How many times has the Pons-Fleischmann Anomalous Heating Event been replicated in peer reviewed journals?

  • Proves either a) you don't read, or b) your reading comprehension is near 0.

    False dichotomy, a logical fallacy. There is the very distinct and prevailing possibility that your theory isn't worth pursuing, among other possibilities. Your reading comprehension seems pretty low as well, since the mods posted that they PM'd you to stick to your own thread when it comes to your theory yet you continually try to derail this thread.

  • If the true calibration equation in the lab is P = 17 X + 5, and I sit at my writing desk and say the magic HATER* elf has possibly altered it to P = 187 X - 5436. That's a hypothesis. Fact.


    *:)

    If the true calibration equation in the lab is P = 17 X + 5 and you use P = 16.5X + 4.5 and show why, it probably isn't an error and the exercise in hyperbole is shown to be the bullshit it is.

  • The P-F effect has been replicated in at least 153 peer reviewed publications by the top hundred electrochemists of their day.


    Keep saying it Kev, maybe someday, if you say it enough, it will become true.


    rightfully rejected by the top electrochemists


    No, not rightfully. Fallaciously. Also, point of interest, out of the 10 authors I speak of, I think only McKubre has electrochemical training. Might be wrong on the Japanese authors. Jed will correct this I'm sure.


    Did you give him explicit permission?


    See upcoming response to Jed.

  • Let me remind you once again:


    And let me remind YOU once again.


    a.) I don't believe I have permission to allow you to upload actual journal articles. That belongs to the journals and maybe my company/Site.


    b.) that does not stop you from referencing my journal articles, and doing so correctly.


    c.) the links already posted to the manuscripts are freely available to the public. Again my permission means zip.


    Bottom line, you don't want this info in your database, you are being forced into it by my challenges to you, but you still resist with hogwash.

  • But, unlike the lot of you, I am quite open to the possibility that I am wrong.

    If that were true I suppose you would read the literature, or you would at least agree that since no one has published a reason to doubt the leading studies, there is at present no reason to think they are wrong. That seems uncontroversial to me. It seems like the standard way to do science. I do not understand what your method is.

    You can take Jed's approach that anyone who doesn't draw that conclusion is an ignoramus who just hasn't read enough papers. Personally, I find that more offensive than a little snideness.

    Whether I am snide or not has no bearing on whether cold fusion is real. Whether a large number of people believe cold fusion is real, or only a small number think so, also has no bearing on whether it is real. You keep coming up with irrelevant metrics like this. Then you dismiss the findings based on these metrics. I suggest you concentrate on the experimental scientific method. People do experiments. They reach conclusions. The experiments are replicated. Unless someone finds errors in the experiments or the logic, that means the conclusions are correct. A new discovery has been confirmed.


    That is how science is done. Let me emphasize: that is the only way science is done. There are no other methods, such as taking a vote, or looking around to see who is snide, or waiting indefinitely in case someone someday comes up with a reason to doubt the experiments. With the latter method, nothing would ever be resolved, and no progress would be made. We must draw conclusions based published papers. Not hypothetical ones or ones that we suppose people might write if they had a mind to. We cannot take into account the possibility that in the future someone might publish a new paper disproving the work. If, after many years of waiting, there are no published papers showing errors in the replicated Pd-D cold fusion experiments, that makes the findings correct. That's all there is to it. There is no other way a scientific discovery can be correct. There is no other definition of "correct."


    The two attempts to find errors, by Morrison and Shanahan, failed, in my opinion. I invite you read them and form your own opinion.


    A paper attempting to disprove a result by finding an error has to be held to the same standard of rigor as one that tries to prove a result. You cannot allow a weak, unsupported claim such as Morrison's with many blatant errors, or a crackpot theory that violates fundamental laws such as Shanahan's, to overrule conventional, high sigma, replicated results by McKubre and others.

  • Quote

    LENRH is not disprovable in your book?


    Whatever LENRH is, no it's not. Otherwise, please describe in detail an experiment or other course of action which would disprove it (maybe after you explain what the H stands for, not that it matters). Also describe a test to disprove my assertion that I maintain a small herd of pink invisible flying unicorns in my garage. They are also very skinny and very quiet.

  • But you stoop to calling Jed a liar/liar/pantsonfire? Geez, what a despicable game you play.


    Jed has been playing this game for a long time. When I first started talking about my paper on spf, he tried the same hogwash. So, yes, I am repeating myself.


    Or is it you don't understand copyrights and such. My company, as part of the DOE-complex, has a separate, special copyright arrangement with journals. I have to send them a copy of it every time I publish something.


    You yourself said that the effect has been replicated, just a few minutes ago right here on this thread. I can see why scientists ignore you.


    *Partially*, not fully, therefore not adequately.

  • Whatever LENRH is, no it's not. Otherwise, please describe in detail an experiment or other course of action which would disprove it (maybe after you explain what the H stands for, not that it matters). Also describe a test to disprove my assertion that I maintain a small herd of pink invisible flying unicorns in my garage. They are also very skinny and very quiet.

    When you pass the bar of having your pink yet invisible flying unicorns replicated by the top hundred electrochemists of the day and there are NO papers generated to disprove it, then I shall admit that your scientific finding is proven, even though there would be no theory to explain it.

  • And let me remind YOU once again.


    a.) I don't believe I have permission to allow you to upload actual journal articles. That belongs to the journals and maybe my company/Site.

    Okay, then send me the full titles and bibliographic info, with links to the publisher. Both EndNote and my on-line index require that I fill in several fields. Nowadays, I can often download an EndNote compatible record directly from the publisher site, which reduces errors.


    If you have a self-published White Paper you would like me to upload, send me the paper as an attachment in the exact, final form you want to see uploaded. Do not send a link. Also, send me a full bibliographic description with a publisher. If you published it yourself, I will list you as the publisher as well as the author. I do not generally upload self-published papers but I will make an exception for you in this instance.


    b.) that does not stop you from referencing my journal articles, and doing so correctly.

    Send it to me the information or the links by e-mail. I do not accept information from discussion groups. I must have permission from you by e-mail.

  • I do not generally upload self-published papers but I will make an exception for you in this instance.

    He is not worth making an exception over.

    BTW, your library has been around for decades now. Why don't you open up your own discussion board? I have it on good authority that the owner of "Cold Fusion" on DISQUS would be willing to sign it over to you.


    https://disqus.com/home/channel/coldfusion/

  • even though there would be no theory to explain it.

    Theory is never required to accept an experimental result. If we demanded a theory before accepting an experiment, progress in science would stop, because in most cases, a discovery is first made by experiment, then later explained by theory. There are only a few instances in which a discovery was predicted by theory and later confirmed by experiment.


    Most discoveries are not particularly surprising and they are soon explained by theory. Cold fusion is one of the few modern ones that is very surprising, unexpected, and which has still not been explained many years later. However, that is not a valid reason to doubt it. It is fundamental to the scientific method that when replicated, high-sigma experiments conflict with theory, or cannot be explained by theory, theory must give way. Experiments always win; theory always loses. Anything else would be a perverse form of religion, not science. Science must always be based on observations or experiments. The human imagination and our theories must give way to what nature teaches. As Francis Bacon explained in 1620:


    "Now the empire of man over things is founded on the arts and sciences alone, for nature is only to be commanded by obeying her."


    That is the very essence of science. No one has understood it or defined it better. Bacon also wrote:


    "We may also derive some reason for hope from the circumstances of several actual inventions being of such a nature, that scarcely any one could have formed a conjecture about them previous to their discovery, but would rather have ridiculed them as impossible. For men are wont to guess about new subjects from those they are already acquainted with, and the hasty and vitiated fancies they have thence formed: than which there cannot be a more fallacious mode of reasoning, for streams that are drawn from the springheads of nature do not always run in the old channels."

  • Thanks Kirk, interesting stuff re. tritium, helium, dendrites etc.


    Re. LENR-CANR.org, I'd like to read your final unpublished journal letter rebutting (Marwan et al)? I've heard it said (probably by Abd) that this means et al had the last word, and hence must have 'won' the argument in the eyes of the editors. Surely no copyright issues too.