Hmm, I will have to look into this that you are describing. I can see
how both issues could relate.
My thesis so far is that it was the MIT and Caltech negative results
which most influenced the APS, Nature magazine, the DoE report, and
subsequently the USPTO. Both public and private investment were nixed.
Those were the pivotal "actions", or figures, that expressed the
rejection. But the "ground" was, as it always is, the powerful draw of
an existing paradigm.
As the premier science institutions, MIT and Caltech had (have) the
power to sway policy, and they did. Their attitudes, and hasty
experiments, operated from a particular scientific paradigm where,
"Everything [they] knew as a physicist, ...everything [they] knew about
nuclear theory" (-Glenn Seaborg), told them cold fusion was impossible.
Some people can only go so far.
On 10/16/13 5:51 PM, James Bowery wrote:
Baudette's claim that the problem was primarily one of difference in
scientific protocol between chemistry and physics must be respected
given the depth of his research, however, he, himself, points to
events like Oriani's rejection by the American editors of Nature early
in 1990 as pivotal -- and I just can't believe that scientific
protocol in physics demanded that kind of behavior. He should be
confronted with that contradiction.
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 7:32 PM, Ruby <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Thank you James. I would love to talk with Charles Beaudette and I
will try to do that.
He was at ICCF-18 and I wanted to talk with him, but
unfortunately, since we ended up filming the entire set of
lectures, the interviews were severely impacted.
--
Ruby Carat
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
Skype ruby-carat
www.coldfusionnow.org <http://www.coldfusionnow.org>
