Z46: Then please explain how 15L of bucket water could reach your claimed 100C (or even 60C) with the first law remaining intact?
Through a LENR heating the water.
(undoubtedly you will find the above answer 'amazing' or 'astounding' but that's only because you consistently refuse to follow what I say and what I do.)
Had to take a moment to check the ref here
considering your obvious struggles with the first law of thermodynamics (and arguably the second law as well), as recorded here.
Your wrong again Zeus46.
I understood only too well what you were doing with your calculations.
No, you didn't, as is obvious.
Interestingly both Huxley and ABD seem to only have a limited clue as to your whole issues with the 'ten scientists',
Really, you think so. So you think claiming XYZ said "It's random!" when XYZ actually said "It's systematic!" and "It's non-random." is hard to understand? Hmmm...
Well yes, but by this stage you are having to "distrust" a lot of scientists / data
No, not really. Normally I take the data as give, such as for Storms and McKubre's published data sheets. Now the recent Mizuno stuff Jed put up left me with some questions, and I showed figures as to why, but that's unusual.
"F&P, and all other CFers using calorimetry, to my knowledge don't do it right." A very bold statement
Not really. F&P and Miles implicitly recognize it as true when they spend hours figuring out which is the best mathematical method to determine their calibration constants(oh, excuse me, heat transfer coefficients) from their calibration runs. They clearly know that using the 'wrong' constants give the wrong answer. That's all the 'CCS' is.
That's what 'they' all say - until an experiment gets replicated, of course. In which case it becomes "they are also doing it wrong". See above for an example of this.
Typical character assassination.
THANK YOU for saying this. At last you have clarified your position.
Except I don't think you have a clue what it really is.
I have never hidden the fact that I am conservative in my approach to this field, meaning I need good solid evidence of LENR to convince me the observations are not grounded in mundane chemistry and physics. I have found that CFers routinely neglect to probe mundane explanations of their results to the necessary level, so my efforts in this area are to do that. I don't need to repeat what they have done, I do what they have not. While doing that, I have found that in those cases where enough replication attempts have been made, mundane explanations are as viable as the astounding LENR ones.
The Mizuno bucket thing, Rossi's demos, the Patterson Power Cell...all insufficient info. You can spend forever trying to guess what happened, or you can just not worry about it and concentrate on cases with enough data to work with, which is what I have done with the Storms' work and the subsequent CCS/ATER thing.
What really gives away that I am on the right track are the facts that Jed feels it is so important to 'prove me wrong', and that group of ten authors had to resort to a false strawman argument to try to do so as well.
Of course, some might argue that puts you firmly in the camp of the pathological skeptic, and well, maybe some others might not be too surprised by that.
No, I believe it is properly skeptical to distrust data that suggests physics textbooks need to be rewritten when based on 'measurements' that aren't confirmed by replication and verification of functionality, and instead supported by pre-conditioned human sense responses. Sounds too much like n-rays to trust blindly.
Replicate the experiment and then I might revise my opinion.
....Another mind-reader! Was it the tea-leaves or the goat entrails that gave me away?
It was your continued refusal to understand what I was doing with my "Patho-max" (as you put it) calculations.
No, that is not at all true. Fleischmann and Pons replicated heat after death hundreds of times, in the boil off experiments. Others observed this at power levels up to ~20 W, lasting a day or so.
However, I am sure you do not believe any of these reports either. That's okay. You can always say "personally I lean toward no." That is a "gut feeling" with no rational or scientific basis. It does not need any basis. Anyone can have a "gut feeling" about any subject. It does not violate thermodynamics, as Zeos46 put it.
No Jed, you 'misrepresent' again. I have repeatedly said several things in relation to your misrepresentaions above:
1) F&P, and all other CFers using calorimetry, to my knowledge don't do it right.
2) Their data is usually OK, with certain exceptions.
3) F&P's big Heat-after-death claim in their 1993 paper is based on a bogus
measurement. I showed this in my whitepaper.
4) most other HAD events aren't long enough to prove it isn't just bad calorimetry again (that old CCS-thing, remember)
But you refuse to understand the criticisms, even after years of trying to get you to, so I'm sure you will just blather on the same way as you do.
BTW, I don't think Mizuno, et al, are liars, I believe they are self-deluded about the temperature in the bucket incident.
The problem with the nuclear fume hood hypothesis is that the airflow would have to be turned down each day to match the diminishing amount of water evaporated...
The problem with your comment is that you continue to believe the numbers presented. I'll agree that, if true, they present an interesting anomaly. But are they true, that is the question isn't it? Personally I lean towards no.
But the key point that everyone refuses to deal with is that this event is a one-time event, that was never replicated. That means the best it can be is suggestive. It helps explain why Mizuno continued on with CF work. But it proves nothing scientifically. That requires replication, which, Jed's objections notwithstanding, never occurred.
