interesting you quote semiconductors, because LENr and semiconductors look very similar in behavior, and in quantum nature. Mess in the lattice. unreliable components at the beginning. ignored results at the beginning, assumed experimental errors discarded
My school was training us to make a MsC in microelectronics, but i choose parallel and distributed IT... this is why I found in 92-93 a big archive on pre-web internet FTP site, with abstract about cold fusion (don't remember how I fall on that). I have no prejudice of Cf since I did not heard of it before. After printing a thousand pages and reading the abstracts, It got clear : - that there was interesting results - that the critics have no substance, or have been addressed since long. - that it was respecting physics, TD laws, and probably standard QM, yet absolutely no theory was credible (there was very few) for the rest i'm very conservative about science, about QM, TD laws, abuse of modeling (guess why), abuse of theoretical arguments, abuse of consensus, abuse of politics... This is why I don't understand why CF is rejected, and not many stupidities, false consensus, false alerts, that pollute the science landscape and the media... and French SciAm even a little... 2012/10/31 <pagnu...@htdconnect.com> > From the references Alain posted earlier in the thread, it looks like > conformity trumps everything. It must be in our genes - dissidents are > probably at a Darwinian disadvantage. Violating the pecking order is a > career-ender, for sure. > > The case of Stanley Ovshinsky, inventor of amorphous semiconductors is > instructive - > > "In 1960, he and his beloved second wife, Iris, scraped together some > savings and started a business called Energy Conversion Devices. Mr. > Ovshinsky soon created a stir by asserting that everything science knew > about semiconductors was wrong. The scientific establishment ignored him, > or wrote him off with scathing contempt. > Finally, a renowned physicist at MIT tested his theory. Stunned, the > physicist proclaimed that Mr. Ovshinsky was right." > > > http://www.toledoblade.com/JackLessenberry/2012/10/26/How-Stan-Ovshinsky-left-the-world-a-better-place.html > > - fortunately someone actually tested his theory. > > It is really discouraging how many science writers quickly joined the > anti-LENR/CF feeding frenzy by essentially only dutifully parroting the > establishment line. BTW, regurgitating the establishment party-line > seems to be the exclusive modus operandi of political journalists now, > so maybe physics is not so different. > > -- Lou Pagnucco > > Eric Walker wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 12:27 PM, <pagnu...@htdconnect.com> wrote: > > > > (3) the power of conformity, and fear of ostracism, completely prevents > >> university experimentation. > >> > > > > I am not an academic, so I can only discuss what I observe from the > > outside. But I suspect the pressure on academics is intense not to do > > things that will pigeonhole them as eccentrics or mavericks. It is not > > difficult to imagine that for all but the brightest the incentives for > > avoiding these labels include the possibility of getting tenure at a > > second- or first-tier institution. Even in cases of scientists whose > > previous work has been acknowledged as groundbreaking, it is all too easy > > for them to fall from grace later on -- Brian Josephson and David Bohm > > come > > to mind. Both now probably generate smirks among other scientists. One > > sees from time to time the recurring theme of the formidable scientist > who > > goes on to lose his grasp of reality. This seems to be something that is > > expected of a certain percentage of academics, and therefore a trap for > > the > > scientist to be especially wary of. Reputation is everything. > > > > If Peter Hagelstein was accurately quoted in saying that the mainstream > > scientific community is a close-minded mafia, I can see why he would > think > > this. None of this is to say that scientists aren't doing some amazing > > work; only that the criteria used by many for assessing new developments > > seem to be off. > > > > Eric > > > > >
