Re: Physics Today 1/25/05 - Feder
Mitchell Swartz wrote: Mr. Rothwell: You are an absolute untruthful person. Witnesses watched me hand you the papers and the CD-ROM containing them at Gene's funeral Yes. As I said -- about a dozen times -- I could not read that CD-ROM. Please upload the papers to your own web page and I will copy them. - Jed
Re: Physics Today 1/25/05 - Feder
Mitchell Swartz wrote: Thereafter, you also received copies of then entire three papers by email and we discussed them, No, I never did. I doubt the papers can be e-mailed, because you told me they are large, and e-mail can only handle a few megabytes. so your credibility is ZERO with us . . . If you really believe that, you should upload the papers to your own website. You will prove to everyone that I am lying. On the other hand, if I do copy them and upload them as I have promised to do, *your* credibility will suffer. I suggest you stop whining, kvetching and carrying on like a two-year-old, and prove your point by uploading the papers. - Jed
Re: Physics Today 1/25/05 - Feder
Jed Rothwell wrote: Edmund Storms wrote: We publish all papers that can be understood and are of value to the field. As anyone can see, our standards are rather low, but not absent. Ahem! I would prefer to say our standards are rather broad minded or perhaps forgiving. Our standards are low, as anyone working in conventional science will clearly see. Mincing words only makes us look like we are playing word games or do not know how to judge good and bad work. Of course the standard has to be low because the field has only just matured sufficiently so that good papers are possible. Many of the early papers had to be poorly written and wrong in many respects, because the information and concepts were so incomplete. Nevertheless, they contain useful information that becomes more easily identified as we better understand the effect. All new discoveries go through this process and the problem is not usually used to totally reject the idea, as is done in this field. Ed Okay, it means the same thing, but the situation calls to mind Darrell Huff's observation in his immortal book How To Lie With Statistics: The fact is, despite its mathematical base, statistics is as much an art as it is a science. A great many manipulations and even distortions are possible within the bounds of propriety. Often the statistician must choose among methods, a subjective process, and find the one that he will use to represent the facts. In commercial practice he is about as unlikely to select an unfavorable method as a copywriter is to call his sponsor's product flimsy and cheap when he might as well say light and economical. - Jed
Re: Physics today 1/25/05 feder
Gnorts! One of the misconceptions regarding the research done by private industry is that private industry would publish their work, or even let it be known that work was being done in a particular field by that industry in the first place. Private industry only reports on what it does if it is legally required to do so, or if there is some kind of public relations advantage to informing the public of its actions. The above is true for every aspect of its operation from payroll to tax accounting procedures to suppliers to the names of the members of the board of directors, etc., etc.. Research direction is particularly well hidden so as not to tip off the competition as to any new products that may be introduced in the future. This is just the way private industry operates. If you want to get an indication of how many people, and sometimes even the identities of the people or organizations, who are doing research in your particular field, simply publish your work, and then read the logs on your computer firewall. You will find the addresses of the computers that are trying to gain access to your computer. In many cases, you can trace the numerical addresses back directly to the registered owners of those addresses. It was a hobby of mine for quite some time, and I must say, it was fascinating. University high energy physics labs, heavy industry companies, energy consultant firms, engineering companies, domestic and foreign governments, all will want to get into your computer to find out more about who you are and exactly what you are doing. Practically none (and believe me, I have looked hard...) of these entities ever published a single word about their own endeavors in the field. In the few cases where they did, the information was very general and usually written to attract new shareholders or generate sales of their own technologies. To say that the industrial world is not investigating cold fusion just because you don't read about it in the Wall Street Journal is extremely naive. The levels of funding, the names of the scientists, and who they are working for are a matter of speculation unless, of course, you can fund your own industrial espionage effort. The fact remains, however, that the number and frequency of attempts to gain access to your particular research efforts are a good indication that serious efforts are underway by private industry in this field. It is also proof that these entities still feel that theft of intellectual property is quite often cheaper and faster than doing the original research themselves. Knuke
