Let's not turn this thread into a discussion of interested observer. He's free to make whatever points he wishes, and if he does something that seems "psuedosketpical," the point can be addressed on its merits rather than making this into a conversation about him/her.
The Playground
-
-
IMO not - the pathoskeptics should be only deleted as fast as possible. Zero tolerance is the only tactics, which actually works with them.
They provide zero arguments, they're illiterate about subject which they're arguing and the informational value of their posts is zero.
-
In my experience the discussing with these people has absolutely no meaning - their banning from disruption of informative threads is the only option, if you want to keep on topic discussion. Which you apparently don't bother to have here.
To the contrary. I want you to stop detracting from this thread by turning it into one about trolls and banning people, etc. Please leave moderation to the mods.
-
Well, if denying the statement that all LENR claims are correct makes me a pathological skeptic, then sign me up.
I am certainly skeptical about LENR in general but Eric's comment "There are a few claims that have stood the test of time, seem to have been replicated and merit further investigation" is not something I would argue about. That is a reasonable position to hold and defend.
On the other hand, Zephir's statement would qualify as whatever the polar opposite of pathological skepticism would be called. Judging by his defense of the RT superconductor claim, I guess his operating principle is that everything is assumed true until proven false. That is certainly one way to avoid adhering to mainstream opinion; I will give him that.
But we all digress. He and I can agree to wildly disagree.
-
Moved the discussion that was in the superconductivity thread into the playground.
-
QuoteI guess his operating principle is that everything is assumed true until proven false. That is certainly one way to avoid adhering to mainstream
opinion; I will give him that.Nope, this the strategy, how to avoid ignorance for future. You and Eric Walker are implying, that many LENR claims were already disproved.
Could you bring some, at least one example of it?
-
There was a claim by Pons and Fleischmann that they were seeing the dd fusion, as evidenced by the neutron branch in the usual branching ratios, d(d,3He)n and d(d,t)p, where neutrons were interacting with water and giving off a characteristic gamma photon that they thought they were picking up with their health dosimeter. Their neutron claims were subsequently and credibly discredited.
But this thread is about superconductivity [post since moved out of the thread], and not "pathoskeptics" or the discrediting of LENR claims. Let's start a new thread or take the discussion to the playground if it continues to be of interest.
-
One of the most common logical fallacies: argumentum ad ignorantiam, also known as appeal to ignorance, which asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proved false.
-
Quote
There was a claim by Pons and Fleischmann that they were seeing the usual dd fusion branching ratios, d(d,3He)n and d(d,t)p, because of neutrons interacting with water and giving off a characteristic gamma photon that they thought they were picking up with their health dosimeter. Their neutron claims were subsequently and credibly discredited.
This is a just a very confused misinterpretation of famous pathoskeptics argument against cold fusion, which you turned on its head. Pons and Fleischmann originally reported in 1989 that their chemical cells had produced excess heat, neutrons, and tritium. Their interpretation was that deuterium nuclei were fusing to produce 4He. The branching ratios in this process are known: 50% n+3He, 50% p+3H, and 10^-6 4He+gamma. The pathoskeptics argued, that if the claimed excess heat had been produced by fusion, then the experimenters would have been killed by the neutrons coming from the 50% of the decays that proceeded by neutron emission.
The truth remains, that both tritium, both production of helium is routinely observed during palladium electrolysis. The cold fusion doesn't adhere on the classical branching ratios for heat formation - it actually usually doesn't release neutrons at all.
-
QuoteThere was a claim by Pons and Fleischmann that they were seeing the usual dd fusion branching ratios, d(d,3He)n and d(d,t)p, because of neutrons interacting with water and giving off a characteristic gamma photon that they thought they were picking up with their health dosimeter. Their neutron claims were subsequently and credibly discredited.
This is a just a very confused misinterpretation of famous pathoskeptics argument against cold fusion, which you turned on its head. Pons and Fleischmann originally reported in 1989 that their chemical cells had produced excess heat, neutrons, and tritium. Their interpretation was that deuterium nuclei were fusing to produce 4He. The branching ratios in this process are known: 50% n+3He, 50% p+3H, and 10^-6 4He+gamma. The pathoskeptics argued, that if the claimed excess heat had been produced by fusion, then the experimenters would have been killed by the neutrons coming from the 50% of the decays that proceeded by neutron emission.
The truth remains, that both tritium, both production of helium is routinely observed during palladium electrolysis. The cold fusion doesn't adhere on the classical branching ratios for heat formation - it actually usually doesn't release neutrons at all. If you would use the patoskeptics arguments, then indeed not only many cold fusion related claims would fail - but most of them get failed already.
-
Pons and Fleischmann's neutron claims were definitely discredited. On this point you will find the agreement of most serious practitioners in the LENR field. Their health dosimeter was inadequate to the task, and they did not have sufficient expertise to operate it and interpret its results. This is not a controversial point in the slightest.
Now there have been subsequent neutron observations, at very low levels. But these are different than the specific claim of Pons and Fleischmann.
-
Quote
One of the most common logical fallacies: argumentum ad ignorantiam, also known as appeal to ignorance, which asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proved false.
Every claim can be presented like the dismissal of its negation - so that the appeal to ignorance is fallacious by itself. So which claim of cold fusion proponents (not opponents) has been already disproved? You should have (successful) attempt for its falsification - which is just what all pathoskeptics are desperately lacking, as they avoid the replications like devil the cross and they even base their argumentation on lack of attempts for falsification.
