Beaudette blames the US nuclear physicists , deified after Manhattan project, used with easy experimental setup where things always works the same...
even nuclear experimentalist are too theoretical compared to the least chemist or biologist... when nuclear physicist denied LENr because it could not be replicated at 100% , ignoring it was sure replicated. when they stupidly asked for exact replication, which in real science is the best way to replicate artifacts, they were behaving like rotten kind used with easy science, easy experimental setup and perfect theory. i don't know if US Nuclear Physicist are the only to blame. on other subject I see the same deification of theory, of models, with observation ignored or tweaked when they dissent with models or theory. 2014/1/12 James Bowery <jabow...@gmail.com> > I wonder what would have happened if terrorists had killed all of the > faculty of all of the Ivy League schools, including CalTech on April 15, > 1989. > > > On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 1:48 AM, Peter Gluck <peter.gl...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> The lack of realism, combined with ignorance of the theoretical >> physicists was only one subfield of the war lost by cold fusion. A more >> holistic view of the situationi >> is necessary I daretothink. >> Nobody was able to explain CF- it seemed unknown nuclear multi-mystery >> phenomena with a weak correlation between nuclearity and the essential heat >> release take place. However, as the experimental results have multiplied >> and diversified- the seemingly inborn weakness of bad reproducibility has >> fatally eroded the reputation of cold fusion. >> The usual culprits- il-willed, sadistic, stupid, stubborn skeptics- enjoy >> the help of the inner. inherent flaws of cold fusion. >> All these facts can be simply understood if we admit that cold fusion was >> discovered before its time- when it could not been explained or >> demonstrated experimentally. >> It iis very sad that these problems stay still unsolved >> despite heroic efforts; and this shows the efforts are not going in the >> proper direction. The scientific method >> ALONE cannot solve the CF's existential problems. >> >> Peter >> >> >> On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 5:40 AM, Foks0904 . <foks0...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> I thought this was an interesting viewpoint expressed by B.J. Hiley, >>> David Bohms longtime collaborator, on the nature of theoreticians and their >>> relationship to experimental science. As he puts it: >>> >>> *I didn’t mind doing it because I think it’s very important if you’re >>> doing theoretical physics to get a feel of what it’s like in a laboratory, >>> making things work. I’ve heard some theoreticians talking and it’s quite >>> clear they don’t even know what a laboratory is. They’ve never been in a >>> laboratory and they’ve never tried to get even simple bits of apparatus >>> working. They just have ideas of what the measurement is—and it’s nothing >>> like that. It’s much too idealized.* >>> >>> I feel this captures perfectly the character of the controversies >>> surrounding Pons and Fleischman in 1989. Most of the critics of their work >>> were theoreticians who, beyond knowing what constituted good neutron >>> detection, didn't know a thing about what constituted good lab work in >>> chemistry generally and calorimetry specifically. As a result the majority >>> of people threw the baby (excess heat) out with the bathwater (nuclear >>> products). They were silly enough to proclaim that P and F were "working >>> outside their area of expertise" when in fact its likely not a single >>> critic from the physics community would have even know how to set up an >>> electrolytic cell, let alone how to upkeep and monitor one over an extended >>> test period. >>> >>> The rest of the article can be found here for those that are interested: >>> >>> http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/critical-opalescence/2013/11/04/the-wholeness-of-quantum-reality-an-interview-with-physicist-basil-hiley/ >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Dr. Peter Gluck >> Cluj, Romania >> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com >> > >
