[Split] Reconsidering F&P with CCS....

  • Alain, why are the Low Energy NUCLEAR Reactions (re)searchers never trained NUCLEAR physicists?


    As it is they all act more like witch doctors trying to cure cancer by magic spells and healing.

  • Quote

    They were quite certain of the results, and indeed these results were soon replicated by over 100 laboratories worldwide. They were experts in calorimetry.


    F&P's open cell results were subject to the artifacts that you well know, which is why replication led to most of the claimed excess disappearing, with results inside the (much lower) margin of error.


    100 labs worldwide did not find any evidence of inexplicable heat or reaction at the time would have been different.


    I think, as early UFO enthusiasts, you confuse "unexplained" - a fact of life given limited resources to tighten experiments - with "inexplicable except by aliens/supernatural stuff/LENR".

  • Mr. Thomas Clark, you might just read my entire post, including the last sentence. Your perception of "LENRitis" is overshadowed by your own "Pathoskeptitis". Really, do you think you are the only intelligent person on this blog? Why don't you treat everyone with somewhat less of an intellectually superior bias. Thank you.

  • In reply to Jed R.:


    No, F&P drew down the ire of the scientific world because they claimed to have found a way to "infinite energy", but no one could reproduce it except by random chance. When the attempted replicators tried to get more info to do a better job at their replication, they were stonewalled with 'proprietary information' claims. People got hacked off at them over that and many over-reacted, true, but you're not supposed to publish unless you're certain what you report is easily replicated by those 'skilled in the art', especially 'publication by the press'.


    For the record, I believ they found a real effect, it just has nothing to do with nuclear reactions.

  • Thomas Clarke wrote: "F&P's open cell results were subject to the artifacts that you well know, which is why replication led to most of the claimed excess disappearing . . ."


    That is incorrect. There are no examples of that in the peer-reviewed published literature as far as I know. Which papers do you have in mind? What artifacts? An open cell would only cause a problem if recombination were not measured or accounted for. It was measured carefully, and in any case, the excess heat greatly exceeded limits of recombination in many tests.


    "100 labs worldwide did not find any evidence of inexplicable heat or reaction at the time would have been different."


    92 labs replicated by September 1990. F. W. Will, the director of the National Cold Fusion Institute compiled a list, which is here:


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


    180 labs replicated by the mid-1990s. See the list in Storms' first book.

  • "Thomas Clarke wrote: "F&P's open cell results were subject to the artifacts that you well know, which is why replication led to most of the claimed excess disappearing . . .""


    Actually Thomas I don't think hardly anyone ever retracted claims except for a couple of cases. I recall researchers at Georgia Tech did so. Can't recall the others....


    Jed Replied:
    "That is incorrect. There are no examples of that in the peer-reviewed published literature as far as I know. Which papers do you have in mind? What artifacts? An open cell would only cause a problem if recombination were not measured or accounted for. It was measured carefully, and in any case, the excess heat greatly exceeded limits of recombination in many tests."


    "A Systematic Error in Mass Flow Calorimetry Demonstrated", K.L. Shanahan, Thermochimica Acta 387 (2002) 95 - shows an error in Edmund Storms Pt CF work


    Comments on "Thermal behavior of polarized Pd/D electrodes prepared by co-deposition", Kirk L. Shanahan, Thermochimica Acta, 428(1-2), (2005), 207 - shows the claims by Szpack and Fleishmann are unsupportable


    Reply to "Comments on papers by K. Shanahan that propose to explainanomalous heat generated by cold fusion", E. Storms, Thermochim. Acta,2006", Kirk L. Shanahan, Thermochimica Acta, 441 (2006) 210 - shows the flaws in the arguments by Storms used to ignore prior comments


    Comments on “A new look at low-energy nuclear reaction research”, Kirk L. Shanahan, J. of Environ. Monitoring, 12, (2010), 1756-1764 - shows several errors on the part of cold fusioneers


    non-peer reviewed - SRNL-STI-2012-00678, "A Realistic Examination of Cold Fusion Claims 24 Years Later
    A whitepaper on conventional explanations for‘cold fusion’", Kirk L. Shanahan, Oct. 22, 2012


    and lets not forget the papers by W. Brian Clarke (peer reviewed) showing SRI messed up their He analyses....

  • I notice Kirk Shanahan has listed his CF critique papers in a post on this thread (A software programmer for Westinghouse Savannah River Company).


    And in his critisism,


    - Shanahan chooses to ignore the preponderance of reliable scientific evidence for nuclear effects in LENR that has accumulated since 1989.


    - Shanahan applies highly selective criteria to cherry-pick certain experimental data with potential deficiencies which are vulnerable to attack. He uses these as distractions to cast doubt on the entire large body of credible LENR data that lies outside the very limited subset on which he focuses his narrow lens.