I am done with the speculations on this event, because we can never get beyond that, and persisting is a waste of time.
As an aside, while trying to find where I picked up the 'abandoned' descriptor for the building (didn't find it yet, may not), I ran across an amusing thread in the old spf archives. You all might find it interesting too.
Make sure you note the dates.
Okay, so what potential error could cause two people to mistakenly think that an object radiating heat and it so hot it will burn them?
so let me get this straight...
the TC registered over 100 deg C
Mizuno and friend repeatedly stuck their hands in a bucket of boiling water to prove the 'heater' was still working. Is that really what you're saying?
What error can cause a bucket of water to evaporate overnight in ordinary room temperature conditions?
Not an error, a high airflow rate over the water.
Still not following are you Jed...
You cannot "nibble away" at the facts by denying them one at a time,
But that's that's they way it works Jed. You look at the data, searching for potential errors that would produce the anomalous results that are being claimed. You postulate reasonable ones and then go back and repeat the experiment. Failure to replicate means the result remain, forever, anomalous and not conclusive.
and making up impossible stories about them.
If you bothered to read what I write, you would see my proposed explanations are not 'impossible stories'. Only your fanatic bias allows you to say stuff like that.
Pffft - I did, if you recall.
I don't. Link? It would seem if you did, you didn't do well.
My handy spreadsheet could be useful to you here...
Yup, I checked your spreadsheet out. The only thing I didn't verify independently at this point is the equation to compute water vapor pressure, but it looks reasonable so it isn't worth tracking it down.
You do need to eliminate Line 1 where you display your bias however.
And please explain what 'significant' airflow means, and where this 'significant' airflow comes from?
Recently Jed brought up a tidbit I didn't know. It's in this post: Mizuno's bucket of water
He mentions that the 'abandoned' building is the "Nuclear Engineering Building in a National University" and that "It was a secure building with lots of expensive equipment, heavy machinery, radiation danger signs, heavy doors, badge access, 24-hour guards, etc.".
A) This is hardly 'abandoned' and b) this brings up a whole new dimension to the air flow rate problem.
In my current lab I have a chemical hood that lists the acceptable airflow rate at the face (with the doors in a particular position) of 80-150 lfm. It was actually tested and found to be 106 lfm. (That's ~0.9 - 1.7 mph, with actual = 1.2 mph.) But the 'abandoned' building with 24-hr. armed guards is a nuclear facility and rad hoods (hoods designed for use with radioactive materials) typically use higher flow rates, maybe 2-3X (i.e. up to 5.1 mph), but that depends on the specifics of the lab ventilation setup of course. Now, from 1996 to 2004, I personally worked in a rad lab (tritium specifically) that had massive floor to ceiling hoods about 12 ft. long. As I recall they moved about 3300 cfm. The air was drawn through a grille assembly mounted low on two sides of the long face. Best recollection is 3 or 4 slits about 1/4" wide going the full 12 feet. My calcs indicate that the face velocity at those points was in the region of 20 mph. And yes, the hoods had a tendency to suck your clothes or lab coats up against them if you got too close.
Point is, your 'Patho-Max' version only used 5 mph and got 2.9 l/day water loss at nominal room temp of 22C. (In my rad lab, the airflow was so high that in the winter I could register 15-17C ambient temps when the outside was cold.) But if we take your 2.9 l/day and multiply by 4, we get 11.6 l/day, which exceeds your noted max loss rate of 10.0 handily.
So Zeus, your bias against me has led you down the wrong path. We need to know specifics of what lab he used and where exactly he placed the bucket to get reasonable estimates of the actual airflow rate over the bucket, as well as the actual lab temp, to compute whether it was really possible to evaporate the 10 l/day or not. I doubt we will get that ever, which is why this event is an anecdote and not a scientific experiment. (Added: Also need relative humidity. Rad facilities often try to control that, but it is difficult if the airfows are as high as in my old rad lab.)
So let's just drop the smoke blowing, agree to disagree as to the validity of the claims, and move on. The bucket anecdote _proves_ nothing, just like Rossi's demos.
I don't trust you, and I suspect you might be playing that game.
I find that people who says things like this are usually projecting what they would do to others. You have no basis for your statement.
The following is another example of how you systematically misrepresent what I write:
You quoted me and responded thusly:
Was it removed to do this? Was the cell disassembled?
Of course it was removed. Of course the cell was disassembled. That's what it says in the book. There is a photo in the book showing it disassembled. I have seen the cell and the thermocouple, removed from the cell and sitting on the shelf.
But what I actually wrote was:
Was it removed to do this? Was the cell disassembled? If so, then the tests are meaningless because the disassembly would have broken any accidental contacts that created secondary junctions, which would create false readings. More missing info...
