Details matter

  • A (shortish) summary of the old arguments between Kirk S and others broke out on another thread:


    Starting with a very strong comment from Jed here and a reply from Kirk here.


    Reading these posts is revealing. It shows why LENR advocates such as Jed have some work to do before being taken seriously. I remember following an earlier and longer incarnation of this argument (also on here). I could not easily conclude what was correct because both sides presented their arguments and dismissed or ignored those of opponents. I'm not saying this happened equally in both directions, but it was frustrating because I was trying to follow through specific arguments to their conclusion where either it would be clear that one of other poster was lying (never my first idea, and in this case never true) or the difference in judgement or fact discovered that led to such divergent views.


    There is no dishonour in different people coming to different conclusions based on the same set of evidence. They should be able to agree on most facts, identify facts in contention (there were not many such in this case) and then drill down to the differences in judgement that result in such different overall conclusions.


    There is also the prior belief issue. (I'm using belief here in a Bayesian sense to mean inductive likelihood of propositions given all previous observations). If you reckon based on diverse strands of evidence that LENR effects very likely happen you will properly weight uncertain evidence of possible LENR differently from if you have no such prior belief. With no LENR prior belief, evidence that is strongly contrary to a normal interpretation of physics and has no predictive supporting theory would be seen as most likely experimental or interpretive error. This is one of the key things that makes debate about LENR sociologically complex, and allows people of good will and considerable expertise to come to very different conclusions.


    What annoys me is the lack of courtesy and clarity in these debates. Consider the type of checking and probing that happens in the best peer review. It is a flawed process, as we are all flawed people - especially so since done for free and not everyone is altruistic enough to spend lots of time with no reward - but still it is valuable. Peer review has some safeguards not present here. Personalities are removed from the issue, and comments are polite. Reviewers are supposed to have some expertise in the matter reviewed. That will always be variable, but the overall quality is not too bad: thus one reviewer in three typically gives really well-informed constructive criticism (on average, in my experience).


    Peer review on LENR suffers the same prior belief problem. The LENR community, by definition, are self-selected as those who have positive LENR prior belief. Not necessarily 100%, but much higher than the mainstream default of "this behaviour is extraordinary and therefore requires extraordinary evidence". Those mainstream scientists who are active in the LENR debate will have a negative LENR belief the bar remains extraordinary because they have seen nothing that convinces them. Otherwise they would cross over to LENR community - as a very few have done. Those who continue to be interested, and contribute to the debate, will either have positive LENR belief or some other reason to be interested in making negative statements.


    This is inevitable, and also problematic. Whether LENR is pseudo-science, or science that a biased establishment is too blinkered to appreciate, or new science that is just beginning to be appreciated by an establishment slow to change, getting good critiques from skeptical informed people will be hard. Critiques from non-skeptics will inevitably be less helpful if the wish is to strengthen the scientific case for LENR.


    I think there are differences here in what the LENR community wants. Some feel that there is no point trying to convince a biased mainstream community. The peer-reviewed evidence is already cast-iron, those who do not look at it will not look at more. Those who look at it and are not convinced are pseudo-skeptics. Others feel that the complex nature of LENR phenomena is a real intrinsic characteristic that has made progress hard, and stronger evidence can be obtained, but has not yet been. They think getting this strong evidence is of great importance.


    Regardless of that, when engaging in dialog about the evidence, details matter. Kirk here has a specific contribution to make. He has a well-argued case that some (he would say in principle all) LENR liquid-phase calorimetry has an additional error mechanism that is not taken into account. His arguments are plausible but it is very unclear precisely what is their scope and applicability. They clearly apply to some experiments. They clearly apply much less (how much less is open to debate) to others. Delimiting that is interesting.


