I rest my case. [mg]
On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 8:04 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote: > Mark Gibbs <mgi...@gibbs.com> wrote: > > >> It's interesting that you both want the mainstream media to pay attention >> to cold fusion yet you complain when we don't write *exactly* as you think >> we should write. >> > > This has nothing to do with what I think. I am not the issue here. > > I am suggesting you write something that resembles the claims in the > peer-reviewed scientific literature. You ignore what the experiments show > and what the researchers claim. You should read McKubre, Storms or > Fleischmann and try to summarize *what they claim*. > > > >> You complain endlessly about "sloppy journalism" and how the theories of >> cold fusion aren't clearly laid out . . . >> > > This is not about theory. Cold fusion is an experimental finding. There > are no widely accepted theories to explain it. I see no need for you to > discuss theory, any more than you would with high temperature > superconducting, which also cannot be explained. > > On the other hand, everyone agrees that the experiments produce thousands > of times more energy than a chemical reaction with the same mass reactants > can produce, and that there are no chemical changes in the cell. So > chemistry is ruled out. That is shown in hundreds of papers, in research > replicated thousands of times by thousands of researchers. So I think that > is what you should describe, rather than merely saying they "output more > energy than is put into them." > > Also note that in many cases, no one puts energy into the reactions. > > > (as you think they should be) for the average reader who you obviously >> look down upon (Craig tellingly dismisses them as "establishment goons" ... >> > > You misunderstand. Cold fusion researchers are the establishment. As > Martin said, "we are painfully conventional people." Martin was an FRS; > Bockris literally wrote the book on Modern Electrochemistry; Miles was > Fellow at China Lake. Most cold fusion researchers are tenured professors > and a large fraction of them are distinguished, leading experts in their > fields. > > > >> an ad hominem attack if ever there was one) yet you're perpetually angry >> at the lack of attention and funding for cold fusion! >> > > I am angry at people who make sloppy, ignorant claims about an important > scientific breakthrough. I am angry at lazy journalists and scientists who > do not make the effort to learn the facts, and instead write their own > made-up version of things. > > I am strong believer in doing things by the numbers, following rules, and > doing your homework. Check and recheck. In short, I am a programmer. Also a > translator and tech writer, which is why I am such a pedant about grammar > and English prose. > > - Jed > >
