Incidentally, the plot of Horizon Zero Dawn, a PS4 video game, was that self-replicating military robots started to multiply without end as a result of a system failure.
Don't forget the replicators from the Star Gate (Atlantis) series...
kirkshanahan
Member
- Member since Oct 8th 2014
- Last Activity:
Posts by kirkshanahan
-
-
For the newbies,
A quick word search in the revised file that JR uploaded leads to two conclusions: (1) Nothing new w.r.t. Fleishmann's view on my work, and (2) JR's introductory material is filled with lies about our interactions. Given the way he mutilates the latter, if I were you (dear reader...) I wouldn't believe a word he says.
I have responded to JR and his clones ad infinitum, I won't be adding anymore here.
-
One of the reasons I got on this forum was to ask a question about the use of the Optris for temperature measurement. I have another I'd like to ask. When one computes the power from a blackbody point source, the triple integtral 'over all space' reduces down to the extremely simple sigma*T^4. But when you use a real body made of alumina, the blackbody equation has problems since the alumina emissivity is non-Plankian. I believe one could express the emissivity curve as a sum of a blackbody at some temperature plus the deviations from the blackbody equation. Then the triple integral can be separated into the blackbody part and the deviation. The deviation term represents an 'error', or more correctly, an error correction term. Has anybody evaluated that term's magnitude for the Lugano experiment? Also, would the fact that the Optris is not looking at a point source matter, or is that taken into account by the software?
-
4) Additional reactions (e.g. unexpected oxidation) are as the author points out an inherent problem in these measurements. he states that these have been eliminated from consideration but not how and this is surely an area where mistakes can easily be made.
This is what I attributed the 'excess energy' to in the second publication in this field by Kitamura, et al., in the manuscript rejected by Physics Letters and contained an an Appendix to my whitepaper for those interested (which I have referenced here several times).
EDIT: I should say that I wasn't referring to oxidation, but to hydrogen reactions with the oxide...sorry...same idea tho.
-
@Louis
Jed wrote:
The papers by Shanahan have no merit, for the reasons discussed in this forum and here:
This is incorrect, as been discussed many times here and elsewhere. In a quick summary, the paper referred to by Jed poses a strawman representation of my argument, and as is typical with strawmen arguments, proceeds to prove it wrong. The only problem is that, as is typical with strawmen arguments, they critique something other than what I said. Ergo, they have never addressed the problems I raise in this manuscript.: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ShanahanKapossiblec.pdf Please note that the listing in Jed's library is incorrect in that the document there was a manuscript submitted in 2000, while the paper was finally published in 2002 with a different title. The journal ref that Jed gives is correct. The correct title is "A systematic error in mass flow calorimetry demonstrated". I will not engage with Jed on this again, which is much to the relief of the forum participants I suppose...
-
Here's another great one. As you read it keep thinking "Rossi Rossi Rossi..."
-
For your reading enjoyment, some selections from a Mizuno Bucket Anecdote discussion
on sci.physics.fusion - this link begins 9/10/2001 but the discussion could have started earlier
More enjoyment if you read the whole thread on Google groups.
Have fun!
Dieter Britz writes: 9/11/01
[minor snips by KLS]
I note a few inaccuracies in what Rothwell writes here. This is
strange because all this is described in Mizuno's book, and the
English edition was translated by none other than Rothwell himself.
On the whole, his story is OK, but some aspects are distorted. For
example, he states that Mizumo (and Akimoto) found tritium but no
neutrons, unless I remember incorrectly. This gives the impression
that tritium was found in that famous hot cell that evaporated 37.5 L
of water (a figure that in fact does not appear, neither does the 17.5 L
figure, in the book). They did find some tritium, but that was in another
experiment, before this one. At that time they also found some neutrons
but at 4 OOM below the tritium. They also dutyfully record that the
electrolyte in which they looked for tritium contained ppm levels of
Pd and Pt, both of which produce chemiluminescence, which is the way
tritium is measured... They then go on to separate this from the tritium
signal, quite convincingly. They seem to be good scientists, as I have
noted before. The point is, they themselves point to the lack of
agreement between the low neutron signal and the tritium they found,
and hint at a possible error in the tritium measurement. Rothwell
simplifies all this.
