How do you convince a skeptic?

Quote from RobertBryant

I do not misunderstand it. You forgot what you wrote.

You did not write if. You wrote is

This statement was not conditional.

"CCSH is a better fit to the known calorimetric facts in these experiments (excess proportional to heat in when effect is present)."

As for CCS , the socalled skeptic neutral THHuxley blindly quotes it without evening knowing what it is.

There is zero experimental evidence for CCS after 17 years.

Zero.

"

Kirk Shanahan coined the acronym (conditional calibration shift or something - I forget). But the idea, as I understand it, is simple. deltaT in calorimetry is related to power by a calibration curve experimentally derived from the tested system, or rather from a similar control, under conditions where power in is known."

Display More

Robert: that was my judgement, for the reasons I have stated previously and restated in my reply to you. You took that to mean some additional experimental evidence was needed to make that judgement, whereas that was not my point at all.

I agree, Shanahan made a big deal of his acronym when in reality it is just noting that when you have a large power in / excess power ratio, errors in calibration caused by change in cell conditions, amplified by this ratio, are particularly problematic. However, he also hypothesised a mechanism for such a change in conditions that would apply specifically to many but not all F&P style electrolysis experiments, and not much else (ATER).

As for "so called skeptic neutral THH blindly quotes it without knowing what it is" that is untrue, and I'd prefer you not to state untrue things about me, also I'd prefer that you don't personalise this debate.

Commenting on "neutrality" here is not helpful because where there are different views it is easy to see a contrary view as not neutral. Personally I think having any judgement on this matter is non-neutral - and suspending judgement is not sensible and for example if carried out uniformly would need to suspensions of judgement on many other things that are contentious but where judgement is valuable. However I attempt to explain and make transparent any non-neutrality I have by giving reasons for my judgements which others can agree or disagree with.

As a skeptic I tend to want a higher standard of evidence to state anything definitely. Saying something is a "better fit to evidence" is a judgement and since it must be better, worse, or the same is not something I need to be skeptical about. I don't see skepticism as having no views. However a skeptical frame of mind tends to make me less ready to leap to something new.

While I don't have any comment on your neutrality re these matters, I think on the basis of your recent posts that you are non-neutral on the topic of my contribution here: and personalise this.

Quote from Zeus46

This statement seems a little disingenuous, (or perhaps just a bit forgetful) seeing as how you are still pointedly refusing (or are completely unable) to explain why your favoured ‘electrical input measurement’ artifacts only affect Brillouin’s fuelled Ni-H reactors, and not their control ones.

Zeus: perhaps we could do that elsewhere, with reference to the exact writeup showing what are the control vs active reactor differences? To tell you the truth I don't remember, and no-one else here can judge this without a link to a relevant paper. I think my concern re artifacts there was that the Q pulses might induce spurious signals on temperature TCs. There was also maybe an issue to do with total power in to control system. Brillouin's results are interesting, but not yet independently replicated (SRI took the Brillouin setup they had advised on, and used the same equipment again, which means that issues not considered by SRI would remain unconsidered). SRI do a better job than many of considering issues, so the results are interesting, but this is Brillouin commisioning a report. From my POV if those results are real Brillouin should be able to reengineer them into something with much clearer results just by using a different seup - as they said they intended to do. I'd like to know about that reengineering.

I think I also saw no continued IH backing for Brillouin as a negative - though there could be various reasons for it, and maybe I'm remembering this wrong.

Link the paper if you want to continue this discussion?

Finally: I don't think one Ni-H experiment is enough to invalidate the general comment. Of course, one experiment with proven excess heat beyond chemical would make the whole matter irrelevant.

Quote from interested observer

And you can always ignore me,

What, and miss out on your daily dose of superfluous commentary and concern trolling? Hardly!

Oddly enough I did used to block your comments, putting you in the category the the three worst posters here (IMO). Then someone quoted a comment of yours that was not only sensibly and helpful, but I even agreed with it. So I reconsidered.

Having done so, I’ve come to realise you’ve gone much downhill from your ‘JNewman’ days, which were hardly a highlight anyway. Same shtick though, but, each to their own, I guess.

“Oddly enough I did used to block your comments, putting you in the category the the three worst posters here (IMO). Then someone quoted a comment of yours that was not only sensibly and helpful, but I even agreed with it. So I reconsidered.”

Top 3, eh? Who are the other two?

And what did I say that you thought was sensible and helpful that you agreed with? I can’t even begin to hazard a guess since, unbeknownst to all my colleagues over the years and despite the things I have done, I am an anti-science Luddite. Gosh I hope they don’t find out. It would be a real shock.

Top 3, eh? Who are the other two?

A gentleman never tells.

And what did I say that you thought was sensible and helpful that you agreed with? I can’t even begin to hazard a guess since, unbeknownst to all my colleagues over the years and despite the things I have done, I am an anti-science Luddite. Gosh I hope they don’t find out. It would be a real shock.

Can’t remember the exact quote, as epoch-defining as it was. And I don’t think of you as an anti-science Luddite, (a bit of a tool, perhaps), so play your small violin elsewhere.

Sojourner Soo? The lunatic who thought Rossi was the harbinger of a Kondratiev Wave that would reshape society? You thought that was me? You are joking, right?

I agree, there are lots of exciting fusion reactor startups and being optimistic I think they could give us fusion energy within 15 years, though many here dismiss them as too expensive, or impossible.

https://www.tokamakenergy.co.uk/

Shane, you were bascially the only Rossi supporter on ECN who wasn’t belligerent and combative so you were actually worth talking to. Of course, that place was not really about LENR at all; it was about Rossi. Over here, LENR is supposed to be the focus, but the same anger predominates. It is mostly manifested in the handful of remaining Rossi supporters, but it is prevalent even among those who have seen the light with Rossi. People are so itching for a fight that they don’t even care what their opponent is saying. My own view of LENR has evolved over the years, but that really doesn’t seem to matter. If you ain’t with us, you’re agin us is how it works. As far as I am concerned, the critical question is not whether LENR exists. I’ll bow to the 153 replications and the Forbes 100 Best Electrochemists. Fine - it’s real. The real question is whether anything will ever come of it. Of that I remain skeptical and defeating SOT and THH in a war of words will not make a damned bit of difference. And my self-appointed nemesis (who produces new blue placeholders every time I post) will be thrilled to learn that what I have to say on the subject won’t make a damned bit of difference either. Maybe some of the work that is ongoing will somehow change things. We’ll just have to see.

Quote from interested observer

Fine - it’s real. The real question is whether anything will ever come of it.

Whether anything will come of it is impossible to say. That depends on academic politics. It is unlikely cold fusion will be recognized or funded, so probably nothing will come of it. On the other hand, it has been demonstrated for months at power densities and temperatures equivalent to a fission reactor core. (Actually, better than that.) So, there is no question that if it can be controlled, it can be made practical. There is good reason to think it can be controlled, but no proof yet.

As for Bang99... You still got a motorbike?

THH: Link the paper if you want to continue this discussion?

It’s all in the BEC thread...

Quote from JedRothwell

Whether anything will come of it is impossible to say. That depends on academic politics. It is unlikely cold fusion will be recognized or funded, so probably nothing will come of it. On the other hand, it has been demonstrated for months at power densities and temperatures equivalent to a fission reactor core. (Actually, better than that.) So, there is no question that if it can be controlled, it can be made practical. There is good reason to think it can be controlled, but no proof yet.

I have no problem with your position. Whether academic politics or the fundametal nature of the phenomenon is the ultimate stumbling block for applications is not certain. What is certain is that I have real problems with people who say that LENR is now ready to solve the world’s problems and that nothing else can. That strikes me as lunacy.

But this smacks of reasonable discourse and is probably frowned upon by people who want to pigeonhole me as “anti-LENR” and not appropriate to discuss matters with.

Quote from THHuxleynew

However, he also hypothesised a mechanism for such a change in conditions that would apply specifically to many but not all F&P style electrolysis experiments, and not much else (ATER).

These are two examples of THHuxleynew's expert opinion on ATER/CCS

eg1 ."CCS errors from this cell of an ATER type would follow from the special active environment on

the electrodes created from the D electrolysis that allows ATER. "

In answer to my question

"Could you elaborate on how CCS affects the accuracy or precision and what MS(Mike Staker) might do to mitigate it. "

eg2.

"Robert: you I guess realise that I cannot answer that in terms of particulars, specifically I can't say whether in this case it would be significant. "

My new questions

Q1. HAS THHuxleynew ever read the CCS paper written by KirkShanahan. in the last 17 years

Q2 How does THHuxleynew account for the spurious CCS/ATER anomalous heat being observed ONLY with D2O and not with H2O.

in Pd/D20/Li electrolysis experiments?????

Could THHHuxleynew please toughen up and refrain from the 'personal' assertion?

There is nothing personal about a Maori sidestep.

This is one of the better tactics against CCS.

Circumloquatious confused sophistry.

THHuxley was said to be Darwin's bulldog... not his chihuahua

I reserve personal for a current member of the

Southern Evangelical Seminary

God Bless his ministry  with humility

Kia ora bro

Quote from Zeus46

As for Bang99... You still got a motorbike?

Me? A motorbike? WTH?