Mizuno reports increased excess heat

  • for replicators it is irrelevant if TTHnew believes


    From the certain antagonistic and juvenile attitude that RB has, I doubt that many replicators find value in RB's posts and beliefs.



    I don't pay much attention to JB.


    I imagine most have stopped paying attention to RB's posts long ago as it is quite clear that RB has only personal insult and derogatory responses to anything that

    does not agree with his view. If it is not to RB's liking, it is worth of put down.



    Since when is IH the gold standard of scientific research?


    Since when is RB the authority on LENR researchers and the pen-ultimate sage? Heck, I have never heard of RB before but he acts as if he is the "Defender" of the faith. (Although it needs no defending, especially with insult and juvenile, repetitive taunting).


    I HAVE seen and read MUCH about IH's principal Darden's work on environmental causes. I have seen his actions and mature responses (compared to Rossi's fraud) during the Rossi debacle. But then I suspect RB still believes Rossi to some extent.


    I would CERTAINLY listen to Darden far more than someone who repeats juvenile blatherings. (hmm.... who fits that bill?)

    Jed seems to trust IH and has a fairly high opinion of them. I guess you do not trust Jed then? hmmm....


    My summary of "what I think of the evidence" from THHnew.

    .

    .

    .


    My summary of what "RB thinks".....


    It is quite apparent that you simply have a vendetta against THH. THH does not insult and attempts to present his case in open and logical dialog normally using data. Whether right or wrong, he presents his case. You however, can only add insult and juvenile retort. Responses like yours (along with the likes of Adrian Ashfield) is what gives a low opinion to many LENR outsiders. You ascribe a personal insult to a person you do not even know. THH simply is listing his opinions on a non-personal object/test/event. YOU take his skeptisim as some personal insult as you seem to tie your own worth to the value of this set of tests. Why else would you respond in such a childish manner?


    (By the way, whatever happened to A,A.? I hope he is not experiencing health issues. Perhaps he simply got sick of having to defend Rossi's lies.)


    One last point.... you often state along the lines of "what technical content have you brought to this discussion"...... so I ask you..... "what technical content or value has YOUR repetitive and juvenile retort as shown above brought to the discussion?" It only shows your maturity (or lack of it actually).


    RB, for one who often quotes scripture, you sure do not follow it. Perhaps a friendly reminder to re-read and meditate on Corth. 13 some more.... :thumbup:


    Regardless, I hope you have a good day.

  • In my personal experience, as a peer reviewee, sometimes is an issue of pure lack of communication capacity, and also of lack of interdiciplinary understanding capacity from some of the most highly regarded peers taking part on the process. On my first and only paper as main author submitted to peer review, one of the reviewers chastized me for talking about "energy" within a biological plant system and completely misunderstood what I meant. In retrospective I think he simply did not understood a word of what I was talking about and lashed out on me through his review. As I am an engineer, I tend to see systems as multipart and integrated from different disciplines, of each of which I need to have at least a basic understanding to make sure the integrated system will work. I finally sent it to other journal and got more appropriate reviews and got it published after two rounds of reviews. But I will never forget the harshness of one of the reviewers on the first journal that seemed to be insulted by my paper, while the others were much more precise in their points of view and I could solve all their doubts.

    I certainly Hope to see LENR helping humans to blossom, and I'm here to help it happen.

  • In my personal experience, as a peer reviewee, sometimes is an issue of pure lack of communication capacity, and also of lack of interdiciplinary understanding capacity from some of the most highly regarded peers taking part on the process. On my first and only paper as main author submitted to peer review, one of the reviewers chastized me for talking about "energy" within a biological plant system and completely misunderstood what I meant. In retrospective I think he simply did not understood a word of what I was talking about and lashed out on me through his review. As I am an engineer, I tend to see systems as multipart and integrated from different disciplines, of each of which I need to have at least a basic understanding to make sure the integrated system will work. I finally sent it to other journal and got more appropriate reviews and got it published after two rounds of reviews. But I will never forget the harshness of one of the reviewers on the first journal that seemed to be insulted by my paper, while the others were much more precise in their points of view and I could solve all their doubts.


    Curbina:


    My take on this (and I adopt this over a lot of my work) is that communication is a two-way process. You get better communication if either the writer or the reader are better.


