Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <a...@lomaxdesign.com> wrote:
> However, I disagree. I say that observation alone is not enough, and you >> can't be sure cold fusion is a real nuclear effect until you explain it >> with a theory." >> > > Why speculate that he would say something stupid like that? Because I have heard it countless times from Piel, Huizenga and Many Distinguished Scientists, including several of the ones on the 2004 DoE panel, and most of the Jasons. This is a widely held point of view. Also because that is what Gibbs is saying when he repeatedly demands a "testable theory." Why does he need a theory? Bockris et al. say that with or without a theory cold fusion is definitely real and revolutionary. They say the performance alone proves that it may become a practical source of energy. A theory would not bolster those facts, or make them more certain. So why ask for one, unless you agree with Piel that any finding not explained by theory is pathological? > You should understand the other person's point of view. Know what it is >> you are disagreeing with. >> > > Yes. Now please demonstrate this skill. > I understand Piel's letter! It is unequivocal. He and his successors said the same thing many times subsequently. I understand Huizenga's book, and the 2004 panel comments to the same effect. Please understand: these people mean what they say. They reject any finding not explained by theory. Huizenga rejects any finding that conflicts with theory. He could not have said it more clearly: "Furthermore, if the claimed excess heat exceeds that possible by other conventional processes (chemical, mechanical, etc.), one must conclude that an error has been made in measuring the excess heat." > > Huizenga's book is truly embarrassing. Not to the ERAB and the DoE! He wrote exactly what they asked him to write. They agree completely, to this day. Ask any official at the DoE. > But he was an old man, and, unfortunately, probably losing it. He was like > a broken record, he kept repeating the same thing over and over. > I met him a few years after he wrote that. He signed my copy of the book. He was still at the peak of cognitive health. He was, after all, a distinguished scientist, and a good candidate to lead an important panel of inquiry. He was no fool, and not in decline. The only time I ever saw him uncomfortable or unassertive was when the people from Amoco showed him their results. He turned green and fled the room! It is a fond memory. He, Piel, Robert Park and others told me exactly what he wrote in the book. Chapter and verse. They told that to large audiences at the APS, and the audience stood up, applauded, and cheered. This is NOT a controversial point of view. I am not misinterpreting it. Huizenga et al. could not say it more clearly. They sincerely believe that any experimental result which conflicts with established nuclear theory must be wrong. They believe that no statement about nature which cannot be fully explained by theory is pathological science. You should take them at their word. Don't assume they agree with you or they have some hidden meaning in mind. They mean exactly what they say. - Jed
