In other words, go suck me.
In other words, you can't substantiate your claims and thus they are as libelous as Rothwell's.
kirkshanahan
Member
- Member since Oct 8th 2014
- Last Activity:
Posts by kirkshanahan
-
-
-
I don't know if Jed's statement was actionable
Exactly. His comments haven't affected me a whit. However they could have if I had for example submitted a proposal for funding and had it denied due to the 'questions' Jed's comments raise about my reliability. But I'm primarily an industrial chemist, so I don't do a whole lot of that, and what I do is not based on my experience with CF. So no libel suits upcoming...(Darn, I could really use some extra money....to tune up my Lamborghini that I got for fighting the CFers...(not))
-
Pretty sure I already read it, but do you have a link to this whitepaper please?
If you actually did, you did so without comprehension, otherwise, you never would have made that prior comment.
The whitepaper used to be here. I assume it still is.
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B3d7yWtb1doPc3otVGFUNDZKUDQ
P.S. There more in the whitepaper than just the response to Marwan, et al.
-
If you don't want people to think you are crazy, stop saying crazy things. If you don't think "a hot object is not a heater" is crazy, that's because you are crazy. I can't help you with that.
Please document where you think I said that.
-
They also talk about a lot of other stuff, which strangely enough... you refuse to acknowledge!
I suggest you re-read my whitepaper, which contains the response I would have made to the Marwan, et al, 'rebuttal paper'. In it I deal with the 6 points they made, 5 of which are based on the falsehood of the "random CCSH". I agree the "random CCSH" is nonsensical, but I again point out I didn't originate it, so, no skin off my nose... The 6th point involves how ATER can induce pitting in CR39 plates immersed in the electrolyte. They refuse to consider the impact of their 'mini-nuclear explosions' (which I call 'chemical explosions').
Once you have done that, I would love to know what you think I am ignoring.
-
Huizenga is a little weird in his main critique, described in the first page here:
I note in passing that Jed (who is the attributed author of the writings in the referenced Web page) does the same thing Ed Storms did in his first book (2007 I think), he references Ed Storms' 2006 Thermochimica Acta paper and claims it rebuts my publications, while failing to note (i.e. 'acknowledge') that I rebutted Ed's paper in the very next paper published in that journal (which is actually the third of my papers in this field). This is especially interesting because he starts off his section on my work by mentioning that I had published three papers on CF methodology. IOW, he knew about my paper rebutting Storms, he just denies it has relevance.
What's even wilder is that he lists all three of my papers in the references but fails to note that in the text. And this happened in 2006. He's still at it today!
Here's what Jed wrote (per the Web page):
* K. L. Shanahan and Calibration Constant Shifts. K. L. Shanahan has published 3 articles proposing a non-nuclear means to obtain apparent excess heat signals in cold fusion cells. In the first[34], Shanahan proposed that the system heat distribution and/or heat flow pathways might change and that this would induce a change in the calibration constants for the cell. He reanalyzed some actual cold fusion data published by E. Storms[37], under an assumption of zero excess heat, and found a variation in calibration constants of +/- 3% would explain the results, which is within typical error bounds of a fairly high quality scientific study. Subsequently, Szpak, Mossier-Boss, Miles, and Fleischmann questioned the proposal[39], and Shanahan replied [35] with an expanded explanation and applied it to explain the authors results. E. Storms rebutted Shanahan [38] by pointing out that the data does not fit his model.
[from references]
34.^ Shanahan, K., A Systematic Error in Mass Flow Calorimetry Demonstrated, Thermochimica Acta, 387(2) (2002) 95-110 [http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ShanahanKapossiblec.pdf]
35.^ Shanahan, K., Comments on "Thermal behavior of polarized Pd/D electrodes prepared by co-deposition, Thermochimica Acta, 428(1-2) (2005) 207
36.^ Shanahan, K., Reply to 'Comment on papers by K. Shanahan that propose to explain anomalous heat geneated by cold fusion', E. Storms, Thermochim. ActaThermochimica Acta, 441 (2006) 210-214
37.^ Storms, E., Excess Power Production from Platinum Cathodes Using the Pons-Fleischmann Effect, in F. Scaramuzzi (Ed.), ICCF8 - Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Cold Fusion, Lerici (La Spezia), Italy 21-26 May 2000, Societ‡ Italiana di Fisica 2001, 55-61
38.^ Storms, E., Comment on papers by K. Shanahan that propose to explain anomalous heat generated by cold fusion. Thermochim. Acta, 2006. 441: p. 207-209. [http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEcommentonp.pdf].
39.^ S. Szpak, P. A. Mosier-Boss, M. H. Miles, M. Fleischmann, Thermal behavior of polarized Pd/D electrodes prepared by co-deposition, Thermochimica Acta, 2004, 410, 101-107 -
You and Morrison, on the other hand, give outlandish, crackpot, or flat-out nonsensical confabulations such as: "a large metal cell that remains too hot to touch for days is not a heater, and to say it is a heater is wishful thinking" or "I know a DoE website about swimming pools that tells me a bucket of water left in a room will evaporate overnight." Britz is wrong; you are delusional. There is a big difference.
You realize this is libelous don't you?
-
You are mistaken. Marwan, I and others do acknowledge your work, but we disagree. There is a big difference between "refusing to acknowledge" (disregarding; ignoring) and disagreeing. You are fortunate that Marwan, McKubre and other took the time to show you the errors in your work. You disagree with them because you inept, which is unfortunate.
Jed, I have published four papers in peer-reviewed journals that all describe a systematic effect in F&P-type experiments. Marwan, et al, in their 'rebuttal' to my fourth paper talk about a "random Shanahan CCSH". I never have talked about a random effect. (With the exception of a post on my personal Wikipedia page that showed doing standard POE on the Storms' calorimetric method would indicate that the 780 mW signal was 'noise'. That POE method is based in random statistics.). They never deal with the systematic effect I describe. Thus Marwan, et al prove they haven't read my work (confirmed by Miles recently for himself), because they don't even touch on what I wrote. IOW, they haven't 'acknowledged' what I wrote. If they haven't read it or acknowledged it, they haven't disagreed with it. They have 'disagreed' with a strawman concept of their own construction.
And it takes no skill at all to recognize 'random' does not equal 'systematic'.
But it does take a lot of skill to remain in denial for all the years you and your heroes have done so, I'll give you that!
(Prediction: Jed will retranslate what I just wrote (as he did with 'extraordinary' and 'rigor') to be able to reject it.)
-
Yes! It is easy to find errors in the Penon report, but I was talking about papers by people such as Fleischmann and Pons or McKubre.
Actually, it is easy to find errors in F&P's and McK's work, if you know the building blocks and know what to look for. I've detailed several, which you of course refuse to acknowledge.
-
Do you understand that low temperature transmutation of elements exits?
Do you understand there isn't any such proof?
-
No, they were not the same thing. I quoted one of them in my original statement, and pointed out the differences. You say they are the same, but I showed they were different. Sagan's variation was unscientific.
I appreciate your trying to make me rich by allowing that I could copyright the Palladium Rule, but in reality, I know better.
The Laplace, Hume, Truzzi, and Sagan quotes say the same thing. You didn't do anything but read your own mistaken definitions into them (as usual). All four quotes are saying that crazy claims need an extra large body of proof to be able to believe them. End of story.
I guess I understand now why you could claim my mathematical analysis of Storms' data was 'not rigorous'. You must have redefined what 'rigor' is.
-
In other words, you are not going to tell us who wrote that. You claim it was someone else, but you won't say who, and you will ridicule me for asking.
https://www.google.com/search?…7k1j0i131k1.0.l8BUpttt-U4
par·a·phrase
ˈperəˌfrāz/ verb verb: paraphrase; 3rd person present: paraphrases; past tense: paraphrased; past participle: paraphrased; gerund or present participle: paraphrasing
- 1. express the meaning of (the writer or speaker or something written or spoken) using different words, especially to achieve greater clarity. "you can either quote or paraphrase literary texts" synonyms:"the reporter was not quoting directly but paraphrasing her remarks"
noun
noun: paraphrase; plural noun: paraphrases
1. a rewording of something written or spoken by someone else.
synonyms:"this paraphrase of Frye's words"I referenced a web page that gave you 3 other paraphrases of the same thing, all significantly pre-dating Sagan. I'd almost bet I can go back to Plato or Aristotle. After all, everyone knows that really wild claims are likely wrong, and solid evidence is needed to show otherwise. There's nothing new or unique about what Sagan said. He didn't coin the phrase, he paraphrased it. This is a misrepresentation you made, just like the following statement:
"This includes skeptical assertions that attempt to disprove cold fusion, which have been notably lacking in rigor. "
-
As far as I know, he wrote that sentence. He wrote the whole script. If, as you say, he only "popularized it" then who wrote it? Who should he have given credit to?
