On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 1:56 PM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote:
> Cude wrote: > > . . . some kind of deception is far more likely than a revolution in > physics. > > > This is the heart of Cude's arguments, > On the ecat, yes. The claims here are much larger than most of the cold fusion claims, and there is no way for them to be checked. On other cold fusion topics though, I don't always argue deception. In the ones where the information is disclosed, failure to replicate is the argument. And yes, I know there's hundreds of claims of positive results, but there are no interlab replicable experiments according to McKubre, and no quantitatively replicable experiments at all. The vast majority are a watt or less of excess power, and in the last decade, very few of even those in the refereed literature. That all fits pathological science much better than real science. But we've covered this ground already. If Rossi was the only person making these claims that might be true, but it > is a fact that hundreds of other scientists have seen these effects > thousands of times. > Already you're falling back on those old lame results. The fact that none of them stand out (as you put it) makes them look pathological, and Rossi's results that can't be checked don't help. In fact the loyal following that cold fusion commands makes it fertile ground for frauds. > >
