On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 8:18 PM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote:
> Joshua Cude <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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. >> > > That's garbage. No one has found an error in this study or in any other > study. You claim you know this is wrong, but you can't give a reason. > I don't know it's wrong, but I am skeptical. And I have given the reason many times. If the claims of CF were valid, a vastly simpler demonstration should be possible. But not only has one not been shown, but the field shows no progress whatsoever. It's exactly what one expects when the claimed effect is produced by artifacts, mistakes, and cognitive bias. You've been making the identical argument, counting marginal, peer-reviewed papers for 20 years. And you'll probably be arguing the same way with someone like me 20 years hence, when there still won't be an isolated Rothwell beaker, and people will still be doing electrolysis experiments or gas-loading experiments with a little excess heat, but no one can make something that can actually power itself.
