On Aug 31, 2011, at 1:45 PM, Joe Catania wrote:
You're the one that believes they are demonstrations. I stated they
were not. Yiu also failed to convince anyone they were (but did
try). Why you believe in this nonsense is beyond me. Did Rossi make
a large cash contribution? I sense much academic dishonesty in you.
Feeble puffs of condensed water out of Rossi's hose were his
undoing and has turned CF back into the farse you're tryig to
convince us it isn't. Apparently you aren't even up to the challenge.
Cold fusion is a serious scientific issue. Surely any scientist who
spends sufficient time reviewing the LENR literature, e.g.:
http://www.lenr-canr.org/
realizes there is an abundance of evidence from highly credible
scientists indicating anomalous behavior of matter when hydrogen is
absorbed. There can be no doubt at this point there is important
knowledge to be gained from study in the field. Considering research
in the field is such small science, compared to Mars missions,
supercolliders, and tokamaks, and considering there is so much
potential for humanity:
http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJcoldfusiona.pdf
the potential cost/benefit of research in this field makes funding it
highly justified on a scientific research basis.
I have seen no public evidence provided that indicates CF is ready
for commercialization, for commercial investment with the expectation
of quick profits. Others may disagree of course.
Rossi is not engaged in serious science. He is engaged in a business
venture. His integrity is possibly not that of a scientist. He could
indeed set the field back seriously. This does not make CF a farce
any more than one bad cop makes law enforcement a farce.
What would make the field a farce is the blind acceptance by everyone
in the field of any claim anyone in the field makes. This is
certainly not what happens in the case of LENR theory! I don't know
of any two serious theorists that agree! We who work in the field
have the obligation to be our own harshest critics. We also have some
obligation to examine whatever evidence is put forth, pro and con,
and make an effort to logically determine its truth, meaning,
relevance, and implications. It seems to me this group does a pretty
good job of this, and not just for LENR, but for anomalous science in
general. It is a great place to hang out. You never know for sure
what you are going to see going on here when you get up in the morning.
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
