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

  • 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

  • @ maryyugo,

    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!

    The topic is in the comment of yours, that I quoted before. You were speculating on who could have designed the October 6, 2011, test. I gave you the answer in accordance to a post published by a Levi's friend on the blog "22passi": "… this is exactly the experimental setting that Giuseppe Levi, already in February, explained to me that he had thought about official E-Cat testings programmed at Unibo …" (Google translation).


    Quote

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

    As you know, since the first demo in January 2011, many people on internet suggested the testers (I mean the academicians who did the measurements and reported the results) how to setting up a much more significant test. The main suggestion was to regulate the coolant flow rate, in such a way to maximize the delta T, but avoiding any phase change. The above excerpt from "22passi" shows that the testers did never had any intention to follow this simple suggestion. I think there is only one reason for this behavior.


    Quote

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

    I don't find it so cryptic. Did you read the linked email? Did you see its title?


    It's just an example of what I already told you in another thread (1-2). But you keep on saying: "Misplacement of thermocouples seems to be a trademark Rossi move and is probably how he originally fooled Focardi and Levi with the first ecats."


    Hard to say who fooled who. The trademark of the Ecat affair, as well as of other CF/LENR initiatives, is the combination of academic (or equivalent) authoritative declarations, followed by opinion campaigns carried on especially in the blogosphere. Rossi by his own couldn't fool anyone. He was not credible since the beginning.


    (1) Is there evidence for LENR power generation of 100W for days without input power?

    (2) Is there evidence for LENR power generation of 100W for days without input power?


  • I see where you went off into the weeds. You're following Rossi, not LENR. All those 153 peer reviewed replications by the top hundred electrochemists of the day were done long before Rossi came onto the scene. So that makes you particularly ignorant of the facts on the ground. And when it comes to a unique understanding of the English language, you look more like Humpty Dumpty with each passing post. Keep posting those logical fallacies, they make you a real good pasquinade.

  • Were you mistreated as a child, Kev? It seems like you have lots of anger issues to work out. But keep at it. I'm sure I will be devastated by your comments real soon.

    Perhaps we will all be devastated by your comments when you dispense with using logical fallacies, actually read the papers you are so skeptical of, and learn a scientific principle or 2. Those top hundred electrochemists of their day had PhD's in electrochemistry and related fields, they replicated the anomalous heat event more than 150 times in peer reviewed studies, and moved science forward. You're just moving science backward with your Humpty Dumpty approach.

  • I can assure you that my comments on this forum are not moving science in any direction, nor are they intended to, nor could they. As for your comments, they are the usual bizzaro world stuff I have seen for 6 years from people who are so obsessed with LENR that they consider anyone who doesn't share their beliefs to be bad people. It is no wonder that LENR fandom is often described as a religion and a fanatical one at that. Talk about pathological behavior! I do wonder whether outside the LENR temple folks who act the way you do are normal people. I suppose I will never know.

  • maryyugo

    If I've understood correctly so far, Ascoli65's thesis is that Rossi and a small group of people at least initially mostly located around Bologna have been working since 2009, possibly earlier, under the direction of people higher up in various U.S. (and other nations') governmental departments to promote and disseminate propaganda - 'fake news' as it is called nowadays - about cold fusion/LENR (which never existed in the first place), and that other propagandists known in the field took advantage of this propaganda (presumably knowing that it was) to promote and disseminate their own until it served their purposes.


    Ascoli65 never seems to write this directly in a single coherent post, though.

  • maryyugo

    If I've understood correctly so far, Ascoli65's thesis is that Rossi and a small group of people at least initially mostly located around Bologna have been working since 2009, possibly earlier, under the direction of people higher up in various U.S. (and other nations') governmental departments to promote and disseminate propaganda - 'fake news' as it is called nowadays - about cold fusion/LENR (which never existed in the first place), and that other propagandists known in the field took advantage of this propaganda (presumably knowing that it was) to promote and disseminate their own until it served their purposes.


    Ascoli65 never seems to write this directly in a single coherent post, though.


    Yes, something like. I have this problem too. ascoli's thesis is (1) the early academic helpers of Rossi (specifically Levi) were deliberately making the tests look good and (2) something more complex.


    I leave (2) alone, since it is beyond me, and I'm not interested. As for (1) Ascoli brings forward definite evidence of extremely poor experimental practice from Levi and whoever else was endorsing this stuff. Personally I'm unwilling to substitute deliberate malfeasance for incompetence when we are at such a distance, since incompetence is a powerful thing when combined with a charismatic figure leading one in the wrong direction. But it remains possible. those who know Levi seem to think not, but that again I cannot vouch for, and appearances can be deceptive.

  • Kev wrote:

    What makes sense to do is to print out our exchange and hand it to someone you know and trust to give you honest feedback.


    Actually, I have shown such exchanges to friends, particularly scientists. Their universal response is "why do you waste your time talking to these nutcases?"


    In your desperation to hurl insults my way, perhaps you hadn't noticed that I am not trying to persuade you of anything. All this whole exchange has been about is your insistence that I am not entitled to be undecided about LENR.

    If you think it is rational for a person to rant and rave at someone for being undecided about something when that indecision has absolutely zero effect on them or anyone else for that matter, then you are many tacos short of a combination plate. But you are beyond understanding that, so feel free to respond with another set of bon mots about skeptopaths and the rest of your litany.