[strawberry]

nibblebit, on 25 May 2012 - 07:16 AM, said:

Strawberry, the summary near the end of the final report :

"Excess heat effects were observed in Cell A using a palladium cathode that previously produced
positive results. No excess heat was found in Cell B with a palladium cathode that previously
failed to give any excess power production. Later experiments produced excess heat in Cell B
using small palladium particles in a novel fluidized bed approach. These palladium particles
produced larger amounts of excess power under pulse electrolysis conditions. No excess heat
was observed, as expected, for platinum particles in Cell A.

Fleischmann-Pons type cells gave excess heat effects for Pd-0.5B and Pd-Ce cathodes, but no
excess power was observed for the cell using a Pd-Ce-B cathode. Experiments involving the co-
deposition of palladium and deuterium from the D 2 O solution produced excess power in all three
cells. However, recombination cannot be completely ruled out as an explanation for this excess
heat. An electromigration experiment also produced evidence for excess heat.

Although these excess power effects are small (400 mW or less), they cannot be explained away
by experimental errors. They contribute to the body of scientific evidence for the presence of
anomalous effects in deuterated metals. "


nibs.

NB, I was asking for a specific claim, not a regurgitation from the report. Can you write in plain English a claim of something that is happening experimentally. Then we can move on to who has repeated such experiments and if there is any basis to believe the claims made in the paper.

Arnold Layne, on 25 May 2012 - 07:54 AM, said:

A bit like Religion really

No, not really. There are lots of ideas that want to be science (eg the claim here of cold fusion), but they aren't science until the experiments are repeated and empirical data show some worth to the claims.

Religion does not have the emirical means to test its own claims.

It's easy to sort the wheat from the chaff in science. Religion hasn't shown that it has any wheat.

[nibblebit]

@strawberry.

As i see it, Pons and Fleischmann made the original claim, and the US navy is one of the groups that has, not just repeated, but improved upon their results.

What do you want that i'm not giving you ?


nibs.

[strawberry]

nibblebit, on 25 May 2012 - 10:33 AM, said:

What do you want that i'm not giving you ?

Some reason to think there is any value in your claim that cold fusion was repeated in 200+ labs.

The US Navy have only asked for more funding. They haven't published any proof of viable cold fusion. (BTW don't think because the navy are funding anything that it has intrinsic value. It's science when it stands on its own, not because of who is making claims.)

[nibblebit]

@strawberry

I've found my old HDD that should have the papers on it, gimme half an hour and i should have the list for you, i think i have one that is a sort of compendium/index of them all and you can peruse at your leisure.

atb,

nibs.

[distracted]

nibblebit, sorry to kill your post but no offsite hosted files please, especially on personal hosting space... rules are at the top right if you want to have a peek again

This post has been edited by distracted: 25 May 2012 - 05:58 PM

[nibblebit]

OK sorry dis, i thought it would be OK because it has to be copied and pasted.


nibs.

[distracted]

It's to protect members IP addresses mate, so you will need to find a copy on a mainstream site or PM strawb and let him make his own mind up if he wants to go there or not

[nibblebit]

OK thanks dis, i went the PM route, but made it non-clickable so strawbz has to copy/paste it.


cheers,

nibs.

[strawberry]

nibblebit, on 24 May 2012 - 03:41 PM, said:

Lots of people laughed at cold fusion but over 200 labs independently verified it and were completely ignored by the world's media, this is why i'm skeptical of skeptics and like to take more time with these claims.

Firstly NB, I'd like to thank you for raising the subject. I followed the original stories quite closely and I've really enjoyed the nostalgia of going through it all again.

I've read through all your ref'd material and quite a lot of others too. There is a large number of papers and articles. But, for all the efforts, It's definitely not the case that 200+ labs independently verified that cold fusion takes place. In fact, not one has verified that fusion is taking place. Furthermore, it's not verified that any nuclear reaction is taking place.

The media's handing of the story is similar to that of the faster-than-light neutrinos -- far too quick to build up the story in the first place and far too damning in the end.

If it is ever shown that there is a significant exothermic reaction that is viable as an energy source then the interest would be huge. As it is, the interest seems to be little more than a few people who think there is something of value in the work somewhere (even in the absence of proof), a few scammers who are making good money with their 'almost complete' 'coming soon' 'close to market' techs, and a few countries keeping a minimal amount of research going on the off-chance there is something.

I've certainly seen nothing to change my sceptical ways....

[nibblebit]

Fair comment strawberry, thanks for taking the time to read the material.


nibs.