MFMP Provides Update About Me356

Quote from THHuxley

That is the definition of religion, not science.

There is by definition more than one interpretation of anomalous data, and skilled experimentalists know it.

Of course, it is possible that me356 has cast-iron data, such as a switchable and clearly measurable neutron flux, that would validate LENR to a third party with no compromise of trade secrets. In that case the evidence is indisputable, and he would be in line for a Nobel Prize and/or large amounts of money were he willing to submit to such black box testing.

In your world calorimetry is only valid when the COP is 1, your belief is purely religious. There is no doubt that LENR+ is real. Lugano proofs it, after 2 years no expert has come forward to validate the calculation errors stated here by some people (with no professional or practical experience - VERY IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER).
The answer of IH, which didn't specify any critique was the final nail in the coffin of the sceptics here.

Just accept science! Stop believing in things that aren't true

Although I often do not agree with the rationale used in MFMP discussions, whether on their site or in public announcements, I trust Bob Higgins and Alan Goldwater, specifically, to do a diligent job of hunting down artifact. I am not sure what their position is on the earlier apparent "signal", as they are sometimes circumspect in their conclusions.

Quote from Mary Yugo

But Abd, after you've blocked everyone, who will read your walls of text?

C'mon there, Mary. Where is your critical thinking?
Blocking users is a sort of selective one-way mirror. Everyone can look in, just Abd cannot look out so well.

From a couple days ago

Quote from STDM

In your world calorimetry is only valid when the COP is 1

It better be 1 during a calibration! Otherwise it is definitely invalid. The people at Lugano did not calibrate at the power levels they claimed, so their work was invalid.

If you don't calibrate, your results are meaningless.

Thanks for your expression of trust Eric. However, it's important to emphasize that what counts is data and procedure, not faith and trust. In the case of the broad-band gamma spectrum we detected, our data was intensely scrutinized and discussed here and on QuantumHeat. We tested every proposed artifact mechanism and found no correlation that would explain our data.

For example, we looked at available solar event (cosmic ray) data from nearby observatories, and found nothing above the usual background during the time when the gamma spectrum was seen. We also looked at the possibility of Radon release from the environment, and published a comparison of Radon daughter gamma spectra compared to our data, again with no correlation. Then we ran an extended test of the spectrometer with a spark plug mounted directly in front of the scintillator and connected to a Ford Model T spark coil. The resulting 15 kV spark discharge at ~100 Hz produced enough RF to completely saturate a nearby radio receiver, but no trace of interference was seen in the simultaneous gamma spectrometer data.

The results of those investigations were posted here, in reply to objections raised specifically by Thomas Clarke. Instead of acknowledging our replies, he simply left the discussion. There were no further suggestions of plausible artifact, though we haven't stopped trying to think of any. Unfortunately our first try at self-replication didn't yield convincing results, and further replications will continue to watch for a similar signal.

AlanG

How did I get them, you wilhave ask(ed)?
Time travel via tachyon bead manipulation. You just... Never mind: too dangerous.
There is a reason the Doctor has Relative Space control in the Tardis. The Earth revolves and orbits, and the sun orbits... etc.
You don't want to end up in the vacuum of space, or inside the moon by missing your space target in time.
Luckily, the tachyon bead trace through time have can be followed, and due to the reverse time mode of travel, the circle of beads can be placed where you need them to be before you travel there easily enough.
But I have said to much already.
To show it works, I will place a short comment with the word tachyon in it 18 minutes back in time from now, in another thread.

Quote

If you don't calibrate, your results are meaningless.

And if you calibrate, any difference in reaction conditions between control and active may in principle invalidate the calibration. Working out whether this is so required careful analysis and in the end may be a matter of judgement about whether certain assumptions are reasonable - though given effort assumptions can always be tested and supported or denied.

To be fair - calorimetry without calibration is possible in flow calorimetry and much safer (the assumption being conservative that heat loss is zero, so a positive result in the case here remains valid and a whole load of calibration-related artifacts are eliminated). Getting good absolute measurement of mixed liquid temperature is not beyond the bounds of possibility.

Quote

The results of those investigations were posted here, in reply to objections raised specifically by Thomas Clarke. Instead of acknowledging our replies, he simply left the discussion.

