Re: [Vo]:How to present arguments against cold fusion critics
At 06:30 AM 8/11/2011, Jouni Valkonen wrote: Therefore if someone knows some high impact factor journals that has published recent could fusion findings, I would appreciate to have some examples. See http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Cold_fusion/Recent_sources This is a list of journal and academic publications as found in the Britz database. Reviews of the field are shown in bold. The most significant journal to publish a review is Naturwissenschaften. That journal is of an importance commensurable with Scientific American, when I did the research. The pseudoskeptical position has almost entirely disappeared from mainstream journals. There is a little normal skepticism, for example Ludwik Kowalski's criticism of SPAWAR work. I'm aware of other publications of note, for example a textbook on models of the nucleus that treats cold fusion as an experimental reality, recently published by an expert on nuclear models, not some cold fusion believer.
Re: [Vo]:How to present arguments against cold fusion critics
From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, August 12, 2011 3:12:23 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:How to present arguments against cold fusion critics At 06:30 AM 8/11/2011, Jouni Valkonen wrote: Therefore if someone knows some high impact factor journals that has published recent could fusion findings, I would appreciate to have some examples. See http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Cold_fusion/Recent_sources This is a list of journal and academic publications as found in the Britz database. Reviews of the field are shown in bold. The most significant journal to publish a review is Naturwissenschaften. That journal is of an importance commensurable with Scientific American, when I did the research. The pseudoskeptical position has almost entirely disappeared from mainstream journals. There is a little normal skepticism, for example Ludwik Kowalski's criticism of SPAWAR work. I'm aware of other publications of note, for example a textbook on models of the nucleus that treats cold fusion as an experimental reality, recently published by an expert on nuclear models, not some cold fusion believer. Is this it? p. 175 of _Models of the Atomic Nucleus_ http://tinyurl.com/3py89vx Harry
Re: [Vo]:How to present arguments against cold fusion critics
Thanks great many Abd ul-Rahman and also Jed. I presented devastating counter-argument to Finnish pseudoskeptics. That Naturwissenschaften article: Status of Cold-Fusion (Storms 2010) http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEstatusofcoa.pdf was something that might be worthy of reading while I find some time. So special thank you for that! –Jouni 2011/8/12 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com: At 06:30 AM 8/11/2011, Jouni Valkonen wrote: Therefore if someone knows some high impact factor journals that has published recent could fusion findings, I would appreciate to have some examples. See http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Cold_fusion/Recent_sources This is a list of journal and academic publications as found in the Britz database. Reviews of the field are shown in bold. The most significant journal to publish a review is Naturwissenschaften. That journal is of an importance commensurable with Scientific American, when I did the research. The pseudoskeptical position has almost entirely disappeared from mainstream journals. There is a little normal skepticism, for example Ludwik Kowalski's criticism of SPAWAR work. I'm aware of other publications of note, for example a textbook on models of the nucleus that treats cold fusion as an experimental reality, recently published by an expert on nuclear models, not some cold fusion believer.
[Vo]:How to present arguments against cold fusion critics
Hallo! I have discussed on other forum about cold fusion. I have, however some problems with arguments, because those critics used very powerful sounding, but probably false argument, that if cold fusion is real, why it is published on B-rate scientific journals? I tried to explain, that they are not necessary B-rate journals, but respectful and normal scientific publications, where the basic research is published. However presenting this argument is rather difficult, because opposition thinks that only Science and Nature are A-rate journals, and I do not have extensive knowledge on cold fusion research. Therefore if someone knows some high impact factor journals that has published recent could fusion findings, I would appreciate to have some examples. Also I would like to have some advice how to deal with this kind of arguments. Certainly discussing on the sociology of science is rather difficult approach, because sociological arguments require lots of text and they still remain vague and difficult to understand. Although, I think that it is unavoidable, because Science and Nature does not like cold fusion much. Also Science Magazine blundered with bubble fusion, therefore I think that it is extra alerted to publish anything controversial on the field. On the other hand as they make money from scientific breakthroughs, they are eagerly waiting final cold fusion breakthrough. Because cold fusion will sell, a lot! In summary, how do I disproof claim that all cold fusion researchers are crackpotters and all magazines that publish cold fusion are B-rate or less journals? –Jouni
Re: [Vo]:How to present arguments against cold fusion critics
This is a reasonable question, from my point of view as a cold fusion fan, serving as a unqualified scientific layman who has been offering painstaking, objective reviews of cold fusion papers since December, 1996 -- specializing in looking at all the common sense, nitty gritty details in the papers. Publication in any journal is not the issue now, but publication in a blog with full details and sharing of all public feedback without editing or censorship on the same blog, of any experiment that always finds some anomaly of excess heat, radiations, transmutations, and large isotopic shifts, however humble the finding, that is independently reproduced by at least one other lab and reported fully on the same blog, would be enough to lead to more replications by other labs, and accelerating progress from the fully shared public feedback. Any such blog would be a scientific journal. It is time to stop the biased, self-defeating practice of labeling and excluding participation of critics by calling them pathological -- if anyone who chooses to be a prominent player in public discussions wants to encourage participation by a wide spectrum of motivated, qualified other players. It is up to each player to maintain a high level of courtesy and clarity, for the huge mutual benefit for humanity. Within mutual service, Rich Murray rmfor...@gmail.com 505-819-7388
Re: [Vo]:How to present arguments against cold fusion critics
Jouni Valkonen wrote: In summary, how do I disproof claim that all cold fusion researchers are crackpotters and all magazines that publish cold fusion are B-rate or less journals? If those are the best arguments your opponent can come up with, they have lost the debate. There is no point to arguing with someone who thinks Julian Schwinger or Martin Fleischmann are crackpots, or J. Electroanal. Chem. is a B-rate journal for a paper on electrochemistry. Anyway, some responses to such such arguments are compiled here: http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/293wikipedia.html http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/%7Ekowalski/cf/293wikipedia.html - Jed
