Mizuno's bucket of water

  • This is exactly the problem I was pointing out. JR can't handle the challenge to his hero's work, so he goes bonkers and claims I said this.

    You said this again and again. I will not dig up the messages because I have trouble finding things in this site.


    First you say something, then you deny you said it. This is either a symptom of mental illness or you are trying "gas light" the readers here.


    I am sure other readers know that you asserted the cell was hot "because they heated it," and you kept saying that even after I told you -- again and again -- that they found it was hot three days after cutting off the power.



    Ah ha! I found one of the messages in which you said the cell was hot because they heated it:

    I granted this given that you are referring to when they disconnected it from the heaters that had heated it up to the point it was too hot to touch.

    I pointed out that the document at LENR-CANR.org says this was three days later. You ignored that and said this again, and again, and again, and again . . . As I am sure you will do in the future, if the subject comes up. "It was hot because they heated it."

  • Jed is not the only one to notice this. You said it was only hot because they heated it. Then you ignored Jed when he told you it was three days later. You constantly avoid the facts. Unless you say it is anecdotal and wasn't repeated. At least these two points give you some credibility.

  • Jed is not the only one to notice this. You said it was only hot because they heated it. Then you ignored Jed when he told you it was three days later. You constantly avoid the facts. Unless you say it is anecdotal and wasn't repeated. At least these two points give you some credibility.

    Mark, I ignore Jed because he deserves to be ignored. Unfortunately, your current position seems to be that he has some credibility. So just for you I will give you a summary of what went on regarding the 'Mizuno bucket anecdote' (MBA).


    As I recall (and I do forget, and make mistakes, so I can be corrected), this started back in 2001-2 with Jed bringing up the MBA on the Usenet newsgroup sci.physics.fusion, which was set up to discuss cold fusion issues. Here on L-F I have linked to some of those discussions. At that time, I linked to a DOE web site on energy savings to locate an equation to predict water loss rates from something like the bucket. The equation I found was for swimming pools. I checked recently and that page is no longer there, but others here on L-F found the same information elsewhere.


    I then did my usual thing, I checked what varying the parameters of the equation did to the conclusions. The variables (parameters) of the equation included things like surface area available for evaporation, temperature, humidity, and wind speed over the water surface. That last variable in particular was never specified. Here on L-F I recently posted data from my own lab and prior labs for face air velocity (and some volumetric flows) from various hoods I have worked in, especially in a radiation containment environment, which a 'nuclear research building' will certainly have if they deal with any appreciable quantities of radioactive material. So, air speed became a 'variable of interest' (VOI). I also noted that I felt thermocouple malfunction was a good candidate for why the temperature behavior of the cell seemed anomalous, so temperature became another VOI.


    I then systematically varied those parameters (VOIs) and computed evaporation rates. I concluded that the reported rates of water evaporation fell within the potential rates obtainable, depending on what air speeds were present and what the actual temperature behavior of the cell was. Since that specific information was not available, I stopped, since there was nothing else to do. This means the 'experiment' was unresolvable. In other words an anecdote, exciting and stimulating to those who 'believe', and curious to those who don't. Nothing more. Certainly not proof of anything. Especially since it was never specifically replicated.


    On spf and L-F, I explained and summarized this process and results. Jed and his followers here then cut-and-pasted my comments about my systematic exploration of the parameter space, and tried to make me out as some kind of lunatic. This is standard Jed. He did it in 2001-2 also. What is bothersome to me is that his followers here seem to think this cut-and-paste ad hominem attack is A-O-K, as long as it supports LENR.


    While the following may not be true at the 100% level, it surely is primarily true: Jed distorts what his 'opponents' (as he thinks of them) say to discredit them. And in doing that he simply follows the lead of the bulk of the primary researchers in the CF field, as shown by the group of 10 prominent CF authors' use of a completely incorrect strawman argument to 'disprove' my CCS/ATER explanation of apparent excess heat in F&P-type cells.