Rothwell also writes that, when the cell got hot, they wrapped it in
towels and put it into a bucket of water. In fact, they first simply
moved it onto a steel platform in another lab and only a day later
into the bucket. Rothwell could also more accurately have answered
Schultz's question about letting off the pressure: Mizuno was confident
that his steel cell could hold up to 200 atm at 500C, and it had a
safety valve that would vent at 100 atm, so he didn't see the need to
let off any pressure. They wanted to see what would happen. The book
(Rothwell's own English words) does not mention anything about wanting
to preserve the evidence, this being an interpolation by Rothwell.
I am not going to argue about where all that energy came from, and
Mizuno himself did not try to explain it. This story is in fact the
part of the book that rings bells with me and made me all the more
agnostic on CNF, rather than skeptical. But I wish Rothwell would
report more accurately when arguing here.
-- Dieter Britz http://www.chem.au.dk/~db
Tom Kunich wrote on 9/11/01 (quoting JR who was quoting Tom K.):
"Jed Rothwell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:9nj3db$vkc$[email protected]...
> Tom Kunich writes:
>
> > Apparently you are having a hard time following Richard's logic. Over a
> > couple of days HOW MUCH of the water was "evaporated" by the hot cell
> > and how much from the environment which in some cases might very well
> > account for the lion's share of it.
>
> It could not possibly account for it. You can test this easily yourself, and
> I recommend you do so before making any more comments. Place a 20 liter
> bucket of water in a room for ten days, replenish as needed, and measure how
> much water evaporates from it. You will never find that 37.5 liters
> evaporate, even in a very warm room. Or if you do, and you publish this fact
> and convince people it is true, you will win the Nobel prize.
Jed, sometimes your statements are breath-takingly stupid. The idea I
was trying to convey is that YOU don't have any idea of what transpired
in that experiment. You have confessed as much. If you DON'T know what
happened then why do you suppose that anything having to do with it is
either possible or impossible?
> > Your suggesting that really interesting data were obtained from this
> > experiment shows how little you respect science.
>
> This is first principle experiment. Neither you nor Schultz can come up with
> a plausible explanation for these results other than a nuclear process.
Why is anyone expected to come up with an explanation for an undocumented experiment?
> If you think that 37.5 liters of water can evaporate from a bucket ina room in
> 10 days, you have no knowledge of everyday grade-school level science.
And if you can suggest that 37.5 litres of water were really evaporated
AND THIS DIDN'T SHAKE the foundations of their sponsors, then perhaps
you are missing something important in what you are saying. You said
that this experiment wasn't repeated. This is like the Wright brothers
taking wing for a 15 minute flight over the White House and then packing
it all up and never flying again. A preposterous statement. My
suggestion is that they HAD an explanation for evaporation of all that
water and it had nothing to do with cold fusion.
> > And the weather during that time period was?
>
> You could look it up, couldn't you?
Jed, you are the one suggesting extraordinary science. You are the one
that has to field the questions. Not me.
Dieter Britz wrote on 9/11/01 (quoting Jed):
Jed Rothwell wrote:
[...]
> At one level, I know exactly what happened. The cell stayed hot for 10 days
> and evaporated 37.4 liters of water. No other information is needed to
Spurious accuracy, methinks. Reading the book, one does not get the
idea that they measured the evaporated water volume with any kind of
accuracy - they slopped it in as needed, and initially they didn't
expect a lot to evaporate anyway (it came as a surprise, remember?),
so they would not have started keeping track carefully. Or will you
state, Rothwell, that they did in fact keep account of the water to
that sort of precision, and do you think Mizuno would back you up if
I asked him? Where in fact does that figure of 37.5 L come from? It
is not in the book, and neither are the figures 20 and 17.5, which you
have added to produce that sum. I don't believe they would have stated
17.5, implying a precision of 0.1 L. Explain, please.
