Re: [Vo]:If I want to see it for myself...
Joshua Cude wrote: The experiments are *always* short of convincing . . . > Only to you. They have convinced thousands of scientists, such as McKubre, Gerischer and Duncan. They have convinced most people who reviewed them, including 6 out of the 18 reviewers at the benighted 2004 DoE review / charades half-day parlor game. (Charge 2: 6 Yes, 10 No, 2 Don't know) Don't confuse your own views with the views of the professional scientists who wrote these papers or reviewed them. They know much more about this subject you do. Also, they do not actually do this research while drinking beer in the woods. I was kidding about that. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:If I want to see it for myself...
Eric Walker wrote: these people from all walks of life is bogus, misconstrued or originating >> from a too many beers in the woods." >> > > Just to clarify a possible misunderstanding -- we believe in Bigfoot here, > as well. > Good point. Plus, most cold fusion experiments are done by people drinking beers in the woods. It is surprising they ever pass peer review! - Jed
Re: [Vo]:If I want to see it for myself...
On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 12:06 AM, Eric Walker wrote: > On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 3:34 PM, Joshua Cude wrote: > > Here's a bigfoot believer making the same argument you make for cold >> fusion (from J Milstone): "The sheer mass of reports alone should point to >> something of substance to the topics and it’s just as loony to believe that >> all the reports, trace evidence, photographs or other pieces of evidence >> that obviously interest these people from all walks of life is bogus, >> misconstrued or originating from a too many beers in the woods." >> > > Just to clarify a possible misunderstanding -- we believe in Bigfoot here, > as well. > > > I suppose you subscribe to Mitch Hedberg's theory that bigfoot itself is blurry? That there is a huge out-of-focus monster roaming the woods?
Re: [Vo]:If I want to see it for myself...
On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 11:16 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > > Some experts do make mistakes, naturally. But not every single one of > them, > No, just the ones claiming nuclear reactions. They represent a small fraction of experts. day in day out, for years, when measuring heat at the watt level with > instruments perfected between 1840 and 1910. That would never happen in the > life of the universe. If that could happen, experimental science would not > work. > > > Now you're just repeating yourself, so I will too. Cold fusion is a theory to explain a wide range of erratic results. There are many examples of theories used to explain results that turned out to be wrong. The ether is one example, and it was believed for a century. But of course I shouldn't need to tell CF advocates that scientific ideas held by many scientists can be wrong. That's the bread and butter of their defense of the field. In fact, there are many examples of phenomena widely claimed to have been replicated, for much longer than CF, which are nevertheless rejected by mainstream science. Things like perpetual motion, UFO sightings, any of a wide range of paranormal phenomena, many alternative medical treatments, and so on. Most of these will probably never be proven wrong to the satisfaction of their adherents, but that doesn't make them right. Some arguments for homeopathy, sound eerily similar to CF arguments. Check out this one from the guardian.co.uk (July 2010) "By the end of 2009, 142 randomised control trials (the gold standard in medical research) comparing homeopathy with placebo or conventional treatment had been published in peer-reviewed journals – 74 were able to draw firm conclusions: 63 were positive for homeopathy and 11 were negative. Five major systematic reviews have also been carried out to analyse the balance of evidence from RCTs of homeopathy – four were positive (Kleijnen et al; Linde et al; Linde et al; Cucherat et al) and one was negative (Shang et al)." This is for medicine diluted so that on average less than one molecule of the starting material is present per dose. And while you incorrectly deny the claimed replications of polywater, it is quite similar.There were 450 peer-reviewed publications on polywater. Most of those professional scientists turned out to be wrong. There were 200 on N-rays; also all wrong. Cold fusion has more, but polywater's were in much better journals. And polywater had more than N-rays, and if you can get 450 papers on a bogus phenomenon, twice as many is not a big stretch, especially for a phenomenon with so much greater implication, and if an unequivocal debunking doesn't come along. In short, the phenomenon you say couldn't happen is so common, it has a name: pathological science. And it isn't as if the true believers were chosen at random to do cold fusion experiments and they all claimed positive results. The people claiming positive results are the remainder after considerable filtration. In fact in the 2 cases when panels of experts were enlisted to examine the evidence, their judgements were that cold fusion had not been proven. And while it just doesn't seem likely to advocates that so many scientists could be wrong, when the results are as weak as cold fusion results, in fact it is likely. What is not likely is that so many results, from so many different experiments, could all fail to stand out. With an energy density a million times that of dynamite, something more definitive would be expected to appear. Finally, while you find it hard to believe that so many scientists can be wrong, the alternative is that a great many more scientists (i.e. mainstream science) are wrong. A consistent, robust picture based on 60 years of copious and reproducible experimental results would have to be wrong. That's far less likely than a mistaken interpretation of wildly erratic and inconsistent experimental results.
Re: [Vo]:If I want to see it for myself...
On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 7:15 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Joshua Cude wrote: > > >> And while I can't identify such an artifact, neither can you identify a nuclear reaction that fits the claims. >>> >>> I do not need to identify the reaction. The tritium and helium proves it >>> is a nuclear reaction. The precise nature of it is irreverent. >>> >> >> Whoa. Proves? >> > > Yes, proves. You say I have to "identify the reaction." No, I don't. I > only have to show that it is nuclear. The tritium proves that, beyond > question. > > The discussion was heat. And I quoted you saying the tritium does not prove the heat is from nuclear reactions. Any heat commensurate with tritium is in the noise. Storms says this in his review. So the tritium does not prove the alleged heat is nuclear in origin. You're conflating two different things. > > >> So here you conflate tritium with excess heat. The tritium claims, even >> if they were real, would not prove that the claims of excess heat are >> nuclear. >> > > Of course not. The magnitude of the heat proves it is nuclear. > So, it's not tritium. But the skeptic argument is that the observations could be caused by artifact. Since there's no credible evidence of nuclear reactions, or chemical reactions, that leaves only artifact. > A chemical reaction cannot produce megajoules of heat per gram of > reactant. > And so without evidence of a nuclear reaction, that leaves experimental error or artifact or trickery. > > Your claim is that a thermocouple error (or some other instrument > artifact) magically reaches out and causes x-ray film to fog, trititum > detectors to register false positives, > Wrong. The x-ray and tritium results could be real, without proving the alleged heat has a nuclear origin. And there is nothing in the universe to suggest that only one artifact is permitted. Tritium is not even correlated with heat, and no one seems to see it anymore. A true believer will do experiments long enough until something appears that can be interpreted as positive. If it's not working, they reduce the amount of material to give errors a better chance to look like a real effect. If helium is not seen in the cathodes, they look in the gas, where errors are far more likely. And they always report helium from experiments with low excess heat claims, so the expected amount is near or below background levels. Tritium sensitivity is far better than heat, and so claimed tritium levels are far lower. Neutron sensitivity is better still, and surprise, surprise, the claimed neutron levels are much lower again. Helium sensitivity is far poorer, comparable to that for heat, and, what a coincidence, that's where it's claimed. The experiments are *always* short of convincing, in so many different configurations. They always fail to "stand out" as you put it in 2001. That, along with the steady decrease in the publication rate all fits confirmation bias and pathological science.
Re: [Vo]:If I want to see it for myself...
On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 7:08 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Joshua Cude wrote: > > >> Furthermore, it's easy to imagine experiments that exclude artifacts, >> making them falsifiable. >> > > Yes, it is. And all of the mainstream experiments have excluded artifacts. > No, they haven't. Not to the satisfaction of most scientists. The erratic nature, the absence of interlab reproducibility exclude real effects more plausibly than they exclude artifacts. > That is why you and all the other skeptics have never identified a single > artifact in the work of Fleischmann, McKubre, Storms or any other major > researchers. You would have found one by now if there were any. > > That is why you and all true believers have never identified a single nuclear reaction that fits the evidence. You would have found one by now if there were any. > You claim there are artifacts, but since you never say what they might be, > or show any evidence that they actually exist, you might as well be saying > that unicorns are causing false excess heat. Your assertion cannot be > tested or falsified. It has no meaning. > > You claim there are nuclear reactions, but since you never say what they might be, or show any evidence they account for the heat, you might as well be saying that unicorns cause the excess heat. Etc. > >> You have said that no scientist could deny palpable heat from a >> completely isolated device. So boil the water in an olympic pool with a few >> grams of metal hydride, and artifacts are excluded. >> > > An Olympic pool is far too big. This same test has been done hundreds of > times on a small scale, boiling away water with no input in a test tube. > There is no chance the water was not actually boiling, and there is no > chance this came from stored chemical energy. > > Those experiments are anecdotal, not obviously isolated, not independently witnessed, and totally unreproducible. The only published ones are from the early 90s. That's why you wrote " ... It is utterly impossible to fake palpable heat I do not think any scientist will dispute this. ..." in the future tense. That's why people to this day think fractions of a watt are exciting, and even those are scarce in the literature. > Scaling up this experiment to an Olympic pool would not make it more > convincing, and it would not improve the signal to noise ratio. You are > moving the goal posts and setting this absurd goal > First, it's not absurd, because true believers often talk about GJ/g potential energy density, and that would be enough. Second, it was not stated as a necessary condition (as I elaborated later), but as a demonstration that artifacts are in principle falsifiable. > > >> That's an extreme example . . . >> > > It is a preposterous example. > > > To restore the elaboration… That's an extreme example, but if cold fusion experiments were quantitatively reproducible, if they were reproducible from lab to lab with written instructions only, if they scaled in some reasonable and consistent way with the metal, then artifacts would be excluded. But they don't. McKubre has said there has been no quantitative reproducibility, and he and Storms (here, a day or 2 ago) have said written instructions are not enough.Cold fusion results are much more characteristic of a combination of errors, artifacts, and confirmation bias. And the slow decrease in the publication rate is consistent with that as well.
Re: [Vo]:If I want to see it for myself...
On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 6:58 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Joshua Cude wrote: > > So if the probability of a false positive is 1/3, and 1/3 of the tries are >> hits, then that is consistent with all the hits being false positives. How >> can you not get that? >> > > You are assuming that all hits are false positives. > Right. That's the assumption. If there is no real phenomenon, then positives are false positives. If the probability of a false positive is 1/3, then if 1/3 of the attemptsare positive, then that is consistent with the assumption.
Re: [Vo]:If I want to see it for myself...
On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 3:34 PM, Joshua Cude wrote: Here's a bigfoot believer making the same argument you make for cold fusion > (from J Milstone): "The sheer mass of reports alone should point to > something of substance to the topics and it’s just as loony to believe that > all the reports, trace evidence, photographs or other pieces of evidence > that obviously interest these people from all walks of life is bogus, > misconstrued or originating from a too many beers in the woods." > Just to clarify a possible misunderstanding -- we believe in Bigfoot here, as well. Eric
Re: [Vo]:If I want to see it for myself...
I wrote: > You are assuming that all hits are false positives. This makes no sense. > > There are 17,000 positives (false and real). If, as you say, only 1/3 of > the tests work, that means there are 34,000 negative tests. > This is partly a matter of semantics. We are defining "false positive" differently. Cude is saying there might be 51,000 tests all actually negative, but 1/3rd are false positives, meaning 17,000 are wrong. I say the 34,000 negative tests cannot be included in the "false positive" count because they are negative. I define a 30% false positive rate as being 30% of the ones the researchers thought were positive. What Cude describes is what I would call a 100% false positive rate. Not 30% I assume Cude means that everything the researchers thought was positive was actually negative. Everything they thought was negative was also negative. They were right 2/3rds of the time. I assume Cude would never admit there might be false negatives! He agrees the researchers always measured the negative results correctly. They only magically make mistakes in a positive direction. Also for inexplicable reasons, their calibrations always balance to zero, and they never accidentally measure a significant false endothermic reaction. In real life, this is all nonsense. First, there are examples of false negatives, such as CalTech. Second, the failure rate is nowhere near 2/3rds for all techniques. I am pretty sure the Chinese estimate included F&P in France and the glow discharge experiments, which both work close to 100% of the time. Third, there is absolutely no way hundreds of experts could make mistakes year after year, thousands of times. And only in one direction, and never with calibrations. Some experts do make mistakes, naturally. But not every single one of them, day in day out, for years, when measuring heat at the watt level with instruments perfected between 1840 and 1910. That would never happen in the life of the universe. If that could happen, experimental science would not work. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:If I want to see it for myself...
Joshua Cude wrote: > And while I can't identify such an artifact, neither can you identify a >>> nuclear reaction that fits the claims. >>> >> >> I do not need to identify the reaction. The tritium and helium proves it >> is a nuclear reaction. The precise nature of it is irreverent. >> > > Whoa. Proves? > Yes, proves. You say I have to "identify the reaction." No, I don't. I only have to show that it is nuclear. The tritium proves that, beyond question. > So here you conflate tritium with excess heat. The tritium claims, even if > they were real, would not prove that the claims of excess heat are nuclear. > Of course not. The magnitude of the heat proves it is nuclear. A chemical reaction cannot produce megajoules of heat per gram of reactant. Good calorimetry proves that the heat is real. Each claim stands on it own merits. Each is certain in its own right, based on what we know about instruments that were perfected a century ago. All of them together are irrefutable proof that the effect is nuclear. Your claim is that a thermocouple error (or some other instrument artifact) magically reaches out and causes x-ray film to fog, trititum detectors to register false positives, cathodes to load, and spurious excess heat to appear. Your claim is unsupportable. Only one explanation that can tie all of these observations together: a nuclear reaction. The nature of the reaction is unknown. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:If I want to see it for myself...
Joshua Cude wrote: > Furthermore, it's easy to imagine experiments that exclude artifacts, > making them falsifiable. > Yes, it is. And all of the mainstream experiments have excluded artifacts. That is why you and all the other skeptics have never identified a single artifact in the work of Fleischmann, McKubre, Storms or any other major researchers. You would have found one by now if there were any. You claim there are artifacts, but since you never say what they might be, or show any evidence that they actually exist, you might as well be saying that unicorns are causing false excess heat. Your assertion cannot be tested or falsified. It has no meaning. > You have said that no scientist could deny palpable heat from a completely > isolated device. So boil the water in an olympic pool with a few grams of > metal hydride, and artifacts are excluded. > An Olympic pool is far too big. This same test has been done hundreds of times on a small scale, boiling away water with no input in a test tube. There is no chance the water was not actually boiling, and there is no chance this came from stored chemical energy. Scaling up this experiment to an Olympic pool would not make it more convincing, and it would not improve the signal to noise ratio. You are moving the goal posts and setting this absurd goal because this would be very difficult to do and it would cost tens of millions of dollars (or more), so you can be sure no researcher could do it. > That's an extreme example . . . > It is a preposterous example. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:If I want to see it for myself...
Joshua Cude wrote: So if the probability of a false positive is 1/3, and 1/3 of the tries are > hits, then that is consistent with all the hits being false positives. How > can you not get that? > You are assuming that all hits are false positives. This makes no sense. There are 17,000 positives (false and real). If, as you say, only 1/3 of the tests work, that means there are 34,000 negative tests. The researchers are sure that it did not work 34,000 times, and they think it did work 17,000 times. Surely you do not claim that the researchers' are wrong about the 32,000 and they cannot even tell if a cell produced no heat?!? Their evaluations are not perfectly random. They are not flipping a coin. If the rate of false positives is 30%, then 5,100 of the positive tests were mistakes, and the other 11,900 are real. Or, if even ONE of those tests are real, then cold fusion is real. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:If I want to see it for myself...
Again: ". . . it is as if someone went ahead and rolled the dice 6*14,720 times and they yielded 14,720 hits. But along comes a skeptic who says that all of those hits were misreads." On 5/16/13, Joshua Cude wrote: > That's what I said: you're calculating the probability for all tries to be > successful at random, but it doesn't correspond to reality.
Re: [Vo]:If I want to see it for myself...
On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 1:23 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote: > Jed: So you need only look at the positive results, and estimate the > likelihood that every one of them was caused by incompetent > researchers making mistakes. > ***That is what I've been saying all along. Note how Joshua Cude just > glides over it. The hallmark of a skeptopath is how disingenuous they > can be. O'Malley's calculation determines the probability of getting N hits in > N tries. It's just wrong. > ***No, no no. How many times do we need to go through this for a > skeptopath to acknowledge it? The calculation assumes N tries and N > hits, and then proceeds to calculate the probability of those N hits > were ALL by some error or errors. > > > That's what I said: you're calculating the probability for all tries to be successful at random, but it doesn't correspond to reality. Only a fraction of the tries are successful in reality. In McKubre's 1998 report, he said 20 %. Hubler reports 1/3 in 2007. So if the probability of a false positive is 1/3, and 1/3 of the tries are hits, then that is consistent with all the hits being false positives. How can you not get that? It's as if you claim that you made a dice that rolls 6, and to prove it you roll 60 dice, and 10 come up 6, and you say "See. The probability of that happening purely at random is (1/6)^10." In fact, of course, getting 10 purely at random is the most likely outcome. You know that bigfoot true believers also make the argument that so many claims can't all be wrong, as discovered by John Milstone over on wavewatching.et/fringe: "The sheer mass of reports alone should point to something of substance to the topics and it’s just as loony to believe that all the reports, trace evidence, photographs or other pieces of evidence that obviously interest these people from all walks of life is bogus, misconstrued or originating from a too many beers in the woods." You should head over there; they could use your faulty math to really secure their belief.
