Mizuno's bucket of water

Oops...one last one for the road...

Quote from RobertBryant

God Bless you KS... but calling people names is rather churlish... how old are you KS?

ROFL. We all know the 'troll' in an internet term with a specific meaning. Your comment is trollish.

Quote from RobertBryant

I understand,,

You really don't seem to....you keep quoting my statement "The problem I located can evidence anytime a calibration curve is used, which includes practically _every known analytical chemistry method_, not just mass flow calorimetry." like it was somehow wrong.

Quote from RobertBryant

how significant is the effect

Well, for a system that produced a 780mW 'excess heat' effect, it seemed to be about 780mW big. How big it is in other cases would depend on details we rarely get access to. That's why the primary authors claiming excess energy signals need to do good quantitative error analysis.

Quote from kirkshanahan

You really don't seem to....you keep quoting my statement "The problem I located can evidence anytime a calibration curve is used, which includes practically _every known analytical chemistry method_, not just mass flow calorimetry." like it was somehow wrong.

There is nothing wrong with the statement

It just needs experimental verification after 18 years as to how significant it is.. 0.01% 1% 10%

Perhaps GoogleX has funds..

please less churlish language... chill

Quote from kirkshanahan

Jed, this really focus in on your problem. You really don't understand. Two points: (A) Any technique can be messed up.

That is true. However, no technique can be "messed up" in a way that violates the laws of physics, which is what your theory requires. No technique can be "messed up" in a way that the problem is never detected in a calibration. Calibrations would not mean anything if that could happen. Furthermore, a technique cannot be messed up when it is used by hundreds of the world's top experts, in 180 labs. If that could happen, the basis of experimental science would go out the window. Nothing would ever been proved. Science would not exist. Human failure is statistically predictable, similar to human mortality or accidents. To assert that hundreds of experts might make mistakes textbook methods that go back hundreds of years, using standard instruments, is absurd. It is even more absurd to say they will make errors month after month, year after year, without anyone noticing it. (Anyone other than you, I mean.) Such mistakes are statistically impossible. This is like asserting that next Tuesday, hundreds of electrochemists might all get in their cars, drive off to the lab, and whack into telephones polls. All on the same day. One or two might whack into a poll that day, but not all of them. That would never happen in the life of the universe.

Quote from kirkshanahan

Replication answers all.

Yes, it does. And these results have been replicated thousands of times in hundreds of labs. So you should believe them.

Quote from kirkshanahan

Replication answers all.

With this, I can wholeheartedly agree. Then why do your colleagues fight tooth and nail to prevent others from attempting replications and studying the underlying science behind the phenomena? Why is there a cross section of the scientific community who apparently doesn't support the scientific method if it has even an inkling of a connection to LENR? Why do your colleagues construct a reputation trap? Why do they condescend toward an entire field of legitimate research with such a potentially high payoff for the world? Why do they welcome with open arms those who have struggled to reproduce an experiment, but shun those who have succeeded? Why, why, why?

Quote

JedRothwell wrote: A normal person does not "assume" there is no excess energy when the instruments and textbook methods show there is excess energy.

KS:

Jed, this really focus in on your problem. You really don't understand. Two points: (A) Any technique can be messed up. (B) 99.999% of anomalies arise from (A). To prove (B) is real, you need replication (which contains 'control' in it).

Replication answers all.

The point is that, as we saw when the community was asked for a replicable experiment that google could do, no-one thought any of the LENR "excess heat" events were replicable. If you do the work enough, eventually you (maybe) will hit the magic combination of materials and treatment that promote NAEs, and then see excess heat, until maybe some time later it is "poisoned" by some unknown wrong treatment. And some groups attempting the same thing will not do the right stuff and never see anything.

Jed calls this "replication". Others call it some combination of mistake, bad practice, and maybe also some not recognised but theoretically reasonable effect like CCS. And no-one is going to find it easy to prove any of those things. That would be just as difficult as google's task proving LENR (in the case that LENR does exist).

The double standard here is glaring: asking KS to prove CCS when it is accepted that proving LENR from FPHE style experiments is v difficult for the well funded google guys.

In fact the elusive CCS (ATER version of) is just as elusive, and for the same type of reason, as elusive LENR. You need the right type of unusual active environment for at the electrode recombination just as you need it (under the LENR hypothesis) for fusion breaking all normal branching ratio rules.

