Re: [Vo]:Gibbs does not understand that physics are empirical
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: Jed, it's entirely up to you the credibility you assign to those reports. The people seem credible but you never know. As I said, I am not the police. I have not run background checks. It does not matter how credible these reports are if Rossi never gets around to selling anything. He seems to be stuck in a classic development loop where the next version is so wonderful no version ever makes it to the market. In software this would be the Duke Nuke'em trap. The Doble steam-powered automobile and many other brilliant innovations failed because of this. My grandfather Sundel Doniger was an inventor. He never would have made a dime if his brother-in-law Uncle Danny had not periodically told him: Stop developing it. Stop improving it! Ship the product!!! I advised him and the people financing him to concentrate on developing IP instead of building megawatt reactors. They ignored me. The story told here by Jed is plausible. In a way, though, it's a variation on the he's crazy story. I.e., he's not crazy as he appears, he's pretending to be crazy. But, Jed, that's actually a form of crazy. I don't think so. Patterson had the same strategy but he wasn't crazy. Ed Storms thinks that Rossi is incapable of developing good IP so he has no choice but to pursue the go-for-broke development strategy. Ed suspects Rossi does not understand the reaction well enough to write a valid patent. I wouldn't know. If a bad business strategy is a sign of insanity, everyone in the dot-com boom and most of Wall Street would crazy. Come to think of it . . . maybe they are. Credit swaps, derivatives and other fiscal weapons of mass destruction as Warren Buffett calls them are crazy. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Gibbs does not understand that physics are empirical
At 10:34 AM 1/2/2013, Jed Rothwell wrote: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: Jed, it's entirely up to you the credibility you assign to those reports. The people seem credible but you never know. As I said, I am not the police. I have not run background checks. That does not inspire confidence. Not about background checks, but the implication about how well you know them. I'm not talking about proof. Only about something stronger than conjecture, or, on the other hand, believing that a person who has frequently made claims that turned out to be inaccurate or misleading, who does have a history of exaggerated claims (as with his thermoelectric generator), is telling the full truth. An entrepreneur actually has no legal obgliation to tell the truth, except under narrow conditions. A scientist has a *professional* obligation to tell the truth, but even that is fudged sometimes, sometimes results are not disclosed for a while, for various reasons. But part of being a scientist is participating in the human knowledge project, and that requires caution about what a scientist says, at least when on the record. When a scientist lies, falsifies data, or even fails to disclose material conditions, it is treated as a serious offense, and, if proven, that scientist's career is toast. And that's very proper. By the same token, to impugn a scientist as to their probity is a highly uncivil act, and properly requires proof. How Pons and Fleischmann -- and others -- were treated was atrocious. There is no oblitation to agree with the conclusions of a scientist, but to claim that their work is incompetent, again without proof, is outside of norms, by far. Errors may be criticized, that's expected and even obligatory. Yes, scientists deviate from this, and that's where science can get lost in the shuffle. However, with entrepreneurs, lying about results might be simply smart. Under some conditions, yes, lying to, say, investors, is illegal. But just lying to the public, no. So, legally, Rossi can say pretty much what he wants to say, deceptive or misleading or true. What he says to investors, particularly in writing, could be another matter. My guess, however, he's got himself very well protected. Unless the investors do due diligence, they might lose their shirts. After all, they might be trusting him just as you trust them, for to them, he seems credible. Kullander and Essen were taken in. Whether or not there was really generation of heat, in what they witnessed, is debatable. But the proof of it, that they accepted, was clearly defective. That shows that even people considered expert can be fooled. (This is a point that I recall making in early 2011.) But were they expert? Actually, on calorimetry, no. They acknowledged that. They were outside their expertise, but still issued statements and judgments. So suppose some businessmen, investors, saw that same demonstration as Kullander and Essen? Now, you've implied more than that, that they tested a device extensively in their own facility, independently. If that's so, the chance of error goes way down, but does not totally disappear. Nevertheless, Jed, I'm sure you understand why we cannot rely on this, nor should you. It would be wonderful if Rossi really does have something, and DGT and Brillouin. The basic error that many of us make, though, is that we want to know *now*, so we rush ahead to try to figure it all out, pouring over incomplete, fragmented, and sometimes even deceptive information. What do we actually gain by this, though? If we are inclined to test nickel hydrogen reactions, great! There are many hints that something is happening there, going way back. An *ounce* of actual investigation is worth many pounds of abstract speculation. It does not matter how credible these reports are if Rossi never gets around to selling anything. He seems to be stuck in a classic development loop where the next version is so wonderful no version ever makes it to the market. In software this would be the Duke Nuke'em trap. The Doble steam-powered automobile and many other brilliant innovations failed because of this. That could be lunacy or a brilliant excuse. My grandfather Sundel Doniger was an inventor. He never would have made a dime if his brother-in-law Uncle Danny had not periodically told him: Stop developing it. Stop improving it! Ship the product!!! Been there, done that. I advised him and the people financing him to concentrate on developing IP instead of building megawatt reactors. They ignored me. The story told here by Jed is plausible. In a way, though, it's a variation on the he's crazy story. I.e., he's not crazy as he appears, he's pretending to be crazy. But, Jed, that's actually a form of crazy. I don't think so. Patterson had the same strategy but he wasn't crazy. Well, you can make the semantic point that
Re: [Vo]:Gibbs does not understand that physics are empirical
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: Kullander and Essen were taken in. Whether or not there was really generation of heat, in what they witnessed, is debatable. Nonsense. I am sure they were right. They checked carefully. Instruments of that nature, such as commercial flow meters, are highly reliable and there is no way Rossi could make a fake one. You have no evidence they were taken in. They are smart people and they have been doing experiments for decades. Many other people observed these tests and apart from Krivit not one has said there was anything fake about it. Several people, such as the NASA group, said the tests did not work the day they saw them. It was obvious the thing was not working. If Rossi was faking it, why would he make the machine look like it is not working on the day NASA showed up? Presumably a fake demonstration can be made to look like it is working at any time, since there is actually nothing difficult going on, but only an illusion. You keep claiming that scientists are easy to fool, but you have never said what specific, actual method might be used to fool them. Your assertion is not testable or falsifiable. But the proof of it, that they accepted, was clearly defective. Says who? Why was it defective? Because and invisible Leprechaun was changing the power meter reading when no one watched? That shows that even people considered expert can be fooled. No, it does not. You are making unfalsifiable assertions, like Mary Yugo's. You have demonstrate how they were fooled. It's pretty clear to me that Rossi should not have announced until he actually had a reliable device ready to sell. I disagree. The story is that Rossi announced at the wish of his friend Focardi. That's touching, but ... what if it cost him a billion dollars? No. Word was getting out anyway. He did not reveal anything that endangered his IP. I heard about him a year before the tests. He is no worse off now than he was before the tests. Not much better off either. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Gibbs does not understand that physics are empirical
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: You have no evidence they were taken in. They are smart people and they have been doing experiments for decades. Not of this type. Of this type exactly. No, *many people* have examined the results and came up with problems that were overlooked by Essen and Kullander. Who? Where did these people publish reports? I recall a lot of blather here but I have not seen any reports showing errors in the techniques. Yes, Krivit pulled all of this together, but he didn't invent it. Krivit measured nothing and found nothing. His report is hot air. This has been discussed to death on Vortex. That does not count. Where is there an authoritative report by someone who knows calorimetry showing errors in the calorimetry. Several people, such as the NASA group, said the tests did not work the day they saw them. It was obvious the thing was not working. Which, as you know, only means that the thing wasn't working. You are missing the point. If the thing is fake, why wouldn't it be a totally reliable fake? Who would make a fake system that often appears to do nothing? It often fails at critical times when a lot of money is at stake, as it was during the NASA visit. If this is fraud, it could not be conducted more ineptly. You've already come up with one reason. I have not. Rossi was counting NASA's evaluation. The failure was a disaster for him. Another would be very simple: it's not reliable and it wasn't working on the day they showed up. A fake system would be reliable! It is not difficult to make a fake system. It is impossible to make one that EK, Focardi or Levi would not instantly see is fake. The only person who could be fooled is Krivit, because he made no observations at all. But if you made a fake system it would work as reliably as any movie prop. Rossi developed a technique vulnerable to a certain illusion. You state that is if it were a fact. There is no evidence for that at all. There are no illusions at all. When the thing works, it is obvious, and when it failed -- on several occasions -- that was equally obvious to the observers. No one was fooled into thinking it was actually working. There is a reason why we want to see independent replications. They are *much* harder to fake, and it's also harder to make an innocent mistake, to be fooled by an artifact. The thing was independently tested for a week or two when Rossi was on another continent. That is as good a confirmation as an independent replication. Calorimetry is calorimetry; the same everywhere. The only reason I want to see independent replications is so that other people can manufacture it quickly. That is why Rossi does not want to see independent replications, and why he will do all that he can to prevent them. He has no IP. Okay, scientists could be fooled by the unexpected presence of overflow water. They could assume that a single look at the outlet hose would be adequate to show that there was no overflow water. This makes no sense. They independently measured the flow coming out of the machine. No, the hose would have to go into a bucket to show that, and the hose would have to be well-insulated and short. As you know, that was not the experimental setup. Overflow water, when quantity of water boiled is the measure of heat, is fatal to accuracy. I was talking about the flowing water tests. The steam tests are a little more complicate but not by much. The enthalpy of steam has been well known for over a century, despite comments posted here. Kullander and Essen also attempted to use a humidity meter to measure steam quality. That meter is intended to measure steam quality, according the specs. That was as much of a bonehead error as were Pons and Fleischmann's neutron results. No, it wasn't. Anyway, the enthalpy is pretty much the same even if you don't measure it at all. The blather here about wet steam was nonsense. But the proof of it, that they accepted, was clearly defective. Says who? I say so. I reviewed that evidence, and that's my conclusion. Where did you publish? Did EK review your work? Did they publish a rebuttal? Have you done calorimetry with a similar system, and did you demonstrate how an error might be made? Unpublished speculation from the peanut gallery is not science. You don't get a free pass. If you seriously think there might be an error, you need to write up your reasons and perform calorimetry with a similar, conventional system (an electric heater). Then you need to run your work by EK. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Gibbs does not understand that physics are empirical
