Another example of the close correlation between control factors and
performance can be seen on page 18 here:
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHcoldfusiona.pdf
(Where it says, "Electrodes made from the same lot of materials (Pd)
produce consistent levels of excess heat.")
These are clearly not random or one-off events. When known, measured
conditions are met, the excess heat nearly always appears, and it is in
proportion to the conditions.
This does not begin to resemble a situation in which "a lab assistant
had seen OU on one occasion." The OU is seen on every occasion in which
the cell conditions predict it should appear. It persists long enough
for everyone to confirm it. Sometimes for months, as I said.
The description of the heat as "so small that it could be written off
as error" is also off base in many cases, such experiments 35-7 S, 35-8
S and 43-7 S, on p. 20 of those slides, titled "SRI/ENEA DARPA-sponsored
Energetics (SW) Replication."
The reasons why 12-9 and 15-7 produced no significant heat are well
understood. Looking at the control parameters in these runs, McKubre
would predict no heat. What he does not know is how to boost these
parameters on demand to ensure heat in every test. Suppose he measures
the loading ratio at 0.85. Based on that, looking at the figure on p.
18, he will predict is it unlikely that particular cathode will produce
heat. That does not mean he will know how to push the loading higher.
Measuring loading and controlling loading are two different things. They
are unrelated. A geophysicist can measure rock deformation, but that
does not mean she can control earthquakes. A doctor has somewhat more
control over most diseases, but recognizing symptoms and making a
prognosis is not the same as knowing how to cure the disease with
certainty. McKubre has about as much control over the reaction as a
skilled doctor has over a difficult but curable disease.
- Jed
