Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Mills excess heat (was Re: Is belief poss

4 views
Skip to first unread message

EDWARD DUBINSKY

unread,
May 9, 1994, 11:55:56 AM5/9/94
to
>>If not, why shouldn't CF be treated like any other idea? Why
>>shouldn't the onus be on the people boosting it to show solid
>>evidence for it?
>
>It should be. What makes you think I think otherwise?
>
>
>--
>Michael Fullerton | Seeds, like ideas, don't
>mefu...@acs.ucalgary.ca | germinate in concrete

Michael, I think what you have been saying is fairly clear and
straight forward. You have presented evidence that suggests
that there may really be something to 'cold fusion' and you
have also made it quite clear that although something unusual may
be occurring, it may not necessarily be 'fusion' but perhaps some
kind of unknown chemical reaction. Thus you feel this evidence
warrants further study before writing the whole thing off.

The position of your critics seems to be that the whole thing should
be considered bunk until proven to be true. Such a position
is the safe road to take, and may save a lot of wasted time on
investigating an effect that might turn out to be bunk, but contributes
nothing towards the growth of science into new areas. Fortunately for
science, there are those with the vision to see beyond the 'horizon',
and who are willing to take risks in investigating new ideas that may
not eventually pan out.

All would be fine, if it were left at that, however as can be seen in
many of the responses you have received regarding this issue, there are
those who seem to feel very threatened by new ideas and feel it is their
duty to go on the full attack when new ideas are presented. Such behaviour
starts becoming a hindrance to the progress of science, and is what you were
referring to as 'pathological skepticism', I believe. True skepticism
is the holding off of accepting new ideas until solid proof is produced
that supports the new idea, and has nothing to do with attacking or
ridiculing out of hand, or otherwise hindering scientific investigation.

Those who feel the need to attack and ridicule new ideas out of hand, are
not skeptics, though they often try to hide under such a label in an attempt
to rationalize their behaviour. Such behaviour gives skepticism a bad
name, and is ironic since it has nothing to do with true skepticism.
Perhaps a new word needs to be coined to describe such people so as
to differentiate them from true skeptics. Perhaps 'pathics', a combination
of the words pathological and skeptic, would fit the bill? ;-)

Michael, perhaps you should just ignore the more irrational posts
from the pathics, as there is no point in trying to reason with people
who are behaving so irrationally. I mean is their really any point in
wasting your energy on a person who thinks that personal insults
and ridicule are an expression of critical thinking? Sure they
are a nuisance, as their inane posts make it difficult to carry on an
intelligent conversation, but I suspect that unconsciously, that is
their intention. New ideas seem to be a threat to their rigid world view,
and they will try to drown them out any way they can. Just think of it
as background noise, and the 'n' key is the switch on your noise filter. ;-)

regards,
Ed Dubinsky

Jon Livesey

unread,
May 9, 1994, 4:40:12 PM5/9/94
to
In article <2qlmec$1c...@hermes.acs.ryerson.ca>, edub...@ee.ryerson.ca (EDWARD DUBINSKY) writes:
|> >>If not, why shouldn't CF be treated like any other idea? Why
|> >>shouldn't the onus be on the people boosting it to show solid
|> >>evidence for it?
|> >
|> >It should be. What makes you think I think otherwise?
|> >
|> >
|> >--
|> >Michael Fullerton | Seeds, like ideas, don't
|> >mefu...@acs.ucalgary.ca | germinate in concrete
|>
|> Michael, I think what you have been saying is fairly clear and
|> straight forward. You have presented evidence that suggests
|> that there may really be something to 'cold fusion' and you
|> have also made it quite clear that although something unusual may
|> be occurring, it may not necessarily be 'fusion' but perhaps some
|> kind of unknown chemical reaction. Thus you feel this evidence
|> warrants further study before writing the whole thing off.
|>
|> The position of your critics seems to be that the whole thing should
|> be considered bunk until proven to be true.

Since it's me you're quoting, can I be sure that you understand
what I am saying:

"why shouldn't CF be treated like any other idea? Why
shouldn't the onus be on the people boosting it to show solid
evidence for it?"


jon.

Gary Steckly

unread,
May 9, 1994, 3:44:55 PM5/9/94
to
EDWARD DUBINSKY (edub...@ee.ryerson.ca) wrote:
: >>If not, why shouldn't CF be treated like any other idea? Why

: >>shouldn't the onus be on the people boosting it to show solid
: >>evidence for it?
: >
: >It should be. What makes you think I think otherwise?
: >
: >
: >--
: >Michael Fullerton | Seeds, like ideas, don't
: >mefu...@acs.ucalgary.ca | germinate in concrete

: Michael, I think what you have been saying is fairly clear and
: straight forward. You have presented evidence that suggests
: that there may really be something to 'cold fusion' and you
: have also made it quite clear that although something unusual may
: be occurring, it may not necessarily be 'fusion' but perhaps some
: kind of unknown chemical reaction. Thus you feel this evidence
: warrants further study before writing the whole thing off.

(lots of good commentary deleted)


: Those who feel the need to attack and ridicule new ideas out of hand, are


: not skeptics, though they often try to hide under such a label in an attempt
: to rationalize their behaviour. Such behaviour gives skepticism a bad
: name, and is ironic since it has nothing to do with true skepticism.
: Perhaps a new word needs to be coined to describe such people so as
: to differentiate them from true skeptics. Perhaps 'pathics', a combination
: of the words pathological and skeptic, would fit the bill? ;-)

I like to think of them as "rabid skeptics" but I really like the sound of
your term, perhaps in part due to the similarity to the word "pathetic"
which describes many of their arguments perfectly ;-)

: Michael, perhaps you should just ignore the more irrational posts
: from the pathics, as there is no point in trying to reason with people
: who are behaving so irrationally. I mean is their really any point in
: wasting your energy on a person who thinks that personal insults
: and ridicule are an expression of critical thinking? Sure they
: are a nuisance, as their inane posts make it difficult to carry on an
: intelligent conversation, but I suspect that unconsciously, that is
: their intention. New ideas seem to be a threat to their rigid world view,
: and they will try to drown them out any way they can. Just think of it
: as background noise, and the 'n' key is the switch on your noise filter. ;-)


: regards,
: Ed Dubinsky


my sentiments precisely Ed. Don't let them wear you down Mike...they're
not worth it. (is it my imagine, or are all the open minds living north of
the 49th?)

Gary

Michael Ernest Fullerton

unread,
May 10, 1994, 3:24:04 AM5/10/94
to
In article <1994May9.1...@clark.dgim.doc.ca>,

Gary Steckly <gste...@dgim.doc.ca> wrote:
>
>(lots of good commentary deleted)
>
>: Those who feel the need to attack and ridicule new ideas out of hand, are
>: not skeptics, though they often try to hide under such a label in an attempt
>: to rationalize their behaviour. Such behaviour gives skepticism a bad
>: name, and is ironic since it has nothing to do with true skepticism.
>: Perhaps a new word needs to be coined to describe such people so as
>: to differentiate them from true skeptics. Perhaps 'pathics', a combination
>: of the words pathological and skeptic, would fit the bill? ;-)
>
>I like to think of them as "rabid skeptics" but I really like the sound of
>your term, perhaps in part due to the similarity to the word "pathetic"
>which describes many of their arguments perfectly ;-)

Yes I like the term as well. But how about skeptopathic. Sort of
like psychopathic. This seems to combine all the different semantic
bits together.

>my sentiments precisely Ed. Don't let them wear you down Mike...they're
>not worth it. (is it my imagine, or are all the open minds living north of
>the 49th?)

Ah it must be the cool fresh air. Thanks for the kind words you two
and for helping to preserve the integrity of science here.

Mark North

unread,
May 10, 1994, 2:38:31 PM5/10/94
to
edub...@ee.ryerson.ca (EDWARD DUBINSKY) writes:

>Michael, I think what you have been saying is fairly clear and
>straight forward.
>You have presented evidence that suggests
>that there may really be something to 'cold fusion'

He has done no such thing. All he has done is make illfounded
claims about the quality of some of the work done by others.

>and you
>have also made it quite clear that although something unusual may
>be occurring, it may not necessarily be 'fusion' but perhaps some
>kind of unknown chemical reaction. Thus you feel this evidence
>warrants further study before writing the whole thing off.

The whole thing has been 'studied' to death. But he is certainly
free to study it some more if he wants. No one is stopping him.

>The position of your critics seems to be that the whole thing should
>be considered bunk until proven to be true.

A
You don't have a clue. Please show where even one critic has said
anything like this.

>Such a position
>is the safe road to take, and may save a lot of wasted time on
>investigating an effect that might turn out to be bunk, but contributes
>nothing towards the growth of science into new areas. Fortunately for
>science, there are those with the vision to see beyond the 'horizon',
>and who are willing to take risks in investigating new ideas that may
>not eventually pan out.

Yawn.

>All would be fine, if it were left at that, however as can be seen in
>many of the responses you have received regarding this issue, there are
>those who seem to feel very threatened by new ideas and feel it is their
>duty to go on the full attack when new ideas are presented.

I see you're a fan of pop-psychology.

>Such behaviour
>starts becoming a hindrance to the progress of science, and is what you were
>referring to as 'pathological skepticism', I believe.

Please go on. I'd like to hear more about 'the progress of science'.

>True skepticism
>is the holding off of accepting new ideas until solid proof is produced
>that supports the new idea, and has nothing to do with attacking or
>ridiculing out of hand, or otherwise hindering scientific investigation.

Bullshit. Your definition of skepticism (let alone 'true' skepticism,
whatever that might be) is not in accord with either the dictionary nor
as used here on s.s. And just exactly how is anyone hindered from
scientific investigation just because someone who actually knows what
they are talking about thinks that person is a jackass?

>Those who feel the need to attack and ridicule new ideas out of hand, are
>not skeptics, though they often try to hide under such a label in an attempt
>to rationalize their behaviour.

The trouble with pop-psychology is that it is written by clueless
individuals for clueless individuals. You parrot it well.

>Such behaviour gives skepticism a bad
>name, and is ironic since it has nothing to do with true skepticism.
>Perhaps a new word needs to be coined to describe such people so as
>to differentiate them from true skeptics. Perhaps 'pathics', a combination
>of the words pathological and skeptic, would fit the bill? ;-)

Before you start making up new words perhaps you should figure out
what some of the old ones mean first.

>Michael, perhaps you should just ignore the more irrational posts
>from the pathics, as there is no point in trying to reason with people
>who are behaving so irrationally. I mean is their really any point in
>wasting your energy on a person who thinks that personal insults
>and ridicule are an expression of critical thinking? Sure they
>are a nuisance, as their inane posts make it difficult to carry on an
>intelligent conversation, but I suspect that unconsciously, that is
>their intention. New ideas seem to be a threat to their rigid world view,
>and they will try to drown them out any way they can. Just think of it
>as background noise, and the 'n' key is the switch on your noise filter. ;-)

How droll.

Mark

Jim Rogers

unread,
May 10, 1994, 8:57:50 PM5/10/94
to
mefu...@acs.ucalgary.ca (Michael Ernest Fullerton) says:
<Pathological skepticism is subscribing to the irrational belief
<that a phenom. is non-existant without conducting a proper
<investigation. You are the most salient example of this phenomena.

This is getting to be ridiculous, because now you have to define "proper"
for the above definition to have any useful meaning. Is a "proper
investigation" observing with your senses and taking in immediately
available facts and making your best assessment? Imagine proposing the
"phenomenon": "High noon every day, there is a total solar eclipse in
New York City." You would seem to label it "pathological skepticism" for
us to doubt that assertion OUT OF HAND drawing simply on one's vast
amount of experience of common daily sun activities, knowledge of the
orbital dynamics and relative sizes of the earth, moon, and sun, and the
complete lack of reports from anyone in NYC that daily eclipses occur.

I call that common sense. Intellectual efficiency. Pathological? Only if
you consider superstition to be true mental health.

A few years ago I was quite hopeful about the tantalizing "positive"
results CF researchers were getting, as you are, but it became
increasingly clear that no one who was publishing thorough data in
peer-reviewed journals was getting reliably positive results under
conditions anyone could reproduce. THAT is the test of good science;
until that happens all we have is officially unsubstantiated claims.

Add to that the meticulous work done by folks like Tom Droege to fine-
tune the calorimetry to eliminate noise, using the "best" published CF
cell designs available, which coincidentally also diminished their
"positive" results LINEARLY with the noise reduction, and I lost hope
that this will ever pan out to be anything other than a ghost or a
ho-hum physical change of some kind (such as, perhaps, fracturing of
the metal anode liberating energy, but less than it'd take to re-anneal
the anode back to its original shape).

Skepticism for CF is extremely well-justified. As you pointed out
before research into it is continuing in several quarters, so there is
no need to worry what "harm" will come of this skepticism; if there's
something "real and exciting" behind it like boundless energy sources,
it will be discovered. I and many other skeptics have simply stopped
holding our collective breath for Mr. Fusion machines to appear on the
market.

Jim
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Character consists of what you do on the third and fourth tries."
-- James Michener

Unknown

unread,
May 11, 1994, 12:06:37 AM5/11/94
to
Let's face it: so called "cold fusion" has been studied and disgarded by
mainstream science. If some still think there is validity to "cold fusion"
claims, it is up to them to provide proof. I simply refuse to believe
until I see evidence. How can anyone have a problem with that?

Michael Ernest Fullerton

unread,
May 11, 1994, 1:40:22 AM5/11/94
to
In article <north.768595111@watop>, Mark North <no...@watop.nosc.mil> wrote:
>edub...@ee.ryerson.ca (EDWARD DUBINSKY) writes:
>
>>Michael, I think what you have been saying is fairly clear and
>>straight forward.
>>You have presented evidence that suggests
>>that there may really be something to 'cold fusion'
>
>He has done no such thing. All he has done is make illfounded
>claims about the quality of some of the work done by others.

I have presented abstracts from Dr. Mills, just one researcher
from a huge file of references I possess. Just what illfounded
claims are you talking about.

>>True skepticism
>>is the holding off of accepting new ideas until solid proof is produced
>>that supports the new idea, and has nothing to do with attacking or
>>ridiculing out of hand, or otherwise hindering scientific investigation.
>
>Bullshit. Your definition of skepticism (let alone 'true' skepticism,
>whatever that might be) is not in accord with either the dictionary nor
>as used here on s.s. And just exactly how is anyone hindered from
>scientific investigation just because someone who actually knows what
>they are talking about thinks that person is a jackass?

This shows a lot about you North. If you disagree with Ed you seem
to be saying skepticism should involve rejecting new ideas untill
solid proof has been found, and attacking or ridiculing them in the
meantime. Actually that does sound just like you.

Jon Livesey

unread,
May 11, 1994, 4:14:00 PM5/11/94
to
In article <May11.054...@acs.ucalgary.ca>, mefu...@acs.ucalgary.ca (Michael Ernest Fullerton) writes:
>
> This shows a lot about you North. If you disagree with Ed you seem
> to be saying skepticism should involve rejecting new ideas untill
> solid proof has been found, and attacking or ridiculing them in the
> meantime. Actually that does sound just like you.

Anyone who has spent any time in Grad School, or who has worked
in research will tell you that a lot of time is spent in people
presenting their ideas, and then listening while other people
attack them, sometimes quite savagely.

This isn't counted as bad manners. To attack someone's ideas
is counted as a great kindness, since a) it shouws you take them
seriously, and b) you help people abandon dumb ideas before they
have too much time, and perhaps more importantly ego, invested
in them.

Moreover, attacking ideas and pointing out their weaknesses often
leads to discovery of yet more ideas. If you really want to do
someone in, you let them waste their time plugging away at something
you suspect is a dead-end.

Mind you, I'm talking about people who are interested in following
facts where they lead, not just people boosting some favourite
notion to which they happen to have shackled themselves.

jon.

EDWARD DUBINSKY

unread,
May 11, 1994, 7:07:40 PM5/11/94
to
>Anyone who has spent any time in Grad School, or who has worked
>in research will tell you that a lot of time is spent in people
>presenting their ideas, and then listening while other people
>attack them, sometimes quite savagely.
>
>This isn't counted as bad manners. To attack someone's ideas
>is counted as a great kindness, since a) it shouws you take them
>seriously, and b) you help people abandon dumb ideas before they
>have too much time, and perhaps more importantly ego, invested
>in them.

As long as people are attacking the idea for good reason and
not just launching a personal attack at the person presenting
the idea, I would agree that this can be useful. However many
people seem to have trouble seeing the difference between the
two approaches. I see no constructive purpose for personal insults
or ridicule in such a process. The idea either has something to it
or it doesn't. If people have reason to think that the idea or any
evidence presented is not sound, there should be no reason why they
can't present their arguments calmly, rationally, and respectfully
and still make their point. When ad hominem attacks or a condescending
tone start creeping into the critique it would seem to indicate that
the person probably has ulterior motives, or they just plain enjoy a
conflict type situation and couldn't care less what the facts are. On
the other hand, they may also just seriously need to read up on the
principles of logical argumentation.

regards,
Ed Dubinsky

Michael Ernest Fullerton

unread,
May 12, 1994, 12:57:18 AM5/12/94
to
In article <1994051100...@cs.utexas.edu>,

Jim Rogers <grim...@VNET.IBM.COM> wrote:
>mefu...@acs.ucalgary.ca (Michael Ernest Fullerton) says:
><Pathological skepticism is subscribing to the irrational belief
><that a phenom. is non-existant without conducting a proper
><investigation. You are the most salient example of this phenomena.
>
>This is getting to be ridiculous, because now you have to define "proper"
>for the above definition to have any useful meaning. Is a "proper
>investigation" observing with your senses and taking in immediately
>available facts and making your best assessment? Imagine proposing the
>"phenomenon": "High noon every day, there is a total solar eclipse in
>New York City." You would seem to label it "pathological skepticism" for
>us to doubt that assertion OUT OF HAND drawing simply on one's vast
>amount of experience of common daily sun activities, knowledge of the
>orbital dynamics and relative sizes of the earth, moon, and sun, and the
>complete lack of reports from anyone in NYC that daily eclipses occur.

