Well that maybe, but my point was even if you assume KS has come up with a reasonable argument to discredit F&P type calorimetry, I don't see how the same can apply to mass flow calorimetry.
Betting for or against LENR
-
-
Well that maybe, but my point was even if you assume KS has come up with a reasonable argument to discredit F&P type calorimetry, I don't see how the same can apply to mass flow calorimetry.
That's because you haven't bothered to grasp what I've said, just like Jed. (Hint: My first paper on this subject reanalyzed data from a MASS FLOW CALORIMETER.)
-
These are the hallmarks of a crackpot theory.
Yes, you're quite good at coming up with them, as illustrated by what you said above.
-
Betting anything in any other currency here than quatloos shows someones immaturity and that the mods moved this thread here indicates that they are the 'Providers'. Internet bets based on money show how serious someone is to show their honker. I have no desire to see your hork nor frame the battlefield with your specialty if say you are a lawyer or some wealthy internet
assholepersona. It (LENR) is a point of view that may or not be supported. We need to look at this (betting) with a sense of the humor that it was intended not by the size of someones hork. FFS. -
I have no desire to see your hork
Thank God for that, we haven't even been properly introduced.
-
That's because you haven't bothered to grasp what I've said, just like Jed. (Hint: My first paper on this subject reanalyzed data from a MASS FLOW CALORIMETER.)
Well then, why are you always rabbiting on about F&P type calorimetry? ...Probably because your unique error mechanism is at least semi plausible in those cases.
And how helpful of you to include a link...
Anyway, my apologies. Perhaps you deserve a little more respect... It's not everyone who can discover a new physical phenomenon from the comfort of their writing desk.
-
Zeus46, you wrote:
I don't see how the same can apply to mass flow calorimetry.
and I pointed out your error by reminding you of an inconvenient fact.
Then you proceed to write:
Well then, why are you always rabbiting on about F&P type calorimetry? ...Probably because your unique error mechanism is at least semi plausible in those cases.
Which just confirms you either a) haven't read anything I've written so far, even though you participate in the same threads, or b) have serious memory loss issues.
"F&P-type calorimetry" refers to a specific experimental setup that involve water electrolysis where a) the electrolysis gases are not kept separate as usual and b) where the thermal boundary penetrations are all concentrated in one section of the cell/calorimeter. The type of calorimetry used will not matter since the effect arises due to the mistaken data analysis assumption that the heat distribution in the cell, and changes in it during operation, is irrelevant.
And how helpful of you to include a link...
I have linked to the available paper many times already, but because you can't (or won't) remember:
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ShanahanKapossiblec.pdf
Get it and read it. It is the original manuscript version of my paper that was finally published in slightly modified form (no technical differences) in 2002 in Thermochimica Acta.
Also, click on my name here on lenr-forum and look at my posts. Many if not most of them have explanatory material if you need more help understanding.
Anyway, my apologies. Perhaps you deserve a little more respect... It's not everyone who can discover a new physical phenomenon from the comfort of their writing desk.
No, it's nearly everyone that does that. It's call 'data analysis'. Researchers go to the lab and run experiments to collect data. *Then* they go to their office, sit down at their writing desk, and hopefully put all the data together to form a clear, consistent, and concise picture (explanation, theory) of what they are investigating. All I did was use somebody else's data instead of collecting it myself.
-
Yes... Fair enough regarding your final paragraph, and my apologies for being unable to follow the myriad of posts you shotgunned across multiple threads. Perhaps it should be renamed 'Shananhan's Jigsaw Theory'.
From your linked paper:
QuoteSince m and b are statistical parameters, it is reasonable to assume some variation in these parameters would be observed if repeated calibrations were conducted.
Which, obviously, can't be argued with... Of course there would be variations. In both directions. I'm not sure why you assume that these will always go the way of showing a false excess heat.
QuoteThus a +3% calibration difference can produce an apparent positive excess power of 3%, which for 20 W input would mean an excess power of 600 mW.
And vice-versa. I'm surprised you think that doesn't warrant a mention.
-
I'm not sure why you assume that these will always go the way of showing a false excess heat.
Because nobody calibrates with an 'active' electrode. Then when an active electrode is used and the FPHE starts, the heat moves from the low heat capture efficiency zone to the high efficiency zone. That gives a positive excess heat. When the effect stops, the reverse happens and the steady state present during calibration is re-established, canceling the apparent excess heat signal.
