User talk:Kirk shanahan/Archives/2009/May

Begin to narrow discussion

Let's start with CCS and how it affects excess heat findings. First of all, it's obvious that if the "calibration" of a calorimeter shifts, this will affect inferred absolute power levels. I.e. as I understand the matter, a known power is applied by some means, under conditions where the power is presumably totally converted to heat, and then the measured heat "power" is compared, and then a "calibration constant" is calculated so that measured power can be referred back to absolute generated power.

For various reasons, the conditions under which heat is generated during the experiment can shift in terms of how it affects the output power measurements. For example, suppose heat is generated in one portion of a cell, and isn't rapidly circulated, and sensors are located close to the heat source, or far from it. If the location of heat generation changes, the required "calibration constant" will change. There may be other changes which can affect the true calibration constant, and the degree to which they may apply will vary with the type of calorimeter and the nature of the heat source.

Am I correct so far? Please correct, if I'm not. --Abd (talk) 18:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Your terminology is a bit sloppy, which could end up leading you down the wrong road, but we won't know that until you finish responding in this one instance to my challenge. Kirk shanahan (talk) 11:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

How about fixing the terminology first? I.e., I consent and request that you edit my statement above to make terminology more precise and accurate, rather than exploring wrong roads and wasting time. If not, well, I will then continue anyway. (If I don't agree with your edit, we should discuss that before going on. A house built on sand isn't going to serve well as a meeting place. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 15:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

That's not the challenge and I won't be drawn into your infinte loops of pointless discussions. You don't know what you're talking about and can't prove you do, but you expect me to fix what you write and then claim to have 'helped' and 'participated'. Nope. It's 'put up or shut up' time. Kirk shanahan (talk) 11:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

You've got it backwards, Kirk. My intention was to meet your challenge, directly, but I'd need your cooperation. You made the comment that my terminology was "a bit sloppy." So, before going ahead, I asked for specifics. Since you aren't willing, and seem to be more interested in establishing my ignorance, and you are, indeed, an expert, I'd lose that contest. There are kites you can fly. I have utterly no obligation toward you, nor to work toward inclusion of your work in the encyclopedia, which I have done to a degree and would do more, assuming I understood it sufficiently. Let me know, on my Talk page or by email, if you change your mind. I was taking you seriously. Not any more. --Abd (talk) 18:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

No Abd, you weren't taking me seriously. You were treating me like some neophyte crackpot instead of a PhD physical chemist who works with metal hydrides and has published papers in that area as well as in the area of systematic errors in cold fusion calorimetry. This while displaying a significant lack of knowledge of the field and my work. And, you write inordinately long and off-topic rants that people have difficulty following and that are rarely anything more than exuberant effervesence on how real cold fusion must be. I have stated before that you should not be editing the CF page, and I repeat that. I do so because you show no balance in your suggestions, and no desire to understand the underlying problems of the field (as was the problem with Pcarbonn and V). I gave you the opportunity to correct me on that in the normal way, i.e. by proving you could state the case against apparent excess heat completely, including why my work impacts all such claims, and you have failed to pass the test. Yes, this is a test of your abilities here Abd. So far you have about 5 out of 100 points. Did your professors in school (I am assuming you went to college) have as much difficulty when you took their courses? Did they correct your essay answers after every 5th line that you wrote? No? Then I won't either. Prove you know something here or go away. (P.S. I find your comment on the CF Talk page about dropping out due to disruptive editors totally hilarious. You realize that is a spot-on description of you, Pcarbon, and V, (and others) don't you? The only way to present a balanced article on CF is to let both sides have their say. Neither side likes what the other has to say and Wiki policies allow edit warring to keep the side out that has the fewest proponents. Hardly a way to present a balanced article.) Kirk shanahan (talk) 19:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Abd shows his fanacticism

Transplanted from Cold Fusion Talk page:

" "Careless Clumsy Scientists"? " - Your words, not mine, but I'd tend to agree.

"I'm more interested in those neutrons." - What neutrons? There aren't any neutrons.

"I'm also more interested in how CCS can explain the very strong correlation between excess heat measurements and helium, specifically what Storms claims as 25 +/- 5 MeV/He-4." - What excess heat? There isn't any excess heat. And no heat means no correlation to He, which just comes from leaks anyway.

"How, in an extensive series of P-F cells, set up and measured in the same way, helium was only found in the cells that also generated excess heat." - There isn't any excess heat. There may be a CCS, whose specualtive mechanism might explain why leaks develop, but I haven't thought that through.

"No matter how many of these findings are developed, critics like Shanahan find ever-more-preposterous ways to explain them away." - ad hominem - 'preposterous' is a value judgement, esp. from Abd, who can't understand my comments, as proven in the section above.

"Shanahan, however, is practically alone at this point, the only scientist who is making specific criticisms, at least we have to give him that -- at least with regard to calorimetry." - Yup, I'm the only one stubborn enough to try to present what the mainline scientist sees when he/she looks at CF.

"Nevertheless, the stretch gets greater and greater. For example, the long-maintained 4 degree C. temperature rise after the formation of palladium deuteride in the gas-loading experiments of Arata." - A) Data wasn't shown for a long enough period to determine that, B) no proof that it wasn't thermocople malfunction (needed to show T's returned to the same value).

"I believe that McKubre has confirmed that." - You believe a lot of things. Doesn't prove them.

" This is not an electrolysis experiment, there is no supplied energy, and only the natural heat of formation of palladium deuteride is involved: hydrogen shows the expected generation of heat as the gas is admitted to the cell, which then settles down, within hours, to ambient temperature." - As shown where?

"Deuterium shows the same kind of initial release, but then settles down to a steady generation of heat for thousands of hours, showing no sign of lessening." - thermocouple malfunction. Also, do they ever come back together?

"Absolutely, skeptics should give this every shot, but ... at some point skeptics need to do some experimental work themselves." - Not if the problems are obvious and clear.

"N-rays were debunked through careful experiment that showed the origin of the "effect." " - No, they were debunked by Wood palming the crystal that supposedy diffracted the n-rays, and having Blondlot excitedly point out the diffracted spots to him. (JIC, no crystal = no diffraction = no spots)

"Likewise polywater." - There was a good bit of polywater research that led to an alternate explanation, but the book I read suggeested that the support of the idea was silenced by politicos of the Soviet Union, i.e. the original claimants would have persisted forever, just like the CFers.

"That was never done with Fleischmann's excess heat, and, indeed, the excess heat has been verified in 153 peer-reviewed papers, I'll provide a link to a list of them." - No need, I've read them. That's how I proposed a conventional explanation for them.

"Many of these reports are not just selected experiments, only showing "success": they show a series of experiments, reporting "failures" as well as "successes." " - And I agree that it takes a 'special active state' forming. What's your point?

"Where Fleischmann screwed up was in reporting neutrons. What we now know, quite conclusively, is that neutrons are rare, not normally produced in these experiments at levels sufficient to be considered anything more than a by-product (unless somehow they are efficiently "used")." - as in non-existent.

"What is produced is plenty of alpha radiation, starting with a Chinese group in 1990, and, again, how does Shanahan explain that?" - air leaks. (JIC alpha rad = He ions, neutralized later to atoms)

"Here is the press release:..." - goody.

"Krivit received a lot of attention for his presentation, his comments were widely reported in the media." again, goody.

"Journalists can be considered experts, though in a different way than scientists, as such." - in other words, journalists aren't science experts. So why is he givng a talk at what is, at least in other sections, a science meeting? Points out the problem with CFers, they try to use anything and everything (except good science) as support.

"Shanahan's view of the field is highly biased." - yes, towards good science, and all my comments are scientfic in nature and subject to test and refutation.

"It's notable because it has been published, at least parts of it have." - Seems to be an out-of-place sentence. To what are you referring?

"Some of the criticisms he makes are odd." - ad hominem again

"The general field isn't "cold fusion," it is more commonly called "low-energy nuclear reactions," " - the CFers are trying to rename the field to avoid the associations that have been set up for the term 'cold fusion'. This was a tack adopted when Patterson had success patenting his gizmo in '95 by not mentioning it worked because of 'cold fusion'. My use of 'CF' is in alignment with mainline understaning. I don't support "science by bamboozeling".

"and Vyosotski's work with biological effects, which involve two different kinds of nuclear transformations, have long been of interest to LENR researchers as shown by the notice that Storms takes of it." - prove it is cold fusion and then you can include it in those discussions Until such time, it is just another anomalous result the CFers are thowing in the basket to try to bamboozle people with apparent numbers.

