Mizuno's bucket of water

@Shane

So Shane, how should I respond to this 'politely'?

Quote from Alan Smith

PerhTps we should re-name this thread? 'The Kirk Shanhand-waving Thread.'

Quote from Curbina

but the preference of it instead of continuing pursuing the anomaly to see if it exists or not.

I don't recall Byrnes saying anything about not pursuing something. Got a quote on that?

I think the whole point is that when you have a mundane explanation of an anomaly, it is bad science to ignore and/or denigrate that explanation without serious, rational, and reasonable consideration. That has not happened at all regarding (a) CCS/ATER, (b) contaminant concentration, and (c) mechanical damage as the source of CR39 pits (with possibly more that can be added to the list).

Quote from kirkshanahan

And how do you know that is the case? Remember, you are talking about a ratio, which is computed by using two quantities, signal and noise.

My grand mama is telling me...

Your comment lowers your competence as it simply is superfluous!

Quote from Shane D.

"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 Iam safe in saying that there are NO studies available in the literature thatprove 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 calibratedmethod."

Note he says: "The problem can evidence anytime a calibration curve is used, which includes practically every known analytical chemistry method". In other words, he believes his theory could be a systemic problem throughout all of chemistry (not just CF related) using a calibration curve.

With such sweeping concerns, most people in his shoes would feel obligated to alert the appropriate electrochemical organizations, colleagues, universities, government labs, and whomever else would listen. As he admitted on the forum long ago though, he did none of this. Why not? As a result, no one outside of LENR seems to have ever heard about this. Not even THH, who was unaware of it until he joined this forum.

Yes. If these claims were true, and they became generally known, Shanahan would win a Nobel prize. I am not exaggerating. I cannot imagine a professional scientist who sincerely believed he had made such an important discovery doing nothing to bring it to the attention of the wider scientific community for decades. I also cannot imagine that such fundamental laws and techniques, that have been so widely used, are wrong.

When someone claims he has found a problem with "practically every known analytical chemistry method," that sounds to me like an out-of-control ego, or an Einstein wannabe. One of these people who thinks Relativity is wrong and he alone knows the answer. I think the chances that there is a measurable, significant problem with "every known analytical chemistry method" is astronomically small. Of course there are problems. As you go to finer and finer measurements, and more decimal places, you will find more complex laws of physics apply, until you get to something like quantum theory (I suppose). The general laws in a chemistry textbook are nearly all approximations that do not take into account every known aspect of physics.

Quote from Wyttenbach

My grand mama is telling me...

@Shane So Shane, how should I respond 'politely' to this?

Quote from Wyttenbach

Your comment lowers your competence as it simply is superfluous!

No, it shows you have no comprehension of how science determines experimental success.

JR: Yes. If these claims were true, and they became generally known, Shanahan would win a Nobel prize. I am not exaggerating.

KS: Yes you are. One doesn’t win Nobel prizes by pointing out others’ mistakes. This is pure Jedism.

JR: I cannot imagine a professional scientist who sincerely believed he had made such an important discovery doing nothing to bring it to the attention of the wider scientific community for decades.

KS: Jed demonstrating his lack of understanding again. Finding the systematic effect in Ed’s data was an interesting scientific discovery, but in the end will be of interest to about 3 people across the planet IMO. The rest is more Jedism.

JR: I also cannot imagine that such fundamental laws and techniques, that have been so widely used, are wrong.

KS: More Jed misunderstanding. The specific details of this situation (F&P-type cell electrolysis/calorimetry) are what causes the problem, not the basic method itself. Although it is true that one of the earliest criticisms (not mine!) of F&P’s work was the use of single-point temp measurement. That can be afflicted with hot or cold spot problems. That in turn is fixed by using more thermocouples (or whatever), up to the level of a fully-integrating calorimeter like the good Seebeck and mass flow ones used by Storms and McK for example. However, that just reduces the magnitude of the problem, it doesn’t fully remove it. And thus the need to quantitatively evaluate things. In Ed’s 98.4% calorimeter, the error is on the order of a watt. Ed thought it was on the order of 80 mW.

