How do you convince a skeptic?

  • I don't like to repeat, we had a thread a while ago.


    You have not repeated. I do not recall that you have ever -- ever -- given us any reason to doubt any of the major experiments (except the boil-off experiment *). You say you have, but whenever I ask for specifics, you evade, or you say you already gave specifics, or you point to Ascoli's list or Shahanan's list, as you have done here. You have not told us which of their arguments you think have merit. Point to any argument you like; you will be wrong. Both of them are entirely wrong in every detail.



    * You did propose one hypothesis to explain the boil-off experiments. Drops of water condense on the cell walls and are pushed up by the steam. This is impossible because:

    1. The steam pressure is only a tiny bit higher than atmospheric pressure.
    2. If it were happening it would have to be macroscopic, and be readily observable. People would see drops moving up, which they do not.
    3. If it were happening, the control experiments would also show this effect. It would not be correlated with the use of Pd-D or high loading, or even electrolysis. It would happen with resistance heating.
  • Quote

    Decide for yourselvex. Here's the author's side of the story:


    https://disq.us/url?url=https%…QsOz8rhsIAzo&cuid=3763762



    Subject: Re: [Vo]:Holmlid paper retraction

    Retraction opposed by me

    Posted by lholmlid on 23 Feb 2019 at 14:24 GMT

    The action by Plos One on my paper which was retracted by the journal on

    19-02-23 is astonishing. The retraction procedure did not involve a scientific

    evaluation. I have informed the journal that the experimental results on the

    time constants are correct. Such results have been published by me in several

    other papers, both prior to and after the Plos One publication. They have also

    been repeated by other groups. There is thus no problem with the experimental

    results. The suggested problem with "amplified electronics placed in the

    vicinity of intense laser irradiation experiments" is easily disproved by the

    results given in the paper. Three different decay time constants are measured,

    which agree with the well-known meson decay time constants. The time constants

    are different at the inner and the outer collector just moving the cable with

    the laser and the oscilloscope unchanged. The decay time constants are also

    different with different collector bias. Some types of signals do not even have

    a long decay time constant. See for example table 1 with data from figs. 12 and

    11. The suggested problem with the electronics clearly does not exist. The

    laser used is also quite weak, at < 0.2 J pulse energy, in 5 ns long pulses not

    really giving "an intense laser irradiation experiment" whatever that means

    with so much stronger lasers used in many laboratories today.

    The main content of this Plos One paper is further not the decay time

    constants, which had been published previously elsewhere, but the main content

    concerns deflection of the relativistic particles with velocity up to 0.75c in

    magnetic fields. These results are not influenced by any decay time constant

    measurements, and they show very clearly that the relativistic particles are

    lighter than baryons, with masses like mesons or muons. This is the main result

    of the paper and it cannot be discarded as due to laser created artifacts, but

    this result has been overlooked or not understood by the reviewers.

    Of course, I do not yet know the exact process creating the mesons, but it is

    expected of me as author that I should propose some mechanism for this. Such a

    process is suggested on p. 5 in the paper. It has been interpreted by other

    scientists as implying that the number of baryons is not conserved, which is

    not in agreement with the so-called baryon law. Of course, it is just an

    empirical rule. Time will show if this is a case where the baryon number is

    truly not conserved, of if another process is responsible for the meson

    generation. Of course, the few lines on p. 5 giving a model for the meson

    generation could be removed or weakened, but Plos One has instead retracted the

    entire paper with its large number of advanced experiments. This not a

    scientific and unbiased treatment.

  • "amplified electronics placed in the

    vicinity of intense laser irradiation experiments


    This sounds like Plos One has THHuxleynew and SOT as consultants

    the old " electronic interference" problem/canard

    from decades ago...

    thousands of plasma researchers are of course totally unaware ..

    and have no accommodation for it.. even if they were aware

  • This sounds like Plos One has THHuxleynew and SOT as consultants

    the old " electronic interference" problem/canard

    from decades ago...

    thousands of plasma researchers are of course totally unaware ..

    and have no accommodation for it.. even if they were aware


    Robert: I'm not sure what this is apropos of:


    (1) high di/dt dv/dt edges from high power pulses are a known source of EMI, true, but because high power fast edge pulses are relatively uncommon in experiments, there are many non EE experimentalists not aware of the issues.

