From: webb+@CS.CMU.EDU (Jon Webb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: More Nonsense
Date: 6 Jan 93 14:51:59 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.C0FtAr.G6v.1
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
Originator: webb@DUCK.WARP.CS.CMU.EDU

In article <930105213557_72240.1256_EHL58-1@CompuServe.COM> 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:

	"It is perfectly okay for me to reject inconvenient facts, I can pick
	and choose the ones I like. McKubre's results, at sigma 90, are not an
	issue: I will only talk about the 1989 work of P&F, and I will never
	mention their more recent work, either."

It is permitted in science to give a lower weight to results that have
not appeared in the archival literature, which includes both examples
you mention above.  Has anyone ever published in a journal a result
which exceeds I*V?  I believe that all the results published in
journals have been much smaller effects, which can be explained by the
various sources of heat contamination I mentioned in a previous post.

   The other electrochemist observers agreed at once that paraffin wax
   sheets would be a deadly contaminant. It is precisely because they know this
   sort of thing that they succeed at CF, whereas many physicists fail at first.

The point of the comment about parafilm is that this was what Pons and
Fleischmann (who are electrochemists) said they sealed their cells
with in the early experiments.  So once again we have two classes of
cold fusion phenomena; one which works fine in the presence of
paraffin, and another for which paraffin is a deadly contaminant.

   For the record: nobody in this field has been more open, forthcoming, and
   precise in publishing ALL details about their experiments than Dr. Mills. No
   one has offered more help to others than Dr. Farrell. No experiment has
   worked better, or been easier to replicate, than the Mills experiment.

Well, Farrell is now claiming 2.5 Watts in, 50 Watts out.  He has not
published information about the experiment, nor permitted an unbiased
observer to view it.  It seems to me that this is far less open than
many others have been, including people you've been associated with.

   Did it ever occur to you that this kind of silly, irresponsible behavior
   might come back to haunt you someday? Did you ever think, for even a second,
   what might happen to you if these people turn out to be right?

I'm sorry, but this reminds me so much of a statement I saw in the New
York Times from a Lubavitch Jew about the Moshiach.  Well, if you're
right it's wonderful.  But even if cold fusion does exist in some form,
I'm certain you aren't completely right -- it can't be the case that
Mills & Farrell and Yamaguchi and Notoya and Pons & Fleischmann and
McKubre are all right; they have inconsistent experiments.

   Still, doesn't it ever occur to you that you are a making public fool of
   yourself, and heading off a cliff for no reason?

I think that if we took a vote here on who was making a public fool of
themselves, you or Dick Blue, you'd lose.

	Tom saw no excess heat, only recombination. He tried to duplicate Mills,
	but he failed. This is not surprising; there are, after all, plenty of
	ways to do this experiment wrong.

Tom got results consistent with Mills's early results (same level of
heat).  So are you now saying that Mills's early results were
recombination?

-- J
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion