Any News From ICCF-11?
JohnnyCJohnny
France (which just concluded today), please post us a synopsis of what
transpired. Thanks!
I just read the DOE review has been delayed until at least the end of
the year, as they have 18 different reports to review. I'm glad the
DOE is taking their time and we can be more confident that they aren't
rushing to a conclusion.
Jolly Rogers
> I just read the DOE review has been delayed until at least the end of
> the year, as they have 18 different reports to review. I'm glad the
> DOE is taking their time and we can be more confident that they aren't
> rushing to a conclusion.
>
> http://www.iscmns.com/
You're too optimistic. World governments and large commercial entities
will *NEVER* allow any hope of this technology to go forward because of
the threat it represents to their control over the planet's populace. I
believe the forthcoming DOE report will be even more "cold shoulder-ish"
than the ones released in 1989-1990. However, another scenario is that
they may eventually acknowledge the potential of future LENR devices to
serve as power sources of weapons of mass destruction, and then proceed to
classify the entire science. That will effectively be the very end of the
discussion. Scientists found studying or researching LENRs would be
arrested and imprisoned as enemies of the state under their scary Patriot
Act and terror laws.
Think about it.
Jolly Rogers
JohnnyCJohnny
Good points. I agree, this is not childs play. We're talking about
literally Trillions of dollars in the balance of this new enery/old
energy fight. It is interesting, and perhaps revealing, that now that
it's becoming more and more obvious that Cold Fusion/LENR is indeed a
real phenomenon, that stories like the Popular Mechanics story are
suddenly appearing that paint Cold Fusion/LENR in a negative and even
dangerous light. The "powers that be" aren't stupid. They know they
can only supress a technology for so long. Plan B is to discredit a
competing technology by calling it dangerous and a threat to national
security. It changes the whole debate once more. OK, Cold
Fusion/LENR is real, but we can't go near it because it's far too
dangerous.
One thing about the DOE report is they can't ignore scientific
evidence forever. Even the 1989 report admitted that there was
something to the intial Cold Fusion/LENR reports that could warrant
further investigation. I was actually surprised to learn that upon
reading the report. It's not quite as negative as the skeptics
portray it as being. I think the DOE would ignore the mounting Cold
Fusion/LENR evidence for this new report at their own peril. Sooner
or later the scales are going to tip in favor of Cold Fusion/LENR as
the evidence becomes overwhelming. I no longer have any doubts about
that. Thanks for your thoughts.
Richard Schultz
: It is interesting, and perhaps revealing, that now that
: it's becoming more and more obvious that Cold Fusion/LENR is indeed a
: real phenomenon
Umm, I think that you've been smoking too much of that hi-class weed again.
: One thing about the DOE report is they can't ignore scientific
: evidence forever.
And since all of the evidence is that there is nothing in CF except for
wishful thinking, presumably at some point they will stop ignoring that
evidence. There is, however, a much more obvious piece of evidence. In
March 1989, Pons claimed that he had a *working* prototype water heater
that was 6 months away from commercial production. It's been more than
15 years, and we still haven't seen that water heater. Why not?
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
". . .Mr Schutz [sic] acts like a functional electro-terrorist who
impeads [sic] scientific communications with his too oft-silliness."
-- Mitchell Swartz, sci.physics.fusion article <EEI1o...@world.std.com>
HackMatter
Here you go again. Move on Richard. Life is more exciting looking
forward. Hasn't rewinding to the past and all the hupla/media frenzy
taught everyone enough lessons already about how science can go wrong?
I could say the same thing about lasting peace in the middle east and
how forgiveness can also go astray.
-matter hacker
sch...@mail.biu.ack.il (Richard Schultz) wrote in message news:<cmno3g$org$1...@news.iucc.ac.il>...
Harry Conover
>
> : It is interesting, and perhaps revealing, that now that
> : it's becoming more and more obvious that Cold Fusion/LENR is indeed a
> : real phenomenon
>
> Umm, I think that you've been smoking too much of that hi-class weed again.
>
> : One thing about the DOE report is they can't ignore scientific
> : evidence forever.
>
> And since all of the evidence is that there is nothing in CF except for
> wishful thinking, presumably at some point they will stop ignoring that
> evidence. There is, however, a much more obvious piece of evidence. In
> March 1989, Pons claimed that he had a *working* prototype water heater
> that was 6 months away from commercial production. It's been more than
> 15 years, and we still haven't seen that water heater. Why not?
>
> -----
> Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
> Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
> Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
Come on now Richard, cut the guy a break. Realize it's difficult to
maintain a development schedule when you are fleeing the university,
state and country that financed your work!
Harry C.
HackMatter
chemistry'
getting that boring Richard?. Have you no spirit of exploration
anymore?
I have to agree "silence is golden" when you deal with the crowd in
this news group ...you never know.
-matter hacker
hhc...@yahoo.com (Harry Conover) wrote in message news:<7ce4e226.04110...@posting.google.com>...
Harry Conover
> Wow ..this is news..Richard fleeing his country? Is 'plain old
> chemistry'
Huh?
I'm not sure what gave you that impression from what was posted.
Perhaps you've never had a course in college level sentence
construction, nor read "Struck and White" nor "The Chicago Manual of
Style".
Then too, perhaps I should have employed an 8th grade reading level
sentence construction as is the practice with newspapers.
Harry C.
JohnnyCJohnny
The poster was talking about Martin Fleischmen leaving the U.S. after
the Cold Fusion uproar in 1989. He wasn't talking about Richard.
Crossed wire there.
Richard Schultz
: The poster was talking about Martin Fleischmen leaving the U.S. after
: the Cold Fusion uproar in 1989. He wasn't talking about Richard.
: Crossed wire there.
Since Martin Fleischmann never lived in the U.S., it's unlikely that
he was the subject of the discussion. It's much more likely that the
person being described was Stanley Pons, who left his teaching post
at the University of Utah for a laboratory in the South of France.
Take my advice -- you really ought to stay away from that killer weed.
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
JohnnyCJohnny
> In article <cd2ccfd9.04111...@posting.google.com>, JohnnyCJohnny <joh...@patmedia.net> wrote:
>
> : The poster was talking about Martin Fleischmen leaving the U.S. after
> : the Cold Fusion uproar in 1989. He wasn't talking about Richard.
> : Crossed wire there.
>
> Since Martin Fleischmann never lived in the U.S., it's unlikely that
> he was the subject of the discussion. It's much more likely that the
> person being described was Stanley Pons, who left his teaching post
> at the University of Utah for a laboratory in the South of France.
> Take my advice -- you really ought to stay away from that killer weed.
>
> -----
> Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
I did mean Stanley Pons, crossed wires on my part. Pons was the
American citizen who was hounded out of the U.S. after the 1989
uproar. Thanks for correcting me. The poster thought you were
talking about yourself being in a hurry to leave your country.
BTW, I stopped smoking weed a decade ago. I just think it's utterly
foolish that the "authorities" in so many countries are so concerned
with weed when there are much bigger fish to fry.
Richard Schultz
: I did mean Stanley Pons, crossed wires on my part. Pons was the
: American citizen who was hounded out of the U.S. after the 1989 uproar.
I was at the University of Utah at the time, and I can assure you that
he was not "hounded out of the U.S." by any stretch of the imagination.
It was more like "why has he not shown up to teach his scheduled classes."
JohnnyCJohnny
> In article <cd2ccfd9.04110...@posting.google.com>, JohnnyCJohnny <joh...@patmedia.net> wrote:
>
> : It is interesting, and perhaps revealing, that now that
> : it's becoming more and more obvious that Cold Fusion/LENR is indeed a
> : real phenomenon
>
> Umm, I think that you've been smoking too much of that hi-class weed again.
Richard, I find it interesting that it is people like yourself, from
the peanut gallery, who apparently have never actually tried to
replicate the Pons and Fleischman effect in your own laboratory, who
are so confident that cold fusion claims are bogus, and deride them?
