[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:It is unlikely Mizuno’s results are a mistake

[Jack Cole]

I'm not sure what work you are referring to:

This one had an open top and claimed excess heat.
https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTproduction.pdf

Here's one where he had a top on it and showed mostly no excess heat, but
supposedly excess hydrogen.  The alleged episodes of excess heat are pretty
weak.
https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTgenerationa.pdf

 Has a top on.  Doesn't even talk about excess heat, but instead focused on
excess hydrogen.
https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoThydrogenev.pdf

Looks like he had trouble replicating his own results.  Because he had a
top on the beaker?

Jack


On Sun, Jun 30, 2019 at 9:23 AM Jack Cole  wrote:

> Thank you.  If true, that refutes my point about his work being debunked.
>
> On Sun, Jun 30, 2019 at 8:33 AM Jed Rothwell 
> wrote:
>
>> Jack Cole  wrote:
>>
>> We disagree, so I'll drop it as not being productive.  I believe that the
>>> falseness of Mizuno's previous results was exposed and he/you are unwilling
>>> to spend the time to address the issues that showed how his experiments
>>> were likely compromised.
>>>
>>
>> I did, at the time. I just reiterated the main reason. The method of
>> calorimetry was different. Only part of the water boiled, and none of it
>> left the cell. It is a bomb calorimeter.
>>
>>
>>

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:It is unlikely Mizuno’s results are a mistake

[Jack Cole]

Thank you.  If true, that refutes my point about his work being debunked.

On Sun, Jun 30, 2019 at 8:33 AM Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Jack Cole  wrote:
>
> We disagree, so I'll drop it as not being productive.  I believe that the
>> falseness of Mizuno's previous results was exposed and he/you are unwilling
>> to spend the time to address the issues that showed how his experiments
>> were likely compromised.
>>
>
> I did, at the time. I just reiterated the main reason. The method of
> calorimetry was different. Only part of the water boiled, and none of it
> left the cell. It is a bomb calorimeter.
>
>
>

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:It is unlikely Mizuno’s results are a mistake

[Jed Rothwell]

Jack Cole  wrote:

We disagree, so I'll drop it as not being productive.  I believe that the
> falseness of Mizuno's previous results was exposed and he/you are unwilling
> to spend the time to address the issues that showed how his experiments
> were likely compromised.
>

I did, at the time. I just reiterated the main reason. The method of
calorimetry was different. Only part of the water boiled, and none of it
left the cell. It is a bomb calorimeter.

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:It is unlikely Mizuno’s results are a mistake

[Jed Rothwell]

I wrote:


> You have to address the issues that Kowalski et. al. raised and I quoted
>> above.
>>
>
> I am not obligated. I do not agree, and I am not going to take the time to
> explain why.
>

I should at least explain the main reasons. Mizuno did not use the same
method of calorimetry Kowalski et al. used. He used a bomb calorimeter in a
closed, sealed cell. The water did not boil, and none of it escaped. So,
Kowalski's hypothesis about water leaving the cell does not apply.

Here is a photo of the cell:

https://www.lenr-canr.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Image05.jpg

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:It is unlikely Mizuno’s results are a mistake

[Jack Cole]

We disagree, so I'll drop it as not being productive.  I believe that the
falseness of Mizuno's previous results was exposed and he/you are unwilling
to spend the time to address the issues that showed how his experiments
were likely compromised.  This reminds me of the profs who refused to
address the results of MFMP and others who demonstrated the errors in
Lugano.  Why?  We don't know for certain the reasons for all of them, but
heard from some that they were satisfied with the results because they got
some colleagues to agree with them.  Ok.

I wanted this research to be true, but there's no evidence that it was.
Ugo Abundo kind of revived it and then it suffered the same problems as BEC
(decreasing COP) to the point that we hear nothing else from him.

My main point again was just caution and humility about Mizuno's current
results.  There is precedent for large errors.

