Mitchell Swartz wrote:
At 04:13 PM 9/16/2005, Edmund Storms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Now people exist on a spectrum
from true believer to pathological sceptic to
form a voting quorum. The most rewarding ones are those who were dead
against you but change. Now how are you going to bring these people
on board
with what - experiments that only TBs can seem to get right and no
mechanism
to even discuss or communicate your ideas?
Edmund Storms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
"We have repeatable experiments, which have been described in peer
reviewed journals. Dr. Swartz even operated one at ICCF-10 to which
peers were invited. None showed up. As for an explanation, a useful one
would be very great to have. However, explanations generally follow
experiment. In other fields, money is spent observing what happens when
X, Y or Z is done to the system and from the response, a theory is
developed. Unfortunately, these days people get money because they have
a theory and then do X, Y and Z to see if it is correct."
Dr. Storms is inaccurate.
It is NOT true that "Dr. Swartz even operated one at ICCF-10 to which
peers were invited. None showed up". In fact, to the contrary,
during the week long demonstration (which yield circa 290 to 250% excess
heat when compared to an ohmic control), many peers
did show up; more than two hundred on Tuesday afternoon alone! The
demonstration was in the MIT electrical engineering building
and many MIT people came (as well as scores of others).
I apologize if I was misinformed. I was told at the time, and Peter
makes the point in his introduction to the ICCF-10 Proceedings, that
although people from MIT were invited, only a few students showed up.
I'm glad to learn that some did see the demonstration. Did this
experience on their part change the attitude at MIT?
Ed
The demonstration was written up as Swartz. M., "Can a Pd/D2O/Pt Device
be Made Portable to Demonstrate
the Optimal Operating Point?", ICCF-10 (Camb. MA), Proceedings of
ICCF-10, (2003).
Furthermore, scores of people have witnessed the subsequent
demonstrations (which are now in a subsequent 'generation'
of devices). For example, the distinguished Prof. Brian Josephson saw
that same cold fusion cell operated more than a year later
(when it yielded circa 140% excess heat when compared to an ohmic
control).
Who did not show up during that week was the mainstream media. Both the
Boston Globe and Boston Herald were called by the late Dr. Eugene Mallove,
but even though ads were put into the Boston Globe about the
demonstration (by MIT Prof. Hagelstein), the MSM did not come.
So what. More aware and less myopic members of the press DID come both
there and to the recent MIT CF Colloquium.
In any case, as regards ICCF-10, hundreds of peers came, Dr. Storms -
especially on Tuesday afternoon.
We enjoyed discussing physics and engineering with each and every
inquisitive one of them.
Many pictures shown at the LENR and JTP web-sites
http://world.std.com/~mica/jeticcf10demo.html
demonstrate just a glimpse of SOME of these important peers.
Dr. Mitchell Swartz
"Science: Lost in its own mythos, redoubling its efforts when it
has forgotten its aim." - Norma Cenva
========================================================
Cold Fusion Times http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html
The journal of the scientific aspects of loading isotopic fuels into
materials ISSN# 1072-2874
JET Thermal Products http://world.std.com/~mica/jet.html
Working for Safe and More Efficient Heat Products to Serve You
