Clearance Items

Quote from interested observer

Apparently your entire mission in life is now to denigrate skeptics and insult anyone who doesn't agree with everything you say.

Nah. That's just a hobby. I use people such as Mary Yugo as rhetorical punching bags. It is good practice for actual debates with people who know what they are talking about and can punch back.

Seriously, how hard is it to win a debate with someone who never reads anything, who makes quantitative mistakes by a factor of 800, and who seriously believes a bucket of water will evaporate in a week? Has this person never seen an aquarium? If I cannot run rings around M.Y. I might as well give up, stop promoting cold fusion, and stop trying to convince anyone of anything.

M.Y. herself is incapable of seeing she is making a fool of herself, because of the Dunning-Kruger effect. This is explained by Prof. John Cleese of Cornell University, here:

(Yes, that Cleese, and he really is a prof. at Cornell.)

Quote from interested observer

If you really succeed, you will be the only person here. Is that really fulfilling for you?

I don't see what you mean by "the only person here." If I succeed there will be hundreds of thousands of people working on cold fusion.

Commenting here is just for fun. It a distraction from editing and translating papers -- which is boring -- and it is less depressing than trying to arrange a replication of Mizuno's experiment. Those are my main present projects.

JR said "arrange a replication of Mizuno's experiment"

I sent a missive to Aotearoa..maybe they will respond.. Prof Walmsley was from one of my alma maters .

Its not so far from Sapporo

Ok, Jed. Glad you are having fun.

I'm here for fun too. From time to time I try to take people seriously, but I have found that on sites like this, the people who believe in any over-unity claims tend to believe in all over-unity claims. At that point, their credibility goes to zero. But the earnestness with which they fight for nonsense is very entertaining.

@Alan: no, I don't think it is anything like believing in one god vs. believing in every god. Virtually nobody does that and, obviously, it runs counter to the primary tenet of most religions: belief in the "one true god". However, my observation over the past several years is that the majority of believers in any particular over-unity claim turn out to also believe in virtually every other one as well. You may try to nuance this as being "more open-minded" but it basically constitutes total gullibility. I can imagine being convinced by some particular over-unity claim and still having a reasonable capacity for critical thinking. But believing virtually all of them is the earmark of a fool.

'IO wrote "the primary tenet of most religions=belief in the "one true god"

The Romans who invented religiones " the things that bind" tended to be polytheistic.

"E= mc2" connects three tenets of physics... the trinity? which might have dominion over Over- unity.

I think I bucket of water could evaporate overnight if it was really, really not in the room.

Not in the Room... like in a furnace?

Quote from interested observer

but I have found that on sites like this, the people who believe in any over-unity claims tend to believe in all over-unity claims.

That is not true of me, and it not true of any of the mainstream cold fusion researchers I know -- and I know most of them. As Fleischmann said, we are painfully conventional people. Very old fashioned. Strong believers in the Laws of Thermodynamics and the experimental method. We are not the kind of people who imagine that a bucket of water left in a room might evaporate overnight. I think you will find that the opponents of cold fusion are the ones who propose or jump to endorse such crackpot theories. After all these years, opponents have not written a single paper or critique which is not cloud-cuckoo-land imaginary science. It is ironic you imagine we are the weirdos and Shahanan and Yugo are normal. I suggest you look at what they actually say, and think for a moment whether a bucket of water will evaporate overnight, or even in 7 days. Have you ever seen a aquarium do that? Do you really want to endorse these fruitcakes?

Looking at the opponents of cold fusion, Julian Schwinger said, "have we forgotten that physics are empirical?" Yes, indeed, modern young scientists have forgotten that. They never learned it in the first place. That is why they embrace multi-world fantasies while they reject heat measurements that any scientist after 1780 could have made with confidence. I mean that literally; the calorimeter designed by Lavoisier in 1780 was accurate and sensitive enough to measure most cold fusion excess heat. He used it to measure guinea pig metabolism and to confirm that metabolism produced the same amount of heat per gram of carbon and oxygen as combustion does. That calls for considerable precision.

Jed, i have no knowledge of the beliefs of mainstream cold fusion researchers. I was speaking of the people who frequent LENR websites only. And I think my assessment of them is accurate.

Quote from interested observer

Jed, i have no knowledge of the beliefs of mainstream cold fusion researchers.

Golly gosh. And here you are trash-talking their work!

Has it occurred to you that before you critique their work, or denounce it -- or for that matter endorse it -- you should first read what they say, and learn what they claim and what they believe?

I know that isn't the post-modern method, which resembles throwing darts in the dark. I realize it is old fashioned to first learn something about a scientific claim before you bash it. As I said, I am an old fashioned fuddy-duddy about such things, not one of you young folks with your i-phones and your Internet and Wikipedia-based instant expertise, but you should consider doing things the traditional way.

disinterested nonobserver needs to find a "lenr-frequenter forum" rather than a "lenr forum"

Quote from maryyugo

I hope that diatribe makes you feel better about not being able to come up with a credible experiment that offers 100W of power, long duration, and no power input ALL AT ONCE.

Where "long duration" is any duration longer than you care to admit has occurred. The duration already demonstrated by Fleischmann and others (not even including Mizuno) already put the effect orders of magnitude beyond chemistry. But, that is quantitative so it means nothing to you. You cannot define "long" or "short" because you ignore the laws of physics, and you don't realize it when your answer is wrong by a factor of 800. You arbitrarily declare something "not long enough" when by rational scientific standards it is hundreds of times long enough to prove the point.

