On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> No it is not “more likely” - this appears to be your bogosity quotient > at work again - but it raises another issue. **** > > ** ** > > Why would anyone invent a bogus rationale unsupported by the record– > especially under the guise of Occam - except to justify the continuing > failure to do their homework in this field? This is reminiscent of Park’s > refusal to even accept papers on the subject, since his mind was already > made up.**** > > ** ** > > Once again, Yugo has failed to avail herself of the information available > on the LENR website. > Sure. I am going to read 1000+ papers. Very reasonable. > **** > > Here is NASA’s replication of Thermacore’s wet cell work > > ** ** > > http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/NiedraJMreplicatio.pdf > >From that paper: "The apparent energy evolved in the present experiments was inadequate to eliminate chemical reactions - runs too short for the power observed. However, this possibility has been examined and rejected by other workers operating very similar cells at 50 W apparent excess heat for months." Oh. OK I guess. And THAT was in 1996! "Runs too short"?? Looks like the same thing Rossi did. Someone needed to break for dinner or to pick up the kids? You're going to have to do better if you want to convince any non-dreamers.