    Here on L-F I challenged Jed and his followers to restate what I had done several times, which would have looked a lot like what I just did above, and none of them ever did. Instead they rant on about I supposedly said in their strawman representation of it, always taken out-of-context and designed to be insulting. Like the group of 10's paper, that proves noting but how unable they are to actually present a good argument.

  • Kirk was- and is - dealing with possibles. Jed et al take these possibles and turn them into claims, some of which they then ridicule.


    Now, I will bet that most of Kirk's possibles will not pan out, hence are wrong. As he says he is exploring the parameter space of (in this case) an anecdote so its pretty big. Personally, I like the swimming rats remove water shaking fur on egress idea which though made in jest looks pretty fun to me. the point is that because this evidence is anecdotal there is little than can be ruled out.


    Kirk is not an idiot, just because many of the ideas he proposed turn out contrafactual. he would be an idiot if he persisted in an idea that so turned out.


    It is not easy to work out what Kirk actually thinks, because allk we get is Jed repeating statements from a long time ago that make him out to be a moron, and Kirk defending what he said then as (a) taken out of context and (b) not precisely what Jed says...


    This whole attack/defense has been going on a long time and distracts from the real question, which is what relevance do Kirk's comments have on stuff now.


    Replying to any comment of Kirk now with "he is mad/moronic/evil biassed because of what he said 3 years ago" is profoundly unhelpful and it provokes Kirk into making equally unhelpful replies now.

  • Kirk was- and is - dealing with possibles.

    No, he is not dealing with possibilities. Kirk is making assertions here. He said, again and again, that the cell was hot because Mizuno heated it with electrolysis. He denies he said that, but I quoted him here. Let me quote him again for your benefit:


    I granted this given that you are referring to when they disconnected it from the heaters that had heated it up to the point it was too hot to touch.


    He also asserted that the Nuclear Engineering Department was overrun with "vermin" (rats), and that when a small object remains hot for days, that does not mean it is being heated. He made many other bold assertions that violate the laws of physics and common sense. He states these things as fact, not possibilities, and not speculation. Then he gaslights the readers here by claiming he did not say these things. He says that even when I & other quote him, directly, as I have just done.


    You should not distort the discussion.


    I might add that you made some bold but incorrect assertions which you have no retracted or even addressed. For example you said that F&P did not calibrate a boil off cell, and you even implied they could not. They said they did. Others who did this experiment also said they did. There is no difficulty doing this at all, despite what you claimed. You need only input 100 to 200 W of heat with electrolysis or a joule heater and you see exactly the same boil-off result as with cold fusion, except the input power is much higher.



    Personally, I like the swimming rats remove water shaking fur on egress idea which though made in jest looks pretty fun to me. the point is that because this evidence is anecdotal there is little than can be ruled out.

    Do you mean you "like" it in the sense you find it amusing, or you think it might be plausible? Either way, this is a disgusting thing to say. Let me quote the actual T. H. Huxley in his response to Wilberforce:


    If the question is put to me would I rather have a miserable ape for a grandfather or a man highly endowed by nature and possessed of great means of influence and yet who employs these faculties and that influence for the mere purpose of introducing ridicule into a grave scientific discussion, I unhesitatingly affirm my preference for the ape.


    You and Shanahan are introducing ridicule into a scientific discussion. Let me again list the reasons why this is ridicule, without a shred of scientific validity.

    • It would take dozens or HUNDREDS of rats to accomplish what you claim.
    • They would have to do it night after night. Then they would have to vanish.
    • Rats do not drink or go into hot water.
    • When rats go into a bucket, they often drown.
    • If there was an infestation of this sort, it would be readily apparent, from the stench and damage.
    • Such an infestation would also be an emergency which the university officials would fix, because the building was full of radioactive materials and delicate instruments.
    • There is a large stream of fresh water right next to the building, so there is no way rats would drink or enter a bucket of water.
  • I might add that you made some bold but incorrect assertions which you have no retracted or even addressed. For example you said that F&P did not calibrate a boil off cell, and you even implied they could not. They said they did. Others who did this experiment also said they did. There is no difficulty doing this at all, despite what you claimed. You need only input 100 to 200 W of heat with electrolysis or a joule heater and you see exactly the same boil-off result as with cold fusion, except the input power is much higher.


