On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 12:06 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Mary Yugo <maryyu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> Robust and credible results would not require anyone to read long and >> convoluted papers numbering in the thousands. >> > > So you are looking for short, well-written, and highly convincing papers? > Most people I know would say these two fit the bill: > > http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/WillFGtritiumgen.pdf > > This describes the work at the National Cold Fusion Institute, which was > established by the state of Utah. In the mass media, this institute has > been widely portrayed as a waste of money and a mistake, but in fact, under > Will's leadership, it produced definitive results. The work was superb. It > was worth every penny. The state of Utah did a great thing. I hope it is > recognized someday. > > http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHisothermala.pdf > > In my opinion, these two papers should have convinced every scientist in > the world that cold fusion is real and that it is a nuclear effect. All > opposition to the discovery should have ended when they were published. > > If you find these papers difficult, convoluted or unconvincing, perhaps > the problem is at your end, rather than in the papers. People who know much > more about physics and chemistry than you do, such as Gerischer, found this > work convincing. You should consider the possibility that they are right, > and you are wrong, and you have not put enough effort into studying these > results, or you are incapable of understanding them. > > For that matter, there is no reason to think that important breakthroughs > are inherently easy to understand. Although as it happens I had no > difficulty understanding these two papers, or their importance. I do have > difficulty understanding many other cold fusion papers. Most of the theory > papers are completely over my head. Unlike you, however, I would > *never*dismiss a paper or a discovery because I have difficulty understanding > it. > > Thanks, I'll look. I make a sharp distinction between papers which involve cold fusion theory which I have no idea about and am not going to challenge and those which report calorimetry results which I *do* know about and can evaluate. I can also determine if proper scientific method has most likely been followed. Rossi and Defkalion fail *miserably* in both categories I know about. I do not dimiss discoveries because I don't understand the papers unless I've worked in the field under discussion and *still* don't understand the papers. Otherwise, I look for proper replication with suitable controls and calibrations -- all are lacking in the Rossi/Defkalion story. Take for example the neutrino faster than light story. I find it interesting and amusing but I am not about to chime in on it-- I have no way of evaluating the claims for myself so I read the various experts and chuckle a bit about the interesting controversy. But I fully understand what Rossi and Defkalion should do -- I could do the experiments myself. And they have done nothing conclusive to prove that their device is real and they repeatedly declined offers of help from friendly sources to do it right. That I understand and it's not encouraging.
