Uploaded Beiting report from The Aerospace Corporation

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.

^ 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.

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

It's probably your anonymous proxy.

Quote from Zeus46

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.

Your link doesn't work.

Not sure why. But if you type "Mizuno" into the search box on this page, you'll end up in the same place.

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 ...

Quote from Zeus46

Not sure why. But if you type "Mizuno" into the search box on this page, you'll end up in the same place.

Which I think defaults to "this thread" in the options.

Quote

Your link doesn't work.

I'll venture a guess that that won't much matter.

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

Quote from kirkshanahan

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:

Quote from kirkshanahan

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:

Quote from kirkshanahan

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'.

"That mention does not meet the definition of trolling."

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

Quote from Zeus46

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.

Quote from kirkshanahan

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 from kirkshanahan

Neither of those things is me 'complaining about others' fascination with a topic'.

No, but this bit is:

Quote from kirkshanahan

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,

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.

Quote from seven_of_twenty

it most likely reflects some type of error.

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

Quote from Zeus46

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.

Quote from Zeus46

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.

Quote from Zeus46

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.

Quote from Zeus46

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.

Quote from seven_of_twenty

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.

Quote from Zeus46

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.

Quote from kirkshanahan

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...

Quote from kirkshanahan

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?