I certainly agree that many of the points I have been replying to are
in fact quite ridiculous. First of all I am not against doubting
anything. In fact I would encourage everyone, as I do, to doubt
everything. Your example is not pathological because the doubter has
not completely dismissed the phenomena without conducting a thorough
investigation.

>Skepticism for CF is extremely well-justified. As you pointed out
>before research into it is continuing in several quarters, so there is
>no need to worry what "harm" will come of this skepticism; if there's
>something "real and exciting" behind it like boundless energy sources,
>it will be discovered. I and many other skeptics have simply stopped
>holding our collective breath for Mr. Fusion machines to appear on the
>market.

Skepticism is justified for everything, pathological skepticism is not.

Carl J Lydick

unread,
May 12, 1994, 2:19:36 AM5/12/94
to
In article <May12.045...@acs.ucalgary.ca>, mefu...@acs.ucalgary.ca (Michael Ernest Fullerton) writes:
=>Skepticism for CF is extremely well-justified. As you pointed out
=>before research into it is continuing in several quarters, so there is
=>no need to worry what "harm" will come of this skepticism; if there's
=>something "real and exciting" behind it like boundless energy sources,
=>it will be discovered. I and many other skeptics have simply stopped
=>holding our collective breath for Mr. Fusion machines to appear on the
=>market.
=
=Skepticism is justified for everything, pathological skepticism is not.

It appears that "pathological skepticism" is defined to be skepticism toward
any idea Michael holds dear.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CA...@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer: Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS. That's what I get paid for. My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below). So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it. If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.

bob...@aol.com

unread,
May 12, 1994, 9:10:50 AM5/12/94
to
writes:

> I certainly agree that many of the points I have been replying to are
> in fact quite ridiculous. First of all I am not against doubting
> anything.
>

I doubt that. Are you a boxer? You've got a great "bob & weave"!

Michael Ernest Fullerton

unread,
May 12, 1994, 7:37:10 PM5/12/94
to
In article <2qshpo$q...@gap.cco.caltech.edu>,

Carl J Lydick <ca...@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU> wrote:
>In article <May12.045...@acs.ucalgary.ca>, mefu...@acs.ucalgary.ca (Michael Ernest Fullerton) writes:
>=
>=Skepticism is justified for everything, pathological skepticism is not.
>
>It appears that "pathological skepticism" is defined to be skepticism toward
>any idea Michael holds dear.

Just what sort of evidence do you have to support this, which appears
to be another unsubstantiated claim on your part.

Michael Ernest Fullerton

unread,
May 12, 1994, 7:40:41 PM5/12/94
to

What evidence do you have to support your doubt that I am not against
doubting? If you find any I will admit error, if not yours is yet
another unsubstantiated claim against me.

Carl J Lydick

unread,
May 12, 1994, 8:21:42 PM5/12/94
to
In article <May12.233...@acs.ucalgary.ca>, mefu...@acs.ucalgary.ca (Michael Ernest Fullerton) writes:
=In article <2qshpo$q...@gap.cco.caltech.edu>,
=Carl J Lydick <ca...@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU> wrote:

=>In article <May12.045...@acs.ucalgary.ca>, mefu...@acs.ucalgary.ca (Michael Ernest Fullerton) writes:
=>=
=>=Skepticism is justified for everything, pathological skepticism is not.
=>
=>It appears that "pathological skepticism" is defined to be skepticism toward
=>any idea Michael holds dear.
=
=Just what sort of evidence do you have to support this, which appears
=to be another unsubstantiated claim on your part.

1) You've used the term only in reference to skepticism toward your pet
notions;
2) You've avoided giving a meaningful definition of the term.
If you want to avoid the appearance that the term refers simply to skepticism
toward your pet notions, then provide a usable definition of the term.

Jon Livesey

unread,
May 12, 1994, 8:44:01 PM5/12/94
to
In article <2qrofs$v...@hermes.acs.ryerson.ca>, edub...@ee.ryerson.ca (EDWARD DUBINSKY) writes:
|> >Anyone who has spent any time in Grad School, or who has worked
|> >in research will tell you that a lot of time is spent in people
|> >presenting their ideas, and then listening while other people
|> >attack them, sometimes quite savagely.
|> >
|> >This isn't counted as bad manners. To attack someone's ideas
|> >is counted as a great kindness, since a) it shouws you take them
|> >seriously, and b) you help people abandon dumb ideas before they
|> >have too much time, and perhaps more importantly ego, invested
|> >in them.
|>
|> As long as people are attacking the idea for good reason and
|> not just launching a personal attack at the person presenting
|> the idea, I would agree that this can be useful.

Can you think of a better reason that a lack of evidence? Or
that even one of the experimenters touted as an authority denies
that cold fusion is involved?

jon.

Jon Livesey

unread,
May 12, 1994, 9:14:03 PM5/12/94
to
In article <2qrofs$v...@hermes.acs.ryerson.ca>, edub...@ee.ryerson.ca (EDWARD DUBINSKY) writes:
|>
|> As long as people are attacking the idea for good reason and
|> not just launching a personal attack at the person presenting
|> the idea, I would agree that this can be useful. However many
|> people seem to have trouble seeing the difference between the
|> two approaches. I see no constructive purpose for personal insults
|> or ridicule in such a process. The idea either has something to it
|> or it doesn't.

And if the idea *does* have something in it, it will survive
any amount of attacks.

The remarks that Mr Dubinsky makes above are exactly of the
type that convinces me that people such as himself and Mr
Fullerton are not really defending cold fusion but rather
the publicity machine surrounding it: themselves.

Nothing said here can harm cold fusion or prevent it being
investigated. Indeed, Mr Fullerton has founded a good many
of his claims on the continuing funding that is going into
CF. If all these famous people, companies and departments
of defense are still pouring money into cold fusion, we're
not doing any it harm.

All that can happen here in sci.skeptic is that premature,
unfounded, or irrationally based claims are exposed and
ridiculed. That doesn't delay the development, if any, of
cold fusion by a microsecond. It just means that a few
hasty individuals suffer the consequences of jumping on a
bandwagon before the wheels are on.

jon.

Michael Ernest Fullerton

unread,
May 12, 1994, 10:48:19 PM5/12/94
to
In article <2quh6m$9...@gap.cco.caltech.edu>,

Carl J Lydick <ca...@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU> wrote:
>In article <May12.233...@acs.ucalgary.ca>, mefu...@acs.ucalgary.ca (Michael Ernest Fullerton) writes:
>=In article <2qshpo$q...@gap.cco.caltech.edu>,
>=Carl J Lydick <ca...@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU> wrote:
>=>In article <May12.045...@acs.ucalgary.ca>, mefu...@acs.ucalgary.ca (Michael Ernest Fullerton) writes:
>=>=
>=>=Skepticism is justified for everything, pathological skepticism is not.
>=>
>=>It appears that "pathological skepticism" is defined to be skepticism toward
>=>any idea Michael holds dear.
>=
>=Just what sort of evidence do you have to support this, which appears
>=to be another unsubstantiated claim on your part.
>
> 1) You've used the term only in reference to skepticism toward your pet
> notions;

Maybe that because that is about all I talk about here. I talk about
things I am interested in.

> 2) You've avoided giving a meaningful definition of the term.
>If you want to avoid the appearance that the term refers simply to skepticism
>toward your pet notions, then provide a usable definition of the term.

I have given a defn. already: Pathological skepticism is believing
a phenomena is complete bunk without carefully examining the evidence.
Pathological belief if claiming a phenomena is real without carefully
examining the evidence.

I will give an example of my own pathological skepticism. I have
mindlessly rejected the possibility of astrology and channeling.
I have not looked at any evidence for these things nor am I
interested in any. However, I realize my position here is irrational
so I have no right to engage in discussions of these two matters.

Carl J Lydick

unread,
May 13, 1994, 1:26:56 AM5/13/94
to
In article <May13.024...@acs.ucalgary.ca>, mefu...@acs.ucalgary.ca (Michael Ernest Fullerton) writes:
=I have given a defn. already: Pathological skepticism is believing
=a phenomena is complete bunk without carefully examining the evidence.
=Pathological belief if claiming a phenomena is real without carefully
=examining the evidence.

But, Michael, you've declared that folks who are skeptical of cold fusion
because, as the calorimetry is improved, the excess heat stays at just about
the noise level are guilty of pathological skepticism. Can't you pick one
definition and stick to it. It still looks to me like the definition you're
using is "if the skepticism is directed toward one of Michael's pet notions,
it's pathological."

bo...@aol.com

unread,
May 13, 1994, 8:58:12 AM5/13/94
to

In article <May12.234...@acs.ucalgary.ca>, <mefu...@acs.ucalgary.ca>
writes:

> >
> >In article <May12.045...@acs.ucalgary.ca>, <mefu...@acs.ucalgary.ca>
> >writes:
> >
> >> I certainly agree that many of the points I have been replying to are
> >> in fact quite ridiculous. First of all I am not against doubting
> >> anything.
> >
> >I doubt that. Are you a boxer? You've got a great "bob & weave"!
>
> What evidence do you have to support your doubt that I am not against
> doubting? If you find any I will admit error, if not yours is yet
> another unsubstantiated claim against me.
>
> --

But you just said you "are not against doubting anything". Then you
castigate me for doubting you. This is clear evidence that you are against
doubting something. Therefore your statement " "I am not against doubting
anything" can not be true. QED

Are you getting a headache yet?

Bob Henderson

Mark North

unread,
May 13, 1994, 4:02:46 PM5/13/94
to
mefu...@acs.ucalgary.ca (Michael Ernest Fullerton) writes:

>In article <north.768595111@watop>, Mark North <no...@watop.nosc.mil> wrote:
>>edub...@ee.ryerson.ca (EDWARD DUBINSKY) writes:
>>
>>>Michael, I think what you have been saying is fairly clear and
>>>straight forward.
>>>You have presented evidence that suggests
>>>that there may really be something to 'cold fusion'
>>
>>He has done no such thing. All he has done is make illfounded
>>claims about the quality of some of the work done by others.

>I have presented abstracts from Dr. Mills, just one researcher
>from a huge file of references I possess. Just what illfounded
>claims are you talking about.

Have we established 'Dr' Mills' competency to do this kind of research?
Anyone that uses a Geiger Counter to report on the nuclear emissions
from a monumentally important area of research as CNF can't be too
competent.

>>>True skepticism
>>>is the holding off of accepting new ideas until solid proof is produced
>>>that supports the new idea, and has nothing to do with attacking or
>>>ridiculing out of hand, or otherwise hindering scientific investigation.
>>
>>Bullshit. Your definition of skepticism (let alone 'true' skepticism,
>>whatever that might be) is not in accord with either the dictionary nor
>>as used here on s.s. And just exactly how is anyone hindered from
>>scientific investigation just because someone who actually knows what
>>they are talking about thinks that person is a jackass?

>This shows a lot about you North. If you disagree with Ed you seem
>to be saying skepticism should involve rejecting new ideas untill
>solid proof has been found, and attacking or ridiculing them in the
>meantime. Actually that does sound just like you.

Uh huh. I know what it *seems* like I'm saying to you. That's because
you are unable to read and comprehend the written word and you have
no critical thinking abilities. As for attacking and ridiculing, I
save that for those who have earned it, such as yourself.

BTW, CNF is not a new idea it is an old idea, five years old. And in
all that time there is no evidence to show that it is anything
other than experimental error, incompetence and even fraud.

Just thought you'd like to know before you invest. No charge this time.

Mark

Mark North

unread,
May 13, 1994, 4:24:38 PM5/13/94
to
edub...@ee.ryerson.ca (EDWARD DUBINSKY) writes:

>As long as people are attacking the idea for good reason and
>not just launching a personal attack at the person presenting
>the idea, I would agree that this can be useful. However many
>people seem to have trouble seeing the difference between the
>two approaches. I see no constructive purpose for personal insults
>or ridicule in such a process. The idea either has something to it
>or it doesn't. If people have reason to think that the idea or any
>evidence presented is not sound, there should be no reason why they
>can't present their arguments calmly, rationally, and respectfully
>and still make their point. When ad hominem attacks or a condescending
>tone start creeping into the critique it would seem to indicate that
>the person probably has ulterior motives, or they just plain enjoy a
>conflict type situation and couldn't care less what the facts are. On
>the other hand, they may also just seriously need to read up on the
>principles of logical argumentation.

About once a month someone drops in here (s.s.) and makes a bunch of
bald assertions and offers dubious evidence as facts. Usually someone,
sometimes even Yr Ob'd Servant, politely points out the flaws in their
rant to which they respond by repeating and embellishing their
previous droolings. At this point they promptly get the shit kicked
out of them. Then follows the inevitable lecture on the proper method
of discourse which I have reproduced above for your convenience.
This particular lecture contains most of the required features including
whining and complaints about ad hominem, the words rational and
respectful and dark hints about the nefarious motives of the rabid
attackers. I hope you enjoyed reading it twice.

Mark


Jon Livesey

unread,
May 13, 1994, 5:02:36 PM5/13/94
to
In article <May13.024...@acs.ucalgary.ca>, mefu...@acs.ucalgary.ca (Michael Ernest Fullerton) writes:
>
> I will give an example of my own pathological skepticism. I have
> mindlessly rejected the possibility of astrology and channeling.
> I have not looked at any evidence for these things nor am I
> interested in any. However, I realize my position here is irrational
> so I have no right to engage in discussions of these two matters.

How does this relate to the current discussion about Cold Fusion?

jon.

Mark North

unread,
May 13, 1994, 6:09:45 PM5/13/94
to
mefu...@acs.ucalgary.ca (Michael Ernest Fullerton) writes:

>Skepticism is justified for everything, pathological skepticism is not.

This is just plain stupid. Are you skeptical that the sun will rise
tomorrow? If you are you are either a fool or you are misusing the
word.

Mark

Mark North

unread,
May 13, 1994, 6:17:02 PM5/13/94
to
ca...@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) writes:

>In article <May12.045...@acs.ucalgary.ca>, mefu...@acs.ucalgary.ca (Michael Ernest Fullerton) writes:

>=Skepticism is justified for everything, pathological skepticism is not.

>It appears that "pathological skepticism" is defined to be skepticism toward
>any idea Michael holds dear.

It would certainly seem so. One wonders why he holds the idea so dear.
To the exclusion of the available evidence. What is it about this
issue that it *must* be true the facts be damned?

Mark

Michael Ernest Fullerton

unread,
May 13, 1994, 9:31:29 PM5/13/94
to
In article <north.768867422@watop>, Mark North <no...@watop.nosc.mil> wrote:
>
>It would certainly seem so. One wonders why he holds the idea so dear.
>To the exclusion of the available evidence. What is it about this
>issue that it *must* be true the facts be damned?

I 'hold the idea dear' because it could have incredibly positive
consequences for mankind. Surely that is not unreasonable. Again
I have never said 'CF' must be true, only that the evidence would
seem to indicate a strong probability that the excess heat is real.
The _facts_ are that positive results are being reported the world
over and all of them have not found to be in error. In fact there
is no conclusive proof that any excess heat from a 'CF' cell was
in error. Why do you so readily believe in this?

Michael Ernest Fullerton

unread,
May 13, 1994, 10:03:21 PM5/13/94
to

It is not 'stupid' I am just being extremely conservative. I am a
skeptic in that I doubt everything and believe in nothing. I deal
only with probabilities. It is an extremely high probability that
the sun will rise tomorrow. It is an extremely small probability
that the tomorrow the sun will be destroyed by a team of vogons
making way for a new intergalactic highway. If you believe it an
absolute fact that the sun will rise on the morrow you are not a
skeptic but a skeptopath. I prefer to be a hard-core "wet"
skeptic.

Please, I would ask that any followups be devoid of any irrational
language.

Carl J Lydick

unread,
May 13, 1994, 10:00:32 PM5/13/94
to
In article <May14.013...@acs.ucalgary.ca>, mefu...@acs.ucalgary.ca (Michael Ernest Fullerton) writes:
=In article <north.768867422@watop>, Mark North <no...@watop.nosc.mil> wrote:
=>
=>It would certainly seem so. One wonders why he holds the idea so dear.
=>To the exclusion of the available evidence. What is it about this
=>issue that it *must* be true the facts be damned?
=
=I 'hold the idea dear' because it could have incredibly positive
=consequences for mankind.

Ah, yes. The wishful thinking approach to life: It doesn't matter so much
whether something is actually true; it's how much you'd like it to be true
that counts.

=Surely that is not unreasonable. Again
=I have never said 'CF' must be true, only that the evidence would
=seem to indicate a strong probability that the excess heat is real.

Like the fact that as calorimetry is improved, the excess heat tends to remain
at the noise level? Yeah, sounds like real solid evidence to me that it's
real. Or your argument that because people are investing in it, there must be
something to it? More real solid evidence.

=The _facts_ are that positive results are being reported the world
=over and all of them have not found to be in error.

Yeah, and there's some crackpot reporting another variation of a perpetual
motion machine in sci.skeptic every month or so, and some of the machines in
question haven't yet been tested. Does that make them working PMM? The
problem is, that the older the results, the more likely they are to have been
shown to be in error, and the newer the results, the less excess heat they tend
to claim. Now, I see a definite trend there.