Jack


On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 10:32 PM Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Jack Cole  wrote:
>
>
>> Unless Mizuno can/did address the following problems addressed in the
>> paper I linked
>>  to in the
>> previous email, his work has been debunked.
>>
>
> I strongly disagree.
>
>
>
>> He [Piantelli] supposedly was going to teach MFMP how to replicate, but I
>> think they got tired of him talking about all the supposed complexities
>> without giving them any clear protocol to follow.
>>
>
> Okay, so they did not try to replicate him. As I said, only one person has
> tried as far as I know. You cannot draw any conclusion from one failed
> replication.
>
>
>
>>   Unless that can be produced, there is no reason to assume he has
>> anything (other than his word).  If I'm not mistaken, CERN tried to
>> replicate some of his work and failed.
>>
>
> Correct. That's the only attempt I know of.
>
>
>
>>   Nobody has replicated BEC's electrolysis results.

>>>
>>> What is BEC?
>>>
>>> Brillouin Energy Corp.
>>
>
> Has anyone tried to replicate their electrolysis results? If not, no one
> knows.
>
> Disproved by who? In what paper? After how many tests?
>>>
>>> At least 3.  One of the supposed replicators retracted their results
>> after learning about the problems.  They refuted their own results!
>>
>
> So what? People often retract. The only attempts I know of were not
> adequate. The one you cited above is not adequate.
>
> You cannot tell whether the original experiment is at fault, or the
> replication is. No one can tell.
>
>
>
>> You claimed that most or all of his work had been replicated.
>>
>
> I did not. Or if I did, I certainly did not mean to say that. Anyone can
> read his papers and see they have not been replicated.
>
>
>
>>  I'm not confusing terms.  I meant debunked.
>>
>
> Then I think you are wrong. Note that the term "debunk" means "expose as a
> sham" or:
>
> expose the falseness or hollowness of (a myth, idea, or belief).
> "the magazine that debunks claims of the paranormal"
> synonyms: explode, deflate, puncture, quash,
>
> I think that is too strong a term for what you cite.
>
>
>
>> You have to address the issues that Kowalski et. al. raised and I quoted
>> above.
>>
>
> I am not obligated. I do not agree, and I am not going to take the time to
> explain why.
>
>

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:It is unlikely Mizuno’s results are a mistake

[Jed Rothwell]

Jack Cole  wrote:


> Unless Mizuno can/did address the following problems addressed in the
> paper I linked
>  to in the
> previous email, his work has been debunked.
>

I strongly disagree.



> He [Piantelli] supposedly was going to teach MFMP how to replicate, but I
> think they got tired of him talking about all the supposed complexities
> without giving them any clear protocol to follow.
>

Okay, so they did not try to replicate him. As I said, only one person has
tried as far as I know. You cannot draw any conclusion from one failed
replication.



>   Unless that can be produced, there is no reason to assume he has
> anything (other than his word).  If I'm not mistaken, CERN tried to
> replicate some of his work and failed.
>

Correct. That's the only attempt I know of.



>   Nobody has replicated BEC's electrolysis results.
>>>
>>
>> What is BEC?
>>
>> Brillouin Energy Corp.
>

Has anyone tried to replicate their electrolysis results? If not, no one
knows.

Disproved by who? In what paper? After how many tests?
>>
>> At least 3.  One of the supposed replicators retracted their results
> after learning about the problems.  They refuted their own results!
>

So what? People often retract. The only attempts I know of were not
adequate. The one you cited above is not adequate.

You cannot tell whether the original experiment is at fault, or the
replication is. No one can tell.



> You claimed that most or all of his work had been replicated.
>

I did not. Or if I did, I certainly did not mean to say that. Anyone can
read his papers and see they have not been replicated.



>  I'm not confusing terms.  I meant debunked.
>

Then I think you are wrong. Note that the term "debunk" means "expose as a
sham" or:

expose the falseness or hollowness of (a myth, idea, or belief).
"the magazine that debunks claims of the paranormal"
synonyms: explode, deflate, puncture, quash,

I think that is too strong a term for what you cite.



