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

  • 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.

    One of the datapoints is the "NO's".

    The hot fusion skeptopaths said that Pons-Fleischmann could have failed to mix the water properly in their cells. So P-F showed a cell giving off excess heat, put in some dye and it rapidly colored the water throughout the cell, proving that they had been mixing the water properly. Did the skeptopaths withdraw their criticism? NO.


    McKubre published a paper showing that most of the negative result findings occurred with a loading less than 0.80... Did the skeptopaths go back and run their experiments with loadings of 0.95 or above? NO.

  • Ok, Jed is the closest thing to a rational respndant to my questions regarding the status of LENR science. Condensing his response, he says that cold fusion is settled science because anyone with sufficient scientific knowledge who studies the literature must conclude that it is real. Therefore, anyone who does not conclude it is real either is unqualified to make that judgement, hasn't read enough papers, or is a liar. Of course, what is particularly ironic about this is that the majority of LENR fans have little or no scientific knowledge and are most certainly unqualified to assess the literature regardless of how well it is written. But their opinions are golden.


    Anyway, if one applies Jed's filters to the world, one can conclude that cold fusion is settled science. With a little care, one can make sure to disqualify any and all dissenting opinion and declare unanimity. I believe this is how elections work in North Korea, by the way.

  • Condensing his response, he says that cold fusion is settled science because anyone with sufficient scientific knowledge who studies the literature must conclude that it is real.

    There are no published papers that support your views. There are no papers in the peer-reviewed literature or proceedings showing significant errors in any mainstream cold fusion experiments. (Other than Shanahan's and Morrison's I mean -- and I already listed them, several times.).


    You are talking in generalities only. In experimental science, you have to point to specifics. If the experiments by McKubre, Miles or Fleischmann are wrong, you have to say why they are wrong. Waving your hands and saying "there might be an error" is not valid, because that cannot be tested or falsified. A negative evaluation has to be supported with as much rigor and as many facts as a positive one. You have no facts. You cannot cite any specific errors. No skeptic has published an evaluation of any experiment showing errors. They lose by default.

    Of course, what is particularly ironic about this is that the majority of LENR fans have little or no scientific knowledge and are most certainly unqualified to assess the literature regardless of how well it is written. But their opinions are golden.

    Science is not a popularity contest. The views of the "majority of LENR fans" has no bearing on this discussion. No one should evaluate the science by counting how many people line up on either side, or by asking how much the people in each group know. You have to look at the actual papers. Not imaginary descriptions of them in Wikipedia -- the actual papers. You have to examine the instruments and methodology and determine what they show with reference to textbook laws such as thermodynamics. That is the only basis for you to judge what these experiments indicate, and what conclusions to draw. As I said, there is not a single paper out there showing errors or reasons to doubt the conclusions except Shanahan and Morrison. I suggest you read those two and reach your own conclusions. Ask Shahanhan for his best evidence. Morrison is here:


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

  • Note as well that Kirk is in agreement with the CF researchers that there is an experimental anomaly, rather than there being none at all and only methodological error. In his specific case it is the interpretation of the data on which he disagrees. But that sets him apart from anyone claiming that CF researchers are simply picking up false signals through inadequate controls, as one example, or cherry-picking false positives. Kirk assumes a genuine CF-like signal is there. If more people took even his view, they would look more closely at the CF literature.

  • 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.


    So my view as a skeptic (and not a skeptopath - any such label would be wide of the mark).


    The very many high quality and slightly above unity COP values, especially from McKubre whose documentation of his experiments is superb, points to something likely real. The effect appears to be proportional to input power (with some threshold before activation, and also not always active). That fits Kirk's suggestion of some unexpected phenomenon that changes calibration better than an extremely power and energy dense nuclear effect. Why? Because any such would be expected often to give much larger excess power values, and indeed to have power related to temperature rather than power in. Although the fact that any temperature relationship appears to be proportional to difference from ambient, rather than Kelvin value, again pushed an observer in the direction of a calorimetry anomaly. Should there be a reaction anomaly, the timescales here make chemistry impossible so it would have to be nuclear, or some reaction totally unexpected. That is again negative, because the nuclear proposition is also (quite strongly) unexpected due to departure from normal branching ratios.


