Re: [Phys-l] Prof. Hal Lewis resigns from APS

["M. Horton" <scitch@verizon.net>]

"the serious investigators have not found an effect that rises out of the 
noise."

That is incorrect.  Google Pamela Mosier-Boss, for example.  She's one very 
serious investigator (Space and Naval Warfare Center, San Diego) who has 
found an effect that rises out of the noise.  Then read one of her papers 
and go to the references section that lists dozens of others who have found 
similar effects with different protocols.  Add to the list of serious 
investigators NASA and the Department of Energy too.  Pamela has had 
numerous papers published in mainstream peer-reviewed journals (i.e. Journal 
of Electroanalytical Chemistry.  You can also try Melvin Miles.  He's been a 
scientist at Brookhaven National lab and the Naval Weapons Center at China 
Lake.

It is true that presently nobody can explain exactly how it happens and it 
does not work 100% of the time.  But the statement above is not correct and 
is insulting to many electrochemists who are "serious investigators."  The 
Department of Energy concluded that while there was an effect, it was too 
small to be useful as an energy source yet.

You'd be hard-pressed to find an electrochemist who has spent more than 5 
years researching the subject who has NOT observed an effect.

My son replicated Dr. Oriani's protocol last year for the science fair and 
got negative results.  This year he'll be replicating Dr. Boss's 
co-deposition protocol and we'll see how it goes.  We visited her lab last 
year and got to meet another "serious investigator" while we were there, Dr. 
Stan Szpak too.

Just search for "Low Energy Nuclear Reactions," "Chemically Assisted Nuclear 
Reactions," or "Condensed Matter Nuclear Reactions" to get a list of 
research in this area.

Mike


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "LaMontagne, Bob" <RLAMONT@providence.edu>
To: "Forum for Physics Educators" <phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu>
Sent: Monday, October 11, 2010 5:12 PM
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] Prof. Hal Lewis resigns from APS


> Actually, one of the often used criteria for pseudoscience is "refusal to 
> revise in light of valid criticism". I would refer people to Radner and 
> Radner: Science and Pseudoscience.
>
> As for cold fusion, there are cranks and there are people seriously trying 
> to see if an effect exists. It has its share of scientists and 
> pseudoscientists. Personally, I would not put up money to invest in it - 
> the serious investigators have not found an effect that rises out of the 
> noise. Creationism, on the other hand, meets so many criteria one can 
> confidently call it pseudoscience.
>
> Bob at PC
>
> ________________________________________
> From: phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu 
> [phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu] On Behalf Of John Clement 
> [clement@hal-pc.org]
> Sent: Monday, October 11, 2010 6:17 PM
> To: 'Forum for Physics Educators'
> Subject: Re: [Phys-l] Prof. Hal Lewis resigns from APS
>
>
> In some ways the snarky definition is correct!  Try to reason with someone
> who believes in young Earth Creationism!  Using the term pseudoscience is
> not helpful there because nothing will convince them.  So while I would 
> tend
> to use pseudoscience according to the more limited definition, the actual
> definition as used by the majority may be quite different.  Is cold fusion
> pseudoscience?
>
> John M. Clement
> Houston, TX
> _______________________________________________
> Forum for Physics Educators
> Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
> https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l
>
> __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus 
> signature database 5513 (20101007) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
>
> http://www.eset.com


__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 5513 (20101007) __________

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com