Mizuno's bucket of water

  • Now, talking about delusions, i am pretty sure bocijn is having some whoppers. He or she seems deluded that I am somehow related or actually am the same person as Kirk Shanahan. In fact, I don't know him and we have never even exchanged emails. Because I think that he is one of the few people here with the appropriate background and experience and is one who makes sense, does not mean I am him!


    Remember, the dragon said, "If you are what you eat, I must be a maiden."


    Like dragons, it's very easy for people like bocijn to get confused about identities, apparently.


  • I'm not having this type of insult.


    Whether Morrison's objection to the F&P paper makes him a crackpot would need much more attention and debate to establish. You have not done so here. You have not even quoted one crackpottish line from Morrison. Even if such a designation could be made based on a few words. (Perhaps it could - in extreme cases).


    I've myself read Morrisons reply to F&P. I scored it about equal to the F&P reply to Morrison in terms of the assumptions it made and the things it avoided: a good way to detect weaknesses in argument. Neither the Morrison letter nor F&P reply arguments were irrational or stupid, though when the sequence is put together you can clearly see things that each side wishes not to address. That is pretty normal when people are convinced of a view and arguing it. You'd hope it is avoided in science, but inevitably it sometimes creeps in: no-one is perfect. But - I'm not quoting either side, and to argue this case or any other, we'd need much more care and attention.


    Kirk Shanahan is a relatively frequent contributor here. His posts often (though not always) have significant content, and that is way better than the average. The words used by Jed above as sure evidence that he is unhinged are denied (or at least not now supported) by Shanahan. They are also one tiny fragment of his contribution. Jed himself frequently makes bold comments that are just not true, when looked at carefully. As do many here. None of them are therefore crackpots, not stupid, nor irrational.


    The requirement for substantive communication is that you respect those with whom you communicate. That applies most specifically for anyone posting here who wants this place to be one where ideas are presented and explored. We all have different styles, and bring different things to this process. But, unless that is accompanied by respect for those with different views, it degenerates into a punching match. Some love that, some hate it. I am a bit of both, I can for a short time enjoy it - even though I realise that long-term it is counterproductive and a big waste of time.


    Lest anyone points out that my posts are not respectful in this way towards Rossi. The key difference is that I have no interest in communicating with him, nor he with me. It would, for me, be a fruitless exercise since it is clear from published evidence that he is untrustworthy in the extreme, and disrespectful of those who disagree with him - again in the extreme. Another important difference is that he makes no attempt, here, to communicate. If he did perhaps I would readjust this from a distance appraisal, or maybe not! The information about Rossi's private business dealings laid bare here, and his fantastic self-aggrandisement on his blog, make that seem unlikely but I guess you never know.


    Regards, THH

  • Kirk /alterego" $6K is absolutely trivial compared to the money which could be made


    .

    Please stop trying to confuse MY with me. I am not MY.



    I see the preprint apparently got published. I scanned it rapidly and didn't note any changes from the preprint posted in this forum (please correct me if I am wrong), which means it's loaded with errors and based on suspect data.


    The second link appears to go to a defunct page.


    Kirk "But the water was indoors"


    It was shifted outdoors and still kept giving out heat for several days

    Kirk wrote "News to me."


    since you've spent so much time commenting about it.

    Why not read the actual anecdote rather than making up your own

    Here is an extract from Jed's book. He posted this (http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTnucleartra.pdf) here previously. I have extracted the info on the Mzuno bucket anecdote:


    "Here is a chronology of the heat-after-death event:

    April 22, 1991. Electrolysis stopped.

    April 25. Mizuno and Akimoto note that temperature is elevated. It has produced

    1.2 H 107 joules since April 22, in heat-after-death. The cell is removed from the underground lab and transferred to Mizuno’s lab. Cell temperature is >100 deg C.

    April 26. Cell temperature has not declined. Cell transferred to a 15-liter bucket, where it is partially submerged in water.

    April 27. Most of the water in the bucket, ~10 liters, has evaporated.

    The cell is transferred to a larger, 20 liter bucket. It is fully submerged in 15 liters of water.

    April 30. Most of the water has evaporated; ~10 liters. More water is added to the bucket, bringing the total to 15 liters again.

    May 1. 5 liters of water are added to the bucket.

    May 2. 5 more liters are added to the bucket.

    May 7. The cell is finally cool. 7.5 liters of water remain in the bucket."


    I see no mention of the bucket being outdoors.


    There was a lot more info posted on spf in (or before) April, 2002. What I say these days is the same as what I said then. Ditto for Jed.


    Kirk "the reported results can be obtained several ways."

    Summarise please in short sentences

    Do not include ,please, the exothermic heat from palladium hydride.


    I suggest you go back and re-read the threads here on this. Also you can check out the 2002 discussion on spf. Takes a bit of work these days. Here's a leading link: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/sci.physics.fusion/mizuno$20cracked$20glass/sci.physics.fusion/RgilKJxQEh4/0yxN5jiMpEYJ

  • Seriously, it is convincing...

