Sidenote: I'm reminded of one of the great one-liners (and I believe it was uttered by someone on this list if I;m not mistaken:
"The difference between connecting the dots and conflation is spin" On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 7:34 AM, Joshua Cude <joshua.c...@gmail.com> wrote: > Rothwell wrote: "Cude and others conflate many different assertions and > issues. They stir everything into one pot. You have to learn to > compartmentalize with cold fusion, or with any new phenomenon or poorly > understood subject. " > > > That's nonsense. It's the believers who are forever using tritium and > neutrons at ridiculously low levels to prove P&F were right. The skeptics > are skeptical of both, but are fully aware that even if low level neutrons > a la SE Jones were valid, it wouldn't prove P&F right. That's why Jones got > into nature and P&F didn't. Turned out, Jones retracted, until he made > claims again. But they're marginal too. > > > > > In this case, the tritium findings by Storms and soon after at TAMU and > NCFI proved beyond doubt that cold fusion is a real, nuclear phenomenon. > After they published that 1990 it was case closed. Every scientist on earth > should have believed it. > > > Unfortunately computer programmers don't get to tell every scientist on > earth how to make scientific judgements. Morrison followed the field in > detail until 2001, and he had the background and experience to make > credible judgements and he was skeptical. So did Huizenga. And I'd put more > credence in the Gell-Manns who considerd it briefly than the Rothwells or > Storms who devoted their lives to it, but can't tell a likely charlatan > (Rossi) from a scientist or inventor. > > > And if the tritium was so conclusive, why were the results so variable, > and given the variability, why has tritium research stopped before anyone > settled anything about it? That's not the behavior of scientists. It's the > behavior of pathological scientists. > > > > The excess heat results proved that it is not a chemical effect, in the > normal sense. Perhaps it is a Mills effect. Again, there is so much > evidence for this, at such high s/n ratios, it is irrefutable. > > > > The helium results support the hypothesis that this is some sort of > deuterium fusion, at least with Pd-D. There is no doubt about the helium, > but no one has searched for helium or deuterium from Ni-H cells. > > > > All the other claims are fuzzy, in my opinion. There is not as much > evidence for them. > > > All the results are fuzzy, and the levels are determined by the quality of > the experiment. Heat levels comparable to inputs, or chemical background, > or typical artifacts. Helium levels comparable to atmospheric background. > Neutrons and tritium, for which instruments are far more sensitive, appear > at guess what, far lower levels. > > > > The point is, DO NOT CONFUSE THESE QUESTIONS. Do not conflate them! > > > Gee. Someone learned a new word, and is gonna get all the mileage he can > from it. > > > >
