Re: CMNS: Re: [Vo]:Science does sometimes reject valid discoveries

[mixent]

In reply to  Brian Ahern's message of Tue, 30 Jan 2018 22:54:07 +:
Hi,

There is another point here too. IIRC a mass spec works by ionizing a particle
then measuring the mass to charge ratio. A deep level D2* molecule has an
ionization potential in the tens of kV, so is unlikely to be detected by a mass
spec. at all.

>
>Good point! Thanks for the clarification of  my mis-calculation.
>
>
>From: mix...@bigpond.com <mix...@bigpond.com>
>Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 2:58 PM
>To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
>Subject: Re: CMNS: Re: [Vo]:Science does sometimes reject valid discoveries
>
>In reply to  Brian Ahern's message of Tue, 30 Jan 2018 12:24:09 +:
>Hi,
>[snip]
>>I did not mean to discredit Mel's work. I am sure it was well done, but it is 
>>difficult to measure 100mWatts of excess energy when Gerald Pollack says that 
>>amount of energy can simply be stored in the water from background 
>>illumination.
>>
>>
>>The lack of ionizing radiation is a great hurdle to advancing CF in light of 
>>Mills.  Mills says that the mass spec data for He-4 could just as well be D2* 
>>(deep Dirac level )  That would have a reduced mass over D2.
>[snip]
>The difference between D2 and He4 is 23.8 MeV. The difference between D2 & D2*
>is less than 1 MeV (?). I'm not sure a mass spec would even be able to detect
>the difference between the latter two, considering that it takes quite a
>sensitive one to detect the difference between the former two.
>
>Regards,
>
>
>Robin van Spaandonk
>
>local asymmetry = temporary success
Regards,


Robin van Spaandonk

local asymmetry = temporary success

Re: CMNS: Re: [Vo]:Science does sometimes reject valid discoveries

[Brian Ahern]

Good point! Thanks for the clarification of  my mis-calculation.


From: mix...@bigpond.com <mix...@bigpond.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 2:58 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: CMNS: Re: [Vo]:Science does sometimes reject valid discoveries

In reply to  Brian Ahern's message of Tue, 30 Jan 2018 12:24:09 +:
Hi,
[snip]
>I did not mean to discredit Mel's work. I am sure it was well done, but it is 
>difficult to measure 100mWatts of excess energy when Gerald Pollack says that 
>amount of energy can simply be stored in the water from background 
>illumination.
>
>
>The lack of ionizing radiation is a great hurdle to advancing CF in light of 
>Mills.  Mills says that the mass spec data for He-4 could just as well be D2* 
>(deep Dirac level )  That would have a reduced mass over D2.
[snip]
The difference between D2 and He4 is 23.8 MeV. The difference between D2 & D2*
is less than 1 MeV (?). I'm not sure a mass spec would even be able to detect
the difference between the latter two, considering that it takes quite a
sensitive one to detect the difference between the former two.

Regards,


Robin van Spaandonk

local asymmetry = temporary success

Re: CMNS: Re: [Vo]:Science does sometimes reject valid discoveries

[mixent]

In reply to  Brian Ahern's message of Tue, 30 Jan 2018 12:24:09 +:
Hi,
[snip]
>I did not mean to discredit Mel's work. I am sure it was well done, but it is 
>difficult to measure 100mWatts of excess energy when Gerald Pollack says that 
>amount of energy can simply be stored in the water from background 
>illumination.
>
>
>The lack of ionizing radiation is a great hurdle to advancing CF in light of 
>Mills.  Mills says that the mass spec data for He-4 could just as well be D2* 
>(deep Dirac level )  That would have a reduced mass over D2.
[snip]
The difference between D2 and He4 is 23.8 MeV. The difference between D2 & D2*
is less than 1 MeV (?). I'm not sure a mass spec would even be able to detect
the difference between the latter two, considering that it takes quite a
sensitive one to detect the difference between the former two.

Regards,


Robin van Spaandonk

local asymmetry = temporary success

Re: CMNS: Re: [Vo]:Science does sometimes reject valid discoveries

[Brian Ahern]

I did not mean to discredit Mel's work. I am sure it was well done, but it is 
difficult to measure 100mWatts of excess energy when Gerald Pollack says that 
amount of energy can simply be stored in the water from background illumination.


The lack of ionizing radiation is a great hurdle to advancing CF in light of 
Mills.  Mills says that the mass spec data for He-4 could just as well be D2* 
(deep Dirac level )  That would have a reduced mass over D2.

The excess heat could arise as D2* without any gamma rays.  Thermacore Corp got 
50 watts of excess power for H2O electrolysis with nickel in 1996. I was 
involved with Thermacore at that time and I  found their results to be 
credible, but it would not scale up.

How can this be reconciled with CF?


From: melmil...@juno.com <melmil...@juno.com>
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2018 7:02 PM
To: m...@theworld.com
Cc: ahern_br...@msn.com
Subject: Re: CMNS: Re: [Vo]:Science does sometimes reject valid discoveries

Mitchell,
Thank-you for defending my C/F work against the false allegations by Brian 
Ahern.  I would like to add the following:

1. Radiation was measured in the 1990 experiments showing the correlation of  
excess heat and helium-4 production. Dental film placed close to the cell 
showed fogging in both experiments, and these results were shown in the 
publication.  Many later experiments not producing any excess heat gave no 
fogging of  such dental films.  Later experiments showed high G-M radiation 
counts for some Pd/D experiments.
2. The 1990 experiments with excess power gave some of the highest values  that 
I observed reaching about 0.38 W of excess power.
3 .Calculations show that  my cell producing 0.100 W of excess power at a cell 
current of 0.525 A will theoretically produce 10.7 ppb He-4 for the D + D = 
He-4  reaction.  The measurement of He-4   for this experiment  reported a 
value of 12.2 ppb.  Subtracting my background gives 7.4 ppb.  These 
measurements  of  He-4 claimed an accuracy of +- 0.1 ppb, thus this result is a 
74 sigma effect in terms of the He-4 measurements. This experiment was the most 
accurate in terms of He-4 measurements.  Other groups measuring He-4 for my 
experiments reported an accuracy of about +-1.0 ppb.  Even for a 5 ppb 
measurement above background, this represents a 5 sigma effect.  The background 
using metal flasks was 4.5 +-0.5 ppb for experiments with no excess power, and 
this background was always subtracted in my reports of He-4 production.
4.  The diffusion of He-4 was later measured for these same glass flasks, and 
the results would not have affected my 1990 results using these  glass  flasks. 
 There was no diffusion of He-4 into the metal flasks that were later used.
5. My 1990 results used Pd/HO as controls.  There was no excess power measured 
and no He'd produced.
6.  This work has been  replicated by several different groups including 
Mackerel at SRI with funding from DAR PA.