At 10:06 PM 1/2/2013, Jed Rothwell wrote: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: You have no evidence they were taken in. They are smart people and they have been doing experiments for decades. Not of this type. Of this type exactly. Kullander and Essen? That's who were were talking about. Where did you get this? No, *many people* have examined the results and came up with problems that were overlooked by Essen and Kullander. Who? Where did these people publish reports? I recall a lot of blather here but I have not seen any reports showing errors in the techniques. Krivit published them. Yes, Krivit pulled all of this together, but he didn't invent it. Krivit measured nothing and found nothing. His report is hot air. Krivit collected and pubished the reports of others, who analyzed the available data. Krivit pointed to suspicious activity by Rossi from the Mats Lewan video. Yeah, Krivit is a muck-raker, but ... that doesn't mean he's always wrong. This has been discussed to death on Vortex. That does not count. Where is there an authoritative report by someone who knows calorimetry showing errors in the calorimetry. The error is obvious. Jed, I'm sorry. This is beyond the pale. Several people, such as the NASA group, said the tests did not work the day they saw them. It was obvious the thing was not working. Which, as you know, only means that the thing wasn't working. You are missing the point. If the thing is fake, why wouldn't it be a totally reliable fake? Who would make a fake system that often appears to do nothing? It often fails at critical times when a lot of money is at stake, as it was during the NASA visit. If this is fraud, it could not be conducted more ineptly. You've already come up with one reason. I have not. Rossi was counting NASA's evaluation. The failure was a disaster for him. He could have recovered. No, Jed, your analysis is corrupt. Another would be very simple: it's not reliable and it wasn't working on the day they showed up. A fake system would be reliable! It is not difficult to make a fake system. It is impossible to make one that EK, Focardi or Levi would not instantly see is fake. The only person who could be fooled is Krivit, because he made no observations at all. But if you made a fake system it would work as reliably as any movie prop. Depends on the nature of the fake. Rossi developed a technique vulnerable to a certain illusion. You state that is if it were a fact. It's a fact. You actually know the fact. You are arguing here, for what? There is no evidence for that at all. There are no illusions at all. When the thing works, it is obvious, and when it failed -- on several occasions -- that was equally obvious to the observers. No one was fooled into thinking it was actually working. There is a reason why we want to see independent replications. They are *much* harder to fake, and it's also harder to make an innocent mistake, to be fooled by an artifact. The thing was independently tested for a week or two when Rossi was on another continent. That is as good a confirmation as an independent replication. Calorimetry is calorimetry; the same everywhere. Great. You demanded reports above on calorimetry error. Where is the report on these tests, certified by a reliable witness, who can be questioned? The only reason I want to see independent replications is so that other people can manufacture it quickly. That's BS, Jed. There are types of replications. A fully-independent replication must disclose IP, fully, because every aspect must be independent. But there are replications that do not disclose IP. A device can be sealed, for example, so that the independent replicator only deals with input and output. That is why Rossi does not want to see independent replications, and why he will do all that he can to prevent them. He has no IP. In which case he's probably sunk. Okay, scientists could be fooled by the unexpected presence of overflow water. They could assume that a single look at the outlet hose would be adequate to show that there was no overflow water. This makes no sense. They independently measured the flow coming out of the machine. Who did? Kullander and Essen did *not* do this. No, the hose would have to go into a bucket to show that, and the hose would have to be well-insulated and short. As you know, that was not the experimental setup. Overflow water, when quantity of water boiled is the measure of heat, is fatal to accuracy. I was talking about the flowing water tests. The steam tests are a little more complicate but not by much. The enthalpy of steam has been well known for over a century, despite comments posted here. Yes. But how much steam was there? The assumption was that all the water coming into the device was converted to steam. That assumption, with Kullander
Re: [Vo]:Gibbs does not understand that physics are empirical
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: That certainly is an intriguing statement coming from Mr. Rothwell. Jed has said things like this many times. It's obvious that there are people convinced by Rossi, but what it means that they confirm that Rossi's device works is unknown. What did they actually observe? Jed may know . . . They tested a device with flow calorimetry in their own facility in the U.S. for a couple of weeks, when Rossi was not present. This was some years ago. The device was in the same class as the heater that ran for a year in the Italian factory. I don't recall the size of that . . . ~10 kW? They also tested that device, in Italy. So did Focardi and some others, as they themselves described in a video and some documents. Rossi may have been present during these tests. This is ordinary flow calorimetry with engineering instruments such as an HVAC engineer uses. Similar to the ones used in the 1 MW test by the mysterious colonel. Not high precision but very reliable. The standard explanation, Jed makes it, is he's crazy. No, I think he is trying to make himself look crazy, or not believable, for the same reason Patterson did. He wants people to ignore him and not try to replicate or compete. I think his IP is weak and he knows that if others reverse-engineer him, he has no way to collect royalties. I advised him and the people financing him to concentrate on developing IP instead of building megawatt reactors. They ignored me. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Gibbs does not understand that physics are empirical
James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: What irks me is when skeptics do not even bother to read the papers by Bockris, Gerischer or McKubre The barrier I ran into with one of the founders of the DoE was a demand that I filter your bibliograpny down to only papers that appeared in journals of Science Citation Index. This person should ignore the Science Citation Index and the journals. He should read cold fusion papers published by EPRI and SRI (McKubre), Los Alamos (Storms), and China Lake (Miles). These institutions have higher standards of rigor than the journals, and their reports are more detailed. Those journals are sloppy. They are often run by people such as Piel or Maddox. Those two were ignorant fools who did not have a PhD and who did not bother to read scientific papers because reading papers is not our job (as they said to me.) If this person is not convinced by the papers from McKubre, Storms and Miles, plus Bockris and Will on tritium, then he is not a scientist. It is a waste of time trying to convince people who do not instantly see that these papers prove the issue. People who slavishly believe the journals instead of looking at original sources and judging the data for themselves are hopeless. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Gibbs does not understand that physics are empirical
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax I'm glad you feel better now.I am skeptical by nature but have been persuaded that Rossi has something.Just how well the E-Cats work has not been proven and there may well still be problems with repeatability and control. There are too many people who have seen demonstrations and are involved with Rossi without shouting fraud for it to be likely that it is.Investors will certainly have done stringent tests before parting with their money.Jed reports he has talked to someone with firsthand experience of a test lasting weeks without Rossi's presence. So, with a preponderance of evidence that it does indeed work why do you assume that Rossi is lying about such things as an independent test?We will know soon enough if he is telling the truth.Your approach seems to be guilty until proven innocent.Or are you one of those that can't accept experimental evidence without a theory to explain it?
Re: [Vo]:Gibbs does not understand that physics are empirical
a.ashfield a.ashfi...@verizon.net wrote: There are too many people who have seen demonstrations and are involved with Rossi without shouting fraud for it to be likely that it is. Yes. It seems unlikely. I can't rule it out 100%. If he is faking it, many people seem to be in cahoots with him, such as the mysterious colonel. I can't imagine why they would be, but as I said, I am not a police investigator. Investors will certainly have done stringent tests before parting with their money. That was my impression. They did not reveal many details of the tests. As I said, it was the usual method, similar to what they did with the megawatt reactor. They used commercial grade shielded thermocouples and ordinary flowmeters like the ones used in the 2011 tests. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Gibbs does not understand that physics are empirical
On Jan 1, 2013, at 9:33, a.ashfield a.ashfi...@verizon.net wrote: Your approach seems to be guilty until proven innocent. You may be surprised how long it takes to verify some of Rossi's claims. Be prepared for canceled reports and business arrangements and for statements that may not have been as accurate as one would like. The upshot is a long-term lack of clarity on what it is that he has. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Gibbs does not understand that physics are empirical
Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: Be prepared for canceled reports and business arrangements and for statements that may not have been as accurate as one would like. The upshot is a long-term lack of clarity on what it is that he has. Too true! I think his claims are basically true, but I have no idea about the details, or how close to reality the hot cat is. The details are obscured by layer upon layer of double-talk and obfuscation. I assume that is deliberate. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Gibbs does not understand that physics are empirical
Jed wrote: Too true! I think his claims are basically true, but I have no idea about the details, or how close to reality the hot cat is. The details are obscured by layer upon layer of double-talk and obfuscation. I assume that is deliberate. I basically agree with you. He would have to be both extremely skilled and extremely lucky to produce a 1 MW Hot Cat plant by the end of February. Even if he had a working prototype at the time of the demonstration there is a lot of work to make it reliable, to put 100 of them in a pressure container with a commercially useful output and to make the arrangement safe. The only thing that makes me even consider the possibility is that Rossi forecast that and said the project was going well recently. He has been pretty good at keeping demonstration dates so far.Otherwise I would add on another six months as a more realistic time frame for something this novel.
