Uploaded Beiting report from The Aerospace Corporation

Quote from kirkshanahan

Zeus46 wrote:

And I recollect someone claiming that industrial scientists tend to have rubbish publication records.

Who said that?

An industrial scientist. Presumably one with a limited publication history.

Quote from Zeus46

An industrial scientist. Presumably one with a limited publication history.

Well that guy has a low opinion of himself. Just because you work in industry doesn't mean your pubs are 'rubbish'...

Quote from Zeus46

What extra information would the t-values give you, if both the data set and measured variable are the same?

Quote from kirkshanahan

Back in the Age of Dinosaurs, I used a software package called RS/Series extensively for data analysis. When I did MLR it had canned routines to step you through this process I am describing. It would literally look at the t (or p) values for each term and tell you whether you should drop it out of the model or not. When I figured out how to get some of this info from Excel for the post on that above, I did all 3 models (quadratic, cubic, quartic) and looked at the standard errors of the coefficients (which are used in the t statistic calc and from that the p). Turns out none of them stand out as heads and shoulders better than the other, which means my use of the three models to calculate power from T based on Breiting's data were all relevant, and the spread in P found that way a possible estimate of error in the computed P. Definitely need more data...(which is always the answer when questions remain)

You didn't answer the question... The non-waffling answer is that it wouldn't tell you anything. Although I guess when someone mentions a reliance on 'canned routines', maybe it's unfair to expect a deeper understanding of the issues at hand.

So zeus, you know so much, why don't you help out and tell us how exactly to judge the quality of Beiting's report. Or is that beyond your skill set?

I find that the fastest way to judge the quality of a report is to see how much it angers and/or threatens the ego of those odd pathologically-skeptical types. Using the Beiting report as an example:

1) Do skeptics feel the need to besmirch the author's integrity? For example, by heavily insinuating that they believe the author intentionally fiddled their calibration curve:

Quote from kirkshanahan

I had to ask why he used a cubic equation....

In other words, simple piddling around with the calibration equation covered the signal detected. That means to believe the calibrations, we need a lot more info on how he chose his equations

2) Does the skeptic need to invent alternate laws of thermodynamics, statistical techniques, or invisible fume hoods, in order to help their argument? (Extra credit if they keep using guilty inverted commas to misdescribe it).

Quote from kirkshanahan

'sensitivity analysis'

'sensitivity analysis'

3) Does the skeptic feel it necessary to reinforce their arguments by authoritatively spouting total nonsense, implying a deeper knowledge of a topic than they truly possess, in the hope that no-one will call them out on it?

Quote from kirkshanahan

The R^2 values are not adequate to distinguish which model is best. The t values of the coefficients are needed...

4) Does the skeptic resort to ANGRY CAPS ranting, in the manner of fellow mouth-foamer, Mary Yugo (RIP)?

Quote from kirkshanahan

BUT NONE OF THAT CHANGES BLAH BLAH BLAH

...So 4 out of 4 for Beiting’s work: Must be pretty good then...

Quote from Zeus46

I find that the fastest way to judge the quality of a report is to see how much it angers and/or threatens the ego of those odd pathologically-skeptical types. Using the Beiting report as an example:

So, no technical wherewithal used at all. Seems about right based on your contributions to this forum...

Quote from Zeus46

1) Do skeptics feel the need to besmirch the author's integrity? For example, by heavily insinuating that they believe the author intentionally fiddled their calibration curve:

You quoted 3 points I made with no technical explanation at all (which you apparently are incapable of doing), so let me add a couple of technical comments instead:

1)" B also tries to do the energy per unit mass trick..."

This has been an issue since day 1 of he CF saga. Does one use bulk or surface measures? Is the effect a surface effect or a bulk effect? One significant point from the Storms' work on Pt that I have previously noted is that Pt does not hydride. Therefore its CF signal must be surface derived. That suggests that increasing the surface area will increase the CF. So what do we see the field doing? First, they went to the codep process, which produces a high surface area, dendritic Pd. Next they went 'nano'. So B using energy per unit mass values is misleading. Further there are a lot of issues about choosing the mass to use (which I mentioned before, but that was a technical comment that Z probably didn't understand).

BTW this doesn't 'besmirch the author's integrity' unless you assume the author is incapable of making a mistake. This is called 'peer review'.

2) "I had to ask why he used a cubic equation...."

B doesn't say technically why he chose a cubic. My quick look suggested there isn't much difference in 2nd, 3rd, and 4th order fits. So what's the problem in asking why?

