On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Foks0904 . <foks0...@gmail.com> wrote:
Yeah Goodstein even commented how good the work of Scaramuzzi was, but just > avoided the question of whether excess heat was real or not. > I rather like Goodstein's piece. The question facing him (whether he perceived it or not) was: do I want to really embarrass myself and/or continue to have a promising career? I do not blame him for speaking equivocally about cold fusion. When one has colleagues like John Franks, there is a lot of pressure to be politic. I hope we did not taint John Franks. His email address was sufficiently obfuscated that hopefully his colleagues will not find out about his time here. Re some points that were raised: - I'm personally not all that impressed by the fact that a cold fusion article has been published in Naturwissenschaften, although it's better than publishing in a hobby magazine, no doubt. - Concerning this point: "From all this, supposedly all these heavy deuterons can then condense into a BEC state. Then from this belief he derives some bogus selection rules which favors helium production. He derives some nuclear rate reactions that are devoid of the Gamow factor and hails this as proof that the Coulomb repulsion has been overcome and furthermore, since his deuterons have gone into the BEC state, the nuclear reactions he wants then proceed with vigor." -- I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of these complaints are good ones. I get the impression that one of the consequences of cold fusion being a pariah field is that there is not sufficient critique brought to bear on some theories and thought experiments. Eric
