as far as I have enduerstood, CEA Grenble have replicated and checked against more modern metrology. http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LonchamptGreproducti.pdf but maybe I miss a point
2012/9/16 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <a...@lomaxdesign.com> > At 09:25 PM 9/15/2012, Jed Rothwell wrote: > > Abd ul-Rahman Lomax > <<mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.com>a**b...@lomaxdesign.com<a...@lomaxdesign.com>> >> wrote: >> >> They didn't necessarily create it, "keep it stable." Perhaps it *stayed* >> stable. There is, practically speaking, a huge difference. >> >> >> You are wrong. The paper shows 3 out of 7 runs worked, but they did it >> several other times not shown in the paper. Before they they performed the >> boil-off experiment hundreds of times reliably. They ran 32 tests at at >> time. Every one of them worked. >> >> >> If they'd been able to do that reliably, I doubt that Toyota would have >> given up funding Technova. And this technology would have been transferred. >> >> >> The decision to end the program was political. It had nothing to do with >> the quality of the results. It was about money, greed and power. The scion >> of Toyota who started the program died of old age, and others who were >> determined to stop it won out. >> > > Perhaps. > > However, while CF experiments are difficult, has that work by Pons and > Fleischmann ever been replicated? If it was so reproducible, why not? > > I've seen an experimental series where a design seemed to work reliably. > Then the researcher was later unable to reproduce it. Something had changed. > > What cuts through this kind of problem, as far as deepening investigation > is concerned, is correlation. Heat/helium is not so much affected by this > uncontrolled variability. If *all* experiments are no-heat, sure. > Correlation doesn't help. But as long as some generate significant heat, > heat/helium demonstrates the reality. > > To refer to something in another post, sure, we can be pretty good at > engineering, but not necessarily when we don't understand how something is > working. That's what has been missing: an understanding of the effect. > Until we understand it, engineering is hit-and-miss. > > The pseudoskeptics deride cold fusion because of the common unreliability; > however, that argument is demolished by correlation, specifically the > correlation of heat with helium. >
