At 06:27 PM 6/23/2011, Joshua Cude wrote:
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 5:04 PM, Jed Rothwell
<<mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]> wrote:
I have uploaded hundreds of papers proving that I am right.
Oh, Geez, Jed, come off it. "I am right" is about as boring as is
possible, and it convinces nobody. Those papers don't prove anything,
they are evidence, and proof depends heavily on interpretation, I
don't even believe in proof of anything in this world, it belongs to
mathematics; rather, in science, we consider predictive capacity,
etc. No theory is ever "proven" in the way that a geometry theorem is
proven. It's polemic.
And yet, few believe.
We could argue about that. It's common for people not familiar with
the evidence for an unusual and unexpected thing to not believe. It
means little. Joshua, you could try writing a paper with your
critique of the heat/helium evidence and see if you could get it past
peer review. I rather doubt it, because the arguments I've seen were
useless as to what a journal would actually accept. But you might get lucky.
Any steam proves that Rossi is right.
Aw, Jed, that's obviously not true. That depends on pure fluff, mere
claim. The input power can boil some water, there is no reason to
think it can't. The question is rate.
No. It doesn't. See earlier post.
Heck, his reactor has run with no input!
So he says.
Right. Jed, you are failing to compartmentalize what you know from
the context from which you know it and how you know it. You believe
Rossi, apparently. You will never convince Joshua with what depends
on the mere say-so of Rossi. It will be hard enough with something
published by a reputable scientist with peer review, but Rossi? With
his reputation (deserved or not)?
It is ridiculous to question these results.
It is ridiculous not to.
I agree with Cude, here, in fact. I was surprised what I found when I
looked into the steam quality claim. I'm not at all sure what this
means, though. People can make mistakes and still be basically correct. Or not!
You blather on about this because Rossi has not published hard data
and real scientific papers.
No. Because he has not presented evidence for excess heat. In any form.
I wouldn't say that, but I will agree that the evidence is weaker
than it might have seemed at first.
If you were serious, [...] You would write a paper and submit it to
peer-review in a journal.
That may be true. I'm not that serious.
Yeah. I wrote the above before seeing that Jed made the same suggestion.
Let's see you find one substantive error in this paper:
Why? The world already doesn't believe it. I don't believe it. And
finding other people's mistakes is a mug's game. I don't believe
perpetual motion claims either, but I'm not about to find errors in
every claim. I'll wait for the evidence to "stand out" as you put
it. For the demonstration you and Mallove were dreaming about. For
the isolated Rothwell beaker than stays palpably warmer than the
surroundings. If the claims are right, this should be easy. Until
then, I will remain skeptical.
And now look. You've managed to suck me in to another infinite loop.
The arguments on both sides in this post have been made almost
verbatim at least a half dozen times already.
The replicable experiment that shows that PdD CF (Fleischmann-Pons
Heat Effect) is fusion (mechanism unknown, "fusion" refers to
product, not to how the lighter materials get there) was done in the
early 1990s, and it was confirmed, amply enough that, while I and
others would certainly want to see more, it's expensive work and who
is going to pay for it?
It should be easy with Rossi, if the claims are right, as you say.
However, it was never easy to get the PFHE, it was a lot of work,
very sensitive to conditions. This is not the same as being marginal
or down in the noise, for when it appeared, it was often way above
noise, SRI P13/P14 is a brilliant demonstration of that (see the
Hagelstein paper presented to the U.S. DoE in 2004, but you'd have
to, then, look at the actual oringal EPRI publication, because, my
opinion, that presentation was botched, the did not explain why that
was such a convincing piece of evidence regarding the heat anomaly.
Of course, P13/P14 did not prove fusion. That too the identification
of a nuclear product correlated with the heat.
But none of this meant that any commercial realization was even
remotely possible. Rossi has changed the game. If it's not a con.
