This post was originally posted on Animpossibleinvention.com and on E-Cat World.
You often hear that new technologies spread to reach global mass adoption at an ever increasing speed — from electricity, telephones, radio and television to PCs, mobile phones and the web.
The hypothesis seems accurate and also reasonable, given that the world is getting increasingly connected in several ways, both with regard to communications, transportation and commerce, but it’s actually not correct.
Mats Lewan: The Biggest Shift Ever. 
@Gregory Byron Goble
The problem with LENR is that it is as currently proposed not falsifiable, and therefore not science. Were it real, then some prediction could be made to test LENR whose absence would disprove it. In fact LENR has no such prediction – and does not even make interesting predictions about what might sometimes happen – the empirical results are highly varied and fit error better than some novel effect, and there is no clear theory.
I think that the above sentence is a very good definition of the scientific method. Maybe you can’t understand it simply because you really never practiced science in your life. You could start by reading Galileo; it helps.
[1] Dialogues concerning two new sciences Dover Publications (1954) ISBN: 9780486600994
Mats – gregory is posting a lot of stuff completely OT. Apologies for the fodder.
Well, I am hesitant. If the Lugano report were published it would be proper and easy to comment on it, otherwise I think peer-reviewed publication would not easy on grounds that it added nothing to the sum of human knowledge.
For me I just was fascinated by the (apparently) strong results, and the mystery of how to decode them. Thermography was new to me. You can always poke holes – but it turns out these strong results come from a confusion between band emissivity and total emissivity, not an error in the measurements, nor LENR.
You don’t sound that interested.
@gregory
With regard to the Lugano results. When correctly analysed these show COP = 1 within errors.
The analysis showing that is technical and uses nothing except the report data. I’ve done it. I’ll send you privately a properly referenced paper (written by me) if you like and agree (gentleman’s agreement) not to publish it under my name (as it now is). If the original report gets published, I’ll submit it as a comment. (stats: 6 pages, 15 references). I’ll also happily argue any bit of it.
With regard to LENR generally. There is no point arguing this matter, because as a hypothesised phenomena LENR is so unpredictive that it can never be disproved. You say:
“Rigorous scientific falsification is essential, but dismissal by a-priori comparison with current theory seems to have taken over from the Scientific Method for at least the ‘rump’ of the profession, and I suggest it should be eradicated!”
The problem with LENR is that it is as currently proposed not falsifiable, and therefore not science. Were it real, then some prediction could be made to test LENR whose absence would disprove it. In fact LENR has no such prediction – and does not even make interesting predictions about what might sometimes happen – the empirical results are highly varied and fit error better than some novel effect, and there is no clear theory.
Those who don’t accept the evidence empirical and theoretical for it being it is unlikely will not change their views. Nor will those like me who see this unlikelihood. I’m sure you have heard the arguments on both sides by now.
All I can say is that my prediction about MFMP will be shown correct with a very high probability. Notice you can, at some later date, prove me wrong if you are right. I can never prove you wrong, I guess, unless you are willing to stick your neck out and set a timescale on LENR showing conclusive evidence. That would be unwise, given the long history of LENR “no conclusive evidence”.
Thomas,
Your statement is ridiculous gobbledygook (language that is meaningless or is made unintelligible by excessive use of abstruse technical terms; pure nonsense, gibberish, claptrap, nonsense, rubbish, balderdash, blather, garbage) and bogus…
“The problem with LENR is that it is as currently proposed not falsifiable, and therefore not science. Were it real, then some prediction could be made to test LENR whose absence would disprove it. In fact LENR has no such prediction – and does not even make interesting predictions about what might sometimes happen – the empirical results are highly varied and fit error better than some novel effect, and there is no clear theory.”
As to this statement of yours…
“With regard to the Lugano results. When correctly analysed these show COP = 1 within errors.
The analysis showing that is technical and uses nothing except the report data. I’ve done it. I’ll send you privately a properly referenced paper (written by me) if you like and agree (gentleman’s agreement) not to publish it under my name (as it now is). If the original report gets published, I’ll submit it as a comment. (stats: 6 pages, 15 references). I’ll also happily argue any bit of it.”
Send me your analysis and I will publish it for you (like the gentleman that I am). You seem hesitant.
Why?
Have you published anything? I would like to see an example of your work. Does it pale in comparison to the quality of work found in contemporary LENR patents?
Contemporary LENR Technology Patents – Popularly Known as Cold Fusion Energy
http://gbgoble.kinja.com/contemporary-lenr-patents-popularly-known-as-cold-fus-1644173145
Are you best known as “Bogus Thomas”?
That Origin of Bogus? It’s Probably Bogus.
https://thebettereditor.wordpress.com/2015/04/30/that-origin-of-bogus-its-probably-bogus/
Posted on April 30, 2015 by thebettereditor
I’m old enough to remember when the word “bogus” was at the fringe of colloquial English, a slang term that few respectable people would consider using. Of course, it shouldered its way into the circle around the campfire of “acceptable use” some time ago. But when I recently heard it used by a sitting member of Congress, it got me thinking: where did this word come from and, if there’s a particular moment, when did it come in from the cold?
“Bogus” if you’re unfamiliar with the word, means fake or false or untrue, also counterfeit or deceptive. You might also encounter it in context as meaning unfair or disappointing. They’re all (arguably) shades of the same general meaning. When looking for an origin, the major dictionaries aren’t terribly helpful: OED notes a bogus as a counterfeiting press or the coins it produced (from the 1820s), spreading into adjective use (from “that’s a bogus” to “that’s a bogus coin“) fairly quickly. Their citations show it shifting to a more generic ‘falsified‘ by no later than the 1860s (although the majority of their citations, even into the 1940s, carry the counterfeit sense). Merriam-Webster and American Heritage both concur, and (surprisingly) there’s no entry for this in Garner.
Personal knowledge led me to believe that bogus was little known outside of surfer and stoner culture until the 1982 film Fast Times at Ridgemont High. It advanced from there to a film title in 1991’s Bill & Ted’s Bogus Journey (who can forget sparkling dialogue such as “I can’t believe we just melvined death!”). But Bill & Ted is almost a proof of the still-fringe nature of the word: it wouldn’t have worked as the title if it hadn’t been outsider dialect. On the other hand, it’s also proof that the word was moving to acceptability: it couldn’t have been used in the title if it was too far out there and no one understood it. I don’t think it would be going out on a limb to mark that period as the transition: the word was still beyond the pale in 1982, unusual but acceptable by 1991, and accepted in common speech by 1993.
I didn’t just pull 1993 out of a hat. It took some research to come to that conclusion.
Relying on personal knowledge is a weak tactic, especially where English language use and etymology is concerned. So I began at the beginning, which in this case was the use that piqued my interest. It was this two-fer: bogus used by two US senators in a single day (this from NPR, but I’m sure you can find it in other media sources):
SENATOR JOHN CORNYN: Now, this bogus story you’ve heard about language being slipped in the bill they didn’t know was there is just that. It’s completely bogus. Each of these Democrats has highly skilled professional staff, and they themselves weren’t born last night, didn’t fall off a turnip truck.
SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN: It isn’t bogus. I spend a lot of time doing what I do.
There’s bipartisanship for you.
It didn’t take long to find other uses on Capitol Hill. The most relevant, in the Congressional Record, seemed to be one in 1993 (which is why I noted that date).
But citations go much farther back: documented literary references, according to everyone’s favorite written-record search tool (Google Ngrams) suggest that the word has been used regularly (if infrequently) since the 1850s. It seems to first appear solidly in the 1840s (all but a few earlier references are suspect). There was a slow but mostly steady increase in its use until about 1985, after which the increase was sharper. Its modern peak was 2004 (but bear in mind that Ngrams data is only reliable through 2008).
Oddly, my (imperfect) research suggests that for much of its existence bogus has been popular in the legal profession, and might almost have been considered professional jargon at times. By the early 1990s, though, it was definitely running free and appeared in several book titles (and at least one additional film).
But just where did the word come from? Like a lot of uniquely American slang, there are several stories, which all point in different directions. And like some other American slang words, none of these origins is satisfactory.
The usual suspects on the Internet have made the usual attempts to uncover more about this word, and they’ve come up (as usual) with the same information, stretched and contorted in the usual ways. I’ve done a little extra digging and have a little to add.
Nearly every source will tell you the same handful of “facts.” These might be accurate, but I’m putting “facts” in quotes to indicate some suspicion on my part. They’ll tell you that the word was first recorded in print in 1828 (or 1824, or 1823, or even 1797). The word was definitely in use by the 1850s. Among other documented uses of the modern sense, I located a medical journal dating to 1857; a use in the record of the Michigan House of Representatives from 1855; and even a use in a book title (Americanism Contrasted with Foreignism, Romanism, and Bogus Democracy) from 1856. It’s used in a letter from 1838 contained in the records of the 26th US Congress (published in 1841).
All of the citations I’ve followed up that predate the 1840’s seem to fall into three categories: they’re either proper names (the Bogus tribe in central Asia; a creek called Bogus Run), the sources aren’t in English, or they’re transcription or OCR errors in electronic documents. This suggests that the dates of all the origin stories — pointing to the late 1700s or early 1800s — are about right.
The counterfeiting press and the counterfeit coin origin seem to be the default starting point: those things existed and are documented. But they don’t explain where the term itself came from.
One suggestion is that it derives from “bogey“, as in bogeyman (often “boogieman” in the US), a menacing spirit of some kind (but not the malicious bogle of Scottish folklore). It’s not very compelling because the uses don’t align, and there’s little or no evidence.
Another story is that it’s somehow derived from bagasse, the pulp left over from sugarcane production: “bogus” was, in some parts of America, the name for a type of liquor derived from rum (another sugarcane product). That’s not terribly convincing, but it has a whiff of plausibility.
Other theories suppose that it derives from “boko,” said to mean “to fake” in the Hausa language of West Africa, or “bogue,” meaning “fake” in Louisiana French. Both have a nice ring to them, and I’d love to declare one or the other definitive, but neither is well supported (if at all).
