QuoteCome now, did you not know I have a degree in Maryiology?
MY and I have been at this 6 years now.
Yes and while I respect the difficulty of what you do for a living, it is still true that about LENR, you have not been right ONCE in all those six years about anyone you thought had the "real deal". And in the year 2017 ARLS (after the Rossi Law Suit) you seem only a moderate amount less gullible and not a better debunker.
Mary; your negativity is busting my chakras.
Are there any areas of LENR research that you have any positive feelings about?
I get the criticisms of particular individuals or research that you feel are dodgy or sloppy or inaccurate.
Indeed evidence proves that there are conmen selling LENR. Strange for an area that apparently suffers from no funding being available.
So is that it, exposing conmen? In which case why choose the LENR field to camp at.
Is there anything in the LENR field that you think is worth more research?
QuoteAre there any areas of LENR research that you have any positive feelings about?
No. But I favor continuing research if it's well done and well written up.
QuoteSo is that it, exposing conmen? In which case why choose the LENR field to camp at.
Is there anything in the LENR field that you think is worth more research?
I am good at exposing con men. I have a sensitive bulldokey detector. I do not know what areas of LENR are worthwhile. I strongly suspect Ni-H is not because of all the research that has been done on Ni-H for batteries without turning up anything LENR. But I am all for more research. As long as it is properly presented. The hype is not good for the field and there is a LOT of that. Neither, of course, are Defkalions and Rossi's not to mention Miley's and Nanospires'. Brillouin? Who knows? IMHO of course. Good luck with your shock cords.
MELVIN MILES
If you work in this field, and you see the effects, and you know its real, and you know its very
important, and anything else is much less important in your mind, and in truth really, in reality;
It's much more important than battery research.
Steven B. Krivit New Energy Times
"Paragraph 6: You analyze the reported daily excess heat measurements as described in the Fleischmann-Pons paper. I was very specific in my question. I challenged you to explain the apparent violation of Ohm’s law. I did not challenge you to explain any reported excess heat measurements or any calorimetry. Readings of cell temperature are not calorimetry, but certainly can be used as part of calorimetry
May 3, 2017, From Electrochemist Melvin Miles
I have not studied this in detail, but Shanahan is wrong in his application of Ohm’s Law to electrochemistry. The current and voltage relationship is not simply by Ohm’s Law. For example, the cell voltage involves various factors including the equilibrium cell potential based on the cell reaction, the overvoltage at the anode, the overvoltage at the cathode (both depend on the electrode kinetics), and the IR drop across the cell. This will look somewhat like Ohm’s Law only if the IR voltage is much larger than the other components. Actually, at the large currents used in the F-P experiments, there is an exponential relationship between the cell current and the overvoltages at the anode and the cathode and not an Ohm’s Law relationship.
You might want to read this:
Miles-Fleischmann-Szpak-Mossier-Boss Article in IE132
and a few of the subsequent posts.
I also wrote somewhere in this forum that Miles didn't seem to read what I wrote to him in an email on this as well. He admittd he never read my papers on the subject, even though he was a co-author on the Comment I n J. Env. Mon. that claimed I has posited the "random Shanahan hypothesis" when I have always talked about a systematic effect.
IOW, quoting Krivit and Miles isn't really a good idea.
"quoting Krivit and Miles isn't really a good idea."
This changes the electrolyte concentration, which changes the cell resistance, which changes the power deposited via the standard Ohm’s Law relations, V= I*R and P=V*I (which gives P=I^2*R).
V=IR?
http://news.newenergytimes.net…han-can-you-explain-this/
Chacun a son gout
Vive LA lenr
Display More"quoting Krivit and Miles isn't really a good idea."
This changes the electrolyte concentration, which changes the cell resistance, which changes the power deposited via the standard Ohm’s Law relations, V= I*R and P=V*I (which gives P=I^2*R).
V=IR?
http://news.newenergytimes.net…han-can-you-explain-this/
Chacun a son gout
Vive LA lenr
bocijn, I wish you would make sense with your posts....
You quote my last post, then quote something that Krivit quoted me on, then say "V=IR?" when right in the quote you just quoted it says "Ohm’s Law relations, V= I*R". So what you apparently are questioning makes no sense at all. You don't know Ohm's Law?