    Jed: you and Kirk (or me) are diametrically opposed over the nature of fact. You are able to make definite statements in many situations where I am not. You think that Kirk and I are the same as you (in having certitude) but I certainly (and I suspect mostly Kirk) are nearly always doing the opposite: insisting on uncertainty when data allows this. I've never said that F&P did not calibrate anything, merely that the evidence of that was not in the paper: and without definite evidence, given surprising results, I'd reckon lack of calibration could be a reason. I've pointed out one specific difficulty (which you do not address above) which makes it very difficult to calibrate boil-off cells. The argument about whether there are adequate controls is complex, but if LENR-active electrodes are possible, then equally one could hypothesise ATER-active electrodes. Both surprising and difficult to measure consistently. Neither a priori impossible.


    Both Kirk and I will be wrong 90% of the time, at least. But, we only have to be right in one way one time for our point to be correct. (Using right and wrong in the way that you might, but Kirk and I would not).


    As for the rats: I mean that this is an example of some completely unexpected, yet rationally possible, way in which otherwise surprising results could obtain. If not rats then cats, snakes, birds, or cleaners. I'm not introducing ridicule at all, although the humour inherent in the rat scenario points something real about the over-analysis of an anecdote. You may be right about it being quantitatively absurd; but I notice you do not add the numbers to support it. My problem with such numbers is that they are highly tendentious. I suppose I could try (this is before working out the result):


    • Rats swim for 30% of time - it is their main entertainment, but they only do it when no-one else is present, and they must eat, sleep etc.
    • When a rat is swimming they enter/exit the water every 2 minutes (could be much more often, or much less often)
    • Every entry/egress sequence removes 10g of water from a combination of splash and wet fur (remember male rats are 300-500g in weight)
    • There are 10 rats


    We get a water reduction rate of 30g in 2 minutes or 20kg/day. Obviously some of these numbers are too big!


    I don't think this is a very likely scenario - and it is funny - my point is that it is difficult to rule it out when the circumstances of this anecdote are so uncontrolled. In reality, I suspect human memory which is liable to leave things out.


    My point however is not about the anecdote itself. It is that the subject of the debate is no longer focussed on the facts. It is about differing ways of processing data and coming to conclusions. Clearly you, me and Kirk do not judge things similarly, or else do not express our judgements (which might perhaps be more similar than you'd think) in the same way. When there are these differences what is actually factual becomes secondary. Calculations like my one above (with the rats) are left out, and replaced by statements that another person's thought processes are flawed.


    It would be better to take an interest in why we come to such apparently different judgements without assuming that one stance or another is necessarily correct, since open discussion about such things is more difficult in an adversarial debate where each side is trying to show the other wrong.


    Regards , THH


    PS - to pre-empt the concretisation of the rat example above. I'm not saying these numbers are correct: in fact they must be too large in this case since they imply too much water reduction. But, I'd personally need more information than I have to rule out the possibility of similar numbers, and hence of the rat-swim hypothesis.

  • I find the story of Mizuno's bucket of water interesting in at least two ways. First, it is interesting at a sociological level to observe how Kirk, on one side, and Jed on the other, can spend many words and, nominally at least, come no closer to arriving at a shared understanding of the facts of the incident and what can be concluded from them. Is a shared understanding possible in this case? Something tells me it is not. Second, I find the account interesting scientifically for what it suggests (but does not prove) is possible, since data were kept on the incident, which elevates it above the level of mere anecdote. But in this regard it is still in the category of scientific curios.


