Cravens & Letts reviewed 167 papers and came up with 4 criteria that correlate excess heat.
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/NagelDJproceeding.pdf Page 71 The Enabling Criteria of Electrochemical Heat: Beyond Reasonable Doubt Dennis Cravens 1 and Dennis Letts 2 1 Amridge University Box 1317 Cloudcroft, NM 88317 USA 2 12015 Ladrido Lane Austin, TX 78727 USA Abstract One hundred sixty seven papers from 1989 to 2007 concerning the generation of heat from electrochemical cells were collected, listed, and digitally posted to a CD for reference, review and study. A review showed four criteria that were correlated to reports of successful experiments attempting replication of the Fleischmann-Pons effect. All published negative results can be traced to researchers not fulfilling one or more of these conditions. Statistical and Bayesian studies show that observation of the Fleischmann-Pons effect is correlated with the criteria and that production of "excess heat" is a real physical effect "beyond a reasonable doubt. On Sat, Mar 8, 2014 at 8:38 PM, Kevin O'Malley <kevmol...@gmail.com> wrote: > > How many times has the Pons-Fleischmann Anomalous Heat Effect (PFAHE) been > replicated? > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Ed Storms says that there are 153 peer reviewed papers that replicate the > Pons-Fleischmann Anomalous Heat Effect (PFAHE). > http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Cold_fusion > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Jed Rothwell says: > Excess heat has been demonstrated at Sigma 90 and above, and the effect > has been replicated hundreds of times. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3ACold_fusion/Archive_4 > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > JT He of the Chinese Academy of Sciences says 14,720 times > > 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 > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > National Instruments looked at 180 replications, citing a University of > Texas Austin Thesis which I cannot find. > > An independent thesis research at the University of Texas at Austin found > that from 1989 to 2010 more than 180 experiments around the world reported > anomalous high production of excess heat in Pd-D or Ni-H. > > http://www.22passi.it/downloads/eu_brussels_june_20_2012_concezzi.pdf > Conclusion > * THERE IS AN UNKNOWN PHYSICAL EVENT and there is a need of better > measurements and control tools. > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJtallyofcol.pdf > > This file is corrupted. At least for me... > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:05 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> Kevin O'Malley <kevmol...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> How many replications does it take for a rational scientist to accept the >>> finding? It used to be just 2 or 3, but in this field it seems to be >>> hundreds or thousands. >>> >> >> I think for most claims it used to be five or 10 good replications. It >> depends on many factors such as the signal-to-noise ratio, the complexity >> of the instruments, the extent to which the results call for new and >> difficult techniques, and so on. It was difficult to believe polywater >> claims because in every case the instruments were operating at the extreme >> limits of their capabilities. It is much easier to believe the claim that a >> mammal has been cloned because you can look at the baby and see it is a >> twin of the parent, and you can test the DNA. >> >> In the case of cold fusion, the experiment is very difficult to >> replicate, but the results are easy to understand. The first tier of people >> to replicate were the crème de la crème of electrochemistry. I mean people >> who now have laboratories named after them such as Ernest Yeager, and >> people who should have laboratories named after them such as John Bockris. >> Also Miles, Mizuno, McKubre, Kunimatsu, Appleby, Will, Okamoto, Huggins and >> so on. >> >> The first ~100 replications came in from a veritable Who's Who of >> electrochemistry. Just about every top electrochemist in the world >> replicated within a year or so. They were all certain the results were >> real. Anyone who does not believe that kind of thing, from this kind of >> people, does not understand experimental science. >> >> Over in the Forbes comment section Gibbs referred to these people as "the >> LENR community." It would be more accurate to call them "every major >> academic electrochemist on earth." That puts it in a different perspective. >> >> The problem with skeptics is not that they don't believe these results. >> Or that they have found problems with the results. The problem is they have >> zero knowledge of this subject. They have never read any papers and they >> never heard of Yeager or Will or anyone else. They think there are no >> papers! They would not know a flow calorimeter if it bit them on the butt. >> People who are completely ignorant of a subject have no right to any >> opinion about it. >> >> A few skeptics such as Cude have looked at results, but they have strange >> notions about them. Cude thinks these graphs show only random results with >> no meaning or pattern: >> >> http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/McKubre-graph-1.jpg >> >> http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/McKubre-graph-2.jpg >> >> This is sort of the opposite of a Rorschach test. Cude looks at an >> ordered set of data that constitutes irrefutable proof of a control >> parameter, but he sees only random noise. >> >> >> >>> Kevin: Most people still assume it's wrong. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Jed: Those people are irrational. You should discount their views. >>>> >>> ***Unfortunately, that includes the great majority of people. I would >>> guess that 95% of the population (who had an opinion) thought the Wright >>> brothers were frauds until they finally had some money on the table & IP >>> protection . . . >>> >> >> That is true, but that is human nature. The Wright brothers and others >> managed to succeed despite these problems, so perhaps we will succeed now. >> The world has not grown more irrational. >> >> >> >>> Perhaps 90% of people who have an opinion on LENR think it's a >>> pathological science, on the same level as flat earthers, unicorn admirers, >>> and perpetual motion devices. >>> >>>> >> That may be true, although you would have to conduct a public opinion >> survey to confirm it. However, such opinions are not based on knowledge or >> rationality so we cannot change them. There is no point to worrying about >> them. We should concentrate on people such as the readers at LENR-CANR.org. >> We should ignore people who will not do their homework. >> >> We only need a small number of supporters to win this fight. The thing >> is, we need people who have lots of money. Barrels of money. And guts. If >> we could win over Bill Gates I would not care if anyone else in the world >> believes the results. He alone would be enough. >> >> I do not think there is any chance of convincing Gates, by the way. He >> would not listen to Arthur Clarke so I doubt he will listen to anyone else. >> >> - Jed >> >> >