An interesting text called The Living Age (volume 95, 1867), goes with the counterfeit and counterfeit machine origin, but traces the word itself to a corruption of the name Borghese, first into Borgus and from there to Bogus. The documentor of this theory (one “E. Littell”) seems to like the word and felt that it (along with skedaddle and deadheads) would inevitably become acceptable British English. This origin story, dated to 1837, would totally destroy the next origin story (below) because it suggests an entirely distinct and personal derivation and originates in a different part of the country. (The Living Age is a source I hadn’t run across before; it appears to be a collection of articles from other sources; this one is “Inroads Upon English,” from Blackwood’s Magazine; the author is not credited.)
Strangely, one of the most commonly regurgitated (and swallowed) origin stories is also the one that seems least likely: that the word derives from “tantrabogus,” allegedly a slang term for a menacing object, usually credited to Vermont. The circular nature of the references (all point to a single assertion, not made until late in the 19th century) make me deeply suspicious, but this origin theory is difficult to disprove. Ngrams can’t find a single use in print of this strange word (“tantrabogus,” or numerous variant spellings) across the past five centuries. In any form (including some irrelevant ones), Google has it showing up on the Internet an astoundingly small number of times. All of the contextually correct references refer to the apocryphal “bogus–tantrabogus” link. Given those problems, as well as the inherently mischievous nature of 19th century American newspaper editors — if they didn’t have enough news to fill the page, they’d just make stuff up — this origin seems unlikely.
The two words didn’t even have similar meanings at the time. It would be like overhearing someone use the word “aerie” and chiming in to say “well, we have this word ‘cemetary‘ back where I come from, so ‘aerie‘ must be a shortened form of it.” When it comes to language use, I know better than to dismiss a possible etymology outright. But the tantrabogus origin doesn’t pass the smell test for me.
This page on World Wide Words is a good example of how these references are all circular, citing the same story but never showing original textual evidence; a noteworthy addition to the story here is the mention of ‘tantarabobos‘ as Devonshire dialect; but tracing that a little throws up even more smoke: there’s a claim that tantarabobus, evolving to bogus, is actually from Arkansas. Take that, Vermont.
After dwelling in obscurity for decades, bogus was revived in mid 20th-century surf and beach jargon, or perhaps as a regionalism, or perhaps as hacker jargon if you believe World Wide Words (spoiler alert: there were no hackers in the 1960s) and gained more currency. In modern (post-1970s) use, bogus has evolved and moved from meaning false, deceptive, or counterfeit, to also meaning simply unfair or unpleasant or disappointing. And it’s managed to enter the mainstream.
Where does that leave us with bogus? Just about where we started: we know what it means, but not where it comes from. It’s safe to say that it’s an Americanism that’s been with us for around 200 years (give or take a couple of decades). It’s equally safe to say that it had a specific meaning related to counterfeiting, and that from there it generalized.
But where does the word come from? There are too many possibilities, and they can’t all be correct. That means only one thing for sure: most of what people will tell you about bogus is just plain bogus.
> Can you say he did not lie twice?
No – but equally i cannot say that he did lie twice. I have not looked really hard at the matter and would take your word for it except that I’ve noticed people often disagree over what is/ is not a lie.
> Have you batteries as wonderful as he has?
As I understand it his story is that his batteries repeatedly became discharged and had to be charged. That sort of makes sense, though it is strange. I’m not saying, given strange stuff, no comment. It counts against him, and means his results are no use. I’m just saying that cock-up is a lot more likely than conspiracy, always, and this remains an option. The times charging/discharging look possible to me. Obviously they are only partly charged each time.
> Have you any matter in plotting anything if connected to dc instead of working on batteries? Does it make any sense to you at all?
As I say it is unusual but possible. earth loops can exist and muck things up. As can adapter-based interference.
> Is it acceptable, in science, to lie this way?
It is not helpful, in science, to personalise matters. P’s results are of no scientific use because not properly recorded. if they were properly recorded they would still be of very limited use because of lack of controls and checking. Given enough raw data you can see what is what and whether some anomaly remains – though it is highly unlikely for one dataset to make things clear – there are always things not controlled about which you ask questions. Competent researchers ask themselves these questions and do cross-checks and extra instrumentation as necessary to answer. MFMP are amateurs, but have a decent idea how to do this, after getting internet criticism on every number.
> Then why not believe in Steorn ‘s Orb, too? Do you believe also in it?
You will probably realise that I don’t “believe” in Rossi’s or Parkhomov’s claims. Nor in LENR – the evidence is weak for LENR, the nature of the evidence, after so long trying, is actually strongly against LENR. Technically though I don’t believe “no LENR” either. It is always interesting to take a set of evidence and consider it. Most scientists reckon it not worth the effort – understandably. A few mavericks stick to it – you will find such idee fixee anywhere. Personally I think it is good to explore ideas even totally way out and apparently stupid. Just occasionally something comes of it. Specifically, as with free speech, it is right to hear anyone claiming new science and if you have time to spare evaluate the claims seriously. That does not mean you believe the claims true, or even think they have a gnat’s chance in hell of being true.
To distinguish my stance from Mats:
Mats refuses to reason inductively. Given uncertainty he says, well, let us wait and see. I’m quite happy to see how the evidence stacks up (Rossi has nothing, other LENR people are chasing moonbeams) while remaining interested in evaluating those moonbeams. In principle they might have something behind them, although LENR has such very large problems theoretically and empirically that the “something” looks pretty constrained.
With Rossi, my interest is in seeing how he creates this impression of not being a total flake. Since from my POV he is that, it is extraordinary to me how he convinces people like Mats the opposite. And every failed test strengthens my view of his flakiness while, it seems, having no effect on Mats.
@Cimpy,
It is of course possible that P is a liar. It is also possible that he is honest but has unconscious bias that combined with his admitted laxness in experimental technique leads to erroneous positive results. I prefer not to think of others as dishonest while also not making the mistake of assuming they are honest where this matters. In this case it does not matter.
The big mistake here is in thinking his statements represent any meaningful evidence for a working device. Were the device real better repeated experiments, which he appears able to do, would perhaps provide some evidence, and justify replication.
“The big mistake here is in” underestimating his revolutionary batteries.
A lie is a lie, you know. And he made them in pair, both to try to explain previous hand made job where it was expected to be an untouched graph from pure data, and that is a fact. Can you say he did not lie twice? Have you batteries as wonderful as he has? Have you any matter in plotting anything if connected to dc instead of working on batteries? Does it make any sense to you at all? Is it acceptable, in science, to lie this way? Then why not believe in Steorn ‘s Orb, too? Do you believe also in it?
@Mats
I’m not surprised either that P admits the cut and paste. He had to. Let us believe his explanation 100% – he seems a nice guy. All we can then conclude is that his data thus far is very unreliable.
Remember even perfectly recorded reliable experiments by scientists can result in a COP of 1 calculated and announced as COP of 3. And that therefore the only evidence for this device actually generating energy is P’s results, given with no detail or cross-checks.
Luckily for both of us this is not a religious argument with no resolution. Parkhomov’s experiments are open and will be replicated by many people with increasing fidelity. If all these replications show COP = 1 (as they will) what do you say?
Probably, like me, you will conclude that Parkhomov is most likely honest but such results need more care and can easily go wrong?
And you will continue to maintain that Rossi has what he claims despite the massive red flags strewn all over his blog and demonstration history?
And to answer the other side: should any of these LENR+ devices prove to work even once – the world would take notice and the LENR energy revolution begin. As has always been true.
(Prove to work even once? Positive tests by NASA – BTW when do we hear the results from their internal LENR experiments. Positive tests by any reputable open science group that remain after open peer review of errors. A device working commercially with open and independent access to its measurement methodology.)
Rossi has refused all of these.
”Let us believe his explanation 100% – he seems a nice guy”
Which was it? The PC could work properly only on batteries and not connected to dc power? It resembles the one Steorn said about his Orb when it stopped working as soon as it was to show to the world because…lights were turned on (!). Oh, yes, perfectly believable this as that – Parkhomov is so much a kind person, he cannot be a liar in any case, not with that nice face, kind voice and dreaming naive eyes…
By the way, someone is really interested in his wonderful batteries: you charge them for 20 minutes and you got enough charge to work properly for 2 to 4 hours. Wow, where could I buy a pack like that for my pc? Or was it a miracle done by the charger?
@maryyugo
Actually, I fail to understand how believers can’t see what is in front of any professional or amateur following the saga.
At MFMP they use about 1 kW to heat the so called dog-bone up to 1000°C about.
Why Levi should need 0,9 kW + 1,8 kW of anomalous heat to reach the same results?
Now it is clear to everybody from Higgins’ and GSVIT’s analysis that the hot-cat never exceeded 1000°C.
Put 2,7 kW into the no-fuel dog-bone and it will explode immediately or fuse. As you said heat is heat, no importance who is providing it.
“Rossi never allows proper calibration”
How could you expect from a fraudster?
@Thomas Clarke: As always when Rossi is involved, what is missing in the Lugano data is proper calibration. Sure, direct temperature measurement would be desired and is possible, inasmuch as it is very doubtful that the high temperatures reported were actually reached.
But what is consistent across all of Rossi’s devices and tests is that there is never the simple, easy calibration with electrical (Joule) heating. It’s simple because you can meter electric power accurately, and it’s easy because everyone (EVERY ONE!!) of Rossi’s “reactors” includes a large, powerful electrical resistance heater. Rossi’s contention that using the heater to calibrate over the entire temperature range would damage it is idiotic. What does he think the heating from the supposed fusion reaction will do? Heat is heat! Temperature is temperature. It doesn’t matter to the heater wires whether thermal energy comes from Joule heating during calibration or from nuclear fusion.
Rossi never allows proper calibration. He never has and until and unless he gives up on this scam, he never will. The experimenters and reporters in fact have no idea, using the indirect calculations they made, using a fourth power function (with fourth power error possibilities) — they have no idea what power level was reached. It’s just a guess and always has been. And Rossi has pulled the wool over their eyes each time with a variety of trickery and spoofing.
We will only know the truth about Rossi and his devices when a truly independent and correct test is made and that, by a long shot, has not happened yet. I wish Mats would move to make it happen. Instead he seems to prefer praising things like Rossi’s constant lack of information on his blog and Darden’s zero-content information-lacking speech at ICCF19. Darden’s remarks were completely incompatible with Darden believing that Rossi really has a customer and a working megawatt fusion/LENR generator. If he thought it credible, he would have discussed it in some detail. Why not? What else was the audience waiting for?