"(The forms are transmutation, as has been described above to some extent, and acceleration of radioactive decay, which is roughly possible in theory, i.e., chemistry is known to be able to affect decay rates under some circumstances.)" - supposition.

"I'm not surprised to see a session focused on reviews, " - A) they weren't in one section, they are scattered about. B) In a normal ACS session this doesn't occur. People present new research instead.

"because the goal of CF researchers there would be, not to present new research, unless it is truly striking as with the SPAWAR neutrons, a subject Shanahan notably avoids above," - no I didn't, I have clearly said there are no neutrons, starting in 2002.

"but rather overviews to "spread the word" to other chemists. The new research would be more likely to be presented at ICCF conferences." - only because the CFers are afraid of substantive critical comment from the more general ACS audience (if there was any).

"No suggestion is made that the papers presented at this conference are "reliable source," in themselves, that is, they are not peer-reviewed, nor are they, by virtue of presentation, "published." Rather what was the subject of my comment was the notability of the conference, due to media coverage and due to the obvious increase in attention paid by the ACS." - As I said on the CF Talk page, the only value the ACS session has to the article is another tick mark to the statement that the CF fanatics remain.

"Conference papers are primary source, occasionally they are useable, more often not, unless they are cited in a reliable source, in which case the full reference would include the citing source as well as a primary reference. --Abd (talk) 17:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)" - Most of the editors who have opposed my attemts to edit the CF article have insisted that conference papers are not RS, since I tried to use some in specific instances as examples of what to do and what not to do. It amuses me that you say this, because it is not how it has worked in the CF article. There, it is: No conference papers!!! KirkShanahan (talk) 19:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Kirk, you are treading on thin ice. That section header above might be seen as uncivil. Don't worry, I'm not going to complain, but someone else might.

So complain. A) I don't care. B) This is my Talk page, if I can't express my opinion here, hen I may as well leave anyway. KirkShanahan (talk) 12:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

There are limits to incivility here, Kirk, and, yes, editors are warned or blocked for incivility on their own talk pages. I just said I wasn't going to complain, so why did you say, "So complain"? Is that really what you want? It could be arranged. But I would rather not. --Abd (talk) 22:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The following Abd response was properly indented for clarity by myself. KirkShanahan (talk) 11:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I have clearly said there are no neutrons, starting in 2002. For our purposes, Kirk, you are not an authority, on your own.

Fanatic alert! - Let's revisit what was said, in full - ""...a subject Shanahan notably avoids above," - no I didn't, I have clearly said there are no neutrons, starting in 2002." - Abd, I am authority on what I've said and wrote. Your quote is out of context and therefore misleading. Keep it correct, and thereby keep it civil please, as this is an extended ad hominem. KirkShanahan (talk) 12:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

the following was split off from the preceeding Abd comment in order that I might respond separately. KirkShanahan (talk) 12:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

This is the apparent fact at this point, subject to review. There are neutrons at a very low level, way below what was expected for ordinary fusion, way below what Fleischmann reported. This was the 2009 Mosier-Boss report, published in Naturwissenschaften. We would not use this, at this point, as an authority that neutrons are present, but only that they have been reported in a peer-reviewed article. There is no contrary work to my knowledge. There is plenty of work refuting higher levels of neutrons, which is why nobody in the cold fusion field is claiming that neutrons are emitted by the primary reactions taking place. There were long reports of very low levels of neutrons, and the Mosier-Boss report may be seen as confirming this, using a technique not so vulnerable to the problems of electronic detectors at low levels.

No, the apparent facts are that they have pits, and that they claim they come from neutrons, but there are two conventional explanations available that require no miracles to obtain, and that it is likely based on the CR39 in the gas phase studies, that both are active at the same time, so the mainline scientist will need studies to determine which of the three alternatives are present. Until such studies are supplied, the explanation requiring miracles need not be accepted. I.e. there aren't any neutrons. KirkShanahan (talk) 12:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Hand-waving, Kirk. You gave no specific objection, but only a vague "three alternatives." And you are showing your ignorance of this research. I recommend reading the paper. Triple tracks in CR-39 as the result of Pd–D Co-deposition: evidence of energetic neutrons, Pamela A. Mosier-Boss & Stanislaw Szpak & Frank E. Gordon & Lawrence P. G. Forsley, Naturwissenschaften (2009), 96:135–142. You can find a copy hosted on newenergytimes.com, I'm not going to link to it because that particular link probably violates Wikipedia policy on external links. But it's there. No, it's not gas phase. There are controls. The alpha evidence, from prior papers, is long-term and has been confirmed by many groups. The neutron evidence is new, in fact. Because there is so much alpha radiation, if there has been enough activity to accumulate a significant number of neutrons, the plastic is heavily pitted from the alpha. I'm not going to describe the controls, read the paper yourself. But it seems nobody ever bothered before to look for rare triple-tracks among the copious pitting. Mosier-Boss et al look at the back of the CR-39, the side away from the electrode, and they look at the areas of the plastic on the front where major pitting is absent. Neutrons, of course, would penetrate to the back, whereas alpha particles would not. --Abd (talk) 23:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I commented on this at 12:45 19 May 2009 (UTC) here on this page ( note your response was at 2300 19 May). I also commented on 22 Apr 2009 at 0302 UTC, see Archive 29. Gave directions there to go to spf. Let me know if you need me to teach you how to use Usenet.

'Nobody bothered' because nobody runs it the way the SPAWAR group does. Most get a couple of hundred pits on a plate. They get 10's od thousands. Kirk shanahan (talk) 19:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

What you are consistently failing to appreciate above is correlation and the use of controls. You can claim that some helium measurements are flawed by leakage, you can claim that excess heat is only an artifact -- or could be -- you can come up with this or that theory to explain away the experimental results, individually, but you haven't addressed, at all, the issue of correlation. Storms reports Miles in this way: 12 studies produced no extra energy and produced no extra helium. Of 21 studies producing extra energy, 18 produced extra helium with an amount consistent with the amount of excess energy. The exceptions were one sample having a possible error in heat measurement and two studies using a Pd-Ce alloy. This is a very strong correlation. How would your theory explain the correlation, or do you think it is sheer coincidence, or do you suspect fraud? Or take a look at McKubre's chart showing the relationship between energy and helium producing from finely divided palladium on carbon heated in D2 gas; there is a linear relationship showing about 31-32 MeV/He4 and, of course, any helium not captured and measured would increase the inferred energy/He4.

Another error packed paragraph, topped off with more ad homimem. Starting there - "consistently failing to appreciate " - No Abd, what you are failing to appreciate is my background in statistics. In fact ALL claims of correlation are eitehr ludicrous on the face of it (like the one where there was a cluster of 8-10 points centered on a point, and one point outside that produced the 'correlation'), or are based on sample sizes that are too small to allow anything except the conclusion that a correlation was observed in the obtained data set, but may not be extrapolatable to larger sets based on typical small sample statistics. I.e. there aren't any 'global' correlations. Of course, cold fusion fanactics are constitutionally incapable of limiting their conclusions thusly, instead always seeing 'conclusive' proof in all their work, no exceptions.

"You can claim that some helium measurements are flawed by leakage"- Not 'claim', by normal scientific standards this was proved by the Clarke work of 2002, which was nothing but a confirmation of the concerns the 1989 DOE review panel had, which were based on the history of trace level He measurements. Pretty solid science I'd say. To respond correctly to this, the CFers must establish their He analyses are adequate for the task AND PUBLISH THAT SO WE CAN SEE IT TOO. None have done so to date, so, we don't have to conclude anything based on their flawed reports. KirkShanahan (talk) 12:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

"you can claim that excess heat is only an artifact " - No, again, I SHOWED it is in the ONE CASE where that was possible. It requires calibration data to be supplied for someone else to assess a CCS presence, and Storms is the ONLY CF author to present such data to date. The CCS is PROVEN to be a viable explanation in that case, AND has been shown to be a logical possibility in ALL other excess heat claims. Normally, that means the issue is open and undecided (which is an anethema to CFers) and thus the mainline scientist again needs to embrace no miracles to explain the data. KirkShanahan (talk) 12:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

"but you haven't addressed, at all, the issue of correlation." - As I said - no heat , no correlation. What about that don't you understand? B) Have you stopped to consider what it means if I am right? If my CCS is the cause of the apparent excess heat in those experiments where a 'correlation' to He is claimed, and there really is no excess heat, then what does the 'correlation' mean? (Answer: Just a chance result from a single data set.) You need to study the whole picture much more carefully than you have Abd. KirkShanahan (talk) 12:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

For any given piece of CR-39 showing the triple tracks characteristic of neutrons, you could claim that a cosmic ray did it, creating a shower of neutrons. However, somehow the cosmic rays must know which cells have active electrodes and which do not, and which cells have deuterium and not hydrogen. The hydrogen/deuterium shift I could believe, except that deuterium alone doesn't create the neutron tracks above background, it is just the co-deposition electrolysis creating that thin layer of palladium deuteride. (Background is about 1 triple-track per CR-39 chip over the life of these experiments, I think it is weeks; the detected level is about 10 triple-tracks.)