Re: [Vo]:If I want to see it for myself...
On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Joshua Cude wrote: > > Elsewhere I have argued that it is much more likely that an artifact >> mistaken as excess heat is correlated with high loading, or the conditions >> that produce high loading, than that nuclear reactions are so correlated. >> And while I can't identify such an artifact, neither can you identify a >> nuclear reaction that fits the claims. >> > > I do not need to identify the reaction. The tritium and helium proves it > is a nuclear reaction. The precise nature of it is irreverent. > Whoa. Proves? So here you conflate tritium with excess heat. The tritium claims, even if they were real, would not prove that the claims of excess heat are nuclear. You said that yourself: "No one says that tritium "proves" that P&F's claims of excess heat is correct. Tritium cannot prove that calorimety works. That's absurd. " The helium results, particularly the ones that have survived peer review, are far too close to background and detection limits to be convincing. Which if course is why most people are not convinced. So, no, there is no proof it is a nuclear reaction, any more than there is that is an artifact. And if you don't have to specify the nuclear reaction, skeptics don't have to specify the artifact. And between the two possibilities, given history of calorimetry, and the history of nuclear physics, and the erratic behavior of cold fusion, artifacts are a far more likely explanation. > You, on the other hand, are saying there may be an artifact that causes > problems with instruments perfected in the 19th and early 20th centuries. > You yourself said that "calorimetric errors and artifacts are more common that researchers realize" . It doesn't matter how old the instruments are. It's always possible to mismeasure heat, and it doesn't have to involve a failure in the measuring instruments. You are saying this artifact has never been observed in any other > experiment, and yet on 17,000 occasions in this field only it suddenly > occurred so that *every single case* of excess heat is an artifact. It > has to be every one. If even one is real, that makes cold fusion real. > There may be many artifacts, which is why the magnitude of the effect is so erratic and unpredictable. But obviously, skeptics argue that every single case of excess heat is an artifact or error (or trick), just like bigfoot skeptics argue that every single image or footprint or whatever is an artifact (obviously different artifacts for images and footprints), and just like homeopathy skeptics argue that every single claim of vague improvement is psychological, and just like perpetual motion skeptics argue that every single claim of over unity motors are artifacts, errors, or tricks. And just like every single claim of polywater (in hundreds of publications in much better journals than cold fusion gets into) turned out to be artifact. And just like every single observation of vulcan turned out to be an artifact. And just like every single claim of evidence for a young earth is held to be an artifact by the mainstream. And just like every single claim of evidence for the ether (over a century) turned out to be an error in interpretation, according to the current dogma. And so on. Here's a bigfoot believer making the same argument you make for cold fusion (from J Milstone): "The sheer mass of reports alone should point to something of substance to the topics and it’s just as loony to believe that all the reports, trace evidence, photographs or other pieces of evidence that obviously interest these people from all walks of life is bogus, misconstrued or originating from a too many beers in the woods." It doesn't sound any better coming from cold fusion true believers. > You are saying that you cannot identify this artifact. That means your > claim is not falsifiable, so it is not scientific. > > Please! I can't identify the artifacts in bigfoot sightings, or the synapses that pose as cures in homeopathy, or the tricks in perpetual motion machines, but that doesn't mean it's unscientific to be skeptical of those phenomena. If it did, all scientists would be unscientific, which would make the term useless. Furthermore, it's easy to imagine experiments that exclude artifacts, making them falsifiable. You have said that no scientist could deny palpable heat from a completely isolated device. So boil the water in an olympic pool with a few grams of metal hydride, and artifacts are excluded. That's an extreme example, but if cold fusion experiments were quantitatively reproducible, if they were reproducible from lab to lab with written instructions only, if they scaled in some reasonable and consistent way with the metal, then artifacts would be excluded. But they don't. McKubre has said there has been no quantitative reproducibility, and he and Storms (here, a day or 2 ago) have said written instructions are not enough. Cold fusion results are much more
Re: [Vo]:If I want to see it for myself...
Kevin O'Malley wrote: > O'Malley's calculation determines the probability of getting N hits in > N tries. It's just wrong. > ***No, no no. How many times do we need to go through this for a > skeptopath to acknowledge it? The calculation assumes N tries and N > hits, and then proceeds to calculate the probability of those N hits > were ALL by some error or errors. > You did say that! I am witness. You said: ". . . it is as if someone went ahead and rolled the dice 6*14,720 times and they yielded 14,720 hits. But along comes a skeptic who says that all of those hits were misreads." Let me answer your question: "How many times do we need to go through this . . . ?" No number of times will suffice. People such as Cude or Robert Park will NEVER acknowledge any point you make, no matter how self evident, no matter how trivial. They will not give an inch. I have been dealing with these people for 20 years and if I have learned anything, I have learned that. It is as if they follow Churchill's advice from 1941, but they never read the last part of the sentence: "Never give in. Never give in. Never, never, never, never—in nothing, great or small, large or petty—never give in, except to convictions of honour and good sense." They miss the "good sense" part. I cannot read minds so I cannot judge whether they truly believe what they say or whether they view this as a semantic ping-pong game of no importance. I used to lean toward the latter but in recent years I tend to think they they believe what they say. I find it mind-boggling that someone like Steve Jones sincerely thinks that recombination can explain the excess heat in McKubre's closed cell, but I distinctly remember Jones telling me that. We were sitting in a cafe snacking during an ICCF conference. I was so flabbergasted that for once could not think of anything to say in response. (If any reader does not follow what I mean, suffice it to say this is as outlandish as a mechanic claiming that a car might run without gasoline.) - Jed
Re: [Vo]:If I want to see it for myself...
Jed: So you need only look at the positive results, and estimate the likelihood that every one of them was caused by incompetent researchers making mistakes. ***That is what I've been saying all along. Note how Joshua Cude just glides over it. The hallmark of a skeptopath is how disingenuous they can be. O'Malley's calculation determines the probability of getting N hits in N tries. It's just wrong. ***No, no no. How many times do we need to go through this for a skeptopath to acknowledge it? The calculation assumes N tries and N hits, and then proceeds to calculate the probability of those N hits were ALL by some error or errors. On 5/16/13, Joshua Cude wrote: > On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 5:08 PM, Jed Rothwell > wrote: > >> Joshua Cude wrote: >> >> >>> As I wrote, it represents the probability that ALL of the replications were the result of error. >>> >>> >> >>> No it doesn't. That is true only if all the attempts give replications. >>> Look up the binomial distribution, and find someone to explain it to >>> you. >>> >> >> I believe that would only apply if success or failure was random. >> > > You're not following the argument. The claim is that *If* the positive > results are from random errors, then the number of positive hits would be > very unlikely. But that's not true using 1/3 for the chance of a false > positive, because that fits pretty well with the success rate reported by > Hubler for example. If the probability of a false positive is 1/3, and you > run N experiments, you should expect something close to N/3 false > positives. O'Malley's calculation determines the probability of getting N > hits in N tries. It's just wrong. > > > > >> When a cathode fails in a properly equipped lab, they always know why it >> failed. They can spot the defect. When there are no defects and all >> control >> parameters are met, it always works. So you need only look at the >> positive >> results, and estimate the likelihood that every one of them was caused by >> incompetent researchers making mistakes. >> > > Storms himself says positive results depend on nature's mood. He said here: > "Of course it's erratic… created by guided luck." If you're calculating the > likelihood of a certain number of hits from errors, you have to consider > all the attempts, not just the successful ones. It's elementary. > > > I'm not saying Cravens' bayesian analysis is wrong, though I suspect the > assumptions are, but O'Malleys' simplistic analysis teaches us nothing. >
Re: [Vo]:If I want to see it for myself...
> You, on the other hand, are saying there may be an artifact that causes > problems with instruments perfected in the 19th and early 20th centuries. > Instruments which have been used in millions of experiments and real world > applications. You are saying this artifact has never been observed in any > other experiment, and yet on 17,000 occasions in this field only it > suddenly occurred so that *every single case* of excess heat is an > artifact. It has to be every one. If even one is real, that makes cold > fusion real. ***Such an artifact is well worth investigating. That in itself makes this area of interest not pathological science. On 5/16/13, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Joshua Cude wrote: > > Elsewhere I have argued that it is much more likely that an artifact >> mistaken as excess heat is correlated with high loading, or the >> conditions >> that produce high loading, than that nuclear reactions are so correlated. >> And while I can't identify such an artifact, neither can you identify a >> nuclear reaction that fits the claims. >> > > I do not need to identify the reaction. The tritium and helium proves it is > a nuclear reaction. The precise nature of it is irreverent. > > You, on the other hand, are saying there may be an artifact that causes > problems with instruments perfected in the 19th and early 20th centuries. > Instruments which have been used in millions of experiments and real world > applications. You are saying this artifact has never been observed in any > other experiment, and yet on 17,000 occasions in this field only it > suddenly occurred so that *every single case* of excess heat is an > artifact. It has to be every one. If even one is real, that makes cold > fusion real. > > You are saying that you cannot identify this artifact. That means your > claim is not falsifiable, so it is not scientific. > > Also you are saying that causality can run backward in time. > > The burden of proof on your end is insurmountable. > > - Jed >
Re: [Vo]:If I want to see it for myself...
As usual, the skeptopath reads it completely wrong so that he can hold onto his belief system: I explicitly wrote " rolled the dice 6*14,720 times " and then the yield. Joshua Cude is here to sneer and debunk, even when he's completely proven wrong. On 5/16/13, Joshua Cude wrote: > On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 9:04 PM, Kevin O'Malley > wrote: > >> No, you got it wrong again. To use your dice analogy from the other >> thread, it is as if someone went ahead and rolled the dice 6*14,720 times >> and they yielded 14,720 hits. But along comes a skeptic who says that all >> of those hits were misreads. The chance of those misreads is 1/3 (If you >> want to establish that the chance is higher, then make the case for it -- >> but it has never happened, ever before, in the history of science). So in >> order for all those 14,720 hits to be errors, it would be (1/3)^14720, >> which is the figure that puts you off by 5000 orders of magnitude. >> >> >> >> > > No, man. You're doing it wrong. The chance you're calculating is if they > made exactly 14720 experiments, and all of them hit. > > If they made 3*1470 experiments, and the chance of a misread is 1/3, then > you would *expect* something close to 1470 hits. >
Re: [Vo]:If I want to see it for myself...
I wrote: > I can't identify such an artifact, neither can you identify a nuclear >> reaction that fits the claims. >> > > I do not need to identify the reaction. The tritium and helium proves it > is a nuclear reaction. > To put it another way, the only 'theory' I need is the what engineers call the theory of the instrument. That is, I have to show that tritium detectors and x-ray film work, and that according to conventional nuclear theory, tritium production is by definition a nuclear reaction. Those two assertions are extremely well established. A "skeptic" who ignores them or tries to overthrow them to prove that cold fusion is not real is no skeptic at all. That would be an extreme true believer. Cude's assertions about instruments artifacts that magically cause fake tritium and fake excess heat are far more radical than any controversial cold fusion theory, such as Widom-Larsen. I hate to say it, but the notion that a thermocouple artifact can cause a tritium detector to malfunction and x-ray film to show phantom radiation is far into wild-eyed, tin-foil-hat territory. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:If I want to see it for myself...
Joshua Cude wrote: Elsewhere I have argued that it is much more likely that an artifact > mistaken as excess heat is correlated with high loading, or the conditions > that produce high loading, than that nuclear reactions are so correlated. > And while I can't identify such an artifact, neither can you identify a > nuclear reaction that fits the claims. > I do not need to identify the reaction. The tritium and helium proves it is a nuclear reaction. The precise nature of it is irreverent. You, on the other hand, are saying there may be an artifact that causes problems with instruments perfected in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Instruments which have been used in millions of experiments and real world applications. You are saying this artifact has never been observed in any other experiment, and yet on 17,000 occasions in this field only it suddenly occurred so that *every single case* of excess heat is an artifact. It has to be every one. If even one is real, that makes cold fusion real. You are saying that you cannot identify this artifact. That means your claim is not falsifiable, so it is not scientific. Also you are saying that causality can run backward in time. The burden of proof on your end is insurmountable. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:If I want to see it for myself...
On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 10:07 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Joshua Cude wrote: > > THAT is one of the strangest assertions I have ever read, in all the >>> years I have been reading strange comments from skeptics. Seriously, that >>> takes the cake. >>> >> >> Maybe you don't understand what "converse" means. >> > > Maybe you do not understand what physical causality means. Also time. You > don't get the idea that when X is followed by Y, Y did not cause X. > > How on earth can excess heat cause high loading to occur before the heat > itself ensues?!? > > Explain that, and you will win a Nobel prize. > > Sorry, you're not making sense. Correlation and causation are different things. I did not say heat produces loading. Even if you were right that loading produced heat, the figure does not show it works every time, which is what you claimed it showed.
Re: [Vo]:If I want to see it for myself...
Joshua Cude wrote: THAT is one of the strangest assertions I have ever read, in all the years >> I have been reading strange comments from skeptics. Seriously, that takes >> the cake. >> > > Maybe you don't understand what "converse" means. > Maybe you do not understand what physical causality means. Also time. You don't get the idea that when X is followed by Y, Y did not cause X. How on earth can excess heat cause high loading to occur before the heat itself ensues?!? Explain that, and you will win a Nobel prize. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:If I want to see it for myself...
Edmund Storms wrote: Jed, two different applications of the word random are being applied > without a clear differentiation. The effect in a particular sample involves > a random creation of the required conditions. These conditions are not > controlled, consequently they are present in some samples and not present > in others. > That is certainly true. Although the ENEA is gradually learning to control conditions better to make cathodes more effective and predictable. My other point is that we know what additional steps are needed to improve cathodes and reduce variability. Metallurgy is not terra incognito. If the problems were completely random, no one would know how to fix them. No one could devise a project to make better cathodes. IMRA France lab would never have achieved the high level of success in boil-off events and sustained high heat. They were able to do that because JM is good at metallurgy. Progress in that project was not by chance, or by luck. > In this sense, the effect is created by a random series of events before > the effect occurs. > Exactly. But we know what kinds of events these are, and with enough money and effort we could eliminate them. The path to progress is clear, even though the performance is erratic at present. The same was true of erratic transistor performance in the 1950s. Transistors would stop working "when someone slammed the door" mainly because of minute levels of impurities. I think researchers knew that was the problem, but it wasn't easy determining what impurities were causing the problems, or how to eliminate them. > However, once CF is made to occur, the effect is real and does not rely > on random measurements. The heat is real and is not based on random > errors. In addition, the various correlations between several behaviors > eliminate any possibility that the measurements produce a random result. > Indeed, that is probably the meaning of "random" that Cude has in mind. > Cude is trying to make these two kinds of random events the same. I feel > sorry for him. His normal life must be Hell because of his inability to > adapt to new ideas. > Oh, I dunno. Many people are happy doing the same old things the same old way. I myself like living in a predictable rut. The only thing remotely interesting or novel about me are my ideas. Oliver Heaviside was famous for living an unvaried, uneventful life, cut off from people, being self-educated. He was an extreme example of a boring homebody living the life of the mind. As Arthur Clarke said, you could summarize his whole life in a few paragraphs. Outside of physics he was uninterested in new ideas or new ways of living. He never rode in an automobile until the last weeks of his life in 1925, when they took him to a hospital. Not to compare myself to Heaviside! - Jed
Re: [Vo]:If I want to see it for myself...
On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 9:15 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Joshua Cude wrote: > > The figure plots the loading in experiments that showed excess heat. So, >> it means if you see excess heat, the loading is high. It does not show the >> converse, which is what you claim. >> > > Ding ding ding ding ding ding!!! You win the Internets! > > THAT is one of the strangest assertions I have ever read, in all the years > I have been reading strange comments from skeptics. Seriously, that takes > the cake. > Maybe you don't understand what "converse" means. As I read McKubre's paper, Fig 1 is a frequency plot for SRI experiments in which they claimed excess heat. Experiments in which they did not claim to observe excess heat at SRI are not represented. It shows that when excess heat was claimed at SRI, the loading was high. But the figure does not exclude experiments in which the loading was high, but excess heat was not claimed. Whether or not your claim that high loading guarantees excess heat is right, the figure does not show that. That's simple logic. > Second, how would excess heat cause high loading? > > Who said anything about causation? The figure shows that alleged excess heat is accompanied by high loading. It does not show that high loading is *necessarily* accompanied by a claim of excess heat. You said it did. > Or, third, are you saying this is coincidence, or that some third factor > causes both loading and excess heat? > > > All I'm saying *here* is that the figure does not show that high loading guarantees excess heat. Elsewhere I have argued that it is much more likely that an artifact mistaken as excess heat is correlated with high loading, or the conditions that produce high loading, than that nuclear reactions are so correlated. And while I can't identify such an artifact, neither can you identify a nuclear reaction that fits the claims.
