[SPLIT]Older LENR Experiments were bad, good... in general

    Quote from THHuxley

    Just as the much higher than expected He results (from some people) were correctly seen as leakage and the equipment replaced.


    Leakage with the Miles technique produces an answer hundreds or thousands of times too large. It is immediately apparent, and no one would mistake it for helium from the experiment.


    This is not the case when the researcher deliberately starts with helium at atmospheric concentration. Then, you only see an elevation above atmospheric concentration. You have to measure the concentration from the start because it varies.

    Quote

    How would you know that? Have you done it? Electrochemists have been doing this for a long time. They have not yet spotted these "many possible errors" you imagine might exist. This aspect of electrochemstry is well established. In any case, the accuracy is measured, and no one claims excess heat close to the margin of error. See, for example:


    Jed, I'm sure no-one claims excess heat within their calculated errors, but many people have claimed null results, which is what that would be.


    A failure in any of the experiment assumptions can provide encouraging results as you quote purely from artifact. So your points do not address the issue. If you could give a reference for your graph then the "many possible errors" in that specific case could be investigated.


    What would address the issue is this: you point to one experiment, and a set of linked defences against all critiques.

    Quote from Kirk

    I was address Mr. Huxley's comments, not yours. He may be under the impression that researchers claim excess heat with only 1% apparent excess heat. I do not know of any examples of that in the literature.


    Not in this case, I was addressing the issue that 1% calibration error can correctly lead to 100X (above chemical) excess heat. Of course a 1% calibration error does not lead to interesting power imbalances (which would normally be commensurate with the calibration error, though I guess that depends exactly how you choose to define things, there could be a constant factor linking the two).

    Quote

    Leakage with the Miles technique produces an answer hundreds or thousands of times too large. It is immediately apparent, and no one would mistake it for helium from the experiment.


    I wonder how Miles could be sure of that? I know that he tested leakage, and considered leakage modes. The problem is that this procedure is inherently unsatisfactory. There are many leakage modes and it is not possible to be sure you have investigated all low level ones. A low-level leakage mode that appeared only under the specific conditions of the active reaction would be confused with excess Helium.


    LENR experiments generally operate under specific conditions which are chemically and physically stressful, e.g. temperature/pressure/free H2 or D2.

    Quote from THHuxley

    (1)While in principle a general "systematic error from calibration issues" problem could go either way, for a given class of experiments it is very likely the errors will just be one way.


    Shananhan's CCSH error is imaginary. It can go either way. It does not exist, for the reasons given by Marwan, p. 3, but out there in cloud cuckoo land where it lives, it could go either way.


    Most calibration errors could go either way, as far as I know. Instrument drift can go either way. Of course a specific calibration problem will either go up or down, and not randomly back and forth. But the next error may go the other direction.


    Anyway, most of the people who did these experiments were world-class experts in calorimetry and they did not make the kind of elementary mistakes you imagine they might have. They understand perfectly well that you cannot claim excess heat when the apparent excess is only 1% and that is within the noise. They know how to measure recombination. I guarantee you that every mistake you come up with just thinking about this work was addressed by the authors, and prevented. If you will take the time to read the literature you will see that I am right about that. You are speculating about work that you have not read carefully. This is a waste of your time.

    Quote

    You do not even understand simple assertions such as this one: "Since the CCSH has no reason for bias in sign it may equally increase or decrease the measured output and thus excess power."


    Jed. It is possible that Kirk, like I, does not yet understand the premise on whoich this assertion depends, namely that CCSH - in the case here of LENR experiments - is not biassed in direction. I've given two factors above which considered together might give rise to such a bias. Though Kirk may have different views of course.

    Quote from THHuxley

    Jed, I'm sure no-one claims excess heat within their calculated errors, but many people have claimed null results, which is what that would be.



