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

@Hank Mills
That is very helpful and I'll answer each point so you can see where are the differences between us.
1)

Quote from Hank

No, I do not think different standards of proof are appropriate for different levels of extraordinariness. If a claim of massive excess heat is made, the standard of proof should be the same as for an ordinary commercial heat pump.

We disagree on this. If I do an experiment, and I get a highly unexpected result, I check everything. 9 times out of 10 it is an error. Of course expected results can be errors as well, but less frequently.

2)

Quote

I think modern science is at a level where a competent scientist with ordinary equipment could get an accurate measurement of a heat pumps efficiency without going to extraordinary lengths. There will always be loop holes, but the significant ones are easily and fast to eliminate. I could go to my kitchen right now, put in a glass of water, make some hot coffee, and come up with a loop hole of how the microwave didn't do the heating, but the likelihood of that being true would be .000001%.

This statement is difficult for me to agree or disagree with without quantitative details. What I can say is that if the heat I determined by heating up coffee, then it is pretty bomb-proof. There will be errors from dissipated heat but if these are not considered the only possible error is a negative one, which for a positive extraordinary results does not matter. If the errors are subtracted by using a control things get more complex, because we have to work out how the control might be different from the real case and work out from that the errors. that would be much less safe.

3)

Quote

I think that the vast majority of the time if there is intentional cheating (intentional rigging of an experiment to produce false results) it will be pretty obvious and easy to eliminate if the scientist has full access to everything he could reasonably need to examine.

Yes, well replication is an easy way to deal with cheating, and in science you can't usually tell the difference between cheating and the more common unintentional mistake, so the latter is always assumed. But without replication it is difficult to be sure any one set of results is correct because of course you are not there watching the experimenter.

4)

Quote

I think that LENR as the source of heat in these systems is in no way extraordinary of a claim anymore due to the massive amount of evidence that has been produced showing transmutations, radioactivity, particle emissions, and so fouth that indicate fusion and other nuclear reactions can take place at lower temperatures than what is commonly accepted. However, even if I went back in time and had no such evidence, massive continual heat production from a small sample of material would indicate the heat source was likely nuclear. Although possible, other exotic sources would be less likely -- lets say tapping into neutrino emissions from the sun.

Well we must disagree about this. The argument for why LENR is so unexpected is complex and can't be summarised in a sound bite. That is, it can, but it can equally be contradicted in a sound bite and to determine what is what you need a much deeper analysis. So I don't expect agreement. There is another argument for why the wide variety of independent but incoherent positives do not add together to make a more certain positive (as they normally would). That is quite subtle, but I've stated it here before. I'm not sure anyone else was interested but it is to me a highly interesting meta-argument.

At some point though, one must consider the value of preponderance. So let us continue gathering data.

Quote from BobH

At some point though, one must consider the value of preponderance. So let us continue gathering data.

My point was that it can be considered now, but that consideration is more complex and subtle than you might at first think. There was a thread here on it and it is a fascinating subject which should be reprised if anyone wanted seriously to consider it.

From the updated version, it looks like there is some secrecy going on here, which will stop any further replications and will keep this under darkness like many more interesting but secret lenr experiments.
I was also interested in knowing the answer to below question, but I guess it was lost in translation:

Q: In the experiment with the fuel, were the temperatures controlled by the PID?
Why were the temperatures not at controlled values?
A: In the fueled experiment, the temperature was controlled by the PID controller .

Quote from Shane D.

Well, we have been waiting for 5 1/2 years -9 if you count from when he first made his "extraordinary claim" in 2007, and we are still waiting for that happy customer Rossi!

This kind of pattern can go on for decades, as seen with Mills and Brilliant Light Power (formerly Blacklight Power). Investors and spectators who are willing to debate strongly on behalf of the experiments and theory have followed the story with interest the whole time as well, including one or two whose knowledge of physics I respect. What I am gradually learning is that among people, especially in a population as large as that on the Internet, there is great variance in how they go about thinking and reasoning through claims that are presented to them. There is little hope of getting everyone on a forum like this onto the same page by trying to reason with them.

By this I don't mean to suggest that debate is necessarily unproductive; it can often be interesting and useful for the audience, by drawing out and highlighting different points of view.

Quote from AlainCo

one point to add about "extrordinary" question, is that doubt should push to more investigation, not less.

There are several reasons to require "extraordinary" proof for LENR:
1 Possible conflicts with accepted physics
2 Extremely important and interesting if true
3 Enormous commercial value
4 Solves the CO2 and pollution problems
5 Risk for fraud

I agree:
"Astonishing claims require extraordinary evidence" .

However good science should also include the counter argument:
"Astonishing data requires extraordinary investigation".

The first is the scientific method the second is exploration and discovery, both are important aspects of science. The first approach is generally safe to pursue to feel you are in the right and without too much criticism. The second requires the being prepared to explore of ideas that can be wrong. This takes courage. To be robust both aspects are needed and are complimentary.

I think that the fear of being labeled an eccentric or becoming an outcast has resulted in the first statement being used to prevent wider field acceptanceof the second at least for some subjects such as LENR. Fortunately that is not the case here.

Quote from Eric W

By this I don't mean to suggest that debate is necessarily unproductive; it can often be interesting and useful for the audience, by drawing out and highlighting different points of view.

Absolutely. I enjoy good debate with those who have views opposed to me, in particular. I would not be here otherwise! In the end there are often implicit assumptions or judgements which differ and result in irreconcilable views. I don't have a problem with that as long as the debate is honest. Of course, in such cases having heard the arguments, if not moved by them, I still think I am correct

Hi David, it seems someone has sorted out a translation already.

Didn't see your reply -

For future reference, I have a Chinese and a Russian (scientists) contacts that
does high-quality translations. It is not high on my priorities to translate documents I don't really understand regardless of their language so if someone wants to have it done they have to pay the costs.

The reason extraordinary degree of proof is necessary for a revolutionary departure from established science is that any application of that "modified" science is going to consume a lot of resource - human, financial, organizational. People can design a spacecraft based experiment on Mars only because the physics underlying the design tools has been verified to an extraordinary level of precision and reliability. The only way LENR is going to advance is by its protagonists trying their hardest to DISPROVE its existence.
Recently there was a lot of flurry in physics circles when there was experimental data showing that neutrinos were traveling faster than light: the pulse of neutrinos created along with gamma rays reached the detector 60 nanoseconds before the gammas. There were people ready to jump up and down and say here at last is evidence that faster than light travel is possible. But the scientific team put their entire data and error calculation on arXiv and requested scientific community to point out where there might be a fallacy. It was discovered that a fiber optic cable connector (one out of several hundred) was slightly loose. After it was tightened, the discrepancy vanished.
There may be umpteen artifacts that may produce effects that mimic excess heat. The challenge of the LENR protagonist is to show that there are no conceivable artifacts. Let me remind everybody: The failure of the Michelson-Morley experiment to detect the motion of the hypothetical ether led to suggestions of many artifacts. They went to the extent of mounting their experiment on a concrete support floating on mercury - an extreme step for today's scientists. That is the kind of dedication the LENR supporters should have to address all suggested artifacts.