On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 7:15 PM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote:
> Joshua Cude <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> 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. >>> >> >> Whoa. Proves? >> > > Yes, proves. You say I have to "identify the reaction." No, I don't. I > only have to show that it is nuclear. The tritium proves that, beyond > question. > > The discussion was heat. And I quoted you saying the tritium does not prove the heat is from nuclear reactions. Any heat commensurate with tritium is in the noise. Storms says this in his review. So the tritium does not prove the alleged heat is nuclear in origin. You're conflating two different things. > > >> So here you conflate tritium with excess heat. The tritium claims, even >> if they were real, would not prove that the claims of excess heat are >> nuclear. >> > > Of course not. The magnitude of the heat proves it is nuclear. > So, it's not tritium. But the skeptic argument is that the observations could be caused by artifact. Since there's no credible evidence of nuclear reactions, or chemical reactions, that leaves only artifact. > A chemical reaction cannot produce megajoules of heat per gram of > reactant. > And so without evidence of a nuclear reaction, that leaves experimental error or artifact or trickery. > > Your claim is that a thermocouple error (or some other instrument > artifact) magically reaches out and causes x-ray film to fog, trititum > detectors to register false positives, > Wrong. The x-ray and tritium results could be real, without proving the alleged heat has a nuclear origin. And there is nothing in the universe to suggest that only one artifact is permitted. Tritium is not even correlated with heat, and no one seems to see it anymore. A true believer will do experiments long enough until something appears that can be interpreted as positive. If it's not working, they reduce the amount of material to give errors a better chance to look like a real effect. If helium is not seen in the cathodes, they look in the gas, where errors are far more likely. And they always report helium from experiments with low excess heat claims, so the expected amount is near or below background levels. Tritium sensitivity is far better than heat, and so claimed tritium levels are far lower. Neutron sensitivity is better still, and surprise, surprise, the claimed neutron levels are much lower again. Helium sensitivity is far poorer, comparable to that for heat, and, what a coincidence, that's where it's claimed. The experiments are *always* short of convincing, in so many different configurations. They always fail to "stand out" as you put it in 2001. That, along with the steady decrease in the publication rate all fits confirmation bias and pathological science.
