On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 1:35 AM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint < zeropo...@charter.net> wrote:
> JC, **** > > you used the specific wording,**** > > “…the evidence has not improved at all.” > OK, that is obviously not a statement of scientific fact, but I thought it would be clear that it represents a judgement of the evidence, and probably reflects some exasperation. Detailed qualifications of this sort of thing take much longer. I agree, it is probably not an effective way to make the case against cold fusion. I do know that there have been improvements in the calorimetry, and there have been many different types of experiments introduced. But to me, these improvements and variations have not produced a more convincing demonstration. The expected and claimed observables in cold fusion are not some subtle thing. Heat, radiation, transmutations are all dead easy to measure at ridiculously low levels. If the claims right back to 1989 had merit, some kind of unequivocal demonstration should be easy. All the claims of heat after death suggest some sort of isolated beaker that stays hot or boils without anything connected to it should be possible. But the demos do not get better, and that includes the demos of Rossi. So, to me all these improvements in calorimetry or whatever, and variations in the type of experiment, and no better demonstration represents even weaker evidence for a real phenomenon. Whereas in 1989, I suspended disbelief, along with a lot of others, and became excited about the possibility of clean energy, to me the likelihood of a real effect is becoming ever smaller. ** NASA has confirmed the excess heat to their satisfaction… > I know NASA is interested in cold fusion, but I was not aware of any report of their own experimental results. Can you give the reference for this? > **** > > **2) **Knowledge about what criteria must be met to get successful > results has definitely come out of the research. > Claims that the criteria are worked out go back to the early 90s (McKubre e.g.). > **** > > **3) **Due to #2, repeatability has most definitely improved since > F&P’s work; some labs have reported better than 80% repeatability. > The problem is that repeatability in this field is not the same as repeatability in other fields. In most of science, it means getting the same or consistent results within margins of error in any laboratory. In cold fusion, it just means getting the same sign of the result with the same apparatus. McKubre has said that no one has achieved quantitative reproducibility in cold fusion, and no one has achieved interlab reproducibility without the exchange of personnel. Consider Energetics. They claim more than 70% reproducibility, and they also claim a COP of 25 and power of 20 W, and they claim a watt or so without input for several days. The latter would be particularly easy to demonstrate unequivocally by just putting the activated foil in an isolated thermos and watching the temperature. And yet, when they were featured on 60 minutes, the best they could demonstrate was someone doing calculations in a notebook. And in spite of their claim of 70% reproducibility, they have not reproduced their 2004 results.
