kirkshanahan Member
  • Member since Oct 8th 2014
  • Last Activity:

Posts by kirkshanahan

  • Mizuno's bucket of water

    Quote from LENR Calender

    kirkshanahanLENR isn't the only field where calorimetry is used. Have you warned your colleagues about potential calibration constant shifts that could affect their measurements by what seems to be 5-10%?


    Yes, a long time ago (as in 2000-2, I forget exactly when) I presented my findings internally. While we do use mass flow calorimetry for tritium accountability, the situation is different in that is is less likely a change in heat distribution will occur, although that is not totally precluded. There are a whole series of papers regarding our calorimetric application called 'in-bed accountability'. Searching Google Scholar on that term should give you lots of hits, most with primary author J. E. Klein (who sits in the office next to me), although some older stuff will be from L.K. Heung as well.

  • Mizuno's bucket of water

    Oops...one last one for the road...


    Quote from RobertBryant

    God Bless you KS... but calling people names is rather churlish... how old are you KS?


    ROFL. We all know the 'troll' in an internet term with a specific meaning. Your comment is trollish.


    Quote from RobertBryant

    I understand,,


    You really don't seem to....you keep quoting my statement "The problem I located can evidence anytime a calibration curve is used, which includes practically _every known analytical chemistry method_, not just mass flow calorimetry." like it was somehow wrong.


    Quote from RobertBryant

    how significant is the effect


    Well, for a system that produced a 780mW 'excess heat' effect, it seemed to be about 780mW big. How big it is in other cases would depend on details we rarely get access to. That's why the primary authors claiming excess energy signals need to do good quantitative error analysis.

  • Mizuno's bucket of water

    Quote from RobertBryant

    Its not only me.. who has a problem with your communication..


    Well yes, there are certain trolls who seem to like to try to bait me, but I'm trying to be serious here.


    For example, why is it that you can't understand that in a non-specified but calibrated analytical method, that changing the calibration constant(s) changes the computed level of the result? That's just arithmetic (well OK, maybe a touch of algebra thrown in).

  • Mizuno's bucket of water

    Quote from JedRothwell

    A normal person does not "assume" there is no excess energy when the instruments and textbook methods show there is excess energy.


    Jed, this really focus in on your problem. You really don't understand. Two points: (A) Any technique can be messed up. (B) 99.999% of anomalies arise from (A). To prove (B) is real, you need replication (which contains 'control' in it).


    Replication answers all.

  • Team Google wants your opinion: "What is the highest priority experiment the LENR community wants to see conducted?"

    Jed, you have a really biased view of publication. First off, Nature is a 'high impact factor' journal, which means only things of interest to a lot of people get published in it. The fact they published the Google thing was astonishing, and it got noticed. Second, editorials usually do express opinions, everyone knows this. It doesn't mean anything is 'banned'. Third, every journal has a topical area, so yes, many LENR articles may be rejected 'out of hand' because the editors think it is off topic. So would my papers if sent to the wrong journal...


    And let's not get silly about Szpak et al. How many times have I noted they published pictures of 'miniature nuclear explosions'? A few hundred? OK I exaggerate, only 50 or so times. Except I call them 'chemical', not nuclear, that's the jist of the disagreement. But it doesn't change the fact that 'miniature explosions' were photographed (and detected with piezoelectric transducers).

  • Mizuno's bucket of water

    Quote from RobertBryant

    One major problem is that Kirkshanahan has had 18 years to verify his CCSH effect since 2001..


    Well, first off, the CCSH thing isn't mine, that's Marwan, et als. Second, not my job. As a critic, I demonstrated the math and showed the systematic effect. If the CF researchers don't want to verify, they can chase ghosts for the rest of their life. No skin off my nose.


    Quote from RobertBryant

    for example by conducting his own. Pd/LiOH cell experiment


    You might want to (a) see comment immediately above, and (b) read this: Mizuno reports increased excess heat


    Quote from RobertBryant

    since the effect is supposed to be ubiquitous where calibration factors are used..


    No Robert, this is part of your general misunderstanding of the situation.


    Quote from RobertBryant

    However despite his purported extensive physical chemistry expertise he has never done this


    See first two responses above...


    Quote from RobertBryant

    Another problem that no one has ever found this effect to be significant despite KS's belief in ubiquity


    No one being whom? If 'no one' has found the effect insignificant, someone must have actually looked at it. Who might that be? I recall no one actually...


    Quote from RobertBryant

    there are zero citations for CCS..outside LENR... the few in LENR there relate to KS's assertions..


    Why would there be?


    Quote from RobertBryant

    Unfortunately theory without experimental proof doesn't cut it


    In this case, the 'theory' is pretty primitive. I just assumed no excess energy. My subsequent analysis said that could be explained with a minor (some might say 'trivial') calibration constant shift. That's the 'proof' right there Robert. Sorry you can't understand that, but take my word for it, it is. And BTW, the ATER (or ATEC) was always presented as a hypothesis, specifically a 'mechanism'. Come up with a better one if you like. Again, no skin off of my nose.

  • Mizuno's bucket of water

    Quote from JedRothwell

    they also quote the title of your paper



    Yup. In the references, like all the other references. After the end of the whole paper. And the point is, they claim I said it was random. I didn't.


    Quote from JedRothwell

    It contradicts electrochemistry and chemistry going back to Faraday


    Don't be silly.


