Actually, there are a couple of interesting items arising from the Figure Jed just posted. There are a couple of 'flyers' or 'outliers' based on the line drawn through the data, but I go back to my original question - Is the line right? If one fits a straight line to the data, the two outliers near the center-high end will be less so, but the point at low reactor T becomes way off. However, what if the correct 'line through the data' has a threshold response level, i.e. no signal (or just noise) until a particular value is reached (which would be the X axis intercept of the line)? That paints a different picture., and the points that define the lines are not well-replicated. I think it might be worth considering, but that's just me...

However, your figure that you posted also has a couple of flyers in it. Flyers are real point too! They show what you can get from your apparatus.

Perhaps I referenced the wrong paper, my apologies.

This paper is what I refer to: J. Condensed Matter Nucl. Sci. 29 (2019) 1–12

I renamed the file so I forget what you call it in your database.

Quote from JedRothwell

Since there is no measurable variation in fan performance, you are wrong.

There is measurable variance. It is shown In Figure 8 of your paper.

Quote from Shane D.

How about you skeptics stay away from this kind of stuff, and stick to keeping us honest about the science?

Your bias is showing Shane. You are consistently reading stuff into what I have said today that isn't there. Please stop.

I have no opinion or comment to offer on the Taubes affair.

You may not have refreshed yourself enough to note that Ed published a paper claiming that he showed that spiking could not have been the cause of a particular tritium result. I indicated I thought he was referring to Bockris but wasn't sure, but Ed can correct me on that. I further indicated that his method did not prove that. That is Ed's method. Nothing to do with Bockris or Taubes.

With Jed's comment above, I have now indicated that the methodology used to detect tritium is never adequately described. I will add here there is reason (probably two in reality) to be suspicious of 'industry standard' (to use Ed's term) results.

We shouldn't base any belief/disbelief on questioned results.

Quote from JedRothwell

I suggest you read papers by Bockris to learn these things.

I did. The info isn't there. In fact, it isn't there in any tritium studies reports in this field. Which is my point....

@AF

You got "vel m/sec 3.99". I haven't checked your calcs but I find this interesting. In FIg. 9 of the new Mizuno/Rothwell paper, this translates to an input power of ~3.6 W. Then on Figure 8, we see that there is a 'flyer' data point at that velocity, if one assumes the smooth line drawn on the Figure is correct. It is about 15% low. That makes me wonder if there is really a plateau in the data, up to higher input powers where it might suddenly jump up to the data regime shown at ~5 W input power. IOW, I am wondering if the smooth line is the correct model, and whether or not Figure 8 indicates some unexpected behavior on the part of the fan. Just something to consider.

Edit: I should have added that if the line is right, the flyer point, being a real point, indicates that the 2sigma limits are something like +/- 30%, which suggests lots of variation in fan performance.

Quote from Storms

Are you willing to say that everyone who detected tritium also engaged in fraud or was too incompetent to know where the tritium came from?

Of course not. Stop trying to make me out as a pathoskeptic. You know better.

Quote from Storms

The tritium was measured by the scintillation method, which is the industry standard.

Well, that's nice, but that's hardly adequate. You have defined the fact that liquid scintillation was used, which means a class of experimental methods using LSC devices and cocktails was used. Which ones? (cocktails , instruments, prep methods, etc.)

Quote from Storms

So, you assume Bockris got some...

I assume nothing here. I simply pointed out that the appropriate way to define how a particular time profile (in this case of T in water) came to be is not to assume an exposure profile and show it doesn't match. That simply eliminates one of an infinite number of possibilities. The correct way is to back-calculate the exposure profile necessary to obtain the results obtained, and see if that could happen accidentally or deliberately due to contamination.

BTW, that generic approach is exactly what I did in my reanalysis of your Pt results. I assumed no excess energy, back-calculated what had to have happened to get the signal you got, and postulated a reasonable mechanism to do so. The fact that the changes required were very small was a bonus, especially when a systematic trend was found in them.

@Shane

But that was what the whole thing was about. Taubes' claim samples were spiked and Ed's comment above about how that was proven wrong. It actually wasn't.

