I think Fleischmann and Pons were unlucky, very unlucky and have been confronted with an insolvable problem at the moment of their historical discovery. The idea came much before its time, and it was done in the worst system. Science and experimental- anlytical means were not good enough then to understand and control the phenomenon, simple solutions were applied to a complex problem. I would not speak about mistakes, more about a desperate lost up-hill battle against a hostile cruel reality. They have promised technology and their system is inherently bad for technology and essentially too noisy, complex dirty, unmanageable for science. The problem can be solved only with the price of great changes and imprivements. Fleischmann and Pons are admirable heroes and martyrs of science and it is our ethical duty to make theor dream real- far from its cradle.
Peter On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 10:40 AM, Alain Sepeda <[email protected]>wrote: > there is a article which reemerged recently > > http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/4f1c41e8-e66e-11e1-ac5f-00144feab49a.html#ixzz2mmm0p3oy > > on FT.com > > if you add that one > http://www.lbl.gov/LBL-PID/Nobelists/Seaborg/presidents/23.html > > you realize what was the proble... > > as some says here, there are thousands of more unfounded press release and > conference each years... just read at Technology.org , phys.org, ... > > problems seems to be sociological: > as seaborgs says, chemist cannot suceed with less than a milion in a > garage without a theory at eV energu scale, where physicist fail with a > trillion in a hitech lab with a theory at MeV energy scale. > > it is a moral question, an ethical problem. > > most of our way to manage scientific claims are heuristics, not factual. > - too good to be true > - not fair > - most recognized is right > - most theoretical is right > - laws of science are laws. > - too easy > - consensus > - energy scales > - a physicist said > - theory says > - if I don't find a way, there is no way > - if it is not easyly reproduced it is not real > - when it is too hard to check, it is a fraud, or an artefact > - i'm lazy/busy so I follow the group > - the group cannot be wrong, especially if they fire me when I disagree. > > > > > 2013/12/10 Edmund Storms <[email protected]> > >> >> On Dec 9, 2013, at 6:30 PM, Blaze Spinnaker wrote: >> >> The press conference was a very big mistake and it was the heart of the >> disaster. >> >> Just because someone else was going to do it, doesn't excuse the >> behavior. They should have let him do it. >> >> >> They did not have a choice. The press conference was forced on them by >> the university. The heart of the disaster was failure of the important >> laboratories to replicate, The failure to replicate was caused by an >> unwillingness to understand what F-P had done. People who did the >> experiment correctly did replicate, but not often enough. In addition, the >> physics community made the assumption that the claimed effect was caused by >> hot fusion. This assumption was wrong. It turns out F-P were right and the >> physics community was wrong. Unfortunately, this error is hard for them to >> admit. >> >> >> >> On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 5:27 PM, Edmund Storms <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> >>> On Dec 9, 2013, at 6:19 PM, Foks0904 . wrote: >>> >>> Obviously major mistakes were made by P&F. The press conference was a >>> mistake. >>> >>> >>> That is obvious only after the fact. If F-P had not made a public >>> announcement, Jones would have. In fact, the claim would have gotten >>> attention without the announcement >>> >>> Calling it fusion was a mistake. >>> >>> >>> But it is fusion. Do you want F-P to lie? >>> >>> The question is: were the results (excess heat + nuclear products) a >>> delusion? 25 years later and hundreds of successful replications later and >>> 3 major commercial products in the works the clear answer is a resounding >>> "NO". >>> >>> >>> Yes, this is true. The evidence is now overwhelming. Ignorance is the >>> only problem. >>> >>> >>> This presentation is both insightful yet beyond myopic and ignorant at >>> the same time. Stress on myopic and ignorant. >>> >>> >>> I see nothing insightful. The claims are a simple-minded repetition of >>> what the skeptics said 23 years ago. >>> >>> >>> Regards. >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 8:13 PM, Kevin O'Malley <[email protected]>wrote: >>> >>>> I could use some help from some knowledgeable vorts to counter these >>>> accusations... >>>> >>>> Cold Fusion Confusion and Questionable Ethics >>>> http://www.ptei.org/docs/ColdFusionPresentation.pdf >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