Re: [Vo]:Gibbs does not understand that physics are empirical
At 10:00 AM 1/1/2013, Jed Rothwell wrote: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: That certainly is an intriguing statement coming from Mr. Rothwell. Jed has said things like this many times. It's obvious that there are people convinced by Rossi, but what it means that they confirm that Rossi's device works is unknown. What did they actually observe? Jed may know . . . They tested a device with flow calorimetry in their own facility in the U.S. for a couple of weeks, when Rossi was not present. This was some years ago. The device was in the same class as the heater that ran for a year in the Italian factory. I don't recall the size of that . . . ~10 kW? They also tested that device, in Italy. So did Focardi and some others, as they themselves described in a video and some documents. Rossi may have been present during these tests. Jed, it's entirely up to you the credibility you assign to those reports. The rest of us have to take them as rumors coming througu someoine who is generally reliable. I.e., you. This is ordinary flow calorimetry with engineering instruments such as an HVAC engineer uses. Similar to the ones used in the 1 MW test by the mysterious colonel. Not high precision but very reliable. The standard explanation, Jed makes it, is he's crazy. No, I think he is trying to make himself look crazy, or not believable, for the same reason Patterson did. He wants people to ignore him and not try to replicate or compete. I think his IP is weak and he knows that if others reverse-engineer him, he has no way to collect royalties. I advised him and the people financing him to concentrate on developing IP instead of building megawatt reactors. They ignored me. The story told here by Jed is plausible. In a way, though, it's a variation on the he's crazy story. I.e., he's not crazy as he appears, he's pretending to be crazy. But, Jed, that's actually a form of crazy. They could lose everything by following his strategy. You gave *sane* advice. Ignoring sane advice is *crazy.* Sure, there is a distinction.
RE: [Vo]:Gibbs does not understand that physics are empirical
From Jed: ... His [Huizenga's] purpose was to preserve funding for high energy physics, ... And that, IMO, pretty much sums it up. As for all the other annoying shenanigans, they all strike me as just another means to an end. Whatever works in order to squash the opposition. If it sticks to the side of the refrigerator. mission accomplished. When the dust eventually settles, and historical scholars roll up their sleeves and start sifting through the all the personal public documentation, I suspect the need to preserve the care and feeding of the high energy physics community alone will most likely stand out like an undeniable sore thumb. I freely admit a personal fantasy of mine where I hope the Vortex-l list may help play a minor role in pointing scholars in the right direction concerning whom to contact in order to get the low-down, but who knows. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Gibbs does not understand that physics are empirical
Jed, you have it correctly.Mark Gibbs is caught up in the current pc scientific way of demanding a theory before experimental results can be accepted. It is even worse than that. Consider climate science.There the theory is preferred to the actual evidence when the two diverge.The current AR5 has a phrase saying the results maybe either within the model limits, or above them, or below them. (!) That the IPCC forecast has been falsified apparently doesn't matter. My direct experience of DoE is that they will follow policy from on high no matter what the cost.Larry Penberthy (father of all electric glass melting) and I made DoE a proposal that would save $100 billion cleaning up the radwaste at Hanford.http://people.duke.edu/~mgg6/A67402113108.pdf http://people.duke.edu/%7Emgg6/A67402113108.pdf but they refused to consider it until /after/ a new contract had been signed to do what they had previously planned.Their technical people were ordered not to talk to us until after the contract signing. Why not accept Andrea Rossi's statement. It will not be believed until working commercial units are on the market?It looks like he was right.I am puzzled by your statement that you have spoken to large investors who confirm the E-Cat works but elsewhere consider it dubious.What seems overlooked is that Rossi owes nothing to the general public but, as you say, needs to convince his major investors.He appears to have done that. The patent situation is ludicrous.I forecast years ago the lawyers stand to make as much money from the mess as the inventors do from LENR.
Re: [Vo]:Gibbs does not understand that physics are empirical
On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 5:25 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: What irks me is when skeptics do not even bother to read the papers by Bockris, Gerischer or McKubre The barrier I ran into with one of the founders of the DoE was a demand that I filter your bibliograpny down to only papers that appeared in journals of Science Citation Index. That's no small task and I had to write a few perl scripts to come close. I believe I posted the results of that to vortex-l when I first started participating in hopes that I could get some help penetrating this barrier. I mean, its not every day you get someone that was hired by Carter to found the DoE's EIA and one of the few Carter appointees retained by Reagan to offer any conditions whatsoever under which he would consider a paper reporting replication of the PF phenomenon worth his time to read. Yes, yes, yes... I know, it was my responsibility to disabuse him of his demand for such a filter, wasn't it? Too bad. Not gonna happen.
Re: [Vo]:Gibbs does not understand that physics are empirical
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: Why speculate that he would say something stupid like that? Because I have heard it countless times from Piel, Huizenga and Many Distinguished Scientists, including several of the ones on the 2004 DoE panel, and most of the Jasons. This is a widely held point of view. That does not mean that Gibbs holds it! Look, he said right here, in this forum, that he wants to see a testable theory. He said that again, and again, and again. I pointed to the testable *claim* made by EPRI. A claim, not a theory. I pointed out that to an experimentalist, confirming that claim is as good as confirming a nuclear theory. Gibbs did not respond. I assume he is saying the same thing as I have heard from ten-thousand theorists since 1989: We will not believe this until you show us a complete nuclear theory that we agree with. I assume he is parroting that point of view. Okay, so ahead and ask Gibbs what he meant. If I am wrong, he can say so. Also because that is what Gibbs is saying when he repeatedly demands a testable theory. Had he demanded a testable theory you'd be right. It is right here!!! Here is an example: Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 11:58 AM, Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: Sure, there's lots of interesting experiments but is there a testable theory? Maybe. The DoE may easily be in bed with the hot fusion projects, it was in 1989. So? Huizenga's book is *still* embarrassing, and is more and more visible that way. In recent years, Chu and many others have cited Huizenga and his book as proof that cold fusion does not exist. Most mainstream physicists agree with Huizenga completely, that cold fusion violates theory and it cannot possibly exist, and that all reported results are mistakes or fraud. I have heard that from HUNDREDS of leading scientists such as Chu. I am certain that is what they believe. I am also certain they have not read any papers on this subject. That is what they tell me. You may think the book is embarrassing. I think it is a hatchet job. However, Chu and others think it is the truth. But he was an old man, and, unfortunately, probably losing it. He wrote most of the book while conducting the ERAB panel investigation. It was published soon after ERAB was published. He was still at the peak of his intellectual power, and political power. He repeated the statements in the book many times, in person, and in letter to me and to others. What you saw with the Amoco situation would be how he responded when he couldn't understand what was happening. He'd flee. He understood perfectly what was happening. I am sure he did not think the results were real. I am pretty sure he thought: Another damn fake result! More nonsense to contend with! He did not say that. He refused to talk to the authors. But that is what other leading skeptics said, and I am sure he agreed. As for his statements about Miles in his book, he was posturing to make himself seem open minded. He never took those results seriously, or any of the similar helium results from Italy. He knew about those results, because he attended ICCF conferences. I think that was before the second edition of the book. He might have written about them or spoken about them any time. For that matter, he might have described the tritium from Bockris or Storms, or the excess heat results from McKubre. But he never said ONE WORD ABOUT ANY OF THAT. Not in his book, not in public, not in his letters. Never. He said only it is all bunk (to me). He did not talk about these results not because he wanted to hide the truth, or he was afraid he was wrong. Only because he was sure it was bunk, and he thought that even mentioning these results would confuse the issue and make some people imagine there might be something to cold fusion after all. He knew he was right. He was supremely confident of that. He saw it as his job to present the facts which proved he was right, and not to present any of the lies and nonsense published by McKubre and the others. That was his point of view, and he made it 100% clear to me and to many others. Steven Chu and many others have said the same thing, almost word for word. These people do not hide their opinions on this matter. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Gibbs does not understand that physics are empirical
From Ashfield: ... ... I am puzzled by your [Jed's] statement that you have spoken to large investors who confirm the E-Cat works That certainly is an intriguing statement coming from Mr. Rothwell. What's frustrating about all of this, at least from my perspective, is the fact that we had yet to see anything from Rossi that seems to be even close to be considered a commercial product. All I've seen (and read about) has been nothing more than a lot of hot air. Granted, there seems to be tantalizing evidence and lots of grandiose promises coming from Rossi. However, what is significant is that Rossi never allows his tantalizing evidence to be independently validated - that that certainly puts the kibosh on his credibility, and righty so. Maybe Rossi will finally pull a rabbit out of the hat. I sure hope so, but who the hell knows. I sure as hell don't. The only conclusion that makes any sense to me is to speculate that these unnamed investors (who presumably have confirmed the fact that there really is something to Rossi's e-Cats), are doing everything within their power to make sure that Rossi works out the flaws before potential competition catches wind. One of the best ways to help ensure that they stay in first place would be to continue to insinuate to potential competition the impression that Rossi's organization is highly flawed, or worse, fraudulent. That seems to have been easy to accomplish! ;-) Don't bother looking into the matter. Move along. move along. nothing to see here. Again, I'm left with the assumption that there must still remain serious flaws and impediments to the commercialization of Rossi's eCats. Will Rossi work out the flaws before the competition finally catches wind? It would appear that Mr. Rothwell doesn't think so. History may prove him right. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
RE: [Vo]:Gibbs does not understand that physics are empirical
Steven Vincent Johnson http://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=vortex-l@eskimo.comq=from:%22OrionWorks+-+Steven+Vincent+Johnson%22wrote: However, what is significant is that Rossi never allows his tantalizing evidence to be independently validated. Actually he has. The third party verification of the Hot Cat was completed a couple of weeks ago and Rossi expects the results (which he has not seen) to be published early in February. Likewise, Rossi claims his first 1 MW Hot Cat will be finished in February and the working unit made available for inspection a couple of months after it has been set up.Considering the short time since the original E-Cat this would be remarkably fast if he does it.The original 1 MW E-Cat is supposed to be sold to a customer for March delivery and may also be made available for inspection.Rossi claims that the units delivered to the military were different. In my previous post I left out that Rossi states he has provided his new partner with his IP so there is no possibility of it going to the grave with him. With so much in the pipe-line either we get solid news soon or it will look very suspicious.
