We disagree, so I'll drop it as not being productive. I believe that the falseness of Mizuno's previous results was exposed and he/you are unwilling to spend the time to address the issues that showed how his experiments were likely compromised. This reminds me of the profs who refused to address the results of MFMP and others who demonstrated the errors in Lugano. Why? We don't know for certain the reasons for all of them, but heard from some that they were satisfied with the results because they got some colleagues to agree with them. Ok.
I wanted this research to be true, but there's no evidence that it was. Ugo Abundo kind of revived it and then it suffered the same problems as BEC (decreasing COP) to the point that we hear nothing else from him. My main point again was just caution and humility about Mizuno's current results. There is precedent for large errors. Jack On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 10:32 PM Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote: > Jack Cole <jcol...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> Unless Mizuno can/did address the following problems addressed in the >> paper I linked >> <https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/KowalskiLsearchingfa.pdf> to in the >> previous email, his work has been debunked. >> > > I strongly disagree. > > > >> He [Piantelli] supposedly was going to teach MFMP how to replicate, but I >> think they got tired of him talking about all the supposed complexities >> without giving them any clear protocol to follow. >> > > Okay, so they did not try to replicate him. As I said, only one person has > tried as far as I know. You cannot draw any conclusion from one failed > replication. > > > >> Unless that can be produced, there is no reason to assume he has >> anything (other than his word). If I'm not mistaken, CERN tried to >> replicate some of his work and failed. >> > > Correct. That's the only attempt I know of. > > > >> Nobody has replicated BEC's electrolysis results. >>>> >>> >>> What is BEC? >>> >>> Brillouin Energy Corp. >> > > Has anyone tried to replicate their electrolysis results? If not, no one > knows. > > Disproved by who? In what paper? After how many tests? >>> >>> At least 3. One of the supposed replicators retracted their results >> after learning about the problems. They refuted their own results! >> > > So what? People often retract. The only attempts I know of were not > adequate. The one you cited above is not adequate. > > You cannot tell whether the original experiment is at fault, or the > replication is. No one can tell. > > > >> You claimed that most or all of his work had been replicated. >> > > I did not. Or if I did, I certainly did not mean to say that. Anyone can > read his papers and see they have not been replicated. > > > >> I'm not confusing terms. I meant debunked. >> > > Then I think you are wrong. Note that the term "debunk" means "expose as a > sham" or: > > expose the falseness or hollowness of (a myth, idea, or belief). > "the magazine that debunks claims of the paranormal" > synonyms: explode, deflate, puncture, quash, > > I think that is too strong a term for what you cite. > > > >> You have to address the issues that Kowalski et. al. raised and I quoted >> above. >> > > I am not obligated. I do not agree, and I am not going to take the time to > explain why. > >