Re: Physics today 1/25/05 feder
Knuke said it better than me. Back in 1965 our company paid $1000 bucks for a Friden " colonel Boggy" mechanical calculator,the big boy with a thousand gears, an absolute work of art in mechanical computing for flow equations. Within a year or two, we bought a Sharp electronic calculator that handled square root etc. for $ 250 bucks. In turn TI introduce the pocket calc and POOF !! Friden was no more. What happened to this beautiful manufacturing company.. later Singer bought them and last I heard they were making postage machines. The point is that Friden is one of the prime examples of the changes wrought by technology in the everyday office preceding the computer revolution. It demonstrated that manufacturing companies can be thrown out with the trash just like a big mac carton. Big business are painfully aware of their vulnerability and are not asleep.. well.. errr.. Richard Blank Bkgrd.gif
Re: Physics Today 1/25/05 - Feder
Dr. Swartz, if you have a problem with what Jed or I have done with your papers, take it up with us personally. Do not waste the time of everyone on Vortex. They can not solve your problem. God knows, Jed has tried and failed. Ed Storms Mitchell Swartz wrote: At 09:52 AM 1/26/2005, Jed Rothwell, as usual, confuses the subject and is disingenuous, wrote: Mitchell Swartz wrote: Second, some of the very papers which contain controls and time-integration are not present at the censored (and misnamed) LENR-CANR.org site. Well, in that case, whoever wrote these very papers should upload them somewhere else -- or submit them to LENR-CANR.org. The site is not censored, and the Internet *cannot be censored*. Google makes it flat with all papers equally accessible. Nonsense. Rothwell is not accurate, and his use of confidential email and a non-relevant paper from ICCF-9 which was NEVER an issue are immaterial. Rothwell's banter does not change the fact that he and Ed Storm's removed the titles of our three papers (and reportedly others) from the ICCF10 list of papers at the censored (and misnamed) LENR-CANR site. [Background: FWIW, our two papers which used the controls and time-integration demanded by the DOE group and have been censored by Storms/Rothwell are Swartz. M., G. Verner, Excess Heat from Low Electrical Conductivity Heavy Water Spiral-Wound Pd/D2O/Pt and Pd/D2O-PdCl2/Pt Devices, ICCF-10 (Camb. MA), Proceedings of ICCF-10, (2003), and Swartz. M., Photoinduced Excess Heat from Laser-Irradiated Electrically-Polarized Palladium Cathodes in D2O, ICCF-10 (Camb. MA), Proceedings of ICCF-10, (2003). Interesting that both papers listed originally for ICCF10, and assigned Monday and Tuesday for the dates. They were thereafter deleted from the censored LENR/CANR website.] Because these titles WERE originally on the list, and because those who actually conducted ICCF-10 have written that they are disappointed by the Storms/Rothwell mischief, it is apparent that the censorship of the misnamed LENR-CANR site exists. BTW, this Rothwell/Storms censorship has been confirmed in conversations by them to others, and it has been discussed by the late Dr. Mallove, just as it has been of concern to others who responded to me by private email after a previous net-discussion of the Rothwell-Storms censorships. This is known as science by politics -- it is disgusting. Storms doesn't have leg to stand on and he knows it. - the late Dr. Eugene Mallove In summary, those who rely only on Rothwell for information eventually will, or have, become aware that many of his posts should have a warning label with them. Dr. Mitchell Swartz
Re: Physics Today 1/25/05 - Feder
At 11:44 AM 1/27/2005, Edmund Storms wrote: Dr. Swartz, if you have a problem with what Jed or I have done with your papers, take it up with us personally. Do not waste the time of everyone on Vortex. They can not solve your problem. Ed: First, Rothwell brought this up. He wasted everyone's time his false statement and useless allegation. The problem of the misnamed (and censored) LENR-CANR site is your own. You apparently continue it for reasons known only to you (and perhpas those who attended LENR-2 in Texas). God knows, Jed has tried and failed. Interested viewpoint that you have, Edmund.
