Research Team in Japan Reports Excess Heat - (Nissan Motors among otheres)

So, bocijn and Zeus46 admit they can't do arithmetic. OK I can deal with that.

bocijn keeps asking for the error in the excess power, Excess power is computed by subtracting input power from the (measured) output power. Thus the POE equation is:

(s_Pex)^2 = (s_Pout)^2 + (s_Pin)^2 (simple since the partials of Pex w.r.t Pin and Pout are -1 and 1, respectively, which bo and Zeus could not compute either).

So, now we need to choose our confidence level (the number of 'sigmas' we will consider. I prefer 5.

Next we need to decide how much error was in the calibration constant. Let's go with what Miles has reported for his work, which essentially agrees with what Storms reported and I confirmed, 1% (that's the magnitude of 1 standard deviation).

So that means the s_Pout we will use will be 5 * .01 * measured Pout (which coincidentally will be nearly exactly Pin, go figure...), which is 5 * .01 * 134 = 6.7W.

Now that minimizes the error, since we could have used 5 or 10% (which will give 33.5 and 67W bands respectively (bo and Zeus, work this out for yourselves as practice).

For simplicity here, we will note that the authors report an error of 0.031W in Pin, which is considerably smaller and means we can ignore it. We thereby slightly underestimate the error in Pex, but not too badly since it is a factor of 100 or so under the Pout error, i. e. 100*0.031/134 = 0.023% error (try working out this calc bo and Zeus as arithmetic practice), almost two orders of magnitude better than that in Pout. However, we all note that 6.7 W is *NOT* the 0.26W the authors report. Hmmm...wonder how that happened... (This illustrates the typical occurrence in CF work, where the errors are significantly underestimated, thereby allowing CF researchers to feel they are not 'working in the noise, which we all know is a sign of pathological science.)

Now don't forget that the authors used Tave to simplify their calorimetric equation by claiming fixed values of the density and specific gravity. I previously calculated the 200-300 degree range they reported led to, what was it, 8 and 13% error spreads? You can check back to the post where I did that if you need to. But that means you need to add terms into the error equation for those variables. But we can just guess they are equal to the cal constant term (a conservative estimate) and end up (proof left to readers, use this to practice your arithmetic) with the 6.7W error being increased to 11.6W. That['s the error in Pex bo and Zeus. So that means any excess power under roughly 11-12W is 'in the noise' and shouldn't be trusted. Since that error was calculated conservatively, just for safety you might want it multiply it by 5 or 10 (can you do that by yourselves?).

By the way, the other thing bo and Zeus need to do to demonstrate they have comprehended what I am saying is to do a 'military repeat-back'. I have described 'sensitivity analysis' a couple of times in this thread, and a few other times elsewhere. Zeus and bo (and Jed for that matter) should coherently 'repeat back' what I said. That will let us all see that they have grasped it. Please end with a sentence or two about why one does sensitivity analysis too.

I am in the presence of genius

Praise the Lord

Quote from bocijn

I am in the presence of genius

Praise the Lord

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Arthur C. Clarke

Quote from kirkshanahan

By the way, the other thing bo and Zeus need to do to demonstrate they have comprehended what I am saying is to do a 'military repeat-back'

So... to summarise: If you assume that in this case the relative error is 10%, and then state you are uninterested in any experiment with a result less than 5 times higher than your assumed relative error, then you don't have to endure your colleagues laughter when you say their hydrogen storage methods are potentially unsafe, in your next health and safety report.

Quote from Zeus46

So... to summarise: If you assume that in this case the relative error is 10%, and then state you are uninterested in any experiment with a result less than 5 times higher than your assumed relative error, you don't have to endure your colleagues laughter when you say their hydrogen storage methods are potentially unsafe in your next health and safety report.

Do you recall the story about the 3 or 4 blind guys examining an elephant? Well, you have done a partial job on describing the tail. You should try to get the rest of the story straight too though.

P.S. You assumptions about my work environment are off.

So what's all this blether then?...

Quote from kirkshanahan

As part of my job, to evaluate the potential of a safety problem, I study the CFers' claims and sometimes write up my results. No funds allocated for that other than my salary, which I earn not by looking into CF, but by getting job assignments and completing them satisfactorily.

Quote from kirkshanahan

As I've said before, I work with almost all the materials people talk about in the LENR field, and if LENR is true, I need to know. It involves my and my coworkers safety.

