QuotePlease stop trying to confuse MY with me [Shanahan]. I am not MY.
No he's not, but the next time some program revisits cold fusion claims, I might apply to play him on TV. Using bocjin as a reference.
Mizuno's bucket of water
-
-
This was a real scientific study.
Are we talking about the same thing here? My comment you were responding to referred to the 'Mizuno bucket anecdote', nothing else. It seems to me you are talking about the Mizuno preprint you posted which is now apparently in print substantially unaltered from the preprint.
-
Scientific argument is right or wrong (with various shades between). Not crackpot. And scientists arguing incorrectly are not crackpot.
I would not call Shanahan's arguments scientific. However -- more to the point -- I have heard and edited countless crackpot scientific papers and arguments. Both cold fusion and mainstream science is chock full of crackpot nonsense, bogus arguments, and what J. Watson called "baloney" in a wonderful quote at the end of this paper:
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJlessonsfro.pdf
Science is often crackpot because it is new, and because it attracts strange people. That's the nature of it, and part of what makes it charming.
Anyway, perhaps you have a different standard of what constitutes crackpot, but I think the first few paragraphs quoted by Zeus46 are crackpot, especially this "assumption" out of nowhere, based on nothing:
"April 25. Mizuno and Akimoto note that temperature is elevated. It has produced 1.2 H 107 joules since April 22, in heat-after-death. The cell is removed from the underground lab and transferred to Mizuno’s lab. Cell temperature is >100 deg C.
April 26. Cell temperature has not declined. Cell transferred to a 15-liter bucket, where it is partially submerged in water. "
So, the cell was at 100C when placed in the bucket initially (per Mizuno/JedR). Assuming it cools to 16C and does not stay at 100C as asserted by Mizuno/Rothwell,As Zeus46 says:
"What you assert only applies if you mix up the two sentences of the April 26 entry, effectively reading them backwards."
Let's make some more magic assumptions:
Assuming the Apollo Rockets never left earth, then man never walked on the moon.
Assuming a person can thrive by eating sand, no one ever needs to starve in the Sahara desert.
That's not crackpot? Waving your hands and "assuming" X is the opposite of what the author reported is a valid scientific argument? If he had said what Mary Yugo says and implies: "I don't believe it. Mizuno must be lying" -- that would not be crackpot. That's just ornery.
-
Quote
If he had said what Mary Yugo says and implies: "I don't believe it. Mizuno must be lying" --
Except that I never said or meant that. Believe me, I am not coy about calling a liar exactly that. Allow me to demonstrate: in my opinion based on what I have witnessed in the last six years, Rossi and Hadjichristos are rank, abject, consistent and unpleasant self-serving liars.
I don't know much about Mizuno. What I have seen and read suggests to me he is honest and well meaning but somehow is making large errors. Perhaps someone in his crew is fooling him, maybe like Rossi flummoxed poor Focardi again and again shamefully. Perhaps the explanation for why Mizuno's device when properly monitored by independent AND HELPFUL, WELL INTENTIONED experts, did not work is something else. I have no idea.
I would love for Mizuno's claims to be true -- that his current experiment makes a kilowatt of excess heat for prolonged periods on trivial amounts of fuel. But the evidence for that, so far, is somewhere between weak and non-existent IMO-- at least extremely shaky in the most charitable view. It's up to the proponents of Mizuno to correct that and I hope they can. So please, Jed, don't continue to make the same mistake of imputing to people things they did not say or mean. Instead, please find money and help for Mizuno. Help him prove his point and perfect his devices so they meet his claims.
-
Are we talking about the same thing here? My comment you were responding to referred to the 'Mizuno bucket anecdote', nothing else.
Yup, same thing. That was the conclusion of a one-year study. It was an abrupt, unplanned conclusion. As I said, he did not know heat after death can occur, and he wasn't planning for it. The calorimetry performed during the months before heat after death was conventional, calibrated and more precise. The heat release before heat after death far exceeded the limits of chemistry.
(By the way, it was an experiment, not an anecdote.)
The studies in the year before that were in collaboration with the people in the underground lab, doing particle detection and tritium detection. To some extent, that degraded the calorimetry. You have to choose whether you are going to measure neutrons or heat. You can do both, but the accuracy and precision in one or the other will be degraded.
-
Except that I never said or meant that.
I said you implied that he is lying. You said you don't believe him. That means he was either lying, or insane. Read the account of event and you will see there is no middle ground.
What I have seen and read suggests to me he is honest and well meaning but somehow is making large errors.
Okay, what errors? Read the account, and tell us what errors a person might make such that:
The person thinks that a large, heavy metal cell is too hot to touch because it burns his hands, and his colleague's hands as well. They are both wrong; it is actually room temperature. The pen recorder and a direct reading of the thermocouple showing it is over 100 deg C is also wrong, even though the TC has been working for a year, and it is still working today.
The cell can only be picked up and transported wrapped in towels because it is so hot, but it isn't actually hot. Why did it seem hot to the touch? Have you ever seen or heard of an object that seemed to burn people's hands but it wasn't hot?
The person feels the cell the next day, and every day for 10 days, and measures the temperature by measuring the TC directly. It still too hot to touch. In other words, his sense of touch and the instruments are drastically wrong every day for 10 days.
The person adds water to the bucket every day, and later that day or the next morning he finds the water has evaporated. But, that is a mistake, because . . . Why? The water actually spilled out and he did not notice? I was in that lab. You would know if 15 L of water were on the floor. It was early spring in Sapporo, and quite cold. The water would not evaporate or go anywhere. It was a massive concrete laboratory building with heavy floors, the Nuclear Engineering Department with tons of large experimental apparatus.
If you think these reports might be in error, I think it behooves you to suggest what errors they might been. Waving your hands and saying "there might be an error" is not a falsifiable argument. There might be an error in any experiment going back to Newton. Unless you suggest a candidate error your argument is invalid.
-
Yup, same thing. That was the conclusion of a one-year study. It was an abrupt, unplanned conclusion. As I said, he did not know heat after death can occur, and he wasn't planning for it. The calorimetry performed during the months before heat after death was conventional, calibrated and more precise. The heat release before heat after death far exceeded the limits of chemistry.
(By the way, it was an experiment, not an anecdote.)
The studies in the year before that were in collaboration with the people in the underground lab, doing particle detection and tritium detection. To some extent, that degraded the calorimetry. You have to choose whether you are going to measure neutrons or heat. You can do both, but the accuracy and precision in one or the other will be degraded.To LENR-FORUM:
I'm pretty sure Jed is doing his usual here. Yes, Mizuno tried to use the 'hot object' he plunked into the bucket in immediately preceding CF experiments. But the data I and bocijn and Zeus discussed using 'swimming-pool' equations is that data from the bucket anecdote, not the prior work. Which *was* an anecdote, since room temp, room humidity, room air flow, room incursions, and probably scads of other data are missing.
I'm guessing the data Jed is thinking of is that from the spreadsheet he posted, and that was from the bucket cell prior to the trip across campus to get dunked, then I don't believe that either as noted elsewhere.
But the bucket data is inconclusive because not enough critical information is known. And my comment about using the Pd in a real experiment still stands.
-
Quote
I said you implied that he is lying. You said you don't believe him. That means he was either lying, or insane. Read the account of event and you will see there is no middle ground.
I see. You never seem to allow for unknown circumstances or for someone deliberately deceiving another. That, I see, as a serious problem. Both happen all the time.
-
"April 25. Mizuno and Akimoto note that temperature is elevated. It has produced 1.2 H 107 joules since April 22, in heat-after-death. The cell is removed from the underground lab and transferred to Mizuno’s lab. Cell temperature is >100 deg C.
April 26. Cell temperature has not declined. Cell transferred to a 15-liter bucket, where it is partially submerged in water. "
So, the cell was at 100C when placed in the bucket initially (per Mizuno/JedR). Assuming it cools to 16C and does not stay at 100C as asserted by Mizuno/Rothwell,As Zeus46 says:
"What you assert only applies if you mix up the two sentences of the April 26 entry, effectively reading them backwards."Let's see...April 25...cell at ">100 deg C.", (don't know how much greater so we assume just 100C, admittedly could have assumed anything)
April 26..."Cell temperature has not declined."
