Blaze Spinnaker <blazespinna...@gmail.com> wrote: 'Braze, you accept this claim based on a lecture by someone else and on > only 4 mW of excess power?? *This is not a credible claim by any > standard. '* > > OK, Thank you. You do not think Swartz is credible. Gotcha. >
Swartz is credible, but a 4 mW claim made during a lecture that has not been replicated is not credible. Not yet anyway. For several reasons: 1. You have to publish a paper, not just give a lecture. You have to describe the device in detail. 2. This is a unique claim, so it has to be independently replicated, or at least, independently confirmed, the way ELFORSK confirmed Rossi. 3. It is VERY difficult to measure 4 mW. The only people I know who have claimed this level of precision used microcalorimeters which have a completely different design than Swartz's calorimeter. They are more sophisticated and expensive. Swartz is using ordinary instruments (as far as I know) so this is a bold claim indeed. 4. Even when you have 1 mW precision, it does not apply across the full range of power, and it is extremely unlikely to apply near zero. Look at the data from Miles and others who have done high precision calorimetry. The curves turn 90 degrees and goes off in the opposite direction as you approach zero. Calorimetry is not linear or predictable at all scales, at all power levels, to an arbitrary level of precision. Fleischmann claimed he could measure power with ~10 mW precision, but I am sure he could not have measured the difference between 0 and 10 mW. He meant that could measure the difference between 50 and 60 mW. - Jed