    On top of that - probably real, and certainly mysterious - anomaly, we have a collection of other phenomena:


    Reports of much higher power generation. These however do not seem to survive replication in well-controlled environments. Jed would point to the HAD inferred by MF after his boil-off experiments. I remain very unconvinced by that since the assumptions that lead to HAD inference are based on normal cell calibration and operation - there is no direct control to ensure that these inferences are safe, and no guarantee, in this case, that some chemical mechanism is not involved. Other high power reports seem just to be bad experimental design not properly validated, or explained by short-term chemical changes. Rossi being a classic but very atypical example of bad experimental practice in that his level of obvious badness is much higher than typical. I'd not mention him with the rest except that the LENR community considers him as possibly working on their stuff.


    Sporadic reports. In some cases there are single experiments, not replicated by the same team with the same apparatus. In any field other than LENR these would be considered "unknown experimental error" and not considered.


    Reports of nuclear reaction products. Again the problem here is that these things are looked for, and the results all one way or another marginal and in nearly all cases much lower than expected from any plausible nuclear mechanism. Should the UoAustin attempts to get high quality replicated correlation between He and excess heat show positive results that would be a big deal, and also indicate strongly a possible mechanism. But, that experiment needs to be done carefully to eliminate the various obvious false positives that could exist, and could explain earlier results.


    So none of this collection looks to me like justifying LENR as likely mechanism, although there are elements in it that remain mysterious and thus justify further targeted research.


    THH

  • That is again negative, because the nuclear proposition is also (quite strongly) unexpected due to departure from normal branching ratios.


    I think it is very important to separate the question of whether a specific LENR experiment exhibits a nuclear phenomenon from whether it exhibits the preferred nuclear explanation of the paper's authors. I personally am highly doubtful there is any kind of fusion of deuterium going on, although I am willing to go along with the experimental finding of evolution of helium at this point. The author's suggested mechanism is often quite specific, identifying a candidate reaction or two. Evolution of helium is itself quite astonishing if not erroneous, but it's a more general finding, not tied to any specific mechanism. In such a context, the question of branching ratios appears premature. Better to start with a general finding and either nail it down or conduct experiments that show clearly that it is something else.


    Are there any other possible explanations for the evolution of helium? There are several, each of which will pose a challenge for physicists for different reasons, but none of which imports the whole branching ratio problem. There's even a mundane explanation involving entrapped helium whose credibility I am not in a position to assess, but which others claim lacks credibility because of things like the finding of a correlation between excess heat and helium.

  • Jed, you have consistently missed my point throughout this entire discussion. I am not disputing or challenging any particular LENR results, or the entirety of them for that matter. I am not, in fact, weighing in on whether the phenomenon exists at all. What I am saying - and all that I am saying - is that the overall status of the field is that the pheonomeon is controversial and is not considered to be settled science. You can point to whatever abuses or conspiracies you would like, you can make your own rules about whose opinions count, but you are simply delusional if you think that the matter is settled in the scientific community except in the minds of a small fringe group of individuals. But if It makes you feel good to say that nobody else matters, so be it.

  • interested observer,

    Why is it still controversial science when there have been half a dozen good replications by well known laboratories? That here have been 80 or 180 (depending on whose count you believe) other replications is icing on the cake and irrelevant.

    That is quite enough to prove the point in normal science. To not believe it is pathological.

  • Quote

    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.


    Exactly the kind of arrogance which gives LENR a bad name and reputation. Nobody should believe what you say simply because you say it. And if you are trying to make a case, you need to point the reader to specific evidence which has been made as easy to understand as is possible yet retains information and objectivity. It's your problem because you are the one always bleating about how the field is dying and about how skeptics have destroyed it. That would not happen if you really had the goods and knew how to explain and prove them properly.


    Quote

    A person such as Mary Yugo who does not understand the literature well enough to evaluate it.


    Depends on the work and on the paper. I understand some of it and rely on third party explanations, for example Shanahan's clear and lucid ones, to attempt understanding the others. Some are incomprehensible because of the way they are written. I am reminded of listening to lectures on nuclear physics by Edward Teller towards the end of his life. He was always direct and clear, regardless of how complex the subject was. I did not understand the math but I always understood his assumptions and conclusions. And he patiently and politely answered questions, even overly simplistic questions. That sort of approach is largely lacking in LENR in general and is especially lacking in much of what Jed Rothwell writes. LENR badly needs an Edward Teller and it ain't gonna be Storms or McKubre or Hagelstein, from what I have seen and heard.

  • The very many high quality and slightly above unity COP values, especially from McKubre whose documentation of his experiments is superb, points to something likely real.

    This statement is a distortion. McKubre and others have published many COP values that are far above unity, including ones with no input power (an infinite COP).

  • Jed, you have consistently missed my point throughout this entire discussion. I am not disputing or challenging any particular LENR results, or the entirety of them for that matter. I am not, in fact, weighing in on whether the phenomenon exists at all.

    It does exist, so your assertions have no point. Your observations are easily explained. People reject cold fusion because of ignorance and politics.

    What I am saying - and all that I am saying - is that the overall status of the field is that the pheonomeon is controversial and is not considered to be settled science.

    It is not considered "settled science" because people are misinformed, ignorant or irrational. Not because of the content of the science. The problem is political. If this were any other experimental finding, no one would question it.

    You can point to whatever abuses or conspiracies you would like, you can make your own rules about whose opinions count,

    First, I do not point to conspiracies. There are none as far as I know. Second, let me repeat that it makes no difference whose opinion we are talking about. If, as is likely, 50 years from now no one believes cold fusion exists, it will still exist. It has existed since the beginning of the universe. It is a physical fact of nature, and the number of people or the quality of the people who believe in it has no impact on that.


    It is not a logical error to point out that relevant exerts in electrochemistry and calorimetry confirmed cold fusion. This is evidence that it exists. But it is not the kind of strong, direct, physical evidence you see in experimental results. It is secondary evidence. People such as Mary Yugo, who cannot understand the experimental literature, should fall back on this secondary evidence. She should trust the experts because she is incapable of evaluating the facts herself.


    but you are simply delusional if you think that the matter is settled in the scientific community

    I never said anything remotely like that. That would be like asserting that Wegner's theory of continental drift was settled as true in the scientific community in 1950. Everyone knows it was not. However, the theory was correct, and the facts showed it was, so the opposition was ignorant or political, without a scientific basis. That goes for cold fusion today.


    Science is not a popularity contest. It makes no difference at all what the "scientific community" thinks is settled. The issue can only be judged with reference to experimental data and the laws of nature. By those standards, cold fusion is real. If you could show that every member of the scientific community disagreed with that conclusion, you would only prove that scientists are often wrong. Anyone who has read history knows that. If you were then to ask several of these scientists about cold fusion, you would find they know nothing about it and their conclusions are based on ignorant rumors and nonsense. Programmers, businessmen, army generals and bankers are also often wrong, and they often base their opinions on empty nonsense. That's the human condition.

  • Quote

    People reject cold fusion because of ignorance and politics.


    People reject cold fusion because the evidence has always been of insufficient quality and consistency.


    Quote


    The editor app for this forum is very weird. It keeps inserting dots and indents into my quotes and won't let me delete them.


    Quote
    She should trust the experts because she is incapable of evaluating the facts herself.


    Yah shoore. Like investors trusted Madoff perhaps. Let's let the wolves guard the chicken coops.


    Quote

    First, I do not point to conspiracies. There are none as far as I know. Second, let me repeat that it makes no difference whose opinion we are talking about. If, as is likely, 50 years from now no one believes cold fusion exists, it will still exist. It has existed since the beginning of the universe. It is a physical fact of nature, and the number of people or the quality of the people who believe in it has no impact on that.


    Sounds a lot like religion and not science. Prime principles... physical facts of nature... your assertions about those were not convincing when you made them about evidence for Rossi and they are not meaningful now.

  • I personally am highly doubtful there is any kind of fusion of deuterium going on, although I am willing to go along with the experimental finding of evolution of helium at this point.

    That statement seems contradictory to me. If there is helium evolution (as opposed to helium leaking in) then it has to be deuterium fusion. Where else could the helium be coming from? What else in the system and what other reactions can produce alpha particles (helium)?

  • There are several theories for how helium could be produced. Many prominent LENR researchers assume it is the result of some combination of deuterium. A possibility I like is induced alpha decay of an alpha emitter such as platinum. As you have pointed out in the past, such a possibility is contraindicated by the studies seeking to show a per-4He energy release of ~ 23 MeV, which is what one could expect for fusion of deuterium. But the work I've reviewed in this area feels much more tentative, and I don't take the conclusion of ~ 23MeV/4He as a sure thing at this point.

  • Sounds a lot like religion and not science. Prime principles... physical facts of nature...

    As far as I know, experiments are the only standard of truth in science. Not public opinion and not the views of the majority of the scientific community. Whether a claim is true or false in science can only be decided with reference to experimental results and the known laws of physics, such as the laws of thermodynamics in the case of cold fusion.


    What other standards are there? How do you think scientific questions are settled?


    People reject cold fusion because the evidence has always been of insufficient quality and consistency.

    If that were true, there would be scientific papers pointing out why and how the evidence is insufficient and inconsistent. There are no such papers. You cannot point to one, except Shanahan and Morrison, as I said. I invite you to read them and judge whether they make a valid case or not.


    You cannot just wave your hand and declare that evidence is this, that, insufficient, or inconsistent. You have to back up those claims. If you have not written a paper showing insufficiency, you have to point to a paper by some other author. Since there are no such papers, your argument fails. Vague generalizations without any supporting evidence or specifics are not science.


    There are, of course, countless statements on the internet claiming insufficiency and whatnot, and that is what Wikipedia and the Scientific American claim. However, if you compare what these sources say to the actual content of the experiments and scientific papers, you will see that Wikipedia authors know nothing and they are describing a fantasy. They are not critiquing the actual experiments. Also, the reasons they give make no scientific sense. They resemble statements by Morrison about recombination, which are physically impossible and 5 orders of magnitude wrong, or statements by Shanahan, which violate Faraday's laws, thermodynamics, and which are easily disproved by the actual data from experiments.

  • There are several theories for how helium could be produced. Many prominent LENR researchers assume it is the result of some combination of deuterium.

    That would be fusion. Are you saying you do not think that is happening?

    A possibility I like is induced alpha decay of an alpha emitter such as platinum.

    This cannot explain the high levels of heat in the cell, because there is no doubt the palladium cathode is the source of the heat. This is readily apparent by many methods. The simplest and perhaps best method is what you see in a boiling cell with no input power. Close-up videos of this show that the boiling water all originates at the cathode, not the anode. The cathode is hot, and it remains hot for hours or days. The anode is the same temperature as the other wires in the cell such as the thermocouples and lead wires. There is no boiling around them, either. Also, the palladium is the source of x-rays, not the platinum. So, there must be some other nuclear reaction occurring in the palladium.


    Would these reactions produce measurable transmutations in the platinum? I am not aware of any such transmutations, but people may not have looked for them.

  • That would be fusion. Are you saying you do not think that is happening?


    I'm saying I reserve judgment. To my own mind, fusion of deuterium has not been given more than a circumstantial basis, and one that remains open to questions. I'm not trained in any relevant field, so it's just my own opinion. One that I hold nonetheless as someone watching the field.


    You can still have the palladium cathode be the location of the heat in a scenario where the platinum is gradually electroplated onto the palladium cathode. Deuterium, somehow important to the PdD electrolytic system, migrates towards the cathode and not the anode. Perhaps it is at the cathode, then, that the deuterium and electroplated platinum interact. As for transmutations in the platinum, I believe that would be an implication.

