Posts by THHuxley

Quote

So we need sceptics in order that we can anticipate the questions and responses so that we can craft the idea of a better carbon free future based on robust science and present that in such a way that the uptake is not delayed by controversy.

Following the previous remark. Any good scientist will welcome skeptical comment because it provides help by critiquing hypotheses. Either the hypothesis survives the criticism and is stronger, or it falls, leaving room for some new hypothesis that is more realistic. Both outcomes are better than no criticism. So what is to fear?

Quote

The other kind of mind we will call the contrarian. This mind tries to challenge every new idea, attempts to explore the opposite of every statement, and is never satisfied with any idea another person suggests. Agreement between these two kinds of mind is impossible.

This quote from Ed is so inaccurate I feel I must join the chorus with my pennyworth.

The definition of scientific method is the synthesis of these two characteristics. Scientists imagine new hypotheses, and then subject them to rigorous critique. Those that survive get stress tested (more imagination) by new experiments. With imagination and no ability to challenge and find mistakes you will make perhaps a good creative writer, but not get far in advancing science.

Quote

I myself do not find this general kind of meta-historical argument very persuasive, but I'm probably unrepresentative.

Personally, I find historical argument of any kind interesting, but unhelpful. Historians can always argue any side of an issue. Science however must comply with reality. We do not always know what that is, but the endeavour to find it is different from what a historian would do.

Eric

Quote

In 1858 Abel Niépce de Saint-Victor reported to the French Academy evidence of something weird happening with uranium salts when photographic film was exposed to them. His report makes it was clear he understood that there was an anomaly

OK, so here was a clear anomaly, easily reproducible, with no mundane solution. One person did not make enough fuss to get this noted at the time.

The problem with LENR is not that anomalies are not disseminated and considered. It is that when they are noted they don't look like reproducible anomalies, and do look like error.

Quote

Regarding (3), there is no evidence that they corrected the graph. Perhaps they did not put their corrected version in the report.I doubt that 0.69 is correct for the dummy at "450 C" also.

Perhaps I misspoke. They corrected the emissivity values from the graph that they used in the dummy test to determine temperature.

Quote

We therefore took the same emissivity trend found in the literature as reference; but, by applying emissivity reference dots along the rods, we were able to adapt that curve to this specific type of alumina, by directly measuring local emissivity in places close to the reference dots (Figure 7).

and

Quote

“Dots” of known emissivity, necessary to subsequent data acquisition, were placed in various places on the cable rods. It was not possible to perform this operation on the dummy reactor itself (and a fortiori on the ECat), because the temperatures attained by the reactor were much greater than those sustainable by the dots. We also found that the ridges made thermal contact with any thermocouple probe placed on the outer surface of the reactor extremely critical, making any direct temperature measurement with the required precision impossible

and

I agree the graph of book values is not so corrected.

Quote from Ed

In response to my brevity, Tom at al. go to great lengths to make the claims look bad in ways that would require hours to refute and many more hours to refute their reply.

Josh's points were pretty short. You could do what Josh does, and note each point with a short summary of why it is wrong backed by short argument or reference. I agree that then resolving the matter might take a long time and a lot of careful checking. But, at the moment, we have Josh's criticism and no reply from you, here. Not all readers of this thread will buy your book.

You may not wish to devote time to this forum, as Josh does, to make your points. That is your priviledge. But as it stands his points look stronger than yours.

Quote from Ed

I have discovered from personal experience that no agreement can be reached.

That I can believe, and I'm sorry.

Quote from Ed

As Tom says, believers are certain they are right and will say whatever is required to support their false belief.

That is not what I've said (to my recollection).

I said that believers, if rational and well-informed, would have to judge "preponderance of evidence" to be very very strong, in the way that it would be were all of the different positive results completely independent and unselected. For example, in that case to get 20 different positive excess heat results from different groups, even within error, would be highly unexpected unless there were some real positive effect.

I showed how in fact that intuition on this matter could be distorted by what I've called here "the hydra problem" and I've described it enough in detail for you to engage with this. You could say: yes, I understand that and have analysed it and see that it is not significant. Or: it is logically incorrect for the following reason. With no reply I must think it at least very possible that you have not considered this matter and therefore your judgement of statistical likelihood here could be flawed.

Best wishes, Tom

Quote

"The energy balance between heat excess and 4He in the gas phase has been found to be reasonably satisfied even if the low levels of 4He do not give the necessary confidence to state definitely that we are dealing with the fusion of deuterons to give 4He."