Re: [Vo]:Gibbs does not understand that physics are empirical
Jed, you are describing a gentleman that has supreme confidence in his knowledge of physics and believes that there can be nothing new under the sun. I consider this the height of ignorance that many attain in their lives to their detriment. Thanks God that he was not in charge of just about every other endeavor that has advanced knowledge. Where would electronics be had someone with that outlook held the purse strings? In my experience, people with the attitude that you are suggesting are not capable of understanding new concepts since they waste most of their effort hiding their ignorance from the people around them. They dare not ask questions which might show weakness and they run from any challenge to their beliefs. What a waste of good organic material. Gibbs on the other hand should not be blamed too severely. In his case, it would be a major embarrassment to his career if he went out on a limb and declared LENR as real and later was found to be in error. He will most likely not change his position until a product is accessible and/or the main physicists acknowledge it is proven. He is acting in his best interest in this way although some of us may think it is shallow. Do you think that the investment world is frozen in a similar manner when new technologies emerge? Who is willing to be the first brave guy to take that step into the unknown and risk being labeled stupid? Dave -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Dec 31, 2012 11:25 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Gibbs does not understand that physics are empirical Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: Why speculate that he would say something stupid like that? Because I have heard it countless times from Piel, Huizenga and Many Distinguished Scientists, including several of the ones on the 2004 DoE panel, and most of the Jasons. This is a widely held point of view. That does not mean that Gibbs holds it! Look, he said right here, in this forum, that he wants to see a testable theory. He said that again, and again, and again. I pointed to the testable claim made by EPRI. A claim, not a theory. I pointed out that to an experimentalist, confirming that claim is as good as confirming a nuclear theory. Gibbs did not respond. I assume he is saying the same thing as I have heard from ten-thousand theorists since 1989: We will not believe this until you show us a complete nuclear theory that we agree with. I assume he is parroting that point of view. Okay, so ahead and ask Gibbs what he meant. If I am wrong, he can say so. Also because that is what Gibbs is saying when he repeatedly demands a testable theory. Had he demanded a testable theory you'd be right. It is right here!!! Here is an example: Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 11:58 AM, Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: Sure, there's lots of interesting experiments but is there a testable theory? Maybe. The DoE may easily be in bed with the hot fusion projects, it was in 1989. So? Huizenga's book is *still* embarrassing, and is more and more visible that way. In recent years, Chu and many others have cited Huizenga and his book as proof that cold fusion does not exist. Most mainstream physicists agree with Huizenga completely, that cold fusion violates theory and it cannot possibly exist, and that all reported results are mistakes or fraud. I have heard that from HUNDREDS of leading scientists such as Chu. I am certain that is what they believe. I am also certain they have not read any papers on this subject. That is what they tell me. You may think the book is embarrassing. I think it is a hatchet job. However, Chu and others think it is the truth. But he was an old man, and, unfortunately, probably losing it. He wrote most of the book while conducting the ERAB panel investigation. It was published soon after ERAB was published. He was still at the peak of his intellectual power, and political power. He repeated the statements in the book many times, in person, and in letter to me and to others. What you saw with the Amoco situation would be how he responded when he couldn't understand what was happening. He'd flee. He understood perfectly what was happening. I am sure he did not think the results were real. I am pretty sure he thought: Another damn fake result! More nonsense to contend with! He did not say that. He refused to talk to the authors. But that is what other leading skeptics said, and I am sure he agreed. As for his statements about Miles in his book, he was posturing to make himself seem open minded. He never took those results seriously, or any of the similar helium results from Italy. He knew about those results, because he attended ICCF conferences. I think that was before the second edition of the book. He might have written about them or spoken about them any time. For that matter, he might have
RE: [Vo]:Gibbs does not understand that physics are empirical
From ashfield: However, what is significant is that Rossi never allows his tantalizing evidence to be independently validated. Actually he has. The third party verification of the Hot Cat was completed a couple of weeks ago and Rossi expects the results (which he has not seen) to be published early in February. I hope so, but that remains to be seen. Typically in the past when Ross let the cat out of the bag. what Rossi promises versus what Rossi eventually delivers seems to end up being less convincing, particularly for those who are looking for independently verifiable proof. Likewise, Rossi claims his first 1 MW Hot Cat will be finished in February and the working unit made available for inspection a couple of months after it has been set up. Considering the short time since the original E-Cat this would be remarkably fast if he does it. Indeed, in the greater scheme of things I would consider it remarkably fast. However, it also accurate to say that these are all future claims. It seems to me that Rossi is often fond of making claims like this. It can be difficult taking many of his claims seriously. I'll I can do is hope for the best. I'm reminded of something president Reagan famously said: Trust, but verify. The original 1 MW E-Cat is supposed to be sold to a customer for March delivery and may also be made available for inspection. Rossi claims that the units delivered to the military were different. Rossi claims... Rossi claims... At present I'm far more interested in what others claim - particularly from those who have had first-hand knowledge of Rossi's alleged claims. Unfortunately, few seem to want to step up to the podium. In my previous post I left out that Rossi states he has provided his new partner with his IP so there is no possibility of it going to the grave with him. I certainly hope so. With so much in the pipe-line either we get solid news soon or it will look very suspicious. My point exactly. Hope for the best. But prepare for the worst. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Gibbs does not understand that physics are empirical
David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Jed, you are describing a gentleman that has supreme confidence in his knowledge of physics and believes that there can be nothing new under the sun. That is why they put him in charge of the ERAB panel. The DoE is run by people like him. They are pretty good at incremental improvements to existing technology, but useless for anything else. That is why the plasma fusion project has gone on for 60 years without making any progress. We are no closer to plasma fusion power reactors than we were in 1950. Gibbs on the other hand should not be blamed too severely. It is probably not his fault. He does not understand the difference between a claim and a theory. He does not understand what EPRI meant, or why Gerischer was so sure cold fusion is real. I expect he has talked to theoretical physicists and they have told him we will not believe this until we see a nuclear theory that we agree is true. They have said that to me countless times. Needless to say, that is a violation of the scientific method, but these people never learned the scientific method. In his case, it would be a major embarrassment to his career if he went out on a limb and declared LENR as real and later was found to be in error. I think he should report the facts about cold fusion and leave it at that. But he would get in trouble for doing that. Do you think that the investment world is frozen in a similar manner when new technologies emerge? Only with regard to energy, and only because the DoE has tremendous influence. It has stifled research in the U.S., Japan and Europe. There is no Federal Department of Computing. If there was one, we would still be using vacuum tube computers. Uncle Sam did invent the Internet, but that was an incremental improvement using existing technology, which is the kind of thing Federal researchers excel at doing. NASA's mismanagement of the Hubble went to surrealistic extremes. Read the book Hubble Wars for details. All because of academic politics. Who is willing to be the first brave guy to take that step into the unknown and risk being labeled stupid? Stupid is the least they will call you. Any scientist or science journalist who gets involved with cold fusion will be called the chicken nugget and fries guy at McDonald's. It is career suicide to talk about cold fusion. You are allowed to write the kind of slop Gibbs, Lemonick, Sci. Am. and others have published: 5 parts rumor, 5 parts technical error, 1 part fact. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Gibbs does not understand that physics are empirical
At 11:10 AM 12/31/2012, James Bowery wrote: On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 5:25 PM, Jed Rothwell mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.comjedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: What irks me is when skeptics do not even bother to read the papers by Bockris, Gerischer or McKubre The barrier I ran into with one of the founders of the DoE was a demand that I filter your bibliograpny down to only papers that appeared in journals of Science Citation Index. That's no small task and I had to write a few perl scripts to come close. I believe I posted the results of that to vortex-l when I first started participating in hopes that I could get some help penetrating this barrier. I mean, its not every day you get someone that was hired by Carter to found the DoE's EIA and one of the few Carter appointees retained by Reagan to offer any conditions whatsoever under which he would consider a paper reporting replication of the PF phenomenon worth his time to read. Yes, yes, yes... I know, it was my responsibility to disabuse him of his demand for such a filter, wasn't it? Too bad. Not gonna happen. Ah, Mr. Bowery, you are jogging my memory The fellow would really only need to read three papers, and the first two are the DoE reviews, both of which recommended research to resolve open issues, and the third is the Storms paper in Naturwissenschaften, Status of cold fusion (2010). That's a peer-reviewed review of the field, and, sure, it cites much material that is not in the Science Citation index, but we are dealing here with a field where for twenty years most research, no matter how solid, had great difficulty getting published in the standard journals. But, of course, there *are* many papers so published. Too many, in fact, unless someone really wants to dive in fully. Rather, what someone in the DoE would need to know is that there is basic research that has not been done because it really isn't needed any more, for those working on making the effect more reliable. Reliable is a practical question and has *nothing* to do with the science. The most obvious of these would be research to nail down the reported heat/helium ratio from the Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect. It's quite well enough established that researchers in the field routinely assume that helium is generated from palladium deuteride when heat is being generated, but verifying the correlation happens to be a useful activity that could serve both skeptics and believers. The claim is often made that cold fusion is pathological science, and that it's like other pathological science, when measurements are made more accurately and carefully, the anomalous results disappear. Okay, what happens if the heat/helium ratio is measured more carefully? (It's a difficult measurement, fairly expensive to do, but it's been done by a dozen or so research groups around the world, and not only is there no contrary evidence, some of the original negative replications that found no heat, also checked for helium, and did not find it. That is a *confirmation* of the heat/helium ratio. No heat, no helium.) (Heat/helium is a *reliable experiment*. To measure the ratio requires running a series of FP cells and not only doing the standard calorimetry on them, looking for anomalous heat, but also capturing the helium, which is actually the hard part. Heat is routinely measured with accuracy far beyond noise, but helium takes special care. Nevertheless, correlation uses the dead cells as controls. That is why heat/helium actually cuts through the reliability problem, because it confirms *both* the heat and helium measurements. And that the work done so far has approached the deuterium fusion to helium value doesn't hurt! John Huizenga was the co-chair of the 1989 DoE review, and he wrote in about 1993, in the second edition of his book on cold fusion about the Miles finding of heat/helium correlation that, if confirmed, it would solve a major mystery of cold fusion, the ash. Well? Was Miles confirmed? Storms certainly claims so, and that is a reasonable claim, but ... if it's not true, then confirming Miles would be long, long overdue. And if it is true, getting a more accurate measure could help discriminate between alternate theories as to mechanism. It is time that the DoE follow its own recommendations. They were unanimous in 2004. So why is anyone second-guessing them? *If* your friend, Mr. Bowery, is in doubt about the reality of cold fusion, and because of the vast possible implications from the reality of cold fusion, and if he now represents private interests, funding careful research with this could be crucial as a matter of due diligence. This work should be bypassed only by those already convinced that cold fusion is real. Most cold fusion approaches are famously unreliable, and making them reliable is probably going to take a lot more research; without understanding the mechanism (fusion does not tell us
