Replication of LENR experiments

  • THHuxleynew wrote: 

    You have cited other published papers - but note that the latest paper you cite does not answer Kirk's most recent contribution, nor have you given it serious consideration.

    JedRothwell responded:

    How do you know I have not given it serious consideration? I have not discussed it here, but that does not mean I have not considered it. I am not obligated to discuss everything I consider, or to respond to every discussion.


    This isn't really the point. The point is that you are fully capable of recognizing strawman argumentation. Further, even if you didn't, it has been pointed out to you multiple times now. But when I cite examples that might be applied to you, you uniformly fail to acknowledge such has been done.


    So the point is that you knowingly promote one view over the other, specifically the one that uses faulty logic to unethically suppress the other.

    You thereby foster and promote unethical behavior, and since you realize the unethical nature of your position but promote it as logical and scientific, you are dishonest.


    The sad thing is how many people are taken in by your stratagem.


    And BTW, you have given my 'theories' enough consideration at least to recognize how damaging they are to the idea that LERNs exist, which is why you are acting the way you are.

  • I see you have fallen for the trap. As noted above, I do not say this. What I say is that Jed fully understands what he is doing, and chooses to take the fanatic's position and attempt to suppress an unpalatable alternative, while knowing that is not scientifically justified.


    Actually my quote there was in response to Jed accusing you of unethical behaviour for advocating arguments (he) considers incorrect.... What trap?

  • Actually my quote there was Jed saying it... What trap?


    What I quoted was the second sentence of your post. It looks like yours. Is it?


    The trap is thinking that Jed knows any science. In fact all he does is parrot what his designated heroes say. He is incapable of defending his views in any technical fashion. (I tried to do that back on spf, and Jed never could answer my questions.) he also blends in his strawmen all the time to try to lead his audience into believing he knows what he is saying.

  • Jed is also fond of GROSSLY misquoting and attributing motives (mind reading). A minor example:


    Quote

    Mary Yugo will kvetch and moan that it is too ha-a-a-a-ard so it must be wrong.


    Of course, I never said if it's hard it must be wrong. What I said was that papers don't have to be written that way. I have written many scientific papers and way many more technical reports and manuals. When I controlled the writing, attention was paid to readers who might not be versed in the intimate details and complexities of the technology. This was done mainly with the abstract and conclusions but also by the inclusion of clear, well labelled figures and plots, meticulously explained in the simplest possible terms. I *want* non-experts to understand the work. I admit that when I was a postdoc fellow, the lab chief did not share my views. I ended up being principal author of a paper even I couldn't fully understand. The professor was brilliant but claimed to have no patience for spoonfeeding. He did not care if people understood him. I did but had no power in that instance and a few others. I am sure those papers are rarely cited.


    One could argue that McKubre's (and others') reviews provide this sort of simplified overview. I admit I did not read most of them but those I did were not reassuring because the authors were obviously credulous and took the conclusions of the original work at face value as uncritically as one can imagine. That's not my concept of a "review." of a field.


    Jed is glib and facile about claims to 100W of power sustained for days without input. That would be spectacular. That is what I am looking for. I have trouble believing this could exist in credible and yes, UNDERSTANDABLE form without engendering widespread interest and investment. But Jed can't provide a clean example of what he claims. Now, if I understood correctly, the many days includes days during which power was supplied. That is not the original claim.


    Finally, as to my claims about understanding calorimetry-- I am not a student of calorimetry history and practice in general. As part of other projects, I have needed to be involved in the construction and use of calorimeters designed to measure macro amounts of heat from self-generating sources such as lab animals and oddly enough, Portland cement. I have been involved in design and use of heat flow transducers for various aerospace and industrial applications -- this is related to Seebeck effect calorimeters and uses similar technology. One of the practical things I learned from this work was that point temperature measurements such as are relied upon with isoperibolic calorimeters most often used in LENR-- those are especially unreliable for reasons Shanahan and others have pointed out. Shanahan, I know, extends the errors to other types of calorimeters as well.


