Thanks. Very much appreciated (both of them). Jeff On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 4:22 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <a...@lomaxdesign.com>wrote:
> At 02:02 AM 8/18/2012, Jeff Berkowitz wrote: > >> So I understood, but then the flip side: why the questions about the >> calorimetry? Again, what am I missing? >> > > I've answered before but these responses are delayed. > > What you are missing, Jeff, is that Celani's work isn't conclusive, by any > means. It's investigational, and he is comparing results between his own > experiments. What was demonstrated wasn't even one of these, not really, > though maybe he'll be able to use the data. > > Some enthusiastic "supporters of cold fusion" exaggerate the importance of > such demonstrations. > > Don't get me wrong. I support cold fusion research. Celani's work is > actually quite important, but not for convincing skeptics, or demonstrating > absolute, confident calorimetry. > > That any heat at all is apparent is of interest to most of us. It's an > indication that NiH reactions are possible, one more among many. > > Of course I'd love to see better calorimetry! But it is not Celani's > purpose, which is investigating the materials and their responses under > test. He only needs *relative* calorimetry for that. And he doesn't need > two experimental setups for that. He just runs them all the same and > compares outcomes, serially. > > You may want to see a simultaneous control, but you aren't paying his > bills! >
