That would only be the case if people reported cases with very low excess heat, within the margin of error, as positives. They do not. The reports describe significant excess heat, well above the margin of error for the calorimeter.
The problem is that that no controlled LENR results have complete analyses of error. That is because error estimates must include a term for the differences between control and active runs: that is difficult to bound. It is usually assumed negligible - but that assumption may be wrong. Checking whether it is wrong is necessary in each case and given the surprising effects possible in metal-H or metal-D electrolysis we cannot rely on "what electrochemists all know" wisdom.
For first principle results where data depends only on direct measurement of excess heat I do not think we have so many positives? Perhaps it would be interesting to look at what fraction of excess heat measurements come from direct measurement. The most obvious such positive, historic, which I am now allowed to mention, has accompanying video evidence which appears to contradict the calculation in the paper. Perhaps we could list others?
In point of fact, any experiment that is even marginally positive may actually be positive. No calorimeter recovers 100% of the heat. That is impossible. When the instrument is working properly, a heat balance with no excess is always slightly negative.
This is covered by this issue: excess heat results got by comparison with a control run (the usual case) do not have this built-in negative bias.
As I said, the file drawer effect does not exist for the major studies. They reported all results. There are no systematic errors. If there were, someone would have found them by now. These studies at Los Alamos, SRI and elsewhere underwent very thorough peer-review, lasting months or years in some cases. Reviewers included skeptical people who looked carefully for systematic errors. They found none. You, Morrison and the other skeptics have found no errors.
The level of peer review of these experiments is lamentable. I, just as you, regret the way that mainstream science will mostly ignore LENR papers. However, now there is maybe a chance to remedy that with the increasing interest. A similar experiment done now claiming new evidence could be peer reviewed properly, with the full process where reviewers go back an ask experimenters to perform additional checks to make results more solid. You need to find peer reviewers from outside teh LENR community: mostly people have now forgotten the old controversy, so most now (the younger ones anyway) have no preconceptions.
But when you say skeptics have found no systematic errors: Shanahan has found two errors which might apply. Specifically CCS will apply whenever error bounds are not properly calculated in a controlled calorimetry result. That can be determined for every such experiment yes/no. there is no argument. It is trivial, and you would hope it did not apply to many, but Shanahan's have some examples of it applying.
ATER will apply directly to all electrolysis experiments. The arguments against it being relevant all have sound counterarguments:
(1) It does not happen. No-one can know this given the unusual effects on metal-H electrochemistry and the fact that it can be mistaken for excess heat.
(2) It is not relevant in experiments with a recombiner. It is relevant because it alters temperature distribution and unless the effect of such changes on results (which can with correct result be small) is analytically bounded it remains an unknown problem
So: what is needed is a replicable electrolysis experiment showing excess heat where the various questions:
- Differences with control
- ATER exaggerating differences with control
- CCS - that is just ensuring that the correct error bounds are calculated, taking into account the fact that error between control and active systems deliver enthalpy error multiples by the input power - often much larger than the excess heat power.
Are all done properly without assumptions skeptics will not agree. Where there is such an assumption we can have an agreed extra process where it can be tested built into the replication protocol.
You give me one experiment (McKubre ?) showing repeated excess heat above error bounds where that is all done already and I will either agree with you - and we have our "replicable evidence of LENR" experiment to give to people like Florian on the other thread who ask - or point out something you are getting wrong.
I agree replicating these experiments properly is expensive - but not impossible and worth it if we can be sure the original results are certain as above.
THH
