On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 7:50 PM Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Jack Cole <jcol...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> Parkhomov, Defkalion, me356, Rossi of course (consider the connected >> papers conducted by academics) . . . >> > > Parkhomov maybe. I don't know if he a professional, and he never > published. I meant published results in the scientific literature. > > He is and he did (more than once). You can look it up. > > >> , possibly Brillouin (evident from decreasing COP) . . . >> > > Maybe, maybe not. Anyway, the decreasing COP is not "evidence" in the > scientific sense. It is a fact that gives you a bad feeling. A gut feeling > that something is not right. That's reasonable, but it ain't evidence. > Unless you know a lot more about the experiment than I do, you can't call > it "evidence." > > > It is evidence. You may disagree with the meaning of that evidence. > , Mizuno's (and many others) old plasma electrolysis work, BLP (even >> though they point to a different mechanism - they claim high SNR). >> > > Definitely not. Very few have tried to replicate. Some who did saw > positive results. I don't think it should be called confirmed, but it was > no disproved by any means. > > > You have to read the paper. It is pretty convincing. There were several replications before that (like 5+). > Not true. Mizuno has made such claims himself with plasma electrolysis, >> which were later replicated, and even later debunked. >> > > No, that did not happen. A few people replicated. No one has "debunked" > anything. I have been following this closely, and I know a lot about the > replication attempts. Most of them failed to achieve the necessary > conditions. Not for lack of trying. > > > I don't know what kind of evidence you require to call something debunked, but I think it is thoroughly debunked unless Mizuno has responded and conducted follow-up experiments taking into account splashing out of the electrolyte. Here is what one attempted replicator said <https://earthtech.org/cold-fusion/mizuno/incandescent-pt/>: > Mizuno claims in his report2 that “the reaction is 100% reproducible.” A > casual observer would certainly have to agree that we have replicated the > basic phenomenon that Mizuno, et al were investigating. However, we see no > sign of excess heat in our experiments. Our calorimetry has an overall > accuracy of about 1% relative and this results in an excess heat detection > limit of about 3% relative. Therefore we have not accidentally missed “high > heat output of the order of several hundred watts…from input power of tens > of watts”. Unless Mizuno can/did address the following problems addressed in the paper I linked <https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/KowalskiLsearchingfa.pdf> to in the previous email, his work has been debunked. The challenge presented by ejection of liquid water is indeed very serious > becase the latent heat of evaporation is large. Mist ejection, at the rate > of 50 milligrams per second, results in the overestimation of Pout by > 2260*0.05 = 113 W. This, however, is only one possible explanation of > discrepancies. Another might be associated with microexplosions we > occasionally observed during plasma electrolysis, expecially at higher > voltages (see Appendix 3). Such explosions are accompanied by loud popping > noise and very intensive arcing. We suspect that escaping hydrogen and > oxygen occasionally combine under the influence of arcing. That could be a > possible non-nuclear source of excess heat repored by several researchers. Piantelli has made high output claims -- never replicated. >> > > Only one person tried to replicate as far as I know. The conditions were > probably not met, according to Piantelli. Anyway, one test is not > reasonable grounds to dismiss a claim. > > He supposedly was going to teach MFMP how to replicate, but I think they got tired of him talking about all the supposed complexities without giving them any clear protocol to follow. Unless that can be produced, there is no reason to assume he has anything (other than his word). If I'm not mistaken, CERN tried to replicate some of his work and failed. > > >> Nobody has replicated BEC's electrolysis results. >> > > What is BEC? > > Brillouin Energy Corp. > > Recall the previous results that were debated here about a Mizuno >> experiment and calorimetry, which Dave Roberson was able to determine the >> error that had been made (through very clever simulation work). >> > > I myself made a mistake in it, but you said "big" errors, meaning large > excess heat. That was what appeared to be a tiny result. > > > >> Recall the previous claims of Mizuno and plasma electrolysis that had >> been initially replicated, but later research convincingly disproved (at >> least to me). >> > > Disproved by who? In what paper? After how many tests? > > At least 3. One of the supposed replicators retracted their results after learning about the problems. They refuted their own results! Two withdrew their results after discovering a problem with their voltage measurements (see here <http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/358summary.html>). > >> What research of his do you feel is highly replicable? >> > > I have no idea. No one can know that. People have not tried to replicate > most of them. You would have to be omniscient to judge that. The only way > to find out whether an experiment is replicable or not is to try to > replicate it. That usually takes months or years of effort. In cold fusion, > only a few claims have been sufficiently tested for anyone to judge whether > they are true or false. > > You claimed that most or all of his work had been replicated. Many results have been judged to be false or unreplicated by IH, Mizzou, and others. > > >> Here's a replication claiming up to 120W excess. >> https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/FauvarqueJabnormalex.pdf >> > > Has anyone disproved this? Has anyone else tried it? > > See below. It is worth reading. > > >> Non-replication explaining previous results by splashing out of water by >> micro-explosions. >> https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/KowalskiLsearchingfa.pdf >> > > Has anyone replicated this and observed micro-explosions? Has this > hypothesis been tested? > > I think you are confusing "not clear yet" or "not proven" or "not tested > enough to reach a clear conclusion" with: > > "debunking" > > or > > "failure." > > There are countless open questions in science. Countless unresolved > issues. An experiment that has not been replicated is not debunked. It is > in limbo, and likely to remain there forever. Very few claims are ever > conclusively shown to be wrong. None of the ones you listed have been, as > far as I know. > > I'm not confusing terms. I meant debunked. You have to address the issues that Kowalski et. al. raised and I quoted above. My main point was that your assertion that an error as large as the results claimed in the current Mizuno results are unheard of is just not true. I think I have demonstrated that errors this large or larger have been made before. I am encouraging people to not get too excited, because it's quite possible that this is an error. I hope it's not.
