tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16983037.post1330386721206333380..comments2023-10-25T09:19:31.298-05:00Comments on AstroRoach: Navy Experiments Confirm Cold FusionAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15074194422858225092noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16983037.post-57432151780753234242007-05-18T17:00:00.000-05:002007-05-18T17:00:00.000-05:00You wrote:"It doesn't say 'no one was able to subs...You wrote:<BR/><BR/>"It doesn't say 'no one was able to substantiate their claims'; it says Pons and Fleischmann weren't. I think most would agree they themselves weren't able to defend their claims."<BR/><BR/>Ah, well, I took the word "substantiate" in this context to mean: "teach others to replicate" or "to be widely replicated." That is usually the standard of success in experimental science. It is good if you can repeat the experiment yourself, but even better if other researchers can repeat your work and see the same results.<BR/><BR/>I think most researchers would agree this is the best way to "defend" a result, since the experimentalists I know trust their own results more than arguments or discussions.<BR/><BR/>Fleischmann and Pons were not only replicated by others, but they repeated their experiments and improved on them to a considerable extent. They published many more papers. (You can find several in the LENR-CANR library.) For a while they made great progress with the support of Toyota, but alas that program came to an end. They are now retired.<BR/><BR/>I have no argument with the headline about the Navy confirming cold fusion. Navy researchers have published many excellent papers on this subject, starting in 1990. See:<BR/><BR/>http://lenr-canr.org/Collections/USNavy.htm<BR/><BR/>- Jed RothwellAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16983037.post-7196545820945482882007-05-18T16:44:00.000-05:002007-05-18T16:44:00.000-05:00Hey, the post says NAVY EXPERIMENTS CONFIRM COLD F...Hey, the post says NAVY EXPERIMENTS CONFIRM COLD FUSION. What more do you want?<BR/><BR/>It doesn't say "no one was able to substantiate their claims"; it says Pons and Fleischmann weren't. I think most would agree they themselves weren't able to defend their claims.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15074194422858225092noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16983037.post-34055312643444375422007-05-18T16:40:00.000-05:002007-05-18T16:40:00.000-05:00Regarding the "enormous potential benefits" of col...Regarding the "enormous potential benefits" of cold fusion, please see:<BR/><BR/>http://lenr-canr.org/BookBlurb.htm<BR/><BR/>- Jed Rothwell<BR/>Librarian, LENR-CANR.orgAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16983037.post-53861147145174982302007-05-18T16:25:00.000-05:002007-05-18T16:25:00.000-05:00You wrote:"In 1989, Stanley Pons and Martin Fleisc...You wrote:<BR/><BR/>"In 1989, Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann jolted the world with their announcement of Cold Fusion, but were unable to substantiate their claims."<BR/><BR/>That is a myth. The cold fusion effect was soon replicated at high signal to noise ratios by hundreds of researchers at world-class laboratories such as the Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division at China Lake, Amoco, SRI, Los Alamos, BARC Bombay, and do on. By September 12, 1990, 92 groups in major laboratories reported replications. See: Will, F.G., Groups Reporting Cold Fusion Evidence. 1990, National Cold Fusion Institute: Salt Lake City, UT., http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/WillFGgroupsrepo.pdf Hundreds of positive, peer-reviewed papers on cold fusion were subsequently published in mainstream journals.<BR/><BR/>The research has often been attacked by newspapers and magazines such as the Scientific American. See: http://lenr-canr.org/News.htm#SciAmSlam<BR/><BR/>Our web site, LENR-CANR.org, includes a bibliography of over 3,500 papers on cold fusion, and the full text of over 500 papers.<BR/><BR/>- Jed Rothwell<BR/>Librarian, LENR-CANR.orgAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com