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

Quote from THHuxley

You are highlighting the opinion of a few experts who are committed to LENR and have strong views on this issue. They have views different from other experts not so committed. In this situation appeal to experts is not helpful.

Ah, ha! YOU just committed a Fallacious Appeal to Authority logical fallacy. A textbook example.

Look carefully at the statements made by these "other experts" you have in mind. You will discover they have not read the literature on cold fusion, they do not know what was done in the experiments, or what is claimed about them. They do not know, for example, that cold fusion experiments have produced 50 to 150 MJ from a few grams of material, at power levels of ~100 W. Without this knowledge, they are in no position to judge the results.

In short, these people are not experts. I do not think you will find any scientist who has actually read about the experiments, and who knows the facts about them, yet who doubts that the effect is real. Except Dieter Britz. The ones you are talking about are not "legitimate authorities on the subject." (Nizkor.org) Some of them are distinguished scientists and even Nobel laureates, but they have not read the literature and the assertions they make about the experiments range from wrong to ridiculous, so they have no business discussing it.

Quote from THHuxley

When asked for this, you posted the Fleischmann paper:
quoting results when boiling
open cell
other issues.

I agree that others have done better after this

Your assertion that "others have done better" is meaningless. There is nothing "better" about steady state calorimetry compared to boil off calorimetry. Both methods are well understood and have been conducted for over 150 years. The heat of vaporization of water is extremely well established. No scientist would dispute it.

Both methods are valid, as long as you design the equipment and the experiment for them, and calibrate with them.

Open or closed cells are also equally good. It makes no sense to call them "issues." As long as the researcher understands them, either one is fine. (They do have have various advantages and disadvantages, which you have to take into account. That is getting beyond the scope of the discussion.)

Fleischmann understood calorimetry well, and he designed and calibrated the boil-off experiment well. The results as good as steady-state 30 deg C style calorimetry. The latter is more common, but it makes no sense to say it is "done better." If you prefer to read about steady state calorimetry, stick to McKubre or Miles.

Actually, Fleischmann pointed out that the cold fusion effect is enhanced by a burst of heat. Most researchers agree. So a boil-off experiment may enhance or increase the reaction. Fleishmann thought it was a mistake to keep the temperature extremely stable and low, as some researchers do.

Quote from THHuxley

I'd just like to add, I'd need evidence for this statement. I believe it possible that recombination could occur from dissolved gasses in liquid in both cases. I'm not saying I know this happens - just that it cannot be ruled out.

Oh yes it can be ruled out. You know how? By doing experiments. In electrochemistry. Like people have done for over a century.

You say "I'd need evidence." Well gee golly gosh. How about that! You need evidence, do you?!? You know where you find evidence? In textbooks on electrochemistry. In experimental literature. So read the literature. As I said, read 10, 20 maybe 50 papers. Read the Storms book. Then you will know that recombination does not occur in the liquid. Okay, it can occur if you add powdered metal to the liquid, or you put one electrode above the other -- but in the usual experiment, there is no significant recombination in the liquid.

I think you should stop making assertions about what can and cannot happen, or what does and does not happen in these experiments. You should stop expressing doubts based on nothing more than your imagination. Or whimsy, or guesses. Such as your notion that a steady state experiment is "better" than a boil off one. Better how? On what basis? Why do you suppose the textbooks list the heat of vaporization for so many chemicals to so many decimal places?

Just stop commenting, jumping to conclusions, and waving your hands for a few months, and DO YOUR HOMEWORK. Then, you will have some basis to understand this research and perhaps even critique it. What you are doing now is taking potshots at it from a great distance away, there in the Land of Ignorance. You are missing the target.

Intellect is not enough for new discoveries. Experience must be a companion. I am stunned by the MB of text produced by people that where ever near a real LENR experiment.

Quote from George Hody

THHuxley wrote:
I believe these LENR experiments have very particular details introducing issues not seen before in the 235 year history [of calorimetry].

That is incorrect. There is nothing unusual or different about the calorimetry in these experiments compared to previous calorimetry. The instruments, techniques, calibration methods and every other aspect of the calorimetry is 100% normal and conventional.

What is different is the results.

"How many MB have you written about neutrinos?"

Me too talk to myself, but not often in public

Quote from Mary Yugo

Mats, I've never been near a neutrino experiment either but I have no problem recognizing that neutrinos are real. Not so much for LENR.

You have not read the literature on LENR, and you know nothing about it, so you have no basis to either believe it, or doubt it. If you were an ordinary newspaper reader who had never heard of neutrinos or the top quark, or the recent failure of the LHC 750 GeV diphoton discovery, you would have absolutely no reason to "recognize" these things. They would be meaningless to you. You might read about them in a newspaper and you might assume -- reasonably enough -- that the scientists probably know what they are doing, so the neutrinos are probably real. But you yourself would have no basis to evaluate the results.

Since you have read nothing and you know nothing about cold fusion, you are no better off than the average newspaper reader. You have no basis to judge anything.

In the case of cold fusion, nearly all of the top experts in electrochemistry replicated the results in 1989 and 1990. So if you are judging by what the experts say, you have as much reason to believe in cold fusion as the newspaper reader has to believe in neutrinos. Many other scientists say cold fusion does not exist, but they are as ignorant as you are. They also know nothing. Their statements about the subject prove they are ignorant and wrong. So you should ignore them.

As a rule, in a technical subject, you should only listen to people who have done their homework and who know specific facts about the subject. General knowledge of science does not count.

Quote from THHuxley

Jed, this is not a helpful mode of dialog. I'm happy to stick with the F paper as your "best evidence" if that is what you want.

I am the librarian. Not the all-high Guru of cold fusion. I am not here to tell you what is best. I gave you a list of leading authors and review papers. I recommend you read the first Storms book. Beyond that, you can do your own homework, and decide for yourself what you think the best evidence is. Stop asking me to spoof-feed you information. If you do not find any value in the papers I recommend then you do not understand conventional, mainstream 19th century calorimetry or chemistry, because that is what these papers describe.

Quote from THHuxley

Give me 24 hours for some initial comments.

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.

Quote from THHuxley

I don't think you have addressed my point yet, which you assert false? I was giving examples of specific unusual issues in the experimental dynamics which would affect calorimetry, not in the instruments, techniques, calibration methods and colorimetry.

Are you suggesting that H2 and D2 recombination or boiling are "unusual issues"? That's nuts. People have doing calorimetry with electrochemical systems since 1800. People have been measuring the heat of vaporization since the 18th century. These are not unusual conditions. They are covered in electrochemistry textbooks in enormous detail, at the experimental and theoretical levels. Recombination is understood in enormous detail. Not by me, mind you, but the people who replicated the effect wrote books about things like this. Such as:

https://archive.org/details/Mo…ectrochemistryVol.IIonics

Quote from Mary Yugo

DO YOUR HOMEWORK.
Yeah, well, nobody can do all the homework in more than one or a very few fields. Homework for persuading someone that something exists should be simple, elegant, direct and concise.

Oh really? Read a few chapters of this textbook and tell me how simple, elegant and understandable you find it:

https://ia800708.us.archive.or…cs-BockrisReddyAmulya.pdf

Or this:

http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/…productCd-1118694430.html

Or any textbook on subatomic physics, or quantum mechanics.