Why is it that you are so confident in your position, if you haven't
actually researched the field yourself? Are you relying on the tired
old arguments that cold fusion couldn't be real because it doesn't fit
into existing theories? Geeze, that argument can be put to rest
easily, as many new scientific discoveries over the years haven't made
sense in the rhelm of contemporary scientific understanding. Why is
it that reputable labs, like the U.S. Navy, who have actually taken
the time and effort (ten years) to research the Pons and Fleischmen
effect, are the ones who state unambiguously that the cold fusion
phenomenon is real and deserves further study? Who am I to believe as
an interested third party? The arrogant non-researcher like yourself,
or the ones who have rolled up their sleeves and actually looked into
the controversial subject matter?
You see, I'm not a wild eyed believer in cold fusion. In fact, during
the 1990s there were many moments in which I questioned the validity
of cold fusion myself. But, I'm interested in an honest reading of
the experimental evidence. I want to follow where the evidence leads
me. I wasn't always as optomistic as someone like Gene Mallove was
during the 1990s. I saw the experimental evidence for cold fusion as
weak and untrustworthy during much of the 1990s. But, when labs like
the U.S. Navy issue positive cold fusion results, and issue a report
that states that they believe based on the experimental evidence, cold
fusion is real and warrants further study, I take notice. I don't how
any true "scientist" could just dismiss a report from such a reputable
source?!? It seems to be the sort of thing that would get a scientist
into his/her lab to study what the U.S. Navy has done.
All in all, I don't think it will matter much longer what the peanut
gallery thinks of cold fusion. The day of reckoning is quickly
approaching for cold fusion, after all these years. If the U.S. DOE
issues a report in the coming months that accepts cold fusion as a
real scientific field of study based on the scientific evidence that
they are reviewing, and that it deserves funding, the debate will be
over forever. Why? Because, suddenly really mainstream researchers
will start re-examining cold fusion, only this time they'll have 15
years worth of research to guide them. 15 years of understanding as
to how to reproduce the cold fusion effect. It won't be a repeat of
1989 (which was largely brought on by Pons and Fleischman for not
realizing just how difficult their experiment was to reproduce). Much
has been learned about why the cold fusion reaction doesn't always
occur as expected.
If the U.S DOE say no to cold fusion, then I guess it's back to the
drawing board for cold fusion for at least another year or two. But,
if cold fusion is indeed real, all the scientific bias in the world
can't stop it from eventually being accepted into the mainstream of
science. If real, the experimental evidence will become overwhelming.
What happens if a couple of major U.S. universities reveal that they
have been reproducing the U.S. Navy results and agree cold fusion is
indeed real? There are so many examples of this quirky way in which
science accepts new ideas that it's kind of hard to believe it's still
so difficult for something like cold fusion. But, I do understand the
reasons for the scientific caution. There's a fine line between
science and psuedo-science. Science would be meaningless without a
cautious approach. But, what I don't understand is the "scientists"
who don't even attempt to reproduce a controveral effect like cold
fusion, even after a source like the U.S. Navy says it's real, and
still criticize the field from the peanut gallery. That seems a lot
less like science, and a lot more like just hard-headedness.
Bradley K. Sherman
>gallery thinks of cold fusion. The day of reckoning is quickly
>approaching for cold fusion,
Do let us know when the day of reckoning is actually here. I'd hate
to be reading a book or watching a football game or something and
miss it.
--bks
Richard Schultz
: the peanut gallery, who apparently have never actually tried to
: replicate the Pons and Fleischman effect in your own laboratory,
And you have?
: who are so confident that cold fusion claims are bogus, and deride them?
You might want to start with a correct statement of my position, which
is that the evidence so far presented for the reality of cold fusion
is not of sufficient quality for the effect to be considered real.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," and I have yet
to see a single experimental result from a CF experiment that cannot
be attributed to a more mundane (and physically reasonable) cause. It's
especially telling that the "effect," such as it is, seems to be
irreproducible unless one redefines the concept of "reproducibility" to
the point of meaninglessness.
: Why is it that you are so confident in your position, if you haven't
: actually researched the field yourself?
What makes you think that I haven't "actually researched the field"? I
have read many of the papers that have been touted as the strongest
"proofs" of the existence of the effect, and not one of them is of
sufficient quality to be taken seriously.
Or to put it another way: what are *your* qualifications to judge whether
an experiment has been competently done? Given that you're afraid even
to tell us your name, I tend to doubt that your scientific qualifications
are particularly high.
: Are you relying on the tired
: old arguments that cold fusion couldn't be real because it doesn't fit
: into existing theories?
You seem not to understand that there are theories that are considered
to be strongly confirmed, and others that are considered to be weakly
confirmed. When a result is in direct contradiction to one of the former
types of theories, that result had better be darned good, and the authors
had better have done sufficient controls to rule out alternative explanations.
The example that I frequently give (and of which you would have been aware
had you taken the trouble to read what I've actually posted to s.p.f. over
the years) is of C60 (fullerenes) because I happened to be working in a
related field at the time the discovery was made. At the time the discovery
was made, basically all they had was a peak in a mass spectrum, and the
hypothesis (a hitherto unsuspected kinetically stable form of carbon) was
so wild that people were unwilling to accept its reality without very
strong proof -- all sorts of papers appeared in the literature offering
alternative explanations that the original experiment had not taken into
consideration. In the end, when someone succeeded in producing macroscopic
quantities and demonstrating the structure, everyone accepted the reality
of fullerenes even though they had not "fit into existing theories"
previously -- and a new area of research was born.
In the case of CF, the theories that it would violate, e.g. special
relativity, are so well-confirmed that a priori one has to consider the
reality of the effect to be extremely unlikely. The decay of 4He* has
been measured under all sorts of conditions, and there do not appear to
be any cases where it decays in any way other than the expected one;
D+D fusion has been observed down to low temperatures, and the branching
ratio does not change appreciably, even, AFAIK, when the reaction takes
place in a solid. Thus, any convincing demonstration of CF would have
to be of very high quality in order to overcome these very serious a priori
arguments for its nonexistence. I do not know that CF is impossible; I
know that convincing evidence for its existence has not yet been provided.
: Geeze, that argument can be put to rest
: easily, as many new scientific discoveries over the years haven't made
: sense in the rhelm [sic] of contemporary scientific understanding.
Does this mean that we have to accept any half-baked claim? Do you think
that I should take seriously the guy who presented a paper at ICCF-11 in
which he claimed that the medieval alchemists succeeded in transmuting
base metals?
: Why is it that reputable labs, like the U.S. Navy,
The U.S. Navy is not a "reputable lab." There is *one* lab associated
with the U.S. Navy in which the researchers claim to have observed CF.
All I can say is that in my experience, the world is filled with incompetents,
many of whom have Ph. D.'s and who work in "reputable" labs. Note that
the people working at this lab are essentially civil servants, for whom
incompetence is not sufficient grounds for removal from their position.
: who have actually taken
: the time and effort (ten years) to research the Pons and Fleischmen
: effect, are the ones who state unambiguously that the cold fusion
: phenomenon is real and deserves further study? Who am I to believe as
: an interested third party? The arrogant non-researcher like yourself,
: or the ones who have rolled up their sleeves and actually looked into
: the controversial subject matter?
What exactly is it that you think that I do for a living?
: If the U.S DOE say no to cold fusion, then I guess it's back to the
: drawing board for cold fusion for at least another year or two.
Pardon my amusement at your inability to observe the asymmetry: if the
DOE says that cold fusion is real, then it's ipso facto real, but if
the DOE says that it isn't real, then CF is ipso facto real.
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"Apparently, you take me for a complete fool."
"Yeah -- more or less."
Bob & Ray, "Garish Summit"
Richard Schultz
: The arrogant non-researcher like yourself,
As a brief postscript to my earlier comments, I'd just like to point out
that IMHO, "arrogant" is a not unreasonable description of a person with no
actual experience designing and performing scientific experiments who
nonetheless considers himself qualified to discuss science.
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
Harry Conover
Actually, I was speaking about Stanley Pons whose 'Water Heater' claim
was cited in the post to which I responded.
Harry C.
JohnnyCJohnny
Don't worry, you'll know. I won't be the one bringing the news to
everyone. If the U.S. DOE releases a report (which could happen any
time over the next few months) which says that they believe cold
fusion is a legitimate field of scientific study which deserves an
official funding source, you'll hear about it from many sources. Just
the review announcement itself last Spring brought coverage from
numerous major publications from the NY Times to New Scientist.