JR: When someone claims he has found a problem with "practically every known analytical chemistry method," that sounds to me like an out-of-control ego, or an Einstein wannabe.

KS: That would sound that way because you refuse to understand what I am saying. 99.998+% of analytical methods (all types) use calibration. That means an equation to convert the measured quantity for the inherent inaccuracy of the technique, whatever that may be. Get the coefficients of the equation wrong, your computed answer is wrong. It’s as simple and as understandable, by those who want to, as that.

JR: One of these people who thinks Relativity is wrong and he alone knows the answer.

KS: Jedism. Or maybe he thinks he’s psychic.

JR: I think the chances that there is a measurable, significant problem with "every known analytical chemistry method" is astronomically small.

KS: This is an example of Jed’s use of misdirection. Taken by itself, his statement is correct. However, his use of it is to imply in the case of F&P calorimetry, there also is no problem. But the fact is that for any method, one has to prove that by quantitatively evaluating error.

JR: Of course there are problems. As you go to finer and finer measurements, and more decimal places, you will find more complex laws of physics apply, until you get to something like quantum theory (I suppose).

KS: Amusing. Jed almost has it right, but not really. All ‘laws of physics’ apply all the time. The problem is in what proportion. One determines that by quantitative error evaluation. And yes, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle limits how small you can go. But the experiment that is limited by that is rare, almost to the point of non-existence. Most are well above that limit, where deterministic thinking is still useful. (deterministic thinking == quantitative error evaluation)

JR: The general laws in a chemistry textbook are nearly all approximations that do not take into account every known aspect of physics.

KS: Exactly, which is why you have to evaluate your error to see if you need to add in more terms or tweak them up, as in the case of F&P calorimetry where there are no terms in the energy balance equation for entrainment and evaporation. Which is why Szpak, et al, in their 2004 paper that I commented on in 2005, find an excess of water exiting the cell.

Quote from Shane D.

Use your wit.

Quote from Shane D.

If someone dishes it out, they better be able to take it.

So helpful. Thanks Shane. (P.S. Your asymmetry is showing.)

Yeah so, this has reached the point of diminished returns. I'm gone, I hope permanently this time. Scientists who have actual questions will know how to reach me. If any of the rest of you do, I know how to use the 'D' key. Bye.

Quote from kirkshanahan

No, it shows you have no comprehension of how science determines experimental success

If you like to teach the Kindergarden then please go on!

Usually people know what they will see, as clever experimenters always run prototypes before investing into expensive equipment like calorimeters.

But I have to apologize. As an engineer I have been taught how to develop a successful product within reasonable cost bounds. A skillset physicists definitely miss, as they usually ask for the maximum possible (CERN ITER) and later they learn, e.g. CERN, that for the fake Higgs only the detector/magnets needed a small upgrade...

Quote from kirkshanahan

P.S. Can anyone point me to a science text or such that gives a precise definition of the apparently standardized term 'decent'?

here:

decent => make your points clearly but without saying or implying others are idiots, or duplicitous* even when this is what you think.

* honourable (dishonourable) exception is when talking about Rossi

Quote from kirkshanahan

JR: Yes.If these claims were true, and they became generally known, Shanahan would wina Nobel prize. I am not exaggerating.

KS: Yes you are. One doesn’twin Nobel prizes by pointing out others’ mistakes. This is pure Jedism.

Oh come now. You would prove that textbook procedures from the last 200 years have been wrong. Significantly wrong! In cold fusion, this error you have discovered has shown a false signal of many watts of excess heat, in hundreds of experiments where there was actually no heat at all. Surely, the effect produced errors of similar magnitude in other fields. As you yourself say, it is universal. It applies to "practically every known analytical chemistry method." That means thousands of experiments in thousands of different fields are wrong.

This would be one of the most astounding discoveries in this history of science. Some people might be upset, but many other will recognize that you are a genius and you have made an extremely important discovery. So, don't hide your light under a bushel. Tell the world about this astonishing discovery!

