Mark Gibbs <mgi...@gibbs.com> wrote: I don't have the time to review the huge amount of literature you people > have already looked at ...
Then I suggest you read the papers listed in the main page at LENR-CANR.org, especially the ones by Storms, Nagel and McKubre. See: http://lenr-canr.org/ http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEastudentsg.pdf http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/NagelDJscientific.pdf http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHcoldfusionb.pdf > if any of you, Rothwell included, would like to help build a list of > successful experiments I'd be happy to build it into an article with full > attribution to all contributors. An experiment that is successful from a scientific point of view may well seem marginal or unimportant from a practical point of view. See, for example, the work of Melvin Miles. It seldom produced more than a half-watt of power. The success rate for many types of palladium was zero. On the other hand: The calorimetry was excellent so that half-watt is a sure thing. It is much more certain than Defkalion's results. The s/n ratio is what matters. Some types of palladium worked every time. So that proves the choice of palladium is critical. In that sense, the failed experiments were as useful as the ones that worked. The heat was correlated with helium. And, when there was no heat, there was not helium. Again, the failed experiments were as useful as the ones that worked, as controls. (Abd is fond of pointing this out.) On its own merits this experiment deserves a Nobel prize. It is way more important than most Nobel-level discoveries. It contributes nothing directly to practical applications. > I'd like to see a list that includes: > > - where > - when > - technology > - run time > - COP > - experimenters and affiliations > - observers and affiliations > - references > > I think such a list would be very useful in public discussions about the > reality of cold fusion. > I am tempted to say "do your own homework." I might consider doing this, if Gibbs would stop claiming that Fleischmann, McKubre, Storms, Duncan and the others are not "serious scientists." As long as he beats that drum I will say that Gibbs is not a serious journalist. I will not spend hours making a list that I expect he will ignore or denigrate. I would like to see some indication that Gibbs is willing to spend an hour reading the literature on this subject. So far, every column he has published has been technically wrong from top to bottom. I find it hard to believe he has read anything. - Jed
