Alan Fletcher <a...@well.com> wrote:
> 1. There is anomalous heat generation in most experiments which follow the > "Craven and Letts" (and/or Storms) criteria > The definition of "success rate" in these experiments is fuzzy. Ed stated with 90 cathodes. He tested them and identified 4 that met all of his criteria. These 4 worked robustly, and repeatedly. So, is that a 5% success rate, starting from the 90 cathodes? Or is it a 100% success rate, with the 4 good ones? Along the same lines, when Bockris looked for tritium in 100 cells at a time, I think he always found a few that produced it. I think he told me 10 to 30 of them worked. So is that a 10% success rate, or a 100% success rate looking at the whole batch? I think the question is meaningless. If one-tenth of your grass seeds germinate no one would claim that proves grass does not grow. I like the success rate for the top quark. 1 in 10E16 collisions, seen maybe twice at only one laboratory, and never independently replicated. The people doing experiments like that criticize *us* for doing irreproducible science! That's chutzpah, that is. - Jed
