RE: [Vo]:Most papers from Piantelli are authored by Focardi
From: Steven Krivit I note your non-response to name your anonymous advisors with whom you discussed and dismissed the Piantelli-Focardi results. I note your non-response to present the specific scientific critique of your anonymous advisors. I am sure that there is no innuendo here from Steve, of the type which I will more clearly verbalize; but the original comment about disproof was so blatantly indefensible and really . well . what else can be said but stupid, especially after a second read of the underlying papers - that this does bring into question things like hidden agendas, ultimate motives, and secret advisors, etc- and does deserve a clear answer. When excellent results *without deuterium and palladium* turn up in experiments, and are subject to excessive and unwarranted criticism, without a good factual basis (and Bush/Eagleton comes to mind here as well) - then there is a natural suspicion (given the history if this field) that there is some kind of an anti-Mills agenda in there at some 'policy' level. Is there? Jones
RE: [Vo]:Most papers from Piantelli are authored by Focardi
-Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell I never have a hidden agenda. My view of the Ni-CF research is clearly stated in my book. Your significant and long-standing contributions to LENR, in both time and money, are of the highest order - and should always be recognized... ... and your agenda of minimalizing the importance of Mills' theory to LENR is also known and not secret. Correspondingly, his agenda of claiming to have the answer to everything is equally over-reaching, and should be mentioned. The truth lies somewhere in between. Secrecy, if there is any which is applicable to the Piantelli paper, would relate to the influence of another unknown party. ... and that is why the comment about confusing and conflating disproof with null results was meant to be a general thing, not aimed at anyone specifically, and why your name was not mentioned in the previous posting. If I am not mistaken, you have probably said something very similar, perhaps uncomfortably similar (and probably many times) - to past comments from skeptics of cold-fusion, who were fond of saying in the nineties that null results disproved the phenomenon. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Most papers from Piantelli are authored by Focardi
Jones Beene wrote: -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell I never have a hidden agenda. My view of the Ni-CF research is clearly stated in my book. Your significant and long-standing contributions to LENR, in both time and money, are of the highest order - and should always be recognized... ... and your agenda of minimalizing the importance of Mills' theory to LENR is also known and not secret. From what I've seen Jed's agenda here is to ignore Mills' theory, just as he ignores all theories of how LENR might work, and pay attention only to Mills' *replicated* results. Since replications of Mills' work are still few, as far as I know, and such replications as exist are of somewhat debatable independence (or so it has been claimed), Jed's agenda on the results is to wait and see. Anyhow that's how it's appeared to me in his posts. Correspondingly, his agenda of claiming to have the answer to everything is equally over-reaching, and should be mentioned. The truth lies somewhere in between. I must disagree with your last statement. I don't think the truth can lie in between. It's almost certainly at one extreme or the other. Either Mills hits a home run, and shakes the foundations of physics (and maybe gets a Nobel, forget a few scraggly patents), or he strikes out and is not even a footnote in the history of science. There isn't any middle ground, as far as I can see. Because either hydrinos are for real and totally revolutionary, and when the evidence is all in Mills will be recognized as a giant on the landscape of physics, or they are not real, and in the latter case there is nothing of value in Mills' work; hydrinos can't be a little bit real. Secrecy, if there is any which is applicable to the Piantelli paper, would relate to the influence of another unknown party. ... and that is why the comment about confusing and conflating disproof with null results was meant to be a general thing, not aimed at anyone specifically, and why your name was not mentioned in the previous posting. Yes, indeed, let's all stay on the same page here. The claim Jed made was *not* that they failed to replicate; it was that they *succeeded* in their replication, *and* they looked at the published data, *and* they found a mundane explanation for the apparent excess heat, *and* they showed that the mundane explanation fully accounted for the results of their *successful* replication. That's completely different from the claim that 95 failures to replicate disprove the claims of one successful scientist, which is tautologically false. If I am not mistaken, you have probably said something very similar, perhaps uncomfortably similar (and probably many times) - to past comments from skeptics of cold-fusion, who were fond of saying in the nineties that null results disproved the phenomenon. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Most papers from Piantelli are authored by Focardi
