Well, thanks Joshua Cude -- maybe Lomax will provide a comparable review of his heat-helium correlation claim -- together, the two contrasting reviews might attract attention by experts -- historians of science will make comparisons with similar conundrums, such as the actual identity of "dark matter", many times more mass in total than baronic matter in our universe bubble, and also of "dark energy", again many times more mass than known energy, and of searches for "sterile neutrinos" and other exotic particles, including Robert Foot's "mirror matter".
The putative existence of our own unique universe bubble, in which these very little crooked black and white le t t e r marks appear in the visual space of awareness, along with rapid memories and subtle comprehensions, is the ultimate strange beastie, the prototypical "bump in the dark"... Google "nonduality"... within the fellowship of service, Rich Murray On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 8:21 AM, Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > On May 6, 2013, at 3:49 AM, Joshua Cude wrote: > > Murray wrote: Maybe you and Lomax have already long reached an impasse, > talking right past each other? > > You are right. We have hashed this over several times, and ceased to make > any progress a long time ago. After all, the discussion is about results > mostly a decade or more old. It was hashed out here 2 years ago, and more > recently in moletrap. But since you ask, I can cut and paste and augment a > recent summary that expresses my view of the correlation situation. > > *Heat Helium correlation* > > A correlation between heat and helium is clearly an important and > definitive experiment for cold fusion. To justify a claim of such a > correlation, Lomax points to a Storms' 2010 review in Naturwissenschaften. > Unfortunately, the experiments that Storms cites represent a real dog's > breakfast of mostly unrefereed and marginal work, and the conclusions > depend rather heavily on Storms' own data interpretation, which does not > add confidence considering he takes Rossi's results seriously. > > > This is an example of the approach that makes your comments irrelevant, > Joshua. First of all, all data requires interpretation. Either a > knowledgeable scientists does this and explains the reasons behind the > interpretations, as I did in the quoted paper, or you do the job and > distort what has been observed to fit your conclusions. Unless you show > what is wrong, your comment is just your opinion, which people are learning > not to trust. As for taking Rossi seriously, I do not. I have explained > what I accept and what I do not, and why. I take him no more seriously > than I take you. > > *Peer review* > > Peer-review is a rather modest requirement for credibility, but Lomax > seems to think that a citation in a refereed review article confers upon > the data the equivalent credibility of peer-review of the original work, > but that's nonsense. The referees for a review paper cannot possibly be > expected to critically review each of the papers cited. And a look at some > of the cited papers makes it clear they did not. > > The most recent peer-reviewed results that Storms uses to get a quantified > heat/helium correlation come from a set of experiments by Miles in the > early 90s. These were very crude experiments, in which peaks were eyeballed > as small, medium, and large, the small taken as equal to the detection > limit (which seemed to change by orders of magnitude over the years). The > correlation was all over the map, and barely within an order of magnitude > of the expected DD fusion value. > > > Again, you distort the data to fit your attitude. Miles published two sets > of results. You quote only the first and least accurate. The results were > confirmed by Bush and later by McKubre. > > > Miles results' were severely criticized by Jones in peer-reviewed > literature. There was considerable back and forth on the results, and in > Storms view (of course) Miles successfully defended his claims, but the DOE > panel in 2004 agreed 17 to 1 with Jones, that there was no conclusive > evidence for nuclear effects. In any case, that kind of disagreement and > large variation in such a critical experiment simply cries out for better > experiments. So what else have we got? > > *The replications* > > Storms cites (and Lomax parrots) a dozen groups (including the Miles > results) that have claimed a heat-helium correlation, but a look at his > list paints a different picture. > > Storms admits that one group (Chien) does not measure heat, so they can't > claim a correlation. Another group (Botta) also does not measure heat, > although Storms claims they do. > > Storms cites Aoki's 1994 claim of a very weak helium signal, but fails to > cite their follow-up work in Int J Soc Mat Eng Resources 6 (1998) 22, where > they report no helium (nor any other products) above background, but they > do measure excess heat. That's an *anti-correlation*, isn't it. > > The Takahashi results also suggest anti-correlation. They are not > completely clear about the various cells in the two different reports, but > as I read it, in the ICCF-7 paper about half the cells give heat, and half > show helium, and only one shows both. Likewise, in the ICCF-8 paper, only > one of the cells that showed helium also showed heat. And the amount of > heat was more than an order of magnitude below the expected value based on > the