Deciding why CF was rejected is difficult because so many variables
apply and each person only experienced part of the process. To start
the evaluation, the basic reasons need to be acknowledged. Once the
reasons are available, their importance needs to be determined. The
importance of each would be different to different people at the time.
For example, an academic would find the conflict with theory important
while a politician would consider the threat to an industry more
important. So, the reason for rejection will depend on which person
you ask.
Initially, the idea was not rejected by many people who later found
reasons to reject. The rejection grew because certain high-profile
laboratories could not make the effect work easily. Granted, many of
the efforts were done with no expectation it would work while using
sloppy technique. However, if the studies had been successful, all the
reasons for rejection would have disappeared.
When it worked on occasion, I found these successes were generally
ignored. They were ignored locally at the laboratories where the
studies were made and later by the DOE panel. You might ask why
success was ignored.
I can suggest three main reasons were used by normally rational,
honest, and educated men to modify what they believed.
1. The claim conflicted with known and expected behavior based on hot
fusion. People assumed CF and HF were the same phenomenon. Some
people still have this belief.
2. The claim, if real, would eliminate the need for hot fusion. This
caused everyone supported by HF to band together to reject CF.
3. The claim, if real, would threaten all industries based on
conventional energy. This caused every one at high level in government
who are loyal to these industries to band together against CF.
Based on these reasons, the media was used by the organizations that
have this influence to focus the opinions of unthinking people by
creating the myth we see today. These same people saw to it that the
patent office did not grant patents and that the government did not
grant financial support. In short, the system that controls what we
believe and what path the US follows came together to stop CF. From
then on, whatever reason that worked was used, much like how the Iraq
war was justified. The truth no longer mattered.
In addition, the irrationally that lurks below the surface in the US
was released and focused on Fleischmann and Pons. They both had to
leave the US to find peace and safety in other countries. We see this
irrationally coming to the surface again, but now the issue is economic.
In sort, the experience with CF reveals a condition in society well
beyond the scientific issue.
On Oct 16, 2013, at 11:01 PM, Ruby wrote:
Hmm, I will have to look into this that you are describing. I can
see how both issues could relate.
My thesis so far is that it was the MIT and Caltech negative results
which most influenced the APS, Nature magazine, the DoE report, and
subsequently the USPTO. Both public and private investment were
nixed.
Those were the pivotal "actions", or figures, that expressed the
rejection. But the "ground" was, as it always is, the powerful draw
of an existing paradigm.
As the premier science institutions, MIT and Caltech had (have) the
power to sway policy, and they did. Their attitudes, and hasty
experiments, operated from a particular scientific paradigm where,
"Everything [they] knew as a physicist, ...everything [they] knew
about nuclear theory" (-Glenn Seaborg), told them cold fusion was
impossible.
Some people can only go so far.
On 10/16/13 5:51 PM, James Bowery wrote:
Baudette's claim that the problem was primarily one of difference
in scientific protocol between chemistry and physics must be
respected given the depth of his research, however, he, himself,
points to events like Oriani's rejection by the American editors of
Nature early in 1990 as pivotal -- and I just can't believe that
scientific protocol in physics demanded that kind of behavior. He
should be confronted with that contradiction.
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 7:32 PM, Ruby <r...@hush.com> wrote:
Thank you James. I would love to talk with Charles Beaudette and I
will try to do that.
He was at ICCF-18 and I wanted to talk with him, but unfortunately,
since we ended up filming the entire set of lectures, the
interviews were severely impacted.
--
Ruby Carat
r...@coldfusionnow.org
Skype ruby-carat
www.coldfusionnow.org
