Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <[email protected]> wrote:
> Some of Abd's fond hopes will not be realized. Trying to get cold fusion >> researchers to cooperate is like herding cats. >> > > That's been said. It's what I'll call a story, and stories are neither > true nor false. It is not a story. It is my personal experience, over many years. I collected and edited the papers for ICCF conference proceedings 9, 10, 11, 12 and 14. Getting these people to cooperate to the extent of turning in papers in electronic format within a year of a conference is like pulling teeth. I cannot imagine getting them to share results. Many of them are in feuds with others, and will hardly speak to one-another, never mind cooperating in technical tasks. > Well, that depends on how much evidence one needs. I'll agree that excess > heat evidence was conclusive by the time that Miles did his helium work, > but that didn't establish "nuclear." I think the tritium established "nuclear" beyond any doubt. However, as I said, it does not seem to correlate with anything. It does not shed much light on the mechanism, I gather. And that is precisely the problem. The levels of tritium were way too low, > so those measurements were suspicious. There was no reason to be suspicious of the measurements. The levels were too low to account for the heat, or worse counter-correlated with heat. But they were far above the levels needed to be sure the measurements were real, and not an instrument artifact. 'Cause tritium is real easy to detect with confidence. - Jed