Re: [Vo]:If I want to see it for myself...
On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 9:27 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Joshua Cude wrote: > > >> It is not a bit random. >>> >> >> >> Storms calls it erratic, and dependent on luck and nature's mood. >> > > Erratic is not the same as random. > Storms on Feb 18: "My theory predicts that replication will only occur when the required gaps are made by nanomachining or growth of nanomaterials having the preformed required structure. All ordinary material makes cracks by a random process that is totally uncontrolled and unpredictable." As I post this, I see Storms has chimed in confirming his view that there is a random component to observing alleged effects of cold fusion.
Re: [Vo]:If I want to see it for myself...
Jed, two different applications of the word random are being applied without a clear differentiation. The effect in a particular sample involves a random creation of the required conditions. These conditions are not controlled, consequently they are present in some samples and not present in others. In this sense, the effect is created by a random series of events before the effect occurs. However, once CF is made to occur, the effect is real and does not rely on random measurements. The heat is real and is not based on random errors. In addition, the various correlations between several behaviors eliminate any possibility that the measurements produce a random result. Cude is trying to make these two kinds of random events the same. I feel sorry for him. His normal life must be Hell because of his inability to adapt to new ideas. Ed Storms On May 16, 2013, at 8:27 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Joshua Cude wrote: It is not a bit random. Storms calls it erratic, and dependent on luck and nature's mood. Erratic is not the same as random. When computer equipment fails because of overheating the performance is erratic but the cause is well understood and not a bit random. You can predict it will happen by inserting a thermocouple and watching the temperature rise. You can fix it by improving ventilation. Random means there no clearcut cause and you cannot predict when it will happen. Cold fusion cathodes fail for reasons that are obvious after the test. You can often look at one with the naked eye and see that lines of bubbles are forming on it coming from large cracks. Or you can see the whole cathode is warped from uneven loading. There is no question why it failed, and no chance it will work. The reasons why cathodes crack or warp are complex, but they are understood by people at JM, ENEA and elsewhere. Loading is difficult to control but not random. It is like the problem of exploding rockets. Rockets do not explode randomly. There is always a reason why a particular rocket explodes. Experts can usually figure it out from telemetry. It is an expensive way to improve the technology, but it has gradually worked. Rockets explode much less often than they did in the late 1950s, during the Vanguard program. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:If I want to see it for myself...
Joshua Cude wrote: > It is not a bit random. >> > > > Storms calls it erratic, and dependent on luck and nature's mood. > Erratic is not the same as random. When computer equipment fails because of overheating the performance is erratic but the cause is well understood and not a bit random. You can predict it will happen by inserting a thermocouple and watching the temperature rise. You can fix it by improving ventilation. Random means there no clearcut cause and you cannot predict when it will happen. Cold fusion cathodes fail for reasons that are obvious after the test. You can often look at one with the naked eye and see that lines of bubbles are forming on it coming from large cracks. Or you can see the whole cathode is warped from uneven loading. There is no question why it failed, and no chance it will work. The reasons why cathodes crack or warp are complex, but they are understood by people at JM, ENEA and elsewhere. Loading is difficult to control but not random. It is like the problem of exploding rockets. Rockets do not explode randomly. There is always a reason why a particular rocket explodes. Experts can usually figure it out from telemetry. It is an expensive way to improve the technology, but it has gradually worked. Rockets explode much less often than they did in the late 1950s, during the Vanguard program. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:If I want to see it for myself...
Joshua Cude wrote: The figure plots the loading in experiments that showed excess heat. So, it > means if you see excess heat, the loading is high. It does not show the > converse, which is what you claim. > Ding ding ding ding ding ding!!! You win the Internets! THAT is one of the strangest assertions I have ever read, in all the years I have been reading strange comments from skeptics. Seriously, that takes the cake. First, loading increases before the heat does. Second, how would excess heat cause high loading? Or, third, are you saying this is coincidence, or that some third factor causes both loading and excess heat? Also, by the way: Be careful! You almost admitted that excess heat is real. We can't have that. You must assert that is an artifact of the instruments, magically caused by high loading and the presence of deuterium instead of hydrogen, and various other control factors. Oh wait! Not control factors. Other conditions that magically cause thermocouples outside the cell or Seebeck calorimeters to register non-existent heat. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:If I want to see it for myself...
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 4:39 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Yes, it is weak compared to the power of a Tokamak reactor, although it > often produces a lot more energy. (The tokamak record is 6 MJ; the cold > fusion record for Pd-D is around 150 MJ I think.) > > Not that it makes much difference, but just to keep it factual, the JET has produced 675 MJ (rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/357/1752/415), and that result is unchallenged. And the power record is 16 MW. Both figures far higher than the highest *claims* from cold fusion. > It is not a bit random. > Storms calls it erratic, and dependent on luck and nature's mood. > As I said, McKubre's Fig. 1 shows that it is completely predictable. If > you can load the metal to 94% the effect always turns on. > That's not what the paper says. The figure plots the loading in experiments that showed excess heat. So, it means if you see excess heat, the loading is high. It does not show the converse, which is what you claim.
Re: [Vo]:If I want to see it for myself...
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 5:08 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Joshua Cude wrote: > > >> As I wrote, it represents the probability that ALL of the replications >>> were the result of error. >>> >> >> > >> No it doesn't. That is true only if all the attempts give replications. >> Look up the binomial distribution, and find someone to explain it to you. >> > > I believe that would only apply if success or failure was random. > You're not following the argument. The claim is that *If* the positive results are from random errors, then the number of positive hits would be very unlikely. But that's not true using 1/3 for the chance of a false positive, because that fits pretty well with the success rate reported by Hubler for example. If the probability of a false positive is 1/3, and you run N experiments, you should expect something close to N/3 false positives. O'Malley's calculation determines the probability of getting N hits in N tries. It's just wrong. > When a cathode fails in a properly equipped lab, they always know why it > failed. They can spot the defect. When there are no defects and all control > parameters are met, it always works. So you need only look at the positive > results, and estimate the likelihood that every one of them was caused by > incompetent researchers making mistakes. > Storms himself says positive results depend on nature's mood. He said here: "Of course it's erratic… created by guided luck." If you're calculating the likelihood of a certain number of hits from errors, you have to consider all the attempts, not just the successful ones. It's elementary. I'm not saying Cravens' bayesian analysis is wrong, though I suspect the assumptions are, but O'Malleys' simplistic analysis teaches us nothing.
Re: [Vo]:If I want to see it for myself...
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 9:04 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote: > No, you got it wrong again. To use your dice analogy from the other > thread, it is as if someone went ahead and rolled the dice 6*14,720 times > and they yielded 14,720 hits. But along comes a skeptic who says that all > of those hits were misreads. The chance of those misreads is 1/3 (If you > want to establish that the chance is higher, then make the case for it -- > but it has never happened, ever before, in the history of science). So in > order for all those 14,720 hits to be errors, it would be (1/3)^14720, > which is the figure that puts you off by 5000 orders of magnitude. > > > > No, man. You're doing it wrong. The chance you're calculating is if they made exactly 14720 experiments, and all of them hit. If they made 3*1470 experiments, and the chance of a misread is 1/3, then you would *expect* something close to 1470 hits.
Re: [Vo]:If I want to see it for myself...
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 4:56 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Joshua Cude wrote: > > >> You do not need multiple experiments to prove the effect is real. One >>> good one suffices. >>> >>> >> > >> One good one that can be performed by anyone, or for anyone. >> > > Oh sure. Just like anyone can build a tokamak, or show us a Higgs boson, > or send a robot explorer to Mars. Or perform open heart surgery. > > Well, they can certainly be performed *for* anyone, and I used the word "or". Also, if by "anyone" is meant the usually implicit "anyone skilled in the art", then yes, those things can be performed by anyone, given the resources. Of course the resources are more prohibitive, but mars landers are not going to be restricted to this generation, and thousands are trained to perform heart surgery, etc. > Yes, we cannot believe a claim until anyone can do it. Yes, that has > always been a scientific principle. That is why no one believes in . . . > Oh, I don't know . . . Maybe 99.9% of all experiments and commercial > products. > > You're being obtuse here. There was an "or" in the sentence. Did you miss that? And with a statement like that, you should assume patent-type language, where anyone means anyone skilled in the art. > I am sure you don't believe that a Prius automobile or a Watson computer > can exist, since you cannot make one yourself. > > Anyone skilled in the art can make one, and it can certainly be demonstrated *for* anyone. So, its existence is safe. > This requirement has never been part of science. You have set it up for > cold fusion, and cold fusion alone, to give yourself yet another excuse to > deny reality. > > Wrong. It has always been part of science. You just don't understand it. And why would anyone want to deny cold fusion? Everyone likes cheap, abundant, and clean energy. > >> Such a thing doesn't exist, or it would have been done for the DOE panel. >> > > The DoE panel could have visited a lab and seen a reaction, the way Garwin > and later Duncan did. > Garwin was not convinced by what he saw, and gave many possible explanations for the feeble excess heat that was claimed. > > And when I asked for an experiment that one could do with an expected >> result, you linked to the Bayesian analysis. >> > > No, I linked to McKubre, Storms, Miles, Will and others, > You referred to Storms and the bayesian analysis. It's in the archives: www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg79820.html > A Bayesian analysis shows that since the scientific method does work, in > the life of the universe you would not see a mistake repeated thousands of > times in hundreds of labs. Anyone with any knowledge of science or > technology would know this. > > Murray Gell-Mann has no knowledge of science or technology, I guess. Anyway, elsewhere you argue "History is full of large groups of intelligent people who made ignorant errors" > But what I have never seen, and will never see, would be a thousand > automobiles lined up on Peachtree Road in Atlanta all suddenly and > simultaneously catch on fire and burn up. > > > Has no resemblance to random occurrences of artifacts in calorimetry in some fraction of experiments.
Re: [Vo]:If I want to see it for myself...
oops, I meant to say thousands of orders of magnitude On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 7:04 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote: > No, you got it wrong again. To use your dice analogy from the other > thread, it is as if someone went ahead and rolled the dice 6*14,720 times > and they yielded 14,720 hits. But along comes a skeptic who says that all > of those hits were misreads. The chance of those misreads is 1/3 (If you > want to establish that the chance is higher, then make the case for it -- > but it has never happened, ever before, in the history of science). So in > order for all those 14,720 hits to be errors, it would be (1/3)^14720, > which is the figure that puts you off by 5000 orders of magnitude. > > > On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 2:36 PM, Joshua Cude wrote: > >> >> >> >> On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 4:31 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 2:20 PM, Joshua Cude wrote: >>> Statistics are fun because, as Kevin O'Malley memorably put it: "It's not that often that one can engage with someone who is demonstrably off by 4400 orders of magnitude." Fun, except he did the math wrong. If you want to make simple arguments, at least get the math right. >>> >>> As I wrote, it represents the probability that ALL of the replications >>> were the result of error. >>> >> >> No it doesn't. That is true only if all the attempts give replications. >> Look up the binomial distribution, and find someone to explain it to you. >> >> >> >
Re: [Vo]:If I want to see it for myself...
Cracks are only active when they first form and have a critical gap width. As they grow wider, they cease to become active and release D2 from the material, which reduces the activity of those gaps that remain active. The paper your cite was written before the critical gap size was understood and describes only the negative effect of cracks. Pd turns out to be a very poor choice of material because it forms gaps too easily and these gaps quickly grow too wide. This effect can be reduced by introducing certain impurities and using special treatments. However, because these treatments were not related to their effect on producing gaps, the understanding has not developed. Ed Storms On May 15, 2013, at 8:11 PM, Axil Axil wrote: Jed stated: http://home.netcom.com/~storms2/review4.html Formation of b-PdD Containing High Deuterium Concentration Using Electrolysis of Heavy-Water This paper will present evidence for a different model based on almost complete hydrogen transport through the surface, diffusion within the bulk material, and eventual loss through a crack structure. A crack structure is produced within metals when they react with hydrogen. This structure is caused by increased brittleness and by physical expansion as the hydride is formed. The limiting composition of b-PdD obtained during electrolytic loading results from a complex competition between diffusion of D atoms through any surface barrier, diffusion within the bulk sample, and loss of deuterium gas from surface-penetrating cracks. Reductions in surface-crack concentration and surface-barriers are essential steps to achieve high compositions. Axil replies: The irony here is that cracks are the causative factor in the reaction and not the limiting factor. The more cracks that are generated by loading, the better things get. The more that the palladium suffered from cracks, the better it performed in the LENR experiments. On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 8:07 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: I wrote: When a cathode fails in a properly equipped lab, they always know why it failed. They can spot the defect. Knowing why and how something fails does not mean you know how to prevent the failure. Rockets often explode. The telemetry usually tell investigators why it exploded. They try to fix that problem but they do not always succeed, and there are an unknown number of undiscovered problems left over. Rockets are very complicated systems, which operate at the extreme limits of temperature and pressure. A Pd metal lattice undergoing electrolysis is also an immensely complicated system, and it is operating at far higher pressures than any rocket or other mechanical system, albeit in a microscopic domain. It would not surprise me if it takes as much money and effort to tame the metal lattice as it took to make rockets reliable enough for commercial applications and ICBMs. A cold fusion cathode is small and featureless but that has no bearing on how complicated it is. It may turn out to be more complex than a silicon CPU chip. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:If I want to see it for myself...
Jed stated: http://home.netcom.com/~storms2/review4.html *Formation of **b**-PdD Containing High Deuterium * *Concentration Using Electrolysis of Heavy-Water* *This paper will present evidence for a different model based on almost complete hydrogen transport through the surface, diffusion within the bulk material, and eventual loss through a crack structure.* * * *A crack structure is produced within metals when they react with hydrogen. This structure is caused by increased brittleness and by physical expansion as the hydride is formed. * * * *The limiting composition of b-PdD obtained during electrolytic loading results from a complex competition between diffusion of D atoms through any surface barrier, diffusion within the bulk sample, and loss of deuterium gas from surface-penetrating cracks. Reductions in surface-crack concentration and surface-barriers are essential steps to achieve high compositions.* Axil replies: The irony here is that cracks are the causative factor in the reaction and not the limiting factor. The more cracks that are generated by loading, the better things get. The more that the palladium suffered from cracks, the better it performed in the LENR experiments. On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 8:07 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > I wrote: > > >> When a cathode fails in a properly equipped lab, they always know why it >> failed. They can spot the defect. >> > > Knowing why and how something fails does not mean you know how to prevent > the failure. Rockets often explode. The telemetry usually tell > investigators why it exploded. They try to fix that problem but they do not > always succeed, and there are an unknown number of undiscovered problems > left over. > > Rockets are very complicated systems, which operate at the extreme limits > of temperature and pressure. A Pd metal lattice undergoing electrolysis is > also an immensely complicated system, and it is operating at far higher > pressures than any rocket or other mechanical system, albeit in a > microscopic domain. It would not surprise me if it takes as much money and > effort to tame the metal lattice as it took to make rockets reliable enough > for commercial applications and ICBMs. A cold fusion cathode is small and > featureless but that has no bearing on how complicated it is. It may turn > out to be more complex than a silicon CPU chip. > > - Jed > >
Re: [Vo]:If I want to see it for myself...
No, you got it wrong again. To use your dice analogy from the other thread, it is as if someone went ahead and rolled the dice 6*14,720 times and they yielded 14,720 hits. But along comes a skeptic who says that all of those hits were misreads. The chance of those misreads is 1/3 (If you want to establish that the chance is higher, then make the case for it -- but it has never happened, ever before, in the history of science). So in order for all those 14,720 hits to be errors, it would be (1/3)^14720, which is the figure that puts you off by 5000 orders of magnitude. On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 2:36 PM, Joshua Cude wrote: > > > > On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 4:31 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote: > >> >> >> >> On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 2:20 PM, Joshua Cude wrote: >> >>> >>> Statistics are fun because, as Kevin O'Malley memorably put it: "It's >>> not that often that one can engage with someone who is demonstrably off by >>> 4400 orders of magnitude." >>> >>> Fun, except he did the math wrong. If you want to make simple arguments, >>> at least get the math right. >>> >>> >> >> As I wrote, it represents the probability that ALL of the replications >> were the result of error. >> > > No it doesn't. That is true only if all the attempts give replications. > Look up the binomial distribution, and find someone to explain it to you. > > >
Re: [Vo]:If I want to see it for myself...
I wrote: > When a cathode fails in a properly equipped lab, they always know why it > failed. They can spot the defect. > Knowing why and how something fails does not mean you know how to prevent the failure. Rockets often explode. The telemetry usually tell investigators why it exploded. They try to fix that problem but they do not always succeed, and there are an unknown number of undiscovered problems left over. Rockets are very complicated systems, which operate at the extreme limits of temperature and pressure. A Pd metal lattice undergoing electrolysis is also an immensely complicated system, and it is operating at far higher pressures than any rocket or other mechanical system, albeit in a microscopic domain. It would not surprise me if it takes as much money and effort to tame the metal lattice as it took to make rockets reliable enough for commercial applications and ICBMs. A cold fusion cathode is small and featureless but that has no bearing on how complicated it is. It may turn out to be more complex than a silicon CPU chip. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:If I want to see it for myself...
