Since the primary source of signal in this thread is clearly the flame war, perhaps someone can perform the calorimetric analysis of same and tell us what the COP is, for that matter what does the 'P' in COp stand for here.
Uploaded Beiting report from The Aerospace Corporation
-
-
Prostate.
-
-
Quote
Those on the wrong side of history will soon clearly understand where they stand - into perpetuity.
Sure, Dewey. But the history isn't written yet. You and IH may be the ones on the wrong side. Your game score so far is Rossi one, IH zero. Maybe it's a bit early to make public grandiose projections for practical LENR.
-
Quote
The constructive reply to Kirk's (helpful) critique is to put more effort into showing that the calibration constants remain identical
Of course. But another solution would be to design an experiment which has such a large absolute power level and signal to noise ratio (Pout/Pin) that Shanahan-type errors can't significantly affect it. Another obvious way to refute Shanahan would be to provide a test with a high power level and long duration with no power input. I know Jed claim that this exists but when one looks closely, it isn't quite the robust and reproducible test one would want. Certainly Mizuno's claims are close. But it seems, Mizuno's reactor won't work anywhere other than Mizuno's lab. yeah, I know it would be better if enough money would be available to replicate his work. I wish people would spend on that instead of very low power Pd-D work with lots of accuracy issues in the minds of many other than Jed Rothwell.
So how about it, Dewey Weaver? Why doesn't IH work hard and spend enough to replicate Mizuno's kilowatt experiment?
-
But another solution would be to design an experiment which has such a large absolute power level and signal to noise ratio (Pout/Pin) that Shanahan-type errors can't significantly affect it.
The signal to noise ratio has nothing to do with Pout/Pin. They are totally separate. The power in is direct current, which can be measured in parts per million in both accuracy and precision, so the signal to noise ratio is very small. In other words, the portion of input power which is noise is a few parts per million. The rest can be subtracted.
(You made the same mistake THHuxley did. I do not understand why both of you fail to see that input power is not noise.)
The output power noise is larger. It would be larger even if there were no power in.
The Shanahan-type errors you refer to are imaginary. They do not exist in the real world, which is why he cannot relate them to an actual experiment or tell us how they would happen.
Another obvious way to refute Shanahan would be to provide a test with a high power level and long duration with no power input.
High power would reduce the signal to noise ratio. The duration of this experiment was 42 days. If that is not long enough to convince him (or you), nothing will be long enough. It far exceeds the limits of chemistry.
No test will refute Shanahan and other extremists because their objections are irrational nonsense. Shanahan says that sense of touch cannot distinguish between an object at 100 deg C and room temperature. He says that a 1-liter hot object will remain hot for 3 days, and that a bucket of water will evaporate overnight when left in an ordinary room. People who believe such things have no common sense and no knowledge of science. No demonstration, no matter how convincing, will change their minds. (It is possible Shanahan does not actually believe these things and he is trolling us, but in that case we can say he will never admit he is wrong or engage in a scientific discussion.)
-
Since the primary source of signal in this thread is clearly the flame war, perhaps someone can perform the calorimetric analysis of same and tell us what the COP is, for that matter what does the 'P' in COp stand for here.
Beiting did this in the paper. See:
-
“He who forgets the past is doomed to repeat it.”
There is nothing supposed about those Gammas.
OK, but I think this thread proves that one person's yuuuge gammas can be another person's unstatistical blip.
-
Shanhan's critique is not helpful because he has not reduced it to an assertion about the physical experiment. He has found what he thinks is a problem by manipulating numbers. Fair enough; so far so good. However, all of the numbers are from instruments. If there is a problem, the instruments are not working, or the arrangement of the calorimeter is wrong. In that case, the calibration cannot work.
I agree with this. To take Shanahan's argument to the extreme, imagine you only had three data points in your calibration - You could fit an infinite number of cubic equations to those three points, so the predictive power of any single one isn't good. When you have seven points to work with, it's true, you can click a few buttons on your computer and it'll tell you that essentially you need more data for a cubic regression (partly because Shanahan's method of calculating this has to account for a potentially infinite amount of randomness without going haywire).
But, when heating up a lump of metal, we know roughly what will happen... i.e. There's a curve - and the data's gonna fit it... It's not some esoterical stochastic process that we need to tease the most useful moving average out of... So plotting your seven points, and fitting whatever low-order polynomial has the best R^2 becomes more than reasonable...
...And that allows you to then get on with doing something productive. (e.g. a normal error analysis, as opposed to 'piddling' around... cf. contrasting publication rates, perhaps).
-
7o20 - I'm not sure which one it is but you're either not reading or remembering well enough.
On the bright side - the only place to go from here is up so hang in there and do more homework.
-
Once a spotted leopard....
-
Quote
No test will refute Shanahan and other extremists because their objections are irrational nonsense.
Untrue for several reasons and BTW, why would you care what extremists with irrational sense think? Why engage them at all? Your problem is with so-called mainline science, not with extremists of any sort. Convince a single major entrepreneur that useful LENR exists and nobody can stop you if something is really there. On the other hand, see where convincing a poorly informed entrepreneur like IH about a poorly vetted candidate went.
Problem is, when said entrepreneurs contact knowledgeable consultants, they usually get an evaluation that useful LENR is improbable. A test with absolute power as well as out/in well beyond even beyond the levels conceivable with Shanahan's theory might convince them but no, you won't ever entertain that. And the result is nobody outside of a comparatively narrow clique believes that LENR is real. That's because you're not some fringe believer (of which I could name many). You're mainline and well informed as far as LENR work is concerned. Your behavior with respect to skepticism is awful and it reflects badly on the field.
As is often the case, I have no idea what you mean. I get bad vibes from that. Trust me on this: as long as TD and IH have money, things can indeed go downward. And based on past history, I suspect they will. Of course, negative results have value to science but usually not to stockholders and investors.
-
Your problem is with so-called mainline science, not with extremists of any sort.
You have that 100% ass-backwards. As I have said before, the cold fusion researchers were the creme de la creme of mainstream scientists. People such as the Chairman of the Indian Atomic Energy Commission. You say otherwise, but you are wrong. If they had not been world-class distinguished experts, they would have been fired. Some of them were fired anyway.
The problem was, and remains:
- Academic politics.
- People who do not know the difference between the input/output ratio and the signal to noise ratio (scientific illiterates).
- People who think you can heat a liter-sized object and it will remain hot 3 days later -- or at least people who say that (lunatics and trolls).
By every rational standard, and by every tradition of academic science, all scientists should have accepted the results after Fritz Will, John Bockris and Mike McKubre published. There is not a single valid reason to reject cold fusion. All of the reasons put forth by opponents fall in categories 2 and 3, as you see in the papers from Shanahan and Morrison. Those are the only published papers that attempted to find errors in the work, as far as I know.
A test with absolute power as well as out/in well beyond even beyond the levels conceivable with Shanahan's theory might convince them but no,
Shanahan's theory is imaginary. No matter how much power or no matter what the ratio is, he will simply pull another number out of thin air and claim the experiment must be wrong. 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. Anyone who says things like that has zero credibility, to 5 significant digits. If you believe anything he says about physics, you are a naive fool who will believe any fanatic who claims the world is flat or Einstein's theories are wrong.
-
720 - slubberdegullions on squeaky feet
-
SOT,
When did you switch from being anti-Rossi/Defkalion/Randy Mills, to anti-LENR in general? At least in the recent past, you made a distinction between them, and kept your criticisms to the former. Something seems to have changed though. Not sure what, but I am guessing Kirk, or Louis Reed, had something to do with it. Are you appealing to authority?
-
I wish people would spend on [Mizuno] instead of very low power Pd-D work with lots of accuracy issues in the minds of many other than Jed Rothwell.
Nearly missed that one... Classic!
I know nothing about Pd-D or electrolytic systems, I don't pretend to know about them, I don't comment about them, and I have said that many times.
Zeus46 As I said before, I have no interest in claims for small, low level, low power LENR effects. I know nothing about those, I care little about them, and I don't evaluate them. So what? [
] While I am not qualified to evaluate small effects, I am amply qualified blah blah -
The problem to attribution of anomalies to unidentified systematic error (CCS...), or to uncomfortable origin (LENR) is a problem you find in Cosmology.
Today's mentality scientists tolerate very well to attribute 90% (even 99.99%) of an anomaly to "unidentified systematic correction", they call it dark matter and dark energy, instead of admitting theyre is something to adjust in the rule (MiHsC).
The key to denying reality of all the LENR results is the unidentified, never demonstrated, wildcard systematic error, that is systematically only happening when it is not coherent with usual behaviors.
Another method is to fail an experiment and consider it is a refutation.
Another method is to find an artifact in an experiment, and guess that it applies to all other, even the one where this effect was eliminated, tested, measured.
Don't think LENR is an exception.
I'm tired.
Note that there are people who know there is something to understand an control, and their only problem with the denial of LENR is that it prevent them to work in public. You don't need to convince them, just the journalists, so the politicians don't unplug the lab.
-
Shanhan's critique is not helpful because he has not reduced it to an assertion about the physical experiment.
Really? OK. So here it is. B needs to do it more times.
-
Until you find an error, you cannot claim there is one.
ROFL.
Beiting has show that the calibration constants can be measured to 0.1% over all of the temperatures measured in this experiment.
Not from the uploaded report that started this thread. Still waiting for all that other data you said exists somewhere. Again, what I can't see doesn't count. When I do see it, I get to revise my position, but my prior comments will remain because they are based on what I can see at that point in time.
Shanahan is saying...
Shanahan says that sense of touch
What Jed thinks I say is totally in his imagination.
