One more time..work done in 1996...things have changed since. Replicated repeatedly, excess energy is now a certainty and no longer in doubt. 100% repeatable...no. Sufficiently repeatable for scientific proof...yes.
But this is a typical meme of the pathological skeptics. Once upon a time, one of the biggest names among them said all that was needed was a success rate of greater than 50% of runs. That "milestone" was successfully passed (over a broad range of researchers, the success rate is now > 70% of experiments). At which point the "famous skeptopath" changed the criteria he would accept to 100% repeatability.
"George Miley two years ago claimed hundreds of watts of excess power, yet he's never been able to back it up.
Uh, please cite proof. When I looked into this quite a while ago, it appeared to me that all it proved was the Krivit didn't know how to read a graph.
Which raises the question: Where's the beef? Why I can't I or anyone else buy one? Thanks for providing the 1996 reference. Perhaps you would like to provide more for your new claims.
BTW, my statement still stands. P&F were unable to exonerate themselves with their disappointing 1996 progress report, in spite of several million dollar in funding.
But if as you say, their 1996 report is solid gold, and they've been exonerated in the years hence, then what are you complaining about? P&F have been vindicated and we all have cheap and clean cold fusion power generators in our homes.
Uh, please cite proof. When I looked into this quite a while ago, it appeared to me that all it proved was the Krivit didn't know how to read a graph.
Which raises another question. If Krivit is wrong why hasn't Miley, with two years to do so, published his results, rather than leaving us with a wild claim made at a hippie environmental conference? Furthermore, why hasn't he also gone commercial?