The lack of realism, combined with ignorance of the theoretical physicists was only one subfield of the war lost by cold fusion. A more holistic view of the situationi is necessary I daretothink. Nobody was able to explain CF- it seemed unknown nuclear multi-mystery phenomena with a weak correlation between nuclearity and the essential heat release take place. However, as the experimental results have multiplied and diversified- the seemingly inborn weakness of bad reproducibility has fatally eroded the reputation of cold fusion. The usual culprits- il-willed, sadistic, stupid, stubborn skeptics- enjoy the help of the inner. inherent flaws of cold fusion. All these facts can be simply understood if we admit that cold fusion was discovered before its time- when it could not been explained or demonstrated experimentally. It iis very sad that these problems stay still unsolved despite heroic efforts; and this shows the efforts are not going in the proper direction. The scientific method ALONE cannot solve the CF's existential problems.
Peter On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 5:40 AM, Foks0904 . <[email protected]> wrote: > I thought this was an interesting viewpoint expressed by B.J. Hiley, David > Bohms longtime collaborator, on the nature of theoreticians and their > relationship to experimental science. As he puts it: > > *I didn’t mind doing it because I think it’s very important if you’re > doing theoretical physics to get a feel of what it’s like in a laboratory, > making things work. I’ve heard some theoreticians talking and it’s quite > clear they don’t even know what a laboratory is. They’ve never been in a > laboratory and they’ve never tried to get even simple bits of apparatus > working. They just have ideas of what the measurement is—and it’s nothing > like that. It’s much too idealized.* > > I feel this captures perfectly the character of the controversies > surrounding Pons and Fleischman in 1989. Most of the critics of their work > were theoreticians who, beyond knowing what constituted good neutron > detection, didn't know a thing about what constituted good lab work in > chemistry generally and calorimetry specifically. As a result the majority > of people threw the baby (excess heat) out with the bathwater (nuclear > products). They were silly enough to proclaim that P and F were "working > outside their area of expertise" when in fact its likely not a single > critic from the physics community would have even know how to set up an > electrolytic cell, let alone how to upkeep and monitor one over an extended > test period. > > The rest of the article can be found here for those that are interested: > > http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/critical-opalescence/2013/11/04/the-wholeness-of-quantum-reality-an-interview-with-physicist-basil-hiley/ > > > > > -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
