Do you know I was never so naive as to think that was the case. And if you look at the discussions around Mizuno's air calorimetry in this forum you would realise that very few others with a technical background think so either. That is what calibration, uniformity of method and repeated tests are all about.
But in this case:
(A) I took that problem and fleshed it out, math and all, to show exactly how and why it was a problem.
(B) Given (A) above, are you positive there is no analogous problem in Mizuno's work? Personally, I find his having to change the calibration constant with reactor temperature a very bad sign. He thinks he can calibrate it out, but I'm not so sure. Yet I don't have the time or energy to sit here and work through it as I did for Ed's work (and McK's M4 run). So, I warn Para to get a bigger fan and some canned smoke.
So now analytical techniques become full of mistakes and intereferences
A.) Not mistakes, detection limits
B.) They've always been that way, you just fail to realize it apparently. Look here for ex. to start: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matrix_(chemical_analysis)
I understand perfectly that there is no experiment that can prove KS's idea.
While I disagree with this, one thing can be said: There are potentially experiments that can disprove the relevance of my idea. Just calculate your error properly and show your signal is over 3 sigma.
That is not IMHO a decent experiment, it is a foolish one.
So what fits your definition of decent? Doing the same exact thing over and over? You are drawing a box so small nothing but your opinion fits in it.
The crux of my CCS/ATER proposal is that the calorimeter is NOT spatially homogeneous. My second resistor tests that, as did my other basic suggestion to redesign the cell so that the penetrations of the cell boundary exit the cell in the liquid-covered zone, but that takes more work and money. The resistor thing is cheap and easy, and in theory tests whether the inhomogeneity is there as postulated.
completely absent in the original materials,
Your proof of this? Remember, that all analytical techniques have detection limits, below which analytes cannot be detected. Best example of this I recall is Scott Little's RIFEX report. He ran some RIFEX beads for awhile and detected many.many 'new' elements, in similar appearance to Miley's results. However, then he did the 'verboten' thing, he computed his error level and drew it on the graph. All but 3 or 4 elements supposedly 'detected' fell below the line (i.e. in the noise). Of those 3 or 4 he tracked down the strongest 2 or 3 to leachates from the O-rings (as I recall).
Then there's Iwamura's finding Sr and Pr in Pd-CaO-Pd-CaO-Pd sandwich structures. Only problem is that they later found that S (and Mo) gave similar XPS peaks. Why is that important? Because XPS is an ultra-high vacuum technique, which requires equipment bakeout at c. 300C. That will gall SS bolts and threads, so people use MoS2 lubricant to prevent that. Problem with that is getting it on the sample. Then of course Kidwell also found Pr 'wild' in Iwamura's lab too. The Sr was never explicitly tracked down, but I checked a COA I found on the web for CaO, and guess what, it had 200ppm Sr in it. Wonder if iwamura's did too? We'll probably never know.
W.r.t. your pdf report:
The primary thing to note is that this is a wildly different experimental protocol from anything else. It is another common fallacy in LENR-land that anyone who gets weird results and claims LENR must be right. This experiment must be considered in separation from others. I do not that they are using the 'usual suspects' of analytical techniques, all of which have interferences and detection limits. What are they and how relevant are they? I have no immediate idea. I suggest you consider my criticisms of the RIFEX and Iwamura work above, and try to apply the same criteria to see if the work passes muster. I don't have the energy or the time to do so.
The posts are there, though I have not yet trawled for them. Maybe you have conveniently forgotten? And you can apologise for calling me a liar - I will accept it.
Perhaps you should read the posts I pointed to. Your calls are there, and my answers. And you 'apologies' for calling me out inappropriately. However, there's an old American saying, derived from baseball, namely: "Three strikes and you're out!"
I always have trouble deciding if the problem is incompetence or malfeasance. In your case, if you supply a doctor's excuse for you failure to remember, I will apologize.
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.