Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: If this theory from Ed Storms is to be considered universally applicable, > experimental results from DGT cannot be ignored. >
These results have to be published in detail and then independently replicated before we can have confidence they are real. There are many cold fusion claims. Some were never replicated and I think most people have concluded they were experimental errors. DGT's results may also be experimental error, in which case it makes no sense take them into account. The theory will be nonsense. > DGT has published their ash assays from their reaction test. They see both > fission and fusion reactions in these results. > Again, we have to know in detail who performed this assay, what instruments they used, and exactly what results they got. Then these results must also be independently replicated. As far as I know, DGT has only sketched out their results, in nothing more substantial than a sales presentation. No details have been provided, such as calibrations. So it is impossible for anyone to take into account their claims in a theory. You cannot develop a theory based on a few details from a sales brochure. You can only speculate, and it is probably a waste of time even doing that. This is also largely true of Rossi. - Jed