-
I'm not sure why you assume that these will always go the way of showing a false excess heat.
BTW, this kind of thinking is what the '10 authors' of Jed's favorite paper demonstrate when they propose that I proposed a process that *must* produce random excess heat signals. It clearly shows *they* didn't understand what I was saying too. Melvin Miles, one of the authors, recently wrote me that he had never read my papers at all. The big question then is: How can he legitimately sign off on the whole trashing of my work? Answer: he can't...legitimately.
-
Then when an active electrode is used and the FPHE starts, the heat moves from the low heat capture efficiency zone to the high efficiency zone.
Why can't it (perhaps) move the other way?
-
Why can't it (perhaps) move the other way?
As I said in the post following the one you quoted, it does. When the FPHE, which I think is caused by ATER, stops, the CCS reverses, since the system returns to the steady state conditions of an inactive electrode.
Edit: OK..for clarity
FPHE - Fleishmann-Pons-Hawkins Effect (not "Heat", McKubre used F-P Heat Effect, but used FPE as the acronym)
ATER - at the electrode recombination (NOT electrochemical)
CCS - calibration constant shift
-
Yes, Roseland67, but proven how? And by who?
By trusted sources, MY trusted sources,
Fermi & Argon.
-
How I Made Money from Cold Fusion
Exclusive Article for Free Republic | 1/23/10 | Kevmo
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2435697/posts
Posted on 1/23/2010, 12:28:49 PM by Kevmo
Freeper gets a fascinating contract listed on Intrade, bets that the experiment will be replicated, and cashes in.
In 2008, Dr. Yoshiaki Arata performed a fascinating experiment with Deuterium Gas loaded onto a Palladium matrix, and without any input power, showed that there was some excess heat. Generating excess heat in cold fusion cell wasn't a new development -- scientists had been replicating the Pons-Fleischman effect for 2 decades. What was a new development was how easily replicable this particular experiment was. It seemed to me that this would be the easiest way to replicate anomalous heat production, removing the tired old standby excuse that the energy input from electrolysis was causing this excess heat, because there was NO energy input in this experiment. So I proposed to Intrade that they open up a contract that this experiment would be replicated in a peer reviewed, scientific Journal.
I also posted a discussion thread on the Intrade forum
http://bb.intrade.com/intradeForum/posts/list/2239.page
"This week, Dr. Yoshiaki Arata demonstrated Cold Fusion in a reproducible environment. I sent in a suggestion to intrade that a contract be opened up that it would be replicated in a peer-reviewed journal by January 1, 2009. I haven't heard yet if there's any interest."
AZoNano.com Energy Breakthrough as Japanese Physicist Sucessfully and ...
http://www.azonano.com/news.asp?newsID=6472
To my surprise, Intrade opened up this contract in 2008, where it basically stagnated. Since I was not involved in the peer review process, my assessment was that the experiment would only take several weeks to make it through the grueling process, rather than several months. It was actually someone at Free Republic who set me straight on that:
http://www.freerepublic.com/fo…022063/posts?page=164#164
The contract closed at the end of 2008 at zero, meaning that anyone who bet that the experiment would be replicated and published had lost their bet.
I found the contract fascinating and asked Intrade to open a new contract in 2009, which they did. A few months into 2009, there started to be some replication experiments published by scientists, but the whole process was outshined by Dr. Pamela Mossier-Boss publishing her exciting results where she showed that there were Neutrons being generated in the cold fusion cell at the Navy Space Warfare Systems Center (SPAWAR).
'Cold Fusion' Rebirth? New Evidence For Existence Of Controversial Energy Source
http://www.sciencedaily.com/re…/2009/03/090323110450.htm
ScienceDaily (Mar. 23, 2009) — [Researchers are reporting compelling new scientific evidence for the existence of low-energy nuclear reactions (LENR), the process once called "cold fusion" that may promise a new source of energy. One group of scientists, for instance, describes what it terms the first clear visual evidence that LENR devices can produce neutrons, subatomic particles that scientists view as tell-tale signs that nuclear reactions are occurring. The report, which injects new life into this controversial field, will be presented March 23 in Salt Lake City, Utah, at the American Chemical Society's 237th National Meeting. "Our finding is very significant," says study co-author and analytical chemist Pamela Mosier-Boss, Ph.D., of the U.S. Navy's Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center (SPAWAR) in San Diego, Calif. "To our knowledge, this is the first scientific report of the production of highly energetic neutrons from an LENR device."]
