A New Cold Fusion Report Out of Russia

JohnnyCJohnny · science forum Guru Wannabe Joined: 24 Mar 2005 Posts: 277

Well I have been thanked by a couple of people for posting the stories
I find, so I know there are people who find my services useful. Sure,
people can do a Google Search if they wish, who is stopping them? It
seems like most pro-cold fusion people have moved over to Vortex to
share their views at this point.

If there weren't new stories and results about cold fusion, then I
wouldn't post them, simple as that. If no new cold fusion stories or
information came out for six months, you wouldn't hear from me. This
is where the skeptics start to disconnect from reality. The reality is
that cold fusion is being covered in the media. It has not died and
faded away as some might have hoped (although that in itself is another
strange thought pattern, why would someone hope that something as
potentially positive as cold fusion just died and went away?)

I am posting what is being put out in the media, I am not creating the
current buzz about cold fusion. This ng was set up for exactly this
reason, before Google and Yahoo existed, so people could go to one
place on the Internet to find the latest information on cold fusion and
discuss it. What am I doing that is out of line with the stated
purpose of this ng? If I were, I would concede it and stop. I can
pull up the stated purpose if you'd like. This ng exists for purpose
of sharing information about cold fusion, so I post stories and results
regarding cold fusion to it.

The fact is that in 2004, whether you skeptics like it or not, cold
fusion stories appeared in just about every major scientific
publication (Nature, Science, New Scientist) and in many mainstream
news sources as well such as the NY Times and Washington Post. These
stories deserved to be posted and achieved on s.p.f for future
reference. Please tell me why not? Are you against sharing
information? These stories aren't all from obscure sources, Nature and
the NY Times are about as mainstream as you can get. It seems like
skeptics are having a hard to accepting the fact that cold fusion
hasn't just died a quick death and faded away, it has been receiving
more mainstream coverage in recent years than in any year since 1989.
That is because cold fusion is not dead.

I stand by everything I said regarding paranormal/psychic phenomenon in
sci.skeptic. I had a very unique experience in life, and it was
described perfectly by a person I never met before, which is very hard
to explain and has to open one's mind to the possibilities. But,
that belongs on another ng. It is funny how these two topics
sometimes cross paths. Brian Josephson gave a speech last year about
the inability for the mainstream physics community to be open to ideas
that are not so mainstream such as psychic phenomenon and cold fusion.

Richard Schultz · science forum Guru Joined: 28 Apr 2005 Posts: 339

In article <1117024606.215821.151340@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, JohnnyCJohnny <johnwc@patmedia.net> wrote:
: Richard Schultz wrote:

:> You really ought to work on your reading comprehension skills.
:
: Really? Once again, caught in an awkard situation.
:
: JohnnyC: As I said, this thread would be nearly dead without someone
: like me around
: RS: And that would not necessarily be a bad thing.
:
: That is exactly what you said. I can read just fine.

Except that you seem singularly incapable of reading my answer to your
oft-asked question of why I post to s.p.f. if I am skeptical about the
existence of the effect.

: Amazing that people spend their time debating an issue they don't even
: think is real.

You really are amazing; once again, I am trying to find a polite explanation
for your behavior, and the best I can do is residual effects of psychotropic
drugs. On the one hand, you want there to be a debate here, but on the
other, you think it's amazing that anyone other than a TB believer would
post to s.p.f. Do you see the inconsistency here?

: Are you retired?

That is something that you should be able to find out without any help from me.

: . . .It is, for the third time, the exact reason
: why s.p.f exists, to share information about the latest developments in
: cold fusion, not as your personal spot on the Internet to pontificate
: about what you think of cold fusion.

Then why do you consistently post references to articles that are not
even remotely related to cold fusion?

-----
Richard Schultz schultr@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
-----
"You don't even have a clue about which clue you're missing."

Richard Schultz · science forum Guru Joined: 28 Apr 2005 Posts: 339

In article <1117027938.926176.286530@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, JohnnyCJohnny <johnwc@patmedia.net> wrote:
: Richard Schultz wrote:

:> Except that you seem singularly incapable of reading my answer to your
:> oft-asked question of why I post to s.p.f. if I am skeptical about the
:> existence of the effect.
:
: I know why you are skeptical.

In addition to any other reasons that I might have posting for here, I
have to admit that it's always intriguing to try to have a discussion with
someone whose posts are apparently being beamed down from Neptune (the
planet, not the city in New Jersey). Your statement above is a
complete non-sequitur.

: You think the researchers are incompentent [sic] and some are frauds.

I think that *some* researchers are *obviously* incompetent, and that
many are misled by marginal data into believing that there is a signal
when what they are seeing is noise. I would be most interested in your
pointing out to me an instance when I accused a *researcher* of being
a fraud.

: You think theorhetically [sic] cold fusion is impossible,

Wrong again. I believe that since if it existed, the effect would violate
many ideas that are very strongly supported both theoretically and
experimentally, CF is very, very, unlikely to exist.

