From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Subject: One man can't compete
Reply-To: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 15:12:17 GMT

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG

Well, I certainly got the rise out of poor Tom Droege when I said that he
and I are "not in the running." Sorry Tom, but Get Real. We don't have the
resources or the time to do 200 experiments like McKubre, so as much as we
would love to make definitive claims, we have not got enough data. The best
scientist in the world cannot do everything himself.

Let me put it this way: I happen to be a fine, fast, accomplished
programmer. I can write programs 3 times faster than most people, and my
programs are generally bug free and useful. I am no guru, but I sure am a
professional, as good as most people at Microsoft or Borland. Okay. Does
that mean that I could sit in my house and produce a better version of
Microsoft Windows? How about Turbo Pascal? Of course not! It takes hundreds
of man years to do that, and it takes the specialized skills of dozens of
people. One man could not do it in a lifetime, any more than he could build
a 747 airplane.

For goodness sakes! You know perfectly well that is what I meant when I
said "we are not in the running." It means we don't have to bucks for those
pretty little toys from HP, and we don't have a staff of people to try
sixty zillion variations on each experiment. That is why our experiments
never work, and those of McKubre and P&F always work. They got the money,
and we don't, and that is Life In The Big City. It is no reflection on your
ability or intelligence.

Good Grief! Give me a break!


As I said, I have to do other work, I can't be posting these messages or
responding. Sorry. Jon Webb's comments were particularly worthwhile, way
better than before. Briefly:

I meant "accept," or "understand" the significance of 90 sigma, to "get"
those kinds of results by doing experiments with palladium requires a
mountain work of labor and cash. The only worker you mentioned I am not in
touch with is Ying, in Florida, because he is one of many minor people I
think is wrong. I never gave him any credence. The people at China Lake
tried a few times more, but they have no money and no time to do much
additional work. McKubre may or may not "see fit" to publish, but that is
certainly not his decision. SRI would never allow it, and neither would any
other sane corporation. Corporations do not survive by handing out $3
million dollar secrets for free.

You are wrong about this:

      "You have a system into which you're putting a certain, fairly large,
      amount of energy, and in which you want to measure the excess energy
      emerging.  But (partly depending on where the system is open or
      closed) some of the energy is going into evaporation, some is going
      into disassociation of water..."

Look, I have measured heat, and there is nothing to it, as long as you
don't try to get ultra-accurate. It is a Piece of Cake! Just drop the whole
kit and caboodle into a bucket of water, and watch the thermometer. It is
dead simple, people have been doing it that way for 200 years, it works
fine. Don't worry about tiny little losses due to evaporation, or bigger
losses due to disassociation of water -- just write them off! Forget them.
Measure the gas, but don't bother adding it into the heat balance. Stuff
like this should not matter, because you want a 70% excess, not 0.7%. If
the results are close to the margin, and require skilled sorting out of
minor effects like evaporation, then the experiment is no good. You want a
BIG effect that drowns out all these minor sources of error. You want
DEFINITE results, far out of the noise. If you can't get results like that
nowadays, you are playing in the wrong league.

You don't need to worry about a few watts leaking out of the hot parts
because it is all underwater. The heat that you lose (or gain) "going into
the palladium as it absorbs hydrogen or deuterium or into or emerging from
various chemical reactions..." is marginal. There may be a few chemical
reactions; okay, so let the experiment run a week, and they will fade out,
because there is a limited supply of chemicals in there. Let it run a
month. Let it run a year!

So long 'till after the inauguration!

- Jed


Distribution:
  >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG

Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion