On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 9:24 AM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The data clearly shows that some cells produce heat after death, and other do not. What does not make sense here is your demand that all cells do this. It's not a demand. It's an identification of an inconsistency. Lomax referred to a specific experiment, and even a specific slide from a presentation. This was held up as particularly good evidence for CF. I examined that slide and was puzzled by one aspect. Here's what I wrote: "One problem I have with those results. When the current shuts off, the heat dies immediately. It seems implausible that the deuterium would diffuse out of the Pd that quickly. I would expect a more gradual decline. *Especially with all the reports of heat after death*. That points to artifact to me." So, given that some cells show heat after death, meaning the deuterium does not diffuse out of the Pd right away, how could it be that in this particularly good experiment, the deuterium could diffuse out seemingly in a matter of seconds. It suggests that the explanation being used to explain it is wrong. That there's an artifact. > Nature does work the way you demand it should. This is experimental science. You have to take the results as they are, and not dictate what they should be according to your theories. Yes. Obviously. But one picks theories that are consistent with results and rejects those that aren't. >> We were discussing a particular experiment in a particular report. Is there a graph in that report of that 1994 experiment that reports heat after death? > No, because that experiment did not produce heat after death, as I noted previously. You need to stop demanding what is not there. Not a demand. An observation. If deuterium in Pd produces heat, why does the heat vanish instantly when the current is shut off? In this experiment. > You need to stop pointing to black birds as proof that red ones do not exist. That's not even close to what I said. I am not saying heat after death has not been observed because it was not observed in this experiment. I'm saying if heat after death occurs, and is attributed to the deuterium in the Pd, then it would seem implausible that the heat would vanish in seconds in another experiment. So, I'm questioning the attribution of the observation, not the observation itself. It's more like you pointing to flying red birds and claiming that it proves they are lighter than air, and me pointing out that I caught some black birds, and weighed them, and they are heavier than air, and they can fly too. >> The DOE panel would have heard about it, but they were not convinced. > Some of panel members were convinced, and some are not. The ones who are not convinced made logical and factual errors similar to the ones you are making. Only one said the evidence for nuclear reactions was conclusive, but *some* not being convinced is all I need for my argument. You said: "I do not think any scientist will dispute this. ...An object that remains palpably warmer than the surroundings is as convincing as anything can be…" It was hypothetical, and written after the DOE panel, so you could not have said that if you thought such a demo had been available. You can squirm all you want. You effectively admitted that an isolated device palpably warmer than the surroundings would be a good demo, and that it has not yet been done. > It is not possible for you to see what is connect to what inside of a Tokamak reactor, or in a robot explorer on Mars. Quite right. I said as much. Many experiments require indirect observations, and second hand observations, and in those cases, reproducibility, theoretical consistency and predictability, scientific unanimity or at least consensus all work together to build credibility. But some claims, if real, can be demonstrated in a simple and obvious way. CF and heavier than air flight are two examples. When such demonstrations should be possible but are absent, and there is no reproducibility, theoretical consistency, or scientific consensus, then it is reasonable to reject the claims until better evidence comes along. > It is true that a few researchers do lie, and some are incompetent, but in a group of professional researcher as large as the cold fusion cohort it is statistically impossible for them all to be incompetent. It's only about twice the size of the polywater cohort, and probably smaller than the homeopathy cohort, and certainly smaller than the UFO cohort, so I'm not buying it. There are many examples of large groups of scientists being wrong. And to repeat, if CF is right, then a much larger group of scientists would have to be incompetent. >>> What you want would not work, for reasons beyond the scope of the discussion. >> Right. Because the fact that CF doesn't work is beyond the scope of this discussion. Cop out. > I am not obligated to explain every single technical detail to you, or to anyone else. Of course you're not. And I'm not obligated to believe Dardik's tiny electrode produces .5 W for 4 days without any power input, if he can't take it out and prove it in a thermos of water. >> But heat can be demonstrated simply and visually. . . > It can, and it has been. Not as simply and visually as you have described and wished for. Not simply and visually enough to persuade a panel of experts.
