Replication of LENR experiments

  • This sentence makes no sense. LENR happens in hydrides. The effect is measured with instruments. The instrument data is published in papers. That's the only place it can exist. Where else would you expect to find it? Perhaps you are again insisting that the effect can only be real if it happens in commercial reactors and other practical devices. A scientific claim has to be judged by the standards of science, not commercial technology. By your standards, Josephson junctions, quantum computers, HTSC power lines, plasma fusion and the top quark do not exist.


    You apparently do not grasp the concept that before cold fusion can be made practical it must be fully controlled. Since you have not read the literature, you have no idea what control entails or what progress has been made in it.


    Again let me suggest that instead of spouting off with one damned ignorant comment after another, you should first learn something about the subject. You make yourself look foolish. It is as if I were to invade a discussion group about football and start blabbing about field goals and first downs. Since I have only the haziest notion of what those things are, or what the rules of football are, and I have never actually watched a football game, my ignorance would soon be revealed. People would ask, "what are you doing here?!?"


    The burden of proof is on you, the claimer. Not me. Stop creating a straw-man argument.


    My point stands, and will continue to stand, until someone produces a working reactor. You have not addressed this at all.

  • Extraordinary evidence is abundant. Multiple patents have been issued that explain how radioactive isotopes can be stabilized using LENR methods. There is also unimpeachable evidence of transmutation of elements and isotope change produced through the LENR reaction. The Naval research lab is one of the unimpeachable sources of this evidence.


    And where are the working reactors?

  • Alan Smith


    I'm sorry you don't like the hard questions Alan. I am surprised the likes of maryyugo have survived so long here if this is the approach you take when people question LENR.


    JedRothwell has not produced a shred of evidence to suggest even remotely LENR is a legitimate phenomenon. Papers written by LENR supporters do not constitute evidence. After decades of experimentation and millions of dollars spent we are no closer to a working reactor. To quote the proverbial, Jed's evidence is not worth the paper it is written on.


    Rossi continues his shenanigans. All he had to do was run one conclusive demo but he chose to make more and more complicated ones. Defkalion (safe word) were in the same vein. All just conmen. That's all. This is the sorry state of LENR.


    Since this is probably my last post here (since you'll wield your banning powers) I will say it again, maryyugo is CORRECT and has been for a long time. Pretty much all the experimental results purporting to show excess heat is just bad calorimetry. LENR researchers should heed this advice and learn a thing about the insertion and positioning of calorimeter probes.

  • Mary may be right or wrong. My complaint has nothing to do with Rossi, or LENR. My complaint is that you are deliberately behaving like a dickhead. You are going to be (as you seem to want) banned for 2 weeks for offensive behaviour, and will have to resort to using one of the other RB's to post.

  • Just because you say it don't make it true.


    Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - RationalWiki



    indeed.

    There is extraordinary evidence, with massive replications, huge sigma, varied measurement techniques, varied teams, no critc that is not ridiculously wrong and refuted without substantiated answer (remember ther was only 4 paper proposing an explanation, the last criticicize the first and just propose a correction that does not refute the best observations).

    Then came Kirk.


    now you say it is not extraordinary, but yes be cause you say it does not make it true.


    basic of physics is symmetries: never forget to apply your claims to your claims.

  • huge sigma


    No, unknown sigma. That's the point of pointing out that the error analyses have not been adequately done.


    no critc that is not ridiculously wrong


    Say what? Whom do you refer to?


    and refuted without substantiated answer (remember ther was only 4 paper proposing an explanation, the last criticicize the first and just propose a correction that does not refute the best observations).


    Again, this seems to make no sense. Please rephrase...

    Then came Kirk.


    So the above doesn't refer to me? It sure seemed to for a moment. Please rephrase...

  • kirkshanahan


    With all due respect to Alain who seems to be a very pleasant person who certainly means well, I have been following his writings for a long time and for the most part, I rarely understand anything he says. I am not sure if it is a language issue or what, but don't be surprised if you have trouble getting to what Alain means.

  • I have been following his writings for a long time and for the most part, I rarely understand anything he says. I am not sure if it is a language issue or what,

    His English has some linguistic interference from French.


    Perhaps you are not experienced understanding people who are not native speakers. I have had a lot of practice over the last 40 years listening to Japanese speakers of English, and more recently editing papers by Italians and other non-native speakers.


    I have no difficulty understanding Alain. If you do have trouble, and you normally can understand non-native speakers, perhaps the problem is on your end. Perhaps your understanding is faulty. You report that you cannot understand McKubre's papers. They are models of clarity and good writing, and they describe classic 19th century science, so I would say you have some inherent difficulty understanding this field. That does not imply you have low intelligence or difficulty with other fields. I can understand complex documents about some subjects, whereas I cannot make head or tail of an article about, say, musicology.