@maryyugo
“NOTHING BUT PLATITUDES. And none of the believers are disappointed? That’s no surprise either!”
Actually, some of the believers are disappointed, and say this. But, being believers, they will fit hypotheses around facts in such a way as to continue with belief… Mats here is a sophisticated example of this.
Ref showing how very complex is the spectral emissivity of alumina at intermediate wavelengths:
http://www.shimadzu.com/an/ftir/support/tips/letter13/emissivity.html
Ref showing how spectral emissivity of alumina is 1 over range 4u-12u and much lower below 4u:
Click to access 087.pdf
Note the difference between different types of alumina which means this method of measurement is inherently ambiguous and cannot sensibly be used without a control.
Tom Darden’s talk shows what was obvious: that Cherokee’s involvement is no validation. Fund managers are businessmen, not technical, and some can be sold free energy stories. They are only human.
But notice the lack of specific mention of Rossi. VC Funds can bear a high failure rate especially in this case where the backing for LENR is clearly a “do it anyway on general principles” loss leader.
E-cat world has posting guidelines that specifically prohibit any rational argument implying Rossi is behaving fraudulently. The Lugano Ni-62 results mean that either his devices are real (for which there is much internal evidence against even if you are convinced LENR exists) or he is deliberately switching the ash. That ups the stakes and means that ecat world has formal guidelines that make it unable to consider rational argument that the Lugano e-cat does not work because that would therefore imply Rossi is fraudulent. Bias?
@Mats – I’m rereading your comment about the Lugano optometry. Summarised as: “you can’t be sure”.
The profs could not be sure either. They used book values for alumina emissivity (approx 0.4) to up the calculated power from that measured. They assumed that alumina emission has a black body spectrum even when it has non-BB emissivity, so that Optris measured emissivity (at deep infra-red) scales proportional to total emissivity. The same books show that this is not true, and that spectral emissivity at deep infra-red is always 1 relative to BB, with a sharp drop in spectral emissivity at visible and high infra-red wavelengths.
It is a subtle point. Not change in emissivity with temperature (though this exists as a consequence) but change in emissivity with frequency.
Actually, we’d need more info from the testers to settle this. They had three cameras one of which had lower wavelength (possibly less innacurate) measurement window than the other two. Comparison of the two sets of measurements would be revealing, and is not given.
What are the chances of a real COP=3 device, measured by profs who would really like to produce scientifically rigorous positive evidence of excess heat, having as its best validation a very indirect method with a known built-in optometry error? With no corroboration from direct measurement? With no control?
Also, how can the Lugano profs, if they are unbiassed and independent, not answer the various inconsistencies in their report?
Whatever your views on LENR as a whole, the evidence on Rossi’s demos and tests is so blatently flawed that it stands out like a sore thumb. That should make anyone think twice.
It is quite interesting that we now have two distinct error mechanisms in the Lugano tests either one of which could in principle account for the observed excess, neither of which is explained by the testers although they have been formally informed of both and could provide clarification. Mats – the testers know you – could you not point out to them that lack of followup comment in this case looks so very bad?
Thomas,
You predict, “MFMP… They will replicate. They will find no excess heat.”
You state, “If as claimed in many other places the LENR is highly temperature dependent with a threshold There would be hysteresis where the LENR kicked in and no way could “slow heating” happen. Also the power vs time waveform would need >>300W initially (when device was colder) to gte it up to operating temperature.”
Pure conjecture and obfuscation… Thomas, I cannot think of any good reason to reason with you.
Load up the comments as you will, your comments are ineffective (has no bearing on events and you are ineffectual (malicious or incompetent).
The science of LENR energy is beyond you.
The distinction between ineffective and ineffectual begins to become clear. You can use ineffective in any situation, especially when the ineffectiveness is through no personal fault. But ineffectual should be reserved for situations in which you’re referring to a person.
Are you ineffectual? Or only ineffective? Or both?
https://thebettereditor.wordpress.com/2012/09/07/are-you-ineffectual-or-only-ineffective/
Posted on September 7, 2012 by thebettereditor
How many times during the last several months have you heard a political candidate or a candidate’s policies referred to as either ineffective or ineffectual? Chances are, more times than you can count. But which is the correct term, and under which circumstances?
Probably only one person in ten will notice or care when one of these words is used instead of the other (and probably only one in ten of those people will both notice and care). If you’ve come here looking for the answer, you’re already in the minority. You might as well keep reading.
While these two words, ineffective and ineffectual, are different and are worth using in their separate and appropriate ways, the simple truth is that in modern American English the distinction barely exists. As a practical matter, the distinction is essentially lost in spoken language. When you’re committing something to paper, however, it can’t hurt — and can actually help — to show that you recognize the difference.
Let’s try to cover what ineffective and ineffectual have in common first. Both words are adjectives. Both are negatives (that in- prefix). Each is produced from a similar root adjective (effective and effectual), both ultimately deriving from effect.
In fact, if you look these terms up in a dictionary (or several, as I have for your reading enjoyment), don’t be surprised if one word is used in the definition of the other, or if the basic definitions vary only by a word or two. OED uses “ineffectual” as part of the definition of ineffective; while the first two words in its definition of ineffectual are “not effective.” ODO keeps the researcher on his toes by describing ineffective as “not producing any significant or desired effect,” while for ineffectual it offers “not producing any or the desired effect,” a shift of only one word and one position. Not to leave the other major dictionaries out of the party, AHD and Merriam-Webster use similar circular definitions.
With the difference in printed definitions down to hairsplitting and single word placements, it seems best to look to two other sources: the usage guides and the wisdom of the crowd.
The crowd (“the Internet” in this case) offers a handful of interesting discussions. A few begin to shed some light, but then fizzle. One goes off an interesting tangent (but still a tangent) on the overall value of synonym descriptions in dictionaries and thesauruses. Common conclusions regarding these two words include a putative distinction based on either degree or time: ineffective is absolute (it is or it isn’t, now and forever), while ineffectual can have shades (either in degree or in the time frame of ineffectiveness). A reading-between-the-lines approach of the dictionaries allows these conclusions (and I’m sympathetic to these interpretations), but neither is actually supported in the reference texts.
Most of these (typically short) online discussions last for a small handful of posts and then disperse in confusion: the majority of the language mavens on the Internet actually seem at a loss with this one. Those that aren’t defeated turn in the end to the usage guides, as I will in the next paragraph.
Most of the usage guides are silent, not even including a comment within their ever-present discussions of affect and effect. GMAU, however, offers some helpful advice, although you’ve got to fish a little for it within the entries for effectively and effectual.
For the positive forms (effective and effectual), GMAU concurs with the Internet opinion offered above (the ‘matter of degree’ approach). But curiously, it reverses the logic, noting that it’s actually effectual that means “achieving the complete effect,” (GMAU, 293) and thus suggesting by reciprocation that ineffectual is then the word for a complete lack of effect.
GMAU goes on to suggest that in actual use the primary distinction is between objects and persons. This turns out to be the critical distinction between these two words.
For the negative form, while effective and ineffective can apply to anything, animate or not, ineffectual usually describes a person (“an ineffectual manager”). Effectual, GMAU points out, doesn’t carry the same baggage, and can describe non-persons as well. Thesauruses support this interpretation, with many of them including words like hopeless, impotent, vain, and weak among the synonyms for ineffectual. In fact, at least one thesaurus proves more useful than the dictionaries in this case. This is from dictionary.com (a source I don’t recommend using, unless your browser is well locked down):
ineffectual refers to a general or habitual lack of success in the carrying out of one’s projects; ineffective refers to a specific or definite failure to perform a task or accomplish a purpose
The reference to a person or personality is clear: “habitual lack of success” and “carrying out one’s projects” can only refer to a person; “specific or definite failure” and “perform a task or accomplish a purpose” can be interpreted more broadly.
With all this information uncovered, the distinction between ineffective and ineffectual begins to become clear. You can use ineffective in any situation, especially when the ineffectiveness is through no personal fault. But ineffectual should be reserved for situations in which you’re referring to a person:
“The levee proved ineffective against the hurricane’s 15 foot storm surge.” Why was the levee ineffective? Because it had been built to withstand a 12 foot flood, not because the levee itself was malicious or incompetent.
“Everyone agreed that the mayor’s leadership during the storm had been ineffectual.” The mayor was ill-prepared for this crisis, or lazy, or unable to inspire confidence in those around him. These problems were correctable or of his own making, therefore ineffectual is a better word than ineffective.
If something (or someone) fails because of its physical properties, or unanticipated events, or some other reason not due to human incompetence, it is ineffective. If a person fails because they aren’t up to the task, or aren’t willing to take the appropriate steps, or because their character prevents from them succeeding, they’re ineffectual.
Problem solved.
For those readers interested in a little more depth about the history of these words and their current place in the language, here are a few additional tidbits.
GMAU also suggests that effectual used for effective (and by association, ineffectual used for ineffective) is at “Stage 3″ of their Language-Change Index: “commonplace even among many educated people, but still avoided in careful usage.” That’s exactly the territory that a good writer operates in. GMAU notes a few examples of errors using effectually when effectively was clearly the correct word. This is different from the pejorative ineffectual sense described above, but worth noting.
Because I encounter ineffective much more often than ineffectual, it surprised me to learn that ineffectual is the older word. The first print citation of ineffectual dates to the early 15th century, beating ineffective by over 200 years.
Google searches indicate that in the wild ineffective is used about ten times more frequently than ineffectual. However, Google N-grams suggests that this wasn’t always so, and that it’s a moving target: prior to about 1810, ineffectual was roughly twenty times more common than ineffective. Ineffectual went into a slow decline while ineffective saw wider use until their curves crossed around 1910. Interestingly, the use of ineffective seems to have peaked in the 1980s, while ineffectual‘s decline stopped around 2000. Since then, relative frequency of the two words has been slowly equalizing: at the latest data point, ineffective was only about four times as common, and its decline has been steeper than ineffectual‘s rise. Should this trend continue, we can expect the words to be used about equally once again sometime within the next 25 years.
= = = =
Don’t forget about the new “Spot the Error” feature. A job credit will be awarded to the first user to find it. And because this is a longer post (over 1200 words) there *might* be a second error hidden in here…
(There is, and I’ll even give you a starting hint: one is a spelling error, the other a simple transposition of two words.)
