The Art Of Creating Doubt About Science

  • F&P's 1992 experiment is the cornerstone of the entire CF's house of cards.

    As you related a few posts ago, F&P used the results from that experiment to request DoD funding. But it's a huge leap to conclude that it is thus "the cornerstone" of CF. If that 1992 experiment was not made I see no compelling reason reason to believe work on CF would have fizzled out. You may have a point about foaming in this specific case (I haven't read the material closely enough to have a strong opinion), but I'm puzzled why you project a potentially real but specific problem in one experiment to all the multitudes of other quite different experiments.

  • This video reminds me of people who think that if they can just find a mistake in the original paper by Fleischmann and Pons, the entire field of cold fusion will vanish. All those other papers by other researchers? They don't count.


    There is more than one paper about climatology. One paper could not possibly have the effect this video describes.


    Yes there is certainly more than one paper showing global warming. There are probably thousands. But organizations like CDN (that made the video) would be up to debunking any given paper that attempts to show catastrophic global warming. The CDN video you watched addressed just one particular issue regarding James Hansen's hockey stick graph. There are many other issues that are likewise addressed.


    Is Michael Shellenberger trying to sow doubt about climate 'science' maliciously, or out of sincere and informed concern?


  • F&P's 1992 experiment is the cornerstone of the entire CF's house of cards.


    So you say, but you have not given a technical reason. Because you cannot give a reason. You must explain how it can be that an error in boil-off calorimetry invalidates isoperibolic, flow or Seebeck calorimetry. That is impossible. Your claim is preposterous.


    As you related a few posts ago, F&P used the results from that experiment to request DoD funding.


    No, they did not. That experiment was funded by Toyota. They had no need for DoD or DoE funding, and they would not have asked for it. They were not happy with the U.S. scientific establishment.

  • I would gladly buy some copies of the comic if I could do so anonymously.


    It's an online purchase from a third party website. You can wear a beard and dark glasses while ordering online (just in case) and they take paypal. They can also post then to you anonymously at your secret address.

  • As you related a few posts ago, F&P used the results from that experiment to request DoD funding.


    No, I didn't say that (see The Art Of Creating Doubt About Science ). The so called "simplicity" paper, reporting the 1992 boil-off experiment, was the first of 8 documents selected by 5 very important CF members to request DoE funding in 2004, 12 years after the experiment (see http://newenergytimes.com/v2/g…ent/DOE2004/7Papers.shtml ).


    Quote

    But it's a huge leap to conclude that it is thus "the cornerstone" of CF. If that 1992 experiment was not made I see no compelling reason reason to believe work on CF would have fizzled out.


    Yes, it would have continued, because illusion is one of the most powerful force of humankind, but after its presentation at ICCF3 in Nagoya (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n88YdKYv8sw ), the 1992 boil-off experiment was considered by the CF supporters as one of the most compelling evidence of the reality of the F&P effect and of its capability to be used for practical applications. These myths continued up to nowadays, as you can see on the cover of the comic book "Discover Cold Fusion".


    Quote

    You may have a point about foaming in this specific case (I haven't read the material closely enough to have a strong opinion), but I'm puzzled why you project a potentially real but specific problem in one experiment to all the multitudes of other quite different experiments.


    Because it's mainly a matter of people, not experiments. The huge errors in the 1992 boil-off experiment and in the related papers affect not only that specific work, but heavily undermine the credibility of its authors (which are also the CF's fathers) and of all the others researchers and supporters, who had the opportunity to watch the videos and nevertheless continued to proclaim the validity of the F&P results.

  • Because it's mainly a matter of people, not experiments. The huge errors in the 1992 boil-off experiment and in the related papers affect not only that specific work, but heavily undermine the credibility of its authors (which are also the CF's fathers)


    There is an expression in polemics called 'arguing from authority' - I think yours version is best described as 'arguing from ignorance'.

  • What is the point you are trying to make?


    you'll get somewhat different impression about science of global warming


    Why should we read this "conspiracy" sites?


    Sample : Mantle plume' nearly as hot as Yellowstone supervolcano is melting Antarctic ice sheet... Only a complete idiot can invent such nonsense...Arctic ice breaks off at the border due to elevated sea temperature and sea levels!!

  • There is an expression in polemics called 'arguing from authority' - I think yours version is best described as 'arguing from ignorance'.


