OK James, let me try to understand what your reply means. You
acknowledge the reality I described below, yet you maintain an opinion
based on a hypothetical assumption that places the blame on
Fleischmann rather than on Jones. You believe that Fleischmann or
anyone else had the ability to implement what you propose and you
insist the result you predict would have occurred if this path had
been taken.
Is this interpretation correct?
I find this tendency to ignore reality and focus on hypothetical
assumptions to be very common on Vortex, which is not a very useful
approach. I find that when factual reality is ignored, disaster
follows. I suggest if you want to actually help CF be accepted, you
need to learn and accept what is real, not what you imagine is real.
Ed
On Dec 23, 2013, at 6:12 PM, James Bowery wrote:
I'm aware of that history with Jones but BYU and UofU don't have a
monopoly on science by press conference. I stand by my assertion
that if the exact same inter-institutional competition had led an
Ivy League institution to hold such a press conference, we'd
probably be driving around CF powered cars today.
On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 5:40 PM, Edmund Storms
<[email protected]> wrote:
James, if you read further you will discover Fleischmann had no say
in when and where the news conference was held. This was forced on
them by the U of U that wanted to get credit. Fleischmann wanted to
get better data before they went public but Jones forced his hand.
If you want to blame someone, I suggest you focus on Jones. Jones
thought he had discovered a new phenomenon and he was trying to get
credit, which U of U did not want BYU to get. It turns out Jones
discovered nothing except fractofusion, and then he spent his time
trashing Fleischmann.
Ed
On Dec 23, 2013, at 4:06 PM, James Bowery wrote:
I don't recall exactly Beaudette's breakdown of "assignment of
blame" but I do recall being rather peeved that it was not admitted
candidly by Beaudette that if Fleischmann had had the good sense to
partner up with someone in the Ivy League (including CalTech and
Stanford of course) or the University of Chicago, the exact same
press conference could have been held and there would have been an
immediate DoE crash program.
Basically the degree system has defaulted into a peerage granting
life patents of nobility -- and the royal bloodlines must be
defended at all costs -- even millions dead as collateral damage.
On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Jed Rothwell
<[email protected]> wrote:
Alain Sepeda <[email protected]> wrote:
the quote about the 4 articles is in chapter one
Thanks.
The first report came in 1989 (N. S. Lewis). It dismissed the Utah
claim for anomalous power on grounds of faulty laboratory technique.
Lewis, N.S., et al., Searches for low-temperature nuclear fusion of
deuterium in palladium. Nature (London), 1989. 340(6234): p. 525
Well, it was more a report on Lewis' own work. It was a pretty good
paper except of the conclusion. I learned a lot from it. It had a
lot of valid information about what can go wrong with calorimetry.
I can't upload it, but I wrote about it here, and you can get the
gist of it:
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJhownaturer.pdf
A second review was produced in 1991 (W. N. Hansen) that strongly
supported the claim.
Hansen, W.N. Report to the Utah State Fusion/Energy Council on the
Analysis of Selected Pons Fleischmann Calorimetric Data. in Second
Annual Conference on Cold Fusion, "The Science of Cold Fusion".
1991. Como, Italy: Societa Italiana di Fisica, Bologna, Italy Y
HansenWNreporttoth.
An extensive review completed in 1992 (R. H. Wilson) was highly
critical though not conclusive.
Wilson, R.H., et al., Analysis of experiments on the calorimetry of
LiOD-D2O electrochemical cells. J. Electroanal. Chem., 1992. 332:
p. 1
Beaudette discussed this in detail in a chapter at the end of the
book.
But it did recognize the existence of anomalous power, which
carried the implication that the Lewis dismissal was mistaken. A
fourth review was produced in 1994 (D. R. O. Morrison) which was
itself unsatisfactory.
I guess this refers to:
Morrison, D.R.O., Comments on claims of excess enthalpy by
Fleischmann and Pons using simple cells made to boil. Phys. Lett.
A, 1994. 185: p. 498
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanreplytothe.pdf
- Jed
