> > 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. >
OK, thanks. I guess in Rossi's case you look for transmutation to copper isotopes. However, the one time this was done, the copper from the "ash" from Rossi's machine had the EXACT isotope ratios that are found in nature. That would be compatible with someone simply seeding the ash with ordinary copper powder -- not with transmutation. > > 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. >> > > ... ... ... > > 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. > By all means ignore me if you prefer. Ignoring the objections to Rossi's claims won't particularly help Rossi. 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. > I understand what a clear plot of robust excess energy vs time for a long time looks like. That's simple and not convoluted and I never found one yet. > > 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. > Again then, why the fuss when SPAWAR announced neutrons? > 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. > There's nothing tedious or unclear about Rossi's claims. That's why I find them interesting. And highly questionable. > > >> 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. > Uh... yes, of course. I have little interest as long as it either fails or is equivocal. > 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. > That's tangential and doesn't answer my question or help your case. > >> 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. > It wouldn't be difficult to do if, like Rossi, you claimed a robust result for a long time ... and it actually happened. It would be extremely easy. The problem isn't a lack of interest or funding. It's a lack of really good clear results. Maybe there's a lot of promising work but nothing like what Rossi claims has been shown by others that I've seen. If you know different, I'd love to see the reports. In clear plots of excess energy with time, robust amounts and long times. I doubt that exists or everyone would know it already. | If I thought the researchers were criminals and lunatics, I would probably oppose any funding myself. I certainly never said anything like that. I said Rossi may be a fraud and acts like one -- not that other researchers in cold fusion were. |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. I know you like to discuss cold fusion in general but I already said I can't do that. I'm happy to read what others here have to say about it. I'm concerned about Rossi, who his supposed client might be, and why he doesn't allow proper tests of his machine. And I don't buy that he doesn't want to look good and shoots himself in the foot deliberately. If that's what he had in mind, why go public to start with? I don't see that proposed explanation at all. (sorry no time to proof read)