You, on the other hand, because you wish to have cold fusion, refuse to see the
trend, and label anybody who does see it a pathological skeptic.

=In fact there
=is no conclusive proof that any excess heat from a 'CF' cell was
=in error. Why do you so readily believe in this?

Ah, now you're resorting to:
ARGUMENTUM AD IGNORANTIUM

Argumentum ad ignorantium means "argument from ignorance". This fallacy
occurs whenever it is argued that something must be true simply because
it has not been proved false. Or, equivalently, when it is argued that
something must be false because it has not been proved true.
That's truly pathetic.

Rich R Car

unread,
May 13, 1994, 10:17:03 PM5/13/94
to
Why is there still so much traffic on this thread? If Mills can make
Hydrogen cheaply, he should go ahead and make hydrogen instead
of going around arguing (and spawning arguments). Hydrogen sells,
sophistry does too - but the latter is a toxic comodity.

Alan M. Dunsmuir

unread,
May 14, 1994, 12:53:47 AM5/14/94
to
In article: <May14.020...@acs.ucalgary.ca> mefu...@acs.ucalgary.ca (Michael Ernest
Fullerton) writes:
>
> Please, I would ask that any followups be devoid of any irrational
> language.

Well that sure as Hell cuts you off from the debate!

Alan M. Dunsmuir [@ his wits end] (Can't even quote poetry right)

I am his Highness' dog at Kew
Pray tell me sir, whose dog are you?
[Alexander Pope]


Carl J Lydick

unread,
May 14, 1994, 5:56:50 AM5/14/94
to
In article <May14.020...@acs.ucalgary.ca>, mefu...@acs.ucalgary.ca (Michael Ernest Fullerton) writes:
=In article <north.768866985@watop>, Mark North <no...@watop.nosc.mil> wrote:
=>mefu...@acs.ucalgary.ca (Michael Ernest Fullerton) writes:
=>
=>>Skepticism is justified for everything, pathological skepticism is not.
=>
=>This is just plain stupid. Are you skeptical that the sun will rise
=>tomorrow? If you are you are either a fool or you are misusing the
=>word.
=
=It is not 'stupid' I am just being extremely conservative. I am a
=skeptic in that I doubt everything and believe in nothing.

And yet he believes, despite the evidence, that cold fusion is viable. He's
apparently your garden-variety crackpot who believes in skepticism of
everything except what he believes in.

jedro...@delphi.com

unread,
May 14, 1994, 11:41:09 AM5/14/94
to
Carl J Lydick <ca...@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU> writes:

>Like the fact that as calorimetry is improved, the excess heat tends to remain
>at the noise level? Yeah, sounds like real solid evidence to me that it's
>real. Or your argument that because people are investing in it, there must be
>something to it? More real solid evidence.

This is factually incorrect. At many leading laboratories, the signal to
noise ratio for excess heat and tritium is much higher than it was in 1989,
by many orders of magnitude. For example, Toyota used to measure a fraction
of a watt excess with several watts going in. Now, however, they measure
100 to 200 watts output with zero watts going in, and they have vastly
improved their calorimeters. Needless to say, it is much easier to measure
100 watts than it is to measure a fraction of one watt. Another example of
improved S/N is the Piantelli work, where again, he put zero watts in and
gets out 60 watts, which creates a 130 deg C Delta T in his gas calorimeter.
Five years ago, people were struggling to measure temperature Delta T's of
a fraction of a watt, now some of them, like Piantelli, are on easy street,
because it is very easy to detect a 130 deg C temperature!

Improved calorimetry at Hokkaido U., SRI, Los Alamos, China Lake and many
other labs has also shown a proportionally higher S/N, exactly as you would
expect. This is also true of the helium detection and the tritium detection.
Two years ago, Los Alamos improved the sensitivity of their tritium detection
by two orders of magnitude (I believe it was -- maybe three, check Claytor's
paper). The S/N increased proportionally. Last year they reduced the mass of
palladium by a factor of 100, but they improved the technique, and they got
as much or more tritium. (See ICCF4 paper.) That is the spark discharge work.
Turning to their glow discharge Kucherov-style experiment, Los Alamos
recently reported that they are generating so much tritium it has become a
safety issue, they have to be careful where and how they flush out the
experimental apparatus. It would set off the alarms and endanger people's
health if the simply dumped it into the laboratory. Needless to say, this
is because they are producing massive amount of tritium in metals that show
no measurable levels of tritium contamination before the experiments. They
are quite certain of this, they have performed the experiment dozens of times
over the last five years, and they have greatly improved and upgraded the
equipment and techniques. This tritium cannot becoming from contamination in
the lab, because if the air around the experimental apparatus was
contaminated with tritium in the same concentration as the gas within the
device, the radiation alarms would have tripped years ago and by now all of
the workers would be dead.

Now that I have reported a few facts, let me add a personal opinion. Your
problem, Mr. Lydick, is that your statements about CF are not based upon
the peer-reviewed scientific papers published in the field. You claim that
results are near the noise level when the facts clearly show they are not.
Temperature Delta T's ranging for 30 to 300 deg C are not difficult to
measure, they are not close to the noise level. Given the precision and
accuracy of the calorimeters in use at places like Canon Corporation, the
National Institute for Fusion Science and Los Alamos, I think it is absolutely
certain that their measured Delta T temperatures are above any possible error
limit. Furthermore, these elevated temperatures persist for long periods.
Piantelli's 130 deg C went on for weeks, he had plenty of time to recalibrate
on the fly with his reference joule heater. And, of course, as his paper shows,
the multiple thermocouples pinpoint the heat in the cathode and nowhere else,
by the Second Law.

The comments that I read here do not reflect any knowledge of the field. These
statements about results being close to the noise, and about how the effect
has not been replicated and so on, are all factually incorrect. I honestly
do not understand why people go the trouble of typing these comments when it
is obvious to anyone who is conversant with the scientific literature that
the comments are mistaken, they are ignorant, they demonstrate that the
authors have never bothered to read any of the papers. I have a bibliography
up to mid-1993 which lists well over 1000 papers, and even that is not
complete. There is a mountain of careful, professional scientific papers
which show that these "skeptical" comments are incorrect. Before making any
more comments, why not read a few of these papers? For a good summary of
recent results, see the cover story on this month's issue of "Technology
Review," which is published by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
You will see in that article that all of your statements are without scientific
merit.

- Jed Rothwell
Contributing Editor
"Cold Fusion" magazine

Michael Ernest Fullerton

unread,
May 14, 1994, 5:00:29 PM5/14/94
to
In article <2r1bc0$5...@gap.cco.caltech.edu>,

Carl J Lydick <ca...@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU> wrote:
>In article <May14.013...@acs.ucalgary.ca>, mefu...@acs.ucalgary.ca (Michael Ernest Fullerton) writes:
>
>You, on the other hand, because you wish to have cold fusion, refuse to see the
>trend, and label anybody who does see it a pathological skeptic.

You, because you are a skeptopath refuse to look at the evidence for
excess heat in "CF" experiements. Instead you blindly believe in a
few unreferenced claims about bad calorimetry.

>=In fact there
>=is no conclusive proof that any excess heat from a 'CF' cell was
>=in error. Why do you so readily believe in this?
>
>Ah, now you're resorting to:
> ARGUMENTUM AD IGNORANTIUM
>
> Argumentum ad ignorantium means "argument from ignorance". This fallacy
> occurs whenever it is argued that something must be true simply because
> it has not been proved false. Or, equivalently, when it is argued that
> something must be false because it has not been proved true.
>That's truly pathetic.

Whats pathetic is that I never made such a claim. I did not argue that
anything _must_ be true or _must_ be false. What is even more
pathetic is that Mr. ad hominiem is lecturing me on logical fallacies.

Michael Ernest Fullerton

unread,
May 14, 1994, 5:08:29 PM5/14/94
to
In article <2r2792$g...@gap.cco.caltech.edu>,

Carl J Lydick <ca...@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU> wrote:
>In article <May14.020...@acs.ucalgary.ca>, mefu...@acs.ucalgary.ca (Michael Ernest Fullerton) writes:
>=
>=It is not 'stupid' I am just being extremely conservative. I am a
>=skeptic in that I doubt everything and believe in nothing.
>
>And yet he believes, despite the evidence, that cold fusion is viable. He's
>apparently your garden-variety crackpot who believes in skepticism of
>everything except what he believes in.

_Because_ of the evidence I have assigned an very high probability
that the excess heat of at least some variations of "CF" experiments is
real. Scientific evidence is on my side. You however, have no evidence
whatsoever as to my crackpotness. It is simply delusion.

Jon Livesey

unread,
May 14, 1994, 9:49:51 PM5/14/94
to
In article <May14.013...@acs.ucalgary.ca>, mefu...@acs.ucalgary.ca (Michael Ernest Fullerton) writes:
|> In article <north.768867422@watop>, Mark North <no...@watop.nosc.mil> wrote:
|> >
|> >It would certainly seem so. One wonders why he holds the idea so dear.
|> >To the exclusion of the available evidence. What is it about this
|> >issue that it *must* be true the facts be damned?
|>
|> I 'hold the idea dear' because it could have incredibly positive
|> consequences for mankind.

I think that you should at least stop for a moment to consider
exactly what it is that has benefited the human race over the
long run. Was it the rigorous examination of ideas, and the
insistence on experiment as the final arbiter, or was it the
publicity seekers and groupies promoting their favourite techy
bits.

Criticism may seem tough when you are running into it, but
overall it has probably saved humanity from racing down an
awful lot of ratholes.

jon.

DaveHatunen

unread,
May 15, 1994, 12:57:38 AM5/15/94
to
In article <north.768859366@watop>, Mark North <no...@watop.nosc.mil> wrote:
>mefu...@acs.ucalgary.ca (Michael Ernest Fullerton) writes:

[...]

>Have we established 'Dr' Mills' competency to do this kind of research?
>Anyone that uses a Geiger Counter to report on the nuclear emissions
>from a monumentally important area of research as CNF can't be too
>competent.

I hope you're not saying that Mills used a Geiger counter to try to
detect neutron production from the reaction.

--
********** DAVE HATUNEN (hat...@netcom.com) **********
* Daly City California: *
* where San Francisco meets The Peninsula *
* and the San Andreas Fault meets the Sea *
*******************************************************

Carl J Lydick

unread,
May 15, 1994, 7:02:38 AM5/15/94
to
In article <Rq9M9Al.j...@delphi.com>, jedro...@delphi.com writes:
=Carl J Lydick <ca...@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU> writes:
=
=>Like the fact that as calorimetry is improved, the excess heat tends to remain
=>at the noise level? Yeah, sounds like real solid evidence to me that it's
=>real. Or your argument that because people are investing in it, there must be
=>something to it? More real solid evidence.
=
=This is factually incorrect. At many leading laboratories, the signal to
=noise ratio for excess heat and tritium is much higher than it was in 1989,
=by many orders of magnitude. For example, Toyota used to measure a fraction
=of a watt excess with several watts going in. Now, however, they measure
=100 to 200 watts output with zero watts going in, and they have vastly
=improved their calorimeters.

Have their claims been independently verified? Or are these yet more claims
that have been made and not verified either:
1) Because they're so recent; or
2) Because the folks making the claims haven't provided details of
their alleged setup?
Please note: Saying that they've filed a patent application (or even that
they've received a patent) does NOT answer the above question.

[More description of alleged results without any indication whatever that
they've been independently verified deleted]

Unverified claims count for nothing. Suppose you cite some instances of
VERIFIED claims?

jedro...@delphi.com

unread,
May 15, 1994, 11:48:58 AM5/15/94
to
Sorry, but you will have to do your own homework. The work I mentioned has
been performed by Los Alamos and others over the last five years, it is not
just "recent." The patents have not just been applied for, they have been
granted.

I will not spoon feed you information about CF. I will not answer detailed
questions on the e-mail network, because that would not really help you to
understand anything. You must get the full, formal scientific papers and
read them several times, carefully, from beginning to end. I recommend the
papers from Storms (Los Alamos) and Miles (Naval Weapons Cntr, China Lake).
They are well written and comprehensive.

When you read the papers, you will see graphs and schematics that I cannot
present by e-mail, and you will get a far more comprehensive picture of
the work then I can present in a short e-mail message. One of the key rules
to doing science is this: Always go back to original sources. Do not rely
on other people to explain things to you, always go to the original authors.

Regarding the question, "have the experiments been replicated" the answer
is of course they have! The field would have died out years ago if the
experiments had not been replicated. Toyota would not have built three
dedicated facilities, the Japanese govenment would not be funding a new
lab and 100 university groups if it had not been replicated. However, you
should realized that most experiments take years of hard work to replicate, and
many require a large amount of money. Takahashi, for example, has the use
of the ion beam accelorator for several months a year. That facility cost
$75 million to build many years ago. It is on the grounds of Osaka U. Very
impressive, I spent a few days there last year.

You cannot replicate Takahashi, Will, McKubre, P&F or any of the other
leading people unless you have 10 to 100 million dollars to spare.

- Jed

Mark North

unread,
May 15, 1994, 3:18:34 PM5/15/94
to
mefu...@acs.ucalgary.ca (Michael Ernest Fullerton) writes:

>In article <2r2792$g...@gap.cco.caltech.edu>,
>Carl J Lydick <ca...@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU> wrote:
>>In article <May14.020...@acs.ucalgary.ca>, mefu...@acs.ucalgary.ca (Michael Ernest Fullerton) writes:
>>=
>>=It is not 'stupid' I am just being extremely conservative. I am a
>>=skeptic in that I doubt everything and believe in nothing.
>>
>>And yet he believes, despite the evidence, that cold fusion is viable. He's
>>apparently your garden-variety crackpot who believes in skepticism of
>>everything except what he believes in.

>_Because_ of the evidence I have assigned an very high probability
>that the excess heat of at least some variations of "CF" experiments is
>real.

Yes but you have no basis on which to assign that probability except
your wishful thinking. This is the hallmark of the crackpot.

>Scientific evidence is on my side.

Interesting turn of phrase. Anyway, it's only obvious that you're
ignoring vast amounts of existing evidence that does not support
'your side', as you put it. Your selectivity in this regard is
quite transparent.

>You however, have no evidence
>whatsoever as to my crackpotness.

This post as well as most of your others have provided ample
evidence of your crackpottedness (TM).

>It is simply delusion.

Stunning repartee.

Mark

Carl J Lydick

unread,
May 15, 1994, 6:18:02 PM5/15/94
to
In article <x+3uFMi.j...@delphi.com>, jedro...@delphi.com writes:
=Sorry, but you will have to do your own homework. The work I mentioned has
=been performed by Los Alamos and others over the last five years, it is not
=just "recent." The patents have not just been applied for, they have been
=granted.

So what? The mere fact that a patent has been granted means only that the
patent examiner didn't see anything obviously bogus in the patent application.
It doesn't necessarily mean that the patented mechanism does what it's
purported to do: Just that it wasn't obvious to the patent examiner that it
didn't do what it was supposed to.

Grant Edwards

unread,
May 15, 1994, 9:27:51 PM5/15/94
to
jedro...@delphi.com wrote:

: I will not spoon feed you information about CF. I will not answer
: detailed questions...

I, for one, am overwhelmed by your evidence.

--
Grant Edwards |Yow! OVER the underpass!
Rosemount Inc. |UNDER the overpass! Around
|the FUTURE and BEYOND
gra...@rosemount.com |REPAIR!!

Michael Ernest Fullerton

unread,
May 16, 1994, 12:39:10 AM5/16/94
to
In article <north.769029514@watop>, Mark North <no...@watop.nosc.mil> wrote:
>mefu...@acs.ucalgary.ca (Michael Ernest Fullerton) writes:
>
>>_Because_ of the evidence I have assigned an very high probability
>>that the excess heat of at least some variations of "CF" experiments is
>>real.
>
>Yes but you have no basis on which to assign that probability except
>your wishful thinking. This is the hallmark of the crackpot.

The basis for which I assign this probability are excellent experiments
like those of Dr. Mills, McKubre, and the Italian NiH studies.
Ignoring evidence in favor of a possibly scientific revolution is the
hallmark of a skeptopath.

>>Scientific evidence is on my side.
>
>Interesting turn of phrase. Anyway, it's only obvious that you're
>ignoring vast amounts of existing evidence that does not support
>'your side', as you put it. Your selectivity in this regard is
>quite transparent.

I am not ignoring it I am just not seeing it. It would seem you are
ignoring all the positive results. More projection?

Carl J Lydick

unread,
May 16, 1994, 1:26:22 AM5/16/94
to
In article <May16.043...@acs.ucalgary.ca>, mefu...@acs.ucalgary.ca
(Michael Ernest Fullerton) again demonstrates that his idea of pathological
skepticism means "being skeptical of anything Michael Ernest Fullerton has
chosen to believe:

=The basis for which I assign this probability are excellent experiments
=like those of Dr. Mills, McKubre, and the Italian NiH studies.
=Ignoring evidence in favor of a possibly scientific revolution is the
=hallmark of a skeptopath.

Look Mike: When there are a lot of folks with your attitude out there, there
will be experiments from lots of folks that seem to back up your side. So what
if the evidence is against them? They'll just set up their own experiment
(ignoring lessons learned by others in the past) that gives the results they
want. They'll report it. Once someone gets around to replicating the
experiments, using proper calorimetry, the results go away again. Then comes
the next round of true believers who once again get amazing results by using
poor experimental techniques. Then their experiments are replicated with
better controls, and the positive results vanish. Then comes the next
round..., ad infinitum. Check the staff at your local university's mathematics
department: There are still folks out there squaring the circle and trisecting
the angle, using just compass and straightedge.

Fritz Lehmann

unread,
May 16, 1994, 7:40:19 AM5/16/94
to
As is often the case, both sides of this debate are more
perceptive about the attitudes of the other side than about
their own. The proponents of "Cold Fusion" fastened on to some
naive hopes, and the opponents have responded with mindless
contempt from the first day of Pons & Fleischmann's news
conference. P & F first mentioned a "hitherto unknown process"
and I wish they had left it at that rather than declaring it
to be fusion.

The situation now seems to be that temperature results
have been reported by several responsible researchers, but
that the other reported effects have not been reproduced.
Is that right? Is there a central repository of _positive_
_and_negative_ experimental results? One stupid problem
is that established scientists are unwilling to admit or
publish negative results, particularly when they will be
attacked for having considered the hypothesis in the
first place. I saw physicists publicly
sneering immediately (within a week of P & F) and talking
about "N-Rays" while at the same time frantically throwing
together slap-dash versions of the experiment. I think
they considered their results unpublishable. If this
has been seriously "studied to death", where is a sober
and reasoned evaluation and compendium of research results?
(One not confined to dismissing the other side as deranged.)

In the discussion in alt.skeptics, _both_ sides
(including Fullerton) have stooped to time-wasting
ad hominem attacks and personal remarks. It may
be fun to talk about idiots and droolings and so on
but it's no use in evaluating the real truth of
what is called "cold fusion".


Yours truly, Fritz Lehmann
GRANDAI Software, 4282 Sandburg Way, Irvine, California 92715, USA
Tel.: (714)-733-0566 Fax: (714)-733-0506 fr...@rodin.wustl.edu

====================================================================


jedro...@delphi.com

unread,
May 16, 1994, 11:39:49 AM5/16/94
to
Carl J Lydick <ca...@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU> writes:

>So what? The mere fact that a patent has been granted means only that the
>patent examiner didn't see anything obviously bogus in the patent application.

I think it is very unlikly that corporations like Canon would go to the
expense and trouble to file patents for devices which do not work. You are
forgetting that is very easy to determine whether a cold fusion device
actually works or not. Many of these devices produce high, macroscopic
power levels for extended period of time. These power levels are extremely
easy to detect. For example, a 30 to 60 watt reaction that goes non-stop for
three months is a cinch to detect with certainty. To give you a sense of
what this is like, imagine you have two small steel boxes, side by side. One
has a 60 watt incandescent light inside it, turned on. The other has nothing.
Could you detect which box has a light? Yes, it is very simple: just hold
your hand on the box, or over the box, or use a thermometer or pyrometer. The
box with the light will be hot, the box with no light will be at room
temperature.

Corporations like Hitachi, Toshiba, Canon and Toyota have laboratories
equipped with millions of dollars worth of the most advanced equipment on
earth. It is very, very easy for them to measure macroscopic power levels,
and temperature Delta T's ranging as high as 130 deg C. There is simply no
question that they can do this sort of work. So, I think their claims must
be correct. Furthermore, I cannot imagine why they would make false, or
fradulent claims, and go on to file patents and write papers in distinguished
academic journals based on these bogus claims. There is no motivation for
them to do anything like that, it would be completely out of charactor.

From my point of view, these statements by you, and by others, that the work
is probably bogus, mistaken or fraudulent, is mind-boggling. There is simply
no reason to believe that! There is not shred of evidence that the Ministry
of International Trade and Industry programs are deliberate fraud, there is
no reason to doubt that the published results from Los Alamos and the
Navy at China Lake are not accurate and correct. People who believe that all
of these results are bogus must believe in a gigantic, world wide conspiracy
to manufacture fake results. Why would there be such a conspiracy? Who would
benefit? What would the point be? Why would anyone fake such clear, easily
verified results? I am sorry, but none of these claims make any sense to me.
I do not believe in flying saucer conspiracies, I do not believe the
government manufactured AIDS, and I certainly do not believe that the
MITI, Toyota, the Japanese IEEE, Los Alamos, EPRI, China Lake, and the
Japanese Journal of Applied Physics is engaged in a gigantic hoax, trying
to persuade us that room temperature water is boiling water, and that
16 gram samples of metal can produce 200 or 300 megajoules of energy.

- Jed

Boucher David

unread,
May 16, 1994, 5:36:25 PM5/16/94
to
In article <x+3uFMi.j...@delphi.com> jedro...@delphi.com writes:
>Sorry, but you will have to do your own homework. The work I mentioned has
>been performed by Los Alamos and others over the last five years, it is not
>just "recent." The patents have not just been applied for, they have been
>granted.
>
>I will not spoon feed you information about CF. I will not answer detailed
>questions on the e-mail network, because that would not really help you to
>understand anything. You must get the full, formal scientific papers and
>read them several times, carefully, from beginning to end. I recommend the
>papers from Storms (Los Alamos) and Miles (Naval Weapons Cntr, China Lake).
>They are well written and comprehensive.

It might be a lot easier to find them if you could give at least
one full cite (journal, date, page number) for each of them. Or
does that count as "spoon feeding"?

- db

--
****** "It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. ******
****** Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories ******
****** instead of theories to suit facts." - Sherlock Holmes ******
*************************************************************************

Alan M. Dunsmuir

unread,
May 16, 1994, 1:43:41 PM5/16/94
to
In article: <py2vd49.j...@delphi.com> jedro...@delphi.com writes:
> X-To: Carl J Lydick <ca...@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU>

>
> Carl J Lydick <ca...@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU> writes:
>
>
> I think it is very unlikly that corporations like Canon would go to the
> expense and trouble to file patents for devices which do not work.

Well! That sets off the quality of _your_ thinking. Many, many patents filed
are 'defensive' filings, submitted precisely _because_ the devices don't work,
in case a rival gets a variant to work at some time in the future.

If you want to make big bucks here, forget cold fusion and become a patent lawyer.

jedro...@delphi.com

unread,
May 16, 1994, 4:57:30 PM5/16/94
to
Fritz Lehmann <fr...@rodin.wustl.edu> writes:

>they considered their results unpublishable. If this
>has been seriously "studied to death", where is a sober
>and reasoned evaluation and compendium of research results?

It is in "Technology Review" May/June 1994 issue, published by the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology. It is the cover story of that
issue, which is currently on the newsstands. There are three other
noteworthy, sober and resoned evaluations:

P. Hagelstein (M.I.T.), "Summary Of Third International Conference On Cold
Fusion
In Nagoya," 43 pages, $5 (Available by e-mail from me)

E. Storms (Los Alamos), "Review of Experimental Observations About The Cold
Fusion Effect," Fusion Technology, Vol. 20, Dec. 1991 433 - 477. A superb
technical introduction to the field.

Not available to the public, but. . . the Ministry of International Trade and
Industry's evaluation of the subject is very good in my opinion. Part of their
new MITI/NEDO program will devoted to establishing an international database of
results.

A superb source of results, abstracts and references is available from Fusion
Facts, a monthly newsletter. Contact subscription office at: P.O. Box 48639,
Salt
Lake City, UT 84158. Tel: 801-583-6232 Fax: 801-583-6245

- Jed

bo...@aol.com

unread,
May 16, 1994, 4:26:41 PM5/16/94
to

Just thought you all would like to know:

The American Physics Society awarded Gary Taubes the Forum Award for
"outstanding acheivment in promoting public awareness of the scientific method
as reavealed in his book Bad Science: The Short Life and Weird Times of Cold
Fusion ..."

From what I've read hear some of you could stand to learn about the scientific
method.

Grant Edwards

unread,
May 16, 1994, 4:41:28 PM5/16/94
to
jedro...@delphi.com wrote:
: Grant Edwards <gra...@reddwarf.rosemount.com> writes:
:
: >I, for one, am overwhelmed by your evidence.
:
: I realize that your comment is a joke.

Well then , there may be hope.

: I think you should stop making silly comments like that.

And I think you should find the tallest tree in the forrest and chop it
down... with a HERRING!

: If you are seriously interested in cold fusion you will go to the
: library and read some of the articles published over the last 5
: years in...

I guess I'm not serious about CF then. The evidence just ain't there
accordingto those whose judgement on nuclear physics I trust.

: You will find that many hundreds of carefull, professional papers
: have been written about this field.

And most of the ones _I've_ seen reported negative results.

: Until you have read a few dozen of them, you have no business
: passing judgment or making declarations about the field.

OK.

: Science is not done by making unsupported, ignorant statements about
: experiments that you have not done or even read about.

Did I do that? Did I claim I was doing science?

: Science is done by direct, hands-on experiments, and by carefull
: reading of the *original sources*.

So tell us about the experiments you've done.

: Until you have done this kind of careful study of the subject, you
: are ignorant and you have no business talking about it.

OK, I'm ignorant. Probably obtuse also (or was that somebody else?)

: It is perfectly obvious to people like me that the commentators here
: do not know anything about the experimental results from places like
: Los Alamos and China Lake.

Hey, I lived at China Lake (on base) one summer when I was 10. My dad
was doing consulting for the Navy (something to do with radar
antennas). It was a way cool place to spend a summer. Lots of
lizards and black widow spiders. Movies on base only cost a quarter.

I don't remember any cold fusion though.

--
Grant Edwards |Yow! Those aren't
Rosemount Inc. |WINOS--that's my JUGGLER, my
|AERIALIST, my SWORD
gra...@rosemount.com |SWALLOWER, and my LATEX
|NOVELTY SUPPLIER!!

rmic...@nuacvm.acns.nwu.edu

unread,
May 16, 1994, 5:52:59 PM5/16/94
to
In article <xE7v1Uy.j...@delphi.com>

jedro...@delphi.com writes:

>
>Fritz Lehmann <fr...@rodin.wustl.edu> writes:
>
>>they considered their results unpublishable. If this
>>has been seriously "studied to death", where is a sober
>>and reasoned evaluation and compendium of research results?
>
>It is in "Technology Review" May/June 1994 issue, published by the
>Massachusetts Institute of Technology. It is the cover story of that
>issue, which is currently on the newsstands.

Piffle! The article in "Technology Review" is neither sober nor reasonable.
It is the work of a true believer. For example, the author (E. Storms)
rejects negative results from MIT because they "used an experimental
apparatus that was open to the humid Massachusetts air and therefore subject
to contamination by ordinary water, which has since been found to inhibit the
cold fusion effect." I wonder why he doesn't mention that early work by P&F
(apparently unpublished but mentioned by them at conferences) showed positive
heat effect in pure ordinary water. Storms doesn't suggest that *any* of the
reports of positive results might be wrong, although it is difficult
(impossible???) to reconcile the different positive reports, even among the
ones he mentions in his article. He is uncritically accepting of reports
claiming to see neutrons, or helium (and it goes without saying that anyone
who claims to see heat is believed, anyone who claims not to is chided for
rejecting anomalous runs as experimental error. But of course good experiments
do reject runs for experimental error -- e.g. the controversy between Millikan
and Ehrenhaft on the oil-drop experiment, discussed at length by Holton).
Then, since he is unable to shoehorn the "CF" claims into any standard
physics, he trots out a list of nutty theories, none of which have any basis
in observation (other than the "observations" of "CF" enthusiasts).
To his credit, he does admit "None of the proposed explanations accounts for
the full range of experimental observations. Many of the theories do not
offer predictions that can be quantitatively checked."

Of course "Technology Review" is a popular journal which wouldn't be expected
to discuss technical details to the same degree as a research journal. But
this article is plain embarassing; the editors should be ashamed of themselves.
Jed, if this is your idea of "sober and reasonable" I don't want to see your
idea of "freewheeling speculation".

Bob Michaelson
rmic...@nwu.edu

jedro...@delphi.com

unread,
May 16, 1994, 11:22:05 AM5/16/94
to
Grant Edwards <gra...@reddwarf.rosemount.com> writes:

>I, for one, am overwhelmed by your evidence.

I realize that your comment is a joke. I think you should stop making silly
comments like that. If you are seriously interested in cold fusion you will

go to the library and read some of the articles published over the last 5
years in the Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry, Fusion Technology,
Physics Letters A, the Journal of Phys. Chemistry, to name just a few. You
might start by going to your local bookstore and buying the MIT journal
"Technology Review" May/June 1994 issue. The cover story is about cold fusion.
For that matter, you might buy our magazine "Cold Fusion" (WGI). Any article
in any formal journal will have copious footnotes leading you to previous
articles. You will find that many hundreds of carefull, professional papers
have been written about this field. Until you have read a few dozen of them,

you have no business passing judgment or making declarations about the field.

Science is not done by making unsupported, ignorant statements about experiments
that you have not done or even read about. Science is done by direct, hands-on
experiments, and by carefull reading of the *original sources*. Not reviews,
not e-mail messages, not abstracts only, you must read and carefully re-read
the full original papers. They show many details, graphs, charts and schematics
that cannot be reproducted on e-mail. Until you have done this kind of careful

study of the subject, you are ignorant and you have no business talking about
it. Those of us who have done our homework can spot your error 200 meters away.

It is perfectly obvious to people like me that the commentators here do not
know anything about the experimental results from places like Los Alamos and
China Lake. It is obvious to me that most of the commentators are not even
aware that the research is being peformed at these labs.

- Jed

jedro...@delphi.com

unread,
May 16, 1994, 11:10:31 PM5/16/94
to
Grant Edwards <gra...@reddwarf.rosemount.com> writes:

>I guess I'm not serious about CF then. The evidence just ain't there
>accordingto those whose judgement on nuclear physics I trust.

You should not trust other people's judgement when examining a controversial,
new area of science. That is a big mistake. It is essential that you read
the original scientific papers yourself. If you do that, you will see that
many of the nuclear experts who have made statements about cold fusion have
been factually incorrect. They have not read the papers either, in many cases.
When you confront the actual facts, the graphs and data, you will see for
yourself who is correct, and who is mistaken.

Quite frankly, if you are not willing to do this kind of hard work, then I
think you should simply say "I have no knowledge of this field, so I cannot
honestly say I have any opinion." In science, all opinions *must* be based
upon a rigorous, informed review of *facts*. Repeating other people's opinions
and respecting other people's opinions is not how science is done. You
respect other people's opinions to the extent that you have determined those
opinions are based upon facts. Most of all you must respect the data.



>: You will find that many hundreds of carefull, professional papers
>: have been written about this field.
>
>And most of the ones _I've_ seen reported negative results.

Which papers reported negative results? When were they published? I am not
aware of any papers published after 1991 which were negative, except the
Kamiokande work. (Any major papers that is, there are some in the confernce
proceedings). Please tell us which papers you read.


>Did I do that? Did I claim I was doing science?

No, you did not. Pardon me for inferring that. This is, however, a scientific
debate in the "sci.skeptic" area, so I took it as the default condition that
you intended to adhere to the scientific method.


>So tell us about the experiments you've done.

All calorimetry. Lots of calorimetry, flow, static, high powered and low.
Lots of checking out other people's data. Plus lots of trips to labs. I am
a contributing editor to "Cold Fusion" magazine, which means that my job is
to translate scientific writing into English. I also translate Japanese into
English, which is easier!


>Hey, I lived at China Lake (on base) one summer when I was 10. My dad
>was doing consulting for the Navy (something to do with radar
>antennas). It was a way cool place to spend a summer. Lots of
>lizards and black widow spiders. Movies on base only cost a quarter.
>
>I don't remember any cold fusion though.

How charming. And how old are you now, 12? Or have you grown up and moved
away. You realize, I hope, that there could not have been any cold fusion
research at China Lake, or anyplace else, before 1989. The field did not
exist before then.

Honestly, I don'
t see the point of flippant comments like that.

- Jed

Grant Edwards

unread,
May 16, 1994, 10:23:28 PM5/16/94
to
DaveHatunen (hat...@netcom.com) wrote:
: <jedro...@delphi.com> wrote:

: >Carl J Lydick <ca...@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU> writes:

: >>So what? The mere fact that a patent has been granted means only
: >>that the patent examiner didn't see anything obviously bogus in
: >>the patent application.
: >
: >I think it is very unlikly that corporations like Canon would go to
: >the expense and trouble to file patents for devices which do not
: >work.

: Oh, boy. You don't how it works, do you? Large corporations file
: gazillions of patents, whether they work or not, in a shotgun hope that
: some of them will either hit their own target, or be so close to some
: other corporations project that does work that they can try to get some
: mileage out of their own patent.

I've go to agree with Dave and Carl. One files patents for a number
of reasons.

1) There is a department of people who's job it is to file for
patents, and the only way to justify their existence is to file
for patents, so they'll quite happily file for a patent on the
letter 'A' if they don't have anything better to file.

2) The parent company publishes a glossy impress-the-stockholders
annual "technology update" which lists all of the patents that
have been awarded.

3) A Vice-President somewhere decided that his division is going to
look good in the next report (see 2) and declares that his people
will file 200 patent applications this fiscal year -- while cutting
R&D expenditures to less that 1 percent of sales.

4) Marketing wants to put a patent number on the product's
label. Hence the "decorative housing" patent.

5) There's still some empty space in the hallway where the patent
plaques are hung.

6) You're product line isn't making a profit after 7 years and you
better have _something_ to show for the 9.3 million dollars of R&D
expenses.

7) You have the job title "Engineering Fellow" and haven't
contributed to any real projects for 6 years -- but you've got
patents.

8) You file patents that rean't really valid for things that won't
really work and hope that someday somebody smarter than you will
invent something similar that does work, and will settle out of
court when you sue for alleged infringement on your probably invalid
patents. There are people who make their living doing nothing but
this. They never attempt to build or sell anything they patent --
they just threaten to sue companies who aren't really infringing
on patents that wouldn't hold up in court anyway and then settle
out of court for a few tens of thousands.

