A more detailed definition of repeatability is needed.
A researcher might consider an experiment repeatable if he's able to consistently reproduce the results with the materials and equipment employed.
This however does not imply that a complete enough understanding of the parameters and processes involved has been achieved to ensure that other people will also be able to reproduce the same experiments with reasonable effort, or even that the original researcher is able to reproduce the experiment with different materials (batches) and equipment.
A more detailed definition of repeatability is needed.
A researcher might consider an experiment repeatable if he's able to consistently reproduce the results with the materials and equipment employed.
This however does not imply that a complete enough understanding of the parameters and processes involved has been achieved to ensure that other people will also be able to reproduce the same experiments with reasonable effort, or even that the original researcher is able to reproduce the experiment with different materials (batches) and equipment.
it is always somebody else's fault.
Our car breaking system is the most reliable and advanced in the industry. However it depends on your definition of reliability as some drivers are willing to take more risk than others.
If we disregard the size of the output and only focus on the repeatability rate,
which experiments do you know of that reported a high repeatability rate?
None.
Arguably, Miles had high repeatability with Johnson-Matthew Type A palladium. But there is no more of that. See pages 5 and 6:
https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJlessonsfro.pdf
And the original document:
The SPAWAR team claim that the co-dep protocol is replicable.
The SPAWAR team claim that the co-dep protocol is replicable.
And some from the disbanded SPAWAR/GEC team, are now part of the NASA/GEC team: NASA: New Paper about Experimental Progress
Mills: Excess Heat Production by the Electrolysis of an Aqueous Potassium Carbonate Electrolyte (1991) Excess heat in range 10 W per 60 W electrical power into the cell.
Noninsky: Excess Heat during the Electrolysis of a Light Water Solution of K2CO3 with a Nickel Cathode (1992)
Notoya: Cold Fusion by Electrolysis in a Light Water-Potassium Carbonate Solution with a Nickel Electrode (1993) K + proton —> Ca + 8.33 MeV
Niedra: Replication of the Apparent Excess Heat Effect in a Light Water--Potassium Carbonate Nickel Electrolytic Cell (1996)
IIRC, Yet-Ming Chiang also stated that their (Schenkel / Google) Claytor replication was very stable and repeatable, though only producing a small number of neutrons. Philip Ball also wrote an article suggesting that they were making preliminary measurements of other nuclear products, though this has not been published yet; assuming I understand everything correctly.
I agree with JedRothwell. There aren't any reported yet in public space.
If any reliable high repeatability would exist LENR science would now be main stream.
I agree with JedRothwell. There aren't any reported yet in public space.
Actually, as noted by Zephir, there are some claims of repeatability in the public space, but as far as I know they have not been independently confirmed.
Improved repeatability has been reported and confirmed, but Miles and others.
If any reliable high repeatability would exist LENR science would now be main stream.
I don't think that is a given! The mainstream might go on ignoring the field. I hope people would pay attention, but they might not. It is difficult to overcome academic politics.
IIRC, Yet-Ming Chiang also stated that their (Schenkel / Google) Claytor replication was very stable and repeatable, though only producing a small number of neutrons. Philip Ball also wrote an article suggesting that they were making preliminary measurements of other nuclear products, though this has not been published yet; assuming I understand everything correctly.
Again pretty sure the small number of neutrons is because most of the reaction events didn't trouble the nuclei of the involved atoms. Thanks for sharing!
I agree with JedRothwell. There aren't any reported yet in public space.
If any reliable high repeatability would exist LENR science would now be main stream.
Maybe the energetic results are widespread and repeatable. Just look, see that they are fragmented and dissasotiated by labels, slightly different theories and the false association that in order for it to be a successful energy source we need predictable fusion pathway results. Part of this is accepting alternate pathways of emerging light.
I agree with JedRothwell. There aren't any reported yet in public space.
If any reliable high repeatability would exist LENR science would now be main stream.
Maybe the energetic results are widespread and repeatable. Just look, see that they are fragmented and dissasotiated by labels, slightly different theories and the false association that in order for it to be a successful energy source we need predictable fusion pathway results. Part of this is accepting alternate pathways of emerging light. If it was all heaped into one label or range of phenomina the reproducibility would seem a bit higher.
Display MoreActually, as noted by Zephir, there are some claims of repeatability in the public space, but as far as I know they have not been independently confirmed.
Improved repeatability has been reported and confirmed, but Miles and others.
I don't think that is a given! The mainstream might go on ignoring the field. I hope people would pay attention, but they might not. It is difficult to overcome academic politics.
Agreed, politics gets in the way of everything.
Brillouin Energy of Berkeley, CA, USA has achieved repeatable , consistent results of over unity energy production.
Results have been verified by SRI in Stanford, CA, USA
We conducted 215 experiments and 407 experimental runs of so-called ‘Low Energy Nuclear Reactions’ (LENR) relating to the claims of ‘cold fusion’ in deuterated palladium. Our experiments ran from 2012-2016 at a cost of about $3 million.
Measurement of X-Rays from a Fleischmann-Pons cell
Researchers seeking direct, incontrovertible evidence of a LENR phenomenon have tried to observe nuclear products such as neutrons or alpha particlesmin their experiments.
If the anomalous heat was real in any of the LENR literature and if it were of nuclear origin, one would expect that, regardless of the nuclear pathway, production of secondary X-rays would be observed.
However, measurement of X-rays through the apparatus typically used in LENR experiments is difficult, especially if the X-rays themselves were low-energy and thus unable to escape the apparatus.
To overcome these deficiencies, we developed specialized electrochemical cells to detect the emission of soft X-rays during electrolysis of palladium in deuterated electrolyte
During a specific set of measurements, we observed a low rate of X-ray emission in the experiment, which was not found in the light-water control. This surprising result occurred with regular frequency in
the experiment, but displayed a broad, low-energy emission spectrum, at the detection limit of the detector, at ~ 1 keV.
We suspended the experiment and swapped the deuterated experiment chip with the light water control, thus making the control apparatus the live test and vice versa. This was done to eliminate instrumentation error. We continued to get a weak Xray signature from the deuterated chip, but not from the (new) light-water control.
Had we ceased our efforts there, this experiment may very well have become one of the seminal experiments in the 'cold fusion' field and would probably have garnered widespread media attention.
After weeks of effort, we finally discovered the source of the X-ray signal. Though the X-ray detector was supposedly shielded from electromagnetic interference by the manufacturer, the culprit was interference from a cell phone carried by one of our researchers.
Why, then, did the control experiment never yield the same erroneous result? Because the field from a cell phone falls with the square of the distance, and the natural inclination of any researcher is to briefly check that the control experiment is running well, but spend most of their time checking the live experiment. That closer average proximity led to this deceptive result.
This should serve as a salutary lesson in experimental discipline, and in doing the utmost to find rudimentary causes for apparently remarkable results.
>>>> "On" timer in AS cell phone? <<<<<
Because the field from a cell phone falls with the square of the distance,
Was Hagelstein on his iphone in 2010?
