Oh please provide the one study that shows no effect and I'll show you the now 67 studies that do show a large effect.
I believe the 29 biggest studies that ivermectin enthusiasts (https://ivmmeta.com/) recommend are analyzed here:
As you see, these studies are invalid.
Vaccinating healthy people can lead to myocarditis and longer term problems.
The myocarditis is rare and there have been no serious cases. Patients likely to have it can be identified and monitored. They are mostly young men. There are no longer term problems.
Bangladesh experienced a few spikes during the COVID-19 pandemic, including a particularly bad one during the summer of 2021. Still, they have turned it around in a similar way as the state of Uttar Pradesh in India.
Perhaps people in Bangladesh are often infected with parasites, but not diagnosed. I wouldn't know about that. Perhaps the population there is young, so not many people die. Or, perhaps it is like Uttar Pradesh in India insofar as the statistics are meaningless, and deaths are not even detected, or they are covered up.
I don't know why the numbers are low, but I am sure that ivermectin has no effect on COVID. That is what the double-blind tests show. You cannot argue with that. If there was a significant effect, it would be measurable.
While tragic, the Omicron variant may very well lend huge support to the India Ivermectin story.
If the rest of the vaccinated world sees huge increases in cases due to Omicron and India does not... then that will be very hard to ignore...
There is not the slightest chance ivermectin works to prevent or cure COVID. That has now been established beyond doubt by the double-blind tests and by general experience in India and other countries. Ivermectin has no direct effect on COVID, and no anti-viral qualities. HOWEVER, there were a few slightly positive double-blind tests in India and some other third world countries. A person who looked closely at the data suggests that these results might be real because many patients in India have parasites, which are often not diagnosed. Parasites increase the severity of any disease, and the death rate. Ivermectin removes the parasites and improves the prognosis. So, if there is no chance you have worms or any other parasite, there is no point to taking ivermectin.
See:
The statistics from India cannot be trusted to reach any conclusion. Some of them show no deaths at all, for months, in districts with millions of people. However, some of the clinical tests in India may have yielded good data, and might indicate a slight improvement with ivermectin. If that is real, there has to be a reason. The anti-parasitic effect of the drug is the only likely reason.
If I am not expressly doing calorimetry, is a graduated cylinder nearly submerged in water close enough for timing boiling water slowly experiments?
Sure. Or just ordinary isoperibolic calorimetry. That is what most calorimeters look like. See the one Bockris used:
Note the golf balls floating on the top. That is a constant temperature bath. If you cannot afford one, maybe just run a small stream of tap water into the tank and have it drain off.
As long as you calibrate, you will know if the thing is working. Boil off some water with a resistance heater and see how much heat is captured by the instrument. You know the heat of vaporization of water is 540 cal/g, so all you have to do is compare to that. (Don't confuse calories with joules, which I always do!)
F&P's calorimeter was extraordinarily sensitive, with a quick response, and a very wide range. Jean-Paul Biberian called it a microscope for heat. Most calorimeters, isoperibolic, flow, or even Seebeck are not as sensitive. A microcalorimeter can measure milliwatts, but not watts. It has a narrow range.
See the definition of isoperibolic calorimetry from Hemminger and Hohne, on p. 8 of my paper. It is accompanied by a cute illustration that I did not include:
As described in the paper, I simulated Joule's 19th century calorimeter with an air-cooled cylinder in a house open to outside air, with a digital thermometer good to 0.1°C. That would be a nutty way to do calorimetry in a real experiment. However, as you see, the results were remarkably consistent.
Are these the only arguments you can use in order to defend the correctness of the results claimed by F&P?
Yes, F&P and every other scientist going back to J. P. Joule, as I said. Isoperibolic calorimetry works. It is reliable over a wide range of power levels. See:
Hemminger, W. and G. Hohne, Calorimetry Fundamentals and Practice. 1984: Verlag Chemie.
Right, it would mostly try to convect near the cap.