That is to say, suppose the effect were chemical. Suppose also it were possible to rapidly release the chemical fuel in a cell at this power level (not actually possible), and suppose there were any oxygen in the cell (there isn't). The heat would last for a few seconds before all the fuel was used up. It lasts for hours or days instead. Can you tell the difference between seconds and hours, or days? No, you cannot, because that is a quantitative, factual comparison, and you don't do quantities or facts. You just make stuff up, throw it at the wall, and see if any of it sticks. The difference between seconds and days is "not long enough" for you. If it were months or years that still would not be long enough. Because numbers mean nothing to you.

Quote from maryyugo

All I said was that Shanahan did not claim it happens in a day.

Ah, but he did. Many times. Ask him!

In any case, you imagine that he claims it happens in a week, which is roughly as impossible as one day would be. The difference hardly matters. If you actually think a bucket will evaporate in a week, try leaving a bucket of water in a room for a week. Ah, but of course you never will do that, any more than you will read the paper. People like you never actually test their assertions, or read the papers, or do a quantitative analysis of their own claims. All you do is blather the first bit of nonsense that pops into your head. "It must be chemical or stored energy!" or "Shahanan never said one night. He said one week" (never noticing that a week is equally impossible).

Quote from bocijn

disinterested nonobserver needs to find a "lenr-frequenter forum" rather than a "lenr forum"

He needs to RTFM or shut up. Where TFM = original source scientific papers. Not Wikipedia or imaginary blather from Yugo who can't tell the difference between seconds and days, or 1 and 800.

Critics of cold fusion have never written a valid paper showing an error in any major study. They have never even tried. As you see, they don't even bother to learn anything about it. What they themselves say is the best proof they are wrong. You don't need me to tell you this. I encourage you to read what they wrote, especially this:

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

(Later published in a peer-reviewed format.)

If this does not convince you the "skeptics" are wrong, nothing will.

Jed, the master of the straw man. Where exactly am I trash-talking the work of mainstream cold fusion researchers? You're big on citations. Let's hear it.

As I recall, my cardinal sin on this site was saying that I am agnostic with respect to the LENR religion. And for that I took endless shit from the faithful.

Since you like to make up stuff about your opponents, why don't you just go all the way and make up your opponents entirely. It would be just as honest.

Quote from interested observer

Where exactly am I trash-talking the work of mainstream cold fusion researchers? You're big on citations. Let's hear it.

For example, right here:

Quote from interested observer

heat is heat alright, and nobody denies that LENR reactors get hot when you put current through them. The question is how much heat? The whole business is predicated on "excess heat", not just any heat at all. And the disputes are all about whether there is indeed more heat than can be accounted for conventionally.

There are hundreds of papers of discussing whether there is indeed more heat than can be accounted for conventionally. That is the heart of the research. You talk as if it never occurred to anyone to investigate this! Clearly, you are unfamiliar with literature, yet you keep dismissing the research with these "more in sorrow than in anger" sob stories. Oh, if only someone would look to see if there is a conventional explanation! Think of the children!

Regarding this "agnostic" claim . . .

When you said "the people who believe in any over-unity claims tend to believe in all over-unity claims" I assumed you were referring to me, and to the authors. I now understand you meant only the people here in this site. You say you don't know about the researchers. I take that to mean you have not read them. Right?

Since you have not read them, you don't know what they think. Got it. But why are you even discussing this research without reading it? How can you be an "agnostic" about a subject you know nothing about? That is a strange choice of words. An agnostic is someone who has knowledge of a subject and thinks the issue cannot be settled. It does not mean someone who knows nothing about X yet despite his ignorance, he claims that X is unknowable.

Agnostic does not mean "I don't know." It means, "no one can know." Dictionary definition:

"A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God."

I suppose you have in mind the second definition, extended by analogy. Since you have not read the papers obviously you cannot have faith or disbelief in them, but that is not useful information. That contributes nothing to the discussion. I once attended a beginning class in musicology just to see what it was like. I know nothing about music, and I learned nothing. I did not have the slightest idea what the professor was talking about. It might as well have been a discussion of quantum electrodynamics. Does that make me a musicology agnostic? Or does it make me a musicology ignoramus with no right to any opinion? I would say the latter. If I were to invade musicology forums and boldly declare my agnosticism about atonal chords and coda (whatever they may be), people would say I am crazy. They would not respect my agnosticism.

Quote from JedRothwell

For example, right here:

There are hundreds of papers of discussing whether there is indeed more heat than can be accounted for conventionally. That is the heart of the research. You talk as if it never occurred to anyone to investigate this! Clearly, you are unfamiliar with literature, yet you keep dismissing the research with these "more in sorrow than in anger" sob stories. Oh, if only someone would look to see if there is a conventional explanation! Think of the children!

Yeah but Jed, hasn't this always been proven to be mismeasurements, or dare I say it, poor calorimetry?

TRRB- "I think I bucket of water could evaporate overnight if it was really, really not in the room."

Does he read what he writes?

TRRB"hasn't this always been proven to be mismeasurements, or dare I say it, poor calorimetry"

Does he even read what researchers write?