Yes R. A. ORIANI, JOHN C. NELSON, SUNG-KYU LEE, and J. H. BROADHURST University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota are just like Bessler's Wheel crowd:
Conducting a replication of a device's extraordinary effect which they attempted (unlike Nathan Lewis et al) AFTER the publication of the full paper describing the experimental protocol to be replicated, and then submitting a paper on that replication to "Nature" for peer review. The peer reviewers had comments on needed corrections. That right there proves Oriani et al are kooks to anyone in their right mind. No reputable scientist has any second drafts submitted to a journal as prestigious as "Nature" in response to peer review and expects that revised draft to be published. Oh, but Oriani et al were clearly not reputable because they went ahead and provided the corrections, submitted to "Nature" the draft for peer review and the peer reviewers, not realizing they were being "had" by obviously invalid publishing protocol, reviewed the revised draft!! Outrageous. What's even more outrageous is that they not only reviewed it -- they passed it on to the editors of "Nature" to publish! We can all be grateful to the editors of "Nature" for telling it like it is in their rejection letter to Oriani -- that this experimental outcome doesn't fit with theory so -- circular file time. If only we could inculcate more would-be scientists with this kind of ruthless rigor! On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 8:53 AM, John Franks <[email protected]> wrote: > You're just like the Bessler's Wheel crowd. You're convinced that some new > arrangement of the weights and arm length will make the wheel turn around > in perpetuity. > > Everyone will tell you, until you sort out the mechanism (not nuts and > bolts) but how this would be possible in a conservative field, there is > little point in experimenting. > > Another way... it's like this, we know wheels are round, so there is > little point in experimenting in the shape of wheels (on a flat surface > that is) convincing yourself that some magical arrangement is going to be > more efficient than a flat wheel. > > If you are going to do research, you have to say your logical point of > departure. It is not enough to have hope or belief, you have to say where > in the theory base everyone is getting it wrong. Theory is a summary of > experiments, all the billions of person hours that have been put in. Like > Bessler's Wheel, CF is trying to do the impossible because it cannot say > how it could possibly work in the first instance. Coupled with > observational data (how white dwarves are cooling, not heating), just what > do you have as a starting point? > > > On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 2:46 PM, James Bowery <[email protected]> wrote: > >> As Norman >> Ramsey<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Foster_Ramsey,_Jr.>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." >> >> Dr. Franks will be gratified to learn that this kook died recently -- >> still believing that scientific funding priorities could be altered by a >> "single" experimental outcome. A "single" experimental outcome is not >> reliable replication comprising the "extraordinary proof" required of >> "extraordinary claims" and surely a "revolutionary" claim qualifies as >> "extraordinary". >> >> Now, for the rest of us to die off so the pious can get back to placing >> argumentation over experimentation the way it was before that pesky thing >> called the Enlightenment came along and caused such a ruckus -- and the way >> Dr. Franks is here. >> >
