I assume you're referring to the Fralick NASA 1989 experiment. What about that experiment was it that you thought elevated it into "acceptability"?? It certainly can't be "peer review", as the only "peer review" it received was from his NASA superiors.
Why is Fralick's evidence convincing, and Miley's very similar (in both process and results), not convincing.
"If you don't know what quality is by now, and Lord knows I've tried to teach you, then I can't help further if you won't try.
I know what "quality" is. I do it every day and design instruments to implement it. What I'm trying to figure out is what "quality" means to YOU.
"BTW, it doesn't help that Edmund Storms has endorsed the Rossi and Blacklight scams. No wonder you lack confidence.
Hmmmm....if he has endorsed it, I'll have to give Blacklight another look. Not needed for Rossi, as I am already familiar with that.
The 1989 memo reports a negative result. They were looking for neutrons, and found none. They even recommended some readers to stop reading the memo halfway through. It's obvious that their report of anomalous temperature isn't motivated by anything like money or hype.
Miley on the other hand has joined the bandwagon of cold fusion hypesters by making informal unsupported claims and gets ripped apart here.
I know what "quality" is. I do it every day and design instruments to implement it.
Which is nothing more than "Warthog says." It's certainly not supported by your posts here on FR. Let's take a look at an example:
Hmmmm....if he has endorsed it, I'll have to give Blacklight another look. Not needed for Rossi, as I am already familiar with that.Apparently your idea of quality is defined by the success of scams.