Uploaded Beiting report from The Aerospace Corporation

  • I understand that people of the old school have difficulties to accept that their live foundation, called the standard model of physics (STM), now is breaking down.

    But this reality will steamroll many more people than just Kirk. The good thing: Experiments delivered the poison pill and not “crazy ecstatic” mathematicians, that believed to understand physics.

    LENR is more real than ever. Just a few weeks ago Russ George delivered (in this forum too) a famous gamma spectrum that confirmed new physics going beyond the STM!

    My proposal: Just Ignore any discussion about the existence of LENR. LENR is as real as my tax bill and can't be ignored any longer.

  • JedRothwell

    Quote

    Mizuno has not said he can make a 100 kW reactor. I am sure he cannot,


    Actually, you're right. Mizuno alone did not write that. I I was thinking of this poster or slide presentation (link below) and it was not 100 kW. It was 75W allegedly in hand and photos of reactors with labels of 1kW and 10kW on them with data perhaps to follow in the future.


    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/YoshinoHreplicable.pdf of which Dr. Mizuno is a co-author, and which is titled, "Replicable Model for Controlled Nuclear Reaction

    using Metal Nanoparticles"


    The work used Ni-D2 "activated with plasma discharge" and claimed results are 75W out for half that in for a month. In the next to last slide and the one before that are what appears to be a completed and hooked up reactor they labelled as 1kW and a larger housing which appears uncompleted labelled 10kW. Know when this was done? One of the figures shows data from 2013 so at least it is newer than that.


    I wanted to clarify what I was referring to.


    So what happened to these powerful devices since? Also, I dimly recall some issues brought out about this work and its accuracy but I don't recall who or what. Anyway it was the most interesting LENR paper I've seen to date. Appetizing-looking but hardly nutritious by itself.

  • I am speaking of Beiting. It says 42 days in his paper.


    Ah yes, I see. I mainly remember his report in terms of hours. 1000 hrs. when he measured apparent excess heat. That was the 0.944 average W power that I mentioned in my first post in this thread on B's report. You may recall I also showed that a slight change in calibration constant OR the use of a different calibration model covered that as noise. Which proves the point I often make about 'integrating an error for a long time gives a really big error'.

  • This has nothing to do with error bars. It is a simple estimate based on the maximum heat that...


    It has everything to do with error bars. The procedure used to get these numbers (the claims of greater than chemically possible output) is to measure a power output, integrate that for a period of time to get a total energy, then assume a maximal value for a putative chemical reaction, compute the total energy output from that reaction for the available mass of reactants, note that that value is less than the integrated measurement, and finally claim that the cold fusion experiment produced more energy out than could be obtained chemically. As it stands that procedure would work if and only if the measured signal is in fact not noise. Unfortunately, my reanalysis of Storms' work and my studies on other claims suggest that final condition has not been met, i.e., the integrated signals are likely integrated noise. The root cause of this problem is the failure of CFers to correctly assess their noise levels. Thus the error bars are crucial to you claim.

  • Shanahan, if you spent half as much time on writing papers, as you do on writing petty nonsense on here, you could probably triple your inglorious publication rate.


    Z, if you spent a quarter as much time on contributing to this forum, as you do on writing petty ad homs on here, you could probably actually claim to have done something productive.

  • I understand that people of the old school have difficulties toaccept that their live foundation, called the standard model ofphysics (STM), now is breaking down.

    But this reality will steamroll many more people than just Kirk.


    What are you talking about? The STM has nothing to do with correctly determining the error of one's work, which is the primary focal point of my comments in this forum on the various data sets that have been suggested here to 'prove CF beyond a doubt'. People working to test the STM use the same methods I use in my comments, except they usually work at 5 sigma levels instead of 3 like most average scientists.

  • @Alan


    The issue is that when I was attempting to discuss the possible implications of the calibration methodology used by Beiting, Jed and Zeus had to revert back to their fascination with the Mizuno bucket anecdote, which always involves them insulting and denigrating what I wrote on that (and which they didn't understand) via misquoting, fabrications, and flat out insults. I'm tired of it, and if you followed, I showed where they used their tactics while they couldn't do the same to support their falsifications.


    I thought the Beiting issue was quite simple. He miscalculated his error limits on his calibration. A better estimate leads to the conclusion that his apparent excess heat signal is potentially just noise.

  • Isn't this an example of trolling?

    Quote

    Shanahan, if you spent half as much time on writing papers, as you do on writing petty nonsense on here, you could probably triple your inglorious publication rate.


