Michel Jullian wrote:
Cold fusion, bubble fusion and new energy at large would undoubtedly benefit from any measure helping the valid claims to emerge out of the erroneous ones(*).
It is hard to imagine claims more valid than the ones already published.
Such a useful measure IMHO would be a universally recognized reference lab . . .
There is no such thing as a universally recognized lab. Researchers at many of the world's best laboratories, such as Los Alamos, China Lake and Mitsubishi, published data proving that cold fusion is real. Unfortunately this data did not persuade many people. Most people have not looked at the data, and the hard-core skeptics who reject it will not be convinced by anything less than a commercially successful cold fusion powered device.
for energy efficiency measurements, manned by highly skilled people collectively competent in _all_ types of energy measurements and calculations, more so than any individual experimenter can be expected to be.
As they said in ancient Rome, Quis Custodiet ipsos custodes? (Who shall guard the guards?) I do not think any researcher in the world is qualified to second-guess people such as Mike McKubre, John Bockris, Edmund Storms, Melvin Miles, Richard Oriani, Robert Huggins, or for that matter Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons. These people are the best of the best. They are world class experts who literally wrote the textbooks on modern electrochemistry.
If a self-appointed group of experts is not able to produce excess heat, that only proves they are not experts. It does not cast doubt on experiments replicated by people such as McKubre or Bockris. Nothing can cast doubt on these results; they are real by definition. In science "replicated" means "real." There is no other standard.
You cannot go on doubting or questioning experimental results forever. You have to draw the line somewhere. When a result has been measured 5 or 10 times at high s/n ratios, I say it is time to accept it, and move on. To argue with results that has been replicated hundreds of times is madness. When you do this, you abandon the scientific method. No fact can ever be established, and no debate ever settled.
Such a "COP cop" would host the experimenters and their experiments for as long as poor reproducibility would make it necessary, and would verify the claims without any preconceived idea.
The claims are already verified. The only thing this lab would verify would be the skill of the researchers trying to replicate, as I said. However, if anyone wants to open a lab to do CF experiments, I would support them. There is plenty of work to be done, especially in improving reproducibility, as noted. Unfortunately, there is no money to support such a lab.
It would use appropriate and rigorous protocols, with the help and participation of the experimenters and the skeptics alike to guarantee objectivity.
"Skeptics" have proven themselves incapable of objectivity. Anyone who has read the cold fusion literature carefully and is not convinced not objective, not a scientist, and not rational. (At least, not with regard to this subject.) That is like studying physics and doubting Newton's laws, or studying biology and not being convinced that evolution occurred. To reject cold fusion you must first reject chemistry and thermodynamics going back to the mid-19th century.
Of course there many badly done or invalid experiments in the literature, but an expert can identify them without Official Approval or Guidance from a COP cop.
Facts are facts. There is no rational basis to doubt that cold fusion exists. The only people qualified to judge the experiments, replicate them, or improve on them are people who understand how calorimeters and thermodynamics work. The skeptics do not understand these issues, so they disqualify themselves. I suggest you ignore them.
- Jed
