Mizuno's bucket of water

  • This is a peculiar way to act. Imagine a person who says she knows nothing about the Japanese language. Not even how to count to ten. Now imagine I say something about Japanese transitive and intransitive verbs, which sometimes baffle Americans. Yugo jumps in and says "you are wrong!" I ask why. She says, "Hey, I have never studied the subject. Don't expect me to know this stuff." Which is it?!? Do you know what you are talking about, or don't you?


    What fascinates me is that despite this being pointed out repeatedly, the behaviour still exists. It's basically the very definition of 'pathological'.


    It's like the Mizuno bucket thing... Yugo is so adamant that Kirk did not claim that nearly the whole bucket evaporated overnight - but if he'd only read the papers, Yugo would have understood this is exactly what's claimed.

  • Yugo is so adamant that Kirk did not claim that nearly the whole bucket evaporated overnight - but if he'd only read the papers, Yugo would have understood this is exactly what's claimed.


    And you (and of course Rothwell) didn't read and understand what I wrote as well. As I said IF there was a heater in the bucket, it is entirely possible it could evaporate. The claim was that there was, a cold fusion heater. I also wrote, that if there was no heater and the water was at room temp, it was highly unlikely that any significant evaporation would occur. You and Rothwell both make up stuff to suit your viewpoint.

  • I'm pretty sure we agree on the fact that around 10L (iirc) of water evaporated in the first day.


    And you (and of course Rothwell) didn't read and understand what I wrote as well. As I said IF there was a heater in the bucket, it is entirely possible it could evaporate.


    What, as well as some stray cats/rats, there's now a heater in the bucket too?


    Or are you referring to the heat energy embedded in the hot reactor?


    ...In which case you need to do some proper sums to see how unphyisical/ridiculous this position is.

  • And you (and of course Rothwell) didn't read and understand what I wrote as well. As I said IF there was a heater in the bucket, it is entirely possible it could evaporate.

    No, that is not what you said. But okay, you are saying it now. Let's reset the discussion.


    There as a large, heavy stainless steel cell in the bucket. It was hot. Too hot to touch. The thermocouple showed it was over 100 deg C inside. That's a heater. So, why do you say "IF there was a heater in the bucket"? What is that supposed to mean?


    If a large, heavy, steel object that is too hot to touch is not a heater, what would it be?


    Perhaps you mean an electric heater?


    This was a cold fusion heater. It remained hot for several days with no input power, producing thousands of times more heat than any chemical cell. It was not an electric heater, since there were no wires going to it.


    Perhaps, as Zeus46 suggests, you mean there was the cell plus an electric heater? Is that what you have in mind? There was no electric heater. Only the cell.


    Perhaps you do not believe that, but that is what Mizuno described. Many others have observed similar phenomena, so I am sure this happened.

  • My point here is not to revisit the 'Mizuno bucket' conflagration, but to illustrate that Zeus46 knows well that I did not say what he said I did.

    At this point I cannot make head or tail of what you are saying. I suggest you answer the question:


    Are you now saying there was an electric heater as well as the cell?


    That seems to be what you mean. Either that, or you think that a large heavy stainless steel object that is too hot to touch is not a heater. That makes no sense.


    Anyway, if you think there was the cell and also an electric heater, you are wrong.

  • Catching up on things the Obstinate Misquoter said...(with one additional quote from an acolyte):


    At this point I cannot make head or tail of what you are saying.


    So what's new? At what point were you *ever* capable of understanding what I say? You certainly never seen to get the point and you never show any inkling of having learned anything. (You know Jed, lots of people over the years have understood what I've said. It's not that I am unintelligible, it's that you refuse to hear.)


    What, as well as some stray cats/rats, there's now a heater in the bucket too?

    Perhaps you mean an electric heater?

    Are you now saying there was an electric heater as well as the cell?


    That seems to be what you mean.

    No, I did not say or imply that there was an electric heater in Mizuno's bucket. I said that GENERICALLY, a heater is required to get significant evaporation.


