But if you genuinely want to discuss science rather than the other crap you seemed obsessed with, let's go back to your 20-minute lecture on the well-formed definition of cold fusion. How about cutting those 20 minutes down to a single paragraph of whatever length required.
See:
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHcoldfusionb.pdf
See chapter 1, by me and Mallove:
Where can I find the back & forth discussion on those documents?
The depositions by Murray and Smith have additional detail. I read only a small portion of the deposition by Rossi, so I do not know if he addressed this.
Ok Jed. I will do a careful read of your book. I've read McKubre's paper before. Thank you.
Ok Jed. I will do a careful read of your book. I've read McKubre's paper before. Thank you.
That seems to be the polar opposite of what you've been posting lately. I would encourage you along these lines unless... such encouragement makes you uncomfortable... Anyways, careful reading is always in order.
keV: why are you engaging with me? There is such a thing as ignoring someone who you disapprove of so violently. I promise I won't miss you and I am sure you won't miss me.
I posted this thread so I will monitor it. I would welcome the whole aspect of 'missing you'. So there's something both of us can look forward to.
The depositions by Murray and Smith have additional detail. I read only a small portion of the deposition by Rossi, so I do not know if he addressed this.
Oh, great, more footwork. No doubt whatever we do will not meet the sky high standard that skeptopaths set up.
@ interested observer,
Whether the 7+ billion other people on the planet are paying attention to what they should is an entirely different question, but if they are distracted, it ain't by Rossi.
Exactly. As he is used to say: "All energy sources must be integrated, if we want to survive… and multiplicate. Warm Regards."
The media sources are already at work since long.
How many people could have given a look to this cover?
http://worldofmagazines.net/wp…azine_November-2-2015.jpg
And how many of them did read the internal article?
Quote from KevThat seems to be the polar opposite of what you've been posting lately
Perhaps because Jed responded with content devoid of streams of personal insults. You should try that sometime.
Perhaps because Jed responded with content devoid of streams of personal insults. You should try that sometime.
Perhaps? You don't know your own motive? If my content contained streams of personal insults, the mods would move the posts to the Clearance Items thread. Challenging someone's logical fallacies is not engaging a personal insult. You should try avoiding logical fallacies sometime.
That's incorrect, Kev. We do not move everything. You in particular, but others as well, have been pretty uncivil. We've made requests several times for people to be more polite. The mods are having an ongoing conversation about what to do about this. We'll gradually figure something out.
I shall reject all of Einstein's and Newton's work because they are "quite old" and "extremely old".
AF ......
Einsteins and Newton work are theories that are confirmed every day. They are always new.
That's incorrect, Kev. We do not move everything. You in particular, but others as well, have been pretty uncivil. We've made requests several times for people to be more polite. The mods are having an ongoing conversation about what to do about this. We'll gradually figure something out.
I'm willing to edit where you mods determine the lines of civility have been crossed. Maybe if you mods had the conversation out in the open we could see where we're walking close to the line you want to draw.
We will have our conversations where we please. If you wish to edit your posts, please remove the gratuitous personal attacks of other forum members and stick to substantive points.
Ok Jed. I will do a careful read of your book.
Just chapter 1. The rest is not technical. That chapter was written by Mallove and me.