    While this is an example of facts supported by evidence and calculations:

    Quote
    • ...the Beiting issue was quite simple. He miscalculated his error limits on his calibration. A better estimate leads to the conclusion that his apparent excess heat signal is potentially just noise.


    One can disagree with the facts and evidence by citing different facts and evidence without suggesting that the one posting the facts should be ridiculed because of a presumed lack of arbitrarily "sufficient" academic publications.

  • Quote

    ^ Who are you, Abd Lomax? And TBH, I believe your first quote is supported by some evidence too.

    But the prize for first mention of "Mizuno's Bucket" in this thread goes too:

    (drum roll......)

    https://www.lenr-forum.com/sea…pageNo=1&highlight=mizuno

    And second place too! Fancy that.


    Zeus46 's link:

    Quote

    Sorry, but the page you are looking for has not been found. Try checking the URL for errors, then hit the refresh button on your browser.


    Fine job, Zeus

  • Did that. [3rd EDIT - actually I selected the SEARCH menu option, which doesn't default to this thread only.)

    First mention of Mizuno was by by AlainCo on Feb. 23rd 2014 according to the search function (48 pages long BTW).


    *My* first use of 'Mizuno' was on Aug. 3, 2017, [2nd EDIT - sorry - 'Mizuno bucket anecdote' I mentioned Mizuno a couple of times prior to that]

    Rossi vs. Darden aftermath discussions where I commented that a prior post comment by Jed about Arata was an anecdote like the Mizuno thing and the Rossi thing(s). Of course that was predicated on JR's and my discussions from spf in the 2001-2003 timeframe or so. I believe I posted some of that at one point for those interested.


    Jed mentioned Mizuno in many contexts prior to Aug. 2017 too.


    Just to be clear, an anecdote is:

    1.) "a short and amusing or interesting story about a real incident or person." 2.) "an account regarded as unreliable or hearsay." (emphasis added)

    and the last line from my Aug. 3, 217 post was:


    "Morale of the story: Anecdotes aren't science." (Looks like I should have dropped the 'e'. {GASP} I made a mistake! Well, it was just a typo right?}


    However, today's moral is "Just mentioning something is not necessarily trolling."


    {EDIT}

    Internet troll - Wikipedia

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll


    In Internet slang, a troll (/troʊl, trɒl/) is a person who starts quarrels or upsets people on the Internet to distract and sow discord by posting inflammatory and digressive, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an onlinecommunity (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers ...

  • In this thread, yes, I did bring it up first. In the post where I started off with:


    Some food for thought for those who refuse to understand the concept of defining the error in computed values and then studying its impact...



    and ended with:

    That is my standard approach, which I used in my 2002 paper that suggests a systematic error in CF calorimetry, and in the analysis here of Beiting's report (and in the Mizuno bucket anecdote, and the Mizuno air flow calorimeter data JR uploaded, and the McKubre M4 run, and so on). Accurately determining error levels is the only way to avoid working in the noise.


    That mention does not meet the definition of trolling.

  • Now the second mention is also in a post of mine, where I was responding to Jed's bringing up the details of the MBA without actually naming it:


    Another attempt to resurrect your false Mizuno bucket anecdote conclusions. This has nothing to do with this thread explicitly and needn't have been brought up. It just indicates your lack of cogent comments.


    But, the techniques I have applied here to Breiting's report are the same tactics I applied to the Mizuno bucket anecdote.


    Which if you read the first sentence in the quote was a protest a Jed fouling this thread with the MBA again (i.e. as he has done in several other threads).


    P.S. It's easier to search the thread by going page by page with the <Control>F search function IMO, esp. when looking for the 'first' and 'second'.

  • But does complaining about others' fascination with a topic, meet the definition of hypocrisy, if you chose to introduce it yourself?


    A.) What you have been doing is not what you say here.


    B.) In the two quotes I showed above, I was making the points that 1.) my methods are standard and I use them routinely, and b.) JR always brings the MBA up because he wants to discredit me with his false accusations as to what I have written.


    Neither of those things is me 'complaining about others' fascination with a topic'. Unless you are specifically referring to JR's fascination with trying to discredit me, which is a little bit of a stretch to connect to your comment.

  • "because he wants to discredit me with his false accusations"


    But is there really much of a distinction between something you say directly, and something you 'are saying' when your arguments are taken to their logical conclusions?

    And it's very disingenuous to say that Jed or I misrepresent your Mizuno argument, which is basically "there is some unknown natural cause(s) behind the evaporation".


    What interests me about that is the then-necessary attempts to stretch nature beyond what's natural, and the logical, numerical and imaginative contortions required to maintain the position taken.


