On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 4:26 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "One problem I have with those results. When the current shuts off, the heat dies immediately. It seems implausible that the deuterium would diffuse out of the Pd that quickly. I would expect a more gradual decline. Especially with all the reports of heat after death. That points to artifact to me." > And here Joshua let his assumptions of error lead him into a blatant error, confidently asserted. It turns out that "immediately" is, from the graph, about a hour. You can see the decline, it's not "immediate." And the scale on this chart is one day per division, 24 hours! Right. I guessed wrong. The graph you linked to wasn't labelled. You have to go back to the original to get the scale; I thought the axis was labelled in minutes, and it's actually hours. That weakens the objection, but it doesn't remove it. The complete drop takes about an hour, but it's very steep in the middle, dropping by half the amount in about 12 minutes. That still seems like an unreasonable rate for diffusion, when you consider that a tiny foil in Dardik's experiment maintains its output heat for 4 days. We're told that a very special condition is required in Pd for CF, but now it turns out there are 2 very different special conditions required, one in which the deuterium doesn't diffuse below a critical level in 4 days, and the other in which it diffuses below that level in less than an hour. Fishy! > Joshua just continues to dismiss all this with a wave of the hand. "I'm not convinced." Because if it were true, an obvious demonstration would be easy to design, but in 22 years, there has been no progress. That's why you are trying to convince me with a 16 year-old graph, instead of directing me to demonstrations of isolated devices that are warmer than their surroundings.
