> 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. ***Such an artifact is well worth investigating. That in itself makes this area of interest not pathological science.
On 5/16/13, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >
