But then I have no access to the Miami property register.
Actually, you probably do: Miami-Dade County Property Records. These county records (for tax purposes) are quite revealing (last I looked), including location of real property, description of land area, type and area of structures, history of ownership, sale dates, amount of sale and the County Assessor's valuation.
QuoteI suspect that they are (and always were) in his wife's name. But then I have no access to the Miami property register.
Wouldn't matter. The money could be traced back to Rossi and the transaction with IH. Giving property to his wife would not preclude it being included in a lien or enforced payment. Maybe it would complicate it a little but probably not much. As to a home being immune from judgement, even if true, that's one condo. Even Rossi can't live in multiple places with one ass.
Axil, what are you ingesting these days! Defkalion was a scam and nothing else. It was never anything else and they never had anything that worked. There is tons of evidence about that, not the least of which is that the company curled up its toes and went belly up, dead, gone, buried. That rude, duplicitous, disingenuous and arrogant con man, Hadjichristos, is with another company now, perhaps scheming up a new scam.
OK, Abd did correctly identify the fact that I had a calculation error present (specifically I dropped a zero out after the decimal place in a multiplier). But all that does is shift the scale of the x axis and doesn’t change the pattern. What really messes that up though is the background correction. Now the back-calculated times fall into generically one of two values (~76 and ~97 minutes), and the data spread at each time is about the same, IF the one acknowledged flyer datum is ignored (which is a question I address further below).
So, now we can progress to the “know your error” part. Propagation of Error (POE) calc’s now indicate a 1 sigma value of about 20% of the “He-atoms/W-sec” values. That is derived assuming constant error bar width over the data span, which may or may not be true – we don’t really know. All we know is that Miles assumes it is true, based on the error values derivable from the data in tables in the paper at the lenr.com link.
I am using the data from Miles’ Tables 2 and 4, which is what Storms also uses with one caveat. Storms restricts the atoms/W-sec numbers to 1 place past the decimal. That causes a minor difference since Miles uses 2. In the results for the 0.03 apparent excess power run, Miles has 0.75 and Storms has 0.7, and I use the 0.75. Neglecting the one obvious flyer, that gives an overall standard deviation of the He-atoms/W-sec of 0.664 x 10e11 on an average of 1.49 x 10e11, or about 45% (Storms’ choice give him .7 on an average of 1.4 for 50%, so we are the same within rounding differences). That is larger than the POE error, which indicates there is another source of variation not accounted for in the POE calc (which used number of atoms He, XP, and time as variables). So we are left wondering what that source could be.
But now we get to the nitty gritty question of “what about the flyer?”. If it is included in the analysis, the result is the average is 1.84 and the standard deviation is 1.24, which means that the 2-sigma band encompasses zero, which in turn means the average value is not statistically distinguishable from zero. The 1-sigma band encompasses the theoretical value of ~2.6 (all x10e11). This gets back to my conclusion that this data illustrates nothing because its error band is too large.
So, should we delete the flyer or not? The short answer is ‘no’. This is because this value was, really and truly, obtained from the same system as the rest of the numbers, and as such it illustrates what *can* occur if you run enough experiments. Only if a clear physical/chemical reason can be identified that caused the run giving the flyer datum to be abnormal can one exclude it as an ‘apples and oranges’ case. Otherwise, it should be left in. This may be news to some, but this POV is an outfall of the so-called ‘quality revolution’ of the 70’s and 80’s, where America rediscovered statistics. But a lot of scientists, especially ‘old schoolers’, don’t go by this rule and just ignore the flyer points because they’re flyers (which is sort of circular reasoning).
So we ask the question, “What was it about that run that gave so many more He atoms?” Of course we don’t have an answer right now because not enough work has gone into replicating the studies (and a few kudos to Abd for trying to do so). Maybe some day we will know.
When you do ignore the flyer, which is OK for discussion purposes, just don’t forget it is there, the average and all data points are less than or ~equal to the theoretical value. Storms and his followers like to talk about the LENR reaction being at the surface and therefore 50% or so of the He atoms will go away from the bulk and the other 50% or so will go toward the bulk thereby entering it and not being detected (i.e. 1.3x10e11 (vs observed average of 1.4) is ‘really’ where the line should be drawn on Storms’ Figure 47). This is great speculation but it is just that. More data is needed addressing this hypothesis to be able to make any firm conclusions on this point.
