This is not surprising. I have thought it unlikely for several years that Godes has anything except a lot of confidence in his engineering and physics skills. Unfortunately, confidence does nothing to breech the Coulomb barrier. He sunk millions of dollars into silly engineering for a commercial system rather than actually nailing down the research. He's getting closer to the truth, but may not be able to get there now. He is looking back trying to figure out why he is not getting anything now. His current interpretation is that there was some special material he was using in the past (which he perfectly understands why it worked), rather than the likely reality (they finally did a proper experiment and his past results were false).
Jack Cole
Member
- Male
- Member since Apr 14th 2015
- Last Activity:
Posts by Jack Cole
-
-
It is well worth watching this video. Very good analysis on HCQ and the mysterious sudden appearance of serious side effects. It also has a very good analysis on comparing COVID19 with the flu. Even with the revised numbers, it is not 5x the flu. It is more like 25-40x the flu in terms of IFR. The reason is that people have been comparing the new IFR numbers to flu CFR numbers.
Correction:
I looked into this and his numbers don't look right. I'm not seeing anyone else saying that IFR for flu is .02% like he said in the video for one flu season. More like CFR of 3 and IFR of .1.
-
Coronavirus: Bad Science (Or Something Worse?) May Well Be Costing Lives
It is well worth watching this video. Very good analysis on HCQ and the mysterious sudden appearance of serious side effects. It also has a very good analysis on comparing COVID19 with the flu. Even with the revised numbers, it is not 5x the flu. It is more like 25-40x the flu in terms of IFR. The reason is that people have been comparing the new IFR numbers to flu CFR numbers.
-
Yes, my business property borders the Hennepin Canal State Park. A canal built in the late 1800's that is now a hiking and biking trail along it's 75 mile length.
This state park has no meeting houses, no commons areas, just a 75 mile long trail for hiking and biking and the canal for canoeing / kayaking and fishing. You can go for an hour and not see another person. If you do, you move to opposite sides of the trail and you are well over six feet apart.
Nice to meet a fellow Illinoisan!
Yes, this is a problem locally as well. Businesses nearby to these parks are seriously hurting. I know they are hurting all over the place, but this is completely unnecessary. You can crowd together at Walmart, but can't go out to a place that you don't come within 6 feet of people under normal circumstances. This is very anti-science.
It is a bad problem. It is hard to run a state. Yet this governor is one of the first to complain about the POTUS..... oh and yes, Illinois is now pushing to have 10 BILLION dollars put in the next Covid relief bill to fund Illinois' long standing Government Pension Debt problem! Truly related to Covid pandemic.
Yes, that was a nice maneuver. They have been mismanaging the state's finances for ages, and now try to get the federal govt to pay for it under the cover of COVID19.
-
That herd has some bulls in it, and they are pisssssed off at the idiots making noise by the fence.
Two weeks ago I was walking our dog at the shores of Lake Ontario in Toronto. Great boardwalk, parks, weather. Not too many people out though. A couple in their 50s was sitting alone on a park bench about 70 metres from anyone else, except for myself who was passing through and a bylaw officer who approached them. They were asked to leave. So they did, partly because they risked a steep fine. (I caught up with them afterwards and asked about happened.) There is something very wrong with this picture. I envy the reasonableness of the Swedes.
Indeed. I supported the social distancing and stay-at-home orders. I started that myself a week before it was ordered in my state (Illinois) after seeing what was happening in Italy and calculating the exponential. But our blue state governor does not understand how things are different in the sparsely populated regions. He shut down all the state parks and DNR managed properties because some in the cities were attending these and not using social distancing. The result is that people cannot go hiking, fishing, hunting or camping. We pretty much socially distance in these parks during normal times. For the next month, he opened up a few parks to throw people a bone, but the end result is likely to be people crowding in to the few parks that are open. The nearest one to me that is open is an hour away. Sound safe? Does this sound like a good idea for mental health?
-
Trump was taking about injecting (or in some other way getting inside the body) disinfectant. In what alternate reality do his words not mean that?
You are kind of pretending there is no distinction between musing about some things that could be researched vs. recommending that people go out and inject themselves with bleach. Do you really not see a distinction? We must be living in alternate realities if so.
