Joshua Cude <[email protected]> wrote:
> Maybe you weren't paying attention. Lomax referred to the Mckubre data in a > particular pdf on your site, and I said in that data, which is held in such > high regard, it doesn't make sense that the power drops so quickly when the > current is shut off, particularly in light of heat after death claims. > The data clearly shows that some cells produce heat after death, and other do not. What does not make sense here is your demand that all cells do this. Nature does work the way you demand it should. This is experimental science. You have to take the results as they are, and not dictate what they should be according to your theories. > We were discussing a particular experiment in a particular report. Is there > a graph in that report of that 1994 experiment that reports heat after > death? > No, because that experiment did not produce heat after death, as I noted previously. You need to stop demanding what is not there. You need to stop pointing to black birds as proof that red ones do not exist. One graph cannot show all aspects of cold fusion. The DOE panel would have heard about it, but they were not convinced. > Some of panel members were convinced, and some are not. The ones who are not convinced made logical and factual errors similar to the ones you are making. > Sixty minutes at least, considering they were pretty sympathetic, might > have mentioned it. But on a show advocating CF, with consultants like > McKubre and Dardik, there was not a word about heat after death or heat > without input in gas loading. > This is twice removed from being a scientific argument: 1. Mass media presentations are not admissible experimental evidence. This discussion is about science, not television production values. 2. This is your opinion of the production values at "60 Minutes." You opinion about what makes compelling television has absolutely no bearing on experiments. By the way, I disagree with your opinion -- but my opinion on this subject is equally irrelevant. > In a demonstration to outsiders who can't even see what's connected, it's > impossible to be sure what the measurements mean. > That argument fails for two reasons: 1. It is not falsifiable. 2. It applies to nearly all other experiments, in all other fields. It is not possible for you to see what is connect to what inside of a Tokamak reactor, or in a robot explorer on Mars. It is not possible for you watch every procedure in a cloning experiment, or a medical study on cancer, or in a Top quark experiment. You can reject any finding in any field of science with the argument that the researchers may be lying or incompetent. It is true that a few researchers do lie, and some are incompetent, but in a group of professional researcher as large as the cold fusion cohort it is statistically impossible for them all to be incompetent. In point of fact, I can judge their competence, and so can Storms and the others who have reviewed the field. It is easy to show that most of them are competent, honest and sane. A few reviewers, such as you, Robert Park and Slakey, have concluded that all researchers are wrong or incompetent, but you are mistaken. Your arguments are irrational and factually wrong. Your judgement proves only that you, Park and Slakey are not fit to judge this subject. It is not possible that thousand of professional scientists, and a handful of people such as Park -- who brags he has not read a single paper -- is right. > > What you want would not work, for reasons beyond the scope of the > discussion. > > > Right. Because the fact that CF doesn't work is beyond the scope of this > discussion. Cop out. > I am not obligated to explain every single technical detail to you, or to anyone else. I have upload 1,200 papers on this subject, giving you every opportunity to learn this sort of thing for yourself. "Cop out" is a snappy come-back but you are incorrect. The reasons are beyond the scope of the discussion. You are demanding the impossible. If you do not understand why this is impossible, that is additional proof that you do not know what you are talking about, and you have not done your homework. > But heat can be demonstrated simply and visually. . . > It can, and it has been. See the boil off experiments. In this case you will not take "yes" for an answer. What you demand to see has been published, but you refuse to look, or to acknowledge it. - Jed
