Replication of LENR experiments

Quote from THHuxleynew

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.

Second, no one would ever say that a cell that explodes musts be LENR.

I'm very glad that you don't say this - but many have argued that such events indicate possible LENR. To the extent of actually replicating systems that led to mysterious one-off explosive events. (Thermacore).

Quote from THHuxleynew

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.

Quote from THHuxleynew

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 from maryyugo

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.

Quote from maryyugo

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.

Quote from JedRothwell

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 ?

Quote from maryyugo

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

Quote from maryyugo

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.

Quote from interested observer

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 ?

Quote from kirkshanahan

takes what you write and twists it into something that either a) looks bad for you or b) looks good for him

That quite common here. Jed is a Master in this art but also others do it.

Even Mary is quite expert. She cite few lines not putting even the origin or the author of the post.

Quote from interested observer

If you are a scientist, then you must be...

put your insult after the dots. (he he he he)

Quote from interested observer

As for accepting opinions from you, the same answer as above except that given your view of Rossi,

And what bout my view of Darden and IH ?

Quote from interested observer

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.

Quote from interested observer

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.

Quote from interested observer

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.

Quote from interested observer

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

Quote from interested observer

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

Quote from interested observer

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?

Quote from interested observer

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.