Uploaded Beiting report from The Aerospace Corporation

  • JedRothwell


    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.


    Dewey Weaver

    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:

    1. Academic politics.
    2. People who do not know the difference between the input/output ratio and the signal to noise ratio (scientific illiterates).
    3. 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.

  • 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? [8o:thumbup:] 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.

  • 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.

  • Shanahan's theory is imaginary.


    What theory is that Jed? Maybe the one that says fitting the 7 data points with a quadratic, cubic, and quartic polynomial gives almost equivalent statistics, but the differences between the computed power values from those models are much larger that Beiting's quoted error? That's not a theory Jed, it's an observation.

  • 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.


    To all--- This is one of Jed's perennial lies. He can't document that if he tried. What it shows is a) his inability to follow a technical argument, and b) the extent he will go to to try to discredit a skeptic.

  • fitting the 7 data points with a quadratic, cubic, and quartic polynomial gives almost equivalent statistics, but the differences between the computed power values from those models are much larger that Beiting's quoted error?


    That means that Beiting did it all wrong, because the quartic fits have better R^2 values.



    Only on your own fabricated (sorry, hand-digitised) data points, you chump.

  • Only on your own fabricated (sorry, hand-digitised) data, you chump.

    as an approximation to the real data.

    (recall I said this data is not exactly correct, since my cubic fit coefficients came out different that Beiting’s, but it serves to make the point):


    From the B report: "The fits for these polynomials had R2 values of greater than 0.99999."


    From my original post on the estimated data's fits: Quartic eqn R^2 = .999990 Cubic eqn R^2 = .999970 Quadradtic eqn. R^2 = .999743


    So, based on what I said: the fact that I am using my own derived data is not a new fact; the fact the R^2 vales are not the same is not a new fact; the fact that in fits of this overall quality, tiny difference make noticeable differences out in the 4th and 5th decimal point is not a new fact; and based on the fact that it would be best to use the real data to proceed further; it is clear that Z is the chump.

  • So, let me get this straight... you are fitting your own curves, to your own imaginary data, and producing your own useless R^2 values, then claiming that:

    That means that Beiting did it all wrong, because [my] quartic fits have better R^2 values.


    :D


    A while back you were bleating about me not supposedly not believing your employment history... Well frankly, I am now beginning to doubt it. For sure KS probably works at SR - but aren't you just some troll trying to make the real life person look bad? Don't tell me you really have access to nuclear materials. Good grief.

  • A while back you were bleating about me not supposedly not believing your employment history...


    Say what? I wasn't even aware you though I had falsified that? Care to point out where I 'bleated' that?


    Well frankly, I am now beginning to doubt it.


    So your biased opinion carries the day over factual evidence. Interesting POV. Explains a lot tho...


    but aren't you just some troll trying to make the real life person look bad?


    Yes! YES! That's my goal in life! ... NOT! (Actually Z I find other people usually do the job for me...take you for instance...)


    Don't tell me you really have access to nuclear materials. Good grief.


    I do Z. Live in fear! Ah hahahahahaha!

  • I just hope they drug test you frequently!


    Say what? I wasn't even aware you though I had falsified that? Care to point out where I 'bleated' that?


    Come on! You made a big song and dance about it over several days! (Although it is true that I actually did not think you had falsified it)

    ...And this puts your claim about 'Jed's perennial lies' into a new light too... Sure you didn't just forget what you said?!

    From a month or so back:

    NASA partners with Global Energy Corporation to develop 10kW Hybrid Reactor Generator

    "You imply I lied about where I used to work."

    NASA partners with Global Energy Corporation to develop 10kW Hybrid Reactor Generator "

    "The phrasing of the second quote is insulting and implies you disbelieve my assertions of: I worked for 8 years in a nuclear facility with pure tritium."


    Mizuno's bucket of water
    "So you confirm that you are calling me a liar because my 'employment history'"

    Mizuno's bucket of water
    "I’ve explained this supposed ‘insinuation’ already. Just move on and stop acting so crazy. Sheesh."


    :rolleyes:

  • No need to get defensive,


    A) I stand by my comments that you quoted. You were deliberately attempting to insult me. Well, you succeeded. Good for you.


    B) Why would you ever think you can insult and denigrate someone and not expect them to respond? That's insane.


    BTW, I have reached this point because of your continued unwillingness to understand what I've been saying. Others get it. Why not you? I conlude it is deliberate, and I can't help but think you are trolling, so I will stop responding to you. Even if it seems you are asking a legitimate question, because that never turns out to be the case.

  • Quote

    . 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.

    Where exactly did he write that? You on the other hand, clearly wrote some time ago that Rossi had to be right on "prime principles" or some such, remember? Shall I dig up the quote?

  • Quote

    I just hope they drug test you frequently!


    Quote

    No need to get defensive, 'we' all have the occasional senior moment.


