LENR-CANR.org activity is encouraging
Jed Rothwell
ostensibly the topic of this newsgroup. Activity on LENR-CANR.org fell
during the Thanksgiving holiday, but it has recovered nicely:
Week, Downloads, Visitors
10/12/2002, 373, 331
10/19/2002, 433, 472
10/26/2002, 574, 395
11/2/2002, 532, 359
11/9/2002, 738, 792
11/16/2002, 1,111, 573
11/23/2002, 1,146, 670
11/30/2002, 1,022, 696
Recent daily totals:
Date, Downloads, Visitors
12/1, 117, 151
12/2, 545, 249
12/3, 503, (unknown)
The total for this week is 1,165, which already exceeds any previous week.
We are back on track to pulling even with Scientific American's newsstand
distribution by April 2003. (Sci. Am. sells 36,000 newsstand issues per
week, which they claim is the largest circulation of any scientific magazine
or journal). As I explained to a group of cold fusion researchers the other
day:
"If the present growth of LENR-CANR continues, we will reach the newsstand
circulation of the Scientific American four to six months from now. It will
be as if every issue of the Scientific American includes a positive paper
about cold fusion. Try to imagine the impact that would have."
We have distributed 7,200 papers in the last two months. There is no telling
how many downloaded copies have been e-mailed to other people. Sooner or
later, all these copies floating around the world are bound to have a
positive effect.
I have prepared papers by Arata, Ohmori, Mizuno and Dash for uploading. I am
waiting for corrections and proofreading by the authors.
Please note, my e-mail address has changed to:
JedRo...@mindspring.com or JedRo...@lenr-canr.org (if the topic is
cold fusion)
(It is probably a bad idea to post this here where I may lure spammers, but
my anti-spam software including Mailwasher is now so airtight, I seldom see
messages. The spammers are all hit with messages saying my address is
defunct. It is almost a pleasure watching them get whacked.)
- Jed
Kirk Shanahan
news:3decea6f$1...@nopics.sjc
> The http://lenr-canr.org/ web page is devoted to cold fusion, which is
> ostensibly the topic of this newsgroup. Activity on LENR-CANR.org fell
> during the Thanksgiving holiday, but it has recovered nicely:
>
It's a well-known fact that incorrect work brings the most citations.
Of course, one does have to get the bad paper to be able to cite it...
---
Kirk Shanahan {My opinions...noone else's} (ROFL)
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Jed Rothwell
> It's a well-known fact that incorrect work brings the most citations.
Is it? I have never heard of this well known fact. Do you have evidence for
this assertion? Perhaps you think that citiation indexes are established to
weed out incorrect papers -- those with the most citations.
- Jed
Mike Staker
if you don’t have something positive to say, then don’t say it. We are sick
of hearing you tell us that cold fusion is an error. It is not. There is
good science in cold fusion and I suggest you do something positve for a
change and go look for it. The fact that you cannot see anything poitive is
a poor reflection on yourself.
We do not mind if you constructively criticize scientific work, but this
last post of yours is unprofessional. You may not realize it but you
constantly make assumptions and then follow with a comment (based on the
assumption). You are making an assumptions that most people who download
will see these papers as bad science. This is wrong assumption, and it
makes me sad to see a professional do such things.
Mike Staker
Kirk Shanahan
news:3DEE1CF5...@arl.mil
Somewhat out of order:
> This is wrong assumption, and it
> makes me sad to see a professional do such things.
What makes me sad is a 'professional' who steps up and says "I
did it and it's real!", and then who refuses to go further. Where's
your data Mike?
> Shanahan's shenanigans
Rhyming! I love it!
> have gone far enough. There is a well-known saying,
> if you don’t have something positive to say, then don’t say it. We are sick
> of hearing you tell us that cold fusion is an error. It is not.
Yes it is! Yes it is!
>There is
> good science in cold fusion and I suggest you do something positve for a
> change and go look for it.
Actually, there is at least reasonable science involved in the data
acquisition aspects. They blow it when it comes to interpretation,
since they are fixated on a nuclear explanation.
>The fact that you cannot see anything poitive is
> a poor reflection on yourself.
Am I relfecting better now??
>
> We do not mind if you constructively criticize scientific work, but this
> last post of yours is unprofessional. You may not realize it but you
You may not realize it, but that last post was a troll, and you took
it hook, line, and sinker. Didn't you see the "ROFL"?
> constantly make assumptions and then follow with a comment (based on the
> assumption). You are making an assumptions that most people who download
> will see these papers as bad science.
> Mike Staker
And you're assuming they won't. Seems were equal here. But actually,
you're probably right. The majority of people who are still interested
in CF are fringe science afficionados who want to believe.
---
Kirk Shanahan {My opinions...noone else's} (still ROFL)
Kirk Shanahan
news:3ded22e6$1...@nopics.sjc
> Kirk Shanahan writes:
>
> > It's a well-known fact that incorrect work brings the most citations.
>
> Is it? I have never heard of this well known fact.
Probably because you never considered becoming a professor.
>Do you have evidence for this assertion?
Nope, it's an anecdote, kinda like the Mizuno bucket thing.
>Perhaps you think that citiation indexes are established to
> weed out incorrect papers -- those with the most citations.
>
> - Jed
Gosh, is _that_ what they're for?
---
Kirk Shanahan {my opinions...noone else's} (still ROFL)
Jed Rothwell
> >Do you have evidence for this assertion?