Re: Physics Today 1/25/05 - Feder
Edmund Storms wrote: We publish all papers that can be understood and are of value to the field. As anyone can see, our standards are rather low, but not absent. Ahem! I would prefer to say our standards are rather broad minded or perhaps forgiving. Okay, it means the same thing, but the situation calls to mind Darrell Huff's observation in his immortal book How To Lie With Statistics: The fact is, despite its mathematical base, statistics is as much an art as it is a science. A great many manipulations and even distortions are possible within the bounds of propriety. Often the statistician must choose among methods, a subjective process, and find the one that he will use to represent the facts. In commercial practice he is about as unlikely to select an unfavorable method as a copywriter is to call his sponsor's product flimsy and cheap when he might as well say light and economical. - Jed
Re: Physics Today 1/25/05 - Feder
Mitchell Swartz wrote: Second, some of the very papers which contain controls and time-integration are not present at the censored (and misnamed) LENR-CANR.org site. Well, in that case, whoever wrote these very papers should upload them somewhere else -- or submit them to LENR-CANR.org. The site is not censored, and the Internet *cannot be censored*. Google makes it flat with all papers equally accessible. Swartz's papers are not on LENR-CANR.org because he still refuses to give us copies or permission. I have only one paper from him, The Impact of Heavy Water (D2O) on Nickel-Light Water Cold Fusion Systems, ICCF9. I asked him three times for permission to upload it. The only response he ever sent was on December 16: Mr. Rothwell, We would like to see a copy of what you have received from Dr. Li. Please send that copy by email, in a reply to all above if possible, or at least me. If we then approve with the copy which you have, the simple answer you request will follow.Thank you. Dr. Mitchell Swartz I thought it was odd that he wanted to see a copy of a paper published in a proceedings, but I sent it to him and everyone on the list. This paper is not available anywhere on the Internet, as far as Google knows. Swartz has censored it. - Jed
Re: Physics today 1/25/05-feder
RC Macaulay wrote: The USA programs are unpublished because they are under NSA guidelines. The Japanese are working at warp speed on the same within their Universities as well as their industrial labs. I doubt that. No Japanese researcher I know has heard a word about such programs. If there are hidden programs, and they are operating without the benefit of advice from experienced researchers such as Mizuno, Iwamura, Storms or Miles, I predict they will fail as badly as the NHE program did. The programs everyone knows about are proceeding at the usual lackadaisical pace. Of course it is impossible to prove that an allegedly hidden program exists or does not exist, but I think it would be difficult to hide a program of this nature. - Jed
Re: Physics today 1/25/05-feder
RC, I, like Jed, question your assertions. While I agree with you that the Japanese are taking this more seriously than the U.S., your claims seem greatly exaggerated. Do you have any evidence to back them up or to demonstrate how you might know this? At 10:13 AM 1/26/2005 -0500, you wrote: RC Macaulay wrote: The USA programs are unpublished because they are under NSA guidelines. The Japanese are working at warp speed on the same within their Universities as well as their industrial labs. Steven B. Krivit Senior Editor NEW ENERGY TIMES Your best source for cold fusion news and information. 11664 National Blvd. Suite 142 Los Angeles, California, USA 90064 www.newenergytimes.com Office Phone: (310) 470-8189
Re: Physics today 1/25/05 feder
Steve, I may pose the question.. do you have any evidence they are NOT ? The industrial world is busy, ask Siemems, Toshiba or Boeing/GE Richard Blank Bkgrd.gif
Re: Physics today 1/25/05 feder
No, I don't. I guess I approach things differently. I don't make statements about the cold fusion field unless I have evidence to back them up. At 07:35 PM 1/26/2005 -0600, you wrote: Steve, I may pose the question.. do you have any evidence they are NOT ? The industrial world is busy, ask Siemems, Toshiba or Boeing/GE Richard
Physics Today 1/25/05 - Feder
Physics Today appears to have come down heavy, and somewhat inaccurately, on the DOE report. Claims of cold fusion are no more convincing today than they were 15 years ago. That's the conclusion of the Department of Energy's fresh look at advances in extracting energy from low-energy nuclear reactions. A report released on 1 December 2004 echoes DOE's 1989 study that followed the headline-making claims of cold fusion by Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann. Those who have followed this are aware that this is not accurate. First, eighteen anonymous DOE reviewers split approximately evenly on whether or not there is excess power observed in the cold fusion phenomena. That is a great change since the 1989 ERAB report.] Second, not all 2004 cold fusion data was reported to the DOE. Third, FWIW, these are not low-energy nuclear reactions, but involve many MeV per nucleon. Link and other comments at COLD FUSION TIMES web site = The COLD FUSION TIMES - the Uncensored cold fusion web site http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html
Re: Physics Today 1/25/05 - Feder
