On 02/25/2011 04:30 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > 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.
Actually I thought the graph was pretty darn clear even in isolation. The paper lends weight to it, by making it clearer that the whole graph isn't some weird anomaly, but anybody familiar with the field should be able to grasp the graph's significance immediately. I think it's a good choice for the front page. ... > 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." Right. I've seen that sort of thing in computer science papers, as well.
