Mizuno's bucket of water

Quote from Alan Smith

I asked Kirk repeatedly - in this place - to give me a clear description of an experiment that could prove his hypothesis, with the intention of performing it (I had more spare time then) but I never got a proper answer.

Liar, liar, pants on fire…

Nov 19, 2018 FP's experiments discussion

Sept. 26, 2017 Mizuno : Publication of kW/COP2 excess heat results

see also preceeding and following post(s)

Aug. 25, 2017 Rossi vs. Darden aftermath discussions

Aug. 25, 2017 Rossi vs. Darden aftermath discussions

(Alan apologizes)

Aug. 25, 2017 Rossi vs. Darden aftermath discussions

Aug. 14, 2017 Replication of LENR experiments

Sept. 1, 2016 [SPLIT]Older LENR Experiments were bad, good... in general

Feb. 17, 2016 FP's experiments discussion

Feb. 8, 2016 FP's experiments discussion

Feb. 9, 2016 FP's experiments discussion

Quote from Shane D.

THH,

My interpretation of your post is: KS is really talking about a commonly taught calorimetry technique (error bounds), but calls it CCS to give it more attention. Most LENR researchers neglect to do error bounds, so need to be told what to do, while most in the mainstream do them, so do not need to be reminded.

Is that about right? If so, it will be interesting to see the responses, because it sounds to me like a polite way to say they are not very good at what they do. That may be the case with some of the garage tinkerers, but many of these researchers (especially with the old guard) wrote books, or papers on how to do this stuff. Many others have lived a career in labs working with calorimetry.

Not quite: KS adds two things not commonly considered (because they don't normally apply)

• Change in error sensitivity when large fixed input power is given relative to reaction power
• ATER is a possible unexpected effect applying only in active LENR experiments that alters system conditions

He is, however, saying CF experiments are often not well written up. I don't have a view myself because there are many and I'd need to look at each one individually. My concern is that "community reply" which shows a clear misunderstanding of the issue.

As always with these things, don't expect labels to apply uniformly to all experiments. What I would expect, is for the community, understanding this, to go back over any of the important CF electrolysis experiments to see whether this could explain results. Blanket "it could not happen" look like pseudoskepticism to me.

If experiments no longer matter then who cares?

Quote from Alan Smith

So it is not predictive and cannot be tested in a real-world system, two things which I thought you considered to be a black mark sgainst speculative theories in general. I think you just confirmed that KS is another obsessive like Ascoli65.

Alan - with respect you are either not thinking, not understanding, or using rhetoric.

• Physical theories are validated by experimental results that they explain/predict. My comment on the merits of predictivity relates to them and is well rooted in Popperian (and also Bayesian) scientific epistemology.
• KS's comment is about the analysis needed to determine errors in calorimetry experiments. It is maths, not physics. There is no experiment that can prove or disprove it just as "x^3/3 is an indefinite integral of x^2" is provably true without any reference to experiment. An analogy, as a theory, would be Stoke's theorem. It can be applies to physics, but it is neither proven nor disproved by experiment.

KS, as you, or me, may or may not be obsessive and biased. As I've said many times I don't see motivation as relevant. However the correctness of arguments is. The refutation of KS's work that you posted actually strengthens his point, because it shows that those who replied were not understanding it. Anyone who had done a complete error analysis for those experiments would be aware of the key magnification of errors point and therefore would understand KS, even if they were clear that this possible problem did not in fact change the results.

Quote from Shane D.

KS is really talking about a commonly taught calorimetry technique (error bounds), but calls it CCS to give it more attention.

I call it CCS to avoid typing out Calibration Constant Shift, just like one would do with any acronym. Error analysis should be commonly taught, but often isn't. I got it in junior level pchem lab. I asked Steve Jones about it once, and he said he got it in graduate school. I've worked with a PhD chemist who said he was never taught it. Therefore assuming people know this is just an assumption that needs confirmation.

Quote from Shane D.

Most LENR researchers neglect to do error bounds,

Yes. That is the problem.

Quote from Shane D.

so need to be told what to do,

If they don't do it, they do need to be told how to do it.

Quote from Shane D.

while most in the mainstream do them, so do not need to be reminded.

You are incorrect in that most do it. Some do, the rest need to be taught as well.

Quote from Shane D.

Many others have lived a career in labs working with calorimetry.