    As an author, you can't control the reader, but you can be aware of your likely readers and do your best to make material accessible to all and reduce the likelihood of misunderstanding. Academic papers are tough in that you seldom get reviewers from the background you want, but relatively easy in that everyone shares certain stylistic and methodological ideas.


    Of course, there is still pot luck and even with 3 reviewers you can draw a short straw on a good paper. I reckon about 1 in 4 reviewers is just nasty - thinking that this somehow makes the review more robust. Which I think it does not, as all here who've noticed my tactful and emollient style will agree :) . But, even thought you should not be nasty, you have to be honest.


    Normally at least one of your reviewers does not much know about the paper - but unless nasty they will then make general stylistic comments rather than critiquing content outside their realm of competence.


    So bad luck!

  • Rends

    Fraud and lies are Rossi's only catalysts, Suggest you read Rossi vs IH depositions and transcripts (I know, they're too long). If Rossi uses calcium at all, it's to prevent osteoporosis.

    That was a bit mean with poor old Rossi, but gotta admit it made me laugh a lot.

    I certainly Hope to see LENR helping humans to blossom, and I'm here to help it happen.

  • Peer review sure is bloody.


    It can be. As Schwinger wrote:


    "The pressure for conformity is enormous. I have experienced it in editors’ rejection of submitted papers, based on venomous criticism of anonymous referees. The replacement of impartial reviewing by censorship will be the death of science."


    https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/SchwingerJcoldfusiona.pdf


    On the other hand, sometimes peer-review is helpful. Mel Miles says it has often helped him correct mistakes and improve papers.


    From my point of view, coming from the world of commercial programming, peer-review is an outrageous violation of antitrust law. The whole institution of academic journals and publishing is an antitrust violation, and so are all of the funding mechanisms. If we did this kind of thing, we would be in trouble with the SEC. Imagine letting experts at IBM approve software projects in other companies, funding for start-up companies, advertisements, publications and so on in other companies. Computers would still use core memory. The industry would be stuck in a time warp in 1965. Our late friend Mike Melich once said to a high muckety-muck official at the DoE, "why have you put the editors of Nature in charge of energy policy?" The official was not pleased. I think the answer is: "it is an academic tradition." A recent tradition. I think it was in the late 30s or after WWII that Einstein first had one of his papers submitted to anonymous peer-review, a custom he had never heard of. It came back with comments. He said something like: What is this? Who marked up my work, and who does he think he is?


    Anonymous peer-review is a custom more honour'd in the breach than the observance, and not even as much fun as carousing all night long, so it doesn't even have that to recommend it.

  • Anonymous peer-review is a custom more honour'd in the breach than the observance

    Peer review is sometimes honest sometimes deceptive.


    On the other hand there is honest and honourable scientific endeavour.


    I'm not sure when this passage was written

    I would like to read the original Japanese.

    People still read Mizuno' book

    "Nuclear Transmutation: The Reality of Cold Fusion (English Edition) "


    https://www.amazon.fr/Nuclear-…glish-ebook/dp/B071Y45BGZ

  • Rather than patronize the world's leading destroyer of small businsesses (without reporting a profit), notice that

    "Infinite Energy" apparently still has very nice "used" copies of Mizuno's great little book:

    Infinite Energy gets a percentage from Amazon. The electronic version was converted by me and uploaded by them.

  • Those described are hard copies, last I purchased some. Not electronic versions... which we never can "own", as I am sure you know. (And thanks Jed, for your translations!).


    The big A is a temptation that I avoid. Seek alternatives and one can find them. Of course the alternatives often cost a bit more... WE will pay later when all competition is gone.

  • Not electronic versions... which we never can "own", as I am sure you know.

    Printed books are a burden. I wish I could magically convert nearly all of mine into electronic ones.


    You can own Amazon books. A few years ago you could, anyway. There were some programs that downloaded them and converted them and saved them on your disk. Or you could just find them in a Kindle folder and have at them. I haven't tried it lately.


    The format is debased HTML. Nothing special.

  • Printed books are a burden. I wish I could magically convert nearly all of mine into electronic ones.


    You can own Amazon books. A few years ago you could, anyway. There were some programs that downloaded them and converted them and saved them on your disk. Or you could just find them in a Kindle folder and have at them. I haven't tried it lately.


    The format is debased HTML. Nothing special.

