ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Brilliant Light Power , free energy , Randell Mills

Reply
Old 12th November 2018, 06:37 PM   #2281
markie
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,162
Originally Posted by The Man View Post
From page 18.


From page 20

On page 11 the picture of the apparatus shows a pressure gauge on the hydrogen inlet, while it doesn't appear to me to be a pressure control gauge "a constant hydrogen pressure of 1100 psig" is explicit in the documentation and "Calculations, documented in Appendix A". Also there appears to be no cutoff valve to retain some pressure if introduced once and just allowed to drift. Reporting of test condition data shows pressure is altered for different test runs indicating pressure control not shown or described in the documentation.

Again, please, read more and assume less.
I notice that page 4 is missing, which may have had some details on the pressure control. What is "explicit" is that a certain pressure of H2 gas, typical around 1000 psi was introduced at the *beginning*. The measurement of heat gain from this pressure increase was calculated for only one such application of pressure, so it is reasonable to assume there was only one application of pressure. Given this, the pressure in the tubing would be allowed to slowly decrease with time as hydrogen diffused through the tubing. Yes they used diffusion rate calculations as if the pressure was held steady at its initial state but imo that is just for calculation simplification purposes and would err on the conservative side.

If I am wrong and Thermacore's setup was actively maintaining a fixed pressure of hydrogen in the tubing, well then that would represent a pretty major blunder in the energy inventory calculation, something I find unlikely.

Recall what is on Thermacore's letterhead on the handwritten reports: "Thermacore Inc. Heat Transfer Specialists Engineering/Manufacturing
markie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2018, 06:46 PM   #2282
markie
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,162
Originally Posted by bruto View Post
Of course I know, as I stated before, that the terms can be interchanged. What I am pointing out, and what requires no scientific literacy at all, but only a modicum of honesty, is that when you denied that you had stated that watts are a unit of heat you were, at the very least, recalling inaccurately.
Huh? I would never state that "watts are a unit of heat". Heat is energy; power is energy per unit time.

When I say "watts of heat" I am really meaning rate of heat loss, which conversely at equilibrium means the rate of heat input as measured by (in the case of the 7 page report) wattage of an electrical resistance heater.
markie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2018, 06:54 PM   #2283
markie
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,162
Originally Posted by The Man View Post
Excellent point, jsfisher, and something I had missed. Combined with their uncurved curve, really makes their testing credibility nill.
Why not mention that the subsequent forty something page paper had a curve with more than two points? Why not mention that in that subsequent paper the heater element was a cartridge within the solution and not wrapped around the outside as before? Is it dishonesty, bias, laziness, ignorance or a combination of such? You be the judge.
markie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2018, 07:26 PM   #2284
halleyscomet
Philosopher
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 9,089
Brilliant Light Power Going To Market - Free Energy Generator Part 3

Originally Posted by markie View Post
Why not mention that the subsequent forty something page paper had a curve with more than two points? Why not mention that in that subsequent paper the heater element was a cartridge within the solution and not wrapped around the outside as before? Is it dishonesty, bias, laziness, ignorance or a combination of such? You be the judge.


Nice goalposts. Convenient that you have them on wheels so you can shift them around whenever a particular topic gets too hot.

Why are you still defending a paper so flawed that even your own excuses for it accuse them of committing fraud?

The paper is crap. Admit it and move on with life.
__________________
Look what I found! There's this whole web site full of skeptics that spun off from the James Randy Education Foundation!
halleyscomet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2018, 07:39 PM   #2285
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
Moderator
 
jsfisher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 22,143
Originally Posted by markie View Post
I notice that page 4 is missing, which may have had some details on the pressure control. What is "explicit" is that a certain pressure of H2 gas, typical around 1000 psi was introduced at the *beginning*.
Yes, that is true. Table 6 explicitly states for the first test "Applied 1100 psi H2 pressure at the start of test" [emphasis mine].

The "at the start of test" phrase is notably missing from other tests, but I'm sure the Thermacore folks were just using a convenient short-hand. "1100 psi" and "1100 psi at the start of test" mean the same thing.

Quote:
...
If I am wrong and Thermacore's setup was actively maintaining a fixed pressure of hydrogen in the tubing, well then that would represent a pretty major blunder in the energy inventory calculation, something I find unlikely.
Many of us find blunders such as that likely.

