::applause:: bravo jed. nicely done.
On 6/29/05, Jed Rothwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ITER has been in the news lately. By coincidence, I recently exchanged > correspondence with a public relations flack there. Attached is our > correspondence. This would be hilarious if these people were not getting > ready to piss away $10 billion of our money. > > - Jed > > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > > Exchange with ITER public relations flack > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: I suggest you read the literature before commenting on Fleischmann > and Pons > > > Dear Dr. Spears, > > Frank Znidarsic forwarded a comment you made regarding cold fusion: > > "After all, it was through that route that the poor experimentation that > led Fleischmann and Pons to go public rather than publish scientifically > were made fools of in the end." > > Whether the experimentation was poor or good is a matter of opinion, but > your statements are incorrect as a matter of fact. A paper by Fleischmann & > Pons was accepted for publication before the University of Utah went public > with their work. After the paper was published, the effects they observed > were widely replicated, often at very high signal to noise ratios. Excess > heat has been measured at Sigma 90 and above, and tritium has been observed > at rates ranging from 50 times to several million times background. By > September 1990, the effect had been replicated by over 80 institutions > including China Lake, Los Alamos, Oak Ridge, BARC India, Brookhaven and so > on. In the years since then, although there has been extreme opposition to > the subject from mainstream institutions, several hundred peer-reviewed > papers describing positive replications have been published in leading > journals of chemistry and electrochemistry, and in some physics journals > including the Japanese Journal of Applied Physics. Approximately two > thousand other papers have been published in conference proceedings. > > To be blunt, the extreme opposition to the subject comes mainly from people > like you, who make foolish and unwarranted comments about cold fusion > without first reading the literature. I suggest you review some of the > papers. Our web site features full text copies of over 400 of these papers. > See: > > http://lenr-canr.org/ > > Sincerely, > > > Jed Rothwell > > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > > From: Bill Spears <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: I suggest you read the literature before commenting on > Fleischmann and Pons > Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 23:31:48 +0200 > To: Jed Rothwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Dear Jed, > I stick by my statement that it was the lack of proper peer review of > the Fleischmann/Pons paper that let them down in the end. There were so > many flaws in reasoning and explanation in their paper that if it hadn't > been so astounding a conclusion and from one (Fleischmann) such eminent > scientist (FRS) I'm sure it would never have been accepted. > > Many then claimed to have replicated their results, a natural humann > failing (the I told you so syndrome) and many claimed they were not > replicable, and those who did the latter were more reputable labs with > better equipment and more careful experimenters, so their results won out > in the end. But it is clear that also bad science gets published so the > peer review process isn't perfect. But without it there is nothing, so it > is better than that. > > The fact that there are loads of papers written about cold fusion doesn't > make it real. There are loads of books written about astrology but that > doesn't make it real either. There is clearly something going on (same > probably with astrology), but there are also some very bad experimentalists > out there, and poor reviewers, and its easy to baffle people with science - > so few really understand it. There is usually a simpler explanation. Even > the US DOE has decided to put some more funds aside to see whether they can > nail down the phenomena at work, but so far one has to say the jury's > out. Not yet proven either way. > > Meanwhile, we have to go with something a bit less esoteric, which you can > see might actually work, but we can stop as soon as something alternate is > really proven beyond doubt. > > This is not 19th century science - the establishment versus the rest. > Those days are long past. This is good scientific method against bad. > > Bill > > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > > Bill Spears wrote: > > >I stick by my statement that it was the lack of proper peer review of > >the Fleischmann/Pons paper that let them down in the end. > > The paper was peer-reviewed, and all subsequent papers on the subject have > been peer-reviewed. The review these papers are subjected to been far > harsher and exacting than most papers undergo, because there is strong > opposition to the subject. > > > >Many then claimed to have replicated their results, a natural humann > >failing (the I told you so syndrome) and many claimed they were not > >replicable, and those who did the latter were more reputable labs with > >better equipment and more careful experimenters, so their results won out > >in the end. > > As far as I know, that is not in evidence. Only three reputable labs > published negative results -- Cal Tech, Harwell and MIT. The results at Cal > Tech and Harwell were later re-examined by experts and shown to be > positive. The negative results from MIT were fraudulent: the original data > showed excess heat, but the data points were moved down. > > I realize there are many rumors that "good" labs failed to see results in > 1989, but as far as I know these experiments were never published, and some > appear to be mere rumors. If you can cite other reputable labs that > actually published peer-reviewed experiments, please let me know. I know of > hundreds of positive papers from highly reputable labs. Many of these labs > use the best equipment money can buy, such as the Mitsubishi experiment > which costs roughly $20 million; the University of Osaka particle beam; and > SRI's flow calorimeters, which are the most accurate and precise ever > constructed. The people performing these experiments such as Miles, Bockris > and Oriani, are considered the world's leading electrochemists, because > they wrote widely used, multi-volume textbooks, and they are Distinguished > Fellows and Distinguished Professors. > > > >But it is clear that also bad science gets published so the peer review > >process isn't perfect. But without it there is nothing, so it is better > >than that. > > I agree. If you believe that, then you should accept positive cold fusion > results, because they have all been rigorously peer-reviewed, unlike the > negative results. You should, at least, refrain from criticizing them until > you have read them carefully, and you should not characterize research > conducted by dozens of Distinguished Professors as sloppy. > > > >The fact that there are loads of papers written about cold fusion doesn't > >make it real. > > Peer-reviewed, high-sigma replicated data *does* make it real, or nothing > in science is real, there are no standards, and no dispute can ever be > resolved. > > > >There is clearly something going on (same probably with astrology), but > >there are also some very bad experimentalists out there, and poor > >reviewers, and its easy to baffle people with science - so few really > >understand it. > > Who do you refer to? Bockris? Oriani? McKubre, Mizuno, Iwamura, Storms, > Claytor? Please be specific. You are making general comments about unnamed > researchers that you think are "bad." This is not a falsifiable argument. > Who are these people? Where did they publish? Why do you think they are > bad? Your arguments must be held to the same level of rigor as the > published papers you are denigrating. You do not get a free pass, just > because you hold the majority view. > > > > There is usually a simpler explanation. Even the US DOE has decided to > > put some more funds aside to see whether they can nail down the phenomena > > at work, but so far one has to say the jury's out. > > I suggest you review the documents here: > > http://lenr-canr.org/Collections/DoeReview.htm > > I think you will find that the critiques offered by the negative reviewers, > such as #7, have no merit. > > > >This is not 19th century science - the establishment versus the rest. > >Those days are long past. This is good scientific method against bad. > > In my opinion, scientists in the 19th century were generally more fair, > objective and open minded. See the book book "Excess Heat" by C. G. > Beaudette. There are hundreds of examples unrelated to cold fusion. For > example, here is a quote describing bigotry and closed-minded attitudes in > AIDS research, from M. Sandmaier "Vessels of Infection," New York Times > Book Review, 11/15/92: > > "The reason women with AIDS have been virtually invisible, Ms. Corea > contends, is that the medical establishment has persistently refused to > recognize that AIDS in women doesn't always look like AIDS in men. As early > as 1983, a number of female doctors and other health workers around the > country began to notice a strong link between severe, recurring > gynecological abnormalities and the presence of H.I.V. infection in women. > But when they submitted research proposals to investigate this connection, > she says, both government and private funding agencies repeatedly turned > them down. And when the doctors conducted the research on their own time, > medical journals and scientific conferences consistently rejected their > papers. > > Sometimes this official chorus of 'nos' has reflected mere lack of > interest, at other times hostility. Ms. Corea reports that Judith Cohen, an > epidemiologist at the School of Public Health at the University of > California, Berkeley, was told by the chairman of her department that if > she continued to waste time studying AIDS in women, 'she had better find > another job.'" > > - Jed > > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > > Spears has not responded, and I doubt he ever will. I copied my > correspondence to Znidarsic, Storms and Miles. I would love to see Mel > Miles chop this guy into quivering little chunks, but Mel is busy, and Ed > is even more busy, so I guess it would be best if they would ignore him. > > - Jed > > > -- "Monsieur l'abbé, I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write" Voltaire
