"Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

Originally posted by metalshredmetal
Has anyone here pondered about the relationship of evolution & INvolution?

I can tell by your avatar you're really into it!

Involution (mathematics)

The identity map is a trivial example of an involution.

Identity map

In mathematics, an identity function, also called identity map or identity transformation, is a function that always returns the same value that was used as its argument. In terms of equations, the function is given by f(x) = x.

So, would this involution be like, the identity map that occurs when I argue with myself in the mirror, and the mirror returns the same value that I used in my argument?

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I like posting the truth.

A hit piece as I was using the term is a piece that is written with the sole purpose of making someone look bad, by cherry-picking the details. People writing them are not motivated by a search for the truth.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I asked you if this sentence somehow negated what followed and you never really answered except to post that.

Leaving out the context of a scenario does at least affect the meaning, if not totally negating what follows.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
However I don't really see your passion for truth, because I only see you questioning sources you don't like, and the sources you really should be questioning, like Bearden and Rodin, well, frankly, I don't see you questioning them.

The problem with your statement is that you assume that your opinion about who is credible trumps my searching for the truth as I know it.

The subject is actually off-topic, as the original personal attack that prompted the defensive statement was off-topic.

reply to post by Mary Rose


So Mary, you never answered my question as to whether you trusted the description of the Montauk experiment that Arb was quoting. Of all stories here on ATS, the one where a young fellow is shooting lightning bolts from his, well, let's call it a "rod", is clearly most outstanding. You just said something along the lines that weird stuff is happening in this world and beyond.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
"Swedish Skeptics Confirm 'Nuclear Process' in Tiny 4.7 kW Reactor"

From the above link:

. . . Denial was immediate. MIT and Caltech, who had been leaders in hot fusion work, immediately went to work “trying” to replicate the experiment. In just five weeks Caltech announced negative results. At a May 1st 1989 APS meeting in Baltimore, two thousand physicists gave a standing ovation to the Caltech team’s presentation. A lynch mob mentality, combined with denial, turned the exciting discovery of cold fusion into an enemy.

MIT helped set the tone by arranging a front page story in the Boston Herald on the day of the meeting with the headline, “MIT bombshell knocks fusion “breakthrough” cold.” The story was an interview with leaders of the MIT fusion lab that accused Fleischmann and Pons of fraud. The charge was later denied but tapes of the actual interview confirm what was said.

MIT further disgraced itself by altering data in its failure to replicate study. This was discovered two years later by MIT employee Eugene Mallove, who found copies of the July 10 and July 13 drafts of the paper. The July 10th version had a graph that clearly showed excess heat. In the July 13 version the graph was redrawn to show no excess heat. The atmosphere at MIT, as shown by a “Wake for Cold Fusion” party (before the data was analyzed) and t-shirts and mugs offered by the plasma fusion lab, was hardly impartial. . . .

No rebuttal?

Edit to add: The link for "negative 'results'"

Originally posted by Mary Rose
'results'"

From the above link:

McKubre at SRI International expressed his view on what happened at Caltech:

The way that Nate Lewis conducted his calorimetry was just wrong. It was amateurish and silly, actually. What he did was change his calibration every day to make sure that the excess heat was zero; he changed his calibration with the assertion that the answer is zero, so by definition he observed zero every day, even though he had to change his calibration constant to do it.

I think it was a semi legitimate thing for an ignorant and impatient man. Every day they came in, and the calorimetry was either producing positive excess heat or negative excess heat, both of which were unbelievable to Lewis, so that what they did was change the calibration constant so that it went away.[ 25]

Originally posted by Mary Rose
No rebuttal?

Didn't you see the link I posted regarding the US Navy's findings? That got a lot of attention.

I have an observation with an analogy rather than a rebuttal.

Did you hear about the finding that neutrinos travel faster than light?

I'd put that in the same bin as positive results for cold fusion. It's interesting and needs further testing and analysis to either confirm it, or find out if some kind of error was made. In both the cold fusion case and the FTL neutrino case, the verification efforts are still underway and could come out either way. The scientific community at large seems skeptical of both claims, but it looks to me like they are willing to test them further.

At least with cold fusion, there is some peer reviewed science taking place, which is far more than I can say for the efforts of Rodin or Bearden. So I find it interesting to see what will turn up in future research in the area of cold fusion, or as they like to call it now, LENR. I understand the reasons for scientist's skepticism, but I'm also trying to keep an open mind.

The best confirmation for cold fusion would be for it to go commercial and I wondered if that might happen with Rossi, but so far there's no real confirmation.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Didn't you see the link I posted regarding the US Navy's findings? That got a lot of attention.

I have an observation with an analogy rather than a rebuttal.

I'm focusing right now on allegations of fraud and what goes on at universities, etc. The lessons to be learned from history.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
The scientific community at large seems skeptical of both claims, but it looks to me like they are willing to test them further

There was a seminar at CERN quite recently where the community was supportive of the effort to further difersify and improve the measurements. I have no doubt that a few experiments will be focused on that.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Didn't you see the link I posted regarding the US Navy's findings? That got a lot of attention.

I have an observation with an analogy rather than a rebuttal.

I'm focusing right now on allegations of fraud and what goes on at universities, etc. The lessons to be learned from history.

If history can teach us any lessons, for one case of alleged fraud committed at universities there are 1000 cases of rapid fraudulent activity by the likes of Searle. Rodin actually doesn't qualify as fraud because he's clueless, and not in a good way. When one refers to Spirit and Divine Guidance all the time, they exclude themlselves from scientific discourse.

reply to post by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Mary Rose
"Swedish Skeptics Confirm 'Nuclear Process' in Tiny 4.7 kW Reactor"

From the above link:

. . . Denial was immediate. MIT and Caltech, who had been leaders in hot fusion work, immediately went to work “trying” to replicate the experiment. In just five weeks Caltech announced negative results. At a May 1st 1989 APS meeting in Baltimore, two thousand physicists gave a standing ovation to the Caltech team’s presentation. A lynch mob mentality, combined with denial, turned the exciting discovery of cold fusion into an enemy.

MIT helped set the tone by arranging a front page story in the Boston Herald on the day of the meeting with the headline, “MIT bombshell knocks fusion “breakthrough” cold.” The story was an interview with leaders of the MIT fusion lab that accused Fleischmann and Pons of fraud. The charge was later denied but tapes of the actual interview confirm what was said.

MIT further disgraced itself by altering data in its failure to replicate study. This was discovered two years later by MIT employee Eugene Mallove, who found copies of the July 10 and July 13 drafts of the paper. The July 10th version had a graph that clearly showed excess heat. In the July 13 version the graph was redrawn to show no excess heat. The atmosphere at MIT, as shown by a “Wake for Cold Fusion” party (before the data was analyzed) and t-shirts and mugs offered by the plasma fusion lab, was hardly impartial. . . .

So, are you agreeing that MIT and Caltech committed fraud when they "tried" to replicate the experiment, or are you not agreeing?

reply to post by Mary Rose


I haven't looked into that in detail, I will when time permits. In the meantime, there are multiple cases of deception already listed in this thread and pretty much beaten to death, including the titular "Rodin Vortex" nonsense.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

The July 10th version had a graph that clearly showed excess heat. In the July 13 version the graph was redrawn to show no excess heat.

So, are you agreeing that MIT and Caltech committed fraud when they "tried" to replicate the experiment, or are you not agreeing?

I'm asking to see the evidence you are citing. Where is this July 10th version and the July 13th version? I need to examine the evidence before I agree or disagree.

One thing I can say based on the evidence I've seen, is that even labs that claimed to have duplicated the test results of Pons and Fleischman, found that they were not able to do so consistently. This is well known. So the very same lab, might find excess heat in one experiment and not in another experiment. Another issue to be examined is calibration. I would also ask if you've done any research to see if Petrasso or MIT offered any kind of rebuttal to Mallove's accusations regarding the discrepancy between the July 10th and the July 13th versions?

Maybe the July 10th version was an error and the July 13th version was a correction? If you use Pons and Fleischman as a standard their paper certainly needed plenty of corrections:

Cold Fusion-History (powerpoint)

F&P’s paper was sloppy, and they even forgot to include the name of their grad student. The errata were longer than their original paper

So the original authors F&P probably made more changes to their paper than MIT did. And of course Mallove certainly seems biased. While that doesn't mean he's wrong, it does mean that I won't just take his word for what he found on these papers, I'd like to see them myself.