> I said it was not repeated on this scale, with this kind of material,
> because Mizuno et al. feared it might blow someone's head off with a steam
> explosion. Heat after death experiments have been repeated many times,
That seems untrue as well, since the book shows that he was
confident that his cell could hold 200 atm at 500C, and in any case
had a safety vent set at 100 atm.
Why are you making all this stuff up? Why not report it as reported
by Mizuno himself? He impresses me as a scientist, but I am afraid
you do not.
-- Dieter Britz http://www.chem.au.dk/~db
Lynn Kurtz wrote on 9/18/01 (quoting JR):
On Tue, 18 Sep 2001 17:21:59 -0400, "Jed Rothwell"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Lynn Kurtz writes:
[snipped by KLS]
As I said above, I can read. What he actually wrote in your first
quote above IS NOT what you attributed to him in this latter quote.
You are attributing to him things he did not say. Standing on your
head shouting "read the chemistry books" does not change that.
--Lynn
Jed Rothwell wrote on 9/10/01:
[snip by KLS]
The cell temperature was not constant. Placed in the water, the electrolyte
temperature fell to 60 deg C within a few days, then rose back to 80, and
then gradually cooled down. All cathodes in heat-after-death gradually cool
down. 10 liters evaporated in the first 24 hours. In the last days, 1 or 2
liters per day were replaced. The steel cell was 20 cm long, OD 7 cm, ID 6
cm. The inner sleeve was Teflon, 1 cm thick (ID 5 cm).
- Jed
-
Last parting shot...
So which bit of the above has Clan Rothwell got wrong Shanahan?
Most of "2". maybe all of it. Start with:
*given impossible circumstances*
We don't know they are impossible because nothing is specified. Humidity, room temp, and air flow are not specified by the principals (I agree we have oodles of hearsay on these numbers). The temperature that is specified would be the presumed temperature of the cell, but I contest that as it is reasonably possible that we are viewing a TC malfunction (I know, we have oodles of hearsay evidence that is 'just wrong'). So, I made assumptions, just like you did Zeus.
So, I did NOT say:
Kirkshanahan says *given impossible circumstances* (Clausius 1850), that the evaporation from Mizuno's bucket can be explained by normal evaporation - just like a swimming pool looses water by evaporation, ie. without being boiled off by Mizuno's reactor.
That is YOUR falsified interpretation of what I wrote.
As I have said REPEATEDLY, I examined ranges of parameters and calculated evaporation rates. My ranges aren't to your liking. Tough. They satisfied my objectives.
I tried to communicate this, and the Jeddites didn't like it. Tough.
But then they got into ad homs and slanderous/libelous statements. I object to that, but it seems to have done me no good. Therefore, I am done. Better things to do.
-
Zeus ‘quoted’ me thusly:
This is exactly the problem I was pointing out. JR can't handle the challenge to his hero's work, so he goes bonkers and claims I said this. He can't prove it without taking what I write ['that a bucket of water left in a room will evaporate overnight' out of context and pasting it together in a totally inappropriate way to 'prove' his point
what those authors and Jed are doing is called 'using a strawman argument'. If you look it up, you'll find it is fallacious logic, and is usually invoked by people who don't understand what is going on, or just want to try to discredit someone or something by being loud.
Then Zeus wrote:
“To be fair Kirk, that was exactly what you suggested had happened...”
What I actually wrote was:
“This is exactly the problem I was pointing out. JR can't handle the challenge to his hero's work, so he goes bonkers and claims I said this. He can't prove it without taking what I write out of context and pasting it together in a totally inappropriate way to 'prove' his point, which is not significantly different in intent from what the named authors did when they claimed I originated the so-called 'random Shanahan CCSH'. I had 4 papers on this, and all used the terms 'systematic' or 'non-random'. 'Non-random', I case you (or they) didn't know, is the diametric opposite of 'random'.
BTW - what those authors and Jed are doing is called 'using a strawman argument'. If you look it up, you'll find it is fallacious logic, and is usually invoked by people who don't understand what is going on, or just want to try to discredit someone or something by being loud.”
