10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)
ps. just been reading through wiki [quote = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre-Simon_Laplace - via Sagan]...- This idea originated with Pierre-Simon Laplace (1749–1827), a French mathematician and astronomer who said, "The weight of evidence for an extraordinary claim must be proportioned to its strangeness."[57][/quote]
I don't know if he's been slandered, but he has been known to "revise" slides, adding or adjusting data points and this is well documented. There also appears to be a disagreement between him and his former team over what was done during some of his experimentation in the past. That of course speaks nothing to his new paper or it's body of work. I remain optimistically cautious either way.GIThruster wrote:McKubre has been slandered pretty badly but I'm not aware of any fair critique done. Perhaps instead of looking for an excuse to ignore the paper you'd want to consider it. Else what is the point of threads like this?rcain wrote:ps. re: Brillouin Energy Corp - am i right in recalling, they/their work has been pretty heavily discredited (or should i say 'critiqued') on this very board, some years ago?
very naughty indeed. one has to wonder, if he is capable of that, what else is he 'capable' of.ScottL wrote:...I don't know if he's been slandered, but he has been known to "revise" slides, adding or adjusting data points and this is well documented. ...
about LENR generally, likewise.ScottL wrote:... optimistically cautious...
Brillouin/McKubre ... not so much.... (as Borat might say).
Here is whar "the snake" has to say about McKubre.
On the one hand Krivit's case is well made.
On the other McKubre writes decent scientific papers, which for some weird reason few of the LENR lot do.
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/McKubre ... t-M4.shtml
On the one hand Krivit's case is well made.
On the other McKubre writes decent scientific papers, which for some weird reason few of the LENR lot do.
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/McKubre ... t-M4.shtml
the exchanges make very interesting reading. after reading them i must admit i am more inclined to believe McKubre' scientific intentions are sincere; for example he strenuously denies the data fudging issue. from what i see he has elected to leave the publication in question in the open, unaltered.tomclarke wrote:Here is whar "the snake" has to say about McKubre.
On the one hand Krivit's case is well made.
On the other McKubre writes decent scientific papers, which for some weird reason few of the LENR lot do.
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/McKubre ... t-M4.shtml
but, i like krivit's style, more often than not. and i haven't yet read what he had to say. might take me a while.
ps. just read (& watched) Krivits (v McKubre):
maybe Krivits smelled a rat where there is none? i don't know. maybe there is a rat there somewhere.
McKubre's reputation seems pretty good (apart from this 'accusation'). i suspect, but dont know, that Krivit's is reading too much into it, and in the wrong way. maybe he just got too jaded with all the real snakes.
maybe McKubre did go temporarily off the rails.
how important is M4 in particular. other evidence (if there is any) should be enough without it. if in doubt, repeat it.
who knows.
what do you think. Tom?
maybe Krivits smelled a rat where there is none? i don't know. maybe there is a rat there somewhere.
McKubre's reputation seems pretty good (apart from this 'accusation'). i suspect, but dont know, that Krivit's is reading too much into it, and in the wrong way. maybe he just got too jaded with all the real snakes.
maybe McKubre did go temporarily off the rails.
how important is M4 in particular. other evidence (if there is any) should be enough without it. if in doubt, repeat it.
who knows.
what do you think. Tom?
-
- Posts: 4686
- Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm
The link to the doc "To Whom It May Concern" from Dec, 2011 is particularly damning. It's a pretty concise explanation of Krevit's complaints. I don't know why someone with no science background like Krevit felt he needed to do this analysis but sans a response by McKubre, it's a pretty potent complaint.
I don't think every scientist owes every person who comes along an explanation but Krevit has been selling himself as a Journalist for years, and to not answer him on these charges seems to defy common sense. Doesn't look good.
I don't think every scientist owes every person who comes along an explanation but Krevit has been selling himself as a Journalist for years, and to not answer him on these charges seems to defy common sense. Doesn't look good.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis
That's a totally different response from you than the one you gave me when I gave you that link originally. Suffice to say I agree with this response.GIThruster wrote:The link to the doc "To Whom It May Concern" from Dec, 2011 is particularly damning. It's a pretty concise explanation of Krevit's complaints. I don't know why someone with no science background like Krevit felt he needed to do this analysis but sans a response by McKubre, it's a pretty potent complaint.