    Anyhow, scientists in LENR community has answerred his critique, proven his mistakes and his misunderstandings. This paper was issued in 2010. Part of conclusion:


    "Indeed, peer-reviewed published papers and conference presentations have long disproved Shanahan’s chemical/mechanical suppositions regarding LENR observations. Furthermore, contrary to Shanahan’s assertions, the observed effects are often several orders of magnitude larger than the measurement errors. For example, in a variety of2experiments, the solid-state nuclear track detector background was less than1track/mm whereas the signal exceeded 10,000 tracks/mm2!


    "Excess heat production in Szpak and Mosier-Boss’ electrolytic Pd/D co-deposition system was first measured by Miles and then replicated by Letts. Kitimura and Ahern have both replicated excess heat from Arata and Zhang’s gas-loaded Pd/ZrO2 nanostructures."


    Ref.
    http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/71632

  • Paradignmoia


    MY unwittingly brings up a good point...if MFMP does not produce a kit with COP well above noise, would the science mainstream accept it? Or take notice at all?


    Afterall, there have been others throughout LENR history who have claimed fairly consistent, but small anomalous effects, and the science world responded with a collective yawn. Would a kit with COP 1.15 do any better?


    Maybe had a majority of replicators duplicated FPs early on -before the stigma set in (40 days), with a COP 1.15, the science community would have taken CF serious. Unfortunately, now, after the stink set in,1.15 just isn't going to do it. You could knock the Joshua types upside their heads with such a LENR kit, and they wouldn't even feel it, much less look at it. If it is LENR related, they aren't interested. Their minds are closed...end of discussion.


    Could be wrong, but I think it may take a commercial product to get them to jump onto the 2 axle, 4 wheeled :) LENR band wagon. Fortunately, the business world...unlike the collegiate academic world, has long been friendly to, and on board with LENR. Stigma be damned, if they can make a buck, and do the world good in the process, you bet they are ready to invest...as we have seen plenty evidence of lately.

  • Eric, This is what he says of himself at physics stackexchange:


    "I am a PhD physical chemist (U. Cal-Berkeley, 1984) currently working for the Savannah River National Laboratory in Aiken, SC. Since 1995, I have and currently work in a group supporting our hydrogen isotope separation and purification process in the Tritium Facility of the SRS. SRNL is a DOE-lab and part of the Savannah River Site (SRS), which is a DOE-owned, contractor-operated facility built over 50 years ago as a major part of the nuclear weapons complex. In the past we made plutonium and tritium. As such I work for a contractor company but my salary is traceable to the US DOE.


    Prior work/school experience includes dynamic chemical process modeling, with a brief spin-off into industrial engineering modeling, with a brief spin-off into industrial engineering modeling, analytical laboratory quality control method support (i.e. fixing broken analytical methods - lots of applied statistics), polymer chemistry (esp. DACRON), titanium dioxide chemistry, surface chemistry (school), explosives chemistry, 1H-NMR (undergrad), inelastic electron tunneling spectroscopy (school)."

  • Oystia wrote a lot of wrong stuff that needs correcting…. I will preface his/her comments with “O:”


    O:” I notice Kirk Shanahan has listed his CF critique papers in a post on this thread (A software programmer for Westinghouse Savannah River Company).”


    No…but in my 32 year professional career I have done quite a bit of coding, both in the arena of dynamic chemical process modeling (think SPEEDUP and Aspen Custom Modeler) and statistical process/quality control (I automated a control charting process for analytical laboratories)…so I expect that’s why someone decided I *must* be a programmer…ROFL. (Hint: Try using Google Scholar.)


    WSRC was a consortium that formed to manage what is now known as the Savannah River Site (SRS) in 1989 after DuPont left. That consortium has been replaced two or three times over. I currently am managed by a consortium called “Savannah River Nuclear Solutions”, which can easily change each time DOE rebids the management contract. The SRS is one of two sites that used to make plutonium, enriched uranium, and tritium for the US nuclear weapons program. I actually work in the Savannah River National Laboratory in a group that supports the tritium process. I am a PhD physical chemist, currently the senior chemist that deals with metal hydride materials (like Pd). I’ve been doing that since 1995, which is when I also started looking into CF. I also had 3 years experience at Sandia National Laboratory in the groups that dealt with explosives, so I know a little about that too, which is relevant to the CR-39 issue.


    O:”And in his critisism, - Shanahan chooses to ignore the preponderance of reliable scientific evidence for nuclear effects in LENR that has accumulated since 1989.”


    You might want to try to prove that instead of just shooting off what others in the field have told you. If fact I seriously doubt anyone on this blog has read more than I have. And I folded all of that into my analyses and critiques…


    O:”- Shanahan applies highly selective criteria to cherry-pick certain experimental data with potential deficiencies which are vulnerable to attack. He uses these as distractions to cast doubt on the entire large body of credible LENR data that lies outside the very limited subset on which he focuses his narrow lens.”


    No, I fold _*all*_ of the available data into my analyses. Of course it’s difficult to write comments to every single cold fusion paper ever written, so I settled for responding to some select ones, that’s true. Particularly ones that (a) had actual real world data available (likes Storms’ ICCF9 (or was it ICCF8 ) paper, (b) papers that claim to present an overview of the field (like Marwan and Krivit’s), or (c) denigrate my work in the literature (like the Szpak, Fleischmann, et al 2004 paper or the Storms 2006 one.


