Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > JR: The cold fusion researchers I know are not circumspect > about anything. They tend to be bold. > > Everyone in the field, aside from Krivit, respects and admires Mike McKubre > to the max … Nope. I know several who do not like him, who often denigrate him, and who would be happy to bring him down a few pegs. There is no one in this field who commands the respect of everyone else. Even Fleischmann had his detractors. Which is ridiculous because without him this field would not exist. > Helium is a case-in-point for giving utmost respect for > one expert opinion which overlooks potential problems. Rather than argue > with McKubre’s conclusions, many doubters have decided to wait-and-see. First of all, Miles and others presented better data than McKubre. Second, if people had reasons to doubt these results, why would they wait-and-see? Wait for what? The Second Coming? There is no reason to wait, and no benefit to it. People in this field always jump in to criticize other findings, even in cases when they should not. I see no reason why they would hold back on this particular one. > Then you should ask Krivit for his sources. They are probably more > extensive > than you realize. I know his sources. In most cases he is flat-out wrong. For example he thought some of the Italians got far more than commensurate amounts of helium, because he did not realize they start off with an atmospheric concentration so that leaks would not be a problem. > The issue is not settled. > No issue in science is ever fully settled, but I do not know of any reason to doubt this particular finding. - Jed