  • You can still have the palladium cathode be the location of the heat in a scenario where the platinum is gradually electroplated onto the palladium cathode.

    That is a possibility. However, there is other evidence against your hypothesis. Such as:


    Pt-D and Pt-H cathodes do not produce heat.


    Several cold fusion systems have no platinum in them, such as Arata's, yet they produce heat. Granted, they have not been widely replicated.


    If there were transmutations in electroplated Pt, I think people would have detected them, but perhaps those transmutations would be indistinguishable from transmutations in the Pd. I do not know enough to judge this issue.

  • 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.


    Exactly the kind of arrogance which gives LENR a bad name and reputation. Nobody should believe what you say simply because you say it. And if you are trying to make a case, you need to point the reader to specific evidence which has been made as easy to understand as is possible yet retains information and objectivity.

    You, of all people, should not say that! I pointed you to specific information regarding the boil-off calorimetry. I explained it you not once, not twice, but three times. Yet as you yourself readily admit -- and as everyone here can see -- you do not understand it. You are a hopeless case. I cannot educate you about this matter. I cannot be held responsible for your inability to understand 18th century elementary physics.


    Along the same lines, since the person making this comment does not believe me, he must do his own homework. He must count papers or count experiments or review evidence himself. He does not believe me, so this is his problem to work through, not mine. What do you expect me to do for him? I have made the original source information available to everyone. If people don't believe me, they can find out for themselves. If they won't believe me and they won't check for themselves, nothing else can be done.

  • Blech. We can go round and round on this sort of argument and achieve nothing. See, I didn't really understand what you or the author was getting at with respect to boil off calorimetry. But I did grasp Shanahan's explanation easily because it was clear. It also explained why this may not be a reliable method. I thought the whole idea weird. There have to be better ways to measure energy output.


    Your method of "explanation" is to belittle the questioner. And then you wonder why you don't get respect. Not to mention your history of being bamboozled recently by two distinct sets of crooks (Defkalion AND Rossi). You might consider being a bit more forthcoming when you make claims. Or are you now saying that the boiloff calorimetry illustrates 100W for days without input power. Even I with my, according to you, very minimal discriminating powers can tell that paper doesn't.

  • Pt-D and Pt-H cathodes do not produce heat.


    The important observable in this case is helium production. But according to Ed Storms's "Science of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction" (p. 55), a Pd-Pt system of his own produced excess heat. And Pd is not the only substrate in which excess heat is reported; others (again from Ed's book) include Au, Ti, W, Ce, U, Ni, etc. So although palladium is a good material, it's not the only material. With regard to platinum, I suppose it has not been systematically explored yet. Another possibility is that platinum on its own doesn't provide the kind of electrochemical environment needed for its own alpha decay to be induced.


    The possibility of excess heat coming from alpha decay of platinum does not preclude excess heat coming from other, related processes in other contexts such as Arata's. With regard to the transmutations, what you find is probably heavily dependent upon what you set out to look for. But there's anecdotal evidence of transmutations all over the map.


    I'm open to excess heat and helium coming from fusion of deuterium. I consider it an interesting question and one that should be further characterized.

  • Thank you Jed for straightening me out.


    All scientists in the world who have looked into LENR are convinced it is real with the following exceptions: scientists who are idiots and can't understand the data, scientists who reject the facts based on bias, and scientists who are just flat-out lying. There is no such thing as a coming up with different conclusions from the data than your conclusions. It is impossible to do so. You have checked. Although this might be the only example of this single-possibility analysis in all of human history, it must be the case because you say so and you have all the papers and even speak Japanese.


    I don't know why you even bother trying to argue. Why not just say "I am omniscient and know better than anyone else. End of story." It would save time.


    As Mary says, it is no wonder that cold fusionistas have such a bad reputation. And you are one if the most reasonable ones!

  • All scientists in the world who have looked into LENR are convinced it is real with the following exceptions: scientists who are idiots and can't understand the data, scientists who reject the facts based on bias, and scientists who are just flat-out lying.

