*Delusional, just lies or maybe incompetence. The onus is on you to rule out mistakes and other artifacts before shooting off that it's nuclear reaction in an otherwise chemical setup. So far, no one is listening.*
No one has ever found a thing wrong with excess heat measurements. Where are your peer reviewed sources finding fault in excess heat measurements that have stood the test of time? As I've already pointed out, hopelessly naïve objections like yours have been answered several times over, most prior to 1994. Jones' and others objections over recombination: answered. Nathan Lewis' objection about uneven heat distribution in unstirred cells: answered. Others objections about stored chemical energy in the lattice that is released in bursts: answered. You appear dreadfully unfamiliar and ignorant of the history of this subject. The onus is now on you, and your "community", to actually learn a damn thing about the nuances of electrochemistry and calorimetry, get into the lab, and find out what was actually wrong with the measurements, if anything. Its easier to be intellectually lazy and spout off that it "can't be" because there aren't enough neutrons or gammas than to actually do the lab work like scientists are supposed to do. The onus is on you to actually read the peer reviewed literature and answer these questions for yourself. Its not our responsibility on a casual forum to educate you about every bit of minutia just because you're either lazy, bigoted, or both. You are clearly the one not listening Mr. Franks. Maybe the reaction is nuclear maybe it isn't, but the excess heat level certainly is in that range and Helium-4 (in PdD systems atleast) has been demonstrated by China Lake, SRI, ENEA (amongst others) to be commensurate with the heat. There are logical reasons for coming to such a conclusion despite what you believe. You simply label such results as "delusional", "lies" or "incompetence". Your banter represents pseudoscientific ridicule at its best, and everything that is wrong with skepticism today. All the best to you. Regards. On Sun, Dec 15, 2013 at 9:00 AM, John Franks <jf27...@gmail.com> wrote: > Axil > Axil<http://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=vortex-l@eskimo.com&q=from:%22Axil+Axil%22> > Sat, 14 Dec 2013 18:34:20 > -0800<http://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=vortex-l@eskimo.com&q=date:20131214> > > Experimentation with gold nano-particles show LENR+reaction with 100% > repeatability. > > > Foks0904 . > <http://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=vortex-l@eskimo.com&q=from:%22Foks0904+.%22> > Sat, 14 Dec 2013 17:35:15 -0800 > <http://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=vortex-l@eskimo.com&q=date:20131214> > > ...take Energetics in Israel (now at U of M) for example who had reach > ~70-80% repeatability in their cells. > > > > Delusional, just lies or maybe incompetence. The onus is on you to rule out > mistakes and other artifacts before shooting off that it's nuclear reaction > in an otherwise chemical setup. So far, no one is listening. > >