    The most depressing thing for me, here, and it is very deeply depressing, is the way this dialog with Kirk goes. Both sides are obviously tired, having replayed this dialog many times before and reached entrenched positions. Yet the matter at hand here is evidence in the public domain that is mostly all agreed, and analysis that can be critiqued by anyone with decent 1st year university maths and physics. Why cannot both sides drill down to those real differences that inform the sharply divergent opinion? In the sequence of posts starting with those I've linked Kirk does a better job of sticking to the train of argument, not throwing round personal comments, and addressing all contrary points made. But that is mostly because Jed is not interested in careful reworking of the analysis here, and impatient with views he believes clearly wrong. There are also a few points that Kirk does not follow up.


    From the previous, much longer, thread you get plenty of arguments on both sides. I see no reason why these cannot be considered, patiently, cross-referenced, with both sides responding until an agreed position, or agreed set of differing judgments, is reached. I don't believe for a moment that Jed or Abd or Kirk are dishonest, or incapable of thinking about clear matters of physics, and they all have an interest in establishing what is true.


    I'm unusual in this debate, in that what most interests me is not one side or other winning, but the process of establishing belief. It is a wonderful product of enlightenment thinking - one thing of which humanity can be proud, and which in human history is quite unique. In this post-truth era it might seem to be threatened - but I do not believe this. Whatever happens with politics the value of scientific exploration and robust challenge to find new better scientific theory will remain. You can see from this that as my pseudonominal character I care more about the search for truth than its outcome. I don't by this mean that I'm any less opinionated and biased than the next person - we are all human - but I do care more about correcting bias than persuading others I'm right.

  • I have personally found polemic to be one of the biggest barriers to a fruitful and focused discussion on various topics related to LENR. In following these topics, one must acquire a kind of immunity to it in order to extract whatever kernel of useful argument there might be. But the process of filtering out polemical oversimplification of issues is even then not an easy or efficient one. People who consciously engage in polemic do great damage to the cause of truth, by obscuring important issues and pushing forward their preferred account of things. Ultimately the resort to polemic betokens a lack of interest in the truth and a lack of skill in seeking it out.

  • IMO the point is, Jed is sitting on pile, literally thousands of original articles, which mostly proved, that the cold fusion works and the opponents always come with the same mantra: "the existing evidence is insufficient, bring us more evidence"! Personally, I do consider such a way of argumentation indecent and ungrateful for work of people, who already spent their lives in this research. Everyone wants to have cold fusion running in some spectacular show as if nobody would realize, that it requires thorough systematic and coordinated research. Which is nobody willing to organize, until he will not see such a show and the vicious circle of ignorance gets closed.


    Sorry, but without hard coordinated work the cold fusion will always remain esoteric phenomena, which manifest itself just with occasional COP ~ 1.2. What's worse, there is still way too many people, who just want to have it so as a status quo.


    Of course, the cold fusion research community has its portion of guilt for the existing situation too, because it's very liberal, composed of competitive individualists like the hoard of cats and as such unsystematic by its very nature - so it refuses to stick with replication and improvement of the most sucessfull and reliable experiments, which I currently consider the deuteron plasma on nickel/lithium system. It adopted way too early the clueless attitude of mainstream physicists, who have nowhere to hurry, until their money are going.

  • Quote

    Sorry, but without hard coordinated work the cold fusion will always remain esoteric phenomena, which manifest itself just with occasional COP ~ 1.2. What's worse, there is still way too many people, who just want to have it so as a status quo.


    Let us suppose that LENR exists. If so, and what you state is true, then it is most unexpected. Naturally different experimental setups will show very different sensitivities. COP of 1.2, if the 0.2 is an LENR effect, can trivially be changed into COP of 1.6 as MFMP indeed are doing by altering thermal insulation.

  • Let us suppose that LENR exists. If so, and what you state is true, then it is most unexpected. Naturally different experimental setups will show very different sensitivities. COP of 1.2, if the 0.2 is an LENR effect, can trivially be changed into COP of 1.6 as MFMP indeed are doing by altering thermal insulation.



    There are certain processes that can be put in place to amplify the weak force on the nanoscale. Its an exercise in engineering to increase the causation of weak force amplification.


