[Vo]:Fact checking: Did Nature (or others) publicly decide to reject all cold fusion papers?
Hi, I would like to ask to people who follow the LENr domain whetehr or not there is an official policy in Scientific Journal to reject LENR/Cold Fusion papers ? Maybe is it more complex, so please describe. With Oriani, Report41 Deninno, Jed asking rectification of caltech paper, I know that it is implemented, but maybe is it not so official ?
Re: [Vo]:Fact checking: Did Nature (or others) publicly decide to reject all cold fusion papers?
Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: I would like to ask to people who follow the LENr domain whetehr or not there is an official policy in Scientific Journal to reject LENR/Cold Fusion papers ? Yes. Most journals send a short rejection letter to any paper related to cold fusion. They do not submit papers to peer-review. They reject them out of hand. Nature and several others do this. There are not many examples of these one-page letters. I saw some in the collected papers of Martin Fleischmann and a few in Mizuno's files. There are few examples because after 1990, no researchers I know bothered to send papers to these journals. Everyone knows their policy. Nature made this policy abundantly clear in their editorials and letters to researchers. There are some quotes and links to the Nature editorials here: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJhownaturer.pdf Along the same lines, the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time magazine and others have often published attacks by Robert Park and other opponents accusing researchers of being frauds, criminals and lunatics. To my knowledge they have never allowed any researcher to publish an objection or a rebuttal. These attacks have caused great harm to people's professional and personal lives. New Scientist is the only one I can think of that has printed accusations of fraud, criminality and so on but also a few articles with quotes from Miles and others objecting to these attacks. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Fact checking: Did Nature (or others) publicly decide to reject all cold fusion papers?
Ok, so nothing official, but clear behavioral evidence of a short clear policy. A conspiracy ? (ah ah) I note. by the way, remind me to call for a Nuremberg trial on Cold Fusion. Some people have to be fired. They have done more pain than the banksters (to whom I find the excuse that they were fulfilling population desire). 2013/6/2 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: I would like to ask to people who follow the LENr domain whetehr or not there is an official policy in Scientific Journal to reject LENR/Cold Fusion papers ? Yes. Most journals send a short rejection letter to any paper related to cold fusion. They do not submit papers to peer-review. They reject them out of hand. Nature and several others do this. There are not many examples of these one-page letters. I saw some in the collected papers of Martin Fleischmann and a few in Mizuno's files. There are few examples because after 1990, no researchers I know bothered to send papers to these journals. Everyone knows their policy. Nature made this policy abundantly clear in their editorials and letters to researchers. There are some quotes and links to the Nature editorials here: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJhownaturer.pdf Along the same lines, the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time magazine and others have often published attacks by Robert Park and other opponents accusing researchers of being frauds, criminals and lunatics. To my knowledge they have never allowed any researcher to publish an objection or a rebuttal. These attacks have caused great harm to people's professional and personal lives. New Scientist is the only one I can think of that has printed accusations of fraud, criminality and so on but also a few articles with quotes from Miles and others objecting to these attacks. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Fact checking: Did Nature (or others) publicly decide to reject all cold fusion papers?
Hi, On 2-6-2013 18:28, Alain Sepeda wrote: by the way, remind me to call for a Nuremberg trial on Cold Fusion. Some people have to be fired. I'm afraid you cannot compare this with the Nuremberg trial as some of the accused and sentenced got a death penalty. I don't see any death penalty as a solution to whatever crime anyone has ever committed. Kind regards, Rob
Re: [Vo]:Fact checking: Did Nature (or others) publicly decide to reject all cold fusion papers?
Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: Ok, so nothing official . . . It is official. All of the major journals have a clear policy of rejecting cold fusion papers out of hand. All mass media newspapers and magazines, except CBS and Forbes, have made it their policy to publish attacks on cold fusion researchers without allowing a defense by the accused. . . . but clear behavioral evidence of a short clear policy. The policy was stated by the editors of Nature and others. In 1990 they called for unrestrained mockery, even a little unqualified vituperation. They could not have said it more clearly than that! A conspiracy ? No, just a consensus of opinion. It is not as if the editors from the Scientific American, Nature and the Washington Post secretly met together and planned this. That would be a conspiracy. by the way, remind me to call for a Nuremberg trial on Cold Fusion. Some people have to be fired. No laws have been broken, so there can be no trial. If cold fusion ever succeeds I expect the people who led the attacks will say they were for it all along. They will take credit, and they will be rewarded. That is the usual pattern of history. After the Three Mile Island disaster, the NRL engineer who repeated warned it would happened was forced out. The upper managers who first ignored him and then ordered him to shut up were promoted and given a cash reward. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Fact checking: Did Nature (or others) publicly decide to reject all cold fusion papers?
when can I find something that i can oppose to those who say I make libelous claims ? even on you letter to nature to correct Caltech paper, I find nothing else instance of bad science, not a general procedure... about Nuremberg idea, I defend the principle of reasonable specific punishment, yet protection of the public... just fired and ridiculed. no death penalty, yet technically a serial guinner have less blood on his hand but as you say it will not be so, on the opposite. Someone said to me that Vengeance is done only on the Innocent. Nassim Nicholas Taleb in Antifragile explain that history is rewritten by the losers and that typically they say that academics have invented all, and hide the garage tinkerers and other practitioners... And even if not stealing property they transform hardcord tinkererd into ethereal theorist. Taleb even start to see that on his job, I start to understand what happened with LENR, AGW, Finance, Software Engineering... same scheme... 2013/6/2 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: Ok, so nothing official . . . It is official. All of the major journals have a clear policy of rejecting cold fusion papers out of hand. All mass media newspapers and magazines, except CBS and Forbes, have made it their policy to publish attacks on cold fusion researchers without allowing a defense by the accused.
