In my opinion, the data revealed in the two Defkalion papers for ICCF-17 and ICCF-18 contains a wealth of information or all those who take that information seriously.
There is however a blind spot to such data formed when it speaks against the long held and most cherished theories and predispositions that underpin the lifelong beliefs of many interested in LENR. For example, the transmutation data in the ICCF is very revealing to what the underlying nuclear reactions might be. For those who discount transmutation of elements as important in LENR and for those who limit their beliefs to deuterium fusion to helium, the paper was a disappointment and hard to accept. Human nature accepts what it wants to and ignores the remainder as irrelevant. This flaw in our nature is what science was invented to minimize. On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 8:32 PM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote: > I know little about the situation at DGT, and I am not inclined to pry > into people's business. I do have two pieces of hard information which put > things in a bad light: > > 1. They never paid me the grand they owe me. They are either broke or > dishonest. > > 2. Some questions were raised about the flow rate during the ICCF demo. > Hadjichristos acknowledged the flow rate was not constant, but I do not > think he described the extent of the problem or said whether it might > invalidate the results. As far as I know they have not published the data > from that test, which is not a good sign. > > > Mizuno recently criticised Defkalion (in Japanese): > > "Rossi and Defkalion have made a splash in the mass media but they have > not revealed anything in academic conferences. > > I do not think this situation we find ourselves in is tenable. It will > turn out the way things did after Fleischmann's 1989 presentation, when > many researchers ended up doubting the results. [Because not enough was > revealed.] > > Science works because you proceed from a goal, to an experiment, to a > result and an analysis, and then other scientists confirm or disprove your > work. Without that, you cannot say you are doing science." > > (This is part of a report he is writing on the recent JCF conference. I > think this is one of the things Igari said in his presentation.) > > I agree with Mizuno. A demonstration is helpful but it is no substitute > for a paper. > > - Jed > >