The Mills situation is a bit more complex than you note, Stephen. Hydrinos are not the only result of the Mills theory. He has created a new model for atomic interaction and a new model for calculating many fundamental constants including the ionization energy of most elements. His model is a major challenge to the view provided by QM. Even if hydrinos are not created, something else provides the energy he detects in various ways. His model is the only rational explanation that has been offered so far. As is usual, rejection by conventional science is based largely on ignorance of what is being rejected. Ed On Jul 21, 2009, at 12:07 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: Jones Beene wrote: -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell I never have a hidden agenda. My view of the Ni-CF research is clearly stated in my book. Your significant and long-standing contributions to LENR, in both time and money, are of the highest order - and should always be recognized... ... and your agenda of minimalizing the importance of Mills' theory to LENR is also known and not secret. From what I've seen Jed's agenda here is to ignore Mills' theory, just as he ignores all theories of how LENR might work, and pay attention only to Mills' *replicated* results. Since replications of Mills' work are still few, as far as I know, and such replications as exist are of somewhat debatable independence (or so it has been claimed), Jed's agenda on the results is to wait and see. Anyhow that's how it's appeared to me in his posts. Correspondingly, his agenda of claiming to have the answer to everything is equally over-reaching, and should be mentioned. The truth lies somewhere in between. I must disagree with your last statement. I don't think the truth can lie in between. It's almost certainly at one extreme or the other. Either Mills hits a home run, and shakes the foundations of physics (and maybe gets a Nobel, forget a few scraggly patents), or he strikes out and is not even a footnote in the history of science. There isn't any middle ground, as far as I can see. Because either hydrinos are for real and totally revolutionary, and when the evidence is all in Mills will be recognized as a giant on the landscape of physics, or they are not real, and in the latter case there is nothing of value in Mills' work; hydrinos can't be a little bit real. Secrecy, if there is any which is applicable to the Piantelli paper, would relate to the influence of another unknown party. ... and that is why the comment about confusing and conflating disproof with null results was meant to be a general thing, not aimed at anyone specifically, and why your name was not mentioned in the previous posting. Yes, indeed, let's all stay on the same page here. The claim Jed made was *not* that they failed to replicate; it was that they *succeeded* in their replication, *and* they looked at the published data, *and* they found a mundane explanation for the apparent excess heat, *and* they showed that the mundane explanation fully accounted for the results of their *successful* replication. That's completely different from the claim that 95 failures to replicate disprove the claims of one successful scientist, which is tautologically false. If I am not mistaken, you have probably said something very similar, perhaps uncomfortably similar (and probably many times) - to past comments from skeptics of cold-fusion, who were fond of saying in the nineties that null results disproved the phenomenon. Jones
RE: [Vo]:Most papers from Piantelli are authored by Focardi
I never have a hidden agenda. My view of the Ni-CF research is clearly stated in my book. Jed, Is this the view to which you refer, from Cold Fusion and the Future? Steve *** There is one more twist to this problem. Cold fusion can transmute the cathode metal into some other metal. This was definitively proved in experiments at Texas AM, Hokkaido University, Mitsubishi Corporation and elsewhere. In other words, a cold fusion reactor might gradually convert the palladium into other metals, especially chromium and iron. 60 It is not clear whether this always happens. Perhaps we can find a way to prevent it. If we cannot, the 171 metric tons of palladium we mine every year will rapidly be converted into cheap, useless chromium and iron, before we can generate much energy from it. The scenario described above, with the 24-hour baseline generators, would only work if we can recycle the palladium and use the same cathode metal again and again for decades. If the palladium turns into iron in a few years, cold fusion will never be a practical source of energy. Fortunately, there are good indications that cold fusion works well with abundant metals including nickel and titanium, although experiments with these materials have not yet been widely replicated, so I have lingering doubts about them. Cold fusion probably transmutes these metals too, but that may be an advantage. Suppose the process can be tuned to output any element we choose. After a cold fusion automobile engine has run for a few years, the cells inside it will be swapped out, and the metal recycled. A sizeable fraction of the nickel or titanium may be turned into gold or some other valuable element. ***
RE: [Vo]:Most papers from Piantelli are authored by Focardi