Re: [Vo]:Fact checking: Did Nature (or others) publicly decide to reject all cold fusion papers?
There may be a condition imposed on all who depend on LENR licensing or any product availability regarding their corporate hiring practices. A lie detector test should be a requirement of employment for their institution which asks the critical question: “Do you or have you ever opposed the idea of LENR to have ever put LENR at a disadvantage in science.” As a next step, all positive responses will be reviewed rigorously before the holy office of the LENR inquisition for doctrinal purity to assess the danger to the best interests of LENR. Due to his long experience, William Beaty may be the best qualified to be the first pontiff of the first ecclesiastical tribunal whose motto is: quoniam punitio non refertur primo per se in correctionem bonum eius qui punitur, sed in bonum publicum ut alij terreantur, a malis committendis avocentur. For punishment does not take place primarily and per se for the correction and good of the person punished, but for the public good in order that others may become terrified and weaned away from the evils they would commit. On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 2:10 PM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: when can I find something that i can oppose to those who say I make libelous claims ? even on you letter to nature to correct Caltech paper, I find nothing else instance of bad science, not a general procedure... about Nuremberg idea, I defend the principle of reasonable specific punishment, yet protection of the public... just fired and ridiculed. no death penalty, yet technically a serial guinner have less blood on his hand but as you say it will not be so, on the opposite. Someone said to me that Vengeance is done only on the Innocent. Nassim Nicholas Taleb in Antifragile explain that history is rewritten by the losers and that typically they say that academics have invented all, and hide the garage tinkerers and other practitioners... And even if not stealing property they transform hardcord tinkererd into ethereal theorist. Taleb even start to see that on his job, I start to understand what happened with LENR, AGW, Finance, Software Engineering... same scheme... 2013/6/2 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: Ok, so nothing official . . . It is official. All of the major journals have a clear policy of rejecting cold fusion papers out of hand. All mass media newspapers and magazines, except CBS and Forbes, have made it their policy to publish attacks on cold fusion researchers without allowing a defense by the accused.
RE: [Vo]:Fact checking: Did Nature (or others) publicly decide to reject all cold fusion papers?
From Jed ... No laws have been broken, so there can be no trial. If cold fusion ever succeeds I expect the people who led the attacks will say they were for it all along. They will take credit, and they will be rewarded. That is the usual pattern of history. After the Three Mile Island disaster, the NRL engineer who repeated warned it would happened was forced out. The upper managers who first ignored him and then ordered him to shut up were promoted and given a cash reward. Hush money, for doing a great job of containment? I'd suspect upper management would nevertheless know a few things that managers even higher than upper management would prefer remain in the closet. How could they not know! Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex/
Re: [Vo]:Fact checking: Did Nature (or others) publicly decide to reject all cold fusion papers?
On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 11:38 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: As a next step, all positive responses will be reviewed rigorously before the holy office of the LENR inquisition for doctrinal purity to assess the danger to the best interests of LENR. I'm not sure if you are having fun with my religious jurisprudence comment. I think I had something more along the lines of splitting hairs, counting the number of angels on the head of a pin, biblical exegesis, etc., in mind. Although a doctrinal court to try heresies might be useful here as well. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Fact checking: Did Nature (or others) publicly decide to reject all cold fusion papers?
Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: A lie detector test should be a requirement of employment for their institution which asks the critical question: “Do you or have you ever opposed the idea of LENR to have ever put LENR at a disadvantage in science.” Don't be a wimp. Waterboard 'em! They are guilty until proven innocent. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Fact checking: Did Nature (or others) publicly decide to reject all cold fusion papers?
On Sun, 2 Jun 2013 16:14:35 -0400 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: A lie detector test should be a requirement of employment for their institution which asks the critical question: “Do you or have you ever opposed the idea of LENR to have ever put LENR at a disadvantage in science.” Don't be a wimp. Waterboard 'em! They are guilty until proven innocent. I like it. Posters everywhere will show Rossi glowering at them - like the picture at the top of Gary Wright's website. Rossi will become known as 'Big Rossi', and people like Robert Park, after being hideously tortured with devices powered by LENR modules, will fervently cry 'I love Big Rossi'.
Re: [Vo]:Fact checking: Did Nature (or others) publicly decide to reject all cold fusion papers?
Vorl Bek vorl@antichef.com wrote: Don't be a wimp. Waterboard 'em! They are guilty until proven innocent. I like it. Posters everywhere will show Rossi glowering at them - like the picture at the top of Gary Wright's website. I like it! Gary Wright himself will be in charge of this pogram. There is no true believer like an apostate from the opposition. Stalin trained for the ministry. (For those unfamiliar with Wright, he is a creepy fellow who runs this website: http://shutdownrossi.com/ He seem to be obsessed with Rossi.) - Jed