This is a very weak conclusion because this balance will be satisfied (without fusion) if:
(1) the He measured is due to slow leaks, and at a low level relative to lab atmosphere.
(2) the heat excess scales linearly with experiment time
(3) specific setups with leaks higher than the "balance" expected are seen as leaky and removed from results, or made less leaky before subsequent reuse.

I guess I'd need to read his account carefully to know whetehr those three conditions apply but (1) and (2) go with the territory and (3) is plausible. After all, leaks do occur and when they are noted they must be corrected.

Quote

Very dirsrespectful statement! Thomas assumes F&P did NOT think of every possible error in their 20+ years of CF research. F&P answerred every published critisism of their work and papers.

No assumption. I make my statement based on the substantive Wilson et al critique of substantial claims made by F&P in one paper. I've read the critique, in detail, and the paper it refers to, in detail, and F&P's reply to Wilson, in detail. I will need to reread all these when writing up my account, but the main points are clear enough.

Quote

Their reply where never challenged, so F&P got the last Word in the debate.

Well, yes they did. But no further reply was necessary since they did not address Wilson's criticism and in fact doirectly confirmed some of it. If you read the reply you will see how it criticises things which are not the main criticism and goes off at a tangent without answering the substantive questions.

Quote

Where Fleischmann incompetent of calorimetry? He is aknowledged as one of the best Professors within electrochemistry in the 20th century. If there where serious errors during the 20+ years they would have discovered it.

I would not accuse him of incompetence. What I can say, based on his original account, Wilson et al, and his reply to Wilson is that:
(1) He made approximations throughout his work that are only safe at low temperatures (< 60C).
(2) The results he presented showing excess heat were, based on retrofitting data and equipment, taken at high temperatures (and even if not, without recording the temperature they would therefore be unsafe, because might be at high temperatures.
(3) He made calorimetric assumptions about his experiment (see Shanahan's comments - the typical CCS case applies here) that have since been shown to be wrong.

Proof from authority is never used in science, because authorities, like all other humans, can be wrong. That is especially the case when they are working isolated from most scientists feeling that their work is unfairly criticised and therefore not properly attending to the critiques they do get (e.g. Wilson for F&P, but the same phenomenon would seem, on the basis of this thread, to be so for Shanahan too. I'm not familiar with all the history so I can't be sure).

You may believe that F&P are perfect, and such total rejection of critiques is because those doing that were incompetent or uninformed. That is not true in the case of Wilson, who had spent considerable time replicating F&P's work, noting and solving experimental issues. Further, they did not actually reject his critiques, because they did not directly address them.

Best wishes, Tom

It is difficult to understand why Ed is ignoring the negative evidence here:

• Excess heat reduces to error level when reproduced with better calorimetry. Early F&P observations fully explained by errors. Systematic mechanisms for errors identified.
• He measurements all below plausible lab He concentration. Correlations can be explained because both erroneous excess heat and erroneous leakage will scale linearly with time. Correlation magnitude will be viewed as experimental error and corrected if too large or much too small. He measurements not made from experiments with larger excess heat that would lead to high He concentration.
• Radiation measurements are much more sensitive (1000000X?) than heat evidence but nevertheless show marginal results.

I think the reason is that he is convinced by "preponderance of evidence". From his POV any one result can be criticised but so many different results showing the same thing must represent a real effect.

My view of the same phenomena is that a combination of systematic errors, experiment selection, and in some cases result selection, will give this preponderance.

Take for example excess heat. Arbitrary errors will give either heat excess or heat deficit, so 50% are showing FPHE even without selection. Those experiments with neither will be dismissed as one of the cases where LENR is not working. Those with significant heat deficit will be investigated to debug the experiment, and errors discovered, before ever results are gathered. Those with significant excess heat will be viewed as good evidence.

The same phenomena for He results has been suggested by Josh above and not yet refuted by Ed.

The root problem in all these cases is that the desired result is known ab initio and experiments designed to show it. When the results from this are variable and near error threshold you cannot know whether they are real, or the result of the various selection processes.

Even one experiment with correct methodology, believable detailed reporting, and results well beyond error would change these things.

Quote

I actually wonder about that.(The first part of your answer)If they used the book value (total normal ε) from their Plot 1 for the 235°C test, they would have inputted 0.69 for ε. In fact, I would say that it is a data point on the ε plot (it probably is actually 500 K, or 226.7°C). For 0.69 ε, I figure that about 283°C would result if the ε of 0.95 gives 235.0 °C . That is not what we see. We have a screen shot of 237.5°C next to 235°C (Figure 7). So conceivably the alumina indeed has a really weird spectral ε, or the wire behind it is skewing the total normal ε so that a lower spectral ε is required for the camera. Or..? The report claims to have adjusted the Plot 1 pattern to match the alumina, but there is no indication this happened, especially in the dummy range and at 235°C in particular. In that case I would have expected the Plot 1 to show a much higher ε for the ~235°C area, which would have propagated quite differently.