    Quote

    A while back you were bleating about me not supposedly not believing your employment history... Well frankly, I am now beginning to doubt it.
    For sure KS probably works at SR - but aren't you just some troll trying to make the real life person look bad? Don't tell me you really have access to nuclear materials. Good grief.



    Quote

    you chump


    I thought overt insulting of forum participant and other real people, especially by the pseudonymous, was banned by forum policy. Apparently that doesn't apply to attacks on LENR critics.

  • Quote

    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?


    How could one be anti-LENR? It'd save the world. I am against people who make inflated and unproven claims about it and about similar projects like the Genie Hybrid reactor. I am also opposed to people who mislead in order to solicit research money for LENR. I am very much in favor of research on LENR of any sort as long as the long odds against it working and the even longer odds of it ever being useful are explained ahead of time to investors -- sort of the opposite of what I think IH and TD do.

  • A) I stand by my comments that you quoted. You were deliberately attempting to insult me.


    Yawn. I've explained twice now what I meant when I said "the only wind around here is coming out of your mouth". No one in their right mind would consider that impugns your employment history.

    But in your addled head this somehow gets turned into "Kirk has never been near a fume hood", as opposed to the intended "the only wind currently being experienced, when sat at my computer, is coming out of Kirk's mouth".

    And it has been noticed that you normally manufacture offence over this topic in order to divert attention from whatever your latest blooper is (see previous links)... Much like this latest occurrence, in fact.

  • I am against people who make inflated and unproven claims about it and about similar projects like the Genie Hybrid reactor.


    But how would you know whether people's claims about GEC are inflated or unproven, if you won't even look at their website, or listen to Forsley's ICCF talk?

    I thought overt insulting of forum participant and other real people, especially by the pseudonymous, was banned by forum policy.


    Perhaps one person's insult, is another's accurate description?... And I thought a ban meant a ban.

    ...And didn't you just anonymously insult IH and TD? Just how ridiculous are you?

  • [Rothwell] 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.


    Where exactly did he write that?

    He wrote it many times, such as here:


    JedRothwell wrote:

    I said Mizuno gave three reasons supporting his claim:
    Both Mizuno and his colleague Akimoto reported that the cell was far too hot to touch. Mizuno had to wrap it in towels to pick it up and move it to another room.


    [Shanahan:] 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.


    JedRothwell wrote:


    The thermocouple installed in the cell registered over 100°C for the first fewdays.


    [Shanahan:] Malfunction.


    [LINK TO THIS QUOTE:]


    Uploaded Letters from Martin Fleischmann to Melvin Miles


    MY RESPONSE:


    [Shanahan:] 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.


    [Rothwell:] As I am sure you know, this was the day after it was disconnected [CORRECTION IT WAS THREE DAYS LATER *], and it stayed too hot to touch for 10 days, even after evaporating 17 liters of water. So, no, I am not referring to when they disconnected it.


    Uploaded Letters from Martin Fleischmann to Melvin Miles


    Shahanan ignored this. He has made this claim again and again, but he has never responded when I and other point out this was days after the cell was disconnected.


    Regarding his claim that the thermocouple malfunctioned, I pointed out that it was confirmed by two people by sense of touch. He wrote:


    [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.


    Mizuno's bucket of water


    So, here he is saying that the sense of touch can be fooled. My response:


    [Rothwell] To what extent? 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? Is that what you are saying? . . .


    Have you ever heard of an incident in which people's sense of touch was fooled to that extent? Were those people professional chemists with decades of experience doing laboratory science?




    * [SORRY FOR THE CONFUSION. In the original message I said it was the next day. In fact, it was 3 days later. Electrolysis stopped April 22, 1991. Cell was hot, wrapped in towels and moved on April 25. See the chronology here: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTnucleartra.pdf]


    You on the other hand, clearly wrote some time ago that Rossi had to be right on "prime principles" or some such, remember? Shall I dig up the quote?

    Ah, but I retracted that, admitted I was wrong, and explained why. Do you see the difference? When I make a mistake, I admit it frankly, correct it, and move on. Shanahan has never admitted he made a mistake about anything.


    Now then, do you agree with Shanahan that an object of this size once heated will remain hot the next day? And three days later? Are you with him on that? Because that is what he said. He said it again and again. He denies he said it it, then he says it again, then again denies he said it. He is gaslighting you. Do you agree with him that two adult chemists might not be able to feel the difference between an object at 100 deg C and one at room temperature?

  • For the rest of you, Z recently quoted 4 of my prior posts in an attempt to prove I’d done something wrong. Unfortunately they prove the opposite. See the details below:



    Latest Z quote #1:

    NASA partners with Global Energy Corporation to develop 10kW Hybrid Reactor Generator

    "You imply I lied about where I used to work."



    The rest of the story:

    Z: “the only 18mph breeze around here is emanating from your mouth. (Via your fingers, of course).”