> You have to address the issues that Kowalski et. al. raised and I quoted
> above.
>

I am not obligated. I do not agree, and I am not going to take the time to
explain why.

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:It is unlikely Mizuno’s results are a mistake

[Jack Cole]

On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 7:50 PM Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Jack Cole  wrote:
>
>
>> Parkhomov, Defkalion, me356, Rossi of course (consider the connected
>> papers conducted by academics) . . .
>>
>
> Parkhomov maybe. I don't know if he a professional, and he never
> published. I meant published results in the scientific literature.
>
> He is and he did (more than once).  You can look it up.


>
>
>> , possibly Brillouin (evident from decreasing COP) . . .
>>
>
> Maybe, maybe not. Anyway, the decreasing COP is not "evidence" in the
> scientific sense. It is a fact that gives you a bad feeling. A gut feeling
> that something is not right. That's reasonable, but it ain't evidence.
> Unless you know a lot more about the experiment than I do, you can't call
> it "evidence."
>
>
>
It is evidence.  You may disagree with the meaning of that evidence.


> , Mizuno's (and many others) old plasma electrolysis work, BLP (even
>> though they point to a different mechanism - they claim high SNR).
>>
>
> Definitely not. Very few have tried to replicate. Some who did saw
> positive results. I don't think it should be called confirmed, but it was
> no disproved by any means.
>
>
>
You have to read the paper.  It is pretty convincing.  There were several
replications before that (like 5+).


> Not true.  Mizuno has made such claims himself with plasma electrolysis,
>> which were later replicated, and even later debunked.
>>
>
> No, that did not happen. A few people replicated. No one has "debunked"
> anything. I have been following this closely, and I know a lot about the
> replication attempts. Most of them failed to achieve the necessary
> conditions. Not for lack of trying.
>
>
>
I don't know what kind of evidence you require to call something debunked,
but I think it is thoroughly debunked unless Mizuno has responded and
conducted follow-up experiments taking into account splashing out of the
electrolyte.

Here is what one attempted replicator said
:

> Mizuno claims in his report2 that “the reaction is 100% reproducible.” A
> casual observer would certainly have to agree that we have replicated the
> basic phenomenon that Mizuno, et al were investigating. However, we see no
> sign of excess heat in our experiments. Our calorimetry has an overall
> accuracy of about 1% relative and this results in an excess heat detection
> limit of about 3% relative. Therefore we have not accidentally missed “high
> heat output of the order of several hundred watts…from input power of tens
> of watts”.


Unless Mizuno can/did address the following problems addressed in the paper
I linked  to in
the previous email, his work has been debunked.

The challenge presented by ejection of liquid water is indeed very serious
> becase the latent heat of evaporation is large. Mist ejection, at the rate
> of 50 milligrams per second, results in the overestimation of Pout by
> 2260*0.05 = 113 W. This, however, is only one possible explanation of
> discrepancies. Another might be associated with microexplosions we
> occasionally observed during plasma electrolysis, expecially at higher
> voltages (see Appendix 3). Such explosions are accompanied by loud popping
> noise and very intensive arcing. We suspect that escaping hydrogen and
> oxygen occasionally combine under the influence of arcing. That could be a
> possible non-nuclear source of excess heat repored by several researchers.


   Piantelli has made high output claims -- never replicated.
>>
>
> Only one person tried to replicate as far as I know. The conditions were
> probably not met, according to Piantelli. Anyway, one test is not
> reasonable grounds to dismiss a claim.
>
>
He supposedly was going to teach MFMP how to replicate, but I think they
got tired of him talking about all the supposed complexities without giving
them any clear protocol to follow.  Unless that can be produced, there is
no reason to assume he has anything (other than his word).  If I'm not
mistaken, CERN tried to replicate some of his work and failed.