Hopefully, all of us, friend and foe of cold fusion research won't
have to wait much longer. I have to commend the DOE for taking the
proper time to perform the review and not engaging in a rush to
judgement.
JohnnyCJohnny
It was Hack Matter who thought mistakenly that Richard was leaving his
post and country. Unless you're both Harry C. and Hack Matter, then I
think we've really got crossed wires on this one. It's agreed the
post was meant to refer to Stanley Pons actions shortly after the
March, 1989 cold fusion announcement.
JohnnyCJohnny
> In article <cd2ccfd9.04111...@posting.google.com>, JohnnyCJohnny <joh...@patmedia.net> wrote:
>
> : Richard, I find it interesting that it is people like yourself, from
> : the peanut gallery, who apparently have never actually tried to
> : replicate the Pons and Fleischman effect in your own laboratory,
>
> And you have?
No, I make my living as a writer and an environmental scientist (which
is why I'm interested in a clean new energy source like cold fusion).
But, as an interested third party, I try to keep an open mind to the
experiments that are being peformed in the field. I'm not some wild
eyed believer like Gene Mallove was. I had serious doubts about cold
fusion being real back in the 1990s. The evidence back then was
spotty and weak. A cold fusion proponent in the 1990s was really
going out on a limb; more like a leap of faith in many ways. But, the
experimental evidence for cold fusion has grown much stronger in
recent years. I think the U.S. Navy report is what really convinced
me that cold fusion is for real and that it's only a matter of time
before it gains broader acceptance. There are other labs, SRI, EPRI,
NASA, that have reproduce the cold fusion effect. At that point,
mainstream scientists will just have to jump on the cold fusion
bandwagon and try to figure out what is actually going on.
>
> : who are so confident that cold fusion claims are bogus, and deride them?
>
> You might want to start with a correct statement of my position, which
> is that the evidence so far presented for the reality of cold fusion
> is not of sufficient quality for the effect to be considered real.
> "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," and I have yet
> to see a single experimental result from a CF experiment that cannot
> be attributed to a more mundane (and physically reasonable) cause. It's
> especially telling that the "effect," such as it is, seems to be
> irreproducible unless one redefines the concept of "reproducibility" to
> the point of meaninglessness.
I agree that "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," as
you say. But, I think even Carl Sagan would take a report by a U.S.
Navy lab that states that cold fusion is a real phenomenon that
deserves further study (citing a decade of research) as pretty
extraordinary evidence. I don't see how you can so easily dismiss
this.
I don't agree about the irreproducible claim you make. That was true
in the early years of cold fusion. There were many problems with
reproducibility. Pons and Fleischman obviously didn't understand
just how unique their discovery really was. Since then, a lot of
research has been produced to explain why cold fusion cells don't
always produce excess heat or nuclear ash. The main reasons seem to
do with the purity of the metal used and the way in which the cell is
loaded. Also, introducing external stimulus like lasers seems to
jump-start the effect (not too surprising). From what I've read, cold
fusion experiments are around 80% reproducible at this point. That's
a pretty good batting average, and high enough for mainstream science
to take another look.
>
> : Why is it that you are so confident in your position, if you haven't
> : actually researched the field yourself?
>
> What makes you think that I haven't "actually researched the field"? I
> have read many of the papers that have been touted as the strongest
> "proofs" of the existence of the effect, and not one of them is of
> sufficient quality to be taken seriously.
>
> Or to put it another way: what are *your* qualifications to judge whether
> an experiment has been competently done? Given that you're afraid even
> to tell us your name, I tend to doubt that your scientific qualifications
> are particularly high.
I don't have a PhD. But, I am an interested 3rd party who has
followed this intriguing field since March, 1989, through thick and
thin. My point is that as a 3rd party, I find it interesting that
resarch teams like the U.S. Navy, SRI, EPRI, etc. who have devoted
years to cold fusion research, are the ones who are reporting positive
cold fusion results. While, it's armchair scientists like yourself,
who apparently have never tried to actually reproduce the cold fusion
effect in your own lab, are the ones who continue to dismiss cold
fusion out of hand, even as the evidence for it mounts. You are among
a distinguished group of scientists who have taken this most
unscientific approach to cold fusion. Dr. Park, Dr. Huizenga, yada
yada yada, even when given the oppotunity to visit a lab where
positive cold fusion claims are being reported and a chance to
actually test the apparatus for themselves, decide instead to take a
negative stance from afar. I'll tell you what, if cold fusion is ever
found to be real, beyond any sort of reasonable doubt (like when
they're teaching it in universities). History will not look well upon
this group of extremely conservative scientists. Many of which, Park
and Huizenga, have put their opinions into writing, and will have no
way to correct the record than to publicly admit they were wrong.
OK, that's fine. You have very high standards for evidence. There's
nothing wrong with that for sure. Science needs to be conservative by
nature or it's little more than just a sham. I also understand the
problems cold fusion has fitting into some of the theories of physics.
But, those theories are just theories, and not set in stone. If a
phenomenon is occuring in a laboratory that can't be explained by
present theories, at some point the theories will catch up to explain
the phenomenon. A chicken and egg situation. Certainly, one of the
main reason credible scientists have had such a hard time accepting
cold fusion as real is that it doesn't pass the smell test. It just
doesn't smell right and doesn't fit in with scientific dogma. So be
it, experimental evidence will eventually overwhelm the dogma in my
opinion. Even if it doesn't smell right, it will eventually become
impossible to deny.
Well, I understand your amusement at my statement. But, I'm now
convinced that it's real (something I was not convinced about during
the 1990s), so there is an obvious bias in my statement. I expect the
DOE to issue a positive report (coming soon). If not, I expect cold
fusion to enter the mainstream anyway. I believe it's only a matter
of time really, and I didn't always feel that way. It's just one of
those things that has to reach a certain threshold and then there will
be no turning back. For example, if the DOE says cold fusion is real
and deserves further study, the floodgates will open to mainstream
research and confirmations. If not, perhaps in a year or two we'll
get more credible reports from institutions like the U.S. Navy and
mainstream universities that verify the cold fusion effect, and it
will open the floodgates. One way or another, I believe the cold
fusion genie is coming out of the can. You believe otherwise. At
what point will you accept that cold fusion is a real phenomenon? If
a lot of your colleges at mainstream universities are reporting
positive cold fusion results, will you try it for yourself and see if
it's for real?
Richard Schultz
: I agree that "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," as
: you say. But, I think even Carl Sagan would take a report by a U.S.
: Navy lab that states that cold fusion is a real phenomenon that
: deserves further study (citing a decade of research) as pretty
: extraordinary evidence. I don't see how you can so easily dismiss this.
I can dismiss it because I look at the work rather than at the name on
the building. And the work is shoddy at best. After all, incompetent
workers at distinguished laboratories have made claims that turned out
to be mistaken on more than one occasion.
: I don't agree about the irreproducible claim you make.
Since you by your own admission don't have the qualifications to judge
whether the experiments have been reproduced or not, your agreeing or
not agreeing is irrelevant.
: Pons and Fleischman obviously didn't understand
: just how unique their discovery really was.
For someone who claims to be a writer (admittedly I've never seen you
claim to be a *published* writer), you have a remarkably poor grasp
of the language.
: From what I've read, cold fusion experiments are around 80% reproducible
: at this point.
As I said, that is true only if you redefine "reproducibility" to the
point at which it becomes meaningless.
:> : Why is it that you are so confident in your position, if you haven't
:> : actually researched the field yourself?
:>
:> What makes you think that I haven't "actually researched the field"?
Note that this question receives no reply.
:> Or to put it another way: what are *your* qualifications to judge whether
:> an experiment has been competently done? Given that you're afraid even
:> to tell us your name, I tend to doubt that your scientific qualifications
:> are particularly high.
:
: I don't have a PhD. But, I am an interested 3rd party who has
: followed this intriguing field since March, 1989, through thick and thin.
In other words, you have no qualifications whatsoever to determine
whether or not an experiment has been competently done.
: My point is that as a 3rd party, I find it interesting that
: resarch teams like the U.S. Navy, SRI, EPRI, etc. who have devoted
: years to cold fusion research, are the ones who are reporting positive
: cold fusion results.
And it's the people who have devoted years to dowsing research, astrology
research, "water memory" research, ESP research, etc. etc. etc. who are
the ones reporting positive results. Are you saying that I cannot come
to the conclusion that none of those effects are real because I personally
have never done an experiment on any of them (except for when I was about
seven and followed my horoscope for a few weeks to see if there was any
correlation between its predictions and what actually happened, which there
was not)?
: While, it's armchair scientists like yourself,
: who apparently have never tried to actually reproduce the cold fusion
: effect in your own lab, are the ones who continue to dismiss cold
: fusion out of hand, even as the evidence for it mounts. You are among
: a distinguished group of scientists who have taken this most
: unscientific approach to cold fusion.
But you, by your own admission, have *no* *clue* *whatsoever* what science
is about. Have you read any of the papers in the original literature?
I have -- I have read P&F's original paper, I have read their followup
paper on "Heat after Death" (aka the "Pull the Other One, It's Got Bells on
It" effect). I've read the papers by (IIRC) Mills in which he reports the
same data twice and tries to act as if it were two different experiments.
I've read at least one of Szpak's papers. In all of these cases and more,
there are quite serious problems with the experimental protocol. I don't
have to do the experiment to know that Szpak's results were obviously due
to a combination of wishful thinking and some kind of ground loop or other
electronic cross-talk. I don't have to do the experiment to see that
someone miscalibrated his mass spec or used it under conditions outside
of its specifications. I don't have to do the experiment to know that a
virtual leak from a bad weld would explain all of the results -- and that
the control experiment to test for that possibility was never done.
But let's look at it from the other point of view: suppose I did the
experiment and failed to reproduce the effect. What could we possibly
conclude from such a waste of time other than I am not sufficiently
competent to do the experiment "properly"? That's always the excuse that
pseudo-scientists use, you know.
: OK, that's fine. You have very high standards for evidence. There's
: nothing wrong with that for sure. Science needs to be conservative by
: nature or it's little more than just a sham. I also understand the
: problems cold fusion has fitting into some of the theories of physics.
: But, those theories are just theories, and not set in stone.
For a self-described "scientist", you have a remarkably poor grasp of
what is meant by the word "theory."
: If a phenomenon is occuring in a laboratory that can't be explained by
: present theories, at some point the theories will catch up to explain
: the phenomenon. A chicken and egg situation. Certainly, one of the
: main reason credible scientists have had such a hard time accepting
: cold fusion as real is that it doesn't pass the smell test. It just
: doesn't smell right and doesn't fit in with scientific dogma. So be
: it, experimental evidence will eventually overwhelm the dogma in my
: opinion. Even if it doesn't smell right, it will eventually become
: impossible to deny.
I've been assuming that your inability to understand what you are being
told was because of your chemical recreations. Now that you insist that
you no longer imbibe, I can only assume that the brain damage was permanent,
and you have my commiseration. For the lurkers who still do have some
kind of brain left in their skulls, let me reiterate: the problem is not
conflict with some "dogma." The problem is direct conflict with
*experimentally confirmed results* -- some of which were obtained under
conditions fairly similar to those under which CF is claimed to operate.
The decay pathways of 4He* are well-known, and the reasons for them are
well-known. It is not sufficient to say "then a miracle occurs." Either
the CF proponents have to come up with a plausible explanation for why
4He* should act differently in Pd than it does anywhere else in the universe
(and so far, all they have is "then a miracle occurs"), or they have to
provide experimental evidence so compelling that it cannot be dismissed as
some kind of error or artifact. So far, the CF proponents have failed
to do that.
:> Does this mean that we have to accept any half-baked claim? Do you think
:> that I should take seriously the guy who presented a paper at ICCF-11 in
:> which he claimed that the medieval alchemists succeeded in transmuting
:> base metals?
Note that this question received no answer.
:> : The arrogant non-researcher like yourself,
:> : or the ones who have rolled up their sleeves and actually looked into
:> : the controversial subject matter?
:>
:> What exactly is it that you think that I do for a living?
Note that this question received no answer.
: For example, if the DOE says cold fusion is real
: and deserves further study, the floodgates will open to mainstream
: research and confirmations.
Your insistence on arguing from authority demonstrates that it is you,
not I, who insists on accepting received dogma.
: If not, perhaps in a year or two we'll
: get more credible reports from institutions like the U.S. Navy
I don't know why you refuse to accept that it is not the "U.S. Navy" that
is presenting the reports, or that the "U.S. Navy" is in fact not normally
considered a top-flight research instution.
: At what point will you accept that cold fusion is a real phenomenon?
When Pons presents the working water heater that he claimed to have in
his hand in 1989.
: If a lot of your colleges at mainstream universities are reporting
: positive cold fusion results, will you try it for yourself and see if
: it's for real?
I have neither the money, the time, nor the expertise to reproduce those
experiments. Or maybe you mean to imply that if someone reports successful
production of the Higgs boson, I should drop everything that I'm doing and
build myself a particle accelerator?
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
JohnnyCJohnny
> In article <cd2ccfd9.04111...@posting.google.com>, JohnnyCJohnny <joh...@patmedia.net> wrote:
>
> : I agree that "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," as
> : you say. But, I think even Carl Sagan would take a report by a U.S.
> : Navy lab that states that cold fusion is a real phenomenon that
> : deserves further study (citing a decade of research) as pretty
> : extraordinary evidence. I don't see how you can so easily dismiss this.
>
> I can dismiss it because I look at the work rather than at the name on
> the building. And the work is shoddy at best. After all, incompetent
> workers at distinguished laboratories have made claims that turned out
> to be mistaken on more than one occasion.
Well, I think you're being a bit arrogant here Dr. Schultz. To his
credit, the late/great Carl Sagan was actually a rather open-minded
scientist, despite his well known statements such as, "Extraordinary
claims require extraordinary evidence." Dr. Sagan actually adimitted
late in his career that there were aspects of the paranormal that
mainstream science had to take seriously, based on the experimental
evidence. For example, Dr. Sagan said the fact that experiments had
demonstrated that young children were often able to describe previous
lives in great detail could not just be written off mainstream
science. It deserved to be taken seriously and studied further. That
to me is the big difference between and open-minded and closed-minded
scientist. I think if Dr. Sagan were alive today, he'd also conclude
that the evidence for cold fusion had reached a point where it had to
be taken seriously and studied further. I base this on his
demonstrated ability to be fair and open-minded.
>
> : I don't agree about the irreproducible claim you make.
>
> Since you by your own admission don't have the qualifications to judge
> whether the experiments have been reproduced or not, your agreeing or
> not agreeing is irrelevant.
You haven't said anything to back up your claim that there is a
problem with reproducible in modern cold fusion experiments. Just
because you say so, doesn't make it so.
>
> : Pons and Fleischman obviously didn't understand
> : just how unique their discovery really was.
>
> For someone who claims to be a writer (admittedly I've never seen you
> claim to be a *published* writer), you have a remarkably poor grasp
> of the language.
That's a cheap shot. Sure, I've messed up "its" and "it's", but it
has a lot more to do with the fact that I'm writing for an informal
setting like USENET, than not having a grasp on the English language.
You lived in the U.S. You should know just how uneducated the
American masses really are. Many can't even put a full sentance, much
less an essay, together. I have a much better grasp on the English
language than 95% of my countrymen. Stop being such a snob. You live
in a country that wouldn't even exist if my coutry wasn't so gracious
with our welfare payments to you, and what do we get in return?
Terrorism. I never said I was a published writer. It might suprise
you that millions of people make their livings as writers, but aren't
"published writers". There are all sorts of fields that require
documentation for private purposes.
>
> : From what I've read, cold fusion experiments are around 80% reproducible
> : at this point.
>
> As I said, that is true only if you redefine "reproducibility" to the
> point at which it becomes meaningless.
>
> :> : Why is it that you are so confident in your position, if you haven't
> :> : actually researched the field yourself?
> :>
> :> What makes you think that I haven't "actually researched the field"?
>
> Note that this question receives no reply.
Well, you answered this question at the end of your last post: "I have
neither the money, the time, nor the expertise to reproduce those
experiments." So, I don't need to reply to it. You said it yourself.
