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

  • Listing a "who's who" *without* judging the quality and relevance of their relevant work is the logical tactic known as 'call to authority'.

    When it's the top hundred or so experts in some particular field, it is not a logical fallacy to rely on their authority, because they have some authority in their field.


    Now, if it were the top 100 experts in a field saying that it's bogus IN THEIR FIELD, that's different. The situation we had was a few experts in nuclear hot fusion who were dependent upon guvmint grants for their living, they were saying that those top hundred experts in the OTHER FIELD had got it wrong. It is not a stretch to suggest that people who regularly use electrochemistry and calorimetry in their line of work have more authority than people who rarely if EVER use calorimetry in their line of work.

  • It was essentially rhetorical, Kev. In point of fact, based on your unpleasant style and your previous writing, I don't give a _ _ _ _ what you think.



    Of course not. Arguing points of view and supporting one's views is what forums should be about. Are we at the "appeal to authority" fallacy yet, Jed?

    In point of fact, you are one of the most unpleasant trolls on the internet, you've been banned from Vortex and probably other sites so I don't care what you think for the most part. But you serve as a good pasquinade. And sure enough, you jump right over the line of rationality in your next sentence where your own supposed authority is lined up against the top hundred experts in electrochemistry. You are not among those top hundred experts in electrochemistry, even if you know a thing or two about calorimetry, but your stuff doesn't even come remotely close. Go on and keep arguing that irrational point of view, it works for me.

  • Gee, golly, gosh. Again and again, is it? Well, you could try doing it yourself. What's stopping you? Most of the data is at LENR-CANR.org and in Ed's book. You should read the book if you are seriously interested in this subject. If you are so anxious to pin down the number, do your own homework.


    It is almost as if you expect me to spoon feed you the information.


    I myself find this whole discussion silly, and inconsequential. Once the number of replications exceeds 5 or 10, it makes no difference how many there are. 90, 180, or 20,000 would be the same. I wrote the Tally paper at the request of a researcher. I do not know why he wanted the information, but it wasn't hard for me to assemble the report using my EndNote relational database, so I did it. It is not important.

    I have read Ed's book, etc. So calm down. I don't expect you to spoonfeed me. You wrote the tally and it got untied by a skeptopath so I would like to know your response. Where does the rational line get drawn? You say it makes no difference, but it does... to a skeptopath. If we ever get a skeptopath to accept that there are dozens of replications, that is a rational line drawn. I have seen it done before, and the skeptopath went back into hiding as a result.


    You fed us the information, so now that skeptopaths are refusing to eat I would like to know where that line gets drawn for true and rational skeptics. For me personally, I have read enough papers to know that this effect has been replicated far more than 153 times. But I'm no authority on this subject. Your tally of peer reviewed replications is the closest thing we have to an authority on the subject. Asking you for your response when someone questions your tally isn't even remotely asking to be spoonfed. Maybe you should add some more bran to your diet.


  • Arguing against the who's who of electrochemistry is as troll-like as a troll can be.

    I suppose now it's time for the supposed experts on this particular forum to weigh in on whether or not this is as troll-like as a troll can be -- those supposed experts would be the moderators on this forum. My prediction is the sound of crickets or maybe a post about me saying they're not at my beck and call, something like that, but not directly addressing the issue at hand.

  • The real problem with appeal to authority arguments is that people only listen to authorities that hold the position they are arguing for. Conveniently, equally qualified authorities who hold opposing views are either ignored or disqualified as being biased or tools of some evil conspiracy. So are "100 top electrochemists" the list from Forbes Hottest Electrochemists of the Year or are they a cherry-picked set out of the 8,000 members of the Electrochemical Society?

  • So are "100 top electrochemists" the list from Forbes Hottest Electrochemists of the Year or are they a cherry-picked set out of the 8,000 members of the Electrochemical Society?

    You can read some of their bios and decide for yourself. They were people such as Bockris who wrote the most widely used textbook; Fleischmann, FRS and president of the Electrochem. Society; Yeager, who they named the institute for (http://chemistry.case.edu/research/yces/); Arata, who has an international prize and a building on the campus at a National U. named after him; the Chairman of the Indian Atomic Energy Commission; a Fellow of China Lake; the main designer of India's atomic bomb; a top commissioner on the French AEC; the person who designed the tritium labs at Los Alamos and the PPPL; etc.


    Looking at it the other way, the number of leading electrochemists who were not able to replicate is: one (1). Lewis. However, in my opinion, and in the opinion of Fleischmann and others, he did replicate, but his analysis was flawed. See:


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

  • The real problem with appeal to authority arguments is that people only listen to authorities that hold the position they are arguing for. Conveniently, equally qualified authorities who hold opposing views are either ignored or disqualified as being biased or tools of some evil conspiracy.

    Do you have any examples of this taking place in some other area? I'm thinking of economics, but the models are so flawed that the inexactitude lends itself to warring "experts". A similar thing is taking place with Anthropomorphic Global Warming. So is there an example of a bunch of appealing to authority in some area where the data is nailed down? We saw some of it in tobacco, where there were paid tobacco scientists holding to the party line.

