Uploaded Beiting report from The Aerospace Corporation

  • [Rothwell] Shanahan says that sense of touch . . .


    What Jed thinks I say is totally in his imagination.


    I just quoted you above. Would you care to explain this, or are you going to pretend you did not say it?


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


    [Shanahan:] 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.


    Again I ask, but you will not answer: 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?



    To all--- This is one of Jed's perennial lies. He can't document that if he tried.


    I just did. I can do more if you like. You are a glutton for punishment.


    I am kidding. You are not a masochist. What you are doing is called "gaslighting." Described here:


    https://www.psychologytoday.co…warning-signs-gaslighting

  • Shane D.

    Quote

    Like the English language, there are exceptions to the rule. :) Strictly my opinion; both Jed and Kirk have done their time in LENR...albeit in polar opposite roles. so who am I to tell them what they can, and cannot do?

    I was referring to and the insulting quotes were from Zeus46 , not Shanahan or Rothwell.

    So, OK, I get it. Overtly and gratuitously insulting Shanahan is OK but telling the truth about a certain reporter of LENR is not. But telling the truth about Rossi is OK. But only since the court case and depositions made his crookery clear to the entire world. Got it now.

  • Where exactly did he write that?

    Thanks for asking. Seriously, you spurred me to look for some of the quotes. It is a pain in the butt navigating this website, but I found some of 'em.


    I should have documented Shanahan's statements in my intro. to the Fleischmann-Miles correspondence. If I update it, I will add links to this website, and actual quotes.


    As you see, Shanahan does not actually come right out and say "it remained hot for 3 days." He says:


    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.


    But it wasn't "given that." In the chronology Mizuno said this event occurred 3 days after disconnecting it from electrolysis. I and other pointed this out to Shanahan. He refuses to address that fact. He does this again, and again, and again. He dances around, he ducks, he evades, he waxes indignant with high dudgeon, he sorta, kinda says what he says in a way that could not mean anything else, and then at the last minute he pulls away. Then, when anyone points out that is the chronology, and what he said can only mean that a hot object stays hot for 3 days, he accuses that person of lying. This is classic "gaslighting" behavior.


    Either he thinks it stays hot for three days, or he thinks is a valid argument to arbitrarily replace "3 days" with "immediately after disconnecting" and no one should quibble with that substitution. Either argument is nuts, in my opinion. What do you think? Is "immediate" the same as "3 days"? Or do you think it stayed hot? Do you buy either interpretation? Tell us what you think.


    I told him that if he really thinks it was "immediately" and not 3 days later, he is saying Mizuno lied. He responded with fake high dudgeon, saying "I don't accuse professional scientists of lying" when that is exactly what he just did. More gaslighting!

  • I just did.

    No, you didn't. You did not quote any place that I said that supported this statement of yours:


    Let me remind you again that Shanahan is on record repeatedly claiming that an object heated on Monday and left in a room at 20 deg C will still be hot on Wednesday.


    ------

    BTW, the original JR quote is:

    Shanahan says that sense of touch cannot distinguish between an object at 100 deg C and room temperature.


    -------


    Again I ask, but you will not answer: 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?


    Yes, that's sort of the point of me making that comment. Preconceptions can be very powerful. And by the way, I never referred to when the cell was wrapped in towels, we are talking about when it was in a bucket of water. The 'towel' thing is another of your misconceptions, derived from your warped understanding of what I wrote. I never said anything about the anecdote before the cell got dumped in water. I did say you said (with quotes) that the cell remained at >100C for days. I pointed out the flaws with that. I did say that if that was true, it was anomalous. But most importantly what I said is: Anecdotes aren't science.


