I think I read that story in Astounding Science Fiction when I was in high school.
The occasion for this post is a thread started by the old standard, Mary Yugo, who created a LENR Forum thread entirely based on a possible overstatement by Jed Rothwell, I’m not entirely certain yet.
He starts with:
Jed Rothwell has repeatedly asserted that there is significant and credible evidence for an LENR device which sustains a 100W output for days without any input power.
I’ve been seeing this go back and forth for days. Mary says “you said,” and Jed says “something else.” Often there is no link to the prior discussion, a particular LF peeve of mine, users who don’t use the quote facility when responding, so tracking conversations back can be tedious.
Yes, a 100 watt power release for days from LENR without input power would be remarkable. Has this ever happened? I don’t have any example in mind, setting aside the claims of Andrea Rossi, which are, to say the least, unconfirmed, hence not answers to Mary’s question.
I think Jed may have been referring to the IMRA HAD work, which had sustained power of 100 W for a time, not for days, I think. But maybe I’m wrong. I miss stuff sometimes.
What is two orders of magnitude among friends. From the IE source, 1 W, not 100 W.
Jed Rothwell makes this claim and won’t tell us where it came from
Jed Rothwell regularly links his sources. But you won’t read them, because you’re a pathoskeptical troll.
Jed may often link sources, but also often doesn’t bother, and also has a habit of overstating things a tad. What happened here, I’m not sure yet. Zephir’s comment was unwarranted, though, and a bit surprising it wasn’t sent to Clearance Items.
The link provided is to a tally of papers put together by Rothwell. It is not relevant to this discussion, so this is …. trolling. My condolences to LF mods.
Zephir_AWT also posted this irrelevancy. Mary’s question is very specific. The high power claims in the paper linked were mostly about Rossi. However, there is a claim repeated there of XP over 100 W for some days. However, this was not without input power. As well, it is not particularly credible, due to various experimental problems, such as thermocouple failures.
Jed Rothwell finally shows up and says something:
I do not recall any cells from Fleischmann and Pons that ran for 10 days without input power (heat after death — HAD). They showed an example that ran for 3 hours in the paper I pointed you to, and other papers show a day or two. They published other experiments with over 100 W, lasting 3 months continuously, but these had input power. The best example they show produced 294 MJ of excess heat. Other people have seen HAD lasting anywhere from a few hours to 20 hours at power levels ranging from 10 to 50 W. I do not recall examples of HAD below 1 W.
However, even 3 hours of HAD in the paper I pointed to is far beyond the limits of chemistry. This can be shown many ways, most notably:
The cells that produced HAD also produced massive amounts of energy before heating up (phase 1), and during the boiling event (phase 2). They did not store any energy during phase 1 or 2. The calorimetry shows this clearly. Cells that do not produce heat in phases 1 and 2 never produce it in HAD (phase 3).
Blank cells such as Pt-H driven to boiling by conventional electrolysis never show excess heat. The balance is always close to 1; output = input, minus some losses. In phase 3 they always cool down, immediately and monotonically, exactly according to Newton’s law. Whereas HAD cells stay the same temperature or in some case get hotter after several hours.
There is no chemical fuel in the cell, and no chemical changes are detected.
What I notice here is not so much what Jed says (which is reporting what he has read), but what he doesn’t say. He is not confirming that he said what Mary Yugo claimed, but he is also not explicitly denying it, and a simple way would be: “I don’t recall saying it, but if I did, it was an error. I don’t know of any example just like that.” Or whatever matches the truth. Where does this go?
Could you please provide a link to those other papers for the devices that ran unpowered for a day or two? Also one of the papers (hopefully the best one) showing excess heat of >100W sustained for 3 months with input power? Thanks.
The first sentence exaggerates Jed’s claim. The second is based on “other experiments with over 100 W, lasting 3 months continuously, but these had input power.”
Did the experiment last 3 months with excess heat continuously, but varying in level, or was the 100 W XP level maintained continuously?
There were some references by Rothwell that might be worth following up, but the conversation degenerated rapidly into ritual trading of insults.
Well, not yet. I saw a clear demonstration of trolling on LENR Forum in this thread. This is what happens when quality writing appears there.
(apparently quoting kevmolenr)
I dislike the dialog being put into characterizations of belief. But this aspect of not accepting perfectly good scientific data until it is commercialized is another threshold to consider about skeptopaths
Have you ever done a doctoral Literature Survey? Or supervised others doing this? I have done both.
It is a weird process but valuable in one very important way. It teaches you how to critically appraise other people’s work where there is no consensus, and can be none because individual contributions are unique and in some cases have not been followed up by anyone else.
Every (well – almost every) doctoral student starts off reading papers and, as you, accepting perfectly good scientific data. Only after they have read around the subject, done some of their own work (whether experimental or analytic) can they come back to the original stuff and have a mature judgement of what the original papers really mean. That will in nearly all cases be much less significant than it seemed when first read.
So your unconditional acceptance of certain data, together with the lack of detailed analysis in your appraisal of the work you accept, leads me to think that you are at this first starting-out doctoral student stage in your understanding of this subject. The fact that you seem unaware of the subtlety in interpreting scientific research, and the way that individual work will always seem more convincing than it really is until you have a rounded view of the field, makes me think you are not qualified to judge those you call skeptopaths whether your judgement is right or wrong.
