like calorimetry that has very small heat losses
Ed Storms' calorimeter only lost 1.6% of the heat input. How much smaller do you think they can get? I think McK may have claimed 99% at best. The point is whether that loss can cause the observed signals or not. The CFers just hand -wave the problem away, with the results being like Ed, who claimed 780 mW of excess heat when I showed it could be noise.
Marwan, et al, did not grasp a.) the mathematical certitude of using a different calibration equation giving a different answer, and b.) the idea of at-the-electrode, under-the-surface recombination (combustion). They were mentally stuck on the parasitic electrochemical oxygen reduction, which they had published papers and calculation on.
You need to understand that I currently believe there are a couple of possible ways to test the CCS idea for F&P-type electrolysis cells. (See the posts in response to AS' repeated requests for 'tests'.) However, since we are now talking alternative experiments, all is speculative. As I recall from when I discussed these things with Ed Storms in the 2001-2002 timeframe, there are subtleties. For ex., using the Joule heater in the gas space of the cell eliminates bubbles and the mixing they promote. I don't think that will be important, but who knows until one tries.
W.r.t. my first paper, you are correct that is just math. I 'proved' that using trivially modified calibration equations wiped out a 780mW signal that was thought to be ~10X the 'noise'. That 'proves' that including the calibration constant in the error computation is essential. To date no LENR report does so, therefore, we do not know what the true error is and thus we do not know if the signals are real or noise.
The first published objection to this was the Szpak, Miles, Mosier-Boss, Fleischmann paper of 2004. They assumed I was talking about the parasitic oxygen reduction reaction, well known in the field. i was not. They didn't get that. I clarified that in my response and showed them how their results conformed to the CCS/ATER idea (as much or more as to any LENR idea).
In 2006, Ed Storms finally replied to my 2002 publication, but he did not touch the math, so in the end, he did not rebut my first paper at all. He tried to rebut the ATER mechanism. I replied to all his points with counterpoints, thus he proved nothing.
Then in 2010 I published my comments on the Marwan and Krivit article, to which the ten authors replied, getting it all wrong again. I was not allowed to reply.
To date the:
1.) No one has countered my 2002 publication
2.) No one has checked their data to find cases where the excess heat exceeds that available through the CCS/ATER mechanism
3.) No LENR researcher has seemingly understood 1 and 2. (including those on this forum, recognizing the 2 or 3 who have usually are not doing replications)
KS is really talking about a commonly taught calorimetry technique (error bounds), but calls it CCS to give it more attention.
I call it CCS to avoid typing out Calibration Constant Shift, just like one would do with any acronym. Error analysis should be commonly taught, but often isn't. I got it in junior level pchem lab. I asked Steve Jones about it once, and he said he got it in graduate school. I've worked with a PhD chemist who said he was never taught it. Therefore assuming people know this is just an assumption that needs confirmation.
Most LENR researchers neglect to do error bounds,
Yes. That is the problem.
so need to be told what to do,
If they don't do it, they do need to be told how to do it.
while most in the mainstream do them, so do not need to be reminded.
You are incorrect in that most do it. Some do, the rest need to be taught as well.
Many others have lived a career in labs working with calorimetry.
Assuming you mean LENR researchers. If what you said was true I would never have had to publish my first paper, and defend it three times. (More if you count these fora.)
I asked Kirk repeatedly - in this place - to give me a clear description of an experiment that could prove his hypothesis, with the intention of performing it (I had more spare time then) but I never got a proper answer.
Liar, liar, pants on fire…
Nov 19, 2018 FP's experiments discussion
Sept. 26, 2017 Mizuno : Publication of kW/COP2 excess heat results
see also preceeding and following post(s)
Aug. 25, 2017 Rossi vs. Darden aftermath discussions
Aug. 25, 2017 Rossi vs. Darden aftermath discussions
Aug. 25, 2017 Rossi vs. Darden aftermath discussions
Aug. 14, 2017 Replication of LENR experiments
Feb. 17, 2016 FP's experiments discussion
Feb. 8, 2016 FP's experiments discussion
Feb. 9, 2016 FP's experiments discussion
I pulled these out of the TG thread where they were off topic, and put them here for lack of a better place to move them to. If you have a better idea, I am listening.
Well, I would say they weren't 'off topic'. The deadline for the recommendations to TG was past when I started making some comments, so theoretically the thread was about to be closed and additional comments didn't matter. Then the trolls struck, and I responded, primarily because no one else routinely points out their trollishness and some seem to think they actually make sense when they don't. But as THH has noted, you all couldn't pick a 'best' experiment for them to replicate, and the reason, IMO, is that no one knows what they are really doing. That primarily occurs because no one recognizes they are working in the noise. Working in the noise is a massive waste of time that somehow seems right when one doesn't recognize the facts. Pointing this out is not trolling. And what I have pointed out is not against any physics or chemistry.