    There as a large, heavy stainless steel cell in the bucket. It was hot. Too hot to touch. The thermocouple showed it was over 100 deg C inside. That's a heater.

    If a large, heavy, steel object that is too hot to touch is not a heater, what would it be?

    or you think that a large heavy stainless steel object that is too hot to touch is not a heater. That makes no sense.


    In my mind "a large, heavy stainless steel cell in the bucket. It was hot. Too hot to touch. The thermocouple showed it was over 100 deg C inside." is not a 'heater'. It is a hot object. A 'heater' has a power source that adds energy to the system from an external (or perhaps internal, like a kerosene space heater) source. A hot object only has the energy it contains at the nominal 'start point', no additional. 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. But you did say


    It was not an electric heater, since there were no wires going to it.

    So, not a).


    You also said


    This was a cold fusion heater.


    That is the point of the whole discussion isn't it? Was it *really* cold fusion, or something else? That's what we all have been discussing. Most of don't think there is sufficient evidence to unambiguously conclude it was "cold fusion".


    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, and then compare that to what was claimed to have happened. In my analysis of the situation, I found that the missing information on air flow and humidity was crucial to judging the what caused the reported amounts of evaporation. So I concluded, as it normally turns out with anecdotes, that while there might have been a heater in the bucket, there might not as well.


    Anyway, if you think there was the cell and also an electric heater, you are wrong.


    Whew! I'm glad I don't think that then! (Unless they were *hidden*! Wait! Wow! I wonder... (Key point: We only have Mizuno's word on this after all. Maybe, even though he rescues bunnies and kittens, he fabricated the story! Probably not, but we actually don't know because HE NEVER REPLICATED THE EXPERIMENT.))


    Jed, I would appreciate it greatly if you would stop your continual misquoting and misconstruing of what I write. It's obvious you don't understand what I write, and half the time it looks like you don't even read it. Please take your own advice:


    If you are not a scientist, and you have not studied the issue, you should shut the hell up.

  • Morrison letter reply


    "

    In the last paragraph of this section Douglas Morrison finally "boxes himself into a corner":

    having set up an unlikely and unworkable scenario he finds that this cannot explain Stage 5 of

    the experiment"


    Kirkshanahan similarly has several "unlikely and unworkable scenario "s which cannot explain

    Mizuno's xs heat.


    And of course there is the mezzanine heat exchanger in Florida.


    Rossi ,Morrison, Kirkshanahan have similarities...but for different causes.

  • Yes! It is easy to find errors in the Penon report, but I was talking about papers by people such as Fleischmann and Pons or McKubre.


    Actually, it is easy to find errors in F&P's and McK's work, if you know the building blocks and know what to look for. I've detailed several, which you of course refuse to acknowledge.

  • Actually, it is easy to find errors in F&P's and McK's work, if you know the building blocks and know what to look for. I've detailed several, which you of course refuse to acknowledge.

    You are mistaken. Marwan, I and others do acknowledge your work, but we disagree. There is a big difference between "refusing to acknowledge" (disregarding; ignoring) and disagreeing. You are fortunate that Marwan, McKubre and others took the time to show you the errors in your work. You disagree with them because you are inept, which is unfortunate.


    You have done your homework, unlike many other critics. You have actually read the papers. As I said, I know of four professionally qualified critics who did their homework, read the literature and concluded that cold fusion is not real: Huizenga, Britz, Morrison and you. No doubt there are others, but I have not read their work, so I cannot comment. Huizenga and Britz give rational, science based reasons. They are factually wrong, but if they were right, they would have a point.


    You and Morrison, on the other hand, give outlandish, crackpot, or flat-out nonsensical confabulations such as: "a large metal cell that remains too hot to touch for days is not a heater, and to say it is a heater is wishful thinking" or "I know a DoE website about swimming pools that tells me a bucket of water left in a room will evaporate overnight." Britz is wrong; you are delusional. There is a big difference.


