How do you convince a skeptic?

  • BTW IO...don't you work in the alternative energy industry?

    I have done work in several differeent areas of alternative energy. I would describe my view by saying the only really practical approach to the essential energy transition is an all-hands-on-deck strategy. Solar, wind, hydro, ocean, and so on are all needed. LENR too if it gets to the point of practicality. The only people who say there is a silver bullet are silver bullet salesmen.

  • The only people who say there is a silver bullet are silver bullet salesmen.


    Alluding to LENR.??.. actually the metastable isotopes Ag107 and Ag109 have been reported to

    be very useful for maintaining LENR reactions ... and are being incorporated in some LENR reactor formulations.

    But the bullets are only 1-2 grams in size and are not 100% Ag

  • I think IOs comment is probably better in Clearance rather than in Skeptics


    Does IO mean Brillouin or Robert Godes?

    Wow! The “you” in “you are dog-meat” referred to me. You are offended that I insulted myself?

    You are getting desparate to find things to complain about.


    As for the Brillouin question, what are you on about? I posted a list of various LENR-related entities (persons as well as companies) that people talk about. Yes, I used the word people - obviously a grave and unforgivable error. Clearly I just can’t say anything that doesn’t set you off.

  • Although IO is not officially a skeptic, looks like many of today's posts would be better here How do you convince a skeptic?


    When I settle down, I will transfer over unless someone has an objection. BTW IO...don't you work in the alternative energy industry?

    Since IO has reversed his position about the 153 PFAHE replications by the top ~100 electrochemists, it seems suitable that his retraction should be put also on that thread. But that thread was closed. It was inundated by anti-LENR activists, with IO right there in the middle of them.


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

  • 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.




    IO:

    I’ll bow to the 153 replications and the Forbes 100 Best Electrochemists. Fine - it’s real.



    Interesting Retraction from Interested Observer. Too bad the initial thread where you fought so hard against those 153 replications by the top ~100 electrochemists was closed due to the activity of anti-LENR Luddites who were surrounding you in that gang you ran with back then.


    I’ll bow to the 153 replications and the Forbes 100 Best Electrochemists. Fine - it’s real.


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

  • I have done work in several differeent areas of alternative energy. I would describe my view by saying the only really practical approach to the essential energy transition is an all-hands-on-deck strategy. Solar, wind, hydro, ocean, and so on are all needed. LENR too if it gets to the point of practicality. The only people who say there is a silver bullet are silver bullet salesmen.


    You never hinted on ECN's about your strong science background, but every once in a while, you were left no other choice but to admit it. You have not changed. Like it was painful to acknowledge you knew what you were talking about. I always respected that in you.


  • You never hinted on ECN's about your strong science background, but every once in a while, you were left no other choice but to admit it. You have not changed. Like it was painful to acknowledge you knew what you were talking about. I always respected that in you.


    Well, there are several people here who endlessly tell me how little I know about science and, more importantly, how much they know about science. I’m quite content to let them revel in their superiority. What do I care?

  • JedRothwell wrote:

    Experts say it is certain. You have said you do not understand the technical issues, so you have no basis to dispute these experts. For all you know, it is 99% politics and 1% the fundamental nature of the problem.


    IO:

    Yes. For all I know, that is correct. It also doesn’t change my pessimism that the situation will change.

    ***Why not? Do you acknowledge the problem is a combination of politics + fundamental scientific nature of the problem? (That's what 'yes' means). Let's say you think it was 80% politics and 20% fundamental science, and you just now have turned a corner on the fundamental science, so your 80-20 percent viewpoint should have changed. Why did it not change if you no longer view the fundamental science behind it to be the problem? In the scenario above there should have been a 20% change. And if you all along thought it was 1% then why did you fight so hard on that 1%????? What was your percentage slicing of the pie?

  • The fact that Rossi has managed to entangle the LENR community in his scam is unfortunate, but so be it.

    ***It is not a fact, it is your surmision. But if it does turn out to be a fact, I agree.

    What would be important is to figure out HOW

    he did the scam, HOW he bamboozled Focardi/Piantelli and then the 7 Swedes and their Swedish Skeptics Society who only had to measure Power in (Watts) and Heat Out (Watts) on a black box. HOW? If Rossi scammed people with LENR as the hook, we need to fix the LENR community so that it would not be susceptible to this scam ever again. So, it remains to be proven, if not just shown preponderantly HOW Rossi did his con man magic tricks and how to detect such frauds in the future.

  • who endlessly tell me how little I know about science and, more importantly, how much they know about science


    Whoever says they know much about science knows little about science

    Ernest Rutherford expressed science simply as


    All science is physics ... the rest is stampcollecting.

    Of course Ernest lived before the IT revolution and DNA sequencing.

    Much of biology has graduated from stamp collecting into information coding.

    We may find that in the end science is just IT and bitcoins.


    I so like Otis Redding's song

    "

    Don't know much about biology

    Don't much about the science book

    Don't know much about the French I took"



  • Glad to do this. If you read the entire sequence of Shanahan / Shanahan critics papers you will see:


    (1) CCS is Shanahan's grand name for errors caused by cell condition changes altering calibration

    (2) While everyone knows this Shanahan pointed out that some LENR papers were ignoring the fact that small call errors of this type get amplified by the ratio between the (external) power in and the (observed) excess heat out. This is pretty obvious, so that for example a 10% excess heat result will be invalidated by a calibration shift (caused by some change in conditions) of only 1%.