Quote:
Recall what is on Thermacore's letterhead on the handwritten reports: "Thermacore Inc. Heat Transfer Specialists Engineering/Manufacturing
I can get letterhead that says anything I want. Apparently, so could Thermacore, too.
__________________
A proud member of the Simpson 15+7, named in the suit, Simpson v. Zwinge, et al., and founder of the ET Corn Gods Survivors Group.

"He's the greatest mod that never was!" -- Monketey Ghost
jsfisher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2018, 07:46 PM   #2286
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
Moderator
 
jsfisher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 22,143
Originally Posted by markie View Post
Why not mention that the subsequent forty something page paper had a curve with more than two points? Why not mention that in that subsequent paper the heater element was a cartridge within the solution and not wrapped around the outside as before? Is it dishonesty, bias, laziness, ignorance or a combination of such? You be the judge.
You want to stick to that, that the heater element was in direct contact with the solution?
__________________
A proud member of the Simpson 15+7, named in the suit, Simpson v. Zwinge, et al., and founder of the ET Corn Gods Survivors Group.

"He's the greatest mod that never was!" -- Monketey Ghost
jsfisher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2018, 08:07 PM   #2287
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 22,597
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Physics Review Letters A rejected the paper. Mills shopped the paper around until he found a journal gullible (or incompetent) enough to publish it.
Fusion Technology seems to be a gullible journal rather than incompetent. The Thermacore reports list cold fusion papers published at Fusion Technology after cold fusion was shown to be dubious in May and November 1989.

History of cold fusion
Quote:
On 1 May 1989 the American Physical Society held a session on cold fusion in Baltimore, including many reports of experiments that failed to produce evidence of cold fusion.
...
The United States Department of Energy organized a special panel to review cold fusion theory and research.[58] The panel issued its report in November 1989, concluding that results as of that date did not present convincing evidence that useful sources of energy would result from the phenomena attributed to cold fusion.[59] The panel noted the large number of failures to replicate excess heat and the greater inconsistency of reports of nuclear reaction byproducts expected by established conjecture.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2018, 08:45 PM   #2288
markie
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,162
Originally Posted by halleyscomet View Post
Nice goalposts. Convenient that you have them on wheels so you can shift them around whenever a particular topic gets too hot.

Why are you still defending a paper so flawed that even your own excuses for it accuse them of committing fraud?

The paper is crap. Admit it and move on with life.
Which paper is crap? I found them both good in different ways as each had their particular purpose.
markie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2018, 08:51 PM   #2289
markie
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,162
Originally Posted by jsfisher View Post
You want to stick to that, that the heater element was in direct contact with the solution?
Why not? Don't go by the drawing on page 5; that was obviously lifted from the previous experiment, a fact that would have been mentioned on page 4 if it wasn't missing. The drawing of the cell in the long experiment is found on page 9, where one sees the 4 inch cartridge heater protruding into the middle of the cell from the bottom.
markie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 02:57 AM   #2290
halleyscomet
Philosopher
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 9,089
Originally Posted by markie View Post
Which paper is crap? I found them both good in different ways as each had their particular purpose.


I was focused on the one where you had to accuse the authors of fraud to explain how they got their results.
__________________
Look what I found! There's this whole web site full of skeptics that spun off from the James Randy Education Foundation!
halleyscomet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 03:52 AM   #2291
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 21,932
Originally Posted by markie View Post
Why not? Don't go by the drawing on page 5; that was obviously lifted from the previous experiment, a fact that would have been mentioned on page 4 if it wasn't missing.
You've gone from saying what "may" be on the missing page 4 to confidently stating what actually is on it. From where do you get this knowledge? Do you think all the information WRT the things you've had to assume are on the legendary page 4?
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 07:30 AM   #2292
UncertainH
Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 126
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Fusion Technology seems to be a gullible journal rather than incompetent. The Thermacore reports list cold fusion papers published at Fusion Technology after cold fusion was shown to be dubious in May and November 1989.

