I wrote:
> In Storms' book I think there are 180 positive excess heat studies. Each > one typically reflects several excess heat events. A few were based on > dozens of events. > Note that the number of failed tests within a study is not relevant. If anything, some failed tests should give us confidence that the researcher knows what he is doing, since he recognizes a failure. Some people have lately been wondering if Celani knows a dead cell when he sees one, based on the null results at the MFMP. Null results in some fields far exceed positive results. Beaudette pointed to the early experiments cloning mammals. He said it took about 1000 attempts for one success. I have pointed to the number of collisions required to detect a few examples of the top quark. I believe the tests ran for about a year and there were billions of collisions per second. That is a very small success ratio but no one claims the top quark does not exist for that reason. It is ironic that some people in high-energy physics have demanded a higher success rate from cold fusion, and they have condemned it because they claim it is based on statistical proof of existence. That is not the case. Their own research is often based on statistics. Some skeptics claim that a low success rate or an effect that is difficult to replicate should thereby be considered pathological science. As I said, this would expand the definition of pathological science. Langmuir never said anything like this. Again, ironically, many of the people who demand an easy replication also go around bragging how difficult their own field of science is and how much expertise it requires. - Jed