------------------------------------------------------------------
You all will note that Zeus inserted a phrase (that Jed wrote with intent to denigrate my ideas) into what I wrote, implying that that phrase fairly summarizes my position. Of course, that phrase is exactly why I keep responding to these stupid posts from the Jeddite clan. That phrase is directly opposed to what I wrote. So Zeus, following Jed’s lead, is clearly trying to ‘trick’ L-F readers into thinking I claim that a bucket of water will evaporate in all cases overnight. This is of course not what I ever said. What I specifically did was calculate evaporation rates for a variety of conditions from a given equation that may not actually be fully applicable, one set which was for a bucket of unheated water in a zero or near-zero air flow condition, and guess what I concluded! It wouldn’t evaporate fast enough to match the proposed (by Mizuno’s claims) evaporation!!! Wow! I am so crazy and wild aren’t I? But for higher air flow rates, it could. That’s why we need real (not imagined) air flow information. (P.S. Any building that has people in it will have some active ventilation. A nuclear facility will normally have more. So Jed’s ‘no significant air flow’ claims are not reasonable.)
------------------------------
So, next Zeus quotes Jed and responds:
First you say something, then you deny you said it. This is either a symptom of mental illness
“It;s true... saying things then denying you said them is pure crackers.”
This is nothing but an ad hominem attack, and is pointless in a scientific discussion.
--------------------------
More:
I then systematically varied those parameters (VOIs) and computed evaporation rates. I concluded that the reported rates of water evaporation fell within the potential rates obtainable, depending on what air speeds were present and what the actual temperature behavior of the cell was. Since that specific information was not available, I stopped, since there was nothing else to do. This means the 'experiment' was unresolvable. In other words an anecdote, exciting and stimulating to those who 'believe', and curious to those who don't. Nothing more. Certainly not proof of anything. Especially since it was never specifically replicated.
So then Zeus says:
“But you based your conclusions on the erroneous assumption that the water temperature started at 60 C. It couldn't have ever been that hot. At more reasonable temperatures you aren't anyway close - by a factor of 10 almost.”
Your use of the word ‘erroneous’ is your assumption based in the lack of understanding of what I was doing. In fact, if ‘LENR’ was heating the cell and therefore the water, 60C is too low. Again, in sensitivity analysis one examines a range of values for critical variables, not just the one you like best for a single set of favorite assumptions.
-------------------------------------------------------
More from Zeus:
“And then you ignore this fact to claim the problem is "unresolvable".”
No Zeus, the problem is unresolvable because critical data needed to evaluate the claims (like actual temperatures, air flow rates, and room humidity) are not available, AND because the possibility of malfunctioning equipment is never addressed AND PRIMARILY because the ‘experiment’ was never replicated.
I'm done with this. Have at it with your ad homs and slanders Jeddites!
added note: apparently an image file was attached to this message. That was not my intent.
-
Experimental science is based on doing actual experiments, hands-on, with physical objects. Not by doing sensitivity analyses and reaching impossible conclusions.
No Jed, data analysis and 'what-if' scenarios are part and parcel of the scientific process. Nobody just walks into a lab and starts randomly doing experiments. There is always a plan. The only question is how detailed is the plan.
-
You postulate an airflow that is irrelevant to the experiment. There was no massive fan moving air over the bucket.
Ever hear of ventilation, HVAC, contamination control via directed air flow....
I think you should have had good cause before calling him a liar.
Never did. More Jed fantasy. The only lie is what you just said.
Giving up, mark is a Jeddite.
-
So Mark, you see the last post from Jed right? Did you notice he still hasn't got it? How many times can you remember me saying just today that 'air flow' or 'ventillation' is the primary missing variable? And then Jed says:
I cannot imagine why moving the cell from one location to another would affect the physics of the reaction.
The density is amazing, truly amazing.
Furthermore, he brings this up again-
They put cells in heat after death
- when we've been over and over that time and again.