    One suggestion is to use laser light coupled with nanoparticles. There are many experiments that show this to be effective is producing the LENR reaction.


    for example, here are some


    Hydrogen emission under laser exposure of colloidal solutions of nanoparticles


    https://scirate.com/search?q=au:Simakin_A+in:physics

  • COP of 1.2, if the 0.2 is an LENR effect, can trivially be changed into COP of 1.6 as MFMP indeed are doing by altering thermal insulation.


    In an electrochemical experiment you can increase the COP by putting the anode closer to the cathode. This is not done because it is a pain in the butt. You would have to have a machine fabricate the anode-cathode array, rather than making them by hand.


    In most electrochemical experiments you can make the COP infinite by turning off the power and observing heat after death, which lasts anywhere from an hour to several days. This has often been done. So often, in fact, that any discussion of the COP is nonsense.

  • "Phenomena proved for 100+ years and secretly exploited by some military cartels, gets delayed in their public use by said cartels and energy lobbies hiring toxic skeptopaths and bot operators playing good cop/bad cop routine. Their narrative slowly changes over time to accomodate coming "revelation" in the next years."


    More at 11?

  • Quote

    So often, in fact, that any discussion of the COP is nonsense.

    Of course, from scientific perspective even the COP 1.0001 may be significant, once it gets higher than the margin of experimental errors and uncertainty. Low COP can be also multiplied by chaining of reactors according to cat - mouse approach of A. Rossi. But because of low effectiveness of heat into electricity conversion, only the COP > 3 becomes interesting for closed loop demonstrations and COP > 6 for economical feasibility.

  • So often, in fact, that any discussion of the COP is nonsense.


    I think an important point at this stage of LENR development is that a COP much greater than 1.0 lends confidence/credibility to the fact that XH was produced. Forget about electrical conversion at the moment - there are plenty of products that can use just excess heat (my home furnace for example). In the end, it is the actual value of excess energy produced that is important. As I have said, in this type of heat initiated experiment with an output of heat, the COP can be raised simply by increasing the insulation. Adding an appropriate amount of insulation to the experiment raises the COP and enhances the confidence in measurement of XH. The danger is that of a thermal runaway; but if that happens it is a happy circumstance from the experiment development perspective (you did something right).

  • Kirk here has a specific contribution to make. He has a well-argued case that some (he would say in principle all) LENR liquid-phase calorimetry has an additional error mechanism that is not taken into account. His arguments are plausible but it is very unclear precisely what is their scope and applicability.


    No, his arguments are not plausible.


    He says there is recombination in cells where recombination was carefully checked for and not found. In those same cells with another cathode type, recombination did occur and it was easily detected and completely accounted for.


    He claims there are positional effects in cells where the heat is measure outside a copper jacket. That is impossible. He claims there are positional effects in flow calorimeters where the heat is measured some distance away from the cell (at the inlet and outlet of the flowing water). That isn't only impossible, it is preposterous.


    All of his claims are physically impossible and easily disproved by papers published years before he published. He contributes nothing to this field but ignorance, confusion and groundless doubt. In short, he is a troll. If you do not agree with me and with the people who wrote papers disproving his claims, you have not read the literature or you do not understand what recombination is.

  • Jed wrote:

    No, his arguments are not plausible.


    That blanket statement is what I find unhelpful. You have specific arguments that counter Kirk's arguments. Following the previous long debate the matter was not clearly resolved. My best understanding at that time was that his ideas certainly (in the sense of being a plausible mechanism) applied to some cells, possibly applied to others. As for physical plausibility I rate that medium, but note the irony in anyone advocating LENR and then dismissing other hypotheses is physically implausible. Just as the arguments for LENR are subtle and complex, so the arguments for Kirk's mechanism also are. They should (like LENR) be treated with some skepticism, but not dismissed. And in any case Kirk has two bites at this cherry. He can claim an error mechanism not considered, if it in principle fits the evidence, without providing exact physical details. Only fair, since the competing LENR mechanism has no exact physical details.