    @MY - No it isn't. There are multiple problems with it. The biggest being that Mizuno supplied part of the data underlying this publication to Jed who posted it here. Examining the data showed drastic changes in behavior which are unmentioned in the paper. Those changes suggest that his data is untrustworthy. Bad data leads to bad conclusions.

  • So, Z edited his post to include a quote that changed the meaning of the 'in your opinion' phrase. In relation to the new meaning...


    I'm still waiting for you to document what I supposedly ignored.



    I didn't change the meaning... Without proper context, you failed to understand the correct meaning, hence it was necessary to clarify it.


    ie... You claim you didn't ignore any of Marwan et al's arguments, and I claim this is merely your opinion. Do you disagree with that? I doubt even you are that delusional!


    Crying Whinging about how I supposedly twisted my post to a new meaning belies the fact that I added the 'edit note' to be upfront about this... And if you still think it was some kind of attempt to make you look stupid or ridiculous, please note that I feel you do a fairly good job of this without my help. You might not be a crackpot in the normal sense of the word, but you sure do a great impression of one, as you share a fair few of their traits: a love of hand-waving arguments, an unfailing certainty that you are correct and everybody else is wrong, and an obsessive desire to espouse this.


    And I'll document your bullshit when I feel like it - It may surprise you to know that I don't feel the need to reserve space in my long-term memory for two lengthy technical arguments, which are ultimately mostly pointless, as both parties ignore and talk past certain important points made by the other.


    Marwan and Co's only saving grace is they don't endlessly and hypocritically bitch about this behaviour.

  • I didn't change the meaning... Without proper context, you failed to understand the correct meaning, hence it was necessary to clarify it.


    [snip]


    Crying about how I supposedly twisted my post to a new meaning belies the fact that I added the 'edit note' to be upfront about this...


    Adding the quote clarified the reference. I did assume the quoteless comment referenced other points. I didn't delete the response to that post because the points I made in it were valid. Your attributing particular emotions to me just proves you don't have ESP. I wasn't 'crying'. I was explaining why the second post. Read it assuming all I'm doing is documenting the 'why' of the second post.


    ie... You claim you didn't ignore any of Marwan et al's arguments, and I claim this is merely your opinion. Do you disagree with that? I doubt even you are that delusional!


    I am stating that I believe there is a 95+% chance that you are wrong in stating that I ignored something Marwan, et al wrote. Now to be perfectly clear, I do NOT feel it is necessary to rebut their strawman, as it has nothing to do with what I wrote, and I even agree with their conclusions, the effect is not random, as I stated 4 times in print before they invented the 'random CCSH' and illegitimately tagged it to me. I certainly do make mistakes, and I have asked you to substantiate your claim, if you can, then I will admit my mistake (unlike JR).


    And if you still think it was some kind of attempt to make you look stupid or ridiculous, please note that I feel you do a fairly good job of this without my help. You might not be a crackpot in the normal sense of the word, but you sure do a great impression of one, as you share a fair few of their traits: a love of hand-waving arguments, an unfailing certainty that you are correct and everybody else is wrong, and an obsessive desire to espouse this.


    [snip]


    Marwan and Co's only saving grace is they don't endlessly and hypocritically bitch about this behaviour.


    But in fact they do. In 2015 Hagelstein and Swartz quoted my 2010 paper in a section of their 'MIT' course discussing how CF researchers are suppressed and hindered by 'the establishment'. But when Hagelstein was asked what I said, he couldn't answer and had to go look it up and report back the next day. In 2017, Melvin Miles published a manuscript attributed primarily to Fleischmann in Infinite Eneregy, vol 132, that said it was the 'best' rebuttal of my claims. However, what that manuscript said was not significantly different from what Szpak wrote in 2004 (with Fleishmann, Miles, and Mosier-Boss as co-authors, the same co-authors on the Fleischmann version), which I rebutted in 2005. In addition, I have two incidents under my belt that I can't talk about where the same kind of thing has happened. And then there's all the derogatory comments from you, Jed, Abd, PCarbon (Wikipedia), Alain, and others made on forums whenever my work is brought up. I have one voice on this (with some occasional help from THH and MY (thanks)), you guys have many. Your view on this is badly warped.


    And I'll document your bullshit when I feel like it - It may surprise you to know that I don't feel the need to reserve space in my long-term memory for two lengthy technical arguments, which are ultimately mostly pointless, as both parties ignore and talk past certain important points made by the other.


    Again, I assert you are wrong. *I* haven't talked past any point. On the other hand you are correct regarding the 'group of 10'. And that is a point in and of itself.


    So, until you substantiate your claims, we'll all just assume they're not correct.

  • 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.


    Zeuss


    That is arse over tits.


    You need first to consider whether Marwan et al rebut all KS's arguments, then whether KS subsequent multiple papers rebut Marwan's.


    Kirk's strongest and oft repeated point is that M explicitly calls KS's claimed mechanism random, and uses that as a reason why it could not possibly apply to most of these CF results.


    As Kirk has pointed out, he notes that the mechanism is systematic, not random, and gives a specific explanation (ATER) that might indeed apply systematically, with results always in the same direction, to many of the experiments he critiques.


