I wrote:
> It is simple: I never give a free pass to any claim . . . > Lest anyone doubt this, let me remind readers here that I do not even give a free pass to *myself*. That's gotta be some kind of record. I spent hours, days, and weeks looking at the Patterson, Hydrodynamics, and Ohmori-Mizuno glow discharge experiments respectively. I looked at old data from before I arrived; data recorded while I was there; and more data sent after I left. I looked at independent replications. I looked at multiple configurations and different instrument types. I spent many tedious hours pouring through data and in some cases making my own measurements with my own instruments. As I reported, there were some obvious blunders made, but they were readily apparent and quickly corrected. Aside from these incidents, I am not aware of any reason to doubt these measurements. I have heard and taken into consideration dozens of reasons from skeptics and supporters alike, but I do not consider any of them valid reasons to reject the claims. So, as far as I can tell, these experiments produced anomalous excess heat. HOWEVER, I am not yet 100% ready to sign off on any of them, because they have not yet been widely replicated at high s/n ratios. I define "widely" by a somewhat arbitrary standard of 5 or 10 replications, depending on how definitive the signal to noise ratio is. Obviously, one test of something like a stand-alone power generator would be definitive. So if Mills or Rossi can do that, bring it on! That would fall in the category of a "demonstration" rather than a "replicated experiment" by the criteria I set earlier. The two categories blend together in some cases. It is not a hard and fast distinction. Some tests fit in both categories, such as the Soviet atom bomb test of August 1949. By the way, if you are looking for light hydrogen experiments that might come out of left field and change everything, we all know of Mills and Rossi, but don't forget Mizuno with his astounding circa 1930 phenanthrene experiment. Who knows what to make of it. The calorimetry is still kind raw in some ways, in my opinion. I don't believe that one either, but I don't not believe it. I know from long experience that only a fool would ignore or dismiss Mizuno. If he says he believes something to be true, I am absolutely, 100% certain that he honestly believes it to be true, and he has good reasons. He may be wrong but he is one of the few people I know who seems almost genetically incapable of dissembling about experiments, to me or more importantly, to himself. - Jed