    If you had a killer argument I would agree with you. But your arguments above are all conditional (on assumptions about experiments) or subjective. I'd respect your judgement on this issue more if you allowed the applicability of Kirk's arguments to be variable instead of this binary choice.

  • That blanket statement is what I find unhelpful. You have specific arguments that counter Kirk's arguments. Following the previous long debate the matter was not clearly resolved.


    It was clearly resolved. Unless you think it is possible that heat moving to a different place in a cell could affect the temperature sensors several centimeters away in a flow calorimeter. Or unless you think recombination might be occurring when precision measurements of the gas flow show there is no deficit from normal electrolysis. How would that work? "Recombination" has a specific meaning. It is not a magic wand you wave to make heat appear out of nowhere. It refers to gas recombining before it leaves the cell. Therefore it must cause a deficit in the flow. No deficit, no recombination.


    Some technical disputes are complicated but this one is simple. This is a lot like arguing that you can have a 1 MW heater in a warehouse with no ventilation equipment and the door closed, and yet the people in the building do not feel especially warm. And in fact one of them, Mr. Rossi, is shown in a photo wearing a jacket because it is chilly. That's preposterous. You cannot ask for more decisive proof there is no 1 MW heat source. Measuring the flow rate of the gas -- which was an essential part of Miles' experiment -- proves beyond doubt there is no recombination. Or in a different test with a different cathode type, it proved beyond doubt that there was recombination. It showed the exact level of recombination and showed that level accounted for the excess heat. What more can you ask for?


    My best understanding at that time was that his ideas certainly (in the sense of being a plausible mechanism) applied to some cells, possibly applied to others.


    He claims his mechanism applies to Miles, McKubre, Storms and others. The papers that Miles and the others wrote years before Shanahan published show this is impossible, for the reasons I just gave. There is no technical debate here. Shanahan's hypotheses are nonsense. You would only take them seriously if you have no clue what "recombination" means. See:


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


    Look for "recombination" here:


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


    If you had a killer argument I would agree with you. But your arguments above are all conditional (on assumptions about experiments) or subjective.


    Frankly, that is bullshit. Precision flow measurements are objective, not subjective. There are no assumptions here; I am describing well known facts about the experiment. We know it had to include precision flow measurements because otherwise the results would have been meaningless. The flow rate was a key parameter in establishing the helium content. I must conclude you have not read about this experiment, and you don't know what you are talking about.


    With precision gas flow measurement, recombination is detected (or not detected). That is by definition. That is the only way you can detect it with assurance. There cannot be a better "killer argument."

  • but note the irony in anyone advocating LENR and then dismissing other hypotheses is physically implausible.


    There is no irony at all. You misunderstand. Cold fusion is based on 18th and 19th century physics, especially calorimetry and thermodynamics. As Fleischmann pointed out, his instruments and experimental techniques were perfected by J. P. Joule in the 1840s. Joule could have confirmed Fleischmann's results with his own instruments easily, at a high signal to noise rate. For that matter, Lavoisier and Lapace could have confirmed it with their ice calorimeter from 1782. We know that because researchers at Shell Oil in Paris constructed a very similar ice calorimeter and confirmed cold fusion with it.


    To dismiss cold fusion results you have to throw away most physics and chemistry before 1890. As Martin said, we are painfully conventional people. The people who reject cold fusion are the radicals. Their notions are physically implausible. Ours go back to calorimeters from 1782.


    Just as the arguments for LENR are subtle and complex, so the arguments for Kirk's mechanism also are.


    No, Shanahan's mechanism are not "subtle and complex." They are preposterous nonsense, as you see at a glance from the calorimeter schematics from Miles, McKubre and Storms. Heat does not magically reach out several centimeters and tweak thermocouples separated by copper plates, flowing water, or air (in the three cases). That's about the most absurd notion I have heard of. Recombination does not occur without affecting the gas flow rate. That's not "subtle;" it is ridiculous. I am amazed you do not see that.

  • "No, Shanahan's mechanism are not "subtle and complex.""


    Let's do a step-by-step comparison....


    Step 1.
    CFers: Pd loads up to D/Pd~1 by an electrochemical process.
    KLS : Pd loads up to D/Pd~1 by an electrochemical process.


    Step 2.
    CFers: After a period of time, a special active state (SAS) forms on the Pd.
    KLS : After a period of time, a special active state (SAS) forms on the Pd.


    Step 3.
    CFers: The SAS initiates an unexpected nuclear reaction.
    KLS : The SAS initiates an unexpected chemical reaction.


    Step 4.
    CFers: The unexpected reaction gives an apparent excess heat signal.
    KLS : The unexpected reaction gives an apparent excess heat signal.


    Step 5.
    CFers: The apparent excess heat signal is real.
    KLS : The apparent excess heat signal is possibly not real.


    Step 6.
    CFers: Control of the excess heat production will be obtained once the key
    parameters are known.
    KLS : Control of the apparent excess heat signal will be obtained once the key
    parameters are known.


    Step 7.
    CFers: We don't know yet what the key parameters are or how to control them, so we
    can't tell you how to reproducibly obtain and control excess heat.
    KLS : We can quantify how large a CCS is required to produce a given excess heat
    signal.


    Step 8.
    CFers: Give us more money and we'll figure it out by doing more of the same work,
    just better.
    KLS : Already available data stored in lab notebooks should go a long way towards
    proving/disproving this.


    Step 9.
    CFers: Give us more money and we'll figure it out by doing more of the same work,
    just better.
    KLS : Assuming the CCS problem is noted frequently, we can redesign electrolysis
    cells and data interpretation methodology to eliminate the CCS problem and
    then test for any residual excess heat signal.


    ...


    So which side of the coin is 'not "subtle and complex."' and is "preposterous
    nonsense" and "the most absurd notion I have heard of" and "is ridiculous" there Jed?


    "Heat does not magically reach out several centimeters and tweak thermocouples
    separated by copper plates, flowing water, or air (in the three cases)."


    So, you're saying the heat produced in the cell is NOT what is causing the
    thermocouples to produce a signal? I think you are confuzzled again Jed.


    FYI, the idea is that the calorimeter measures the heat accurately by registering
    temperature changes somewhere in the system where they are affected by the cell's
    goings on. As long as the physical/chemical basis of this doesn't change, i.e. as long as
    the system remains in the same steady state, one can adjust for losses by calibrating
    and then accurately measure heat, with some level of precision. However, if the
    steady state changes, all bets are off. (Oops...that's the basis of the CCS problem
    there...)


    "Recombination does not occur without affecting the gas flow rate." No 'gas flow
    rate' in closed cells of course. Storms' experiment was in a closed cell by the way.
    In an open cell configuration, we have the top people in the field claiming ~10%
    accuracy (while the CCS seems to be a 1% problem). Not an encouraging situation.
    Also, I repeat...except for the one case in the 2004 publication, I actually haven't
    seen the numeric results from the gas measurement technology. Might be worse than
    10%.

  • Step 3.
    CFers: The SAS initiates an unexpected nuclear reaction.
    KLS : The SAS initiates an unexpected chemical reaction.


    These cannot be chemical reactions. They have produced up to 294 MJ of heat from 4 grams of palladium, with no chemical fuel in the cell and no chemical changes. To assert that such reactions might be chemical is to overthrow the meaning of chemistry and the last 400 years of science.


    Shanahan may say that the measurments of 294 MJ, and all other measurements exceeding the limits of chemistry, were mistaken. Many skeptics have said that, but it is incorrect. No significant errors have been found in the calorimetry in any major study. No chemical fuel or chemical changes have ever been seen any any major study. Chemistry is ruled out.


