At 05:10 AM 3/27/2010, Michel Jullian wrote:
2010/3/27 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <[email protected]>:
> I intend to fix that, you know.
Good. Obviously, common sense starts at IQ 159 in CF researchers ;-)
Geez, I mention the result of one test told to me in the 1950s, and
it keeps bouncing back. I'm smart, sure. As a girlfriend used to say
about her Master's degree in Early Childhood Education from Bank
Street in New York, probably the most prestigious school in the
field, with that and a quarter I could get a ride on the subway. This
was a while ago....
There are some very, very smart people in this field. It's not
necessarily a protection from error. That takes an ability to listen,
which may be even less common among very smart people than with
"ordinary" people, for smart people can get stuck in a habit of being right....
> Except the first cells won't be
> calorimeter-ready, they might not generate anough heat, that would take a
> different, and more expensive design, I suspect.I'm just looking for
> neutrons. I know, boring. Who can solve the energy crisis with a few
> neutrons? Part of the point about CF is that it doesn't generate neutrons.
>
> Well, usually not.
Usually not, or usually not many?
Usually not. I.e., of many, many reactions, only a very few end up
producing neutrons. And maybe not any at all, i.e., the primary
reaction never produces neutrons, but it does produce some hot
reaction products, perhaps, that then can cause secondary fusion and
therefore some neutrons.
> Isn't it the exceptions to the rule that are fascinating?
>
> If I had a cell that was capable of serious heat generation, I'm not sure
> I'd turn it over to a "skeptic." I'd try to find someone
reasonably neutral.
> (i.e., someone *normally* skeptical but dedicated to fairness and honesty
> and careful work.)
That's what I had in mind, skeptics in the noble sense of the word.
Dishonest skeptics will never see the excess heat, not until the field
will have entered mainstream.
Problem is, you need a relatively rare combination. Someone who is
carefully skeptical but who has not only the inclination to check
this out, but the opportunity, i.e. the time and access to resources.
But it will happen. The job of those who are already convinced should
be to make it easy. Organize the information better, so that access
is quick and clear -- and balanced. Don't exclude skeptical material,
rather develop consensus about it that is, again, clear. Let
unresolved issues be unresolved issues, don't paper them over with
unproven hypotheses.
Suppose there is a website, might even be lenr-canr.org. Every common
question or claim about cold fusion is answered there, in a
presentation that is accessible immediately and that is concise and
focus, as well-written as possible. So, someone comes up with a
Standard Stupid Statement in a blog, very quickly and effeciently
someone familiar with the web site can quote the Stupid Stement
without argument, then point to the URL of the standard answer that
is utterly clear and fully evidenced (possibly on subpages,
citations, etc). And this site, by the way, invites criticism, so
that if it's defective, it can be fixed. The top-level page isn't
publicly editable, that's done by consensus with the approval of site
management. So it doesn't get cluttered with discussions and
arguments that can go nowhere.
What will happen? I don't know, but I'd like to find out!
