Forwarded conversation Subject: Re: [From Quarks to Quasars] Contact Us ------------------------
From: *From Quarks To Quasars* <fromquarkstoquas...@gmail.com> Date: Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 9:24 AM To: Chuck Sites <cbsit...@gmail.com> Hi Chuck, The article will not be retracted. It is scientific in nature, it has evidence, the claims are sound, it does not attack the scientific method, it is not a hit piece, it does not lack journalistic integrity. It was meant to provide a basic overview of where we currently stand in relation to cold fusion for those who are not familiar with the topic, and it does that. The article clearly states that countries and various organizations are currently researching this, but that the results have not shown anything that is, to date, viable. To show an alternative view, it also links to an article that claims that valid research on cold fusion is not being published because journals fear being made a mockery for publishing any such research. Thanks for the concern >From Quarks to Quasars Managing Editors: Jaime Trosper and Jolene Creighton Make sure to visit our website <http://www.fromquarkstoquasars.com/> for the latest in science news and research. On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 9:01 PM, Chuck Sites < wordpr...@fromquarkstoquasars.com> wrote: > Name: Chuck Sites > Email: cbsit...@gmail.com > Comment: Folks, your article was passed to me in a discussion group. I > read what you had to say regarding the physics of Cold Fusion, and in the > name of science, I wish you would retract the article. It's basically a > hit piece without a fact to point to. It implies that the work being done > in the field is fraudulent or the science is misguided. Neither is the > case. Cold Fusion to date is a work in process. It's storied history > shows the amazing processes of man's ability to scientifically investigate > a concept and pursue it's many directions of investigation. The work of > Andrie Rossi is just one direction being pursued. > > The idea that a proton fuses with a nickel nucleus to make a copper > nucleus, is just an idea to explain experimental anomalies in the Rossi > type experiments. There have been several other ideas to explain the > phenomena that nuclear levels of excess heat are seen in hydrated metals > consistently. Rossi is just one experimental method being used to > understand the limits of nature in process of fusion. Many others have > been pursued since Dr's Pons and Fleishman proposed cold fusion of > deuterium in electrolytic cells of palladium. > > You should withdraw your article on cold fusion due to its unscientific > nature, it's lack of evidence for it's claims, it's attack on the > scientific method, for being a hit piece, for lack of journalistic > integrity, etc. > > If you want to make any serious claim with validity, this article should > be labeled "Opinion Piece". > > Time: August 19, 2015 at 21:01 > IP Address: 64.253.110.231 > Contact Form URL: http://www.fromquarkstoquasars.com/contact-us/ > Sent by an unverified visitor to your site. > > ---------- From: *CB Sites* <cbsit...@gmail.com> Date: Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 5:41 PM To: cont...@fromquarkstoquasars.com Thank you for taking the time to reply to my criticism of your article. Let me just say that I think you are painting the field with a very broad brush, and while there is some room for some cynicism for certain players in the field, there are other scientists in this field that are very well respected and established. Cold fusion can even claim a nobel prize winning physicist in it ranks with the late Julian Swigner. Hardly a charlatan. In fact the list of very notable scientists involved in cold fusion is surprising. Cold fusion is a real phenomena and is proven in muon catalyzed cold fusion. That is a true nuclear phenomena. In the case of hydrated(deuterated) metals the nuclear signatures are not seen but a heat signature that are commensurate with nuclear origins is seen (dating all the way back to Dr. Pons and Dr. Flieshman). The lack of a nuclear signal does not negate the heat signatures found in some of these published experiments. See http://lenr-canr.org Basically there are a group of science writers who have very closed minds on issues they know little about. Your article appears to be one such piece of misdirected writing. It qualifies as pathological skepticism. Maybe if you actually interviewed scientist working in the field, you might actually be enlightened by the mysteries Nature can sometime present us. Best regards, Chuck ---------- From: *From Quarks To Quasars* <cont...@fromquarkstoquasars.com> Date: Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 9:58 PM To: Chuck Sites <cbsit...@gmail.com> Maybe part of the problem with the lack of dialog is that people people are presumptiously insulting, what with calling others close-minded and saying they know little on the subject. Thanks for the message. ---------- From: *CB Sites* <cbsit...@gmail.com> Date: Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 10:04 PM To: From Quarks To Quasars <cont...@fromquarkstoquasars.com> You said "Maybe part of the problem with the lack of dialog is that people people are presumptiously insulting, what with calling others close-minded and saying they know little on the subject." Thanks for the message Thank you for the reply. In response here is my reply. "Maybe... Science can get rough and tumble at times. That is natural. I think so it is with Cold Fusion. There are very good scientists that think it's BS and say so, and there are very good scientists that who actually do the science say otherwise." Who do you believe, practitioner or mouth-piece?