Darden’s speech at ICCF19 was precisely what I expected and predicted– absolutely no substantive information whatever. Nothing but CEO hot air. Nothing about Rossi’s progress, nothing about Rossi’s supposed but probably nonexistent customer, nothing about why a revolutionary machine which makes a megawatt at 6:1 COP hasn’t been widely marketed and sold after four years of empty claims including the claim that anyone could buy one for a paltry million dollars or so. A single nice SoCal house usually cost more than that! And this should be the most amazing and promising discovery of the last two centuries! What silliness.
NOTHING BUT PLATITUDES. And none of the believers are disappointed? That’s no surprise either!
Why don’t you interview this guy, Mats, and ask him some REAL questions? Need suggestions?
“Mats Lewan • 2 hours ago
I expect this to be an historical version of ICCF, in the meaning that it will be the last year before commercially viable LENR will be publicly known. I no longer have any doubts that the ongoing 1 MW trial by IH and Rossi is going well and that they will be ready to announce and demonstrate this, as Rossi says, at the end of this year or the beginning of next year. At that point there will be no more discussions.
This means that any other effort to prove viable LENR for energy production now has a time window of less than a year.
After that point, if not earlier, focus will be to explain the process theoretically, based on significant amounts of real data (i don’t think we’re there yet). Only with a solid theoretical model, further engineering can be made in an efficient way. Next step will also be development of new applications. I would expect some competitions being launched next year, with specific goals set, to encourage such application development.”
-from e-catworld.com
Mats, Are you ever cruising for a bruising! (old American expression)
Really? You think Rossi sitting with some old cronies of his, 16 hours a day for a year, with a collection of ecats in a container somewhere spells success? That it makes the slightest sense?
Wow! Just Wow!
Would you believe? There are true geniuses that do believe it(!!)
Mats you should just block CymPy and tyy.
They are just trolls and they want to release their frustration here in this blog. They dont want to accept the evidence. They even don´t want to look to consider this option because they believe in faith of the current theories. Now, it is his religion. Science religion. They think science is not moving target, they think science laws are written into stone and they cannot be corrected.
Of course, history proved us already something different and they will pay for that mistake. All here is documented.
As they are good trolls, they don´t show they true names, and they just come and come without saying anything useful, but only with erratic conspiracy guess. Their effors could be emploled to try to do replications by their own.
They are just like priests of current science. Their values are based on what, they were told. They have to believe on the science text book (like to Bible).
I know that probably you don´t want to block these two trolls because you want to slap them in the face when LENR is accepted :). But they will never accept they were wrong. They will find an excuse for their behavior and all the wasted time defending pure shit fraud conspirations. Probably, tyy and CymPy where once useful trying to give another view of what could be wrong or what can happens. This time is already gone and they just are not being careful but just negating the evidence and trying actively to find an excuse and a fraud to avoid the evidence. This is not scientific and not honorable and typical of religious belief.
I recommend you to block them and then once LENR is accepted you can let them come to slap them in the face 🙂
Mats,
I realise these are old arguments, and not likely to win hearts. But still worth understanding the intellectual case.
In principle nothing is “impossible”. But some things are highly unlikely. The problem for LENR as you know is explaining how there are no easily measurable high energy reaction products. (W-L only deals with gammas – and that not in a way consistent with experiment). That – as Hagelstein notes – is a far more difficult problem to deal with even than Coulomb barrier.
Given something highly unlikely, and variable experiments which sometimes show anomalies but when repeated carefuly do not, the smart money is strongly on the highly unlikely thing not being real.
LENR proponents have biassed judgement here in three ways:
(1) They don’t understand how well theoretical models of physics predict experiment,and how difficult it would be to fit magical “no high energy reaction products” into a coherent framework.
(2) They don’t understand the care needed to remove errors from experiments.
(3) They don’t understand the reason why “weight of evidence” does not work in this case, because the evidence weighed is selected to have positive results. Few people bother to write up and present negative results, most LENR experiments are selected (by Darwinian evolution) to be of types that can have unquantified experimental errors – since these are the types of experiment that have proved positive in the past. Imagine 100 Parkhomov’s doing experiments 99 of which we never hear about – the one we hear of is of course the one who gets (or claims) positive results.
As example: the MIT NANOR stuff, where headline figures are impressive because active material is very small, but excess powers are low and as power scales up COP reduces.This is a sure recipe for experimental error – especially because full flow calorimetry is not typically done, and the other methods used have possible errors (as MFMP have found).
As example: any of Rossi’s demos which all contain different unqwunatified error mechanisms. When Rossi has been informed what would plug these errors he has not done this, but instead next time round completely changed the experiment.
As example: transmutation evidence where the quantities involved are so very small that contamination and false readings are likely.
As example; somehow these power generating reactions always need power in to generate temperatures higher than ambient. If there is an exothermic reaction it should be self-sustaining, and can always be stabilised by suitable cooling
Other spectacular evidence – e.g. Parkhomov’s tests – suffers from a lack of raw data. It is not sensible to expect accuracy from a researcher just because they seem very believable. Parkhomov has not yet explained the cut and paste in his second experiment results (which cannot be a compression artifact because of the displaced black axis lines that you can see in some of the cut and pasted traces).
When a large collection of evidence somehow always manages to avoid the replicable definite result that would convince people, even if the hypothesis is not highly unlikely to begin with, a wise person would ask why is the replicable definite result is never found.
I strongly (will stay here to be highly embarrassed if wrong) predict:
no beyond chemical + error excess Parkhomov/Rossi replication from MFMP.
Mats. Cold Fusion goes against everything we know about physical reality.
Furthermore, no gizmo doing the thingy exists.
This was the reality check (again), and those were the facts.
Tvy, you’re simply wrong. To state that that cold fusion goes against everything we know about physical reality you first need to describe in detail what cold fusion is, then explain in detail why it’s impossible. Furthermore it implies that everything we believe to know is correct, which is presumptuous and nothing less. Finally: experiment is king. If there are experimental results proving e.g. excess heat beyond chemical reactions, you’d better try to find a physical explanation that involves nuclear reactions. But as I write in my book, it will be easier for people Ike you to save their faces if it can be found that there are more accurate terms to describe the process than cold fusion.
No, Mats. I still believe I am correct.
Mats,
good point! I agree (at least on it), and
I really appreciate your thermodynamic basic knowledge.
I don’t know if Andrea”NAZARBAYEV BELIEVES IN PERPETUAL MOTION” Rampado also does, but today it’s unimportant.
Chapeau.
Greetings from uncle Tony.
Billy Milano
Hi Mats,
I have lots of fun reading you and Cimpy. You and him are a good reason to follow this blog 🙂
IMO it’s not a matter of who laughs and when. But let’s go on.
I finally found what Cimpy pasted:
In Kazakistan da molti anni stanno sviluppando un’invenzione incredibile, un sistema che è in grado di rompere la molecola di CO2 con molta meno energia dell’energia prodotta dal carbonio che si ottiene, il rapporto tra energia spesa e ottenuta è di 1/100. …ha ricevuto l’interesse diretto del Presidente del Kazakistan, importanti finanziamenti sono stati messi a disposizione per lo sviluppo
The new in bold is from Andrea Rampado.
In a few words, according to google translator (and my uncle Tony) a system to break CO2 in C and O2, using 1/100 of the energy that you get when you burn C and O2 putting them togheter…direct interest of President of Kazakistan, large funds provided for developement…
Although the words:
RAMPADO CONFIRMS:”NAZARBAYEV BELIEVES IN PERPETUAL MOTION”
may be dealing with this, NAZARBAYEV BELIEVES IN PERPETUAL MOTION still reminds me Curt Cobain.
Of course somebody can joke, and say this is an impossible invention, but if it’s not, it could be the real solution for global warming and energy issues.
It seems the perfect subject for your next book, Mats 😉
Billy, you know, you have to make a difference between impossible and impossible. I’m amazed that this seems to be so difficult for those claiming that cold fusion is impossible.
I have a particular respect for the laws of thermodynamics which are much more fundamental than most other theoretical concepts in physics and chemistry. Cold fusion is not in conflict with thermodynamics, whereas the idea of breaking CO2, using 1/100 of the energy that you get when you burn C and O2 to get CO2, very much seems to be in conflict. That’s why I’m not so interested.
Perpetual motion is also in conflict with thermodynamics. Thus dismissed.
“I have a particular respect for the laws of thermodynamics (…) Cold fusion is not in conflict with thermodynamics, whereas the idea of breaking CO2, using 1/100 of the energy that you get when you burn C and O2 to get CO2, very much seems to be in conflict. That’s why I’m not so interested.
Perpetual motion is also in conflict with thermodynamics. Thus dismissed”
Happy to know at least that from you, Mats. And welcome in the “Mistero sucks” Team – now you too might be labeled as “troll”, if it were not for your belief in Cold Fusion as not simply possible but even already realized. In some device buried in some hidden cavern, I guess. Did you try Aladdin’s one?
😀
“I’m not bored. Maybe you are?”
Of course you are not, as you keep on stating “time will tell”, instead of “where is the magic machine?” or “where is repeatability?”
Me bored? Yes, a bit bored to hear same lies year after year – at least you could try set up some new set. Luckily many funny people in Italy have more fantasy, so at end I am still amused from this story
😀
Cannot leave it Cimpy?
Cannot leave it Cimpy?
Are you frightened of what? Was not it my destiny coming soon to knock me out? Or was it another “time will tell” mantra? As long as I am amused, I will be herearound – you know: “time will tell” if I will leave it
“I still don’t understand why I should care about NAZARBAYEV”
So you do not understand it is NOT about NAZARBAYEV but it is about a Cold Fusion supporter, which aims to make people believe in any kind of foolish he can find around, perpetual motion related, from http://www.rarenergia.com to http://nexusedizioni.it/it/CT/con-50-euro-lenergia-di-un-milione-di-litri-di-benzina-533b2bc8d2170 …He (and not Nazarbayev) wrote :
In Kazakistan da molti anni stanno sviluppando un’invenzione incredibile, un sistema che è in grado di rompere la molecola di CO2 con molta meno energia dell’energia prodotta dal carbonio che si ottiene, il rapporto tra energia spesa e ottenuta è di 1/100. …ha ricevuto l’interesse diretto del Presidente del Kazakistan, importanti finanziamenti sono stati messi a disposizione per lo sviluppo
You do not need a translation from italian, do you? These are your friend in hope – have a nice journey among them
You just seem so upset Cimpy. And I’m sorry, I really don’t care about that nazarbayev.
