Re: [Vo]:New book with a chapter on cold fusion

[Jed Rothwell]

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:


> Lighten up, Jed. It can take a long time for a book to appear.


I doubt it. The book was published this year, and nowadays books can be
written and published very quickly. It is a short book.



> Should he have intervened? Why? The book, *as it is*, is a positive force
> for the encouragement of cold fusion research.


Oh come now. If this technically illiterate nonsense is the best we can hope
for after 21 years, it will take another 100 years.



> That he showed up a U. Missouri is a huge step; compare this with the
> pseudoskeptics, Jed.


No, he wasn't there, as far as I know.

Plus, I am sure Scaramuzzi told him about the ENEA-sponsored ICCF-15
conference years ago. He described Scaramuzzi as a lone hold-out,
barely tolerated at the ENEA. I will grant, many of the Italians at the ENEA
have described themselves that way, but Goodstein should have at least
mentioned that there are many others in the ENEA doing cold fusion and that
the organization is sponsoring a conference, along with the Italian Physical
Society and Chemical Society. That negates his description of the field, and
his assertion that "nothing much has changed." The only thing that hasn't
changed is the ignorant refusal of people like him to look at the facts.



> Maybe you should have a talk with him, but I'd suggest calming down first!


I wouldn't give him the time of day.



> "Travesty" is pretty dramatic.


> It's not a travesty . . .


It darn well is in my estimation. A disgrace, a travesty, a joke, and a
violation of academic ethics. He wrote a whole a chapter in a book about a
scientific subject without reading a single paper on it, and he grossly
misrepresented it and wrote a fantasy instead of a fact-based description.
In a book about academic ethics! How ironic. This guy has no business
lecturing others about academic ethics or fraud. I would not go so far as to
call his book fraud, but it stinks.


Look, to connect with those holding the common opinion, you must appear to
> be with them, at first.


I have no desire to connect with such people. I want to steamroll them. Push
them out of the way. There are only two outcomes to this debate: either the
ignorant, bigoted, technically illiterate fools like Goodstein will win, or
we will win. If we win, the the whole world will see them for what they are.
They will go down in history as a laughingstock, like the fools who
denounced the Wright brothers. If they win, we will be forgotten, and
potential benefit of cold fusion will be lost to the human race.


That's reproduction, just not exact reproduction, it's reproduction of a
> different kind, confirming process evidence. Would you look at that?
>

Goodstein would not recognize experimental confirmation if it bit him on the
butt! He is like Taubes; completely unqualified to even discuss this
subject. I mean, give us a break! He wrote a book describing how you load
palladium into platinum. That's like Taubes with his 50 deg C temperature
difference in liquid, or Hoffman with his used CANDU reactor moderator water
being sold retail. People who publish such egregious mistakes in books
disqualify themselves from serious consideration. The publishers should have
tossed the manuscripts into the trash.

Look, everyone makes mistakes. You can find minor errors in any book. (I
can, anyway.) I can even forgive a British author who thought that Harvard
University was established after 1814 (R. Holmes, p. 482). But people who
devote entire chapters -- or books! -- to preposterous nonsense are beyond
the pale.



> It's basic communication technique. Start with agreement. Where would you
> start, Jed? With "You're crazy!" How well does that work? Has it ever
> worked? Once?
>

I don't say he is crazy. I say he is ignorant and wrong. This will never
"work" in the sense of winning him over or convincing him, but such people
cannot be convinced. It is a waste of time trying to convince them. I have
no desire to convince them. I want to push them out of the way by showing
the world that they have no credibility.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:New book with a chapter on cold fusion

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 07:17 PM 3/19/2010, Jed Rothwell wrote:
I just realized I know Prof. Goodstein. Rob Duncan invited him to 
the seminar at U. Missouri last May. This book was published in 
January 2010. So, Goodstein has been made aware of facts about cold 
fusion, and he ignored them. What a travesty!


Lighten up, Jed. It can take a long time for a book to appear. Should 
he have intervened? Why? The book, *as it is*, is a positive force 
for the encouragement of cold fusion research. It makes the important 
and central recognition: there is something to this research, it 
cannot be dismissed as fraud or clear delusion.


That he showed up a U. Missouri is a huge step; compare this with the 
pseudoskeptics, Jed. Maybe you should have a talk with him, but I'd 
suggest calming down first! "Travesty" is pretty dramatic.