Jones Beene wrote: ... and your agenda of minimalizing the importance of Mills' theory to LENR is also known and not secret. As the British would say, this is utter bullocks. I have NO OPINION about Mills' theory, or any theory. I do not understand theory, and I could not care less about it. The only use I have for a theory is to improve the experiment and enhance the reaction. Any theory that does that is fine with me. It does not matter whether the theory is correct (actually reflecting what occurs in nature) or whether it is wrong (imaginary -- and it gets the right answer by coincidence). Secrecy, if there is any which is applicable to the Piantelli paper, would relate to the influence of another unknown party. Any which what? Mills theory? I have no clue whether it applies or not, other than the obvious fact that this is an Ni - CF reaction. (Or an error in calorimetry.) As far as I know, there have been very few credible Ni excess heat experiments. I am aware of many failed attempts. The original Mills large-scale cells discussed at MIT in 1994 were impressive but crude at best. They were never independently replicated as far as I know. I recall several attempts but they all failed. Srinivasan worked for months at SRI doing the classic small-scale Mills experiment but he saw no clear results. The only rigorous, independent Mills-style Ni light water replications that I know of are Mengoli (1998) and Montereali, and it was not a test for excess heat: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Monterealianovellifb.pdf I don't know much about Noninski (1992) but I think the calorimetry was better than Mills. Two or three replications are not enough to convince me. The only other ones I know about that have been cited, such as Bush Eagleton, have no credibility with me, because they didn't deliver the goods. (Literally.) Stringham delivered but it did not work, despite Mallove's best efforts and Stringham's whole-hearted cooperation. As far as I know, no one has ever independently made it work. Miley delivered a report showing what he considers excess heat which, to me, looks exactly like zero heat, based on similar curves in papers by Miles and others, and on what I have measured myself. You could draw the line to incept above zero but I wouldn't. ... and that is why the comment about confusing and conflating disproof with null results was meant to be a general thing, not aimed at anyone specifically, and why your name was not mentioned in the previous posting. If I am not mistaken, you have probably said something very similar, perhaps uncomfortably similar (and probably many times) - to past comments from skeptics of cold-fusion, who were fond of saying in the nineties that null results disproved the phenomenon. You are mistaken. Greatly mistaken. When an independent experiment produces the same results as the target, using the same materials and instruments, and yet it is shown that the results are prosaic and not caused by anomalous excess heat, that is strong proof that the first author is wrong. That is not a null result: it is a negative. A null would be if you set up the same equipment, do the same thing, but you do not see the temperature rise that the original author claims is caused by excess heat. That's the whole point of replication! It is fundamental to the scientific method. The skeptics are right about that. McKubre has done many careful replications of claims and observed the same temperature effects, and shown that they do not indicate excess heat. Mallove and I worked our butts off (and I paid a great deal of money) to demonstrate that several other claims were errors in calorimetry. The skeptics claim that some experiments have been tested, replicated and disproved, and I agree completely -- because I did it myself in a few cases. Just because skeptics say something that does not mean it is wrong. A stopped (analog) clock is right twice a day. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Most papers from Piantelli are authored by Focardi
Edmund Storms wrote: The Mills situation is a bit more complex than you note, Stephen. Hydrinos are not the only result of the Mills theory. He has created a new model for atomic interaction and a new model for calculating many fundamental constants including the ionization energy of most elements. His model is a major challenge to the view provided by QM. Even if hydrinos are not created, something else provides the energy he detects in various ways. Indeed, what you say is correct. None the less, his theory predicts the formation of hydrinos. Conventional QM predicts that they will not form. Hence, the creation of hydrinos would seem to be the most obvious make-or-break issue between the theories. If they exist, conventional QM is largely wrong (even within its domain of applicability), Mills' theory, which predicted their formation (as well as a number of other things), is apparently correct within its currently tested domain of applicability, and Mills is in line for a Nobel and his theory will be taught to junior-level physics majors for at least the next few decades. If hydrinos don't exist, then Mills' theory is wrong, whether or not it predicts other things: one incorrect prediction is all it takes to show a valid theory is false, and whether it's eventually proved right or wrong, CQM is certainly a valid theory. Ptolemaic cosmology predicted many things correctly, after all. But the moons of Jupiter shot it down none the less. His model is the only rational explanation that has been offered so far. As is usual, rejection by conventional science is based largely on ignorance of what is being rejected. Ed On Jul 21, 2009, at 12:07 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: Either Mills hits a home run, and shakes the foundations of physics (and maybe gets a Nobel, forget a few scraggly patents), or he strikes out and is not even a footnote in the history of science. There isn't any middle ground, as far as I can see. Because either hydrinos are for real and totally revolutionary, and when the evidence is all in Mills will be recognized as a giant on the landscape of physics, or they are not real, and in the latter case there is nothing of value in Mills' work; hydrinos can't be a little bit real.
