I believe the problem with fringe subjects is that the focus goes of the end results and does not focus on the underlying physics.
If you just chase an effect that is not really understood thoroughly enough, then what you end up getting looks more like magic than science. Complete with superstitions about how to get results as cold fusion has seen with troublesome replications. Of course if you want to understand the physics that can allow something unexpected or impossible by the current framework, you have to be willing to look where conventional physics went wrong. John On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 11:17 AM, Blaze Spinnaker <blazespinna...@gmail.com>wrote: > Her thesis, if you listen to is, is that people should stop researching > "free energy" and just do pure physical research. She however, sounds > several optimistic notes about finding fusion at low temperatures, perhaps > by using bubble cavitation or magnetic fields and that given time we might > find technology that will allow us to do this. > > TBH - this doesn't seem particularly incoherent to me. I think if you > look around, most of the pseudoscience and disappointments are coming out > "free energy" type 'labs'. It's hard to question the agenda of a lab that > isn't claiming any kind of cheap energy and seems more interested in the > goal of simply trying to figure out the underlying physics of the problem. > > Certainly, I didn't get a sense at any point that she thought that cold > fusion research was wrong or bad, but merely that she doubted what F&P did. > > If your complaint is that she's wrong about F&P .. that's fine. You can > make that argument better than I can. But don't tar everything she said > as being anti cold fusion, because that's clearly what is Incorrect here. > > > On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 2:04 PM, Blaze Spinnaker <blazespinna...@gmail.com > > wrote: > >> Incorrect? WHAT? She specifically says she thinks bubble cavitation >> might be doable. >> >> It may be a waste of time, it may even be incoherent (many people who >> think Cold Fusion is doable, often are) but the fact is obvious to anyone >> who bothers listening to the video that Pam thought the problem was we >> don't have technology yet and that electrolysis + Palladium are not doable. >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 8:21 PM, James Bowery <jabow...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Incorrect. I listened to her incoherent blathering of The Catechism >>> well around the 23 minute mark and all she did was continue blathering The >>> Catechism. >>> >>> What a waste of time. >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 9:00 PM, Blaze Spinnaker < >>> blazespinna...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Pam was actually optimistic about Cold Fusion (watch around 23 minutes) >>>> .. >>>> >>>> It's the Palladium approach that she really doesn't like. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 6:53 PM, James Bowery <jabow...@gmail.com>wrote: >>>> >>>>> "Hey Pam, the generation of scientists that ridiculed cold fusion is >>>>> also dying. What are you willing to do if it turns out we had to wait for >>>>> them to die in order to find out that P&F's cold fusion claims were >>>>> substantively true?" >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 8:28 PM, H Veeder <hveeder...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> A video dialogue about hot and cold fusion between Fred Gain of >>>>>> Universe Today and Pamela Gay of CosmoQuest. >>>>>> >>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjeJs1DZygw >>>>>> >>>>>> At 9:30 they start talking about P&F's experiments and Pamela >>>>>> concludes that it was an error because it turned out that subsequent >>>>>> experiments which supported P&F excess heat claims were in error. >>>>>> However, >>>>>> Fred Gain asks why some scientists are still investigating this failed >>>>>> science and she responds "we're just waiting for that generation of >>>>>> scientists to die". >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Harry >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