If you had read the references cited by Mossier-Boss, et al, as I did, you would know that the triplet incidence rate is about 2 orders of magnitude below what was published in those references. This means as a certainty the vast majority of the pits do not come from neutrons. The majority of the pits are so overlapped that MB, et al, had to go searching in areas of the plates where severe pit overlap was low enough to see triplets, as distiguished from all other overlaps. This is pure n-ray bunk. They searched for rare triple overlaps in lightly exposed regions of heavily exposed plates, and expect us to believe these triplets come from neutrons, instead of from simple overlap of pits caused by whatever is causing them, JUST LIKE ON THE REST OF THE PLATE. As a scientist, that line of logic is disgusting, and it simply illustrates the level of fanatacism the CFers will go to to provide 'evidence' of their claims. The mainline assumption is that the triplets are due to random chance. You can even see triplets in Kowalski's scratch.KirkShanahan (talk) 12:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Your idea about no pits in the 'controls' is misguided. I proposed two physical mechanisms for pit formation back in 2002. Both would be active in 'active' Cf cells. One would be active in normal electrolysis cells. None would be active where the plate is just immersed in electrolyte. KirkShanahan (talk) 12:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

You have very little understanding of how WP:RS works; you have mistaken general rules for specifics. For example, we have used a conference paper as a source at Martin Fleischmann. It depends!

It wasn't me who did that!!!! It was people like Pcarbon, who wouldn't let me refer to Scott Little's excellent work on tracking down leached contamination in a Patterson Power Cell configuration CF experiment, or Mizuno's work reported in ICCF13 I believe, that showed Iwamura's 'Mo' transmutation product was actually S, and thereby critique BOTH the use of XPS and SIMS in 'proving' transmutation. I read the policy in detail, and wanted to use the clause that says that obvious things need not be sourced, but PCarbonn wouldn't let me, and others supported him. Get your story straight Abd! KirkShanahan (talk) 12:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Uh, those conference papers at Martin Fleischmann are either a) use in a reference to show that the paper exists and was presented at that conference in that date, or b) being an entry in a list of published papers. They are not being used as actual sources for factual stuff, and I'm sure that people would complain if someone did use them like that. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The usability of a conference paper may depend on a number of factors. They are true primary sources, often unreviewed. However, I think that some conferences have reviewed publications of the presentations, those might be a notch up, but I haven't investigated that. I generally assume a conference paper is similar to WP:SELFPUB. Self-published documents can be used where the author is notable and the opinion of the author is relevant. The paper in question at Martin Fleischmann is one of Fleischmann's accounts of what he was looking for in doing his experiments. That is "factual stuff," but of a kind where the testimony of the person can be used. Further, if a conference paper is cited in a reliable secondary source, it may be cited through that source. Kirk, you should understand that we use "reliable" in a technical sense. There are "reliable sources" that it would be foolish to actually rely upon, and sources we can't use, if push comes to shove, that are actually solid. Some keys to understanding this:

• The real standard for everything on Wikipedia is editorial consensus. Theoretically, if we all agree to use some text that could not be verified, the Foundation could intervene on the basis that WP:V is not negotiable; however, the Foundation would be unlikely to spit in the face of all the editors! In reality, that kind of conflict simply will not arise. But details of how to apply the policies and guidelines? Totally up to editorial consensus. You can easily get blocked for attempting to "enforce" policies against editorial consensus, happens all the time.
• Policies and guidelines generally document community practice, they do not generally control it. Rule Number One for Wikipedia is Ignore all rules. Which is actually a very sophisticated policy following the common law Public policy principle.
• You will not be the first expert to be frustrated by Wikipedia requirements regarding reliable source. Used to drive me nuts (I'm expert in certain other fields). However, it's necessary for the anyone-can-edit model we use. My hope would be to more fully integrate expert opinion into the project, but that isn't going to happen easily. It's hard enough to keep the community from blocking people like you, you so readily stick your foot in your mouth. Don't take this personally, Kirk, true experts often do this.

The "I'm right and you're wrong" style of argumentation doesn't work very well here. It hardly ever convinces anyone. Yeah, I know, all too well, it's hard to avoid when you are dealing with people who don't understand the first thing about the topic but who are very ready to take a strong stand, but.... what we are required to do as editors is seek consensus. As an expert, with a conflict of interest, you take a bit of a different role, properly, in my view, that of an adviser. Now, tell me, how do you think a professional adviser will conduct himself in helping his clients? Will he berate, ridicule, or insult them? Surely he will stand his ground with regard to his expertise, but I'm talking about something else, about human interactions. --Abd (talk) 02:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll be back, if you permit. --Abd (talk) 21:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Do I have a choice? How could I stop you?? KirkShanahan (talk) 12:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Very simple: you request that I not post to your Talk page. If I do, after this, outside certain narrow circumstances, you can claim violation of WP:HARASS. Besides, it would be rude. I'm here with a presumption of continued mutual consent. --Abd (talk) 22:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

There isn't any excess heat. And no heat means no correlation to He, which just comes from leaks anyway. No, Kirk, you've missed something crucial. You claim there is no excess heat. However, what you cannot reasonably deny is that there are experimenters who are finding excess heat. You claim that this is experimental error. Fine. Assume it is. Likewise assume that there is experimental error in measuring the helium. The experimental errors only take place in certain experiments, i.e., the famous difficulty in reproducing the effect. In order to maintain the hypothesis that the excess heat and the helium are errors, you must find a way to explain why they are correlated. Perhaps there is something unknown that the experimenters do that causes both errors, and that causes the helium error to increase with the excess heat error. I could imagine that if excess energy is a result of a measurement error that accumulates with time and that leaked helium accumulates with time, but ... excess heat generation in CF cells tends to be pretty erratic, not a steady level of excess (in P-F cells), and that the calculated energy is pretty much right on for the expected energy of d + d -> He-4 is still a pretty strong coincidence. However, in MucKubre's work (see Storms, p. 88), the helium level exceeded the concentration in ambient air after 15 days; the experiment continued for 45 days. It's a tad hard to explain helium levels above ambient by "leaks." And, were the helium due to leaks, the amount of helium would level off as the level in the cell approached ambient levels, instead of continuing to increase with time and with the measured excess heat. --Abd (talk) 01:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

ONE MORE TIME PLEASE!! I have PROVEN and PUBLISHED the fact that a CCS can completely explain apparent excess heat in the ONE PUBLISHED CASE where such analysis is possible (there are NO others or which that could be done). LOGICALLY, this problem is SYSTEMATIC, which means it can be in ANY cold fusion experiment. That means that is perfectly acceptable mainline science to say there is NO EXCESS HEAT. That is shorthand for: "The case for a nuclear origin of excess heat signals is weak at best and the current preferred explantion is the one proferred by Shanahan in ... until such time as stronger eveidence for nuclear origins is presented." This explanation is separate and distinct from anything having to do with He. Therefore, in ALL experiments where a correlation is claimed, FIRST, ACTUAL excess heat must be proven. NO ONE HAS DONE THAT. Thus the appropriate, mainline position to take is that there is NO VALID HEAT-He CORRELATION, because there is NO __PROOF__ OF _REAL_ EXCESS HEAT. KirkShanahan (talk) 12:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, ONE MORE TIME PLEASE!! He contamination is ALWAYS an issue. It was in the "late nineteen twenties", and it was in 2003, when Clarke found McKubre couldn't keep air out of his apparatus, and it is today. Without PROOF that air inleakage is unlikely, the mainline science position is that the conventional explanation of leaks is preferred. No CFer has documented this for their experiments where He was claimed to have been produced. KirkShanahan (talk) 12:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Kirk, it seems you are coming unglued. Your arguments do not improve with capital letters. You are failing to confront the issue of correlation. Correlation can show causation or connection even in the presence of massive noise. It is not necessary to prove that excess heat is artifact-free, nor that leakage doesn't take place, in order to show that there is a correlation between *apparent* excess heat and *apparent* helium. I've stated, here, an example where the helium found was above background, way above background. You can't explain helium above ambient by leakage. Further, in the series of experiments described, there are 33 experiments, and 12 of them showed no "apparent" excess heat, and 18 did show excess heat. That is, whatever calorimetry they did, they calculated, from the calorimetry record, flawed or otherwise, a certain amount of heat beyond that explainable by energy input or other known factors. You can suppose, I said, that the origin of this measurement is CCS. In other words, no assumed proof of excess heat. So why the capital letters repea, and which measures helium. The results come back: No helium found in the 12 cells with no inferred excess heat. Helium found in 18 out of 21 cells with inferred excess heat. Levels of helium are correlated quantitatively with the level of excess heat inferred.

