Merged Cold Fusion Claims

[ben m]

Well, the difference here is all the well done experiments published in peer reviewed mainstream journals, often by world leading scientists in the case of LENR-studies, but not in your examples above.

Can you name a well-done experiment (how do you know?) in a peer-reviewed journal (which one?) by a world leading scientist (who?)?

Please recall that if a cold-fusion aficionado is your only source of information on the topic, it may be unreliable.

 

[Christian Klippel]

Can you name a well-done experiment (how do you know?) in a peer-reviewed journal (which one?) by a world leading scientist (who?)?

Please recall that if a cold-fusion aficionado is your only source of information on the topic, it may be unreliable.

Not to mention the fact that even peer-reviewed journals are not immune to silly crap. It happened before. However, every reputable journal that had this happen was quick to correct the mistake. Which is what science is about. Mistakes can happen, but when it turns out to be a mistake, everyone involved is usually (!) happy to admit to that fact.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[ben m]

So, you have examples of sceptical examinations?

Yes, the Department of Energy did lengthy expert reviews of the field; in 199-something and again in 2004-ish. A colleague of mine was a reviewer for the earlier panel; one time, at a conference, over beer, he shared funny stories about the data-analysis incompetence of the people claiming to have "corroborated" Rossi by misanalyzing random noise.

 

[Christian Klippel]

Yes, the Department of Energy did lengthy expert reviews of the field; in 199-something and again in 2004-ish. A colleague of mine was a reviewer for the earlier panel; one time, at a conference, over beer, he shared funny stories about the data-analysis incompetence of the people claiming to have "corroborated" Rossi by misanalyzing random noise.

I have a old Fluke 8502A bench DMM here. All i can say is that if you don't know how to use such an instrument, you will get the funniest results. And that unit is old. Modern units have at least one magnitude better resolution. Just "looking" at these things introduces huge offsets, if regular wiring/plugs is used.

Heck, even with a decent handheld DMM i can produce results that show a net positive gain of energy, when working on highly reactive loads. But then, a DMM is just not intended for that kind of usage in the first place.

What Rossi did was basically put a Kill-A-Watt into the supply line, somehow "meassure" the delivered energy to the "eCat", and then observe some steam. That does not convince me of anything. If i wanted to, i could rewire your fuse-box to make your meter spin backwards when you turn on the oven. Which, obviously, does not mean that your oven produces energy. All it means is that unless you know the full picture, you can't even begin to describe what that picture is supposed to show.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[catsmate]

What?

You are attempting to cover over the complete inability of cold fusion advocates to support the existence of the phenomena, with various spurious justifications

What lenr-claim are you referring to?

The basic one, that their magic machines actually produce excess heat.

So, you disregard Fleishmann & Pons' original findings of excess heat. Why?

Utter lack of evidence that it happened, failure of literally hundreds of attempts to reproduce their alleged effects.

 

[catsmate]

Again, what?

Already answered

So, you have examples of sceptical examinations?

Your claim, your burden of proof.

I was referring to the black swan argument.

So what? You're at the stage where you've yet to show waterfowl exist.

Well, the difference here is all the well done experiments published in peer reviewed mainstream journals, often by world leading scientists in the case of LENR-studies, but not in your examples above.

And properly peer-reviewed papers, on topic by "world leading scientists" please, not the usual mix of pay-to-print, low IF and/or irrelevant journals, generic overview articles and similar evasions.

Can you name a well-done experiment (how do you know?) in a peer-reviewed journal (which one?) by a world leading scientist (who?)?

This should be interesting.

 

[trebor]

Well it's not easy to do multi disciplinary research on a completely new phenomenon without funding.

There is no 'new phenomenon' needed to explain chemists doing calorimetry badly.
And a considerable amount of money has been spent on research.

And all we have today is a lot of desperate hype, poor experiments done badly and con artists.

 

[Aepervius]

I have a old Fluke 8502A bench DMM here. All i can say is that if you don't know how to use such an instrument, you will get the funniest results. And that unit is old. Modern units have at least one magnitude better resolution. Just "looking" at these things introduces huge offsets, if regular wiring/plugs is used.

Heck, even with a decent handheld DMM i can produce results that show a net positive gain of energy, when working on highly reactive loads. But then, a DMM is just not intended for that kind of usage in the first place.

What Rossi did was basically put a Kill-A-Watt into the supply line, somehow "meassure" the delivered energy to the "eCat", and then observe some steam. That does not convince me of anything. If i wanted to, i could rewire your fuse-box to make your meter spin backwards when you turn on the oven. Which, obviously, does not mean that your oven produces energy. All it means is that unless you know the full picture, you can't even begin to describe what that picture is supposed to show.

