Re: [Vo]:Regarding: Anti-Gravity / Cold Fusion Explained In Detail: A New Era...
At 12:59 AM 10/28/2010, fznidar...@aol.com wrote: The video is pretty good considering that it was done with no money and no help. It is a fine job I believe. Lane is a quick study and I am learning more. In the end it does not matter because cold fusion has died with the cancellation of the ACS meeting. Why sweat the details, no one is watching any more. Has the ACS cancelled a meeting? Is this a confusion over the APS cancelling the publication of the volume of papers from the APS session on cold fusion etc.? As I see the field of cold fusion, it's almost over, all but the shouting. The skeptical position is dead, as far as publication in journals is concerned, but positive publication continues at a pace that is roughly four times that of the nadir in 2004-2005. I'm sure there will be some last-ditch efforts to head this off. But realize that the best skeptical position published recently has been that of Kirk Shanahan, as a letter commenting on the Marwan/Krivit review published last year in Journal of Environmental Monitoring. The editors allowed the scientists whose work had been reviewed by Marwan and Krivit to respond, and they tore Shanahan's flimsy arguments to shreds. And then Shanahan is complaining that the editors would not allow him a second response. And why should they? They printed the first response, my guess, because it was the best they got. Over the last five years, there have been 17 positive reviews of cold fusion, printed under peer review, in mainstream peer-reviewed journals or other publications as listed by Dieter Britz, excluding one journal with a series of reviews that is dedicated to neglected science. There have been no negative reviews in that period. When does it become obvious that something shifted, somewhere around 2004-2005? Cold fusion has not died, and it will not die because skeptics manage to win some battle here and there. They can, by this time, only succeed in environments where they can operate behind the scenes. They may be able to negatively impact funding for some time. They may be able to successfully oppose the publication of a collection of papers in the field, as probably happened with the APS volume. But that's of little importance. They are trying to stick their fingers in holes in the dike, when, in fact, the damn thing is collapsing.
Re: [Vo]:Regarding: Anti-Gravity / Cold Fusion Explained In Detail: A New Era...
Frank, Regarding: The video is pretty good considering that it was done with no money and no help. It is a fine job I believe. Lane is a quick study and I am learning more. In the end it does not matter because cold fusion has died with the cancellation of the ACS meeting. Why sweat the details, no one is watching any more. Lane does seem to be a quick study. His satirical sense of humor can be entertaining. The videos are educational. At least, I learned a few things I didn't know before, particularly in regards to the Podkletnov controversy. With that said I don't understand your attitude - what strikes me as apparent apathy in not wanting to put much effort into correcting (or at least letting your audience know) the fact that you know there exist a few errors in the You Tube videos. It's not that big of a deal. Nor would it be that difficult to fix. The fix also doesn't have to involve Lane. For example at your website list all the You Tube links in the correct order that the videos should be watched in. Then, next to any specific link where errors have been detected, you can then add a brief personal Errata statement, a personal comment or two. Don't you think it's important to let your viewers, your audience, know that you are aware of the fact that a few minor discrepancies and/or contradictions might exist. Keep in mind that many of your viewers are technically competent viewers. They expect to view technically accurate information. By placing a brief errata out at your web site you at last let everyone know, your viewers know that you are aware of these errors, but that despite these errors you believe the information as revealed, and when taken in its entirety, is still valid. If you say nothing, how do you expect your viewers to assess the quality of these You Tub videos, especially when you apparently don't seem to care what they are viewing. Said differently, you are passively handing power over to someone else who now has the power to change public opinion in regards to your standing - particularly whether your theory should be worthy of being seriously considered. Not a wise decision, IMHO. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Regarding: Anti-Gravity / Cold Fusion Explained In Detail: A New Era...