CF/LENR strategy
Defy
| Notes: - Quotations from JR posts in this thread "How many times has the PF AHE event been replicated" - Quoted paragraphs are reported integrally - Highlights (bold & color) added |
|
I am saying the exact opposite! I said it many times. I said, quite clearly, AS FAR AS I KNOW there are no papers describing experimental errors in any major experiment. I asked you to point to such papers. If you cannot find an example, and I cannot find one, then we are not omniscient, but it seems unlikely there is one out there. […] I have read hundreds of cold fusion papers. I have a database of them. If there were papers describing errors, I would probably know about them. Since I do not, the ball is in your court. You should tell me WHERE ARE THESE PAPERS??? If you cannot, let us agree they either don't exist or it is not possible for you and I to take them into account or judge them. |
|
But here is my larger point. Somewhere out there, someone may have a coherent set of arguments and facts that call into question the results from Flieschmann, Miles, McKubre, Srinivasan, Lonchampt, Storms, Will, Bockris and the other major results. Say, the top 50 studies. Someone may know good reasons to reject all of these claims. Or they may have reasons to reject one of them, leaving the others intact. HOWEVER, I have not heard from this person. He or she has not published a paper. So I have no way of knowing what this person thinks, or why he rejects the claims. I cannot guess, and I have never read a critique from anyone address any of these claims. (Except Morrison and Shanahan!) |
|
What a ridiculous thing to say! Of course my position is assailable. Assail it! Go ahead. Feel free. Show us a mistake in one of the major experiments, or point to a paper describing errors. That's how science works. I am not saying it is unassailable. I am saying that NO SKEPTIC HAS TRIED TO ASSAIL IT. Do you see the difference? |
|
If there were anything wrong with experiments from Fleischmann, McKubre or Storms many skeptics would be eager to find the problem or problems. Morrison and Shanahan thought they found problems, and they were not reticent to publish their findings. |
|
If that were true I suppose you would read the literature, or you would at least agree that since no one has published a reason to doubt the leading studies, there is at present no reason to think they are wrong. That seems uncontroversial to me. It seems like the standard way to do science. I do not understand what your method is. […] People do experiments. They reach conclusions. The experiments are replicated. Unless someone finds errors in the experiments or the logic, that means the conclusions are correct. A new discovery has been confirmed. That is how science is done. Let me emphasize: that is the only way science is done. There are no other methods, such as taking a vote, or looking around to see who is snide, or waiting indefinitely in case someone someday comes up with a reason to doubt the experiments. With the latter method, nothing would ever be resolved, and no progress would be made. We must draw conclusions based published papers. Not hypothetical ones or ones that we suppose people might write if they had a mind to. We cannot take into account the possibility that in the future someone might publish a new paper disproving the work. If, after many years of waiting, there are no published papers showing errors in the replicated Pd-D cold fusion experiments, that makes the findings correct. That's all there is to it. There is no other way a scientific discovery can be correct. There is no other definition of "correct." |
|
That's obvious! You just show there is a mistake in an experiment, and out it goes. The way I did here, with my own work: […] I think you failed (the reader can judge) but anyway, that is how it is done. Finding errors and showing that the author's conclusions are mistaken is the one and only way to disprove an experimental discovery. You have to do that for every single major study. Even if 49 are wrong and 1 is right, the cold fusion effect is still real. |
|
Nope. You have that backwards. All you have to do is show one major error in an experiment, and in most cases that cancels out the entire result. For example, you show that the flow rate was measured wrong in a flow-calorimetry experiment. I have done this, in flow calorimetry with both water and air. I shot down results from 5 or 10 experiments by doing this. The other parameters were measured correctly, but the results were wrong. |
|
Q: A.) reference please. Fleischmann, M. and S. Pons, Calorimetry of the Pd-D2O system: from simplicity via complications to simplicity. Phys. Lett. A, 1993. 176: p. 118 |
|
You yourself took a crack at showing an entrainment error in the boil off phase of Fleischmann's experiment. You have the right idea. That is the sort of thing that can go wrong. However, in my opinion, you failed to show an error. In fact, I do not see where you gave any reasons at all why there might be such an error, other than "I suppose." But keep trying! That is the only way you -- or any one else -- can disprove cold fusion. It is experimental science, not theory. You will never find one mistake or one overarching factor that cancels out all evidence. You have to wade in and deal with details. Detail after detail after detail. Even if you clobber McKubre's flow measurement technique, that leaves dozens of other flow measurements by Storms (rather similar!) and by many others (completely different), and you have show that every one of them was wrong, or that something else went wrong. |
|
The point I was making is not about you, it is about scientific skeptics in general. Other than Morrison and Shanahan, they have not published any papers showing experimental errors in any of the major experiments. Therefore, they have not given any reason to doubt the experiments. They have had nearly 30 years to do this. If they have not found anything by now, I doubt they ever will. There has to a reasonable time limit. We cannot wait decades before declaring that an experiment is right, or we would still not believe something like Faraday's law or the Second Law. |
Defend
|
Thread Closed. |
