At 12:31 PM 12/18/2011, Mary Yugo wrote:
I also noted that Rossi's modus operandi is in virtually EVERY WAY analogous to some recent flagrant scams involving investor (not customer) fraud. That's not guilt by association -- as far as I know, Rossi is not associated with any of the people I mentioned. It's an objective, independent and accurate set of observations -- something Rossi and other cold fusion proponents should try sometime.
I have not read everything Mary has written here, but from what I've seen, almost all of her criticism has been directed at some very obvious problems with the Rossi claims. Jed, you have previously stated that you have private information on which you base your conclusions as to the reality of Rossi. Please cut the rest of us some slack! We have no way of knowing if your private information is sound, or if you have been misled, or if you have drawn unsound conclusions from what you know.
Mary, my big concern, expressed here and privately to LENR researchers, was that lack of caution with regard to Rossi's claims could damage the field by association. I'm still concerned about that. If Rossi's claims prove to be founded, it's all over, LENR is established, though the Rossi approach obviously would involve a different mechanism than those normally proposed for other LENR of the Pons-Fleischmann type.
There has been sober review of LENR claims, and, over the last five years or so, the extreme skeptical position ("Impossible!") has totally disappeared from peer-reviewed literature in relevant fields. The physicists have normally asserted a kind of primacy here, but cold fusion is a cross-disciplinary field, since the techniques involve chemistry and techniques familiar to chemists, such as electrolysis and reaction calorimetry.
The status has long been that the majority opinion among physicists has been "this cannot be nuclear physics," and the predominant position among chemists, especially electrochemists, has been "this cannot be chemistry." I was aware of the flap in 1989, and had assumed, from what ensued, that it was all a mistake, until quite recently I had occasion to review the literature.
It wasn't a mistake, the majority opinion among experts, my estimate, is now that there is anomalous heat being generated. It's not artifact, or if it is, it is one very unusual and very unexpected artifact, one that can baffle experts in calorimetry.
In 1989, the DoE review concluded that more research was needed. That, however, was probably a political compromise. In 2004, it was the unanimous opinion of the reviewers. Politics, however, has still effectively continued to suppress research.
Those reviews have been presented by skeptics as having "rejected" cold fusion. That's not the case, but it takes a careful study of the reports, which are available, to see this. What's clear, though, is the recommendation for research. That isn't done for a field that is clearly bogus.
I've studied the 2004 report, and have concluded that the review paper failed to adequately communicate the primary evidence that, not only are nuclear reactions taking place, but the ash is helium. That paper was written by researchers who wrote it in academic fashion, not as polemic. They did present most of the evidence for the heat/helium correlation, but it was confused by a confusing appendix, and at least one reviewer and the bureaucrat who summarized the reviews, both of them, radically misinterpreted the appendix, turning what was very strong evidence for heat & helium, into the opposite, anti-correlation.
Huizenga, the co-chair of the first DoE review in 1989, called Cold fusion "The Scientific Fiasco of the Century," as the title of his book. He was right. It's an amazing story of the breakdown of scientific protocols and traditions. It is as if polywater and N-rays had been rejected only on theoretical grounds, without ever identifying the artifacts behind those erroneous claims.
There is anomalous heat, and helium is being generated correlated with that heat. There are disagreements over the heat/helium ratio, and the measurement is difficult, but it's been quite adequately confirmed to establish the correlation within about a factor of two of the value expected from deuterium fusion.
LENR researchers are more inclined than other scientists to accept Rossi's claims because they know that LENR is generally possible. However, as I pointed out, "possible" does not establish "probable," and there have been lots of red herrings and blind alleys in LENR research. Indeed, if Rossi is a scammer, we would not be surprised to see him taking advantage of a knowledge of possibility.
It's possible that I have a piece of paper purporting to be a deed to the land on which the Brooklyn Bridge sits, eh? I'm offering it for cheap because I need some cash. That's not only possible, it's true! At least about the cash!