helium. > > Then there is the Gozzi reference, one of the few in a readily accessible > (not Japanese) refereed journal. This is claimed as a replication, but in > fact Gozzi admits in the latest 1998 paper that the helium results are too > weak to be definitive. Maybe it's not anti-correlation, but it certainly > can't be counted as replication. Interestingly, Gozzi appears to have > gotten out of the field after that paper. > > The Luch results from 1994 claim helium and heat but did not attempt to > quantify the ratio. The odd thing is that, as Storms says, their work on > essentially the identical experiment continued until recently (maybe the > present), but none of their subsequent papers refer to helium at all, which > is presumably why Storms does not cite them specifically. But if it is > generally agreed that the main nuclear product is helium, and if they claim > to have seen it early on, failure to mention it subsequently, let alone > attempt to quantify it, suggests they probably didn't see it, or have > abysmal judgment as to what's important. > > That means 5 of the claimed replications do not support (or contradict) > the correlation, and one is questionable, which should shake anyone's > confidence in Storms. > > Of the remaining 5, only Arata's results were published in refereed > journals. They are Japanese journals, but some are written in English. > Still, they seem quite cryptic and incomplete, as though Arata's reputation > trumped effective peer-review. In any case, although there are at least 9 > papers, indicating extensive efforts, they stop short of reporting a > quantitative correlation. As best as I can make out, the claimed helium > level falls many orders of magnitude short of accounting for the claimed > heat. They exclude leakage based on the absence of Ne-22 in the mass > spectrum, but He is penetrates leaks much more rapidly, so that Ne-22 is > not a suitable control. > > > I would take the time to refute these comments if they did not have > superimposed on them a clear bias to reach a conclusion that no amount of > argument can change. Yes, like all data about any subject, errors and > objections can be proposed by a determined skeptic. I have written and > reviewed hundreds of papers, and not single one can be accepted as absolute > proof of anything. We humans are limited by our current knowledge, logic > ability, and our wish to believe. Nevertheless, when many people report > seeing the same behavior, the reality of this behavior grows. You take the > approach that none of the claimed behavior has been observed, consisting > instead of bad interpretation of random events, unrecognized error, and > wishful thinking. This opinion is applied to all the trained scientists who > have been well accepted when they did studies in other subjects. Yes, CF > is hard to accept and to understand. So what? So is quantum mechanics and > the big bang theory, but these concepts are accepted because they are > presently popular and supported by extensive studies, not all of which are > correct. Nevertheless, although an active debate exists in the literature, > these subjects are not denied the money required to resolve the debate, as > is the case with CF. You complain about not having the required support > for the CF idea, yet your efforts will help deny the money required to get > that support. I'm at a loss to understand why you do this. > > I apologize to the general reader for continuing this discussion. This > will not happen again. I suggest if you want to discuss your opinions in > detail, you send a private e-mail. > > Ed Storms > > > *Quantitative correlation* > > The only results since Miles that Storms has deemed worthwhile (i.e. > cherry-picked) to calculate energy correlation come from conference > proceedings, and the most recent of them from year 2000. Nothing that > Storms considers adequate quality in this critically important experiment > has met the standard of peer review. And they're not good enough to allow > Miles' crude results to be replaced; Storms still uses some of Miles > results, one assumes because it improves the average. > > Most of the results come from McKubre's experiments, which include > experiments described in the 1998 EPRI report, where McKubre himself is > quite cautious about the results, saying the correlation is apparent but > not definitive: He writes: "it has not been possible address directly the > issue of heat-commensurable nuclear product generation". His confidence in > the results seems to have grown since then, but Krivit claims to show (with > considerable evidence) that some data points seemed to migrate over the > years. McKubre's credibility is questionable anyway with his interest in > the Papp engine and willingness to support likely cons like Dardik and > Godes and Rossi. > > And then there's this from the review: "The paper provided insufficient > information to check the claimed values, so the values in Table 3 are based > on detailed information communicated to Storms by Bush in 1998 (Storms > 1998)." Translation: The results didn't fit, so I called Bush up, and > suggested adjustments, which he accepted. Talk about an opportunity for > confirmation bias. > > *Helium in the headspace* > > The correlation value is based on measurements of helium in the gas in the > headspace, instead of in the solid Pd. Detection of helium in the gas is > much more susceptible to uncertain contamination from