That's a pretty good history of cold fusion if you can follow the powerpoint, which I can for maybe 90% of it. There are a few things I don't understand though.

Here's a simpler history:

Cold fusion - hot news again?

What that shows is that from 1989 to 1992 the Navy research got mixed results. So if you dug through the Navy's test records you'd find some experiments show excess heat, and some don't. Many experimenters got mixed results. Some of the variability was tracked down to the source of paladium, but since day one this has been a difficult experiment to reproduce, so a finding of no excess heat certainly doesn't automatically imply the results were falsified. Even Pons and Fleischman had difficulty duplicating their own experimental results.

Objectors also point to the difficulty of reproducing these results. While Mosier-Boss and Szpak claim they can produce the reaction at will, other labs have struggled to reproduce consistent, if any, results using co-deposition. One researcher who has had some success is Winthrop Williams at the University of California, Berkeley, who has replicated the navy's experiment with CR-39.

Mosier-Boss and Szpak are using a deposition technique that hadn't been developed yet when MIT did their research, so it may be more consistent but as that says other labs are still having difficulty getting consistent results even with that method.

Several respected scientists at universities in the US, Europe and Asia are attempting to replicate the US navy's lab experiments. David Nagel, a physicist and research professor at George Washington University in Washington DC who has followed the cold fusion saga since its inception, reports a growing willingness by the US Department of Energy to consider funding experiments to follow up these tantalising hints.

So it looks like the US Navy has been researching cold fusion since 1989 for about 22 years now. They apparently weren't deterred by the negative findings of MIT. And others are trying to replicate the Navy's results.

Buddhasystem, you mentioned the difficulty of detecting neutrons when the Navy's results came up before. That article mentions what researchers are using as a detector:

That's where Gordon's sliver of polymer comes in. It is made of CR-39, a clear polycarbonate plastic that is commonly used to make spectacle lenses and shatter-proof windows - and which can also record the passage of subatomic particles. The neutrons, protons and alpha particles that spew from genuine nuclear reactions shatter the bonds within the polymer's molecules to leave distinctive patterns of pits and tracks that can be seen under a microscope.

If the trails form the right pattern that are consistent with the experimental setup, it sounds like it could be convincing, but apparently not everyone is convinced.

reply to post by buddhasystem


Well, then, would you agree that vortex math has nothing to do with whether or not MIT and Caltech committed fraud when they tried to replicate the experiment?

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
And of course Mallove certainly seems biased.

He was working for MIT, correct? What do you base this on?

Originally posted by Mary Rose
So, are you agreeing that MIT and Caltech committed fraud when they "tried" to replicate the experiment, or are you not agreeing?

I reviewed your link and I disagree that there is a convincing case for fraud. A person external to the experimental team (Eugene Mallove) had no idea how the draft paper was composed and what the graph represented and how. As a person who authored a few papers, I can tell that all sorts of things could have happened, and until the paper is reviewed, it's raw material. One example would be treatment of systematic errors in measurements, or maybe even statistics. Since you don't possess knowledge of basic science, I invite you to look up these concepts on the Internet.

How significant was the effect Mallove said he saw in relation to this uncertainties, whether the right graph was inserted in the draft paper -- there is just no telling what really has happened. Coming from a severely biased source such as Mallove, I don't put too much stock in his pronouncements. So claiming fraud is essentially baseless.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
And of course Mallove certainly seems biased.

He was working for MIT, correct? What do you base this on?

I agree with Arb, based on materials you can easily find on the Internet.

He was a teacher of science journalism and a fanatic of cold fusion.

reply to post by buddhasystem


While working for MIT?

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Arb,

detection of low levels of neutron radiation is indeed extremely tricky.I knew about the technique you mentioned, it's pretty old. Check this out:

Link

Apparently, this method is exceedingly tricky and prone to false positives. Scratch the surface a little and you get wrong reading. If there is a little more radon gas in the room (which is easily produced by concrete walls), this can create an elevated background and a false positive again. Quite shaky imho.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Cold Fusion-History (powerpoint)

My print-out of the cover page for this has one line of writing along the bottom edge of the paper and under "Paresh Agarwal - 22.012" that is cut off. Can you tell me what it says?

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

While working for MIT?

From Wiki:

Mallove taught science journalism at MIT and Boston University and was chief science writer at MIT's news office