3) "In other words, simple piddling around with the calibration equation covered the signal detected. That means to believe the calibrations, we need a lot more info on how he chose his equations"

See above comment. It is a technical issue so Z probably just doesn't understand...

Quote from Zeus46

2) Does the skeptic need to invent alternate laws of thermodynamics, statistical techniques, or invisible fume hoods, in order to help their argument? (Extra credit if they keep using guilty inverted commas to describe it).

Your quote does not support your contention.

Sensitivity analysis is a standard technique, for ex., see https://www.edupristine.com/bl…bout-sensitivity-analysis, but it is technical.

Quote from Zeus46

3) Does the skeptic feel it necessary to reinforce their arguments by authoritatively spouting total nonsense, implying a deeper knowledge of a topic than they truly possess, in the hope that no-one will call them out on it?

You need to study up on chemometrics. But that is a technical area...

Quote from Zeus46

4) Does the skeptic resort to ANGRY CAPS ranting, in the manner of fellow mouth-foamer, Mary Yugo (RIP)?

Only do that after repeated failures to understand indicate that the failure is a deliberate choice. If you don't like it, tough. Or stop deliberately not understanding...

BTW, your quote:

Quote from Zeus46

Although I guess when someone mentions a reliance on 'canned routines', maybe it's unfair to expect a deeper understanding of the issues at hand.

is hilarious. Do you think I would work better and faster if I just used my fingers and toes? ROFL.

Quote

I find that the fastest way to judge the quality of a report is to see how much it angers and/or threatens the ego of those odd pathologically-skeptical types.

Do you apply the same criterion to work outside of LENR, for example faster-than-light neutrinos? Or free energy motors based on magnets? Or cars that get more than 100 mpg with conventional internal combustion engines supplemented with engine-powered generators of "Brown's Gas?" Or for that matter, to Andrea Rossi's various incarnations of ecats? So you're saying those folks put out quality reports because those reports anger skeptics? Interesting argument.

Quote from kirkshanahan

So, no technical wherewithal used at all. Seems about right based on your contributions to this forum...

Ha, this coming from the person who thinks thermodynamics is an art that involves words and hand-waving? (And see link here for some technical wherewithal, where I explain the implications of the first law of thermodynamics to some joker).

Quote from kirkshanahan

Sensitivity analysis is a standard technique

Yes it is, so why do you claim to be performing a 'sensitivity analysis', when all you are doing is multiplying each polynomial constant (at the same time), with a number you plucked from thin air?

(See page linked above for several more examples of this plucking-a-number-from-thin-air behaviour).

Quote from kirkshanahan

Zeus46:

3) Does the skeptic feel it necessary to reinforce their arguments by authoritatively spouting total nonsense, implying a deeper knowledge of a topic than they truly possess, in the hope that no-one will call them out on it?

You need to study up on chemometrics. But that is a technical area..

What does chemometrics have to do with the price of fish? You wrongly claimed that "The R^2 values are not adequate to distinguish which model is best - The t-values of the coefficients are needed" [ie. nonsense spoken authoritatively]... Then when I asked you "What extra information would the t-values give you, if both the data set and measured variable are the same?" You gave a long answer that frankly didn't make much sense, but can apparently be summarised as 'the computer gives me numbers'.

Quote from kirkshanahan

is hilarious. Do you think I would work better and faster if I just used my fingers and toes? ROFL.

No, but learning a bit of theory rather than glibly pressing buttons might help you to answer the question about R^2 and t-values posed above.

@Z

Ah yes, more hot air, your standard contribution.

It's a simple question Kirk. There's no trick.

Of course, the answer proves the nonsense you spouted earlier about R^2 to be incorrect - But at least by answering it you'll get the chance to redeem yourself somewhat.

And researching a bit of basic stats theory would be a much better way of spending your time, compared to the hour+ you've just spent skulking around 'The Playground', no doubt trying to find an error in something I wrote.  
(Unless you're teaching yourself about the 1st LoT of course... an overdue move that I whole-heartedly encourage).

Quote from Georgie Boy

Do you apply the same criterion to work outside of LENR, for example faster-than-light neutrinos? Or free energy motors based on magnets? Or cars that get more than 100 mpg with conventional internal combustion engines supplemented with engine-powered generators of "Brown's Gas?" Or for that matter, to Andrea Rossi's various incarnations of ecats? So you're saying those folks put out quality reports because those reports anger skeptics?

Yes, I do, and I would... Assuming (of course) these "skeptics" are driven so crazy by whatever report, that they resort to inventing new laws of thermodynamics, unique statistical methods, and imaginary fume hoods in order to keep their knee-jerk counter-arguments alive for any length of time.

