Steven Krivit wrote:
Michael Melich believes we can, based on
examples of other technology developed without
fundamental theory, such as solid state radar.
Where did you hear Melich say this?
In conversation with me. We have often discussed
this. He took part in the development of the
Aegis first generation solid state radar.
I do not see many prospects for a theory.
Sorry Jed, but you asked for this - Of course
you don't see many prospects for theory. Your
words: "I don't care about theory."
Whether I care about it or not has no bearing on
the prospects for a robust theory. I know what is
being published. Not much about theory. Also I
have heard from both experimentalists and
theorists that they think cold fusion theory is
pretty much dead in the water. Of course, that
could change quickly. It does not take much to
launch a theory. As Einstein said all you need is a pencil and paper.
Forgive me, I must have misunderstood your
comment about what you give a f*** about ["fig" was your exact word]:
And I meant exactly that: fig (Ficus carica). Not
"figure" (which has abbreviated with a capital
and period: "Fig.") and certainly not what you
are implying, so the asterisks are hardly called for and you need only two.
"I have not examined the other claims because
frankly, I only care about heat. If they have
not nailed down heat who cares what else they
have? I don't give a fig about tritium or
neutrons or shrinking Mills hydrinos for that
matter, and especially I don't care about theory."
You meant something else?
I meant exactly what I said, as always. I, Jed,
have no use for theory. Why would I do with it? I
do not understand it and I cannot distinguish a
good theory from a bad one. It may come to pass
that the definitive theory comes to me first. In
that event I shall spend several hours correcting
spelling, tense, person and number, and probably
the formatting of equation numbers and footnotes
(which most authors get wrong), without having
the foggiest notion that I am dealing with the
be-all, end-all answer to cold fusion. I am not
the only one. A distinguished experimentalist
recently said that a theory paper "it might as
well be in Chinese for all I can make of it."
That's another problem: even if a good theory
emerges, many experimentalists will not pay
attention because they do not understand modern
theories. They skip the ICCF theory sessions.
There is a gap between the two groups.
But anyway, just because I have no use for
theory, that does not mean other people have no
use for theory. I doubt many people have a use
for a 11-year-old guide to Borland Delphi Pascal Ver. 4.0, but I need it!
Regarding this paper in particular, when
researchers botch one measurement or use what I
consider the wrong technique, or an overly
complex and unreliable technique, I tend to doubt
they got the other parts right. For example Gene
Mallove told me that Bush & Eagleton were trying
to use a standard calorimeter (MY calorimeter!)
at a temperature close to 0°C by immersing it in
ice slush. He described this a nightmare of
condensation, paper towels, and phase changes
from which no good data could emerge. After that,
they failed to deliver said calorimeter for our
use. The experience left me with grave doubts
about their competence and their previous
results. I do not trust the technical judgement
of people who do this sort of thing.
On the other hand everyone makes mistakes.
Skilled people sometimes do sloppy work, so you have to cut people some slack.
- Jed
