Is it more likely that CCS conditions are met, or LENR is happening, as explanation for FPHE?
The original F&P open cells have known issues (I'm hoping Kirk or somone can provide a reference since I'm too lazy) that meet CCS conditions
Kirk has suggested some mechanisms that meet these conditions and apply to closed cells.
More likely according to what analysis? CCS would produce one effect, apparent anomalous heat. That would leave all the other reported LENR effects unexplained, without even a context that might make them reasonably possible, even if not specifically understood. So even if it were so that somehow CCS were considered, by some analyst to be more likely to explain a narrow understanding of the FPHE, it would not be satisfactory as an overall explanation, just of one effect. So in order to maintain the plausiblity of CCS, Shanahan then invents a series of other "plausible explanations" -- in his estimation -- and the overall construct becomes inordinately complex.
The argument therefore is about the magnitude of the results, and of the (CCS) conditions. This has to be conducted seriously and quantitatively for specific experiments, not using generalisations.
Further, Kirk is not arguing he knows CCS applies. He is arguing that it could apply and it is for those claiming specific results as extraordinary to show it does not. That, Kirk says, has not happened.
The context has shifted. As science moves on, it can easily occur that all the possible objections to some analysis are not considered. For me to decide if CCS has been thoroughly ruled out, for myself, would require quite a lot of work. Why should I undertake this?
Now, if Shanahan were coming up with generally plausible explanations, I might be more motivated. But I do not find his explanations plausible. So far, he's hinted that he has an explanation for the SPAWAR back-side tracks. I know how he has explained this in the past, and it is little short of preposterous.
His concept of unexpected recombination at the cathode, from oxygen bubbles hitting the cathode, requires a process that is not observed at the levels required, to my knowledge. This is the bottom line: Shanahan has not convinced those in a position to do the involved work that his ideas are worth any additional effort. He complains about this, but "the burden of proof is on the claimant." If someone is worried that the reported effects are not real, and they find Shanahan cogent, then, yes, they might consider that the "original claimants," cold fusion researchers, have not met some required level of proof. But Shanahan isn't convincing anyone that matters.
Further, it would be foolish to assume, as Abd does in his arguments, that either CCS applies to all these experiments or it applies to none.
I am not aware that I have assumed that and, in fact, I think I stated that CCS might apply to some experiments. That is not an acceptance that it applies, in fact, to any, but ... calorimetry is difficult and errors abound. This is why, in fact, I call the calorimetry evidence, by itself, "circumstantial." It is what was originally discovered.
The (false) argumnet here is I think that if CCS does not apply to all experiments, then the remainder prove LENR. After LENR is proven to exist in this setup it becomes more likely than CCS for the remainder. i'll call this the "single-headed hydra" argument.
The problem with "single-headed hydra" is the implicit assumption that only one systematic error can lead to FP positives.
That would be foolish. This is a straw man argument.
If CCS does apply to some FPHE experiments the fact that this went unrecognised for many years, and is still not accepted by the LENR community, proves Shanahan's point that systematic errors can be an issue here. In which case a careful experimenter would wonder whether there are other systematic errors. The hydra, here, has a number of heads that is in principle unknown. Chop off one and you don't know whether you have finished the job, though you can hope.
This is the problem: there are an unlimited number of "hydra heads" that can be proposed. How far is it necessary to eliminate all of them. Your analysis, Thomas, claims that Shanahan's work was "unrecognized." No, it was recognized, Storms replied in the journal, and has often referred to it. Rather, CCS has not been accepted as plausible, by many who are expert in calorimetry. And CCS is about their expertise, not about something completely alien (as cold fusion was to nuclear physicists, who probably should have kept their fingers out of the pie, just as Pons and Fleischmann made a mistake using the F word, when they really didn't know what was happening. And, in fact, we still don't know, beyond what I've stated.
It comes back to Ed Storms's remark that I addressed in the link above.
[the is LENR real question] can only be answered with any confidence by comparing the results of many measurements. Analysis of a single measurement has no meaning because the potential for error is too great. We now have many experiments with common agreement about the basic behavior.
The existence of systematic errors and selection bias makes this argument unsound.
. The existence. Thomas, you are stating your interpretation as a fact. Those are default possibilities.
In this case CCS is one example (with strong evidence from Shanahan in at least one case) of a systematic error. To follow Storms above you need to be sure that you know and have cut the head off all systematic (and for isolated less well validated setups individual) errors. You need to note that selection bias will favour experiments with undetected systematic errors, and still find his argument good.
One hydra or many?
One with many tentacles.
Obviously we need to know about what is confirmation bias, called selection bias here, in order to evaluate science in general. However, what's the point here? Unless someone takes up CCS and presents it in a cogent and understandable way, it's going nowhere. I just reread Shanahan's early papers. Nothing stands out as a clear argument. Yes, sometimes, it is necessary to study a paper thoroughly before understanding it. However, what is the motivation to do this? I wrote about, generally, what I know about. I often research a topic and learn about it, but I have limited time. I can't do that with everything.
Why should I take the substantial time required to study Shanahan's claim in detail? He has received response from scientists in journals. He is unhappy about that, complaining about journal editors and how unfair they are.
This is not inspiring. That claim from cold fusion researchers went nowhere, even though, yes, a case could be made for unfair reduction of access to journals. In order to move forward, cold fusion researchers had to use what was available, not complain about what was not available.
--to be continued below--