Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> Once again you're trying to conflate tritium with heat. Forget 1989, take a > deep breath and focus only on the tritium findings at Los Alamos. And a lot of other places too! TAMU and the National Cold Fusion Institute (NCFI) are good examples, and don't forget the other Los Alamos study by Storms. "Conflate" is the key word here. This is important! It is a mistake people on both sides make. As Jones says -- > These papers are about producing tritium using > LENR, and that does not necessarily involve excess heat. > AND > You cannot tolerate the reality of > LENR, even without heat - so instead of moving on to the issue of > whether heat can be made in a commercially useful way, you have to resort > to this kind of silly denial - by suggesting that all of this work at Los > Alamos was nothing but measurement error. > Cude and others conflate many different assertions and issues. They stir everything into one pot. You have to learn to compartmentalize with cold fusion, or with any new phenomenon or poorly understood subject. You have to remember that some things are extremely well established, but others may be wrong. Facts may have limited applicability: there is no doubt that high loading is a control factor with Pd-D electrolysis, but it may play no role with gas loading. Most of all, you have to remember that proving one aspect of it does not prove another, although it may lend support. In this case, the tritium findings by Storms and soon after at TAMU and NCFI proved beyond doubt that cold fusion is a real, nuclear phenomenon. After they published that 1990 it was case closed. Every scientist on earth should have believed it. Many scientists do not believe it because they have never heard of these results, or because they irrational or unscientific. Their continued disbelief tells us nothing about the quality of the evidence, which is irrefutable. The excess heat results proved that it is not a chemical effect, in the normal sense. Perhaps it is a Mills effect. Again, there is so much evidence for this, at such high s/n ratios, it is irrefutable. The helium results support the hypothesis that this is some sort of deuterium fusion, at least with Pd-D. There is no doubt about the helium, but no one has searched for helium or deuterium from Ni-H cells. All the other claims are fuzzy, in my opinion. There is not as much evidence for them. "Whether heat can be made in a commercially useful way" is important. I say almost certainly yes. Others say maybe not. It hasn't been done yet, so obviously we can't be certain. The point is, DO NOT CONFUSE THESE QUESTIONS. Do not conflate them! Answering one does not automatically answer the others. Doubts about one do not automatically extend to the others. They are related but still separate. Yes, the heat is real, but no, that in itself does not prove the heat can be commercialized. Equally important, the fact that some researchers do lousy calorimetry does not call into question the calorimetry done by others. McKubre does not have to answer for work done by Mills, or Cravens, or Mizuno. No one has to answer for Rossi, except perhaps his collaborators at U. Bologna. - Jed