Joshua Cude wrote: > As I wrote, it represents the probability that ALL of the replications >> were the result of error. >> > > > No it doesn't. That is true only if all the attempts give replications. > Look up the binomial distribution, and find someone to explain it to you. > I believe that would only apply if success or failure was random. It is not. When a cathode fails in a properly equipped lab, they always know why it failed. They can spot the defect. When there are no defects and all control parameters are met, it always works. So you need only look at the positive results, and estimate the likelihood that every one of them was caused by incompetent researchers making mistakes. (Or insane, or criminal researchers.) In 1989 there were many studies where the outcome was random. They did not know what the control parameters were, and they did not attempt to measure them. If you do not measure loading and perform other diagnostics you have no way of knowing whether it is working, or will work. It is like throwing darts in the dark and expecting to hit the target. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:If I want to see it for myself...
Joshua Cude wrote: > You do not need multiple experiments to prove the effect is real. One good >> one suffices. >> >> > > One good one that can be performed by anyone, or for anyone. > Oh sure. Just like anyone can build a tokamak, or show us a Higgs boson, or send a robot explorer to Mars. Or perform open heart surgery. Yes, we cannot believe a claim until anyone can do it. Yes, that has always been a scientific principle. That is why no one believes in . . . Oh, I don't know . . . Maybe 99.9% of all experiments and commercial products. I am sure you don't believe that a Prius automobile or a Watson computer can exist, since you cannot make one yourself. This requirement has never been part of science. You have set it up for cold fusion, and cold fusion alone, to give yourself yet another excuse to deny reality. > Such a thing doesn't exist, or it would have been done for the DOE panel. > The DoE panel could have visited a lab and seen a reaction, the way Garwin and later Duncan did. They chose not to. Or they could have believed hundreds of peer-reviewed paper from top notch labs, which is what scientists generally do. Instead, half the panel made up a bunch of absurd reasons to reject the data. Most of the critical comments boiled down to the assertion that theory overrides replicated experiments. This is a violation of the scientific method -- something neither the panel members nor you seem to understand. > And when I asked for an experiment that one could do with an expected > result, you linked to the Bayesian analysis. > No, I linked to McKubre, Storms, Miles, Will and others, and pointed out that the effect has been replicated in about ~180 labs, thousands of times. A Bayesian analysis shows that since the scientific method does work, in the life of the universe you would not see a mistake repeated thousands of times in hundreds of labs. Anyone with any knowledge of science or technology would know this. To put it another way, I have seen cars catch on fire because leaking fuel hoses or fuel injection failures. But what I have never seen, and will never see, would be a thousand automobiles lined up on Peachtree Road in Atlanta all suddenly and simultaneously catch on fire and burn up. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:If I want to see it for myself...
Axil Axil wrote: > The cynic’s argument that is impactful in that the LENR reaction is weak, > transient, random, and intermittent. > That is impactful, but it is factually wrong on all counts: In many experiments it has not been "weak" in the scientific sense of having a low s/n ratio. As McKubre says it is neither small nor fleeting. Yes, it is weak compared to the power of a Tokamak reactor, although it often produces a lot more energy. (The tokamak record is 6 MJ; the cold fusion record for Pd-D is around 150 MJ I think.) It is not transient. The effect typically lasts for hours or days. It is usually stable during this time. It is not a bit random. As I said, McKubre's Fig. 1 shows that it is completely predictable. If you can load the metal to 94% the effect always turns on. What is somewhat "random" is finding good metal in the first place. Unless you select metal which is engineered for this purpose, you have to go through and test hundreds of cathodes to find a few that will work. That's not "random" really. You can get metal engineered for this purpose from JM or the ENEA, as I said. It is not intermittent once high loading and the other control parameters are met. This may sound like I am making excuses, but consider these comparisons. Launching a telecom satellite is a risky business. The insurance rates are high, because rockets often blow up or go out of control. But once you get a satellite into a stable orbit, the behavior is extremely predictable. Once you get over the difficult launch phase, it is fully controlled and predictable. No one would call this "random." It is like germinating seeds. The overall success rate may be low, but once the process passes a certain point and rapid growth begins, success is assured. The winnowing out of sterile seeds can be compare to winnowing out of cathodes with cracks and other problems that are known to prevent loading, and thus prevent the cold fusion effect. We know why those cathodes will not work. We have to slog through and test them and identify them, but that not a "random" process. It is a lot of work, and a lot of expense, which is why people seldom do it. If you start with enough seeds, you can be sure that some will germinate. Start with enough cathodes and winnow them for enough years and you can be sure of getting a cold fusion reaction. > This ethereal nature of the LENR reaction makes it useless. > That is true! Also the fact that the reaction cannot be controlled easily. That is, turned on, modulated, and turned off with fine control. Maybe this is what Cude is saying. > No, he is saying the proof is statistical, the way it is for the Top Quark or the Higgs boson. Skeptics often make this claim. They are wrong. The LENR advocate must come up with a plan to make the LENR reaction > strong, permanent, consistent, and controllable: LENR+ > Step one: Get $100 million in funding . . . Step two, three and four are easy compared to that. Any research can suggest what to do. The trick would be to get several batches of $100 million, and give them to several groups. Some would go off the tracks the way the NHE project did, but others are likely to succeed. It is a risk. They might all fail. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:If I want to see it for myself...
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 4:31 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote: > > > > On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 2:20 PM, Joshua Cude wrote: > >> >> Statistics are fun because, as Kevin O'Malley memorably put it: "It's not >> that often that one can engage with someone who is demonstrably off by 4400 >> orders of magnitude." >> >> Fun, except he did the math wrong. If you want to make simple arguments, >> at least get the math right. >> >> > > As I wrote, it represents the probability that ALL of the replications > were the result of error. > No it doesn't. That is true only if all the attempts give replications. Look up the binomial distribution, and find someone to explain it to you.
Re: [Vo]:If I want to see it for myself...
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 2:20 PM, Joshua Cude wrote: > > Statistics are fun because, as Kevin O'Malley memorably put it: "It's not > that often that one can engage with someone who is demonstrably off by 4400 > orders of magnitude." > > Fun, except he did the math wrong. If you want to make simple arguments, > at least get the math right. > > As I wrote, it represents the probability that ALL of the replications were the result of error. It is exceedingly small. Far, far, far below the mathematical definition of impossible, which is 10^-50. That is what Joshua Cude thinks is the case.
Re: [Vo]:If I want to see it for myself...
On 05/15/2013 07:33 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > I do not think anyone has ever detected an endothermic cold fusion reaction. cold-pack fusion? :-)
Re: [Vo]:If I want to see it for myself...
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 2:31 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Cude apparently said: > >> Statistics have an important place, but I think this is sort of thing >> Rutherford was talking about when he said: if your experiment needs >> statistics, you should have done a better experiment. >> > This seems to be Cude's latest excuse to dismiss the research. Let me > reiterate: No, these experiments *do not* need statistics. You do not > need multiple experiments to prove the effect is real. One good one > suffices. > > One good one that can be performed by anyone, or for anyone. Such a thing doesn't exist, or it would have been done for the DOE panel. And when I asked for an experiment that one could do with an expected result, you linked to the Bayesian analysis. > Statistics are fun because, as Kevin O'Malley memorably put it: "It's not > that often that one can engage with someone who is demonstrably off by 4400 > orders of magnitude." > > Fun, except he did the math wrong. If you want to make simple arguments, at least get the math right.
Re: [Vo]:If I want to see it for myself...
The cynic’s argument that is impactful in that the LENR reaction is weak, transient, random, and intermittent. This ethereal nature of the LENR reaction makes it useless. Maybe this is what Cude is saying. The LENR advocate must come up with a plan to make the LENR reaction strong, permanent, consistent, and controllable: LENR+ On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 3:31 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Cude apparently said: > >> Statistics have an important place, but I think this is sort of thing >> Rutherford was talking about when he said: if your experiment needs >> statistics, you should have done a better experiment. >> > This seems to be Cude's latest excuse to dismiss the research. Let me > reiterate: No, these experiments *do not* need statistics. You do not > need multiple experiments to prove the effect is real. One good one > suffices. > > Statistics are icing on the cake. A Bayesian analysis reveals interesting > things about the results. But it is not necessary. > > Statistics are fun because, as Kevin O'Malley memorably put it: "It's not > that often that one can engage with someone who is demonstrably off by 4400 > orders of magnitude." > > - Jed > >
Re: [Vo]:If I want to see it for myself...
Cude apparently said: > Statistics have an important place, but I think this is sort of thing > Rutherford was talking about when he said: if your experiment needs > statistics, you should have done a better experiment. > This seems to be Cude's latest excuse to dismiss the research. Let me reiterate: No, these experiments *do not* need statistics. You do not need multiple experiments to prove the effect is real. One good one suffices. Statistics are icing on the cake. A Bayesian analysis reveals interesting things about the results. But it is not necessary. Statistics are fun because, as Kevin O'Malley memorably put it: "It's not that often that one can engage with someone who is demonstrably off by 4400 orders of magnitude." - Jed
Re: [Vo]:If I want to see it for myself...
Thanks, I am trying to get up to speed on subatomic particles, bosons, fermions and such, I mostly have a practical thermodynamic and power background. I too believe that mass and energy are changing states to/from and the second law needs some work... For those interested, my research and theory has led me to believe that our Sun and Earth are actually branes (from string theory), a black hole is considered a black p-brane, probably 5 dimensions(or more) all curled up at their core with a significant amount of mass/energy contained within. We reside in the baryonic crust built up around Earth's brane. She has attached strings (1-branes) connected to her at her magnetic poles. There are also probably open strings attached between Earth's brane and the Sun's brane (1-2 strings) in the solar wind. The sun is creating and streaming smaller branes (particles, closed strings(toroids) and membranes) towards Earth in the solar wind, expelling more energetic/massive branes during CMEs.These expelled branes are orbiting through and around the Earth and are creating our gravity field as they evaporate and these subatomic particles are flowing to the Earth's core. The most energetic strings are also pulling larger vacuums in the atmosphere and creating disturbances seen as waterspouts, tornadoes, hurricanes, etc. which all have strings within or above pulling a vacuum, condensing water vapor and creating the extreme low pressures seen in our atmosphere along with the jet streams. The strings evaporate gravitationally over time, nature sees to it else we could not exist with all of that vacuum energy surrounding us. The branes are also creating weak spots in the baryonic crust of the Earth as they enter into it and are triggering seismic events and sinkholes. Much of the lightning we see is just the electromagnetic discharge created from the interaction of these strings. All of our severe weather systems are really just vacuum upsets in the atmosphere from these branes. We reside in a quantum field that our senses cannot directly detect but we see the results and have given them all sorts of names. Here are a couple good reads on string theory. http://www.superstringtheory.com/ http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/string-theory-for-dummies-cheat-sheet.html I am just trying to show that dark/vacuum energy, quantum gravity and string theory all can be explained by what we know as our severe weather and other high energy upsets on Earth such as some of our seismic activity. I may be wrong, but the pieces seem to fit and I am getting lots of reads on my blog from 185 countries, it might be my stupid humor, I do not know. The recent dark lightning discovery and such also support my theory. Those interlocking ice halos and interlocking rainbows seen in the sky before hurricane Sandy were actually "cosmic strings" with some bad-ass amounts of vacuum energy creating lots of ice crystals in the atmosphere as they suck the entropy out of the surrounding gas. If the Earth were just a rock in space like the geologist believe it would be a lot more boring around here. The sun has just had three X class solar flares over the past couple of days, most of it has missed us. Might be some rock'n and roll'n here at the end of the year at 11 year solar max with a big ass comet on the way. Spaceweather.com is a good site to check on. Stewart darkmattersalot.com On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 12:08 PM, Jones Beene wrote: > Stewart, > > If mass can be converted to energy in packets of a fractional eV up to a > few > tens of eV, which seems to be a feature of many LENR theories - and the > reaction is reversible so that energy can be converted into mass - the > problem resolves to locating a nucleus which can vary in mass slightly > without necessarily changing identity. > > The "transfer medium" between mass and energy - is thought by some > theorists > to be the quantum of spin - the magnon. > > In the case of Ahern's EPRI work - the endothermic reaction ONLY occurred > when titanium was part of the nanopowder. > > Since titanium has also been associated with gain in other experiments, it > would probably be the best lattice metal to concentrate on - in order to > show which parameters induce endotherm and which induce exotherm. Titanium > has two high spin isomers: 47 and 49 and a number of odd physical > properties > that point to how one could engineer an experiment. > > Jones > > > From: ChemE Stewart > > Thanks Jones, I have read so much stuff my head is spinning > like a toroid. I remember Celani last year talking about temperature > inversions during loading/heating phase of his wires for his > demonstrations. > Jed has documents on his site discussing this from older studies, not sure > about recent. > > http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/CelaniFtheeffecto.pdf > > I have liken it to a thunderstorm. When a low pressure > system rolls throug
Re: [Vo]:If I want to see it for myself...
Jones Beene wrote: Actually there are four reports of LENR endothermic reactions, including > Arata and Ahern > Arata shows the expected endothermic chemical reaction. That's what he said. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:If I want to see it for myself...
In some situations, the energy produced by LENR is manifest only as x-rays and gamma rays because this radiation is not thermalized. Heat Energy is input into the LENR reaction and does not come out. In this way, heat is transformed into x-rays and gamma rays. Heat will appear to be reduced when LENR only produces high energy photons. On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 10:23 AM, ChemE Stewart wrote: > Unless part of the "reaction" is endothermic and cools its surroundings... > > > On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 9:53 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > >> Eric Walker wrote: >> >> >>> Some people try to go with calorimetry. From what I've seen with the >>> Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project, that looks like a steep learning >>> curve, unless for some reason you were to luck out and get a reaction going >>> whose energy balance can be measured with a mercury thermometer. Other >>> claims that can be replicated apart from excess heat are low levels of >>> substrate transmutations, tritium, neutrons, x-rays and (purportedly low >>> levels of) energetic particles. >>> >> >> I wish people would start with excess heat, and not go looking for these >> other things until they confirm it. As Martin Fleischmann said, heat is the >> principal signature of the reaction. When you have no heat, you probably >> have no reaction. >> >> - Jed >> >> >
RE: [Vo]:If I want to see it for myself...
Stewart, If mass can be converted to energy in packets of a fractional eV up to a few tens of eV, which seems to be a feature of many LENR theories - and the reaction is reversible so that energy can be converted into mass - the problem resolves to locating a nucleus which can vary in mass slightly without necessarily changing identity. The "transfer medium" between mass and energy - is thought by some theorists to be the quantum of spin - the magnon. In the case of Ahern's EPRI work - the endothermic reaction ONLY occurred when titanium was part of the nanopowder. Since titanium has also been associated with gain in other experiments, it would probably be the best lattice metal to concentrate on - in order to show which parameters induce endotherm and which induce exotherm. Titanium has two high spin isomers: 47 and 49 and a number of odd physical properties that point to how one could engineer an experiment. Jones From: ChemE Stewart Thanks Jones, I have read so much stuff my head is spinning like a toroid. I remember Celani last year talking about temperature inversions during loading/heating phase of his wires for his demonstrations. Jed has documents on his site discussing this from older studies, not sure about recent. http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/CelaniFtheeffecto.pdf I have liken it to a thunderstorm. When a low pressure system rolls through it can pull a vacuum/create low pressure in the surrounding gaseous atmosphere and cool things off overall but if you happen to be close to lightning discharge within the area you might get very hot, very fast... That lightning may be originating from a NAE since they have detected positron emissions, neutrons, etc.. during storms Stewart Actually there are four reports of LENR endothermic reactions, including Arata and Ahern http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2012/2012EPRI-1025575-Ahern.pdf Probably more examples were seen and written off as calibration error, since endotherm is so unexpected. Unless part of the "reaction" is endothermic and cools its surroundings... I do not think anyone has ever detected an endothermic cold fusion reaction. You could detect that with a calorimeter as easily as you can detect an exothermic reaction of the same magnitude. <>
Re: [Vo]:If I want to see it for myself...
Thanks Jones, I have read so much stuff my head is spinning like a toroid. I remember Celani last year talking about temperature inversions during loading/heating phase of his wires for his demonstrations. Jed has documents on his site discussing this from older studies, not sure about recent. http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/CelaniFtheeffecto.pdf I have liken it to a thunderstorm. When a low pressure system rolls through it can pull a vacuum/create low pressure in the surrounding gaseous atmosphere and cool things off overall but if you happen to be close to lightning discharge within the area you might get very hot, very fast... That lightning may be originating from a NAE since they have detected positron emissions, neutrons, etc.. during storms Stewart On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 11:23 AM, Jones Beene wrote: > Actually there are four reports of LENR endothermic reactions, including > Arata and Ahern > > ** ** > > http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2012/2012EPRI-1025575-Ahern.pdf > > > > Probably more examples were seen and written off as calibration error, > since endotherm is so unexpected. > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > *From:* Jed Rothwell > > ** ** > > ChemE Stewart wrote: > > ** ** > > Unless part of the "reaction" is endothermic and cools its > surroundings... > > ** ** > > I do not think anyone has ever detected an endothermic cold fusion > reaction. You could detect that with a calorimeter as easily as you can > detect an exothermic reaction of the same magnitude. > > ** ** > > - Jed > > ** ** >
RE: [Vo]:If I want to see it for myself...
