Joshua Cude <[email protected]> wrote:
> And while I can't identify such an artifact, neither can you identify a >>> nuclear reaction that fits the claims. >>> >> >> I do not need to identify the reaction. The tritium and helium proves it >> is a nuclear reaction. The precise nature of it is irreverent. >> > > Whoa. Proves? > Yes, proves. You say I have to "identify the reaction." No, I don't. I only have to show that it is nuclear. The tritium proves that, beyond question. > So here you conflate tritium with excess heat. The tritium claims, even if > they were real, would not prove that the claims of excess heat are nuclear. > Of course not. The magnitude of the heat proves it is nuclear. A chemical reaction cannot produce megajoules of heat per gram of reactant. Good calorimetry proves that the heat is real. Each claim stands on it own merits. Each is certain in its own right, based on what we know about instruments that were perfected a century ago. All of them together are irrefutable proof that the effect is nuclear. Your claim is that a thermocouple error (or some other instrument artifact) magically reaches out and causes x-ray film to fog, trititum detectors to register false positives, cathodes to load, and spurious excess heat to appear. Your claim is unsupportable. Only one explanation that can tie all of these observations together: a nuclear reaction. The nature of the reaction is unknown. - Jed
