JC, you used the specific wording,
".the evidence has not improved at all." That is the kind of statement I'd expect from a pathological skeptic. or someone totally ignorant of the research. which you are not. ignorant of the research, that is. Here are three elements of LENR research which show your "not improved at all" statement to be total BS. or worse, intentionally misleading to those readers who are not as knowledgeable about what has been accomplished by the LENR research community: 1) Calorimetry has drastically improved, which has only served to improve the signal-to-noise (i.e., confidence level) of the results, so even if your claims that the amount of heat hasn't improved (which I don't agree with), the chances that the excess heat was due to error is much reduced due to the excellent calorimetry that has been developed to make the measurements. NASA has confirmed the excess heat to their satisfaction. only a pathological skeptic would argue against excess heat. 2) Knowledge about what criteria must be met to get successful results has definitely come out of the research. 3) Due to #2, repeatability has most definitely improved since F&P's work; some labs have reported better than 80% repeatability. What bothers me about you is that you are quite knowledgeable about physics in general, and about some of the LENR research, and yet you make statements that are so blatantly wrong and misleading. With the knowledge you have about LENR research, you must be aware of these facts, but you choose to mislead by not including relevant points which don't support your POV. which don't support your agenda. Over the past 6+ months, your postings have less good technical analyses, and more of the above kinds of statements.. -Mark From: Joshua Cude [mailto:joshua.c...@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, November 20, 2011 10:29 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-Cat guy: Hire a local HVAC engineering company! On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 8:57 PM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint <zeropo...@charter.net> wrote: in one post he states that there has been NO improvement in CF/LENR evidence at all since 1989. This is total BS... just look at Jed's website for hundreds of papers, many of which have heat in excess of 10 to 100 times the accuracy of the calorimeter. According to Storms book, P&F claimed 27 W output in 1989 (and I recall a gain of 10 or so from reading the paper a long time ago). I haven't seen significant progress beyond those results. It's interesting to read the account of Energetic's first big success in 2004. They measured about 20 W and a gain of 20 or so, and they were dancing in the lab. So, it is reason for celebration to essentially match the 1989 results. And since 2004, the reported Energetics' results that I've seen have not come close to their 2004 high-water mark. There have been some higher claims in the interim, like Patterson's (although even that was in the 90s), and now of course Rossi's. And in Rossi's case, the evidence does not bear up under even modest internet scrutiny.