History of cold fusion
Thanks for the link. If you read past the first few paragraphs it seems that LENR research continues to this day around the world with mixed results.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com...its-something/
UncertainH is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 11:43 AM   #2293
The Man
Scourge, of the supernatural
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 13,317
Originally Posted by The Man View Post
Back of the envelope time again. Let's do some math with their numbers. From appendix "C" Gas tubing volume 8.5 in3 or just 139.3 cc (back of my envelope says more like 851.3 cc). Given 0.8 cc per second of hydrogen permeating through the tube (appendix "A"). Time for complete evacuation of tube 139.3/0.8 or about 174.125 seconds. Heck even my 851 cc volume for the tube only gives about 18 minutes.

Of course, as the permeation rate depends on temperature and pressure, reducing the number of molecules in the tube reduces the pressure and thus the permeation rate. In order to maintain the permeation rate over time you have to maintain the pressure in the tube over time.
Oops sorry, must have used the front of the envelop instead of the back. Looks like I used their volumetric calculation for the outside on the inside. My mistake. However we can just use the molar relation.

Pressure 7584233 Pascal
Volume 0.000139 meter[sup]3[sup]
Temp 573.15 Kelvin
Gas Constant 8.3144598 J mol-1 K-1

That gives .221 mole of hydrogen in the tubing at that temperature and pressure.

Rate of permeation (appendix A) 1.7 E-5 mole sec-1

Time for total molar amount in tube to permeate through at constant rate 3.6 hours
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ
The Man is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 11:52 AM   #2294
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 18,142
Originally Posted by jsfisher View Post
In your world, watts is a unit of heat?
Apparently, yes. So far, nobody has got to the bottom of this bizarre claim.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 12:06 PM   #2295
The Man
Scourge, of the supernatural
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 13,317
Originally Posted by markie View Post
I notice that page 4 is missing, which may have had some details on the pressure control. What is "explicit" is that a certain pressure of H2 gas, typical around 1000 psi was introduced at the *beginning*. The measurement of heat gain from this pressure increase was calculated for only one such application of pressure, so it is reasonable to assume there was only one application of pressure. Given this, the pressure in the tubing would be allowed to slowly decrease with time as hydrogen diffused through the tubing. Yes they used diffusion rate calculations as if the pressure was held steady at its initial state but imo that is just for calculation simplification purposes and would err on the conservative side.
Nope if pressure was not maintained migration of hydrogen would fall off as well eliminating any possible purported hydrogen reaction from such continue migration.

There is nothing "conservative" about no longer having your claimed reactant available in your test apparatus for your claimed reaction, no matter what you want to calculate.

Originally Posted by markie View Post

If I am wrong and Thermacore's setup was actively maintaining a fixed pressure of hydrogen in the tubing, well then that would represent a pretty major blunder in the energy inventory calculation, something I find unlikely.
Your perception of it being "unlikely" in no way alleviates the fact that such energy input was required and not accounted for or monitored.

I see here that you are more than willing to just assume them falling in the testing by simply not maintain pressure as asserted above, but find it "unlikely" that they simply failed to account for some energy input.

As Reality Check notes up thread you have to cover all the bases and accounting for all external energy deliberately input is just stepping into the on deck circle.


Originally Posted by markie View Post
Recall what is on Thermacore's letterhead on the handwritten reports: "Thermacore Inc. Heat Transfer Specialists Engineering/Manufacturing
Letterhead does not mitigate obvious and poor test procedures. I was Senior Laboratory Technician in an engineering lab for over a decade and temperature testing analogous to this is what I did every day.
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ
The Man is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 12:33 PM   #2296
markie
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,162
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Apparently, yes. So far, nobody has got to the bottom of this bizarre claim.
The bottom is not deep. It was yesterday when I posted

Huh? I would never state that "watts are a unit of heat". Heat is energy; power is energy per unit time.
When I say "watts of heat" I am really meaning rate of heat loss, which conversely at equilibrium means the rate of heat input as measured by (in the case of the 7 page report) wattage of an electrical resistance heater.
markie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 12:38 PM   #2297
markie
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,162
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
You've gone from saying what "may" be on the missing page 4 to confidently stating what actually is on it. From where do you get this knowledge? Do you think all the information WRT the things you've had to assume are on the legendary page 4?
Well they wouldn't plunk diagrams from their previous experiment on page 5 without any context. Page 3 at the end is starting to discuss their prior approach and so it only makes sense that the legendary page 4 would refer to "Figure 1A" which was taken from their prior experiment and appeared on page 5.
markie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 01:01 PM   #2298
markie
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,162
Originally Posted by The Man View Post
Oops sorry, must have used the front of the envelop instead of the back. Looks like I used their volumetric calculation for the outside on the inside. My mistake. However we can just use the molar relation.

