Here is a message I sent to arch-skeptic Dieter Britz. Ritz is
probably the only person on earth who has read hundreds of papers
about cold fusion yet who still insists that it does not exist.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Here is a serious question. I am not trying to bug you (this time!)
-- I really want to know what you think.
I have been thinking about your claim that H. Bauer is neutral, even
though in 2001 he said cold fusion is "without, yet, any satisfactory
reproducibility." ("Science and Pseudoscience," p. 108.) To me, there
is nothing "logical or fair" about this; it is tantamount to
dismissing the work at Mitsubishi, Toyota and elsewhere that achieved
100% reproducibility. What would satisfy him? What does he mean?
From my point of view, you and Bauer are saying that to be "neutral"
a person has to refrain from believing the evidence, no matter how
compelling it may be, even after years and years of 100% successful
applications and Mitsubishi and tritium at 20,000 times background in BARC.
Your views are quite different from some old-school experimental
scientists. Take three examples from 1989 and 1991:
The late Heinz Gerischer. After attending the ICCF-2 conference and
spending a week examining the literature, he wrote: "there is now
undoubtedly overwhelming indications that nuclear processes take
place in the metal alloys."
(http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GerischerHiscoldfusi.pdf)
Iyengar, the Director of BARC and later Indian AEC member:
"Conclusions: Investigations of cold fusion phenomena carried out at
Trombay during April to September 1989, have positively confirmed the
occurrence of (d-d) fusion reactions in both electrolytic and gas
loaded Pd and Ti metal lattices at ambient temperatures."
(http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/IyengarPKprefaceand.pdf)
The researchers at Amoco in 1989: "The calorimetry conclusively shows
excess energy was produced within the electrolytic cell over the
period of the experiment. This amount, 50 kilojoules, is such that
any chemical reaction would have had to been in near molar amounts to
have produced the energy. Chemical analysis shows clearly that no
such chemical reactions occurred. The tritium results show that some
form of nuclear reactions occurred during the experiment."
(http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Lautzenhiscoldfusion.pdf)
There is no equivocation in these statements. They say "I am sure it
is real." They say "undoubtedly overwhelming" and "conclusively." So
do Fleischmann and Bockris, as I am sure you know. These people would
bet their life on it.
So here is my question:
Would you and Bauer say these people are biased? Because they have
made up their minds and they are convinced by the experimental
evidence, would you say they are incapable of being neutral? Do you
suppose that anyone who makes up his mind could never have been
neutral in the first place?
I expect you probably would say these things. Honestly, I cannot
fathom your thought processes.
- Jed
