Posts by THHuxley

Quote

If the Texas Tech/ENEA collaboration publishes definitive heat/helium correlation in a mainstream journal, Joshua Cude disappears.

I think I've got it. Abd is saying there is current research to establish He/heat correlation and causation (correlation on its own means squat for obvious reasons). Not difficult if real because He levels consistently higher than local lab levels would be a very strong indicator never (to my knowledge) found so far.

He is saying that Josh is ignoring this new work. I'm a bit confused. Is this what the $1000000 is being spent on? Or is it some preliminary work and the $1000000 is needed to do it for real?

And while I welcome new research Cf advocates can always point out the "next big thing" as being the proof needed. Surely, after 25 years, the wise thing is to look at past published work, not current rumours, which always inflate work's importance.

Wait 3 years and maybe current He/heat work will be added to this past published list. it seems there is at least one Indian journal that will publish it...

Spoiler alert - Abd views that low impact Indian Journal as "mainstream". Well that is fine, but by that definition "one paper published in a Journal somewhere" is not "proof the paper's claims are correct" or even "enough evidence the claims are correct to ignite a moribund research area".

It all depends on the quality of the evidence. If even non-specialists like me can look at it and pick holes that is not great.

We are agreed that good He / heat evidence would be significant. I doubt we will agree over good since Abd seems to think much old evidence is good that has been clearly refuted with reasons (P&F). But maybe I'm incorrect, I find it difficult (see above) to get specifics from Abd of what he thinks is good, except for ongoing research not yet published...

I find all this Josh / Abd to and fro not very helpful. They have two points of view which are apparent, and neither rates the other.

Josh: makes specific factual points, deals with Abd's points, but could (I've no idea) be ignoring aspects of the evidence that are not convenient as Josh claims.

Abd: Makes gradiose rhetorical claims obviously untrue, insults others, claims there is compelling evidence, when I ask for it (for real, I'm interested):

Quote

So find out for yourself. If you want to learn about this field, compile that list. If you wan t to help others, put it up on Wikiversity, under the cold fusion resource, perhaps as part of the heat/helium study hierarchy.I started a database, thinking I would analyze the data, as part of writing my published paper. It was, quite simply, too much work for the time I had. So what I wrote was simpler. But if you put that data together, you will learn a great deal, and it's better than learning from me. And you'll be able to have intelligent discussions in the field. You might even notice things that nobody has ever noticed before.It took me a couple of years studying the field, writing about what I was finding, before I started to come up with much of anything original. I wrote as my learning process, I've been doing that for many years. Write in a forum where people know something and can critique it. A few will be so kind as to do it. Mistakes are the fastest way to learn, if you aren't attached to being right. People like Joshua are noise in the system, but ... you can still learn from them. I've certainly learned a lot by researching what Joshua claims.Just don't believe him!

Be very careful about believing anyone. Legal principle: testimony is presumed true unless controverted. That "presumed true" doesn't mean "believed." It means start with accepting what people say as reports of their experience and what they think, as informed by their experience.

So Abd's claim that Josh is missing important evidence that proves results is not substantiated. If Josh misses out evidence Abd could quite easily list the missed evidence, each bit, together with its status (confirmed, replicated, whatever) and the discussion could proceed on a factual basis. I like these summary lists.

But no, it is not my job to generate them because I am not the one saying cold fusion evidence is clear and therefore $1000000 funding should be spent on a new experiment. (I would be happy for this to happen, it would be interesting, and perhaps generate clarity though from Abd's reply to how his views would change on negative evidence from it maybe not).

And as for believing anyone Abd is the one (I think) believing an F&P reply to Wilson et al's critique of an F&P paper when close reading shows that it avoids answering the points in the critique (and partially confirms them).

Thanks Abd,

It would be helpful, for the He / heat experiments, to see a table of what experiments exist with a few useful columns like:
(0) name and date of experiment
(1)detected He below lab/above lab/not known
(2) detected He correlated with claimed excess heat total?
(3) detected He correlated with experiment run time?
(4) closeness of correlation to 24MeV
(5) published results (link)

Then you and Josh could weigh in on whether these represent significant evidence - at the moment what you and Josh says is so far apart it cannot be reconciled.

Thomas said, above:

Quote from Thomas

You are arguing every anonymous internet poster who has strongly different views from you, and expresses them, is dishonest? LOL. Were I to adopt that stance I'd be insulting most of this forum!