    TH, Storms has a histogram of this in his books, and the 780 mW signal I zeroed out in my reanalysis of Storms' data, is a common value. His input was on the order of 20-22 W as I recall. But the signal is several times the apparent baseline noise, typically 50-80 mW. The point I was trying to make with my paper was that there is another error buried in there that swamps the baseline noise one. You can identify it by doing what you recommended, propagating the error in standard fashion. If you do you will recognize that the output signal of the calorimeter is multiplied by an experimentally determined quantity, which has error in it, and added to another experimentally determined quantity, which also has error in it, to obtain the 'true' output value. POE uses random error considerations, but what I found was a systematic trend, not randomness, when I looked at the impact of the error in those quantites mentioned above.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    THHuxley wrote:


    Another DoE 2004 parlor game review! Jump to conclusions in a single day! Forget it. A bunch of expert world class scientists did that, and their conclusions were ridiculous. You know nothing about this subject and you sure as hell are not going to learn in a single day. In one day you will come forth with mistaken blather that I have heard dozens of times before, from the DoE panel and many others. I will not bother to respond.


    Jed, you are making an assumption here that I suspect is radically incorrect. I have a theory as to the identity of THH. I have seem some evidence for it, not conclusive, but consider this: THH shows far higher knowledge of the field and what is important in it than any pseudoskeptic I have seen, other than maybe Joshua Cude, who is a pile of arguments built up over years. THH is asking real questions. There is a person who


    1. Does not want his identity known, would not participate in public discussions openly.
    2. Is a cold fusion researcher.
    3. Would have high knowledge of prior work.
    4. Is not a pseudoskeptic, but a genuine one who wants to "crush the tests."


    THH's profile here is not viewable. That indicates that admins here were willing to protect him in that way. This is not some random troll.


    Whether I am correct or not in my suspicion (and I am not going to attempt to prove it, because I will respect THH's desire for anonymity, as I would any confidential source), you have sufficient knowledge of the field and the people to guess the identity.


    That, right there, could redefine this as an opportunity to address real skepticism straight-on. Arguing that he is ignorant and should keep his mouth shut and recognize the experts is kind of useless if he actually is an expert -- which he has more or less claimed.


    That doesn't mean he's right. It means, however, that, very likely, his objections and concerns will be ones that have, at least, some excuse for living, for being raised. Some of these concerns may find answers, if we are careful. Some may require further research, and THH may help us to identify this. Again, if we are careful. If we just say, more or less, "Go away, you stupid idiot!," we will not find any of this useful.


    He is not responsible for the errors of the DoE reports, but my opinion about those reports is that the LENR community has focused far too much on what was wrong about them and too little on what was right, and then too little attention to what was missing and then creating what would make it happen.


    This discussion brings out a crucial issue about reviews of cold fusion. They were often done by "general scientists." The basic claim underneath "cold fusion" was anomalous heat. To assess the reports of anomalous heat would not be within the expertise of, say, particle physicists. It would require experts in calorimetry. Has there ever been a thorough panel review by experts in calorimetry and electrochemistry, that focused on anomalous heat: real or artifact? And then that would have recommended research to nail that question, specifically, instead of simply making some overall judgment about conclusions, "nuclear fusion" or other such possible nonsense.


    No heat, no striking fusion claim, period. If the heat is real, then there is something to talk about, but no solid and correlated nuclear evidence until Miles in 1991, and Pons and Fleischmann badly handled the whole helium issue, at least some of the major attack skepticism came out of that (see Park!).


    Scientific process broke down on all sides, not just one side. Our job, now, I'm declaring, is to clean up that mess, and I strongly suspect that THH wants to be a part of that. And he is, I declare, completely welcome. Whether or not he is the one I suspect.


    Please join me in this, Jed. It's the future.

    Quote from Jed

    Shananhan's CCSH error is imaginary. It can go either way. It does not exist, for the reasons given by Marwan, p. 3, but out there in cloud cuckoo land where it lives, it could go either way.


    I've answered all your points except the appeal to authority (for which no answer is needed) and whatever Marwan says. I'll have a look.

    Quote from THHuxley

    It is possible that Kirk, like I, does not yet understand the premise on whoich this assertion depends, namely that CCSH - in the case here of LENR experiments - is not biassed in direction. I've given two factors above which considered together might give rise to that. Though Kirk may have different views of course.



    I understand the idea being expressed completely. Unfortunately, this is the strawman that the group of 10 authors created, not my premise. As they pointed out so well, the data does not show random behavior, ergo, my explanation does not require or contain it either (other than in residuals). I would be really stupid or sloppy to have done so. The one-sided nature is derived from the fact that all calibrations are done with inert electrodes. Then, something happens to them that induces an effect that produces positive going signals. Any explanation that does otherwise is patently ridiculous.


