Dear Reader,
I was rather hoping to have the final say on this argument. It seems not. Here's more on the subject and - again - my response.
On 16 Nov 2011, at 11:33 AM, ***** ***** wrote:
Rosemary, I think you’re being a bit silly. There’s no gag, and never has been.
The following are some of the stories we have carried in recent years. If you can detect a conspiratorial thread running through them or proof that we are determined to gag discussion about cold fusion, I’ll eat my words.
We don’t have agendas. Where the news is is where the focus is … and I am afraid to say cold fusion has gone cold. You can’t keep news down, genuine news. It never works – as the Iranians and Egyptians have discovered, as the old Nationalists found, as the Americans know. But you also can’t make news out of nothing.
Best
*****
Dear *****,
I was hoping to speak to you. In the very real likelihood that you'll not phone - then let me see if I can, yet again, marshal the argument.
The facts relating to that article by Usha Lee McFarling - are incorrect.
In 1989, two scientists at the University of Utah said they had found a way to extract energy from room-temperature water - cold fusion. Their claim was quickly disproved after a month-long frenzy of news conferences, wild claims and sudden retractions. The episode is one that physicist David Goodstein of the California Institute of Technology now calls "science gone berserk''.
What actually happened is that Pons was surprised by the evidence of more energy being dissipated in a reaction between hard water and hydrogen. He took this to Fleischmann who was an expert in the field. Fleishmann came on board as the experimental results were repeatable. But there was no explanation. They surmised that it may have been a cold fusion reaction because there was no other explanation for those anomalous results. They then booked to perform a public demonstration in 1989 and were not able to repeat that experiment. Conjecture has it that there was some menace that intervened prior to that demo. But that's not proven. What IS fact is this. There is no disgrace in not being to replicate on demand. It does not thereby disprove the claim. But by the time the experiments were more widely tested - then too the disgrace of faulty postulates could not be lived down. A fusion reaction - any fusion reaction requires the emission of some kind of radioactive waste. This is the incontestable proof. And it was the lack of this evidence - this waste product - that buried the science. You see this I trust. Added to which both Fleischmann and Pons claimed that there was an emission. Had they proved the emission then they would have had no difficulty in proving their claim. Clearly they could not prove this.
But the real issue was this. If that over unity result could not be attributed to either fusion or fission - then there was and is no other explanation within the current paradigms - within the standard model. Which is a complicated way of saying that our scientists could not account for it. And because the vast body of our academia are not unduly hampered by any immodest doubts as to their knowledge of all things - to a man they were satisfied that there there could, therefore, be nothing to the initial claim. The alternative explanation - being that there was an explanation 'YET TO BE FOUND' - never entered their heads. And because this mindset has infected the vast majority of our learned and revered - then the vast majority sided 'against'. Which is where science has regressed. It seems that experimental evidence is to be determined by majority opinion rather than by measurement.
Fortunately - while the most of our scientists are reasonably certain that they can prescribe what nature can and can't do - there are those who are more inclined to let Nature Herself guide them. This is rather more wholesome. Which includes those remarkable names that I've already mentioned to you as well as to a small and rather less vocal group of academics. I'm fortunate to be in correspondence with some of them. However, not a one of them will come out openly in support of any scientific evidence until it's been published. Which is the real miracle. This work has, indeed been published. I've already advised you. But it was reported as anomalous. It's that problem again with the standard model. There's still no explanation. And without an explanation then that vast majority of academics - to whom I've already referred - prefer to refute the evidence IN THE FACE OF THAT EVIDENCE. It's extraordinary - and UTTERLY illogical and does nothing other than protect their pride and belief in Thermodynamic Laws. They'd do better to revise those laws. They had to do this once before to accommodate nuclear energy. Then they should do so again. Actually - by now - they should be a dab hand at revisionist theory.
Which brings me back to the point. If these results claimed by Rossi - were not experimentally evident - then we'd have a problem. Our scientists' belief in those results are irrelevant. Rossi has got the technology to a viable level of production. We need no further proof. And, frankly, if I were in your shoes I'd have a field day with our academics. It will be impossibly difficult for them to say that this is 'nonsense' or 'pathological' unless they're prepared to run the risk of a damages claim supported by the evidence of a working generator. In any event they won't dare say that. Even they realise that their own credibility will be called to question in the face of that evidence.
I need to tell you this as well. Rossi himself has clearly determined that the best way to advance this technology is by simply selling working models. But he is also, very obviously, doing this on a low key. My own interests in making this public is because it's the most eloquent reason that I know of to object to Nelly Magubane's investment in that nuclear expansion program. I've yet to forward this information to her. I was hoping I could cut out a report from our local papers. But, *****, there is absolutely no justification to doubt those results. They're irrefutable.
And I'm not being silly about this. That trivialises the issue. The fact is that we'll have those nuclear contracts written in stone if we don't get this news out. There's otherwise no reason to stall that expansion program. We really need the media to rally.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
So. The fact is that our editor claims that there's NOTHING TO THIS SCIENCE. It is incontestable proof of the efficiency of that disinformation program that is orchestrated by our energy suppliers and their troops of well funded trolls. Dear Reader, we are not here talking about the possibility or otherwise of the UFO's - or time travel - or, indeed, anything that is debatable. What we've got is EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE. But our academics have, unfortunately, set a precedent. They've allowed 'opinion' to determine the veracity of any scientific claim - when, in the past, it was only required to produce experimental proof. This is a tragedy of no mean proportion.
We URGENTLY need to ask this of our academic scientists. "WHAT EARTHLY RIGHT DO YOU HAVE TO DENY WHAT IS EXPERIMENTALLY EVIDENT - AND THEREBY PERPETUATE THE CATASTROPHIC CONDITIONS THAT PUTS OUR FUTURE AT RISK?"
That's the rally call. Would that everyone could hear it. And all we can do is our very best to spread the word. Dear Reader, do advise all and sundry. Every bit helps.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
