Joshua Cude <[email protected]> wrote:
> Furthermore, it's easy to imagine experiments that exclude artifacts, > making them falsifiable. > Yes, it is. And all of the mainstream experiments have excluded artifacts. That is why you and all the other skeptics have never identified a single artifact in the work of Fleischmann, McKubre, Storms or any other major researchers. You would have found one by now if there were any. You claim there are artifacts, but since you never say what they might be, or show any evidence that they actually exist, you might as well be saying that unicorns are causing false excess heat. Your assertion cannot be tested or falsified. It has no meaning. > You have said that no scientist could deny palpable heat from a completely > isolated device. So boil the water in an olympic pool with a few grams of > metal hydride, and artifacts are excluded. > An Olympic pool is far too big. This same test has been done hundreds of times on a small scale, boiling away water with no input in a test tube. There is no chance the water was not actually boiling, and there is no chance this came from stored chemical energy. Scaling up this experiment to an Olympic pool would not make it more convincing, and it would not improve the signal to noise ratio. You are moving the goal posts and setting this absurd goal because this would be very difficult to do and it would cost tens of millions of dollars (or more), so you can be sure no researcher could do it. > That's an extreme example . . . > It is a preposterous example. - Jed
