Clearance Items

For the self-styled 'agnostics' out of the room.. Can you find any serious manuscript error below.?

Hint: It might have something to do with 'tittle'

"The first term and the coefficient of the second term of the equation are constants, and Tout is the temperature of the air outlet. These temperatures are continuously measured at both the air inlet and outlet. However, the influence of the factor is 1/10 or less of the measurement error that is described later.

Hc = 0.987 + 0.0000661 ×Tout (1)

The thermal calculations were carried out as follows. The input energy Hin was estimated as equation

(2). Hin = ∑𝛥𝑊×𝛥ｔ𝑇0 (2)

Where ΔW is the power at each time and Δt is the data measurment time interval (24.47 s).

Thermal output energy Hout was calculated as equation (3). Hout = ∑𝛥𝑉 × 𝑆 × 𝜌 × 𝐻𝑐×𝛥𝑡 (3)

where 𝛥𝑇 is the average temperature difference between the air inlet and outlet, Tout , Tin. during the time interval 𝛥ｔ, and where V is the fan wind velocity (m/s); S is the area of the air outlet, 4.4 × 10−3 m2; ρ is the air density, 1.293 kg/m3 at 273.2 K, and Cp the average heat capacity of air.

The value of ρ was calculated by equation (4).

ρ = 3.391×exp(-Tout/201.26) + 0.41529 (4)

The air velocity at the flow meter was estimated by semi-empirical equation (5).

V = A × exp (-Wb/w) + B (5)

Where A is a constant, −3.7; B = 4; w = 1.375; Wb is the blower input (W); and dT is the temperature difference between the air inlet and the outlet, Tout − Tin.

In calculating the caloric value of air, the caloric value varies depending on atmospheric pressure and humidity in addition to temperature"

So the smoking gun of my "trashing of CF researchers" is that I said that what is disputed is whether there is excess heat? I dare say that is a tautology, not an opinion.

And therein lies the Rothwell Paradox. I have not read lots of cold fusion papers. Therefore, I am told that I have no business forming an opinion of the phenomenon. Fair enough. However, when I say that I don't have an opinion, I am castigated for being agnostic (second definition) and not accepting the views of the faithful. Not much room for anyone who doesn't want to join the church.

As I have said many times before, I am not here to opine about cold fusion. I gladly leave that to those immersed in the subject. Based on what Jed has to say about the future of the field, it is hard to care about it, frankly, even if the reasons for the present situation are exactly as he paints them. There are far more egregious and important examples of injustice in the world to occupy my sense of outrage.

My interest is and always has been in the behavior of its advocates and, especially, the followers of Andrea Rossi. I find that to be endlessly fascinating and worthy of discussion. If that disqualifies me from participation in this blog, the moderators can take whatever action they please.

Quote from The Real Roger Barker

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

No. If that were true, someone would have published a paper pointing out the mismeasurments and poor calorimetry. No one has done that. The only peer-reviewed papers that attempted to find errors were by Morrison and Shanahan. You can read Morrison and judge for yourself whether his paper has any merit:

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

There is so much political opposition to cold fusion, and so many people are opposed to it, that if there were any significant errors in the major studies, I think by now someone would have found them.

Perhaps I am wrong about this. Perhaps you know of a paper that "proves" there are mismeasurements and poor calorimetery. If so, where was it published? Who is the author? If you do not know of any such paper, you should not make this claim.

For what it's worth, I never stated, implied or even thought that the people who participate in internet fora are representative of researchers who investigate LENR. Since I have no real exposure to those people, I have no impression of them one way or another.

Quote from interested observer

Fair enough. However, when I say that I don't have an opinion, I am castigated for being agnostic (second definition) and not accepting the views of the faithful.

As I pointed out, you misunderstand the second definition. You are not agnostic in any sense. You are an ignoramus about cold fusion, just as I am about musicology. A person who knows nothing cannot judge whether the issue is unknowable. You speculate that the researchers have not looked for conventional chemical explanations. You have no basis whatever for speculating about this. Anyone familiar with the literature can see that you know nothing and your speculation should be dismissed.

You also cannot judge whether the claims are true.

Quote from interested observer

My interest is and always has been in the behavior of its advocates and, especially, the followers of Andrea Rossi.

Andrea Rossi is not doing cold fusion, as far as I can tell. And I can tell a lot more than you can.