  • There is the old saying that an expert is someone with credentials who says what you want to hear. This sort of thing is pretty ubiquitous.


    The examples of AGW denial and tobacco industry doubt spreaders are classic cases where the science is settled but a fringe group is trying to assert that the science is not settled on the basis that the majority is corrupt, is using faulty data, or is part of some agenda-driven conspiracy. So they trot out some experts who hold the view they want to hear and work hard to marginalize everyone else.


    The LENR world has some interesting parallels. The way I see it, the science is not settled, but a fringe group is trying to assert that it is on the basis that the majority is corrupt, part of some agenda-driven conspiracy, or simply has no opinion at all. By limiting the sample to only those they deem qualified to hold an opinion, they declare victory.


    I don't know if CF/LENR is a real thing or not. I do know that it is not settled science. Settled science is when the preponderance of experts in a field accept a common view. This has not happened with LENR. Sure, you can try to declare that the opinions of anyone except researchers who have gotten positive results do not count, but that is bogus.

  • Gee, golly, gosh. Again and again, is it? Well, you could try doing it yourself. What's stopping you? Most of the data is at LENR-CANR.org and in Ed's book. You should read the book if you are seriously interested in this subject. If you are so anxious to pin down the number, do your own homework.


    It is almost as if you expect me to spoon feed you the information.


    I myself find this whole discussion silly, and inconsequential. Once the number of replications exceeds 5 or 10, it makes no difference how many there are. 90, 180, or 20,000 would be the same. I wrote the Tally paper at the request of a researcher. I do not know why he wanted the information, but it wasn't hard for me to assemble the report using my EndNote relational database, so I did it. It is not important.


    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.


    It is what do these broadly similar experiments with broadly similar results represent.


    Some sophistication is needed, because of the issues of experiment selection, experiment type selection, and possible systematic errors duplicated by those getting positive results (many attempted replications showed negative results, so this is very possible).

  • 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.


    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.

  • When did the Wright brothers become "settled science"? When they were making their practice runs and the vast majority of the world considered them crackpots or scam artists? Or when they demo'd their capabilities in 1908? Was it when the journal "Scientific American" refused to publish their results because it was impossible or the journal "Gleenings in Beekeeping" that accurately recorded their flight? Or perhaps the 1903 newspaper account that said their plane had 6 wings and carried 4 people & had 2 engines? The simple fact is that they were flying for 5 years before it was considered "settled science" and LENR will have been considered replicated in 1990 once it breaks out.


  • 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:


    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.

  • 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.

    No, the challenges to LENR started from a deep need to protect the funding of Hot Fusion projects and then reinforced by skeptopathic emotional needs. That's pretty lame to criticize the results of LENR by saying you can't determine anything by "merely looking" at it. Heat is heat, you can feel it. If you can't tell us where the heat comes from chemically, it is a scientific feat worth pursuing. When you develop the capability to feel the heat through the TV then you yourself will get a Nobel prize.

  • 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

  • about denial consensus the best example if about Germs.

    The denial of the work of Oliver de Aberdeen, then brilliant statistics by Semmelweiss, and the huge attacks finally vanquished by "commercial methods" (demo thak kids can understand, demo on innocents kids) by Pasteur, is a century wide denial of evident facts.



    moreover it seems that at that time people were less dogmatic than today.

    I see that by the theory fallacy (if it does not agree with theory, the experiment must be wrong).


    it is hard to imagine today how openmind were the scientists of 19th and early 20th century.

  • 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.

  • 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.

    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.

    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.

  • Those hundred electrochemists are experts in electrochemistry. They were challenged by physicists who were NOT experts in electrochemistry. The chances of error from nonexperts engaging in a field are FAR higher than for experts engaging in that field where they are experts. There's a huge duhh factor here.

  • That's a good example. Plate Tectonic theory was another... the world simply had to wait for that generation of scientists to die off. As Planck noted, science progresses one funeral at a time.

  • 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.

    Why must you skeptopaths always resort to calling everything an ad hominem attack? I didn't attack the person, I attacked the whole group engaging in skeptopathy. We all agree if there is "more heat than can be accounted for conventionally" then it is worth pursuing. What we don't agree on is that physicists don't know much about calorimetry because they almost never use it in conventional physics, whereas electrochemists use it all the time so they are far more competent in that aspect of the field. So why is it the skeptopaths use such utterly specious arguments? Because it is obvious that the conclusion leads a normal skeptical person to realize that excess heat has been replicated, dozens and dozens of times. Just like what happened with the Wright brothers, germ theory, plate tectonics, the skeptopaths slithered back into their holes. Eventually that's what will happen with LENR and it will seem utterly obvious to people reading this a hundred years from now. But what is the utterly obvious thing that can be said to make a skeptopath realize his error? No doubt future historians will say something like "well, duhh, if you'd only have mentioned such & such..." But LENR advocates have already tried everything. Nothing works to bring skeptopaths back into reality.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

    The trick is to resolve the impasse with scientific reasoning, like say with the replication results of the top hundred electrochemists of their day and to discount those who don't regularly use calorimetry in their day to day scientific pursuits, like say the hot fusion physicists. One group is a fish in water and the other group is a fish out of water.