Mel Miles

On Fri, 26 Jan 2018 08:12:35 -0500 "Dr. Mitchell Swartz" 
<m...@theworld.com<mailto:m...@theworld.com>> writes:
January 26, 2018

Brian,

 Please, I expect more from you.
 Yet, you continue untruthful and wrongful statements,
now BROADCAST ON BOTH CMNS and VORTEX.

Please re-consider Brian, because yours is a wrongful attack
on Mel Miles who does not deserve this - and my field
which does not deserve this.

Reasons:  

1) penetrating ionizing radiation is FORBIDDEN.
 (see paper for refs). This is not the first time you
  havae ignored this.

2) watts is power, not energy.  This, too, is not the first
  time you did this. And at MIT we now measure MICROWATTS
  in a calibrated fashion.

3-6) Mel, if memory serves, DID account for diffusion
and DID do background calibrations.
 So why do you say otherwise?
 Show me the data/info to back up your claims -- beyond your hearsay.
I would like this for the following reasons:

 First, Mel Miles did more calibration, and data collection,
than you ever did on any Manelis expt or any nanomaterial
expt I saw at your home.

 Second, my aqueous expts got 5-15 watts excess power for
years (from ICCF10 to the Stirling engine expts, for example)
and I have shared privately with you MOAC#3 data showing more than 100 W
of excess power just this month

 So, you should consider stopping attacking those in the
CF/LANR/LENR field for several reasons.

First, there is no reason to attack because YOUR work did not give
excess heat. Why?  If you remember, I took several of your
samples, and added D and then they worked.  They worked
with gas loading (as the next paper at ICCF21 will show)
and they worked with the JET Energy novel loading method
which gave the open demos, and the other papers
(e.g. see 2nd paper)

 You should read THOSE papers, too; since I gave
YOU full acknowledgement.

Second, the field and XSH are REAL, and attacking the
few remaining scientists is wrong as 

Re: [Vo]:Science does sometimes reject valid discoveries

[Jed Rothwell]

H LV  wrote:

I mean what was the concentration of He-4 in the vessel before the start of
> the experiment?
>

Let me recommend you read the reviews and then the original sources by
Miles for that info.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Science does sometimes reject valid discoveries

[ROGER ANDERTON]

Bob
Thanks for agreeing.
I also think there is conflict between what bureaucrats want and what 
experimenters want. 

Experimenters want to do an experiment and get new results and then have the 
theory changed.

But  bureaucrats want is to keep things the same and not change things; i.e. 
they don't want the theory to change, they want the existing theory to be dogma.
see: 
Bureaucrats versus Science.(The Trouble with Physics)(Book review) - Quadrant | 
HighBeam Research

  
|  
|   
|   
|   ||

   |

  |
|  
|   |  
Bureaucrats versus Science.(The Trouble with Physics)(Book review) - Quadra...
 The Trouble with Physics, by Lee Smolin; Penguin, 2007, $59.95. LORD KELVIN, 
in the late... | Article from Qu...  |   |

  |

  |

 
 Bureaucrats want dead science, but experimenters want living science that 
changes as new facts are discovered.
Well as for me: scientists ignore their history of how they got to where they 
are now. Einstein worked on unified field theory, so did a lot of other people 
and that history is ignored from what is taught to physics student, so they 
grow up ignorant.
Roger 



On Friday, 26 January 2018, 7:10, "bobcook39...@hotmail.com" 
<bobcook39...@hotmail.com> wrote:
 

 #yiv5996356374 #yiv5996356374 -- _filtered #yiv5996356374 
{font-family:Helvetica;panose-1:2 11 5 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;} _filtered #yiv5996356374 
{panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv5996356374 
{font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}#yiv5996356374 
#yiv5996356374 p.yiv5996356374MsoNormal, #yiv5996356374 
li.yiv5996356374MsoNormal, #yiv5996356374 div.yiv5996356374MsoNormal 
{margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:11.0pt;}#yiv5996356374 a:link, 
#yiv5996356374 span.yiv5996356374MsoHyperlink 
{color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv5996356374 a:visited, #yiv5996356374 
span.yiv5996356374MsoHyperlinkFollowed 
{color:#954F72;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv5996356374 
.yiv5996356374MsoChpDefault {} _filtered #yiv5996356374 {margin:1.0in 1.0in 
1.0in 1.0in;}#yiv5996356374 div.yiv5996356374WordSection1 {}#yiv5996356374 
Roger-   I agree with your timely addition regarding “science” excluding 
different thinking.  I would note that Hagelstein’s editorial cited below uses 
the term “science community” instead of your term “science” to designate the 
social entity  which excludes different thinking.     The following from 
Hagelstein’s editorial in which he discusses the fields of nuclear and 
condensed matter physics  is pertinent to this issue:   “The current view 
within the scientific community is that these fields have things right, and if 
that is not reflected in measurements in the lab, then the problem is with 
those doing the experiments. Such a view prevailed in 1989, but now nearly a 
quarter century later, the situation in cold fusion labs is much clearer. There 
is excess heat, which can be a very big effect; it is reproducible in some 
labs; there are not commensurate energetic products; there are many 
replications; and there are other anomalies as well. Condensed matter physics 
and nuclear physics together are not sufficiently robust to account for these 
anomalies. No defense of these fields is required, since if some aspect of the 
associated theories is incomplete or can be broken, we would very much like to 
break it, so that we can focus on developing new theory that is more closely 
matched to experiment.”   From my perspective Hagelstein is too soft on the 
establishment’s “science community.”  The Corporate, University, Government 
Complex, driven by financial gains , should be fingered as the problem  
Institution.Unfortunately schools of higher learning are part of this 
nightmare IMHO as Hagelstein suggests.  They at the mercy of the government 
funding/research grants scheme to control thought in many areas and the 
production of real data in the detail necessary to fully understand the natural 
laws or nature.   Hagelstein concludes his editorial with the following:   
“Excess heat in the Fleischmann- Pons experiment is a real effect. There are 
big implications for science, and for society. Without resources science in 
this area will not advance. With the continued destruction of the careers of 
those who venture to work in the area, progress will be slow, and there will be 
no continuity of effort.”   I think Hagelstein is wrong in avoiding recognizing 
the saving grace afforded by the likes of Mills,Rossi and others around the 
world to exist and function on meager funding, producing real controlled excess 
heat via LENR without understanding the detailed science or fundamental natural 
laws.  The control/power hungry “science community” will eat crow in my 
optimistic humble opinion (IMOHO).   Bob Cook                                   
                                     From: ROGER ANDERTON
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2018 3:55 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; c...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Science does sometimes reject v

Re: [Vo]:Science does sometimes reject valid discoveries

[H LV]

I mean what was the concentration of He-4 in the vessel before the start of
the experiment?

Harry

On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 1:42 PM, H LV  wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 9:58 AM, Jed Rothwell 
> wrote:
>
>> Brian Ahern  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> 3. The background He-4 was ~ 5pm
>>>
>>
>> Yes. That is actually a strength. It is so low that anything like a leak
>> would be far above the amounts Miles measured.
>>
>>
>
> What was the concentration of He-4 before the start of experiment?​
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>> 4. The measured He-4 was only 5 ppB !
>>>
>>
>> As I said, a leak would be hundreds of times higher.
>>
>>
>> 5. The diffusion rates of He-4 through the walls was simply dismissed.
>>>
>>
>> No, it was measured repeatedly, over the course of a few years.
>>
>>
>>
> ​Harry​
>

Re: [Vo]:Science does sometimes reject valid discoveries

[H LV]

On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 9:58 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Brian Ahern  wrote:
>
>>
>
>>
>>
>
> 3. The background He-4 was ~ 5pm
>>
>
> Yes. That is actually a strength. It is so low that anything like a leak
> would be far above the amounts Miles measured.
>
>

What was the concentration of He-4 before the start of experiment?​



>
>
>> 4. The measured He-4 was only 5 ppB !
>>
>
> As I said, a leak would be hundreds of times higher.
>
>
> 5. The diffusion rates of He-4 through the walls was simply dismissed.
>>
>
> No, it was measured repeatedly, over the course of a few years.
>
>
>
​Harry​

Re: [Vo]:Science does sometimes reject valid discoveries

[Jed Rothwell]

I wrote:

3. The background He-4 was ~ 5pm
>>
>
> Yes. That is actually a strength. It is so low that anything like a leak
> would be far above the amounts Miles measured.
>
>
>
>> 4. The measured He-4 was only 5 ppB !
>>
>
> As I said, a leak would be hundreds of times higher.
>


A leak would also produce completely random results uncorrelated with the
excess energy.


See Abd's analysis of this experiment, and mine:

http://www.currentscience.ac.in/Volumes/108/04/0574.pdf

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJintroducti.pdf

RE: [Vo]:Science does sometimes reject valid discoveries

[JonesBeene]

From: Brian Ahern
> I would like to put some perspective on the Mel Miles presentation.
1. No radiation accompanied the He-4… [snip]… A simpler explanation is that the 
excess energy was that described by Gerald Pollack in: The fourth phase of 
water. That avoids the need to explain the lack of radiation. Water can store 
energy absorbed by background infrared radiation.
Brian, the Pollack explanation might well apply to the Graneau water explosions 
and similar experiments but cannot explain the 6 months of multi-watt  gain of 
P in France or why the helium disappears when protium is used instead of 
deuterium. 

However, “deep electron levels” in one form or another  (in a composite 
theoretical version of Holmlid/Mills/Meulenberg/Lawandy etc) can elegantly 
explain almost  everything in LENR and beyond. 

Slightly off point, let me segue to a letter-to-the-editor from Ron Bourgoin 
which appears  in  IE# 135 and which expresses a thought on the deep electron 
theory which is important to explain Holmlid.

Side note: Unfortunately, Ron Bourgoin passed away recently. He was a physicist 
and expert in HTSC with several inventions in the field.

Revisiting the Segré-Chamberlain Experiment

The Segré-Chamberlain experiment in the fall of 1955 shot
antiprotons into stationary protons. The experiment produced
collision fragments that were thought at the time to
be annihilation products, but based on the article by
William L. Stubbs in IE #129, the proton consists of nine
muons, which means that what Emilio Segré and Owen
Chamberlain observed in 1955 were constituents of the proton,
not annihilation events. The experiment indicates the
inherent instability of the proton….

Re: [Vo]:Science does sometimes reject valid discoveries

[Jed Rothwell]

Brian Ahern  wrote:

>

> 1.No radiation accompanied the He-4
>

Yes, that is true of all cold fusion experiments. If there were radiation,
it would not be cold fusion.



> 2. The excess energy was about 100 milliwattsWatts for several hours
>

The peak was around 500 mW.


3. The background He-4 was ~ 5pm
>

Yes. That is actually a strength. It is so low that anything like a leak
would be far above the amounts Miles measured.



> 4. The measured He-4 was only 5 ppB !
>

As I said, a leak would be hundreds of times higher.


5. The diffusion rates of He-4 through the walls was simply dismissed.
>

No, it was measured repeatedly, over the course of a few years.