It's not a travesty, these are shallow and superficial comments, made 
as personal observations, probably before that seminar, and they are 
clearly sympathetic to cold fusion research. He's not condemning it 
as pathological science, explicitly saying that it isn't fraud. He's 
saying that the research should be treated seriously, and some of 
what is seen as negative is simply reporting common opinion.


Look, to connect with those holding the common opinion, you must 
appear to be with them, at first. Yeah, I can see why you are so 
skeptical. Not reproduced, anybody would be skeptical.


Except, well, there are these 153 reproductions published in 
peer-reviewed journals. Of course, they are doing different 
experiments, I can understand why you'd remain skeptical, I see the problem.


However, there is one finding that is reproduced, and that the 
experimental designs differ is actually a factor that makes this more 
conclusive: using different designs, in palladium deuteride, whether 
or not helium is found and the amount found is very well correlated 
with measured excess heat. That's reproduction, just not exact 
reproduction, it's reproduction of a different kind, confirming 
process evidence. Would you look at that?


It's basic communication technique. Start with agreement. Where would 
you start, Jed? With "You're crazy!" How well does that work? Has it 
ever worked? Once?


"You're crazy" can work with some people once rapport is established. 
Not where it hasn't been. 

Re: [Vo]:New book with a chapter on cold fusion

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 05:27 AM 3/20/2010, Michel Jullian wrote:

Abd, it's not being a jerk to be wrong, it's being a jerk to write
authoritatively, as the book title implies, on a subject one is so
blatantly ignorant about.


What did he say, with an air of authority, that is so objectionable?

Look, Goodstein was one of the few major physics personalities who 
supported cold fusion research, and who clearly still does this. 
Great idea. Attack your best friends because you see them as too weak 
in support.


As Rothwell points out, Goodstein attended a Duncan seminar. I think 
it's time that we notice that Duncan remains somewhat skeptical. 
Duncan is pointing out somewhat the same as Goodstein, and both of 
them have come to a position -- Goodstein was there, what, fifteen 
years ago? -- that there is *something* important going on here, and 
it should be treated with the methods of science, which include the 
heaviest possible skepticism, except not a skepticism that concludes 
"false" because "not proven." Rather skepticism that looks for proof, 
on either side, and continues to demand it.


Goodstein is, in the end, on the right side.


Whether he is positive or not, or undecided, is not the problem. I
myself obviously feel the field is worth researching but I am still
not 100% convinced that CF is real, for lack of a single unambiguous
experiment proving it is.


Somewhat similar to the position of Goodstein, as I see it. Please 
read him more carefully, and also read his old article, I think it's 
in the reference list on Wikipedia.



 There are scientists who know much more
about the field than I do who are still undecided. Dieter Britz is in
this case, even though he is probably the most CF learned person in
the world.


I don't know about Britz, it's a strange case. To me, "decided" is a 
really dumb position on cold fusion, except as an operating 
hypothesis. We don't know WTF is happening in the lattice. Sure looks 
like fusion to me. Strongest evidence is heat/helium, and then comes 
the neutron evidence from SPAWAR, I hope to reproduce. Heat/helium is 
heavily reproduced and statistically definitive. If this were about 
medicine, they'd be patenting and selling the drugs.


Absolute proof is not necessary. Statistical proof should be adequate 
to establish operating assumptions, and the statistical proof is 
overwhelming already. Goodstein is saying to treat this as ordinary 
science, definitely not as fraud, and seriously investigate it. Do 
you argue with that? Why? Because he seems to give a personal opinion 
that is too mild and because he makes a typographical error? Do you 
think he doesn't know that this is about loading deuterium into palladium?


What if, in fact, he's being politically smart? What if he really 
believes, more than he says, that it's fusion?


CYA? Sure. Why not? His comments could be more politically effective 
than a public declaration of "conversion." Conversion can be and will 
be claimed to be a betrayal of senility. The guy lost it in his old 
age. Too bad, he was such a good scientist in his day.


Wake up, guys, you don't know where your bread is buttered. You had a 
huge opportunity with the 2004 DoE review, which represented a huge 
change from 1989, but you believed what the skeptics said about it. 
"See, no change from 1989, says so right at the end." That was 
preposterous, there was a huge change from 1989! This was the time to 
demand that the recommendations be followed! In 1989, they were a 
political sop, not real. In 2004, the need for more research was a 
true consensus.