9) You have invented something both original and useful. This one's
rare -- most patents are for original and useful things, but the
part that's original isn't useful, and the part that's useful
isn't original. Apologies to whoever in the literary world I'm
paraphrasing without proper credit.

--
Grant Edwards |Yow! So this is what it
Rosemount Inc. |feels like to be potato salad
|
gra...@rosemount.com |

Grant Edwards

unread,
May 16, 1994, 10:29:26 PM5/16/94
to
Grant Edwards (gra...@reddwarf.rosemount.com) wrote:

: I've go to agree with Dave and Carl. One files patents for a number
: of reasons.

[...]

Oh, and I forgot to mention the other reason to file for a patent:

10) Because you are a crackpot and being able to list patent numbers
will always suck in a few gullible types who've never seen how
the patent system works.

"But it's patented, there must be something to it!"

--
Grant Edwards |Yow! I have seen these EGG
Rosemount Inc. |EXTENDERS in my
|Supermarket.. I have read
gra...@rosemount.com |the INSTRUCTIONS...

Jon Livesey

unread,
May 16, 1994, 10:42:12 PM5/16/94
to
In article <2r7m33$7...@bigfoot.wustl.edu>, fr...@rodin.wustl.edu (Fritz Lehmann) writes:
>
> I saw physicists publicly sneering immediately (within a week
> of P & F) and talking about "N-Rays" while at the same time
> frantically throwing together slap-dash versions of the experiment.

Correct me if I err, but I recall P&F *refusing* to tell others
of their exact experimental setup.


jon.

Maurizio MORABITO; Tel.6661

unread,
May 17, 1994, 4:02:05 AM5/17/94
to

(quoting Carl Lydick)

-:> ARGUMENTUM AD IGNORANTIUM
-:>
-:> Argumentum ad ignorantium means "argument from ignorance". This fallacy

(quoting Michael Fullerton)

-:pathetic is that Mr. ad hominiem is lecturing me on logical fallacies.

I have no Latin Handbook now, but I know 'hominiem` is mispelled ('hominem')
and I suppose 'Ignorantium` is mispelled (`Ignorantem' or 'Ignorantes`).In
both cases 'ad' doesn't mean `from` but `to`, although the actual english
translation is beyond my knowledge of this language.

I apologize if I made mistakes.

maurizio

jedro...@delphi.com

unread,
May 17, 1994, 10:49:59 AM5/17/94
to
Storms does not reject the MIT work. He shows that it produced very little
heat because the D2O was contaminated with H2O from the ambient air, and
he points out that MIT "ignored" the low level of heat they observed.
Actually, that is a gentlemanly to put it. They did not "ignore" the heat,
they erased it and published a fraudlent version of the data. Fortunately
the original, real version was made available by one member of the team.
It was recently shown on the BBC "Nova" series science documentary, side by
side with the fradulent, published version. It caused quite a stir in
the U.K. and Canada.

Even if you do not see the original version of the data, it is perfectly
obvious that the published version is fake. When they fiddled around with it,
they simply moved data points down, moved a few left or right, and then
added some more additional ones below the zero line to "balance things out."
If you count the number of points per horizontal centimeter, you see that the
graph was manually modified. The H2O control cell graph was generated by
computer and publshed as is, only the D2O data has been changed.

- Jed

jedro...@delphi.com

unread,
May 17, 1994, 10:54:48 AM5/17/94
to
Your discussion of patents and Canon has left reality far, far behind by
now. Let me just reel you back to earth with a few facts:

1. They have been working quite hard on CF for many years now.

2. It is dead simple to determine whether or not a CF device is working or
not. It takes no special high tech skill. They would not bother making
claims or filing patents if the device did not do what they claim. It would
be a waste of money and time.

(Point 1 is to indicate that they did not file this patent on a whim, it did
not happen overnight. It is the culmination of many, many man-years of R&D.)

- Jed

jedro...@delphi.com

unread,
May 17, 1994, 12:21:35 PM5/17/94
to
"Piffle! The article in "Technology Review" is neither sober nor
reasonable. It is the work of a true believer."

Piffle yourself. Storms is one of the leading scientists in this field. Los
Alamos, MITI, Toyota, NEDO, EPRI and many other take him seriously. If you do
not, it is because you are a closed-minded fool who does not understand the
scientific method.



"I wonder why he doesn't mention that early work by P&F (apparently
unpublished but mentioned by them at conferences) showed positive heat
effect in pure ordinary water."

I have never heard of that work. The only light water CF effect that I am
aware of is with nickel. That works very well indeed, see Mills, Bush, Notoya,
Criddle or Piantelli. Maybe they had Ni contamination? Who knows. I cannot
make any serious comment on that because I have never heard anything about it.

I can, however, tell you why Storms "doesn't mention that early work." You
told us yourself. It is right there, in parenthesis: "apparently unpublished
but mentioned by them. . ." That makes it a rumor. An unverifiable rumor at
that, which even *I* have never head before, and I have heard dozens of stupid
rumors. Storms does not discuss any rumors. He limits himself to the formally
published scientific results that can be carefully checked out, replicated,
and verified by serious scientists.



"He is uncritically accepting of reports claiming to see neutrons, or
helium (and it goes without saying that anyone who claims to see heat is
believed. . ."

That is completely wrong. Storms has rejected many, many substandard papers. I
have spoken with him many times. He is gentle and fair, he does not attack
people, but I have seen him demonstrate that an experiment was useless junk.
He did not mention any of the crappy experiments in the MIT article, because
it was about good science, not schlock. There is plenty of schlock in CF, Ed
would be the first to agree with that. He did mention the schlock work at MIT,
Caltech and Harwell. All three of those sloppy 1989 experiments were positive,
by the way. They all showed excess heat. MIT lied about their results, Caltech
and Harwell were too incompetent to figure out the calorimetry. Miles, Melich
and many others have set them straight; see:

M. H. Miles (Naval Air Weapons Center), B. F. Bush (SRI), D. E.
Stillwell (CAES), "Calorimetric Principles and Problems in Measurements
of Excess Power during Pd-D2O Electrolysis," J. Phys. Chem. 1994, 98, p.
1948-1952


I expect you will go off on a tizzy and demand I show you proof that the MIT
data is fake. Let me save you the trouble of posting an indignant message. If
you e-mail me your mailing address I will snail-mail you copies of the
original data and the published, fake version. You can decide for yourself.
Try counting the data points, and ask yourself how a computer might have
"accidentally" moved them around like that. Any fool can see it was
deliberate.

- Jed

R. Day

unread,
May 17, 1994, 8:29:12 AM5/17/94
to
Carl J Lydick (ca...@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU) wrote:

: In article <x+3uFMi.j...@delphi.com>, jedro...@delphi.com writes:
: =Sorry, but you will have to do your own homework. The work I mentioned has
: =been performed by Los Alamos and others over the last five years, it is not
: =just "recent." The patents have not just been applied for, they have been
: =granted.

: So what? The mere fact that a patent has been granted means only that the
: patent examiner didn't see anything obviously bogus in the patent application.
: It doesn't necessarily mean that the patented mechanism does what it's
: purported to do: Just that it wasn't obvious to the patent examiner that it
: didn't do what it was supposed to.

I recall that a number of patents have been granted for perpetual motion
machines, no? Didn't Joseph Newman get a patent for his magnificent
energy machine?
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Robert P. J. Day rpj...@cuug.ab.ca |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Authorized SCO Instructor | Vice-chair |
| Standard International Systems | Alberta Skeptics |
| Calgary, Alberta | |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jim Rogers

unread,
May 17, 1994, 12:28:06 PM5/17/94
to
>

mefu...@acs.ucalgary.ca (Michael Ernest Fullerton) wrote:
(quoting Carl Lydick tearing up his logic:)
<>=In fact there
<>=is no conclusive proof that any excess heat from a 'CF' cell was
<>=in error. Why do you so readily believe in this?
>
<>Ah, now you're resorting to:
<>;ARGUMENTUM AD IGNORANTIUM
>
<>;Argumentum ad ignorantium means "argument from ignorance". This
<>fallacy occurs whenever it is argued that something must be true
<>simply because it has not been proved false. Or, equivalently, when
<>it is argued that something must be false because it has not been
<>proved true.
<>That's truly pathetic.

<Whats pathetic is that I never made such a claim. I did not argue that
<anything _must_ be true or _must_ be false.

Carl correctly identified what you're doing here; you didn't say it
"must" be true, but you said those who disbelieve it should produce
evidence, which is equivalent. If there is no undeniable evidence of
untruth to 'CF,' what do you wish us to conclude? Why do you demand proof
of untruth to combat absence of proof of truth?

You said, "there is no conclusive proof that any excess heat from a 'CF'
cell was in error."

There is gobs of proof of experimental error leading to reports of excess
heat, such as constant-current sources driving cells with fluctuating
resistance, and input power not being continuously monitored, or putting
the calorimeter's temperature probe in a hot spot with insufficient fluid
mixing, or other errors. This is not to say such exposures of errors are
capable of "concluding" that therefore there was no excess heat, but that
excess heat was therefore not conclusively demonstrated. This difference
is what Carl is trying to drive home to you with the above: experimental
error results in "ignorance," not "knowledge."

What I will assume you are claiming, then, is that not all excess-heat
claims have been conclusively shown to be erroneous. What is more
significant to the progress of science is that no claims of excess heat
have resulted in published papers detailing EXACTLY how to reproduce
their results, and subsequently BORNE UP under careful attempts with
refined calorimetry. Those doing the *best* calorimetry get null results;
convince them, and you've got something.

The promise of 'CF' is boundless cheap energy; yes that's wonderful and
we'd all like to have it. But it's up to the proponents to convince the
rest of us with careful science, which means something that can be
reproduced and verified by anyone with the proper laboratory equipment.
That has not been done yet.

< ... What is even more


<pathetic is that Mr. ad hominiem is lecturing me on logical fallacies.

This statement *is* an ad hominem; you are attempting to derail his
argument by appealing to our knowledge of his personality, instead of
addressing the logic. Carl's post did not contain an ad hominem; he
attacked only your logic, in extraordinarily (for him) polite form
(rudeness does not qualify as "ad hominem").

Jim
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- Your mileage may vary. Close cover before striking. If swelling or --
-- redness occurs, see physician. Use only in well-ventilated area. --
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mark North

unread,
May 17, 1994, 12:14:26 PM5/17/94
to
fr...@rodin.wustl.edu (Fritz Lehmann) writes:

> As is often the case, both sides of this debate are more
>perceptive about the attitudes of the other side than about
>their own. The proponents of "Cold Fusion" fastened on to some
>naive hopes, and the opponents have responded with mindless
>contempt from the first day of Pons & Fleischmann's news
>conference. P & F first mentioned a "hitherto unknown process"
>and I wish they had left it at that rather than declaring it
>to be fusion.

You're showing quite a strong bias of your own here. From what you
say I would suppose you consider me an opponent of "Cold Fusion".
I am not. CNF either is or is not what it is purported to be.
If it turns out to be fusion (highly unlikely in my opinion) I would
be delighted. So I do not 'oppose' CNF or "Cold Fusion". What I do
oppose and have contempt for are unsupported and unscientific
statements made that claim CNF is a done deal. That positive results
are pouring in from all over the world. These statements come from
two sources. One source is people who have no background or
education sufficient to allow them to assess the *quality* of the
positive results. Yes, I do have contempt for people who try to
make scientific sounding claims and yet are obviously ignorant of
the content and process. One wonders about their motives. The other
source is some of the researchers making claims of positive results.
In many cases when their results have been justly critisized by
their peers they have failed to correct said deficiencies. For example,
more than one worker, after having failed to find nuclear by-products
with state-of-the-art detectors has then opted to use less
sensitive methods (film, GM tubes, neutron activation) and then
claimed positive results. This is contemptible. So you see this
is not mindless contempt, I have good reason for it. Also, I dispute
your contention that P&F were greeted with contempt. All the
physicists I know were amazed and excited by the prospect of CNF.
We could hardly wait to get in the lab and reproduce the results.
The contempt only came after we saw their first paper and how
incredibly shoddy it was. And after carefully done replications
failed to produce either 'excess heat' or nuclear particles.

> The situation now seems to be that temperature results
>have been reported by several responsible researchers, but
>that the other reported effects have not been reproduced.
>Is that right? Is there a central repository of _positive_
>_and_negative_ experimental results?

Dieter Britz has a bibliography of hundreds of peer reviewed
papers. Both positive and negative.

>One stupid problem
>is that established scientists are unwilling to admit or
>publish negative results, particularly when they will be
>attacked for having considered the hypothesis in the
>first place.

This is demonstrably not true.

>I saw physicists publicly
>sneering immediately (within a week of P & F) and talking
>about "N-Rays" while at the same time frantically throwing
>together slap-dash versions of the experiment.

Were these the same physicists? Would you care to tell us who
they were?

>I think
>they considered their results unpublishable. If this
>has been seriously "studied to death", where is a sober
>and reasoned evaluation and compendium of research results?
>(One not confined to dismissing the other side as deranged.)

This normally takes the form of a review article. I don't think
one has been published yet (and doubt if one ever will because
such things are reserved for reproducible phenomena). In the mean
time you'll just have to read the articles yourself and do your
own review.

> In the discussion in alt.skeptics, _both_ sides
>(including Fullerton) have stooped to time-wasting
>ad hominem attacks and personal remarks. It may
>be fun to talk about idiots and droolings and so on
>but it's no use in evaluating the real truth of
>what is called "cold fusion".

That's sci.skeptic. In order to separate the wheat from the chaff
you must have some scientific training and some critical thinking
ability. After all, we could be sweet as light and lying through
our teeth, would that help?

Mark

Mark North

unread,
May 17, 1994, 1:18:13 PM5/17/94
to
liv...@solntze.engr.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:

I had a fax of a fax of a fax of a preprint of their paper shortly after
the announcement. I don't know if it was within a week though.

I didn't start sneering until I talked to Dick Petrasso at Sante Fe
in May, I believe. So it couldn't have been me he saw.

Mark

DaveHatunen

unread,
May 17, 1994, 12:55:54 PM5/17/94
to
In article <ZkxNVBP.j...@delphi.com>, <jedro...@delphi.com> wrote:
>Storms does not reject the MIT work. He shows that it produced very little
>heat because the D2O was contaminated with H2O from the ambient air
[...]

Serious question: is the energy required to produce the D2O taken into
account in the efficiency calculations?

--
********** DAVE HATUNEN (hat...@netcom.com) **********
* Daly City California: *
* where San Francisco meets The Peninsula *
* and the San Andreas Fault meets the Sea *
*******************************************************

bob...@aol.com

unread,
May 17, 1994, 2:11:49 PM5/17/94
to

>
> Even if you do not see the original version of the data, it is perfectly
> obvious that the published version is fake. When they fiddled around with it,
> they simply moved data points down, moved a few left or right, and then
> added some more additional ones below the zero line to "balance things out."
> If you count the number of points per horizontal centimeter, you see that the
> graph was manually modified. The H2O control cell graph was generated by
> computer and publshed as is, only the D2O data has been changed.
>

Who are you claiming perpetrated this fraud. Please sir, give us the names!
Was this research federally funded? Then bring on Rep Dingell!

Or at least lets watch the sparks fly as you get sued!

Mark North

unread,
May 17, 1994, 2:01:02 PM5/17/94
to
jedro...@delphi.com writes:

>Grant Edwards <gra...@reddwarf.rosemount.com> writes:
>
>>I guess I'm not serious about CF then. The evidence just ain't there
>>accordingto those whose judgement on nuclear physics I trust.
>
>You should not trust other people's judgement when examining a controversial,
>new area of science. That is a big mistake.

Then, according to you, we can safely ignor Ed Storms' article in
Tech Review. I'm glad we agree on something.

Mark

jedro...@delphi.com

unread,
May 17, 1994, 3:34:47 PM5/17/94
to
"Those doing the *best* calorimetry get null results. . ."

That is factually incorrect. The *best* calorimetry on earth is done at:

The two Toyota labs in Nice and Hokkaido;
SRI, funded by EPRI
The National Institute for Fusion Science
Hokkaido University
The Naval Weapons Center at China Lake
Los Alamos

These places have all reported positive results. So have a few hundred other
labs, there were 230 reports at the EPRI meeting in December 1993, all but one
positive as far as I know. Indeed, some results are so positive, they are off
the scale. You should realize that it is not difficult to measure 150 watts
out, zero in. Or, in the case of Hokkaido, 1 milliwatt in 120 watts out. It is
dead simple to measure such high power levels, they are impossible to miss!

You are making pronouncements about the field that are not supported by the
published scientific record. It is simply not true that good calorimeters get
null results. Back in 1989, a few good ones did, but that was no longer the
case after 1990. Your statements about:


"constant-current sources driving cells with fluctuating resistance, and
input power not being continuously monitored, or putting the
calorimeter's temperature probe in a hot spot...

. .also have no bearing on reality. None of the good labs suffer from any of
these problems. You can read their papers and see that for yourself, you do
not need me to tell you. Before you type statements like that, you should go
to the library, and carefully read the scientific literature. You will see
that these problems do not exist with any of the leading experiments. They
might exist with some of the schlock work, but that does not matter, we are
talking about the *best* calorimetry.

What is the point? Why do you post statements about CF that are factually
incorrect? Anyone can look up McKubre's work (SRI) and see that you are wrong.

- Jed

rmic...@nuacvm.acns.nwu.edu

unread,
May 17, 1994, 2:22:15 PM5/17/94
to
In article <Rq8Ol-P.j...@delphi.com>

jedro...@delphi.com writes:

>
> "Piffle! The article in "Technology Review" is neither sober nor
> reasonable. It is the work of a true believer."
>
>Piffle yourself. Storms is one of the leading scientists in this field. Los
>Alamos, MITI, Toyota, NEDO, EPRI and many other take him seriously. If you do
>not, it is because you are a closed-minded fool who does not understand the
>scientific method.
>
I think that what you mean is that "*some* people at Los Alamos etc. take
him seriously."

>
> "I wonder why he doesn't mention that early work by P&F (apparently
> unpublished but mentioned by them at conferences) showed positive heat
> effect in pure ordinary water."
>
>I have never heard of that work. The only light water CF effect that I am
>aware of is with nickel. That works very well indeed, see Mills, Bush, Notoya,
>Criddle or Piantelli. Maybe they had Ni contamination? Who knows. I cannot
>make any serious comment on that because I have never heard anything about it.
>
At the famous Dallas ACS meeting (April 12, 1989), Pons was asked why he had
not reported results of control experiments using heavy water, and replied
"A baseline reaction run with light water is not necessarily a good baseline
reaction." And again, "We do not get the expected baseline experiment...We
do not get the total blank experiment we expected." (See "Science", vol. 244,
1989, pg. 285). I can guess why Pons never published the results of this
embarassing experiment; of course your guess will no doubt differ.


>I can, however, tell you why Storms "doesn't mention that early work." You
>told us yourself. It is right there, in parenthesis: "apparently unpublished
>but mentioned by them. . ." That makes it a rumor. An unverifiable rumor at
>that, which even *I* have never head before, and I have heard dozens of stupid
>rumors. Storms does not discuss any rumors. He limits himself to the formally
>published scientific results that can be carefully checked out, replicated,
>and verified by serious scientists.
>
See above. IF P&F don't like rumours, they could have published their work in
an open manner to allow it to be examined. Or perhaps they LIKE rumours, if
the rumours are in the "right" direction?

>
> "He is uncritically accepting of reports claiming to see neutrons, or
> helium (and it goes without saying that anyone who claims to see heat is
> believed. . ."
>
>That is completely wrong. Storms has rejected many, many substandard papers. I
>have spoken with him many times. He is gentle and fair, he does not attack
>people, but I have seen him demonstrate that an experiment was useless junk.
>He did not mention any of the crappy experiments in the MIT article, because
>it was about good science, not schlock. There is plenty of schlock in CF, Ed
>would be the first to agree with that. He did mention the schlock work at MIT,
>Caltech and Harwell. All three of those sloppy 1989 experiments were positive,
>by the way. They all showed excess heat. MIT lied about their results, Caltech
>and Harwell were too incompetent to figure out the calorimetry. Miles, Melich
>and many others have set them straight; see:
>
> M. H. Miles (Naval Air Weapons Center), B. F. Bush (SRI), D. E.
> Stillwell (CAES), "Calorimetric Principles and Problems in Measurements
> of Excess Power during Pd-D2O Electrolysis," J. Phys. Chem. 1994, 98, p.
> 1948-1952
>
>
Storms may indeed reject some "positive" results on some occasions. However,
it should have been obvious to you from the context that I was addressing
the paper in "Technology Review" -- the paper you called "sober and reasonable"
if you recall. Did I overlook something -- did he anywhere in that paper
indicate that there have been exaggerated claims and sloppy experiments by
proponants of "CF"? If he claims that opponents of "CF" have made errors, as
he does in the "Technology Review" paper, wouldn't it be appropriate for such
a "gentle and fair" scientist to note errors on his own side? And how can he
in all seriousness believe all the mutually inconsistant positive results he
reports in this paper? If you don't have even a phenomenological framework for
what is happening, how can you do critical tests, much less devise a theory?


>I expect you will go off on a tizzy and demand I show you proof that the MIT
>data is fake. Let me save you the trouble of posting an indignant message. If
>you e-mail me your mailing address I will snail-mail you copies of the
>original data and the published, fake version. You can decide for yourself.
>Try counting the data points, and ask yourself how a computer might have
>"accidentally" moved them around like that. Any fool can see it was
>deliberate.
>
>- Jed
No, I'm not in a tizzy. I doubt that MIT faked data, and that folks at
Harwell don't know what calorimetry is all about; I also am quite sure
that the Caltech calorimetry was far better than P&F's work. However, I
will send you my postal address so I can examine your claims re MIT.

Bob Michaelson
rmic...@nwu.edu

Mark North

unread,
May 17, 1994, 2:05:13 PM5/17/94
to
jedro...@delphi.com writes:

>You realize, I hope, that there could not have been any cold fusion
>research at China Lake, or anyplace else, before 1989. The field did not
>exist before then.

It still doesn't, Jed.

>Honestly, I don'
>t see the point of flippant comments like that.

Who, me?

Mark

DaveHatunen

unread,
May 17, 1994, 5:39:11 PM5/17/94
to
In article <16FB9BC0C...@nuacvm.acns.nwu.edu>,
<rmic...@nuacvm.acns.nwu.edu> wrote:

[...]

>No, I'm not in a tizzy. I doubt that MIT faked data, and that folks at
>Harwell don't know what calorimetry is all about; I also am quite sure
>that the Caltech calorimetry was far better than P&F's work. However, I
>will send you my postal address so I can examine your claims re MIT.
>
>Bob Michaelson
>rmic...@nwu.edu

Please let the rest of us know if and when you actually receive this
documentation.

Michael Ernest Fullerton

unread,
May 18, 1994, 5:25:36 AM5/18/94
to

North, "should not trust" and "ignore" are subtly different concepts.


--
Michael Fullerton | Seeds, like ideas, don't
mefu...@acs.ucalgary.ca | germinate in concrete

Daniel Sabsay

unread,
May 18, 1994, 3:42:13 AM5/18/94
to
Mark North writes:
/>jedro...@delphi.com writes:

/>You realize, I hope, that there could not have been any cold fusion
/>research at China Lake, or anyplace else, before 1989. The field did not
/>exist before then.

/It still doesn't, Jed.

/>Honestly, I don'
/>t see the point of flippant comments like that.

/ stuff dropped

The point is that pathological science is most often found in isolated
places. What has been ignored, as far as I have followed this thread, is
that so-called excess heat production can easily be attributed to normal
(battery-like) chemistry. Some of the hydrogen storage effects being
explored is interesting for non-CF reasons. Some of the patents alluded to
here may also be for this, and other, fuelcell-like aspects of the
technology.

Also, it's obvious that the number of negative reports will drop as the
people who get negative results stop following this line of research.

Daniel Sabsay
dSa...@AOL.COM
president, East Bay Skeptics Society, Oakland, CA
--
V I S U A L I Z E C O M M O N S E N S E

Michael Ernest Fullerton

unread,
May 18, 1994, 5:17:38 AM5/18/94
to

This would be the 1990 MIT study. It was supervised by Dr. Ronald Parker
who is involved with the MIT hot fusion lab. Jed has kindly sent me
Dr. Swartz' paper on this matter. There have been other published
criticisms of the MIT data. See:

V.C. Noninski, C.I. Noninski, "Comments on 'Measurement and Analysis ...
Cathodes," Fusion Technology, 19, 579-580 (1991).

(This one criticises the data for being faulty regarding its thermal
calculations and conclusions.)

C. Anderson, "Cold fusion tempest at MIT," Nature, 353, (1991). Also,
Majorie Hecht, "A Case Study of Fudging," 21st Cent. Sci. & Tech., Fall
1991, Vol 4, No. 3. page 54.

(I can't believe Nature actually published this one. It covers an
"alleged 'shifting' of the heavy water excess power curves.")

Jed is in no danger of being sued.

DaveHatunen

unread,
May 18, 1994, 12:08:27 AM5/18/94
to
In article <2rb1ic$q...@newsflash.mitre.org>, <bob...@aol.com> wrote:
>

Those are indeed serious charges, Rothwell. Are you prepared to put them in
one of the publications your group issues? Or have you already, perhaps? If
so I would very much like a hard copy.

rmic...@nuacvm.acns.nwu.edu

unread,
May 18, 1994, 10:03:30 AM5/18/94
to
In article <May18.091...@acs.ucalgary.ca>

mefu...@acs.ucalgary.ca (Michael Ernest Fullerton) writes:

>
>In article <2rb1ic$q...@newsflash.mitre.org>, <bob...@aol.com> wrote:
>>In article <ZkxNVBP.j...@delphi.com>, <jedro...@delphi.com> writes:
>>>
>>> Even if you do not see the original version of the data, it is perfectly
>>> obvious that the published version is fake. When they fiddled around with it,
>>> they simply moved data points down, moved a few left or right, and then
>>> added some more additional ones below the zero line to "balance things out."
>>> If you count the number of points per horizontal centimeter, you see that the
>>> graph was manually modified. The H2O control cell graph was generated by
>>> computer and publshed as is, only the D2O data has been changed.
>>>
>>
>>Who are you claiming perpetrated this fraud. Please sir, give us the names!
>>Was this research federally funded? Then bring on Rep Dingell!
>>
>>Or at least lets watch the sparks fly as you get sued!
>
>This would be the 1990 MIT study. It was supervised by Dr. Ronald Parker
>who is involved with the MIT hot fusion lab. Jed has kindly sent me
>Dr. Swartz' paper on this matter. There have been other published
>criticisms of the MIT data. See:
>
>V.C. Noninski, C.I. Noninski, "Comments on 'Measurement and Analysis ...
>Cathodes," Fusion Technology, 19, 579-580 (1991).
>
>(This one criticises the data for being faulty regarding its thermal
>calculations and conclusions.)
>
>C. Anderson, "Cold fusion tempest at MIT," Nature, 353, (1991). Also,
>Majorie Hecht, "A Case Study of Fudging," 21st Cent. Sci. & Tech., Fall
>1991, Vol 4, No. 3. page 54.
>
Ah yes, 21st Century Science & Technology, that distinguished journal
published by the brilliant scientist, Lyndon LaRouche. I guess "CF"
enthusiasts must take their comfort where they can.

Bob Michaelson
rmic...@nwu.edu

Alan M. Dunsmuir

unread,
May 18, 1994, 12:10:51 PM5/18/94
to
In article: <ZkxNVBP.j...@delphi.com> jedro...@delphi.com writes:
> X-To: <rmic...@nuacvm.acns.nwu.edu>

>
> Storms does not reject the MIT work. He shows that it produced very little
> heat because the D2O was contaminated with H2O from the ambient air, and
> he points out that MIT "ignored" the low level of heat they observed.
> Actually, that is a gentlemanly to put it. They did not "ignore" the heat,
> they erased it and published a fraudlent version of the data. Fortunately
> the original, real version was made available by one member of the team.
> It was recently shown on the BBC "Nova" series science documentary, side by
> side with the fradulent, published version. It caused quite a stir in
> the U.K. and Canada.


[much more deleted]


It was, if I remember correctly, shown at least a year ago on BBC in the UK.

It caused no stir at all at the time and has caused none since.

Alan M. Dunsmuir [@ his wits end] (Can't even quote poetry right)

I am his Highness' dog at Kew
Pray tell me sir, whose dog are you?
[Alexander Pope]


David Schwartz

unread,
May 18, 1994, 10:02:41 PM5/18/94
to
In <May14.020...@acs.ucalgary.ca> mefu...@acs.ucalgary.ca (Michael Ernest Fullerton) writes:

>In article <north.768866985@watop>, Mark North <no...@watop.nosc.mil> wrote:
>>mefu...@acs.ucalgary.ca (Michael Ernest Fullerton) writes:
>>
>>>Skepticism is justified for everything, pathological skepticism is not.
>>
>>This is just plain stupid. Are you skeptical that the sun will rise
>>tomorrow? If you are you are either a fool or you are misusing the
>>word.

>It is not 'stupid' I am just being extremely conservative. I am a
>skeptic in that I doubt everything and believe in nothing. I deal
>only with probabilities. It is an extremely high probability that
>the sun will rise tomorrow. It is an extremely small probability
>that the tomorrow the sun will be destroyed by a team of vogons
>making way for a new intergalactic highway. If you believe it an
>absolute fact that the sun will rise on the morrow you are not a
>skeptic but a skeptopath. I prefer to be a hard-core "wet"
>skeptic.

I go with the Schroedinger approach: Believe everything until proven
false. The sun will/won't rise tommorow. We won't know for certain
until it does or does not rise.

--
Does the SPCA know about this Schroedinger guy?

--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
| da...@schwartz.manawatu.gen.nz | This week's words o' wisdom: | |
| David Schwartz aka Mr. T | Don't neuter a wild horse, or | |
| (I pity the fool who calls me Blitz) | If it ain't broke, don't fix it. | |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Grant Edwards

unread,
May 19, 1994, 10:26:32 AM5/19/94
to
rmic...@nuacvm.acns.nwu.edu wrote:
: mefu...@acs.ucalgary.ca (Michael Ernest Fullerton) writes:
:
: >C. Anderson, "Cold fusion tempest at MIT," Nature, 353, (1991). Also,

: >Majorie Hecht, "A Case Study of Fudging," 21st Cent. Sci. & Tech., Fall
: >1991, Vol 4, No. 3. page 54.
:
: Ah yes, 21st Century Science & Technology, that distinguished journal
: published by the brilliant scientist, Lyndon LaRouche. I guess "CF"
: enthusiasts must take their comfort where they can.
:

I knew if we waited long enough, Mr. Fullerton would start citing
Lyndon LaRouche material. If he can come up with a supportive
editorial from Rev. Moon's newspaper, then I guess I'll have to
acquiesce.

Just because LL is in prison and believes that the Queen of England
heads an international drug smuggling cartel doesn't prove
_everything_ he publishes is crap -- but it sounds like a good working
hypothesis to me.

--
Grant Edwards |Yow! All this time I've been
Rosemount Inc. |VIEWING a RUSSIAN MIDGET
|SODOMIZE a HOUSECAT!
gra...@rosemount.com |

jedro...@delphi.com

unread,
May 18, 1994, 2:21:21 PM5/18/94
to
Boucher David <bou...@server.uwindsor.ca> writes:

>It might be a lot easier to find them if you could give at least
>one full cite (journal, date, page number) for each of them. Or

I have done this time after time. Sigh. However, e-mail is like a river,
you cannot dig up my previous messages, you cannot cross reference them,
or find the previous messages where I listed references. So, I will upload
the file again. Here it is; this is very short bibliography, just a fraction
of the total number of papers. The beauty of hard copy scientific papers is
that when you read one, you will find footnotes pointing to the others.

----------------------

Cold Fusion Research Advocates
2060 Peachtree Industrial Court, Suite 313
Chamblee, Georgia 30341

Phone: 404-451-9890 Fax: 404-458-2404

April 2, 1994

Recommended Publications

Here are some recommended publications relating to cold fusion. Contact us if
you want one of these items and you cannot get a copy. Items marked [E-Mail]
are available from the Cold Fusion Research Advocates (CFRA) in e-mail or
diskette. Items marked [SCIENCE Lib 2] can be downloaded from the CompuServe
SCIENCE forum physics library 2.

To contact us by e-mail, address messages to Jed Rothwell, Compuserve:
72240,1256. Internet: JEDRO...@DELPHI.COM.

General

"Cold Fusion" magazine, a Wayne Green Publication, premiering April 1994. The
editor is Dr. Eugene F. Mallove, publisher is Dr. Wayne Green, founder of Byte
and 31 other nationally distributed magazines. Contact: WGI Center, 70 Rte.
202 North, Peterborough, NH 03458. Tel: 800-677-8838 Fax: 603-924-8613.

Fire from Ice: Searching for the Truth Behind the Cold Fusion Furor, (John
Wiley & Sons, May, 1991), by Dr. Eugene F. Mallove $26 (including postage).
The definitive book on the subject.

The Fourth International Conference on Cold Fusion (ICCF4), was sponsored by
EPRI, Advanced Nuclear Systems, and held December 6 - 9, 1993, at Hyatt
Regency Maui, Lahaina, HI. For information from EPRI, contact: Linda Nelson,
Conference Coordinator, Electric Power Research Institute, P.O. Box 10412,
Palo Alto, CA 94303-9743, Tel: (415) 855-2127 * Fax: (415) 855-2041

Statements and letters entered into the Congressional Record during the May 5,
1993 Fusion Energy hearings, by Rep. Dick Swett, Dr. Edmund Storms and Dr.
Eugene Mallove. [E-Mail]

The complete record of the May 5, 1993 hearings covering both hot and cold
fusion: "FUSION ENERGY, Hearing before the Subcommittee on Energy of the
Committee on Science, Space and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives,"
ISBN 0-16-041505-5. For sale from the U.S. Government Printing Office, 202-
783-3238 (may be sold out).

Statistics from the Third International Conference on Cold Fusion: The "Nagoya
Conference" [E-Mail]

Cold Fusion Times, by Mitchell Swartz, P.O. Box 81135, Wellesley Hills, MA
02181 E-mail address: mi...@world.std.com

Technical

Fusion Technology, a technical journal published by the ANS has published many
articles about cold fusion. Contact: Publications Manager, The American
Nuclear Society, 555 North Kensington Ave, Lagrange Park, IL 60525. Back
issues of Fusion Technology are available from the APS publications office at
708-352-6611.

Fusion Facts, a monthly newsletter. Contact subscription office at: P.O. Box
48639, Salt Lake City, UT 84158. Tel: 801-583-6232 Fax: 801-583-6245

Frontiers of Cold Fusion, ed. H. Ikegami. The proceedings of the Third
International Conference on Cold Fusion (Nagoya, Japan, October 21 - 25, 1992)
in Nagoya, Japan. Available from Universal Academy Press, Inc., PR Hogo 5
Bldg., 6-16-2, Hongo, Bunkyo Tokyo 113, JAPAN. Tel. 011-81-3-3813-7232, Fax:
011-81-3-3813-5932. Price 22,000 yen (U.S. $194.77, Air shipping: $26.65)

P. Hagelstein (M.I.T.), "Summary Of Third International Conference On Cold
Fusion In Nagoya," 43 pages, $5 [E-Mail] [SCIENCE Lib 2]

The Science of Cold Fusion, ed. T. Bressani. The proceedings of the Second
Annual Conference On Cold Fusion. (Como, Italy, June 29 - July 4, 1991);
contact: SIF, Via L. degli Ondalo 2, 40124 Bologna, ITALY. From the Second
Annual Conference proceedings, we recommend: M. McKubre (SRI), "Isothermal
Flow Calorimetric Investigations Of The D/Pd System," p. 419 - 443

S. Focardi (Bologna U.), R. Habel (Cagliari U.), F. Piantelli (Siena U.),
"Anomalous Heat Production in Ni-H Systems," Il Nuovo Cimento, Vol 107 A, Feb.
1994, p. 163 - 167


M. H. Miles (Naval Air Weapons Center), B. F. Bush (SRI), D. E. Stillwell
(CAES), "Calorimetric Principles and Problems in Measurements of Excess Power
during Pd-D2O Electrolysis," J. Phys. Chem. 1994, 98, p. 1948-1952

M. Fleischmann (Univ. Southampton), S. Pons (IMRA Europe), "Calorimetry of the
Pd-D2O system: from simplicity via complications to simplicity," Physics
Letters A, 176 (1993) 118-129

E. Storms (Los Alamos), "Review of Experimental Observations About The Cold
Fusion Effect," Fusion Technology, Vol. 20, Dec. 1991 433 - 477. A superb
technical introduction to the field.

O. Reifenschweiler (Philips), "Reduced radioactivity of tritium in small
titanium particles," Physics Letters A, 184 (1994) 149-153

M. H. Miles and R. A. Hollins (Naval Air Weapons Center), B.F. Bush and J.J.
Lagowski (Univ. Texas), "Correlation of excess power and helium production
during D2O and H2O electrolysis using palladium cathodes," J. of
Electroanalytical Chemistry, 346 (1993) 99 - 117.

H. Gerischer (Fritz Harber Institute Der Max Plank), "Memorandum On The
Present State Of Knowledge On Cold Fusion." [E-Mail] [SCIENCE Lib 2]

M. Swartz, "Reexamination of a Key Cold Fusion Experiment: 'Phase-II'
Calorimetry by he MIT Plasma Fusion Center," Fusion Facts, August 1992, 27 -
40. Analysis of the fraudulent data published by M.I.T. in an experiment
attempting to prove that cold fusion does not exist.

Information about the Mills light water experiment. [E-Mail] [SCIENCE Lib 2]

Media Coverage

BBC "Horizon" series science documentary, "Too Close to the Sun." Broadcast
March 21, 1994. Scheduled to be shown by the CBC in Canada on April 4, 1994

Popular Science, August 1993 issue, "COLD FUSION Fact or Fantasy," by Jerry
Bishop, cover story

Sunday Times (U.K), June 27, 1993, "Nuclear confusion," by Neville Hodgkinson,
cover story

The National Public Radio (NPR) program "Science Friday" on June 25, 1993 was
devoted to cold fusion. It was moderated by Ira Flatow. Panelists included
Michael McKubre of SRI, John Huizenga of Rochester University, Peter
Hagelstein of MIT, Melvin Miles of the Naval Air Warfare Center, and Bruce
Lewenstein of Cornell University. For a tape, send $12.50 to: NPR Tapes *
Washington, DC 20036 * Visa orders: 202-822-2323. Specify the date (06/25/93)

The Canadian Broadcasting Company (CBC) broadcast a superb documentary on cold
fusion on June 24, 1993, titled "The Secret Life of Cold Fusion." For a copy,
contact: Canadian Broadcasting Corporation * Post Broadcast Unit * Room 5-E,
314 J * P.O. Box 500 * Station A * Toronto, Canada M5W 1E6. The cost is $85
Canadian plus appropriate tax. Specify program title and date.

New York Times, November 17, 1992, "Cold Fusion, Derided in U.S., Is Hot In
Japan," by Andrew Pollack, p. B5

The Observer (UK), December 6, 1992, "Western sceptics hand Japan cheap power
on a plate," by Michael White

* End Of File *

jedro...@delphi.com

unread,
May 18, 1994, 2:27:08 PM5/18/94
to
DaveHatunen <hat...@netcom.com> writes:

>Please let the rest of us know if and when you actually receive this
>documentation.

E-mail me your snail-mail address and I will send you copy of the MIT
fraudlent data, too, along with some documentation explained why it is
fraudlent.

- Jed

jedro...@delphi.com

unread,
May 18, 1994, 2:31:59 PM5/18/94
to
DaveHatunen <hat...@netcom.com> writes:

>Those are indeed serious charges, Rothwell. Are you prepared to put them in
>one of the publications your group issues? Or have you already, perhaps? If
>so I would very much like a hard copy.

We already have published these charges, in detail, years ago in Fusion
Facts. We offered MIT the chance to respond but they did not. We also informed
Rep. Dingle and many others in Congress. An NIH expert investigated and found
decided the experiment is at best "garbage" (as he said to me). I will send
you his letter to MIT, if you like.

These charges have also appeared in the Japanese press, on the BBC and on the
CBC. The BBC lawyers went over the facts of the matter in detail for a week,
before deciding to proceed.

- Jed

jedro...@delphi.com

unread,
May 18, 1994, 2:55:09 PM5/18/94
to
Daniel Sabsay <DSa...@AOL.COM> writes:

>The point is that pathological science is most often found in isolated
>places. What has been ignored, as far as I have followed this thread, is

Right. Sure. Do you know who sponsors cold fusion research? Here is part
of the list:

The Physical Society of Japan
The Japan Society of Applied Physics
Atomic Energy Society of Japan
The Institute of Electrical Engineers of Japan
The Chemical Society of Japan
The Electrochemical Society of Japan
The Japan Society of Plasma Science and Nuclear Fusion Research
The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)

These are the main sponsors. Do you consider these places "isolated" or out of
the mainstream?



>that so-called excess heat production can easily be attributed to normal
>(battery-like) chemistry. Some of the hydrogen storage effects being

What nonsense! What crazy nonsense that is! What are you telling us? The
Piantelli device weighs 16 grams (a half-ounce). In one run last year, it
produced 320 megajoules non-stop. It would take roughly 320 autombile
batteries to store that much energy; that's a couple of TONS of batteries!
Can you tell the diffence between a half ounce and a couple of tons.

You simply do not know what you are talking about. Continous, macroscopic
energy output at the leading labs, like Toyota, Hokkaido, U. Sienna, exceeds
the limits of battery or chemical storage THOUSANDS OF TIME OVER. Anyone
who knows anything about the field would know that.

Do you really believe that a new type of half-ounce nickle battery can store
as much energy as 320 conventional lead-acid auto batteries? Do you think
a chemical energy mechanism can store 20,000 or 30,000 eV per atom? Tell us
please, how many electron volts of energy you get from each atom of coal,
when you burn it completely. Compare that number to 30,000 and see what you
come up with.

- Jed

jedro...@delphi.com

unread,
May 18, 1994, 2:44:08 PM5/18/94
to
DaveHatunen <hat...@netcom.com> writes:

>In article <ZkxNVBP.j...@delphi.com>, <jedro...@delphi.com> wrote:
>>Storms does not reject the MIT work. He shows that it produced very little
>>heat because the D2O was contaminated with H2O from the ambient air
>[...]
>
>Serious question: is the energy required to produce the D2O taken into
>account in the efficiency calculations?

I do not understand your question. What do you mean by "produce the D2O?"
Are you referring to the energy required to separate heavy water from
ordinary water? I don't quite understand, because you quote my message about
H2O contamination from ambient air. This contamination occurs because D2O
acts as a "getter" for ordinary water. An open container of D2O gradually
mixes with ordinary water and becomes less and less pure over time. This
process does not take any measurable energy.

Anyway, let me try to restate your question to see if I understand:

Does the excess energy measured in a CF experiment take into account the
energy originally expended by Ontario Hydro to separate heavy water from
ordinary water?

Answer (if that's the question): No. That is part of the manufacturing of
the cell. For that matter, we do not take into account the energy used to
melt and form the glassware, or mine and purify the palladium. The energy
balance is taken strictly from the moment the experiment begins until the
end. With electrolysis, the beginning is the moment the current is first
turned on. With gas loading or ion beams, the "beginning" is a little bit
more difficult to define.

It would be very difficult to account for the energy used to separate out
D2O. This would be like trying to figure out how much energy is used to
refine and cast the steel used in the walls of a tokamak reactors. I am
sure that if you did that, the Princeton's 5 MJ of energy would be swamped
by the negative balance! Heck, if you just added in the energy needed to
light the building and run the press release fax machines there, you would
use up all 5 MJ in no time. (I think it was 5 MJ. It was 5 MW for 1 second...
or did it go for longer than one second this time? Can't remember. In any
case, any good size CF device will produce more energy than the Princeton
Tokamak did, if you leave it on for a few weeks.)

- Jed

Thomas Kettenring

unread,
May 20, 1994, 12:53:49 PM5/20/94
to
In article <Bn62tAl...@schwartz.manawatu.gen.nz>, da...@schwartz.manawatu.gen.nz (David Schwartz) writes:
>I go with the Schroedinger approach: Believe everything until proven
>false.

Schroedinger or no: you must believe a lot of contradictory things.

--
thomas kettenring, 3 dan, kaiserslautern, germany
It's my only line. -- Carol Cleveland

jedro...@delphi.com

unread,
May 19, 1994, 2:14:21 PM5/19/94
to
Grant Edwards <gra...@reddwarf.rosemount.com> writes:

>I knew if we waited long enough, Mr. Fullerton would start citing
>Lyndon LaRouche material. If he can come up with a supportive

LaRouche is also in favor of tokamak fusion reactor technology development,
fission reactors, space exploration, mag-lev elevated trains, irradiated
strawberries, and a host of other technologies. His magazine has written
far more about these technologies than about CF. Are you automatically
*against* anything that LaRouche supports? He supports practically every
advanced technology I have ever heard of, plus a lot else I have not heard of.
Are you saying that you will form your opinions, and you will judge issues
by finding out what LaRouche is for, and then automatically you will oppose
it or assume it is lunacy? Do you consider conventional U.S. fission reactors
lunacy? I would say the Russian Chernobyl class has problems, but the U.S.
designs are technologically sound. I also think that space exploration is
real, solid technology.

Your problem is that you judge everthing in terms of people, opinions, and
impressions. Instead of looking at the experimental data and the scientific
facts, you are looking around and trying to figure out which expert to
believe, and you are trying to find certified loony-tunes like LaRouche
who support CF in order to "prove" it is bad science. Instead of judging the
issue by pure, objective, scientific analysis, you are trying to do it by
appeal to authority, and personality. You do not realize that science is not
done by taking a vote, or by asking experts, or by worshipping other people's
vaunted opinions. It is done by rigorous experiment and objective analysis
of facts. By that standard, CF is real, and it is very likely to become an
important technology. I myself have no use for any other standard but
objective science. It works for me. You can keep your politics, emotionality,
and your blind faith in "vaunted experts" and "laws of nature."

- Jed

Alan M. Dunsmuir

unread,
May 21, 1994, 12:24:48 AM5/21/94
to
In article: <JG8s9lX.j...@delphi.com> jedro...@delphi.com writes:
> X-To: DaveHatunen <hat...@netcom.com>

>
> DaveHatunen <hat...@netcom.com> writes:
>
> >Those are indeed serious charges, Rothwell. Are you prepared to put them in
> >one of the publications your group issues? Or have you already, perhaps? If
> >so I would very much like a hard copy.
>
> We already have published these charges, in detail, years ago in Fusion
> Facts. We offered MIT the chance to respond but they did not. We also informed
> Rep. Dingle and many others in Congress. An NIH expert investigated and found
> decided the experiment is at best "garbage" (as he said to me). I will send
> you his letter to MIT, if you like.
>
> These charges have also appeared in the Japanese press, on the BBC and on the
> CBC. The BBC lawyers went over the facts of the matter in detail for a week,
> before deciding to proceed.

The BBC's lawyers go over _everything_ for at least a week before agreeing to
let anything be broadcast. That's how they earn their crusts.

Nice to hear that the NIH oficial reported his findings to you. Has he reported
them anywhere else?

DaveHatunen

unread,
May 16, 1994, 3:38:33 PM5/16/94
to
In article <py2vd49.j...@delphi.com>, <jedro...@delphi.com> wrote:
>Carl J Lydick <ca...@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU> writes:
>
>>So what? The mere fact that a patent has been granted means only that the
>>patent examiner didn't see anything obviously bogus in the patent application.
>
>I think it is very unlikly that corporations like Canon would go to the
>expense and trouble to file patents for devices which do not work.

Oh, boy. You don't how it works, do you? Large corporations file
gazillions of patents, whether they work or not, in a shotgun hope that
some of them will either hit their own target, or be so close to some
other corporations project that does work that they can try to get some
mileage out of their own patent.

[...]

DaveHatunen

unread,
May 22, 1994, 1:32:34 AM5/22/94
to

Except that the D2O, as I understand it, is "fuel", isn't it? It's a
consumable, isn't it.

Unlike the steel in the Tokamak or the glass in the glassware, it's not
part of the capital investment. And in the long run, the energy to make
the stel or the glass is a trivial proportion of the enerby generated
in a conventional power plant. In assessing the overall energy efficiency
of a coal-fired plant it would be legitimate to take into account the
energy cost of mining and shipping the coal. But it's rarely done
because (a), the cost is proportionally small, and (b) consequently, no
one cares a whole los sinc the thermodynamic efficiency of the steam
process is of more interest.

I have not problem wiht your desire to keep it a separate question from
the intrinsic efficeincy of the process. But engineering takes into
account all cost. Even if it turns out that CF is valid, if the D2O is
too costly, it could be irrelevant.

Alan M. Dunsmuir

unread,
May 22, 1994, 5:52:55 AM5/22/94
to
In article: <hatunenC...@netcom.com> hat...@netcom.com (DaveHatunen) writes:
>
> I have not problem wiht your desire to keep it a separate question from
> the intrinsic efficeincy of the process. But engineering takes into
> account all cost. Even if it turns out that CF is valid, if the D2O is
> too costly, it could be irrelevant.
>

Dave - I had thought you were asking an intelligent question, but you now seem
to be chickening out.

Since there _does_ seem to be growing evidence that heat generation is occuring
in a number of the current 'CF' experiments, I believe it's a legitimate question
to ask, if it _is_ a valid phenomenon, where is the heat coming from?

The options would seem, superficially at least, to be (a) from an exothermic chemical
reaction; (b) from an exothermic, non-nuclear physical process (like freezing, or
movements by electrons between shells); or (c) from a nuclear process, which may
or may not be 'cold fusion'.

And part of this search should be concerned with checking on all the 'embodied'
energy that has been imparted to the components used in the experiments during
their manufacture process. (Nobody would quibble that substantial 'excess heat'
would be emitted by a sample of nitroglycerine which was subjected to an
explosive detonation under laboratory conditions, but nobody would be surprised
either. And the energy released could be accounted for in the nitro's
manufacturing process.)

So here a question on just what energy we're carrying around in the D2O is a
legitimate one, and Jed's failure to understand it or respond coherently to it
is an indication of how much weigth we should place on his opinions elsewhere
in the CF debate.

So it's _not_ a question which can be kept separate from the 'intrinsic
efficiency' of the process, since it's part of it. The answer may be negative,
but that doesn't invalidate the question. And it's just one of many similar
ones that have to be asked.

DaveHatunen

unread,
May 22, 1994, 6:24:15 PM5/22/94
to
In article <574540...@moonrake.demon.co.uk>,

Alan M. Dunsmuir <Al...@moonrake.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article: <hatunenC...@netcom.com> hat...@netcom.com (DaveHatunen) writes:
>>
>> I have not problem wiht your desire to keep it a separate question from
>> the intrinsic efficeincy of the process. But engineering takes into
>> account all cost. Even if it turns out that CF is valid, if the D2O is
>> too costly, it could be irrelevant.
>>
>
>Dave - I had thought you were asking an intelligent question, but you now seem
>to be chickening out.

I find it rather presumptious of you to assume what I was asking and
then, after you have presumed incorrectly, to accuse me of chickening
out when I clarify it.

>Since there _does_ seem to be growing evidence that heat generation is occuring
>in a number of the current 'CF' experiments, I believe it's a legitimate question
>to ask, if it _is_ a valid phenomenon, where is the heat coming from?

Obviously. And not the first time it's been asked in this thread. Which
is why I didn't bother to ask it.

Fact is, the supposed process is being promoted as some kind of
wonderful thing for humanity (especially by Fullerton) so it dawned on
me to point out by a question that it might not be so wonderful
at all.

[...]

jedro...@delphi.com

unread,
May 23, 1994, 3:42:05 PM5/23/94
to
DaveHatunen <hat...@netcom.com> writes:

>Except that the D2O, as I understand it, is "fuel", isn't it? It's a
>consumable, isn't it.

>Unlike the steel in the Tokamak or the glass in the glassware, it's not
>part of the capital investment.