>
> Nope, it's an anecdote, kinda like the Mizuno bucket thing.
Neither statement is an anecdote. An anecdote is:
"1. A short account of an interesting or humorous incident.
2. Secret or hitherto undivulged particular of history or biography."
- American Heritage
Your statement is a generality, not particular to any one set of citations.
Mizuno's account was long & detailed, not short, and not humorous or secret.
- Jed
Kirk Shanahan
The full anecdote goes like this:
University profs, all ranks, are discussing what it takes to get tenure.
One suggests that number of citations be used as a criterion. Another
reponds that one of his most cited papers was where he made a mistake
and published it. Everybody laughs (the humor...) and they go on to
other ways to tell if a particular prof would be good 'tenure' material.
And I thought the Mizuno thing was pretty funny...
Actually I guess it was your insistance that it was an 'experiment'.
---
Kirk Shanahan {My opinions...noone else's} (recovering from ROFL)
Mike Staker
Kirk Shanahan wrote (in part):
>
> But actually, you're probably right. The majority of people
> who are still interested in CF are fringe science afficionados who want to
> believe.
>
> ---
>
> Kirk Shanahan {My opinions...noone else's} (still ROFL)
______________________-
1. Please define ROFL. Just so those of us who do not know it
can follow you.
2. Please explain to us the motive for this (according to your
assumption, just to humor you a bit) devotion, if not for
seeing and understanding perhaps something you've
missed in the interpretations? Of course, one way out of it
is to yell mistake, fraud, deception, stupidity etc. I suggest
it does not make sense to cling to an interpretation that
many "mainstream" scientists reject (out of hand), unless
there is a substantial breakthrough revealed subtly there.
But you know this?
Mike
Kirk Shanahan
> 1. Please define ROFL. Just so those of us who do not know it
> can follow you.
>
ROFL = rolling on the floor laughing
IMO = in my opinion
IMHO = in my humble opion
BTW = by the way
shorthand, sorry you didn't realize. There's also emoticons:
:) :-) ;) =:( :{ etc. (look at them sideways)
> 2. Please explain to us the motive for this (according to your
> assumption, just to humor you a bit) devotion, if not for
> seeing and understanding perhaps something you've
> missed in the interpretations?
The devotion to watching the CF field? I work with gas loading of
all these materials, using D and T and mixes thereof. Soon, I will
have an apparatus (I hope) to load to 15000 psi or higher with pure
T. I don't like the idea that I may a) have my apparatus go "pop",
and b) may get irradiated unknowingly by neutrons or gammas. There
are more people at my site who would be subjected to the same
concerns. I need to know if it's real. And to be honest, while my
contemporaries don't believe it, none could tell me why. Now I
know a lot more about the field, and why I need not lose sleep.
The motive for the original post in this thread was to remind Jed
that citation stats are really not very important. It's nice he
has uploaded all these papers, but they don't bring anything new to
the table (usually, the CR-39 stuff being an exception).
> Of course, one way out of it
> is to yell mistake, fraud, deception, stupidity etc. I suggest
> it does not make sense to cling to an interpretation that
> many "mainstream" scientists reject (out of hand),
Exactly! So why do the cold fusioneers persist? Hard to understand.
I suppose that's part of the 'devotion'.
On the other hand, I do contend there is a unique chemical process
ongoing in some electrolysis cells that produes artifactual excess
heat, so there is something real there by my book. It's just not
nuclear.
> unless
> there is a substantial breakthrough revealed subtly there.
> But you know this?
> Mike
---
Kirk Shanahan {My opinions...noone else's}
--
Jed Rothwell
> The full anecdote goes like this:
>
> University profs, all ranks, are discussing what it takes to get tenure.
> One suggests that number of citations be used as a criterion. . . .
That would be a joke, or humorous story. People used to call jokes
"anecdotes" but I think that use of the word is old fashioned. In a
scientific context, it is likely to be confused with the term "anecdotal
evidence" which has taken on a new sense not defined in ordinary
dictionaries.
> And I thought the Mizuno thing was pretty funny...
Then you have no clue how basic physics works. I do not find you a bit
funny. You are pathetically ignorant when you ridicule or dispute undeniable
evidence such as Mizuno's heat after death and Iwamura's transmutations. You
contrive nonsensical "theories" to dismiss these things, which are always
wrong for dozens of blatantly obvious reasons. This isn't funny either. It
is incredible that people as ignorant as you and Richard Schultz manage to
get PhDs in science, and it is sickening that other so-called "skeptics"
never point out your blunders.
> Actually I guess it was your insistance that it was an 'experiment'.
Of course it was an experiment! Instruments were used, a record was kept,
and it demonstrated beyond any possible error that heat was generated orders
of magnitude beyond the limits of chemistry. This is a quintessential
experiment, far superior to most. The results are fundamental and obvious.
You probably dismiss it because it did not require sophisticated
instruments; only a bucket marked in liters and a thermocouple (or the sense
of touch). Dismissing this is like dismissing Franklin's kite experiment
because he did not use a voltmeter. He charged the key on the kite string,
and used the key to charge the capacitor. That, combined with his lightning
rod experiments, proved that lighting is electricity. Like the Mizuno
experiment, the kite experiment was hazardous, and was only replicated a few
times. As I recall, it was performed in France once. The second attempt was
in Germany and the researcher was killed by a lighting strike. Runaway
heat-after-death CF reactions have caused extreme, palpable heat, melted
materials and explosions on three occasions that I know of. A person who
deliberately sets out to cause such a reaction with a larger hydride sample
(more than a few grams) would be suicidal, in my opinion.