    My conclusions:

    • There are smart people who will not agree on things, no matter how many years they're given to hash the details out.
    • Mizuno's bucket is an interesting incident but remains in the category of scientific curios, and only a protocol that results in something interesting in the hands of someone of a skeptical frame of mind will break the logjam. (Either that, or Rossi selling his UL-certified QX reactor on the market; don't ask me how likely I find this to be.)
  • Here on L-F I recently posted data from my own lab and prior labs for face air velocity (and some volumetric flows) from various hoods I have worked in, especially in a radiation containment environment, which a 'nuclear research building' will certainly have if they deal with any appreciable quantities of radioactive material. So, air speed became a 'variable of interest' (VOI). I also noted that I felt thermocouple malfunction was a good candidate for why the temperature behavior of the cell seemed anomalous, so temperature became another VOI.

    This is false for many reasons:


    If they had enough unshielded radioactive material to raise the temperature measurably, everyone in the building would be dead. I am sure Shanahan knows this.


    Anyone can put a bucket in a room with a fan and confirm that the water does not all evaporate overnight. Shanahan could do this but he will not.


    There was no fan. It there had been, Mizuno would have said so in his notes, the magazine report and the book.


    I and others have told Shanahan the temperature and the conditions in the room many times. He ignores us. To repeat: Japanese university buildings in those days were unheated. They were shoddy, poorly insulated post-war construction. There were inadequate gas or electric heaters, but they were always turned off at night and on holidays, and this was a holiday. People studying in these buildings (including me) often wore one or two sweaters and a muffler. This was in Sapporo in March, where the average temperature ranges from 4°C to -3°C. So the room was cold.


    A thermocouple malfunction cannot cause a cell to be too hot to touch, and it cannot cause a bucket of water to evaporate. Repeating this assertion, along the assertion that the cell was hot because they heated it three days earlier, is not science. It is either lunacy or witless bullshit.


    There was, and still is, nothing wrong with that thermocouple. It was calibrated and used many times before and after. As I said, it was confirmed by sense of touch, something Shanahan refuses to comment on.

  • Mizuno's bucket is a scientifically interesting incident but remains in the category of scientific curios,

    I disagree. The same phenomenon, heat after death, was replicated hundreds of times by Fleischmann and Pons at similar power levels, for hours or days at a time. It was replicated by several other researchers at power levels up to ~20 W. So, this is not a curio. It is one of the first reports of a phenomenon that was subsequently widely replicated at very high signal to noise ratios. That makes it real. There is no other standard for being real in experimental science.

  • As for the rats: I mean that this is an example of some completely unexpected, yet rationally possible, way in which otherwise surprising results could obtain. If not rats then cats, snakes, birds, or cleaners. I'm not introducing ridicule at all, although the humour inherent in the rat scenario points something real about the over-analysis of an anecdote.

    No, this is not rationally possible. It is impossible for the list of reasons I gave above. It violates the facts of natural science, such as the fact that rats do not approach hot water. Natural science is science too, and you are running roughshod over it.


    Ask anyone with experience working with rats and they will tell you that your scenario is outrageous nonsense. (I can ask my daughter who is a naturalist working on her MS. She knows a lot about rats. And bees.)


    You may be right about it being quantitatively absurd; but I notice you do not add the numbers to support it.

    I did present numbers. You and Shanahan ignored them.


    Do not drag this kind of bullshit into a serious discussion.

  • Jed will refuse to read and understand my following comments, but perhaps Mark will see why JR is unreliable. So…


    “If they had enough unshielded radioactive material to raise the temperature measurably, everyone in the building would be dead. I am sure Shanahan knows this.”


    This is all Jed fantasy. The high ventilation rates in a nuclear facility is to contain and control radioactive matter to prevent human contamination events, not cool/heat the building.


    “Anyone can put a bucket in a room with a fan and confirm that the water does not all evaporate overnight. Shanahan could do this but he will not.


    There was no fan. It there had been, Mizuno would have said so in his notes, the magazine report and the book.”


    I never suggested there was a fan. More Jed fantasy. In fact, some of my calculations (which are the same as those in the spreadsheet that I think Zeus put up) show this directly. But Jed chooses not to understand what I did, so he wouldn’t know that.


