but I ask for positives evidences, and I can oppose other evidences.
    I relay arguments, but I can also cool down my enthusiasm to wait for verification.



    It is very important in that story to see what happened really.
    I agree I defend LENR claims from some attacks, but with arguments.


    Sometime like with GSVIT pump claim, I use argument to prove their claims is not important, and may be false (because of different setup, not because of conspiracy).
    Sometime like with defkalion I ask for evidences, real evidences and not impressions.


    from all I have seen as confirmed error or fraud
    - skeptics have attacked all, being sure all was fraud, claiming it was sure and clear, and finally being 90% wrong
    - LENR experts, like Jed, questioned details on the setup, raised concerns, asked more data, and concluded when more evidence was obtained (see Mizuno and Gamberale).


    The best real skeptic I know is Abd ul-Rahman Lomax, who question every details, is nearly never satisfied, but who question , but don't state until he have positive evidence.


    This is very productive.