Just a point of clarification — Mizuno's book is an informal account of his LENR research and is not a scientific work.
That is rather what I expected... And another reason for not wanting to shell out $8
I'm still waiting for Bocjin's transmutation evidence.
Jed said: What "unknown circumstances" can make an object appear to be hot when it is actually at room temperature?
Sensation of heat is a very problematic indicator:(1) metal objects will appear hot at slightly elevated temperatures when insulators at the same temperature do not
(2) cold objects and hot objects cannot be distinguished
Which is why experiments tend to use instruments rather than anecdotal comments. Even then, as above, instruments can lie too.
The metal cell did not "appear hot at slightly elevated temperatures." It was so hot it would severely burn your hand if you touched it. That's not "slight." The only way to pick it up was to wrap it in layers of cloth. It remained hot for days. There is no chance Mizuno and his colleague could mistake a room temperature cell for one that is too hot to touch. The human sense of touch is not that unreliable.
The thermocouple was not malfunctioning. It functioned correctly throughout the experiments, and it still functions today. The cell was roughly at 100 deg C during the test due to electrolysis power, as you see from the graph I posted. That was the expected temperature, not a malfunction. It was also too hot to touch.
It makes no sense to say the thermocouple worked correctly during electrolysis, measuring the expected temperature, but it suddenly failed after electrolysis stopped, and then it began working again after the heat-after-death finally went away, and it is still working today. It makes no sense at all to say that two people's sense of touch was so disturbed -- in biologically unprecedented ways -- they both thought the cell was too hot to touch but it was actually room temperature. It would have to be room temperature if there was no heat being generated inside it. It does not take long for that mass of metal too cool down.
THHuxley
"I'm still waiting for Bocjin's transmutation evidence"
It's not MY evidence ..It's Mizuno's and from other researchers like
Iwamura..Higashiyama, Karabut..Clayton..Ohtani
Sankaranarayan.. Srinavasan Savvatimova
Urutskoev ..Cirillo
Radhakrishnan..Rout..Celani..Spallone Nakamura..Will..to name just a few..so many researchers!
Dear THH.
3 courteous questions for you..
1.How is the evidence going for your statement that OSMIUM and many others may interfere with the Pt-197 77.35 gamma peak?
Have you found any evidence apart from the reference I have given you?
2. How is your reading of the Mizuno et al paper on Xenon going.?..there's even some OSMIUM there
lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTanomalousia.pdf
3. When you have read that.. there's plenty more...
I think there have been many experiments so obvious and clear that if this were any other scientific claim everyone would agree it is real. For example, I would cite McKubre's excess heat and the tritium results from Bockris and Will:
Cold fusion is not unique. There are many, many examples of previous claims that were rejected even though the proof was rock solid, and there was no reason to doubt the claims. Lasers, the MRI and h. pylori are good examples. I have studied much of this history, digging up old books and contemporaneous original sources. People don't like to talk about these events so you seldom see them in history textbooks.
I think there are many causes. As I said, it is human nature. Another major contributing factor is money. M-o-n-e-y, especially research funding. The locus of opposition to cold fusion has been the hot fusion program researchers, for obvious reasons. You see this in other institutions. The coal industry is fighting tooth and nail against natural gas and wind power. The congressman from Big Coal (WV) tried to pass a law banning the use of wind turbines, ostensibly because they kill birds. That's ridiculous for many reasons, not least because coal kills orders of magnitude more birds than wind per megawatt-hour, not to mention 20,000 Americans per year.
The extent of opposition, and the irrationality of it, is surprising. You have to read original sources to get a sense of it. Take early aviation. Before 1908, practically no one believed that airplanes are real. The Scientific American printed vicious, irrational, unscientific attacks against claims, and the Wright brothers -- very similar to their attacks against cold fusion. (The Sci. Am. still has it in for the Wrights, repeating their nonsense attacks as recently as 2003.) In 1908 the Wrights demonstrated in France and in Washington DC and become famous overnight. They were on the front pages of newspapers worldwide. Hundreds of thousands of people saw them fly over the next several months. They were given awards by every country including a gold medal issued by Congress in 1909. Starting in 1909 there were air races with 10 or 20 pilots competing.