    Other than a brief manufacturer's course in DSC (differential scanning calorimeters) I took a long time ago and mostly forgot, that's what I know about calorimeters. Jed knows I am also not ignorant about measuring enthalpy by evaporating water because we had extensive email exchanges about it in 2011 or 2012 when were trying to get Rossi to agree to a valid test with his steam-generating ecats. I never heard of boiling cells dry. It seems weird to me.

  • I never heard of boiling cells dry. It seems weird to me


    The results of doing this is to come up with an excess heat signal that is a) large and b) occurring when no current is flowing, meaning you essentially have an infinite instantaneous COP. The problem is that this comes out of applying the same calibration equation used for 'normal' operations. The steady state is so radically different in a 'boiled-dry' cell that everyone should know you can't do that. But not the CFers...it shows excess heat...it must be real...and is certainly must be nuclear!

  • What I quoted was the second sentence of your post. It looks like yours. Is it?


    The trap is thinking that Jed knows any science. In fact all he does is parrot what his designated heroes say. He is incapable of defending his views in any technical fashion. (I tried to do that back on spf, and Jed never could answer my questions.) he also blends in his strawmen all the time to try to lead his audience into believing he knows what he is saying.


    You and Kirk have a disagreement over the science here. Saying it is not ethical for someone to hold a contrary view to yours (even if you are correct) is not good science. Science flourishes by having disparate views argued. Your view, and that of Kirk, can properly be argued. Kirk has supported his views with various published papers and a more recent unpublished but available white paper. You have cited other published papers - but note that the latest paper you cite does not answer Kirk's most recent contribution, nor have you given it serious consideration.


    I stand by that, and don't think I'm misrepresenting anything.


    I agree that Jed does not defend his views technically. He refers you to other papers which bear some relationship to the matter, but his points (which he claims are supported) are generally broad brush, lacking detail. You then have to read them and decide whether they show his point or not.


    That is however not the point. It is wrong to label this (not convincing) argument from Jed as unethical. It is equally wrong to dismiss the papers Jed references (I know you don't do this because you have commented on them). I find Jed's certainty - when he does not have a detailed enough analysis to have any genuine surity - annoying. But it is honestly given and not harmful to the dialog. Where he accuses others (e.g. you) of being unethical it is indeed harmful, and unwarranted. But I don't think on reflection he'd want to do that.


    You are falling into the same mistake, above, of speculating on Jed's motives, and labelling him dishonest because deliberately distorting the truth. I very ,much doubt that. We all distort the truth - though scientific training helps one to do this a bit less - and few people do this deliberately. Jed does not have much scientific training, you can tell this from the way he argues here, and therefore you'd expect more distortion from him. My judgement is that he is thoroughly honest. Ironically Jed's simple views will invariable seem more honest and genuine than those of you, or I, where we are trained to take a more nuanced view of issues, not over-generalise, and be aware of alternate possibilities so that any careful statement we make will be qualified. Forums such as this are not friendly to careful analysis: just as in politics any politician who tries to present a complex justification will fail. BTW that is why the argument against Brexit in the UK was so hard to articulate (though even given that what was said about it made a bad job of representing the real arguments). Some ideas, like nationalism, have a simple and powerful emotional appeal, lending themselves to sound bites. Economic interdependence and needed trading links inevitably reduce soveriegnty, and this in the long run is a good for all because it glues countries together reducing the possibility of war.

  • The results of doing this is to come up with an excess heat signal that is a) large and b) occurring when no current is flowing, meaning you essentially have an infinite instantaneous COP. The problem is that this comes out of applying the same calibration equation used for 'normal' operations. The steady state is so radically different in a 'boiled-dry' cell that everyone should know you can't do that. But not the CFers...it shows excess heat...it must be real...and is certainly must be nuclear!


    Right. This is a more nuanced case of the it blew up so it must be LENR argument. Explosions are pretty usual in systems with reactive chemicals, particularly hydrogen and oxygen in stochiometric ratios! Or, heater elements can easily explode when local heating alters impedance so increasing power input.


    Working out whether any such explosion actually represents significant excess energy is inevitably difficult because it is transient and the instrumentation to catch the transients accurately is not available.