- Jed
Jed Rothwell
> On the other hand, I do contend there is a unique chemical process
> ongoing in some electrolysis cells that produes artifactual excess
> heat . . .
A "real" process cannot produce an artifact, by definition. An artifact is
an instrument error, or a "systematic" error, that would occur in a control
run. ("System" in this case means the instruments, test tubes and so on.) CF
heat cannot be a systematic error because many different systems have been
used to verify it. It would have to whole collection of systematic errors.
You dreamed up an error that supposedly affects a flow calorimeter
(described in ShanahanKapossiblec.pdf), but obviously, even if this error
existed, it would not "explain away" the heat measured with Seebeck
calorimeters, isoperibolic calorimeters, melting ceramics, external heat
sensor of various types, and so on.
Perhaps you mean that a chemical process somehow fools the instruments in a
unique way, by distributing the hot water in some impossible configuration
never detected heretofore. Taubes postulated that cold fusion electrolysis
causes fluid on one side of a test tube to be 50 deg C hotter than on the
other side. Obviously that is impossible, but in any case, it is the kind of
imaginary "artifact" you need, if only pigs could fly.
Of course, none of these imaginary artifacts can explain the x-rays,
transmutations, tritium, neutrons and other nuclear evidence produced by
cold fusion, but if you try real hard, and wish upon a star, you will
persuade yourself none of this other evidence exists either.
> . . . so there is something real there by my book. It's just not
> nuclear.
Oh sure. Tritium and x-rays aren't nuclear!
- Jed
Kirk Shanahan
> Kirk Shanahan writes:
>
> > On the other hand, I do contend there is a unique chemical process
> > ongoing in some electrolysis cells that produes artifactual excess
> > heat . . .
>
> A "real" process cannot produce an artifact, by definition.
You've heard the definition of a weed right? A plant out of place. An
artifact is an 'out-of-place' system response, i.e. at some uncontrolled
point of time, the system does the unexpected. Just as a weed is a real
plant, an artifact _is_ a real system response. But, it originates from
an unexpected cause. This is one of those 'new' definitions you were
mentioning that "has taken on a new sense not defined in ordinary
dictionaries". It actually is a specific definition coming out of the
quality control field. The point is that a "real" process can (and
does)
produce artifacts.
With an old process, the artifact is not normally due to unknown
chemistry
(unless feed streams have changed unexpectedly). In a new process, like
the study of electrolysis was when F&P began, artifacts may be due to
unrecognized chemistry or physics, as opposed to 'simple' equipment
failure.
> An artifact is
> an instrument error, or a "systematic" error, that would occur in a control
> run. ("System" in this case means the instruments, test tubes and so on.)
Remember that 'and so on' covers everything else that can influence the
system responses you are recording. That's usally a bigger list that
most
people realize.
> CF
> heat cannot be a systematic error because many different systems have been
> used to verify it. It would have to whole collection of systematic errors.
As I have said, the calibration constant shift error is applicable to
ANY
method that uses a calibration curve, not just mass flow calorimetry.
It
is simply a mathematical fact, which is expressed verbally as "If you
intend to work up your data with equation 'A', you had better be sure
'A'
applies."
And no, it doesn't take a whole collection. It takes a calibration
constant shift, which is one thing.
> You dreamed up an error that supposedly affects a flow calorimeter
> (described in ShanahanKapossiblec.pdf), but obviously, even if this error
> existed, it would not "explain away" the heat measured with Seebeck
> calorimeters, isoperibolic calorimeters, melting ceramics, external heat
> sensor of various types, and so on.
As I've said many times before (you are proving your "unteachableness"
again), if there is a real chemical process occurring in the CF cell
that causes a calibration constant shift (and I _postulate_ there is),
then it _should_ appear in all calorimeters. However, since it is
calorimeter design dependent, it will manifest at different levels in
different calorimeters. The fact that the FPHE is observed in many
calorimeters is not proof it is based in nuclear processes.
> Perhaps you mean that a chemical process somehow fools the instruments in a
> unique way, by distributing the hot water in some impossible configuration
> never detected heretofore.
You're almost there Jed! Yes, my postulate to produce a calibration
constant shift is a redistribution of heat production points in the
cell. That _would_ produce different flows of hot water. The only
problem with your explanation above is the word "impossible".
Substitute "possible" (or just drop it altogether) and you're very
close to an actual technical description of what causes the FPHE.
(And you've anthropomorphized the instruments. They can't get 'fooled'
as
they are unintelligent. Substitute 'affects'.)
> Taubes postulated that cold fusion electrolysis
> causes fluid on one side of a test tube to be 50 deg C hotter than on the
> other side. Obviously that is impossible, but in any case, it is the kind of
> imaginary "artifact" you need,
I really could care less what Taubes said. That is just a distraction.
I don't need imaginary artifacts, there are lots of real ones to use.
>if only pigs could fly.
Manual: How to Get a Pig to Fly
1.) Buy airline ticket.
2.) Strap pig in.
There, you see, so easy...
>
> Of course, none of these imaginary artifacts can explain the x-rays,
Hypering, heat exposure, alone or together.
> transmutations,
Misinterpreted spectra.
> tritium,
LSC interference effects from other trace contaminants, actual
accidental
tritium contamination, alone or together.
