Xian Zhang Hang : nickel-hydrogen cold fusion experiment now quite reproducible

Quote from AlainCo

Is it a good advice to ask replicators to recalibrate all after an experiment ?

A post-run calibration should be de rigour, in my opinion as an observer in the peanut gallery, especially when thermocouples are involved.

Yes, misunderstandings are frequent. I am trying to keep true to what was asked and answered even if there was some misunderstanding.

Quote

The goal of a scientist here will not be to "improve COP," it will actually be to show that there is no unexpected heat, by demonstrating artifact through controlled experiment. Then ... if that effort, diligently pursued, fails .... then we have something to publish! And especially all the efforts to disconfirm! By this time, the experiment is understood well enough that one can describe all the details so that someone else can confirm or disconfirm.

Quote from Hank

With such a level of output, we do not need the type of testing you propose to prove the reality of the effect beyond any doubt whatsoever.

If Hank were correct then reproducible rigorous experiments would be easier to construct, but you still need the same methodology, which is to consider every possible mundane explanation of the results and eliminate it.

It is ironic perhaps, but the refrain from some here that too much skepticism is killing LENR science is quite wrong. Skepticism from the experimenters themselves, or others, both in suggesting possible holes in their experiments (which would then represent future work to be done) and in designing experiments which in the first place are robust, is what is needed in LENR science. And if that happens true replication is meaningful and can move the work onwards by plugging existing holes without changing methodology in a way that makes the original work identifying and reducing errors useless.

Quote

However, the problem is that skeptics demand extraordinary evidence of extraordinary claims. When, in reality, such claims should not require extraordinary evidence -- only what is needed for any mundane claim.

Why?

Quote from Hank Mills

The problem is that skeptics require too great a degree of proof. I am all for removing obvious, significant issues in tests. However, the problem is that skeptics demand extraordinary evidence of extraordinary claims. When, in reality, such claims should not require extraordinary evidence -- only what is needed for any mundane claim. For example, if I said an ordinary heat pump could produce a COP of 2 it would no take a thousand different tests eliminating every single loop hole. However, if I claim a cold fusion device is producing a COP of 2, skeptics will create a thousand different problems and demand every one of them be ruled out.

I see myself as being in the middle of the spectrum with pathological skeptics on one end and totally gullible individuals who believe every single claim with no evidence on the other end.

What are you saying? This is not the fifth 2⁺ level in ⁶²Ni. This is LENR which would turn physics upside down? Of course we have the right to demand extraordinary evidence! A heat pump with COP 2 is well understood and expected (actually not very good). LENR requires several bypasses of established physics, and we physicists are a bit prickly when it comes to laws of physics and established experimental results. The problem is also that in some cases (no names, but you know who) the experiments are not optimized to prove the effect but to make your gullible individuals believe.

Quote from Hank Mills

If someone offered to sell me a hot water heater that used an unknown source of energy vs. a conventional heat pump of the same alleged COP, water flow, temperature range, and so fourth I wouldn't need to test one of the devices any more than the other. The significance of the claim doesn't impact the extent of the testing that is required.

Suppose the unknown source gave you a lethal dose of radiation? What would you say then? Not much!

Quote

If someone offered to sell me a hot water heater that used an unknown source of energy vs. a conventional heat pump of the same alleged COP, water flow, temperature range, and so fourth I wouldn't need to test one of the devices any more than the other. The significance of the claim doesn't impact the extent of the testing that is required.

If somone offered you a pill guaranteed to extend your life by 40 years you might look more closely at the guarantee than for a pill offering pain relieff?

Similarly if somone offers a heater which claims to emit 10X the power you put into it, much better than any heat pump, and there is no clear evidence it works, you might well think if it seems to good to be true it is probably not true.

Of course if somone has a real miracle pill, or miracle heater, they can quickly get it properly independent tested and sales will follow.

The world is full of people hawking claimed wonder inventions. The more extreme the claimed benefits the more you should be cautious unless there is strong proof - because anything so good will naturally obtain (easily) very strong proof.

Rossi's proof is not even at a level that would satisfy you if he was selling an electric bicycle!

@Keieueue

That was Peter not me.

Quote from jpav

Are we truly heading for a technological Tsunami?

We've been in one since the late 1800s. But yes, if LENR+ is safe and real (particularly with COP above 6), then we are in for one giant technological awakening. Nearly everything can be re-engineered with LENR+ in mind. The world would be unrecognizable with 2016 eyes in say, 2030.

Quote from Hank Mills

And, by the way, I'm for good and strong proof. I just don't like those scientists who call for extraordinary proof. All scientific work should be performed competently and with a mindset to eliminate loop holes. But the hardcore skeptics take the burden of evidence to the extreme.

You obviously don't like Carl Sagan then. And I'm sick of meaningless references to Edison and the Wright brothers. If there are no loopholes, there is no problem. The problem is there usually are loopholes as evidenced by Thomas, Krivit and many others. And it is through review of published work progress is made.

Quote

Now, if I'm making the claim of a specific nuclear reaction, I'd have to show transmutation products, radiation, or some other sort of evidence to back up that specific claim. But if I say that my device "A" can produce "X" amount of energy over a period of lets say a month (when no known chemical reaction could supply a thousandth of that energy) and I demonstrate the effect utilizing "good" calorimetry while ruling out obvious cheats (showing there are no hidden wires, proving my thermocouples are reading appropriately, using only DC power for the input which is easier to measure, etc) then I am no obligation to provide more "extraordinary" evidence of an anomalous source of energy. The technology will have proven to work. The idea that someone with an exotic claim has to go through hoops and all sorts of rigorous testing to prove his technology works is simply emotionally based.

Hank. I'm not wanting to go round in circles over this. Obviously you and I have different views: mine would align with Peter's and I think also Abd's.

But I'd like to try to get at the implicit assumptions that allow you and I to reach different views on this matter.

We could break it down into:

(1) Do you think different standards of proof are appropriate for different levels of initial likelihood or "extraordinariness".

(2) Do you think what you describe - standard calorimetry with no cheating - provides very high integrity? Or medium integrity? or what? For me, I'd need to know more about the error analysis for the calorimetry and how complete it was and how far away from possible errors were the results before giving any answer at all. Perhaps we might need to discuss a few examples.

(3) Do you dismiss cheating because in most cases it will be more extraordinary than anything else? Or just to simplify the argument.

(4) Do you think that hypothesing LENR as a heat source in these experiments is extraordinary? And if so how extraordinary?

These seem to me to be the three (number (3) is sort of a side issue) issues all of which matter and about which we might have differing views.

Quote

@thomas: I think integrity is non gradable. Its more of a 1/0 - boolean thing.

Like being pregnant.

But since we none of us are God, and the human mind is mysterious, we can only assign a probability to whether or not another person will behave with integrity in any specific situation. That is made more difficult often because we don't know what circumstances and pressures they operate under. It is beyond me to work these things out so I assume everyone is honest till proven otherwise but that is not true!

The extraordinariness of the proof required may be moot - but what WOULD be required is something in the way of a theory that would account for these things

So far as reasonable proof goes, it counts heavily against Rossi that he has consistently failed to design and execute trials that would meet routine engineering and scientific standards of acceptable data - and, apparently got on his high horse with those who suggest suitable methods of acquiring such data.