On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 1:56 PM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote:
> Mary Yugo wrote: > > Or maybe cold fusion has yet to be properly demonstrated and the sincere >> researchers are looking at errors and noise. >> > > You can only believe that if you refuse to look at the data, or if you do > not understand the concepts of errors and noise. You have convince yourself > that experts cannot measure 20 W output with no input. That's a lot like > saying a doctor cannot be sure if a decapitated a patient is alive or dead. > 20W output for how long? I asked you many times for a long running test of this kind with no issues about any fuel being supplied or power being input or stored. I have yet to see one. Can you put up a link to just ONE crystal clear and well written up such study? I have no problem with the 20W. As long as it CAN'T COME from anything other than a nuclear process. > The cold fusion claims are equally robust, from a scientific point of > view. You have no way of judging that because you refuse to look at them. > You also have no way of knowing whether you could understand them if you > looked at them. No doubt that is why you refuse to look: it gives you > "plausible deniability." > BS! I looked at what you provided and I didn't understand it. There was no clear plot of time vs excess power in any documents you linked for me that I examined. There was no clear discussion of why the excess heat had to be nuclear. I had no idea what was on the coordinate axis labels or why. I am not primarily a heat transfer specialist. I have some training and experience in it but I could not read those graphs without tons of work and explanation. It need not be that way. Time vs excess power is very simple. And the time axis had better go for a very long time. Have any? I'd love to look and I bet everyone here would like them too, believers and skeptics about Rossi alike. Asking people to review dozens or hundreds of paper to demonstrate that cold fusion is real is ludicrous. Experts such as Heinz Gerischer who looked that the results in 1990 were > instantly convinced. They did not have the slightest doubt the results are > real. Good for Heinz. Doesn't help me. BTW, that reference is a classical "appeal to authority" logical fallacy. Thousands of people were convinced originally by P&F. Until they tried to replicate their work and then it all came crashing down. You may prefer to think that's due to evil doers and pathological skeptics (what ever that is) but I doubt it very very much, > We agree that 20 years is a long time to wait for acceptance if cold >> fusion is real and if it was truly identified by P&F 20 years ago. >> > > Every expert who has looked at these results carefully says it is real, > except Britz. Some of the 2004 DoE panel members who spent a few hours > looking at it in parlor game style review were not convinced, but the > reasons they gave for doubting it were ludicrous. > I suppose we'd better to stick to Rossi again. God knows, that takes enough time and energy when it need not require hardly any.
