Re: COLD FUSION

[Ludwik Kowalski <kowalskil@MAIL.MONTCLAIR.EDU>]

On Thursday, Dec 26, 2002,  Jim Green wrote:

> > Can somebody produce a list of arguments showing
> > that claims of AE are not very different from those made
> > by astrologers, quantum healers, homeopaths, perpetual
> > motion merchants,  spoonbenders, or alien-abduction
> > fantasists?
>
> Or of Copernicus or Galileo for that mater.
I am slightly confused. Perhaps I did not express myself
clearly. Claims of AE are very different from those made
by astrologers, etc. (It is not possible to produce a list of
good arguments showing that two kinds of claims are
similar; they are very different.) But you are correct that
in one way claims of AE scientists are similar to those of
Copernicus and Galileo; they challenge the accepted
views. Thanks for bringing this up. Astrologers etc. also
challenge accepted views but their claims are very
different. That was my main point when I composed a
list of nine differences.

Happy New Year, Jim. And forgive me for writing "excess
heat" instead of "excess thermal energy" or "excess work."
The researchers call it "excess heat" and I do the same.
The situation is confusing enough; why should one add
arguments about scientific terminology to it?

Is the observed accumulation of He due to D+D fusion or
is it due to a more complicated process? Nobody knows.
It can not be the same kind of fusion as in hot plasma
because production of He is not accompanied by 23.8
MeV photons, or by commensurable numbers of neutrons,
protons or tritium. Something new something exciting,
something to talk about. I predict that 2003 will be the
year or reconciliation, or at least a year of big changes
in the attitudes toward experimental data of the outcasts.

On Thursday, Dec 26, 2002, Chuck Britton wrote:

> A 'few pathological skeptics' can't hold up the progress
> of science.

Yes, that is why I am optimistic that scientific method
will prevail.  Sooner that later we will know which claims
are valid and which are not.