Garwin is a scientist and by training tends to be very cautious. The excuses that he used to doubt the excess power measurement of course are lame, but we should note that he included them. This is the type of behavior one might expect from someone who just witnessed a magic trick that he is unable to figure out. Or someone that stumbled upon a new process unknown to standard physics that might take a long time to explain. His mind would be torn between believing his observations and assuming that they can be understood if sufficient time and effort is applied to that issue.
I suspect that most scientists in that position would hedge their bets for the moment and that appears to be what Garwin has done. He refuses to believe that cold fusion of any type is possible due to his training and vast experience. Surely the people conducting the experiment made some type of blunder, even though it appears quite subtle. He likely feels that if given enough time, he will be able to prove the error. In this case he does not have enough time to "waste" so he merely states what he witnessed. This does not mean that he agrees with the conclusion that we all accept. If we could confine him within a room for a couple of months, or maybe years in his case, where all of his energy is expended in the conduction of more and more precise measurements, he will reluctantly change his mind. That is about the only way this will occur. I strongly believe that his trip to McKubre's lab was not to find the truth, but instead to teach him the errors of his methods. There was zero chance for Garwin to announce that cold fusion were real under any circumstances. That denial continues to this day. Being on the wrong side of history is the price he will pay for his reluctance to accept the proof before him. So far, the cost has been negligible to him. But keep in mind that he believes exactly the same thing about scientists who continue to work in this field. Unfortunately many of them have paid a dear price for their efforts with little reward. One day the table will turn. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> Sent: Fri, Jan 3, 2014 9:46 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:McKubre visitors who peer-reviewed his lab, then get (unethically) silent David Roberson <[email protected]> wrote: He should have confidence in what he has seen, but I can think of other things that one might see on fleeting occasions but still have reservations. I suppose UFO's, ghosts, and etc. fall into that category. I think it was Garwin who described it as fleeting, like a UFO. This is a mischaracterization. As McKubre said, it is "neither small nor fleeting." http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHdevelopmen.pdf My point is that if Garwin agrees the noise level is 50 mW, and the signal is 500 to 1000 mW -- as he said -- then the various reasons he gave to doubt the results are not large enough to make a significant difference. The first thing he mentioned, the 3% overall excess heat, is nonsense. It is 3% overall but at time it was 30% and at other times it was over 100% of input. It was never negative, so there was no energy storage. The 3% is not a valid reason to question the results. Garwin is an experienced scientist. He should understand that. If he does not understand it he is incompetent and if he does understand it he is being disingenuous. - Jed