While generally I am not a fan of Shanahan in this case I must admit I am. This argument by those who want to be seen as having the prominance to 'annoint' their choosen recipes vs. the proper discussion of how signal must be very dramatically above noise to have any credence, is at the heart of this writhing field. That's the reason for the now decades old sage advice/demand of showing the cold fusion/lenr nuclear fire be accompanied by nuclear smoke/ash. That quintessential smoke is abundant gamma rays orders of magnitude above the noise, and the ash ,4He, similarly orders of magnitude above the noise, in repeatable experiments that produce palpable heat. A measly ~1 watt in any experiment, let alone a 350 C device, is NOT palpable in anyones book. The discussion of whether this miniscule heat signal is buried in the noise is appropo, and the annointed ones and armchair annointers must be questioned with a proper WTF.

Here's a helpful reference.

obfuscation

ɒbfʌsˈkeɪʃ(ə)n/
noun the action of making something obscure, unclear, or unintelligible. "when confronted with sharp questions they resort to obfuscation'

Russ, I imagine you’d have more respect for Beiting’s work if he had never published any papers and relied instead on name-dropping and loose blog talk about supposed gamma rays?

ETA: Come to think of it, its no wonder you’re such a fan of Rossi. Perhaps even some kind of kindred spirit..

Russ - what are you doing? Beiting is a high integrity researcher who is seeking truth and facts around anomalies that have been revealed in his lab results. The technical challenge that has recently surfaced to his work will only lead to better and more determined research (and results in my opinion) on his part. This all started with "measly" milliwatts.

Those on the wrong side of history will soon clearly understand where they stand - into perpetuity.

Quote from Zeus46

I imagine you’d have more respect for Beitings work if he had never published any papers, relying instead on name-dropping and loose blog talk about supposed gamma rays?

Zeus46 : May be you remember the glowstick/mfp experiment. There were abundant gammas, but nobody knew what it was. The main problem is that people measure with low resolution in the wrong range and use standard methods to interpret the lines. Today we know that the lines are modulated by magnetic moments.

I’m not sure ‘abundant’ is the best way of describing MFMP’s gammas, unfortunately.

Quote from Zeus46

I’m not sure ‘abundant’ is the best way of describing MFMP’s gammas, unfortunately.

How many different mfp spectra did you analyze? I viewed several hundred!

I’ve seen one 'The Signal' trace, and many (25?) more that appeared to show nothing but background.

Quote from JedRothwell

You have not pointed out any error yet. You have only said you detected one with mathematics, but you have not told us what this error might be in terms of the physical arrangement of the experiment, or how it might be detected. Until you do this, your statement is not science. It cannot be tested.

Most of your previous assertions can easily be tested. So I suggest you translate the numbers into a statement about the physical equipment and instruments. Something along the lines of, "the numbers suggest an instability in the temperature measurement" (or whatever it is you have in mind).

Jed, your argument with Kirk here is incorrect.

Kirk is claiming (correctly, AFAIK) that the reported results are 10X more sensitive to calibration error than you might think - pretty obvious given the experimental conditions where the signal is much smaller than the input power.

That means that a 1% error in the calibration, or between calibration and active runs (due to different conditions) could give the result. That is the range where no-one can be sure there is not some error without additional careful checks. Given the small number of cal points it is a severe issue, which could be understood more by comparing multiple calibrations under different conditions etc.

You are asking Kirk for possible causes for such a 1% error - this is silly. You can always speculate but the nature of such errors is that you don't know till you look for and close them. CF work is littered with such (good) practice where initial encouraging results are correctly clarified as one or other of a wide variety of errors. It also contains claims made where this careful checking has not been done, as here. They should be treated with extreme skepticism.

The constructive reply to Kirk's (helpful) critique is to put more effort into showing that the calibration constants remain identical to say 0.1% over a range of experimental conditions that encompass the calibration and the active runs. Also, do enough calibration runs so that errors in calibration are experimentally understood and minimised. Those are actually two distinct issues, both of which need to be nailed before these results can be viewed as other than likely but not proven experimental error.

You invoke expertise. But experts do not necessarily critique such results from the standpoint of someone trying to find possible experimental errors, especially when they depend on positive results to get funding for future tightening up of the experiment. That is just human nature.

You have a binary distinction of wrong or right on these things. In reality there are gradations: checked, carefully checked, very carefully checked. And some analysis as Kirk has done to indicate (no more) possible issues in the level of checking. Kirk's analysis by the way cannot prove experimental errors, it can merely point out that they might exist.