Quote from JedRothwell

Oh come now. You would prove that textbook procedures from the last 200 years have been wrong. Significantly wrong! In cold fusion, this error you have discovered has shown a false signal of many watts of excess heat, in hundreds of experiments where there was actually no heat at all. Surely, the effect produced errors of similar magnitude in other fields.

That is highly speculative, as follows:

(1) CF experiments are very unusual electrolysis where a combination of factors make this type of error more likely high power in / excess power, high enthalpy reaction with recombiner, electrode that has catalytic properties.

(2) The maths KS presents, and calls CCS, is the maths that every calorimeter does to determine error bounds if they are competent. KS says that not all calorimeters do determine error bounds - I can believe it - but if they don't then they will not know what level of error to expect!

Please check the textbook methodology for determining error bounds in an experiment given:

1. power in >> excess power to be measure
2. possible change in cell efficiency (heat loss) of +/- epsilon due to change in cell conditions between calibration an active runs. This bounds the level to which the control is not a perfect control.

I refute your suggestion that any text book solves this problem differently from how KS does.

That is all KS has done, it is in fact standard maths that anyone would do without giving it a name. Three reasons why it might not always get done:

• Many people just don't bother to do proper error bounds, and have some hand-wavy justification that errors << results. That usually is OK, though never good practice.
• Many people have power in relatively small compared with power out. In that case not considering CCS has a small affect on the error bounds
• Many people do not include change in efficiency (heat loss) between control and active runs in their error bounds. Partly because it is very difficult to calculate this.

I challenge you:

1. Do you agree that theoretically the change in efficiency (heat loss) due to differing conditions should effect calorimetry errors in a calibrated system and therefore enter into error bounds?

2. Can you find, anywhere, a text book incorporating this change other than as KS does?

You must answer no to 1. or yes to 2. in order for your point "You would prove that textbook procedures from the last 200 years have been wrong" to stand.

Quote from THHuxleynew

(1) CF experiments are very unusual electrolysis where a combination of factors make this type of error more likely high power in / excess power, high enthalpy reaction with recombiner, electrode that has catalytic properties.

That cannot be the cause of the excess heat, because the heat continues after electrolysis stops, in heat after death. It also appears in systems such as gas loading, with no electrolysis. So, an artifact caused by electrolysis itself cannot be the source of heat.

Quote from THHuxleynew

That is all KS has done, it is in fact standard maths that anyone would do without giving it a name. Three reasons why it might not always get done:

Many people just don't bother to do proper error bounds, and have some hand-wavy justification that errors << results. That usually is OK, though never good practice.

I do not know how you determined that "most people" do this. Most people in what group? Did you take a poll, or look through papers and tally up ones that did or did not do this? However with regard to cold fusion, KS is wrong, and you are wrong. The top tier of papers by McKubre, Storms, Fleischmann, Miles, the people at the ENEA and so on all have very careful "proper" error bounds. These papers are impeccable. KS has never found an error in any of them. Neither have you, or any other skeptic. You reject them all, but you have no scientific basis for rejecting them.

Quote from JedRothwell

That cannot be the cause of the excess heat, because the heat continues after electrolysis stops, in heat after death. It also appears in systems such as gas loading, with no electrolysis. So, an artifact caused by electrolysis itself cannot be the source of heat.

I do not know how you determined that "most people" do this. Most people in what group? Did you take a poll, or look through papers and tally up ones that did or did not do this? However with regard to cold fusion, KS is wrong, and you are wrong. The top tier of papers by McKubre, Storms, Fleischmann, Miles, the people at the ENEA and so on all have very careful "proper" error bounds. These papers are impeccable. KS has never found an error in any of them. Neither have you, or any other skeptic. You reject them all, but you have no scientific basis for rejecting them.

Jed: my challenge: 1. and 2. Or do you retract your statement about textbooks?

The issue is KS's work, not whether there is evidence for LENR.

Now: you state that KS CCS does not apply to McKubre, Storms, Fleischmann, Miles because they all have impeccable error bounds, and that KS has never had any issue with them. Surely that is the opposite of what he is saying (whetehr he is right or wrong). I'm now totally confused. When KS says that these experiments do not include CCS he is exactly saying that one necessary element in the error bounding is missing.