On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 8:38 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 10:33 PM, Mary Yugo <maryyu...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> Yes, I think most experts would say they do. >>> >> >> That I would like to know more about. It should be easy to show -- add >> the catalyst and get evidence for a nuclear reaction namely neutrons and/or >> radiation. >> > > This test will not work. Cold fusion does not produce neutrons and it > seldom produces radiation. I have told you that before. If you do not > believe me, please review the literature on your own. > Well that's inconvenient, isn't it? So we just look for anomalous heat and nothing else? How about "products of reaction"? You know -- like the ones that were *not* found when a sample of Rossi's "ash" analyzed in Sweden turned out to have the same ratio of copper isotopes as is found in ordinary mined copper? > I think most readers here are familiar with the literature. Please do not > make assertions about cold fusion that all readers here know to be > incorrect. This is not a beginner's forum. Beginners should read the > introductory papers by Storms at LENR-CANR.org, or the first chapter of my > book. > Please don't be patronizing. I already admitted I know little about the whole field of cold fusion and I do not have the time to study it until it is robustly proven and much better accepted by "mainstream" science publications. I do follow Rossi because the claim is incredibly extravagant, the style is flamboyant yet furtive and evasive, and nothing the guy does makes sense. That's interesting and fun for me. Run the same way without the catalyst and the evidence of nuclear >> reaction disappears. Someone has done that? Can you provide a link or >> citation? >> > > Of course. Hundreds of researchers have done that. Typically they run Pt > instead of Pd, or H instead of D (with Pd). If you did not know that, you > need to read the literature. > Sorry but I looked at a couple of papers your referred me early on in our discussions and I couldn't understand them. There was no clear plot of anomalous energy vs time for long period and high outputs. Anything else claimed, at the moment, sorry but I have no interest. Please avoid trying to read my mind. I would be totally, completely and >> unequivocally delighted if cold fusion turns out to be feasible and >> substantial. >> > > I doubt that. Every expert I know -- except for Britz -- who has looked > carefully at the evidence was convince that cold fusion is real. You say it > is not real. It is difficult not to read your mind. You almost force me to > suppose: > You can doubt my veracity but unless you're psychic, you won't know what I'm thinking. And nobody as far as I know has ever demonstrated psychic powers. So basically, you're just calling me liar. Nice. I'll tell you again: I fervently hope cold fusion is real and gets robustly developed. I will jump up and down with joy the day it happens. Even if it's Rossi that does it although I will still dislike the guy for all the garbage he's done while developing it. You are no expert despite the fact that you say you have worked with > calorimeters. I doubt that. > No expert in what? I helped to design a family of specialized Seebeck effect calorimeters similar or identical to the device you bought for Storms. I didn't do the basic design of the sensing elements -- I was involved in other aspects of design and testing for end users. I don't know calorimeters? Calorimetry? Of course I do. Very very well. With all your references to boilers and HVAC systems and the similarities you suggest between that technology and what is needed to test Rossi's machines, I am starting to doubt that you understand calorimetry though at one time, I thought you did. OR > > You refuse to look at the evidence, despite all the effort you put into > writing these messages and campaigning against cold fusion on the Internet. > Once and for all, I am not in any way, shape or form campaigning against cold fusion ANYWHERE. Show me exactly where I am or where I did and exactly how I did it or please don't mention that again. I am campaigning for proper testing and proper critiques of Rossi's machines and Rossi's tests and claims instead of the fawning acceptance and undeserved praise and adulation he has gotten from too many people without proper evidence. If you want to raise objections to that, please feel free to justify it. It seems extraordinary to me that someone who expends so much effort on the > subject knows practically nothing about cold fusion. In this very message > you claim that cold fusion produces neutrons and radiation, even though I > have told you many times that they do not. Either you are > being disingenuous or you cannot bring yourself to study or remember * > anything* about this subject, even the ABC's that have been common > knowledge for 22 years! > Sorry. I was under the impression that neutrons are expected in many cold fusion reactions. If not, why all the fuss when SPAWAR said (probably erroneously) that they had detected them on CR39 detectors? Contrary to your assumption, I don't spend a lot of effort on cold fusion. I have expended a reasonable amount, first trying to understand how Rossi's claims could be justified and more recently insisting that they be properly tested before the man is treated like some sort of scientific savior and saint. Have you read his blog? People write him about how he will get not one but two Nobel prizes. > A person who spends years writing about something yet who does not know > the first thing about it in denial. Strongly in denial. That is a sign of a > person who does not want to know. Who cannot face facts. That is > not characteristic of someone who would be "delighted" to be proven wrong. > If you were the least bit delighted at that prospect, you would read the > literature to find out if there is some tantalizing hope the claims might > be true. You would acquire some basic knowledge of the phenomenon. Instead, > you are aggressively ignorant, to the point where you repeatedly ask > questions about things that everyone knows. > The literature I've seen is very convoluted, unclear and tedious. I want some robust results in a form that make them clear and obvious. I thought that's what Rossi had originally but any thoughts in that direction were rapidly dissipated when I looked closely. > Robert Park is the same way, by the way. He brags to people that he has > never read a single paper on cold fusion. I am sure he has read nothing, > because his books and his columns about it are grossly ignorant. > I don't brag about not reading much about cold fusion. If I had nothing else to do, it would be on my list even though the little I saw I either didn't grasp or it didn't impress me. I don't know much about Park. I know more about Randi and have worked with him on a few projects (not Rossi though). He is abrasive and he can be petulant but he sure makes some fantastic contributions to the defeat of "woo". As for destroying reputations, nothing restores them more than a few good >> experiments with convincing results and reliable data subject to >> replication by others. >> > > That is nonsense. Hundreds of impeccable, irrefutable cold fusion > experiments have been published and replicated. That has had no effect on > public opinion. Park says he will never read any of those papers because he > is sure they are nonsense, lies and fraud. That's what he told McKubre, and > me. Heck, *you* have not read them, or you have forgotten everything they > say. > Now isn't that strange? Park won't read some papers therefore hundreds of impeccable and irrefutable papers are ignored by everyone everywhere except enthusiasts? How does that work? Do you really think nobody but a small body of adherents wants inexpensive bountiful power free of oil cartels and Arab sheiks? When Park, or the people at the DoE refuse to look at the evidence, they > cannot be swayed. > So go to other people and ignore DoE and Park. Who cares about them. Get funding from rich people and foundations if you have to. If your stuff is convincing, they'll give. I think you complain too much. If cold fusion doesn't get money, maybe there is a valid reason. I don't know that there is but I'm guessing it's true. > The history of science and technology is chock full of people who refused > to look. > Indeed. Next time you get a chance, take a particularly good look at Andrea Rossi and his methodology. Our arguments go far afield from that issue and it's the main issue that interests me along with execrable reporting by Craig Brown, Sterling Allan and Hank Mills that seriously needs to be addressed.
