Its hard to understand why these guys didn't just meet up individually and feel out their concerns. I know that at some point the normative pressures are so great that if anyone so much as whispers something in private that might be construed as "defection in from the ranks", that it would immediately call for a hue and cry -- but it just seems incredible to me that the normative pressures were *that* intense. I mean self-preservation instincts should kick in with something more than Goodstein's mealy-mouthed review which will not really protect him and, indeed, could draw scrutinizing attention to him in the event that the truth breaks free.
Even someone like Lewis could have, once he saw evidence that forewarned him he had contributed to a catastrophic institutional failure, done something as innocuous as try to run an experiment that demonstrated the errors he purported F&P made. He could even have deliberately done something wrong in the paper that, during peer review, would have caused it to never achieve publication and at least he could have pointed to his attempt to actually do legitimate science. Moreover, this could have brought him into contact with other doubters of the theocracy's catechism -- all "playing devil's advocate" of course! Once you get enough of these "devils advocates" together its simple enough for them to get the critical mass necessary to invoke Ramsey as protector of their heresy, so long as they all came out in unison with their declaration that some more serious work needed to be done to something other than address empirical results with theoretic objections. On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 5:02 PM, Edmund Storms <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > > >
