No Jed, what you are describing is known as a systematic error, i.e. an error in the 'system'. In CF calorimetry, the error is to assume the calorimeter/cell is accurately modeled by a single equation.
Many different calorimetric systems have been used. There can be no common systematic error in all of them because the systems are different. They are not modeled by a single equation.
There is not a single published paper by any expert in calorimetry, electrochemistry, tritium or helium showing any substantive error in any of the major cold fusion studies. Not in the peer reviewed literature, and not in proceedings or anywhere else. I have read just about every paper published in this field. If there were such a thing, I would know about it. I am sure you cannot point to one.
It doesn't take an 'expert' to spot a flaw. Just an observant person. My 4 papers point out lots of flaws in the field. I don't need to be an 'expert' to see what I saw.
Jed wrote:
"[1] Many different calorimetric systems have been used. [2]There can be no common systematic error in all of them because the systems are different. [3]They are not modeled by a single equation."
That's true[1]. Of course there can[2]. that sounds like your "there is a statute of limitations on scientific results" statement. Yes, they are[3].
interested observer wrote: "You should listen to Jed. His judgement in these matters is impeccable. If anyone can evaluate LENR papers properly, he is the guy." -ROFL^2
My judgement of a set of contrary arguments from experts, of claimed experts, would convince me, if I spent enough time doing it,
As I said, there are no contrary arguments from experts. No expert has tried to disprove cold fusion, I suppose because in order to do that they would have to prove that calorimetry does not work and the laws of thermodynamics are invalid. Broadly speaking, opponents have made only two arguments:
1. Huizenga et al. It is theoretically impossible and therefore there has to be a mistake, even though I have not found it. As he put it: "furthermore, if the claimed excess heat exceeds that possible by other conventional processes (chemical, mechanical, etc.), one must conclude that an error has been made in measuring the excess heat." Note that this is not falsifiable.
For more information, see:
http://pages.csam.montclair.ed…lski/cf/293wikipedia.html
2. Robert Park. Cold fusion researchers are frauds, lunatics and criminals. They must all be fired and expelled from the government and academia. That is what he said, and what he and others did.
Anyway, you can save yourself some time here. If you think you can find an error, find it in one these two papers. Don't bother with second-tier papers. If these two are valid, that means cold fusion is valid, and you don't need to evaluate the others, unless you feel like learning more:
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHisothermala.pdf
My 4 papers point out lots of flaws in the field.
No, your papers are wrong. See:
Jed wrote more...
"
No, your papers are wrong. See:
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MarwanJanewlookat.pdf"
You really don't read at all do you Jed?
Anyway, you can save yourself some time here. If you think you can find an error, find it in one these two papers. Don't bother with second-tier papers. If these two are valid, that means cold fusion is valid, and you don't need to evaluate the others, unless you feel like learning more:
I don't recall if I have put anything out on the first paper, but it's a classic mass flow calorimetry paper just like Ed Storms' system that I reanalyzed to start things off, so I doubt there's any way to tell for sure, since CFers never want to put up the right data to allow their work to be evaluated, but I'd guess it does the same old approach that I showed was flawed in Ed's work.
The second in the non-peer-reviewed version of F&P's J Electroanal Chem paper (as I recall) (I think 1993) that I critiqued in my 2012 whitepaper, Lots of problems with the methodology...
Does 'whitepaper' mean that it remains unpublished in a journal?
Does 'whitepaper' mean that it remains unpublished in a journal?
Yes, it is 'unpublished' at least in a scientific journal. I didn't want to mess with trying to get it published but it covers several topics. I've noted it several times before in this forum. You can try to get it via mark Gibbs' article here (http://www.networkworld.com/ar…-fusion-a-year-later.html) or order it from DOE's OSTI (cost $ I think).
Feel free to comment or question here if you like.
I've asked for years for a single, refereed, published paper that show 100W of LENR power without power input, clearly measured with calibrations and blanks, and which is sustained far longer than stored heat or chemical reactions (including electrochemical reactions) could account for. Jed is great at making claims and super good at flooding the scene with papers but I have yet to see that.
Kirk's skeptical paper: https://drive.google.com/file/…b1doPc3otVGFUNDZKUDQ/view
I'n not sure that the participants here, and particularly you, have the patience to go over this stuff in the detail needed for me to pay attention. Assertions just don't help me. FWIW i read the F&P paper you suggested, and various critiques and counter-critiques. The evidence in that paper is not strong - it is written from the standpoint of somone who has already proved that the effect exists and is here demonstrating some lacunae of calorimetry. Therefore the case for excess heat is not seriously made. Sure there are indications, all of which have question marks. We could look in more detail at the phase in the reported work that you think demonstrates such strong evidence.
I have not read the McKubre paper yet.
@Kirk Just as I'm sympathetic with Jed's lack of patience in this debate, so I am with yours. You have in the past I've noticed controlled it rather better than Jed. In this discussion here it would maybe require quite a lot of patience.
regards, THH
I've asked for years for a single, refereed, published paper that show 100W of LENR power without power input, clearly measured with calibrations and blanks, and which is sustained far longer than stored heat or chemical reactions (including electrochemical reactions) could account for.
No you haven't. You just 'moved the goalposts' with the claim in bold. Classic pseudo-skeptic behaviour... Probably as a result of the 100W paper Jed has already given you a link to several times.
Please feel free to post a link correcting me if I am wrong.
I've asked for years for a single, refereed, published paper that show 100W of LENR power without power input, clearly measured with calibrations and blanks, and which is sustained far longer than stored heat or chemical reactions
And if you got that, I am sure you would then demand 200 W, with no input power. If you got 200 W, you would then demand 400 W. You will keep moving the goal-posts down the field, out into the stadium parking lot, and into the next county.
