Most of the other 'HAD's were short time frame events after boiling to the point where electrical contact was broken.
Where a "short time frame" is defined as 3 to 20 hours with electrolysis, and 42 days with gas loading. And where the heat release was anywhere from 1,000 to 10,000 times beyond the limits of chemistry, in cells with virtually no chemical fuel.
Okay, if that is a short time frame . . . What would be a long time frame?
I didn't write it. Mizuno did.
You said you wrote the introduction, which is what I quoted back in the bucket thread..
Yes. Fortunately, this experiment was repeated thousands of times in 180 labs.
No, it wasn't. This is where your lack of scientific training and fanaticism shines through! Every experimental examination by one group must stand on its own before it can be included into a larger body. They all fail this test in detail. Some commonalities are noted, which is what convinced me to look into it back in '95. But there is a non-nuclear explanation on the table for those commonalities, which the CF community refuses to address.
The heat after death technique was repeated on demand by Fleischmann and Pons hundreds of times, 16 cells at a time, for years.
Reference?
This was published in the peer reviewed literature,
Reference?
The only way the account could be wrong would be if Mizuno and Akimoto are lying.
Please remember, this is your construct, not mine, and stop claiming I say that.
Where a "short time frame" is defined as 3 to 20 hours with electrolysis, and 42 days with gas loading. And where the heat release was anywhere from 1,000 to 10,000 times beyond the limits of chemistry, in cells with virtually no chemical fuel.
Okay, if that is a short time frame . . . What would be a long time frame?
Yes, 3 to 20 hours *can* be a short time-frame. It depends on several factors. Perhaps the biggest being the change in calibration that is never employed by CFers when they boil a cell dry.
Your '1000 to 10000X' is unsubstantiated. In almost all cases, the error bars are mis-defined, as with Beiting, as with Storms, as with F&P, etc. etc., so we don't really know how much heat was even produced for sure, if any. Also, many times outright errors in technique are present.
42 days huh...as you know, I have NOT studied gas loading results. I studied F&P electrolysis cells. Are you speaking of Rossi perhaps. No, of course not. Why should I believe your 42 days number?
Objects at about 54 to 55°C (130°F) will usually result in a sensation of warmth that is on the threshold of pain: it's really hot!."
Careful there! You must not admit that it might have been 54°C. If it were that temperature 3 days after disconnection, that means cold fusion is real. It would have to be 20°C, the ambient temperature in the underground lab. Stone cold. If it were even a little hot, enough to measure with the TC, that means cold fusion is real.
You have to show that two people in an underground lab where it is 20°C year round felt a 20°C object and both mistakenly perceived that it was hot. Then one of them put it in a bucket, and 17.5 L of water evaporated, but that can happen any time. You are sure that can happen. Again, be careful! You must never put a bucket of water in a room to test your claim, because you will see that does not happen. You must stick to your story.
Also, F&P and many others did not observe heat after death. Or if, they did, it was only for a short time frame, maybe a thousand times or 10,000 longer than it could have lasted with the available chemical fuel. Which you define as "short." Right? The Mary Yugo standard. Any number in the literature that you have read is too small by definition. If you happen to read another number a hundred times bigger, or a thousand times bigger, hey presto, that number is also too small.
Yes, 3 to 20 hours *can* be a short time-frame. It depends on several factors.
Yeah, well, in this case it happens to be a long time frame. Very long. By any objective standard. But your standards are pulled out of thin air.
Your '1000 to 10000X' is unsubstantiated. In almost all cases, the error bars are mis-defined, as with Beiting, as with Storms, as with F&P, etc. etc.,
This has nothing to do with error bars. It is a simple estimate based on the maximum heat that can be produced by palladium loaded 100% (which is impossibly high). Even if the heat is mismeasured by a huge extent, the conclusion still stands. There can be no measurable heat at all in most cases, and Fleischmann showed. The heat is not mismeasured. You are wrong about that. The reasons you give are . . . pulled out of thin air. But, whether it is a factor of 10,000 beyond the limits of chemistry or only 5,000, it really does not matter.
Careful there!
I'm always careful. You aren't. For example, you missed the fact that I have cited a couple of sources that says the pain limit for physical temperature measurement is around 45-60C, not 100C. So, if Mizuno and Akimoto actually touched a 100C object, they would have been badly burned, Since they weren't (i assume absent medical evidence to the contrary) they must have only approached the cell physically. Given their preconceptions that a) CF is real and they are proving it, and b) that the cell temp is >100C, the claim that they 'felt' it was that hot has no factual basis. They were fooled by their preconceptions, just like Blondlot thought he saw spots.
See my prior comment regarding HAD and '10000'.
End of the day, travel tomorrow, possibly back Wed. Bye.
42 days huh...as you know, I have NOT studied gas loading results. I studied F&P electrolysis cells. Are you speaking of Rossi perhaps. No, of course not. Why should I believe your 42 days number?
I am speaking of Beiting. It says 42 days in his paper. You have studied it! You have been blathering about it right here, in this thread. You just told us he is wrong.
It is not my number. It is Beiting's. You keep ascribing claims made by Mizuno and others to me. What's with that?
You said you wrote the introduction, which is what I quoted back in the bucket thread..
The introduction quotes the book. I am the translator, not the author. The account and chronology is from Mizuno, in the text of the book. The chronology was first published in Bungei Shunju, Japan's leading magazine, shortly after the event took place. I am not the publisher of that magazine either.