You are the one bringing left/right politics into this. How about just consider what he says, without politics. I note the aberration.
Right.... You are clearly keeping politics out of your posts. In fact, you are probably a right winger or completely ideologically neutral.... right??
Today he says what he said yesterday was meant sarcastically. Do you believe that?
Maybe. I know that he and the press have a pathological relationship. One is not much better than the other in certain regards. They would never let him hear the end of it if he ever admits to making even the slightest mistake. Then again he often punches them back and intentionally stirs them up.
-
disinfectant / bleach - the terms are used similarly in common parlance. Are you saying the quote above (BBC) is misleading?
Yes, and trying to characterize what he said as "recommending injecting bleach" is at best, extremely artistic. There is a UV light treatment that makes tremendous sense. It is not a stretch to think about trying to disinfect the body through this and other means. From what I understand, COVID is basically a surface infection. If we can disinfect the surface of our hands, why not explore it in other ways. Folks who lean strongly enough to the left like to look down their noses at Trump and people who like him, which makes them like Trump even more. It also seems to be a tribal affirmation to Trump-bash--you let the tribe know you are one of them.
-
What is worrying is that some of his followers are quite likely, now, to try this.
He didn't say anything about bleach in the video. People are likely to try injecting bleach after misleading press reports of what he said.
-
A couple of interesting studies that may be of interest:
Coronavirus Has Acquired Mutations That Could 'Substantially' Change Its Ability to Cause Disease
Blood sugar levels may influence vulnerability to coronavirus
The second one has some interesting insights developed from and about HCQ.
-
The World Health Organisation initially suggested that the case-fatality rate – the proportion of people diagnosed with the disease who die – would be 3.4 per cent. This is a very high number which would have caused a huge number of deaths. But as we have had gradually more and more data coming in, those percentages have been falling. In many examples, more complete data are now suggesting case-fatality rates of 0.4 per cent. My guess is that it will end up between 0.5 and 0.1 per cent, and probably nearer to the lower end of that. So if the disease isn’t as virulent as was originally thought, the number of deaths will be correspondingly lower.
Precisely. This was a bungle of at least an order of magnitude by the WHO. The disease is horrific, but the potential effects of shutdown in terms of addiction, suicide, job loss, child abuse, and other problems is not to be ignored. It's not being talked about much in the media as these studies trickle in showing this vastly lower fatality rate. Community surveys show the disease has spread much more widely than thought (though not nearly enough to have herd immunity). So, the CFR bungle leads to another bungle with calculating the spread rate, which must be MUCH greater than thought (like upwards of measles / norovirus). What do you get when you have an extremely high spread rate and a fatality rate up to 6 times the flu? (Overwhelmed hospitals and horrific scenes). Which means we still need/needed some strong measures to mitigate, but the situation seems very different than the one we were initially presented (by an order of magnitude).
-
Not because of R20...
a lot of the recent discussion appears to be in 2017did Jack look at the 2017 120W active reactor sheets..?
they were posted.
I did. It was not helpful. I'm not really interested in that. The 2017 data posted was not complete. Maybe I'm thinking of the wrong data though. I'm referring to a link that you posted some time ago.
-
Has there ever been a spreadsheet posted of the raw data for R20? There are a lot of disagreements that seem to be partly occurring due to a lack of data. If the spreadsheet needs cleaned up a bit, then it seems like that would take a lot less time than all the posts defending the final calculations. I don't see much resolution happening until raw data is posted and/or more data from replication attempts come in.
-
3. As I described above, output heat fluctuations in a recent test are not correlated with input power. If the apparent excess heat was caused by an input power misreading, this could not happen. Along the same lines, the same input power with different meshes causes drastically different levels of output, and often no output at all. It changes over time, responding to loading and deloading.
Do you have a chart of this? Best to plot input power on X and apparent excess on Y instead of time on X and input power and excess on Y. You can see the relationship much better with the former method.
-
I should point out it is quite possible that the differences here are small: but given what we know of the calorimeter that will depend on geometry and can't be assumed.
