DJ Cravens <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I personally don’t think that it all needs to be about proof or
> commercialization.
>
Well, it does if you want funding. Not if you are doing it for fun.
> After 24 years and many papers, I don’t think that “proof” is needed any
> longer. Proof is already there for those that wish to read the literature.
>
I agree completely with that! In this case, we are not talking about proof
that cold fusion exists but rather proof that: "The implementation of cold
fusion I am showing you here is well-controlled and it produces a
reasonably high power density and temperature."
> Practical methods have been listed for those who what to do experiments.
>
Not terribly practical. In my upcoming talk, I cite Fleischmann, Cravens
and Storms. Fleischmann tells what kind of Pd to use; Cravens at ICCF4
tells how to prepare it; and Storms ("How to produce the Pons-Fleischmann
effect") tells more about how to prepare and also how to winnow out
cathodes. Together these do constitute a recipe. But it takes a year to get
a puny reaction that can only be measured with a good calorimeter. It will
not impress a typical investor, alas.
As for the Ni-H experiments, unless Rossi is real, I have no idea where you
can find a reliable way to do the experiment.
> The problem is they don’t read and never visit a working lab.
>
A lot of people who do read are unable to make a reliable reaction without
a terrific amount of work.
I will leave the “prove it to me” crowd to their own experiments and
> discussions.
>
And they will leave you without a penny. If that does not bother you, fine,
but I have heard you kvetch about it in the past. You can't expect support
unless you meet them halfway.
> I have just grown tired of doing experiments and want to have some fun and
> try some applications.
>
Frankly, I don't care for this dilettante approach. If I won the lottery
and had money to burn, I would not give you much if your only goal is to
have fun.
> Perhaps George just wants to try an application for his own pleasure. It
> is his path to choose. Be supportive and tolerant and let him travel it
> in peace.
>
I am supportive in a sense I guess, but it is useless activity. I don't see
why I should care about it. Science is only meaningful when the results are
shared, and the results can only be shared when they are expressed in the
idiom of science. Otherwise scientists will not understand you.
I guess I have a low regard for fun. That is American puritanism winning
out over my Caribbean "hey mon, have some rum!" piratical roots. I did love
that move "Pirates of the Caribbean." Commercialized nonsense but it spoke
to me.
- Jed
