so that statistical methods are not necessary for evaluation and errors of the type Shanahan is calculating simply don't matter?
The methods and errors that Shanahan is calculating are impossible. They do not show up in calibrations. In other words, there is no test he can propose to show them, or to falsify his claims. If the problems existed he could propose a method of calibration that would reveal them. It is not possible that the choice of metals would change the arithmetic.
Well, if it is 'just' an observation with no numerical quality to it at all, then you can't claim it establishes any type of priority to the organization vs. others.
Yes, you can, using real-world observations and common sense. This is the world's leading aerospace engineering organization. Aerospace engineering is the most difficult, advanced and demanding engineering there is, and it is extraordinarily successful. We know that because airplanes seldom crash. A team of experts there who worked for years on this experiment. It was reviewed and approved by the management. It seems unlikely that such people overlooked a problem that Shanahan found in an hour or so.
Shanahan's hypothesis is even more unlikely because it is a magic problem that cannot be detected by calibration or any other test, and thus cannot be falsified. It only happens when there is a particular choice of metal, which cannot affect the calorimetry. There can be no physical explanation for such a thing. It resembles his claims that people cannot feel an object is hot by sense of touch, or a 1-liter object will remain hot for three days with no input power, or that a bucket of water left in a room will magically evaporate overnight. In other words, once again he makes claims that anyone should instantly recognize are preposterous. I doubt he believes these claims. I suppose he is trolling us, or hoping to fool people such as seven_of_twenty who apparently cannot tell that Shanahan is spouting impossible nonsense.
It is disappointing to read all this quibbling and fussing over claims for small amounts of excess power. If LENR reactions make energy, why hasn't someone, in 30 years since P&F, found a way to make say, ten times the current amounts,
My stock answer is that if you had any idea how difficult it is, you would be amazed that they can do it at all.
But then it turns out from the papers that it was for a short time, with questionable methods of measurements, or only one time and not currently reproducible.
Either you did not read the paper, you are deliberately misrepresenting it, or you have a strange notion of what is a short time. Every statement you made here is false, and contradicted by the paper. I will not bother to point out where because you will probably repeat the same nonsense even if I do. Depending on whether you are ignorant or lying I suggest you should:
1. Read the paper before commenting on it. You make yourself look foolish saying that 42 days is a short time. What would be a long time?
2. Stop trying to fool people. Anyone can read the paper and see that it does not say what you claim.
OK then. All of mainline science is fooled. LENR is a raving success.
I'm not trying to fool people. I couldn't begin to compete with the likes of Rossi.
BTW, I was not referring to any particular paper. I was writing about your usual response to the "low power" or low Pout/Pin or "short time" critiques.
OK then. All of mainline science is fooled. LENR is a raving success.
It is a success, when you judge it based on mainstream, peer-reviewed journals of physics and chemistry. It is not a success if you get your information from Wikipedia or people who say it is impossible to tell an object is hot by sense of touch. I suggest you stick to conventional, legitimate sources of information.
BTW, I was not referring to any particular paper. I was writing about your usual response to the "low power" or low Pout/Pin or "short time" critiques.
You are not referring to any paper at all. Your description is nonsense. But, in any case, this thread is a discussion of the Beiting paper. Shanahan's "statistical methods . . . for evaluation and errors" apply the Beiting papers. So obviously, you were referring to that paper. It seems you have not read it, so you don't know what you are talking about.
You should not assume that Shanahan's "evaluation and errors" are real, and he actually did find something that experts failed to see over several years. Oh, and that magically does not show up in calibrations. When you believe such things, you are as naive and misguided as a Rossi supporter.
It seems unlikely that such people overlooked a problem that Shanahan found in an hour or so.
That is the nature of systematic errors. Or lack of training.
That is the nature of systematic errors.
Invisible systematic errors that cannot be detected with a calibration, or by any other physical test. Unfalsifiable errors. Metaphysical errors that you alone, in all the world, believe. Perhaps you are delusional. Surely you are an egomaniac who thinks he knows better than a team of experts who spent years on this experiment.
Either that or you are trolling us.
Either that or you are trolling us.
Or you are incapable of understanding the issues, an interpretation your comments seem to favor.
Why would I try to explain your proposition?
Because it is actually less ridiculous than your own proposition?