Re: [Vo]:Gibbs does not understand that physics are empirical
At 11:25 AM 12/31/2012, Jed Rothwell wrote: Look, he said right here, in this forum, that he wants to see a testable theory. Jed, I must have missed that. Where did he say that? Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 11:58 AM, Mark Gibbs mailto:mgi...@gibbs.commgi...@gibbs.com wrote: Sure, there's lots of interesting experiments but is there a testable theory? You are not seeing the forest for the trees, Jed. had made a statement about the general way that cold fusion was viewed. This quoted his original comment: What did Peter originally ask? when will enter LENR such lists as [Greatest Inventions: 2012 and 1913 Editions]? My answer was When there is a testable theory or a demonstrably practical device. I wasn't asserting that LENR doesn't exist, I was answering Peter's question. Gibbs was *incorrect*. Testable theory will not lead to LENR entering such lists, not directly. What would do it is a demonstrably practical device? You went off on him like he was the Devil of Pseudoskepticism Incarnate. Gibbs doesn't know -- or didn't know -- that there already testable theories, and, more than that, theories that have been tested, but this, for him, was really beside the point. The real point, for him, would be a practical device, and theory is merely an idea that he has might lead to that. Yes, he's not thought this all the way through. He will. Why not? I'l tell you why he might not. If he finds that people who are knowledgeable in the field treat him as the enemy. Read *all* of what he writes, Jed, not just the parts that push your buttons. Gibbs has written: In the case of cold fusion, phenomena have been observed that are believed to be the result of a novel physical process. No one has been able to explain what causes the phenomena and no one has been able to produce a device that is useful that uses whatever the phenomena is. Almost true. We know what causes the heat. Deuterium is being converted to helium, and that's confirmed by the ratio found. It is *highly* unlikely that this ratio could be coming from anything else that that conversion, which is called fusion. What is *not* known is the mechanis, the specific conditions that cause it and the specific pathway followed. There are theories attempting to explain the mechanism, but none are as yet adequate. That's all. But you have consistently argued that cold fusion *will* have a world-changing payoff ... you're not in it just for the science, you're in it for the payoff. You could agree with this or not. Gibbs is interested in the payoff. I'm into this for the science. They are not unrelated! It is possible that the payoff could arrive before the science, but not necessarily probable. Jed, you have an optimism that technology can solve any problem. Maybe. Maybe not. Science is not about making that assumption, it's about testing theories, and Engineering is the about taking what is known -- as to theory or measured results -- and applying this to make devices practical. I think you may be right, Jed, but you must recognize that it's an optimistic view. It is not impossible that the nature of the mechanism is such that it's *inherently* unstable and unreliable. Bad luck, that would be, but not impossible. Do you propose to ignore the effect and reject the claims Nope. And I haven't ignored the phenomena. Indeed, I admit that there appears to be evidence of something remarkable. I just want to find out what's real and what's fake. Jed, do you want to be part of the solution or part of the problem? Gibbs is asking for help. How about helping him? He wants to find out what is real and what is fake. There is no such thing as a free lunch. But we could start with what is real. Finding out what is fake can be much more difficult. What's real is cold fusion itself, and most clearly the LENR effect that is the most solidly established is anomalous heat from palladium deuteride, accompanied with correlated helium production. It is preposterously unlikely that further research will reveal this as artifact. Mark wants to know about practical devices. Nothing on the palladium deuteride front is yet truly a practical device, though some devices might be scalable. Until they are stable, scaling up would be *hazardous.* Mark might want to look at the Nanor, Mitchell Swartz's device. Not Ready For Home Depot, and not any time soon. Practical devices are being claimed with nickel-hydrogen. None of this has yet been confirmed in any reliable way. But if anything is going to happen quickly, that might be where it will happen. It's worth watching, but there are obvious reasons to be *quite* skeptical. That's where it stands. There are promising research lines being pursued. There are signs that the ice floes blocking funding are breaking up. If cold fusion had been funded as recommended in the first DoE review, we could be twenty years ahead of where we are. Science by Politics is a
RE: [Vo]:Gibbs does not understand that physics are empirical
At 11:28 AM 12/31/2012, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote: From Ashfield: ... ... I am puzzled by your [Jed's] statement that you have spoken to large investors who confirm the E-Cat works That certainly is an intriguing statement coming from Mr. Rothwell. Jed has said things like this many times. It's obvious that there are people convinced by Rossi, but what it means that they confirm that Rossi's device works is unknown. What did they actually observe? Jed may know, but this is ultimatey hearsay. It may be enough to convince Jed, because he knows whom he is talking about, and their reliability and caution, or, what would be more important *what they actually observed*. What we also know is that it is possibe for a highly knowledgeable observer to see a Rossi demonstration, and to walk away convinced that the thing is real, and yet the demonstration was no, on review, conclusive. Not only were certain reasonable possibilities overlooked, it seems likely, from evidence we have, that those possiblities were actually happening. I.e., there was overflow water, not just steam. (But we can't be sure.) Whats frustrating about all of this, at least from my perspective, is the fact that we had yet to see anything from Rossi that seems to be even close to be considered a commercial product. All Ive seen (and read about) has been nothing more than a lot of hot air. Granted, there seems to be tantalizing evidence and lots of grandiose promises coming from Rossi. However, what is significant is that Rossi never allows his tantalizing evidence to be independently validated that that certainly puts the kibosh on his credibility, and righty so. Maybe Rossi will finally pull a rabbit out of the hat. I sure hope so, but who the hell knows. I sure as hell dont. Right. We don't know. Rossi promised the moon. It was obviously flamboyant and extravagant. Why a megawatt power plent? Why make it so big? Rossi could sell investigational devices, unapproved for general use, like hotcakes, if they would just do what he's claimed he could do. The standard explanation, Jed makes it, is he's crazy. However, crazy doesn't increase my confidence! Crazy people will sometimes lie and cheat. It is possible to arrange truly convincing demonstrations, if the inventor can control the conditions and doesn't mind a little fraud. It's all in a good cause, after all. We'll have the real thing by next month, so it won't matter if we fudge a little this time. Real inventors can think like that, and it isn't necessarily illegal! Depends on what *investors* actually see. But if he's crazy, there goes all restraint against defrauding investors! The only conclusion that makes any sense to me is to speculate that these unnamed investors (who presumably have confirmed the fact that there really is something to Rossis e-Cats), are doing everything within their power to make sure that Rossi works out the flaws before potential competition catches wind. One of the best ways to help ensure that they stay in first place would be to continue to insinuate to potential competition the impression that Rossis organization is highly flawed, or worse, fraudulent. That seems to have been easy to accomplish! ;-) Dont bother looking into the matter. Move along move along nothing to see here. Yeah, we've figured that one out. And I don't see a way to distinguish the difference between a fake Rossi con and a real one. There is one way to deal with it. Make it dangerous. Vigorously puruse alternate research. Rossi has no patent rights on secrets. If his patent requires a magic sauce, it's dead. Again, Im left with the assumption that there must still remain serious flaws and impediments to the commercialization of Rossis eCats. Will Rossi work out the flaws before the competition finally catches wind? It would appear that Mr. Rothwell doesnt think so. History may prove him right. My crystal ball is here somewhere, I know it! I really need to clean this place up!
RE: [Vo]:Gibbs does not understand that physics are empirical
At 11:48 AM 12/31/2012, a.ashfield wrote: http://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=vortex-l@eskimo.comq=from:%22OrionWorks+-+Steven+Vincent+Johnson%22Steven Vincent Johnson wrote: However, what is significant is that Rossi never allows his tantalizing evidence to be independently validated. Actually he has. The third party verification of the Hot Cat was completed a couple of weeks ago and Rossi expects the results (which he has not seen) to be published early in February. No, Ashfield, he hasn't. He has announced that he will. He says that it was completed. He says that they will be published. I know it's too much to ask, this is Vortex, but I'll ask anyway. IS IT TOO MUCH TO ASK THAT REPORTS SHOW FACT INSTEAD OF OPINION? There! I feel much better, nothing like a little shouting for the soul. Now, where were we? Likewise, Rossi claims his first 1 MW Hot Cat will be finished in February and the working unit made available for inspection a couple of months after it has been set up. Considering the short time since the original E-Cat this would be remarkably fast if he does it. The original 1 MW E-Cat is supposed to be sold to a customer for March delivery and may also be made available for inspection. Rossi claims that the units delivered to the military were different. Claims. I feel much better now. In my previous post I left out that Rossi states he has provided his new partner with his IP so there is no possibility of it going to the grave with him. States. You are getting good at this, Ashfield. With so much in the pipe-line either we get solid news soon or it will look very suspicious. Oh dear. Let's see, we've been seeing that and saying that for almost two years now. Tomorrow, it will look suspicious. It *already* looks suspicious as hell. So it might be more accurate, to say something like, If pigs fly, we'll have solid news. Flying pigs, solid news falling from the sky. Who is going to clean up? But maybe, someday, pigs will fly. First class or coach?