> 6. no background calibrations were attempted leaving an open question.
>

That is incorrect. Background calibrations were done with samples of air
and samples from flasks not subject to electrolysis. All samples were
evaluated by three different labs in blind tests (single blind).



> 7. the work was done in 1993 and never corroborated
>

Because the Navy fired Miles for publishing the results.



> This evidence was well intentioned, but very far from bullet proof.
>

I think it is more bulletproof than you realize.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Science does sometimes reject valid discoveries

[Brian Ahern]

I would like to put some perspective on the Mel Miles presentation.

1.No radiation accompanied the He-4

2. The excess energy was about 100 milliwattsWatts for several hours

3. The background He-4 was ~ 5pm

4. The measured He-4 was only 5 ppB !

5. The diffusion rates of He-4 through the walls was simply dismissed.

6. no background calibrations were attempted leaving an open question.

7. the work was done in 1993 and never corroborated


This evidence was well intentioned, but very far from bullet proof.


A simpler explanation is that the excess energy was that described by Gerald 
Pollack in: The fourth phase of water. That avoids the need to explain the lack 
of radiation. Water can store energy absorbed by background infrared radiation.

The LENR community does not recognize that the excess power outputs are at the 
milliwatt level.



From: Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2018 5:48 PM
To: Vortex; c...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [Vo]:Science does sometimes reject valid discoveries

A trusting soul over at 
lenr-forum.com<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flenr-forum.com=02%7C01%7C%7C4fc3c7a1a8b544dd528008d5637ca7da%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C636524309392203114=t2d90VR%2FaYHUukXwI%2FUfNr5GxIjaTyPnEGNXz57ybOc%3D=0>
 wrote that science does not exclude different thinking, meaning it does not 
reject valid ideas:

Seriously, look over those accomplishments and tell me science excludes 
different thinking.

With some example such as:

http://discovermagazine.com/2010/oct/12-most-important-science-trends-30-years<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdiscovermagazine.com%2F2010%2Foct%2F12-most-important-science-trends-30-years=02%7C01%7C%7C4fc3c7a1a8b544dd528008d5637ca7da%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C636524309392203114=Sr7TbZCv5DxJRIYlD%2FCBpF46qyhcIhqhtOt4Nf6FOLo%3D=0>


We have often discussed this issue here. There is no need to reiterate the 
whole issue but let me quote my response. If you have not read Hagelstein's 
essay linked to below, you should.


There are countless examples of "science" excluding different thinking. This is 
what prompted Max Planck to write that progress in science occurs "funeral by 
funeral." He explained: “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing 
its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents 
eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”

I have mentioned famous examples of rejection. They include things like the 
airplane, the laser and the MRI.

I put the word science in quotes above because it is not science that excludes 
so much as individual scientists who do. They do this because rejecting novelty 
is human nature, and scientists are ordinary people with such foibles despite 
their training. See Peter Hagelstein's essay here, in the section, "Science as 
an imperfect human endeavor:"

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Hagelsteinontheoryan.pdf<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flenr-canr.org%2Facrobat%2FHagelsteinontheoryan.pdf=02%7C01%7C%7C4fc3c7a1a8b544dd528008d5637ca7da%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C636524309392203114=oW8N9uMj3KAamQacSJxEs2LUyj87ztP%2BZA3bvNdNoao%3D=0>

Many scientists not very good at science, just as many programmers write 
spaghetti code, and many surgeons kill their patients. A surprising number of 
scientists reject the scientific method, such as the late John Huizenga, who 
boldly asserted that when an experiments conflicts with theory, the experiment 
must be wrong, even when he could not point to any reason.

One of the absurd claims made with regard to this notion is that science never 
makes mistakes; that in the end it always gets the right answer and it never 
rejects a true finding, so no valuable discovery is ever lost. Since many 
claims have been lost and then rediscovered decades later this is obviously 
incorrect. More to the point, this claim is not falsifiable. If a true 
discovery is lost to history we would not know about it. Because it is lost. 
The logic of this resembles the old joke about the teacher who says, "everyone 
who is absent today please raise your hand."

In other technical disciplines such as programming, people forget important 
techniques all the time. The notion that science does not make mistakes is 
pernicious. It is dangerous. Imagine the chaos and destruction that would ensue 
if people went around thinking: "doctors never make mistakes" or "bank computer 
programmers never make mistakes" or "airplane mechanics never make mistakes."

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Science does sometimes reject valid discoveries

[Russ]

In the world aptly described where, science progresses funeral by funeral,
this was an observation about the naysayers, not the innovators. The rare
innovator and their innovations are lost funeral by funeral and there is no
tally of the numbers and importance of the losses inflicted upon this world
by the countless pissant not puissant naysayers. The baby boom generation
educational system history will show became little more than pimped
professorial puppy mills. There parents could purchase for their offspring
yet another most expensive and pretentious 'sticker' and the world became
overwhelmed with lost science puppies. The puppies with no outlet for said
training have in most cases moved on to normal lives. Sadly more than a few
have become armchair cranks, malcontents, critics - collectively trolls. The
internet has proven to be an almost perfect puddle for said failing foolish
puppies to troll, splash, and piddle in. On top of this anonymous posting,
the perfect prescription for 'anti-social media' has removed the last
semblance of humanity in science as the plentiful puppies proceed into
prognosticating grumpy old dogs fouling the pathways of science that no one
cleans up after. What separates real scientists from the puppies is time out
of the armchair at the lab bench, and NO, 'theory' is not synonymous with
experiment. 

 

From: bobcook39...@hotmail.com [mailto:bobcook39...@hotmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, January 26, 2018 7:10 AM
To: ROGER ANDERTON <r.j.ander...@btinternet.com>; vortex-l@eskimo.com;
c...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Science does sometimes reject valid discoveries

 

Roger-

 

I agree with your timely addition regarding "science" excluding different
thinking.  I would note that Hagelstein's editorial cited below uses the
term "science community" instead of your term "science" to designate the
social entity  which excludes different thinking.  

 

The following from Hagelstein's editorial in which he discusses the fields
of nuclear and condensed matter physics  is pertinent to this issue:

 

"The current view within the scientific community is that these fields have
things right, and if that is not reflected in measurements in the lab, then
the problem is with those doing the experiments. Such a view prevailed in
1989, but now nearly a quarter century later, the situation in cold fusion
labs is much clearer. There is excess heat, which can be a very big effect;
it is reproducible in some labs; there are not commensurate energetic
products; there are many replications; and there are other anomalies as
well. Condensed matter physics and nuclear physics together are not
sufficiently robust to account for these anomalies. No defense of these
fields is required, since if some aspect of the associated theories is
incomplete or can be broken, we would very much like to break it, so that we
can focus on developing new theory that is more closely matched to
experiment."

 

>From my perspective Hagelstein is too soft on the establishment's "science
community."  The Corporate, University, Government Complex, driven by
financial gains , should be fingered as the problem  Institution.

 Unfortunately schools of higher learning are part of this nightmare IMHO as
Hagelstein suggests.  They at the mercy of the government funding/research
grants scheme to control thought in many areas and the production of real
data in the detail necessary to fully understand the natural laws or nature.

 

Hagelstein concludes his editorial with the following:

 

"Excess heat in the Fleischmann- Pons experiment is a real effect. There are
big implications for science, and for society. Without resources science in
this area will not advance. With the continued destruction of the careers of
those who venture to work in the area, progress will be slow, and there will
be no continuity of effort."

 

I think Hagelstein is wrong in avoiding recognizing the saving grace
afforded by the likes of Mills, 

Rossi and others around the world to exist and function on meager funding,
producing real controlled excess heat via LENR without understanding the
detailed science or fundamental natural laws.  The control/power hungry
"science community" will eat crow in my optimistic humble opinion (IMOHO).

 

Bob Cook

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

From: ROGER ANDERTON <mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> 
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2018 3:55 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> ; c...@googlegroups.com
<mailto:c...@googlegroups.com> 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Science does sometimes reject valid discoveries

 


>There are countless examples of "science" excluding different thinking.
This is what prompted Max Planck to write that progress in science occurs
"funeral by funeral." He explained: "A new scientific truth does not triumph
by convincin

Re: [Vo]:Science does sometimes reject valid discoveries

[Alain Sepeda]

For me the most shocking case is about Semmelweis and before him Alexander
Gordon de Aberdeen.

http://www.antimicrobe.org/h04c.files/history/Lancet%20ID-Alexander%20Gordon%20puerperal%20sepsis%20and%20modern%20theories%20of%20infection%20control%20Semmelweis%20in%20perspective.pdf

The most shocking is that the illiterate poor mothers wer totally aware of
the statistics and prefered to give birth on the street front to the
hospital not to be helped by doctors who regularly were infecting them.
The doctors were deluded sincerely since for example one doctor suicided
after exchange with Semmelweis when he understood he killed a cousin.

Motivated beliefs are not conscious computations, but looks very sincere,
yet it is a motavated self blinding.
http://www.princeton.edu/~rbenabou/papers/REP_4_BW_nolinks_corrected%201.pdf


The worst motivation are not money (in fact money should help as real
innovations and discovery can be expected to give money and fame to the
discoverer), but laziness, ego, fear of change, ideology...It is not far
from the Innovation Dilemna...




2018-01-26 2:53 GMT+01:00 Jed Rothwell :

> A follow-up posting by me:
>
> Cold fusion is not unique. There are many, many examples of previous
> claims that were rejected even though the proof was rock solid, and there
> was no reason to doubt the claims. Lasers, the MRI and h. pylori are good
> examples. I have studied much of this history, digging up old books and
> contemporaneous original sources. People don't like to talk about these
> events so you seldom see them in history textbooks.
>
> I think there are many causes. As I said, it is human nature. Another
> major contributing factor is money. M-o-n-e-y, especially research funding.
> The locus of opposition to cold fusion has been the hot fusion program
> researchers, for obvious reasons. You see this in other institutions. The
> coal industry is fighting tooth and nail against natural gas and wind
> power. The congressman from Big Coal (WV) tried to pass a law banning the
> use of wind turbines, ostensibly because they kill birds. That's ridiculous
> for many reasons, not least because coal kills orders of magnitude more
> birds than wind per megawatt-hour, not to mention 20,000 Americans per year.
>
> The extent of opposition, and the irrationality of it, is surprising. You
> have to read original sources to get a sense of it. Take early aviation.
> Before 1908, practically no one believed that airplanes are real. The
> Scientific American printed vicious, irrational, unscientific attacks
> against claims, and the Wright brothers -- very similar to their attacks
> against cold fusion. (The Sci. Am. still has it in for the Wrights,
> repeating their nonsense attacks as recently as 2003.) In 1908 the Wrights
> demonstrated in France and in Washington DC and become famous overnight.
> They were on the front pages of newspapers worldwide. Hundreds of thousands
> of people saw them fly over the next several months. They were given awards
> by every country including a gold medal issued by Congress in 1909.
> Starting in 1909 there were air races with 10 or 20 pilots competing.
>
> So, you would think the controversy would end, wouldn't you? Nope. I have
> newspaper accounts and books describing events as late as 1912, where, for
> example, a person showed up with an airplane packed into railroad shipping
> containers in a Midwestern city, and advertised he would demonstrate
> flights before a paying crowd. He was arrested for fraud. The citizens
> threatened to tar and feather him because "everyone knows people can't
> fly." They sheriff told the pilot to get out of town in the dead of night.
> Apparently the citizens of that city thought the national press coverage
> was, in modern parlance, "fake news." They did not trust those big city
> newspapers.
>
> You see similar disbelief and opposition to things like self-driving cars
> today. There are many unfounded and hysterical claims about them. Someone
> in the comment section at the N. Y. Times said that a terrorist might use a
> self-driving car to drive on the sidewalk and mow down pedestrians, and it
> would not be the terrorist's fault because the robot is in charge.
> Obviously, the cars are programmed not to leave the road or run down
> anyone! Another letter claimed that thousands of self-driving cars on the
> New Jersey Turnpike might suddenly to exit to the island Service Centers.
> The letter writer seemed to think they might pile on top of one-another in
> a gigantic demolition derby, trying to occupy the same parking spaces.
> Again, obviously, a robot car that can drive in traffic would not try to
> park in a spot that was already taken. Such objections resemble one of the
> main objections made by scientists circa 1908 who did not believe airplanes
> were possible: "even if you can fly, there is no way to slow down and land
> safely." These people apparently never watched a pigeon turn up its 

