I have had it with Mary Yugo. She wrote: 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? >
No, you look for helium, transmutations and tritium. Neutrons are very rare and may be anti-correlated with heat. Again, if you would take the time to read the literature you would know that. > 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. > Okay. You don't have time to do your homework and learn something about this subject. Yet you do have time to write many messages full of ignorant mistakes. I do not mind answering people who are struggling to understand this subject, or who do not know which paper to look at for some detail. There are thousands of papers, and they are tedious to read. But this is willful, aggressive ignorance. Refusing to look. That is unacceptable to me. I will not take the time to respond to you if this is how you are going to act. You remind me of a creationist who thinks that evolutionary theory has never tried to explain how the eye evolved. This is gross ignorance. Darwin himself explained this, when he introduced the theory, in chapter 6. A creationist who wishes to join a biology discussion group may disagree with Darwin’s explanation, but he has an obligation to read the literature and learn what the claims are. Otherwise his "critiques" are assertions that everyone else knows are wrong. All of you statements about cold fusion are wrong. You are ignorant. If you are not even going to take the trouble to read the foundations of this field, do not presume to critique it. All the problems and weaknesses you imagine you have discovered were answered in the literature 20 years ago. If you do not wish to do your homework and learn something about this subject, fair enough, but in that case, you should not expect other people to take you seriously. Since this is your announced policy, I shall ignore you. Sorry but I looked at a couple of papers your referred me early on in our > discussions and I couldn't understand them. > If you do not understand them then I suggest you refrain from critiquing them. There was no clear plot of anomalous energy vs time for long period and > high outputs. > That is incorrect. As you say, you did not understand them. > Anything else claimed, at the moment, sorry but I have no interest. > You cannot understand this field by reading a few papers. You cannot ignore the bulk of the evidence. You have make a systematic effort and read a lot. It is okay that you "have no interest" but that means you have no knowledge. > Sorry. I was under the impression that neutrons are expected in many cold > fusion reactions. > Another misunderstanding. The literature I've seen is very convoluted, unclear and tedious. > Yes. Original source, cutting-edge science is like that. Very unclear and tedious. Lots of work. If you don't want to do the work, don't ask me and others to spoon-feed you the information, and don't expect anyone to take your views seriously. > I want some robust results in a form that make them clear and obvious. > Read McKubre of Fleischmann. When we have such results on an industrial scale, you will find them in textbooks. You are saying you will only be interested in cold fusion after it succeeds. Do you really think nobody but a small body of adherents wants inexpensive > bountiful power free of oil cartels and Arab sheiks? > Are you suggesting that only a small number of people read cold fusion papers? Readers at LENR-CANR.org have downloaded over 2 million papers. As you yourself have noted, reading these papers is tedious, hard work. That is rather a large number of people willing to make the effort to understand the subject. > 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. > That is difficult to do when the Washington Post, the Sci. Am., Fox News and others often print articles claiming that the research is criminal fraud and lunacy. That puts a damper on research grant applications and proposals to venture capitalists. > 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 reasons cold fusion does not get money are not disputed. They are right out in the open. You can find them in the mass media, or any of dozens of statements made by Park. Cold fusion is not funded because opponents claim that all cold fusion researchers are criminals, frauds and lunatics. No technical reasons have been offered. If I thought the researchers were criminals and lunatics, I would probably oppose any funding myself. You are guessing, whereas I know for a fact that applications for grants and discussions with VCs often end abruptly because the people involved cite the Washington Post and other mass media claiming that the research is fraud. Grants are also derailed when Robert Park finds out about them, and pulls strings. He is not the only one, but he is one of a small number of powerful people in the scientific establishment who go to great lengths to prevent government agencies and venture capitalists from investing in this research. It is fortunate that DARPA does not listen to him. He and some others are very upset by that. They would fire the decision makers who allow funding if they could. That's what Park says, and I am sure he means it. - Jed
