To reiterate, Britz tallied 153 papers in the 1990s. See:
Umm Kevin, that was a link, not a question. It linked to a specific post I had made regarding the Roulette paper.
kirkshanahan
Member
- Member since Oct 8th 2014
- Last Activity:
Posts by kirkshanahan
-
-
-
Wikipedia is open to collaboration. If you don't agree just participate to the discussion and correct the article providing documents that sustain your thesis.
Wikipedia has also strict policy on copyright (your article must be original).
So is the best result of Internet Common and Open collaboration.
ROFL!!
-
-
Well, since I've probably gathered the most of anyone here so far, I'm willing to put at least half of them down on the table, assuming you have that many to match.
Sorry, I'm quatloo-less...not a quatloo to my name...
-
-
I notice the report also makes no mention of Mary's pink flying unicorn theory. How strange...
Didn't he just come out with that. You have to give the scientific community time to discuss and reflect. My work on the other hand has ben out for 15 years...
-
Political opposition to LENR caused the destruction of many people's careers, savage attacks in the mainstream press, firing, threats of deportation, sabotage of experiments, and publishing of fraudulent data by MIT and others. This is not "tempest in a teapot." It is the worse scandal in the history of academic science.
Conspiracy Theorism at its best! " It's the *worst* ... "
Since we already established you don't distinguish between 'political' and 'academic/scientific' I'd need more details on the *political* opposition you mention. Senators, Congressmen, Secretaries, Presidents, Premiers, etc. My recollection about the events you hint at is that they were academic and/or scientific personages, not politicians.
Now some people *did* run into *a lot* of issues from the academic quarter. As well, sometimes it was from people like Robert Park, who was a spokesman for the APS for awhile, But that's what I call the 'scientific' community, since he's (and the others like him I refer to) are not university educators/researchers, at least in this context. But that's what supposed to happen. Vigorous discussion of proposed ideas, coupled to subsequent experimental refinement, and a clarification of the prior issues. Especially with 'extraordinary' claims. And it is the response of the criticized to the critics that defines whether 'good' or 'bad' science is being done. With CF, the result is pretty clearly in the 'bad' quarter. And who in their right mind deliberately funds 'bad' science (think about the "IH" discussions in this forum).
And the press don't count, they are just looking to sell ad space, we all know that.
Threats of deportation?
What sabotage of experiments?
What MIT fraudulent data? (And don't quote the Mallove junk. He was all wrong.)
All proposals were turned down immediately. The reputations of anyone making a proposal was trashed, and Robert Park and others tried to fire anyone who made a proposal.
Documentation of these assertions?
(I vaguely recall the Robert Park thing. Jed, he's only one guy, and he *never* had the power to do what you suggest. My impression of him is that he seeks attention just like newspaper reporters. So again "tempest".)
Saw this when it came out. Very much a 'true believer' screed. Want more comments? Line by line?
-
The quickest look shows a) no references to my work and b) references from 2016.
What this means is that this document is another 'true believer' product. No consideration of extant non-nuclear alternatives.
This implies to me it is just a rehash of what has already been discussed here and elsewhere. If someone reads it and thinks that my initial impression is wrong, please correct me.
-
Can you point out the 'political opposition' please?
JedRothwell replied:
http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MaddoxJfarewellno.pdf
{no title, some links and a couple of quotes from Maddox}
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MalloveEclassicnas.pdf
{ Classic Nasty, Incompetent, and Stupid Statements About Cold Fusion, c. 1989-1991}
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MalloveEmitspecial.pdf
{ MIT and Cold Fusion: A Special Report Infinite Energy • ISSUE 24, 1999 }
And separately JedRothwell wrote:
To give another example, Shanahan today asked for proof that there has been political opposition to cold fusion. I gave him a link to an editorial by Maddox, the editor of Nature: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MaddoxJfarewellno.pdf
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In reply:
You Maddox link illustrates your point about the ephemerality of the Internet. The links to the Nature editorial lead to a paywall, and the Krivit link seems to be dead. I tried searching for the pdf name and for “Maddox” on his Web site and couldn’t locate it.
In any case, Maddox is not a politician and the opinion he expresses was made in 1990, meaning this link does not address my concern (see below for more comments).