    Surely not all of them. I did not say that. Most of the ones I have heard from who read papers at LENR-CANR.org who looked carefully reached that conclusion. BUT, here is the important part:


    There are no scientists who concluded that cold fusion is not real and who then wrote a paper showing why and how it is not real. There are no such papers in the peer-reviewed literature or proceedings. (Except for Morrison and Shanahan.)


    I mean there are no papers showing experimental errors. There are many papers saying cold fusion conflicts with theory. But you cannot disprove experimental results by pointing to theory. That violates the scientific method.


    You say that many scientists reject the claims. Of course that is true. Everyone knows that. However, until you find a scientist who gives specific technical reasons for rejecting the claims, we have no way to evaluate the rejection. We cannot tell why the scientists rejected, or whether they have good reasons or bad reasons. We cannot draw conclusions from mere opinion unsupported by facts and arguments.

    There is no such thing as a coming up with different conclusions from the data than your conclusions. It is impossible to do so.

    It may well be possible to come up with different conclusions. However, no one has done it up until now as far as I know. If you know of someone who has, please list the paper they wrote.



    Why not just say "I am omniscient and know better than anyone else. End of story." It would save time.

    I am saying the exact opposite! I said it many times. I said, quite clearly, AS FAR AS I KNOW there are no papers describing experimental errors in any major experiment. I asked you to point to such papers. If you cannot find an example, and I cannot find one, then we are not omniscient, but it seems unlikely there is one out there.


    Do you or do you not know of such a paper? You keep saying scientists reject the findings. I keep asking you to point out specifically which scientists and in specific technical terms why they reject it. It seem you are demanding that I be omniscient, and that I should know what these people are thinking without their telling me. I do not have ESP. I cannot judge evaluations I have not read, by people I have never heard of.


    I have read hundreds of cold fusion papers. I have a database of them. If there were papers describing errors, I would probably know about them. Since I do not, the ball is in your court. You should tell me WHERE ARE THESE PAPERS??? If you cannot, let us agree they either don't exist or it is not possible for you and I to take them into account or judge them.

  • . I personally am highly doubtful there is any kind of fusion of deuterium going on, although I am willing to go along with the experimental finding of evolution of helium at this point....Evolution of helium is itself quite astonishing if not erroneous, but it's a more general finding, not tied to any specific mechanism. In such a context, the question of branching ratios appears premature....Are there any other possible explanations for the evolution of helium?

    Like you said, going into branching ratios is premature, especially as a way to dismiss the explanation of nuclear events. That's because there's no evidence to suggest that branching ratios for fusion within a gaseous state would be the same deeply inside a condensed solid.

  • However, until you find a scientist who gives specific technical reasons for rejecting the claims, we have no way to evaluate the rejection. We cannot tell why the scientists rejected, or whether they have good reasons or bad reasons. We cannot draw conclusions from mere opinion unsupported by facts and arguments...... I said, quite clearly, AS FAR AS I KNOW there are no papers describing experimental errors in any major experiment.

    There was one suggestion that Pons and Fleischmann did not mix their cells properly. It was shown rather quickly to be in error by P&F adding dye to their cells, showing how rapidly it diffused. The hot fusion physicists did have trouble replicating P&F, mainly because they didn't know what they were doing with calorimetry and didn't have high enough loading. However, failure to replicate is NOT proving the phenomenon doesn't exist, and the hot fusion scientists proceeded directly to say that their failure to replicate was proof that the phenomena does not exist.

  • That statement seems contradictory to me. If there is helium evolution (as opposed to helium leaking in) then it has to be deuterium fusion. Where else could the helium be coming from? What else in the system and what other reactions can produce alpha particles (helium)?

    Sounds a lot like the Widom-Larson theory. You start with 2 Hydrogen atoms and end up with a Helium atom, and a bunch of fascinating roundabout stuff in the middle. Then they loudly proclaim "It's NOT FUSION!" Maybe they should call it an "induced combination of 2 atoms into one virtual atom".

