The usual Shanahan obfuscation, the fact is that in your 'calculations' of the Mizuno energy balance, you made energy appear out of thin air. (Edit: By choosing an outrageously high water temperature for your evap calcs.)
In first law terms, that always counts as major cock-up.
...And I'm unsurprised you "don't understand" my rendition of the problem... The only question is, whether it's your ego, or just a poor grasp of thermo, that's the main cause?
when he knows this is false? A falsifier? Delusional? What?
This was with regard to Shanahan's repeated claims that a hot object is not heater. For example, here:
Anecdote about Mizuno's bucket of water
QUOTE FROM THAT MESSAGE:
QuoteIn my mind "a large, heavy stainless steel cell in the bucket. It was hot. Too hot to touch. The thermocouple showed it was over 100 deg C inside." is not a 'heater'. It is a hot object.
What is the difference between a heater and a hot object? He should explain why a hot object is not a heater. If he did not mean this, he should explain what he did mean.
If there is some difference, why does this difference invalidate Mizuno's claim that the device produced heat beyond the limits of chemistry?
This statement introduces only confusion, without clarifying anything. Indeed, it does not seem to mean anything, as far as I can tell.
Shanahan has a habit akin to throwing rocks from a mile away. They never hit the target. He is so far away, no one can tell what target he is aiming for, or why he throws the rocks in the first place. This statement a good example. He repeatedly claims that a hot object is not a heater. No one knows what that mysterious, unnamed difference could be (what the target is), or why it would invalidate Mizuno's claim (why he is throwing). To top it off, he then says he never threw those rocks (he never said it)!
Another example is his claim that Mizuno's description of the event is "a lie." This could mean that Mizuno is lying; or that I am lying about what Mizuno said; or even, in the weird context of the statement, that Shanahan himself is lying. He never explains what he means. We have to guess.
I think you might have a point here Kirk... It was the first law that you horrifically cocked-up previously.
The Second Law as well. Heat must pass from a hotter object to a cooler object. Therefore a hot object is a heater. It heats the surroundings. It does this until it cools down. In case of Mizuno's cell, it did this for several days. Given the thermal mass of the cell, that means something inside it was producing heat. Shanahan denied this, as well -- another violation of the Second Law.
I suppose this example would violate this First Law if we interpret him to mean that heat is not always heat (not work); i.e., there is some kind of heat that raises the temperature but does not pass from one object to another.
The usual Shanahan obfuscation, the fact is that in your 'calculations' of the Mizuno energy balance, you made energy appear out of thin air.
Ah. I see what you mean by a First Law violation.
As I said, the Second Law is violated by his claim that the object is hot but it is "not a heater." I suppose that means the hot object is not what makes the water heat up and evaporate. Or it could mean that in general a hot object is not a heater -- it does not heat the surroundings. Or perhaps it means a heater is defined as something that is being heated internally. Of course Mizuno's cell was being heater internally. If it had not been, it would have cooled down quickly. Shanahan also denies that.
I honestly cannot tell what he means, assuming he means anything. I suspect he may be saying these things only to confuse the issue and mislead people. I can't tell, but as you say, this is obfuscation -- deliberate or accidental.
To illustrate my point regarding Jed Rothwell's deliberate distortions, I note he just posted a diatribe that contains this comment:
What is the difference between a heater and a hot object? He should explain why a hot object is not a heater. If he did not mean this, he should explain what he did mean.
As he usually does, he failed to fully quote what I wrote. I wrote, IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING what Jed quoted from my previous post:
A 'heater' has a power source that adds energy to the system from an external (or perhaps internal, like a kerosene space heater) source. A hot object only has the energy it contains at the nominal 'start point', no additional. So for the too hot to touch, large, heavy stainless steel cell in the bucket to be a heater it would need either a) power inputs, like wires from a power supply, or b) an internal heat source, such as kerosene, a battery, or maybe even a LENR reactor.
'Nuff said.
As he usually does, he failed to fully quote what I wrote. I wrote, IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING what Jed quoted from my previous post:
Quote immediately following:
QuoteA 'heater' has a power source that adds energy to the system from an external (or perhaps internal, like a kerosene space heater) source.
