Re: [Vo]:Fwd: [From Quarks to Quasars] Contact Us

2015-08-22 Thread Alain Sepeda
still in denial, but they cannot say they were not informed.

I posted a comment with a pile of link to current science and many news.

it seems it was moderated.

It is time to keep those news and prepare to ridicule them later, so the
nextgeneration of parrot and mindguard is deterred  and check his sources
better.

I kept a copy on my scoop.it:

Your bias is very clear, even if it is based on real facts, someway
distorted.
first FP experiment was very hard and took 5 years to develop, and they
were the best experts in calorimetry as George Longchampt experienced
painfully when replicating exactly (allowing to understand the subtle
performance of FP calorimeter).
The condition were not well known, and Caltech replicator simply did not
ask, and moreover insulted in public and private that experiment, which was
not the best way to get help.strangely Bockris like Longchampt got more
information from FP, and it worked after not 40 days but more than 1 year.
beside that Caltech (lewis) expeiment was pathetic, like MIT which was
caught tweaking the data by no less than their own editor who spotted the
tricks.
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2012/ICCF17/papers/Miles-Examples-Isoperibolic-Calorimetry-ICCF17-ps.pdf
later the frauds of Gary taubes (cherry picing, innuendo to cast doubt on
all replication by BARC, LANL, of Borkris) fueled the myth that it was
fraud.
today in the science domain there is few fraud and misconduct identified,
by opponents to FP.one is MIT tweak, probably to hide their unprecise
protocol.one is gary taubesone is Morrison who continued to push his theory
while he case debunked with mainstream electrochemistry knowledgeone is
Nature not correcting errors in Caltech papersone is Science rejecting
Oriani paper who passed peer review , for no reasonone is Nature rejecting
Repoer 41 DeNinno by ENEA for having no room.one is pursuing 3 inquiries
agains bockris while the fraud of taube was known, and the claim of fraud
was simply impossible as Edmund Storms showed (contamination by tritium
could not match observation).
I advise you to start by reading the book of charles Beaudette which is the
best documented (much more citations that the conspiracy books of Huizenga
or taubes)
http://iccf9.global.tsinghua.edu.cn/lenr%20home%20page/acrobat/BeaudetteCexcessheat.pdf#page=35
you can also read the peer reviewed (by non LENR physicist) selcial section
on LENR in Current Science
http://www.currentscience.ac.in/php/feat.php?feature=Special%20Section:%20Low%20Energy%20Nuclear%20Reactionsfeatid=10094or
Naturwissenschaften
http://www.currentscience.ac.in/php/feat.php?feature=Special%20Section:%20Low%20Energy%20Nuclear%20Reactionsfeatid=10094or%C2%A0Naturwissenschaften
paperhttp://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00114-010-0711-x(you can
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00114-010-0711-x(you%C2%A0can
find
it free as prepublish)
you can also try to catch some peer reviewed papers listed ther
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJtallyofcol.pdf#page=6among 150+ 2 may
be anough to convince you.
you can also add JJAP peer reviewed papers by Iwamura and Takahashi as
replicator
http://dx.doi.org/10.1143/JJAP.41.4642http://dx.doi.org/10.7567/JJAP.52.107301(search
also for
the one of US Navy Spawar, and for many good non reviewed papers)
I also advice reading The Science of LENR by Edmund torms , of some of his
booklets and articles...
Nothing personal as you relay the consensus fairy tale.Very good example of
groupthink in science.
For Rossi, he is not a convicted fraudster as he was cleared of all charge
of fraud.His conviction is just absence of environmental permit, made
necessary after the business started, and tax evasion linked to the
bancktruptcy induced by the pursuits.What seems to have happened from the
evidences is that Rossi developped a biofuel technology, but that it was
probably more polluting that what could be accepted by recent laws.at that
time Camorra pushed Green laws to make it's business of waste dumping more
profitable, and this recycling of waste as fuel was probably a problem,
both for greens and for camora.in the Il coriere della sera there is report
of very strange sabotage, and price explosion for decontamination, that
make it clear that some mafia was interested in the cost of cleaning.
http://www.lenr-forum.com/old-forum-static/t-2384.html
Rossi move in US where he was welcomed as employee, and still maintained in
his positions after being arested in italy and done his time for tax
evasion.
Many other stories are pushed as innuendo by the opponents (something about
TEG, which well analysed and not forgetting the 3 US Army reports is easy
to understand).
anyway today the evidence of Ferrara and Lugano test let no doubt the
reactor work (question is how well).
countrary you the myth you spread, Rossi did not touch the electric nor
calorimetry setup, and was only present but not touching the sample where
the huge isotopic shift was observed. This is well 

[Vo]:Fwd: [From Quarks to Quasars] Contact Us

2015-08-21 Thread CB Sites
Forwarded conversation
Subject: Re: [From Quarks to Quasars] Contact Us


From: *From Quarks To Quasars* fromquarkstoquas...@gmail.com
Date: Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 9:24 AM
To: Chuck Sites cbsit...@gmail.com


Hi Chuck,

The article will not be retracted. It is scientific in nature, it has
evidence, the claims are sound, it does not attack the scientific method,
it is not a hit piece, it does not lack journalistic integrity.