    O: “Anyhow, scientists in LENR community has answerred his critique, proven his mistakes and his misunderstandings. This paper was issued in 2010. “


    Really? You think so? Did you actually read my papers and their response? I think the answer to that is “No” or you would realize what a fiasco Hagelstein, McKubre, Storms, et al made.


    O:”Part of conclusion:"Indeed, peer-reviewed published papers and conference presentations have long disproved Shanahan’s chemical/mechanical suppositions regarding LENR observations. Furthermore, contrary to Shanahan’s assertions, the observed effects are often several orders of magnitude larger than the measurement errors. For example, in a variety of2experiments, the solid-state nuclear track detector background was less than1track/mm whereas the signal exceeded 10,000 tracks/mm2!”


    Oh, so many errors, all in one place….


    No one has disproved my thesis on why apparent excess heat signals are artifacts of the data analysis process. Cite one you think does and I’ll either point you to where I addressed that before or do a quick analysis of it now. CFers do however refuse to understand my simple thesis and thus continue to this day to repeat the mistake that can be tracked all the way back to F&P. (This is explicitly for F&P electrolysis cells folks, but the ideas brought out in the study can lead to directed questions in the other types of CF experiments that also go unanswered.)


    CFers also routinely claim their measurement error is equivalent to the baseline noise level of their calorimeters (c. 40 mW). This is just one component of the measurement error and it is probably the least important one. The real error is delineated by the Calibration Constant Shift (CCS) idea, and is normally equivalent to the size of the supposed excess heat signal.


    Of course CR-39 tracks are not milliwatts, so we’ve switched gears here, another typical CFer tactic. The plates that show those levels of tracks were placed in the electrolyte during runs. Plates placed outside the cell show much lower counts. When you look at those plates, you also have to start looking into the way the experiments are run and the literature comments (from CFers) about how easy it is to get lots of tracks from nothing…well, not nothing, but not charged particles like Szpak, et al claim.


    At the 10k+ counts level, there is a side effect of the chemical mechanism I proposed in 2002 that can produce all of those tracks without nuclear particles being there at all…you ought to read and understand my papers.


    O:"Excess heat production in Szpak and Mosier-Boss’ electrolytic Pd/D co-deposition system was first measured by Miles and then replicated by Letts.”


    As I said in my earlier post, there is a real effect at work in F&P cells, but it is not nuclear. But it *does* produce artefactual excess heat signals. So anyone doing F&P-type experiments has a good chance to see this real phenomenon. The problem they have is they keep trying to control this putative nuclear reaction that isn’t there instead of the chemical/physical conditions that would theoretically give the effect. So many times, their control does nothing, but sometimes it appears to do something by coincidence.


    O:“Kitimura and Ahern have both replicated excess heat from Arata and Zhang’s gas-loaded Pd/ZrO2 nanostructures."


    Again, there is real chemistry going on here. I actually wrote a comment on Kitimura’s work showing why it was unlikely that he got what he claimed, and instead got ‘standard’ hydride chemistry, and submitted it to Phys. Letters (PL). It went through the review process, and I got the comments back plus the Kitimura response. However, the reviewer recommended not publishing it because it wasn’t a fit subject for PL and I didn’t have any real data anyway. *But* the subject had already been opened by the first publication *and* while I didn’t need new data to comment on a paper, I actually *did* show a Pd-H isotherm from nanoparticulate Pd on alumina that illustrated spillover.


    But, I said OK, and redid the comment, deleting the data, and resubmitted. I never got an official response from PL, just some words from the editor that he didn’t want to continue the debate in his journal. I protested that too, to no avail. (SRNL-SRI-2009-00616, Comments on “Anomalous effects in charging of Pd Powders with high density hydrogen isotopes”, Kirk L. Shanahan, October, 2009 – check OSTI)


    After that and the experience with the 2010 publication, I gave up on trying to publish in the scientific literature. Just takes too much time for too little return.


    Oh yes…the fiasco. If you had read my 4 journal publications, you would have noted that I clearly label the artifact-causing effect I have mentioned as “non-random” and “systematic”. Yet the 10 authors of the 2010 paper you reference go to great lengths to disprove the “random” Shanahan CCS(H). Look it up on Wikipedia, that’s known as a ‘strawman’ argumentative tactic, and is a known fallacious logic technique. You can’t prove a point with a fallacious technique, but they certainly try to pass it off as if they did (which is also part of the ‘strawman’ approach). Now, these authors are: J. Marwan, M. C. H. McKubre F. L. Tanzella P. L. Hagelstein, M. H. Miles, M. R. Swartz, Edmund Storms, Y. Iwamura, P. A. Mosier-Boss, and L. P. G. Forsley. And they had to resort to wrong logic to attempt to rebut my comments! Sad state of affairs isn’t it.


