[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.