On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 9:12 AM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Cude not only fails to see this pattern, he mixes up two numbers: > > > The claim that high loading is correlated to claims of excess heat was made early on, but that bit of alleged intelligence has done nothing to help with the reproducibility or to scale the effect up. In fact, both Storms and McKubre emphasized the importance of loading, but reported only about a watt of power and around 10% excess heat, far below what P&F had published earlier. Anyway, it is far more plausible that artifacts are correlated to loading (or to the procedure required to achieve the loading) than that nuclear effects are correlated to loading. Especially when you consider that high loading near the surface will occur well before bulk loading is achieved, and the current wisdom has it that it's a surface phenomenon. And especially since, as Storms points out, in gas loading such high loadings are not necessary. You say (elsewhere) it's impossible that loading can be correlated to artifacts, but when nuclear physicists say it's impossible to induce nuclear reactions in Pd with electrolysis, you say they are being closed-minded, and there may be some exotic reaction no one has thought of. Well, I say you are being closed minded by excluding artifacts, since there may be an exotic artifact no one has thought of. The reality is that the effect doesn't stand out (as you put it), it doesn't scale, and quality reports are becoming scarcer. That fits an exotic artifact better than an exotic nuclear reaction, of which no one can dream up a plausible example, and not for the lack of trying.