Something became clear to me out of the NanoSpire discussion on the CMNS list. Never lead with theory. Not if the intention is to change general consensus on something. By starting with an opposition to consensus, one alienates the majority, right off the bat, prejudices them against accepting experimental results. Experimental resuts can have many different explanations. If one has some striking experimental results, instead of interpreting them with some world-shaking theory, report them as puzzling. Identify with the skeptics! Express skepticism! We have been unable to understand the heat we have measured as due to chemical reactions or artifact. An unknown nuclear reaction could possibly generate the energy, but the most likely candidate, given the elements in our cells, is deuterium-deuterium fusion, and the expected fusion products are missing. We have measured neutrons, but at a level well below what would be expected from the heat. We have identified helium as being produced, but the helium branch is rare and there is no expected gamma ray. Most cells are inactive, we only are seeing excess heat from one-tenth of the experiments we run. However, the heat that we see when a cell is active is significant. Our effort to identify the source of this apparent anomalous energy is continuing. With an announcement like this, when the neutron measurements were impeached -- and they were certainly in error -- they would not have been in trouble, since they already would have established the neutrons as not significant as to the main effect. Efforts to promote fringe physical theories, based simply on some alleged explanatory power, are probably doomed. Rather, anomalous experimental evidence, to even make the exploration of unusual theories seem worth the effort, must be established and replicated. If one establishes oneself, first, as a proponent of a fringe theory, one sets up conditions to see the experimental evidence rejected on the grounds that the experimenter may been cherry-picking data, may be misinterpreting it, etc., etc. That makes it tough for someone who does, indeed, come up with a theory first. One has the theory, one develops a test, runs the test, and finds the predictions of the theory to be correct. However, it is as if it would be better if one stumbled across the test results first! A good scientist will strongly resist the theory, i.e., will take every precaution attempting to falsify it, not to build up evidence for it! If not carefully restrained, the effort to prove a theory can cause data selection that will then be the basis for rejection by skeptics. Be one's own skeptic. The NanoSpire people, if they are telling the truth, are in a very unfortunate situation, but, again, they should be able to recover. If they promote the fringe theories developed, even if those theories are correct, they will inhibit acceptance of their very striking and powerful evidence. People will be far more likely to think of fraud or massive delusion, than if they approached this skeptically, and just reported fact with a minimum of theoretical interpretation. Indeed, if they mention theory, it would only be existing theory. We have been unable to understand our results in the light of existing theory. Critical, in the end, will be independent replication. To get that to happen, one must have credibility, unless someone happens to have the equipment lying about and just tries it on a lark
Re: [Vo]:Regarding: Anti-Gravity / Cold Fusion Explained In Detail: A New Era In Physics Pt. 8 of ?
In reply to OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson's message of Wed, 27 Oct 2010 08:35:40 -0500: Hi, [snip] From Robin: ... That's not all that's wrong. He equates energy and angular momentum. (Apples and oranges). Furthermore it is not true that the mass of the electron remains the same during the quantum transition, since it's velocity changes, and hence also it's relativistic mass. (And I suspect that even it's rest mass changes with it's distance from the proton). I'm curious. Does Randy Mills' CQM theory account for these issues as well? Does anyone know? Not AFAIK. Though Mills has some weird things in his theory. Specifically the notion that traveling at the speed of light shortens the circumference to the radius (IIRC). Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
RE: [Vo]:Regarding: Anti-Gravity / Cold Fusion Explained In Detail: A New Era In Physics Pt. 8 of ?
From Robin: ... That's not all that's wrong. He equates energy and angular momentum. (Apples and oranges). Furthermore it is not true that the mass of the electron remains the same during the quantum transition, since it's velocity changes, and hence also it's relativistic mass. (And I suspect that even it's rest mass changes with it's distance from the proton). I'm curious. Does Randy Mills' CQM theory account for these issues as well? Does anyone know? Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Regarding: Anti-Gravity / Cold Fusion Explained In Detail: A New Era...
The video is pretty good considering that it was done with no money and no help. It is a fine job I believe. Lane is a quick study and I am learning more. In the end it does not matter because cold fusion has died with the cancellation of the ACS meeting. Why sweat the details, no one is watching any more. Frank Znidarsic
[Vo]:Regarding: Anti-Gravity / Cold Fusion Explained In Detail: A New Era In Physics Pt. 8 of ?
Frank, Despite my previous criticisms, I have been enjoying watching the you tube installments. I've enjoyed the narrator's humor as well. However, there is something that needs to be fixed regarding installment #8. Anti-Gravity / Cold Fusion Explained In Detail: A New Era In Physics Pt. 8 of ? Approximately 8 minutes into the lecture I believe the narrator gets protons and neutrons confused in regards to explaining their nature in the makeup of isotopes. He has essentially flipped their characteristics. Hopefully the video can be fixed. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Regarding: Anti-Gravity / Cold Fusion Explained In Detail: A New Era In Physics Pt. 8 of ?
In reply to OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson's message of Tue, 26 Oct 2010 20:53:52 -0500: Hi, [snip] That's not all that's wrong. He equates energy and angular momentum. (Apples and oranges). Furthermore it is not true that the mass of the electron remains the same during the quantum transition, since it's velocity changes, and hence also it's relativistic mass. (And I suspect that even it's rest mass changes with it's distance from the proton). Frank, Despite my previous criticisms, I have been enjoying watching the you tube installments. I've enjoyed the narrator's humor as well. However, there is something that needs to be fixed regarding installment #8. Anti-Gravity / Cold Fusion Explained In Detail: A New Era In Physics Pt. 8 of ? Approximately 8 minutes into the lecture I believe the narrator gets protons and neutrons confused in regards to explaining their nature in the makeup of isotopes. He has essentially flipped their characteristics. Hopefully the video can be fixed. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