So, you would think the controversy would end, wouldn't you? Nope. I have newspaper accounts and books describing events as late as 1912, where, for example, a person showed up with an airplane packed into railroad shipping containers in a Midwestern city, and advertised he would demonstrate flights before a paying crowd. He was arrested for fraud. The citizens threatened to tar and feather him because "everyone knows people can't fly." They sheriff told the pilot to get out of town in the dead of night. Apparently the citizens of that city thought the national press coverage was, in modern parlance, "fake news." They did not trust those big city newspapers.
You see similar disbelief and opposition to things like self-driving cars today. There are many unfounded and hysterical claims about them. Someone in the comment section at the N. Y. Times said that a terrorist might use a self-driving car to drive on the sidewalk and mow down pedestrians, and it would not be the terrorist's fault because the robot is in charge. Obviously, the cars are programmed not to leave the road or run down anyone! Another letter claimed that thousands of self-driving cars on the New Jersey Turnpike might suddenly to exit to the island Service Centers. The letter writer seemed to think they might pile on top of one-another in a gigantic demolition derby, trying to occupy the same parking spaces. Again, obviously, a robot car that can drive in traffic would not try to park in a spot that was already taken. Such objections resemble one of the main objections made by scientists circa 1908 who did not believe airplanes were possible: "even if you can fly, there is no way to slow down and land safely." These people apparently never watched a pigeon turn up its wings to a steep angle of attack, spread its tail, stall, and land. That is exactly how an airplane lands, and you can be sure the Wright brothers knew that before they glided the first time.
Here is a famous quote about how it is impossible to land an airplane:
"And, granting complete success, imagine the proud possessor of the aeroplane darting through the air at a speed of several hundred feet per second! It is the speed alone that sustains him. Once he slackens his speed, down he begins to fall. He may, indeed, increase the inclination of his aeroplane. Then he increases the resistance necessary to move it. Once he stops he falls a dead mass. How shall he reach the ground without destroying his delicate machinery?"
Source: Newcomb, Simon. Outlook for the Flying Machine. The Independent, October 22, 1903.
http://www.foresight.org/news/negativeComments.html
You can see that Prof. Newcomb is describing how to land an airplane, yet he does not even realize he is! If he were here, now, I would say: "Professor, you just answered your own question. All you need to do is glide to within a few feet above the ground and then do what you just described. You fall a dead mass the last few feet, and then roll to a stop." Most of the objections to cold fusion are similar. They are asked and answered. Take Shanahan's crackpot assertions that a hot object is not a heater. He eventually said -- for a moment! -- that it might be a LENR heater. Which is it is, obviously. Indisputably. But he quickly stopped saying that and claimed the whole idea is invalid because Jed lied about something. What it was I lied about, and how that lie might invalidate the Second Law of Thermodynamics, no one knows.
Take Shanahan's crackpot assertions that a hot object is not a heater.
The you go again Jed with your...ummm...gee I can't use that word per Alan's instuctions...hmmm..'falseifications'?....no, nor quite right,...how about 'making things up'? Yeah, that'll do.
He eventually said -- for a moment! -- that it might be a LENR heater.
Never did.
Which is it is, obviously. Indisputably.
No.
Indisputably. But he quickly stopped saying that and claimed the whole idea is invalid because Jed lied about something.
What in the world are you talking about? Or maybe, what world do you live on?
What it was I lied about, and how that lie might invalidate the Second Law of Thermodynamics, no one knows.
No. Been pointed out multiple times now. Yet you just don't get it...
(also the whole Second Law stuff is your garbage, nothing to do with what I wrote.)
[He eventually said -- for a moment! -- that it might be a LENR heater.]
Never did.
Well, you sort of did, for one bright, shining moment:
So for the too hot to touch, large, heavy stainless steel cell in the bucket to be a heater it would need either a) power inputs, like wires from a power supply, or b) an internal heat source, such as kerosene, a battery, or maybe even a LENR reactor.