    Once I saw this, I asked the editor of J. Env. Monitoring if I could write a reply, but he said no. I then asked him if not, wasn’t he going to make these authors correct their clear mistake, but he again said no. So I was again left with no recourse but to get the word out myself. Meanwhile, they all have crowed extensively about how they have ‘answered’ all my criticisms. I think not…


    So no, oystia, no one has ever adequately addressed my comments. That’s primarily because my comments are right and the CFers can't imagine anything but a nuclear reaction.


    (So Eric, do you think I am the same guy?)

  • Quote

    Fortunately, the business world...unlike the collegiate academic world, has long been friendly to, and on board with LENR. Stigma be damned, if they can make a buck, and do the world good in the process, you bet they are ready to invest...as we have seen plenty evidence of lately.


    Business world? You mean like GE, GM or Tesla, for instance? Or Sandia, ORNL or CERN? Or maybe Google and Microsoft or one of the billionaire philanthropic organizations? Uh... no!

  • Some indication of the "Scientific" level of CF critique;


    "To explain the excess heat in these experiments, Shanahan invokes what he calls a Calibration Constant Shift (CCS). This CCS is nothing more than a hypothesis and should be stated as such (CCSH). There is no experimental evidence that it occurs, especially at the level of ±780 mW stated by Shanahan. Furthermore, Shanahan does not specify mechanisms by which a calorimeter thermal


    calibration can change in such a way that, just during the periods of putative excess thermal power production, the calibration constant is different from its initial and final calibrated value. He employs the calibration constant shift hypothesis (CCSH), unquantified, with the logic that if this can happen in one experiment or calorimeter type, then it must be presumed to happen in all. To dispel this notion, the excess heat results obtained using two completely different types of calorimeters will be discussed.


    The excess power measurements done at China Lake used an isoperibolic-type calorimeter. Periodic calibrations over a five-year period showed no significant changes in the heat transfer coefficients for the China Lake calorimeters.5 In addition, the isoperibolic calorimeters used by Miles at the New Hydrogen Energy Laboratory (NHE) in Japan incorporated an automated Joule heat pulse. The calorimeter was calibrated at least once every second day. From this, the coefficients of thermal calibration are deduced by backwards integration fitting of the calorimeter response to this known input thermal power pulse. Calibrations were performed before, after and during the production of excess thermal power. The excess power measurements5 were summarized by the following six conclusions:


    The excess power effect was typically 5 to 10% larger than the input power. The largest excess power effect was 30%


    The excess power in terms of the palladium volume was typically 1 to 5 W/cm3


    Long electrolysis times ranging from 6 to 14 days were required before the onset of the excess power for Pd rod cathodes


    Excess power production required a threshold current density of 100 mA/cm2 or higher


    Overall, only 30% of the experiments produced excess power


    The success ratio in obtaining excess power varied greatly with the source of the Palladium


    It would be nearly impossible to obtain these conclusions if the excess power was due to Shanahan’s random CCSH. Furthermore, SRI obtained very similar conclusions using a totally different type of calorimeter over this same time period ..."

  • Business world? You mean like GE, GM or Tesla, for instance? Or Sandia, ORNL or CERN? Or maybe Google and Microsoft or one of the billionaire philanthropic organizations? Uh... no!



    My gosh MY, where have you been? You are stuck in the old DGT forum days it seems. Your canned responses no different nowadays, as back then. It seems you don't even read new developments closely...if at all, nor fully read others posts.


    In answer to your sarcastic response: Airbus, Shell, Mitsubishi, Toyota, STMicro (sp?), Boeing, NI, ENEL, Elforsk...need more?


    As I said, business has been very open to LENR. One could even say they have embraced it. Not at all fearful of the stigma in doing so. Thank goodness too, as academia sure hasn't. Were it not for them (business), and the few government entities around the world off and on again support of LENR, and the few garage tinkerers, it might have died of neglect long ago.

  • I do not see why such individuals are not banned from lenr-forum. It should be obvious how unpleasant people can be toxic to any community. Does not matter whether the forum aspires to some egalitarian idea of avoiding an echo chamber, because their blatant attempts at FUD are beside the point.


    I pretty much never visit this site because every time I do I constantly run across these same couple people's negative commentary. Just not worth it when I can read the news on sites where the moderation team actually moderates such behavior.

  • I fully agree. Thomas and some others are obviously trolls. I am perfectly sure that they are wrong in some areas. But they are trying to convince about opposite. For me presence of such individuals is very unpleasant. My visitation here is very limited because of this. Community here was much better some time ago.

  • @ilia,


    Where is the end? Do we ban individuals who post threads about impossible scientific clarifications too? Because nearly every scientist don't visit website's that have so much “speculative physics”. And what about “bad” chemistry and childish technical solutions?


    I don't mind the posts of Mary Yugo, Thomas Clarke and Tyy. Mostly I don't read their posts and when I read one, I cannot help to smile (I like Tyy the most because he posts mostly not more than 1 or 2 sentences). The cause of your aversion against those posts are the individuals who don't stop to post replies to the posts of Mary Yugo, Thomas Clarke and Tyy. So it goes on and on… Do you want to ban them too?

  • Thomas and some others are obviously pooping this site with the ambition to have the last answer on every subject. I am perfectly sure that they are wrong in some areas. But they are trying to convince about opposite. For me presence of such individuals is very unpleasant. My visitation here is decreasing because of this. Community here was much better some time ago.

  • I do think that the occasional skeptic comment keeps us in check from time to time for various reasons and they do remind us not to take things for granted. I do also however get a little frustrated when a good discussion topic its overwhelmed by pro versus skeptic discussions and you can no longer find the interesting information.


    Perhaps a good solution is to have a separate, thread dedicated for more general pro versus skeptic discussions on various concepts. This would still capture this important part of the dialogue regarding LENR. Other threads would of course still be open for the occasional on topic Pro or Skeptic point but could concentrate on the factual on topic information.


    That said back to topic these Celani wire experiments are fascinating to me. Are there any previous threads on the similar tests from the past it would be interesting to look back at them?

  • For those won’t don’t know, oystia has clipped part of the famous J. Env. Mon. paper by the 10 authors that summarizes their ‘proof’ that my ‘normal chemistry’ explanation of excess heat is wrong. Most of the problems I alluded to are present in this subsection, so let’s take a quick look.


    First, they make a big deal of adding an “H” to my acronym. Here’s what I said to define that acronym in my 4th paper, which is what the 10 authors are responding to:


    “In 2002, this author published a reanalysis(2) of laboratory data claimed to have shown unequivocal excess heat(3) (or more correctly, power), wherein a previously unrecognized systematic error was demonstrated to have the capacity to explain the observations without invoking a nuclear reaction. This error was termed the ‘calibration constant shift’ (CCS).”


    So, to be explicit, the CCS is a specific type of error, namely a calibration constant shift. It’s not a hypothesis, it is a specific potential error. The idea that it is present in the F&P cell is the hypothesis, which was tested in the 2002 paper by reanalyzing real data assuming no excess heat instead of assuming things that produce an excess heat signal.


    Second, they say that there is “no experimental evidence that it occurs”. That is just misleading. The experimental evidence is in the data, but the data produces different conclusions depending upon which set of assumptions you use to analyze it. Assume you are absolutely correct by assuming a simple lumped linear calibration and you get ‘excess heat’. Assume you have a more complex situation and you get no excess heat but a systematic shift that points to real chemistry/physics. So what do you do then? You go back to the lab with a redesigned experimental setup designed to determine which set of assumptions is correct. You DON’T sit around and use strawmen arguments to avoid doing the work.


    Third, the 10 authors then talk about the level of detail I did or did not present. Bottom line, I presented enough ‘evidence’ to warrant a legitimate consideration of the whole “CCSH” scenario. Everything they say I did not present is ‘left to the reader’ to figure out, and it isn’t hard to do so. And there are responses to each of their concerns that would be obvious if they were giving the alternative I present a fair shake.


    Fourth, they say I apply the “CCSH” unquantified. That makes no sense, the whole 2002 paper was about a quantitative reanalysis of real F&P cell data recorded by E. Storms. Again, they aren’t bothering to understand.


    Fifth, they then say: “with the logic that if this can happen in one experiment or calorimeter type, then it must be presumed to happen in all”. Replace the ‘must’ with ‘should’ and the sentence would be correct. As should be obvious, I can’t force anyone to do anything. But to be called a “good” scientist, you have to do what Feynman has been quoted on, namely, you have to bend over backwards to prove you are wrong. Only by doing that can you convince others your ‘anomalous’ results are legitimate. Up until I published my “CCSH” thesis in 2002, no one realized this problem might exist. It appears to be potentially present in _every_ calorimetric F&P cell study. In principle if the CF researchers were good scientists, they would have all the data in files and notebooks and it would be a trivial effort to check if a CCS could have produced their excess heat signals. If they found, no, it wasn’t possible or no, the signal is too large for that, then progress would have been made. But instead, they invent strawmen arguments to avoid doing that. (Note that they would have to document these negative conclusions with the real data, not just claim the CCS wasn't there.)


    Sixth, they claim that looking at two different calorimeter type will ‘prove’ the CCS is irrelevant. But again they fail to understand. _*All*_ calorimeters are calibrated in use. The idea is that there is a physical/chemical process that turns on and forces the use of a different calibration curve to maintain accuracy. If one doesn’t change the equation, accuracy is lost, and artificial signals result. It doesn’t matter what type of calorimeter you are using, if the physical process occurs (which is a shift in the heat distribution within the closed cell for example) then you need new calibration constants.


    So that is just the first paragraph…the nonsense continues for the rest of the paper, but I doubt people here want a continued blow-by-blow. I will just point out that in 2002 I wrote:


    “This paper delineates a fundamental systemic error possible with regression analysis calibration methodology…”


    In 2005 I wrote: “Uncontrolled steady-state shifts produce a non-random noise component in the studies.”


