AlainCo wrote:
QuoteThis is why asking high energy radiation with heat is like asking horse manure as evidence to birds existence. This is also why it is a popular demand, since it is impossible to fulfil.
I was not asking that they be observed together. Only that claiming two independent unprecedented nuclear reactions that contrive to prevent discovery of their nature is far less likely than claiming a single one. Especially if one of them produces measurable radiation. Characterizing measurable radiation (particularly gamma rays at the level many times background) has been done with high sensitivity and specificity for more than 60 or 70 years. If after 27 years of studying cold fusion, one would hope it would be possible to say more than "we saw gamma rays".
QuoteExcess heat is enough evidence, provided the observes are competent, this mean are chemist.
But so far the evidence for excess heat has not been considered good enough to conclude a nuclear origin by most competent scientists, including two DOE expert panels enlisted to examine the best evidence.
Quoteeven if He4/heat evidence in PdD is even better.
The same goes for the heat/He4 evidence, most of which after the crude claims by Miles in the early 90s, which were challenged in the literature, have not even passed the modest standard of peer review.
QuoteYou don't ask an expert in horse manure to analyse bird feather, so you don't ask a nuclear physicists to analyse a calorimetry paper, and reciprocally.
Nuclear physicist use calorimetry too.
Moreover, when claiming an energy density a million times higher than gasoline, it hardly seems necessary to need expertise in calorimetry. There are many claims that cold fusion has already reached the stage of practical application. If that were true, anyone should be able to tell if it works. You don't need expertise in aerodynamics to know that airplanes can fly.
QuoteHere the radioactivity evidences are intriguing, but to be honest NiH evidence today are far from the quality of PdD evidence from the 1990s.
The absence of any progress in the field, to which you admit here, is characteristic of pathological science.
QuoteJeff anyway have done a serious job, and he just need to add some cross-checking, like using shields, moving sensors, adding ambiance sensors...
I quite agree.
QuoteNote that the theory of magic radioactive dust is reminding me an invisible unicorn joke.
Radioactive dust is no more magical than cold fusion.