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. > , 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." > , 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. > 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. > 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. > Nobody has replicated BEC's electrolysis results. > What is BEC? 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? > 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. > 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? > 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.
