Jed,
If you understand what I'm saying, then make this clear and stop
arguing every point. In any case. I don't have time to get into a
nitpicking discussion. I asked a simple question. Exactly how would
you promote the field? I'm not interested in general ideas such as do
what Obama did. I'm interested in exploring a real, rational, and
well focused plan. You say you need the cooperation of researchers.
You have all the information known to the field. You would also have
the cooperation of many researchers if the plan looks good. You need
to realize that many of the researches do have valid points even if
they differ with how you interpret the situation. We are not all
ignorant of the situation and the need for better promotion. So, if
you have a plan, let's hear it. By the way, if any other readers of
this exchange have an idea, please feel free to jump in.
Ed
On Mar 13, 2009, at 8:14 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Edmund Storms wrote:
I'm frustrated with this exchange as well. You seem to be unwilling
to
acknowledge that any of my comments have any merit at all.
Oh come now. Of course I realize what you are saying! I know what
the standards of science are supposed to be, and what has happened
in the cold fusion arena. Heck, I could write a book about that
subject; I am probably one of the leading authorities on the subject.
Anyone can see there is a problem, and injustice, and that
institutions are dysfunctional. The question is: What can we do
about it? The normal methods of overcoming doubt and opposition have
failed. Publishing papers in journals has failed. Taking part in
prestigious conferences such as the ACS has failed. They have not
failed completely, of course. I am not suggesting we should give up
all traditional methods. I am suggesting that we should not repeat
of these activities unchanged without supplementing them by
unconventional methods.
I'm not saying that all approaches will fail. I'm only saying that
certain
realities have to be considered.
Experimental realities can be defined with confidence. The realities
of human behavior and history -- and what will happen in the future
-- are not clear. No one can say with any certainty that my plans
will work, or that they will surely fail because they are
unconventional.
Otherwise, an effort will be a waste of time.
We have wasted 20 years. We have made essentially no progress trying
to convince the establishment. If alternative approaches fail and I
waste a few more years, I will not mind.
I was interested in exactly how YOU think the field should be
promoted. I'm not interested in generalities or patronizing ideas
like "study history".
It is not patronizing at all! It is a big mistake for you to think
it is. You have missed my point. Furthermore, you know me too well
to imagine that I patronize or make flippant or empty statements. I
am a serious guy, engaged in a serious effort, and by golly I have
paid my dues to prove that!
I am suggesting that you should look carefully at how other people
have overcome similar opposition, and borrow their tactics. That may
seem like an obvious thing to do but people often fail to do it.
People ignore history and repeat disastrous mistakes. They do this
in business, politics, science, war, investing and other areas. Look
at the Iraq war and the Wall Street bubble. There are examples
everywhere you turn.
Cold fusion researchers have failed to learn from history. Not with
regard to the science itself but with regard to overcoming academic
political opposition. To give an example that I have pointed out
countless times, the Wright brothers failed disastrously for five
years until they began paying attention to Hart Berg, who was a
marketing expert. His business was selling big ticket high
technology, such as battleships. If they had not heeded his advice
they would not have been given credit for developing the airplane.
They would have been forgotten. Cold fusion researchers are making
mistakes so similar to the ones the Wrights made, it is uncanny. Not
just tactical errors: the letters, assertions, attitudes and style
of the brothers and of many researchers are so similar you might
confuse the two. I guess it shows that smart people make similar
misjudgments.
If you have ideas, I suggest you implement them and stop
complaining about what the rest of us are doing.
I cannot implement them without the cooperation of the researchers.
I think that it is clear, and this statement of yours was obtuse.
All that I have accomplished in this field (for what it's worth) has
been with the cooperation of researchers, you especially.
You think you have all the information you need to make the effort.
No, I do not. I require complete descriptions of experiments, and a
commitment to help newcomers by supplying sample materials and
training, and various other things that I have outlined. I call for
the kind of effort AT&T made to disseminate information about
semiconductors a few months after they developed them. Twenty years
after the development of cold fusion no one has provided the sort of
information AT&T provided. In that regard Charles Petit was correct:
this field does resemble a hobby more than a serious technology.
There are reasons why people have not been able to publish detailed
descriptions, such as lack of money, patents, and intellectual
property concerns. And there are some detailed descriptions but
unfortunately they cannot be made public. EPRI and SRI published a
detailed description of their experiments but I cannot get
permission to upload the whole thing.
The problem with cathode materials is even more difficult. It is
expensive and time-consuming to make a good cathode, so people are
understandably unwilling to distribute cathodes to other
researchers, and new researchers. Many years ago Martin Fleischmann
and I tried to purchase 1 kg of Johnson-Matthey "Type A" palladium.
We failed because we did not have enough money and also because
other people did not express interest in doing this. I think it was
a grave mistake that other researchers did not take part in this
initiative. As Melvin Miles showed, this type of palladium works
nearly all the time, usually at much higher power levels than other
types.
I don't agree. As for me, my time is better spent getting the
critical information I explained is needed by any promotional
effort.
It is a promotional effort, but I think you fail to understand the
importance of it. Calling it a "promotional effort" puts in a bad
light, and detracts from the importance. I would say it is a
rescue effort without which the field may die, our life's work may
be forgotten, and the world may descend into irreversible global
warming.
When you call this a "promotional effort" you express a kind of
disdain for other scientists, and for the public at large. This is
very much like calling the 1908 Wright fight tests in Paris in
Washington DC "a circus act" or "a gratuitous performance for
aviation amateurs," rather than serious flight testing. That was, in
fact, an accurate description of the 1908 flights, and it is just
sort of thing the Wright brothers said during the long years when
they refused to show the public outside of Dayton what they were up
to. From their point of view, government officials in Washington and
Paris were demanding they risk their lives merely to make a point
and to demonstrate capabilities they had already demonstrated dozens
of times. (The danger was acute: the last flight in Washington
resulted in an accident that killed Lt. Selfridge and nearly killed
Wilbur Wright.)
As I said, a person must learn from history. This is an excellent
example of what I mean. Scientists who belittle the importance of
promotional activities have not learned from history.
- Jed