Ah, so Shanahan says this is not a heater because it is not heated from an external source or from kerosene. Yet it remains hot for days at the same temperature with no input power. The temperature even went up at times. This is proof that it is being heated internally. There is no kerosene, but there has to be something else producing that heat. How could it remain hot or even heat up more if it is not being heating internally? That would violate the Second Law, as I said. When heat passes from a hot object to a cooler object, the hot object must cool down. Yet it does not cool down.
Presumably, Shanahan agrees that a cell with plutonium-238 inside it would also be a heater. The source of heat does not have be a chemical reaction; a nuclear reaction also makes it a heater. The cold fusion cell has no chemical fuel, and no chemical changes occur in it. The heat far exceeds the limits of chemistry. Therefore, it has to be nuclear reaction, and a nuclear heater. It produces only helium, so that means it is nuclear fusion.
Shahanan denies all this, but his denials make no sense.
Here, for a moment, he seems to agree, but then in other messages he goes back to disagreeing, or he says someone is lying:
QuoteSo for the too hot to touch, large, heavy stainless steel cell in the bucket to be a heater it would need either a) power inputs, like wires from a power supply, or b) an internal heat source, such as kerosene, a battery, or maybe even a LENR reactor.
As Mizuno wrote (and I translated):
There was no power input; the wires were disconnected from the power supply. a) is ruled out.
So there has to be b) an internal heat source. There was no kerosene or other chemical fuel. There were no chemical changes. So that leaves only a LENR reactor. Since LENR produces helium, it must be fusion.
As I said, Shanahan says this is a lie but I have no idea who he is accusing of lying. Many researchers have seen cells produce heat with no input. Maybe Shanahan thinks they are all lying?
As I said, Shanahan says this is a lie but I have no idea who he is accusing of lying. Many researchers have seen cells produce heat with no input. Maybe Shanahan thinks they are all lying?
For those of you following this little kerfluffle, you might want to try to find where I said what Jed says I did...
Green ink, 21 posts up...
[Responding to Jed: "As I said, Shanahan says this is a lie but I have no idea who he is accusing of lying. Many researchers have seen cells produce heat with no input. Maybe Shanahan thinks they are all lying?"]
For those of you following this little kerfluffle, you might want to try to find where I said what Jed says I did...
Right here, message #65:
Ah, the Mizuno bucket anecdote again...fourth or fifth time you've repeated the same old lies isn't it?
As I said, it is unclear to me whether you mean Mizuno lied or I lied.
As I said, it is unclear to me whether you mean Mizuno lied or I lied.
Barring that you may have been successful in your attempt to create confusion and misdirect, prior to that activity, it was clear who I was referring to.
Barring that you may have been successful in your attempt to create confusion and misdirect, prior to that activity, it was clear who I was referring to.
It is not clear to me! Who do you mean? WHAT do you mean? Was Mizuno lying when he claimed the cell remained hot for days with no wires attached? Or am I lying about it?
Oh Tell Us Please!
I am joking. Of course you will not say who is lying.
You have a bad habit of making accusations here and then pretending you did not make them. If you are going to accuse people of lying, you should at least say which people you mean. Mizuno? Me? Fleischmann, McKubre and everyone one else who has observed heat after death? You will not say. It is a disconnected accusation, all the more insidious for that reason. It resembles Sen. McCarthy's accusations that someone, somewhere on a secret list betrayed the nation in some dreadful unnamed way. No one can pin you down or dispute your accusation, because you refuse to say what it is you are accusing us of lying about, or even who you are accusing.
You have a bad habit of making accusations here and then pretending you did not make them. If you are going to accuse people of lying, you should at least say which people you mean. Mizuno? Me? Fleischmann, McKubre and everyone one else who has observed heat after death? You will not say. It is a disconnected accusation, all the more insidious for that reason. It resembles Sen. McCarthy's accusations that someone, somewhere on a secret list betrayed the nation in some dreadful unnamed way. No one can pin you down or dispute your accusation, because you refuse to say what it is you are accusing us of lying about, or even who you are accusing.
Best example of projection I've seen in a long time.
(From Google: "define: projection in psychology" Psychological projection is a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against their own unconscious impulses or qualities (both positive and negative) by denying their existence in themselves while attributing them to others.)
