I should add that I don't have the training or experience to take the lead on such an effort. I am just a basically competent writer with an interest in the subject matter.
Jeff On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 11:11 AM, Jeff Berkowitz <[email protected]> wrote: > For the technical reader, this has already been done, here: > http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEstatusofcoa.pdf > > I would be interested in cooperating to put something aimed at > non-technical readers together. > > Jeff > > > On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 11:06 AM, Mark Gibbs <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I don't have the time to review the huge amount of literature you people >> have already looked at ... if any of you, Rothwell included, would like to >> help build a list of successful experiments I'd be happy to build it into >> an article with full attribution to all contributors. I'd like to see a >> list that includes: >> >> - where >> - when >> - technology >> - run time >> - COP >> - experimenters and affiliations >> - observers and affiliations >> - references >> >> I think such a list would be very useful in public discussions about the >> reality of cold fusion. >> >> [mg] >> >> >> On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 10:20 AM, Jeff Berkowitz <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> Good question Peter. I've been wondering something similar, just >>> slightly more specific. Ni-H has gotten a lot of attention lately. But what >>> sequence of Pd-D experiments over the years was most significant to the >>> "...slow erosion of the psuedoskeptic position..." that Abd described in >>> email to the group some time back? >>> >>> Possible answer - "read the Storms 2010 summary paper and follow his >>> references" ? Or is there a shorter / more specific / different answer? >>> >>> Jeff >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 9:54 AM, Peter Gluck <[email protected]>wrote: >>> >>>> Dear Jed, >>>> >>>> Which experiment of all (except the 1kW Patterson Cell) >>>> was the best ever? >>>> >>>> Peter >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 7:35 PM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]>wrote: >>>> >>>>> Sigh . . . Another ignorant article by Gibbs. >>>>> >>>>> Here is what I just wrote in the Forbes article comment section: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The author wrote: "Even so, the Defkalion tests were, as far as any >>>>> cold fusion experiment performed to date has gone, the best so far and >>>>> they were witnessed by someone who is, for want of a better description, a >>>>> serious scientist." >>>>> >>>>> This statement is preposterous. Cold fusion has been replicated in >>>>> hundreds of major laboratories, in thousands of test runs. Many of these >>>>> runs were far better than the Defkalion tests witnessed by Nelson. Many of >>>>> these other tests have been witnessed by world-class experts in >>>>> calorimetry, such Robert Duncan of U. Missouri. This was shown in "60 >>>>> Minutes." >>>>> >>>>> The Defkalion tests were not bad, but tests at SRI, Los Alamos, BARC, >>>>> China Lake and other major laboratories used much better equipment and >>>>> produced much larger signal to noise ratios. In some of these other tests >>>>> the ratio of input to output was larger than Defkalion's, and in some >>>>> there >>>>> was no input, so the ratio was infinite. >>>>> >>>>> Hundreds of mainstream, peer-reviewed journal papers have been >>>>> published describing experiments more convincing than the Defkalion tests. >>>>> Gibbs is ignoring this peer-reviewed literature and looking instead at few >>>>> preliminary documents published on the Internet. He is ignoring the gold >>>>> standard of established science. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> - Jed >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Dr. Peter Gluck >>>> Cluj, Romania >>>> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com >>>> >>>> >>> >> >
