At 07:58 PM 9/16/2012, Terry Blanton wrote:
On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 9:15 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
<a...@lomaxdesign.com> wrote:
> It's simply the order in which the technician picked up and tested the
> samples. The exact test method isn't given. From what Defkalion has said,
> apparently, they ran at least 25 samples that day.
>
> There are a host of questions.
>
> The data and its intepretation are far from clear.
You appear to be a supporter of LENR; but, what is more important,
your pride or the truth?
My pride is of no importance. Why do you ask?
I've come to the conclusion that LENR is real, specifically, that the
Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect is nuclear in origin and that it is
extremely likely to be some form of deuterium fusion, mechanism
unknown, though, as Storms says, there are "plausible theories,"
which means we don't fall down laughing.
My conclusion is rebuttable, but I've been unable to find any cogent
rebuttal. The preponderance of the evidence is clear, and I'm nothing
to be particularly proud of in coming to the conclusion I've stated:
it appears to be the position supported in mainstream journals as of
late, the only problem being that some journals have continued a
long-standing blackout of coverage of the field.
That is unstable, I doubt it will last long. Basically,
Springer-Verlag and Elsevier, the two largest scientific publishers
in the world, are eating the lunch of a few holdouts, by publishing
in the field. Naturwissenschaften published -- it actually invited --
Edmund Storms' review, "Status of cold fusion (2010)." It is not
going to stand without answer forever.
A minor journal, Journal of Environmental Monitoring, published a
review of cold fusion, by Krivit and Marwan, and there was a letter
from Kirt Shanahan in response. There was then a joint response by
most of the major names in the field, demolishing Shanahan's claims,
which didn't take much, they were mostly preposterous. And Shanahan
has complained that the editors wouldn't allow him further response.
The tables have turned.
In case people haven't noticed. I think it rather likely that there
have been submissions of skeptical papers to journals, but they did
not have adequate quality to be published. After a time, Richard
Garwin's position, as expressed to CBS News, gets a tad old: "They
must be making some mistake measuring the input power."
Which would absolutely fail to explain heat/helium. Heat/helium, for
anyone who was paying attention (which doesn't include most of the
physics community), blew the skeptical position out of the water,
once Miles was confirmed, all that was left was pseudoskepticism.
There is not this level of evidence for nickel-hydrogen reactions.
I'm sympathetic to reports, but am quite wary of jumping to
conclusions about them. Obviously, NiH, if it works, is likely to be
far more practical than PdD. The latter is, at this point, a
scientific curiosity. Maybe commercial applications will eventually
appear for it, but a lot of money has been spent trying, without
result. NiH has only recently begun to get serious attention, and
most of this has been commercially afflicted.
Dr. Storms thinks that both PdD and NiH involve the same process.
That's actually an assumption of his, though, it's not clearly
demonstrated. (He is explicit about this.) I would not reject a PdD
process proposal merely because it wouldn't work with NiH, nor the
reverse. I consider that no assumption based on PdD research can be
taken as applying automatically to NiH work.
And, absolutely, we don't know the ash. The Defkalion paper gives us
some clues, perhaps, but not the data we would need to have any kind
of certainty, and I don't find even reasonable surmise very possible from it.
I've suggested what kind of data would be more likely to allow that,
but we are not likely to get that data from Defkalion unless they
change their approach.
