At 02:02 AM 8/18/2012, Jeff Berkowitz wrote:
So I understood, but then the flip side: why the questions about the
calorimetry? Again, what am I missing?
I've answered before but these responses are delayed.
What you are missing, Jeff, is that Celani's work isn't conclusive,
by any means. It's investigational, and he is comparing results
between his own experiments. What was demonstrated wasn't even one of
these, not really, though maybe he'll be able to use the data.
Some enthusiastic "supporters of cold fusion" exaggerate the
importance of such demonstrations.
Don't get me wrong. I support cold fusion research. Celani's work is
actually quite important, but not for convincing skeptics, or
demonstrating absolute, confident calorimetry.
That any heat at all is apparent is of interest to most of us. It's
an indication that NiH reactions are possible, one more among many.
Of course I'd love to see better calorimetry! But it is not Celani's
purpose, which is investigating the materials and their responses
under test. He only needs *relative* calorimetry for that. And he
doesn't need two experimental setups for that. He just runs them all
the same and compares outcomes, serially.
You may want to see a simultaneous control, but you aren't paying his bills!