Which is reliable way, how to recognize pathoskeptics: they present their weakness and lack of arguments like their main advantage.
-
Eric is right, we should have this discussion in the playground...
-
So Zephyr, are there any "out of the mainstream" beliefs that you don't believe? How about some of the hundreds of non-LENR free energy claims in PESN (if that is still around)? UFOs? Bigfoot?
As far as I know, very few UFO or Bigfoot claims have actually been disproven.
-
QuoteThere was a claim by Pons and Fleischmann that they were seeing the usual dd fusion branching ratios, d(d,3He)n and d(d,t)p, because of neutrons interacting with water and giving off a characteristic gamma photon that they thought they were picking up with their health dosimeter. Their neutron claims were subsequently and credibly discredited.
This is a just a very confused misinterpretation of famous pathoskeptics argument against cold fusion, which you turned on its head. Pons and Fleischmann originally reported in 1989 that their chemical cells had produced excess heat, neutrons, and tritium. Their interpretation was that deuterium nuclei were fusing to produce 4He. The branching ratios in this process are known: 50% n+3He, 50% p+3H, and 10^-6 4He+gamma. The pathoskeptics argued, that if the claimed excess heat had been produced by fusion, then the experimenters would have been killed by the neutrons coming from the 50% of the decays that proceeded by neutron emission.
The truth remains, that both tritium, both production of helium is routinely observed during palladium electrolysis. The cold fusion doesn't adhere on the classical branching ratios for heat formation - it actually usually doesn't release neutrons at all. If you would use the patoskeptics arguments, then indeed not only many cold fusion related claims would fail - but most of them get failed already.
I'm replying to the posts in their corresponding threads - if you don't want to argue with me here, just don't do it. If you want to transfer discussion into another thread, you should move your posts there too.
-
Quote
As far as I know, very few UFO or Bigfoot claims have actually been disproven.
So that they should be considered real - it's as simple as that. Their rareness and unpredictability cannot serve as an arguments of their nonexistence: many phenomena (ball lightning) are rare by their very nature. Most of overunity phenomena are also real or at least we have not enough of data for their dismissal. The fact we have not these data yet doesn't mean, that we already disproved them - the claiming the opposite would be an Appeal to ignorance - do you remember?
QuotePons and Fleischmann's neutron claims were definitely discredited.
As I explained you, these were cold fusion patoskeptic claims, not the Pons and Fleischmann's ones. Link the source if you're convinced about the opposite. Nevertheless, the neutrons often emerge during cold fusion, especially during the thermal runaway of reaction (Andrea Rossi could talk about it).
-
Ok, you are totally consistent. UFO claims and Bigfoot claims should be considered real because they haven't been disproven. Got it.
I don't think we have anything else to discuss, but I will note that it is unclear whether there is a single additional visitor to this site that you would not consider a pathoskeptic by your standards.
Oh, and by the way, I have a baby brontosaurus in my basement.
-
As I explaimed you, these were cold fusion patoskeptic claims, not the Pons and Fleischmann's ones. Link the source if you're convinced about the opposite.
On p. 302 of the original 1989 Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry article [1], we see the two usual dd fusion branching ratios clearly set out:
They ask is whether these reactions are feasible in the conditions of an electrochemical cathode. The answer is that they think they found neutrons as evidenced by the gamma resulting from the following p + n reaction:
The implication is that there is evidence for d(d,n)3He reactions in the conditions of an electrochemical cathode. The results of (3), above, were subsequently cast into doubt because of the manner in which the measurements were made. This is a cold-fusion claim that was subsequently discredited.
As I said before, there are other experiments that have shown evidence for low levels of neutrons. This one was not one of them.
[1] Fleischmann, Martin and Pons, Stanley, "Electrochemically Induced Nuclear Fusion of Deuterium," Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry, Vol. 261, Issue 2, Part 1, p. 301-308 (April 10, 1989) and errata (with Marvin Hawkins) in Vol. 263, p. 187-188, (1989). Link: http://newenergytimes.com/v2/l…989/1989FPH/1989FPH.shtml.
-
You have a brontosaurus -- must be a challenge to feed. On the other hand, my invisible unicorns eat only sunshine leaving all the moonshine for me.
A lot of believers in cold fusion and LENR discredit their own claims by demonstrating that they don't know the basic fundamentals of logic, theory of knowledge, and scientific method. In brief, whoever has a claim is required to prove it if they want respect -- it is not up to skeptics to disprove it, especially since they rarely have access to the actual experiment. And it also usually true that unusual or unexpected claims require more proof than most :
Quote“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”
And please lose the expression "pathoskeptic". It makes you sound like a loon -- a whackjob.
-
Quote
I have a baby brontosaurus in my basement
Just the UFO and Bigfoot claims are rather bad example for conspiratorial ignorance demonstration, as the frequency and quality of their observation increases with time.
QuoteExtraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence
This is another fallacy, because the true value of every claim can be reversed easily. On the contrary, a single counter evidence (order of Venus phases) can ruin the whole extensive theory build for years (string theory, epicycles) - this is how the scientific method is working. For disproving theory a single experiment is enough. My philosophy adheres strictly on Popper's scientific method which is experimental falsification based - whereas Sagan (who was proclamative proponent of science) lays an artificial obstacles to falsification and it favors theories over experiments.