How can you judge the behavior of people who advocate cold fusion when you know nothing about cold fusion? This is like judging the behavior of programmers who are engaged in an obscure argument about the value of structured programming when you do not have the foggiest idea what "structured programming" is, and you have no idea what their jargon refers to. You cannot tell whether one side or the other is being irrational, or making false arguments.

As I said, it is as if I showed up at a classical music web site and I weighed in with a strong opinion about the role of atonic chords in 18th century musical composition. Since have no clue what that means (assuming it means anything) people would think I am crazy for pontificating about it. How can you weigh in or judge this discussion when you have no clue what steps have been taken to ensure cold fusion is not a chemical effect? You have told us you don't know!

Quote from interested observer

I find that to be endlessly fascinating and worthy of discussion. If that disqualifies me from participation in this blog, the moderators can take whatever action they please.

Worthy of discussion based on what? What disqualifies you is the fact that you have no idea what you are talking about. How can you tell whether you should "join the church" or not? How can you judge whether I am being unreasonable, demanding or dogmatic? You have no idea what I am talking about, or what facts I base my statements on!

Sheesh, Jed. You are just obsessed with picking a fight whether or not there is anything to fight about.

Once again you are ascribing statements and beliefs to me that I don't have. If you would dismount from your high horse and just pay attention: I am not judging the validity of cold fusion. I am not judging the work of cold fusion researchers. Fine. I am ignorant about the subject although I know far more than anyone but the members of your congregation. But I am entitled to be ignorant. Perhaps I just don't give a hoot. Even using your own assessment of the field, it seems to me that it is not worth paying much attention to. But I am not going to bow down to you as the arbiter of truth about anything because you seem to have no more respect for facts than any other zealot on the Internet.

And I am not "judging" the behavior of cold fusion fans. I am describing it. Every time a new claim comes along for some free energy device, most of the folks on these fora assume the claims are valid. That is simply what happens. If you don't think so, you are delusional.

And there is no such thing as being "disqualified" from discussing a subject. If I don't meet your lofty standards for having a discussion, then stop talking to me. You keep threatening to ignore me, but you seem to be driven to put me in my place. Sorry, but I don't give damn what you think of me and your endless insults are pointless.

You, Mr. Keeper-of-All-Truth, are truly a piece of work!

Quote from interested observer

If you would dismount from your high horse and just pay attention: I am not judging the validity of cold fusion.

Yes, you are. Anyone can see you reject the findings even though you know nothing about them. You call the subject a "religion" and you accuse me of being dogmatic even though you have no basis to judge whether I am dogmatic or merely conventional. If this were a debate over a flat-earth theory, would I be dogmatic to insist the world is round, and there is plenty of proof of that? Given that any scientist after Laviosier in 1780 could have measured the heat from many of these experiments, am I being dogmatic to insist that the calorimetry is solid and well founded? The people at Shell Oil used a calorimeter very similar to Laviosier's to confirm cold fusion. The Real Roger Barker insists there are "mismeasurements" and "poor calorimetry" yet he cannot point to a single example, or to any paper describing these problems. It is unreasonable or dogmatic to say his claims are baseless?

You call yourself "agnostic" but it makes no sense to declare yourself an agnostic about a topic you know nothing about. The word does not mean, "I don't know because I have not studied the issues." It means: "after careful study, I conclude that no one knows, and no one can know the answers."

Quote from maryyugo

Not too long ago, you were arguing that some of Rossi's experiments were proven on "first principles."

Yes. That is still true as far as I know.

Quote from maryyugo

And you were just as unpleasant and insulting to Rossi critics then as you are to critics of Mizuno etc. today.

I do not think so.

Quote from maryyugo

And you still argue that there is "nothing wrong" with a hot cat test done by Levi using equipment and methods selected and developed by Rossi and Penon.

Have you discovered a technical error in this paper?

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

When I last asked you, you said you don't believe this because you don't trust the authors. That is reasonable. I don't trust them either, given all that happened since this paper was written. But "not trusting Levi" is not a technical error. As far as I know, you cannot point to any technical reason why this paper should be rejected. Neither can I.

Ok, Jed. I am not agnostic. I am whatever word you care to use that means "I don't know because I have not studied the issues but I think that many of the people who support the field act like religious fanatics, not proponents of a scientific topic". Full stop.

Quote from interested observer

I think that many of the people who support the field act like religious fanatics

Am I acting like a religious fanatic?