There is no technical justification for these arbitrary demands of yours. The signal to noise ratio would not be any higher at 100 W than it is for the best tests. McKubre, Miles, Fleischmann and many others published papers showing 3 to 50 W, in some cases 100 W. Storms showed the distribution of power levels from 124 tests here:
http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress…tormsPeakheat124tests.jpg
As you see, they include a small number of tests at and above 100 W. But you will pretend they do not exist, and you will not bother to read papers that happen to describe lower power levels.
What you want is an excuse to avoid reading, thinking or doing any work. You want to go on saying whatever pops into your head, because that is easier and more fun than learning. Also, because you yourself have not bothered to learn anything, you suffer from the illusion that no one else knows anything, and that no one will realize you are making stuff up. Your attitude is typical for self-centered ignoramuses. Example: Mr. Trump said, "nobody knew that health care could be so complicated."
Assertions just don't help me. FWIW i read the F&P paper you suggested, and various critiques and counter-critiques.
Which critiques and counter-critiques? Where are they published? I am not aware of any. (Morrison critiqued earlier work in the paper I pointed to.)
I am asking seriously. Where did you find these critiques?
If you mean Internet debates I suggest you ignore them. Stick to published papers by scientists who sign their real names. Ignore anonymous critics who name themselves after anime characters. Yeah, I realize that is an elitist attitude, but after all these years of dealing with cold fusion, translating and copy-editing cold fusion papers, I have become a thoroughgoing elitist. Amateurs and the tin-foil-hat theorists and crackpots such as Shanahan and the editors at Wikipedia and the Scientific American have contributed nothing to this field. It is a waste of time reading their stuff.
@THH
the tin-foil-hat theorists and crackpots such as Shanahan
...and you're castigating me??? Wow...
You're joking of course! We have plenty of devices which work often enough to allow nuclear measurements.
The problem is that most nuclear measurements reveal nothing. That is why many conventional nuclear scientists think that cold fusion is a mistake, rather than a nuclear reaction. Things like neutron detectors usually detect nothing. As far as I know, only three types of nuclear diagnostics work with most experiments:
Tritium detection, usually done externally from samples drawn from the cell.
Helium detection, which again has to be external because of the limitations of the instruments.
X-ray detection in the cell, right next to the cathode. The opposite problem! It cannot be external or even outside the cell. The only method I know that works well is to use dental x-ray film, which can be submerged in electrolyte. Electronic dental x-ray sensors might work. (I wouldn't know but my dentist tells me they are more sensitive than film.) Several Italian researchers have published brilliant results with x-ray film, revealing more than you might imagine is possible, given the limits of this medium.
Jed, Kirk is a published author. As am I, though I have no intention of proving that. Neither of these facts makes us better people, or necessarily correct. Equally, your calling Shanahan a crackpot does not make him a less serious critic. It does however cause me to be more cautious in my interpretations of your other comments, unless you can substantiate it.
Jed, Kirk is a published author.
Yes, he is. He is even peer-reviewed. But he is also a crackpot, as you see from his papers and his comments here, and from the Marwan critique. He believes in Tinkerbell magic effects that appear out of nowhere when you use deuterium, and he believes that ice calorimeters, isoperibolic, Seebeck and flow calorimeters, and IR cameras can all have the same systematic errors, even though they are physically different -- as different as any instrument system can be.
Morrison was also a crackpot. If you do not think so, I suggest you read this paper more carefully:
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanreplytothe.pdf
Do you know of any others? I don't. Critiques based on theory do not count.
Cold fusion has revealed a weakness of the peer-review system. Crackpots who are opposed to cold fusion pass peer-review in no time, like greased lightening. Real scientists have to wait for years to have their papers reviewed and corrected. The good thing about that is the research papers that finally make it through are usually pretty good. The bad thing about this was described by Julian Schwinger:
"The pressure for conformity is enormous. I have experienced it in editors’ rejection of submitted papers, based on venomous criticism of anonymous referees. The replacement of impartial reviewing by censorship will be the death of science."
http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/SchwingerJcoldfusiona.pdf
It does however cause me to be more cautious in my interpretations of your other comments, unless you can substantiate it.
Shanahan's own comments and his Tinkerbell hypothesis makes the case that he is a crackpot. His comments about systematic errors in systems that bear no resemblance to one-another make that case. He makes the case a thousand times stronger than I ever could. If his own words do not convince you he is a crackpot, then nothing that I can say, or that Marwan et al. said will convince you.
QuoteYes, he is. He is even peer-reviewed. But he is also a crackpot, as you see from his papers and his comments here, and from the Marwan critique. He believes in Tinkerbell magic effects that appear out of nowhere when you use deuterium, and he believes that ice calorimeters, isoperibolic, Seebeck and flow calorimeters, and IR cameras can all have the same systematic errors, even though they are physically different -- as different as any instrument system can be.
The "different calorimeters can't have the same systematic effect" is a formally valid critique, though even if true (I can think of reasons why it might not be) all you need is different systematic errors which happen to have the same sign. In a field such as LENR it would be natural for any positive systematic errors to be propagated by a form of evolutionary selection. I'll await Kirk's comment if he cares to do that.
The "Tinkerbell magic" comment is very evocative but I can't understand it. There are surely very many ways in which D and H would be expected to behave differently in these experiments - their physical properties are very different.
Regards, THH
PS - by published, I meant published in serious (high Impact factor) peer-reviewed Journals
QuoteThe replacement of impartial reviewing by censorship will be the death of science.
If that were generally the case I'd expect that internet-only-published papers of significantly higher quality than peer-reviewed papers on LENR should exist. I have not seen that, but maybe you have?
Regards, THH
