Kevin, if you read my book (The science of low energy nuclear reaction), you will find the data set on which this paper was based.
Ed Storms On Mar 10, 2014, at 1:53 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote: > Cravens & Letts reviewed 167 papers and came up with 4 criteria that > correlate excess heat. > > http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/NagelDJproceeding.pdf > > > Page 71 > The Enabling Criteria of Electrochemical Heat: Beyond > Reasonable Doubt > Dennis Cravens > 1 > and Dennis Letts > 2 > 1 > Amridge University Box 1317 > Cloudcroft, NM 88317 USA > 2 > 12015 Ladrido Lane > Austin, TX 78727 USA > Abstract > One hundred sixty seven papers from 1989 to 2007 concerning the generation of > heat from electrochemical cells were collected, listed, and digitally posted > to a > CD for reference, review and study. A review showed four criteria that were > correlated to reports of successful experiments attempting replication of the > Fleischmann-Pons effect. All published negative results can be traced to > researchers not fulfilling one or more of these conditions. Statistical and > Bayesian studies show that observation of the Fleischmann-Pons effect is > correlated with the criteria and that production of “excess heat” is a real > physical > effect “beyond a reasonable doubt. > > > On Sat, Mar 8, 2014 at 8:38 PM, Kevin O'Malley <kevmol...@gmail.com> wrote: > > How many times has the Pons-Fleischmann Anomalous Heat Effect (PFAHE) been > replicated? > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Ed Storms says that there are 153 peer reviewed papers that replicate the > Pons-Fleischmann Anomalous Heat Effect (PFAHE). > http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Cold_fusion > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Jed Rothwell says: > Excess heat has been demonstrated at Sigma 90 and above, and the effect has > been replicated hundreds of times. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3ACold_fusion/Archive_4 > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > JT He of the Chinese Academy of Sciences says 14,720 times > https://springerlink3.metapress.com/content/8k5n17605m135n22/resource-secured/?target=fulltext.pdf&sid=xwvgza45j4sqpe3wceul4dv2&sh=www.springerlink.com > . > Jing-tang He > • Nuclear fusion inside condense matters > • Frontiers of Physics in China > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > National Instruments looked at 180 replications, citing a University of Texas > Austin Thesis which I cannot find. > > An independent thesis research at the University of Texas at Austin found > that from 1989 to 2010 more than 180 experiments around the world reported > anomalous high production of excess heat in Pd-D or Ni-H. > http://www.22passi.it/downloads/eu_brussels_june_20_2012_concezzi.pdf > Conclusion > • THERE IS AN UNKNOWN PHYSICAL EVENT and there is a need of better > measurements and control tools. > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJtallyofcol.pdf > > This file is corrupted. At least for me... > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:05 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote: > Kevin O'Malley <kevmol...@gmail.com> wrote: > > How many replications does it take for a rational scientist to accept the > finding? It used to be just 2 or 3, but in this field it seems to be > hundreds or thousands. > > I think for most claims it used to be five or 10 good replications. It > depends on many factors such as the signal-to-noise ratio, the complexity of > the instruments, the extent to which the results call for new and difficult > techniques, and so on. It was difficult to believe polywater claims because > in every case the instruments were operating at the extreme limits of their > capabilities. It is much easier to believe the claim that a mammal has been > cloned because you can look at the baby and see it is a twin of the parent, > and you can test the DNA. > > In the case of cold fusion, the experiment is very difficult to replicate, > but the results are easy to understand. The first tier of people to replicate > were the crème de la crème of electrochemistry. I mean people who now have > laboratories named after them such as Ernest Yeager, and people who should > have laboratories named after them such as John Bockris. Also Miles, Mizuno, > McKubre, Kunimatsu, Appleby, Will, Okamoto, Huggins and so on. > > The first ~100 replications came in from a veritable Who's Who of > electrochemistry. Just about every top electrochemist in the world replicated > within a year or so. They were all certain the results were real. Anyone who > does not believe that kind of thing, from this kind of people, does not > understand experimental science. > > Over in the Forbes comment section Gibbs referred to these people as "the > LENR community." It would be more accurate to call them "every major academic > electrochemist on earth." That puts it in a different perspective. > > The problem with skeptics is not that they don't believe these results. Or > that they have found problems with the results. The problem is they have zero > knowledge of this subject. They have never read any papers and they never > heard of Yeager or Will or anyone else. They think there are no papers! They > would not know a flow calorimeter if it bit them on the butt. People who are > completely ignorant of a subject have no right to any opinion about it. > > A few skeptics such as Cude have looked at results, but they have strange > notions about them. Cude thinks these graphs show only random results with no > meaning or pattern: > > http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/McKubre-graph-1.jpg > > http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/McKubre-graph-2.jpg > > This is sort of the opposite of a Rorschach test. Cude looks at an ordered > set of data that constitutes irrefutable proof of a control parameter, but he > sees only random noise. > > > Kevin: Most people still assume it's wrong. > > Jed: Those people are irrational. You should discount their views. > ***Unfortunately, that includes the great majority of people. I would guess > that 95% of the population (who had an opinion) thought the Wright brothers > were frauds until they finally had some money on the table & IP protection . > . . > > That is true, but that is human nature. The Wright brothers and others > managed to succeed despite these problems, so perhaps we will succeed now. > The world has not grown more irrational. > > > Perhaps 90% of people who have an opinion on LENR think it's a pathological > science, on the same level as flat earthers, unicorn admirers, and perpetual > motion devices. > > That may be true, although you would have to conduct a public opinion survey > to confirm it. However, such opinions are not based on knowledge or > rationality so we cannot change them. There is no point to worrying about > them. We should concentrate on people such as the readers at LENR-CANR.org. > We should ignore people who will not do their homework. > > We only need a small number of supporters to win this fight. The thing is, we > need people who have lots of money. Barrels of money. And guts. If we could > win over Bill Gates I would not care if anyone else in the world believes the > results. He alone would be enough. > > I do not think there is any chance of convincing Gates, by the way. He would > not listen to Arthur Clarke so I doubt he will listen to anyone else. > > - Jed > > >
