Posts by JedRothwell

    Goal posts duly moved.

    So LENR must be proved with replication, and also self run, and also FUN!

    This is the M. C. Escher "Relativity" model of research and development. The goal must be achieved before work is funded. You must arrive before you depart. The same method applied in the building trades ensures that no funding is wasted, and schedules are always met. It is simple. Before the architect is allowed to draft a blueprint; before the ground is excavated or concrete is poured, and before the carpenters and electricians begin their work, the entire building must be completed.


    Escher illustrated such buildings in his print "Relativity:"


    https://www.mcescher.com/gallery/back-in-holland/relativity/


    ETA: I've always advocated for research.

    Yes, well the problem is your method of advocating. You know nothing, you read nothing, and you post a steady stream of bullshit about the research. For example you recently said that experiments should exceed the limits of chemistry by a large factor, ignoring the fact that they exceeded it by 10,000 or more. Cells that would only run for a few minutes before exhausting chemical fuel have run for weeks or months. In the same message you claimed that isoperibolic calorimetry is "suspect" even though it has been in use since the 1840s in countless experiments and in industry. And you said other methods of calorimetry should be used, ignoring the fact that other methods have been used.


    If this is "advocating" what would opposition look like? You advocate for cold fusion in the same sense anti-vaccination people advocate for public health.

    They [Levi et al.] basically greenlighted a technology.

    The only thing I saw from them was the reports I uploaded to LENR-CANR.org. I would not describe these reports as "greenlighting" anything, certainly not a "technology." I would say these reports were first-round tests of an experimental claim. They were generally positive but they left many open questions. They were tentative, at best. I cannot imagine anyone suing on the basis of such reports.


    Perhaps you are saying Levi et al. gave more a positive review to the people at I.H. I have no heard that and if it happened I know nothing about it.

    I cannot imagine that IH would be capable of doing such a thing [filing lawsuits against Levi].

    I don't know if they are capable of it, but it would be stupid and pointless. You can't blame scientists for being wrong. Science would cease to exist. It would be like suing a baseball team for losing a game. I suppose any judge or jury would agree, given how often scientists are wrong.

    The most doubtful skeptic is not that exigent, not nearly. 100 W or so long enough to exceed either stored or chemical energy by a factor of ten would be fine.

    How about a factor of 10,000? Oh wait, that's been done.

    But it has to be done so it's simple, clear and credible.

    Since the world's leading experts in calorimetry at places like Los Alamos and Texas A&M did this, it is clear and credible. Perhaps not simple.


    JedRothwellwill probably tell us it's been done n times. But it can't be by the usual suspects using the cryptic method of isoperibolic calorimetry.

    I don't need to tell you this. The literature tells you this, which is why you refuse to look at it. Isoperibolic calorimetry was developed by J. P. Joule who is not usually considered "suspect," but in any case this has also been shown with flow calorimetry, Seebeck and ice calorimetry (phase change calorimetery). The latter was developed by Lavoisier to measure the heat of metabolism in guinea pigs. I suppose you consider Lavoisier a suspect as well. You and the French revolutionists in the Reign of Terror.


    Basically, you say that any positive result is suspect, and anyone who publishes a positive result is added to the list of suspects. Even when the person is the world's leading expert in tritium measurements or calorimetry, or a commissioner in the French or Indian AEC, he becomes a "suspect" not to be believed the moment he publishes a positive result. Again, your method is to move the goalposts, dismissing an extra 10 orders of magnitude or the expertise of any number of people you have never heard of, about whom you know nothing. Off with their heads!


    Shanahan's much argued error sources become moot, again by a huge factor, say for example 10.

    Shanahan's "errors" are imaginary. They have not been detected in any experiment, at any power level, not even milliwatts. So, any positive result exceeds them by a factor of infinity.


    You might as well demand experiments that exceed the margin of errors induced by unicorn farts.

    Again, that is not true. You made that up. If you would take the time to read the cold fusion literature, or even take 6 minutes to view my video, you would see that tremendous progress has been made.

    Here's the thing. Seven_of_twenty makes stuff up. Again and again, he says whatever pops into his head, and he writes it here. He never bothers to read anything or learn anything. He says he "skimmed" the latest report, which I suppose means he looked at the text in a mirror, because he does not know shit from shinola about it.