>
>
>>   Nobody has replicated BEC's electrolysis results.
>>
>
> What is BEC?
>
> Brillouin Energy Corp.


>
> Recall the previous results that were debated here about a Mizuno
>> experiment and calorimetry, which Dave Roberson was able to determine the
>> error that had been made (through very clever simulation work).
>>
>
> I myself made a mistake in it, but you said "big" errors, meaning large
> excess heat. That was what appeared to be a tiny result.
>
>

>
>>   Recall the previous claims of Mizuno and plasma electrolysis that had
>> been initially replicated, but later research convincingly disproved (at
>> least to me).
>>
>
> Disproved by who? In what paper? After how many tests?
>
> At least 3.  One of the supposed replicators retracted their results after
learning about the problems.  They refuted their own results!

Two withdrew their 

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:It is unlikely Mizuno’s results are a mistake

[Jed Rothwell]

Jack Cole  wrote:


> Parkhomov, Defkalion, me356, Rossi of course (consider the connected
> papers conducted by academics) . . .
>

Parkhomov maybe. I don't know if he a professional, and he never published.
I meant published results in the scientific literature.



> , possibly Brillouin (evident from decreasing COP) . . .
>

Maybe, maybe not. Anyway, the decreasing COP is not "evidence" in the
scientific sense. It is a fact that gives you a bad feeling. A gut feeling
that something is not right. That's reasonable, but it ain't evidence.
Unless you know a lot more about the experiment than I do, you can't call
it "evidence."



> , Mizuno's (and many others) old plasma electrolysis work, BLP (even
> though they point to a different mechanism - they claim high SNR).
>

Definitely not. Very few have tried to replicate. Some who did saw positive
results. I don't think it should be called confirmed, but it was no
disproved by any means.



> Not true.  Mizuno has made such claims himself with plasma electrolysis,
> which were later replicated, and even later debunked.
>

No, that did not happen. A few people replicated. No one has "debunked"
anything. I have been following this closely, and I know a lot about the
replication attempts. Most of them failed to achieve the necessary
conditions. Not for lack of trying.



>Piantelli has made high output claims -- never replicated.
>

Only one person tried to replicate as far as I know. The conditions were
probably not met, according to Piantelli. Anyway, one test is not
reasonable grounds to dismiss a claim.



>   Nobody has replicated BEC's electrolysis results.
>

What is BEC?


Recall the previous results that were debated here about a Mizuno
> experiment and calorimetry, which Dave Roberson was able to determine the
> error that had been made (through very clever simulation work).
>

I myself made a mistake in it, but you said "big" errors, meaning large
excess heat. That was what appeared to be a tiny result.



>   Recall the previous claims of Mizuno and plasma electrolysis that had
> been initially replicated, but later research convincingly disproved (at
> least to me).
>

Disproved by who? In what paper? After how many tests?



>   What research of his do you feel is highly replicable?
>

I have no idea. No one can know that. People have not tried to replicate
most of them. You would have to be omniscient to judge that. The only way
to find out whether an experiment is replicable or not is to try to
replicate it. That usually takes months or years of effort. In cold fusion,
only a few claims have been sufficiently tested for anyone to judge whether
they are true or false.



> Here's a replication claiming up to 120W excess.
> https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/FauvarqueJabnormalex.pdf
>

Has anyone disproved this? Has anyone else tried it?



> Non-replication explaining previous results by splashing out of water by
> micro-explosions.
> https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/KowalskiLsearchingfa.pdf
>

Has anyone replicated this and observed micro-explosions? Has this
hypothesis been tested?

I think you are confusing "not clear yet" or "not proven" or "not tested
enough to reach a clear conclusion" with:

"debunking"

or

"failure."

There are countless open questions in science. Countless unresolved issues.
An experiment that has not been replicated is not debunked. It is in limbo,
and likely to remain there forever. Very few claims are ever conclusively
shown to be wrong. None of the ones you listed have been, as far as I know.