Assuming you mean LENR researchers. If what you said was true I would never have had to publish my first paper, and defend it three times. (More if you count these fora.)

Quote from Alan Smith

Cheeky! I understand perfectly that there is no experiment that can prove KS's idea. However, there are plenty of mathematical constructs that are provable by experiment. But as the KS theory is unfalsifiable it also make it unprovable and therefore nothing more than speculative hand-waving.

Alan - this comment is just not true.

It disturbs me greatly that it is getting likes.

Unfalsifiability is an issue in inductive theories (science).

Mathematical theories are provable without experiment. They are no more true if an experiment embodies that theory in a physical context and demonstrates it.

KS's CCS theory is (mathematically) provable and hence unfalsifiable, as all true maths within a given axiomatic system. It is just "the maths you need to do for an error analysis, and its consequences".

Now the question is, since it always applies, can you bound its effect within any specific calorimetry experiment. The answer, for all decent experiments, is yes.

Also ATER, as a hypothetical physical or chemical effect, is unfalsifiable in exactly the same way as LENR. But it could be proven, and when compared with LENR it has the advantage of not requiring unusual physics, merely a known type chemistry (catalytic recombination under specific conditions). Anyway ATER is just one example of how CCS might occur in CF cells.

Do you accept this, or would you like to continue this conversation off-line? It is an important point.

@THH

You need to understand that I currently believe there are a couple of possible ways to test the CCS idea for F&P-type electrolysis cells. (See the posts in response to AS' repeated requests for 'tests'.) However, since we are now talking alternative experiments, all is speculative. As I recall from when I discussed these things with Ed Storms in the 2001-2002 timeframe, there are subtleties. For ex., using the Joule heater in the gas space of the cell eliminates bubbles and the mixing they promote. I don't think that will be important, but who knows until one tries.

W.r.t. my first paper, you are correct that is just math. I 'proved' that using trivially modified calibration equations wiped out a 780mW signal that was thought to be ~10X the 'noise'. That 'proves' that including the calibration constant in the error computation is essential. To date no LENR report does so, therefore, we do not know what the true error is and thus we do not know if the signals are real or noise.

The first published objection to this was the Szpak, Miles, Mosier-Boss, Fleischmann paper of 2004. They assumed I was talking about the parasitic oxygen reduction reaction, well known in the field. i was not. They didn't get that. I clarified that in my response and showed them how their results conformed to the CCS/ATER idea (as much or more as to any LENR idea).

In 2006, Ed Storms finally replied to my 2002 publication, but he did not touch the math, so in the end, he did not rebut my first paper at all. He tried to rebut the ATER mechanism. I replied to all his points with counterpoints, thus he proved nothing.

Then in 2010 I published my comments on the Marwan and Krivit article, to which the ten authors replied, getting it all wrong again. I was not allowed to reply.

To date the:

1.) No one has countered my 2002 publication

2.) No one has checked their data to find cases where the excess heat exceeds that available through the CCS/ATER mechanism

3.) No LENR researcher has seemingly understood 1 and 2. (including those on this forum, recognizing the 2 or 3 who have usually are not doing replications)

Quote from kirkshanahan

@THH

You need to understand that I currently believe there are a couple of possible ways to test the CCS idea for F&P-type electrolysis cells. (See the posts in response to AS' repeated requests for 'tests'.) However, since we are now talking alternative experiments, all is speculative. As I recall from when I discussed these things with Ed Storms in the 2001-2002 timeframe, there are subtleties. For ex., using the Joule heater in the gas space of the cell eliminates bubbles and the mixing they promote. I don't think that will be important, but who knows until one tries.

W.r.t. my first paper, you are correct that is just math. I 'proved' that using trivially modified calibration equations wiped out a 780mW signal that was thought to be ~10X the 'noise'. That 'proves' that including the calibration constant in the error computation is essential. To date no LENR report does so, therefore, we do not know what the true error is and thus we do not know if the signals are real or noise.

The first published objection to this was the Szpak, Miles, Mosier-Boss, Fleischmann paper of 2004. They assumed I was talking about the parasitic oxygen reduction reaction, well known in the field. i was not. They didn't get that. I clarified that in my response and showed them how their results conformed to the CCS/ATER idea (as much or more as to any LENR idea).

In 2006, Ed Storms finally replied to my 2002 publication, but he did not touch the math, so in the end, he did not rebut my first paper at all. He tried to rebut the ATER mechanism. I replied to all his points with counterpoints, thus he proved nothing.