The part you failed to quote documents why testing after disassembly is not decisive. But of course you omitted that, thereby implying I was just being ridiculous instead of specifying exactly what a known type of problem was.
I don't trust you, but I have many reasons, one of which I just enumerated above.
There is no dispute here. No one has misrepresented you. You have repeated exactly the same arguments you made before. I correctly reported your arguments in my Introduction to the Fleischmann letters.
No, you didn't. How could you have when you clearly have no understanding of what I said as you have just proved again.?
I said Mizuno gave three reasons supporting his claim:
BothMizuno and his colleague Akimoto reported that the cell was far too hot totouch. Mizuno had to wrap it in towels to pick it up and move it to anotherroom.
I granted this given that you are referring to when they disconnected it from the heaters that had heated it up to the point it was too hot to touch.
The thermocouple installed in the cell registered over 100°C for the first fewdays.
Malfunction.
When the cell was placed in a bucket of water, the water evaporated overnight. Up to10 liters per night evaporated, and more would have evaporated but the bucketonly held 10 liters. This happened several nights in a row.
This is the claim that is being investigated. To assume it is true in the 'proof' of it is to use circular reasoning. Thus I was investigating whether this might be believable. I found insufficient information to independently evaluate the claims.
You responded here, and elsewhere, to the three points as follows:
You refuse to comment.
You claim the thermocouple was wrong. That is incorrect. It was tested before and after the experiment. It is still in the lab and it still works.
I've commented until my fingers are worn to nubs, to no avail with you.
Was it removed to do this? Was the cell disassembled? If so, then the tests are meaningless because the disassembly would have broken any accidental contacts that created secondary junctions, which would create false readings. More missing info...
You claim that a bucket of water left in ordinary room temperature conditions will evaporate overnight. That is what you just said again. That is not true. That is crackpot nonsense.
Again, you fail to quote me properly. This is a habit with you, which means you are deliberately misrepresenting what I say in order to discredit and insult me.
You also claimed there was "vermin" in the lab and that might explain why the water disappeared. That is also crackpot nonsense.
As I have remarked (and which you never seem to hear), this comment was half in jest. Of course, you have no sense of humor because of your fanaticism. The other half was to point out the situation was uncontrolled and thus susceptible to 'problems' like this. Just like the guy on spf that suggested that maybe some of Mizuno's 'buddies' played a prank on him and removed the water when he wasn't there. Replication would solve the issue.
You have made various other claims such as "if there were a hot object in the water." Obviously, there was a hot object. Mizuno felt it was hot, and the thermocouple showed it was hot. In response to these facts you have said that a hot object is not a heater, and the fact that it remained hot for a week does not prove there was heat being generated in it. That is also crackpot nonsense.
All addressed above. The fact that you felt the need to repeat it just substantiates my claims about you.
There are no distortions or misunderstanding in my Introduction. If you think there are, I again invite you to write a rebuttal to be uploaded to LENR-CANR.org. I am sure you will not do this, but the offer stands.
Of course there are. You seem to be incapable of dealing with criticisms. And, 'you got that right!', I won't be giving you a basis to rant on even more. You and Krivit are 'two peas in a pod'.
F&P's calorimetric method is not that complicated. Their fancy equation which seems to confuse a lot of people is just the energy balance equation typically used in a dynamic chemical process model (a field I worked in for many years several years ago). I have pointed out several problems with it in my many-times referenced whitepaper. The biggest one is that it uses the 'lumped parameter approach' which negates its ability to handle ATER. Also, the backflips and cartwheels they go through to determine the 'best' method for determining the 'heat transfer coefficient' (aka calibration constant) proves my point about CCSs, if you use the wrong constant you get the wrong answer. Also, in the very beginning they had a term in their equation to allow for recombination, but they never really discussed it, and later Miles completely dropped it. This is probably because they didn't believe ATER could occur to any extent, which is just an assumption on their part. One would need to verify that ATER wasn't happening, which no CFer never did. In the end, I think F was enamored of his fancy methodology, but I doubt he was significantly better than Storms' or McKubre's high heat capture efficiency mass flow calorimeters.
(As an aside, a former L-F participant who went off to another place has castigated me for using 'CFer'. That is an abbreviation of either 'cold fusion researcher' (my term) or 'cold fusioneer' (Eugene Mallove's term) and is not intended as derogatory.)
Been there, done that, not doing it again. Reread my prior posts on this and stop taking stuff out of context just to 'prove' I was wrong. That's not how it works.
And all the while you still miss the main point - you can't do science with 1 experiment (especially when large chunks of critical info are missing).
Which bit did I misrepresent Kirk?
Do you think 10L of water could have evaporated from Mizuno's bucket in 24 hours by 'normal' swimming-pool-style evaporation?
Of course it could...***IF*** there was a hot object or even a heater present in it and a significant airflow rate over it...which is what I said all along.
