Joshua Cude wrote:
To the extent they believe cold fusion is real based on existing
measurements, then in the opinion of mainstream science, they are
mistaken. Every last one of them.
That is incorrect. Mainstream scientists have not published papers
showing errors in these experiments. Opinions unsupported by rigorous,
quantitative analysis do not count.
Would you say the same thing about polywater? "If even one of the
scientists had been correct about viscosity or the boiling point or
the freezing point, then the effect was real after all." Surely, most
of their measurements were right; they were just caused by artifacts,
and the effect turned out not the real, in spite of many correct
measurements.
Only one group of researchers in one lab thought they saw evidence of
polywater, and they later retracted. Their evidence appeared to be on
margins of detectability. In cold fusion, hundreds of researchers have
observed the phenomenon, none have retracted, and in many cases the
effect is quite easy to detect, for example with 100 W of heat output an
no input, in heat after death. So I am quite comfortable comparing the two.
World class experts do make mistakes. There were world-class experts
involved with polywater and N-rays.
There was only one experts involved with each of those claims. Hundreds
of other experts attempted to detect polywater, but they all failed. See
the Franks book.
This is a tautology, but people who make such mistakes are not experts.
At least, not with regard to that particular type of claim. They think
they are, but they are mistaken. In the case of cold fusion no errors
have been found in the calorimetry, helium detection, tritium and so on,
so these people are -- as claimed -- experts.
Jalbert? According to the web of science, he has published less than a
dozen papers.
I am tempted to ask how many papers about tritium you have published,
and what makes you think you know more than Jalbert . . . but I shall
refrain.
And in any case, whether or not his particular tritium measurements
are right or wrong, they do not explain the observed heat in CF
experiments.
They do, however, prove there is a nuclear effect. That's the point.
> I am certain you are wrong, and these people are right.
Of course you are, but your certainty is not really persuasive. A few
weeks ago you were certain steam could not be heated above 100C unless
it was under pressure. You ignored perfectly good arguments that air
itself (nitrogen) is heated far above its boiling point at atmosphere,
and stuck stubbornly to your belief, until some CF scientist (Storms
probably) set you straight.
Yes, I make mistakes. But I admit frankly that I have done so, and I
make amends. You have made dozens of mistakes for 20 years and learned
nothing.
In 2009, you were pretty certain that Focardi had been proved wrong,
and you argued at length with Krivit about it, and you had support
from Storms.
That I did not do! I have pointed out that there have not been many
replications, and one attempt to replicate failed:
http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/CerronZebainvestigat.pdf
I never, ever hide what I know to be weaknesses in cold fusion research.
- Jed