Pressure 7584233 Pascal
Volume 0.000139 meter[sup]3[sup]
Temp 573.15 Kelvin
Gas Constant 8.3144598 J mol-1 K-1

That gives .221 mole of hydrogen in the tubing at that temperature and pressure.

Rate of permeation (appendix A) 1.7 E-5 mole sec-1

Time for total molar amount in tube to permeate through at constant rate 3.6 hours
OK, lets assume they goofed in the energy calculation. Why not go further. According to their calculation on page 46 it takes 520 joules of energy to compress the gas in the tube volume to about 1000 psi. Then, according to your calculation, they would have to (in effect) apply this 520 joules every 3.6 hours to keep the tubing at full gas pressure. That amounts to a power of less than .05 watts. Yet the power of the excess heat is 25 watts. So, even though their assumed blunder is a blunder, it is an insignificant one in terms of actual energy inventory.
markie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 01:28 PM   #2299
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 22,597
Originally Posted by UncertainH View Post
Thanks for the link. If you read past the first few paragraphs it seems that LENR research continues to this day around the world with mixed results.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com...its-something/
Researchers have continued with cold fusion research for almost 30 years with no convincing results. No definitive, actual fusion products detected. Mixed extra heat results.

Widom-Larsen theory is almost pseudoscience supposed to explain this. Their 2006 paper has been cited 11 times and some of those citations present evidence against it.

The Scientific American newsletter is dubious. It uses cherry picked anecdotes, e.g. an uncited comment by Edward Teller in 1989, a story (rumor?) of tables of tritium production and low-levels of neutrons being removed from a paper. This is not a surprise because the authors are biased. Steven B. Krivit and Michael J. Ravnitzky are LENR advocates. Krivit wrote 3 books about LENR and Ravnitzky was the developmental editor of the books.

Last edited by Reality Check; Yesterday at 01:38 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 01:38 PM   #2300
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
Moderator
 
jsfisher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 22,143
Originally Posted by markie View Post
If I am wrong and Thermacore's setup was actively maintaining a fixed pressure of hydrogen in the tubing, well then that would represent a pretty major blunder in the energy inventory calculation, something I find unlikely.

Originally Posted by markie View Post
OK, lets assume they goofed in the energy calculation. Why not go further. According to their calculation on page 46 it takes 520 joules of energy to compress the gas in the tube volume to about 1000 psi. Then, according to your calculation, they would have to (in effect) apply this 520 joules every 3.6 hours to keep the tubing at full gas pressure. That amounts to a power of less than .05 watts. Yet the power of the excess heat is 25 watts. So, even though their assumed blunder is a blunder, it is an insignificant one in terms of actual energy inventory.

You are consistently inconsistent.
__________________
A proud member of the Simpson 15+7, named in the suit, Simpson v. Zwinge, et al., and founder of the ET Corn Gods Survivors Group.

"He's the greatest mod that never was!" -- Monketey Ghost
jsfisher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 03:33 PM   #2301
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 23,093
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Apparently, yes. So far, nobody has got to the bottom of this bizarre claim.
As usual in such cases it seems that the claim has been disputed because although "watts of heat" were enumerated, the statement "watts are a unit of heat" was not literally made.

Sometimes the way a dancer feels and the way a dancer looks do not entirely match.
__________________
I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)

Quand il dit "cuic" le moineau croit tout dire. (When he's tweeted the sparrow thinks he's said it all. (Jules Renard)
bruto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 04:08 PM   #2302
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
Moderator
 
jsfisher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 22,143
Originally Posted by bruto View Post
As usual in such cases it seems that the claim has been disputed because although "watts of heat" were enumerated, the statement "watts are a unit of heat" was not literally made.

