Tell me if I'm spaming ...
On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 11:49 PM, Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 2:33 PM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe < > stefan.ita...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> But I would like to keep the discussion to the original FP experiment. >> > > Ah, yes. Sounds good. It seems you are pretty familiar with the details, > then. > > Not enough to avoid stupid mistakes. > There is a reason why heavy water is typically used so I would assume that >> the effect seen is much stronger >> (more frequent, higher energy) then when water is used. >> > > This is true, to a certain extent, but there have been questions about > light water since the time of Pons and Fleischmann. Fleischmann himself > doubted that light water was a suitable control. If even some activity is > seen in a light water electrolysis cell, this would make it harder to see a > clear difference between the light water cell and a heavy water cell, > although the difference may pronounced in some cases. The Pd/D and Pd/H > experiments often showed an effect in heavy water and none discernible in > light water. > > It would be nice to get some statistics out of that, any links? > The FP effect itself for a skeptic >> does not necessary equate to a nuclear effect. It having an isotopic >> effect would be quite a strong indication >> that there is a nuclear effect or am I wrong? >> > > Note that there are many experiments over the years that have shown a > potential isotope effect in palladium. I wonder whether another experiment > along these lines will persuade anyone not already willing to be persuaded. > > People have seen the FP effects more then 100 times although perhaps not with overall excess energy and clear nuclear evidence. It must appear. Although it is not reproducible, one can apply statistical methods and do perfectly good science. Doing a proper statistical test is a really simple way to deduce very hard proof that cannot be dismissed as wrong measurement, wrong method or anything else, in a blind test which you find asy that of 15 samples 1 was with normal water and the others with heavy water you would have something publishable. Just describing the experimental setup and say that you got these values blindfolded is strong case no matter what you did when taken the measurements assuming no fraud and following the presented procedure. I think that the main problem that we have not done such a thing is that 1) Low control about the production of samples 2) Each functioning sample is of gold value, would you throw it away in a test? Regards Stefan