Besides, it's obvious from your disposition against cold fusion that
you're taking the old-school approach of dismissal from afar, based on
theories and other such conjecture. I was able to figure that out
early on in our discussions, and you just admitted as much in your
last post. Why do you say you don't have the experitse? Now, you're
also saying you're not qualified? Give yourself a break.
>
> :> Or to put it another way: what are *your* qualifications to judge whether
> :> an experiment has been competently done? Given that you're afraid even
> :> to tell us your name, I tend to doubt that your scientific qualifications
> :> are particularly high.
> :
> : I don't have a PhD. But, I am an interested 3rd party who has
> : followed this intriguing field since March, 1989, through thick and thin.
>
> In other words, you have no qualifications whatsoever to determine
> whether or not an experiment has been competently done.
Not in the classical scientific sense. No. I don't have a PhD. I
don't know every last control that must be performed to fully validate
an experiment. But, I do know how to formulate judgements based upon
the available evidence. As I've said, I wasn't always convinced cold
fusion is real. I'm not a wild eyed believer. I didn't come from a
position in which I believed, and was looking for validation for my
beliefs. I'm just looking at the available experimental evidence. In
recent years, it's been a growing body of evidence that tells me cold
fusion has been demonstrated to be real under scientific
experimentation protocols. Sure, you can pick those results apart.
But, so what? There are always naysayers and doomsdayers amongst us.
I remember reading a book about how the 1990s were going to be the
decade of economic depression, and that predictions couldn't have been
more wrong. You guys on the skeptical side of the cold fusion
controversy have had your day. There was a time when the experimental
evidence was very weak and spotty. I believe that has changed. You
can believe whatever you want to believe. Just don't blame me when
the world passes you by and kids in college are doing cold fusion
experiments. I believe we aren't far off from that level of
acceptance.
>
> : My point is that as a 3rd party, I find it interesting that
> : resarch teams like the U.S. Navy, SRI, EPRI, etc. who have devoted
> : years to cold fusion research, are the ones who are reporting positive
> : cold fusion results.
>
> And it's the people who have devoted years to dowsing research, astrology
> research, "water memory" research, ESP research, etc. etc. etc. who are
> the ones reporting positive results. Are you saying that I cannot come
> to the conclusion that none of those effects are real because I personally
> have never done an experiment on any of them (except for when I was about
> seven and followed my horoscope for a few weeks to see if there was any
> correlation between its predictions and what actually happened, which there
> was not)?
No, I see your point. I think there is a difference though. A lot of
those psuedo-science fields you mentioned above rely on statistical
evidence and other abstractions as proof. Was a dubject able to guess
better than chance? Then, ESP must be real (a leap of faith for sure,
and not very scientific). But, cold fusion experiments have been
performed in reputable labs from the U.S. Navy to EPRI under rigerous
scientific eperimentation conditions. If you chose to ignore these
reputable labs and results, and try to compare them to fringe science
like water memory" research and ESP research, that's your business.
The world will progress with or without you.
>
> : While, it's armchair scientists like yourself,
> : who apparently have never tried to actually reproduce the cold fusion
> : effect in your own lab, are the ones who continue to dismiss cold
> : fusion out of hand, even as the evidence for it mounts. You are among
> : a distinguished group of scientists who have taken this most
> : unscientific approach to cold fusion.
>
> But you, by your own admission, have *no* *clue* *whatsoever* what science
> is about. Have you read any of the papers in the original literature?
What makes you say I have no clue what science is about? I've taken
years and years of scienc classes. I have an Environmental Science
degree. I've worked in the field of Environmental Science on and off
for over a decade. I surely understand the Scientific Method and why
it's so important to stand guard against psuedo-science, to keep
science pure. But, I also understand human nature. I understand that
many many times in the past human nature and contemporary beliefs (be
them scientific or religous) have retarded and skewed legitmate
science. I'm afraid cold fusion is just another example of this
repeating pattern. The fact is though, if a field of study is indeed
real, it will eventually go mainstream no matter how much official
bias it encounters. There's only so long a scientific reality can be
kept down. Eventually the experimental evidence overwhelms the
naysayers. I think we're approaching that point with cold fusion,
based on the mounting evidence, and cold fusion will so cross the gap
between psuedo-science and legitimate science.
> I have -- I have read P&F's original paper, I have read their followup
> paper on "Heat after Death" (aka the "Pull the Other One, It's Got Bells on
> It" effect). I've read the papers by (IIRC) Mills in which he reports the
> same data twice and tries to act as if it were two different experiments.
> I've read at least one of Szpak's papers. In all of these cases and more,
> there are quite serious problems with the experimental protocol. I don't
> have to do the experiment to know that Szpak's results were obviously due
> to a combination of wishful thinking and some kind of ground loop or other
> electronic cross-talk. I don't have to do the experiment to see that
> someone miscalibrated his mass spec or used it under conditions outside
> of its specifications. I don't have to do the experiment to know that a
> virtual leak from a bad weld would explain all of the results -- and that
> the control experiment to test for that possibility was never done.
>
> But let's look at it from the other point of view: suppose I did the
> experiment and failed to reproduce the effect. What could we possibly
> conclude from such a waste of time other than I am not sufficiently
> competent to do the experiment "properly"? That's always the excuse that
> pseudo-scientists use, you know.
Well, all I could say is, "at least you tried." Then, you'd have
some first hand experience with the controversal subject matter.
Perhaps you'd have a better understanding of why it is controversal as
well. It's a better approach than just being critical from afar. For
example, I've always been interested in psychics and that sort of
thing. Many people I know think it's nonsense. So, I went out and
did my own first hand research. I won't share my conclusions, as I
don't want to veer off subject and open another can of worms, but at
least I tried to gain some first hand knowledge of a controversal
subject. Which is far more than most people will ever do.
>
> : OK, that's fine. You have very high standards for evidence. There's
> : nothing wrong with that for sure. Science needs to be conservative by
> : nature or it's little more than just a sham. I also understand the
> : problems cold fusion has fitting into some of the theories of physics.
> : But, those theories are just theories, and not set in stone.
>
> For a self-described "scientist", you have a remarkably poor grasp of
> what is meant by the word "theory."
Theory is just that, a theory. Noone said it was a law or a fact.
It's still just a theory, no matter how widely accepted it might be.
Here's where you're letting your years of scientific training cloud
your thinking. Despite the fact that many of your fellow scientists
have accepted long standing theories as facts, they are still in fact
theories, and can be changed based upon new evidence. This is where I
have a problem with the scientific approach of many so-called
scientists. At some point, you guys lose that wonderment that led you
into your field of study, and just become custodians of known
scientific dogma. That is not science in action. A scientist by
nature is one who is suppossed to keep an open mind as he/she tries to
understand and explain the natural world. I think Dr. Sagan is an
excellent example of a scientist, who stayed true to the conservative
nature of science, but at the same time kept his mind open to the
possibilities.
Richard Schultz
: Well, I think you're being a bit arrogant here Dr. Schultz. To his
: credit, the late/great Carl Sagan was actually a rather open-minded
: scientist, despite his well known statements such as, "Extraordinary
: claims require extraordinary evidence."
That statement is attributed to Marcello Truzzi, not Carl Sagan. Is all of
your research this carefully done?
: Dr. Sagan actually adimitted late in his career that there were aspects
: of the paranormal that mainstream science had to take seriously, based
: on the experimental evidence. For example, Dr. Sagan said the fact
: that experiments had demonstrated that young children were often able
: to describe previous lives in great detail could not just be written
: off mainstream science. It deserved to be taken seriously and studied
: further. That to me is the big difference between and open-minded
: and closed-minded: scientist.
You should reread that essay on a day when you haven't been taking
mind-altering substances. What he said was that paranormal claims should
not necessarily be dismissed out of hand, and that some of them should
be investigated. He himself wrote an excellent essay in which he did
a critical examination of some of Velikovsky's arguments, even though
the average person with an ounce of knowledge of science knows that the
entire Velikovskian fantasy is completely untenable. Your constant
references to Sagan are something of a straw man since I have never suggested
that Cold Fusion should not be investigated at all. What I have said
is that the evidence so far has been so uniformly negative (and so in
keeping with what is already known about the universe) that further
investigation would be a waste of time and resources.
: I think if Dr. Sagan were alive today, he'd also conclude
: that the evidence for cold fusion had reached a point where it had to
: be taken seriously and studied further. I base this on his
: demonstrated ability to be fair and open-minded.
Carl Sagan was an astronomer who specialized primarily in planetary science.
His views on cold fusion would have been irrelevant to everyone who is
capable of understanding that "argument from authority" is *not* science.
That is, alas, a category that does not include you.
:> Since you by your own admission don't have the qualifications to judge
:> whether the experiments have been reproduced or not, your agreeing or
:> not agreeing is irrelevant.
:
: You haven't said anything to back up your claim that there is a
: problem with reproducible in modern cold fusion experiments. Just
: because you say so, doesn't make it so.
This argument works both ways, you know. Instead of invoking irrelevant
dead people, why don't you give us a specific example of a reproducible
experiment. By that I mean an experiment in which the same protocols
were observed on multiple occasions and the identical results (to within
experimental error) were obtained.
:> : Pons and Fleischman obviously didn't understand
:> : just how unique their discovery really was.
:>
:> For someone who claims to be a writer (admittedly I've never seen you
:> claim to be a *published* writer), you have a remarkably poor grasp
:> of the language.
:
: That's a cheap shot. Sure, I've messed up "its" and "it's", but it
: has a lot more to do with the fact that I'm writing for an informal
: setting like USENET, than not having a grasp on the English language.
IMO, anyone who thinks that there is any circumstance under which such
elementary errors as confusing "its" and "it's" is acceptable has no
business making his living as a writer, even if it is as a writer of
deliberately unintelligible and misleading technical manuals. In this
particular instance, however, I was referring to your apparent lack of
knowledge of the definition of "unique." Feel free to quote the Preamble
to the U.S. Constitution if you think that that argument is going to sway me.
:> :> : Why is it that you are so confident in your position, if you haven't
:> :> : actually researched the field yourself?
:> :>
:> :> What makes you think that I haven't "actually researched the field"?
:>
:> Note that this question receives no reply.
:
: Well, you answered this question at the end of your last post: "I have
: neither the money, the time, nor the expertise to reproduce those
: experiments." So, I don't need to reply to it. You said it yourself.
I *also* said that I have read the *original papers that appeared in the
scientific literature.* Anyone with sufficient training (that doesn't
include you, of course) can do the same. And anyone with an open mind
would realize that not one of those papers makes anything like a convincing
case, primarily since most of the people doing the experiments don't seem
to know what a control experiment is, or how to look for systematic error.
But if according to you the only way of researching the field is by setting
up the experiments and doing them yourself, in what sense can you claim
to have researched the field? Oh, right, you haven't researched the field.
You have read third-hand accounts of what a small number of misguided and
in some cases incompetent researchers claim to have seen, and have concluded
that an open-minded person is by definition one who agrees with you.
You seem to forget that of all of the people who post to s.p.f., I am the
only one who was actually present at P&F's original news conference, at
the seminar presented to the department by the graduate student, and at
Pons's much larger seminar. When they first presented their results, I
was intrigued if skeptical. My confidence was not raised by Pons's
inability to properly balance the proposed reactions, nor by his obviously
bogus calculation of the chemical potential of Pd/D. P&F's willingness
to attribute what was fairly obviously a hydrogen (deuterium) fire to a
"MELTDOWN?" indicated to me that their conclusions were based more on
fervent emotional belief rather than any kind of objective evidence. Nor was
I impressed when Pons claimed in March 1989 (in a front-page article in
the local newspaper) to have a working prototype water heater that was six
months away from commercial production, and of which no more was ever heard.
I took the trouble to read the papers that the CF proponents claimed were the
best evidence for CF, and in each case, I found the evidence wanting. There
is a difference between having an open mind and having holes in your head.
: Besides, it's obvious from your disposition against cold fusion that
: you're taking the old-school approach of dismissal from afar, based on
: theories and other such conjecture.
It's obvious to anyone who has read what I've posted to s.p.f., a category
that apparently does not include you, that my conclusion that CF has not
yet been convincingly demonstrated is based on the lack of good evidence
for the effect. My belief that it is extremely unlikely (although not
impossible) that the effect will be demonstrated is based on my understanding
of what is known about physics. The objections to the likelihood of CF
are ones that are of very high weight. They are also ones that you probably
do not have the knowledge to understand.
: I was able to figure that out
: early on in our discussions, and you just admitted as much in your
: last post. Why do you say you don't have the experitse? Now, you're
: also saying you're not qualified? Give yourself a break.
It's rather unfortunate that you are not capable of parsing simple
declarative English sentences. You yourself claimed that the problem
with CF is that it is very sensitive to the experimental conditions. That
means that *if* the effect is real and *if* it is reproducible, only a
person with expertise in electrochemistry is likely to be able to
reproduce it. I do not have that expertise (my initial training was in
mass spectrometry and I currently do time-resolved infrared spectroscopy).
That means that even if I were to waste my time and money attempting to
reproduce a CF experiment, the attempt would probably fail even if the
effect were real. Thus, any failure of mine to reproduce the effect would
prove exactly nothing. In fact, the commonest claim that I've seen from
the CF faithful about failures to reproduce the effect are that the person
attempting the reproduction (even when he is a professor at Caltech who
is a recognized expert in electrochemistry) doesn't know how.
Now *you* have *no* qualifications whatsoever. Not only have you not
attempted to reproduce the effect (and you couldn't even if you wanted to),
you do not even have the background necessary to understand the objections
to the experimental results thus far presented.
:> :> Or to put it another way: what are *your* qualifications to judge whether
:> :> an experiment has been competently done? Given that you're afraid even
:> :> to tell us your name, I tend to doubt that your scientific qualifications
:> :> are particularly high.
:> : I don't have a PhD. But, I am an interested 3rd party who has
:> : followed this intriguing field since March, 1989, through thick and thin.
:> In other words, you have no qualifications whatsoever to determine
:> whether or not an experiment has been competently done.
: Not in the classical scientific sense. No. I don't have a PhD. I
: don't know every last control that must be performed to fully validate
: an experiment. But, I do know how to formulate judgements based upon
: the available evidence.
Yes or no: have you read *any* of the original papers that appeared in
the refereed scientific literature?
: As I've said, I wasn't always convinced cold
: fusion is real. I'm not a wild eyed believer.
Actually, everything in what you post indicates that this is precisely what
you are. You continually argue from authority ("Famous person X believes
it, so it must be true," or even better, "If famous person Y were alive
to tell us, he would tell us that he believes it, so it must be true").
You refuse to discuss the actual scientific issues that I (inter alia)
have raised. You base your conclusions not on the evidence itself but on
the unsupported claims of a few believers. You respond to skeptics, not
by presenting evidence, but by telling them that only the elect few who
have done the experiments are in a position to judge the evidence. These
are all hallmarks of the "True Believer" in pseudo-science, or what Irving
Langmuir called "Pathological Science." His original lecture on the subject
was transcribed and published in _Physics Today_ in late 1989. You should
read it.
: I didn't come from a
: position in which I believed, and was looking for validation for my
: beliefs. I'm just looking at the available experimental evidence.
Name a single specific experiment, the results of which you have "looked at."
: Sure, you can pick those results apart. But, so what?
That means that the results do not support the conclusion. In science,
that's not usually considered a plus.
: There was a time when the experimental evidence was very weak and spotty.
: I believe that has changed.
And yet you cannot produce a single example of what you consider to be
strong experimental evidence. That doesn't surprise me, since you
cannot even provide us with your name.
: But, cold fusion experiments have been
: performed in reputable labs from the U.S. Navy to EPRI under rigerous
: scientific eperimentation conditions.
As far as I know, this statement is completely untrue.
: If you chose to ignore these
: reputable labs and results, and try to compare them to fringe science
: like water memory" research and ESP research, that's your business.
The "water memory" research and ESP research were performed in
reputable labs. The people doing the work claimed that the experiments
were rigorously (note the spelling) controlled. That you accept the
claims of the CF researchers that their experiments were controlled, while
dismissing the identical claims of ESP researchers, even after telling us
that Carl Sagan believed that ESP was worth investigating, tells us that
you are in fact exactly what you claim not to be, i.e. a True Believer.
:> But you, by your own admission, have *no* *clue* *whatsoever* what science
:> is about. Have you read any of the papers in the original literature?
