Jed, give it up. You alienate him he'll give you a good kicking in later. He might have contacts high up in the food chain.
You're a big boy now I'm sure I don't need to tell you the game. Too many emails again. Vortex is addictive when you're on the computer all day. TTFN. -----Original Message----- From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 04 November 2008 14:54 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Vo]:Connections @ Oilgae R C Macaulay wrote: >Speaking of politics <grin>.. err.. I mean.. pond scum. Algae >investor Bill Gates $ 100 million and Google $ 50 million has put up >some serious investment money for pond scum. >One would hope that these people would also be investing in LENR. >They are NOT. Why? My guess is that they have not heard of it. That is to say, the only thing they know about cold fusion is what you read in the Scientific American or the New York Times; i.e., it is compounded of fraud, incompetence and lunacy. Gene Mallove and I once managed to get through to the Gates Foundation, which at that time was run by Bill Gates' father. We got back a pleasant but unhelpful letter from someone there referring to cold fusion as "the Mallove and Rothwell idea." They had not bothered to read the information enough to connect it the 1989 news, and they had no idea who was actually doing the research or what they claimed. They glanced at it and rejected it out of hand. Despite the fact that people have visited LENR-CANR.org 1.6 million times, most people in the world have no idea that cold fusion exists, or if they have heard of it, they are completely unaware of the fact that anyone ever claimed to replicate it. Furthermore, many of them do not want to hear about it, and they get upset -- or in high dudgeon I guess you would call it -- when someone tries to tell them about it. The attached recent correspondence between Prof. Wilson & I illustrates this attitude. - Jed - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - fromJed Rothwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] dateSat, Nov 1, 2008 at 3:05 PM subject"CONDUCT, MISCONDUCT, AND CARGO CULT SCIENCE" mailed-bygmail.com hide details Nov 1 (2 days ago) Reply Greetings. I read you paper on cargo cult science. Your assertions about cold fusion are incorrect. Thousands of professional scientists have replicated the cold fusion effect, at hundreds of laboratories such as Los Alamos and BARC. They have published roughly a thousand papers in mainstream, peer-reviewed journals describing these replications. This extensive literature was available when you wrote this paper, but you did not include any references to it. I get a sense you are unfamiliar with this literature, because your assertions (along with Huizenga's) are at odds with it. Before you comment on experimental research, it is customary and strongly recommended that you first read the peer-reviewed literature on that subject. You will find a bibliography of 3,500 papers on cold fusion and 500 full text papers here: http://lenr-canr.org/ - Jed Rothwell Librarian, LENR-CANR.org - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Hide quoted text - Jed Rothwell wrote: Greetings. I read you paper on cargo cult science. Your assertions about cold fusion are incorrect. Thousands of professional scientists have replicated the cold fusion effect, at hundreds of laboratories such as Los Alamos and BARC. They have published roughly a thousand papers in mainstream, peer-reviewed journals describing these replications. This extensive literature was available when you wrote this paper, but you did not include any references to it. I get a sense you are unfamiliar with this literature, because your assertions (along with Huizenga's) are at odds with it. Before you comment on experimental research, it is customary and strongly recommended that you first read the peer-reviewed literature on that subject. You will find a bibliography of 3,500 papers on cold fusion and 500 full text papers here: http://lenr-canr.org/ - Jed Rothwell Librarian, LENR-CANR.org Dear Mr. Rothwell, I must admit that this is a first for me---having a librarian write to me to tell me that statements in one of my papers are incorrect. In the past I have had engineers, computer scientists, statisticians, operations researchers, and specialists in a variety of fields (including naval architecture, botany, and food science) write to ask me questions about the technical correctness of specific statements that I have made in my published archival journal article. In some cases their questions simply required clearing up a misunderstanding about a specific technical point at issue that was in fact correctly stated in one of my papers; and in some cases I must confess that I had made a misstatement of fact that required correction. In the instances in which the latter situation haoccurred, I published a correction in the same archival journal in the original article appeared. I must say, however, that I have never before been contacted by a librarian to question the truth of statements in my published work in a specific field---in this case, a keynote address given at a conference eleven years ago; and the main subject of the talk in question was ethics in the conduct of research. I stand by my statements about the gross mishandling of the original paper on cold fusion by Pons and Fleischmann. Jim Wilson %============================================== % James R. Wilson % Editor-in-Chief, ACM Transactions on Modeling % and Computer Simulation (TOMACS), % www.linklings.net/tomacs % mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tomacs % Edward P. Fitts Department of Industrial and % Systems Engineering % North Carolina State University % 111 Lampe Drive, Daniels Hall, Room 370 % Raleigh, NC 27695-7906, U.S.A. %============================================== % E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - You wrote: > I must admit that this is a first for me---having a librarian write to me to > tell me that statements in one of my papers are incorrect. Well, life is full of surprises. This political season in particular defies precedent. In any case, you need not take my word for any of this. LENR-CANR.org has hundreds of papers written by distinguished scientists, including Nobel laureates, the head of the Indian Atomic Energy Commission, the editors of three leading journals of plasma physics, several of the world's leading electrochemists, the Director of the Max Planck Institute for Physical Chemistry in Berlin, and many others. They, not I, say that your paper is incorrect. > I must say, however, that I have never before been contacted by a librarian > to question the truth of statements in my published work > in a specific field---in this case, a keynote address given at a conference > eleven years ago . . . I am afraid that is not a valid excuse. Many of the peer-reviewed papers I refer to were available 11 years ago in your university library. (My copies came from the libraries at Georgia Tech and Los Alamos.) I am not "questioning the truth" of your assertions -- I am pointing out that peer-reviewed experimental results prove you were mistaken. No doubt you were unaware of the fact that Pons and Fleischmann had been replicated. I assume you agree that peer-reviewed replication is the gold standard of truth. No scientist would claim that the experimental method does not work, and that hundreds of calorimeters and mass spectrometers might all malfunction, and thousands of researchers might all be wrong, or lying. A few of them might be wrong, of course. > I stand by my statements > about the gross mishandling of the original paper on cold fusion by Pons and > Fleischmann. In what sense do you stand by these statements? They are factually incorrect. The observations made by Pons and Fleischmann were replicated at high signal to noise ratios by thousands of professional scientists, using a wide variety of instrument types, in over 200 laboratories. These replications have been carefully peer reviewed and published. Therefore, the effect is real. There is no other standard of truth in experimental science. Since the effect is real, and nearly all of the original claims made by Pons and Fleischmann have been confirmed, in what sense did they "mishandle" the claims? What ethical questions are raised? They observed excess heat beyond the limits of chemistry, with no chemical fuel or ash. They reported this. They were replicated within a year or so. Granted, the paper was poorly written, but this seems like a trivial matter. The main thing is that it was right. - Jed - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - NO RESPONSE -- Wasn't expecting one, either.
