On May 7, 2013, at 9:55 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote:
On Tue, May 07, 2013 at 10:25:11AM -0500, Joshua Cude wrote:
On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 9:48 AM, Edmund Storms
<stor...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Regardless of what is suggested as evidence, you will find a way
to reject
it.
This is often stated, but of course it's nonsense. Who could reject a
phenomenon that replaces fossil fuels? That powers a car without
refueling?
This is precisely my problem with claimed evidence for CF/LENR.
If it's a giant effect, how come it's so conveniently elusive?
CF/LENR is not a giant effect. It is a phenomenon of Nature that is
not understood well enough to make large yet. It is elusive because it
is not yet understood. Of course, the same can be said for high
temperature superconductivity. People keep claiming to see room
temperature superconductivity, but no one stops the search just
because the effect is hard to produce. Surely, you can see the error
in your implied conclusion, Eugen.
I was extremely impressed with the original Fleischman-Pons paper
back then and was about to run out to order some palladium wire
and liberate a few cm^3 of heavy water from NMR solvent shelf
but then was amazed when it turned out how sloppy the work was.
How could Nature publish this?
Yes, the paper is poor because it was written in haste. However, the
experimental results were first class. Many people followed their lead
and made the effect work, including myself. I'm amazed you would
call, the work sloppy. It was inadequate, but not sloppy. If you took
the trouble, you would find better descriptions of the process in the
literature. I suggest you read my book.
I kept watching the field since, and it's only gotten downhill.
Some of the papers on LENR-CANR archive are just terrible
beyond words.
Of course some are bad. I have worked in several fields of science for
65 years. Most papers are have flaws even though they have been peer
reviewed. So what? The purpose of an education is to give the ability
to sort though nonsense and find what is real. Have you done this?
Of course I've tracked Rossi as well, starting with what
his students wrote about him on reddit and the whole
78 pages of http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=198040
The gullibility of some posters here is truly astonishing.
Yes, some people are gullible. The purpose of this discussion group is
to educate. If people are given information, their level of
gullibility is reduced. Are you interest in helping this process?
Ed Storms
