Joshua Cude managed to dismantle the claim of 14,720 replications. http://ecatnews.com/?p=2669&cpage=14#comment-76884
popeye Reply <http://ecatnews.com/?p=2669&cpage=14&replytocom=76873#respond> December 15, 2014 at 4:43 pm Kevmo wrote: JT He of the Chinese Academy of Sciences says 14,720 times… Your link for this doesn’t work, but I found the article (Front. Phys. China (2007) 1: 96―102 ). And in it is given a table claiming 14,720 as an “estimated number of experiments performed”. Not positive results, let alone replications of anything specified. Based on the estimated reproducibility, at best half are even positive, but for what is anyone’s guess. He gives absolutely no background on how these results were estimated, or what the criteria were for a “performed experiment”. No sources whatsoever. It’s sloppy and unprofessional. So, I googled a little, and found Krivit’s 2004 cold fusion report ( newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2004/2004Krivit-The2004ColdFusionReport.pdf). In it he gives the identical table 3 years earlier. So, not only is JT He sloppy, he’s a plagiarist. There is no reference to Krivit in his paper. Krivit only gives a little more information. The table is based on 10 responses to an email survey of unnamed cold fusion researchers. It’s a joke! Ten people make a wild guess at number of experiments performed, without defining what is meant by that. If they turn the power off and on, is that a new experiment? And, like I said, these are not positive results, let alone replications of the FP effect. The number certainly isn’t based on anything like formal reports, let alone refereed reports, and none at all are identified. This appears to be the sort of lame evidence that cold fusion true believers use to build up their confidence. Sad. Kevmo <http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg90306.html> Reply <http://ecatnews.com/?p=2669&cpage=14&replytocom=76884#respond> December 15, 2014 at 6:31 pm Well, Popeye/Joshua Cude, you did some good work chasing down this report by Krivit. Since I no longer have JT He’s report and am not inclined to pay for it again, I’m going to accept that you found the same information outside of the paywall. I doubt that the number 14,720 is a coincidence. Krivit’s aim on that page seems to be showing that reproducibility went from 45% to 83% across a total of 14,720 experiments. If you take the lower figure and apply 45% of 14720 experiments it would be more than 6600 reproduced AHE experiments. But it doesn’t give 14,720 replications, so I am mistaken and will not be using that number reference any more. A rational person would ask how many times has the AHE been replicated. I’ll be using the figure from Ed Storms, 1070 times. http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEthescience.pdf Joshua can try to knock that number down all he wants. I’ll be updating my replications thread. http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg91647.html
