The 1989 memo reports a negative result. They were looking for neutrons, and found none. They even recommended some readers to stop reading the memo halfway through. It's obvious that their report of anomalous temperature isn't motivated by anything like money or hype.
Miley on the other hand has joined the bandwagon of cold fusion hypesters by making informal unsupported claims and gets ripped apart here.
I know what "quality" is. I do it every day and design instruments to implement it.
Which is nothing more than "Warthog says." It's certainly not supported by your posts here on FR. Let's take a look at an example:
Hmmmm....if he has endorsed it, I'll have to give Blacklight another look. Not needed for Rossi, as I am already familiar with that.Apparently your idea of quality is defined by the success of scams.
No, the 1989 reports a POSITIVE result for excess heat without neutrons, but failed to publicize that result due to the "physicist shitstorm" that you are continuing here. Fortunately, they FINALLY realized that the result WAS actually positive, repeated the work successfully, and then publicized it.
"Miley on the other hand has joined the bandwagon of cold fusion hypesters by making informal unsupported claims and gets ripped apart here.
? LOL. You cite KRIVIT, the business major?? The guy on a crusade to pillory any person in the LENR field who doesn't "endorse" Widom-Larsen??
All I see there is that Miley himself is saying his results aren't yet peer-reviewed. Researchers mention preliminary results all the time. The appropriate response is to wait until the peer-reviewed information "is" published.
But I also see this:
"Miley explained the experiment to me. Essentially, it is a replication of the Arata-style gas-loading experiment that has been replicated by a number of LENR researchers, particularly at Kobe University, Japan. New Energy Times reported on this in 2008. The Kobe researchers also published their results in Physics Letters A in August 2009."
Hmmmm....yet more successful replications of a non-existent phenomenon, duly reported in the peer-reviewed science literature.
"Hmmmm....if he has endorsed it, I'll have to give Blacklight another look. Not needed for Rossi, as I am already familiar with that.
It's called HUMOR, idiot.
"Apparently your idea of quality is defined by the success of scams."
Actually, my idea of quality is defined by the data presented. I seriously doubt that Storms has "endorsed" either Rossi or Mills. I suspect that his real sin (according to you) is to have mentioned them at all without saying "they're scams".
I haven't followed Blacklight much at all. I vaguely recall seeing that his experimental results had been reproduced, and I think the replication was done by NASA. Note that Mills "fractional" quantum levels may be BS as the physics community thinks....but what matters is whether the experimental data was replicated. The theoretical basis of the results mean precisely zip.
But you're still ducking the issue. What set of factors in a paper will you accept as reasonable proof?? You're already said that peer review is irrelevant. And I'm afraid that "papers that present wrongly-identified "negative" results" is a bit too limiting.