No time to study the literature but time to nagger and flood forums all day with messages.
2011/11/13 Mary Yugo <maryyu...@gmail.com> > 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) >