Quote from kirkshanahan

If the proposed hypothesis of LENR is correct, there is a derived safety issue for any use of metal hydrides. which threatens my safety and the safety of my coworkers directly. I am ethically bound to investigate that. Can you understand the ramifications of not doing so? "Well, Shanahan knew it might 'go nuclear' but he didn't like that idea and never told anyone. If he had though we might have prevented that explosion and radioactive material release..."

"So what's all this blether then?..." ("blather")

My question to you exactly...

Quote from Zeus46

then you don't have to endure your colleagues laughter when you say their hydrogen storage methods are potentially unsafe, in your next health and safety report.

What from the above where you quoted me has *anything* to do with what you said about my work environment?

The science demands the victims!

Quote from Alan Smith

I would have thought that a more diplomatic approach might actually help you fulfil your mission. But each to his own I guess.

Like when I tried to analyze McKubre's data from his 1998 report but he didn't tell how he did the calibration except in general terms? Then I asked him on two separate occasions what his calibration equation was (including numerics). His response was "I'm too busy."

So I tried a "Hail Mary", and put out a request with explanation on a mailing list, which included McKubre, McK's response was to call me and 'grandstander' and break off all communications (which were actually still going on in the background).

Or maybe like when I spent months emailing Storms *before* he published the claims his data proved cold fusion, including telling him privately what I had found and that I would publish it if he ignored it? He published it, so I submitted my comment, then spent two years fighting the silliness of CFers who wouldn't even admit the math I did was right. I must have exchanged 50 emails *directly* with Storms over that, got him to prove to me that he understood it, and then when I asked him why he ignored what I'd done, he replied "Because I want to." He finally responded in print 4 years later, but all he did is repeat the arguments from the pier review process, so I did too in my published reply. Then he went on to claim in his book that he had dealt with all my objections, he even cited his rebuttal paper, but he failed to note the paper where I replied to him that was published right after his!

Yeah, diplomacy does wonders in getting at the truth...but not in this field.

Furthermore, I am tired of the falsehoods Jed cooks up and bo and Zeus second. As a moderator, you should rein them in, but you don't, because you also don't like my message and can't rebut it, as your prior comments have shown. As I have said, this is really tiresome. Why aren't you commenting on Jed's falsifications? Why are you surprised I have decide to defend myself when no one else does? For the record, JR has never generated a bit of scientific data, he only repeats what he gets from others, and when he makes it his mission to discredit me, you can bet I will respond.

Quote from kirkshanahan

"So what's all this blether then?..." ("blather")

Apologies. Seems both spellings are accepted.

Use the dumb kid approach, It may save you from a lot of this.

Quote from kirkshanahan

I submitted my comment, then spent two years fighting the silliness of CFers who wouldn't even admit the math I did was right.

You fail to understand what you are fighting. These people sincerely think you are wrong. They are not pretending to think so. So it is not the case that they should "admit" your math is right. You should say instead that you wish they were smarter and they could see the truth.

When you say they should "admit" it you ascribe to them dishonesty or immorality. You are saying they secretly agree with you. They know the truth but they hide it, for some reason. You insert an accusation into the debate, where it should not be. If they are incorrect or incompetent, that's bad enough. You should not assume they are evil.

Regarding what I say about you, I sometimes suspect you realize that a hot object is a heater. I suspect that you may -- at times -- understand the logic of the claim that a cell that remains hot for a long time proves that LENR is real. But, most of the time have it backwards. You say that we have to prove LENR is real before we can be sure the hot cell means anything. That violates the scientific method, and common sense. I think you sincerely mean what you say. I think you are confused. Not evil. I also think that such extreme confusion is crackpot. It is like believing the earth is flat, or that crystals promote good health. Ordinary members of the public often believe in such nonsense, but I seldom encounter professional scientists who do. Still, there are some, and you are definitely one of them. Huizenga was another who reversed the scientific method.

I am pretty sure that Mary Yugo sincerely believes there is no significant scientific difference between a reaction with only enough fuel to last a few seconds and one that goes on for hours. I think she sincerely believes that heat of 5 W or even 100 W is "too small" to measure with confidence, even though Lavoisier measured less than that in 1780, with enough confidence to establish that metabolism is CO2 production. In other words, Mary Yugo is innumerate. She cannot tell the difference between small numbers and huge numbers. She does not realize she is wrong when she makes mistakes by a factor of a thousand, or ten thousand. This, in my opinion, is another prominent example of a crackpot who has no idea how science works or how to do elementary analyses. I mean that sincerely. Perhaps it is an insult, but her own words prove it. I assume she never admits she is wrong because she does not know it.

