Maybe my brain is numb from not being able to sleep in my new hotel room, but I can’t make that equation work
True. Both the intercept and slope of the regression equation in the Temp vs Input Power plot seem to be out by about a factor of 2. They should both be about twice as large as shown.
Jed resistance heaters are made of heat resistant wire.
Yes! Otherwise they would melt.
The words are interchangeable in this case and most certainly non-mutually exclusive.
No, electrical resistance is not the same thing as resisting heat (not melting). The two happen to be same in English but they are two separate words in Japanese. This graph has the word for being heat resistant.
As for dangerous assumptions, please go back and reread what I wrote. I said these results stimulated us to redo these types of experiments with professional researchers from both academia and corporate partners.
So what? What is your point? Professional partners make mistakes. We cannot accept (or reject) their claims without more information. We cannot even tell whether they are professionals. In 1989, many professional physicists tried to do cold fusion. It turned out that many of them were amateurs when it comes to electrochemistry and calorimetry. For example, see p. 10:
https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJlessonsfro.pdf
Arguably, Fleischmann and Pons were amateurs when it came to measuring neutrons with a BF3 counter.
Not sure why you would expect a linear relationship from power input to temperature.
Because if it ain't linear -- or linear after an adjustment for heat losses -- it ain't a calibration.
You can’t just hand wave 240% error away. If any of you have some concrete suggestions of where to find 240% error please do let us know.
Rossi and others have shown you can wave away any result. I cannot make any concrete suggestions until I see some details about the experiment. Lots of details, actually. I have no way of knowing whether it is right or wrong. Mizuno and I made large mistakes in the past, on the scale of 200%. See:
I get this, with an online calculator
.
Again, we thought this data is exciting enough to send an early stage report to our friends and supporters in this forum and rest assured proper scientific technique is being followed and more robust calibrations with sufficient replicates to calculate error bars will be done in multiple locations and multiple teams with high quality equipment.
Nope, nope, nope. You should never "rest assured" of anything in experimental physics. Always demand proof. There is no harm to your releasing these results. They are interesting. I look forward to seeing details. BUT for you to say we should believe them because "Dr. Muto's scientific and personal credentials are unindictable" is out of line. Uncalled for. Professionals get the benefit of the doubt. But the people who made all the mistakes I pointed to here on p. 10 had superb scientific credentials:
https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJlessonsfro.pdf
Mizuno has good credentials yet he & I made a stupid mistakes in the past, and we could do that again anytime. You never know. Morrison and Hoffman were probably superb in their own fields, but when it came to critiquing cold fusion they were idiots. See:
https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanreplytothe.pdf
Please Daniel_G , don’t feel like you are being attacked,
Please Daniel_G, don't be a wuss. If you can't give solid technical reasons for you statements then just admit you don't know what you are talking about. Saying that a calibration does not have to be linear (perhaps after adjusting for something like heat losses) is ridiculous. If is isn't linear you have to show the reason why.
I agree the equation is wrong. New computer/software... Thanks for catching that! Here is the actual data:
y = 0.3513x + 34.844
R² = 0.9843
Funny the R^2 was correct but the equation was not.
Display MoreI agree the equation is wrong. New computer/software... Thanks for catching that! Here is the actual data:
y = 0.3513x + 34.844
R² = 0.9843
Funny the R^2 was correct but the equation was not.
Could be worse. I was trying to do it with Numbers on an iPad...
I left out the 0 W, 25 C point, which is probably why our last equations don’t quite match.
Yes I did mine with Numbers as well. Strange error. I reentered the data into a new spreadsheet and got the same result. Crazy. The above numbers were done on Excel and are correct.
Yes I did mine with Numbers as well. Strange error. I reentered the data into a new spreadsheet and got the same result. Crazy. The above numbers were done on Excel and are correct.
I am sure Numbers can do it. I have almost never used Numbers before, and an iPad is a nuisance for these sorts of things. I prefer a keyboard that stays put and does the same thing each time I try to do something.
Jed, you seem to have misunderstood or perhaps I didn't state clearly. This data is nothing more than an early report of something exciting. The "rest assured" comment was in reference to the ongoing and planned replications not the current report. It means that top level corporate and academic researchers will replicate and do it properly.
Jed, you seem to have misunderstood or perhaps I didn't state clearly.
No, I understood you perfectly well. I disagreed.
The "rest assured" comment was in reference to the ongoing and planned replications not the current report.
