me356: Photos of AURA control unit

Quote from Rends

. . . but this does not mean that you can not repeat this experiment, because what the data showed is that even a non-functioning reactor shows COP at a time equal to 10 and this MUST be investigated.

What data shows a COP of 10? Where is this data published? Where are the details showing the method of calorimetry and calibration?

This is a claim made by me356. There is no evidence for it. It may be true, or it may be false. The only scientific evidence we have so far is from MFMP, and it shows conclusively that the reactor did not work. Unless we get additional data in the coming weeks showing that it works after all, we should assume the reactor does not work.

There is no reason to say this MUST be investigated. Claims of over unity devices are a dime a dozen. There are thousands of them. You could not begin to investigate more than a handful of them. In every case I know of (dozens, in all), they were wrong. Unless the person making the claim provides good scientific data with a good choice of instruments, calibrations and a realistic s/n ratio, it is best to ignore the claim.

JedRothwell "unless the person making the claim provides good scientific data with a good choice of instruments, calibrations and a realistic s/n ratio"

I guess that's what me356 is working on now

in the sparetime he gets off from earning korunas

He will use MFMPs calorimetry equipment to prove true/false

Sine qua non. For himself first, and then others.

"To thine own self be true"

Quote from JedRothwell

Not a chance. Detailed examinations of the data and equipment ruled out any excess.

That is not justified. Not that I think there was any excess, far from it. Perhaps you could rule out 200kW. And certainly 500kW from heat dissipation issues. But with such appalling instrumentation, and so many gaps in basic knowledge like how was the thing plumbed, you have no insight into what those number mean other than that they do not prove anything.

Rossi makes enough unfounded claims. No need or call for the same from those arguing Rossi is a flake.

Quote

after twelwe years where are the independent proofs under scientific control?

I just linked them - the Apicella / Violante experiments are also independent proof of palladium fusion. It's not my problem, nobody of scientific circles bothers to replicate these independent replications. The absence of attempts for proof isn't negative evidence - just the manifestation of pathoskeptic ignorance.

Quote

Show a demo where something has worked in public under independent scientific control.

At the case of gravitational waves no independent scientific replications still exists, no experiments were made public and the scientific prices are already awarded.

Quote from Zephir_AWT

I just linked them - the Apicella / Violante experiments are also independent proof of palladium fusion. It's not my problem, nobody of scientific circles bothers to replicate these independent replications. The absence of attempts for proof isn't negative evidence - just the manifestation of pathoskeptic ignorance.

At the case of gravitational waves no independent scientific replications still exists, no experiments were made public and the scientific prices are already awarded.

http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ViolanteVsearchforn.pdf

Just looking briefly at this work, they do not claim strong evidence, nor do I think they have this. They note encouraging further results and were these anomalies to be real you would expect their next paper to be much more convincing.

They are also not claiming that this paper reproduces other work. The problem is this. Evidence of isotopic shifts is not predictive. Many different errors can generate this at low levels, especially when the isotopes are all natural. In order for interesting but inconclusive evidence of this sort to be viewed as more than likely error you need reproduction in which the same precise effect is observed. That is not so here in the isotopic shifts. The tritium is not claimed coherent with anything else.

Because all these results are so marginal they need reproduction. I see little merit in this when the reproduction generates more marginal results incoherent with the original. Conversely, more marginal results coherent with the original would lead to a more definite predictive hypothesis which could be further strengthened by more testing.

The style of argument made for LENR that I have no time for is the one that says:

Hey look. X found direct evidence of cats in his experiments where no mammals are expected. We have repeated them and found no direct evidence of cats, but some evidence of elephants, equally unexpected. Furthermore, because we were looking for cats, we tested fecal content for cat-specific markers. Out of 10 possible markers one marker showed anomalous positive values well above noise.

Unexpected marginal results are individually surprising but collectively expected. Testing lots of things will find anomalous values at marginal levels more often than not.