    In 2006, I actually *plotted* the systematic data in a Figure, and in 2010 I wrote:


    “wherein a previously unrecognized systematic error was demonstrated” and “The CCS is a systematic error” (all quotes from my papers)


    Yet the 10 authors talk about “Shanahan’s random CCSH”. How can one believe anything that these cold fusioneers claim when they can’t even get what they are criticizing right?


    To finish up, the “10” say: “It would be nearly impossible to obtain these conclusions if the excess power was due to Shanahan’s random CCSH.” If I had proposed a _random_ problem, they would probably be right. But I proposed a _systematic_ (i.e. non-random) problem, and all of their evidence that they just cited to prove their random hypothesis wrong fits my systematic CCS proposal perfectly. Thanks for making my point for me “10”!

  • @all:
    <b>We are already internally discussing this problem and how to stop that excessive trolling and disturbers.


    Thank you for your feedback!</b>


    <a href="https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/2731-IMPORTANT-Trolling-and-insulting-users-Forum-rules/?postID=12913#post12913">[IMPORTANT] Trolling and insulting users / Forum rules</a>


    There are a few posters here whose opinions are quite consistent and predictable. Since this site supports various discussions about developments in the LANR research world, specific criticism of particular developments are very useful. Relentless criticism of those who "believe" to one extent or another is, in my opinion, "trolling." The relentless and strident conclusion that all LENR research efforts are either incompetent or fraudulent is not useful. We all know that many people have made that conclusion, and it is not only useful, it is necessary for the correct scientific outcome. It is simply boring and at times insulting to sincere researchers not here to defend themselves, and so some of us, as surrogates do so.


    I, for one remain skeptical (believe it or not M.Y. et. al.) I also believe that continued research in the area is vital, not because it will "pan out", but because if we stop looking for the next breakthrough discovery it will surely never occur.


    If this, or any other blog site was reduced to the "I believe in LENR because it just must be true" vs. "all LENR research is pointless and stupid" it would be a stupid as some of the political crap we all are exposed to. Please consider this: I see far more of the "all LENR research is pointless and stupid" posts than I see "I believe in LENR because it must be so" ones. If you, the moderators can restore a balance in this regard you will have gone a long way toward having a site that focuses un news and ideas regarding LENR research rather than an oh so lame rehash of the conclusions of the already decided.

  • Quote

    In answer to your sarcastic response: Airbus, Shell, Mitsubishi, Toyota, STMicro (sp?), Boeing, NI, ENEL, Elforsk...need more?


    It is typical of believers to minimize the import of their claims. If any of the companies you name really believed that LENR was real, they would spend billions, not millions, on researching and developing it and none are. What have you heard from Elforsk recently? When did you hear Tom Darden confirm that Rossi's claims are real? What are the companies you mention actually doing in LENR research and what results have they obtained? What products are they selling?


    You imagine, Shane, that these companies are active in LENR simply because they are linked to it on some enthusiast web site. It doesn't work that way. Find me just one large company executive, one of the companies you listed for example which is internationally known, who says something like "we are sure LENR is real and generates large amounts of power and we are deeply involved in bringing it to market." I am not talking of niche marketers like Piantelli's company or Celani's or Rossi's. Find me a Shell or Mitsubishi or Toyota exec who says that. Can you? (No you can't because they don't)


    It sounds like you want to make this forum, up to now, open to dissenting views, like Frank Acland's sterile and highly censored forum which nobody on earth takes seriously except the most ardent believers.

  • Quote

    No doubt you have been a true fountain of good advice. And, as expected, you somehow think I am a true believer. What a nincompoop! For years you have shrilly tried to intimidate one and all who either did "believe" in LENR, or was truly on the fence, as I am, and have been. Your intimidation has failed, research continues, and expands, and I happily call you out. You have done ZERO to promote or forward research in this potentially revolutionary area. You have made, and continue to make, every effort to insult, demean and inhibit anyone from making progress or generating any support. You are an obfuscator, a pedantic debater and I would bet a great deal that your career was highlighted by an an endless stream of the banal and boring. Your greatest thrill has probably been on the various LENR blogs, representing "real" science, science with no curiosity, with no sense of adventure, and a dread of the forbidden. You will be as big a failure in your drive to inhibit LENR research as you surely were in any boring and static career you care to use as validation for your leaden dullness. And, truth be told, I could care less what you say henceforth to wet-blanket true scientific explorers because your critiques have no mare value than that of a third grade spelling checker. You lose no matter what becomes of LENR.


    Gee, Gompy. this sounds like what one reads on psychic web sites or UFO sites. They stifle dissent and suppress argument because they know their claims and theories are indefensible. But you didn't present any evidence that you even understand, much less have a valid objection, to my polite suggestion for MFPM to use multiple Celani wires to make their experiment a better one. That's because you don't have any valid arguments against it, do you? So you'd rather ban the argument? Typical.