Right. Without the window at the bottom, nearly all of the heat goes out near the cap, which is difficult to measure, and unpredictable. Some people tried to use ordinary, fully silvered Dewar vessels as calorimeter cells. That's a bad idea. As you say, all the heat ends up going out the top.
No. In the "Simplicity Paper" (1), the first calorimetric method was used to calculate the excess enthalpy Qf during the heating up phase, well before the onset of boiling conditions.
Incorrect. It was used right up the moment boiling began. Furthermore, the method was used in many other experiments, described in other papers, in which high heat was measured. Furthermore, this method (and methods very similar to it) has been used in many other cold fusion experiments by other researchers in which high heat was measured, and in countless other experiments going back to J. P. Joule in the 1840s.
Basically, you are saying that one of the oldest, most reliable and widely used experimental techniques does not work. You are wrong. That fact that you think you are right and every scientist in the last 180 years is wrong tells us that you are an egomaniac, you have no grasp of reality, and you suffer from an extreme case of the Dunning Kruger effect.
It seems to have worked OK, but radiation at such low temperatures is pretty weak compared to convection.
Convection and conduction are minimal because there is a vacuum between the electrolyte and the water bath. Radiation dominates. There is a vacuum even in the "window" at the bottom with no silver (no mirror).
Miles measured a little conduction with a cell that was made some years before his experiment. A little air had leaked into the vacuum portion of the cell. See p. 12.
This clearly shows that the pandemic is driven by the the age > 70 with a moderate risk for age > 50 < 70 and no risk for age < 50.
So restrictions should only exist for age > 50. The rest is fascists terror.
Incorrect. See:
Furthermore, the vaccines reduce risk in all age groups:
https://www.axios.com/age-coronavirus-risk-vaccines-2e1391b0-5d0e-4fa9-894b-4b894dc017c9.html
The most important thing you are overlooking is that death is not the only bad outcome. Hundreds of thousands of people, including young people, are suffering long-haul symptoms. Many have lost jobs, livelihood, the ability to live on their own without nursing help. In some cases their lungs are ruined and they will never fully recover. In nearly every case, a vaccine would have prevented this.
Could you please mention just one paper in which, by using the first F&P's calorimetric method, the output heat has resulted to be many times the input power?
Simplicity, Fig. 6, leading up to the boil-off phase.
What is the volume of liquid boiled off, roughly, or exactly if possible?
What are the dimensions of the dewar? Is a standard size?
See:
https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJreviewofth.pdf
And see the papers linked to this in the References.
The first numerical method, the complicate one, was used for far from boiling conditions. It was the original method used since 1989, which sometimes gave some tiny amounts of excess heat, no more than few percent of the input power, well within the error margins for such a complicate method.
That is incorrect. It often showed massive heat, many times input power.
Another dose? This is becoming the norm for vaccines!
Majority of mumps cases are among the vaccinated, CDC findsAs many as 94 percent of children and adolescents who contracted the highly contagious virus had been vaccinated.
See: base rate fallacy.
When a large fraction of the population is vaccinated, most cases will be breakthrough cases. If 100% of the population is vaccinated, all cases will be breakthrough cases. I expect nearly everyone is vaccinated for mumps.
The self-driving car is arguably the single most anticipated technology right now. Here the difficulty lies in attempting something that has no real precedent.
Yes!
As far as LENR is concerned, once the process is mastered and proven safe we do not need any AI, we just need it to plug into the grid, or where the home boiler sits, and generate heat or power.
So according to Rodney Brooks rules I would guess LENR is more like an electric car than a self-driving car.
I agree. There are fewer human interactions with a hot water heater than an automobile. There are fewer ways to commit mayhem. You don't need a license to operate a hot water heater or space heating furnace.
That is not to say space heaters are perfectly safe. In the 1960s, a gas fired heater exploded and leveled my uncle's house. (A small house.)
It is possible cold fusion will need AI. I hope not, because AI is still new. I would prefer not to combine two new technologies in one gadget.