Getting back to the flyer…the cautionary premise one has to adopt because the flyer is there is that it may represent a maximum result of whatever caused such a large number, and one has to then assume for analysis purposes that the other data contains a lesser magnitude of the same problem. (Which might be what ended up doubling the overall standard deviation of the clipped data set). One absence I see in Miles’ work based on this thinking is the retesting of the experimental apparatus _after_ He has been found and XP apparently detected. Recall I say apparent XP is an indicator of the presence of ATER (at-the-electrode recombination). Did the ATER alter the apparatus to allow He in-leakage. If you believe the He numbers but not in LENR, you’d suspect the answer is ‘yes’. So, that needs to be checked. But maybe it didn’t ‘alter’ the apparatus so much as _allow_ He inleakage. So, you have to test with ATER present or not too. Multiplies the workload a lot doesn’t it? That fact is IMHO one of the primary reasons we don’t have all the data and answers we need today. Either to due lack of funding or predisposition, CFers don’t do enough work to produce compelling results. Hopefully Abd’s secret researcher will give us what we need…
BTW, the above discussion is also why it would be inappropriate to lump non-XP producing runs with XP-producing ones, there are likely some major differences between the cases and you end up with apples and oranges. So, claiming Miles’ did 33 runs, *and that they all are equally relevant* isn’t right. The non-XP runs tell you about the no ATER case, while the XP runs tell you about the ATER present case, which at least superficially looks like an apples and oranges comparison if lumped together.
There are a couple of experimental suggestions buried in the above for you Abd…
Regarding 'fictitious numbers'...
Miles uses different types of calorimetric analyses. Sometimes he uses the simpler form like Storms and sometimes McKubre uses. Other times he uses the more complex method used by F&P. But all of his methods are 'calibrated', meaning they have calibration constants, meaning that a CCS could invalidate them. He sees apparent XP, which to me means ATER is present, which means there could be a CCS, especially since Miles' cell designs are essentially the same as everyone else's, including the Storms' cell that I reanalyzed to show the impact of whatever it is that caused the CCS (my vote is for ATER of course). So...the reported XP numbers are likely bogus (=fictitious). All they are is a flag that says 'CCS active'.
So Jed quoted Abd, who was commenting on my postings…let’s see if what Abd says makes any sense…(Abd’s comments in quotes)
“Kirk simply states this about leaks without looking at how leaks would function,”
There Abd goes again….reading my mind…knowing exactly what I’m thinking and doing….get out! Get out!
“without looking at the actual research and seeing how the leak possibility was addressed, and especially not looking at all the no-heat experiments that were otherwise identical, but the cathode was "dead," not producing XP, because of the famous unreliability.”
As I noted in my last post, it really wasn’t, as is usual. The checking for leaks in a no-XP run is a good idea, but you also have to confirm the binary shift to ‘XP-on’ didn’t introduce one. Apples and oranges.
“Why would these experiments all show no helium?”
Because they didn’t have a leak??? Maybe????
“Does a "dead cathode" somehow protect against leaks?”
Apparently so….I wonder why? (see Hint below)
“Sometimes people think that cells with XP are hotter than cells without. Not always, they might be cooler, sometimes temperature is constant, and in most experiments, the temperature rise is quite small, certainly not enough to have a massive effect on leakage.”
And then Jed wrote: “such as the fact that the temperature is sometimes higher in a cell with no excess heat, so high temperature cannot be causing helium to leak in.”
OK, so we can temporarily assume heat is unimportant for discussion. What then might be causing the difference, i.e. the possibility of a leak? Hint: consider the CR39 results…
Jed: “and Shanahan should have read and understood Miles long ago.”
Oh No!!! Jed can read my mind too!! He just _knows_ I didn’t read and understand Miles….Get out! Get out!!
BTW, I long ago learned Jed has no solid technical background. He is a good parrot though, and what he does is repeat what he hears his heros say. So, sometimes that gives away some good tidbits. But I also long ago invoked my ‘no response’ rule on Jed in other fora, and I think I shall here again. If anyone thinks he makes a point that needs addressing, let me know, otherwise I won’t be responding.