I am about to disappear again for an undetermined period of time. So don't bother with another thread.
There is nothing wrong with the statement
It just needs experimental verification after 18 years as to how significant it is.. 0.01% 1% 10%
(A) the statement you are referring to (quoted below) is a truth of analytical chemistry. It requires no verification per se, because it is logically obvious. (The 'problem' being that a change in steady state can cause a change in calibration constant.) (B) You are trolling again, because you consistently state and insinuate that I need to do some sort of lab work to validate math. That makes no sense. Phase 3 vs. Phase 2 Robert.
"The problem I located can evidence anytime a calibration curve is used, which includes practically _every known analytical chemistry method_, not just mass flow calorimetry."
To the rest of you, who might just possibly not understand this...
An 'uncalibrated' analytical method, if presumed to be highly accurate and precise, means that your measurement exactly gives the true value of what it is you are trying to measure. In practice, this is nearly impossible to find. There are cases where people claim to measure 1 atom of say, sodium, via a flame spectroscopy technique, but even then I wonder about QM effects.
Usually, when someone says 'our technique is so good we don't need to calibrate', they actually are assuming the calibration constants and not determining them. This implies they know the assumption will not impact their conclusions, and that means they fully understand their noise levels.
The whole point of the CCS/ATER debate is to point out that CF researchers in fact don't know what their true error levels are, and because of that, end up working in the noise.
And these results have been replicated thousands of times in hundreds of labs
No, they haven't. And as THH noted, the inability of the community to answer the TG challenge is proof of that, amongst many other things.
However, no technique can be "messed up" in a way that violates the laws of physics, which is what your theory requires.
That is your fanatic's mantra that you hope people will accept without examination. In fact it is a totally incorrect representation of the error mechanism I detailed in 2000. You have consistently refused to admit this simply because it opens the door to a non-nuclear explanation of the results.
The current discussion of Mizuno's recent claims, the supposed replication, and the way the CF community fails to do quantitative error analysis has nothing to do with "Mizuno's bucket of water". While the Mizuno bucket anecdote is another case-in-point, his more recent claims at least have some data associated with them. Not so much from the replicator, close to the bucket thing there, but there are at least hopes of more data later, unlike the bucket anecdote. Whoever moved these posts did so without cause.
Then why do your colleagues fight tooth and nail to prevent others from attempting replications
This is nothing but LENR community mantra. As far as I know, there is no one 'fighting tooth and nail' against doing LENR research. Even the two DOE reviews of the subject did not say this. The problem is lack of reproducibility and unwillingness to recognize LENR claims are unsubstantiated to any normal degree.
kirkshanahanLENR isn't the only field where calorimetry is used. Have you warned your colleagues about potential calibration constant shifts that could affect their measurements by what seems to be 5-10%?
Yes, a long time ago (as in 2000-2, I forget exactly when) I presented my findings internally. While we do use mass flow calorimetry for tritium accountability, the situation is different in that is is less likely a change in heat distribution will occur, although that is not totally precluded. There are a whole series of papers regarding our calorimetric application called 'in-bed accountability'. Searching Google Scholar on that term should give you lots of hits, most with primary author J. E. Klein (who sits in the office next to me), although some older stuff will be from L.K. Heung as well.
Oops...one last one for the road...
God Bless you KS... but calling people names is rather churlish... how old are you KS?
ROFL. We all know the 'troll' in an internet term with a specific meaning. Your comment is trollish.
You really don't seem to....you keep quoting my statement "The problem I located can evidence anytime a calibration curve is used, which includes practically _every known analytical chemistry method_, not just mass flow calorimetry." like it was somehow wrong.
how significant is the effect
Well, for a system that produced a 780mW 'excess heat' effect, it seemed to be about 780mW big. How big it is in other cases would depend on details we rarely get access to. That's why the primary authors claiming excess energy signals need to do good quantitative error analysis.
End of the day folks, see you tomorrow.
But just for the record, is there anyone here besides JR, RB, or Z46 who have 'trouble' following what I am saying? Can you tell me what the issue is?
Its not only me.. who has a problem with your communication..
Well yes, there are certain trolls who seem to like to try to bait me, but I'm trying to be serious here.
For example, why is it that you can't understand that in a non-specified but calibrated analytical method, that changing the calibration constant(s) changes the computed level of the result? That's just arithmetic (well OK, maybe a touch of algebra thrown in).
What is it you don't understand about what I wrote Robert? maybe I can break through your logjam (but probably not).
A normal person does not "assume" there is no excess energy when the instruments and textbook methods show there is excess energy.
Jed, this really focus in on your problem. You really don't understand. Two points: (A) Any technique can be messed up. (B) 99.999% of anomalies arise from (A). To prove (B) is real, you need replication (which contains 'control' in it).
Replication answers all.