Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote: > Until LENR experimentation reaches this level of experimental setup > precision, LENR will remain a statistical based experimental study, where > success is a hit or miss proposition. > Success is somewhat hit or miss but this is *not* a statistical based experimental study. The search for the Higgs boson was statistically based. No cold fusion experiment is. No author has ever presented statistical proof in an experiment report, as far as I know. They list the number of successes and failures, but that is not an attempt to prove it works. When an individual cell produces heat or tritium at a high enough, you can be sure of that in isolation, without comparing it to other cells, or to a baseline, and without resorting to statistics. It is a stand alone event that is positive or negative.
Any medical study of the efficacy of a drug is statistically based. Just having one patient get better does not prove the drug works; you have to have a preponderance. But when you have a single cold fusion cell that produces, say, 20 W of heat, or tritium at 50 times background, that proves it is real. You do not need many other cells -- or any others, really. We need several labs to replicate to eliminate the possibility that it was a mistake or incompetence. Having multiple labs is not statistical proof that cold fusion is real. It is statistical proof that the researchers are competent. Some skeptics have claimed the results are statistical in nature. Cude said, "It is the need for these sorts of arguments and Bayesian analysis . . ." Cude is wrong. There is no need for these these sorts of arguments. You can be sure the effect is real after one solid, high temperature, long-duration test. - Jed
