Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
Yet you persist in calling these results "marginal." You are either
technically illiterate, or you are a liar. Anyone who glances at the
graph on the front page at
<http://lenr-canr.org/index.html>http://lenr-canr.org will see you
are wrong.
That's P13/P14. There is another graph of this that was page 2 in the
review paper presented to the DoE in 2004.
Seeing these graphs in isolation, with a background if distrust and
rejection, can be less than convincing. The caption on that image on
your page, Jed, is accurate. But people will not necessarily grasp the
implications.
That's true. Perhaps I exaggerated. You do need to read and understand
the paper to grasp the implications of this graph. However, I just meant
that the margin of error bars are marked at the bottom of the graph
along with the blue line for light water, and the red heavy water line
is far above that margin.
I realize this graph is important for other reasons. That's why it is on
the front page, linked to the paper.
There are plenty of other graphs like this in the literature, with a
wide separation between the error bars and the signal. There are many
for heat and tritium in particular.
Of course there is also tons of marginal data! I have probably as much
of it as anyone. There are authors who write "as you can clearly see in
Figure 5" when -- in my opinion -- Figure 5 is clear as mud. In other
words Cude has correctly characterized some cold fusion research. But to
go from that to saying that all research is like this, or the field as a
whole has nothing but marginal data, is outrageous. This is like saying:
"There are quack doctors, incompetent surgeons who kill patients, and
ineffective drugs . . . so all of medical science is a failure. It is a
con-job. We should tear down the hospitals."
- Jed