(I've corrected the quotes, and the bold emphasis is mine)

Abd then replied to this:

Quote

No, I am not arguing what you say. But I won't say you are lying. I will say that you don't read carefully and clearly, and project your own reactions onto what is said. It is not merely anonymity that is dishonest, it is "impugning the integrity of others," and particularly of real people, real names, that can be dishonest.

I'm glad you won't say I'm lying. I will return the favour, but what you have just said is highly misleading.

Quote from Abd (orig)

there is a fundamental dishonesty involved in hiding identity

and

Quote from Abd (reply)

It is not merely anonymity that is dishonest, it is "impugning the integrity of others," and particularly of real people, real names, that can be dishonest.

I think you are either badly misusing the English language, or have lost the plot here. I'm pointed out that your accusation - anonymity is fundamentally dishonest - applies to every anonymous poster here. I used a light tone because I thought this would be more polite, but since you do not like this I apologise, and will treat this matter with great seriousness.

In your reply you say I'm wrong, and change your statement (without apologising for the previous incorrect statement) to "it is not merely anonymity that is dishonest, but impugning integrity...".

This is a wonderful rhetorical device. The new sentence could be read both ways:

anonymity is dishonest AND impugning integrity [is more dishonest].

anonymity is not dishonest unless coupled with impugning integrity...

So - which do you mean? If the first, my comment remains. If the second, you should explain that you have changed your position from that quoted and replied to by me - rather than rhetorically try to make is seem as though my comment was incorrect.

Why do I care about all this accuracy? It is because when you make scientific statements accuracy and precision is crucial - it sounds good to bend arguments in this sort of way (as I've pointed out above you have done several times) but it is factually wrong and highly misleading to your readers.

Quote

It is not that he's not convinced. That is completely his province. It is that, in fact, he attacks others as deluded, incompetent, or frauds. He twists all available evidence toward supporting that idea. He wrote about my lack of a degree, but he has no credentials himself, nothing that could be verified, in any case. Just what he says. And the testimony of someone who, with no necessity, hides his identity, is how valuable?It's not worth spit.

I guess Josh, feeling hurt at your accusations of his lying, introduces this matter. He would say that it is valid. You are putting your judgement above that of experts - therefore your credentials are relevant. Whereas Josh is making no scientific judgement himself, but resting on the judgement of the scientific consensus. On the other hand I can see it is hurtful to you. Much better to avoid such comparisons and treat comments on their merit IMHO.

I've often found the testimony of anonymous posters both interesting and valuable, so I disagree with you there. So, in the case of MY, did authorities prosecuting Snifex. So I guess they would disagree with you too.

Quote from Abd

Again and again, highly misleading arguments are presented, when they have, in fact, been answered long ago, but he repeats them in new fora as if those responses were never written.

You need specifics here. I'd bet that Josh believes they have not been answered. That is a difference in judgement between you and him as to the merit of the answers. Either you agree to disagree, or you present the specifics.

I'd cite, for example, F&Ps reply to Wilson's critique of their work. You probably think this answers the critique, personally I don't, and the way it avoids directly answering issues is very distinctive and typical of argument with no merit.

Quote

That is complete nonsense. First of all, there is a fundamental dishonesty involved in hiding identity. From such a position, one who freely impugns the integrity of others is dishonest, as Joshua has done many times.

You are arguing every anonymous internet poster who has strongly different views from you, and expresses them, is dishonest? LOL. Were I to adopt that stance I'd be insulting most of this forum!

Quote from Abd

When one consistently takes one side in a dispute, insistently, for years, always presenting arguments one way, never the other, never admitting inconvenient fact, and even if one always "tells the truth," the sum of it is a lie.

I'm replicating Abd's quote here to make a different point. I disagree. It is entirely reasonable to take one side insistently. When that happens it changes judgement of "inconvenient facts". For example, if you hold your stated view that "you know LENR is real" there are many anomalies with possible mundane explanations, where you would reckon the mundane solution less likely than the LENR solution. Similarly if convinced that LENR is unlikely you'd take Josh's position.

Calling either of these genuinely held positions a lie is a gratuitous and incorrect insult.

I'm not avoiding the issue. Everyone judging LENR must look at the total evidence and it is difficult then not to reach a judgement strongly one way or the other. Personally I agree with Josh, though some of my precise reasons might be different from his. It does not make me a liar.