Most people would reserve judgement on whether either effect exists, but reckon ATER less improbable than fusion without detectable high energy particles.

THH

Quote from IH Fanboy

With this, I can wholeheartedly agree. Then why do your colleagues fight tooth and nail to prevent others from attempting replications and studying the underlying science behind the phenomena? Why is there a cross section of the scientific community who apparently doesn't support the scientific method if it has even an inkling of a connection to LENR? Why do your colleagues construct a reputation trap? Why do they condescend toward an entire field of legitimate research with such a potentially high payoff for the world? Why do they welcome with open arms those who have struggled to reproduce an experiment, but shun those who have succeeded? Why, why, why?

The google guys were professional in their methodology and what they published (and how they published it). But they would not have been published in Nature except for the PR successes of LENR in keeping the topic as something that people wonder about.

LENR papers (the vast majority) start off by reviewing a whole load of historic papers and concluding that therefore LENR does exist, contrary to mainstream opinion. Then they present some extraordinary irreproducible results, and an interpretation of them as evidencing LENR, as though that explanation was plausible.

The issue here is predictivity. Were LENR quantifiable or prescriptive, so that a given set of actions could reproduce a given anomaly independent of exact instrumentation, this would be science. But LENR has almost no such predictivity. An example here is excess heat from Mizuno, and A.N. Other reproducer. The two observations are quite different, one transient, the other continuous. Yet both are interpreted as LENR. That is possible because LENR is so badly defined, with no predictive underlying theory, that anything can trigger it, anything can poison it, anything can be observed with it. Look at Holmlid's muons, and everyone else's lack of any high energy products with the outlier of PB films that somehow do evidence products. I respect the LENR advocates here who posit more predictability from LENR, look at new data, and if it does not fit reckon it is probably not LENR. That however is the exception. The more that diverse and not theoretically unified effects are subsumed under the LENR umbrella, the weaker the hypothesis, considered as science, is. There are many ways in which LENR could be real - but each of those ways cuts out 90% of the LENR observations, explaining only 10%. Yet, if 90% are wrong, why should those 10% be right? It is difficult to identify the "good" 10% based on historic evidence and experimental quality, or we would have a more exactly determined notion of what LENR is.

For as long as normal replicability does not exist, e.g. there is no LENR experiment that the community can recommend to google that will when professionally examined reproduce LENR, it is over-interpretation or unreproduced unexpected results. The acceptable way to treat such as to do what the FTL neutrino people did - double-check everything and only then publish - asking for help. They got it - finding the mistake within 12 months. LENR experimenters tend not to adopt the same protocol because they do not apply appropriate skepticism to their own results. After all, being uber-skeptical does not make real results vanish. Additional cross-checks will continue to validate a real effect.

I guess most here will be aware of the above as the thoughts of a pathoskeptic either unwilling to look at evidence, or pathologically unable to accept it. For example, somone who would judge the plentiful evidence in the Mizuno paper probably to be mistake or error. Well, mistake can never be proven. It is more respectful to Mizuno to look carefully to try and identify error, or to suggest parametric investigation that would immensely strengthen the evidence. I've done both: and for my sins am branded an irrational pathoskeptic.

I'd sort of agree - my willingness to respect results that are likely mistake and treat them on their merits while not thinking LENR likely is a bit pathological. An irrational interest in mysteries and hope that they can be explained. It is however no less so than people who accept such irreproducible results as evidence of LENR yet know in their hearts that reproducibility is not likely.

THH

Quote from THHuxleynew

The issue here is predictivity. Were LENR quantifiable or prescriptive, so that a given set of actions could reproduce a given anomaly independent of exact instrumentation, this would be science. But LENR has almost no such predictivity. An example here is excess heat from Mizuno, and A.N. Other reproducer.

We added elements to our fuel and could predict the gamma radiation. Is that enough for you?

kirkshanahan LENR isn't the only field where calorimetry is used. Have you warned your colleagues about potential calibration constant shifts that could affect their measurements by what seems to be 5-10%?

Quote from LENR Calender

kirkshanahanLENR isn't the only field where calorimetry is used. Have you warned your colleagues about potential calibration constant shifts that could affect their measurements by what seems to be 5-10%?

