Re: [Vo]:discussion about RELIABILITY-cont.
At 09:54 AM 6/7/2012, Peter Gluck wrote: Dear Friends, I am very pleased that I have found a partner for discussion the essence of LENR, therefore see please: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2012/06/reliability-discussion-continues.htmlhttp://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2012/06/reliability-discussion-continues.html I hope that soon we will have the opportunity to excahnge opinions and ideas about some paradigm changing events, not only history. For now the focus is on the question how can be used the scientific data if they are not reliable. (reproducible) Being an engineer I have limited understanding of that. Briefly, if the outcome of an individual test is variable, nevertheless the outcome of many tests can be analyzed statistically, and this can be done to demonstrate the reality of a physical effect just as it can be done to demonstrate the efficacy of a medicine. As a practical example from electronics engineering, it has happened that processes for producing complex integrated circuits have been quite unreliable, but nevertheless adequate where the working devices can be culled from those that do not work. If it were true that a cold fusion device was unreliable, i.e., that its heat output could not be predicted, except within certain outlines, it could remain possible that a collection of a large number of such devices might be reliable, overall. But we can certainly hope for improved reliability with improved understanding. Dr. Gluck, if your theory about contamination being behind CF cell unreliability is true, then ways might be found to control the contamination. I happen to think that, while there may be some effect from contamination, the problem is rather one of solid-state engineering; it's quite likely that either Storms' crack theory is correct, or that some similar phenomenon is taking place that, so far, remains very difficult to control with the gross techniques being applied. Following Storms' theory, and applying it to what we know reasonably well, the behavior of PdD electrochemical cells, cracks grow in PdD with repeated loading and deloading, which stresses the lattice. We may suspect that a *particular* size of crack sets up a condition that allows or creates fusion conditions, which might be according to any of a number of possible proposed mechanisms. Storms is theorizing electron catalysis in a particular manner which I don't find plausible, and Takahashi and Kim suggest mechanisms involving the formation of a Bose-Einstein Condensate, which Storms thinks implausible for some rather obvious -- and possibly false -- reasons. But we don't know the mechanism. Storms is on pretty solid ground with general suggestion that normal lattice does not support the reaction. That cathodes which show no effect, then show the effect, then don't show the effect, with all observed conditions remaining the same, *except nanostructure, which is shifting,* we can expect, leads almost inexorably to the nanostructure theory of the Nuclear Active Environment being controlling. An alternate hypothesis of contamination (i.e., trace or impurities) remains on the table, but seems unlikely, given the variety of reports. It is possible that the unreliability is intrinsic, but I consider that unlikely unless we are limited to electrochemical cold fusion. The electrochemical approach remains useful as an investigative tool. At least it works! (And, as I mentioned, the unreliability is a nuisance but not an intrinsic obstacle, particularly once correlated effects are sought and found.) And now, a detailed (and necessarily long) response to Dr. Gluck's blog post. Thursday, June 7, 2012 RELIABILITY -THE DISCUSSION CONTINUES. I hope this discussion will continue because it is constructive, calm, empathy laden and I can learn a lot of it. It seems both Abd and I have the rare ability to not be angry with people who have other opinions than ours. If it could be created a vaccine for this virtue! The nearest thing I know to that would be the Landmark Forum. ( http://landmarkeducation.com ) (BTW during my 8.5 years of journalism-writing the INFO KAPPA Newsletter I have stated that the most aggressive, trolls, Forum Monsters are not the extremists, not soccer team fans but the anti-vaccine activists- at an unbelievable intensity. Well, people do get stuck on ideas. Doesn't mean they are wrong, by the way. Stuck and right are not correlated. They exist in different realms. Dear Abd, I am very grateful for this opportunity. It is very difficult to discuss on our Forums about essential problems- due to the epidemics/endemics of Detailitis. Our discussion will not lead probably to agreement but let's try I could disagree on the probability, or I could agree on trying, i.e., on communicating openly and frankly. In fact, both. So do we agree or do we disagree? to generate some Important Questions is more useful for the future
Re: [Vo]:discussion about RELIABILITY-cont.
