Dear Joshua Please answer the message re our Protocol. Let's focus on future- we are not historians and cannot change the Past.
Peter On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 9:06 PM, Joshua Cude <joshua.c...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 10:19 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <a...@lomaxdesign.com> > wrote: > > Cude>>Maybe, but Rossi OK'd them. > > > Lomax> Yes, he did. However, the point was that this was not simply what > Cude claimed, using "his own designates." > > > OK. I used the wrong word. I don't think my message is significantly > weakened if I make the same claim using "vetted observers" or something like > that. > > > > It is accepting the designates of someone else. Sure, Rossi could > possibly somehow figure out that these people would somehow be gullible. > However, consider who they were. A physicist sitting on the Nobel committee. > An official of the Swedish Skeptics Society. If Rossi were not confident of > his demonstrations, do you think he'd approve those two? Indeed, almost > certainly, he'd reject Essen, at least. > > > First, I'm not interested in second-guessing. I'm interested in evidence, > and if it has to be second-hand, then it should come from someone who is > clearly on record as a skeptic of CF. And preferably from several such > people in contexts they control, without restriction on the measurements > they make, short of opening the black box. In spite of Essen's associations, > he had publicly expressed sympathy for Rossi. He was not skeptical. > > > Secondly, this sort of argument might become relevant in future > demonstrations (or with respect to Levi in the secret experiment), but it's > not in the January or in the Swede demos, because even the evidence they > reported does not support excess heat in my estimation. They arrived at > different conclusions largely because they assumed the steam was dry. They > however gave no evidence that it was, and in the Lewan and January > experiments, the evidence strongly suggests it was very wet. > > > > What Cude is doing is demonstrating how, given a held belief, one can > create endless suspicion and doubt, and there is no end to this. > > > Not true. The demonstrations are simply very poorly done. Rossi appears to > have discovered that when the water in a conduit reaches boiling, it starts > spewing out as a mist, which people can be persuaded is dry steam, and > voila, he gets a factor of 6. Then a few other discrepancies with flow rates > and using thermal mass to underestimate power, and he can get an even bigger > apparent gain. > > > Most of these objections can be avoided. And I've described ways. The > problem is that his later demos were no better than the January demo. > > > > None, beyond massive fully independent confirmation, > > > Or, as I've argued, fully visible. > > > > Now, I've corresponded with scientists at Wikipedia who were actually > skeptical but who did not want to be known as even thinking that cold fusion > might be real, or as willing to look at evidence, they were afraid for their > careers. > > > I agree, this is a problem. Many would simply dismiss the idea and not want > to waste their time. So yes, finding credible experts is a problem. Sending > ecats out under NDAs would be easier, but also not likely to happen. > > > That's why I'm fixated on a completely visual demonstration. Boiling 1000 L > of water in the middle of an open field with nothing but an ecat would > attract attention. The thing about this revolutionary claim is that a visual > demonstration is possible. Why not give one. > > > > Were they fooled? Maybe. Actually, reading Essen and Kullander, they are > pretty careful. They've described appearance, and have not claimed reality. > But, *still*, we have anonymous pseudoskeptics like Cude claiming > gullibility and even possible collusion. > > > On the crucial question of dry steam, they claimed it was dry based on two > visual inspections and measurements of relative humidity. That claim is not > believable, and I don't care what that says about Essen and Kullander. The > dry steam makes a 6-fold difference in energy; how can they be so sloppy > about determining it? On the other hand, the temperature is not expected to > change during that 6-fold increase in power, and yet they measure it every > few seconds. That's just a bad experiment. > > > > > There are two things to keep in mind about Cude. First of all, he's > obviously certain about what is not possible, which is not a scientific > position, it's a religious belief. > > > Wrong. I have specified the experiment that would be convincing of excess > heat. I don't think there is an experiment that would convince some CF > advocates that they are wrong. > > > > Well, let's put it this way: they were inadequate as proof. > > > Right, > > > > And