Mizuno's bucket of water

  • If you claimed the author says Z, that would be deceptive.


    I agree. That's why I wrote:


    When author 'A' writes 'X', it is incorrect to say 'A' wrote 'Z'.



    Marwan, et al. assign my name to their 'random' concept. That is saying that I said that. I'm glad you agree they are deceptive. We're finally making some progress.


    BTW, that is what they say also when people like Hagelstein use my paper as part of the 'look what bad stuff happens to you if you do CF' section of his MIT 'class', or when McK write the silly response he gave me some time back on this forum, or when Ed says today that no one ever pointed out an error to him.

  • Marwan, et al. assign my name to their 'random' concept. That is saying that I said that. I'm glad you agree they are deceptive. We're finally making some progress.


    They do say "Shanahan's random CCSH" but they also quote the title of your paper, so I don't think this is misleading. It is clear from their discussion and your title that you consider it systematic. I do not think it becomes you to quibble over such a small detail. You should be thankful they went to the trouble to read your papers and point out your mistakes. (What they consider to be your mistakes -- we get that you disagree.)


    The thing is, your paper is far from the mainstream. It contradicts electrochemistry and chemistry going back to Faraday. It is physically impossible, and as you see in Marwan, most mainstream chemists who read it think it is riddled with errors. Most papers like this never get a response. Indeed, most are not published in the first place. Your paper was only published because it claims there is an error in cold fusion. It would have summarily rejected if you said it applied to any other aspect of electrochemistry, because everyone knows the problems you describe do not exist. As we saw in the recent Nature editorials, there is a very low bar any claim that cold fusion is wrong. Real scientific papers with experimental evidence for cold fusion are banned from Nature and most other journals. Papers like yours, with imaginary science with made-up physics that "disprove" cold fusion are published with no opposition. Ignorant, biased, baseless editorials attacking cold fusion like the recent ones in Nature go through editorial review and approval like shit through a goose.

  • The thing is, your paper is far from the mainstream

    One major problem is that Kirkshanahan has had 18 years to verify his CCSH effect since 2001..


    for example by conducting his own. Pd/LiOH cell experiment

    or any other physical chemistry experiment..

    since the effect is supposed to be ubiquitous where calibration factors are used..


    However despite his purported extensive physical chemistry expertise he has never done this


    Another problem that no one has ever found this effect to be significant despite KS's belief in ubiquity

    there are zero citations for CCS..outside LENR... the few in LENR there relate to KS's assertions..


    Unfortunately theory without experimental proof doesn't cut it

    unless you are Einstein


    even then many scientists people waited for astronomical observations

    and some even needed clocks flying around the earth

    to endorse his Relativity

  • they also quote the title of your paper



    Yup. In the references, like all the other references. After the end of the whole paper. And the point is, they claim I said it was random. I didn't.


    It contradicts electrochemistry and chemistry going back to Faraday


    Don't be silly.


    It is physically impossible


    Don't be silly. Szpak, et al took pictures of it.



    most mainstream chemists who read it think it is riddled with errors.


    Name 3. And recall, 'mainstream' means non-CF true believers.


    Your paper was only published because it claims there is an error in cold fusion


    You know this how? (Please don't try to impress me with nothing but your beliefs, facts only please.)


    everyone knows the problems you describe do not exist.


    Actually, there are usually a few who get it. But, name 3 (who aren't CF 'true believers').


    banned from Nature and most other journals


    Proof of this?


    are published with no opposition



    Except from Marwan, et al, etc.

  • One major problem is that Kirkshanahan has had 18 years to verify his CCSH effect since 2001..


    Well, first off, the CCSH thing isn't mine, that's Marwan, et als. Second, not my job. As a critic, I demonstrated the math and showed the systematic effect. If the CF researchers don't want to verify, they can chase ghosts for the rest of their life. No skin off my nose.


    for example by conducting his own. Pd/LiOH cell experiment


    You might want to (a) see comment immediately above, and (b) read this: Mizuno reports increased excess heat


    since the effect is supposed to be ubiquitous where calibration factors are used..


