Sources?

[ankh_f_n_khonsu]

For those with an interest in "cold" fusion, can anyone give some links to journal-quality research?

Cold Fusion Times has some decent articles (and some tripe), but their layout makes it difficult to take the site seriously. It looks like it was coded in 1993.

Cheers.

Comments

Cold fusion was widely replicated

[anonymous]

Cold fusion has been replicated thousands of times, in over 100 of world-class laboratories including the Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division at China Lake, Amoco, SRI, Texas A&M, Los Alamos, Mitsubishi Res. Center, BARC Bombay and many more. These replications were published in long-established peer-reviewed journals. There are roughly 500 peer-reviewed papers on this subject, and ~3000 other papers in conference proceedings and other non-peer-reviewed sources

Re: Cold fusion was widely replicated

[ankh_f_n_khonsu]

Beautiful!

Cheers mate!

Namaste.

Re: Cold fusion was widely replicated

[dirkcjelli]

There is not the slightest chance this is a chemical reaction or an experimental error.

These words speak volumes... not the slightest chance?

Re: Cold fusion was widely replicated

[anonymous]

Dirk wrote

you've got to be kidding... (or a troll)

[dirkcjelli]

And how many failures to replicate results have there been? You don't get to count only your successes!

Sigma 90? Now I know you're lying.

Having claimed these results are at 90 sigma, I'm now disregarding you as either ignorant of statistics or mentally ill. -Nothing- is at 90 sigma. If you wish to aid the field of cold fusion research, seek psychiatric counciling and take a few more courses in experimental statistics... any other action on your part will only hurt your cause.

You're also completely discounting the possibility of systematic error. I'm done.

Re: you've got to be kidding... (or a troll)

[ankh_f_n_khonsu]

An aside:

And how many failures to replicate results have there been? You don't get to count only your successes!

How many failed fetuses before Snuppy? Oh, right. 1,000+. We still consider Snuppy a success, right?

Do you think we might find other examples of experiments that have wildly disparate results?

I think, in regards to "Sigma 90", this reference may apply: Clarke, B.W., et al., Search for 3He and 4He in Arata-Style Palladium Cathodes II: Evidence for Tritium Production. Fusion Sci. & Technol., 2001. 40: p. 152.

Namaste.

Re: you've got to be kidding... (or a troll)

[dirkcjelli]

Do you even know how many separate trials you'd need to run before you can report 90 sigma?

Re: you've got to be kidding... (or a troll)

[ankh_f_n_khonsu]

Whether you agree with it or not, it has been declared.

Hopefully after reading the references you can provide more criticisms, rather than dismissing it out of hand.

Namaste.

Re: you've got to be kidding... (or a troll)

[dirkcjelli]

You clearly don't appreciate how absurd a claim that is. I'm not spending the time to read that paper until you give me an order of magnitude estimate on how many trials one would need to conduct before one could assert 90 sigma confidence in -anything.-

If that is in the paper, you should have little trouble doing so.

Re: you've got to be kidding... (or a troll)

[ankh_f_n_khonsu]

Michael McKubre and Francis Tanzella from SRI International, in "Review of experimental measurements involving dd reactions," PowerPoint slides. in Tenth International Conference on Cold Fusion. 2003. Cambridge, MA:

[HEAT/HELIUM]
-Calorimeter tolerance of +/- 0.4%
-Up to 90 sigma observation of excess power effect
-Excess power 3 to 30%
-Correlated 4He and Heat vs. time
-Sustained, unidirectional heat burst exhibit an integrated energy at least 10x greater than the sum of all possible chemical reactions within a closed cell
- Heat effects are observed with D, but not H, under similar (or more extreme) conditions
- Near quantitative correlation between Heat and 4He production according to: Predicted: d + d →4He + ~24MeV (lattice); measured: Q = 31 ± 13 MeV/atom; dIscrepancy may be due to solid phase retention of retention of 4He

McKubre states:

We've done everything we need to do. We have a clear demonstration of a heat effect. We have a measurement at confidence level of 90 sigma, that's 90 times the experimental measurement

Re: you've got to be kidding... (or a troll)

[anonymous]

I think McKubre may be using the term "90 sigma" in a way that statisticians consider incorrect. I do not know enough about statistics to judge, but some statisticians have expressed discomfort at this statement. Perhaps he should stick to saying "90 times the measurement uncertainty."

Anyway, the signal is far above the noise in the SRI experiments, and in many others. Not all. Some labs have reported marginal results that I suspect are only noise.

- Jed Rothwell
LENR-CANR.org

Re: you've got to be kidding... (or a troll)

[dirkcjelli]

I'm rather confident they've done sloppy work. I'm -somewhat- confident this effect is wholy the result of experimental/experimenter bias.

Re: you've got to be kidding... (or a troll)

[ankh_f_n_khonsu]

And you've come to that conclusion without reading the literature and without conducting your own experiments!

Boy, science sure ain't what it used to be!

Namaste.

Re: you've got to be kidding... (or a troll)

[dirkcjelli]

How many experiments do you need to do to claim 90 sigma? (by either definition... the correct one, or the one they seem to have been using)?

Re: you've got to be kidding... (or a troll)

[anonymous]

Dirk wrote

Re: you've got to be kidding... (or a troll)

[dirkcjelli]

I'll ask you the same question. How many experiments does someone need to do to have "90 sigma" confidence (by "either" definition of 90-sigma?)