Jed, two different applications of the word random are being applied
without a clear differentiation. The effect in a particular sample
involves a random creation of the required conditions. These
conditions are not controlled, consequently they are present in some
samples and not present in others. In this sense, the effect is
created by a random series of events before the effect occurs.
However, once CF is made to occur, the effect is real and does not
rely on random measurements. The heat is real and is not based on
random errors. In addition, the various correlations between several
behaviors eliminate any possibility that the measurements produce a
random result.
Cude is trying to make these two kinds of random events the same. I
feel sorry for him. His normal life must be Hell because of his
inability to adapt to new ideas.
Ed Storms
On May 16, 2013, at 8:27 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Joshua Cude <joshua.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
It is not a bit random.
Storms calls it erratic, and dependent on luck and nature's mood.
Erratic is not the same as random. When computer equipment fails
because of overheating the performance is erratic but the cause is
well understood and not a bit random. You can predict it will happen
by inserting a thermocouple and watching the temperature rise. You
can fix it by improving ventilation. Random means there no clearcut
cause and you cannot predict when it will happen.
Cold fusion cathodes fail for reasons that are obvious after the
test. You can often look at one with the naked eye and see that
lines of bubbles are forming on it coming from large cracks. Or you
can see the whole cathode is warped from uneven loading. There is no
question why it failed, and no chance it will work.
The reasons why cathodes crack or warp are complex, but they are
understood by people at JM, ENEA and elsewhere. Loading is difficult
to control but not random. It is like the problem of exploding
rockets. Rockets do not explode randomly. There is always a reason
why a particular rocket explodes. Experts can usually figure it out
from telemetry. It is an expensive way to improve the technology,
but it has gradually worked. Rockets explode much less often than
they did in the late 1950s, during the Vanguard program.
- Jed
