> > > What is "wrong with the data" Mr. Franks? Specifically the Excess Heat > data. What artifacts are present in the calorimetry? Point out to me the > peer reviewed critiques of researchers' calorimetry that have stood the > test of time. >
Wow! Was it you claiming one group had 100% repeatability or another 70-80%. If that is the case, why are you arguing with me? Don't bring nonsense complaints that no theory can account for the effect. > Who demanded a theory right away for superconductivity? How about excess > heat coming off radium in early 20th century? Show me how the heat > measurements are wrong. > Silly rabbit. They had something working. (see my first response above). > I asked you this in the your orphaned thread on recombination, which you > quickly abandoned. I pointed out to you that the "Big 3" objections > (recombination, stirring, cigarette lighter effect) had all been accounted > for and answered between 1989 and 1994. > If you are quoting stuff from that long ago, where is the monograph. Where are the graduate level courses at top institutions teaching this as you seem to regard it as common knowledge. You people are not scientists, or even engineers. You are journalists, activists, the awkward squad who mistake shouting, posturing, getting "liked" on facebook or youtube as the process of doing science. All I have to report, as ever, is that Cold Fusion is a dead subject full of wannabes, the mentally ill and geriatrics, since no self-respecting young person would waste time learning useless "knowledge" in this subject.
