Ed: I love your books. I'm dealing with PTSIFOM skeptopaths who wouldn't read a LENR book unless they knew $10 bills would fall out of each page.
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 1:17 PM, Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com>wrote: > 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 >>> >>> >> > >
