still in denial, but they cannot say they were not informed. I posted a comment with a pile of link to current science and many news.
it seems it was moderated. It is time to keep those news and prepare to ridicule them later, so the nextgeneration of parrot and mindguard is deterred and check his sources better. I kept a copy on my scoop.it: Your bias is very clear, even if it is based on real facts, someway distorted. first F&P experiment was very hard and took 5 years to develop, and they were the best experts in calorimetry as George Longchampt experienced painfully when replicating exactly (allowing to understand the subtle performance of F&P calorimeter). The condition were not well known, and Caltech replicator simply did not ask, and moreover insulted in public and private that experiment, which was not the best way to get help.strangely Bockris like Longchampt got more information from F&P, and it worked after not 40 days but more than 1 year. beside that Caltech (lewis) expeiment was pathetic, like MIT which was caught tweaking the data by no less than their own editor who spotted the tricks. http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2012/ICCF17/papers/Miles-Examples-Isoperibolic-Calorimetry-ICCF17-ps.pdf later the frauds of Gary taubes (cherry picing, innuendo to cast doubt on all replication by BARC, LANL, of Borkris) fueled the myth that it was fraud. today in the science domain there is few fraud and misconduct identified, by opponents to F&P.one is MIT tweak, probably to hide their unprecise protocol.one is gary taubesone is Morrison who continued to push his theory while he case debunked with mainstream electrochemistry knowledgeone is Nature not correcting errors in Caltech papersone is Science rejecting Oriani paper who passed peer review , for no reasonone is Nature rejecting Repoer 41 DeNinno by ENEA for "having no room".one is pursuing 3 inquiries agains bockris while the fraud of taube was known, and the claim of fraud was simply impossible as Edmund Storms showed (contamination by tritium could not match observation). I advise you to start by reading the book of charles Beaudette which is the best documented (much more citations that the conspiracy books of Huizenga or taubes) http://iccf9.global.tsinghua.edu.cn/lenr%20home%20page/acrobat/BeaudetteCexcessheat.pdf#page=35 you can also read the peer reviewed (by non LENR physicist) selcial section on LENR in Current Science http://www.currentscience.ac.in/php/feat.php?feature=Special%20Section:%20Low%20Energy%20Nuclear%20Reactions&featid=10094or Naturwissenschaften <http://www.currentscience.ac.in/php/feat.php?feature=Special%20Section:%20Low%20Energy%20Nuclear%20Reactions&featid=10094or%C2%A0Naturwissenschaften> paperhttp://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00114-010-0711-x(you can <http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00114-010-0711-x(you%C2%A0can> find it free as prepublish) you can also try to catch some peer reviewed papers listed ther http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJtallyofcol.pdf#page=6among 150+ 2 may be anough to convince you. you can also add JJAP peer reviewed papers by Iwamura and Takahashi as replicator http://dx.doi.org/10.1143/JJAP.41.4642http://dx.doi.org/10.7567/JJAP.52.107301(search also for the one of US Navy Spawar, and for many good non reviewed papers) I also advice reading The Science of LENR by Edmund torms , of some of his booklets and articles... Nothing personal as you relay the consensus fairy tale.Very good example of groupthink in science. For Rossi, he is not a convicted fraudster as he was cleared of all charge of fraud.His conviction is just absence of environmental permit, made necessary after the business started, and tax evasion linked to the bancktruptcy induced by the pursuits.What seems to have happened from the evidences is that Rossi developped a biofuel technology, but that it was probably more polluting that what could be accepted by recent laws.at that time Camorra pushed Green laws to make it's business of waste dumping more profitable, and this recycling of waste as fuel was probably a problem, both for greens and for camora.in the Il coriere della sera there is report of very strange sabotage, and price explosion for decontamination, that make it clear that some mafia was interested in the cost of cleaning. http://www.lenr-forum.com/old-forum-static/t-2384.html Rossi move in US where he was welcomed as employee, and still maintained in his positions after being arested in italy and done his time for tax evasion. Many other stories are pushed as innuendo by the opponents (something about TEG, which well analysed and not forgetting the 3 US Army reports is easy to understand). anyway today the evidence of Ferrara and Lugano test let no doubt the reactor work (question is how well). countrary you the myth you spread, Rossi did not touch the electric nor calorimetry setup, and was only present but not touching the sample where the huge isotopic shift was observed. This is well explained by Bo Hoistadt, http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/12/13/transcript-of-radio-interview-with-bo-hoistad-on-the-lugano-e-cat-test-we-want-lenr-fusione-fredda/ but it seems that your sources refuse to consider opposing evidences. i know those sources, and you should add better sources or be ready to relay erroneous facts. Note that Lugano is not so solid because of some errors by the physicist, but Ferrara is very solid in calorimetry and both propose a reasonable level of evidence, all is real. finally the behavior of Tom Darden, who licensed the technology and fund the project, let do doubt that he is informed of the reality of that technology. note that since LENR is a scientific fact that only uninformed people can deny, there is nothing really extraordinary in E-cat, just a business claim to be checked carefully. today we don't know the performance of the reactor, but scientifically there is no doubt that something, reliable or not, efficient or not, usable or not, is really producing heat from LENR reaction. I could say much more, but it is time to change source and be informed seriously, instead of parroting the usual disinformation. Best regards and good reading. 2015-08-22 4:38 GMT+02:00 CB Sites <cbsit...@gmail.com>: > > 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? > > > > >