The Mallove links are likewise referring to the same approximate period, and the MIT report is not about politicians either.
The only quote in his 'list' from a politician is:
" "I think it is very premature at this time to say that we are losing a race in cold fusion when we have very clearly validated that we are not sure that it’s fusion.”
James Watkins, U.S. Secretary of Energy, January 1990"Aside from the fact that CFers still say this to this day, that comment does not denigrate or ridicule the field, it just says 'we are pretty sure it's not fusion'.
(As an aside, the Mallove “MIT Special Report” attempts to describe the events that led Gene Mallove to resign from MIT. What is so sad about this is that his understanding of the issues around the supposed fraudulent data presentation by the MIT profs is terrible. If he really knew how it works, he would have been screaming at McKubre instead for the way he did his data presentation for the M series of runs in his 1998 EPRI report. The MIT guys clipped the data to a constant baseline region from a preliminary figure that had a baseline shift up and then later back down. McK used ‘transfer functions’ to completely hide the baseline shifts in his data. Note that if this is allowable, then what the MIT guys did was fine too.)
So try again Jed, I want to see comments, directives, etc., from a *politician* telling people not to believe in, fund, listen to, etc. LENR advocates.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JedRothwell wrote:
[snip]
Unexplained explosions and other potential danger
Anytime you mix hydrogen and oxygen, you have a good chance of an explosion. Basic flammability considerations...
Jed Rothwell replied:
Gas loaded cells do not have oxygen. Open cells have only a tiny amount of oxygen. Some of the explosions have exceeded the limits of chemistry by a large margin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In reply, AFAIK no explosions have occurred in gas loaded cells. Please correct me if I am wrong, since this would be another safety aspect I need to be aware of.
Open cells have a stoichiometric mix of hydrogen and oxygen in them that is saturated with water vapor. This is an explosive mix.
I seriously doubt you can defend the ‘limits of chemistry’ argument. Please feel free to try though.
-
You've got to be kidding right? I suggest you read some of the early issues of Infinite Energy. Congress was literally being lobbied by the hot fusion interests not to divert funding to cold fusion research. Reputation traps were being erected. Not for the good of the world, but for self-interested turf-protecting scientists. This is all very richly documented. History will not look kindly on these early obstructive efforts.
My point is that this is 'old news'. In the first couple of years there was interest in CF in all segments of society. Politicians saw a chance to get some PR by holding hearings and bashing the DOE for not jumping on this wonderful new energy source. But did anything significant come from all that. Not really. The significance (or lack thereof) came from the academic arena.
Today, the response is usually "Cold Fusion? That was in that Spiderman movie right? LENR? What's that?"
I doubt there is a politician anywhere that knows about LENR. If any do, the probability is they don't care, because they have been told its junk. They aren't the ones who are controlling the funding that is supposedly being denied to CFers. But it does really hype up the conspiracy theory atmosphere to claim they are. (And BTW, Maddox and Mallove aren't politicians.)
I do fully agree today that in the _scientific_ arena, there is opposition to it, because everyone feels it was debunked ages ago. When I became interested in this arena in 1995 though, I recognized that that was a mistaken point of view based on the idea that was prevalent in 1989 that there probably was something there but it was unlikely to be what F&P claimed it was. That position has apparently disappeared (except for me) due to the polarization of the field. So I looked, and I found CCS/ATER, which I think is likely the primary cause of apparent excess heat signals, and the secondary cause of a few other types of results. Contamination and contamination concentration covering the remainder. (And BTW, I've already noted in this forum that I also have been 'victim' of this bias.)
LENR today is primarily an academic 'tempest in a teapot', if that much.
But the conclusions of *both* the 1990 ERAB review and the 2004 DOE review included recommendations to fund well thought out proposals. Where are they?
-
I was at Jeff Labs a couple of years ago and saw a researcher get reprimanded for mentioning LENR.
Since my whole thesis is that there is actually some normal chemistry present in these experiments, this kind of occurrence is also anti-science. The repriimander is going on the mainstream belief that there is nothing there, but that is obviously wrong, the plots show signals. Many would be considered real by any scientist who saw them coming out of his/her experiments. Now if the person bringing up LENR did so as a pathological believer, and the reprimander was commenting on that, then fine. The real question is what caused the anomalies and is there anything worth investigating in them.