So, if I drop a 'hot object', not a 'heater', into a bucket of cool water and let it sit, what happens to the water temp? How about "It raises up, the returns to ambient." What was ambient T? Don't know, assume 16C. Nice winter temp. Of course, as not4ed Jed/Mizuno claim it was a heater, not just a hot object.
But how does reading it backwards invalidate what I assumed??? Reading it backwards actually wouldn't change anything per what Jed/Mizuno said!
So the point here is that both Zeus and Jed are making no sense.
(Hey! Is Zeus an alter ego of Jed? Ditto bocijn?)
-
I'm pretty sure Jed is doing his usual here. Yes, Mizuno tried to use the 'hot object' he plunked into the bucket in immediately preceding CF experiments. But the data I and bocijn and Zeus discussed using 'swimming-pool' equations is that data from the bucket anecdote, not the prior work. Which *was* an anecdote, since room temp, room humidity, room air flow, room incursions, and probably scads of other data are missing.
I'm guessing the data Jed is thinking of is that from the spreadsheet he posted, and that was from the bucket cell prior to the trip across campus to get dunked, then I don't believe that either as noted elsewhere.What the hell does all this mean?!?
The speadsheet data I posted is from this year, 2017. The heat-after-death event occurred in March 1991. That's what it says in the book excerpt. The "hot object" that Mizuno plunked was a stainless steel electrochemical cell, in 1991, as noted. The swimming pool data applied to the water that evaporated during that event.
Room temperature, humidity and other factors cannot possibly make 15 liters of water evaporate overnight. That is absolutely, positively impossible, so it makes no difference whether this data was supplied or not. Demanding this information is an attempt to derail the discussion with nonsensical objections. However, anyone can make a reasonable extrapolation of the temperature and other conditions by looking up the weather in Sapporo in March, and by knowing the building and the room were not heated. Japanese National University labs were never heated in those days, except when someone was in the room, and no one was in the room, as noted in the description.
What other "scads" of data could be missing? What else do you need to know when a bucket of water evaporates? Shananhan cannot tell us how this can happen under any conditions for any reason other than the fact that a hot object was in the water. That has been the common knowledge of mankind for millions of years. It is preposterous -- it is crackpot -- to argue that you need "scads of data" to know that water evaporated because the object was hot. This is like saying we need more data to be sure it actually day and not night. Seeing sunlight everywhere and the sun in the sky is not enough. We need a millisecond reading from an atomic clock to be sure it is midday and not midnight. ANY SANE PERSON in the last 2 million years, since the discovery of fire, knows that a bucket of water with a hot object will evaporate, and it will not evaporate if the object cools down.
-
So, if I drop a 'hot object', not a 'heater', into a bucket of cool water and let it sit, what happens to the water temp? How about "It raises up, the returns to ambient." What was ambient T? Don't know, assume 16C. Nice winter temp. Of course, as not4ed Jed/Mizuno claim it was a heater, not just a hot object.
Again you assert that hot object is not a heater. This is crackpot. They are one and the same.
When happened to the water temperature was that it went up. It did not return to ambient. You made that up! You say that in direct contradiction to the description. The water evaporated. The electrochemical cell remained hot. The next day Mizuno felt it with his hand and measured the TC voltage with a meter. It was still around 100 deg C. He replenished the water. The next day, the water was gone again, and the cell was still hot.
Of course we claim it was a heater! It was hot. It heated and evaporated the water. You are crackpot who says that's not a heater. What is it, then? A beater? A sheeter? A convoleeter? What the hell do you think it is? You say:
Jed/Mizuno claim it was a heater, not just a hot object.
A HEATER IS A HOT OBJECT! A HOT OBJECT IS A HEATER!
(This is a cold fusion heater, not an electric or chemical heater.)
If this blather is not full-on scientific crackpottery, I don't know what would be. What on earth does it mean to say something "just a hot object" but "not a heater"???
-
What the hell does all this mean?!?