>neutrons
Specifically haven't looked at this, as it's not something I've used
much,
and since others seemed to have discounted these results based on
similar
concerns to things mentioned above. Basically, the problem is the
generic
one of trying to measure neutron counts at or near background. An
inherently difficult task. I can say I've never seen enough data
published
to convince me that problem was overcome. (By the way, some X-ray
results
were reported via instrumentation as opposed to film (which is what I
addressed above). Those studies are subject to the same problems
neutron
detection has when done electronically.)
> and other nuclear evidence produced by cold fusion,
Such as?
Oh yeah, He. Bad mass spectrometry.
Anything else?
> but if you try real hard, and wish upon a star, you will
> persuade yourself none of this other evidence exists either.
So cite it and 'prove me wrong'.
> > . . . so there is something real there by my book. It's just not
> > nuclear.
>
> Oh sure. Tritium and x-rays aren't nuclear!
Of course they are. They just aren't present in CF cells. (Go ahead!
Make my day! Prove me wrong on that!)
>
> - Jed
Kirk Shanahan
> Kirk Shanahan writes:
{snip}
> That would be a joke, or humorous story. People used to call jokes
> "anecdotes" but I think that use of the word is old fashioned.
Gosh. Call me old-fashioned then.
{snip}
> > And I thought the Mizuno thing was pretty funny...
>
> Then you have no clue how basic physics works. I do not find you a bit
> funny.
I wan't referring to the physics. I was thinking of a guy running
across a campus with a steel thingy in a bucket, putting that bucket
in an abandoned decrepit building, and thereby initiating one of the
biggest rat parties of all time! Has me ROFL.
The proposed physics is actually pretty sad.
> You are pathetically ignorant when you ridicule or dispute undeniable
> evidence such as Mizuno's heat after death and Iwamura's transmutations.
The key is that I don't dispute the 'evidence', I dispute the
interpretation, and the jump to conclusion made with insufficient
evidence.
Two separate aspects typically present in every CF claim.
> You
> contrive nonsensical "theories" to dismiss these things, which are always
> wrong for dozens of blatantly obvious reasons.
State them. Make sure you demonstrate that you understand my proposals.
Typically your comments show a distinct lack of that. The best way to
show
that is to correctly restate, in your own words, the proposal basics you
are objecting to.
> This isn't funny either. It
> is incredible that people as ignorant as you and Richard Schultz manage to
> get PhDs in science, and it is sickening that other so-called "skeptics"
> never point out your blunders.
>
In general, that's because they can't. Neither can you. You can (and
do)
however, construct your own flawed strawmen that vaguely resemble my
proposals, and then easily (as expected for a strawman) show them to be
'wrong'. Bravo, but of what relevance to the issue is that process?
>
> > Actually I guess it was your insistance that it was an 'experiment'.
>
> Of course it was an experiment! Instruments were used, a record was kept,
> and it demonstrated beyond any possible error that heat was generated orders
> of magnitude beyond the limits of chemistry. This is a quintessential
> experiment, far superior to most. The results are fundamental and obvious.
Oh, this must be that new dictionary of yours. My definition of
'experiment'
usually includes a modicum of control, collection of all the pertinent
data, and insertion of control elements when they are needed.
> You probably dismiss it because it did not require sophisticated
> instruments; only a bucket marked in liters and a thermocouple (or the sense
> of touch).
Your strawman is incorrect. Also, this again demonstrates your
'unteachableness'. Go back and reread my objections.
> Dismissing this is like dismissing Franklin's kite experiment
> because he did not use a voltmeter. He charged the key on the kite string,
> and used the key to charge the capacitor. That, combined with his lightning
> rod experiments, proved that lighting is electricity.
Right (the 'dismissing this' comparison). Franklin however didn't have
multiple potential causes of the effect. Mizuno did. Big difference.
>Like the Mizuno
> experiment, the kite experiment was hazardous, and was only replicated a few
> times. As I recall, it was performed in France once. The second attempt was
> in Germany and the researcher was killed by a lighting strike.
Interesting but irrelevant.
> Runaway
> heat-after-death CF reactions have caused extreme, palpable heat, melted
> materials and explosions on three occasions that I know of. A person who
> deliberately sets out to cause such a reaction with a larger hydride sample
> (more than a few grams) would be suicidal, in my opinion.
>
> - Jed
Hydrogen/oxygen explosions (or just rapid burning). Yes, safety is a
must,
all the time. That's why I started studying the CF field...
---
Kirk Shanahan {My opinions...noone else's}
James Salsman
>... I work with gas loading of
> all these materials, using D and T and mixes thereof. Soon, I will
> have an apparatus (I hope) to load to 15000 psi or higher with pure
> T. I don't like the idea that I may a) have my apparatus go "pop",
> and b) may get irradiated unknowingly by neutrons or gammas....
Aha! So, the truth comes out! This is a far, far cry from the post
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=9acdab21.0207220908.2aace1c5%40posting.google.com
less than half a year ago where you, Dr. Shanahan, said that you were,
"tapped out on CF and I think I'm going to try to exit the scene,"
after I suggested you try the very low-cost confirmatory apparatus at:
http://www.bovik.org/codeposition/best.gif
If you followed the discussion here about deuteron angular momenta,
you should realize that the apparatus going "pop" is far more likely
than fast neutrons or gamma radiation.
> There are more people at my site who would be subjected to the same
> concerns. I need to know if it's real....