I don't think every scientist owes every person who comes along an explanation but Krevit has been selling himself as a Journalist for years, and to not answer him on these charges seems to defy common sense. Doesn't look good.
-
- Posts: 4686
- Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm
Yes well, I admit it. I missed this when we had the discussion back in the plasma engine thread.
Too many times I have seen accomplished scientists dissed simply because they'r involved in what others consider "fringe". I personally think the ZPF/QVF stuff is nonsense, but I still respect Dr. White's right to work on it along with many other distinguished folks. Calling something "crackpot" just because the majority is not looking at it is just being lazy.
This however is something different. Krevit has documented some serious charges. Anyone in academia guilty of the things Krevit is charging here would be dismissed in a heartbeat. Very serious. McKubre's only response that I've seen is to note Krevit hasn't got the normal skill set to critique the situation but so far as I can see, he has.
Too many times I have seen accomplished scientists dissed simply because they'r involved in what others consider "fringe". I personally think the ZPF/QVF stuff is nonsense, but I still respect Dr. White's right to work on it along with many other distinguished folks. Calling something "crackpot" just because the majority is not looking at it is just being lazy.
This however is something different. Krevit has documented some serious charges. Anyone in academia guilty of the things Krevit is charging here would be dismissed in a heartbeat. Very serious. McKubre's only response that I've seen is to note Krevit hasn't got the normal skill set to critique the situation but so far as I can see, he has.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis
true. but i defy you or anyone else to look that far back (17ys) and accurately recall all the why's and wherefores of some 'obscure' experiment and the all the reporting and correction and who did what.GIThruster wrote:The link to the doc "To Whom It May Concern" from Dec, 2011 is particularly damning. It's a pretty concise explanation of Krevit's complaints. I don't know why someone with no science background like Krevit felt he needed to do this analysis but sans a response by McKubre, it's a pretty potent complaint.
I don't think every scientist owes every person who comes along an explanation but Krevit has been selling himself as a Journalist for years, and to not answer him on these charges seems to defy common sense. Doesn't look good.
though true also such discrepancy seems 'uncharacteristic of McKubre. i think he hopes it/Krivit will just go away.
he doesn't seem prepared (yet) to withdraw the paper - which would seem to be the 'honest' thing to do given there is some 'doubt' about its authenticity or accuracy, from several different quarters, with no apparent vested interest in seeing him wronged.
rather that, than let his otherwise good reputation risk tarnish.
I'm just not sure. On balance, I don't think McK was dishonest, I do think he was careless and put data together in a way that suited his theory without checking properly.rcain wrote:ps. just read (& watched) Krivits (v McKubre):
maybe Krivits smelled a rat where there is none? i don't know. maybe there is a rat there somewhere.
McKubre's reputation seems pretty good (apart from this 'accusation'). i suspect, but dont know, that Krivit's is reading too much into it, and in the wrong way. maybe he just got too jaded with all the real snakes.
maybe McKubre did go temporarily off the rails.
how important is M4 in particular. other evidence (if there is any) should be enough without it. if in doubt, repeat it.
who knows.
what do you think. Tom?
The M4 stuff was considered important because it gave a fairly precise quantitative relationship between energy output and He4 fusion ash as predicted by theory (24MeV/He4). Obviously it true this is the smoking gun for D+D fusion. (I may have misremembered the precise reaction product, but it was something like that. Somone can correct me if wrong).
My skepticism about LENR is precisely because such cross-checks which are predicted by theory don't seem to be observable. If these (original claimed) results were strong and repeatable they would be important. Especially for the traditional CF people who believe we have D/D fusion going on.
Ok, "the snakes's" slideshow of his research & McKubre's replies makes interesting reading:
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2010/ ... t-Enuf.pdf
My judgement? This data, and the claimed strong (5% error) quantitative correlation between predicted and observed He4 is all wrong.
