At 10:45 PM 10/13/2010, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <<mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.com>a...@lomaxdesign.com> wrote:
The temperature difference involved with excess heat is *usually* --
except for so-called heat-after-death -- a matter of a few degrees
at most. In other words, it should have almost no effect on
permeation, and, as well, this would not at all explain the time
behavior, which approaches and exceeds ambient with no sign of the
asymptotic approach that would be expected.
Miles pointed out that some of the control experiments and blank
experiments (deuterium but no heat) ran at higher power and higher
temperatures than the experiments that produced excess heat. Yet no
helium was produced in the control and blank runs. Therefore,
temperature had no effect on permeation. There is no correlation
between temperature and helium.
What I'd expect. What skeptics like Kemosabe do is to figure out some
explanation they can assert that sounds reasonable. They are after
those who won't pay close attention, who will just swallow it whole.
It doesn't matter if the explanation is contradicted by other
evidence in the same report. The whole "ambient helium" argument is
really like this, the behavior of ambient helium leakage would be
very different than the behavior of helium in these reports, and that
levels of helium are being reported near ambient is actually a very
strong sign of helium generation, since it takes quite a bit of
fusion to get up that high. By confusing "amibent" woith
"background," they create a ready appearance of plausibility.
Background, of course, would be what's seen with no energy
generation. Blanks. In this case, the blanks are beautifully
controlled. They are the "dead cells," otherwise identical, as
identical as could be made, sometimes, to the cells showing heat.
I'm going to keep flogging the meme that this is the repeatable
experiment that was supposedly missing. "Repeatability" was confused
with "reliability." It is not necessary to have reliability to have
repeatability. Rather, correlation cuts through this. The very
unreliability becomes a generator of controls. And that some of these
control cells ran at higher temperatures is frosting on that cake.
Skepticism in 1989 was appropriate. Would, in fact, that there had
been a bit more of it, less rush to replicate with inadequate
information. Let others "waste their time," and keep silent when you
don't know!
But converting experimental failure, and "failure to replicate" is,
in fact, a failure, into a reason to reject was Bad Science. N-rays
and polywater were conclusively debunked by replication "successes"
that demonstrated the prosaic cause. Not by failures. I.e., not by
someone saying "I looked and I didn't see anything."
My daughter nailed it when I told her that other people could find
what Fleischmann and Pons found. "They didn't try hard enough,
daddy!" Eight years old at the time. I had told her very little, but
she had the idea down that if someone says they found something, it
was rude to say, "No, you didn't!" unless you could prove it.