I'm so happy I get to claim the "Palladium Rule" as my own. I'll have to copyright it ASAP and get it put on Post-It notes...
-
I suggest you get off the floor and read what Melich & I wrote. What Laplace said was quite different from what Sagan said. We agreed with Laplace but disagreed with Sagan. Why is that funny?
Of course I already did, but you always want to try to promote the idea that your critics don't, don't you? I could write a long post about the mistakes you make in your 'Melich and Jed' text, but I shall apply the Palladium Rule, and spare the other forum members the pain and agony.
Just one point - you said "It was coined by Carl Sagan". That implies he originated it. He didn't, he popularized it without crediting the originators. Probably so as to not lessen the 'dramatic impact'.
-
Actually so. Sagan coined that particular phrase. As I said in the paragraph I wrote, Laplace expressed a different formulation which I agree with.
So according to your logic, if I make the following statement: "You should treat others the way you'd like to be treated.", I am being original and unique and I can claim the statement as my own...
ROFL
P.S. I call it the "Palladium Rule"
-
It was coined by Carl Sagan for the 1980 “Cosmos” television series.
Actually not. See https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/…re_extraordinary_evidence.
-
A.) Well, you did say that you have several friends involved with the ITER project. So maybe in your mind "friends" are not "buddies." Those are the same people (in general) that attempted and attempt to obstruct funding for LENR research. They are the same people (in general) that appear on news shows to hurl insults at cold fusion researchers. They are the same people that would rather the LENR phenomena to just go away so that they can continue to collect what they feel they are entitled to.
My friends, buddies, and colleagues (FBCs) are chemical engineers, chemists, material scientists, mechanical engineers, but no plasma physicists to my knowledge. My FBCs don't even think about CF unless I mention it or they hear about it elsewhere. They certainly have never done any of the activities you mention. I think you're still having trouble realizing that my interest in this field is not easily relatable to the 'hot fusionists'. Your last sentence above gives your bias away again, and it's a strong one.
If the LENR researchers were given even a rounding error amount of that money, we could have known by now whether it was worth pursuing further.
Personally, I think we know quite well the state of affairs in the CF world. It was given away by the incredible use of a strawman argument by the 10 authors who attempted to denigrate my systematic chemical reaction explanation by calling it 'random'. If they really had something, they wouldn't have had to make stuff up. Those 10 were in the top 20 of the CF field's researchers. Their inability to reproduce with any semblance of regularity gives it away too.
Thankfully, we have some instances such as the SPAWAR research that shines through despite the obstacles
Yeah, I liked their IR photography of the chemical reaction between D2 and O2 occurring at the electrode under the electrolyte. And all the little pits in CR39 that came from the mechanical damage from the exploding bubbles. Good evidence for CCS/ATER...
-
But don't you think that criticism should be genuine and not self-interested?
Sure. But I also note that that is an ideal, and people rarely meet ideals on a consistent basis, so a little self-interest creeping in is to be expected and accounted for.
Also, self-interest is not necessarily bad. It engenders a higher level of participation. Isn't that the basis of why people think capitalism is superior to socialism for example?
all the more appalling that your buddies went before congress to stop any funding being diverted to the area of ongoing research of a phenomena
A.) Not my buddies, don't know any of 'em. B.) Wouldn't you do the exactly the same in reverse? Don't you think LENR will 'save the world' and 'hot fusion' is a rat hole? Wouldn't you go before Congress given the chance to say just that? Would your behavior be 'appalling' or 'expected'?
Isn't the *real* issue whether or not the CFers had a reasonable case for what they claimed? Did they or did they not have convincing evidence, which is usually obtained by reproduction? After all, the DOE review conclusions (both of them) were to allow funding for well-thought out proposals...
-
(party after negative results on LENR) That's sad and stupid! The story of LENR is much more fascinating and vastly more useful if true rather than false.
At that time, the emotional current was running against F&P for a couple of reasons. First, they had done 'science by press conference'. That by itself is considered a no-no. Second, when people started to fail in their replications, they were less than helpful because of IP concerns, which ticked off those who had come asking for help. So the atmosphere was sort of 'this silliness needs to be put down', thus the ''wake" as I recall it was called. Not a proud moment for 'science' IMO. Jed surely has his opinion on this too...