(The statement in the conclusion about "no change" -- was it "changed 
little?" -- from 1989 was about the actual text of the 
recommendation, not about the general position on cold fusion, which 
was not really their charge, as interpreted by the DoE reviewer. 
Their charge was to determine if there should be a massive federal 
program, and the conclusion was basically, "not yet." And, in fact, 
that's not far from my position. But "yet" could be next month. 
What's needed is a little more basic research, and it's happening. 
Just not as fast as if the recommendations of 2004 had been followed, 
not to mention those of 1989.) 

Re: [Vo]:New book with a chapter on cold fusion

[Michel Jullian]

Abd, it's not being a jerk to be wrong, it's being a jerk to write
authoritatively, as the book title implies, on a subject one is so
blatantly ignorant about.

Whether he is positive or not, or undecided, is not the problem. I
myself obviously feel the field is worth researching but I am still
not 100% convinced that CF is real, for lack of a single unambiguous
experiment proving it is. There are scientists who know much more
about the field than I do who are still undecided. Dieter Britz is in
this case, even though he is probably the most CF learned person in
the world.

Michel

2010/3/20 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax :
> At 02:00 PM 3/19/2010, Michel Jullian wrote:
>>
>> What a jerk. On that page alone, he says one loads palladium into
>> deuterium, and platinum too, and he professes that excess heat is the
>> "bad kind" of cold fusion!
>
> You know, he points out that it is not fraud to be wrong, and I'll point out
> that it is also not being a jerk to be wrong. That error shows that this
> wasn't well-considered. I.e., the error about "loading of palladium and
> platinum into deuterium."
>
> He's also trying to support his friend Scaramuzzi with a comment that the
> loading (i.e., of deuterium into palladium, it doesn't load into platinum)
> is respectable, with only a "tangential connection to cold fusion." Yeah,
> that's right! "Anomalous heat" or "unexpected helium" or whatever. Cold
> fusion? No. Maybe its a low-energy nuclear reaction, but fusion? No, we
> don't mention fusion around here, it makes the natives restless. We are
> researching anomalous heat in the palladium deuteride system, you got a
> problem with that?
>
> I think you are being a little harsh, Michel. This reads to me like an essay
> or even a speech or something dictated off-the-cuff, it's certainly not
> well-edited and researched. But the basic message is actually positive.
>
> What did "bad kind" of cold fusion mean? Read the context and the time. At
> that point, there was muon-catalyzed fusion on the table, or the possibility
> that there was a very-low level form of other cold fusion, i.e., what Jones
> was reporting. That would be the "good kind." Not so horribly controversial.
> But Fleischmann was reporting levels of heat that could only be from much
> higher levels of reaction. He's describing his distress at heating that his
> friend was involved in this nonsense. "Bad kind" is what he thought then.
>
> He then, next page, says that he has looked over the results carefully, and
> they are "pretty impressive." Go back and read this again! He's complaining
> that the normal process of science isn't happening. If there are all these
> positive results, there should be people pouring over them to try to "prove
> them wrong."
>
> Note the very obvious implication. Cold fusion has not been proven wrong.
> And in this he is 100% correct. He underreports the positive evidence,
> that's all. Scaramuzzi is only a small part of it.
>

RE: [Vo]:New book with a chapter on cold fusion

[Mark Iverson]

He's simply trying to cover his ASS... And give himself a way out.
These people think politically, which is all about how to maintain whatever 
level of
power/importance they've achieved...

-Mark

Re: [Vo]:New book with a chapter on cold fusion

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 02:00 PM 3/19/2010, Michel Jullian wrote:

What a jerk. On that page alone, he says one loads palladium into
deuterium, and platinum too, and he professes that excess heat is the
"bad kind" of cold fusion!


You know, he points out that it is not fraud to be wrong, and I'll 
point out that it is also not being a jerk to be wrong. That error 
shows that this wasn't well-considered. I.e., the error about 
"loading of palladium and platinum into deuterium."


He's also trying to support his friend Scaramuzzi with a comment that 
the loading (i.e., of deuterium into palladium, it doesn't load into 
platinum) is respectable, with only a "tangential connection to cold 
fusion." Yeah, that's right! "Anomalous heat" or "unexpected helium" 
or whatever. Cold fusion? No. Maybe its a low-energy nuclear 
reaction, but fusion? No, we don't mention fusion around here, it 
makes the natives restless. We are researching anomalous heat in the 
palladium deuteride system, you got a problem with that?