  • There was one suggestion that Pons and Fleischmann did not mix their cells properly. It was shown rather quickly to be in error by P&F adding dye to their cells, showing how rapidly it diffused.

    Yes. There have been a variety of suggestions such as this. This is a valid objection. It is possible the cell was not stirred correctly. However, we know that it was.


    Another example of a valid objection is the suggestion that during the boil-off phase of F&P's experiment, some water left the cell entrained in droplets, rather than as vapor. That would mean they overestimated the enthalpy. However, that was not the case, as Fleischmann showed in his response to Morrison, and as I discussed in somewhat more detail here:


    http://coldfusioncommunity.net…-blew-up-it-must-be-lenr/


    Some of the skeptical suggestions that have circulated on the internet are valid. Some may have been helpful to researchers over the years. I doubt that, because as far as I know, the researchers already knew about these potential problems, and addressed them, even before the skeptic came up with the idea.


    But here is my larger point. Somewhere out there, someone may have a coherent set of arguments and facts that call into question the results from Flieschmann, Miles, McKubre, Srinivasan, Lonchampt, Storms, Will, Bockris and the other major results. Say, the top 50 studies. Someone may know good reasons to reject all of these claims. Or they may have reasons to reject one of them, leaving the others intact. HOWEVER, I have not heard from this person. He or she has not published a paper. So I have no way of knowing what this person thinks, or why he rejects the claims. I cannot guess, and I have never read a critique from anyone address any of these claims. (Except Morrison and Shanahan!)


    Interested Observer keeps saying the scientific community as a whole rejects the claims. Yes, that is obvious. There is a consensus of opinion. Okay. But he cannot tell us: WHAT IS THE TECHNICAL BASIS for this consensus? Why do all these people think the experiments are invalid? What are their technical reasons for reaching these conclusions? Without knowing that, we have no way to judge whether these people are right or wrong. We have nothing to go on.


    Knowing only that a million scientists, or programmers, or economists, or military officers believe in assertion X does not tell us anything about the content of X. It does not give us any reason to agree with these people. Or to disagree with them. We have to look at the content of X and their reasons for believing it. Needless to say, if we are talking about a military strategy, then I would have no way to judge X since I have no military background or training. I would be helpless. I would be as incapable of judging this as Mary Yugo is incapable of judging a boil-off experiment. I could only say, "well, the consensus of experts seems to be X, so I guess that's right."


    In the case of cold fusion, I could judge a skeptical evaluation. But there aren't any as far as I know. I cannot judge an evaluation I have not seen and I have no knowledge of.


    There is one other important issue here. Suppose our hypothetical skeptical expert has a paper hidden away showing a serious error in McKubre's work. Okay, he reveals it, and I say: "Ah, ha, you are right. There is a problem here." That leaves ~49 other robust studies proving the existence of cold fusion. Unless our expert reveals 49 other papers showing errors in these other studies, he has not disproved cold fusion. The calorimeters and diagnostics are sufficiently different that there can be no single systematic error in all of them. The systems are too different for that.


    If a single good study survives, then the effect is real, and those 49 disproved studies have no significance. It is similar to the situation with aviation in September 1904. There were dozens of failed attempts to fly by people other than the Wright brothers. Not one of them succeeded. The Wrights themselves flew in December 1903 in the cold air at Kitty Hawk, but back in Dayton in summer they tried about 80 times to fly, but they usually failed or barely managed to get off the ground. They often crashed. However, despite this long track record of failure, it would make no sense to say that airplanes did not exist, or that the Wrights did not know how to fly. One flight at Kitty Hawk proved the issue. The failures before that, and the ones that followed did not -- and could not -- disprove it. Ever. One good set of cold fusion experiments proves the effect is real. It should give us great confidence that there are hundreds of good sets of experiments, but actually, one is enough.


    (After September 1904, the Wrights improved their airplane and launch technique, and the weather cooled, air density increased, so they soon began flying more successfully on a regular basis.)