Edit: I should add that was proven unreasonable was the idea that a simple, single spike would produce the results obtained.

@Ed

Can you tell us how the tritium was measured?

(And BTW, your paper investigating the claim of spiking in the Bockris (?, it was his lab right?) lab eliminated one of an infinite number of possibilities. It did not eliminate the potential of fraud or interference (deliberate or not) at all. As a process support chemist, I have been faced with things like that many times. The correct way to do it is to back-calculate what the exposure would have had to have been to obtain the results obtained, and then go and see if such an exposure mechanism could be found.)

Hey Ed,

One other thing...

Quote from Storms

This paper only gives a small fraction of the issues now known to be involved in making potentially active Pd. My more recent papers go into greater detail and address some of the important issues.

Does that mean there is no single 'How to' guide for getting the FPE? If such exists, where can it be found?

Kirk

Hi Ed,

Long time no talk.

Based on communications I had with Melvin Miles in 2017-8, I was led to believe that he and Fleischmann thought your studies with a Pt cathode presented at ICCF8 were in error. Can you confirm or deny that? Was that why you quit working with Pt?

Kirk

Quote from we_cat_global

He still is the only superstar

Yah, if you consider serial killers superstars. Sure, the FBI tracks them and so do certain fanatics of questionable ilk, but you have to be way out there to consider them (him) 'superstars'.

Quote from JedRothwell

Everyone, as I said.

More Rothwell hot air (pun intended). The fact is that there is no claim to have observed the FPE in F&P-type cells that has adequately examined the errors.

So you think I am wrong on that? Prove it. Give me the one paper that does. That is a challenge to anyone here. Remember: F&P cells are what I've published on. It may be possible to address non-F&P experiments, but I would only do so from an error analysis perspective.

Bring it on (as if you all haven't already tried...).

Quote from JedRothwell

Martin Fleischmann and Dennis Cravens used these techniques

So F & C read Storms' paper and then used those techniques? Oh wait...I understand...Storms compiled the supposedly successful strategies of F & C (and others?) into a 'how to' guide... I was asking however, who used Ed's guide to successfully obtain the FPE?

(BTW, I disagree F & C &/or others were successful, but you knew that...)

Quote from JedRothwell

we need to know whether he followed the procedures in Ed's paper, "How to Produce the Pons-Fleischmann Effect."

Who has actually done that with successful results, and where can one see the report on that activity?

Interesting article. Kinda fun to replace 'interventions' with 'cold fusion'...

Key concepts for making informed choices

https://www.nature.com/article…0331B1EE888E5446F1EA52B78

@SOT The Mizuno stuff is not F&P-type electrolysis, so my CCS/ATER or CCS/ATEC does not apply. On the other hand, it is a calibrated method. In fact, the base equation is the same as used by Storms in his flow calorimeter which I critiqued in my 2002 paper. So if anything changes between calibration and experimental runs, you could get a CCS. The mechanism will be different.

In F&P-type cell calorimetry, like any other kind of experiment, the errors need to be quantitatively evaluated. You yourself have talked about 'night and day differences'. That's just saying the S/N ratio is large. What the CF community routinely does is hand-wave the magnitude of the errors, always to the small side, and end up claiming high S/N when it is likely it isn't (you can't _actually_ tell because they don't publish enough information). Then they refuse to check after the potential flaw is pointed out. That's a clear sign of pseudoscience. What gives anyone confidence Mizuno is any different today? He does no error analysis in his papers. Para at least did a small parametric study (I was shocked RB and Z46 let him get away with it actually), and concluded some interesting facts. Also Jack Cole had some good comments. I encourage more of that, especially from the 'names' of the field.

@Para. I know. Get bigger fans.

P.S. You might want to get some canned smoke too. Non-flammable variety.

P.P.S. Also, make sure you run long enough to reach steady state and check for ground loops.

Quote from JedRothwell

They did not make any errors

All experiments have 'errors', more correctly termed variations or fluctuations, since 'error' is often misinterpreted by laymen to mean 'mistake'.