You say such weird things! Do you think I made up the chronology?
So, if Mizuno and Akimoto actually touched a 100C object, they would have been badly burned,
I just told you, for maybe the tenth time, they did not actually touch it. They held their hand over it, then wrapped it in towels and felt it through the towels. The way you feel a hot frying pan through a potholder.
So, your excuse that "they didn't actually touch it" is ridiculous, as I told you that again and again.
What makes you think that two professional chemists would be so stupid they would feel a hot object directly? If you saw the TC registered 100 deg C, and you held you hand over the object and felt it was radiating heat, would you then touch it? Where do you get these weird ideas?
Please remember, this is your construct, not mine, and stop claiming I say that.
So, you are saying they are not lying. Okay, were they deluded? Do you think they both came down with an extreme case of dysesthesia (false perception of heat or pain) that day -- that hour? It never happened to either of them before that, and it went away spontaneously, never to return. Is that what you claim?
Remember: if the cell was palpably hot to any extent, even a few degrees, three days after it was cut off, that means cold fusion is real. You cannot admit that! You must insist it was stone cold, right at ambient. The TC failed, their sense of touch failed, the water evaporated for reasons you dreamed up, such as a 17 mph wind in a building where no such wind ever existed, and where such a wind would have caused havoc. You must pile fantasy upon fantasy. You must not admit it was even a little warm, or your story collapses.
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.
I understand that people of the old school have difficulties to accept that their live foundation, called the standard model of physics (STM), now is breaking down.
But this reality will steamroll many more people than just Kirk.
The good thing: Experiments delivered the poison pill and not “crazy
ecstatic” mathematicians, that believed to understand physics.
LENR is more real than ever. Just a few weeks ago Russ George
delivered (in this forum too) a famous gamma spectrum that confirmed
new physics going beyond the STM!
My proposal: Just Ignore any discussion about the existence of LENR. LENR is as real as my tax bill and can't be ignored any longer.
QuoteMizuno has not said he can make a 100 kW reactor. I am sure he cannot,
Actually, you're right. Mizuno alone did not write that. I I was thinking of this poster or slide presentation (link below) and it was not 100 kW. It was 75W allegedly in hand and photos of reactors with labels of 1kW and 10kW on them with data perhaps to follow in the future.
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/YoshinoHreplicable.pdf of which Dr. Mizuno is a co-author, and which is titled, "Replicable Model for Controlled Nuclear Reaction
using Metal Nanoparticles"
The work used Ni-D2 "activated with plasma discharge" and claimed results are 75W out for half that in for a month. In the next to last slide and the one before that are what appears to be a completed and hooked up reactor they labelled as 1kW and a larger housing which appears uncompleted labelled 10kW. Know when this was done? One of the figures shows data from 2013 so at least it is newer than that.
I wanted to clarify what I was referring to.
So what happened to these powerful devices since? Also, I dimly recall some issues brought out about this work and its accuracy but I don't recall who or what. Anyway it was the most interesting LENR paper I've seen to date. Appetizing-looking but hardly nutritious by itself.
I am speaking of Beiting. It says 42 days in his paper.
Ah yes, I see. I mainly remember his report in terms of hours. 1000 hrs. when he measured apparent excess heat. That was the 0.944 average W power that I mentioned in my first post in this thread on B's report. You may recall I also showed that a slight change in calibration constant OR the use of a different calibration model covered that as noise. Which proves the point I often make about 'integrating an error for a long time gives a really big error'.
The introduction quotes the book.
And as I have said repeatedly, I am quoting the introduction that you posted to this forum. Not the book.
This has nothing to do with error bars. It is a simple estimate based on the maximum heat that...
It has everything to do with error bars. The procedure used to get these numbers (the claims of greater than chemically possible output) is to measure a power output, integrate that for a period of time to get a total energy, then assume a maximal value for a putative chemical reaction, compute the total energy output from that reaction for the available mass of reactants, note that that value is less than the integrated measurement, and finally claim that the cold fusion experiment produced more energy out than could be obtained chemically. As it stands that procedure would work if and only if the measured signal is in fact not noise. Unfortunately, my reanalysis of Storms' work and my studies on other claims suggest that final condition has not been met, i.e., the integrated signals are likely integrated noise. The root cause of this problem is the failure of CFers to correctly assess their noise levels. Thus the error bars are crucial to you claim.
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.
Z, if you spent a quarter as much time on contributing to this forum, as you do on writing petty ad homs on here, you could probably actually claim to have done something productive.
I understand that people of the old school have difficulties toaccept that their live foundation, called the standard model ofphysics (STM), now is breaking down.
But this reality will steamroll many more people than just Kirk.
What are you talking about? The STM has nothing to do with correctly determining the error of one's work, which is the primary focal point of my comments in this forum on the various data sets that have been suggested here to 'prove CF beyond a doubt'. People working to test the STM use the same methods I use in my comments, except they usually work at 5 sigma levels instead of 3 like most average scientists.
I'm no longer sure who is trolling who here, but whoever it they are making a dam fine job of it.
@Alan
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, which always involves them insulting and denigrating what I wrote on that (and which they didn't understand) via misquoting, fabrications, and flat out insults. I'm tired of it, and if you followed, I showed where they used their tactics while they couldn't do the same to support their falsifications.
I thought 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.