There is an obvious conclusion: something is causing *helium* to be found. Okay, suppose it's leaks. Suppose that in these experiments the level of helium measured is below ambient. Fine. Why is helium only being found when there is also a finding of excess heat? At this point, one could theoretically suspect fraud. I.e., if there was excess heat, they opened the cell and allowed in enough air to cause a quantitative correlation with the measured excess heat. And down this road madness lies, because, then, we must suspect all research. Rather, we ordinarily trust that experimental reports, while work could be sloppy or incompletely reported or conclusions could be mistaken, are nevertheless honest, and we practically crucify scientists who violate this trust.

Essentially, the cells with no excess heat are a kind of control for the heat-helium connection.

Are you truly unable to understand this argument? Because it's been repeated several times now, and you haven't responded except by shouting.

In any case, it's simple to calculate the odds of a result like this being due to chance association; this is the figure reported elsewhere, from Storms, as 1 in 750,000. (I haven't verified the math and don't know if this took into account the three non-helium cells; as I assume you would know, there are reasons why those three cells might be different, but I can't be completely sure it's not hand-waving.) Further, when helium levels well above ambient are reported, the leakage explanation isn't sufficient. It's not correct that CF researchers haven't addressed the problem of leakage.... I must admit, Kirk, I'm losing faith in your ability to cogently criticize this research. But I won't give up yet. --Abd (talk) 22:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

---

Responding to Abd's comment above in a section by section fashion:

Kirk, it seems you are coming unglued. Your arguments do not improve with capital letters.

Of course, on the Internet, capital letters indicate ‘shouting’. I shout because you don’t seem to hear. You never give any indication that you have read, understood, and incorporated my comments. When I ask for such an indication, you ask me to do it for you (see above section re: ‘the challenge’). Shouting is all I have left, but I see that it also made no difference. At this point, one normally just walks off, because communication is not possible. I had the same problem with Ed Storms, but at least he fully repeated back my points. But when I asked him, “how then can you still not incorporate my thoughts into your work?”, he just replied, “I don’t believe it.” That’s when we both realized our discussion was ended. At least he reached that point. You haven’t.. I am not ‘coming unglued’, I am trying to get through to an obsinate person who won’t listen. I’m not the only one, see Enric’s comment below (next section).

You are failing to confront the issue of correlation. Correlation can show causation or connection even in the presence of massive noise.

No, correlation never proves causation. Demonstrating control over an effect proves causation. Correlations can exist by pure chance.

It is not necessary to prove that excess heat is artifact-free, nor that leakage doesn't take place, in order to show that there is a correlation between *apparent* excess heat and *apparent* helium.

Wow! Have I suceeded? Have you grasped a bit of the problem? Probably not. So, let’s go through this. The sentence above has Abd actually using the word ‘apparent’. I checked the CF Talk page. Other than my specific uses and generic uses of that word, the only times it is used in reference to excess heat signals is by Kevin Baas on May 19, and by Abd on May 20 (today!). The word is only used once in the CF article, and not to describe ‘excess heat’. The heat-helium correlation is a standard ‘piece of evidence’ offered by CFers to ‘prove’ CF is nuclear. Thus, when the word ‘apparent’ is not specified, the common usage of the ‘Heat-He correlation’ implies the heat is real, caused by a nuclear process, which also generates He. I contend the ‘heat’ has not been proven real, thus the causality relationship implied is not real either. That is just basic logic. So, what we have is an example of how Abd’s sloppy terminology confuses the issue. Does he really mean ‘apparent’ or not?

I've stated, here, an example where the helium found was above background, way above background.

Way above? Even consideing your sloppiness, that is incorrect to my knowledge. Please cite your reference. Understand, that natural He concentration in air is about 5ppm. That is a trace level measurement. ‘Way above’, given the difficutlty of doing trace analysis, is probably say about 500 ppm, i.e. a factor of 100. Anyting less is still suspicious in trace level analysis. Of course, standard statistics applies.

You can't explain helium above ambient by leakage.

Actually you can. It would be a mismeasurement problem. In fact Brian Clarke told me one time the 11 ppm He numbers that Russ George and McKube reported were actually about half that when he measured the samples (i.e. air levels). He didn’t know what the error was, but he was the expert, not George/McKubre, so I trust him first.

Further, in the series of experiments described, there are 33 experiments, and 12 of them showed no "apparent" excess heat, and 18 did show excess heat. That is, whatever calorimetry they did, they calculated, from the calorimetry record, flawed or otherwise, a certain amount of heat beyond that explainable by energy input or other known factors. You can suppose, I said, that the origin of this measurement is CCS. In other words, no assumed proof of excess heat.

OK so far.

So why the capital letters repea, and which measures helium.

What is this? --- Picking back up…

The results come back: No helium found in the 12 cells with no inferred excess heat. Helium found in 18 out of 21 cells with inferred excess heat. Levels of helium are correlated quantitatively with the level of excess heat inferred. There is an obvious conclusion: something is causing *helium* to be found. Okay, suppose it's leaks. Suppose that in these experiments the level of helium measured is below ambient. Fine. Why is helium only being found when there is also a finding of excess heat?

Interesting that you are finally getting specific here. Are you discussing the Miles work at China Lake of the early-mid-90’s? I ask because of one point I always make: science requires replication. And this replication is not just one study of 33 runs, it is multiple studies by multiple experimenters supporting the same _detailed_ conclusion, i.e. with ‘high’ reproducibility. I’ve looked at Miles before. Bottom line: never replicated, therefore not ‘proof’ of anything. Can I explain it. No, but I don’t need to, ‘replication required’ is the gold standard.

Secondarily, if you are actually finally admitting there may actually NOT be any excess heat, then we can proceed down that path. I have stated repeatedly that I believe there is an ‘effect’, which I called the Fleischmann-Pons-Hawkins effect (FPHE) (named after its discoverers), that produces *apparent* excess heat signals, and I described what I thought it was in my first publication on this subject. I have also stated that I have not thought through what in that mechanism/process might induce more He inleakage. I don’t have the time to do so, why don’t you try?

Thirdly, you have to have all the details to critique the experiment. What was the time placement of the ‘controls’, were they properly mixed in? Did the ‘controls’ use the _same_ reactants? (CFers love to mix H and D, claiming they are equivalent chemically. This is grossly incorrect.) So to answer your question, I would need to have all these kinds of answers. Please note that I have looked at the Miles work a long time ago, and I concluded it was interesting and suggestive, but as I said, it was never adequately replicated. Storms however, takes anything as proof and glosses over the problems, to the extent of ignoring rebuttals of his position.

At this point, one could theoretically suspect fraud. I.e., if there was excess heat, they opened the cell and allowed in enough air to cause a quantitative correlation with the measured excess heat. And down this road madness lies, because, then, we must suspect all research. Rather, we ordinarily trust that experimental reports, while work could be sloppy or incompletely reported or conclusions could be mistaken, are nevertheless honest, and we practically crucify scientists who violate this trust.

A) I have never, ever used the ‘fraud’ excuse, and B) all my crticisms are technical in nature, see above for an example.

Essentially, the cells with no excess heat are a kind of control for the heat-helium connection.

’A kind of’ is correct. But are they a ‘good’ kind or a ‘bad’ kind.?

Are you truly unable to understand this argument? Because it's been repeated several times now, and you haven't responded except by shouting

Are you truly unable to understand the problems with this argument? I thought them through years ago. Do I need to shout some more?

In any case, it's simple to calculate the odds of a result like this being due to chance association; this is the figure reported elsewhere, from Storms, as 1 in 750,000. (I haven't verified the math and don't know if this took into account the three non-helium cells; as I assume you would know, there are reasons why those three cells might be different, but I can't be completely sure it's not hand-waving.)