    Huizenga is a little weird in his main critique, described in the first page here:


    http://pages.csam.montclair.ed…lski/cf/293wikipedia.html

  • You are mistaken. Marwan, I and others do acknowledge your work, but we disagree. There is a big difference between "refusing to acknowledge" (disregarding; ignoring) and disagreeing. You are fortunate that Marwan, McKubre and other took the time to show you the errors in your work. You disagree with them because you inept, which is unfortunate.


    Jed, I have published four papers in peer-reviewed journals that all describe a systematic effect in F&P-type experiments. Marwan, et al, in their 'rebuttal' to my fourth paper talk about a "random Shanahan CCSH". I never have talked about a random effect. (With the exception of a post on my personal Wikipedia page that showed doing standard POE on the Storms' calorimetric method would indicate that the 780 mW signal was 'noise'. That POE method is based in random statistics.). They never deal with the systematic effect I describe. Thus Marwan, et al prove they haven't read my work (confirmed by Miles recently for himself), because they don't even touch on what I wrote. IOW, they haven't 'acknowledged' what I wrote. If they haven't read it or acknowledged it, they haven't disagreed with it. They have 'disagreed' with a strawman concept of their own construction.


    And it takes no skill at all to recognize 'random' does not equal 'systematic'.


    But it does take a lot of skill to remain in denial for all the years you and your heroes have done so, I'll give you that!


    (Prediction: Jed will retranslate what I just wrote (as he did with 'extraordinary' and 'rigor') to be able to reject it.)

  • You and Morrison, on the other hand, give outlandish, crackpot, or flat-out nonsensical confabulations such as: "a large metal cell that remains too hot to touch for days is not a heater, and to say it is a heater is wishful thinking" or "I know a DoE website about swimming pools that tells me a bucket of water left in a room will evaporate overnight." Britz is wrong; you are delusional. There is a big difference.


    You realize this is libelous don't you?

  • Jed, I have published four papers in peer-reviewed journals that all describe a systematic effect in F&P-type experiments.

    Yes, I know. I have read them. I offer to upload them at LENR-CANR.org so that others can read them, but evidently you do not want me to do that. That is your prerogative, of course.


    I am not ignoring your work or refusing to acknowledge it. I am saying you are wrong, and Marwan et al. are right. You disagree with me, but you should not pretend to inform me of all this as if I were unaware that the papers exist. That's a strange thing to do.


    I am also saying that your repeated statements that a hot object is not a heater are flat-out delusional. No doubt you disagree, but that is my opinion.

  • You realize this is libelous don't you?

    Don't be ridiculous. It is not even slightly libelous. What country do you think you live in, anyway? You come here repeatedly making delusional claims that a hot object in not a heater, or that the DoE says a bucket of water will evaporate overnight. Anyone can see you are either delusional or you are trying to fool people into believing rabid nonsense. I repeat what you said, and you think that is libelous?!? Really?


    If you don't want people to think you are crazy, stop saying crazy things. If you don't think "a hot object is not a heater" is crazy, that's because you are crazy. I can't help you with that.

  • Huizenga is a little weird in his main critique, described in the first page here:


    http://pages.csam.montclair.ed…lski/cf/293wikipedia.html


    I note in passing that Jed (who is the attributed author of the writings in the referenced Web page) does the same thing Ed Storms did in his first book (2007 I think), he references Ed Storms' 2006 Thermochimica Acta paper and claims it rebuts my publications, while failing to note (i.e. 'acknowledge') that I rebutted Ed's paper in the very next paper published in that journal (which is actually the third of my papers in this field). This is especially interesting because he starts off his section on my work by mentioning that I had published three papers on CF methodology. IOW, he knew about my paper rebutting Storms, he just denies it has relevance.


    What's even wilder is that he lists all three of my papers in the references but fails to note that in the text. And this happened in 2006. He's still at it today!