-
Bullpuckey! I never said anything REMOTELY like that. WHERE did I write that? Link please or STOP CLAIMING IT. IT'S TIRESOME.
This is Jed's modus operandi. He does it to me all the time. His pathobeliever bias refuses to let him accept any negativity towars what he believes in and instead he takes what you write and twists it into something that either a) looks bad for you or b) looks good for him. This is the dishonest strawman argument technique he uses constantly. It is also what leads me to believe he is not stupid. Being stupid would be the other reason he might not get what I write, but I don't believe he is. I therefore conclude he deliberately doesn't get it.
-
But who keeps these guys honest?
The rest of the interested and unbiased* scientific community.
*Everyone has some bias, always, but many let their bias dictate what they say and do, which is unscientific when carried to the extremes true believers or pathoskeptics do. One *has* to look for these problems, illustrated for example, by using faulty logical techniques like strawman arguments to draw conclusions. Another giveaway is when the viewpoint seems cast in stone. 'Good' scientists always allow for the chance that new and better information can change the current status of a field. (And before the TBs jump on this, my CCS/ATER proposal *IS* a proposal. It could be shown to be irrelevant. I am waiting for that day. It hasn''t happened yet, and seems unlikely to, given that as Jed says, everyone doing this work is dead or retired.)
-
I think you are suggesting that if the cell output temperature is constant after boil off, the heat flow from the cell is constant but that is clearly incorrect. After boil off, the power out from the cell can be calculated mainly from the temperature, and the equations which describe radiation and convection heat losses (and conduction if not negligible in those cells). But before the coolant is gone, you have to add an evaporative heat component. In this case, the heat flow for a given temperature when coolant is being boiled off and when it is not is not the same. At constant temperature, heat flow is much less when the coolant is gone. Did I miss something here? And I still don't see 100W for days anywhere.
[emphasis added]
You are right to have highlighted the phrase you did in your quote, because it is a fallacious assumption.
Prior to boiloff the F&P calorimetric method predicts heat produced from electrolysis (and any Joule heater input) and heat lost via the electrolysis gases blowing out the vent, radiation, and conduction. I noted in my whitepaper that heat loss due to liquid water entrained in the exiting gases is not accounted for, and I also recall someone (you?) saying here recently that evaporation is not included, which I tentatively agree with (but see quote below). Once the electrolyte volume has been reduced to the point that there is no electrical contact between the electrodes and electrolyte, the electrolysis stops and the losses due to venting gas likewise stop. Thus (with no heater input) power input goes to zero.
However there is still much chemistry to consider. For one, once the electric circuit is broken, there is no longer any means to hold the hydrogen in the electrode, so it will begin to diffuse out and react with the oxygen in the cell, which initially comes from the residual electrolysis gases. In fact the hydrogen in the gas phase may actually be the first reactant. The reaction reduces the total number of moles in the gas phase (2H2 + 1 O2 -> 2 H2O) so there will be a drawing in of gases from the atmosphere, i.e. mainly N2 and O2. That O2 will further the reaction to completely burn the hydrogen from the palladium. This will add heat to the cell just as if a heater was working (the so-called cigarette lighter effect). So there will be some time period, defined by the time it takes to empty the Pd, while evolves hydrogen slowly in ‘good’ CF electrodes supposedly, where some additional heat will be created in the cell. Might this take several hours? No real idea, but I assume so. So the T will remain elevated to some level over what it would if the cell just started to cool off due to cessation of current flow. Also you won’t lose the heat as fast since you no longer have the water-based electrolyte swirling around absorbing the heat from the electrode and transmitting it to the silvered cell wall. IOW, the situation is radically changed, and it is silly to assume the same calibration holds without verifying that (which no one ever does…don’t want to upset the LENR cart…).
You recognized the need to recalibrate, as shown by the section I bolded in your post.