It’s also simple to understand the relevance of a correlation coefficient – squaring it gives the fraction of variability explained by the implied math model (linear correlation => linear regression line). As I noted in the next section, at about 10% variablity, scientists begin to question the level of control. That translates to an r of ~0.95. Does the ‘correlation’ you are discussing show an r >, say, 0.9? If it doesn’t, that means there is enough variability in the data set to suggest a significant uncontrolled factor or factors, and that leads to the ‘small data set’ concern. That concern is what drives the reproduction requirement, and as I said, I don’t believe it has been reproduced. By the way, this is the preferred logic for deciding if a correlation is significant in chemical process control and improvement, which of course is what we are talking about, since CF is not nuclear(!).

Further, when helium levels well above ambient are reported, the leakage explanation isn't sufficient.

Agreed, if you can believe the reported He numbers. Such believe is promoted by supplying analytical method protocols and run results from controls. No such data has been supplied by CFers. So I, being a conservative mainliner, assume they messed up somewhere, not they they found a revolutionary new nuclear process.

It's not correct that CF researchers haven't addressed the problem of leakage.... I must admit, Kirk, I'm losing faith in your ability to cogently criticize this research. But I won't give up yet. --Abd (talk) 22:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The 2003 Clarke paper shows that one of the _top_ scientific labs doing CF research couldn’t keep air out of their apparatus. This is after the 1989 DOE report made that clearly a priority point. And remember, the 2004 DOE report concluded similarly that there was no compelling He evidence (otherwise, their conclusions would have been different from the 1989 report). I must admit, Abd, that I lost faith long ago in your ability to cogently criticize this research. But I won't give up yet. (maybe) Kirk shanahan (talk) 16:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

(:I see a lot of new comments, I will get to them as I can, I have other work to do. Kirk shanahan (talk) 16:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC))

---

V's latest ad hominems

V has continued to attack me professionally on the Talk: Cold Fusion page. His latest example is immediately below. This has reached the level of offensiveness. Let me address the issues below.

Skip this to get to the example specified above. Kirk Shanahan is somehow claiming that to attack his ideas and logic is the same thing as to attack him personally ("ad hominem", in the section title, refers to a personal attack), even though he uses the words "attack me professionally" above. That is bad logic, always has been, always will be. People are provably much more than than the things they express. It is quite possible for anyone to express nonsense. That does not mean anyone is inherently nonsensical. V (talk) 14:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Then there is Kirk Shanahan wanting us to believe that a small amount of chemical heat from hydrogen-oxygen recombination can throw off a calorimeter designed to register lots more than a "small amount" of heat, and throw its calibration off to the extent that if it measures a lot of heat while an electrolysis cell boils its electrolyte away and melts one of its electrodes, we have to pretend it didn't actually happen; that it was all an illusion associated with a temporarily uncalibrated calorimeter. I agree that that speculation should be in the article, for entertainment purposes if nothing else! I disagree on giving it any more weight than claims that hydrinos can explain cold fusion. V (talk) 15:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I have published a proposed explanation of the apparent excess heat observed in typical F&P electrolysis cells called the ‘Calibration Constant Shift’ (CCS). The idea is predicated on two concepts: 1) there is an effect active, which I called the FPHE, and 2) there is no change in the heat content of the cell at any time (due to new heat sources for example). This FPHE causes a redistribution of heat in a cell, such that more heat is collected in the cell, i.e. cell losses (which are what causes calibration to be required) are reduced, which is why an apparent excess heat signal develops. This proposition has never been scientifically challenged, even though a (separate) physical/chemical mechanism I proposed was (erroneously). Thus it is fair to say that the CCS is feasible, and may be due to heat redistribution in nay case where a calibration equation is used to measure heat output.

Now, on to heat-after-death (HAD). In HAD, the electrolyte is removed from the cell, leaving just gas space. Seriously, do you expect the heat loss profile to remain unchanged in that case? You no longer have the liquid, which provides good thermal contact for heat transfer from the electrode to the cell walls and out into the calorimeter. Now you are just left with gas phase heat transfer and flow through the miscellaneous cell parts. A completely different situation! So, will the calibration remain the same? No? Then why do we believe numbers from Cold Fusion researchers (CFers) that are obtained without recalibrating? There is really only one reason, fanaticism.

With regards to V’s claims of ‘small amount of chemical heat’, this is a gross misrepresentation and really just illustrates V’s unwillingness to learn. I have assured him many times I know what is going on, but because of his fanaticism, he insists I don’t. The amount of heat involved is not ‘small’, as in ‘irrelevant’, it is just exactly the amount needed to produce the effect. I have estimated that in the Szpak, Mossier-Boss, Miles, and Fleishman 2005 publication, this amount was about 20% of the available recombination energy. That isn’t the majority, but it isn’t small. In fact, in high-loss calorimeters with full recombination, a quite large signal might be expected.

By the way, the change in calibration constants needed to induce the effect in the Storms’ work I reanalyzed was only 2-3%. I also noted during examination of McKubre’s 1998 report that a 1% change could change the excess heat peak by 50%. Thus, the CCS is not a major problem, it is a minor noise issue. The apparent excess heat peaks are just the experiment’s noise.

As well,it is only ‘temporary’ in the sense that it does seems easy to destroy the ‘special active state’ that leads to the redistribution of heat. In the HAD case, it’s only ‘temporary’ if you immediately refill the cell with electrolyte, which the CFers don’t.

With regards to ‘melting’, perhaps I missed it, but I don’t recall HAD experiments ‘melting’ the Pd. I definitely do recall claims of melted Pd arising from explosions, but I have already posted that that appearance is most likely due to shock wave induced flow, not melting due to temperature. Pd is ductile, and it flows relatively easily as opposed to glass, which would shatter in an explosion. And Russ George did claim to have ‘melted’ the Pd he used in ultrasonication experiments, but I suspect it was more the caviation jet effect he noted.

All of this V calls ‘speculation’. That is incorrect. The CCS is published and unchallenged. The fact that a CCS would be expected in a HAD condition is ridiculously easy to see. The ‘temporariness’ of the problem explains many features of the CFers inability to reproduce experimental results in detail. Explosion-induced flow might be called speculative, but it’s not much of one. About the only one who seems to be wildly speculating is V with regards to my expertise. Please stop it V. What amazes and frustrates me is that the Wikipedia community allows this kind of ‘armchair expert’ nonsense to go on (and on and on …). KirkShanahan (talk) 16:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Kirk, you are bandying about "ad hominem," but using the term in a way that doesn't seem correct. Above, in responding to me, you wrote: "Some of the criticisms he makes are odd." - ad hominem again That's not an ad hominem criticism, it speaks directly of the criticisms themselves, not to the person making them. V's criticism above you can argue is wrong, but it doesn't claim that your comments are wrong because you made them, but because, he thinks, your arguments are preposterous. Again, not an Ad hominem argument. Maybe you should read the article!

I have a suggestion. If you cannot handle criticism of your claims here, but take it personally, as if it impugns you professionally, even when it is only doing what Wikipedia editors must do with expert opinion (challenge it and criticize it and compare sources), helping us here is probably not going to work for you or for us. --Abd (talk) 23:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

In 'The Art of War' by Sun Tzu, there is an anecdote about what happened when he introduced the concept of formation fighting to the Chinese emperor. This was a new concept and Sun Tzu claimed that he could teach it to _anyone_, which the emperor found hard to believe. So, he challenged Sun Tzu to teach his concubines how to formation fight. Sun Tzu agreed but only if he could have absolute authority over them. The emperor granted him this, so Sun began. The concubines thought this was great fun. Laughing and giggling, they 'royally' messed up the first lesson. Sun Tzu blamed himself, and went through the process again. The concubines messed it up again, greatly entertaining themselves and the emperor. Sun Tzu blamed himself again and tried again, reinstructing them. Again they failed, with great glee. However, this time Sun Tzu said basically that the third time was their fault, not his. He called the emperor's favorite concubine up to the front and beheaded her. Then he had them do it again. Perfection was obtained.

In this case, I only have 'the pen' to address maliciousness on the part of my 'students'. Both V and yourself have failed to grasp what is really very, very simple. Both of you have repeatedly blamed me for this, saying my propositions are 'odd' or 'illogical' or whatever. In fact what is odd and illogical is your inability to understand. It has gone on so long, I must assume (as did Sun Tzu) that it is deliberate. Therefore I will point this out.

It's not that I can't take your criticisms (in fact they are nothing new, other cold fusion fanatics have repeatedly said the same things), it's that I can't take the pure maliciousness of your unwillingness to learn. I can't see why you think you are qualified to edit the CF article when you are so clearly and obviously biased. I guess you believe that if you read a couple of sports section articles on the Denver Broncos, you could then successfully coach them to a Super Bowl championship too.