    BTW, Gomp, it is typical of believers not to know what they don't know. You have no idea what I have accomplished and when or how. Or what my motives are in trying to bring some sense to claims like Rossi's or Defkalion's. Your assumptions about how I and other LENR critics think are wrong, as are many of your other opinions. And you want to fight what you see as abusive posts with an abusive post? Nice.


    So tell me again the technical argument against using ten or more Celani wires to improve the signal to noise ratio (if there even is a signal) in MFPM's experiments?

  • M.Y. Sounds like pure trolling! I do not care how many wires they use, that is not the point. Address me politely. You know my points are valid. It is not a mere opinion that you are pedantic and trapped in a box by the content of your posts. If you had anything interesting or important to do I don't think you'd spend years on a nearly daily basis endlessly debunking what you have failed to debunk. It is in fact you who insult me by trivializing my handle, fail to read and understand my posts and accuse others of fraud and incompetence. If you are so accomplished why are you wasting your time here? No one is convinced to suspend their research. At least they are trying to do something even if it is misguided. You have the simple goal of closing minds and intimidating people with your self professed scholarship. Good luck!

  • Oystla quoted a paper: "To explain the excess heat in these experiments, Shanahan invokes what he calls a Calibration Constant Shift (CCS). This CCS is nothing more than a hypothesis and should be stated as such (CCSH). . . ."


    This is quoted from:


    Marwan, J., et al., A new look at low-energy nuclear reaction (LENR) research: a response to Shanahan. J. Environ. Monit., 2010. 12(9): p. 1765-1770Y


    http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MarwanJanewlookat.pdf


    When you quote a paper, I recommend you include the title and web address.


    Shanahan's response to this and to other critiques are nonsense. His CCS hypothesis is irrational and without a shred of scientific validity. It boils down to: "magic happens when instruments proven to work magically stop working, and then during the hours when they are recalibrated daily, they work again."

  • This is an analysis and disection of Shanahans last post above (Sh.=Shanahan):


    Sh.:"....,by the 10 authors that summarizes their ‘proof’ that my ‘normal chemistry’ explanation of excess heat is wrong."


    Let's first inform that these 10 'authors' are not any average citizens, but recognised and competent scientists where most have been involved in CF research since early days:


    "J. Marwan,*1 M. C. H. McKubre,2 F. L. Tanzella,2 P. L. Hagelstein,3 M. H. Miles,4 M. R. Swartz,5 Edmund Storms,6 Y. Iwamura,7 P. A. Mosier-Boss8 and L. P. G. Forsley "


    1Dr Marwan Chemie, Rudower Chaussee 29, 12489 Berlin, Germany. E-mail: [email protected] berlin.de; Fax: +49 30 6392 2566; Tel: +49 30 6392 2566
    2 SRI International, 333 Ravenswood Ave., Menlo Park, CA, 94025, USA
    3 MIT, 77 Massachusetts Ave., Cambridge, MA 02139, MA, USA


    4 Dixie State College, St. George, UT, 84770, U.S.A
    5 JET Energy Inc., Wellesley, MA, 02481, USA
    6 KivaLabs, Santa Fe, NM
    7 Advanced Technology Research Center, Mitsibishi Heavy Industries, Ltd., 1-8-1, Kanazawa-ku, Yokohama, 236-8515, Japan


    8 SPAWAR Systems Center Pacific, Code 71730, San Diego, CA, 92152, USA 9 JWK International Corp., Annandale, VA, 22003, USA


    Sh.:"First, they make a big deal of adding an “H” to my acronym."


    The ' H' here means "Hypothesis". And no, they don't make a big deal of it, but confirm that - yes - it may be a hypothesis, and then they explain why it's very unlikely. This is how science work. You make a hypothesis and the oponents may evaluate it.


    The scientists makes early on clear that they adress the various critisism from Shanahan since the 90's including "calorimetry, heat after death, elemental transmutation, energetic particle detection using CR-39, and the temporal correlation between heat and helium-4."
    Here we will only discuss calorimetry:


    Sh.:"CCS is a specific type of error, namely a calibration constant shift. It’s not a hypothesis, it is a specific potential error."


    You misunderstand. CCS is a specific type of error yes, but related the the CF experiments, it would be considered a hypothesis that could explain excess heat. And the scientists evaluate and explains why it should be considered not possible (of course nothing is impossible, like the earth being flat and we are all holograms in a 2D world).


