[Vo]:the decline of cold fusion
Were you not aware of this trend? It has been clear for many years that cold fusion is dying, because the researchers themselves are retiring and dying. This is what I described in the introduction to my book. I am not optimistic that the field will survive. - Jed How can that be? SPWAR has detected high energy reactions from a cold fusion system. This is no small thing. Then the field dies. I don't understand. Frank Z
Re: [Vo]:the decline of cold fusion
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How can that be? SPWAR has detected high energy reactions from a cold fusion system. This is no small thing. Then the field dies. I do not think the SPWAR results have been replicated to everyone's satisfaction yet. Certainly the Russians have doubts, and they are experts in CR-39. The issue is somewhat over my head. Anyway, the field is dying because the researchers themselves are dying, and not being replaced by younger researchers. If you ask a skeptic why, he will say this is one of Langmuir's criteria for pathological science: The ratio of supporters to critics rises to somewhere near 50% and then falls gradually into oblivion. If you ask me, I say: The field has been crushed by rabid academic politics, and the suppression of academic freedom. I don't understand. Come now. It isn't hard to understand. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:the decline of cold fusion
Jed, Perhaps detractors help to maintain interest in the subject, but they are dying off too. harry On 21/4/2008 3:47 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How can that be? SPWAR has detected high energy reactions from a cold fusion system. This is no small thing. Then the field dies. I do not think the SPWAR results have been replicated to everyone's satisfaction yet. Certainly the Russians have doubts, and they are experts in CR-39. The issue is somewhat over my head. Anyway, the field is dying because the researchers themselves are dying, and not being replaced by younger researchers. If you ask a skeptic why, he will say this is one of Langmuir's criteria for pathological science: The ratio of supporters to critics rises to somewhere near 50% and then falls gradually into oblivion. If you ask me, I say: The field has been crushed by rabid academic politics, and the suppression of academic freedom. I don't understand. Come now. It isn't hard to understand. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:the decline of cold fusion
Harry Veeder wrote: Perhaps detractors help to maintain interest in the subject, but they are dying off too. Perhaps they do help maintain interest, but they do not increase to the number of peer-reviewed papers published per year, which is the metric Leitz measured. By that standard there is no question cold fusion is dying. The late anti-cold fusion skeptic Douglas Morrison made a big deal about decline in the number of papers. He thought that meant the subject is pathological. He also made a big deal about what he called the Regionalization of results and what I called Arian Science Numerology. Not to put too fine a point on it, he believed that only white Northern European people do real science, and he said that positive cold fusion results were all those garlic eating Souther European Italians and Greeks, and by Orientals and other unwashed hoards. He didn't put it quite like that, but that was the message. He was banging that drum long before cold fusion came along. Gene Mallove sent me some snippets of Morrison's pre-cold fusion lectures on the intellectual superiority of the White Northern European races. To be fair, such attitudes were common decades ago. Morrison was no worse that many people of his generation. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:the decline of cold fusion
All science research is cumulative and stimulates the imagination. There are ongoing studies and adjacent research. I choose to believe that Dr.Ron Stiffler has the energy and drive to open a few doors with his experiments. May even find something he wasn't looking for.. this often happens to the dedicated scientist. Richard