    KS: “Another ad hom of course. You imply I lied about where I used to work. “


    – the ’18 mph’ comes from a calc I did regarding the hood face velocity of some air hoods I worked in that turned over about 3300 ft3/min. By denigrating the number, Z is saying I ‘made it up’, i.e. lied about where I used to work.


    Latest Z quote #2:

    NASA partners with Global Energy Corporation to develop 10kW Hybrid Reactor Generator "

    "The phrasing of the second quote is insulting and implies you disbelieve my assertions of: I worked for 8 years in a nuclear facility with pure tritium."


    The rest of the story: --- Still more of the ’18 mph’ issue.


    Z quoted in the post he quotes: the only 18mph breeze around here is emanating from your mouth.


    KS quoted in the post Z quotes:


    The phrasing of the second quote is insulting and implies you disbelieve my assertions of:

    kirkshanahan wrote:

    Yes. As I reported I worked for 8 years in a nuclear facility with pure tritium. The air hoods I operated in were massive and had a 3300 cfm flow rate associated with them, but all this air was drawn through several long slits near knee-level and I calculated the flowrate there to be ~17 mph, which I then used as my upper limit in flowrates in my exploration of what ventilation rates would do to evaporation rates, which you refuse to acknowledge I did.



    Latest Z quote #3: ---- *More* on the 17 mph (my #) or 18 mph (Z’s #) breeze


    Mizuno's bucket of water
    "So you confirm that you are calling me a liar because my 'employment history'"


    The rest of the story:


    Quoting Z: And in the comfort of my living room, the "only wind around here" from my perspective is emanating from your good self - the intricacies of your employment history don't figure much into this.


    Quoting KS: So you confirm that you are calling me a liar because my 'employment history' illustrates the 'why' of why I picked 17 mph as my maximum ventilation rate in my parametric study of the incident. To remind you, the quotes from the post you were responding to with the above comment pointed out your insinuation of lying on my part.



    Latest Z quote #4:

    Mizuno's bucket of water
    "I’ve explained this supposed ‘insinuation’ already. Just move on and stop acting so crazy. Sheesh."


    The rest of the story:


    Z quoting: kirkshanahan wrote:

    So you confirm that you are calling me a liar because my 'employment history' illustrates the 'why' of why I picked 17 mph as my maximum ventilation rate in my parametric study of the incident. To remind you, the quotes from the post you were responding to with the above comment pointed out your insinuation of lying on my part.


    Z’s response: I’ve explained this supposed ‘insinuation’ already. Just move on and stop acting so crazy. Sheesh.


    --- and I can’t locate where he 'explained' why my calculation of 17 mph was wrong. It would be nearly impossible for him to do anyway, since the calculation is based on my memory of the length, width, and number of air intake vents on the lower part of the air hood I worked in. So, this is another of Z’s attempts to misdirect the readers into thinking he’s shown something he was never even capable of addressing.


    It also illustrates his use of selective quoting, where he only quotes the part of the post that supports his contention, and banks on the fact you all won’t check it.

  • By denigrating the [windspeed] number, Z is saying I ‘made it up’, i.e. lied about where I used to work.


    ^ Completely crazy. You need psychological help.... Just accept that if I say three times that I don't think you lied about your employment history, it is true.


    And if you think you understand my inner thoughts better than I do, you're a hopeless narcissist. Which isn't an insult - It has genuine clinical relevancy here.

    But in an effort to draw a line under this latest diversionary thrust - I will state that I, Zeus46, truly believe Shanahan has worked with a fume hood at least once in his highly distinguished career, and that it was possibly some high-powered 17mph version.

    ...And I generally don't feel the need to apologise to someone for their own disturbed interpretations of what I write (particularly if they have history of displaying irrational thought processes), but it must be a great burden having such a paranoid and overactive imagination, so in this case I will apologise to you - for your inability to comprehend a simple unambiguous metaphor.

    Happy now?


    --- and I can’t locate where he 'explained' why my calculation of 17 mph was wrong


    Oh dear, more memory problems Shanahan? I have never cared what the flow rate of your fantasy fume hood is... There wasn't one in Mizuno's lab - it exists only in your fevered imagination. Ultimately that is what's wrong with your so-called calculation.


    For the rest of you, Z recently quoted 4 of my prior posts in an attempt to prove I’d done something wrong. Unfortunately they prove the opposite....

    ...It also illustrates his use of selective quoting, where he only quotes the part of the post that supports his contention, and banks on the fact you all won’t check it.


    What? The above scenario is another product of your own febrile imagination. You couldn't remember your accusatory episode from a month ago, so I gave you some links, and some helpful quotes to remind you of what you said. It doesn't prove you've done anything 'wrong', and the only contention in this case is that you have a poor memory... Which was easily proven to be true, by said quotes.

  • I thought overt insulting of forum participant and other real people, especially by the pseudonymous, was banned by forum policy. Apparently that doesn't apply to attacks on LENR critics.


    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?