Maybe someone can pass on to Nevanlinna that the guy with the head pasted on has the white shirt (and neck) from the guy two rows ahead, and has no legs.
The guy in the second row with jean jacket and modified badge, (on the viewer left), also has no legs.
Display Moreon cobraf, Nevalinna spotted a funding of Yeong E Kim by Industrial Heat
https://www.purdue.edu/researc…rds/pdf/May2016Awards.pdf
Purdue wrote:
Kim, Yeong E; physics, from Industrial Heat LLC, $469,327, “Low-Energy Nuclear Reaction Research (LENRR).”
and by Cumberland & Western Resources
http://www.purdue.edu/research…-data/research-awards.php
Purdue wrote:
Yeong E. Kim, from Cumberland & Western Resources, Low Energy Nuclear Reactions, $2,488,596
The first link is dead. The second link still shows the Kim award.
Alain, you did not give the original Cobraf link. That would have been useful. I found the posts with an author search. The Cobraf individual posts links seem broken.
https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=it&u=http://www.cobraf.com/forum/PostsByAuthor.php%3Fauthorid%3D3994&prev=search
Maybe someone can pass on to Nevanlinna that the guy with the head pasted on has the white shirt (and neck) from the guy two rows ahead, and has no legs.
The match is not exact but strong enough to raise substantial suspicion, perhaps a little alteration was done to it. It's a bit odd, more significant alteration could easily have been done to make the match less obvious.
QuoteThe guy in the second row with jean jacket and modified badge, (on the viewer left), also has no legs.
Unless he is standing with feet behind the legs of the man sitting in front.
@Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax,
I have some family group portraits like this. Sometimes it is hard to get everyone all at the same place and time.
I don't really suspect anything nefarious in the photo. The photo "adjuster" responsible is clearly not an expert, but did a decent job that serves the purpose.
So, should we delete the flyer or not? The short answer is ‘no’. This is because this value was, really and truly, obtained from the same system as the rest of the numbers, and as such it illustrates what *can* occur if you run enough experiments. Only if a clear physical/chemical reason can be identified that caused the run giving the flyer datum to be abnormal can one exclude it as an ‘apples and oranges’ case. Otherwise, it should be left in. This may be news to some, but this POV is an outfall of the so-called ‘quality revolution’ of the 70’s and 80’s, where America rediscovered statistics. But a lot of scientists, especially ‘old schoolers’, don’t go by this rule and just ignore the flyer points because they’re flyers (which is sort of circular reasoning).
So we ask the question, “What was it about that run that gave so many more He atoms?” Of course we don’t have an answer right now because not enough work has gone into replicating the studies (and a few kudos to Abd for trying to do so). Maybe some day we will know.
Can't see the forest for the trees. There is an obvious characteristic of the flyer that Kirk doesn't notice. He is looking at Storms (2007) Figure 47 (page 87). This is a plot of excess power vs. the calculated ratio of helium to energy. What is unique about the flyer?
The power measured is the smallest in the collection, 20 mW. If you look at the whole plot, you can see that the scatter lowers as the measured excess power increases. If heat and helium are correlated, as measured power increases, so would helium. The scatter due to measurement error will be greater with the lower values. That is what the Storms chart appears to have been designed to show.
What is being plotted is the ratio of two numbers, and as the relative imprecision of those numbers increased, fliers become more likely. To go more specifically into this, I would need to look at details, but from the data in Storms, it appears that the resolution on the power is 5 mW; the standard deviation would likely be larger than that. This alone could cause a heat/helium ratio to double for that particular power measurement.
That low power is not a lot lower than the Bush and Lagowski results plotted in the same figure, but Storms notes that the scatter is lower because Bush and Lagowski had a much lower helium background. (The helium background reported by Miles from a series of control experiments was 0.51 x 10^11, compared to a value for the flyer of 1. 02.)
As well, there could be leakage. It would take very little to create a flyer. The control experiments with no leakage do not eliminate the possibility of leakage with a power experiment. The real result of power from Miles is the correlation, not the absolute values.