That's my point. I want the data to provide little other possible explanations for excess heat before all these people waste time and money trying to replicate an experiment that may (or may not) contain significant flaws. If we were talking to the researcher (Mizuno), he would probably say, "Ok, let me remove the fuel and run a calibration with the same reactor." That is what I am asking for. The fact that apparent excess heat increases linearly with input power is a hint that systematic error is at play (I saw this with false positives in my own research). There is no sign in the reactor temperature of anything anomalous in the heating curve. See the chart I made of Mizuno's results below.
We need someone who will follow ANY hints of a problem. The person who would have the best intuition about what may have gone wrong would be Mizuno who is not here. Instead there is one intermediary, who understandably, would probably not want to offend Mizuno by suggesting his methodology may need some scrutiny. I'm not criticizing Jed for that--it is understandable. But it is a flaw that potentially prevents this science from moving forward as efficiently as it could. I have little doubt we'll get to the truth of the matter, but how much time and money are being spent?
-
No, that is out of question. The reasons are given in the papers, and I addressed that question specifically in the presentation. Reasons:
The bottom of the calorimeter is well insulated.
A wide variety of reactors have been calibrated in the calorimeter, ranging from 50 kg down to 300 g. They all produced the same Delta T temperature in the air flow. You cannot tell them apart.This is one reason errors can happen in this type of experiment. The experimenter becomes confident in the reliability of the method and misses an essential variation that leads to an apparent anomalous result. If you keep running enough experiments, eventually this will happen. You can't assume that all the different sized reactors that have been tried accurately calibrate for the current result. This is particularly true because the claim is that new physics is happening. Even though the bottom of the reactor may be insulated, it is very likely to have a higher heat conduction level than air. I will qualify my statement a little about not being able to assume the calibration is accurate. You can assume it's accurate until you get an anomalous result. Then you need to assume that you made a mistake and do everything you can to prove that you made a mistake by conducting follow-up experiments. There's an additional complication in this case in that there is a language barrier with the researcher leaving you stuck defending his results.
-
This is pure horse shit. Any flow calorimeter works fine with any sort of resistance heater. There is no "exact" control. The only issue would be the surface temperature of the reactor itself, which is not usually accounted for with a flow calorimeter.
I will not engage with this kind of nonsense, but for the benefit of other people, I want to point out it is nonsense. People should read about calorimetery.This is just not true Jed. I go back to a scenario that could explain the apparent excess heat.
1) Control run is performed. Because there is less surface area exposed to the moving air, relatively more heat is lost through conduction through the bottom of the calorimeter.
2) Experimental run with a bigger reactor is performed. Because there is more surface area, relatively more heat is collected by the air moving over it than is conducted out the bottom.
I agree that controls don't necessarily have to be exact, but you run a risk of unforeseen errors by having different sized control and experimental reactors.
Had he performed a similar type of experiment as he did with the previous reactor type, this would not have been an issue.
-
It will be another few weeks. I think it is higher than the calibration, but recent calibrations have been with a smaller, dedicated heater with less surface area than the active reactor. This is unlike previous tests.
This is different from what is described in the paper if you consider that it refers to the previous paper for calibration methodology. It is pretty important to have the calibration fully described. We really need the nature and dimensions of the control heater and the active device. It's details like this that have the potential to provide a conventional explanation for the anomalous results. Better yet, pull the fuel from the active reactor and use it for a calibration.
-
Can you give a reference? Storms has done so much work.
Here's one from 2012 on radiation:
https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEnatureofen.pdf
Here's a set of experiments published in 2015 on PdD electrolysis.
-
I think there are at least two promising lines of research.
1) As many have noted, replicating the most recent work of Ed Storms.
2) The work of George Miley also seems to have used good methodology.
Lower down the list would be (I find these to be unlikely to work):
Mizuno's recent work.
Brillouin Energy's work.
Were I serious about finding something that works, I would talk to Industrial Heat to get a notion of what they have already tried and what they find promising. They've probably attempted to replicate more broadly than anyone else. They could also save time by reviewing the failed replication efforts of SKINR at Mizzou.
-
I think the way to go without air calorimetry is to switch off the power in a hot reactor with a dummy load and take cooling curves- many many cooling curves from all kinds of temperatures. They should be classic Newtonian curves of course. Then do it in a properly fuelled reactor and look for a difference.
And if the power is switched off, it eliminates many of the arguments about 'artifacts' .This is data they probably already have. It would be good to run some checks on the existing data in that way.