    Such experimental misadventures should not be used as evidence of anything. Cells boiling are problematic in any case - boiling dry completely unhelpful.


    Those seriously claiming FPHE has a nuclear mechanism need more than this. McKubre's M12/M13/M14 data, when taken in context, look very unconvincing to me for reasons too long to justify here, and that in any case I'm not sure about: it is complex. But analysis of that type of high quality data is what you need to show a real anomaly, not cells boiling dry or explosions. The superficial case against LENR is that from experiments like McKubre's high precision calorimetry the apparent signal is so low as a fraction of power input, and has all the hallmarks of a calorimetry artifact. And the strongest argument is that of the 5 experiments he quotes D gives positives and H negatives - but as evidence that needs further analysis to determine its strength and in any case a coincidental physical effect that only existed for D not H is possible and surely a simpler candidate than LENR if the data allows this.

  • I think what makes me dubious about the strongly-held opinions of so many LENR supporters is that those people also seem to think Papp, Blacklight, Keshe and god-knows-how-many other free energy claimants are for real. There have been literally hundreds and hundreds of claimants of something-for-nothing energy gadgets over time and it is extremely safe to conclude that none of them have anything of value. But that is not even the point that needs to be accepted. I don't see most LENR-heads admitting that any of them are wrong. That tells me a lot about their scientific sophistication and their gullibility. Clearly this generalization does not apply to all LENR believers. Many have even come to reject Rossi. But I've seen all to many readily accept even the most ridiculous free energy claims without even an iota of supporting evidence. Having that crowd as part of "the community" does the cause no good whatsoever. Stupidity in the name of optimism is still stupidity.

  • I think what makes me dubious about the strongly-held opinions of so many LENR supporters is that those people also seem to think Papp, Blacklight, Keshe and god-knows-how-many other free energy claimants are for real. There have been literally hundreds and hundreds of claimants of something-for-nothing energy gadgets over time and it is extremely safe to conclude that none of them have anything of value. But that is not even the point that needs to be accepted. I don't see most LENR-heads admitting that any of them are wrong. That tells me a lot about their scientific sophistication and their gullibility. Clearly this generalization does not apply to all LENR believers. Many have even come to reject Rossi. But I've seen all to many readily accept even the most ridiculous free energy claims without even an iota of supporting evidence. Having that crowd as part of "the community" does the cause no good whatsoever. Stupidity in the name of optimism is still stupidity.


    If, to judge LENR likely, you need to have your skepticism so reduced that you credit these obvious long-standing flakes with possibly heralding some exciting new physics then I agree it is problematic.


    But there will always be the believers who think all these claims likley true, and they will also think LENR true. They will have a strong presence on internet forums (though maybe ECW does us all a service by providing a home for many of them).


    Then, suppose you are properly convinced that FPHE is real and must correspond to some unknown effect. It would not be stupid to think that other excess heat claims like BLP maybe have some reality in the same underlying effect.

  • The problem is that this comes out of applying the same calibration equation used for 'normal' operations. The steady state is so radically different in a 'boiled-dry' cell that everyone should know you can't do that.


    Right. This is a more nuanced case of the it blew up so it must be LENR argument.

    First of all, Shanahan's statement is completely wrong. Everyone knows that boiled-dry cell is different. The differences and the physics of that were worked out long ago, and they are explained in paper by F&P in detail. It is ridiculous to say the same calibration equation is used. Anyone can see from the paper that is not the case. So, you are agreeing with balderdash.


    Second, no one would ever say that a cell that explodes musts be LENR. That's ridiculous. Cells explode all the time in electrochemistry. They are either designed to explode harmlessly under a hood, or designed to release the pressure long before they explode, with valves, corks, or straws (weak points). The only time anyone claims the explosion is anomalous is when there is no chemical fuel in the cell (typically no oxygen in a gas loaded cell), or there is only a tiny amount of potential fuel in an open cell and the force of the explosion far exceeds what that fuel could produce.


    A chemical explosion of a cell at SRI killed Andrew Riley. This cell had several fail-safe devices to prevent an explosion, but in a horrible coincidence, they all failed at the same time for different reasons. No one claimed this event was anything other than a chemical explosion. Very few cells in the history of the field could have had stored this much potential chemical energy. Most would have failed long before that much built up, and others do not store any chemical fuel at all.