Greetings,

Chris

If you followed the Steorn saga with their spectroscope photo and their circuittry, you could have had a laugh-a-day. And so many years afterward there are still people holding that Steorn ahs "something". I also like their study on calculating energy of their moving gizmo by calculating braking pattern and pretending there was more energy disspated in the braking of the orbo than put in.

@ manifesto, take your BEST pick at the BEST study in cold fusion. Do it. then try to find out WHO reproduced it in the same circumstance without any problem or fudging.

This will be an eye openner guaranteed.

 

[manifesto]

Yes, the Department of Energy did lengthy expert reviews of the field; in 199-something and again in 2004-ish. A colleague of mine was a reviewer for the earlier panel; one time, at a conference, over beer, he shared funny stories about the data-analysis incompetence of the people claiming to have "corroborated" Rossi by misanalyzing random noise.

Fine, did he mention the papers in question?

 

[manifesto]

Because no one was able to reproduce it. You know, that "science" thing. Someone finds out something and publishes it. Others look at it and try to reproduce it. The more people can reproduce it, the more validity it has. Fun thing: initially it is absolutely unimportant to be able to explain _how_. All that is important is that it happens. Once that is established, people have something to look at and figure out why that is.

Stuff like "free energy" or "cold fusion" is very quick to provide explanations as to how it happens. But utterly lacks the proof that it happens at all.

Greetings,

Chris

Greetings Chris!

What about Melvin Miles et al at China Lake? They are cited next to MIT and Caltech as negative experiments by DoE in spite of succeeding to reproduce F&P very early on. Why is that?

 

[TjW]

It doesn't really matter what they "replicated" early on. What are they able to reproduce now?

 

[manifesto]

@ manifesto, take your BEST pick at the BEST study in cold fusion. Do it. then try to find out WHO reproduced it in the same circumstance without any problem or fudging.

This will be an eye openner guaranteed.

Since you've already done it, maybe you could help me out with a good example?

 

[dlorde]

Since you've already done it, maybe you could help me out with a good example?

Oh dear, that is disappointing...

 

[tsig]

I have a old Fluke 8502A bench DMM here. All i can say is that if you don't know how to use such an instrument, you will get the funniest results. And that unit is old. Modern units have at least one magnitude better resolution. Just "looking" at these things introduces huge offsets, if regular wiring/plugs is used.

Heck, even with a decent handheld DMM i can produce results that show a net positive gain of energy, when working on highly reactive loads. But then, a DMM is just not intended for that kind of usage in the first place.

What Rossi did was basically put a Kill-A-Watt into the supply line, somehow "meassure" the delivered energy to the "eCat", and then observe some steam. That does not convince me of anything. If i wanted to, i could rewire your fuse-box to make your meter spin backwards when you turn on the oven. Which, obviously, does not mean that your oven produces energy. All it means is that unless you know the full picture, you can't even begin to describe what that picture is supposed to show.

Greetings,

Chris

If that impresses him an electric coffee maker would astound him, put in cold water and get back hot coffee-a miracle!

 

[manifesto]

Oh dear, that is disappointing...

Why?

 

[ben m]

Fine, did he mention the papers in question?

IIRC the DOE solicited workers to present their best evidence, published or unpublished---it was not just a literature review. Also IIRC, my colleague did not mention (and rightly so) any names.

if you think there is a good, convincing cold-fusion experimental result in a paper, it's up to you to cite it. Burden of proof is on the claimant, etc., pretty standard approach here.

 

[catsmate]

Since you've already done it, maybe you could help me out with a good example?

Your claim, you burden of proof. Stop trying to offload responsibility.

Oh dear, that is disappointing...

But oh so typical of woseters.

If that impresses him an electric coffee maker would astound him, put in cold water and get back hot coffee-a miracle!

 

[dlorde]

Why?

I was hoping, given your apparent enthusiasm, that you'd have an example that could stand more than superficial scrutiny.

 

[Aepervius]

Since you've already done it, maybe you could help me out with a good example?

You are the one saying the field is teeming of reproduced study and good and stuff. You are the one with the claim. You are the one which should advance such a rock solid study reproduced. My suggestion that you try to do that yourself was so that you find yourself what is the true state of cold fusion. Particularly the lack of really solid reproduced study.
That you sugegst that we do it instead is telling, don't you understand ?

 

[trebor]

Oh dear, that is disappointing...

But predictable.