Also, I don't do French and I'm not gonna watch a 45 minute French video quoting a bunch of CFers that I know are making mistakes and refusing to admit them (those who still can).
Why don't you just make your point without being cute...
Obscurity seems to be a welcome theme in LENR writing. Maybe he was looking for "E"=IR. Or is that the obsolete version? Who knows what that person means? I have a similar issue of comprehension of prose with many authors. No point in calling them out. Clarity is little prized in this field. Jed calls it "spoonfeeding." (pass the spoon, please)
"
Why don't you just make your point without being cute
..."
Why does Kirk Shanahan from the River Westabou need to reinforce his dubious posts with his more dubious alterego Mary Yugo.
It becomes rather boring after a while, a bit like a ventriloquist and his dummy, but with a multiple personality twist.
Why does Kirk Shanahan from the [Savannah] River [National Laboratory] ... need to reinforce his .... posts [ad homs and misdirections removed]
Because you keep trying to convince others I am wrong? But your posts are nearly unintelligible, so I might have that wrong too. Maybe you're actually trying to say I'm right!
with his more .... alterego Mary Yugo [ad hom removed]
Not mine. Can't speak about others...
"Maybe you're actually trying to say I'm right!"
IMHO you are dead wrong and rather repetitively at that.
Others have elaborated upon the validity of your views.
https://en.wikiversity.org/wik…ptical_arguments/Shanahan
BTW it is not ad hominem...it is ad canem ..
if I can remember my accusative cases from anno MCMLXX.
I can't remember the accusative case for alterego.
Whatever it is..Maryyugo Maryego? does zilch for your credibility.
Do you still work at the Laboratory on Westobou or is that an emeritus deal?
When McKubre lectures the LENR community, as he often does, to "talk about with each other, and do not keep the same secrets from each other", I do not think he had this in mind.
McKubre"and do not keep the same secrets from each other" may be referring to the sonofusion experiments with titanium foil
documented in the third to last paper in
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ BiberianJPjcondensedw.pdf
These sonofusion results may relate to Suhas' titanium experiments in Mumbai.
IMHO you are dead wrong and rather repetitively at that.
Good thing opinions don't count then... By the way, I am 'repetitive' because people like you a) don't get it, and b) keep repeating derogatory comments with no bases in fact.
Others have elaborated upon the validity of your views.
Ah yes, Abd's one-sided misinterpretation...I understand now. You know bo, it helps to study both sides of an issue to see the flaws. Failure to do that is a clear sign of a fanatic at work.
Do you still work at the Laboratory on Westobou or is that an emeritus deal?
No bo, I'll be around for a while longer.
QuoteBy the way, I am 'repetitive' because people like you a) don't get it, and b) keep repeating derogatory comments with no bases in fact.
In the believer's world, skeptics are only permitted to refute and debunk them ONE time and that is only a courtesy. No matter how often the believers repeat the same drivel, skeptics have to remain silent or they are being "repetitive" and "annoying". Believer mind set is how we get the joys of Defkalion and Rossi.
QuoteWhy does Kirk Shanahan from the River Westabou need to reinforce his dubious posts with his more dubious alterego Mary Yugo.
It becomes rather boring after a while, a bit like a ventriloquist and his dummy, but with a multiple personality twist.
I have nothing to do with Shanahan, have never met him or even emailed him. I am, however, struck with the fact that he is one of the very few persons, around here, all skeptical, who makes sense. I also found it fascinating that, for his important and well funded (I hope) work, he HAS TO KNOW whether LENR is real in order to avoid disasters involving very hazardous radioactive materials, sometimes under high heat and/or pressure, if I am not mistaken. And despite all his investigation, he has never found a single credible instance of it. That situation is unique "around here." And he has the physics education, experience and competency to make the evaluations.
I do not pretend to know very much physics. My skill is detecting con men and frauds and their, to me, obvious schemes. And woowoo stuff that makes little or no sense. So keep braying, bocijn. Your strange inputs are mostly boring but rarely slighty
amusing.