Lets cut through all the waffle... It's really quite simple
Yes, let's do. And yes, it is. Zeus46, JedRothwell, and bocijn were challenged to repeat back the gist of my postings on the Mizuno bucket anecdote, with special emphasis on the sensitivity analysis I did, and they failed to do so. Instead Jed prefaces a block of letters between Melvin Miles and Martin Fleischmann, which includes drafts of unsent letters to me, with a block of commentary repeating his standard misrepresentation of what I have written regarding the Mizuno bucket anecdote. Why? I have no idea, other than to assume Jed has an agenda, which Zeus46 (and usually bocijn) support. I'm not going into the details another time. Read the Mizuno bucket thread here on L-F for more info.
I will categorically state that Zeus46 has equally 'misrepresented' what I've written, so if you want the facts you'll have to read the bucket thread.
For the newcomer: Water evaporation is the same process whether it occurs from an ocean, a swimming pool, a bucket, or a thimble. Google 'swimming pool evaporation calculation' to find multiple sites that give equations and calculators to compute how fast it happens. In all cases air movement over the water surface is an important variable. This was never defined for the bucket anecdote. Therefore I had to explore variation in that, and in the thermal profile of the hot cell in a systematic way, since the details are suspect because they are anomalous, which is the 'sensitivity analysis' whose results Jed, Zeus, and bocijn routinely distort to fit their agenda.
I first did this back when Jed posted to sci.physics.fusion in the early 2000's about the anecdote. Jed refused to understand it then as well. So I had some fun with him, and suggested a bunch of mice had drunk the water from the bucket, which had supposedly been placed in a lab in an 'abandoned' building. The point of that of course was to emphasize that the bucket was unattended most of the time in an uncontrolled environment, which always raises questions when anomalous results are obtained.
My net conclusion has always been "Not Enough Information" to draw any firm conclusions. It's a lot like the Rossi 'demos'. What one does with the 'results' is a matter of personal choice, but they compel no particular conclusion. Replication in a controlled environment is required, and those results may or may not be conclusive. The bucket anecdote is just a story at this time, and will remain that way forever.
What I also find interesting, amusing, astounding, etc., is that Jed puts out a 471 page document, I comment on the multiple points in it directed at me, and Jed/Zeus wants to fight over the bucket anecdote again. Why? Trolling maybe?
Jed has posted the previously announced correspondence from Fleischmann to Miles, in which was supposedly the darts to assassinate my CCS/ATER theory of apparent excess heat signals. But as I predicted, no such luck. I used keyword searches to see where I was discussed, and I have clipped them out and responded below in this lengthy post.
As an Executive Summary, for those who wish to read no further, I can say that:
I have to give kudos to Jed for posting this collection. It sheds a lot of light on why the CF community acts the way it does. Worth reading the whole thing I guess…
******* long post follows *******
Quotes from Rothwell’s introductory material (pps 1-25)
“In these letters, Fleischmann often mentions four opponents: Douglas Morrison, John Huizenga, Peter Zimmerman and Kirk Shanahan.” [p. 6]
“so let me point out that many of technical arguments made by Morrison, Huizinga, Shanahan and other leading skeptics are as weak as this.” [p. 8]
As usual, no definition of the problem, just negative JR hot air.
“Kirk Shanahan wrote a number of papers finding fault in the work of Fleischmann, Storms and
others. 16,17,18 Fleischmann considered responding, but in the end he did not. Marwan et al. and
Storms did respond. 19,20 Shanahan says he does not agree with their conclusions.” [p. 9, underline in original]
Point to note: F wrote several draft letters, see the document for details, but he never sent anything to me.
“In his interactions with me, Shanahan has sometimes said mind-boggling things. I cannot tell
whether he is stupid or he is putting me on.” [p. 10]
Jed follows this by again repeating his misrepresentation of my sensitivity analysis of the Mizuno bucket anecdote. The response to his last sentence above is: No, I am not putting you on, but try as I might (and I have tried mightily) I can’t get you to understand what I was doing. I can’t tell if this is because you are stupid or are putting me on. But one thing is certain, you don’t understand science.
I will skip Jed’s remaining comments from the Mizuno bucket incident misrepresentation and move on to Fleishmann’s correspondence. Note I will use “F” to indicate “Fleischmann” in the following responses.
From:
“Bury Lodge heading
30 August 2002
Dr. Melvin H. Miles,
Department of Chemistry,
Bates College,
Lewiston, ME 04240-6028
U. S. A:” [p. 327]
“This brings me to the paper by Kirk Shanahan. Has this been published, will it be published?
Incidentally, he did send me a copy of this paper earlier this year but I threw it away in a fit of
irritation.” [p. 328]
Say what? It irritated him so he threw it away? ‘Good’ science there, isn’t it.
