Joshua Cude <joshua.c...@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.
>
It is not inconsistent. You do not understand enough about the reaction to
understand why. And no, I will not teach you.
> 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.
>
No, that is not a bit implausible. This is like saying that because a racing
car can go 150 mph on a track, Jed's 1994 Geo Metro should be able to drive
at 150 mph on Peachtree Industrial Boulevard. There are many reasons why it
cannot, starting with the 40 HP engine.
> So, I'm questioning the attribution of the observation, not the observation
> itself.
>
You are questioning things you know nothing about. You are making absurd,
ignorant and unfounded assumptions, just as Robert Park and others have
done.
> 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 . . .
>
Such demonstrations have been done many times. You can photos of them. You
deny they have been done, but your denial does not change facts.
Go ahead and repeat that a hundred times if you like, it will still be
untrue. As former Prime Minister and Rep. from Mars Ichiro Hatoyama famously
said one the 7:00 o'clock news the other day: "That's a lie. Human beings
should not lie." ('Uso desu. Ningen wa uso wo tsuite wa naranai.')
> > 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 . . .
>
That is incorrect. Only one group of researchers thought they had observed
polywater. Another reported they saw it but quickly retracted. About 150
groups investigated but found nothing.
I suggest you learn something about Polywater before pontificating about it.
Read the Franks book. You will see that a comparison to polywater shows that
cold fusion must be real.
> Not as simply and visually as you have described and wished for. Not simply
> and visually enough to persuade a panel of experts.
>
Every expert who has looked closely at cold fusion has been convinced it is
real. The DoE panel one-day extravaganza was not an investigation, it was a
parlor game. The panel members who were not persuaded did not do their
homework. The reasons they rejected the findings were absurd and mistaken,
although not as bad as your reasons. Those people were manifestly not
experts in cold fusion. At the end of that day, they still knew practically
nothing about the subject.
- Jed