from what I can tell, that's exactly what Rossi wants at this time. > > > Fine. But I if even Rossi agrees that his demos don't give evidence of > excess heat, why exactly should I think there is excess heat? > > > > Fraud? Maybe. It's looking really unlikely to me, but "really unlikely" > is not "impossible." What I know is that LENR is possible, that's not in > question, > > > Hmm. I thought you said belief like this is not a scientific position. It's > religious. A little bit of the pot calling the kettle black. > > > >> No. He talked to them. He read their interviews, and what they wrote. He > probably got the sense that they were prepared to believe that the output > flow of mist and steam was pure vapour. He might have gotten a gentleman's > agreement that they would accept the experimental setup as it was, and > simply read the meters. > > > > Basically, Cude can speculate and speculate and create whatever story out > of these speculations he wants. > > > I agree this is all speculation. And unimportant. You goad me into > speculating and second-guessing people's motives, when all I'm interested in > is evidence. Which is still absent. > > > > And this logic can be used to reject *any* evidence that would counter > the held belief. > > > Again, I'm not rejecting evidence based on any of this speculation. I'm > simply saying as you did, the proof is not adequate. Until it's adequate, I > will remain skeptical. > > > > Just consider this: if he does a bulletproof, conclusive demo, he would > attract, to his competitors, who would exponentially multiply, large venture > funding. It would be a crash program to do what he did, and patent first. > > > Probably right. Doesn't change the fact that a conclusive demo has not been > done, and so I have no reason to conclude there is excess heat. Sorry, > Rossi's word doesn't wash. > > > > In other words, Cude, and those like him, are demanding that Rossi commit > economic suicide. > > > Please. I'm not demanding anything. I'm just saying I won't believe a claim > without evidence. And having fun doing it. > > > But I don't think you're right that it would be economic suicide. I think > it would be, as it was for the Wrights, the dawning of the Rossi age of > energy. He would rich, famous, and loved all over the world. > > > > > Pons and Fleischmann bypassed normal protocols by announcing with a press > conference, but, when a discovery can have major economic impact, that's > actually fairly common. What was the rush to rejection? > > > > Look, it's obvious. Would Cude come up with the possible explanations > himself? I'm not holding my breath. > > > If you're hinting at a conspiracy, you're right, I don't believe it for a > minute. Cheap, clean, and abundant energy would benefit everyone but oil > barons, and even they could easily get in on it. The US government in > particular, since P&F were in the US, stood to benefit strategically from > eliminating the dependence on foreign oil; environmentally from fewer oil > spills and smog and acid rain… , not to mention CO2; and economically from > selling the technology, and saving money not having to drill baby drill (not > to mention the costs of pollution). No, a conspiracy theory is just stupid. > Sorry. > > > >> The Wright Brothers were very secretive, avoiding the press and others, > limiting the photographs, until they had an offer on the table. But after > the first *obvious* public demonstrations in 1908, "the Wright brothers > catapulted to world fame overnight". The demonstration did not rely on > experts' testimonies, or invitee's accounts. Anyone who wanted could witness > it with their own eyes. > > > > There were prior eyewitness accounts that were disregarded. Sure, > eventually it broke through. > > > Yes. Limited eye witness accounts of rather less impressive demos. So > people remained skeptical of the Wright Brothers' success. But notably, not > of the principle of heavier-than-air flight. Apart from a very few skeptics > of the time, most scientists believed it was inevitable. It violated no > fundamental principles or theories. After all, birds are heavier than air. > > > When the Wrights made it obvious, and openly public, then people believed > not just in flight, but in the Wrights. > > > Rossi, if his claims are true, is at the position to make it obvious and > openly public. But he hasn't. And this is for a phenomenon that is not > believed to be inevitable, but highly unlikely. And so, people remain > skeptical. > > > > > Yes. I'm confident about that. > > > Again. Religiously. > > > > >[after I cited Cook] > > > > Any scientist who points out the real situation about cold fusion[…] is > suspect. "Sympathetic to CF," which, presumably, disqualifies him, since > anyone sympathetic to CF is a lunatic believer, Q.E.D. > > > You said he didn't have a history as an