Apparently he was using the manuscript submitted for publication.
“I think it would be a serious mistake to regard Shanahan’s paper as an attempt to further the
understanding of calorimetry: it is really in the nature of a “spoiler”. He takes a week [sic, Jed check your OCR] paper, sets up a scenario of errors in the calibration (which may or may not be true) and then extends his negative comments to the whole field by innuendo.” [p. 328]
No, I reanalyzed Ed Storms data assuming no excess power, found that the reanalysis induced no unreasonableness, and then found a buried systematic trend that led to a proposed mechanism for an effect that would produce artificial excess heat signals. This is where one begins to see F’s paranoia about ‘DOE and the rest’.
“I find it next to impossible to make any connection between Shanahan’s paper and the work we have done…” [p. 329]
That’s why he should have written me.
“The reason that I regard Shanahan’s paper as a “spoiler” is because it falls pretty well into the
scenario of activities which have been used before notably by the Tobacco and Sugar industries.
Britain’s first Professor of Nutrition Science was so effectively rubbished that he never got
another research grant! The same methodology is now being used by the Mobile Phone
Industries. Perhaps, then, we could also use a preliminary letter to try to establish what resources
the D.O.E. may have used to further the study of “Cold Fusion” and what resources may have
been devoted to produce the kind of comments contained in Shanahan’s paper. Is this
information available under the freedom of information act? Do you think Gene Mallove or Jed
Rothwell may have surveyed this subject?” [p. 329]
Conspiracy Theory-ism at its finest!
From:
“Bury Lodge heading
8th September 2002.
Dr. Melvin Miles,
Department of Chemistry,
Bales College,
Lewiston, M.E. 04240-6028
FAX 0011-207-786-8336.” [p. 333]
“This brings me again to Kirk Shanahan’s paper. As I said in my FAX of 30/8/02 it would be
a mistake to regard this as an attempt to further the understanding of calorimetry.” [p. 334]
“You certainly cannot tell from the paper alone as to what his real intent may have been although the list of acknowledgments is highly suggestive.” [p. 334]
My intent was to show how to get apparent excess heat signals. But F prefers his conspiracy theory instead.
“The paper is all bog-standard and I believe that this type of analysis can be found in all the standard textbooks - it may even be in the brilliant book “Numerical Recipes”.” [p. 334]
I never said I did anything brilliant, just that I found something interesting and worth publishing, that if true, would give a non-CF explanation of ‘CF’ results.
“So let me wish unto you some further action. Do you have any colleagues at Bates College who are interested in statistical analysis of data and/or who may have some useful textbooks? If so, could you try to check-up what the errors of the statistical estimates might be? Failing this, could you ask for Mike Melich’s advice? You could tell him that I believe that Kirk Shanahan has simply applied a routine analysis to Ed Storms’ data.” [p. 334]
F is correct. Nothing new in my analysis, except to apply it on a run-by-run basis.
“Of course, if you introduce arbitrary shifts into the experiments (the errors referred to by Kirk
Shanahan) then all is pretty well lost - you cannot devise calibration procedures which will detect
such arbitrary shifts.” [p. 334]
Good point! Note that the onset of ATER can produce an arbitrary shift. But you can evaluate your data to see if a CCS could explain the signal. If it could, then you have a problem claiming it was a CF event.
“Incidentally, you may note that the fitting procedures we used in 1989 always included a
calibration - we simply did not use a predetermined heat transfer coefficient as seems to be
alleged by Kirk Shanahan. We have continued to use this approach since then although one
cannot always stick to this procedure.” [p. 334]
They may have used a calibration prior to each run, but they then applied that to the whole run, which may have lasted hundreds of hours, during which ATER may have turned on and off hundreds of time (OK, so I exaggerate, probably just one or two times). During those changed states, the ‘global’ calibration was inaccurate.
“I think that the supporting documents you have sent me make Kirk Shanahan’s true intent
more clear.” [p. 334]
Wonder what he was talking about…
“The real conclusion he should have drawn from his reanalysis of Ed Storms’ data is
that flow calorimetry is an unreliable methodology as we ourselves discovered (see the draft of
my letter to Kirk Shanahan). What he has done is simply to drop a “tank-trap” into the
investigation, a trap which one simply cannot circumvent.” [p. 334]
Flow calorimetry can be very accurate, as long as the system remains stable and unchanging w.r.t heat flows.
“One needs to ask: why should there be such large shifts in the calibration constants? What would be the mechanism(s) of such shifts? “ [p. 334]
ATER with CCS… BTW, these are the obvious questions, which is why I attempted to answer them.
“It seems to me therefore, that Kirk Shanahan’s paper is just the first step in a procedure
which is likely to develop into a useless slanging match designed to justify the inaction of the
agencies such as the D.O.E.” [p. 334-5]
No, it would have led to a clarification of methodology that might have redirected efforts towards appropriate chemistry that would lead to reproducible results. That’s the point of criticisms, to advance the science.
