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.
Each experiment would have to be judged on its own merits. If you don't have good judgement by now (and your posts suggest you don't), then I can't help. Much of it comes from life experience. I can give you a hint that using a 90 year old former scientist, who endorses scams, as a source isn't a good move.
So I should disregard the large section of the article that comes under the heading: Miley's Distinguished History?
Krivit tries to help Miley out of his jam:
On Dec. 3, in the absence of a chance to learn from Miley directly in a phone call, I began looking at his slides. I saw some things that seemed to explain the discrepancy. I sent Miley another inquiry.And then Krivit is actually being generous by allowing Miley to claim 8 watts, when the slides indicate that it was only 2 watts.I asked him, "When you said, 'At the moment, we can run continuously at levels of a few hundred watts,' did you omit to state at the end of that sentence 'per kilogram of material'? In other words, would it have been more correct to say, 'At the moment, we can run continuously at levels of a few hundred watts per kilogram of material'"?
Finally Krivit allows one last excuse:
"I think that George has found a mistake in his grad student's work," Cravens wrote. "She was rushing due to the baby delivery."Instead of a "crusade to pillory" Krivit is doing everything possible to help out yet another scientist who has turned into a cold fusion clown.