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

Quote from THHuxleynew

The issue is not the number of replications. 2 or 3 would be enough if they has strong data and methodology, and were true replications.

There are dozens that fit that description, all of them with the original technique of electrochemistry and Pd-D. Cathodes in different labs showed the same ratio of loading to heat (McKubre and Kunimatsu). When cathodes have been shared from one lab to another, in some cases they have produced exactly the same level of heat. The same loading level versus heat, and current density versus heat, has been observed in many labs. See Figs. 1 through 3:

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHcoldfusionb.pdf

Tritium has been observed in over 100 labs.

In short, the data shows what you demand, but you refuse to look.

Quote from THHuxleynew

many attempted replications showed negative results

Not only do you refuse to look, but you make up stuff like that. I'll bet you cannot list more than 10 replications done by electrochemists which showed negative results. There is a long list of "replications" by non-electrochemists which failed for well understood reasons, such as confusing the anode and cathode.

When you refuse to look at the data and you wave your hands and invent "facts" like this, you can prove anything.

Quote from JedRothwell

There are dozens that fit that description, all of them with the original technique of electrochemistry and Pd-D. Cathodes in different labs showed the same ratio of loading to heat (McKubre and Kunimatsu). When cathodes have been shared from one lab to another, in some cases they have produced exactly the same level of heat. The same loading level versus heat, and current density versus heat, has been observed in many labs. See Figs. 1 through 3:

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHcoldfusionb.pdf

Tritium has been observed in over 100 labs.

In short, the data shows what you demand, but you refuse to look.

Not only do you refuse to look, but you make up stuff like that. I'll bet you cannot list more than 10 replications done by electrochemists which showed negative results. There is a long list of "replications" by non-electrochemists which failed for well understood reasons, such as confusing the anode and cathode.

When you refuse to look at the data and you wave your hands and invent "facts" like this, you can prove anything.

Display More

The trouble for me is that looking at even one paper takes me quite a long time. I've been looking at McKubre's low loss mass flow experiments - many of which were negative. These seem (to me) to be some of the more high quality replications.

When you make breezy comments as above it is important to realise that with so many replications almost any correlation you like can be found by cherry-picking. If you could take all replications and look systematically at success versus anything it would be interesting. For example: Figure 1 in http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHcoldfusionb.pdf.

You might suppose that proves your point. It does nothing of the kind because it would need to be plotting number of successes versus number of distinct attempts for each of these loading ratios for the results to be meaningful.

Which is why it takes me a long time to read stuff, and why summaries like Mckubre's are not helpful unless you read them carefully and with an eye to the underlying science.

Just to reiterate a point that was made above — the number of replications is perhaps not of more than sociological interest. A handful of solid replications are all that is needed to establish that there's something of interest (whatever it is). From the standpoint of science I'm going to guess that it's sociology or perhaps boosterism rather than electrochemistry and related fields that dictates the need to have a lot of replications, or a certain ratio of successful replications to replication attempts.

Norman Ramsey wrote in the preamble to a 1998 draft report of the DoD Cold Fusion Panel:

Quote from Norman Ramsey

Ordinarily, new scientific discoveries are claimed to be consistent and reproducible; as a result, if the experiments are not complicated, the discovery can usually be confirmed or disproved in a few months. The claims of cold fusion, however, are unusual In that even the strongest proponents of cold fusion assert that the experiments, for unknown reasons, are not consistent and reproducible at the present time. However, even a single short but valid cold fusion period would be revolutionary. As a result, it is difficult convincingly to resolve all cold fusion claims since, for example, any good experiment that fails to find cold fusion can be discounted as merely not working for unknown reasons. Likewise the failure of a theory to account for cold fusion can be discounted on the grounds that the correct explanation and theory has not been provided. Consequently, with the many contradictory existing claims it is not possible at this time to state categorically that all the claims for cold fusion have been convincingly either proved or disproved. Nonetheless, on balance, the Panel has reached the following conclusions and recommendations. [Emphasis mine.]

I believe something like this also ended up in the final report. As I recall, Ramsey threatened to resign from the panel if this preamble was not added.

What constitutes a short but valid cold fusion period? That is where the trouble starts. Many outside observers don't necessarily find existing reports credible. Jed would argue that the bar has been more than passed by well-qualified scientists using normal, tried-and-true methods. Even Kirk agrees that something unusual is going on, while disagreeing on the interpretation. Here a related but not identical scientific need to having a lot of replications is to have a recipe that will allow professionals to replicate for themselves whatever effect is being reported within their own labs, so that they can rule out competing hypotheses for themselves. Having such a recipe would probably lead to a lot of replications. There have been claims of such a recipe, although I'm doubtful that one that is straightforward to use has been fully disclosed yet.

