Is the Cold Fusion Revolution Here?

Cold Fusion3.com ^ | March 8, 2014 | | admin

[Moonman62]

Kevmo posts: “I have seen the article and it says 14,720 replications. I just don’t have the article any more.”

So he's going by his memory, which makes a bad source worse.

[MHGinTN]

With your vast background knowledge of the nuclear field, perhaps you could explain to me why LFTRs are not being built all over the globe? I would appreciate that.

[Moonman62]

Kevmo posts: “The leaders in determining Measurement Error have determined there is NO measurement error”

Having been in nuclear testing for decades, I can say positively that there is ALWAYS measurement error.

Correct. All credible science journals require error bars to be included for all reported results. I doubt Kevmo's Chinese source even mentions error bars.

[TexasGator]

“With your vast background knowledge of the nuclear field, perhaps you could explain to me why LFTRs are not being built all over the globe? I would appreciate that.”

Technology and money.

[TexasGator]

Kevmo says the seagulls got the thread pulled.

However, like his Chinese article, we can not read it to verify his claims.

[Lazamataz]

Anyone who believes in cold fusion is a moron. The science is clear: It does not exist. You might as well believe in unicorn-fart-power. So many dollars have been spent in this fabrication (that poses as science) that we could have been to Mars and back by now. Stop being an idiot and believing in this fairy tale.

[Lazamataz]

Anyone who denies cold fusion is a moron. The science is clear: It exists. You might as well deny natural gas power. So many dollars have been spent in this pathological denial (that poses as refutation) that we could have been to Mars and back by now. Stop being an idiot and start believing in this hard, proven science.

[Moonman62]

In a way it is our fault. The mere fact that I post to you on HIS thread makes him go ballistic and act like a jackwagon.

[TexasGator]

“Anyone who denies cold fusion is a moron. The science is clear: It exists. You might as well deny natural gas power. So many dollars have been spent in this pathological denial (that poses as refutation) that we could have been to Mars and back by now. Stop being an idiot and start believing in this hard, proven science.”

It is not about science. It is about money.

[Kevmo]

No, there are others who still have a copy of it and they have said it is 14,720 as well: Steve Krivit and Jed Rothwell.

[Kevmo]

I kept some of those threads in cache. It’s about time the skeptopaths started complaining about pulled threads. They should just plea with the moderator to freeze the threads, not pull them.

[Kevmo]

it is our fault.

[TexasGator]

” Steve Krivit”

Steve wrote in 2004 that cold fusion had been established reproducible technology for over a decade (back to 1993) but the seagulls would not let the world know about it.

Even though he claimed that numerous recognized scientists had demonstrated cold fusion, the seagulls had too much power and they could not get the word out.

[BlueDragon]

What's this? Where's the door number 3?

You'll never make it as a game show host, without a door #3.

[Lazamataz]

You found me out. Was I that obvious?

[MHGinTN]

Bwahahahaa ... I love you, man.

[BlueDragon]

Well...that third door has been tough to find proper place for, on these LENR threads...so I had a strategery pre- prepared.

Can I have the cash instead? ;^)

[Kevmo]

That doesn’t sound like Krivit at all. But whatever gets you through the night.

[Kevmo]

Case in point: http://hitchhikersgui.de/Talk:Cold_fusion/Archive_31 However, there is a document which examines publications in the field, put together by Jed Rothwell of lenr-canr.org, it's at http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJtallyofcol.pdf. By its nature, the information in this document is verifiable. I'm not proposing the document as a source for our article, but for review by those editors who are willing to take a neutral view of the subject. It shows some reason to suspect the common claim that negative papers outweigh positive ones in this field, and it shows an increase in publication frequency after 2004 or 2005, pretty clearly a nadir. (see p. 4 for the Britz bibliography chart and p. 5 for the lenr-canr.org chart). It should be known that Britz is skeptical about cold fusion, and, of course, Rothwell is quite sure cold fusion is real. I am most interested, for our purposes here, in an examination of the most recent publications in peer-reviewed journals, academic publications, and popular media. The graph on p. 11 shows publication by year of positive and negative results, as classified by Britz. Rothwell, later, challenges some of the interpretations, giving some specifics. In 1989, negative publications outweighed positive, roughly 83:46 (reading off the graph). Remember, by the end of 1989, the physics community was shouting "junk science." For 1990, the figure was about 76:75. And for every year after that, positive papers greatly outnumbered negative, there really are only a handful of negative papers after 1996. After 2005, there appear to be no negative papers. Now, as to recent results, I recommend a review of HE Jing-tang, Nuclear fusion inside condense matters, a review article, from Front. Phys. China (2007) 1: 96―102. The journal and the paper were discussed at some length above, see Talk:Cold_fusion/Archive_24#Holy_Grail_Found.3F_--_2007_Review_article. Regardless of that discussion, this is reliable source, coming from a hot fusion researcher at a major fusion research group in China. In his section on "Reproducibility of cold fusion," he writes that In the process of electrolysis of heavy water using Pd as the cathode and Pt as the anode, if the following two conditions are satisfied spontaneously, excess energy will be produced. And then he gives the conditions: D/Pd ratio larger than 0.88 The current density of the electrolysis is larger than 280 mA/cm2 In his table on p. 98, looking at excess heat, he gives results for groups that have done a total of 14,720 experiments, and he reports results for five years ago of 45% average reproducibility. For the last year before closing his paper, he reports average reproducibility of 83%, and he shows four research groups, in Japan, Romania, the United States, and Russia, as reporting 100% reproducibility. Garwin used to say that when there was 50% reproducibility, he'd be satisfied. He now wants two cups of tea brewed, which, of course, has nothing to do with the science. We don't reject muon-catalyzed fusion because you can't brew tea with it. The lowest reported reproducibility in the previous year was 50%, from an Italian group which we can speculate, from other data provided, has the least experience with cold fusion. While I regret that this paper didn't provide detail on the sources involved, and is ambiguous in certain respects, this is of higher quality than any popular media source, and with media sources, we generally wouldn't have that kind of detail either. I am aware of no recent academic publications which negate the claim of excess heat. If we read the 2004 DoE review, and especially if we read the individual reviewer papers (they are available on both lenr-canr.org and newenergytimes.com), we can see that, then, there was very substantial opinion (fifty-fifty among the reviewers) that evidence for excess heat was "convincing." The other reviewers were less convinced, to be sure, but not entirely negative. What if the DoE panel had been looking at recent results, instead of older ones? In any case, the He Jing-tang paper is a secondary source, published in a peer-reviewed journal, which would support a much stronger statement in the article than anyone has attempted to place in it, to my knowledge. And against this source is what?

[EEGator]