You seem perfectly happy to accept Kirk’s theories of how the anomalous heat effect in Pd/D can be explained by something other than LENR, despite the fact that AFAIK he has never performed any experiments to test his hypothesis directly, but reluctant to accept the truth of Jed’s often cited ‘hundreds of experiments’ that demonstrate LENR.
Some inconsistency there, shirley?
Alan Smith is the troll with a moderator hat. Classic trolling: misrepresent the position of the target, claim inconsistency. There is a vast difference between Jed’s claims and those of Shahanan, they are not equivalent. I haven’t seen THH denying the 153 positive papers information (which is based on the Britz database of peer-reviewed publications, but which is not quite as simple as is being presented). (The issue of the number of experiments is also very complex. Do we count all the “failed cells”? Numbers of “successes” and numbers of “failures” are actually irrelevant to basic issues.
And THH has only said that Shahanan has not received a full and proper response (which I tend to agree with, at the same time as I understand why CMNS scientists haven’t bothered, largely due to how Shanahan presents himself and his ideas).
[first repeating his comment that THH quoted, then:]
I was objecting to the word “belief” because of how scientism is becoming its own belief system, a religion if you will.
That’s offensive in context, and irrelevant. “Scientism” is by definition a belief system, a kind of religion. How about egotism? Should we mention egotism here? How about the particularly offensive kind of egotism that functions by trying to make others look bad?
You have an interesting perspective, that anyone without a PhD is unqualified to assess 150 replications by the top electrochemists of their day.
But that is not his perspective. For starters, THH has always been respectful toward me, and I have no degree at all, much less a PhD. However, as he has been doing for some time, Kevmolenr is just repeating an argument from authority, when he’s quite clueless about the reality. What “150 replications.” Kevmo is likely referring to the 153 papers considered “positive” by Dieter Britz in his database, as counted by Jed in his own paper. Only a few of those papers would be “replications.” That word has a meaning in science, but kevmolenr is clueless about science, while ridiculing someone who actually is a professor and who is writing from real experience. The authors of those papers include some highly experienced electrochemists, but are not exclusively from such.
This is a story that kevmolenr probably picked up by misinterpreting what Jed Rothwell has written, and I hope Rothwell will set him straight.
Perhaps you should submit this as a proposal to the moderators here on this panel so you can whittle down discussion among PhDs or PhD candidates. I know Ed Storms wanted something like that with Vortex and quit vortex when they didn’t bend to his will, choosing to spend his time discussing his theories with other PhD dudes.
And with me. One might notice that real CMNS scientists rarely comment on public fora, and one reason would be the intense trolling and useless arguments that abound. I don’t trust kevmolenr’s account of Ed’s alleged abandonment of Vortex, though. It is not a terribly efficient place to discuss LENR.
In the absence of your submitted proposal, I highly doubt you ever will submit such a proposal and that your elitist approach to the data is pure, unadulterated bovine excrement. Perhaps your Piled Higher and Deeper background eminently qualifies you to identify your own backyard pile of excrement, but I doubt that as well.
I’ll not be surprised to see this moved to Clearance. It’s insulting someone who is clearly a valuable contributor to the Forum, based on his education, and is the kind of anti-elitism — which is really anti-intelligence — that has become all too popular in some areas. In Maoist China, they’d send THH out for “re-education” on a collective farm if he dared say anything not fully respectful of the party line, which kevmolenr would have be, what? Whatever he believes?
And as long as you’re berating those who are unqualified to assess the data, you should look through what Interested Observer has to say and how well he represents that skeptopath tradition.
THH is not responsible for what IO says, and this kind of stereotyping is highly offensive, as well. And I haven’t seen THH “berating” anyone, and no example of that was before us. THH was describing the situation of someone relatively ignorant, new to a field, who adopts an enthusiastic position, perhaps, before being deeply informed. It’s a real problem.
When people like this go out into the world and attempt to represent LENR, to someone with, say, some knowledge of physics, they are very likely to damage educational outreach rather than further it. We don’t need more ignorant supporters, we need people willing to do the hard work to become informed. It takes time and the accumulation of a great deal of experience, not merely repeating the myth: “153 replications by the top electrochemists of their day.”
Kevmolenr clearly does not know the literature that he is taunting THH with, or he would not write as he does. He’s just trolling.
While you are at it, perhaps you know of some PhD who started reading all those 153 peer reviewed replications by the top electochemists of their day? And perhaps there is just even ONE peer reviewed paper that dismantles the replications, similar to what happened with Polywater?
There is no equivalent to the polywater controlled experiment, but it would also be quite difficult. Start here: how many of those papers were actually replications, instead of some sort of general confirmation?
And also, perhaps you could take a look at that Arata experiment that I posted upthread, and show where the peer reviewed replication of that experiment was unworthy of the result, that I should not have gotten paid for it passing peer review.
With no link, I’m not going to bother looking for it. Trolls don’t deserve the effort and the returns are too low. Were I THH, with much better things to do, I’d ignore kevmolenr. There is no sign that he is teachable, or wants to be teachable. LENR Forum is not a mission-critical site, such that it is required to refute all the garbage that shows up there (nor is E-Cat World, or Rossi’s blog, etc. — and what really matters is identifying specific research issues and facilitating attention and funding for them.)
And when you’re done with all that (which we all know you won’t do) then you can cast your glance at how you forwarded scientism as a religion, complete with its high priests who have PhDs and look down their noses at people without them.
Lack of respect for education is typical of what?
This is not seen among serious supporters of LENR research.