There are (widely disputed) claims of an experimental result. Fine. But YOU are going farther: YOU claim the result is from nuclear fusion. You are now OUT of the realm of experiment, and INTO the realm of theory. Now YOU must provide proof that your theory agrees with the (widely disputed) experimental results. But you CAN'T, because your theory DOESN'T.
Derp.
Buy a clue.
But YOU are going farther: YOU claim the result is from nuclear fusion.
***Where do I claim that? The BECNF isn’t my theory, it’s YE Kim’s theory. That’s why I said you should contact him. But you didn’t. You prefer to argue against me, saying that I claim it, that it’s somehow MY theory. That’s because you can’t hold your own against other physicists. Simple quotes by Feynman prove you to be utterly wrong in your approach.
There are (widely disputed) claims of an experimental result. Fine.
***then do you acknowledge what National Instruments calls an “anomalous heat effect” has been replicated as many times as they claim (more than 180)? If it’s been replicated so many times, how is that “widely disputed”? Why would a $multibillion corporation like NI, or Toyota, or Mitsubishi, or STMicro stick their necks out? Because they like bigfoot-level controversies to ruin their reputations? To use your words, you’re completely full of crap.