On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 9:15 AM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Joshua Cude <joshua.c...@gmail.com> wrote: > > The figure plots the loading in experiments that showed excess heat. So, >> it means if you see excess heat, the loading is high. It does not show the >> converse, which is what you claim. >> > > Ding ding ding ding ding ding!!! You win the Internets! > > THAT is one of the strangest assertions I have ever read, in all the years > I have been reading strange comments from skeptics. Seriously, that takes > the cake. > Maybe you don't understand what "converse" means. As I read McKubre's paper, Fig 1 is a frequency plot for SRI experiments in which they claimed excess heat. Experiments in which they did not claim to observe excess heat at SRI are not represented. It shows that when excess heat was claimed at SRI, the loading was high. But the figure does not exclude experiments in which the loading was high, but excess heat was not claimed. Whether or not your claim that high loading guarantees excess heat is right, the figure does not show that. That's simple logic. > Second, how would excess heat cause high loading? > > Who said anything about causation? The figure shows that alleged excess heat is accompanied by high loading. It does not show that high loading is *necessarily* accompanied by a claim of excess heat. You said it did. > Or, third, are you saying this is coincidence, or that some third factor > causes both loading and excess heat? > > > All I'm saying *here* is that the figure does not show that high loading guarantees excess heat. Elsewhere I have argued that it is much more likely that an artifact mistaken as excess heat is correlated with high loading, or the conditions that produce high loading, than that nuclear reactions are so correlated. And while I can't identify such an artifact, neither can you identify a nuclear reaction that fits the claims.