Yes, a long time ago (as in 2000-2, I forget exactly when) I presented my findings internally. While we do use mass flow calorimetry for tritium accountability, the situation is different in that is is less likely a change in heat distribution will occur, although that is not totally precluded. There are a whole series of papers regarding our calorimetric application called 'in-bed accountability'. Searching Google Scholar on that term should give you lots of hits, most with primary author J. E. Klein (who sits in the office next to me), although some older stuff will be from L.K. Heung as well.

Quote from IH Fanboy

Then why do your colleagues fight tooth and nail to prevent others from attempting replications

This is nothing but LENR community mantra. As far as I know, there is no one 'fighting tooth and nail' against doing LENR research. Even the two DOE reviews of the subject did not say this. The problem is lack of reproducibility and unwillingness to recognize LENR claims are unsubstantiated to any normal degree.

The current discussion of Mizuno's recent claims, the supposed replication, and the way the CF community fails to do quantitative error analysis has nothing to do with "Mizuno's bucket of water". While the Mizuno bucket anecdote is another case-in-point, his more recent claims at least have some data associated with them. Not so much from the replicator, close to the bucket thing there, but there are at least hopes of more data later, unlike the bucket anecdote. Whoever moved these posts did so without cause.

Quote from JedRothwell

However, no technique can be "messed up" in a way that violates the laws of physics, which is what your theory requires.

That is your fanatic's mantra that you hope people will accept without examination. In fact it is a totally incorrect representation of the error mechanism I detailed in 2000. You have consistently refused to admit this simply because it opens the door to a non-nuclear explanation of the results.

Quote from Zeus46

Not been getting enough attention for your liking?

Nope, just anticipating your typical contribution to the discussion, as evidenced by the comment following the one I just quoted.

Quote from JedRothwell

And these results have been replicated thousands of times in hundreds of labs

No, they haven't. And as THH noted, the inability of the community to answer the TG challenge is proof of that, amongst many other things.

Quote from RobertBryant

There is nothing wrong with the statement

It just needs experimental verification after 18 years as to how significant it is.. 0.01% 1% 10%

(A) the statement you are referring to (quoted below) is a truth of analytical chemistry. It requires no verification per se, because it is logically obvious. (The 'problem' being that a change in steady state can cause a change in calibration constant.) (B) You are trolling again, because you consistently state and insinuate that I need to do some sort of lab work to validate math. That makes no sense. Phase 3 vs. Phase 2 Robert.

Quote from kirkshanahan

"The problem I located can evidence anytime a calibration curve is used, which includes practically _every known analytical chemistry method_, not just mass flow calorimetry."

To the rest of you, who might just possibly not understand this...

An 'uncalibrated' analytical method, if presumed to be highly accurate and precise, means that your measurement exactly gives the true value of what it is you are trying to measure. In practice, this is nearly impossible to find. There are cases where people claim to measure 1 atom of say, sodium, via a flame spectroscopy technique, but even then I wonder about QM effects.

Usually, when someone says 'our technique is so good we don't need to calibrate', they actually are assuming the calibration constants and not determining them. This implies they know the assumption will not impact their conclusions, and that means they fully understand their noise levels.

The whole point of the CCS/ATER debate is to point out that CF researchers in fact don't know what their true error levels are, and because of that, end up working in the noise.

Quote from Shane D.

I pulled these out of the TG thread where they were off topic, and put them here for lack of a better place to move them to. If you have a better idea, I am listening.

Well, I would say they weren't 'off topic'. The deadline for the recommendations to TG was past when I started making some comments, so theoretically the thread was about to be closed and additional comments didn't matter. Then the trolls struck, and I responded, primarily because no one else routinely points out their trollishness and some seem to think they actually make sense when they don't. But as THH has noted, you all couldn't pick a 'best' experiment for them to replicate, and the reason, IMO, is that no one knows what they are really doing. That primarily occurs because no one recognizes they are working in the noise. Working in the noise is a massive waste of time that somehow seems right when one doesn't recognize the facts. Pointing this out is not trolling. And what I have pointed out is not against any physics or chemistry.

I am about to disappear again for an undetermined period of time. So don't bother with another thread.

Quote

I am about to disappear again for an undetermined period of time. So don't bother with another thread.

Unfortunate for the discussions. One of the few if not the only person here who makes consistent good sense and clearly understands why conventional science and science journals do not accept the usual quality of LENR claims.

Shanahan has both the theoretical and practical experimental background to comment and a very serious need to know about LENR related to his dangerous and critical work. Ah well... I can't say I blame him considering all the loony and/or abrasive responses he encounters here.