I sincerely do not understand this collective exercise in masochism based on discussion with a bravo as Joshua Cude. He simply makes intentionally the error that considers CF's temporary problems as a sign that. CF does not exist Let's better concentrate on the problems of reproducibility and upscalability and if these cannot be solved in the Pd-D system then we have to solve them in other systems.With Joshua we can build only parallel monologues not a dialogue
Peter On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 8:55 PM, Kevin O'Malley <[email protected]> wrote: > > Edmund Storms [email protected] > via<http://support.google.com/mail/bin/answer.py?hl=en&ctx=mail&answer=1311182> > eskimo.com > 7:48 AM (2 hours ago) > to vortex-l > > Joshua, ...You argue that it is not real, but simply the result of many > mistakes made repeatedly by many well trained scientists. > > ***In order to avoid a straw argument, I ask Joshua if you do argue this? > If so, let's examine the mathematical possibility of so many positive > results arriving by virtue of mistakes. > > I would estimate the chance of making a mistake that leads to positive > result to be 1 in 4. You can use whatever estimate suits your fancy > afterwards. That means 3 in 4 are genuine, mistake-free positive results, > right? So let's be even more generous to the argument and make it 1 in 3. > So if 3 independent labs generate positive results due to mistakes, it's 1 > in 3^3 or 1 in 27 chance of happening. In my book, if there was a 1 in 10 > chance of a professional scientist generating such errors, he should be > fired; but that's just me. > > Since there have been more than 14,700 replications (see below), the > chance of measuring errors or noise causing false positives in replication > would be 1/3 ^ 14700, which is ~10^-5000 > > Perhaps you do not realize just how ignorant this statement is. The > mathematical definition of Impossible is if something has a chance of > 10^-50. Such a position is a whopping, gigantic, humungous four thousand > Five Hundred and fifty ORDERS OF MAGnitude less than impossible. I tell > you what, I’ll grant you 3 levels of impossible to be “conservative” with > the numbers (which is about on the order of the number of molecules in the > universe), that is 4400 orders of magnitude less than impossible. > > > > * > https://springerlink3.metapress.com/content/8k5n17605m135n22/resource-secured/?target=fulltext.pdf&sid=xwvgza45j4sqpe3wceul4dv2&sh=www.springerlink.com > *<https://springerlink3.metapress.com/content/8k5n17605m135n22/resource-secured/?target=fulltext.pdf&sid=xwvgza45j4sqpe3wceul4dv2&sh=www.springerlink.com> > > > > > Jing-tang He > • Nuclear fusion inside condense matters > • Frontiers of Physics in China > Volume 2, Number 1, 96-102, DOI: 10.1007/s11467-007-0005-8 > This article describes in detail the nuclear fusion inside condense > matters—the Fleischmann-Pons effect, the reproducibility of cold fusions, > self-consistency of cold fusions and the possible applications. > > > > Note that Jing-tang He found there were 14,700 replications of the > Pons Fleischmann Anomalous Heat Effect. > * > http://www.boliven.com/publication/10.1007~s11467-007-0005-8?q=(%22David%20J.%20Nagel%22) > *<http://www.boliven.com/publication/10.1007~s11467-007-0005-8?q=(%22David%20J.%20Nagel%22)> > -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