:
: What makes you say I have no clue what science is about? I've taken
: years and years of scienc classes.
Yawn.
: I have an Environmental Science degree.
He's smarter than you are -- and he has a *master's degree*. In *science*.
: I've worked in the field of Environmental Science on and off
: for over a decade. I surely understand the Scientific Method and why
: it's so important to stand guard against psuedo-science, to keep
: science pure.
As far as I can tell, you do not understand the scientific method. It's
obvious that you don't understand the fundamental scientific issues involved
in CF research.
: But, I also understand human nature. I understand that
: many many times in the past human nature and contemporary beliefs (be
: them scientific or religous) have retarded and skewed legitmate science.
Can you give an example of a *scientific* belief that has retarded
research in legitimate science?
: I think we're approaching that point with cold fusion,
: based on the mounting evidence, and cold fusion will so cross the gap
: between psuedo-science and legitimate science.
If it was real research, then it was never pseudo (note the spelling) science.
[If I did the experiment. . .]
: Perhaps you'd have a better understanding of why it is controversal as
: well. It's a better approach than just being critical from afar.
I've pointed out to you on numerous occasions that I am not being "critical
from afar." I gave specific examples of experiments whose results I
looked at. None of this gets any kind of response from you -- further
indication of which of us actually has the closed mind.
:> For a self-described "scientist", you have a remarkably poor grasp of
:> what is meant by the word "theory."
:
: Theory is just that, a theory. Noone said it was a law or a fact.
As I said, for a self-described "scientist," you have a remarkably
poor grasp of what is meant by the word "theory." You also have no
idea what you are talking about when you describe how scientists behave.
:> :> Does this mean that we have to accept any half-baked claim? Do you think
:> :> that I should take seriously the guy who presented a paper at ICCF-11 in
:> :> which he claimed that the medieval alchemists succeeded in transmuting
:> :> base metals?
:>
:> Note that this question received no answer.
Note that this question *still* has received no answer.
:> :> : The arrogant non-researcher like yourself,
:> :> : or the ones who have rolled up their sleeves and actually looked into
:> :> : the controversial subject matter?
:> :>
:> :> What exactly is it that you think that I do for a living?
:>
:> Note that this question received no answer.
Likewise for this one.
:> : If a lot of your colleges at mainstream universities are reporting
:> : positive cold fusion results, will you try it for yourself and see if
:> : it's for real?
:>
:> I have neither the money, the time, nor the expertise to reproduce those
:> experiments. Or maybe you mean to imply that if someone reports successful
:> production of the Higgs boson, I should drop everything that I'm doing and
:> build myself a particle accelerator?
Nor did this question receive an answer. Mr. Johnny is on a roll.
JohnnyCJohnny
> : has a lot more to do with the fact that I'm writing for an informal
> : setting like USENET, than not having a grasp on the English language.
>
> IMO, anyone who thinks that there is any circumstance under which such
> elementary errors as confusing "its" and "it's" is acceptable has no
> business making his living as a writer, even if it is as a writer of
> deliberately unintelligible and misleading technical manuals. In this
> particular instance, however, I was referring to your apparent lack of
> knowledge of the definition of "unique." Feel free to quote the Preamble
> to the U.S. Constitution if you think that that argument is going to sway me.
>
Hey, tell that to AT&T, Merril Lynch and the other companies who have
employed me over the years. :-) They had no problem with my work.
I've done just fine as a writer. I double and triple check my
professional writing for errors. My USENET posts are sometimes
checked, and sometimes aren't checked, depending upon how much time I
have on my hands (such is life, I don't have any business relationship
with you or anyone else on USENET). As far as splitting hairs
regarding "its" and "it's", it's a fairly easy mistake to make in the
English language, since the rule is muddled and mixes two common rules
of the language. The apostrophe is usually used to desiginate an
object, but not in the case of "its", since the apostrophe is used to
indicate an omission of the "i" in "it is". It often sounds correct
to write "it's" when referring to an owning object, but the correct
usage is "its" (a strange rule if there ever was one). An easy
mistake when I'm rushing through a USENET post.
We're just trading electrons across the universe of the Internet. It
doesn't matter what either one of us believes is the truth about cold
fusion. If cold fusion is real, it will eventually go mainstream,
despite what either one of us says or thinks. If it's not real, then
cold fusion will remain just one of many psuedo-sciences that offer a
curious glimpse into what the true manner of nature might actually be,
but not understood to be at the present time. Or, cold fusion might
just become a receding scientific idea that has lost all credibility.
That is one of the reasons I think cold fusion will eventually go
mainstream, it's not fading away like "water memory" or "N-Rays", an
independent observer can see that the case for cold fusion is, if
anything, growing stronger as the years pass by.
Richard Schultz
: It often sounds correct
: to write [sic] "it's" when referring to an owning object, but the correct
: usage is "its" (a strange rule if there ever was one). An easy
: mistake when I'm rushing through a USENET post.
Do you write "her's" and "hi's" as well?
: We're just trading electrons across the universe of the Internet. It
: doesn't matter what either one of us believes is the truth about cold
: fusion.
A convenient excuse for you not to have to provide any actual support
for your assertions.
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"You don't even have a clue about which clue you're missing."
JohnnyCJohnny
> In article <cd2ccfd9.04111...@posting.google.com>, JohnnyCJohnny <joh...@patmedia.net> wrote:
>
> : It often sounds correct
> : to write [sic] "it's" when referring to an owning object, but the correct
> : usage is "its" (a strange rule if there ever was one). An easy
> : mistake when I'm rushing through a USENET post.
>
> Do you write "her's" and "hi's" as well?
yada, yada, yada, :-)
>
> : We're just trading electrons across the universe of the Internet. It
> : doesn't matter what either one of us believes is the truth about cold
> : fusion.
>
> A convenient excuse for you not to have to provide any actual support
> for your assertions.
I don't have to provide support. We both know what "evidence" is out
there. We both look at the same reports and draw different
conclusions. Such is life. There are highly qualified scientists
like yourself who also look at these reports and find them credible.
I'm just an interested third party who likes to see the field of
science deal with a controversial topic. My point is, it makes no
difference to either one of us believes regarding the available
reports. If cold fusion is real, it will emerge as a mainstream field
of science, if it is not real, then it will remain in the realm of
pseudo-science for people like you to kick around. Time will tell. I
have all the time in the world. The DOE report clock is ticking.
Richard Schultz
:> A convenient excuse for you not to have to provide any actual support
:> for your assertions.
:
: I don't have to provide support.
For someone who claims to be a "scientist," you have a remarkably poor
understanding of how science works. You made a positive claim, so it
is up to *you* to provide support for it.
: We both know what "evidence" is out
: there. We both look at the same reports and draw different conclusions.
This statement is, as far as I can tell, untrue. While I have made
reference to specific reports that have appeared in the literature, as
far as I can tell, you have not read a single primary source. This
conclusion, it seems to me is a natural one, given that you will not
give any specific examples of experiments that you say have been reproduced,
nor will you even answer the question of whether you have actually read
any of the reports that have appeared in the refereed literature.
: The DOE report clock is ticking.
If the DOE concludes that CF is not worth pursuing, will you then
agree that your prior conclusions were incorrect? (Among the many
questions that you refuse to answer.)
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
Tom Kunich
> > for your assertions.
>
> I don't have to provide support. We both know what "evidence" is out
> there. We both look at the same reports and draw different
> conclusions. Such is life. There are highly qualified scientists
> like yourself who also look at these reports and find them credible.
> I'm just an interested third party who likes to see the field of
> science deal with a controversial topic. My point is, it makes no
> difference to either one of us believes regarding the available
> reports. If cold fusion is real, it will emerge as a mainstream field
> of science, if it is not real, then it will remain in the realm of
> pseudo-science for people like you to kick around. Time will tell. I
> have all the time in the world. The DOE report clock is ticking.
Uh, how many years have to pass with the same information blowing back
and forth? Each year more and more questionable experiments claim cold
fussion or something similar and each year very careful experiments
show nothing.
Just how long, how many experiments and how much money that is needed
for much more important research is going to be wasted chasing
something that would be the most profitable business in the universe
were it possible.
Don't you give commercial business any credit at all for being able to
detect a money making proposition should it be out there?