    Point being: "He reasons by syllogism from particular examples (often misunderstood) to general conclusions that clearly cannot apply in all of the examples of anomalous heat production observed in a wide variety of experimental configurations involving different kinds of calorimeters, e.g. isoperibolic, Seebeck, and mass flow"


    Sh.:"Second, they say that there is “no experimental evidence that it occurs”. That is just misleading. "


    Really? REALLY?
    "Shanahan does not specify mechanisms by which a calorimeter thermal calibration can change in such a way that, just during the periods of putative excess thermal power production, the calibration constant is different from its initial and final calibrated value. He employs the calibration constant shift hypothesis (CCSH), unquantified, with the logic that if this can happen in one experiment or calorimeter type, then it must be presumed to happen in all. To dispel this notion, the excess heat results obtained using two completely different types of calorimeters will be discussed....."Point being: It would be nearly impossible to obtain these conclusions (excess power effect up to 30%, excess power of 1 to 5 W/cm3 Pd volume, long electrolysis times from 6 to 14 days before the onset of the excess power for Pd rod cathodes, threshold current density of 100 mA/cm2 or higher to achieve excess heat, only 30% of the experiments produced excess power, dependence on source of the palladium) if the excess power was due to Shanahan’s random CCSH. Furthermore, SRI obtained very similar conclusions using a totally different type of calorimeter over this same time period.
    Sh.:"Bottom line, I presented enough ‘evidence’ to warrant a legitimate consideration of the whole “CCSH” scenario."


    And the scientists considered it and proved your hypothesis wrong ( or highly unlikely at best)


    More importantly "The SRI calorimeter was based upon mass flow in which the thermal efficiency reflects the fraction of the total heat removed by convective flow...."
    "A Mass Flow Calorimeter designed with high thermal efficiency, Φ, can operate as a first principles device with no calorimeter specific calibrations. Nevertheless, the calorimeter was periodically calibrated using an internal resistor."


    Sh.:" Again, they aren’t bothering to understand. "


    Shanahan, I believe the ten scientists understood your hypothesis very well. They just found it too light. Get over it.


    Sh.:"Fifth, they then say: “with the logic that if this can happen in one experiment or calorimeter type, then it must be presumed to happen in all”. Replace the ‘must’ with ‘should’ and the sentence would be correct."


    Again you misunderstand, it's very very unlikely that different types of calorimetry would have a common failures. And some commons could just not happen as shown above.


    Sh.: "But to be called a “good” scientist, you have to do what Feynman has been quoted on, namely, you have to bend over backwards to prove you are wrong. "


    Not sure what Feynman quote this refers to, this is excactly what F&P did from the start in1983 until they ran out of money in the mid nineties. Feynman did say something Else also: and this is for all talkers that love to critisize, but don't bother to get their hands dirty and do some real Laboratory research themselves: “All the time you're saying to yourself, 'I could do that, but I won't,' — which is just another way of saying that you can't.”
    ― Richard Feynman, Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!: Adventures of a Curious Character


    Sh.:"It appears to be potentially present in _every_ calorimetric F&P cell study. "


    No, As proven the opposite is rather the answer: "Like Miles of China Lake, the SRI group showed that the rate of heat production is dependent on applied current. However, the SRI group also discovered that heat production correlates with the average D/Pd ratio of the cathode. A similar correlation between these variables and energy production has been observed in every subsequent study done world- wide when such measurements are made. This consistency in the behavior of two independent variables shows that in many cases the anomalous energy is not the result of error in measurement"
    Sh.:"But instead, they invent strawmen arguments to avoid doing that."


    No, there's no strawmen in the paper. Only strong evidence proving their case.


    Sh.:"Sixth, they claim that looking at two different calorimeter type will ‘prove’ the CCS is irrelevant."
    Correct, as explained above.


    Sh.:"....the nonsense continues for the rest of the paper...."


    Why not just say clearly what you think: "they are a lying, incompetent and dissillusioned dreamers living a fantasy, a bunch of wannabe scientists."


    BUT AGAIN: "Since the CCSH has no reason for bias in sign it may equally increase or decrease the measured output and thus excess power. In no case that we are aware of have significant “negative excess” power been observed in calorimetry experiments except in transient departures from the steady state. Unless a reason is given for asymmetry in the hypothesized mechanism (or any mechanism given and quantified at all), then the CCSH logically fails. "


    For more details, ref.
    http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MarwanJanewlookat.pdf


    Also Edmund Storms published and answer to Shanahans rather strange critisism:


    http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEcommentonp.pdf

  • Quote

    It is not a mere opinion that you are pedantic and trapped in a box by the content of your posts. If you had anything interesting or important to do I don't think you'd spend years on a nearly daily basis endlessly debunking what you have failed to debunk.

    Of course it is mere opinion and very misguided opinion at that. I enjoy defrocking frauds and helping investors avoid them and I think it's a very worthwhile and fun way to spend some time. And it doesn't take much time. I type pretty fast :-) I once held some hope for high power LENR but having seen what passes for it, I don't have any anymore.


    Moreover, what you think of me personally is not meaningful and doesn't help your cause. It makes you appear petty and foolish and unable to mount a decent argument in support of your views. The same goes for calls for censorship.


    Quote

    No one is convinced to suspend their research. At least they are trying to do something even if it is misguided. You have the simple goal of closing minds and intimidating people with your self professed scholarship. Good luck!


    But I never tried to convince anyone to *suspend* their research! I am trying to get them to *improve* it. And who are you to claim to know my goals?! As it happens you are entirely wrong about those. Well, thanks for the good luck wishes anyway!