    Quote from JedRothwell

    It is physically impossible


    Don't be silly. Szpak, et al took pictures of it.



    Quote from JedRothwell

    most mainstream chemists who read it think it is riddled with errors.


    Name 3. And recall, 'mainstream' means non-CF true believers.


    Quote from JedRothwell

    Your paper was only published because it claims there is an error in cold fusion


    You know this how? (Please don't try to impress me with nothing but your beliefs, facts only please.)


    Quote from JedRothwell

    everyone knows the problems you describe do not exist.


    Actually, there are usually a few who get it. But, name 3 (who aren't CF 'true believers').


    Quote from JedRothwell

    banned from Nature and most other journals


    Proof of this?


    Quote from JedRothwell

    are published with no opposition



    Except from Marwan, et al, etc.

  • Mizuno's bucket of water

    Quote from JedRothwell

    If you claimed the author says Z, that would be deceptive.


    I agree. That's why I wrote:


    Quote from kirkshanahan

    When author 'A' writes 'X', it is incorrect to say 'A' wrote 'Z'.



    Marwan, et al. assign my name to their 'random' concept. That is saying that I said that. I'm glad you agree they are deceptive. We're finally making some progress.


    BTW, that is what they say also when people like Hagelstein use my paper as part of the 'look what bad stuff happens to you if you do CF' section of his MIT 'class', or when McK write the silly response he gave me some time back on this forum, or when Ed says today that no one ever pointed out an error to him.

  • Mizuno reports increased excess heat

    Quote from LENR Calender

    If the existence of LENR implies major safety concerns in your workplace, wouldn't it be safer to assume that the LENR results are real, rather than assume that they were due to calibration errors etc? How is LENR not in your considerations when you have been exposed in the field for so many years? To your credit you are at least here keeping track of the latest results.


    It's all about what to do if I assume as you suggest. I would think if I thought LENR did what you all say, I should embark on that effort I indicated to fold that thinking into our safety envelope, wouldn't you? That involves lots of people. You all here are correct that the mainstream thinks cold fusion is junk science. All those people are mainstream. If I say "We need to fold LENR into our safety thinking:", they will ask "Why?" If I don't have a real good justification that shows I have heavily substantiated concerns, they will say "CF is junk science. Go away." If there are mundane chemical/physical means to get the signals you all claim are LENR that haven't been fairly explored and eliminated, I don't have heavily substantiated concerns. 'They' will say "The signals are likely errors. prove they're not." (if they get past the 'Go away' part, that is...).

  • Mizuno's bucket of water

    Quote from JedRothwell

    If that is how you feel, I suggest you send me a copy of this paper with permission to upload it to LENR-CANR.org.


    Ummm...I gave you a link...


    Quote from JedRothwell

    This is not a delusion. It is a disagreement. You think the error is systematic. They think it is random. I think it is imaginary.


    C'mon Jed, if the situation was reversed and I was saying that their claim to see a random error meant there was a systematic error present, what would you say to me?


    When author 'A' writes 'X', it is incorrect to say 'A' wrote 'Z'. Period.

  • Mizuno's bucket of water

    Yeah, it's a shame they are so deluded. I mean, the title of my first paper in 2002 was "A Systematic Error...", and they talk about the "random Shanahan CCSH". Can't get much worse than that. I mean, I learned about systematic vs. random errors in freshman chemistry class (if not before in high school, I don't actually recall), and these are PhDs for heaven's sake.

  • Mizuno's bucket of water

    Beating a dead horse one more time, just because it's so much fun, no one has proven anything I have suggested in print is wrong (except Abd and my discussing the wrong figure in the 2010 JEM paper, kudos to Abd, even though he gets everything else wrong too, just like Jed).

  • Mizuno reports increased excess heat

    Quote from Cydonia

    I understood that Lenr progress seems to endanger your work also for your colleagues, what makes you say that ?


    I have explained this before, but since you asked 'politely' I will do so again.


    I personally study metal hydrides. I work at a National Lab that is co-located with the DOE's tritium production facility, and our job is to ensure tritium production for the DOE is uninterrupted and error-free. At various times, I personally study Pd, Pd on SiO2, Pd alloys, Zr, Er, Ti, U (infrequently these days), La-Ni-Al alloys (which after air exposure form surface Ni crystallites with La2O3), mischmetal-Ni-X alloys, and almost anything else that takes up hydrogen. Our processes primarily use Pd on SiO2, Pd-Ag hydrogen purifiers, and La-Ni-Al alloys.


    We spend hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not millions, making sure we have no accidental releases of any hydrogen isotope in all our facilities, including R&D facilities, due to the concern of hydrogen fires and radiation release and uptake with respect to tritium. Our two biggest concerns in that arena are (a) runaway heaters, and (b) fires. If LENR exists, it represents something not in our considerations, but something that is clearly in the (a) category. We need to know if it is a threat,m and if so, to build that into our safety envelope.


    Further, with respect to me or a colleague doing F&P type work, we really hate explosive mixes (which is another common concern of our due to the potential for accidental air ingress into our processes) and we will only deal with them after very detailed safety considerations, which take a lot of time and money to complete. Therefore it is very unlikely I can even do this type work myself. On the other hand, with enough justification it could be done. So, justify it for me, beyond reasonable doubt. Hint: Ignoring my concerns will not help justification. I know all of you don't care what I or we do here, but you asked why. So I answered, again. Politely.