    Marwan et al have some valid points, in the sense that they note conditions under which the KS mechanism could not apply. However they do not (I believe) point to specific high quality evidence of excess heat and show that all these (KS does nor apply) conditions are then true. Not even one such concrete case. Whereas AFAIK KS's mechanism could apply to a number of well-known experimental results.


    I'm not saying it applies to all these experiments. Or that it is proven to apply to any (that would require more work). My view is however that M et al are dismissive in attitude, careless of facts, and IMHO wrong when they claim it should be dismissed as irrelevant to debates about these old results. If CCS/ATER could possibly apply then where it is relevant it is an alternative explanation to CF and a good deal simpler in the sense that it is based on understood theory and can be tested relatively easily.

  • Now, talking about delusions, i am pretty sure bocijn is having some whoppers. He or she seems deluded that I am somehow related or actually am the same person as Kirk Shanahan. In fact, I don't know him and we have never even exchanged emails. Because I think that he is one of the few people here with the appropriate background and experience and is one who makes sense, does not mean I am him!


    Remember, the dragon said, "If you are what you eat, I must be a maiden."


    Like dragons, it's very easy for people like bocijn to get confused about identities, apparently.


    It seems to be an idee fixee. And incomprehensible to me: your posts are so different in both style and content.


    Bocjin can perhaps explain his thought processes. He must have some strong (from his POV) reason for the claim, since his error has been pointed out here many times.

  • You have not even quoted one crackpottish line from Morrison.

    Much of Morrison's paper is about how F&P used a complicated non-linear regression. As Fleischmann pointed out:


    "Stage 3 Calculations Douglas Morrison starts by asserting: "Firstly, a complicated non-linear regression analysis is employed to allow a claim of excess enthalpy to be made". He has failed to observe that we manifestly have not used this technique in this paper [2], the aim of which has been to show that the simplest methods of data analysis are quite sufficient to demonstrate the excess enthalpy generation."


    Morrison made this claim several more times. Okay, that is sloppy, not crackpot. However, I am pretty sure Fleischmann told him this before the paper. He said it during the conference when Morrison was there. Deliberately repeating an indisputably factual error is either crackpot or dishonest. The same goes for his cigarette lighter hypothesis.


    Morrison made several out-and-out crackpot statements such equating palladium deuteride with heavy water ice.


    If you do not think Shanahan's science is crackpot, I suggest you review this message from Zeus46:


    The Playground

  • Perhaps 'inaccurate' would be a more proper choice. Untrustworthy suggests (as you know) something more nefarious than poor record keeping or uncalibrated instruments..


    You say tomatoes, I say tomatoes... (Hmmm...doesn't work well in print does it?)


    'Inacurrate' to me means the data is off target. It could be very precise though. Like a zero offset problem. What I saw and posted was an abrupt change in the character of the data. That suggests electrical interferences or some such to me, which seemed to be unpredictable. Likewise, I disliked the abrupt change in the base temperature for the calorimetric calculations as shown in the Figures, a concern also expressed by the 'gsvit' Italians. That means unreliable or untrustworthy to me... And I am not considering a nefarious source. It is likely ground loop problems or such.

  • Sad to hear that. Personally, I would have tried to see if it _really_ produced excess heat by using it in a real scientific study before destroying it.

    This was a real scientific study. His first set of experiments took about a year, and this one took another year. The calorimetry and electrochemistry was better than most experiments I know of. The cell is impressive. I have examined it carefully, and compared it to others I have seen. He did numerous studies after this, many of them successful. None were as dramatic as this.


    Obviously, it was not set up to deal with massive heat after death. At that time, no one other than F&P knew that heat after death could happen. The ad hoc method of estimating enthalpy by evaporating water was not planned in advance. It was the result of emergency steps.


    You know nothing about this work, so you have no business saying it was not a real study.

  • If you do not think Shanahan's science is crackpot, I suggest you review this message from Zeus46:


    The Playground


    Scientific argument is right or wrong (with various shades between). Not crackpot. And scientists arguing incorrectly are not crackpot.


    Further, Kirk's back of envelope calculations about this anecdotal evidence cannot be compared with his carefully written and considered written arguments in peer-reviewed paper.


    Thus the generalisation you make here is completely off-base - even if we consider Bocjin's arguments to have won the war re the anecdote. I have not taken enough interest in it to evaluate them.

  • Quote

    This was a real scientific study. His first set of experiments took about a year, and this one took another year. The calorimetry and electrochemistry was better than most experiments I know of. The cell is impressive. I have examined it carefully, and compared it to others I have seen. He did numerous studies after this, many of them successful. None were as dramatic as this.

    What I find dramatic is that, when independently observed, Mizuno's stuff doesn't seem to work, as when IH scientists are observing. And we're talking about kilowatt claims here-- hardly subtle to measure.


    And I wish someone would find something not so embarrassingly corny to call experiments in which heat is released after the power is shut off. Heat after death? Really? What was alive and died? BTW, all experiments which heat something will continue to release heat after the power shuts off if the temperature of the cell is above ambient when power is shut off. And the heat release will continue much longer if some sort of chemical reaction is driving heat generation, says Captain Obvious.