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
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.
: 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
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.
>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
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
> 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"!
Just what sort of evidence do you have to support this, which appears
to be another unsubstantiated claim on your part.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
> >
> >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
>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
>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
How does this relate to the current discussion about Cold Fusion?
jon.
>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
>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
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?
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.
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.
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]
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.
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.
_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.
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.
[...]
>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 *
*******************************************************
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?
>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
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 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!!
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?
=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.
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
====================================================================
- 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 ******
*************************************************************************
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.
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.
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!!
: >>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 |
: 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...
Correct me if I err, but I recall P&F *refusing* to tell others
of their exact experimental setup.
jon.
(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
: 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 | |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. --
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
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
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 *
*******************************************************
>
> 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!
>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
>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
[...]
>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.
North, "should not trust" and "ignore" are subtly different concepts.
--
Michael Fullerton | Seeds, like ideas, don't
mefu...@acs.ucalgary.ca | germinate in concrete
/>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
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.
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.
[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]
>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. | |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 |
Schroedinger or no: you must believe a lot of contradictory things.
--
thomas kettenring, 3 dan, kaiserslautern, germany
It's my only line. -- Carol Cleveland
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?
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.
[...]
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.
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.
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.
[...]
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
[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.
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".
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."
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.
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.