No, we do not say that. Stop putting words in our mouths. The top tier experiment cannot be criticized. They are irrefutable. That is to say, no one has refuted them. Skeptics such as Morrison and you tried to refute them, but you failed. You have not shown any errors in Fleischmann, McKubre, Miles, Storms, Bockris or any other. I know that you think you have, but you are wrong.
Jed, could we deal with this bit by bit?
Just - for now - which are the top tier experiments? Presumably not F&P Simplicity - it has been criticised, it has been refuted, ascoli corroborated by me has refuted it and no-one here has denied our refutation (you have just ignored it and said "F&P must be correct because they could not make an error". As always hard refutable facts (a video in this case) weigh heaver than assumptions.
THHuxleynew , you have not said anything about the excess heat in D gas flow through PdAg tubing walls like Fralick did in 1989 and was confirmed as presented by Benyo at ICCF24. There are other analog results by Li with a Pd thin film that also produced excess heat with an energy density of the order of a modern nuclear fission plant. A couple of days ago I found a series of paper from a Chinese team that were published between 2011 and 2015 and some later from 2021 that are all in Pd D or Ni H flow through metal systems, none of the is electrolytic, and some of them with electric pulses to stimulate the gas flow (similar to what Celani does to his Constantan wire reactor).
I will paste the papers and or links to those that are only available as abstracts ASAP, but you will find these results are 100% reproducible, and the excess heat is beyond any possible error.
Curbina - energy density same as modern fission plant? That is an irrelevant metric if the active sample is very small and the apparent excess heat comes from somewhere else. In general it is unhelpful, what we need is:
- lower bound on excess power integrated over experiment is energy >> possible from chemical means given overall experimental constituents.
I will look at papers but please note:
- Anything with pulses cannot be safe without careful checking, because pulses can create anomalous dc readings in TCs. If the apparent excess power is well after the pulses (how long depends on the TC measurement system time constant) it is OK.
- Anything with TCs and H or D needs to be checked for whether the H or D could contaminate the TCs and lead to anomalous readings (there are good ways to check it, calibration before and after, but was it done?
Lots of other things - need to see the papers.
Does anyone see the contradiction here?
- On the one hand many experiments are claimed definite
- On the other hand none will do for a reference experiment to convince the real skeptics.
PS If this is really replicable and good have you tried arguing for it as reference experiment? it is all the google guys have been asking for.