"This gives me much more confidence in the results." Noted! I am highly skeptical however. I think it's great MFMP is taking the time to try to reproduce this, which they definitely should, but I think expectations should be that it's very unlikely anything will result of this.
I think everyone should also realize science is about trying things, even if they're a low chance of happening. If something only has a 5% chance of working and you do about 20 of them, you'll hit upon something. The way everyone is talking about this experiment I think is very immature and far to exuberant. I'm sure 100s of labs have tried to heat up this combination of powdered metals before. There's this great robotic system that tries out 1000s of medicines that have been approved by the FDA for dozens of different diseases. The chance is so small that'll it work, but because it's a robot it can try so many different ones. Eventually it finds something that works and is already approved by the FDA. That is science. Having confidence because some random joe from russia creates a webpage with graphs that we have recreated cold fusion - is not. It's gullible and naive and when nothing comes of this you're going to look very foolish. A lot of people are also going to be less inclined to try the next thing too, even though they should. On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 11:04 AM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote: > [email protected] wrote: > > >> Frank Acland was so kind to ask him >> here is the question + answer. >> >> >> http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/12/30/alexander-parkhomov-on-calibration-in-his-test/ >> > > That's great! Thank you Cousin Peter, and thanks to Frank Acland too. The > e-cat World article says he found a heat balance to within 10%. That's > fine. That is about what I expected. It says: > > "Measurements with the electro heater which isn’t containing fuel at the > power up to 1000 W were taken. The quantity of the consumed electric power > after boiling of water and the amount of heat necessary for heating and > evaporation added for preservation of initial level, coincided within 10%. > " > > > > >> What else could he do? Except minimizing losses through insulation? >> > > There is no need to do anything else. The excess heat is well above 10% so > the uncertainty does not matter. > > Good job Parkhomov! > > This gives me much more confidence in the results. > > - Jed > >
