Dancing David
Have you actually read any of the papers? Did you look up the references? Did you try to look up explanations for the differences between what is theoretically predicted and that which is claimed to be observed in CF experiments (which are merely a curiosity and of no relevance to the experimental evidence) ?
When I engage in a discussion of experimental results, I expect the people I am discussing it with to at least be familiar with the literature in question and the experimental techniques under investigation. It has taken me months to read and understand the CF literature and I have the benefit of being a professional scientist. It turns out to be a very interesting topic and I am sure you would not feel like you wasted your time if you actually did read the primary literature. There are thousands of CF papers out there you want to talk about the specifics of a few? If you want to have a discussion based of the merits of CF based on scientific principles this board is not the place to do it.
For the purposes of this discussion the rossi reactor can be considered a fraud or genuine.
For the purposes of this discussion the evidence for cold fusion can be considered a fraud (in the case of well controlled experiments), error, or genuine. I do not intend to get into a discussion about the intricate details of the individual experiments with people who have no interest in actually learning about the phenomenon themselves.
Your highlighted posts are an excellent example of what I am talking about..
The H2 tank was disconnected from the experiment! Why are you asking me to comment about an argument with absolutely nothing to do with what was really measured. Please at least review material like this yourself!
This comment is absurd. Based on theoretical calculations this reaction can't occur in the first place. Of course based on theoretical models, high temperature superconductivity, the cosmological constant, and sonoluminescence also can't exist. Theory is not an absolute reflection of nature, otherwise the universe would cease to exist. Theory is a guide to experiment. Any scientist will tell you that every theory applied to the pursuit of science is falsifiable. To say otherwise is to turn science into a religion.
Why are you wasting my time with this stuff? The first is an explicit error that the most basic research would answer. The second is obviously true but doesn't magically make the e-cat disappear. I am not here to wade through a bunch of irrelevant posts and dispute their validity. If you find a post convincing and damning of the rossi device then you should go out try to falsify that post. That is the scientific and skeptical thing to do. That is what I set out to do when the rossi device was first announced. In the course of my examination of the CF literature I found myself convinced that much of the literature is well done science. Frankly, I feel cheated that no one turned me on to the body of work sooner.
Don't ask me to disprove posts by others, go and do it yourself.
Have you actually read any of the papers? Did you look up the references? Did you try to look up explanations for the differences between what is theoretically predicted and that which is claimed to be observed in CF experiments (which are merely a curiosity and of no relevance to the experimental evidence) ?
When I engage in a discussion of experimental results, I expect the people I am discussing it with to at least be familiar with the literature in question and the experimental techniques under investigation. It has taken me months to read and understand the CF literature and I have the benefit of being a professional scientist. It turns out to be a very interesting topic and I am sure you would not feel like you wasted your time if you actually did read the primary literature. There are thousands of CF papers out there you want to talk about the specifics of a few? If you want to have a discussion based of the merits of CF based on scientific principles this board is not the place to do it.
For the purposes of this discussion the rossi reactor can be considered a fraud or genuine.
For the purposes of this discussion the evidence for cold fusion can be considered a fraud (in the case of well controlled experiments), error, or genuine. I do not intend to get into a discussion about the intricate details of the individual experiments with people who have no interest in actually learning about the phenomenon themselves.
Your highlighted posts are an excellent example of what I am talking about..
The H2 tank was disconnected from the experiment! Why are you asking me to comment about an argument with absolutely nothing to do with what was really measured. Please at least review material like this yourself!
This comment is absurd. Based on theoretical calculations this reaction can't occur in the first place. Of course based on theoretical models, high temperature superconductivity, the cosmological constant, and sonoluminescence also can't exist. Theory is not an absolute reflection of nature, otherwise the universe would cease to exist. Theory is a guide to experiment. Any scientist will tell you that every theory applied to the pursuit of science is falsifiable. To say otherwise is to turn science into a religion.
Why are you wasting my time with this stuff? The first is an explicit error that the most basic research would answer. The second is obviously true but doesn't magically make the e-cat disappear. I am not here to wade through a bunch of irrelevant posts and dispute their validity. If you find a post convincing and damning of the rossi device then you should go out try to falsify that post. That is the scientific and skeptical thing to do. That is what I set out to do when the rossi device was first announced. In the course of my examination of the CF literature I found myself convinced that much of the literature is well done science. Frankly, I feel cheated that no one turned me on to the body of work sooner.
Don't ask me to disprove posts by others, go and do it yourself.