From: A DRAFT letter to me that was never sent.
“Bury Lodge heading
First Draft
Dr. Kirk L. Shanahan,
Westinghouse Savannah River Company,
Savannah River Technology centre,
Aiken, SC 29808,
U.S.A.” [p. 337]
“The argument you developed seemed to me to be fairly standard but I simply could not make any connection between your paper and the work which we have carried out,…” [p. 337]
Presumably correspondence would have clarified that.
“To start the ball rolling, let me make some initial comments. You could have concluded from
your paper that mass flow calorimetry is inherently inaccurate which is a conclusion which we
reached on three separate occasions in our early work.” [p. 337]
No, I concluded there was a special circumstance operating that changed the math. I don’t see that flow calorimetry itself is inaccurate.
“[ after some technical discussion on mass flow calorimetry] Random shifts in their behavior were therefore to be expected.” [p. 338]
Interesting, as this may explain why the 2010 reply in JEM assumed I was discussing random shifts, i.e. it reveals a possible bias on F’s part, which is likely reflective of the bulk of the CF community.
“The radial and axial mixing times for the calorimeters in use at that time (as determined by tracer experiments) were 3 and 20 s respectively whereas the thermal relaxation time was of order 3,000 s. There simply was no mechanism for generating thermal inhomogeneities as was confirmed with a system of 8 thermistors racked through the cell.” [p. 338]
I have said many times that radial mixing was fast based on a published version of the above comment. It would have been of interest to know if any of the 8 thermistors were located in the cell’s gas space.
“As I have said: you could have concluded that mass flow calorimetry is unreliable (we
decided that it should be reserved for large-scale experiments).” [p. 338]
Why is F talking about what I could have done instead of what I did? Red herring tactic.
“You have not done this but instead have tried to extend your arguments to other forms of calorimetry. It is here that you appear to have misinterpreted the literature. In our early work we always included a calibration in any evaluation of the heat generated in the calorimeter i.e. we did not rely on a global calibration as you appear to believe.” [p. 338]
My critique of Storms’ calorimetry is directly relevant to any calibrated method, since a change in the steady state any time during which it is assumed a previously determined calibration equation applies will result in a change in the calibration constants needed for maximum accuracy. Fleischmann missed this point completely apparently.
“(incidentally, I do not understand the point you have made about S/N: could you please explain this more fully?)” [p. 339]
The CCS produces a shift 10-100 times (perhaps more) the usual standard deviation assumed for these methods (usually derived from baseline noise). That means a S/N of 10 based on the usual approach is 10-100 times (or more) too large.
“It is therefore essential for you to spell out why such global calibrations might change with time or from experiment to experiment.” [p. 339]
CCS/ATER. Is everyone noticing how F keeps missing the point?
“I would also like you to spell out the mechanism(s) by which oxygen might reach the cathodes and hydrogen might reach the anodes so as to generate combustion at these services.” [p. 339]
In answer, quoting F again: “The radial and axial mixing times for the calorimeters in use at that
time (as determined by tracer experiments) were 3 and 20 s” [p. 338]
“You also appear to have some difficulties in accepting the results of measurements in the rates of gas evolution.” [p. 339]
Not really. That doesn’t make much difference to me in so far as the error is using a global, lumped parameter approach to modeling the calorimeter/cell.
From:
“Bury Lodge heading
9 September 2002
Dr. Melvin Miles,
Department of Chemistry,
Bates College,
Lewiston, ME 04240-6028,
U.S.A.” [p. 342]
“Dear Mel,
…
I see that you have now rather changed your mind about the wisdom of writing to Kirk
Shanahan (your hand written footnote on the letter in the letter package).” [p. 342]
So, Mel Miles judged me unworthy to communicate with, even though as per our 2017 communications he never read my papers. I wonder how he reached his conclusion?
“I must say that I have considerable reservations about entering into a correspondence with him but I will nevertheless be very interested to have your comments on my draft letter. Instead, if his paper gets published (as no doubt it will do) we could use it as a platform for carrying out a hatchet job at ICCF10 – I have much more material for such a hatchet job!” [p.342]
So, Fleischmann’s response to a critical review of someone else’s calorimetry is to do a hatchet job on me. Interesting.
From: [a Second Draft letter supposedly addressing a critical omission in the First Draft, the latter part of the draft was unchanged per JR’s comment.]
“Dr. Kirk L. Shanahan,
Westinghouse Savannah River Company,
Savannah River Technology centre,
Aiken, SC 29808,
U.S.A.