    Here's what Jed wrote (per the Web page):


    * K. L. Shanahan and Calibration Constant Shifts. K. L. Shanahan has published 3 articles proposing a non-nuclear means to obtain apparent excess heat signals in cold fusion cells. In the first[34], Shanahan proposed that the system heat distribution and/or heat flow pathways might change and that this would induce a change in the calibration constants for the cell. He reanalyzed some actual cold fusion data published by E. Storms[37], under an assumption of zero excess heat, and found a variation in calibration constants of +/- 3% would explain the results, which is within typical error bounds of a fairly high quality scientific study. Subsequently, Szpak, Mossier-Boss, Miles, and Fleischmann questioned the proposal[39], and Shanahan replied [35] with an expanded explanation and applied it to explain the authors results. E. Storms rebutted Shanahan [38] by pointing out that the data does not fit his model.

    [from references]

    34.^ Shanahan, K., A Systematic Error in Mass Flow Calorimetry Demonstrated, Thermochimica Acta, 387(2) (2002) 95-110 [http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ShanahanKapossiblec.pdf]


    35.^ Shanahan, K., Comments on "Thermal behavior of polarized Pd/D electrodes prepared by co-deposition, Thermochimica Acta, 428(1-2) (2005) 207


    36.^ Shanahan, K., Reply to 'Comment on papers by K. Shanahan that propose to explain anomalous heat geneated by cold fusion', E. Storms, Thermochim. ActaThermochimica Acta, 441 (2006) 210-214


    37.^ Storms, E., Excess Power Production from Platinum Cathodes Using the Pons-Fleischmann Effect, in F. Scaramuzzi (Ed.), ICCF8 - Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Cold Fusion, Lerici (La Spezia), Italy 21-26 May 2000, Societ‡ Italiana di Fisica 2001, 55-61


    38.^ Storms, E., Comment on papers by K. Shanahan that propose to explain anomalous heat generated by cold fusion. Thermochim. Acta, 2006. 441: p. 207-209. [http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEcommentonp.pdf].


    39.^ S. Szpak, P. A. Mosier-Boss, M. H. Miles, M. Fleischmann, Thermal behavior of polarized Pd/D electrodes prepared by co-deposition, Thermochimica Acta, 2004, 410, 101-107

  • Please document where you think I said that.

    Right here:


    Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion


    In that message you wrote:


    In my mind "a large, heavy stainless steel cell in the bucket. It was hot. Too hot to touch. The thermocouple showed it was over 100 deg C inside." is not a 'heater'. It is a hot object. A 'heater' has a power source that adds energy to the system from an external (or perhaps internal, like a kerosene space heater) source. A hot object only has the energy it contains at the nominal 'start point', no additional. 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.


    Even though this object stayed hot for days, you say it is not a heater. Why not? Why is this not a batty thing to say? Plus you say that "maybe even" an LENR heater would cause evaporation. Why "maybe even"? Why would a LENR heater be any different from an electric or kerosene heater when it comes to evaporation?


    Are you saying this is not a LENR heater? What else would it be then? It can't be electrical, because it wasn't connected to any wires. It can't be kerosene; there was not chemical fuel of any kind in it. Saying it is not a LENR heater is batty.


    Elsewhere you said that calling it a heater is "wishful thinking." That's also batty. (And, no, I will not bother looking that message up. Feel free to deny you said that if you like.)


    If you did not mean that a hot object is no heater, I suggest you explain that the hell you did mean, because what you wrote is batty.


    If you are saying this incident never happened, or that Mizuno lied, you should say that. That would not be batty, but what you did say will make people think you have a screw loose.

  • Yugo the chances of you * the dumbest * having read any of Kirk's papers, or Marwan et al, are zero. Its just not in your nature.


    However, if a pig has indeed flown - I'd like to hear your reasoned and uncapitalised thoughts as to whether Shanahan successfully rebutted all of Marwan's arguments.


    It would be intellectually stimulating for yourself, and make a pleasant change from you essentially repeating the same five posts over and over.