: so all positive results must be the result of gross error.

Wrong again. You're batting 1.000 so far. I believe that given the
unlikelihood that the effect exists, any experiment claiming to demonstrate
it must be unequivocal and not readily explained by a more conventional
alternative explanation. As the saying goes, "extraordinary claims demand
extraordinary evidence." Without getting into the philosophy of science
and how one differentiates a positive result from a negative one, I can
say that as a person who does experimental science involving physical
measurements for a living -- a qualification that you do not have -- I
have yet to see any unequivocal evidence for the existence of CF. That
does not say that any claim of a positive result *must* be an error, only
that every positive claim made so far has "experimental error" as a
plausible alternative explanation. Since the existence of the effect is so
unlikely, as long as the results can reasonably be explained by experimental
error, a reasonable person will accept that explanation.

: But, in my view, the facts do not agree with you [sic] assessment.

As I have said countless times before, you have absolutely no qualification
to judge these so-called "facts."

: The researchers are not psuedoscientists. Many have been working in
: mainstream parts of their fields at universities or government labs for
: decades, hardly the crackpot scientist.

Do you even *attempt* to read the posts to which you respond? I have
already pointed out to you that a person can be a respected scientist
in one field and become a pseudo-scientist in another. You have
dismissed "water memory" as pseudo-science, and yet one person who takes
the claims seriously has a Nobel Prize in physics.

: Also, there are many results that I find compelling.

You have been asked before to provide a *specific* example of a result
that you find compelling, and why you find it compelling. If you have
ever provided such an example, I do not recall at the moment having seen it.

: Of course, the researchers account for the possibility of error. That
: would not be science if they didn't.

That is why they are engaging in pseudo-science: they do *not* account
for the possibility of error. Just ask Kirk Shanahan. Look at Szpak's
article and see if you can find in it anywhere *any* attempt to eliminate
the obvious explanation for his result (he saw a signal only when he
*changed* the input voltage), namely, that he had an unsuspected ground
loop. Look at Dash's mass spec results and tell me if you can find
any reference to typical background signals, or why his t=0 "isotope
ratios" do not match the natural abundances. Look at Russ George's result
and ask yourself why he never did the obvious control experiment of
switching the "experimental" and "control" flasks. Heck, go back to P&F's
original paper and ask yourself why they attributed the system that got
destroyed over a weekend to a meltdown rather than to the obvious culprit,
namely, that the D2 caught fire.

: But,

Frankly, you'd look like slightly less of a lune if you learned the
proper use of commas.

: you don't agree with their conclusions about error, so the issue
: remains unsettled at the moment. This is what makes science
: interesting. Not everyone agrees.

No, what makes science interesting is that it is a method for learning
about the universe.

:> : Amazing that people spend their time debating an issue they don't even
:> : think is real.

:> You really are amazing; once again, I am trying to find a polite explanation
:> for your behavior, and the best I can do is residual effects of psychotropic
:> drugs. On the one hand, you want there to be a debate here, but on the
:> other, you think it's amazing that anyone other than a TB believer would
:> post to s.p.f. Do you see the inconsistency here?

: I don't consider myself a TBer in cold fusion. I have said that many
: many times. I am an interested 3rd party, interested in seeing science
: get it right on this most controversal matter.

It's only "controversial" among the ill-informed and the wishful thinkers.
For everyone else, the issue was more or less settled 15 years ago.

: I think there is enough in the public domain to believe that cold fusion
: phenomenon might indeed be real.

What qualifications do you have to make that judgement?

: One thing that makes me wonder about you is the fact that about a year
: ago you seemed to claim that cold fusion experimenters were so
: incompetent that they were making measurements with an error range of
: 10 times the reported result. That makes me wonder if you're really
: giving the data a fair evaluation.

Which specific post of mine, and which specific experiment, are you
referring to? And have *you* looked at the data in question?

:> : Are you retired?

:> That is something that you should be able to find out without any help
:> from me.
:
: I assume so.

My high school geometry teacher (Good Old Mr. Martello and his right-triangle
dance: One. One. Square root -- of two. Two. One. Square root -- of three.)
used to say that when you assume, you make an "ass" out of "u" and "me."

:> Then why do you consistently post references to articles that are not
:> even remotely related to cold fusion?
:
: Examples? I do not post off-topic news to this ng. That would be out
: of line with the purpose of this ng. Sonofusion, since it doesn't have
: a home on the USENET and is followed by people also interest in cold
: fusion seems relevant enough to me.

It is not even remotely related to cold fusion since (if it exists)
it takes place at high temperatures. Your posts of the latest table-top
fusion experiment are another example: the fusion takes place at
high temperatures (produced in a novel and clever manner), and hence it
is not in any sense cold fusion.