It was meant to provide a basic overview of where we currently stand in
relation to cold fusion for those who are not familiar with the topic, and
it does that. The article clearly states that countries and various
organizations are currently researching this, but that the results have not
shown anything that is, to date, viable.

To show an alternative view, it also links to an article that claims that
valid research on cold fusion is not being published because journals fear
being made a mockery for publishing any such research.

Thanks for the concern


From Quarks to Quasars

Managing Editors: Jaime Trosper and Jolene Creighton
Make sure to visit our website http://www.fromquarkstoquasars.com/ for
the latest in science news and research.

On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 9:01 PM, Chuck Sites 
wordpr...@fromquarkstoquasars.com wrote:

 Name: Chuck Sites
 Email: cbsit...@gmail.com
 Comment: Folks, your article was passed to me in a discussion group.  I
 read what you had to say regarding the physics of Cold Fusion, and in the
 name of science,  I wish you would retract the article.  It's basically a
 hit piece without a fact to point to.  It implies that the work being done
 in the field is fraudulent or the science is misguided.  Neither is the
 case.  Cold Fusion to date is a work in process.   It's storied history
 shows the amazing processes of man's ability to scientifically investigate
 a concept and pursue it's many directions of investigation.  The work of
 Andrie Rossi  is just one direction being pursued.

 The idea that a proton fuses with a nickel nucleus to make a copper
 nucleus, is just an idea to explain experimental anomalies in the Rossi
 type experiments.  There have been several other ideas to explain the
 phenomena that nuclear levels of excess heat are seen in hydrated metals
 consistently.   Rossi is just one experimental method being used to
 understand the limits of nature in process of fusion.  Many others have
 been pursued since Dr's Pons and Fleishman proposed cold fusion of
 deuterium in electrolytic cells of palladium.

 You should withdraw your article on cold fusion due to its unscientific
 nature, it's lack of evidence for it's claims, it's attack on the
 scientific method, for being a hit piece, for lack of journalistic
 integrity, etc.

 If  you want to make any serious claim with validity, this article should
 be labeled Opinion Piece.

 Time: August 19, 2015 at 21:01
 IP Address: 64.253.110.231
 Contact Form URL: http://www.fromquarkstoquasars.com/contact-us/
 Sent by an unverified visitor to your site.



--
From: *CB Sites* cbsit...@gmail.com
Date: Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 5:41 PM
To: cont...@fromquarkstoquasars.com


Thank you for taking the time to reply to my criticism of your article.
Let me just say that I think you are painting the field with a very broad
brush, and while there is some room for some cynicism for certain players
in the field, there are other scientists in this field that are very well
respected and established.   Cold fusion can even claim a nobel prize
winning physicist in it ranks with the late Julian Swigner.  Hardly a
charlatan.   In fact the list of very notable scientists involved in cold
fusion is surprising.   Cold fusion is a real phenomena and is proven in
muon catalyzed cold fusion.  That is a true nuclear phenomena.   In the
case of hydrated(deuterated) metals the nuclear signatures are not seen but
a heat signature that are commensurate with nuclear origins is seen (dating
all the way back to Dr. Pons and Dr. Flieshman).   The lack of a nuclear
signal does not negate the heat signatures found in some of these published
experiments.  See http://lenr-canr.org

Basically there are a group of science writers who have very closed minds
on issues they know little about.  Your article appears to be one such
piece of misdirected writing.  It qualifies as pathological skepticism.
Maybe if you actually interviewed scientist working in the field, you might
actually be enlightened by the mysteries Nature can sometime present us.

Best regards,
Chuck




--
From: *From Quarks To Quasars* cont...@fromquarkstoquasars.com
Date: Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 9:58 PM
To: Chuck Sites cbsit...@gmail.com


Maybe part of the problem with the lack of dialog is that people people are
presumptiously insulting, what with calling others close-minded and saying
they know little on the subject.

Thanks for the message.

--
From: *CB Sites* cbsit...@gmail.com
Date: Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 10:04 PM
To: From Quarks To