RE: [Vo]:Most papers from Piantelli are authored by Focardi
Steven Krivit wrote: Jed, Is this the view to which you refer, from Cold Fusion and the Future? . . . Fortunately, there are good indications that cold fusion works well with abundant metals including nickel and titanium, although experiments with these materials have not yet been widely replicated, so I have lingering doubts about them. Exactly. Also in chapter 1: The cold fusion reaction has been seen with palladium, titanium, nickel, and with some superconducting ceramics. (Sticking my neck out for Oriani and Mizuno.) And chapter 3: It may work well with some common metals such as nickel or titanium, not just the platinum group metals . . . There have been more solid reports of nuclear effects with Ti than Ni, as far as I know, especially at BARC. I do not recall many Ti excess heat claims, other than Dash et al. Ti and Ni are both abundant and cheap. I do not know of any high power density Ni or Ti experiments, but there have only been a handful of experiments in any case, so this does not mean much. Certainly, anyone familiar with Mills will know that credible claims for Ni CF have been made. I do not dismiss them by any means, but there have not been enough solid independent replications to accept them, either. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Most papers from Piantelli are authored by Focardi
I wrote: The cold fusion reaction has been seen with palladium, titanium, nickel, and with some superconducting ceramics. (Sticking my neck out for Oriani and Mizuno.) And Biberian! He reported patriotic French proton conductors: blue, white and red. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Most papers from Piantelli are authored by Focardi
- Original Message - From: Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com Date: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 2:54 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Most papers from Piantelli are authored by Focardi Ptolemaic cosmology predicted many things correctly, after all. But the moons of Jupiter shot it down none the less. Only a part of Ptolemaic cosmology is inconsistent with the moons of Jupiter. It was possible to reconcile variants of Ptolemaic cosmology with astronomical observations until the orbit of Halley's comet was predicted and observed. Harry
RE: [Vo]:Most papers from Piantelli are authored by Focardi
-Original Message- From: Stephen A. Lawrence they *succeeded* in their replication, *and* they looked at the published data, *and* they found a mundane explanation for the apparent excess heat, *and* they showed that the mundane explanation fully accounted for the results of their *successful* replication That's completely different from the claim that 95 failures to replicate disprove the claims of one successful scientist... Yes - and that scenario is not even close to what actually happened ! especially when you consider the entirety of the evidence of the Italian work, after 1992 with Ni-potassium. Did you actually read any of the papers, Stephen? I think not, or at least not carefully. Check out the chart about 2/3 of the way down Steve's article: http://www.newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2008/NET29-8dd54geg.shtml#pf That looks closer to proof than disproof. The CERN groups response is really a joke in my opinion, let alone disproof. They admit up front that they lack critical information from the Piantelli-Focardi paper. Perhaps these were essential details which were responsible for a failure to replicate anything. How can anyone in the right mind claim *successful replication* when there is the kind of up-front admission that they don't have a clue? An how could later commentators fail to take into account the subsequent and far better work that followed? Please read the papers Steve mentioned, before expressing a non-sensical opinion based on a second hand report on an early paper, which was itself not accurate. Even if doubts are raised about the calorimetry in a single early paper (and JR is correct on that) they are were made irrelevant 3 years later - or about the interpretation of data, that is a long, long way from disproof. Especially with 20/20 hindsight, and the better results that followed. For instance in later papers using Ni (1997-99), gammas, tritium and neutrons were documented. Tritium is radioactive and extremely hard to rationalize away as mundane, when it is found. Are you saying that someone could replicate tritium- and then find a mundane explanation of it? Of course not, so why would you believe that the one early and confused null experiment was a replication at all - or was successful as you call it, since it was admittedly different - or why would you believe that one cursory re-interpretation of data trumps another more thorough POV; or that in suggesting BUT NOT PROVING a mundane way that it could have happened, but didn't, that everything is suddenly disproved ? Especially in the light of what came later? This is beyond bizarre - to suggest anything close to disproof is absurd. It smacks of an attempted smear-job on Piantelli. But why? It is almost as if the Yanks are getting caught up in someone else's professional rivalry thing in Europe. Too bad. The later Piantelli work seems quite good to me. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Most papers from Piantelli are authored by Focardi
Jones Beene wrote: -Original Message- From: Stephen A. Lawrence Whoops -- You lifted the following quote from its context: You snipped the part where I said, The claim Jed made was *not* that they failed to replicate; it was that... Consequently, you've made it sound like I claimed the following statements to be true. I did not. I claimed that they constituted Jed's argument. I did not say he was correct. In fact, I don't know if he's correct, and have never claimed otherwise; that was not my point, as I reiterate, below. they *succeeded* in their replication, *and* they looked at the published data, *and* they found a mundane explanation for the apparent excess heat, *and* they showed that the mundane explanation fully accounted for the results of their *successful* replication That's completely different from the claim that 95 failures to replicate disprove the claims of one successful scientist... Yes - and that scenario is not even close to what actually happened ! especially when you consider the entirety of the evidence of the Italian work, after 1992 with Ni-potassium. Did you actually read any of the papers, Stephen? No, and I never said I had. And again, that wasn't my point. I was not commenting on the papers! I was merely trying to point out that the failure to replicate doesn't disprove positive results argument had *nothing* *to* *do* with Jed's original post. Perhaps he's wrong, but attacking him for representing failure to replicate as proof of original incorrect results is pointless. He didn't do that. Please read the papers Steve mentioned, before expressing a non-sensical opinion based on a second hand report on an early paper, which was itself not accurate. And please don't put words in my mouth, eh? I didn't say Jed's right about this! I actually said, Jed didn't say failure to replicate proved the original results wrong!. And I enlarged a bit on that last point. What I said was neither nonsensical nor incorrect; nor was it based on the content of the papers, as I thought was obvious. But perhaps that wasn't obvious to everyone, and I should have made it clearer.
RE: [Vo]:Most papers from Piantelli are authored by Focardi
Stephen I should not have jumped on you so hard. Sorry. But please, your opinion is valuable, and this RD is valuable - so read Steve's article, and the Piantelli papers, and let us know what you think - not what someone else thinks you should think. Jones
RE: [Vo]:Most papers from Piantelli are authored by Focardi
Jones Beene wrote: The CERN groups response is really a joke in my opinion, let alone disproof. They admit up front that they lack critical information from the Piantelli-Focardi paper. Perhaps these were essential details which were responsible for a failure to replicate anything. They succeeded in replicating the Ni loading effect and excess heat effect. The missing information may be related to other aspects of the work that you mentioned, but they had enough information to load the Ni, observe the apparent excess heat, and show that it is not excess heat. Based on my knowledge of gas calorimeters (Mizuno, Biberian), this does not surprise me. They did not have enough information to load the Ni often, or easily, but they did succeed in loading it a few times, and that's enough to prove the point. How can anyone in the right mind claim *successful replication* when there is the kind of up-front admission that they don't have a clue? They don't need a clue. They got the gadget to do what Focardi described and they showed it does not mean what Focardi thought it meant. An how could later commentators fail to take into account the subsequent and far better work that followed? I do not think it was far better. It would be far better with an envelope calorimeter of some sort. A gas calorimeter is a can of worms and it will not produce convincing results in my opinion. As I said, I have even seen a reversal which should be solid Second-law proof of heat, and yet the other methods of measuring heat used at the same time showed nothing. Who knows what to make of that? It tells me you should try another approach. Beene discusses some of their other results: For instance in later papers using Ni (1997-99), gammas, tritium and neutrons were documented. Tritium is radioactive and extremely hard to rationalize away as mundane, when it is found. Are you saying that someone could replicate tritium- and then find a mundane explanation of it? . . . This has nothing to do with the calorimetry, which remains iffy at best. I have not looked closely at the gammas, tritium or neutrons because I don't know much about them. I would note that people have often screwed up these measurements as well. I know calorimetry, and this kind of calorimetry does not work and should not be used unless you have no choice. I wouldn't trust their other results until they get this one squared away. The later Piantelli work seems quite good to me. Then I suggest you try calibrating a gas calorimeter, and learn some of the many ways it will confound and deceive you. Frankly, I cannot understand why so many people devote years of effort and vast sums of money to these experiments, and yet they use half-baked, unreliable, primitive calorimetry! It is not that hard to do an adequate job of calorimetry. You don't need to approach the SRI standard of excellence. It is a waste of time doing any other part of the experiment, such as looking for tritium, if you cannot be sure you have excess heat. I mentioned a long, sad list of people with bad calorimetry: Patterson, Miley, Bush Eagleton, Stringham . . . It seems especially endemic in light water and non-Pd studies. These people wasted their time and other people's money -- MY MONEY in some cases! Lousy instruments, wrong instruments, no calibration, on and on!!! Of course there has been unforgivably sloppy calorimetry in Pd-D studies as well, notably Arata. When I complained about this to Talbot Chubb he said Arata and Zhang have been slaving away for a year. They have had no time to calibrate. I told Talbot that's nuts. It is also wrong: AZ have three highly competent PhDs sent by the government of the PRC doing whatever they ask. One of them could calibrate properly in a few days. (And you can be darn sure there is a replication back in the PRC that is properly calibrated! They are not spending hundreds of thousands a year on this without checking it out.) Naturally, when I raised questions about Arata's calorimetry he blew me away. He gets furiously angry with anyone who questions any aspect of his work. He is not a good experimentalist, to say the least. A brilliant scientist, but he should not be in the lab using circa 1935 ridiculous calorimetry with $500,000 worth of the best instruments money can buy. Nuts, nuts, nuts. I am glad that others are now replicating this experiment. Arata -- in the Grand Tradition of Patterson and Piantelli -- is upset by this, and he is trying to derail these replications. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Most papers from Piantelli are authored by Focardi
