> If a device can produce 10 kernels of wheat from one kernel, you only need >> one kernel to feed the world. Once it gets going, there is no input >> required. >> > > Sure. Let's look at the analogy. You can produce 10 kernels of wheat from > one kernel. Easy. Plant it. Does that mean that the world is fed because you > have one kernel?
Well, yes. Or at least all the wheat in the world comes from kernels produced in previous harvests. There is no external input of wheat kernels. When the energy from cold fusion can be sowed to produce more energy, eliminating the need for external input of energy, then you will have something. (And just to forestall a likely objection: Yes, growing wheat takes external energy, just like producing energy from CF takes external hydrogen and Pd. So don't mix up the analogy. Wheat production does not require external input of wheat. When unambiguous energy production by CF should does not require external input of energy, the question of artifacts is mute.) > Cude holds a series of contradictory assumptions that he asserts, one at a > time, or a few at a time. It's polemic, debate tactics. Each meme is > designed to discredit cold fusion. Because that's his goal, he doesn't care > if his ideas are self-contradictory, he's just looking for one more reader > to be hooked, to swallow his bait, to walk away with, "Yeah, how come they > couldn't reproduce that experiment?" > You know, if you spent less time trying to analyze my motives, and describe my style, and call me names, and stuck to the topic, your posts would be 1/3 as long, and much more compelling reading. > In prior correspondence, Cude asserted this claim that confirmation of > Miles was not published under peer review. I cited a series of the > confirming papers published under peer review in mainstream journals. He > simply ignored that and, above, repeats the assertion. > Give me time. I'll get to it. I do have other responsibilities, alas. But briefly, those were mostly conf proceedings, and the Arata publications identified helium but did not (so far as I know -- some are Japanese) give correlations. In any case, Storms ignores Arata's results in his calculation of correlation, so that's not a ringing endorsement. The experiments Storms uses for his calculations after Miles were all conf proceedings, and even then, the last one was from 2000 -- 11 years ago. So you've got Miles results from 1994, severely criticized in the literature by Jones in 1995, and after that nothing but conference proceedings. In a 20-year old field with hundreds of experts working. The variation of the results is huge considering the accuracy with which you claim heat and helium can be measured, but in 11 years no one bothers working on it. Pathetic, really.