    I don't understand why he does this, or what he hopes to accomplish. As I said, anyone who bothers to read the literature, or even spends six minutes watching my video will see that Seven_of_twenty knows nothing and his assertions are contrary to matters of fact. Not technical details, but matters of fact. Such as the fact that the world's leading experts in tritium at Los Alamos and BARC confirmed the tritium. They published papers showing progress, so that is indisputable, but Seven_of_twenty says (or at least implies out of ignorance) it never happened.


    We can argue about whether the tritium detection is right or wrong. It is at least conceivable that Seven_of_twenty, who is an anonymous person on the internet, knows more about tritium detection than the experts at Los Alamos. We can't tell, because he has not revealed any knowledge of this or any other technical subject. However, the fact that these experts published papers is not debatable.


    I sometimes think Seven_of_twenty and the other irrational opponents are actually people who support cold fusion. They are trying to make the opposition look bad. They are doing us a favor. They remind me of what Hamlet said before the duel:


    I'll be your foil, Laertes: in mine ignorance
    Your skill shall, like a star i' the darkest night,
    Stick fiery off indeed.

    So, from the report: the entire calculation comes from the (integrated power) WH measurement from the PCE-830. This is then divided by 96 (the test time in hours) to get the inferred power consumption.


    They know power was output at the same rate throughout the experiment because the output was shown there the whole time from the 1s per frame time lapse photography.


    This test has TCs for temperature so I'm not inclined to think there are big errors on the output side.

    To summarize, you are saying the input power measurements may be incorrect. I wish we could get Levi et al. to respond to critiques such as yours, but I doubt they will.


    I agree the output power and temperatures are probably right because the TC was used to confirm the camera. I wish they had used one at Lugano. I do not think the temperatures were measured correctly there.

    But I do agree with SOT, we need to construct a whacking great reactor with all the necessary ingredients and correct protocols for gassing/degassing with deuterium . . .

    Along the same lines, let me speak for the rest of the mice. I think we should tie a bell to the cat so we can tell she is coming to eat us.


    Yes, indeed, we should do as you say. So, if you happen to know how to do this, and you have several million dollars burning a hole in your pocket, please send the instructions and the money to me, in Chamblee, GA. I will get right on to it.


    I thank you in advance for your unique knowledge and your generous contribution to this field! Where would we be without people like you and Seven_of_twenty, with your valuable advice and imaginary contributions? You should give one of these Onion TED talks such as "Compost-Fueled Cars, Wouldn't That Be Great?"


    But Jed, none of that changes the fact that thirty years later, we're not any further along.

    Again, that is not true. You made that up. If you would take the time to read the cold fusion literature, or even take 6 minutes to view my video, you would see that tremendous progress has been made.

    The huge differences are that those experiments ended up somewhere fairly quickly whereas LENR hasn't.


    That is not true. You made that up. LENR was replicated by 92 groups within a year of the announcement:


    https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/WillFGgroupsrepo.pdf


    Normally, for a claim of this nature, 5 replications would convince any scientist.


    Before you say it: All of the people who replicated were mainstream scientists. Many were distinguished scientists, such as the later Chairman of the Indian AEC. You will say they were marginal people, but you are wrong about that, just as you are wrong about the timing.


    Also:


    Given the difficulty of doing this experiment, 92 replications in such a short time was fast work.


    A smaller number of replications failed. The reasons they failed are now quite clear.

    What the field needs is a robust demonstration of sufficient power and duration,

    Where "sufficient" is defined as "larger than whatever has been done." You demonstrate 1 W, and only 5 W are sufficient. Demonstrate 10 W and suddenly only 100 W will do. It is like trying to find the pot of gold at the end of a rainbow.


    By the standards of normal, sane science, cold fusion excess heat, tritium and helium results were "sufficient" by 1990. They were far larger than the Curies' first heat results from 1896, or the Pile 1 Reactor that demonstrated a fission chain reaction. They were replicated hundreds of times in dozens of laboratories. In many cases, the heat could have been measured with confidence by Lavoisier in 1780. Tritium in some cases was 10E16 times background. But 10E30 would not convince Seven_of_twenty. He would only move the goalposts another 10 orders of magnitude. Weeks of nonstop heat is not "robust" enough. Months are not enough. He has no ordinary standards based on signal to noise ratios. His only demand is the impossible: you must demonstrate more than you have already demonstrated. Whatever you demonstrate, it is not enough by definition.

