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.

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

    If you do not know, you should not pontificate. You have made many assertions here that only a person who knows a lot would be qualified to make.

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

    If they look that way to you, you have not understood them. First, because in many cases the effects are large, not small. Second, you cannot say "they could well be some sort of artifact." That isn't science. You have to say what artifact they might be. Show evidence. Make your case. Your assertion has to be backed up with as much rigor and proof as the assertions made by the authors of these papers. You do not get a free pass.


    A negative opinion does not get a free pass. When you predicate your opinion by saying "I don't know" or "I have not read this carefully" or "it looks to me . . ." then your opinion is nowhere near as credible as the authors', because they are world-class experts who spent years studying these issues. They carefully ruled out every plausible artifact, and they listed the ways they did this. I am 100% confident that you cannot find an artifact they did not already rule out. In fact, I am confident that you have no specific artifact in mind. In experimental science, you must be specific or you have no case.


    You remind me of politicians who denounce a scientific finding by saying, "I am not a scientist but . . ." That cancels out the rest of their statement. If you are not a scientist, or you have not read the literature carefully, you have no business expressing an opinion.

  • 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.

  • 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.

    "I can't form a conclusion" would automatically nullify whatever he next says.


    As I said, that would be like the politician's get-of-jail-card: "I am not a scientist, but . . ." Hey Senator, if you are not a scientist then please shut up. Also, we see you are not a scientist. No one would mistake you for a scientist.


    Interested Observer is saying all kinds of things here which anyone can see are conclusions about LENR, such as:


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


    Then, as soon as he says this, he says oh but I am not reaching a conclusion, so ha, ha, you can't hold me to it! You can't make me provide evidence for what I just said, because it is not a conclusion.


    Those are conclusions! "Small" and "some sort of artifact" are conclusions. What else would they be? Both are wrong, but they are conclusions.

  • Ok guys. Apparently your purpose in life is to muster up outrage and vitriol against people who don't share your viewpoint. 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. I will try to be stunned by how you really "got me." I hope hurling insults and arrogant belittling is pleasurable for you. Otherwise, it is sure a waste of whatever talents you may have. Meanwhile, I will continue to "pontificate" when I feel like it. Feel free to ignore me or continue to lecture me on how I am not qualified to say anything. TTFN

  • So you still believe Rossi's crappola even now? Wow. Metal stores heat, in case you didn't know. So do other substances. Rossi did not allow full inspection of the interior of the massive ottoman ecat.

    We actually have quite a lot of information about the contents of the "ottoman" :

    lewan_DSC_0089_600_a.jpg


    1. Mats' photo showing a) thin walls, 2) fins in most of the top half 3) a likelyhood that there are fins in the bottom half too and that there is a central "wafer"

    2. The volume from the time to fill the cavity

    3. The volume from the time taken to dump the water


    Also, see Bog Higgins' schematic

    111012_bh_plots0002.png

    It was most certainly not a block of solid metal.

    I agree on the thermocouple placement : I disqualified the experiment as "not proven" (subtly different from DIS-proven).

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

  • They were raised, and then answered by the authors. The authors were communicating back then. They revised the paper. I do not know why they stopped communicating later on.

    Probably because in the net one is exposed to so many Trolls ....... you can answer Saint Mary of the Unbelievers a hundred times but she from her Holy Grace will keep bashing you so you can repent from your heresy and return to the Church of True Science.

  • Also, see Bog Higgins' schematic

    Bob Higgins schematic is quite old and also the photo of Mats Lewan is extremely old !

    The photo refers to one early test in Bologna, we can't know if and how the reactor was changed after,

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

  • @ Alan Fletcher,

    The entire cavity would have to be filled with LEAD to prove it Fake. Iron is marginal.

    Nearly 40 kg of iron (about 5 dm3, less than the volume of the inner box) added to the mass of container and fins, are sufficient to store all the heat necessary to explain the actual behavior of the Ecat test held on October 6, 2011.


    See: https://www.lenr-forum.com/for…t/?postID=22374#post22374

  • 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.

  • "I can't form a conclusion" would automatically nullify whatever he next says.

    As I said, that would be like the politician's get-of-jail-card: "I am not a scientist, but . . ." Hey Senator, if you are not a scientist then please shut up. Also, we see you are not a scientist. No one would mistake you for a scientist.

    Interested Observer is saying all kinds of things here which anyone can see are conclusions about LENR, such as:

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

    Then, as soon as he says this, he says oh but I am not reaching a conclusion, so ha, ha, you can't hold me to it! You can't make me provide evidence for what I just said, because it is not a conclusion.