Jones Beene wrote: It really is as simple as this: Radioactivity = Credibility. Transmutation = Credibility. Credibility to scientists. Who needs 'em? Most of them are bought and paid for by the DoE. As Stan Szpak says, scientists believe whatever you pay them to believe. Excess Heat = Controversy Excess heat = technology. Something useful for mankind. Something highly profitable. That means the public will be interested and if we can overcome the academic politics it means hundreds of billions of dollars in funding. Tritium, transmutations and neutrons have no market value and they will attract the attention of few academic scientists at most -- the ones who are not in the DoE's pocket. If transmutations can be scaled up and made to produce commercially valuable stuff such as gold I will become interested in it. Until then, I really don't give a damn about it, except insofar as it might be a useful clue that helps a theorist figure out how cold fusion works. That would be good, if the theory helps guide research to make practical progress. The theory itself would be of no more interest to me, personally, than an out of date programming guide to an obsolete version of C++ not installed on my computer. Someone may need it, but not me. I have strictly utilitarian goals. If it could be shown conclusively that cold fusion can never be scaled up, and can never become a practical source of energy, I would drop it immediately. I would not spend 5 more minutes on the subject. I have absolutely no interest whatever in neutrons and tritium . . . Fortunately, all the evidence points in the other direction, indicating that it can be scaled up and it will be useful, if only we learn how to control it. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Most papers from Piantelli are authored by Focardi
Steven Krivit wrote: The Cerron-Zeballos work was not only incompetent, but disingenuous: http://www.newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2008/NET29-8dd54geg.shtml I find it incredulous that someone with your experience in science would even suggest that any negative result might disprove another's claim. You can explain and defend what you initially wrote on 7/17 any way you want. But to me, your 7/17 message (disproved, kind of care) is indistinguishable from spin. The tone of this message is inappropriate. (Also, you find it incredible, not incredulous. You have no skeptical doubts that I wrote the message.) Negative results often disprove other people's claims. As I mentioned, many claims have been disproved by showing that they are real but they have prosaic causes. In some cases the opposite occurs: a result that is considered prosaic is shown to be anomalous in a replication (or analysis). Lewis (CalTech) is a good example. The original data was correct but the interpretation of it was mistaken. Not only am I surprised that you appear to be ignorant of my investigation, I am also surprised that you did not see Britz's review of the Focardi-Piantelli response. I am also surprised that you did not read (or appear to know about) the rebuttal paper in my library. Why are you so surprised that I overlooked these things? Do you think I am omniscient? I suggest in future you should simply point this sort of thing out without the histrionics, and supply a hyperlink. In the Piantelli-Focardi authors' introduction to their new paper, they state that they modified the cell they reported in 1994 [3] with an improvement which allows the measurement and the monitoring of the external surface temperature. This addresses the major doubt raised by Cerron-Zeballos. But I still don't feel much confidence in their calorimetry. Before I posted that message I discussed it with others, and they don't feel much confidence either. I also reviewed the Mizuno data, which shows large effects similar to what they report, all of them prosaic. To top it all off Jed, you just completed a full index of all the papers on my site. Despite that, you are ignorant of the response paper by Focardi et al? Yes, obviously I overlooked this. I have this paper at LENR-CANR as well, but I have not read it in many years. How is it that you - somehow - learned about the Cerron-Zeballos paper but not the response by Focardi et al? I learned about both back when they were written. I have copies of both. As I mentioned, my copy of Cerron-Zeballos was of poor quality so I never scanned it or uploaded it. The Focardi paper is a binary copy from the publisher. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Most papers from Piantelli are authored by Focardi
SK: The Cerron-Zeballos work was not only incompetent, but disingenuous: http://www.newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2008/NET29-8dd54geg.shtml I find it incredulous that someone with your experience in science would even suggest that any negative result might disprove another's claim. You can explain and defend what you initially wrote on 7/17 any way you want. But to me, your 7/17 message (disproved, kind of care) is indistinguishable from spin. JR: The tone of this message is inappropriate. (Also, you find it incredible, not incredulous. You have no skeptical doubts that I wrote the message.) Negative results often disprove other people's claims. As I mentioned, many claims have been disproved by showing that they are real but they have prosaic causes. In some cases the opposite occurs: a result that is considered prosaic is shown to be anomalous in a replication (or analysis). Lewis (CalTech) is a good example. The original data was correct but the interpretation of it was mistaken. SK: Jed, I apologize if I was not gentle with you. Please forgive me for not taking your sensitivities into account. And yes, I do find it incredulous; not that you didn't write the message, but that you would have such an apparent breach in your application of science philosophy. But let me be more precise. Yes, I agree that a claim can be disproved. But I disagree that negative *results* can disprove positive *results* - which is what we're talking about in the Piantelli-Focardi work. Experimental