And by the way, deliberately failing to understand and blaming the 'teacher' is an ad hominen attack on the 'teacher', as shown by Sun Tzu's story.

There's an old saying: "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen". Both you and V have proven that you "can't", so why don't you both just go elsewhere and bother someone else, so we can get on with writing a balanced and fair article on cold fusion? Kirk shanahan (talk) 11:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

No problem, Kirk. You've got it backwards, though. Sun Tzu beheaded the emperor's favorite? Not much of a favorite, I'd say, or Sun Tzu would have lost his own head. And I'm not your student, and you have no authority over me whatever, much less absolute authority. I'm a Wikipedia editor trying to extract advice from someone who, from a record of publication, I'd expect would be an expert, but, it appears, is too attached to himself. I've had physicians like that. I fired them and found better ones. Bye. --Abd (talk) 12:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Abd, see here, Sun Tzu beheaded not one, but two of the favourite concubines of the emperor, and that was after being told by the emperor not to behead them. You can doubt that the anecdote itself is true, but you can't doubt that Kirk got the gist of the anecdote right. (Mind you, Kirk was wrong in that it wasn't the favourite concubine, but two of the favourites ones, but that's still not getting it "backwards") You know what, the whole point of this is that you missed the whole point of the anecdote: that people in Talk:Cold_fusion are disobeying in purpose and that they won't obey until heads are rolled. And you missed it all because of a single detail that you got wrong anyways. You keep doing this all the time. That's annoying.

If this was an isolated incident then I wouldn't complain, but you keep assuming that people has gotten the sources wrong, basing yourself just in your own personal opinion of what the sources should have done or said, without bothering to actually check the sources. Have you got any idea of how annoying that is to other persons? (and going into into condescendency, depending on how it's worded). --Enric Naval (talk) 12:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Two? really? I guess I'll have to reread that section. That's for the support Enric, Abd and V are immensely annoying, and I'm sure they love that.

Abd, yes, the favorite(s). That's why he extracted agreement fro the emperor on absolute authority. He knew what was coming. If the emperor had interveneed, he would have gone back on his word, which traditionally is far more important than one or two concubines, probably even a wife or two.

The fact that you state you are not my 'student' clearly points out the problem. I am an acknowledged expert in the field, and you won't learn from me. Does this point out any problems to anyone? Kirk shanahan (talk) 13:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Requested 'Idiot"s Guide" to the Calibration Constant Shift

V says Abd requested this...

---

2 * 3 + 1 = 7 TRUE! 3 * 3 + 1 = 10 FALSE! SEE!

---

That's it, at least for idiots. For the rest of us, a few more words are in order, but you know, I've already said them many times before. Maybe the Idiot's Guide approach will work.

Anyone who thinks this equation is false: (3*3)+1=10

--that person is wrong, whether idiot or genius. Notwithstanding what is written below, the preceding, by itself, does NOT adequately describe CCS in a nutshell, because there is no background explanation preceding it. (And now, on to some of that background....) V (talk) 22:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

In any case, in the above, the TRUE equation is the calibration equation actually in effect at the time of an apparent excess heat event. The equation is of the form y= mx + b, where m and b are the constants, x is the measured value, and y is the computed value. However, unbeknownst to the researchers, this is a changed equation from what they measured hours before, i.e. m=2, b=1 vs. m=3, b=1. Why this happened we may never know. Clearly, both equations are algebraically correct. The problem lies in the assumption that the second equation determined at time t0 is correct at time t1.

That's it! Hard isn't it. Kirk shanahan (talk) 18:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Now all you have to do is explain how/why it must have happened. If you cannot, then you have no basis for insisting that it had actually happened. The burden of proof is on the accuser, always. You are accusing that the measuring tools become miscalibrated during the action being measured, when in no other experiment using those tools, there has been no reason to reach such a conclusion. So, the appropriate quotable response is, I believe: "Put up or shut up." (I'm aware you've done some of that putting-up elsewhere, but we want the explanation-for-idiots version here.) V (talk) 22:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Let me take a moment to correct a gross misconception that you have. It is not my job to explain ‘cold fusion’.

Interjection: I never had that particular misconception. The only job I'm interested in seeing you accomplish involves describing CCS details in a way that is more reasonable than I've previously seen. V (talk) 21:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

‘Cold fusion’ is not my primary area of research or even interest. There is no ‘must’ around when discussing what I have done or might do. That’s the way science works. You publish a paper (or hopefully discuss an idea with collegues before you publish) and everybody tries to find what is wrong with it. It’s kinda like a game. The one who finds something wrong presents that idea. Then people get to try to shoot it down too. After all the shooting has subsided to a tolerable din, everybody starts synthesizing what has been brought up. In that process, only the ideas left standing after all the shooting are normally considered. In my case I was in the second tier, the critics, not the originators. I proposed a problem with the originator’s ideas, and they tried valiently to shoot it down. But, they couldn’t.

Interjection: So YOU say. It seems to me that all they need to do is present alternate evidence of excess heat, such as images of boiling electrolyte and melted palladium, for the calorimeter measurements to become well-nigh irrefutable (that is, there can be more than one way to show that excess heat had existed). Now, I'm aware that experiments in which the phenomenon being sought reaches such extremes --those experiments are still quite rare; more work needs to be done to identify the parameters that lead to those results. Just as, originally, lots of work needed to be done in order to fairly reliably produce even moderate amounts of excess heat. Which likely takes us right back to why "they couldn't", at the time you posted your criticism (no alternate evidence available). V (talk) 21:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

So, it’s now up to all to synthesize my ideas into the general mix. Of course, this is what has NOT happened with the CFers, and that is one additional reason why they can clearly be labeled ‘psuedoscientists’, they were great right up to the last step. But to do real science you have to do it all.

Interjection: Yes and no; the thing you proposed needs to be considered as a factor after it is proved that such a factor actually exists. So far as I've seen, though, nobody has yet demonstrated an actual case of genuine CCS in action. Until that happens, just exactly why should anyone pay lots of attention to it??? V (talk) 21:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

As a critic, I need do no more than what I have done to date. The originators however, if they intend to continue in the field, need to incorporate my ideas into their experiments to try to resolve if my proposal can/cannot be proven true vs. theirs, i.e. we have two viable alternate explanations and more work needs to be done to distinguish them. Otherwise, they just replicate the mistakes of their predecessors. Most importantly, they need to realize that their claims to have proven a nuclear origin of the effect are incorrect. The jury is still out.

I assume you are aware that the jury doesn't need only evidence of excess heat to conclude that a conventional explanation is inadequate; neutron tracks are potentially pretty convincing evidence, too. Anyway, partly repeating what I wrote above, while YOU may claim that CCS is viable, I don't see any reason to agree with that assessment until the pheomenon is reliably documented to have occurred in experiments that specifically look for it. V (talk) 21:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Now, on to your specific comments. “then you have no basis for insisting that it had actually happened” - strawman - What I have said many times is that I have a conventional explanation for *all* the effects claimed by cold fusion researchers to prove a nuclear origin of the effect.

Interjection: And I disagree because of (so far as I know at this writing) the lack of evidence that CCS has ever happened anywhere. V (talk) 21:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I have also stated many times that, as a default, I prefer the conventional explanation. But if you have been listening and actually read my papers, you would have noted that my basic point is that there is no way today to make a conclusion as to the origin of the FPHE.

Interjection: That would depend on the amount and quality of the evidence, some of which, especially if verified, cannot possibly have a chemical origin (neutron tracks). If you want to insist that the only evidence that needs to be considered are mere claims of detecting excess heat, all of which supposedly can be explained by a hypothesis (CCS) that as yet has no other supporting evidence, well, I phrased the preceding that way just to point out the precariousness of that position. V (talk) 21:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

This cuts both ways. Thus I do NOT insist it “actually happened”. That is your strawman interpretation of what I write, formulated by picking and choosing comments from me and the CFers designed to support *your* strawman not mine. Let me be clear, once more, the jury is out, no verdict has been given. You may sputter and wheeze at this all you like, but when it comes to explaining where I stand on this issue, *I* am the expert, not you. If I say you’ve got it wrong, you’ve got it wrong.

