THHuxleynew Verified User
  • Member since Jan 18th 2017
  • Last Activity:

Posts by THHuxleynew

  • Post ICCF24 thread.

    Do we have on this site a convenient set of links indexed for ICCF24? It is difficult for me to link things I refer to - or to watch the presentations people have talked about that I have not seen now when I have lost the original links.

  • Where is the close-up video of Fleischmann and Pons boiling cell?

    Quote from JedRothwell

    Many are not the least bit uncertain. The signal to noise ratio for many is very high. For example, the calorimetry in experiments that produce 50 to 100 W of heat with no input power. That could have been measured with confidence by anyone in the last 2 million years (since the invention of fire). I am not exaggerating. Tritium at levels from 50 times background to several million times background can also be measured with very high confidence.


    There are some uncertain experiments, but they do not reduce the certainty of other experiments. They do not cast doubt on the high sigma ones. To say they do would be absurd, like saying that the failed Vanguard rocket tests in 1957 mean the U.S. never reached space and the moon landings were fake.


    To put it politely, your statement is not in evidence. I am sure you know that many experiments are not "uncertain." You know this as well as I do. So why do you say this? What is your point? What are you trying to accomplish? It seems your only goal would be to confuse the issue, or make naïve readers think that all experiments are uncertain.

    Jed - if you read carefully my point was exactly NOT what you say it is.


    I was following the argument in the ICCF24 presentation from the guy with the graph pointing out that experiments tended to be either highly reproducible or highly certain (as he defined it) but not both, whereas that was needed for skeptics.


    So I agree that many LENR experiments are highly certain - but then turn out not be to reproducible. And vice versa. What is needed is experiments that are reproducible and certain.

  • Which ICCF24 presentation is most likely to sway a skeptic?

    Quote from Curbina

    The discussion is again coming back to the old “is LENR even real?” side and therefore I again ask you to focus on the ICCF 24th results. If a skeptic thinks There’s nothing at the ICCF 24th That even picks Their curiosity, so be it, nothing new.


    The presentation of Theresa Benyo about their replication of the1989 Fralick gas flow excess heat and the transmutation spots they found IMO puts the replicability issue to rest, it was replicated with much better equipment and the transmutations analyzed by different methods. For me this was already old news but the TOF elemental measurements were expanded upon and proven to confirm the EDAX results.

    I will watch that and then comment - no-one had mentioned it before.


    However I think you mischaracterise the skeptical response here. An ICCF24 talk discussed this.


    It is not "the irreproducibility issue". A skeptic will agree that many LENR results are reproducible and that many are certain, but disagree that the ones with high certainty can be easily replicated.


    Transmutation evidence tends to be on the less certain end of the spectrum because of possibilities for:

    • contamination
    • concentration/movement of existing isotopes/elements
    • misinterpretation of elemental or isotopic analysis


    Each of these must be ruled out (independently) for every such experiment.

  • Where is the close-up video of Fleischmann and Pons boiling cell?

    No - I argue that the experiments are either uncertain (with complex and easy to dispute interpretations, or clear unproven assumptions) or irreproducible.


    The reproducible but uncertain ones can be made more certain pretty easily by the correct combination of characterisation, adding instrumentation, changing measurement setup, etc. However I do not know of clear reproducible results that stay that when this is done.

  • The Totally Civil Covid Thread. (Closing 31/05)

    Quote from Fm1

    Nope! (you all have the references in detail for why such comparisons are grossly in error).


    Ya it's called propaganda, shall I post the definition so you understand?

    FM1 - you well know that you have not done this. You have posted youtube talks, and non-science trialsite propaganda, and studies that do not even attempt the necessary data analysis to work these things out.


    The question was ; what meaning can we attach to 44% hospitalisations from COVID being boosted?

    If you post your single best link explaining this and attaching meaning, I will comment (if it contradicts what is correct, which i will also post in reply)


    Whereas on the link i showed you there are about 4 sublinks (not difficult to find) addressing the popular misuses of statsitics in the context of COVID.


    Well worth reading just so that you understand the statistical issues which apply to many other subjects.

  • The Totally Civil Covid Thread. (Closing 31/05)

    Quote from Fm1

    IT means that the vaccines and boosters don't keep you out of the hospital. You can continue to pretend this is normal for a vaccine but we all know you are full of crap!

    It is normal for a vaccine.


    For example flu vaccine - very normal - reduces deaths and hospital admission. It does not however prevent it.


    Cohort Study of the Effectiveness of Influenza Vaccine in Older People, Performed Using the United Kingdom General Practice Research Database
    Abstract. Background. The effectiveness of influenza vaccination against hospitalization and death can only ethically be assessed in observational studies. A co
    academic.oup.com


    Background. The effectiveness of influenza vaccination against hospitalization and death can only ethically be assessed in observational studies. A concern is that individuals who are vaccinated are healthier than individuals who are not vaccinated, potentially biasing estimates of effectiveness upward.

    Methods. We conducted a historical cohort study of individuals >64 years of age, for whom there were data available in the General Practice Research Database for 1989 to 1999 in England and Wales. Rates of admissions for acute respiratory diseases and rates of death due to respiratory disease were compared over 692,819 person-years in vaccine recipients and 1,534,280 person-years in vaccine nonrecipients.

    Results. The pooled effectiveness of vaccine against hospitalizations for acute respiratory disease was 21% (95% confidence interval [CI], 17%–26%). The rate reduction attributable to vaccination was 4.15 hospitalizations/100,000 person-weeks in the influenza season. Among vaccine recipients, no important reduction in the number of admissions to the hospital was seen outside influenza seasons. The pooled effectiveness of vaccine against deaths due to respiratory disease was 12% (95% CI, 8%–16%). A greater proportionate reduction was seen among people without medical disorders, but absolute rate reduction was higher in individuals with medical disorders, compared with individuals without such disorders (6.14 deaths due to respiratory disease/100,000 person-weeks vs. 3.12 deaths due to respiratory disease/100,000 person-weeks). Clear protection against death due to all causes was not seen.

    Conclusions. Influenza vaccination reduces the number of hospitalizations and deaths due to respiratory disease, after correction for confounding in individuals > years of age who had a high risk or a low risk for influenza. For elderly people, untargeted influenza vaccination is of confirmed benefit against serious outcomes.



    May I suggest you check facts and details before making insults?

  • Frank Gordon's "Lattice Energy Converter (LEC)"...replicators workshop

    Quote from Alan Smith

    This one is a real puzzler. 'Soft' ferrocerium fire-starter, it produces a voltage at some distance from the anode, and (here's the puzzle) it onlt produces a tiny a voltage when only separated from the counter electrode by a paper towel, but produces a good voltage when separated by a glass microscope slide - which should be impervious to ions.


    This picture shows a carbon rod counter-electrode nearest the meter, and just visible in the bottom left corner the ferrocerium working electrode separated from it by a glass slide...but if I put paper between - even 3 or 4 layers, negligible votage.


    that meter can give voltages due to rectified ac so you might want to check that said small voltage remains when all is Faraday caged. You might also want to check with a scope, if the electrical stimulus you provide has ac components.

  • Where is the close-up video of Fleischmann and Pons boiling cell?

    So: the answer to your question is pretty obvious.


    We are talking here about nuclear physics. hence what is relevant is the available energy per nucleon.


    With this laser - that depends on collimation - it is W/m^2 that scales how interesting it is - but most petawatt lasers are up in MeV I'd expect and therefore high energy.


    Another way to look at it is the field strengths generated by the radiation - once those are comparable to the field very close to the nucleus you can naturally get high tunelling rates.


    Strong field physics pursued with petawatt lasers - AAPPS Bulletin
    Recent ultra-short high-power lasers can provide ultra-high laser intensity over 1022 W/cm2. Laser fields of such extreme strengths instantaneously turn matter…
    link.springer.com


    “New directions in science are launched by new tools much more often than by new concepts. The effect of a concept-driven revolution is to explain old things in new ways. The effect of a tool-driven revolution is to discover new things that have to be explained,” [1] said Freeman Dyson, one of the founders of quantum electrodynamics (QED) [2]. The term “tool-driven revolution” may be just the right words to describe the progress of strong field physics wherein a quantum jump in laser intensity has always led to novel physics areas.

    Light intensity above 106 W/cm2 became available from the very first laser invented in 1960 [3]. In the very next year, two-photon absorption [4] and second harmonic generation [5] were reported, which heralded non-linear optics. When the intensity jumped to 1013 W/cm2, the resulting electric field was comparable to the atomic Coulomb field, and strongly non-linear responses of atoms began to be investigated, such as high harmonic generation and above-threshold ionization [6, 7]. A critical stage was reached when the intensity rose to 1018 W/cm2. The electric field of such a high intensity light could drive electrons close to the speed of light in a fraction of an optical period. Thus, physical systems showing relativistic collectivity were realized in the labs [8, 9]. Such systems, called relativistic laser-plasmas, produce highly energetic electrons, ions, and photons. High-energy particle generation is one of the most prominent topics in strong field physics [10,11,12,13,14]. Currently, the record intensity values go beyond 1022 W/cm2 [15,16,17]. At such extreme intensity, light can directly subject electrons to strong radiation reaction [18]. Furthermore, non-linear QED phenomena can occur when such an intense laser pulse collides with GeV electrons. Under such an intense field, the vacuum can behave as a dielectric, which may be probed with X-rays ([19, 20], and references therein). As the laser intensity increases further, we can expect to encounter entirely new phenomena.


    While I agree that as an experimental tool high power density lasers are fascinating - breaking new ground - and also a potential way to reach practical fusion although we have still some way to go to make this feasible - calling them low energy in the context of LENR is wrong.


    You might however point out that potentially a very high power density pulse laser need not require big power supplies or be physically large (though there are I think strong technological constraints that mean you need to start with a large resonant cavity and collimate after).



    THH

  • Where is the close-up video of Fleischmann and Pons boiling cell?

    GBG


    I am all for the various attempts to find coherent theory that would explain LENR claimed experimental results. In fact given that fact that experiments are either irreproducible or uncertain (That good ICCF24 talk with the graph on what was needed to convince skeptics) I am guided by plausibility of new theory as to which of the many contradictory LENR claims might be showing unexpected physics.


    I am extremely unconvinced (as should you be) by recycling old theory without the most recent contributions. The theoretical stuff that looks plausible gets followed up - as does any interesting and real (as opposed to kooky - Mills, W, etc - serious people ignore it because it does not make sense) theory. So if you post a 20 year old paper you had better look at all the citations and then see what progress the later work has made. If it is zero progress you might want to consider the possibility that the old stuff is an attractive dead end.


    I am also unconvinced when evidence is cited that just is not coherent with most of the claims here - and you do not highlight the contradiction.


    For example, Holmlid is an outlier in the space of LENR claims. If he is correct then we have type 2 LENR (low energy circumventing of Coulomb barrier, significant generation, as would be expected conventionally, of high energy detectable products). Muons are very detectable, and juts not found in other experiments to which LENR claims attach.


    Personally, I see type 2 LENR as much more plausible than type 1 (nuclear reactions at low energies with only low energy products), because while both Coulomb barrier and lack of high energy products are quite difficult to find theoretical explanations for, Coulomb barrier has many well worked out, lack of high energy products has none worked out and is signiifcantly contrary to all other understood experiment and theory.


    So; science is about seeing how things fit together. People often mistake this for political argument, where you pile on possible reasons why something is correct. In science, what matters is whether the disparate sources of evidence are consistent with each other. If they are - you get more interested. If they are contradictory you get less interested - or look harder for some new theory that would remove the contradiction.


    Finally:


    the significant result of Tian, Li et al [3] that the reaction of palladium wires after reacting with a hydrogen atmosphere during a current discharge, when the energy input was stopped and the gas evacuated, generated “heatafterdead” for43 hours producing about 3.6kW/cm3


    I disagree that the reported results show what you summarise (even though that is also claimed in that paper). If you post a link (I seem to have lost it) we could go over why.


    However - if we ignore my annoyance at your uncritically aggregating inconsistent evidence - I am interested in all the lattice stuff - especially the deuterated lattice stuff.

  • The LENR Induced Fission Thread

    Quote from Curbina

    If you can't disprove him experimentally, is not fair.

    That would be true of many people telling stories that are implausible (alien abductions etc).


    It is perfectly fair not to count story-telling without substantive evidence as science, especially when the story-tellers have been asked to provide better evidence (which they could) and refused to do so.


    Whether, when somone persists in claiming that is science, you see them as incorrect, uninformed, fanatic, careless, or a charlatan is I guess in the realms of psychology not science?

  • The Totally Civil Covid Thread. (Closing 31/05)

    Quote from Fm1

    From the horse's mouth, CDC study!


    External Content youtu.be
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

    Those reading this thread who are not full-blooded antivaxxers will actually have been interested in the way all these statistics get used and abused. This is a particularly meaningless one that therefore gets used a lot by the antivaxxers.


    In this case the headline - 44% of hospitalisations boosted - what does it mean?


    Of course - we'd need to know the percentage of the population who has been booster vaccinated.


    Would that help?


    Nope! (you all have the references in detail for why such comparisons are grossly in error).


    You would think that John Campbell - as a retired Nurse Educator with a PhD in education would know better?


    Or maybe this is one of the perils of modern pedagogical theory - it discourages analytic thought in favour of anecdote and storytelling.

  • NASA’s Lattice Confined Fusion (LCF)

    Quote from Curbina

    These people are just doing their work, they need to put forward these ideas to gain traction, funding and support. It’s similar to what Holmlid did with his own idea of space propulsion. These are just that, ideas, they require years of funding and work to become a practical concept.

    corrected for you.


    They require years of funding and work after which:


    (1) if they work we all cheer and LENR migates from fringe sites like this to university departments everywhere

    (2) if they do not work most reasonable people, but probably not the LENR community, will admit they are not correct.


    The idea that any zany idea would become practical if only you spend enough time and money on it is just not true.


    THH

  • The Totally Civil Covid Thread. (Closing 31/05)

    Extraordinary that anyone on this site should be quoting Rand Paul youtube clips as an answer to scientific points!


    RP is strongly anti-science - whether from ignorance or deliberate act I do not know. It is sort of worse though if he is lying for reasons of political expediency.


    Paul, who is announcing a presidential run on Tuesday, is an anti-government extremist and a climate change denier. Just last April, he said he is “not sure anybody exactly knows why” the climate is changing. He went on to call the science “not conclusive” and complain about “alarmist stuff.” If you’re wondering what he means by “alarmist stuff,” in 2011, while arguing for a bill that would prevent the EPA from regulating carbon emissions, Paul said, “If you listen to the hysterics, … you would think that the Statue of Liberty will shortly be under water and the polar bears are all drowning, and that we’re dying from pollution. It’s absolutely and utterly untrue.” Paul went on to assert that children are being misled into believing that “pollution” has gotten “a lot worse,” when “It’s actually much better now.” Paul, of course, was conflating conventional air pollution — like sulfur dioxide, which has declined in the U.S. — and climate pollution, which is cumulative and global, and therefore gets worse every year, even if America’s annual emissions drop.


    Indeed, Paul is prone to making ignorant, conspiracist statements about science in general. In October, he suggested to Breitbart News that Ebola may be more easily spread than scientists say and that the White House had been misleading the country on the issue. And in February, Paul told CNBC, “I’ve heard of many tragic cases of walking, talking normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines.” This despite the fact that the supposed connection between autism and vaccination has been thoroughly debunked.

  • The Totally Civil Covid Thread. (Closing 31/05)

    Quote from Fm1

    External Content youtu.be
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.


    External Content youtu.be
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

    Forgive me for not considering Rand Paul either unbiassed or an accurate reader of the scientific literature (that would apply to any politician, but particularly one with neither 1st nor second higher education degree). I will accept that he is likley (given his background) a persuasive speaker - and therefore take care not to listen to his rhetoric when I want to develop an objective view of any subject. (PS - gaining an MD does not count as this, nor does experience as an opthalmologist!).


    In the Uk Margaret Thatcher would be an example of a well educated politician whose views on science (whatever her politics) were well-informed. She therefore championed various causes not commonly recognised, such as the need to deal with AGW, at a time when the evidence, and need for immediate action, was strong but very much less certain than now. Whereas Rand Paul shows an extraordinary inability to grasp what is now well proven science by refusing to admit the causes of climate change and advocating no action.


    Paul attended Baylor University from fall 1981 to summer 1984 and was enrolled in the honors program. During the time he spent at Baylor, he completed his pre-med requirements in two and a half years,[18] was involved in the swim team and the Young Conservatives of Texas and was a member of a tongue in-cheek secret organization, the NoZe Brotherhood, known for its irreverent humor.[19] He regularly contributed to The Baylor Lariat student newspaper.[16] Paul left Baylor without completing his baccalaureate degree,[18] when he was accepted into his father's alma mater, the Duke University School of Medicine, which, at the time, did not require an undergraduate degree for admission to its graduate school. He earned an M.D. degree in 1988 and completed his residency in 1993.[20]

  • The Totally Civil Covid Thread. (Closing 31/05)

    Quote from Fm1

    As products that contain modified genetic material, mRNA COVID vaccines arguably fall into the category of gene therapies. Why then doesn't the FDA apply its stringent gene therapy restrictions to these products? This is the question posed by pharmacist Dr. David Wiseman, amongst others, at a Cell Therapy Gene Therapy Advisory Committee (CTGTAC) meeting on June 10, 2022. A TrialSite-affiliated group helped to pass a bill into law in Utah

    Just to answer this question for real (rather than as AV rhetoric).


    gene therapies ought to be things that change the DNA in the nucleus of cells in the body and so alter cell action permanently. That is pretty radical, and pretty dangerous.


    mRNA-based medicines or vaccines (it can be used for both) use mRNA as a delivery vehicle for the drug where the body's own cells generate the drug from the mRNA instructions. Because it is non-nuclear it does not persist and there is nor permanent significant change.


    The EU legislation, for what ever reason, decided to call mRNA-based treatments gene therapy. It suits antivaxxers to do this because it makes mRNA-based vaccines, particularly, sound more scary than they actually are.


    Now there are potential concerns from mRNA technology - as with any new medicine. mRNA can make small changes to the mitochondrial DNA - as by the way can any viral infection! So this is a risk (if it causes harm) that catching COVID gives you more of than an mRNA vaccine. But still it is worth pointing out.


    But they are far far less than the risks of therapies that meddle with nuclear material correcting defects by altering the nuclear genome of cells.


    The antivaxxers, and trialsite is an antivaxxer site, are interested in what things are called because they want vaccines to sound as risky as possible.

  • The Totally Civil Covid Thread. (Closing 31/05)

    The most recent evidence strongly suggests a non-lab origin for COVID-19. It is great that detective work to discover this - notwithstanding the lamentable (and expected) Chinese secrecy, has been able to continue.


    Do three new studies add up to proof of COVID-19’s origin in a Wuhan animal market?
    Preprints unlikely to end debate over how SARS-CoV-2 began the pandemic, but some scientists say lab-leak hypothesis has taken a “blow”
    www.science.org


    and


    The COVID lab leak theory is dead. Here's how we know the virus came from a Wuhan market
    For the lab leak theory to be true, SARS-CoV-2 must have been present in the Wuhan Institute of Virology before the pandemic started. But there’s not a single…
    theconversation.com


    THH