  • I agree that Jed does not defend his views technically. He refers you to other papers which bear some relationship to the matter, but his points (which he claims are supported) are generally broad brush, lacking detail. You then have to read them and decide whether they show his point or not.

    Given the difficulty people have understanding these issues, I think that pointing a reader to papers is a better strategy than trying to explain the details here, in this forum, in my own words.


    You should not assume that just because I refrain from explaining, and I point the reader to an original source, that means I do not understand or I could not explain if I tried.


    The authors put a lot of effort into these papers so I think you should read original sources, rather than a summary by me, or by anyone else, or in Wikipedia.


    The authors sometimes work on papers for weeks. They go through peer-review which is often exacting and sometimes very unfriendly. Papers go back and forth to reviewers many times. Papers are copy edited by me and others. In some cases we suggest dozens of wording changes and additional detail. This is not the same as peer-review; I seldom challenge the content of a paper even when I think it is nonsense. But copy editing does make papers more understandable. (It is better to have nonsense clearly expressed so that you can tell it is nonsense, rather than a word salad, or English with linguistic interference from another language.)


    Why settle for a brief summary from me when you can read the full version original source at LENR-CANR.org?


    People such as Mary Yugo apparently need to depend on me because they are incapable of reading or understanding on their own. Yugo finds McKubre too difficult and therefore assumes it is wrong. She had no idea what the boil-off method is. She believes that because the physical boil-off takes 10 minutes, the data does not indicate continuing heat production after that. In other words, she does not understand elementary thermodynamics or Newton's law of cooling. She is a hopeless case. It is a waste of time trying to explain these things to her, and it is even more hopeless pointing her to original sources, since she is so confused by them, and so ignorant of the fundamentals. I explain things to her only as a service to other readers, and for practice; not with any hope that she will understand. Or try to understand.

  • I'm very glad that you don't say this - but many have argued that such events indicate possible LENR.

    Who argued this? Where did they publish? You say there are "many," but I am not aware of anyone who argued this. The argument makes no sense.


    It also makes no sense to claim that a cell containing only metal hydrides and hydrogen can explode from a chemical reaction. Or that it can remain palpably hot for days or weeks from a chemical reaction.

  • Quote

    Yugo finds McKubre too difficult and therefore assumes it is wrong.

    Bullpuckey! I never said anything REMOTELY like that. WHERE did I write that? Link please or STOP CLAIMING IT. IT'S TIRESOME.

    I said McKubre is credulous and gullible hence I don't trust him. Not that he is too difficult and therefore wrong. Where do you get these things?


    Quote

    She had no idea what the boil-off method is.

    No and neither do most scientists, even thermal physics experts, I would guess. What common use is there for that method to estimate enthalpy other than in LENR cells? (there may be one but I sure don't know of it)


    Quote

    She believes that because the physical boil-off takes 10 minutes, the data does not indicate continuing heat production after that.

    In a previous post, I showed you the data I was relying on. 100 and some Watts for 600 seconds. That's not ten minutes? It's the author's own summary of the data. I know how to read THAT! I copied it over for you. If that was not you meant, you needed to show the part you relied upon.


    I asked you to show where you got the notion that the cell ran for days producing 100W with no power in. You have yet to show it. If it's in the paper you linked to make the point, SHOW IT. POINT TO IT. I can't read your mind. It's a simple idea, 100W out for days and nothing in. It's your claim. I shouldn't be required to sift through reams of text and data to extract it. I don't think it ever was there. I think you made it up.


    "Palpably hot" was the reason you said Rossi's so-called Ottoman size reactor was working "on prime principles" (another favorite expression). But it wasn't. It was probably boiling from stored energy in all the hot metal Rossi had warmed with his huge electrical heaters. Anyway "palpably"? Nobody has thermometers? We rely on skin sensors now? You may as well borrow Rossi's stethoscope! Where are the data to show that cells remain appreciably hotter than environment for weeks (your words) unaccounted for by any known chemical or surface reaction? Want respect? Show legible, credible and comprehensible DATA.