Upset? You’re out of road – I am amused, and that’s why I am herearound.
By the way, it is normal you don’t care about that Nazarbayev. Point is hoping that Nazarbayev does not care of you (that is: some of your fellow in this journey)
Take care
Keep laughing Cimpy 😉 All that’s happening is that a number of mad people are performing experiments on an impossible process. Nothing can happen so don’t worry, and sleep well.
“who is this NAZARBAYEV and why should I care?”
So, you’re unaware of Mistero last findings?? It was a big one, you know? One hundred times the in energy! And even lowering CO2 in the whole world – it should be worth a masterpiece from you, expecialluìy as Rampado said NAZARBAYEV, President of Kazakistan, does believe in it and thus in perpetual motion.
Have a look by yourself
I still don’t understand why I should care about NAZARBAYEV. I never talked about him. I think I read something briefly. I seemed to be crap.
Sorry Mats,
it didn’t work, and you can cancel my last post
RAMPADO CONFIRMS: ”NAZARBAYEV BELIEVES IN PERPETUAL MOTION”
I confirm that NAZARBAYEV BELIEVES IN PERPETUAL MOTION reminds me Curt Cobain
Right — I haven’t looked at reports or hypotheses regarding this picture yet, but what I see in the picture obviously doesn’t look good.
Yet, I prefer to wait for the results of other people attempting this experimental set-up rather than making quick accusations.
BTW, who is this NAZARBAYEV and why should I care?
@Billy Milano.
So, the issue on Parkhomov’s temperature plot is now resolved.
http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/04/29/parkhomov-explains-cut-and-paste-of-plot-lines-in-march-experiment/
I’m not surprised.
So, Mats, did you get a way to link posts on Cobraf? Like these ones on Parkhomov finding, for example:
http://www.cobraf.com/forum/topic.php?reply_id=123583330#123583330
http://www.cobraf.com/forum/topic.php?reply_id=123583289#123583289
http://www.cobraf.com/forum/topic.php?reply_id=123583280#123583280
It is amusing to read from 22 Passi believers : some try to explain picture artifacts as a matter by Microsoft (was not Bill himself a supporter? 😀 ), some guess the Parkhomov report could be a fake (entirely? Only for that picture?), some do recognize the picture is a fake and from Parkhomov, but hope illusionist Painter‘s alleged findings could be true in any case…. For sure Defkalion story did not teach them anything. Any news from you on this russian story?
By the way:
RAMPADO CONFIRMS: ”NAZARBAYEV BELIEVES IN PERPETUAL MOTION”
Cimpy, the links to Cobraf are hopeless — they are not permanent and move target. I tried to look, but I’m not sure of what you’re thinking of.
Anyhow, don’t worry, you’re time is coming Cimpy, but fortunately you don’t know it yet.
“Anyhow, don’t worry, you’re time is coming Cimpy, but fortunately you don’t know it yet”
Well, Mats, happy to know it. By the way, does my future – already coming as you said -involves some new miracle? Or should I think you meant some kind of accident while crossing the street? You know, from my point of view the first is impossible, while the latter (as a mere accident) might always happen. Are you going to drive to Italy in next future? Or was it only a hope?
Parkhomov: a picture in his report is clearly a fraud one. If you do not like Cobraf links, might be you could appreciate 22Passi one:
Here you can download the report that the 22 Passi House Keeper said he received by mail:
http://22passi.blogspot.com/2015/03/da-stasera-ingresso-libero.html?showComment=1427477722826#c8370949994100024252
Here what he said was Parkhomov original report:
http://22passi.blogspot.com/2015/03/da-stasera-ingresso-libero.html?showComment=1427478208971#c3463680961061653540
Here where someone points out someone found something strange in that report
http://22passi.blogspot.com/2015/03/da-stasera-ingresso-libero.html?showComment=1427566569424#c3219393687735136377
Here where someone starts speaking clearly of a handmade work on a picture and explain how to see it
http://22passi.blogspot.com/2015/03/da-stasera-ingresso-libero.html?showComment=1427577496088#c1845905645567965931
Here where one of the believer starts saying it was not a good job…
http://22passi.blogspot.com/2015/03/da-stasera-ingresso-libero.html?showComment=1427613344247#c6164838635957518326
Let me know when my destiny will knock at my door, I appreciate your effort.
Bye
Dear Cimpy, your future doesn’t depend on Parkhomov. But even if it did, time will tell if his recipe is replicable.
“time will tell”
Mats, aren’t you bored to repeat same sentence year after year? “Time will tell”, after any witness of Rossi claims will walk no longer? “Time will tell” as in Keely story? Is that the real hope?
You’re amusing. Nice to know it will not be Parkhomov. So, it should be you?
Have a nice day, and do not forget to keep on the “next year will be the Great LENR Year” mantra, also next year: you could even sell some extra books from that
😀
No Cimpy, I’m not bored. Maybe you are?
“All that’s happening is that a number of mad people are performing experiments on an impossible process”
Yes, I have read about – Parkhomov was one, specifically pointed as “interesting” by Rossi, and I am still laughing. Did you read about Mills message on the last three days report? “We will never know” concluded Mills – he forgot a piece of sentence: “that it never worked”…
Have nice performing experiments and do not forget to post reports: I like to be amused
😀
I wish you a good time Cimpy. Take care.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/he_who_laughs_last_laughs_best
sorry I got that wrong way round:
630/330 = ~ 2 => temp change of sqrt(2) so make that more like 220C rise in effective heatsink temp.
930W -> 1200C (+900C say)
600W -> (suppose square law, radiation is T^4, conduction is T, ignore C vs K) +740C
So we’d need a rough 150C rise in temperature of effective heatsink.
@Mats
This latest Parkhomov experiment has too many variables to do more than guess.
But – guessing – yes it is reasonable.
Temperature is a bad proxy for power – something often forgotten by LENR advocates.
In this case a number of things could alter the recorded temperature:
thermocouple drift
change in the temperature of the large iron heatsink around the experiment
change in exact position of thermocouple
change in thermal resistance of fuel
Probably others I’m not thinking about. The fact that keeping the heater on for 1 hour increases temperatures makes me think that surrounding increasing temp is significant. Especially because there is a clear mechanism here for variability (conduction through the bar).
It is really most unsatisfactory that anyone doing such experiments should present such a flakey badly controlled setup. Luckily MFMP are replicating and have much better controlled setups in mind.
Let us not forget that in January in three dummy runs Parkhomov’s reactors reached a temperature in the range 1050 to 1100°C with very different input powers, respectively 928W, 306W, 116W.
(See the summary in
drawn from
http://www.unconv-science.org/pdf/7/parkhomov-en.pdf )
Good Andrea.S. You should always look for alternative explanations and possible errors.
But I have to admit that I find this description by Parkhomov intriguing:
The temperature 0f 1200C at the surface of he working tube was attained in 12 hours of stepwise increase of power of the electrical heater up to 630W. After this the power necessary to maintain the temperature of 1200C decreases in 1 hour to 330W.
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2015/03/parkhomovs-3rd-paper-text.html
Do you find it reasonable that you should be able to reduce input power from 630 watt to 330 watt and keep the same temperature, after 12 hours of slow heating, in such a small device? To me it seems like slowly, slowly accelerating a car from 0 to 100 km/h, for 12 hours, and then lift the gas pedal to half the power, and yet the car goes on at 100 km/h. For three days. Hmm…
Perhaps the information available isn’t enough yet, but design of Dr Parkhomov’s latest experiment appears far more susceptible to errors than his water evaporation setup. In particular, use of a single thermocouple, internal to the heater coil, is highly questionable in my view.
With the criterion of comparing input powers for a given temperature to compute COP, the chart (see http://www.cobraf.com/showimage.php?image=/forum/immagini/R_123583103_1.jpg ) at 11m11s of the video is used to say that COP is visibly >1 above 700°C, and when at 1200°C COP starts at 1.7 (1100W needed without charge, 650W with charge) and then improves to 3.1 (input regulated down to 350W).
But one can argue that for the same 650W input, temperature readings were respectively 1050°C and 1200°C just because the thermal insulation of the thermocouple differs in the two runs, due to removal, filling, and reinsertion of the inner core. And/or because the resistive winding is degrading and the thermocouple happened to be in a hot spot (local resistivity increasing), that became hotter as the degradation progressed.
We really need to see this reactor reproduced by MFMP: we must be sure we are not cherry-picking favorable results induced by the setup.
And I would like to see Dr. Parkhomov replicate his results in a water evaporation calorimetry setup similar to the original one: with the same experiment design and equivalent but different equipment he could rule out systematic setup errors.
CimPY, apparently the President Kazzaro dealt truly prodigious this machine, and always it seems, declare COP 100 ..
A toll navigated like you falling into these traps ..)))
http://22passi.blogspot.it/2015/03/nazarbayev-believes-in-perpetual-motion.html
Rampado, in post you link it is unclear if you are stating system
1)is good but still expensive
2)is almost balanced (only 1% of in is payed)
3) is overunity in such a way to give one hundred more times the energy used to make it work.
Could you state clearly which of the three you were telling?
“The truth of the experimental results will become clear sooner or later”
Till nowadays, truth, as long as appeared, did not take a lot of good stuff to believers, has it been about F&P, Mizuno or Defkalion…and judging by his acts, Rossi is hoping to put it as later as he can. But you can always hope, in the meantime. And sell books.
@Mats
It is not binary “false calorimetry”or “good calorimetry”. All these experiments have errors and the ones P does have potentially large errors. If he tries things till he gets a repeatable decent COP is he doing this knowing the calorimetry is bad? Not necessarily!
Anyway MFMP have the bit between their teeth. They will replicate. They will find no excess heat. Will that change your “wait and see” views?
Mats,
I’m not courageous, and I don’t have elements to bet something about calorimetry.
But I note that calorimetry has been changed, because of a problem that could be solved buying a toilet valve and a water meter at any “do it yourself” store.
It seems strange, doesn’t it?
No, I don’t think so.
Hallo Mats,
I agree with Thomas Clarke.
