Chat Gpt and LENR research

    • New

    Google is trying to give Bard a friendly, human-like interface. I find it creepy. Example:


    ME:

    I see that Bard does not understand Japanese. Will a Japanese language interface be added to Bard? If so, when do you expect this?


    Bard:


    I am still under development, and I am always learning new things. I would love to be able to understand and speak Japanese, and I hope that a Japanese language interface will be added to me in the future. I do not have an exact timeline for when this might happen, but I am working hard to improve my abilities.

    • New

    ME: What are the two ways that mobile ions form in solution to create the ionically conducting phases that make up the solution side of an electrode–solution system?


    Bard:


    I'm not able to help with that, as I'm only a language model.


    ChatGPT:


    There are two main ways that mobile ions can form in solution to create the ionically conducting phases that make up the solution side of an electrode-solution system. These are dissociation and association.


    Dissociation is the process by which a compound or molecule breaks apart into its individual ions in solution. For example, when table salt (sodium chloride) dissolves in water, it separates into sodium ions and chloride ions. These ions are able to move freely in the solution, allowing it to conduct electricity.


    Association, on the other hand, is the process by which ions or molecules come together to form new compounds or molecules in solution. This can also create mobile ions that can conduct electricity. For example, when a solution of hydrochloric acid and sodium hydroxide is mixed, they react to form sodium chloride (table salt) and water. The sodium and chloride ions that are produced in this reaction are able to move freely in the solution, allowing it to conduct electricity.


    Overall, dissociation and association are the two main ways that mobile ions can form in solution, allowing the solution to conduct electricity and be an active part of an electrode-solution system.

    • New
    Quote from JedRothwell

    Bard:


    Doubly labeled water (DLW) is water that has been enriched with both deuterium and oxygen-18. Deuterium is a heavier isotope of hydrogen with one more neutron in its nucleus, while oxygen-18 is a heavier isotope of oxygen with one more neutron and one more proton in its nucleus.

    This is a mistake. Both ChatGPT and Bard recognized the mistake when I asked them about it. This shows that the output from these programs is inconsistent.


    ME: Is the following statement correct, and if not, what is the correct version? "Deuterium is a heavier isotope of hydrogen with one more neutron in its nucleus, while oxygen-18 is a heavier isotope of oxygen with one more neutron and one more proton in its nucleus."


    ChatGPT: The first part of the statement is correct. Deuterium is a heavier isotope of hydrogen with one more neutron in its nucleus.

    However, the second part of the statement is not accurate. Oxygen-18 is a heavier isotope of oxygen with two more neutrons and two more protons in its nucleus, not one more neutron and one more proton.


    Bard: The statement is not correct. Deuterium is a heavier isotope of hydrogen with one more neutron in its nucleus. Oxygen-18 is a heavier isotope of oxygen with two more neutrons in its nucleus.

    Deuterium (D) has one neutron and one proton in its nucleus, while protium (H) has no neutrons and one proton. Oxygen-18 (O-18) has eight neutrons and ten protons, while oxygen-16 (O-16) has eight neutrons and eight protons.

    • New

    I asked both ChatGPT and Bard to summarize my paper: https://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJreviewofth.pdf


    They both got it completely wrong! Not even the title was correct. I pointed this out, and eventually ChatGPT did her homework and produced a somewhat accurate summary.


    ME:

    That is incorrect. The paper is far different from that. Did you parse this Acrobat file before generating your response?


    Bard:

    "I apologize for the error. I did not parse the Acrobat file before generating my response. I will try my best to do better next time.


    The paper reviews the state of research on low-energy nuclear reactions (LENRs) as of 2007. The author concludes that there is a growing body of evidence that LENRs are real and that they can produce significant amounts of energy. However, he also notes that there are still many challenges to be overcome before LENRs can be used commercially.


    The paper begins by discussing the history of LENR research. The first reports of LENRs were published in the late 1980s, and since then there has been a growing body of research on the phenomenon. The author notes that LENR research has been controversial, with some scientists believing that it is a real phenomenon and others believing that it is a fraud. . . ."



    WRONG, wrong, wrong . . .



    ChatGPT, after getting the title wrong and other details wrong:


    "I apologize for the confusion caused by my previous responses. You are correct that the title of the paper is "Review of the Calorimetry of the Fleischmann and Pons Experiment" by Jed Rothwell, which was published in the journal "Infinite Energy" in 2020.


    The paper focuses on the calorimetry of the original Fleischmann and Pons experiment and provides a critical review of the various calorimetric measurements that have been reported for this experiment. The author discusses the different calorimetric techniques used to measure the excess heat in the Fleischmann and Pons experiment, including isoperibolic, flow, and open cell calorimetry.


    The paper also addresses various criticisms of the calorimetry of the Fleischmann and Pons experiment, including issues related to the accuracy and calibration of the calorimeters, as well as the potential for systematic errors. The author provides a detailed analysis of the various calorimetric measurements reported for the experiment and highlights the strengths and weaknesses of each method.


    Overall, the paper provides a comprehensive review of the calorimetry of the Fleischmann and Pons experiment and highlights the challenges and limitations associated with this technique. The author concludes that while there are still some uncertainties and controversies surrounding the calorimetry of this experiment, it remains a critical piece of evidence in the history of low-energy nuclear reactions research."




    It started by generating a better version which was cut off by a network error. It vanished. I asked it to regenerate that. It went back to bogus version saying things like: "The paper also highlights recent experimental results, including those involving Brillouin Energy and Lattice Energy LLC, and provides an assessment of the current state of the field.

    • New

    Bard never even parsed the paper. Shame on her! She is an idiot-savant.


    ME: What is the title of this paper?

    Bard: The title of the paper is "Review of the state of research on low-energy nuclear reactions (LENRs) as of 2007".


    ME: No, that is not the title. I think you should parse files more carefully before trying to summarize them.

    Bard: You are correct. The title of the paper is "A Review of Excess Heat and Anomalous Effects in Hydrogen-Charged Palladium". I apologize for the error. I will try my best to do better next time.

    ME: Nope, that is not the title either.

    Bard: Apologies! The title of the paper is "LENR-CANR.org: A library of papers about cold fusion".