That sounds unlike what I remember of him. Perhaps he had been doxxed away by then?

Do you have a thread with those results from here? While not claiming to provide the level of attention that TC might have provided I will endeavor to do something

Regards, THH

@THH, your constructive criticism will be welcome. But please review the experiment and its data for context before raising substantive objections. The main document is available with further links to the data, at http://goo.gl/z5aoBY

Quote from magicsound

@THH, your constructive criticism will be welcome. But please review the experiment and its data for context before raising substantive objections. The main document is available with further links to the data, at <a href="http://goo.gl/z5aoBY" class="externalURL" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">goo.gl/z5aoBY</a>

Thanks for that. I remember looking at it a little at the time. The condensed "highlight" version is useful however. What I note is:

(1) The x-ray results are very regular, and do not show any of the peaks normally found in x-ray spectra. That is both positive and negative in its implications.
(2) The (not definitive) excess heat data does not correlate with the x-ray data in any helpful way - they are displaced by 24 hours. Thus the two data sets must be considered independently and do not provide any cross-validation.

So now as for the interpretation of the unusual x-ray results - I'd welcome the considered MFMP analysis.

Quote from THHuxley

To be fair - calorimetry without calibration is possible in flow calorimetry and much safer . . .

No no no no NO, NO, NO. Don't do flow calorimetry without calibrating. I know a dozen ways that can screw things up.

I vividly recall an exchange between Martin Fleischman and Doug Morrison. Morrison was criticizing Fleischman's isoperibolic calorimetry, in recommending flow calorimetry instead. He said something like "with flow calorimetry you do not need to calibrate." Fleischman responded with incredulity: "You don't need to calibrate?!? What is that supposed to mean?" His tone was one of British high dudgeon.

Granted, flow calorimetry is an "absolute method" which means you can compute the directly from immediate results easily, whereas most people who do isoperibolic calorimetry depend on calibrations for the answer. But experts such as Fleischman and Miles use first principle physics to derive the heat even with the isoperibolic method, in addition to calibration. See, for example:

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/B…Pjcondensedl.pdf#page=402

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

This one has a guest appearance by me on page 23:

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

@Jed,

You are looking at this only from one perspective.

Calibration (of flow calorimetry) is a good idea. It would provide extra validation of absolute calculations, always good. However, using calibration to increase accuracy (by nulling lost heat and various other possible errors) while obviously what any sane calorimetrist would normally do, is in this case dangerous because it relies on assumptions and potentially introduces artifacts. When chasing extraordinary physics fingerprinted by anomalies you need to be very sure you don't have mundane anomalies. In this case therefore the best integrity comes from:
(1) design equipment with high efficiency
(2) Do calibration as sanity check on absolute values - it should give you a good estimate of heat loss efficiency
(3) Take results from absolute measurements with error bars from the same (flowmeter error, TC error, mixing error).

Why is this better? When using calibration you always have to make a dangerous and in general difficult to prove assumption that changes in reaction conditions in the active case (which must exist) do not screw up the calibration. Granted, often you can bound that. But it is a matter of judgement and difficult to do.

Quote

But experts such as Fleischman and Miles use first principle physics to derive the heat even with the isoperibolic method

This is fine if you use multiple isothermal barriers and an interbarrier insulator with known (absolute) thermal conductivity. Vacuum here, or any air-gap, is problematic because the precise surface physical and chemical structure may change over time in the experiment and can then alter emissivity. Thus absolute calculations assume no alteration in emissivity which is unsafe.

Otherwise you are in assumption-land again.

Quote from THHuxley

(1) The x-ray results are very regular, and do not show any of the peaks normally found in x-ray spectra. That is both positive and negative in its implications.
(2) The (not definitive) excess heat data does not correlate with the x-ray data in any helpful way - they are displaced by 24 hours. Thus the two data sets must be considered independently and do not provide any cross-validation.

So now as for the interpretation of the unusual x-ray results - I'd welcome the considered MFMP analysis.

1) We believe the spectral curve suggests inner Bremsstrahlung, though we have not reached consensus on its origin.

2) The 4-hour integration interval to which the spectrum corresponds was also the beginning of the power cycling that we proposed as the initiator of excess heat.

