How do you convince a skeptic?


  • Robert: that was my judgement, for the reasons I have stated previously and restated in my reply to you. You took that to mean some additional experimental evidence was needed to make that judgement, whereas that was not my point at all.


    I agree, Shanahan made a big deal of his acronym when in reality it is just noting that when you have a large power in / excess power ratio, errors in calibration caused by change in cell conditions, amplified by this ratio, are particularly problematic. However, he also hypothesised a mechanism for such a change in conditions that would apply specifically to many but not all F&P style electrolysis experiments, and not much else (ATER).


    As for "so called skeptic neutral THH blindly quotes it without knowing what it is" that is untrue, and I'd prefer you not to state untrue things about me, also I'd prefer that you don't personalise this debate.


    Commenting on "neutrality" here is not helpful because where there are different views it is easy to see a contrary view as not neutral. Personally I think having any judgement on this matter is non-neutral - and suspending judgement is not sensible and for example if carried out uniformly would need to suspensions of judgement on many other things that are contentious but where judgement is valuable. However I attempt to explain and make transparent any non-neutrality I have by giving reasons for my judgements which others can agree or disagree with.


    As a skeptic I tend to want a higher standard of evidence to state anything definitely. Saying something is a "better fit to evidence" is a judgement and since it must be better, worse, or the same is not something I need to be skeptical about. I don't see skepticism as having no views. However a skeptical frame of mind tends to make me less ready to leap to something new.


    While I don't have any comment on your neutrality re these matters, I think on the basis of your recent posts that you are non-neutral on the topic of my contribution here: and personalise this.

  • This statement seems a little disingenuous, (or perhaps just a bit forgetful) seeing as how you are still pointedly refusing (or are completely unable) to explain why your favoured ‘electrical input measurement’ artifacts only affect Brillouin’s fuelled Ni-H reactors, and not their control ones.


    Zeus: perhaps we could do that elsewhere, with reference to the exact writeup showing what are the control vs active reactor differences? To tell you the truth I don't remember, and no-one else here can judge this without a link to a relevant paper. I think my concern re artifacts there was that the Q pulses might induce spurious signals on temperature TCs. There was also maybe an issue to do with total power in to control system. Brillouin's results are interesting, but not yet independently replicated (SRI took the Brillouin setup they had advised on, and used the same equipment again, which means that issues not considered by SRI would remain unconsidered). SRI do a better job than many of considering issues, so the results are interesting, but this is Brillouin commisioning a report. From my POV if those results are real Brillouin should be able to reengineer them into something with much clearer results just by using a different seup - as they said they intended to do. I'd like to know about that reengineering.


    I think I also saw no continued IH backing for Brillouin as a negative - though there could be various reasons for it, and maybe I'm remembering this wrong.


    Link the paper if you want to continue this discussion?


    Finally: I don't think one Ni-H experiment is enough to invalidate the general comment. Of course, one experiment with proven excess heat beyond chemical would make the whole matter irrelevant.

  • And you can always ignore me,

    Or we can just remind everyone that you are an anti-science Luddite, by your very own words.


    How many times has the Pons-Fleischmann Anomalous Heating Event been replicated in peer reviewed journals?



    JedRothwell

    Verified User

    Likes Received6,465

    Aug 18th 2017

    +2

    #461


    interested observer wrote:

    I can assure you that my comments on this forum are not moving science in any direction, nor are they intended to, nor could they.


    Then why do you make these comments? What is the point? This is a science-oriented forum. If you comments contribute nothing to science, and if -- as you say -- you have not read the papers and you know nothing about the subject, why do you muddy the waters with ignorant, baseless assertions?




    Suppose you were to visit a forum devoted to Italian Opera. Imagine you express strong opinions about a performance of La Traviata. Following that, you say: "By the way, I have never seen this performance. Actually, I have never seen any Italian opera I don't speak a word of Italian and I have no interest in music." That would be inappropriate, wouldn't it? It would be idiotic. The people at the forum would say: "Then what are you doing here?!? Why do you have an opinion about something you know nothing about?"




    Why do you think it is okay to do that there?

  • And you can always ignore me,


    What, and miss out on your daily dose of superfluous commentary and concern trolling? Hardly!


    Oddly enough I did used to block your comments, putting you in the category the the three worst posters here (IMO). Then someone quoted a comment of yours that was not only sensibly and helpful, but I even agreed with it. So I reconsidered.


    Having done so, I’ve come to realise you’ve gone much downhill from your ‘JNewman’ days, which were hardly a highlight anyway. Same shtick though, but, each to their own, I guess.

  • “Oddly enough I did used to block your comments, putting you in the category the the three worst posters here (IMO). Then someone quoted a comment of yours that was not only sensibly and helpful, but I even agreed with it. So I reconsidered.”