    For the record, *you* are the one claiming I was talking about being fooled by a 100C object. I made no such assumption. I actually assumed it was a 'hot object' (remember that?) for *part* of my analysis and that when they were 'touching' it (in the bucket), they were in fact touching a warm object immersed in water with an attached, malfunctioning TC that said the object was much hotter than it was. But you, in your preferred MO, misconstrued that in the worst way anyone could, and then said that was what I said. All that proves it that you learned the 'strawman argument' technique from your heroes quite well. See:

    And again Jed, you have failed to understand the objection I am making. The above quote deals exclusively with the situation while the cell was in its original location and the immediate move. I have already agreed it was likely hot, since they heated it there!

    (and what immediately follows this quote)

  • Yes, that's sort of the point of me making that comment. Preconceptions can be very powerful. And by the way, I never referred to when the cell was wrapped in towels, we are talking about when it was in a bucket of water. The 'towel' thing is another of your misconceptions,

    Regarding the towels, Mizuno and Akimoto held their hands over the cell, and felt the cell wrapped in towels (as with a potholder), prior to moving it from the underground lab. That is what Mizuno wrote. That is the "two people" I refer to here. Perhaps you have not read the account, so you did not know that.


    After the cell was placed in the bucket, only Mizuno checked it, not Akimoto. He checked it every day by sense of touch and by reading the thermocouple.


    I do not think preconceptions could fool the sense of touch in two professional chemists. Apparently you think it can. We will have to agree to disagree about that. I also do not think that preconceptions or a broken thermocouple can evaporate a bucket of water overnight in room temperature conditions, but you apparently think that can happen. I would say the combination of sense of touch, the thermocouple reading, and the evaporated water together are irrefutable proof of heat, but you do not think so.


    For the record, *you* are the one claiming I was talking about being fooled by a 100C object. I made no such assumption. I actually assumed it was a 'hot object' (remember that?) for *part* of my analysis and that when they were 'touching' it (in the bucket), they were in fact touching a warm object immersed in water with an attached, malfunctioning TC that said the object was much hotter than it was.

    As I said, "they" (Mizuno and Akimoto) did not touch it in the bucket. That is a minor misunderstanding. Only Mizuno touched it in the bucket.


    They touched it, and then Mizuno placed it in the bucket, 3 days after electrolysis stopped and it was disconnected. It would be stone cold long before that. It could not be a warm object for any reason. There is no chemical fuel in the cell except for the emerging hydrogen, and the power from that is so low it could not be detected, or felt. The total energy from it is about as much as 3 kitchen matches.


    Right here, again, you are claiming that an object heated with electrolysis will remain hot (or warm) from April 22 to May 7, even though there is no source of heat in it. That is absolutely, positively, 100% certainly IMPOSSIBLE.


    But most importantly what I said is: Anecdotes aren't science.

    Tell that to an astronomer. But in any case, you are ignoring the fact that heat after death was demonstrated hundreds of times, reliably, by Fleischmann and Pons, often at power levels as high as Mizuno observed. No, you are not ignoring this. Wrong word. I and others have pointed this out to you time after time, but you pretend it did not happen.

  • He responded with fake high dudgeon, saying "I don't accuse professional scientists of lying" when that is exactly what he just did. More gaslighting!

    ('He' in the above quote is me.)


    I searched for 'professional scientists' in my posts in the forum, and found 4 refs, none of which is your quote above in any form. I then searched for 'lying' in my posts and found 9 or 10 references, none of which were the quote above. 3 or 4 were me claiming people (like JR) were accusing me of lying. Most were quotes of Jed saying that I said someone was lying. There was 1 case where Oystia used the word in a quote I made.


    Jed is lying above...looks like he has a common problem called 'projection'...


    https://www.everydayhealth.com…8%3D&i10c.ua=1&i10c.dv=14


    "Psychological projection is a defense mechanism people subconsciously employ in order to cope with difficult feelings or emotions. Psychological projection involves projecting undesirable feelings or emotions onto someone else, rather than admitting to or dealing with the unwanted feelings. Have you ever disliked someone only to become convinced that the person had a vendetta against you? This is a common example of psychological projection. Luckily, there are methods you can use to identify why you are projecting your emotions and put a stop to this coping mechanism."


