So, Pons & Fleischmann were careless researchers, eh? Then how is it that their findings have been replicated 14,700 times? How did they become 2 of the most preeminent electrochemists of their day before they took on this anomaly? How careless do you have to be to read a thermometer incorrectly?
You won't answer because you can't. Your position becomes more preposterous with each post. On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 2:47 AM, Joshua Cude <joshua.c...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 4:30 PM, Kevin O'Malley <kevmol...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> >> >> >> On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 1:18 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>wrote: >>> >>>> In Storms' book I think there are 180 positive excess heat studies. >>>> Each one typically reflects several excess heat events. A few were based on >>>> dozens of events. Fleischmann and Pons had the best success rate, running >>>> 64 cells at a time several times. Every one of them worked. >>>> >>> >>> On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 8:39 AM, Joshua Cude <joshua.c...@gmail.com>wrote: >>> >>> Until they didn't. >>> >>> >>> >> >> ***Then you acknowledge those 64 cells did work. Pursuing this finding >> is not pathological science. >> > > > You like semantic games I see. Sure they worked, where by "work" I mean > they appeared to give off excess heat, to a careless researcher. > >