    So which side of the coin is 'not "subtle and complex."' and is "preposterous nonsense" and "the most absurd notion I have heard of" and "is ridiculous" there Jed?


    The side that rejects the very definition of chemistry is ridiculous. That is your side. As Fleischmann said, we are conventional people. You are the wild-eyed radical. You reject calorimetry and thermodynamics, the experimental method, and the very basis of the scientific method which is that when experiments conflict with theory, experiments always prevail.

  • the only new stuff seems to be the XRF work, and quick searches reveal the XRF work is as non-compelling as the rest of the work.


    @kirkshanahan: If you run out of arguments then you are even willing to ground a big part of analytical chemistry/physics. XRF is absolutely reliable if you use the right = highly selective frequency (ies). Good labs have tunable sources and mitsubishi is not a piece of cake.


    Please explain, why in XRF Cs dissapears at the same rate as Pr increases.. and remember: No contact to environment! Chamber sealed!



    Of course, fraud and self deception is always possible.., but then we can forgett any real discussion as in the Rossi case...

  • Jed wrote:

    You [Shanahan] are the wild-eyed radical. You reject calorimetry and thermodynamics, the experimental method, and the very basis of the scientific method which is that when experiments conflict with theory, experiments always prevail.


    So, reading the last page:


    @Kirk: I don't mean that your argument per se is subtle and complex. however, quantitatively, how much it applies to some experiments is certainly that. It is clear as I stated that it applies (by an amount that can be calculated) to other experiments. So I'd answer questions:

    • Does it [Kirk's hypothesis] apply, in a way capable without stretch of explaining otherwise anomalous results, to some experiments? Yes. And clearly so.
    • Does it apply in that way to all claimed excess heat calorimetry? No
    • Could it in principle so apply to all (F&P styles, open and closed cell, calorimetry) yes, but a careful look at conditions might in some cases make that look unlikely in practice. I'm not sure.


    @Jed. I cannot agree with your quote above. When you argue high excess energy that means nothing if it can be generated by a relatively small calibration or other experimental error. Your quoting the headline figures would not convince any careful person: i hope they don't convince you, but in that case why quote that form rather than something that seems more compelling? Further, it is just not true that experiment is always preferred to theory otherwise in schools the many pupils who obtain wildly innaccurate chemistry results would be rewriting history books. You will argue that F&P were masters of their field and can be trusted. I disagree, when it is rewriting books that seems implied no-one should be trusted, and all experiments must be carefully repeated and checked by different people. The result of that process, for these experiments, is unclear.

  • When you argue high excess energy that means nothing if it can be generated by a relatively small calibration or other experimental error.


    If that were true, you would have a valid point, but in most cases it is not true. In many cases heat has been measured a 3 to 100 W. That cannot be caused by a small calibration or experimental error. It would be 100 to 10,000 times the error margin. Fleischmann, Storms, McKubre and others observed effects as large as this in hundreds of tests. There is not the slightest chance every one of these tests was an experimental error. If the scientific method could fail that badly, calorimetry would not exist and the laws of thermodynamics (which are derived from calorimetry) would never have been discovered. If even one of these observations was real, that means cold fusion is a real effect, producing heat with no chemical changes at levels far beyond the limits of chemistry.


    In any case, Shanahan's claims are physically impossible. You cannot have recombination without a deficit in the gas flow. Heat cannot magically move from a cell and concentrate in a thermocouple centimeters away from the cell. These assertions are nonsense, so they explain nothing. Even if some cold fusion results are in error (which is likely), Shanahan's "explanation" for them is worse than an error. It is nonsense.


    You are saying that in a hypothetical, imaginary situation in which all results are small, cold fusion might be wrong. That is true, but pointless, since that situation does not exist in the real world. Why do you bother to speculate about imaginary situations?