Are you saying that there are people's lives at stake, and you have
told them that there is nothing to be worried about? You are willing
to risk your and their lives on your statistical navel-gazing without
even trying the least expensive emperical confirmatory experiment known?
You have not yet even postulated here any possible causes of the moving
heat source you hypothesized in the post cited above, upon which your
theory, and apparently your colleagues well-being, depends. Are you
going to leave that thread dangling? What kind of heat source could
mysteriously move back and forth between calibration and test runs?
> And to be honest, while my contemporaries don't believe it, none
> could tell me why....
Do you not count Jerry J. Smith, at U.S. D.o.E. Germantown, the
highest-ranking pertinent government authority outside of the military,
as your contemporary?
Who carries the insurance policy at Savannah River? I would like to
make sure I am divested of them while you are on staff.
P.S. To Jed Rothwell: What is your URL for Szpak et al.'s article
in _Fusion Technology_, vol. 36, pp. 234 (1999)?
Best wishes,
James Salsman
sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il
: If you followed the discussion here about deuteron angular momenta,
: you should realize that the apparatus going "pop" is far more likely
: than fast neutrons or gamma radiation.
I'm sorry, I missed that part. The only part of that discussion that I
remember clearly is the part where you revealed that you didn't know what
you were talking about, and refused under any circumstances to increase your
understanding to the point where you would be.
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
". . .Mr Schutz [sic] acts like a functional electro-terrorist who
impeads [sic] scientific communications with his too oft-silliness."
-- Mitchell Swartz, sci.physics.fusion article <EEI1o...@world.std.com>
Jed Rothwell
> P.S. To Jed Rothwell: What is your URL for Szpak et al.'s article
> in _Fusion Technology_, vol. 36, pp. 234 (1999)?
Do you mean:
Szpak, S., P.A. Mosier-Boss, and M. Miles, Calorimetry of the Pd+D
codeposition. Fusion Technol., 1999. 36: p. 234.
We do not have that one. I wish we did. If you talk with Miley or Szpak ask
them for an electronic copy and permission to reprint it.
- Jed
James Salsman
>...
> Szpak, S., P.A. Mosier-Boss, and M. Miles, Calorimetry of the Pd+D
> codeposition. Fusion Technol., 1999. 36: p. 234.
>
Okay, but in the mean time, please put up NRL's TR 1696 and TR 1862,
the latter of which I got from you before www.lenr-canr.org was up:
http://bovik.org/codeposition/tr1696.pdf
http://bovik.org/codeposition/tr1862v1.pdfa
http://bovik.org/codeposition/tr1862v2.pdf
I think TR 1862 has most of that paper inside it, withoute the prestige
of being the peer-reviewed version.
Best wishes,
James
Jed Rothwell
> Okay, but in the mean time, please put up NRL's TR 1696 and TR 1862,
I do not have 1696.
We have NAWCWPNS TP 8302 and NRL 1862. The titles are confusing:
8302:
MilesManomalousea.pdf
1862:
MosierBossthermaland.pdf (Vol 1. - Mosier-Boss is the first editor listed)
MosierBossthermalanda.pdf (Vol 2.)
I should add the NRL Technical Report Numbers to the Descriptions, to make
it easier to locate them.
> the latter of which I got from you before www.lenr-canr.org was up:
>
> http://bovik.org/codeposition/tr1696.pdf
Ah, there it is! I will see if I can use it.
> http://bovik.org/codeposition/tr1862v1.pdfa
I think you mean: . . .tr1862v1.pdf (no a).
> http://bovik.org/codeposition/tr1862v2.pdf
We have these under MosierBossthermaland.pdf, MosierBossthermalanda.pdf, as
I said. The second volume has a non-fatal Acrobat error in first page, which
I cannot seem to get rid of. The copy at bovik.org has the same error.
- Jed
James Salsman
>: If you followed the discussion here about deuteron angular momenta,
>: you should realize that the apparatus going "pop" is far more likely
>: than fast neutrons or gamma radiation.
>
> I'm sorry, I missed that part. The only part of that discussion that I
> remember clearly is the part where you revealed that you didn't know what
> you were talking about....
I do know what I am talking about. I am talking about how rapidly the
protons bound to neutrons, the deuterons, are rotating with respect to
each other when they fuse, and the effect that momentum has on the
dynamics and products of the fusion reaction.
Do you or do you not agree that fusion between deuterons of low relative
angular momentum (i.e., low temperature D+ particles in PdD) is less
likely to produce free neutrons than fusion between deuterons of high
relative angular momenta (i.e., hot D plasma)? You do not even have to
believe that low-temperature fusion happens any more often than whatever
you consider to be the electrostatic chance. When it does hapen, however
rarely, does the temperature have an effect on the branching ratio or not?
On July 4th, 2001, Richard Schultz wrote, in reply to my comment:
>: I challenge Dr. Schultz to name a single scientist within the
>: U.S. Navy Research Laboratory or U.S. Department of Energy who
>: does not belive that a properly done replication of the Szpak
>: et al. studies will yield a positive result.
>
> I don't know the names of the scientists who work for the NRL, and my
> father is retired from the DOE. If you are willing to wait a few months
> until the next time I see them, I can ask the people who work in the
> lab with which my father was formerly associated for their opinions.
It has been nearly a year and a half. Did you ask? What did they say?