It appears you are jumping to conclusions moreso than me. What **I** say is that "Here are some claims about excess heat that YOU say can be explained by CCS happening" --and all I want you do do is more-precisely explain how CCS could indeed actually have been there. It is quite logical to me that if there is no rationale for why it should happen (especially after experiments designed to find it don't), then there is no reason to think it actually happened --which means the excess heat needs a different explanation. Now I'm fully aware that that statement can in turn be applied to CF as an explanation --a rationale for "how" is needed to exactly the same extent-- yet I am not the originator of that logic, the originators were those who dismissed the reports of excess heat two decades ago. I'm simply repeating/applying their logic to your CCS notion. Meanwhile, there now ARE several explanations for how CF could happen, putting that aspect of the argument into a position superior the position of CCS. Sure, none of those explanations yet has additional supporting evidence, but with CCS in CF experiments not even having at least an explanation...see? V (talk) 21:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

“The burden of proof is on the accuser, always” - This isn’t a court of law.

Interjection: Technically, true, but pragmatically, when such terms are frequently used as "the jury is still out" and "making one's case", when both sides manage to view the same evidence and reach different conclusions, well... the difference between a court of law and certain parts of the Scientific Process is just about irrelevant. V (talk) 21:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

It is reasonable and rational to expect that I clearly present and defend my proposal, but the ‘proof’ comes from those willing to do the experimental work required. For a variety of reasons, that is not me. I have conformed to standard scientific practice by presenting and defending (successfully) a counter-explanation for the FPHE. I have done all that is reasonably and rationally required of me. Science is a community thing, it is not done by just one guy, and this ‘sharing of the load’ I describe is SOP.

I wasn't asking or expecting you to do CCS experimentaton, I was asking about a more thorough explanation. Over on the CF talk page I wrote this: "non-RS is the only place to find proposed explanations for HOW (detailed "how", not just "Duh, fusion did it") " ---and here all you are saying, in effect, is, "Duh, CCS did it". V (talk) 21:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

“You are accusing that the measuring tools become miscalibrated during the action being measured, when in no other experiment using those tools, there has been no reason to reach such a conclusion.” - Your grammar seems a bit off here. I assume you mean that ‘in no other experiment using those tools has there been reason to reach such a conclusion’. The double negative in what you wrote cancels out and it really says ‘in those experiements there has been reason to reach such a conclusion’. While correct, that seems inconsistent with you usual position.

Thank you, I admit I made that particular grammatical mistake. V (talk) 21:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Assuming my version is what you meant, I need to explain then why what you actually wrote is actually correct. The excess heat measurement is a classic ‘small difference between large numbers’ problem. Most uses of calorimetry are to measure the two large numbers, and quit there. In other words, they calibrate the calorimeter to measure up to 20W, and then measure experimental values in that range, and make their claims based on those measurements, not on the differences between measurements.

Nicely stated. Thanks. I shall keep in mind that that is "generic background explanation". V (talk) 21:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The calorimeters used by CFers are fine for measuring the 20 W (or whatever) input power up to a certain error limit, with the standard caveat that different types will give different error bars. Based on Storms’ reporting of the calibration constant variation (and having suspected such from McKubre’s work), I explicitly detailed how a 1-5% variation in calibration constants (which is esentially what Storms reported (using standard statistical quality control procedures)) could lead to excess heat signals. In other words, I showed that the CFers are ‘working in the noise’ when claiming excess heat peaks. This does not negate in any way the utility or validity of calorimetry, it simply defines clearly what the error bars are on such work, and guess what, it’s a ‘normal’ error bar of 1-5%., very typical of chemical measurements. I also explained, via my two-zone model of the cell (or calorimeter) how one _might_ get a CCS. I don’t claim it is the only way, but I do believe that heat redistribution can cause a CCS. So it is correct to say “when in no other experiment using those tools, there has been no reason to reach such a conclusion”, meaning in those experiements there has been reason to reach such a conclusion (that the excess heat peaks are ‘in the noise’).

Ummm...actually, the conclusion I had in mind was, "CCS happened in lots of other experiments, even predating CF experiments by decades", and what you have just written does not seem to support that. My intention was to attach to that conclusion (non-grammatically erroneous!) the notion that it hadn't been seen anywhere --else CCS as a hypothesis for explaining various measurments would have first appeared many decades ago. Also, I need to specify that my interpretation of what I had previously read, of what you wrote, included the notion that you were using CCS to extend the typical error range rather farther than you appear to be describing here and now. It seems obvious enough, though, that you are indeed trying to use CCS to extend the error range somewhat, just so that the excess heat claims of CF proponents can continue to be ignored by the mainstream (heh, you wrote that you were one of the obstacles that a CF paper needed to pass by, to get into the mainstream!). As previously stated, my objection to that involves both the need to prove that CCS does indeed happen in other experiments, plus a need to explain the process by which it can be expected to happen in a heavy water experiment but not a light water experiment. V (talk) 21:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I further proposed a mechanism to get heat distribution change. Likewise, I do not claim this is the only way that might might happen. But I do contend that my mechanism has high predictive power and can explain a variety of results without further modification. Normally this is a sign of a good theory. Since I know of no cases as you imply, I would pose this question for you: In what other application of those methods do the researchers make claims based on signals in the noise? Kirk shanahan (talk) 12:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

My answer must of course refer to the magnitude of the noise when CCS is not part of the system. If the CF'ers are finding heat outside that range, yet it is inside the noise range after CCS is PRESUMED to occur, then it becomes extremely important to prove that CCS does indeed occur. V (talk) 21:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd still like to see the idiot's guide to your explanation for how CCS might happen. V (talk) 21:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Then read my papers. Kirk shanahan (talk) 15:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Please don't chop up the comments of others

Kirk, twice today on Talk:Cold fusion you interspersed a reply to me in the middle of my comment. In both cases, I framed it with smalltext notes, but that's usually considered quite rude, and, if special care isn't taken, it can make our comments appear to be by the same person, i.e., you. Since my first section had no signature. Or the reader has to read down below you to figure out who wrote what was above you. Please don't do this. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 04:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Then stop writing multi-page tracts with so many errors in them it takes books to correct you. Stick to proposed edits to the articles. Stop trying to promote CF. Kirk shanahan (talk) 13:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Civility

Comments like "Do you really not undersand English?" are not acceptable, per our policy on WP:CIVILITY. Do not repeat this behavior. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 13:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Your comment is outrageous. After V writes: "I WILL say that your 3rd sentence is a bit "off" and after his and Abd's) multitude of insults, slams, and personal attacks, you write: "Comments like "Do you really not undersand English?" are not acceptable". Where were you when Abd and V were doing this multiple times to me! I really think Wikipedia is incapable of handling controversial issues like CF All my experience here suggests that. Kirk shanahan (talk) 13:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think warning V and Abd for their persistant disruptive behavior has any efficacy at this point. If you can't tune them out, try unwatching the cold fusion talk page until such time as they give up. Hipocrite (talk) 14:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Hipocrite, I sure hope you have been paying attention; you will see that Kirk is far more guilty of doing personal attacks than either Abd or myself. Me, all I do is point out the irrationality present in various statements Shanahan has made, and that has absolutely NOTHING to do with a 'personal' attack. To be more specific, there IS a difference between statements such as "Kirk has spouted the following nonsense" and "Kirk is nonsensical" --ONLY THE LATTER would be a personal attack (and it "does not count" here because I'm trying to present examples here, rather than to actually make such statements -- which if you will look for them you will see I indeed have not made any such statements as that latter example --even Kirk won't be able to find one!). As to why Kirk consistently appears to confuse statements similar to the former example, that I've actually written, with the latter example, that is HIS problem, not mine or yours. (And if he thinks that deliberately mischaracterizing other people's remarks will "win points" somehow, then he needs to think again, because I'm perfectly willing to state, however many times it takes, over and over again, until he stops, that Kirk is mischaracterizing my remarks!) V (talk) 16:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow, ROFL!! Check this out - And if V thinks that deliberately mischaracterizing other people's remarks will "win points" somehow, then he needs to think again, because I'm perfectly willing to state, however many times it takes, over and over again, until he stops, that V is mischaracterizing my remarks! All I do is point out the irrationality present in various statements V has made and he never incorporates that. He keeps claiming I am irrational and make no sense, this while others are clearly following what I say, and even understanding it! As I explained with the Sun Tzu story, constantly failng to incorporate my comments is an implied personal attack against the one who is trying to teach. That's exactly what the concubines were doing to Sun Tzu. Oh for an axe... Kirk shanahan (talk) 19:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

More mischaracterization (perhaps "lie" is a more accurate word) by Kirk, who has indeed made various statements that are either irrational or make no sense, while I have never stated that he is irrational. I will quote an example of me explaining in detail a bit irrationality spouted by Kirk (preceded by the stuff that led up to my explanation):