  • Bullpuckey! I never said anything REMOTELY like that. WHERE did I write that? Link please or STOP CLAIMING IT. IT'S TIRESOME.

    It is even more tiresome when you say this and then deny you said it.


    It is also tiresome when you ask questions that are directly addressed in the papers you pretend you have read, such as: "And what is the purpose and meaning of the video of a 'boiloff'?" How could anyone miss this?!? You have never heard of the heat of vaporization? It is 270-year-old physics taught in middle school.


    In a previous post, I showed you the data I was relying on. 100 and some Watts for 600 seconds. That's not ten minutes? I asked you to show where you got the notion that the cell ran for days producing 100W with no power in.

    It is right in the paper. Read it more carefully.

  • Jed Rothwell wrote:

    You should not assume that just because I refrain from explaining, and I point the reader to an original source, that means I do not understand or I could not explain if I tried.

    I guess you just don't get it. You have no obligation to be an instructor here, but if you are to play that role, just telling people what papers to read is doing a crappy job of it. As you say, you have read untold numbers of papers and are well-versed in their content. Do you really not see the value in explaining succinctly to someone why a certain paper is convincing and what exactly in it provides a compelling argument for your position? That is precisely what educating people means. I guess you want to be a librarian and nothing else, which is your privilege. However, it is not your privilege to declare that anyone who doesn't pour through the papers themselves and glean exactly what you think they should glean are lazy or idiots. That is either lazy or dishonest on your part. Now, once again, if you don't have any interest in changing anybody's mind, then feel free to tell everyone to f-off and do their own homework. Just don't keep spewing the nonsense that you have done your part. You haven't done squat.

  • People such as Mary Yugo apparently need to depend on me because they are incapable of reading or understanding on their own. Yugo finds McKubre too difficult and therefore assumes it is wrong. She had no idea what the boil-off method is.

    Uh Uh Jed and you ? Are you sure that you are capable ?

    No and neither do most scientists, even thermal physics experts, I would guess.

    Mary for sure even Jed don't know about it.

    Some explanation in Cryogenics:

    http://www.unece.org/fileadmin…p29grpe/LNG_TF-02-06e.pdf


    In Calorimetry..... look at how much water has vaporized in a certain time.......


    But much more interesting is the boil off discussed in this Forum.

    http://www.homebrewtalk.com/showthread.php?t=195076

  • Bullpuckey! I never said anything REMOTELY like that. WHERE did I write that? Link please or STOP CLAIMING IT. IT'S TIRESOME.


    This is Jed's modus operandi. He does it to me all the time. His pathobeliever bias refuses to let him accept any negativity towars what he believes in and instead he takes what you write and twists it into something that either a) looks bad for you or b) looks good for him. This is the dishonest strawman argument technique he uses constantly. It is also what leads me to believe he is not stupid. Being stupid would be the other reason he might not get what I write, but I don't believe he is. I therefore conclude he deliberately doesn't get it.

  • As you say, you have read untold numbers of papers and are well-versed in their content. Do you really not see the value in explaining succinctly to someone why a certain paper is convincing and what exactly in it provides a compelling argument for your position?

    You are :

    1) admitting your total ignorance

    2) putting your head, ideas and opinions in the hand of Jed who can have biased opinions and/or misunderstand what is written. Jed is not a Scientist.


    Would you accept even opinions from me or others in the Forum ?

  • ele: Who said anything about putting my head, ideas and opinions in the hand of Jed? I am asking him to actually provide information and arguments instead of just telling me to go read some papers. Will he misrepresent or distort the content of those papers? Maybe. But if what he said sounds interesting enough and potentially compelling, THEN I might actually invest the time to study the paper in detail and decide for myself.


    As for accepting opinions from you, the same answer as above except that given your view of Rossi, the odds of you saying anything remotely believable are extremely low. If you are a scientist, then you must be... oh, never mind.

  • I guess you just don't get it. You have no obligation to be an instructor here, but if you are to play that role, just telling people what papers to read is doing a crappy job of it.