[Vo]:Gibbs does not understand that physics are empirical
I have to change the thread title because of the way Google mail works . . . Let me change it to something Schwinger said to Melich. Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: is that FG mania to focus on THEORY... NOT HAVING A THEORY IS NOT A REASON TO IGNORE A FACT Ditto and likewise. As Einstein wrote : Experimentum summus judex (Experiment is the supreme judge) As Schwinger said, regarding cold fusion: have we forgotten that physics are empirical? It does not bother me so much when skeptics disagree and insist that we must have a theory before they will accept the findings. What irks me is when skeptics do not even bother to read the papers by Bockris, Gerischer or McKubre and they assume these people are proposing a theory. Or they assume these people are making promises of jam tomorrow. Suppose Gibbs were to read EPRI's paper, or Gerischer where he says: there is now undoubtedly overwhelming indications that nuclear processes take place in the metal alloys. Suppose Gibbs were to say: I get it. I understand why Gerischer reached that conclusion. He believes that tritium alone is proof of a nuclear reaction and you do not need a theory to justify that conclusion. However, I disagree. I say that observation alone is not enough, and you can't be sure cold fusion is a real nuclear effect until you explain it with a theory. I would say: Okay, that violates the scientific method as taught in textbooks. However, you have a right to your opinion, and many important scientists such as Huizenga agreed with you. You should understand the other person's point of view. Know what it is you are disagreeing with. Getting back to the history of DNA, at Google books I am reading a book written in 1916 about genetics, describing the subject accurately in great detail: Genetics and eugenics: a text-book for students of biology . . . by William Ernest Castle and Gregor Mendel. The author frequently points out that he has no physical theory to explain any of this, and it is entirely observational. He can prove there are genes, and that some are on one chromosome and some on another, and so on. He shows all of this by observation and logic alone. This is how science used to be done. No one in 1916 would demand a theory; i.e. physical evidence of encoded genetic information (DNA). - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Gibbs does not understand that physics are empirical
On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 4:25 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I have to change the thread title because of the way Google mail works . . . Let me change it to something Schwinger said to Melich. Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: is that FG mania to focus on THEORY... NOT HAVING A THEORY IS NOT A REASON TO IGNORE A FACT Ditto and likewise. As Einstein wrote : Experimentum summus judex (Experiment is the supreme judge) As Schwinger said, regarding cold fusion: have we forgotten that physics are empirical? It does not bother me so much when skeptics disagree and insist that we must have a theory before they will accept the findings. What irks me is when skeptics do not even bother to read the papers by Bockris, Gerischer or McKubre and they assume these people are proposing a theory. Or they assume these people are making promises of jam tomorrow. Suppose Gibbs were to read EPRI's paper, or Gerischer where he says: there is now undoubtedly overwhelming indications that nuclear processes take place in the metal alloys. Suppose Gibbs were to say: I get it. I understand why Gerischer reached that conclusion. He believes that tritium alone is proof of a nuclear reaction and you do not need a theory to justify that conclusion. However, I disagree. I say that observation alone is not enough, and you can't be sure cold fusion is a real nuclear effect until you explain it with a theory. I would say: Okay, that violates the scientific method as taught in textbooks. However, you have a right to your opinion, and many important scientists such as Huizenga agreed with you. You should understand the other person's point of view. Know what it is you are disagreeing with. Getting back to the history of DNA, at Google books I am reading a book written in 1916 about genetics, describing the subject accurately in great detail: Genetics and eugenics: a text-book for students of biology . . . by William Ernest Castle and Gregor Mendel. The author frequently points out that he has no physical theory to explain any of this, and it is entirely observational. He can prove there are genes, and that some are on one chromosome and some on another, and so on. He shows all of this by observation and logic alone. This is how science used to be done. No one in 1916 would demand a theory; i.e. physical evidence of encoded genetic information (DNA). - Jed Observation drives theory, always. I don't get this Gibbs character denying that. He may have a right to an opinion, but the logical underpinnings of the scientific method are facts of the process, not opinions! The way it should be couched, imo, is, here is the observations, here is the FACTS of what is happening. Care to help us come up with the theory?
Re: [Vo]:Gibbs does not understand that physics are empirical
At 06:25 PM 12/30/2012, Jed Rothwell wrote: Suppose Gibbs were to read EPRI's paper, or Gerischer where he says: there is now undoubtedly overwhelming indications that nuclear processes take place in the metal alloys. Suppose Gibbs were to say: I get it. I understand why Gerischer reached that conclusion. He believes that tritium alone is proof of a nuclear reaction and you do not need a theory to justify that conclusion. However, I disagree. I say that observation alone is not enough, and you can't be sure cold fusion is a real nuclear effect until you explain it with a theory. Why speculate that he would say something stupid like that? I would say: Okay, that violates the scientific method as taught in textbooks. However, you have a right to your opinion, and many important scientists such as Huizenga agreed with you. You should understand the other person's point of view. Know what it is you are disagreeing with. Yes. Now please demonstrate this skill. Huizenga's book is truly embarrassing. But he was an old man, and, unfortunately, probably losing it. He was like a broken record, he kept repeating the same thing over and over. Nevertheless, I personally prefer to commend him for honestly noting the importance of the Miles experiment. He did not attempt to impeach Miles or his methods, and he honestly stated why he thought that Miles would not be confirmed. No gammas, which reveals, in two words, the basic error that he -- with many others -- was making. He was judging an unknown reaction by noting that it was not a known reaction. Which we already knew. Getting back to the history of DNA, at Google books I am reading a book written in 1916 about genetics, describing the subject accurately in great detail: Genetics and eugenics: a text-book for students of biology . . . by William Ernest Castle and Gregor Mendel. The author frequently points out that he has no physical theory to explain any of this, and it is entirely observational. He can prove there are genes, and that some are on one chromosome and some on another, and so on. He shows all of this by observation and logic alone. This is how science used to be done. No one in 1916 would demand a theory; i.e. physical evidence of encoded genetic information (DNA). That's correct. Who, here, is demanding a theory? Gibbs has noted that lack of theory is a problem. That applies only in certain narrow areas, but he's not *wrong*. It's a problem! It has, as you have said, Jed, nothing to do with science. We can have science on a topic, with no theory as to mechanism (which is what this boils down to, there *is* theory as to effect, confirmed, verified, and almost certainly correct.)
Re: [Vo]:Gibbs does not understand that physics are empirical
leaking pen itsat...@gmail.com wrote: Observation drives theory, always. I don't get this Gibbs character denying that. I do. He and many leading skeptics demand a testable theory before they will believe the results. J. Piel, the late editor of the Scientific American told me that any result that cannot be explained by theory is pathological. He said that if the precise physical mechanism is not fully understood, that makes it Langmuir's pathological science: http://lenr-canr.org/AppealandSciAm.pdf I am sure he meant that. I have heard the same thing countless times from Huizenga and others like him. This is not a controversial point of view among opponents of cold fusion. It is no surprise that Gibbs agrees with them. Naturally, everyone in the field would like to have a theory. No one denies the value of a theory. The issue is whether lack of theory is a legitimate criterion to reject results, or even downplay them; i.e. to say, these results would be more believable if you could explain them. An old fashioned scientist such as Schwinger, Bockris or Gerischer would say no. Piel, Huizenga and others say yes. There is a huge gap between the two camps. The textbooks used to support our side. I have not read a science textbook since the 1960s so I do not know what they say nowadays. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Gibbs does not understand that physics are empirical
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: However, I disagree. I say that observation alone is not enough, and you can't be sure cold fusion is a real nuclear effect until you explain it with a theory. Why speculate that he would say something stupid like that? Because I have heard it countless times from Piel, Huizenga and Many Distinguished Scientists, including several of the ones on the 2004 DoE panel, and most of the Jasons. This is a widely held point of view. Also because that is what Gibbs is saying when he repeatedly demands a testable theory. Why does he need a theory? Bockris et al. say that with or without a theory cold fusion is definitely real and revolutionary. They say the performance alone proves that it may become a practical source of energy. A theory would not bolster those facts, or make them more certain. So why ask for one, unless you agree with Piel that any finding not explained by theory is pathological? You should understand the other person's point of view. Know what it is you are disagreeing with. Yes. Now please demonstrate this skill. I understand Piel's letter! It is unequivocal. He and his successors said the same thing many times subsequently. I understand Huizenga's book, and the 2004 panel comments to the same effect. Please understand: these people mean what they say. They reject any finding not explained by theory. Huizenga rejects any finding that conflicts with theory. He could not have said it more clearly: Furthermore, if the claimed excess heat exceeds that possible by other conventional processes (chemical, mechanical, etc.), one must conclude that an error has been made in measuring the excess heat. Huizenga's book is truly embarrassing. Not to the ERAB and the DoE! He wrote exactly what they asked him to write. They agree completely, to this day. Ask any official at the DoE. But he was an old man, and, unfortunately, probably losing it. He was like a broken record, he kept repeating the same thing over and over. I met him a few years after he wrote that. He signed my copy of the book. He was still at the peak of cognitive health. He was, after all, a distinguished scientist, and a good candidate to lead an important panel of inquiry. He was no fool, and not in decline. The only time I ever saw him uncomfortable or unassertive was when the people from Amoco showed him their results. He turned green and fled the room! It is a fond memory. He, Piel, Robert Park and others told me exactly what he wrote in the book. Chapter and verse. They told that to large audiences at the APS, and the audience stood up, applauded, and cheered. This is NOT a controversial point of view. I am not misinterpreting it. Huizenga et al. could not say it more clearly. They sincerely believe that any experimental result which conflicts with established nuclear theory must be wrong. They believe that no statement about nature which cannot be fully explained by theory is pathological science. You should take them at their word. Don't assume they agree with you or they have some hidden meaning in mind. They mean exactly what they say. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Gibbs does not understand that physics are empirical