    Bit rot will probably wipe out half the content this era produced. Obsolete digital technologies will wipe away a bunch more.

  • Bit rot will probably wipe out half the content this era produced. Obsolete digital technologies will wipe away a bunch more.

    Nope! Not anymore. That was a huge problem in the 1960s, a big problem in the 70s, a moderate problem in the 80s, and no problem forevermore from now on. My mother worked at the Census Bureau in the 1960s where it was huge problem. They bought many of the first computers, and they changed hardware and software often, from one mag tape format to the next, to hard disks, etc. It was a nightmare. Publishing with PageMaker (a.k.a. "RageMaker") in the 1980s became a problem as that format went obsolete, but I could usually find a utility to convert things like that.


    Here is the key thing. There were only a few thousand data sets in the 1960s that needed preservation. There were, I suppose, a few hundred thousand PageMaker documents worth preserving. By the 1990s, there were billions of documents in formats such as Microsoft Word or Acrobat. Now there are more bytes of storage than there are grains of sand on all the beaches of the earth. There is such a tremendous number of documents in Acrobat, and images in common formats such as .jpg, that I think programs will remain backward compatible for thousands of years, if not for as long as people use computers. People will not forget the decode algorithms. Even if people do, computers are getting smarter by the day, and decades or centuries from now they will be as smart as a sentient being. They may not be sentient, but they will certainly know things such as how to decode and display a .jpg from the year 2000. I expect that better formats will emerge, but the method of decoding and converting the older formats will not be forgotten, because there are so many documents, images and videos.


    The reliability of computer data storage has improved by orders of magnitude since the 1970s. With redundant storage in 3 or more locations, it is very unlikely you will lose data. I have personal data sets from the 1970s that are bit-for-bit intact, and thousands of documents. It is much more likely a paper book will be spoiled by water damage or fire than that you will lose all copies of a digital book -- as long as you keep a copy offsite. Which is easy to do with cloud storage. (I have no sensitive data that I wish to hide, so cloud storage is not a problem for me. Most of my valuable documents are available at LENR-CANR.org.)


    Sooner or later -- probably sooner, in fact -- people will learn to store data in DNA. Great progress has been made in this. Recording and reading back is somewhat slow, but reproducing books saved in DNA is by far the fastest method. Harvard researcher George Church encoded his own biology textbook in DNA and then made 70 billion copies. He said it was the largest printing of any textbook in history. See:


    http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/…ook-to-be-encoded-in-dna/


    Properly stored, DNA will last for hundreds of thousands of years, perfectly intact. If there are only multiple fragmented copies of a book stored in DNA, they can be reassembled by the techniques used to re-assemble the DNA of the 1918 influenza virus, or the Neanderthal genome. All of the data in the world could fit in about 100 ml of DNA. The cost of materials would be zero. DNA is available everywhere. You could make as many backup copies as you like.

  • @Jed,

    Properly stored is the key. Most people use the cheapest storage media available, store them somewhere inappropriate (like the attic or crawl space ) and do not have enough backups. Things are improving, but that does not help the stuff from 1980 to now that are slowly demagnetizing, oxidizing and depolymerizing, and live on floppy discs that the labels fell off of.


    (Sorry for OT again...)

  • Properly stored, DNA will last for hundreds of thousands of years, perfectly intact


    Not quite so easy as it may seem. It has taken several decades of effort to begin to reliably sequence truly "ancient DNA" (first Neandertal mitochondrial sequences in early 1990s, were "easy"). The error levels are high, even in dehydrated storage. Mainly deaminations of cytosine, and depurinations (loss of whole bases from the strands). The main DNA virtue is that there are typically thousands of copies in an ancient specimen, so inferentially it is redundant enough to be reliable. As it is, DNA in the form of chromatin, that is with histones and nucleosomal structures intact can be sequenced with substantial redundancy. So we now can easily look at the sequences of Neandertal, Homo luzonensis, Denisova, Homo floresiensis and so on. That took a huge effort, and is now becoming more routine. One reason is that the data of a huge number of species (potential contaminants, both microbial and museum curatorial) have already been done multiple times for many thousands of species, so any contamination is more readily identifiable and discounted appropriately. I am not saying that DNA is bad, but it is not easy, and certainly relies on high redundancy for reliabilty. Magnetic, optical or electronic domains also have problems. Time and entropy degrade all information storage...