RE: [Vo]:Science does sometimes reject valid discoveries

[bobcook39...@hotmail.com]

Roger-

I agree with your timely addition regarding “science” excluding different 
thinking.  I would note that Hagelstein’s editorial cited below uses the term 
“science community” instead of your term “science” to designate the social 
entity  which excludes different thinking.

The following from Hagelstein’s editorial in which he discusses the fields of 
nuclear and condensed matter physics  is pertinent to this issue:

“The current view within the scientific community is that these fields have 
things right, and if that is not reflected in measurements in the lab, then the 
problem is with those doing the experiments. Such a view prevailed in 1989, but 
now nearly a quarter century later, the situation in cold fusion labs is much 
clearer. There is excess heat, which can be a very big effect; it is 
reproducible in some labs; there are not commensurate energetic products; there 
are many replications; and there are other anomalies as well. Condensed matter 
physics and nuclear physics together are not sufficiently robust to account for 
these anomalies. No defense of these fields is required, since if some aspect 
of the associated theories is incomplete or can be broken, we would very much 
like to break it, so that we can focus on developing new theory that is more 
closely matched to experiment.”

>From my perspective Hagelstein is too soft on the establishment’s “science 
>community.”  The Corporate, University, Government Complex, driven by 
>financial gains , should be fingered as the problem  Institution.
 Unfortunately schools of higher learning are part of this nightmare IMHO as 
Hagelstein suggests.  They at the mercy of the government funding/research 
grants scheme to control thought in many areas and the production of real data 
in the detail necessary to fully understand the natural laws or nature.

Hagelstein concludes his editorial with the following:

“Excess heat in the Fleischmann- Pons experiment is a real effect. There are 
big implications for science, and for society. Without resources science in 
this area will not advance. With the continued destruction of the careers of 
those who venture to work in the area, progress will be slow, and there will be 
no continuity of effort.”

I think Hagelstein is wrong in avoiding recognizing the saving grace afforded 
by the likes of Mills,
Rossi and others around the world to exist and function on meager funding, 
producing real controlled excess heat via LENR without understanding the 
detailed science or fundamental natural laws.  The control/power hungry 
“science community” will eat crow in my optimistic humble opinion (IMOHO).

Bob Cook
























From: ROGER ANDERTON<mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2018 3:55 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>; 
c...@googlegroups.com<mailto:c...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Science does sometimes reject valid discoveries


>There are countless examples of "science" excluding different thinking. This 
>is what prompted Max Planck to write that progress in science occurs "funeral 
>by funeral." He explained: “A new scientific truth does not triumph by 
>convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its 
>opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with 
>it.”


but the "new generation" is taught dogma; textbooks are locked into teaching 
things that are wrong but refuse to be corrected


for instance: certain things should be mentioned but are not mentioned to the 
"new generation" allowing them to live in ignorance:




John S. Bell<https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_S._Bell>, "On the impossible 
pilot wave". Foundations of Physics 12 (1982) notes:
"But why then had Born not told me of this 'pilot wave'? If only to point out 
what was wrong with it? Why did von Neumann not consider it? More 
extraordinarily, why did people go on producing 'impossibility' proofs, after 
1952, and as recently as 1978? When even Pauli, Rosenfeld, and Heisenberg, 
could produce no more devastating criticism of Bohm's version than to brand it 
as 'metaphysical' and 'ideological'? Why is the pilot wave picture ignored in 
text books? Should it not be taught, not as the only way, but as an antidote to 
the prevailing complacency? To show that vagueness, subjectivity, and 
indeterminism, are not forced on us by experimental facts, but by deliberate 
theoretical choice?" 
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/De_Broglie%E2%80%93Bohm_theory



On Wednesday, 24 January 2018, 22:49, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> 
wrote:

A trusting soul over at lenr-forum.com<http://lenr-forum.com/> wrote that 
science does not exclude different thinking, meaning it does not reject valid 
ideas:

Seriously, look over those accomplishments and tell me science excludes 
different thinking.

With some

Re: [Vo]:Science does sometimes reject valid discoveries

[Jed Rothwell]

A follow-up posting by me:

Cold fusion is not unique. There are many, many examples of previous claims
that were rejected even though the proof was rock solid, and there was no
reason to doubt the claims. Lasers, the MRI and h. pylori are good
examples. I have studied much of this history, digging up old books and
contemporaneous original sources. People don't like to talk about these
events so you seldom see them in history textbooks.

I think there are many causes. As I said, it is human nature. Another major
contributing factor is money. M-o-n-e-y, especially research funding. The
locus of opposition to cold fusion has been the hot fusion program
researchers, for obvious reasons. You see this in other institutions. The
coal industry is fighting tooth and nail against natural gas and wind
power. The congressman from Big Coal (WV) tried to pass a law banning the
use of wind turbines, ostensibly because they kill birds. That's ridiculous
for many reasons, not least because coal kills orders of magnitude more
birds than wind per megawatt-hour, not to mention 20,000 Americans per year.

