When I read Beaudette key page, I thing that like dinosaurs they did not evolve since 1989
"Unfortunately, *physicists did not generally claim expertise in calorimetry*, the measurement of calories of heat energy. Nor did they countenance clever chemists declaring hypotheses about nuclear physics. Their outspoken commentary largely ignored the heat measurements along with the offer of an hypothesis about unknown nuclear processes. They did not acquaint themselves with the laboratory procedures that produced anomalous heat data. These attitudes held firm throughout the first decade, causing a sustained controversy. The upshot of this conflict was that* the scientific community failed to give anomalous heat the evaluation that was its due*. Scientists of orthodox views, in the first six years of this episode, produced *only four critical reviews* of the two chemists’ calorimetry work. The first report came in 1989 (N. S. Lewis). It dismissed the Utah claim for anomalous power on grounds of faulty laboratory technique. A second review was produced in 1991 (W. N. Hansen) that strongly supported the claim. It was based on an independent analysis of cell data that was provided by the two chemists. An extensive review completed in 1992 (R. H. Wilson)* was highly critical though not conclusive*. But it* did recognize the existence of anomalous power*, which carried the implication that the Lewis dismissal was mistaken. A fourth review was produced in 1994 (D. R. O. Morrison) which was itself unsatisfactory. It was rebutted strongly to the point of dismissal and correctly in my view. No defense was offered against the rebuttal.* During those first six years, the community of orthodox scientists produced no report of a flaw in the heat measurements that was subsequently sustained by other reports.* The *community of scientists at large never saw or knew about this minimalist critique of the claim*. It was *buried in the avalanche of skepticism* that issued forth *in the first three months*. This skepticism was buttressed by the f*ailure of the two chemists’ nuclear measurements*, the *lack of a theoretical understanding* of how their claim could work, a *mistaken concern with the number of failed experiments*, a wholly* unrealistic expectation of the time and resource the evaluation would need*, and the substantial ad hominem attacks on them. However, *their original claim of measurement of the anomalous power remained unscathed during all of this furor*. A *decade later*, it was not generally realized that *this claim remained essentially unevaluated* by the scientific community. Confusion necessarily arose when* the skeptics refused without argument to recognize the heat measurement* and its corresponding hypothesis of a nuclear source. As a consequence, the story of the excess heat phenomenon has never been told." all said here match well current situation, Pomp cargo cult skepticism... To bad again that the report is not enough flawless to convince desperately dishonest priest of the consensus. To understand that E-cat is real requires still too much computation and reasoning. you need to make complex reasoning, with game theory to rule out fraud. with calorimetry, emissivity, transparency, bounding the lever of errors, to get around the bad calibration... like it was well done on the electric part, the test should be redone accounting for the critics on calorimetry... anyway the important people, the investors, the industrialists, who are aware of the test know it is real, even if not sure industrial... many heuristics make them optimistic, and real people know what risk is, and E-cat today is a normal risk, less than a startup. but sure academic who still live in another planet where theory rules all, where experience are predictable, where nothing deserve to be hidden, where consensus is eternal provided you forget the past, where money is not a problem nor a hope, will discover it in Wall-Street Journal. 2014-10-17 5:22 GMT+02:00 Foks0904 . <[email protected]>: > This is sort of a microcosm of 89' all of again in terms of skepticism. > The excess heat is almost undoubtedly real, but let's make it about the > integrity of nuclear product measurements. Pomp is doing the same red > herring shit that Hueizenga, Close, Parker, etc. engaged in. > > On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 11:11 PM, John Berry <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> The source of the energy is irrelevant to the existence of excess energy. >> >> The ECAT shouldn't fall based on incorrect and ultimately irrelevant >> beliefs of why it functions. >> >> On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 2:43 PM, H Veeder <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 9:20 PM, Jones Beene <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> *From:* H Veeder >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Doesn't look good for Rossi, but I am not sure I understand Pomp's >>>> point. >>>> Is Pomp saying Rossi is rewriting history to make it look like Ni62 >>>> was present in the ash of his earlier EC at? >>>> http://stephanpomp.blogspot.se/2014/10/mr-rossi-i-admire-you.html >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Harry >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> No, he is crystal clear that he thinks Rossi is cheating : >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> “All this leaves only one conclusion: you were playing tricks then >>>> (trying to give the impression that copper was produced) and you are >>>> playing tricks now (trying to have people believe all nickel somehow >>>> converted into Ni-62)” >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> We all know now the copper was not the result of transmutation because >>> it came from contamination. This was a mistake which he didn't want to >>> acknowledge because *he* felt embarrassed by it. Rossi is someone who >>> experiences a lot of shame when he makes even an honest mistake, and this >>> causes him to either deny the mistake or react angrily. I am not sure why >>> he is so sensitive when it comes to making honest mistakes. Perhaps the >>> mafia exploited one of his honest mistakes and this led his erroneous >>> conviction. The important thing to remember is that making mistakes is not >>> bad thing in science. >>> >>> Harry >>> >> >> >
