Blaze Spinnaker <[email protected]> wrote: I read somewhere that 70% of all papers are not able to be replicated. Or > something crazy like that. >
Where did you read that, and what sort of papers did it refer to? I believe I have read that studies in sociology have poor replication rates. That is not true of cold fusion. Many experiments have not been replicated, but that is because no one has tried to replicate them. > Tom Darden's reptuation is far more valuable than Levi's. > This makes no sense. The issue is scientific. A scientist is a better judge of that than a businessman. Furthermore, hundreds of distinguished scientists have published compelling proof that cold fusion is real. You are moving your estimate by several percentage points in response to the opinions of one businessman. Surely, with regard to a scientific subject, the relative weight of peer-reviewed scientific papers by experts should be a hundred times -- or a thousand times -- that of a businessman's opinion! Those papers should be 99.9% of your evaluation, and Darden's opinion would be 0.1%. If you wanted an evaluation of the flight performance of the Boeing Dreamliner airplane, who would you ask? A businessman who invests in aviation? Or a group of 200 experienced professional pilots who have hundreds of hours experience flying the Dreamliner, and thousands of hours flying other aircraft? Also, Tom Darden knows what's inside the ecat. He has complete, > unfettered access. The same can not be said for Levi. > First, Levi knows what is in the cell. Second, this can be considered a black box test. It makes no difference what is in the cell. The calorimetry proves that whatever it is, it produces orders of magnitude more energy than any chemical fuel, and it works at a high temperature, and high power. So, if the effect can be controlled, it will not only be a practical source of energy, it will be far better than any other sources. That is what matters. - Jed