Beiting, yes, he has. He failed to compute the error of his calibration curve properly
Well really, he failed to compute your whimsical ideas about the possible error inherent in his calibration curve.
You must be crazy to think that some strange and unexplained (and apparently also inexplicable by yourself) failure/CCSH causes a temporary shift of that size.
Or you are incapable of understanding the issues, an interpretation your comments seem to favor.
This is not about me. You are saying the experts at The Aerospace Corporation are incapable of understanding the issues. You are also saying that even though their calibrations do not show these errors, the errors exist. You should tell us how the researchers might reveal the errors and confirm your hypothesis, if not by calibration. What other tests should they do?
Well really, he failed to compute your whimsical ideas about the possible error inherent in his calibration curve.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propagation_of_uncertainty
Not 'my' whimsical idea, mainline science's.
So, the old broken-then-unbroken thermocouple (x3), was it? Rat chewed a wire? Or perhaps the power meter went temporarily insane? Maybe some of the insulation just fell off?
We're talking about heating up a small cylinder! It's not some kind of fantastical process with 8% deviations.
And nowhere in the Propagation Of Uncertainty Handbook, does it suggest simply translating a calibration curve up the page... Pure clownery.
Not 'my' whimsical idea, mainline science's.
There is no science more mainline than what they do at The Aerospace Corporation. It is among the most mainstream, conventional, reliable and best financed research on earth. It has to be, or airplane engines would explode, and airplanes would fall out of the sky. Airplanes are the safest form of transportation, even though they work under the most extreme environmental conditions, the highest engine temperatures, and the fastest speeds. The corporation has 3,900 employees including 750 PhDs, and revenues of $930 million.
http://aerospace.wpengine.netd…eAerospaceCorp-AR2017.pdf
They spent years on this project, and as you see in the paper, it was extensively reviewed by the staff before publication. Yet you claim they made a mistake that you discovered in an hour. Are you quite certain of that? Has it crossed your mind that you might be wrong, especially since you cannot propose a test that would reveal this error of yours? And all of the calibration tests show nothing.
No only is The Aerospace Corporation mainline (mainstream) but so are nearly all of the labs that confirmed cold fusion. The tritium detection at BARC and Los Alamos is the best in the world, and they confirmed that cold fusion produces tritium. The three helium detection labs that confirmed Miles in blind tests are the best in the world. The researchers who confirmed cold fusion were almost all distinguished experts. They would never have been funded otherwise. So, you have it exactly backwards. Cold fusion was confirmed by the creme de la creme of scientists at the best labs on earth, because only those scientists had the necessary clout to overcome academic politics. There is nothing more mainstream than cold fusion.
especially since you cannot propose a test that would reveal this error of yours?
A trait shared with conspiracy theories.
The R^2 values are not adequate to distinguish which model is best. The t values of the coefficients are needed (or the significance levels) so the full analytical results are needed.
What extra information would the t-values give you, if both the data set and measured variable are the same?
...Or were you just bluffing?
QuoteYou are not referring to any paper at all. Your description is nonsense. But, in any case, this thread is a discussion of the Beiting paper. Shanahan's "statistical methods . . . for evaluation and errors" apply the Beiting papers. So obviously, you were referring to that paper. It seems you have not read it, so you don't know what you are talking about.
Actually I did and you even commented on my remarks about the issue of calibrating with one gas and running with a different one. But hey, it's OK. Only LENR groupies are in the know.
Yes indeed, but spotted leopards and that.
Although I'm highly interested in hearing anyone's theories about how using a more thermally conductive control gas could swing the calibration the 'wrong' way. Should be good for a laugh.
Effect, if any, is small, but ...
A bona-fide rocket scientist...
And I recollect someone claiming that industrial scientists tend to have rubbish publication records. 
Beiting Space Shuttle fuel preburner main engine modeling with error analysis - it seems engine has worked, after all ...
A triptych on the theme of hypocrisy:
I suggest you explain why this 8% shift only occurs in cells with the material produced at Ames in specified conditions, and not during calibrations or with control cells.
The trap is thinking that Jed knows any science... He is incapable of defending his views in any technical fashion.
Psychological projection is a theory in which humans defend themselves against their own unconscious impulses or qualities... by denying their existence in themselves while attributing them to others.