And then the CBS TV newsmagazine 60 Minutes chimed in with their report on cold fusion on April 19, 2009, pushing the Arata replication results further into the background. The video and an article describing it are here:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories…minutes/main4952167.shtml
I started posting references to replication of Arata's experiment in the Intrade Forum, saying such things as, "Oh, and the experiment was a replication of Arata's demonstration last May. So it was in quantitative fact proof that Arata's demonstration worked as stated. " From the PhysOrg article and discussion:
'Cold fusion' rebirth? New evidence for existence of controversial energy source
http://www.physorg.com/news157046734.html
I transferred as much money as I was willing to lose over to Intrade. This was harder that I thought it would be, because Intrade does not accept credit cards. I bought up as many contracts as I could, and posted that I would pay $5-$6 for a contract that would pay out at $100. In reality, it's paying 50-60Cents per contract, and the payout is $10, for some bizarre reasoning that Intrade uses 1/10th of the actual monetary figures. To my surprise, there were still folks at Intrade posting that I was "Mental" , or as BobbyE wrote: "I have trouble getting reality shows listed early but this crap of a contract gets listed? What was the total volume? Unreal." My response was: "Feel free to make money from my foolishness. Those 500 contract bids at $5.50 are mine. Put your money where your mouth is."
This was where I learned that there's a huge difference between what people say and what they actually do at Intrade. For all the huffing and puffing about this contract being a waste of time or effort or stupid, they still wouldn't take my money. I was forced to raise my price 5X to 7X what I originally asked before I could purchase contracts. That's when I wrote this article here on Free Republic:
The End of Snide Remarks Against Cold Fusion
Friday, June 05, 2009 5:56:08 PM · by Kevmo · 95 replies · 2,126+ views
Free Republic, Gravitronics.net and Intrade ^ | 6/5/09 | kevmo, et al
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2265914/posts
I ventured as much money on the contract as I was willing, with the expectation that the price would shoot up at any moment. I was surprised it didn't. I posted several articles showing that the experiment had been replicated and that the results were showing up in peer reviewed journals. But the price did not go up. There was one physicist at Intrade who argued against my claim, saying that the American Chemical Society wasn't a peer reviewed platform. The experiment had been published in a "symposium", and then in a peer reviewed book, which isn't a journal! I had to find other references to the replication experiments being published in at least one peer-reviewed journal and that the press had made mention of it. I found a bunch of articles and posted them, and even the hot-particle physicist know-it-all acknowledged that the experiment had been replicated in a peer reviewed journal.
After the closeout date of the contract, Carl Wolfenden at Intrade had to pick his way through all the articles and support information that I generated and he decided that the terms of the contract had been met and it was paid out at 100. It couldn't have been easy for Mr. Wolfenden, because Intrade had at one time a physicist on staff but he had gone on to greener pastures. That's probably why Intrade hasn't yet posted the follow-on contract that I requested -- that Dr. Pamela Mellier-Boss's CR-39 Triple Tracks Neutron detection experiment would be replicated in a peer-reviewed PUBLICATION.
So now I tell my friends that I'm the first layman to make money on Cold Fusion. Now I have even more trouble finding people who will take my bet. I feel that Intrade has made history, in a way. There's a parallel in scientific publication history, when Scientific American refused to publish articles that the Wright Brothers were flying, because it was supposedly impossible -- the greatest luminaries in science at the time had tried and failed ignominiously, like Dr. Langley at the Smithsonian. No one remembers who the genius was that turned down the article in Scientific American, but A.I.Root has his own unique place in history. So the lesson is that one puts forth his sincere witness of the technology in progress and lets the chips fall where they may.
Gleanings in Bee Culture, January 1, 1905
http://www.exhibits.mannlib.co…eping/atlantic/page4.html
This issue of the Medina, Ohio based beekeeping magazine has the distinction of publishing the first eyewitness account of the Wright Brothers' historic manned flight in Kitty Hawk, North Carolina. A. I. Root, the publisher of Gleanings in Bee Culture and a longtime friend of the flight pioneers, was permitted to write this first account and sent it off to "Scientific American." After nearly a year of silence on the part of the magazine, Root wrote its editor, who responded that it was difficult to believe that the event had actually occurred and that even if it had, the airplane would never have any practical application. When Root showed this response to the Wright Brothers, they suggested that he go ahead and publish it in his beekeeping magazine.