(1) they computed low temperatures from alumina (getting wrong answer from epsilon = 0.69 etc).
(2) they computed low temperatures from ZrO2 cal spots stuck to the alumina surface. These having known and stated by manufacturer band emissivity. They give accurate answers.
(3) the noted the discrepancy, realised the book emissivity value was wrong, corrected the graph by working out the emissivity value needed to make the alumina readings the same as adjacent ZrO2 readings.

They did not correct the book emissivity for high temp values, because they had no cal data, not being able to use the ZrO2 patches at higher than (can't remember what). They are vague about what they did or did not correct except that they say they corrected temperatures used in the dummy test and not the active test.

As I say, the methodology here is very bad indeed, and you have to read the report with some attention to realise it.

Quote

As for some others, they just remind me of atheists going into faith based forums and pissing on the views of the faithful because they don't believe or haven't seen anything for themselves.

Not a bad analogy. Personally, I'm not an atheist. I do not have the passionate disbelief or desire to convert others. Though I follow Thomas Henry Huxley in not seeing enough evidence to be a theist. Call me a passionate agnostic (as opposed to a "wishy-washy" can't decide agnostic).

That evangelical atheism is as much a belief as evangelical theism is often denied by atheists but it is true.

They calibrated the low temps in the dummy test with cal spots from Optris manufacturer with known and specified band emissivity, adjusting book alumina emissivity to fit the real temp result from adjacent cal spots. They did not do this at higher temps because the cal spots have a limited temp tolerance. Well, that is what they said.

The stated experimental methodology (when decoded - it is not obviously stated) is breathtakingly bad.

Thanks for that Josh, as seems usual on this thread, the detailed information I need to interpret gnostic comments from Ed or Abd is provided by you. But - I'm still confused. We don't really know what were the points highlighted by Ed as evidence. He won't give the attribution, and previously referred me to "his book". Why can't he just quote published literature?

It does seem mildly insulting that he should think a few points displayed on a graph could be of use to me without all the data.

It appears that in the case of He measurements we sometimes have result reporting selection: more effective than experiment selection. Perhaps Ed can cite some unselected sets of independent He data, with the exact data collection methodology described, including all the criteria for excluding data points or checking the setup for leakage?

Ed - before you ask why I believe Josh not you, I don't believe anyone. It is just that Josh is providing details and you are not.

My reply to your original graph "I'd need more information to evaluate that" was typical British understatement.

Quote

The process of explanation starts by acknowledging that a new effect actually exists. No progress can be made when the claimed effect is repeatedly rejected, as you and other skeptics do.

If by progress you mean getting people to agree with you that is true.

However, I note on this thread considerable progress in explaining anomalous results that might be interpreted as a new effect.

I'm not rejecting anything, it is just that credible evidence of a new effect seems much weaker than might be expected from the strength of your conviction.

Again, you have not acknowledged the hydra argument and how this applies to preponderance of evidence.

Randy,

Sniffex? If you already knew...

Quote

Tom - I will let you have the last word since your response has failed to acknowledge the value of any of my comments.

Your comments thus far have not provided me with new information, but the context of the debate has been welcome since it has sharpened my understanding of the differences here. For that, I thank you.

Hi Shane,

Quote

You act frustrated, as if you are owed (you aren't) their undivided attention. Maybe some young up and comer, hot shot, LENR researcher from SKINR or Texas Tech, will discover this site and address every one of your hydras. In the meantime, may I suggest you just have some fun and stop being so overly sensitive?

I was not aware that I acted in this manner. I just call a spade a spade - politely - of course...

Quote

It seems the closer a potential reveal ?? of a working ?? device

You are right to be cautious, that has been the impression for maybe 20 years...

The tribal nature of these debates, in which arguments from different "sides" seem sharply opposed, does not necessarily indicate different rational judgement over the strength of individual components of LENR evidence.

If you are persuaded there must be some LENR effect, from preponderance of evidence, then that given affects your analysis of every LENR claim. Naturally you therefore allow an "LENR explanation" a higher a priori likelihood, since it is known to exist in other experiments, than if you are not convinced from preponderance of evidence that LENR is real.

