tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7263460409054497223.post2213842384146806104..comments2014-09-19T14:15:51.279+10:00Comments on Sometimes, Maybe, Never: Sharp Pointy ThingsTim Lambhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14754227099002646579noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7263460409054497223.post-51039800134182177032008-02-09T07:46:00.000+11:002008-02-09T07:46:00.000+11:00Tim Lamb wrote:"Thanks for your comment, but I'd h...Tim Lamb wrote:<BR/><BR/>"Thanks for your comment, but I'd have to dispute that the Pons and Fleischmann experiments have been reliably reproduced."<BR/><BR/>Here is what you must do to "dispute" this assertion:<BR/><BR/>1. Read a large selection of papers from major labs. Say, 250 papers.<BR/><BR/>2. Find errors in these papers.<BR/><BR/>3. Write a scientific paper describing there errors, and then have it peer-reviewed and published in a major journal, such as Jap. J. Applied Physics.<BR/><BR/>If you cannot do that, then you are not capable of "disputing" the results. A negative interpretation of the experimental results must be presented with as much rigor as the positive interpretations put forth by the authors. Bear in mind, there are about a thousand of these authors and most of them are distinguished experts in their field. They include, for example, the Director of the Max Planck Institute for Physical Chemistry; the director of BARC and later chairman of the Indian Atomic Energy Commission; Prof. Melvin Miles, Fellow of China Lake; three editors of major plasma fusion and physics journals; and three Nobel laureates.<BR/><BR/>I think it is unlikely that you know more about physics and chemistry than these people do. But perhaps you do. To prove this, you must publish a paper. Everyone in must be held to the same standard. A negative view does not get a free pass.<BR/><BR/>"As such we have to count them as remaining unproven."<BR/><BR/>That is not how the scientific method works. When an effect has been widely replicated at a high signal to noise ratio, we have to accept that it is real. Experimental evidence is the only standard of truth in science.<BR/><BR/><BR/>". . . but currently the hypothesis has to remain, at best, extremely doubtful."<BR/><BR/>It is not a hypothesis; it is an observation. There are no valid reasons why anyone should doubt it. If there were, the skeptics would have published them years ago. Note that skeptics have only published 5 or 10 papers. You can read most of them at LENR-CANR.org. See Morrison, for example.<BR/><BR/>- Jed Rothwell<BR/>Librarian, LENR-CANR.orgJed Rothwellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00179077151947615762noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7263460409054497223.post-2539150871125936942008-02-08T20:58:00.000+11:002008-02-08T20:58:00.000+11:00Thanks for your comment, but I'd have to dispute t...Thanks for your comment, but I'd have to dispute that the Pons and Fleischmann experiments have been reliably reproduced. As such we have to count them as remaining unproven. I'd have to agree that there's some good evidence of reproducible effects that bear closer scrutiny, but currently the hypothesis has to remain, at best, extremely doubtful.Tim Lambhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14754227099002646579noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7263460409054497223.post-10378138117430410462008-02-08T02:50:00.000+11:002008-02-08T02:50:00.000+11:00You wrote:". . . it’s been demonstrated to be unpr...You wrote:<BR/><BR/>". . . it’s been demonstrated to be unproven and unrepeatable, as the 'cold fusion' experiments of a few years ago became, because they could not be repeated by other researchers."<BR/><BR/>That is incorrect. Cold fusion was replicated at over 200 world-class laboratories such as Los Alamos and China Lake, and these replications have been published in long-established, mainstream, peer reviewed journals such as Jap. J. Applied Physics and Naturwissenschaften.<BR/><BR/>Our web site features a bibliography of 3,500 cold fusion papers and 600 full text papers. See:<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://lenr-canr.org" REL="nofollow">http://lenr-canr.org</A><BR/><BR/>- Jed Rothwell<BR/>Librarian, LENR-CANR.orgJed Rothwellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00179077151947615762noreply@blogger.com