Best example of projection I've seen in a long time.
Nope. I do not make vague accusations. When I say someone is lying, everyone can see who it is I am accusing and what I am accusing them of. Whereas I expect no one here has a clue who it is you are accusing of lying, or what it is they are lying about.
By the way, I see that you still refuse to tell us who you are accusing.
For the extremely obtuse, in msg Research Team in Japan Reports Excess Heat - (Nissan Motors among otheres)
add ", you" (comma included) between the "to" and the period.
Nope. I do not make vague accusations. When I say someone is lying, everyone can see who it is I am accusing and what I am accusing them of. Whereas I expect no one here has a clue who it is you are accusing of lying, or what it is they are lying about.
Best example of completely missing the point I've seen in a long time....
For the extremely obtuse, in msg Research Team in Japan Reports Excess Heat - (Nissan Motors among otheres)
Okay! So, I went to the trouble to do this and it comes out:
"Barring that you may have been successful in your attempt to create confusion and misdirect, prior to that activity, it was clear who I was referring to you [to Jed]."
(By the way, wouldn't it be easier for you to simply write the sentence again? Rather than asking the readers to play a guessing game?)
So, we have established that you accuse me of lying. Lying about what, you will not say, but it has something to do with Mizuno's claims, per message #62. Something I said about that . . . Perhaps you think I misrepresented his claims?
Who knows what you think?!?
Apart from anything else, you should realize that when you insult someone, or make accusations, when no one can tell who you are insulting or why . . . that hardly counts as an insult. As I said, it is like throwing rocks from a mile away. Not only do you miss the target; we can't even tell what you are aiming at. Flailing out at who-knows-who for who-knows-what reason is crackpot behavior, as is claiming that a hot object is not a heater in one sentence, contradicting yourself a paragraph later, and then going back to the first claim again.
You remind me of a certain prominent politician in Washington DC. Negotiating with him it has recently been described as like trying to negotiate with Jell-O. That is how I would describe debating with you. Nothing sticks. Nothing stays the same for more than 10 minutes. First you say a hot object is not a heater, then it is, then it might be a LENR heater, and then for some inexplicable reason it isn't a LENR heater because I am lying about something but no one knows what it is I am lying about or how my lie might change the facts reported by Mizuno, Fleischmann and others. This Alice in Wonderland science.
(By the way, wouldn't it be easier for you to simply write the sentence again? Rather than asking the readers to play a guessing game?)
It only impacted one person (well, ok, maybe 2 or 3).
Who knows what you think?!?
Anyone who reads what I write with intent to understand.
it has recently been described as like trying to negotiate with Jell-O
Certainly not like discussing with you. As least Jell-O wiggles.
First you say a hot object is not a heater, then it is, then it might be a LENR heater, and then for some inexplicable reason it isn't a LENR heater because I am lying about something but no one knows what it is I am lying about or how my lie might change the facts reported by Mizuno, Fleischmann and others. This Alice in Wonderland science.
Back to the dead horse I see...
Kirkshanahan
"Anyone who reads what I write with intent to understand."
Kirkshanahan
"I already answered you above"
No you didn't
You wrote. "The excess power is another calculation, both for the value and for the standard deviation, but they are simple equations that you can figure out easily"
What error in the excess power do you expect?
Bocijn wrote (Research Team in Japan Reports Excess Heat - (Nissan Motors among otheres)
“You write such things " could also add 10-20% errors in." Does that mean 10-20% of their calculated error figure or 10-20% of the actual calculated quantity? For example Iwamura et al get 0.26W error for 80W input (with an excess heat rate of 5W) Are you suggesting that the HEX error is up to 0.26 +20%= 0.31W??? or =+20% of 5W = +1W??.”
I replied by teaching how to correctly compute the standard deviation here (Research Team in Japan Reports Excess Heat - (Nissan Motors among otheres))
Then bocijn refused to follow through with the equation I gave him to compute the error (standard deviation) he is asking for, and instead repeated (Research Team in Japan Reports Excess Heat - (Nissan Motors among otheres))
“Are you suggesting that the HEX error is up to 0.26 +20%= 0.31W??? or =+20% of 5W = +1W??.
In the latter case this would mean your error calc is 5 times bigger than that of the Iwamura et al . This is an extraordinary difference.”