    The astounding thing is that after 8 years, the group of 10 prominent CF researchers didn't grasp that. There must be a reason, and I suspect 'predetermined conclusions'.

    Quote from THHuxley

    I wonder how Miles could be sure of that?


    Because he knows what the atmospheric concentration of helium is, and that number is hundreds to thousands of times higher than what he detects. He also knows what the concentration is when there is no excess heat. The background with no heat is 3.4 to 4.9 ppb. With heat it is usually at around 9 ppb. A leak would be 5.4 ppm, a thousand times higher. (Or hundreds of times higher, but leaks seldom come in small amounts.)


    Really, you comment is kind of dumb. Why don't you read his papers instead of speculating? Here's one of many on calorimetry:


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


    Here is one of many on helium:


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


    Here is my introduction to the work, which, if you had read it, would have stopped you from making the last several mistakes:


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


    Quote from THHuxley

    LENR experiments generally operate under specific conditions which are chemically and physically stressful, e.g. temperature/pressure/free H2 or D2.


    They are no more chemically and physically stressful than any other electrochemical experiment. The pressure is usually ~1 atm. People have been doing electrochemistry for over 100 years. You seem to imagine they invented it in 1989.


    You have to stop making up random assertions about electrochemistry such as "chemically and physically stressful." There is no truth to that. Electrochemistry happens in batteries and many other places, yet these devices are not stressed. They survive for years. It is no more stressful than, say, boiling water, and (I suppose) probably less stressful than igniting gasoline in a cylinder.

    Quote


    1. Does not want his identity known, would not participate in public discussions openly.2. Is a cold fusion researcher.3. Would have high knowledge of prior work.4. Is not a pseudoskeptic, but a genuine one who wants to "crush the tests."


    Alas you do me too much credit. I'm not a CF researcher. just an amateur wishing to preserve anonymity so that what happened to TC does not happen to me!


    Some of the lacunae here fascinate me.


    For example: almost everyone looking fresh at results here will have some bias. They may ab initio think it very possible that LENR results exist, or think it very unlikely that such results exist.


    All scientists have such prejudices. A "neutral" expectation would be physically unrealistic in cases where things are a priori very unlikely, or very likely. It is psychologically unobtainable


    In reality, what works is for me is for both biases to be engaged. Two different people can consider the evidence trying to fit it to different patterns. It is much easier to engage neutrally with teh issue by comparing these and testing the differences. It takes time and effort, however.

    Quote from Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

    Jed, you are making an assumption here that I suspect is radically incorrect. I have a theory as to the identity of THH. I have seem some evidence for it, not conclusive, but consider this: THH shows far higher knowledge of the field and what is important in it than any pseudoskeptic I have seen,


    So far, every comment he has come up with up with has been something I have heard dozens of times before. Recombination -- yawn, we know. A 1% mistake accidentally magnified. Nope, no one does that. That would be an amateur mistake, which people do not make. He just asked how Miles can tell the difference between helium from cold fusion and helium leaking in from the atmosphere. Look at the damn numbers! Can you see the difference between 9 ppb and 5.4 ppm? Three Orders Of Magnitude. For crying out loud.


    Why ask things like this?!? The answers are right in front of you, right in the papers. It irks me that people speculate instead of reading, when Miles, I and others went to the trouble to spell out the answers years ago.


    McKubre wrote general reviews of the field. Ed Storms wrote two books. People should read them before they start blathering. It is just annoying!

    Quote from Kirk

    As they pointed out so well, the data does not show random behavior, ergo, my explanation does not require or contain it either (other than in residuals). I would be really stupid or sloppy to have done so. The one-sided nature is derived from the fact that all calibrations are done with inert electrodes. Then, something happens to them that induces an effect that produces positive going signals. Any explanation that does otherwise is patently ridiculous.


    That was rather what I thought on a cursory reading of the matter. Jed however is now in a position to explain why he feels the "CCSH is random" argument applies.

    Quote from Jed

    Why ask things like this?!? The answers are right in front of you, right in the papers. It irks me that people speculate instead of reading, when Miles, I and others went to the trouble to spell out the answers years ago.McKubre wrote general reviews of the field. Ed Storms wrote two books. People should read them before they start blathering. It is just annoying!


