Interesting paper. Here's why 'experts' reject cold fusion after reading the paper: the last sentence.
While the type of nuclear reactions resulting in the observed tritium is as yet unknown, cold fusion of deuterium atoms in the Pd lattice has to be ruled out due to the observation of a very small neutron signal.12 Basically, experts are pretty lazy, they'll read the intro and conclusion and if it sounds good, they'll read the rest. A sentence like that stops them dead in their tracks. On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 1:46 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote: > Alain Sepeda <alain.sep...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Beyond that evident fact, that clearly established existence of one event >> is enough to prove it is possible, and that replication is only a >> human-factor redundence (against errors, frauds, incompetence, artifacts), >> there is a huge question ? >> >> how supposed serious scientist can use that stupid arguments ? >> > > That is not a stupid argument. In industrial chemistry, they seldom demand > a replication before they believe something because the results are usually > clear-cut and the method well documented. It is engineering, not science. > > To take an extreme example of clear test, when the first atomic bomb was > tested, everyone knew it was real. There was no need to explode another > one. However, in the years after 1945 the U.S. exploded hundreds of bombs. > The purpose was to improve the technology, not to prove that nuclear bombs > are possible. We need many tests of cold fusion devices for the same > reason: to improve reproducibility, to develop a theory, and to work toward > commercialization. > > To put it another way, anyone who is not already convinced by the work of > Fritz Will or Storms will not be convinced by a thousand other labs > replicating ten-thousand times each. There is no point to piling up more > and more replications of the same thing. > > The powered flights by the Wright brothers was another example of > something that only had to be done once to prove they really had mastered > controlled, powered flight. The only reason doubts lingered from 1903 to > 1908 was because people did not believe the written accounts, photos and > affidavits from witnesses. They thought the Wrights were lying. When > experts in France saw a flight, they were convinced within seconds. One > flight was enough. If there had been a panel of aviation experts at Kitty > Hawk on Dec. 17, 1903, every single expert in the world would have been > convinced that afternoon. If we could get a panel of experts into SRI to > observe a test they would all be convinced. I have never heard of an > educated expert who visited SRI and was not convinced. (Garwin is kidding > -- he was actually convinced.) > > For that matter, most genuine experts are convinced just by reading papers > at LENR-CANR.org. People who are not convinced are fruitcakes. It is a good > litmus test. Here is a paper by Will: > > http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/WillFGtritiumgen.pdf > > The only expert I know who read this and was not convinced is Dieter > Britz, and even he has to admit this is pretty good evidence. He has to > dance around the issue and make up dozens of absurd excuses to avoid > admitting this is real. He does this because even though he is a good > electrochemist, he is also a flake. He is in denial. He cannot bring > himself to admit he has been wrong all these years. Everyone else who reads > Will and has doubts is either ignorant or a flake. > > You can substitute any paper by Storms, Miles or McKubre for this litmus > test. People who turn purple reveal their own nature, not anything about > the content or nature of the research. > > - Jed > >
