Given the HAD region claims are silly too, F&P were totally working in the noise
Did Dieter Britz give you any advice on the HAD region and the Szpak T effect? in 2002
07/18/2002 08: 14 AM
Hi Dieter ,(Britz) DOE
I have been totalling up my time recently , and I find I am spending too much time for too little return.
I do seem to have the penchant for teaching , even though I ' m not in academics.
And , in my current job assignment , I am the only chemist in a group of 15 metallographers .
I used to have a ~chemist as a supervisor , but even that left me starved for conversation (re . chemistry).
I do like chemistry, and 1 feel somewhat isolated where 1 am now .
The Internet was one way of maintaining professional level contacts . Also, I realize that I have ' the addiction ',
I seem to have withdrawal symptoms if I don’ t get my ' CF fix ' routinely.
But intellect shall prevail ! I think 1 've learned just about as much as I can or want from the ' field', such as it is.
I am getting less and less out of it , and in turn , I seem to be 'helping ' no one .
The ones who need the help the most ignore me because they are emotionally committed to their suppositions .
For them , it has become a matter of faith . I know about faith , as you know , but in my dealings in the CF area
I have always tried to use standard science and logic .
But , I need to quit . I have a couple of items to wrap up though .
For example , and this is where I need your professional advice.
In my most recent post in the ' F&P HAD ' thread , I talk about Szpak 's T claims ,
and attack it from the computational side .
However , it has occurred to me that I may be being too harsh , in that the concentration of the reactive species (water ) will not actually be changing that much
, even though the electrolyte concs change by 100- 200%. I 'd need to look up the detailed model Szpak references ,
or I can ask you I bet .
Was I too quick to reject the steady state condition? Or will the electrolyte concentration changes grossly affect things?
There are other things I don 't like about the study as well , that I didn ' t get into yet , so I probably could put out a couple more long posts.
I guess in the end I have to ask what good it does to comment on spf .
No one who matters (actual researchers , funding orgs.) is watching. (Just the historian !)
I ‘ve begun a 1st draft of a paper that responds to Ed Storms ' claim that my TA paper is 'only' applicable to his Pt work.
Dieter , in fact I can go back through all the CF calorimetry literature and see evidences of the same problem,
including F&P ' s work . There is the wrinkle in their work about ' bursts ', but if you postulate a messed up calibration and
just look at delta- T, you find the same delta- Ts there as in Storms ' (and probably McKubre ' s) work, so I can make a case
that they just don ' t measure recombination properly.
However ,that paper keeps getting bigger and bigger, and again I don ' t know what value it has in the end.
What I was contemplating doing was just do a so-so job on it, and then putting it out as a
government report , and not actually getting it published , just publically released .
I am going to try to stop responding to the ' groupies ' like Salsman and the like. The one guy that bugs me right now is Staker .
He 's made some claims that I would like to evaluate , but his behavior seems a clear flag that I should expect zip from him,
so I guess I just drop that too.
In the end, the thing that keeps me coming back is that the likes of McKubre keep getting funding to do sloppy science .
I really wanted to impact the funding orgs by pointing out minimum acceptable quality levels , but again ,
I don ' t know who ' s listening . In any case , we need to stay in touch , even if it ' s not about CF, and I will definitely try to do so .