    Top 3, eh? Who are the other two?


    And what did I say that you thought was sensible and helpful that you agreed with? I can’t even begin to hazard a guess since, unbeknownst to all my colleagues over the years and despite the things I have done, I am an anti-science Luddite. Gosh I hope they don’t find out. It would be a real shock.

  • Top 3, eh? Who are the other two?


    A gentleman never tells.



    And what did I say that you thought was sensible and helpful that you agreed with? I can’t even begin to hazard a guess since, unbeknownst to all my colleagues over the years and despite the things I have done, I am an anti-science Luddite. Gosh I hope they don’t find out. It would be a real shock.


    Can’t remember the exact quote, as epoch-defining as it was. And I don’t think of you as an anti-science Luddite, (a bit of a tool, perhaps), so play your small violin elsewhere. :*

  • Shane, you were bascially the only Rossi supporter on ECN who wasn’t belligerent and combative so you were actually worth talking to. Of course, that place was not really about LENR at all; it was about Rossi. Over here, LENR is supposed to be the focus, but the same anger predominates. It is mostly manifested in the handful of remaining Rossi supporters, but it is prevalent even among those who have seen the light with Rossi. People are so itching for a fight that they don’t even care what their opponent is saying. My own view of LENR has evolved over the years, but that really doesn’t seem to matter. If you ain’t with us, you’re agin us is how it works. As far as I am concerned, the critical question is not whether LENR exists. I’ll bow to the 153 replications and the Forbes 100 Best Electrochemists. Fine - it’s real. The real question is whether anything will ever come of it. Of that I remain skeptical and defeating SOT and THH in a war of words will not make a damned bit of difference. And my self-appointed nemesis (who produces new blue placeholders every time I post) will be thrilled to learn that what I have to say on the subject won’t make a damned bit of difference either. Maybe some of the work that is ongoing will somehow change things. We’ll just have to see.

  • Fine - it’s real. The real question is whether anything will ever come of it.

    Whether anything will come of it is impossible to say. That depends on academic politics. It is unlikely cold fusion will be recognized or funded, so probably nothing will come of it. On the other hand, it has been demonstrated for months at power densities and temperatures equivalent to a fission reactor core. (Actually, better than that.) So, there is no question that if it can be controlled, it can be made practical. There is good reason to think it can be controlled, but no proof yet.

  • Whether anything will come of it is impossible to say. That depends on academic politics. It is unlikely cold fusion will be recognized or funded, so probably nothing will come of it. On the other hand, it has been demonstrated for months at power densities and temperatures equivalent to a fission reactor core. (Actually, better than that.) So, there is no question that if it can be controlled, it can be made practical. There is good reason to think it can be controlled, but no proof yet.

    I have no problem with your position. Whether academic politics or the fundametal nature of the phenomenon is the ultimate stumbling block for applications is not certain. What is certain is that I have real problems with people who say that LENR is now ready to solve the world’s problems and that nothing else can. That strikes me as lunacy.


    But this smacks of reasonable discourse and is probably frowned upon by people who want to pigeonhole me as “anti-LENR” and not appropriate to discuss matters with.

  • However, he also hypothesised a mechanism for such a change in conditions that would apply specifically to many but not all F&P style electrolysis experiments, and not much else (ATER).

    These are two examples of THHuxleynew's expert opinion on ATER/CCS

    eg1 ."CCS errors from this cell of an ATER type would follow from the special active environment on

    the electrodes created from the D electrolysis that allows ATER. "

    In answer to my question

    "Could you elaborate on how CCS affects the accuracy or precision and what MS(Mike Staker) might do to mitigate it. "

    eg2.

    "Robert: you I guess realise that I cannot answer that in terms of particulars, specifically I can't say whether in this case it would be significant. "


    My new questions

    Q1. HAS THHuxleynew ever read the CCS paper written by KirkShanahan. in the last 17 years

    Q2 How does THHuxleynew account for the spurious CCS/ATER anomalous heat being observed ONLY with D2O and not with H2O.

    in Pd/D20/Li electrolysis experiments?????


    Could THHHuxleynew please toughen up and refrain from the 'personal' assertion?

    There is nothing personal about a Maori sidestep.

    This is one of the better tactics against CCS.

    Circumloquatious confused sophistry.

    THHuxley was said to be Darwin's bulldog... not his chihuahua

    I reserve personal for a current member of the

    Southern Evangelical Seminary

    God Bless his ministry  with humility

    Kia ora bro

  • What is certain is that I have real problems with people who say that LENR is now ready to solve the world’s problems and that nothing else can.


    That certainly is a stupid way to approach it. Some think it will upend the world as we know it. Equally stupid. We will hopefully adapt and move on, as so far we have (just about) managed to do.