I think an estimate of the cost of doing an experiment like Oriani's would be persuasive too. ;-)
Harry ----- Original Message ----- From: Edmund Storms <[email protected]> Date: Friday, March 13, 2009 11:00 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:promoting CF > 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 > > > >
