Dear LENR Forum visitor,

you are currently not logged in and using the forum as a "guest"!
To be able to use all functions and features of the forum please register or login, if you already have an account.

You can also use Third-Party logins (use an existing google+, facebook or twitter account):

The registration and usage of LENR Forum is completely free! As a registered user you are able to participate discussions and start your own discussions.

Jed Rothwell makes a parallel between Cold fusion denial and Titanic aftermath...

      Jed Rothwell makes a parallel between Cold fusion denial and Titanic aftermath...

      In that article Jed Rothwell tell the story of the myths and manipulation about Titanic tragedy....

      He also describe the misconducts of Cold Fusion denialist , with incredible lack of any ethic.
      It confirms and extend the description that Charles Beaudette give in his book "Excess Heat".

      Just see the paragraphs, with some emphasis on the most shocking facts...

      When a scientist writes about cold fusion, he should be held to more exacting standards. He must not dismiss or condemn cold fusion without reading the journal papers, and without presenting a credible, technical reason for doubting those papers. Society relies upon scientists, lawyers, ship captains, and other professionals to make unbiased, informed statements about their areas of expertise. It is unethical for a scientist to endorse or condemn a claim he has not carefully analyzed.

      In rare cases, a few scientists have been guilty of even more unethical behavior. McKubre and other prominent cold fusion scientists have given copies of journal papers to prominent critics, including Douglas Morrison, Robert Park, and John Huizenga. The papers directly contradict assertions made by the critics regarding matters of fact, not opinion, such as the amount of energy produced by cells in continuous bursts, the percent of input versus output, or the amount of chemical energy that a mass 0.5 grams of palladium deuteride will release as it degasses. Morrison often claims the degassing can account for the heat produced during an experiment performed by Fleischmann and Pons. Fleischmann gave him a paper showing conclusively that he is mistaken by a factor of 1,700. Morrison has been told about this mistake countless times, at conferences, in writing, and in a formal reply published in Physics Letters A. Yet he recently contacted a Nobel laureate and repeated the same misinformation ?( . Fortunately, the Nobel scientist contacted me, and I was able to give him the correct numbers.

      Gary Taubes is another prominent critic. He made many misinformed claims in his book, on the radio, and in the mass media. He may not be qualified to read journal papers, because he does not appear to understand basic concepts such as electricity 8| . He claims people sometimes measure electrolysis amperage alone and not voltage, and he thinks that regulated power supplies put out more electricity over the weekend because factories use less power. He thinks some researchers measure tritium once, after the experiment, without establishing a baseline or taking periodic samples. His book is filled with hundreds of similar errors. Perhaps the most mind-boggling one was his statement that a cell might have huge temperature gradients, “say fifty degrees hotter on one side than the other.” This is like asserting that you might stir a cup of coffee, drink from the right side and find it tepid, but when you turn the cup around and drink from the left side, it will be steaming hot.

      Taubes wrote his book using the same methods employed by sensation-mongering reporters in 1912: he pieced together second-hand rumors and made wild guesses about a subject he does not understand. He described his methods in the introduction, footnotes, and appendices. The book is based upon interviews and telephone conversations with 257 people, listed in an appendix. He spoke with seventeen people who actually performed experiments. Four of the seventeen are implacable enemies of cold fusion, including the authors of the three famous “negative” experiments. Most of the remaining 240 are critics like Frank Close and William Happer, who deplore cold fusion, and have staked their reputations on its demise. They have attacked it in the mass media, the ERAB report, and in books. Although more than a thousand peer-reviewed papers were published by the time Taubes wrote the book, he did not reference a single one of them in the footnotes. His descriptions of the experiments are wildly at variance with the facts, in major and minor details, so it seems unlikely that he read a paper. Describing an experiment is an exacting task, even when you understand electricity, you read the paper, visit the lab, and ask the experimenter to review your description. When a scientifically illiterate person tries to imagine how an experiment works based on allegations made by people who despise the research, indescribable confusion and distortion result.

      Taubes’ book was recommended in enthusiastic blurbs by four Nobel laureates and the chairman of the American Association of the Advancement of Science. =O These people could not have actually read the book, or if they did, their judgment was skewed by animosity. This shows how easy it is to spread false information, and how careless distinguished scientists can be. It takes only a small group of people to poison the well of public opinion. There may be a few other active critics in the mass media, but most attacks originate from these four: Morrison, Park, Huizenga, and Taubes. They are not famous or influential. They succeed because many scientists bear a grudge against cold fusion, and are willing to believe the worst about it. When Robert Park attacked it with inflammatory ad hominem rhetoric, a room packed with hundreds of members of the American Physical Society (APS) applauded and cheered.

      Mistakes Caused by Culture, Denial, and Psychology :

      One way to learn how to separate fact from fiction is to study the ways mistakes and disagreements arose in the first place, and why they remain in the historical record, seemingly impervious to correction.

      I know Taubes was in error, but such absurdities should not convince anybody with a college level, even on Wikipedia.

      I really would like to read those books, but I cannot spend more than 10cents on them without feeling guilty against honest authors.
      “Only puny secrets need keeping. The biggest secrets are kept by public incredulity.” (Marshall McLuhan)
      See my raw tech-watch on & twitter @alain_co
      @Steve Jones: At the moment it seems that Rossi has done LENR research behind the scenes and don't want to publish any scientific information before he gets a patent on it.

      It's not open science, but maybe the best way to convince with high COP.
      How is Rossi going to get a patent on it?
      Since he will not say HOW it works?
      So good luck on that patent!
      You see how circular logic works?
      Good - since he can not get a patent on it and he will not say how it works so he can not get a patent on it!
      So your argument is worthless!
      How do YOU know Rossi has done "research behind the scenes"?
      How can you say "High COP" if the device (Rossi Ecat) has never been tested by an 'independant" testing lab?
      See "Rossi does not want to divulge how it works"
      More circular logic!
      So the "Rossi Ecat" seems destined to remain ever secret and never available!
      It is right that without disclosur he cannot have a patent.
      He can file a patent and avoid disclosure for 18 month... so if serious people like Cherokee filed some real patent (I agree his current patent is junk), after the partnership which was advertized early 2014, then we may discover it only mid 2015.

      We don't know much, except that a third party test was allowed, that they were alone with the device, they rewired, they could cut the earth, they could install instruments, make calibration of IR cam with thermocouple, touching the device to install known-emissivity dots...

      The result that the 7 scientists signed was that it was visibly working.

      What we know thus, is that something is producing more heat that anything chemical can, much more, about as much as what a nuclear reactor produce.

      It can be alien technology, black magic... nothing oppose to those hypothesis except known physics. LENR is validated by thousands of experiments replicated across the planet, so it is a good candidate, beside it is Rossi's claims.

      It may be interesting to look for weak point in the test, in the protocol, but at least given the evidence available, it would be rational to start on the hypothesis that it works "very probably".

      In fact that it is not the case is very interesting, yet not at all a surprise. it shows that in that affair critics are far from rational. The "It is a fraud" claimed without any probability behind, nor any positive evidence, is a usual sign of desperate denial, the mirror phenomenon of "true beliefs".

      Rational people could say : we are not 100% sure, because...
      Because what ? because Levi who have a career is participating a scam and manipulated 6 colleagues.
      Because rossi took the risk of a third party test where he is not present, doing a fraud that an electrician could detect in 5 minutes.
      Because Elforsk did not check the test was done and checked by independent people
      Because cherokee fund missed it's Due Diligence, despite claiming that beside the Elforsk-funded test they send their own experts to cross check.

      So question is whether there is serious reason to be sure less than 100%... it is a rational question, whose answer is not evident because many point are addressed, yet there is hole (DC offset, Levi's participation) that are covered by assumption of human logic (that Rossi is not stupid enough to allow a test where others testers can detect it in 5 minutes) that can be discussed.

      Simply being sure it is a fraud, despite evidences, is not rational. It is symptom of "true believers".

      We could just discuss of the hypothesis of fraud scenarios...
      • The DC offset hidden by Levi's participation into a 3 years conspiracy, with manipulations of his 6 colleagues during the test
      For others they are addressed as far as I know.
      “Only puny secrets need keeping. The biggest secrets are kept by public incredulity.” (Marshall McLuhan)
      See my raw tech-watch on & twitter @alain_co
      OK SO what are you ALAINCO saying?
      What is your point?
      The "Rossi Ecat" is a scam?
      The "Rossi Ecat" is real?
      What outcome matters?
      AS long as The "Rossi Ecat" remains secret and UNAVAILABLE!
      What good is it?
      What good is a device that is so secret that it can NEVER be patented or used?
      What does it matter that it is a scam?
      Or whether it is real?
      The "Rossi Ecat" seems to be FOREVER UNPROVEN!
      AND Unused!
      You "AlainCo" are promoting what?
      can you just give an answer?
      That has "something" to do with the "Rossi Ecat"!
      I only block kitchen.

      E-cat is not secret, we talk of it and there is report.
      Cold fusion is public, and there are many papers that no deniers read.

      I am promoting, reality...
      I have made mistake, but at least I recognised it when I had evidence...

      do you have evidence that Fleischman & Pons calorimetry is an artifact ?
      I've asked to many people, like S Coyaud.
      I even asked Stephan Pomp and he answered none...
      He just refused to read the book of charles Beaudette.

      Did you read it?

      Did you read the book of Mats?

      As far as all skeptics I contacted don't answered to me, they have nothing.

      NB: please, no trolling like insults and childish behaviors (I don't moderate because it is information)...
      “Only puny secrets need keeping. The biggest secrets are kept by public incredulity.” (Marshall McLuhan)
      See my raw tech-watch on & twitter @alain_co