Hi Dave,
I also would rather not believe people in such influential positions
would be so cynical and self-serving to reject CF based only on their
self interest. On the other hand, I have a hard time believing they
could be so stupid to ignore the evidence. I'm sure their training in
physics makes the rejection easier, but I would hope not that easy, at
least not in the face of such overwhelming the evidence. But then, we
see how Congress acts and both explanations of their behavior look
plausible.
Ed
On Jan 3, 2014, at 3:51 PM, David Roberson wrote:
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