    No Robert, this is part of your general misunderstanding of the situation.


    However despite his purported extensive physical chemistry expertise he has never done this


    See first two responses above...


    Another problem that no one has ever found this effect to be significant despite KS's belief in ubiquity


    No one being whom? If 'no one' has found the effect insignificant, someone must have actually looked at it. Who might that be? I recall no one actually...


    there are zero citations for CCS..outside LENR... the few in LENR there relate to KS's assertions..


    Why would there be?


    Unfortunately theory without experimental proof doesn't cut it


    In this case, the 'theory' is pretty primitive. I just assumed no excess energy. My subsequent analysis said that could be explained with a minor (some might say 'trivial') calibration constant shift. That's the 'proof' right there Robert. Sorry you can't understand that, but take my word for it, it is. And BTW, the ATER (or ATEC) was always presented as a hypothesis, specifically a 'mechanism'. Come up with a better one if you like. Again, no skin off of my nose.

  • Don't be silly. Szpak, et al took pictures of it.


    You think so, but Szpak et al. do not agree. You should acknowledge that they do not go along with your interpretation. It isn't as if they say this is caused by the CCSH. So I think "Don't be silly" is the wrong way to put it. You imply it is silly for me to agree with the authors instead of you. Or that anyone who disagrees with your theory is silly. We may be wrong but we are not silly.



    [banned from Nature and most other journals]


    Proof of this?


    The recent editorials are proof of bias in Nature. So are previous comments by Nature editors and their treatment of the Lewis paper. See:


    https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJhownaturer.pdf



    Except from Marwan, et al, etc.


    That is not in Nature.

  • Name 3. And recall, 'mainstream' means non-CF true believers.

    Mainstream and non-CF true believers... it depends on one's tribal perspective..


    For some... evolutionists are mainstream and for other's they are non mainstream


    This is a futile argument in science..it is about politics. as Galileo knew..


    ""

    I don't know if you are into the evolution/creation debate, but there's a very well written little book C1 00 pages) by Philip Johnson called "Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds". P. Johnson is a Berkeley law professor who looks at the evolution arguments as a lawyer trying a case, and he finds it wanting. What impressed me so much was the clear parallels between the thought processes used by the evolutionists and the cold fusioneers (not a topic of the book). It seems that sloppy thinking is endemic to all human activities.

    Please don't circulate this note. We will just have to wait and see what happens.

    Happy Holidays, Kirk Shanahan 2001

  • In this case, the 'theory' is pretty primitive. I just assumed no excess energy.


    That is like saying you have discovered a new method of propulsion by assuming that gravity does not exist. You have discovered it is not hot outside because you assume thermometers do not work. You cannot just "assume" there is no excess energy when the calorimetry and calibrations prove there is. Calorimetry is well established. You cannot just dismiss it, or claim it does not work, based on a crackpot theory with no experimental evidence.


    A normal person does not "assume" there is no excess energy when the instruments and textbook methods show there is excess energy. "I assume the textbooks are wrong" or "I assume calorimeters do not work" is not usually taken as a valid basis for a claim. This was also your method of "discovering" there was a constant 30 mph wind in Mizuno's lab, and a person cannot feel the difference between an object at room temperature and one that is 100 deg C. You just make stuff up! You have a vivid imagination, and apparently no ability to distinguish between what is real and whatever pops into your head. THH also does this, with his imaginary drops of water that magically defeat the conservation of energy, and his demand that we prove the average of 4.1 repeated 17,000 times is 4.1.


    You assumption overthrows calorimetry going back to the 18th century, and all of physics and chemistry going back to conservation of energy and modern thermodynamics. If you are right, you should get at least two Nobel prizes, in physics and chemistry.

  • (does this tactic ring any bells Robert?)

    KS's subtle hints as usual are lost on me.. and most readers.


    the problem is KS's tribalistic attitude and diversionary tactics


    .. all I want to see is experimental verification of his primitive theory by KS himself

    KS has extensive experimental experience.. admittedly mainly in materials science

    even though he would prefer to be known as a physical scientist


    but if Dr Michael Staker could manage electrolysis... KS should be able to do so


    instead 18 years.. of blather

  • Mainstream and non-CF true believers... it depends on one's tribal perspective..