    (3) There is then the matter of what could cause calibration to change by 1%. Shanahan hypothesised ATER (at-the-electrode-recombination) which LENR guys have uniformly stated is not possible. Well, Shanahan argues that it could be possible in certain special cases whn you have the right electrode preconditioning etc. Sound familiar? ATER has the potential to cause calibration changes by altering the position in the cell where heat is generated. For certain types of closed cell, where a recombiner is used at the top of the cell, it is plausible that moving from recombiner heat to electrode heat would move calibration consistently in the direction of less heat lost and therefore more measured.

    (4) From my POV this mechanism does not apply everywhere, but a wide class of LENR expereriments need to be aware of it and check carefully. Good enough calorimetry will reduce this problem to low levels, and some LENR experiments provably have this. Shanahan thought that all such claims should check for this possible error mechanism explicitly: other LENR authors argued that "they had checked and it was obviously not an issue".

    (5) From my POV "obviously not an issue" is not good enough when you have surprising results - like excess heat beyond chemical. You need to prove that such a hypothesis does not apply in every specific case that you cite.

    (6) The discussion thus is more about "does ATER exist" and "could ATER alter calibration" for specific experiments than it is about CCS. One thing that has sometimes annoyed me is that LENR papers do not always (or even usually) assume what I consider a proper burden of proof. Thus if some error mechanism has been shown not to be relevant in some cases it is assumed not relevant in all cases without careful argument. Because LENR excess heat is found to be erratic, it can be simulated by an error which only happens occasionally, hence the checking for what could possibly be an error needs to be very careful.

    (7) Therefore I side with Marwan et al in that there are various good ways to rule out ATER, some of which clearly apply to some LENR experiments. I side with Shanahan in that not all of the considered important LENR experiments, as documented, do rule out ATER.

    (8) Shanahan argues that possibly all replicable FPHE observations are due to ATER. I don't have a view on that, it is not entirely clear what constitutes a replicable observation, given teh FPHE effect is hypothesised to depend on not easily determined electroe conditions that cannot be fully controlled nor measured, except by the apparent existence of FPHE. That makes a lot of people seeing FPHE, but not consistently, potentially fit an error mechanism that oes not always apply, but does sometiems.

    (9) Were I wanting to prove FPHE effects as due to above chemical heat production, I'd need to examine the ATER and CCS issue very carefully and list those results which could not possibly be due to it (perhaps because the come from a 99% efficient calorimeter and show excess heat above errors of >> 1%). My reduced list of experiments could then be examined for other possible errors etc. At the enmd of this process the experimenst that stand up would justify Jed's and others certitude.

    (10) Shanahan got annoyed with the LENR community because the published (and personal) replies to his hypothesis were dismissive without engaging fully in his arguments nor understanding them. For example, Marwan et al argue (amongst many other arguments) that CCS might lead to random errors which go both positive and negative, but these are not observed. Shanahan rightly pointed out that this was, if it existed, a systematic error mechanism, and therefore any argument about random errors does not apply. He felt that such a gross misunderstanding of his published idea showed they could not have read his paper when replying to it.


    Now after that background: note my tense in the sentence you quote: conditional. I cannot prove that CCS exists. Shanahan claimed he had, from analysis of provided unpublished data, strong evidence for it in one case. Obviously that is not proven. Even if CCS does exist it would be surprising for it to apply in all cases. If CCS exists there might be some other condition change causing it, not ATER. But, ATER as hypothesised has the potential to create CCS (obviously) since it alters cell temperature distribution which may create calibration changes.

  • (3) There is then the matter of what could cause calibration to change by 1%. Shanahan hypothesised ATER (at-the-electrode-recombination) which LENR guys have uniformly stated is not possible. Well, Shanahan argues that it could be possible in certain special cases whn you have the right electrode preconditioning etc. Sound familiar? ATER has the potential to cause calibration changes by altering the position in the cell where heat is generated. For certain types of closed cell, where a recombiner is used at the top of the cell, it is plausible that moving from recombiner heat to electrode heat would move calibration consistently in the direction of less heat lost and therefore more measured.


    Liquid chemistry is never a one way road! There is always an equilibrium and thereof recombination is always a part of the basic enthalpy calculation.


    From this it is safe to conclude that ATER is a nonsense hypothesis at least there is no additional effect caused by ATER.

  • Glad to do this. If you read the entire sequence of Shanahan / Shanahan critics papers you will see

    Thanks so much for that effort.

    Unfortunately you have not shown me as I requested how


    "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"


    I have read both the 2002=CCS paper and the 2005 paper= ATER paper by Kirkshanahan in Acta Thermochimica

    My reading of these shows no support for this statement that you have written

    CCS appears to be independent of ATER and of the speciai active environment , from my reading.

    Perhaps this statement is a THHuxleynew variant of the Kirkshanahan theories?

    Or perhaps you can show me from these two peer-reviewed papers where I have overlooked some vital details.


    https://www.researchgate.net/p…prepared_by_co-deposition

    https://www.researchgate.net/p…_calorimetry_demonstrated


    If you cannot access these papers I can always post the guts of them on this forum.