"The skeptical, conservative position is to believe in conventional physics and
to trust that laboratory grade instruments have worked correctly in thousands
of experiments (including this one) and therefore cold fusion must be real."
Am I to understand that even the most pragmatic skepticism it to be dismissed?
So the open-minded position is that:
1)It doesn't matter if the E-Cat thermocouple was resting on the heat-sink
fins, because the thermocouples are laboratory grade and they read correctly.
Skeptics are foolish to look at this.
2)Any attempt to quantify the flow rate into the primary doesn't matter. It
must have been consistent, and large enough to imply significant power gains.
Skeptics are foolish to look at this.
3)The proximity of the secondary thermocouple to the steam input doesn't
matter. It may have been influenced by the steam/water input, but it must have
been less than a few percent. It's not worth attempting to quantify any
effects, because there must have been observed power gains. Skeptics are
foolish to look at this.
4)Temperature fluctuations in the secondary-side thermocouple cannot be caused
by overflowing water, because specific heats of steam/water don't change the
efficientcy of heat transfer to the heat-exchanger fitting. Skeptics are
foolish to look at this.
5)The sporadic checking of the output temperature hurts calculations of heat
output, but the actual gains don't really matter in the end. They must have
been large. Skeptics are foolish to look at this.
6)It doesn't matter if there was never any evidence of heat-before-death,
because there is ample evidence of heat-after-death. Cold fusion is a more
likely explanation than bad calorimetry or stored heat. Skeptics are foolish
to look at this.