“Parknomov is looking similar given the swap in calorimetry”
From ecat world:
With long-term continuous operation is not possible to pour water around the clock. So we had to abandon that used in previous experiments calorimetry based on the measurement of the mass of evaporated water
You can solve the problem using a toilet floating valve and a cheap water meter.
Continuous operation seems only to be an excuse to change calorimetry.
PS
I don’t understand the (maybe hyronic) breaking new:
Rampado: “Nazarbayev believes in perpetual motion”
Is Nazarbayev informed about? 😀
Well, you know Billy, the Universe doesn’t care about opinions.
The truth of the experimental results will become clear sooner or later, and I think it’s a courageous to bet that they depend on false calorimetry, if that is what you hint at. But it’s your choice.
@Mats,
You are right. Have you ever considered why that should be for LENR? For most experiments with simple results (like these) any uncertainties in a first run will be dealt with by additional measurement in followups without introducing new issues. It is not that difficult a thing to do with carefully recorded data, controls, etc.
Somehow, Rossi never does this. you would think he was deliberately wanting to ensure his stuff was never properly tested! And Although there is much less evidence Parknomov is looking similar given the swap in calorimetry between first claimed positive and second claimed positive.
Rampado: “Nazarbayev believes in perpetual motion”
Poor Mizuno.
“[Vo]:Retract “Report on Mizuno’s adiabatic calorimetry”
Jed Rothwell Fri, 20 Mar 2015 13:01:24 -0700
I regret to report that I must retract the conclusions I reached in my
paper, “Report on Mizuno’s adiabatic calorimetry.” I uploaded a new version
of the paper with an Appendix A explaining the reasons.
Click to access RothwellJreportonmi.pdf
Some calibrations performed after this paper was written cast doubt upon
the results. I now believe that most if not all of the apparent excess heat
was caused by changes in ambient temperature”
https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg102069.html
@Mats
“both ways are good enough”
Well, no. Not without much more information than we now have. Even then it is difficult to prove that whatever physical change insets/removes the powder does not also alter the thermal resistance.
Whereas observation of hysteresis would be compelling evidence.
In fact, given that heat in the core will have a much larger affect on core temperature than heat from an external heater it is difficult to see this type of system ever switching off when it has COP of 3. I’d need some math to prove it though.
There are always weaknesses.
Parkhomov says:
“Finally able to make long-term working reactor. The temperature of 1200 ° C is reached at 23:30 on March 16 after a 12-hour gradual heating and lasts until now. Heater power of 300 W, COP = 3.
For the first time successfully managed to mount a pressure gauge installation. With slow heating, the maximum pressure of 5 bar at 200 ° C was reached, and then the pressure was reduced at a temperature of about 1000C to become negative. The most powerful vacuum of about 0.5 bar at a temperature of 1150 ° C was.”
If as claimed in many other places the LENR is highly temperature dependent with a threshold There would be hysteresis where the LENR kicked in and no way could “slow heating” happen. Also the power vs time waveform would need >>300W initially (when device was colder) to gte it up to operating temperature.
That may be what Parkhomov observes in this latest experiment of course. We will see. From the above quote i doubt it. Such strong hysteretic behaviour would be notable.
The big difference is that to test with/without fuel you need to change a lot of things including the alumina powder insulating blanket he says he uses (not sure whether it is used in this latest test).
So there are many ways the two tests can be different.
On the other hand observing two different states with very different temperatures both heated with identical power is conclusive of heat generation.
Both ways have their weak points. Yet they are both good enough.
@Mats
MaryYugo makes a good point which (not sure if you realise) you do not in fact address.
She is not arguing against heating up the e-cat carefully. She is saying that with a test like Parkhomov’s in which there is no direct measurement of energy out what would be convincing is:
(1) heat reactor with 300W. Note that it gets to say 600C. (there is a thermocouple). Check this stays stable.
(2) heat reactor (whatever way you want) up to operating temperature. Presumably this needs 1000W – but this is not proven. Reduce power to 300W. It will be stable at operating temperature.
If in fact as most believe COP=1, then there can be no difference between the initial 300W temeprature and the operating 300W temperature. If there is high temperature-dependent COP as claimed then there will be a big difference.
This is a test independent of other errors in the system.
I don’t see the big difference from what Parkhomov does now — reactor running with fuel arrives at 1200 degrees, at 330 watts. Arriving at the same temperature without fuel requires 1070 watts.
Of course all details on measurements, accuracy etc have to be checked.
by trhe way, do not miss this high piece of science: Keshe could not have done it better….
Parkhomov has a new experiment with a new reactor. He claims appx 300 watts in and 1000 watts out in a simple little tube.
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ca/2015/03/fast-issue-lenr-parkhomov-news-from.html
My problem with this is very simple. If you make three times the heat needed to start the reaction, and the heat is delivered into the reactor at the same location as the heater is placed, then why do you need the heater after the reaction begins? Not only would the reaction supply the heat needed to sustain itself but there would be excess heat, after losses, which would have to be removed by some sort of forced cooling process.
Rossi and Parkhomov reactors have no such forced cooling *and* they require sustained heating even after the reaction has reached full power — which, to me, has always been the best evidence that they are bogus.
Mats, anyone… know the answer to this obvious paradox? I have my own of course but I’d like to hear yours.
Yes, I have: it is a hoax.
Cimpy and Maryyugo — I’m not really impressed by your conclusions, but anyhow, if you’re really interested, here you go:
Imagine two magnets attracting each other. One is above and the other below, attached to a weight.
You want to keep the lower magnet with the weight hanging in the air under the upper magnet, lifted by the magnetic force, without making contact. Then add that you can push the weight upwards, but you have almost no capability of pulling it downwards.
So you have to try to push it up gently, gently to find that incredibly fine balance, without getting it so close that it gets pulled up and sticks to the upper magnet.
This is actually quite similar to a real regulation problem for a magnetic rail project in Switzerland, called Swiss Metro, with the wagons hanging under a magnetic rail. In that case, however, the regulation is made by switching on and off electromagnets at a high frequency, controlled by a computer system.
In any case — the E-Cat appears to have this dynamic, where you need to heat it carefully, but not too much. If you’re really careful you can achieve a balance that makes a self-sustained mode possible for long times. At the test in October 2011 where I was taking the numbers, the E-Cat run in self sustained mode for several hours — about six hours I think it was.
You probably won’t believe this, but at least I gave my answer to your question.
LOL, Mats! So are you going to believe in magnetic motors? And by the way, how much Tesla from Hyperion? And from E Cat? Oh wait: it was only a symbolic speech, was not it? You have no E Cat at all to finely calibrate, have you? But for sure within next 3/6/18 months… Keep on the hard work, Mats, go calibrate: at least you could have a lot of work to do with Rossi – even for 17 hours a day for next 3/6/18 years – but it might last longer than that, say even forever….
:’D
Cimpy, you’re predictable as a Swiss train 🙂
Mats, you should read your “friends in hope(less)” from 22 Passi – for example, did you know about Putin? Not to name all other news there around…Soon, migth be even next year you will surely see LENR spread around the world…
😀 😀 😀
Cimpy and Maryyugo — I’m not really impressed by your conclusions, but anyhow, if you’re really interested, here you go:
Imagine two magnets attracting each other. One is above and the other below, attached to a weight.
You want to keep the lower magnet with the weight hanging in the air under the upper magnet, lifted by the magnetic force, without making contact. Then add that you can push the weight upwards, but you have almost no capability of pulling it downwards.
So you have to try to push it up gently, gently to find that incredibly fine balance, without getting it so close that it gets pulled up and sticks to the upper magnet.
This is actually quite similar to a real regulation problem for a magnetic rail project in Switzerland, called Swiss Metro, with the wagons hanging under a magnetic rail. In that case, however, the regulation is made by switching on and off electromagnets at a high frequency, controlled by a computer system.
In any case — the E-Cat appears to have this dynamic, where you need to heat it carefully, but not too much. If you’re really careful you can achieve a balance that makes a self-sustained mode possible for long times. At the test in October 2011 where I was taking the numbers, the E-Cat run in self sustained mode for several hours — about six hours I think it was.
You probably won’t believe this, but at least I gave my answer to your question.
@Giancarlo
The testers have said they assume Rossi is straight with them, so it seems unlikley they would lock stuff up at night or worry if Rossi came in one Sunday to do some “checking”.
They must have a lot of spare time since they chose a calorimetry method that was very complex to analyse – and flakey – and then got it wrong, making multiple errors. But, to be fair, Rossi decided the calorimetry, did he not?
@Thomas Clarke
It was completely unwise to perform such a calorimetry. We suggested a method very similar to Parkhomov’s calorimetry. it works and it is very simple. Measuring the black body radiation of a white body does not me feel good.
Concerning the possible swap of reactors is an hypothesis that has been considered in details. It solves a lot of incongruences, not only the 62Ni issue. Normally current halves when the load is single phase.
What is your opinion: did the Swedens attend the Lugano experiment for 32 days? Nothing to do at home?
Sorry for multiple posts – i keep on reading new gems here:
@Mats said: “The alumina used could be transparent to a part of the spectrum captured by the camera…[snip]…I’m sorry, but I prefer to wait for the updated report and for further results.”
You are right that alumina varies greatly in its properties with microstructure etc. That means that the only further tests that would help would be those on the precise reactor used in the active tests – unless all the testing is repeated (with thermocouples on teh reactor, for example).
@giancarlo – not worth doing with all the other errors but there is a maybe 20% change in emissivity – if the emissivity is low, because of the corrugated surface self-absorption and re-radiation. that no-one doing these calculations seems to include. This only emphasises how very difficult is to be sure you have got it right when using this totally bankrupt method of power estimation.
@Mats – you say the isotopic shift is evidence for the Lugano test having excess heat.
I agree if this shift were real it would mean LENR and therefore any amount of excess heat possible.
Equally, with LENR, any amount of cooling is possible (!) according to what are the reactions. (It is true – though not much commented. The necessary stuff to break Coulomb barrier would automatically allow highly endothermic nuclear reactions).
But the isotopic shift is dubious because it would require a fast Ni58->NI62 reaction that had no products and also no significant power (since we do not get more power out before the Ni has all reacted).
That is all highly unlikely – which makes the Ni-62 bad evidence for LENR and good evidence for substitution.