Mitchell Swartz wrote: Physics Today appears to have come down heavy, and somewhat inaccurately, on the DOE report. Claims of cold fusion are no more convincing today than they were 15 years ago. That's the conclusion of the Department of Energy's fresh look at advances in extracting energy from low-energy nuclear reactions. A report released on 1 December 2004 echoes DOE's 1989 study that followed the headline-making claims of cold fusion by Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann. Those who have followed this are aware that this is not accurate. First, eighteen anonymous DOE reviewers split approximately evenly on whether or not there is excess power observed in the cold fusion phenomena. That is a great change since the 1989 ERAB report.] That is true, and it is important, but the DoE paid no attention to that split in its own official Report of the Review of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions. In other words, Physics Today accurately describes the DoE position: claims . . . are no more convincing today than they were 15 years ago. Looking at it another way, the 1989 ERAB report was actually more open to research than people realize. The latest report is no better or more open-minded than ERAB was. The critics claim both reports support their point of view, that cold fusion has no merit whatever, but that is not the case. However, that has been the de facto policy of the DoE since 1989, and it has not changed. I do not detect any moderation in the establishment at the DoE, the APS, or any U.S. university. Well-informed people have told me things are changing behind the scenes. I would not know about that, but I have not seen any official statements reflecting this. Well-informed people have also told me that LENR-CANR.org has played a small role in this hidden glacial change. I have seen some evidence for that. For example, anonymous reviewer #7 wrote about the Iwamura experiments, and cited documents that were not provided to the DoE as far as I know. It seems likely that #7 read them on LENR-CANR.org. I disagreed with #7's conclusions, but anyway I am pleased that he or she looked at the web site. Second, not all 2004 cold fusion data was reported to the DOE. Ah, but fortunately at least some of the anonymous reviewers went out and found the data by themselves, at LENR-CANR.org and elsewhere. I do not suppose we should not congratulate them for this show of initiative. They are professional scientists, after all; it is their job to think independently and find things out for themselves. They do not deserve brownie points for taking a trip to library or spending an hour on Google. Anyway, the lesson for CF researchers is clear: if you want people to find out about your research, you must publish it on the Internet. Any web site that costs nothing and requires no registration will do, just so long as Google finds and indexes the paper. There is no advantage to publishing on LENR-CANR.org or any other web page. In fact, readers hardly notice where a paper is uploaded nowadays. - Jed
Re: Physics Today 1/25/05 - Feder
At 03:28 PM 1/25/2005, Jed Rothwell wrote: Mitchell Swartz wrote: Physics Today appears to have come down heavy, and somewhat inaccurately, on the DOE report. Claims of cold fusion are no more convincing today than they were 15 years ago. That's the conclusion of the Department of Energy's fresh look at advances in extracting energy from low-energy nuclear reactions. A report released on 1 December 2004 echoes DOE's 1989 study that followed the headline-making claims of cold fusion by Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann. Those who have followed this are aware that this is not accurate. First, eighteen anonymous DOE reviewers split approximately evenly on whether or not there is excess power observed in the cold fusion phenomena. That is a great change since the 1989 ERAB report.] That is true, and it is important, but the DoE paid no attention to that split in its own official Report of the Review of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions. In other words, Physics Today accurately describes the DoE position: claims . . . are no more convincing today than they were 15 years ago. Second, not all 2004 cold fusion data was reported to the DOE. Ah, but fortunately at least some of the anonymous reviewers went out and found the data by themselves, at LENR-CANR.org and elsewhere. I do not suppose we should not congratulate them for this show of initiative. They are professional scientists, after all; it is their job to think independently and find things out for themselves. They do not deserve brownie points for taking a trip to library or spending an hour on Google. Anyway, the lesson for CF researchers is clear: if you want people to find out about your research, you must publish it on the Internet. Any web site that costs nothing and requires no registration will do, just so long as Google finds and indexes the paper. There is no advantage to publishing on LENR-CANR.org or any other web page. In fact, readers hardly notice where a paper is uploaded nowadays. - Jed LOL. This is in error and quite funny. First, actually, the DOE reviewers were reasonably disappointed by the lack of controls and the lack of time-integration in the presenters data and information. Second, some of the very papers which contain controls and time-integration are not present at the censored (and misnamed) LENR-CANR.org site. Third, therefore the putative fantasy posted is not supported. BTW, FWIW,Cold fusion is not LENR because the excited states of the nickel and palladium are several MeV (about 2 and 20 MeV) about the ground states ergo, HIGH ENERGY. Cold fusion is not CANR because the reactions require a coherent crystalline lattice and not chemistry. Dr. Mitchell Swartz = COLD FUSION TIMES - the Uncensored cold fusion web site http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html
