Andrew Meulenberg <mules...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Do we get a chance to see what other projects were proposed (at least > titles)? It may be that these eight were the best of a poor selection. > I did not see any list of proposed projects. Perhaps there was one? I was not following the story closely. Someone on the "Teeming Partners" list told me he applied for that list, but he never applied for a grant, because he is not qualified. I saw the application form. It was far too complex for an individual researcher such as Ed Storms to fill out. You would have to have a staff and probably a lawyer or two. It was the sort of thing only a big national lab or university could handle. Someone else commented that the DoE goal was to emphasize nuclear measurements and downplay heat. I don't recall the DoE saying that, but it sounds like the kind of thing they would say, and it describes the projects they selected. That is a stupid policy because "heat is the principal signature of the reaction" (Fleischmann). If you don't have heat, you don't have cold fusion, so there is no point to looking for anything else. The evidence they seem most interested in is neutrons. That's probably backwards. Neutrons indicate there is no cold fusion reaction. I think they are often caused by fractofusion, which is a prosaic phonomenon. Suppose you are doing a bulk-Pd experiment. Fractofusion indicates the material is fracturing from high loading, which means it probably will not produce the cold fusion effect. The neutrons are telling you that the experiment is not working. The only way you can tell it is working is to detect heat or tritium, and if you do, it is likely there will be no fractofusion and no neutrons.
