Biberian, J.P., ed. *J. Condensed Matter Nucl. Sci.* Vol. *20*. 2016.

Comment by me:

The first paper, by Guffey, is depressing. It appears to show that Letts is
wrong about the dual laser experiments. Many papers report failed
replications, meaning no heat. This paper is worse. It reports a similar
calorimeter that not only failed to produce real it, it produced artifacts
that looked like real heat at a substantially high level, up to around 100
mW. When a replication attempt fails to produce heat, you might suspect the
materials or techniques are at fault. When it produces what looks like
heat, but the author shows is actually an artifact, that calls into
question the original claim.

- Jed

Reply via email to