Best wishes,
James
sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il
: Do you or do you not agree that fusion between deuterons of low relative
: angular momentum (i.e., low temperature D+ particles in PdD) is less
: likely to produce free neutrons than fusion between deuterons of high
: relative angular momenta (i.e., hot D plasma)? You do not even have to
: believe that low-temperature fusion happens any more often than whatever
: you consider to be the electrostatic chance. When it does hapen, however
: rarely, does the temperature have an effect on the branching ratio or not?
Bad news: the branching ratio *has* been measured at temperatures down
to room temperature (in muon-catalyzed fusion in the low temperature case)
and guess what? The branching ratio is to a very good approximation
independent of the collision energy -- a result that should not come as
a surprise to anyone who understands the concept of "order of magnitude."
Which just proves that, as I said, the main conclusion that one can reach
from this discussion is that you do not know what you are talking about
and that you have no interest in altering the situation.
Kirk Shanahan
news:ytVI9.679$io.3...@iad-read.news.verio.net
| Kirk Shanahan <kirk.s...@srs.gov> wrote:
| > ... I work with gas loading of
| > all these materials, using D and T and mixes thereof. Soon, I will
| > have an apparatus (I hope) to load to 15000 psi or higher with pure
| > T. I don't like the idea that I may a) have my apparatus go "pop",
| > and b) may get irradiated unknowingly by neutrons or gammas....
| Aha! So, the truth comes out! This is a far, far cry from the post
|
|
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=9acdab21.0207220908.2aace1c5%40posting
| .google.com
| less than half a year ago where you, Dr. Shanahan, said that you were,
| "tapped out on CF and I think I'm going to try to exit the scene,"
Yep, it is sad I keep coming back isn't it. I guess I need to try
harder.
However, when a 'new' set of data is presented that is so "marvelous" it
proves CF 'beyond a shadow of a doubt', I feel obligated to look.
Within
a day, I had read the paper and understood how my explanation of 'CF'
could account for the new data. Subsequently, a couple of days later I
came up with what I think might be an even better explanation.
| after I suggested you try the very low-cost confirmatory apparatus at:
| http://www.bovik.org/codeposition/best.gif
| If you followed the discussion here about deuteron angular momenta,
| you should realize that the apparatus going "pop" is far more likely
| than fast neutrons or gamma radiation.
Doesn't matter, all of the above are bad for me.
| > There are more people at my site who would be subjected to the same
| > concerns. I need to know if it's real....
| Are you saying that there are people's lives at stake, and you have
| told them that there is nothing to be worried about? You are willing
| to risk your and their lives on your statistical navel-gazing without
| even trying the least expensive emperical confirmatory experiment
known?
Yup. And people's lives are at stake only if 'CF' is real. I have
studied the phenomenon, and while I think there is a real FPHE, it is
not going to produce radiation or excess heat. By the way, I only used
statistics in the most general sense in my examination of excess heat.
In reality, I used simple algebra to show what a simple heat source
location change could do, and then I noted no one has ever proven that
isn't the correct view. That leaves the explanation of the CF effect
in the normal, understandable realm of chemistry and physics. There
is no significant reason to think otherwise. If anyone _has_ such a
reason however, they need to publicize it so I can respond. There are
people on this group who claim such data but won't publicize it.
Also, you have no clue how much it would cost me to try to replicate
the effect. Furthermore, this would be done with the full expectation
of showing nothing. I don't consider that a good use of taxpayer's
money. Actually, I have thought hard about a possible economic benefit
from the FPHE. However, I can't find one, so the motivation remains 0.
| You have not yet even postulated here any possible causes of the
moving
| heat source you hypothesized in the post cited above, upon which your
| theory, and apparently your colleagues well-being, depends. Are you
| going to leave that thread dangling? What kind of heat source could
| mysteriously move back and forth between calibration and test runs?
I have. Many times. Recombination at the cathode (or maybe the anode).
Normal recombination, not electrochemical. Stimulated by a 'special
active surface state', to borrow a phrase. Szpak has photographed
the process.
| > And to be honest, while my contemporaries don't believe it, none
| > could tell me why....
| Do you not count Jerry J. Smith, at U.S. D.o.E. Germantown, the
| highest-ranking pertinent government authority outside of the
military,
| as your contemporary?
No.
{snip}
Gordon D. Pusch
> In article <1R9J9.711$io.3...@iad-read.news.verio.net>, James Salsman
> <ja...@bpleaseonovspamithanksk.org> wrote:
>
>> Do you or do you not agree that fusion between deuterons of low relative
>> angular momentum (i.e., low temperature D+ particles in PdD) is less
>> likely to produce free neutrons than fusion between deuterons of high
>> relative angular momenta (i.e., hot D plasma)? You do not even have to
>> believe that low-temperature fusion happens any more often than whatever
>> you consider to be the electrostatic chance. When it does hapen, however
>> rarely, does the temperature have an effect on the branching ratio or not?
>
> Bad news: the branching ratio *has* been measured at temperatures down
> to room temperature (in muon-catalyzed fusion in the low temperature case)
> and guess what? The branching ratio is to a very good approximation
> independent of the collision energy -- a result that should not come as
> a surprise to anyone who understands the concept of "order of magnitude."
Also, due the fact that, to a first approximation, the strong interaction
is known to be symmetric wrt isospin reversal (i.e., exchange of neutron
and proton number). Hence, the cross-sections for D + D --> T + p and
D + D --> He3 + n differ only by corrections due to the coulomb force
and the small mass difference of protons and neutrons.