Sometimes the way a dancer feels and the way a dancer looks do not entirely match.
A tap dancer, apparently.
__________________
A proud member of the Simpson 15+7, named in the suit, Simpson v. Zwinge, et al., and founder of the ET Corn Gods Survivors Group.

"He's the greatest mod that never was!" -- Monketey Ghost
jsfisher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 03:39 AM   #2303
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 21,932
Originally Posted by markie View Post
Well they wouldn't plunk diagrams from their previous experiment on page 5 without any context.
I'd have thought that any competent/honest researchers wouldn't leave the reader to have to assume anything in order to make sense of the experiment, yet here we are. I don't think we should assume what they would or would not do, given the evidence.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 04:44 AM   #2304
halleyscomet
Philosopher
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 9,089
Originally Posted by markie View Post
Well they wouldn't plunk diagrams from their previous experiment on page 5 without any context.

Why not?

Given the looooong list of excuses and rationalizations needed to make the paper seem even vaguely plausible they’re either faking their data or incompetent, possibly both. I wouldn’t put any boneheaded move past them.
__________________
Look what I found! There's this whole web site full of skeptics that spun off from the James Randy Education Foundation!
halleyscomet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 04:48 AM   #2305
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 83,885
Originally Posted by halleyscomet View Post
Why not?

Given the looooong list of excuses and rationalizations needed to make the paper seem even vaguely plausible they’re either faking their data or incompetent, possibly both. I wouldn’t put any boneheaded move past them.
I think I've found the missing page.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg herebedragons.jpg (37.5 KB, 3 views)
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 07:35 AM   #2306
UncertainH
Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 126
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Researchers have continued with cold fusion research for almost 30 years with no convincing results. No definitive, actual fusion products detected. Mixed extra heat results.

Widom-Larsen theory is almost pseudoscience supposed to explain this. Their 2006 paper has been cited 11 times and some of those citations present evidence against it.

The Scientific American newsletter is dubious. It uses cherry picked anecdotes, e.g. an uncited comment by Edward Teller in 1989, a story (rumor?) of tables of tritium production and low-levels of neutrons being removed from a paper. This is not a surprise because the authors are biased. Steven B. Krivit and Michael J. Ravnitzky are LENR advocates. Krivit wrote 3 books about LENR and Ravnitzky was the developmental editor of the books.
Fair enough. Debates about cold fusion probably don't really belong here but I post this here simply to point out bias. Mills has been criticized in this forum as either an outright fraud or bringing bias into his experiments because he wants to be right. Markie is biased in his defense of Mills and everyone else is biased in their responses to Markie.

Perhaps Julian Schwinger just went insane?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Schwinger

Quote:
After 1989 Schwinger took a keen interest in the non-mainstream research of cold fusion. He wrote eight theory papers about it. He resigned from the American Physical Society after their refusal to publish his papers.[4] He felt that cold fusion research was being suppressed and academic freedom violated. He wrote: "The pressure for conformity is enormous. I have experienced it in editors' rejection of submitted papers, based on venomous criticism of anonymous referees. The replacement of impartial reviewing by censorship will be the death of science."
UncertainH is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 10:17 AM   #2307
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 21,932
Originally Posted by UncertainH View Post
Fair enough. Debates about cold fusion probably don't really belong here but I post this here simply to point out bias. Mills has been criticized in this forum as either an outright fraud or bringing bias into his experiments because he wants to be right. Markie is biased in his defense of Mills and everyone else is biased in their responses to Markie.
It's not biased to point out a lack of validity in experiments, or falsehoods in theories, or a lack of publishing in reputable peer-reviewed journals, or a habit of erasing past company records and renaming the company, or false claims of independent validation, or false claims of endorsements by independent entities, or constantly receding claims of commercial products, or excuses for not commercialising that don't hold up, etc.

Honestly, if there were actual valid science backing this up, most of the people posting in this thread would be unbelievably excited by it. A whole new science that could usher in an age of pollution and cost-free energy? That's not only exciting on its own terms, it could potentially save the majority of the human race, given the recent dire warnings about AGW.

I'd be prepared to bet that everybody who has posted something in this thread critical of Mills or his claims would absolutely love for this to be true. I bet that many would invest in it themselves.

That's where the bias is. The problem is, well, all the things I posted in the first sentence of this post.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:55 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.