Storms cites 1060 positive result studies in his book "The Science of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction" http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEthescience.pdf
On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 2:27 PM, Kevin O'Malley <[email protected]> wrote: > I see it all over the place that "hundreds of times" it's been > successfully replicated. Here, Storms says: "During the 20 years since > the original claim, hundreds of successful replications have been > published." He then goes on to look at 386 of them. > > > http://fusiontorch.com/uploads/StormsJudgingValidityOfFleischmannPonsEffect2009.pdf > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 12:53 PM, Kevin O'Malley <[email protected]>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 <[email protected]>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 >>> >>> Here there are 291 replications mentioned. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:05 PM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]>wrote: >>> >>>> Kevin O'Malley <[email protected]> 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 >>>> >>>> >>> >> >