the atmosphere; > leaks, outgassing, permeation, and so on all complicate the > interpretation. This is especially the case if you want to contain the gas > and send it to different laboratories for independent testing. Interference > from D2 is more severe and more difficult to mitigate in the gas. > Measurement of helium in the Pd requires no increase in the complexity of > the cold fusion experiment itself, since the Pd is analyzed off-line. This > means one can take advantage of existing facilities, which already have the > means for accurate helium detection with D2 suppression. One can wait until > a highly successful cold fusion experiment is claimed, and then analyze > only those rods, after the fact, in comparison to suitable controls. > Partitioning solid samples of Pd for measurements at multiple independent > labs is much easier, and less prone to error, than partitioning gas samples. > > Abd has argued that early searches of helium in the Pd were negative > because the helium is implanted near the surface, but this objection does > not apply to most of the analyses, which *did* look for helium near the > surface. In fact, in the cases where controls were used, the helium was > implanted within 1 micron of the surface, and produced extremely strong > signals. > > The more error-prone measurements of helium in the gas fit the needs of > cold fusion scientists, who rely on confirmation bias for positive results. > Even there, it should be easy to produce helium levels orders of magnitude > above ambient, based on some claims of excess heat, but so far the reported > levels are mostly below or near ambient levels. > > Isn't it an amazing coincidence that of all the possible products of > nuclear reactions, the only one claimed to be commensurate with heat is the > only one that is present in the background at about the right level? All > the more plausible products that can be detected easily at levels orders of > magnitude lower, are found, surprise, surprise, at orders of magnitude > lower. Nature is toying with us. (The transmutation situation is similar: > all the precursors and products are stable, when of course, changes in > concentrations of unstable nuclei would be far easier to identify, and only > a tiny fraction of radionuclides are stable.) > > *Assessment* > > This is what passes for conclusive in the field of cold fusion. This is > good enough that no measurements of helium-heat in the last decade entered > Storms' calculations. No serious scientists would be satisfied with this > state of affairs if they thought there was anything to cold fusion. Real > scientists obsess about details, especially in critical experiments like > this, and would not rest until far more definitive results with a much more > accurately determined correlation factor were obtained. Millikan's > experiment was not accepted as good enough, but was repeated endlessly. > Scientists are still toiling to reduce the limit of error on measurements > of Einstein's time dilation, and improve the value of the gravitation > constant, and so on. > > The results used by Storms were all available to the 2004 DOE panel, and > they were left unconvinced that nuclear reactions were taking place. Lomax > claims they didn't understand the evidence, but if the leading cold fusion > experts could not explain the results to an expert panel with written and > oral arguments, then that demonstrates the weakness of the evidence or the > incompetence of the researchers. Lomax thinks they needed a college dropout > to help with the argument. I remain skeptical. > > Regardless of the reasons, it is clear that the results have so far failed > to impress the scientific community, and it is clear that far better > results could be achievable, if the effect were real. So, why are so few > pursuing correlation experiments? It seems likely that cold fusion > scientists are not pursuing it (or not admitting it) because they're afraid > that more careful results will be negative, and they would rather remain > ignorant than to have to admit they wasted 2 decades of their life chasing > wild geese. > > So, an objective look at the heat/helium results does not provide > convincing evidence for cold fusion. And given the extraordinary nature of > the claimed phenomenon, that means it is almost certainly not happening. > > > On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 7:22 PM, Rich Murray <rmfor...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Joshua Cude, >> >> Seems you might end up being the last person standing... >> >> May ask you to offer a few decisive critiques to refute Lomax's claim, >> much repeated for a year or longer, that heat and helium are correlated in >> standard cold fusion experiments, some years ago -- for instance, have >> there been any attempts since then that fail to show this correlation? >> >> Maybe you and Lomax have already long reached an impasse, talking right >> past each other? >> >> What would have to happen for you to be curious enough to join Lomax in >> proposing new tests for this correlation? >> >> within the fellowship of service, Rich Murray >> >> >> On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 4:26 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>wrote: >> >>> Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Consequently, I for one will not continue the discussion. >>> >>> >>> Me neither! I promise to shut up. >>> >>> - Jed >>> >>> >> > >