The relevant committee, a mix of lawyers, politicians, transport company bosses, and actuaries is still discussing this in theory, although it has not met since since the spring. I suspect it will be a good while before they reach any decisions.
Years ago, NHK reported that committees and standards organization experts were conducting many meetings in Japan and the U.S., hammering out regulations for self-driving cars. They are not waiting until the technology is perfected. Good for them!
Yes, I fully agree. In my opinion it's even much more than unlikely, it's nearly impossible.
Therefore, if F&P were able to commit such a big mistake in calculating the energy balance during the boil off phase in their 1992 experiment (the most famous and best documented of their experiments),
You have not discovered any problems with the other methods, so perhaps you should consider the possibility that you are mistaken about boil off. Has it occurred to you that you might be wrong, and Fleischmann, Pons and the experts who reviewed their work might be right? You seem too confident in your own prowess.
And most of the protesting and marches against vaccine mandates -and earlier on in the pandemic against lockdowns, are/were in very liberal areas such as NY, LA, Chicago, etc. and all of Europe. Many were organized and orchestrated by left leaning unions.
I do not think so. I believe your memory is faulty. That is certainly not the case in Georgia. Liberals in Atlanta and Savannah, including me, protested in favor of more restrictions. Our nitwit governor has been filing lawsuits and issuing orders to prevent local governments from mandating masks and vaccinations.
Granted, there were protests in New York City and elsewhere, but these were mainly by conservatives. In New York many conservative Orthodox Jewish people resisted social distancing orders, and protested against other public health measures. In 2020, New York city GOP politicians and supporters famously made a mockery of social distancing and masking, by hold raucous parties in restaurants in defiance of the mandates.
Ignoring mask mandates happens every bit as much in the blue areas as red.
That is definitely not the case. There have been careful studies of this, showing that is not at all the case. In rural Georgia, very few people wear masks. In most stores in Atlanta, if you go in without a mask they will politely ask you to put one one. All the drug stores demand a mask. An art supply store downtown not only demands one, but it has a large sign saying that all employees are vaccinated. That would be unthinkable in a rural Georgia town. People are harassed for wearing masks in rural Georgia, whereas they are harassed for not wearing masks in Atlanta. Or not even allowed through the door. It is world of difference. Atlanta is ~70% vaccinated and rural districts are ~30%. The difference is huge. It tracks the party voting rates closely. Trump districts, 30%, Biden, 70%. There is no doubt it is political.
I am not sure where you are getting your data!
I have received one vaccination for mumps in 50 years. One for whooping cough, only one for polio, etc. etc.I get a tetanus shout every 10 years, not every 3 months!
Your "same as any other vaccine" is simply incorrect.
I did not mean that all vaccines have exactly the same characteristics. I mean that they all work by activating the immune system. They give it a sample of the virus outer shell so if the actual virus shows up, the immune response will be immediate, rather than delayed for several days or a week. This is illustrated in a charming Chinese animation:
As you note, some vaccine immunity lasts a lifetime, some for 10 years or so, and some only for a year or less. Influenza vaccines have been given every year because the influenza virus changes so quickly. If a new vaccine for the omicron variant is needed, then I suppose COVID changes more quickly than experts were hoping, and predicting, last year. We will see.
There is already the third shot within 11 months now! The fourth booster being discussed / planned! Unheard of with "any other type of vaccine".
No, it is not a bit unheard of. As I said, this is the situation with influenza. If there were a severe and highly fatal influenza epidemic sweeping the world, like in 1918, it is likely we would need new influenza vaccines and boosters many times a year.