    I disagree. I think it is a good method. I have tried other methods, and this one seems effective, based on the responses I get from people and the readership at LENR-CANR.org. Most of the time, when I recommend a paper to a reader, he or she thanks me. Only Yugo and a few others go off on a tangent making up stupid reasons to doubt the paper.

    Do you really not see the value in explaining succinctly to someone why a certain paper is convincing and what exactly in it provides a compelling argument for your position?

    Nope. Not for people such as Yugo who do not understand basic concepts such the heat of vaporization or Newton's law of cooling. They cannot be convinced. Explaining things to them is like preaching a sutra to a horse, as the Japanese say. Even pointing them to the literature is a waste of time because they seldom read the papers and they never understand them. However, other readers here might read the papers.

    That is precisely what educating people means.

    My method is better, given the limitations of this medium. Repeating the same arguments in messages that disappear is like writing messages in wet beach sand.

    You haven't done squat.

    People have downloaded 4.1 million copies of cold fusion papers from my web site. Do you know anyone else who has distributed this much information about cold fusion?


    http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?page_id=1213

  • Jed, my comment about not having done squat was not intended as a general statement about your life and the value of your grand mission. Obviously, your contributions to promulgating CF information to the world are unrivaled. My comment refers specifically to your efforts to persuade skeptics here about the status of cold fusion and on that point I'll stick with what I said..

  • My comment refers specifically to your efforts to persuade skeptics here about the status of cold fusion and on that point I'll stick with what I said..

    Ah. You are under the impression that I am trying to persuade skeptics. I am not. As I said previously, in a message here washed away by the tide, my goal is to "persuade open minded people who are sincerely interested in the subject." I would like to see so-called "skeptics" such as Yugo lose interest and stop paying attention.


    My goals are described on pages 5 - 7 here:


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

  • But not the CFers...it shows excess heat...it must be real...and is certainly must be nuclear!

    By its definition, if something shows excess heat, it is in excess of what can be generated by chemical means. I see a lot of dismissing of HAD events but your explanations seem like pure bullshit. Maybe if you didn't go so readily into that bullshit mode, scientists would take your theory more seriously.

  • I am asking him to actually provide information and arguments instead of just telling me to go read some papers. Will he misrepresent or distort the content of those papers? Maybe.

    Why run the risk that I might distort something? Whether I distort intentionally or by mistake, why do you want to hear my version in the first place? When I have a choice between a summary from a non-expert and the original source document from the expert, I always read the latter. I cannot understand why anyone wants me to explain things when I give you a direct link to original sources written by world-class experts.


    It is like looking at an amateur copy of a painting by Renoir instead of the real thing. The Internet brings you a zillion high quality images of original art these days. Why look at anything else?

    But if what he said sounds interesting enough and potentially compelling, THEN I might actually invest the time to study the paper in detail and decide for myself.

    Why bother doing it twice?!? Pull up the original paper and read the abstract. It explains things better than anyone else could. If you are still interested, read the whole paper. That's what abstracts are for.


    You talk about "investing time" and then you say you want to take twice as long as you need to, and start by going around Robin Hood's Barn following directions from me, instead of going right to the source of the information.


    I cannot understand why you want me to explain something that the author explains better than anyone else. As I said, authors devote weeks of careful effort to writing these papers. Why would you prefer to read a message that I slap together with voice input when you can have an abstract that Fleischmann probably devoted hours to, and that he revised and tightened up many times? Do you think I can explain it better than he did?


    Your demand makes no sense. I think you are just looking for an excuse to avoid doing your homework and thinking for yourself. I think you are looking for a reason to ignore the research. Please go ahead and ignore it! Nobody asked you to read this stuff or try to understand it. Take it from me: this is boring science. Tedious. Many of the papers are lousy. The others are detail after detail, about as interesting as watching paint dry, as Ed Storms put it. I encourage you to go away and never think about cold fusion again. You will never be persuaded it is real because you are unwilling to make the effort to understand it. You, like Yugo, will come up with an endless series of bogus reasons not to read papers, and bogus reasons to doubt them. Stop wasting your time. Go away.