Finally, if believers like bocijn, Adrian and others were really secure in their conviction that LENR is real and will make a difference in the future of human civilizations, they would not care what a few skeptics say on the internet. Their sensitivity to critique betrays believers' lack of confidence and insecurity. There is a parallel with believers in psychic phenomena and UFO's, crop circles and the rest.
LENR Catalysis assay??
1.
Plasmonic enhancement of electromagnetic fields appears to be operative in some chemical catalysts...
postulated to be useful for LENR catalysis
Katsuaki Tanabe's 2nd to last paper in http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ BiberianJPjcondensedw.pdf
Interesting.. however Palladium/Nickel theoretically has less ability to support this due to lower conductivity than Ag/Au.
Theory needs to be backed up with tests of LENR activity for a range of nanostructures
2.
Jie Gaoy and Wu-Shou Zhang's thorough evaluation of 21 palladium samples for LENR activity.
Funded by China.
Lengthy.. 4- 5 years.. almost heroic but cheaper to fund in China than Dash's Seattle
- low excess heat in aqueous electrolytic
IMHO aqueous electrolytic is not the way to go.
Arata and Mizuno's gas/solid heterogenous catalysts at > 200K give significant heat.
Assay of LENR activity by excess heat is laborious/expensive
For screening/optimisation of thousands of potential catalysts a quicker assay of LENR activity is needed.
Is there another easily measured signature of LENR activity?
My skill is detecting con men and frauds and their, to me, obvious schemes. And woowoo stuff that makes little or no sense.
Don't flatter yourself. You are not good at detecting so-called "woowoo" and you have no way of telling whether stuff makes sense. For three reasons:
1. You never do your homework. You never read the documents. You don't know what the hell you are talking about and you make gigantic errors, by three orders of magnitude, without noticing.
2. You imagine that conventional methods such as measuring enthalpy by boiling off water are "woowoo" that does not work. You think that isoperibolic calorimeters do not work. They have been working since Joule invented them in 1840.
3. When something is first discovered by experiment, no one can tell whether it is woowoo or real. People thought that x-rays, continental drift, lasers and many other things were woowoo when they were first discovered. It is impossible in principle for anyone to know what is true.
You and Robert Park imagine you have some special ability to sort out truth from falsehood, but your technique does not work. It is simple, but it does not work. All you do is dismiss everything that is radically new, or unexpected. Since most new discoveries are wrong, you are usually right. This is like betting that most players at bat will strike out. Yes, that is a sure thing. It proves nothing. It is like betting that the House will Win in Las Vegas.
Park's column at the APS was called "What's New." Gene Mallove said he should have called it: "What's New that I hate." People like you and Park are afraid of novelty, change, and not knowing things. You ridicule and dismiss things you have not heard of or do not understand. Many people do that. That is why the human race remained mired in ignorance for thousands of years. If only this instinct in us were less strong, science would have developed in the time of the ancient Greeks, and by now our spaceships would have reached the nearest stars, as Arthur Clarke put it.
This is human nature, as I said. Even scientists suffer from it:
"If we watch ourselves honestly we shall often find that we have begun to argue against a new idea even before it has been completely stated."
- Wilfred Trotter
"My skill is detecting con men and frauds and their, to me, obvious schemes. And woowoo stuff that makes little or no sense."
It takes little skill to detect a con persona...the Quixotic Shanahan against the windmills of LENR
"When something is first discovered by experiment, no one can tell whether it is woowoo or real."
If only LENR was an antibiotic and there was a war on:
from serendipity to ubiquity
Give me a break. Do I have to recycle AGAIN all of Jed Rothwell's pronouncements about how credible Rossi's claims were because of such things as prime principles? And he actually loaned money to Defkalion! While I called both correctly and for the right reasons as early as six months into the scams. Rothwell is a fine one to critique my baloney detector. No wonder skeptics become repetitious, Believers recycle the same BS over and over again.
Nobody needs to be quixotic when it comes to LENR. So far, it's mostly promises and claims by the usual suspects. And a bunch of insecure people who bristle at any criticism, even from unremarkable authors on the internet. And a collection of data, none of which seems to impress anyone outside the community of believers.
