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

BTW, isobaric volumetric specific heat of aluminum is about half that of water which is still considerable- and nothing rules out the ottoman containing a reservoir of water. Alan Fletcher wrote up the experiment at the time and while he said he thought it indicated anomalous heat, he also noted:

Quote

The Secondary Output thermocouple was attached to the brass head of the heat exchanger manifold, and could possibly have been directly affected by the temperature of the incoming steam/water flow.

It should have been placed in the outlet tube, well away from the Primary Input.

and ...

Quote

The biggest calorimetric problem is that a counter-flow heat exchanger was used, and the position of the "output" thermocouple was close to the input (steam) flow, through a brass block, so the output temperature measurement may be unreliable.

http://lenr.qumbu.com/rossi_ecat_oct11_c.php

Misplacement of thermocouples seems to be a trademark Rossi move and is probably how he originally fooled Focardi and Levi with the first ecats. Of course I can't *prove* that the misplacement was calculated and deliberate but then again, remember, IH could not make ecats work and neither could anyone other than Rossi or the Swedes with Rossi heavily involved.

Quote from interested observer

Gosh Kev, pretty much everything you say to me is in the form of a straw man argument.

Gosh Kev, pretty much everything you say to me is in the form of a straw man argument.

***I suspect you don't even know what a straw man argument is.

I make the statement that I can't really form a conclusion about LENR and you insist that I have formed one.

***I did not insist. I observe. You sure act like someone who has formed a conclusion. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, acts like a duck, it's probably a duck. If you REALLY are trying to form a position that you can't form a conclusion about LENR then say that, whenever you put forth an argument. Because you belie your own position whenever you don't do that.

You keep yakking about the holy numbers of 100 top electrochemists and 153 replications.

***That's pretty much what this thread is all about. And the skeptopaths keep trying to derail attention to that detail.

Among other things, how exactly do you define a replication?

***I am willing to proceed forth whatever standard definition there is. Let's presume there's some American Association for the Advancement of Science definition.

My understanding of an experimental replication is to use the same setup and same methodology to achieve the same results.

***Have you checked your understanding of that against whatever the standard that might exist? My understanding is that when a paper identifies itself as a replication of a prior experiment and it is accepted by the peer review process, it qualifies as a replication.

Disparate experiments that all show various amounts of "excess heat" under a variety of conditions do not constitute replications.

***That there would be a classic "Humpty Dumpty" interpretation of what a replication is.

But all of this is beside the point. I have not concluded that LENR isn't real despite your insistence that I have.

***You quack like a duck, you walk like a duck, you sound like a duck.

But apparently I am not even entitled to have my doubts. I am evidently not qualified to have doubts.

***Go ahead and express them as doubts. But when you say things like "I did not read the papers" and "to ME, replication means... such & such" and argue from demonstrable fallacies, perhaps you should not expect your doubts to be entertained.

But I am not arguing with your 100 electrochemist heroes. Maybe they are right. But why do I have to sign off on this at all? I am not fighting against LENR or standing in the way of it. I have nothing to do with it one way or another.

***Look through your arguments. Look at who else is arguing the same thing. When you find yourself in a mob surrounded by NAZIs who are fighting against communists, it's a bit disingenuous to say that you aren't a NAZI. I know, I know, using that NAZI connotation really gets under the skin of the average skeptopath, so insert some other uniformed group of fascists or whatever suits your fancy.

I hope it is real because anyone with a lick of sense would want it to be real. And I don't happen to believe that a bunch of plasma physicists rule the world and are preventing powerful corporations and governments around the world from developing the technology. The lack of any progress is the problem.

***It is the plasma physicists who created this problem. They caused the funding for the research in this area to dry up.

Perhaps you can somehow comprehend that "I don't know" means "I don't know" and not "No".

***I don't know means you don't know. You shouldn't proceed forth as if you do know.

The quality papers that Jed recommends look to me like very small effects that could well be some sort of artifact.

***See here, this is where you go way off into the weeds. You acknowledge you haven't read the papers. You admit to being ignorant of the facts. But you try to characterize the work of the top electrochemists of the day as some sort of artifact. What you need to do is take some kind of class in how to recognize bullshit.

But I am not arguing that they are artifacts. I am saying that I am not convinced. You are saying that I have no right to not be convinced.

***No, I'm saying that when you move forward from the "I Dunno" state, in lockstep with skeptopaths who are questioning the integrity of the top electrochemists of the day, and you don't read the papers and you use fallacious arguments, maybe you should step back from your lockstepped crowd and learn a few things by reading the papers, understanding solid reasoning, and using standard scientific principles.

