Mark, why don't you ask and quote some who actually understand cold
fusion, like myself? I realize you consider me a believer. However,
have you considered why I have this belief? It is not based on my
imagination or on a pathology. It is based on the fact that I have
read and studied all of the published papers, I have run hundreds of
studies of the effect, many of which showed clear evidence, I have
discussed the subject with many people who also have seen the effect,
and I have a background in both materials science and nuclear
physics. Surely, this experience is more important than the opinion
of someone who has no idea what has been observed and a limited
education in the required science.
Ed Storms
On May 30, 2013, at 11:48 AM, James Bowery wrote:one
As Norman Ramsey pointed out in his preamble to the DoE's original
review of cold fusion: "However, even a single short but valid cold
fusion period would be revolutionary."
We are so far beyond that benchmark as to render Mark's criterion
absurd.
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 12:36 PM, Ruby <[email protected]> wrote:
Mark Gibbs writes:
"You completely miss my point … Ruby’s argument dimisses Ethan’s
argument by simply saying “you’re wrong” and citing experimental
evidence that isn’t accepted outside of the LENR community. You’re
right, experiment trumps theory but only when you have an experiment
that can be replicated and has unarguable results. Unless I
misunderstand, the catalog of successful LENR experiments doesn’t
include one that you could hand to Ethan and say “here you go, try
it, it works.”
No, Mark, I am not saying simply "you're wrong" to Siegel.
We have experimental results that do not fit the Standard Model of
conventional nuclear theory first formulated a century ago.
Siegel is saying that this Standard Model rules today. It doesn't,
and the experimental evidence proves it.
On 5/30/13 10:33 AM, Ruby wrote:
Yes, thank you Mark. I agree with Jed.
Mark Gibbs is wrong in his reasoning
It should be clear that there are experimental results that have no
confirmed model to explain them.
This is the history of revolutionary science, which Gibbs should be
aware of.
On 5/30/13 8:27 AM, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote:
Ruby:
I don’t think Jed was criticizing your statement,
"Cold fusion has no definitive theory – as yet, but the
experimental evidence is overwhelming: anomalous heat and
transmutations can occur within metallic-hydrides systems
contained in small cells that sit on a table-top"
it was Gibbs’ statement after it which was:
“Unfortunately that’s not a sound argument…”
Jed rightfully criticizes Gibbs’ statement because it implies that
without a definitive theory, experimental evidence has little
weight.
It is a sore point with all LENR followers because it is the
opposite of what science is all about; if repeatable experimental
evidence contradicts theory, then theory may need to be revised/
replaced.
Keep up the fight!
-Mark Iverson
From: Ruby [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 8:14 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Gibbs: Rossi's A Fraud! No, He's Not! Yes, He
Is! No, He Isn't!
I wrote that quote...
"Cold fusion has no definitive theory – as yet, but the
experimental evidence is overwhelming: anomalous heat and
transmutations can occur within metallic-hydrides systems
contained in small cells that sit on a table-top"
http://coldfusionnow.org/discovery-news-misinforms-on-cold-fusion-again/
.. and stand by it.--
Ruby Carat
[email protected]
Skype ruby-carat
www.coldfusionnow.org
--
Ruby Carat
[email protected]
United States 1-707-616-4894
Skype ruby-carat
www.coldfusionnow.org