I reckon this is what happens when you have complex data, and a theory, and a strong motivation to see your data fit the theory. It is not good, but nor is it exactly dishonest. Just wishful thinking write large.
Also - McKubre is an excellent experimentalist. Yet even his data has this uncertainty with later interpretation to make it fit theory.
It bears out what I have said here: be very cautious before you believe positive experimental results. There are so many causes of experimental error, assumptions made, etc. And the data that gets aired is almost invariably that which is positive. The whole gamut of LENR experiments are not a decent cross-section of what is possible. They are experiments evolutionarily optimised for positive results. Whether what is being optimised is a variable extraordinary LENR reaction, or a set of experimental errors, is not clear.
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2010/ ... t-Enuf.pdf
My judgement? This data, and the claimed strong (5% error) quantitative correlation between predicted and observed He4 is all wrong.
I reckon this is what happens when you have complex data, and a theory, and a strong motivation to see your data fit the theory. It is not good, but nor is it exactly dishonest. Just wishful thinking write large.
Also - McKubre is an excellent experimentalist. Yet even his data has this uncertainty with later interpretation to make it fit theory.
It bears out what I have said here: be very cautious before you believe positive experimental results. There are so many causes of experimental error, assumptions made, etc. And the data that gets aired is almost invariably that which is positive. The whole gamut of LENR experiments are not a decent cross-section of what is possible. They are experiments evolutionarily optimised for positive results. Whether what is being optimised is a variable extraordinary LENR reaction, or a set of experimental errors, is not clear.
hmmm. without checking properly. is one thing.tomclarke wrote:...I'm just not sure. On balance, I don't think McK was dishonest, I do think he was careless and put data together in a way that suited his theory without checking properly...
suiting his own (/his master's) theory is another.
is it really possible to do that 'inadvertently'?
i mean 'technically inadvertently' perhaps - getting a variable/data point mixed up, choosing a 'preferential' baseline, something.
but 'deliberately 'skewing' your results or 'misrepresenting' your analysis, conclusions, whatever - that must take a pretty warped (or disfunctional) mind. but then again if you knew that, and it was out of character, you might think you'd get away with it once or twice.
but i can see no reason to believe that of him.
thanks. that clarifies.tomclarke wrote: The M4 stuff was considered important because it gave a fairly precise quantitative relationship between energy output and He4 fusion ash as predicted by theory (24MeV/He4). Obviously it true this is the smoking gun for D+D fusion. (I may have misremembered the precise reaction product, but it was something like that. Somone can correct me if wrong).
indeed. it's extremely frustrating.tomclarke wrote: My skepticism about LENR is precisely because such cross-checks which are predicted by theory don't seem to be observable. If these (original claimed) results were strong and repeatable they would be important. Especially for the traditional CF people who believe we have D/D fusion going on.
Krivits has also written quite well about the particular problems of 'faint/uncertain signals' and 'repeatability' in (esp. LENR) experimental data.
right. that's it then. it's all over for McK.tomclarke wrote:...My judgement? This data, and the claimed strong (5% error) quantitative correlation between predicted and observed He4 is all wrong.
as i suggested above: in reality, in his head, its either one way or the other, not both/neither - either 'unconscious/Freudian slip', or 'a lie to the world; (and possibly himself). Either way it seems to me we cannot let it (or that paper at least) pass.tomclarke wrote:.
I reckon this is what happens when you have complex data, and a theory, and a strong motivation to see your data fit the theory. It is not good, but nor is it exactly dishonest. Just wishful thinking write large.
ah. the old hidden variable paradox.tomclarke wrote:...They are experiments evolutionarily optimised for positive results. Whether what is being optimised is a variable extraordinary LENR reaction, or a set of experimental errors, is not clear.
i could probably live with that. were it not for all the BULLSHITTERS out there clouding the issues. We did not/do not really want McK to be added to that list I think. (though Krivits seems intent on putting him there and leaving him. Shame. They used to be good friends I understand).
-
- Posts: 183
- Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 3:12 am