P&F claimed about 10 W in 1989, and in 1993 they claimed 140W excess (with 40 W input), and they published in refereed journals. Hagelstein is claiming an unverified 100 mW, and they have not published the results. 100 mW is 1400 times smaller than 140 W. ***As I stated, Hagelstein's experiment was over 6 MONTHS. Rossi claims he ran an industrial hot water heater for 2 YEARS. The time factor is the one which has grown. I can see why researchers would want to scale down the reaction when they study it, so they can come to an understanding of it.
Your questions are just another example of sneering. There's no real attempt to get to a working understanding. Researchers don't do things the way you like, so you call it pathological science. On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 8:18 AM, Joshua Cude <joshua.c...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 12:20 PM, Kevin O'Malley <kevmol...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> >> ***Hagelstein wrote this editorial shortly after having his latest LENR >> experiment run for several MONTHS in his lab. How has the size of the >> claimed effect gotten smaller, and how is that consistent with pathological >> science? >> >> >> > > P&F claimed about 10 W in 1989, and in 1993 they claimed 140W excess (with > 40 W input), and they published in refereed journals. Hagelstein is > claiming an unverified 100 mW, and they have not published the results. 100 > mW is 1400 times smaller than 140 W. > > > Hagelstein's experiment is shown to students at his course. He said > visitors were welcome, but when someone visited and reported back in some > forum, all he got to see was a closed tupperware box with wires coming out > connected to stuff. Not really a convincing demo. > > > Why doesn't he use the heat to do something really unequivocal, like > heating a large volume of water. And if his COP is really 14, why can't he > get more nanors, boil water, generate electricity and run the experiment on > its own power. Why does a new source of energy still need energy input from > the mains? > > > > >