disproof would require Cerron-Zeballos to have gone into the Piantelli-Focardi lab and determine exactly how Piantelli-Focardi goofed - or explicitly analyzed Piantelli-Focardi's data, assuming they made a mistake. But armchair quarterbacking for science experiments is the hallmark of pathological skepticism. This is how Lewis and Myerhof made fools of themselves in 1989 when they assumed that FP failed to take into account the matter of thermal gradients across the cell. Therefore, even if Piantelli-Focardi never responded, Cerron-Zeballos never disproved Piantelli-Focardi. The way I see it - (forgive me again for being so direct - no offense intended but I don't beat want to beat around the bush) but here we have one of the strongest excess heat results on record - and you are using the same fallacious logic as that used by pathological skeptics. JR: This addresses the major doubt raised by Cerron-Zeballos. But I still don't feel much confidence in their calorimetry. SK: Explain what your feelings have to do with the Piantelli-Focardi nickel hydrogen work. JR: Before I posted that message I discussed it with others, and they don't feel much confidence either. SK: If your advisors have any authority or credibility, name your advisors. If your advisors have scientific critique to explain why they don't feel much confidence either, state their critique. Steve
Re: [Vo]:Most papers from Piantelli are authored by Focardi
Steven Krivit wrote: Experimental disproof would require Cerron-Zeballos to have gone into the Piantelli-Focardi lab and determine exactly how Piantelli-Focardi goofed - or explicitly analyzed Piantelli-Focardi's data, assuming they made a mistake. They did not need to do that any more than Miles needed to visit CalTech, or than McKubre needed to visit the labs of the experiments that he demonstrated were prosaic. All they have to do is get the same result and show that it is not anomalous. That is what Cerron-Zeballos did with a gas calorimeter, by putting a temperature probe on the outside as well as near the Ni sample. The Ni got hot but the outside did not. That is proof that with the initial configuration, the calorimetery did not work. Mizuno (with proton conductors) and Biberian saw similar results with similar devices, ranging from unconvincing to a definite null. In the next round, Focardi used a more sophisticated calorimeter with more thermocouples. That's good, but based on the performance of similar calorimeters I would still prefer to see something like a Seebeck calorimeter. Local hotspots and changes in conductivity still cannot be ruled out. The temperature inversion shown in Fig. 4 is somewhat more convincing. However, Mizuno's hydrogenation experiments also showed an inversion yet at the same time *no excess heat* by the calibration and other methods. I conclude that these devices are tricky and difficult to believe. As I said at the outset, given all of the money that went into Focardi et al. I cannot understand why they did not employ a more robust, believable and accurate method of calorimetry. Therefore, *even if Piantelli-Focardi never responded*, Cerron-Zeballos never disproved Piantelli-Focardi. Cerron-Zeballos got the same results with the same configuration and demonstrated that the calorimetery was wrong! What more do you want? This is like saying that Miles never disproved Lewis, or that Fleischmann never proved that the liquid cells in other people's labs are well mixed by dropping dye into his own cell. All cells of the same shape and description with similar power levels operate in similar ways. If one is well mixed, they all are. If you can show that Mizuno and Cerron-Zeballos got a null result that would be mistaken for excess heat by Focardi, then you have effectively disproved Focardi . . . unless it can be shown that the improvements in the next round really address the problem. I am not sure they do. The way I see it - (forgive me again for being so direct - no offense intended but I don't beat want to beat around the bush) but here we have one of the strongest excess heat results on record - and you are using the same fallacious logic as that used by pathological skeptics. This is not a strong result because it has not been independently replicated yet, and because this kind of gas calorimetry is questionable. You should never get excited about a result until it is independently replicated, and in this case until it is tested with some sort of envelope calorimeter (flow or Seebeck) that captures all heat from the cell, rather than measuring temperatures at a few locations. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Most papers from Piantelli are authored by Focardi
SK: Experimental disproof would require Cerron-Zeballos to have gone into the Piantelli-Focardi lab and determine exactly how Piantelli-Focardi goofed - or explicitly analyzed Piantelli-Focardi's data, assuming they made a mistake. JR: They did not need to do that any more than Miles needed to visit CalTech, SK: Jed, I do appreciate the opportunity to argue some of these points with you. It think it is helpful, at least for me. Now if I recall, Miles did a secondary study on the Lewis (Caltech) data. Noninsky was the one who did the primary investigation. And if my sources are correct, Noninski did not compare the results of his own experiment to disprove Caltech; Noninski directly analyzed the Caltech data. I quote from The Rebirth of Cold Fusion, page 99: * Dr. Robert Bass, a physicist formerly with the hot fusion program at Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, recalled learning about another scientist who audited the Caltech cold fusion work: Dr. Noninsky, an internationally distinguished calorimetrist, asked to see Caltech's raw data and reanalyzed it. He proved that, even though Caltech researchers had incompetently not bothered to attain any of the Fleischmann-Pons minimum thresholds for good experiments, they had still attained 10 percent or so excess heat at Caltech, but they just didn't want to admit it. Dr. Noninski's papers exposing the bungle at Caltech have been refused to be published by Science and Nature, though there are no identifiable mistakes in his work.21 * PLEASE TELL ME: Did Cerron-Zeballos get access to the Piantelli-Focardi data and reanalyze it? If so, you have a good argument and I admit my oversight and error. If not, it is my opinion that your argument lacks merit. JR: or than McKubre needed to visit the labs of the experiments that he demonstrated were prosaic. All they have to do is get the same result and show that it is not anomalous. That is what Cerron-Zeballos did with a gas calorimeter, by putting a temperature probe on the outside as well as near the Ni sample. The Ni got hot but the outside did not. That is proof that with the initial configuration, the calorimetery did not work. Mizuno (with proton conductors) and Biberian saw similar results with similar devices, ranging from unconvincing to a definite null. In the next round, Focardi used a more sophisticated calorimeter with more thermocouples. That's good, but based on the performance of similar calorimeters I would still prefer to see something like a Seebeck calorimeter. Local hotspots and changes in conductivity still cannot be ruled out. The temperature inversion shown in Fig. 4 is somewhat more convincing. However, Mizuno's hydrogenation experiments also showed an inversion yet at the same time no excess heat by the calibration and other methods. I conclude that these devices are tricky and difficult to believe. As I said at the outset, given all of the money that went into Focardi et al. I cannot understand why they did not employ a more robust, believable and accurate method of calorimetry. SK: For me, I always respect any person who is skeptical for whatever reasons they want to be skeptical. That is their right, and in this case, it is your right and I honor that. I do however, as you have seen, take issue when you or others suggest or insinuate when something has been disproved when, IMO, such is a *fallacious* statement. If you want reasons to reject, dismiss or ignore the multi-year, multi-laboratory series of Piantelli-Focardi experiments*; claims of excess heat, TRITIUM, NEUTRONS, GAMMAS, PARTICLE TRACKSthen go ahead - be my guest. That's your choice, though it makes no scientific sense to me why you would consciously want to do that or why it helps the field. SK: Therefore, even if Piantelli-Focardi never responded, Cerron-Zeballos never disproved Piantelli-Focardi. JR: Cerron-Zeballos got the same results with the same configuration and demonstrated that the calorimetery was wrong! What more do you want? SK: You make some strong claims but you do so at your own peril. Question: How is it that you know as fact that Cerron-Zeballos prepared the materials precisely in the same manner as did Piantelli-Focardi? Question: How is it that you know as fact that Cerron-Zeballos operated the experiment precisely in the same manner as did Piantelli-Focardi? Question: Do you take these things on faith, on the presumed good integrity and presumed unbiased attitude of Cerron-Zeballos? If it helps you gain some perspective, I remind you that Nate Lewis said almost the same exact thing (same results with the same configuration) with regard to Fleischmann and Pons 20 years ago, and he said it with the same conviction as you are saying it about Piantelli-Focardi. This is like saying that Miles never disproved Lewis, or that Fleischmann never proved that the liquid cells in other
Re: [Vo]:Most papers from Piantelli are authored by Focardi
From: Jed Rothwell Cerron-Zeballos did a careful, year-long attempt to replicate, as you see in the paper. As far as I can tell, they disproved the Focardi claims On the contrary, as far as I can tell, they merely failed to replicate the Focardi claims. Failure to replicate should never be confused with disproof. Just as with Pd-D experiments, where there are many careful attempts at replication that unfortunately end in failure to replicate, a null result *disproves* nothing (unless there was a claim of 100% reproducibility, and if there was that - it was foolishly made). Failure to replicate does prove one thing, however: that there are unknown or unexplained factors - which can keep this type of experiment from producing the desired results. What factors? In both cases, an adequate explanation for null result - if not the best explanation - is that the matrix material, whether it is Ni or Pd - differed very slightly in composition, and that the more active electrode contained (inadvertently or intentionally) either an active dopant ... or more likely (if the A-Z experiment has broad generality) that the surface nanostructure differed is being in the FRET range, or not. The Forster radius may be absolutely essential to LENR, and this is the wider value of Arata (in my interpretation) - and that small detail of nanostructure was not realized by the experiment replicator, and could even have been serendipitous to the original claimant. Jones