The speadsheet data I posted is from this year, 2017. The heat-after-death event occurred in March 1991. That's what it says in the book excerpt. The "hot object" that Mizuno plunked was a stainless steel electrochemical cell, in 1991, as noted. The swimming pool data applied to the water that evaporated during that event.
Room temperature, humidity and other factors cannot possibly make 15 liters of water evaporate overnight. That is absolutely, positively impossible, so it makes no difference whether this data was supplied or not. Demanding this information is an attempt to derail the discussion with nonsensical objections. However, anyone can make a reasonable extrapolation of the temperature and other conditions by looking up the weather in Sapporo in March, and by knowing the building and the room were not heated. Japanese National University labs were never heated in those days, except when someone was in the room, and no one was in the room, as noted in the description.
What other "scads" of data could be missing? What else do you need to know when a bucket of water evaporates? Shananhan cannot tell us how this can happen under any conditions for any reason other than the fact that a hot object was in the water. That has been the common knowledge of mankind for millions of years. It is preposterous -- it is crackpot -- to argue that you need "scads of data" to know that water evaporated because the object was hot. This is like saying we need more data to be sure it actually day and not night. Seeing sunlight everywhere and the sun in the sky is not enough. We need a millisecond reading from an atomic clock to be sure it is midday and not midnight. ANY SANE PERSON in the last 2 million years, since the discovery of fire, knows that a bucket of water with a hot object will evaporate, and it will not evaporate if the object cools down.OK, so I guessed wrong. Jed is more confusing than I thought. So what we have is 'Mizuno bucket anecdote' data, and unrelated data from Mizuno's recent work. OK, got it.
To summarize my position...Mizuno's 2017 data is unreliable, thus his conclusions and paper are unreliable...check the other posts on this for the reasons. 'Mizuno's 'bucket anecdote' data is incomplete, as is usual with anecdotes, and we can't be sure whether the cell was a 'heater' or a 'hot object' (aka a 'heated object' which perhaps helps someone catch the difference).
Now as to some of Jed's comments above...Jed consistently assumes the only reason the water disappeared is because of heat from the 'hot object' or 'heater'. That is a false assumption. At least some water would evaporate just because it was open to air. Yes, that will not account for all of it, but the point is that Jed has a one-track mind that can't handle complex situations. In the bucket anecdote, the problem is that there could have been many other things going on, above and beyond just evaporation, but we will *never know* what they might have been. Jed just refuses to consider this. In the end though, this is why researchers repeat experiments, to prove *they* are in control and not something else. A single, uncontrolled experiment like this will *never* do anything but excite curiosity (think "Rossi"). We here have played around a bit exploring parameters, but ALL of that was supposition because critical information is missing. Most notably ventilation in the lab. We need to put the 'bucket anecdote' behind us.
-
Again you assert that hot object is not a heater. This is crackpot. They are one and the same.
A HEATER IS A HOT OBJECT! A HOT OBJECT IS A HEATER!
Jed doesn't understand the need for clarity in explorative calculation. That's because he's not a scientist. As I mentioned elsewhere, the terms were clearly defined in the computational results I reported on. If he doesn't follow the methodology, sorry, nothing I can do. Time to drop the issue. Move along folks, nothing here to see.
-
I see. You never seem to allow for unknown circumstances or for someone deliberately deceiving another. That, I see, as a serious problem. Both happen all the time.
What "unknown circumstances" can make an object appear to be hot when it is actually at room temperature? What "unknown circumstances" can make 15 liters of water vanish? Magic? Extraterrestrial visitors? You have to suggest plausible candidate "unknown circumstance," or your argument is not falsifiable. It is not meaningful. Waving your hand and declaring that unknown circumstances can violate fundamental laws of physics and make cool objects register as hot to the human senses and to a thermocouple is not an argument. It is blather.
Who might have deliberately deceived him? How? How can you deceive someone to make him think that an object is hot when it is room temperature?
No one could have disturbed the cell or dumped the water in his absence. No one else had access to the lab. It was during a national holiday. He is the only one who entered the lab. It was locked and secured. This was in the Nuclear Engineering Building in a National University. It was a secure building with lots of expensive equipment, heavy machinery, radiation danger signs, heavy doors, badge access, 24-hour guards, etc.
