Mary Yugo is right that SPAWAR indeed made much in recent years of claimed evidence for neutron emission for D-Pd codeposition in lithium sulfate electrolyte -- no reports of replication by independent lab attempts in the Galileo Project, as reported in great detail on Krivit's site -- as usual, the many SPAWAR reports have failed to result in any forward evolution of the technology, with no reproduction of excess heat, radiations, or transmutations by independent labs.
Extraordinary Error -- no electric field exists inside a conducting liquid in an insulated box with two external charged metal plates, re work by SPAWAR on cold fusion since 2002 -- also hot spots from H and O microbubbles: Rich Murray 2010.02.22 http://rmforall.blogspot.com/2010/02/extraordinary-error-no-electric-field.html http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/astrodeep/message/42 On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 11:40 PM, Mary Yugo <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 8:38 PM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]>wrote: > >> >> >> On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 10:33 PM, Mary Yugo <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> Yes, I think most experts would say they do. >>>> >>> >>> That I would like to know more about. It should be easy to show -- add >>> the catalyst and get evidence for a nuclear reaction namely neutrons and/or >>> radiation. >>> >> >> This test will not work. Cold fusion does not produce neutrons and it >> seldom produces radiation. I have told you that before. If you do not >> believe me, please review the literature on your own. >> > > Well that's inconvenient, isn't it? So we just look for anomalous heat > and nothing else? How about "products of reaction"? You know -- like the > ones that were *not* found when a sample of Rossi's "ash" analyzed in > Sweden turned out to have the same ratio of copper isotopes as is found in > ordinary mined copper? > > >> I think most readers here are familiar with the literature. Please do not >> make assertions about cold fusion that all readers here know to be >> incorrect. This is not a beginner's forum. Beginners should read the >> introductory papers by Storms at LENR-CANR.org, or the first chapter of my >> book. >> > > Please don't be patronizing. I already admitted I know little about the > whole field of cold fusion and I do not have the time to study it until it > is robustly proven and much better accepted by "mainstream" science > publications. I do follow Rossi because the claim is incredibly > extravagant, the style is flamboyant yet furtive and evasive, and nothing > the guy does makes sense. That's interesting and fun for me. > > > Run the same way without the catalyst and the evidence of nuclear >>> reaction disappears. Someone has done that? Can you provide a link or >>> citation? >>> >> >> Of course. Hundreds of researchers have done that. Typically they run Pt >> instead of Pd, or H instead of D (with Pd). If you did not know that, you >> need to read the literature. >> > > Sorry but I looked at a couple of papers your referred me early on in our > discussions and I couldn't understand them. There was no clear plot of > anomalous energy vs time for long period and high outputs. Anything else > claimed, at the moment, sorry but I have no interest. > > > Please avoid trying to read my mind. I would be totally, completely and >>> unequivocally delighted if cold fusion turns out to be feasible and >>> substantial. >>> >> >> I doubt that. Every expert I know -- except for Britz -- who has looked >> carefully at the evidence was convince that cold fusion is real. You say it >> is not real. It is difficult not to read your mind. You almost force me to >> suppose: >> > > You can doubt my veracity but unless you're psychic, you won't know what > I'm thinking. And nobody as far as I know has ever demonstrated psychic > powers. So basically, you're just calling me liar. Nice. I'll tell you > again: I fervently hope cold fusion is real and gets robustly developed. > I will jump up and down with joy the day it happens. Even if it's Rossi > that does it although I will still dislike the guy for all the garbage he's > done while developing it. > > > You are no expert despite the fact that you say you have worked with >> calorimeters. I doubt that. >> > > No expert in what? I helped to design a family of specialized Seebeck > effect calorimeters similar or identical to the device you bought for > Storms. I didn't do the basic design of the sensing elements -- I was > involved in other aspects of design and testing for end users. I don't > know calorimeters? Calorimetry? Of course I do. Very very well. With > all your references to boilers and HVAC systems and the similarities you > suggest between that technology and what is needed to test Rossi's > machines, I am starting to doubt that you understand calorimetry though at > one time, I thought you did. > > OR >> >> You refuse to look at the evidence, despite all the