Dr. Schultz has shown the patience of a saint on this group for many
years trying to point out that you can't get orange juice from
rutabagas. In my opinion it would be nice if the unappreciative
children would think about what he says before they start typing smart
responses.
alexi
"Richard Schultz" <sch...@mail.biu.ack.il> wrote in message
news:cn9f90$iks$1...@news.iucc.ac.il...
> I've read at least one of Szpak's papers. In all of these cases and more,
> there are quite serious problems with the experimental protocol. I don't
> have to do the experiment to know that Szpak's results were obviously due
> to a combination of wishful thinking and some kind of ground loop or other
> electronic cross-talk. I don't have to do the experiment to see that
> someone miscalibrated his mass spec or used it under conditions outside
> of its specifications. I don't have to do the experiment to know that a
> virtual leak from a bad weld would explain all of the results -- and that
> the control experiment to test for that possibility was never done.
>
from the paper:
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/SzpakSthermalbeh.pdf
"The experiment was carried out using an electrochemical
system consisting of an Hi-Tek DT 2101 potentiostat/
galvanostat. A separate potentiostat/galvanostat was
used to deliver constant currents to the resistive heater
used to calibrate the cells. The system was controlled by
a 486 data acquisition computer which also controlled an
Hewlett-Packard 44705A multiplexer and data acquisition
system. This data acquisition system was on an IEEE–GPLB [sic]
bus so that it would be anticipated that there would not have
been any timing errors introduced into the measurements.
Data were taken every 300 s."
Is this a kind of joke, or what? The other papers on CF report the
current/voltage fluctuations in sub-microsecond scale, yet
"data were taken every 300s" by a benchtop sequential multiplexer?
I think I know where the CF problem is ...
- aap
Harry Conover
> "Richard Schultz" <sch...@mail.biu.ack.il> wrote in message
> news:cn9f90$iks$1...@news.iucc.ac.il...
>
> > I've read at least one of Szpak's papers. In all of these cases and more,
> > there are quite serious problems with the experimental protocol. I don't
> > have to do the experiment to know that Szpak's results were obviously due
> > to a combination of wishful thinking and some kind of ground loop or other
> > electronic cross-talk. I don't have to do the experiment to see that
> > someone miscalibrated his mass spec or used it under conditions outside
> > of its specifications. I don't have to do the experiment to know that a
> > virtual leak from a bad weld would explain all of the results -- and that
> > the control experiment to test for that possibility was never done.
> >
>
> from the paper:
>
> http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/SzpakSthermalbeh.pdf
>
> "The experiment was carried out using an electrochemical
>
> system consisting of an Hi-Tek DT 2101 potentiostat/
>
> galvanostat. A separate potentiostat/galvanostat was
>
> used to deliver constant currents to the resistive heater
>
> used to calibrate the cells. The system was controlled by
>
> a 486 data acquisition computer which also controlled an
>
> Hewlett-Packard 44705A multiplexer and data acquisition
>
>
> bus so that it would be anticipated that there would not have
>
> been any timing errors introduced into the measurements.
>
> Data were taken every 300 s."
>
>
>
> Is this a kind of joke, or what? The other papers on CF report the
>
> current/voltage fluctuations in sub-microsecond scale, yet
>
> "data were taken every 300s" by a benchtop sequential multiplexer?
>
> I think I know where the CF problem is ...
>
>
>
> - aap
Welcome to the club!
Harry C.
alexi
Bill Snyder
[large snip]
>I am sure that all this was already pointed out by involved
>professionals, but anyway. Unfortunately, I found only one reference
>to this kind of concern,
>Holst-Hansen, P. and D. Britz, Can current fluctuations account for
>the excess heat claims of Fleischmann and Pons? J. Electroanal. Chem., 1995. 388: p. 11.,
>where the concern was dismissed on the ground that the fluctuations
>they saw were only 50mV. On French site I've seen 0 to 15A fluctuations,
>go figure.
Naudin's a buffoon even by CF standards, and those current readings
look correspondingly bizarre. If you forced me to guess I'd say he
used a shunt intended for high current measurements, something that
produced single-digit-millivolt output in the range where he was
actually using it. Then he ran a nice long unshielded ribbon cable,
with plenty of other signals in it, from there to his
super-high-impedance amp input, routing it beside an open-frame
switching supply or two on the way just for luck.
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank.]
alexi
"Bill Snyder" <bsn...@airmail.net> wrote in message
news:rdf0q0h754remumt2...@4ax.com...
Do you folks have here a table of ranks, or something?
Naudin, at least, almost describes what he is doing,
and have lots of actual pictures from which it is
possible to deduct some details. (BTW, he uses a clamp
Ampermeter; Hall-effect-base clamps usually clamp
(pun intended :-) the readings without much warning).
From many other papers everything is clear as mud,
"positive feedback effect", "self organization far from
equilibrium" and other unclear nonsense.
Also, what kind of current pulses would you generally
expect from shorting a 1000uF cap charged to 200V
across a few-milliohm electrolyte gap? From T.Mizuno
et al. publications I've seen pictures with current
fluctuations of at least 2A, not 15A as in Naudin
experiments, but clearly not 50mV(mA?)...
- aap
Bill Snyder
To invoke Rogers again, the characterization of Naudin is based partly
on his never having met a nutty claim he didn't verify, and partly on
his having repealed Ohm's Law as part of "confirming" over-unity
performance for one of those magic-flyback circuits. The output side
supposedly produced a measured 50 V across a 1K load resistor, at a
measured current of 500 mA (those specific values are pulled from a
hat since I'm too lazy to go googling for the original ones just now,
but the neat one-order-of-magnitude discrepancy is as per Naudin's
actual claim).
When this was pointed out, his response was to delete the resistor
value from the schematics on his web site, likewise delete several
photos on which the resistor color code was visible, and continue to
claim 50 V at 0.5 A -- which let him keep on claiming a calculated
output power of 25W and an efficiency of several hundred percent.
>
>Also, what kind of current pulses would you generally
>expect from shorting a 1000uF cap charged to 200V
>across a few-milliohm electrolyte gap? From T.Mizuno
>et al. publications I've seen pictures with current
>fluctuations of at least 2A, not 15A as in Naudin
>experiments, but clearly not 50mV(mA?)...
Huge, I'd suppose, but I'm afraid you've lost me completely. Where is
that capacitance value coming from, and under what circumstances would
you expect to see such a low resistance?
alexi
I sense here the same sort of mistake as in CF input formulas.
For fluctuating and pulsed signals, AVERAGE(I*V) is not equal
to AVERAGE(I)*AVERAGE(V).
>
> >
> >Also, what kind of current pulses would you generally
> >expect from shorting a 1000uF cap charged to 200V
> >across a few-milliohm electrolyte gap? From T.Mizuno
> >et al. publications I've seen pictures with current
> >fluctuations of at least 2A, not 15A as in Naudin
> >experiments, but clearly not 50mV(mA?)...
>
> Huge, I'd suppose, but I'm afraid you've lost me completely. Where is
> that capacitance value coming from, and under what circumstances would
> you expect to see such a low resistance?
Actually, I pulled those numbers from the air. I saw a 1000uF cap
at Naudin's CF website. About resistance of a typical plasma
cord discharge in that particular situation, is was my WAG.
When I was a kid, we used to have some fun making "plasma
experiments" too, in a high-school dorm. We usually took a 3-liter
glass jar (typical for canned vegetables in my area), fill
it with a water solution of backing soda (or table salt, I don't
remember exactly, it was 40+ years ago :-). Then we would
take a regular power wire (aluminum, nothing fancy), and
strip off half-inch from the ends, and plug the other ends
into 220V AC outlet. The whole consruction was placed into
a iron-cast bath in a dorm's bathroom, and fun begun - we
saw (through a narrow gap in almost closed door) a glowing
unstable plasma discharge, roaring sound and boiling liquid.
The biggest fun happened when the ends of discharging wires
are brought very close to the jar wall. The jar would violently
explode, with glass and soda shuttering all over the bathroom
and ceiling. End of experiment and fun, cleanup time :-(.
However, being physics students at a special Physics-Mathematics
Magnet School, we never attempted to find any misbalances between
input and output power :-) :-) :-)
Take care,
- aap