If COVID vaccines were widely deployed worldwide, and the infection rate fell to the level in Japan or Israel, the disease would be very rare in humans. Like rabies. With case tracking and quarantine we would not need boosters. With very few cases, the rate of mutation would be low and a new variant would probably not emerge for a long time. I wish the first world nations would get together and manufacture enough vaccines for the whole world. It would not have to be administered to every person. In Japan only 78% of the population is vaccinated, but the disease is all but extinct, even though the vaccine was not targeted to delta. If we could vaccinate 78% of the world population, without many "islands" of people resisting vaccination in places like rural Georgia, I think the disease would become as rare as rubella was in the U.S. until a few years ago when the antivaxxer lunatics began resisting childhood rubella vaccines. Rubella is the one of the most infectious diseases there is. It can be very dangerous. But it is no threat as long as everyone is vaccinated in early childhood. If everyone is vaccinated for COVID in early childhood from now on, I expect COVID can be held to a very low level. It might even become extinct in the human population.
What is the purpose of the video?
It is now 24 months after the previous investment round. Are they after more money?I made a note of what Jed said in 2019 and I hope he does not mind me quoting him.
"No one will be manufacturing or installing cold fusion devices until there is a library of books describing the reaction, the manufacturing techniques, the dangers, the regulations, and every other aspect of the technology.
No problem quoting me! I stand by that. I think the recent history of self-driving cars bears out what I said. Martin Ford described an event on April 22, 2019. Tesla CEO Elon Musk said, "I feel confident producing autonomous robotaxis for Tesla next year." He "suggested" (Ford's word) that Tesla would have a million robotaxis operating on public roads by the end of 2020. A robotaxi is a car with no one in the driver's seat, that can drive by itself to pick up passengers, or carry passengers in the back seat with no one in the front. One was demonstrated on surface roads in Tokyo years ago. In other words, robotaxis already exist, but predicting they would be in widespread use by late 2020 was far too optimistic, even without the pandemic.
Musk is a smart cookie. He knows a lot about technology, and the people who advise him know a lot more. But, you see how over-optimistic they can be. There is no doubt robotaxis exist. Probably, if the dire need arose, we could have them now. However, we do not have robotaxis, and I suppose one of the main reasons are the regulatory hurdles. Not the technology per se, although that also may be less ready than Tesla and the others admit.
It is possible Brillouin's technology is all that they claim. The device shown in that video might really produce enough heat for a house, and it might be highly reliable. I wouldn't know about that. But supposing that is true, they cannot simply begin manufacturing and selling these things, because of regulatory hurdles, and social hurdles. The public would not stand for it. That does not mean the public will never stand for it, or that there is no hope of deploying this technology. Not at all! I am sure that when the proper steps are taken and the public is reassured, many people would be happy to buy these gadgets for their houses.
Assuming the Brillouin gadget works, after extensive testing, many people will feel confident that it is safe. Especially people like me, who are used to cutting-edge technology, and who have faith in engineers. When they tell me that self-driving cars are safe, I will be willing to ride in one. I expect I will feel trepidation. My grandmother was a little afraid of flying on airplanes in the 1960s, I suppose because they were dangerous for most of her life. We asked the airlines to give her a seat in the middle, above the wings, not in the back, because my father heard there there were fewer bumps and dips in the middle. I have driven a Tesla but I did not try the automatic lane change feature. I expect it would give me the willies, even though I can see from the big screen radar and camera display that the car senses traffic better than any human. It senses in all directions simultaneously, and computes trajectories. The auto-lane change must be safer than manually changing lanes. It is one thing to understand this intellectually, but another to accept it emotionally.
Some people will be afraid of self-driving cars or Brillouin gadgets despite engineering proof they are safe, just as some people are afraid of mRNA vaccines.
I asked you: have you any evidence that these tests (I mean the hundreds of 16 tests at a time in four arrays similar to the experimental set-up with 4 open cells that can be seen in the time lapse video you have linked) have produced stronger and clearer results with respect to those shown in the "Simplicity paper" describing the "1992 boil off experiment"?
It is the same thing. The Simplicity paper describes the array tests, and the three types of calorimetry used in them. The tests continued after 1992, and the results improved. Papers published later gave more details about the other two methods, especially the third phase, "Heat After Death."