"Maybe even a LENR reactor . . ." sort of sounds like you agree that a LENR device that remains hot is a heater. Because any hot object is a heater. But no! You quickly reverted to blathering crackpot nonsense about vermin in the lab, low humidity causing an object to remain hot for days, an abandoned lab that was not a bit abandoned, and so on, and so forth:
What I did was to assume a large hot object was dropped in a bucket of water on a low humidity day in a well-ventilated abandoned laboratory, possibly overrun with vermin, and attempt to compute what might have happened
Crackpot, crackpot, crackpot. You make the flat earth people look like rational scientists in comparison. Still, I doubt you actually believe this horse shit. Any sane person in the last million years would know that a small object cannot remain to hot to touch for days with chemical fuel. The fuel runs out. That is why, when an event like this supposedly happened in ancient times, it was called the Miracle of the Maccabees.
@JR
Well, I see you can quote me accurately when it suits your purpose, even if you did miss the humor in what I wrote. Let's be clear. *IF* it could be shown LENR exists, it might make a heater per the definition of one with an internal power supply. *BUT* that's the whole point of the research and *SO FAR* it has *NEVER*, *EVER* been demonstrated convincingly by *ANYONE*. So, mentioning a 'LENR heater' is like discussing those leprechauns or pink invisible flying unicorns.
*TOMORROW* someone might succeed. If they do fine. If it involves metal hydrides in enclosed vessels with no exotic stimulation like lasers or particle beams, I will be interested.
Over in the other thread that you interrupted with the Mizuno bucket anecdote, I suggested bo and Zeus needed to prove their comprehension by explaining what a 'sensitivity analysis' was and why you would do it. You need to do the same, because it's obvious you haven't a clue. If you did, you'd quit inventing garbage about what I wrote on the Mizuno bucket anecdote.
Your inventions about what I supposedly do or don't believe need to stop too. But again to be clear, I personally think there was a thermocouple malfunction that Mizuno didn't catch. If it wasn't he should have reproduced it. I know, you say he tried, with 'different' or 'better' experiments, but the key point is *NONE OF THEM WORKED EITHER*.
Well, I see you can quote me accurately when it suits your purpose, even if you did miss the humor in what I wrote. Let's be clear. *IF* it could be shown LENR exists, it might make a heater per the definition of one with an internal power supply
You have that backwards. The existence of that heater proves that LENR exists. It is the only explanation for that heater, and for many other experiments.
The only way you can deny that is to claim that event did not occur. That the cell did not remain to hot to touch for many days with no input power. Sometimes you claim the account is a lie -- it never happened. Other times you attempt to explain it away by invoking humidity, or vermin in the laboratory, or some other crackpot nonsense. As I said, any sane person in the last million years would know how hot objects work, and approximately how much heat a given mass of fuel can produce. Anyone can see that your hypotheses are nonsense.
I know, you say he tried, with 'different' or 'better' experiments, but the key point is *NONE OF THEM WORKED EITHER*.
And here you try to deny it by making up fake nonsense about Mizuno. Many of his other experiments worked. So did hundreds of experiments in other labs.
You have that backwards. The existence of that heater proves that LENR exists. It is the only explanation for that heater, and for many other experiments.
The existence of the 'heater' is not proved. It is suggested with undocumented assertions (in a book, so the book isn't 'documenting' the assertions, it is making them). There are other rational interpretations of the asserted facts of the matter (i.e. other explanations).
I have found no other experiments that support the idea that LENR *actually* exists. (Note: for the record, keV beams are not low energy, so I'm not commenting on those.)
The only way you can deny that is to claim that event did not occur.
No. I don't deny the event occurred at all. I deny it happened the way Mizuno believes it does. You take my explanations of my issues with Mizuno's claims and distort and misconstrue them, and then you mix in all kinds of ad homs and other bad logic. You confuse yourself so badly I am amazed you fingers don't get all twisted up typing.
That the cell did not remain to hot to touch for many days with no input power.
Asserted to have stayed hot. On what basis. Thermocouple measurements - probably a malfunction. Mizuno 'touched' the cell. How many times? When, exactly? Had he preconditioned himself to believe it was still hot by reading the TC first? (Ever try the old dip the finger in ice water and then put in room temp water? People tend to overestimate the temperature there because of preconditioning.)