    “I and others have told Shanahan the temperature and the conditions in the room many times. He ignores us. “


    What you and others guess they might be is no different from my guesses, so my sensitivity analysis covered your suggestions. The difference is, you refuse to accept the possibility you might be wrong. On the other hand, as THH pointed out (thank you), my approach is to examine a range and then consider if it can be narrowed down. With no air flow measurements, discussing limits on the room temp is pointless.


    "[snip] A thermocouple malfunction cannot cause a cell to be too hot to touch, “


    But it can precondition a human to believe that the cell is hot and even dangerous, which would result in misinterpreting sensory data. This impact of expectations on judgment (which is what was being done by ‘touching’) is a well-established fact. That makes any data of this nature highly suspect, and certainly not solid enough to conclude physics textbooks must be rewritten.


    “[snip] It is either lunacy or witless bullshit.”


    Ad hom.


    “There was, and still is, nothing wrong with that thermocouple. It was calibrated and used many times before and after. As I said, it was confirmed by sense of touch, something Shanahan refuses to comment on.”


    The only way to be sure there was not a design dependent fault is to replicate the experiment and get the same or similar results several more times. This was never done.

  • But it can precondition a human to believe that the cell is hot and even dangerous, which would result in misinterpreting sensory data.

    To what extent? Do you seriously think that two middle aged scientists might be deluded into thinking that an object wrapped in towels is too hot to touch when it is actually at room temperature? Is that what you are saying? After all this time, that Cloud Cuckoo Land fantasy is the best you can come up with?


    Have you ever heard of an incident in which people's sense of touch was fooled to that extent? Were those people professional chemists with decades of experience doing laboratory science?


    That's a fantasy. It also cannot explain why the water was hot, and why the water evaporated, and why the TC registered a high temperature. Yes, we know you think the TC was malfunctioning, but there is no evidence for that. It was not malfunctioning before, and it is not malfunctioning now. A malfunction is at least possible, but not when you fit in the others facts of the matter. It is not rational to make an assertion in isolation -- that the TC was malfunctioning -- and selectively ignore the other evidence for the heat.



    The only way to be sure there was not a design dependent fault is to replicate the experiment and get the same or similar results several more times. This was never done.

    False. Fleischmann and Pons did this hundreds of times, 16 cells at a time. This was published in peer-reviewed papers that anyone can read at LENR-CANR.org. Shanahan will selectively pretend this evidence does not exist. Then in a discussion of F&P he will pretend the Mizuno's evidence does not exist. He seems to think he selectively deny one fact at a time. A divide and conquer technique. First he denies the sense of touch, then the bucket of water evaporating, then the TC still working. As if the reader cannot remember other facts given a moment before, and can only consider the possibility of a TC malfunction as a stand-alone event.

  • False. Fleischmann and Pons did this hundreds of times,

    False. They never did an 'experiment' like Mizuno tried and then ran it across campus to other places and put it in buckets of water, etc., etc.


    The point is that if you change the cell, the exact components, the electrolyte, and/or any other variable significantly, you are running a different experiment. That means you are not 'replicating', you are doing similar experimentation, but with the possibility of a completely different set of errors. Minimizing that possibility is why researchers try to do exact replications, or use statistically designed experiments.


    Mizuno ran this 'experiment' ONCE. Even if all data needed was reported, it STILL would be an anecdote because scientific inquiry requires replication.


    F&P never replicated Mizuno. They may have run similar experiments, but they were never able to define the parameters to produce the FPHE well enough to translate to another lab without significant intervention, which means significant probability of transmitting systematic errors. Which of course they did anyway via the calorimetric assumptions they made that got translated to all F&P type cell calorimeters.


    F&P and others did try to replicate themselves, with some limited success. That evidence is what convinced me to give the field a serious look in the 1995-2000 timeframe. And guess what? I found a systematic error that would explain all results...