Abd Ul, Peter, this is a very enlightening discussion. let me comment on some issues, where I hopefully can contribute something of value. Let me concentrate on one. 'reliability' Abd Ul says. A complete theory will include explanation of the variability (which you call the reliability problem). Once we know how and why something is happening, the possibility of control can open up. Not necessarily, mind you. But it's probable. You don't have to imagine the specifics, just recognize the possibility. I hope I have shown that the variability does not make investigation impossible -- and it can even facilitate it in some ways, as long as some minimal level of success is obtainable, through the power of correlation. I am very much with Abd Ul on this one. As far as memory serves, the Pons/Fleischmann Pd-material has been delivered by an italian manufacturer, who had a very peculiar way of processing the material. Because P/F were not aware of that, they did not disclose it as relevant. So also did not the replicators. So they failed. A 'reliability' problem? Not so much. Nowadays there are multiple reports concerning the materials composition. (Btw, anyone arguing with secret ingredients/catalysts/secret sauce like Rossi does, does a dissservice to the scientific method and be rightfully excluded from the community!) If only one of six experiments is giving a 'positive' result does not invalidate the single one, as long as this single one can be reproduced with 50% probability. To term this 'unreliable' would be a misnomer. It is just that we do not know where in the parameter-space (in a very wide sense, which could even include the experimenter himself) the core of the effect is located. One possible solution to situations like that would be a) to use some variant of the 'morphological box' ala Zwicky (-wikipedia) to identify the dimensions, along which the effect could be scaled. b) use the evolutionary strategy, as developed by Ingo Rechenberg, which dates back to 1971 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_strategy ), still wildly underappreciated. As we know, 'evolution' is a very 'unreliable' process in the first place, based on trial and error, based on the triad variation-adaptation-reproduction, which is not very much appreciated in the scientific community outside biology. One problem with this approach is, that it is sort of incompliant with theory-based approaches, which are basically deductive. (Hard) Scientists like to deduce real-world instatiations from last principles. Engineers are more pragmatic. Anyone remember 'fuzzy logic' or 'neural nets' ? Or some hundred Neurons extracted from a frog brain, trained to control a microsoft flight simulator en par to real pilots. Embarrassing. Why? It works, but we do not understand. We ultimetely want to understand, or mentally anticipate why we have a safe flight. Right? As an engineer I have to acknowledge this urge of the physicist and the user, who want to have mental models, different as they are. Guenther
Re: [Vo]:discussion about RELIABILITY-cont.
Guenter Wildgruber gwildgru...@ymail.com wrote: As far as memory serves, the Pons/Fleischmann Pd-material has been delivered by an italian manufacturer, who had a very peculiar way of processing the material. Because P/F were not aware of that, they did not disclose it as relevant. So also did not the replicators. So they failed. No, it was provided by Johnson Matthey, a precious metals company. It is the type of Pd they use in hydrogen filters, developed in the 1930s. Fleischmann described in some detail. I uploaded his descriptions here a couple of times in the past. Precise details are a trade secret. Other hydrogen filter Pd has worked well. It is not surprising. The material has all of the characteristics Storms recommends in How to produce the Fleischmann-Pons effect. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:discussion about RELIABILITY-cont.
thanks, Jed, for the correction, because this is such an important issue, maybe you can clarify from Your point of view, why the replications failed. I have not been near the Max Planck Institute of Plasmaphysics in the 90s, but as far as I can remember, they tried to replicate and failed. This may have been a selfserving failure to replicate. Who knows. We have to keep in mind that scientists have a human bias towards survival, right? As far as my memory on the issue serves, P/F did their experiments mostly in private, and purchased their materials below the radar of officialdom. Eg all my 'official' purchases go through the administration and can be tracked down to the last resistor. Interesting, if You view it this way, which I did not yet. Guenther Von: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Gesendet: 16:07 Sonntag, 10.Juni 2012 Betreff: Re: [Vo]:discussion about RELIABILITY-cont. Guenter Wildgruber gwildgru...@ymail.com wrote: As far as memory serves, the Pons/Fleischmann Pd-material has been delivered by an italian manufacturer, who had a very peculiar way of processing the material. Because P/F were not aware of that, they did not disclose it as relevant. So also did not the replicators. So they failed. No, it was provided by Johnson Matthey, a precious metals company. It is the type of Pd they use in hydrogen filters, developed in the 1930s. Fleischmann described in some detail. I uploaded his descriptions here a couple of times in the past. Precise details are a trade secret. Other hydrogen filter Pd has worked well. It is not surprising. The material has all of the characteristics Storms recommends in How to produce the Fleischmann-Pons effect. - Jed