    You will argue that F&P were masters of their field and can be trusted. I disagree


    Who the hell are you to judge? You do not even know the names of the people who did these tests, or their C.V.s. Two of them, Ernie Yeager and Arata, have chemistry institutes named after them, and international prizes in their names. One was the Chairman of the Indian Atomic Energy Commission and another was a member of the French Atomic Energy Commission. Another was the top U.S. expert in tritium detection at the PPPL and Los Alamos. Fleischmann and Bockris literally wrote the book on 20th century Modern Electrochemistry (that's the title). The people who designed the calorimetry were not quite as famous, because calorimetry is a long-settled field and you do not get famous for doing it, but they were the best in the U.S., Europe and Japan.

  • Let's break this down a bit...


    "In many cases heat has been measured a 3 to 100 W. That cannot be caused by a small
    calibration or experimental error."


    Of course it can. All it requires are the proper conditions. What are they? It
    depends on the specific experiment. Thus the generalization Jed makes about causes
    is incorrect on the face of it. This is how Jed functions. He slips these
    grandiose, sweeping statements in and people seem to accept it uncritically. (That's
    a good way to get scammed folks...)


    When I looked into the calorimetry used by cold fusioneers, I found out quickly that
    very little actual information is routinely presented. Usually you get the end
    conclusions like the '3 to 100 W' comment above, with no other information except the
    barest sketch of what was done in a few cases. This is typical for 'normal' results
    that conform to expectations and expand the knowledge base, but don't induce rewriting
    of science. The CF case is not normal and so normal rules don't apply. All the
    information needs to be shared.


    The CFers make this mental error because they all share the point Jed made:


    "calorimetry is a long-settled field"


    What is happening when Jed trots this type of comment out is (a) a call to authority,
    which is not a valid reasoning technique, and (b) a demonstration of one of the
    generic mental (logical) problems the whole field seems to share, which is that they
    feel old techniques work perfectly. If one says this directly to them, they will deny
    it vehemently, but they act this way, and there are many examples of it, i.e.


    "It would be 100 to 10,000 times the error margin."


    Anyone who understands why the 'CCS' is not a 'hypothesis', but a simple mathematical
    fact, also realizes that what I did in my first CF publication was to redefine the
    error level. In fact I showed directly that in Storms experiment the error was on the
    order of Watts, not milliwatts as Storms and others would typically claim. But I also
    showed there was a systematic nature to the error, which means that it would be
    possible in theory to determine what was causing the systematics, and then to account
    for it, taking it out of the whole discussion.


    The milliwatt error level is derived from examination of the baseline fluctuation
    while at a nominal constant level. This is baseline 'old school' error 'analysis'.
    I put that in quotes because there is actually very little analysis involved. The
    CCS proposition however says that something happens that causes the calibration
    to change. That induces an error. In the Storms' case a 780 mW signal is zeroed
    out. I also looked at the McKubre M4 case, but since he wouldn't tell me the
    calibration equations, I couldn't analyze it as I did with Storms' data. I 'cheated'
    though and used the M1 and M3 runs (which as I recall were the ones that showed no
    excess heat) to derive a more typical calibration equation. When I applied it to
    the M4 data, the result was highly affected by a slight CCS.


    There is no reason to presume a 100W signal isn't an error too. You have to check the
    data workup process.


    Thus, yes, "Fleischmann, Storms, McKubre and others observed effects as large as
    this in hundreds of tests." Absolutely. But they didn't prove it was real, so


    "There is ... the slightest chance every one of these tests was an experimental
    error."


    Then Jed writes:


    "If the scientific method could fail that badly, calorimetry would not exist
    and the laws of thermodynamics (which are derived from calorimetry) would never have
    been discovered."


    It's not the method that is failing. It is the scientists. They refuse to consider
    that the last 2% of the heat in a cell can induce any appreciable error. But that
    is because they fail to make the effort to understand what I'm saying, primarily
    because it's a 'new school' approach to the issue (and we can't tolerate that!).
    The whole 'group of 10 - CCSH' fiasco shows this perfectly.