Michael Staker and Post-2012 FP replications

  • calibrations show it is not susceptible to this imaginary effect or to actual effects. That's the whole point of calibrations!

    No, it isn't. The point of calibrating is to make the measured output value equal to what it is assumed to be equal to. In the case of calorimetry, that would be the input power.

    The quality of the calibration is not relevant to whether a CCS can or does occur, by whatever mechanism. You can have a perfect calibration, correlatioon coefficient =1 (infinite precision), and still have a CCS.

    Once again you prove you have no idea what the issue is.

  • Because some nutcake has a theory . . .

    Ad hominem attack aside, and just for those people who 'like' this type of comment...

    Reanalyzing data under a different initial assumption, and then finding that process negates the prior conclusion, is not a 'theory', it is evidence. A theory would be where a sensitivity to heat distribution changes is postulated to affect the values of the calibration constants that produce Pout=Pin. A mathematical demonstration of that solidifies the theory's validity (but does not necessarily 'prove' it). Then, finding a systematic trend in the reanalyzed data that indicates the 'active' electrode becomes inactive in a predictable number of cycles is additional evidence for the theory and for the idea that there is chemistry at work, especially when the proposed chemistry produces the necessary change in the heat distribution originally postulated. However, one still needs replication (with control) to 'prove' the theory. That effort must come from those who are equipped to do it.

    The above quote is just an attempt to create 'truth' by saying what one wants to be true enough times. In the real world of science, that doesn't work.