Drawing parallels between the Wright brothers and LENR is rather absurd. Challenges to LENR results tend to be based on analysis methodology, instrumentation, accuracy of measurements, and various other elements of the data. Merely looking at an LENR reactor tells you nothing except that some sort of apparatus exists regardless of its function. Does anyone seriously contend that an eyewitness of a Wright brothers flight did not have all the information needed to confidently state "those guys were flying?" At the start of the 20th century, people denied the facts about flight because they only had hearsay to go on. There was no live TV. On the other hand, Rossi fans only have hearsay to go on to think e-cats work, and the worst sort of hearsay at that.

So go find a better way to make your case for the Italian charlatan. False analogies are lame.

keV

At this point in history, any list of who's who in an field you choose to define is composed of human beings (with the minor possibility of defining a field only populated by current and former AI programs - which is not relevant here because I doubt we would call them 'experts' of AI, their human creators are the experts). Human beings make mistakes. Irregardless of their level of expertise. Thus, what they communicate must be considered to potentially contain errors. Thus, what they communicate must be analyzed. Calling upon what 'authorities' of a field say without analyzing them is guaranteed to lead one to error, since the authorities' errors will never be noted.

Your list of who's who in electrochemistry is worthless unless you are trying to assign prizes or awards. Science requires them to be questioned just like anyone else, and if found in error, to be corrected.

You might want to read https://www.amazon.com/dp/1439192375/ref=rdr_ext_tmb

Perhaps the longer that science exists, the more that people assume it explains everything?

keV: heat is heat alright, and nobody denies that LENR reactors get hot when you put current through them. The question is how much heat? The whole business is predicated on "excess heat", not just any heat at all. And the disputes are all about whether there is indeed more heat than can be accounted for conventionally. That is as far from being able to tell "just by looking at it" as anything can be. Why must you LENR fans use such utterly specious arguments? And spare me the crap about skeptopathic emotional needs. Just more empty ad hominen blather from somebody arguing from false premises.

Quote from THHuxleynew

The trouble for me is that looking at even one paper takes me quite a long time.

Why is that a problem? Or why is it my problem? If you don't want to do your homework you should believe what I say or drop the subject.

Quote from THHuxleynew

I've been looking at McKubre's low loss mass flow experiments - many of which were negative.

The success ratio is irrelevant. In the mid-1950s, for some types of transistors, 80% or 90% of the devices in a production run failed. That is a worse success rate than any cold fusion experiment, but no one claimed that transistors did not exist. The success rate for early cloning experiments was 1 in 1000 but no one claimed the resulting sheep were not clones. The Vanguard series of rockets in the late 1950s had more explosions than successful launches, but no one claimed that rockets do not exist.

Quote from THHuxleynew

You might suppose that proves your point. It does nothing of the kind because it would need to be plotting number of successes versus number of distinct attempts for each of these loading ratios for the results to be meaningful.

Nope. It doesn't work that way. In any case, all of the data from McKubre and others is shown in the loading ratio graphs, including experiments that did not produce heat. There is no cherry-picking.

When experiments do not produce heat, the problem is usually clear. That does not mean you can fix the problem, but you see what it is. It is usually fractured palladium, with cracks. It does not hold up to high loading.

Quote from [email protected]

Another example was Thomas Edison with his 10,000 attempts before he landed the right recipe for the electric lightbulb.

I am pretty sure he was exaggerating! But he was doing what is now called "Edisonian" trial and error. He later hired scientifically trained young people who were somewhat appalled at his techniques. Tesla also criticized him for not applying enough theory. See the book: "A Streak of Luck."

Edison knew way more chemistry and applied physics than he let on.

So is anyone who does not think LENR is proven science a pathological skeptic? If your answer to this question is yes, then you are a pathological believer. Them's the facts folks.

Quote from interested observer

Does anyone seriously contend that an eyewitness of a Wright brothers flight did not have all the information needed to confidently state "those guys were flying?"

