there is a article which reemerged recently http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/4f1c41e8-e66e-11e1-ac5f-00144feab49a.html#ixzz2mmm0p3oy
on FT.com if you add that one http://www.lbl.gov/LBL-PID/Nobelists/Seaborg/presidents/23.html you realize what was the proble... as some says here, there are thousands of more unfounded press release and conference each years... just read at Technology.org , phys.org, ... problems seems to be sociological: as seaborgs says, chemist cannot suceed with less than a milion in a garage without a theory at eV energu scale, where physicist fail with a trillion in a hitech lab with a theory at MeV energy scale. it is a moral question, an ethical problem. most of our way to manage scientific claims are heuristics, not factual. - too good to be true - not fair - most recognized is right - most theoretical is right - laws of science are laws. - too easy - consensus - energy scales - a physicist said - theory says - if I don't find a way, there is no way - if it is not easyly reproduced it is not real - when it is too hard to check, it is a fraud, or an artefact - i'm lazy/busy so I follow the group - the group cannot be wrong, especially if they fire me when I disagree. 2013/12/10 Edmund Storms <[email protected]> > > On Dec 9, 2013, at 6:30 PM, Blaze Spinnaker wrote: > > The press conference was a very big mistake and it was the heart of the > disaster. > > Just because someone else was going to do it, doesn't excuse the behavior. > They should have let him do it. > > > They did not have a choice. The press conference was forced on them by the > university. The heart of the disaster was failure of the important > laboratories to replicate, The failure to replicate was caused by an > unwillingness to understand what F-P had done. People who did the > experiment correctly did replicate, but not often enough. In addition, the > physics community made the assumption that the claimed effect was caused by > hot fusion. This assumption was wrong. It turns out F-P were right and the > physics community was wrong. Unfortunately, this error is hard for them to > admit. > > > > On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 5:27 PM, Edmund Storms <[email protected]>wrote: > >> >> On Dec 9, 2013, at 6:19 PM, Foks0904 . wrote: >> >> Obviously major mistakes were made by P&F. The press conference was a >> mistake. >> >> >> That is obvious only after the fact. If F-P had not made a public >> announcement, Jones would have. In fact, the claim would have gotten >> attention without the announcement >> >> Calling it fusion was a mistake. >> >> >> But it is fusion. Do you want F-P to lie? >> >> The question is: were the results (excess heat + nuclear products) a >> delusion? 25 years later and hundreds of successful replications later and >> 3 major commercial products in the works the clear answer is a resounding >> "NO". >> >> >> Yes, this is true. The evidence is now overwhelming. Ignorance is the >> only problem. >> >> >> This presentation is both insightful yet beyond myopic and ignorant at >> the same time. Stress on myopic and ignorant. >> >> >> I see nothing insightful. The claims are a simple-minded repetition of >> what the skeptics said 23 years ago. >> >> >> Regards. >> >> >> On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 8:13 PM, Kevin O'Malley <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> I could use some help from some knowledgeable vorts to counter these >>> accusations... >>> >>> Cold Fusion Confusion and Questionable Ethics >>> http://www.ptei.org/docs/ColdFusionPresentation.pdf >>> >>> >> >> > >