Some guy did a test with an Al2O3 plate, measuring the emissivity, and finding that it varied greatly at lower wavelengths (where it goes translucent) according to whether it was reflecting radiation or transmitting it. Not surprising because for translucent materials what you actually see is the emissivity and the temperature of whatever object is opaque behind or inside the Al2O3.
Which makes the power out measurements flakey in the extreme. You would have to try really hard to find a more intrinsically inaccurate way to measure – which perhaps explains why Rossi’s reactors are now Al2O3 and not painted black.
The power in measurements have the known X1/3 error, or else an element that varies X3 in resistance.
I have one new explanation of why the Lugano testers are unwilling to cough up the PCE-830 current data that would say what is what. Maybe the control and active reactors are in fact different, with different heater elements accounting for the change in resistance. Rossi swapping reactors would be one way for him to get the Ni-62 in the ash. The X3 COP is then explained by the difference in effective total emissivity from the reactor and the Al2O3 emissivity at the IR camera measurement wavelength.
@Mats Lewan
I don’t think you got the point. If there’s transparency you cannot only count radiation from the surface, and knowing the surface temperature is therefore not enough.
So you agree that power measurements in TPR2 are crazy. Maybe the COP is 6.
@Mats Lewan
I have exchanged some interesting emails with Bob Higgins, where he picks up my both considerations and puts them into perspective.
Do you mean that Bob is going to publish one more paper on the subject including transparency?
Concerning your questions
1. ..you cannot calibrate temperature value read by the thermal camera with surface temperature measured with thermocouple…
2. Principle of thermal cameras — possibly granting an accurate value of radiated power, regardless of emissivity and/or transparency.
1) If calibration is not possible all the measurements by a thermocamera are useless and the surface measurement wins
2) You should use a different instrument: they call it radiometer
@Giancarlo — I don’t think you got the point. If there’s transparency you cannot only count radiation from the surface, and knowing the surface temperature is therefore not enough.
My understanding on the second point was on the contrary that the thermal camera is a well chosen instrument.
Mats, you forgot to tell which experiments.
And, by the way, I don’t think you get the point of what you’re trying to support: this is another Hyperion, and you should know it by now (to tell the truth, by 4 or 5 years).
@Mats
You don’t need more clever guesses. You need thermocouples, enough of them to be representative, inside the reactor near and away from the heater and on the surface of the device. You also need a control run in which the “reactor” is heated only electrically by the nice large built in heater that Rossi so considerately provides with every ecat. And the control run must be carefully evaluated to be sure the operating conditions are identical to a fueled run (if there is such a thing) and the temperature range *in the reactor* for both runs must be identical.
I have exchanged some interesting emails with Bob Higgins, where he picks up my both considerations and puts them into perspective. He actually used a transparency compensation in his paper. It all makes sense.
However, without being lengthy — here’s his final remark:
“I still believe that the HotCat is producing a lot of excess heat due to LENR. It’s COP and temperatures are falling in line with other experiments, which lends more credibility to the HotCat.”
“It’s COP and temperatures are falling in line with other experiments”
Which ones, Mats?
@maryyugo
Yes, of course you are wright 🙂
I think it is worthwhile to compare what Bog Higgins autonomously made, to GSVIT’s work. The two methodology are exactly the same, showing that there is something deeply wrong in the concept of calorimetry used by TPR2 authors.
At the end, the numerical values for the overestimation of the radiated power differs, but this is due to the different choices made in selecting reference experimental data. We chose NBS data, Bob more recent data from a camera manufacturer. Only an experiment on the real reactor could give us the right values.
However, also Bob reports a huge 1,88 overestimation; this number is going to increase as soon as you add the power dissipated by convection. This is a meaningful number that alone invalidates the TPR2 report.
Bob just sent me an email where he estimates the proper COP at about 2.3.
I asked him about my two considerations:
1. Transparency, possibly invalidating all these discussions (e.g. you cannot calibrate temperature value read by the thermal camera with surface temperature measured with thermocouple attached on surface, and more issues…)
2. Principle of thermal cameras — possibly granting an accurate value of radiated power, regardless of emissivity and/or transparency.
Hope to get some clever answers.
In any case — I still think we should await the updates from the experimenters.
PS to Giancarlo: You’re not wright. You’re right. Wright is also right. (just kidding you)
Wright: http://freeenergyscams.com/the-thermoelectric-scam-of-andrea-rossi-part-1/
In the responses to Giancarlo’s (et al) article about emissivity issues, Thomas Clarke adds:
“All of which makes it really difficult to conclude anything from this method of measuring power.
Had the testers done a proper control (it is incomprehensible to me why they did not) or used thermocouple measurement (equally incomprehensible) there would be good data.”
This sort of incompetent or negligent or crooked (take your choice since they won’t tell us which) omission has been the major problem with all of the work reported by Rossi and Defkalion since 2011! Why didn’t Rossi ever include controls in his early demonstrations and why are controls in later ones *obviously* and *flagrantly* inadequate? (PS: I think I know!)
Why didn’t the Swedish scientists insist on fixing this? Essen never heard about the need for proper controls of experimental measurements? Has anyone asked him about it? How does something like this happen when critics and skeptics have been hammering on it all along?
And why is this cause for major doubts and skepticism not highlighted over and over again in your book, Mats?
By now, Rossi’s lies should have become obvious to everyone.
Matters are:
he is not the only one lying
more than one has more interests in supporting rather than in asserting tuth
some do really believe in anything
Till nowaday, from Catlie he got millions and not a single day of jail. Call him silly!
OhMyGod!
@Mats Lewan
I think I found a subtle error in Figure 10 derivation by Bob Higging.
If I’m wright we have to remove the first term in bracket in his formula of the error for the radiated power. The error turns out to be 0,48. In our notation 2.07 /1/x) which is not to far from ours. You must also include convection.
@Mats
I think there is something wrong in Figure 10 of Bob’s paper.
As you can see Figure 10 is completely different from Plot 1 of TPR2 which is taken from literature. One of them should be wrong. We used the same value from literature, while the Bob’s one is calculated. If I would be requested to bet I’d rather like the Levi’s values. Since I do not like betting, I need to check better. We will try to derive Bob’s Figure by direct integration of the numerical values.
To be noted that Bob’s values below 5 microns in Figure 9 are not in accordance with the values from National Bureau of Standards that are an order of magnitude lower.
The alumina used could be transparent to a part of the spectrum captured by the camera.
We will change all the references [books] accordingly. Including that by Levi et al.
In any case, you don’t have access to the material or materials used, so the analysis is flawed.They are described in the Report and Appendices. Are you saying that the report is false?
And you haven’t taken into account the principle of a thermal camera, meaning that it should be generally independent of emissivity when calculating radiated power.
Yes, the OPTRIS is perfect in measuring the radiated power inside the measurement window.
Put a mid-IR filter [stopband] on the sensor and see if it detects anything.
You should do an experiment, measuring the dependence of different emissivity values used, when calculating radiated power.
What about an excel sheet? Are we confident that we can use the Planck expression or we have to change the books again?
You also ignore the claim of isotopic shift.
How does this claim modify the radiated power? I do not know. Can you tell me?
Giancarlo,
You the specs of the camera aren’t perfect. You need to measure.
The materials referenced in the report could be wrong without lying. There are different parts of the body. Your answer to the principle of the camera doesn’t prove anything. The isotopic shift should make you less sure of your conclusions. Wait and see.
Have a look at Bob Higgins’ paper. He posted an answer on your website. He doesn’t think that your estimate of possible factor of 2 error in power is justified.
Dangerous for believers to support this claim as no Third Friend Party has had access to the inside of blackbonebox while measuring — would you say all measurement were flawed even without any GSVIT’s support to that fact?
😀 😀 😀
Sorry Cimpy, you’re funny, but not so easy to understand. Maybe you’re being poetic?
Sorry Mat, you’re cute, buit not so smart as you would like to be. May be you’re a ghost writer?
What if I told you that I’m a chat bot?
then I would tell you I am a poet
😉
@Mats Lewan
And what has visual impression to do with transparency for IR?
So you are saying that the alumina is transparent in the IR?
Maybe Rossi doped it with semiconductors as he did with the inconel wire.
They can simply remove the Appendix on the alumina sample analysis. (99%, wasn’t it?)
And what about the principle for thermal cameras?
Which principle are you referring to?
However, if the alumina is transparent all the numbers in the report are wrong. Aren’t they?
The alumina used could be transparent to a part of the spectrum captured by the camera.
In any case, you don’t have access to the material or materials used, so the analysis is flawed.
And you haven’t taken into account the principle of a thermal camera, meaning that it should be generally independent of emissivity when calculating radiated power.
You should do an experiment, measuring the dependence of different emissivity values used, when calculating radiated power.
You also ignore the claim of isotopic shift.
I’m sorry, but I prefer to wait for the updated report and for further results.
Do you have any experimental results confirming that this alumina material is not transparent for the camera?
I think you need to measure this, not rely only on specifications.
Yes, we do. They are in the report. And in the MFMP report as well.
Maybe it is better to read carefully both.
Do you really think that the alumina is transparent in the caps with a 40 mm diameter? Did you see Figure 12a in the Lugano Report? Any light coming out from there
Of course, I cannot exclude that, what the camera sees, depends on the S/N of the camera itself.
I’m not talking about the caps. And what has visual impression to do with transparency for IR?
And what about the principle for thermal cameras?
@Mats Lewan
yet I believe that the situation is even more complex since there seems to be a transparency effect in this case, which could be expressed in two ways:
– the camera measures the temperature at a point slightly below the outer surface
– the thermal power is radiated not only from the outer surface but also from layers below the surface.
No. Definitely.
The alumina is a white body, aka transparent, (it is strange to choose to measure a black body radiation from a white body, isn’t it) only in the range where the camera does not take measurements (up to a few microns, see Fig. 3 in our report), . The camera is not able to see what is inside the alumina body since the alumina is not transparent in the range 7.5-13 microns. The camera captures photons and count them (radiant power) only in its measurement range. No photon in the measurement range emitted below the surface can pass through the surface that, at those temperature, is a black body (95%). The heat in the 7.5-13 microns region is transferred from the inner surface to the outer surface only by conduction. Only visible or near-IR photons can take advantage from the transparency. But the camera ignores them, as per specifications.
I think they have a IR specialist at Uppsala who can help them.
Honestly, I think they have no hope to have performed the right measurement.