Once again, it doesn't matter what I think.

***I suppose I might actually agree with that.

I am not trying to dissuade anybody about LENR. Those of you who are convinced that it is proven ought to stop arguing about it and try to figure out how to help the field make progress.

***One of those things involves knocking out the kind of ignorance that you have manifested here.

If there has been any progress, it must be a secret. I can assure you that stiffling maryyugo will not make a bit of difference. But if you prefer to spend your time prattling about skeptopaths, that is your perogative.

***You seem to like spending your time showing off your own ignorance and prattling about that, so in a way our prattling cancels eachother out. What stands afterwards is that LENR is a peer reviewed phenomenon replicated by the top electrochemists of the day.

Quote from Alan Fletcher

OK ... I shall reject all of Einstein's and Newton's work because they are "quite old" and "extremely old".

Well, if either of them were to start openly publishing again, I would be extremely wary.

Quote from interested observer

Ok guys. Apparently your purpose in life is to muster up outrage and vitriol against people who don't share your viewpoint.

Typical of a skeptopath, you got that wrong as well.

What the hell, there is plenty of that going around these days anyway. Since my interest in this whole business is primarily on the human behavior side, it suits me as well as anything.

Then perhaps you can explain your own behavior on this thread.

I will try to be stunned by how you really "got me."

Did we REALLY "get you"?  Be careful now because I'm going to phrase this the same way you do:  I don't know.

I hope hurling insults and arrogant belittling is pleasurable for you.

Typical of a skeptopath, you consider correcting your logical fallacies to be "hurling insults" and "arrogant belittling".

Otherwise, it is sure a waste of whatever talents you may have. Meanwhile, I will continue to "pontificate" when I feel like it.

So you learned nothing.

Feel free to ignore me or continue to lecture me on how I am not qualified to say anything. TTFN

Thanks.   We probably would have done that even without your permission, but every little bit helps.   Now maybe you can run along, now, and try to learn some scientific principles.

Display More

Quote from JedRothwell

Second, you cannot say "they could well be some sort of artifact." That isn't science.

Maybe you found MaryYugo's invisible pink flying unicorn, it is hiding behind "some sort of artifact". Doh! We shoulda known all along.

Quote

Note that that test that has given positive results was done using a heat exchanger so to avoid all problems with steam.

And to create all new issues with carefully and purposefully misplaced thermocouples. Or one could speculate that it was designed by a moron. I guess you get your choice.

Quote from THHuxleynew

Human language does not well indicate the subtleties of probabilities of probabilities.

We can agree, I hope, that conclusions can be varied. For example, one might conclude that the evidence was too uncertain to conclude anything. Do you call that a conclusion, or not?

You're just trying to cling to your skepticism in the face of the evidence that the top 100 electrochemists of their day replicated this LENR thing in >150 peer reviewed papers.  

It is semantics and not worth arguing about.

Then why are you arguing about it?

Such a skeptic position may be right or wrong, and I agree it could be a cop-out, as all sitting on the fence could be a cop-out.

Yes.

In this case the evidence is so difficult to accumulate - with nothing except a whole collection of anomalies and arguments about whether they could or could not have mundane causes -

Characterizing the top hundred electrochemists of the day replicating a finding as a "whole collection of anomalies" is just throwing around words trying to cling to your skeptical point of view rather than being rational about it.   They looked at this issue and found that it could not have mundane causes, unless you consider superchemical events to be mundane.   And Jed pointed out upthread that basically NO ONE has generated a paper that disproves these experiments.   The rational thing to do is to accept that this is a replicated phenomenon.  

that sitting on the fence seems to me something many rational people would want to do.

No it is not the rational thing to want to do.   What has happened is that many skeptics have wrapped their identity around being skeptical and when confronted with rational evidence from the top hundred electrochemists of their day with > 150 replications, there is this desperate need to cling to your former ego's position because it does not want to admit that it was rationally incorrect.

Such a person could reasonably listen to arguments from people who had reached definite conclusions, think them not logically compelling, and say whY

YOu can say why all day and night, but you have stepped off the rational path.   The simple scientific finding is that it is a replicated event, and the arguments against that rational position are falling apart.   You like to think of yourself as coming up with logically compelling argumentation but it falls flat in the face of experts who have investigated this phenomena and subjected their experiments to peer review.   How rational is it to suppose that the top hundred electrochemists of the day have all committed a huge brain fart?   If that is the rational position to hold then it is up to the skeptics to prove the brain fart.

Display More