Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial 2
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 1:24 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Cude wrote: That's nonsense. It's the believers who are forever using tritium and neutrons at ridiculously low levels to prove PF were right. [...] No one says that tritium proves that PF's claims of excess heat is correct. Tritium cannot prove that calorimety works. That's absurd. It does prove there is a nuclear effect, which is indirect supporting evidence for heat beyond the limits of chemistry. That's not the same as proof. I'll rephrase without weakening the point: It's the believers who are forever using tritium and neutrons at ridiculously low levels to give PF more credibility. Still conflating the two. Also the tritium is not at ridiculously low levels. You misunderstood the context. The claims are at ridiculously low levels compared to what would be needed to explain the claimed heat. Capiche? It is at very high levels, easily measured, typically 10 to 50 times background, sometimes millions of times background. Storms writes (in the book): Tritium production is also too small and too infrequent to provide much information about the major processes. If the evidence for tritium were unequivocal, people would not abandon the experiments, and the explanation of their production would become clearer, and experts would be convinced by them. But in fact, as with heat (or neutrons), the situation is no clearer now than it was 20 years ago. There were a lot of searches for tritium in the early days, when people thought there might be conventional fusion reactions, and many people claimed to observe it. Some of the highest levels were observed at BARC within weeks of the 1989 press conference, when people thought ordinary fusion might be taking place, but as it became clear that the tritium could not account for the heat, and as the experiments became more careful, the tritium levels mostly decreased, just like pathological science everywhere. And some early claimants, like Will, got out of the field. In 1998 McKubre wrote: we may nevertheless state with some confidence that tritium is not a routinely produced product of the electrochemical loading of deuterium into palladium. In the last decade, there has been very little activity on the tritium front, which again, fits pathological science, and puts those early results -- some already under suspicion -- in serious doubt. To my mind, if they can't resolve the tritium question in some kind of definitive and quantitative way, there is no hope for heat. Isn't it interesting that neutrons can be detected at reaction rates a million times lower than tritium, and that's exactly where they're detected. You can predict the levels of nuclear products because they are correlated to the detection capability more closely than anything else. Easily measured, high sigma levels of tritium are not low because they are lower than an irrelevant inapplicable theory predicts. They would only be low if they are hard to measure. We all get that low is a relative term, but in the context of my sentence, it meant low compared to levels required to explain the heat.
[Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial 2
Walker wrote: Yes, definitely -- conflation is a critical mistake, but it is most likely to occur when it is convenient for one's position. Throw perpetual motion machines, homeopathy, polywater and cold fusion all into the same category. It does not matter that there appear to be basic differences that make the comparison strained, at best. There are differences of course. Identical analogies serve no purpose. I assume we all agree that homeopathy and polywater and perpetual motion are bogus. And so when someone makes an argument that applies equally to all of them, then the comparison shows why it is not persuasive to someone who also thinks cold fusion is bogus. That's the purpose of analogies. If you want to convince skeptics that cold fusion is real, arguments that apply to perpetual motion won't work.
Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial 2
Rothwell wrote: Cude and others conflate many different assertions and issues. They stir everything into one pot. You have to learn to compartmentalize with cold fusion, or with any new phenomenon or poorly understood subject. That's nonsense. It's the believers who are forever using tritium and neutrons at ridiculously low levels to prove PF were right. The skeptics are skeptical of both, but are fully aware that even if low level neutrons a la SE Jones were valid, it wouldn't prove PF right. That's why Jones got into nature and PF didn't. Turned out, Jones retracted, until he made claims again. But they're marginal too. In this case, the tritium findings by Storms and soon after at TAMU and NCFI proved beyond doubt that cold fusion is a real, nuclear phenomenon. After they published that 1990 it was case closed. Every scientist on earth should have believed it. Unfortunately computer programmers don't get to tell every scientist on earth how to make scientific judgements. Morrison followed the field in detail until 2001, and he had the background and experience to make credible judgements and he was skeptical. So did Huizenga. And I'd put more credence in the Gell-Manns who considerd it briefly than the Rothwells or Storms who devoted their lives to it, but can't tell a likely charlatan (Rossi) from a scientist or inventor. And if the tritium was so conclusive, why were the results so variable, and given the variability, why has tritium research stopped before anyone settled anything about it? That's not the behavior of scientists. It's the behavior of pathological scientists. The excess heat results proved that it is not a chemical effect, in the normal sense. Perhaps it is a Mills effect. Again, there is so much evidence for this, at such high s/n ratios, it is irrefutable. The helium results support the hypothesis that this is some sort of deuterium fusion, at least with Pd-D. There is no doubt about the helium, but no one has searched for helium or deuterium from Ni-H cells. All the other claims are fuzzy, in my opinion. There is not as much evidence for them. All the results are fuzzy, and the levels are determined by the quality of the experiment. Heat levels comparable to inputs, or chemical background, or typical artifacts. Helium levels comparable to atmospheric background. Neutrons and tritium, for which instruments are far more sensitive, appear at guess what, far lower levels. The point is, DO NOT CONFUSE THESE QUESTIONS. Do not conflate them! Gee. Someone learned a new word, and is gonna get all the mileage he can from it.
Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial 2
Sidenote: I'm reminded of one of the great one-liners (and I believe it was uttered by someone on this list if I;m not mistaken: The difference between connecting the dots and conflation is spin On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 7:34 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: Rothwell wrote: Cude and others conflate many different assertions and issues. They stir everything into one pot. You have to learn to compartmentalize with cold fusion, or with any new phenomenon or poorly understood subject. That's nonsense. It's the believers who are forever using tritium and neutrons at ridiculously low levels to prove PF were right. The skeptics are skeptical of both, but are fully aware that even if low level neutrons a la SE Jones were valid, it wouldn't prove PF right. That's why Jones got into nature and PF didn't. Turned out, Jones retracted, until he made claims again. But they're marginal too. In this case, the tritium findings by Storms and soon after at TAMU and NCFI proved beyond doubt that cold fusion is a real, nuclear phenomenon. After they published that 1990 it was case closed. Every scientist on earth should have believed it. Unfortunately computer programmers don't get to tell every scientist on earth how to make scientific judgements. Morrison followed the field in detail until 2001, and he had the background and experience to make credible judgements and he was skeptical. So did Huizenga. And I'd put more credence in the Gell-Manns who considerd it briefly than the Rothwells or Storms who devoted their lives to it, but can't tell a likely charlatan (Rossi) from a scientist or inventor. And if the tritium was so conclusive, why were the results so variable, and given the variability, why has tritium research stopped before anyone settled anything about it? That's not the behavior of scientists. It's the behavior of pathological scientists. The excess heat results proved that it is not a chemical effect, in the normal sense. Perhaps it is a Mills effect. Again, there is so much evidence for this, at such high s/n ratios, it is irrefutable. The helium results support the hypothesis that this is some sort of deuterium fusion, at least with Pd-D. There is no doubt about the helium, but no one has searched for helium or deuterium from Ni-H cells. All the other claims are fuzzy, in my opinion. There is not as much evidence for them. All the results are fuzzy, and the levels are determined by the quality of the experiment. Heat levels comparable to inputs, or chemical background, or typical artifacts. Helium levels comparable to atmospheric background. Neutrons and tritium, for which instruments are far more sensitive, appear at guess what, far lower levels. The point is, DO NOT CONFUSE THESE QUESTIONS. Do not conflate them! Gee. Someone learned a new word, and is gonna get all the mileage he can from it.
Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial 2
Cude wrote: That's nonsense. It's the believers who are forever using tritium and neutrons at ridiculously low levels to prove PF were right. You just conflated two unrelated things! No one says that tritium proves that PF's claims of excess heat is correct. Tritium cannot prove that calorimety works. That's absurd. It does prove there is a nuclear effect, which is indirect supporting evidence for heat beyond the limits of chemistry. That's not the same as proof. Also the tritium is not at ridiculously low levels. It is at very high levels, easily measured, typically 10 to 50 times background, sometimes millions of times background. It is lower than plasma fusion theory predicts, but no one claims this is plasma fusion. Once again you have conflated unrelated subjects, or redefined things in a way that makes no sense. Easily measured, high sigma levels of tritium are not low because they are lower than an irrelevant inapplicable theory predicts. They would only be low if they are hard to measure. The skeptics are skeptical of both, but are fully aware that even if low level neutrons a la SE Jones were valid, it wouldn't prove PF right. And no one, anywhere, ever said that. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial 2
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 6:19 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: There are differences of course. Identical analogies serve no purpose. I think they're the most powerful. :) I assume we all agree that homeopathy and polywater and perpetual motion are bogus. And so when someone makes an argument that applies equally to all of them, then the comparison shows why it is not persuasive to someone who also thinks cold fusion is bogus. That makes sense. If you want to convince skeptics that cold fusion is real, arguments that apply to perpetual motion won't work. Again, this makes sense. Eric