Actually there are four reports of LENR endothermic reactions, including Arata and Ahern http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2012/2012EPRI-1025575-Ahern.pdf Probably more examples were seen and written off as calibration error, since endotherm is so unexpected. From: Jed Rothwell ChemE Stewart wrote: Unless part of the "reaction" is endothermic and cools its surroundings... I do not think anyone has ever detected an endothermic cold fusion reaction. You could detect that with a calorimeter as easily as you can detect an exothermic reaction of the same magnitude. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:If I want to see it for myself...
ChemE Stewart wrote: Ahern has seen temperature inversions at times and so has Celani. That is > what I am referring to. Interesting. That's the first I have heard of it. Did they publish these results? There are short periods of endothermic chemical reactions during loading of Pd. These can be measured with many calorimeters. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:If I want to see it for myself...
Ahern has seen temperature inversions at times and so has Celani. That is what I am referring to. On Wednesday, May 15, 2013, Jed Rothwell wrote: > ChemE Stewart 'cheme...@gmail.com');>> wrote: > > Unless part of the "reaction" is endothermic and cools its surroundings... >> > > I do not think anyone has ever detected an endothermic cold fusion > reaction. You could detect that with a calorimeter as easily as you can > detect an exothermic reaction of the same magnitude. > > - Jed > >
Re: [Vo]:If I want to see it for myself...
ChemE Stewart wrote: Unless part of the "reaction" is endothermic and cools its surroundings... > I do not think anyone has ever detected an endothermic cold fusion reaction. You could detect that with a calorimeter as easily as you can detect an exothermic reaction of the same magnitude. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:If I want to see it for myself...
Unless part of the "reaction" is endothermic and cools its surroundings... On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 9:53 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Eric Walker wrote: > > >> Some people try to go with calorimetry. From what I've seen with the >> Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project, that looks like a steep learning >> curve, unless for some reason you were to luck out and get a reaction going >> whose energy balance can be measured with a mercury thermometer. Other >> claims that can be replicated apart from excess heat are low levels of >> substrate transmutations, tritium, neutrons, x-rays and (purportedly low >> levels of) energetic particles. >> > > I wish people would start with excess heat, and not go looking for these > other things until they confirm it. As Martin Fleischmann said, heat is the > principal signature of the reaction. When you have no heat, you probably > have no reaction. > > - Jed > >
Re: [Vo]:If I want to see it for myself...
Eric Walker wrote: > Some people try to go with calorimetry. From what I've seen with the > Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project, that looks like a steep learning > curve, unless for some reason you were to luck out and get a reaction going > whose energy balance can be measured with a mercury thermometer. Other > claims that can be replicated apart from excess heat are low levels of > substrate transmutations, tritium, neutrons, x-rays and (purportedly low > levels of) energetic particles. > I wish people would start with excess heat, and not go looking for these other things until they confirm it. As Martin Fleischmann said, heat is the principal signature of the reaction. When you have no heat, you probably have no reaction. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:If I want to see it for myself...
In ruling out d+d fusion due to a lack of neutrons, our expert has placed theory above evidence. ***That's what many experts do, and it is what they did. On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 9:31 PM, Eric Walker wrote: > On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 9:23 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote: > >> While the type of nuclear reactions resulting in the observed tritium is >> as yet unknown, cold fusion of deuterium atoms in the Pd lattice has to be >> ruled out due to the observation of a very small neutron signal.12 >> >> Basically, experts are pretty lazy, they'll read the intro and conclusion >> and if it sounds good, they'll read the rest. A sentence like that stops >> them dead in their tracks. >> > That would be a silly thing to do. The expert is no doubt thinking that > any d+d fusion, if present, would entail 50 percent d+d→3He+n reactions, > producing a large and dangerous neutron flux. In this instance the expert > has failed to think laterally and is not aware of this possibility, to give > one example: > > d+d+Pd → 4He+Pd > > In ruling out d+d fusion due to a lack of neutrons, our expert has placed > theory above evidence. What he or she should do before ruling d+d fusion > out is look closely at the levels of helium over time. > > Eric > >
Re: [Vo]:If I want to see it for myself...
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 9:23 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote: > While the type of nuclear reactions resulting in the observed tritium is > as yet unknown, cold fusion of deuterium atoms in the Pd lattice has to be > ruled out due to the observation of a very small neutron signal.12 > > Basically, experts are pretty lazy, they'll read the intro and conclusion > and if it sounds good, they'll read the rest. A sentence like that stops > them dead in their tracks. > That would be a silly thing to do. The expert is no doubt thinking that any d+d fusion, if present, would entail 50 percent d+d→3He+n reactions, producing a large and dangerous neutron flux. In this instance the expert has failed to think laterally and is not aware of this possibility, to give one example: d+d+Pd → 4He+Pd In ruling out d+d fusion due to a lack of neutrons, our expert has placed theory above evidence. What he or she should do before ruling d+d fusion out is look closely at the levels of helium over time. Eric
Re: [Vo]:If I want to see it for myself...
Interesting paper. Here's why 'experts' reject cold fusion after reading the paper: the last sentence. While the type of nuclear reactions resulting in the observed tritium is as yet unknown, cold fusion of deuterium atoms in the Pd lattice has to be ruled out due to the observation of a very small neutron signal.12 Basically, experts are pretty lazy, they'll read the intro and conclusion and if it sounds good, they'll read the rest. A sentence like that stops them dead in their tracks. On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 1:46 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Alain Sepeda wrote: > > Beyond that evident fact, that clearly established existence of one event >> is enough to prove it is possible, and that replication is only a >> human-factor redundence (against errors, frauds, incompetence, artifacts), >> there is a huge question ? >> >> how supposed serious scientist can use that stupid arguments ? >> > > That is not a stupid argument. In industrial chemistry, they seldom demand > a replication before they believe something because the results are usually > clear-cut and the method well documented. It is engineering, not science. > > To take an extreme example of clear test, when the first atomic bomb was > tested, everyone knew it was real. There was no need to explode another > one. However, in the years after 1945 the U.S. exploded hundreds of bombs. > The purpose was to improve the technology, not to prove that nuclear bombs > are possible. We need many tests of cold fusion devices for the same > reason: to improve reproducibility, to develop a theory, and to work toward > commercialization. > > To put it another way, anyone who is not already convinced by the work of > Fritz Will or Storms will not be convinced by a thousand other labs > replicating ten-thousand times each. There is no point to piling up more > and more replications of the same thing. > > The powered flights by the Wright brothers was another example of > something that only had to be done once to prove they really had mastered > controlled, powered flight. The only reason doubts lingered from 1903 to > 1908 was because people did not believe the written accounts, photos and > affidavits from witnesses. They thought the Wrights were lying. When > experts in France saw a flight, they were convinced within seconds. One > flight was enough. If there had been a panel of aviation experts at Kitty > Hawk on Dec. 17, 1903, every single expert in the world would have been > convinced that afternoon. If we could get a panel of experts into SRI to > observe a test they would all be convinced. I have never heard of an > educated expert who visited SRI and was not convinced. (Garwin is kidding > -- he was actually convinced.) > > For that matter, most genuine experts are convinced just by reading papers > at LENR-CANR.org. People who are not convinced are fruitcakes. It is a good > litmus test. Here is a paper by Will: > > http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/WillFGtritiumgen.pdf > > The only expert I know who read this and was not convinced is Dieter > Britz, and even he has to admit this is pretty good evidence. He has to > dance around the issue and make up dozens of absurd excuses to avoid > admitting this is real. He does this because even though he is a good > electrochemist, he is also a flake. He is in denial. He cannot bring > himself to admit he has been wrong all these years. Everyone else who reads > Will and has doubts is either ignorant or a flake. > > You can substitute any paper by Storms, Miles or McKubre for this litmus > test. People who turn purple reveal their own nature, not anything about > the content or nature of the research. > > - Jed > >
Re: [Vo]:If I want to see it for myself...
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 8:06 AM, Joseph S. Barrera III < jbarr...@slac.stanford.edu> wrote: If I want to try to reproduce it for myself: > > 1. What are the costs to get & set up the equipment? > 2. Where do I find the best set of instructions? > The costs and equipment depend upon what you're looking for and your purpose. Are you looking for a rock-solid replication, or are you looking for something that will be easy to iterate with? Some people try to go with calorimetry. From what I've seen with the Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project, that looks like a steep learning curve, unless for some reason you were to luck out and get a reaction going whose energy balance can be measured with a mercury thermometer. Other claims that can be replicated apart from excess heat are low levels of substrate transmutations, tritium, neutrons, x-rays and (purportedly low levels of) energetic particles. There are different ways of measuring these things -- GM counters, CR-39 chips, neutron counters, EDX, TOF-SIMS, etc. It is clear that EDX and neutron counters are perilous and will not produce anything convincing in the hands of an amateur. As for materials, there are many combinations that people have tried. Some people go for palladium and deuterium, since that's where most of the experience has been. These materials will obviously be expensive. Other materials are nickel and light hydrogen. As for the systems, some of the main ones are electrolysis, gas loading and glow discharge. Electrolysis sounds like a bear and takes you down the path of calorimetry. There are unseen hazards in all of these approaches; in gas loading, for example, there seems to be an initial hydrogen reaction that causes a steep heat transient that people occasionally seem to lump in with a positive LENR result. All of this is to say that you probably want to do some reading and/or asking around before settling on anything. Since you're close to Michael McKubre, he might be a good person to start with. Eric
Re: [Vo]:If I want to see it for myself...
Jed said: Some results are easy to interpret and some are hard. I do not have the slightest idea what to make of the Higgs boson, or what significance it might have. Axil responds: If a new experimental result might be applicable to LENR, it is essential that a LENR experimenter research this curious and clearly applicable result no matter where the result comes from. And too hard is not an acceptable excuse. I have found a result that shows 10s of terawatts of power concentration in the small volume between nano-particles. If a researcher had any get up and go or even if he suffered from the slightest case of mild curiosity, the LENR researcher should make it his business to look into the reasons for such high power concentrations. Or the overly satisfied researcher could just relax and rest well satisfied on the laurels of his current theory. Such a moribund attitude does not serve the goals of LENR well. On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 6:50 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Axil Axil wrote: > > >> The same is true when an experiment shows that gold nanoparticles can >> reduce the half-life of U232 alpha emissions from 69 years to 6 >> microseconds. >> > > Absolutely! It is easy to understand the gist of the claim, and the > importance if it is true. However, there might be a mistake in the > technique, and that might be hard to judge. There were claims years ago of > neutralizing radioactivity with something similar to ancient alchemy. > Experts evaluating that determined that they were only spewing trace > amounts of radioactive material into the air. Both experimentalists died of > cancer so I suppose that was the case. > > There are some doubts about Reifenschweiller, as well. > > > >> The result in both cases is not hard to interpret. If you have been >> making your living through the practice of science for decades, such >> results are not hard to interpret. >> > > Some results are easy to interpret and some are hard. I do not have the > slightest idea what to make of the Higgs boson, or what significance it > might have. > > Apart from the claim, some experimental techniques are easy and some are > hard. It is very difficult to send a robot explorer to Mars, but once you > get one there, many of the experimental results it sends back are easy to > understand. > > >> If such a negative opinion can be conjured, I would be interested in >> hearing the opinion as proof of chronic mind lock. >> > I have no opinions about these particular claims. That is not the same as > a negative opinion. > > The best reaction for the cynic is to let the subject drop in silence and >> hope that the experimenter just gets so frustrated at blatant stonewalling >> that he eventually gives up in the face of hopelessness. >> > It is not cynical to ignore something you have no interest in. There are > far too many claims for any one person to evaluate. > > Silence does not kill a result. People who are not interested, do not kill > a result. There are always enough people interested in a valuable result to > carry the research forward. Anyone can see that the results you describe > would be valuable. > > The only thing that stops good research is irrational opposition, which I > believe is mainly caused by fear of the unknown. That is, by people who > hate and fear novelty, and people who think they know everything. The > "skeptics" opposed to cold fusion are to blame for stopping the research. > Mainly the powerful skeptics such as Robert Park, and the mischievous > nitwits at Wikipedia and the Scientific American, who have published lies > about it, poisoning public opinion. People who have no interested in it, > and who have expressed no opinion, have caused no harm. > > - Jed > >
Re: [Vo]:If I want to see it for myself...
Whew! If I was J. Barrera^3, I'd be totally confused now.
Re: [Vo]:If I want to see it for myself...
Axil Axil wrote: > The same is true when an experiment shows that gold nanoparticles can > reduce the half-life of U232 alpha emissions from 69 years to 6 > microseconds. > Absolutely! It is easy to understand the gist of the claim, and the importance if it is true. However, there might be a mistake in the technique, and that might be hard to judge. There were claims years ago of neutralizing radioactivity with something similar to ancient alchemy. Experts evaluating that determined that they were only spewing trace amounts of radioactive material into the air. Both experimentalists died of cancer so I suppose that was the case. There are some doubts about Reifenschweiller, as well. > The result in both cases is not hard to interpret. If you have been making > your living through the practice of science for decades, such results are > not hard to interpret. > Some results are easy to interpret and some are hard. I do not have the slightest idea what to make of the Higgs boson, or what significance it might have. Apart from the claim, some experimental techniques are easy and some are hard. It is very difficult to send a robot explorer to Mars, but once you get one there, many of the experimental results it sends back are easy to understand. > If such a negative opinion can be conjured, I would be interested in > hearing the opinion as proof of chronic mind lock. > I have no opinions about these particular claims. That is not the same as a negative opinion. The best reaction for the cynic is to let the subject drop in silence and > hope that the experimenter just gets so frustrated at blatant stonewalling > that he eventually gives up in the face of hopelessness. > It is not cynical to ignore something you have no interest in. There are far too many claims for any one person to evaluate. Silence does not kill a result. People who are not interested, do not kill a result. There are always enough people interested in a valuable result to carry the research forward. Anyone can see that the results you describe would be valuable. The only thing that stops good research is irrational opposition, which I believe is mainly caused by fear of the unknown. That is, by people who hate and fear novelty, and people who think they know everything. The "skeptics" opposed to cold fusion are to blame for stopping the research. Mainly the powerful skeptics such as Robert Park, and the mischievous nitwits at Wikipedia and the Scientific American, who have published lies about it, poisoning public opinion. People who have no interested in it, and who have expressed no opinion, have caused no harm. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:If I want to see it for myself...
Jed Rothwell stated: Some things are much harder to judge than others. Aside from a handful of flakes, most scientists would agree that 50 MJ of energy coming from a gram of Pd is proof that a nuclear reaction has occurred. Axil replies: The same is true when an experiment shows that gold nanoparticles can reduce the half-life of U232 alpha emissions from 69 years to 6 microseconds. The result in both cases is not hard to interpret. If you have been making your living through the practice of science for decades, such results are not hard to interpret. If such a negative opinion can be conjured, I would be interested in hearing the opinion as proof of chronic mind lock. Jed states: In other cases, the experiment is outside the scope of a professional scientist. A wise scientist will refrain from judging it. It is always okay to withhold judgment. Axil replies: The best reaction for the cynic is to let the subject drop in silence and hope that the experimenter just gets so frustrated at blatant stonewalling that he eventually gives up in the face of hopelessness. On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 5:24 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Axil Axil wrote: > > I have produced papers describing experiments showing that gold >> nanoparticles can reduce the half-life of U232 alpha emissions from 69 >> years to 6 microseconds to not effect here art vortex. >> >> The experimenter must be a kook say you all. >> > > We never say that here. What we say is, "I am not convinced because I have > not had time to examine this data" or because "I do not have the expertise > to judge this." Or, "I am not interested enough to make the effort to read > and understand this." That's different from saying the experimenter a kook. > > When I talk about people being convinced by Fritz Will, I mean people who > know a lot about tritium. Not random people who happen to be part of a > discussion group. > > > >> I have referenced experiments that show fission of thorium is produced by >> gold nanoparticles to no effect. >> > > Again, that claim is somewhat complicated. Some people do not want to make > the effort to evaluate it. Plus it has to be independently replicated > several times before we can be sure. This is not industrial chemistry, I > assume. > > > >> If the experiment does not fit into the narrow belief system of the >> reader, then the experiment does not change anything in that persons mind. >> Sad but so true >> > > That does happen. > > In other cases, the experiment is outside the scope of a professional > scientist. A wise scientist will refrain from judging it. It is always okay > to withhold judgement. > > Some things are much harder to judge than others. Aside from a handful of > flakes, most scientists would agree that 50 MJ of energy coming from a gram > of Pd is proof that a nuclear reaction has occurred. That concept is easy > to grasp. However, to evaluate that claim, you have to understand > calorimetry, and you have to read several papers. It is not easy. Most > scientists are not willing to make the effort. That's okay! As long as they > refrain from expressing an opinion about whether cold fusion exists or not, > that's fine with me. > > - Jed > >
Re: [Vo]:If I want to see it for myself...