After late summer of 1904 witnesses had all the information they needed. Before that, the Wrights made about 80 attempts to fly, but they barely got off the ground in most cases, and often crashed immediately. They called members of the press one day, but the motor failed to operate. In September 1904, they added a launch derrick and improved the airplane design. The weather cooled down, making air density higher. At that point they managed to go high enough and stay in the air long enough to show observers they could actually fly. As I recall, it was 1905 when they gathered dozens of affidavits from leading citizens testifying that these citizens had seen them fly. They took numerous photos of airplanes in flight. So, if the Scientific American had bothered to send a reporter, they would have seen abundant proof that the claim was true. But they didn't bother. They denounced the Wrights instead, and they kept denouncing them, most recently in 1993 and 2003.

Before September 1904, it would have taken an expert to know they were flying and not just being lobbed through the air in an uncontrolled hop. I say that because Wilbur Wright said that, and he described that in detail in his diary, in lectures and engineering papers starting in 1901. Many people before the Wrights got into the air with propeller driven airplanes with fixed wings. But none of them flew in the exact technical sense that the Wrights described. So it was not quite as clear as you describe.

In all of 1904 they made 104 "flights or flight attempts." Most of them failed, as I said. By the standards of THH and others skeptics here, we should conclude from this that airplanes did not exist in 1904 and the Wrights did not know how to fly. Failures far outnumbered successes, and they were only cherry picking a few successful flights. That makes no sense. As I said, that is like saying that because it took thousands of attempts to clone one sheep, Dolly the clone did not exist.

http://www.thewrightbrothers.org/1904.html

Here is Wilbur's 1901 lecture to the Western Society of Engineers. This is the first rigorous engineering description of flight, as distinguished from an uncontrolled hop through the air.

http://invention.psychology.ms…library/Aeronautical.html

See:

http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJthewrightb.pdf

Regarding having all the information you need, anyone who understands calorimetry and experiments who looks at the graphs from McKubre or the videos from Fleischmann will see all of the proof you need to be sure that cold fusion is real, and that it cannot be a chemical effect. It is no less convincing than the photos of airplanes flying over Huffman Prairie in 1905.

Quote from interested observer

So is anyone who does not think LENR is proven science a pathological skeptic?

No, there are many other reasons why a person would not think LENR is proven science. For example:

People with no general knowledge of science, such as most reporters or politicians, will have no way of judging the issue. You can't blame them, any more than you can blame me for not appreciating Italian Opera, given than I am practically tone deaf.

A person who has not read the experimental literature carefully, or not read enough of it.

A person such as Mary Yugo who does not understand the literature well enough to evaluate it. Many scientists in other fields make stupid mistakes when trying to evaluate cold fusion, as you see in the 2004 DoE review panel's remarks. I suppose that if you were to ask electrochemists to review a Tokamak experiment, they would also make stupid mistakes.

People who have no idea there is experimental literature. We know this is the problem because when it is resolved, the problem often goes away. Many skilled scientists who have no knowledge of the subject find out about it, read the literature, and are quickly convinced. So they tell me. That is why 4 million papers have been downloaded from LENR-CANR.org. Scientists would not download that many papers if they did not believe it. Only scientists can make head or tail of most of those papers, as I showed here on p. 6:

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJthefuturem.pdf

People who try to learn about cold fusion by reading Wikipedia or the Scientific American instead of reading the literature will fail. I wouldn't call that being a pathological skeptic, but there is no valid information about cold fusion in these sources, so you cannot learn anything from them. You will get the impression it is wrong.

I would not classify the authors at Wikipedia or the Scientific American as pathological scientists. I have had extensive exchanges with them. I am quite familiar with their views and their knowledge. They know nothing about cold fusion. They have read nothing. They do not know what instruments have been used, what has been observed, or what conclusions drawn from this. Their views come from an echo chamber of overblown imagination, fantasy and nonsense. If I believed this nonsense, I too would be convinced that cold fusion does not exist. I am sure there are many subjects about which I am severely misinformed, but I don't know this because I have never bothered to learn much about them. I took for granted what I read in the newspapers or Scientific American, which in these cases is bosh. (The world is awash in bosh. Centuries from now, people will look back on us and say we were only a little more educated than people were in 1600.) But here is the thing: I would never write an article in the Sci. Am. or on Wikipedia about a subject I have not carefully studied. I would not plunge into Wikipedia and delete statements by people I violently disagree with about a subject I know practically nothing about. That is pathological. Being ignorant is not.

There are a small number people who actually know about the subject, and who realize it is real, but who make statements as if they were pathological skeptics. I mean, for example, the scientists who attacked it in public while sending detailed applications for funding to EPRI and other organizations to perform cold fusion experiments. Their applications revealed that they understood the topic. They were lying in public. I guess they did that to undercut the competition and grab funding.

Finally, there are some pathological skeptics. This is true of any field of science.