The extent of opposition, and the irrationality of it, is surprising. You
have to read original sources to get a sense of it. Take early aviation.
Before 1908, practically no one believed that airplanes are real. The
Scientific American printed vicious, irrational, unscientific attacks
against claims, and the Wright brothers -- very similar to their attacks
against cold fusion. (The Sci. Am. still has it in for the Wrights,
repeating their nonsense attacks as recently as 2003.) In 1908 the Wrights
demonstrated in France and in Washington DC and become famous overnight.
They were on the front pages of newspapers worldwide. Hundreds of thousands
of people saw them fly over the next several months. They were given awards
by every country including a gold medal issued by Congress in 1909.
Starting in 1909 there were air races with 10 or 20 pilots competing.

So, you would think the controversy would end, wouldn't you? Nope. I have
newspaper accounts and books describing events as late as 1912, where, for
example, a person showed up with an airplane packed into railroad shipping
containers in a Midwestern city, and advertised he would demonstrate
flights before a paying crowd. He was arrested for fraud. The citizens
threatened to tar and feather him because "everyone knows people can't
fly." They sheriff told the pilot to get out of town in the dead of night.
Apparently the citizens of that city thought the national press coverage
was, in modern parlance, "fake news." They did not trust those big city
newspapers.

You see similar disbelief and opposition to things like self-driving cars
today. There are many unfounded and hysterical claims about them. Someone
in the comment section at the N. Y. Times said that a terrorist might use a
self-driving car to drive on the sidewalk and mow down pedestrians, and it
would not be the terrorist's fault because the robot is in charge.
Obviously, the cars are programmed not to leave the road or run down
anyone! Another letter claimed that thousands of self-driving cars on the
New Jersey Turnpike might suddenly to exit to the island Service Centers.
The letter writer seemed to think they might pile on top of one-another in
a gigantic demolition derby, trying to occupy the same parking spaces.
Again, obviously, a robot car that can drive in traffic would not try to
park in a spot that was already taken. Such objections resemble one of the
main objections made by scientists circa 1908 who did not believe airplanes
were possible: "even if you can fly, there is no way to slow down and land
safely." These people apparently never watched a pigeon turn up its wings
to a steep angle of attack, spread its tail, stall, and land. That is
exactly how an airplane lands, and you can be sure the Wright brothers knew
that before they glided the first time.

Here is a famous quote about how it is impossible to land an airplane:

"And, granting complete success, imagine the proud possessor of the
aeroplane darting through the air at a speed of several hundred feet per
second! It is the speed alone that sustains him. Once he slackens his
speed, down he begins to fall. He may, indeed, increase the inclination of
his aeroplane. Then he increases the resistance necessary to move it. Once
he stops he falls a dead mass. How shall he reach the ground without
destroying his delicate machinery?"

Source: Newcomb, Simon. *Outlook for the Flying Machine. The Independent*,
October 22, 1903.

http://www.foresight.org/news/negativeComments.html

You can see that Prof. Newcomb is describing how to land an airplane, yet
he does not even realize he is! If he were here, now, I would say:
"Professor, you just answered your own question. All you need to do is
glide to within a few feet above the ground and then do what you just
described. You fall a dead mass the last few feet, and then roll to a
stop." Most of the objections to 

Re: [Vo]:Science does sometimes reject valid discoveries

[Adrian Ashfield]

Jed,  I have never stated nor thought that everything Rossi has said or done 
should be accepted without question.  So you are making that up.

I think there is significant evidence that some of his E-Cats worked & 
suggested several times it would be better to wait and see than dismiss 
everything with the certainty that you do.

Why do you think he is building a factory?  As I reported elsewhere there is 
evidence that he is doing so.

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>
To: Vortex <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Thu, Jan 25, 2018 1:30 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Science does sometimes reject valid discoveries



Adrian Ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net> wrote:


Jed,  I find your comment rather ironic considering your dismissal of 
everything that Rossi has done.



You imply that I must accept all new claims without question. That would be as 
irrational as rejecting all of them out of hand.


You imply that I am not capable of evaluating claims. If I can read McKubre and 
conclude that he is right, I can read the Penon report and conclude that Rossi 
is wrong.


The suggestion that a person who uses ordinary judgment and evaluates claim is 
somehow "ironic" is a new definition of irony.


Actually, I cannot imagine how a technically competent person could read the 
Penon report and not conclude that Rossi was wrong. Axil Axil and other Rossi 
supporters have finessed this problem by refusing to read the report. Robert 
Park used the same technique to reject all cold fusion results -- he refused to 
look at them. That's ironic!



- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Science does sometimes reject valid discoveries

[Jed Rothwell]

Adrian Ashfield  wrote:

Jed,  I find your comment rather ironic considering your dismissal of
> everything that Rossi has done.


You imply that I must accept all new claims without question. That would be
as irrational as rejecting all of them out of hand.

You imply that I am not capable of evaluating claims. If I can read McKubre
and conclude that he is right, I can read the Penon report and conclude
that Rossi is wrong.

The suggestion that a person who uses ordinary judgment and evaluates claim
is somehow "ironic" is a new definition of irony.

Actually, I cannot imagine how a technically competent person could read
the Penon report and *not* conclude that Rossi was wrong. Axil Axil and
other Rossi supporters have finessed this problem by refusing to read the
report. Robert Park used the same technique to reject all cold fusion
results -- he refused to look at them. That's ironic!

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Science does sometimes reject valid discoveries

[Adrian Ashfield]

So far so good, said the man after jumping off the top of a skyscraper.

Why do you suppose Rossi is building a factory?

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Brian Ahern <ahern_br...@msn.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Thu, Jan 25, 2018 7:25 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Science does sometimes reject valid discoveries



Dismissal is to kind a word. Rossi should ave been prosecuted.


 How did that October demo go?


I think my 31st Rossi prediction held.


I am 31 - 0 since 2009.

Re: [Vo]:Science does sometimes reject valid discoveries

[Brian Ahern]

Dismissal is to kind a word. Rossi should ave been prosecuted.


 How did that October demo go?


I think my 31st Rossi prediction held.


I am 31 - 0 since 2009.



From: Adrian Ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net>
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2018 6:10 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Science does sometimes reject valid discoveries

Jed,  I find your comment rather ironic considering your dismissal of 
everything that Rossi has done.