I will note here that it is not an extraordinary difference in the CF field. CF authors routinely grossly underestimate their errors.
Bocijn also wrote there:
“You wrote B-O-E . What values of ɳ , ΔT , C and ρ are you plugging into your B-O-E?”
Which completely ignored the fact that I had reduced the problem to using fractional or percentage based errors, which means I have no need to define the nominal values of variables, just the relative size of the standard deviations, and asked for numeric details that I had eliminated the need for.
I replied here (Research Team in Japan Reports Excess Heat - (Nissan Motors among otheres)), pointing out in the prior post that bocijn refused to comprehend, that I _had_ given error estimates based on standard sensitivity analysis points of reference, i.e. “So on an input power of 134W, that gives a noise band of +/- 40-60W or 67-100W.” This was just based on the calculated range of the density and specific heat based on the equations presented for the thermal fluid presented in one of the prior references. That didn’t include considering the random error in the calibration constant.
Bocijn refused to comprehend and replied (Research Team in Japan Reports Excess Heat - (Nissan Motors among otheres))
“You said something like 20% error in variables. Does this mean that you estimate the error could be up to 20% of 5 W = 1W?”
Which clearly indicates he made no use of my previous reply at all.
I granted him another shot at it by replying (Research Team in Japan Reports Excess Heat - (Nissan Motors among otheres)), writing another long post describing again how to answer his questions, which included:
“That gives us:
3-sigma band = +/- 4.0, 20.1, 40.2W for 1, 5, and 10%RSD
5-sigma band = +/- 6.7, 33.5, 67.0W for 1, 5, and 10%RSD
The numbers above are excess heats that would be considered ‘in the noise’ for the 6 cases we have considered here. ”
(it was after that post that JR jumped in and tried to change the topic to the much-discussed Mizuno bucket anecdote.)
But bocijn replied (Research Team in Japan Reports Excess Heat - (Nissan Motors among otheres))
“You wrote. "The excess power is another calculation, both for the value and for the standard deviation, but they are simple equations that you can figure out easily"
What error in the excess power (HEX )do you estimate for the 5W HEX case ? 1W, 5W,10W, 100W?”
Bocijn, in science when a numeric question is asked and an equation is indicated or given to answer the question, the question has been answered. Facility with algebra and arithmetic (and usually calculus) is assumed. If I made that assumption in error my apologies. I answered your question by computing error bands on output power, and indicating you should use the POE formula to compute them for the excess power (hint: square root of (variance in Pout +variance in Pin)). (Second hint: If the error in Pin is trivial, you can assume the error in Pout equals the error in Pex.)
However, at that point bocijn resorts to a Rothwellian tactic of confusion and misdirection by writing:
“btw "CCS" = "clear communication society"? "Capsanthin/capsorubin synthase"?” which told me that he was of the same cut as Rothwell.
He confirmed that in a subsequent post (Research Team in Japan Reports Excess Heat - (Nissan Motors among otheres)) by writing:
“"CCS problem" From your first post on this thread.
Perhaps you expect CCS to be common knowledge.. but it isn't. not on Google at least
Eureka!!http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MarwanJanewlookat.pdf It does not mean "Clear Communication Society" after all
CCS = Calibration Constant Shift.”
Cementing the idea that he, like Rothwell, was deliberately being obtuse.
And so, after several other posts by several people, he writes (Research Team in Japan Reports Excess Heat - (Nissan Motors among otheres)
“Kirkshanahan
"Anyone who reads what I write with intent to understand."
Kirkshanahan
"I already answered you above"
No you didn't
You wrote. "The excess power is another calculation, both for the value and for the standard deviation, but they are simple equations that you can figure out easily"
What error in the excess power do you expect?”
inanely repeating the same mantra. I guess he adheres to the idea that if you say it enough times it will become true. (Sorry to disappoint you bocijn, but that doesn’t work in science.)
Thanks for the Jello Korkshanahan
I feel so foolish in the face of this intellectual superiority.
I still feel that you have not answered my question.
Perhaps there is a CCS problem.
I get the feeling he doesn't want to answer your question Bocijn. I wonder why someone would spend time writing that many paragraphs instead of just giving a straight answer?