It is unfortunate that these guys demand a verified theory before being content to accept the lab results. I think this is a part of human nature that many are unwilling to put their reputations on the line unless the evidence is iron clad in every dimension. The lab proof is solid, but they are still hanging up upon the theory and I suspect this will continue to be true until someone places one within their hands that they can directly measure with little effort and absolutely can not be faked. But, don't be surprised if they continue to hedge their bets. As long as the main line physics experts keep saying it is not possible, these folks are not going to take a chance. It is as simple as that. If Rossi or some other organization places a device into the public arena, eventually even the most skeptic among them will concede without a good theory. In that case the skeptic physics community will have no choice. Dave -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Dec 30, 2012 9:01 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Gibbs does not understand that physics are empirical leaking pen itsat...@gmail.com wrote: Observation drives theory, always. I don't get this Gibbs character denying that. I do. He and many leading skeptics demand a testable theory before they will believe the results. J. Piel, the late editor of the Scientific American told me that any result that cannot be explained by theory is pathological. He said that if the precise physical mechanism is not fully understood, that makes it Langmuir's pathological science: http://lenr-canr.org/AppealandSciAm.pdf I am sure he meant that. I have heard the same thing countless times from Huizenga and others like him. This is not a controversial point of view among opponents of cold fusion. It is no surprise that Gibbs agrees with them. Naturally, everyone in the field would like to have a theory. No one denies the value of a theory. The issue is whether lack of theory is a legitimate criterion to reject results, or even downplay them; i.e. to say, these results would be more believable if you could explain them. An old fashioned scientist such as Schwinger, Bockris or Gerischer would say no. Piel, Huizenga and others say yes. There is a huge gap between the two camps. The textbooks used to support our side. I have not read a science textbook since the 1960s so I do not know what they say nowadays. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Gibbs does not understand that physics are empirical
I wrote: The only time I ever saw him uncomfortable or unassertive was when the people from Amoco showed him their results. He turned green and fled the room! It is a fond memory. I mean this paper, presented at ICCF4: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Lautzenhiscoldfusion.pdf Huizenga refused to discuss these results or anything to the authors. I am not suggesting he actually believed these results. My guess is that he was thinking: Shit, another one! From a major lab! Will these people never stop this nonsense? It was fun watching him squirm, but I did not get the impression he doubted his own convictions. To him, Amoco was More Trouble. More pathological crap. As he said in the book, his job as a the DoE hatchet-man was to get rid of these findings and kill the field as quickly as possible before any money was wasted on it. I am sure he was sincere when he said that cold fusion cannot be real, and theory overrules experiments. He was not dishonest about his beliefs. He was somewhat dishonest with his political tactics. He played hardball. For example, when Miles told him he had no positive results, Huizenga added that to the ERAB report. Before the report was published, Miles contacted him again and said he was now seeing excess heat. Huizenga did not change the report. To take another example, Huizenga said that if someone detected helium commensurate with heat he might change his views. Miles and others did detect helium, and they told Huizenga that, in person, at ICCF4 and elsewhere. He never acknowledged it. I am sure he did not believe it, any more than he believed the excess heat and tritium from Amoco. I am sure no prominent skeptic believes any of these results. You would have to be crazy to secretly think these results are real, but to go on in public, year after year, accusing the researches of fraud and incompetence. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Gibbs does not understand that physics are empirical
David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: It is unfortunate that these guys demand a verified theory before being content to accept the lab results. I think this is a part of human nature that many are unwilling to put their reputations on the line unless the evidence is iron clad in every dimension. I agree. It is also human nature to crave an explanation before we believe something. To demand an explanation is unscientific, but it is the norm. Read the political pundits and you will see all kinds of improbable ad hoc explanations for events. Medieval philosophers had an explanation for every aspect of reality, usually symbolic and religious. Nothing in creation was there by accident or coincidence. Everything had a deeper meaning. As long as the main line physics experts keep saying it is not possible, these folks are not going to take a chance. It is as simple as that. I am sure that is true. Unfortunately, the mainline physics experts know nothing about cold fusion and they refuse to look. If Rossi or some other organization places a device into the public arena, eventually even the most skeptic among them will concede without a good theory. In that case the skeptic physics community will have no choice. That is true too. In that sense, I think we all agree with Gibbs that a demonstration device would decide the issue. Every indication I have seen from Rossi, tells me that he knows that. He is doing all he can to avoid putting a device in the public arena for that reason. He does not want most people to believe his claims. He wants a small number of powerful, wealthy supporters to believe him, and he wants the rest of the world to think he is crazy, or a fraud. I think he is doing this because his IP is tenuous. That was the strategy pursued by Jim Patterson and Jim Reding. That is what they told me. We don't want anyone to believe us other than the people in Motorola. Many other inventors throughout history have used this strategy. It usually fails, but inventors tend to be ignorant of history and bad at business strategy, so they keep trying to pull this off. I have spoken with some of Rossi's powerful supporters, who confirmed his claims independently. They approve of his strategy of keeping a low profile and trying to convince the world that he is nuts. I understand why Rossi is doing this, but I find this strategy annoying. I expect it will fail disastrously leaving Rossi with nothing. Powerful people will rip him off. Or worse, he will take the technology to the grave, the way Patterson, Case and so many others have done. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Gibbs does not understand that physics are empirical
Jed, I can get requiring a testable theory. I just fail to see how, This process causes X amount of heat above what goes in to come out. is not a testable theory. No, modern science books still teach it the right way. My sister is taking high school science, and her book has it as Hypothesis, experiment, observe, analyze, confirm. Nothing about a model. Doing a little research, I'm finding a lot of info on operational scientific method, which requires a testable model. I notice a lot of the descriptions seem to add monetization or analysis of increased efficiency of production as part of the analysis step. Seems like something that would get taught to engineers focusing more on the practical side of r and d, rather than pure scientific investigations? Alex On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 7:00 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: leaking pen itsat...@gmail.com wrote: Observation drives theory, always. I don't get this Gibbs character denying that. I do. He and many leading skeptics demand a testable theory before they will believe the results. J. Piel, the late editor of the Scientific American told me that any result that cannot be explained by theory is pathological. He said that if the precise physical mechanism is not fully understood, that makes it Langmuir's pathological science: http://lenr-canr.org/AppealandSciAm.pdf I am sure he meant that. I have heard the same thing countless times from Huizenga and others like him. This is not a controversial point of view among opponents of cold fusion. It is no surprise that Gibbs agrees with them. Naturally, everyone in the field would like to have a theory. No one denies the value of a theory. The issue is whether lack of theory is a legitimate criterion to reject results, or even downplay them; i.e. to say, these results would be more believable if you could explain them. An old fashioned scientist such as Schwinger, Bockris or Gerischer would say no. Piel, Huizenga and others say yes. There is a huge gap between the two camps. The textbooks used to support our side. I have not read a science textbook since the 1960s so I do not know what they say nowadays. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Gibbs does not understand that physics are empirical
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: Nevertheless, I personally prefer to commend him for honestly noting the importance of the Miles experiment. He did not attempt to impeach Miles or his methods, and he honestly stated why he thought that Miles would not be confirmed. Oh come now. We are talking about John Huizenga here. Don't be a sap. Don't be a goody-two-shoes. Huizenga was a hatchet man appointed by the DoE to crush this field. He bragged about that in his book! The man knew perfectly well that Miles and others had detected helium. I saw Miles tell him that at ICCF4. Huizenga lied though his teeth, repeatedly, about this and about every other aspect of cold fusion. He knew about Miles heat results even before the ERAB report, and he deliberately said nothing. He covered up, distorted, lied and did whatever else it took to win. I do not mean that Huizenga secretly believed Miles. Of course he did not! He, along with Robert Park and others said that the results are mistakes and that all cold fusion researchers are liars, frauds and criminals. I am sure they believe that, with all their hearts. And all their pocketbooks. His purpose was to preserve funding for high energy physics, and to destroy the reputations and careers of anyone who got in his way. People like him are a dime a dozen in billion-dollar budget academia. They run the plasma fusion program, and they are responsible for the many Hubble telescope fiascos. (See the book Hubble Wars.) This is about money and power. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Gibbs does not understand that physics are empirical
leaking pen itsat...@gmail.com wrote: I can get requiring a testable theory. I just fail to see how, This process causes X amount of heat above what goes in to come out. is not a testable theory. Sure, if you call that a theory, then cold fusion has it in spades. I don't mean to quibble about terminology, but I think most people would call that a claim rather than a theory. The EPRI paper I quoted is a good example: EPRI PERSPECTIVE This work confirms the claims of Fleischmann, Pons, and Hawkins of the production of excess heat in deuterium-loaded palladium cathodes at levels too large for chemical transformation. . . . When the skeptics say they want a testable theory, I think they mean a nuclear theory. They will not believe it until you can explain it in the same detail we can explain plasma fusion in the sun, or uranium fission. Extreme skeptics such as Huizenga reject the findings absolutely and a priori. They are certain that nuclear theory is correct and the theory proves that cold fusion is impossible. This is analogous to me saying that no person can be strong enough to leap over the Empire State Building because of the limits of biological muscles. Huizenga et al. say that we can be certain that any heat result, or helium, or tritium is an experimental error or fraud. They do not specify what error it might be, so their objection is not falsifiable, but they do not observe the niceties of academic debate. No, modern science books still teach it the right way. My sister is taking high school science, and her book has it as Hypothesis, experiment, observe, analyze, confirm. Nothing about a model. I think they pay lip service to it, but they do not observe these customs in academic science. As I said, it is more a religion these days. I should have said it is a business. A big business, raking in billions of dollars from Uncle Sam. Sweep aside the blather from Huizenga and Park and you will see that is the issue here. It isn't about theory or experiments. It is about funding. As Stan Szpak says, scientists believe whatever you pay them to believe. It is unfortunate that modern science is so expensive. Back in 1900 people did groundbreaking experiments on a shoestring. Nowadays, even a cold fusion experiment costs more than most middle class people save in a lifetime. Modern instruments are wonderful, but expensive! - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Gibbs does not understand that physics are empirical
