Joshua Cude <[email protected]> wrote: Elsewhere I have argued that it is much more likely that an artifact > mistaken as excess heat is correlated with high loading, or the conditions > that produce high loading, than that nuclear reactions are so correlated. > And while I can't identify such an artifact, neither can you identify a > nuclear reaction that fits the claims. >
I do not need to identify the reaction. The tritium and helium proves it is a nuclear reaction. The precise nature of it is irreverent. You, on the other hand, are saying there may be an artifact that causes problems with instruments perfected in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Instruments which have been used in millions of experiments and real world applications. You are saying this artifact has never been observed in any other experiment, and yet on 17,000 occasions in this field only it suddenly occurred so that *every single case* of excess heat is an artifact. It has to be every one. If even one is real, that makes cold fusion real. You are saying that you cannot identify this artifact. That means your claim is not falsifiable, so it is not scientific. Also you are saying that causality can run backward in time. The burden of proof on your end is insurmountable. - Jed
