Jed,
Respectfully, some people need funding to hire HELP, otherwise they use a pencil and paper. It is not the fault of the discoverer that he ONLY discovered the breakthrough that a hard working professional data cruncher would never have bothered attempting, much less even think of. And how dare two chemists even consider an experiment in Fusion, that is totally unprofessional. With proper changes to the educational system (some being rammed through now) - the next two smart asses will get shot for the offense and save the real $cientists a load of grief and Excuses for how the information leaked out.
What if - Pons and Fleischmans had $30 Million to set up a lab, computers and data collectors instead of them having the ENTIRE SCIENTIFIC establishment destroy them for daring to break new ground without their approval? $cience does not work that way. Science in America tosses Billions into garbage fusion while it cuts a $20Million RV project that proved itself of real value and spends $350 Million to discover cheap H2 production, exactly what I offered the DOE for a $100K & $200K grant - both denied.
My device produces far hotter and more energetic plasma than the P&F underwater arc discharge, the tritium monitor shows that a radioactive gas is being detected and many New materials have been produced from reacting with the plasma. I have several scientific reports on these materials but I don't even write down what happens anymore, and I need an investor - now does that make me more unprofessional than P&F?
This is just the way life is, but to insinuate that the fathers of discovery ignorant for not doing everything according to scientific protocol, when the $cientific attackers like MIT falsified the reports as Dr. Mallove attested to, is a little unscientific - isn't it?
Does anyone hear know how to read Carbon NMR spectra, because so far - nobody can tell what the plasma hath produced?
Chris
Jed Rothwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Jed Rothwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
>>If it only occurs once then it isn't scientific -- yet. You have to
>>reproduce it. If you cannot reproduce it, then eventually you must
>>conclude that you did not see it.
>
>Nonsense. If you cannot reproduce it you must conclude that it is very
>hard to reproduce. There's no need to conclude that you did not see it at
>all (unless, of course, you weren't quite sure you saw it to start with).
My statement was sloppy. I did not mean that literally. Mizuno did not
conclude that events never occurred. He concluded they were caused by
random electronic noise rather than actual neutrons, so they had no deep
significance. He turned out to be wrong, but most of the time, most
researchers who reach that conclusion are right.
When a phenomenon is elusive, with a low s! /n ratio, and when it may well be
electronic noise, a researcher has to draw the line eventually and stop
trying to figure out what causes it. That is unfortunate, but life is short
and we cannot exhaustively follow up on every single anomaly.
There have been a few instances in which irreproducible but high-sigma CF
events occurred. The best examples are the 1985 explosion in Fleischmann
and Pon's lab, and Mizuno's 1991 massive heat after death event. Even
though these could not be reproduced, because of technical difficulties and
safety concerns, the researchers themselves never had the slightest doubt
the events were real, and anomalous. I have no doubt either, because they
fit into the pattern of CF effects that *can* be reproduced.
It was most unfortunate that the 1985 and 1991 events were not recorded
properly with good instruments, and the physical evidence from them was not
preserved. F&P and Mizuno were inexcusably unprofessional in these
instances! Other researchers, such as Patterson, were far worse, because
they apparently caused dozens of even hundreds of high-sigma reproducible
events, but on all those occasions they used substandard, unreliable
instruments and manual data collection (pencil and paper) instead of
recording the data in a detailed, coherent, machine readable format. What
an idiotic, tragic waste!
- Jed
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