Sometimes you claim the account is a lie -- it never happened.
Libelous statement - prove I said that.
And here you try to deny it by making up fake nonsense about Mizuno. Many of his other experiments worked. So did hundreds of experiments in other labs.
Libelous statement - prove I said Mizuno lied. None of his other experiments worked well enough to prove anything. The hundreds (what not 'thousands' Jed?) of experiments giving *APPPARENT* excess heat results have all been consistently misinterpreted by CFers. No proof of LENR there.
The existence of the 'heater' is not proved. It is suggested with undocumented assertions (in a book, so the book isn't 'documenting' the assertions, it is making them)
Ah. Okay, so you are now saying that it did not happen.
I assume you mean that Mizuno and his colleague Akimoto who say it happened were lying, or they were delusional. Or perhaps you mean that I made it up.
Fleischmann and Pons, McKubre and many others reported similar heat-after-death events, sometimes on the same scale of ~100 W, lasting hours or days. I assume you think these are also "not proved." Meaning they are lies. What else could they be? It is not possible to confuse a stone cold cell with one that is too hot to touch.
Asserted to have stayed hot. On what basis. Thermocouple measurements - probably a malfunction. Mizuno 'touched' the cell. How many times? When, exactly?
As he wrote in the book, he touched it several times a day for a week. It is impossible for a person to imagine that an object is too hot to touch at about 100 deg C, but it is actually stone cold. It is also impossible for a person to see that water in the bucket all evaporated every day when it was actually still there. That can only be a lie, or delusional. Explanations such as "humidity" or "vermin" ( thousands of rats drank the water) are . . . extreme crackpot nonsense.
Ah. Okay, so you are now saying that it did not happen.
I assume you mean that Mizuno and his colleague Akimoto who say it happened were lying, or they were delusional. Or perhaps you mean that I made it up.
Fleischmann and Pons, McKubre and many others reported similar heat-after-death events, sometimes on the same scale of ~100 W, lasting hours or days. I assume you think these are also "not proved." Meaning they are lies. What else could they be? It is not possible to confuse a stone cold cell with one that is too hot to touch.
Another libelous set of statements. That is NOT what I am saying at all. Please read my answer to your other diatribe for details.
You also conveniently forget my whitepaper where I showed that F&P were wholly confused about their supposed heat-after-death event as published in 1993. I showed explicitly that either they reported a heat-after-death event AND COMPLETELY MISSED AN IDENTICAL ONE while publishing the very data that proved bothor they falsely attributed heat-after-death to the cell that they attributed it to. I vote for the latter, primarily because they used a different measure to claim HAD that the figures that showed it didn't happen. Does this sound confused to you? It should. They were.
I've never seen a supportable HAD event report.
What else could it be you ask? I said right above, confusion, and I add that that is likely because of overcommitment and loss of perspective.
Enough for now. The rest of your post is garbage again, same old, same old. Done for the weekend here.
Another libelous set of statements. That is NOT what I am saying at all.
As far as I can tell, you are saying that a thermocouple error can explain the fact the cell remained too hot to touch for days, and it caused the water to evaporate. You have not explained what else you might mean. It is not libelous for me to point out that your explanation fails. A thermocouple error cannot make something palpably hot and it cannot evaporate water.
I do not see how libel enters into it.
You also conveniently forget my whitepaper where I showed that F&P were wholly confused about their supposed heat-after-death event as published in 1993.
I did not forget that. Fleischmann discussed it some letters I am editing. Your paper is wrong. You think it is right, but Fleischmann and other experts disagree with you, as do I. You are the one who is confused.
(Moving the side discussion in the Rossi QX thread about Shanahan and Mizuno's bucket of water here.)
I did not forget that. Fleischmann discussed it some letters I am editing. Your paper is wrong. You think it is right, but Fleischmann and other experts disagree with you, as do I. You are the one who is confused.
So now you're claiming Fleischmann addressed issues with my proposals and papers. Highly unlikely beyond what he said as coauthor of the 2004 Szpak, Miles , Mosier-Boss , and Fleischmann paper in Thermochimica Acta. That paper said they didn't understand my criticisms. I also specifically mentioned my whitepaper, which was put out by Mark Gibbs in his Network World article of Oct. 2012. Now martin Fleischmann passed away on Aug. 3, 2012, so I have to ask, are you channeling Martin now?
Speaking of Miles; pretty interesting exchange:
https://www.mail-archive.com/v…eskimo.com/msg115819.html
I wish all the old players would speak up like this. Keeping quiet does not seem to be doing much good, so why not?
I’ve discussed Miles’ work here and elsewhere many times. He lists 6 points in the linked message. My responses:
Point 1. Dental film can be chemically exposed by exposure to hydrogen (or deuterium) in a process called ‘hypering’. This technique was used back in the film days for astronomical observations. It sensitizes the film and helps record very low exposures. Further, heat exposes the film as well as light. I proved this myself by holding a hot soldering iron to some film we used to use and getting bigger exposure spots for longer contact times. So, dental film is not a definitive detector for radiation.
Point 2. Miles’ calorimetry is as suspect as any other. In fact I think I discussed it on this forum a few months ago when Miles had wanted me to comment on the 2003 paper he recently published in Infinite Energy. Net result – all excess heat signals are not proven to be from real excess heat.
Point 3. The root of the disagreement between myself and Abd. Correlating to a fictitious number (excess heat) gives fictitious correlations. Also, the ’74 sigma’ is a red herring. The key point is that the results are on the ppb level, while outdoor air is on average 5.2 ppm, and lab air can be 10-100 times that easily. IOW, no evidence that leaks haven't occurred.
Point 4. No particular comment other than to note that this is one factor that might have been important to false signals. The ultratrace level of the He results doesn’t induce a lot of confidence without much more replication (which is what Abd claimed someone is doing now).
Point 5. H2O is not a good control for D2O due to isotope effects in the chemistry. You wouldn't expect them to behave the same and they don't.
Point 6. A.) Show the results. B.) Typical claim, usually the definition of ‘replicated’ is stretched to breaking in these cases.
...Shanahan who are reliable, rational experts in their own fields. But, when the subject of cold fusion comes up, they suddenly go off the rails.
..., and their training and rationality goes out the window
Other way round Jed. It's people like Fleischmann, Miles, McKubre, Hagelstein, etc., who claim I was talking about 'random effects' when I wasn't, followed by 'proof' that random effects can't lead to the observations (which I agree with), that then claim they have somehow 'proved' my work is invalid. All those guys have top notch degrees, but when faced with simple facts that contradict their beliefs, they go bonkers.
Now, you do the same, but you're not a scientist.
Now, you do the same, but you're not a scientist.
With regard this one subject, you are a deluded fanatic, not a scientist. Like Morrison, you make errors by many orders of magnitude but you fail to even see them. You estimate that a steel cell heated by electrolysis will still be hot three days later. You cannot bring yourself to admit that is a lunatic assertion. Anyone who has used fire to heat a rock in the last 3 million years would know that, but you cannot see it.
I suppose you are rational and reliable about your own field of expertise. I doubt you would still be employed otherwise. If, as part of your assigned duties, you went around claiming that a 10 kg hot steel object will not cool down in three days, or that a bucket of water left in a room will evaporate overnight, your supervisors would assume you are mentally ill. This is like saying there are invisible bugs crawling all over your arms and legs.
For the newbies:
You estimate that a steel cell heated by electrolysis will still be hot three days later.
This is exactly the problem I was pointing out. JR can't handle the challenge to his hero's work, so he goes bonkers and claims I said this. He can't prove it without taking what I write out of context and pasting it together in a totally inappropriate way to 'prove' his point, which is not significantly different in intent from what the named authors did when they claimed I originated the so-called 'random Shanahan CCSH'. I had 4 papers on this, and all used the terms 'systematic' or 'non-random'. 'Non-random', I case you (or they) didn't know, is the diametric opposite of 'random'.
BTW - what those authors and Jed are doing is called 'using a strawman argument'. If you look it up, you'll find it is fallacious logic, and is usually invoked by people who don't understand what is going on, or just want to try to discredit someone or something by being loud.