Quote from Abd

Deeply hurt, my ***. One more lie. Stop hiding if you want to be treated with sensitivity. When one consistently takes one side in a dispute, insistently, for years, always presenting arguments one way, never the other, never admitting inconvenient fact, and even if one always "tells the truth," the sum of it is a lie.

You and Josh disagree about the 2004 DOE report. I've waded through all 18 (?) reports from experts. It was interesting. It is true, more than 1 (though not a majority) thought there was clearly some real anomaly. I also note the summary text that mostly supports Josh's position! When you read all 18 you gets a good idea of how everyone reads material with there own expertise, and (as many said) is not competent to assess all aspects of the evidence. So I would trust the collective decision (when they all get together and argue from their own areas of strength, correcting each other) much more than the individual positions which you can see were all partial.

Your disagreement here with Abd does not make him, or you, a liar. And your assumption that Josh cannot be deeply hurt when he says this and I (in his position) would be so is hurtful, insulting, and not backed by any facts. Again I believe you are breaking the new site rules against insulting language. Personally, I'd be relaxed about this. You only make your own argument weaker by appearing to get upset and resorting to such non-specific personal accusations. But it would make this thread more useful if you restricted your comments to fact.

It may be that he, or you, is incorrect. Difficult for you both to be correct! Everyone will reach their own judgement about that.

Abd:

I think your language in this thread towards Josh is against the policy of this site, and i believe you should reflect on this and desist. Specifically you are indulging in ad hom remarks - calling Josh a liar. This is a severe insult. If it were me I would be deeply hurt. If you think some specific remark of his is a lie then you can cite that, and your reasons for your belief. You will see that I have done that with you in this thread when you have made incorrect statements any number of times (but not, I hope, used the inflammatory "lie" word. I'll apologise now if I have.). But that is based on some of your specific quoted statements here, with stated reasons. And I do not therefore call you a liar.

I have also pointed out that in this thread your set of comments have had several errors that come from not reading (or not reflecting on) the points made by others (see above for detailed quotes and reasons). You could make such a generalisation about Josh's contribution (he has certainly posted enough) but you would have to identify specific errors first. And even that would not be the same as saying that he is a liar.

More generally - Josh has a different view from you on these matters, clearly. Why does that make him a liar? Varying judgement is common. Josh claims that he always cites other qualified people's judgement on science, and is himself merely collating this. So his view would be that there is not even this matter of differing judgement. Whatever - I can't see where lying comes into this.

Best wishes, Tom

I used the dislike button on Axil's post. But now I need to explain this!

It was completely off topic (no connection with LENR). Also, it was accusing a company of fraud without evidence.

Quote

So do I and I think most people on this forum do so long as it is respectful.

I ignore trolls too. But I have a high tolerance for abrasive comments which nevertheless have substance. Content trumps style. Respectful is good, but is often interpreted in a subjective fashion. Having a low threshold for ignoring people means you may ignore quite a lot of important information and argument.

Best wishes, Tom

The Gomp - I agree, but that does not affect my logic. I was not saying that MY had a wide range of interests. Are you saying that every contributor here has to have the same range of interests taht the site has as a whole?

This site can have a broad range of interests but still be interested in MY's special focus on frauds. She has, for example, helped to expose Sniffex and thereby saved lives for real. Her views on some LENR companies tend to be extreme but they are (as many others here will agree) accompanied by often thought-provoking facts.

You can do it nicely with a web radiance calculator:

https://www.sensiac.org/extern…d_radiance_calculator.jsf

(Use the "radiance from a to b" section).

Quote from Mats

Interesting walk down memory lane.I wonder how CCS can apply to Brillouin claims of:- Ratios of thermal energy out to electromagnetic pulse power energy in of greater than 4:1- Continuous reactor operation for weeks at a time- Power output for a single reactor core up into the hundreds of watts

The problem is this. They are using high power EMPs to "trigger" the reaction. Unfortunately such EMPs also trigger a whole load of subtle issues in instrumentation that can result in apparent temperature changes caused by rectification of hf electric or magnetic fields.

In this case none of their published papers (to my knowledge) have addressed this issue and it is a difficult one. Also they have a very strong commercial imperative to show positive results. It makes their claims less plausible than those of a disinterested scientist.

