Jed is convincing...
On Nov 2, 2017 12:40 PM, "Jed Rothwell" <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I regret to announce that Coolescence has closed their doors. They never
> were able to replicate excess heat. I think they ran out of money, and
> perhaps they ran out of gumption. That would be understandable.
> Over at CMNS, Ed Storms posted a melancholy comment about this. We are not
> supposed to quote CMNS but in this case I will take the liberty of quoting
> a short portion:
>> The skeptics will say, "Obviously, the better and more carefully the
>> studies are done, the less likely the false claims would result." How can
>> we respond to such a conclusion?
> Since I can quote myself as much as I like, here is what I wrote in
> . . . That is a good question. I think the answer is as follows --
> The most careful studies were done by people such as Mel Miles showed a
> positive effect.
> Coolescence tried to replicate Miles, but they failed. Miles says this is
> because they made mistakes in the replication. You can ask him for details.
> I conclude that they made mistakes in this replication, and in the other
> replications they attempted. I assume the original studies were positive
> and correct. Coolescence reported their results correctly, and these
> results were negative. The disconnect is in the experimental materials or
> procedures, not in the reporting.
> Here is why I reached this conclusion and why I think it is plausible.
> *Many Replications Fail Because This Experiment is Difficult*
> There were many failed replications in 1989, including many done by
> experienced scientists in well-equipped major laboratories. In most cases
> these failures occured because the scientists were not electrochemists;
> they did not consult with electrochemists, and they made elementary
> mistakes. I described an example on p. 10 and 11 here:
> There were some failed experiments conducted by experienced
> electrochemists. In a few cases it is likely these were false negatives.
> Here is a well-known example, by Lewis:
> This failure was not due to lack of skill or attention. Lewis did
> excellent work. His paper is good. It has many useful suggestions. His
> failure was in his analysis.
> Even people who succeeded from time to time in cold fusion often failed.
> Mel Miles worked for months before getting positive results. As I wrote
> here the other day, the research project at the University of Missouri has
> not worked well:
> Many techniques have been described in the literature that worked a few
> times spectacularly, but most of the time they do not work. They are
> irreproducible. The SuperWave technique once produced, "Excess Power of up
> to 34 watts; Average ~20 watts for 17 h." (http://www.lenr-canr.org/acro
> bat/DardikIexcessheat.pdf) I have heard that despite strenuous efforts,
> it has never done that at U. Missouri.
> I do not think these earlier results could be an error. 20 W is a lot of
> heat. With no input power it seems unlikely to me anyone would confuse zero
> watts with 20 W.
> Richard Oriani told me that in his 50-year career in electrochemistry, the
> Fleischmann Pons experiment was the most difficult one he did.
> Experiments and technologies that fail drastically are not uncommon. As
> Beaudette pointed out, to clone the first sheep, biologists had to make
> hundreds of attempts before one finally worked. Billions of dollars have
> been invested in rocket technology. Every rocket launch costs millions of
> dollars. Rockets carry satellites worth millions more. Despite these high
> stakes, rockets often explode. The technology is not reliable.
> It makes no sense to say that cold may not exist because it is so
> difficult to replicate. No one would claim that rockets do not exist
> because they are unreliable.
> *You Need A PhD in Electrochemistry*
> As far as I know, everyone who replicated cold fusion had a PhD in
> electrochemistry, or they worked with people who did. I am not sure about
> Storms at Los Alamos, but Los Alamos is chock-full of experts in every
> subject. Coolescence may have had first-class instruments but they probably
> did not have the kind of expertise on tap that Storms did. I do not know
> whether anyone at Coolescence has a PhD in electrochemistry. I do not think
> so. That is my impression talking to Mel Miles. If professionals at a place
> like Kamiokande failed for lack of electrochemical expertise, it would not
> surprise me if the people at Coolescence also failed for this reason.
> I do not know much about electrochemistry but I have spent a lot of time
> editing papers about it and listening to people such as Mizuno, McKubre,
> Miles, Bockris and Fleischman talk about it. They know a terrific amount
> about the subject. Enough to write a textbook. Bockris *did* write an
> authoritative textbook. Here is the point: you have to know thousands of
> details about electrochemistry, if you get a single detail wrong the
> experiment may not work. You will not know why.
> According to Mizuno, McKubre and others, getting a PhD in electrochemistry
> is like an apprenticeship. With Bockris it was like slavery, according to
> Mizuno. It is something you do hands-on in a laboratory working
> side-by-side with experts. It resembles surgery. You cannot learn it on
> your own from a textbook.
> McKubre and some others who replicated learned electrochemistry from
> Fleischmann. That may have put them in a better position to replicate.
> There may be details about electrochemistry that Fleischmann emphasized and
> taught that were relevant to this experiment, including specifics that
> Fleischmann and McKubre themselves may not realize were critical to
> success. McKubre might be compared to an airplane pilot who had the good
> fortune to be trained by the engineers at Boeing. He has inside knowledge
> of the machine.
> The other day Mizuno pointed out some errors in chemistry that he thinks
> the people at Industrial Heat made when they tried to replicate his
> experiment. Murray, at I.H., is an impressive guy. He has world-class
> skills in calorimetry and thermal engineering. He designed and built
> equipment for the US military and others, some of it costing millions of
> dollars. If Mizuno were to explain these errors to him, and if the two of
> them were to work side-by-side for several months, I suppose Murray could
> master the chemistry. Unfortunately, Mizuno spent only a few weeks in the
> I.H. lab. Murray knows a lot about chemistry and materials, but he probably
> does not know the specifics needed to master this particular experiment,
> because this is not his area of expertise. I may be mistaken, but I do not
> think I.H. had an in-house electrochemist working on this project.
> In short, people seldom master complicated science and technology without
> direct, hands-on, in-person training by experts.
> This is somewhat beyond the scope of the discussion, but it raises an
> interesting question: How did we ever master these technologies in the
> first place? For example, to learn to fly an airplane, you must train with
> an experienced pilot. So how did people learn to fly in the first place?
> The answer is that only two people learned without training: the Wright
> brothers. They trained the first pilots, and these pilots trained others.
> There is a direct line from pilot to pilot going back to the Wrights. Each
> generation of pilots learns nearly everything from other pilots, and goes
> on to master only a few new techniques and new equipment. Airplanes grew
> bigger, more complex and took more training to master. Sometime around 1920
> it became impossible for anyone to master an airplane without training. You
> could no longer recapitulate the skills on your own, starting from scratch.
> The process resembles the emergence of complexity in biological evolution.
> No species emerges *de novo*.
> - Jed