On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 12:36 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Cude wrote: > > >> You should keep an open mind to the possibility that cold fusion is not >>> the Wright brothers' airplane. Maybe it's Blondlott’s N-rays. It’s >>> Fedyakin’s polywater. >>> >> These things were never replicated. Only one lab briefly claimed to > replicate polywater, and it soon retracted. > According to Ackermann in 2006, 450 papers were published on polywater in 12 years, with more than 250 over 2 years. And i the very best journals. You're saying they're all from one group, or none of them are claimed replications? What would sustain the field? But of course, they're not from one group, and they are claimed replications. Here's 5 papers from the Garfield library (with excerpts from the abstracts) from different groups in the best journals, all claiming replication: 1. Page Tf; Jakobsen Rj; Lippincott Er,; Polywater . Proton Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Spectrum; Science 167(1970)51 Abstract: In the presence of water, the resonance of the strongly hydrogen-bonded protons characteristic of polywater appears at 5 ppm lower applied magnetic field than water. Polywater made by a new method confirms the IR spectrum reported originally. 2. Petsko Ga; Proton Magnetic Resonance Spectrum Of Polywater, Science 167(1970)171 Abstract: With the aid of a time-average computer, the proton magnetic resonance spectrum of anomalous water (polywater) is obtained. The spectrum consists of a single broad resonance shifted approximately 300 Hz down-field from the resonance of ordinary water. >From the text: Samples of polywater, prepared in the manner described by Lippincott (2) in capillaries of … 3. Castelli.Ga Ra; Grabar Dg; Hession J; Burkhard H; Polywater . Methods For Identifying Polywater Columns And Evidence For Ordered Growth; Science 167(1970)865 Abstract: The refractive indices of polywater columns in glass capillaries have been rapidly and accurately measured with an interference microscope. Polywater has been detected by this method in both quartz and Vycor glass capillaries... 4. Middlehu. J Mv; Fisher Lr; A New Polywater; Nature 227(1970)57 Abstract: We have made a form of polywater (which we shall call fluorite polywater) with an infrared spectrum similar to that observed by Lippincott et al. [4] but with the frequencies of the peaks somewhat displaced… 5. Brummer Sb; Entine G; Bradspie.Ji G; Lingerta.H G; Leung C; High-Yield Method For Preparation Of Anomalous Water; Journal Of Physical Chemistry 75(1971)2976 Abstract: An experimental method for the preparation of anomalous water and its in volatile residue "polywater" in large glass tubes is described. […] In contrast to previously reported results, *every tube*, up to the largest explored (23-mm id), *successfully produces material* [emphasis in original]. The material thus prepared has an IR spectrum similar to that reported of "polywater" … Summary and Conclusions: The present data indicate that the erratic nature of the "polywater" phenomenon may be overcome by use of large flamed and sealed glass tubes… There are many more, but that should be enough to make the point. Many different groups in dozens of papers reported not only the preparation of polywater, but measurement of its properties, variations in the material, and in the methods of preparation. And look at the journals they published in: Science and Nature and JPC, but also Phys Rev and JACS and so on -- journals cold fusion can only dream about appearing in. So not only were a lot of people claiming a bogus phenomenon, but it was considered respectable among a large fraction of mainstream science. And still it was wrong. It wasn't that the specific measurements were wrong, but the controls on impurities were not as good as they thought, and the interpretations of the effects were wrong. > Cold fusion has been observed at 20 to 100 W with no input power, albeit > on rare occasions. > It's claims like this that cause observers to distrust the advocates. One watt with no input would be trivial to prove, provided it lasted long enough, and was not a part of too large an apparatus. But to claim 100W, and not be able to convince the world? Outrageous. And then with claims like that, why would the community get so excited about 100 mW *with* input at MIT? And by the way, it was not only geezers who were skeptical of aviation. >>> Wilbur Wright said in 1901, "If man ever flies, it will not be within our >>> lifetime, not within a thousand years." >>> >>> >>> Meanwhile, Langley, a pioneer of aviation, started investigating >>> aerodynamics as his second career. He was near 70 (and a strong advocate) >>> when the Wrights first flew. >>> >> > Wilbur said that while returning home discouraging flight tests at Kitty > Hawk. At that time the Wrights were already far ahead of all of their > rivals, including Langley. Langley was not a supporter of the Wrights when > they first flew. > You missed the point. Langley was not a skeptic of flight and he was old. That's the only point. Wilbur was skeptical, and he was young. It was a little tongue-in-cheek. I'm sure it was an expression of frustration. I was just countering the notion that geezers are skeptics and vice versa. After all, in cold fusion, the experimenters are not spring chickens.
