Abd, it's not being a jerk to be wrong, it's being a jerk to write authoritatively, as the book title implies, on a subject one is so blatantly ignorant about.
Whether he is positive or not, or undecided, is not the problem. I myself obviously feel the field is worth researching but I am still not 100% convinced that CF is real, for lack of a single unambiguous experiment proving it is. There are scientists who know much more about the field than I do who are still undecided. Dieter Britz is in this case, even though he is probably the most CF learned person in the world. Michel 2010/3/20 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <[email protected]>: > At 02:00 PM 3/19/2010, Michel Jullian wrote: >> >> What a jerk. On that page alone, he says one loads palladium into >> deuterium, and platinum too, and he professes that excess heat is the >> "bad kind" of cold fusion! > > You know, he points out that it is not fraud to be wrong, and I'll point out > that it is also not being a jerk to be wrong. That error shows that this > wasn't well-considered. I.e., the error about "loading of palladium and > platinum into deuterium." > > He's also trying to support his friend Scaramuzzi with a comment that the > loading (i.e., of deuterium into palladium, it doesn't load into platinum) > is respectable, with only a "tangential connection to cold fusion." Yeah, > that's right! "Anomalous heat" or "unexpected helium" or whatever. Cold > fusion? No. Maybe its a low-energy nuclear reaction, but fusion? No, we > don't mention fusion around here, it makes the natives restless. We are > researching anomalous heat in the palladium deuteride system, you got a > problem with that? > > I think you are being a little harsh, Michel. This reads to me like an essay > or even a speech or something dictated off-the-cuff, it's certainly not > well-edited and researched. But the basic message is actually positive. > > What did "bad kind" of cold fusion mean? Read the context and the time. At > that point, there was muon-catalyzed fusion on the table, or the possibility > that there was a very-low level form of other cold fusion, i.e., what Jones > was reporting. That would be the "good kind." Not so horribly controversial. > But Fleischmann was reporting levels of heat that could only be from much > higher levels of reaction. He's describing his distress at heating that his > friend was involved in this nonsense. "Bad kind" is what he thought then. > > He then, next page, says that he has looked over the results carefully, and > they are "pretty impressive." Go back and read this again! He's complaining > that the normal process of science isn't happening. If there are all these > positive results, there should be people pouring over them to try to "prove > them wrong." > > Note the very obvious implication. Cold fusion has not been proven wrong. > And in this he is 100% correct. He underreports the positive evidence, > that's all. Scaramuzzi is only a small part of it. >
