Joshua Cude wrote: > Poor choice of words on my part. Of course I know that skeptics and > believers disagree about the quality of the evidence . . . > > This is not a matter of opinion. The quality of evidence is measured objectively, based on repeatability and the signal to noise ratio. Anyone looking at the data from McKubre, Kunimatsu or Fleischmann can see it is excellent.
See: >> >> http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHcoldfusionb.pdf >> >> > This example illustrates the problem. > > First, it is 19 years old. > > No, it was written in 2007. Evidently you are looking at the wrong paper. > That you invariably fall back to this paper when quality is challenged > shows the lack of progress. > > It is true there has not been much progress. That is because there is no funding. I "fall back" on McKubre's earlier paper because it is one of the best peer-reviewed ones that I have permission to upload to LENR-CANR.org. However, there is no statute of limitation on scientific facts. Experiments done in 1650 or 1800 remain as true today as when they were done. > The year before P&F had claimed 160 W output with 40 W input. That paper > was challenged for its poor calorimetry. With McKubre's much improved > calorimetry, the claimed output was about 10.5 W with 10 W input (give or > take). That suggests that P&F's claim could have all been artifact. > > No, it indicates that you have to heat up a cathode to produce a strong reaction. McKubre's calorimeter prevents you from doing this, as McKubre, Fleischmann, I and many others have often pointed out. Perhaps you did not know this, or you do not acknowledge it. That problem is on your end. Your ignorance or willful denial of facts does not make facts go away. This also indicates that some cathodes produce more heat than others, and that the more surface area you have, the more heat you might get. That is why Mizuno's 100 g cathode produced ~100 W of heat after death for several days, whereas the record for a cathode weighing a few grams was ~20 W of heat after death for a day. > And the half watt or so that he observed is in the range of artifacts in > calorimetry experiments. > > No, with McKubre's instrument it is a couple of orders of magnitude above the range of any artifact, as you see in the calibrations. Again, facts are facts, and waving your hands does not make them go away. - Jed