FYI - I've seen no F&P claims to HAD events that are sustainable, and I've discussed that many times here and back on spf as well.
Talking to Jed is like talking to a TV commercial.
-
False. Fleischmann and Pons did this hundreds of times,
False. They never did an 'experiment' like Mizuno tried and then ran it across campus to other places and put it in buckets of water, etc., etc.
The point is that if you change the cell, the exact components, the electrolyte, and/or any other variable significantly, you are running a different experiment. That means you are not 'replicating', you are doing similar experimentation, but with the possibility of a completely different set of errors. Minimizing that possibility is why researchers try to do exact replications, or use statistically designed experiments.
Mizuno ran this 'experiment' ONCE. Even if all data needed was reported, it STILL would be an anecdote because scientific inquiry requires replication.
F&P never replicated Mizuno. They may have run similar experiments, but they were never able to define the parameters to produce the FPHE well enough to translate to another lab without significant intervention, which means significant probability of transmitting systematic errors. Which of course they did anyway via the calorimetric assumptions they made that got translated to all F&P type cell calorimeters.
F&P and others did try to replicate themselves, with some limited success. That evidence is what convinced me to give the field a serious look in the 1995-2000 timeframe. And guess what? I found a systematic error that would explain all results...
-
Jed will refuse to read and understand my following comments, but perhaps Mark will see why JR is unreliable. So…
“If they had enough unshielded radioactive material to raise the temperature measurably, everyone in the building would be dead. I am sure Shanahan knows this.”
This is all Jed fantasy. The high ventilation rates in a nuclear facility is to contain and control radioactive matter to prevent human contamination events, not cool/heat the building.
“Anyone can put a bucket in a room with a fan and confirm that the water does not all evaporate overnight. Shanahan could do this but he will not.
There was no fan. It there had been, Mizuno would have said so in his notes, the magazine report and the book.”
I never suggested there was a fan. More Jed fantasy. In fact, some of my calculations (which are the same as those in the spreadsheet that I think Zeus put up) show this directly. But Jed chooses not to understand what I did, so he wouldn’t know that.
“I and others have told Shanahan the temperature and the conditions in the room many times. He ignores us. “
What you and others guess they might be is no different from my guesses, so my sensitivity analysis covered your suggestions. The difference is, you refuse to accept the possibility you might be wrong. On the other hand, as THH pointed out (thank you), my approach is to examine a range and then consider if it can be narrowed down. With no air flow measurements, discussing limits on the room temp is pointless.
"[snip] A thermocouple malfunction cannot cause a cell to be too hot to touch, “
But it can precondition a human to believe that the cell is hot and even dangerous, which would result in misinterpreting sensory data. This impact of expectations on judgment (which is what was being done by ‘touching’) is a well-established fact. That makes any data of this nature highly suspect, and certainly not solid enough to conclude physics textbooks must be rewritten.
“[snip] It is either lunacy or witless bullshit.”
Ad hom.
“There was, and still is, nothing wrong with that thermocouple. It was calibrated and used many times before and after. As I said, it was confirmed by sense of touch, something Shanahan refuses to comment on.”
The only way to be sure there was not a design dependent fault is to replicate the experiment and get the same or similar results several more times. This was never done.
-
Love it! This rat pool party thing is getting more and more realistic the more research we do. How about rat water polo with ice cubes???
-
-
Jed is not the only one to notice this. You said it was only hot because they heated it. Then you ignored Jed when he told you it was three days later. You constantly avoid the facts. Unless you say it is anecdotal and wasn't repeated. At least these two points give you some credibility.
Mark, I ignore Jed because he deserves to be ignored. Unfortunately, your current position seems to be that he has some credibility. So just for you I will give you a summary of what went on regarding the 'Mizuno bucket anecdote' (MBA).
As I recall (and I do forget, and make mistakes, so I can be corrected), this started back in 2001-2 with Jed bringing up the MBA on the Usenet newsgroup sci.physics.fusion, which was set up to discuss cold fusion issues. Here on L-F I have linked to some of those discussions. At that time, I linked to a DOE web site on energy savings to locate an equation to predict water loss rates from something like the bucket. The equation I found was for swimming pools. I checked recently and that page is no longer there, but others here on L-F found the same information elsewhere.
