Mark Iverson wrote:
> Out of all the comments on the 60-minutes website, there is ONE reasonable > critique which shows the > person put some effort to research the subject matter and he asks some > legitimate questions. I'd be > very interested in reading Jed's, Ed's and any other Vorts' analysis of > this gentlemen's material > (see below)? > > -Mark > > ============ > [copied from the 60-Minutes website RE: comments to the Cold Fusion > segment] > > Posted by joclondon at 7:47 AM : Apr 21, 2009 > > The comments by Richard Garwood, in your report, were probably correct. He > suggested there may have > been an error in measuring the input of electrical energy. The possibility > of a 'systematic error' > in the test protocols was also mentioned by Prof John Huizenga in his 1989 > report to the US Dept of > Energy. (DOE/S-0073 DE90 005611.) I disagree with joclodon, and so did Garwin (not Garwood). Garwin said he could not find a error. "We have found no specific experimental artifact responsible for the finding of excess heat . . ." Many people have suggested the kind of error joclodon describes, and I am sure Garwin would have thought of it. This is also ruled out because the heat appears when there is no input power, in heat after death and gas loading. In other words, if this were an artifact caused by mismeasuring input power, it would vanish as soon as you turn off input power. Also, an error of this nature could not possibly explain the large excess heat results observed by McKubre and others. - Jed