In fact the left hand side of the calorimeter equation found in Jed’s referenced paper (http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmancalorimetra.pdf) only has terms based on current flow in it, so it will most definitely not account for any recombination. Also note that F&P say:
“In equation [1] the term [ 1- (1 + b)It/2FM0] allows for the change of the water equivalent with time; the term β was introduced to allow for a more rapid decrease than would be given by electrolysis alone (exposure of the solid components of the cell contents, D2O vapour carried off in the gas stream). As expected, the effects of β on Qf and KQR can be neglected if the cells are operated below 60°C.”
We’re not below 60°C, we’re above, so the beta term will need to be evaluated as the T changes from 100 down to 60 or below as well. Lots of things to give weird results if not accurately and precisely accounted for.
-
I never heard of boiling cells dry. It seems weird to me
The results of doing this is to come up with an excess heat signal that is a) large and b) occurring when no current is flowing, meaning you essentially have an infinite instantaneous COP. The problem is that this comes out of applying the same calibration equation used for 'normal' operations. The steady state is so radically different in a 'boiled-dry' cell that everyone should know you can't do that. But not the CFers...it shows excess heat...it must be real...and is certainly must be nuclear!
-
Tremendous political opposition to the research
Unexplained explosions and other potential danger
Can you point out the 'political opposition' please?
Anytime you mix hydrogen and oxygen, you have a good chance of an explosion. Basic flammability considerations...
-
Actually my quote there was Jed saying it... What trap?
What I quoted was the second sentence of your post. It looks like yours. Is it?
The trap is thinking that Jed knows any science. In fact all he does is parrot what his designated heroes say. He is incapable of defending his views in any technical fashion. (I tried to do that back on spf, and Jed never could answer my questions.) he also blends in his strawmen all the time to try to lead his audience into believing he knows what he is saying.
-
This is the ICCF version of the journal article of the same approximate name. I dissect this article in my whitepaper. Of specific import, the claim for a HAD event is bogus.
Mizuno and others also saw 20 to 100 W of output with no input, lasting from 1 to several days. Others saw high output with minimal input power
I second the call for references that can be examined on these claims.
Note that Shanahan points to a specific error -- a moving heat source. Anyone can see this is ruled out by the data. The calibration constant does not change when the source of the heat is deliberately moved. In that respect, that aspect of his claim is falsifiable.
No one has ever tested my CCS/ATER proposal. Jed 'misrepresents' again.
Can someone show me 100W heat output sustained for days with no electrical power supplied, in the paper Jed linked: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmancalorimetra.pdf ? Do you see it, Kirk Shanahan? TTH? Alan Smith?
And what is the purpose and meaning of the video of a "boiloff"?I haven't found any good, substantiated claims of enormous excess heat.
F used the video to claim a HAD event (heat after death). Unfortunately, he also published thermal histories (graphs) in his paper of the supposed HAD-cell and another cell that was as identical as possible, which he didn't claim showed a HAD. In my whitepaper, I took these two graphs and overlaid them with Photoshop (actually GIMP I believe). Except for the fact that D2O makeup water was added at different points, giving short dips in the temps, the traces were identical. So either Fleischmann missed a HAD or he claimed one that really wasn't there. His methodology for claiming one was based on the video, so my point is that that was a flawed way to detect a HAD. I claim he never saw anything out of the ordinary.
-
You have cited other published papers - but note that the latest paper you cite does not answer Kirk's most recent contribution, nor have you given it serious consideration.
JedRothwell responded:
How do you know I have not given it serious consideration? I have not discussed it here, but that does not mean I have not considered it. I am not obligated to discuss everything I consider, or to respond to every discussion.
This isn't really the point. The point is that you are fully capable of recognizing strawman argumentation. Further, even if you didn't, it has been pointed out to you multiple times now. But when I cite examples that might be applied to you, you uniformly fail to acknowledge such has been done.
So the point is that you knowingly promote one view over the other, specifically the one that uses faulty logic to unethically suppress the other.
You thereby foster and promote unethical behavior, and since you realize the unethical nature of your position but promote it as logical and scientific, you are dishonest.
The sad thing is how many people are taken in by your stratagem.
And BTW, you have given my 'theories' enough consideration at least to recognize how damaging they are to the idea that LERNs exist, which is why you are acting the way you are.