    I find most of the derived material (Storms etc) to be somewhat polemic in nature, and the questions I have relate to the raw data and its various interpretations. Other people's analysis may contain implicit assumptions, so that does not help me much.


    Now I have not spent the time you have reading this stuff, but I think I'm capable of listening to arguments from both sides and weighing them, even in some cases of making my own arguments. It takes a fair while to do that, but less than a full literature survey. This is after all a relatively narrow issue. You may feel I should defer to people (the authors here, or you) who have studied these matters more. That is not my way - and frankly it will also not be the way of any unbiassed mainstream scientists.

    Quote from THHuxley

    've answered all your points except the appeal to authority (for which no answer is needed) and whatever Marwan says.


    You should also see what Storms says. He has two or three papers on this, as I recall. You can read some of Shanahan's own papers as well.


    But again, and for the last time, you do not understand what an appeal to authority is. When I cite a real authority, that statement is authoritative and therefore probably right. Nearly all of our knowledge is based on authoritative information, rather than first-hand experience or observation. You do not go out and perform every experiment listed in a textbook; you trust the book as a whole is correct, because textbooks are usually authoritative. You do not make a logical fallacy when you do that.


    You are thinking of a fallacious appeal to authority. You have the definition exactly the opposite from what it really means.


    I suggest you learn more about logical fallacies. If your continued confusion about this is any indication, you are not good at doing your homework and correcting your mistakes. Again, let me cite this, or you can look up some other definition:


    http://www.nizkor.org/features…/appeal-to-authority.html

    Quote from JedRothwell

    You can see the estimated error margins, and you can see that above 0.4 A/cm2 the signal is well above the random variations in H2O (blue line).



    So did they consider the impact of random variation in their calibration constants? (Again, they are experiemntally determined values and their errors need to be included in the POE calc.) If they did I would love to see it because I tried to get McKubre to tell me what equation he used (with constants) (two separate occasions) for his M4 run. However, he said he didn't have time to dig it up for me. Maybe you have seen the actual equation? (If so, I'm going to be mad at you Jed, since you were on the distribution for my original 'Hail Mary' attempt to get it as I recall, that I made after McK deigned not to help.

    Quote

    But again, and for the last time, you do not understand what an appeal to authority is. When I cite a real authority, that statement is authoritative and therefore probably right. Nearly all of our knowledge is based on authoritative information, rather than first-hand experience or observation.


    Well, I may be using the word loosely but then I don't think I've mentioned "logical fallacy" here.


    The problem with appeal to authority on an issue like this is that the authorities tend to be biassed. If LENR experiments are complex and require effort to understand, then those who do this (without giving up) are likely to think this worthwhile because the effect could well be real. There are then all the sociological effects that have been noted here which prevent a normal continuing to and from between scientists of good will to provide useful critiques and separate real from unreal.


    What I can say for sure is that being clever and an eminent prof does not prevent grievous and strongly held mistakes (Laithwaite an example from Huxley's own institution). A group of clever people does not (as LENR proponents argue) prevent wrong ideas from being agreed and no longer challenged. This is as true of the LENR community as it is of mainstream science, in fact more true because of the obvious group selection.


    You make the point that "knowledge" can be separeted from "judgement" or "interpretation". Maybe so, but in that case you could provide better knowledge-based counter-arguments to CCSH than that currently given by you in this thread. Sorry, I've not read Marven yet...

    Quote from Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

    Has there ever been a thorough panel review by experts in calorimetry and electrochemistry, that focused on anomalous heat: real or artifact?


    Yes, in a sense there has been. Not a review panel exactly. In 1989 and 1990, most of the leading expert electrochemist in the world attempted to replicate Fleischmann and Pons. Most of them succeeded. There are not many expert electrochemists in the world. People such as Bockris, Appelby, Huggins, McKubre, Mizuno, Miles, Oriani, Szpak, Yeager and Will. They all knew one another, and they all knew Fleischmann. That's why they tried the experiment. Electrochemistry is a small world.


    One or two leading electrochemists thought they did not replicate, but in fact they did. They misinterpreted their own results. They saw excess heat, but they said it must be an error. They never said what error it might be. I do not think it was an error. See, for example:


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


    Replications are infinitely more convincing than a panel of experts speculating and blathering. Replications are the only standard of truth in science.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.