    Yes, exactly. When someone argues from his authority, people simply believe what he says. This is the case of F&P when they presented their calculation made by assuming that at the beginning of the boil-off phase the cells were full of liquid watew, and of many others authoritative CF members who supported the F&P results.


    Conversely, arguing from ignorance requires you to provide the evidence of what you are saying. This is my case when I invite the people to carefully watch the F&P videos to see what really is inside the cells.

  • So you say, but you have not given a technical reason. Because you cannot give a reason.


    The technical reasons were given directly by F&P and by those who published their videos of the 1992 boil-off experiment. Anyone can watch them and see the technical reasons which invalidates the F&P claims.


    Quote

    You must explain how it can be that an error in boil-off calorimetry invalidates isoperibolic, flow or Seebeck calorimetry. That is impossible. Your claim is preposterous.


    No, I don't have to. The foam error "invalidates" the people who reported and supported the 1992 boil-off experiment, not only that specific experiment. So it invalidates all other experiments done by the same people, even if methods and equipments are different.


    Either way, it seems you no longer question that the 1992 experiment was flawed. Are you going to correct and update your recent "Review of the calorimetry of Fleischmann and Pons" and explain why the "simplicity" paper is simply wrong, or will you keep it in the present wrong status?

  • Anyone can watch them and see the technical reasons which invalidates the F&P claims.


    Not "anyone." You are the only person who can do this. No one else sees what you claim to see. No one else agrees with you. You are not saying, "anyone can see this." You are saying, "everyone else is blind to it." You are saying: "I alone, in my sublime genius, see mistakes where mere mortals cannot see them. I know more than Fleischmann, Pons, McKubre, Storms and all the others put together."


    The foam error "invalidates" the people who reported and supported the 1992 boil-off experiment, not only that specific experiment. So it invalidates all other experiments done by the same people, even if methods and equipments are different.


    Okay, so let's explore how this works. Because F&P made an error, this magically reaches out and invalidates McKubre's flow calorimetry. You cannot tell us how it does this. You have not discovered an error in McKubre's work. But you don't have to. It must be wrong because F&P were wrong using different equipment and different methods.


    But that's not all! MIT plasma fusion researchers did an inept cold fusion experiment, and they made many incorrect technical comments about other people's cold fusion experiments. So, that means the MIT plasma fusion research is all wrong. And, it means that all tokamaks, everywhere on earth, have failed. None of them work. Because one group of plasma fusion researchers made mistakes.


    Wait! There's more!!! You magical effect has unlimited power. During WWII, U.S. aircraft manufacturers made some really bad airplanes. Most notably, the Brewster F2A Buffalo, the Bell P-39 Airacobra, and the General Motors P-75 Eagle. From this, we can conclude that Brewster, Bell and General Motors were incapable of making good airplanes. Not only that, but their mistakes magically reached out and made all other U.S. aircraft practically unflyable. The Grumman Hellcat and the Vaught F4U Corsair were dogs. They lost every fight. They barely got off the ground. In fact, the U.S. lost the war because of them.

  • Article related to this topic in Scientific American.


    The Idea That a Scientific Theory Can Be Falsified is a Myth


    This is dreadful nonsense. Typical of Sci. Am. MANY theories and many experiments have been falsified. Heat theories such as phlogiston were disproved. Relativity tossed out the Newtonian model of space. Many other theories have been modified and improved to the point where they quite different, if not a repudiation of the earlier versions. The theory of evolution was remade from the ground up with the discovery of DNA.

  • This is dreadful nonsense. Typical of Sci. Am.


    This is a college level journal. But today science is full of nonsense. To many people have to publish else they perish.


    Also major accepted models have serious flaws and myths like that the Mercury perihelion does contradict Newton may be will stay for ever because even most physicists do not understand advanced mechanics.

    The correct solution of the Mercury Perihelion is given by Randall Mills where as Einstein relativity is way off...


    Lets hope that after a few centuries all the nonsense has faded away...

  • Not "anyone." You are the only person who can do this. No one else sees what you claim to see. No one else agrees with you. You are not saying, "anyone can see this." You are saying, "everyone else is blind to it." You are saying: "I alone, in my sublime genius, see mistakes where mere mortals cannot see them. I know more than Fleischmann, Pons, McKubre, Storms and all the others put together."