DRAFT to Dr. Mel Miles” [p. 342-343]
“Certainly, as far as isoperibolic calorimetry is concerned, you appear to have
missed a most important point. Statistics alone does not tell you whether you have adopted a
sensible data processing strategy - it simply gives you an answer based on whatever the data and
assumptions you plug into the relevant procedure.”
It seems F missed the point about computing error bands on numbers computed from other experimentally determined numbers, i.e. Propagation of Errors. He seems to be fixated on curve fitting.
“Thus in isoperibolic calorimetry one can choose to use the differential or the integral heat transfer coefficients and, as far as the latter are concerned, one can use forward or backward integration and apply the methodology to different parts of the measurement cycle. We had spent a considerable amount of time and effort to demonstrate that one should use the interval heat transfer coefficients based on backward integration applied to the time region of the calibration pulse to achieve precise and accurate evaluations.” [p. 343]
IOW, if you use the wrong math, you get the wrong answer. Hmmm, where have I heard that before…
“As I have said, you appear to of missed this particular point so I put your paper aside (and I
regret to say that I have now lost this copy).” [p.343]
Actually he threw it out because it irritated him.
“I could see no point in entering into a discussion with you as I felt sure that this would degenerate into some kind of slanging match.” [p.343]
That must have been because [/sarcasm] I am one of those DOE flunkies whose job is to destroy him I guess…[/sarcasm]
“However, recently, Dr. Melvin Miles … sent me a further copy of this paper together with copies of some ensuing correspondence and Mel asked whether I might wish to write to you? It is this ensuing correspondence which illustrates that you have developed some rather strange views and, indeed that you have misinterpreted the literature.” [p. 343]
Except I didn’t.
“I have therefore decided to try to open up a correspondence with you but as a first step I need to ask you whether my documentation is complete …” [p. 343]
Except he didn’t.
From:
“Bury Lodge heading
Your FAX has just arrived. I am drafting a letter to Elton Cairns.
23/09/02
Dr. Melvin Miles,
Department of Chemistry,
Bates College,
Lewiston, ME 04240-6028,
U.S.A.” [p.345]
“As far as the first topic is concerned, Mike McKubre has given me some very interesting
information. This includes the fact that Shanahan has some responsibility for examining the
loading of D and T into metals. Did I ever tell you that Stan Pons and I tried to get information
about this work but found that it was classified.” [p.347]
There was lots of info out there in the open literature and public government reports on this subject in 2002. I don’t know specifically what F’s talking about here. Does make it sound mysterious though doesn’t it? Actually, he could have asked those questions of me and I might have been able to answer them or find the answers.
“On going through this old correspondence, I have also again run across the letter to Kirk
Shanahan which, as you will gather, I have also not sent off. I eventually decided that I do not
want to enter into any correspondence with him partly prompted by Mike McKubre and partly by
Stan Szpak. Mike, Stan and Pam variously decided to terminate their correspondence with him
and the material which Stan sent to me convinced me yet again that Kirk Shanahan’s
contribution was in the nature of a “spoiler” (I believe that this is the way I originally described
his efforts to you). I believe that he must have been asked by the D.O.E. to find a reason for
discrediting the work on C.F. He is undoubtedly a clever fellow and he has come up with a
simple device: he attributes all positive measurements to changes in the heat transfer coefficient
which are supposed to take place by some unspecified mechanism. As far as our own work is
concerned, such changes are virtually impossible as the thermal impedance is due to a heat transfer across the vacuum I.e. the rate of heat transfer is just about the minimum one can
achieve.” [p.368-9]
I recall no correspondence with Pam Mosier-Boss. I sent a courtesy copy of my 2005 comment on their 2004 paper to Szpak, but I recall no further correspondence. I have described my dealings with McKubre elsewhere. He refused to help me and then got mad when I tried to see if anyone else could.
The rest of this quote is F’s conspiracy theory in full bloom. It’s all biased speculation and demonstrates he didn’t ever grasp the essence of what I did for the CF field.
“One has to rely on a global calibration but Shanahan asserts that
such global calibrations are not justified. Of course, what he has really done is to abandon the
rational basis of science (this abandonment is hidden under a great deal of verbiage) and he then
asserts that having come up with this impossible scenario, the onus is on C.F. researchers to
prove that changes in the calibration do not take place. Oh no! The onus is on Kirk Shanahan to prove that such outlandish changes in the calibration do take place.” [p.369]
Abandoned the rational basis of science? Hardly! Impossible scenario? I derived it directly from their data, so again, hardly! I think F got confused by my “great deal of verbiage” and didn’t realize it. Perhaps we could have clarified things if he had sent the letter, but the risk to his closely held beliefs was too strong. BTW, it is universally recognized that the person making a claim that gets criticized has the responsibility to respond to the criticism.