> Which just proves that, as I said, the main conclusion that one can reach
> from this discussion is that you do not know what you are talking about
> and that you have no interest in altering the situation.
Agreed.
-- Gordon D. Pusch
perl -e '$_ = "gdpusch\@NO.xnet.SPAM.com\n"; s/NO\.//; s/SPAM\.//; print;'
James Salsman
>: Do you or do you not agree that fusion between deuterons of low relative
>: angular momentum (i.e., low temperature D+ particles in PdD) is less
>: likely to produce free neutrons than fusion between deuterons of high
>: relative angular momenta (i.e., hot D plasma)? You do not even have to
>: believe that low-temperature fusion happens any more often than whatever
>: you consider to be the electrostatic chance. When it does hapen, however
>: rarely, does the temperature have an effect on the branching ratio or not?
>
> Bad news: the branching ratio *has* been measured at temperatures down
> to room temperature (in muon-catalyzed fusion in the low temperature case)
> and guess what? The branching ratio is to a very good approximation
> independent of the collision energy -- a result that should not come as
> a surprise to anyone who understands the concept of "order of magnitude."
As in, "muons are nearly three orders of magnitude more massive than the
electrons present in PdD." Muon-catalyzed fusion is completely different
in terms of kinetics than PdD fusion. I am not suprised that fusion
involving such a massive catalyst has products similar to plasma fusion.
Futhermore, total collision energy isn't the same thing as rotational
kinetic energy, angular momentum, which is likely to be dwarfed by the
power of strong force binding.
So, how about those D.o.E. physicists? Need a few more months?
Best wishes,
James
James Salsman
>| Are you saying that there are people's lives at stake, and you have
>| told them that there is nothing to be worried about? You are willing
>| to risk your and their lives on your statistical navel-gazing without
>| even trying the least expensive emperical confirmatory experiment known?
>
> Yup. And people's lives are at stake only if 'CF' is real. I have
> studied the phenomenon, and while I think there is a real FPHE, it is
> not going to produce radiation or excess heat. By the way, I only used
> statistics in the most general sense in my examination of excess heat.
> In reality, I used simple algebra to show what a simple heat source
> location change could do, and then I noted no one has ever proven that
> isn't the correct view. That leaves the explanation of the CF effect
> in the normal, understandable realm of chemistry and physics. There
> is no significant reason to think otherwise. If anyone _has_ such a
> reason however, they need to publicize it so I can respond....
Here's a reason: gas volume/pressure measurements have been done as
part of most calorimetry since 1991.
> Also, you have no clue how much it would cost me to try to replicate
> the effect.
How could www.bovik.org/codeposition/best.gif cost more than $1000?
> Furthermore, this would be done with the full expectation of showing
> nothing....
Oh?! And what, you'll do it again and again until it shows nothing?
Look at it this way, if it shows nothing, then that means you and your
coworkers aren't going to incur a huge taxpayer expense to have your
guts scraped off the ceiling. If you see an effect, then you might want
to stand in the next county when you flip the switch.
>| You have not yet even postulated here any possible causes of the moving
>| heat source you hypothesized in the post cited above, upon which your
>| theory, and apparently your colleagues well-being, depends. Are you
>| going to leave that thread dangling? What kind of heat source could
>| mysteriously move back and forth between calibration and test runs?
>
> I have. Many times. Recombination at the cathode (or maybe the anode).
> Normal recombination, not electrochemical. Stimulated by a 'special
> active surface state', to borrow a phrase. Szpak has photographed
> the process.
How could chemical recombination change location between control and
experimental configurations?
Assuming that there is some such way, it is trivial to detect any such
variable recombination by measuring the volume (or pressure, for closed
cells) of the output gasses. Miles and Bush (Naval Air Warfare Center,
China Lake) were recommending evaluation of output gas volume as early
as their 1991 paper, "Calorimetric Principles and Problems in Pd-D2O
Electrolysis," from the Third International Conference on Cold Fusion.
Best wishes,
James
sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il
: As in, "muons are nearly three orders of magnitude more massive than the
: in terms of kinetics than PdD fusion.
And your evidence for this is. . .?
: Futhermore, total collision energy isn't the same thing as rotational
: kinetic energy, angular momentum, which is likely to be dwarfed by the
: power of strong force binding.
I suggest that you consult a good book on collision dynamics. You might
learn something. (You might want to look up terms like "impact parameter.")
Also note that by your own admission, the angular momentum, which you claim
is the deciding factor in the branching ratio, is minuscule compared to
the primary process. That's not a good sign for your hypothesis.
Kirk L. Shanahan
{snip}
>
> How could chemical recombination change location between control and
> experimental configurations?
In a calorimeter with any localized heat loss pathways, redistributing
the heat so that the %lost changes can produce a system change that
requires the calibration equation be changed to maintain accuracy. I
call this a calibration constant shift (CCS).
Since ALL calorimeters are imperfect, and ALL have a few higher loss
pathways, a calibration constant shift is possible in all
calorimeters.
As you note, changing the recombination location could do that, since
typically the recombiner is a hot spot.
In my explanation of the CF effect, which I call the Fleischmann-Pons-
Hawkins Effect (FPHE), there is no nuclear process functioning. This
distinguishes the FPHE from all other claims to explain excess heat.
However, the observations of CF researchers are basically good, they
just trust their calorimetry and therefore conclude 'nuclear' is the
required word. But what I've shown is that a CCS can cause apparent
excess heat. The problem is then to decide if a CCS has occurred, or
if a true nuclear process is active.