At 09:22 PM 12/30/2012, Jed Rothwell wrote: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: However, I disagree. I say that observation alone is not enough, and you can't be sure cold fusion is a real nuclear effect until you explain it with a theory. Why speculate that he would say something stupid like that? Because I have heard it countless times from Piel, Huizenga and Many Distinguished Scientists, including several of the ones on the 2004 DoE panel, and most of the Jasons. This is a widely held point of view. That does not mean that Gibbs holds it! Also because that is what Gibbs is saying when he repeatedly demands a testable theory. Had he demanded a testable theory you'd be right. Jed, he did not, and he denied doing it, and I'm confirming that he didn't demand it. Why does he need a theory? He doesn't. He did not say that he did. Bockris et al. say that with or without a theory cold fusion is definitely real and revolutionary. They say the performance alone proves that it may become a practical source of energy. A theory would not bolster those facts, or make them more certain. So why ask for one, unless you agree with Piel that any finding not explained by theory is pathological? He did not ask for one. Jed, you are reacting to ghosts. You should understand the other person's point of view. Know what it is you are disagreeing with. Yes. Now please demonstrate this skill. I understand Piel's letter! This was not about Piel. I did not deny that people demanded theory. I explicitly acknowledged it, and that still continues with some. It is unequivocal. He and his successors said the same thing many times subsequently. I understand Huizenga's book, and the 2004 panel comments to the same effect. Please understand: these people mean what they say. They reject any finding not explained by theory. Huizenga rejects any finding that conflicts with theory. He could not have said it more clearly: Furthermore, if the claimed excess heat exceeds that possible by other conventional processes (chemical, mechanical, etc.), one must conclude that an error has been made in measuring the excess heat. Huizenga's book is truly embarrassing. Not to the ERAB and the DoE! He wrote exactly what they asked him to write. They agree completely, to this day. Ask any official at the DoE. Maybe. The DoE may easily be in bed with the hot fusion projects, it was in 1989. So? Huizenga's book is *still* embarrassing, and is more and more visible that way. But he was an old man, and, unfortunately, probably losing it. He was like a broken record, he kept repeating the same thing over and over. I met him a few years after he wrote that. He signed my copy of the book. He was still at the peak of cognitive health. He was, after all, a distinguished scientist, and a good candidate to lead an important panel of inquiry. He was no fool, and not in decline. The only time I ever saw him uncomfortable or unassertive was when the people from Amoco showed him their results. He turned green and fled the room! It is a fond memory. The book -- and that account -- are evidence of decline. Really, the book is an embarrassment. It's the worst written book of any of the skeptical works -- by far. Poorly written, highly repetitive. Self-contradictory, etc. I've spent time with the senile. They often have heavily ingrained habits that can make them appear quite normal, friendly, etc. What you saw with the Amoco situation would be how he responded when he couldn't understand what was happening. He'd flee. He, Piel, Robert Park and others told me exactly what he wrote in the book. Chapter and verse. They told that to large audiences at the APS, and the audience stood up, applauded, and cheered. Not surprised. Jed, this has *nothing to do with what I wrote about.* This is NOT a controversial point of view. I am not misinterpreting it. Huizenga et al. could not say it more clearly. They sincerely believe that any experimental result which conflicts with established nuclear theory must be wrong. They believe that no statement about nature which cannot be fully explained by theory is pathological science. You should take them at their word. Don't assume they agree with you or they have some hidden meaning in mind. They mean exactly what they say. They did, I assume. And this has *nothing to do with Gibbs.* He's a writer, and seems to be making an effort to understand the field. It will take him time. Your activity is forming, for him, an impression of what workers in the field are like. It's not helping.
Re: [Vo]:Gibbs does not understand that physics are empirical
At 09:58 PM 12/30/2012, Jed Rothwell wrote: To take another example, Huizenga said that if someone detected helium commensurate with heat he might change his views. Miles and others did detect helium, and they told Huizenga that, in person, at ICCF4 and elsewhere. He never acknowledged it. I am sure he did not believe it, any more than he believed the excess heat and tritium from Amoco. Jed, I suggest you take a look at the second edition of Huizenga's book. Do you have a copy? He explicitly acknowledges Miles and the importance of Miles' work. Okay, maybe I see what you are saying. He never aknowledged that incident. Huizenga did acknowledge the early helium work from Miles, as I recall, but it was the later work, showing heat/helium correlation, that Huizenga noted as an amazing result, that would solve a major mystery of cold fusion if confirmed. So Huizenga was, in his second edition, confirming his (earlier?) comment. To my knowledge, he never did review the confirmations. As far as I know, he may simply have stopped following the field. He may have attended conferences as a social activity. He is still alive, apparently, but in what condition?
Re: [Vo]:Gibbs does not understand that physics are empirical
On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 10:26 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: It is unfortunate that these guys demand a verified theory before being content to accept the lab results. I think this is a part of human nature that many are unwilling to put their reputations on the line unless the evidence is iron clad in every dimension. I agree. It is also human nature to crave an explanation before we believe something. To demand an explanation is unscientific, but it is the norm. Patience is required, but I don't think it is unscientific to insist on an explanation, otherwise we may as well give up all notions of progress. What is unscientific is to accept and promolgate rationalisations that serve to explain away anomalous findings or problems within theories. Read the political pundits and you will see all kinds of improbable ad hoc explanations for events. Medieval philosophers had an explanation for every aspect of reality, usually symbolic and religious. Nothing in creation was there by accident or coincidence. Everything had a deeper meaning. It is only a problem when the ways of finding meaning in the world become fixed and rigid. I don't think the answer to the dogma of the Holy Roman Empire or any other social dogma is a world view based on the absence of meaning, i.e chance. Harry
Re: [Vo]:Gibbs does not understand that physics are empirical
At 11:01 PM 12/30/2012, Jed Rothwell wrote: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: Nevertheless, I personally prefer to commend him for honestly noting the importance of the Miles experiment. He did not attempt to impeach Miles or his methods, and he honestly stated why he thought that Miles would not be confirmed. Oh come now. We are talking about John Huizenga here. Don't be a sap. Don't be a goody-two-shoes. Huizenga was a hatchet man appointed by the DoE to crush this field. He bragged about that in his book! Got a citation for that claim, Jed? I'd rather not waste time scouring that mess for it. The man knew perfectly well that Miles and others had detected helium. I saw Miles tell him that at ICCF4. Huizenga lied though his teeth, repeatedly, about this and about every other aspect of cold fusion. He covers the helium evidence in the first edition. He doesn't ignore it. He does err, for sure. He treats confirmations as if they were original reports. He knew about Miles heat results even before the ERAB report, and he deliberately said nothing. We actually don't know that. We know that Miles called and left a message. We don't know what happened to the message. Jed, if you have evidence for what you say, please, provide it. Tell us how you know what you claim. Or are you just making assumptions. He covered up, distorted, lied and did whatever else it took to win. Or he was losing it. Alternative explanations. The DoE review was definitely designed to quickly dispose of cold fusion. The real problem was that it wasn't done with balance, and that the DoE did not follow the recommendations of the review. If we have the history right, Ramsey had to threaten to resign to get a decent report at all. I do not mean that Huizenga secretly believed Miles. Of course he did not! He didn't believe Miles, and he says why. No gammas. That was a sign of rigid thinking. Huizenga never shows any hint, that I've seen, that he realized the nature of the problem. He certainly wasn't the only one to fall into that trap. He expected that Miles would not be confirmed, and, unfortunately, that was a fairly common characteristic of cold fusion reports, it is still often true. But you aren't getting this, Jed. Huizenga acknowledged the significance of Miles' work if confirmed. That's far more than, say, Park. He, along with Robert Park and others said that the results are mistakes and that all cold fusion researchers are liars, frauds and criminals. I am sure they believe that, with all their hearts. And all their pocketbooks. Park has sometimes modified his stridence on this. He doesn't actually say what you claim here. These people are not scientists, though, not really. They absolutely were not careful about claims. Parks book is much better written than Huizenga, but it's still a farrago of stuff, extended pseudoskeptical rambling without any reocgnition of the real problems of exploring the frontiers of science, no balance. His purpose was to preserve funding for high energy physics, That would be the purpose of the person who called for the ERAB Panel and designed the charge. Important purpose, wouldn't you say. Many institutions and careers dependent on that flow of cash. Do you expect something different from government? I do, in fact, I expect concern for things like that, but *also* provision for the long-term. It appears that nobody held the DoE's feet to the fire for not following their own recommendations in 1989 and 2004. That will change. and to destroy the reputations and careers of anyone who got in his way. Park. Not necessarily Huizenga, but I'm not sure. People like him are a dime a dozen in billion-dollar budget academia. They run the plasma fusion program, and they are responsible for the many Hubble telescope fiascos. (See the book Hubble Wars.) This is about money and power. Those stories exist. Now, Jed. Gibbs. What the hell does all this have to do with the subject header, which you created. Gibbs is a real person, participating here, and you are libelling him. Why? He did not say what you claim, and his defense was essentially that: I didn't say that. You are stuck. Why?