    (2) Not sure what thousands of plasma researchers have to do with anything here. The case that would be most obvious would be the Plasma research done by the Lerner's guys and others using DPF who are of necessity very aware of such issues.

  • This sounds like Plos One has THHuxleynew and SOT as consultants

    the old " electronic interference" problem/canard

    from decades ago...

    thousands of plasma researchers are of course totally unaware ..

    and have no accommodation for it.. even if they were aware

    is to publish ie" :to all seeing eye"

    then get the rug pulled out~

  • I think this says it all.


    The retraction procedure did not involve a scientific

    evaluation. I have informed the journal that the experimental results on the

    time constants are correct. Such results have been published by me in several

    other papers, both prior to and after the Plos One publication. They have also

    been repeated by other groups. There is thus no problem with the experimental

    results.

  • THHuxleynew is now being EEist... perhaps Holmlid is not an EE?

    I've heard that Leif Holmlid has a passing interest in Plasma Research.

    He may have a glimmer of understanding about electronic interference.


    He may do. Or may not. Always a good idea not to make assumptions. A lot of plasma research guys have no interest in or understanding of EMI - nor any need for it.

  • A lot of plasma research guys have no interest

    Evidence please for this generalisation.


    How many plasma research guys and gals goes EE THHuxleynew know?

    LeifHolmlid has been using electronic equipment in Plasma Research for just a few months?

    Obviously a newbie with no interest in EMI--(electromagneticinterference) for those who are not EEs

    https://gu.se/english/about_th…F&publicationsPerPage=100


  • Robert - you are to be commended on your certitude, but really such things cannot be known.


    That is why where there are likley to be issues the preventative methods used are mentioned in papers, so doubtless you will find them in LFs. I was not myself aware he was using high power electric pulsed systems with electronic measurement - certainly his interesting early work did not. But I'm not uptodate on LF work.


    PS - perhaps you can point out to me which of those papers uses high power RF pulses close to electronic sensors?

  • I defer to the certified wisdom of an old EE.

    I thought that Leif Holmlid's forte was experimental science rather than mathematics.

    It must take electronics nouse to measure the Time of Flight of a positron in a lab.

    https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1508/1508.01332.pdf



    Robert if you read this post trail you will see that your comment above conflates two different. precision is always important.


    I have no idea what is Leif's understanding of EMI. I have no evidence to go on. You make a blanket assumption that because he is an experienced long-published experimenter therefore he must be aware of EMI issues in types of experiments that he may never have done before. I make no assumption.


    You could strengthen your case by pointing to specific expertise he is known to have (a passage in one of his papers dealing with EMI would be a help). Instead you made a generalisation about plasma physicists, to which I replied.


    When the debate goes so far from the original subject it is usually because there are no facts being put forward; certainly I have none on this matter, as I've stated. Have you? If so all you need to do is post them here, which I'd welcome.

  • Show me precisely where this occurred, esteemed EE?


    I thought that Leif Holmlid's forte was experimental science rather than mathematics.

    It must take electronics nouse to measure the Time of Flight of a positron in a lab.


    That is not true: it takes somone with a good understanding of how to use ToF measuring apparatus (which includes electronics). Rather like saying it must take an Android developer to sue a mobile phone. I don't see there any estimates of expected EMI from transient currents or voltages.


    I'm not assuming Leif does not know that stuff, you are however assuming he does know it (or at least from the above comment implying that).



    My name here is THH by the way...

  • you are however assuming he does know it (or at least from the above comment implying that).

    THHhuxley is assuming this


    ""you are however assuming he does know it (or at least from the above comment implying that)."


    You make a blanket assumption that because he is an experienced long-published

    where did I make a blanket assumption precisely????? you did not answer precisely

    sorry not badgering you.... just interested.. perhaps you were assuming something that wasn't


    Maybe we could assume high di/dt dv/dt edges in this graph .arrgghhh EMI!

    https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1508/1508.01332.pdf