Quote

The absence of any attempts and absence of any working prototype is proof that nothing was as claimed

Nope, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. From where are you getting such an ideas?

BTW Is it just me or is anyone else experiencing "cloud errors" during viewing and uploads to this forum today?

Quote from JedRothwell

I doubt that a reactor that produced a COP of ~10 suddenly stopped working, and the operator could not make it work over 4 days.

maybe you missed a key-point.

the reactor for MFMP test was a new and untested design.

It means nothing about his previous reactors that he claimed had COP=10 or more.

The old reactors were not ready for a black box test, it was impossible to hide their design.

I completely agree with you that if in a month or so, he would not be able to test and verify his old reactors with MFPM calorimetry system, It will be very bad for his credibility.

Quote

Philosophy on wording not means Science. Any scientific proof can't be substituted by your wordplay.

The same applies to your wordplay. You still didn't provide any scientific proof, that Me356 device doesn't work.

Until you do it, you shouldn't claim anything about it.

Quote from Rends

Unfortunately, it did not work 100%, but this does not mean that you can not repeat this experiment, because what the data showed is that even a non-functioning reactor shows COP at a time equal to 10 and this MUST be investigated.

Hard to believe, but it really appears that a lot of LENR proponents don't understand that when you calculate the COP as (momentary) Power-Out divided by Power-In, then even my ordinary instantaneous water heater will easily show (for a short time) a COP of 10 and above.

However, no need to send the Myth-Busters, Ghost-Busters, MFMP to invetsigate my electr. heater.

There was nothing extraordinary going on during this me356 demo, and no need to fuss about COP illusions, as done here:

Any message which insinuates that such instant COP values are meaningful is quite telling about the reputability and the credibility of the messenger.

That's like someone claims to have invented a magic broomstick - that type Harry Potter used to fly with - and when the inventor demonstrates his (non working) gadget, I take a picture just at the moment when he jumps up, and tweet this picture with the headline: "Antigravity - Demo shows inventor hovering with his broomstick 1 ft above ground."

Quote

I have nothing to prove to anyone

So that the "Science" expects, you'll remain quiet. You don't know anything, you cannot prove anything.

Isn't it that simple? Everything what you say can be doubted just from perspective of "Science" according to your own rules.

So I did it.

Quote from Zephir_AWT

The same applies to your wordplay. You still didn't provide any scientific proof, that Me356 device doesn't work.

Until you do it, you shouldn't claim anything about it.

While technically this is correct, practically it is not feasible.

Claims are made by people for lots of things, many of which are false. Usually, not for sinister reasons, just because people get involved in things and make claims and, being people, are often wrong.

In this case claims with no supporting evidence and significant negative evidence are best viewed as false. But unsubstantiated would be more accurate.

So saying me356 claims are unsubstantiated at the moment is correct, but does not convey the real negative evidence

Saying they are true is not technically correct and a bad approximation

Saying they are false is not technically correct and a good approximation

Quote from Rends

To get it to the point; me356 has faced the challenge and will surely annoy itself the most, that the experiment has failed by a technical defect. I am convinced that such a failure can not be planned, so me356, when planning the test, was convinced having a functioning reactor.

Unfortunately, it did not work 100%, but this does not mean that you can not repeat this experiment, because what the data showed is that even a non-functioning reactor shows COP at a time equal to 10 and this MUST be investigated.

Rends: as moderator here I hope you will retract this statement when you understand why it is false.

True: even a non-functioning reactor (for example a normal electric heater) will show short-term average COP equal to 10 at some time, as here

False: this must be investigated. Since the existing investigation has shown me356 device behaving exactly as an electric heater with no mystery.

Should me356 discover, using decent test methodology with equipment left by MFMP, that some variant of his reactor does work, then doubtless MFMP will be able to return an confirm this happy event.

Otherwise your statement is just 100% wrong, logically, and I'd like you to correct it.