Peter Heckert <[email protected]> wrote:
> We know there was energy and we know there was a heater. > Nobody denies there was energy. > You cannot make a conclusion from heat to anamolus energy. This is junk > [science]. > Yes, you can make this conclusion. That is why Curies knew that radium cannot be undergoing a chemical reaction. The limits of chemistry are well known, and in this system there is no chemical fuel, no ash, and no way this could be undergoing any chemical reaction. This concept is fundamental to cold fusion. It is the whole basis of the research. Fleischmann and Pons made this point in March 1989, and just about every paper following is based on it. We can also rule out fraud. The observers lifted it off the table to weigh it, and saw no pipes or wires, so there cannot be any hidden sources. Of course it is simpler to close the eyes and the brain and to go on as > usual. > But this is junk science. If this works sometimes or works mostly for you, > this does not mean it will work always under all conditions. > You seem to be asserting that any experiment which is not 100% reproducible by anyone, include a non-expert, is not science. That is a radical redefinition of science. I do not think may experts would agree with you. They all take pride in their ability to do complicated experiments and build machines that other people cannot build, such as Tokamaks. Experiments such as cloning, in the early stages, worked roughly 1 time per 1,000 attempts. Do you assert that cloning does not exist? Or it is junk science? Because it is hard to do, and it seldom works? - Jed
