Ground-Breaking New Book Offers Scientific Reasoning for Cold Fusion Energy

SBWire ^ | 05/07/2013 | Dr. Stoyan Sarg

[Wonder Warthog]

"Yep, sure have and found them rather useless theory and evidence of the authors opinions and speculations, not something I'm going to invest much of my time in. If they were truly “ground breaking” or actually explained the F-P phenomenon that might be worth the effort."

Hmmmm. Mind telling us which ones?? That certainly is not an accurate description of either Storms or Beaudette's books, which don't cover "theory" at all, but focus on experimental results.

"So read all the monographs and competing theories you wish but you'll have no better understanding of what the F-P effect than anyone else."

I don't read books on "theory", because theory is like assholes, everybody has one. I focus on experimental data, as that is what provides proof.

"I'm for certain not going to chase your “book of the moment”."

And thus remain ignorant. Willful ignorance = stupidity.

[Wonder Warthog]

"I’ve found when someone starts touting their extensive credentials and the number of books they’ve supposedly read the reality is much less, very much less."

Actually, my credentials are far more extensive than the few I've listed here. I've worked on a lot of things in forty years of scientific practice. That is what I love about the instrument design biz..you never know what new field of technology you will be required to master in order to make the measurements folks want to have made.

[count-your-change]

I've read Beaudette’s book and as the sub title would indicate he focus’ on the tug of war between skeptics and believers. nuclear physisicts and chemists.

He does a good job describing the mindsets of both and even tries to explain the many failed attempts to reproduce the early results of F-P by saying,

“The insistence that science requires a general reproducibility represents a kind of duck-pond thinking”.

The one criteria that imposes some discipline Beaudette dismisses as herd..flock? mentality.

If a person is looking for background information on lenr, canr, cold fusion that's not cold or fusion or whatever is the latest term, then his book is at least the equal of Wikipedia.

[count-your-change]

You can make whatever claims you wish, and I can buy whatever degree I want.

“And thus remain ignorant. Willful ignorance = stupidity.”

When the personal insults start I know the person making claims has recognized their failure. And I see no reason to respond further to such.

[Wonder Warthog]

"I've read Beaudette’s book and as the sub title would indicate he focus’ on the tug of war between skeptics and believers. nuclear physisicts and chemists."

LOL. That part of it is strictly incidental to his cataloging of the experimental science of LENR. I'd say you've been VERY guilty of selective reading. Check the page counts of descriptions of experiments and results vs those pertaining to the sociology of skeptopathy.

But for the lurkers, don't believe me OR CYC. Read it and decide for youselves.

"The one criteria that imposes some discipline Beaudette dismisses as herd..flock? mentality."

Of course, as you and the skeptpaths sell it, that sounds "really bad". But any real scientist knows that 100% reproducibility of ANY experiment simply doesn't happen in the real world. The LENR phenomenon is difficult to make happen, and the percentage of successful experiments was, at first, a good bit less than 50%. LENR researchers combatted that problem by running many cells simultaneously, with slightly different conditions. Some cells showed consistent excess heat, others didn't (and thus served as controls). But over the years the precentage of reproducible experiments has increased (which is NOT what would happen if the effect were due to random error). Once the percentage of successful runs exceeded 50% of experiments (which many prominent skeptics said was all that was necessary for proof), those same skeptics "moved the goal posts" and began claiming (as you have) that experiments had to be 100% reproducible.....a requirement that is ridiculous on it's face.