Ed, On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 10:58 AM, Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com>wrote:
> Mark, I don't know if you read my e-mail or not, but I do not post to > vortex, so this is my way of communicating. > > Jed, is right, the effect has been proven beyond doubt. You are correct > in stating that the effect has not resulted in a useful product yet. My > question is, so what? > So hat?! We have had a number of companies and individuals making significant claims about productizing something that they contend is CF/LENR. Much excitement has been generated about this and many people contend, apparently without much evidence, that we'll have "jam tomorrow." You might be in it just for the science but if CF/LENR can be turned into a product it will be, as many people contend, revolutionary. > What do you propose do do about this? > Er, nothing other than write about it and attempt to figure out who's on to something and who's simply hyping that market for whatever reasons. Rossi is a great example of the problem with the CF/LENR world. He's grandiose, evasive, makes unsubstantiated claims, and generally confuses the picture all the while promising jam tomorrow. > Do you propose to ignore the effect and reject the claims > Nope. And I haven't ignored the phenomena. Indeed, I admit that there appears to be evidence of something remarkable. I just want to find out what's real and what's fake. > or to work at getting enough funding so that the effect can be made useful? > Not my job. > > As for a testable theory, dozens of theories have been proposed to explain > CF. Most are not testable. I have suggested one that provides 12 testable > predictions. What more do you want? > I'd love to see those tests made. > Now, money and time must be provided to make the tests. Are you willing to > encourage such tests? > > Sure, to the extent of writing about them if they're done ... I'm not in the business of fund raising for other people's projects ... I have enough on my plate as it is. That said, if someone with deep pockets should ask me what would be a good outlier project to invest in, I'd definitely tell him or her to talk to Ed Storms. So, what are you doing about getting funding for you or someone else to test your theories? Regards, Mark. > > > On Dec 29, 2012, at 11:07 AM, Mark Gibbs wrote: > > On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 9:11 AM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> FURTHERMORE, the notion that cold fusion results are unconvincing or >> close to the noise is also gross ignorance. People who say this know >> nothing about experimental significance. > > > I never said the results were unconvincing ... as I've written before, > there appears to be something going on but what that something is and a > theory about what causes it is missing. > >> >> The tritium findings alone are definitive. After Storms, Bockris and Will >> published in 1989 and 1990, all doubts about the existence of cold fusion >> were erased. Any scientist who questions this either knows nothing about >> the results, or he is an ignorant fool such as Taubes or Huizenga. This is >> like questioning the existence of radioactivity or X-rays in 1900. >> > > Again, I was talking about testable theories not about observations. > >> >> After Fleischmann and McKubre published their calorimetric data, all >> doubts about the excess heat were put to rest. If you think it might be >> chemical, the way D. Morrison did, you are innumerate. You do not >> appreciate the difference between 1 and 1,700 (the factor by which >> Fleischmann's results exceed the limits of chemistry). >> >> I assert categorically: anyone who questioned these things after 1990 is >> either irrational or an ignorant fool. >> > > Again with the emotionally charged rhetoric. This is the kind of > inappropriate response that allows this list to veer off course into > incivility. > > (snip, snip, snip) > > People are often right about one thing but wrong about another. Or >> objective and careful about one subject, and bigoted fools about another. >> The human mind is not uniform or consistent. >> >> Opinions about the irrationality and inconsistency of the human mind are > not what we're talking about. > > [mg] > > >