    I suspect your problem understanding this field is rooted in a deep-seated, irrational hostility to the entire subject.

  • I do not agree with the assertion that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." Let me quote a document written by Melich and I regarding this. This refers to the 2004 DoE reviewer #1, claim 5:



    Claim 1.5. “As many have said, extraordinary results require extraordinary proof. Such proof is lacking.”


    This is not a principle of science. It was coined by Carl Sagan for the 1980 “Cosmos” television series. Conventional scientific standards dictate that extraordinary claims are best supported with ordinary evidence from off-the-shelf instruments and standard techniques. All mainstream cold fusion papers present this kind of evidence.


    Conventional standards also dictate that all claims and arguments must be held to the same standards of rigor. This includes skeptical assertions that attempt to disprove cold fusion, which have been notably lacking in rigor.


    Laplace asserted that “The weight of evidence for an extraordinary claim must be proportioned to its strangeness.” “Weight of evidence” is a measure of how much evidence you have, not how extraordinary it is. There is more evidence for cold fusion than for previously disputed effects. (For example, although there were a few hundred papers published about polywater, most were speculative, and only two labs reported success. [Cite F. Franks])


    Finally, the quality of being “extraordinary” is subjective. What seems extraordinary to one person seems ordinary to another. Many scientific phenomena that experts take for granted, such as quantum effects, seemed extraordinary when they were discovered, and still seem extraordinary to non-scientists.

  • As many have said, extraordinary results require extraordinary proof

    Also, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcello_Truzzi

    "is credited with originating the oft-used phrase "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof", though earlier versions existed."


    Also, as I recently wrote: the small bit of ordinary confidence obtained by correlating to prior work must be replaced by a little extra ordinary results.


    The extra work is what the CFers refuse to do.

  • Conventional standards also dictate that all claims and arguments must be held to the same standards of rigor. This includes skeptical assertions that attempt to disprove cold fusion, which have been notably lacking in rigor.

    ....


    Finally, the quality of being “extraordinary” is subjective. What seems extraordinary to one person seems ordinary to another. Many scientific phenomena that experts take for granted, such as quantum effects, seemed extraordinary when they were discovered, and still seem extraordinary to non-scientists.

    So how do we establish that LENR has been replicated? We are surrounded by hyperskeptics, whom I have no real interest in appeasing because their standard, if it were applied to any other branch of science, would send us back to some kind of stone age. Aiming for an ordinary skeptic, it seems reasonable to me to accept the first hundred or so replications by the "who's who of electrochemistry" as accepted, those >150 peer reviewd replications collected by Britz, > 180 labs, and the 14,700 replication repeat experiments reported by J.T. He. A person trained in the sciences would come across this evidence and accept it as determined that the Pons Fleischmann Anomalous Heating Effect is well replicated.


    Would you have a few strong items to add to that list?

  • Jed wrote: His English has some linguistic interference from French.


    I know. He was speaking about 4 papers and huge sigmas and ridiculously wrong critics, and I thought it sounded like he was discussing me. Then he said "Then came Kirk." and I was confused. So my comment, which MY responded to, was meant to ask for clarification.


    Still waiting... whose papers, what sigmas, who was being ridiculous, etc.

  • it seems reasonable to me to accept the first hundred or so replications by the "who's who of electrochemistry" as accepted, those >150 peer reviewd replications collected by Britz, > 180 labs, and the 14,700 replication repeat experiments reported by J.T. He. A person trained in the sciences would come across this evidence and accept it as determined that the Pons Fleischmann Anomalous Heating Effect is well replicated.


    Perhaps. Until you read my papers and realize a mundane, normal-chemistry-only explanation has been proposed and not evaluated. Then you conclude: "Not enough info to claim reproduction."

  • Perhaps. Until you read my papers and realize a mundane, normal-chemistry-only explanation has been proposed and not evaluated. Then you conclude: "Not enough info to claim reproduction."

    You have been proven wrong by the top scientists in this field, so I think it's prudent to simply ask you to stay on the thread you have been granted to defend your untenable theory.

  • To be candid, Kirk, I would include you in the list of hyperskeptics. I have already posted to you the suggestions for trying to take down the top 100 experts in electrochemistry, so if you do that.... more power to ya.


    And to be candid, I've already told you several times I have "taken them down" by noting that they do not consider the CCS/ATER mechanism. That means

    a mundane, normal-chemistry-only explanation has been proposed and not evaluated


    That applied to all 153 you referred to elsewhere in this forum.