Of possible note:
"If an object is near human body temperature, it will feel warm or cold according to how large the difference is between the surface temperature of one's skin and the object. Objects at about 54 to 55°C (130°F) will usually result in a sensation of warmth that is on the threshold of pain: it's really hot!."
That is not even remotely similar to saying that two chemists might think an object is too hot to touch when it is actually stone cold. The physical sense of touch is nothing like an academic dispute. It is much harder to fool.
...says the Head Acolyte for the Church of Cold Fusion...
I do not think preconceptions could fool the sense of touch in two professional chemists. Apparently you think it can. We will have to agree to disagree about that. I also do not think that preconceptions or a broken thermocouple can evaporate a bucket of water overnight in room temperature conditions, but you apparently think that can happen. I would say the combination of sense of touch, the thermocouple reading, and the evaporated water together are irrefutable proof of heat, but you do not think so.
I believe that when 10 of the top scientists from this little sub-field can convince themselves that I said the CCS/ATER thing was random after I said 4 times in 4 published papers that it was systematic, they and their co-believers can convince themselves of anything that supports their preconceptions.
you spurred me to look for some of the quotes. ... but I found some of 'em
Really? Let's see them.
Shanahan does not actually come right out and say "it remained hot for 3 days."
No, because you're the one who said that in writing in your introduction to the book that you also posted to this forum. I on the other hand, presumed that the TC read 100C or greater for 3 days, but did not automatically believe it was correct. Especially since my whole purpose was to explore non-LENR options, which is anathema to you and therefore you never read and understand any of it.
and other pointed this out to Shanahan. He refuses to address that fact. He does this again, and again, and again. He dances around, he ducks, he evades, he waxes indignant with high dudgeon, he sorta, kinda says what he says in a way that could not mean anything else, and then at the last minute he pulls away
No, I kept having to address the fact that you misconstrue and misquote everything I write. It's not surprising people would get confused the number of times you do that coupled with all the variations (like the quotes you've just made that I've shown to be made up).
As I said in the last post above, I was *never* talking about the towel-wrapped phase. *You* always injected this in the middle of what I was talking about, and then tried to say I said it. Projection.
Either he thinks it stays hot for three days, or he thinks is a valid argument to arbitrarily replace "3 days" with "immediately after disconnecting" and no one should quibble with that substitution.
You're ESP is a little off Jed.
Either argument is nuts, in my opinion.
Which is exactly why you keep making them up. You want to convince people I said them when I didn't, so you don't have to deal with the real issues.
He responded with fake high dudgeon, saying "I don't accuse professional scientists of lying" when that is exactly what he just did. More gaslighting!
('He' in the above quote is me.)
I searched for 'professional scientists' in my posts in the forum, and found 4 refs, none of which is your quote above in any form. I then searched for 'lying' in my posts and found 9 or 10 references, none of which were the quote above. 3 or 4 were me claiming people (like JR) were accusing me of lying. Most were quotes of Jed saying that I said someone was lying. There was 1 case where Oystia used the word in a quote I made.
Jed is lying above...looks like he has a common problem called 'projection'...
https://www.everydayhealth.com…8%3D&i10c.ua=1&i10c.dv=14
"Psychological projection is a defense mechanism people subconsciously employ in order to cope with difficult feelings or emotions. Psychological projection involves projecting undesirable feelings or emotions onto someone else, rather than admitting to or dealing with the unwanted feelings. Have you ever disliked someone only to become convinced that the person had a vendetta against you? This is a common example of psychological projection. Luckily, there are methods you can use to identify why you are projecting your emotions and put a stop to this coping mechanism."
You might want to reads the rest of that article Jed.
I just did.
No, you didn't. You did not quote any place that I said that supported this statement of yours:
Let me remind you again that Shanahan is on record repeatedly claiming that an object heated on Monday and left in a room at 20 deg C will still be hot on Wednesday.
------
BTW, the original JR quote is:
Shanahan says that sense of touch cannot distinguish between an object at 100 deg C and room temperature.
-------
Again I ask, but you will not answer: Do you seriously think that two middle aged scientists might be deluded into thinking that an object wrapped in towels is too hot to touch when it is actually at room temperature?
Yes, that's sort of the point of me making that comment. Preconceptions can be very powerful. And by the way, I never referred to when the cell was wrapped in towels, we are talking about when it was in a bucket of water. The 'towel' thing is another of your misconceptions, derived from your warped understanding of what I wrote. I never said anything about the anecdote before the cell got dumped in water. I did say you said (with quotes) that the cell remained at >100C for days. I pointed out the flaws with that. I did say that if that was true, it was anomalous. But most importantly what I said is: Anecdotes aren't science.
For the record, *you* are the one claiming I was talking about being fooled by a 100C object. I made no such assumption. I actually assumed it was a 'hot object' (remember that?) for *part* of my analysis and that when they were 'touching' it (in the bucket), they were in fact touching a warm object immersed in water with an attached, malfunctioning TC that said the object was much hotter than it was. But you, in your preferred MO, misconstrued that in the worst way anyone could, and then said that was what I said. All that proves it that you learned the 'strawman argument' technique from your heroes quite well. See:
And again Jed, you have failed to understand the objection I am making. The above quote deals exclusively with the situation while the cell was in its original location and the immediate move. I have already agreed it was likely hot, since they heated it there!
(and what immediately follows this quote)
For the rest of you, Z recently quoted 4 of my prior posts in an attempt to prove I’d done something wrong. Unfortunately they prove the opposite. See the details below:
Latest Z quote #1:
NASA partners with Global Energy Corporation to develop 10kW Hybrid Reactor Generator
"You imply I lied about where I used to work."
The rest of the story:
Z: “the only 18mph breeze around here is emanating from your mouth. (Via your fingers, of course).”
KS: “Another ad hom of course. You imply I lied about where I used to work. “
– the ’18 mph’ comes from a calc I did regarding the hood face velocity of some air hoods I worked in that turned over about 3300 ft3/min. By denigrating the number, Z is saying I ‘made it up’, i.e. lied about where I used to work.
Latest Z quote #2:
NASA partners with Global Energy Corporation to develop 10kW Hybrid Reactor Generator "
"The phrasing of the second quote is insulting and implies you disbelieve my assertions of: I worked for 8 years in a nuclear facility with pure tritium."
The rest of the story: --- Still more of the ’18 mph’ issue.
Z quoted in the post he quotes: the only 18mph breeze around here is emanating from your mouth.
KS quoted in the post Z quotes:
The phrasing of the second quote is insulting and implies you disbelieve my assertions of:
Yes. As I reported I worked for 8 years in a nuclear facility with pure tritium. The air hoods I operated in were massive and had a 3300 cfm flow rate associated with them, but all this air was drawn through several long slits near knee-level and I calculated the flowrate there to be ~17 mph, which I then used as my upper limit in flowrates in my exploration of what ventilation rates would do to evaporation rates, which you refuse to acknowledge I did.
Latest Z quote #3: ---- *More* on the 17 mph (my #) or 18 mph (Z’s #) breeze
Mizuno's bucket of water
"So you confirm that you are calling me a liar because my
'employment history'"
The rest of the story:
Quoting Z: And in the comfort of my living room, the "only wind around here" from my perspective is emanating from your good self - the intricacies of your employment history don't figure much into this.
Quoting KS: So you confirm that you are calling me a liar because my 'employment history' illustrates the 'why' of why I picked 17 mph as my maximum ventilation rate in my parametric study of the incident. To remind you, the quotes from the post you were responding to with the above comment pointed out your insinuation of lying on my part.
Latest Z quote #4:
Mizuno's bucket of water
"I’ve explained this supposed ‘insinuation’ already. Just move
on and stop acting so crazy. Sheesh."
The rest of the story:
Z quoting: kirkshanahan wrote:
So you confirm that you are calling me a liar because my 'employment history' illustrates the 'why' of why I picked 17 mph as my maximum ventilation rate in my parametric study of the incident. To remind you, the quotes from the post you were responding to with the above comment pointed out your insinuation of lying on my part.
Z’s response: I’ve explained this supposed ‘insinuation’ already. Just move on and stop acting so crazy. Sheesh.
--- and I can’t locate where he 'explained' why my calculation of 17 mph was wrong. It would be nearly impossible for him to do anyway, since the calculation is based on my memory of the length, width, and number of air intake vents on the lower part of the air hood I worked in. So, this is another of Z’s attempts to misdirect the readers into thinking he’s shown something he was never even capable of addressing.
It also illustrates his use of selective quoting, where he only quotes the part of the post that supports his contention, and banks on the fact you all won’t check it.
No need to get defensive,
A) I stand by my comments that you quoted. You were deliberately attempting to insult me. Well, you succeeded. Good for you.
B) Why would you ever think you can insult and denigrate someone and not expect them to respond? That's insane.
BTW, I have reached this point because of your continued unwillingness to understand what I've been saying. Others get it. Why not you? I conlude it is deliberate, and I can't help but think you are trolling, so I will stop responding to you. Even if it seems you are asking a legitimate question, because that never turns out to be the case.
More Mizuno bucket anecdote references Z? We have already established you didn't grasp what was going on there. Your continuing failure to note this is nothed, and I need say nothing more.
A while back you were bleating about me not supposedly not believing your employment history...
Say what? I wasn't even aware you though I had falsified that? Care to point out where I 'bleated' that?
Well frankly, I am now beginning to doubt it.
So your biased opinion carries the day over factual evidence. Interesting POV. Explains a lot tho...
but aren't you just some troll trying to make the real life person look bad?
Yes! YES! That's my goal in life! ... NOT! (Actually Z I find other people usually do the job for me...take you for instance...)
Don't tell me you really have access to nuclear materials. Good grief.
I do Z. Live in fear! Ah hahahahahaha!
Only on your own fabricated (sorry, hand-digitised) data, you chump.
as an approximation to the real data.
(recall I said this data is not exactly correct, since my cubic fit coefficients came out different that Beiting’s, but it serves to make the point):
From the B report: "The fits for these polynomials had R2 values of greater than 0.99999."
From my original post on the estimated data's fits: Quartic eqn R^2 = .999990 Cubic eqn R^2 = .999970 Quadradtic eqn. R^2 = .999743
So, based on what I said: the fact that I am using my own derived data is not a new fact; the fact the R^2 vales are not the same is not a new fact; the fact that in fits of this overall quality, tiny difference make noticeable differences out in the 4th and 5th decimal point is not a new fact; and based on the fact that it would be best to use the real data to proceed further; it is clear that Z is the chump.
Let me remind you again that Shanahan is on record repeatedly claiming that an object heated on Monday and left in a room at 20 deg C will still be hot on Wednesday.
To all--- This is one of Jed's perennial lies. He can't document that if he tried. What it shows is a) his inability to follow a technical argument, and b) the extent he will go to to try to discredit a skeptic.
Shanahan's theory is imaginary.
What theory is that Jed? Maybe the one that says fitting the 7 data points with a quadratic, cubic, and quartic polynomial gives almost equivalent statistics, but the differences between the computed power values from those models are much larger that Beiting's quoted error? That's not a theory Jed, it's an observation.
and fitting whatever low-order polynomial has the best R^2 becomes more than reasonable...
Not really. But let's assume that's true for the moment. That means that Beiting did it all wrong, because the quartic fits have better R^2 values. Glad you agree with me that B needs to up his game a bit, Z...;)
{edit: try starting here http://blog.minitab.com/blog/a…the-best-regression-model}
Until you find an error, you cannot claim there is one.
ROFL.
Beiting has show that the calibration constants can be measured to 0.1% over all of the temperatures measured in this experiment.
Not from the uploaded report that started this thread. Still waiting for all that other data you said exists somewhere. Again, what I can't see doesn't count. When I do see it, I get to revise my position, but my prior comments will remain because they are based on what I can see at that point in time.
Shanahan is saying...
Shanahan says that sense of touch
What Jed thinks I say is totally in his imagination.
Shanhan's critique is not helpful because he has not reduced it to an assertion about the physical experiment.
Really? OK. So here it is. B needs to do it more times.
@Z
Ah yes, more hot air, your standard contribution.
I find that the fastest way to judge the quality of a report is to see how much it angers and/or threatens the ego of those odd pathologically-skeptical types. Using the Beiting report as an example:
So, no technical wherewithal used at all. Seems about right based on your contributions to this forum...
1) Do skeptics feel the need to besmirch the author's integrity? For example, by heavily insinuating that they believe the author intentionally fiddled their calibration curve:
You quoted 3 points I made with no technical explanation at all (which you apparently are incapable of doing), so let me add a couple of technical comments instead:
1)" B also tries to do the energy per unit mass trick..."
This has been an issue since day 1 of he CF saga. Does one use bulk or surface measures? Is the effect a surface effect or a bulk effect? One significant point from the Storms' work on Pt that I have previously noted is that Pt does not hydride. Therefore its CF signal must be surface derived. That suggests that increasing the surface area will increase the CF. So what do we see the field doing? First, they went to the codep process, which produces a high surface area, dendritic Pd. Next they went 'nano'. So B using energy per unit mass values is misleading. Further there are a lot of issues about choosing the mass to use (which I mentioned before, but that was a technical comment that Z probably didn't understand).
BTW this doesn't 'besmirch the author's integrity' unless you assume the author is incapable of making a mistake. This is called 'peer review'.
2) "I had to ask why he used a cubic equation...."
B doesn't say technically why he chose a cubic. My quick look suggested there isn't much difference in 2nd, 3rd, and 4th order fits. So what's the problem in asking why?
3) "In other words, simple piddling around with the calibration equation covered the signal detected. That means to believe the calibrations, we need a lot more info on how he chose his equations"
See above comment. It is a technical issue so Z probably just doesn't understand...
2) Does the skeptic need to invent alternate laws of thermodynamics, statistical techniques, or invisible fume hoods, in order to help their argument? (Extra credit if they keep using guilty inverted commas to describe it).
Your quote does not support your contention.
Sensitivity analysis is a standard technique, for ex., see https://www.edupristine.com/bl…bout-sensitivity-analysis, but it is technical.
3) Does the skeptic feel it necessary to reinforce their arguments by authoritatively spouting total nonsense, implying a deeper knowledge of a topic than they truly possess, in the hope that no-one will call them out on it?
You need to study up on chemometrics. But that is a technical area...
4) Does the skeptic resort to ANGRY CAPS ranting, in the manner of fellow mouth-foamer, Mary Yugo (RIP)?
Only do that after repeated failures to understand indicate that the failure is a deliberate choice. If you don't like it, tough. Or stop deliberately not understanding...
BTW, your quote:
Although I guess when someone mentions a reliance on 'canned routines', maybe it's unfair to expect a deeper understanding of the issues at hand.
is hilarious. Do you think I would work better and faster if I just used my fingers and toes? ROFL.
So zeus, you know so much, why don't you help out and tell us how exactly to judge the quality of Beiting's report. Or is that beyond your skill set?