    How do you know "it's a fine piece of work", but the "usual suspects", if you did not read it?

    ESP. It is always ESP with Seven_of_twenty. He knows without seeing, and sees without knowing. He senses the truth from the vibrations emanating through the 12th dimension of time and space. To him, the future and the past are as one. He is a mystic at heart.

    I have some knowledge of fine arts, and fine art curating. My wife wrote a book about it. When she was doing research, we spent time with curators in the workshops at the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the Cincinnati Mus. of Art. Plus I have read various books about it . . .


    Anyway, years ago in a book about this, a curator wrote that what you see in a museum is a reconstruction. If they showed the works as they really are, you would see ruins. You would see fragments. This was illustrated with famous paintings in the workshop being repaired. Faces are missing. There are tears in the canvas. Entire sections have been torn out and lost.


    Along the same lines, all of the machines in the Smithsonian have been extensively rebuilt. The Wright Flyer has new canvas on the wings. The original canvas is preserved. A square inch of it was taken to moon by Neil Armstrong, who was a big fan of the Wrights.


    A painting by El Greco in the Met looks as if it was painted a year ago, because it has been meticulously cleaned and restored. If you could see it as it was in the workshop, it would look 400 years old.


    The curators are incredibly skillful and careful. Whenever possible, they make repairs that can be undone by a future curator. They document everything. To the best of their knowledge, they make the art look the way it did when it was created. With one major exception: they do not paint ancient Greek sculpture, even though they can detect the colors it was originally painted. People since 17th century have gotten the idea that Greek sculptures were bare marble. Michelangelo and others since then created all of their work intending it to be bare, unpainted marble.


    Ancient sculpture as it was originally made looks strange to us. See:


    https://io9.gizmodo.com/ultrav…greek-statues-rea-5616498


    The Notre Dame cathedral has been repaired many times. It would be a pile of stones otherwise. It has been changed. After it is restored this time, I doubt the appearance will be changed again in the future. But if it survives for thousands of years more, I am sure it will have to be disassembled, repaired and put back together many times, the way the White House was.

    Fortunately, very little art was lost. The architecture can be fully restored. The public spaces inside and the outside appearance will be identical to what it was. It will be like the White House, which was completely torn down (except for the outside walls) and reconstructed from 1948 to 1952. See:


    https://www.saturdayeveningpos…_white_house_interior.jpg


    I read that they have a 1 mm scale laser scan from more than 50 locations in the building, so they know exactly what it looked like.


    https://www.cnn.com/style/arti…aser-scan-trnd/index.html


    I expect they will use modern materials in the upper parts hidden from public view. This will be much more fireproof and it will last longer. Buildings like this have to be reconstructed periodically. This was overdue for a complete reconstruction.


    Some of building is not particularly old. The spire was from the 19th century and many of the windows were from the 1960s.


    I know this sounds strange, but it was not such a tragedy, because it can be reconstructed. Recent events such as the Brazil National Museum fire were FAR worse.

    Here is a graph from Melvin Miles that I re-plotted using this online program: https://automeris.io/WebPlotDigitizer/


    Using this program is tedious, but the graph sure looks better.


    Original:



    New version:




    It is tedious because with a low quality image like this one, after you add the points automatically, you then have to adjust them, add them, delete them and shuffle them around, like these points from the right end of the graph:


    First, it's something he could falsify and second who know what he was doing at the "lab bench"


    He could not falsify it because other people who were with him reported it. Those people know what he was doing at the lab bench. He was making reactor after reactor, often destroying the old ones to reuse the parts, which was a dumb idea.

    many of whose members continue to cling to belief in Rossi's "technology" despite the fact that it increasingly bears little or no resemblance to any other LENR systems.

    The initial versions were similar to other cold fusion claims such as Arata's, which is why they seemed plausible to me and others. The latest ones are powered by Dancing Puppets, I'm told. As you say, they bear little or no resemblance to LENR, or anything else. They are sui generis.