So, in answer to your question, and recognizing that the CFers
explanations are close to correct, I propose that a 'special active
surface state' forms on the cathode that allows some recombination
to occur there, as opposed to the recombiner (in a closed cell).
That would produce a CCS, which would evidence as an excess heat
event.
IMHO, the best candidate for the 'special active surface state' is
something that allows H2 bubbles growing on the cathode to easily
combine with incident O2 bubbles. The mixed gas bubble would then
ignite due to the catalytic activity of the metal cathode surface.
And I contend this is exactly what Szpak, et al, photographed with
their IR sensitive camera system, burning bubbles.
>
> Assuming that there is some such way, it is trivial to detect any such
> variable recombination by measuring the volume (or pressure, for closed
> cells) of the output gasses. Miles and Bush (Naval Air Warfare Center,
> China Lake) were recommending evaluation of output gas volume as early
> as their 1991 paper, "Calorimetric Principles and Problems in Pd-D2O
> Electrolysis," from the Third International Conference on Cold Fusion.
>
> Best wishes,
> James
A lot of people claim they have 'checked' for recombination, and
haven't
found any. The only hard data I have ever seen on this though is a
very
few reports of where collected water volume was measured, and these
all
had basic volume measurement techniques in use, which usually give a
5-10%
precision. The CCSs I discussed in my reanalysis of Storms' data were
on the order of 1-3%. The point is that, while careful measurements
as
you suggest would potentially resolve the issue, people don't actually
do
it. Or, if they do, they just assume I should 'trust' them when they
say they checked. Sure, they checked, but not accurately and
precisely
enough to tell.
In Miles and Bush's Navy report of 1996, they state that the best
excess
heat results they had was 520 mW. Ed Storms' got 780 mW. Miles and
Bush
don't do a calibration check of any kind during a CF event. In fact,
in discussions with Ed Storms, it is clear that is impossible to do.
That means
a different calorimeter design is required that specifically probes
for a
CCS. No such calorimeter exists today, which isn't surprising. It is
a
major task to design one to check for a CCS, and nobody thought it was
important before. Hopefully, people will understand the CCS problem
and
realize it is.
The 520 mW represents 30% excess, and they state it was their best
result.
They used an open cell in an isoperibolic calorimeter, which was a
single
point temperature measurement device. That means that normally the
energy
stored in the H2 and O2 chemical bonds is lost up the stack, and that
only
a small fraction of the total heat produced is used to predict actual
heat
produced via the calibration equation. A very small amount of
recombination in their cell is an uncalibrated situation, and I simply
claim that if they had calibrated with the same conditions as they
have
during an excess heat event, they would have gotten 0 excess heat (and
a
different calibration equation from the base case of 0 in-cell
recomb.).
Their calorimeter is fundamentally more suceptible to the generic
'CCS'
problem, meaning here simple hot spots as well as what I invoke in the
mass flow or Seebeck cases.
Miles and Bush report on water volume displacement by their matched
cells,
and they get one cell matching predicitons with an error of about
3.7%.
The second cell was a little low on the amount and had an error of
2.2%.
But! None of these numbers are reported as being obtained during a
'CF-event'. If they weren't, that means the authors have assumed,
based on 'normal' behavior, that no recombination can occur. I
challenge that
assumption. The bottom line is that all relevant parameters must be
specifically reported _DURING_ an excess heat event. I haven't found
one
of these yet.
James Salsman
>> How could chemical recombination change location between control and
>> experimental configurations?
>
>... I propose ... something that allows H2 bubbles growing on the cathode
> to easily combine with incident O2 bubbles.
I assume you mean D2 bubbles. Two questions:
First, isn't it true that a traditional platinum control cathode would
have greater or equal catalytic activity for D2O recombination compared
to the corresponding experimental palladium cathode?
Second, how does O2 get to the cathode? I read Dr. Britz as indicating
that the amount of oxygen dissolved in the electrolyte can be nowhere
near the amount required to generate the kind of recombination heat you
are suggesting.
Handwaving about special active surface states can not change the clear
intellectual bankruptcy of your hypothesis.
> The mixed gas bubble would then ignite due to the catalytic activity
> of the metal cathode surface....
All the more reason to try www.bovik.org/codeposition/best.gif -- the
cells (cathode, anode, electrolyte compounds, etc.) are identical, and
only the isotope of hydrogen in the water solvent and electrolyte
molarity is different (and only slightly different for the molarity.)
>> Assuming that there is some such way, it is trivial to detect any such
>> variable recombination by measuring the volume....
>
> A lot of people claim they have 'checked' for recombination, and
> haven't found any. The only hard data I have ever seen on this though
> is a very few reports of where collected water volume was measured, and
> these all had basic volume measurement techniques in use, which usually
> give a 5-10% precision....
Which papers are you referring to, and what exactly did they say about
their authors' volume measurement techniques?
100 ml volumetric pipets costing $20 are accurate to +/- 0.08 ml:
http://www.voigtglobal.com/pipets.htm
Best wishes,
James
Kirk L. Shanahan
>
> Handwaving about special active surface states can not change the clear
> intellectual bankruptcy of your hypothesis.
>
So, I guess I should disappear and study your proposals then...
However, given my inability to supply an intellectually solvent
hypothesis after years of detailed study and one theoretical
publication, I wouldn't hold my breath on me coming up with
something if I were you.
Have a good holiday season.