    1.) my methods are standard and I use them routinely, and b.) JR always brings the MBA up because he wants to discredit me with his false accusations as to what I have written.


    1.) Your standard methods are deserving of closer attention IMO and b.) But you brought it up?

  • Quote

    And it's very disingenuous to say that Jed or I misrepresent your Mizuno argument, which is basically "there is some unknown natural cause(s) behind the evaporation"


    I can't speak for Shanahan but my view of this whole issue is that the report is a poorly documented anecdote to which the best response is "Gee, that could be interesting although it most likely reflects some type of error. In any case, it's obvious it needs repeating under observations with instruments and perhaps video so please either repeat it and document it or stop crowing on and on about it."


    Otherwise, you can go on and on about what type of error it might have been or why you think there was no error and nobody is going to get swayed very much.


    ETA: I don't see what the bucket anecdote and Shanahan's response to it has to do (in the least) with the argument over Beiting's results.

  • And it's very disingenuous to say that Jed or I misrepresent your Mizuno argument, which is basically "there is some unknown natural cause(s) behind the evaporation".


    You see, there you go again. That is NOT my argument. That's is YOUR CONSTRUCT of my argument which is known as using a 'strawman'. I have stated my whole argument many times and you absolutely refuse to understand it. Since I believe you are at least a semi-intelligent person, I conclude that your repeated taunts are trolling.



    What interests me about that is the then necessary attempts to stretch nature beyond what's natural, and the logical, numerical and imaginative contortions required to maintain the position taken.


    I did no such thing. I investigated the system parametrically, concluded essential information was absent, and then quit worrying about it, since it was a one-off anecdotal incident. THAT is what JR can't tolerate, and that's why he continually brings it up, and then you jump in to troll.



    1.) Your standard methods are deserving of closer attention IMO and b.) But you brought it up?


    Per 1.) If you believe that, you need to study up some more. Per 2.) I brought it up to demonstrate I used repeatable methods of analyzing data, which is another point JR refuses to acknowledge, because if he did, he would have to admit his heroes don't.


    No, but this bit is:


    where you correctly quote me as saying: "The issue is that when I was attempting to discuss the possible implications of the calibration methodology used by Beiting, Jed and Zeus had to revert back to their fascination with the Mizuno bucket anecdote,"


    Yes, you are right. I was complaining about your continually bringing up the MBA as if I had done something wrong that proved everything else I would ever say is also wrong. You are wrong on both points, and the second is a troll tactic.


    I can't speak for Shanahan but my view of this whole issue is that the report is a poorly documented anecdote to which the best response is "Gee, that could be interesting although it most likely reflects some type of error. In any case, it's obvious it needs repeating under observations with instruments and perhaps video so please either repeat it and document it or stop crowing on and on about it."


    Otherwise, you can go on and on about what type of error it might have been or why you think there was no error and nobody is going to get swayed very much.


    ETA: I don't see what the bucket anecdote and Shanahan's response to it has to do (in the least) with the argument over Beiting's results.


    Right on, SOT. Especially the last line. The MBA had nothing (nothing!) to do with the Beiting report (except a common approach). It was brought up to misdirect and misinform for the sole purpose of creating doubt about what I was saying about the B report. Since that is not a technical criticism of my B report comments, it is another troll tactic.

  • Most likely explanation being the error bar on mizuno's water volume is '+/- 35L'?


    SOT's comment is SOP for an anomalous result like in the MBA. The vast majority of the time, anomalous results are because an error had been committed. A tiny, tiny fraction of the time, the anomalous result means that physics texts have to be rewritten and the world has been saved. With no replication, the smart money goes with the best odds, i.e. 'error'. Trying to figure out what that 'error' might be is sometimes amusing, for awhile. The MBA is way past that point.

  • Zeus: "your Mizuno argument, which is basically "there is some unknown natural cause(s) behind the evaporation".


    You see, there you go again. That is NOT my argument. That's is YOUR CONSTRUCT of my argument which is known as using a 'strawman'.


    Except that last month...


    Zeus: "You are wrong to suggest the observed evaporation could be due to known natural causes".


    Missed this earlier. Classic strawman, a la the group of 10 authors. I claim it could be due to UNknown natural causes. My whole point in this discussion is that we don't have enough info to assign causes.


    Lots of strawmen, apparently - but very little consistency in your arguments. Are you just making them up as you go along? A classic example of one of your many 'logical contortions' in fact.


    And it's also pretty funny when you claim that I don't understand these 'arguments' of yours - Looks like there's plenty of psychological projection in such a statement.

    And can I really be blamed for any misunderstandings, if they are changed on a whim?