    You might want to reads the rest of that article Jed.

  • Just curious, JedRothwell if you believe that your arguments with Shanahan and anecdotes about water staying hot for days add substantial value to the probability that Mizuno can make 1, 10 and 100kW (or thereabouts) reactors based on LENR, as he has claimed.

  • you spurred me to look for some of the quotes. ... but I found some of 'em


    Really? Let's see them.


    Shanahan does not actually come right out and say "it remained hot for 3 days."


    No, because you're the one who said that in writing in your introduction to the book that you also posted to this forum. I on the other hand, presumed that the TC read 100C or greater for 3 days, but did not automatically believe it was correct. Especially since my whole purpose was to explore non-LENR options, which is anathema to you and therefore you never read and understand any of it.


    and other pointed this out to Shanahan. He refuses to address that fact. He does this again, and again, and again. He dances around, he ducks, he evades, he waxes indignant with high dudgeon, he sorta, kinda says what he says in a way that could not mean anything else, and then at the last minute he pulls away


    No, I kept having to address the fact that you misconstrue and misquote everything I write. It's not surprising people would get confused the number of times you do that coupled with all the variations (like the quotes you've just made that I've shown to be made up).


    As I said in the last post above, I was *never* talking about the towel-wrapped phase. *You* always injected this in the middle of what I was talking about, and then tried to say I said it. Projection.


    Either he thinks it stays hot for three days, or he thinks is a valid argument to arbitrarily replace "3 days" with "immediately after disconnecting" and no one should quibble with that substitution.


    You're ESP is a little off Jed.


    Either argument is nuts, in my opinion.


    Which is exactly why you keep making them up. You want to convince people I said them when I didn't, so you don't have to deal with the real issues.

  • I do not think preconceptions could fool the sense of touch in two professional chemists. Apparently you think it can. We will have to agree to disagree about that. I also do not think that preconceptions or a broken thermocouple can evaporate a bucket of water overnight in room temperature conditions, but you apparently think that can happen. I would say the combination of sense of touch, the thermocouple reading, and the evaporated water together are irrefutable proof of heat, but you do not think so.


    I believe that when 10 of the top scientists from this little sub-field can convince themselves that I said the CCS/ATER thing was random after I said 4 times in 4 published papers that it was systematic, they and their co-believers can convince themselves of anything that supports their preconceptions.

  • I believe that when 10 of the top scientists from this little sub-field can convince themselves that I said the CCS/ATER thing was random after I said 4 times in 4 published papers that it was systematic, they and their co-believers can convince themselves of anything that supports their preconceptions.

    That is not even remotely similar to saying that two chemists might think an object is too hot to touch when it is actually stone cold. The physical sense of touch is nothing like an academic dispute. It is much harder to fool.


    As I said, it would have to be stone cold three days after electrolysis stopped. You seem to think it might be a little warm. That is just as impossible as 100 deg C hot. (Unless cold fusion exists.)

  • That is not even remotely similar to saying that two chemists might think an object is too hot to touch when it is actually stone cold. The physical sense of touch is nothing like an academic dispute. It is much harder to fool.


    ...says the Head Acolyte for the Church of Cold Fusion...

  • No, because you're the one who said that in writing in your introduction to the book that you also posted to this forum. I on the other hand, presumed that the TC read 100C or greater for 3 days, but did not automatically believe it was correct.

    You are right. That is what the book claims. The TC read 100C or greater for 3 days after disconnection. I uploaded the pen recorder trace showing that.


    Yes, you do not believe it is correct. We get that. The TC was working before the experiment, it was working during electrolysis, and it is still working now, but you think it failed for a time just after electrolysis. However, it was backed up by sense of touch, and by evaporating 17.5 liters of water. You have invented separate reasons to doubt these two facts. You have come up with highly improbable explanations to explain them. I think it is far more likely that all three indicate real heat. We will have to agree to disagree.