    Well, no.


    It is a numbers game, and mainstream (non-CF belief) wins on that.


    You can (and many here do) argue that mainstream scientists are wrong about LENR, but undoubtedly CF is not "mainstream".

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


    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.

  • 18 years stream of tribalistic blather starting in the DOE ... River Savannah


    12/26/2001 02:38 PM Kirk Shanahan

    .. In my industrial career I have done this kind of thing many times, looking at large chemical process datasets (and an 'experiment' is just a small chemical process). So, I and, independently, Scott Little looked at the data, and immediately found a noise problem that we alerted Ed to. He corrected it and posted a second set of data, which we also both looked at. With confidence that there weren't the noise problems we saw earlier present anymore, I dove into the second data set. I noticed that Ed reported a 1.6% time drift in calibration constants, which triggered a button with me. Being trained in industrial statistical quality control, I understand the impact of variation, and of mis-measuring it. I then decided to treat the 'active' electrode as if it were in power balance, and that's when I discovered that it didn't have resultant properties that were unusual. Instead, it looked like it had a minor difference from the 'inactive' electrode. But the impact of that minor difference was major in that it leads the CFers to believe they are observing CF excess power signals! 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.

    In other words, restricting myself to the CF arena, today I am safe in saying that there are NO studies available in the literature that prove the problem I outline isn't there.

    Thus to be conservative, we have to assume it is present, and that negates ALL the claims to excess power as detected by a calibrated method. I think that is a pretty important claim in the CF arena, and all the principals who know about it are trying like mad to ignore me. They have concocted a lot of reasons why my analysis must be wrong, but they never prove it is, so their reasons are just wishful thinking, or in many cases, outrightly wrong.

    Further, Ed Storms wrote another CF review and posted it on his Web page recently. It reminded me about McKubre's ICCF3 paper on CF calorimetry, and guess what? It shows clear signs of the error I uncovered. That was back in the '91-'92 time frame! I am really serious when I say I doubt any calorimetry claim for 'excess power'.

    The caliber of the CF researchers will be shown in the next few months. It is every scientist's nightmare that their work would later be found to be in error. However, it happens all the time. Steve Jones and his neutron (or was it gammas?) counting are a prime example. Now, all the CF calorimetrists are going to have to face the music, and realize they haven't proven their cases. Maybe they have stored data they can trot out to prove they are right, but I would bet in most cases they don't. We'll all just have to wait and see if we get any retractions or clarifications, or if they follow Storms' lead and try to ignore the problem, hoping it will go away. That action is what clearly demonstrates their pathological behavior.

    With regards to the Iwamura paper and SIMS 'evidence' of transmutations: I was basically just responding to Jed Rothwell's statement that Ohmori and Iwamura were the 'best' evidence he had seen for transmutation. Like you, I distrust SIMS for quantitative analysis, and I also was attempting to show that simple 'complex ion' considerations could explain the 'anomalous' results that supposedly prove transmutation. The whole concept is bogus, and it's another example of scientists using a fancy piece of equipment as a 'black box', and getting burned by that.

  • Its not only me.. who has a problem with your communication..


    Well yes, there are certain trolls who seem to like to try to bait me, but I'm trying to be serious here.


    For example, why is it that you can't understand that in a non-specified but calibrated analytical method, that changing the calibration constant(s) changes the computed level of the result? That's just arithmetic (well OK, maybe a touch of algebra thrown in).

  • Well yes, there are certain trolls who seem to like to try to bait me, but I'm trying to be serious here

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

    why is it that you can't understand that in a non-specified


    I understand,,

    but in physical reality.. how significant is the effect

    KS has never shown by experiment that his primitive theory has a significant effect.

    in LENR or any place


    did the Savannah DOE not do any electrochemistry? did you have any electrochemist friends there?"

    or anyone who did calibration curves

    18 years..???

    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.