Axil Axil wrote: I have produced papers describing experiments showing that gold > nanoparticles can reduce the half-life of U232 alpha emissions from 69 > years to 6 microseconds to not effect here art vortex. > > The experimenter must be a kook say you all. > We never say that here. What we say is, "I am not convinced because I have not had time to examine this data" or because "I do not have the expertise to judge this." Or, "I am not interested enough to make the effort to read and understand this." That's different from saying the experimenter a kook. When I talk about people being convinced by Fritz Will, I mean people who know a lot about tritium. Not random people who happen to be part of a discussion group. > I have referenced experiments that show fission of thorium is produced by > gold nanoparticles to no effect. > Again, that claim is somewhat complicated. Some people do not want to make the effort to evaluate it. Plus it has to be independently replicated several times before we can be sure. This is not industrial chemistry, I assume. > If the experiment does not fit into the narrow belief system of the > reader, then the experiment does not change anything in that persons mind. > Sad but so true > That does happen. In other cases, the experiment is outside the scope of a professional scientist. A wise scientist will refrain from judging it. It is always okay to withhold judgement. Some things are much harder to judge than others. Aside from a handful of flakes, most scientists would agree that 50 MJ of energy coming from a gram of Pd is proof that a nuclear reaction has occurred. That concept is easy to grasp. However, to evaluate that claim, you have to understand calorimetry, and you have to read several papers. It is not easy. Most scientists are not willing to make the effort. That's okay! As long as they refrain from expressing an opinion about whether cold fusion exists or not, that's fine with me. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:If I want to see it for myself...
I have produced papers describing experiments showing that gold nanoparticles can reduce the half-life of U232 alpha emissions from 69 years to 6 microseconds to not effect here art vortex. The experimenter must be a kook say you all. I have referenced experiments that show fission of thorium is produced by gold nanoparticles to no effect. If the experiment does not fit into the narrow belief system of the reader, then the experiment does not change anything in that persons mind. Sad but so true. On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 4:46 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Alain Sepeda wrote: > > Beyond that evident fact, that clearly established existence of one event >> is enough to prove it is possible, and that replication is only a >> human-factor redundence (against errors, frauds, incompetence, artifacts), >> there is a huge question ? >> >> how supposed serious scientist can use that stupid arguments ? >> > > That is not a stupid argument. In industrial chemistry, they seldom demand > a replication before they believe something because the results are usually > clear-cut and the method well documented. It is engineering, not science. > > To take an extreme example of clear test, when the first atomic bomb was > tested, everyone knew it was real. There was no need to explode another > one. However, in the years after 1945 the U.S. exploded hundreds of bombs. > The purpose was to improve the technology, not to prove that nuclear bombs > are possible. We need many tests of cold fusion devices for the same > reason: to improve reproducibility, to develop a theory, and to work toward > commercialization. > > To put it another way, anyone who is not already convinced by the work of > Fritz Will or Storms will not be convinced by a thousand other labs > replicating ten-thousand times each. There is no point to piling up more > and more replications of the same thing. > > The powered flights by the Wright brothers was another example of > something that only had to be done once to prove they really had mastered > controlled, powered flight. The only reason doubts lingered from 1903 to > 1908 was because people did not believe the written accounts, photos and > affidavits from witnesses. They thought the Wrights were lying. When > experts in France saw a flight, they were convinced within seconds. One > flight was enough. If there had been a panel of aviation experts at Kitty > Hawk on Dec. 17, 1903, every single expert in the world would have been > convinced that afternoon. If we could get a panel of experts into SRI to > observe a test they would all be convinced. I have never heard of an > educated expert who visited SRI and was not convinced. (Garwin is kidding > -- he was actually convinced.) > > For that matter, most genuine experts are convinced just by reading papers > at LENR-CANR.org. People who are not convinced are fruitcakes. It is a good > litmus test. Here is a paper by Will: > > http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/WillFGtritiumgen.pdf > > The only expert I know who read this and was not convinced is Dieter > Britz, and even he has to admit this is pretty good evidence. He has to > dance around the issue and make up dozens of absurd excuses to avoid > admitting this is real. He does this because even though he is a good > electrochemist, he is also a flake. He is in denial. He cannot bring > himself to admit he has been wrong all these years. Everyone else who reads > Will and has doubts is either ignorant or a flake. > > You can substitute any paper by Storms, Miles or McKubre for this litmus > test. People who turn purple reveal their own nature, not anything about > the content or nature of the research. > > - Jed > >
Re: [Vo]:If I want to see it for myself...
Alain Sepeda wrote: Beyond that evident fact, that clearly established existence of one event > is enough to prove it is possible, and that replication is only a > human-factor redundence (against errors, frauds, incompetence, artifacts), > there is a huge question ? > > how supposed serious scientist can use that stupid arguments ? > That is not a stupid argument. In industrial chemistry, they seldom demand a replication before they believe something because the results are usually clear-cut and the method well documented. It is engineering, not science. To take an extreme example of clear test, when the first atomic bomb was tested, everyone knew it was real. There was no need to explode another one. However, in the years after 1945 the U.S. exploded hundreds of bombs. The purpose was to improve the technology, not to prove that nuclear bombs are possible. We need many tests of cold fusion devices for the same reason: to improve reproducibility, to develop a theory, and to work toward commercialization. To put it another way, anyone who is not already convinced by the work of Fritz Will or Storms will not be convinced by a thousand other labs replicating ten-thousand times each. There is no point to piling up more and more replications of the same thing. The powered flights by the Wright brothers was another example of something that only had to be done once to prove they really had mastered controlled, powered flight. The only reason doubts lingered from 1903 to 1908 was because people did not believe the written accounts, photos and affidavits from witnesses. They thought the Wrights were lying. When experts in France saw a flight, they were convinced within seconds. One flight was enough. If there had been a panel of aviation experts at Kitty Hawk on Dec. 17, 1903, every single expert in the world would have been convinced that afternoon. If we could get a panel of experts into SRI to observe a test they would all be convinced. I have never heard of an educated expert who visited SRI and was not convinced. (Garwin is kidding -- he was actually convinced.) For that matter, most genuine experts are convinced just by reading papers at LENR-CANR.org. People who are not convinced are fruitcakes. It is a good litmus test. Here is a paper by Will: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/WillFGtritiumgen.pdf The only expert I know who read this and was not convinced is Dieter Britz, and even he has to admit this is pretty good evidence. He has to dance around the issue and make up dozens of absurd excuses to avoid admitting this is real. He does this because even though he is a good electrochemist, he is also a flake. He is in denial. He cannot bring himself to admit he has been wrong all these years. Everyone else who reads Will and has doubts is either ignorant or a flake. You can substitute any paper by Storms, Miles or McKubre for this litmus test. People who turn purple reveal their own nature, not anything about the content or nature of the research. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:If I want to see it for myself...
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 4:08 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Axil Axil wrote: > >> The presence of heat in an experiment does not tell the experimenter what >> LENR really is or what its fundamental causation is. >> > Statistics will not tell you that either. The only way to learn that is > with material science. You have to look at the cathode before and after the > test with microscopes and mass spectroscopy. You have to characterize the > material the way the ENEA does. That's not statistical research. Not in the > same sense the "proof" of the Higgs boson was. > > You do not prove anything about cold fusion by performing the same test > over and over. The only reason people have to do many tests is because many > cathodes fail to work. That is like having to clone many cells before you > get one to grow into a sheep. One sheep is all you need to prove that you > have succeeded. The number of failed attempts has no statistical > significance and does nothing to establish the validity of your claim. In > contrast, the number of failed collisions in a test to find the Higgs boson > *is* significant. I believe the theory predicts the number of collisions > needed, and how many will fail. > > - Jed > >
Re: [Vo]:If I want to see it for myself...
Jed Rothwell stated: You have to look at the cathode before and after the test with microscopes and mass spectroscopy. Axil replies: This examination of the results of LENR tells the experimenter little about the exact causation of LENR. The experiment must observe the LENR process as it is occurring. The experimenter should be able to adjust important LENR causation parameters to see how these parameters effect the LENR reaction. For example, how wide should the optimum crack be? How does crack with affect the power of the LENR reaction? How far away does the transmutation effect occur? When is radiation produced? What effect does increasing heat have on the LENR reaction? What temperature range is required to get LENR going? What are the transmutation products in real time? How does hydrogen pressure effect the LENR reaction? …and so on… The test for the Higgs field is currently limited to the six 9s existence test which is statistical in nature. What the details of the Higgs field are about is yet to be carried out. On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 4:13 PM, Alain Sepeda wrote: > > 2013/5/14 Jed Rothwell > >> > thanks for the clear explanation. > > Beyond that evident fact, that clearly established existence of one event > is enough to prove it is possible, and that replication is only a > human-factor redundence (against errors, frauds, incompetence, artifacts), > there is a huge question ? > > how supposed serious scientist can use that stupid arguments ? > > they are not stupid enough, not incompetent enough, not to know that... > they don't even have to understand it now, because they have been trained > to that in logic courses, in lab courses, in physics courses, in > epistemology courses, when younger... > they see it working everyday in their job... > > Even engineers know that, and experience that in life.No need of a PhD. a > MSc is enough. > > there is no possibility they can have sincerely such a reasoning. > > so what happened... > It is clear that I answered the question . > > this is why whatever is said by such mainstream speaker have to be > checked, like what say a politician, an attorney or a criminal suspect. >
Re: [Vo]:If I want to see it for myself...
2013/5/14 Jed Rothwell > thanks for the clear explanation. Beyond that evident fact, that clearly established existence of one event is enough to prove it is possible, and that replication is only a human-factor redundence (against errors, frauds, incompetence, artifacts), there is a huge question ? how supposed serious scientist can use that stupid arguments ? they are not stupid enough, not incompetent enough, not to know that... they don't even have to understand it now, because they have been trained to that in logic courses, in lab courses, in physics courses, in epistemology courses, when younger... they see it working everyday in their job... Even engineers know that, and experience that in life.No need of a PhD. a MSc is enough. there is no possibility they can have sincerely such a reasoning. so what happened... It is clear that I answered the question . this is why whatever is said by such mainstream speaker have to be checked, like what say a politician, an attorney or a criminal suspect.
Re: [Vo]:If I want to see it for myself...
Alain Sepeda wrote: Ask ENEA they claiml to have found the key cristallographic parameter the > decide if an electrod is nearly always working, just often, or quite never : > *http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ViolanteVevolutiona.pdf* > Yes. This is important. And it is not statistical in nature. Each individual success stands on its own merit without having to be compared to a database of other successes and failures. The ENEA is building a database which is central to this project. The database is needed to learn the material characteristics that make cold fusion work. Not for statistical proof that it works. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:If I want to see it for myself...
-Original Message- From: Edmund Storms > The glow discharge used by Mizuno and others is actually a plasma discharge in an electrolytic cell... but requires complex analysis of the input power. To clarify a major point, Ed is correct about the older versions of CFR, and I wouldn't want to recommend any experiment nowadays which has input power which cannot be measured at the wall socket, with a kill-a-watt meter... or else from a large battery with a DC meter. This kind of Mizuno plasma requires high frequency at fairly high power - and that makes the input power difficult to measure UNLESS you have a dedicated power analyzer, like the Clark Hess, or else you measure it at the wall and include all the losses to get the HF power to the cell. From 700 watts to about one kW is ideal for this kind of plasma. When you can measure at the wall - and thus include power-supply losses into your calculations for gain, then things start to look very clean and far more convincing. This is highly recommended, but so far few experimenters do this, since HF power supplies can be lossy, and obviously - they do not want the experiment to carry those losses. There is a good argument that the experiment should carry that kind of loss, however. At any rate, several months ago Naudin developed a high efficiency, extremely low cost, power supply for this type of experiment - and the frequency can be in the range of 20 kHz to 60 kHz depending on the make of the induction hob. Thus, this kind of power supply can be measured at the wall, and did I mention it is unbelievably cheap - for anyone who can wind a Tesla pancake coil, which is essentially everyone above second grade elementary school. The induction cooker cost less than $100. Enjoy: http://jnaudin.free.fr/gegene/gegene14en.htm
Re: [Vo]:If I want to see it for myself...
Axil Axil wrote: > The presence of heat in an experiment does not tell the experimenter what > LENR really is or what its fundamental causation is. > Statistics will not tell you that either. The only way to learn that is with material science. You have to look at the cathode before and after the test with microscopes and mass spectroscopy. You have to characterize the material the way the ENEA does. That's not statistical research. Not in the same sense the "proof" of the Higgs boson was. You do not prove anything about cold fusion by performing the same test over and over. The only reason people have to do many tests is because many cathodes fail to work. That is like having to clone many cells before you get one to grow into a sheep. One sheep is all you need to prove that you have succeeded. The number of failed attempts has no statistical significance and does nothing to establish the validity of your claim. In contrast, the number of failed collisions in a test to find the Higgs boson *is* significant. I believe the theory predicts the number of collisions needed, and how many will fail. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:If I want to see it for myself...
Ask ENEA they claiml to have found the key cristallographic parameter the decide if an electrod is nearly always working, just often, or quite never : *http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ViolanteVevolutiona.pdf* * * * * 2013/5/14 DJ Cravens > yes the silver alloy (anywhere from 20 to 25 % seems OK with 23% perhaps > better). It doesn't seem to load as high but it doesn't "crack" near as > much. Regular Pd will often crack as it gets very hard on loading. My > personal preference is 5% Rh but the cost is prohibitive. The 10% Y is > also good. The pure Pd (better than 4 nines) is very very temperamental. > > ... >
Re: [Vo]:If I want to see it for myself...
Jed Rothwell stated: Success is somewhat hit or miss but this is not a statistical based experimental study Axil replies: If an experimenter is lucky enough to produce some heat, this heat just gives him a warm feeling about LENR as a possibility. Heat is a statistical based proxy which indicates that LENR may be happening. The more heat that is produced, the higher that this probability that LENR is occurring. The presence of heat in an experiment does not tell the experimenter what LENR really is or what its fundamental causation is. On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 3:16 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > DJ Cravens wrote: > > just because Statistics can and is used, does not mean it is required. >> > > My point exactly. > > > >> Perhaps the thing that I return to is having a cell in my hand and >> triggering it with a B field or laser and then feel it get warm in my hand. >> >> OK, so it is not "good science" . . . >> > > Yeah, I think a tad more rigor is called for. A calibration would be nice! > A calibration is not to be confused with a statistical analysis, although > there are some similarities. > > - Jed > >
Re: [Vo]:If I want to see it for myself...
DJ Cravens wrote: just because Statistics can and is used, does not mean it is required. > My point exactly. > Perhaps the thing that I return to is having a cell in my hand and > triggering it with a B field or laser and then feel it get warm in my hand. > > OK, so it is not "good science" . . . > Yeah, I think a tad more rigor is called for. A calibration would be nice! A calibration is not to be confused with a statistical analysis, although there are some similarities. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:If I want to see it for myself...
OOps, that is sulfamic acid not sulfonic. My word processor changed it while I was sending. H3NSO3You can re-crystalize (in heavy water) it and keep it clean. It is used to clean distillation systems.
RE: [Vo]:If I want to see it for myself...
But Ed + wants + the cracking, as long as it is the right geometry. Here is another good reason that palladium may not be worth the exorbitant cost, aside from the issue of whether cracking is the key, or not. The CFR was run with palladium . and it did not perform nearly as well as tungsten. http://jlnlabs.online.fr/cfr/html/cfrpd.htm Still excess energy was seen - about 35 kJ but the COP is half of what it is with W. As you can see - radiation was tested and datalogged and no significant radiation was seen. From: Jed Rothwell DJ Cravens wrote: but if it is replication (at lower densities) you seek- try the Pd 23% Ag material used in diffusion systems. "Diffusion systems" is what I have referred to as "hydrogen filters." As noted hydrogen with silver. This is what JM recommended to Martin. It loads well without cracking. So they said and he confirmed. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:If I want to see it for myself...
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 1:59 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > ... You can be sure the effect is real after one solid, high temperature, > long-duration test. > > Jed, didn't you hear? That perfidious WOO kook, Norman F. Ramsey is dead. How can you continue to set forth this virulent canard?