    Let me again advise you, however, that you must not admit the cell was even a little warm. Even if it were a little warm, that means cold fusion is real, because there was virtually no chemical fuel in it. You have to stick with the assertion that it was stone cold the whole time, or else you have to reinvent Newton's law of cooling and the laws of thermodynamics.

  • Let me again advise you, however, that you must not admit the cell was even a little warm.


    What do you not understand about the fact that I said *IF* what you wrote is true, we have an anomaly. The problem is that ONE EXPERIMENT NEVER PROVES ANYTHING. We don't know why the TC read >100C for 3 days, but us conservative-types tend to opt for equipment malfunction. You fanatic believers opt for the opposite.

  • Just curious, JedRothwellif you believe that your arguments with Shanahan and anecdotes about water staying hot for days add substantial value to the probability that Mizuno can make 1, 10 and 100kW (or thereabouts) reactors based on LENR, as he has claimed.

    I do not see a connection between the two. Perhaps I misunderstand. Heat after death is not an "anecdote." It is a physical effect demonstrated hundreds of times on demand by Fleischmann and Pons, and by others with less control. If Mizuno were the only person who had observed it, I would not believe it. Or disbelieve it. I would reserve judgement


    Mizuno has not said he can make a 100 kW reactor. I am sure he cannot, and he has not. I spent a month in his lab and I have seen all of the reactors there, and whole lotta data. I think the highest power he has achieved was ~480 W. Pretty sure. Lately, it has not exceeded 40 W, but it takes only a few days to produce the effect. Previously it took months or years. See:


    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTexcessheat.pdf

  • It is a physical effect demonstrated hundreds of times on demand by Fleischmann and Pons, and by others with less control.


    More pronouncements from the Head Acolyte.


    No, no such luck. F&P's first supposed evidence of HAD was in their 1993 paper, and I specifically discuss this in my whitepaper. They base it entirely on the appearance of foaming in a video, a technique that was never reported on again to my knowledge. I showed that their 'control' cell gave an identical thermal profile (except for when the dips occurred due to D2O addition) to the one claimed to show a HAD. So I asked a simple question: Why wasn't the control cell reported as showing a HAD?


    Most of the other 'HAD's were short time frame events after boiling to the point where electrical contact was broken. At that point electrolysis stops, therefore heating stops, therefore boiling falls off, therefore gas flow stops, and the cell operating steady state is radically different, which indicates recalibration is necessary. If someone thinks differently, please cite the paper and I'll take a look at it.

  • What do you not understand about the fact that I said *IF* what you wrote is true, we have an anomaly.

    I didn't write it. Mizuno did. Hundreds of other scientists wrote similar accounts. You don't believe a single one of them. If even one is true, cold fusion is real. That, you cannot admit.


    The problem is that ONE EXPERIMENT NEVER PROVES ANYTHING.

    Yes. Fortunately, this experiment was repeated thousands of times in 180 labs. The heat after death technique was repeated on demand by Fleischmann and Pons hundreds of times, 16 cells at a time, for years. The power levels were often as high as Mizuno observed. This was published in the peer reviewed literature, and others confirmed it. So it is not "one experiment" and it is not "anecdotal." But, you don't believe it.


    We don't know why the TC read >100C for 3 days, but us conservative-types tend to opt for equipment malfunction.

    It is not conservative to say the TC may have failed, and the sense of touch of two people failed, and 17.5 L of water evaporated in circumstances where that would be impossible without a large source of heat. That is not a bit conservative. That is a wild denial of rock solid evidence. One improbable story about at TC that worked before, during electrolysis and that still works today would be bad enough. You have invented three impossible stories! If you think that waving your hands and inventing impossible "just so" stories to dismiss three linked facts is "conservative" you have strange notions about how science should be done.


    The only way the account could be wrong would be if Mizuno and Akimoto are lying.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.