At 09:22 PM 12/30/2012, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <<mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]> wrote:
However, I disagree. I say that observation alone is not enough, and
you can't be sure cold fusion is a real nuclear effect until you
explain it with a theory."
Why speculate that he would say something stupid like that?
Because I have heard it countless times from Piel, Huizenga and Many
Distinguished Scientists, including several of the ones on the 2004
DoE panel, and most of the Jasons. This is a widely held point of view.
That does not mean that Gibbs holds it!
Also because that is what Gibbs is saying when he repeatedly demands
a "testable theory."
Had he "demanded a testable theory" you'd be right. Jed, he did not,
and he denied doing it, and I'm confirming that he didn't demand it.
Why does he need a theory?
He doesn't. He did not say that he did.
Bockris et al. say that with or without a theory cold fusion is
definitely real and revolutionary. They say the performance alone
proves that it may become a practical source of energy. A theory
would not bolster those facts, or make them more certain. So why ask
for one, unless you agree with Piel that any finding not explained
by theory is pathological?
He did not ask for one. Jed, you are reacting to ghosts.
You should understand the other person's point of view. Know what it
is you are disagreeing with.
Yes. Now please demonstrate this skill.
I understand Piel's letter!
This was not about Piel. I did not deny that people demanded theory.
I explicitly acknowledged it, and that still continues with some.
It is unequivocal. He and his successors said the same thing many
times subsequently. I understand Huizenga's book, and the 2004
panel comments to the same effect. Please understand: these people
mean what they say. They reject any finding not explained by
theory. Huizenga rejects any finding that conflicts with theory. He
could not have said it more clearly:
"Furthermore, if the claimed excess heat exceeds that possible by
other conventional processes (chemical, mechanical, etc.), one must
conclude that an error has been made in measuring the excess heat."
Huizenga's book is truly embarrassing.
Not to the ERAB and the DoE! He wrote exactly what they asked him to
write. They agree completely, to this day. Ask any official at the DoE.
Maybe. The DoE may easily be in bed with the hot fusion projects, it
was in 1989. So? Huizenga's book is *still* embarrassing, and is more
and more visible that way.
But he was an old man, and, unfortunately, probably losing it. He
was like a broken record, he kept repeating the same thing over and over.
I met him a few years after he wrote that. He signed my copy of the
book. He was still at the peak of cognitive health. He was, after
all, a distinguished scientist, and a good candidate to lead an
important panel of inquiry. He was no fool, and not in decline. The
only time I ever saw him uncomfortable or unassertive was when the
people from Amoco showed him their results. He turned green and fled
the room! It is a fond memory.
The book -- and that account -- are evidence of decline. Really, the
book is an embarrassment. It's the worst written book of any of the
skeptical works -- by far. Poorly written, highly repetitive.
Self-contradictory, etc. I've spent time with the senile. They often
have heavily ingrained habits that can make them appear quite normal,
friendly, etc. What you saw with the Amoco situation would be how he
responded when he couldn't understand what was happening. He'd flee.
He, Piel, Robert Park and others told me exactly what he wrote in
the book. Chapter and verse. They told that to large audiences at
the APS, and the audience stood up, applauded, and cheered.
Not surprised. Jed, this has *nothing to do with what I wrote about.*
This is NOT a controversial point of view. I am not misinterpreting
it. Huizenga et al. could not say it more clearly. They sincerely
believe that any experimental result which conflicts with
established nuclear theory must be wrong. They believe that no
statement about nature which cannot be fully explained by theory is
pathological science.
You should take them at their word. Don't assume they agree with you
or they have some hidden meaning in mind. They mean exactly what they say.
They did, I assume. And this has *nothing to do with Gibbs.* He's a
writer, and seems to be making an effort to understand the field. It
will take him time. Your activity is forming, for him, an impression
of what workers in the field are like. It's not helping.
