Re: Cold Fusion: Fact or Fiction?

I will repeat briefly what I posted earlier on the evening of Dec 1
which did appear and then dissappeared from this news group on 
the morning of Dec 2 along with two other comments in threads.
is this NG ethical in "sensorship"?

Again Kirk ..you are resorting to adhominem attacks. A simple
thread by JohnnyC informing other of ICCF-10 was "hacked"
for no reason. Is this a fine demonstration of your ethics?

An entire thread by poster "Mathew" was removed
which had two URLs listed in my reply:

http://bitops.com/~mathias/tr1862/html/volume1/ (astounding)

http://bitops.com/~mathias/tr1862/html/volume2/ 

I list them again above once again with more to follow later
after I repost these responses. I added that the National Academy
of Sciences was also a journal that had not printed papers
wrt Cold Fusion (of late).

Mathew...indeed there is good evidence of Cold Fusion phenomemon.
I certainly hope this posting is not removed for "improper
content" ...I hope others are "seeing this too" with their
eyes WIDE open.

-matter hacker



[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kirk L. Shanahan) wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> For your reading pleasure...
> 
> | Cold Fusion: Fact or Fiction?
>   (A Corrected Version)
> 
> ( Note:  Some words deleted without note.  Others added in, 
> always in brackets [].  Complete phrases simply inserted.  
> Major deletions noted with {snip}. )
> 
> {snip}
> 
> | However, before these very beneficial possibilities can be realized, 
> 
> CF researchers will have to produce a working prototype.  
> 
> | conventional science will [then] accept the reality of the claims
> 
> and modify itself to incorporate the new proof, as has been done 
> innumerable times in the past.  
> 
> | Professional, scientific, and academic acceptance of room-temperature
> | fusion will not be achieved until researchers develop convincing and
> | repeatable experiments with definitive proof of excess heat and
> | nuclear byproducts [.] 
> 
> {snip}
> 
> | The scientific objections are based mainly on the
> | conflict between the observations and a well-accepted theory of
> | nuclear reaction that appears to forbid such behavior 
> 
> , and the fact that mundane explanations exist for the largest
> part of the experimental evidence, leaving only a few unrelated
> reports of 'cold fusion', which then fail the base reproducibility
> test simply because of the limited number of unexplained results.
> 
> | The
> | psychological basis stems from the way Pons and Fleischmann made their
> | information public through the media and the subsequent exaggeration
> | of expectations
> 
> , and the behavior of the current field of CF researchers, who
> refuse to consider mundane alternatives and irrationally insist upon
> a 'nuclear' explanation.
> 
> | To make matters worse, [presumed] important information was
> | withheld for legal reasons, which made early efforts to duplicate the
> | claims very difficult
> 
> , however when said information was finally released, it did not clear 
> the matter up anyway.
> 
> {snip minimal description of hot fusion}
> 
> | On the other hand, cold fusion
> 
> is reputed to 
> 
> | [release] excess energy in the form of heat, not ionizing radiation.
> | The process 
> 
> is reputed to
> 
> | [produce] trillions of times fewer neutrons than plasma
> | fusion or fission, which makes many scientists skeptical that it is
> | really a nuclear reaction. 
> 
> However, the 'nuclear' explanation is fixated on because the chemical
> reaction appears to
> 
> | [consume] no chemical fuel, and [produce] no chemical ash. Because
> | the heat energy produced in a successful cold-fusion experiment is
> 
> reputed to be
> 
> | hundreds of thousands of times what an ordinary chemical reaction
> | could possibly yield, it has led researchers in the field to 
>  [erroneously]  believe
> | that it is a heretofore unknown form of benign nuclear reaction. 
> 
> However, the CF researchers are assuming the measurements are 
> accurate, and of course the key feature of the mundane argument is 
> that it posits a non-nuclear way to induce the appropriate measurement 
> inaccuracy.
> 
> | The lack of dangerous radiation [seems to give] cold fusion a 
> | priceless advantage over hot fusion for commerce and the 
> | environment
> 
> , which points to another major psychological factor, the drive 
> for fame and fortune.
> 
> | For more than a decade now, 
> 
> in a classic example of the truism that "If you say it enough times, it
> must be true",
> 
> | CANR researchers around the world have held many conferences and 
> | symposiums in order to advance their [myopic]
> | understanding of these unexplained effects. Because 
> 
> of their attitudes and lack of defensible results, they alienated 
> most, if not all, of their
> 
> | strong political, financial, and professional support.
>  
> | There are few
> | traditional scientific organizations where researchers in this field
> | can share their results without being {snip}
>  [justifiably] criticized. [Almost no] peer-reviewed professional 
> | journals refuse to publish results from cold-fusion experiments
> 
> if they meet normal publishing requirements, but there are a couple of 
> exceptions, such as Nature and Science.
> 
> (Thanks to Richard Schwartz)
> 
> In general, the submitted papers fail to meet the standard levels 
> of quality control, and thus are justifiably rejected.
> 
> | But, over the years, cold-fusion
> | advocates have stubbornly resisted efforts to pull the
> | plug on CANR research, and results have kept rolling in.
> 
> Unfortunately, these results have only added to the confusion.
> 
> | Cold fusion remains difficult to reproduce, and many attempts fail,
> | even today. But it is hoped that ongoing research will create a
> | technique that will someday produce a predictable level of [apparent]
> | heat {snip} .
> 
> Psychologically-driven exclusivity 
> 
> | and rogue researchers have hurt the
> | credibility of professional and experienced scientists who have 
> | [spent] their time, money, and expertise pursuing cold-fusion
> | effects. Although cold-fusion scientists have developed a siege
> | mentality and have [self-imposed] exile, they [have well] learned that
> | the public will listen if they take their message to them through
> | lectures and popular media. They [routinely] allow reporters and
> | investors into their laboratories for a closer look. 
> 
> Unfortunately, the technical details that allow the erroneous
> measurements to appear seem to be beyond the skill levels and the 
> desire to know of the investors and reporters.
> 
> | A working
> | cold-fusion cell would instantly attract millions of dollars toward
> | additional funding if presented properly 
> 
> , but such a cell has never been presented.
> 
> | Technical progress and good
> | experiments alone will not convince the public, [but] public support for
> | cold- fusion is [not] essential to its success.
> 
> Good, solid, reproducible experiments, designed to prove or eliminate the 
> mundane and non-mundane explanations are all that is required, to be able
> to declare success, as is usual in science.
> 
> ---
> Kirk Shanahan   {My opinions...noone else's}