As always though there may be other issues, that is just the one I am aware of.

This is a classic case where if, like Abd (it seems from the above) you think there is just one hydra, you will take the fact that maybe CCS does not apply to Brillouin as an indication that is does not apply elsewhere. Of course that is not true, and equally it is not true that CCs is the only potential error mechanism not considered by excess heat experiments in CF research.

Quote from Abd

When I say that the preponderance of the evidence shows reality, I mean that researchers can walk into an agency and present evidence with a straight face that is not simply circumstantial, weak, close to noise, like Cude imagines, but that is statistically of high significance, that is direct, and that is already confirmed by multiple labs.

I've been asking people here to post such evidence, with no luck so far. Do you mean perhaps that you are privy to hidden evidence not generally available? that would seem unlikely.

Also would you like to elaborate on the "statistical" bit? Given your previous incorrect statements about systematic errors (the hydra stuff documented above) I think I'd want to check what you judged was statistically significant. All of which is possible, of course...

One final point. "Statistical significance" of results is only valid if the interpretation of the experiment is correct and all systematic and random errors considered. We have a long history of LENR experiments in which that is not the case. So you would need this evidence to be from experiments well critiqued, that survived that process in the real world (not just amongst people strongly biassed one way).

If you are saying that is what you want to obtain - great! A worthy if difficult ambition. If you are saying it exists then please give details - I'm pretty sure when given them I or others here will be able to explain why you are wrong.

Large excess heat production in Ni-H systems - Piantelli

Headlines: long data collection period (300 days), high temperatures, claimed 100W in 170W out over long period.

Well this would be amazing and set the world alight except that the claimed output power is not based on good calorietry. The system used could suffer large calibration drifts from:

(1) radiant surface change due to H ingress and damage
(2) thermocouple drift due to H contamination
(3) other things I don't know about

They did not recalibrate the system (as far as I can see on very brief reading) after the experiment to test for drift.

As evidence - were these eye-catching figures real they could easily be validated by better calorimetry (Piantelli has had lots of time to do this) and he would obtain a Nobel prize.

But I have not taken the time to examine this - and others may have more informed comment.

EDIT - reading a bit more these cells are sealed throughout the long experiment. But the heat transfer from inner reactor to outer cooled surface is through the gas in the sealed cell, where vapour pressure will surely change due to chemical reactions. In such a system the thermal resistance depends on the vapour pressure.
Note the pressure changes noted in the paper. Piantelli does not consider the mundane explanation, nor calibrate against pressure, nor note pressure throughout the 300 day experiment!

So that aspect alone makes this data useless for purpose of establishing extraordinary excess heat.

Quote

According to interview, Fleischmann revealed they achieved increasingly higher power densities in the electrolytic cells in France comparable to "fast breeder reactors" as he ones said.

The original claims, robust if the calorimetry is done properly, were for excess energy beyond chemical. You'd expect this if FPHE is real.

Moving from this to high power density is weak - for example chemical heat (from sudden recombination) can achieve arbitrarily high power density.

Take home for those not following the details. High power density means nothing extraordinary, whereas high energy density does, and makes the start of a case for something nuclear.

No, you are not. The profs put the emmissivity value into the Optris instrument, which did the "radiance -> temperature" calculation and iterated repeatedly doing this. You can do this yourself with an Optris and a suitable radiant source. Much better to note that the Optris must depend on the emissivity value according to:
e1*R(T1) = e2*R(T2) from the definition of radiance. Here R(T) is the Optris detector output for a temperature T. Which you can work out from a Planck band radiation calculator (lots on web) setting 7 - 13u as band. This does not include the sensor spectral response, which my numerical integration could include, but it is pretty close because that makes only a very small difference.

Quote

Hedge funds are prone to ponzi schemes. These frauds destroy far more people that has LENR frauds. Just consider how much damage to people that Bernard Madoff caused. By your logic, fraud detection is the goal of this site rather than the advancement of LENR. Could it be that the strategy of the LENR enemy is destroy through massive distraction and disinformtion?

If you will read above you will see that is not my logic, and it is false for you to say this. Perhaps you did not read the context carefully?

Gomp was arguing that LENR and fraud were mutually exclusive topics. I pointed out this was not the case.

I'm not saying the "goal" of a site such as this should be fraud detection, merely that the possibility of fraud exists and to ignore it is unwise.