Hello Ed, Although your take on the subject might be the correct one, I find it difficult to imagine that anyone with integrity would act in that manner. My suspicion is that these guys actually believe exactly what they have stated. All of their training in physics makes LENR appear impossible and they certainly must think that some obscure error has been made by the labs that reported excess heat.
They harbor the idea that one day the truth will be found and all of the nonsense(their belief) about cold fusion will go away. They just did not have adequate time at the lab site to uncover the errors. Can you imagine how ignorant these guys will appear in the future when LENR is accepted? I am sure they feel the same way about our misguided prospects. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Edmund Storms <[email protected]> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> Cc: Edmund Storms <[email protected]> Sent: Fri, Jan 3, 2014 5:38 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:McKubre visitors who peer-reviewed his lab, then get (unethically) silent Jed, while your descriptions might explain Garwin's behavior toward LENR. I think another explanation is more likely. Garwin and the other high level skeptics are not stupid and they are not ignorant. They know that CF has a potential to disrupt both the hot fusion program as well as the conventional energy industries, all of which involve billions of dollars and thousands of jobs. The system is simply protecting itself and Garwin has a self-interest to play along. Fleischmann did not play along and was punished. Koonin et al. played along and were rewarded. The message is clear. Ed On Jan 3, 2014, at 7:46 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: 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