So: my suggestion here is that all (or nearly all) the apparent differences in judgement might have as a root different analysis of the significance, not of individual experiments, but of the corpus of data all looked at together. LENR advocates are on record as saying that it is this corpus as a whole that convinced them. Skeptics do not rate "corpus as a whole" when the individual components are weak.

Whichever way you swing: "corpus as a whole convinced" or "corpus as a whole unconvinced" then changes your "best fit" interpretation of the individual evidence. It is an inevitable positive feedback that makes those who look seriously at the evidence more likely to have one-sided views.

Quote

"Believers are not changed by any evidence (as far as I know). If He experiments don't pan out I'd bet you will find excuses for it? the thing is, it is always pretty easy to find excuses for LENR when the mechanism is unknown. That is what makes it inherently weak, and means the skeptics are right to need strong evidence."

Tom, your statement is insulting and typical of the arrogance skeptics bring to the discussion. The people getting the evidence supporting LENR are professional scientists with years of training and experience. We are as interested in the truth as are the skeptics.

I have no doubt of your interest in the truth. However, insulting though it may be, you are not disputing my point I expect because it is true.

My approach to these matters of strong feelings is to try to dissociate personal feelings (which we all have) from the facts. In this case my prediction here is not actually a personal one. If, given current state of evidence, you judge LENR to be likely then there will I think not be much that can dissuade you from that judgement. You have already accepted that any effect is variable and not easily reproducible above possible errors, but nevertheless visible, over multiple indicators each with very different sensitivity. The anomaly inherent in that statement (Josh and I have pointed it above) will weigh on you less than the evidence you believe you have for LENR. Since it is a pretty big anomaly that must mean you think there is even bigger evidence for, and therefore it will be effectively impossible to shake your belief. The LENR hypothesis cannot be falsified (please reply if you dispute that).

Quote

In contrast to the skeptics, we see the effect and we know the real errors in the measurements. The skeptics do not. I have made thousands of measurements only because I see the effect actually take place on occasion. I would not waste my time if I had any doubt about the reality. I also have experienced every possible error - more than you can imagine. As Jed Rothwell has observed, if you want a reason to reject the data, ask Storms. I know all the reasons. Nevertheless, the effect is real because it is present in spite of the potential error.

I think that statement is over-confident - almost arrogant. A skeptic would never say they know the real errors in measurements. Nor would most scientists. And would welcome severe critiques proposing possible errors, directly answering them with the necessary extra analysis or experiment, or an admission that the results are not safe. You I am sure meant to say that you know well how to bound errors: but the best scientist can misinterpret marginal data through some small but unrecognised systematic error. A skeptic would therefore always to be cautious with error bounds, especially when analysing sets of cold experiments that cannot be retested.

Skeptics are allowing uncertainty - that breath of real world cussedness that afflicts and sometimes delights us all - its place. That is a humility in the face of the real world that T.H. Huxley would have approved of.

I'm also thinking that neither you, nor Abd, have seriously engaged with the "hydra" argument. You have both implicitly or explicitly stated that it is preponderance of evidence, not specific strong evidence, that informs your judgement.

You are well aware of the statistical fact that multiple independent sources of weak evidence all pointing the same way result in a strong conclusion. Science uses that all the time. And the Bayesian mathematical basis for it is well understood and easily applied.

I'm not however sure that you have taken into account the contaminating effect of experimental selection applied to low-level (or in some cases high-level) systematic errors. Even given perfect reporting of all results, that will lead to a preponderance of evidence in the direction looked for. No LENR researcher will choose an experiment less likely to exhibit an LENR effect, so experimental selection is a given. No common cause is needed, low-level selection of apparatus, methodology, conditions can all conspire to maximise multiple low-level systematic errors in the direction of the wanted results.

So: multiple hydra, each with an a priori unknown (but small) number of difficult to find heads, each head on each hydra must independently be identified and slain. That skews the "gut feeling" that enough evidence exists, because seemingly independent evidence pointing the same way can have a non-LENR cause. And I've not heard from LENR advocates any acknowledgement such an effect exists. Abd and others, replying in print to Shanahan, restates "systematic" as "random". A slip perhaps such as we all make, but significant. No-one aware of the hydra issue could treat the difference between systematic and random error so lightly.

This issue applies only to the type of low-level and fragmentary evidence shown from LENR. The key factor here is claimed anomalies of multiple types (heat, radiation, transmutation) which have a qualitative connection (nuclear) without any explanatory theory that makes testable predictions. I cannot think of any other scientific phenomena which shares that characteristic.