From: M21742@mwvm.mitre.org
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: FF and turbulence
Date: 13 Apr 92 20:35:25 GMT
Article-I.D.: mwvm.167C8E955.M21742
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102

In article <718B9FD4871F005BB5@vms2.uni-c.dk>
Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk> writes:
 
>Dick Forman alias M21742@mwvm.mitre.org writes
>>It was badly hacked by Herb Fox, the editor of Fusion Facts, but basically
>Well, Dick, you are hacking Hal Fox's name here. Getting even?
>                            ^^^
>As for Dick's piece, I agree that what we need is experimental evidence; so
>far, this is not unambiguous. With the exception of my very few "quality
>positives", most of the "several hundred" papers of positive results cited by
>ardent TB's are weak. This, as I have often said, does leave those few strong
>ones to think about. Not that TB's hesitate to point to theories that support
>cold fusion... I agree that fusion products should be looked for - and have
>been, and sometimes apparently found; but mostly at doubtful levels, too close
>to background for comfort.
> I do not agree that journals have treated cold fusion badly. Close to 700
>papers have been published in a mix of fairly..very reputable journals. Where
>is all this discrimination? So what if Nature and Science do not take papers?
>There are plenty of others that do, and they are not el-cheapos. This ashes
>on the head stuff is getting a bit tiresome.
> The same goes for research money. Very few research areas get specially
>dedicated and large amounts of money from the respective governments. Again,
>judging by the number of published papers, many many teams have received
>research grants to do cold fusion, via the normal channels. These involve the
>dreaded referees... and they have passed lots of cold fusion proposals. Don't
>cry foul; write a grant application, like other people.
> On the other hand, when you come up with something that challenges entrenched
>ideas, you must expect some resistance - if it were not there, we would be far
>less sure of what we regard as True and Known. Some conservatism is
>appropriate here. There are, as I say above, sufficient channels to show your
>stuff, and gradually, the pressure of evidence will turn the tide. This is how
>real science works, as HH Bauer has written so well about. Plug, plug: read
>his book.
>
>
>Tom Droege alias ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE writes
>>We observe with McKubre et. al. that cells are noisy.  He says (Como
>>p-436) "For both electrodes there was a 'high-frequency' fluctuation
>>of the excess power with periods of aprox. 0.1 - 1h which correlated
>>with cell pressure variations, characteristic of partially
>>intermittent operation of the catalytic recombiner."
>
>What is the mixing time in the cell? In other words, could this be thermal
>fluctuations due to thermally inhomogeneous electrolyte? There is turbulence
>in these cells, and several different sources and sinks of heat; these take
>a finite time to come together. One ought to lowpass filter the cell
>temperature with a cutoff at that mixing time (and of course sample the
>filtered signal at double the corresponding frequency, i.e. 2/t(mix)).
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
>Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
I told Fox he had hacked the piece when he sent me the copy.
If you want to see the letter to me from Science, I'll fax it to you.
I think that the Triage process used at Science is to make the jiob easier for
their editors. I had very long discussions about this with Langenberg.
I guess that my assumption that the journals are there to serve authors and rea
ders is not correct.  The journal has to get out--so the editors, NOT THE
PEER REVIEWERS--are in control.  If I cannot get my original submission date
from Science, I will send the original ms. with the update to account for the
new Japanese data to J. Chem. Phys., where I published my first paer in 1963.
The only time I got into Science was with the ruby pressure standard for the
diamond anvil cell.  At least they did give a peer review to my "Cornjack"
paper.
Having served on the Board of Editors of Review of Scientific Instruments,
I can only say the APS, for all its flaws runs a better shop than AAAS or
Nature.
 
 
 
E-MAIL TO: RFORMAN@MITRE.ORG
DICK FORMAN AT MITRE IN MCLEAN, VA  (703) 883-6198
DISCLAIMER: MY OPINIONS ARE MY OWN NOT MY EMPLOYER'S.
 
 
 
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion