No, it was a closed cell with a recombiner and a pressure gauge. There would no free H2, only a little orphaned O2.
Please read the sidebar at http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw…_of_the_accident_at_s.pdf
Then understand this is not significantly different from Mizuno's setup.
Then, please stop disseminating dangerous information to an unsuspecting public.
It is fruitless to argue what Mizuno may have done long ago and why Shanahan does or does not believe it happened. Nobody will solve that and anyway, who the hell cares?
Exactly. I was just trying to entertain Shane...:)
The very obvious thing to get done is a replication in plain sight with appropriate instrumentation, controls and competent observation and recording.
Also exactly, except that the problem with the Mizuno bucket anecdote is that he thought he had a potential runaway heater in (or around) a closed volume filled with gas. Top that with the fact that the gas filling the volume was likely near the perfect mix of H2 and O2 for an explosion. This scenario leads to the experiment blowing up, which has happened in the past many times, even killing Andrew Riley in one case, so Mizuno didn't want to replicate the same experiment because of safety concerns. So he went to other forms, but they also have proven to be irreproducible. So he sort of tried to 'replicate', but not in exact detail, and without success.
A) Jed and I acknowledge it (and your opinion on the matter likely less valid, c.f. the Dunning-Kruger effect)
Ah, I see, you get to declare things true with no requirement of proof. (Not!)
B) Your problem is you say stupid, um, "out-of-the-box" things like 'the water would of had an average temperature of 60 C for an extended period'... Presumably this temperature could only be maintained by a similar air temperature, because, you know, the laws of thermodynamics and that.
A good case in point in how you deliberately misrepresent what was written by out-of-context quoting, and throw in ad homs on top of it.
What I was doing was exploring what it took to evaporate the claimed quantities of water. One thing I did in that process is assume different temperature values for use in the evaporation rate calculation (same one you used). I did so because there was lots of talk about the 100C (and greater) temperature being maintained for many days. Thus technically speaking, any temp from 100C down to 0C (winter) could be used to explore the resultant evaporation rates. You however, somehow drew a line in the sand and said "No! Only temps between x and y are allowed!" Under what authority you do that I have no idea, but I decline to accept it. So, you resort to ridicule to counter what I write. Not very scientific of you.
I do congratulate you on your successful application of what JR has taught you about using inappropriate and inaccurate commentary on the Internet. You've done quite well in that department!
Due to your acknowledged shaky grasp of thermodynamics, I'd like to see your workings please...
A.) The "Acknowledged shaky grasp" is your fiction.
B.) 1.) I already did in our prior discussions. Apparently you caught JR's problem.
2.) I used exactly the same equations you did. The only difference is that you've drawn a box around certain parameter values and won't accept anyone thinking 'outside the box'.
Apologies to all L-F went nuts and posted my posted multiple times, then wouldn't let me delete all the copies.
[edit] Wow. Now I see it did delete all of the copies of my post, and the original, as well. I will try again...
Jed Rothwell’s comments in quotes below. His and my quotes of me are italicized.
It is also irrelevant for two other reasons: a) you routinely get confused about details and your comments can't be trusted,
I do not, “
Sorry, your response here proves it. See following…
“but even if I did, you can always go back to Mizuno's description which I translated and uploaded here: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTnucleartra.pdf So you do not need me to get the correct details.”
That paper is your 8 page introduction, not Mizuno’s writings. Also, it is date 1998, 7 years after the described event. This brings up the following points:
a) My claim your information is second-hand is entirely correct.
b) Your claim that ventilation is addressed is false. There is no mention of it in the 8 pages that I can find.
and your information is second-hand anyway, which is termed 'hearsay' and likewise not to be considered.
It was published soon after the event in Bungei Shunju, Japan's most prestigious mass circulation magazine. What you are saying is similar to claiming that we cannot trust any news in the New York Times or Time magazine, and such news is hearsay. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bungeishunj%C5%AB_(magazine)”
Part of the ‘cold fusion fiasco’ has come to be known as ‘science by press conference’, which is what F&P did when they called a press conference to announce cold fusion before publishing a paper or patent. The events following speak for themselves regarding the validity of what they did. If they had conformed to the ‘unwritten rule’ and had a peer-reviewed paper in hand or a patent, things would have gone significantly differently. (And yes, their behavior afterwards in trying to protect their supposed IP exacerbated the situation).
Likewise, scientists do not consider a newspaper article a scientific publication, which simply means the details that allow replication by interested parties are not present in such pieces.
BTW, your link above appears to be worthless.
“You seem to be saying that I did not translate it correctly. I would offer to upload the original Japanese text so you could have someone check it. But you wouldn't do it, and you ain't worth the effort.”
No, I said exactly what I meant. Even back on spf in the early 2000’s other people were making the same comment. You mangle and mix up facts, usually in an attempt to paint a rosier picture for CF.
For example, I consider it a near impossibility to have NO ventilation in an active building.
Okay, so estimate how much ventilation it would take to evaporate a 20 L bucket of water overnight.“
I did. I calculated several evaporation rates for several different conditions, as documented in the Mizuno bucket thread here on L-F, and in other threads.
“Have you been in a building with that much ventilation? “
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.
“Were you able to stand up in such a strong wind? Your scenario is preposterous. There is no such building.”
So 20 mph gusts knock you down? P.S. Your conclusion that there is no such building might be right today, as the building I was working in that had those hoods was shut down in 2004. I don't know if any others like that exist anywhere today.
And b), it doesn't matter anyway, because what I was doing was a sensitivity analysis where one varies the parameters of interest to assess the impacts.
There is no combination of parameters that would get you close to this.”
You are wrong. I found some and reported them here on L-F.
“You cannot even evaporate 1 L overnight in normal room-temperature conditions”.
Generally correct, but ‘normal’ is undefined. Please recall that in the post you are denigrating I said: “2) A bucket of room temperature water place in a stagnant air flow location will not evaporate overnight.”
You conveniently skipped that. I assume you can read and did read it. Thus your comment above is another implicit lie, since you are implying that I would disagree with your statement.
“Any combination of wind, temperature and light that can evaporate 20 L would be so strong, no person could survive”
Wrong.
“… You have never once told us how big the fan should be, or how hot the room should be. “
Of course I did, again you lie.
“Furthermore, as I said, I uploaded a photo of the room. Anyone who glances at it can see that your scenario is out of the question.”
How do I know that it is the actual room? Trust you? Not. Does your photo show the air flow rate in the room? When was it taken? Years later? Where was the bucket placed? Are all the instruments and furniture in the same position? Do you any idea why that would matter?
“ It is ridiculous and unscientific.”
What is ridiculous and unscientific is how you keep ignoring what I write when it conflicts with your pre-held ideas, and how you keep falsifying the record to support your fanatically-held beliefs.
“It is so far from a quantitative, realistic hypothesis, you might as well be suggesting that a person might pole-vault over the Empire State Building.”
Another inaccurate example, given that I reported evaporation rates that could do what you claim based on real-world conditions, some of which you yourself specified.
“If you cannot see that your hypothesis is wrong by orders of magnitude, and that such ventilation does not exist, you are one of the worst scientists I have ever encountered, along with Kreysa and Morrison, who could not tell the difference between 1 minute, and 176,000 minutes (49 hours). (The same mistake Mary Yugo made). See p. 7: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanlettersfroa.pdf”
I think it is obvious who is wrong here.
Furthermore and finally, you still clearly don't understand the concept that science isn't done with anecdotes. Replication (as correctly defined, not as you do) is required.
Heat after death has been replicated in many labs, and it was repeated hundreds of time by Fleischmann and Pons. Granted, it has seldom been as high as this, or lasted this long, but it has been between 20 and 100 W, and it has lasted a few days in other labs. Needless to say, I have told you this time after time.”
No. We’ve been over this also many, many times, and as usual, you refuse to assimilate the information.
“How many times will you repeat this lie -- that it was not replicated? “
As I noted before, your definition of ‘replicated’ is incorrect, but it does suit your fanaticism. So once again, you ‘alter the facts’ so that you can accuse me of lying.
“Do you think you are fooling anyone? “
Not trying to fool anyone. You’re the one who keeps doing that. ‘Replication’ that’s not replication. Ventilation that’s ‘unimportant’ when in fact it is crucial. ‘Heat-after-death’ from uncalibrated systems and inaccurate methodologies that ‘prove’ CF is real.
“You lie about ventilation -- a topic anyone can look up -- so I suppose you think you can get away with anything.”
No lies, just facts, and your inability to handle the implications. And again, not trying to ‘get away’ with anything, it’s all there, you just won’t admit it.
And I, and others, have told you again, and again and AGAIN there was no high air velocity in the room.
Which is irrelevant to the fact (1) I stated. (Thus you are attempting to misdirect the discussion away from the false statements you made about what I wrote.)
It is also irrelevant for two other reasons: a) you routinely get confused about details and your comments can't be trusted, and your information is second-hand anyway, which is termed 'hearsay' and likewise not to be considered. For example, I consider it a near impossibility to have NO ventilation in an active building. And b), it doesn't matter anyway, because what I was doing was a sensitivity analysis where one varies the parameters of interest to assess the impacts. The result of the study was simply to reaffirm that ACTUAL ventilation rates were required to ACCURATELY evaluate the claims.
Furthermore and finally, you still clearly don't understand the concept that science isn't done with anecdotes. Replication (as correctly defined, not as you do) is required.
Words have consequences.
Exactly, which is why it is so notable that Miles doesn't understand the difference between random and systematic.
Just to entertain Shane...
You go around claiming that a bucket of water will evaporate overnight in room temperature conditions, and that a 1 liter metal cell, once heated, will stay hot for 3 days. Your theories violate thermodynamics, Faraday's laws and much else. So you should not accuse others of incompetence. You should steer clear of any discussion of competence, since you do not even understand elementary school science.
Or, if you do understand that 1 L object cools down in 3 days, you are trying to convince the readers here that is not so. You are hoping that people here are monumentally incompetent.
And you don't understand basic English, let alone science. You have been challenged repeatedly to back up your ad hom attack above, and you fail to do so, yet you persist. This demonstrates fanatic commitment to character assassination of any who oppose you, which IO has also noted recently, though perhaps in less graphic terms.
For the record, I have said (regarding the now-infamous Mizuno bucket anecdote):
1) A bucket of water with a heater in it placed in a location with high air velocity over it can evaporate in 1 night.
2) A bucket of room temperature water place in a stagnant air flow location will not evaporate overnight.
and in general,
3) None of my writings have ever violated thermodynamics or Faraday's Laws.
4) Many of my writings have violated JR's fanatic sense of dedication to CF/LENR.
However, JR continues his assassination attempts even so. The astute reader recognizes this, especially after I supplied documentation of this in this forum.
As I thought, this was a misunderstanding. I asked Miles about this. He wrote back: "I don't remember exactly what I said [to Shanahan], but I would never critique a paper without first reading it. I know I read some of his papers, but perhaps not all of them."
OK, fine. Let's go with Miles' version then. He read some, but perhaps not all, of my papers. presumably just on this subject, since I have several non-CF papers. At the worst, the only thing he read was the paper he was responding to, namely the 2010 J. Envir. Mon. paper.
So what should he have read if he had read all 4 of my papers? Let's see. In [1]. the title is: "A systematic error in mass flow calorimetry demonstrated". In [2], "Uncontrolled steady-state shifts produce a non-random noise component in the studies." In [3], I actually don't use either word, but the whole paper is about the CCS and the Figure clearly shows non-random behavior. In [4], I specifically state: "The CCS is a systematic error" (p.1757, 2nd full paragraph). I use 'systematic' two other times but I do not use the word 'non-random'.
But by his own words, Miles takes full ownership of the reply to [4] by the 10 authors that was published immediately following [4]. So, even if Miles only read [4] and not the other 3 papers, he is demonstrating severe incompetence, since he claims I was discussing random effects when I clearly specified systematic .
The 'random' argument is a construct of Miles' (since he claims full ownership of the paper), not mine, and everyone knows that arguing against one idea does not address another, especially when it is diametrically opposed to the first strawman argument. This is why I asked Miles to retract his ownership of that term by stating he didn't agree with the paper he signed off on as co-author in his 2017 IE132 article. He declined to do so.
So to reiterate the conclusion, Miles is incompetent. Sounds harsh doesn't it. But what else do you call someone with a Ph.D. who can't distinguish between 'random' and 'non-random' (= 'systematic)?
(Actually there is another way to describe what happened but it is even less polite than the above. I'll let you all figure that one out.) (Note that the incompetence could be alleviated by a little training. The other alternative is less correctable.)
[1] K.L. Shanahan / Thermochimica Acta 387 (2002) 95–100
[2] K.L. Shanahan / Thermochimica Acta 428(2005) 207–212 p. 211
[3] K.L. Shanahan / Thermochimica Acta 441 (2006) 210–214
[4] K.L. Shanahan / J. Environ. Monit. 12 (2010) 1756–1764
I doubt you read the McKubre paper the video is based on. If you did read it, you failed to understand it, so you probably would not understand the video either.
Ahhh! I love the smell of a good ad hom in the morning....
As usual JR you know not whereof you speak.
Aw c'mon, I never said that! Really! Trust me I'd never lie about something as important as that!
JR's definition of replication is "Joe ran something and claimed it produced excess energy. It had metals and hydrogen it it, so it must be cold fusion (or LENR)."
I saw enough commonalities in reported results back in 1995 to suspect something might be going on, but there was no, and isn't any, replicatable protocol for producing LENR. People *claim* there is, but it never works without somebody dropping by to tweak the system, and then the results aren't the same anyway. This *is* the greatest bugaboo facing the field at this time. I did find CCS/ATER as a proposed commonality.
Where did he say that? Is it in a document I can download? Or an e-mail to you?
email, as I noted previously in a thread where I discussed his upcoming (at that time) IE132 article.
It would be out of character for him to critique a paper he has not read.
Really. Apparently not.
@IO
W.r.t the excess power vs. Pd loading graphs JR pointed to, the problem with these is they hide the time dependencies. These plots are two columns of a data file plotted against each other. I've looked at this in the past and found that if you could color code the various time segments you would find they were all clustered and within those segments they essentially follow a linear relationship. IOW, they show the CCS effect clearly (the changed cal constant producing the different sub-parts of the overall graph). Now to actually prove that I would need the actual data, which I don't have, and am not likely to get.
Further, the idea that there is a critical H/M (or D/Pd) level that must be obtained applies strictly for Pd. People have reported CF from Ni-based electrodes and Ni is much more difficult to load than Pd, so it is unlikely that those loading levels were ever reached. Further, the Storms data I reanalyzed for my 2002 publication was obtained for Pt (platinum). Pt does NOT hydride at all. You might get some marginal solubility, but you'd never, ever reach H/M = 1.0, or even 0.1, yet is showed an excess heat signal. So generically, H/M ratio is immaterial.
What is likely very material is the surface condition, esp. roughness. Loading Pd with H creates dislocation loops on the surface, i.e. ridges and bumps. That is likely why H/M ratio seems to be important in Pd CF. These dislocations mostly disappear when the Pd is unloaded by the way.
W.r.t. the massive Fleischmann-Miles document, the data shown on p. 4 were obtained in 1996, before I published and alerted people to the possibility of CCS/ATER. Note also that they were using the F&P calorimetric method, which I didn't directly address until my whitepaper. The point is that the excess heat signals are likely artifacts.
Didn't look at the video. Sorry.
I mean't my opinion of you has not changed, as in I liked reading your spirited posts before, and still do now. As to your CCS/ATER concept, there are far more qualified people than myself to judge.
You continue to downrate yourself unduly. Perhaps this is because you want to maintain the illusion that there is some justifiable reason why my concerns about CF calorimetry haven't been addressed. But let me reiterate, you can handle it Shane. For ex., the CCS just states that y=mx+b is different from y=nx+c (m!=n and b!=c). That's just algebra and you can handle that. The next factoid you need is that in order to be able to calibrate a system, it must be stable. Why? Because if you calibrate at time t and get the y=mx+b equation (with m and b numerically defined now) and then the system changes at time t+ z (to y=nx+c), the prior equation is of no value. That is also trivially easy to understand. But it should be clear to you that when the 10 authors of the J. Env. Mon. paper tried to tack an 'H' to the CCS (claiming it was just a 'hypothesis') they were simply displaying their ignorance. The 'CCS' is just math.
ATER on the other hand is chemistry. You may not be able to judge the veracity of ATER, but I also don't claim that ATER is the absolute truth either, I clearly state that it needs to be proven out. And I state a good way to do that is for the CFers to go back into their data and find the case that proves it wrong. But that will never occur if they remain self-convinced that the "random 'Shanahan' CCSH" is fallacious, and thus needs no further discussion. And you can follow that argument as well, without needing anything but a working brain.
Why does the system change? That is the tricky part, but there must be a reason, at least if you believe in a universe ruled by 'laws'. For the F&P cells, I proposed ATER since it fit several other observations as well as giving a reason to believe the calibration had changed. That has always been the point-of-attack taken by my critics. But any chemist knows that proposed mechanisms are a dime-a-dozen, and are never taken seriously without a lot of study to back them up. But that also is unlikely to happen as long as the CFers deny it is relevant. Recognizing this also is not rocket science; you can handle that too. (I also suspect you can handle the algebra involved with explaining why ATER induces a CCS error too, but we'll skip that for now.)
I note though, that I have yet to see anyone here, or back on the old ECNs agree completely with it. Some like TC, or THH say some parts may have merit, but find other aspects could be wrong.
Never dealt with ECN, so no comment on that. I don't recall TC's stand off the top of my head. THH has correctly pointed out that there is an inherent maximum to the CCS/ATER effect that is dependent on the experimental setup (as I did too). That's why I said the CFers need to recheck their old data, and that's the case I am discussing that might point out that the CCS/ATER is inadequate. But no one has done that to date (18 years after the problem was brought up). If THH has any other objection, I am not aware of them. (Please restate them if so THH.)
And pointing out the CCS/ATER problem does not mean it's the only one.
Joshua/Popeye refused to endorse it also due it's complexity, Other than Jed, none of the other lab pros here like Alan, Russ, OG bother to give their opinion (which tells me something), so I choose to do the same and take a wait and see position.
Don't recall what Joshua said, but if he said it was complex, he was referring only to the chemistry (assuming he was right in his comment), which of course is what makes it marginally interesting to chemists. Can't comment on why Alan, Russ, and OG don't say anything. Their choice as always. I've commented on JR extensively. He's a fanatic true believer. And unfortunately, you'll likely be waiting for another 18-20 years with no change in the situation, because the primaries refuse to consider the issues honestly, self-deluding themselves into believing their wishes are realities.
Although, while awaiting a clear winner in the slug-fest, I take comfort that CCS applies only to wet (Pd/D electrolysis) systems.
ATER applies only to electrolysis systems like the F&P cells. CCS can occur with any calibrated method if the steady state changes.
The dry (Ni/H/D), and plasma based are not affected, and we are seeing some promising reports of transmutations. even some XH, from them. If that holds true, then that would weigh in favor of LENR being real, and if real, your CCS/ATER will, well...
Not affected by ATER yes. But there is a 'zeroth order' principle in effect here. It is that when you are faced by an anomalous result, you should recheck your assumptions. The CFers assume temperature distribution in a cell makes no difference, but I beg to disagree. For dry systems, one needs to do the same thing. Case in point, the use of the Optris device to measure temperature, maybe another is the use of flowmeters incorrectly if I recall the discussions correctly, etc., etc. You can follow that too, you don't necessarily need to understand the details, you just need to see someone with an anomalous result rechecking their data and methods based on critical feedback. Seen much of that?
And always remember, the acid test is replication, in detail, as described by IO and others. No replication, no discovery.
*********
Also note that JR is up to his old tricks. I mentioned in the last post that CFers hadn't given my proposal consideration. As JR points out, that is only partially true with Storms. He was forced to deal with it in detail during the peer review process on my 1st paper. Since I was commenting on his publication, he was asked directly to participate in the review process, and that is 100% normal. We went round-and-round on this, and the new editor of the journal went with the simple vote method. Storms had a 'nay', another reviewer had a 'nay', and the third has a 'yay'. So then I got it published in a different journal in 2002. Interestingly enough, Storms waited until 2006 to respond, even though my paper was published in 2002 (which he knew, I told him amongst all the emails he and I exchanged on this subject). But Storms' 2006 publication was nothing more than what he wrote during the peer review, as was my response to it (which he failed to acknowledge in his 2007 book, even though he referenced his paper). Why did he wait 4 years to publish what he wrote in 2002? I know why but I'm 'sworn to secrecy' and I will maintain that. I recommend you ask him to see if he will tell. So fast forward to 2010 and the JEM paper. Scuttlebutt at the time said that the various authors wrote parts and Marwan combined them, which is SOP, no problem there. But in 2017, Miles admitted he'd never read my papers. This means he signed off on trashing my ideas without any thought. Did the others as well? I'd guess yes, but that is just a guess. The 2015 Hagelstein recordings of his 'MIT course' support that. In any case, that's why I say no CFer has considered my views adequately. It would be nice to know for sure. I currently contend the others (as JR put it) did not read my CCS/ATER paper. They probably did read the submitted JEM manuscript, but concentrated only on their part. Guesses sure, but it fits the results. (The primary result being that a trivial change in calibration constants flatlined a 780mW excess heat signal.)
as the technical aspects are over my head.
No, they aren't. You understand y=mx+b is different from y=nx+c right (m!=n and b!=c)? Then the issue of the CCS isn't over your head. And I wasn't discussing technical aspects anyway, I was pointing out 'social problems' with the behavior of CF scientists.
Only thing I took exception with is the term "bad scientist". Maybe from your perspective they are, because they mostly brush you off, but there is probably something that better describes their actions than that. So mine was not a rebuke, or warning, nor does it change my opinion...carry on.
Well, first off, you left off the quote marks I used around 'bad' (and later 'good'), These are value-laden terms and are based on a somewhat arbitrary scale. The primary scale point though is the one that was expressed well by Feynman when he said "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool." Fooling yourself is avoided by 'scientific integrity', i.e., "It's a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty— a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you're doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid — not only what you think is right about it" which also means you should consider carefully criticisms, not get irritated at them and throw them in the trash. So, not considering criticisms = lack of honesty = fooling yourself = 'bad'. I documented several cases of that, and those that do that are 'bad' scientists on this scale. The other term is 'pathological', and the point is that 'bad' or 'pathological' science should not be treated seriously. That doesn't mean that making a mistake is 'bad'. What is 'bad' is not fessing up and holding to your position in the face of all contrary evidence. If you read Langmuir's description of pathological science, that is primarily what he is describing. Note that everyone is enamored of their ideas at the beginning, right or wrong. It is how they self-examine in the light of criticism that defines 'bad' and 'good' on this particular scale. Note further that this is only what we are talking about. No other aspect of these people is under discussion.
I contend Shane, that what I presented in the prior post should change your mind. It seems to me you are doing exactly what I was trying to point out was 'bad' a la science. But you can do what you like, just as the CFers do. I have no authority over you.
Do you really think that they are all wrong?
Yes. Do you want me to explain why again?
I do respect you, but your stating "the majority of the CF researchers are bad scientists" is really uncalled for, nor true.
Shane,
To date, not one CF scientist has seriously considered the ramifications of my 2002 Thermochimica Acta paper (which actually was available in late 2000 as per the date on the manuscript). By simple mathematics, I demonstrated an issue with a set of calorimetric data that allowed for a 'normal' physics/chemistry explanation of the apparent excess heat signals in that Fleischmann-Pons electrolysis experiment. That math and chemistry is applicable to all F&P-type experiments and the math is applicable to any calibrated method. At that time F&P-type cell experiments giving apparent excess heat were the primary block of data suggesting CF (see Ed Storms 2007 book). Thus my postulates affected all electrolysis-calorimetry results developed to that time, and since they have not been addressed that extends to today.
The generic idea is that if there are two potential explanations for a set of observations, one can't claim one is correct and the other is not without investigating them. To date, no one has investigated the alternative I presented, yet I find suggestive evidence of it in every so-called 'replication' (to use JR's definition of the term). Instead we have the 2010 J. Environ. Monitoring paper JR always cites which uses a strawman representation of what I wrote, proves it wrong (correctly, as expected), and then claims to have proven my thesis wrong (incorrectly). Hagelstein quotes that paper in his 2015 MIT course intro when discussing the 'unfair' attitudes CF researchers will face, and then when asked a simple question about what I wrote, he has to defer his answer to the next day because he has to read my paper to get the answer. So he read it enough to extract the comments he wanted, but he clearly didn't understand the reasoning behind them.