You said: "rest assured proper scientific technique is being followed and more robust calibrations with sufficient replicates." No one should ever rest assured of that. That is never a given. Your ongoing and planned replications might be a botched up mess, like the Kamiokande experiments or -- arguably -- like Google's attempt to replicate that was published in Nature.
It means that top level corporate and academic researchers will replicate and do it properly.
It does not mean they "will" do it properly. It means they will try, or they hope to, or they have confidence they will do it properly. Confidence is dangerous. Every failed cold fusion project was run by people who had confidence they were doing it properly, but every one of them was mistaken. The people at Google are still confident, but the experienced people in the field -- and even I -- can see they made mistakes, and their assertions in the Nature paper are not warranted.
Beware of making a fallacious appeal to authority logical fallacy. Until you are sure the people in question are actually authorities, pointing to their credentials is weak evidence at best. If you are talking about the people at BARC who measure tritium for a living, then you can say with confidence they are experts in tritium. If the people replicating Muto and Mizuno are experts in calorimetry, then you can have confidence in their results. Since you have not told us who they are or what other work they have published, we can have no such confidence. We cannot take your word for that. Science does not work that way. It isn't personal, but such assurances are meaningless.
I don't believe that Jed has ever been a professional academic scientist. But he certainly thinks like one! It's nice to see.
I don't believe that Jed has ever been a professional academic scientist. But he certainly thinks like one!
Programmer. That trumps academic scientist. When something goes wrong with an experiment, the scientist finds out the next day. No big deal. When something went wrong with a program back in the day, they woke you up at 2 a.m. One time they put me on an airplane to Las Vegas for weeks! Las Vegas is . . . my least favorite place. Years ago they destroyed one of those Las Vegas customer sites with explosive demolition. I enjoyed watching that video.
. . . They seem to do that a lot in Las Vegas. It is a throwaway culture.
I don't believe that Jed has ever been a professional academic scientist. But he certainly thinks like one! It's nice to see.
I thought you would enjoy the show. We all love critiquing...that is what science is all about. But a parent to child scolding is not very productive. A respectful dialogue is though.
I suspect Daniel will not be back for awhile. Can't blame him. He and Mizuno like professional feedback...as does any scientist, but it has to be delivered in a such a way so as not to offend. Once that line is crossed, it is all over.
Hopefully when we get the Gordon "workshop" going, all members are on their best behavior.
I suspect Daniel will not be back for awhile. Can't blame him. He and Mizuno like professional feedback...
Wasn't he the one who set up a website with a purloined photo of some gadget that had nothing to do with cold fusion? When we pointed this out, he removed it. I would not call that professional.
Wasn't he the one who set up a website with a purloined photo of some gadget that had nothing to do with cold fusion? When we pointed this out, he removed it. I would not call that professional.
Daniel was busy on the science, and admittedly knew little about web design. He demonstrated professionalism when he asked us, the staff, for help to improve the site. Barty and Rends stepped forward, did some work on the layout, and improved it.
That oven weighs 250 kg.
No wonder it takes an hour for it to get to 500 C at 7800 W.
Daniel was busy on the science, and admittedly knew little about web design. He demonstrated professionalism when he asked us, the staff, for help to improve the site
Oh give me a break! He stole an image from some random web site, and pretended it was a device made by Mizuno. He made grossly exaggerated claims about the capabilities. He tried to fool the public into thinking they have a device nearly ready for the market. If anyone else had done that you would probably toss him off of this site.
Oh give me a break! He stole an image from some random web site, and pretended it was a device made by Mizuno. He made grossly exaggerated claims about the capabilities. He tried to fool the public into thinking they have a device nearly ready for the market. If anyone else had done that you would probably toss him off of this site.
No breaks today! That was a stock photo, and everyone knew that right away. It was not used to make "exaggerated claims"...it was simply there for window dressing. He admitted it immediately to us, and said he did not want to use a real photo to prevent competitors gaining an advantage. Barty promptly, and without complaint from the Mizuno team, put in a more appropriate one.
If we are going to start wrecking scientists reputations based on such flimsy reasons, then no one will be spared. How about we declare a truce? Your old team is at wits end over this, and would like to get onto the business of running a company; i.e. investors, patents, R/D without these public distractions.
If you want to air your dirty laundry, they welcome your private input. You are still valued as one of the team, and will always be grateful for your prior contributions. They feel close to getting this thing done, and if they do, it is something you, as Mr. LENR should welcome, and support.