The explanation is in the MFMP replication with no fuel.
I’d like to add that we asked Bo Hoistand to provide us their comments before publication. No reply.
@Giancarlo — Do you have any experimental results confirming that this alumina material is not transparent for the camera?
I think you need to measure this, not rely only on specifications.
@Mats Lewan
Check how much COP changes with a higher emissivity.
Mats, you can find the answer in the report Cimpy cited. And, since you are smart enough, you can also find other answers to some questions of the past coming from the general audience.
@Giancarlo — You have done an extensive work on this — yet I believe that the situation is even more complex since there seems to be a transparency effect in this case, which could be expressed in two ways:
– the camera measures the temperature at a point slightly below the outer surface
– the thermal power is radiated not only from the outer surface but also from layers below the surface.
I suppose that all calculations based on the assumption of radiation from one defined outer surface therefore have to be modified.
What you can note though is that the thermal camera in principle doesn’t measure temperature but in fact radiated power, which is then translated into a temperature, using an assumed emissivity. This means that the calculated value for radiated power in principle should be independent of the emissivity value used, or in practice, depending on algorithms used in the camera, it shouldn’t differ much with changing emissivity value.
Regarding the Lugano experiment, we also have the isotopic shift to explain, even though some are convinced that the ashes were manipulated by Rossi. Talking to the experimenters I find this unlikely, but you’ll have to judge for yourself.
In any case, at this point I believe we should await the updated version of the report from the experimenters.
Oppss…
https://gsvit.wordpress.com/2015/03/02/tpr2-calorimetry-of-hot-cat-performed-by-means-of-ir-camera-2/
Conclusions
The MFMP experimental data are in agreement with those reported in the literature and confirm that the procedure and the Emissivity values, used by the TPR2 AA for measurements by the thermal imager, are incorrect. The GSVIT experimental test further showed that the pure Alumina Spectral Emissivity, in the reading field of the camera used to testing the Hot-Cat, is greater than 0.90. These data are very different from those plotted and used in the TPR2 by the AA that appear to be those related to Alumina Total Emissivity. In the 1200-1400°C temperature range, the TPR2 Plot1 considers an emissivity of about 0.40 while, according to the literature, the Spectral Emissivity, in the camera reading field, is stable around values close to 0.95. This kind of error can lead to a significant overestimation of the surface temperature and to an overestimation of thermal Power by a factor 2 or more. An error of such proportions (which appears likely in the light of the measurements) makes not reliable, in our opinion, the TPR2 measurement results of the heat produced by the Hot-Cat; on the contrary, a simple Mass Flow Calorimetry, similar to the one shown in a previous Post of ours, would have been feasible and most accurate.
What a pity! Time to bet on another horse, Mat?
😀
Don’t feel sorry for me CimPy — I like my horses 😀
And bring out your math. Check how much COP changes with a higher emissivity.
The report will be updated, and I would expect the emissivity issue to be addressed.
You still have time to change your bet.
Well, I will keep my on the donkey. it will not fly, and thiose who claimed it did were frauders.
Heya,
I love you… Wow and oh yeah. Love and caring…
On Linked In is a members only group by the title Quantum Physics.
Of interest is a conversation that prompted not one ignorant, stupid, or dumbed down comment as an argument. What I love about it is that these sincere comments naturally flow nicely, taking on an instructive element. Not one insult was advanced and all comments were deeply appreciated.
I have been granted permission to publish it publicly.
Eat Cake and Pie in the Face oops… here it is… http://gbgoble.kinja.com/lenr-conversation-between-a-researcher-chemist-astron-1681637829
“Nobel laureate Brian Josephson has many many reasons to be saying ‘I told you so’ to the mainstream scientific community in regards to cold fusion research and the rewards of LENR energy. Anyone who he says it to owes him an apology. After all, he discovered the Josephson Effect and realized the possibility of ‘cold fusion’ from the beginning. He must be smarter and more open minded than most.
In 1970, a Cambridge professor wrote his recollection of traveling to Kyoto to accept the London Prize on behalf of his former student. His Physics Today article puts things in perspective and is a delightful read. “Pathological Disbelief” presents Brian Josephson’s position.”
-end quote…. from the Prologue to the Conversation.
“About Eight Years ago a 22-year-old Student Showed his Professor Some Calculations on Quantum Tunneling. Now this Professor Tells Us how Josephson Discovered his Effect” by Philip W. Anderson, Physics Today, 1970
“Pathological Disbelief” by Brian D. Josephson, Nobel Laureates’ meeting, Lindau 2004
Epilogue to the Conversation
Thanks everyone. This has been a valuable conversation about Brian Josephsons’ thoughts on science and pathological disbelief. I appreciate each of your contributions, solid perspectives, and information shared, i.e. the love of learning.
Perhaps it would be OK with everyone engaged in the conversation here if I write an article of our discussion and publish it where it’s accessible to others interested in this discourse.
I’ll go ahead and write it up; contacting each of you for review/edits/approval and posting.
This bit of prose is dedicated to problems.
“S.O. Solution Orientation” –gbgoble
Problems, problems, problems… oiy vey!
Why not? Go ahead… take the plunge!
Dive deep beyond the surface of the problem.
We find ourselves suspended in a sea of solutions.
Infinite in their manifestation, variety, and form.
Enjoy!
Problems, problems, problems… oiy vey!
Why not? Go ahead… take the plunge!
Problems? Dive deep…
The Conversation
Aleksander Student
So, great scientist and crank are not mutually exclusive notions.
Gregory Dispatcher at Big Dog City Wide
Yes I agree. To be clear, the unknown is mutually exclusive even if it exists.
“Discovery”
It’s of great use to wonder
Why our minds wander
In awe of it all
Being forever true
Seeking the new
We are just now discovering
That which has always been
Impatiently awaiting us
Craving our keen attention
Hoping for deeper understanding
Awesome is
The wonder of discovery
And the power
Of awe
gbgoble2009
“LENR A Sense of History in the Making”
“Contemporary LENR Technology Patents – Popularly Known as Cold Fusion Energy”
“Alights”
The nest instinct through
True imaginings delight
Leads to what’s right
Color the lining new
Tufts soft and light
Bits shiny bright
Into completion it grew
Winged creatures alight
Home for the night
—gbgoble2010—
Alight
To come down and settle, as after flight.
To come by chance: alight on a happy solution.
To dismount from a horse or vehicle.
Word Origin & History
“On fire” – Early 15c, apparently from M.E. aliht , pp. of alihton (O.E. on-lihtan)
“To light up” also “to shine upon”
Middle English – alighten , from Old English – ālīhtan : ā- , intensive pref. + līhtan
“To relieve of a burden” – From līht , light ; see light (orig. an animal mount) “of weight”
Wayne Senior Researcher
I think the main argument against cold fusion is not so much that it “never happens”, but rather that the rate at which it can happen is insufficient to generate enough heat to be useful. Basically, looking at the table that was included, the fact that only some places claimed they could detect something (I don’t think that was exactly “reproduce”), would indicate that.
I think that Josephson overstates his case in that presentation. Scientist do have a problem with following the crowd and clinging to populists. Nevertheless, even when populists control the floor, they cannot stop what is true forever. That powerpoint presentation is more than 10 years old. If that is all they have, they have not made much progress. I don’t see anything evil about him deciding to look at cold fusion. However, it is hard to know Josephson’s position on the matter now compared to 2004. Is he willing to change his mind or is his mind made up? These are the questions I would ask.
There is a process known as muon catalysed fusion. There are a lot of things that make it highly impractical as an energy source (where to find large sources of deuterium, the required liquid helium temperatures, sources of surface 4 MeV muons, etc.), but the effect itself is, as far as I can tell, actually real.
Peter Astronomer Architect
Wayne,
I agree, Josephson may give an unintended impression that cold fusion is nearer usefulness than it is, but that wasn’t his point. I don’t think he overstates the case about ‘theoretical inertia’ at all.
The continued flow of proofs is such that I’m sure he hasn’t changed his mind. Quasicrystals is a recent one. Dan Shecktman was called a crank, crackpot, lost his job and had his life ruined. Only 40 years later did they find he was right all along and give him a Nobel Prize!
There’s an astonishingly bad but common argument; “well all these things get through in the end”. That entire failure of logic typified the issue. It might equally be less than 1% that ‘get through’ in a lifetime!
Rigorous scientific falsification is essential, but dismissal by a-priori comparison with current theory seems to have taken over from the Scientific Method for at least the ‘rump’ of the profession, and I suggest it should be eradicated!
Gregory Dispatcher at Big Dog City Wide
Wayne,
Brian’s powerpoint presentation, being 10 years old, becomes even more relevant at the time of useful LENR energy. Yes they have now cracked the cold fusion puzzle, each patent on the list is worth studying. From these one sees that LENR is a multidisciplinary art, it requires scientific knowledge of nano, quantum, plasmonics, advanced materials and dopants (as in semiconductors) and much much more. If you are curious about this you can go to the Linked In Low Energy Nuclear Reaction membership list and find a peer to speak with about the quantum effects occurring in the low energy nuclear reactive environment.
Peter summed it up nicely, “Rigorous scientific falsification is essential, but dismissal by a-priori comparison with current theory seems to have taken over from the Scientific Method for at least the ‘rump’ of the profession, and I suggest it should be eradicated!”
How many more unknown phenomenon that shake up theory are lurking out there? What will happen to those who first report their existence? How long will it take to fully understand and master it? Why should any scientist who is struggling to understand something new be prosecuted for it by other scientists? Consider that any branch of science, in its’ infancy, was also not understood and had little established theoretical underpinning.
Cold fusion has grown up and is now becoming useful LENR Energy. Google NASA LENR or Navy LENR or NARI LENR. See quantumheat.org or lenrcities.com. All that is well and good to see, yet what remains is “I told you so”, LENR, and “pathological disbelief”.
There is no place for a closed mind or pre-judgement in science. Last year I wrote a piece about the history of cold fusion research, it’s short and a fun read.
“LENR the Debutante at the Ball”
The Cold Fusion research of Fleischmann and Pons was an anomaly in and of itself. Two electrochemists, while having a bit of fun with the maximum loading of hydrogen into palladium in an electrolytic cell, ventured into a realm of subatomic phenomenon. No one had been there before in quite this way.
They hazarded to say it was nuclear, and got blasted…