RE: [Vo]:If I want to see it for myself...
just because Statistics can and is used, does not mean it is required. Perhaps the thing that I return to is having a cell in my hand and triggering it with a B field or laser and then feel it get warm in my hand. OK, so it is not "good science" but it sure is reassuring when it happens. Dennis Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 14:59:49 -0400 Subject: Re: [Vo]:If I want to see it for myself... From: jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Axil Axil wrote: Until LENR experimentation reaches this level of experimental setup precision, LENR will remain a statistical based experimental study, where success is a hit or miss proposition.Success is somewhat hit or miss but this is not a statistical based experimental study. The search for the Higgs boson was statistically based. No cold fusion experiment is. No author has ever presented statistical proof in an experiment report, as far as I know. They list the number of successes and failures, but that is not an attempt to prove it works. When an individual cell produces heat or tritium at a high enough, you can be sure of that in isolation, without comparing it to other cells, or to a baseline, and without resorting to statistics. It is a stand alone event that is positive or negative. Any medical study of the efficacy of a drug is statistically based. Just having one patient get better does not prove the drug works; you have to have a preponderance. But when you have a single cold fusion cell that produces, say, 20 W of heat, or tritium at 50 times background, that proves it is real. You do not need many other cells -- or any others, really. We need several labs to replicate to eliminate the possibility that it was a mistake or incompetence. Having multiple labs is not statistical proof that cold fusion is real. It is statistical proof that the researchers are competent. Some skeptics have claimed the results are statistical in nature. Cude said, "It is the need for these sorts of arguments and Bayesian analysis . . ." Cude is wrong. There is no need for these these sorts of arguments. You can be sure the effect is real after one solid, high temperature, long-duration test. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:If I want to see it for myself...
I normally use Li OD or Sulfate. Sometimes I add Rb salts. (I make the OD's from the metal into the heavy water since buying LiOD is getting costly). (for the underwater "plasma" systems I often us sulfonic acid (not sulfonic not sulfuric). DennisDate: Tue, 14 May 2013 14:57:02 -0400 Subject: Re: [Vo]:If I want to see it for myself... From: janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Do you usually use a potassium salt? On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 2:50 PM, DJ Cravens wrote: yes the silver alloy (anywhere from 20 to 25 % seems OK with 23% perhaps better). It doesn't seem to load as high but it doesn't "crack" near as much. Regular Pd will often crack as it gets very hard on loading. My personal preference is 5% Rh but the cost is prohibitive. The 10% Y is also good. The pure Pd (better than 4 nines) is very very temperamental. Another approach is to lightly coat your "rod" with Nafion to keep the surface impurities down during electrolysis which helps when your chemistry is a little sloppy (like mine often is). But you still need to not crack the Pd. Again load very slowly and preferably down around 10 C. I really hope you do start down the experimental path- we need more experimenters. If it is just going to be a few quick and dirty tries, you might want to look at co-deposit systems. Pd on Au on Cu is a reasonable place to start. (again, do your plating and loading cold before your do you runs). Some info is hard to find and is often over looked but the only real "secret" I know in this field is tenacity. Dennis Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 14:08:42 -0400 Subject: Re: [Vo]:If I want to see it for myself... From: jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com DJ Cravens wrote: but if it is replication (at lower densities) you seek- try the Pd 23% Ag material used in diffusion systems."Diffusion systems" is what I have referred to as "hydrogen filters." As noted hydrogen with silver. This is what JM recommended to Martin. It loads well without cracking. So they said and he confirmed. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:If I want to see it for myself...
Axil Axil wrote: > Until LENR experimentation reaches this level of experimental setup > precision, LENR will remain a statistical based experimental study, where > success is a hit or miss proposition. > Success is somewhat hit or miss but this is *not* a statistical based experimental study. The search for the Higgs boson was statistically based. No cold fusion experiment is. No author has ever presented statistical proof in an experiment report, as far as I know. They list the number of successes and failures, but that is not an attempt to prove it works. When an individual cell produces heat or tritium at a high enough, you can be sure of that in isolation, without comparing it to other cells, or to a baseline, and without resorting to statistics. It is a stand alone event that is positive or negative. Any medical study of the efficacy of a drug is statistically based. Just having one patient get better does not prove the drug works; you have to have a preponderance. But when you have a single cold fusion cell that produces, say, 20 W of heat, or tritium at 50 times background, that proves it is real. You do not need many other cells -- or any others, really. We need several labs to replicate to eliminate the possibility that it was a mistake or incompetence. Having multiple labs is not statistical proof that cold fusion is real. It is statistical proof that the researchers are competent. Some skeptics have claimed the results are statistical in nature. Cude said, "It is the need for these sorts of arguments and Bayesian analysis . . ." Cude is wrong. There is no need for these these sorts of arguments. You can be sure the effect is real after one solid, high temperature, long-duration test. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:If I want to see it for myself...
Do you usually use a potassium salt? On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 2:50 PM, DJ Cravens wrote: > yes the silver alloy (anywhere from 20 to 25 % seems OK with 23% perhaps > better). It doesn't seem to load as high but it doesn't "crack" near as > much. Regular Pd will often crack as it gets very hard on loading. My > personal preference is 5% Rh but the cost is prohibitive. The 10% Y is > also good. The pure Pd (better than 4 nines) is very very temperamental. > > Another approach is to lightly coat your "rod" with Nafion to keep the > surface impurities down during electrolysis which helps when your chemistry > is a little sloppy (like mine often is). But you still need to not crack > the Pd. Again load very slowly and preferably down around 10 C. > > I really hope you do start down the experimental path- we need more > experimenters. > > If it is just going to be a few quick and dirty tries, you might want to > look at co-deposit systems. Pd on Au on Cu is a reasonable place to > start. (again, do your plating and loading cold before your do you runs). > > Some info is hard to find and is often over looked but the only real > "secret" I know in this field is *tenacity.* > > Dennis > ---------- > Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 14:08:42 -0400 > > Subject: Re: [Vo]:If I want to see it for myself... > From: jedrothw...@gmail.com > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > > DJ Cravens wrote: > > > but if it is replication (at lower densities) you seek- try the Pd 23% Ag > material used in diffusion systems. > > "Diffusion systems" is what I have referred to as "hydrogen filters." As > noted hydrogen with silver. This is what JM recommended to Martin. It loads > well without cracking. So they said and he confirmed. > > - Jed > >
RE: [Vo]:If I want to see it for myself...
yes the silver alloy (anywhere from 20 to 25 % seems OK with 23% perhaps better). It doesn't seem to load as high but it doesn't "crack" near as much. Regular Pd will often crack as it gets very hard on loading. My personal preference is 5% Rh but the cost is prohibitive. The 10% Y is also good. The pure Pd (better than 4 nines) is very very temperamental. Another approach is to lightly coat your "rod" with Nafion to keep the surface impurities down during electrolysis which helps when your chemistry is a little sloppy (like mine often is). But you still need to not crack the Pd. Again load very slowly and preferably down around 10 C. I really hope you do start down the experimental path- we need more experimenters. If it is just going to be a few quick and dirty tries, you might want to look at co-deposit systems. Pd on Au on Cu is a reasonable place to start. (again, do your plating and loading cold before your do you runs). Some info is hard to find and is often over looked but the only real "secret" I know in this field is tenacity. DennisDate: Tue, 14 May 2013 14:08:42 -0400 Subject: Re: [Vo]:If I want to see it for myself... From: jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com DJ Cravens wrote: but if it is replication (at lower densities) you seek- try the Pd 23% Ag material used in diffusion systems."Diffusion systems" is what I have referred to as "hydrogen filters." As noted hydrogen with silver. This is what JM recommended to Martin. It loads well without cracking. So they said and he confirmed. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:If I want to see it for myself...
excuse robots were not yest overall On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 9:27 PM, Peter Gluck wrote: > this theorem was formulated when robots where > omni-present, actually it is about experimenters who > do NOT possess a *guiding Theory* > * > * > Peter > > > On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 8:13 PM, DJ Cravens wrote: > >> who you calling a monkey :)(smiling) >> >> Dennis >> >> >> ---------- >> Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 20:11:22 +0300 >> >> Subject: Re: [Vo]:If I want to see it for myself... >> From: peter.gl...@gmail.com >> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com >> >> >> I wonder if a specific variant of the >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem >> can be applied to these tests with an infinite number of experimenters >> trying an infinite number of cathodes etc ...will be able to find the >> best, always succesful experimental set. >> A bit more pragmatically, unlimited funding will surely result in >> reproducible >> powerful Pd/D systems? >> Peter >> >> >> On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 7:48 PM, DJ Cravens wrote: >> >> >> Materials- yes that is an important part of it all. >> >> I started with palladium fountain pen nibs (way back in 89) - Schaeffer >> “snorkel” – it is what I could get back then. >> >> You get higher power density with "3 or 4 nines " palladium (but the >> really pure stuff 5 nines doesn't work very well ??) but if it is >> replication (at lower densities) you seek- try the Pd 23% Ag material used >> in diffusion systems. If you have the ability to alloy your own, I >> would recommend Pd 10% Y or Pd 2% Ce to start with. The Y alloy has about 3 >> times the diffusion rate and is quicker to load. >> >> Be sure to load slow, cool and for a long time (see paper- DO NOT RUSH >> LOADING). There is some evidence that loading Pd at around 10C helps >> (it matches the vacancy sizes and the wavelength of the D) Then raise >> the current density and temp (best run over 65C). >> >> I wish you luck and patience. We need more serious experimenters. **** >> >> (if you use Pd sheet- look over the 17 step protocol Letts and I >> disclosed in 2003 at ICCF10- It is lengthy but it seems to give reasonable >> results) >> >> Best wishes, >> Dennis >> -- >> Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 12:28:25 -0400 >> Subject: Re: [Vo]:If I want to see it for myself... >> From: jedrothw...@gmail.com >> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com >> >> >> DJ Cravens wrote: >> >> I , of course have a bias, however I would say if you attempt reproducing >> the effect you may wish to look over Letts' and my paper: >> http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/CravensDtheenablin.pdf >> >> >> Excellent advice! >> >> Also: >> >> http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEhowtoprodu.pdf >> >> However, the key thing is to get good material, and that is not easy. The >> ENEA makes it, but they only share it with accredited university and >> national labs. >> >> I suppose you might try some Johnson Matthey hydrogen filter palladium. >> As I said, Martin recommended that. It was the old formula. Perhaps it had >> trace elements in it that enhanced the reaction. It had more impurities >> than the modern version. I do not know anyone who has tried the newer >> filter palladium. It might work just as well as the old stuff, or better. I >> would like to find out. >> >> Tanaka Precious Metals might be interested in a cooperative set of >> experiments. >> >> Bear in mind that the procedures described by Storms take considerable >> expertise, and a lot of time. About a year. He started with ~100 cathodes >> and winnowed out 4 that worked well. (I think it was 4 . . . I am not in my >> office so I cannot consult my notes.) These 4 worked consistently and >> repeatedly. I think it is fair to say as a result of these tests, >> reproducibility increases to 100%. You have to leave behind ~96% of the >> starting cathode material, but what you end up with always works. >> >> As you see in the paper, the winnowing process does not involve simple >> trial and error cold fusion electrochemistry. It is as if Storms runs 100 >> cells to find 4 that work. He does other diagnostic tests that tell him in >> advance whether cathode will or will not work. These tests are similar to >> the ones recommended by Cravens. >> >> - Jed >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Dr. Peter Gluck >> Cluj, Romania >> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com >> > > > > -- > Dr. Peter Gluck > Cluj, Romania > http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com > -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:If I want to see it for myself...
this theorem was formulated when robots where omni-present, actually it is about experimenters who do NOT possess a *guiding Theory* * * Peter On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 8:13 PM, DJ Cravens wrote: > who you calling a monkey :)(smiling) > > Dennis > > > -- > Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 20:11:22 +0300 > > Subject: Re: [Vo]:If I want to see it for myself... > From: peter.gl...@gmail.com > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > > > I wonder if a specific variant of the > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem > can be applied to these tests with an infinite number of experimenters > trying an infinite number of cathodes etc ...will be able to find the > best, always succesful experimental set. > A bit more pragmatically, unlimited funding will surely result in > reproducible > powerful Pd/D systems? > Peter > > > On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 7:48 PM, DJ Cravens wrote: > > > Materials- yes that is an important part of it all. > > I started with palladium fountain pen nibs (way back in 89) - Schaeffer > “snorkel” – it is what I could get back then. > > You get higher power density with "3 or 4 nines " palladium (but the > really pure stuff 5 nines doesn't work very well ??) but if it is > replication (at lower densities) you seek- try the Pd 23% Ag material used > in diffusion systems. If you have the ability to alloy your own, I would > recommend Pd 10% Y or Pd 2% Ce to start with. The Y alloy has about 3 times > the diffusion rate and is quicker to load. > > Be sure to load slow, cool and for a long time (see paper- DO NOT RUSH > LOADING). There is some evidence that loading Pd at around 10C helps (it > matches the vacancy sizes and the wavelength of the D) Then raise the > current density and temp (best run over 65C). > > I wish you luck and patience. We need more serious experimenters. > > (if you use Pd sheet- look over the 17 step protocol Letts and I > disclosed in 2003 at ICCF10- It is lengthy but it seems to give reasonable > results) > > Best wishes, > Dennis > -- > Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 12:28:25 -0400 > Subject: Re: [Vo]:If I want to see it for myself... > From: jedrothw...@gmail.com > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > > > DJ Cravens wrote: > > I , of course have a bias, however I would say if you attempt reproducing > the effect you may wish to look over Letts' and my paper: > http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/CravensDtheenablin.pdf > > > Excellent advice! > > Also: > > http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEhowtoprodu.pdf > > However, the key thing is to get good material, and that is not easy. The > ENEA makes it, but they only share it with accredited university and > national labs. > > I suppose you might try some Johnson Matthey hydrogen filter palladium. As > I said, Martin recommended that. It was the old formula. Perhaps it had > trace elements in it that enhanced the reaction. It had more impurities > than the modern version. I do not know anyone who has tried the newer > filter palladium. It might work just as well as the old stuff, or better. I > would like to find out. > > Tanaka Precious Metals might be interested in a cooperative set of > experiments. > > Bear in mind that the procedures described by Storms take considerable > expertise, and a lot of time. About a year. He started with ~100 cathodes > and winnowed out 4 that worked well. (I think it was 4 . . . I am not in my > office so I cannot consult my notes.) These 4 worked consistently and > repeatedly. I think it is fair to say as a result of these tests, > reproducibility increases to 100%. You have to leave behind ~96% of the > starting cathode material, but what you end up with always works. > > As you see in the paper, the winnowing process does not involve simple > trial and error cold fusion electrochemistry. It is as if Storms runs 100 > cells to find 4 that work. He does other diagnostic tests that tell him in > advance whether cathode will or will not work. These tests are similar to > the ones recommended by Cravens. > > - Jed > > > > > -- > Dr. Peter Gluck > Cluj, Romania > http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com > -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:If I want to see it for myself...
DJ Cravens wrote: > but if it is replication (at lower densities) you seek- try the Pd 23% Ag > material used in diffusion systems. > "Diffusion systems" is what I have referred to as "hydrogen filters." As noted hydrogen with silver. This is what JM recommended to Martin. It loads well without cracking. So they said and he confirmed. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:If I want to see it for myself...
I would recommend a replication the high school reactor http://nickelpower.org/2012/04/25/build-instructions-for-pirelli-athanor-cell/ This reactor is reported to produce a COP of 4. This system demonstrates a highly varied micro/nano particle size profile that I believe is important in the proper production of abundant active LENR NAE sites. On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 11:06 AM, Joseph S. Barrera III < jbarr...@slac.stanford.edu> wrote: > On 5/14/2013 6:34 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > > > There is no need for these sorts of arguments. They are the icing on the > cake. The level of reproducibility in cold fusion is so high that in any > other field of science or technology no one would question it. You would be > considered crazy to question it. > > If I want to try to reproduce it for myself: > > 1. What are the costs to get & set up the equipment? > 2. Where do I find the best set of instructions? > > - Joe > >
Re: [Vo]:If I want to see it for myself...
Joe, let me clarify what Jones proposes. The glow discharge used by Mizuno and others is actually a plasma discharge in an electrolytic cell. This has produced detectable heat, but is has a limited lifetime and requires complex analysis of the input power. What is normally called glow discharge is created in a pure gas by applying a high voltage. This method has been explored by many people and also results in heat, tritium, and transmutation. Again, the method has a short lifetime. Both methods are more dangerous than the conventional electrolytic method and require more expensive equipment. I have no favorite. It all depends on your skill set and how much money you are willing to spend. Ed Storms On May 14, 2013, at 11:17 AM, Jones Beene wrote: Joe, In terms of cost, safety, and likelihood of success, let me suggest the glow discharge CRF and not anything to do with palladium and deuterium. There have been dozens of successful replications of the CFR - going back to Mizuno, including the two students seen here. Plus you can see strong high COP gain in tens of watts instead of milliwatts. http://jlnlabs.online.fr/cfr/index.htm Some of the vortex regulars may object, since they have so much time and effort tied up in palladium and deuterium, but IMHO - there is nothing easier, safer and more likely to be successful than the Mizuno-style CFR. Jones -Original Message- From: Joseph S. Barrera III If I want to try to reproduce it for myself: 1. What are the costs to get & set up the equipment? 2. Where do I find the best set of instructions? - Joe
RE: [Vo]:If I want to see it for myself...
