My suggestion. For more effective communication, don't use language that treats a guess as if were known fact. Even if it seems like a good guess.
Sent from my iPhone On Dec 13, 2012, at 4:56 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote: > Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <a...@lomaxdesign.com> wrote: > >> Please remember: we do not know that NiH heat is "cold fusion." We don't >> know what it is. > > Mike McKubre and I suspect that whatever it is, it is the same thing as Pd-D > heat, based on the conservation of miracles. > > Since no one has checked for products yet, fusion is a good a guess as any > other. > > >> We certainly, however, are not going to discard apparent XP results because >> they are too smooth! > > I wouldn't discard them but I would be wary of them. That's not how cold > fusion heat looks. Whether it comes from electrolysis or gas loading, it is > usually more lumpy. > > That's how things look when you imagine you are seeing excess heat, but you > made a mistake. I have seen such results time after time, from many people. > > One way to resolve this would be to put the whole cell into the air-flow > calorimeter. Assuming that device works properly. Ed Storms has expressed > some doubts about it. He thinks the time constant is too long and changes in > air pressure and humidity may affect the instrument too much. > > If the signal really is as stable as it appears here I guess the time > constant will not be a problem. I suppose you could catch changes in air > pressure by installing a heater next to the cell and doing on-the-fly > re-calibration. > > I think Ed would prefer a Seebeck calorimeter. > > - Jed >
