I should probably point out that Norman Ramsey had to threaten to resign as co-chair from the DoE panel if they did not include that in the preamble. Clearly Ramsey saw what Charles P. Beaudette has has documented in "Excess Heat":
The 5 week rush to judgement after the March 1989 press conference was an obscenity. Ramsey didn't want to come down on the wrong side of history but he saw what was going on in the politics of the field. He removed himself from what Martin Fleischmann, toward the end of his life, called "the dreadful research". On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 12:48 PM, James Bowery <jabow...@gmail.com> wrote: > As Norman Ramsey pointed out in his preamble to the DoE's original review > of cold fusion: "However, even a *single* short but valid cold fusion > period would be revolutionary." > > We are so far beyond that benchmark as to render Mark's criterion absurd. > > > On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 12:36 PM, Ruby <r...@hush.com> wrote: > >> >> Mark Gibbs writes: >> "You completely miss my point … Ruby’s argument dimisses Ethan’s argument >> by simply saying “you’re wrong” and citing experimental evidence that isn’t >> accepted outside of the LENR community. You’re right, experiment trumps >> theory but only when you have an experiment that can be replicated and has >> unarguable results. Unless I misunderstand, the catalog of successful LENR >> experiments doesn’t include one that you could hand to Ethan and say “here >> you go, try it, it works.” >> >> >> No, Mark, I am not saying simply "you're wrong" to Siegel. >> >> We have experimental results that do not fit the Standard Model of >> conventional nuclear theory first formulated a century ago. >> >> Siegel is saying that this Standard Model rules today. It doesn't, and >> the experimental evidence proves it. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 5/30/13 10:33 AM, Ruby wrote: >> >> >> Yes, thank you Mark. I agree with Jed. >> >> Mark Gibbs is wrong in his reasoning >> >> It should be clear that there are experimental results that have no >> confirmed model to explain them. >> >> This is the history of revolutionary science, which Gibbs should be aware >> of. >> >> >> >> >> >> On 5/30/13 8:27 AM, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote: >> >> Ruby:**** >> >> ** ** >> >> I don’t think Jed was criticizing your statement, **** >> >> "Cold fusion has no definitive theory – as yet, but the experimental >> evidence is overwhelming: anomalous heat and transmutations can occur >> within metallic-hydrides systems contained in small cells that sit on a >> table-top"**** >> >> ** ** >> >> it was Gibbs’ statement after it which was:**** >> >> “Unfortunately that’s not a sound argument…”**** >> >> ** ** >> >> Jed rightfully criticizes Gibbs’ statement because it implies that >> without a definitive theory, experimental evidence has little weight.**** >> >> It is a sore point with all LENR followers because it is the opposite of >> what science is all about; if repeatable experimental evidence contradicts >> theory, then theory may need to be revised/replaced.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> Keep up the fight!**** >> >> ** ** >> >> -Mark Iverson**** >> >> ** ** >> >> ** ** >> >> *From:* Ruby [mailto:r...@hush.com <r...@hush.com>] >> *Sent:* Thursday, May 30, 2013 8:14 AM >> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com >> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Gibbs: Rossi's A Fraud! No, He's Not! Yes, He Is! >> No, He Isn't!**** >> >> ** ** >> >> I wrote that quote... >> >> "Cold fusion has no definitive theory – as yet, but the experimental >> evidence is overwhelming: anomalous heat and transmutations can occur >> within metallic-hydrides systems contained in small cells that sit on a >> table-top" >> http://coldfusionnow.org/discovery-news-misinforms-on-cold-fusion-again/ >> >> .. and stand by it.-- >> >> Ruby Carat >> r...@coldfusionnow.org >> Skype ruby-carat >> www.coldfusionnow.org >> >> >> >> -- >> Ruby Carat >> r...@coldfusionnow.org >> United States 1-707-616-4894 >> Skype ruby-carat >> www.coldfusionnow.org >> >> >