Joe, In terms of cost, safety, and likelihood of success, let me suggest the glow discharge CRF and not anything to do with palladium and deuterium. There have been dozens of successful replications of the CFR - going back to Mizuno, including the two students seen here. Plus you can see strong high COP gain in tens of watts instead of milliwatts. http://jlnlabs.online.fr/cfr/index.htm Some of the vortex regulars may object, since they have so much time and effort tied up in palladium and deuterium, but IMHO - there is nothing easier, safer and more likely to be successful than the Mizuno-style CFR. Jones -Original Message- From: Joseph S. Barrera III If I want to try to reproduce it for myself: 1. What are the costs to get & set up the equipment? 2. Where do I find the best set of instructions? - Joe
RE: [Vo]:If I want to see it for myself...
who you calling a monkey :)(smiling) Dennis Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 20:11:22 +0300 Subject: Re: [Vo]:If I want to see it for myself... From: peter.gl...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com I wonder if a specific variant of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theoremcan be applied to these tests with an infinite number of experimenters trying an infinite number of cathodes etc ...will be able to find thebest, always succesful experimental set.A bit more pragmatically, unlimited funding will surely result in reproducible powerful Pd/D systems?Peter On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 7:48 PM, DJ Cravens wrote: Materials- yes that is an important part of it all. I started with palladium fountain pen nibs (way back in 89) - Schaeffer “snorkel” – it is what I could get back then. You get higher power density with "3 or 4 nines " palladium (but the really pure stuff 5 nines doesn't work very well ??) but if it is replication (at lower densities) you seek- try the Pd 23% Ag material used in diffusion systems. If you have the ability to alloy your own, I would recommend Pd 10% Y or Pd 2% Ce to start with. The Y alloy has about 3 times the diffusion rate and is quicker to load. Be sure to load slow, cool and for a long time (see paper- DO NOT RUSH LOADING). There is some evidence that loading Pd at around 10C helps (it matches the vacancy sizes and the wavelength of the D) Then raise the current density and temp (best run over 65C). I wish you luck and patience. We need more serious experimenters. (if you use Pd sheet- look over the 17 step protocol Letts and I disclosed in 2003 at ICCF10- It is lengthy but it seems to give reasonable results) Best wishes, Dennis Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 12:28:25 -0400 Subject: Re: [Vo]:If I want to see it for myself... From: jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com DJ Cravens wrote: I , of course have a bias, however I would say if you attempt reproducing the effect you may wish to look over Letts' and my paper: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/CravensDtheenablin.pdf Excellent advice! Also: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEhowtoprodu.pdf However, the key thing is to get good material, and that is not easy. The ENEA makes it, but they only share it with accredited university and national labs. I suppose you might try some Johnson Matthey hydrogen filter palladium. As I said, Martin recommended that. It was the old formula. Perhaps it had trace elements in it that enhanced the reaction. It had more impurities than the modern version. I do not know anyone who has tried the newer filter palladium. It might work just as well as the old stuff, or better. I would like to find out. Tanaka Precious Metals might be interested in a cooperative set of experiments. Bear in mind that the procedures described by Storms take considerable expertise, and a lot of time. About a year. He started with ~100 cathodes and winnowed out 4 that worked well. (I think it was 4 . . . I am not in my office so I cannot consult my notes.) These 4 worked consistently and repeatedly. I think it is fair to say as a result of these tests, reproducibility increases to 100%. You have to leave behind ~96% of the starting cathode material, but what you end up with always works. As you see in the paper, the winnowing process does not involve simple trial and error cold fusion electrochemistry. It is as if Storms runs 100 cells to find 4 that work. He does other diagnostic tests that tell him in advance whether cathode will or will not work. These tests are similar to the ones recommended by Cravens. - Jed -- Dr. Peter GluckCluj, Romaniahttp://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
RE: [Vo]:If I want to see it for myself...
I don't know how well it is known (since the Provo meeting info is a bit hard to get)-But the material for Ti materials that was used the first few years was with Sn V and wasthe kind used for subs to avoid cracking.Small cracks may be good but big ones are definitely not. However, Pd and its alloys is likely the best place to start. Also, the information I got was that the boil off of F and P contained Ce.You may want to try to track that down. I think Mike did an analysis at one time. Dennis > CC: stor...@ix.netcom.com > From: stor...@ix.netcom.com > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > Subject: Re: [Vo]:If I want to see it for myself... > Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 11:03:01 -0600 > > Wanting to see the effect for one's self is apparently required for > the claim to be believed. Unfortunately, this is like asking to make a > flash drive yourself so that you can see it work. This can be done, > but it takes skill and special tools. You can make the F-P effect > work if you take the time, have the skill, and access to the required > tools. However, because the process is not understood, success only > results by chance after following a recipe. Several recipes are > available. Some work better than others. Because the effect is > sensitive to unknown variables, the recipes have to be followed > exactly, which is difficult. If you are serious and have access to > the money and laboratory, your best approach is to work closely with > someone who has actually made the effect work. Reading a recipe will > not be good enough. > > As for using the alloy that is used to purify H2, this is a Pd-Ag > alloy containing about 23 at % Ag. This alloy is used because it does > not expand when H2 is added, hence does not crack. The claims made by > Fleischmann are very confusing because he claims the so-called Type A > Pd that he claims worked best is pure Pd, according to him. We do not > know the role of the Pd-Ag alloy. >
Re: [Vo]:If I want to see it for myself...
I wonder if a specific variant of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem can be applied to these tests with an infinite number of experimenters trying an infinite number of cathodes etc ...will be able to find the best, always succesful experimental set. A bit more pragmatically, unlimited funding will surely result in reproducible powerful Pd/D systems? Peter On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 7:48 PM, DJ Cravens wrote: > > Materials- yes that is an important part of it all. > > I started with palladium fountain pen nibs (way back in 89) - Schaeffer > “snorkel” – it is what I could get back then. > > You get higher power density with "3 or 4 nines " palladium (but the > really pure stuff 5 nines doesn't work very well ??) but if it is > replication (at lower densities) you seek- try the Pd 23% Ag material used > in diffusion systems. If you have the ability to alloy your own, I would > recommend Pd 10% Y or Pd 2% Ce to start with. The Y alloy has about 3 times > the diffusion rate and is quicker to load. > > Be sure to load slow, cool and for a long time (see paper- DO NOT RUSH > LOADING). There is some evidence that loading Pd at around 10C helps (it > matches the vacancy sizes and the wavelength of the D) Then raise the > current density and temp (best run over 65C). > > I wish you luck and patience. We need more serious experimenters. > > (if you use Pd sheet- look over the 17 step protocol Letts and I > disclosed in 2003 at ICCF10- It is lengthy but it seems to give reasonable > results) > > Best wishes, > Dennis > ------------------ > Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 12:28:25 -0400 > Subject: Re: [Vo]:If I want to see it for myself... > From: jedrothw...@gmail.com > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > > > DJ Cravens wrote: > > I , of course have a bias, however I would say if you attempt reproducing > the effect you may wish to look over Letts' and my paper: > http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/CravensDtheenablin.pdf > > > Excellent advice! > > Also: > > http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEhowtoprodu.pdf > > However, the key thing is to get good material, and that is not easy. The > ENEA makes it, but they only share it with accredited university and > national labs. > > I suppose you might try some Johnson Matthey hydrogen filter palladium. As > I said, Martin recommended that. It was the old formula. Perhaps it had > trace elements in it that enhanced the reaction. It had more impurities > than the modern version. I do not know anyone who has tried the newer > filter palladium. It might work just as well as the old stuff, or better. I > would like to find out. > > Tanaka Precious Metals might be interested in a cooperative set of > experiments. > > Bear in mind that the procedures described by Storms take considerable > expertise, and a lot of time. About a year. He started with ~100 cathodes > and winnowed out 4 that worked well. (I think it was 4 . . . I am not in my > office so I cannot consult my notes.) These 4 worked consistently and > repeatedly. I think it is fair to say as a result of these tests, > reproducibility increases to 100%. You have to leave behind ~96% of the > starting cathode material, but what you end up with always works. > > As you see in the paper, the winnowing process does not involve simple > trial and error cold fusion electrochemistry. It is as if Storms runs 100 > cells to find 4 that work. He does other diagnostic tests that tell him in > advance whether cathode will or will not work. These tests are similar to > the ones recommended by Cravens. > > - Jed > > -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:If I want to see it for myself...
Crude said: Statistics have an important place, but I think this is sort of thing Rutherford was talking about when he said: if your experiment needs statistics, you should have done a better experiment. Axil replies: There is wisdom in this statement. The ultimate LENR causation is random and has not been properly controlled in most LENR experimentation. Crude is right in that LENR experimentation is hamstrung by inattention in controlling LENR causation. A proper LENR experiment should zoom in on the probable cause of LENR and explore this causation in detail. As a example of the point here, concider the crack thory of LENR causation. A experiment should be done to standardize the crack and test it on a unit basis. I have seen how this is done in nanopasmonics as follows: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1303.6302 This is the crack production process as follows: A summary of the procedure is as follows. A single electron-beam lithography (EBL) step patterns the device on a doped silicon substrate with a 200 nm thermal silicon oxide. E-beam evaporation of a 1 nm Ti adhesion layer and 15 nm of Au, followed by with liftoff processing, creates a 120 nm wide by 700 nm long Au nanowire connecting two large triangular electrodes. After oxygen plasma cleaning, the device is ready for self-assembly of molecules. In this study we soak the samples in a 0.1 mM solution of trans-1,2-bis(4-pyridyl)-ethylene (BPE) in ethanol for 45 min, which leaves a self-assembled monolayer of BPE on the surface. Finally, the nanowires are electromigrated one at a time to form the nanojunctions with gaps ranging from 2-10 nm. Self-aligned junctions are fabricated with a two-step lithography process, initially developed in previous work. The first lithography step patterns the left side of the nanowire and left electrode on a doped silicon substrate with a 200 nm thermal silicon oxide. After developing, four layers are evaporated: 1 nm Ti, 15 nm Au, 1 nm SiO2, and 12 nm of Cr. Ti is used as an adhesion layer, and Au is the plasmonically active metal used for the device. The SiO2 acts as a barrier to prevent the Cr from diffusing into the Au and altering the gold’s optical properties, and the Cr layer is crucial for the self-aligning process. After evaporation, the chromium layer oxidizes and swells, creating a chromium-oxide ledge extending a few nanometers beyond the 5 metal layers. The Cr-oxide overhang acts as a shadow mask for the subsequent evaporation. After liftoff, the second EBL step patterns the right side of the nanowire overlapping the first side, as well as the other electrode. A subsequent evaporation deposits the same four layers, and the overlapping pattern along with Cr-oxide-mask “self-align” the two sides, creating the nanogaps. A Cr etch follows liftoff, which removes the overlapping material along with all the Cr. Finally, the SiO2 barrier layer is etched away with a brief buffered oxide etch, leaving a clean a 2-10 nm gap at the center of a 700 nm long and 120 nm wide nanowire connected to two Au electrodes. The devices are now finished and ready for molecules to be self-assembled on the surface. The optical microscope image (Figure 1a) shows an overview of a typical self-aligned structure, and the scanning electron microscope image (Figure 1b) displays the nanogap at the center of the nanowire. This illustrates the level of experimental preparation required to reduce random factors surrounding crack production. Until LENR experimentation reaches this level of experimental setup precision, LENR will remain a statistical based experimental study, where success is a hit or miss proposition. On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 1:03 PM, Edmund Storms wrote: > Wanting to see the effect for one's self is apparently required for the > claim to be believed. Unfortunately, this is like asking to make a flash > drive yourself so that you can see it work. This can be done, but it takes > skill and special tools. You can make the F-P effect work if you take the > time, have the skill, and access to the required tools. However, because > the process is not understood, success only results by chance after > following a recipe. Several recipes are available. Some work better than > others. Because the effect is sensitive to unknown variables, the recipes > have to be followed exactly, which is difficult. If you are serious and > have access to the money and laboratory, your best approach is to work > closely with someone who has actually made the effect work. Reading a > recipe will not be good enough. > > As for using the alloy that is used to purify H2, this is a Pd-Ag alloy > containing about 23 at % Ag. This alloy is used because it does not expand > when H2 is added, hence does not crack. The claims made by Fleischmann are > very confusing because he claims the so-called Type A Pd that he claims > worked best is pure Pd, according to him. We do not know the role of the > Pd-Ag alloy. > > Ed Storms > > On May 14, 2013, at 10:
Re: [Vo]:If I want to see it for myself...
Wanting to see the effect for one's self is apparently required for the claim to be believed. Unfortunately, this is like asking to make a flash drive yourself so that you can see it work. This can be done, but it takes skill and special tools. You can make the F-P effect work if you take the time, have the skill, and access to the required tools. However, because the process is not understood, success only results by chance after following a recipe. Several recipes are available. Some work better than others. Because the effect is sensitive to unknown variables, the recipes have to be followed exactly, which is difficult. If you are serious and have access to the money and laboratory, your best approach is to work closely with someone who has actually made the effect work. Reading a recipe will not be good enough. As for using the alloy that is used to purify H2, this is a Pd-Ag alloy containing about 23 at % Ag. This alloy is used because it does not expand when H2 is added, hence does not crack. The claims made by Fleischmann are very confusing because he claims the so-called Type A Pd that he claims worked best is pure Pd, according to him. We do not know the role of the Pd-Ag alloy. Ed Storms On May 14, 2013, at 10:36 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: I meant to say it is NOT as if Storms runs 100 cells in cold fusion electrochemistry. That would be blind trial and error. That might produce a ~4% success rate. To improve the success rate, tou have to test the cathode material, characterize it, and know what you are working. If you do a good job you can increase the success rate to close to 100%. The next step would be to manufacture cathode material with the desired properties so that you do not have to spend a year laboriously looking for cathodes that happen to have the right properties by coincidence. If you have $100 million burning a hole in your pocket I am sure you could do that. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:If I want to see it for myself...
Materials- yes that is an important part of it all. I started with palladium fountain pen nibs (way back in 89) - Schaeffer “snorkel” – it is what I could get back then. You get higher power density with "3 or 4 nines " palladium (but the really pure stuff 5 nines doesn't work very well ??) but if it is replication (at lower densities) you seek- try the Pd 23% Ag material used in diffusion systems. If you have the ability to alloy your own, I would recommend Pd 10% Y or Pd 2% Ce to start with. The Y alloy has about 3 times the diffusion rate and is quicker to load. Be sure to load slow, cool and for a long time (see paper- DO NOT RUSH LOADING). There is some evidence that loading Pd at around 10C helps (it matches the vacancy sizes and the wavelength of the D) Then raise the current density and temp (best run over 65C). I wish you luck and patience. We need more serious experimenters. (if you use Pd sheet- look over the 17 step protocol Letts and I disclosed in 2003 at ICCF10- It is lengthy but it seems to give reasonable results) Best wishes,DennisDate: Tue, 14 May 2013 12:28:25 -0400 Subject: Re: [Vo]:If I want to see it for myself... From: jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com DJ Cravens wrote: I , of course have a bias, however I would say if you attempt reproducing the effect you may wish to look over Letts' and my paper: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/CravensDtheenablin.pdf Excellent advice! Also: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEhowtoprodu.pdf However, the key thing is to get good material, and that is not easy. The ENEA makes it, but they only share it with accredited university and national labs. I suppose you might try some Johnson Matthey hydrogen filter palladium. As I said, Martin recommended that. It was the old formula. Perhaps it had trace elements in it that enhanced the reaction. It had more impurities than the modern version. I do not know anyone who has tried the newer filter palladium. It might work just as well as the old stuff, or better. I would like to find out. Tanaka Precious Metals might be interested in a cooperative set of experiments. Bear in mind that the procedures described by Storms take considerable expertise, and a lot of time. About a year. He started with ~100 cathodes and winnowed out 4 that worked well. (I think it was 4 . . . I am not in my office so I cannot consult my notes.) These 4 worked consistently and repeatedly. I think it is fair to say as a result of these tests, reproducibility increases to 100%. You have to leave behind ~96% of the starting cathode material, but what you end up with always works. As you see in the paper, the winnowing process does not involve simple trial and error cold fusion electrochemistry. It is as if Storms runs 100 cells to find 4 that work. He does other diagnostic tests that tell him in advance whether cathode will or will not work. These tests are similar to the ones recommended by Cravens. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:If I want to see it for myself...
test On May 14, 2013, at 10:36 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: I meant to say it is NOT as if Storms runs 100 cells in cold fusion electrochemistry. That would be blind trial and error. That might produce a ~4% success rate. To improve the success rate, tou have to test the cathode material, characterize it, and know what you are working. If you do a good job you can increase the success rate to close to 100%. The next step would be to manufacture cathode material with the desired properties so that you do not have to spend a year laboriously looking for cathodes that happen to have the right properties by coincidence. If you have $100 million burning a hole in your pocket I am sure you could do that. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:If I want to see it for myself...
I meant to say it is NOT as if Storms runs 100 cells in cold fusion electrochemistry. That would be blind trial and error. That might produce a ~4% success rate. To improve the success rate, tou have to test the cathode material, characterize it, and know what you are working. If you do a good job you can increase the success rate to close to 100%. The next step would be to manufacture cathode material with the desired properties so that you do not have to spend a year laboriously looking for cathodes that happen to have the right properties by coincidence. If you have $100 million burning a hole in your pocket I am sure you could do that. - Jed
