Cude said “The evidence for cold fusion is a dog's breakfast of inconsistent claims of excess heat and various products of nuclear reaction. After 24 years, there is still not an experiment that anyone skilled in the art can do, and get quantitatively predictable positive results, whether it's excess heat, tritium, or helium (or an unequivocally positive result).”
Response: I want the LeClair effect debunked. I have yet to be satisfied. It uses polywater to produce cold fusion, how simple a debunking job could this be? I don’t mean just words, I mean conclusive debunking evidence. There is a whole class of cold fusion claims that involve cavatation, please turn your considerable debunking expertize to this area of cold fusion. Are you a one trick pony show? You need to expand your horizons if you want to aspire to world class debunking. Many vortex members think LeClair is crazy. You will have some support here and an eager audience from some quarters, or do you only relish the center of attention as a lone rebel voice of sanity crying bravely and heroically in the wilderness of unreason and irrationality. As an object lesson, show them that they are no better than you in their cynical and closed minded behavior. Always be mindful that debunking is not a selfish endeavor that only serves your personal needs and compulsions, it is a social responsibility that you owe to society in general. Cynics' propensity to spot setups and snow jobs before the rest of us also makes them socially valuable. Infamous cynic Maureen Dowd, for instance, did a Pulitzer-winning job of highlighting tragic flaws in the Clinton administration. "Cynics deserve more respect than they get," Bayan says. "You need naysayers who will shout down ideas that are extreme or just plain foolish." Some men must put in the work, unheralded and unsung to protect society from the ravages of pseudo-science. For some as of yet unknown reason, fate has chosen you out of the uncaring masses to undertake this thankless effort. On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 5:40 AM, Joshua Cude <joshua.c...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 9:44 PM, Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 12:28 PM, Joshua Cude <joshua.c...@gmail.com>wrote: >> >> >>> You need positive credible evidence to convince people that cold >>> fusion is real. And there isn't any. >>> >> >> It's a little painful to watch this thread, Joshua. >> > > This may come as a surprise, but I'm not trying to make it painless for > true believers. Also, no one's holding a gun to your head. > > > >> Here you assert that positive, credible evidence has not been provided, >> after people have provided positive, credible evidence >> > > The statement about positive credible evidence is a summary, not an > argument. I've written a lot of words to support that summary. > > > Mainstream does not believe the evidence for cold fusion. Therefore, it is > not credible. It's really an observation, but like I said, it's not meant > to stand on its own as a compelling reason to reject it. > > > The evidence for cold fusion is a dog's breakfast of inconsistent claims > of excess heat and various products of nuclear reaction. After 24 years, > there is still not an experiment that anyone skilled in the art can do, and > get quantitatively predictable positive results, whether it's excess heat, > tritium, or helium (or an unequivocally positive result). That's why the > number of refereed positive claims has dwindled to one or two papers a > year, and why the claims become ever more lame. Many of the papers in the > last decade are about the SPAWAR's CR-39 results, which have been > challenged, and which SPAWAR itself has shut down.The few claims of excess > power are in the range of a watt or so, when P&F claimed 10 W in 198, and > 140 in 1993. All the internet excitement results from larger but > unpublished claims, and from people looking for investment, and using > methods of calorimetry shown to be fallible more than a decade ago. It's > not pretty. > > > >> -- not all of it, but some, it seems to me; sufficient evidence, at any >> rate, to build a prima facie case that we should all go do some more >> reading. >> > > > I've done a lot of reading, and like most people who are not emotionally > invested in cold fusion's success, I have become more skeptical as a result. > > > >> Later on will then no doubt go on to assert once more that positive, >> credible evidence has not been provided. >> > > If you mean as a result of more reading, then yes. Because I'm pretty > familiar with the body of evidence. But if later on some better evidence, > as described several times, came along, I'd be thrilled to change my mind. > I believe the chance of that happening is vanishingly small. > >