We have been careful to not claim unequivocal evidence of excess heat in this experiment. Known sources of possible measurement error include thermocouple drift and physical asymmetry of the apparatus. Nevertheless, in several experiments, the fueled side has always moved toward higher temperature than the null side, never the reverse. In our most recent run (GS 5.3) the thermocouple data was confirmed by simultaneous differential temperature measurement using our Optris camera.

Thanks for that. I'd like the thread here with detailed discussion and ruling out of anomalies so that I can read that and possibly contribute?

Quote from magicsound

1) We believe the spectral curve suggests inner Bremsstrahlung, though we have not reached consensus on its origin.

2) The 4-hour integration interval to which the spectrum corresponds was also the beginning of the power cycling that we proposed as the initiator of excess heat.

We have been careful to not claim unequivocal evidence of excess heat in this experiment. Known sources of possible measurement error include thermocouple drift and physical asymmetry of the apparatus. Nevertheless, in several experiments, the fueled side has always moved toward higher temperature than the null side, never the reverse. In our most recent run (GS 5.3) the thermocouple data was confirmed by simultaneous differential temperature measurement using our Optris camera.

When "Hole" superconductivity is formed when metallization of a hydride begins, electons in orbit around the hydride is expelled from the center of the hydride and pushed to the surface by the meissner effect. During this process, a positively charged core is formed in the center of the crystal and the negatively charged electrons and photons are pushed to the outside of the crystal.

When this process of charge separation occurs, electrons produce Bremsstrahlung on their path to the outside of the metalized hydride crystal. Metalization of the hydride marks the beginning of the LENR process when a monopole magnetic field is produced in the spin wave that has formed on the surface of the metalized hydride.

When the LENR reaction is completed, a similar process of Bremsstrahlung radiation generation will occur when the electrons and photons on the exterior of the metalized hydride falls back to the positively charged center of the hydride.

See

Quote

Source of the gamma rays found in segment 7 as follows:

When "Hole" superconductivity is formed during the begining of the metallization of a hydride, electons in orbit around the hydride atoms are expelled from the center (aka core) of the hydride and pushed to the surface by the meissner effect. During this process, a positively charged core is formed in the center of the crystal and the negatively charged electrons and photons are pushed to the outside of the crystal.

When this process of charge separation occurs, electrons produce Bremsstrahlung on their path to the outside of the metalized hydride crystal. Metalization of the hydride marks the beginning of the LENR process when a monopole magnetic field is produced in the spin wave that has formed on the surface of the metalized hydride.

When the LENR reaction is completed and metalization of the hydride is breaking down, a similar process of Bremsstrahlung radiation generation will occur when the electrons and photons on the exterior of the metalized hydride falls back to the positively charged center of the hydride.

See

Ionizing radiation from superconductors in the theory of hole superconductivity

arxiv.org/pdf/0710.0876v2.pdf

"(Los Alamos), J. Phys. Condens. Matter 19 125217 (2007).We point out that large superconducting bodies described by the theory of hole superconductivity will emit ionizing radiation in non-equilibrium situations. This remarkable prediction, involving an energy scale a factor of 10e12 larger than the low energy scale usually associated with superconductivity, is unique to the theory of hole superconductivity. The phenomenon is a consequence of the macroscopic inhomogeneous charge distribution predicted to exist in superconducting bodies, and the resulting intrinsic macroscopic spin currents in the superconducting state in the absence of applied fields. For superconducting bodies of sufficiently large size, the speed of the spin current carriers approaches the speed of light, and in addition real electron positron pair production is expected to occur in the interior. When the superconducting state is destroyed, electromagnetic radiation with frequencies up to 0.511MeV/\hbar should arise from bremsstrahlung and electron-positron annihilation. In support of this rather unconventional theory we point out that it is the only existing theory that proposes explanations for two fundamental universal effects associated with superconductivity: the Meissner effect and the Tao effect."

Display More

Quote

When "Hole" superconductivity is formed when metallization of a hydride begins, electons in orbit around the hydride is expelled from the center of the hydride and pushed to the surface by the meissner effect. During this process, a positively charged core is formed in the center of the crystal and the negatively charged electrons and photons are pushed to the outside of the crystal.

How large is this crystal?