At 08:39 PM 12/30/2012, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <<mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.com>a...@lomaxdesign.com> wrote:
First of all, the point to the Reifenschweiler effect is not
actually a serious controversy.
Don't be ridiculous! Of course it is controversial.
Sorry, I misspoke. The RE may be controversial, but the idea that
nuclear reactions, specifically nuclear decay cannot be affected by
the chemical environment, isn't controversial. The application to
specific cases might be, but to apply it, one needs a very specific case.
If the effect is *actually controversial* among those who understand
the issue, all the more reason to encourage replication.
And the arguments that no journal would publish it are bunk. I bet
Naturwissenschaften would. And if not, there are other forms of
pubication, and continued rejection of decent research -- as shown in
the papers themselves -- is a continued impeachment of journal integrity.
That is just natural consequences, and it does not depend on us
making continual noises about represssion. Truth will out.
Hoffman skewered that argument in his 1994 book.
You, Mike McKubre and I are just about the only three people in the
world I know who have read Hoffman, and you are the only one who
does not consider him a dolt.
Well, I need to discuss this with Mike. You met Hoffman, but from
your comments on him, and how they compare with his book, you
obviously misunderstood him. I'll stand with that. What I know is
that his book was, when I began this study, enormously helpful, he
put me on track to discover much about cold fusion. For example, he
covers early Chinese usage of CR-39, finding CP radiation from CF cells.
He focuses on specifically nuclear evidence, and his book stops just
before the Miles bombshell. He acknoweldges the calorimetric
evidence, and specifically avoids going over it in detail, but says
that the work is being done with competent people.
I look back, and stop short of Miles, and imagine my position.
It's close to Hoffman. But the saga did not stop before Miles. Miles
announced, Huizenga noticed it, and then something strange happened.
Miles demonstrated that the calorimetry was at least decent, that XP
actually was XP. Yet people in the field kept yammering about
calorimetry and how great it was, without mentioning Miles, who
*totally iced the controversy.* -- once his work was confirmed.
I saw this social anomaly rather quickly, I discussed it with Dr.
Storms, and he wrote a paper on it. And the journal editor -- I
didn't know at the time where he was submitting it -- instead asked
for a review of the whole field. "Status of cold fusion (2010)." I
did do a little editing with the papers, but I was surprised to be
credited. Storms has been generous with me, in spite of my being a
pain in the ass.
Jed, we dropped the ball. We had the "single reliable experiment,"
confirmed within a few years of Miles. And we kept yammering about
excuses. We actually, many or most of us, behaved like victims. Are
we going to continue like this?
No. We won't. *Cold fusion prevailed.*