Then there is Kirk Shanahan wanting us to believe that a small amount of chemical heat from hydrogen-oxygen recombination can throw off a calorimeter designed to register lots more than a "small amount" of heat, and throw its calibration off to the extent that if it measures a lot of heat while an electrolysis cell boils its electrolyte away and melts one of its electrodes, we have to pretend it didn't actually happen; that it was all an illusion associated with a temporarily uncalibrated calorimeter. I agree that that speculation should be in the article, for entertainment purposes if nothing else! I disagree on giving it any more weight than claims that hydrinos can explain cold fusion. V (talk) 15:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

More ad hominem from V. I will post a reply on my Talk page immediately. KirkShanahan (talk) 15:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

(Partly because his talk page does not have a reply there yet)... More bad logic by Shanahan. My paragraph above contains a description of the CCS hypothesis, admittedly written to blatantly expose its most fundamental flaw (excess heat can possibly be detected by means other than a calorimeter). Since CCS is "pushed" and defended by Shanahan, there is nothing faulty in writing about "Kirk Shanahan wanting us to believe" it. NOR is there an inherent fault in, generically, Person A wanting Person B to believe something-or-other (sometimes that desire is even vitally important, like when Person A discovers the house they are in to be on fire). But somehow Shanahan has concluded that my statement somehow describes a flaw in Shanahan; by definition the statement "More ad hominem from V" can only be true if my statement describes a flaw in Shanahan. WELL, WHERE IS THAT DESCRIPTION???

Kirk never answered that question. I will add here that I don't know what Sun Tzu story he is talking about, in the last part of his post above, nor do I see a logical connection between failure to do something and an action which could be called "a personal attack". V (talk) 13:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

As you may have now noticed, I added a list of suggestion to improve the article to the Talk page. I have been trying to get the bulk of these accepted for months. Literally since the Sept. 17, 2008 version. When I added _some_ of the text to the article, it was all block deleted by Pcarbonn. Thereupon we embarked upon me trying to explain why what I wrote was right, and pcarbon wikilawyering me to death. (Note I attempted to seek consensus here, in what is a controversial subject.) Then Pcarbon got banned, but immediately V and Abd stepped up to the plate. Am I supposed to expect any better treatment at their hands if I edit into the article what I think it needs to be neutral POV? I think not. So, I try to explain to V and Abd. But none of it gets through. So, that's how we got where we are today. What is a workable pathforward to an article that fairly and equitably presents _both_ sides of the controversy? Long ago I suggested segmenting the article into 3 parts (history, pro, con) and forbidding advocates from editing the other side's section, but after watching Wiki at work, I doubt we could do that without massive user banning activity. (P.S. - I would gladly not edit the pro side.) Kirk shanahan (talk) 16:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that you suggest one concrete small change to the article on the talk page - either an addition, removal, modification or move of some text. Hipocrite (talk) 16:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Kirk, Hipocrite is very much on the other side of the cold fusion debate, but is giving you sound advice. It seems you understand practically nothing about Wikipedia guidelines and policy. If what you put in the article in September was like what you just suggested, you are right: nearly everyone would be in favor of taking it out, Wikipedia is "against you." If you look at my response to your specific suggestions, at Talk:Cold fusion, you will see that I note that some aspects of your suggestion may actually be good ideas. But I don't think you have any clear idea as to how to get there. I do. Wikipedia guidelines and policies may be difficult for people not familiar with certain theories of knowledge and process, but they are actually brilliant. Frustrating, sometimes, but necessary. (It can be quite irritating to know something for a fact, for that fact to be well-known in the field, but to be unable to put it in the article because, for some reason, it's not been published in a peer-reviewed journal or other reliable source.) If you will open your mind to the possibility of learning something here, you might actually come to recognize why the guidelines and policies are the way they are. Otherwise, you will probably rant and rave until you are blocked or banned, continually being convinced that the system is warped against you. Your choice.

Your suggestion about having each side edit their subarticle actually has in it an element of wisdom. But they wouldn't actually be articles; rather they will be detailed and well-organized consensus documents, the best that each side can develop, not in article space, and used, then, to assure that article decisions are made based on clear and organized evidence. In some kinds of RfCs and before ArbComm, on the Evidence page, nobody is allowed to edit the evidence presented by any other editor, nor to respond to it within that editor's section. --Abd (talk) 18:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

More ROFL!! Yes, Abd, I have severe heartburn over the way you and V and PCarbonn wikilawyer the policies. You don't see me asking about them because, over a year ago, whenever anyone quoted policy at me, I went and read them in detail. In all cases, I found that appropriate outs were provided that would allow this situation to be resolved, but PCarbon in particular would never accept that, since he too was a CF fanatic, and accepting the provided outs would have let anti-CF text into the article. So the wiklawyering began. You too are an expert at using policy to stop good editing. All one needs to do is look at all the errors and misrepresentations in your response to my recent suggestions to see that. Your misinterpretatins of policies leaves the CF article as a clear example of the blind leading the blind, because you refuse to comprehend what is SOP in the fields used to generate CF data, even when I spell it out for you, leter by letter.

For example, your big diatribe about the 23.8 MeV number. You understand of course, the the Clarke, Bos, and Oliver paper (clearly RS) suggests that McK's He numbers are 2x what they are supposed to be. That means the computed MeV/He should be 2x also. Thats up around 60 MeV/He atom. That is clearly outside the realm of reality, and that in turn means the conclusion that those results supports CF is unfounded. You're going to let me put that in the article right??? Ha! Sure... Kirk shanahan (talk) 19:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Why do you keep responding to Abd when I very clearly asked you to suggest one concrete small change to the article on the talk page - either an addition, removal, modification or move of some text? Do you think that you and Abd arguing is helping anything? If so, what exactly is it helping? Hipocrite (talk) 19:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

For a couple of reasons. A) It's my talk page here, and I can choose to respond or not as I see fit. B) As I indicated above, Abd isn't going to let me do anything anyway. We will just have more pages and pages of Abd (and V) garbage. He's a fanatic, and ignoring fanatics doesn't make them go away. You have to confront them and get them to quit, leave, move on, whatever. However, I am always willing to be proven wrong, so why don'y YOU, as a 'neutral' pick one of my suggested changes and we all discuss it on the CF Talk page. Kirk shanahan (talk) 20:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

No thanks. Propose a concrete change to the article and we can discuss it. Hipocrite (talk) 20:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

That's a shame. I proposed several. Several have already been the subject of 'discussion'. I was hoping someone outside the Shanahan-(V,Abd) pairing would participate. As it stands, if I edit the article to put in the anti-CF side that is needed for balance, those two will immediately delete it, just as PCarbonn did. Kirk shanahan (talk) 11:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't discuss changes that are not expressed as concrete proposals to add, remove or modify text from the article. Make a proposal to do that, and I'll happily discuss it with you. Hipocrite (talk) 11:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, let's go back then to a concrete proposal I have made several times: Revert back to the version of Sept. 17, 2008 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cold_fusion&oldid=239093535) and start over. That version had everything I have said above that is needed (with a couple of exceptions that will need to be acted on), a historical section (written by PCarbonn), a 'pro' section (also written by PCarbonn), and a just-modified 'anti' section (to which I will claim primary authorship). Abd has already said it is 'too wordy' (ROFL again), but I am not adverse to editing it, I just can't tolerate the block deletion tactic of PCarbonn. Kirk shanahan (talk) 11:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Too many changes. Propose one concrete addition, removal or modification of text from the article, please. Hipocrite (talk) 13:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

You know H, it's fine to be a stickler for rules and 'one-at-a-time' approach, but there are consequenses to such. Here, the problem will be that we have two contentious editors who fail to understand the 'RS' situation w.r.t cold fusion. They will do just as PCarbonn did, and bog down the process of getting the facts in to give the article balance, because they don't want such. But, we'll try it for awhile. I don't have infinite time, and you've got nobody else who trying to present the mainline view of the field. You (generically speaking here) may want to fold that into your editing process. Kirk shanahan (talk) 13:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I have demonstrated an ability to ignore Abd and V if they can't focus on article edits before, and I'll do it again. Thank you for your efforts. Hipocrite (talk) 13:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

As I said, ignoring them doesn't solve the problem. What I intend to do in the discussion I have hopefully started, is to condense irrelevant sections and then paraphrase any cogent points I can find. I always have difficulty doing so with their writings, but I will try. I will focus on potential points they raise that refer specifically to the item(s) under discussion with reference to improving the article. If this violates Wiki policy somehow, so be it. I can't deal with the misrepresentations and misdirections of Abd and V anymore. Kirk shanahan (talk) 14:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)