Yes, we should discuss the likelihood that some kind of Fusion is taking place; nonetheless, from a rhetorical standpoint, a label should put forth the most striking, least-deniable aspect. Arguing about whether fusion is possible in such a context is foolish until we first focus on why we are sure that there is excess heat. If we are to open many closed minds, we ourselves should start with more wisdom-humility (not shame-humility) and try to reach a level of agreement, that something totally unanticipated could be going on, but the excess heat is undeniable. In other words, it is just bad strategy to try to convince them what the cause is, when we who believe this do not even agree. Scott
Date: Sun, 1 May 2011 23:27:52 -0400 Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Non-Chemical Heat Phenomenon" Label more neutral. From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Harry Veeder <[email protected]> wrote: Yes there is fairly convincing evidence of tritium and helium production, however the evidence that they are produced in same ratio as plasma fusion is really meager. Tritium is far from the same ratio. Millions of times off, and inconsistent. Only the helium is in approximately the same ratio. Some say the evidence for this is meager, others say it is strong. My point is that people in the latter group should go ahead and call it "fusion." If you want to give it some other name, feel free. The name is not important. But I think it is somewhat important that you not insist we are ignorant, and you not demand that others agree with that. People who have concluded it is have thought about this carefully, and they have a right to their opinions. Discussion of this topic veers into lunacy when Krivit insists that not only is cold fusion not fusion, but McKubre and others who believe it is have published fake data and are involved in a weird vendetta to enforce this point of view. McKubre does not care one tiny bit whether other scientists think it is fusion or not, or whether they believe his helium results. They can take those results or leave them. There is no reason for him to publish falsified data. If he cared about other people's opinions he would never be working in the most controversial field in the history of modern science! - Jed