advocate. I was just pointing out > that he was on record from the start as sympathetic. That means he's got a > little pride to protect. > > > But the point of this was to counter my claim that CF is rejected within > the scientific community in general. One example of a psychologist who says > it could be real doesn't really contradict the point. > > > > Yes, this guy is multidisciplinary. Just note that he was publishing in > nuclear physics in 1989. Linus Pauling wrote about Vitamin C. Does that cast > doubt on his chemistry? > > > Bad example. Pauling should have stuck to his field. His meanderings about > vitamin C were nutty, and have been widely discredited. > > > > > In a way that fits neatly into what exists. Grad students who make > ground-breaking discoveries that contradict previous paradigms don't > generally get their PhD based on this. > > > Any examples of grad students who did this and did not get PhDs based on > it? And spare me the CF example until CF is accepted in the mainstream. > > > >> After all, a few Nobel prizes have been awarded for graduate work, > including those awarded to Mossbauer, Josephson, and de Broglie. > > > > yeah, but it's rare. > > > Because it's rare that graduate students do work worthy of the prize. > > > >> And my attitude toward CF is shared by the likes of Gell-Mann, Glashow, > Weinberg, and so on. The Nobel committee clearly feels their level of > understanding is solid. > > > > understanding of what? > > > Of nuclear physics and quantum mechanics. > > > > This is really weird, you know. Cude will discount Josephson, I'm sure, > and he'll also discount Schwinger and Ramsey, because they are or were > "sympathetic to cold fusion," > > > I already have in the first two cases. Josephson because of his paranormal > leanings, Schwinger because he was old and his CF papers were rejected by > APS journals. I'm not aware of Ramsey's support for CF, other than his > insistence that the 1989 panel soften its criticism. He's a nice guy. So > what? > > > > Okay, I'd love to see their attitude, where is it expressed? > > > > This is classic Cude, again, make a strong claim with no evidence > whatever. What did those eminent scientists say, and when, and what was it > based on. > > > They vote with their feet. The unanimity of scientists' skepticism about CF > is expressed by the fact that they don't work on it. But for the specific > names: > > > Murray Gell-Mann at a public forum (lecture at Portland State University in > 1998): > > “It’s a bunch of baloney. Cold fusion is theoretically impossible, and > there are no experimental findings that indicate it exists” > > > Sheldon Glashow in an interview somewhere: > > Devins: I guess there are stories where people don’t do that too, but those > are not the ones that advance science. > > Glashow: Yeah, there’s cold fusion, there’s the French story about n-rays, > which is a long story about something which doesn’t exist. > > > Steven Weinberg: The evidence for all these miracles seems to me to be > considerably weaker than the evidence for cold fusion, and I don't believe > in cold fusion. > > > > >> Scientists do, yes. But this does not describe most of the CF advocates, > who most certainly accept what they think is known with fervent belief. > > > > There are people like that, I think. I just don't know any, among the > major CF researchers. "Fervent belief" is a very personal opinion, unless > you have a fervent-beliefometer. > > > Your opinion is that my belief is religious, and mine is that yours is. > Neither of us have a meter for the purpose. > > > But I am prepared to admit the possibility of CF, and in fact was hopeful > for it after P&F, and have described an experiment that would merit full > blown investigation into CF. > > > You, and others, have claimed absolute certainty about CF. Can you describe > an experiment (in more than vague terms) that would get you to admit it is > not real? > > > >This, again, is characteristic of pseudoskeptics: make up presumably > negative psychological states and ascribe them to anyone who disagrees with > them. > > > Between you and me, who has done this repeatedly, in every post? Hint: It's > you. > > > > However, what I'm seeing is that Cude is describing himeslf, he is a > fervent believer in the impossibility of cold fusion. > > > Nope. Just its unlikelihood. Extreme unlikelihood. > > > > Without evidence, all that he can come up with is alleged "absence of > evidence," > > > That's really all that's possible to deny the existence of something. > > > > The day of reckoning is coming. > > > Don't make it sound like a threat. I'd be every bit as thrilled as you if > CF turns out to be real. I shudder at the legacy of climate change we are > leaving to our descendants. And I hate paying for gas. > > -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