Re: [Vo]:Science does sometimes reject valid discoveries

[ROGER ANDERTON]

>There are countless examples of "science" excluding different thinking. This 
>is what prompted Max Planck to write that progress in science occurs "funeral 
>by funeral." He explained: “A new scientific truth does not triumph by 
>convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its 
>opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with 
>it.”
but the "new generation" is taught dogma; textbooks are locked into teaching 
things that are wrong but refuse to be corrected
for instance: certain things should be mentioned but are not mentioned to the 
"new generation" allowing them to live in ignorance:


John S. Bell, "On the impossible pilot wave". Foundations of Physics 12 (1982) 
notes: 
"But why then had Born not told me of this 'pilot wave'? If only to point out 
what was wrong with it? Why did von Neumann not consider it? More 
extraordinarily, why did people go on producing 'impossibility' proofs, after 
1952, and as recently as 1978? When even Pauli, Rosenfeld, and Heisenberg, 
could produce no more devastating criticism of Bohm's version than to brand it 
as 'metaphysical' and 'ideological'? Why is the pilot wave picture ignored in 
text books? Should it not be taught, not as the only way, but as an antidote to 
the prevailing complacency? To show that vagueness, subjectivity, and 
indeterminism, are not forced on us by experimental facts, but by deliberate 
theoretical choice?" 
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/De_Broglie%E2%80%93Bohm_theory
 

On Wednesday, 24 January 2018, 22:49, Jed Rothwell  
wrote:
 

 A trusting soul over at lenr-forum.com wrote that science does not exclude 
different thinking, meaning it does not reject valid ideas:

Seriously, look over those accomplishments and tell me science excludes 
different thinking.

With some example such as:

http://discovermagazine.com/2010/oct/12-most-important-science-trends-30-years


We have often discussed this issue here. There is no need to reiterate the 
whole issue but let me quote my response. If you have not read Hagelstein's 
essay linked to below, you should.

There are countless examples of "science" excluding different thinking. This is 
what prompted Max Planck to write that progress in science occurs "funeral by 
funeral." He explained: “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing 
its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents 
eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”

I have mentioned famous examples of rejection. They include things like the 
airplane, the laser and the MRI.

I put the word science in quotes above because it is not science that excludes 
so much as individual scientists who do. They do this because rejecting novelty 
is human nature, and scientists are ordinary people with such foibles despite 
their training. See Peter Hagelstein's essay here, in the section, "Science as 
an imperfect human endeavor:"

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Hagelsteinontheoryan.pdf

Many scientists not very good at science, just as many programmers write 
spaghetti code, and many surgeons kill their patients. A surprising number of 
scientists reject the scientific method, such as the late John Huizenga, who 
boldly asserted that when an experiments conflicts with theory, the experiment 
must be wrong, even when he could not point to any reason.

One of the absurd claims made with regard to this notion is that science never 
makes mistakes; that in the end it always gets the right answer and it never 
rejects a true finding, so no valuable discovery is ever lost. Since many 
claims have been lost and then rediscovered decades later this is obviously 
incorrect. More to the point, this claim is not falsifiable. If a true 
discovery is lost to history we would not know about it. Because it is lost. 
The logic of this resembles the old joke about the teacher who says, "everyone 
who is absent today please raise your hand."

In other technical disciplines such as programming, people forget important 
techniques all the time. The notion that science does not make mistakes is 
pernicious. It is dangerous. Imagine the chaos and destruction that would ensue 
if people went around thinking: "doctors never make mistakes" or "bank computer 
programmers never make mistakes" or "airplane mechanics never make mistakes."
- Jed


   

Re: [Vo]:Science does sometimes reject valid discoveries

[Adrian Ashfield]

Jed,  I find your comment rather ironic considering your dismissal of 
everything that Rossi has done.

[Vo]:Science does sometimes reject valid discoveries

[Jed Rothwell]

A trusting soul over at lenr-forum.com wrote that science does not exclude
different thinking, meaning it does not reject valid ideas:

Seriously, look over those accomplishments and tell me science excludes
> different thinking.


With some example such as:

http://discovermagazine.com/2010/oct/12-most-important-science-trends-30-years


We have often discussed this issue here. There is no need to reiterate the
whole issue but let me quote my response. If you have not read Hagelstein's
essay linked to below, you should.


There are countless examples of "science" excluding different thinking.
This is what prompted Max Planck to write that progress in science occurs
"funeral by funeral." He explained: “A new scientific truth does not
triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but
rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up
that is familiar with it.”

I have mentioned famous examples of rejection. They include things like the
airplane, the laser and the MRI.

I put the word science in quotes above because it is not science that
excludes so much as individual scientists who do. They do this because
rejecting novelty is human nature, and scientists are ordinary people with
such foibles despite their training. See Peter Hagelstein's essay here, in
the section, "Science as an imperfect human endeavor:"

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Hagelsteinontheoryan.pdf

Many scientists not very good at science, just as many programmers write
spaghetti code, and many surgeons kill their patients. A surprising number
of scientists reject the scientific method, such as the late John Huizenga,
who boldly asserted that when an experiments conflicts with theory, the
experiment must be wrong, even when he could not point to any reason.

One of the absurd claims made with regard to this notion is that science
never makes mistakes; that in the end it always gets the right answer and
it never rejects a true finding, so no valuable discovery is ever lost.
Since many claims have been lost and then rediscovered decades later this
is obviously incorrect. More to the point, this claim is not falsifiable.
If a true discovery is lost to history *we would not know about it*.
Because it is lost. The logic of this resembles the old joke about the
teacher who says, "everyone who is absent today please raise your hand."

In other technical disciplines such as programming, people forget important
techniques all the time. The notion that science does not make mistakes is
pernicious. It is dangerous. Imagine the chaos and destruction that would
ensue if people went around thinking: "doctors never make mistakes" or
"bank computer programmers never make mistakes" or "airplane mechanics
never make mistakes."

- Jed