Then in 2010 I published my comments on the Marwan and Krivit article, to which the ten authors replied, getting it all wrong again. I was not allowed to reply.

To date the:

1.) No one has countered my 2002 publication

2.) No one has checked their data to find cases where the excess heat exceeds that available through the CCS/ATER mechanism

3.) No LENR researcher has seemingly understood 1 and 2. (including those on this forum, recognizing the 2 or 3 who have usually are not doing replications)

Display More

Yes I'd agree all of that. Marwhan et al muddied the point by introducing all sorts of other points (like calorimetry that has very small heat losses and for which CCs is effectively unimportant) without answering your point, or showing that it does not apply to the classic CF electrolysis positive results.

Quote from THHuxleynew

like calorimetry that has very small heat losses

Ed Storms' calorimeter only lost 1.6% of the heat input. How much smaller do you think they can get? I think McK may have claimed 99% at best. The point is whether that loss can cause the observed signals or not. The CFers just hand -wave the problem away, with the results being like Ed, who claimed 780 mW of excess heat when I showed it could be noise.

Marwan, et al, did not grasp a.) the mathematical certitude of using a different calibration equation giving a different answer, and b.) the idea of at-the-electrode, under-the-surface recombination (combustion). They were mentally stuck on the parasitic electrochemical oxygen reduction, which they had published papers and calculation on.

Quote from Curbina

TRANSMUTATION evidence is undeniable.

ROFL

Quote from Alan Smith

The posts are there, though I have not yet trawled for them. Maybe you have conveniently forgotten? And you can apologise for calling me a liar - I will accept it.

Perhaps you should read the posts I pointed to. Your calls are there, and my answers. And you 'apologies' for calling me out inappropriately. However, there's an old American saying, derived from baseball, namely: "Three strikes and you're out!"

I always have trouble deciding if the problem is incompetence or malfeasance. In your case, if you supply a doctor's excuse for you failure to remember, I will apologize.

Quote from Curbina

completely absent in the original materials,

Your proof of this? Remember, that all analytical techniques have detection limits, below which analytes cannot be detected. Best example of this I recall is Scott Little's RIFEX report. He ran some RIFEX beads for awhile and detected many.many 'new' elements, in similar appearance to Miley's results. However, then he did the 'verboten' thing, he computed his error level and drew it on the graph. All but 3 or 4 elements supposedly 'detected' fell below the line (i.e. in the noise). Of those 3 or 4 he tracked down the strongest 2 or 3 to leachates from the O-rings (as I recall).

Then there's Iwamura's finding Sr and Pr in Pd-CaO-Pd-CaO-Pd sandwich structures. Only problem is that they later found that S (and Mo) gave similar XPS peaks. Why is that important? Because XPS is an ultra-high vacuum technique, which requires equipment bakeout at c. 300C. That will gall SS bolts and threads, so people use MoS2 lubricant to prevent that. Problem with that is getting it on the sample. Then of course Kidwell also found Pr 'wild' in Iwamura's lab too. The Sr was never explicitly tracked down, but I checked a COA I found on the web for CaO, and guess what, it had 200ppm Sr in it. Wonder if iwamura's did too? We'll probably never know.

W.r.t. your pdf report:

The primary thing to note is that this is a wildly different experimental protocol from anything else. It is another common fallacy in LENR-land that anyone who gets weird results and claims LENR must be right. This experiment must be considered in separation from others. I do not that they are using the 'usual suspects' of analytical techniques, all of which have interferences and detection limits. What are they and how relevant are they? I have no immediate idea. I suggest you consider my criticisms of the RIFEX and Iwamura work above, and try to apply the same criteria to see if the work passes muster. I don't have the energy or the time to do so.

Quote from Alan Smith

That is not IMHO a decent experiment, it is a foolish one.

So what fits your definition of decent? Doing the same exact thing over and over? You are drawing a box so small nothing but your opinion fits in it.

The crux of my CCS/ATER proposal is that the calorimeter is NOT spatially homogeneous. My second resistor tests that, as did my other basic suggestion to redesign the cell so that the penetrations of the cell boundary exit the cell in the liquid-covered zone, but that takes more work and money. The resistor thing is cheap and easy, and in theory tests whether the inhomogeneity is there as postulated.