On 10 September 2012 02:52, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > You do not need to satisfy people. You need to report the replicated, > peer-reviewed facts of the matter. Science is not a popularity contest. > That is true, but here cold fusion science has failed. *Correlation of excess power and helium production during D2O and H2O electrolysis using palladium cathodes* http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MilesMcorrelatio.pdf Here is one example of the good peer-reviewed paper, but where is the replication of the data? This finding about the correlation to be reliable, there should be several successful replication attempts published. But where are those? The paper is almost 20 years old. There are few, yes, but not good enough quality data and often the data is even conflicting. E.g. some studies suggest that both H and D are working. Perhaps the status of cold fusion could be better if there were better marketing of ideas. Cold fusion science is notoriously difficult and if you do not have burning will and money to commit to research it is almost impossible to reproduce the data. But as it is difficult and expensive, it is also huge liability problem, that the urge to see something may cloud the judgement. If you do not see anything, then the money is quite difficult to find. Here e.g. Miley et al. did not see anything with light water. How is that possible? Can we be sure that that they did not just assume that cold fusion should not work with light water? Because scientist are humans, science lives from replication to eliminate the erroneous human factor. —Jouni PS. Thanks Edmund for your new paper!