In 2017, we have Melvin Miles writing me that he's never even read my papers (yet he could sign off on how 'wrong' it was back in 2010 and 2004). And then we have the recently released Miles-Fleischmann communications that shows Fleischmann didn't even want to read my paper, let alone communicate with me on it, but he would denigrate my idea in print (in the 2004 publication with Szpak, Mosier-Boss, and Miles, and the version that Miles published in Infinite Energy in 2017, supposedly written by Fleischmann himself, (on what technical basis could he do that do you think?)).
Also, we have the McKubre story, where I asked him twice for the 'transfer functions' he used to calibrate his M-series runs in his 1998 report. After he failed to provide them and I tried a 'Hail Mary' approach to see if anyone else knew them, rather than engaging me, he labelled me a 'grandstander' and broke off communications permanently.
I may not have mentioned it previously, but I tried talking with Tom Claytor about his experiments, but he quit communication as soon as he figured out I was skeptical (a total of 4 emails exchanged as I recall).
Also, as you know from reading my whitepaper, I tried to publish a comment on the Kitamura, et al., publication on Pd/ZrO2 studies and was rebuffed by the editor, but most importantly, Kitamura, et al., did officially respond to my paper in the review process, so they know the objections I have to their work (and subsequent Pd/ZrO2 work that doesn't address my raised issues), but they have never responded or changed anything they claim based on them.
And finally, all indications I have say that the CF community talks with each other, and that they all know about me and my objections. However, I suspect they are like Miles and have never bothered to read what I wrote, instead depending on the opinion of the one guy who did (Ed Storms), possibly with input from the second reviewer of my first paper who only wrote a couple of paragraphs against my paper with no details, unlike Storms. (If you want to know what Storms wrote during the review period, his 2006 publication against my work was nothing but a publication of the private review process, as was my response to him). By the way, the fact that Ed referenced my original paper in his book, and claimed to have rebutted it fully, without mentioning I responded to his 'rebuttal' point-by-point in a paper published side-by-side with the paper he referenced clearly shows the extreme bias against critics that the CF community has.
I doubt Robert Duncan has read my work either, since I am sure he at least would understand that if there is no real excess heat, there can be no real He-heat correlation as they construe it.
Another example not involving me is the claim by Miley that he produced all kinds of transmutation products in his Paterson Power Cell-beads experiments. Scott Little showed a) that he could reproduce the results, and b) that almost all of the 'new' element signals fell under the noise level and that of those that didn't, the largest ones could be traced to contaminants. Miley never changed his story on that either, nor do I recall that he even responded to Little's results (but I may be mis-remembering there, please correct me if I'm wrong on that).
The key thing about 'science' is that it is a group activity. There's an old adage that says you never have a discovery until someone else confirms it, and this is true (consider Rossi for example). So, 'good' scientists know this, and when criticized, they respond appropriately by either conducting more experiments to clairify the situation or by pointing out logical flaws in the criticisms (not inventing strawman versions of them to 'destroy'). 'Bad' scientists however do not do that. They use all the logical fallacies they can to denigrate their critics and then claim victory, which means they legitimize their failure to engage in the scientific process of criticism and subsequent refinement of the supporting data.
So Shane, show me a CFer who demonstrates understanding of my points (or Little's) and has actually addressed the issues. That would be 'good' scientific practice. By definition, those who do the opposite are 'bad'. And it is never uncalled for to point out bad science.
Kirk S.
and a good scientist will take them as they are, and base their conclusion on what the numbers tell him, not what he wants them to.
Which is why you can know that the majority of the CF researchers are 'bad' scientists. I took their numbers, analyzed them differently, came to a different conclusion, and they choose to ignore or denigrate that, rather than doing what you suggest (which is to let the data tell the story, not what the researcher wants to see before entering the lab).
I've been reading a little of Jed's stuff.
Careful, that can be hazardous to your health (and it draws rodents).
