[Vo]:Re: LENR is many times more than PdD

[jedrothwell]

Peter Gluck wrote:

Something strange has happened: Cold Fusion LENR was discovered in the PdD 
wet system- I called this a miscovery because the phenomena are presnt in 
many places in more forms- but PdD is probably the worst possible- 
difficult for study, not good at all for applications just interesting for 
the results if you are tolerant to tragic ireproducibility.


That is not true. For most researchers Pd-D still works better than other 
materials. It is more reproducible, not less. People such as Srinivasan 
spent years trying to make Ni-H cold fusion work but they got nowhere. 
There are good step-by-step recipes for Pd-D, from Storms and Cravens. 
Until someone publishes a recipe for Ni-H it is probably best to stick to 
palladium if you want to see results.

Positive results from Ti and Au have also been reported. No one ever 
claimed that only Pd works. However, it remains the most reproducible at 
present.

[Vo]:Re: The distorted mirror of Wikipedia: a quantitative analysis of Wikipedia coverage of academics

[jedrothwell]

I meant it is NOT good at controversy.

Sorry.

(Is there a way to edit these messages?)

- Jed

[Vo]:Re: The distorted mirror of Wikipedia: a quantitative analysis of Wikipedia coverage of academics

[jedrothwell]

Wikipedia is okay for some subjects. But as an institution, Wikipedia it is 
good at handling controversy. Cold fusion is the longest-running and most 
controversial subject in the history of academic science. (I think by now 
we can say that.) So, the people in this field do not like Wikipedia, and 
Wikipedia does not like us.


Here are some thoughtful articles about the problems at Wikipedia:

http://chronicle.com/article/The-Undue-Weight-of-Truth-on/130704/

http://wikipediocracy.com/2013/02/20/a-compendium-of-wikipedia-criticism/

I think I mentioned this one before. It shows that Britannica is a lot 
better than Wikipedia despite what Nature said:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/03/23/britannica_wikipedia_nature_study/

And here is a hilarious one -- my all-time favorite:

http://www.wired.com/software/webservices/commentary/alttext/2006/04/70670

QUOTE:

*But why should I contribute to an article? I'm no expert.*
*
*

That's fine. The Wikipedia philosophy can be summed up thusly: "Experts are 
scum." For some reason people who spend 40 years learning everything they 
can about, say, the Peloponnesian War -- and indeed, advancing the body of 
human knowledge -- get all pissy when their contributions are edited away 
by Randy in Boise who heard somewhere that sword-wielding skeletons were 
involved. And they get downright irate when asked politely to engage in 
discourse with Randy until the sword-skeleton theory can be incorporated 
into the article without passing judgment.