Ah, yes! You are right. I tend to forget that the deuterium is actually fuel,
it gets used up at a slow rate. But you are quite right, it does get used up,
and we must take that into account. You want to know what the economics of
using heavy water for fuel would be like. You want to compare it to, say,
gasoline. A fascinating subject. It is surprisingly complex, so I cannot do it
justice in a short e-mail message, but let me describe a few of the main
considerations.

First, a key assumption: Based upon the work at China Lake, NTT, Los Alamos
and INFN, I now assume that CF converts hydrogen to helium at levels
commensurate with standard hot fusion. The recent gamma findings at Los
Alamos, the Kucherov work and the anomalies at TAMU indicate that the host
metal lattice may also play an active role; the metal itself might be
transmuted. This is speculative. The D to He transmutation is now on very
solid ground. From this fact, we can determine roughly how much energy a given
mass of fuel will generate; it will be in the same ballpark as hot fusion.

R. Petrasso, of MIT's Plasma Fusion Lab computed the amount of nuclear ash
from a fusion reaction. He pointed out that to create 1 mole (4 grams) of
helium ash, a 1-watt fusion reaction would have to continue for 73,000 years.
Now let us turn to the trusty ol' spreadsheet here and see how that works out.
That is 26 million days, multiplied by 86,400 seconds per day (right?), or
2.3E12 watt-seconds (joules), or 2,371,000 megajoules. The input is 4 grams of
deuterium. Actually, the output is tiny bit less than the input; some of the
mass is converted to energy, but it is so tiny we can ignore it for practical
purposes. We can say that 4 grams of heavy hydrogen will yield 2.3 million MJ.

A mole of heavy water weighs 20 grams, 16 grams of oxygen and 4 grams of
deuterium. So we need exactly one mole of heavy water to get our 4 grams of
D2O.

By comparison, 20 grams of gasoline yield 0.86 megajoules, 2.7 million times
less energy. Another way to look at it is to say your car will go 55 million
miles to the gallon of heavy water.

Now then, <ahem> for the purposes of this comparison, I am going to skip right
over several important engineering considerations like Carnot efficiency, fuel
consumption efficiency, and so on. Let us brutally simplify things by assuming
that the ratio of useful energy to potential energy from CF fuel will be
exactly the same as it is for gasoline. Personally, my bet is that CF energy
will lend itself to far more efficient means of energy production. As you
probably know, gasoline powered internal combustion engines are only 15% to
18% efficient, that hot exhaust gas coming out the back of your car is a big
fat waste of energy. I expect CF will do much better. But let us keep things
simple and assume the heat from gasoline and from heavy water CF will work the
same way.

Isotec, Inc sells 1 kg bottles of top top-grade 99.9% pure heavy water for
$385. They sell 99.8% pure heavy water at $350 per kg in 10 kg lots. The top
grade stuff works out to $7.70 for 20 grams. Gasoline costs $1 per gallon, and
a gallon of gasoline weighs about 3.5 kg I think. (Remember that gasoline
floats, it is lighter than water.) So gasoline comes to roughly $0.0057 per 20
grams. So, per unit of mass, heavy water is 1351 times more expensive, but it
generates 2.7 million times more energy. So, at a first approximation, joule
for joule, heavy water is 2000 times cheaper. It would cost the equivalent of
$0.0005 gallon of gasoline.

However, that hardly begins to tell the story. There is lots more! First of
all, $385 per kg for heavy water is far too high a cost for the spreadsheet
here. That is today's price for laboratory grade D2O. The actual price in a CF
economy would be far lower. I had a long discussion about this with Robert
Machacek, the product manager for heavy water at Ontario Hydro, the world's
largest producer. If heavy water became widely used as fuel in cold fusion, I
think the price of it would fall. Here are a few of the factors that would
drive the price down:

1. One-seven-thousandth all the water on earth is heavy water. It is
ubiquitous; it is everywhere in unthinkably vast quantities. The only reason
it is expensive is because with the technology used today, separating heavy
water from ordinary water is expensive. Cheaper methods have been invented,
but over the last 20 years Ontario Hydro has invested a lot of money in their
present plant and equipment, so they will not replace it for a while. There is
very little competition, there are no market forces to push them to lower
their costs immediately. There is no large market for it outside of Ontario
today, so no other companies will invest in new technology. If a CF economy
started blooming, however, every chemical company in the world would jump into
the fray and start looking for ways to separate heavy water more cheaply.

2. Aluminum was once a rare, precious metal for the same reason; there was no
way to refine bauxite. A reliable method was discovered, and now we throw away
soda cans that would have been worth hundreds of dollars a century ago. It is
almost certain that a large increase in demand would spur even greater
improvements in D2O separation technology.

3. 60% of the cost of separating D2O goes to pay for the energy needed to
operate the equipment. A CF economy could, therefore, bootstrap its way into
lower prices. Low cost energy would lower the cost of heavy water, which would
then further lower the cost of energy.

4. There is no reason to think CF requires 99.9% pure D2O. Many experiments
have been exposed to the atmosphere, where they rapidly become contaminated
with ordinary water, but they continue to work anyway. It seems likely that
98% or maybe even 95% purity would be every bit as good as 99.8%. That would
be *far* cheaper to produce.

5. $385 is the retail price for one kg. If Ford Motor Company was to put a
small amount of D2O in every car tank, they would get a volume discount. Even
today, in very large quantities the price comes down to about $150.

The bottom line is, soon after a CF based energy economy begins to grow, I
think that a kilogram of 95% pure D2O at wholesale would be closer to $50 than
$300. And pretty soon, I bet it will be more like $20. Plug that number into
the spreadsheet and your 20 grams of heavy water cost drops to $0.40. That
makes heavy water 38,571 times cheaper, or roughly equivalent to gasoline at
0.00003 per gallon.

Wait! It gets better. It does not stop there. The fact is, there is now good
evidence that some types of CF cathodes work just as well with ordinary water
as heavy. Or, nearly as well, anyway. Nickel cathodes seem to like a mixture
of 25% D2O best, but they work just fine with ordinary, pure H2O. These
experiments have not been as widely replicated as Pd D2O or Ti D2O
experiments, proton conductor D2 gas experiments, but some very good people
have done them and seen convincing results. Hundreds of labs have done Pd D2O,
only a dozen have tried Ni. Some Ni results are questionable; they might be
recombination. But others are way above I*V, or they use H2 gas only. So I
think it is getting more and more likely that this will be the way to go.

Now then! Let's plug ordinary water into the spreadsheet, shall we? I am not
sure what the energy yield is, but it isn't far from D2O. What should we say
the cost is? Ordinary tap water, run through a $2,000 lab purifier? Let us say
that costs 10 cents a gallon (wa-a-a-y too high an estimate, but so what?), or
about 3 cents a kg. . . 26 million times cheaper than oil.

A supertanker holds about 1.4 million barrels of oil, I think. That's 60
million gallons. So, in other words, with H2O based CF, you will be able to
buy the equivalent of a supertanker full of oil for $2.30. With D2O CF, at
today's $385 per kg of heavy water, that supertanker load of oil would cost
$23,000, which is still pretty cheap. A 1000 MW electric power plant is big
enough to serve a good sized city. To run one for a year takes about 10
million barrels of oil, or 420 million gallons, or $420 million dollars at
retail gasoline. But of course they don't pay retail! They pay about $20 per
barrel so it is roughly $200 million. With heavy water cold fusion at today's
bulk, wholesale prices it would cost roughly $105,000. In the near future,
when heavy water drops to $50 per kg in bulk, the cost of fuel for the 1000 MW
plant would drop to $27,000 per year.

Suppose, for a moment, that heavy water turns out to be the best CF fuel.
Frankly, I think that in the long term -- like, say, 50 years -- even heavy
water would come down to less than a dollar per kilogram. I think it would
eventually be millions of times cheaper than oil. This will happen for the
same reasons aluminum fell in price. When there is a gigantic market demand
for some element or isotope which just happens to be everywhere in virtually
unlimited supplies, then the cost reflects nothing more than an unsolved
engineering problem. It is just a matter of finding better and better ways to
separate the isotopes. During the course of the oil age, we found cheaper and
cheaper ways to locate, extract, ship and refine oil. Once the CF age begins,
we will soon figure out how to separate D2O with minimum effort and expense.

So there is an approximate answer, probably good to within an order of
magnitude anyway.

- Jed

Terry Smith

unread,
May 22, 1994, 2:05:48 AM5/22/94
to
To: jedro...@delphi.com

j> 2. It is dead simple to determine whether or not a CF device
j> is working or not. It takes no special high tech skill. They

So as well as calling MIT researchers frauds, you now claim the assessment of
results is simple. Good, stick with that - and post some.

[Is this CF or 'CF' here. I guess nothings impossible for an agnostic if he's
not really sure if he believes in anything or not.]

Terry Smith

---
| Fidonet: Terry Smith 3:800/846.23
| Internet: mu...@sawasdi.apana.org.au
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.
| Sawasdi BBS Hampstead Garden SA Australia +61-8-261-7802


Alan M. Dunsmuir

unread,
May 24, 1994, 12:49:19 PM5/24/94
to
In article: <Ry4uucN.j...@delphi.com> jedro...@delphi.com writes:
> X-To: DaveHatunen <hat...@netcom.com>
>
> DaveHatunen <hat...@netcom.com> writes:
>
> >Except that the D2O, as I understand it, is "fuel", isn't it? It's a
> >consumable, isn't it.
>
> >Unlike the steel in the Tokamak or the glass in the glassware, it's not
> >part of the capital investment.
>
> Ah, yes! You are right. I tend to forget that the deuterium is actually fuel,
> it gets used up at a slow rate. But you are quite right, it does get used up,
> and we must take that into account. You want to know what the economics of
> using heavy water for fuel would be like. You want to compare it to, say,
> gasoline. A fascinating subject. It is surprisingly complex, so I cannot do it
> justice in a short e-mail message, but let me describe a few of the main
> considerations.
>
> First, a key assumption: Based upon the work at China Lake, NTT, Los Alamos
> and INFN, I now assume that CF converts hydrogen to helium at levels
> commensurate with standard hot fusion. The recent gamma findings at Los
> Alamos, the Kucherov work and the anomalies at TAMU indicate that the host
> metal lattice may also play an active role; the metal itself might be
> transmuted. This is speculative. The D to He transmutation is now on very
> solid ground. From this fact, we can determine roughly how much energy a given
> mass of fuel will generate; it will be in the same ballpark as hot fusion.
>

[Another 140 lines omitted]

Jed: Try to pay attention. You were not asked how much energy would be generated
if the apparatus was performing the same transmutions as a hot fusion reactor.
You were asked how much it _does_ generate.

If you want to claim that it operates using the D -> He reaction, then show us the
scientific facts. Don't just say that it is 'on very solid ground'. That's for you
to demonstrate, and us to consider.

Try to remember you're playing at being a SCIENTIST.

jedro...@delphi.com

unread,
May 25, 1994, 1:35:43 PM5/25/94
to
Terry Smith <mu...@sawasdi.apana.org.au> writes:

>j> 2. It is dead simple to determine whether or not a CF device
>j> is working or not. It takes no special high tech skill. They
>
>So as well as calling MIT researchers frauds, you now claim the assessment of
>results is simple. Good, stick with that - and post some.

Let me clarify that statement. If the CF device is produce copious heat,
at very high levels, then it is dead simple to determine whether or not
it is working. Power levels like 30, 80 or 150 watts are very easy to detect.
However, the devices back in 1989 produced milliwatt levels of heat. Those
power levels are difficult to detect. Some CF experiments today also produce
very low levels of heat, so they require sophisticated calorimetery. The ones
that produce lots of heat with virtually no input, like Mizuno's, are very
easy to confirm: the temperature is 150 degress hotter than it would be if
there was not reaction. It is very easy to detect large temperatures.

As to the MIT researchers, yes I do assert their publication was deliberate
fraud. The leading Japanese magaine Bungeishunju also asserted that, and so
did the BBC and the CBC and many of the people who investigated the facts of
the matter. So I have lots of company, it is not just me who says that. Now,
if you think I am wrong, I suggest that you should have a look at the
documented evidence that I claim proves my point. You have no business disputing
me if you have not read this material. You literally do not know what I am
talking about. You have no business contradicting me so boldly, when you are
so ignorant about the facts of the matter.

- Jed

Michael Ernest Fullerton

unread,
May 26, 1994, 5:01:10 AM5/26/94
to
In article <441880...@moonrake.demon.co.uk>,

Alan M. Dunsmuir <Al...@moonrake.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>On Mills, on the other hand (if indeed it was he) they portrayed him as an
>out-and-out nutter. "This gentleman claims to be able to run a car engine
>on tap water. Unfortunately, on the day we visited him for filming, his
>device wouldn't work, but that did nothing to damped his enthusiasm."

That was not Mills but Meyer who built the water-powered car. If this
is how Meyer was portrayed then I saw a completely different documentary.
He certainly was not portrayed as a "nutter".

Alan M. Dunsmuir

unread,
May 26, 1994, 12:05:18 AM5/26/94
to
In article: <py7sOMf.j...@delphi.com> jedro...@delphi.com writes:
> X-To: Terry Smith <mu...@sawasdi.apana.org.au>

>
> Terry Smith <mu...@sawasdi.apana.org.au> writes:
>
> >j> 2. It is dead simple to determine whether or not a CF device
> >j> is working or not. It takes no special high tech skill. They
> >
> >So as well as calling MIT researchers frauds, you now claim the assessment of
> >results is simple. Good, stick with that - and post some.
>
[stuff deleted]

>
> As to the MIT researchers, yes I do assert their publication was deliberate
> fraud. The leading Japanese magaine Bungeishunju also asserted that, and so
> did the BBC and the CBC and many of the people who investigated the facts of
> the matter.


Jed: I don't know where you get your idas from, but take it as fact that the BBC
_did_not_ assert that the MIT researchers perpretrated deliberate fraud.

I don't remember precisely what was said, but it was along the lines of "in the
field of Cold Fusion Research, there are many claims and counter-claims put out
but the interested parties, and they seem unable to agree even on the results
which are being achieved."

On Mills, on the other hand (if indeed it was he) they portrayed him as an
out-and-out nutter. "This gentleman claims to be able to run a car engine
on tap water. Unfortunately, on the day we visited him for filming, his
device wouldn't work, but that did nothing to damped his enthusiasm."

Jon Livesey

unread,
May 27, 1994, 8:51:31 PM5/27/94
to
In article <py7sOMf.j...@delphi.com>, jedro...@delphi.com writes:
>
> As to the MIT researchers, yes I do assert their publication was deliberate
> fraud. The leading Japanese magaine Bungeishunju also asserted that, and so
> did the BBC and the CBC and many of the people who investigated the facts of
> the matter.

This is the first time that I heard that the BBC, which is a broad-
casting corporation, has a position on cold fusion.

I'd like to be sure about this. Do you really mean that this is an
official editorial position of the British Broadcasting Corporation,
or do you just mean that they broadcast a documentary or similar
program which contained the allegation.

FYI, the BBC broadcasts a nightly program called "Word of Faith"
during which representatives of religions make various claims, but
I don't believe that the BBC itself has a definite religous position.

jon.

Alan M. Dunsmuir

unread,
May 29, 1994, 1:41:34 AM5/29/94
to
In article: <xI3u+i3.j...@delphi.com> jedro...@delphi.com writes:
> X-To: Carl J Lydick <ca...@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU>

>
> Carl J Lydick <ca...@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU> writes:
>
> >Wait a minute! Does BBC also have a series called Nova, or are you talking
> >about the show produced in Boston and sold to various stations?
>
> Oops. Sorry. It is called "Horizon" in England, and it is frequently
> broadcast in the U.S. under the title "Nova." That is, the people in Boston
> frequently buy the programs lock, stock and barrel from the BBC and show
> them nearly as is. I have a bunch of brochures and transcripts from the
> BBC for shows that I have seen here on Nova, so I get the two names mixed up.
>
> In Canada they show it under a different name, I can't remember what it is.
>
> The people in Boston also produce their own, unique shows. They do not buy
> everything the BBC makes. In particular, they will not touch certain
> controversial shows, like the BBC one debunking global warming, or anything
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> about evolution (pro or con). I am sure they do not have the guts to show a
> pro-cold fusion program either.
>
> - Jed

It was that show precisely which I had in mind when I called "Horizon" a
science-ish series. Its partisan stance that GW is a myth and scientific fraud
was a total travesty of all that scientific reporting is supposed to be, and
did nothing to progress the debate on evidence for and against Global Warming,
or the appropriatenes of alterantive measures for dealing with the presumed threat.

There was also a program (it may have been "Horizon" or one of its rivals
on another channel) devoted to the anti-science pro-Duesberg line on the
HIV/AIDS link, and the (claimed) non-existence of an AIDS epidemic in
Central Africa, which did nothing to enhance the reputation of these
programme-makers either.

By the way - that's a topic I'm surprised to see missing from sci.skeptic -
is there no furore in the States, from the fundies and associated groups (in the
UK I believe the Church of Scientology has got into the act) about the 'scandal'
of the scientific fraud around the 'lies and myth' that HIV is a precursor for
AIDS?

In the UK we have one national (and until recently, respected) Sunday paper (The
Rupert Murdoch-owned Sunday Times) in which the Editor (Alistair Neill, now left
to host and manage a Murdoch TV station in the States) and the Science
Correpondent both supported the 'no HIV - AIDS link' line, and the paper would
run regular exposees of the scandal of wasted aid money in Africa, chasing after
a non-existent epidemic and making the drug companies very rich in the process.

It is loading more messages.
0 new messages