> Google translate - perhaps "the group" is a subset of UNIBO.
(I'm impressed with the English that Google Translate is producing.)
> Google translate - perhaps "the group" is a subset of UNIBO.
(I'm impressed with the English that Google Translate is producing.)
Not so nice (and reiterated) opinions
> Google translate - perhaps "the group" is a subset of UNIBO.
"The group' may be a subset of UNIBO as you say, but in his earlier comments you provided yesterday, he referred to his group as GSVIT -an anonymous Italian skeptics group that likes to debunk LENR claims. He refers to their recent work on "Report 41" which has been discussed here:
GSVIT analysing Report41 in private
That said...yes, it is "not so nice" what he says about Mizuno.
I think it most unlikely that GSVIT has anything to do with staff at UNIBO dept of physics and astrophysics.
"Anonymous" indeed.
CCS caused by ATER.
I believe that is Shanahan's theory. It is a figment of his imagination.
You mean the calibration constants can change? Be still my heart!
Of course they can change. Who said they cannot? However, when they change, you can always detect that by recalibrating or calibrating on-the-fly. That's what I just said. Please address the issue. Can you list a problem with calorimetry which cannot be detected by calibration?
There are other methods of revealing problems. For example, with flow calorimetry you can test the flow meter by collecting a sample of cooling water for one minute. However, any problem that I know of will also be revealed with a calibration, which can be defined as testing all components -- the pump, the flow meter, the thermocouples -- at the same time with a known level of heat.
In some instances, a calibration on-the-fly can trigger excess heat, or increase it, as described by Fleischmann. This complicates matters.
Who said they cannot?
You for one. Right here:
I believe that is Shanahan's theory. It is a figment of his imagination.
Please address the issue. Can you list a problem with calorimetry which cannot be detected by calibration?
I did. CCS caused by ATER.
However, when they change, you can always detect that by recalibrating or calibrating on-the-fly.
No, you can't always. Not if you use the wrong model of the system (which is reflected in the calibration method).
Just for yuks, Storms and the Seebeck effect calorimeter:
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.o…017fceea48d730660303f.pdfFigure 1 (calibration curve) is certainly spic and span. Data in the last two figures? Persuasive or not?
He doesn't test for a CCS and he is using a closed cell with recombiner which is the perfect setup for a CCS/ATER. He assumes:
"Although the measurement is not sensitive to where heat is generated within the electrolytic cell"
instead of trying to prove it.
I also note that his Figure 1 is the classic wrong way to present this kind of data. You need to look at the difference between the two methods as a function of V. If you do that, you observe a nearly perfect quadratic plot, which says to me the differential could be reduced if desired. It might even be due to the possibility one of the methods should use a linear calibration instead of a quadratic. In any case the results show the maximum error over the data range is near the middle of the range. But it is only ~39 mW. Pretty good as long as there's no CCS/ATER involved.
Regarding Figs 13 and 14. Perfect example of a CCS effect. Plotting all that data together tends to make it a little harder to see, but it generally looks like that as current increases (~related to Pin), Pex increases, just like you would get from a CCS/ATER. That's exactly how I zeroed out Storms' excess heats in my 2002 paper. You could plot his data from then in the same fashion, and it would have the same appearance. There does appear to be some separation in the separate run data, and it would be useful I think to look at the data in a time sequence.
I have commented extensively on Figure 9 elsewhere. I am short on time at the moment so I will report back later on that. Obviously I have seen this before and it doesn't change the whole CCS/ATER proposal at all, it just shows you can get it in a Seebeck calorimeter too, which I predicted in 2000.
Maybe I made a mistake though. Let me know if you see one.
I have commented extensively on Figure 9 elsewhere.
Found it. It is a big chunk of my 2006 reply to Storms' 2006 Comment about my 2002 paper. I basically point out the data has flyers in it that would arise due to ATER, which are not addressed by Storms at all.
Amazing that we are still arguing about this now, 15 years after Shanahan's 2002 paper. You'd think by now, Mizuno or someone would be making 10x or 100x the power out/power in ratio or running independent of power for sustained periods, making the whole argument extremely moot. But no. And it's not. After all this time and all that writing. And all the help and support and people and facilities provided by IH to Mizuno.
Amazing that we are still arguing about this now, 15 years after Shanahan's 2002 paper.
People still argue that the earth is flat. Crackpot theories never die.
You'd think by now, Mizuno or someone would be making 10x or 100x the power out/power in ratio or running independent of power for sustained periods, making the whole argument extremely moot.
Mizuno and others produce heat with no input power. That's a ratio of infinity. It is called "heat after death" -- something that you refuse to look at, because it proves you are wrong.
You are also wrong because in Mizuno's latest experiment, input power is only needed to heat the cell. It can be reduced by improving the insulation. It is not electrolysis input power. Even if it were electrolysis, that is very stable and it can be measured with precision and then subtracted. It it not noise.
Obviously, if they could produce 10x or 100x with power input, they would.
And all the help and support and people and facilities provided by IH to Mizuno.
How much help, support and people was that? What did you hear? Where did you hear it?
