Kevin O'Malley <kevmol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Since there have been more than 14,700 replications (see below) . . . > This is a tally of individual test runs. I believe it was done by a grad student I believe, at the Institute of High Energy Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences. However, they did not count the number of failed or null replications. Perhaps a better metric would be the number of positive studies, which far exceeds the number of negative published studies, presumably because people who could not get the effect to work stopped trying. In Storms' book I think there are 180 positive excess heat studies. Each one typically reflects several excess heat events. A few were based on dozens of events. Fleischmann and Pons had the best success rate, running 64 cells at a time several times. Every one of them worked. If you run this analysis with the assumption that some fraction of these were false positives, you still get an astronomically small likelihood that they are all mistakes. Not 10^-5000 but still small. To summarize: the experimental method works. Never, in the history of science and technology, has an effect been widely replicated which turned out to be a mistake. That can't happen, for the same reason you would never see 500 professors all have a minor traffic accident the same morning, or all slip on a banana peel in front of the lab building. People do not make mistakes at such high rates. No one does, in any profession or walk of life. Humans would be extinct if they did. See also: Johnson, R and M. Melich. *Weight of Evidence for the Fleischmann-Pons Effect*. in *ICCF-14 International* *Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science*. 2008. Washington, DC http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/JohnsonRweightofev.pdf - Jed