I think you are being a little harsh, Michel. This reads to me like 
an essay or even a speech or something dictated off-the-cuff, it's 
certainly not well-edited and researched. But the basic message is 
actually positive.


What did "bad kind" of cold fusion mean? Read the context and the 
time. At that point, there was muon-catalyzed fusion on the table, or 
the possibility that there was a very-low level form of other cold 
fusion, i.e., what Jones was reporting. That would be the "good 
kind." Not so horribly controversial. But Fleischmann was reporting 
levels of heat that could only be from much higher levels of 
reaction. He's describing his distress at heating that his friend was 
involved in this nonsense. "Bad kind" is what he thought then.


He then, next page, says that he has looked over the results 
carefully, and they are "pretty impressive." Go back and read this 
again! He's complaining that the normal process of science isn't 
happening. If there are all these positive results, there should be 
people pouring over them to try to "prove them wrong."


Note the very obvious implication. Cold fusion has not been proven 
wrong. And in this he is 100% correct. He underreports the positive 
evidence, that's all. Scaramuzzi is only a small part of it. 

Re: [Vo]:New book with a chapter on cold fusion

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 01:07 PM 3/19/2010, you wrote:
D. Goodstein, "On Fact and Fraud: Cautionary Tales from the Front 
Lines of Science"


http://www.amazon.com/Fact-Fraud-Cautionary-Tales-Science/dp/0691139660/ 



This is complete & utter ignorant, infuriating bullshit. (Strong 
letter to follow.) Look inside the book on p. 94 to see what I mean. 
The author claims that coldl fusion is irreproducible and that "very 
little has changed" sinced 1989.


Page 129 he's clear that cold fusion was not fraud. Goodstein is a 
disappointment. Certainly he overstates the "irreproducible" thing, 
my impression is that he really hasn't done an overview and is 
relying on old information and what he knew before.


You really should look at the next page. He acknowledges that fusion 
may have taken place in some of these experiments. His comments, in 
fact, cut both ways.


However, given what we now know about the field and the overall body 
of research and what went wrong in 1989-1990, Goodstein's report is 
shallow, he's very ambivalent, as he was years ago. There is now a 
great deal more known, and with hindsight we really can understand 
the problems with the research. It's almost like he hasn't moved in, 
what, about 15 years?


Overall, this has to be taken as a relatively positive publication, 
in spite of the obvious errors. He's acknowledging open research 
questions, he *attributes* the negative conclusions to scientists of 
the time, and says that the problem is that the normal process of 
science broke down and is staying broken down because "nobody is listening."


Well, it's not true that nobody is listening, but it's true, 
probably, in the circles he moves in! I suspect he'll come around, 
because it's going around. He hasn't painted himself into a corner, 
like others did, with confident, smug skepticism.

Re: [Vo]:New book with a chapter on cold fusion

[Jed Rothwell]

I just realized I know Prof. Goodstein. Rob Duncan invited him to the 
seminar at U. Missouri last May. This book was published in January 
2010. So, Goodstein has been made aware of facts about cold fusion, 
and he ignored them. What a travesty!


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:New book with a chapter on cold fusion

[Michel Jullian]

What a jerk. On that page alone, he says one loads palladium into
deuterium, and platinum too, and he professes that excess heat is the
"bad kind" of cold fusion!

2010/3/19 Jed Rothwell :
> D. Goodstein, "On Fact and Fraud: Cautionary Tales from the Front Lines of
> Science"
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Fact-Fraud-Cautionary-Tales-Science/dp/0691139660/
>
> This is complete & utter ignorant, infuriating bullshit. (Strong letter to
> follow.) Look inside the book on p. 94 to see what I mean. The author claims
> that coldl fusion is irreproducible and that "very little has changed"
> sinced 1989.
>
> - Jed
>

[Vo]:New book with a chapter on cold fusion

[Jed Rothwell]

D. Goodstein, "On Fact and Fraud: Cautionary Tales from the Front 
Lines of Science"


http://www.amazon.com/Fact-Fraud-Cautionary-Tales-Science/dp/0691139660/ 



This is complete & utter ignorant, infuriating bullshit. (Strong 
letter to follow.) Look inside the book on p. 94 to see what I mean. 
The author claims that coldl fusion is irreproducible and that "very 
little has changed" sinced 1989.


- Jed