“The original interpretation of the generation of excess enthalpy remains valid until
such time as Kirk Shanahan (or A.N. Others) are able to prove that there are such peculiar
changes in the heat transfer coefficient demanded by Shanahan’s model.” [p.369]
No, a reasonable criticism requires a response from the criticized. This is rational, as how would I be expected to examine the details of the system without building a running one for a considerable time, and who would fund me to do that, when F had trouble getting funding? No, he has the equipment and he makes the claim. It was on him. That’s ‘business as usual’.
“I believe that Shanahan’s paper will give the C.F. brigade a great deal of trouble: it will
simply be cited by the D.O.E. and its henchmen as evidence that all the C.F. observations are
ambiguous.” [p.369]
Except that it didn’t to my knowledge. It was mentioned by one reviewer in the 2004 DOE re-review, to no effect. More conspiracy theory at work though…
“I believe therefore that we have to hold on to the central point: there are no changes
in the true heat transfer coefficient until such time as Shanahan (or A.N. Others) can show that
such changes do take place. Incidentally, Shanahan completely ignores the fact that we have
always systematically recalibrated all the measurement cycles.” [p.369]
See above comments. And no, I didn’t ignore anything.
“As a matter of fact, I could see Shanahan’s argument coming “a mile off”.” [p.369]
Actually he didn’t, which is shown by the fact he never seemed to understand it.
“This is why I initiated a programme in 1992-93 designed to answer the specific question: “are there changes in the heat transfer coefficient ?” and, furthermore, “what are the characteristics of positive and negative feedback?” This programme relied on driving the calibration heater with pseudorandom binary noise and constructing the cross-correlation function of this “noise” with the “noise” in the cell temperature (and also with the cell voltage). This was therefore an attempt to carry out calorimetry in the frequency domain. It is easy to show that the real and imaginary components of the Fourier Transform of the cross-correlation function should give a diagram such as…” [p.369]
Blah, blah, blah. Did he use two resistive heaters to check my theory. No.
“Do you believe that Shanahan’s antipathy towards the work on “hot spots” is to be explained
in part by the observations made in Frascati ?” [p.377]
“I know that you must be very busy but I need your help urgently. First of all referring to my
previous FAX, I need a good reference for “hot spots”. Would “S. Szpak and P.A. Mosier-Boss,
Il Nuevo Cimento 112A (1999) 577” do or is there a better reference?” [p. 325]
Hot spots? Antipathy?
I use the IR video showing the development of large area ‘hot spots’ to support ATER, calling it chemical explosions, instead of the nuclear explosion explanation offered by Szpak, et al. Antipathy? Not at all. Again, F (And Others) sees any criticism as an unwarranted emotional attack (UEA), which is a ‘bad scientist’ characteristic (both UEAs and seeing criticisms as such).
“As you will see, I did not send my letter to Elton Cairns and I also continue to prevaricate
about Kirk Shanahan. The reason is that I believe that he must know full well that “Cold Fusion”
is possible - indeed that this is a reality. I base this on the list of his other activities. If that is so,
then it would put the activities of the D.O.E. under a great black cloud.” [p.392]
I have no real idea what F is referring to here. He apparently thinks we see all sorts of anomalies we are hiding. The exact opposite is true, we never see anything that would support CF or LENR. Outfall of conspiracy theory fascination.
*****
I didn’t catch any other specific comments. If I missed some, sorry…
I’ve discussed Miles’ work here and elsewhere many times. He lists 6 points in the linked message. My responses:
Point 1. Dental film can be chemically exposed by exposure to hydrogen (or deuterium) in a process called ‘hypering’. This technique was used back in the film days for astronomical observations. It sensitizes the film and helps record very low exposures. Further, heat exposes the film as well as light. I proved this myself by holding a hot soldering iron to some film we used to use and getting bigger exposure spots for longer contact times. So, dental film is not a definitive detector for radiation.
Point 2. Miles’ calorimetry is as suspect as any other. In fact I think I discussed it on this forum a few months ago when Miles had wanted me to comment on the 2003 paper he recently published in Infinite Energy. Net result – all excess heat signals are not proven to be from real excess heat.
Point 3. The root of the disagreement between myself and Abd. Correlating to a fictitious number (excess heat) gives fictitious correlations. Also, the ’74 sigma’ is a red herring. The key point is that the results are on the ppb level, while outdoor air is on average 5.2 ppm, and lab air can be 10-100 times that easily. IOW, no evidence that leaks haven't occurred.
Point 4. No particular comment other than to note that this is one factor that might have been important to false signals. The ultratrace level of the He results doesn’t induce a lot of confidence without much more replication (which is what Abd claimed someone is doing now).
Point 5. H2O is not a good control for D2O due to isotope effects in the chemistry. You wouldn't expect them to behave the same and they don't.
Point 6. A.) Show the results. B.) Typical claim, usually the definition of ‘replicated’ is stretched to breaking in these cases.
