At 11:27 AM 6/3/2011, Joshua Cude wrote:
Lomax referred to a specific experiment, and even a specific slide
from a presentation. This was held up as particularly good evidence for CF.
No, it was cited and discussed as a piece of evidence about the
nature of the Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect (FPHE). That experiment
does not show fusion, how could it? What it shows is anomalous heat,
and I was pointing out that the graph, by itself, doesn't tell enough
of the story for the full implications to sink in.
What the full data show is that the FPHE is not "reliable." That when
conditions are, seemingly, tightly controlled, it appears sometimes
and does not appear sometimes, but it is not down in the noise, as is
commonly asserted about the FPHE. It's a distinct beast, with
distinct characteristics.
Joshua will not accept the primary evidence that led people to
suspect that there might be low energy nuclear reactions, because he
doesn't like that conclusion. So he backs up and rejects the
evidence, he's clearly seeking to discredit any evidence that could
lead to the conclusion, even though the evidence, carefully
considered, might lead somewhere else.
We see this in political debate all the time.
If what we want is science, we must back up from this. What is the
FPHE? What's the evidence about it? What are its characteristics?
These are questions that do not -- and should not -- depend on our
opinions about possibility.
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."
And here Joshua let his assumptions of error lead him into a blatant
error, confidently asserted. It turns out that "immediately" is, from
the graph, about a hour. You can see the decline, it's not
"immediate." And the scale on this chart is one day per division, 24 hours!
Heat after death may be, a little, visible in this graph. I wouldn't
want to make a point either way about that. But, again, Joshua
completely missed the point, or he wouldn't even have this question.
What P13/P14, the complete history, shows is that the FPHE is not
predictable without knowing more about the conditions than we do,
even possibly more than we could ever know.
That's a characteristic of the effect!
Now, it's quite possible, even likely, that some experimental
approach will demonstrate some part of the same effect in such a way
as to explain the variation. That hasn't been done, to my knowledge.
Essentially, we do not know the cause of the FPHE, and the
explanation of "fusion" only is plausible, now, because we have good
reason to think that the ash is helium (in addition to certain
considerations that apply with some experiments, like energy
density). No other ash has been proposed and found, at levels at all
commensurate with the heat.
Joshua just continues to dismiss all this with a wave of the hand.
"I'm not convinced." As if we care if he's convinced. He is an
anonymous internet troll, that's all. He's not a researcher, he's not
functioning as a scientist, even though he has clearly stuffed his
brain with some so-called "scientific knowledge."
I'm certainly not writing for him!