effort you put into >> writing these messages and campaigning against cold fusion on the Internet. >> > > Once and for all, I am not in any way, shape or form campaigning against > cold fusion ANYWHERE. Show me exactly where I am or where I did and > exactly how I did it or please don't mention that again. I am campaigning > for proper testing and proper critiques of Rossi's machines and Rossi's > tests and claims instead of the fawning acceptance and undeserved praise > and adulation he has gotten from too many people without proper evidence. > If you want to raise objections to that, please feel free to justify it. > > > It seems extraordinary to me that someone who expends so much effort on >> the subject knows practically nothing about cold fusion. In this very >> message you claim that cold fusion produces neutrons and radiation, even >> though I have told you many times that they do not. Either you are >> being disingenuous or you cannot bring yourself to study or remember * >> anything* about this subject, even the ABC's that have been common >> knowledge for 22 years! >> > > Sorry. I was under the impression that neutrons are expected in many cold > fusion reactions. If not, why all the fuss when SPAWAR said (probably > erroneously) that they had detected them on CR39 detectors? Contrary to > your assumption, I don't spend a lot of effort on cold fusion. I have > expended a reasonable amount, first trying to understand how Rossi's claims > could be justified and more recently insisting that they be properly tested > before the man is treated like some sort of scientific savior and saint. > Have you read his blog? People write him about how he will get not one but > two Nobel prizes. > > >> A person who spends years writing about something yet who does not know >> the first thing about it in denial. Strongly in denial. That is a sign of a >> person who does not want to know. Who cannot face facts. That is >> not characteristic of someone who would be "delighted" to be proven wrong. >> If you were the least bit delighted at that prospect, you would read the >> literature to find out if there is some tantalizing hope the claims might >> be true. You would acquire some basic knowledge of the phenomenon. Instead, >> you are aggressively ignorant, to the point where you repeatedly ask >> questions about things that everyone knows. >> > > The literature I've seen is very convoluted, unclear and tedious. I want > some robust results in a form that make them clear and obvious. I thought > that's what Rossi had originally but any thoughts in that direction were > rapidly dissipated when I looked closely. > > >> Robert Park is the same way, by the way. He brags to people that he has >> never read a single paper on cold fusion. I am sure he has read nothing, >> because his books and his columns about it are grossly ignorant. >> > > I don't brag about not reading much about cold fusion. If I had nothing > else to do, it would be on my list even though the little I saw I either > didn't grasp or it didn't impress me. I don't know much about Park. I > know more about Randi and have worked with him on a few projects (not Rossi > though). He is abrasive and he can be petulant but he sure makes some > fantastic contributions to the defeat of "woo". > > > As for destroying reputations, nothing restores them more than a few good >>> experiments with convincing results and reliable data subject to >>> replication by others. >>> >> >> That is nonsense. Hundreds of impeccable, irrefutable cold fusion >> experiments have been published and replicated. That has had no effect on >> public opinion. Park says he will never read any of those papers because he >> is sure they are nonsense, lies and fraud. That's what he told McKubre, and >> me. Heck, *you* have not read them, or you have forgotten everything >> they say. >> > > Now isn't that strange? Park won't read some papers therefore hundreds of > impeccable and irrefutable papers are ignored by everyone everywhere except > enthusiasts? How does that work? Do you really think nobody but a small > body of adherents wants inexpensive bountiful power free of oil cartels and > Arab sheiks? > > When Park, or the people at the DoE refuse to look at the evidence, they >> cannot be swayed. >> > > So go to other people and ignore DoE and Park. Who cares about them. Get > funding from rich people and foundations if you have to. If your stuff is > convincing, they'll give. I think you complain too much. If cold fusion > doesn't get money, maybe there is a valid reason. I don't know that there > is but I'm guessing it's true. > > >> The history of science and technology is chock full of people who >> refused to look. >> > > Indeed. Next time you get a chance, take a particularly good look at > Andrea Rossi and his methodology. Our arguments go far afield from that > issue and it's the main issue that interests me along with execrable > reporting by Craig Brown, Sterling Allan and Hank Mills that seriously > needs to be addressed. > > >