    Since you have not read the comment I had linked to you (see The Art Of Creating Doubt About Science ), I copy it below after underlining a few sentences for your convenience:

    FP's experiments discussion

    Robert Horst

    Nov 6th 2018

    […]


    However, I looked at the video a couple dozen times and am inclined to agree that the arrows are foam levels, not liquid levels. The cells seem to transition through three clear phases. In the first phase, you can see that it is mostly liquid with gradually increasing bubbles as the liquid boils. In the second phase is is mostly foam and in the third phase, the foam level rapidly decreases to zero. You can tell the foam phase because sometimes the level decreases and then increases again, which could not happen with liquid. For instance, look at Cell 1 at 21:23 when it is full of foam, 21:40 when the top of the foam is a little lower, then 21:55 when it is full of foam again. Several times the video cuts away for hours between phases 1 and 2. For Cell 1, there is a cut between about 11:30 and 18:36.


    The Enthalpy Balance in the paper is based on only the last 10 minutes and assumes the liquid is boiling then. Even though I have great respect for Fleischmann's work in general, I would have to agree with Ascoli that this paper is likely flawed.


    For ease of finding them again, here are links to the video and the paper. (It is hard to get much out of stills. You need to run the video to see how the levels are changing.)

    https://youtu.be/Tn9K1Hvw434

    http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmancalorimetra.pdf



    So, anyone can watch the video and come to the same conclusions.


    Quote

    Okay, so let's explore how this works. Because F&P made an error, this magically reaches out and invalidates McKubre's flow calorimetry. You cannot tell us how it does this. You have not discovered an error in McKubre's work. But you don't have to. It must be wrong because F&P were wrong using different equipment and different methods.


    It works in a different, more complex way. As I wrote in my reply to Mark U, just a few comments before the shorter version addressed to you: "The huge errors in the 1992 boil-off experiment and in the related papers affect not only that specific work, but heavily undermine the credibility of its authors (which are also the CF's fathers) and of all the others researchers and supporters, who had the opportunity to watch the videos and nevertheless continued to proclaim the validity of the F&P results."


    So the point is, who has had the opportunity to watch the 1992 boil-off video?

    Well, F&P for sure. They watched the video since June 1992, after the test was ended. But they also showed the video at the ICCF3 in Nagoya, the following October. So, everybody in the CF community watched at least one time the time-lapse video and was aware of its essential role in determining the exceptional amount of the excess heat claimed by F&P for that specific experiment. It's logical to assume that all the closest friend of F&P have had the opportunity to watch again that video. In any case, watching carefully the video would have been a scruple of any member in the small group of CF representatives who selected the "Simplicity" paper as the first paper to be submitted to DoE in 2004.


    Hence, the most expert, authoritative and representative members of the CF/LENR community continued to support the validity of the 1992 boil-off experiment reported by F&P, notwithstanding the available documentation, ie the video, clearly showed that the experiment was severely flawed by the presence of foam inside the cells. It means that either they were unable to see such a blatant flaw, or have chosen to ignore it. Either way, their own results suffered a serious loss of credibility.

  • It works in a different, more complex way.


    A mysterious way! That only you can understand. Or that you are keeping secret. You should tell us how a mistake relating to foam invalidated flow calorimetry. Show why the mistakes at MIT reached out and invalidated the entire plasma fusion program. How can a mistake made by one author "undermine the authority" of another author? Because you imagine that other author agrees with the result? You have no idea how many cold fusion researchers know about or care about the boil-off results. Based on the questions I asked several of them writing the recent paper, they never thought about it. They have no interest in it. It is a fact they never tried to replicate it.


    Furthermore, you have overlooked countless technical details and proof that your hypothesis is wrong. Such as the fact that the cells produced heat before and after the boil off, and the reflux cell produced heat for months, while condensing the steam. You have made dozens of idiotic mistakes, which you do not see. You are suffering from the Dunning Kruger effect. You are incompetent and this leads you to imagine you are an expert. See:


  • Stupid.

    such as asserting that airconditioning produces the oscillations in the Akito Takahashi calorimeter..

    when the calorimeter is isolated from room air,


    or that moisture is present in calcined fuel.


    to name just two examples in 2020


    of "serious loss of credibilty"


    there is no art in creating doubt in science

    by the foam master.. it is slapdash

  • Or arguing and deflection for pages and pages against 50% recovery when it is plotted as plain as a nose on a face...