QuoteWhen you do ignore the flyer, which is OK for discussion purposes, just don’t forget it is there, the average and all data points are less than or ~equal to the theoretical value. Storms and his followers like to talk about the LENR reaction being at the surface and therefore 50% or so of the He atoms will go away from the bulk and the other 50% or so will go toward the bulk thereby entering it and not being detected (i.e. 1.3x10e11 (vs observed average of 1.4) is ‘really’ where the line should be drawn on Storms’ Figure 47). This is great speculation but it is just that. More data is needed addressing this hypothesis to be able to make any firm conclusions on this point.
The generally supported figure is about 60%, but 50% has often been said, because this is relatively rough. The best measurement of the heat/helium ratio is a single one, with stated error of 10%, in an experiment with anodic stripping, which does not apparently produce that 50% value, but 100%, within experimental error, stated as 10% in SRI M4. This is confirmed by Violante (Apicella et al, 2004), where there were three reported results: two were not stripped and showed roughly 60% recovery (on the 23.8 MeV hypothesis), and one was, and showed 100% recovery as well. Unfortunately, this was the result with the lowest XE, and that is probably why stripping was attempted, to try to goose the XE, it can do that by cleaning the surface. I first noticed the effect of anodic stripping some years back in reviewing Krivit's work, but it never occurred to me that this had escaped notice. It had. Storms had missed it, and McKubre and Violante had not put this together.
Stripping will remove the outer layer of palladium, and if helium is trapped in that layer, it would release it. So I put that in my paper, and McKubre has confirmed the significance of this notice. Stripping will almost certainly be used to tighten up the value of the heat/helium ratio; otherwise, far more detailed analysis of cell contents would be necessary. I do want to see that fuller analysis, if possible, but stripping would allow the creation of many more data points that could match, much more cheaply. Full analysis is quite a nuisance. Analyzing gas flow, much less difficult.
Sure, it's a hypothesis. My assessment, and that of many who have considered the issue, is that, indeed, the FP Heat Effect is converting deuterium to helium and the ratio is consistent with the deuterium conversion ratio. Critique of Miles and the other results has generally ignored or misunderstood the correlation, which is what makes this relatively conclusive. Shanahan -- and Jones before -- argued that because each of the results could possibly be in error, that the correlation is meaningless, which completely neglects the usage of correlation in science. Correlated results are far stronger than isolated ones. The "possibly in error" argument treats the results as isolated. Shanahan, here, dismisses the issue of "dead cells." This is defined as cells that were otherwise identical, but which did not show heat. These also, consistently, do not show helium. Shanahan rejects this, apparently on the idea that there must be some difference in the cells. First of all, these may be the exact same cells, merely in a period when they were not showing any heat. Yes, there is obviously something different, but what becomes quite difficult is developing a relationship between this fact and helium leakage.
As well, when there is heat and helium, the two correlate positively. More heat, more helium, quite strongly. To Shanahan, this is meaningless, which says much more about Shanahan than about heat and helium.
There is, indeed, some weakness in the data. Storms claims 25 +/- 5 MeV/4He as the ratio. (The theoretical value is 23.8 MeV/4He for deuterium conversion to helium). That is obviously seat-of-the-pants. It is not a calculated value, and the uncertainty in retained helium makes it difficult to nail this down. The two anodic stripping experiments confirm this, though, SRI claiming 10% accuracy, and the Violante work roughly 20%.
That the Miles results were within an order of magnitude (i.e., a factor of ten) of the theoretical value was considered amazing by Huizenga, and correctly so. This was an astonishing finding. Previously, no cold fusion results had shown any consistency with an ash. Heat results alone didn't indicate the ash. Tritium and neutron results torpedoed the classic fusion reaction as a possibility. Helium had been reported as present (early on, by Pons), but had not been correlated with heat, and it was easily dismissed as possible leakage without that correlation. Shanahan has refused to face this, and was so intent on debunking it, in his JEM Letter, that he made a huge mistake that seemed to confirm his ideas, and it wasn't caught and it was published. In fact, what he did showed correlation, but he thought the opposite.
He has eventually acknowledged the error, but here I am pointing to what led him to make that mistake. It's the same force that led him to his calculations errors just the other day. Trying to prove he is right. That's the fast track to losing science, to fooling oneself. There are others here that have not accepted the heat/helium correlation, but they are not arguing like Shanahan. They simply are not yet convinced, which is quite different.
