Jones Beene wrote:
but the original comment about disproof was so blatantly indefensible and really well what else can be said but stupid, especially after a second read of the underlying papers - that this does bring into question things like hidden agendas, ultimate motives, and secret advisors, etc- and does deserve a clear answer.
I never have a hidden agenda. My view of the Ni-CF research is clearly stated in my book.
When excellent results *without deuterium and palladium* turn up in experiments, and are subject to excessive and unwarranted criticism, without a good factual basis (and Bush/Eagleton comes to mind here as well) . . .
I do not consider the Bush-Eagleton results excellent. I gave them a large sum of money to replicate and improve their work, and they did some of the worst calorimetry I have ever seen.
Others have also done rotten calorimetry in projects I participated in or paid for, notably Patterson, Miley and Stringham.
In any case, no result can be considered excellent until it has been independently replicated. I have seen many results fade away. So have all experienced researchers, in all areas of science. This is to be expected. People who enthusiastically endorse lousy calorimetry and unreplicated results might feel less enthusiastic about the work if they paid for it, as I have done. It might also cure them of the notion that people who write checks for research such as Bush & Eagleton's are secretly campaigning against it. If Jones Beene sincerely believes that, he should put his money where his mouth is and pay for experiments.
- Jed