Granted, the building was mess, and the researchers were sloppy. It was torn down years later after 40 years of use. There was so much radwaste it was declared a hazardous site and they had to spend extra millions cleaning it up. But, anyway, it was not the kind of place you could sneak into at 5 in the morning to play a practical joke on a professor. Besides, I think that would be impossible. Moments before he arrived, you would have to stop heating, disconnect the cell, get out of the lab, and hide. You would have to time it just right, or the cell would already be cooling down. He hung around for an hour or so, measuring the temperature and writing the log. It would cool down during that time, and he would notice. You would then have to stay hidden in the hallway and you would need a future time viewing machine to know an hour before he came back, so that you could heat the cell again before he returned later that day or the next morning. Just having secret agents follow him around would not work; you wouldn't know when might suddenly decide to go back.
All in all . . . I don't think your scenario is possible.
-
As I mentioned elsewhere, the terms were clearly defined in the computational results I reported on. If he doesn't follow the methodology, sorry, nothing I can do.
You have a report or computational results that say a hot object is not a heater? Where is this report? Who wrote it?
Please explain this clearly defined distinction.
we can't be sure whether the cell was a 'heater' or a 'hot object' (aka a 'heated object' which perhaps helps someone catch the difference).
It was all three. It was heated internally by a cold fusion reaction that lasted for ~10 days. It stayed hot the whole time. It was a heater because it heated the surroundings, making the water evaporate. The distinction you make between a "heater" a "hot object" and a "heated object" is meaningless crackpot nonsense. They are all one and the same. Any object this size that remains hot for days is being heated. Otherwise it would cool down. You cannot evaporate all that water with the latent heat of ~20 kg of hot steel.
("Heated" in this case means heat added to the system from mechanical, electrical, chemical or a nuclear source. I do not know of any other sources of heat.)
As I said, anyone in the last 2 million years who has heated a stone or pot of stew would know this. Shanahan is blathering nonsense here and telling us it is science based on a paper or calculation he will not reveal.
-
OK, so I guessed wrong. Jed is more confusing than I thought. So what we have is 'Mizuno bucket anecdote' data, and unrelated data from Mizuno's recent work. OK, got it.
The two are unrelated. No one other than Shanahan has confused them.
-
Ah. I see there is a new thread about the Mizuno heat after death event. Whoever is in charge should feel free to move all of my messages there. (Perhaps I could do that but I do not know how.)
Ah ha! Here it is, moved. Thanks!
-
Jed has posted a couple more comments that reveal how intractable he really is on the 'bucket' issue, and in fact on anything I write. It is hopeless trying to change his mind. All you have to do is look back to 2002 and see he is saying the same things and refusing to listen to reason then as well. He is a true cold fusion fanatic. I am stopping the bucket thing here, unless someone besides Zeus, bocijn, and Jed have serious questions. I believe there really won't be any but I'll check back on Monday to see. Holidays are coming up, lots of time off. Have fun all!
-
How about crowd-funding him some cash for some more palladium and a web cam to watch the bucket?
-
Quote
You would then have to stay hidden in the hallway and you would need a future time viewing machine to know an hour before he came back, so that you could heat the cell again before he returned later that day or the next morning. Just having secret agents follow him around would not work; you wouldn't know when might suddenly decide to go back.
Nah. What we need is for him to repeat that exact run properly or to make his current kilowatt (net output) reactor work. When properly observed. Speculating what could have happened years ago in a far away lab is futile. Real phenomena can be shown with reasonable reliability. Real experiments get better results with time. Pseudoscientific ones do the opposite. Rossi is typical. His best results ever, if you swallow the tale, is Levi's run of 2011 with no phase change. It has all been downhill from there. Less credible measurements and idiotic extreme kludges like the hot cat, the so-called megawatt plant, and now the truly specious Quark. Mizuno isn't that bad but his demonstrable performance does not seem to have improved in years. Demonstrable performance, that is. The claims are more florid.