When The Real Roger Barker repeatedly claims there are "mismeasurements" and "poor calorimetry," I say he should point to a paper listing these mismeasurments. Does that resemble religious fanaticism, or am I upholding conventional scientific standards?

Mary Yugo says that 3 hours of heat after death is not "long enough" to draw a conclusion. It might be chemical or stored energy, she says. It is not possible for the chemical fuel in this system to come out quickly, and there is no oxygen in the cell, so heat from a chemical reaction is ruled out. But for the sake of argument suppose that all the fuel came out at once and oxygen appeared out of nowhere. That would be enough to power the reaction for 6 seconds. ~3 hours is ~10,800 seconds, which is a much larger number than 6. So by any rational standard, that should be "long enough."

Am I being a religious fanatic when I insist the Mary Yugo should apply elementary physics and simple arithmetic to see whether her claims have merit? Is it fanatical to demand a quantitative, verifiable argument in science? I do not think so.

I said that many of the people who support the field act like religious fanatics. And they most certainly do. However, I did not say that YOU act like a religious fanatic. As always, you get all worked up by things that are not about you and you get angry at people for things they did not say but instead for words you put in their mouths. It seems to me that you have enough of an uphill battle with your mission in life to not manufacture enemies or attacks.

Quote from bocijn

'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.

Most (modern) religions are monotheistic. Hinduism is an exception but modern Hindus would tend to consider all the Hindu gods just aspects of one. There seems an inevitable transition from early polytheistic belief to sophisticated monotheism. IO's point is reasonable.

Many of the internet crowd who follow LENR have a high level of belief in other over-unity claims. Which is explained by an overall low threshold for belief (or abundence of open-mindedness, as they would see it).

E=mc^2 states that two aspects of physics (mass and energy) are the same (c being merely a unit conversion factor because we don't use consistent spacelike and timelike separation units). But over-unity myths are no ways limited to mass-energy conversion. Look at em-drive (any inertia-less propulsion is also over-unity) Laithwaite gyroscopes, Orbo and as voluminously claimed with well developed theory dogma BLP.

Quote from interested observer

However, I did not say that YOU act like a religious fanatic. As always, you get all worked up by things that are not about you and you get angry at people for things they did not say but instead for words you put in their mouths.

Since your message was addressed to me, I kind of assumed you were talking about me. If you didn't mean me, who did you have in mind?

Do I sound "worked up" when I ask:

"Does that resemble religious fanaticism, or am I upholding conventional scientific standards?"

You might want to answer that question. Or at least, think about it. What are the conventional scientific standards, and who is upholding them, and honoring them in this discussion? If anyone is acting like fanatics here, I suggest the critics are.

I submit that Mary Yugo does not uphold these standards when she makes errors by factors of ~800 and ~1,800. When she does not even realize she has made these errors, and she refuses to admit or retract them. We were talking about the duration of a reaction. Suppose we were talking about the speed of jet aircraft and she claimed a jet can fly from New York to Tokyo in 28 seconds. I think you would agree that is a gigantic mistake. Suppose she said that the difference between a flight of 28 seconds and 14 hours is not "long enough" to make a difference. Or that you cannot measure that difference with assurance. Would you consider that fanatical? Maybe even unhinged?

She has made similar quantitative errors again, and again, and again. The essence of science is quantitative analysis and getting the numbers to make sense. She fails to do that.

Quote from JedRothwell

The Real Roger Barker insists there are "mismeasurements" and "poor calorimetry" yet he cannot point a single example, or to any paper describing these problems.

Won't the original P&F tests down to mismeasurements and poor calorimetry?

Quote from JedRothwell

When The Real Roger Barker repeatedly claims there are "mismeasurements" and "poor calorimetry," I say he should point to a paper listing these mismeasurments. Does that resemble religious fanaticism, or am I upholding conventional scientific standards?

Why do you continuously pick on me? I'm calling it as I see it.

Quote from JedRothwell

Am I acting like a religious fanatic?

I'm afraid, in one important way, you are.

Your views both those I support, and those I don't, are held (or at least expressed here) with a level of certainty I note in those religious people who take untroubled certainty from faith (others have great doubt and faith that emerges from inner struggle, which is rather different).

The "certainty of untroubled faith" people are fanatics in the sense that they believe unconditionally and without choice, though often the things they are fanatic about are life-affirming and so this fanaticism is a positive force.

Quote from JedRothwell

The essence of science is quantitative analysis and getting the numbers to make sense

ROFL