-----
Richard Schultz schultr@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
-----
"These are just simple farmers. People of the land. The common clay
of the New West. You know -- morons."

Cary Jamison · science forum beginner Joined: 29 Apr 2005 Posts: 39

Kirk Shanahan wrote:

JohnnyCJohnny · science forum Guru Wannabe Joined: 24 Mar 2005 Posts: 277

Cary Jamison wrote:

Kirk Shanahan · science forum addict Joined: 28 Apr 2005 Posts: 73

JohnnyCJohnny wrote:

JohnnyCJohnny · science forum Guru Wannabe Joined: 24 Mar 2005 Posts: 277

kirk.shanahan@srs.gov wrote:

Kirk Shanahan · science forum addict Joined: 28 Apr 2005 Posts: 73

* Thanks for clearing that up for me. Now your critique makes more
* sense. You're not accusing the scientists of being incompetent in
* their abilities to callibrate their instruments. You are saying that

* in this type of system you believe a more rigerous (constant)
* callibration protocol is warrant. You're saying in order to produce
* reliable results in what you term an "unstable system", a constant
* callibration system must be devised to continuously check the
* callibration during the experiment. This does raise a
numberquestions:

* Why do you call it an unstable system?

Because it is uncontrolled by the researchers. Even in the cases
where the researchers get the effect 'reproducibily' they can not
control the magnitude. At arbitrary and capricious points in time,
the system shifts, the signal goes away, or gets stronger, etc.,
all while the nominal input conditions remain unchanged. Likewise
in other cases, changing the input conditions causes no change in
signal. This places the experimental status of the field in the
'still under development' phase. They have an effect but they
can't control it. The true controlling factors have not been
identified, let alone controlled.

The other reason I call it unstable is that I demonstrated how that
thesis explains the variation in the Ed Storms' data I reanalyzed
in my first publication. I explain how that can happen in my second.

* Is it a more unstable system than any experiment a scientist runs
that
* has peaks and troughs of data in which the usual protocols of
* callibrating the instruments beforehand (and perhaps afterwards for
* good measure) are sufficient?

It always depends on how big the 'peaks and troughs' are relative to
response. When the system is stable, they get a very good level
of control on the other factors (Jed Rothwell's '90 sigma' data),
but then the system shifts by 5-10% (or so). You are completely
correct in your implication that this problem can affect any
calibrated experiment. That's why the "Truth" is that you can't
calibrate an unstable system (unstable on the time scale of the
experiment). To repeat, _any_ calibrated experiment can
potentially have this problem.

* Are such constant callibration systems currently used in any
* experiments, is the technology feasible?

I don't know. The problem with the CF case is that the usual
calibration device, a resistive heater, does not undergo the
shift I describe. Its heat does not repartition during the run.
Ed Storms and I discussed this at some length and we decided that
it is extrememly difficult to calibrate this system with the
current experimetal setup. A much more complicated system has
to be set up.

However, I believe the easier alternative is to accurately measure
the extent of recombination during electrolysis. I point out in
my second pubication that their recombination measure showed a 7%
_higher_ than expected amount of off gas flow. That means the
measurement technique(s) is(are) not accurate.

* Why should we consider the data from other experiments using
* calolimetry trustworthy using the standard callibration methods, but
* data from cold fusion cells not trustworthy?

Because the other types of calorimetric systems being studied do not
have as high a potential for heat redistribution, which I claim is
the root cause of the apparent excess heat.

* Has anyone taken you criticism into account and tried to constantly
* callibrate their instruments, what were the results?

No, they prefer to ignore the situation.

* If the calolimetry instruments are shown to be callibrated correctly
* before and after the experiment, why shouldn't we assume the data the

* instruments were able to record correct measurements and the data is
* trustworthy?

Because a) that assumption requires a revolution in physics, and b)
because a rational explanation for the observations exists which does
not require any revolutions to explain the effect exists and _most
importantly_ has not been eliminated.

* Not trying to sand bag you with these questions. But you do raise an

* interesting criticism of the cold fusion data. I understand what
* you're saying and I think if your criticism is going to carry some
* weight it would have to be demonstrated that there is a reason to
* believe that constant callibration is indeed necessary in this case,
* that the cells are unstable and the data is untrustworthy.

See my first publication for such reasons.

* If the technology is available, there would be no harm if a cold
fusion
* researcher performed constant callibration on his cells as you
suggest,
* just to put this issue to rest and to further ensure the reliability
of
* his/her data.

As long as the calibration method is able to simulate the proposed
shift in heat distribution in the cells. Otherwise, it is just a
waste of time.

* If suddenly the results are flatlining due to constant
* callibration adjustments, then you would be on to something; the
* experimenters are looking at and reporting noise. If not, then the
* saga continues and requires further reasearch. I think your
criticism
* deserves to be taken into account.

Thank you, that's all I ask. The CFers refuse to do even that.

---
Kirk Shanahan {My opinions...noone else's}

Google