Thanks for clarifying your idea, James. I agree, if influential
collaborators had been recruited to support the claim before the
announcement, it might have been accepted. Nevertheless, we at LANL
were very interested in seeing the claim work. However, although F-P
were given a chance to explain their work and how it could be
replicated, they refused to give details on advice of their lawyers.
In spite of this lack of information, we did replicate some of the
claims, however this was not done by the important people in science.
Anyone with a brain recognized the threat to the hot fusion program
and eventually to the energy industries. These people and their
supporters saw no reason to help their meal ticket be destroyed. That
is still the case. Therefore, the situation is political, not
scientific.
Ed Storms
On Dec 24, 2013, at 11:25 AM, James Bowery wrote:
Ed, I really must apologize for my poor attempt at sarcasm which
you, understandably, took to be serious. Let me first of all
explain that this thread's context of Beaudette's book brought to
_my_ mind a quip of Beaudette's in his New Energy Times audio
lecture during which he said something to the effect "...however if
Pons and Fleishmann were to have the good sense to die tomorrow, I
suspect that many of their detractors might say that perhaps it is
time to look at the data on excess heat." My attempt at sarcasm was
a poor immitation of Beaudette's in that audio lecture.
Let me reword what I originally stated for the record:
"If Fleischmann had been more conscious of the political realities
of post-Manhattan era science, he would have shrewdly teamed up with
someone in the Ivy League for his experiments with Pd/D -- and
invited Pons to join him under that protective political shield.
Then, if circumstances, such as the professional one-upsmanship of
Steven Jones, had forced their Ivy League legal department into
holding a press conference -- at least the excess heat data might
not have been so utterly and ruthlessly dismissed."
On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 9:55 AM, Edmund Storms
<[email protected]> wrote:
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