QuoteMizuno and others produce heat with no input power. That's a ratio of infinity. It is called "heat after death" -- something that you refuse to look at, because it proves you are wrong
Wrong about what? "heat after death" is a horrible term. Anyway, to get respect, unpowered operation, if that is what is claimed, should last a long time. Other than the anecdotal report of the infamous evaporating bucket, I don't recall any evidence that it does.
QuoteYou are also wrong because in Mizuno's latest experiment, input power is only needed to heat the cell. It can be reduced by improving the insulation
Good idea but same argument as with Celani-- it would increase the signal to noise ratio but it has not been done effectively yet.
QuoteHow much help, support and people was that? What did you hear? Where did you hear it?
All I know about it is what I read here. I doubt that Darden would go through all the trouble to invite Mizuno all the way to the East Coast of the US from Japan with the idea of perhaps adopting his technology and then that Darden would neglect to assist Mizuno by providing what he asked for. Of course, I don't know that. Maybe Huey, Lewey or Dewey can shed some light on what happened.
Did Mizuno actually go to Raleigh in person? I am not even sure that happened.
Anyway, to get respect, unpowered operation, if that is what is claimed, should last a long time.
In Fleischmann's paper, the reaction lasts 1,800 longer than it would with the chemical fuel in the cell. But, that's not long enough for you. If it were 1.8 million times, or 1.8 billion times, that still wouldn't be long enough for you. You define "a long time" as "longer than any test that has been done yet."
In all gas loaded experiments there is no input power, so of course you ignore them.
In any case, it lasts as long as it does. The only way to make it last longer would be to use a large mass of palladium, the way Mizuno did. No one wants to do that for good reasons. It wouldn't convince you or any other innumerate, pathological skeptic. You would just make another gigantic error of 4 or 5 orders of magnitude, or maybe 6 or 8, and you would dismiss it. No amount of proof will convince someone who thinks there is no difference between 6 seconds and 3 hours.
Did Mizuno actually go to Raleigh in person? I am not even sure that happened.
I believe the trial docket says he did. I have not read it closely.
Jed, it's not just me that's dissatisfied with the evidence for sustained credible high power LENR. And I have nothing to with funding so who cares what i think? But it's just about everybody except for the usual suspects who do not number very many.
Murray and his team first went to Mizuno's small lab in Sapporo, Japan, where they found some issues of concern with the "plasma based technology" instrument set-up. After helping him "re-equip" with "more robust instrumentation", Mizuno was unable to get the same result as he had with his original set up.
Mizuno then flew to NC for 7-10 days: "did his exact procedure and process on his reactor in our facility, and we were still now able to get it to work".
Quote... and we were still now able to get it to work".
You mean "we were still NOT able to get it to work?"
You mean "we were still NOT able to get it to work?"
Mary,
That was a quote from Murray from his deposition. It was his misspelling, not mine. I posted that early in this thread as a caution, so that Mizuno defenders understand what may come. Now, with GSVIT ready to report....
"After helping him "re-equip" with "more robust instrumentation","
sounds wonderfully magnanimous.
I wouldn't invite Murray or IH into my house.
These people are gaijin.
but then I'm not Japanese.
十人十色Fri 29/09/2017 1:09 PM
Hi Mizuno san
How are you. I hope the autumn is beautiful in Sapporo
I don’t think the men in Raleigh North Carolina know what ‘honor’ means.
I think the USA has forgotten “名誉” .
Here are the words of Murray-san in the Miami court.
If you need to translate them….my friends at Japanese church in Sydney can do
having first been duly sworn, was examined and did testify as follows:
Q.· · Okay.· What about Dr. Mizuno?· Were you able ·to identically reproduce what he was doing?
A.· ·No, we were not.· So Dr. Mizuno had conducted
·a, a series of these plasma-based technique tests in his ·lab in, in Sapporo, Japan.·
more robust instrumentation set, and then re, have him·reproduce the experiments exactly as he had before.· And·once we re-instrumented the, the equipment and put a·little better controls in his lab on the environmental·conditions, we couldn't get the same result again.·
·technologies have even one percent probability of
facility, and then he came over and he spent, I don't·know if it was a week or ten days,
he spent some time in our lab setting that up and going through his process that he had defined to validate it.·
And we, and there were some nuances.·
So, so our concern, you know, our conclusion
Q.· Why was it necessary for him to come over and
·do the experiment in North Carolina as opposed to just·relying on the one that you had built?
Q.· · So why then did you have to have him come over and test it again?
A.· Well, because Mr. Darden was, wanted us to drive to the end, that if there was even one percent chance that that one measurement he did was correct,
then let's get to the bottom of it.· And there was a big·language barrier.· So what we did was we had him, after we were able using all of his information, able to reproduce it or not able to reproduce it, what we had·him do was we had him to come over and use one of his·reactors in our facility to see if there was something,some nuance difference that we just weren't getting, and·then try to reproduce it.· But we were not able to get·it to work even with him there.
Q.· · Would you say that it is essential to work with the inventor in order to make sure that you're getting absolutely everything to attempt to replicate
A.· · In my opinion, yes.· I mean if, these are very nuanced and subtle areas.·
MIZUNO-SAN YORI Fri 29/09/2017 3:57 PM