I then did my usual thing, I checked what varying the parameters of the equation did to the conclusions. The variables (parameters) of the equation included things like surface area available for evaporation, temperature, humidity, and wind speed over the water surface. That last variable in particular was never specified. Here on L-F I recently posted data from my own lab and prior labs for face air velocity (and some volumetric flows) from various hoods I have worked in, especially in a radiation containment environment, which a 'nuclear research building' will certainly have if they deal with any appreciable quantities of radioactive material. So, air speed became a 'variable of interest' (VOI). I also noted that I felt thermocouple malfunction was a good candidate for why the temperature behavior of the cell seemed anomalous, so temperature became another VOI.
I then systematically varied those parameters (VOIs) and computed evaporation rates. I concluded that the reported rates of water evaporation fell within the potential rates obtainable, depending on what air speeds were present and what the actual temperature behavior of the cell was. Since that specific information was not available, I stopped, since there was nothing else to do. This means the 'experiment' was unresolvable. In other words an anecdote, exciting and stimulating to those who 'believe', and curious to those who don't. Nothing more. Certainly not proof of anything. Especially since it was never specifically replicated.
On spf and L-F, I explained and summarized this process and results. Jed and his followers here then cut-and-pasted my comments about my systematic exploration of the parameter space, and tried to make me out as some kind of lunatic. This is standard Jed. He did it in 2001-2 also. What is bothersome to me is that his followers here seem to think this cut-and-paste ad hominem attack is A-O-K, as long as it supports LENR.
While the following may not be true at the 100% level, it surely is primarily true: Jed distorts what his 'opponents' (as he thinks of them) say to discredit them. And in doing that he simply follows the lead of the bulk of the primary researchers in the CF field, as shown by the group of 10 prominent CF authors' use of a completely incorrect strawman argument to 'disprove' my CCS/ATER explanation of apparent excess heat in F&P-type cells.
Here on L-F I challenged Jed and his followers to restate what I had done several times, which would have looked a lot like what I just did above, and none of them ever did. Instead they rant on about I supposedly said in their strawman representation of it, always taken out-of-context and designed to be insulting. Like the group of 10's paper, that proves noting but how unable they are to actually present a good argument.
-
You said this again and again.
No, you said I did. I didn't.
I will not dig up the messages because I have trouble finding things in this site.
or perhaps because they aren't there?
Terminating discussion at this point, until Jed spouts more falsifications.
-
For the newbies:
You estimate that a steel cell heated by electrolysis will still be hot three days later.
This is exactly the problem I was pointing out. JR can't handle the challenge to his hero's work, so he goes bonkers and claims I said this. He can't prove it without taking what I write out of context and pasting it together in a totally inappropriate way to 'prove' his point, which is not significantly different in intent from what the named authors did when they claimed I originated the so-called 'random Shanahan CCSH'. I had 4 papers on this, and all used the terms 'systematic' or 'non-random'. 'Non-random', I case you (or they) didn't know, is the diametric opposite of 'random'.
BTW - what those authors and Jed are doing is called 'using a strawman argument'. If you look it up, you'll find it is fallacious logic, and is usually invoked by people who don't understand what is going on, or just want to try to discredit someone or something by being loud.
-
...Shanahan who are reliable, rational experts in their own fields. But, when the subject of cold fusion comes up, they suddenly go off the rails.
..., and their training and rationality goes out the window
Other way round Jed. It's people like Fleischmann, Miles, McKubre, Hagelstein, etc., who claim I was talking about 'random effects' when I wasn't, followed by 'proof' that random effects can't lead to the observations (which I agree with), that then claim they have somehow 'proved' my work is invalid. All those guys have top notch degrees, but when faced with simple facts that contradict their beliefs, they go bonkers.
Now, you do the same, but you're not a scientist.