Quote from JedRothwell

You fail to understand what you are fighting. These people sincerely think you are wrong. They are not pretending to think so. So it is not the case that they should "admit" your math is right. You should say instead that you wish they were smarter and they could see the truth.

You really have no idea how it works do you? Let me explain. I presented a 3-level argument (not an 'emotional' argument', a propositional one) in my 2002 paper (submitted originally in 2000). Level 1 was the math. Level 2 was not well-explained in the first paper, but it is also math, and it illustrates why treating the calorimeter as a homogeneous lump is inadequate. In Level 3 I presented a non-nuclear mechanism to get the results of the experiment. Level 1 does not depend in any way on levels 2 or 3. It showed that a trivial change in calibration constant zeroed out the excess heat signals. The changes I needed were completely consistent with the reported variation noted by Storms (before and after electrolysis results). But on _top_ of that, they showed a systematic trend. That means something is going on that could be understood with appropriate research. But 'nuclear' is not required.

The two objections to my paper either did not explain their problem (2005, Szpak et al) or focused strictly on Level 3 (Storms, 2006) which was not _required_ to prove the Level 1 or 2 arguments.

So, Level 1 and Level 2 are unchallenged to date. That means that one explanation for Storms' results is bad data analysis. Subsequently, wherever I could gather enough info to test my theory against other publications, I found NONE challenged it. So, Level 1 and 2 are totally unchallenged to date.

The Level 3 challenge was answered in a back-to-back publication, so my level 3 explanation has been successfully defended. Subsequently, wherever I could gather enough info to test my theory against other publications, I found NONE challenged it. Thus it remains a viable option.

CF researchers have a vested interest in believing their explanation. But scientists all over the word recognize, as Feynman's famous quotation says, that the easiest person to fool is yourself. Their abortive attempt to address my 2010 paper (which you keep throwing out) proves they are unwilling to take a deep breath, take a step back, and check if they have fooled themselves. Or, as I suspect, they simply refuse to do so because, somehow, by ESP perhaps, they know they are right. They can't prove they know, but they 'do'. What they really need to do is admit they have failed, and go back to the beginning, and consider other options, such as my non-nuclear explanation, or something else if they can think of it.

Quote from JedRothwell

When you say they should "admit" it you ascribe to them dishonesty or immorality. You are saying they secretly agree with you. They know the truth but they hide it, for some reason. You insert an accusation into the debate, where it should not be. If they are incorrect or incompetent, that's bad enough. You should not assume they are evil.

No I ascribe to them the total normal human behavior of commitment to a cause. They refuse to do the hard thing and take an adequate look at their work.

Your statement "You should not assume they are evil." is another libelous one. I make no such assumption. I assume they are over committed and have lost perspective.

kirkshanahan

I understand your lack of patience - but this here is a forum primarily for pro-LENR people, and so the reception you get is understandable. equally, posting here, if you want to communicate, tact is necessary or you will not be heard.

Of course, you may not be heard anyway.

As you have pointed out your criticisms are not black and white claiming the published literature you refute is 100% wrong, or that those arguing against you in the literature are liars, evil, etc.

However, it is possible to see what they ignore, or misinterpret, as with the blind men and the elephant. And possible to evaluate whether what they ignore is sufficient to explain these excess heat results, or some of them. For me, the lack of interest in doing that here is a real shame, and highly discouraging.

Everyone, including you, ignores things sometimes. And it is not necessarily something that invalidates what we don't ignore.

What I have little sympathy for is an approach that personalises these issues and, for example, meets valid arguments with "well you would say that" or something similar instead of acknowledgement that the argument is understood - and possibly further discussion about its range of applicability.

I tend to assume that when arguers do not provide details, and just rubbish an argument, or comment on the motives of the one giving it, it is because they have none.

Quote from kirkshanahan

You really have no idea how it works do you? Let me explain. I presented a 3-level argument (not an 'emotional' argument', a propositional one) in my 2002 paper (submitted originally in 2000). Level 1 was the math. Level 2 was not well-explained in the first paper, but it is also math, and it illustrates why treating the calorimeter as a homogeneous lump is inadequate.

That has nothing to do with what you wrote before. You said these people should "admit" they are wrong. That means they know they are wrong, but they refuse to say so. That is incorrect. They they they are right and you are wrong.

The word "admit" in this context is uncalled for. It is a loaded term. You should not use it if you want to be taken seriously.

That's all there is to it.