    Those are conclusions! "Small" and "some sort of artifact" are conclusions. What else would they be? Both are wrong, but they are conclusions.


    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? It is semantics and not worth arguing about.


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


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

  • 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? It is semantics and not worth arguing about.

    Of course that is a conclusion! What else would it be? It is not "semantics" at all.


    A person who thinks that the evidence is too uncertain to reach a technical judgement has reached a definite conclusion. That conclusion being: Not enough information. We cannot judge yet. That is as definite as "surely yes" or "definitely no."


    "Not enough information" is a clear-cut conclusion. It must be supported by evidence just as much as any other conclusion, or it should be ignored. If there is, in fact, enough information, then this conclusion is wrong.


    Indeed, it is flat-out wrong. Asserting that we cannot tell whether cold fusion is real or not is like saying no one knew for sure whether nuclear fission was real in 1942, because it was mighty difficult to make sub 1-watt reactor, there was only one reactor in the world, and there were no practical applications such as bombs.

  • "There is only one way to look at this: our way."


    That does seem to be your position.


    I was interested in your position on LENR & Rossi because I hope the matter will be clarified later this year I wanted a handy quote to compare with the facts as they emerged.

    My position, as I've stated several times. is wait and see. LENR is proven, Rossi's E-Cats not yet.

    From your comments it would seem Rossi was right - it will take commercial operation for you to believe.

  • @ maryyugo,

    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.

    No need to speculate. Announcing the imminent October 6, 2011 test, a privileged source revealed who, since February, thought about the setting, and who subsequently validated it:



    So, the intricate setting of this test is the answer of the academicians to all the critics and suggestions arisen after the first Ecat tests. Guess why.


    Now, let's give a "Look at the BIG PICTURE …":

    - Before the test, the academic boost: Levi > Josephson > CMNS > 22passi > blogosphere;

    - After the test, opinion makers at work: "… and you will see this is irrefutable proof" (1).


    (1) http://www.mail-archive.com/vo…@eskimo.com/msg52546.html

  • Adrian Ashfield wrote:

    I wanted a handy quote to compare with the facts as they emerged


    Well, if LENR is "clarified" later this year, you can certainly look at my quote about being undecided and say.... um, what?


    But I will try to remember your quote about later this year. I've been hearing that sort of thing from believers on an ongoing basis for 6 years. "We'll have the answer in June... in January... next fall.... real soon.... etc."


    If you want to quote me about anything, it is that I can assure you that next year, Rossi believers (albeit somewhat fewer of them, I suspect) will still be defending his nonsense despite nothing tangible in sight and LENR will be in the same state it has been for decades.


    As an aside, I'd like to understand how your "LENR is proven" equates to "Wait and see" while my "I don't know" equates to "I think it doesn't exist". You seem to have a unique understanding of the English language.

  • Can anyone translate/explain Ascoli65's post to me? I think I followed Rossi and Levi pretty closely in 2011 and 2012 and I have no idea what that post means. Not even what the topic is. HELP!


    Quote

    So, the intricate setting of this test is the answer of the academicians to all the critics and suggestions arisen after the first Ecat tests. Guess why


    I don't want to "guess why" -- EXPLAIN PLEASE.


    Quote

    Now, let's give a "Look at the BIG PICTURE …":

    - Before the test, the academic boost: Levi > Josephson > CMNS > 22passi > blogosphere;

    - After the test, opinion makers at work: "… and you will see this is irrefutable proof" (1).


    What does this MEAN please? I don't know-- does being extrasupercryptic somehow help?

  • Eric Walker: Sono fusion of Deuterium (D2O) produces tons of 4He... Totally verified - still supported by DOD...


    Sonofusion is not necessarily the same as, and is indeed thought to be quite different from, what is happening in the Pons and Fleischmann experiment. So a conclusion drawn about sonofusion cannot be applied to PdD electrolytic cells without a case being made that they are the same.

  • Sonofusion may not be anything at all:


    Quote

    On July 18, 2008, Purdue University announced that a committee with members from five institutions had investigated 12 allegations of research misconduct against Rusi Taleyarkhan. It concluded that two allegations were founded—that Taleyarkhan had claimed independent confirmation of his work when in reality the apparent confirmations were done by Taleyarkhan's former students and was not as "independent" as Taleyarkhan implied, and that Taleyarkhan had included a colleague's name on one of his papers who had not actually been involved in the research ("the sole apparent motivation for the addition of Mr. Butt was a desire to overcome a reviewer's criticism", the report concluded).[18][34]


    I am sure this is all pathoskeptics at work, right? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bubble_fusion